Muggaz Muggaz

Iran Warns of Pre-Emptive Strike

Iran Warns of Pre-Emptive Strike

based on ugly precedents set by their enemies.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B19236FC-6A23-4FB4-B499-E7AF900949DE.htm
The Olympics are supposed to be a time of reflection and enjoyment, with ideals of peace being put on the table by the worlds athletes, it would seem that Iran is out to ruin everyone’s party though

A few days ago, and Iranian athlete refused to compete with an Israeli athlete, which is fair enough, each to their own, we can move on from that, but now, the Iranian government is not ruling out pre-emptive strikes on US and Israeli forces in the Middle East should they feel their Nuclear reactor at Bushehr under threat.

Iranian Defence Minister – Ali Shamkhani has warned “We will not sit (With arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventative operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly” This was during an interview with Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq,"

The commander of the Elite revolutionary guards, General Muhammad Baqir Zolqadr has also warned - "If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move,"

They look like fighting words.

Should the Iranians make the first strike against Israeli or US forces, It will be safe to say we will have a genuine bloody conflict on our hands. We think Iraq and Afghanistan are human rights tragedies, we haven’t seen anything yet.

Iran would obviously be comfortable with making a pre-emptive strike, because they feel genuinely threatened. They maintain that their nuclear facilities are for energy production – That is for them to say, and us to believe.

The threat that Iran will attack opposing forces in the region is a very real one if they feel threatened. It’s a shame that the targets of Iran's hostilities set the unfortunate precedent that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable.

BAM!!!
39,319 views 114 replies
Reply #26 Top
I think a war with Iran with be a courageous move for the Bush administration, I do however think that George should only attempt this if he wins through in November. Britain and their allies America should have attacked Iran instead of Iraq, and then gone after those bloody Saudi Arabians.

I look forward to a noble conflict fought by brave British warriors, assisted by their somewhat slovenly American servant soldiers.
Reply #27 Top
Absolutley Saudi Arabia is a country that we should not at all asosciate ourselves with. And you are right we should not have gone into Iraq, it was a horrible mistake. They had no weapons. But what if the same thing happens in Iran?
Reply #28 Top
the Iranian government is not ruling out pre-emptive strikes on US and Israeli forces in the Middle East should they feel their Nuclear reactor at Bushehr under threat.


Why should it?

If you want peace, be prepared for war. If you wish to live quietly among your neighbours then, as Roosevelt said, walk softly and carry a big stick. Any Sovereign State (any) has the right to defend its existence by any means whatsoever. Any leader of a Sovereign State must as his first duty ensure that the State he leads is in a position to mount such a defense - and all and every means of such defense are properly his to use.

Including nukes, biological and chemical weapons, mortars, hand-grenades, semi-automatic rifles, mines of all descriptions, stones, sharp sticks and nail files.

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.


That would certainly prove illuminating. But I doubt the illumination would last long, since any political realist would immediately take note of it and take it is a warning light signifying that one of those who pose a threat to him was now a much bigger threat. And any political realist worth his salt would then exterminate that threat.

The balance of power in post WW2 consisted in the fact that two powers controlled weapons of monstrous destruction, that both would have used them if they deemed it necessary, and that each knew that the other was as willing to do so as itself. The fact that neither did so is the measure of the terror such weapons inspire.

There is only one such power left, and it ain't the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, that remaining power is not a political realist.

Personally, I would be happy to see the Israelis nuke the Iranians, or the Iranians nuke the Israelis, since this could only end the wretched stagnation of the problem of the Middle East. But I would much prefer to see the USA nuke both at once, along with Syria. If you're going to do a job at all then you may as well be thorough about it. Let them burn together. An abscess of human misery will have been lanced, an infected thorn in the side of the West have been removed, and a growing threat to the USA have been exterminated. It would also provide an object lesson in political expediency and the will to power for all those who might be inclined to bitch about it afterwards.

If they don't already exist I'm sure ultra-clean bombs producing minimal fallout and maximum destruction of human life could be produced, and we'd make money off the reconstruction afterwards.

As you can see, I have no issue with the notion of pre-emption as such. The right of Sovereign States to take whatsoever measures they deem necessary to ensure their defense from the importunities of other Sovereign States is undeniable and incontestable - and those who whine and bitch about the 'immorality' of this kind of political action have no understanding of that simple fact.

Political moralists, liberals, advocates of international 'law' and those generally who cite the UN and its laughable 'resolutions' as a means to regulate the intercourse of States, do not understand the term 'Sovereign' and its necessary entails. The UN is sovereign over nothing and its 'security council' no more than a star-chamber in which the most mighty over-awe those who are weaker than they. In the absence of a true and legitimate World-Sovereign (neither the USA, nor any of its immediate rivals, nor any institution of 'international law' such as the UN can be considered as such) the world exists in a state of perpetual war - which is not actual conflict but a period of time in which the potential for actual conflict, the willingness to engage in conflict, is widely known to all and feared by all.

And in the absence of such a Mortal God, the world is not much changed from the day in which these words were written:

"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Of the Naturall Condition of Mankind as concerning their Felicity and Misery, 1651.

Hobbes was writing of the necessity for the proper establishment of Sovereign power within nation states. Certainly, the Sovereign State dominates all nations and all societies, and to that extent has promoted culture and industry worldwide. But no World-Sovereign exists, able to ensure peace between these States, and to that degree Hobbes's description of the life of man remains accurate and true. The life of man in many parts of the world, as a consequence of the rivalries of States, remains nasty, brutish, and short, and will do so for the foreseeable future, since no current world leader is realist enough to to take the steps necessary to effect change.

C'est la vie, c'est la guerre.

~~DivasRule~~

Reply #29 Top
Well you've rightfully put me in my place for not being clear that my comment was meant to be a somewhat ironic response to Brad's "Bring it on" attitude. War is clearly not the solution to any problem with the possible exception of defending oneself from the oft mentioned "preemptive attack." The problem is that there are too many Arabs and Isrealis and Americans that believe this in principal only. Some of the most educated, rich and powerful countries in the world are currently engaged in a war of revenge that they haven't even thought about avoiding. YOU are the people in power in this world. If you don't like how things are going, make real change in the world and avoid the suffering of little people in your countries and in others. You can do this by either smashing all resistance to your idealogies or you can try a more reasoned and measured approach. And don't ask me what the solution is: you are mythologically creative and innovative, and I know you could come up with something good and make it stick, even if it doesn't please the elite of your nation. Meanwhile, living under your economic and military umbrella without being directly involved in any of your dirty work gives me little in the way of moral legs to stand on here, but does give me the benefit of a somewhat unbiased opinion. And my opinion right now is that the situation has been spiralling out of control at the behest of the rich and powerful since imperial British times (what is with us Anglo-Saxons anyways?). Honestly, I see no real solution, so forgive me if I can only be glad it won't be me or mine that suffer directly.
Reply #30 Top
which one was hobbes again?   the lil kid or the tiger?
Reply #31 Top
But what if the same thing happens in Iran?


It is widely accepted that Iran has nuclear capability, it is willing to admit this proudly. The anti war grouping would find it much more difficult to object to a war against Iran, or Saudi Arabia.

It is God's will that we attack, for England and St George!
Reply #32 Top
As I live in America, a SECULAR nation your regards to gods will do little to assure me that this is the right way to go. I don't object to war against Iran or Saudi Arabia if they say we will attack you even if you don't provoke us. The real problem is much deepen than this forum has realized. The problem lies within our need for oil. You see oil rules the economy. If the price of oil goes up quickly, it will have a devestating effect on the western world's economy. All industries and services and people require oil. Without a constant supply of oil from Iran and Saudi Arabia the price will at least double (this is an estimate, I am by no means an oil economist nor an expert on the oil market, though I believe this is just a conservative estimate considering the fact that we import 60% of our oil, and 48% of it comes from OPEC countries (http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030919.html). Further, 17+% of our oil comes from Saudi arabia. Any major war involving multiple OPEC countries would initiate a world wide oil crisis. Saudi Arabia could very well cut off their entire supply to us. Before we can launch a war on Saudi Arabia we need to be able to do the following things: 1) Keep the price of oil low without the asistance of SA (in other words we would have to cut our oil imports by half> to do this we would need to come up with alt. energy sources or cut our use of oil by aprox. 30% which is not realistic in the near future), 2) Be prepared to engage in a major military operation, on the scale of a World War in the middle east. 3) Be ready to accept major Civilian and US casualties and 4) Be prepared to have nukes used
Nuclear weapons must not be used in any attack because they cause devestating loss of civilian lives, which I don't think anyone would be willing to suggest is what must be done. Further, Nuclear warfar is extremley dangerous. Please consider all that I have said and I look forward to some responses.
Reply #33 Top
As I live in America, a SECULAR nation your regards to gods will do little to assure me that this is the right way to go.


All truly great wars have been ordered by God, for example, the Hundred Years War or the war with Spain we engaged in during the latter 16th century. We won both of these wars because God willed it, and if English armies took to Iran or Saudi Arabia we would win as it would be a modern crusade! Mr Blair would be our Richard I.

Any major war involving multiple OPEC countries would initiate a world wide oil crisis.


OPEC do as I tell them I am pleased to confirm, when the name Maxwell is heard the cut price oil flows to the west! On these grounds, English Knights should do battle in Saudi Arabia.
Reply #34 Top
I will not debate with you when you inflict religion or god into your arguments. That is what the terrorists did to justify what they did. I will simply not discus this with you until you choose to drop that reasoning.
Reply #35 Top
I will not debate with you when you inflict religion or god into your arguments.


If you are a heretic then I should not wish to educate you anyway!
Reply #36 Top
Who may I ask do you think you are?
Reply #37 Top
Who may I ask do you think you are?


Who am I?! You have never heard of the great Sir Peter Maxwell? To solve all of your worldly problems, click the link.

Link

Reply #38 Top
Regarding your statement "... set the unfortunate precedent that pre-emptive strikes are acceptable."

On April 6-7, 1862, the Confederate army made a preemptive strike north of Corinth to protect the city against Union troops being amassed along the Tennessee River. The result of the Confederate strike was the Battle of Shiloh where 44,000 Confederate troops and 65,000 Union troops met on an isolated field of battle. After their defeat at Shiloh, the Confederates withdrew to Corinth and evacuated the city on May 29, 1862.


Pre-emptive strikes are not new for the US or a lot of countries. It is one of the oldest wartime strategies, despite the attempt to portray it as a new phenomenon.
Reply #39 Top
Mr. Muggaz,

You are right to suggest there is no nation with the moral high ground to denounce the preemptive first-strike. But what you fail to consider is the premise that there is nothing wrong with a first strike, when a nation's very existence (Israel 1967, 1972) or national security (Gulf War I & II) is threatened. There is no highrer responsibility for any government than to preserve the existence and security of the nation-state. If Iran feels its existence or security as a nation is threatened, then it is within its rights to defend itself by attacking.

Now, that being said, Iran is pretty small potatoes compared to the military might of the United States, only a fraction of which is deployed in Iraq. When deciding what threatens your existence, it's pretty clear to all but the insane that if you lash out at someone more than twice your size on a perceived slight, you're likely to be beaten to a bloody pulp. Therefor, if Iran's government has a care for its continued governance of that nation, a preemptive strike is out of the question. It would be self defeating.

John Gilliland
Reply #40 Top
>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.

Is that the ONLY purpose of a nuclear reactor?

After the Iraqi WMD nonsense, U.S and allies have ZERO (read that again), ZERO credibility

There is ONE and only ONE nation on Earth that has retaliated with a nuclear weapon, the same
nation trying to keep it out of the hands of others (BULLY mentality)

WHAT law on Earth states that U.S has or should have the monopoly on Nuclear Armaments?

Finally - what are you smoking?

>Recapping, Iran is a religious dictatorship, there is no peaceful reason for building the
>reactor

Recapping, that is NOT for you to decide!!!

>What then should we do?

Shut up
Mind your business
Quit interferring in the internal affairs of other nations
Reply #42 Top


What a jackass. Yeah, there's absolute moral equivalence between a functioning democracy and a repressive theocracy pledged to the wholesale destruction of Israel. Good post, dumbass.
Reply #43 Top
Newsflash...the trade centers were located in a sovereign state, just as these nuclear facilites are. If you attack any structure within a sovereign state, youve attacked the state, get it?


The attack wasn't made by a sovereign state LW....

From your previous positions, mugz, i can only assume the human rights you are concerned about would be those of the innocent iranians that would be killed in the aftermath, because your statements.....


Any act of war is a human rights tragedy...

...indicate that you feel they would be justified in starting this crap because they "feel threatened."


The same as the USA felt threatened so they toppled Saddam...

I know im not welcome to comment on your threads, mugz, but sometimes i cant help myself. Your thinly masked hatred of everything american and your tendency to embrace and make excuses for those who would see us DEAD really makes me want to reach through this screen and give you a nice whack on the forehead with a petite hammer, just to measure the echo.


And right there you have your answer why you aren't really welcome. I love Americans now... I have said it many times... it's just your leaders I have bones to pick... I am not making excuses for Iran... I dont want to see another attack on anyone, from anyone, I think you have totally misjudged me LW... thats a shame... you can assume I hate Americans and that I wish death upon them as much as you want - that is simply not the case.

This article is a mere report on the fact that because USA has pre-emptively struck at Iraq on the premise of threat, that Iran would be perfectly justified to do the same, and the USA, the usual moral measuring stick, has no right to say a pre-emptive strike would not be ethical.

BAM!!!
Reply #44 Top
I'm all for peace, but frankly that is why the Middle East is what it is today. Isreal fights half wars, the US fights half wars, no enemy is ever really defeated, and ten years later it all happens again. The US has been "The Great Satan" for decades. Iran got off very, very lucky when Reagan came into office, and again when they attacked one of our ships a number of years later. Hussein got of very, very, VERY lucky when he invaded Kuwait and perpetrated his numerous atrocities there, not counting what he did to his own people.

The fact is, this kind of "peace at all costs" attitude, and all this bowing to the European peanut gallery has cost the world hundreds of thousands of lives and cost the the Arab world the right to step into the modern era. It serves the purposes of peddlers and carpetbaggers to keep an evil regime in power, because there is always ill-gottn money to be earned from them.

End it. Period. I don't think a single American OR Iraqi soldier should lose their life storming that damn mosque to cater to the sensibilities of religious fanatics, and I don't think any deference whatsoever should be granted to governments like Iran's. If we are to make war, let's make war, and finish it.
Reply #45 Top
I agree somewhat. If you are going to enter a war you must do a complete job. We should never entered the war, but now that we have lets finish it and make sure Iraq doesnt give us any more trouble.
Reply #46 Top
End it. Period. I don't think a single American OR Iraqi soldier should lose their life storming that damn mosque to cater to the sensibilities of religious fanatics, and I don't think any deference whatsoever should be granted to governments like Iran's. If we are to make war, let's make war, and finish it.


Ah, the Hawk Scorched earth policy....

The problem with your argument Baker is that any conflict with Iran and allies would probably last for 10 years.... rather than having a fresh conflict with different admins every 10 years, you are going to instill hatred amongst a general population in Iran that generally has no gripes with the USA....

BAM!!!
Reply #47 Top
Also, I would like to point out the source of the article from the begining. Aljazeera. Can someone confirm this news story by a more reputable news source?
Reply #48 Top
Can someone confirm this news story by a more reputable news source?


- you dont think they are reputable?

BAM!!!
Reply #49 Top
"The problem with your argument Baker is that any conflict with Iran and allies would probably last for 10 years.... rather than having a fresh conflict with different admins every 10 years, you are going to instill hatred amongst a general population in Iran that generally has no gripes with the USA...."


Please, Mugs. You really think that a war with Iran couldn't end in a matter of days? Do you really think a US soldier need set foot on Iranian soil? I think we could easily have a desperate plea of surrender in a few weeks and never dip in to our nuclear stockpiles.

Granted, people don't make war that way anymore. In order to show "good faith" we'd have to forgo our superior technology and dangle a few thousand soldiers in harms way so that we can pretend we are being "humane".

Hardly. What you are condemning as "scorched earth" is simply protecting US troops. It is sad and ridiculous to send footsoldiers into an area with remaining resistance.

Condemn me all you like, but I don't think a single combat boot should touch soil anywhere we aren't polititely invited into. Until we are offered such a suggestion, our main objuective should be ending the conflict with as few US casualites as possible. Every town in Iraq that offers resistance should be considered "at war" and no one should try and "occupy" it until it is no longer a war-zone.
Reply #50 Top
Baker - you remind me of the Denis Leary song "Asshole"

"Cause we got the bombs - ok?"

*sigh*

BAM!!!