enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Page 1 of 2 (24 items)   1 2 Next >
have at it
by gmat

I have never been present for any discussion of any measures that could even thinkably be taken against Tehran that does not focus obsessively and exclusively on the possibly calamitous outcomes. Israel hits Iran and—well, you fill in the rest.

Well, Bolton says it wouldn't be all that bad if Israel bombs Iran. I say, bomb away, Israel, if that's what you feel is necessary for your security.

As for the US bombing Iran, or invading Iran, why bother? Iran is no threat to the US, and right now we have other fish to fry.

Re: have at it
by candoxx

Oh, sure, there are no consequences if Israel bombs Iran!

In your virtual world, right here in the USA, there are no consequences for the flattening of Lebanon, either, except that you have secured the eternal hatred of most LEbanese, especially those who suffer from those 1.5 million cluster bombs still going off in South Lebanon.

My, my, you can behave with absolute impunity, according to Bolton et al.

How brain dead are you all?

Re: have at it
by gmat

Take it easy. Bolton didn't say no consequences. He just said, from Israel's perspective, the consequences were better than the alternative.

As for the USA, I'm in favor of distinguishing between Israel's security interests and US security interests. Didn't you read that part?

Re: have at it
by GreenwichJ

"Iran is no threat to the US, and right now we have other fish to fry."

I rather dispute this.

Iran is littoral to the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow bottleneck through which a vast quantity of the world's oil flows. The last year the US economy managed to expand without Gulf oil was 1971.

Iran has frequently said that it views the Strait as a legitimate military target. During the "tanker wars" of the late 1980s the Iranian military attacked oil tankers passing through the Strait, until it was stopped by the US Fifth Fleet.

The Fifth Fleet would no longer be able to keep the Strait open if Iran was nuclear capable, because Iran could hit the Fleet, the Strait, Saudi oil fields and US regional bases with nuclear weapons. This would cause a catastrophic recession in America.

Re: have at it
by gmat
sorry, I should have said, credible threat.
Re: have at it
by GreenwichJ

Islamic terrorists flying jetliners into the WTC wasn't a 'credible' threat, either.

It was an 'incredible threat'.

I suggest you read Nassim Taleb's The Black Swan.

Re: have at it
by jammer
Typical neocon, it's all about the oil.
Re: have at it
by jammer
No, I suggest you read Steve Alten's "The Shell Game", it's all about the oil.
Re: have at it
by cogitorum

The Fifth Fleet would no longer be able to keep the Strait open if Iran was nuclear capable, because Iran could hit the Fleet, the Strait, Saudi oil fields and US regional bases with nuclear weapons. This would cause a catastrophic recession in America

well, yes, a "catastrophic recession in America" would certainly be one of the outcomes, but it would pale to insignificance relative to the US response to any use of nuclear weapons by the Iranians: Tehran would glow in the dark, and most of Iran would be uninhabitable for centuries. Surely you don't think the Iranians are stupid enough to initiate a nuclear exchange with a country which has a stockpile of thousands of the things? It's simply not a realistic scenario.

Re: have at it
by gmat
I ordered it. Thanks for the tip. It looks like a good one.
I say
by reJoinder
..that they should drop Bolton on Iran. Sure, he's a dirty bomb, but something HAS to be done...
Re: have at it
by Neolefty

Islamic terrorists flying jetliners into the WTC wasn't a 'credible' threat, either.

None of them were Iranian and on the scale of things, it was not a threat to the US. The same numbers die on our roads every year, but we keep driving.

Does anyone really believe
by reJoinder

...that if they used nuclear weapons against the U.S. Fleet or any other U.S. possession or base, that we wouldn't turn Teheran into a glass parking lot?

I'm quite sure the Mullahs know this, at least. I think that this rather militates against any such dreadful outcome as you imagine.

Thousands, or even hundreds
by reJoinder
That's why they're not going to attack Israel, either. If they DO want nuclear weapons, it's probably for two reasons: prestige, and self-defense against the Zionist regime.
Don't agree
by reJoinder
Individuals may act in self-destructive ways, but nations seldom do. Even Hitler thought that he would win, up until the moment in the bunker when he shot himself.
Page 1 of 2 (24 items)   1 2 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML