Attacking another country because of what they MIGHT do in the future

[BushOut06]

Let me get this straight - Israel wants to attack Iran because it's convinced that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. These nukes present an imminent threat to Israel's survival, therefore preemptive action must be taken to ensure that it doesn't happen. Yet there is no concrete proof that Iran is actually developing nukes. All we have to rely on is the combined intelligence agencies of the world - among whom there is plenty of disagreement.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

[breakaleg]

1. If nothing else, they should learn from the US' mistakes. Look what a mess

Iraq turned out to be, and they didn't even have any WMDs.

[tsuki]

2. Yes, it's called "preventive war," and it's a crock. n/t

[Poll_Blind]

3. Actually this was the same "defense" used when they bombed Osirak...

...nuclear reactor in Iraq back in 1981.

From the Wiki on Operation Opera:

International political reaction

At the time, the attack was widely criticized. Israel responded that its actions were self-defensive and thus justifiable under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Many critics, however, rejected the idea of "pre-emptive self-defense". France, in particular, was outraged over the loss of a French national as a result of the attack, and since the raid diplomatic ties between France and Israel have remained strained.

The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 487, calling upon Israel "to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards", and stated that Iraq was "entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it suffered". Israel has not complied with these requests.

The United States supported the resolution condemning the Israeli action, and, temporarily, withheld a contingent of aircraft already promised to Israel.

Since that time, opinion has altered somewhat. Most notably several prominent US politicians — now that the United States is engaged in her own conflict with Iraq — have "retroactively supported" the operation. Those who believe that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons in the 1980s view Operation Opera as necessary action, even if the legality of such action under international law is a contested point. However, as no WMDs to present are found in Iraq, it has been criticized that the attack is baseless as a self-defensive act.

PB

[PA Democrat]

4. Yes, but its being taken up a notch this time around.

Israel is reportedly planning to use tactical nukes.

And it seems that there are some members of DU who don't have a problem with that.

I must say that I feel sick.

[Erika]

6. Anyone who entertains Nukes are neanderthals

The blowback would hurt Israel as much as it did their neighbors. It's all hype or stupidity.

[liberal hypnotist]

18. Bunker busters

If they used such a bomb, it would explode deep within the earth. Maybe this makes sense to anyone thinking of using nukes. Remember, not to long ago, Young George floated the idea of using nukes against Iran.

[Superman Returns]

9. if nukes are necessary

than they should be used. Considering that would be the first use of an atomic weapon since 1945, making Israel the second nation in history to use them, it would create so much backlash, hatred, and anti-semitism against Jewish people, in both the Muslim world and internationally that I am deeply afraid. It would also create a dangerious precedent in terms of using nukes, further radicalize the Muslim world, and probably create more global violence, especially with our troops next door in Iraq. That is why it should be a last last last resort.

[Erika]

10. Israel is not being threatened.

It would be seen as an act of aggression.

[cubs4life]

12. Brilliant comment.

Israel is threatened every day of its existence.

Day after day Israel's right to exist is questioned on this very website. Israel's existence is not even recognized by the majority of the Islamic world. Tell me how that doesn't equate to a threat.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. And if Israel

is in fact planning on using nukes, then Iran is justified in believing that their very existence is endangered.

See how that works?

[liberal hypnotist]

19. A good point

Israel is a complex and highly emotional situation. It is an area that has the potential to change the world as we know it. We need to become informed and inform others with facts and employ critical thinking. Our government started the ball rolling with the "axis of evil" comment.

How can we influence good sense in the mid-east?

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

22. Hard to influence anything when you are not actively involved in

any kind of middle east peace process.

The US should become actively engaged in seeking the 2 state solution. Like Carter did, like Clinton did, and others.

Either they are SO lazy, and/or they want everything to get worse as they wait for the rapture and/or the opportune moment to make the PNAC nightmare a reality.

[liberal hypnotist]

25. I think it is about the rapture.

I want to laugh when I think it is about the rapture but, there is one guy that may really believe it. Boy George could be serious about talking to god.

[PA Democrat]

11. Nukes are NOT necessary

Using nukes in today's nuclear world is tantamount to committing murder/ suicide on a mass scale.

[Erika]

5. Certainly negates the Christian Golden Rule

I heard the W adminstration is being torn between Chile and Mozambique as the next target.

[seabeyond]

7. we live this way in our nation and many are in agreement of it.

prosecute for what might have happened. seems to be becoming more and more popular. no wonder our govt can get this past the american people. seems to be close to the heart for many.

[illinoisprogressive]

8. Gee, this sounds so familar to another stupid plan - oh wait!

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

13. See "The One Percent Doctrine" by Ron Suskind n/t

[Bucky]

24. So Iraq turned out to be a mistake, but out of the next 98 invasions....

...we're bound to end up attacking somebody who plans to attack us. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the more countries we attack, the more likely we are to find people who mean to do us harm.

[driver8]

14. I got into a huge argument with my father-in-law last weekend about this.

He is VERY, VERY Pro-Israel and, when forming opinions, how issues will affect that country greatly influence him.

Anyhow, I have learned to avoid talking politics with him because he pisses me off and it's not worth the hassle. However, last weekend he started talking about bombing Iran because we had to protect Israel. I aske him, "Who made the US the 'nuclear police'? What right do we have to attack a country because of what they 'might do'." He told me that we had to protect ourselves at all costs; If Iran developed nuclear weapons they would use them. I asked him about North Korea -- They have been developing a nuclear weapons program, why aren't we bombing the shit out of them? They must certainly be seen as a threat. I told him that there was no oil sitting under North Korea so we don't give a shit about them. He said, "I don't think oil has anything to do with it."

His pro-Israel stance gets a little old sometimes.

[shanti]

16. it's all in the PNAC

read up. it's part of their plan, and they have every intention of completing their plan before *ush is out of DC on his ass.

[SoCalDem]

17. "Mommmm, he's gonna hit meeee".. "Daaaaad, she's looookin at me" n/t

no grown ups in DC, apparently :eyes:

[no_hypocrisy]

20. If you assumed that logic was cogent and sound, then wouldn't Iran be

justified in attacking Israel because it MAY attack it in the future before Israel attacked Iran because it MAY attack Israel in the future?

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

21. Ron Suskind really does present a compelling and sobering

discussion of the doctrine that underlies the administrations policies in his book "The One Percent Doctrine."

He describes the Chainyman saying in public they were going to have to go to a dark side.

If there's even a one percent chance someone might be thinking about doing something, then per their doctrine, you strike pre-emptively.

Very dangerous thinking.

[Bucky]

23. There are plenty of examples in history of preemptive strikes against potential invaders

France wisely invaded the Saar Valley in 1923 and destroyed Germany's economic infrastructure, preciently foreseeing that Germany might pose a threat to them later (and history proved them right!).

Japan continually stanched the tide of Chinese Communism throughout the modern era--in 1894, 1914, 1931, and 1937--launching devastating attacks against China, where a young communist insurgency was developing. Although China fell under Mao's sway, Japan today is thankfully free of the Red Menace.

In 1846 the United States invaded Mexico, due to incredible foresight of General Zachary Taylor and President James Polk, a full 68 years before the bandit Pancho Villa attacked us. Indeed, had Taylor not invaded Mexico, Villa would have ended up invading lands that were part of his own country!!

So don't tell me that preemptive invasions are counterproductive bloody messes! History's lessons on the need for militarism are perfectly clear. Hitting them first, whether they can hit you or not, clearly solves problems that don't even exist! I'm series!!1!

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

26. Attacking everyone on the planet could indeed hold solutions to many of the problems that

plague our world.

1 Overpopulation, nothing like a good chaotic invasion to decimate a population of local peoples.
2 Global Warming, after a while there will no longer be that many vehicles left to burn fossil fuels anyhow.
3 Imperialism, if we take over the planet then Imperialism becomes a mere memory of days gone by. Oh for the good old days of seeking hegemony will be the lament of the neocons.


Add your own.

;)

[tabasco]

27. Israel is a leading military and nuclear power. They can take care of themselves.

It is time to end the "joined at the hip" status with the United States.

[Initech]

28. Actually, this sounds like Bush is trying to outsource the Iran invasion.

He sure as hell knows this country can't afford another war, let alone the current mess we're in. If Isreal attacks Iran, it gets Bush off the hook. Of course, it'd also be the start of World War III, but still....

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

29. Yep, I'm afraid you are correct. n/t