NationStates Jolt Archive

An Isreali minister said on Friday that they very well might attack Iran to stop their nuke programs. They bombed Syria recently. (a UN inspection team is suppose to investgate this week to see if the plant in Syria was in fact a nuke plant)

Iran says if Isreal attacks they will attack Isreal and any US troops in the area. What should the US do? What will China do if their oil supply in Iran gets destroyed?

I think it's time to get the hell out of dodge. We won the damm war 5 years ago. Iraq has no WMDs. If they did they have had plenty of opportunity to use one of them.

Thoughts?

Israel won't lift a finger and nothing will happen other than maybe some clashes in Lebanon like there always is

What should the US do?

nothing

What will China do if their oil supply in Iran gets destroyed?

nothing

I think it's time to get the hell out of dodge. We won the damm war 5 years ago.

and currently you have a U.N mandated peacekeeping mission in operation so just cutting tale and leaving an Allie out in the cold is wrong no?

Iran is bluffing. Israel may not be.

IF Israel considers itself truly under threat, then they WILL act, as their history shows. If they do, it will be a calculated, precise and limited strike - probably a high-speed run by a squadron of Israeli strike jets that turns the Iranian facilities into rubble.

Iran will then have no ability to attack Israel. Their air and rocket forces are insufficient to inflict any real damage, their navy is a joke, and their army (which is actually pretty solid) would have to go through Saudi Arabia to reach Israel - and the only nation Saudi hates more than Israel is Iran.

As for attacking the US - it is to laugh. Iran knows that the US is seriously stretched right now. So, the US response would be could only be, to turn Iran into a cratered live-fire testing area - never go in on the ground, just bomb the place back to the stone age. Iran will not risk that.

You're forgetting something, both Israel and Iran are, quite frankly, run by maniacs, but only one of those countries has nuclear weapons, Israel.

In the west we have become to preocupied with the supposed threat of Islamic countries to "world peace" we forget that there are equally or more dangerous regimes that we have created ourselves.

their army (which is actually pretty solid) would have to go through Saudi Arabia to reach Israel

It's actually Iraq and Jordan the army would have to cross.

currently you have a U.N mandated peacekeeping mission in operation so just cutting tale and leaving an Allie out in the cold is wrong no?

But we have not been trying to achieve any kind of goal. Bush has never sent enough troops to Iraq nor the proper equipment. Although now that 60 Minutes has aired the ray gun story, it will finally be deployed this summer. (the damm thing was invented 13 years ago) It's the perfect weapon for a war like Iraq because one of it's best uses is when your enemy mostly has just guns. The only way an enemy group can fire their guns, when the ray gun is engaged upon them, is with them looking away and backing up, making it very easy for US troops to shoot back.

Iran is bluffing. Israel may not be.

IF Israel considers itself truly under threat, then they WILL act, as their history shows. If they do, it will be a calculated, precise and limited strike - probably a high-speed run by a squadron of Israeli strike jets that turns the Iranian facilities into rubble.

Iran will then have no ability to attack Israel. Their air and rocket forces are insufficient to inflict any real damage, their navy is a joke, and their army (which is actually pretty solid) would have to go through Saudi Arabia to reach Israel - and the only nation Saudi hates more than Israel is Iran.

As for attacking the US - it is to laugh. Iran knows that the US is seriously stretched right now. So, the US response would be could only be, to turn Iran into a cratered live-fire testing area - never go in on the ground, just bomb the place back to the stone age. Iran will not risk that.

Iran has some pretty mean missiles and just can't imagine them not using them. (and even though they may or may not have made some WMDs they could have bought some) Besides those missiles killing some of our troops and sinking some of our naval ships, how will Isreal respond when Iran fights back? Will China take Iran's side?

A glass bowl Iran is not a good idea. Your talking about an overnight end to oil usage! I don't think by the next day there will be enough electric cars and the batteries to go around. I'll walk to work but the truck drivers are not going to be able to carry all the groceries on their back. I don't want my Sunday dinner to be rats on a stick!

I saw a special on TV that gave specifications on Iran's nuclear program, specifically where it is and how it is protected. The Iranians have specifically set up their defenses so that an air strike from Israel would have a minimal effect on their progress. It would take a long, sustained, and possibly nuclear based bombing campaign to do enough damage to stop the program. The whole facility is far underground. Commando strike would probably be more effective.

But we have not been trying to achieve any kind of goal.

wait so all that training and development aid was for nothing!?

Bush has never sent enough troops to Iraq nor the proper equipment.

thats odd because I could of sworn we had all this troop surge shenanigans going on....

Although now that 60 Minutes has aired the ray gun story, it will finally be deployed this summer. (the damm thing was invented 13 years ago) It's the perfect weapon for a war like Iraq because one of it's best uses is when your enemy mostly has just guns. The only way an enemy group can fire their guns, when the ray gun is engaged upon them, is with them looking away and backing up, making it very easy for US troops to shoot back.

your thinking of Afghanistan, Iraq tends to be IED's and explosive devices in general (which is why ECM equipment has seen such a rush in development leading to Iraqi mobile phones being jammed much of the time)

You're forgetting something, both Israel and Iran are, quite frankly, run by maniacs, but only one of those countries has nuclear weapons, Israel.

In the west we have become to preocupied with the supposed threat of Islamic countries to "world peace" we forget that there are equally or more dangerous regimes that we have created ourselves.

I don't agree that Israel is "run by maniacs". They're paranoid, to a certain extent, but when it is in fact true that the rest of the region you're in would like to destroy you, paranoia is a survival trait.

Also, Israel would not deploy nukes save as a last resort. Using them would put the West permanently offside, a result that could easily be fatal in the long term.



It's actually Iraq and Jordan the army would have to cross.

Quite so. They could indeed bypass Saudi entirely.

I question whether Saudi would allow it, though. Particularly any attack on Jordan.

Plus, to go through Iraq they'd need to shove the US out first. Possible, but only if they want to guarantee the destruction of Iran from the air.

Iran has some pretty mean missiles and just can't imagine them not using them. (and even though they may or may not have made some WMDs they could have bought some) Besides those missiles killing some of our troops and sinking some of our naval ships, how will Isreal respond when Iran fights back? Will China take Iran's side?

A glass bowl Iran is not a good idea. Your talking about an overnight end to oil usage! I don't think by the next day there will be enough electric cars and the batteries to go around. I'll walk to work but the truck drivers are not going to be able to carry all the groceries on their back. I don't want my Sunday dinner to be rats on a stick!

Truth be told, I always wanted to try rat. I dunno, maybe just to say I had done it.

wait so all that training and development aid was for nothing!?

Pretty much. What's the point if the goal will take 50-100 years.
your thinking of Afghanistan, Iraq tends to be IED's and explosive devices in general

The ray gun works from a half a mile away and more of them can be made that how many hand held missiles the Iraqis have left) Out of the multi-billion dollar US military budget, only 13.1 million has been spent on the ray gun. It;s incredibly effective for the cost. (biggest bang for the buck)

Iran has some pretty mean missiles and just can't imagine them not using them. (and even though they may or may not have made some WMDs they could have bought some) Besides those missiles killing some of our troops and sinking some of our naval ships, how will Isreal respond when Iran fights back? Will China take Iran's side?

A glass bowl Iran is not a good idea. Your talking about an overnight end to oil usage! I don't think by the next day there will be enough electric cars and the batteries to go around. I'll walk to work but the truck drivers are not going to be able to carry all the groceries on their back. I don't want my Sunday dinner to be rats on a stick!

Iran isn't that big an oil supplier - and not at all to the west. Also, understand I don't think the US would use nukes - just enough conventional arms to render Iran an effectively dead state.

Iran does have missiles, but aside from their Naval SILKWORM missile none of them are especially accurate, and Israel is a small target. Most of their systems are about as acurate as the SCUD-C medium range missile, and without a nuke warhead, that's just not a threat save by sheer chance. Israel might reply with a nuke if Iran used one, though.

China would not take Iran's side, because they could do no good. The PLA has no capacity to reach the theatre, and the PLA-N is not yet strong enough to challenge the USN.

Iran isn't that big an oil supplier and not at all to the west.
I realize that but if Isreal uses nukes and Iran uses something they might have bought, the whole Middle East will become too toxic for drilling.

Iran does have missiles, but aside from their Naval SILKWORM missile none of them are especially accurate

That's not what I saw on the news a couple of years ago when Iran tested those new missiles. That ain't a scud.

And I have to agree that Isreal has run amuk. Bombing Lebenon back to the stone age in response to a kidnaping? That's insane!

It's actually Iraq and Jordan the army would have to cross.

It'd be more feasible to actually go through northern Iraq into Syria, their ally,and join with Hezbollah. However, going through Iraq presents a BIG problem, namely US military and Sunni insurgents. Don't think for a minute that they wouldn't rather kill Shi'ites more than the US military. There is, in fact, no logical way to send a land force to Israel, by Iran. There is no major threat, at all.

The US should have nothing to do with this. They should make it absolutely plain to Israel (privately at least) that weapons contracts and even economic relations with the US will be jeopardized if Israel strikes first. At any nation, really.

Basically, if the US wants that facility destroyed they should do it themselves. Anything other than firm opposition to Israel doing the dirty work amounts to deputizing them to do it, given how beholden Israel is to the US.

Yes, I apply a double standard. The US can do it, because they don't need anyone else's support to pull it off. Israel cannot, because they rely on US support in the future, and everyone knows it. The US, alone, can prevent Israel from striking that facility. Only a very improbably alliance of other major powers could prevent the US from doing it. Hence, a double standard. It's purely pragmatic.

Truth be told, I always wanted to try rat. I dunno, maybe just to say I had done it.

its better than saying you've eaten horse cock...what happens in Paris stays in Paris

Pretty much. What's the point if the goal will take 50-100 years.

any proof of this? Iraq may of been hit hard but currently the Iraqi army is fighting its own battles and the money is pouring in thanks to oil profits is slowly rebuilding the country

The ray gun works from a half a mile away and more of them can be made that how many hand held missiles the Iraqis have left) Out of the multi-billion dollar US military budget, only 13.1 million has been spent on the ray gun. It;s incredibly effective for the cost. (biggest bang for the buck)

however your putting an obscene amount of interest in a yet un-proven weapon when troops on the ground would rather have the money go to more mundane uses such as improving hospital facilities

its better than saying you've eaten horse cock...what happens in Paris stays in Paris


I thought it was Tijuana....

I thought it was Tijuana....

no, those are donkeys. :(

I thought it was Tijuana....

its all South of London to me :p

It'd be more feasible to actually go through northern Iraq into Syria, their ally

... until Iran tries to invade Israel. Syria would probably take a long hard look at who was going to win before agreeing to that. There's a distinct possibility that Iran would lose a lot of forces but keep their government ... and Syria would cease to exist.

They're going to co-operate just because they're "allies" and hate Israel? I don't think so.

,and join with Hezbollah. However, going through Iraq presents a BIG problem, namely US military and Sunni insurgents. Don't think for a minute that they wouldn't rather kill Shi'ites more than the US military. There is, in fact, no logical way to send a land force to Israel, by Iran. There is no major threat, at all.

I don't actually believe that Israel's fears of "being driven into the sea" are well-founded. A little appeasement could take them a long long way.

However, there is the option of war by proxy. Iran could provide far better weapons to Hezbollah, for instance. Hitting the US is even easier, just blow up some oil facilities in whatever country has least capacity to hit back, or for a more targeted approach blow up some US bases.

any proof of this?
How about the fact that this war has already lasted ten times longer than expected and people are still saying we HAVE to stay there.


however your putting an obscene amount of interest in a yet un-proven weapon when troops on the ground would rather have the money go to more mundane uses such as improving hospital facilities

US Soldiers should have the best health care in the world concidering the military budget, but the greed creed folks have their hands in the cookie jar too often.
http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com

The ray gun should have been deployed 5 years ago. All the tests were positive back then as they are now. It sure as hell wouldn't have hurt to try concidering how cheap it is. But how cheap it is, is the problem. The US does not want to have any quick victories anymore. Fast wars means less defense contracts. This should have become obvious to everyone when Bush declared North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil back in 2001. (even though they had nothing to do with 9/11) North Korea was a back up plan for Bush and Dick "Haliburton" Cheney if we had gotten lucky & captured Bin Ladin too fast. (but that sure didn't happen. Did it?) :headbang:

*snip*

However, there is the option of war by proxy. Iran could provide far better weapons to Hezbollah, for instance. Hitting the US is even easier, just blow up some oil facilities in whatever country has least capacity to hit back, or for a more targeted approach blow up some US bases.

I think that the war by proxy would be a lot more effective for them. First of all, things would have to go just right for Iran to get away with a direct attack on Israel, and attacking a US base would not only be very difficult, it would also bring a whole lot of pain down on Iran's head, without the sympathy vote for being attacked.

I don't think Israël could blow out the nuclear complex in Iran, it was build against such operation, and Iran is far more powerful than Syria.
I think that the only country able to fight Iran in the region is Saoudi Arabia, but there's very little chances they would help Israël.

On the other side, Iran has no abilities at all to strike directly Israël, they have not the adequate navy or air force.

Thinking that the US would let such thing happens seems impossible to me, and by the way, Europe would also never let Israël being destroyed either, we won't let such thing occured.

Besides, Iran still could use some options.
The most obvious would be a greatest help to Hezbollah, who already help Hamas.
By unleashing the Hezbollah on Lebanon they could do a lots of hurt...and in Irak, they could do very very ugly things, with all those Shiites insurgents who just wait for the order.

Personnaly, I don't understand why the US and the Iran leaders have not make an agreement today:
The US would bomb the facility, but don't touch any Swiss account nor any Iranian leader, who would obtain a full approval from their population after such bombings, and get their ass on the political hierarchy for 50 years with ease.

first of all i dont like either side. if israel had the ability to attack they would of done it by now. iran has the ability to wipe israel and has said it many times the iranians are waiting for somone to strike as in the history of persia every single time persia was attacked it has responded. that is just their style. and they dont need a strong airforce to get to israel. they need only to cross into syria which isnt really that far. i think israle should relax and allow iran to have their nukes or israel can get rid of its own nukes. but i really would like to see this war happen

How about the fact that this war has already lasted ten times longer than expected and people are still saying we HAVE to stay there.

its a good thing the war ended in 2003 then :)



US Soldiers should have the best health care in the world concidering the military budget, but the greed creed folks have their hands in the cookie jar too often.
http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com

a military industrial complex includes the army medical not that this whole conspiracy theory isn't so 2007

The ray gun should have been deployed 5 years ago. All the tests were positive back then as they are now. It sure as hell wouldn't have hurt to try concidering how cheap it is. But how cheap it is, is the problem.

the problem is rather deploying a radically different weapon to a combat zone especially when it is not needed in comparison to other necessities which will prove far more useful

The US does not want to have any quick victories anymore. Fast wars means less defense contracts. This should have become obvious to everyone when Bush declared North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil back in 2001. (even though they had nothing to do with 9/11) North Korea was a back up plan for Bush and Dick "Haliburton" Cheney if we had gotten lucky & captured Bin Ladin too fast. (but that sure didn't happen. Did it?) :headbang:

oh for fecks sake it looks like the rontards have gotten you:

1) The US has however achieved quick victories as indicated by the startling speed of Gulf war II the idea that its all about contracts also falls short when its pointed out that cheapest contractor usually wins

2) I'm sorry but North Korea is a very serious threat to world peace and gun ho as it was to go trumpeting such nonsense (though it no doubt rallied the US support by showing figurehead enemies) it offers no link that a war with North Korea was planned or could even be pulled off what with South Korea's position on the issue

3) Bin laden was never the primary objective of the war in Afghanistan rather it was about toppling the Taliban

they need only to cross into syria which isnt really that far.

yes its only 71,479 square miles of arid plateau protected by a considerable army, Saudi oil money and ties with the second power of the region Egypt

but nevermind that I'm sure Iran has the logistics to manage fighting a regional military power whilst cutting through another

1) The US has however achieved quick victories as indicated by the startling speed of Gulf war II the idea that its all about contracts also falls short when its pointed out that cheapest contractor usually wins

2) I'm sorry but North Korea is a very serious threat to world peace and gun ho as it was to go trumpeting such nonsense (though it no doubt rallied the US support by showing figurehead enemies) it offers no link that a war with North Korea was planned or could even be pulled off what with South Korea's position on the issue

3) Bin laden was never the primary objective of the war in Afghanistan rather it was about toppling the Taliban


1) The cheapest contract for the same type weapon gets the bid. (or so they say) There is still the matter of using a cheaper weapon in a war zone if it is more effective than the expensive ones!

2) Sure N Korea is a threat and run by a madman but why anger an enemy and risk destablizing the region? To rally the troops? They have been training for war and got one. That should have fired them up enough.

3) I know Bin Ladin was never a primary objective. His family was/is business partners with Bush! The powers that be in the US & Pakistan knows exactly where he is. It been nearly 7 years!

And the taliban have been allowed to regain strength. C'mon America's military dosn't suck that bad. Afganistan should have been done and over long ago. You want to rally the troops? Then let them do their job!

the problem is rather deploying a radically different weapon to a combat zone especially when it is not needed in comparison to other necessities which will prove far more useful

I don't think you keep up with the military production complex if you think that...

1) The cheapest contract for the same type weapon gets the bid. (or so they say) There is still the matter of using a cheaper weapon in a war zone if it is more effective than the expensive ones!

good to see you agree that cheapest contract wins (and yes they do say) well thats your little conspiracy theory debunked then

2) Sure N Korea is a threat and run by a madman but why anger an enemy and risk destablizing the region? To rally the troops? They have been training for war and got one. That should have fired them up enough.

I'd like to remind you that we are talking about the United States here, a nation with a tradition of ignoring political forward thinking

yes the list was a tad silly (though nothing really came of it) but I don't see anything out of the ordinary

3) I know Bin Ladin was never a primary objective. His family was/is business partners with Bush! The powers that be in the US & Pakistan knows exactly where he is. It been nearly 7 years!

1) oh Noez rich people talk to each other (though its nice to see how all the Bin ladens are now intrinsically guilty through genetics)

2) the Pakistani/Afghan border is enormous and perfect hiding land (assuming Osama is still alive and that also actually hiding in the most obvious place) but do tell me how you would go about tracking him down

And the taliban have been allowed to regain strength. C'mon America's military dosn't suck that bad. Afganistan should have been done and over long ago. You want to rally the troops? Then let them do their job!

so you don't think fighting a force that has already defeated one superpower, still hold enormous sway over the population and has complete knowledge of the terrain can stand up to a modern army for any considerable amount of time?

I don't think you keep up with the military production complex if you think that...

:confused:

I don't think you keep up with the military production complex if you think that...

Generally refered to as the Military-Industrial Complex:
http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com
In President Dwight D. Eisenhower's fairwell address (1961) he warned us about the dangers of the Military-Industrial Complex. I usually disagree with what a Republican has to say but this one was right on the money!

See the 2005 documentary "Why We Fight!"

good to see you agree that cheapest contract wins (and yes they do say) well thats your little conspiracy theory debunked then
If my theory were debunked then the defense budget would be a lot cheaper.
aren't you the least bit curious about the fact that oil is making record profits and Bush was in the oil business? The companies of the Military-Industrial Complex are making record profits and Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton?
Would you agree that at a minimum an invstigation is warrented?


2) the Pakistani/Afghan border is enormous and perfect hiding land (assuming Osama is still alive and that also actually hiding in the most obvious place) but do tell me how you would go about tracking him down
I 'would" has sent 10 times as many troops back in 2001 and by 2002 we would have never seen a Bin Ladin Tape again!


so you don't think fighting a force that has already defeated one superpower, still hold enormous sway over the population and has complete knowledge of the terrain can stand up to a modern army for any considerable amount of time?

What Russia? We helped them against Russia.

Iran says if Isreal attacks they will attack Isreal and any US troops in the area. What should the US do?

If we are attacked then we have full well to defend ourselves. The American People will not tolerate an unprovoked attack on our soldiers.

What will China do if their oil supply in Iran gets destroyed?

Probably nothing.

I think it's time to get the hell out of dodge. We won the damm war 5 years ago. Iraq has no WMDs. If they did they have had plenty of opportunity to use one of them.

Thoughts?

That you need to study the culture of the region a bit more to realize that this region recognizes strength.

That you need to study the culture of the region a bit more to realize that this region recognizes strength.

Then why did the Kurds resist Saddam, the Palestinians resist the Israelis....?

But we have not been trying to achieve any kind of goal.

That's a bull faced lie.

If we are attacked then we have full well to defend ourselves. The American People will not tolerate an unprovoked attack on our soldiers.



Probably nothing.



That you need to study the culture of the region a bit more to realize that this region recognizes strength.


I think you need to study China some more! China uses a lot of oil.

The BBC news programme I saw this on originally implied that the politician that this quote came from is not taken seriously in Israel.

Then why did the Kurds resist Saddam, the Palestinians resist the Israelis....?

The Kurds didn't have much choice; it was a case of resist or get steamrollered.

And the Palestinians are in much the same situation: resist or see your culture and society die.

If you take everything away from someone, they WILL fight, because they have nothing to lose. Show them your strength, then give them an opportunity for peace with dignity, and most rational people (which certainly includes most of the Arab world) will choose the latter.

That's a bull faced lie.

Ah, that's "bald-faced", Corneliu. Not that I disagree with the expressed sentiment.

That's a bull faced lie.

We have achieved NOTHING and our military does not suck. Iraq is about defense contracts! Nothing else!

Pretty much. What's the point if the goal will take 50-100 years.

Less than that Dragontide. Progress is being made faster than ya think.

If you take everything away from someone, they WILL fight, because they have nothing to lose. Show them your strength, then give them an opportunity for peace with dignity, and most rational people (which certainly includes most of the Arab world) will choose the latter.

Yet thats not the context.....The comment he replied to was
I think it's time to get the hell out of dodge. We won the damm war 5 years ago. Iraq has no WMDs. If they did they have had plenty of opportunity to use one of them.

Thoughts?

How about the fact that this war has already lasted ten times longer than expected and people are still saying we HAVE to stay there.

Oh for the love of Christ. The war lasted 3 weeks. :headbang:

Oh for the love of Christ. The war lasted 3 weeks. :headbang:


Now its not a war, I suppose. Just an extended period of Not-Niceness.

Oh for the love of Christ. The war lasted 3 weeks. :headbang:

We are still there, 5 years and 3 months later! 6 years & 8 months in Afganistan.

Less than that Dragontide. Progress is being made faster than ya think.

How is the Taliban regaining strength, a civil war in Iraq and Isreal vs Iran right around the corner progress?

Yet thats not the context.....The comment he replied to was

Yes, but I was trying to answer your question, not reply to his comment.

If my theory were debunked then the defense budget would be a lot cheaper.

You are forgetting that we have four branches of the service with all the fighters and bombers and ships that need to be produced. Not to mention paying the soldiers as well as researching and developing newer weapons. You really have no clue as to what goes into a military budget do you?

I 'would" has sent 10 times as many troops back in 2001 and by 2002 we would have never seen a Bin Ladin Tape again!

Dies of laughter

Then why did the Kurds resist Saddam, the Palestinians resist the Israelis....?

Why do people fight dictators?

Why do the Palestinians allow themselves to be used?

I think you need to study China some more! China uses a lot of oil.

China will stay out of it because they do not have the strength to fully take on the Western Allies at once.

We have achieved NOTHING and our military does not suck. Iraq is about defense contracts! Nothing else!

You clearly do not follow the news. If you had, this statement would not have been typed by you.

We have achieved NOTHING and our military does not suck. Iraq is about defense contracts! Nothing else!

Well no, it was about using a state as a playground for bizarre conservative ideas, creating a client state in the gulf, (failed) plans for the oil....bit of a mixed bag, as with all things.

Not to mention paying the soldiers as well as researching and developing newer weapons.


Oh like the Bradley? (the first big scam of the M-IC) 17 years and 14 billion dollars to develop a tank with the armor class of a snow blower. When Isreal bought some, they made modifications that we eventually made.

Now its not a war, I suppose. Just an extended period of Not-Niceness.

The war lasted 3 weeks. Then it turned into an occupation. Now its helping the new Iraqi government in stablizing themselves and now that that is slowly being done, it will not be long till our forces will be able to begin to come home.

China will stay out of it because they do not have the strength to fully take on the Western Allies at once.

Oh Yes! You REALLY need to study China more!

We are still there, 5 years and 3 months later! 6 years & 8 months in Afganistan.

We still have forces in Germany and that war ended in 1945. AHHHH!!! We're still at war with Germany!!! AHHH!!!!!

Oh and let us not forget about Japan! AHHHH!!!!!

How is the Taliban regaining strength,

This has been explained to you. Maybe you should learn to read?

a civil war in Iraq

Not seeing one.

and Isreal vs Iran right around the corner progress?

That's not going to happen.

Your move.

We still have forces in Germany and that war ended in 1945. AHHHH!!! We're still at war with Germany!!! AHHH!!!!!

Oh and let us not forget about Japan! AHHHH!!!!!

What's the body count in Germany and Japan in the past few decades? AHHHH!

Oh Yes! You REALLY need to study China more!

You need to be deprogrammed.

What's the body count in Germany and Japan in the past few decades? AHHHH!

Way to miss sarcasm :rolleyes:

This has been explained to you. Maybe you should learn to read?



Not seeing one.



That's not going to happen.

Your move.

After you study China, pick up a newspaper once in a blue moon.

Your Taliban explination is crap. With satellites and air recons, their training areas can be easily found!

Isreal is going to attack Iran

After you study China, pick up a newspaper once in a blue moon.

They do not have the capacity to project outside of China. They cannot effectively sustain a full scale military operation outside of their own region and the last thing China wants to do is disrupt the world economy. There are many reasons why China will not get involved and economics and the ability to do so are two of those.

Your Taliban explination is crap. With satellites and air recons, their training areas can be easily found!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

EDIT: BTW, you are not worthy of that B5 quote you have in your signature. Ambassador Delenn you are not.

Oh Yes! You REALLY need to study China more!

I would say the same to you. Corneliu 2 is correct.

China has a large, and increasingly modern Army. But they are still an average generation and a half behind us tech wise. This isn't because they can't make the newer equipment, but because they are putting most of their money into the development of the PLA-N and the PLA-AF.

Said divisions are getting quite good. The People's Liberation Army Navy (it sounds much better in Mandarin) is rapidly becoming a true blue-water force, wioth their first true Carrier being launched either late this year or next. In ten years' time, the USN may have a real rival again.

Likewise, the PLA-AF is modernising at a ferocious rate. They have built their first true home made jet fighters (as opposed to Russian and US knock-offs), and are improving their avionic systems dramatically. Again, in ten years we could be seeing a force that rivals the USAF.

But they aren't there yet. Invading China would be a foolish nightmare, and I don't honestly know if NATO could really do it; but China has virtually no power projection abilities. Right now, they couldn't get to the mideast, much less fight a war there.

If my theory were debunked then the defense budget would be a lot cheaper.

no it wouldn't, it would be political suicide for any America politician to suggest a military cutback and so your stuck with a cold war budget

aren't you the least bit curious about the fact that oil is making record profits and Bush was in the oil business?

no, and considering the connection you have made between a man who failed in the oil business and record profits due to scarcity worries I have to wonder what goes on in your head

The companies of the Military-Industrial Complex are making record profits and Cheney was the CEO of Haliburton?
Would you agree that at a minimum an invstigation is warrented?

oh dear...

Halliburton = energy company

nuff said

I 'would" has sent 10 times as many troops back in 2001 and by 2002 we would have never seen a Bin Ladin Tape again!

you would pour troops into a mountainous region with both hostile locals and a guerrilla insurgency...and you expect to catch Osama...

What Russia? We helped them against Russia.[/QUOTE]

What's the body count in Germany and Japan in the past few decades? AHHHH!

quite high due to accidents :p

might I point out that both areas have been involved with a potential nuclear war? AAAAAA!

I would say the same to you. Corneliu 2 is correct.

China has a large, and increasingly modern Army. But they are still an average generation and a half behind us tech wise. This isn't because they can't make the newer equipment, but because they are putting most of their money into the development of the PLA-N and the PLA-AF.

Said divisions are getting quite good. The People's Liberation Army Navy (it sounds much better in Mandarin) is rapidly becoming a true blue-water force, wioth their first true Carrier being launched either late this year or next. In ten years' time, the USN may have a real rival again.

Likewise, the PLA-AF is modernising at a ferocious rate. They have built their first true home made jet fighters (as opposed to Russian and US knock-offs), and are improving their avionic systems dramatically. Again, in ten years we could be seeing a force that rivals the USAF.

But they aren't there yet. Invading China would be a foolish nightmare, and I don't honestly know if NATO could really do it; but China has virtually no power projection abilities. Right now, they couldn't get to the mideast, much less fight a war there.

Thank You.

I would say the same to you. Corneliu 2 is correct.

China has a large, and increasingly modern Army. But they are still an average generation and a half behind us tech wise. This isn't because they can't make the newer equipment, but because they are putting most of their money into the development of the PLA-N and the PLA-AF.

Said divisions are getting quite good. The People's Liberation Army Navy (it sounds much better in Mandarin) is rapidly becoming a true blue-water force, wioth their first true Carrier being launched either late this year or next. In ten years' time, the USN may have a real rival again.

Likewise, the PLA-AF is modernising at a ferocious rate. They have built their first true home made jet fighters (as opposed to Russian and US knock-offs), and are improving their avionic systems dramatically. Again, in ten years we could be seeing a force that rivals the USAF.

But they aren't there yet. Invading China would be a foolish nightmare, and I don't honestly know if NATO could really do it; but China has virtually no power projection abilities. Right now, they couldn't get to the mideast, much less fight a war there.

Ahh. Good explination. Now I get yours and Corneliu's point. What I'm am refering to is Isreal attacking Iran. Iran firing missiles back (probably with a WMD they have most likely bought) Isreal nukes Iran THEN China nukes Isreal the the world economy falls to dust.

Ahh. Good explination. Now I get yours and Corneliu's point. What I'm am refering to is Isreal attacking Iran. Iran firing missiles back (probably with a WMD they have most likely bought) Isreal nukes Iran THEN China nukes Isreal the the world economy falls to dust.

If Iran uses a WMD against Israel, Iran would not be around long enough to learn from its mistake and China will not use a nuke on Israel.

Ahh. Good explination. Now I get yours and Corneliu's point. What I'm am refering to is Isreal attacking Iran. Iran firing missiles back (probably with a WMD they have most likely bought) Isreal nukes Iran THEN China nukes Isreal the the world economy falls to dust.

Ah, I see. A nasty scenario, I must agree.

However, I think the consequential link would end at Iran getting nuked. China has no defensive pacts or alliances with Iran; they're just Iran's best Oil customer. I have no doubt it would put a crimp in China's plans, but I suspect their biggest worry at that point would be to find a new source of oil; in which case, firing more nukes into the mideast would only reduce their chances of finding cheap oil.

Halliburton = energy company

nuff said
21 billion bucks for Haliburton military contracts in 2004 alone!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/merill_report.html
Now nuff said!

If Iran uses a WMD against Israel, Iran would not be around long enough to learn from its mistake
And neither will our economy. (if the Middle East becomes too toxic to drill, were up shit creek)

and China will not use a nuke on Israel.
Oh so they wont mind having to switch from oil to something else overnight?

And neither will our economy. (if the Middle East becomes too toxic to drill, were up shit creek)

Learn your Geography. Iran is not part of the Middle East.

Oh so they wont mind having to switch from oil to something else overnight?

Oh so you want them to nuke Israel and in return be destroyed themselves? China ain't that stupid.

The war lasted 3 weeks. Then it turned into an occupation. Now its helping the new Iraqi government in stablizing themselves and now that that is slowly being done, it will not be long till our forces will be able to begin to come home.

...some of them, when the client state has been stablised.

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
"The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country. "

"The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: 'This is just a tactical subterfuge.' Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 feet and the right to pursue its 'war on terror' in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation. . . . "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/05/BL2008060501746.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

...some of them, when the client state has been stablised.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/05/BL2008060501746.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

ohh...an opinion column. How nice.

Learn your Geography. Iran is not part of the Middle East.



Oh so you want them to nuke Israel and in return be destroyed themselves? China ain't that stupid.

Learn your science? Bio weapons and nuke radiation don't pay attention to borders.

I don't want ANY nukes going off anywhere!

ohh...an opinion column. How nice.

...which is discussing reports on a set of leaked documents, o poisoner of wells......

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country. "

link (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/bushs-secret-deal-would-ensure-permanent-us-occupation-of-iraq-1399174.html)

.....Looks like 'client state' to me.

An Isreali minister said on Friday that they very well might attack Iran to stop their nuke programs. They bombed Syria recently. (a UN inspection team is suppose to investgate this week to see if the plant in Syria was in fact a nuke plant)
Uhu. Sounds likely.
Iran says if Isreal attacks they will attack Isreal and any US troops in the area.
Hopefully they know that they'll get absolutely plastered if they try, and won't indeed bother. They'll probably fund Hezbollah and insurgents in Iraq more if it happens, but the Persian Army is staggeringly crap and their military planners probably realise that.
What should the US do?
Shut the hell up when it does happen, and don't try to claim that the Isrealis just won a great battle for freedom and security or some other absolute shite along those lines.
What will China do if their oil supply in Iran gets destroyed?
1) The oil supply in Iran is not going to get destroyed
2) If there's any major fall in output, they'll just send more weapons and money into Africa to secure resources there.
I think it's time to get the hell out of dodge.
No, squire, you see, if you make a mess, one has to clean it up.
We won the damm war 5 years ago.
You wouldn't have had over 3,500 American troops killed after the invasion were that true.
Iraq has no WMDs. If they did they have had plenty of opportunity to use one of them.
Yes, everybody who isn't retarded knows this.

I'm under the impression that Israel can destroy Iran without any help.

But of course they won't do so.

Learn your science? Bio weapons and nuke radiation don't pay attention to borders.

But Biological and Chemical weapons are not all that feasible on a battlefield. World War I taught us that.

I don't want ANY nukes going off anywhere!

Then you are worrying over nothing.

...which is discussing reports on a set of leaked documents, o poisoner of wells......



link (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/bushs-secret-deal-would-ensure-permanent-us-occupation-of-iraq-1399174.html)

.....Looks like 'client state' to me.

So we have an agreement for military bases in Iraq. That's nothing new. We already knew that and it makes good strategic sense.

How is this related to occupation? Oh yea...it doesn't.

I'm under the impression that Israel can destroy Iran without any help.

But of course they won't do so.

Don't overestimate Israël, Tsahal has no abilities at all to do such a thing.

Don't overestimate Israël, Tsahal has no abilities at all to do such a thing.
And certainly don't overestimate Iran. Their military spending is very low, and the regime is losing popularity. A war with Israel which they couldn't win might well push Achmujenidad out of power.

I don't think Iran would do an open war against Israël...not when they can throw some thousands of soldiers with modern equipment to the Hezbollah, Hamas and the Madhist army in Irak...not when they can blockade a third of the oil exportations simply by closing the Ormuz straits with missiles lauchers.

It's just that in this case, Lebanon would became an Iranian outpost, such as the Gaza straits, and I think that some chimical weapons in the Al-Qassam rockets would do awful harm to Israeli population...without possibily of retalation against Iran.

Thus, an Israeli agression would be the perfect opportunity to reinforce the Iranian leaders ( that's what I said in page 2, when I said that I don't understand why the USA haven't still proposed to organise the official destruction of Iranian nuclear facility in exchange of some billions...it wouldn't be the first time the US do such a thing... )

I don't think Iran would do an open war against Israël...not when they can throw some thousands of soldiers with modern equipment to the Hezbollah, Hamas and the Madhist army in Irak...not when they can blockade a third of the oil exportations simply by closing the Ormuz straits with missiles lauchers.

Closing down the Ormuz straits would not sit well with many people.

It's just that in this case, Lebanon would became an Iranian outpost, such as the Gaza straits, and I think that some chimical weapons in the Al-Qassam rockets would do awful harm to Israeli population...without possibily of retalation against Iran.

Wanna bet?

I don't think Iran would do an open war against Israël...not when they can throw some thousands of soldiers with modern equipment to the Hezbollah, Hamas and the Madhist army in Irak...not when they can blockade a third of the oil exportations simply by closing the Ormuz straits with missiles lauchers.
Uhu. They can't close the Ormuz Straits with US aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf and UK and US forces based in Basra, not to mention the Israelis being a threat too.

Also, the Persian Army contains very little actually modern equipment, and they're not sending much of it to Hezbollah. They have trouble sending anything to Palestine, because the Israelis stop their shipments, and they have similar problems with sending anything to the Mahdi army.
It's just that in this case, Lebanon would became an Iranian outpost
The stronger Syrians won't like that, if the Persians even try it then they've made themselves another powerful enemy.
and I think that some chimical weapons in the Al-Qassam rockets would do awful harm to Israeli population
It would do awful harm to the Isreali population in Sderot, and would also open the whole of the Gaza strip and anyone found supplying militiamen there to absolutely massive (and deserved) reprisals. You start using chemical weapons and you'll get the Isrealis clusterbombing your towns.
...without possibily of retalation against Iran.
Why would there be no possibility of retaliation against Iran?

You have the Isreali airforce, one of the best in the world, which is larger, more experienced, and techologically far superior to the air force of Iran and you have British and American aircraft in the Persian Gulf and also in Afghanistan.
Thus, an Israeli agression would be the perfect opportunity to reinforce the Iranian leaders
I don't think so.

"Oh those horrible Zionists blew up our nuclear facility, which was actually peaceful"
"Yep..."
that's what I said in page 2, when I said that I don't understand why the USA haven't still proposed to organise the official destruction of Iranian nuclear facility in exchange of some billions...it wouldn't be the first time the US do such a thing...
Because they know that the Israelis will do it for free.

So we have an agreement for military bases in Iraq. That's nothing new. We already knew that and it makes good strategic sense.

How is this related to occupation? Oh yea...it doesn't.

Weak Government, at the one time both undermined by, and dependent on, the US presence, no permission required to launch attacks from bases in the country........Thus, a Client state, occupied by the aggrressor. Nothing the Romans wouldnt recognise.

Step 1: Israelis destroy Iranian enrichment facilities and reactors
Step 2: US gets free ride

OR

Step 1: Iran attempts to nuke Israel - Arrow, THAAD, and PAC-3 work as advertised - a warhead gets through and nukes Gaza by accident. Although it's an Iranian warhead, the Israelis get accused of nuking the Palestinians.
Step 2: Israel nukes Iran. 80% of the population of Iran is dead or dying in the next few months.
Step 3: US gets free ride

Weak Government, at the one time both undermined by, and dependent on, the US presence, no permission required to launch attacks from bases in the country........Thus, a Client state, occupied by the aggrressor. Nothing the Romans wouldnt recognise.

When you are done with conspiracies, I'll be waiting.

Step 1: Israelis destroy Iranian enrichment facilities and reactors
Step 2: US gets free ride

OR

Step 1: Iran attempts to nuke Israel - Arrow, THAAD, and PAC-3 work as advertised - a warhead gets through and nukes Gaza by accident. Although it's an Iranian warhead, the Israelis get accused of nuking the Palestinians.
Step 2: Israel nukes Iran. 80% of the population of Iran is dead or dying in the next few months.
Step 3: US gets free ride
We win either way. Good deal! Think we can combine the scenarios so that Israel will do the first strike on the reactors, then continue to nuke the rest of Iran?

Quite simply Iran is lacking the Kwisatz Haderach, all it needs is Muadeeb and to threaten the complete destruction of the spice,..eehh oil in the middle east through a suicidal nuke run officiated by the fanatic Fedaykin followers of Muadeeb to coerce the Landsraad,..ehm NATO and the House Corrino,.. sheesh I mean the US to forfeit the right of supremacy in the middle east in return for not bringing about the complete collapse of civilization.

Why bother? It would really piss off the entire Muslim world, which is not what the US and its allies needs right now.

Wouldn't piss off the Sunni nations in the Gulf. Why do you think Saudi Arabia is buying nuclear technology from the US right now? Because they want a counter to Iranian nuclear capability.

We win either way. Good deal! Think we can combine the scenarios so that Israel will do the first strike on the reactors, then continue to nuke the rest of Iran?
Why bother? It would really piss off the entire Muslim world, which is not what the US and its allies needs right now.

And certainly don't overestimate Iran. Their military spending is very low, and the regime is losing popularity. A war with Israel which they couldn't win might well push Achmujenidad out of power.

Too bad he never had any power to begin with.

And cancer.

It would be far fewer nukes than were ever set off during above ground testing, so no.

Step 3: US gets free ride
And cancer.

In my opinion, Israel can go fork themselves either way but especially if they want to war against Iran. But knowing the morons running this country 9both in office and from the voting booth), any aggressive moves by Israel will be backed up by American force.

And cancer.

In my opinion, Israel can go fork themselves either way but especially if they want to war against Iran. But knowing the morons running this country 9both in office and from the voting booth), any aggressive moves by Israel will be backed up by American force.

I point to the 1980 bombing of an Iraqi reactor that was condemned even by the US.

Being not alive back in 1980, I don't know how much we were fellating the Israelis than as compared to now.
Largely even more so than now as soon as Carter got out of power, but Osirak(?) went a bit far.

I point to the 1980 bombing of an Iraqi reactor that was condemned even by the US.
Being not alive back in 1980, I don't know how much we were fellating the Israelis than as compared to now.
There were countries that switched alliances in the 21 years between WW I and WW II so your point inherently fails.

Being not alive back in 1980, I don't know how much we were fellating the Israelis than as compared to now.

About the same. Relations were probably a bit better, less of a Palestine problem, more of a Lebanon problem.

If its a quick precission strike, America stays out. In a protracted conflict, America gets involved in any of the following circumstances:

1. Israel starts loosing.:D

2. Oil supplies become severly threatened.

3. Anyone uses WMDs.(If any one doesstart using Nukes, I suspect everyone else will respond in kind. I don't see there being a limmited Nuclear engagement.)

Also obviously if Israel was the target of agression, as opposed to the agressor.

The extent of American involvement, and the extent to which it was military or non-military, would depend on who was President at the time.

America could get involved if Iran goes into Iraq with troops

In a conflict, I'd support Israel - they're essentially the good guys (i.e. not run by a monster who can only think about wiping out its enemies) and they've got a far better military, as every war they've ever been in has shown. The US has always supported Israel, and if either candidate wins, they'll support Israel with increased military strength.

Iran is saber rattling. If Israel were to attack a facility in Iran, its only real choice is to do exactly what Saddam Hussein had to do when Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor. Namely, bend over and take it like a man.

Attack Israel and any US troops in the way? That's a recipe for suicide. Yes, the United States Army is stretched thin right now... Know where? In the 2 countries that border Iran on the East and West. I can't think of another time in history when one nation's military was more perfectly placed strategically to squish a country in a giant pincer.

...Not that Israel would need much help. They have a fearsome air force, some say the finest in the world, and aren't the least bit shy about using it. Now imagine the Iranian army trying to make its way over to Israel under constant aerial bombardment. (And that's ignoring the fact that Israeli jets would be flying side by side with US jets... the other finest air force in the world... with combat experience.)

Somehow I don't think I'll have any trouble sleeping tonight.

Why bother? It would really piss off the entire Muslim world, which is not what the US and its allies needs right now.

How's that different from right now?

In a conflict, I'd support Israel - they're essentially the good guys
Good guys my arse. Your statement "they've got the best military" is pretty accurate, but they're nothing like good sorts.

When you are done with conspiracies, I'll be waiting.

Is the proposed treaty real? Why yes, yes it is.

How's that different from right now?
There are levels of hatred, you know. Vague, "they're occupying Iraq, what cads" type stuff isn't dangerous. On the other hand "they nuked us" is the kind of thing which would genuinely legitimise the complete destruction of Israel.

There are levels of hatred, you know. Vague, "they're occupying Iraq, what cads" type stuff isn't dangerous. On the other hand "they nuked us" is the kind of thing which would genuinely legitimise the complete destruction of Israel.

Well that's true, although I suspect nuking would be wholly unnecessary in any case.

Well that's true, although I suspect nuking would be wholly unnecessary in any case.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! *walks away with his twins uzzis dissapointed*

Well. Any case....since Iran DOES NOT HAS nukes. I doubt Israel will use them. More likely they will do a preemtive air strike to destory Iran nuclear facilities... and I dont think Iran will have much to say after that save throw a tantrum... Now... what abour the russians that are helping Iran?

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! *walks away with his twins uzzis dissapointed*

Well. Any case....since Iran DOES NOT HAS nukes. I doubt Israel will use them. More likely they will do a preemtive air strike to destory Iran nuclear facilities... and I dont think Iran will have much to say after that save throw a tantrum... Now... what abour the russians that are helping Iran?

Russia is in no position for a war against Israel as it would certainly involve the United States.

If any nation were more likely to assist Iran (not that any is likely, but meh) it's China.

Russia is in no position for a war against Israel as it would certainly involve the United States.

If any nation were more likely to assist Iran (not that any is likely, but meh) it's China.

You maybe right. Nevertheless... the tensions of an Israeli or US/nato attack on Iran will surely difficult the international scene for years to come.

You maybe right. Nevertheless... the tensions of an Israeli or US/nato attack on Iran will surely difficult the international scene for years to come.

Amen.

Now... what abour the russians that are helping Iran?
They're in no position to care too much.
You maybe right. Nevertheless... the tensions of an Israeli or US/nato attack on Iran will surely difficult the international scene for years to come.
So?

The tensions between the US and USSR made the international scene more difficult for about 45 years. Never blew up in our faces all that much, let's be honest. The odd proxy war here, the odd there, who really cares about those until there's conscription of your own citizens anyway?

I care.

I dont want another cold war or much worse WW III.

If Isreal goes nuklear... its not going to be a proxy war.

I care.
Why bother?
I dont want another cold war
Meh.
or much worse WW III.
I wouldn't worry about that.
If Isreal goes nuklear... its not going to be a proxy war.
Israel isn't going to go nuclear unless its population is reduced by about 98% by its immediate neighbors, and even then it's very unlikely.

We have achieved NOTHING and our military does not suck.

The folly of prolonged occupation in a nutshell.

Lets hope you are right. But I find Israel much more willing to use limited nuclear strikes than any other nation before.

Lets hope you are right. But I find Israel much more willing to use limited nuclear strikes than any other nation before.
Why would you think that? They haven't used a nuke on anyone before. This is true for every nuclear power other than the US.

The folly of prolonged occupation in a nutshell.
Not really, more "the folly of having an incredible armed force at your disposal and not being 100% successful against every kind of opponent". Even though the US and UK have done pretty well in Iraq in terms of simply fighting militiamen, because the whole thing wasn't pacified in about a week despite our massive armed forces, it looks like a bit of a failure.

Why would you think that? They haven't used a nuke on anyone before. This is true for every nuclear power other than the US.

Because I think Isreal is more threatened than ever before and has more chances of getting away with it than any other nation.

Because I think Isreal is more threatened than ever before
Not really. Its neighbours are, largely, no more or less well armed than ever before, the Syrians are getting better tooled up, but then the two countries are trying to make peace to an extent.
and has more chances of getting away with it than any other nation.
You can't get away with using nuclear weapons, full stop.

You can't get away with using nuclear weapons, full stop.

US did

US did
Aye, because it was the only country with nukes, and because it ended the Second World War. Now that anybody who's anybody has a nuke or two, the situation's different. That nuking Iran would only lead to the start of a war would also contribute to it being a Very Bad idea.

Not really, more "the folly of having an incredible armed force at your disposal and not being 100% successful against every kind of opponent".

I guess it's the "every kind of opponent" I was driving at. It's hard to fight an insurgency.

Well, no, it's easy to fight. It's hard to bring the fighting to a satisfying conclusion.

US did

Because we won the war *World War II, of course*. Had we lost the war after using the A-Bomb, we would have been considered evil by dropping the bombs.

Those who win wars write the history books...;)

Because we won the war *World War II, of course*. Had we lost the war after using the A-Bomb, we would have been considered evil by dropping the bombs.

Those who win wars write the history books...;)

only if they know how to write.... and besides sometimes the ones that are defeated write the history that survives ->The jews are the living example of this.

An Isreali minister said on Friday that they very well might attack Iran to stop their nuke programs. They bombed Syria recently. (a UN inspection team is suppose to investgate this week to see if the plant in Syria was in fact a nuke plant)
...which was stupid of Israel.

Iran says if Isreal attacks they will attack Isreal and any US troops in the area.
When you say "Iran", what do you mean? Has the Supreme Leader said this? The President? The Guardian council? Anyone else?

What should the US do?
Get involved diplomatically.

What will China do if their oil supply in Iran gets destroyed?
Be angry.

I think it's time to get the hell out of dodge. We won the damm war 5 years ago. Iraq has no WMDs. If they did they have had plenty of opportunity to use one of them.

Thoughts?
"You break it, you buy it."

Yer problem there is that fighting is not enough. It's taking out the root cause that matters.

And that, my friends, requires surgery. Social surgery. *maniacal laughter*

I guess it's the "every kind of opponent" I was driving at. It's hard to fight an insurgency.

Well, no, it's easy to fight. It's hard to bring the fighting to a satisfying conclusion.
Yer problem there is that fighting is not enough. It's taking out the root cause that matters.
only if they know how to write.... and besides sometimes the ones that are defeated write the history that survives ->The jews are the living example of this.
The Jews were liberated by the winners, hence they're on our side.

Yer problem there is that fighting is not enough. It's taking out the root cause that matters.

The Jews were liberated by the winners, hence they're on our side.

I was thinking of ancient history not WW II.

When you say "Iran", what do you mean? Has the Supreme Leader said this? The President? The Guardian council? Anyone else?


"The leadership in Tehran"
Link to the story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/israel.iran

"The leadership in Tehran"
Link to the story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/israel.iran

So... Nobody knows, and nobody can clarify if those making the statement had the authority to do so. Right.

Well there is this from the link:
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map since becoming president. On Monday, he said Israel was "about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene".
Uhu. I'm pretty sure he's said something similar to that every Monday since coming to power. Also Tuesday-Sunday.
Saying "Isreal is about to die" sounds pretty clear to me.
Yes, it is pretty clear. He's a populist. He'll say anything. Duh.

Well there is also this from the link:
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map since becoming president. On Monday, he said Israel was "about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene".

The president of Iran saying "Isreal is about to die" sounds pretty clear to me.

Is the proposed treaty real? Why yes, yes it is.

Do we have permanent bases in Germany and Japan? Why yes. Yes we do.

Russia is in no position for a war against Israel as it would certainly involve the United States.

In this case...GOD!

If any nation were more likely to assist Iran (not that any is likely, but meh) it's China.

They do not have the capacity to do so.

Lets hope you are right. But I find Israel much more willing to use limited nuclear strikes than any other nation before.

Proof?

US did

Uh...

1) That was to stop a war

and

2) We were the only nation to have them at the time.

Do we have permanent bases in Germany and Japan? Why yes. Yes we do.

With an agreement that renders them above German/Japanese law and able to launch attacks from those areas withour prior consultation?

I was thinking of ancient history not WW II.

And yet they continue to survive despite all the persecution.

I'm hoping we get a statement from the UN soon as to whether or not the site in Syria was a nuke plant or not. (they are suppose to be sending in an inspection team this week.

If it was a nuke site then Isreal will probably attack Iran the next day. If not then maybe the US can finally give Isreal their complementry coffee & cake, wish them the best and escort them the fk out of American policy!

With an agreement that renders them above German/Japanese law and able to launch attacks from those areas withour prior consultation?

Early on...yes!

Now...no

remember though. You said that this was a treaty. Which means it still has to be ratified by the US Senate.

I'm hoping we get a statement from the UN soon as to whether or not the site in Syria was a nuke plant or not. (they are suppose to be sending in an inspection team this week.
Give it a few weeks.
If it was a nuke site then Isreal will probably attack Iran the next day.
Don't be stupid, they'll attack when it's really convenient, like if Achmujenidad really offends the public somehow, and then show him up just that wee bit more.
If not then maybe the US can finally give Isreal their complementry coffee & cake, wish them the best and escort them the fk out of American policy!
Not going to happen.

But Biological and Chemical weapons are not all that feasible on a battlefield. World War I taught us that.


Chems are the most unlikely. But who knows wht kind of bio they could have. (the war to end all wars was an awful long time ago) They could also have some nukes.

If to many drilling spots become too toxic then you will soon be buying your last tank of gas since the world's armies will be wanting every drop they can get to defend their countries from whatever. (good for the environment but not a good idea to do it overnight) Maybe at least in the future all wars will use green friendly equipment! :p

Chems are the most unlikely. But who knows wht kind of bio they could have. (the war to end all wars was an awful long time ago) They could also have some nukes.
And if Iran used that, they would be instantly wiped out.
If to many drilling spots become too toxic then you will soon be buying your last tank of gas since the world's armies will be wanting every drop they can get to defend their countries from whatever. (good for the environment but not a good idea to do it overnight) Maybe at least in the future all wars will use green friendly equipment! :p
Uhu, you'll just get people in NBC resistant suits and trucks drilling for oil.

Chems are the most unlikely. But who knows wht kind of bio they could have. (the war to end all wars was an awful long time ago) They could also have some nukes.

No one is going to use a nuke for they know that if they do, they'll cease to exist.

Don't be stupid, they'll attack when it's really convenient, like if Achmujenidad really offends the public somehow, and then show him up just that wee bit more.


That was not the case a couple years ago when Isreal bombed Lebannon back to the stone age in response to a kidnaping.

That was not the case a couple years ago when Isreal bombed Lebannon back to the stone age in response to a kidnaping.

And were invaded by Hezbollah in the process. i think it was more the invasion by their forces into Israel that really started all of this.

That was not the case a couple years ago when Isreal bombed Lebannon back to the stone age in response to a kidnaping.
Lebanon is about the easiest target in the Levant, and that's saying something.

That's my point. I don't think they care as long as they can score a mutual destruction against Isreal.
...

Err no.
Hmmm Maybe we could get some prisoners to do it.
Fuck that. Halliburton on double wages ahoy.
In any event, a short term economic disaster can become a long term economic disaster all by itself.
Wut?

And if Iran used that, they would be instantly wiped out. That's my point. I don't think they care as long as they can score a mutual destruction against Isreal.

Uhu, you'll just get people in NBC resistant suits and trucks drilling for oil.
Hmmm Maybe we could get some prisoners to do it. In any event, a short term economic disaster can become a long term economic disaster all by itself.

That's my point. I don't think they care as long as they can score a mutual destruction against Isreal.

Which they won't succeed in doing. God will have something to say to that.

Hmmm Maybe we could get some prisoners to do it. In any event, a short term economic disaster can become a long term economic disaster all by itself.

Now there's a good point. Not the prisoner bit.

yea I wouldn't think the prisioner bit is very unlikely. Point being, I don't think we could get enough volunteers.

yea I wouldn't think the prisioner bit is very unlikely. Point being, I don't think we could get enough volunteers.
Uhu, that's why man invented money.

Uhu, that's why man invented money.

Trying to get volunteers would make for some interesting television commercials.

*stops short before posting sarcastic ideas for the commercials* :D

Trying to get volunteers would make for some interesting television commercials.

*stops short before posting sarcastic ideas for the commercials* :D
Why bother when you've got Halliburton. Seriously.

EDIT: BTW, you are not worthy of that B5 quote you have in your signature. Ambassador Delenn you are not.

If I had my pick, I would be G'Kar! :p Start a B-5 trivia thread when both of us are on. Let's see who's worthy! (and no help from the Psi Corps) :gundge:

If I had my pick, I would be G'Kar! :p Start a B-5 trivia thread when both of us are on. Let's see who's worthy! (and no help from the Psi Corps) :gundge:

:D

Oh please...do you have all 5 seasons?

And I hate the Psi Corps :D

:D

Oh please...do you have all 5 seasons?

And I hate the Psi Corps :D


I havn't bought the DVDs yet. I recorded every original episode on VHS as they aired. Those cliff hangers, making us wait for months was murder!
Best Sci Fi show ever. Best all time show till Soprano's & Deadwood came along. Would love to see a show or movie w/ G'Kar, Al Swerengen and Uncle Jr. :D

I havn't bought the DVDs yet. I recorded every original episode on VHS as they aired. Those cliff hangers, making us wait for months was murder!
Best Sci Fi show ever.

Agreed :)

Now let end this thread jack :)

Why bother when you've got Halliburton. Seriously.

Still leaves us with a short term problem that will more than likely become a long term problem! But what the hell. Blow it all up, give the auto industries a boost & break out the electric cars! If it fixes global warming, I'm game! I can rough it for a while.

Iran is bluffing. Israel may not be.

IF Israel considers itself truly under threat, then they WILL act, as their history shows. If they do, it will be a calculated, precise and limited strike - probably a high-speed run by a squadron of Israeli strike jets that turns the Iranian facilities into rubble.

Iran will then have no ability to attack Israel. Their air and rocket forces are insufficient to inflict any real damage, their navy is a joke, and their army (which is actually pretty solid) would have to go through Saudi Arabia to reach Israel - and the only nation Saudi hates more than Israel is Iran.

As for attacking the US - it is to laugh. Iran knows that the US is seriously stretched right now. So, the US response would be could only be, to turn Iran into a cratered live-fire testing area - never go in on the ground, just bomb the place back to the stone age. Iran will not risk that.

I think you mean Iraq, Syria Jordan and Lebanon, but they would be cutting it close with Saudi Arabia.

You guys are really to focused on a classic war.
But why Iran would use such king of warfare when there's other choices, far more efficient and less dangerous ?

( By the way you all forget that Turkey would also never let the Iranian Army cross Irak )

They could turn the Irak into a theocratic republic opposed to the USA anytime...without using any troops !
They can ruin in a week all the efforts of the USA, and they can even do this democratically!

Then what will the USA do ? Destroy the democracy they claimed they would create ?

Thus they could chose to send the oil of Iran and Irak only to China and India, letting the Europeans with no other choice than competing with the oil supplies already used for the USA, giving us both a hard economic time.

They could also throw Lebanon into another Civil War at ease, with great chances of seing the Hezbollah winning the fight.
I don't see why it would piss off Syria, Hezbollah is the main support of Syria in Lebanon...

When you all think about the glorious power of Tsahal, you guys must understand that this time is over.

The last war fought by the IDF was an Israeli DEFEAT, a military operation directed to destroy a terrorist group who ends up with this group more rich and powerful than ever, who turn the only friendly neighboring country into an ennemy, it is a defeat, not just an absence of success.

I have friends who fought in Lebanon ( on IDF side yes :D ), what they have to say about the situation of Israeli army is awful.
Their army is in an absolutly crappy state, the manpower is too short, the equipment can't be replaced at the rate it is used by constant and inefficient operations...
Just look at the Gaza straits: at the beginning of the Second Intifada, the Israeli were fighting for crushing the Hamas. Now they only fight to contain the damages, and can't even do this anymore.

War is more and more expensive, Israël is a far too little country to sustain such military effort on a long range of time, they can't even do this anymore without the billions send every years by the USA.

About the nuclear power, I don't know if the Jericho missiles could reach Tehran or Ispahan, and Israël don't have so many nukes.
Worst, we won't let them nuke an entire country, because the consequences for the world health would be terrible.
If they do such a thing, Israël would be alone, and then invaded an destroyed in the following months.

Iran is not Irak, even the distance play against Israël, and you forget also that the whole Iranian complex is build against such operation.
So to have good chances of success, you need a US comitment.
This can definitly piss off very great powers, like China and Russia, who have far more dangerous tricks than doing a war.

You guys are really to focused on a classic war.
But why Iran would use such king of warfare when there's other choices, far more efficient and less dangerous ?

I'll admit I was shaking my head all the way through this thread, as people gamed out nuclear strikes.

The idea that China would nuke anybody who hadn't nuked them first was particularly dull-witted.

About the nuclear power, I don't know if the Jericho missiles could reach Tehran or Ispahan, and Israël don't have so many nukes.

I wonder how you know that.

Worst, we won't let them nuke an entire country, because the consequences for the world health would be terrible.
If they do such a thing, Israël would be alone, and then invaded an destroyed in the following months.

It makes more sense to look at the fallout than the global effect.

Being near the equator, I presume the prevailing winds are from the West.
So the question is really: would the US allow Israel to kill millions of Pakistanis, even Indians and Chinese? All the surrounding countries would cop a dose too, regardless which way the wind was blowing or if rain was around (apparently rain brings down fallout, reducing the range).

A single bomb on Natanz seems a more likely scenario. It's pretty much in the middle of Iran. That would also be consistent with how Israël dealt with the Iraqi and Syrian reactors, a single strike rather than trying to destroy the entire nuclear infrastructure.

Which they won't succeed in doing. God will have something to say to that.


Is that your opinion as an historian?

Is that your opinion as an historian?

Damn that's a good question. :p

Is that your opinion as an historian?

Its my opinion based on theological studies and biblical research.

Its my opinion based on theological studies and biblical research.

May I ask, do you favour a "theological" explanation for Israel's history of success in wars, or can it be explained as rational military outcomes?

May I ask, do you favour a "theological" explanation for Israel's history of success in wars, or can it be explained as rational military outcomes?

That can be debated and I believe that can be a topic for another thread.

That can be debated and I believe that can be a topic for another thread.

Ah, you wiley old fox. :D

Ah, you wiley old fox. :D

:D

I realize that but if Isreal uses nukes and Iran uses something they might have bought, the whole Middle East will become too toxic for drilling.


That's not what I saw on the news a couple of years ago when Iran tested those new missiles. That ain't a scud.

And I have to agree that Isreal has run amuk. Bombing Lebenon back to the stone age in response to a kidnaping? That's insane!


I have to say that there is a school of thought in International Relations that advocates "Massive Retaliation" from a small nation if it is attacked by proxies of another, larger nation. In this case, they agree with what I have been saying. You only have to nuke one or two cities before any nation gets the point. Don't believe me? Ask Japan, they are kind of the experts on nuclear warfare, at least from the receiving end.

I have to say that there is a school of thought in International Relations that advocates "Massive Retaliation" from a small nation if it is attacked by proxies of another, larger nation. In this case, they agree with what I have been saying. You only have to nuke one or two cities before any nation gets the point. Don't believe me? Ask Japan, they are kind of the experts on nuclear warfare, at least from the receiving end.

And even then they almost didn't surrender after Nagasaki.

Its my opinion based on theological studies and biblical research.

Really.

I must say that its good to know that the academics of the last superpower have such a practical foundation for their views and policy.
I mean, imagine if it was all driven by some mystical ideology, like in Iran.....

Nobel Hobos and Nodinia, totally agree with you both.

Israël has been invaded several times in the past, and even some times who are not mentionned in the Bible because it doesn't fit with the eschatology ( by exemple, the two Egyptian vassalisation of Israël during the 8 th and 7 th century. )

About the number of nukes available to Israël: I don't think they have more than a few dozens, because of the expenses a nuclear program implies.

Countries like France or UK only own a few hundred nukes, and it cost more than 20% of both our military budget. France anf UK throw more than two times more money to their armies than Israël, and don't suffer their very high rate of replacement of destroyed or used equipment...

More, the Jericho lauchers are old, getting back to the seventees, and the US never feel the interest to give ICBM to Israël. So we can't count on a very long range of strike, 2000 km would already be surprising.

IDF perfectly know this weakness, that's why the Israelian Navy has commissioned several Dolphins submarines to Germany ( how ironic, isn't it ? )

About the number of nukes available to Israël: I don't think they have more than a few dozens, because of the expenses a nuclear program implies.
The usual estimates (nobody really knows of course, and it is in Israel's interests to keep it that way) are that Israel built a few dozen in the late 60's and early 70's, but have built a couple hundred more recently (more than France or the UK maintain).

The idea that China would nuke anybody who hadn't nuked them first was particularly dull-witted.
Besides a nuke strike in Iran cutting off China's oil supply, you have to concider fallout that could easilly toxify parts of their nation. And you think they will just go about their merry little way?

It makes more sense to look at the fallout than the global effect. Depends on how many nukes over a short period of time are detonated. 50 mushrooms would have devistating global results. Our food supply would get hurt the worst.