- This topic has 125 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
faterikcartman.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 20, 2010 at 8:36 AM #594965August 20, 2010 at 9:05 AM #593917
briansd1
GuestFascinating to think about the scenarios.
Iran now has missiles which they didn’t have in 1981 (just 2 years after the Revolution so power was not yet consolidated within Iran).
An Israeli attack on Iran would undoubtedly trigger retaliatory attacks by Iran on Israel and US interests in the Middle East.
How would America react?
Obama would have no choice but to invade Iran (to placate critics).
An Iran invasion would probably cost us $2 trillion (twice Iraq) and many more lives.
Can our military deal with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan all at the same time? What about North Korea?
Oil would probably shoot up to $6 per gallon overnight. The economy would fall into double dip. Real estate prices would drop.
Obama would not get reelected.
August 20, 2010 at 9:05 AM #594010GuestFascinating to think about the scenarios.
Iran now has missiles which they didn’t have in 1981 (just 2 years after the Revolution so power was not yet consolidated within Iran).
An Israeli attack on Iran would undoubtedly trigger retaliatory attacks by Iran on Israel and US interests in the Middle East.
How would America react?
Obama would have no choice but to invade Iran (to placate critics).
An Iran invasion would probably cost us $2 trillion (twice Iraq) and many more lives.
Can our military deal with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan all at the same time? What about North Korea?
Oil would probably shoot up to $6 per gallon overnight. The economy would fall into double dip. Real estate prices would drop.
Obama would not get reelected.
August 20, 2010 at 9:05 AM #594547GuestFascinating to think about the scenarios.
Iran now has missiles which they didn’t have in 1981 (just 2 years after the Revolution so power was not yet consolidated within Iran).
An Israeli attack on Iran would undoubtedly trigger retaliatory attacks by Iran on Israel and US interests in the Middle East.
How would America react?
Obama would have no choice but to invade Iran (to placate critics).
An Iran invasion would probably cost us $2 trillion (twice Iraq) and many more lives.
Can our military deal with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan all at the same time? What about North Korea?
Oil would probably shoot up to $6 per gallon overnight. The economy would fall into double dip. Real estate prices would drop.
Obama would not get reelected.
August 20, 2010 at 9:05 AM #594658GuestFascinating to think about the scenarios.
Iran now has missiles which they didn’t have in 1981 (just 2 years after the Revolution so power was not yet consolidated within Iran).
An Israeli attack on Iran would undoubtedly trigger retaliatory attacks by Iran on Israel and US interests in the Middle East.
How would America react?
Obama would have no choice but to invade Iran (to placate critics).
An Iran invasion would probably cost us $2 trillion (twice Iraq) and many more lives.
Can our military deal with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan all at the same time? What about North Korea?
Oil would probably shoot up to $6 per gallon overnight. The economy would fall into double dip. Real estate prices would drop.
Obama would not get reelected.
August 20, 2010 at 9:05 AM #594970GuestFascinating to think about the scenarios.
Iran now has missiles which they didn’t have in 1981 (just 2 years after the Revolution so power was not yet consolidated within Iran).
An Israeli attack on Iran would undoubtedly trigger retaliatory attacks by Iran on Israel and US interests in the Middle East.
How would America react?
Obama would have no choice but to invade Iran (to placate critics).
An Iran invasion would probably cost us $2 trillion (twice Iraq) and many more lives.
Can our military deal with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan all at the same time? What about North Korea?
Oil would probably shoot up to $6 per gallon overnight. The economy would fall into double dip. Real estate prices would drop.
Obama would not get reelected.
August 20, 2010 at 10:08 AM #593937patb
Participantwon’t happen.
If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.
Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.
August 20, 2010 at 10:08 AM #594030Participantwon’t happen.
If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.
Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.
August 20, 2010 at 10:08 AM #594567Participantwon’t happen.
If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.
Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.
August 20, 2010 at 10:08 AM #594678Participantwon’t happen.
If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.
Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.
August 20, 2010 at 10:08 AM #594990Participantwon’t happen.
If the bushies with all those crazed neocons
couldn’t do this, it won’t happen now.. His ambivalence, he says, extends to whether Israel should attack Iran unilaterally, though he is convinced by his ‘interviewing’ that it likely will. It reminds me of all the caveats and ambivalences in Ken Pollack’s book ‘Gathering Storm,’ which was used by warmongers nevertheless to help get up the Iraq War.
Goldberg knows that Obama is not actually going to war against Iran. Despite what he says, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan). How Goldberg could miss this truism in Israeli politics is beyond me.
August 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM #593922Arraya
Participant[quote=CDMA ENG]
Israel will do what it wants to. In Lebanon, Jordan, Egpyt, or anywhere else it please despite condemnation of the UN or the US.
Look at the case history.
CE[/quote]
Indeed, even sinking the USS Liberty with nary a peep.
Interestingly, In all those cases there were New Hitlers and Holocausts awaiting. With regurgitated memes of “wiping of the map” and “Pushing into the sea”. It must be mentally trying for the average Israeli to fear constant Hitlers under ever rock and Holocausts around every corner. Also, all of Israel’s military moves have been preemptive. Iraq, was the US’s first preemptive war ever. In Israeli fashion, the American public was scared with imminent attack and mushroom cloud warnings.
Of course, the neocon echo-chamber proclaimed Saddam to be the new Hitler. Goldberg, who wrote the Atlantic piece, was part of that echo-chamber tying Iraq to Al Qaeda and stoking the fears of mushroom clouds in Boise. Interestingly, as a recent Salon article pointed out. Goldberg asserted that Israel’s Osirk strike permanently halted Saddam’s nuclear ambitions — except when he wanted to scare Americans into supporting a an Iraqi attack he was singing a different tune.
So Goldberg pretty much says what ever he wants, using whatever rationale and emotional buzz words that works to get people into a war frenzy. With no consistency in his logic. As far as the “Iranian threat”, the deeper you dig down there really is not much to go on as far as evidence is concerned. While at the same time, it sure would be understandable giving the constant threats and being surrounded by an aggressive country that invades countries on dubious claims. If I was them, I would be rushing to get a bomb as a deterrent.
Regarding Osirak
The reactor was inspected by Dr. Richard Wilson, chair of Harvard’s physics department, within weeks of the bombing, and he reported that the reactor was incapable of weapons production.[18] Indeed, it has been suggested that “the attack may have actually increased Saddam’s commitment to acquiring weapons.
We kind of have a self-fulfilling prophecy in motion.
The funny thing is, Iran hasn’t invaded anybody in hundreds of years nor is it in violation of an international laws or UN resolutions. We can’t say the same thing about Israel. By many measures Iran is a better member of the international community than Israel. But we’re led to believe, the Persians, one of the oldest cultures in the world, one that has fought hard for their sovereignty, suddenly has acquired a death wish. Or that we have the third-holiest site in the Muslim world in Jerusalem, and millions of Muslims living within 100 miles of it. And Iran is going to nuke Israel.
Israel may, very well, attack Iran. But the whole thing does not add up to “imminent threat” and the usual echo-chamber, is up to it’s old tricks. Who have NEVER been correct about anything. Including their two greatest hits of Ignoring, intelligence reports that said: Bin Laden determined to strike the US and Iraq was not a threat(which is quite different than, if they have WMDs). Two costly mistakes to say the least. So, I think I will refrain from sipping on their poison kool-aide.
At this point, with the economic fragility of the world and the precarious state of the oil market, attacking Iran is about the stupidest thing Israel could ever do and most likely would push the world into a depression.
August 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM #594015Participant[quote=CDMA ENG]
Israel will do what it wants to. In Lebanon, Jordan, Egpyt, or anywhere else it please despite condemnation of the UN or the US.
Look at the case history.
CE[/quote]
Indeed, even sinking the USS Liberty with nary a peep.
Interestingly, In all those cases there were New Hitlers and Holocausts awaiting. With regurgitated memes of “wiping of the map” and “Pushing into the sea”. It must be mentally trying for the average Israeli to fear constant Hitlers under ever rock and Holocausts around every corner. Also, all of Israel’s military moves have been preemptive. Iraq, was the US’s first preemptive war ever. In Israeli fashion, the American public was scared with imminent attack and mushroom cloud warnings.
Of course, the neocon echo-chamber proclaimed Saddam to be the new Hitler. Goldberg, who wrote the Atlantic piece, was part of that echo-chamber tying Iraq to Al Qaeda and stoking the fears of mushroom clouds in Boise. Interestingly, as a recent Salon article pointed out. Goldberg asserted that Israel’s Osirk strike permanently halted Saddam’s nuclear ambitions — except when he wanted to scare Americans into supporting a an Iraqi attack he was singing a different tune.
So Goldberg pretty much says what ever he wants, using whatever rationale and emotional buzz words that works to get people into a war frenzy. With no consistency in his logic. As far as the “Iranian threat”, the deeper you dig down there really is not much to go on as far as evidence is concerned. While at the same time, it sure would be understandable giving the constant threats and being surrounded by an aggressive country that invades countries on dubious claims. If I was them, I would be rushing to get a bomb as a deterrent.
Regarding Osirak
The reactor was inspected by Dr. Richard Wilson, chair of Harvard’s physics department, within weeks of the bombing, and he reported that the reactor was incapable of weapons production.[18] Indeed, it has been suggested that “the attack may have actually increased Saddam’s commitment to acquiring weapons.
We kind of have a self-fulfilling prophecy in motion.
The funny thing is, Iran hasn’t invaded anybody in hundreds of years nor is it in violation of an international laws or UN resolutions. We can’t say the same thing about Israel. By many measures Iran is a better member of the international community than Israel. But we’re led to believe, the Persians, one of the oldest cultures in the world, one that has fought hard for their sovereignty, suddenly has acquired a death wish. Or that we have the third-holiest site in the Muslim world in Jerusalem, and millions of Muslims living within 100 miles of it. And Iran is going to nuke Israel.
Israel may, very well, attack Iran. But the whole thing does not add up to “imminent threat” and the usual echo-chamber, is up to it’s old tricks. Who have NEVER been correct about anything. Including their two greatest hits of Ignoring, intelligence reports that said: Bin Laden determined to strike the US and Iraq was not a threat(which is quite different than, if they have WMDs). Two costly mistakes to say the least. So, I think I will refrain from sipping on their poison kool-aide.
At this point, with the economic fragility of the world and the precarious state of the oil market, attacking Iran is about the stupidest thing Israel could ever do and most likely would push the world into a depression.
August 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM #594552Participant[quote=CDMA ENG]
Israel will do what it wants to. In Lebanon, Jordan, Egpyt, or anywhere else it please despite condemnation of the UN or the US.
Look at the case history.
CE[/quote]
Indeed, even sinking the USS Liberty with nary a peep.
Interestingly, In all those cases there were New Hitlers and Holocausts awaiting. With regurgitated memes of “wiping of the map” and “Pushing into the sea”. It must be mentally trying for the average Israeli to fear constant Hitlers under ever rock and Holocausts around every corner. Also, all of Israel’s military moves have been preemptive. Iraq, was the US’s first preemptive war ever. In Israeli fashion, the American public was scared with imminent attack and mushroom cloud warnings.
Of course, the neocon echo-chamber proclaimed Saddam to be the new Hitler. Goldberg, who wrote the Atlantic piece, was part of that echo-chamber tying Iraq to Al Qaeda and stoking the fears of mushroom clouds in Boise. Interestingly, as a recent Salon article pointed out. Goldberg asserted that Israel’s Osirk strike permanently halted Saddam’s nuclear ambitions — except when he wanted to scare Americans into supporting a an Iraqi attack he was singing a different tune.
So Goldberg pretty much says what ever he wants, using whatever rationale and emotional buzz words that works to get people into a war frenzy. With no consistency in his logic. As far as the “Iranian threat”, the deeper you dig down there really is not much to go on as far as evidence is concerned. While at the same time, it sure would be understandable giving the constant threats and being surrounded by an aggressive country that invades countries on dubious claims. If I was them, I would be rushing to get a bomb as a deterrent.
Regarding Osirak
The reactor was inspected by Dr. Richard Wilson, chair of Harvard’s physics department, within weeks of the bombing, and he reported that the reactor was incapable of weapons production.[18] Indeed, it has been suggested that “the attack may have actually increased Saddam’s commitment to acquiring weapons.
We kind of have a self-fulfilling prophecy in motion.
The funny thing is, Iran hasn’t invaded anybody in hundreds of years nor is it in violation of an international laws or UN resolutions. We can’t say the same thing about Israel. By many measures Iran is a better member of the international community than Israel. But we’re led to believe, the Persians, one of the oldest cultures in the world, one that has fought hard for their sovereignty, suddenly has acquired a death wish. Or that we have the third-holiest site in the Muslim world in Jerusalem, and millions of Muslims living within 100 miles of it. And Iran is going to nuke Israel.
Israel may, very well, attack Iran. But the whole thing does not add up to “imminent threat” and the usual echo-chamber, is up to it’s old tricks. Who have NEVER been correct about anything. Including their two greatest hits of Ignoring, intelligence reports that said: Bin Laden determined to strike the US and Iraq was not a threat(which is quite different than, if they have WMDs). Two costly mistakes to say the least. So, I think I will refrain from sipping on their poison kool-aide.
At this point, with the economic fragility of the world and the precarious state of the oil market, attacking Iran is about the stupidest thing Israel could ever do and most likely would push the world into a depression.
August 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM #594663Participant[quote=CDMA ENG]
Israel will do what it wants to. In Lebanon, Jordan, Egpyt, or anywhere else it please despite condemnation of the UN or the US.
Look at the case history.
CE[/quote]
Indeed, even sinking the USS Liberty with nary a peep.
Interestingly, In all those cases there were New Hitlers and Holocausts awaiting. With regurgitated memes of “wiping of the map” and “Pushing into the sea”. It must be mentally trying for the average Israeli to fear constant Hitlers under ever rock and Holocausts around every corner. Also, all of Israel’s military moves have been preemptive. Iraq, was the US’s first preemptive war ever. In Israeli fashion, the American public was scared with imminent attack and mushroom cloud warnings.
Of course, the neocon echo-chamber proclaimed Saddam to be the new Hitler. Goldberg, who wrote the Atlantic piece, was part of that echo-chamber tying Iraq to Al Qaeda and stoking the fears of mushroom clouds in Boise. Interestingly, as a recent Salon article pointed out. Goldberg asserted that Israel’s Osirk strike permanently halted Saddam’s nuclear ambitions — except when he wanted to scare Americans into supporting a an Iraqi attack he was singing a different tune.
So Goldberg pretty much says what ever he wants, using whatever rationale and emotional buzz words that works to get people into a war frenzy. With no consistency in his logic. As far as the “Iranian threat”, the deeper you dig down there really is not much to go on as far as evidence is concerned. While at the same time, it sure would be understandable giving the constant threats and being surrounded by an aggressive country that invades countries on dubious claims. If I was them, I would be rushing to get a bomb as a deterrent.
Regarding Osirak
The reactor was inspected by Dr. Richard Wilson, chair of Harvard’s physics department, within weeks of the bombing, and he reported that the reactor was incapable of weapons production.[18] Indeed, it has been suggested that “the attack may have actually increased Saddam’s commitment to acquiring weapons.
We kind of have a self-fulfilling prophecy in motion.
The funny thing is, Iran hasn’t invaded anybody in hundreds of years nor is it in violation of an international laws or UN resolutions. We can’t say the same thing about Israel. By many measures Iran is a better member of the international community than Israel. But we’re led to believe, the Persians, one of the oldest cultures in the world, one that has fought hard for their sovereignty, suddenly has acquired a death wish. Or that we have the third-holiest site in the Muslim world in Jerusalem, and millions of Muslims living within 100 miles of it. And Iran is going to nuke Israel.
Israel may, very well, attack Iran. But the whole thing does not add up to “imminent threat” and the usual echo-chamber, is up to it’s old tricks. Who have NEVER been correct about anything. Including their two greatest hits of Ignoring, intelligence reports that said: Bin Laden determined to strike the US and Iraq was not a threat(which is quite different than, if they have WMDs). Two costly mistakes to say the least. So, I think I will refrain from sipping on their poison kool-aide.
At this point, with the economic fragility of the world and the precarious state of the oil market, attacking Iran is about the stupidest thing Israel could ever do and most likely would push the world into a depression.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.