PDA

View Full Version : Iran and Israel



Sooner_Havok
7/11/2008, 03:13 PM
I was listening to the BBC last night on my way home and they were interviewing a professor from Israel. The interviewer asked him if he was worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons and the guy said no. Shocked, the BBC guy asked why, and the professor's answer really made me think, and I wanted to get your thoughts on this.

Basically the guy said we should go ahead and give Iran nukes. He said once they had them, they wouldn't be able to "throw as much as a match" at Israel. If they did, the Israeli government would have no clue whether or not the incoming missile was a nuke or not, and would have only 10 minutes to counter attack. Not knowing if they were about to be hit with a nuke, Israel would then launch their arsenal at Iran. As they guy put it, "Israel has the capability of completely leveling Iran, and if the Iranians didn't want to see their 5,000 year old civilization wiped of the face of the map, they wouldn't launch anything towards Israel." But he said that only worked if Iran had known nukes. Otherwise, Israel would only be able to launch a conventional counterattack.

So what do you think? Would nuclear Iran actually stabilize the area?

sooner_born_1960
7/11/2008, 03:37 PM
One way or the other.

OUDoc
7/11/2008, 03:42 PM
The Israeli's really have a different way of looking at things, don't they? He makes sense, although militant Islam hasn't, at times, shown much common sense in what or whom they attack.

mdklatt
7/11/2008, 03:48 PM
He said once they had them, they wouldn't be able to "throw as much as a match" at Israel. If they did, the Israeli government would have no clue whether or not the incoming missile was a nuke or not, and would have only 10 minutes to counter attack. Not knowing if they were about to be hit with a nuke, Israel would then launch their arsenal at Iran.

The way it stands now, do you think Israel would take the chance that it's probably not a nuke? Or that they'd simply sit back and take one for the team even if they knew it wasn't?

Does Israel have ballistic missiles capable of reaching Iran? It's not much of a secret that they have nuclear weapons, but it's my understanding that they are all aircraft-launched weapons. If that's true, the "10 minutes" argument is out the window.




As they guy put it, "Israel has the capability of completely leveling Iran, and if the Iranians didn't want to see their 5,000 year old civilization wiped of the face of the map, they wouldn't launch anything towards Israel."

By Iranians we're taking about the ayatollahs that run the place. Ahmadenidjadadajad is a talking head, and the average Iranian citizen is a lot more rational and pro-Western than a lot of people give them credit for. But how rational are the ayatollahs? Again, probably more rational than a lot of people give them credit for. The only world leader who I think is genuinely bat**** insane is Kim Jong Il, and even he seems sane enough to back away from the nuclear ledge.

Sooner_Havok
7/11/2008, 03:59 PM
The way it stands now, do you think Israel would take the chance that it's probably not a nuke? Or that they'd simply sit back and take one for the team even if they knew it wasn't?

No, I think they would launch everything they have at Tehran, and I think Tehran knows that too



Does Israel have ballistic missiles capable of reaching Iran? It's not much of a secret that they have nuclear weapons, but it's my understanding that they are all aircraft-launched weapons. If that's true, the "10 minutes" argument is out the window.

One would think they would have missiles capable of hitting Iran



By Iranians we're taking about the ayatollahs that run the place. Ahmadenidjadadajad is a talking head, and the average Iranian citizen is a lot more rational and pro-Western than a lot of people give them credit for. But how rational are the ayatollahs? Again, probably more rational than a lot of people give them credit for. The only world leader who I think is genuinely bat**** insane is Kim Jong Il, and even he seems sane enough to back away from the nuclear ledge.

I agree most Iranians are pretty reasonable, so imagine their response if they knew that any aggression towards Israel would lead to their deaths. I don't think they would let the lunatics stay in power then.

mdklatt
7/11/2008, 04:07 PM
No, I think they would launch everything they have at Tehran, and I think Tehran knows that too

Then we don't need to give Iran nukes. I'm pretty sure that Israel's neighbors all know that if you even look at them funny they'll give you the orbital penetration of a lifetime.




I agree most Iranians are pretty reasonable, so imagine their response if they knew that any aggression towards Israel would lead to their deaths. I don't think they would let the lunatics stay in power then.

How exactly does the Iranian government work? I know they're sort of a theocratic democracy, but the theocratic part is the ultimate authority, and I don't know how they come to power. The dude elected before Ahmajadanijadad was seen as a pro-Western reformer. So, did the ayatollahs get scared and use their influence to get Ahmadadanajad elected, or did Bush's "Axis of Evil" rhetoric galvanize the Iranians?

Sooner_Havok
7/11/2008, 04:14 PM
Then we don't need to give Iran nukes. I'm pretty sure that Israel's neighbors all know that if you even look at them funny they'll give you the orbital penetration of a lifetime.

But it only works if Israel can say they thought they were about to be hit with nukes. If a non-nuclear state launches an attack against Israel, they couldn't respond with nuclear force.



How exactly does the Iranian government work? I know they're sort of a theocratic democracy, but the theocratic part is the ultimate authority, and I don't know how they come to power. The dude elected before Ahmajadanijadad was seen as a pro-Western reformer. So, did the ayatollahs get scared and use their influence to get Ahmadadanajad elected, or did Bush's "Axis of Evil" rhetoric galvanize the Iranians?

I am not sure of their current system, but I am pretty sure that if the people get upset enough, they could overthrow the government.

tommieharris91
7/11/2008, 04:24 PM
Sure, Israel can attack Iran with nukes and turn their country into a mirror, but then the US loses out on all of that oil that they have.

C'mon guys, think selfishly for once. :rolleyes:

mdklatt
7/11/2008, 04:25 PM
If a non-nuclear state launches an attack against Israel, they couldn't respond with nuclear force.

It's pretty clear that Israel doesn't have much use for world opinion. Besides, if Iran attacks Israel, it's not just going to be Israel that they have to worry about. Israel gets into a scuffle with Syria? Domestic dispute. Iran gets involved? WW III, or at least Oil War III.





I am not sure of their current system, but I am pretty sure that if the people get upset enough, they could overthrow the government.

Iran would have been a much better candidate for whatever we're trying to do in Iraq because their general population is much more homogeneous and secular. I don't know how difficult it would be for them to overthrow the theocracy, though. It wasn't very difficult for them to overthrow the Shah....

OKC-SLC
7/11/2008, 04:31 PM
militant Islam hasn't, at times, shown much common sense in what or whom they attack.
"At times"

Heh.

Unless by "at times" you mean "ever".

OUDoc
7/11/2008, 04:46 PM
"At times"

Heh.

Unless by "at times" you mean "ever".

I was being diplomatic. :)

Sooner_Havok
7/11/2008, 04:54 PM
Hey, if they all want to meet up with Allah quicker, more power to them. You guys ever read the Watchmen? Replace New York City with Jerusalem, and maybe we can get some peace finally.

Jerk
7/11/2008, 05:44 PM
Israel can launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles from diesel subs, which are very quiet. The Persians would be obliterated.

mdklatt
7/11/2008, 05:48 PM
Israel can launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles from diesel subs, which are very quiet.

The probably couldn't reach Iran from the Mediterranean Sea. So unless they have some operating in the Persian Gulf (which is very possible), it wouldn't be a WarGames-type MAD scenario.

Sooner_Havok
7/11/2008, 05:49 PM
At any rate, MAD kept us and the Ruskies from going to war for real.

mdklatt
7/11/2008, 05:52 PM
Okay, so Israel definitely does have ballistic missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_missile), probably with nuclear warheads. And what an ominous name.

Jerk
7/11/2008, 05:54 PM
The probably couldn't reach Iran from the Mediterranean Sea. So unless they have some operating in the Persian Gulf (which is very possible), it wouldn't be a WarGames-type MAD scenario.


Oh.....they probably have a few lurking around there somewhere.

Even if they couldn't deliver em' by missile, they could send em by air. Book it.

mdklatt
7/11/2008, 06:04 PM
Even if they couldn't deliver em' by missile, they could send em by air. Book it.

That would involve flying over Iraq and Jordan, same as cruise missiles from the Med. Even if they could pull it off tactically, said countries couldn't just give that a pass, no matter how pro-Israel (by Arab standards) they are.

Or could they? Who does Iraq hate more--Israel or Iran? If Israel used Iraqi airspace to launch an attack on Iran, would Iraq be compelled to enact vengeance on Israel on behalf of their Muslim brothers? What would/could/should the US do about that situation?

Curly Bill
7/11/2008, 06:08 PM
If Israel used Iraqi airspace to launch an attack on Iran, would Iraq be compelled to enact vengeance on Israel on behalf of their Muslim brothers? What would/could/should the US do about that situation?

We're gonna stand up for Israel whatever happens over there. We may scold them in private, maybe even in public on occasion, but when it gets down to it we're gonna have their back.

mdklatt
7/11/2008, 06:08 PM
This guy (http://francona.blogspot.com/2006/03/iran-israels-air-strike-options.html) has put a lot of thought in this, and more than two years ago at that.

EDIT: Update (http://francona.blogspot.com/2008/06/iran-israels-air-strike-options-update.html) from last month.

Jerk
7/11/2008, 06:14 PM
That would involve flying over Iraq and Jordan, same as cruise missiles from the Med. Even if they could pull it off tactically, said countries couldn't just give that a pass, no matter how pro-Israel (by Arab standards) they are.

Or could they? Who does Iraq hate more--Israel or Iran? If Israel used Iraqi airspace to launch an attack on Iran, would Iraq be compelled to enact vengeance on Israel on behalf of their Muslim brothers? What would/could/should the US do about that situation?

That didn't bother them in 1981. Watch the video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me2ISsIebc0&feature=related

Curly Bill
7/11/2008, 06:16 PM
My best guess is American tankers refueling the Israelli fighters over Iraq. American involvement being kept on the down low as much as possible.

Jerk
7/11/2008, 06:18 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUJOCFK6IeY&NR=1

Jerk
7/11/2008, 06:23 PM
mdklatt..remember last year when the Israelis bombed that mysterious "nuclear" target in Syria? I need to look that up. The Syrians just bought and installed the latest & greatest Russian air defense system, and never even got a shot off!

It's the same system Iran has.

Curly Bill
7/11/2008, 06:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUJOCFK6IeY&NR=1



:D

mdklatt
7/11/2008, 06:40 PM
mdklatt..remember last year when the Israelis bombed that mysterious "nuclear" target in Syria? I need to look that up. The Syrians just bought and installed the latest & greatest Russian air defense system, and never even got a shot off!

It's the same system Iran has.

I have high confidence that Israel could pull it off militarily one way or another, but what about the political ramifications? There's a big difference between "could" and "should".

Jerk
7/11/2008, 06:45 PM
I have high confidence that Israel could pull it off militarily one way or another, but what about the political ramifications? There's a big difference between "could" and "should".

That won't bother them. There is only one thing Israel cares about and that is numero uno.

Curly Bill
7/11/2008, 06:45 PM
I have high confidence that Israel could pull it off militarily one way or another, but what about the political ramifications? There's a big difference between "could" and "should".

Doesn't everyone in that part of the world already hate Israel? If they can get some degree of support from the good ol USA, or barring outright support at least know that we won't scold them too severely, I'm not sure they care too much what anyone else thinks.

Sooner_Havok
7/11/2008, 06:46 PM
If it was a retaliatory attack I would put the odds at 100%. A preemptive one gets around 50%

GottaHavePride
7/11/2008, 08:22 PM
Okay, so Israel definitely does have ballistic missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_missile), probably with nuclear warheads. And what an ominous name.


Of course they do.

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/paramount_pictures/iron_man/robert_downey_jr_/ironman10.jpg

stoopified
7/11/2008, 08:37 PM
So we now have MAD deterrent going on in the Middle East,so what?The threat of nuclear terrorism has always been a greater threat.

Sooner_Havok
7/11/2008, 08:48 PM
So we now have MAD deterrent going on in the Middle East,so what?The threat of nuclear terrorism has always been a greater threat.

Again, tha is the good thing about nukes (if there is such a thing.) Say some jack *** does use a nuclear suicide vest, we would be able to trace the uranium back to its source.

MR2-Sooner86
7/11/2008, 09:09 PM
Again, tha is the good thing about nukes (if there is such a thing.) Say some jack *** does use a nuclear suicide vest, we would be able to trace the uranium back to its source.

Unless it's like Sum of All Fears and it's our own uranium :eek:

Frozen Sooner
7/11/2008, 09:16 PM
Here's my thought:

Any nation-state that is attacked by another nation-state has the right to defend itself using whatever weapons necessary to end the conflict.

Preferably, civilian casualties should be held to a minimum.

However, if they can't, I ain't going to worry about it that much.

If a nation-state ever attacks the United States? F 'em. Wipe 'em off the map as an object lesson for everyone else.

If Iran attacks Israel? **** 'em. Israel should nuke 'em back to the Stone Age, which should take the equivalent firepower to a couple of sticks of dynamite and a good shove.

I want the population of any nation that even THINKS about attacking us revolting in the streets because they don't want us putting the hammer down.

Curly Bill
7/11/2008, 09:19 PM
What kind of firepower is the USA gonna unleash on Iran if they try to block the Strait of Hormuz?

MR2-Sooner86
7/11/2008, 09:24 PM
Here's my thought:

Any nation-state that is attacked by another nation-state has the right to defend itself using whatever weapons necessary to end the conflict.

Preferably, civilian casualties should be held to a minimum.

However, if they can't, I ain't going to worry about it that much.

If a nation-state ever attacks the United States? F 'em. Wipe 'em off the map as an object lesson for everyone else.

If Iran attacks Israel? **** 'em. Israel should nuke 'em back to the Stone Age, which should take the equivalent firepower to a couple of sticks of dynamite and a good shove.

I want the population of any nation that even THINKS about attacking us revolting in the streets because they don't want us putting the hammer down.

I happen to agree but I have a question on that. Why do we get **** for doing that over 60 years ago?

Hiroshima?
Nagasaki?
Dresden?
Firebombing of Tokyo?

These are things we did and the U.S. gets thrown under the bus for doing it.

Curly Bill
7/11/2008, 09:27 PM
I happen to agree but I have a question on that. Why do we get **** for doing that over 60 years ago?

Hiroshima?
Nagasaki?
Dresden?
Firebombing of Tokyo?

These are things we did and the U.S. gets thrown under the bus for doing it when back then the world was an easier place to do that stuff.

Because we're the mean ol USA.

...and it's quite popular, always has been really, to hate on the dominant power of the time.

olevetonahill
7/11/2008, 09:41 PM
Here's my thought:

Any nation-state that is attacked by another nation-state has the right to defend itself using whatever weapons necessary to end the conflict.

Preferably, civilian casualties should be held to a minimum.

However, if they can't, I ain't going to worry about it that much.

If a nation-state ever attacks the United States? F 'em. Wipe 'em off the map as an object lesson for everyone else.

If Iran attacks Israel? **** 'em. Israel should nuke 'em back to the Stone Age, which should take the equivalent firepower to a couple of sticks of dynamite and a good shove.

I want the population of any nation that even THINKS about attacking us revolting in the streets because they don't want us putting the hammer down.

Mike Is this really You ? :eek:

Curly Bill
7/11/2008, 09:42 PM
Mike Is this really You ? :eek:

No kiddin...shouldn't he have said something about diplomacy and dialogue and such? :D

edit...maybe Mike is coming around to our way of thinking...

...and by "our" I mean us flying dickwheel, conservative, hawkish type people.

olevetonahill
7/11/2008, 09:47 PM
No kiddin...shouldn't he have said something about diplomacy and dialogue and such? :D

edit...maybe Mike is coming around to our way of thinking...

...and by "our" I mean us flying dickwheel, conservative, hawkish type people.

I thot he would have said something like " but the Iranians Talk so well , and are just Misunderstood "
But hell what do I know :D
Still Love Ya froz .;)

Frozen Sooner
7/11/2008, 09:48 PM
I've always thought that way. I have not a single issue with the destruction of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I don't have a problem with the firebombing of Dresden, either. Although the Germans didn't attack us, we were attacked by their allies and they had declared war on us and attacked our allies.

I'm all for diplomacy. Simply disliking us isn't a reason to go to war. Even acting like a turd to us isn't a reason to go to war.

Diplomacy ends as soon as the first American citizen dies as the result of an act of war.

Frozen Sooner
7/11/2008, 09:50 PM
I thot he would have said something like " but the Iranians Talk so well , and are just Misunderstood "
But hell what do I know :D
Still Love Ya froz .;)

They haven't fired a missile at Israel yet. Once they do? Israel needs to respond with force-preferable force all out of proportion to the belligerent act.

The message needs to be out there-if you so much as bloody our nose, we will put your *** in traction.

Frozen Sooner
7/11/2008, 09:51 PM
Of course, under the Rich doctrine we should have actually nuked Israel a while back.

olevetonahill
7/11/2008, 09:51 PM
I've always thought that way. I have not a single issue with the destruction of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

I don't have a problem with the firebombing of Dresden, either. Although the Germans didn't attack us, we were attacked by their allies and they had declared war on us.

I'm all for diplomacy. Simply disliking us isn't a reason to go to war. Even acting like a turd to us isn't a reason to go to war.

Diplomacy ends as soon as the first American citizen dies as the result of an act of war.

Did you Miss the Memo ?
The krauts did ATTACK US .
Remember that thing they had they called U-Boats ?
I think they sank a lot Of our Ships, Both Merchant men and Cruise types befor we Jumped into that lil Fracas
Just sayin.

olevetonahill
7/11/2008, 09:54 PM
They haven't fired a missile at Israel yet. Once they do? Israel needs to respond with force-preferable force all out of proportion to the belligerent act.

The message needs to be out there-if you so much as bloody our nose, we will put your *** in traction.

So Let me Understand your thinking Here Ok ?
I hear you sayin That If I have a 357 , Some ******* has a 22 and Hes Pointing it at me, I should wait till He Loads that thing with Magnums and Then shoots at Me befor I blow His *** to hell ?
Mike you smarter than that !

Frozen Sooner
7/11/2008, 09:55 PM
Did you Miss the Memo ?
The krauts did ATTACK US .
Remember that thing they had they called U-Boats ?
I think they sank a lot Of our Ships, Both Merchant men and Cruise types befor we Jumped into that lil Fracas
Just sayin.

Good point. Didn't really go into it because I thought we had plenty of justification already.

olevetonahill
7/11/2008, 09:56 PM
Of course, under the Rich doctrine we should have actually nuked Israel a while back.

Oh so now your anti semite ? :eek: :D :pop:

Curly Bill
7/11/2008, 09:58 PM
Oh so now your anti semite ? :eek: :D :pop:

Well, he does support Obama. ;) :D

Frozen Sooner
7/11/2008, 10:00 PM
So Let me Understand your thinking Here Ok ?
I hear you sayin That If I have a 357 , Some ******* has a 22 and Hes Pointing it at me, I should wait till He Loads that thing with Magnums and Then shoots at Me befor I blow His *** to hell ?
Mike you smarter than that !

As are you, Howard.

We're not talking about .22s and .357s, for one.

For two, the original question as I understood it is "Would Israel be justified in using nuclear weapons in response to a conventional Iranian missile attack." Absolutely they would be.

Now, to strengthen your analogy, the situation is more like Israel and Iran are waving guns around at each other. Israel has a .357. Iran has a .22.

Now, neither side has actually said "I plan to use a weapon against the other person," which in your analogy would be pointing the gun at the person. Sure, if Iran flat-out said "We're going to shoot a missile at Israel" absolutely Israel can fire off their missiles.

Otherwise, you're saying that the Russians would have been perfectly justified in nuking the United States in the 80s.

olevetonahill
7/11/2008, 10:00 PM
Well, he does support Obama. ;) :D

I like having him By the short hairs and Yanking his Chain .
He makes so dayum much sense most of the time But he done pulled an obama here :D :D :D :D :D :D :pop:

Frozen Sooner
7/11/2008, 10:01 PM
Oh so now your anti semite ? :eek: :D :pop:

Nope. Just "Anti-blowing-up-US-Navy-vessels."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Though, of course, it was just a mistake. ;)

I was mainly just being facetious by saying the Israelis had attacked us.

Frozen Sooner
7/11/2008, 10:02 PM
I like having him By the short hairs and Yanking his Chain .
He makes so dayum much sense most of the time But he done pulled an obama here :D :D :D :D :D :D :pop:

So you're OK with the death of 34 sailors at the hands of the Israeli Navy?

Curly Bill
7/11/2008, 10:06 PM
So you're OK with the death of 34 sailors at the hands of the Israeli Navy?

Nope, but they are a pretty staunch ally when we need some of those.

olevetonahill
7/11/2008, 10:06 PM
As are you, Howard.

We're not talking about .22s and .357s, for one.

For two, the original question as I understood it is "Would Israel be justified in using nuclear weapons in response to a conventional Iranian missile attack." Absolutely they would be.

Now, to strengthen your analogy, the situation is more like Israel and Iran are waving guns around at each other. Israel has a .357. Iran has a .22.

Now, neither side has actually said "I plan to use a weapon against the other person," which in your analogy would be pointing the gun at the person. Sure, if Iran flat-out said "We're going to shoot a missile at Israel" absolutely Israel can fire off their missiles.

Otherwise, you're saying that the Russians would have been perfectly justified in nuking the United States in the 80s.

No Bro
What you said was that they could shoot back if they were Fired On ? Right ?
Ok Iran Leaders Have said Israel Should be wiped Off the Face of the earth , Am I right So far
So they have a 22 right Now should Should the Jews wait till Iran gets Nuclear caps before they take em out ?
I dont think so .
If a dude Has told Me that Hes gonna shoot Myass Off , just wait till he loads up . Hell No Im gonna blow that Mofo away Right NOW
Just sayin
;)

Curly Bill
7/11/2008, 10:09 PM
No Bro
What you said was that they could shoot back if they were Fired On ? Right ?
Ok Iran Leaders Have said Israel Should be wiped Off the Face of the earth , Am I right So far
So they have a 22 right Now should Should the Jews wait till Iran gets Nuclear caps before they take em out ?
I dont think so .
If a dude Has told Me that Hes gonna shoot Myass Off , just wait till he loads up . Hell No Im gonna blow that Mofo away Right NOW
Just sayin
;)

Yep, I think Israel has plenty of justification to put a boot up Iran's arse as we speak.

Frozen Sooner
7/11/2008, 10:09 PM
What I said was that any nation state has the right to defend itself with overwhelming force if it is attacked.

I haven't gotten into what a proper justification to wage offensive war would be and what proportionality would be proper. Thus, I haven't said that it's not OK to launch a pre-emptive attack. There are certainly circumstances when that's justified.

I'm pretty sure all of my statements here have been affirmative-these actions are OK in my book. Don't think I've said what isn't OK in my book yet.

And hey, I don't have a nuclear arsenal, so take it all with a grain of salt.

olevetonahill
7/11/2008, 10:09 PM
So you're OK with the death of 34 sailors at the hands of the Israeli Navy?

Nope Bro
Im just being an ******* :D

Frozen Sooner
7/11/2008, 10:11 PM
Nope Bro
Im just being an ******* :D

That's OK, man, you're an anti-Navite. Just don't tell Harry.

;)

olevetonahill
7/11/2008, 10:12 PM
That's OK, man, you're an anti-Navite. Just don't tell Harry.

;)

When did ******* get stared out ?
:confused:

Frozen Sooner
7/11/2008, 10:13 PM
Dunno what word it is.

MR2-Sooner86
7/11/2008, 10:18 PM
What I said was that any nation state has the right to defend itself with overwhelming force if it is attacked.

I haven't gotten into what a proper justification to wage offensive war would be and what proportionality would be proper. Thus, I haven't said that it's not OK to launch a pre-emptive attack. There are certainly circumstances when that's justified.

Ok I'm just going to throw a wrench in the works.

Iran Air Flight 655.

Did Iran have the right to launch an all out attack on the U.S.?

I mean the United States entered WW1 from a civilian ship, Lusitania, being sunk. Now granted I will admit those were different circumstances and it was the straw that broke the camel's back. However both were civilian and not war ships that were attacked and destroyed.

olevetonahill
7/11/2008, 10:20 PM
Dunno what word it is.

azzhole :D
used it today and it worked ;)

Curly Bill
7/11/2008, 10:22 PM
Ok I'm just going to throw a wrench in the works.

Iran Air Flight 655.

Did Iran have the right to launch an all out attack on the U.S.?

I mean the United States entered WW1 from a civilian ship, Lusitania, being sunk. Now granted I will admit those were different circumstances and it was the straw that broke the camel's back. However both were civilian and not war ships that were attacked and destroyed.

Actually we did not enter with the sinking of the Lusitania. We entered with the inteception of the Zimmerman telegram, in which Germany encouraged Mexico to attack the southern USA.

olevetonahill
7/11/2008, 10:22 PM
Ok I'm just going to throw a wrench in the works.

Iran Air Flight 655.

Did Iran have the right to launch an all out attack on the U.S.?

I mean the United States entered WW1 from a civilian ship, Lusitania, being sunk. Now granted I will admit those were different circumstances and it was the straw that broke the camel's back. However both were civilian and not war ships that were attacked and destroyed.

I think in all fairness we shouda Nuked ourselves . woulda been the right thing to do .:P

olevetonahill
7/11/2008, 10:23 PM
Actually we did not enter with the sinking of the Lusitania. We entered with the inteception of the Zimmerman telegram, in which Germany encouraged Mexico to attack the southern USA.

But that was a Hoax ? ;)

Frozen Sooner
7/11/2008, 10:24 PM
Ok I'm just going to throw a wrench in the works.

Iran Air Flight 655.

Did Iran have the right to launch an all out attack on the U.S.?

I mean the United States entered WW1 from a civilian ship, Lusitania, being sunk. Now granted I will admit those were different circumstances and it was the straw that broke the camel's back. However both were civilian and not war ships that were attacked and destroyed.

If the Iranian government truly believed that the United States knowingly shot down a civilian airliner that was operating in Iranian airspace, yes.

Of course, the Iranians 1) probably didn't actually believe that and 2) knew that an all-out attack on the US when we had a bunch of military power already projected out near them probably isn't a good idea.

Curly Bill
7/11/2008, 10:26 PM
But that was a Hoax ? ;)

Well Mexico is now acting on it...

...they've been attacking the US in droves over the past couple of decades until they have about retaken their lost territories. :D :D :D