Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 148

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

  1. #121
    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
    One can't make that assessment unless talks have failed and then Iran attains a nuclear weapons capability. Talks have floundered, but Iran does not have such a capability. There is still reasonable time to forego such an outcome.
    Please. You sound like all those clueless people that will conclude after Iran gets nukes that at least BHO did all he could to stop Iran.

    Annual basis, not within two or three days.
    Within a very short time, not to mention that Iran already has enough enriched Uranium to build a few nuclear bombs.

    the model that will likely be adapted under an international agreement, should such an agreement be reached; as such the plant's operation could provide a good laboratory for testing the design of the international approach.
    Of course, under the auspices of the UN no less, and never-mind the fact that for all intents and purposes the UN has been hijacked by the OIC. Thus, any international agreement administered by the IAEA would inevitably become a bad joke. Not to mention that you want to use Iran of all places as a laboratory, with Russia no less who pokes its finger in Americaís eye just for fun every chance it gets. Yeah right. I may be gullible, but buddy Iím not that gullible.

    The biggest risk associated with Iran's nuclear activities comes from its uranium enrichment facilities (declared and secret), not the Bushehr plant. Greater scrutiny will need to be focused there.
    BHO should be hounded out of office for allowing this travesty to occur, and he did it at the same time that our troops pulling out of Iraq are in Kuwait and in harms way, because he wanted to deter Israel from acting. This just did not happen in a vacuum, it was very well planned. I will give him that much credit.

    Israel is continually making and updating plans. It is also cognizant of risks. It will not act in a hasty fashion tied to artificial timelines that have little relevance to Iran's capabilities.
    In actuality, Israel has to be ready to take action within a few minutes notice.

    The State Department didn't make the war plans for Iraq or Afghanistan. The State Department did contribute its views with respect to political frameworks. But it wasn't the only player making such contributions.
    Actually, if Bush had listen to the Defense Department instead of the State Department, we would never have occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan the mission would have been limited to the eradication of OBL and AQ in retaliation for 9/11, and in Iraq, as soon as the country had been scoured for WMD and Saddam captured, Chalabi would have been installed as President and we would have left Iraq.

    Anyway, occupying two Islamic countries for the purpose we occupied them was destined to fail from the very get go because both occupations were based on false assumptions. Not only that, but the State Department was so incompetent that they let Zalmay Khalilzad, a Muslim, penetrate them and get himself appointed as Ambassador to Afghanistan, and then subsequently to Iraq, and, of course, because of his direct involvement, both the Afghanistan and Iraq constitutions today have clauses in them that make Sharia the supreme law of each country. Hence, for all intents and purposes both states today are Sharia states that will inevitably rejoin the global jihad against the West much stronger and faster than otherwise thanks to US blood, sweat, and tears, as both operations couldnít have been more counterproductive.

  2. #122
    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 Khayembii Communique View Post
    No it isn't. What a completely ****ing insane thing to say...
    Really? In what way? Why do you believe a nuclear armed Iran would be good for the world?

  3. #123
    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 ScottD View Post
    1) There are a lot of moderates in Iran

    What you mean? There are no moderates in the world much less moderates in Iran. There may be a lot of Iranians that arenít true believers, but then again nobody really knows that for sure. Nevertheless, the notion of moderate Muslims and radical Muslims is a political correct construct that besides being very racist is little more than a myth once you understand what Islam really is. By the way, can you define what a moderate Muslim is and what a radical Muslim is?

    I remember a skit the Daily Show did where they went to Iran and asked their opinions on America and for the most part they got the answer "Oh, you're a cool nation, we have no issue with you".
    Really? How many people did they ask, three?

    The ruling class, who are old and steeped in tradition, are the ones who are against the West. The younger Iranians are fine with Americans and Israel.
    Actually, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Iran quietly agree with Ahmadinejad when he vilifies the Jews in Israel as evil incarnate, however, they wish he would do it in private because they believe it is detrimental to the country. Hence, they may disagree with Ahmadinejad with it comes to Israel, but it is a disagreement on tactics but not on substance.


    It would be a shame if they were to be killed because of this.
    What do you think MAD leads to, but thatís what the very naÔve are proposing nonetheless. Which doesn't have a prayer in hell in working, by the way.

    Russia and China would probably side with us rather than Iran.
    You mean sort of like they are doing today with respect to Iran? Yeah right.

  4. #124
    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 Gardener View Post
    THere is no mutual assured destruction at all because of the way the Iranians view the situation. hHey do not view it as Iran vs Israel, but rather, as the Muslim Ummah against the Jews. Rafsanjani even spelled it out for the world nearly a decade ago that they seek nuclear capability in order to destroy Israel, and even if Israel retaliates against Iran, the Ummah will still flourish.

    I can still recall an argument I had with one of my political science professors 35 years ago in regards to Kissinger. I could never seem to get him to understand my point of view that the basic flaw in Kissinger's doctrine was that it presupposed a level of rationality that not all people possess -- especially in regards to our western views towards what we perceive to be rational self-interest. MAD only works when both parties share the same cultural values and when they are both acting with rational self-interest. As Rafsanjani has shown, it breaks down when the cultures involved are so different as to preclude the sorts of tacit understandings upon which Kissinger's work is built.
    Not only that but people assuming MAD will work with respect to Iran are applying their own Western sensibilities to Muslims and Muslims donít even remotely see the world the same way those people do. Good post!

  5. #125
    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 ObamaYoMoma View Post
    Please. You sound like all those clueless people that will conclude after Iran gets nukes that at least BHO did all he could to stop Iran.
    Concrete steps, not rhetoric, will determine whether or not President Obama did all he could. If, for example, Iran attains such weapons and the U.S. had not even made an effort to seek truly crippling sanctions, then I won't be able to conclude that he did everything he could to prevent the outcome. Of course, there are other measures, too, but that's just one example.

    Of course, under the auspices of the UN no less, and never-mind the fact that for all intents and purposes the UN has been hijacked by the OIC. Thus, any international agreement administered by the IAEA would inevitably become a bad joke. Not to mention that you want to use Iran of all places as a laboratory, with Russia no less who pokes its finger in America’s eye just for fun every chance it gets. Yeah right. I may be gullible, but buddy I’m not that gullible.
    IMO, the U.S. will need to play a leading role in any verification regime. Leaving the effort to the UN will not be effective. Lebanon's evolution following UNSC Res. 1701 offers one example. The stakes are too high to leave verification to the UN.

    In actuality, Israel has to be ready to take action within a few minutes notice.
    My guess is that Israel's risk assessment is not materially different from my own thinking: a near-term decision (probably within a year or less) will likely be needed, but an imminent one (matter of days) is not. After the passage of this weekend, I believe it will be clear that Israel did not share Mr. Bolton's dire assessment.

    Moreover, if Israel needs to, it can and will strike the Bushehr plant in the future if the plant is viewed as contributing to an existential threat. It won't let artificial timelines and theoretical pontificating about the plant's being immune from attack get in the way of trying to assure its own survival.

    Actually, if Bush had listen to the Defense Department instead of the State Department, we would never have occupied Afghanistan and Iraq.
    I'm not aware of anyone in the Defense Department who testified before the Congress that the U.S. should respond in Afghanistan solely with air and/or missile strikes, albeit on a much larger scale than President Clinton's retaliation. I am well aware from testimony before the Congress and Senate that the Defense Department all but dismissed risks of insurgency in Iraq (had they reviewed that country's history--Sunni-Shia rivalry/tensions/animosities--and experience when power collapses in authoritarian states, the only conclusion was that the country faced an extremely high risk of insurgency). With respect to Afghanistan, the idea was that once the Taliban was swept from power the country could rapidly be transformed into a democracy (had they bothered to study the experiences of Imperial Russia, Britain, and the Soviet Union and also recognized that Afghanistan's history, culture, and structure made the rapid evolution of a liberal democracy remote at best and stable central government very unlikely in the near-term, the overly idealistic course that was adopted could have been avoided). In the end, democracy is not achieved and sustained via regime change. It depends on institutions, traditions, societal structure, etc.

    And when it came to ground invasions, General Tommy Franks advanced a "go light strategy" under the radical--and ultimately, disproved hypothesis--that modern technology made large manpower commitments unnecessary. In doing so, he disregarded General Anthony Zinni's "Desert Crossing" simulation on Iraq which demonstrated the need for substantial manpower in Iraq and considered an insurgency one of the most likely scenarios. General Eric Shinseki's warning about the need for substantial manpower was swiftly dismissed and all but ridiculed.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 08-19-10 at 10:36 PM.

  6. #126
    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
    Concrete steps, not rhetoric, will determine whether or not President Obama did all he could. If, for example, Iran attains such weapons and the U.S. had not even made an effort to seek truly crippling sanctions, then I won't be able to conclude that he did everything he could to prevent the outcome. Of course, there are other measures, too, but that's just one example.

    I condemn Obama just like I condemn Bush for not acting, as both should have already acted, since Iran has been building up its defenses and hardening its bunkers for years. They are both incredibly incompetent as for as Iím concerned.

    IMO, the U.S. will need to play a leading role in any verification regime. Leaving the effort to the UN will not be effective. Lebanon's evolution following UNSC Res. 1701 offers one example. The stakes are too high to leave verification to the UN.
    The US needs to get the hell out of the UN altogether.

    My guess is that Israel's risk assessment is not materially different from my own thinking: a near-term decision (probably within a year or less) will likely be needed, but an imminent one (matter of days) is not. After the passage of this weekend, I believe it will be clear that Israel did not share Mr. Bolton's dire assessment.
    I donít know, Netanyahu has been far more dovish than most people assumed. Israel may fear BHOís wrath.

    Moreover, if Israel needs to, it can and will strike the Bushehr plant in the future if the plant is viewed as contributing to an existential threat. It won't let artificial timelines and theoretical pontificating about the plant's being immune from attack get in the way of trying to assure its own survival.
    If Israel attacks Bushehr after it starts up, there will be massive fallout not only in Iran, but also in the Persian Gulf and likely in some of the Gulf states as well. Not to mention that in the interim Iran is likely to get a stockpile of plutonium.

    I'm not aware of anyone in the Defense Department who testified before the Congress that the U.S. should respond in Afghanistan with air or missile strikes, albeit on a much larger scale than President Clinton's retaliation.
    Thatís because no one ever proposed such nonsense.

    I am well aware from testimony before the Congress and Senate that the Defense Department all but dismissed risks of insurgency in Iraq (had they reviewed that country's history--Sunni-Shia rivalry/tensions/animosities--and experience when power collapses in authoritarian states, the only conclusion was that the country faced an extremely high risk of insurgency).
    Actually, the Defense Department was planning to be out of Iraq before any insurgency could develop and emerge. Hence, at the time of that testimony, it was the correct assessment. However, all of that changed as soon as Bush decided to side with the State Department over the Defense Department instead.

    With respect to Afghanistan, the idea was that once the Taliban was swept from power the country could rapidly be transformed into a democracy (had they bothered to study the experiences of Imperial Russia, Britain, and the Soviet Union and also recognized that Afghanistan's history, culture, and structure made the rapid evolution of a liberal democracy remote at best and stable central government very unlikely in the near-term, the overly idealistic course that was adopted could have been avoided). In the end, democracy is not achieved and sustained via regime change. It depends on institutions, traditions, societal structure, etc.
    Again, that was not the Defense Departmentís fault, but the State Departmentís fault. If it had been left up to the Defense Department only, OBL and AQ would have been targeted and eradicated and we would have left the country as soon as that was achieved, instead of being still stuck in that quagmire today propping up a Sharia state that will inevitably rejoin the global jihad against the West as soon as we leave.

    And when it came to ground invasions, General Tommy Franks advanced a "go light strategy" under the radical--and ultimately, disproved hypothesis--that modern technology made large manpower commitments unnecessary. In doing so, he disregarded General Anthony Zinni's "Desert Crossing" simulation on Iraq which demonstrated the need for substantial manpower in Iraq and considered an insurgency one of the most likely scenarios. General Eric Shinseki's warning about the need for substantial manpower was swiftly dismissed and all but ridiculed.
    Again, the Defense Department wasnít planning on occupying the country to attempt to make Iraq a beacon in the Islamic world. That strategy was thrust upon them after the initial invasion thanks again to the State Department and a very incompetent and indecisive president.

  7. #127
    Sage
    EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,029

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    It's right there:


    It? You really think there is only one site?

  8. #128
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    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.



    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.



    Well if you mean we get both sides of the story .. then sure.
    So, IOW, you're lieing through your teeth? You're making an assumption and calling it fact. And, you call US ignorant and uneducated? Whatta joke!

    You show up here with your superiority complex and this is all you have to offer to justify attacks upon American civilians, by Muslim terrorists?
    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.

  9. #129
    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 ObamaYoMoma View Post
    If Israel attacks Bushehr after it starts up, there will be massive fallout not only in Iran, but also in the Persian Gulf and likely in some of the Gulf states as well. Not to mention that in the interim Iran is likely to get a stockpile of plutonium.
    If Israel is confronted with what it believes is mortal danger to its populace, it will act to secure the lives of its population.

    In any case, Bushehr is low risk. Iran knows it will be under heavy scrutiny. If it tampers with the rods, its cheating will be caught and it will have lost any opportunity to mask its nuclear intentions. Bushehr will operate for civilian purposes. Iran will point to it as proof of its "benign intentions." The real danger lurks in Iran's uranium enrichment plants, some of which are secret. Destroying those plants will release some amount of radioactive fallout. There's no way around it if those plants are to be destroyed.

    Actually, the Defense Department was planning to be out of Iraq before any insurgency could develop and emerge. Hence, at the time of that testimony, it was the correct assessment. However, all of that changed as soon as Bush decided to side with the State Department over the Defense Department instead.
    That's not the case. In testimony before Congress in February 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz spoke about keeping Iran secure during the post-Hussein reconstruction period. He dismissed chances of an insurgency during that timeframe. He never specified the timeframe involved. Instead, he made the vague statement that U.S. forces would 'stay as long as necessary,' apparently during the reconstuction phase of an indeterminate period of time, and 'leave as soon as possible' without specifying the criteria by which that point of departure would be determined.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 08-20-10 at 12:18 AM.

  10. #130
    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
    If Israel is confronted with what it believes is mortal danger to its populace, it will act to secure the lives of its population.

    In any case, Bushehr is low risk. Iran knows it will be under heavy scrutiny. If it tampers with the rods, its cheating will be caught and it will have lost any opportunity to mask its nuclear intentions. Bushehr will operate for civilian purposes. Iran will point to it as proof of its "benign intentions." The real danger lurks in Iran's uranium enrichment plants, some of which are secret. Destroying those plants will release some amount of radioactive fallout. There's no way around it if those plants are to be destroyed.
    Yeah right! That sounds a lot like the same kinds of lame assurances I was hearing from the State Department when Carter negotiated that deal with the N. Koreans. Everyone knew what inevitably was going to happen except Carter, the State Department, and Clinton. You must think I was born yesterday and fell off the turnip truck this morning.

    That's not the case. In testimony before Congress in February 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz spoke about keeping Iran secure during the post-Hussein reconstruction period. He dismissed chances of an insurgency during that timeframe. He never specified the timeframe involved. Instead, he made the vague statement that U.S. forces would 'stay as long as necessary,' apparently during the reconstuction phase of an indeterminate period of time, and 'leave as soon as possible' without specifying the criteria by which that point of departure would be determined.
    I can tell you from several books Iíve read by various persons that the Defense Department never intended or planned to stay any longer than it took to scour the country of Iraq for WMD until Bush and Powell lowered the boom on Rumsfeld with that turning Iraq into a shining light bull**** a few days after the invasion was complete. In fact, General Jay Garner was replaced by Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority was established, everything then went downhill from there, because the State Department and the CPA refused to turn power over to Iraqis. Had they handed over power to the Iraqis much sooner, perhaps the insurgency could have been avoided until after we left

    In any event, General Garner was to quickly hand power over to Chalabi, and the USA was to get the hell out of there ASAP, but everything changed thanks to Bushís indecisiveness and classic State Department incompetence. In fact, the State Department has been the biggest liability in the federal government for over 50 years because it has been hijacked and co-opted by a bunch of delusional Leftists. The CIA isnít much better, and now the Defense Department of all branches of government is also becoming hijacked and co-opted by Left. In fact, the delusional Left is hijacking our entire damn government.

Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 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
  •