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 #51 Top
Snideness aside, I think it is pretty telling that you find putting soldiers in harms way preferable to "scorched earth". It is a comfortable argument here, but if you knew for a fact that you could end a conflict without any losses on your side, or end it with tens of thousands of causalties on your side, you think sacrificing soldiers is taking the "high road"?

You keep trying to make this jingoistic. It isn't. I am sick of seeing our soldiers dragged through the streets, and when facing people who fight as these people fight, they don't deserve to get the chance to shoot at our troops.

It may serve your arguement to keep painting me as some sort of war nut, but what you are suggesting is far, far more bloody and disgusting.
Reply #52 Top
It may serve your arguement to keep painting me as some sort of war nut, but what you are suggesting is far, far more bloody and disgusting.


Soldiers get paid to fight.

Civilians dont.

When Soldiers waltz in to Iraq, or Iran, or Vietnam or wherever, they are fully aware of the risk they are taking. To wish death upon a civilian population with a few big bombs based on an administrations threats - empty or not, is just sadistic.

BAM!!!
Reply #53 Top
Good stuff, Muggaz.

I think this is a prime example of how poor a foreign policy premptive strike is.
Reply #54 Top
Muggaz your accusations are absurd. First of all, Iran would not attack the united states. My previous posts were to support the idea of not provoking Iran. However, the fact remains that we could and would crush Iran and any other country that dared to attack us. No country would be that stupid. We wouldn't be able to use nukes, but we have other bombs. We have fighter jets. We have allies. And we would win. The failure that occured in Iraq would NOT happen if iran were to attack us because we would attack them with a fury not seen since world war II. And I am highly insulted by your sordid remark that soldiers get paid to die. Do police officers get paid to die as well? No. They get paid to fight crime, as soldiers get paid to fight enimies. Yes death is a risk, as it is a risk to the firefighter or the industrial worker, but it is not what they are paid to do. Soldiers further do not get to choose whether or not to waltz into Iraq or Iran, they are ordered to do so. And bringing up vietnam is ludicrous. A draft was instated, meaning our own civilians were forced to go there. Our own civilians died. War is not good, but a ground war is in NO way better then any other form of war.

Bakerstreet- I agree with you on a number of issues. However, we should not endlessly attack the civilians in Iraq, even if in not senslessly slaughtering people a few american soldiers are killed. It is different if we were to be attacked, then the goal of our attack would be to disable our enemy. But the goal of our invasion of iraq was to occupy it, not destroy it.
Reply #55 Top
Muggaz your accusations are absurd


Absurd they may be! What accusations are you referring to exactly? I have not said that a ground war is better than any other war... Iran doesn't even have the capacitiy to attack the US, so I dont know what you are talking about...

I agree with you 100% attacking USA or their forces would proove futile for any force, it would no doubt set in action a course of events that would bog the middle east in to war, and a lot of people will die regardless... I just find it disheartening that people like baker here dont give a rats ass about the people of the middle east, as long as USDF personel aren't placed in harms way...

you wouldn't want to press any buttons in an electrical storm, some US troops might get a nasty jolt... :S

BAM!!!
Reply #56 Top
I misspoke. They werent accusations. They were comments. Not accusations. I apologize. That does not invalidate my point about the soldiers not being paid to die. When i say attack the USA i classify any sort of pre-emptive attack as an attack on the USA. I agree that civilians should not needlessly die.
Reply #57 Top
That does not invalidate my point about the soldiers not being paid to die


Sorry mate - I have edited the offending comment.

BAM!!!
Reply #58 Top
Thank you.
Reply #59 Top
actually the first opening salvo against the united states by Terrorists, Rouge Nations, Radicals...and Iran in particular was the US Embassy takeover and the subsequent hostage ordeal....dont know why everyone forgets that...especially since an Embassy is considered the soverign soil of the particular nation ....

as to Iran's latest round of threats...well I highly doubt they are really in the mood for a direct confrontation with the US and its allies...because that be the last mistake the Mullahs in tehran would make....because it would give us the excuse we would need to teach Iran a lesson all americans know....paybacks are a bitch!

Quite frankly....i think its time Iran got a bitchslap....they are partly responsible for Sadr's continued irritation in Iraq.....and other problems there...remember its not in Irans intrest to have another secular nation next to them (this time without a dictator) nor are they happy bout being boxed in as it were with Iraq to the west and Afghan to the east...
i believe...who knows....
Reply #60 Top

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

the preemptive strike is as old as war.   there's no question about that.  what is a new phenomenon is the leader of a 21st century first world civilized nation proclaiming he has the power to declare war at will with preemptive strikes in what seems to be a total contradiction to the constitution if not common sense.  crucifixion dates back to before the current era.  should we now revive it as well because it works?  

Reply #61 Top

And this is different from the late 20th century...how?

Kosovo was preemptive. Panama was preemptive. Grenada was preemptive.  Could you give us a list of NON-preemptive wars?

Reply #62 Top
Kosovo was preemptive. Panama was preemptive. Grenada was preemptive. Could you give us a list of NON-preemptive wars?


I dont know very much at all about Grenada and Panama, but Kosovo was preemptive on the basis of a human rights tragedy of ridiculous proportions taking place...

Iraq was preemptive based on the fact the USA felt it's national security was under threat... I would say that was not the case in the three conflicts you mentioned.

BAM!!!
Reply #63 Top

Kosovo was preemptive. Panama was preemptive. Grenada was preemptive.


i dont know how youre defining preemptive as far as kosovo goes.   pearl harbor was preemptive in that the japanese attacked without being directly provoked in hopes of preventing us intervention in the pacific  the serbs posed no threat to the us.   what did nato preempt?


panama declared war on the us on december 16, 1989 (and executed an american soldier)  the us invaded panama the next day.  once again, what did we preempt?


grenada was characterized as a rescue mission. there was no anticipation that grenada was going to invade the us.

Reply #64 Top

If our President (whoever that turns out to be next year) allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons he would be derelict in his duty to the US and the world at large


the president has no duty whatsoever to the 'world at large'.  whether one agrees with the so-called 'doctrine' of preemption or not, the choice to exercise it in iraq--especially based on what everyone now agrees to have been severely flawed intelligence--has diminished the likelyhood of it being used again in the near future.

Reply #65 Top

We cannot allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.


iran's theocracy is nowhere near as dangerous as north korea's justplaincrazy.  if we cant allow iran to have nuclear weapons (and it may already be too late) we sure as hell shoulda done something about north korea other than refuse to engage them over the number of parties at the table.  iraq was a sunday school picnic compared to korea.  which is another reason it iraq became the target  

Reply #66 Top
we should not allowed israel to develop nuclear weapons for pretty much the same reasons as iran.  if israel should come under complete control of fundamentalists who perceived some external force as possibly overrunning israel, could you confidentally deny the possibility of nuclear masada?   (for that matter, if the us were also in the hands of fundamentalists, could you deny the possibility of them deciding it was armageddon time?)
Reply #67 Top
Mugz, you say you are a reformed america hater, but when your "issues with our leaders" show contempt for their efforts to protect our interests and keep us safe, you hate us citizens by proxy.


What about when citizens of America have issues with your leaders? do they hate themselves?

I dont want Iran to attack - it not something I would be proud to say happened in my life time - but when 'moral leaders' of our world - representing the coutries, our countries, feel as though than can barge into another country based on speculation, the Iranians can speculate they are about to be attacked, and release fury upon their regions. Big brother USA needs to lead by example, or not lead at all.

You, as citizens, face a huge dilema, you cant win if you do go play goody goody, and you cant win if you dont - it comes with the responsibility of being American, the so called moral leader of the free world. When another country tries to compromise that position, it's only because they want to be like America... all powerful.

Is an all powerfull America the image you want to convey? "dont fuck with us or we will fuck you up?"

it's hostile.

BAM!!!
Reply #68 Top

you hate us citizens


if only muggaz was the person topping the list of people who intend to harm, think badly of, or wish evil upon me or any other ordinary us citizen (hell toss in the non-citizens and undocumented residents as well).


id relax to the point of blissing out.

Reply #69 Top
what is a new phenomenon is the leader of a 21st century first world civilized nation proclaiming he has the power to declare war at will with preemptive strikes in what seems to be a total contradiction to the constitution if not common sense.


He does have the power to declare war according to the constitution and was given consent by congress to take whatever steps were necessary to deal with Iraq.

I wouldn't call it a phenomenon. He has done what has been done numerous times by presidents in the history of the US.
Reply #70 Top
Iran isn't the problem. Yes they are a problem but they aren't the problem. The real problem is the fact that nuclear war heads were developed in the first place. We should set a precident by dismantlin many of our nuclear warheads (as long as we reach an agreement with china or another country w. such warheads stating they would eqaully destroy a number o ftheirs). Further, Iran does not have the capability to attack the USA, just to attack Israel with such a weapon. Though this would be a catastropy and it would be the US's role as a super power to stop this from happening, it would not be an attack on the USA and therefore a pre-emptive strike by the USA on Iran is not possible, because you can't preempt an attack on another nation.
Reply #71 Top

He does have the power to declare war according to the constitution...

...I wouldn't call it a phenomenon. He has done what has been done numerous times by presidents in the history of the US.

actually the adminstration's philosophy as expressed in the so-called 'bush doctrine' is rooted in wolfowitz's 1992 defense planning guidelines draft that calls for preemption against any nation that is perceived to pose a challenge to american superiority


(as to the whitehouse's take on presidential power, consider the infamous bybee/yoo 'working group' memo prepared in 2002 and used as the basis for the creation of the guantanamo detention facility--as well as other practices that very likely contributed to the climate of torture in iraq--asserts the commander in chief now occupies a "constitutionally superior position" to congress and has "inherent authority" to prosecute the war with or without the approval of congress.


"congress lacks authority … to set the terms and conditions under which the president may exercise his authority as commander in chief to control the conduct of operations during a war," the memo's authors insists. "congress may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield")


preemption is not in itself a new phenomenon.  preemption on the basis of military massing on the other side of a nationall border makes sense.  what is new is the concept of making a preemptive strike on the basis of determining another nation is capable of becoming a threat at some point in the future.   admittedly, altho the history books found in most schools paint the us as being willing to go to war only for purposes of self defense, the reality is not that clear cut.  on the other hand, the bush doctrine blurs the line between preemptive and preventive. 

Reply #72 Top
on the other hand, the bush doctrine blurs the line between preemptive and preventive.


I think the bush doctrine blurs the lines between preemptive and just plain greed. There was no reason for Iraq. Bush wanted to go so he dragged the whole country with him. He lied to us. He told us fallacies. He wanted to go to Iraq so he could give billions to his friends at halliburton. He wanted to go so he could say he was tough on terror. He wanted to go so he could feel that he had done some humanatarian cause. The fact is he lied to himself and he lied to the world and its not acceptable. 10,000+ people have died because of that lie, 1000 of them american soldiers. It's wrong. And guess what. Now that we are there, we have not choice. I think this shows to be weary of the government's statements and its inteligence in general.
Reply #73 Top
He lied to us. He told us fallacies.


Was Bill Clinton lying to us when we launched airstrikes against Iraq in 1998? Did you know that John Kerry was in favor of a ground invasion of Iraq in the late 90s?

Link
Reply #74 Top
preemption is not in itself a new phenomenon. preemption on the basis of military massing on the other side of a nationall border makes sense. what is new is the concept of making a preemptive strike on the basis of determining another nation is capable of becoming a threat at some point in the future.


Although I don't agree with your use of the word 'capable' (I added the italics in quoting your statement); I would say 'likely' would be more suited, with the weapons capabilities available to nations today, such as nuclear weapons, biological, etc., a 'military massing on the other side of a national border' is only but one of a number of threats that warrant a preemptive strike.

You may not agree that Iraq fits this description, but that doesn't disprove the merits of using a preemptive strike towards nations that are seen by the rest of the world as seeking and planning to use modern weapons or terror to advance their agenda or their borders.

You seem to be arguing against using a preemptive strike for anything except a massing of troops. With technology available today, masses of troops aren't needed. 911 is but one example.
Reply #75 Top
He lied to us. He told us fallacies


Sandy, that is ridiculous.

At worst, Bush was parroting what many people, including congress, presidents, intelligence agencies, and even other countries had been saying for years.

At best, he was finally doing what others had been urging for ten years.