US/Israel discuss Iranian attack "red-line"....

The Obama administration has assured Israel privately that the US would strike Iran if its nuclear program cross certain "red lines," The Daily Beast reported Wednesday, adding that at the same time Washington was trying to convince Israel not to attack Tehran unilaterally.

www.ynetnews.com...


Couldn't imagine what these "red-lines" could possibly be?...
Supposedly the IAEA has already found "evidence" of a Nuclear Weapons Programme. Would the Iranian military actually have to test a weapon?

If the reports are accurate, we should find out what these would consist of.

I actually believe USA&Israel want Iran to cross those redlines. After all USA has been waiting for an excuse for war since... 1979?

On the other hand, and i don't know if this is too naive, i would like Iran to get the bomb. Iran having it probably meant US wouldn't strike them. So, no war = no deaths = good.

Still i'm no expert at geo-strategic outcomes so...

My first ATS post outside Introductions, oh yeah!

reply to post by CALGARIAN


Much like North Korea, these "Red lines" are pretty much arbitrary. Once NK detonated a test nuke, the options for preventing them from obtaining them in the first place flew right off the table. New options had to be drawn up.

If Iran were to do the same, rhetoric may ratchet up a bit, but all sides will rethink previous plans.

I hope.

Of course Iran will be the next Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam. A war for no reason at all. The ball has even started rolling in American Courts already. Read about it here: Iran Did It!!!

So after what Ahmedenjad (sp?) said about wiping the US off the map, you seriously think its ok for them to have nukes? Its one thing for a country that has some sense to have them (USA) and its another for a country like Iran to have them-who will use them!
I really dont get all this talk about how its ok for them to have a Nuclear Weapon. And lets get some facts straight, havent they said that they are only trying to produce nuclear ENERGY not a nuclear BOMB?

reply to post by damingus



IF they had the bomb, i really doubt they would actually consider using it (against whoever, even US). you think they're stupid? it would be, not WWIII, but the freakin end of the world.

i don't believe ANY country would be the first (second?) to use it. Maybe Israel, but i doubt it.

Let Iran have the bomb. If US has it anyone can have it.

Originally posted by Prokofiev
reply to post by damingus

 

IF they had the bomb, i really doubt they would actually consider using it

i don't believe ANY country would be the first (second?) to use it. Maybe Israel, but i doubt it.

Let Iran have the bomb. If US has it anyone can have it.

the US is the only nation to have used it offensively yet they are allowed to retain an arsenal.

of course they would consider using it if they went through the work of creating it.
especially for some kind of vendetta where they expect to die in a retaliation.

it's all speculation, another iraq fable for this generation to succumb to.

Originally posted by damingus
So after what Ahmedenjad (sp?) said about wiping the US off the map, you seriously think its ok for them to have nukes?

When did Iran say anything like this, this is breaking news?

Its one thing for a country that has some sense to have them (USA) and its another for a country like Iran to have them-who will use them!

US = iraq afgan yemen pakistan grenada ..... Iran = ......

I really dont get all this talk about how its ok for them to have a Nuclear Weapon. And lets get some facts straight, havent they said that they are only trying to produce nuclear ENERGY not a nuclear BOMB?

Thats what they have been saying all along, its other countries accusing of Nuke Development .

At the base of all this -

ISRAEL IS THE PROBLEM

It is hard to understand what is going on in the Middle East until you face the fact that Israel is the problem.

For those of you who are not clear on the history of Israel here it is in a few words.

Central Asian Khazar converts to Judaism not only claim to practice the Jewish religion but to be genetically Jewish and related to the people of the Middle East by way of a myth that they come from there but do not.

The ideology of Zionism which is the sister ideology of Communism says that Khazars should steal the land and kill the people of Palestine and live there.

The Zionists conned the British to go to war with the Ottoman Empire and steal Palestine. The UK is no longer powerful so in the past 60 years the Zionist Khazar pretend Jews have had the US fight most of its battles including destroying Iraq.

The latest lie / BS / fabrication con-job revolves around Iran and its nuclear electric power generation program. The Khazar liars are conning American and some Canadain it seems Christians into going to war based on a myth similar to the myth that created Israel in the first place.

I know this reads like a comic book but I am just giving you the facts.

Wake up and smell the bagels.

reply to post by yourmaker


About us using it offensively: It was awful and terrible on an unspeakable scale, but compared to an invasion of Japan itself, the use of the bomb saved millions of lives on both sides, civilians included. And also, the strategic bombing of civilians was nothing new in that war

Dear Mkoll,

My dad was in the army and would have been sent there, my uncle had already been permanently disabled (Marines) by Japanese sniper fire. My two other uncles would have been shippe over as well...

I grew up believing the "bombing" justifaction you just gave but based on declassified information in the last few years I now know that was war-time propaganda.

The Japanese were trying to surrender and the US would not let them - FACT!

Honestly - read about it. It is all public information now.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki were clear-cut warcrimes and Americans should have been shot for ordering them.

Originally posted by Mkoll
reply to post by yourmaker

 

About us using it offensively: It was awful and terrible on an unspeakable scale, but compared to an invasion of Japan itself, the use of the bomb saved millions of lives on both sides, civilians included. And also, the strategic bombing of civilians was nothing new in that war

reply to post by Mkoll


1. They could have dropped the bomb in a deserted area, it would still scare the # out of them

2. they could have bombed only one city

3. they could have made the bomb explode in the ground, it would have absorved a great part of the shock. but no, it exploded 300-500m above the ground, so the damage would be maximum (or "optimized").

it didn't save lives, it killed about 200 000 (in 5 seconds more less).

by the way, for those who saw John Pilger's "The War You Don't See":

Mr. Pilger acuses US intelligence of knowing, prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that Japan would surrender anyway, with or without the bomb. Has this ever been discussed on ATS? (probably yes, so please post the link if you can).

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

The Obama administration has assured Israel privately that the US would strike Iran if its nuclear program cross certain "red lines," The Daily Beast reported Wednesday, adding that at the same time Washington was trying to convince Israel not to attack Tehran unilaterally.

www.ynetnews.com...


Couldn't imagine what these "red-lines" could possibly be?...
Supposedly the IAEA has already found "evidence" of a Nuclear Weapons Programme. Would the Iranian military actually have to test a weapon?

If the reports are accurate, we should find out what these would consist of.

is it like the evidence of WMD's in iraq? lulz

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by damingus
So after what Ahmedenjad (sp?) said about wiping the US off the map, you seriously think its ok for them to have nukes?

When did Iran say anything like this, this is breaking news?

Its one thing for a country that has some sense to have them (USA) and its another for a country like Iran to have them-who will use them!

US = iraq afgan yemen pakistan grenada ..... Iran = ......

I really dont get all this talk about how its ok for them to have a Nuclear Weapon. And lets get some facts straight, havent they said that they are only trying to produce nuclear ENERGY not a nuclear BOMB?

Thats what they have been saying all along, its other countries accusing of Nuke Development .

My bad...meant Israel....
So are you saying that Iraq, Afgan, Yemen, Pakistan and Grenada have used them? Right. Iran would! As hes said he would wipe Israel off the map. Thats pretty much they way to do it, right?

reply to post by BRAVO949


I had no idea, but it would make sense that the Japanese would want to surrender considering their strategic position. It also would make sense for us to have hit a deserted, or at least less densely populated area. I wonder what the motivation to continue with the bombings was?

reply to post by Mkoll


i assume they had 2 reasons: to show the russians their newly aquired "toy" and to test the effects of a nuclear explosion in a civillian population.

remember the post-war propaganda "Radiation sickness does not exist!" ?

Mkoll,

I wish I could give you a quick accurate answer as to why they did drop two bombs and as what's his name or her name above said they dropped it at the optimal hieght to kill as many people as possible and destroy as much as possible - but I can not tell you exactly why.

It is not for searching for the reason, either. I have. I have been to Hiroshima and like millions of visitors have stood right at ground zero. At that time I believed the war-time BS propaganda.

Some say it was about warning the Russians - maybe, I don't know.

I don't think it had anything to do with Japan though and why they insisted on dropping the second bomb so soon after is another issue. It is as if they did not want the Japanese to surrender before they got a chance to kill more Japanese civilians.

As you can read anywhere Hiroshima was not an important military target - at all - actually. You could say it simply was not a military target and they is why it had not been bombed.

Some experts say that they selected it because it had not been bombed and was therefore a "clean" site on which they could test the effectiveness of a nuclear bomb.

Like a perfectly clean white canvas upon which they wanted to splash the blood and burnt fleash of close to 100,000 souls.

A true f---ing holocaust.

By not prosecuting the last war's war criminals on both sides we guarantee more wars to come.

Propaganda is the biggest threat to each of. Bombs are only dropped and guns are only fired after our brains and hearts have been atacked with BS lies.

Originally posted by Mkoll
reply to post by BRAVO949

 

I had no idea, but it would make sense that the Japanese would want to surrender considering their strategic position. It also would make sense for us to have hit a deserted, or at least less densely populated area. I wonder what the motivation to continue with the bombings was?

The exact definition of terrorism, right?

"The use of force or threat of force against a civilian population for advancement of a political cause or ideology."

all of the above

Originally posted by Prokofiev
reply to post by Mkoll

 

i assume they had 2 reasons: to show the russians their newly aquired "toy" and to test the effects of a nuclear explosion in a civillian population.

remember the post-war propaganda "Radiation sickness does not exist!" ?