Interesting article on possible Israeli strike on Iran by The Economist

[cybrsage]

Japan did want to surrender, but not unconditionally surrender. Unconditional surrender was our demand and they said "iie"

 

[iGas]

It is possible that Israel is the threat in the region, because it have any where between 75 and 150 nukes. Hence, its neighbors will seek nuclear bombs as a deterrent and as a bargaining chip.

IMHO, Iran is not stupid enough to attack Israel, because Israel can easily retaliate and rain a cloud of nuclear death on Iran.

 

[iGas]

Why are Neocons & Zionist is hell bent on going to war?

 

[Nebor]

Why are Neocons & Zionist is hell bent on going to war?

It enables them to trade living brown people for dead presidents.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It is possible that Israel is the threat in the region, because it have any where between 75 and 150 nukes. Hence, its neighbors will seek nuclear bombs as a deterrent and as a bargaining chip.

IMHO, Iran is not stupid enough to attack Israel, because Israel can easily retaliate rain a cloud of nuclear death on Iran.

Israel may very well have more than that. The problem is what will whack job leaders like Iran has do once they have them. I don't expect them to use them as a first strike but since they have a habit of shooting their own I don't see them as a responsible force. I should not be surprised if they start acting the aggressor and not with Israel, but with more moderate Islamic forces throughout the region. Who's going to stand against them when they have the bomb?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Israel may very well have more than that. The problem is what will whack job leaders like Iran has do once they have them. I don't expect them to use them as a first strike but since they have a habit of shooting their own I don't see them as a responsible force. I should not be surprised if they start acting the aggressor and not with Israel, but with more moderate Islamic forces throughout the region. Who's going to stand against them when they have the bomb?

The Avengers??

 

[cubby1223]

It is possible that Israel is the threat in the region, because it have any where between 75 and 150 nukes. Hence, its neighbors will seek nuclear bombs as a deterrent and as a bargaining chip.

IMHO, Iran is not stupid enough to attack Israel, because Israel can easily retaliate rain a cloud of nuclear death on Iran.

Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 1960's. Tell me, how many have they used on their neighbors in the region in the 40+ years they have had the capability? Do you personally view Israel as a threat to use nuclear weapons today?

 

[Karl Agathon]

It is possible that Israel is the threat in the region, because it have any where between 75 and 150 nukes. Hence, its neighbors will seek nuclear bombs as a deterrent and as a bargaining chip.

IMHO, Iran is not stupid enough to attack Israel, because Israel can easily retaliate rain a cloud of nuclear death on Iran.[/QUOTE]

I concur, not to mention the fact that Israel has massive second strike capability. I honestly dont think the Iranians want to commit national suicide. The Israelis reportedly have had a boat load of nukes for many decades now, and have obviously never used them.

 

[Doppel]

Inspectors & sanctions don't work either. My opinion, the only path to preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons is to bomb Iran into submission.

Why did Germany & Japan turn around and become allies, become peaceful nations, productive nations? While Afghanistan kills our soldiers after *their* people first desecrated Korans?

Germany and Japan, save during WWII, were not filled of a lunatic political system backasswards, though!

I didn't read article but I liked OP's brief and it seems reasonable. I still doubt that Israel will attack Iran, I don't find it terribly likely.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

israel isnt going to do anything to iran. if they were they wouldnt have been talking about doing something for the last 30 years, they would have just done it. theyre just trying to scare the american dummies into doing something

 

[soccerballtux]

IMHO, Iran with a few nuclear weapons is no threat to the mid-east. Israel may not like it, but they will simply have to get over it. And even then, Iran building its first nuke, if they build them at all, is at least 3 years away.

huh? definitely a thread to middle east. That's why none of the other countries wanted to nuclear programs until Iran had one. They were fine with Israel having one, because Israel isn't insane like Iran.

 

[Anarchist420]

Ah, yes, "the truth". Go ahead and offer up your perspective on how to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Do you believe diplomacy will work? Do you believe sanctions will work? What insight do the Articles of Confederation provide on these matters? And, are you blaming the Pacific Theater on the United States? Does your "truth" involve the United States invading Manchuria in 1931 and then again in 1937? Because that is not what I was told in public schools, but who knows maybe I am wrong? My personal opinion is that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. We either stop them, or prepare for how to deal with their nuclear arsenal. If there is no will to bomb Iran into submission, then I believe we must accept they will gain nukes and start preparing for dealing with that situation.

It's none of U.S. govt's business if they get nukes. As long as the U.S. government does not interfere with them they would never kill Americans. Even though you don't seem to care about Iranian lives, think about how much money it would cost us (Americans) to bomb them into submission. I'm sorry if I came across as a dick

Your entitled to your opinion no matter ow uninformed you are...

Thank you for being kind about it

And where did you learn the "truth". Japan was "forced" into attacking the US after over 10 years of raping Asia; from Korea, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, East Indies and the Pacific Islands. Of course Japan wanted to surrender. On their terms. Which were unacceptable.

A lot of places. See below. In addition, we have no right to police the world. The U.S. intervention to try to stop what the Japanese Imperial Army was doing was just as aggressive as what the Japanese were doing. That's because in doing so, the U.S. govt taxed (and even drafted) it's own citizens to murder foreigners in hopes that would deter those foreigners from murdering other foreigners. The U.S. truly became the aggressor. I'll grant you that what the Japanese Imperial Army may have been doing in the rest of Asia was not good, but foreign intervention by a state is NEVER humanitarian.

As for their terms, the U.S. govt let them keep their emperor and it really would've benefitted Americans because then they wouldn't have had to have paid for harmful bases in that area. The Japanese Imperial Army was never going to go after American civilians. Pearl Harbor was attacked rather than American civilians because Emperor Hirohito believed civilians were too armed and dangerous.

Where are your links substantiating that Japan wanted to surrender? You have said this in numerous threads, but have NEVER backed it up... Everyone, except you apparently, believed that Japan was going to fight to the last man and US casualties if Japan were invaded would be in the hundreds of thousands...Truman had to pick between the deaths of tens of thousands of Japanese or hundreds of thousands of US troops.

I believe Sheldon Richman wrote about it on lewrockwell.com last year. Ralph Raico wrote about it. Noam Chomsky believes it was not necessary. There have been multiple books written saying it wasn't necessary.

Also, civilian lives are worth more than military lives. It's not a civilian's job to die. Total war is never right.

 

[spacejamz]

Also, civilian lives are worth more than military lives. It's not a civilian's job to die. Total war is never right.

The Japanese emperor didn't seem to agree with you when he started a war with China to plunder their natural resources and bombed Pearl Harbor so the US would not stop their imperialism...

Countries are not going to sit idly by as they are being attacked. Is that your solution?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Seems like you feel that Japan should have been left alone to control all SF East Asia and the Pacific from Australia to Russia and over to India.

Completely destruction of all governments and countries without anyone saying stop. Similar to the way the world acted with respect to Germany and the Soviets.

 

[cubby1223]

The Japanese Imperial Army was never going to go after American civilians.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=japan+nanking&pq=japan+manchuria+death+count&safe=off&tbm=isch

Are these also lies that public schools fabricate?

Japan did not want to attack the U.S. only because they knew we were a superior military force. The likelihood of Japan surviving a war with the U.S. was slim.

 

[cubby1223]

I believe Sheldon Richman wrote about it on lewrockwell.com last year. Ralph Raico wrote about it. Noam Chomsky believes it was not necessary. There have been multiple books written saying it wasn't necessary.

So in other words you don't do any critical thinking for yourself. As long as anyone else agrees with your intuition, that means you are right.

And the thing you fail to realize is that it is near impossible to prove intentions.


Do tell me, how was Truman supposed to know 100% what the intentions of Japan were?

 

[cubby1223]

Oh, and Anarchist, you do know that Japan did invade and occupy parts of Alaska during the war, right? Including American civilian deaths by the Japanese Imperial Army. Or was that another public school lie? What do you believe these were?

Enough of this crap, just let this thread go back to Israel/Iran.

 

[blankslate]

Israel may very well have more than that. The problem is what will whack job leaders like Iran has do once they have them. I don't expect them to use them as a first strike but since they have a habit of shooting their own I don't see them as a responsible force. I should not be surprised if they start acting the aggressor and not with Israel, but with more moderate Islamic forces throughout the region. Who's going to stand against them when they have the bomb?

Iran becoming more bellicose and confrontational with it's neighbors if they actually develop a nuclear weapons capability is a distinct possibility...

However according to a Christian Science Monitor article... while a more confrontational Iran is a danger it is very unlikely that they see a nuclear weapon as an offensive capability more than a means of ensuring that they don't get invaded or bomb on... like Iraq, Afghanistan, and to a much lesser extent Libya was.

here is the article link. I also started a separate thread specifically for that article because in my opinion it went far more in depth in a few areas than the one from the economist article did.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0216/What-would-happen-if-Iran-had-the-bomb-video

 

[amish]

but foreign intervention by a state is NEVER humanitarian.

seriously??? darfur, haiti, sudan, serbia, somalia, bosnia, kosovo, indonesia, el salvador, etc.

the US even helped to rebuild post WWII germany and japan...

what howard zinn says isn't 100% true.

 

[zsdersw]

That's pretty dumb expending our entire nuclear arsenal in the area... yeah, every other nuclear power wouldn't believe that we haven't lost our marbles.

Additionally this possible effect would have to be dealt with... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

I hope your post was entirely facetious and sarcastic otherwise there are not words capable of describing the level of stupidity it would take to advocate that course of action.

I'm not sure what's more stupid; actually doing what I said in that post or you believing I was serious.

 

[ReignInBlood]

A: I haven't found an Economist article concerning Israel "interesting," or even valid, in some time now.
B: I cannot fathom why bookish arse baskets relying entirely upon the text of illusory treaties or the establishment of phantom states insist that a complete perusal of all historical documents be financed before a body politic decides on a measure of threat or protection. Buy a ticket for the present, chumps, and do what you must to preserve ideals that you bear and citizens that you protect. I think we can all describe in a paragraph how this chicanery shall bear out. Hint: waste of natural resources including, but not limited to, breath/intellectual fora/quasi-military activation/my patience. Damn, kids. Nobody's bombing anyone. And buy your favorite muslim a whiskey.

 

[Doppel]

A: I haven't found an Economist article concerning Israel "interesting," or even valid, in some time now.
B: I cannot fathom why bookish arse baskets relying entirely upon the text of illusory treaties or the establishment of phantom states insist that a complete perusal of all historical documents be financed before a body politic decides on a measure of threat or protection. Buy a ticket for the present, chumps, and do what you must to preserve ideals that you bear and citizens that you protect. I think we can all describe in a paragraph how this chicanery shall bear out. Hint: waste of natural resources including, but not limited to, breath/intellectual fora/quasi-military activation/my patience. Damn, kids. Nobody's bombing anyone. And buy your favorite muslim a whiskey.

:thumbsup: first post

 

[JEDIYoda]

A: I haven't found an Economist article concerning Israel "interesting," or even valid, in some time now.
B: I cannot fathom why bookish arse baskets relying entirely upon the text of illusory treaties or the establishment of phantom states insist that a complete perusal of all historical documents be financed before a body politic decides on a measure of threat or protection. Buy a ticket for the present, chumps, and do what you must to preserve ideals that you bear and citizens that you protect. I think we can all describe in a paragraph how this chicanery shall bear out. Hint: waste of natural resources including, but not limited to, breath/intellectual fora/quasi-military activation/my patience. Damn, kids. Nobody's bombing anyone. And buy your favorite muslim a whiskey.

hahahaha...back after your meltdown....rofl...way to obvious!!!

 

[blankslate]

I'm not sure what's more stupid; actually doing what I said in that post or you believing I was serious.

My sarcasm/facetiousness detector has been on the fritz lately.

I also haven't organized posters between

Reasonable agree

Reasonable disagree

Batshit insane glad he's on the other side

Batshit insane god he's making us look bad.

=P