Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Rodney-889389's column >>

RODNEY-889389

USMC Veteran
Articles Posted: 119  Links Seeded: 4409
Member Since: 2/2009  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Poll: If Israel Attacks Iran, Should the U.S. Risk Nuclear War With Russia and China in Defense of Israel?

Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:29 AM EST
us-news, war, nuclear-war, wwiii, iranian-war, israeli-attack-on-iran
By Rodney-889389
Advertise | AdChoices

With a possible war with Iran on the horizon, Americans need to start thinking about the consequences of an unprovoked act of war against the state of Iran.  If Israel launches an attack, the U.S. will, undoubtedly, be dragged into what will quickly become a regional conflict or even a global war.  

The unknowns of such a conflict include a potential nuclear standoff that could usher in the planet's first nuclear exchange of "city killers".

A modern thermonuclear weapon weighing little more than 2,400 pounds (1,100 kg) can produce an explosive force comparable to the detonation of more than 1.2 million tons (1.1 million tonnes) of TNT.[2] Thus, even a small nuclear device no larger than traditional bombs can devastate an entire city by blast, fire and radiation. Nuclear weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction, and their use and control have been a major focus of international relations policy since their debut.

Only two nuclear weapons have been used in the course of warfare, both by the United States near the end of World War II. On 6 August 1945, a uranium gun-type device code-named "Little Boy" was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, on 9 August, a plutonium implosion-type device code-named "Fat Man" was exploded over Nagasaki, Japan. These two bombings resulted in the deaths of approximately 200,000 Japanese people—mostly civilians—from acute injuries sustained from the explosions.[3] The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, and their ethical status, remain the subject of scholarly and popular debate.

Since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have been detonated on over two thousand occasions for testing purposes and demonstrations. Only a few nations possess such weapons or are suspected of seeking them. The only countries known to have detonated nuclear weapons—and that acknowledge possessing such weapons—are (chronologically by date of first test) the United States, the Soviet Union (succeeded as a nuclear power by Russia), the United Kingdom, France, the People's Republic of China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. In addition, Israel is also widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though it does not acknowledge having them.[4][5][6] One state, South Africa, has admitted to having previous fabricated nuclear weapons in the past, but has since disassembled their arsenal and submitted to international safeguards.[1]

Russia and China have both stated that they will defend their ally Iran, so this begs the question, "Should the U.S. Risk Nuclear War With Russia and China in Defense of Israel?"

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

Live Poll

Risk WWIII in Defense of Israel

View Results
  • 175450
    Yes
    18%
  • 175451
    No
    67%
  • 175452
    Maybe
    4%
  • 175453
    Need More Info
    9%
  • 175454
    Undecided
    1%
  • 175455
    No Opinion
    0%

VoteTotal Votes: 158

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Rodney-889389's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: 112th United States Congress, Absolutely No Boundaries, American GIs & their families, American Progressives, cheapdirtystuntsbyGOPfascists, Counterterrorism, DemGuys, Democrats, Extreme Liberal Democrats, FIRED UP DEMOCRATS!, Free Thinkers, GOP Watch , Grounded for Life, Hall of Mirrors, Heated Debate, Left of Center, Mad For Rachel Maddow, Military and veterans vine, Obama Supporters, ObamaExpress, ObamaVine, Power to The People!, RepubliCON Watch, Rightwingnutjobs, The War Room
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (162)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
Rodney-889389

"What we are witnessing here is a build-up towards a military confrontation. These sanctions constitute the staging of a military agenda," feels Michel Chossudovsky. "In turn, we have massive deployment of US military hardware, troops going to Israel to be stationed in Israel, more troops go to Kuwait, [American] naval forces are entering the Persian Gulf."

Michel Chossudovsky believes that "What the United States wants now, including its allies, is some kind of a green light which will give a human face to a war."

  • 6 votes
#1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:37 AM EST
Mr. Roger Rabbit

A great question - Iran is their ally, who threatens our ally - Israel. Of course the statement that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and declares publicly it wants to attack Israel is not enough of a provocation for our liberals. Supplying terrorists with money and technologies is not enough of a provocation for our liberals, having Russia and China torpedo out international efforts to stop the Iranian program peacefully is not enough of a provocation. So the question is - given the situation that it is - should we abandon our strongest and staunchest ally in the region, as we've done so many times in the last couple of years, or should Russia and China risk nuclear war with US in defending ayatollahs? Basically the question is - whose is bigger? Ours, or Russian/Chinese? I have no doubt that China has not interest in going to real war with US, I have little doubt, that Russia knows the difference between political posturing and real action, and knows full well - they are not ready. As for the war itself, I have a funny feeling India may defend Israel before we do.

  • 7 votes
#1.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:53 AM EST
Polka14

We should not risk our own nation's security to defend that corrupt nation. We should not risk nuclear war, the end of humanity and the destruction of the Planet's ecosystems over the affairs of one nation. I would prefer to see Israel attack Iran alone if it must conduct a war of aggression. If it is destroyed as a result of that attack then it is not our problem. We need to stay out of that region and not participate in its military aggression. Declare neutrality now in any situation where Israel attacks Iran unprovoked in any way. Israel doesn't even need defending. It is a regional superpower.

  • 8 votes
#1.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:47 AM EST
hard2port

No. Israel has been that regions bully since it's inception and has always run to the US for protection. Their religious beliefs are only one reason for the hatred directed towards them. This is only sabre-rattling on both sides for discounted military hardware and economic aid or lifted sanctions. Both have mastered the manipulation of western media, each to their own advantage.

A successful first strike nuclear attack by either Iran or Israel is more than highly improbable with the US military in the region. The US needs to call this bluff with the guarantee of vaporizing the first to launch a nuke, whoever it is. Iran can't muster a military force and or complete total devastation and the US has patronized Israeli chickenhawks for far too long anyway.

China has too much at stake in the US economy and the Russians realize there won't be any arms sales to a radiated hunk of dirt. If either of these two countries in the nuke club wanted Iran to have nukes, they would have already sold them some. Also, some consideration of which way that cloud of nuclear fallout would drift needs to be factored into the whole equation.

Besides, worst case scenario, would having every mideast chickenhawk reduced to radioactive dust be such a bad thing? Not ever going to happen. Self-preservation, power, and greed on both sides far eclipse any notion of national suicide.

  • 7 votes
#1.3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:59 AM EST
GaryColumbus

The United States needs to stop policing the World! We can't afford it. If Israel can't control themselves perhaps sanctions on them should be pursued. We're sanctioning Iran for nuclear threats. So why not sanction Israel because they've been the threat of instability for way too long. And wouldn't jerking their chain like a bad dog do some good?

  • 9 votes
#1.4 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:59 AM EST
Luther28

I tend to agree with Gary, the Middle East needs to settle their own difficulties, we have more than enough of our own to contend with at home. But having said that: Does anyone really think that either China or Russia is prepared to start throwing nukes around for the sake of Iran?

  • 8 votes
#1.5 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:08 PM EST
Isabella-37

"If Israel launches an attack, the U.S. will, undoubtedly, be dragged into what will quickly become a regional conflict or even a global war."

"Russia and China have both stated that they will defend their ally Iran"

All it took to start WW1 was some Serbian assassinating some Austrian Archduke in Sarajevo. Germany supported Austria-Hungary, Russia supported Serbia and the cluster@!$%# began. Sounds like what's going to happen after Israel strikes Iran and bites off more than it can chew.

  • 8 votes
#1.6 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:10 PM EST
Mr. Roger RabbitExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

We should not risk our own nation's security to defend that corrupt nation.

I see so you think that by betraying allies we will strengthen our national security. And interesting view.

We should not risk nuclear war, the end of humanity and the destruction of the Planet's ecosystems over the affairs of one nation.

Tell this to Iranians, they are the ones who are building a nuclear bomb and want to use it. We decide nothing in this case.

No. Israel has been that regions bully since it's inception and has always run to the US for protection.

Really, so the five nation attacked Israel the day after it was proclaimed as state was the direct result of Israel being a bully. Good knowledge of history. As for "running for protection" - first Checks helped, then the French, US was in no particular hurry to do anything for quite a while. Israel survived.

Besides, worstcase scenario, would having every mideast chickenhawk reduced to radioactive dust be such a bad thing?

Sure, let's kill another six million Jews, we haven't done in such a long time. As for your information Israel has the last response plan, meaning if you turn it into the nuclear dust, so will go the entire Middle East, see, unlike Iran Israel has both the nukes and the rockets, and not just 1 or 2 or 3 but around 200, plenty to kill all the camel jockeys, and make sure that US starts drilling its own oil.

  • 6 votes
#1.7 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:10 PM EST
Polka14

I see so you think that by betraying allies we will strengthen our national security. And interesting view.

Israel isn't an ally. It is a murdering nation of evil and a rogue aggressor state. It even murdered US military personnel when it attacked the USS Liberty and wasn't made to answer for it. Defending a foreign nation is not in our best interests.

Tell this to Iranians, they are the ones who are building a nuclear bomb and want to use it. We decide nothing in this case.

If they build a nuclear weapon and use it then Israel would have the right to retaliate but a preemptive attack is unjust and risking nuclear war to support a preemptive attack is not in the best interests of the US.

All it took to start WW1 was some Serbian assassinating some Austrian Archduke in Sarajevo. Germany supported Austria-Hungary, Russia supported Serbia and the cluster@!$%# began. Sounds like what's going to happen after Israel strikes Iran and bites off more than it can chew.

Good historical analogy. In the case with Iran, the US and the West would support Israel and Russia and the Chinese Empire would support Iran. Sounds like the scenario for WWIII. We need to think about not taking that risk.

  • 7 votes
#1.8 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:19 PM EST
Mr. Roger Rabbit

Israel isn't an ally. It is a murdering nation of evil and a rogue aggressor state.

Just like US?

It even murdered US military personnel when it attacked the USS Liberty and wasn't made to answer for it

And spied on us too. What is your point?

Defending a foreign nation is not in our best interests.

Never. Why did we bother with the lend-lease in a first place?

If they build a nuclear weapon and use it then Israel would have the right to retaliate but a preemptive attack is unjust and risking nuclear war to support a preemptive attack is not in the best interests of the US.

When they build a nuclear weapon and use it - there will be no Israel left to do anything about it. Other than that I am glad you can use logic and see far ahead.

Sounds like what's going to happen after Israel strikes Iran and bites off more than it can chew.

You're missing the point, which is Israel has nothing to loose, if it does not strike - it is as good as gone, and if it does strike - it has a chance, it maybe more than it can chew, but there is a chance. In a situation like this what would you do?

  • 3 votes
#1.9 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:49 PM EST
Polka14

Just like US?

Exactly like the US.

And spied on us too. What is your point?

They are not our friends. They are enemies that are using us for their own best interests.

When they build a nuclear weapon and use it - there will be no Israel left to do anything about it.

Not our problem. Iran will not even attack Israel unprovoked because if they did then they would be destroyed in the counterattack.

  • 4 votes
#1.10 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:59 PM EST
beej mcl

not only no, but HELL NO!

sorry, but if isreal is the aggressor and attacks iran, it's on them to sink or swim on their own. the question mentions "in defense of Isreal". it is not defense of a country when they take first strike. it would be one thing if iran invaded isreal and isreal asked for support, we defend our allies. it's entirely another thing if our ally decides to go to war as the first strike aggressor. HELL NO, at that point they are on their own.

  • 5 votes
#1.11 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:19 PM EST
Mr. Roger Rabbit

Exactly like the US.

So we are (and I quote) " a murdering nation of evil and a rogue aggressor state." Since we are that and they are that - what exactly would be the reason not to help them. And if we are such a bad-bad-bad country why don't you move out? I hear North Korea is beautiful when there is food, and Iran has not started a war in about 200 years, both are allies, both hate Israel - you would fit right in.

They are not our friends. They are enemies that are using us for their own best interests.

Hmm, so they are enemies. They are such enemies that share intelligence with us, they are such enemies that hold joint military excersize, they are such horrible enemeis that they improve our own military technology, as well as supply plenty of their own to our military. Oh, yes, and up to the point when Obama tells them to roll over and play dead, they do exactly what they are told by US, frequently to their own detriment.

On the other hand I seem to rememeber we had a friend in the Middle East - we trained him, we supplied him with weapons and intelligence and money, we helped him with the war, please remind me how this particular friend and ally thanked us?

Not our problem. Iran will not even attack Israel unprovoked because if they did then they would be destroyed in the counterattack.

Well they already said they would. What was it two-three days ago? Here is the problem, if you can comprehend it, on one hand side people in Israel want to live, and they want to live in peace, on the other hand side ayatollahs believe in the doomsday scenario, and they believe that until the doomsday comes the thirteenth imam will not show up. In addition Israel cannot withstand a single nuclear strike - it will be gone, Iran on other hand - is a little bigger, and a little more populous, so they figured they can take it. The ayatollahs will be in the bunkers, but other than that...

  • 2 votes
#1.12 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:48 PM EST
Polka14

So we are (and I quote) " a murdering nation of evil and a rogue aggressor state." Since we are that and they are that -

Umm...maybe Iraq? Unprovoked war that lead to hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis?? Or maybe Afghanistan or Vietnam? Or arming the Contras in Nicaragua? What I would consider rouge is a nation that interferes in other nations, goes through wars of aggression while many die as a result of its belligerent anti-peace actions. I could always decide to move but I would not desire to become a burden in a foreign nation in a place like Europe that I would be unfamiliar with.

Hmm, so they are enemies.

They are against peace and a relationship with them damages our reputation. They even killed US military personnel? Remember?

On the other hand I seem to rememeber we had a friend in the Middle East - we trained him, we supplied him with weapons and intelligence and money, we helped him with the war, please remind me how this particular friend and ally thanked us?

This proves that our so-called "friends" only like us when we are on their side but don't support a friendship of peace.

Well they already said they would.

I only read that they would have the power to attack Israel and the US in any event of an unprovoked attack against Iran. Even that is saber rattling. They don't have the capabilities.

and they want to live in peace

Peace? How does a nation promote peace while threatening another regional power if it doesn't accept its demands while using military force at will to attack and kill civilians in the nation that borders it? I don't believe that they want peace. I think they want dominance as the sole regional superpower. And they are willing to promote fear of a nuclear Iran to justify the possibility of an unprovoked attack. The US used the same tactic when it appealed to fear with Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

  • 3 votes
#1.13 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:08 PM EST
Rodney-889389

Mr. Roger Rabbit

Of course the statement that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and declares publicly it wants to attack Israel is not enough of a provocation for our liberals

Lets not forget the fact that Iran was supplying the Iraq insurgents with cash, weapons (which included the RKG-3 antitank hand grenade), planning and training, but that was not enough of a provocation for the Bush Administration.

But let Iran mention hostile action toward Israel and GOPers are ready for nuclear war.

See video of the RKG-3 in action against our troops

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32rvq_armour-piercing-grenade_news

So the question is - given the situation that it is - should we abandon our strongest and staunchest ally in the region

What was the last conflict that Israel has fought side by side with the United States? Korea? Vietnam? Gulf War? Iraq War? Afganhistan? When is the last time Israel risked ANYTHING in defense of the United States?

When was that last time the Brits stood shoulder to shoulder with this nation in conflict - how about all of the above. How many Israelis soldiers have died fighting defending US interests vs. British soldiers?

I know you said "in the region" but our strongest ally in the region should be peace not a war mongering apartheid nation.

  • 7 votes
#1.14 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:09 PM EST
Rodney-889389

Polka14

We should not risk our own nation's security to defend that corrupt nation. We should not risk nuclear war, the end of humanity and the destruction of the Planet's ecosystems over the affairs of one nation. I would prefer to see Israel attack Iran alone if it must conduct a war of aggression. If it is destroyed as a result of that attack then it is not our problem. We need to stay out of that region and not participate in its military aggression. Declare neutrality now in any situation where Israel attacks Iran unprovoked in any way. Israel doesn't even need defending. It is a regional superpower.

Agreed...there is no way we should risk ANY American lives in defense of Israel as the result of an unprovoked attack.

  • 8 votes
#1.15 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:13 PM EST
Rodney-889389

GaryColumbus

The United States needs to stop policing the World! We can't afford it. If Israel can't control themselves perhaps sanctions on them should be pursued. We're sanctioning Iran for nuclear threats. So why not sanction Israel because they've been the threat of instability for way too long. And wouldn't jerking their chain like a bad dog do some good?

Agreed

  • 8 votes
#1.16 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:16 PM EST
Rodney-889389

Isabella-37

All it took to start WW1 was some Serbian assassinating some Austrian Archduke in Sarajevo. Germany supported Austria-Hungary, Russia supported Serbia and the cluster@!$%# began. Sounds like what's going to happen after Israel strikes Iran and bites off more than it can chew.

Great perspective, a single bullet sparked 15 million deaths and 20 million wounded...anything is possible once the first shoot is fired.

  • 7 votes
#1.17 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:20 PM EST
Rodney-889389

not only no, but HELL NO!

sorry, but if isreal is the aggressor and attacks iran, it's on them to sink or swim on their own.

absolutely...

  • 7 votes
#1.18 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:22 PM EST
Rodney-889389

Mr. Roger Rabbit

And if we are such a bad-bad-bad country why don't you move out?

Ahhh, the old standby, don't agree with me then get out of the country...first rate nonsense and so last century.

  • 7 votes
#1.19 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:23 PM EST
hard2port

Where do you think the Israeli's stole the nuclear materials used to build their first nuclear weapons? Some ally.

  • 5 votes
#1.20 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 7:09 PM EST
Rodney-889389

France and the US...they didn't have to steal it, they bought it.

  • 6 votes
#1.21 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 7:12 PM EST
SmallTownPete

So wait your saying we will sell nuclear secrets to Israel but not Iran? Whys that? lol

And people wonder why they are pissed.

  • 1 vote
#1.22 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:38 PM EST
Rodney-889389

I see you are not a historian...

Ever wonder why Iran flies F14 Tomcats?

  • 5 votes
#1.23 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:52 PM EST
SmallTownPete

Whys that?

    #1.24 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:18 PM EST
    Rodney-889389

    LOL...I didn't think so.

    Because we armed them, trained them and provided intelligence so Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi could brutally oppress his people so we would have access to cheap Iranian oil...and it blew up in our face.

    If you are really interested in how we got to the point where Israel and Iran could spark a third world war, look up Operation Ajax and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company it will give you the answer.

    • 6 votes
    #1.25 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:40 PM EST
    hard2port

    Israel didn't buy all of their early fissionable materials. Haliburton trucks are still moving freely around in Iran. Maybe we should ask Ollie North or Dick Cheney what their pals are up to? And current muslim and persian attitudes towards the US were forged early in the last century when Big Oil was operating as the self-appointed US State Dept.

    • 5 votes
    #1.26 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:34 PM EST
    Rodney-889389

    They didn't buy all of their early fissionable materials

    I imagine they got material from a number of countries.

    Haliburton trucks are still moving freely around in Iran

    That's actually been illegal for 33 years, but who knows, profit makes for strange bedfellows.

    • 1 vote
    #1.27 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:42 PM EST
    Studiusbagus

    "That's actually been illegal for 33 years, but who knows, profit makes for strange bedfellows."

    It's all in the shipping labels my friend. Not everything is embargoed from Iran. You can sell them tractors and cigarettes all day without hassle because ...ready for this? They are BOTH agricultural products!

    So it just depends on what Haliburton is claiming.

    There were some pretty slick right wing contributors when this started...Phillip Morris has a huge stake in Iran. There is also British-American tobacco company with a large office in Tehran and two manufacturing plants in Iran. Coke? No problem! Quaker oats? No problem!

    Now, on our side....Caviar, none better except Russian Beluga. Saffron, the worlds most expensive spice, Iran provides 90% of the world's supply. Persian rugs? In any major city and grocery store these items are found.

    They grow the absolute best pistachio's but ya can't get them here. Amazing what money can buy these days.

    • 2 votes
    #1.28 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:34 PM EST
    Abby.


    Because we armed them, trained them and provided intelligence so Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi could brutally oppress his people so we would have access to cheap Iranian oil...and it blew up in our face.

    If you are really interested in how we got to the point where Israel and Iran could spark a third world war, look up Operation Ajax and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company it will give you the answer.


    True.
    The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is now known as BP.

    • 6 votes
    #1.29 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:58 AM EST
    SmallTownPete

    I see you are not a historian...

    Acutally I was asking "Whys that?" to your historian comment...

    LOL...I didn't think so.

    Maybe you should try thinking next time.... If you didnt notice that my first comment was a joke im not sure how to help you.

      #1.30 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:18 AM EST
      Rodney-889389

      If you didnt notice that my first comment was a joke im not sure how to help you.

      Wow, really, I guess you should have said that on #1.24 instead of saying "why's that".

      Help me??? That's strange.

      • 3 votes
      #1.31 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:20 PM EST
      rose-231178

      It is strange to me that we always go to war under the guise of spreading democracy, when all of the most recent wars that I can remember is about oil or which currency is going to be the world currency.

      I think, and someone can correct me if I am wrong, but this would be more about money and getting the world central bank into this country than about nuclear energy.

      Saddam was going to trade oil in other than dollars, Mubarak was going to nationalize and trade in gold....

      What is the true story with Iran?

      No more of our men and women dead for profit

      and I am sick of those scrambled letters to post. What is that about?

      • 1 vote
      #1.32 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:15 PM EST
      Arieus

      with all their daily praying and stuff, it seems as if their invisible god would have come up with a solution to the problems they have.

      Oh well, maybe they all should stop praying and start sitting down at a table and talking with one another and work out a solution to their problems.

      • 4 votes
      #1.33 - Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:50 PM EST
      Reply
      Abby.

      We've screwed up the planet as it is.
      We mustn't make things worse by nuking the crap out of each other.
      We cannot risk the evironmental and human destruction.
      I voted no.

      • 16 votes
      Reply#2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:51 AM EST
      Rodney-889389

      I agree, but I see many people around here have not really thought through the repercussions of taking the world to the brink of another world war.

      I have little doubt that there will be a response from Russia and China with their only leverage being nuclear weapons. I fear Israel will spark the very threat they claim they are trying to prevent, except it will be from much more powerful enemies than Iran.

      • 12 votes
      #2.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:57 AM EST
      Night Hawk

      No way !

      The nuclear weapons we have were made to defend ourselves against attack on OUR homeland. They are a detereant to other countries to attack us. We can not risk global nuclear warfare. Nor can we be allowed to be drawn into this level of conflect. It is not a question of ,Do we have the resolve TODAY to use our weapons in defence of our homeland, YES we do and it is well known.

      • 6 votes
      #2.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:30 AM EST
      mrsrachelm

      Easy answer for me. Yes.

      Why? Because the question is disingenuously worded to be a scare tactic to make sure people who normally support Israel can't do so without being made to look bad -or- are forced to vote "no" to avoid the @!$%# storm that will be leveled at them for not voting "no"and thus people with a specific agenda (like you) can say how there is more people who don't support Israel than who do and those who do don't care about the "consequences".

      I won't let that type of tactic bully me out of my support of Isreal. Sorry.

      • 6 votes
      #2.3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:42 AM EST
      Night Hawk

      Support Israel good and we do, but not at the cost of global nuclear warfare. But, I do agree that the question is worded in a manner that would generally bring a reaction like mine,which I standby. We cannot allow them (Israel or Iran ) to draw us into a global nuclear conflict or even a land and air conflict . But, I don't think that there was a bully intent with the question, maybe itcould have been worded different.

      • 3 votes
      #2.4 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:55 AM EST
      Nick46

      No one is nuking anyone. All scare tactics.

      • 4 votes
      #2.5 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:56 AM EST
      UNA_Lion

      Concur with the scare tactics comment. In logical debate, that is known as an appeal to fear:

      The Appeal to Fear is a fallacy with the following pattern:

      1. Y is presented (a claim that is intended to produce fear).
      2. Therefore claim X is true (a claim that is generally, but need not be, related to Y in some manner).

      This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim.

      It is also a variation on a red herring, since one has to really stretch reality regarding this story to reach nuclear armageddon, though in this case the author himeslf introduced the red herring, instead of someone else injecting it into the debate.

      • 4 votes
      #2.6 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:13 AM EST
      paxildog

      No one will nuke anyone. What a bunch of hyperbole. At the very worst it will be a new test grounds for the latest small and medium range weapons on several sides. Money to be made and no one said nuclear retaliation was even considered.

      • 2 votes
      #2.7 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:11 PM EST
      Reply
      Andrew-1162039

      If Israel or the U.S.'s actions are simply to maintain the status quo, i.e. prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon and keep the Strait of Hormuz open, I don't see Russia or China intervening militarily. Both countries have significant issues with Islamic terrorists at home, I'm not sure either of them is giddy over the idea of a nation that has supported Islamic terrorists coming into possession of nuclear weapons even while they nominally support the Iranian government.

      I think it's more likely that China will simply dramatically increase it's purchases of Iranian oil to offset American and European embargoes while quietly putting pressure on Iran to tone down it's nuclear development plans as they've done with North Korea.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 7:53 AM EST
      Rodney-889389

      The war plan calls for destruction of more than 2200 aimpoints and a sustained air campaign, that's a lot more than a few nuclear facilities on the target list. That, most likely, includes oil production, command, control and communication, IADS, power generation, logistical facilities and war production.

      Such an attack will be view as an act of war, it's to see how the Russians and Chinese are going to sit on the sidelines, maybe, but I highly doubt.

      The only reason the Yom Kippur war ended when it did is because the USSR threatened military intervention. I don't see much difference here.

      • 7 votes
      #3.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:04 AM EST
      Reply
      bonos_rama

      I say we should give Israel the exact amount of help they gave us after 9/11 in our War on Terror.

      In other words, none. Just like Israel is fond of saying that it has to do what is best for them, that's what the U.S. must do, too. And getting embroiled in another war and having American soldiers die for a foreign nation that has never helped us in our wars is not in our best interests.

      • 15 votes
      Reply#4 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:01 AM EST
      Rodney-889389

      High Five my friend...exactly, do what's in OUR BEST INTEREST.

      When I heard the President say that his priority is the defense of the US AND Israel, I nearly lost my lunch.

      His #1, 2, and 3 priority should be defending this country, Israel is capable of defending itself.

      • 9 votes
      #4.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:07 AM EST
      bonos_rama

      His #1, 2, and 3 priority should be defending this country,

      Exactly. Youu NEVER hear Israel stating that their number priority is defending Israel AND the United States. They don't care one whit about Americans.

      • 10 votes
      #4.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:30 AM EST
      SmallTownPete

      High Five my friend...exactly, do what's in OUR BEST INTEREST.

      Yea F the rest of the world who cares lets do what we want instead.... Are you guys voting for Ron Paul?

        #4.3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:00 AM EST
        Nick46

        I say we should give Israel the exact amount of help they gave us after 9/11 in our War on Terror.

        The US decided that Israel should not be involved. Israel did not opt out.

          #4.4 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:07 AM EST
          Baron Brian

          George Washington and several others warned about getting involved in "foreign entanglements."

          The very idea that any US president would even consider sending US troops to fight ini what clearly would be someone else's war must have them spinning in their graves.

          The USA should not risk nuclear war with anyone especially under these circumstances. IMO, Mr. Obama needs to brush up on his history. Then let's see if he still feels that the "defense" of Israel should remain a US foreign policy priority.

          And... what do we do if Israel attacks first? Jump in and help the aggressor?

          • 5 votes
          #4.5 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:11 AM EST
          bonos_rama

          The US decided that Israel should not be involved. Israel did not opt out.

          Uh huh. Right. yeah, that's Israel's side of the story, anyway, after people questioned why our "biggest ally" didn't lift a finger.

          So tell us, Nick, why we need Israel is they are never to help us out, ever? Let's see if they are magnamimous enough to tell US to not get involved. Yeeeah..

          Yea F the rest of the world who cares lets do what we want instead....

          Pete, isn't that what Israel says THEY have a right to do? Doesn't the U.S.A. have the same rights Israel does - to do what's in our best interest? When was the last time Israel was concerned for American's interests?

          • 7 votes
          #4.6 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:45 AM EST
          Reply
          blindsided-1194485

          "The genie is out of the bottle." Nuclear proliferation by third world countries is inevitable. With the technology becoming more commonplace, it is only a matter of "when" not "if." I can't see either Russia or China after fifty years of cold war encounters willing to risk thermonuclear war because of Israel or Iran. For those nations that join the "nuclear club," the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) principle will have to apply. If a nuclear weapon produced from Iran's nuclear reactor and facilities is detonated in a western city like London, Paris, or New York, Tehran will be turned into glass. Until ALL the nations of the world agree these weapons are ultimately suicidal and agree to unilaterally disarm, this is the reality we are facing. Everyone is in fear of Iran gaining nuclear capability, but the one nation that already has nuclear capability in the region we should fear but ignore for the most part is Pakistan.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#5 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:08 AM EST
          Rodney-889389

          I can't see either Russia or China after fifty years of cold war encounters willing to risk thermonuclear war because of Israel or Iran.

          The problem is, once the shooting, who knows what can happen.

          Any war plan that doesn't included the possibility of nuclear war is woefully deficient. Plus, the wild card is that this could spark a war between two other nuclear states Pakistan and India. I'll quote Rumsfeld here:

          There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

          • 7 votes
          #5.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:19 AM EST
          SmallTownPete

          The problem is, once the shooting, who knows what can happen.

          Isnt that what your asking us to comment about? Hes telling you that he doesnt think China or Russia would risk GTNW, aka MAD, over Iran's tantrums that they dont have a nuke too.

          Any war plan that doesn't included the possibility of nuclear war is woefully deficient.

          Are you kidding me? You dont think we have a plan for incoming nukes? And what information do you have that suggests a spark would ignite Pakistan and India? Sounds like Fear Mongering to me...

          • 2 votes
          #5.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:12 AM EST
          Baron Brian

          @Rodney,

          Agree totally. Wars are easy to start, tough to end, and a fraught with unforseen consequences. You'd think we would have figured this out by now...?

          • 2 votes
          #5.3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:13 AM EST
          Rodney-889389

          Isnt that what your asking us to comment about?

          No

          If Israel Attacks Iran, Should the U.S. Risk Nuclear War With Russia and China in Defense of Israel?

          That question means, should we participate, not whether we should or should not plan.

          Are you kidding me? You dont think we have a plan for incoming nukes?

          There is no plan for incoming nukes, that why it's called a nuclear exchange.

          There are unproven systems, Patriot, SM1 & SM2, Lasers, but other that Patriot class of missiles there isn't much.

          And what information do you have that suggests a spark would ignite Pakistan and India? Sounds like Fear Mongering to me...

          Why don't you spend more time studying the issue and less time running your mouth.

          Baron Brian

          Agree totally. Wars are easy to start, tough to end, and a fraught with unforseen consequences. You'd think we would have figured this out by now...?

          Indeed

          • 1 vote
          #5.4 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:34 PM EST
          Rodney-889389

          And what information do you have that suggests a spark would ignite Pakistan and India? Sounds like Fear Mongering to me...

          Why don't you spend more time studying the issue and less time running your mouth.

          Let me rephrase that, tensions in Kashmir are high and any conflict in the region that spills over into Kashmir could spark a broader conflict between Pakistan and India.

          To anyone that understands the Pakistan/India conflict, that scenario is a pretty easy one to call.

          • 1 vote
          #5.5 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:14 PM EST
          Reply
          sugarcupidDeleted
          Colonial82

          Rodney,

          There is no way we need to get into another war. We don't have the money, men, or the material to fight another war, especially one as big as this one would turn into. Plus, did you know that Iran has not started a war for over 300 years? I really doubt Iran would actually attack anyone else and it is all just talk

          Unfortunately if Israel attacks Iran, the US will probably be seen as guilty by association. For this reason and for the protection of American lives and lives around the Middle East, I would actually put a line of fighter jets between Israel and Iran if I saw Israel sending in a large bombing group. I would not give our fighter instructions or permission to fire, but I would hope it would be a deterrentfrom starting a war. I would even tell Iran that these fighters are not a threat to them and tell Israel that they should turn around. Now if they ignore it, then at least we tried to stop it and we couldn't be blamed for what happened afterwards.

          Have a good day.

          • 4 votes
          Reply#7 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:30 AM EST
          Tyler Durden-330839

          Let us raise a glass
          And we'll drink a toast
          And the devil will dance
          With the Holy Ghost
          And the good and the wicked
          The strong and frail
          They will all join hands
          At the end of the world

          Todd Rundgren

          Dorme bene

          • 4 votes
          Reply#8 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:37 AM EST
          evilgenius

          If something like Israel did in Syria a few years ago happens where one facility is bombed and then a lot of yammering/saber rattling goes back and forth. I don't think there would be much of it other than small squirmishes where Iran would more than likely push Hamas and other groups through back channels to incite more violence as they have in the past. A scaled down squirmish of terriorism on both sides. That would entail a lot of speaches, cash and a perminent presence in the region - even more than what we have now.

          If Israel pulled out the stops and took out bases and infrastructure crippling Iran then there would almost have to be serious repercussions from Russia and China. They need that oil to move east. That would pull in the whole region, including Pakistan and India. No doubt then North Korea, with their new leader, could take advantage of this time to flex their muscles on South Korea and a weakened Japan.

          We'd have no choice but to get involved.

          There is another sceniero that I get when I put on my aluminum lined colander hat... Warhawks in both Israel and the US coluding to push this to a head to gain power. The US warhawks cheering the Israeli warhawks to pull the trigger saying they will use that to gain support, take the reigns of US power in Congress and the Presidency and take us there with gusto. Am I paranoid or what?

          • 1 vote
          Reply#9 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:49 AM EST
          Grisham

          If Iran were to attack Israel then as allies, the West should intervene. However, if it's some sort of action to give the military complex a reason to continue printing money or because Christians in the US want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME, then no. If Israel is the aggressor, then I don't think I'd support military action to help them.

          • 3 votes
          #10 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:53 AM EST
          mrsrachelm

          because Christians in the US want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME,

          Oh for pity sake. LOL

          Let's make sure we get our anti-Christian hate on in as many comments and articles/seeds as possible.

          • 5 votes
          #10.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:10 AM EST
          Grisham

          You deny that many Christians see Israel as being given to them by God and see the prophesied war (book of Revelations) in the ME as the beginning of the End Times?

          That's not Christian hate. You can find articles about it right here on NV by believers. Your comment is just blindness to the facts about your religious doctrine and the way some Christians feel or think about that doctrine. You can see it in the hatred that many Christians show towards Muslims and vice versa as well.

          It's nothing less than a modern day Holy War between Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

          Here's one example for you: http://raphael4911.newsvine.com/_news/2011/08/09/7323467-why-israel-will-prevail

          Israel will prevail as a nation for two fundamental reasons.

          The first reason is religion. Jews believe that God chose them from all nations to hold the truth of God’s interaction with man through God’s laws, prophets, and scripture. The Jewish people have held this belief through 3,800 years, and it transcends thoughts of power, wealth, and position. The Jewish people believe God gave the region to them, and they will never, willingly, give it up.

          Do a little research on Christian sites and you can find many, many more.

          • 8 votes
          #10.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:14 AM EST
          UNA_Lion

          And there is an example of the logical fallacy known as hasty generalization:

          This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:

          1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
          2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

          The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:

          1. X% of all observed A's are B''s.
          2. Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.

          The fallacy is committed when not enough A's are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough A's are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious.

          Unless of course Grisham can provide evidence that a majority of "... Chrisitans within the US want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME," which is highly doubtful.

          Then again, NV posters tend to run a clinic on how to commit logical fallacies with nearly every post.

          • 4 votes
          #10.3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:18 AM EST
          mrsrachelm

          But saying they want to start a war on purpose is ridiculous and a perfect example of the typical Christian hate comments seen on the vine every single day.

          Seriously, I would expect better from you, Grisham.

          • 3 votes
          #10.4 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:20 AM EST
          Grisham

          Unless of course Grisham can provide evidence tha a majority of Chrisitans within the US "... want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME," which is highly doubtful.

          I never said a majority. I said if a war is started because they support Israel purely on religious beliefs or because they want to bring about the end times, then I don't support military action against Iran.

          Nice try at the twisting though. You don't need a majority of Christians to want that to happen. You just need ones in power and some to follow along meekly. To deny that some don't think that is ludicrous.

          Here's more examples:

          http://www.abbaswatchman.com/

          http://www.heisnear.com/IRANinTheEndTimes.html

          http://christiantrumpetsounding.com/Iran/Iran%20End%20Time%20Crises.htm

          http://www.prophecyupdate.com/

          http://blogs.christianpost.com/endtimes/2011/11/is-israel-preparing-for-an-end-times-attack-on-iran-04/

          Need more? I could provide you with about 325 million more sites dedicated to Iran and the war in the ME being the End Times or fulfillment of the prophesy.

          So stop the bull both of you. It's clearly not something that is in the backwoods.

          • 8 votes
          #10.5 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:23 AM EST
          UNA_Lion

          Your statement included, "... because Christians in the US want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME ..." which to any reasonable person tends to donate a majority of that particular religion, else you'd have specified, "... because some Christians," or, "... because Christians in power..."

          Youre intent was clear as to your hasty generalization, and you were caught red-handed.

          • 5 votes
          #10.6 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:26 AM EST
          Grisham

          Your statement included, "... because Christians in the US want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME ...

          Yeah, it did and I stick by what I said. If a war is started because they want to bring about the end times, I don't support it. I didn't say it would happen and I didn't specify a number. There are a significant amount of people who DO believe that and it could very well happen. You just jumped to the conclusion that I meant all Christians when that clearly isn't the case.

          Nice try though. Feel free to ignore the numerous links that back up the claim that a significant portion of Christians do believe that crap.

          • 7 votes
          #10.7 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:32 AM EST
          bonos_rama

          Don't worry, Grisham. Truth often hurts. The fact is that Christians, for the most part, ARE only interested in Israel b/c of the end times. If they really had "a love of Jews", they would be interested in the plight of Ethiopian Jews in Africa - but they aren't!

          • 9 votes
          #10.8 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:33 AM EST
          UNA_Lion

          Yeah, it did and I stick by what I said.

          So you stand by your hasty generalization, abandoning logic (or fankly not bothering to use it in the first place), because you've no supporting evidence to support your assertion - just as I charged in Post 10.3.

          Don't worry, Grisham. Truth often hurts. The fact is that Christians, for the most part, ARE only interested in Israel b/c of the end times.

          Do you have any evidence to support such a claim, or will you too lean heavily upon logical fallacies?

          • 5 votes
          #10.9 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:36 AM EST
          mrsrachelm

          There is a HUGE difference between believing that the end times will occur and wanting to start a war on purpose to MAKE them occur...which is what you said, Grisham. It's sad to watch you go from someone who was more moderate to this. You had been one of the few atheists on the vine I could discuss with and NOT expect some kind of mocking attack or silliness from and that's changing rapidly. As I said, it's very disappointing.

          • 4 votes
          #10.10 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:39 AM EST
          Grisham

          So you stand by your hasty generalization, abandoning logic (or fankly not bothering to use it in the first place), because you've no supporting evidence to support your assertion

          Yes, and I explained why and then supported the statement with multiple links and offered to show you 325 million more.

          There is a HUGE difference between believing that the end times will occur and wanting to start a war on purpose to MAKE them occur.

          Yes, because bringing about the return of your Lord and Savior would seem like such a bad idea to many people who believe that's what the End Times brings.

          You had been one of the few atheists on the vine I could discuss with and NOT expect some kind of mocking attack or silliness from and that's changing rapidly. As I said, it's very disappointing.

          I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not mocking you or intend to mock you. It's just the truth.

          • 5 votes
          #10.11 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:51 AM EST
          UNA_Lion

          Yes, and I explained why and then supported the statement with multiple links and offered to show you 325 million more.

          ... none of which provided evidence that a majority (or even a sizable percentage) of Christians in the US, "... want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME ..."

          • 5 votes
          #10.12 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:57 AM EST
          Grisham

          .. none of which provided evidence that a majority (or even a sizable percentage) of Christians in the US, "... want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME ..."

          If you want to continue in the delusion that 325 million websites are dedicated to something that isn't a fairly popular idea then I can't stop you. Just don't let the facts smack you on the butt on the way out.

          • 7 votes
          #10.13 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:05 AM EST
          UNA_Lion

          Again, provide evidence that a majority (or even a sizable percentage) of Christians in the US, "... want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME ..." or concede the point. This isn't rocket science - you can either provide the evidence to support your assertion, or you cannot.

          • 4 votes
          #10.14 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:21 AM EST
          SmallTownPete

          none of which provided evidence that a majority (or even a sizable percentage) of Christians in the US

          Who said anything about majority? I hate when people twist my words and your doing it to Grisham. UNA you seem to always talk about logical fallacy, yet when provided with proof that there are those that beleive as Grisham says, you try to argue about majorities.....

          Unless of course Grisham can provide evidence that a majority of "... Chrisitans

          Stop saying that if he cant prove a majority believes that, that he must conceede the point. He never claimed a majority believed anything. Your whole argument is a "Logical Fallacy" since he never claimed what your askin him to prove.

          There doesnt have to be a majority that believe that way for that suggested reality to be a possibility. Isnt that what this whole article is about??? The possibility of a war in Israel? and the reasons for going to war?

          I think Grisham outlined his thoughts on going to war about this subject perfectly. If Iran attacks Israel then we should support our ally. I agree 100%, wouldnt we want our allies to help us if we are attacked by another nation?

          If your upset about his thoughts on what SOME christians are promoting, dont blame him, blame the christians suggesting these actions. Hes even giving you examples of the christians promoting this type of action, so go take your criticism and face it towards those who deserve it. Not the guy telling you there are those types of people out there.

          • 6 votes
          #10.15 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:23 AM EST
          UNA_Lion

          SmallTownPete, I'll refer you to Post 10.6, and leave it at that.

          • 4 votes
          #10.16 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:27 AM EST
          Grisham

          Thank you very much, Pete. I couldn't have said it any better than you just did.

          • 4 votes
          #10.17 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:28 AM EST
          SmallTownPete

          Ill refer you to your own line of reasoning...

          "provide evidence of your assertation that Grisham claimed a majority (or even a sizable percentage) of Christians in the US, "... want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME ..." or concede the point. This isn't rocket science - you can either provide the evidence to support your assertion, or you cannot."

          Did you even read his response? He clearly tells you thats its a hypothetical situation, and IF the possiblity happens he doesnt support it. He even provided you with the evidence that there are groups out there who buy into that stuff.

          If your whole arguement hinges on this...

          which to any reasonable person tends to donate a majority of that particular religion, else you'd have specified, "... because some Christians," or, "... because Christians in power..."

          Then your not using your time to debate the real reasoning of the article, just argueing semantics...A troll like behavior. Do you need him to say that he doesnt think a majority of christians believe in the Holy War? Is that what your looking for?

          • 5 votes
          #10.18 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:43 AM EST
          bonos_rama

          I agree 100%, wouldnt we want our allies to help us if we are attacked by another nation?

          Yes. But Israel not only didn't lift a finger to defend us and help us after 9/11, Netanyahu crowed about how 9/11 was "good for Israel"; that they were "benefitting" because it helped turn world opinion in their favor:

          http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-netanyahu-says-9-11-terror-attacks-good-for-israel-1.244044

          So excuse me if, as an American, I don't want to help a country that would insult mine like that.

          I say we help israel like they helped us. Send just as many troops, weapons and money as they did.

          • 4 votes
          #10.19 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:51 AM EST
          SmallTownPete

          No compassion bonos_rama. What about the innocent people, citizens that didnt insult our country? Just because a few have radical ideals, or say stupid things about America that doesnt mean they are all like that does it? example: westboro baptist church?????

          Did you not read what UNA was just ranting about? JEEZE!!!!

          • 1 vote
          #10.20 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:24 AM EST
          bonos_rama

          What about the innocent people in Iran that aren't calling for the "destruction of Israel", SmallTownPete? Don't you have any worries for their well-being through the coming war?

          What about compassion for the American soldiers that will die for a nation that has never once fought for us or considered our best interests? Any compassion there?

          • 4 votes
          #10.21 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:38 AM EST
          UNA_Lion

          Okay SmallTownPete, then I'll make a statement and see if you have an issue with it:

          Athiests in the US want to see the Christian Bible banned!

          I can provide circumstantial evidence of that as well.

          But I'll make this simple for Grisham:

          Do you think a majority of Christians in the US, "want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME ..." or is it your assertion that only a minority of Christians in the US, "want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME ..."

          Which is your assertion?

          • 5 votes
          #10.22 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:42 AM EST
          SmallTownPete

          What about the innocent people in Iran that aren't calling for the "destruction of Israel", SmallTownPete? Don't you have any worries for their well-being through the coming war?

          Very much so, I sympathize with them for they are probably just like me and my opposition to the iraq war. Would I want all muslims to believe that all Americans want to bring war to the ME? No, the same way I dont assume all Iranians want to destroy Israel. Not every citizen in every country has the chance to shape their government the way American can. In that sense they are at a disadvantage being in a dictatorship.

          What about compassion for the American soldiers that will die for a nation that has never once fought for us or considered our best interests? Any compassion there?

          I have the utmost respect for our people in the military. My father and both grandfathers served, and I have many family members currently in the military. The problem I have with your statement is that you belittle their pride and sense of honor by saying its only for some nation. They put their lives on the line to help other human beings, and if one of our allies is under threat of invasion by another sovereign country, then they are dying for much more than a mere nation.

          I say this under the assumption that were going ahead with the theoretical situation that Iran is invading Israel??? You didnt really specify...

          • 2 votes
          #10.23 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:57 AM EST
          SmallTownPete

          Athiests in the US want to see the Christian Bible banned!

          I see your point, and I have from the beginning. My point is that I dont need to argue about your statement because I know that most atheists could care less about completely banning the bible. Instead of simply pointing out the error in the statement in question and allowing Grisham to clarify, you try to put words in his mouth so you can feel like you won the arguement, when there was never an arguement in the first place, just a simply omitted word.... "some".

          Unless that is, if Grisham really does believe that ALL christians want the Holy War... If thats the case then you are free to continue your arugement.

          If thats not the case, then will you ceede the point that there are SOME christians who advocate this Holy War? Just trying to clarify for both sides....

          • 1 vote
          #10.24 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:52 PM EST
          UNA_Lion

          Unless that is, if Grisham really does believe that ALL christians want the Holy War... If thats the case then you are free to continue your arugement.

          Your point is valid which is why I've asked him for clarification.

          If thats not the case, then will you ceede the point that there are SOME christians who advocate this Holy War? Just trying to clarify for both sides....

          Certainly.

          • 4 votes
          #10.25 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:00 PM EST
          Philip Grant

          Small Town Pete, Grisham

          You're wasting your time. Just let it go.

            #10.26 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:33 PM EST
            Grisham

            Athiests in the US want to see the Christian Bible banned!

            I can provide circumstantial evidence of that as well.

            That link is putting forward the idea of a warning label put on the Bible not a banning. Even so, it's still a stupid idea. That's not the same as 325 million websites and even articles right here on NV.

            From your own site if you'd bothered to read it:

            And tell me, what other book has caused more unjust persecution, death and destruction than the Bible (do the Salem Witch Trials and the Inquisitions come to mind?)? Am I advocating that the Bible be censored or even banned? No, of course not. What I am saying, though, is that if these self-described “defenders of the righteous” keep up with their pro-censorship tactics, it could backfire on them.

            As you can see, he's not even advocating for banning or censoring the Bible.

            Do you think a majority of Christians in the US, "want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME ..." or is it your assertion that only a minority of Christians in the US, "want to bring about the blessed end times by starting a war in the ME ..."

            Which is your assertion?

            I think a minority do. Hope that clears it up.

            • 3 votes
            #10.27 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:14 PM EST
            UNA_Lion

            I think a minority do. Hope that clears it up.

            It does. Thank you.

            • 3 votes
            #10.28 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:23 PM EST
            markpup

            Wow Grisham - you stepped into a doo-doo mine.

            And I must say - you extricated yourself admirably!!

            • 3 votes
            #10.29 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:36 PM EST
            Reply
            Studiusbagus

            Ya know how your dog knows when it's serious? When you take the leash off the collar.

            Isreal isn't going to make a move unless we unleash them. They are our well trained, very well equipped, attack dog. That's not a bad thing, but it comes with risks, like now. We've had this session a while back We sicked our dog on Iran's dog in Lebanon.

            We won't worry about Russia, they will stay out. Anything that decreases our reserves and punishes a Middle Eastern energy competitor raises their status and without lifting a finger.

            China on the other hand has a huge interest in this, they signed the largest energy contract in Iran's history. Nobody in Iran questions a back-door deal with China that if Iran provokes a fight with the USA they can have access to a slew of Chinese weaponry. Another end Bad for Iran/ Bad for the USA/ Good for China. With a weakened USA and a decimated Iran China reaps big time.

            What "WE" have to worry about is not Nuclear. I've said this on another thread and I have extensive experience with these folks, Iranians are just as tired of their politicians and clerics as we are and if we wanna knock them off, Hooray! But Iran is very culturally protective. If a bomb drops in an American neighborhood the chances of killing off several enthnicities, although still American, are great. If you drop the same bomb in an Iranian neighborhood your chances of killing nothing but Persians is almost certain. Since it's estimated that there are more Persian living outside of Iran than inside, we have some more considerations.

            • 4 votes
            Reply#11 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:11 AM EST
            sugarcupidDeleted
            frugalgovernment

            The United States has local assets that can be used to turn-back any conventional Israeli attack on Iran. I believe the United States should prevent Israel from attacking Iran at all costs. The consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran has grave implications for the global economy. Iran post Israeli attack could send hundreds of anti-ship mines into the Strait of Hormuz, thereby effectively stop a huge percentage of oil flow from the Persian gulf. Cutting off Middle East oil would immediately send stock markets around the world plummetting and wiping-out 401Ks and other America retirement savings as one example. You think the U.S. Economy is bad now, just wait until Iran cuts-off the flow of Middle East oil after they are attacked and feel they have nothing else to loose. The previous scenario does not include any sleeper cells Iran has placed in the United States ready to sabotage American assets. All it takes is one Iranian spy to poisen the drinking water of American city to reak total havoc in America. Think about that and decide if it is all worth it to allow one country to jepordise our country.

            • 5 votes
            Reply#13 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:23 AM EST
            bestquest

            fast and too furious.

            we will take massive hits in north america if israel attacks iran

            the wink and a nod from eussia and china is wishful thinking.

            if some one like Dean Rusk says he checked and all is green, go ahead - do not believe him -at all.

            We will be fried.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#14 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:46 AM EST
            Ian-2690048

            China wouldn't step against us militarily over Iran. Their economy would collapse without their exports to the US. Russia would saber rattle but a nuclear war, again, would never happen. Both countries would supply arms to Iran in a conventional conflict with Israel though just as we would aid Israel.

              Reply#15 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:51 AM EST
              blue wolf

              Nuclear War?

              Flippin HELL NO!

              • 1 vote
              Reply#16 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:30 AM EST
              Lions52

              NO

              • 1 vote
              Reply#17 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:04 PM EST
              TheyreAllCrooks

              If Israel Attacks Iran, Should the U.S. Risk Nuclear War With Russia and China in Defense of Israel?

              When would be the better question! Israel IS going to attack Iran, it's just a question of when. I don't think it will be before the 2012 election because Netanyayhoo doesn't particularly like President Obama and starting a war with Iran would help more than hurt Obama in the elcetion.

              But after Obama is re-elected Israel will have to make a hard call...go to war or rely on the international community to stop Iran. So by middle of 2013...the chit will hit hit fan!

              This nuclear war talk is just silly. China and Russia don't want to be anihilalted in 15 seconds!

              Besides, who would the Chinese sell all of their Walmart crap to if all the Chinese people are glowing in the dark!

              • 1 vote
              Reply#18 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:23 PM EST
              frugalgovernment

              The consensus is that the United States and other Western nations has informed Israel their attack on Iran would be attacked by America to prevent a global economic collapse should Iran retalliate by closing the Strait of Homuz.

              There is just too much money at stake here.

                #18.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:29 PM EST
                Reply
                markpup

                I don't think China or Russia wants Iran having nuclear weapons any more than we do. If there was a standoff, I suspect there'd be a lot of bluster on their part while in substance they'd look the other way.

                The only way that would fail is if the US was so idiotic as not to see that and deliberately provoke them. But I don't think we're that stupid. There's been lots of times like when Israel bombed somebody and we yelled and protested and carried on while we were doing high 5s with Israel behind the scenes. This would be more of the same.

                The scenario depicted by this article is thankfully highly unlikely.

                  Reply#19 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:10 PM EST
                  frugalgovernment

                  Last time I checked, America's mutually assured destruction capability did not vanish just because the cold war ended. The United States has every rouge nuclear foreign power targeted for automated response. Most of which is aimed squarely at Russia and China.

                  Reality check:

                  RUSSIA

                  Russia can't afford to maintain their nuclear readiness, much of which was in former soviet countries now allied with the west. Russia's nuclear submarine fleet is decaying in docks and probably couldn't shoot a missile if they tried. Russia doesn't have nor can they afford stealth nuclear bombers, so those old relics would be shot down we before striking distance of America.

                  CHINA

                  China has limited land based capabilities and their ability to strike the United States from China is in question. China has no nuclear submarines or bombers capable of launching attacks against America before being destroyed by American counter-measures.

                  ___________________________________________________________________

                  Most of you fear-mongers should really research your facts before flying off the handle with fantasy senarios. Nuclear war at this stage of world development is purely silly-talk.

                  • 5 votes
                  Reply#20 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:26 PM EST
                  bestquest

                  russia is investing 650 billion dollars in defense. four helicopter aircraft carriers. One purchased from French, one or two built in a Russian ship yard. This is for regional purposes. I think one carrier is to be stationed in Black Sea.

                  Budget includes their new submarines.

                  Senators Dodd and Lugar helped the world by USA financing the inventory, security and some destruction of soviet nuclear materials when the empire temporarily broke up 20 years ago.

                  Please do not sell Russia short. They have money coming in from natural gas and oil sales. They are trying to delete alchoholism from their society as we are trying to delete baby boomers from ours.

                    #20.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:44 PM EST
                    frugalgovernment

                    Russia's nuclear arsenals are so far out of spec its practically a joke to still consider them a nuclear super-power. By the time Putin builds any new submarines the nuclear war is over, he knows and we know.

                    As for the oil/gas revenue Putin and his cronnies are looting those coffers as the Russian people sink farther into poverty. The one redeeming attribute of the Russian people is their tech savviness, which will hopefully enable a Russian Spring very soon.

                    alchoholism is down while illegal drug abuse is way up thanks to the depressing government the Russian people are stuck with these days.

                    The threat level of Russia is way over-blown.

                      #20.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:55 PM EST
                      bestquest

                      if usa can destroy about 250 million russian peoples with only 76 to 78 hydrogen and atomic bombs, how many do they need to get through to kill 250,000,000 north Americans?

                      Even with due consideration of the ancient age of their missles - MIRVS - some will get thru and just one over kansas whacks communication throughout north america. We are not secured, hard wired for military. We rely on radio waves to our submarines, bomber fleets, etc.

                      Ours nukes are not spring chickens and senator kyle gained 8 billion 13 or 14 months ago to update ours.

                      • 1 vote
                      #20.3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:04 PM EST
                      frugalgovernment

                      The 8 billion you refer to is for weapon modernization, not routine maintenance to keep our arsenal in specification for readiness. Please do your home work.

                        #20.4 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:17 PM EST
                        bestquest

                        update = moderization

                          #20.5 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:57 PM EST
                          TheCheeseStandsAlone

                          Yeah I'm not sure you can sell russia or china short because keep in mind, if you just launch on nuke into space, that knocks out all power because the radiation has no resistance. Point is, it's a gamble to assume that Russia and China cannot defend themselves.

                          Furthermore, defend Israel? People always seem to underestimate Iran. Israel is a puny country and alternative WMDs besides nukes can be easily be used to turn that place into an inhospitable wasteland. People need to stop thinking that Iran wants to suicide itself into Israel because honestly, if that was their goal they probably could have done it by now.

                          • 2 votes
                          #20.6 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:23 PM EST
                          Reply
                          Philip Grant

                          Israel is not going to attack Iran. Iran is a tiny ill equipped country that Israel uses for political fodder.

                          Just because Iran is ruled by extremist does not mean they are stupid.

                            Reply#21 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:36 PM EST
                            frugalgovernment

                            Even worse Israel doesn't have the military capability to attack Iran without getting permission to fly over several countries who aren't exactly friendly with the zionist state to begin with and Israel was counting on the U.S. presence in Iraq for a fly-over to reach Iran. That is off the table now too.

                            The one thing Iran can do that Israel can not, is have surrogates from the Palestinian territories rain missiles down on Israeli towns. Israel has no response if Iran orders Hamas to attack.

                            • 1 vote
                            #21.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:59 PM EST
                            Mr. Roger Rabbit

                            Iran is a tiny ill equipped country that Israel uses for political fodder.

                            Islamic Republic of Iran

                            • Population: 77,891,220
                            • Size: 1,648,195 sq km
                            • Manpower fit for military service:
                            • males age 16-49: 20,149,222
                            • females age 16-49: 19,417,275

                            Israel:

                            • Population: 7,473,052
                            • Size: 20,770 sq km
                            • Manpower fit for military service:
                            • males age 16-49: 1,517,510
                            • females age 16-49: 1,446,132

                            To sum it up population 11:1, available milirary manpower 20:1, please clarify which one is a tiny country?

                            • 6 votes
                            #21.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:00 PM EST
                            frugalgovernment

                            Execellant stats.

                            Estimates conclude Iran could muster a million man army rather quickly. Iran's naval forces are superior to Israel. Iran has a decent enough airforce to knockout Israeli command and control. Basically Iran could give a gun to two or three milion Iranians and Israel would be over-run in a matter on months as the Israeli's run out of ammunition. Provided Iran could get that many troops to the Isreali border some where.

                            • 1 vote
                            #21.3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:10 PM EST
                            Polka14

                            Israel's air force would obliterate Iran's military before it even reaches the border of Israel while aggressively bombing Iran itself. An aggressive attack from Iran would likely provoke US response and Iran's naval power would be destroyed. They would have no chance of winning in a war of aggression and I'm sure they are aware of that fact. Any statements from them that seem to disagree are saber rattling.

                            • 2 votes
                            #21.4 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:14 PM EST
                            frugalgovernment

                            Its probably a foregone conclusion that if Israel got into a war with a Islamic nation, being they are surrounded by hostil Islamic nations. Israel would be destroyed in short order as the Middle East finally puts an end to the Aparthied regime in their region once and for all.

                            The United States would not get into a war with the entire Middle East and jepordise our oil resources.

                            America would sacrifice Isreal, no question.

                            Btw, the Isreali's does not have the fuel supply to sustain even a short-term air campaign, a naval campaign and a ground war all at the same time.

                            • 1 vote
                            #21.5 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:21 PM EST
                            Polka14

                            Its probably a foregone conclusion that if Israel got into a war with a Islamic nation, being they are surrounded by hostil Islamic nations. Israel would be destroyed in short order as the Middle East finally puts an end to the Aparthied regime in their region once and for all.

                            I say "good riddance" to it and the apartheid regime but I don't think Israel would accept destruction if it is defeated without at least eliminating its enemies with its nuclear weapons.

                            • 2 votes
                            #21.6 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:40 PM EST
                            Mr. Roger Rabbit

                            The one thing Iran can do that Israel can not, is have surrogates from the Palestinian territories rain missiles down on Israeli towns. Israel has no response if Iran orders Hamas to attack.

                            Of course it has a response. The response should be not "Molten Led", but rather "Parking Lot". Just flatten the whole thing, with everyone in there, and have some peace already.

                            • 1 vote
                            #21.7 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:51 PM EST
                            Mr. Roger Rabbit

                            Its probably a foregone conclusion that if Israel got into a war with a Islamic nation, being they are surrounded by hostil Islamic nations. Israel would be destroyed in short order as the Middle East finally puts an end to the Aparthied regime in their region once and for all.

                            Deep political analisys. Do you know who hates nuclear Iran more than Israel? Saudi Arabia. Who else? India. Amazingly enough - Pakistan too. As for Israel being destroyed, I am not sure how well you know post WWII history, but it's been tried more than once.

                            • 1 vote
                            #21.8 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:55 PM EST
                            Polka14

                            Just flatten the whole thing, with everyone in there, and have some peace already.

                            Really? Genocide? Would that be the Israeli way of promoting "peace"?

                            What did I say about it being the "nation of evil"???

                            • 3 votes
                            #21.9 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:10 PM EST
                            Rodney-889389

                            Really? Genocide? Would that be the Israeli way of promoting "peace"?

                            Yes, that's their answer to everything, subjugated it, wall it off and kill it.

                            • 5 votes
                            #21.10 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:27 PM EST
                            Severed Head in a Jar

                            Do you know who hates nuclear Iran more than Israel? Saudi Arabia. Who else? India. Amazingly enough - Pakistan too. As for Israel being destroyed, I am not sure how well you know post WWII history, but it's been tried more than once.

                            All the makings of global thermonuclear war.

                            • 2 votes
                            #21.11 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:39 PM EST
                            Mr. Roger Rabbit

                            Really? Genocide? Would that be the Israeli way of promoting "peace"?

                            I am not an Israeli. As for genocide - wasn't that what you were advocating earlier on, when you said Israel should wait for Iran to nuke them?

                            What did I say about it being the "nation of evil"???

                            That you're a citizen of it.

                            • 2 votes
                            #21.12 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:22 AM EST
                            Polka14

                            I am not an Israeli. As for genocide - wasn't that what you were advocating earlier on, when you said Israel should wait for Iran to nuke them?

                            Nuclear weapons exist for defensive purposes so if Israel doesn't attack Iran then it has nothing to fear.

                            That you're a citizen of it.

                            I said that the actions of Israel makes it a nation of evil. A rogue state. The US is a modern rogue state and its actions can certainly be called "evil".

                            • 1 vote
                            #21.13 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:13 PM EST
                            Reply
                            Lions52

                            Talk of nuclear war is insanity. Talk of nuking a country..insanity.....using a nuke...insanity

                            Why are so anxious to blow ourselves up? We have one...correction, two shining examples of what atomic weapons will do and that usage should have been enough to scare the hell out of anyone or any generation. What the hell is wrong with this freaking world....

                            • 6 votes
                            Reply#22 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:25 PM EST
                            Rodney-889389

                            What the hell is wrong with this freaking world....

                            There's money in war, peace has no profit margin.

                            • 4 votes
                            #22.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:29 PM EST
                            Reply
                            Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                            Leave a Comment:
                            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                            Newsvine Privacy Statement
                            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                            FUN STUFF:
                            • Leaderboard |
                            • E-Mail Alerts |
                            • Top of the Vine |
                            • Newsvine Live |
                            • Newsvine Archives |
                            • The Greenhouse |
                            COMPANY STUFF:
                            • Code of Honor |
                            • Company Info |
                            • Contact Us |
                            • Jobs |
                            • User Agreement |
                            • Privacy Policy |
                            • About our ads
                            LEGAL STUFF:
                            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com