If there is confirmation.....yes.

"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing."
--President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953,
upon being presented with plans to wage
preventive war to disarm Stalin's Soviet Union

"Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions."
--Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson,
the American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials,
in his opening statement to the tribunal

Yes, because someone who says "death to Israel" "Israel must be wiped from this earth" "Israel will fall" and also arms terrorists in Palestine, terrorists in Lebanon, and terrorists in Iraq is a peaceful nation that just wants to coexist with their neighbors in peace. Thankfully there are no religious extremism in Iran where people are so religious that they commit suicide attacks on children in the street. Iran is the biggest beacon of peace in the Middle East

Iraq.

cman: Yes, because someone who says "death to Israel" "Israel must be wiped from this earth" "Israel will fall" and also arms terrorists in Palestine, terrorists in Lebanon, and terrorists in Iraq is a peaceful nation that just wants to coexist with their neighbors in peace. Thankfully there are no religious extremism in Iran where people are so religious that they commit suicide attacks on children in the street. Iran is the biggest beacon of peace in the Middle East

And, and I want you to think very long, and very hard about this, you don't think that Israel attacking Iran is exactly what they have been trying to troll them into doing? You can't fathom that the whole reason for that is because it would validate every insane, conspiracy theory laden belief about the "Jewish Zionist Mongrels" that Iran has spewed for the last 30 years, and would make them martyrs in the eyes of their Persian and Middle Eastern allies and casual acquaintances?

You really, really don't see the fact that this whole boondoggle could lead into a World War? And that open war between Israel and her neighbors not only has the potential to become nuclear/chemical very quickly, but has a great potential for dragging the United States and NATO into the fray?

Iran isn't Iraq. They aren't Afghanistan. They have a lot of friends in that region because of their posturing and rhetoric. And behind those friends are countries like China and Russia, who are more than happy to help a market for their weapons.

If Israel really wants to be the morally and politically superior one here, they'll focus on preparing, and the whole principle of "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." As sad as it is, Iran - or his allies - are going to have to be the ones to overtly strike first for Israel to be given any sort of acceptance for military action.

Other news reports say that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "all but made the decision" to attack Iran this fall.

But Benji wouldn't try to time it neatly with the US election, no.


cman: Yes, because someone who says "death to Israel" "Israel must be wiped from this earth" "Israel will fall" and also arms terrorists in Palestine, terrorists in Lebanon, and terrorists in Iraq is a peaceful nation that just wants to coexist with their neighbors in peace. Thankfully there are no religious extremism in Iran where people are so religious that they commit suicide attacks on children in the street. Iran is the biggest beacon of peace in the Middle East

By that logic why haven't we wiped North Korea from the map?

I always thought actions spoke louder that words. I guess we're lucky that no one attacked us after the "your with us or against us" foreign policy of a few years back.

Regardless of the prefix you assign to it be it preemptive, or defensive, or proactive, war is war. History has pretty much shown that the nation that fires the first shot is the one that starts it.

doyner: I guess we're lucky that no one attacked us after the "your with us or against us" foreign policy of a few years back.

Luckily, the United States is in the position that only Russia, and maybe China, would be able to wage open war on it. It's also interesting to note that foreign troops landing on American soil, in the past, has been stated as potential justification for the activation of the Single Integrated Operating Plan, and release of nuclear weapons.

In short, the United States is batshiat insane, and the only other countries that are capable of doing so are sane enough to realize this and that they have a lot more to gain being the Odd Couple, rather than openly hostile to eachother.

BronyMedic: In short, the United States is batshiat insane

You do know that there are people pushing for this domestically, and those who aren't. Unremarkably, they are largely the same neoconservative contingent thats been bleating on since the early 1990's.

Classifying the US as "batshiat insane" isn't very descriptive. If that were true, there wouldn't be a need for all this pressure on Obama to act on Iran.

In what respect, L. Michael Hager?

BronyMedic: They have a lot of friends in that region because of their posturing and rhetoric. And behind those friends are countries like China and Russia, who are more than happy to help a market for their weapons.

It's the China/Russia spillover that concerns me. At some point we would ask them to stop sending weapons to Iran, and if they didn't comply what would we do then?

Party Boy: Classifying the US as "batshiat insane" isn't very descriptive. If that were true, there wouldn't be a need for all this pressure on Obama to act on Iran.

No, I disagree. The United States foreign policy in regards to attack by another nation has always been "Batshiat Insane." Overwhelming retaliation was a hallmark of the United States in the post-WWII years, and it was only replaced with measured retaliation when the United States realized that, perhaps, ending the world a la Fallout was not a reasonable, or good idea.

BronyMedic: cman: Yes, because someone who says "death to Israel" "Israel must be wiped from this earth" "Israel will fall" and also arms terrorists in Palestine, terrorists in Lebanon, and terrorists in Iraq is a peaceful nation that just wants to coexist with their neighbors in peace. Thankfully there are no religious extremism in Iran where people are so religious that they commit suicide attacks on children in the street. Iran is the biggest beacon of peace in the Middle East

And, and I want you to think very long, and very hard about this, you don't think that Israel attacking Iran is exactly what they have been trying to troll them into doing? You can't fathom that the whole reason for that is because it would validate every insane, conspiracy theory laden belief about the "Jewish Zionist Mongrels" that Iran has spewed for the last 30 years, and would make them martyrs in the eyes of their Persian and Middle Eastern allies and casual acquaintances?

You really, really don't see the fact that this whole boondoggle could lead into a World War? And that open war between Israel and her neighbors not only has the potential to become nuclear/chemical very quickly, but has a great potential for dragging the United States and NATO into the fray?

Iran isn't Iraq. They aren't Afghanistan. They have a lot of friends in that region because of their posturing and rhetoric. And behind those friends are countries like China and Russia, who are more than happy to help a market for their weapons.

If Israel really wants to be the morally and politically superior one here, they'll focus on preparing, and the whole principle of "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." As sad as it is, Iran - or his allies - are going to have to be the ones to overtly strike first for Israel to be given any sort of acceptance for military action.

You have a valid point. 9/11 was an attempt to draw the American military into openly attacking him. He wanted to do a sequel to the Mujaheddin of Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.

As for this becoming a world war, well, any war has the possibility of becoming one. If Israel attacked Iran I doubt Russia would come to their aid openly. Russia is no longer the powerful Soviet Union. China, however, may be more likely to help. But still, I dont think China would risk its status as the worlds second largest economy for the sake of Iran.

In my personal view, however, I view this as a problem between Israel and Iran. I dont think we should be trying to force ourselves on the situation.

cman: You have a valid point. 9/11 was an attempt to draw the American military into openly attacking bin Laden. He wanted to do a sequel to the Mujaheddin of Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.


ah, crap, forgot to define who "he" was. Fixt

BronyMedic: No, I disagree. The United States foreign policy in regards to attack by another nation has always been "Batshiat Insane."

Thats a bold statement.
Always. Theres more than 200 years of history there to justify. I don't enjoy being in your position to substantiate that.

At any rate, you have slipped past the point where you conflate "the US" as one entity, without differentiating out groups like the neoconservatives who are hardly representative of America as a whole.

BronyMedic: doyner: I guess we're lucky that no one attacked us after the "your with us or against us" foreign policy of a few years back.

Luckily, the United States is in the position that only Russia, and maybe China, would be able to wage open war on it. It's also interesting to note that foreign troops landing on American soil, in the past, has been stated as potential justification for the activation of the Single Integrated Operating Plan, and release of nuclear weapons.

In short, the United States is batshiat insane, and the only other countries that are capable of doing so are sane enough to realize this and that they have a lot more to gain being the Odd Couple, rather than openly hostile to eachother.

I agree entirely--I was merely pointing out the fallacy of the argument presented.

doyner: I agree entirely

The conflation is the problem.

BronyMedic: If Israel really wants to be the morally and politically superior one here, they'll focus on preparing, and the whole principle of "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

If Israel believes that an Iranian nuclear bomb that can target Israel is a possibility, you're asking an awful lot, even for the morally and superior force, to focus on preparation for that and not try to stop it before it occurs.

And if Israel believes an Iranian nuclear bomb is a real possibility, I am not sure what that big stick is other than even more nukes aimed towards Iran and anyone that might support Iran thereby bringing about that WWIII scenario, OR preparations towards a preemptive strike.

Thanks to President Yeehaw and the Unprepared Assholes we already live in that world.

This drum up to war is pretty ridiculous. 

RoyBatty: BronyMedic: If Israel really wants to be the morally and politically superior one here, they'll focus on preparing, and the whole principle of "Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

If Israel believes that an Iranian nuclear bomb that can target Israel is a possibility, you're asking an awful lot, even for the morally and superior force, to focus on preparation for that and not try to stop it before it occurs.

And if Israel believes an Iranian nuclear bomb is a real possibility, I am not sure what that big stick is other than even more nukes aimed towards Iran and anyone that might support Iran thereby bringing about that WWIII scenario, OR preparations towards a preemptive strike.

Conversely, Iran can see that Best Korea has successfully been left alone because of their massive (relative) military and nuclearization whereas Saddam's abandonment of nukes worked out really well for him.

doyner: And if Israel believes an Iranian nuclear bomb is a real possibility, I am not sure what that big stick is other than even more nukes aimed towards Iran and anyone that might support Iran thereby bringing about that WWIII scenario, OR preparations towards a preemptive strike.

Conversely, Iran can see that Best Korea has successfully been left alone because of their massive (relative) military and nuclearization whereas Saddam's abandonment of nukes worked out really well for him.

Sure doesn't look promising for anyone with real estate in the area...

Didn't we do exactly that in Iraq? Look how well that turned out for us.

Party Boy: doyner: I agree entirely

The conflation is the problem.

I'm interested in how you distinguish the difference between factions within our country and our national character that permits and facilitates such episodes of foreign "engagement."

doyner: Party Boy: doyner: I agree entirely

The conflation is the problem.

I'm interested in how you distinguish the difference between factions within our country and our national character that permits and facilitates such episodes of foreign "engagement."

The easy way to do that is to point out the intense pressure on Clinton to act on Iraq in the 1990's, and the intense pressure on Obama to act on Iran now.

Sources and elaboration available at your request. All you need to do is tell me where you want me to specify. This can get long so I'm trying to tailor it to the conversation.

Party Boy: The easy way to do that is to point out the intense pressure on Clinton to act on Iraq in the 1990's, and the intense pressure on Obama to act on Iran now.

Well, let me throw in G H. W. Bush in there too and the pressure to "overthrow Saddam." This is what made Wolfowitz and Perle so butthurt in the early 1990's.

H W Bush loathed the neocons. He had quite a bit of experience with them.

propasaurus: Iraq.

Argentina
Chile
Haiti
Hawaii
Nicaragua
Panama
Philippines
Cuba
Mexico
Korea
Vietnam 

I'm sure I'm missing a few others.

We already live in a world in which leaders are free to launch military attacks on other countries simply on an assumption of hostile intent and military capacity. Ask iraq about it.

fusillade762: propasaurus: Iraq.

Argentina
Chile
Haiti
Hawaii
Nicaragua
Panama
Philippines
Cuba
Mexico
Korea
Vietnam 

I'm sure I'm missing a few others.

Yeah, but they had those tasty pineapples. F*ck those apostrophe flinging bastards.

Party Boy: doyner: Party Boy: doyner: I agree entirely

The conflation is the problem.

I'm interested in how you distinguish the difference between factions within our country and our national character that permits and facilitates such episodes of foreign "engagement."

The easy way to do that is to point out the intense pressure on Clinton to act on Iraq in the 1990's, and the intense pressure on Obama to act on Iran now.

Sources and elaboration available at your request. All you need to do is tell me where you want me to specify. This can get long so I'm trying to tailor it to the conversation.

I think I sent you an ultrafark email. Pls reply and we can take this offline if you like

doyner: Party Boy: doyner: Party Boy: doyner: I agree entirely

The conflation is the problem.

I'm interested in how you distinguish the difference between factions within our country and our national character that permits and facilitates such episodes of foreign "engagement."

The easy way to do that is to point out the intense pressure on Clinton to act on Iraq in the 1990's, and the intense pressure on Obama to act on Iran now.

Sources and elaboration available at your request. All you need to do is tell me where you want me to specify. This can get long so I'm trying to tailor it to the conversation.

I think I sent you an ultrafark email. Pls reply and we can take this offline if you like

Rejected.... How does ultrafark handle spaces?

doyner: Rejected.... How does ultrafark handle spaces?

check profile. one that doesnt suck is on there.

it starts with farkerpartyboy and ends with that gee mail place.

Do we want a world in which leaders are free to launch military attacks on other countries simply on an assumption of hostile intent and military capacity?

I thought we were already living in a world like that...did reality suddenly shift when I wasn't paying attention?

Weaver95: Do we want a world in which leaders are free to launch military attacks on other countries simply on an assumption of hostile intent and military capacity?

I thought we were already living in a world like that...did reality suddenly shift when I wasn't paying attention?


But it's okay when an American Republican does it.

If the 'world' is happy tolerating Syria, they can tolerate that.

"....simply on an assumption of hostile intent ...."

LOL No, we should trust them.

BTW......your wife is cheating on you, idiot.

3_Butt_Cheeks: If the 'world' is happy tolerating Syria, they can tolerate that.

What is this I don't even

I don't think Israel is going to hit Iran first, but I wouldn't blame Israel if it did.

doyner: Other news reports say that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "all but made the decision" to attack Iran this fall.

But Benji wouldn't try to time it neatly with the US election, no.

Israel has an election coming up too. I forget when but since the opposition is so fractured at the moment, Bibi and his Likud party pretty much got another victory on their hands.

*sigh*

Safest thing for Iran to do right now is just fake that they've got a nuclear missile. Do some suspicious "underground detonations," leak some falsified intel. It would be hard to pull off, since Israel probably has a bug up Mahmoud's ass, but the only thing that's going to prevent a possible WWIII is the appearance of mutually assured destruction.

Hai guis is this the thread where if you don't 100% agree with every action the nation of Israel has done ever then you obviously want to put the Jews in death camps and are a Holocaust denying neo-nazi islamofacist?

doyner: Other news reports say that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "all but made the decision" to attack Iran this fall.

But Benji wouldn't try to time it neatly with the US election, no.


cman: Yes, because someone who says "death to Israel" "Israel must be wiped from this earth" "Israel will fall" and also arms terrorists in Palestine, terrorists in Lebanon, and terrorists in Iraq is a peaceful nation that just wants to coexist with their neighbors in peace. Thankfully there are no religious extremism in Iran where people are so religious that they commit suicide attacks on children in the street. Iran is the biggest beacon of peace in the Middle East

By that logic why haven't we wiped North Korea from the map?

I always thought actions spoke louder that words. I guess we're lucky that no one attacked us after the "your with us or against us" foreign policy of a few years back.

Regardless of the prefix you assign to it be it preemptive, or defensive, or proactive, war is war. History has pretty much shown that the nation that fires the first shot is the one that starts it.

And history has shown that the one that starts a war eventually loses the war.

BarkingUnicorn: I don't think Israel is going to hit Iran first, but I wouldn't blame Israel if it did.

Uh, forgive me if this sounds ignorant, but why wouldn't you blame Israel for attacking another country unprovoked?

If they are going to bomb Iran, I want them to do it now. Do not drag any of the bullshiat around for another year. Do it NOW or STFU Israel.

cman: cman: You have a valid point. 9/11 was an attempt to draw the American military into openly attacking bin Laden. He wanted to do a sequel to the Mujaheddin of Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.


ah, crap, forgot to define who "he" was. Fixt

Really? You think bin Laden was such an egoist as to fly planes into skyscrapers to cause a major nation to go after him? You don't think there were some other major geopolitical rationale for doing so?

ontariolightning: If they are going to bomb Iran, I want them to do it now. Do not drag any of the bullshiat around for another year. Do it NOW or STFU Israel.

Bibi won't do that. He's got to keep people distracted from the domestic issues in his country, like people setting themselves on fire to protest the rapidly rising cost of living.

Bibi's gotta drag out this boogyman as long as he can.

Link 

But pointing this out makes me an anti-Semite or something right?

dericwater: cman: cman: You have a valid point. 9/11 was an attempt to draw the American military into openly attacking bin Laden. He wanted to do a sequel to the Mujaheddin of Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.


ah, crap, forgot to define who "he" was. Fixt

Really? You think bin Laden was such an egoist as to fly planes into skyscrapers to cause a major nation to go after him? You don't think there were some other major geopolitical rationale for doing so?

And it wasn't even Bin Dead's idea to begin with.

Doktor_Zhivago: Hai guis is this the thread where if you don't 100% agree with every action the nation of Israel has done ever then you obviously want to put the Jews in death camps and are a Holocaust denying neo-nazi islamofacist?

Yeah, haven't seen anyone suggest that, but I am glad you are here to take a stand.

RoyBatty: Doktor_Zhivago: Hai guis is this the thread where if you don't 100% agree with every action the nation of Israel has done ever then you obviously want to put the Jews in death camps and are a Holocaust denying neo-nazi islamofacist?

Yeah, haven't seen anyone suggest that

Give it time. .

3_Butt_Cheeks: If the 'world' is happy tolerating Syria, they can tolerate that.

um...what are you talking about?