Iran Warns of Pre-Emptive Strike

Saw this on a Korean web site just before leaving work. It was written in a difficult format (for me they all are in korean)
but h i had some help from a native. Pretty wild stuff.
my belief is that only the mullahs feel that way but they do control some young wackos.
The average person over 40 there probably has no real bad feelings towards America.
And if they did I am sure they are still feeling pretty smug about humiliating the Carter
administation and the US back in 79'.

It's not like the Arab world has never taken pre-emptive action against Israel or other western targets before. Anyway, why should we have to wait until terrorists blow up our people to act against them?

Anyway, why should we have to wait until terrorists blow up our people to act against them?

No one is saying you should - but by the same token, it's unfair to think your forces are infailable to a preemptive attack from the other side.

You can only speculate that Iran are going to make weapons for the specific purpose of attacking Isreal - I mean, it's a fair speculation based on the Iranian administrations view of Israel as 'Zionist pigs'... but it's still speculation none the less.

Sitting and watchin is never good, but if you take the first action, the moral high ground is lost, and with it, International support - in a case like this, International support will certainly be necessary, as powerful as the USA is, it can't afford to take Iran on unilaterally whilst having their forces in Iraq... and If Israel attacks first, well, I imagine nothing would put a devlish grin on the Arab league of nations other than an excuse to take it to Israel...

BAM!!!

The precedent was set in 1993 when terrorists first attempted to topple the World Trade Centers in New York. That attack was followed successively with numerous attacks on American interests’ world wide during the next decade with no substantive retaliation on our part.

I need not remind anyone of the last unprovoked attack and slaughter of innocent people from practically every corner of the planet. Afghanistan was both retribution and preemption. Iraq was strictly preemption. Whether or not we have found WMDs in that vast wasteland doesn't really matter. There were no credible world leaders who did not believe that Saddam Hussein was, if not in direct possession, certainly on a path to acquiring such weapons. What do you suppose he would have done with WMDs given the time and opportunity? Oh, I truly doubt he would mount them on one of his own missiles and boldly launch them on Israel or the U.S. More likely, his method of operation would have involved developing close relationships with terrorist organizations (which it was proved he was doing) and having them do his dirty bidding. Which city of the world would you have wished to sacrafice in order to avoid the doctrine of preemption. Would you wait for an obvious staulker to rape a loved one before calling the police?

As far as this American is concerned, the terrorists have been on a decade long campaign against my country and it is high time we meet the threat head on. And if Iran wants to threaten the release of nuclear weapons, then they too can learn the meaning of preemption.

The precedent was set in 1993 when terrorists first attempted to topple the World Trade Centers in New York

That was not a Sovereign state, hence renderring your precedent irrelavant.

You can speculate all you want about Saddam and his weapons, but if he really had the capapcity to attack the American people, he would have been taken out a lot sooner - it was 'convenient' to take him out now, while the troops were in the region.

And if Iran wants to threaten the release of nuclear weapons, then they too can learn the meaning of preemption.

Iran hasn't threatened with nukes - they have merely said the USA doesn't have the monopoly of preemption, and I agree with them.

Would you wait for an obvious staulker to rape a loved one before calling the police?

Stalkers are hardly power hungry men who control the fate of the world with little buttons... your analogy did nothing but proove that you aren't seeing the bigger picture.

BAM!!!

I'd love to see Iran try something.

I'd love to see Iran try something.

Nice attitude Brad.

BAM!!!

I have always said they we(the US) should have dealt with them and Iraq during the first Iraq war. I agree that the average Iranian has no ill will towards the US. I have seen interviews with people on the street in Tehran and heard that from the younger generations mouths. I can see where the older generations resent the US and all the fucked up stuff that came down on the Iranian people by our supporting the Shah.

But when it comes right down to it, we cannot afford to wait until these fanatics have the capability to launch a direct strike against anybody. If they nuke Israel, they nuke them back, then we nuke Iran, then the russians nuke us, then the chinese nuke them , then the North Koreans nuke the west coast of the US and Japan. And so on and so and so on...until were ALL dead eventually. no nationality...just charred and diseased corpses.

Australia has never had a domestic terror attack on their home soil Muggaz. (and you are lucky my friends, i just came back to my hotel room in NYC this evening after a stroll through lower manhattan....you know GROUND ZERO?) When you get to see the holes in the ground there, it really hits home. Didn't the Bali bombings teach you people anything over there? They hate you too! no matter how detached you might think you are from the war on terrorism by being isolated. We used to think the same thing until 9/11. Do you think we should sit by and wait for it to happen again? HELL NO! The Islamist regime in Iran harbors Al Qaida, they fund terror worldwide, and have proved time and time again they have it out for us and the Israelis, and western civilization in general.

I say we mop up the resistance in Iraq, turn it all over to the UN...Hang a right turn and finish Iran off from both sides.It sounds brutal but it's better than the alternative!

Jesus... I sound like a Conservative. Looks like we agree on something after all Drag....who would have thought!

Hey man... I know all about terrorists.... the Bali bombings taught me plenty...

all I am saying is that Iran have warned of a preemptive strike, and that based on precedents set by other nations (mainly USA and Israel) there really isn't anyone with the moral high ground who can say - "no, that is the wrong thing to do."

BAM!!!

unfortunately this kind of thing is the likely response after one party proclaims it's 'right' to launch preemptive strikes. im guessing they're anticipating something like the israeli attack that destroyed saddam's nuclear plant.  

it just underscores (once again) the dangerous potential inherent in inflexibly, blindly and obsessively ignoring reality because it contradicts ideology.  

let's don't forget that halliburton (in violation of the spirit and very likely the letter of the law) has been helping iran to pay for projects of this type by improving their oil production capabilties. that effort began while dick cheney was running the company and continues to this moment.    or that chalabi, who enjoyed extraordinary iaccess to the administration as well as undue influence on its policies, was really acting only in the best interests of iran.  

As far as this American is concerned, the terrorists have been on a decade long campaign against my country and it is high time we meet the threat head on

and as far as this american is concerned, the iranians have been aided in their efforts for the past decade by a company run for 7 of those years by the man who will be vice-president again if youre foolish enough to vote for him. 

"It’s a shame that the targets of Iran's hostilities set the unfortunate precedent that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable."

I am curious. If a strike after 12 years of cease-fire violations on Iraq's side is "pre-emptive", what do you call a strike that happens BEFORE the enemy does something.

Also, why didn't Arab attacks on Israel during the last 50 years set "the unfortunate precedent that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable"?

run for 7 of those years

sorry...that should have been 5 not 7.

Would it be a fair restatement of the Iranian position to say: "If we feel that you are threatening our means of producing nuclear weapons, we will attack you first with conventional weapons?"

What peaceful use could Iran have for the nuclear reactor? Oil-rich Iran can't reasonably say that they are looking for alternative energy sources. The purpose of the reactor is to develop nuclear weapons capability, in a country that is obviously hostile to the US and its allies.

As for human rights abuses, please see of the articles on how Iran treats its own. I googled it and the first article that I found was from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3011132.stm

It is over a year old, but nothing has changed. Some quotes:
"Many pro-reform protesters were injured in attacks by right-wing vigilantes."

"Those responsible are believed to be basijis and hezbollahis, right-wing Islamic irregulars, often teenagers, who roam around trouble-spots on motorcycles armed with clubs, chains, and knives, apparently acting with impunity."

"The detentions took place on direct orders from the hard-line judiciary, bypassing normal procedures, with plain-clothes court agents apparently being given a blank cheque to arrest anybody they deemed "suspicious".

Please also note that the Iranian people have elected a reform President (Khatami) and the majority of the elected legislators are reformers, but the hard-line mullahs still retain power through force of arms.

Here is an article on the reactor itself: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm

The reactor is being built by Russia for Iran. US concerns, expressed for years through diplomatic channels but unheeded, are as follows: "US opposition to Russian construction of Bushehr rests on three issues; first that weapons grade plutonium could be extracted from the reactor allowing the Iranians to construct nuclear weapons. Secondly, the US fears that the Russians and the Iranians are using Bushehr as a cover for the transfer of other sensitive technology that would normally be prohibited. Finally, the US is concerned that the knowledge gained by Iranian scientists working at Bushehr could further Irans nuclear weapons program. "

Iran's response, presented in the interests of fairness, is that having internal nuclear power for domestic use would allow them to export more oil. However, two days ago, Iran said that there is a surplus in oil production and no reason to produce more. See Arabic News. com at http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/040816/2004081602.html

Recapping, Iran is a religious dictatorship, there is no peaceful reason for building the reactor, the US has tried unsuccessfully for over a decade to use peaceful channels to stop the development and Iran has issued a provocative statement. What then should we do?

Although there may be ill-will towards the US government among some older Iranians due to our support from the shah,
Look at the country and tell me iff the average joe there is better off now or then? It is pretty obvious. That is why a
large number of religious minorities from Iran escaped (if they could) with not much more than the clothes on their backs to
reach the US and other nations. Thus bringing smart hard working folks to a place where they didn't need to fear being
identified as a Baha'i, or a Christian. My friends from Persia were lucky to get out after the shah fell.
Blame the French for saying the Ayahtollah was a man of peace and protecting him.

I agree with kingbee...Haliburton is evil. They worked with Iran, They would work with the devil if the money was good enough. They work for our own government and rip them off. And Dick "go f*** yourself" Cheney sits by and acts like "hey...it's not my fault".

Just for the record...I think i was a little pissed off last night when i wrote my last entry Muggaz. Prolly because of where i had been last night. You do make a good point, and didn't mean to come off as hard on you as it now seens in retrospect. I always enjoy your posts...But i do stand by my statement.

Recapping, Iran is a religious dictatorship, there is no peaceful reason for building the reactor, the US has tried unsuccessfully for over a decade to use peaceful channels to stop the development and Iran has issued a provocative statement. What then should we do?

unfortunately our involvement in iraq and, to a lesser extent, afghanistan, limits our options. attempting anything unilaterally (or with another coalition of the bullied and willing) would almost certainly result in a war zone that extended from iraq east to pakistan.  it seems unlikely the current administration could (or would consider) enlist enough international support to effectively squeeze iran into reversing its plans to become a nuclear power. maybe cheney can take a temporary sabbatical, allowing him to utilize halliburton's connections to influence their client? 

of course we have an ace in the hole (so to speak): there's one anti-missile interceptor online in alaska. just because 20 years of tests havent succeeded, maybe well get lucky.

dammit delete this please muggaz...this comment was engineered by boeing at a cost of 53 million dollars and it screwed up (naww it was just one of those damn duplicate posts LOL)

I think Iran is quite perceptive to push forward its plans for the development of nuclear weapons. If there's one thing US foreig policy has shown over the last hundred years, it's that only the threat of nuclear weapons will prevent the invasion of a enemy power. The only possible way that Iran can safeguard its future as a sovereign state is by becoming a nuclear power. I don't like it, but then again the US has done a lot to antagonise Iran in recent years, just as Iran did a lot to antagonise the US in the past. If the ayatollahs and moderates that rule Iran have any sense they will complete their nuclear program as soon as possible and conduct a nuclear test within the week to show the Israelis and the US they mean business. To do anything else is to invite the kind attentions of the US army within a few years.

As for striking preemptively, well, the US has suggested that such an action is legal, so really if the US can do it to spread democracy, then it's only just that Iran can do it to spread theocracy and oppression. Otherwise everyone in favour of preemption and US foreign policy is just a hypocrite.

Actually, Iran does have a legitimate reason for wanting peaceful nuclear energy. They are economically better off exporting their oil and natural gas than using it themselves. Still, I don't think their reactor is completely for peaceful purposes.

Anyone who thinks that George Bush and the US invented the pre-emtpive war hasn't read a history book. What about the 1948 Middle East war? Or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941? Or the German invasion of Poland in 1939?

If Israel shoots at Iran and Iran shoots back, Iran did not launch a pre-emptive strike.

Japanese attack on pearl harbor was not in any way a preemptive attack, but rather an antaginization, considering the US had no intent to enter the war. Also, we need to wait until attacked before launching an attack on Iran. They are probbably blowing steam, considering nobody in their right mind would start a war with the United States and all of our allies. In the event of such an attack, we would need to relocate all of our troops worldwide, and would probbably need to instate a draft. This would be unfortunate if it was a direct result of a bad descision by the United States government to attack Iran first. Further, Israel needs to be told that it will not be acceptable for them to launch an attack on Iran either. Iraq is an example of why we need to stick to wars where our allies were attacked or where it is in self defense. Also, just a comment, the German invasion of poland was not pre-emptive either, as germany did not believe that poland was a threat, but rather wanted it first to gain land and second for a military advantage.

Ok, the Poland invasion might be a bit of a stretch. How can you say Pearl Harbor was not preemptive though? The whole point in attacking the US Navy was that it was a potential threat to Japanese Pacific dominance.

Why would a war with Iran require a draft?

As someone who is sick of middle east conflict and who isn't American, I kinda hope that Iran tries something, too. I mean, it could be a really costly war, and I hate to see people suffering, but really terrible wars with tonnes of pain and loss tend to cause positive social upheaval. This at relatively no cost to Canadians like me (who don't care TOO much about the impact of a major war on the western econonmy). America is very powerful, and because of the arbitrary particulars of history, it has gained the Darwinian right to be able to throw its weight around at the slightest hint of its interests being threatened. By the same harsh logic, I think it might be time for the US to put its rights as Alpha male on the line and make some of its lower class citizenry suffer and suffer hard for it. Go War-That-Doesn't-Directly-Involve-Us-More-Socialist-Western-Countries!

Zod, I think that is a horrible thing to say. I refuse to even debate with you the merits of your discusion. How can you promote the slaying of innocent people through a war against the United States. How can you say I am all for a war that doesn't involve me? Canada depends... DEPENDS on the United States. Clearly an attack on the USA would be an attack on Canada, as canada no doubt would be drawn into the war. Madine- i misspoke, I meant that it could require a draft. Our military operations around the world are spread very thin right now because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanastan (or should I say non major combat operations). If Iran were to launch a major war against the United States, that would be very costly to the United States. We would need to move hundreds of thousands of troops to iran, and would need to secure the main land of the united states. Further, the entire middle east would errupt in chaos, posibly including saudi arabia. Nato and the UN would probably be involved in the war against Iran as well. Despite this, we must not pre-empt their pre-emptive strike, and we must make sure that Israel does not either as they could lead us into a war that we must not get involved in. It has clearly been indicated to us that we do not have support within the Middle East except from Israel. Iran knows that we possess WMD's but they know we won't use them. They also know that a war will be very costly to us. therefore, it is essentail that we do not in any way initiate this war or antagonize Iran.