Why would Israel attack Iran?

carlfense said:
Cactusboy said:
Sub-Husker said:
carlfense said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anyone was innocent. I was only commenting on who had a MORE legit reason to attack.

 
knapplc said:
Sub-Husker said:
knapplc said:
Sub-Husker said:
Good f'ing grief... why is everything in absolutes?
Click to expand...
Do you dislike the absolutes of everyone on the board or just those of certain people?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Just wondered, because you seem to ignore those of some people and not others. Thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...
I encourage you to point out examples of everyone's hypocrisy and uses of absolutes....or if that's too much work, just mine. :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
walksalone said:
Bucky said:
walksalone said:
Ok, Iran strikes first, Israel retaliates, then, would you support it?
Click to expand...
Why do we have to support anything?

If anything it's been a long perverted chain of international support that's put these two nations in their current predicament.
Click to expand...
I support neither. As long as they stick to conventional weapons, knock yourselves out.
Click to expand...
Well you seem to be walking a certain path with that question.

Let's imagine a few scenarios and you tell me how you'd like our country to respond to each, just to give you, and others a chance to flesh out their opinions.

1. Iran continues along its current policy trajectory not yet having produced the weapons it is alleged to be pursuing

A. Israel launches an overt conventional strike on Irans nuclear facilities

1. Iran does not openly retaliate

2. Iran engages Israel with conventional weapons (small scale)

3. Iran engages Israel with conventional weapons (large scale)

4. Iran engages Israel with whatever unconventional weapons (read as 'WMDs') that it might have

B. Israel continues its shadow war of covert operations aimed at diverting said trajectory

C. Israel adopts a 'wait and see' policy with zero confrontation

2. Iran continues along its current policy trajectory eventually obtaining the weapons and regional delivery systems that it is allegedly pursuing. This being known by the global community with or without Irans admission

A. Iran postures as if it were considering using such weapons, unprovoked against Israel.

B. Iran postures...and attacks Israel conventionally

C. Iran postures...and attacks Israel unconventionally

D. Iran ceases the saber rattling and does nothing.

3. Iran caves to pressure and diverts from its current trajectory by either mothballing it's projects completely or relegating research to civil uses only, assured by international inspectors.

Granted, there are many variations on those but I feel that, in a nut shell, is the menu of possibilities we are looking at...

 
Bucky said:
walksalone said:
Bucky said:
walksalone said:
Ok, Iran strikes first, Israel retaliates, then, would you support it?
Click to expand...
Why do we have to support anything?

If anything it's been a long perverted chain of international support that's put these two nations in their current predicament.
Click to expand...
I support neither. As long as they stick to conventional weapons, knock yourselves out.
Click to expand...
Well you seem to be walking a certain path with that question.

Let's imagine a few scenarios and you tell me how you'd like our country to respond to each, just to give you, and others a chance to flesh out their opinions.

1. Iran continues along its current policy trajectory not yet having produced the weapons it is alleged to be pursuing

A. Israel launches an overt conventional strike on Irans nuclear facilities

1. Iran does not openly retaliate

2. Iran engages Israel with conventional weapons (small scale)

3. Iran engages Israel with conventional weapons (large scale)

4. Iran engages Israel with whatever unconventional weapons (read as 'WMDs') that it might have

B. Israel continues its shadow war of covert operations aimed at diverting said trajectory

C. Israel adopts a 'wait and see' policy with zero confrontation

2. Iran continues along its current policy trajectory eventually obtaining the weapons and regional delivery systems that it is allegedly pursuing. This being known by the global community with or without Irans admission

A. Iran postures as if it were considering using such weapons, unprovoked against Israel.

B. Iran postures...and attacks Israel conventionally

C. Iran postures...and attacks Israel unconventionally

D. Iran ceases the saber rattling and does nothing.

3. Iran caves to pressure and diverts from its current trajectory by either mothballing it's projects completely or relegating research to civil uses only, assured by international inspectors.

Granted, there are many variations on those but I feel that, in a nut shell, is the menu of possibilities we are looking at...
Click to expand...
Don't use nukes, and it's not going to make much difference to me. When people start showing their "nuclear science fair projects" then I'll start caring.

 
I'm more worried about a state known for exporting terrorism acquiring nuclear capabilities and giving that technology to groups who will use it against us.

 
Sub-Husker said:
carlfense said:
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.
Click to expand...
Forget I asked you a question... you won't bother to answer anyway.
Click to expand...
I did answer. I'll bold it for you if that will help you find it.

You asked: "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?"

That looks like you are asking when an Iranian attack on Israel or the US would be justified. If that is not what you meant please rephrase it so that I can address the point that you want answered.

​


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sub-Husker said:
carlfense said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good f'ing grief... why is everything in absolutes?
Click to expand...
What are you reading? My answer specifically states that there are NOT absolutes. US = not perfect. Iran = not perfect. Somehow you manage to infer from those statements that I am thinking in absolutes.

I think that you might want to slow down. Maybe cool off a bit. In short, your conclusions aren't matching the facts.

 
knapplc said:
I'm more worried about a state known for exporting terrorism acquiring nuclear capabilities and giving that technology to groups who will use it against us.
Click to expand...
If you read the link I provided above, that happened during the 70s.

The Saudis have also shown an interest in acquiring a nuclear capability.

 
Back
Top