Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 148

Thread: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

  1. #101
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    78,071

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post

    And where exactly did I state thousands of civilian casualties were inflected?
    You stated that, "many", Lebanese were killed, right here,

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post







    ...many Lebanese killed in US bombing raids...


    Care to provide proof of those, "many", Lebanese killed during US bombing sorties? Or, are you just going to go with your revisionist history and hatred for America? What's next? The Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor? US policies prompted the shelling of Fort Sumter?

    You Europeans have been sold a bad bill of goods. Either ya'll know and are too proud to admit it, or you're all too stupid to realize what's going on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #102
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    My point is that while we in the U.S. can have the luxury of sitting back to see what happens, the margin for error in Israel is far smaller. Even if Iran had the theoretical capability of hitting the U.S. with one or two atomic bombs, the damage would be devastating but nowhere near existential. For Israel, one or two atomic bombs would all but mean anihilation. Hence, from that perspective, especially if one considers the Jewish historical narrative
    If a bomb is dropped over Tel-Aviv, over New York or over Katmandu, the result will be the same: Iran will be annihilated. That's why they'll never do that, just like neither Stalin nor Mao nor the pro-Taliban pakistanis did that. And besides, nothing proves that Iran is planning to build a bomb, all they're doing is both legal and needed to conduct their own independent civilian program.

    Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Israel is not going to have a high tolerance for waiting to see if Mr. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is little more than bluster.
    You're right except for the second part of the sentence:

    It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran's President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential. The Shah-Regime being supported by the USA in its own country has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed. Saddam Hussein's dominion drew to a close. Referring to this he voices his aspiration that changes will also be feasible in Israel respectively in Palestine. He adduces Ayatollah Khomeini referring to the Shah-Regime who in this context said that the regime (meaning the Shah-Regime) should be removed.

    Certainly, Ahmadinejad translates this quotation about a change of regime into the occupied Palestine. This has to be legitimate. To long for modified political conditions in a country is a world-wide day-to-day business by all means. But to commute a demand for removal of a 'regime' into a demand for removal of a state is serious deception and dangerous demagogy.
    Does Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Of The Map - Does He Deny Te Holocaust?

    He talked about a "potential regime change"...so what? Is that a reason to nuke them? Isn't that what the USA have been doing for decades ("spreading democracy"?!?!?) with the difference that the USA actually send B-52's to "spread democracy"!!!

    I find it incredible that, taking a single mistranslated sentence, our medias make nearly everyone believe that there is a good reason to bomb Iran. All of them reported the mistranslated sentence, how many did reveal that it was a mistranslation?

    If we bomb Iran, the codename of the operation won't be Iraq2.0, it will be Operation Gleiwitz.

    A nuclear-armed Iran's capabalities would be magnitudes of order greater than they are now.
    The only difference is that we won't be able to threaten it or to invade its neighbouring countries to "spread democracy".
    Last edited by bub; 08-19-10 at 05:47 AM.

  3. #103
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,193

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Basically, what you posts attempted to do, is justify an attack, that killed 3,000 American civilians, using half-assed facts and revised history.
    No I am repeating what people in the middle east are saying and what their leaders are using as justification often. It is no different than the reasons put forward to justify Israel's actions.. only difference is you dont accept the Arab reason's but blindly accept the Israeli.
    PeteEU

  4. #104
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,193

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You stated that, "many", Lebanese were killed, right here,

    Care to provide proof of those, "many", Lebanese killed during US bombing sorties?
    Proof that you would believe? Of course not, no one can. But when you throw 300 shells from a battleship in over land, then you are bound to kill innocent civilians. Considering the only accounts come from Syrian and Lebanese sources of the period, I doubt you would accept them at all so why bother. It is part of record that the US fired shells into Lebanon and carried out sorties in Lebanon.

    Or, are you just going to go with your revisionist history and hatred for America? What's next? The Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor? US policies prompted the shelling of Fort Sumter?
    Revisionist? Come on.. do you deny the US flew sorties in Lebanon and fired 300 rounds from the New Jersey? These are FACTS.. you even had 2 planes shot down for god sake.

    You Europeans have been sold a bad bill of goods. Either ya'll know and are too proud to admit it, or you're all too stupid to realize what's going on.
    Well if you mean we get both sides of the story .. then sure.
    PeteEU

  5. #105
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Bub,

    FWIW, I believe a deterrence regime can be constructed around the mutual assured destruction concept. If Iran understood that there would be an automatic, guaranteed and devastating nuclear response all across Iran were any nuclear device used or attempted to be used in the Middle East against Israel and/or vital international interests/military forces, I believe the risk of such an outcome could be deterred (as would the risk of Iran's proliferating such technologies given the broad criteria used to trigger the guaranteed retaliation).

    But whether the states who have most at stake would feel secure even under such a framework would be another issue. If not, then they could well seek to try to deny Iran a nuclear capability even through military means. No state is going to gamble with its vital interests if it feels that they are at risk.

    Finally, as I've noted in numerous messages in the past, I still believe the preferable outcome is a diplomatic resolution. If such a resolution requires truly coercive sanctions, those should be designed. Diplomacy is preferable to the other options, non-military and military. But time is not unlimited.

  6. #106
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Bub,

    FWIW, I believe a deterrence regime can be constructed around the mutual assured destruction concept. If Iran understood that there would be an automatic, guaranteed and devastating nuclear response all across Iran were any nuclear device used or attempted to be used in the Middle East against Israel and/or vital international interests/military forces, I believe the risk of such an outcome could be deterred (as would the risk of Iran's proliferating such technologies given the broad criteria used to trigger the guaranteed retaliation).

    But whether the states who have most at stake would feel secure even under such a framework would be another issue. If not, then they could well seek to try to deny Iran a nuclear capability even through military means. No state is going to gamble with its vital interests if it feels that they are at risk.
    I don't see the difference between Iran in 2010 and Soviet Russia in during the 40's, I don't see why Israel should feel "insecure". And even in the extremely improbable case of attempt to usa the bomb, then there are very modern antiballistic missiles. If that has worked during 50 years against a country that had dozens of thousands of modern ballistic missiles, it should work against a country that's not likely to have the capability to build atomic bombs before several years (and it's gonna take several more years to make such bombs fit inside primitive ballistic missiles)

    That's not a rational fear.
    Last edited by bub; 08-19-10 at 11:41 AM.

  7. #107
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    40,003

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    My point is that while we in the U.S. can have the luxury of sitting back to see what happens, the margin for error in Israel is far smaller. Even if Iran had the theoretical capability of hitting the U.S. with one or two atomic bombs, the damage would be devastating but nowhere near existential. For Israel, one or two atomic bombs would all but mean anihilation. Hence, from that perspective, especially if one considers the Jewish historical narrative, Israel is not going to have a high tolerance for waiting to see if Mr. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is little more than bluster.



    A nuclear-armed Iran's capabalities would be magnitudes of order greater than they are now.

    With respect to Iraq, I agree that the Bush Administration's decision dramatically impacted the balance of power and removed an important constraint on Iran. Unfortunately, at the time, the fundamentally flawed Krauthammer thesis of a unipolar world in which the balance of power had become obsolete held sway in the U.S. government.



    That's why I believe time is of the essence. Crippling sanctions need to be agreed and the necessary quid pro quo provided even if it means, for example, U.S. willingness to help China meet its energy needs if Iranian oil is taken off the global market. It also means developing a credible alternative for deterring Iran in the case the Iran gains a nuclear arms capability sufficient to ease the fears of Iran's neighbors and Israel.



    As noted previously, I favor pursuing those other issues on their own merit. I'm just not convinced of the linkage. Since the 1970s, international policy makers in the U.S. and Europe have overestimated the linkages. The breakthrough that led to Egyptian-Israeli peace was supposed to create a dramatically new dynamic. The rollback of Saddam Hussein's forces for Kuwait was supposed to create a new environment. Jordan-Israel peace was supposed to open the door to Israeli-Palestinian peace. Concrete results fell far short of the almost euphoric expectations.



    I agree that ultimately Iran will need to be part of an agreement if regionwide peace is to be achieved. Achieving such an outcome won't be easy with a revolutionary government that is far from sold on maintaining the current Middle East order (Arab-Israeli/Sunni-Shia dimensions, among others).
    In regard to Krauthammer, he got his talking points from the paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses", by Dick Cheney, which was the paper that launched the Project for the New American Century.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  8. #108
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    In regard to Krauthammer, he got his talking points from the paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses", by Dick Cheney, which was the paper that launched the Project for the New American Century.
    Actually, the PNAC document embraced the assumption of Krauthammer's thesis of a unipolar world. Krauthammer first proposed that thesis in 1990. The PNAC document helped shape the Bush Administration's foreign policy, especially after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

  9. #109
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    08-23-10 @ 02:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    81

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Bub,

    FWIW, I believe a deterrence regime can be constructed around the mutual assured destruction concept. If Iran understood that there would be an automatic, guaranteed and devastating nuclear response all across Iran were any nuclear device used or attempted to be used in the Middle East against Israel and/or vital international interests/military forces, I believe the risk of such an outcome could be deterred (as would the risk of Iran's proliferating such technologies given the broad criteria used to trigger the guaranteed retaliation).
    Because of political correctness we don’t have the will to stop Iran now when it is easy to stop them, what makes you believe we will have the will to respond to a nuclear attack against Israel or another Middle East state by annihilating an entire nation? Not to mention that anyone who believes that mutual assured destruction will somehow work to deter the ruling Mullahs of Iran who love death more than they love life isn’t paying attention and is more than a little naive. Indeed, it is just those same kinds of people that have been pulling out their hair for decades trying to force Israel to make peace with the so-called Palestinians that are advocating such nonsense, not only will that never happen, but hell will freeze before that ever happens.

    Indeed, if Israel fails to attack Iran by this weekend and I lived in Israel, I would be looking to get the hell out ASAP. Anyone who stays living in Israel after this weekend has a death wish, as for as I’m concerned. Gee…once a nuclear-armed Iran starts saber rattling I wonder what kind of impact that will have on Israel’s tourist industry. I also wonder what kind of impact that will have on world oil prices.

    Indeed, after Iran gets nukes it won’t even have to attack Israel, it can just saber rattle or use its proxies to attack Israel, and there will be a mass exodus of Jews from Israel. Not to mention that the price of oil on world markets will also skyrocket. It will be able to do the same thing to increase its hegemony not only in the Middle East but also throughout the Islamic world.

    Hence, Pakistan will quickly become the nuclear supermarket for the Sunni Islamic world, as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, and some of the Gulf States will all quickly become nuclear armed in order to defend themselves from the Shi’a menace. In other words, thermonuclear world war will become an inevitability. Indeed, it’s only a matter of time.

    Not to mention that even if Iran was annihilated in response to a nuclear attack against Israel, the ummah still wins because Israel gets wiped off the map but the ummah survives.

    But whether the states who have most at stake would feel secure even under such a framework would be another issue
    Any state that would agree to such nonsense would be a fool if they believe such a scheme would work.

    Finally, as I've noted in numerous messages in the past, I still believe the preferable outcome is a diplomatic resolution.
    You and Obama need to learn that diplomacy with Islamofascist terrorist thugs doesn’t work, especially when neither one of you understands Islam. Even if Obama could secure some sort of last minute Hudna to stop the Iranian Mullahs, they would just go underground with their nuclear weapons program like the S. Koreans did. There is only one thing that will stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons and that is the eradication of the Iranian regime. Anything else is a pipe dream.

  10. #110
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    40,003

    Re: Israel has '8 days' to hit Iran nuclear site: Bolton

    Quote Originally Posted by ObamaYoMoma View Post
    Because of political correctness we don’t have the will to stop Iran now when it is easy to stop them, what makes you believe we will have the will to respond to a nuclear attack against Israel or another Middle East state by annihilating an entire nation? Not to mention that anyone who believes that mutual assured destruction will somehow work to deter the ruling Mullahs of Iran who love death more than they love life isn’t paying attention and is more than a little naive. Indeed, it is just those same kinds of people that have been pulling out their hair for decades trying to force Israel to make peace with the so-called Palestinians that are advocating such nonsense, not only will that never happen, but hell will freeze before that ever happens.

    Indeed, if Israel fails to attack Iran by this weekend and I lived in Israel, I would be looking to get the hell out ASAP. Anyone who stays living in Israel after this weekend has a death wish, as for as I’m concerned. Gee…once a nuclear-armed Iran starts saber rattling I wonder what kind of impact that will have on Israel’s tourist industry. I also wonder what kind of impact that will have on world oil prices.

    Indeed, after Iran gets nukes it won’t even have to attack Israel, it can just saber rattle or use its proxies to attack Israel, and there will be a mass exodus of Jews from Israel. Not to mention that the price of oil on world markets will also skyrocket. It will be able to do the same thing to increase its hegemony not only in the Middle East but also throughout the Islamic world.

    Hence, Pakistan will quickly become the nuclear supermarket for the Sunni Islamic world, as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, and some of the Gulf States will all quickly become nuclear armed in order to defend themselves from the Shi’a menace. In other words, thermonuclear world war will become an inevitability. Indeed, it’s only a matter of time.

    Not to mention that even if Iran was annihilated in response to a nuclear attack against Israel, the ummah still wins because Israel gets wiped off the map but the ummah survives.



    Any state that would agree to such nonsense would be a fool if they believe such a scheme would work.



    You and Obama need to learn that diplomacy with Islamofascist terrorist thugs doesn’t work, especially when neither one of you understands Islam. Even if Obama could secure some sort of last minute Hudna to stop the Iranian Mullahs, they would just go underground with their nuclear weapons program like the S. Koreans did. There is only one thing that will stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons and that is the eradication of the Iranian regime. Anything else is a pipe dream.
    I never could understand why, even as hate speech, some people could come up with the word "Islamofascist". Islam is a religion, and married to the state, that government would be known as a theocracy. Facism is control of the state by business. The 2 concepts are mutually exclusive.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •