israel says it's time to act on Iran

[KiffinKiller]

Iran is making a bomb. Ahmajinedad has called for the destruction of the Jewish state. Ahmajenidad is trying to succeed where Hitler failed. Unless Iran stops the bomb making Israel will act.

that's fine. we can stay out of it.

 

[therealUT]

Iran is making a bomb. Ahmajinedad has called for the destruction of the Jewish state. Ahmajenidad is trying to succeed where Hitler failed. Unless Iran stops the bomb making Israel will act.

Here you go, OJ:

Volunteer, Enlist, Serve & Join the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) - Zahal - Mahal, Nahal Haredi, Hesder, Garin - Mahal Guide & Assistant

A useful link for anyone who feels that it is imperative that Iran should be stopped from striking Israel.

 

[TennTradition]

This isn't Iraq and nuclear reactors - this is Iran and a nuclear program built around centrifuge technology. These centrifuge facilities donot have to be centralized and can be burried in mountains. As for making a weapon of that material, this too can be carried out without a reactor and within fortified locations beneath mountains. Taking it out will necessitate non-conventional tactics and will not be easy.

 

[Weezy]

This isn't Iraq and nuclear reactors - this is Iran and a nuclear program built around centrifuge technology. These centrifuge facilities donot have to be centralized and can be burried in mountains. As for making a weapon of that material, this too can be carried out without a reactor and within fortified locations beneath mountains. Taking it out will necessitate non-conventional tactics and will not be easy.

So where do you fall on what US policy should be towards Iran?

I'm not sure where I stand. I understand nobody wants Iran with nuclear weapons, in fact, it's borderline unacceptable. But if the alternative is long and costly war, then that's unacceptable too. An Israel/Iran war wouldn't be pretty either. It sure would be sweet if we could negotiate something.

 

[TennTradition]

So where do you fall on what US policy should be towards Iran?

I'm not sure where I stand. I understand nobody wants Iran with nuclear weapons, in fact, it's borderline unacceptable. But if the alternative is long and costly war, then that's unacceptable too. An Israel/Iran war wouldn't be pretty either. It sure would be sweet if we could negotiate something.

Boots on the ground is not an effective strategy, IMO. Talk about stirring up a hornets nest. Iran doesn't have an insurgency with which we could partner - it just has a disaffected population. While this population is dissatisfied with the current situation, I don't think we would face a situation where we could see cooperation. We would be a threat that would likely unify Iran more than divide it. That solves few problems.

Focusing on or ramping up existing efforts while upping the ante with regard to international consequences of obtaining a weapon may be the best strategy. More Iranian scientists may be disappearing, more computers may become buggy, more flawed equipment may be sold, and more paid consultants may mis-advise. Combine this with a unified front of international pressure and the no-win situation of boots on the ground may become unnecessary.

The dragon's tail has certainly been tickled - I just hope things quiet down enough that he doesn't wake up.

 

[therealUT]

So where do you fall on what US policy should be towards Iran?

I'm not sure where I stand. I understand nobody wants Iran with nuclear weapons, in fact, it's borderline unacceptable. But if the alternative is long and costly war, then that's unacceptable too. An Israel/Iran war wouldn't be pretty either. It sure would be sweet if they could negotiate something.

fyp

 

[KiffinKiller]

Boots on the ground is not an effective strategy, IMO. Talk about stirring up a hornets nest. Iran doesn't have an insurgency with which we could partner - it just has a disaffected population. While this population is dissatisfied with the current situation, I don't think we would face a situation where we could see cooperation. We would be a threat that would likely unify Iran more than divide it. That solves few problems.

Focusing on or ramping up existing efforts while upping the ante with regard to international consequences of obtaining a weapon may be the best strategy. More Iranian scientists may be disappearing, more computers may become buggy, more flawed equipment may be sold, and more paid consultants may mis-advise. Combine this with a unified front of international pressure and the no-win situation of boots on the ground may become unnecessary.

The dragon's tail has certainly been tickled - I just hope things quiet down enough that he doesn't wake up.

so they're chasing the dragon, so to speak.

 

[gsvol]

Iran is making a bomb. Ahmajinedad has called for the destruction of the Jewish state. Ahmajenidad is trying to succeed where Hitler failed. Unless Iran stops the bomb making Israel will act.

Iran is a word comes from 'ayran,' they consider themselves to be ayran and that is one of the things that Hitler used to form his madman theology.

The idea of Aryan superiority didn't just come along with Hitler, it has been around for a long, long time.

Yeah, if LG and GS were already related.

Inbreeding can cause mental defects.

I submit stinky dinky as exibit A to illustrate that point!

As much as the Israelis claim they can hit the Iranian sites, in my opinion, they don't have the capability to do so. Sure they have the training and technology capable of it, but they can't hit every single site. Plus the fact that the planes won't make it out alive. The Israelis aren't stupid, they won't hit Iran because they know it will be a death sentence for them. Iran would fire back, Hamas & Hezbollah will open up, Syria will jump and then all hell breaks lose. An Israeli strike on Iran is the worst possible tactical option they can do.

We're the only ones capable of mounting a successful strike on Iranian positions and we don't want to do that. Not to mention the fact they still a few years away from the bomb from everything I've read.

Edit: I even forgot to mention the fact that the Iranians would mine the Strait of Hormuz and really screw up the global economy. Hitting Iran is the worst possible option for everyone involved.

Did you ever stop to think that you may be totally FOS?

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

CLOUDS of smoke billowed above the city of Isfahan - evidence that the latest strike against Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program had hit its target.

The second blast in as many weeks at an atomic or missile facility has sparked Iranian denials and claims of accidents, but a new phase in efforts to destroy its nuclear ambitions is said to be under way.

Next question, can you even come to comprehend just how ignorant you really are and start the process of being deprogrammed from your lifelong brainwashing?

Think about it, really!

Only in the sense of combined stupidity.

Your combined stupidity is mindboggling.

Really, I don't think the combined stupidity of any two posters on this board would total yours. (and I'm including dinky and kitty in that, although dinky would be 3/4 of the sum total.)

I mean ignorance is one thing, knowledge is a cure for that, but so far, even for all the scientific advancements of mankind, we have not yet found a remedy for stupidity.

Op confuses me.

He complains on the one hand that Obama will try to dissuade Israel from going to war with Iran but then also complains that a war will cause the price of gasoline in the US to skyrocket.

You are constantly confused and the most confusing part of the whole equation is that you hardly ever understand just how confused you are. :loco:

 

[DinkinFlicka]

So what you're trying to say is... your retorts are limited to "No, you."

 

[OJ]

Stinky dinky. That is hilarious you got to admit.

 

[myrobbins7]

Iran military shoots down U.S. drone: state TV - Yahoo! News

Getting closer.

 

[TSwafford]

Shouldn't have drones in their country.. they have every right to shoot it down

 

[therealUT]

Shouldn't have drones in their country.. they have every right to shoot it down

Having drones in their sovereign airspace is technically an act of war.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Having drones in their sovereign airspace is technically an act of war.

Eh, an unarmed drone is no different than having a spy on the ground. Not an act of war in my opinion.

 

[therealUT]

Eh, an unarmed drone is no different than having a spy on the ground. Not an act of war in my opinion.

A spy on the ground is an act of war, technically speaking (so are embargoes).

 

[PKT_VOL]

A spy on the ground is an act of war, technically speaking (so are embargoes).

I would say that we probably have different definitions of "act of war" just like we obviously had different definitions of "a priori" and "a posteriori" in the other thread.

I consider both a spy and embargoes as acts of aggression or hostility which to me is different than an act of war. This is assuming that the embargoes are in international waters.

 

[therealUT]

I meant to use the term "blockade", not "embargo".

Also, I do not have a different definition of a priori than you.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I meant to use the term "blockade", not "embargo".

I consider a blockade enforced without deadly force in international waters as an act of aggression. If the aggressive country crosses the line using deadly force, then I would consider that an act of war.

Also, I do not have a different definition of a priori than you.

How would you know? You have no idea what my definition of "a priori" is.

 

[therealUT]

I consider a blockade enforced without deadly force in international waters as an act of aggression. If the aggressive country crosses the line using deadly force, then I would consider that an act of war.

Would you consider siege warfare then not to be warfare? The two are absolutely analogous.

How would you know? You have no idea what my definition of "a priori" is.

I just know. :hi:

 

[PKT_VOL]

Would you consider siege warfare then not to be warfare? The two are absolutely analogous.

If they enforce their military blockade without deadly force...then yes. I know that one almost always comes with the other, but I view them as separate entities. The technology of non-lethal warfare is quite impressive nowadays.

 

[therealUT]

If they enforce their military blockade without deadly force...then yes. I know that one almost always comes with the other, but I view them as separate entities. The technology of non-lethal warfare is quite impressive nowadays.

So, any force that is not deadly force is not an act of war?

 

[PKT_VOL]

So, any force that is not deadly force is not an act of war?

Obviously every situation is different, but I'd say it's a good rule of thumb.

 

[TennTradition]

Obviously every situation is different, but I'd say it's a good rule of thumb.

Then how can there be non-lethal warfare technology?

 

[KiffinKiller]

like...say...scouting technology. Most important, imo.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Then how can there be non-lethal warfare technology?

I knew that term would come to bite me in the ass when I posted it. Surprised it took this long for someone to point that out.

I would say that disagree with the term in general. I feel like the term non-lethal warfare is somewhat of an oxymoron. Unfortunately, non-lethal warfare rolls of the tongue a little sweeter than non-lethal aggressive action (or something to that affect).