[afreespirit]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

You seem a bit to happy about that. I would hope that Israel is smart enough not to dust up the Europeans and the Russians, but if they wan't to play, see how quick Iran snaps back.

Israel wouldn't be invading Iran. Airstrikes are what they are thinking of. That's a difficult mission when one considers geography, but not an impossible one.

When one considers the possible consequences of an Israeli strike versus a nuclear armed Iran, I'll bet the Israeli's reluctantly accept the former rather than face the latter. There really isn't any other option for them. Besides, nobody in Europe or Russia will do more than shed a few crocodile tears and pull a few hairs over it. The Islamic Republic of Iran just isn't that important to the Europeans or the Russians.

There is good reason nobody has tried to invade Iran since Saddam, and there is good reason Saddam lost. It is the SAME reason the US didn't invade Iraq in the 1990s, and we found out the hard way after we did why we shouldn't have, which is the same reason all huff and puff aside, Israel would never want to fuck with Iran. Their only hope is that the US would back them up, which we would, and which is why I dislike Israel for milking it for all its worth, meanwhile accepting BILLIONS of US subsidy dollars while my own state of California is short a BILLION in university education, and FOUR BILLION in public education and most Israelis go to great schools

Saddam didn't lose. The war was effectively a stalemate, although at the end of it Iraq had won several significant victories and it was Khomeini that came begging for peace. Had Iraq actually lost that war, it's army would not have been in a condition to invade Kuwait a mere 2 years later.

The reason why the US did not continue it's offensive into Iraq was because the Congress had only authorized the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Republican presidents might like to go to war, but at least they do it with Congressional approval and within the bounds set by Congress.

In fact the 2003 invasion of Iraq was in military terms fairly easy, it was over in six weeks. It was the occupation period that was difficult, but even that large scale insurgency was ultimately defeated.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by afreespirit

Republican presidents might like to go to war, but at least they do it with Congressional approval and within the bounds set by Congress.

Ha ha yes, the problem is they like it too much and they always find the shills to stand up and be counted--plus they are good at manufacturing evidence!

If they didn't like war so much, then the other issues would be moot.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by afreespirit

Actually geography is a far more important reason. You should try looking at a map sometime, it can be very instructive.

Maps are helpful, but some have never even traveled twenty miles from their home in their entire lives, so why the map is indeed helpful, it doesn't always determine everything.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by afreespirit

Israel wouldn't be invading Iran. Airstrikes are what they are thinking of. That's a difficult mission when one considers geography, but not an impossible one.

When one considers the possible consequences of an Israeli strike versus a nuclear armed Iran, I'll bet the Israeli's reluctantly accept the former rather than face the latter.

That merely expresses your prejudice against Iran. A dozen countries, including Israel, have ALL possessed nuclear weapons and yet ONLY the US has ever been arrogant and insane enough to use them. I'm quite sure Iran isn't equally as stupid or maniacal as the US, so perhaps Iran just wants Israel to understand that they aren't the only bully rich kid in the neighborhood

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by afreespirit

The reason why the US did not continue it's offensive into Iraq was because the Congress had only authorized the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Republican presidents might like to go to war, but at least they do it with Congressional approval and within the bounds set by Congress.

In fact the 2003 invasion of Iraq was in military terms fairly easy,

The reason Congress didn't approve forward military operations in Iraq is because that while Iraq was in the bottom 100th percentile for population, they were literally in the top FOUR for by gross for active military personnel in the world in 1990, which is (a) why Iran came begging for peace and (b) why the US didn't want to invade Iraq under any circumstances, and indeed avoided such for another 12 years. Six weeks? Fuck you, Iraq is still one of the worst places to live in the world, and its been 10 years!!

[the ikara cult]

On Isreal

Is it not a bit annoying that Syrians, Tunisians, and Egyptians cant have their own demands for representation without everyone immediately turning to how it might affect Israel? Its important of course, but its appalling when American and (certain) British conservatives talk about the Arab Spring as though it shouldnt happen because Israel might be safer if these countries were still under dictatorships

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Fuck off then and leave the decent conversation to the grown ups. Apparently there's pictures of a royal with her tits out on t'internet if you're bored.

good evening Pookie!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by afreespirit

Israel wouldn't be invading Iran. Airstrikes are what they are thinking of. That's a difficult mission when one considers geography, but not an impossible one.

Iran has a delightfully advanced SAM defense system, which is precisely why Israel hasn't just bossed up before. They couldn't pull it off without losing a lot of planes. Further, Iran would retaliate significantly, and Israel do defend themselves from this would have to take the fighting on the ground to Iran in order to push it out of Israel. This is why Israel hasn't acted yet, they know it would be the very annihilation they claim to want to prevent.

When one considers the possible consequences of an Israeli strike versus a nuclear armed Iran, I'll bet the Israeli's reluctantly accept the former rather than face the latter. There really isn't any other option for them. Besides, nobody in Europe or Russia will do more than shed a few crocodile tears and pull a few hairs over it. The Islamic Republic of Iran just isn't that important to the Europeans or the Russians.

What? You're crazy, Iran is in the top 25 economies in the world, and is a crucial like in the energy strategies of Asian and Eastern European countries. In this regard, Iran is worth a dozen Israels in the economic analysis.

Saddam didn't lose. The war was effectively a stalemate, although at the end of it Iraq had won several significant victories and it was Khomeini that came begging for peace. Had Iraq actually lost that war, it's army would not have been in a condition to invade Kuwait a mere 2 years later.

Saddam had dreams of crushing Iran, and in the long arc, Iran is a thriving nation and Iraq is in shambles. Iraq has been essentially occupied by foreign forces for 20 years, meanwhile simply nobody wants to fuck with Iran. Further Saddam is dead, I'd say its safe to say that Iran feels like saying, "Duh, Winning."

The reason why the US did not continue it's offensive into Iraq was because the Congress had only authorized the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Republican presidents might like to go to war, but at least they do it with Congressional approval and within the bounds set by Congress.

The reason that Congress didn't approve such is because they understood that in 1990, Iraq had the fourth largest standing military in the world, and simply put, they were nobody to fuck with. Why did we see so much militias and sectarian violence in Iraq in the 2000s? Because so many people had been trained in the military, were veterans, or otherwise had military experience because again, they were in the fourth largest military in the world!

In fact the 2003 invasion of Iraq was in military terms fairly easy, it was over in six weeks. It was the occupation period that was difficult, but even that large scale insurgency was ultimately defeated.

There were just a hundred people killed last week in multiple bombings across Iraq, I'd say the insurgency is far from defeated.

based on several of your comments lately, I think perhaps you've been following the wrong thread, maybe you'd prefer this one?

[!@#$%!]

From a "serious" newspaper, not a conspiracy rag:

What if Israel bombed Iran?

Discuss.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

What? You're crazy, Iran is in the top 25 economies in the world, and is a crucial like in the energy strategies of Asian and Eastern European countries.

Where do you stand on the Iranian regime Suchy? Im honestly not trolling, i assume you disapprove of it like virtually everyone does, but i am interested in how you disapprove of it.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

From a "serious" newspaper, not a conspiracy rag:

What if Israel bombed Iran?

Discuss.

Aside from being a bit silly and rash, that article forgot a crucial detail as to why just an Israeli airstrike would be far from a success..

 

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Iran has a delightfully advanced SAM defense system, which is precisely why Israel hasn't just bossed up before. They couldn't pull it off without losing a lot of planes. Further, Iran would retaliate significantly, and Israel do defend themselves from this would have to take the fighting on the ground to Iran in order to push it out of Israel. This is why Israel hasn't acted yet, they know it would be the very annihilation they claim to want to prevent.

Iran is in the top 25 economies in the world, and is a crucial like in the energy strategies of Asian and Eastern European countries. In this regard, Iran is worth a dozen Israels in the economic analysis.

Further Saddam is dead, I'd say its safe to say that Iran feels like saying, "Duh, Winning."

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

Where do you stand on the Iranian regime Suchy? Im honestly not trolling, i assume you disapprove of it like virtually everyone does, but i am interested in how you disapprove of it.

From what I understand, the Iranian regime are scumbags and detestable, they send arms and funds to all kinds of nasty people, basically they are the CIA nemesis of Asia and North Africa

However, that was not the question, the issue is whether or not such scumbags are militarily and economically capable to hold their own, which they are, and as !@#$%! mentioned, are far more important to the regional powers than several Israels combined.

[the ikara cult]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Aside from being a bit silly and rash, that article forgot a crucial detail as to why just an Israeli airstrike would be far from a success..

 

From what I understand, the Iranian regime are scumbags and detestable, they send arms and funds to all kinds of nasty people, basically they are the CIA nemesis of Asia and North Africa

However, that was not the question, the issue is whether or not such scumbags are militarily and economically capable to hold their own, which they are, and as !@#$%! mentioned, are far more important to the regional powers than several Israels combined.

The Iranian regime hasnt got the resources to control their people,

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by the ikara cult

The Iranian regime hasnt got the resources to control their people,

Largely they have proven that they do, further if they want to go the purely hard power route blended with the soft power aspects of their economic significance, I'd say that even have the resources to control other people

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

On the eve of the UN General Assembly and Day of Atonement......


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Israel is bluffing on Iran attack threat

that is because they are

[!@#$%!]

i went to read the jerusalem post as a result of this thread and found

THIS VIDEO

oyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

Like I said, it's one hell of a poker hand!

meh..

when the deck is stacked in your favor your hand isn't as good as you think, because its entirely been given to you by the generosity of the House who can take back their generosity in any instant. If Israel weren't the spoiled trust fund brat of the Western world, perhaps their hand would resemble more of their neighbors who they routinely bully. Shit, maybe if the Israelis didn't siphon and steal BILLIONS of dollars in tax revenues from the Palestinians the playing field would a bit more level, but than again, that is probably while those bandit Israelis do it in the first place

But see how Israel has captured even our attention and hijacked this thread? Fuck that and fuck them, we've got our own country and problems to worry about to let a bigoted cabal (aka the Israeli government) to take over our conversation. Lets get back to Mr. President Barack Obama. Mr. Obama, simply put, what exactly do you intend to do to stabilize the growing divisions in American society, between racial groups and economic classes? We have essentially three Americas here, the older white folks who still still believe in Americana fairy tales, the poor folks who are utterly disenfranchised from any opportunities for mobility and security (hence why its fairy tales), and young folks who are just starting to get duped but are also generally quite aware and involved. How can we bridge these gaps as a society while increasing the pressure and wedges that divide through these poisonous political campaigns? Is pinning one sector of the country against another really the best solution? I mean, sure it worked for Caesar, and yet how did that work out for him eventually

[floatingslowly]

Now you guys are quoting Madonna?

God, please let this be over soon.

[!@#$%!]

 

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

In Obama's speech to the U.N. he said, "The future must not belong to those who would slam the prophet of islam", Madonna said in her concert last night, "we have a black muslem in the white house", obama said in his speech, "the future must not belong to those who steals another countries resources, it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. " He also said, ""The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted 'Muslims, Christians, we are one.'

Thats like saying that americans and the old soviet union - we were one......it's time to vote and change the direction of the country!

Dude are you seriously saying Obama is Muslim? Let me guess, your into the Birther movement too? There are plenty of evils about the President, but rest assure his hypocrisy as pretending to be a Christian while not expressing any Christian values in his policy is worse than if he were a Muslim. And it is quite apparent the man is US citizen, but than again, the racist movements across this country to increasing villafy and criminalize brown people is why the Birthers are trying to make Obama the symbol of their hatred. Alas, he is on their side after deporting a record 1,200,000 people!!! You know Byron, I must admit, I am starting to like your opinions less and less, I hope it just a misunderstanding

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Bytor Peltor

I wasn't trying in insinuate that the President is Muslim......not even sure if he is black? My message above contains things the President said. That's all......well, it is a little too easy to get you to like me less and less.

Damn, I tried to fix that. My apologies, I meant to say, "your opinions."