Historic Deal Signed With Iran!

Frank Garrett

Seaneh wrote: »

I'd say the only think holding Israel back is that even though their government is a shower of crazy bigots, they aren't actually stupid enough to try and **** with Iran.

A shower of crazy bigots vs. a shower of crazy bigots.

You'd have to be pretty mentally retarded to choose sides.

Nodin

getzls wrote: »

The Iranian leader stated that less than two years ago.

Has he told you he has changed his mind?

....that would be the Iranian leader who fell into disfavour and is no longer in power following the recent election....?

getzls

Nodin wrote: »

....that would be the Iranian leader who fell into disfavour and is no longer in power following the recent election....?

He is not the President.

Though he is the supreme leader.

Nodin

getzls wrote: »

He is not the President.

Though he is the supreme leader.

You've a source for that?

getzls

Nodin wrote: »

You've a source for that?

Try the internet.

Do you think Iran poses no threat to Israel?

Bog Standard User

Mr. Tom wrote: »

Here's a Link.

http://flamesnation.ca/uploads/Image/weak%20link.jpg


israel you are the weakest link... goodbye

Nodin

getzls wrote: »

Try the internet.?

The "internet" didn't make the claim, you did. As a result, I'm asking you. Seeing as you have more knowledge of the supposed threat than me, it should take little effort to provide a source, thus allowing the discussion to progress.

getzls wrote: »

Do you think Iran poses no threat to Israel?

Iran will not attack Israel with nuclear weapons, because it would be destroyed in the retaliatory strikes.

It may pose a threat to Israels military dominance over the region, which is no bad thing. Iran, for all its flaws, is not colonising areas outside its borders.

Karl Stein

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Must disagree with you here O Man Of Many Nomenclatures . Could the appeal of 70 virgins giving head per capita, not tip the balance in that direction?

The Persians are not Al Queda.

arybvtcw0eolkf

getzls wrote: »

Do you think Iran poses no threat to Israel?

More an annoyance than any real threat.. And although Israel would defeat Iran in a war the cost/scale would be nothing like anyone here can remember.

I think adding any nukes into the cess pit of the Middle East & Persia is a very bad idea... Regardless who has the damned things, including Israel.

I'd have to remind myself and bring myself up to date but is Iran still declares itself an enemy of Israel then its entirely legitimate for Israel to attack Iran and deny them of their nukes.. You can legitimately attack your enemies country, its cities, ports, shipping channels etc.. but hopefully it doesn't come to that while we have troops serving in the region (or even after their deployment ceases).

getzls

Iran with a nuke will i believe attack Israel sometime in the future

arybvtcw0eolkf

getzls wrote: »

Iran with a nuke will i believe attack Israel sometime in the future

I doubt Iran are as crack pot crazy as some in the west would have us believe.

mrsoundie

Will the settlement building kick off anytime soon?

getzls

Nico Freezing Topographer wrote: »

I doubt Iran are as crack pot crazy as some in the west would have us believe.

Suicide bombers probably seem sane until they go boom.

MRnotlob606

tits or gtfo

The_B_Man

Usually when something like this is announced, something really bad has happened elsewhere. Did anything happen in Syria today, by any chance?

Seaneh

Nico Freezing Topographer wrote: »

I doubt Iran are as crack pot crazy as some in the west would have us believe.

This, and the fact that Iran are not trying to make a bomb, despite what Bibi and his hoard of PR men would have the world believe.

They haven't been since the Shah was removed.

There is no intelligence agency in the world who actually believe Iran are trying to make a bomb.

The sanctions were never about weapons, they were about keeping Iran as weak as possible by trying to cripple them economically.

And like you said, Israel won't attack Iran. Even though they have the better military and would win any "war" that might happen, their losses would be insane. Israel strikes Iran and within hours there is 66,000 Hezbollah rockets pointed at every major target in Israel, as well as the fact that Iran itself has a massive arsenal of medium range ballistic missiles which in itself would do a lot of damage, as well as their air force.

Israel would win in the end, because they would play their "pillars of Samson" card (either just showing the hand, or actually doing it), but their losses would be unbelievable. In terms of civilian life, infrastructure and military.

It's an unwinnable fight for either side.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Seaneh wrote: »

This, and the fact that Iran are not trying to make a bomb, despite what Bibi and his hoard of PR men would have the world believe.

They haven't been since the Shah was removed.

There is no intelligence agency in the world who actually believe Iran are trying to make a bomb.

The sanctions were never about weapons, they were about keeping Iran as weak as possible by trying to cripple them economically.

And like you said, Israel won't attack Iran. Even though they have the better military and would win any "war" that might happen, their losses would be insane. Israel strikes Iran and within hours there is 66,000 Hezbollah rockets pointed at every major target in Israel, as well as the fact that Iran itself has a massive arsenal of medium range ballistic missiles which in itself would do a lot of damage, as well as their air force.

Israel would win in the end, because they would play their "pillars of Samson" card (either just showing the hand, or actually doing it), but their losses would be unbelievable. In terms of civilian life, infrastructure and military.

It's an unwinnable fight for either side.

The problem with that scenario would be Israel opening a front into Lebanon and if they chose to not fight a limited war as happened in 2006 (the second Lebanon war) the Lebanese army would flee north and Hezbollah would be pushed out through Beirut and Tripoli and you're probably looking at civilian casualties of upwards of 25,000.

Don't mistake the IDF of today and the Lieberman IDF of 2006.

It would be a horrible war reminiscent of the 1978 and 1982 invasions (Operations Peace for Galilee and Operation Litani).

2006 gave the IDF a bloody nose and nothing else.

Operation Cast Lead in 2009 put a new price on attacking Israel ~ Hezbollah couldn't afford to pay it, trust me.. And worst case scenario for Lebanon would be another civil war.

biko

If USA and Russia promised to disable warheads as part of everyone else doing that'd be great
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-01-06-Nucleardistribution.jpg

mrsoundie

Nico Freezing Topographer wrote: »

The problem with that scenario would be Israel opening a front into Lebanon and if they chose to not fight a limited war as happened in 2006 (the second Lebanon war) the Lebanese army would flee north and Hezbollah would be pushed out through Beirut and Tripoli and you're probably looking at civilian casualties of upwards of 25,000.

Don't mistake the IDF of today and the Lieberman IDF of 2006.

It would be a horrible war reminiscent of the 1978 and 1982 invasions (Operations Peace for Galilee and Operation Litani).

2006 gave the IDF a bloody nose and nothing else.

Operation Cast Lead in 2009 put a new price on attacking Israel ~ Hezbollah couldn't afford to pay it, trust me.. And worst case scenario for Lebanon would be another civil war.

Hezbollah would mind another fight, Syria has them occupied to some extent. I don't think that an Israeli invasion would cause a civil war, someone else is trying that there (someone backed by the Saudis etc). The last place on earth I would try and fight anyone would be South Lebanon with even the hardware the Isrealis have. All things being equal, all that's happening at the moment is hot air nothing more, neither side has the will of resources to make a knockout blow.

handlemaster

Israel and US opposing nuclear power to Iran is more than ironic. US only country to us nuclear bomb TWICE and Israel hint they have them but won't confirm.

arybvtcw0eolkf

handlemaster wrote: »

Israel and US opposing nuclear power to Iran is more than ironic.

Any country would oppose their enemy having nuclear weapons.

arybvtcw0eolkf

mrsoundie wrote: »

Hezbollah would mind another fight, Syria has them occupied to some extent. I don't think that an Israeli invasion would cause a civil war, someone else is trying that there (someone backed by the Saudis etc). The last place on earth I would try and fight anyone would be South Lebanon with even the hardware the Isrealis have. All things being equal, all that's happening at the moment is hot air nothing more, neither side has the will of resources to make a knockout blow.

Plus with UNIFIL II having a much more robust mandate than UNIFIL I did the Hezzies don't have the same power base in the south (as they did prior to 2006).

mrsoundie

Nico Freezing Topographer wrote: »

Plus with UNIFIL II having a much more robust mandate than UNIFIL I did the Hezzies don't have the same power base in the south (as they did prior to 2006).

I don't think that UNIFIL with its more robust mandate matters with Hezbollah, as it was always careful in its dealings with the UN troops. Hezbollahs power base is South Lebanon and they are the only ones making meaningful contributions in the South.

The Diabolical Monocle

They kind of deserve each other.

Make a nice couple.

Iran its a way of dealing with gays (Iran's president claims Iran have none) and women.

The only thing that grates my balls is Israel's Samson protocol.

This protocol states that if Israel should ever fall it will nuke all countries within range, this includes European countries.

So fvck them.

I think the EU should have a protocol in response to Israels, in the case of any Israeli nukes hitting Europe.

I dont dare say what the infamous surname of this protocol should be.

Let them occupy each other.

Skylinehead

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

The only thing that grates my balls is Israel's Samson protocol.

This protocol states that if Israel should ever fall it will nuke all countries within range, this includes European countries.

So fvck them.

Source? I've heard of it as a hypothetical last resort, but never "all countries within range". Methinks you made that bit up.

arybvtcw0eolkf

mrsoundie wrote: »

I don't think that UNIFIL with its more robust mandate matters with Hezbollah, as it was always careful in its dealings with the UN troops. Hezbollahs power base is South Lebanon and they are the only ones making meaningful contributions in the South.

They've been making 'meaningful' contributions in the south since the IDF withdrawal in March 2000.. I should have said 'military powerbase' ~ I've no doubt thats been depleted and downsized since 2006.

Either way Israel won't be caught with its pants down and lead into another war in Lebanon as unprepared as it was in 2006.

And with UNIFIL II's stronger mandate and hezbollah never in a position to invade the Galilee I don't think Israel has a whole lot to worry about along the Blue Line.. But God help anyone if they're (IDF) ever given a reason open up a front and invade again!.

mrsoundie

Nico Freezing Topographer wrote: »

They've been making 'meaningful' contributions in the south since the IDF withdrawal in March 2000.. I should have said 'military powerbase' ~ I've no doubt thats been depleted and downsized since 2006.

Either way Israel won't be caught with its pants down and lead into another war in Lebanon as unprepared as it was in 2006.

And with UNIFIL II's stronger mandate and hezbollah never in a position to invade the Galilee I don't think Israel has a whole lot to worry about along the Blue Line.. But God help anyone if they're (IDF) ever given a reason open up a front and invade again!.

All true, what the 21st century has proved is that the invasion is simple enough, fighting the resulting asymmetrical war is another entirely and what military hardware does the insurgent force really require? (We should leave this for another forum as we are getting a bit off topic)

The Diabolical Monocle

Skylinehead wrote: »

Source? I've heard of it as a hypothetical last resort, but never "all countries within range". Methinks you made that bit up.

Source - go look it up yourself, if you have the time to accuse me of lying you have the time to use google - I think you made it up that you heard anything different.


methinks ... ffs

The Diabolical Monocle

Skylinehead wrote: »

Source? I've heard of it as a hypothetical last resort, but never "all countries within range". Methinks you made that bit up.

Wiki

"In 2003, a military historian, Martin van Creveld, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[29] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:
We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.[30]"


Would you like to man up and publicly apologize to me now.

arybvtcw0eolkf

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Would you like to man up and publicly apologize to me now.

BWAHAHAHAHA

brimal

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Wiki

"In 2003, a military historian, Martin van Creveld, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[29] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:
We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.[30]"

This is the opinion of one military historian. van Creveld is known to come out with sometimes controversial statements, especially when he is trying to flog off a new book.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Would you like to man up and publicly apologize to me now.

I laughed at this.

The Diabolical Monocle

brimal wrote: »

This is the opinion of one military historian. van Creveld is known to come out with sometimes controversial statements, especially when he is trying to flog off a new book.




I laughed at this.

Irrelevant.

I have a source. So a reason to believe what I wrote.

If you have the balls to accuse someone of being a liar in a given place and time you should either be certain or have the balls to apologize.

Maybe you live differently.

Skylinehead

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Source - go look it up yourself, if you have the time to accuse me of lying you have the time to use google - I think you made it up that you heard anything different.


methinks ... ffs

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Wiki

"In 2003, a military historian, Martin van Creveld, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[29] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:
We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: 'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.[30]"


Would you like to man up and publicly apologize to me now.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/doctrine.htm

That states that it's against adversaries. The only source regarding Europe is the one you've stated, which is dodgy at best. Hersh's book dedicated to the Samson Option doesn't mention Europe at all.

As for your last bit, lol :pac:

The Diabolical Monocle

Skylinehead wrote: »

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/doctrine.htm

That states that it's against adversaries. The only source regarding Europe is the one you've stated, which is dodgy at best. Hersh's book dedicated to the Samson Option doesn't mention Europe at all.

As for your last bit, lol :pac:

Calling me a liar making stuff up proven wrong, so move to attacking the source.
I didn't make up anything.
If you type 'samson option' and the letter 'e' into the google searchbar you will probably have an auto-suggest with "samson option europe".

Fair enough, guess you're just the type who goes around accusing people on no basis.

Skylinehead

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Calling me a liar gets making stuff up proven wrong, so move to attacking the source.
I didn't make up anything.
If you type 'samson option' and the letter 'e' into the google searchbar you will probably have an auto-suggest with "samson option europe".

Fair enough, you didn't make it up. But it's completely unfounded.

Google search prediction is possibly the worst source of all time though, you have to do better than that.

The Diabolical Monocle

Skylinehead wrote: »

Fair enough, you didn't make it up. But it's completely unfounded.

Google search prediction is possibly the worst source of all time though, you have to do better than that.

I did, I gave you 1 reputable source.
What have you contributed other than calling other people names.

Skylinehead

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

I did, I gave you 1 reputable source.
What have you contributed other than calling other people names.

Two more reputable sources, if you actually bothered to read my post.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...l/doctrine.htm

That states that it's against adversaries. The only source regarding Europe is the one you've stated, which is dodgy at best. Hersh's book dedicated to the Samson Option doesn't mention Europe at all.

As for your last bit, lol

brimal

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Calling me a liar making stuff up proven wrong, so move to attacking the source.
I didn't make up anything.
If you type 'samson option' and the letter 'e' into the google searchbar you will probably have an auto-suggest with "samson option europe".

Fair enough, guess you're just the type who goes around accusing people on no basis.

This is just comical :pac:

Zebra3

getzls wrote: »

Iran has vowed to wipe Israel out.

To state the obvious, Israel will not let that happen.

Who can blame them if they attacked Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html

Don't forget that Israel has been doing everything for over 60 years to wipe Palestine off the face of the earth. How do you feel about that? :rolleyes:

arybvtcw0eolkf

brimal wrote: »

This is just comical :pac:

'Tis indeed

I hope he continues.

Nodin

...I suppose we were lucky to get as far as we did before the nuttery started.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Nodin wrote: »

...I suppose we were lucky to get as far as we did before the nuttery started.

God be with the days when the only nuts were you, me, wezzie & Brimal ~ we never had it so good

The Diabolical Monocle

Nico Freezing Topographer wrote: »

'Tis indeed

I hope he continues.

Indeed he will, and he doesn't mind others' squirming.


That the searchbar results in the given terms is plain evidence that other people have inquired this also.
While it doesn't mean that something is right or wrong or founded or unfounded it does show that its plainly not something I made up off the top of my head.

When we consider the founding of Israel and its reasons for existing as a safe home for the Jewish people in a world it views as hostile to its race, along with the fact that it will not allow nuclear weapons inspections, coupled with the historic persecution of Jews its fair to say that there it is reasonable to believe that there is such a protocol as samson.

That a Jewish professor talking from Jerusalem to a news agency states that Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons is reason enough to give at least some weight to this consideration.

I'd like to ask you Nico Freezing Topographer if you have any political leaning/sympathies towards Israel.

Nodin

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Indeed he will, and he doesn't mind others' squirming.


That the searchbar results in the given terms is plain evidence that other people have inquired this also.
While it doesn't mean that something is right or wrong or founded or unfounded it does show that its plainly not something I made up off the top of my head.

When we consider the founding of Israel and its reasons for existing as a safe home for the Jewish people in a world it views as hostile to its race, along with the fact that it will not allow nuclear weapons inspections, coupled with the historic persecution of Jews its fair to say that there it is reasonable to believe that there is such a protocol as samson.
.......

It makes no sense whatsoever. Why nuke neutral and friendly states? Silly stuff.

The Diabolical Monocle

Nodin wrote: »

It makes no sense whatsoever. Why nuke neutral and friendly states? Silly stuff.

In 2002 the Los Angeles Times, published an opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter in which he wrote: "What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away--unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans--have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?"

Nodin

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

In 2002 the Los Angeles Times, published an opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter in which he wrote: "What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away--unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans--have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?"

....I (and anyone with google) could fill the front page of AH with stupid stuff Imams, Rabbis, Ayatollahs Likudniks and other eejits come out with.

The Diabolical Monocle

Nodin wrote: »

....I (and anyone with google) could fill the front page of AH with stupid stuff Imams, Rabbis, Ayatollahs Likudniks and other eejits come out with.

Go on then - quote me a professor from Israel giving an opposing argument.

Augmerson

What if every country in the world had nukes. Then nobody would go to war or start **** because the world would be nuked to bits. Everybody wins.


Actually everybody would probably die.

Nodin

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Go on then - quote me a professor from Israel giving an opposing argument.

...why would anyone bother? What control has a professor in lousiana over Israels nuclear arsenal? Get a grip ffs.

The Diabolical Monocle

Nodin wrote: »

...why would anyone bother? What control has a professor in lousiana over Israels nuclear arsenal? Get a grip ffs.

Oh you're thinking about the second professor.

I was referring to the first professor, Martin van Creveld the Israeli military historian.