Reconciling assholes for nearly a decade.

Cheney persaudes Bush to attack Iran on Israeli say so

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,00.html

Quoting:

Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action,"
Permalink s 
July 16th, 2007 2:41pm
It all comes down to whether Iran is feasibly about to get weapons-grade nuclear material. I expect the Israelis to be a lot more realistic about it.

Still, the Begin doctrine holds. Israel will not allow a hostile nation to possess WMDs.
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
July 16th, 2007 2:48pm
Aw, and Iran was just shutting down their production facilities and letting the UN Inspectors in again.

Well, all I can say is the Republican chicken-hawks in the Senate had better get on the phone to Bush and tell him in no uncertain terms if he nukes Iran, impeachment proceedings will not be far behind.

This Executive Privelege shit has gone far enough.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 16th, 2007 2:52pm
A better policy might be a solemn promise to reduce Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to radioactive rubble if Israel attacks Iran.  There'd be a lot less trouble in the world if those two cities were made strictly historical locations.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
July 16th, 2007 2:58pm
Hmm... now that's a pretty good point. If the entire area were made holy :) unsuitable for habitation, there'd be no fighting over living there!
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 16th, 2007 3:06pm
"A better policy might be a solemn promise to reduce Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to radioactive rubble if Israel attacks Iran."

What about if Iran attacks Israel?
Permalink Send private email Flasher T 
July 16th, 2007 3:13pm
On the other hand, didn't Israel destroy a nuclear facility in Iran once already?  And they didn't have to use nukes to do it, either.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 16th, 2007 3:18pm
Only one letter wrong.
Permalink Send private email Erik Springelkamp 
July 16th, 2007 3:20pm
Ah.  It was Iraq then.  D'oh.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 16th, 2007 3:21pm
"What about if Iran attacks Israel?"

we'd all die of fright.  Iran has shown absolutely no interest whatsoever in attacking Israel in years.

isn't it interesting that the Iranian Jews wont even move to Israel if they are paid to?
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 16th, 2007 3:25pm
But if Iran did try to invade Israel, why not nuke Jerusalem and Tel Aviv anyway?  The same benefits apply, and if the Iranians are evil, the nukes will get a bunch of them, too.
Permalink Send private email Ward 
July 16th, 2007 3:28pm
I like Ward's reasoning here.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
July 16th, 2007 3:33pm
No, no, no.  The whole point of a proxy war (Iran supporting Hamas, mostly) is so the parent (Iran) doesn't have to get its hands dirty, while the supported army (Hamas) gets funds and does all the dirty work.

Iran trying to invade Israel directly would be pointless, since they're already achieving most of their desires through proxy support of Hamas.  Besides, I think there's WAY too many countries between Iran and Israel that would object.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 16th, 2007 3:38pm
It never occured to me before that Hamas is all outsider's.  It's not like the Palestinians have any actual greviances is it?

If it weren't for those evil outsiders supporting Hamas, I'm sure the Palestinians would be dancing in the streets (at least those streets they could get to because of checkpoints and walls) in joy at the Israeli occupation.


But which outsiders?  Are you sure Iran is the main outsider supporting Hamas?

Because, according to 2 sources cited Wikipedia, "The majority of Hamas funding comes from Saudi Arabia"
Permalink s 
July 16th, 2007 4:01pm
> It never occured to me before that Hamas is all outsider's

It never occured to me before that Hamas is all outsider's FAULT.
Permalink s 
July 16th, 2007 4:01pm
Hamas is getting financial help from Iran.  That doesn't mean Hamas wouldn't exist without Iran.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 16th, 2007 4:20pm
It's a lot harder to get things done without money.
Permalink Aaron 
July 16th, 2007 4:36pm
Iran is no threat to the US.

Iran plans to build nukes, but why the fuck should the US care? Iran doesn't have ICBM capability, so that's no threat to us.

If Iran did manage to ignite a nuke in the US, we would turn Iran into a field of glass, so let them.

MAD policy is a good one.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 16th, 2007 4:46pm
"Republican chicken-hawks in the Senate had better get on the phone to Bush and tell him in no uncertain terms if he nukes Iran, impeachment proceedings will not be far behind"

That's neither realistic nor practical. In such a situation, there will be a state of national emergency. Bush already set up an executive rule that in such a state, Congress, the Supreme Court and all state governments are disbanded and the president assumes the role of supreme emperor. What legal principle can they use to have impeachment hearings after government has been disbanded?
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 16th, 2007 4:49pm
"A better policy might be a solemn promise to reduce Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to radioactive rubble if Israel attacks Iran."

Fuck that shit. The US should not be involved in this. Why the fuck would we attack Israel.

A better policy is to let Israel lay in any beds it has made for itself. Don't get involved. Let all those middle east countries figure out their own shit and stay the fuck out of it.

The only nuclear discussions the US needs to be having is how many nuclear plants we need to replace all the oil so we can tell Saudi to go fuck off.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 16th, 2007 4:51pm
The scenario where Iran nukes Israel is a distraction. That shit ain't gonna happen, yo. Notice that Israel is extremely small and is SURROUNDED on all sides by muslim countries. You think they won't have an opinion about radioactive fallout?
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 16th, 2007 4:53pm
> Hamas is getting financial help from Iran.  That doesn't mean Hamas wouldn't exist without Iran.

Yes but it's bizarre that alleged Iranian support for Hamas, is given as a reason to attack Iran... but much greater Saudi support for Hamas is ignored.
Permalink s 
July 16th, 2007 5:33pm
>What about if Iran attacks Israel?

I'll be erecting bacon catchers in all of the major flight paths.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 16th, 2007 5:35pm
Now that you mention it, that IS odd.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 16th, 2007 5:35pm
>Well, all I can say is the Republican chicken-hawks in the
>Senate had better get on the phone to Bush and tell him in
>no uncertain terms if he nukes Iran, impeachment proceedings
>will not be far behind.

I'm hoping that if that comes to pass an assassination is in order.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 16th, 2007 5:37pm
Tsk.  Republicans.  Always wanting to 'bump off' the opposition.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 16th, 2007 5:47pm
"The best form of Government is democracy tempered by assassination." - Voltaire.



... I love that quote...
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 16th, 2007 6:04pm
Where's Peter?
Permalink Fan of Peter 
July 16th, 2007 8:04pm
As if any attack needs to be honourably justified by fact, based on recent history. War is good for business.
Permalink trollop 
July 16th, 2007 8:05pm
They won't attack Iran ... Iran will smoke Tel Aviv in matter of hours!
Permalink Dan Denman 
July 16th, 2007 11:14pm
"I'll be erecting bacon catchers in all of the major flight paths."

Huh?

No, the right policy vis-a-vis Iran is what we should have done to the USSR: make nice with them, send them cheeseburgers, skanky girls and boys, rock music and cheap cocaine.

They're halfway there already. Those Persians know how to get their freak on!

Yes, the Saudis are worse than the Iranians, but they've bought the US government wholesale.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 16th, 2007 11:50pm
>It all comes down to whether Iran is feasibly about to get weapons-grade nuclear material.
The Iranian uranium is about 5% enriched (which is suitable for a reactor), while weapon grade uranium is 80-90+% enriched. bolton is going around lieing and claiming that it is weapon grade while he knows damn well that it isn't.

>On the other hand, didn't Israel destroy a nuclear facility in Iran once already? 
See? The neo-con plan to recycle all the old anti-Iraq propaganda and replace the letter Q with the letter N is working. Just dredge up the old lies about AlNeda and Saddam's country and use them again. The sheeple won't notice they've been hoodwinked again.

>It never occured to me before that Hamas is all outsider's.
Hamas was elected by the Palestinians. They ran on a rather unique campaign: "Israel says NO! The US says NO! What do you say?" And that is how they won at the ballot.

>but much greater Saudi support for Hamas is ignored.
Because bush likes to hold hands with his boyfriends from KSA.
http://www.luclin.org/files/tangurena/BushSaudi.jpg

Heh. This forum is now websensed at work.
Permalink Peter 
July 17th, 2007 1:26am
>No, the right policy vis-a-vis Iran is what we should have
>done to the USSR: make nice with them, send them
>cheeseburgers, skanky girls and boys, rock music and cheap
>cocaine.

We do. If you know the right people, you can go to some great parties with cheap cocaine, skanky girls, cheeseburgers and rock music.

The nuclear weapon is being built, sad as this might seem, in self defense. Begin doctrine or no begin doctrine.

This is fair enough. Our government is actually mildly crazier than theirs. We can and will:

* Invade with or without WMDs, as Iraq demonstrated. If you're going to get punished for the crime, you may as well commit it.
* Not actually invade if they do have nukes, since it's too risky. As NK demonstrated.

This is why from a purely logical standpoint, Iran would be dumb not to develop nukes. Best strategy for them (and that appears to be what they're following) is to develop nukes but never use them.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 17th, 2007 11:38am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics