To try and get back on topic, I'm going to jump in and say that if Israel were to attack Iran, this is how I see it happening: IDF's air force launches an early attack in the morning and hit radar dishes all along the Iranian border. Simultaneously, a second attack hits Iran's air force bases, effectively demolishing any chances of Iran having control of the air game. The Israeli Air Force is known for its strong fight in the air (Remember its attacking Egypt air force bases). Once they had done that, their jets will just have to take care of everything else. I would not be surprised if the Commandos were sent in to deal with certain SAM installations. This won't be a full blown war. Israel will bomb the fuck out of Iran and then dare Iran to respond. By then, the entire Israeli nation will be ready. That's how Israel works. They attack first. But, if it happens, it's going to have negative side effects around the world, that much is for certain.
the problem with some people is that they live in a dream. like iraqis and their flower. if israel is to attack iran, russia can not let it be a clean and easy victory. that would cause a value reduction of their military hardware that they sell. they will let the iranians know the minute that the israeli jets leave their airspace. there is not going to be an element of surprise.
You can count on Hezbollah and Hamas going all out attacking Israel if they do attack, since then they know Israel will be weak, having it's resources occupied. All I know is, it is a huge risk for Israel because things could go incredibily pair shaped and Hezbollah and Hamas could catch them off guard while they are focusing on Iran. I also deffinitely would not want to be a USA troop in Afghanistan or Iraq during all this either. I can also imagine Iran doing something like blowing up the oil fields all across the region, so the west suffers. The only thing I know for certain is that we are all better off if Israel does not launch an attack. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ElBaradei: If you attack Iran, I quit IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says he will step down if major powers launch a military strike against Iran over its nuclear program. According to Al Ahram, in an interview with Al Arabiya television, the International Atomic Energy Agency Director General, said, "A military invasion against Iran would pose great danger to the Middle East and the world." http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=60539§ionid=351020104
I'm curious how they could attack Iran, even by air, I doubt they have permission to fly military jets over other countries airspace, especially arab countries. Would their plans needs to go down and around the Arabian Peninsula?
Is the "we" you refer to the terrorists groups you support like Hamas and Hezbollah? As for as most Americans and other nations, they realize that Iran is a dangerous threat to the world and know the world would be better off if Iran has no nuclear capacity.
No, "We" is us westerners, because the price of oil will probally double if Israel attacks Iran. I notice you couldn't help get a little immature dig in your post though, i really do wonder how old you are sometimes.
I would gladly pay $8 a gallon if that meant Iran would not have nuclear weapons. Further, I think the higher gas prices will finally force some action with respect to fuel efficiency and alternative sources of energy. Back in the 70's everyone was talking about how we had to change the way we used oil and once the gas lines and high prices faded, so did the momentum for change. 30+ years later we are in the same position. I have no problem with higher gas prices forcing a change in behavior. I think America will be a stronger, more secure nation for it. As for an immature dig, it is nothing of the sort. You happily admitted that you support Hamas and Hezbollah. They are both designated as terrorist groups by America. So, when you say "we" but support Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran it is perfectly legitimate to as whose side you are actually on? If America and Israel attacked Iran, you would be rooting for Iran right? Be honest. Or would you root for America and Israel to be successful?
I confirm, "we" includes white Europeans who are against wars of money-hungry "people" who act like they owe the planet and the rest is just garbage, or to use a word you are familiar with, browntwn: we are "goyim". The question is not "if" but "when". I think we're on the verge of WWIII. It's gonna be inevitable when Pisrael attacks Iran. We'll just have a 3rd consecutive WW thanks to the Jews. If Pisrael would lose the war, several Pisraelian politicians have sworn that if Pisrael has to go, they would bring the rest of the world down with it. And they have the capabilities, not only technologically but they have the "advantage" not to have a heart or soul, unlike "we", humans. I could name ONE (fake) country that should never have nukes because they are a/the only treat in the world. Unfortunately, it is exactly THIS country that doesn't have to report how many nukes they have, as the only nation in the world. You tell me the Jews don't control the world. Ha!
Let's see if I got all the big points: 1. You are calling Jews money hungry. 2. You are blaming WWI and WWII on the Jews. 3. You are blaming the Jews for WWIII whenever it comes. 4. You say Jews don't have a soul. 5. You say Jews are not human. 6. You say that Jews control the world. Did I miss any? I think you left out how Jews control the media and don't forget DP. Have you met my friends ThraXed and swaymedia? By the way, you can call me a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Catholic, a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew - I don't find any of those labels insulting in the least.
don't worry. NIE already have said that the iranians stopped their weapon program. We are not in any immediate danger and have plenty of time to resolve the issue. The next president can take a fresh look at the situation.
Thanks for that browntwn , I believe I am anti zionist and not anti jewish, i think you would be hard pressed to find anything anti jewish about my posts, unless you equate zionism to judaism.
Browntwn, do you think it is ok that Israel can ignore the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and be the only nuclear power in the world that does not allow inspections? Do you feel this is a possible double standard, when Israel is requesting an invasion of Iran, who does not yet have a weapon and has satisfied inspectors?
I must have hit a nerve or two... Assuming "Jew" means "Zionist": 1. You are calling Jews money hungry. Yes. 2. You are blaming WWI and WWII on the Jews. Yes. 3. You are blaming the Jews for WWIII whenever it comes. Yes. Disguised as Americans. 4. You say Jews don't have a soul. Yes. 5. You say Jews are not human. They are, but they don't act like ones. I think Jews come from another planet and have been mating with our beautiful women. (there's an ancient book mentioning this as well ) 6. You say that Jews control the world. Unless you're blind, that is so crystal clear, it should not be a question. 2.5% Jews in the USA. Check the NASDAQ 100, check the CEO, CFO and COO of each company and let me know if it's around 2.5%. If it's double, it's not really a problem. Quadruple? Shouldn't be a problem either, just better students. But when that figure is over 80%, what's your conclusion? This is just one example. Not having to report the number of nukes is just one other VERY clear example. Did I miss any? Probably. I wrote the previous post in a hurry, doing 10 things at the same time here. I think you left out how Jews control the media and don't forget DP. Oh yes, the media, of course they do. Here again, if you don't believe me, just go check their names. You simply don't get in the select club if you aren't one of the chosen. They really act like that. There was this Indian producer who couldn't get in, so he decided to use a Jewish name. Guess what happened? He got a reply (until they found out). It was on YouTube. Regarding DP, I don't know. I suppose there are a lot since this forum is mainly about money... Have you met my friends ThraXed and swaymedia? Met? No I haven't had the pleasure yet. By the way, you can call me a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Catholic, a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew - I don't find any of those labels insulting in the least. Just to clear this one up once and for all, I suppose you are Jewish because of your die-hard pro-zionist stand. You could be one of those brainwashed pro-Israel Hagee-christians, for all I know. All I know is that there must be a reason why you are having such an extreme one-sided point of view. I don't belong to one of the two parties, therefore I think I'm in a better position to judge objectively. While the other party isn't innocent, what they do is a CONSEQUENCE of what the Jews have done. If Europe is today packed with Muslims, it's not the Muslims fault but the ones who brought them here, the ones who knew there would be "complications" at some point. I have the right to give my opinion, especially when serious problems for mankind are starting to arise. If you don't like what I think, just put me on ignore. I wouldn't like to be called a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, French or American because I'm not and I would certainly not like to be called a Jew because it means something in French. I didn't invent the word "juiverie"; it's in the French dictionary, it's a word that comes from the medieval times (yes, already then). And before you make any conclusions, my g/f is Asian....................
I don't suggest that the US should attack Iran now. I would not consider that until diplomacy has had a real chance to work. I agree that probably wont happen until Bush is out of office. I don't think I said anything to the contrary. However, I can envision supporting military efforts to assure that Iran does not gain nuclear weapons in the future. Iran is a worldwide sponsor of terrorism. I see no reason to allow them to acquire nuclear weapons. Are you suggesting that countries should be subject to treaties they did not sign and never agreed to? That seems to be a very odd position for you to take. Perhaps it is the double standard that you apply to Israel causing your bizzare contention.
Nice dodge, but you didn't answer my question. Is it a double standard that Israel protest nukes and not allow inspection, when it wants Iran to be invaded for allowing inspections and not having nukes? I'm just curious why you don't see an issue with Israel being the world's only nuclear power who does not have to account for it's weapons stockpile and refuses to participate in the very treaties it expects it's neighbors to comply with or face devastation.
I don't think countries are bound to agreements they did not sign or agree to. I believe that there are several nuclear powers who are not bound by NPT. I have not checked, but since there are inspections, I assume Iran has voluntarily subjected themselves to inspections per the NPT. As for Israel having to account, I guess I don't understand exactly what you mean. Account to whom? Is there some obligation that every nation must publicly disclose information about their military weapons? As for letting Iran have nuclear weapons - in a fair world, sure everyone can have them. Everyone is equal and peaceful and we all sing and hold hands. Unfortunately, the history of mankind tells a different story. The job of my country is to protect its citizen and the country itself. That heavy duty is not one that is just for today, America must look to protect itself against threats off into the future. If my government concludes that Iran is a threat to America if it acquires nuclear weapons, and concludes that the best solution is to prevent that occurrence - then I would support that. (I would hope I had leaders I could trust providing the analysis and making the decisions.) To be perfectly honest, this is not some game we play where everybody has to have an equal share or chance at survival. If I was a citizen of any other country, I would hope my government was trying to acquire nuclear weapons . I think the only exception would be if I did not trust the government with those weapons - but as a citizen, that would be a difficult proposition.
Yes. Except for you-know-who. But then they "suffered" so much during WWII. (bow your head, put a sad face on and have a minute of silence) Do you mean that a small bottle and some satellite pictures taken from the internet, from an English student, would be considered as trustworthy? Is it still possible to trust your leaders after millions of Farsi-speaking people have shown that the translation of Ahmadinnejad's most famous quote was another fabrication? You know, the one sentence you still consider as the truth and the primary reason of people defending Pisrael use as to why Iran should be attacked? Mass-brainwashing is such a powerful tool.
Wow, a new low for racism on the forum. Are you a Ron Paul supporter too? Hey kid, Jews don't control the world.
The author of "Tax Whitey" pointing the finger on racism. Oh, that's rich. You have already been owned all playing the "Jew" card once this week. Learn your lesson, move along, and find an argument you can succeed in.