State of Israel/U.S. to strike Iran?

L

LAK

Moderator
What would happen to the Bush administration's standing if it took part in a "pre-emptive" strike with the State of Israel against Iran before the election?

Let's say the State of Israel launches an air strike at selected targets in Iran - to include political infrastucture in Tehran - supported by U.S. assets. Since the United States has not the troop resources to actually invade Iran, this would serve to obliterate their government leadership, and what are considered key military targets, without a "body count" of U.S. personnel.
 
Are you speaking to Bush's standing with the American people?

So far as the M.E. is concerned, I would expect that an unprovoked attack from Israel on a Muslim country is going to rile the rest of them like little else would.
Might serve to unite them in a common cause to wipe Israel off the map if they could.
Of course, the flip side just might be that the rest of the M.E. governments who are supporting the terrorists of whatever stripe just might calm way the heck down, or at least give the appearance of that.
Tough call, and if the worst happened and we/Israel figures the only answer is nukes, well, there goes the neighborhood.
The UN would probably try to sanction us, but with our veto power in the Security council, I don't know how far that would go.
 
Why would they risk it with two and a half weeks to go? Israel has existed for 60 years, Tehran has been trying to get nukes for years, not much will change in the next two weeks, short of Tehran or Israel doing something incredibly stupid.

I think if it were unprovoked, it would probably cost Bush the election. BUT, If it were done definitively in defense of Israel, I think it would help them out.
 
jefnvk,

This is in the context of "self defense" by the State of Israel. They would have to drudge up some explanation and "intel" to justify it, but that has never been an obstacle before, for instance when they hit Iraq's nuclear facility.
 
LAK said:
_______________________________________________________________
They would have to drudge up some explanation and "intel" to justify it, but that has never been an obstacle before,...
_______________________________________________________________

LAK, you seem to suggest above that Israel did not have a good reason to destroy the Iranian reactor at Osirik.

Recently, the ruler of Iran (Rafsanjani?) said that as soon as Iran had nukes and the means to deliver them, the "Israel problem" would be solved.

Does anyone doubt that the Iranians and other Arab states would try to annihilate Israel if they had the means?


I'm sure that the US will collaborate with the Israelis to take out Iran's nuclear capablility in the near future. Both nations security depend on doing
that.

But as JefNVK asked above, why before the election? Unless OUR intel reveals that the Iranians are poised to strike (and capable) , it can wait until after the election.


That is just one very important reason to vote for Bush. The Russians are even now selling nuclear fuel to the Iranians and helping them to complete their reactors. Kerry's "plan" is to act only with the agreement of the "community" of nations and the UN.

The same gang that were and are still profiting from the status quo. The power brokers are counting on someone like Kerry to be "malleable" and "amenable" to their machinations. And they count accurately.

Bush is hated in great part because he calls it as it is and has the courage to act as necessary.

I won't even go into the devastating effect a Kerry administration would have on our gun rights.


matis
 
Tell you what LAK-if I were completely surrounded by enemies as is the State of Israel, given their history of wanting to murder the Jews, you better not even spit in the direction of my sand dune.

Don't think about building nukes in an area where I can reach you. Yes, I have nukes, and no, I don't trust you to have them. Fair? The hell with fair!

Nukes, to me at least make no sense, especially if you want to occupy the ground afterwards.

Jeruselem is apparently going to be a bone of contention, but I would not put it past some of those maniacs to nuke their own holy land.

My bet is Israel does not want to take the chance. I don't blame them.
 
Matis
LAK, you seem to suggest above that Israel did not have a good reason to destroy the Iranian reactor at Osirik.
Click to expand...

Well, that is a matter of opinion. What can not be disputed though is that they had it, and the Israeli state bombed it.

Recently, the ruler of Iran (Rafsanjani?) said that as soon as Iran had nukes and the means to deliver them, the "Israel problem" would be solved.
Does anyone doubt that the Iranians and other Arab states would try to annihilate Israel if they had the means?
Click to expand...

They might, but I doubt it. There are plenty of Arabs living in Israel - at least parts of it. They might consider annihilating Tel Aviv.

I'm sure that the US will collaborate with the Israelis to take out Iran's nuclear capablility in the near future. Both nations security depend on doing.
But as JefNVK asked above, why before the election? Unless OUR intel reveals that the Iranians are poised to strike (and capable) , it can wait until after the election.
Click to expand...

Well our security doesn't depend on it, unless they aquire an intercontinental strike capability. But it would be suicide for them to use them and there is no doubt they know that.

That is just one very important reason to vote for Bush. The Russians are even now selling nuclear fuel to the Iranians and helping them to complete their reactors. Kerry's "plan" is to act only with the agreement of the "community" of nations and the UN.
Click to expand...

Ah, now we introduce another consideration. The Russians' main concern is no doubt the Caspian area - all that oil and gas. And it is very much on the cards that if the United States and Israel attempt to extend such actions into what they consider their buffer of that region, they might well not take it lying down. They might even use Iran as a scapegoat to nuke the State of Israel themselves. Unlike the Iranians, the Russians couldn't care less about Muslims in Haifa, Jerusalem or any other of their cities. But they might not sit back and watch some of their nuke scientists, techs and other personnel caught in the crossfire between the State of Israel and Iran.

The same gang that were and are still profiting from the status quo. The power brokers are counting on someone like Kerry to be "malleable" and "amenable" to their machinations. And they count accurately.
Bush is hated in great part because he calls it as it is and has the courage to act as necessary.
Click to expand...

Well this is nonsense. Bush might put on a show now and then, but make no mistake, George W. Bush has no intention of interfering with the overall U.N. agenda. That is why we are still a member, still fund it with our tax dollars, and he is not under any circumstances going to withdraw us from that organized criminal enterprize.

As far as gun rights go, Kerry is not a threat. Congress has the power, and Congress has the keys. They should be the ones we are concerned with on this and similar issues.
 
4 Wheel Drive
DriveTell you what LAK-if I were completely surrounded by enemies as is the State of Israel, given their history of wanting to murder the Jews, you better not even spit in the direction of my sand dune.
Don't think about building nukes in an area where I can reach you. Yes, I have nukes, and no, I don't trust you to have them. Fair? The hell with fair!
Click to expand...

This is a moot point. The Arab states view their own security and consolidation in a similar light, as do other nations. The idea that they are not going to pursue these ends would imply that they consider themselves subjugated to some one else.

Nukes, to me at least make no sense, especially if you want to occupy the ground afterwards.
Jeruselem is apparently going to be a bone of contention, but I would not put it past some of those maniacs to nuke their own holy land.
Click to expand...

I do not think that the Iran would ever consider nuking Jerusalem. While it is popular current propaganda to paint all the Muslim leadership in the region as lunatics it is perhaps not a rational judgement concerning their practical aims.
 
LAK,
I guarantee you that Russia has a lot more interest in the middle east and the Muslim world. They remember Afghanistan really well, have Chechnya and the recent school attack on their minds.
Russia using Iran as a scapegoat to nuke Israel? You've been reading too many spy novels. :rolleyes:
 
Russia using Iran as a scapegoat to nuke Israel? You've been reading too many spy novels.
Click to expand...

I don't read "novels" or fiction; however I do read the patterns of geo-politics. If a loose coalition dominated by the United States, Britain and Israel appear to be attempting to gain control of the buffer area of the Caspian, I predict that Russia will not stand idle - and Israel might be the first to go. If a half dozen nukes originating from inside Iran go streaking into Tel Aviv, Haifa etc - no one is going to be nosing around the glass craters looking to see "where they were made and who fired them".
 
LAK said - Quote:
They might (nuke Israel), but I doubt it. There are plenty of Arabs living in Israel - at least parts of it. They might consider annihilating Tel Aviv.
_____________________________________________________________

Arabs distrust and have been killing each other from time immemorial. All history is the history of warfare. But we in the West are almost angels by comparison. The Palestinians are forcibly kept in squalor and misery bythe other Arab nations as the spear-point in their eternal jihad against Israel. Jordan, Egypt and other Arab countries have brutally and with great loss of Arab life forcibly ejected the Palestinians from their countries. I doubt that Iran or another Arab country would refrain from using their nukes against Israel if they could, Arab collateral damage notwithstanding.

quote:
Bush might put on a show now and then, but make no mistake, George W. Bush has no intention of interfering with the overall U.N. agenda. That is why we are still a member, still fund it with our tax dollars, and he is not under any circumstances going to withdraw us from that organized criminal enterprize.
_____________________________________________________________

Bush must consider his re-election chances in this regard. He has shown more courage in facing down and characterizing the UN than any previous president. Ater Bush is re-elected he may just surprise us with his approach to the UN. We DO, however, agree on the nature of this organization. May it soon go the way of the League of Nations.

QUOTE:
As far as gun rights go, Kerry is not a threat. Congress has the power, and Congress has the keys. They should be the ones we are concerned with on this and similar issues.
_____________________________________________________________

No president has unlimited powers. Nor can he over-look re-election considerations.

And don't forget the presidential power of the "executive order". Not to mention that he appoints federal judges and especially supreme court judges.

I have serious disagreements with Bush, but compared to the international socialist Kerry, I cannot see how one could vote for anyone else but Bush.



matis
 
Matis,

While the leadership of many groups (by various definitions) have certainly not been beyond killing and sacrificing numbers of their own people it is unheard of - as far as I know - in the form of a strategic military offensive resulting in the death of thousands of them.

Countries like Iran would have nothing to gain by turning the State of Israel into a wasteland; on the otherhand a conventional victory would allow them to enjoy the spoils of conquest.

I would say that Ronald Reagan was more active in this regard, but Bush has been given to appear to face down the U.N.; in practice what he has really done is only face down those nations who might have opposed an invasion of Iraq for instance.

The revenue money from Iraq's purse is under the control of the U.N. and the IMF. I would have to call any idea that Bush is going to suddenly kick the U.N. out of the affairs of the United States after the election naive. And ditto for him making any other urgently needed changes to our foreign policy and domestic policy over which the Executive has power.
 
Israel has PROMISED to make the Middle East glow in the dark for a thousand years if IRAN (or any other Muslim nation) gets nuclear weapons.

I FOR ONE, believe them.

As I asked elsewhere, HOW STUPID are the Middle Eastern Arabs to:

1) Continue on this path of self destruction

2) Continue to deny the existence of Israel as a state

3) Continue to deny they had ANYTHING to do with 9/11 (mainly Saudi Arabia)

4) Continue developing weapons that are ASSURED to bring a rain of hell fire and brimstone down on them and ALL their people

Don't know the answers. Just the questions.

Does anyone own a home with a 1950 (ish) built bomb shelter in it? Or perhaps just a tornado room underground? We might all just need one if Israel is FORCED to back up what they've said.
 
LAK,
I assure you that there would be plenty of people taking samples from fallout and from the crater sights to check the proportions of contaminants to determine whose reactor the fissionable material came from. Different reactors produce different amounts.Try picking up a textbook instead.
 
Apple a Day,

Not a 100% reliable way of coming to any conclusion as evidence. Besides; if they were determined to be "of Chinese", "Korean" or "Russian origin" then what? Likely simply a denial by either of those countries that they "ever knowingly sold such material to Iran" and "must have been some material sold on the black market".
 
Now why would Iran use Russian material when they are making their own? As a friend of mine says, If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and glows like a Russian duck then it probably quacks in Russian.
We're not talking about finding which side of the particular reactor the material came from, just which reactor or at least which nationality. Easy enough to manage. They can deny all they want but physics doesn't lie.
The Russians are a whole lot more interested in Chechnya and Georgia than Isreal.
 
Now why would Iran use Russian material when they are making their own?
Click to expand...

Sound logic, but applied backwards. It is much easier to buy such things off the shelf than make them - not only the warheads - but the delivery system as well.

Again, I doubt whether anything distinctive would arise, since Iran no doubt received their start material and systems technology from the Russians (and perhaps the Chinese). They have never have had the brains themselves to do this from scratch, and Iran is likely crawling with Russian "advisers".
 
Sound logic, but applied backwards. It is much easier to buy such things off the shelf than make them - not only the warheads - but the delivery system as well.
The Russians don't need to buy anything off the shelf. They already own everything they need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top