Will the Israeli’s Attack?

1. 60

   readytoescapeposted 14 years ago

   With only days left before Iran’s first nuclear reactor is loaded with fuel rods and begins start up procedures on August 21st, will the Israeli’s take out the reactor complex and other support facilities?
   
   Should they act?
   
   If they do so, do you support Israeli Military action?
   
   And would such an attack plunge the Middle East into War, and perhaps drag the rest of us into it?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Rajab Nsubugaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The middle East is already at war, what u have to understand is that silence of guns does not mean peace. Israel will attack evn at the slightest opportunity. In 1982 Israel attacked Lebanon on the pretext of a killed diplomat.
      
      It does not have to be Iran's nuclear reactor, Israel breathes war because it is a creation of war and it is the "only" means it can survive.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         ....Also because Israelis have no other place to go.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      it is not about they would attack bcoz according to experts they have lost the right time to attack...

      replyreport
      1. 60

         readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Actually according to the "experts" the Iraelis can wait no longer and to "safely" take out the reactor complex and avoid any potential radiation fallout it has to be done before next Saturday.

         replyreport
   3. 55

      C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      First, NO. I don't think they will. Why? Because they are uncertain as to how the US and UK will react.
      
      Second, NO. Iran is well within it's right to produce nuclear weapons. If there is a treaty or agreement being broken, declare war.
      
      Third, based on declarations from Iran regarding Israel, I would support actions following a declaration of war.
      
      Fourth, Yes I believe that once and for all the world would have to openly pick a side. An all out war would be the worst way to resolve the situation. Mainly because it may create new ones. However, it's pretty clear that something needs to be done, diplomacy has failed.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         CJ,
         
         1st:  I don’t think the US or the UK will prevent them from doing it if they decide they feel it is necessary. And in many ways Israeli action would “solve” the issue. Of course it will create a few more, but are they as dangerous as a Nuclear Armed Iran?
         
         2nd:  See Pisean’s post on page one
         
         3rd: Agreed
         
         4th: Scares the “you now what out of me” but I not sure it would escalate to World War Status, though I believe the Iranians, as well as the Militant and Radical Muslim organizations will try to incite and encourage such a war.

         replyreport
   4. 59

      Dr Ken Romeoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Israel will not attack yet. Since Iran has the legal right to produce this type of energy, the world community will turn against them.
      Israel is in a terrible spot.
      Besides if they do attack, you can count on oil going to over $200 a barrel overnight. This will further help kill an already floundering US economy.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         While I may tend to agree the may have a right to pursue nuclear energy, this clearly is not their purpose.
         
         Why would a country that has almost limitless fuel at very little cost spend 100's of billions for such a plant?
         
         And what are these plants for, none will support the type of generation facility they claim to have built?
         
         ISFAHAN - Uranium conversion plant
         
         NATANZ - Uranium enrichment plant
         
         ARAK - Heavy water plant, used to produce plutonium for a nuclear weapon

         replyreport
2. 60

   kephriraposted 14 years ago

   They will not attack. If Iran does have a clandestine nuclear weapons program they aren't going to put it into the same building as their commercial nuclear power plant, so attacking that place would be pointless.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      ......Pointless argument.   Nuclear weapons program starts from the commercial nuclear power plant only.  Destroying it means destroying weapons facility.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         kephriraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         It's not a pointless argument.
         
         Firstly a weapons program doesn't begin from the commercial power plant at all. It begins from an enrichment facility. This power plant does not enrich uranium to weapon's grade, and if Iran was going to enrich uranium to the level where it could be used for weapons they would do it somewhere secret, not in a known facility which regularly has foreign visitors due to the fact that they have Russian partners.
         
         Also, Israel would get a very different reaction from the rest of the world attacking a civilian power plant than they would if they attacked suspected weapons facilities.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I think the possibility is extremely strong they will attack.
      
      And it is recognized by very many experts in the field there are at least 5 major nuclear facilities, and three of those are incapable of supporting a commercial electric plant. As posted above on the assumed “target” list previously posted on page one.
      
      I would think if the Israeli’s do attack they will try to take out all five

      replyreport
3. 59

   lady_love158posted 14 years ago

   I would be surprised if they didn't.

   replyreport
4. 60

   readytoescapeposted 14 years ago

   Potential Air Strike Target List
   
   BUSHEHR - Nuclear power station
   
   QOM - Uranium enrichment plant
   
   ISFAHAN - Uranium conversion plant
   
   NATANZ - Uranium enrichment plant
   
   ARAK - Heavy water plant, used to produce plutonium for a nuclear weapon
   
   According to Nuclear experts the last three sites on this list are not the type of facilities that produce support materials for the type of commercial energy plant the Iranians are building, and are used only for the development of a nuclear weapons program.

   replyreport
5. 0

   jerrylposted 14 years ago

   Why is Israel allowed nuclear arms?
   
   Why doesn't the U.S. demand that Israel get rid of their
   nuclear arsenal?
   
   Doesn't it appear that the game is rigged?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Israel has not declared itself to be nuclear equipped country..so how can anyone demand something which officially doesnot exist..secondly even if israel has nukes..usa wont ask it to get rid of that?..israel's existence depends on its ability to keep fear on or else it would be finished...

      replyreport
      1. 0

         jerrylposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Now we are getting into the politics of the game.
         
         We can demand inspection of nuclear  facilities of any other nation except Israel. right?  If they don't have nuclear arms, then they shouldn't fight
         international inspections.  That never seems to happen.
         
         Then why the pretense?  There is no possibility of peace if Israel is allowed to have a nuclear arsenal as a constant threat to their neighbors.
         
         The only thing that seems to be keeping things in temporary check, is occasional multi national comdemnation of acttions by any mid east nation in violation of supposed agreements.
         
         I think it is just more political gladiator games.  Misdirection ploys to keep
         the world off guard and keep their attention away from other things.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            We can demand inspection of nuclear  facilities of any other nation except Israel. right?...yes..bcoz all other nations which have been demanded for inspection were considered to be threat to usa and europe..now they are biggies and they call the shots..there is no pretense..it is all open..India has nukes and so has pakistan..did any one demand inspection on it ?..no..why ?because neither India nor pakistan is threat to usa and west..usa considered iraq as threat and so does it in case of iran..

            replyreport
            1. 0

               jerrylposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I thought the idea was (non-proliferation of nukes).
               
               Wasn't world conflict horrible enough with conventional arms?
               
               So in your opinion, it is ok for another nation to have nuclear arms as a threat to other nations, as long as they are an ally of the U.S..
               
               Iraq?  Oh right.  Weapons of mass destruction, I got it.
               
               India and Pakistan?  Aren't they feuding over territory between them?  What's the danger of them nuking each other?  What the hell, let them
               release nukes and radiation on the world, as long as they don't directly threaten the west.  What a concept.  With that kind of thinking, how will disarmament ever happen.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  does it matter what i am ok or not ok with?..i am not saying about my being ok or not ok..i am saying things as it is..as far as India and paksitan is concerned, i dont think you have knowledge about India.. India is one of most responsible country since 5k years ..when it comes to nukes , india is safe bet even in comparison to usa/europe/china/russia...coming to pakistan , pakistan wont nuke India unless India attacks and pakistan has no other option ...so nukes are deterrence for both of them..
                  
                  now coming to israel..well that is how situation is right now ..it may change with china going big..it is unfortunate but world plays biased..that is how it is..if you ask me then world should be without nukes...but usa and europe doesnot have right to preach till they themselves go without nuke...do you think that would happen?..if that does then russia ,china comes into picture ..then India and then pakistan or israel..
                  
                  if you have been following iran president's message..that is what his argument has been...that ppl have nukes so they can't cry foul if they have one..though he maintains that iran is going for peaceful nukes...btw bhutan too is going for nukes soon...

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     jerrylposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     You just said it yourself, "usa and europe does not have right to preach
                     till they themselves go without nukes.".
                     
                     So why do they preach?  Why shouldn't other countries feel they have the
                     same rights as the U.S. and Europe?
                     
                     Why should other nations not be allowed to have nukes, when the U.S., who seems to put us in the role of the world's police force, allows it's allies to have the same nukes it forbids other nations to have?
                     
                     Double standards never work when trying to make peace!
                     
                     This is why I call it gladiator games.  The world's powers that be, are using this as one of their tools to keep dominating the majority of the world's population.  The name of the game is greed and power!!!!!
                     
                     If you really could speak to all of the people of the world, you would find that msot people want to live in peace with their neighbors.  That is until
                     TPTB get involved.   
                     
                     They sure seem to have you right where they want you.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        but i also said it doesnot matter what i think..usa , europe calls the shots and that is reality...now china too has entered the scene..that might change world equation...let us see...

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           jerrylposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           That's the problem, too many people say it doesn't matter what they think.
                           
                           That's called APATHY.  If people don't demand change from their elected
                           leaders, change will never come.
                           
                           If you thought you had cancer, would you try to find a way to fight it, or just say "let us see"?
                           
                           A lot of people give lip service, but not enough take action.  When was the last time you confronted your elected officials. 
                           
                           I work with a group that lobbys our legislature for monetary change every year.  It's an uphill battle, but we never give up.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              i appreciate your efforts...congratulations for that...what i meant and do mean is if we really want nukes to go or world to be far more unbiased..we need strong united nations...that is one of best options to have...

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 Are you talking about a strong uniting of nations with one goal and an agreed path to obtain it or a strong United Nations?
                                 
                                 One may be worth the effort the other is a joke.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    uniting of nations with one goal is distant dream...humans live by division...many have tried in past to unite in name of religion or something else but it hasn't worked...as nukes are being discussed..we would soon have two more nations with nukes..consider south asia for e.g...china has nukes , so India went for nukes since India feels threaten from china..as soon as India tested , pakistan too went for nukes..though they already had them but they officially tested..reason?..pakistan feels threatened by India..now burma too is trying for nukes..so may be some other country would in its neighborhood would go for nukes...
                                    
                                    coming to united nations...whenever israel comes under fire by un, usa vetos against resolution...similarly any resolution against pakistan or countries in which china has interest , faces china's veto...

                                    replyreport
                     2. 60

                        Sylvie Strongposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        To my knowledge, the only country that has used nuclear weapons so far is the United States.  It did so against Japan, a country that had only conventional weapons.  There were some that advocated using it during the Korean war as well.  When we face nations that have nuclear weapons, we not only avoid using them but we avoid conventional wars with them as well.  Maybe the lesson is that nuclear weapons promote peace, unless only one side to a conflict has them.

                        replyreport
   2. 60

      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The threat perception for Israel requires a nuclear arsenal. Let it have them.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The Israeli's already have Nuclear weapons, they have since the War in 1966.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            1967, I think.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Lets just say the mid to late sixties. I would say that for a country in possession of nuclear weapons and one so often provoked and attacked they have exhibited extraordinary restraint over the past 40 years.
               
               I would also draw attention to the enemies of Israel that given Israeli restraint, the bravado has grown and possession appears to not be the type of deterrent it should be.
               Maybe they need to re-capitalize Deterrent, giving it real meaning.

               replyreport
6. 60

   readytoescapeposted 14 years ago

   I am not so sure the Israeli’s or the rest of the World can allow the Iranians to continue.
   
   Many fully believe, as I think the Israelis do, that the current regime in Iran will use a nuclear weapon if it has the opportunity to do so.
   
   With this in mind how can they not attack?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Rajab Nsubugaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      But Iran has shown the World that its nuclear is purely for energy purpose. It has modified its nuclear facilities over the years that experts have it that if Iran is to pose any nuclear threats it has tobe not less than 7yrs. So if Israel is to attack then it would be one of their disguised ploys against the Arabs.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         come on man..a nation which is petrol/gas hub needs nuclear energy for its needs?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            jerrylposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Come on pisean,  The U.S. has oil, gas, water, wind, solar and a very large supply of coal, not to mention the possibilities of geo-thermal power.
            
            Why do we need nuclear power?
            
            Nukes are dangerous.  Just the storage of nuclear waste is scary as hell.
            Meltdowns can occur, like Chernoble!
            
            Let's face it, as long as we have part of our nukes as a threat to other nations, they will want the same weaponry, as a deterrent.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               agreed...i am not favoring usa or any country in having nukes..i am just saying that iran is lying...second point is as long as people would to try to get nukes ..nation with nukes would try to stop them....

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  The biggest deterrent to War and the largest purveyor of peace has always been the Military, primarily that of the US and its advanced weaponry including the nuclear option.
                  
                  What do you think kept China and the Soviet Union at bay for so long?
                  The Soviets were ultimately destroyed by this weapon; and it was never fired.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     unfortunately what you say is true...weapons of mass destruction has infact worked for nations to keep deterrent and bring them on table to negotiate..not an ideal way but it has worked....

                     replyreport
      2. 60

         readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The Iranians have not demonstrated to anyone that their Nuclear program is not for weapons production, to the contrary. They have used the excuse of building Nuclear Power plant for energy production, but as pointed out above, at least three of the known nuclear facilities do not and can not support the type of reactor complex they built.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Using nuclear weapons on Israel will harm the Arab countries more than Israel by its after-effects.  The whole Arab world will be maimed and wounded with burns, as Israel is geographically located in the centre of the Arab lands.
      
      The Christian world have more to worry as all their holy lands are located in Jerusalem in Israel.   So, the entire Christian countries should come to the aid of Israel in demolishing the nuclear infrastructure of Iran or any other country in that region.  They have already destroyed the nuclear facilities in Iraq during Saddam's period.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You can't believe that following all of the threats to annihilate Israel and all the proof of State sponsored Iranian terrorist network support, that the regime presently in power would not pull the trigger based on what it might do to the Arabs.
         
         May I remind you that the Iranians are of Persian decent not Arab and the re-conquest of the Persian Empire with expansion into Saudi Arabia more than likely would not be viewed as a deterrent by the Iranian regime.

         replyreport
7. 67

   Flightkeeperposted 14 years ago

   I hope Israel attacks and destroys it.  They'll be doing us a huge favor.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That appears to be some of the common thinking, and possibly one of the reasons no one is talking about it.
      
      But I bet there are already a ton of prepared statements if it happens.

      replyreport
8. 60

   readytoescapeposted 14 years ago

   Logic from the Israeli perspective almost allows them no other option.
   As for the result, forget going green, fire back up the coal power plants.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Rajab Nsubugaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      But how many war fronts shall have to be opened in order to curb war? What happened to the option of reason? Why should it be ok for Israel to possess nukes and not Palestine?
      
      The acts of terrorrists are acts of freedom fighters to those who consider themselves oppressed. If Israelis and their allies maintain the gesture of superioty, the terrorists will enventually win the sympathy of the majority and that is a corner that no one would desire to live in.
      
      Britain and tha U.S have to revise their foreign policy about the middle-east. History can only be re-written if both sides are fairly co-opted. Jews aren't a special people, they are just like the rest of us.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         pisean282311posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The acts of terrorrists are acts of freedom fighters to those who consider themselves oppressed...this is wrong notion...freedom fighters dont kill innocent people my friend , terrorist do...

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Sylvie Strongposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            and nations.  Nations and terrorists kill innocent people.  Freedoms fighters have killed a few too...but if you love freedom fighters I will keep quiet about them.

            replyreport
      2. 60

         VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Israel is already fighting the majority and it will not change if the majority sympathises with the Arabs. 
         
         Reasoning should apply to those who initiate the causes of war and who deny the right of existence of Israel.
         
         Jews are special people. Almost double the number of Jews were eliminated by Hitler in Germany. Historically also, they were driver here and there.  No other ethnic people experienced such a horrific treatments. It is the responsibility of the entire humanity to uplift Israelis and remove dangers to its existence.

         replyreport
      3. 60

         readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         That is a good question, perhaps it should be directed at the Iranian regime?

         replyreport
9. 69

   Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

   Iran in the past 100 years has not attacked any other country. Israel and the U.S. have repeatedly invaded, bombed and attacked a number of other countries. Obama is doing a good job of marshaling support for stronger sanctions against Iran for it's violations of United Nations resolutions and international arms control treaties. The last thing we need is another war in the Middle East. We should all hope that reason will prevail in Iran and Israel (and in the White House). For Iran to actually use a nuclear weapon would be suicidal. If worst comes to worst and Iran actually achieves nuclear capability it won't be the end of the world. We have lived for 60 years with nuclear weapons in the hands of the U.S., Russia and China sufficient to destroy modern civilization.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Ralph,
      
      Portions of what you write are true, others are skewed and another could be just flat wrong. Are you really willing to take that chance?
      
      As to the President marshalling support for sanctions, I really do not see much advancement, nor has it ever been in our experience that sanctions have often worked as a deterrent, as in this case. More we have seen such sanctions flatly ignored, especially by Middle Eastern Countries. Iran flatly refuses full and total cooperation and inspections by the IAEA and a signatory to the UN Security Council is supplying the nuclear fueling materials and building the Iranian plant. So much for the UN, I’m pretty sure the Russians just told Obama to kiss their ( ! ).
      
      Placing any faith in the UN’s capabilities for anything other than corruption is like trying to water the houseplants with a flour sifter.
      
      You are correct that we have lived with nuclear weapons for more than 60 years, but never have WMDs been under the control of such an unstable regime or one that has sworn to annihilate another nation just because that nation exists. 
      
      I really don’t believe the Iranians as a people are the problem however their shadow Theocracy controlled Government certainly is. If not for this little “stumbling block” the Iranians would have had nuclear power years ago, and more than likely, safer American technology.

      replyreport
10. 80

    lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

    "freedom fighters dont kill innocent people my friend , terrorist do..."
    
    Operation Cast Lead, Operation Iraqi Freedom.
    Two great terrorist acts.
    
    And we can do it because.......?
    
    Iarael threw a journalist in prison for 9 years for writing about their nuclear weapons. They no more have free speech than they do a democracy.
    
    In case you didn't hear, America supposedly talked Israel out of attacking Iran, since it is actually the case that it would take at least a year for them to be nuclea- weapons ready.
    
    So, who is this clown who said 8 days???

    replyreport
    1. 60

       readytoescapeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Rueters is the clown
       
       MOSCOW — Russia said on Friday it will begin loading nuclear fuel into the reactor of Iran's first atomic power station on August 21, an irreversible step marking the start-up of the Bushehr plant after nearly 40 years of delays.
       
       http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour … nR7mZghhPA

       replyreport
11. 80

    lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

    A neo-con Ailes operative?  .....AGAIN???

    replyreport
12. 80

    lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

    That's atomic power.
    WHO translated that into 8 days to Armeggedon???
    
    Never mind...i'll go check Rense to see......

    replyreport
13. 80

    lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

    Found it.....why am I not surprised??
    
    "Israel has just days to launch a military strike and stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has warned.
    The deadline was set by outspoken former envoy John Bolton, who claimed that time was running out for the West to crush Tehran’s atomic ambitions."
    
    
    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne … z0xIgV8dah
    
    
    John Bolton....JINSA member
    
    The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)
    
    "JINSA's advisory board includes such notable figures as Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, and R. James Woolsey, while Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton, and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith were all on JINSA's Board of Advisors before they entered the Bush administration. JINSA is officially a non-partisan organization welcoming advisors from both sides of the aisle including Democrats such as former Congressman Dave McCurdy and current Congressman Steve Israel."
    
    
    Gee, HE wouldn't have an anti-Iran bias would he? and my oh my..that JINSA board looks quite neo-connish/PNACish to me. All around for 9/11, what? Perle was caught spying you know.....OH, no big deal. It's only spying against America!!!
    We live in Bizarro World.
    
    So the truth is, it would take a year for Iran even to BEGIN to have nuclear capability??
    WOW. Suppose they had gone and bombed them?? Would Bolton be guilty of a war crime? NAH....neo-cons never pay.

    replyreport
    1. 69

       Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       John Bolton is one of the neocon ideologues who helped lie us into invading Iraq. His appointment as ambassador to the UN may have been the worst of many very bad Bush appointments.

       replyreport