No, it would not be deterred in the least.
Posted on 03/17/2011 4:03:57 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Israel has the right to prevent its civilians from being murdered by Iranian weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction. Iran would have no legal standing to protest a surgical attack on its nuclear facilities that are designing weapons that could be used to achieve Iran's declared goal of wiping Israel off the map and killing millions of its citizens. The leaders of Iran have publicly declared that a nuclear exchange, killing millions of Jews and Muslims, would be acceptable to them because it would destroy Israel while only damaging Islam. A suicide nation cannot be deterred by the threat of retaliation. Israel's only realistic option may be a preventive military strike of the kind it conducted against Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. That surgical attack may have saved countless lives at the cost of one single casualty. By the way, Iran too tried to destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor, but failed. Certainly Israel has the right to do what Iran itself tried to do -- namely prevent a lethal enemy from developing weapons capable of mass murder of its citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at hudson-ny.org ...
He states his case for Casus Belli.
“a nuclear exchange, killing millions of Jews and Muslims, would be acceptable to them because it would destroy Israel while only damaging Islam”
Mutually Assured Destruction is only a valid tactic against rational people.
Moon worshippers are not rational, hence they make not have nuclear weapons.
It's like an intruder in your house, a verbal warning only gives him more time to kill you.
Kill the bastard and please read, then follow my tag line.
I am beginning to think that Israel has no other option but to nuke Iran first.
They’ve had that right since Ahmadinutjob first announced they were interested in nukes.
....I like Dershowitz’s reasoning on this...I also like the fact that he has endorsed torture on terrorists in the past.
I can now count the things I agree with Alan on, on one finger. Maybe two it I spent time thinking about it.
LOL!
/bingo
Even better is that while the state of Israel is destroyed, the entire lands of the Arabs become uninhabitable. Most of the world’s Jewish population live outside Israel. If it came to a war annilation, the Jewish peoples who live around the world could then hunt down the remaining non-christian Arabs and wipe them out easier than the Arabs could continue the war on Jew’s throughout the nations of the world.
Dershowitz quoted Geo Washington, but GW only had to deal with other Infidels.
Muslims aren't fighting for country, family, grievances etc.
They are fighting to accomplish what Allah wants done.
If Iran has the means to nuke Israel, there is no downside. If you get killed doing it-you will have an eternal reward.
On the other hand; if you have the means to destroy Israel and don't do it, because you are worried about your earthly life, Allah's punishment will be worse than death.- Tom
Are you currently serving on the USS Alaska? I was so excited to see your name. My son served on that sub for a couple of years. About 2001 to 2003, he was a cook. It was in dry dock when he first got assigned to it.
No, it would not be deterred in the least.
>> I am beginning to think that Israel has no other option but to nuke Iran first.
The only thing that needs to happen is quality cooperation among the West’s intelligence agencies unimpeded by Leftwing saboteurs. Everything else would then fall into place.
Tonight Piers Morgan had an interview with Bibi on CNN...which proved Morgan a complete and utter fool. Bibi, when pushed to explain why Israel wouldn’t do the right thing and make more concessions to the Palestinians and Hamas, said more than once that they’d made concessions, given land to the Palestinians and who’d moved in? Iran. He said they refused to do it again. The interview showcased antiSemitism rampant in Europe, driven home with each rude, baldfaced suggestion of Morgan’s. Why didn’t Bibi seize the opportunity to make a place for himself in history, act boldly, and give Palestinians whatever they wanted, never mind the butchery of the Fogel family, nor that they’d just intercepted another shipload of Iranian supplied arms meant for Hamas. That set the tone for the entire interview.
This is the first time I've seen this idea of a "suicide nation", as in "suicide bomber". It's a quantum leap in the concept of fanatacism -- as if a whole country had turned Phineas priest. It's a new idea.
I would, however, make a substantial cavil against Dershowitz's reasoning. Unlike the Nazis, who (despite later claims to the contrary) arguably carried along the whole of German society with them to their Goetterdaemmerung in 1945, Iranian society is known to be dominated by fanatics (the mullahs) who constitute only a small fraction of the society at large, and whose support base within the population was heavily drawn down by their wars against Saddam -- millions died. They now have barely enough support to keep the ranks of their security police and security militias (storm troopers) filled. Their hold on Iran is not at all solid.
Therefore I'd argue that Dershowitz's descriptor of Iran as a "suicide nation" is not satisfied. "Suicide regime", maybe.
Which makes it harder to justify, as some posters above argue, the use of nuclear weapons against Iranian facilities.
Since Bibi has decided to go “chicken little” on nuclear power in Israel following the Fukushima situation, I guess Syria, Iran and Iraq won’t have to bomb Israel’s nuclear power plant construction. Or would that kind of strike only be ok for Israel?
Maybe Piers Morgan is trying to make it easy for Bibi to show him up. The tide turns in unexpected ways.
I got a chuckle out of Bibi’s statement.
/bingo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.