Evita has made a few comments recently that suggests she would be tough on Iran if they engaged in aggression against Israel or other friends of ours in the greater M.E. On the ABC News show, "Good Morning America."
ABC's Chris Cuomo asked her what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons .She responded that if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, she would respond in kind against Tehran, with the ability to "totally obliterate them."

During the ABC debate she outlined a new policy of deterrance that would have the U.S. defend Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates with a nuclear umbrella.


"We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States. But I would do the same with other countries in the region ... . You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say, well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup."


Hmmm ;and they call McCain a war monger. Lol

Not that I necessarily disagree with her position ,or the fact that this goes much further than any previous American regional doctrine ;But wouldn't it be saner to prevent Iran from getting nukes in the first place rather than introducing a new version of MAD ? Yeah there I go again suggesting preemption.

I waas actually impressed she said this, but you still have to notice the wording:

"In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Able or willing?

Yeah I know she used typical Clintonoid speak . I'm sure it would be the equivalent of her voting for the Iraq war resolution and now claiming she was giving the President additional negotiating leverage.

My bigger point was in the last 2 sentences. The rain of destruction on Iran would come from Israeli rockets not American if Iran were to become too big a threat .But why wait for them to become such a threat ?

Remember, it's not the results but her intentions for which she is to be judged.

yeah I know she used typical Clintonoid speak . I'm sure it would be the equivalent of her voting for the Iraq war resolution and now claiming she was giving the President additional negotiating leverage.

My bigger point was in the last 2 sentences. The rain of destruction on Iran would come from Israeli rockets not American if Iran were to become too big a threat .But why wait for them to become such a threat ?

Exactly, tom, and yet that seems to be exactly what we're doing.

It's one of those "what if" scenarios. But at three in the morning should that call become a horrible reality, I remind everyone that her husband "Bill" backed off his pro-Israel support soon as he got elected. He peeved off a lot of the Jewish community in Israel and the US, including myself. I don't put any stock into what the Clinton's say. In recent trustworthy and honesty polls Hillary's at the bottom.

But wouldn't it be saner to prevent Iran from getting nukes in the first place rather than introducing a new version of MAD ? Yeah there I go again suggesting preemption.

Exactly, tom, and yet that seems to be exactly what we're doing.
OK, so what are you guys suggesting, exactly? What is your "saner" preemptive plan to "prevent Iran from getting nukes in the first place"? A bombing campaign? A full scale land invasion? What, exactly?

What kind of probability would you put on such a plan succeeding--meaning that, A) It actually DOES prevent them from getting nukes, and B) It DOESN'T set off an even wider and more devastating war than the two we're already engaged in, and that are straining our armed forces to the breaking point? Where would the forces required to prosecute a whole new war come from? Realistically, do you have any idea of the real-world consequences of actually doing what you advocate?

Realistically, do you have any idea of the real-world consequences of actually doing what you advocate?

Let me just address the last part. You began with asking what we advocate, filled in the blanks for us and then asked us if we had "any idea of the real-world consequences" of what "we" advocate. You may as well answer the last question, too, since you apparently know where we're going with this. :D

Let me just address the last part.
I wondered if you'd be willing to address the first part. Apparently not.

I wondered if you'd be willing to address the first part. Apparently not.

Ordinaryguy, I'm just messing with you over the way you asked the question. Since the Bush administration barely blinked over Iran's recent announcement that it was tripling its number of centrifuges, the UN is toothless and the EU-3 talks went nowhere it looks as if preemption is off the table.

I don't know the answer, but it looks as if deterrence and missile defense is going to be the best of what's left. I certainly do not favor unconditional talks with the Mahdi Hatter, he's more than willing to "pave the way (http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/13/10945) for the reappearance of the 12th Imam."

Yes, I understand the consequences of all the options you listed, and I also understand the consequences of letting Iran go nuclear. Do you?

it looks as if preemption is off the table.
Well, here's what Tom said,

Yeah there I go again suggesting preemption.
And you agreed with him, so I assumed that's what you had in mind.

I don't know the answer, but it looks as if deterrence and missile defense is going to be the best of what's left.
So you agree with Hillary (and not Tom) after all?

I certainly do not favor unconditional talks with the Mahdi Hatter,
OK, you're against preemptive military action, and you're against diplomacy, so what are you FOR?

Yes, I understand the consequences of all the options you listed
Would you care to elaborate on those consequences?

I also understand the consequences of letting Iran go nuclear. Do you?
I understand that the world would be a more dangerous place than it is now if they succeeded in developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. But shunning diplomacy in favor of bluster and threats that we don't have the capability to make good on is a pissed-poor strategy for preventing it, it seems to me. If you really have a better option than diplomacy in mind, let's hear it.

I understand that the world would be a more dangerous place than it is now if they succeeded in developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. But shunning diplomacy in favor of bluster and threats that we don't have the capability to make good on is a pissed-poor strategy for preventing it, it seems to me. If you really have a better option than diplomacy in mind, let's hear it.


Good point. I don't want America to lead the world with rogue nation tactics of jumping head first into war pig solutions. We should only get our hands dirty when all options have been exhausted. I think the original scenario was "what if" Iran used nuclear weapons on Israel. Personally I think at that point the talking is done, the button pushing begins and that's much more likely from Israel's fingers than the United States. The United States, at least with the Republicans in charge, would draw out a long war with billions and billions of dollars a month until ad nausea.

Here is the consequences of no preemption and no US deterence umbrella ;proliferation in unstable nations like we have never seen. That is happening to a degree now with the NORKS and the mullocracy in Iran ;as well as the dangerous situation in Pakistan. Have you considered the consequences of NOT preventing rogue states from developing nukes ? In fact;what exactly do you propose ? Do you think it's a done deal ? Do you think we should sit on our hands and do nothing ? Do you think we should accommodate ;perhaps do a Neville Chamberlain type diplomacy ? Or maybe as Evita suggested we should get even more involved in the collective security of the region ? Should we leave like many of the Defeatocrats suggest and let them just blow each other away ? Why should our allies around the world trust us if we were to abandon a region that is clearly in our national security interests ? (at least until we become energy independent ? )

So yeah ;no one likes the options ;none of them look good. I would just remind everyone that Israel whacked the Iraqi development plan and probably recently did the same to Syria (the facts are being covered up about the Sept attack last year ),and everyone secretly rejoiced that they took the initiative.

In fact;what exactly do you propose ?
That's the question I asked you, which I notice you haven't answered. You are "suggesting preemption", so what do you mean by that, exactly?

What I propose is deterrence and intensive diplomacy. If you think that "preemption" (whatever that means) has a higher probability of success and a lower cost of failure, I'd like to hear why you think so.

Deterence as in MAD ? That may have worked with a reasonably rational adversary like the Soviets . But I take it seriously when the Mahdi-hatter speaks messianic on the podium of the UN General Assembly glowingly describing the return of the 12th Imam that he is going to usher in by making Jerusalem glow ;defies all resolutions ;makes a mockery of the EU-3 attempts at "intense negotiation" ;wages proxy wars in Iraq against the United States ,and against Israel ,and Lebanon .

First I have advocated the support of anti-regime forces in Iran for many years now . I would step up efforts in that area immediately . The populace can't stand the ruling Mullahs because they hijacked the revolution .Their economy is in shambles under the leadership of the Mahdi-Hatter Ahamadjihad.

I have supported efforts to isolate the country from doing business with the world until they open up their all program to real inspection(not the phony ones the IAEA does under Mohamed ElBaradei) .I would ramp up the pressure if necessary by having a blockade to prevent refined petroleum and nuclear parts from entering the country .

I would if necessary resort to surgical strikes against their known and suspected nuclear facilities although I doubt we can completely destroy their program that way .

I am in favor right now in attacking known training camps of Iranian supported Iraqi "insurgents " ;and their IED making plants . If more pressure is needed I would disable their shore defenses ;their missile bases and Qod and IRG camps ,disabling their navy.

From the mouth of Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen.
Recent operations in Southern Iraq, recent combat operations in Southern Iraq in Basra highlighted yet again Iran's activities in ways that very specifically pointed to activities which, in fact, resulted in the deaths of coalition soldiers. And I think for the ability to create stability in that part of the world that not just this alliance, but those who are allied, will have to deal with Iran in the very near future.
The Atlantic Council of the United States - News and Events (http://www.acus.org/about-news-Awards_2008MullenSpeech.asp)

They arm anti-American and anti-Iraqi government forces .
Multi-National Force - Iraq - Iraqi Army Soldiers Discover Large Cache with Iranian-Marked Weapons (http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18648&Itemid=1)

They arm and train Hezzbollah and Hamas . A nuclear-armed Iran is likely to step up this activity. Deterrence may prevent them from using a nuclear attack for fear of retaliation, but its possession of nuclear weapons could serve to constrain how the U.S. and Israel respond to its stepped up support for these groups .As you recall ;we limited how we waged war in Korea and Vietnam due to the deterrent effect that the Communist bomb had on us. Meanwhile the many proxy wars that were waged as an alternative claimed millions of lives .

Once they have nukes I'm sure they would be more than willing to do a hand off to one of their proxies or client terrorist organizations .You think 9-11 was an ugly attack ? Wait until they can get a dirty bomb detonation in one of our or our allies citties. Like I said ;history will record this episode right there with the Munich accords.
In short I think deterrance and containment are misguided policies.

The only positive I see from this is that a nuclear Iran would be so feared in the greater ME that perhaps there would be a new appreciation to the US presence in the region. But I find the prospect of a nuclear Iran as almost intolerable .

Well, here's what Tom said... and you agreed with him, so I assumed that's what you had in mind.

That's why I was messing with you over how you asked your question, you put words in my mouth, just like you have now. When tom said "Yeah there I go again suggesting preemption," I gave no indication that I agreed with him whatsoever. Check again, I commented on Hillary's wording (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/evita-gets-tough-how-she-would-handle-attack-israel-mahdi-hatter-208362.html#post1002661). You assumed wrong.


So you agree with Hillary (and not Tom) after all?

Again OG, you're making assumptions. You omitted the part where I said "it looks as if preemption is off the table." If it is, then what's left? Deterrence? Missile defense? Diplomacy? Of the remaining three I choose the first two.


OK, you're against preemptive military action and you're against diplomacy, so what are you FOR?

For the third time, of the remaining options - deterrence and missile defense. But, since you keep pressing I'll make it very clear, with the regime that's in charge now preemption is the best option. You'd think the international community would have learned their lesson by now, that it is in their best interest to make absolute certain that rogue states such as Iran do not acquire nuclear weapons. But the fact is the very people that have been running around with all their hand-wringing over nukes have been unwilling to do what is necessary to lessen the threat. They are bringing their worst fears on themselves with all their talk and appeasement.


Would you care to elaborate on those consequences?

Not particularly, the consequences of NOT stopping Iran are far worse. Nukes in the hands of radical Islamists on a "divine mission" should scare the hell out of you.


I understand that the world would be a more dangerous place than it is now if they succeeded in developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. But shunning diplomacy in favor of bluster and threats that we don't have the capability to make good on is a pissed-poor strategy for preventing it, it seems to me. If you really have a better option than diplomacy in mind, let's hear it.

Who said we don't have the capability? The vast majority of our military is not forward deployed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military) contrary to what you hear. If the US were to tell Iran to give up their nukes or we'll obliterate you (or as DOD says, "they will suffer severe consequences") I'm certain we could back up the threat. That's how you negotiate with terrorists, and it ain't "bluster and threats that we don't have the capability to make good on."

First I have advocated the support of anti-regime forces in Iran for many years now . I would step up efforts in that area immediately . The populace can't stand the ruling Mullahs because they hijacked the revolution .Their economy is in shambles under the leadership of the Mahdi-Hatter Ahamadjihad.
I agree, as long as we can find ways to do it that are effective rather than counterproductive.

U.S. support for political opposition groups could actually sabotage the democratization process in Iran. If the United States sides with discredited groups such as the royalists or illegitimate individuals, its image in Iran will be further damaged. Iranians expect the United States to be actively engaged in promoting human rights and democracy, but most are suspicious of foreign-funded actors. Both the Iranian people and political leadership are quite sensitive about their country's independence. Hence, U.S. funding of even legitimate groups can serve to discredit them. U.S. Support for the Iranian Opposition--The Washington Institute (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2634)

I would ramp up the pressure if necessary by having a blockade to prevent refined petroleum and nuclear parts from entering the country .

I would if necessary resort to surgical strikes against their known and suspected nuclear facilities although I doubt we can completely destroy their program that way .
OK, a naval and air blockade and a bombing campaign. These are unambiguous acts of war, which you acknowledge would probably not accomplish the stated objective. Do you suppose that if we start down that road, we can avoid sending in ground troops? Are you willing to do that? If so, where would these troops come from?


I am in favor right now in attacking known training camps of Iranian supported Iraqi "insurgents " ;and their IED making plants.
...

They arm anti-American and anti-Iraqi government forces .

Iranian involvement in the Iraq war is a different issue than their nuclear weapons activities, but since you bring it up, does it give you pause at all that Ahmadinejad got the red carpet treatment from al-Malaki when he visited Iraq recently? Or that in the recent fighting in Basra, the Iranians seemed to favor the Iraqi government against the Mahdi Army?

Ordinary says: "...These are unambiguous acts of war...." What do You categorize Iranian men and arms in Iraq killing American soldiers?

you put words in my mouth, just like you have now. When tom said "Yeah there I go again suggesting preemption," I gave no indication that I agreed with him whatsoever.
Here's the exact exchange:

But why wait for them to become such a threat ?

Exactly, tom, and yet that seems to be exactly what we're doing.
Sure sounds like agreement to me.


Again OG, you're making assumptions. You omitted the part where I said "it looks as if preemption is off the table."
No I didn't. That's why I asked if you agreed with Hillary instead of Tom.

If it is, then what's left? Deterrence? Missile defense? Diplomacy? Of the remaining three I choose the first two.

For the third time, of the remaining options - deterrence and missile defense. But, since you keep pressing I'll make it very clear, with the regime that's in charge now preemption is the best option.
Man, you change directions so fast I'm getting dizzy. First you said, "preemption is off the table", and denied that you agreed with Tom's ideas about it, and now it's "preemption is the best option". Which is it? When you speak of "the regime that's in charge now", are you talking about the Bush regime, or the Ahmadinejad regime?

You'd think the international community would have learned their lesson by now, that it is in their best interest to make absolute certain that rogue states such as Iran do not acquire nuclear weapons. But the fact is the very people that have been running around with all their hand-wringing over nukes have been unwilling to do what is necessary to lessen the threat. They are bringing their worst fears on themselves with all their talk and appeasement.
You talk like there is an obvious and sure-fire way to "make absolute certain" that they don't get nukes, and that "what is necessary" to prevent it is clear and unambiguous. If it were that much of a "slam dunk" the idea of preemption would be gaining a lot more traction, don't you think?

Not particularly, the consequences of NOT stopping Iran are far worse. Nukes in the hands of radical Islamists on a "divine mission" should scare the hell out of you.
I'll tell you what scares the hell out of me. Yet another US-initiated war in the Middle East that inflames world-wide passions against us even further, while it fails to keep nukes out of the hands of radical Islamists on a "divine mission". Pakistan already has both nuclear weapons and radical islamists. If we're serious about keeping the two apart, maybe that's where we should be focusing our attention.

If the US were to tell Iran to give up their nukes or we'll obliterate you
Well, they don't have nukes yet. Are you suggesting that we should threaten to inflict widespread civilian casualties on them unless they stop their current uranium enrichment activities?

I'm certain we could back up the threat. That's how you negotiate with terrorists, and it ain't "bluster and threats that we don't have the capability to make good on."
Yeah, we've got nukes.

Here's the exact exchange:

No, ordinaryguy, you are confusing two posts. Look it up. In this post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/evita-gets-tough-how-she-would-handle-attack-israel-mahdi-hatter-208362-post1003939.html#post1003939) you went by my response to his 2nd post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/evita-gets-tough-how-she-would-handle-attack-israel-mahdi-hatter-208362-post1003022.html#post1003022) as if it were my response to his first post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/evita-gets-tough-how-she-would-handle-attack-israel-mahdi-hatter-208362-post1002661.html#post1002661). In your latest post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/evita-gets-tough-how-she-would-handle-attack-israel-mahdi-hatter-208362-post1005420.html#post1005420) you changed it to the correct order. I did agree with tom on "why wait for them to become such a threat ?" That can mean anything, so please don't assume on my behalf.

As to the rest of it I've been entirely consistent, I made it clear from the beginning that to me it it looks as if preemption is off the table, and of the remaining choices I have given my preference three times. I did fail to discuss regime change in Iran and that is a possibility, but I don't think time is on our side to do so from within. As for the other 'regime,' I'd rather have a guy in the White House that's willing to do what it takes and understands the mindset of maniacal, messianic Islamists like the Mahdi Hatter than a "hope" filled blow hard that would unconditionally surrender. Otherwise yeah, I agree with tom - always have :D

I did agree with tom on "why wait for them to become such a threat ?" That can mean anything
Anything? Not waiting for them to become such a threat sounds a lot like preemption to me. What else could it mean in the context of his statement that he's "suggesting preemption"?

As to the rest of it I've been entirely consistent, I made it clear from the beginning that to me it it looks as if preemption is off the table
Yes, that's what you said first. Then you said,

with the regime that's in charge now preemption is the best option.
I still can't tell whether you favor preemption or not, or what you even mean by the term.

I'd rather have a guy in the White House that's willing to do what it takes
So we come back to my original question: What does it take, exactly? Are you willing to "obliterate" large numbers of civilians in an attempt to stop their current enrichment activities?

Sorry it took so long to reply. I was checking with some people I know about the General Petraeu promotion to CentCom. And the promotion of Gen. Odierno to command Iraq operations.

My take on this move is that Steve is right and a direct strike against Iran is off the table but General P. will hammer hard on Iranian assets in Iraq and Afghanistan. It appears that the Pentagon has concluded that unless Iran does something remarkably dumb in the next year that there is no way the countries political leadership would be convinced to take on Iranian nuclear threat militarily. Actually I had come to that conclusion after the White House released the phony NIE in December that clearly understated Iran's progress towards becoming a nuclear power.

Given the fact that preemption is off the table and we have no guarantee that regime change is going to happen any time soon then the best other action remaining is containment of Iran . By keeping up the pressure on them with our presence in Iraq ;Afghanistan ;the Persian Gulf;the Indian Ocean ,they have to calculate the expenditure devoted to their own defense forces . That leaves them less resources to export their terrorist revolution and to devote to the expensive pursuit of nuclear weapons. Then perhaps we can try to find a way to get the world wide collapse of the price of oil so they would have difficulty funding all these projects.

Of course if the Democrats get in you will see a massive retreat of US assets .

So what are we left with then?. short of regime change... a deterence based on the sane decisions of homacidal ,messianic ,holocaust threatening ,terror exporting ,hostage taking leaders of Persia . Sure makes me sleep well at night .

Anything? Not waiting for them to become such a threat sounds a lot like preemption to me. What else could it mean in the context of his statement that he's "suggesting preemption"?

OG, it's simple, I don't like my words being applied to something entirely different. Anyway, let's try again.

Do I support preemption before they "become too big a threat?" Absolutely. But, would I prefer this be resolved peacefully if at all possible? Again, absolutely. So how are we going to do that before they "become too big a threat?" I'm open to options, but not unconditional negotiations as Obama previously indicated. It would be a silly, stupid mistake to trust Ahmadinejad in any way and so the only way to negotiate with this regime is from a position of unflinching power. You want to be a part of the community of nations? Give up your nuclear goals, stop funding terrorists, quit interfering in Iraq, stop threatening to destroy Israel, liberate your own people, etc. - no ifs, ands or buts about it because we have both the will and the capability to destroy you and it's parked just beyond your shores with dedicated men, hands on trigger.


Yes, that's what you said first. Then you said,

Since it appears preemption is off the table we go with the best of the rest. I believe this is the fourth time I've said this. One's preference isn't always included in available options - what's not to understand? If I go out to eat and want the prime rib but they're out, I reckon I have to choose something else don't I?


I still can't tell whether you favor preemption or not, or what you even mean by the term.

LOL, two posts ago I said "since you keep pressing I'll make it very clear, with the regime that's in charge now preemption is the best option." It ain't my fault if you tried to apply "regime" to Bush on a post about Iran. I also said I do agree with tom in the last post, and in case you missed it again I just said "Do I support preemption before they "become too big a threat?" Absolutely."


So we come back to my original question: What does it take, exactly? Are you willing to "obliterate" large numbers of civilians in an attempt to stop their current enrichment activities?

Have you ever seen the Natanz site? Take a look (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.723943,51.727665&z=12&t=h&hl=en), I think it can be destroyed without much concern over obliterating large numbers of civilians.

Update :


I would just remind everyone that Israel whacked the Iraqi development plan and probably recently did the same to Syria (the facts are being covered up about the Sept attack last year ),and everyone secretly rejoiced that they took the initiative.

It is now confirmed that the Syrians and the NORKS were collaborating on building a plutonium reactor in Syria .


CIA to describe North Korea-Syria nuclear ties - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-norkor23apr23,0,3070215.story)

So what are we left with then?. short of regime change... a deterence based on the sane decisions of homacidal ,messianic ,holocaust threatening ,terror exporting ,hostage taking leaders of Persia . Sure makes me sleep well at night .

That homicidal, messianic, holocaust threatening, terror exporting, glowing at the UN guy (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/11/184CB9FB-887C-4696-8F54-0799DF747A4A.html) is not the guy the left wants us to see. In fact, did you read or hear anything about the last two paragraphs (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6107339) of his supernatural speech at the UN in the media?


I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.

I don't think he means this is optional...

My take on this move is that Steve is right and a direct strike against Iran is off the table but General P. will hammer hard on Iranian assets in Iraq and Afghanistan. It appears that the Pentagon has concluded that unless Iran does something remarkably dumb in the next year that there is no way the countries political leadership would be convinced to take on Iranian nuclear threat militarily.
I hope you're right about this, but I wasn't so much interested in your assessment of what the Pentagon and the White House have concluded, I was trying to understand what YOU meant by "suggesting preemption". If you really think a bombing campaign and/or a land invasion is the best course of action, I would think you'd be willing to advocate for it regardless of what those lily-livered wusses in the Government want to do.


the best other action remaining is containment of Iran .
....

So what are we left with then ? .......short of regime change .... a deterence based on the sane decisions of homacidal ,messianic ,holocaust threatening ,terror exporting ,hostage taking leaders of Persia . Sure makes me sleep well at night .
I agree that containment and deterrence (and I would add diplomacy) are less than perfect options, but I'll sure sleep better than I would if we started yet another war at this point.

Yup ;"peace for our time" .

I was trying to understand what YOU meant by "suggesting preemption".

I think I was very clear that I thought preventing them from getting nukes by any means necessary is the preferred option. But that isn't going to happen short of some stupid move by the nut job running their country. ( I cannot vouch for what Israel would do... to them this is more of an existential threat)

I think I was very clear that I thought preventing them from getting nukes by any means necessary is the preferred option. But that aint going to happen short of some stupid move by the nut job running their country. ( I cannot vouch for what Israel would do .....to them this is more of an existential threat)

Yep, I agree. Is that clear enough?

Since it appears preemption is off the table
So who took it off the table? Not you or Tom, as far as I can tell.

One's preference isn't always included in available options - what's not to understand?
What I don't understand is why you guys are backpedaling on advocating your first choice just because the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House don't have the balls to act on it.

I said "since you keep pressing I'll make it very clear, with the regime that's in charge now preemption is the best option."

I also said I do agree with tom in the last post, and in case you missed it again I just said "Do I support preemption before they "become too big a threat?" Absolutely."

And yet, you STILL complain that I misapplied your words by saying that you agreed with Tom.

Have you ever seen the Natanz site? I think it can be destroyed without much concern over obliterating large numbers of civilians.
Is that all you mean by "preemption"? Sure, Natanz could be bombed without killing a lot of civilians, but can you find ANYBODY who believes that doing so would effectively destroy their nuclear capability? Bombing Natanz is one thing. EFFECTIVE preemption is something else altogether.

Based on statements like this:
we have both the will and the capability to destroy you and it's parked just beyond your shores with dedicated men, hands on trigger. I though maybe you had something more in mind.

I think I was very clear that I thought preventing them from getting nukes by any means necessary is the preferred option.
And I was trying to determine what means you think would be necessary. Steve says bomb Natanz. Do you think that would do the trick?

So who took it off the table? Not you or Tom, as far as I can tell.

OG, work with me here, I never said it was off the table but that it "appears" to be off the table, which suggests that's an opinion.


What I don't understand is why you guys are backpedaling on advocating your first choice just because the CIA, the Pentagon, and the White House don't have the balls to act on it.

What I don't understand is what you don't understand, I have been entirely consistent. There is no "backpedaling" in saying "since I can't have what I want I'll take that instead."


And yet, you STILL complain that I misapplied your words by saying that you agreed with Tom.

Sigh... agreeing with tom is beside the point. If I'm speaking of something entirely different from what my words are tied to I'd like the courtesy of acknowledging what I actually WAS talking about. I would offer that same courtesy in return. Can we move on now?


Is that all you mean by "preemption"? Sure, Natanz could be bombed without killing a lot of civilians, but can you find ANYBODY who believes that doing so would effectively destroy their nuclear capability? Bombing Natanz is one thing. EFFECTIVE preemption is something else altogether.

Whatever it takes is my definition. You are the one that keeps talking about obliterating large numbers of civilians and offering a satellite image of Natanz helps put that in perspective. No it isn't the only facility of concern, but if you destroy their capability that sounds pretty EFFECTIVE to me.

There is no "backpedaling" in saying "since I can't have what I want I'll take that instead."
I'm still waiting for an answer to my very first question. What DO you want, exactly?


preventing them from getting nukes by any means necessary is the preferred option.

Whatever it takes is my definition.
"Whatever it takes" and "any means necessary" may be kick-a$s slogans, but they're not meaningful options, military or otherwise.

Obviously I am in no position to outline the minutia but I did lay out a series of policy options .


First I have advocated the support of anti-regime forces in Iran for many years now . I would step up efforts in that area immediately . The populace can't stand the ruling Mullahs because they hijacked the revolution .Their economy is in shambles under the leadership of the Mahdi-Hatter Ahamadjihad.

I have supported efforts to isolate the country from doing business with the world until they open up their all program to real inspection(not the phony ones the IAEA does under Mohamed ElBaradei) .I would ramp up the pressure if necessary by having a blockade to prevent refined petroleum and nuclear parts from entering the country .

I would if necessary resort to surgical strikes against their known and suspected nuclear facilities although I doubt we can completely destroy their program that way .

I am in favor right now in attacking known training camps of Iranian supported Iraqi "insurgents " ;and their IED making plants . If more pressure is needed I would disable their shore defenses ;their missile bases and Qod and IRG camps ,disabling their navy.


The carrier strike forces to use are out of my control . I'm not the Presidential candidate but I believe I have pesented more detail than Hillary Rotten at this point.

Hello tom:

I hate the leadership of Iran - but the people aren't with 'em. Iran is NOT Nazi Germany or an Empire like Japan.

The people are pro-west. Their country has been hijacked. She's not going to nuke them. She's a liar, and will say anything to steal the election.

excon

And I was trying to determine what means you think would be necessary. Steve says bomb Natanz. Do you think that would do the trick?

All right OG, there you go again. It's simple, stop misquoting me. I did not say bomb Natanz. This is what I did say:


Have you ever seen the Natanz site? Take a look (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.723943,51.727665&z=12&t=h&hl=en), I think it can be destroyed without much concern over obliterating large numbers of civilians.


You are the one that keeps talking about obliterating large numbers of civilians and offering a satellite image of Natanz helps put that in perspective.

That is my point. The Natanz site is in a remote enough location to avoid massive civilian casualties, as are many other sites such as the site north of Ardekan (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.308173,53.699318&z=14&t=h&hl=en), the Arak site (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.370048,49.243238&z=14&t=h&hl=en) and the Esfahan site (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.576689,51.804334&z=14&t=h&hl=en). Would it be easy? No, and a sad truth of war is civilians get killed, but the U.S. does all it reasonably can to avoid civilian casualties and you know that. A worse prospect is a nuclear armed Iran.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my very first question. What DO you want, exactly?

I want to prevent Iran from getting nukes 'by any means necessary'... by 'doing whatever it takes.' :D


"Whatever it takes" and "any means necessary" may be kick-a$s slogans, but they're not meaningful options, military or otherwise.

Eliminating the threat of a nuclear armed Mahdi Hatter not meaningful? LOL, that's funny.

I want to prevent Iran from getting nukes 'by any means necessary' ... by 'doing whatever it takes.' :D



Eliminating the threat of a nuclear armed Mahdi Hatter not meaningful? LOL, that's funny.

Uh, can't we refer this to the United Nations? Can't the Security Council approve some kind of sanctions? And that way we can kind of 'shame' them? And 'world opinion' will point out the futility of their ways?

I want to prevent Iran from getting nukes 'by any means necessary' ... by 'doing whatever it takes.'I love it when you talk tough. It makes you seem so manly.

Eliminating the threat of a nuclear armed Mahdi Hatter not meaningful? LOL, that's funny.To actually achieve that goal would be meaningful. But your slogans provide no meaningful options for doing that.

I love it when you talk tough. It makes you seem so manly.
To actually achieve that goal would be meaningful. But your slogans provide no meaningful options for doing that.

Dude, I don't know what else I can say other than Iran must NOT acquire nuclear weapons and we must prevent that by any means necessary. Options for doing that are many, and I'll leave the details to the experts. 'Slogan' or not, I'm right... the alternative is too ugly. These apocalyptic Muslim nut jobs intend to carry out their plan to kill or convert ALL OF US by any means necessary and we MUST be prepared to eliminate that threat. But go ahead, don't believe me...

But surely if your well versed enough on the "alternative" Steve (the apocalyptic Muslims), then you should be able to offer a solution other than "by any means necessary" and "whatever it takes". I think OG wants you to give your opinion on what it is that it will take?

But surely if your well versed enough on the "alternative" Steve (the apocalyptic Muslims), then you should be able to offer a solution other than "by any means necessary" and "whatever it takes". I think OG wants you to give your opinion on what it is that it will take?

I get it Skell, but I gave my opinion way back in this discussion seeing as how it 'appears' that preemption is off the table. Tom pretty well laid out the preemptive options - I agree and I see no need to repeat them in my own words. I've also said I'd prefer a peaceful resolution, I don't know the answer and that I'm open to options, but I have been much clearer than OG's ambiguous "effective rather than counterproductive" efforts.

I've also said I'd prefer a peaceful resolution,

I hope so too! :)

I hope so too! :)

I think everyone - even us 'right-wing war mongers' - would prefer that. ;)