Biden indicates US will not hold back Israel if it strikes Iran

Skybird · 07-05-09, 05:30 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8135414.stm

Another step down that certain road...

SUBMAN1 · 07-05-09, 07:32 PM

Nor should we hold Israel back. They are the only country in the region that keeps radicals in check. Good for them and that is about the most intelligent thing I've heard com out of Biden's mouth!

-S

UnderseaLcpl · 07-05-09, 10:25 PM

Interesting. I wonder if this stance was at all influenced by public outcry over U.S. condemnation of Israel's last anti-nuclear strike back in 81'.

I admit, I'm still a little torn over whether or not the U.S should back Israel. On the one hand, I'd love to see a Western-backed power establish dominance in the region. Islam has been a thorn in the side of the west for thousands of years, and I see little reason to believe that they will curb their policy of militaristic expansion anytime soon.
On the other, I wonder whether it is any of our business. U.S. interference in the region pre-dates terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and interests by quite a bit. Perhaps we should leave well enough alone. That's Europe's backyard, not ours.

Ideally, I'd like to see peace in the region and the establishment of less oppressive governments, but failing that I wouldn't mind seeing the region tear itself to pieces. Perhaps that is what is needed. My only caveat is that the U.S. must not be involved. Our intervention has been less than welcome on a number of occassions, so we have nothing to gain from acting on behalf of other nations.
Such a policy would leave Israel on her own in the region, and I feel badly about that, but the U.S. did not create Israel out of thin air(to the chargrin of Palestine, which had been there for two millenia), nor was it responisible for the division of the Ottoman Empire along arbitrary lines. That was Europe's doing, in Europe's backyard, and the problem is Europe's responsibility. I leave it to them to sort out the rest of the matter amongst their constituent nations.

Which is the better course of action at this point? Is there another, more reasonable course? I don't know, but I do know that just as some in the old world may be tired of our interference, we are tired of interfering. We should have heeded Jefferson's advice and remained neutral from the very beginning.

Max2147 · 07-05-09, 10:38 PM

I really hope Biden is just talking here.

Saying we're not going to restrain Israel isn't a bad idea - in fact it's some nice strategic ambiguity. It will help keep the Iranians nervous.

But airstrikes against Iran, regardless of who launches them, are a bad idea. The simple reason is that airstrikes alone cannot finish the job on Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians have basically built their program from scratch. Anything that is destroyed in an airstrike, they can rebuild. The Iranian nuclear program is much further along than the Iraqi program was when the Israelis knocked out their reactor in 1981.

The one and only way to stop Iran's nuclear program through force would be to invade the country and occupy the sites. That simply isn't going to happen.

Ineffective half-measures like airstrikes would simply radicalize Iran and make them more likely to seek nuclear weapons, and fire them once they have them.

It's also worth pointing out that we have no proof that Iran is actually developing nucelar weapons. The evidence for the program is surprisingly weak. A couple months ago I had to prepare an argument to show that Iran was trying to build nukes, and I was utterly dismayed at the total lack of hard evidence. The evidence that Iraq was stockpiling WMD was much stronger than this.

Frame57 · 07-06-09, 12:14 AM

All you have to know is if they have centrifuges.

baggygreen · 07-06-09, 04:33 AM

Israel will ultimately act in the manner that best suits them. If they feel their existence is threatened by an Iranian nuke, they will act to stop it, whether the yanks approve of it or not.

To max, I know what you mean about lack of evidence. However, the Syrians were able to go a long way to constructing a plant, how far along was it before it was discovered? in a country the size of Iran, we simply couldn't find it if they truly wanted to hide evidence.

My fear is that the first notice we'll have they've built a nuke is a "test" in either tel aviv or some other western nation.

Platapus · 07-06-09, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frame57

All you have to know is if they have centrifuges.

Why do you say that?

Skybird · 07-06-09, 09:14 AM

Saudi Arabia seems to have given permission to Israeli strike to transit through Saudi air space.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6638568.ece

This is the first time ever that I think the strike scenario is about to turn true indeed. The right figures are in the right place: it seems to me White's figures are on the intended starting squares, the player has made up his mind (the current Isaelis givernment being there, and no other), and Black has allowed his position to send a message of inviting an attack - when it opressed the opposition, saying that it will not give up the match for power peacefully.

Whether White'S attack plan could work or not, remains to be seen. As I often said, I am sceptical that if the mission objective is to really destroy the Iranian program, that could be acchieved without using nukes, whereas a conventional raid, without special forces taking out vital places on the ground manually, could hardly acchieve anything more than just some delays (as long as their intel basis has not dramatically improved with regard to precise target coordinates. Two years ago, these data on Iranian precise coordinates were simply lacking, it was said). Which would mean there would be a repetition of events some time later.

A half-hearted solution by the Israelis I will not support, they dissapointed twice in the past three years, making me u-turning on my initial support for them at both occasions. I will not make that mistake a third time. Since it is unlikely that they will go the tough way, I must express my opposition to this scenario then - as long as their conventional strike does not prove to be such that it kills the Iranian program for sure. Launching such an action just for delaying them, I will not support.

Aramike · 07-06-09, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max2147

I really hope Biden is just talking here.

Saying we're not going to restrain Israel isn't a bad idea - in fact it's some nice strategic ambiguity. It will help keep the Iranians nervous.

But airstrikes against Iran, regardless of who launches them, are a bad idea. The simple reason is that airstrikes alone cannot finish the job on Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians have basically built their program from scratch. Anything that is destroyed in an airstrike, they can rebuild. The Iranian nuclear program is much further along than the Iraqi program was when the Israelis knocked out their reactor in 1981.

The one and only way to stop Iran's nuclear program through force would be to invade the country and occupy the sites. That simply isn't going to happen.

Ineffective half-measures like airstrikes would simply radicalize Iran and make them more likely to seek nuclear weapons, and fire them once they have them.

It's also worth pointing out that we have no proof that Iran is actually developing nucelar weapons. The evidence for the program is surprisingly weak. A couple months ago I had to prepare an argument to show that Iran was trying to build nukes, and I was utterly dismayed at the total lack of hard evidence. The evidence that Iraq was stockpiling WMD was much stronger than this.

So wait - you believe that the world should just idly stand by and allow Iran to continue with it's nuclear weapons program?

Air strikes could CERTAINLY impair Iran's ability to produce nuclear armamants. Just because they COULD rebuild doesn't mean that they have the resources or even the political will to do so.

However, there is indeed little direct evidence linking Iran to nuclear weapon production. Yet, there is plenty of indirect evidence suggesting that they may be building nukes. Now, if you have millions of lives hanging in the balance of your sworn enemy's rationalizations, how do you justify NOT taking action?

07-06-09, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

So wait - you believe that the world should just idly stand by and allow Iran to continue with it's nuclear weapons program?

Air strikes could CERTAINLY impair Iran's ability to produce nuclear armamants. Just because they COULD rebuild doesn't mean that they have the resources or even the political will to do so.

However, there is indeed little direct evidence linking Iran to nuclear weapon production. Yet, there is plenty of indirect evidence suggesting that they may be building nukes. Now, if you have millions of lives hanging in the balance of your sworn enemy's rationalizations, how do you justify NOT taking action?

Sadam Hussein's words come back to haunt us now. In paraphrase, I lead everyone to believe Iraq had WMD's to stave off the Iranians. If Iran is doing the same thing, they should have learned a lesson.

Max2147 · 07-06-09, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

So wait - you believe that the world should just idly stand by and allow Iran to continue with it's nuclear weapons program?

Air strikes could CERTAINLY impair Iran's ability to produce nuclear armamants. Just because they COULD rebuild doesn't mean that they have the resources or even the political will to do so.

However, there is indeed little direct evidence linking Iran to nuclear weapon production. Yet, there is plenty of indirect evidence suggesting that they may be building nukes. Now, if you have millions of lives hanging in the balance of your sworn enemy's rationalizations, how do you justify NOT taking action?

I didn't say we should do nothing - I just said we shouldn't take ineffective half-measures that only inflame our adversaries and make them more likely to attack us. Iranians have notoriously long memories.

There's no doubt that Iran would rebuild their nuclear facilities after an airstrike. They're already very well fortified, and the outrage that an airstrike would create would give them more political will than they would ever need.

If you replace 'Iran' with 'Iraq' in your last paragraph, you sound just like somebody advocating the invasion of Iraq in 2003. That episode should have made it very clear that attacking based on incomplete intelligence about WMD is a bad idea at best.

Anyways, when you have millions of lives in the balance, you should be more cautious and rational than ever. It's not the time to carry out impulsive and rash actions that don't achieve your goals and aid your adversaries.

07-05-09, 05:30 PM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Biden indicates US will not hold back Israel if it strikes Iran http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8135414.stm Another step down that certain road... __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

07-05-09, 07:32 PM	#2
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Nor should we hold Israel back. They are the only country in the region that keeps radicals in check. Good for them and that is about the most intelligent thing I've heard com out of Biden's mouth! -S __________________

07-05-09, 10:25 PM	#3
UnderseaLcpl Silent Hunter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Storming the beaches! Posts: 4,254 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Interesting. I wonder if this stance was at all influenced by public outcry over U.S. condemnation of Israel's last anti-nuclear strike back in 81'. I admit, I'm still a little torn over whether or not the U.S should back Israel. On the one hand, I'd love to see a Western-backed power establish dominance in the region. Islam has been a thorn in the side of the west for thousands of years, and I see little reason to believe that they will curb their policy of militaristic expansion anytime soon. On the other, I wonder whether it is any of our business. U.S. interference in the region pre-dates terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and interests by quite a bit. Perhaps we should leave well enough alone. That's Europe's backyard, not ours. Ideally, I'd like to see peace in the region and the establishment of less oppressive governments, but failing that I wouldn't mind seeing the region tear itself to pieces. Perhaps that is what is needed. My only caveat is that the U.S. must not be involved. Our intervention has been less than welcome on a number of occassions, so we have nothing to gain from acting on behalf of other nations. Such a policy would leave Israel on her own in the region, and I feel badly about that, but the U.S. did not create Israel out of thin air(to the chargrin of Palestine, which had been there for two millenia), nor was it responisible for the division of the Ottoman Empire along arbitrary lines. That was Europe's doing, in Europe's backyard, and the problem is Europe's responsibility. I leave it to them to sort out the rest of the matter amongst their constituent nations. Which is the better course of action at this point? Is there another, more reasonable course? I don't know, but I do know that just as some in the old world may be tired of our interference, we are tired of interfering. We should have heeded Jefferson's advice and remained neutral from the very beginning. __________________ I stole this sig from Task Force

07-06-09, 12:14 AM	#5
Frame57 Sea Lord Join Date: May 2008 Location: 1300 feet on the crapper Posts: 1,860 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	All you have to know is if they have centrifuges. __________________ "My Religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds." Albert Einstein

07-06-09, 09:14 AM	#8
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Saudi Arabia seems to have given permission to Israeli strike to transit through Saudi air space. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6638568.ece This is the first time ever that I think the strike scenario is about to turn true indeed. The right figures are in the right place: it seems to me White's figures are on the intended starting squares, the player has made up his mind (the current Isaelis givernment being there, and no other), and Black has allowed his position to send a message of inviting an attack - when it opressed the opposition, saying that it will not give up the match for power peacefully. Whether White'S attack plan could work or not, remains to be seen. As I often said, I am sceptical that if the mission objective is to really destroy the Iranian program, that could be acchieved without using nukes, whereas a conventional raid, without special forces taking out vital places on the ground manually, could hardly acchieve anything more than just some delays (as long as their intel basis has not dramatically improved with regard to precise target coordinates. Two years ago, these data on Iranian precise coordinates were simply lacking, it was said). Which would mean there would be a repetition of events some time later. A half-hearted solution by the Israelis I will not support, they dissapointed twice in the past three years, making me u-turning on my initial support for them at both occasions. I will not make that mistake a third time. Since it is unlikely that they will go the tough way, I must express my opposition to this scenario then - as long as their conventional strike does not prove to be such that it kills the Iranian program for sure. Launching such an action just for delaying them, I will not support. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

07-05-09, 10:38 PM	#4
Max2147 Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 714 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I really hope Biden is just talking here. Saying we're not going to restrain Israel isn't a bad idea - in fact it's some nice strategic ambiguity. It will help keep the Iranians nervous. But airstrikes against Iran, regardless of who launches them, are a bad idea. The simple reason is that airstrikes alone cannot finish the job on Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians have basically built their program from scratch. Anything that is destroyed in an airstrike, they can rebuild. The Iranian nuclear program is much further along than the Iraqi program was when the Israelis knocked out their reactor in 1981. The one and only way to stop Iran's nuclear program through force would be to invade the country and occupy the sites. That simply isn't going to happen. Ineffective half-measures like airstrikes would simply radicalize Iran and make them more likely to seek nuclear weapons, and fire them once they have them. It's also worth pointing out that we have no proof that Iran is actually developing nucelar weapons. The evidence for the program is surprisingly weak. A couple months ago I had to prepare an argument to show that Iran was trying to build nukes, and I was utterly dismayed at the total lack of hard evidence. The evidence that Iraq was stockpiling WMD was much stronger than this.

07-06-09, 04:33 AM	#6
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	Israel will ultimately act in the manner that best suits them. If they feel their existence is threatened by an Iranian nuke, they will act to stop it, whether the yanks approve of it or not. To max, I know what you mean about lack of evidence. However, the Syrians were able to go a long way to constructing a plant, how far along was it before it was discovered? in a country the size of Iran, we simply couldn't find it if they truly wanted to hide evidence. My fear is that the first notice we'll have they've built a nuke is a "test" in either tel aviv or some other western nation.