Historic Deal Signed With Iran!

arybvtcw0eolkf · 24-11-2013 05:48PM

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 · 24-11-2013 05:50PM

Will the settlement building kick off anytime soon?

getzls · 24-11-2013 05:50PM

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 · 24-11-2013 05:53PM

tits or gtfo

The_B_Man · 24-11-2013 05:54PM

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

Seaneh · 24-11-2013 06:10PM

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 · 24-11-2013 06:27PM

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 · 24-11-2013 06:29PM

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 · 24-11-2013 06:37PM

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 · 24-11-2013 06:51PM

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 · 24-11-2013 07:03PM

handlemaster wrote: »

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

Any country would oppose their enemy having nuclear weapons.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 24-11-2013 07:06PM

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 · 24-11-2013 07:16PM

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 · 24-11-2013 07:20PM

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 · 24-11-2013 07:25PM

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 · 24-11-2013 07:27PM

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 · 24-11-2013 07:33PM

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 · 24-11-2013 07:36PM

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 · 24-11-2013 07:42PM

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 · 24-11-2013 07:50PM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

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

BWAHAHAHAHA

brimal · 24-11-2013 07:54PM

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 · 24-11-2013 07:59PM

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 · 24-11-2013 08:05PM

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 · 24-11-2013 08:14PM

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 · 24-11-2013 08:15PM

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 · 24-11-2013 08:34PM

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 · 24-11-2013 08:36PM

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 · 24-11-2013 08:40PM

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 · 24-11-2013 08:48PM

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 · 24-11-2013 08:50PM

brimal wrote: »

This is just comical :pac:

'Tis indeed

I hope he continues.

Historic Deal Signed With Iran!

Comments

Welcome!