Not to mention the Iranian president is practically calling for war and the annihilation of Israel. A preemptive strike is a legal response to danger, and is internationally recognized as legitimate counter-measure in case of a severe enough threat.

ArchAngel - you keep referring to preemptive strike as 'sneak-attack'. It's not just that it has the wrong connotation, but also 'sneak-attack' always makes me think of D&D.

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Parmenides]

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Parmenides]

I say they attack ASAP because if they do not and they let iran build its arms like I think it is doing now from what I think i know >_> <_< this will prevent a worse conflict then if we waited like the U.S. might have to deal with if China is allowed to still gain almost equal fire power.

It's not going to be much of a "sneak" attack if he's announcing it already...

I'm curious how it will play out politically in Israel, it will probably get lots of support from his base on the far right, I don't know if it will appeal to the majority though.

A sneak attack eh?

This would not go over to well with the American government who are extremely vulnerable to the repercussions from the so-called sneak attack. Netanyahu is exactly that, a 'yahu.'

As for posting a rebuttal to my own statement, maybe it would be a precursor to a powerful alliance that will topple Tehran. We do have bases set up on both sides of Iran.

Only time will tell!

wow i love the way everyone has forgotton the call for eeh destruction of Iran by israel a few years ago - but thats obviously ok nowadays.

Originally posted by Harlequin
wow i love the way everyone has forgotton the call for eeh destruction of Iran by israel a few years ago - but thats obviously ok nowadays.

Could you please provide a source?

Beat me to it Riwka. But yes, and I dont mean something from prisonplanet, aljazeera.com(the .net site is the real one), common dreams and the like. A solid source that will be collectively accepted.

I did a google search on the words Iran, Israel and Destruction. Nothing came up of Israel calling for Irans destruction.

[edit on 12/11/2005 by ludaChris]

Originally posted by Parmenides
Not to mention the Iranian president is practically calling for war and the annihilation of Israel. A preemptive strike is a legal response to danger, and is internationally recognized as legitimate counter-measure in case of a severe enough threat.

You better look up the definition of pre-emptive.

An Israeli strike on Iran would not be pre-emptive without clear, and conclusive evidence that an Iranian attack on Israel was imminent.

If you think its leagal under international law PLEASE show us all where.

What about the Japanese Pre-Emptive attack on Pearl Harbor?

And the German Pre-Emptive attack on the Soviet Union?

ArchAngel - you keep referring to preemptive strike as 'sneak-attack'. It's not just that it has the wrong connotation, but also 'sneak-attack' always makes me think of D&D.

If they don't stand up and say 'Hey guys, we're attacking now!' then it is a sneak attack.

Do you really see the Israelies doing this before they send out their planes on a strike mission???

Originally posted by ArchAngel
An Israeli strike on Iran would not be pre-emptive without clear, and conclusive evidence that an Iranian attack on Israel was imminent.

What about the Japanese Pre-Emptive attack on Pearl Harbor?

And the German Pre-Emptive attack on the Soviet Union?

LOL, you obviously can't see the difference. Let me point it out to you Your 2 examples were wars of conquest, now you're a nitwit if you equate these to any action the Israeli's may take with regards to Iran.

LOL, you obviously can't see the difference. Let me point it out to you Your 2 examples were wars of conquest, now you're a nitwit if you equate these to any action the Israeli's may take with regards to Iran.

What difference does intent make on an attack being pre-emptive?

What is required for an attack to be pre-emptive?

Without clear proof of Iranian intentions any Israeli attack on Iran would be a Sneak attack.[Unless they stand up and say 'Hey guys, we're attacking now!]

If the American attack on Iraq was pre-emptive then any nation on earth has the right to invade any other nation because it could be supposed that they had weapons to attack with, and the ability to do it.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
What difference does intent make on an attack being pre-emptive?

What is required for an attack to be pre-emptive?

Without clear proof of Iranian intentions any Israeli attack on Iran would be a Sneak attack.[Unless they stand up and say 'Hey guys, we're attacking now!]

Hmm I thought Israel has already said that they do not want an Iranian bomb and they maybe prepared to act. Sounds like a warning to me.
Oh wait, lets not forget, that the Iranian leader called for Israel's destruction

As I said though, your previous comparisons were wrong, which was what I was responding to.

Come on people lets keep it civil. No need to make the discussion personal. please stay on topic.

Everyone has an opinion, and the right to post it within the terms and conditions of use.

If Israel does attack Iran to remove this nuclear threat, I can imagine it would destabilize the region much more than it already is, however it would be the same or worse if Iran follows through on it’s threats against Israel.

I can imagine being a common Israeli, living in that tiny nation surrounded by enemies. One of which openly calls for the destruction of your homeland. I can also understand how the common Israeli could support a pre-emptive strike on Iran to remove this threat.

I am sure there are many Iranians who feel the same way, living in fear of a nuclear war, and are supportive of their “radical” leadership.

Frankly, at this point I can’t see how this conflict between Iran and Israel can be avoided. short of Iran abandoning its nuclear program all together. And at this point I would say that is impossible.

Rather Netanyahu is elected or not, I am sure the Israelis are getting ready to defend themselves against this threat, regardless of any international laws. Do you really blame them?

And from an Iranian perspective, would you want to see your leadership bow to Israeli and international pressure, abandon it’s nuclear program all together?

Again, I can’t see how this conflict can be avoided.

I believe a pre-emptive strike on Iran is inevitable, and perhaps more immanent than we may be expecting



[edit on 11-12-2005 by UM_Gazz]

Because the UN itself is toothless. The Iranian Government has thrown out the IAEA and what do they do, NOTHING. I can understand the UN works for peace, but this situation is hopeless, you know it and I know it, there is nothing the UN can do or propose that Iran will accept.

With the rhetoric coming out of the Iranian Presidents mouth, I dont blame Israel for preparing such a strike. Should a country wait through endless resolutions that do absolutely nothing in the firstplace. Its like a slap on the wrist. While you wait through those countless resolutions Iran is using the "stall tactics" that North Korea was using. Luckily that one ended better than this one looks like it will. No one here wants to get into another war, but it looks like thats what Iran wants.

[edit on 12/11/2005 by ludaChris]

Originally posted by ludaChris
Because the UN itself is toothless. The Iranian Government has thrown out the IAEA and what do they do, NOTHING. I can understand the UN works for peace, but this situation is hopeless, you know it and I know it, there is nothing the UN can do.

Could you PLEASE provide a link to where Iran has thrown out the IAEA.

This is news to me and I keep up on the situation.

I believe you may have misinterpreted the propaganda on TV.

It happens a lot these days.