|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/23/2008 8:44:41 AM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1936
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
It has been reported that top officials in Iran are calling for a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent them from destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. The article is here.
When you link this to Biden's warning of (1) an international challenge to Obama and (2) that we are going to think his response is wrong then the real question is WHO is going to think his response wrong.
Will it be his base or the wider population of American citizens?
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/23/2008 1:31:42 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 1981
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Personally I think Israel will make good on it's threat to strike Iran first, before the possibility of an Obama presidency which may well not lean as friendly to Isreal as we have previously.
Not sure if that means before our elections or before Inauguration day, but....
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/23/2008 1:39:10 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 3467
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
I just heard on the news the Iran Legislature is "for" a Obama Presidency.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/23/2008 2:48:18 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 1981
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I just heard on the news the Iran Legislature is "for" a Obama Presidency.
Is this really a surprise?
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/23/2008 5:24:28 PM
|
|
|
leonfigg3
Posts: 377
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
|
I do not think it has ever been a secret that Iran prefers a Democrat in the White House. They know that they can bully a Democrat into giving them what they want. They know that dealing with a Republican, even a maverick Republican, would be more difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/23/2008 10:57:46 PM
|
|
|
Kath
Posts: 16991
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: offline
|
darren.beene
Please email community@salemwebnetwork.com concerning the status of your account. Please allow time for a response.
Please do not post under this handle or any other until you have heard from the administrator.
Sincerely
Kath
Volunteer Assistant Administrator
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message as I am unable to discuss it further.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns. Please allow time for a response.
Posts which ignore this warning will be removed without warning and may result in other action in accordance with the Terms of Service.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 3:09:49 AM
|
|
|
WormHeart
Posts: 291
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Denmark - pride of Scandinavia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
quote:
I just heard on the news the Iran Legislature is "for" a Obama Presidency.
Is this really a surprise?
That is just natural, since they are concerned with their own safety.
Mccain is on YouTube singing: “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” for cryind out loud.
Let me think – who would I want leading a nuclear superpower? The one who sings about destroying my country or anyone else.
You don’t have to be a scheming villain to prefer the other guy.
WormHeart
_____________________________
Praise King and Country with might
Bless every Dane at heart
For serving with no fright
The Viking kingdom for Danes is true
With fields and waving beeches
By a sea so blue
National Anthem of Denmark
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 7:07:24 AM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1936
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Might there be other reasons the leadership of Iran could rightfully be called 'scheming villains'?
quote:
ORIGINAL: WormHeart
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
quote:
I just heard on the news the Iran Legislature is "for" a Obama Presidency.
Is this really a surprise?
That is just natural, since they are concerned with their own safety.
Mccain is on YouTube singing: “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” for cryind out loud.
Let me think – who would I want leading a nuclear superpower? The one who sings about destroying my country or anyone else.
You don’t have to be a scheming villain to prefer the other guy.
WormHeart
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 7:39:56 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2350
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
With the current state of our military what would McCain or anyone actually be able to do?
_____________________________
-Roger
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 8:06:59 AM
|
|
|
Born_Again
Posts: 208
Status: offline
|
After 7 years of all the “ Action” from Bush administration and not “ talk” like Obama suggested I think we can see the result itself and decide on our own that it is time to elect someone who would stop singing “ Bomb.. Bomb.. Bomb Iran” and start diplomacy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 8:38:01 AM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1017
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Born_Again
After 7 years of all the “ Action” from Bush administration and not “ talk” like Obama suggested I think we can see the result itself and decide on our own that it is time to elect someone who would stop singing “ Bomb.. Bomb.. Bomb Iran” and start diplomacy.
The subject of this thread is a pre-emptive strike by Iran agaiinst Israel.
Do you understand the meaning of those words?
Once a strike is launched what is the point of "diplomacy"?
If that is what would happen, Obama would certainly prove his lack of allegience for Israel wouldn't he?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 10:22:00 AM
|
|
|
WormHeart
Posts: 291
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Denmark - pride of Scandinavia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
Might there be other reasons the leadership of Iran could rightfully be called 'scheming villains'?
Oh, plenty. They are a horrible oppressive regime.
It’s just that the OP is insinuating, that they will prefer Obama, because they consider him weak. I point out that they will prefer the “other” guy, no matter who it is, when Mccain pulled that stunt. Perhaps even Bush.
If the Russian presidential election was between a moderate and a former KGB who was on national television singing:
“First we nuke Manhattan, then we nuke New York,
Then we nuke L.A. and then we nuke for sport.”
I’m pretty sure the US would prefer the other guy, almost whoever he was.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
The subject of this thread is a pre-emptive strike by Iran agaiinst Israel.
Do you understand the meaning of those words?
Once a strike is launched what is the point of "diplomacy"?
Hmm. Pre-emptive strike? Where have I heard that idea before?
See, this is the danger of using a pre-emptive strike as a justified means (as the coalition did with Iraq). It leads to a loose gun kind of politics among nations.
IF Iraq had WMD’s and we were justified in attacking them – isn’t Iran, a sovereign nation, justified in hitting Israel, before they hit them?
And isn’t Israel justified in hitting Iran, because otherwise Iran will hit them?
See? It leads to loose guns.
I am pretty sure Iran is trying to get nukes, its plain common sense, if they want to keep being a sovereign nation. However we don’t have any proof yet.
Should we launch attacks on a hunch? Israel has nukes (probably). Should they be considered a rouge state? They have violated Iran and Syria’s defences several times.
WormHeart
_____________________________
Praise King and Country with might
Bless every Dane at heart
For serving with no fright
The Viking kingdom for Danes is true
With fields and waving beeches
By a sea so blue
National Anthem of Denmark
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 10:36:24 AM
|
|
|
EStan
Posts: 441
Joined: 7/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WormHeart
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
Might there be other reasons the leadership of Iran could rightfully be called 'scheming villains'?
Oh, plenty. They are a horrible oppressive regime.
It’s just that the OP is insinuating, that they will prefer Obama, because they consider him weak. I point out that they will prefer the “other” guy, no matter who it is, when Mccain pulled that stunt. Perhaps even Bush.
If the Russian presidential election was between a moderate and a former KGB who was on national television singing:
“First we nuke Manhattan, then we nuke New York,
Then we nuke L.A. and then we nuke for sport.”
I’m pretty sure the US would prefer the other guy, almost whoever he was.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
The subject of this thread is a pre-emptive strike by Iran agaiinst Israel.
Do you understand the meaning of those words?
Once a strike is launched what is the point of "diplomacy"?
Hmm. Pre-emptive strike? Where have I heard that idea before?
See, this is the danger of using a pre-emptive strike as a justified means (as the coalition did with Iraq). It leads to a loose gun kind of politics among nations.
IF Iraq had WMD’s and we were justified in attacking them – isn’t Iran, a sovereign nation, justified in hitting Israel, before they hit them?
And isn’t Israel justified in hitting Iran, because otherwise Iran will hit them?
See? It leads to loose guns.
I am pretty sure Iran is trying to get nukes, its plain common sense, if they want to keep being a sovereign nation. However we don’t have any proof yet.
Should we launch attacks on a hunch? Israel has nukes (probably). Should they be considered a rouge state? They have violated Iran and Syria’s defences several times.
WormHeart
Are you suggesting that the U.S. should have no say in who in the world can and can't have nuclear weapons?
I, for one, would not be surprised by a preemptive attack on Israel by both Iran and Syria.
_____________________________
Eternal Father, grant that through the tears of repentance I may see more clearly the brightness and glories of the saving cross.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 10:37:16 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2543
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
There is a major reform movement in Iran that is gaining steam so it's too simplistic to accept the Bush "axis of evil" view when we have done nothing to encourage this reform.
"Early reports indicate that President Khatami's loose coalition of 18 political groups has won a major victory, gaining an estimated 65-75 percent of the 290 seats in the Majlis, Iran's parliament, up from about 25 percent in the last election. The reformers' victory reflects widespread disaffection with the harsh Islamic regime that has exported terrorism abroad, repressed freedom at home, isolated Iran, and ruined its economy. The lopsided election results and record 80 percent turnout of eligible voters demonstrate the popularity of President Khatami's reform program: the relaxation of strict Islamic social restrictions, expansion of individual liberties, building of a civil society based on the rule of law, and liberalization of the stagnant economy." Heritage Foundation Article
We need to topple the government from within, not alienate the people!
But Bush will not help the reformers, he's more content to start another war we can't afford. It wasn't until this current administration that the words "pre-emptive strike" became part of our normal foreign policy lexicon.
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 10:48:52 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7627
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
There is a major reform movement in Iran that is gaining steam so it's too simplistic to accept the Bush "axis of evil" view when we have done nothing to encourage this reform.
"Early reports indicate that President Khatami's loose coalition of 18 political groups has won a major victory, gaining an estimated 65-75 percent of the 290 seats in the Majlis, Iran's parliament, up from about 25 percent in the last election. The reformers' victory reflects widespread disaffection with the harsh Islamic regime that has exported terrorism abroad, repressed freedom at home, isolated Iran, and ruined its economy. The lopsided election results and record 80 percent turnout of eligible voters demonstrate the popularity of President Khatami's reform program: the relaxation of strict Islamic social restrictions, expansion of individual liberties, building of a civil society based on the rule of law, and liberalization of the stagnant economy." Heritage Foundation Article
We need to topple the government from within, not alienate the people!
But Bush will not help the reformers, he's more content to start another war we can't afford. It wasn't until this current administration that the words "pre-emptive strike" became part of our normal foreign policy lexicon.
The Heritage Foundation article is from 2000; since then the Mullahs, especially the Supreme Leader, have demonstrated that there is no real 'reform' movement in Iran - to 'topple the government' you would have to eliminate the Supreme Leader and the mullahs, and that would pretty much require an Iraq style war.
Israel has good reason to be worried, and they should be suported in efforts to protect themselves.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 10:55:25 AM
|
|
|
WormHeart
Posts: 291
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Denmark - pride of Scandinavia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EStanAre you suggesting that the U.S. should have no say in who in the world can and can't have nuclear weapons?
I, for one, would not be surprised by a preemptive attack on Israel by both Iran and Syria.
Eh... are you serious?
Of course the US shouldn't have a say in who are "allowed" to have nuclear weapons.
Who died and made you king of the world?
The world has a strong interest in limiting the number of nations who has access to nukes, but should the US singlehandedly decide for or against? No.
Dont get me wrong. I prefer Iran doesn't get them. Just as I prefer Israel to not have them, and most certainly Pakistan and India as nuclear powers are bad for the stability. But I dont think the US specifically should have such a veto.
Should only one of the current nuke-nations have them, I would prefer it to be Britan.
WormHeart
_____________________________
Praise King and Country with might
Bless every Dane at heart
For serving with no fright
The Viking kingdom for Danes is true
With fields and waving beeches
By a sea so blue
National Anthem of Denmark
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 10:58:28 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7627
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Eh... are you serious?
Of course the US shouldn't have a say in who are "allowed" to have nuclear weapons.
Who died and made you king of the world?
The world has a strong interest in limiting the number of nations who has access to nukes, but should the US singlehandedly decide for or against? No.
Dont get me wrong. I prefer Iran doesn't get them. Just as I prefer Israel to not have them, and most certainly Pakistan and India as nuclear powers are bad for the stability. But I dont think the US specifically should have such a veto.
Should only one of the current nuke-nations have them, I would prefer it to be Britan.
If you read carefully, you will see he didn't say the US should have the only say, but that it should have a say - that means be one of the countries making that decision; perhaps a language issue here?
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 11:02:52 AM
|
|
|
davemiller7
Posts: 1085
Joined: 3/5/2008
From: NC via NY
Status: offline
|
Since we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to put an end to World War II, how many times have we used "the bomb?" It's been 63 years, now. You're saying you don't trust us? If you can't trust us to do the right thing, who, besides God, can you trust?
quote:
ORIGINAL: WormHeart
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
quote:
I just heard on the news the Iran Legislature is "for" a Obama Presidency.
Is this really a surprise?
That is just natural, since they are concerned with their own safety.
Mccain is on YouTube singing: “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” for cryind out loud.
Let me think – who would I want leading a nuclear superpower? The one who sings about destroying my country or anyone else.
You don’t have to be a scheming villain to prefer the other guy.
WormHeart
_____________________________
-Dave
The Prayer of Protection
The light of God surrounds me,
The love of God enfolds me,
The power of God protects me,
The presence of God watches over me.
Wherever I am, God is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 11:04:15 AM
|
|
|
WormHeart
Posts: 291
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Denmark - pride of Scandinavia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
you read carefully, you will see he didn't say the US should have the only say, but that it should have a say - that means be one of the countries making that decision; perhaps a language issue here?
No, I got that. That is why I clarified my stance, that I’m opposed to the US having a veto, but the world collectively has a genuine interest in limiting the number of nations with nukes.
Estan staid:
quote:
Are you suggesting that the U.S. should have no say in who in the world can and can't have nuclear weapons?
The tone suggests that the US specifically should have a say, instead of the world, hence my clarifications, because I might misread the statement.
WormHeart
_____________________________
Praise King and Country with might
Bless every Dane at heart
For serving with no fright
The Viking kingdom for Danes is true
With fields and waving beeches
By a sea so blue
National Anthem of Denmark
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 11:23:31 AM
|
|
|
leonfigg3
Posts: 377
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WormHeart
Eh... are you serious?
Of course the US shouldn't have a say in who are "allowed" to have nuclear weapons.
Who died and made you king of the world?
The world has a strong interest in limiting the number of nations who has access to nukes, but should the US singlehandedly decide for or against? No.
Dont get me wrong. I prefer Iran doesn't get them. Just as I prefer Israel to not have them, and most certainly Pakistan and India as nuclear powers are bad for the stability. But I dont think the US specifically should have such a veto.
Should only one of the current nuke-nations have them, I would prefer it to be Britan.
WormHeart
Why shouldn't America have a say, a major say in which country could have a nuclear weapon and which ones should not?
We were the first ones to use nuclear weapons. We, better than any other country, except Japan, knows just how terrible the weapon is and how dangerous it could be in the wrong hands with absolutely no safeguards as to who may have access to it.
Also, the last I heard, or has been indicated, the UN has the final say as to who may have access to to nuclear technology and under what conditions. We are one voice in that matter.
Having said that, I do believe that yes, if need be, in cases where the UN is unable or unwilling to act, we should step forward to stop someone from having nuclear weapons who clearly has no means , or intention, to keep those weapons secure and out of the hands of individuals who would use them without a second thought.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 11:24:10 AM
|
|
|
WormHeart
Posts: 291
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Denmark - pride of Scandinavia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
Since we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to put an end to World War II, how many times have we used "the bomb?" It's been 63 years, now.
None. You have only dropped two atomic bombs, killing an estimated 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki for a totalt of 220.000 deaths – mostly civilians.
It ended the war, and might actually have saved the lives of a lot of soldiers, but it did mostly kill the civilians.
Fair trade? Perhaps.
All other nuclear nations have a collective record of none. Not for lack of will, obviously, but because the other side was usually allied with someone who also had nukes.
And I might suggest that the reason you haven’t dropped any more, is more closely related to Russias and Chinas nuclear arsenal than goodwill on your part.
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
You're saying you don't trust us? If you can't trust us to do the right thing, who, besides God, can you trust?
Well, against Russia, Israel, Pakistan or India you win 10 times of 10, hands down. I prefer you.
However, the US like all nations look out for their own good first and foremost. That is not always the common good.
And you are treading dangerous territory recently. Offshore camps, where prisoners are kept indefinitely. Pre-emptive wars. Political turmoil and extreme polarisation among the populace. Using torture. Eroding the civil protection of US citizens and doing away with any protections for other citizens. Kidnapping citizens. Simplistic politics that paint a black and white picture of the world. Restarting the missile shield and bugging off Russia. Re-inventing small nukes and introducing them as a viable option on the battlefield.
Leaders who are commanded by God to do politics a certain way. Lots of reasons to be a little weary.
When the lion has troubled sleep, the savannah goes quit. :-p
Trust? I think Britan is much more in touch real world politics and they are pretty stabile.
WormHeart
Edited: spelling and removed a red herring
< Message edited by WormHeart -- 10/24/2008 11:56:19 AM >
_____________________________
Praise King and Country with might
Bless every Dane at heart
For serving with no fright
The Viking kingdom for Danes is true
With fields and waving beeches
By a sea so blue
National Anthem of Denmark
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 11:54:49 AM
|
|
|
WormHeart
Posts: 291
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Denmark - pride of Scandinavia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: leonfigg3
Why shouldn't America have a say, a major say in which country could have a nuclear weapon and which ones should not?
Because you (like all nations) would use it to advance your own interests.
quote:
ORIGINAL: leonfigg3
We were the first ones to use nuclear weapons. We, better than any other country, except Japan, knows just how terrible the weapon is and how dangerous it could be in the wrong hands with absolutely no safeguards as to who may have access to it.
Perhaps Japan should have the final say then?
quote:
ORIGINAL: leonfigg3
Also, the last I heard, or has been indicated, the UN has the final say as to who may have access to to nuclear technology and under what conditions. We are one voice in that matter.
And that I wholeheartedly support.
quote:
ORIGINAL: leonfigg3
Having said that, I do believe that yes, if need be, in cases where the UN is unable or unwilling to act, we should step forward to stop someone from having nuclear weapons who clearly has no means, or intention, to keep those weapons secure and out of the hands of individuals who would use them without a second thought.
Yes, but if we want to prevent a return to the old days of endless warmongering, we need to abide by the rule of law. Pressure those nations, bargain with them, prevent them from using your own research… But attacking a nation you are not at war with to prevent them from getting leverage is another matter.
Iran with nukes are not a true danger for nuclear nations. They know that they will be annihilated if they nuke anyone. But the US would loose it’s option to pound them, because no one, even the US, messes with a nuclear power.
It WILL allow them to do as Russia. Pound nations outside Nato and get nothing but a stern talking to. That is the danger.
WormHeart
_____________________________
Praise King and Country with might
Bless every Dane at heart
For serving with no fright
The Viking kingdom for Danes is true
With fields and waving beeches
By a sea so blue
National Anthem of Denmark
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Iran's Preemptive Strike Plans & Election - 10/24/2008 12:04:58 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7627
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
While I certainly don't think the US should have the only say, I do think that it has to act to protect it's own interests (as does Israel) and relying on the UN security council where Russia and China resist strong enforcement of keeping terrorist nations from getting nukes, may not be in our best interest.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
