Time is Not on the World's Side: The Iranian Threat

[ajwps]

yup--so what do you think would happen to the US if Israel were wiped off the map?

BE NEXT

 

[dilloduck]

BE NEXT

I think you over estimate Israels importance to the US but that is your nature.

 

[freeandfun1]

I think you over estimate Israels importance to the US but that is your nature.

I agree with AJ on this one. Do you really think the Muslims will stop if Israel did not exist tomorrow? Hell, there are more Jews living in the USA than in Israel (maybe not, but close I am sure) and I am sure they will just start killing Jews here. So it will never end until the Muslims are tamed.

 

[drac]

Many do not understand the covert relationship between the United States and Israel in the fight against world terrorism. For the past several years the US has been sharing technology and actions with America investing in Israel's activities against the same enemies that threaten the US.

The United States has been using Israel to covertly prevent power accumulation' in the ME dictatorships that threaten our shores. The US has used Israel to test new weapons systems against in actual battle and to control Muslim coalitions in the Arab countries. To this goal, Israel has been very effective.

Right now GW Bush is in his campaign mode and cannot afford to take this dramatic step to end Iran's nuclear threat but Israel can be used by its relationship with America to do what is necessary in a timely manner.

In the end, it probably won't be the US who attacks Iran. The unknown factor is the ability of Iran to retaliate if their nuclear weapons centers are wiped out. The time window is closing rapidly for once the Iranian government has enough nukes and delivery systems, the ability to end this threat will be nullified. This equation is probably being weighed and developed as we speak with 'sources' that are giving this vital information to both countries intelligence agencies.

Israel will probably be the one to do the deed, take the world's wrath but be doing what the two allies have agreed is both right and necessary to end the threat to the world and Israel.

Time is short....

I think you are reaching on this one. Israel cannot and will not attack iran, unless they attack first. Iran learned its lessons from iraq and they do not have all eggs in one bucket. iranian nuclear facilities are well spread out and i am not sure if israel can cover them all in one shot. Also, attacking iran will affect relationship with friendly muslims goverments (jordan and egypt), the attack will create a pressure on those goverment to stop any support and dealing with israel. Plus you are opening northen side of israel and getting syria and lebanon being directly involved. Plus do not forget UN.

In any case, how does it related to to iraq?

 

[DKSuddeth]

I think you are reaching on this one. Israel cannot and will not attack iran, unless they attack first. Iran learned its lessons from iraq and they do not have all eggs in one bucket. iranian nuclear facilities are well spread out and i am not sure if israel can cover them all in one shot. Also, attacking iran will affect relationship with friendly muslims goverments (jordan and egypt), the attack will create a pressure on those goverment to stop any support and dealing with israel. Plus you are opening northen side of israel and getting syria and lebanon being directly involved. Plus do not forget UN.

and yet that did not stop them from bombing Iraq. Israel will never face UN sanctions if they bomb Iran due to the US veto that would inevitably happen.

 

[drac]

I agree with AJ on this one. Do you really think the Muslims will stop if Israel did not exist tomorrow? Hell, there are more Jews living in the USA than in Israel (maybe not, but close I am sure) and I am sure they will just start killing Jews here. So it will never end until the Muslims are tamed.

I do not think they will be trying to kill jews here, but i agree that western/radical islamist clash will not stop after destruction of israel.

 

[drac]

and yet that did not stop them from bombing Iraq. Israel will never face UN sanctions if they bomb Iran due to the US veto that would inevitably happen.

Situation was different, world was different. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unres487.html)
It was 1981, not 2004. I believe dynamic of the situation changed significantly. Plus the difficulty of bombing iran vs iraq is much more. (they know of possibility). I would not argue it will not happen, cause you always can have a cituation where israel have only one way out. My argument that at this time, it is very unlikely.

 

[dilloduck]

I do not think they will be trying to kill jews here, but i agree that western/radical islamist clash will not stop after destruction of israel.

I was merely referring to AJs comment about Americas' "symbiotic" relationship with Israel. Ya gotta admit it's pretty one sided even tho AJ is pretty good at boasting for Israel. Of course the war would go on. What would happen to Israel if America was rendered impotent?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Situation was different, world was different. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unres487.html)
It was 1981, not 2004. I believe dynamic of the situation changed significantly. Plus the difficulty of bombing iran vs iraq is much more. (they know of possibility). I would not argue it will not happen, cause you always can have a cituation where israel have only one way out. My argument that at this time, it is very unlikely.

lets see, iraq was bombed because they were building WMD's. that was 1981. Iran MIGHT be bombed because they are building WMD's. This is 2004. oh yeah. HUGE difference.

 

[drac]

I was merely referring to AJs comment about Americas' "symbiotic" relationship with Israel. Ya gotta admit it's pretty one sided even tho AJ is pretty good at boasting for Israel. Of course the war would go on. What would happen to Israel if America was rendered impotent?

I agree with you, i believe in middle ground. I do not think there is a symbiotic relationship b/n israel and usa in full meaning of this term. usa and israel have a lot of things in common and as alies are definately helping each other and work with each other very close. But there was time then relationship was not as close. Who knows what will happen in the long run. I do believe israel will have much harder time if usa was rendered impotent, but it will survive, on the other hand effect of destruction of israel will not affect usa as much, but will produce some negative effect and create some difficulty for us

 

[drac]

lets see, iraq was bombed because they were building WMD's. that was 1981. Iran MIGHT be bombed because they are building WMD's. This is 2004. oh yeah. HUGE difference.

Well.. if you do not see the difference in geo-political situation today vs 1981 or do not think there is one, i disagree.

Lets look at just one point: Prior to 1981 no other country did what israel did. Iraq was not prepared for it, they could not even believe it and they could not even act at that time. Today iran knows it could happen, it ready and it can act indirectly against israel (lebanon border) or usa (iraq).

Like i said, ISRAEL MIGHT attack iran nuclear facilities if they have no choice or situation on the ground changed, but it HIGHLY unlikely as of today imho.

 

[007]

I do not think they will be trying to kill jews here, but i agree that western/radical islamist clash will not stop after destruction of israel.

The destruction of Israel? Do you have any idea what would be left if Israel were destroyed? Not too frickin' much! You don't think Israel has American short and medium range nuclear missiles? It might not be advertised, but I'd bet before Israel EVER fell, there'd be destruction in the middle east like never before seen.

Maybe that's what we need.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Well.. if you do not see the difference in geo-political situation today vs 1981 or do not think there is one, i disagree.

Lets look at just one point: Prior to 1981 no other country did what israel did. Iraq was not prepared for it, they could not even believe it and they could not even act at that time. Today iran knows it could happen, it ready and it can act indirectly against israel (lebanon border) or usa (iraq).

Like i said, ISRAEL MIGHT attack iran nuclear facilities if they have no choice or situation on the ground changed, but it HIGHLY unlikely as of today imho.

Iran is on record stating that Israel should be destroyed, whether iran uses nukes or not and if they have them or get them they will most likely use them, and you do not think that Iran would launch a first strike trying to eliminate Israel?

secondly, what is this big geo political difference between iraq then and iran now? other than iraq was a secular dictatorship and iran is a theocracy.

 

[drac]

The destruction of Israel? Do you have any idea what would be left if Israel were destroyed? Not too frickin' much! You don't think Israel has American short and medium range nuclear missiles? It might not be advertised, but I'd bet before Israel EVER fell, there'd be destruction in the middle east like never before seen.

Maybe that's what we need.

I was just replying to freeandfun1 post

I agree with AJ on this one. Do you really think the Muslims will stop if Israel did not exist tomorrow? Hell, there are more Jews living in the USA than in Israel (maybe not, but close I am sure) and I am sure they will just start killing Jews here. So it will never end until the Muslims are tamed.

The point being that radical islam vs western world confrontation will not go away with israel not existing tomorrow.

 

[drac]

Iran is on record stating that Israel should be destroyed, whether iran uses nukes or not and if they have them or get them they will most likely use them, and you do not think that Iran would launch a first strike trying to eliminate Israel?

secondly, what is this big geo political difference between iraq then and iran now? other than iraq was a secular dictatorship and iran is a theocracy.

Hm.. it is 2 questions in one post.

1. Yes iran does not like israel very much. Would it use nukes if it got some against israel? I do not know if they will risk direct confrontation, perhapse by using some proxy.

2. i was talking about political situation in the world, not just in those 2 countries. plus i gave an example of why it would be difficult to attack iran now.

 

[ajwps]

I was merely referring to AJs comment about Americas' "symbiotic" relationship with Israel. Ya gotta admit it's pretty one sided even tho AJ is pretty good at boasting for Israel. Of course the war would go on. What would happen to Israel if America was rendered impotent?

From a boaster-booster of Isreal:

If America were rendered impotent, Israel would continue much like they did before America became an ally of Israel.

Israel does not need to rely on America for its survival. One only has to look at the wars waged against Israel since 1948. Israel has the capacity and wherewithall to defend itself. Israel has their own weapons technology and manufacturing capability apart from the USA.

You would be surprised to see how a people with their back against the sea can find ways to defeat any oncomers.

 

[ajwps]

Iran is on record stating that Israel should be destroyed, whether iran uses nukes or not and if they have them or get them they will most likely use them, and you do not think that Iran would launch a first strike trying to eliminate Israel?

secondly, what is this big geo political difference between iraq then and iran now? other than iraq was a secular dictatorship and iran is a theocracy.

The question is whether or not Iran can or will use nukes against Israel? Iran will have to successully deliver nukes or any weapons into Israel territory without having their missles destroyed shortly after they leave their silos. Israel probably already has this technology as seen by the recent tests conducted off the Pacific coast last week in conjunction with the US Pentagon.

Your second question as to whether a secular or a theocratic dictatorship makes any difference becomes academic. Dictatorships have many inborn problems that lend themselves to self destruction without a willing and subservient army to back them.

Usually the military leaders decides the dictators time is up and a sudden military junta takes the reigns of government.

 

[ajwps]

lets see, iraq was bombed because they were building WMD's. that was 1981. Iran MIGHT be bombed because they are building WMD's. This is 2004. oh yeah. HUGE difference.

Lets see what that HUGE difference is between 1981 and 2004 in Iran.

From available reports from inside Iran, they haven't got the tactical or stragegic resources to go against high tech Israel's jet warplanes. Israel has flown over and bombed Syria without one loss and before they knew what happened. That was in 2004.

http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/2003/August/flyover/flyover.html

Your statement seems to indicate that Iran has improved technologically while Israel hasn't moved one foot forward in military anti-missle systems.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Lets see what that HUGE difference is between 1981 and 2004 in Iran.


Your statement seems to indicate that Iran has improved technologically while Israel hasn't moved one foot forward in military anti-missle systems.

then you read it wrong. I wasn't referring to anything but basic positions as far as Iraq was building the potential to attack Israel, Israel stopped it by bombing the facility. Iran is building the potential to attack Israel, and Israel will probably bomb the facilities to stop that attack. I didn't feel the need to go any further than that to explain anything.

 

[ajwps]

then you read it wrong. I wasn't referring to anything but basic positions as far as Iraq was building the potential to attack Israel, Israel stopped it by bombing the facility. Iran is building the potential to attack Israel, and Israel will probably bomb the facilities to stop that attack. I didn't feel the need to go any further than that to explain anything.

DKSuddeth original statement: "Originally Posted by DKSuddeth
lets see, iraq was bombed because they were building WMD's. that was 1981. Iran MIGHT be bombed because they are building WMD's. This is 2004. oh yeah. HUGE difference. "

You say I misread your sentence. You say Iraq was building the potential to attack Israel in 1981 then later in your sentence you say Iran is building the potential to attack Israel in 2004. Does this statement agree with your initial statement?

Then you implied that there was a oh yeah, huge difference between Iraq in 1981 and Iran in 2004. Now you qualify that you had no hidden meaning in comparing the time differences with your HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Did you sarcastically mean that there is NO really huge difference in the intervening 23 years or that there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE now because Iran is aware of potentially being attacked and losing their nuclear capability with the implied threat to totally destroy Israel if this feat is attempted?

If you really meant that you don't need to explain your statement any further because the fact remains that Israel will probably attack Iran in the same manner as there is no HUGE DIFFERENCE in any outcome, I appologize.