Fox news: Israel planning nuclear strike on Iran nuclear sites

[TheDude]

The operative word you used that I was responding to is "excuse." You prefaced your comment based on Israel attacking first. However, my point is that neither Iran or Syria in particular need any "excuse" to attack Israel, whether offensively or in retaliation, as evidenced by the fact that both countries have been attacking Israel for decades through terrorist groups as their proxies. The latest being Hezbollah's unprevoked attack.

Alright then, no argument here, I agree. They don't need an excuse to attack as Israel has been attacked many times., I am aware. But understand that my point was an excuse to bring nuclear warfare into the game, not just a "blanket excuse".

 

[fossten]

Your reasoning is simply astonishing (in a moronic way).

1) It is most likely that Iran is developing nukes, there isn't absolute concreate evidence.
2) Iran has been threatening that for a long time
3) I agree, the threats and high probability that Iran is developing a nuke is reason enough to attack; I never said it wasn't, what I am saying is, "DO NOT ATTACK WITH NUKES" (Remember the key word). Israel has the capabilities to entirely flatten Iran's military, let alone a "nuclear power plant".
4) No, if Israel were to attack Iran with nukes first, that would be an excuse to retaliate with nukes and give other Israel hating countries reason to seek nuclear weapons to attack with. Point is, Israel doesn't need and shouldn't be the one to "nuke first" and they can effectively destroy Iran's nuclear capabilites without doing so (see above). Opening the 'Nuclear Warfare' door is bad for everyone.
5) I said they are retarded IF they use nukes, missed a key word again I see.
6) There's that fools-logic again...

Huh? Just another stupid ad-hominem attack with baseless accusations.

Per your point 4 and 5, please re-read this part of the article:

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock.

However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

Well, let me be the first (and only) person to bow to your superior military and strategic intellect. Obviously you know far more about air strikes and hardened facilities than even the military leaders in the United States and Israel. I guess everybody's retarded EXCEPT YOU. <sarcasm off>

 

[TheDude]

Per your point 4 and 5, please re-read this part of the article:


Well, let me be the first (and only) person to bow to your superior military and strategic intellect. Obviously you know far more about air strikes and hardened facilities than even the military leaders in the United States and Israel. I guess everybody's retarded EXCEPT YOU. <sarcasm off>

You and I both know if Israel asks, they'll have carte blanche to any amount of weaponry they need from America and I highly doubt America doesn’t have the capabilities to destroy a deep bunker without the use of nukes.

 

[Joeychgo]

Let me ask this -

What do you think might happen after such a bombing by Israel occurred?

 

[TheDude]

Let me ask this -

What do you think might happen after such a bombing by Israel occurred?

With a traditonal tactical airstrike: The usual, "Israel is a terrorist state", "America is using Israel as it's long-arm" etc. etc. etc. and Israel may or may not be attacked again, maybe Hezbollah at the command of Iran will start firing their rockets (again). But if Israel uses nukes, then I seriously think that will work as a greater rallying tool for Israel/America hating Islamic Nations and WWII era rockets will be the least of Israel's worries. Point being, the Middle East is a huge mess, no need to make it worse with upping up the ante and dropping nukes.

On the flipside, what would happen to Iran if they used a low-yield nuke on Israel first? America/Israel would completely flatten them.

 

[decibels5]

It only takes one to end the hate.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2046393742348211186&q=NUCLEAR+BOMB&hl=en

 

[Joeychgo]

On the flipside, what would happen to Iran if they used a low-yield nuke on Israel first? America/Israel would completely flatten them.

Therein lies the conundrum. If Israel or the US were to nuke first - we would become the bad guys with most countries - even many of our allies. However, if Iran Nuked Israel, it wouldnt be hard to gain world support for an invasion, similar to Gulf War 1 and Kuwait. Of course, the problem with waiting to be attacked is that you have Israel glowing in the process.

Its kinda like standing in a bar and on the verge of a barfight. You can see him clenchin his fist and you know the guy is about to swing, but if you sucker punch him first, you are the one that goes to jail, whereas is you wait for him to swing, you now have a get out of jail free card when you beat the crap out of him with a barstool.

 

[Marcus]

Despite all of Ahmadinejad's blustering, he isn't stupid enough to attack Israel. As Deville pointed out, if they did, we would flatten them, and they know it. From Iran's point of view, this is all about deterrence. Compare and contrast how we dealt with Iraq and how we are dealing with North Korea. How we deal with Iran is certainly open to debate, but let's not fool ourselves into believing that Iran will bomb Israel the first chance they get. Ahmadinejad is no religious zealot, and has no desire to be a martyr, just like Saddam. Even passing weapons on to terrorists would be an unacceptable risk, because it would inevitably be traced back, and BOOM goes Tehran.

 

[Marcus]

By the way Fossten, don't fool yourself into thinking Iran would be a cakewalk either. In spite of your assessment that Iran is a "half-assed country that would fold like a tent", they happen to have a formidable military. Iraq doesn't even compare. In terms of active military, they're number eight in number of troops. Add in the paramilitary, and they leap to number one by a long shot (and we move to eight).

 

[Joeychgo]

Not to mention the topography of Iran isnt the best either.

 

[fossten]

Therein lies the conundrum. If Israel or the US were to nuke first - we would become the bad guys with most countries - even many of our allies. However, if Iran Nuked Israel, it wouldnt be hard to gain world support for an invasion, similar to Gulf War 1 and Kuwait. Of course, the problem with waiting to be attacked is that you have Israel glowing in the process.

Its kinda like standing in a bar and on the verge of a barfight. You can see him clenchin his fist and you know the guy is about to swing, but if you sucker punch him first, you are the one that goes to jail, whereas is you wait for him to swing, you now have a get out of jail free card when you beat the crap out of him with a barstool.

You sound like a man speaking from experience. Been in a lot of barfights lately?

Your logic only applies if America isn't the most powerful country in the world right now. It's shameful that we don't properly defend our interests like we did in the 1940s and 1950s. If we decided to nuke somebody, there isn't one single damn country on this planet that could do one single thing about it, and you know it. The Democrats and liberals in this country have got us afraid of taking action in our best interests for fear of "looking bad", and we as a nation will pay dearly for that when one of our big cities goes up in a mushroom cloud. Mark my words.

 

[fossten]

By the way Fossten, don't fool yourself into thinking Iran would be a cakewalk either. In spite of your assessment that Iran is a "half-assed country that would fold like a tent", they happen to have a formidable military. Iraq doesn't even compare. In terms of active military, they're number eight in number of troops. Add in the paramilitary, and they leap to number one by a long shot (and we move to eight).

Excuse me, Mr. Man-with-a-paper-nose, but there isn't one country on this planet that would have a prayer against us if we decided to FLATTEN it. The problem we have is when we try to go in and save the countryside and population and build them back up. The proper thing to do is go in there and smash them back to nomadic tribes so they can't even make a transistor radio. Then we should leave and let Europe pick up the pieces.

Yes we should have gone into Iraq, but we should have gone in with a bulldozer and then left. I say the hell with the Middle East. Let their tribes fight amongst themselves all they want, but the first one that gives Israel the evil eye gets blasted into sawdust.

 

[decibels5]

You sound like a man speaking from experience. Been in a lot of barfights lately?

Your logic only applies if America isn't the most powerful country in the world right now. It's shameful that we don't properly defend our interests like we did in the 1940s and 1950s. If we decided to nuke somebody, there isn't one single damn country on this planet that could do one single thing about it, and you know it. The Democrats and liberals in this country have got us afraid of taking action in our best interests for fear of "looking bad", and we as a nation will pay dearly for that when one of our big cities goes up in a mushroom cloud. Mark my words.

I agree, its sad that its going to take something bigger than 9/11 for the different parties to come together and take some full military action. Not this 7,000 at a time bullsh1t. If we were to get in a war with a country that is not at war with itself we would definately have some issues. We look weak, not because of our military, but because of our leaders. Dont get me wrong, our military is the strongest in the world. I have personally been part of training to launch a nuke, takes us less than 5 minutes to end half the world. The only problem is, how much of the U.S. will be sacrificed within those 5 mins.

 

[Marcus]

Excuse me, Mr. Man-with-a-paper-nose, but there isn't one country on this planet that would have a prayer against us if we decided to FLATTEN it. The problem we have is when we try to go in and save the countryside and population and build them back up. The proper thing to do is go in there and smash them back to nomadic tribes so they can't even make a transistor radio. Then we should leave and let Europe pick up the pieces.

Yes we should have gone into Iraq, but we should have gone in with a bulldozer and then left. I say the hell with the Middle East. Let their tribes fight amongst themselves all they want, but the first one that gives Israel the evil eye gets blasted into sawdust.

Aren't you one of those who keep "reminding" the rest of us what a brutal psychopathic killer Saddam was? That he deserved to die for the million or so that he killed? Yet that's exactly what you're suggesting we should do, only on a much more massive scale. After all, how many people would likely have to die in order to "smash them back to nomadic tribes"? Oh well, just a bunch of sand n*ggers anyway, right?

You just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that your own hatred of Saddam has nothing at all to do with his "killing his own people", and everything to do with pure bloodlust.

 

[TheDude]

My favorite is when he says "The proper thing to do..." and then he goes on to describe genocide in a nonchalant way.

 

[fossten]

Aren't you one of those who keep "reminding" the rest of us what a brutal psychopathic killer Saddam was? That he deserved to die for the million or so that he killed? Yet that's exactly what you're suggesting we should do, only on a much more massive scale. After all, how many people would likely have to die in order to "smash them back to nomadic tribes"? Oh well, just a bunch of sand n*ggers anyway, right?

You just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that your own hatred of Saddam has nothing at all to do with his "killing his own people", and everything to do with pure bloodlust.

My, my, look who's putting words in my mouth. What are you, a racist? I don't have to defend myself to you, but when you start throwing around the 'n' word you need to back off. I'll bet you don't even know the difference between an Arab and a Persian.

In case you haven't noticed, Mr. Coward, we are at war. We've been at war with Iran in particular since 1979, but the entire nation of Islam has been on a jihad with the West for hundreds of years. Get a clue. As far as I'm concerned, ignoramus p*ssies like you are the REASON we haven't won this war yet. People like you cower in fear at the thought of hurting an "innocent" civilian muslim over there in the desert, while you support the wanton slaughter of unborn babies here and abroad. At the same time, you have no compassion for the families of 9/11 victims, who would surely like to have some vengeance done for the unprovoked destruction of their precious lives.

People like you make me sick, because you wish to keep us weak and impotent in this war, instead of empowering us to defeat our enemies, who have sworn to destroy us, which also includes you by the way. You weep for the fallen muslims while you curse the American military. Your abject defeatist hypocrisy is disgusting.

I don't care what color their skin is, if they attack my country I want them dead. Period.

 

[fossten]

My favorite is when he says "The proper thing to do..." and then he goes on to describe genocide in a nonchalant way.

YOu guys are absolutely missing my point. What do you think we did in World War II? We carpet bombed cities and nuked Japan twice until our enemies surrendered. We didn't take any time to avoid civilian casualties. We destroyed much of the French countryside, which by the way was mostly already obliterated by the Germans the first time they steamrolled through.

Would you call what we did in WWII genocide? Hmm?

My point is that the proper way to win a war is to kill the enemy until they give up, not to surgically strike military targets and then stand around taking cheap potshots from guerillas while trying to protect their buildings.

 

[TheDude]

YOu guys are absolutely missing my point. What do you think we did in World War II? We carpet bombed cities and nuked Japan twice until our enemies surrendered. We didn't take any time to avoid civilian casualties. We destroyed much of the French countryside, which by the way was mostly already obliterated by the Germans the first time they steamrolled through.

Would you call what we did in WWII genocide? Hmm?

My point is that the proper way to win a war is to kill the enemy until they give up, not to surgically strike military targets and then stand around taking cheap potshots from guerillas while trying to protect their buildings.

The format has greatly changed since the 1940's Fossten. Enemies today are not the same as enemies of yesterday; carpet bomb the entire Middle East and then what? Sure you killed a terrorist here and there for every thousand poor non-political bastards (and there families) you just killed, while the real terrorist are hiding in Sweden or training in Southern Algeria.

 

[fossten]

The format has greatly changed since the 1940's Fossten. Enemies today are not the same as enemies of yesterday; carpet bomb the entire Middle East and then what? Sure you killed a terrorist here and there for every ten-thousand poor non-political bastards (and their families) you just killed, while the greater terrorist threats are hiding in Sweden or training in Southern Algeria.

LOL which post should I reply to?

I noticed that once again you are more sympathetic to the "
poor non-political bastards" in the Middle East than you are to the ones who died on 9/11.

Deville, you can't be that naive. The children in Middle Eastern schools are being taught to be the terrorists of tomorrow. As long as those countries have the capability and money to procure weapons and attack us, they are a threat that needs to be neutralized. Nowhere did I advocate genocide, that was your word. But if we sufficiently reverse their ability to make money and weapons, we will be safe for decades. It's very simple. I know many of those people didn't choose to be born over there, but it can't be helped. It's either us or them. Using diplomacy and bowing and appeasing DOESN'T WORK WITH FANATICS.

I don't know what you mean by "format." We carpet bombed cities in WWII KNOWING that we were killing civilians, and INTENDING to do so. The idea was to beat the bad guys into submission. One of the most effective ways to do that is to kill their citizens. They certainly didn't hesitate to kill ours on 9/11, and yes I'm talking about Iran and Syria and any other country who was complicit in harboring terrorists.

However, you certainly hit on an interesting point. The enemy of today isn't the same as the enemy of the 40's, EXCEPT that they want to destroy us. Our lack of ruthlessness is what I'm concerned with, not our tactics. We are so freaking PC in war nowadays we get beat up in the media if a bullet accidentally hits a nonmilitary building. That's absurd and needs to stop or we'll NEVER be able to win a war.

The fact is that if today's media had been around for WWII, we would have surrendered to Japan after Pearl Harbor. You need to understand that war is bad, and people die in war, but it's UNAVOIDABLE. Fighting war in a minimalist fashion is how we lost in Vietnam, and it's going to happen again until we grow a pair and start smashing things.

As far as carpet bombing the entire Middle East, that wouldn't be necessary and I never said that's what we should do. I do think that if we truly steamrolled Iran, the rest of the countries like Syria and Saudi would sue for peace. But we don't have the balls to do something like that, thanks to the Democrats and the media.

So don't worry, Deville, the United States won't win any wars for a while, at least until we get good and pissed off over two or three BIG cities going up in a mushroom cloud.

 

[Marcus]

My, my, look who's putting words in my mouth. What are you, a racist? I don't have to defend myself to you, but when you start throwing around the 'n' word you need to back off. I'll bet you don't even know the difference between an Arab and a Persian.

Blah blah blah...

"Don't have to defend" yourself? There IS no defense for what you're suggesting. Period. That's why you won't.

In case you haven't noticed, Mr. Coward, we are at war. We've been at war with Iran in particular since 1979, but the entire nation of Islam has been on a jihad with the West for hundreds of years. Get a clue.

And yet the US and Israel supplied Iran with missiles in the 80's (remember Iran-Contra?). Go figure.

As far as I'm concerned, ignoramus p*ssies like you are the REASON we haven't won this war yet. People like you cower in fear at the thought of hurting an "innocent" civilian muslim over there in the desert, while you support the wanton slaughter of unborn babies here and abroad.

More pointless trash talk. You just had to get a jab in there about abortion, pretending to know what I think about it. Nevertheless, it's completely off-topic. Nice try though.

At the same time, you have no compassion for the families of 9/11 victims, who would surely like to have some vengeance done for the unprovoked destruction of their precious lives.

Again, you put words in my mouth. All the while you stand on the corpses of the dead, waving an American flag like a trained chimp, and pretending to know what they would want. What gall you have.

I guess the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't enough "vengeance" for them? Of the thousands of dead Iraqis? Let me know when they've had enough vengeance.

Your main problem is that you can't see anything beyond your own pathetic little life. You delude yourself into thinking that people on the other side of the world will react differently than people here would (or how you think they should). That killing thousands or millions of them would make them submit to our superiority rather than react with vengeance for the things done to them and their loved ones.

YES, I get it. There are those who want to kill us. But large-scale bombing of civilian targets isn't going to change that. I'll even go out on a limb and suggest that it might just make things worse. I can guarantee that it won't make them give up.

By the way, something you ignore when comparing this fight with past wars is that our country is much more dependant on the rest of the world in every way possible. For instance, back in the 40's we were the world leader in manufacturing. No longer. Thanks to globalization, it would take us decades to become as self-sufficient as we were back then. So your fantasies of telling the rest of the world to f*** off are just that: fantasies.

People like you make me sick, because you wish to keep us weak and impotent in this war, instead of empowering us to defeat our enemies, who have sworn to destroy us, which also includes you by the way. You weep for the fallen muslims while you curse the American military. Your abject defeatist hypocrisy is disgusting.

And yet again more words in my mouth.

People like YOU make me sick because you see the use of military might as the one and only solution to every problem, while you ignore the consequences. You run around spouting your phony patriotism, but you would have us discard all the things that made this country great in order to "win". Your cheering for America has about all the depth and meaning of a drunken Packers fan painting his body green and gold and running naked onto Lambeau Field.

You have no desire for stability and peace, if it means we have to compromise one inch. All others must unconditionally submit to us. And that's why you're gonna get us all killed.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Well put, TommyB.

These religious wars have been going on for thousands of years, does anyone really think it's ever going to stop by merely escelating it further?

 

[fossten]

Blah blah blah...

"Don't have to defend" yourself? There IS no defense for what you're suggesting. Period. That's why you won't.

And yet the US and Israel supplied Iran with missiles in the 80's (remember Iran-Contra?). Go figure.

More pointless trash talk. You just had to get a jab in there about abortion, pretending to know what I think about it. Nevertheless, it's completely off-topic. Nice try though.

Again, you put words in my mouth. All the while you stand on the corpses of the dead, waving an American flag like a trained chimp, and pretending to know what they would want. What gall you have.

I guess the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't enough "vengeance" for them? Of the thousands of dead Iraqis? Let me know when they've had enough vengeance.

Your main problem is that you can't see anything beyond your own pathetic little life. You delude yourself into thinking that people on the other side of the world will react differently than people here would (or how you think they should). That killing thousands or millions of them would make them submit to our superiority rather than react with vengeance for the things done to them and their loved ones.

YES, I get it. There are those who want to kill us. But large-scale bombing of civilian targets isn't going to change that. I'll even go out on a limb and suggest that it might just make things worse. I can guarantee that it won't make them give up.

By the way, something you ignore when comparing this fight with past wars is that our country is much more dependant on the rest of the world in every way possible. For instance, back in the 40's we were the world leader in manufacturing. No longer. Thanks to globalization, it would take us decades to become as self-sufficient as we were back then. So your fantasies of telling the rest of the world to f*** off are just that: fantasies.

And yet again more words in my mouth.

People like YOU make me sick because you see the use of military might as the one and only solution to every problem, while you ignore the consequences. You run around spouting your phony patriotism, but you would have us discard all the things that made this country great in order to "win". Your cheering for America has about all the depth and meaning of a drunken Packers fan painting his body green and gold and running naked onto Lambeau Field.

You have no desire for stability and peace, if it means we have to compromise one inch. All others must unconditionally submit to us. And that's why you're gonna get us all killed.

So this is a contest to see who can put the most words in somebody's mouth and make the most erroneous assumptions about another person?

Well, Tommy, in that case, you win the contest. You have absolutely no clue about what I think, and you certainly don't know how to read someone else's comments and take their words at face value. Instead, you filter everything through your hate-filled Viewmaster. I have no desire to continue back and forth with someone who has no desire to learn the truth about anything.

By the way, your ignorance of Iran-Contra knows ZERO bounds. You should really study history before you make silly comments.

 

[fossten]

I'm going to amend my remarks for clarification. When I said smash the country, I was never referring to exterminating the population. Those were words put in my mouth by Deville and TommyB. I was talking about destroying their ability to manufacture ANYTHING. The way to do it is to avoid the population centers and just destroy every industry, building, government complex, oil field, and anything else they can use to make a modern society.

Then we leave, instead of occupying. Let the Europeans pick up the pieces if they want to. Let them go back to being tribes again, like the Afghans are. If they ever build back up again it'll take them 20-30 years, and by then maybe they'll think twice about threatening us again.

Is everyone around here gutless?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

....... The way to do it is to avoid the population centers and just destroy every industry, building, government complex, oil field, and anything else they can use to make a modern society.

Then we leave, instead of occupying. Let the Europeans pick up the pieces if they want to.

And yet you support BuSh's policy of "stay and die" in Iraq?? Make up your mind, flip-flopper.

 

[fossten]

And yet you support BuSh's policy of "stay and die" in Iraq?? Make up your mind, flip-flopper.

No, I don't support it anymore, since I've given this some thought, Al-Ahmadinejohnny. I know being intellectually honest is something that's foreign to you, as is being thoughtful, but nevertheless, I believe that although we were right to remove Saddam and free the Iraqis, we should have left rather than sit there and become targets.