Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran

hangon · 02-11-2011 9:24pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Lol, this board just gets funnier, now it only takes a rumour on Sky to set off an anti-Israeli thread. Let me repeat that...a rumour on SKY. You might as well be basing your opinions on what Bill O'Reilly says.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8864696/Benjamin-Netanyahu-seeks-cabinet-support-for-Israeli-strike-on-Iran.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israel-test-fires-missile-hit-iran-14865603#.TrGl6PTCw1A

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jt5ohbyE4OyQ0yHPdzrLrNHw54fw?docId=CNG.26bc83977035bf2ff78eb8c05acb1811.841

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jt5ohbyE4OyQ0yHPdzrLrNHw54fw?docId=CNG.26bc83977035bf2ff78eb8c05acb1811.841

P.s. You must learn to discern between Anti Israel policies and leaders and the people of Israel.

Nodin · 02-11-2011 9:37pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Lol, this board just gets funnier, now it only takes a rumour on Sky to set off an anti-Israeli thread. Let me repeat that...a rumour on SKY. You might as well be basing your opinions on what Bill O'Reilly says.

Really?

Haaretz wrote:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action against Iran, a senior Israeli official has said. According to the official, there is a "small advantage" in the cabinet for the opponents of such an attack.
Netanyahu and Barak recently persuaded Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking Iran, to support such a move.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-trying-to-persuade-cabinet-to-support-attack-on-iran-1.393214

anymore · 02-11-2011 10:46pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Lol, this board just gets funnier, now it only takes a rumour on Sky to set off an anti-Israeli thread. Let me repeat that...a rumour on SKY. You might as well be basing your opinions on what Bill O'Reilly says.

Well it is good to see Boards resuming normal service after the election

Son Of A Vidic · 03-11-2011 2:01am

Israel considers? I have no doubt it has been 'considered' long before now. I'm just surprised it hasn't happened yet.

sdanseo · 03-11-2011 2:25am

KeithAFC wrote: »

Fully support Israel in this act to repel the aggression which comes from Iran on a daily basis. The Jewish people aren't going to just take this any more and accept the aggression from these countries and the attacks.

The country shouldn't exist. It is an invention of western powers, mainly the government of your queen's father, designed to make up for the Nazis. To this day they cast millions into tiny stretches of land with not even the most basic facilities while the Jews build villas in their shadow.

It's absolutely sickening and they deserve no more sympathy than Hitler himself did.

As for Iran, yes it's out of line, but its dislike of Israel is understandable. Allowing to go nuclear is not really a good idea but "pre-emtive strike" is not a definition of something that has, in history, prevented wars. More a littany of cases where avoiding such strikes narrowly avoided war.

sdanseo · 03-11-2011 2:28am

woodoo wrote: »

If the terrorists do attack Iran i'd like to see Iran defend themselves and defend themselves well.

No, you wouldn't. Because the brits would back a NATO ally and we'd be picking plutonium of of our potato fields for a couple of decades.

Yahew · 03-11-2011 2:31am

possibly Israel should send a strongly worded letter instead.

KeithAFC · 03-11-2011 3:20am

sdeire wrote: »

The country shouldn't exist. It is an invention of western powers, mainly the government of your queen's father, designed to make up for the Nazis. To this day they cast millions into tiny stretches of land with not even the most basic facilities while the Jews build villas in their shadow.

It's absolutely sickening and they deserve no more sympathy than Hitler himself did.

As for Iran, yes it's out of line, but its dislike of Israel is understandable. Allowing to go nuclear is not really a good idea but "pre-emtive strike" is not a definition of something that has, in history, prevented wars. More a littany of cases where avoiding such strikes narrowly avoided war.

Why should Israel not exist? The Jews have been living in that region far longer than any other group of people. It was only right that Israel was created as a country for the Jewish people after world war two. A country they could call home for the Jewish people in general.

Israel is not the only country in the world which has made bad policy decisions. But this aggression that Iran shows towards Israel as if to say they don't deserve to exist is exactly why I think they have the right to defend themselves.

Manic Moran · 03-11-2011 4:21am

Border-Rat wrote: »

Iran has the capability to defend itself asymmetrically. That doesn't mean the supremacists in Israel will not attempt to do it. The S-300 and TOR-M1 systems are in place, but with finite warheads. This is where Israel will rely on the USA to overwhelm Irans defences.

The S300s were never delivered. Unsure about the TORs off the top of my head.

Tanker insurance companies will not play ball with that, especially when the Hormuz Strait is shut, which Iran has the capacity to do.

I don't see Iran's capacity to shut the strait as being that much greater than during the Tanker War. The Rest of the World's capacity to keep it open, however, is rather greater than it used to be.

So I suppose Israeli's equipping themselves with fighter-bombers that can handle the round-trip without running out of fuel and taking orders for bunker busters from the USA are coincidental?

The IAF showing up unexpectedly a thousand miles from home is not a recent phenomenon. Tunis is over 1,200 miles from Israel...

It's the Israeli government's job to consider an attack. Doesn't mean to say it will decide that it's the best course of action at any particular time no matter how much they're considering it.

NTM

The Outside Agency · 03-11-2011 2:30pm

Israel won't attack Iran unless it has support of the US and currently it doesn't otherwise Israel would have done something.

My question to the islamaphobics on this forum is this: What other source of energy do you expect the Iranians to use?

They cannot depend on gas and oil to generate energy forever.

Manic Moran wrote:

I don't see Iran's capacity to shut the strait as being that much greater than during the Tanker War. The Rest of the World's capacity to keep it open, however, is rather greater than it used to be.

17 million barrels per day pass through there, it is the most important tanker route in the world.

US needs 20 million per day to keep economy ticking over.

This isn't some simplistic situation where you just drop a few bombs on Iran and that's the end of the matter...wise up.

Jaafa · 03-11-2011 2:36pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The S300s were never delivered. Unsure about the TORs off the top of my head.

I don't see Iran's capacity to shut the strait as being that much greater than during the Tanker War. The Rest of the World's capacity to keep it open, however, is rather greater than it used to be.

The IAF showing up unexpectedly a thousand miles from home is not a recent phenomenon. Tunis is over 1,200 miles from Israel...

It's the Israeli government's job to consider an attack. Doesn't mean to say it will decide that it's the best course of action at any particular time no matter how much they're considering it.

NTM

The S300 were never delivered but Iran claims to have built its own version of them possible using schematics or actual devices from Ukraine. They have proven quite capably of reverse engineering before though this would be a step up.

As for shutting the strait I think even if they just manage to sink say, 1 large tanker per week/month that would enough to cause companies to shut down operations. The submarines they have built also add a decent ability to lay mines in the area for a time, how long before they'd be caught and destroyed is another matter.

BlaasForRafa · 03-11-2011 2:47pm

nivekd wrote: »

Israel won't attack Iran unless it has support of the US and currently it doesn't otherwise Israel would have done something.

My question to the islamaphobics on this forum is this: What other source of energy do you expect the Iranians to use?

They cannot depend on gas and oil to generate energy forever.

This myth about Iran needing nuclear energy for its economy is ridiculous, the nuclear reactors are there to provide fuel for weapons. Iran has huge supplies of oil and gas plus I believe its quite sunny in Iran? They could invest the money in renewables instead but photovoltaic cells aren't much good for making bombs with.

If Germany, a far more developed economy, can get rid of nuclear then so could Iran. But they don't want to. Because they want bombs.

The Outside Agency · 03-11-2011 3:03pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

This myth about Iran needing nuclear energy for its economy is ridiculous, the nuclear reactors are there to provide fuel for weapons. Iran has huge supplies of oil and gas plus I believe its quite sunny in Iran? They could invest the money in renewables instead but photovoltaic cells aren't much good for making bombs with.

If Germany, a far more developed economy, can get rid of nuclear then so could Iran. But they don't want to. Because they want bombs.

What about the US sanctions imposed upon Iran since the puppet Shah was removed from power in 1979?

What about the US supporting Iraq when they invaded Iran in 1980?

US is hungry for oil and they will do whatever is necessary to get it.

You islamophobics always harp on about freedom and democracy, what a crock of ****...you really have no clue what you're talking about.

It's very simple. Iran has lots of oil, US needs lots of oil..that's about as complicated as it gets but you all choose to believe in the BS you're told because you're so bloody gullible.

RichardAnd · 03-11-2011 3:36pm

I'd question the military logic of announcing a preemptive strike to the global media.

The Saint · 03-11-2011 4:14pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

This myth about Iran needing nuclear energy for its economy is ridiculous, the nuclear reactors are there to provide fuel for weapons. Iran has huge supplies of oil and gas plus I believe its quite sunny in Iran? They could invest the money in renewables instead but photovoltaic cells aren't much good for making bombs with.

If Germany, a far more developed economy, can get rid of nuclear then so could Iran. But they don't want to. Because they want bombs.

I'm no fan of the Iranian regime or its nuclear programme but it seems quite disingenuous for US administrations to determine the need for nuclear power in Iran based on who is in power there.

RichieC · 03-11-2011 4:15pm

Very worrying indeed, I hope all your children are ready for a long war. Perhaps enroll them early in the cubs and scouts to give them the survival skills they'll need in the rewritten world that the Zionists are after

Obama is in a precarious position indeed with his reelection next year. it is a death knell to your career in the states to oppose the Israeli state.

Nobody can afford this war except the super wealthy who'll be licking their chops at the prospect of another world war.

very very sad indeed.

"All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.

nyarlothothep · 03-11-2011 6:53pm

RichieC wrote: »

Very worrying indeed, I hope all your children are ready for a long war. Perhaps enroll them early in the cubs and scouts to give them the survival skills they'll need in the rewritten world that the Zionists are after

Obama is in a precarious position indeed with his reelection next year. it is a death knell to your career in the states to oppose the Israeli state.

Nobody can afford this war except the super wealthy who'll be licking their chops at the prospect of another world war.

very very sad indeed.

"All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.

Its like they're not even trying to hide the fact that they're warmongers anymore. With Afghanistan you had the lets get the Taliban line for killing 3000 innocent people narrative which you could argue was reasonable, in Iraq it was about deposing a murderous tyrant who had already gassed the Kurds, and even though they had no evidence they put a lot of effort into insisting that they did. But nowadays its just about making up ridiculous and badly scripted stories about assassination plots and media lines like hey lets invade Libya, or hey lets nuke Iran, because they're actually aliens or jewbots or whatever fck you. They're not even bothering to hide their true colours or sell these campaigns to the people, that in itself is very worrying.

Nodin · 03-11-2011 7:42pm

It's good to know the idea isn't only considered stupid elsewhere....

Israel's prime minister has ordered an investigation into alleged leaks of plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, it has been reported.
According to the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jarida, the main suspects are the former heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet, respectively Israel's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies.

Netanyahu is said to believe that the two, Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin, wanted to torpedo plans being drawn up by him and Ehud Barak, the defence minister, to hit Iranian nuclear sites. Tzipi Livni, leader of the opposition Kadima party, is also said to have been persuaded to attack Netanyahu for "adventurism" and "gambling with Israel's national interest".
The paper suggested that the purpose of the leaks was to prevent an attack, which had moved from the stage of discussion to implementation. "Those who oppose the plan within the security establishment decided to leak it to the media and thwart the plan," it said.

Both Dagan and Diskin oppose military action against Iran unless all other options – primarily international diplomatic pressure and perhaps sabotage — have been exhausted. In January the recently retired Dagan, a hawk when he was running the Mossad, called an attack on Iran "the stupidest idea I've ever heard".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/israeli-pm-investigation-iran-leak

Jaafa · 03-11-2011 7:59pm

Nodin wrote: »

It's good to know the idea isn't only considered stupid elsewhere....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/israeli-pm-investigation-iran-leak

Perhaps then they were leaked by the military heads. Contrary to what some might think most of the Generals are against a move on Iran.

Fact is Iran have the capability to make a bomb, but they haven't done it, they shut down the whole program back in 2003 according to the CIA. Dagan among others know this and they know an attack on Iran would be a huge risk for absolutely no gain at all.

irishh_bob · 03-11-2011 8:25pm

hangon wrote: »

Ha bob no i am not,but as i said earlier i could never get my head around the 'undying love' for Israel even though i have studied it a lot.

excellent thought-provoking post nacho!

thier are two reasons , money from the various jewish run important sectors of the american economy and the not insignificant christian right vote which stems from a belief that in order to make jesus happy when he arrives on the next bus , israel must be completley in tact

irishh_bob · 03-11-2011 8:27pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why should Israel not exist? The Jews have been living in that region far longer than any other group of people. It was only right that Israel was created as a country for the Jewish people after world war two. A country they could call home for the Jewish people in general.

Israel is not the only country in the world which has made bad policy decisions. But this aggression that Iran shows towards Israel as if to say they don't deserve to exist is exactly why I think they have the right to defend themselves.

something tells me thier is an analogy in there somewhere related more close to home :rolleyes:

irishh_bob · 03-11-2011 8:31pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

This myth about Iran needing nuclear energy for its economy is ridiculous, the nuclear reactors are there to provide fuel for weapons. Iran has huge supplies of oil and gas plus I believe its quite sunny in Iran? They could invest the money in renewables instead but photovoltaic cells aren't much good for making bombs with.

If Germany, a far more developed economy, can get rid of nuclear then so could Iran. But they don't want to. Because they want bombs.

no fan of the mullahs but as iraq has shown , being armed with nukes is a good way of keeping uninvited people from far away out

RichieC · 03-11-2011 8:37pm

irishh_bob wrote: »

something tells me thier is an analogy in there somewhere related more close to home :rolleyes:

I expect the irony of that guys comments to go sailing over his head like everything else to do with this topic.

SamHarris · 03-11-2011 9:10pm

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

There will be no win for anyone, Iran is a major trading partner with the three of the four biggest economies in the world. America can try and tell everyone to stay out of it but they'll probably be told to feck off in a very diplomatic way. If China or Russia wade in to protect their sizable interests then all bets are off.

You really think anyone would go to war with the US for Iran, except Iran? If you DO think so, your wrong. Not a chance in hell.

gbee · 03-11-2011 9:16pm

Why not just sit back and let Israel do her thing ~ we need a few nuke detonations to disguise the Fukushima fall out anyway so away yous go.

The world needs depopulating, and WE need the oil, win win.

And if Israel finally bits off more than it can chew, I for one welcome our new Iranian overlords.

Sticky_Fingers · 03-11-2011 9:19pm

SamHarris wrote: »

You really think anyone would go to war with the US for Iran, except Iran? If you DO think so, your wrong. Not a chance in hell.

Iran, third biggest oil producer in the world, second biggest gas producer. The US is a spent force that neither has the money or the will to fight another war. China and Russia are rapidly emerging powers, the former having an insatiable appetite for energy.

Yeah, I really think people will go to war over Iran.

Yahew · 03-11-2011 9:21pm

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Iran, third biggest oil producer in the world, second biggest gas producer. The US is a spent force that neither has the money or the will to fight another war. China and Russia are rapidly emerging powers, the latter having an insatiable appetite for energy for energy.

Yeah, I really think people will go to war over Iran.

you probably mean the former. I can see China throwing it's weight around in a few decades, but not now.

Killer Pigeon · 03-11-2011 9:24pm

Just in time for the release of BF3 and MW3.

Sticky_Fingers · 03-11-2011 9:25pm

Yahew wrote: »

you probably mean the former. I can see China throwing it's weight around in a few decades, but not now.

Why not, the time is perfect for them. The old powers are in economic disarray and IMO terminal decline. Chinas time is now, everyone knows it, thats why Europe went there with the begging bowl instead of the States.

SamHarris · 03-11-2011 9:27pm

nivekd wrote: »

What about the US sanctions imposed upon Iran since the puppet Shah was removed from power in 1979?

What about the US supporting Iraq when they invaded Iran in 1980?

US is hungry for oil and they will do whatever is necessary to get it.

You islamophobics always harp on about freedom and democracy, what a crock of ****...you really have no clue what you're talking about.

It's very simple. Iran has lots of oil, US needs lots of oil..that's about as complicated as it gets but you all choose to believe in the BS you're told because you're so bloody gullible.

Actually the sanctions have been in place since repeated acts of aggression and reinforced after flouting of UN treaties in Iran. Your arguments that somehow the US cannot protect its interests and well being through peaceful means in the region is ridiculous, if another nation did the same to the US after its embassy was sacked with US governemnt sanction and then repeatedly threatened said nation you would no doubt argue it is that nations right to chose not to empower such a rabid enemy. If it is the States, of course, the rules change.

Yes because Iran doesnt sell it at all. Oil would make very different groups of people targetable, countries all over the world have oil, all of them sell it, there is much more than oil behind it. There was similiar "theories" about Iraq, I guess the US "forgot" to take it on its way out :rolleyes:.This inability to grasp any level of complexity is one of the things that so weaken the pro-Iran brigade. Everything in the world is not reducable to one factor, regardless of how much easier that makes it for you to have "Good guys" and "bad guys" in your world view.

If you actually READ the link to the invasion of Iran you would notice the US was 7 or 8 th on the list of aid suppliers to Iraq. The number 1 far and away was that old US ally the USSR. Regardless, Iran had only years before commited acts of war on the US, so they were well within their rights to do far, far more to the Khoemani regime.

Islamaphobics? Typical, any criticsm of a brutal, hysterically anti-american regime must be silenced by a cry of "islamaphobia" - whatever the hell that even means. One of the biggest hawks in this situation, btw is Saudi Arabia, probably spurred on by their vehemet Islamaphobia.

The situation is far more complex than "Iran have nuclear wepan, that mean Amerifags have to leave them alone!" the danger, and this has been stated by high ranking US officials is not Iran having the bomb per se, it is sparking an arms race in the most dangerous, volatile and radical region of the world.

Yahew · 03-11-2011 9:27pm

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Why not, the time is perfect for them. The old powers are in economic disarray and IMO terminal decline. Chinas time is now, everyone knows it, thats why Europe went there with the begging bowl instead of the States.

for china to get richer it needs the West to consume. They play the long game. Once its own consumer society is the generator of wealth it will push itself in Africa, ME etc.

Mr.Micro · 03-11-2011 9:34pm

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Iran, third biggest oil producer in the world, second biggest gas producer. The US is a spent force that neither has the money or the will to fight another war. China and Russia are rapidly emerging powers, the former having an insatiable appetite for energy.

Yeah, I really think people will go to war over Iran.

Would it not be ironic if China decided that Iran needed liberating, just like the US and Iraq? If China went ahead and acted, imagine the reaction from the US?

Yahew · 03-11-2011 9:42pm

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Would it not be ironic if China decided that Iran needed liberating, just like the US and Iraq? If China went ahead and acted, imagine the reaction from the US?

Thats what China is going to do sometime. As for the US, I can see it being isolationist once again starting in the next decade ( I suspect a Republican will start the trend).

The future for Europe is a weak servility to China.

BlaasForRafa · 03-11-2011 9:43pm

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Why not, the time is perfect for them. The old powers are in economic disarray and IMO terminal decline. Chinas time is now, everyone knows it, thats why Europe went there with the begging bowl instead of the States.

China's armed forces, while large, are not as sophisticated as they need to be to project power far from her shores. Now in 10/15 years when it has carrier groups perhaps...

Sticky_Fingers · 03-11-2011 9:48pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

China's armed forces, while large, are not as sophisticated as they need to be to project power far from her shores. Now in 10/15 years when it has carrier groups perhaps...

What they lack in finesse they more then make up for in brute strength of numbers (as you pointed out). While the Americans would balk at a 4 figure casualty rate the China wouldn't even break a sweat.

Yahew · 03-11-2011 9:49pm

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

What they lack in finesse they more then make up for in brute strength of numbers (as you pointed out). While the Americans would balk at a 4 figure casualty rate the China wouldn't even break a sweat.

God man. Now how are they going to get there?

SamHarris · 03-11-2011 9:54pm

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Iran, third biggest oil producer in the world, second biggest gas producer. The US is a spent force that neither has the money or the will to fight another war. China and Russia are rapidly emerging powers, the former having an insatiable appetite for energy.

Yeah, I really think people will go to war over Iran.

Firstly, both have no where near the capability militarily to challenge the US. They know this. Secondly, the US is far from a spent force, it is still completly dominant technologically, economically and militarily. China is still entirelly dependant on American consumption, investment and technology. Russia is very, very far from being even in the same league economically - its about 1/10th the size of the US. Your in a pipe dream if you think it would risk a conflict with the US in the next 50 years.

Sticky_Fingers · 03-11-2011 9:54pm

Yahew wrote: »

God man. Now how are they going to get there?

I suggest you look at a map, it's a straight shot through Afghanistan and Tajikistan. I'm sure the Taliban would be more than willing to support the Chinese against the American infidels.

The Outside Agency · 03-11-2011 9:56pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Actually the sanctions have been in place since repeated acts of aggression and reinforced after flouting of UN treaties in Iran. Your arguments that somehow the US cannot protect its interests and well being through peaceful means in the region is ridiculous, if another nation did the same to the US after its embassy was sacked with US governemnt sanction and then repeatedly threatened said nation you would no doubt argue it is that nations right to chose not to empower such a rabid enemy. If it is the States, of course, the rules change.
Yes because Iran doesnt sell it at all. Oil would make very different groups of people targetable, countries all over the world have oil, all of them sell it, there is much more than oil behind it. There was similiar "theories" about Iraq, I guess the US "forgot" to take it on its way out :rolleyes:.This inability to grasp any level of complexity is one of the things that so weaken the pro-Iran brigade. Everything in the world is not reducable to one factor, regardless of how much easier that makes it for you to have "Good guys" and "bad guys" in your world view.

If you actually READ the link to the invasion of Iran you would notice the US was 7 or 8 th on the list of aid suppliers to Iraq. The number 1 far and away was that old US ally the USSR. Regardless, Iran had only years before commited acts of war on the US, so they were well within their rights to do far, far more to the Khoemani regime.

Islamaphobics? Typical, any criticsm of a brutal, hysterically anti-american regime must be silenced by a cry of "islamaphobia" - whatever the hell that even means. One of the biggest hawks in this situation, btw is Saudi Arabia, probably spurred on by their vehemet Islamaphobia.

The situation is far more complex than "Iran have nuclear wepan, that mean Amerifags have to leave them alone!" the danger, and this has been stated by high ranking US officials is not Iran having the bomb per se, it is sparking an arms race in the most dangerous, volatile and radical region of the world.

US oil production peaked ca. 1971 as accurately predicted by Marion King Hubbert.

The first "Energy crisis" occurred in 1973 was the result of an oil embargo against the US by Arab Nations (OPEC)

"in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military"

The next energy crisis occurred in 1979 when the Shah of Iran was toppled in the revolution

US response was the Carter Doctrine

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region

Yes, the only interest US has in Iran is about oil and instead of talking through your ass, maybe go and educate yourself on the history of the region, then I don't have to address your retarded posts about Iran.

You're utterly clueless on this issue.

Yahew · 03-11-2011 9:59pm

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

I suggest you look at a map, it's a straight shot through Afghanistan and Tajikistan. I'm sure the Taliban would be more than willing to support the Chinese against the American infidels.

Lol. I know the map.

So China is going to send it's troops into two countries to invade Iran, and you think that the Taliban will support them. The Taliban used to be on the US's side, it turned against the US because of the permanent placing of US forces in the Middle East ( Bin Laden wanted Hussein out of Kuwait but opposed US troops in Saudi).

China will have a huge regional war on it's hands if it enters either Afghanistan, or Tajikistan. In fact getting invaded by your neighbour is more worrying than a far away power. Of course the Taliban would fight the Chinese. They are infidels, and have invaded Muslim lands in the past.

There there are supply lines etc. Its not possible until they get carriers.

SamHarris · 03-11-2011 9:59pm

RichieC wrote: »

I expect the irony of that guys comments to go sailing over his head like everything else to do with this topic.

Yes, because the idea that the Jews desrve to have a homeland in the region is incredibly repulsive.

SamHarris · 03-11-2011 10:01pm

Yahew wrote: »

Lol. I know the map.

So China is going to send it's troops into two countries to invade Iran, and you think that the Taliban will support them. The Taliban used to be on the US's side, it turned against the US because of the placing of US forces in the Middle East. China will have a huge regional war on it's hands when it enters either Afghanistan, or Tajikistan. In fact getting invaded by your neighbour is more worrying than a far away power. Of course the Taliban would fight the Chinese.

There there are supply lines etc. Its not possible until they get carriers.

Regadless, capability wise your looking at decades before they approach the US. Doctrionally who knows.

dlofnep · 03-11-2011 10:03pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes, because the idea that the Jews desrve to have a homeland in the region is incredibly repulsive.

Actually, it is repulsive. The idea that one group of people can throw another group of people off their land by force, based on the words of goat-farmers from thousands of years ago is pretty repulsive.

Yahew · 03-11-2011 10:05pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Actually, it is repulsive. The idea that one group of people can throw another group of people off their land by force, based on the words of goat-farmers from thousands of years ago is pretty repulsive.

Hmm. However there they are now. And I suppose we will have to accept it just as we accept Anglo Saxons in Britain, or Russians in Latvia ( something which seems to get nobody's goat). Facts on the ground.

nacho libre · 03-11-2011 10:12pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Lol, this board just gets funnier, now it only takes a rumour on Sky to set off an anti-Israeli thread. Let me repeat that...a rumour on SKY. You might as well be basing your opinions on what Bill O'Reilly says.

Apparently it's believed a former head of Mossad(Dagan) leaked this to the press, as he thinks Netanyahu is pursuing a reckless course. I recall an article a few months ago where he aired his dissatisfaction with Netanyahu in public. This was surprising coming from a guy who was known as a hawk during his tenure as head of Mossad.

here's the article in question: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/03/israel-government-reckless-mossad-chief

SamHarris · 03-11-2011 10:14pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Actually, it is repulsive. The idea that one group of people can throw another group of people off their land by force, based on the words of goat-farmers from thousands of years ago is pretty repulsive.

Charming. Firstly it is not the word of goat farmers, the presence of Judea and Israel are confirmed historical facts, as much as the Persian , the Egyptian and Roman empires. It really wouldnt kill you to read a book on it, try Jerusalem A biography.

As much an historical fact as the Arab invasions come to think of it.

Secondly I didnt say that it was, the fact you deem a certain race unworthy of living in a region is scary. There is a very big difference between beleiving Jewish people have a right to live in their historical homeland and believing it is alright o take land by force. That soem beleive vehemently in the Palestinian right to have one, and not in the Jewish right to the same or vica versa is based soley on racial bigotry.

dlofnep · 03-11-2011 10:27pm

SamHarris wrote: »

Firstly it is not the word of goat farmers, the presence of Judea and Israel are confirmed historical facts, as much as the Persian , the Egyptian and Roman empires. It really wouldnt kill you to read a book on it, try Jerusalem A biography.

Yawn.

Firstly - I never stated that there was no Jewish presence in Israel. I was making reference to a large portion of Israelis who believe that they are God's chosen people, and that this fictitious character known as God has given them the right to own it.

SamHarris wrote: »

Secondly I didnt say that it was, the fact you deem a certain race unworthy of living in a region is scary.

The only thing scary here is your lack of basic comprehension. Not once did I mention a 'race' being 'unworthy' of living anywhere. I stated that it was repulsive to throw a native people off their land by force, based on the words of a few goat-farmers that is was the Jews god-given right to rule Palestine.

So in summary - just before you misconstrue (on purpose) my points - I'll summarise my views.

1) It is wrong to remove Palestinians from Palestine by force.
2) It was wrong to create a state at the expense of the native population.
3) Under the pending 2-state solution, it is wrong for Israel to create any settlements in the West Bank region.
4) I am more than happy to see the state of Israel secure, and prosperous - so long as it is based on the 67 lines. Anything beyond that, is not acceptable - not only by me, but by the entire United Nations.

Now if you can muster up the courage to actually engage in a reasoned discussion, I'll be happy to do that.

gbee · 03-11-2011 10:28pm

SamHarris wrote: »

on racial bigotry.

Well if I said I was a holocaust denier, I could be jailed, If I said the Jewish nation actually increased after the holocaust, I'd be accused of being a denier and jailed.

If I showed that the Jews were the minority @ you've guessed it, a denier and I'm now facing nuclear bombs.

Go for it. I'm tired of lies, I was brought up a Catholic, so I'm well used to this, Christ was Jew, so he was obviously lying too, despite the lying capitol of the world being not Jewish, just bomb Iran ~~ No One Cares ANY MORE

Yahew · 03-11-2011 10:29pm

gbee wrote: »

Well if I said I was a holocaust denier, I could be jailed, If I said the Jewish nation actually increased after the holocaust, I'd be accused of being a denier and jailed.

None of this is true, there are no such laws in Ireland.

BlaasForRafa · 03-11-2011 10:33pm

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

I suggest you look at a map, it's a straight shot through Afghanistan and Tajikistan. I'm sure the Taliban would be more than willing to support the Chinese against the American infidels.

American air power would win (in the unlikely event that somehow the two would come to blows over Iran), Chinese fighters (as yet) don't have the capability of American fighters and their pilots have less combat experience. Even more importantly Chinese air-to-air refueling, airborne early warning and electronic warfare assets are fairly poor, they've been trying for decades to design AEW aircraft and to date aren't having much success.

Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran

Comments