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 #76 Top
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?


Did Clinton come into office with the plan to attack Iraq?

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


And everyone of these groups were sighting faulty inteligence. Clinton sighted false inteligence too, but guess who was the president at the time that inteligence was collected. Bush Sr. was. Before Bush was president he was also the director of the CIA. It is now known that the current president encouraged the inteligence community to come up with evidence to invade Iraq, and even after being told that the evidence was false he had it inserted into the state of the union. The difference is that the president knew it was a lie.
Reply #77 Top
Do yu really think that a country like Iran can fight the strongest country in the world? a rag tag group of ak totting militia can beat a military that is more powerful than the next 5 most powerful militarie combined?
Reply #78 Top
Do yu really think that a country like Iran can fight the strongest country in the world? a rag tag group of ak totting militia can beat a military that is more powerful than the next 5 most powerful militaries combined?
Reply #79 Top
The next time I refuse to address something and people ask why, please remember sandy2 .

This is a war of attrition. A liberal parrot wanders in, makes a bunch of claims, someone takes an hour of their time to refute them intelligently...

...and then two days later some other parrot wanders in and says the same damn thing again, demanding answers.

It is pointless, mainly because the people at the root of all these arguments KNOW they are false, they KNOW they are lying, but they think it is worth it to succeed in their political aims. They know people like sandy2 will pick up on the lies and spread them around, and that eventually Republicans will realize the impossibility of staying on messageboads 24 hours a day to refute all their little robots...

Reply #80 Top
It is now known that the current president encouraged the inteligence community to come up with evidence to invade Iraq, and even after being told that the evidence was false he had it inserted into the state of the union.


That is simply not true.

All these claims were refuted by the 911 commission and, as such, have now become a repetitive mantra of the tin-foil hat crowd in an attempt to 'wag the dog'.
Reply #81 Top
It is pointless, mainly because the people at the root of all these arguments KNOW they are false, they KNOW they are lieing, but they think it is worth it to suceed in their political aims. They know people like sandy2 will pibk up on the lies and spread them around, and that eventually Republicans will realize the impossibility of staying on messageboads 24 hours a day to refute all their little robots...


You are calling my uninteligent. Fine. That is your opinion. You are calling me a liar. Fine that is also your opinion. But you will not call me a robot. I come up with my own ideas. Obviously you have not seen all of my posts. I am not liberal across the board. I am not picking up on lies and spreading them. I understand if you don't want to hear my ideas. I understand if you don't agree with my ideas. But don't tell me that I don't think for myself.
Reply #82 Top
If you thin kit is bad now, asshat Micheal Moore has two more books coming out before November. Expect an army of sandy2's with their cut-and-paste bombs...
Reply #83 Top
sandy: I call you a robot because you are reciting the same tired mantra, even though it has been refuted. Okay, maybe you aren't a robot, maybe you are a stuck record player, or an old encyclopedia, or some other metaphor for something that constantly repeats something regardless of the fact that it has been refuted ages ago.

Reply #84 Top
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?


Who care Madine... they were lying, or they weren't, there is nothing we can do about it now...

Stop making excuses for Bush based on mistakes of past administrations...

BAM!!!
Reply #85 Top
sandy: I call you a robot because you are reciting the same tired mantra, even though it has been refuted. Okay, maybe you aren't a robot, maybe you are a stuck record player, or an old encyclopedia, or some other metaphor for something that constantly repeats something regardless of the fact that it has been refuted ages ago.


Baker, you are an excellent debater... why do you resort to condescension? Sandy has put forward some brilliant arguments, and it is not at all tired rhetoric... It may be tired for you, because you are constantly being asked to stand up for those you agree with... these same points heve merit, no matter how much you claim to have refuted, you can beleive what you want, we know where your allegiances lie, and the amount of empathy you are capable of... as long as you have access to the internet, and gas for your car, you will be just fine.

BAM!!!
Reply #86 Top
Please, Mugs, you have been a part of these discussions, too. Read post #75 and tell me that isn't a caricature of every tired anti-Bush tirade that has ever been posted here. The 9-11 commission has addressed this stuff, Bush has addressed this stuff, KERRY has addressed it for heaven's sake...

The only people that are still carrying those banners are the "anyone but Bush at all costs" crowd, and I'm personally tired of "debating" them. Sorry if I come off as jaded, but it is akin to dragging someone outside over and over to show them that the sky is blue. Once night comes, they refuse to believe you and demand you show them again tomorrow. They just know that sooner or later you'll give up and they can freely mislead people.

If people *still* want to keep saying Bush invaded Iraq because of Halliburton, fine, but they don't deserve debate, they deserve derision.
Reply #87 Top
Bakerstreet- now I'm being accused of copying and pasting? Have you read some of my more detailed posts? Furhter, I understand that you disagree with me about Iraq. Do you disagree however about the fact that the money the US government is spending in Iraq has been misapropriated? Here is a link from the Washington Post. Link

Reply #88 Top
sandy2: flawed reasoning. Because money is being mishandled, you use that as proof that Iraq was invaded so that money could be mishandled. You say "halliburton" and ignore the fact that these are often subsidiaries and subcontracters, and in the end you glue it all together to make the point you want to make. I used the words " copy and paste" because these are practically verbaitim rants that we have heard over and over and over for more than a year now. All of them get investigated, nothing ever happens, and when the dust settles someone starts spouting it again.

Like I said earlier, I don't think any of this needs to be hashed out again, so I am not gonna take your bait and hash it out again. If you want to relive history there are untold numbers of threads here that discuss the same things you are talking about. Why bother with it again, unless you just want to keep the propaganda at the top of the forums?

Reply #89 Top
iran's theocracy is nowhere near as dangerous as north korea's justplaincrazy.


I am going to have to disagree with you on this one kingbee. Religious fundamentalism in control of a government is as scary as it gets.

Wait a sec...OUR government is being run by a religious fundamentalist...

Ahhh crap...
Reply #90 Top
Who care Madine... they were lying, or they weren't, there is nothing we can do about it now...


I'm not making excuses, I don't need to.

I am pointing out that it is silly to suggest that Bush was fabricating the information about Iraq unless you are prepared to say that Clinton and Kerry were too, since they held the same or similar positions.
Reply #91 Top
Pretty interesting thread. A comment & some replies.

Little_whip & BakerStreet: Ditto. Couldn't begin to say it better. Well done.

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.

Such a position is morally & ethically vacant, assuming that democracy and theocratic dictatorship are morally equivalent. They are not. Too often, in a misguided attempt to be "fair" and feel better about ourselves, we impute qualities to our enemies which simply don't exist, something they relentlessly work to their advantage, aided by the addle-brained press which so loves to hate America.

It is now known that the current president encouraged the inteligence community to come up with evidence to invade Iraq, and even after being told that the evidence was false he had it inserted into the state of the union. The difference is that the president knew it was a lie.

God, this fiction just won't die! Doesn't anyone have a silver cross stashed somewhere? What do we have to do?

The 9/11 Commission Report. I repeat, the 9/11 Commission Report. I repeat, the 9/11 Commission Report.

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.

See above. I'm running oout of energy.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #92 Top

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


i'll concede the point (although i think its worth noting there is a consistent conceptual subtext to validate my choice of term)


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.


therein exists the crux of contention no?  i offered the 'massed on your border' thing only as a simple illustration of justification.  clearly today's technology greatly widens the 'border' threat because an icbm is 'massed on everyone's  border' regardless of its physical location. unilateralism is the exact wild card driving this thread.  if each nation has the right to act on its perception of a threat--which is exactly what the bush doctrine claims for the usa--the world is quickly faced with a dilemma of having to accomodate  iran's perception or north korea's perception as well as ours.  just as in our daily lives we encounter situations in which someone claims 'everybody knows' or 'everybody agrees' something that may or may not be universally known or agreed to, nations may conclude the whole world sees a situation the way they do.   by breaking a working process through which the world's collective viewpoint can be determined in favor of indulging in self-righteous unilateralism, the bush doctrine makes the planet a much more dangerous place for all of us.  at best it forces us into the position of world cop. at the same time, it opens the door to pakistan (for example) justifying nuking hindus to shiva's planet..or iran doing israel...or vice versa, etc.  at worst, flawed intelligence (or some similar screwup) causes us to do something horrible and unnecessary. 

Reply #93 Top
kingbee

I have never bought into the 'unilaterally' argument. The term is tossed around wildy and there is no basis for it. The US would have to be the single nation in the world that wanted to strike against Iraq, for the term to be appropriate. There were, and are, many supporters for the action in Iraq and, if I'm not mistaken, the dissenting nations didn't number that high in quantity. I have never seen an explanation of why the opinion of 3 nations .. France, Germany, and Russia .. were described as the world view.

As far as opening doors, somehow I don't buy the notion that the nations of the world are waiting to take their cue from what the US does, in terms of legitimizing preemptive strikes. Especially in light of the widely reported view that the US no longer is respected in the world community and is viewed as a bully.

If, as in your example, pakistan nukes the hindus and justifies it by saying "Well the US did it (preemptive strike)", wouldn't you see that as rather transparent? That is just another version of the old child's excuse "Well other kids are doing it." There is no connective causality. Regardless of the US military methods used, if another nation uses those same methods, it is by choice and not an unavoidable result of US actions.
Reply #94 Top

As far as opening doors, somehow I don't buy the notion that the nations of the world are waiting to take their cue from what the US does, in terms of legitimizing preemptive strikes. Especially in light of the widely reported view that the US no longer is respected in the world community and is viewed as a bully

my statement reflected this quote from muggaz' article (the basis for this thread)

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”

i wasnt advocating or encouraging this type of thinking and i hope to hell iran is just mouthing off.  at the same time, i gotta point out if history demonstrates nothing else, it sure provides plenty of proof there isnt a lotta difference between nations and kids.

Reply #95 Top
God, this fiction just won't die! Doesn't anyone have a silver cross stashed somewhere? What do we have to do?

The 9/11 Commission Report. I repeat, the 9/11 Commission Report. I repeat, the 9/11 Commission Report.


I quote CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. "Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy". It turns out that what the CIA told them was the evidence was not good enough to include it in the state of the union. They did so anyways. See the whole article, intrestingly titled "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious" (hmm a major news organization seems to agree with me) by clicking this link
Link

Reply #96 Top
it sure provides plenty of proof there isnt a lotta difference between nations and kids.


You're right on that, kingbee.

When it boils down to it, there aren't really any differences in basic motivations between those of children and those of adults. Adults just, hopefully, control them better.

But what it also boils down to is that choices are made, whether speaking of children or adults (or nations, for that matter), based on personal motivations, not on what someone else does ... despite the attempt to attribute that choice to someone else's actions.
Reply #97 Top
See the whole article, intrestingly titled "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious"


The really interesting thing about this article was the fact that for the first day it was online, the title read "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False" (emphasis added on the changed word by me). It was determined by CBS that since they had no proof Bush knew it was false, they felt the word dubious was safer.

Later it was determined the info might have legs after all. I've never heard if it was finally determined beyond a doubt whether it was true or false.

Reply #98 Top
You are all overlooking the wider issue here.

What is the will of God?

But also, war against the infidels serves England and St George.
Reply #99 Top
The point is that bush knew it may not have been true but still quoted it in his state of the union to increase support for the war against iraq/
Reply #100 Top
There was a government investigation into the claims that sandy and the rest keep harping on. They offer the "questions", and then fail to mention that there are "answers"... mainly because the answers don't suit their arguement. So they go on and on, asking the same questions, knowing that most will not bother finding out that their accusations are lies, and that the rest of us will just get tired of pointing out their propaganda.

Sad, really. You'd think if Kerry was worth a damn people could spend their time convincing others of what a good job he'll do. Instead, they just have to spread rehashed and disproven rumor and innuendo in the hopes no one will look to hard at Kerry and just vote against Bush.