NationStates Jolt Archive

Hmmm...Thats about as far as it goes, isn't it?You could blame God for creating Adam and Eve...

You could blame God for creating Adam and Eve...
You had to cross the line didn't you?

No. I mean that after world war 1, the ottoman empire collapsed, the land was split between Britian and France
Iraq in 1932
Lebanon in 1943
Jordan in 1946
Syria in 1946 (i think)
Egypt in 1922

Hmm, let's blame the Ottomans shall we?

I didn't lay blame.
I said the country was made the same way.
The british had mandate over the land after the end of the ottoman empire.

Well, If the Iranian and Israelis are still are war, that would make this a "strike" rather than a "pre-emptive strike". And a justified one at that.

Finally, here's a question: If you had to choose one nation in the Middle-East to live in, which one would it be?

Tel Aviv is hated by both the Islamic and Jewish fundamentalists, and that makes it a pretty cool place. ~ Howard Marks.

Are you actually crazy?

What's the saying? In an insane world, only the sane are crazy?

I didn't lay blame.
I said the country was made the same way.
The british had mandate over the land after the end of the ottoman empire.

I was sort of joking. Let's just blame Hitler and be done with it.

What's the saying? In an insane world, only the sane are crazy?

You seem to have some delusional idea that all of the world's countries are plotting to invade eachother. ;)

I was sort of joking. Let's just blame Hitler and be done with it.

That is true. If hitler haden't gone on his Jewish killing spree, there probably would not be an Isreal.

You seem to have some delusional idea that all of the world's countries are plotting to invade eachother. ;)

It is true. Better safe than sorry.

ok. im good with blaming hitler, but we gotta throw in Amin al-Husayni too.
He had connections with hitler anyways, so its all good.

That is true. If hitler haden't gone on his Jewish killing spree, there probably would not be an Isreal.

Although ultimately, we should blame the Roman Empire, as you said.

That is true. If hitler haden't gone on his Jewish killing spree, there probably would not be an Isreal.Damn Hitler... the Palestine genocide is all his fault.

Damn Hitler... the Palestine genocide is all his fault.
Palestine Genocide?? This is news to me

That is true. If hitler haden't gone on his Jewish killing spree, there probably would not be an Isreal.

The british had already promised the jews a state since 1917. The holocaust probably didn't affect much. Had that other third of the jewish population still be alive, Europe would've wanted them out anyways.



(And if you really want to know, Napolean promised them a state too, but he never won as much land as he would've liked.)

Palestine Genocide?? This is news to me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_and_ethnic_conflict_in_Israel_and_Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin_2002

Warning: Graphic content ..I advice not to click if you are a sensible person
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=jenin&ei=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&fr=moz2

You seem to have some delusional idea that all of the world's countries are plotting to invade eachother. ;)

Ah, but they are. My uncle's cousin's brother's daughter's wife's former-roommate's prostitute friend's old flame has seen them.

As for the blame game: I blame Eisenhower. And why not? He had the CIA install the Shah, overthrowing a democratic government that was edging too close to socialism (not even communism) for Eisenhower's tastes. But I digress.

The british had already promised the jews a state since 1917. The holocaust probably didn't affect much. Had that other third of the jewish population still be alive, Europe would've wanted them out anyways.



(And if you really want to know, Napolean promised them a state too, but he never won as much land as he would've liked.)

But the Jewish State proposed would have been far more modest. More similar to the one which the U.N. originally proposed.

Damn Hitler... the Palestine genocide is all his fault.

The Israeli's are really doing a piss poor job of committing genocide.
They should learn from the Sudanese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_and_ethnic_conflict_in_Israel_and_Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin_2002
Though there is no consensus on whether ethnic cleansing and/or genocide has occurred...

But the Jewish State proposed would have been far more modest. More similar to the one which the U.N. originally proposed.

Israel has more land than was promised because of the war... Thats what happens when you fight Israel, the Arabs didnt learn it the first time.

There is no doubt that Israel has the capability and will to strike.

The question is: Will the Iranians strike back?

The Iranians don't have an effective air force that can reach beyond its own borders. Nor does it have any precision weapons.

Just some SCUDs that could reach Iraq.

Though there is no consensus on whether ethnic cleansing and/or genocide has occurred...

And even the founder of Wikipedia admitted that some of its articles were shockingly inaccurate.

The Iranians don't have an effective air force that can reach beyond its own borders. Nor does it have any precision weapons.

Just some SCUDs that could reach Iraq.

That's funny, they do a lot of bragging about their missiles than can reach Europe.

Israel has more land than was promised because of the war... Thats what happens when you fight Israel, the Arabs didnt learn it the first time.

Indeed, but if it hadn't been for the Holocaust the Jews wouldn't have had popular support, so less military backing.

And even the founder of Wikipedia admitted that some of its articles were shockingly inaccurate.

"Claims and counterclaims of genocide involving the Israelis and Palestinians in the State of Israel and the surrounding territories date back at least as far as the founding of Israel itself. Though there is no consensus on whether ethnic cleansing and/or genocide has occurred or is occurring in this region, much less by which party or parties, there are events and movements on both sides of the dispute for which claims of genocide are examined."

Seems pretty neutral to me.

"Claims and counterclaims of genocide involving the Israelis and Palestinians in the State of Israel and the surrounding territories date back at least as far as the founding of Israel itself. Though there is no consensus on whether ethnic cleansing and/or genocide has occurred or is occurring in this region, much less by which party or parties, there are events and movements on both sides of the dispute for which claims of genocide are examined."

Seems pretty neutral to me.

neutrality is not accuracy

"Claims and counterclaims of genocide involving the Israelis and Palestinians in the State of Israel and the surrounding territories date back at least as far as the founding of Israel itself. Though there is no consensus on whether ethnic cleansing and/or genocide has occurred or is occurring in this region, much less by which party or parties, there are events and movements on both sides of the dispute for which claims of genocide are examined."

Seems pretty neutral to me.

Essentially, they have no fucking idea of what really happened.

That's funny, they do a lot of bragging about their missiles than can reach Europe.
Missiles with no nuclear warheads at this point.

We're talking about a missile that would have a high explosive warhead, and be a rather expensive way to land a warhead within a kilometer or so of what you're aiming at. And not too many missiles.

They have plans for those missiles, you know.

On the other hand, the Israelis can drop bombs with relative impunity anywhere they like in Iran, and there's precious little the Iranians can do about it.

"Claims and counterclaims of genocide involving the Israelis and Palestinians in the State of Israel and the surrounding territories date back at least as far as the founding of Israel itself. Though there is no consensus on whether ethnic cleansing and/or genocide has occurred or is occurring in this region, much less by which party or parties, there are events and movements on both sides of the dispute for which claims of genocide are examined."

Seems pretty neutral to me.

It's not bias I was suggesting, it was, as I said "inaccuracies".

neutrality is not accuracy

But where the accuary of the event is disputed, neutrality is best.

Anyway, much as I love bullsh*tting my way somewhat inadequately through this debate, I have to go to bed, like a good little boy.

The Israeli's are really doing a piss poor job of committing genocide.
They should learn from the Sudanese.
My father spoke with an Israeli officer once (unsure of his rank) who said they learned it from the Nazis. This was in the late sixties, but still.

My father spoke with an Israeli officer once (unsure of his rank) who said they learned it from the Nazis. This was in the late sixties, but still.

The Jews would know...

How come people say Israel is committing genocide, when ever since large scale jewish immigration into palestine began, the palestinians were butchering them? As exemplified with the hebron massacre.

If the palestinians hadnt been killing jews for wanting to live in their historic homeland the hagannah wouldnt have been created...

But where the accuary of the event is disputed, neutrality is best.anything and everything that has ever been reported against the Jews has always been systematically disputed.

I'll repeat my post from another thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10074794&postcount=200

I would add specifically that Iran would of course retaliate, and that the project Iraq would be down the drain in no time.

I would also add that Israel just demonstrated the ability to shoot down Iranian missiles, such that the threat from a nuclear Iran to Israel is not as great as has been emphasised.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_missile

Without full international support, and a UN-resolution to that effect, I couldn't agree with the destruction and the ensuing war.

Plus, I'll quote the new Nobel Peace Prize winner, El-Baradei...
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,343030,00.html
SPIEGEL: The Americans and the Israelis will hardly permit that to happen. That leaves only the military option, which US President Bush has expressly declined to rule out. But is it really possible to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with missiles? Aren't they too widely dispersed and in some cases underground?

ElBaradei: Aside from the problems you mention, I do not believe that military strikes can solve this problem. They can delay development at best. Following an attack, the Iranians would most certainly go underground to produce a weapon as quickly and deliberately as possible.

How come people say Israel is committing genocide, when ever since large scale jewish immigration into palestine began, the palestinians were butchering them? As exemplified with the hebron massacre.

If the palestinians hadnt been killing jews for wanting to live in their historic homeland the hagannah wouldnt have been created...
When was this Hebron Massacre, exactly? And the Palestinians weren't killing Jews for wanting to live in the Jewish homeland, they were killing Jews because they wanted to live on land the Palestinians were then sitting on. I really don't see it as anything too personal against the Jews to want to keep your own homeland. Not saying that this excuses atrocities, but let's not muddle the motives.

OceanDrive3 -- oh no your post was deleted!!!

Its part of the worldwide jewish conspiracy,

clearly outlined in the protocols of zion..

dispute everything. trust moses.

I would add specifically that Iran would of course retaliate, and that the project Iraq would be down the drain in no time.

How? With what? Iran would get their asses handed to them if they retaliated in any way.

Without full international support, and a UN-resolution to that effect, I couldn't agree with the destruction and the ensuing war.

If Iran fired a nuke, there wouldn't be time to discuss this in committee.

And to hell with el-Baradei - he didn't stop North Korea from getting nukes, didn't stop Pakistan, didn't stop Iran...

Fat lot of good the IAEA inspections do - they can't even catch someone in the act until the nuke goes off...

There isn't an underground structure that can take a direct hit from a B-61 Mod 11, GPS guided and in ground penetration mode.

When was this Hebron Massacre, exactly? And the Palestinians weren't killing Jews for wanting to live in the Jewish homeland, they were killing Jews because they wanted to live on land the Palestinians were then sitting on. I really don't see it as anything too personal against the Jews to want to keep your own homeland. Not saying that this excuses atrocities, but let's not muddle the motives.

Hebron massacre was 1929. I only use it as an example, because it was very large.

throughout the 20's and the 10's there were attacks on kibbutzim and civilian populations.

The jews were coming to live next to the palestinians. not on them. Tel Aviv was created by Jews. But when the jews came, they created infrastructure in the country that the arabs previously didnt have. So the arabs came to live in Jewish areas.

OceanDrive3 -- oh no you post was deleted!!!

Its part of the worldwide jewish conspiracy,

clearly outlined in the protocols of zion..

dispute everything. trust moses.Yeah.. You earned a spot on my sig.. for a week or so..

And further to you believing the Israeli's are trying to commit genocide; why is it that when under jordanian control, no universities were created in the west bank, but as soon as israel had control, they built the palestinians universities?

Hebron massacre was 1929. I only use it as an example, because it was very large.

throughout the 20's and the 10's there were attacks on kibbutzim and civilian populations.

The jews were coming to live next to the palestinians. not on them. Tel Aviv was created by Jews. But when the jews came, they created infrastructure in the country that the arabs previously didnt have. So the arabs came to live in Jewish areas.
*looks up Hebron Massacre*

So... your example is a conflict from 1929 that resulted in 67 deaths? Maybe the standards for a massacre were lower in those days. But anyway, I'll roll with you on the attacks on civilian populations in the 10s and 20s. What is the big fat deal? How does that excuse violating the human rights of the Palestinians now?

. Since Iraq has the best Airforce in the world at the moment. Iraq?? Best Airforce??

Iraq?? Best Airforce??

Americas Airforce.

The likely consequences range from absolutely nothing happening to WWIII.

I hate to be the one to inform you, but we are already fighting WW III. It is called the War or Terrorism and it is being fought in the U.S., Great Brittan, Spain, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/13332676.htm

I think that would make a good dent in the Israeli air force. They are only short range defensive weapons, but I am sure they could handle taking down F-15E strike eagles. With their utter lack of sealth and all.

I would hope that the iranians would know how to use said missiles. I think it would be great if they managed to shoot down the Israeli planes.

FUCK ISRAEL (not fuck the jews...fuck the political entity of Isael)

I hate to be the one to inform you, but we are already fighting WW III. It is called the War or Terrorism and it is being fought in the U.S., Great Brittan, Spain, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

The War on terrorism is not a war, and certainly isn't WWIII.

How? With what? Iran would get their asses handed to them if they retaliated in any way.
Of course they would. But they would destroy the nation of Iraq in the process.
Iraq was easily defeated. They didn't have anything left after the first Gulf War. If Iran launches an attack, the people who will suffer are the people of Iraq, when their cities are turned into wastelands.
Iran may not be a modern military power, but don't underestimate the place. Although many Iranians might not like their government, they love their country, and they will fight for it.

If Iran fired a nuke, there wouldn't be time to discuss this in committee.
If Iran fired a nuke, it'd be shot down.

And to hell with el-Baradei - he didn't stop North Korea from getting nukes, didn't stop Pakistan, didn't stop Iran...
Fat lot of good the IAEA inspections do - they can't even catch someone in the act until the nuke goes off...
Read the interview.

There isn't an underground structure that can take a direct hit from a B-61 Mod 11, GPS guided and in ground penetration mode.
You need to get a direct hit first, in an installation about which you know nothing and the location of which is unknown.

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/13332676.htm

I think that would make a good dent in the Israeli air force. They are only short range defensive weapons, but I am sure they could handle taking down F-15E strike eagles. With their utter lack of sealth and all.

I would hope that the iranians would know how to use said missiles. I think it would be great if they managed to shoot down the Israeli planes.

FUCK ISRAEL (not fuck the jews...fuck the political entity of Isael)

Stealth isn't everything. Again, it is not that hard to punch a hole through a radar network. They can't shoot down what they can't see.

The War on terrorism is not a war, and certainly isn't WWIII.

It is being fought in all of those places mentioned. The terrorists are all over the world and have killed innocent people all over the world. The world is at war with terrorists so I cannot see how you can say it is not a war and it isn't world wide. If you don't consider the War on Terrorism isn't a war, please give me your definition of war.

*looks up Hebron Massacre*

So... your example is a conflict from 1929 that resulted in 67 deaths? Maybe the standards for a massacre were lower in those days. But anyway, I'll roll with you on the attacks on civilian populations in the 10s and 20s. What is the big fat deal? How does that excuse violating the human rights of the Palestinians now?


Yeah massacre meant 67 deaths... this was 1929....
a. population was not dense.
b. suicide bombings were not yet used.
these were usually gun attacks

This does not excuse violating human rights of the Palestinians, now or ever.
Israel tries it's best to protect its citizens. The palestinians wanted them dead then, and they want them dead now. The Israeli's do alot for the Palestinians to help them, whether you know it or not.

The point that I was making was that the Palestinians started the violence, once the Jews started immigrating in larger numbers. (Immigration began around 1880, but picked up during and after WWI)
The Israeli's retaliate to the violence. By building walls, blocking roads, and yes,killing Palestinians.

You may say now "who cares about who started it, it must be stopped". But it is not so easy to stop it. The Israeli's don't mind if the violence stops. Or if the westbank and gaza become Palestine. (A lot will mind if Jerusalem does)

However groups like the Hamas do mind. They want Israel gone entirely. Even many members of the PLO have openly said they want Israel gone entirely, and they dont agree with the Oslo accord.

It is being fought in all of those places mentioned. The terrorists are all over the world and have killed innocent people all over the world. The world is at war with terrorists so I cannot see how you can say it is not a war and it isn't world wide. If you don't consider the War on Terrorism isn't a war, please give me your definition of war.

A state of open armed conflict carried on between nations.

A state of open armed conflict carried on between nations.

Not even, it might be a pretty useless war, (clearly wars are useful), but a war does not have to be armed. It does not need to involve battles.

war = two countries not at peace with each other!

The War on terrorism is not a war, and certainly isn't WWIII.

1.1 and 2.2 apply to the war on terrorism. The war on terrorism is a world war as most countries in the world are involved in it. It is the third time the world has fought a war. Ergo the war on terrorism is WW III.

war Pronunciation Key (wôr) n.

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

Stealth isn't everything. Again, it is not that hard to punch a hole through a radar network. They can't shoot down what they can't see.
Unless they're Serbs...

It is being fought in all of those places mentioned. The terrorists are all over the world and have killed innocent people all over the world. The world is at war with terrorists so I cannot see how you can say it is not a war and it isn't world wide. If you don't consider the War on Terrorism isn't a war, please give me your definition of war.
The "War on Terrorism" is nothing more than a glorified legal issue. Cooperation between police forces and the occasional use of special forces all around the world would be plenty enough to do exactly the same damage or more to the radical Islamist cause than we are doing now.

1.1 and 2.2 apply to the war on terrorism. The war on terrorism is a world war as most countries in the world are involved in it. It is the third time the world has fought a war. Ergo the war on terrorism is WW III.

That is not the legal defination of war though. We are "at war" with terrorism the same way we are "at war" with crime. We oppose it, and seek to destroy it. But to call it war in the same way that Iraq was war is pure stupidity. War is between nations.

1.1 and 2.2 apply to the war on terrorism. The war on terrorism is a world war as most countries in the world are involved in it. It is the third time the world has fought a war. Ergo the war on terrorism is WW III.


No... the war on terrorism may be a war.. does not mean it must be WW III..
It may be a war involving many of the worlds countries.. does not mean it must be WWIII.

"world war" technically does not follow much of a defined meaning... we decided to call the first one, world war one, and the second one world war two.
I think we should have kept with the original name for world war 1. "The war to end all wars", but not many people thought to stick with it.

If you want to say world war means a war which involves many of the world's countries, then the cold war should be world war 3, and this should be world war 4. But of course, no one agrees. So, so far we've had 2 world wars.

That is not the legal defination of war though. We are "at war" with terrorism the same way we are "at war" with crime. We oppose it, and seek to destroy it. But to call it war in the same way that Iraq was war is pure stupidity. War is between nations.

Didn't know you were a lawyer or knew more than the dictionary, but...:eek:

Didn't know you were a lawyer or knew more than the dictionary, but...:eek:

Well, I do. Be warned in the future. (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w038.htm)

Well, I do. Be warned in the future. (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w038.htm)


then tell me what's a factoid.
and what does decimate mean?

Well, I do. Be warned in the future. (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w038.htm)

One of NS favorite references backs up the difinition I posted earlier from dictionary.com. It does not back up your definition.

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

Now I must go fix some Italian sausage and spagetti with marinara sauce. Good night to you sir/madam. It has been real and it has been fun, but it hasn't been real fun. :eek:

One of NS favorite references backs up the difinition I posted earlier from dictionary.com. It does not back up your definition.

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

Now I must go fix some Italian sausage and spagetti with marinara sauce. Good night to you sir/madam. It has been real and it has been fun, but it hasn't been real fun. :eek:

fake fun?

Wikipedia is not a dictionary ;)

Stealth isn't everything. Again, it is not that hard to punch a hole through a radar network. They can't shoot down what they can't see.

I said if Iran knows how to use the missiles. I am sure Israel would have a hard time getting though the USA or Russian radar network. It is up to Iran to be able to use to missiles properly. If they do, they should have no trouble defending them selves from F-15Es

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/13332676.htm

I think that would make a good dent in the Israeli air force. They are only short range defensive weapons, but I am sure they could handle taking down F-15E strike eagles. With their utter lack of sealth and all.

I would hope that the iranians would know how to use said missiles. I think it would be great if they managed to shoot down the Israeli planes.

FUCK ISRAEL (not fuck the jews...fuck the political entity of Isael)

These are also older than dirt. Russia ain't helpin' out Iran by selling these to them. They are definately the latest and greatest by Russian and Iranian standards, but they were built in 1988. The fighter/bombers that Israel would use are far superior to this system.
Go http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/tor/

The fighter/bombers that Israel would use are far superior to this system.
The year they were first made is pretty irrelevant, considering that any system gets upgraded continuously.
The Russians are actually still pretty good when it comes to building relatively affordable military hardware.
They'll be dangerous, so much is clear.

Yes, The F-15 is a very new fighter isnt it. Its just like the F/a-22 or typhoon or rafale. *eye rollage*

The year they were first made is pretty irrelevant, considering that any system gets upgraded continuously.
The Russians are actually still pretty good when it comes to building relatively affordable military hardware.
They'll be dangerous, so much is clear.

Only if you can afford to upgrade it. The Russians would absolutely never give Iran their latest and greatest.

here is a little bit better of a discription on it. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/sa-15.htm

You seem to be underestimating the fact that the Mossad has operatives spying in Iran, locating targets, Israel has a spy satellite, and most of all, Israeli fighter pilots are the best in the world. Israeli avionics in the F-15s are the best in the world. And Israeli's have never had a problem maintaining air superiority.

Only if you can afford to upgrade it. The Russians would absolutely never give Iran their latest and greatest.
Depends.

I'm afraid I know little about this particular deal, but Iran's isn't a poor government, and the Russians say this weapon is particularly well-suited to Middle Eastern Armies...if they designed it with that in mind, they would've set it up with the Israeli airforce in the back of their heads.

The year they were first made is pretty irrelevant, considering that any system gets upgraded continuously.
The Russians are actually still pretty good when it comes to building relatively affordable military hardware.
They'll be dangerous, so much is clear.

Consider that during Vietnam, the success rate of Soviet SAMs was optimally around 2 percent.

This has fallen precipitously against US-made equipment, which the Israelis possess and have experience using.

Right now, even the most advanced Russian equipment has a success rate against US-made equipment that ranks down in the realm of statistical anomaly - that is, so close to zero it's not worth paying money for.

Consider that during Vietnam, the success rate of Soviet SAMs was optimally around 2 percent.

This has fallen precipitously against US-made equipment, which the Israelis possess and have experience using.

Right now, even the most advanced Russian equipment has a success rate against US-made equipment that ranks down in the realm of statistical anomaly - that is, so close to zero it's not worth paying money for.

prove. reputible source like FAS or globalsecurity. Or maybe from a military or scholary source.

...Israeli fighter pilots are the best in the world. Israeli avionics in the F-15s are the best in the world. And Israeli's have never had a problem maintaining air superiority.Israel Air force would piss blood against the USAF.

any time.. any day or night

Right now, even the most advanced Russian equipment has a success rate against US-made equipment that ranks down in the realm of statistical anomaly - that is, so close to zero it's not worth paying money for.
Read the link...tomahawks are up to 90%, modern planes they reckon between over 90%.
It's a top notch, high-end system.

EDIT: Ooops, doesn't say it on that link. Try this:
http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm
and the wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-15

Read the link...tomahawks are up to 90%, modern planes they reckon between over 90%.
It's a top notch, high-end system.

Saddam had SA-10s during this last go-round. Didn't do him any good at all.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm

Plus, according to the link above, Iran ordered the missiles in 2000, and still hadn't received any missiles by 2004.

If they have any at all, they are in extremely limited areas, and can be dealt with by B-2 aircraft with relative impunity.

Don't expect any dates with the "jewish" girls my man. Would probably be advisable to keep that comment to yourself in the real world.;)
Refusing to collaborate with people simply because they have an OPINION?

What a surprise. :rolleyes:

Which sucks, really. :(

Israel has B-2s now? WoW this is news. I seen no facts about precentage of hits of SA-15 vs f-15 in the links. I did see the Sa-15 can manevouer at 30g Vs and f-15 which can maneouver at +9 and -3 g. Sa-10 are dated, with a piss poor fire control in comparsion. Also, it seems Saddam did not know how to use them (his army did not have very good tatics) and for that matter the Iranians may not either... But you never know, and they may.

Wow, Israel is planning on making strikes on Iran? It's about time someone did - I say America should assist them with our own airstrikes and special forces teams. Oppressive theocratic nutcase states like Iran that threaten force on America and Israel deserve to be ultimately taken down, as decisively as possible. None of this wishy-washy PR crap that Bush gives us in Iraq. Get in there and get the job done.

We need to systematically annihilate all Arab theocracies and despots that similarily threaten use of force against us, and allow Israel to do the same in her defense.

Yes, The F-15 is a very new fighter isnt it. Its just like the F/a-22 or typhoon or rafale. *eye rollage*


OK, until the introduction of those fighters reletively recently The F-15C reigned supreme in Air to Air Combat for over 20 years with not a SINGLE aircraft being shot down in Air to Air Engagements (I don't think any in air to ground either, but i'm not so sure)


Oh that and prior to stealth, there were ways to defeat Surface to Air Missile systems ::cough:: HARM/SHRIKE, Wild Weasels. ::cough::

that air defense systems does well when someone hasn't blown a hole in it right?

The F-15C reigned supreme in Air to Air Combat for over 20 years with not a SINGLE aircraft being shot down in Air to Air Engagements (I don't think any in air to ground either, but i'm not so sure)
Well, it never faced all that serious opponents though.

Most were Mig-21s, then a few Mig-25s (which, while impressive speedwise, aren't exactly top-of-the-line air-to-air fighters either), and other old ones. Plus most of them were apparently fleeing, not engaging the F-15s.

Three were apparently shot down by the Iraqis from the ground (2 in '91, one in '03), and a Japanese F-15 shot another down by accident.

I think I speak for all of humanity when I say, "We are f*cking screwed."
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

You know, there is such a thing as ECM.

You know, there is such a thing as ECM.
And that's the idea behind modern SAM systems...ignore the ECM and go for the real target.

The SA-15 is perfectly capable of taking down most things in the sky, given a decent crew and a well-functioning anti-air network.

I think the Iranians should be able to get both happening, or rather I hope so, because it will hopefully deter the Israelis from making a huge mistake.

If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, do you think it would pre-emptively use it on Israel? The thought scares me shitless. But if they did, it would almost certainly involve destroying the Dome of the Rock and killing millions of Palestinians in the process.
I agree, except for one point. The President of IRan is a fucking psycho. He'd do it anyways and call the dead Palestinians martyrs. That is why MAD doesn't work with fundamentalists.

I think I speak for all of humanity when I say, "We are f*cking screwed."
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
Care to back that up, without annoying smilies at the end?

FUCK ISRAEL (not fuck the jews...fuck the political entity of Isael)
This is exactly what I meant to say in my earlier post in this thread. I must apologize to everyone I offended.

I agree, except for one point. The President of IRan is a fucking psycho. He'd do it anyways and call the dead Palestinians martyrs. That is why MAD doesn't work with fundamentalists.

It does not work in the self interest of the country of Iran, or the President himself, to start a nuclear war.
He is not a psycho, he is not insane. Even Stalin, who WAS insane, did not start nuclear wars.

Wiping out your enemy (or trying at least) leaves you with no enemy after. It leaves you with no convienent scape goat for your problems, no rallying point to distract the irritated masses, no excuses. Iran NEEDS Israel, like all the other neighbouring states need it- to have somthing to bitch about.

And that's the idea behind modern SAM systems...ignore the ECM and go for the real target.

The SA-15 is perfectly capable of taking down most things in the sky, given a decent crew and a well-functioning anti-air network.

I think the Iranians should be able to get both happening, or rather I hope so, because it will hopefully deter the Israelis from making a huge mistake.Israel's got plenty of EW aircraft. Not to mention other anti-radar tactics such as anti-radiation missiles/UAVs (Harpy) and decoys (Delilah).

I'm not one of those jews, who are in a tiny minority by the way, who think everyone against Israel is antisemetic. However, to deny Israel the right to exisist is indeed a trounbling statement to us. Israel is not looked upon an infalliable, or even close, but the answer to the current conflict IS NOT to take away the Jewish Homeland, or the Palestinian one, but simply always remain hard at work to dreate peace in the Middle East. It is unfair to force either group out, as both have deep roots and the right to live in Israel. So before you post on this sensitive topic, try to see from all perspectives, not just your own.

I say go for it, Israel. I just hope the US and Iraqi Governments turn a blind eye to the Israeli Aircraft, it would be even better if the US sent some of their B2s to assist the Israeli. I am always in favour of attacking a non-democractic country.

If Isreal strikes against Iran, Iran will strike back. It will march through Iraq if it has to, especially if America is involved in the strike. I doubt that America will be able to stop them, especially with all of the shiite militias that will probably help iran out. Syria and a few other Middle Eastern states would probably help Iran out against Israel. Israel will probably be able to defend itself, but it will be a hard war. Don't underestimate Iran's will to fight, and their conventional capabilities are significant, unlike Iraq's.

Iran NEEDS Israel, like all the other neighbouring states need it- to have somthing to bitch about.

Just like the constant stage of siege is very useful to Israeli politicians.

I'm not one of those jews, who are in a tiny minority by the way, who think everyone against Israel is antisemetic.

Unfortunately, these types seem to be the most vocal.

By the way guys, are you guys familiar with the term Zionism? What is the difference between an antizionist and an antisemite?

So it's good is Israel launches a pre-emptive strike and bad if Iran launches a pre-emptive strike. Why?


Well the unstable gov't in Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and having spoken their obvious hatred for Israel, it is safe to say that they would use their newfound weaponary for evil purposes. Thats why a pre-emptive stike is good on Israel's behalf.

By the way guys, are you guys familiar with the term Zionism? What is the difference between an antizionist and an antisemite?
An antisemite hate Jews(yes I know there are other semites, but that's the definition) An antizionist is someone who doesn't think Israel should exist. A very, very, very small number of Jews who are ULTRA orthadox believe Israel should only be revived when the massaiah(SP?) comes. For an idea of that view, read The Chosen by Chaim Potok. They are about the only true anti-zionists. I have noticed, oddly, many anti-semitic websites have whole essays about how the Jews, who they don't believe should exist anyway, are stupid scum because we break our own rules about setting up Israel. But, both after WWII and now, there is almost unilateral support among Jews for Israel's existance, though not its policies or politicians, who many Jews disagree with.

It does not work in the self interest of the country of Iran, or the President himself, to start a nuclear war.
He is not a psycho, he is not insane. Even Stalin, who WAS insane, did not start nuclear wars.

Wiping out your enemy (or trying at least) leaves you with no enemy after. It leaves you with no convienent scape goat for your problems, no rallying point to distract the irritated masses, no excuses. Iran NEEDS Israel, like all the other neighbouring states need it- to have somthing to bitch about.

Firstly, Iran doesn't function under the principles of Realism; rather then considering what is in the best interest of their country they are willing to act almost entirely upon what is prescribed for them under their ruling ideaology. To truely examine this issue we must take a deep look into the structure of the Iranian government itself. The Council of Gaurdians choose the canidates for the Presidential election. This Council of Guardians is appointed directly by the Faqi (a.k.a. the Supreme Leader) of Iran. The Faqi is a radical Shiite Cleric whose job is to safegaurd the Islamic revolution. Part of doing so is advocating the destruction of all western corrupting influences. Right now the Faqi is Hojjatulesam Ali Khamene'i who actively supports terrorism. (Remember Hezbollahis, the organization responsible for many of the terrorist attacks is based in Iran and is the military arm of the Shiite clergy there). Iran, right now, is like the covenant from Halo. Ever since the first Faqi, Ayatollah Khomeini, Iranian politics have blended the religious with the secular (evidence of this is the Sharia court system). Just like the Covenant, Iran is willing to do anything, use any weapon, if it achieves its goal of destoying the infadels. Henry Kissinger states in his book, Does America Need a Foreign Policy that Iran has frequently reject a strategic alliance with the US by committing acts of terrorism and by being a patron of terrorists. In short, Iran doesn't think within a realist framework. Due to the fact that the Council of the Gaurdians and the position of Faqi is dominated by extremists religious leaders, often times the position of President is as well. Even if they did think Realisticly; wouldn't the destruction of an enemy of the Arab world and the oppressor of the poor poor Palestinians be the biggest feather in any arab nation's cap? In short, the destruction of Isreal would accomplish more for Iran than the existence of Israel. And what better way to destroy a nation than with a nuke.

In answer to my very simple question 'what might happen if Iran is attacked?' it seems that most of you have no idea, some think that nothing will happen and some see some vague benefit for Israel and Europe.

Let me say two things.

Firstly, Israel will not attack any of the Muslim nations. There is no guarantee that the USA will remain in ascendancy over the next few decades. Russia, China and India are on the rise whilst the energy-deficient, weak-willed and politically inept USA will soon go into decline, and eventually their combined power will weaken US influence in the Middle East and the Caspian regions. Israel does not know how the relationships between these nations and the Muslim nations will pan out, so it needs to hedge its bets.

Secondly, the core issue here is oil, not national honour. If a Sino-Russian-Indian alliance takes shape, and they decide to secure oil and gas resources by cultivating friendly and diplomatic relations with Muslim states, then Israel will have to keep very quiet. Hard-line Zionists are largely despised throughout Eurasia, and in this scenario a hard-line Israel will risk being crushed. Thus, any attack on Iran must come from the USA, whose legitimacy across the world - especially the Muslim world - is now at an all-time low, and it could risk having its crucial military bases around the Middle East and the Caspian region closed down. Without these bases, the USA cannot protect the oil flow and control prices, which could send its fragile oil-dependent economy into meltdown.

The Iranians, of course, have already worked this out, and they are taking the opportunity to develop their nuclear capabilities while geopolitical relations are in this tense gridlock.

Firstly, Iran doesn't function under the principles of Realism; rather then considering what is in the best interest of their country they are willing to act almost entirely upon what is prescribed for them under their ruling ideaology. To truely examine this issue we must take a deep look into the structure of the Iranian government itself. The Council of Gaurdians choose the canidates for the Presidential election. This Council of Guardians is appointed directly by the Faqi (a.k.a. the Supreme Leader) of Iran. The Faqi is a radical Shiite Cleric whose job is to safegaurd the Islamic revolution. Part of doing so is advocating the destruction of all western corrupting influences. Right now the Faqi is Hojjatulesam Ali Khamene'i who actively supports terrorism. (Remember Hezbollahis, the organization responsible for many of the terrorist attacks is based in Iran and is the military arm of the Shiite clergy there). Iran, right now, is like the covenant from Halo. Ever since the first Faqi, Ayatollah Khomeini, Iranian politics have blended the religious with the secular (evidence of this is the Sharia court system). Just like the Covenant, Iran is willing to do anything, use any weapon, if it achieves its goal of destoying the infadels. Henry Kissinger states in his book, Does America Need a Foreign Policy that Iran has frequently reject a strategic alliance with the US by committing acts of terrorism and by being a patron of terrorists. In short, Iran doesn't think within a realist framework. Due to the fact that the Council of the Gaurdians and the position of Faqi is dominated by extremists religious leaders, often times the position of President is as well. Even if they did think Realisticly; wouldn't the destruction of an enemy of the Arab world and the oppressor of the poor poor Palestinians be the biggest feather in any arab nation's cap? In short, the destruction of Isreal would accomplish more for Iran than the existence of Israel. And what better way to destroy a nation than with a nuke.

This is just nonsense, and Kissinger is, and always has been, a very poor analyst, which is why his stupid ideas have led the USA into trouble in the past. Underneath all the religious bluster lies some serious realpolitik, and Iran is taking its opportunities while it can. The backlash from the Iraq debacle was always going to be delegitimisation, and the 'rendition' fiasco in Europe, accompanied by more inept politics from the hapless and inexperienced Condi Rice, has made things worse. The powerful but stupid USA has hamstrung itself for quite some time now, and others will take their opportunities in the temporary hiatus.

This is a false statement made by the media, and im totally serious here
What bloody idiot would reveal an operational military plan with dates, units, etc.. to the media?
I know for a fact that we, Israel is currently trying every political method to resolve the situation if its the UN, the US or ever pressurizing Jordan and Egypt to act.
How do I know this you ask? I am a military officer in the IDF and I am more aware of whats going on the inside.
My guess is that someone either dug up an ancient document to attack Iran and placed random dates or picked up units names and random routes and dates and actually 'invented' an attack.
Israel will only, and I mean ONLY attack when all other options will fail, and it will see an imminent danger to its people.
And if I recall right, Iran is developing nuclear capibilities.. they dont have them yet.
YET.

In answer to my very simple question 'what might happen if Iran is attacked?' it seems that most of you have no idea, some think that nothing will happen and some see some vague benefit for Israel and Europe.

Let me say two things.

Firstly, Israel will not attack any of the Muslim nations. There is no guarantee that the USA will remain in ascendancy over the next few decades. Russia, China and India are on the rise whilst the energy-deficient, weak-willed and politically inept USA will soon go into decline, and eventually their combined power will weaken US influence in the Middle East and the Caspian regions. Israel does not know how the relationships between these nations and the Muslim nations will pan out, so it needs to hedge its bets.

Secondly, the core issue here is oil, not national honour. If a Sino-Russian-Indian alliance takes shape, and they decide to secure oil and gas resources by cultivating friendly and diplomatic relations with Muslim states, then Israel will have to keep very quiet. Hard-line Zionists are largely despised throughout Eurasia, and in this scenario a hard-line Israel will risk being crushed. Thus, any attack on Iran must come from the USA, whose legitimacy across the world - especially the Muslim world - is now at an all-time low, and it could risk having its crucial military bases around the Middle East and the Caspian region closed down. Without these bases, the USA cannot protect the oil flow and control prices, which could send its fragile oil-dependent economy into meltdown.

The Iranians, of course, have already worked this out, and they are taking the opportunity to develop their nuclear capabilities while geopolitical relations are in this tense gridlock.

That's about enough to win my vote....two thumbs up

Israel will only, and I mean ONLY attack when all other options will fail, and it will see an imminent danger to its people.


Well then, would you mind explaining the bombing of Syrian territory with IDF jets then?

Well then, would you mind explaining the bombing of Syrian territory with IDF jets then?

Be specific, when?

It seems a lot of people have problems separating Iran's rhetoric about "wiping out Israel" from its real interests.

When an Iranian politician says "wiping out Israel," its the same kind of grandstanding nonsense as a US politician saying "enemies of freedom."

Israel is home to some very holy sites for the Muslim religion, and it isn't a very big country.

An atomic bomb would probably ruin many of those sites, as well as kill scores of Muslim Palestinians.

On the other hand, an atomic bomb, in Iran's hands, could serve the same function it serves for every other nuclear-armed country, that of a deterrent.

If "terrorists" wanted an atomic bomb, it would probably be easier and safer to buy one with saudi money than be given one by the iranians.

Finally some logical thought, not another scary neocon tale

Israel has definitely not made all the right choices in its past, but to say they are trying to perpetrate either the enslavement or genocide of the Palestinians is proposterous. Most Jews in Israel areen't fanatics, and bare no ill will to the Palestinians, but the terrorist groups that their government has been unable to control. Israel obviously isn't in a peaceful area, but it is a modern, western style democracy that give the same excellent civil liberties and political freedoms to everyone, not just this fictitous Jewish aristocracy you speak of. Is Israel perfect? No! Do thy mnake a concentrated effort to kill or enslave civillians"? No!
So please, get your facts straight.

Ok, it's not Iran, but it's not an innocent country that has found itself with many problems. Beggining with " a people with no land for a land with no people" and going on with the colonies policy, that has developped all the goverments from 1948. And not everybody has the "excellent rights" youy talk about. Not the palestinians. And make a wall to steal the land it's not a very good way to find peace but to starve a people that has more rights that any to his land, Palestine.

Though there is no consensus on whether ethnic cleansing and/or genocide has occurred...
In fact, the ICRC investigated the whole set of assertions around Jenin, and found that no genocide took place - no massacre, no mass executions, none of the assertions of the Palestinians turned out to be true.

In fact, the ICRC investigated the whole set of assertions around Jenin, and found that no genocide took place - no massacre, no mass executions, none of the assertions of the Palestinians turned out to be true.
Well, it turned out that while the operation on Jenin was harsh, it was only in a small area, unlike initial claims that unfortunately persisted for some time.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/palestine/jenin-imagery.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/palestine/images/jenin_idf-aerial_04-13-2002.jpg
There's a picture of Jenin after the attack.

Because Israel's ultimate goals in such an attack wouldn't involve the extermination of every single Muslim in Iran.

I blame Jimmy Carter and his band of buffoons for causing this mess (and 9/11 as well). If he had supported Shah Pahlavi AS PROMISED, Iran could conceivably still be a moderately pro-Western monarchy, no revolution would have occured, and radical Islam's seed wouldn't have entrenched itself as deeply as it has around the world. But no, instead he decides to abandon one of the best allies the USA ever had because of the Shah's crackdown on the militants, which ultimately led to the foundation of a psychopathic regime whose crimes far surpassed those of the previous government.

Policies like this you defense created Bin laden. What the USA gov should have done was to support a democratical aperture of Persia, and not supporting a corrupt and puppet regime. The islamic revolution was possible due to the shah regime, quite similar to every Iran gov within the two last centuries, "western allies" against their own people interest. The only aid that the USA could give to the Shah was to better reprime his own subjects, so the struggle had would be bigger yet.

There is no doubt that Israel has the capability and will to strike.

The question is: Will the Iranians strike back?

I hope they do. They would have every right to.

What the USA gov should have done was to support a democratical aperture of Persia, and not supporting a corrupt and puppet regime.
True. Although it doesn't really matter today, the US essentially has itself to blame for having created a government that essentially defines itself by the version of Anti-Americanism it takes up.

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

The act of war has been committed by Iran. Israel has the right to defend itself, and I hope they attack Iran nuclear reactor.

When has Iran committed an act of war against Israel?
Has it laun ched missils? has invaded it's territory?

When has Iran committed an act of war against Israel?
Has it laun ched missils? has invaded it's territory?

With nuclear weapons, if you wait for an "act of war", and you're a small country, you will have already ceased to exist.

Iran has, several times now, made the official statement that it wishes to wipe Israel off the map.

Do you think it's a good idea to wait until most of your country is a radioactive wasteland peppered with craters before you decide to defend yourself?

I think starting a war with a larger country that has repeatedly said it wants you whiped off the map is not particularly wise, because then it gives them the means and reason to do it. Unless you have an ace up your sleeve, like the US being your lapdog, then that will start a war alot larger than Iran and Israel blowing each other to hell.

I think starting a war with a larger country that has repeatedly said it wants you whiped off the map is not particularly wise, because then it gives them the means and reason to do it. Unless you have an ace up your sleeve, like the US being your lapdog, then that will start a war alot larger than Iran and Israel blowing each other to hell.

Your alternative is to be wiped off the map when they acquire nuclear weapons.

Which country has a mandatory "we have to go to war in the event that Iran is attacked" treaty?

It would be difficult for Israel to make it through without permission from the US.

And when was the last time the US said no to Israel?

With nuclear weapons, if you wait for an "act of war", and you're a small country, you will have already ceased to exist.

Iran has, several times now, made the official statement that it wishes to wipe Israel off the map.
Not.. exactly true. A subtle distinction but an important one none the less. Iran has called for Israel to be wiped from the map. Iran did not say IT would wipe Israel from the map- merely it has made sentiments already prevelant throughout the Middle East, more public and vocal.

I know its a technicality, but technicalities can be enough to save your ass from being invaded and still maintian some moral high ground.

I believe, I may be wrong here, that all states act on a Realist system internationally- regardless of their political system domestically.

A lot of Middle Eastern countries have internal problems- serious internal problems. If you remove the constant external threat/scape goat for all your failures (it's israels fault, its the Jews etc etc)- then those problems come to the fore RAPIDLY. It is in the interest of the Middle Eastern states to NOT attack Israel as it is politically detrimental to their internal stability....... my opinion.. and hopefully for everyones sake, a correct one.

Do you think it's a good idea to wait until most of your country is a radioactive wasteland peppered with craters before you decide to defend yourself?

It was generally the same idea that kept the USSR and the US from turning the planet into a giant dust bowl. A little reversed in the time frame, but it was more or less "you press the red button, I press my red button, and we all go to hell"

It was generally the same idea that kept the USSR and the US from turning the planet into a giant dust bowl. A little reversed in the time frame, but it was more or less "you press the red button, I press my red button, and we all go to hell"
I'm not sure that Iran is thinking that it could be effectively destroyed. At least their President isn't thinking along those lines.

I'm not sure that Iran is thinking that it could be effectively destroyed. At least their President isn't thinking along those lines.

Right, everyone in the damn world who pays attention knows that Israel has the nukes to effectively neutralise all it's neighbors along with Iran and then blow up any invading force too.

Of course by this point I'm seeing Chinese and maybe Russian ICBMs in the air to finish the job by dealing with Israel...

You think the Iranians aren't acutely aware that any nuke in Israel would be met with a return salvo to make Hiroshima look like a teenager tossing rocks? They are. And much as you'd like to think they'd be willing to all die for jihad, you'd be wrong. I don't see mullahs leading by example wih a C4 vest, do you?

Let alone the fact that militant Islam is not terribly strong within Iranian culture, it's steadily liberalising and if the US hadn't gone around sying they should elect the liberal candidate they may well have done it.

There is no doubt that Israel has the capability and will to strike.

The question is: Will the Iranians strike back?

They might, but unless they have several working short to medium range nukes, they have no chance at all against Israel. Especially with U.S. forces so close in Iraq.

Right, everyone in the damn world who pays attention knows that Israel has the nukes to effectively neutralise all it's neighbors along with Iran and then blow up any invading force too.

Of course by this point I'm seeing Chinese and maybe Russian ICBMs in the air to finish the job by dealing with Israel...

You think the Iranians aren't acutely aware that any nuke in Israel would be met with a return salvo to make Hiroshima look like a teenager tossing rocks? They are. And much as you'd like to think they'd be willing to all die for jihad, you'd be wrong. I don't see mullahs leading by example wih a C4 vest, do you?

Let alone the fact that militant Islam is not terribly strong within Iranian culture, it's steadily liberalising and if the US hadn't gone around sying they should elect the liberal candidate they may well have done it.


Unless the Israeli weapons are hydrogen bombs instead of HEU atomic weapons, it's unlikely that the total assumed arsenal of 200 weapons in Israel would destroy the Iranian state.

Make a mess of things and kill millions of people, but it would survive.

The Shias in Iraq, who have backing from Iran, have been reasonably quiet in terms of the insurgency recently, Shia Militia Death Squards killing Sunnis in positions of power in a campaign of religous cleansing in response to Al-Qaeda attacks on Shias, and also running concentration camps for Sunnis, having succesfully infiltrating the police and military in Baghdad and Basra areas, which lead to more concerted attacks against the police and military unsurprisingly.

Reports of Shia Militias attacking Coalition forces is low, due to the US and the UK finally saying to them "You run your part of the town, and don't attack us, we'll handle Al-Qaeda" in a uneasy deal with Muqtada Al-Sadr (Remember him? He's still around.)

Attacks on UK troops remain, because they have arrested a couple of Shia Clerics in the past, are close to the border with Iran, leading to Iran funding Shia Militias to keep coalition forces busy and away from Iran, and of course the whole SAS kidnapping, prison storming, AFV burning scenes.

Imagine now, an Israeli attack on Iran.

The insurgency in Iraq intensifies, the Nationalist and Baathist and Al-Qaeda inspired Sunnis are joined by the Shias, urged on by Iran's funding.

Hezbollah, the Shia group in Lebanon, financially supported by Iran, launches guerilla attacks and mortar strikes on Israel in retaliation for the recent attempted killing of a Hezbollah militant which is being blamed on Israel, Israel possibly makes another invasion or air strikes of Lebanon, this time concentrating on Hezbollah strongholds.

Syria offers Lebanon 'Protection' like it did last time Israel invaded Lebanon, Syria renews 'united front' with Iran.

Factions of Palestinian Militias supported by Iran, which Arafat warned was losing him influence just before he was ill, also launch attacks.

Now the next 'piling on' scenario depends on how bad Iran is hit, affected etc.

China has a near exclusive oil deal with Iran, Iran supplies precious oil to China.

If Iran is invaded, China becomes from a moaning onlooker to being involved in one way or form to protect it's oil supply.

Of course, how it gets involved is another matter, but worst case scenario?

It may be the powderkeg for the confrontation between two powers seeking geopolitical and geomaterial positioning in visions that rival each other's ambitions and greed.

The shit will hit the fan.

India, allied with Israel, eyes China.

The Shias in Iraq, who have backing from Iran, have been reasonably quiet in terms of the insurgency recently, Shia Militia Death Squards killing Sunnis in positions of power in a campaign of religous cleansing in response to Al-Qaeda attacks on Shias, and also running concentration camps for Sunnis, having succesfully infiltrating the police and military in Baghdad and Basra areas, which lead to more concerted attacks against the police and military unsurprisingly.

Reports of Shia Militias attacking Coalition forces is low, due to the US and the UK finally saying to them "You run your part of the town, and don't attack us, we'll handle Al-Qaeda" in a uneasy deal with Muqtada Al-Sadr (Remember him? He's still around.)

Attacks on UK troops remain, because they have arrested a couple of Shia Clerics in the past, are close to the border with Iran, leading to Iran funding Shia Militias to keep coalition forces busy and away from Iran, and of course the whole SAS kidnapping, prison storming, AFV burning scenes.

Imagine now, an Israeli attack on Iran.

The insurgency in Iraq intensifies, the Nationalist and Baathist and Al-Qaeda inspired Sunnis are joined by the Shias, urged on by Iran's funding.

Hezbollah, the Shia group in Lebanon, financially supported by Iran, launches guerilla attacks and mortar strikes on Israel in retaliation for the recent attempted killing of a Hezbollah militant which is being blamed on Israel, Israel possibly makes another invasion or air strikes of Lebanon, this time concentrating on Hezbollah strongholds.

Syria offers Lebanon 'Protection' like it did last time Israel invaded Lebanon, Syria renews 'united front' with Iran.

Factions of Palestinian Militias supported by Iran, which Arafat warned was losing him influence just before he was ill, also launch attacks.

Now the next 'piling on' scenario depends on how bad Iran is hit, affected etc.

China has a near exclusive oil deal with Iran, Iran supplies precious oil to China.

If Iran is invaded, China becomes from a moaning onlooker to being involved in one way or form to protect it's oil supply.

Of course, how it gets involved is another matter, but worst case scenario?

It may be the powderkeg for the confrontation between two powers seeking geopolitical and geomaterial positioning in visions that rival each other's ambitions and greed.

The shit will hit the fan.

India, allied with Israel, eyes China.

Brad and Angelina break up for good...

I'm not sure that Iran is thinking that it could be effectively destroyed. At least their President isn't thinking along those lines.

Some pygmies in the amazon (I think they reside there) might not know it, but more or less everyone else is pretty certain that Israel has a big enough nuclear arsenal to glass any one Middle Eastern nation to the point of non-functionality. And you can bet a few choice bombs will land in Tehran.

The Ayotollahs might not like Israel, but they certainly aren't all that interested in dying for Islam or for any other reason really. Which is more or less the end result in a nuclear trade off. Even if they don't get blasted to kingdom come, they'll have plenty of radiation to deal with and a non-existant infrastructure to survive on.

You can go on about that 72 virgins blather, but you won't catch either the Iranian president or the council actually dying for their cause. Just like you'd never see Kim Jong patrolling the Korean DMZ or Bush serving in the occupation garrisons. They're all too busy playing big boss.

In the end, just like how Bush can't really press the big red button unprovoked without congress approval (I think, not too sure here), I get the feeling that if the Iranian president tries to do that, the Ayotollahs will pull him down and stuff him in a sack somewhere before he could do any harm.

At least that would be the case if Israel didn't do anything stupid to provoke them.

(sorry for my bad english)


Prolly missed something:

Must first write I'm opposed to nuclear weappons (& use of it)
and to nuclear "civilian" energy.

"Civilian Nuclear Energy" is a lie: Iran show it very well.
Having Nuclear Power mean beeing able to build nuclear weapons
and is in fact the only real reason to use that "energy" because:
-Nuclear energy is one of if not the most expensive energy.
(cost too much for the total amount of enrgy resulting in comparison to most other energy ressource)
-Nuclear Energy is unsafe : even when no "real problems" happen the people (and other life forms) around/working in Nuclear plants are suffering lethal diseas.
-Nuclear energy is even more limited than oil reserve.
-Nuclear plant produce waste that are also lethal for next centuries when not more...

This wrote my question:

When will UN inspectors or others investigate about all Weapons of Mass Destruction owned by the USA, the EU, Israel, etc.?

In the name of "what" do some nuclear powered countries forbiden to another country to have acces to that energy they use from more than 50 years?

Your alternative is to be wiped off the map when they acquire nuclear weapons.
And create an international incident that would immediately trigger a retalitory strike from the United States if not other nations. Israel starting a war and making the first strike gives Iran a legitimate reason to blow the entire country to hell.

The Iranian government may be run by a bunch of religious exremist asshats, but it isn't stupid.

Brad and Angelina break up for good...

The Morrocan Monkeys attack world markets and grandmothers worldwide.

Michael Jackson melts after blowing Bubbles.

Gary Glitter makes a comeback sensation, live from Ho Chi Minh prison, where they all love him looooong time.

The Pretzels launch a new offensive against Bush.

Bin Laden shaves off his beard for charity.

Tom Cruise shrinks.

Rumsfeld is revealed as Himmler, whose body double died in 1945.

The world my friend, is at an end, but yet it shall still keep spinning.

And create an international incident that would immediately trigger a retalitory strike from the United States if not other nations. Israel starting a war and making the first strike gives Iran a legitimate reason to blow the entire country to hell.

The Iranian government may be run by a bunch of religious exremist asshats, but it isn't stupid.
The Iranian President sure talks like he's stupid.

I remember people crapping themselves when Reagan made the joke about "bombing starts in five minutes". And that was a joke in bad, bad taste and bad judgment.

The statements of the Iranian President seem to be rather serious. He's not joking.

That's about enough to win my vote....two thumbs up
Mine too...four thumbs up

Of course by this point I'm seeing Chinese and maybe Russian ICBMs in the air to finish the job by dealing with Israel...Thats an interesting scenario...

If China or Russia do nuke Israel...(by Missile Guidance malfunction.. or any other reason) Will the US go to WWIII over it?

fake fun?

Wikipedia is not a dictionary ;)

:D

...whilst the energy-deficient, weak-willed and politically inept USA will soon go into decline, ...

Wow! At least we know where you are coming from. :eek:

In fact, the ICRC investigated the whole set of assertions around Jenin, and found that no genocide took place - no massacre, no mass executions, none of the assertions of the Palestinians turned out to be true.

which all goes to prove my point

I'm not sure why nobody listens to me...

Israel can shoot down incoming nukes! (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10292421/)
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/surface_missiles/arrow/Arrow.html

I'm not sure why nobody listens to me...

Israel can shoot down incoming nukes! (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10292421/)
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/surface_missiles/arrow/Arrow.html

I'm sure it's a great thing to have blow up in your aerospace...? A lovely risk to take aswell, I'm sure we all agree.

And as I seem to recall, last time Israel was being attacked with missiles, they made claims that the missiles were being intercepted, when in actual fact they were having the shit beaten out of their cities.

And as I seem to recall, last time Israel was being attacked with missiles, they made claims that the missiles were being intercepted, when in actual fact they were having the shit beaten out of their cities.Israel has never had the "shit beat out of its cities" unless you're counting jerusalem in 1448, where no one was claiming missile-deflection capabilities.
A few skuds, and minimal casualties =/=a blitz.

I'm sure it's a great thing to have blow up in your aerospace...? A lovely risk to take aswell, I'm sure we all agree.
It is a factor in this decision, like it or not.

You people are protraying this as a life and death thing, when in reality, Iranian missiles are not advanced enough to create any sort of problem for the Arrow II system.

And besides, chances are that the nuke would be hit above Syrian territory.

Whereas Israel was able to withstand its neighbours back in the days, could it do so again today? Considering the alleged abundance of wmd all over the region, including some of the ussr missing nuclear weapons.

I think it could not. I also think that given the ewseean diminishing global influence, it is about time for Israel to start making amends. So, there is no way in **** they will strike pre-emptively.

Although there is something poetically just about Israel doing blitzkrieg. They seem to have learned so much...
:)

This is just nonsense, and Kissinger is, and always has been, a very poor analyst, which is why his stupid ideas have led the USA into trouble in the past. Underneath all the religious bluster lies some serious realpolitik, and Iran is taking its opportunities while it can. The backlash from the Iraq debacle was always going to be delegitimisation, and the 'rendition' fiasco in Europe, accompanied by more inept politics from the hapless and inexperienced Condi Rice, has made things worse. The powerful but stupid USA has hamstrung itself for quite some time now, and others will take their opportunities in the temporary hiatus.
First, you give no analysis nor warrents as to why kissinger is a uniquely bad source. In actuality, his ideas have saved us in the past. If you would like me to explain how triangular diplomacy helped in our extrication from Viet Nam, just ask.
Secondly, I doubt you even know what realism, realpolitik, or rason d'etat is. Iran has no conception of it. If they did, they would take their chances as you implied rather than adopting the Russian plan that allows them to work on, and build, nuclear facilities in foreign countries (such as Russia itself). If Iran had been playing by the rules of realism than they would have kept up their assertions just as you claim. However, their adoption of the Russo proposition shows just the opposite. nuff said

I'm not sure why nobody listens to me...

Israel can shoot down incoming nukes! (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10292421/)
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/surface_missiles/arrow/Arrow.htmlI don't get it. Israel launches a pre-emptive strike against Iran (with conventional weapons against military targets) and it's the end of the world (even if Iran can stop it), but if Iran fires nuclear missiles against Israeli cities, it's nothing because Israel has the capability to stop it...for now.http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-4.htm

It is a factor in this decision, like it or not.

You people are protraying this as a life and death thing, when in reality, Iranian missiles are not advanced enough to create any sort of problem for the Arrow II system.

And besides, chances are that the nuke would be hit above Syrian territory.Don't forget, even thought it might seem like it's above Syrian territory in the pictures doesn't mean it's actually in Syrian territory. And there's a limit to what the Arrow II can do.

Iraq threatened israel with Nukes...hence Iraq lost its nukes when Israel bombed its program . IRAN ...a country who has publicly stated that it will wipe Israel off the map is trying to develope nukes ? bwahahahaahahaha and there is ONE sane person that thinks Israel will let that happen ?
You have to be CRAZY to think Israel will let Iran develope a nuke .
Iran will be toast before that happens .
And that is the pragmatic reality of the world we live in . Iran will be bombed into nukelessness ...no doubt...bet the house .

I don't get it. Israel launches a pre-emptive strike against Iran (with conventional weapons against military targets) and it's the end of the world (even if Iran can stop it), but if Iran fires nuclear missiles against Israeli cities, it's nothing because Israel has the capability to stop it...for now.
It's not the end of the world in either case. Which is my point.

Iran knows that the few nukes it might be able to produce in a year or two are valuable, and have a little chance of actually doing the damage.
It also knows that it will be pulverised in response.
And even if they could do the damage, they'd still risk damaging Palestinian territories, or even Muslim Holy Sites.
Ergo: The chance of Iran firing nukes at Israel is near zero.

Israel on the other hand has a history of doing these things (note how Iran has never attacked anyone), a relatively powerful militaristic and aggressive lobby, a candidate for PM who says he'll bomb Iran if elected and all the weaponry necessary to do it right now.
Furthermore, it knows that any retalitation by Iran will have to be dealt with by the Americans first and foremost, because Iraq is in the way, and Iran has in the past not made great distinctions between Israel and the US anyways.
Ergo: The chances of Israel doing this are much greater than zero.

It's a matter of working on the greater risk factor, for the goal of not having anyone killed.

Don't forget, even thought it might seem like it's above Syrian territory in the pictures doesn't mean it's actually in Syrian territory.
Unless the Missile would be detected late (which is unlikely, seeing the path it'd have to travel), the relevant Arrow Batteries would not hesitate to fire as early as possible.
And a quick look at the map would indicate that Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or maybe even Iraq would be the probable point of impact, depending wherefrom the Iranians fired.

It's not the end of the world in either case. Which is my point.

Iran knows that the few nukes it might be able to produce in a year or two are valuable, and have a little chance of actually doing the damage.
It also knows that it will be pulverised in response.
And even if they could do the damage, they'd still risk damaging Palestinian territories, or even Muslim Holy Sites.
Ergo: The chance of Iran firing nukes at Israel is near zero.They might not even put it in a missile, but just foreward it to Hizbolla. In that case, how will the Arrow protect aginst a nuclear attack.

Israel on the other hand has a history of doing these things (note how Iran has never attacked anyone), a relatively powerful militaristic and aggressive lobby, a candidate for PM who says he'll bomb Iran if elected and all the weaponry necessary to do it right now.
Furthermore, it knows that any retalitation by Iran will have to be dealt with by the Americans first and foremost, because Iraq is in the way, and Iran has in the past not made great distinctions between Israel and the US anyways.
Ergo: The chances of Israel doing this are much greater than zero.The reason Israel has such a history of militarism is because it was forced to from the begining. I don't think I have to get into the whole history, but I think I might have to in order to make the point. The big problem I see with your argument is that it's fine for Iran to get nuclear weapons for some reason, but it's not fine for Israel to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons because Israel is evil for some reason. Another point is that you seem to be diminishing the threat of an attack on Israel by Iran because Israel might be able to shoot down current Iranian missiles, but you seem to be exaggerating a possible attack on Iranian nuclear facilites by Israel, despite the fact that Iran might be able to shoot down current Israeli aircraft.

It's a matter of working on the greater risk factor, for the goal of not having anyone killed. So you think less people will die if Iran gets nuclear weapons than if Israel prevents that from happening?


Unless the Missile would be detected late (which is unlikely, seeing the path it'd have to travel), the relevant Arrow Batteries would not hesitate to fire as early as possible.
And a quick look at the map would indicate that Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or maybe even Iraq would be the probable point of impact, depending wherefrom the Iranians fired.Just pointing this out once more. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-4.htm

They might not even put it in a missile, but just foreward it to Hizbolla. In that case, how will the Arrow protect aginst a nuclear attack.
Oh, here we go again.
Iran will not give its bombs (which are complex mechanisms and not easily transferred all over the middle east without getting noticed) to people it can't trust.
Giving money to a cause is not the same thing as handing out your most advanced weaponry to shady individuals with a truck.

The big problem I see with your argument is that it's fine for Iran to get nuclear weapons for some reason, but it's not fine for Israel to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons because Israel is evil for some reason.
Now you're interpreting things that aren't there.
It's not fine for Iran to get nukes, I said that right away in my first post.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10079304&postcount=287
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10074794&postcount=200
Israel is not evil, I never said it, nor did I make comments to that effect.
It is fine for Israel to prevent Iran from having nukes, as long as they don't start a war doing it.

Another point is that you seem to be diminishing the threat of an attack on Israel by Iran because Israel might be able to shoot down current Iranian missiles, but you seem to be exaggerating a possible attack on Iranian nuclear facilites by Israel, despite the fact that Iran might be able to shoot down current Israeli aircraft.
Again, I'm not exaggerating anything. Israeli officials have themselves said that this system represents an effective part of its defence against Iranian aggression.
Iranian officials have said that an Israeli attack constitutes an act of war and retaliation will follow. Such retaliation would bring with it the probable destruction of Iraq as we know it, and the death of hundreds of thousands of people.
Plus Iran probably has its actual weapons facilities in other places anyways, and will continue to develop weapons even more focussed afterwards.

So you think less people will die if Iran gets nuclear weapons than if Israel prevents that from happening?
Yes, that's pretty much it.

Just pointing this out once more. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-4.htm
As far as I can see, this weapon is not operational at this point, and might not be for some time.
Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure what difference it makes to the ability of the Arrow II to shoot down an incoming object, but I'm not a specialist. I'd think though that the Israeli military would be watching this issue and are already working on a solution.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]Oh, here we go again.
Iran will not give its bombs (which are complex mechanisms and not easily transferred all over the middle east without getting noticed) to people it can't trust.
Giving money to a cause is not the same thing as handing out your most advanced weaponry to shady individuals with a truck.

Ahh, but Hezbollah works to bring down Isreal and the Great Statan America. So why not they give it to them? It would be in their interests to have Hezbollah nuke Isreal.

Ahh, but Hezbollah works to bring down Isreal and the Great Statan America. So why not they give it to them? It would be in their interests to have Hezbollah nuke Isreal.
But they can't be trusted to successfully do it. And if something goes wrong, it's "game over" for Iran.
You always need to assume that the Iranian President first and foremost has self-preservation in mind, and handing out his joker to someone else is not in his interest I don't think.

Having nukes is much more advantageous than using them.

(note how Iran has never attacked anyone)

I am sure that is of great comfort to the Kuwaitis. I'll telegram them and make sure they know that the Iranian missiles that killed civilians during the 80s were not part of an attack.

yeah, thats true too.
but who's to stop the Iranians
sending in a few of their own to make sure
Hezbollah doesnt screw it up? After all
it takes one big mushroom cloud
over Isreal to bring together the Arab
countries!

I am sure that is of great comfort to the Kuwaitis. I'll telegram them and make sure they know that the Iranian missiles that killed civilians during the 80s were not part of an attack.
Iraq attack Iran during the 80s.
Remeber how the US had to send in warships to protect the oil tankers?

But they can't be trusted to successfully do it. And if something goes wrong, it's "game over" for Iran.
You always need to assume that the Iranian President first and foremost has self-preservation in mind, and handing out his joker to someone else is not in his interest I don't think.

Having nukes is much more advantageous than using them.You're essentially arguing for the creation of nuclear brinkmanship between Israel and Iran, because the risk involved in the act of preventing Iran from having nukes in the first place, to your mind, is larger than that of a reality where Iran has nukes.
I would personally prefer to endure the immediate intenational finger wagging, and trust in Israel's defensive capabilites than advance towards a cold-war situation because our balls aren't up for the task.

After all it takes one big mushroom cloud over Isreal to bring together the Arab countries!
I don't think Iran would actually get much support in a war like this.
Iraq is out of the question.
Jordan and Lebanon are turned towards the West.
Syria might try something, but it would turn their country into a battlefield, and Assad is not as aggressive as his father was.
Egypt definitely wants to stay on the Americans' bright side.

The only people Iran could count on would be Hezbollah, but they can't do much more than fire the occasional mortar round, especially since Hamas etc aren't going to appreciate having "their" homeland nuked.

I am sure that is of great comfort to the Kuwaitis. I'll telegram them and make sure they know that the Iranian missiles that killed civilians during the 80s were not part of an attack.
AFAIK that was during the Iran-Iraq war, and Kuwait had chosen the side of the US-backed Iraqis, thus essentially declaring war on Iran.

You're essentially arguing for the creation of nuclear brinkmanship between Israel and Iran, because the risk involved in the act of preventing Iran from having nukes in the first place, to your mind, is larger than that of a reality where Iran has nukes.
But only as a last resort. I support the talks to go on, and if necessary an international, UN-backed operation to take out Iranian facilities if no other options are left, and a threat is proven. I believe that an international operation with UN backing would minimise the risk of a full-scale Iranian retaliation, moreso than a unilateral Israeli-US Attack.
But at the same time I have my own reasons (primarily that I don't support anyone building nukes), and I attack the IMHO naive reasons others put forward in order to argue for what amounts to a similar outcome.

I would personally prefer to endure the immediate intenational finger wagging, and trust in Israel's defensive capabilites than advance towards a cold-war situation because our balls aren't up for the task.
The Cold War didn't kill anyone (except the people in the proxy wars, but you know what I mean). Neither did India and Pakistan attack each other since they both have Nukes (not that I support either of them having them).
Our balls are hardly the issue. I'm not exactly scared of Iran, but I simply think that a war in the area would solve nothing, but cause a lot of suffering and chaos.

Syria might try something, but it would turn their country into a battlefield, and Assad is not as aggressive as his father was.
Fun Fact: Assad just ordered the assasination of one of the most influential journalists in Lebanon, who was the one that insisted that the murder of the Lebanese president Hariri wuld be looked into. Way to go Syria - you just fucked yourself over.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/656989.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=bar-el&itemNo=655750

AFAIK that was during the Iran-Iraq war, and Kuwait had chosen the side of the US-backed Iraqis, thus essentially declaring war on Iran.

Kuwait was a neutral, however it was acting as a coaling station for the NATO naval task force that was there to protect neutral shipping from Iranian/Iraqi attacks. Iran attacked it as punishment for allowing NATO to use its ports and facilities. (I also believe that is was partly motivated by anti-arab sentiment in among the Iranian persian majority).

In any case, its quite clear that Iran is prepared to lob missiles at neighboring countries without warning and for the slightest reason. I don't think fears that Iran would use nuclear missiles on Isreal are groundless at all. (Not to mention Iran is led by a religious zealot crazy, who no doubt believes in an afterlife where he will be amply rewarded.)

But only as a last resort. I support the talks to go on, and if necessary an international, UN-backed operation to take out Iranian facilities if no other options are left, and a threat is proven. I believe that an international operation with UN backing would minimise the risk of a full-scale Iranian retaliation, moreso than a unilateral Israeli-US Attack.
But at the same time I have my own reasons (primarily that I don't support anyone building nukes), and I attack the IMHO naive reasons others put forward in order to argue for what amounts to a similar outcome.UN talks, condemnation, and sanctions up the ying0yang aren't going to do a thing and you know it. I think it's fairly clear from the UN's record on multilateral action that they would never (with france and russia on the security council) to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. So you are essentially advocating a cold war. Why do you fear Iran;s retaliation so much, and not their initial agression? I think that if it is justified to trust our retaliatory capabilities if Iran *does* attack, it is rational to trust our preemptive capabilities likewise. there is somehting inherently wrong in forever playing the waiting game, as hostile countries all around slowly arm themselves.


The Cold War didn't kill anyone (except the people in the proxy wars, but you know what I mean). Neither did India and Pakistan attack each other since they both have Nukes (not that I support either of them having them).
Our balls are hardly the issue. I'm not exactly scared of Iran, but I simply think that a war in the area would solve nothing, but cause a lot of suffering and chaos.I personally would not want to live in Israel in constant fear - because that's what it would be. Like in the Gulf war, people would be walking around with masks everywhere they went. I don't think Israel will ever agree to such a situation - its not her style.

I don't get it. Israel launches a pre-emptive strike against Iran (with conventional weapons against military targets) and it's the end of the world (even if Iran can stop it), but if Iran fires nuclear missiles against Israeli cities, it's nothing because Israel has the capability to stop it...for now.http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-4.htm
Israel has good SAMs, but remember the Patriot vs. the Scud in 1991. Would you really bet 5 million people on a SAM that can easily malfunction and may develop a bug. While SAMs can shoot Scuds down now, a faster ICBM isn't that easy to shoot down. It isn't worth Israel taking a chance. the IAF needs to do this strike as they did to Iraq in 1981.

Fun Fact: Assad just ordered the assasination of one of the most influential journalists in Lebanon, who was the one that insisted that the murder of the Lebanese president Hariri wuld be looked into. Way to go Syria - you just fucked yourself over.
While I would doubt that Assad really is in control of Syria at the moment, I agree that the way this whole Lebanon thing is being handled is decidedly below par.

Kuwait was a neutral, however it was acting as a coaling station for the NATO naval task force that was there to protect neutral shipping from Iranian/Iraqi attacks. Iran attacked it as punishment for allowing NATO to use its ports and facilities. (I also believe that is was partly motivated by anti-arab sentiment in among the Iranian persian majority).
And it was sending money to Iraq, don't forget that. Kuwait had chosen its side, and while I don't agree with preemptive attacks, I don't expect any country to simply ignore that (indeed, how was it with the US and Laos?).

(Not to mention Iran is led by a religious zealot crazy, who no doubt believes in an afterlife where he will be amply rewarded.)
Well, my opinion about him is different. I don't like him, I think his policies so far have been shit, and his diplomatic abilities are only rivalled by Mugabe's.
But I still credit him with the brain that brought him up there in the first place. Religious or not, he's got an eye for political realities.

Why do you fear Iran;s retaliation so much, and not their initial agression?
Because I simply don't believe that their initial aggression is any more than meaningless sabre-rattling.
A retaliation however is clearly on the cards, and a lot more realistic too.

I think that if it is justified to trust our retaliatory capabilities if Iran *does* attack, it is rational to trust our preemptive capabilities likewise. there is somehting inherently wrong in forever playing the waiting game, as hostile countries all around slowly arm themselves.
I don't have a doubt that the West could take down any facility they get to know off.
I don't have a doubt that the West would win any sort of war against Iran. But it would be at a price, many thousands guaranteed dead, and the end of the Iraqi democratic project among other things.

I'm not entirely sure what that inherently wrong thing is. At any given point in time it is a choice between different options, and I don't see military bombardement as a favourable option right now.

I personally would not want to live in Israel in constant fear - because that's what it would be. Like in the Gulf war, people would be walking around with masks everywhere they went. I don't think Israel will ever agree to such a situation - its not her style.
It is essentially the same thing Arabs have to live with now. Israel has nukes, and Israel has a record of fighting wars (and at least the Six-Day War was not defensive, it was preemptive). People arrange themselves nonetheless, trusting that Israel would gain nothing from nuclear strikes at their countries.

The PAC-3 has been tested in combat, and is a fully automated, no human in the loop system that can ripple fire on its own at ballistic missile targets.

Probably won't miss. Hit all of its targets in OIF, including a friendly aircraft. But it has a very short range - you'll have to wait until the enemy missile is really close (less than 50 km) before you shoot at it. Hard on the nerves, counting on the computer to do the battle management all by itself.

The Arrow hasn't been tested in combat. Wouldn't want to bet on it.

I don't have a doubt that the West would win any sort of war against Iran. But it would be at a price, many thousands guaranteed dead, and the end of the Iraqi democratic project among other things.

Why would it be the end of the Iraqi democratic project?

If someone lays waste to Iran with nuclear weapons, the fallout goes into the Afghan mountains and into Pakistan. And if the US uses airbursts, there will be precious little fallout to worry about.

You could walk in with a set of golf clubs and beat the survivors into submission, six months later.

The Cold War didn't kill anyone (except the people in the proxy wars, but you know what I mean). Neither did India and Pakistan attack each other since they both have Nukes (not that I support either of them having them).The thing is, Israel and Iran aren't attacking each other now, so giving Iran nuclear weapons tips the balance of power.

Why would it be the end of the Iraqi democratic project?

If someone lays waste to Iran with nuclear weapons, the fallout goes into the Afghan mountains and into Pakistan. And if the US uses airbursts, there will be precious little fallout to worry about.

You could walk in with a set of golf clubs and beat the survivors into submission, six months later.
Well, here is how I would imagine things to go.

1) Israel bombs facilities, loses a few planes, but largely suceeds.

2) Iran goes all apeshit, fires missiles (without nuclear warheads, but with C and maybe B warheads) at everyone, including Americans in Afghanistan, and Iraq. Probably significant casualties. At the same time prepares invasion of Iraq.

3) Americans suprised, angered, send more forces on their way into the Gulf. Flies first missions into Iran. Since however there was no real preparation beforehand, it doesn't reach any sort of level that could constitute a successful shock & awe campaign.

4) Iranians march into Iraq, destroy much of Basra, but don't get far. Many Shia in Iraq go over to the side of Iran. Civil War-like circumstances begin, with too many US Forces occupied against Iran to stop it.

5) Iraq falls apart, Kurds give up on it, declare Kurdistan, get hassled by Turkey. Hezbollah and Hamas etc start big campaign against Israel, which is then occupied with fighting everyone and entering Lebanon.

6) Iran eventually gets defeated, but the Middle East is Chaos nonetheless. Plus many tens of thousands of people dead. Plus now there is an occupation of Iran to worry about, which is not all that pleasant at all.

It is essentially the same thing Arabs have to live with now. Israel has nukes, and Israel has a record of fighting wars (and at least the Six-Day War was not defensive, it was preemptive). People arrange themselves nonetheless, trusting that Israel would gain nothing from nuclear strikes at their countries.The only reason Arabs have to live in fear is because their state run propaganda tells them to. Israel has not fought a war of agression, and has never acted in anything other than self defence. You seem to enjoy pointing out that Israel fired the first shot in 1967, but you conveniently forget that the Arab coalition had amassed it's forces just outside Israel's borders, had kicked out UN peacekeepers, and had closed the Straits of Tiran, and had expressed explicitly that they were intending to destroy Israel (themselves, too, so don't give me any of that 'sabre-rattling' bs.).

It is essentially the same thing Arabs have to live with now. Israel has nukes, and Israel has a record of fighting wars (and at least the Six-Day War was not defensive, it was preemptive). People arrange themselves nonetheless, trusting that Israel would gain nothing from nuclear strikes at their countries.I would like to adress this: Even if it is what Arabs live with (which I'm far from conceding - Isrrael wouldn't dream of attacking civilian populations preemptively), there is NO reason to proliferate the situation in which civilians live in fear. And you'll exuse me for trusting Israel's restraint somewhat more than Iran's, notwithstanding all the arguments in regard to realpolitik, improbability, and all that. I will never trust a dictatorial regime, and neither will Israelis.

In regard to the six day war being pre-emptive, the nerve of bringing that up right after citing your wish for minimal war-time destruction is startling. If Israel had not destroyed Egypt and Syria's airforce pre-emptively, the destruction and death would have ben multiplied many-fold. It was perfectly obvious that a war was immediate, the inteligence was solid, and Israel did the sensible thing. Israel's mere existance was the only act of aggression that truly anteceded the six-day war, not a pre-emptive air-strike in a war that was on hte verge of being started in any case.

EDIT: You have essentially conceded that you are fine with the establishment of nuclear brinkmanship in the Middle East. Wow.

If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, do you think it would pre-emptively use it on Israel? The thought scares me shitless. But if they did, it would almost certainly involve destroying the Dome of the Rock and killing millions of Palestinians in the process.

:sniper: Some of these wackjobs absolutey do not care about human life OR religion, redgardless of what they say.

The thing is, Israel and Iran aren't attacking each other now, so giving Iran nuclear weapons tips the balance of power.
I don't think it'd change the situation at all, except that an invasion of Iran would be a lot more difficult.
The two can't attack each other now, for fear of retribution and tyranny of distance, and the same will be true then.

Israel has not fought a war of agression, and has never acted in anything other than self defence.
Here's what I dug up a while ago about this topic (which is kinda beside the point).
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9203116&postcount=87

Suffice to say that I don't have a problem with the state of Israel, nor do I have a problem with it defending itself.
I have a problem when that defending itself starts to entail taking land and making it your own, which essentially defeats the purpose of defending oneself.
My ideal solution would be the original UN idea, with Israel and Palestine about the same size and Jerusalem as international city.

Again, I'm not exaggerating anything. Israeli officials have themselves said that this system represents an effective part of its defence against Iranian aggression.So, again, just because Israel could possibly defeat an Iranian missile, an attack on Israel doesn't mean much, right?

Iranian officials have said that an Israeli attack constitutes an act of war and retaliation will follow. Such retaliation would bring with it the probable destruction of Iraq as we know it, and the death of hundreds of thousands of people.Wouldn't Iran developing nuclear weapons, which they have stated they intend to use against Israel, constitute an act of war? Just because Israeli leaders speak softer, it means they shouldn't be considered?

Plus Iran probably has its actual weapons facilities in other places anyways, and will continue to develop weapons even more focussed afterwards.So, you're saying we should do nothing because doing something might not be enough?

Yes, that's pretty much it.


As far as I can see, this weapon is not operational at this point, and might not be for some time.
Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure what difference it makes to the ability of the Arrow II to shoot down an incoming object, but I'm not a specialist. I'd think though that the Israeli military would be watching this issue and are already working on a solution.That weapon may not be operational (it actually is in North Korea), but neither is the weapon that can defeat it (which is still in the middle of development). So your argument that Israel shouldn't worry because they can defeat Iranian missiles is flawed.

Here's another bit to add to this discussion. You think the Iranians may be nervous?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/93484F62-BB01-412B-A592-2C7AB1A8DF20.htm

EDIT: You have essentially conceded that you are fine with the establishment of nuclear brinkmanship in the Middle East. Wow.
I have been pushed into that corner, but if you look at my first posts, you'll see that my primary motivation for not wanting Iranian nukes is that it would prompt Israel to officially admit it has them, and then the remaining Arab states would want them too, a view that is supported by most in the business.

My primary point is that I don't want Israel starting a war, and that is probably what will happen if it attacks Iranian installations.

I trust that international cooperation can solve this issue, and I think we saw that unilateral action can easily blow up in one's face.

If necessary, I would support military action, but not in the fashion that has been brought up here.

All I have been saying so far is that the risk is not as great as is protrayed by some, and that there is no need to rush for war without first seeing how the alternatives work out.

Wouldn't Iran developing nuclear weapons, which they have stated they intend to use against Israel, constitute an act of war?
They never said anything at all to that effect.

Here's another bit to add to this discussion. You think the Iranians may be nervous?
I'd think that that sort of thing is more likely to make the Iranians want to build the bomb. What good is it to stop it if they don't get anything in return?

I realise Bush gets put into this position where he can't rule out things, but it really isn't very smart diplomatically.

They never said anything at all to that effect.
Saying they are going to wipe Israel off the map is pretty damn clear to me. I guess I can say I'm glad the fate of the Jews is no longer up to Germans. It usually is disaster in those cases.

And it was sending money to Iraq, don't forget that. Kuwait had chosen its side, and while I don't agree with preemptive attacks, I don't expect any country to simply ignore that (indeed, how was it with the US and Laos?).

Bollocks. It loaned money to Iraq like lots of governments did. It was a neutral, and never chose sides. Indeed, even the USSR intervened to stop Iran. There is no credible way you can paint Kuwait as having chosen sides, or even as a limited co-beligerent.


Well, my opinion about him is different. I don't like him, I think his policies so far have been shit, and his diplomatic abilities are only rivalled by Mugabe's.
But I still credit him with the brain that brought him up there in the first place. Religious or not, he's got an eye for political realities.

Nah dude, he's an utter loon. Iran has loads of problems, and all he gives a fuck about is this shit. And really, all he is doing is further distancing Iran from the rest of the world.

I trust that international cooperation can solve this issue, and I think we saw that unilateral action can easily blow up in one's face.

All I have been saying so far is that the risk is not as great as is protrayed by some, and that there is no need to rush for war without first seeing how the alternatives work out.How long do you think international diplomatic attempts have been tried? How long do you think it would take for them to work? Do you think they would work in the next three months, despite the fact that they haven't been working for years? We can't take our time anymore. If we want to keep nuclear weapons from spreading, we need to act soon, because Iran isn't waiting up.

Saying they are going to wipe Israel off the map is pretty damn clear to me.
But importantly, the speech didn't feature nukes, nor is its content official government policy.
And besides, the latest idea was not to destroy Israel, but simply to move it to Europe...:p

I guess I can say I'm glad the fate of the Jews is no longer up to Germans. It usually is disaster in those cases.
Yay...run out of legitimate arguments have you? Otherwise I can't quite make out the sense of this.

They never said anything at all to that effect.I don't know about that, 'Israel should be wiped off the face of the map' sounds like something to that effect.

Israel needs to do to Iran what it did to Iraq in 1981. That didn't start a war. It probably actually saved Iran from being nuked.

Iran wouldn't be able to severely strike Israel unless they get nukes. If Israel can preempt Iran getting a nuke, they will be fairly safe from major retaliation as the Russian made jets Iran has don't have the greatest combat radius. Conventional missiles can only do so much damage to Israel, and it is certainly less than a nuke would do.

Israel can strike Iran right now and Iran can't strike Israel, but the moment Iran can strike, you know damn well the religious psychos in Tehran will strike.

But importantly, the speech didn't feature nukes, nor is its content official government policy.
And besides, the latest idea was not to destroy Israel, but simply to move it to Europe...:p


Yay...run out of legitimate arguments have you? Otherwise I can't quite make out the sense of this.
You need to stop smoking pot and realize that in the real world diplomacy doesn't work with rogue nations. Iran has refused inspectors and the UN is too pussywhipped to try sanctions.

Against a nation like Russia, MAD works. The Russians may have been Communist idealogues, but they were rational. They didn't believe in an afterlife so they sure as hell did not want to die.

In the case of Iran it is different. They are religious whackos who believe that they will get 72 virgins if they martyr themselves. Believe me, they would see nuking Israel as an act that would guarantee getting them into paradise. If they died when Israel struck back, they would consider themselves martyrs. They wouldn't care about Palestinians killed in the nuclear attack as they would be seen as martyrs too. Remember how many millions of Arabs have fought to try to destroy Israel. They wouldn't mind losing a few million more if it is the end of Israel.

Now even you should be able to see the logic in what I'm saying. And SAMs aren't that great FYI. Even the Arrow II would have problems against a high speed ballistic inbound. I wouldn't bet my life on that missile.

Bollocks. It loaned money to Iraq like lots of governments did. It was a neutral, and never chose sides. Indeed, even the USSR intervened to stop Iran. There is no credible way you can paint Kuwait as having chosen sides, or even as a limited co-beligerent.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-93658
Iraq is a better neighbour than Iran (or so they thought).

Nah dude, he's an utter loon. Iran has loads of problems, and all he gives a fuck about is this shit. And really, all he is doing is further distancing Iran from the rest of the world.
I agree that his policies are no good. But these "anti-Zionist" speeches and so on are primarily attempts to make him more popular domestically. He made President afterall in a pretty democratic election campaign, there has got to be a brain in there somewhere.

How long do you think international diplomatic attempts have been tried? How long do you think it would take for them to work?
That depends on the Iranians. If they agreed tomorrow, it'd be done in two weeks.
But they won't. Nonetheless, I'd give them at least a year. El Baradei is probably the best person to ask about the Iranian program, and he reckons it'd take them two years to actually have a working, deployable bomb.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,343030,00.html

These comments by Likud recently were nothing but domestic politics I think. I doubt that there would be a realistic way that Israel could get the support and so on organised any time soon. Nonetheless I have to say that I disagree with even the idea of a quick unilateral attack on Iran, which at this point hasn't actually been proven to do anything wrong (although I don't doubt they are).

Do you think they would work in the next three months, despite the fact that they haven't been working for years? We can't take our time anymore. If we want to keep nuclear weapons from spreading, we need to act soon, because Iran isn't waiting up.
As I said, there is no need to get carried away just yet. If it gets serious, in a year or so, you will probably have a supporter in me, provided that things are organised properly, and not done in some shady way.

But at this point, there is no need for this.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-93658
Iraq is a better neighbour than Iran (or so they thought).


Be realistic. That financial aid was loans that Kuwait refused to forgive. Moreover given the history between Iraq and Kuwait, its no wonder that they allowed it. (Iraq had been making agressive moves against its southern neighbor since the early 60s). In fact they were probably glad that Iraq's attention was tied up elsewhere.

Saying Kuwait chose sides, is like saying Sweden chose sides during WWII.

Plus I am sure after the fracas in the early sixties they were well aware of how bad a neighbor Iraq was.

In the case of Iran it is different. They are religious whackos who believe that they will get 72 virgins if they martyr themselves. Believe me, they would see nuking Israel as an act that would guarantee getting them into paradise. If they died when Israel struck back, they would consider themselves martyrs.
Here we disagree, and I don't see any way to find a compromise.

Not all Iranians are religious whackos. I'm not even sure whether that virgin thing works in Shia Islam, or whether the exact number was 72.

Despite what you keep hearing from some places, Iran seems to be a relatively normal country in most cases. Occasionally there are things that I can't live with (like some of the archaic punishments for things I don't consider criminal), but everytime they bring anything on TV about Iran, I watch it with interest.
The people there are like you and me, they have the same problems and the same motivations as we do. Although there is a religious control body above the normal democratic process, I can't help but think that at least the Parliament is a representation of these normal people, who happen to live in a different version of democracy to ours.

In other words: I don't want an Iranian to die anymore than I want an Israeli to die or a German to die.

I agree that his policies are no good. But these "anti-Zionist" speeches and so on are primarily attempts to make him more popular domestically. He made President afterall in a pretty democratic election campaign, there has got to be a brain in there somewhere.


I am not saying he's dumb. My point is that he is mad. Who knows what he will do.

And he should be a leader and try and moderate the anti-semitism, not pander to it for the purposes of his crazy schemes.

YOu are right, most Iranians aren't religious whackos, but their leaders are and it is their leaders who decide whether or not they launch the nukes, and that is what is scary about this situation. They don't give a damn about the lives or anyone else or themselves because they think they will be rewarded if they die. The Soviets were rational, the Iranian government is not.

They don't give a damn about the lives or anyone else or themselves because they think they will be rewarded if they die. The Soviets were rational, the Iranian government is not.
Again I disagree.

Simply because someone believes in a life after death does not make them irrational. They can still make the best out of the time they have.
There is nothing in Ahmadinejad's behaviour that would indicate that he is a religious fanatic. He is a fierce patriot, and as such he is a member of the Islamic Revolution, which was largely about freeing Iran from a foreign yoke.
He is a conservative Shia Muslim, who supports the Sharia as the law of the land. Yet to my knowledge he hasn't said anything positive about for example the plans for a huge caliphate.
He wears modern clothing, and uses modern technology and equipment, so he is looking into the future, rather than clinging to the past.

He is an entirely different character from the one you seem to think he is.
And he knows that having a nuke makes Iran more powerful, which he wants.
But he also knows that nuking someone would reduce Iran to rubble, which he doesn't want.

The Soviets were rational, the Iranian government is not.Leonstein is right on this one - looking at a government or ruler as a crazy-ass wackjob just because he is into the whole afterlife religiosity thing is not justified - and damaging to your perspective. It is only one aspect of a more complex (still unpredictable) character.

Leonstein is right on this one - looking at a government or ruler as a crazy-ass wackjob just because he is into the whole afterlife religiosity thing is not justified - and damaging to your perspective. It is only one aspect of a more complex (still unpredictable) character.
I do believe in an afterlife and I'm not sayiing that makes you crazy, but when you believe that the action of killing people of another religion gives you martyrdom and special status when you reach taht afterlife, then you are crazy.

I do believe in an afterlife and I'm not sayiing that makes you crazy, but when you believe that the action of killing people of another religion gives you martyrdom and special status when you reach taht afterlife, then you are crazy.

So how come the Ahmadinejad hasn't strapped a bomb on his jacket and blown himself up in Israel or moved his tanks into Israeli territory? Its not like he won't do any damage before being smashed up in the process. If damage to Israel was all he cared about, he would have declared war ages ago. He wouldn't be waiting for a nuclear weapon to do it with since all it will do is just up the stakes for the same results.

I found this profile of Ahmadinejad. He's not a madman.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4107270.stm

Mr Ahmadinejad was born in Garmsar, near Tehran, in 1956, the son of a blacksmith, and holds a PhD in traffic and transport from Tehran's University of Science and Technology, where he was a lecturer.
...
His website says he joined the Revolutionary Guards voluntarily after the revolution, and he is also reported to have served in covert operations during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
...
His presidential campaign focused on poverty, social justice and the distribution of wealth inside Iran.
...
At home in Iran, Mr Ahmadinejad has a populist streak, calling his personal website Mardomyar, or the People's Friend.

He also has a reputation for living a simple life and campaigned against corruption.
And here is his website, if you're interested:
www.mardomyar.com but it seems to be in Farsi, so I can't read it.

Leonstein is right on this one - looking at a government or ruler as a crazy-ass wackjob just because he is into the whole afterlife religiosity thing is not justified - and damaging to your perspective. It is only one aspect of a more complex (still unpredictable) character.

Oh, like looking at me as being a crazy-ass wackjob because I examine extreme solutions to problems...

Oh, like looking at me as being a crazy-ass wackjob because I examine extreme solutions to problems...

Examine or recommend? In your case its the latter isn't it?

Examine or recommend? In your case its the latter isn't it?
Something most people do here on the forum is:

a) apply ethics and morality to a proposed solution under discussion - when we haven't even gotten past whether or not a solution is feasible or workable.

b) apply the ethics or morality of a solution to me - as an ad hominem to avoid having to argue the solution

c) fail to distinguish that sometimes I'm making a reductio ad absurdum argument and somehow believe that as a result of simply taking something to its logical extreme to make a point, that I'm somehow crazy. This happened yesterday, when I took the Israeli/Palestinian problem to two opposite extreme solutions - and someone took it as though I was crazy. It proved my point that neither the extreme bad or extreme good solution is acceptable and that the person I was arguing with has no solution in mind other than something close to the status quo - which they immediately denied but still failed to offer a solution.

You need to stop smoking pot and realize that in the real world diplomacy doesn't work with rogue nations. Iran has refused inspectors and the UN is too pussywhipped to try sanctions.

Against a nation like Russia, MAD works. The Russians may have been Communist idealogues, but they were rational. They didn't believe in an afterlife so they sure as hell did not want to die.

In the case of Iran it is different. They are religious whackos who believe that they will get 72 virgins if they martyr themselves. Believe me, they would see nuking Israel as an act that would guarantee getting them into paradise. If they died when Israel struck back, they would consider themselves martyrs. They wouldn't care about Palestinians killed in the nuclear attack as they would be seen as martyrs too. Remember how many millions of Arabs have fought to try to destroy Israel. They wouldn't mind losing a few million more if it is the end of Israel.

Now even you should be able to see the logic in what I'm saying. And SAMs aren't that great FYI. Even the Arrow II would have problems against a high speed ballistic inbound. I wouldn't bet my life on that missile.


Just curious as to where you have informed yourself of the nature of Iran and its aims, while Iran is indeed a theocratic state it has refrained from the suicide bombing tactics of Sunni groups, for example Hizbollah, the shia freedom fighters who forced Israel out of Lebanon (no matter how the Israeli's try to oput it, it was a retreat!) fought using well disciplined cadres who used guerilla tactics to attack Israeli positions rather than relying on suicide attacks which is more the hallmark of the extremist sunni groups affiliated to Al Qaeda. Iran's present leader while obviously naive and fanatical he is not in sole comand of the nation, the political sithuation in Iran is more complex than elsewhere.
As for rational nations, who is rational? the US? the UK? i did not see Washington attempting to force Pakistan and India to abandon there Nuclear Weapon programs, and Pakistan has trained and funded suicide fighters for decades in Kashmir and Afghanistan (the Taliban as a concept was born in Pakistan and funded by the US via Pakistan) yet we consider them rational??

Iran in my opinion will not launch a nuclear attack on Israel but it will provide a muslim nation in the middle east with the muscle to force the Israeli's to realize that there ascendency is over.
Iran has been a key player in the region for over 3000 years and will be so again in the future, better to help the democratic opposition and bring them into the fold, remember the Iranians are Shia's and should be the West's natural allies against the Sunni extremists.

I don't get it. Israel launches a pre-emptive strike against Iran (with conventional weapons against military targets) and it's the end of the world (even if Iran can stop it)...I clearly said in red:

Israel attacking Iranian Nuclear facilities is an Act-of-War ...

and If Iran "Pre-empts" Israel nuclear facilities it would be Iran doing the "act of War". (and in that case.. the World shall make Iran pay dearly.. )

Basically -- whoever attacks first the others Nuclear facilities-- is fully responsible for whatever happens after... short or long term.. direct and indirect consequences.

The world community must bleed to death any country attacking nuclear facilities because.. that is indeed the shortest road to Armageddon...

I clearly said in red:

Israel attacking Iranian Nuclear facilities is an Act-of-War ...

and If Iran "Pre-empts" Israel nuclear facilities it would be Iran doing the "act of War". (and in that case.. the World shall make Iran pay dearly.. )

Basically -- whoever attacks first the others Nuclear facilities-- is fully responsible for whatever happens after... short or long term.. direct and indirect consequences.

The world community must bleed to death any country attacking nuclear facilities because.. that is indeed the shortest road to Armageddon...

Most of the world community will sit on the sidelines, eat popcorn, and toast marshmallows on sticks using the heat from the nuclear flashes.

If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear facilities using conventional weapons, there are no countries that will attack Israel. Period. Did anyone attack Israel after they destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor? No. Was Iraq, with its huge military at the time, able to stop it or strike back? No.

If Iran actually develops and uses nuclear weapons on Israel, will any country attack Iran? Yes. Will Iran be able to stop from being destroyed? No.

Most of the world community will sit on the sidelines, eat popcorn, and toast marshmallows on sticks using the heat from the nuclear flashes.

If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear facilities using conventional weapons, there are no countries that will attack Israel. Period. Did anyone attack Israel after they destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor? No. Was Iraq, with its huge military at the time, able to stop it or strike back? No.

If Iran actually develops and uses nuclear weapons on Israel, will any country attack Iran? Yes. Will Iran be able to stop from being destroyed? No.

Well lets be honest Saddam did not have many real friends, sure the Saudi's supported him during the Iran-Iraq war but that was due to the Saudi's own dislike of anything to do with Shia's, but sure Iran would not receive real support from anyone apart from the Hizbollah in Lebanon (who would have a reason to resume the rocket attacks on Northern Israel)...

Well lets be honest Saddam did not have many real friends, sure the Saudi's supported him during the Iran-Iraq war but that was due to the Saudi's own dislike of anything to do with Shia's, but sure Iran would not receive real support from anyone apart from the Hizbollah in Lebanon (who would have a reason to resume the rocket attacks on Northern Israel)...
Hizbollah still send the occasional artillery shell or rocket over the border. Just not as frequently. And Hizbollah is funded and organized by Iran. So it's not really an "ally" in the traditional sense.

No, there isn't much that Israel would suffer in a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. In game theory terms, they have little to lose and quite a bit to gain.

No, there isn't much that Israel would suffer in a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. In game theory terms, they have little to lose and quite a bit to gain.

Actually, from what I understand of things as it is, Iran will go deeper underground with a nuclear weapons program (if they don't have one already), and they have actually said that they would go to war with Israel if it did anything like that.

In game theory terms, especially in the long term, it would seem that Israel would trade long term stability for short term gain. Bad idea if you ask me.

Yes, they would most likely be able to repulse an Iranian invasion, but in the long term, the damage done to Israel might be higher than they might be willing to accept. Iran hasn't done anything to date after all that would really justify crippling sanctions such as the ones that strangled Iraq, NK and so on. So if Israel bombs their facilities, I can see Iran accelerating their program so the first operational nuke definitely will have Israel's name on it.

I clearly said in red:

Israel attacking Iranian Nuclear facilities is an Act-of-War ...

and If Iran "Pre-empts" Israel nuclear facilities it would be Iran doing the "act of War". (and in that case.. the World shall make Iran pay dearly.. )

Basically -- whoever attacks first the others Nuclear facilities-- is fully responsible for whatever happens after... short or long term.. direct and indirect consequences.

I said this pages ago. They waived it off then too. Delusions remove common sense.

Actually, from what I understand of things as it is, Iran will go deeper underground with a nuclear weapons program (if they don't have one already), and they have actually said that they would go to war with Israel if it did anything like that.

In game theory terms, especially in the long term, it would seem that Israel would trade long term stability for short term gain. Bad idea if you ask me.

Yes, they would most likely be able to repulse an Iranian invasion, but in the long term, the damage done to Israel might be higher than they might be willing to accept. Iran hasn't done anything to date after all that would really justify crippling sanctions such as the ones that strangled Iraq, NK and so on. So if Israel bombs their facilities, I can see Iran accelerating their program so the first operational nuke definitely will have Israel's name on it.

Iran has no ability to invade Israel. They would have to cross Iraq and Jordan. Iran also has no ability to project air combat power - its air force is pathetically weak compared to the Israeli air force.

Sure, Iran would accelerate its secret program. But it probably already has a secret program - the IAEA itself suspects as much, since they have failed so many times to detect secret programs.

Iran, based solely on the lesson of the Osirak attack, is probably thinking along the lines of "use it or lose it". They'll use it on Israel at the first opportunity.

Iran, based solely on the lesson of the Osirak attack, is probably thinking along the lines of "use it or lose it". They'll use it on Israel at the first opportunity.
Especially if Israel attacks them.

Especially if Israel attacks them.
I think they are assuming that Israel will attack them - and they must use the device before Israel makes an attack.

Until the device is actually built, they have to rely on having secret locations for their weapons program.

I think they are assuming that Israel will attack them - and they must use the device before Israel makes an attack.
You are the one that made this thread, you are the one that said they are going to attack Iran. :rolleyes:

You are the one that made this thread, you are the one that said they are going to attack Iran. :rolleyes:
Yes, they are.

The only question I have is how soon. How soon will Iran have a warhead ready? Will they test it underground, or test it on Tel Aviv? They already have the missiles.

It's a race now, to see who is going to get to the finish line.

I said this pages ago. They waived it off then too. Delusions remove common sense.HUH? waived what?

If Iran actually develops and uses nuclear weapons on Israel... I agree on that...

In that extremely unlikely scenario...(Iran attack Israel first) the world should make Iran pay..

You think this is a problem? The sooner Israel eliminates Iran's nuclear weapons programme, the better.
I agree 100%.

I agree... tha world should make Iran pay..
The world won't bother - some nations will, but the world is mostly composed of nations that can't do anything.

Isreal preparing to attack Iran?...LOL...Isreal is sh*t without the United States. Everytime Isreal staggers they always cry for help. Isreal can't even hold off the Palestinians rag tag fighters; what makes Isreal think they can even get a chance at Iran? I don't want my tax $$ supporting an oxymoronic country in a war it is going to lose.

This won't end well I think...Hopefully they'll not bomb eachother to craters..
Attacking Nuclear Powerplants = Warcrime, same as polluting the defenders waters, but then again, nothing like that seems to apply to the Israelies much the same way nothing applies to the US...:rolleyes:

the only thing that surprises me more is that the UN haven't sent peace-enforcing troops to israel/palestine yet.

http://forum.soldf.com/style_emoticons/default/FN1.gif

... but the world is mostly composed of nations that can't do anything.Lately the World is being successful..
look at Iraq..

Bush wanted to make Iraq a NeoCon sponsored country... with the Halliburtons running the Oil ...

But the ROW said NO!
US media.. only heard the Voices of France, Russia, Germany and China...

but that was in fact the voice of the ROW...

The Neocons will ultimately fail in Iraq.. and that is a victory for the ROW..

If the World could do nothing about it... Bush would have Chavez killed and occupy Venezuela.. (and have the Halliburtons run the Oil)

If the World could do nothing about it... Bush would kill millions of Iranians and install a new Shah...(and have the Halliburtons run the Oil)

If the World could do nothing about it.. Bush would ban Kyoto..

If the World could do nothing about it.. Bush would ban the International Court.

etc...etc...etc.

the only thing that surprises me more is that the UN haven't sent peace-enforcing troops to israel/palestine yet.

Mmmm. The UN doesn't keep the peace even in places where it is sent to do so - what makes you think it would work there?

If there is one lesson that is to be learned throughout history, is that if one screws with the Jews, then you will lose.

Seriously, they've survived so much shiat, and everyone who's f'ed with them have all caught some kinda karmic smackdown.

If there is one lesson that is to be learned throughout history, is that if one screws with the Jews, then you will lose.

Seriously, they've survived so much shiat, and everyone who's f'ed with them have all caught some kinda karmic smackdown.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Mark Twain noticed it over a hundred years ago - how could such a small group of people survive so many attempts to kill them and still do so well?

If there is one lesson that is to be learned throughout history, is that if one screws with the Jews, then you will lose.

Seriously, they've survived so much shiat, and everyone who's f'ed with them have all caught some kinda karmic smackdown.You mean like... Jesus caught some kinda karmic smackdown. ???

If there is one lesson that is to be learned throughout history, is that if one screws with the Jews, then you will lose.

Seriously, they've survived so much shiat, and everyone who's f'ed with them have all caught some kinda karmic smackdown.

:confused: so does that mean the crimes of the zionist state of israel that have been commited since the late 40's will come back to give Israeli's a karmic boot in the ass? or will almighty god allow them to continue defying world opinion (as they are the holy people, or so i am told)

Hey, I'm just sayin'. Politics aside, they either A) have whipped someone's ass, or B) whoever was screwing with them got their ass whipped

Israel has every right to attack Iran, I will support them if they do, Iran's radical Islams want to see Israel under a mushroom cloud.

Israel has every right to attack Iran, I will support them if they do, Iran's radical Islams want to see Israel under a mushroom cloud.
Apparently, it is just me and OceanDrive who realize a preemptive strike against Iran gives Iran the excuse to nuke Israel.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Mark Twain noticed it over a hundred years ago - how could such a small group of people survive so many attempts to kill them and still do so well?

Because the Jews have a vibrant culture and a distinct religion, to be honest in the lands of europe and islam the jews survived and in some places such as Yemen and Iran (yes Iran!) flourished until recent times, while the jewish communities in outlaying regions died out (such as the Nanking jews).
But the Jews are not the only community to survive dispite persecution and dispersion, the Armenians have done it, the Mandaeans have done it, the Assyrians have done it.

Apparently, it is just me and OceanDrive who realize a preemptive strike against Iran gives Iran the excuse to nuke Israel.

Here's how I'd see things go down if such a confrontation were to occur.

Israel beats the snot out of Iran
Somehow, Iran fires nuke
Israel shoots it down with missle defense since Iranian missiles suck.
Israel nukes Iran for launching nukes.

Game over. Israel still wins.

Apparently, it is just me and OceanDrive who realize a preemptive strike against Iran gives Iran the excuse to nuke Israel.
If the Israelis use conventional weapons, Iran cannot use nuclear weapons to strike back.

That was one of the hard and fast unofficial rules of the Cold War. The first person to actually use a nuclear weapon is the bad guy.

But the Jews are not the only community to survive dispite persecution and dispersion, the Armenians have done it, the Mandaeans have done it, the Assyrians have done it.

Oh, they aren't the only persecuted people. But I'd say, historically, bar none, the Jews are the most targeted people in history. When you have entire religions in aggreement with killing/converting you, you're not very popular. And they have survived some crazy shiat. Repeatedly.

If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear facilities using conventional weapons... any attack on nuclear facilities is dangerous for the world's Nuclear peace... it makes a dangerous precedent for future attacks.. more and more daring attacks.. ultimately it will blow in the face of the world...

If the world does not make it very clear.. For all countries...for all Presidents and all Generals.. that the Price to pay for this kind of Act-of-war is "more than what you can bear"...

In the case of Israel it should start with a WorldWide trade embargo..

If the world does not get their act together...Then the world Govs should simply fold and hand the World Gov to WashingtonDC and let Bush rule the World.

Oh, they aren't the only persecuted people. But I'd say, historically, bar none, the Jews are the most targeted people in history. When you have entire religions in aggreement with killing/converting you, you're not very popular. And they have survived some crazy shiat. Repeatedly.

Apart from the Christians (esepcially among Catholics) who did savagely persecute the jews at times this is not mirrored among the muslims, for whom the status of the Jews is guaranted in the Koran, when Spain expelled the last jews in the 15th century the jews went to North Africa and Turkey, hardly a grand co-aliton of religious hatred.

any attack on nuclear facilities is dangerous for the World balance... it makes a dangerous precedent for future attacks.. more and more daring attacks.. ultimately it will blow in the face of the world...

If the world does not make it very clear.. For all countries...for all Presidents and all Generals.. that the Price to pay for this kind of Act-of-war is "more than what you can bear"...

In the case of Israel it should start with a WorldWide trade embargo..

...If the world does not want to get their act together...Then the world should simply hand the World Gov to the USA and let Bush rule the World.

The world didn't do anything when Osirak was levelled.

It only blows in the face of the world if nations that actually have the military ability to project power beyond their borders in an effective manner get up and do something.

Let's count the number of nations that have airborne divisions, shall we? Marine divisions? Aircraft carrier battle groups? Amphibious assault ships? Long range bomber aircraft? Long range fighter aircraft?

Hmm. Looks a lot like the US, and not too much like the rest of the world. Most of Europe's military is short ranged and has no ability to support a long range attack or logistical train. The Russians have drawn down most of their forces. The Chinese have a lot of soldiers, but no effective way to move them around the globe.

No, the US is the 800 lb gorilla in the room - the only one with the means of effectively moving conventional combat power to any spot on the globe.

If the world had wanted to do something about it, they would have beefed up their own military ability to project power after the Osirak incident. They haven't done that - in fact, most of the world has done the opposite.

Oh, they aren't the only persecuted people. But I'd say, historically, bar none, the Jews are the most targeted people in history.Is Hollywood a "History" accurate source for you?

If the Israelis use conventional weapons, Iran cannot use nuclear weapons to strike back.

That was one of the hard and fast unofficial rules of the Cold War. The first person to actually use a nuclear weapon is the bad guy.
In Bizarro world, Kimchi is always right.

In Bizarro world, Kimchi is always right.
It's called the nuclear threshold, and if you had read any of the history of military theory during the Cold War, you would be familiar with it.

Apart from the Christians (esepcially among Catholics) who did savagely persecute the jews at times this is not mirrored among the muslims, for whom the status of the Jews is guaranted in the Koran, when Spain expelled the last jews in the 15th century the jews went to North Africa and Turkey, hardly a grand co-aliton of religious hatred.

That's a very short list. Half-assing it, you can find times in which the Egyptians, Romans, Babylonians, Seleucids, Christians under both the Roman and Eastern Churches, and Muslims have all attempted to kill or enslave them specifically. That's spanning an assload of time. Jewish history didn't begin in 1400.

And it's fairly easy to gloss over the parts of the Koran where rocks and trees will tell Allah's faithful where the Jews are, so they can be killed and the Resurrection can occur.

The world didn't do anything when Osirak was levelled.I know...

and Osirak has in fact been used as a Precedent for multiple secret plans to take out other Nuclear facilities all over..

one day Japanese Generals will say they found a new "infallible" technology to take out North-Korean nuclear facilities... One day US Generals will tell the President they found a New "infallible" way to take out all the Chinese (or Russian) nuclear threat...

Precedents are powerful arguments inside a war room...

1 Osirak.. 2 Osirak.. 3 Osirak.. 4 Osirak.. Boom!!! ...we lose.

The Generals playing Russian Roulette...

It's called the nuclear threshold, and if you had read any of the history of military theory during the Cold War, you would be familiar with it.
It isn't the Cold War any more and I don't recall the Islamic nations being involved.

It isn't the Cold War any more and I don't recall the Islamic nations being involved.
The concept has outlived the Cold War, just like Mutually Assured Destruction. Just like counterforce and countervalue.

Most Western nations are very familiar with the rules. I would assume that Iran is not, or doesn't care.

First, you give no analysis nor warrents as to why kissinger is a uniquely bad source. In actuality, his ideas have saved us in the past. If you would like me to explain how triangular diplomacy helped in our extrication from Viet Nam, just ask.
Secondly, I doubt you even know what realism, realpolitik, or rason d'etat is. Iran has no conception of it. If they did, they would take their chances as you implied rather than adopting the Russian plan that allows them to work on, and build, nuclear facilities in foreign countries (such as Russia itself). If Iran had been playing by the rules of realism than they would have kept up their assertions just as you claim. However, their adoption of the Russo proposition shows just the opposite. nuff said

That's odd, because I'm a professor of Politics and Sociology in a prestige British University, with 3 books and over 30 articles in top international journals. From your reply, I deduce that you have not understood my original post, and I suggest that you go back and reflect upon it.

When you have done that, I suggest that you peruse some of the critical literature on the complex reasons for the US withdrawal from Vietnam, including, amongst many others, culturo-political pressure from the American middle-class and the inability of US troops to launch an offensive in North Vietnam because of the threat of Chinese involvement. When you have done that, you will realise that Kissinger's role was minimal to say the least.

Further, you should then consult some literature of the complex relationship between realism and idealism in geopolitics. You will find that they are often used in ideological ways to mask each other and substitute for each other, both to galvanise support amongst populations and present specific facades to other nations.

Finally, you should consult your dictionary and learn how to spell words such as 'warrant' and 'raison' correctly.

In the meantime, however, don't feel too badly about this. You have done me a favour, because I now realise that I don't have time to spend arguing on message-boards with intellectually under-powered right-wing Americans.

Goodbye.

That's odd, because I'm a professor of Politics and Sociology in a prestige British University,

Oh, so you're not a real doctor then...

You might be surprised at how well educated some of us are.

The concept has outlived the Cold War, just like Mutually Assured Destruction. Just like counterforce and countervalue.

Most Western nations are very familiar with the rules. I would assume that Iran is not, or doesn't care.
I find nuclear threshold as nothing but a concept. There is not even a remotely tangible definition of nuclear threshold anywhere. It looks like a made-up term without substance used like it had substance.

I find nuclear threshold as nothing but a concept. There is not even a remotely tangible definition of nuclear threshold anywhere. It looks like a made-up term without substance used like it had substance.
I guess you missed out on the seminal nuclear game theory papers of the 1970s...

I guess you missed out on the seminal nuclear game theory papers of the 1970s...
I went through 20 pages of google search and went to Wikipedia. There is no definition of nuclear threshold beyond "concept."
I don't see you providing anything besides half referencing substance lacking concepts.

I went through 20 pages of google search and went to Wikipedia. There is no definition of nuclear threshold beyond "concept."
I don't see you providing anything besides half referencing substance lacking concepts.
Wikipedia is not a valid source. I have books on the subject if you like, but I'm sure that since the theory and concepts were covered so long ago, they are unlikely to appear on the Internet in a post Cold War world.

But they are what people will fall back on, since they are the only precedent.

Try the alternative term, "first nuclear use".

Or get the following book: http://www.sunypress.edu/details.asp?id=50676

Wikipedia is not a valid source.
Which has nothing to do with the fact it has nothing about nuclear threshold on it.


Or get the following book: http://www.sunypress.edu/details.asp?id=50676
OR, since you are such an expert. try summarizing it.

So how come the Ahmadinejad hasn't strapped a bomb on his jacket and blown himself up in Israel or moved his tanks into Israeli territory? Its not like he won't do any damage before being smashed up in the process. If damage to Israel was all he cared about, he would have declared war ages ago. He wouldn't be waiting for a nuclear weapon to do it with since all it will do is just up the stakes for the same results.
It's simple, Israel's enemies can't defeat Israel in a conventional war. They have tried 6 times and failed miserably each time.

Oh, so you're not a real doctor then...

You might be surprised at how well educated some of us are.

Or how little an unprovable claim is on the internet.

For the record, I'm a starting wide receiver in the NFL and I have doctorates in quantum mechanics and theoretical dynamics.

Or how little an unprovable claim is on the internet.

For the record, I'm a starting wide receiver in the NFL and I have doctorates in quantum mechanics and theoretical dynamics.

So you're Randy Moss?

So you're Randy Moss?

No, I play for a good team.

No, I play for a good team.

Marvin Harrison?

Marvin Harrison?

I'm whiter than snow.

I'm whiter than snow.

Brandon Stokley?

Brandon Stokley?

Doesn't he play for Baltimore now? I said good team.

Sorry to hijack this thread completely.

That's odd, because I'm a professor of Politics and Sociology in a prestige British University, with 3 books and over 30 articles in top international journals. From your reply, I deduce that you have not understood my original post, and I suggest that you go back and reflect upon it.

When you have done that, I suggest that you peruse some of the critical literature on the complex reasons for the US withdrawal from Vietnam, including, amongst many others, culturo-political pressure from the American middle-class and the inability of US troops to launch an offensive in North Vietnam because of the threat of Chinese involvement. When you have done that, you will realise that Kissinger's role was minimal to say the least.

Further, you should then consult some literature of the complex relationship between realism and idealism in geopolitics. You will find that they are often used in ideological ways to mask each other and substitute for each other, both to galvanise support amongst populations and present specific facades to other nations.

Finally, you should consult your dictionary and learn how to spell words such as 'warrant' and 'raison' correctly.

In the meantime, however, don't feel too badly about this. You have done me a favour, because I now realise that I don't have time to spend arguing on message-boards with intellectually under-powered right-wing Americans.

Goodbye.

You're a sociology student at Northumbria University, aren't you.

In 1997, the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the US National Academy of Sciences met and wrote The Future of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy. Although it was written from a US perspective, the committee made the case for more general relevance and up until the Bush Adminstration post-911, this stand formed the basis of US policy. The committee argued that credible policies of no first use on the part of the nuclear weapon states, would significantly reduce the risk stemming from the possession of nuclear weapons. Theoretically, it would make other nations less likely to seek to develop their own WMD capabilities. The risk of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons, or of hasty authorized use of nuclear weapons in a crisis, would also be reduced as a consequence of associated changes to military policy.

The UK takes a similar stance - as does France - that they will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. It is a sign of completely unrestricted warfare, and entails the risk of unacceptable accidental escalation. It is also viewed as a sign of barbarism to engage in first use. Many of the arguments about no first use had already been articulated before by nuclear nations other than the United States.

In order to weigh the accompanying risks, the document shows that the United States, not itself facing any realistic conventional threat, possesses conventional forces adequate to meet all of its existing security commitments as well as to deter or respond to chemical and biological attack. It is more credible, and indeed more practical, that the US plans to confront non-nuclear threats with conventional force rather than with nuclear weapons, and by far preferable in terms of minimizing the level of violence. It is simply not credible to say, "If you attack us conventionally, the US will nuke you". And despite the fact that a nation would renounce first use, the existential threat inherent in the possession of nuclear weapons would remain a powerful deterrent to unrestricted war.

Thus, crossing the "nuclear threshold" is identical in taking the first step into unrestricted warfare, and accomplishing the same negative results as, for example, being the first nation in WW I to announce unrestricted submarine warfare against civilian vessels, or the first nation to use other weapons of mass destruction.