So stupid question… if Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear facility in 1980, wasn’t that an act of war? Did we go to war over it or have some massive UN coalition? I was a twinkle in my father’s eye at the point or a new born.
If at the end of this year, Iran becomse nuclear capable, or close, and Israel lobs a bomb over the border to remove that capability, is that not an act of war also?
Are we essentially just setting a “when” World War III occurs, as opposed to if? I’m not saying its a bad idea, or the wrong thing to do, I just don’t understand how some things are acts/declaration of war, and others are “well you were doing something bad, so I hit it with a cruise missile, but we’re cool.” I’d be pretty pissed if I invested millions in a program and someone turned it to dust and rubble, them’s fightin’ words.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
So stupid question… if Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear facility in 1980, wasn’t that an act of war? Did we go to war over it or have some massive UN coalition? I was a twinkle in my father’s eye at the point or a new born.
If at the end of this year, Iran becomse nuclear capable, or close, and Israel lobs a bomb over the border to remove that capability, is that not an act of war also?
Are we essentially just setting a “when” World War III occurs, as opposed to if? I’m not saying its a bad idea, or the wrong thing to do, I just don’t understand how some things are acts/declaration of war, and others are “well you were doing something bad, so I hit it with a cruise missile, but we’re cool.” I’d be pretty pissed if I invested millions in a program and someone turned it to dust and rubble, them’s fightin’ words.[/quote]
As long as the US has a veto in the Security Council, Israel is literally unable to commit an internationally recognized act of war.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
So stupid question… if Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear facility in 1980, wasn’t that an act of war? Did we go to war over it or have some massive UN coalition? I was a twinkle in my father’s eye at the point or a new born.
If at the end of this year, Iran becomse nuclear capable, or close, and Israel lobs a bomb over the border to remove that capability, is that not an act of war also?
Are we essentially just setting a “when” World War III occurs, as opposed to if? I’m not saying its a bad idea, or the wrong thing to do, I just don’t understand how some things are acts/declaration of war, and others are “well you were doing something bad, so I hit it with a cruise missile, but we’re cool.” I’d be pretty pissed if I invested millions in a program and someone turned it to dust and rubble, them’s fightin’ words.[/quote]
It’s with Iraq and it’d be with Iran. They went over the border to attack a nuclear facility in Syria, I can’t remember the exact year though. Definitely between 2007-2009. The North Koreans assisted them with it on they’d it there on Iran’s behalf. Nations can protest it but what it really comes down to is whether there’s going to be retaliation or not. Most of the countries really don’t want to go to war with Israel so nothing comes of it in the traditional sense. They aren’t going to declare war on Israel. They can however assist the various terrorist groups and retaliate in that way.
It’d be hard for someone to really go after Israel, America would put a lot of weight behind them. Israel is pretty badass on their own anyway. To declare war would mean you’d be dealing with a lot more than a single strike on a specific area and you’d be opening the flood gates. Since you wont have much support on the international level you’d be in it alone. It can hurt Israel’s reputation on the international level but Israel puts its safety ahead of international perception. A good way to think about this would be if a prime Mike Tyson slapped you across your face. It might hurt and you could tell him that it’s a messed up thing to do but if you counter by challenging him to a fight there are a lot of things that can happen that you really don’t want to be on the receiving end of.
I guess we’d have to flip the coin. Say someone hits a US nuclear installation for fear of being attacked - let’s say Russia does it. Would we go to war over it, or say, “yea, my bad, I got a little carried away, nukes are bad mmkay.”
I realize Israel is one tough cookie, but the idea that the entire Middle East is afraid of that single country is strange. Sure… they have the US as backing, but the entire country could be rubble before we get over there to really get some feet on the ground and assist. We have an ocean to cross, they have a border and land.
I suppose it goes back to, no one actually wants to go to war anymore, its just a bunch of posturing bs. I don’t discredit Israel for their stance, but we have to admit, looking at it objectively, they get away with a hell of a lot - whether because they are so kickass or have the US to back. Its like a schoolyard bully essentially - at least to those getting shoved around. If there is animosity, I’d say its just setting the stage for the right time to retaliate.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
I guess we’d have to flip the coin. Say someone hits a US nuclear installation for fear of being attacked - let’s say Russia does it. Would we go to war over it, or say, “yea, my bad, I got a little carried away, nukes are bad mmkay.”
I realize Israel is one tough cookie, but the idea that the entire Middle East is afraid of that single country is strange. Sure… they have the US as backing, but the entire country could be rubble before we get over there to really get some feet on the ground and assist. We have an ocean to cross, they have a border and land.
I suppose it goes back to, no one actually wants to go to war anymore, its just a bunch of posturing bs. I don’t discredit Israel for their stance, but we have to admit, looking at it objectively, they get away with a hell of a lot - whether because they are so kickass or have the US to back. Its like a schoolyard bully essentially - at least to those getting shoved around. If there is animosity, I’d say its just setting the stage for the right time to retaliate. [/quote]
It really comes down to power. What are the outcomes of retaliating against Israel? You’ve got a nation that can handle its own and will practically have every Western power behind it if things do escalate. It’s unlikely that Russia would come to the rescue either, there’d just be no real reward. What are the outcomes of Israel attacking something on Syrian soil? Nothing direct, just Syria condemning it and throwing more money at Hamas or Hezbollah.
I think you underestimate Israel a little. I’d say they’ve by far the most capable military in the region, they’ve also defeated neighboring countries in the past. They’ve proven to be a difficult opponent in more recent conflicts too. Another thing is they’re ruthless. They’ve been assassinating Iranian scientists in Iran to disrupt their nuclear program, that sends a pretty strong message.
I don’t think Israel gets away with that much, not when you take everything into consideration. How many of the Jewish people living in Israel are related to a holocaust survivor or have a family member that escaped the holocaust? You know the Munich Massacre, the event the movie Munich was based on? Some Arab nations didn’t even want their flags lowered to honor the Israelis that were murdered. Some nations don’t even recognize their statehood or acknowledge the holocaust. What happened when they declared statehood? They had to go to war and they’ve been fighting ever since. They don’t mess around at all when it comes to their national security and I think it’s 100% because they know there are countries and organizations that’d have no problem leaving them without a nation and they’d do it by any means necessary. When that’s your constant reality you’ve no choice but to be violent.
I’m not stating that their aggression is either unwarranted or unjustified, my musing is whether or not we would perceive it differently if say, Russia did similar to the US. The US has nuclear capability, would it be right of Russia to bomb an installation for fear of their people? Do we have anything else to go on regarding Iran or Syria (who poses no threat to us, only its own people)?
Imagine if big brother for Syria was Iran, Russia, and China and they openly backed them. Would we still be as motivated to let Israel attack “defensively?”
All I’m saying, is I can see why many parts of the world hate the US - and its allies. We do kind of throw our weight around. And counting on Europe to back the US - when they have their own problems - seems a risky business. Like picking a fight in a bar with a bunch of bikers and looking over your shoulder to make sure your frat buddy still has your back.
I would think the Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Asia are more willing to make quick, aggressive decisions than the US and Western Europe. And that makes them dangerous to play with. Posturing of Israel to strike is good because - much like a rattlesnake with head cocked and tail rattling - its fair warning. Striking proactively is a shade of grey. Probably for the best, but was it actually necessary, and was it right?
You don’t think other nations throw their weight around? America just has more weight to throw around, no pun intended. And big brother for Syria is Iran, Russia and China lol. And honestly, Israel is going to attack whoever they want. There are just times where it’s mutually beneficial for us. I can’t remember which Prime Minister it’s but we, America, opposed them taking military action. He made it clear that they’d do whatever it takes to protect their national security because that’s almost exactly what he said. I think it’s when they finally went into the Gaza Strip after all of the rocket attacks.
Iran and Syria pose no threat to us? Blister, blood, choking and nerve agent production along with a nuclear program and public rituals of chanting ‘death to America?’ kind of makes me think maybe these people are threatening and dangerous?
Que?
Oh sure thing. I can see why many parts of the world love the Assad family, Colonel Gaddafi and Idi Amin. Why eat ice cream when you can have dog shit instead? Wouldn’t the world be a lovely place if the US had not exercised its military and industrial power in the Second World War? Why live in a democracy when you could be used for bayonet practice by a Japanese man who just raped your wife? Or starved to death/gassed by men in black uniforms with skull emblems emblazoned on them? If only the US would stay out of things everything would be just dandy.
Au contraire. Most of the world’s problems post-WWII relate to the US failure to ‘throw its weight around’ so to speak.
I thought you said the US are the dangerous ones who throw their weight around too much? By the way, Western Europe doesn’t exist anymore. It’s been replaced by a socialist, multicultural nightmare.
[quote]
Posturing of Israel to strike is good because - much like a rattlesnake with head cocked and tail rattling - its fair warning. Striking proactively is a shade of grey. Probably for the best, but was it actually necessary, and was it right?[/quote]
Right? Wrong? When millions of people want to impale you and your family on pikes right and wrong become black and white rather than ‘shades of grey.’
SexMachine, I believe Quasi is referring to public perception of America in other nations. Things like being the world police, meddling in the affairs of others and etc. . All of those countries are guilty of doing the same things or worse. It’s like how nations condemned America after the Snowden leaks and then it’s revealed that they’ve similar programs.
…it is very unlikely that the WMDs were moved to Syria, if they existed at all, and they found very little evidence that they did…
[/quote]
Yeah, you’re probably right. These Kurdish casualties most likely came from adding fluoride to the drinking water in northern Iraq. Or maybe it was high fructose corn syrup.
“Chemical Ali” was set up. Everybody’s that anybody knows that.[/quote]
I never claimed that Iraq never had WMDs, or that Halabja never occurred.
[/quote]
Your very own source which you just quoted did.[/quote]
[quote]b89 wrote:
SexMachine, I believe Quasi is referring to public perception of America in other nations. Things like being the world police, meddling in the affairs of others and etc. . All of those countries are guilty of doing the same things or worse. It’s like how nations condemned America after the Snowden leaks and then it’s revealed that they’ve similar programs. [/quote]
This. I’m not giving my perception in that case, I’m giving the perception of folks I speak with in other countries.
The US’s drive to be the world police does as much good as it does bad on an international level. That isn’t to say that some things we do need to do and we sometimes have to “make the tough decisions,” but when its easy for people to evaluate the situation and see oil oil oil or money money money, the US’s “world policing” comes into question.
I would be very surprised if every first world country didn’t have chemical or biological weapons. Just because we don’t talk about it, doesn’t mean we don’t have it. On the positive, at least if you use one of those, the land that’s been cleared of life is still usable, with nuclear weapons you have to wait for the radiation to cool. Syria really isn’t a threat to the US, and people all over the Middle East burn our flag, yet we don’t see our troops touching down every time it happens - this is a different agenda entirely. If we were truly concerned about the US citizen’s safety, we wouldn’t have open borders.
This. I’m not giving my perception in that case, I’m giving the perception of folks I speak with in other countries.
[/quote]
Okay, but you said you can understand why they hate the US which is essentially giving credence to their opinions.
My point is the US doesn’t ‘drive to be the world’s police.’ If it did North Korea would be covered in craters like the moon, Iran would be devoid of government and military installations and the President would be urging Israel to continue to build whatever it wants in its own capital city.
Of course they do. But countries like Sweden or the United Kingdom don’t have the motivation to use them - quite the contrary. Whereas countries like North Korea and Iran do have the motivation and capacity to use them. Therein lies the difference. BTW having chemical and biological weapons capability is essential in producing vaccines and so forth to protect the populace from chemical/biological attack. And North Korea for example is not afraid that someone is going to spray them with nerve gas. So why does North Korea want to produce such things? The answer is that it wants to increase its military and political power and as their government is a crazy personality cult with the largest standing army in the world they present a clear and present danger to any rational person. Especially if they happen to live in South Korea or Japan for example.
That’s crazy talk. The idea is to avoid the use of chemical, biological or nuclear and even conventional weapons by anyone.
[quote]
Syria really isn’t a threat to the US, and people all over the Middle East burn our flag, yet we don’t see our troops touching down every time it happens - this is a different agenda entirely. If we were truly concerned about the US citizen’s safety, we wouldn’t have open borders.[/quote]
I agree about the borders. However remember what happened to Gaddafi? What’s to say that Assad wouldn’t send a cargo ship to a US port and unleash some deadly agent as his finale? People who are about to die can do crazy things. Hell, people who are crazy do crazy things. Why take chances?
It’d be hard for someone to really go after Israel, America would put a lot of weight behind them. Israel is pretty badass on their own anyway. To declare war would mean you’d be dealing with a lot more than a single strike on a specific area and you’d be opening the flood gates. Since you wont have much support on the international level you’d be in it alone. It can hurt Israel’s reputation on the international level but Israel puts its safety ahead of international perception. A good way to think about this would be if a prime Mike Tyson slapped you across your face. It might hurt and you could tell him that it’s a messed up thing to do but if you counter by challenging him to a fight there are a lot of things that can happen that you really don’t want to be on the receiving end of.[/quote]
I enjoy your posts in this thread. I don’t agree with equating Israel to a prime Mike Tyson and Iran to an average Joe, though. Israel has the most advanced military in the region by far, no question. But when comparing population levels, sheer size, and other geographic considerations the prime Iron Mike / Average Joe analogy breaks down.
I think if Israel were that powerful they would have already taken action. I believe Israel needs the U.S. to carry out the attack. Both because Israel isn’t capable in doing a complete job on their own, and because there would be no retaliation if it was a U.S. led attack. The Israeli government has spoken of a preemptive strike for many years now but at this point the warning has lost its effectiveness.
But I think you raised an interesting discussion. And that is what would happen if Israel acted unilaterally and preemptively attacked Iran. Particularly if this attack came during a focused negotiation process that appears will be happening over the next 3-6 months.
One option would be for Iran to take it on the chin and do nothing but rebuild their program over the following year. Maybe tell Hamas and Hezbollah to do some dirty work, as you suggested.
But I think Iran would respond with a little more action than that. What would happen then? I don’t think Europe would support Israel if a preemptive attack occurred in the near future. You would think the U.S. would support, but how much? What did the U.S. really do during the 2006 Lebanon war aside from supplies and cash?
Would Israel even attack during negotiations? What’s interesting is the nuclear negotiation process, and Israel’s time frame for Iran having a bomb, are both projected to take 3-6 months. For decades Iran has been months away from a nuke but it hasn’t happened yet. If Israel is to be believed, Iran could have their bomb right as negotiations are in their final stages. That means the preemptive attack would have to happen during the negotiation process.