Report: Israel's 'first strike' plan against Iran ready

[Minstrel Boy]

Report: Israel's 'first strike' plan against Iran ready

Israel has completed military rehearsals for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear power facility at Bushehr, Israeli officials told the London-based Sunday Times.

Such a strike is likely if Russia supplies Iran with fuel rods for enriching uranium. The rods, currently stored at a Russian port, are expected to be delivered late next year after a dispute over financial terms is resolved.

...

The source was also quoted as saying that any strike on the Gulf coast facility at Bushehr would probably be carried out by long-range F-15I jets, overflying Turkey, with simultaneous operations by commandos on the ground.

"If the worst comes to the worst and international efforts fail," the source was quoted as saying, "we are very confident we'll be able to demolish the ayatollahs' nuclear aspirations in one go."


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1090121780879

[nolabels]

1. And why not, they already have their trained..............................

"George W. Bush or Chimpanzee" (you decide) in place, they probably will throw the switch regardless if bushco gets reinstalled or not

http://www.bushorchimp.com/

Btw I didn't want to sound to cheerfull, most crooks, when cornered, will do just about anything, or have you not noticed?

[Larkspur]

2. Wonder what surprise Iran has instore for Israeli jets?

I'm sure Iran must have developed some sort of counterstrke defense.

[The Zanti Regent]

13. I'm sure Iran still has those missiles Oliver North sold them...

Irony of ironies, Iran shoots down Israeli planes with the missiles Ollie sold to them...now THAT ought delay Armageddon a while longer!

[LastDemocratInSC]

148. That's not likely

Shoulder-launched missles degrade over time unless they are given constant maintenance, and even then, there's a finite useful lifetime for them. It's not likely that any armaments delivered by Ollie would still work by this time.

Beyond that, the Israeli F-15 jets can strike from high altitude with precision-guided bombs - at an altitude way beyond the reach of Ollie's gifts.

If the Israelis elect to do this mission, they will succeed and will probably do so without any loss at all. They are very good at such things.

Ilan Ramon, the Israeli astronaut who perished on the space shuttle Columbia, was one of the pilots who conducted the successful 1981 attack against the Iraqi nuclear plant. These guys have the experience to pull it off as advertized.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fridays Child]

4. Move along...

:nuke:

[Dulcinea]

6. Read "Forcing God's Hand" by Grace Halsell.

That'll tell you all you need to know.

[burrowowl]

40. Also

Prophecy and Politics by Grace Hasell

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. Actually, I've been seeing a major pattern going back to the 1967 War.

[IndianaGreen]

28. There is a lot of mental illness in Israel

Even their pets get tranquilizers!

[Baltimoreboy]

30. But that comment wasn't anti-Semitic or anything

Nah...

[IndianaGreen]

33. It is a fact that has been reported in the press and there is anecdotal

evidence of it. People are so stressed out about living in constant fear that many Israelis have to take tranquilizers, even their pets get upset.

On edit:

There is also medical literature about chronic mental illness in Israel:

http://www.sw.huji.ac.il/Staff/home_p/AVIRAM,URI/index.shtml

http://www.iwn.org.il/iwn.asp?subject=health.mdb&id=101&cName=Health&topic=Main%20Issues

Some people play the anti-semitic card in the same way Al Sharpton played the race card in the Tawana Brawley case.

On second edit:

U..S. Must Be Better Prepared for Emotional Toll of Terrorism

By Holly VanScoy, HealthDay Reporter

FRIDAY, July 2 (HealthDayNews) -- As the United States braces for possible future terrorist attacks, health professionals must take steps to better deal with the emotional toll exacted by such violent acts.

That was the message from mental health experts attending the "First Annual Conference on Living With Terror: Psycho-Social Effects," which concluded this week in Washington, D.C.

<snip>

The conference, the first of its kind in the United States, included terrorism experts from the University of Haifa in Israel, who shared their knowledge of recognizing, treating and preventing mental health problems tied to terrorism. Other presenters included representatives from the University of Pennsylvania and 15 U.S. health-care professional organizations.


http://www.klkntv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1994693

[Baltimoreboy]

36. Crazy lunatics running around trying to blow themselves up

Can cause some stress.

But to stretch that to your post was outlandish.

[IndianaGreen]

37. U.S. Must Be Better Prepared for Emotional Toll of Terrorism

As a matter of fact someone I know that lives in Israel has tranquilizers for her dog, she also suffers from depression and anxiety, and it is all related to living in constant fear. She is not alone!

U.S. Must Be Better Prepared for Emotional Toll of Terrorism

The conference, the first of its kind in the United States, included terrorism experts from the University of Haifa in Israel, who shared their knowledge of recognizing, treating and preventing mental health problems tied to terrorism. Other presenters included representatives from the University of Pennsylvania and 15 U.S. health-care professional organizations.

http://www.klkntv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1994693

[The Stranger]

45. Do you have no facts or links to back up your position?

You have just been presented with facts and articles, complete with links. Is a reference to "crazy lunatics" and "outlandish" the only response?

[Baltimoreboy]

48. So lunatics with bombs

Trying to blow themselves up all over the place wouldn't stress you out?

[The Stranger]

59. Not to bother with the facts, but there aren't "lunatics with bombs trying

to blow themselves up all over the place." The current regime is trying to use fear to continue power after the botched election in which they seized power. I would recommend seeing their use of fear for what it is. And this Administration runs the real risk of becoming the boy who cried wolf.

[Baltimoreboy]

61. How many suicide bombers does it take

To meet YOUR requirements?

We've certainly seen more than enough to meet mine.

[The Stranger]

66. Are there suicide bombers in Baltimore?

To what are you referring with this fearful deluge? If you are in some kind of personal danger, then get off of the internet and notify the authorities.

[Baltimoreboy]

73. We are clearly talking about Israel here

Perhaps you should read more closely.

[The Stranger]

105. I am reading closely . . .

I live just north of Washington -- the top target for loonies with bombs.

[alfredo]

126. I understood what he was talking about immediately.

Sorry you didn't.

Living in a state of war for decades takes a toll on people, and the animals that live with them. Dogs freak out over explosion and sirens. Throw a firecracker near your dog or cat every few days and see if his behavior changes. Having to continually worry about the guy walking through the market, the van in front of your business, or the box in the trash bin, doesn't do much for one's mental health.

Did the car backfire or are we being attacked? Live like that for a few years and see if you see the world in a different way.

[Joanne98]

118. Can you imagine how stressed out the Palestians are?

Getting their houses blown up and bulldozed down everyday and they don't have the money for drugs. Ariel Sharon is a monster.

[Chicago Democrat]

65. I think countries can suffer from a kind a shared hysteria....

Palestine has it, so does Israel. Japan had it in WWII. So does the USA, thanks Al Quaeda and the bombings in NY. Its very similar to Post Traumatic Stress disorder and it allows extreme militants to take over and make war all over the world for reasons that would not be allowed otherwise.

[IndianaGreen]

70. Which proves the point that neither Israel or Palestinians are capable of

making peace with one another because they are both psychologically damaged. Peace may have to be imposed from outside!

Bombing Iran will take Israel one step closer to her ultimate doom. Ironic that the policies that are being pursued in the name of making Israel "safe" will bring instead her own destruction.

[goforit]

5. IS this the present "Cuban Missil Crisis"......via Sharon!!!

Destroy the Busher Nuclear Facility to cover up Poppy Bush's
tracks at providing Iran with the Nuclear Know-how.

Is Poppy the God Father or what.

[goforit]

7. But believe me........this will be the start of WWIII

[Jacobin]

8. Kinda like when Japan and Germany got together

The real fun will begin after the Fundie/Likkudnick axis finishes conquering the Middle East and then they start fighting over who gets all the spoils.

Expect a tectonic shift.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jacobin]

11. Gee, sounds like a mutual situation to me

Who else would you like to see invaded, who might have "bad intentions" against the U.S.

Have you signed up yet, because your list will likely be very long and as you probably know, the military is stretched rather thin.

[The Zanti Regent]

14. We know who the Jesuscons want to go after...

...Why, Iran, Syria, the Palestinians and then THE BIG ONE--Armageddon!

[daleo]

12. The trouble with this attitude is that we don't know how big it would get

Those who relish the idea of more war for the sake of Israel's security should think twice. There is no telling how wide such a conflict could become, or what each country's arsenal really contains. It may be a disaster for everybody, including Israel, once the smoke clears. Even the rapture theorists may be surprised at the outcome.

[IranianDemocrat]

21. Excuse me...

But Israel is the reason for most of the war and bloodshed in the Middle East. Israel's hand is just as dirty as the mullah's. Iran has just as right to have nuclear power as does the terrorist state of Israel.

[Baltimoreboy]

32. Iran backs terrorists and hates the U.S.

Not exactly a combination I want to see get nukes.

[The Stranger]

50. The U.S. doesn't appear to have a dog in this fight, except for the Neocon

and the right-wing White Supremacist, fundamentalist Dispensationalist "Christians" in the U.S.

The U.S. already invaded Iraq based on Neocon lies; the U.S. should stay out of this one.

[Baltimoreboy]

51. No dog?

Let Iran have nuclear weapons and we'll see how dangerous they and their terrorist allies become. No thanks. I live just north of Washington -- the top target for loonies with bombs.

[The Stranger]

55. Please post something other than rhetoric.

The notion that Iran would somehow immediately start launching nuclear weapons the instant they were designed is ludicrous, and borders on bigoted. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and they haven't blown up the world like the "terrorists" they are, but have prevented India from attacking and overrunning their country.

[Baltimoreboy]

56. Pakistan isn't actively supporting terror against Israel

It's not bigoted to point that out.

It's not bigoted to point out that Iran has threatened Israel in the past and supplies arms to terrorists.

[The Stranger]

64. It looks from the article posted that Israel is threatening Iran, not the

other way around (again, looking at the facts disinfected of the "terror" rhetoric). And the previous post was supporting the fact that the U.S. has no dog in this fight, which it doesn't. The question of Iran or Israel supporting terrorism against each other are questions for these countries, not that of the U.S.

[Baltimoreboy]

74. The Iranian leadership

Is OPENLY hostile to the U.S. The prospect of them getting a nuke is a major issue to the U.S.

And Israel is merely responding to decades of antagonism and terror from Iran.

[ze_dscherman]

79. So, do you think they would plan a nuclear attack?

Do they have the means to do this? What would be the U.S. response then?

Don't you think they rather try to acquire nukes as a DETERRENT?

[Baltimoreboy]

81. Why bother? They could just give a nuke to their terrorist allies

And accomplish both goals. They could get Israel or Washington and still have the deterrent and be able to deny involvement.

[The Stranger]

106. That is almost exactly what the Neocons said to get U.S. to invade Iraq.

As it turns out, they were lying about everything.

[Baltimoreboy]

107. A big difference

The UN agrees that Iran is trying to build nukes.

[IndianaGreen]

134. Considering the threats that Israel poses to Iran

and the threats Israel is making against Iran, a reasonable person can conclude that Iran must get nukes for self-defense. Israel is a threat to the stability in the region, as much as the USSR was to the US.

[The Stranger]

136. Then let the UN deal with it. (Now there's an idea.)

Besides, the UN is not propagating the canard that they (like Saddam supposedly was) are going to arm terrorist groups and immediately lay seige to the world.

[NickB79]

144. How many countries have given away nuclear warheads?

Iran has labored for many years, and devoted hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to building a nuclear weapon and so far they don't even have ONE bomb completed. Securing a nuclear weapon would act as a strong deterrant against attacks by Israel, just as Israel's nuclear arsenal has acted as a deterrant against attacks from surrounding Arab nations. Do you really believe the Iranians would just give away a nuclear weapon, worth billions of dollars and decades of work, to a shady terrorist organization they couldn't control? That would be suicidal, leaving Iran vulnerable to a nuclear retaliatory attack from either Israel or the US, depending on who the terrorists would use the nuclear weapon on. It's not like it would be hard to put 2 and 2 together and figure out who was most likely to have supplied the nuke, and then respond with a nuke of our own.

Right now, a nuclear warhead would be most valuable to Iran as a deterrant, not as an offensive weapon. They would need many of them to destroy all of Israel, and even then Israel would still more than likely be able to launch a counterstrike before their nuclear silos were destroyed. To attack Israel with only one nuke, either through a terrorist sneak attack or blatantly with ICBM's, would be inviting assured death to Iran.

[LivingInTheBubble]

129. You missed what he said.

It is Israel that is attacking another country here, not Iran.

Israel is the aggressor.

Perhaps you would think its ok if Iran launched a pre-emptive strike against Israel, after all they have admitted they are planning to attack whereas what Iran might do in the future is only pure israeli paranoia.

[ljaycox]

147. Iran has threatened Israel

I can't remember now if it was the president of Iran or the speaker of the Iranian parliment who said the the Israel question would be settled as soon as there was an "Islamic Bomb" He said that Israel could be destroyed completely with a nuke but they could only inflict some damage to the muslim world which was survivable. Israel knows enought to take these people at their word--they don't have the luxury of living in a fantasyland.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

57. Heh

Clicking on that little face icon and seeing the tombstone feels good. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

[Demonaut]

15. water if anything, why would they annouce the plan??

[Disturbed]

16. Israeli forces in N.Iraq

They are there working with the Kurds. It is no secret that Israel has plans for stiking Iran's Nuke sites. The Bush Admin. no doubt also has plans to do so. A mutual plan is most likely detailed out. The rumor that 40K Russian troops may be in Iraq within several months is bizar but with BushCo one can never be sure. It is certain that Iraq was stage 1 of the ME BushCo plans. The resolve, size and strength of the insurgency was grossly underestimated. BushCo still hopes that the Puppet Govt. will reduce that problem.

[Spoon]

17. 40k Russian troops?

Is there a thread explaining this rumor? I'm interested.

[komplex]

18. We've got to protect Iran...

Because when I think Civil Rights & Secularism in the Middle East, I think Iran.

[DWolper]

19. What??????

"Because when I think Civil Rights & Secularism in the Middle East, I think Iran."

Yo have GOT to be kidding! You think of Iran when you think of civil rights? Secularism? Tell me your post is sarcasm!

Iran has the worst record in the world in the past 30 years (after the Taliban in Afghanistan) as a rightwing theocracy!

What's with the LEFT defending nothing more than rightwing regimes? I don't get it.

[IranianDemocrat]

22. I think you forgot your sarcasm endnote.

.

[komplex]

43. It wasn't obvious?

[DWolper]

20. Iran = Another RIGHTWING govt.

People,

I am shocked at the responses I have read in this thread. Next to Afghanistan's Taliban regime, there has not been a more rightwing theocracy in the world! The power lies with the clerics in Iran. It is a far-right government and I find much ignorance of what Iran is really all about here at DU. This is the LAST place I would expect to find defenders of these culturally backward rightwing countries who want to export Islamic puritanism to the world.

This thread confuses me greatly.

[IranianDemocrat]

23. I agree but...

If the republican party had their way they would invade Iran and install another puppet shah. I don't agree with both parties on the Iran issue.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nolabels]

41. The interesting part for me is the It was the early British involvement

In the early 1900s. It was way before my time, but thanks to them keeping things so secret, the preservation of a lot of spook history stayed intact. So ironic

Mohammed Mossadegh

Country: Iran.

Cause: Independence and democracy for Iran.

Background: Beginning in the 19th Century, Iran becomes subject to interference and land grabs by Britain and Russia.
(snip)
Aware that a plot is being hatched, Mossadegh breaks off diplomatic relations with Britain on 16 October. The British embassy in Iran is closed down and all British diplomats inside the country are ordered to leave. The involvement of the US now becomes essential if a coup is to succeed.

1953 - The administration in Britain and the new administration of incoming US President Dwight D. Eisenhower become increasingly alarmed by the behaviour of Mossadegh and the ongoing nationalism inside Iran. Their concerns are further heightened when Mossadegh begins to work with the communist Tudeh Party. They fear that Iran will be drawn into the Soviet sphere, although Mossadegh advocates a policy of nonalignment in foreign affairs.

Mossadegh's position also becomes destabilised by internal conflicts within the National Front, with several senior members and the religious faction defecting.

In March, the shah attempts to have Mossadegh assassinated, but Mossadegh is warned and the scheme fails. The same month an Iranian general approaches the US Embassy in Tehran seeking support for an army-led coup against Mossadegh.

On 4 April the US director of central intelligence releases US$1 million which, according to a secret history of the coup written in 1954 by the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) chief coup strategist, Dr Donald N. Wilber, is to be used "in a way that would bring about the fall of Mossadegh".
(snip)
http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/mossadegh.html

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran...

[sadiesworld]

42. Yes, differing opinions tend to confuse some.

Perhaps these are some of the thoughts going through these "ignorant" minds:

Does the world trust Israel and the US to determine whether Iran is a threat?

If Israel takes out Iran's alleged nuclear capacity, will it inflame tensions in the middle east?

Would such actions cause Iran to go into Iraq and go after US soldiers?

Would such actions cause an increase in terrorism directed toward the US?

Would such actions threaten the fragile resistance movement in Iran?

You see, asking the tough questions and discussing the issues is what enabled these "ignorant" folks to see the truth about Iraq (no threat, no connection to 9/11, no "cakewalk") while most were just waiting for some juicy live coverage of bombs dropping. :eyes:

[rman]

47. The clerics are not the government

You're ignoring the fact that there is a democratically elected, relatively liberal and relatively pro-western government in Iran.
The fact that the government has no power over the army and police (the clerics do) doesn't change that.

As far as fundamentalist muslim states go, Pakistan and SA are higher on the list then Iran.

[The Stranger]

52. U.S. = Another RIGHTWING govt.

The Bush Administration has theocratic designs more threatening than any administration in history. The power lies in the "clerics" in the U.S. and the right-wing Fundamentalist Christian "base" that pushes the imbecile into war after war, prevents stem cell research, erodes a woman's right to choose, attacks the fundamental separation of church and state by installing fundamentalist judges and seeking to install religious artifacts in courthouses.

It is a far-right government and I find much ignorance of what it is is really all about in the U.S. mainstream media. Thankfully, people posting on this forum realize that the defenders of these culturally backward rightwing ideologues want to export Fundamentalist Christian "End Times" puritanism to the world.

[bpilgrim]

62. Israel = Another RIGHTWING gov. run by a TERRORIST

that's right a TERRORIST.

The Crimes
of Ariel Sharon

Some incorrigible optimists have suggested that only a right-wing extremist of the notoriety of Likud leader Ariel Sharon will have the credentials to broker any sort of lasting settlement with the Palestinians. Maybe so. History is not devoid of such examples. But Sharon?

Sharon's history offers a monochromatic record of moral corruption, with a documented record of war crimes going back to the early 1950s. He was born in 1928 and as a young man joined the Haganah, the underground military organization of Israel in its pre-state days. In 1953 he
was given command of Unit 101, whose mission is often described as that of retaliation against Arab attacks on Jewish villages. In fact, as can be seen from two terrible onslaughts, one of them very well known, Unit 101's purpose was that of instilling terror by the infliction of discriminate, murderous violence not only on able bodied fighters but on the young, the old, the helpless.

Sharon's first documented sortie in this role was in August of 1953 on the refugee camp of El-Bureig, south of Gaza. An Israeli history of the 101 unit records 50 refugees as having been killed; other sources allege 15 or 20. Major-General Vagn Bennike, the UN commander, reported that "bombs were thrown" by Sharon's men "through the windows of huts in which the refugees were sleeping and, as they fled, they were attacked by small arms and automatic weapons".

more...
http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon.html

peace

[Raster]

91. watch it, your gonna be accused of being anti-semetic....

...any criticism of Israel or its policies brings out the rabid zionists.

[Malikshah]

72. Sorry if the thread is confusing, but Iran is not a simple topic

I am surprised at the complete simplicity of folks' arguments.

It is clear that some have absolutely no knowledge of the history of Iran 1) up to the revolution of the late 1970s and 2) post 1979 Iran.

It outrages me that some folks on this board use such words as "culturally backward rightwing countries" with providing a shred of evidence. How is Iran culturally backward? How is it rightwing? Please define these terms.

Define Islamic Puritanism as well, please.

Khomeini's brand of Islamic rule, as espoused in the Wilayat-i faqih was and remains a radical departure for Islamic rule since the 7th century. There was no "going back to the Middle Ages" or reverting to an earlier system here--it was one group's views on how rule should be formed. It has shown to be weak and faulty, and demographically the mullahs are at a disadvantage.

Sorry, folks-- some people's biases are really coming out now.

There is *so* much more to the history of Iran pre- and post-Revolution.

Misagh Parsa's Social Origins of the Iranian Revolution is a good start. Mottahedeh's Between the Mantle and The Prophet is also a good one. Works by Nikki Keddia and Juan Cole will also help.

It may lend some folks some *much needed* perspective.

[Gyre]

24. That's nice

but they might be inviting a nuke. BTW, if you think that is unthinkable, Imagine what Israel would do with their 200+ warheads if some arab nation attacked and destroyed their nuke facilities.

Gyre

[lovuian]

26. Buscher Nuclear Reactor....the Irony!!!

Bush & Israel have the powerful Military Militias and are ready to go
for WWIII

[IndianaGreen]

27. I expect nothing less from a rogue and criminal state!

Israel is above the law.

I wonder how all of the Israel-can-do-no-wrong crowd would feel if Iran struck first at Israel to prevent the preemptive strike (which is the same thing Israel did in 1967).

[nolabels]

29. Just so we know who is watching who

We can't prove Iran-Sept 11 link: CIA
July 19, 2004 - 5:49AM

About eight hijackers passed through Iran before the September 11 attacks on the United States, but Washington has no evidence that Tehran sanctioned the strikes, the acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency said.

"This is not surprising to us. I think the count is about eight of the hijackers were able to pass through Iran at some point," John McLaughlin told Fox News Sunday.

"We have ample evidence of people being able to move back and forth across that terrain," he said.

"However, I would stop there and say we have no evidence that there is some sort of official sanction by the government of Iran for this activity. We have no evidence that there is some sort of official connection between Iran and 9/11," he said.

His remarks were the first official confirmation of leaked accounts from the final report of the official inquiry into the 2001 attacks that killed 3,000 people, which is due to be released Thursday.

The inquiry's interim reports have already shot down White House claims of a link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda, highlighted gaps in US defences, and levied tough criticism at intelligence services.

Time and Newsweek magazines, in similar reports quoting congressional, commission and government sources, reported that Iran relaxed border controls and provided "clean" passports for the so-called "muscle hijackers" to transit Iran to and from Osama bin Laden's camps between October 2000 and February 2001.
(snip)
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/smh16.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/

[Aidoneus]

31. I'd like to see them try (not really..)

If the Zionists think it's a great idea to drop a few thousand gallons of gas on the fire, they'll deserve to get burnt by it after.

[Geo55]

34. Just hopin' the nuke cloud doesn't drift all the way here....

it's gonna happen folks , does anybody know FOR SURE Iran isn't good to go with SOMETHING ?

[Tight_rope]

35. Not sure...Guess we'll have to wait and see!

[JackDragna]

39. If this happens..

..the world should declare war on Israel. What gives Israel the right to deny another nation nuclear capability? If it ignores international opinion and strikes at another nation, every other nation in the world should invade Israel, occupy it and install a temporary government.

[Baltimoreboy]

44. Cause for war

I can't remember the Latin. My mind rebels at that stuff. But Iran actively supports terrorists who attack Israel. The prospect of Iran getting nukes poses a very real threat to Israel. They have every reason -- legal, moral and otherwise -- to take action.

[The Stranger]

54. Causus Belli?

I can't remember the Latin. My mind rebels at that stuff.

Quit while you're ahead. Israel has no justification whatsoever for attacking Iran. And, actually, another nuclear force (albeit hopelessly primitive) in the region would prevent cross-border strikes on the basis of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. It has kept the U.S. and Russia from destroying the world for half a century. The only nuclear attack ever launched was done so by a power that had no similar deterrent at the time, the U.S.

[Baltimoreboy]

80. Israel is ahead now, it won't be if terrorists get the bomb

Or terror supporters do.

And supporting terror is an act of war, one Iran is quite familiar with.

[The Stranger]

108. Please post something other than rhetoric.

Occupation is terrorism.

[Baltimoreboy]

111. "Please post something other than rhetoric."

Terrorism is terrorism and many Arabs and Muslims consider Israel's existence to be "occupation."

[Forkboy]

112. Uncanny how similiar these arguments are to another DUer

now departed :shrug:

[The Stranger]

132. Logic

Terrorism = Terrorism
Occupation = Terrorism

No Occupation = No Terrorism

:think:

[IA_Seth]

92. Tit for Tat

Ok, so by that same logic wouldn't Iran have "legal, moral and otherwise" reasons to take action against Israel?

Do they not actively support (indeed have war plans ready) action against Iran? Do they not have nuclear weapons themselves?

Not the "prospect", but the very facts that Israel has nuclear weapons, and is not a part of any nuclear arms treaty, could very well be looked at as a "threat" by all Muslim nations.

I think the point here is we DO NOT want a religious war to occur in the Middle East. Bush has proven pre-emptive action is asinine and will be looked down on by the rest of the world.

I will not support Israel in this action any more than I supported Bush in his.

[Baltimoreboy]

98. Not for terrorism

Which Iran has been involved with for years.

[Malva Zebrina]

139. especially when it it obvious that the US has targeted that country as

being in the "axis of evil"

Ain't that brave and grand from a cowardly little prick of a man who went AWOL himself in time of war, and who is the self appointed war president.

After that, if Iran did NOT try to develop nuclear weapons to protect itself against the onslaught of the imperialist seeking US, and even Israel, who is emboldened now by the invasion of the Iraq and the deaths of 889 of American young troops to secure Iraq, and the establishment of seventeen American military bases in Iraq--come on

It would be negligent to NOT develop these weapons to protect itself and it's innocent civilians. It is crazy to expect any sovereign country will just sit back and take it when an insane and stupid bully of a lying man targets it as within some imaginary axis of evil.

Bush has provoked this anxiety and possible conflict. He has taunted and he has bullied.; He is our president and he is a fascist and an ignorant one at that.

No mention of invading North Korea is there?

[MallRat]

46. Wouldn't it be nice if the US had the moral authority to prevent this?

Oh, wait. We pissed away our moral authority in Iraq.

Sorry, I forgot.

:-(

[Baltimoreboy]

49. What do you want to prevent

Iran getting or even using nuclear weapons or Israel defending itself?

[IndianaGreen]

53. We should disarm Israel of her nukes

Clearly this is a rogue country with a government led by criminals that cannot be trusted to act as a responsible member of the world community.

As to Iran, the neocons and their ultra-Zionist allies took their shot in Iraq. There is no point in shedding more American blood for the likes of the PNAC/PPI AIPAC crowd.

Would I like to see the mullahs out of power in Iran? You bet! Do I want to see the United States bomb another country into the Stone Age? No way!

Let's bring all of our troops home and let's cut off all aid and arms sales to the Middle East. Perhaps if the US stopped being a meddlesome psychotic nanny, the countries in the region will be forced to make peace with one another, or perish in the process.

It's not our fight!

[Baltimoreboy]

60. That would mean the destruction of Israel

Which obviously some posters here would celebrate.

I am not saying Israel needs to bomb Iran back to the stone age. If a surgical strike will do the job, great.

It cracks me up that many people here take the U.S. to task for not intervening in the Sudan and then complain when we support a nation like Israel and prevent the exact same kind of Holocaust from happening again to the Jewish people.

[IA_Seth]

93. Non-Nuclear Israel

This whole idea of a non-nuclear Israel being destroyed is ridiculous. Do you think the world would stand by and let Israel be overrun? Do you think the US would allow that?

Having nuclear arms in the region is only making matters worse. If I were Iran I would want them as well, it only makes sense. Israel needs to sign the nonproliferation treaty, disarm, and have unbiased UN inspectors confirm it. Then maybe we could actually have some credibility when we told other nations to disarm.

[MallRat]

95. Actually, the world WOULD probably let Israel be overrun.

The US might not allow it, but I don't think Europe would be in a big hurry to lift a finger to rescue Israel.

-MR

[Baltimoreboy]

100. You mean like Europe in the 1930s?

Yes, the world would be willing to let the Israelis be pushed into the sea. It's not like the world intervenes in inconvenient conflicts like the Sudan, why would they intervene here?

(Edit for typo.)

[IA_Seth]

102. Get Real

So are you saying then that the US and the rest of the world places a higher importance on Kuwait then it does on Israel? Certainly no one stood by while they were invaded.

You will not persuade me that the US (nor Britain, nor many other nations) would allow Israel to be taken out by a single, or a conglomeration, of Middle Eastern nations. We have much too strong ties with them (as does much of the world) to allow that to happen.

[Baltimoreboy]

103. Yes

Kuwait had oil. Israel has none and is opposed by the nations with oil.

Where were the nations you suggest in 1973? How many times have other nations sent in troops into Israel to aid them?

[IA_Seth]

114. 1973 does not equal 2004

20 years is a long time in International Affairs.

How many times has the US vetoed resolutions in the UN that had put any inkling of responsibility on the plate of Israel? How many times have we openly said that we would support Israel and her sovereignity?

I think you would have a hard time making anyone believe we would stay out of a fight between Israel and the rest of the ME.

[geek tragedy]

110. Big differences between Kuwait and Israel

1. Kuwait is a Muslim Arab state, and thus had the support of Muslims and Arabs.

2. Saddam was despised by other Arab governments.

3. Kuwait has oil, and thus China, Europe, and Japan were all eager to see it freed from Iraq. That same need for oil would cause these states to side with the attackers, not Israel.

4. The US was able to launch its attack from Saudi Arabia. There would be no staging area for any action in Israel/Palestine.

5. If overrun, Israel would be permanently destroyed. Given the Judenhass that has been festering in the Mideast for the past half-century, a complete genocide would be highly likely before any intervention could take place.

[IndianaGreen]

133. The Sudanese don't make campaign contributions!

It's not like the world intervenes in inconvenient conflicts like the Sudan, why would they intervene here?

The Sudanese don't make campaign contributions! Which is why they have no voice in Washington, DC!

Israel OTOH buys Congress to pass the Syria Accountability Act and gets to lobby for war against Iraq and Iran.

[MallRat]

75. The ends are desirable, but the means are seriously limited now.

In another time, another place, a single targetted attack by Israel against a neighboring country's nuclear capabilities wouldn't result in a massive conflagration.

Translation: this is not Iraq, 1981. The ramifications of such an operation are completely different in the Middle East, 2004.

I'm all in favor of Israel protecting itself from imminent danger (hell, I'm Jewish myself). I'm all in favor of disarming Iran and limiting their ability to develop WMDs.

But by barging into Iraq, we have severely limited our options in the region. If we hadn't invaded Iraq on false pretenses, the Muslim world wouldn't be under the impression that we were out to get them.

If we weren't in Iraq right now, and if Israel saw fit to take pre-emptive action against Iran in a specific strategic, limited military operation, the risks for widespread backlash would have been much less because tensions in the region would be far more subdued.

The U.S. could "officially" wag their finger at Sharon and say, "no, no... that was a bad thing you just did," and the Arab world community would at least have the mild impression that the U.S. was trying to be an even-handed mediator.

But this is no longer possible.

By occupying Iraq, the United States has diplomatically backed itself into a corner in the region. We can't tell Israel NOT to do it, and there's no goodwill between the U.S. and the Arab street to mitigate the damage if Israel goes ahead with it.

Terrorism is a response to a feeling of powerlessness and humiliation. Iranians already feel under siege by what we've done next door- if we let Israel go ahead with their operations UNDER THE CURRENT CLIMATE, we are going to be in for a world of hurt.

-MR

[Baltimoreboy]

76. If we let Iran have nukes

It will be a much worse problem.

[MallRat]

82. My point is: if we weren't in Iraq, Israel and US would have more options.

That's my point.

In a time of relative quiet in the Middle East, a single attack by Israel to knockout Iran's nuclear program would be a self-contained event.

Today, the domino effect could be devastating. Iran could initiate a terror campaign on the American homeland. Iran could invade Iraq in hopes of destabilizing the new government and tying up American forces already stretched thin.

If we didn't want Iran to have nukes, we shouldn't have shot our wad on Saddam Hussein. We would have more options (diplomatic, and, by proxy, militarily via Israel) today if we hadn't pissed off the entire Middle East.

-MR

[Baltimoreboy]

90. That rationale could always limit actions

Don't get me wrong, I think Iraq was a dumb idea from the start. But what is done is done. That can't be allowed to totally limit other actions. Certainly, Israel can't allow it to force their hand and let an avowed enemy get nukes.

[MallRat]

94. But the Iraq occupation DOES limit other actions.

To take out Iran's nuclear capabilities, is it worth a full-scale war? There's got to be another way.

Consider the scenario:

Israel orchestrates air strikes in Iran to decimate their nuclear program.

Iran demands that the United States denounce the act.

Bush applauds Sharon for showing strength in the face of terra.

Iran retaliates by coordinating terrorist attacks in Israel and American interests abroad. Then they invade Iraq in an effort to both destablize a weak, fledgling (and widely-considered illegitimate) government and to keep American forces occupied.

The United States retaliates with massive air strikes against Iran. President Bush announces that regime change is needed in Iran, ushering in our third war in just four years.

Seeing the writing on the wall, Syria announces an alliance with Iran out of fear that American invasion is inevitable. Global terrorism skyrockets, and likely hits the American homefront.

Without enough troops to fight this third war, Bush is left no choice but to reinstate the draft.

The Saudi government, conspicuous for its silence amidst the ever-widening war against Muslims throughout the Middle East, comes under increased pressure from the Arab street. Growing distrust and hostility towards the royal family eventually becomes too great to keep down. A revolution and violent overthrow of the House of Saud is not out of the question.

Oil prices hit $75 a barrel, bringing the world economy to a screeching halt.

At this point, one of two things happen.

1) Europe, who has no love for Israel or Bush, doesn't come to our aid and lets the United States twist in the wind, allowing the war to suck out all of our economic and military resources. Ultimately, we'd probably win the war, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory. By the time we're done, we won't be a superpower anymore. American influence in the international arena is history.

2) Europe, out of economic self-interest, intervenes as a mediator to stop the war. If successful, Europe positions itself as the preferred trading partner for crude oil in the Middle East.

Either way, the balance of power shifts right out of our hands. The era of American dominance is ended, and a new superpower rises from the ashes: the EU.

-MR

[Baltimoreboy]

99. Thanks for the lengthy hypotheticals

But on the other side of the coin, Iran gets nukes and passes one or more to their terrorist allies. Those nukes get used on Tel Aviv, Washington, New York or just on our army in the field. The only response to blow Iran off the map, possibly causing the end of the world.

[Forkboy]

113. Speaking of hypotheticals

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. You're Making Sense

Don't you know you are supposed to respond in a rigidly ideological fashion.

[Joanne98]

124. What about peak oil?

If people like www.fromthewilderness.com are right and we only have 5 to ten years of oil left then every country on earth has a right to build a nuclear power plant. It's the only way to survive. But, oh I forgot, Israel doesn't want the Arabs to survive anyway. Never mind.

[lefty_mcduff]

150. Israel defending herself??????!!!!

When it comes to Israel people get real confused about the terms 'defence' and 'offence'. We've talking about Israel *attacking* another country, NOT the other way around. Course, now that Israel has announced intentions to attack Iran, Iran can now use the pre-emptive Bush doctrine to *defend* itself from Israel.

Amazing that folks around here continue to back Sharon and his happy band running roughshod through the ME.

[Chicago Democrat]

58. Israel's arrogance only exceeded by their paranoia and lunacy

I hope Iran gets nukes...

In fact I hope every nation on earth gets at least one. That way war would end forever....

Even arrogant Paranoids, like BUsh, let regimes like North Korea alone once they have nukes.. Nukes keep the peace. Give Palestine ONE NUKE, you really think they'd use it? Only when Israel did.

[Redhead488]

63. Paranoia?

How many times have the Arab nations tried to "drive the Jews into the sea?"

Seems more prudent than paranoid.

[Bridget Burke]

67. Iran is not an Arab nation.

.

[Redhead488]

69. Didn't say they were.

Was pointing out that Israel is not paranoid.

[Chicago Democrat]

68. What country is going to launch a nuclear strike against

another nuclear armed country? Its called nuclear deterrence. Look it up as it is the only reason you and I survived the 50s.

Nukes for everyone! (by the way, this is inevitable)

[Redhead488]

71. There are still those

who believe that a nuke strike launched with strategic and tactical surprise would prevent your "enemy" from launching a counterstrike, by decapitating the governmental and military apparatus of the target nation..

How do you know the Iranian's don't share that view?

Anyway, I was not questioning you assertion that nuclear deterrence works, I was pointing out that Israel has very good reason to be "paranoid."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. You Must Have Slept Through The Cold War

If one nuke was enough why did the United States and the Soviet Union amass 20,000 nuclear weapons each during the Cold War?

Because both nations wanted a second strike deterrent. They wanted to absorb the first blow of their enemy and then be able to retaliate even though by absorbing the first blow 70,000,000 , 100,000,000 would be dead on both sides.

If nation A gets a nuclear bomb that will just encourage nation B to build more nuclear weapons and/or to take out nation A's nuclear bomb first....

[Joanne98]

125. The Soviets may have wanted a second strike deterrent.

The US capitalists just wanted to make some MONEY.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. The Naivete Of Some Of The Respondents To This Thread Is Astounding

Without getting into the brier patch as someone who has done post grad work in International Relations I'll just suggest that ideology and emotion are never a substitute for facts and reason.

[MallRat]

84. Hear, hear.

I consider myself a realist when it comes to international relations. The US will always have enemies- but containing them requires a delicate balance of containment, international pressure, the THREAT of military response, and, in very rare cases, ACTUAL military response.

The neocon notion that we can wipe the planet clean of all threats by using our military is a delusion. The brutal truth is- for all of our technological prowess in the air and on the sea, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL. We are being exposed right now- if, god forbid, there's a war that we actually HAVE to fight, we're screwed.

The threat of US military response was a big stick in our back pocket. But by actually using the military when we didn't really have to, Bush has turned our big stick into a little twig.

"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), U.S. president. Letter, June 12, 1815.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. I Have Read That It's Logistically Impossible For The Israeli's

to take out the Iranian nuclear missile sites... The distance is too far... The sites are too dispersed... They are well protected.... And the element of surprise is gone...


The only nation that could have taken out the missile program is the United States... But our actions in Iraq after attacking a nation on the grounds they were an imminent threat when none existed makes it improbable or impossible....


Over at the right wing sites they are saying that a second Bush administration will use Iraq as a launching ground against Iran for their alleged Al Qaeda ties... Do these clowns have any idea of history, geography, and the limits, yes limits, to even American military power...

There are no easy answers... Bush has destroyed the foreign policy consensus on the big issues that existed since World War 2....

[Redhead488]

86. I would not underestimate the IAFs

ability to strike numerous targets in Iran. The distance is not insurmountable and a coordinated attack on 3 or 4 of the most critical targets is probabably all they need. It would NOT be a sure thing, though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. I Would Have To Look At A Map

It's a much more difficult task than taking out the Osirak Reactor.....


It would have been better if the U S could have addressed this threat as our interests in that region are as great as Israel's as enunciated by the Carter Doctrine....

[Redhead488]

88. Agree with both you statements.

This is a serious situation that requires careful negotiation. Bombing them is not the answer at this point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. We Had Iraq In A Box...

Containment was working. We had seriously degraded their military..... If we weren't bogged down in Iraq we would be in better shape to address Iran's and North Korea's looming nuclear threats.....


Someone needs to tell the neocons that being tough and being smart are not the same thing...

[IndianaGreen]

135. What if the US refuels the IDF planes?

Iran is too far for Israel to reach it and return without refueling. Someone will have to refuel Israel's planes.

BTW, has anyone considered the threat that Israel's attack on Iran will pose to American GIs in Iraq? Israel would be attacking a Shia nation. How would the Shias of Iraq respond to that? They would certainly take their revenge on Americans. Why wouldn't they? We are the enablers of Israeli imperialism.

[Redhead488]

153. Someone? How about Israel?

They can do it themselves.

[Joanne98]

127. If Bush is re-elected they will use Iraq for a launching pad

That's why they are building 14 military bases. Syria and Iran. That's also why they've set up 2000 draft boards. (See Dems Will Win) threads. The Christian Fundies in the US want Jesus to come back. I'd like to rapture all of them right now.

[Ron Green]

130. Unfortunately, ideology and emotion are OFTEN

a substitute for facts and reason. That's why we're in Iraq, that's why so many people still support Bush and his ilk, and that's why American life and culture are the way they are.

[ljaycox]

149. It doesn't take postgrad work

to understand this situation. There is a world of angry men with guns and you don't learn how to talk to them in college. This is the time of killers-no reason, no negotiation, no morality, only the negation of those things. I no longer believe we have a way out of this mess with our thoughts or words. Cataclysm will be our teacher, grief our guide. I guess I hope our killers are better than theirs.

[Pachamama]

96. Israel & the USA - Partners in making friends in the Middle East

Yeah, that 1st strike by Israel and followed up by our troops will just continue Bu$h/FUCheneys and the rest of the neo-creeps interpretation of "how to win friends and influence people"

Sheesh...how many people on this board predicted that it was only a matter of time before we started an assault on Iran? Syria and others are next, right?

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[geek tragedy]

97. The Jerusalem Post is a right-wing publication with its nose up Bibi's ass

The Israeli government is sending a message to Iran by releasing this.

Btw, it's not like the Iranians have avoided dropping hints:

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

<snip>
) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.
<snip>

I would urge folks to separate the people of Iran from the Mullahs and the goons they employ to hold onto power. The days of the Mullahs are numbered--they have no legitimacy. Just don't burn the place up before they get overthrown.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. Israel Has Three Hundred Fifty To Four Hundred Nuclear Weapons

All are in hardened silos and allegedly on submarines too....


If the Mullahs think being hit by three hundred fifty to four hundred missiles would be "damage only" they are thinking out of their collective asses...

[geek tragedy]

117. I make no assumptions about the Mullahs rationality or sanity.

Or that of any government.

[skip fox]

101. Timing! This weekend Fox News' talking points on Iran:

Fox News constantly screaming that the Commission's report will indicate the "muscle hijackers" passed throut Iran, COMPLETELY IGNORING THE FACT ELSEWHERE REPORTED (all major news outlets) THAT THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED OR EVEN KNEW ABOUT THEIR PRESENCE.

These two items surfacing at the same time to prepare the public for a new "front" on the "War Against Terrorism"?

Discussion at:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2020517

[maddezmom]

104. and today, shrub says they are investigating:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) said that the United States was investigating whether Iran played any role in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, amid CIA (news - web sites) skepticism of an official link.



"As to direct connections with September the 11th, we're digging into the facts to determine if there was one," Bush said as he met with Chilean President Ricardo Lagos in the Oval Office.


His comments came after the acting director of the US Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) said some of the hijackers who carried out the attacks passed through Iran but that Washington had no evidence that Tehran backed the strikes.


"Acting Director (John) McLaughlin said there was no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of September the 11th. We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved," said Bush.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1511&ncid=1511&e=3&u=/afp/20040719/wl_afp/us_attacks_iran_bush_040719174537

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

119. Hi there newcomer!

Enjoy your stay!
:hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

121. Is There A Party Line On Iranian Nukes?

I want to bet let it on it....

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

123. What'choo talkin' 'bout DemocratSinceeBirth?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

131. Isn't That The Governor Of California

Wait... That's the runner up...

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

137. I woulda voted for him

if I wasn't in CT :)

[Forkboy]

122. heh

that was good....almost.

[Joanne98]

116. We need to have global protests demanding Israel

Let UN inspectors look at their nuclear stockpile they say they don't have and see how they like that. If Bushco starts making noise about invading Syria we need a global protest with signs saying "No Blood for Israel". Then if Bush invades we need to get the French to submit a UN resolution demanding inspections of Israel. It's a great around-about way to fuck with the Christian right. They want to tear down that mosque sitting on the Temple of Solomon so Jesus can come back. Well, we can just block the return of Jesus then by fucking with Israel. It's a good way to make them miserable. :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

120. That's A Great Idea...

I think you should e-mail it to the Kerry campaign... I'd also send it via fed ex to ensure that they see it...

[Joanne98]

128. Ha ha

I would but somehow I don't think they'll appreciate it. To many Israel-firsters in the Dem party. I predict a blood-bath between the anti-war faction and the Israel first faction if Bush invades another country.

[Jim Sagle]

138. A bloodbath that many Dems seem happy to aid and abet, even if it

destroys the party.

[IronLionZion]

142. Kerry is Israel first

and he has to be. He can't possibly win without their support.

I hate to admit it, but the fairest guy on this issue (who is in a position to do something) is George W. Bush. But he is just too much of a pussy to put equal pressure on Sharon to make the roadmap work. assholes, both of them

[IndianaGreen]

143. Kerry is Israel first? Is he running for Prime Minister of Israel?

No self-respecting American Presidential candidate would put Israel's interests ahead of the US, although Lyndon Johnson did precisely that when he covered-up the truth about Israel's attack on the USS Liberty.

May I remind you of the acts of the treasonous spy Jonathan Pollard, who placed Israel's interests ahead of those of the country he was sworn to protect.

[IronLionZion]

145. I'm going to get banned for this

But the pro-isreal lobby is the most powerful lobby in Washington because jewish people in America are very influential.

Both parties are beholden to that lobby, but for the Democrats, it is a matter of life and death politically. The Republicans are slightly less beholden because they have many other special interests in their corner especially big corporations.

No candidate has a prayer of winning or staying president without pandering to that lobby. If Bush had seriously pursued his roadmap, he would already be out of office and Kerry would be a shoo in.

FYI I'm not anti-semitic so don't play that card.

[IndianaGreen]

146. It is a sad commentary on our country when...

any opinion about Israel can be labeled as anti-Semitic whenever it strays from the approved orthodoxy.

How many 9/11s must we suffer before Americans recognize that our own one-sided policies in the Middle East were responsible for creating the terrorists that struck our country?

[Barkley]

140. This is why missile defense is destabilizing.

Israel may get an opportunity to test its Arrow ballistic missile defense system if Iran responds with Shahab missile attacks.

In 1986, Israel made similar pre-emptive preparations against Saudi Arabia's CSS-2 missiles. But a credible Saudi threat to use all remaining missiles against Israel ended the mini-crisis.

Israel's pre-emptive strike of Iraq's nuclear power plant in 1981 didn't disarm Saddam. If anything it made him more determined and encouraged secret WMD programs throughout the region.

The U.N. essentially disarmed Iraq (1992 - 98).

I wonder if Israel will use US bases in Iraq to attack Iran?

[IronLionZion]

141. crazy shit going down in the ME. eom

[Tight_rope]

151. Just keep Bush's hand away from the trigger...you know he's clumpsey

he might accident hit the bottom and blow the whole world up.

[Matilda]

152. One thing is very clear - the world desperately needs a U.S. president

with a brain.

If anyone can make a bad situation worse, it's Bush. He's like a
primary school child goading others to fight so he can get his
jollies watching. When we're talking nuclear, it doesn't really
matter who goes first - the end result will be the same.