Thread: Should Israel Attack Iran's Nuclear Reactor?

I had not voted in this poll until today.

After the clearest of signals from the White House that it won't even do anything DEFENSIVE about Iranian nukes, Israel had better decide that it's on it's own now, and DO something about the storm that is coming.

YES, Israel MUST protect itself, and in the only way it can: strike anything with an Iranian flag on it, and keep going until the danger is gone.

i wasn't aware that our interests, even specifically on iran, completely matched...nor that we should also pay the price for israeli interventionism, or outsource our foreign policy to israel.

or to be more specific, the foreign policy of the likudniks, not even all of israel.

Everybody has completely lost their minds.

You're supposedly fairly smart, right?

keith,

then please explain to me how your plan would work to advance US interests...or for that matter, israeli interests. israel doesn't have the capability to knock out the iranian nuclear OR enrichment programs. to even be able to get to iran, israel would need to go through iraqi airspace, which will not be granted. past that, israel would need, at a minimum, US ISR and logistical support.

so TELL me. how is an unilateral israeli kinetic option even going to be successful from an ISRAELI standpoint, let alone the US? how does this balance against the inevitable costs the US AND israel will face?

Originally Posted by astralis

keith,

then please explain to me how your plan would work to advance US interests...or for that matter, israeli interests. israel doesn't have the capability to knock out the iranian nuclear OR enrichment programs. to even be able to get to iran, israel would need to go through iraqi airspace, which will not be granted. past that, israel would need, at a minimum, US ISR and logistical support.

so TELL me. how is an unilateral israeli kinetic option even going to be successful from an ISRAELI standpoint, let alone the US? how does this balance against the inevitable costs the US AND israel will face?

No.

Let's start from the other end. Can you really tell me this is No Big Deal, and that you simply don't see the significance of this day's news? I know you get this; I know that you're aware that this is going to end up being the biggest story of the Origins of WWIII history book.

The point isn't HOW. The point now is that it must be done, SOMEhow.

keith,

Can you really tell me this is No Big Deal, and that you simply don't see the significance of this day's news? I know you get this; I know that you're aware that this is going to end up being the biggest story of the Origins of WWIII history book.

sorry, but having spoken to the relevant AOs regarding the missile defense SHIFT (NOT cancellation) and read the relevant intel reporting on both iranian missile/nuclear development (you should know which document in particular I am referring to)...i simply do not come to the same conclusion as you do.

however, i am willing to change my mind. show me, either here, on NIPR, or SIPR, any analysis or piece of intel that shows US missile defense capabilities being significantly weakened by this move.

if this is as blatantly clear and outrageous as you claim, you should have NO problem doing so. i simply do not believe the combined staffs of OSD and JS (and the Service component which provided coord) are so blind as all that.

Originally Posted by Castellano

What about the role of al-Quds in Iraq.

Is that not to attack Iraq?

Deniability of culpability is the ABC of terror tactics. Let's not parrot the Iranian regime propaganda soundbites, let alone with the 'sorta' pose.

Aren't the al-Quds palestinian? In any case, you might have missed this bit of what I wrote:

Iran will most definately stop at something to spread its ideals - getting a bunch of Iraninans killed. it is happy enough to pay others to do its dirty work, but Iran under the Mullahs has never directly invaded or even attacked a neighbour

My point is not that Iran is a peace-loving nation that just wants to hug everyone, but that it prefers to let others pay the 'butcher's bill' for spreading its influence. I could also have pointed out that proxy armies are popular in the ME (I have elsewhere). Syria, Israel, Iran & Iraq (off the top of my head) have all used them to some extent. They weren't included in my statement.

Iran may be willing to fight Israel to the last Palestinian, but I'm yet to see it put its own people in the firing line in any great numbers except when Saddam invaded. The young man who made the initial post was getting a bit excitable, I tried to present a more nuanced perspective.

Again, if there is something I've missed by all means point it out.

Originally Posted by astralis

keith,



sorry, but having spoken to the relevant AOs regarding the missile defense SHIFT (NOT cancellation) and read the relevant intel reporting on both iranian missile/nuclear development (you should know which document in particular I am referring to)...i simply do not come to the same conclusion as you do.

however, i am willing to change my mind. show me, either here, on NIPR, or SIPR, any analysis or piece of intel that shows US missile defense capabilities being significantly weakened by this move.

if this is as blatantly clear and outrageous as you claim, you should have NO problem doing so. i simply do not believe the combined staffs of OSD and JS (and the Service component which provided coord) are so blind as all that.

I told ALL of you this would happen: once a hard-Left ideologue was the CinC, he is The Boss; he doesn't have to do what THEY say; they have do what HE says, and that's just what's happened. He ordered 'em to toe the line, and they're doing it.

keith,

I told ALL of you this would happen: once a hard-Left ideologue was the CinC, he is The Boss; he doesn't have to do what THEY say; they have do what HE says, and that's just what's happened. He ordered 'em to toe the line, and they're doing it.

b effin' s. you're telling me that entire sections of the US military-- including our most important decision-making leaders and officers- are nothing but obama flunkies. way to be incredibly offensive and wrong.

Originally Posted by astralis

keith,



b effin' s. you're telling me that entire sections of the US military-- including our most important decision-making leaders and officers- are nothing but obama flunkies.

Way to distort what I said. Nice Democrat-style counter-attack.

keith, then by all means explain what you mean by "they have do what HE says, and that's just what's happened. He ordered 'em to toe the line, and they're doing it.".

because from my read, it seems to say that obama ordered the military to find an acceptable excuse/analysis for his already made-up mind...and they did just that.

how is that not being a flunky?

Is SecDef a political appointee, or is he a uniformed officer? I forget, sometimes.

yes, and someone whom wanted at the end of the Bush Administration nothing more than to go back home really, at his age, has grand political ambitions and plays the suck-up game.

excuse me, but how is this different from the Move-On types screaming about General Betray-us?

From 5 Dec 08, and don't say I didn't call it almost exactly on the money:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/ame...tml#post586946