26 replies to this topic

[sean6]

U.S. and Israel 'considering joint aerial strike' against Iran's nuclear facilities using bombers and drones


America and Israel are considering a joint surgical strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, it was claimed today.
Foreign Policy magazine reported a source 'close to the discussions' and said the strike might compose primarily of bombers and drone support.
The suggested attack is expected to last no more than a few days - or even just 'a couple of hours', the magazine said.
Such a strike could be carried out without civilian casualties, and would set back the Iranian nuclear program by back many years.
Benefits of such a strike would be regional, Foreign Policy says.

http://www.dailymail...mef=Eddie+Wrenn

http://www.jpost.com....aspx?id=287148


the question is what will china and russia do?? will is start ww3 ???

Edited by sean6, 09 October 2012 - 11:51 PM.

[None of the above]

Quote

The source, said to be in favour of the strike, said the Israel-led assault would be 'transformative' and would end up 'saving Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, reanimating the peace process, securing the (Persian) Gulf, sending an unequivocal message to Russia and China, and assuring American ascendancy in the region for a decade to come.'

I thought this was serious until I read that.
This is just some neo-con's wet dream. What a total fantasy, I doubt even Mitt Romney could spout such crap without laughing.

[and then]

Atlantia, on 10 October 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

I thought this was serious until I read that.
This is just some neo-con's wet dream. What a total fantasy, I doubt even Mitt Romney could spout such crap without laughing.

It is pretty far fetched.  Israel will never attack Iran without the US backing it.  

[tipotep]

The US won't back Israel to bomb Iran - not in the pulic eye anyways

The reasons should be obvious - black and sticky !

TiP.

[lightly]

i don't know.....  if you can't believe     "a source 'close to the discussions' "   .. who can you believe?

    It seems like we are being conditioned to accept the inevitable ?     It will be like,  Oh ya,  i'm not surprised, THEY'VE  been talking about it for years.        I hope i'm wrong though.

[None of the above]

and then, on 10 October 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

It is pretty far fetched.  Israel will never attack Iran without the US backing it.  

It's total fantasy. The idea that starting a war with Iran would actually 'stabilise' the middle east is laughable right wing propaganda.

[and then]

Atlantia, on 10 October 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

It's total fantasy. The idea that starting a war with Iran would actually 'stabilise' the middle east is laughable right wing propaganda.

I agree.  Starting a war anywhere is apt to destabilize an area.  On the other hand if the stability that everyone is craving is at the cost of Israel being annihilated, well, they may just have a vote that has to be reckoned with also.

[Hilander]

If Romney is elected I think you can count on a war with Iran.  He has already told the Israeli's that they have our backing on whatever they wanted to do regarding Iran.  I'm hoping he was lying that time.

[None of the above]

and then, on 10 October 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

I agree.  Starting a war anywhere is apt to destabilize an area.  On the other hand if the stability that everyone is craving is at the cost of Israel being annihilated, well, they may just have a vote that has to be reckoned with also.

Israel is the child of the west and the west won't let Israel be destroyed.
There is a big difference between merely not backing Israeli warmongering and expansionism and bringing them to heel somewhat, or allowing Israel to be 'annihilated'.
Israel's survival isn't in question IMO.

[and then]

Atlantia, on 11 October 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Israel is the child of the west and the west won't let Israel be destroyed.
There is a big difference between merely not backing Israeli warmongering and expansionism and bringing them to heel somewhat, or allowing Israel to be 'annihilated'.
Israel's survival isn't in question IMO.

This is an interesting take.  Seriously, how would you go about "bringing them to heel"?  And if you happened to be incorrect in your judgment and their enemies began attacking them in that subdued state, how do you think the West should/would respond?

[None of the above]

and then, on 12 October 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

This is an interesting take.  Seriously, how would you go about "bringing them to heel"?  And if you happened to be incorrect in your judgment and their enemies began attacking them in that subdued state, how do you think the West should/would respond?

You use the same methods you would with any rogue state.
Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself against attack and a 'subdued' Israel would be a very positive step towards peace.

Edited by Atlantia, 12 October 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[and then]

Atlantia, on 12 October 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

You use the same methods you would with any rogue state.
Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself against attack and a 'subdued' Israel would be a very positive step towards peace.

So you feel that Israel could handle a situation where most or all of her enemies decided to attack?  Actually I agree with this, I just don't think the world is ready for how she would respond.  You did not answer the question though so I will restate it.  If the government of Israel became more flexible to an agreement that the Palestinians could live with and signed an agreement with them and they STILL kept lobbing rockets and missiles from their newly acquired territory as they did in Gaza...how do you think the world should respond?

[GreyWeather]

If this article had any actual standing (daily mail has none) I don't think America could even afford to fly over to Iran... They are, after all, still in couple trillion dollar debt. If they wanted to start another war, it'll be the end of an economically stable America.

(But, on the plus side, it'll be reaaaaaalllly cheap to import things!)

[None of the above]

and then, on 12 October 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

So you feel that Israel could handle a situation where most or all of her enemies decided to attack?  Actually I agree with this, I just don't think the world is ready for how she would respond.  You did not answer the question though so I will restate it.  If the government of Israel became more flexible to an agreement that the Palestinians could live with and signed an agreement with them and they STILL kept lobbing rockets and missiles from their newly acquired territory as they did in Gaza...how do you think the world should respond?

NO, that's not restating the question, that's actually asking a more detailed question.
So that's something I can answer in more detail.
"If the government of Israel became more flexible to an agreement that the Palestinians could live with and signed an agreement with them"
The result would be a 'peace' that needed to be properly implimented and enforced by both sides.
If the agreement was as you suggest something that the majority of both sides could 'live with' then the stumbling block would be the minority of extremists on both sides who'se hearts are set on conflct.
I have no doubt that there would be more terrorism from both of these 'factions' in an attempt to destroy the peace. But the majorities on both sides would need to see these criminals for what they are and deal with them accordingly.
I can't see a credible scenario where multiple countries attack Israel.
Unless you mean that Israel follows up on it's terrorism against Iran with a military attack and in the ensuing escalation other nations are drawn in?
Even then the USA would never allow the occupation or Invasion of Israel (proper) and as Israel has shown time and again, it only needs one ally to flip the finger to international law and be the biggest bully in the playground.

[and then]

Atlantia, on 12 October 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

NO, that's not restating the question, that's actually asking a more detailed question.
So that's something I can answer in more detail.
"If the government of Israel became more flexible to an agreement that the Palestinians could live with and signed an agreement with them"
The result would be a 'peace' that needed to be properly implimented and enforced by both sides.
If the agreement was as you suggest something that the majority of both sides could 'live with' then the stumbling block would be the minority of extremists on both sides who'se hearts are set on conflct.
I have no doubt that there would be more terrorism from both of these 'factions' in an attempt to destroy the peace. But the majorities on both sides would need to see these criminals for what they are and deal with them accordingly.
I can't see a credible scenario where multiple countries attack Israel.
Unless you mean that Israel follows up on it's terrorism against Iran with a military attack and in the ensuing escalation other nations are drawn in?
Even then the USA would never allow the occupation or Invasion of Israel (proper) and as Israel has shown time and again, it only needs one ally to flip the finger to international law and be the biggest bully in the playground.

Then I think you have a lack of imagination.  Israel literally had no sooner evacuated the settlers from Gaza when rockets began falling miles deeper into Israel.  This is, in fact, the primary reason for the blockade of Gaza.  Had the Palestinians just started building businesses and engaging in commerce in the region the only wars would have been potentially trade wars.  No matter what misdirection you try the problem always gets back to aggression by Palis against Jews - calling for more retaliation - ad nauseum.  It gives the zealots on the Jewish side cover to grab more land.
Has it ever occurred to you that the leaders in Israel just possibly could be correct in their appraisal of Iranian intentions?  And if not, why are you so confident of that stance?  Because if you and the rest of those who believe as you do are wrong and Israel is faced with defending itself against a nuclear power - the whole damned world might just get lit up.  Kind of a high cost for Iranian electricity generation, no?