Ahmadinejad tells West: Accept Israel's 'imminent collapse'

#1

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
59
#1
Ahmadinejad tells West: Accept Israel's 'imminent collapse' - Haaretz - Israel News

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on the West Wednesday to acknowledge Israel's "imminent collapse."

Speaking to a crowd on a visit to the southern port of Bushehr, where Iran's first light-water nuclear power plant is being built by Russia, Ahmadinejad further incited his listeners to "stop supporting the Zionists, as [their] regime reached its final stage."
0.gif
Advertisement"Accept that the life of Zionists will sooner or later come to an end," the Iranian president said in a televised speech.

Thoughts?
 
#6
#6
On his last official act as POTUS, W should announce that the US is adopting a "hands-off" approach regarding how Israel defends itself, and will only intercede with a veto should the UNSC vote to sanction the Israelis.

Israel should also be invited to join NATO.
 
#8
#8
On his last official act as POTUS, W should announce that the US is adopting a "hands-off" approach regarding how Israel defends itself, and will only intercede with a veto should the UNSC vote to sanction the Israelis.

Heck, why not? I didn't really believe anything he said in the State of the Union Address, anyway.
 
#9
#9
On his last official act as POTUS, W should announce that the US is adopting a "hands-off" approach regarding how Israel defends itself, and will only intercede with a veto should the UNSC vote to sanction the Israelis.

Israel should also be invited to join NATO.
I am wondering exactly what you mean by a "hands-off" approach. Israel purchases plenty of our military equipment, but other than that, the US is usually doing all it can to diplomatically restrain Israel from taking aggressive action against its Arab neighbors.

I would think that the IDF would love nothing more than to launch full scale wars against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. In the Gulf War it was us who kept the Israeli's from taking aggressive reactive measures to scud missile attacks on Tel Aviv.
 
#10
#10
what I mean by hands off is a US policy of diplomatic non-intervention when Israel feels it needs to defend itself. I know Israel buys a lot of their arms from the US, but too many times the US has asked Israel to temper it's responses. Israel would have handily won the conflict in lebanon last year had the US/UN not interfered.
 
#12
#12
I am wondering exactly what you mean by a "hands-off" approach. Israel purchases plenty of our military equipment, but other than that, the US is usually doing all it can to diplomatically restrain Israel from taking aggressive action against its Arab neighbors.

I would think that the IDF would love nothing more than to launch full scale wars against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. In the Gulf War it was us who kept the Israeli's from taking aggressive reactive measures to scud missile attacks on Tel Aviv.
I think that was his point. The Middle East would act differently with an unrestrained and well armed Israel on its hands.
 
#13
#13
Ok, I definitely interpreted it incorrectly. I would not mind seeing an Israel that comes out swinging hard and often.
 
#14
#14
Realistically, would Israel really be able to take on the entire middle east alone?

Are we talking an end game scenario?
 
#15
#15
I support Israel and hope our country continues to do so in the future... take that for what it's worth.
 
#18
#18
Realistically, would Israel really be able to take on the entire middle east alone?

Are we talking an end game scenario?
wouldn't have to? concensus across the Middle East's Muslims is never happening. They'd have to deal with most on a one off basis and I think Iraq is unlikely to mount any front against them. Aside from them, you really have the Turks, Pakistanis and the Iranians.
 
#20
#20
I have a feeling that the descendants of the Russian pogroms and the Nazi Holocaust would not really be bothered enough by collateral damage to play nice and fair if entered into full scale war with a contingent of the Arab states. This lack of civilian sensitivity would nullify the guerrilla advantage and therefore the technological superiority of the Israel military machine would win the day.
 
#21
#21
Why not? The Jews have pulled off some amazing things when outnumbered.


The level of death and destruction would be on a larger scale.

The rest of the world would step in at some point.

I mean the U.S. and France has stepped in, in the past.
 
#22
#22
I have a feeling that the descendants of the Russian pogroms and the Nazi Holocaust would not really be bothered enough by collateral damage to play nice and fair if entered into full scale war with a contingent of the Arab states. This lack of civilian sensitivity would nullify the guerrilla advantage and therefore the technological superiority of the Israel military machine would win the day.
yes, tac nukes are a definite possibility and collateral damage only a slight afterthought.
 
#23
#23
wouldn't have to? concensus across the Middle East's Muslims is never happening. They'd have to deal with most on a one off basis and I think Iraq is unlikely to mount any front against them. Aside from them, you really have the Turks, Pakistanis and the Iranians.


Agreed, but that would be easy?

:blink:
 
#24
#24
I have a feeling that the descendants of the Russian pogroms and the Nazi Holocaust would not really be bothered enough by collateral damage to play nice and fair if entered into full scale war with a contingent of the Arab states. This lack of civilian sensitivity would nullify the guerrilla advantage and therefore the technological superiority of the Israel military machine would win the day.


Agreed, but what about the world out cry?
 
#25
#25
Do you guys feel that with all the tension between the U.S./ Israel and Muslim Nations that the Middle East's bubble is about to burst?
 

VN Store



Back
Top