Quietly, US Prepares for Israel Strike on Iran

[mourningdove92]

QUIETLY, U.S. PREPARES FOR ISRAEL STRIKE ON IRAN


WASHINGTON -- The United States has been examining the prospect that Israel will attack Iranian nuclear facilities in an attempt to prevent the Islamic republic from completing an atomic bomb as early as this year.

U.S. analysts and government sources said the Bush administration has discussed the prospect of an Israeli air strike at several levels of government. They said the issue has been examined in terms of the diplomatic, military and security implications for the United States, particularly its military presence in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.

The issue of Iran's nuclear weapons program was discussed by President George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon during the latter's visit to the White House on April 14. The sources said the two men were alone during the brief discussion in an effort by the president to gauge a likely Israeli response to the completion of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

"It would be intolerable for the Middle East if they get a nuclear weapon," Bush said after meeting Sharon.

[mourningdove92]

1. Oops, forgot to post the link.

http://menewsline.com/stories/2004/may/05_07_2.html

my bad

[radwriter0555]

29. The bush lead attack on iran is scheduled for July 2004.

It's been in the works for more than a year.

I told you so.

[wuushew]

31. very well I am bookmarking this thread

see you again in two months.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. ignore this post

Answered in post #1.

[quinnox]

3. Great

I guess Bush really does want to fulfill biblical prophecy, the sooner the better. No wonder all the fudamentalists like him, he wants to start Armageddon.

[mmm]

4. Let's hope Iran has the military muscle to set this straight

I hope that either:
1. Iran already has nuclear weapons and that the knowledge
of such will deter the Infidels
2. Iran has the military might to throw a major hurt
on the perpetrators of an unlawful and immoral invasion.
Let's hope they have WMD and are not afraid to use them
in a big way. This insanity must be stopped.

[JohnLocke]

10. "Infidels"?

I hope that either:
1. Iran already has nuclear weapons and that the knowledge
of such will deter the Infidels.
Infidels? If I didn't know you better I'd say you were joking...

2. Iran has the military might to throw a major hurt
on the perpetrators of an unlawful and immoral invasion.
Let's hope they have WMD and are not afraid to use them
in a big way. This insanity must be stopped.
Aside from your insane statement that Iran should "not be afraid to use nuclear weapons,” who ever said anything about an invasion? The article deals with a potential air strike, not an invasion.

[Bombtrack]

5. Of course the Israel haters here will say this is unacceptable

those evil jews, SORRY, ZIONISTS, defending themselves again. If this even is an accurate story. As long as the mossad has quality evidence that they can show the international community, I absolutely support them preventing the Mullahs from getting nukes.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Nuclear weapons attract nuclear weapons...

It's a fact of life...

[Junkdrawer]

7. PS Israel has a large Anti-Nuclear weapons community...

are they "anti-jew, SORRY, ANTI-ZIONIST" too. :shrug:

[wuushew]

9. You do realize that this will kill more American servicemen?

Since getting to Iran involves flying over Iraqi airspace, an act which will not settle well in the Arab world.

[Bridget Burke]

11. Awaiting the "quality evidence"....

Why should Israel have the only nukes in the region?

[Bombtrack]

13. Well maybe because they're a liberal democracy

And a large percentage of them don't believe that blowing up infedels will get you into heaven unlike the Wuhabbiists and Khomeniists who they're defending themselves from.

[Old and In the Way]

14. MAD worked quite well in the 50s and 60s with the US and USSR

IIRC, Russia wasn't a liberal democracy at the time. The point is, if 1 side has 'em and the other side doesn't, then the calculus of using them changes.

[Bombtrack]

20. The USSR was a relatively uncorrupt superpower

They weren't crazy religious nuts, and they weren't gangsters like the Mullahs.

MAD worked with the soviets because they were afraid of Nuclear war, afraid of dying, and while they opposed the west politically and economically they stilled respected and liked Americans for the most part. The same cannot be said for almost all of the Muslim governments or populaces with the possible exceptions of Qatar, Turkey, and possibly Egypt and Jordan(those last 2's governments anyway)

[Darranar]

21. The "crazy religious nuts" don't seem to have used...

any of their other WMDs.

[Bombtrack]

23. Yeah and western intelligence has foiled alot of their plots

Although I don't see how why you would think that if their terrorists are willing to slaughter Western (and MUSLIM) innocents with weapons of medium distruction that they wouldn't use anything they can.

[Darranar]

25. They may be evil...

but they aren't suicidal...

Attacking Israel or the US with WMD WOULD be suicidal.

[Bombtrack]

30. Uhhh, THEY AREN'T SUICIDAL, that's exactly what they are

if in they we are talking about Jihadists. They believe and that killing yourself opposing the infedels will get you into nirvana and are demonstratably willing to do so.

If in they we are talking about the Mullahs then it's a more nuanced situation in that MOST OF the Mullahs are really probably not suicidal in that they have fun lives living in luxury at the expense of the rest of the Iranians however they are criminal and corrupt and I beleive would not hesitate to covertly sponsor a nuclear attack if they thought they MIGHT be able to get away with or for some of them even if they didn't if it meant getting a world war going.

[Darranar]

32. Governments have a way of losing touch...

with their original ideological fanaticism.

Personally, I don't think any government in the middle east would give WMD to a terrorist group, because the result would be an enraged US and a populace that would go along with anything short of nuking all of Eurasia.

[NutritionFacts]

51. Ummmm....

You are aware most attacks usually end up with the attacker dead by their own hand, right? If that's not suicidal I don't know what is.

[Junkdrawer]

22. There are "crazy religious nuts" in the US and in the RW Likud...

coalition. Myself, I'd like to see these weapons out of all of their hands.

[Bombtrack]

24. Yeah but that is why America is a great country because our religious nuts

are just funny. Every now and then they out a Tellatubby and the ones who do break the law and kill someone or burn something are correctly denounced, condemded, and mocked by 99.98 percent of the public. People don't listen to them. We don't listen to them, unlike over there. When the pope comes out and says "No premarital sex, no masterbation" American Catholics ignore it, we look at him like some eccentric B celebrity not as the say all end all of our lives like the Clerics over there.

Of course the Evangelicals have an embarassing amount of influence over some parts of the country, but the people who actually dogmatically follow there BS is maybe like 7 percent of the country, and most of them aren't in positions of great wealth or power, people in postions of great wealth and power exploit them that's for sure but the mainstream of America laughs at them.

[Darranar]

26. Are you aware...

that the majority of Iranians are anti-Mullah and want reform?

I didn't know that the religious leaders "over there" are advising that stance...

[Bombtrack]

28. I know there are a ton of Iranians who do want reform

I'm not sure that it's more than 50 percent although I wouldn't think that an unbelievable number and that is a good thing. However the moderate reformists have thus far been unsuccessful in getting any real reform other than window dressings.

What I would point out is how idiotic some DUers look at the US support for these reformers as a Neocon plot. As if every instance of the US government or the west in general trying to influence a muslim country in there own interest, even if it's in the interests of say, Amnesty international and any levelheaded humanitarian, is ipso facto imperialist and evil.

[Darranar]

33. Of course they're ineffective...

the tyrannical government imposed restrictions to ensure that they wouldn't be removed democratically.

But you seem to think that the people "over there" always immediately agree with whatever their religious leaders say, which isn't true.

And the US population is actually quite fundamentalist...

[Bombtrack]

40. No the US isn't fundamentalist. It's pretty religious, too religious in

my opinion, but the people who live and die by the arbitrary dogma of the scripture are very small indeed and not anything close to mainstream. We like to have women in the workforce, they need to have theres in beekeeper suits. This relativism is really taken to far by much of the left.

"Ok, I know a whole generation has been raised on a notion of
multiculturalism. That all civilisations are just different.
No, not always. Sometimes things are better. Rule of law
is better than autocracy and theocracy. Equality of the
sexes - Better. Protection of minorities - Better. Free
speech - Better. Free elections - Better. Free appliances
with large purchases - Better. Don't get so tolerant that
you tolerate intolerance." - Bill Maher

[Darranar]

41. Unfortunately...

they're not "very small indeed".

It is certainly true that they have less effect than they do in the Middle East, though.

[wuushew]

36. What about Iraq?

Should Saddam have been allowed to develop an atomic bomb as he would have had he not invaded Kuwait? Since he was a secular monster not a fundamentalist loony this should be okay by your reasoning correct?

Or do you believe that the Amerikan/Israeli policy in the middle east should be to unilaterally destroy all wmd programs/governments.

[Bombtrack]

38. They should prevent any country on the State Depts. sponsores of terror

list, from getting nukes in my opinion. And Israel DID destroy Saddams nuclear program/reactors in the 90's and I believe that action was justified because Saddam is was a sponsor of terrorism against Israel and he was/is pretty insane. I wouldn't quite call him secular, I'd call him Saddamist and the required religion in Iraq was the utter obedience and close-to-worship of Saddam

[wuushew]

39. I found this interesting article

Iraq was not considered a rogue state prior to 1990 so they could have legitimately had the bomb from your criteria.

http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=188

[yardwork]

53. Um......I wish I could share your positive view of the USSR

but the facts show otherwise. This was an extremely corrupt superpower, that developed nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and tossed them around with gleeful abandon and little or no concern for public or environmental safety. Remember Chernobyl?

The fact is that people are the same all over the world, no matter what their ethnicity or country of origin. Give a group of people superpower status and they behave badly. Look at how the U.S. is now behaving.

We should be dismantling nuclear power plants, not building more. We should be dismantling nuclear weapons and trying to figure out how to store them, not making more.

[Darranar]

16. But will this actually accomplish anything?

Or will it simply provoke more aggression and worsen tensions?

[JHBowden]

35. Bombtrack, I agree with you.

WMD threats, when real, should be taken seriously, especially when in conjunction with international terrorism. This isn't a Democratic or Republican issue.

[mhr]

37. Well If You Were Iran Would You Want To Defend Yourself As Well?

Of Course you would.

Therein lies your hypocrisy and the policy of preemption.

[Bombtrack]

43. Myself? yes, my corrupt gangster government? No! Israel has NEVER

targeted innocents, and they wouldn't if such an action against Iran took place.

[mhr]

44. One Name, Rachel Corrie - Mowed Down Last Year By The IDF

Seems she was a targeted civilian and an American to boot.

So much for your theory.

[Bombtrack]

45. Umm SHE STOOD IN FRONT OF A FRIGGING BULLDOZER

So I guess the MBTA in Boston and other major subways targets innocent civilians because people fall or purpously go onto the track with the train coming.

Rachel Corrie is a fool. She ruined the lives of everybody who cared about her because she was so airheaded that she played Chicken with a bulldozer and she lost.

[mhr]

47. And The Bulldozer Driver Didn't Stop - That's Called Being Mowed Down

The bulldozer driver was later interviewed and was proud that he was following orders so well.

The new Nazis, same as the old Nazis.

[WilliamPitt]

49. I met her parents this summer

and I have to tell you, you're mischaracterization of the event, combined with your gall in speaking for her people, is pretty amazing in a gross sort of way.

Sorry, dude. I calls it like I sees it.

[LibertyorDeath]

52. Hey if you want to play in the sand box

everyone gets a toy.

Play nice now.

Trying to stop this is futile.(Iran getting a Nuke)

It will happen.

Then what?

[Jacobin]

8. Great Idea. We certainly can't afford to have any nuclear powers in

the Middle East.

Israel isn't in the Middle East, is it? I mean, technically. I mean, sure they have lots of nukes, but ya know they are sooo restrained and responsible, that its just fine for them to have them. Right?

[AgadorSparticus]

12. hmmmmm, makes me wonder if the torture pics were diverstions to this

with an added benefit of plame retribution (as someone else pointed out)....i just don't know what to think anymore....

[Hubert Flottz]

15. Oh boy!

Anything to take the heat off of Iraqtica gate!

[doni_georgia]

17. If this happens all hell will break lose in the middle east n/t

[Dark]

18. No, if Iran gets nukes then all hell will break loose.

[Darranar]

19. Why? Few governments want to be annihilated. n/t

[Dark]

27. But many governments want to see other governments annihilated.

I could easily see Iran giving the nukes to terrorists. Then, we'd have a country which we would have to invade, unlike Iraq, to stop them from using them.

Which means Bu$hCo. will have another oil rich country to invade. Problem is, those bastards tied up all our troops in Iraqnam. So now we can't deal with terrorist threats.

[JHBowden]

34. I actually approve of this.

It isn't an occupation of Iran, just the destruction of their nuclear facilities. Israel did the same thing with Iraq's Osirak facility in 1981. Given Iran's ties with Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, doing this is strategically sound. A nuclear device going off in Tel Aviv or Los Angeles is unacceptable; I disagree with many DUers in this regard.

[WilliamPitt]

42. Same here

It would be BAD if these dudes got nukes. Bad oh bad oh bad.

[MessiahRp]

46. I agree as well BUT...

by the same theme we should be pressuring other countries to reduce nuclear weapons caches and practicing what we preach by eliminating a good percentage of our own. We COULD have been buying Russian Nukes for years and Bush opted out of that program so we need to eliminate Bush so we can get back to eliminating nukes.

I agree Iran or any terrorist group having Nukes is a dangerous prospect because they are not afraid to use them in the name of their faith even if it means a retaliation strike or two will wipe the country off the map.

Rp

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

50. That's quite a leap

Moral relativism? Should my hatred of Bush allow me to think that Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad or some other terrorist group getting nukes is OK? Or is *that* moral relativism?

I am actually thinking of Pakistan. It sucks out loud that they have nukes, because they are perpetually on the verge of getting overthrown by fundamentalists, and they share a border with the resurgent Taliban. That = bad. The fundamentalists already run Iran, and it is common knowledge that Iran supports terror groups. You like the idea of an Iranian nuke going off in Tel Aviv, or in the midst of 150,000 US soldiers and 20 million Iraqis?

Is *that* moral relativism?

By the way, asking me my religion is pretty fucking crass and none of your business. Since you asked, though, I'm Catholic...but some of my best friends are Jews. :eyes:

[dawn]

54. Sorry, this doesn't sound good to me.