No. Absolutely not. Israel has never stated that it wants to destroy the Palestinians. Israel would like to live in peace with its neighbors, in spite of the history of attacks on Israel by its neighbors. My God man, where did you get the idea that Israel wants to destroy the Palestinians?
Now that they've taken the palestinians land, homes, and murdered their children, they want to live in peace. Makes sense....
Dont belive in this. Israel is also an attacker. BTW. I have found the Einstein qoute: "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved in understanding."
I think Will.Spencer is watching a lot of propaganda news as a lot of people are doing in U.S. The same way Hitler used to explain invasions. For example invasion of Poland.
Just because Hitler did one thing doesn't mean that Bush will copy that idea. Bush is always doing his best in protecting the world from the evil forces.
tomecki: Where are you hearing all of this crazy propaganda? I have another (Syrian) friend who lives in Poland and he is not being inundated with this type of loony propaganda. And why on earth would you choose to believe it instead of doing some research? Please, help me understand where you are coming from.
There will be no invasion I think but a hit and go situation, perhaps repeated a few times. Right now, we're at the point of no return, which is sad to say The whole situation was and is truly not a setup from the USA and/or others. Whoever follows the interviews, speeches from this neurotic guy over there, and the news, will have to admit that now is only one option left, strike and go as many times as neccessary. They are begging to be humiliated, so shall it be. They also ignored the 'russian bridge' and announced to industrialize the enrichment of uranium with over 50 000 centrifuges.
I am afraid that ths may be the case. If America is unwilling to fight (and pay for) another war of liberation, we may eventually be forced into the war your describe. Upside, less cost and fewer coalition casualties. Downside, lots and lots of civilian casualties.
How to liberate them? There is no way - from previous lessons learned. The only thing the West altogether including Asia can do is to stop the threat and let them alone. There will be no nuke invloved, believe it or not.
How exactly would that be a war of liberation? Liberation from what? Their elected Government? I would think the masterplan would have to involve nuking the nuclear facilities and crippling the infrastructure, beginning with the roads and railways to hamper military movements. A couple of million refugees clogging the roads wouldn't be a bad strategic move either.
I am not convinced that it is possible to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities without nukes when: 1. We don't know where they are. 2. Wherever they are, they are likely in heavily fortified underground bunkers Blu-82's are good for hitting wide areas, but do not strike deep and hard. Our conventional bombs which do strike deep and hard are not good at hitting wide areas.
Iran isn't Iraq. It has an effective fighting force that haven't been hamstrung by 12 years of economic sanctions. It would also be a really dumb strategic move on the part of the US to engage ground troops in an invasion since it would mean two fronts - Iraq to the rear and Iran to the fore. Supply lines would get crippled inside Iraq. Not to mention that the number of troops it would require to accomplish such a strategy would be unsustainable, if even possible.
There's also a time limit and the sooner the threat will be stopped the better. The economy can't shoulder the oil price speculations any longer. During and after the bombings, Iran has to be set under sanctions so that they will be forced to sell oil for food - bingo.
Well, it is possible. We did take on Nazi Germany and win, after all. But, it is not politically viable. The peaceniks would never let us do it. Therefore, it is much more likely that the conflict will go down the way you describe it -- with much greater numbers of casualties.