Why would Israel attack Iran?

[Sub-Husker]

This response in post #396 was a bit confusing, and to me it still avoided answering my question.

 

No . . . the point of the "round and round" comment was that I could just as easily flip it again and say what if it was a pre- pre- pre-emptive strike. Where does that stop?

 

 

 

This response in post #397 did not help either.

 

How exactly was my answer evasive? I gave my opinion about when a strike against Iran would be justified. You then tried to turn it into a question about when a strike by Iran would be justified. If I were an Iranian my answer would remain the same.

 

Who decides what is or isn't a real threat? You? And who are our peaceful allies?

 

You seem oddly indignant.

 

 

 

Nor did this one in post #398.

 

What? I'm definitely not in the Israel/US/etc. can do no wrong crowd but I'm also not in the Iran is totally innocent crowd.

 

Strange stuff in this thread.

[carlfense]

This was the post that I found evasive.

 

And I did answer your question in post #393 in this thread.

 

Sure. Then you said:

Forget I asked you a question... you won't bother to answer anyway.

 

Please note that this was after I had answered your question.

[carlfense]

No . . . the point of the "round and round" comment was that I could just as easily flip it again and say what if it was a pre- pre- pre-emptive strike. Where does that stop?

 

This response in post #398 was a bit confusing, and to me it still avoided answering my question.

My answer was that if I were an Iranian I would answer think a pre-emptive strike against the US or Israel would be justified.

 

This is the same answer that I gave about when an attack against Iran would be justified.

 

How does that avoid answering the question? Maybe you should rephrase it so that we can clear the air.

[carlfense]

Another war in the middle east is exactly what we DON'T need.

 

Judging by Obama's words and actions, he does not agree with you.

 

What, specifically, are you referring to?

 

Increasing ground troop levels surrounding Iran, more naval forces in seas around it, economic sanctions, and all the rhetoric.

Do you have evidence to back any of this up? Particularly the naval forces and ground troops surrounding Iran. I think that might be difficult to prove . . . particularly considering the exodus of combat troops from Iraq. I hope you're not trying to argue that troops leaving Iraq and being shuffled to Saudi Arabia (or whatever other country) is an INCREASE of troops around Iran.

 

Show me some numbers. Numbers of troops within ____ distance from Iran in 2008 and today. Numbers of ships within ____ distance from Iran from Iran in 2008 and today. Etc. Feel free to insert your own distance and/or year but please prove up your claims.

[Sub-Husker]

My answer was that if I were an Iranian I would answer think a pre-emptive strike against the US or Israel would be justified.

 

This is the same answer that I gave about when an attack against Iran would be justified.

 

How does that avoid answering the question? Maybe you should rephrase it so that we can clear the air.

 

OK, we'll restart.

 

Does the wording you used here state that an Iranian pre-emptive strike against Israel and/or the US justified?

[carlfense]

My answer was that if I were an Iranian I would answer think a pre-emptive strike against the US or Israel would be justified.

 

This is the same answer that I gave about when an attack against Iran would be justified.

 

How does that avoid answering the question? Maybe you should rephrase it so that we can clear the air.

 

OK, we'll restart.

 

Does the wording you used here state that an Iranian pre-emptive strike against Israel and/or the US justified?

If I were an Iranian and I knew that the US and/or Israel was going to strike my country, yes. A pre-emptive strike by Iran would be justified from that hypothetical perspective. I'm not an Iranian . . . but I don't expect any country to sit back and take their missile strikes by a foreign government in peace.

 

To use an awkward football analogy (since I suppose this is a sports first site) your question is kind of like asking whether I think that Wisconsin is justified in beating Nebraska by 10 touchdowns. Justified? Sure . . . but I sure hope that they don't. I have an interest in rooting for the US and the Huskers.

[Cactusboy]

I'm more worried about a state known for exporting terrorism acquiring nuclear capabilities and giving that technology to groups who will use it against us.

 

It would be traced back to them and they'd pay for it big time. That's why they wouldn't do that.

[knapplc]

I'm more worried about a state known for exporting terrorism acquiring nuclear capabilities and giving that technology to groups who will use it against us.

 

It would be traced back to them and they'd pay for it big time. That's why they wouldn't do that.

 

OK, so we're safe then. Good to know.

[Sub-Husker]

If I were an Iranian and I knew that the US and/or Israel was going to strike my country, yes. A pre-emptive strike by Iran would be justified from that hypothetical perspective. I'm not an Iranian . . . but I don't expect any country to sit back and take their missile strikes by a foreign government in peace.

 

I agree.

 

To use an awkward football analogy (since I suppose this is a sports first site) your question is kind of like asking whether I think that Wisconsin is justified in beating Nebraska by 10 touchdowns. Justified? Sure . . . but I sure hope that they don't. I have an interest in rooting for the US and the Huskers.

 

A better analogy would be Nebraska and Kansas State or Minnesota.

 

Wisconsin is not capable of such a strike. Texas Tech... had been.

[carlfense]

If I were an Iranian and I knew that the US and/or Israel was going to strike my country, yes. A pre-emptive strike by Iran would be justified from that hypothetical perspective. I'm not an Iranian . . . but I don't expect any country to sit back and take their missile strikes by a foreign government in peace.

 

I agree.

 

To use an awkward football analogy (since I suppose this is a sports first site) your question is kind of like asking whether I think that Wisconsin is justified in beating Nebraska by 10 touchdowns. Justified? Sure . . . but I sure hope that they don't. I have an interest in rooting for the US and the Huskers.

 

A better analogy would be Nebraska and Kansas State or Minnesota.

 

Wisconsin is not capable of such a strike. Texas Tech... had been.

Haha. Yeah. I didn't mean to imply that Iran was our equal or superior militarily. It's not even close. It's more like the 95 Huskers matching up against the 1980 Wildcats.

[Sub-Husker]

I'm more worried about a state known for exporting terrorism acquiring nuclear capabilities and giving that technology to groups who will use it against us.

 

It would be traced back to them and they'd pay for it big time. That's why they wouldn't do that.

 

Not in all cases. Castro was willing to push the button in 1962, and there are many non-state groups who would jump at the opportunity.

 

OK, so we're safe then. Good to know.

 

Safe from Iran, yes. But not North Korea. Just my opinion.

 

The closest we came to a nuclear war since the Age of Osborne has been Kargil in the early 90s.

[Sub-Husker]

Haha. Yeah. I didn't mean to imply that Iran was our equal or superior militarily. It's not even close. It's more like the 95 Huskers matching up against the 1980 Wildcats.

 

CFB's only hyperpower at that time vs a primative team that had not yet discovered juco mercenaries... a real slaughter indeed.

 

But we do need to be wary of a Crouch-type facemask incident.

[carlfense]

Haha. Yeah. I didn't mean to imply that Iran was our equal or superior militarily. It's not even close. It's more like the 95 Huskers matching up against the 1980 Wildcats.

 

CFB's only hyperpower at that time vs a primative team that had not yet discovered juco mercenaries... a real slaughter indeed.

 

But we do need to be wary of a Crouch-type facemask incident.

Perhaps the analogy is even more apt than intended.

[Cactusboy]

I'm more worried about a state known for exporting terrorism acquiring nuclear capabilities and giving that technology to groups who will use it against us.

 

It would be traced back to them and they'd pay for it big time. That's why they wouldn't do that.

 

Not in all cases. Castro was willing to push the button in 1962, and there are many non-state groups who would jump at the opportunity.

 

 

 

 

I'm saying Iran won't give a nuke to some terrorist group to use because it would be traced back to Iran. I"m not making this up...it's what experts say.

[knapplc]

 

I'm saying Iran won't give a nuke to some terrorist group to use because it would be traced back to Iran. I'm not making this up...it's what experts say.

 

So... what happens when Iran's government falls apart, the more-modern youth of the country finally get tired of living under the watchful eyes of the gasht-e ershad, and civil war erupts? What will an unstable religious hierarchy do, especially after establishing a decades-long precedent of arming known terrorists?

 

Will Iran's hard-liners really care if their nukes are traced back to them when they're going to be out of power anyway? That's not a bet I'm excited to make.