Iran NEXT?

[PRBuzz]

Recent reports that Iran is getting closer to making a nuclear bomb have prompted pundits to opine that an attack by Israel or the United States to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is imminent.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PRBuzz

Recent reports that Iran is getting closer to making a nuclear bomb have prompted pundits to opine that an attack by Israel or the United States to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is imminent.

Obama isn't likely to stick his neck out on this, as usual. He'll leave it to the Israelis, who will never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, and they are absolutely justified in doing anything necessary to prevent that. If Iran got nuclear weapons, it would be insane to assume they wouldn't use them against Israel, and it would be insane to assume they wouldn't supply them to terrorists.

[PRBuzz]

WSJ: The Obama administration has quietly drawn up plans to provide a key Persian Gulf ally with thousands of advanced "bunker-buster" bombs, part of a stepped-up U.S. effort to build a coalition to counter Iran.

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by PRBuzz

WSJ: The Obama administration has quietly drawn up plans to provide a key Persian Gulf ally with thousands of advanced "bunker-buster" bombs, part of a stepped-up U.S. effort to build a coalition to counter Iran.

sssshhh, it's a secret

[Nebe]

Iran will build one. No one will do anything about it and then Iran will get more foreign aid. End of story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Obama isn't likely to stick his neck out on this, as usual. He'll leave it to the Israelis, who will never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, and they are absolutely justified in doing anything necessary to prevent that. If Iran got nuclear weapons, it would be insane to assume they wouldn't use them against Israel, and it would be insane to assume they wouldn't supply them to terrorists.

Israel has what, perhaps several hundred nukes. How many of these do you think are safely outside of Israel?

Iran isn't going to nuke Israel. They want to assert themselves in the region in opposition to Saudi Arabia if anything. The proxy fight via Hezbollah is too easy.

-spence

[Nebe]

Which will equate to more foreign aid to Iran.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Swimmer]

I'll bet it was Israel that killed the two top eschelon scientists in Iran the other day. They stopped at a red light, just joking aout the red light, and were shot.

[Raven]

that's it..........i'm running red lights from now on.... no joke!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Which will equate to more foreign aid to Iran.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does Iran get any foreign aid from anywhere? Despite an isolated economy the high oil prices have worked in their favor.

If anything a nuke would make direct military action against Iran more difficult. Israel certainly has an interest here as Iran does give plenty of aid to Hezbollah and more recently Hamas.

Welcome to the new arms race.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Israel has what, perhaps several hundred nukes. How many of these do you think are safely outside of Israel?

Iran isn't going to nuke Israel. They want to assert themselves in the region in opposition to Saudi Arabia if anything. The proxy fight via Hezbollah is too easy.

-spence

"How many of these do you think are safely outside of Israel?"

As far as I know, NONE are outside the hands of the Israelis. If you have any knowledge, please, by allmeans, enlighten us.

"Iran isn't going to nuke Israel. "

Based on what? Their president has repeatedly said that he would happily martyr himself to sipe Israel off the map. The Iranians claim that their reactor is for energy, and even the UN is saying that's crap.

Spence, your willingness to ignore actual reality to promote the liberal agenda is breathtaking.Simply breathtaking.

You did accidentally stumble upon one truth. You said Iran isn't going to nukeIsrael,and you are right. But it won't be, as you feel, because they will choose not to nuke Israel. It will be because Israel will not allow them to possess nukes.

Spence, it's really too bad for Hitler that you weren't running the US State Department in 1940. I can hear you now..."I don't think Hitler is bothering the Jews. I asked him, and he said the stories were false, and by golly, that's good enough for me."

[Nebe]

LoL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[basswipe]

We should've taken care of Iran when rebornchristian-peanut-boy was president.Now we pay the price for Carter being a complete pussy.Two helicopters full of dead Marines is all he has to show for his lame effort involving Iran.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be our next target.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

As far as I know, NONE are outside the hands of the Israelis. If you have any knowledge, please, by allmeans, enlighten us.

I didn't say any were outside their hands. Given that Israel is geographically speaking quite small, it would make little sense to house an inventory of perhaps several hundred nukes so close they could all be taken out quickly.

Based on what? Their president has repeatedly said that he would happily martyr himself to sipe Israel off the map. The Iranians claim that their reactor is for energy, and even the UN is saying that's crap.

The Iranian President doesn't decide what the military does. He's primarily a mouthpiece, intended to stir the pot.

You did accidentally stumble upon one truth. You said Iran isn't going to nukeIsrael,and you are right. But it won't be, as you feel, because they will choose not to nuke Israel. It will be because Israel will not allow them to possess nukes.

Israel probably doesn't have much say in the matter. They may be able to set them back, but only regime change will stop Iran from finally building a nuke.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, your willingness to ignore actual reality to promote the liberal agenda is breathtaking.Simply breathtaking.

Sometimes you are a bit extreme with the ways you spin completely unrelated topics into "the liberal agenda". Other times, like this one, you are completely pathetic. Domestically, Obama sucks but to say he "isn't likely to stick his neck out, like usual" is a bit stupid considering he authorized more drone strikes in his first year than Bush had in the prior 4 years and there's that whole sending stealth copters deep into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden thing. Sending US Special Forces that deep into a sovereign nation seems to be a little bit like "sticking his neck out."

I understand that you are blinded by your hate. Obama could save a baby from a burning building while simultaneously curing cancer and you'd create some thread titles "Obama is a P$&*k". However, because someone disagrees with your doesn't mean they are blindly following the liberal agenda.

You are someone who is continually bitching about how the government wastes money, yet you support us getting into yet another war? Quite honestly, I'd prefer to fight wars via proxy and not have direct responsibility. Also, the continual, blind US support of Israel and it's screwed up ways has done relatively nothing for preserving security in this country.