Blogcritics Comments on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:05:22 EDT

Boy Richard, You make me look like a humanitarian... ]]>

Comment by Richard Brodie on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Tue, 8 Aug 2006 14:42:13 EDT

zing: no thoughts about innocent lives? Yes a lot of truly innocent people would perish. But the alternative is to let nukes be developed and proliferated within a primitive religion with factions having world dominating ambitions. In the not too distant future Muslim operatives would be setting off nukes in America, China, etc. Not knowing who was responsible, the attackees could well assume that it was some other source than Islam. And THAT'S where your scenario would go beyond the third step and proceed to the ultimate result you predicted. ]]>

Comment by Richard Brodie on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Tue, 8 Aug 2006 13:56:38 EDT

here's a more likely scenario: iran nukes israel, israel nukes islamic world, islamic world nukes everyone else, everyone else nukes everyone else, life ends, game over. No. The more likely scenario is that Israel eliminates all Islamic nukes and brings the technology and population levels of the Middle East more in line with the 7th Century Muslim mentality - thereby stopping your scenario at the third step. That's when the game would be over. Nobody else will need or want to get involved, and Islam will cease to be a threat to Western Civilization. To me that's well worth the price of all those "innocent" suicide bomber producing jihadist families. ]]>

Comment by zingzing on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Tue, 8 Aug 2006 13:36:16 EDT

ha! oh richard. you silly nit. high hopes for the fallout from nuclear war? no thoughts about innocent lives? here's a more likely scenario: iran nukes israel, israel nukes islamic world, islamic world nukes everyone else, everyone else nukes everyone else, life ends, game over. ]]>

Comment by Richard Brodie on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Tue, 8 Aug 2006 13:32:11 EDT

I'd love to see Iran get nukes - and wipe Israel off the map. Due to their proximity, millions of Muslims would go down from blast and fallout. Meanwhile the Israeli air force will have scrambled with their own nukes and totally waste the rest of the Islamic world. This would end the threat of Islamic terrorism, and no more American youths would have to be slaughtered in the Middle East for the sake of the Zionist Jews. ]]>

Comment by redneck JIMM on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 7 Aug 2006 23:28:22 EDT

SHUX LETS JEST GO AHEAD AND NUKE TEHRAN IRAN AND WHILE WERE AT IT HIT SYRIA!!! SHIT THAT WOULD PISS EM OFF RIGHT PROPER LIKE..YEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAA...NUKE ALL THE RAGHEADS..REDNECK JIMM ]]>

Comment by RJ Elliott on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:55:43 EDT

More fun news from Iran ]]>

Comment by Bob A. Booey on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:19:30 EDT

It's been a while since I've read up on this, but I don't believe Iran is particularly close to having the technical know-how or fissile materials to produce even the most rudimentary nuclear weapons. It has been fairly active in purchasing ancillary hardware like missile technology from Russia and China, but I don't believe that a "surgical strike" would work. I won't get into the multitude of reasons it'd have horrible consequences for the region and for our stability because that's too easy and too detailed. Quite simply, we don't have the intelligence to know where to make such a strike since we don't have proof that they possess nuclear materials. Our actionable intelligence on the region outside of Iraq and Afghanistan is remarkably poor and unreliable even with our troops right next door. Much of the intelligence we do have comes from Israel and you'd better believe that the IDF (equipped with one of the world's great air forces AND nuclear strike capability) and Mossad would act far before we could go through the political wrangle needed to stomach yet more foreign aggression. http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/030831161331.qq5hzw1y "Israel has come to regard Iran as its chief military threat since the downfall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq." The next war in the Middle East (God willing, it will be far off) will not be started by the United States. Most likely, it will be started by Israel as a response to what it views as unacceptable losses in some unfortunate event. Israel clearly does not currently believe that Iran will use nuclear weapons in the near future; in fact, it has received intelligence in the past indicating that they may have already had them for years: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9804/msg00215.html A surgical strike, by the way, would not take out existing, stockpiled small warheads nearly as easily as it would a nuclear reactor or a facility complex. Here's our actual strategy with regard to Iranian proliferation: "U.S. wants defensive missile system in Europe against Iran; report OCTOBER 9, 2003 14:44:23 Munich (dpa) - The U.S. government is sounding out the possibility of bilateral agreements with European countries to allow stationing of a defensive missile system directed against Iran, a leading German newspaper reported in its Friday edition. Countries accepting the missiles would be rewarded by the U.S. with economic assistance, according to the report in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung citing unnamed U.S. State Department officials. One ranking U.S. diplomat told the newspaper a joint project with European participation would be preferable, creating a missile-defence system to guard against attacks on both Europe and North America. However chances of obtaining NATO approval for the project were slim, the official said." ]]>

Comment by Eric Olsen on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:05:53 EDT

To the actual subject: this isn't going to happen because we have shot our military wad for now and world politics simply won't stand for open hostility of this sort. That's the real reality. However, this doesn't mean covert action to disable their nuclear capability is out of the question and may be exactly the appropriate response. And it can be done by Iranians - we keep hearing about all of the dissent within the country - an action like this would certainly further the cause of those who seek a different kind of government. ]]>

Comment by Chris Kent on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:34:31 EDT

I beg to differ BABs. RJ's post is a perfect example of the knee-jerk reaction many Americans have to the present danger hovering above our society. It's an extreme stance, and I'm not sure RJ entirely believes in it. However, he does go out on a limb and should be applauded for doing so. This post (and others of RJ's) create interesting threads, heated conversation and spirited debate. To make such a post is brave, if a bit foolhardy. Anyone can make a generalized, offensive comment ridiculing all above. ]]>

Comment by Bob A. Booey on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:46:08 EDT

I didn't read any of the comments, but this is simply an example of the worst of internet commentary. Taking ridiculous, illogical, extreme positions no one else actually believes. It's almost folly to get into the reasons why this is just a horrible, horrible idea and lend it any credence. That is all. ]]>

Comment by Joe on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:13:59 EDT

If you were truly melting down, I'd imagine that you'd be deleting all your threads and threatening the site with legal action. Now THAT's a meltdown! ]]>

Comment by RJ Elliott on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:11:56 EDT

How is responding to comments on my own post "melting down"? As for your lying, you know you are. It's completely intentional. And the people who know anything about you know this as well. It's all too typical coming from you. If you weren't lying, you'd back up your claims. But you can't do that, because you're completely full of shit. So, what's the name of that Pulitzer Prize winning novel of yours, MD? Why won't ya let us know? We're quite curious... ;-) ]]>

Comment by Mac Diva on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:06:05 EDT

I have lied about nothing in regard to RJ Elliott. But, I think most people realize that. Carry on. I'm enjoying the conversation. Watching him melt down on various threads is entertaining. ]]>

Comment by Mac Diva on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:25:58 EDT

Roland, good point. Frankly, I've never understood why only the United States is 'supposed' to have nuclear weapons. I don't see a way to separate that belief from imperialism. I am not saying I like the proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, I don't see a defensible moral argument for 'good for us/bad for them.' ]]>

Comment by Roland on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:32:49 EDT

Does anyone believe that it is possible, in the long run, to prevent regimes like Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb? Probably Korea probably already has such a device. They have a fraction of the resources Iran has. The Indians, Pakistanis, and (probably) North Koreans already possess the bomb. Iran, predictably, is either very close or already has a prototype. Just some very depressing possibilities here. ]]>

Comment by RJ Elliott on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:04:54 EDT

"Except that the government was perfectly willing to draft them after graduation." True. Unless, of course, they immediately entered a specialized field that was in high demand and was therefore deemed "off-limits" to the draft. ]]>

Comment by Jim Carruthers on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:01:25 EDT

Hey, Eric, did blogcritics.org at least get the commission on RJ's purchase of "Rhetoric for Total and Absolute Tools" from Amazon? ]]>

Comment by RJ Elliott on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:00:39 EDT

"No nukes would be a pro. But you can't guarantee that would be achieved by blowing a country up." Again with the Strawmen! I never once said we should "blow the country up." I said we should take out (in a surgical fashion) ALL of their nuclear facilities. If we take out ALL of these facilities (and we know where these facilities are, though of course we cannot know for sure where all the components are), they cannot develop a nuke anytime soon. (It's fine and dandy to have some nuclear materials laying around hidden, but it takes a large, obvious-to-spot facility to enrich the stuff into weapons-grade material.) "There is no proof that the war in Iraq has removed WMD from enemy combatant hands. I don't buy that it's different the second, no third, time." This isn't about taking out existing stockpiles in Iran. It's preventing the creation of future stockpiles. "No. I don't think bombing is how to get rid of them. Hasn't worked the first time. And guess what? When we do find Saddam's WMD, if he has them, which was likely, we won't find them by a bomb. I'd bet on that." No, we'll find them because we occupied his country with over 100,000 troops. But we can't do that with Iran right now. We can, however, bomb the shit out of the nuclear sites, and prevent them from developing nuclear weapons that they might otherwise use to kill innocent Americans. Or Brits. Or Australians. Or Israelis. Or whoever. "So the one clear 'pro' - no Iranian explosive devices in the short term - You haven't convinced me that bombing will solve the problem." Well, I cannot GUARANTEE anything. You may be right that a surprise bomb attack would some how go FUBAR and blow up in our face. I dunno. I'm sure our top-level military folks have thought about it, and maybe they've decided it's not doable. (Sadly, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Myers are unlikely to post any of their insights on BC.) But, at any rate, I'm glad we are having a rational discussion now. :) ]]>

Comment by JR on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:58:29 EDT

What I DID say, was that the US government's rationale for exempting college students during the draft was based upon simple economics: There are only so many people who are able to do important, high-skill jobs (the kind that college students perform after graduation). It is silly, from an economic standpoint, to remove these people from the domestic economy. Except that the government was perfectly willing to draft them after graduation. ]]>

Comment by Jim Carruthers on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:52:00 EDT

If RJ is a college kid, then it's good to know Bush wants to bring the draft with no exemption for those punks. In the words of Bart Simpson: We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little. I don't know what part you don't understand, but, you don't make the world a better place by waging unprovoked unilateral war. That's what fascists do. You make the world a better place by peace and prosperity. You're saying Yugoslavia, and the rest of us are saying Czechoslovakia. You are a hate-filled, shit-throwing little monkey. Who probably is hated by his neighbours. ]]>

Comment by boomcrashbaby on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:51:41 EDT

wow, my text editor dumped all my changes. That post makes little sense. :-( I'm not going to bother to rewrite it. The point is, I think no Iranian nukes is good. I think bombing the country is paranoia, as destructive to the US as a nuclear warhead itself, and is an absolutely WRONG solution. ]]>

Comment by RJ Elliott on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:49:06 EDT

"Tek, RJ Elliott is within the guidelines for military service." How would you know? Been cyber-stalking people again? "However, he says he is too valuable to the U.S. as a college student to enlist in the military." Another lie. I never said that. What I DID say, was that the US government's rationale for exempting college students during the draft was based upon simple economics: There are only so many people who are able to do important, high-skill jobs (the kind that college students perform after graduation). It is silly, from an economic standpoint, to remove these people from the domestic economy. If you had a country with 1000 doctors and 100,000 janitors, and you needed 1000 troops ASAP, who would you draft? All the doctors? Just leave the civilian population dying in the streets from burst appendixes and compound fractures? Or would you draft the (economically-speaking) easily-replaceable janitors? It's a damn cold utilitarian way to do things, but it makes perfect sense. And anyway, it's the government's position, not mine. So, as usual Mac, you're lying. ]]>

Comment by boomcrashbaby on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:48:04 EDT

There is one clear "pro": No Iranian nukes in the near-term. (Are you seriously suggesting this isn't a "pro" in your mind? Or didn't this, which would be the entire purpose of such a strike, even enter your mind?) No nukes would be a pro. But you can't guarantee that would be achieved by blowing a country up. There is no proof that the war in Iraq has removed WMD from enemy combatant hands. I don't buy that it's different the second, no third, time. No. I don't think bombing is how to get rid of them. Hasn't worked the first time. And guess what? When we do find Saddam's WMD, if he has them, which was likely, we won't find them by a bomb. I'd bet on that. So the one clear 'pro' - no Iranian explosive devices in the short term - You haven't convinced me that bombing will solve the problem. ]]>

Comment by RJ Elliott on It's Time For A Preemptive Strike Against Iran

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:37:13 EDT

"The US is doing trade with Iran. Not something you do with a country you are at war with." The US was doing trade with Iraq as we bombed them in 1998. You know, when that sane, calm, rational Clinton feller was in office. "So we are not at war. First, should be sanctions, then pressure from the international community, then pressure from the arab/muslim community, then......" Sanctions won't work at this late stage (if ever). And the Arab/Muslim community seems far more interested in Israel's nukes than Iran's. And the International Community HAS been "pressuring" Iran for months now. And the response from Iran: Go Fuck Yourselves, We're building nukes anyway. "RJ, this is so ridiculous, I don't need to point out the 'cons' of bombing Iran." Then what are they, if they're so obvious? (I'm not saying they don;t exist, but it's rather hard to debate an unspoken argument...) "And there is NO 'PRO' towards bombing a country that currently has the relations it does with us and the rest of the world." Our relations with Iran have been absolute shit since 1979. And they've worsened since 9/11 and the whole "Axis Of Evil" speech. There is one clear "pro": No Iranian nukes in the near-term. (Are you seriously suggesting this isn't a "pro" in your mind? Or didn't this, which would be the entire purpose of such a strike, even enter your mind?) "And for financing terrorism and harboring terrorists? Why the heck are you suggesting a preemptive strike of 'bombing' as the first step??" This is NOT a "first step." We've been engaging in diplomacy for months now, and we've gotten nowhere. This is a LAST step. It's now or never. They'll have nukes soon if we don't act. "Even Bush acknowledged before the war in Iraq, that war was a LAST RESORT (even if most of us didn't buy it). Now we're just going to be blatant about it and just drop the 'last resort' cliche? Apparently it's now the FIRST resort." Not at all. Read above. ]]>