Why would Israel attack Iran?

[Sub-Husker]

Another war in the middle east is exactly what we DON'T need.

Judging by Obama's words and actions, he does not agree with you.

 

[carlfense]

Another war in the middle east is exactly what we DON'T need.

Judging by Obama's words and actions, he does not agree with you.

What, specifically, are you referring to?

 

[carlfense]

I would only support it can be proven that Iran is going to strike Israel, the US, or another country. A true pre-emptive strike. Not one based only on vague platitudes and a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist.

So if it was proven that "Israel, the US, or another country" was going to strike Iran, that their pre-emptive strike would be justified?

What?

Do you think armed conflict is ever justified? If so, when? It sounds like you're going round and round.

 

[Sub-Husker]

I would only support it can be proven that Iran is going to strike Israel, the US, or another country. A true pre-emptive strike. Not one based only on vague platitudes and a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist.

So if it was proven that "Israel, the US, or another country" was going to strike Iran, that their pre-emptive strike would be justified?

What?

Do you think armed conflict is ever justified? If so, when? It sounds like you're going round and round.

I had asked you a simple question, and you replied with evasive bullsh#t.

But I will answer your question before you answer mine.

Yes, but not when we do so for the economic dominance of our corporations, where there is no real threat to ourselves or our peaceful allies.

 

[Cactusboy]

I would only support it can be proven that Iran is going to strike Israel, the US, or another country. A true pre-emptive strike. Not one based only on vague platitudes and a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist.

So if it was proven that "Israel, the US, or another country" was going to strike Iran, that their pre-emptive strike would be justified?

Yes the only pre-emptive war that would have any chance at being justifiable would be BY Iran. They are the ones being threatened on the reg.

 

[Cactusboy]

I would only support it can be proven that Iran is going to strike Israel, the US, or another country. A true pre-emptive strike. Not one based only on vague platitudes and a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist.

So if it was proven that "Israel, the US, or another country" was going to strike Iran, that their pre-emptive strike would be justified?

What?

Do you think armed conflict is ever justified? If so, when? It sounds like you're going round and round.

I had asked you a simple question, and you replied with evasive bullsh#t.

But I will answer your question before you answer mine.

Yes, but not when we do so for the economic dominance of our corporations, where there is no real threat to ourselves or our peaceful allies.

I don't think he's trying to be evasive...I think he just didn't realize you flipped his question around.

 

[carlfense]

I would only support it can be proven that Iran is going to strike Israel, the US, or another country. A true pre-emptive strike. Not one based only on vague platitudes and a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist.

So if it was proven that "Israel, the US, or another country" was going to strike Iran, that their pre-emptive strike would be justified?

What?

Do you think armed conflict is ever justified? If so, when? It sounds like you're going round and round.

I had asked you a simple question, and you replied with evasive bullsh#t.

But I will answer your question before you answer mine.

Yes, but not when we do so for the economic dominance of our corporations, where there is no real threat to ourselves or our peaceful allies.

I don't think he's trying to be evasive...I think he just didn't realize you flipped his question around.

No . . . the point of the "round and round" comment was that I could just as easily flip it again and say what if it was a pre- pre- pre-emptive strike. Where does that stop?

 

[carlfense]

I would only support it can be proven that Iran is going to strike Israel, the US, or another country. A true pre-emptive strike. Not one based only on vague platitudes and a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist.

So if it was proven that "Israel, the US, or another country" was going to strike Iran, that their pre-emptive strike would be justified?

What?

Do you think armed conflict is ever justified? If so, when? It sounds like you're going round and round.

I had asked you a simple question, and you replied with evasive bullsh#t.

But I will answer your question before you answer mine.

Yes, but not when we do so for the economic dominance of our corporations, where there is no real threat to ourselves or our peaceful allies.

How exactly was my answer evasive? I gave my opinion about when a strike against Iran would be justified. You then tried to turn it into a question about when a strike by Iran would be justified. If I were an Iranian my answer would remain the same.

Who decides what is or isn't a real threat? You? And who are our peaceful allies?

You seem oddly indignant.

 

[carlfense]

I would only support it can be proven that Iran is going to strike Israel, the US, or another country. A true pre-emptive strike. Not one based only on vague platitudes and a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist.

So if it was proven that "Israel, the US, or another country" was going to strike Iran, that their pre-emptive strike would be justified?

Yes the only pre-emptive war that would have any chance at being justifiable would be BY Iran. They are the ones being threatened on the reg.

What? I'm definitely not in the Israel/US/etc. can do no wrong crowd but I'm also not in the Iran is totally innocent crowd.

Strange stuff in this thread.

 

[Sub-Husker]

How exactly was my answer evasive? I gave my opinion about when a strike against Iran would be justified. You then tried to turn it into a question about when a strike by Iran would be justified. If I were an Iranian my answer would remain the same.
Who decides what is or isn't a real threat? You? And who are our peaceful allies?

You seem oddly indignant.

Forget I asked you a question... you won't bother to answer anyway.

 

[Sub-Husker]

What? I'm definitely not in the Israel/US/etc. can do no wrong crowd but I'm also not in the Iran is totally innocent crowd.

Good f'ing grief... why is everything in absolutes?

 

[knapplc]

Good f'ing grief... why is everything in absolutes?

Do you dislike the absolutes of everyone on the board or just those of certain people?

 

[walksalone]

Ok, Iran strikes first, Israel retaliates, then, would you support it?

 

[Sub-Husker]

Good f'ing grief... why is everything in absolutes?

Do you dislike the absolutes of everyone on the board or just those of certain people?

Honest answer.... some people I have given up on, so I don't expect much.

But I do from Carlfense, his posts are usually high quality and well thought out.

And we are more often than not in agreement, which is why I questioned him on a potential double standard.

That's it... the entire story.

 

[knapplc]

Good f'ing grief... why is everything in absolutes?

Do you dislike the absolutes of everyone on the board or just those of certain people?

Honest answer.... some people I have given up on, so I don't expect much.

But I do from Carlfense, his posts are usually high quality and well thought out.

And we are more often than not in agreement, which is why I questioned him on a potential double standard.

That's it... the entire story.

Just wondered, because you seem to ignore those of some people and not others. Thanks for the clarification.