Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Israel says military action may be necessary against Iran

World Feb. 03, 2012 - 06:27AM JST ( 18 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

18 Comments

4

SuperLibFeb. 03, 2012 - 10:47AM JST

Iranian proxies in the region, mainly Gaza’s Islamic militant Hamas and the Lebanese Hezbollah, have fired thousands of rockets into Israel

...but but but....Iran hasn't attacked anyone....
4

ScroteFeb. 03, 2012 - 11:45AM JST

I don't believe any good can come from Iran having nuclear weapons, but what gives other countries the right to tell the Iranians what they can and cannot do? And to talk of Iran "developing missiles capable of reaching the United States" is to use blatant lies to justify an attack on Iran, just like they did with Iraq and its non-existent WMD.
-1

Elbuda MexicanoFeb. 03, 2012 - 12:05PM JST

It is easy to say the USA etc..has no right to tell others not to have nuclear weapons when the USA has so many of it's own, sound really 2 faced, but at the end of the day, not even the Russians nor Chinese would like to have Teheran messing around with nuclear weapons, so in public the Chinese and Russians are saying one thing, in private they may have already given the USA proxy Israel the green light to do what they have to do to stop Teheran, right??
2

Pruitt Igoe 72Feb. 03, 2012 - 12:48PM JST

I am growing a little impatient with some of these countries like Iran and Pakistan and even some of the groups in occupied Palestine. It's hard to defend belligerent leaders in those countries and at the same time tell my fellow Americans they don't understand that whatver happens it is all our fault. I wish angry Iranians and those people would just listen once again to President Obama's speech from Cairo. It was fabulous.
-2

yosunFeb. 03, 2012 - 01:18PM JST

Now I understand why there are so many people on earth(definitely >70%) who don't like Israel.
2

MaboDofuIsSpicyFeb. 03, 2012 - 03:17PM JST

it would be difficult to strike sensitive Iranian nuclear targets hidden dozens of yards below ground.

Does not matter. The sum of the parts make the whole. Eliminate just one part, and the whole thing does not work.

If you just take one spark plug out of an engine, the engine does not work.
-1

TriumvereFeb. 03, 2012 - 04:02PM JST

Does not matter. The sum of the parts make the whole. Eliminate just one part, and the whole thing does not work. If you just take one spark plug out of an engine, the engine does not work.

It doesn't work like this. At best the Israelis will be able to delay Iran's nuclear program by... what? A few years? A few months? Not even the Israelis know. Not worth risking WWIII over, if you ask me.
2

CrickyFeb. 03, 2012 - 07:34PM JST

Israel has been N armed for decades, with no checks or oversight. Seems a little strange to be so upset when Iran admits to a program (civilian) allows inspectors and has so far followed the rules. Even North Korea has had more inspections then Israel. Iraq was invaded for WMDs , that didn't exist. Proof of a military program? Besides "talk"?
1

pointofviewFeb. 03, 2012 - 09:47PM JST

Israel has 300 nuclear weapons. Hypocrisy.
1

SerranoFeb. 03, 2012 - 10:04PM JST

There's no proof that Israel has 300 nuclear weapons, but even if they did, does that mean Ahm-in-a-jihad should get his hands on one?
0

SuperLibFeb. 03, 2012 - 11:26PM JST

A first strike by Israel would be a bad move. Iran needs to stumble, then a coalition of powers can put pressure on them. There are quite a few Arab states who want to see Iran's nuclear program stopped but their hands will be tied if Israel strikes first. It will also tie the hands of Western powers to some extent since there will always be a certain percentage of the population who simply refuses to accept what Iran is. That number could grow if the picture gets distorted with a first strike.
0

MadvertsFeb. 03, 2012 - 11:40PM JST

" is to use blatant lies to justify an attack on Iran, just like they did with Iraq and its non-existent WMD"

I don't think anybody in their right mind thinks Iran are bluffing like Hussein was, Scrote. They actually are bloody dangerous already. I agree we shouldn't be telling other countries what to do in general, but a rougue pariah state like Iran must be stopped from aquiring nuclear weapons at all costs IMO.

As a whole we can still (being the operative word) handle them. Letting the situation degrade for a decade of sanctions will only make regular Iranians suffer, as it did with Iraqi's un SH, and allow the mullah's to further tighten their grip on power. Or worse, if they get the bomb first.......

Superlib is right, a coalition of neighbouring arab states need to be actively involved in a strike, perhaps with NATO support, and keeping Israel out of it for obvious reasons is just common sense.
0

MadvertsFeb. 03, 2012 - 11:41PM JST

"Israel has 300 nuclear weapons. Hypocrisy"

Heh, when they're threatening to "wipe Iran from the map" I'd get in the basement.
0

SuperLibFeb. 04, 2012 - 08:41AM JST

Israel + nukes = hypocrisy. Iran + nukes = global instability. When those two threats come within 100 miles of each other on the scale, please let me know.
0

WilliBFeb. 04, 2012 - 12:24PM JST

Military action against Ahmedinejads bomb is necessary, but it will not come. It is very simple: Israel does not have the ressources to do it, and Obama`s America does not have the will.

So, sometime this or next year, Ahmedinejad will have Allah`s bomb. Get used to it.
-1

WilliBFeb. 04, 2012 - 12:27PM JST

Madverts:

" Heh, when they're threatening to "wipe Iran from the map" I'd get in the basement. "

They have not, and they will not. While Iran`s mullahs are fully willing to wipe out the Jewish state, it is highly doubtful that Israel will use even one of its nukes, even after being nuked itself. Where Israel has moral squabbles, Iran only sees divine glory and the return of the 12th imam.

To relativize these two demonstrates total ignorance about the situation.
0

MadvertsFeb. 04, 2012 - 04:57PM JST

If Israel got nuked as you put it willi it would cease to exist. It could quite possibly the end of most of us.

That's why I favour a military strike on their facilities. Even if it only puts them back a few years.
0

WilliBFeb. 05, 2012 - 12:18PM JST

Madverts:

" If Israel got nuked as you put it willi it would cease to exist. "

Yes,. And the Iranian mullahs are quite aware of it. One bomb placed on, say, Tel Aviv, would make Israel unviable as a county. And that is of course what the islamists want. Iran, on the other hand, is a mult-nuke country... it could take multiple nuclear hits and still exist as a country. Kameihni has said as much publicly, so it is not just idle speculation. So, my prediction stands. We will see a nuclear Iran.There is simply not the the political will on the Western side to prevent it. Period.

" It could quite possibly the end of most of us. "

No. Israel would NOT retaliate with nuclear weapons, even if it got nuked.The society is too modern and humane for that. Rather, they would accept their new holocaust, as they have done before. On the Iranian side, there are of course no such concerns.