Barack Obama: Israel's Nuclear Umbrella???

[toasty]

Re: Barack Obama: Israel's Nuclear Umbrella???

no, the article says, if you decimate israel, we will decimate you. that means, by implication, that if you get a bomb, and use it, we will use our arsenal against you. sure, i guess it doesn't explicitly say it, but then, does it necessarily need to be explicitly said?

If we were going to do anything about their facilities, it would have already happened. This doesn't need to be a war with iran. it takes a few well placed lgb's on that facility, and it's largely resolved. evein if Iran isn't building a nuclear weapon, but simply making enough nuclear material to be used in dirty bombs....is that not enough to say, "let's sort this out right quick"?

imagine, for a moment, that iran puts a nuclear bomb in downtown baghdad. let the iraqis sort this one out. is the standard by which we cast one of our own out by himself based on whether he has a few nuclear weapons?

You should really get back to studying for finals, because you obviously can't multitask and still think clearly.

I'm sorry, but "We'll retaliate if you use nukes against Israel" =/= "Feel free to continue to work towards a nuclear weapon." What we do to prevent Iran from getting nukes and what we do in the event that, despite our best efforts, they get them anyway, are two separate policies.

If you think that Obama hasn't done enough to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, then start a thread and talk about that (although you may want to wait until he actually has the authority to do something about it). As it stands, though, you're connecting two things that are really separate.

[shosh]

Re: Barack Obama: Israel's Nuclear Umbrella???

You should really get back to studying for finals, because you obviously can't multitask and still think clearly.

I'm sorry, but "We'll retaliate if you use nukes against Israel" =/= "Feel free to continue to work towards a nuclear weapon." What we do to prevent Iran from getting nukes and what we do in the event that, despite our best efforts, they get them anyway, are two separate policies.

If you think that Obama hasn't done enough to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, then start a thread and talk about that (although you may want to wait until he actually has the authority to do something about it). As it stands, though, you're connecting two things that are really separate.

dude how bad does your jaw hurt, seriously?

[toasty]

Re: Barack Obama: Israel's Nuclear Umbrella???

dude how bad does your jaw hurt, seriously?

I'm not even arguing on the substance because I frankly can't make heads or tails of what 88's point is ultimately supposed to be. I'm just saying that the proactive and reactive policies are not the same thing. It's a false syllogism.

[88Mariner]

Re: Barack Obama: Israel's Nuclear Umbrella???

except that our very actions, or rather, inactions, is a very hands-off approach...ergo...continuing to allow Iran to build up thier program. What you're suggesting is that right now, we're doing everything possible to prevent Iran from realizing a nuclear weapons program. But there is scant evidence of this. Therefore, they are feeling free to continue what they're doing because....get this....nobody is doing anything about it right now!

However, there's another scary implication of this disastrous "umbrella" policy that outstrips all the others in the scale of its absurdity. It takes only a few seconds to think this one through. Obama's policy assumes first that Iran will get nuclear arms and second that there is a real likelihood of that country using nukes against Israel. In such a situation, the US would respond with another nuclear strike. This kind of scenario has a name: nuclear war.
An Iranian government that has already crossed the boundaries of geopolitical sanity and launched a nuclear strike against a country with nuclear capability (and the world's pound-for-pound strongest airforce) is not likely to stop the nukes on account of an American strike. Actually, it's likely to ramp up. The Iranians are not idiots - they will prepare for an American strike on Iranian soil by providing for their own second strike capability and, importantly, by positioning a large number of terror cells to strike at the US domestically and at US assets around the world.
The downward spiral of this policy is dizzying. If the "umbrella" is a real consideration on the part of the Obama administration then Israel actually should feel reassured: it should confidently understand that not just its own security but regional (and possibly global) security rests with its taking action to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Even if it's not a serious policy consideration of Obama, if the policy was misstated or misinterpreted, Israel - just as much of those within Iran's strike radius, as well as the rest of the globalized world - should be alarmed at the extent to which absurdism now characterizes the discussion on a near-nuclear Iran. The critical question, it now seems, is no longer about how far the Iranians are willing to go. It's about how low the Americans are willing to sink.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ashley-rindsberg/obamas-nuclear-downpour_b_150250.html

[shosh]

Re: Barack Obama: Israel's Nuclear Umbrella???

I'm not even arguing on the substance because I frankly can't make heads or tails of what 88's point is ultimately supposed to be. I'm just saying that the proactive and reactive policies are not the same thing. It's a false syllogism.

do you ever see yourself disagreeing with obama on anything? or are you just going to be his puppet and expect everything he says.
he does have a great solution to the nukes in iran: lets sit around with ahmansjkhdsjfhadjhf, have a circle jerk, and see who eats the cookie first. oh and if somehow down the road they wipe out israel, we'll retaliate for sure...

[88Mariner]

Re: Barack Obama: Israel's Nuclear Umbrella???

apparently, Iran says to Obama, 'Stfu and let's make a deal". Did Blago get hired by ahmedinejad?

Iran has told US President-elect Barack Obama to abandon the "failed" US carrot-and-stick approach to solving the atomic row with Tehran.
Mr Obama on Sunday vowed "tough but direct diplomacy", offering Iran economic incentives to end its nuclear programme or face tougher sanctions.
But Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi said the policy was "unacceptable".
He urged Mr Obama to adopt an "interactive policy" instead.
"The carrot and stick approach has proven to be useless. It is an unacceptable and virtually failed policy," Mr Qashqavi said. "This needs to change and transform into an interactive policy". The UN Security Council has repeatedly demanded that Iran freeze its uranium enrichment work, which the US says is part of Iran's drive to develop an atomic weapon, a claim denied by Tehran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7771821.stm

[toasty]

Re: Barack Obama: Israel's Nuclear Umbrella???

do you ever see yourself disagreeing with obama on anything? or are you just going to be his puppet and expect everything he says.
he does have a great solution to the nukes in iran: lets sit around with ahmansjkhdsjfhadjhf, have a circle jerk, and see who eats the cookie first. oh and if somehow down the road they wipe out israel, we'll retaliate for sure...

First off, I haven't taken any sort of position on the correctness of Obama's position in this thread or otherwise -- just pointing out that the article 88 cited doesn't appear to stand for the policy he's apparently upset about.

As for whether I disagree with Obama on anything, of course I have, do, and will. That's part of the deal. For example, he's more gung ho about this auto bailout than I would like, and I think his immigration policy is way too lenient to illegal immigrants. I just don't post about it when I do disagree because, well, who the fuck cares that Obama did something that I don't like and they haven't been things that tear at the very fabric of America. If he ever does something that I view as so wrong as to be a big deal, I'll probably post about it.