A preemptive war against Iran

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

From the article:
It wasn't expressed specifically that there would be an attack, but I believe it can be reasonably assumed that Ahmadinejad would do it. Why else would be testing nuclear weapons?

For power. For negotiating position. For leverage.

Why was there mass celebration in the streets of Indian and Pakistan when each country went nuclear? Because it meaned that got to eat at the adults' table, not at the kids' table. That's what Iran wants.

The question is, how much blood is it worth to prevent Iran from eating at the adults' table?

This idea that Iran will detonate a nuke the first moment possible is not one I give any credence to.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

For power. For negotiating position. For leverage.

Why was there mass celebration in the streets of Indian and Pakistan when each country went nuclear? Because it meaned that got to eat at the adults' table, not at the kids' table. That's what Iran wants.

The question is, how much blood is it worth to prevent Iran from eating at the adults' table?

This idea that Iran will detonate a nuke the first moment possible is not one I give any credence to.

We'll have to agree to disagree about this. I'm not as willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a man as hateful as Ahmadinejad as you seem to be.

I'm not saying that we need a war with Iran. I'm just saying that I believe Iran will nuke Israel and the US the first chance it gets.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

For power. For negotiating position. For leverage.

Why was there mass celebration in the streets of Indian and Pakistan when each country went nuclear? Because it meaned that got to eat at the adults' table, not at the kids' table. That's what Iran wants.

The question is, how much blood is it worth to prevent Iran from eating at the adults' table?

This idea that Iran will detonate a nuke the first moment possible is not one I give any credence to.

I'd like to know what magical ball it is a a US president can look through to tell when a crazy dictator is serious, and when he's just saber rattling.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

We'll have to agree to disagree about this. I'm not as willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a man as hateful as Ahmadinejad as you seem to be.

I'm not saying that we need a war with Iran. I'm just saying that I believe Iran will nuke Israel and the US the first chance it gets.

I actually believe that there are two choices here: 1) a nuclear Iran that we negotiate with, 2) a burned to the ground Iran, and a burned to the ground Israel, along with a devastated world economy trying to run on a 40% fuel decrease.

A. is not crazy. He's crazy like a fox.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'd like to know what magical ball it is a a US president can look through to tell when a crazy dictator is serious, and when he's just saber rattling.

I guess Truman was a crazy dictator. Since he's the only one that dropped nukes on civilian populations.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I actually believe that there are two choices here: 1) a nuclear Iran that we negotiate with, 2) a burned to the ground Iran, and a burned to the ground Israel, along with a devastated world economy trying to run on a 40% fuel decrease.

A. is not crazy. He's crazy like a fox.

Can negotiations happen with a man who wants to see the world without the USA and Israel?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Can negotiations happen with a man who wants to see the world without the USA and Israel?

A wise man knows when he is about to get his face cut, and when the sword is merely being rattled.

There's a lot of things you and I want to see the world without. It doesn't mean that we invest our blood in making it happen.

Iran wants to be the big dog in the region. It wants to the strong regime that is the envy of the middle east. While all the other regimes tuck their tales, Iran says "you are not going to push us around."

Do we really feel like knocking out this punk kid, knowing we are going to break our hand in the process?

[YOhio]

Seymour Hersh has been all over the Iran issue for the past couple of years. His recent article had this story. Very interesting, if true.

A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.” (A spokesman for Gates confirmed that he discussed the consequences of a strike at the meeting, but would not address what he said, other than to dispute the senator’s characterization.)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...printable=true

[MikeWaters]

Gates is probably the most competent person in the entire Bush administration past and present.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

A wise man knows when he is about to get his face cut, and when the sword is merely being rattled.

There's a lot of things you and I want to see the world without. It doesn't mean that we invest our blood in making it happen.

Iran wants to be the big dog in the region. It wants to the strong regime that is the envy of the middle east. While all the other regimes tuck their tales, Iran says "you are not going to push us around."

Do we really feel like knocking out this punk kid, knowing we are going to break our hand in the process?

Again, I'm not saying lets blow up Iran. I just don't trust Ahmedinejhad.