'Point of No Return' Israel taking measures to protect itself from Iran nukes

ny sun ^ | October 6, 2004 | New York Sun Staff Editorial

[kezekiel]

Don't expect to catch Iran with its pants down, like Israel did Osirak.

The best way to defy the mullahs their nuke ambitions would be to help the Iranian people kick them to the curb. What are we doing in that regard?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The Mullahs have all the guns and controlls the army. The population is at their mercy. Where do you think we should start ?

[Camel Joe]

What else is there to say but this?

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
Winston Churchill

[ClearCase_guy]

Kerry and Edwards keep talking about how Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and that we should not have pre-emptively attacked them. "They didn't attack us!" They also like to suggest that Iran and North Korea are far greater threats and the Bush Admin is "not doing enough".

Would Kerry pre-emptively attack Iran? How can we KNOW FOR SURE that Iran has nukes? What does the UN say? France and Germany are dealing (very closely!) with Iran -- will they support a pre-emptive strike? If not, should we hold back?

In short, when would Kerry act? And when would he talk? I suspect the answers are "never" and "forever".

[dennisw]

Would Kerry pre-emptively attack Iran? In short, when would Kerry act? And when would he talk? I suspect the answers are "never" and "forever".

Just look at John Kerry's vote during first Gulf War, against military action. This was when we had all the allies assembled that Kerry takes a shine to, such as France and Germany.

In  a crisis John Kerry would spaz out a la Bill Clinton, firing cruise missiles into tents in Afghanistan and aspirin factories in Sudan.

[NonValueAdded]

We do need to remember that President Bush is actively pursuing a war in all respects and that includes diplomacy. He cannot (but I will) say "that taking out Saddam and his regime was the first step in dealing with the problems of Iran, Syria, etc." It should be obvious that he cannot utter those words even if it is universally understood.

Let's say that all agreed that Iran was and is more of a danger that Iraq. Militarily, how could one possibly do anything about Iran when we had Saddam tying down a good portion of our Air Force? Imagine what kinds of interference would take place. Saddam could ratchet up his provocations just as things were getting hot and heavy had we acted first in Iran.

It should be clear to almost anyone that dealing with Iraq was a necessary prelude to anything further, agreeing that Afghanistan was the very first step in direct response to 9-11. I like to look at it that Afghanistan was the response to avenge 9-11 and Iraq was the response to prevent the next 9-11.

While dealing with Iraq, we would had the time to pursue the hopeful (but likely futile) diplomatic efforts that are necessary before committing troops. There was stated hope that the example of Iraq would change some minds in the region (picture Libya), build up the student opposition in Iran, and put our forces on the borders of Iran in friendly bases to act as the big stick while we spoke softly to the mullahs.

[Rummyfan]

I don't think Kerry would ever take action either. Listening to Breck Boy last night I thought some of the things he said about Iraq were borderline treasonous. And where did they get this mantra that 'OBL was trapped in Tora Bora and the President outsourced the action to Afghan warlords'? I tell ya, these two are extremely dangerous to the nation (sKerry / Edwards I mean). I hope the sheeple are on to their games.

[brooklyn dave]

dennisw,
Truly, the Iranians are prepared for Israel to strike.
I thought it foolish that we're not really doing anything to support any insurgency movement within Iran....kinda stupid on our part. Kerry makes me sick with all his wanting to kow tow to the Frogs and Krauts. We know that the UN is the only place where the French can feel relevant. Their supporters in the State Dept. are unwilling to embarrass the crap out of them by showing the proof that they violated the Oil for Food program by giving Hussein material to make weapons. Europe has a different agenda than we do...we should face up to it.

[ClearCase_guy]

You are correct: First Gulf War is the proper point of reference. A hostile nation (Iraq) had crossed an internation boundary, and invaded a neighbor (Kuwait) in an unprovoked attack. We formed a massive coalition, with France, and Germany, and Arab nations, and we put it to a vote in the Senate. And John Kerry said we still were not justified in using our military.

This man would have called for a summit with Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Disgusting.

[bicyclerepair]

I don't think the sheeple are onto skerry's games. skerry is counting on the sheeple's ignorance. Who said that eventually voters would vote in whoever gave them the most? Was it Madison, Jefferson could you email me?

TooDamTall1@yahoo.com

I'm depressed.

[Rummyfan]

I know the quote you are referring to but do not recall the author. Fear not, the Day of Reckoning is coming: November 2nd!

[monday]

"Don't expect to catch Iran with its pants down, like Israel did Osirak."

The Israelis can do whatever they want militarily in the middle east. Iran isn't even in the same league.

"The best way to defy the mullahs their nuke ambitions would be to help the Iranian people kick them to the curb. What are we doing in that regard?"

Nothing. If the US government were seen as helping the Iranian opposition get rid of the Mullahs, it would be the death knell for the Iranian opposition.

Muslims can fight amongst themselves only so long as they do not ally themselves with non Muslims. Once a non Muslim entity joins the fight, all will join sides against it. This is why so much of the Iraqi population finds it so hard to support our troops or the Iraqi provisional government.

I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand?

[monday]

"I thought it foolish that we're not really doing anything to support any insurgency movement within Iran....kinda stupid on our part. "



see #13

[kezekiel]

Nothing. If the US government were seen as helping the Iranian opposition get rid of the Mullahs, it would be the death knell for the Iranian opposition.

I think that pro-American sentiment is strong in the Iranian resistance. They are not your typical anti-Western Islamists... in fact, the population is weary of enforced Islamic life and wants to liberalize.

My point about Israel is that surprise would be much more difficult to acheive against the Iranians. You may believe they are invulnerable, but I promise you that the guys making the flight know that the odds get a lot worse when the enemy is expecting you.

[mojito]

The Israelis see this as an act of national survival, an act for the survival of the Jewish people. They will throw everything they have at the mullahs, even nukes, if they have to. I think the administration has green lighted this, because, essentially, I think that Bush sees the problem in the same way.

[Scythian]

I hope Israel seeks UN approval first

[A CA Guy]

I think the Israelies will fly to high to hit and will then drop a nice equalizer on the "Religion of Peace" nuclear plant.

Kerry said he would give them the radiated stuff they need to make the bomb in the interst of peace anyway, so we need to vote Bush.

[Professional Engineer]

ping

[monday]

"I think that pro-American sentiment is strong in the Iranian resistance. They are not your typical anti-Western Islamists... in fact, the population is weary of enforced Islamic life and wants to liberalize."

This is true but in order to ever have a chance of throwing the Mullahs out they have to convince the military to join them. This is how every revolution is won. Without military support resistance is futile. The military will never support the resistance if they join forces with the US govt.

Soldiers may be tired of the Mullahs too, but they are too patriotic and conservative to join forces with infidels. It just isn't going to happen.