It's happening.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15595657

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15580907

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/201171775828434786.html

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-war-iran-abdi-539/

http://rt.com/news/iran-report-nuclear-attack-565/





[Edited on November 4, 2011 at 6:20 PM. Reason : hooray endless occupations]

11/4/2011 6:00:22 PM

Obama gotta milk that Nobel Peace Prize for all it is worth [before his term ends], you know?

11/4/2011 6:14:50 PM

God damn it.

11/4/2011 6:17:43 PM

this is fucking pathetic.

Is it 2011 or 1930? I guess since it's fucking impossible to fix the economy domestically, we just gotta stir some shit up internationally

[Edited on November 4, 2011 at 6:21 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2011 6:19:30 PM

Quote :

"Israel's defence minister has said that a military strike on nuclear reactors in Iran is getting closer "day by day". Ehud Barak said he hoped a report by the United Nations' atomic watchdog, which is expected next week, would "tell the truth to the world" about Iran's nuclear activities. He said ''no option should be removed from the table''."

Going with his logic, a strike on Israel's nuclear reactors/arsenal is legitimate and Israel would have no right to complain if some country struck their nuclear reactors/arsenal.

Fuck Ehud and Benjamin, fuck racism, fuck Apartheid, fuck Zionism.

11/4/2011 6:30:05 PM

It's shaping up to look more like the 1930s at this point.

The fucked up thing is that Keynesians do talk about war as a way to stimulate the economy. Of course, guys like Krugman always have the caveat, "...but we're not saying actually start a war, that's just one way to do it!" Well, don't give them any ideas then, idiot.

11/4/2011 6:30:18 PM

if Krugman EVER had any credibility, he lost it the second he suggested an alien attack would fix the economy

But I digress... As Senator McCain once stated about Iran...

11/4/2011 7:00:57 PM

Quote :

"Going with his logic, a strike on Israel's nuclear reactors/arsenal is legitimate and Israel would have no right to complain if some country struck their nuclear reactors/arsenal."

Yeah, except I dont foresee Israel handing off their nukes to some terrorist organization, nor is Israel some crazy tyrannical religious theocracy. You cant compare Iran and Israel with any true academic honesty. You can talk as much shit as you want about Israel and its leadership, but there is no way to say with a straight face that Israel is an aggressive threat to the world because of its nukes. Iran, on the other hand, has openly called for the annihilation of Israel if they were to obtain said nukes, and yet its somehow unreasonable for Israel to defend itself, preemptively if needed. Iran also blatantly funds and supports terrorist organizations around the world, so its not far fetched to think that they would gladly hand off their nukes to them. You can criticize Israeli domestic policy towards the Palestinians, but I dont think Israel openly intends to give nukes to terrorists.

Just once, Id like to see the anti-Israel people think about these situations objectively.



[Edited on November 4, 2011 at 8:07 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2011 8:00:54 PM

Quote :

" is Israel some crazy tyrannical religious theocracy"

11/4/2011 8:07:25 PM

No, they are a parliamentarian democracy with a large secular population. Even though a majority identifies themselves as Jewish, a large percentage of those Jews are secular or not heavily practicing.



[Edited on November 4, 2011 at 8:17 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2011 8:08:23 PM

^It's time for the US to stop kowtowing to the demands of Netanyahu and Israel. Seriously, the love-affair we have with Israel is going to drag us into another unneeded war, which has the potential to mushroom into a big one. First we'll try sanctioning Iran, but once Netanyahu decides to attack them, we'll have no choice but to side with Israel. Take off your blinders and realize that Israel antagonizes their neighbors just as much as the "dirty arab-world" antagonizes Israel. Israel is about as much of a democracy as the United States is. And that ain't sayin' much

Quote :

"Iran also blatantly funds and supports terrorist organizations around the world, so its not far fetched to think that they would gladly hand off their nukes to them"

This isn't some good-guy vs bad-guy battle. C'mon, we gave Iran weapons too, you know.

Quote :

"The fucked up thing is that Keynesians do talk about war as a way to stimulate the economy. Of course, guys like Krugman always have the caveat, "...but we're not saying actually start a war, that's just one way to do it!" Well, don't give them any ideas then, idiot."

I mean, isn't war just another form of huge government spending? It puts the peasants to work and it allows huge corporate interests and energy companies to set up an infrastructure in an energy-rich region of the world. Right now would probably be a good time to invest in Lockheed Martin and Enron, in all honesty.




[Edited on November 4, 2011 at 8:16 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2011 8:11:01 PM

I am not even talking about the US and Israeli relationship here, all I am saying is that you cant HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY compare Israel and Iran. To compare the two is dishonest or just naive. And it is insanely naive to think Iran with nukes isnt a danger to the world.

11/4/2011 8:14:19 PM

No offense, but iran is still living under religious logic and repression.

Women are still treated like property there. Can't even show their faces or draw pictures.


A war is going to have to be waged because there is no way to reason with a civilization based on religion.

11/4/2011 8:18:47 PM

Im glad someone else understands this. Israel is a rational player, Iran is not. Israel has abolished the death penalty, Iran still stones people to death or executes people for converting or heresy.

[Edited on November 4, 2011 at 8:24 PM. Reason : .]

11/4/2011 8:21:27 PM

Quote :

"And it is insanely naive to think Iran with nukes isnt a danger to the world."

I hate this argument. Only one country in the history of the world has actually used Nuclear force. Even if Iran were somehow crazy enough to use it, they would be signing their own death certificate.

Quote :

"No offense, but iran is still living under religious logic and repression. Women are still treated like property there. Can't even show their faces or draw pictures. A war is going to have to be waged because there is no way to reason with a civilization based on religion."

Don't kid yourself. We might say we are going in there as human-rights liberators, but there are far more oppressive regimes in the world that we would go after if that were the case. We're going to support sanctions on Iran, which will probably piss off the Chinese, who we just so happen to be indebted to.

[Edited on November 4, 2011 at 8:26 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2011 8:21:58 PM

Quote :

"I hate this argument. Only one country in the history of the world has actually used Nuclear force. Even if Iran were somehow crazy enough to use it, they would be signing their own death certificate."

This is not the thread to open the can of worms about the WWII use of the atomic bombs...but if you argue it was not justified then you need to do a lot more research. I wrote a history thesis on this very topic, from as objective a point of view as I possibly could, and the US use of the atomic bombs was justified and ended the war faster and with less loss of life.

Quote :

"Even if Iran were somehow crazy enough to use it, they would be signing their own death certificate."

Again, this is under the assumption that Iran is a rational world player, which they are not. They are a fundamentalist religious theocracy who is willing to massacre its own people, they are not rational players and subject to the cold war MAD philosophy. It is also not unreasonable to assume they would give their nukes to terrorists who are certainly not rational world players. The entire foundation of your argument is flawed.

I see more intel reports than you do, trust me.

11/4/2011 8:30:48 PM

Quote :

"I am not even talking about the US and Israeli relationship here, all I am saying is that you cant HONESTLY and OBJECTIVELY compare Israel and Iran. To compare the two is dishonest or just naive. And it is insanely naive to think Iran with nukes isnt a danger to the world."

Iran has never attacked anyone. Israel is a known aggressor. The US is a known aggressor known to attack nations without being provoked.

Quote :

"This is not the thread to open the can of worms about the WWII use of the atomic bombs...but if you argue it was not justified then you need to do a lot more research. I wrote a history thesis on this very topic, from as objective a point of view as I possibly could, and the US use of the atomic bombs was justified and ended the war faster and with less loss of life. "

Someone could put together an argument to justify 9/11 or any other event really. I tend to be against anything where innocent people die. The more innocents that are killed, the worse the event is imo.

Israel kills more civilians than Iran. Easily. And the US has killed many more.


If we're keeping score, the US executes more people than Iran and Iranian women work, and have a lot more rights than the people of gaza.

[Edited on November 4, 2011 at 8:44 PM. Reason : Were the US and its allies rational players going into iraq?]

11/4/2011 8:42:55 PM

Quote :

"If we're keeping score, the US executes more people than Iran"

how do they compare on a per-capita basis?

11/4/2011 9:45:21 PM

Quote :

""If we're keeping score, the US executes more people than Iran""

Wat???

We execute prisoners accused of capital crimes.

They execute protestors in the street.

11/4/2011 10:22:40 PM

Quote :

"No offense, but iran is still living under religious logic and repression. Women are still treated like property there. Can't even show their faces or draw pictures."

Yes, your first sentence is correct, but come on, that is no reason to start making up shit, as in your 3rd sentence. Iran is one of the countries in the region where women DON'T cover their faces. Do you know how to use Google image search?

Quote :

"A war is going to have to be waged because there is no way to reason with a civilization based on religion."

Really? Is that the reason the US/Israel want to go to war with Iran? If so, there are many more countries "living under religious logic and repression" in the region, even more repressive than Iran, and where "women are still treated like property". Why don't you go attack one of those countries first, Mr. Genius?

What do the 'facts' you list have anything to do with nuclear reactors?

11/4/2011 10:32:48 PM

Quote :

"Iran is one of the countries in the region where women DON'T cover their faces."

You are correct. I can't find the story I read this week about a woman that got arrested and sentenced to one year in prison for drawing a picture on film. Her face was covered. I assumed they couldnt show their faces in IRL either. My bad.

11/4/2011 10:54:03 PM

Quote :

"Really? Is that the reason the US/Israel want to go to war with Iran? "

US and Israel don't want to go to war. Iran keeps threatening US and Israel. They deny things like the holocaust and 9/11. Pretty dangerous for this country to have nuclear weapons.

11/4/2011 10:57:08 PM

Israel wants to go to war with Iran (preemptive strike). Iran has not threatened the US.



[Edited on November 4, 2011 at 11:03 PM. Reason : Iran denies having nukes. so they obviously haven't threatened the US]

11/4/2011 11:00:09 PM

This "war" won't happen, just like all the "wars" people on this site have predicted with North Korea and, in all likelihood, Iran several times before this one.

Nothing in any of the links in the OP is particularly distressing. Israel always talks like it's half a second away from sending the balloon up with regards to Iran. Same with us. Meanwhile, Iran always talks like it's bigger and badder than it is, there's always some distressing new report about their nuclear program, and the situation in the region always looks like it's about to be World War III. Israel never follows through, Iran never does much, the reports are always less scary than they're made out to be, and the war never turns up.

Meanwhile, we have a President who has staked a great deal on the idea of international cooperation, and whose idea of a military intervention involves helping Frogs and Italians blow up a country that's already ripped in half (not that there's anything wrong with that approach, but it's a damn sight different from "Let's invade Iran"). We have a Congress that reflexively hates everything the President does and would perform a remarkable 180 from "Let's spread freedom!" to "Isolationism forever!" if Obama even hinted that maybe, under very specific circumstances, he might -- possibly -- want to do something with regards to Iran.

Add to this a military establishment that has drunk itself full from the bitter cup of experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. The countries right next to Iran have been such a walk in the park, surely the current commanders think that the bigger, more populated, better-armed country in the middle will be easy.

So the situation is normal (though that really is, in this case, "fucked up beyond all recognition"), there's no clear impetus for the government or military to be clamoring for war -- so who is it, exactly, that's so desperate for us to go apeshit on Tehran?

The Saudis, certainly, but they've wanted that every since Khomeini took over, and we haven't done their wishes yet. Why do you think that's suddenly changing?

Israel, maybe. I'm not even sure. I think Jerusalem is nervous about Iran and its nuclear program, but I think they have sense to realize what Tehran already does -- that for either side, launching a nuclear attack is liable to be a death sentence. Iran nukes Tel Aviv, we flatten everything between Iraq and Pakistan. Israel turns Tehran into glass, and everybody who's ever so much as read a Koran is ready to smash them (and they'll probably get help from Russia and China). Plus, being able to point everyone to the big bad Iranian threat is a good way to take the mind of the average Israeli off domestic problems.

Unless Iran does something really, unbelievably stupid, there will be no war. And I don't think they'll do that. I think they'll keep beating around the bush with regards to their nuclear program, we'll keep wagging our finger and threatening to take off our belts, and the world as we know it will go the fuck on.

11/4/2011 11:02:46 PM

Did they not say they were going to send some warships into our waters the other day?

11/4/2011 11:03:21 PM

They said they were doing something with their warships (can't remember precisely what) that was benign and blown way out of proportion on both sides. Not that it matters, a medium-sized Coast Guard detachment could turn the Iranian navy into an artificial reef in short order.

11/4/2011 11:04:58 PM

Never underestimate an enemy. Always expect the worst.

11/4/2011 11:06:38 PM

"Underestimating" the Iranian navy would be me saying that myself and the good-ol'-boy fishermen of Randolph County could wipe them out with three john boats, a case of budweiser, and a handful of bird guns.

11/4/2011 11:11:52 PM

Brains will always defeat brawn.

11/4/2011 11:32:58 PM

Quote :

"Add to this a military establishment that has drunk itself full from the bitter cup of experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. The countries right next to Iran have been such a walk in the park, surely the current commanders think that the bigger, more populated, better-armed country in the middle will be easy. "

they do want more war

11/4/2011 11:50:19 PM

Starting another war will cause a domestic explosion never before seen in this country.

11/5/2011 12:07:18 AM

My God, I can't believe I'm saying this, but out of the last three posts, smc's was the only one that wasn't completely fucking retarded.

11/5/2011 2:29:23 AM

You've never heard of the saying "Brains over brawn"?

11/5/2011 5:53:19 AM

Israeli army tests rocket system

Quote :

"Israel has tested a rocket propulsion system from a military base in the centre of the country, the defence ministry said. Israeli media reports said a ballistic missile had been fired. The test came amid speculation in Israel that the government could be preparing a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The defence ministry said the test had long been planned. Israel successfully tested a ballistic missile in 2008. "Israel today carried out the test of a rocket propulsion system from the Palmachim base," near Rishon LeZion, a military statement said. "This had been planned by the defence establishment a long time ago and was carried out as scheduled". The statement gave no details on what type of rocket had been tested, but Israel's Haaretz newspaper said a new type of ballistic missile was being tested. A trail of white smoke could be seen across large areas of central Israel, newspapers reported. Haaretz reported on Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been trying to persuade his cabinet to back military action against Iran. Israel and Western powers say Iran has been trying to build a nuclear weapon. Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15533927


Nuclear Iran vs Terrorist USA?

Quote :

"Iran has made computer models of a nuclear warhead, says IAEA report on Tehran’s suspected nuclear activities, due to be published next week. Meanwhile, Iran is set to unveil documents accusing the US of links with terror groups. The UN nuclear agency is planning to reveal previously undisclosed intelligence on Iran’s suspected nuclear arms program next week. The report may reveal the International Atomic Energy Agency possesses intelligence information alleging Tehran of making computer models of nuclear warheads, diplomats have told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity. The agency also plans to show satellite imagery of what it believes is a large steel container used for nuclear-arms related high explosives tests. In the wake of rising tensions between the US and Iran, Tehran in its turn said it will release documents accusing Washington of involvement in acts of terror against Iran and other countries. A senior Iranian lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi said Friday the documents will discredit the US administration and will prove the United States and Israel are the chief sponsors of state terrorism. Earlier on Wednesday, the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said: “We possess 100 pieces of irrefutable evidence that reveal the US role in directing terrorists for conducting acts of terror in Iran and the region.” "Assassination of Iran's nuclear scientists and massacre of the Iraqi and Afghan people are just a part of the US crimes which are not hidden to anyone," a senior member of Iranian parliament, Esmayeel Kosari, claimed as quoted by FARS news agency. Earlier there were some reports that the US was involved in extrajudicial activities in the region. “I’m almost definitely sure the United States is at war with Iran through proxies,” Robert Baer, author and former CIA case officer said in Current TV’s 2009 documentary Vanguard: America's Secret War With Iran. According to Baer, US intelligence is in touch with PJAK, Iraq-based Kurdish militant nationalist group which frequently carries out attacks against Iran. In the latest diplomatic maneuver, Iran has sent an official letter to UN chief Ban Ki-moon, ruling out accusation of plotted assassination of Saudi envoy as “baseless” and accusing the US of conspiracy against Iran, according to IRNA news agency. War on the doorstep? Meanwhile, in Israel, President Shimon Peres said that he believed that Israel and the world may soon take military action against Iran. "Intelligence services of all countries understand that time is running out and they are warning their leaders," Peres told Israeli Channel 2 on Friday. "It would seem that Iran is getting closer to having nuclear weapons," he claimed. Following that, a senior US military official said he was unsure Israel would inform Washington of plans to strike Iran, adding that the US military is “increasingly vigilant” of activities in both Iran and Israel. On Friday a senior US military official told Reuters that Iran remains "biggest threat to the United States and to our interests and to our friends" in the Middle East. Still, the anonymous official added he did not believe that Iran wanted to provoke a conflict. The latest reports only add more fuel to the ongoing media speculation as to whether or not Israel and the US would launch an assault on Iran’s uranium-enrichment facilities."

http://rt.com/news/nuclear-iran-terrorist-usa-627/

11/5/2011 12:55:08 PM

Is Netanyahu bluffing once again?

Quote :

"Should the latest episode of Israeli calls for bombing Iran be taken seriously, or is it – like the many cases prior to it – yet another (politically motivated) false alarm? Like clockwork, Israeli alarm bells have gone off in the past fifteen years with predictable regularity. Bellicose statements by Israeli officials have been followed by alarmist analyses describing military measures as both necessary and inevitable. And then, without any explanation, the bellicosity recedes and Iran and Israel return to their more normal levels of animosity. By now, as WikiLeaks documents show, U.S. officials tend to view the Israeli threats as a pressure tactic to get the United States and Europe to adopt tougher measures against Iran, and to refrain from any compromise with Tehran over the nuclear issue. These intense periods of Israeli warnings about its imminent intent to bomb Iran have indeed tended to coincide with times when the international community has been debating additional sanctions on Tehran. This latest call for war is no different. Next week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to publish a report expected to detail evidence on the Iranian government's suspected past weaponization activities. The Obama administration and the French government have pushed the IAEA to take a tougher line against Tehran. The IAEA report will be followed by a U.S.-EU push for harsher sanctions against Iran at the U.N. Security Council, where Western powers will meet stiff resistance from Russia and China. The Obama administration has also launched a campaign to report the Iranian government to the Security Council due to its alleged attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Here again, the aim is to convince a skeptical international community to go along with new sanctions. For Israel, the tactic of threatening war to secure sanctions has been a gift that never stops giving. The Israelis press the U.S. and the European Union to opt for more sanctions by arguing that absent new punitive measures, Israel will be "forced" to strike Iran unilaterally. Washington then uses the Israeli threat to press Russia,China and the rest of the international community to adopt new sanctions topreserve the peace. The choice is, the tactic dictates, between sanctions and war; not between confrontation and diplomacy. To retain some minimal level of credibility, each new round of saber rattling contains new elements to set it apart from previous episodes. This time around, the narrative reads that intense debates are taking place within the Israeli cabinet between proponents and opponents of unilateral Israeli strikes. What are supposed to be confidential, internal deliberations have now been leaked to the public and the whole world can follow the debate over war and peace unfold like a bizarre reality TV show. While skepticism about Israel’s saber rattling is warranted, it is also dangerous to completely dismiss it out of hand. At a minimum, there are two important factors that indicate the past pattern of empty threats may be changing. First, stiff resistance from the U.S. military has in the past forced Israel to think twice about any unilateral strike against Iran. Pentagon officials believe that Iran will not differentiate between an American and an Israeli attack. As such, Israeli military strikes will beget significant Iranian retaliation against American targets. In July 2008, in the midst of a massive Israeli effort to convince former President George W. Bush to attack Iran before he left office, then chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen warned that an Israeli strike on Iran would prove "extremely stressful" for U.S. forces in the region. "This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable," he cautioned. But with President Barack Obama in election mode, Benjamin Netanyahu may sense an opening. At a time when the Republicans are attacking Obama for being insensitive to Israeli interests, Obama cannot afford another confrontation with Netanyahu. In spite of the danger Israel would put U.S. troops under if it attacked Iran, Obama’s ability to exact a political price on Israel for doing so is currently limited. Second, as I document in A Single Roll of the Dice – Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran (Yale University Press, 2012),sanctions and military action are not either-or options in Israel’s view. Rather, they are complementary. While sanctions systematically weaken Iran and reduce its capabilities, including its ability to muster nuclear advances, military action is needed to push back Iran if it reachesimportant nuclear milestones, in Israel’s view. Sanctions can slow down Iran’s nuclear advances, but military action can set the nuclear program back, albeit only temporarily. Alone, neither approach is satisfactory for Israel. Only when the two are combined will the Jewish state feel confident that the balance of power is securely locked in its favor. But with Washington having little left to sanction in Iran, and Israel’s credibility reaching a new low as a result of its many false alarms, how much longer can this game of brinkmanship and sable rattling be pursued before it turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy?"

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/04/is-netanyahu-bluffing-once-again/?hpt=wo_r1

11/5/2011 12:59:33 PM

wouldn't shooting Iran's nuclear plants create nuclear fallout and irradiate vast areas (inside and outside of Iran???) I would hope that any country would not do something so stupid.

11/5/2011 8:44:34 PM

china will have a lot to say about attacking iran.

11/5/2011 9:02:21 PM

^^From my (admittedly limited) understanding of the nuclear power/weapons process, I think the move would be to take out the facilities where they refine the nuclear fuel. This would (again, I think) have less potential for fallout while still neutering the program.

11/5/2011 9:38:12 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

[Edited on November 5, 2011 at 9:44 PM. Reason : ]

11/5/2011 9:43:35 PM

Yeah, China would be like:







And el Presidente would be like:

11/5/2011 9:52:56 PM

"Please don't foreclose on us, China"

11/5/2011 11:48:13 PM

"fuck off China. Bring your muscle and try to come collect your money back. Oh, wait."

11/6/2011 9:19:34 AM

China: "Fine. Maybe we'll stop purchasing your bonds...forever."

US: "Jokes on you, bitches - we'll just print that shit every time a bond matures!"

China: "Alright. Maybe we'll eliminate the USD-RMB currency peg..."

US: ".........................................................................................."

11/6/2011 11:36:37 AM

1. I'm largely with GrumpyGOP in my view of this.

2. That said, I don't think that Iran should be permitted to possess a mature nuclear weapons program

3. Also, I do think that Israel has very real plans to strike Iran. Not necessarily intent, unless things get very dire, but I think that they have made detailed preparations for an attack if need be.

4. I don't care for our indebtedness to the Chinese, but if we were willing to shoot our own economy in the foot, we could absolutely annihilate theirs.

11/6/2011 1:56:50 PM

I've no doubt that Israel has a plan. I've no doubt that we have a plan. Read an article the other day where an anonymous military source said (and this is close to verbatim from the article), "We've got plans for everything. We've got a plan for 'Take Paris' if it ever comes to that."

11/6/2011 10:41:14 PM

Quote :

"That said, I don't think that Iran should be permitted to possess a mature nuclear weapons program"

Justify this. They are surrounded by countries that are permitted to possess nuclear weapons. They would be absolutely annihilated from five directions if they ever attempted to use a nuke. They have no hope of launching a nuke at the United States. They are not a threat to me or you, or at least not more than other, allegedly "friendly" nations.

Mutually assured destruction is the best policy. Iran hates the U.S. because it has systematically fucked over their people. We've intervened with their political system in considerable ways, and we have placed sanctions on them for many years. We can't be surprised that Iran is hostile when they've been oppressed by Western forces.

11/7/2011 1:54:12 AM

11/7/2011 11:09:07 AM

^^I mostly agree with that. In a perfect world where every nation in the world was on board with getting rid of all nukes, Iran shouldn't be an exception to that. But in the 2011 world, it's simply not fair to make Iran out to be this big bad bogey man simply because they want what all the other countries surrounding them have. For god sakes, Pakistan was harboring bin Laden, and we don't say shit about their nukes because they are our "ally".

Iran is a large country with a population in the millions, and the majority of that population could give a shit about the US/Israel, and certainly wouldn't support going to war with either. It's not North Korea, it's a country with an educated population and culturally more progressive than a lot of it's neighbors. Their leader says dumb shit from time to time, but so do ours and many of our "allies". They have been demonized simply because of historical associations, and it's frankly time we stopped making them out to be an enemy for no good reason.

11/7/2011 11:31:42 AM

No, we don't do anything about Pakistan's nukes because they already have them. When they got them, we were cool with that because they were a counter to India, which was somewhat of a Soviet client state at the time.

and GrumpyGOP, yeah, we have plans for everything. OPLAN ____. They exist for all sorts of specific contingencies, as well as some broader, more open-ended scenarios. They lay out "big blue arrow" stuff, like how many of each ship, squadrons of each type of aircraft, divisions of infantry, and so on, and generally what each is going to do in the initial stages. The OPLANs are not finely detailed plans that are ready to execute immediately--they are general scenarios that have been wargamed and computer modeled a bazillion times for strategic planning purposes.

I am saying that I think that Israel isn't all talk here--I think they have a plan together with most (or maybe all) of the tactical-level stuff figured out...they're just waiting for the word to execute, should it actually come to that.

[Edited on November 7, 2011 at 4:34 PM. Reason : ]

11/7/2011 4:33:02 PM

Quote :

"When they got them, we were cool with that because they were a counter to India, which was somewhat of a Soviet client state at the time."

I thought they didn't get them until 1998 and we were pretty pissed about it until 9/11 when we needed them as a strategic ally. Also, I thought that we were relatively cool with India having nukes as a counter to China after their war in '62.

I may be full of shit on both points though.

11/7/2011 6:01:09 PM