wanderingbear
Radical liberal
The original Isreal was destroyed by the Romans over 2000 years ago. Regonal term or not It was still Palistine and populated by Palistinians.
What it would take to attack Iran
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
The original Isreal was destroyed by the Romans over 2000 years ago. Regonal term or not It was still Palistine and populated by Palistinians.
wanderingbear
Radical liberal
And you should go fuck yourself.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
That and some confused Jesus logic .. which itself is an oxymoron.
All those who wish to die for Israel should get on a plane and go there.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Netanyahu Lashes Out At U.S. Over Iran Program
JERUSALEM — Israel's prime minister, ratcheting up a public feud with the U.S. over Iran, made it clear Tuesday that he was dissatisfied with Washington's refusal to spell out what would provoke a U.S.-led military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Washington wants to give diplomacy and bruising sanctions more time to try to pressure Tehran to abandon its suspect nuclear work. In a message aimed at Israel, it said several times this week that deadlines or "red lines" are counterproductive.
But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says peaceful methods are not working, and has warned repeatedly that Iran is getting perilously close to acquiring a nuclear bomb. His remarks have generated speculation Israel is readying to strike on its own to prevent that from happening.
"The world tells Israel, `Wait. There's still time,'" Netanyahu said Tuesday. "And I say: `Wait for what? Wait until when?' Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel."
Tehran insists its nuclear program is peaceful. Although the United States has accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapon capability under the cover of a peaceful program, the Obama administration has said it does not believe Iran has yet decided whether to build an atomic bomb – if it in fact develops the ability to do so.
Israel has not publicly defined its own red lines, which might include a deadline for Iran to open its facilities to U.N. inspectors or a conclusion that Iran has begun enriching uranium, a key component in bombmaking, to weapons-grade level.
Israel sees a nuclear Iran as a threat to its survival and judging by Netanyahu's rhetoric, he is not convinced the U.S. will make good on its pledge to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear power.
For weeks, he has been lobbying the U.S. to take a tough public position against Iran, with the implicit threat that Israel could act unilaterally if Washington doesn't.
Israel is worried that Iran will soon move key nuclear technology to heavily fortified underground bunkers that would be impervious to Israeli bombs.
Should Israel decide to act on its own, it would have less time to strike than the U.S. would because its firepower is more limited. Some Israeli officials have suggested that an attack would have to be carried out by fall.
Senior American officials, however, have made it clear they oppose any Israeli military action at this time. The U.S., with its superior firepower, would be better positioned than Israel to give nuclear talks and sanctions more time to take effect.
American officials are wary of carrying out an attack that could send oil prices spiking, or set off a Mideast war, just weeks before a presidential election.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/netanyahu-us-iran_n_1873399.html
JERUSALEM — Israel's prime minister, ratcheting up a public feud with the U.S. over Iran, made it clear Tuesday that he was dissatisfied with Washington's refusal to spell out what would provoke a U.S.-led military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Washington wants to give diplomacy and bruising sanctions more time to try to pressure Tehran to abandon its suspect nuclear work. In a message aimed at Israel, it said several times this week that deadlines or "red lines" are counterproductive.
But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says peaceful methods are not working, and has warned repeatedly that Iran is getting perilously close to acquiring a nuclear bomb. His remarks have generated speculation Israel is readying to strike on its own to prevent that from happening.
"The world tells Israel, `Wait. There's still time,'" Netanyahu said Tuesday. "And I say: `Wait for what? Wait until when?' Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel."
Tehran insists its nuclear program is peaceful. Although the United States has accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapon capability under the cover of a peaceful program, the Obama administration has said it does not believe Iran has yet decided whether to build an atomic bomb – if it in fact develops the ability to do so.
Israel has not publicly defined its own red lines, which might include a deadline for Iran to open its facilities to U.N. inspectors or a conclusion that Iran has begun enriching uranium, a key component in bombmaking, to weapons-grade level.
Israel sees a nuclear Iran as a threat to its survival and judging by Netanyahu's rhetoric, he is not convinced the U.S. will make good on its pledge to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear power.
For weeks, he has been lobbying the U.S. to take a tough public position against Iran, with the implicit threat that Israel could act unilaterally if Washington doesn't.
Israel is worried that Iran will soon move key nuclear technology to heavily fortified underground bunkers that would be impervious to Israeli bombs.
Should Israel decide to act on its own, it would have less time to strike than the U.S. would because its firepower is more limited. Some Israeli officials have suggested that an attack would have to be carried out by fall.
Senior American officials, however, have made it clear they oppose any Israeli military action at this time. The U.S., with its superior firepower, would be better positioned than Israel to give nuclear talks and sanctions more time to take effect.
American officials are wary of carrying out an attack that could send oil prices spiking, or set off a Mideast war, just weeks before a presidential election.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/netanyahu-us-iran_n_1873399.html
Disillusioned
New member
Preemptive retaliation was supposed to be a joke, not a suggestion.
Disillusioned
New member
Bear I'm not disagreeing with you, but the misspellings in your posts make my teeth hurt. Please, spell check.
It's Israeli policy.
So, when Obama says he'll do whatever is necessary to stop them he's a Neocon?
While I somewhat agree, supporting the other side is, at the very least, equally stupid.
He has continued Bush era policy and that's a neocon policy...some call it neoliberal but Obama is not liberal in any sense of the word. First strike is an abominationwhen it comes to foreign policy...it's total bullshit and nothing short of aggression and should be treated as such.
The only comparative I have for supporting Israel over Islamic nations is the simple fact that their people do not think the US should be destroyed and they don't fly planes into our buildings. I'd agree that supporting them unreasonably is not smart, I still say that supporting the other side is at the very least equally stupid, and IMO actually far more foolish. They have shown no compunction to turn against us after we support them. Al Qaeda was created from groups trained and equipped by the US to fight the USSR.
I also agree that the US should never attack first, and am against all Nation Building wars. And I respect a leftie who doesn't change their opinions solely because of the President impacting the crappy foreign policy. Not only did Obama continue it, he followed Bush's plan to the letter for getting out of Iraq, and doubled down on Afghanistan, then more than quadrupling attacks by remote control which causes far more "collateral damage" and increases the vigor of our enemies.
I hate drones.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I can't. I'm just not as talented or have had as much practice you've had, in fucking yourself.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Are you dyslexic or just rubbish at spelling?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
He's a stoner, who's still living in the 60's and 70's.
if we attack iran, we will have to use our bunker buster bombs, but first we will have to take out the iranian air defenses
or we could send a cruise missile to bomb the iranian headquarters when the ayatollahs are there...and again and again until they get the message or run out of ayatollahs
but i do not think any president or congress could declare war and send in troops to invade iran
oth, if we attack iran, will the rest of islam in the me applaud or hate the us even more
several me countries have expressed fear of a nuclear armed iran
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You forgot your required "oh well".
Disillusioned
New member
We don't declare war anymore, we just attack. Declaring war was back before presidents figured out they could declare one war and just keep "opening new fronts".
A rather effective end run around the system worthy of any good "evil overlord"
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Sorry, I am not inclined to read 97 pages... care to summarize?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
It will begin on 12/20/12, that is why the world ends on 12/21 dumbass.