The "Red Line"

[Blakenzy]

Ok, first I thought I had stumbled onto the Onion's website... but no. This is for realz.

Now Listen up children, look at the bomb Iran is making...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/27/latest-dramatic-u-n-prop-netanyahus-bomb-drawing/

[lupinus]

I think he just had a firm grasp on the composition of his audience 

[makattak]

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/netanyahu-and-americas-idiot-media/

I have to agree with Mr. Correia, here.

[brimic]

I think he just had a firm grasp on the composition of his audience

It seems he grossly overestimated his audience.

[Blakenzy]

I think Mr. Correia gets a little too carried away with the whole "OMG!!! KRAAAZY Iran wants to bring the Apocalypse!!!" Of course there is always a risk of nuclear weapons being used between nuclear armed nations, but it's far from a certainty. And if you really want to talk about religious types wanting to bring about the apocalypse through a major war you should start looking at certain politically influential "Christian" groups in the US first, just saying.

As far as addressing people like four year olds, I don't think it will make them any more inclined to support initiating a military action that will guarantee setting off a wider regional, if not world war, not to mention oil prices that will finish off the World economy. People do understand what is going on, and they are just plain tired of being scared into war. War!, War!, War!...  it's just not as cool as it was 10 years ago.

[longeyes]

And yet, scared or not, those wars just keep on comin', don't they?  All weapons will be used eventually.  Nuclear weapons have already been used.  Err on the side of paranoia, you'll live longer.

[makattak]

I think Mr. Correia gets a little too carried away with the whole "OMG!!! KRAAAZY Iran wants to bring the Apocalypse!!!" Of course there is always a risk of nuclear weapons being used between nuclear armed nations, but it's far from a certainty. And if you really want to talk about religious types wanting to bring about the apocalypse through a major war you should start looking at certain politically influential "Christian" groups in the US first, just saying.

As far as addressing people like four year olds, I don't think it will make them any more inclined to support initiating a military action that will guarantee setting off a wider regional, if not world war, not to mention oil prices that will finish off the World economy. People do understand what is going on, and they are just plain tired of being scared into war. War!, War!, War!...  it's just not as cool as it was 10 years ago.

You're right.

I'm just fed up with all this talk about war. I mean, the last war really cost us. And this country's leader doesn't really mean what he says, no one could be that crazy.

And, besides, he probably has a legitimate beef. I mean, he and his people have really been getting a raw deal since the last war.

Furthermore, all we really need is him to sign a treaty. Then we can be assured of "peace in our time."

[brimic]

I think Mr. Correia gets a little too carried away with the whole "OMG!!! KRAAAZY Iran wants to bring the Apocalypse!!!" Of course there is always a risk of nuclear weapons being used between nuclear armed nations, but it's far from a certainty. And if you really want to talk about religious types wanting to bring about the apocalypse through a major war you should start looking at certain politically influential "Christian" groups in the US first, just saying.

Wow, now there is a redirection if I ever saw one .
Instead of discussing talking about islamist leaders who have publicly declared that they want to wipe out the Jews and the State, lets talk about them pesky Christians.

War is going to happen regardless if we get involved or not, what's at stake is the size and scope of the war.

[makattak]

War is going to happen regardless if we get involved or not, what's at stake is the size and scope of the war.

And the size and scope of the aftermath and the effect on the rest of the world.

[makattak]

And the size and scope of the aftermath fallout and the effect on the rest of the world.

FIFM. Much more appropriate word.

[French G.]

You're right.

I'm just fed up with all this talk about war. I mean, the last war really cost us. And this country's leader doesn't really mean what he says, no one could be that crazy.

And, besides, he probably has a legitimate beef. I mean, he and his people have really been getting a raw deal since the last war.

Furthermore, all we really need is him to sign a treaty. Then we can be assured of "peace in our time."

Lulz.

[Blakenzy]

Wow, now there is a redirection if I ever saw one .
Instead of discussing talking about islamist leaders who have publicly declared that they want to wipe out the Jews and the State, lets talk about them pesky Christians.

War is going to happen regardless if we get involved or not, what's at stake is the size and scope of the war.

We can talk about select Iranian statements all day long, their actions don't follow.

I think a big war becomes more likely the more the US Government gets involved. It is US foreign policy to take out all competing influence in the region. No room for a stalemate there.

So what exactly is the scope of a Israeli-US preemptive strike on Iran going to be? How limited do you suppose the ripples to be? How effective will it be at making the world safer?

Remember that after this Iran will have the PR cover, or excuse, of openly seeking out nuclear weapons to defend itself from external aggression. Maybe China or Russia will feel it necessary to get involved, to resume arms trade with Iran to keep balance in the region, avoid total US hegemony. Barring total annihilation, Iran will move forward with obtaining nuclear capability, maybe now with the reluctant patronage of external powers.

You see, a limited strike is not going to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran forever, and it might just make things more complicated. And yet here we go, getting ready to jump the gun, go at it all half-assed again, all based on the assertion that the Persians are all crazy and suicidal-like.

And which one of you is going to pick up the extra gas expenditures it takes to fill my tank once speculators begin driving the price of oil out of the atmosphere? 

[makattak]

We can talk about select Iranian statements all day long, their actions don't follow.

I think a big war becomes more likely the more the US Government gets involved. It is US foreign policy to take out all competing influence in the region. No room for a stalemate there.

So what exactly is the scope of a Israeli-US preemptive strike on Iran going to be? How limited do you suppose the ripples to be? How effective will it be at making the world safer?

Remember that after this Iran will have the PR cover, or excuse, of openly seeking out nuclear weapons to defend itself from external aggression. Maybe China or Russia will feel it necessary to get involved, to resume arms trade with Iran to keep balance in the region, avoid total US hegemony. Barring total annihilation, Iran will move forward with obtaining nuclear capability, maybe now with the reluctant patronage of external powers.

You see, a limited strike is not going to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran forever, and it might just make things more complicated. And yet here we go, getting ready to jump the gun, go at it all half-assed again, all based on the assertion that the Persians are all crazy and suicidal-like.

And which one of you is going to pick up the extra gas expenditures it takes to fill my tank once speculators begin driving the price of oil out of the atmosphere? 

Or we can let Iran get nuclear weapons now and significantly increase the chances of a nuclear war in the region while simultaneously increasing the chances to 100% that Iran will begin more brazenly arming and supporting terrorists and client organizations in that region creating far more instability and increasing oil prices.

So, given that, I'll pay for your increased gas prices if we actually act to stop Iranian nuclear aims if you'll pay for my increased prices when we do nothing under this president and they get the bomb and turn their attention to completely destabilizing the region.

Deal?

[MicroBalrog]

Wow, now there is a redirection if I ever saw one .
Instead of discussing talking about islamist leaders who have publicly declared that they want to wipe out the Jews and the State, lets talk about them pesky Christians.

War is going to happen regardless if we get involved or not, what's at stake is the size and scope of the war.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Ahmadinejad, for all his awful flaws, had never said that he wants to wipe out the Jews.

He had repeatedly stated two things:

1. That he wants the Zionist regime to be overthrown (calling for it to fall in the 'same way in which the soviet Regime had fallen').

2. That if Israel attacks Iran, Iran will strike back with vicious force.

Does it reveal his secret desire to destroy Israel? Possibly. But he'd, at least, never openly said as much.

This has come up several times and every single time it has been beaten down as a deliberate mistranslation by the useful suspects.

[brimic]

Ahmadinejad, for all his awful flaws, had never said that he wants to wipe out the Jews.

He had repeatedly stated two things:
1. That he wants the Zionist regime to be overthrown (calling for it to fall in the 'same way in which the soviet Regime had fallen').

How is he going to get one without the other?

2. That if Israel attacks Iran, Iran will strike back with vicious force.

Well that's at least one reasonable position Iran holds.

OTOH, when has appeasement ever worked?
When you pay the Danegeld, do the Danes stay away?

[AZRedhawk44]

How is he going to get one without the other?

Teh jooz = teh banks.

I think the jewish banker stereotype is coming into play here, coupled with the fact that many international banking institutions are heavily populated with jewish folks.  And so the US/Saudi defense arrangement in exchange for the petrodollar is seen as further evidence of "teh jooz" being in charge of everything, including the US (Fed Reserve) being the Head of the Serpent^TM. 

Over the decades the meaning behind the vernacular has been lost or selectively ignored, leaving only racial/national/religious hatred.

But he's going to get a toppling of "the Zionist regime" by toppling the global petrodollar.  As he sees it, at least.

[roo_ster]

The faithless, not understanding faith, irrationally discount the faith of their enemies.

[birdman]

Iran would not have many nuclear weapons if they did get them.
Israel likely has "many"
Israel has missile defense

Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is not a defensive action, since Israel has been invaded, etc and hasn't used it's own, it is an offensive one.  Their logic is a first strike (possibly not missile borne), call it "non state sponsored terrorists", and threaten all the other gulf states as accomplices to be attacked if Israel retaliates, thereby putting the stupid world on the side of "don't kill millions Israel"

And thus they achieve all their goals, as the then substantially weakened Israel would be vulnerable to conventional forces.

People seem to forget that Israel likely has sufficient nukes and delivery systems (aircraft and missiles) to gie themselves a nice buffer zone devoid of major cities over pretty much all of the middle east.

If they lost tel aviv to a nuke, do you think they would care who sent it, or would they simply eliminate ALL of their enemies.

[agricola]

Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is not a defensive action, since Israel has been invaded, etc and hasn't used it's own, it is an offensive one.  Their logic is a first strike (possibly not missile borne), call it "non state sponsored terrorists", and threaten all the other gulf states as accomplices to be attacked if Israel retaliates, thereby putting the stupid world on the side of "don't kill millions Israel"

This is what keeps being said, but you could make a good argument that there are sound defensive reasons why Iran might want the bomb. 

For a start, it puts "regime change" off the menu for the time being, at least in terms of military action taken against it by the West.  It also secures it - which is dont forget the only major Shia state of any consequence in the world - against the Sunni side of that particular argument, who already have the bomb, most of the money and nearly all of the nutcases willing to blow up mosques, churches, cinemas etc.  There is also the example of Libya - and Gaddafi - who dealt with the Western powers, ended his NBC programmes and ended up being dragged out of a sewer and beaten to death by an ad-hoc alliance of Islamists and the same Western states that Muammar dealt with earlier.

To put it another way, why wouldnt Iran want the bomb? 

[lee n. field]

If they lost tel aviv to a nuke, do you think they would care who sent it, or would they simply eliminate ALL of their enemies.

How many do they have?  How many would it take?  If they run short, or run out, what then?

lets talk about them pesky Christians.

There are co-religionists of mine out there right now who expect Damascus to get nuked, because "its the next thing on the prophetic calendar".  If something like that happens, I expect them to be whoopin' and hollerin' in ecstatic joy.

[brimic]

There are co-religionists of mine out there right now who expect Damascus to get nuked, because "its the next thing on the prophetic calendar".  If something like that happens, I expect them to be whoopin' and hollerin' in ecstatic joy.

Like any population, some members necessarily need to be on the left end of the bell curve.

[MechAg94]

This is what keeps being said, but you could make a good argument that there are sound defensive reasons why Iran might want the bomb. 

For a start, it puts "regime change" off the menu for the time being, at least in terms of military action taken against it by the West.  It also secures it - which is dont forget the only major Shia state of any consequence in the world - against the Sunni side of that particular argument, who already have the bomb, most of the money and nearly all of the nutcases willing to blow up mosques, churches, cinemas etc.  There is also the example of Libya - and Gaddafi - who dealt with the Western powers, ended his NBC programmes and ended up being dragged out of a sewer and beaten to death by an ad-hoc alliance of Islamists and the same Western states that Muammar dealt with earlier.

To put it another way, why wouldnt Iran want the bomb? 

I have to agree with you there.  If they weren't funding anti-Israel terrorist groups and such, I would be more inclined to not care. However, I see the concern many have that if Iran is able to build nukes, then it is only a matter of time before they try to supply one to terrorists. 

[slingshot]

War is ineveitable between Isreal and Iran.  Even if the dialogue does not match Iran's intent, they are going to learn a lesson or three.  Then we allow/invite these "people" to come over here and they tear down the USA for its free speech.  War is going to happen.  It is just a question as to how big a war it is and what weapons are involved.  If Isreal goes it alone, you can expect nuclear weapons to be used on Iran.  Isreal simply does not have the resources for a long term conventional war.

[agricola]

I have to agree with you there.  If they weren't funding anti-Israel terrorist groups and such, I would be more inclined to not care. However, I see the concern many have that if Iran is able to build nukes, then it is only a matter of time before they try to supply one to terrorists. 

Perhaps, though of course one might point out that such state-funded terror groups usually dont end up being given the very best toys in a states arsenal, especially when the use of those weapons would probably mean the end of that state.

[slingshot]

I don't think they believe there will be an "end of state".  We will finally know for sure if Israel has nukes.  The USA probably gave them the nukes.