Israel to Strike Iran

September 11, 2012

Moving on to the conflict. Zionism does play a major in hostilities. One is Zionism does not recognize any other faiths. It calls Non-Jews the slaves of Jews. Gentiles. Zionism from its beginning is a racist hateful movement built upon the quest of domination. Zionism and the Pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC not only is major player for war its the financier to the conflict. They never want peace.

You don't know much about Zionism do you? Or Zion by that matter, because that would simplify all this.

Zion is basically a name for Jerusalem, the Arabs are Qodsists, if you want to view it in that way. Qods, like Zion, is used as a religious synonym for the city of Jerusalem. I guess that's settled now.

You don't know much about Operation Moses either, do you? Most of the people brought to Israel through Operation Moses were black and came from places like Ethiopia.

This is what William Saffire said about Operation Moses:

For the first time in history, thousands of black people are being brought to a country not in chains but in dignity, not as slaves but as citizens.

If Zionism is equal to racism in your view, then you are extremely wrong. Any person on this planet can be a Zionist, sure, Jewish people are granted automatic citizenship to Israel, in the same way that citizens of Kaliningrad are granted automatic citizenship to Germany. But, the naturalization process exists in Israel, and is, similar to the process in countries like the United States and the Schengen Area, for example. In no way does this process discriminate based on race. But, in countries like Saudi Arabia, the naturalization process is based on race and heritage, which means, you cannot become fully naturalized in Saudia Arabia (Algeria and Kuwait also) unless you have Arab roots. Some Arabic nations have the 'automatic citizenship' policy like Germany and Israel too. Meaning that a citizen of Palestine could go to Jordan and live a happy life... unless they're Jewish. Does this mean Arab Nationalism equates to racism?

In fact, Ibn-Saud said:

My Kingdom will survive only insofar as it remains a country difficult to access, where the foreigner will have no other aim, with his task fulfilled, but to get out.

Aww, what a friendly policy.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Greenline

September 12, 2012

You cannot deny that Jews lived in the holy land before 1948 saying that is historically inaccurate.

Indeed, you cannot deny that Jews lived in the holy land before 1948. They were the first independent civilisation with a modern religion to do so.

Also saying Palestinans did NOT own the land or even live there is historically inaccurate.

Actually it isn't, because "Palestinian" isn't an historical identity. Palestine was a geographical term that did not refer to a nation, independent state or part of a larger empire. Also, it was first used by the Egyptians after the Canaanites inhabited it.

Fact is that Palestinian( Christians & Muslims lived in Palestine) Jews also lived side by side they got along great way before 1948 even to the point of inter-marriage.

Further back in history, sure. In modern history, not a chance. From the mid-1800s onwards, the Palestinian Arab population subjected Jewish settlers to extreme violence and persecution. Arguably, the same has happened since 1947 (or at least since 1967, when Israel took the lands that would have constituted the Palestinian state had the Arab community's response to a two-state solution not been an attempted invasion of Israel), just on a more limited scale.

During the holocaust European Jews escaped persecution and sought refuge with their Arab counterparts who were the only ones to fully protect them.

Factually wrong- the Palestinians actually rose up against Jewish settlers and killed somewhere between 400 and 1,000 of them before their revolt was crushed by the British. Unfortunately, Palestine- and sadly the wider Arab world- has quite a history of anti-Semitism which has contributed to the problems between Israeli and Palestine. Be it the 1945 boycot of Jewish products, the funding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by the Nazi regime during the mid 1930s, generations of blood libel accusations leading to hundreds if not thousands of deaths. Sadly, Nazi propaganda during the Second World War, plus their activity in the Middle East and North Africa has made the climate of at least latent suspicion considerably worse.

Moving on to the conflict. Zionism does play a major in hostilities.

Arguable, especially seen as if it weren't for the most ironic recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize ever, Yassir Arafat, the Arab-Israeli conflict would have probably been settled in 1996-7, when the road-map was drawn up, or in 2005-6 at the end of the Second Intifada. The current Israeli government do seem to be vehemently against the two-state solution but the decade of governments that preceded them most certainly weren't. Violence from the Palestinian territories, most notably Gaza, and the illegitimate targeting of Israeli civilians in mass-casualty attacks, as opposed to programmes of passive resistance and disobedience, are what has caused the peace process to cave in and have directly led to the election of a more hostile, right-leaning Israeli government. It's been the refusal of aggressors in the Palestinian territories to recognise Israel's right to existence which have prevented the establishment of two states, not vice versa.

One is Zionism does not recognize any other faiths.

Factually wrong, again. Zionism is predominantly a belief in Jewish nationalism. It does not cast scorn on any other religion, promote persecution, and does recognise the existence and beliefs of other religions. It fundamentally disagrees with Jewish peoples being assimilated into other cultures, but actively encourages the assimilation of other cultures and religions into an Israeli state.

It calls Non-Jews the slaves of Jews.

Extreme Zionism, perhaps. But, as I've said before, Zionist ideology has died out quite considerably since the establishment of Israel as a state. And judging entire cultures and religions by their outliers is always a logical fallacy. It's akin to claiming that all Sunni Muslims are Qutbists, al-Qaeda supporters and Takfirs- a mindless straw man.

Zionism from its beginning is a racist hateful movement built upon the quest of domination.

Pure hyperbole and propaganda. Claiming that Zionism is a racist movement is practically anti-Semitism of its own right, as the vast majority of Jews subscribe to the idea of Israel as an independent, Jewish state.

Zionism and the Pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC not only is major player for war its the financier to the conflict. That's why 6 billion dollar a year in military equipment is given to Israel each and every year.

Trust me, you'd be astonished at how reciprocal the relationship is. Do you have any idea how many surveillance technologies, remotely-operated vehicles, close-in-weapons systems, active protection systems, electronic components et al are in operation with the US armed forces which are designed and produced in Israel? Besides, a strong Israel is in the interest of the US- no-one is denying that because to do so would be to blatently ignore strategic realities. But a powerful, heavily armed nation does not necessarily equal a violent aggressor. Unfortunately, your ability to objectively assess circumstances over a historical period appears to have been muddled by a personal bias.

Its become a money generating conflict that never has an end.

The theory of perpetual war generating money is utterly self-contradicting as it does not account for resources consumed in the pursuit of conflict. All perpetual wars are by default negative-sum games for all participants because in a long-term strategic engagement it is nigh-on impossible for a combatant to profit, as the cost of manpower, materiel and logistics will always outweigh the spoils of war.

In reality 20% enrichment is NO where near the level of nuclear warhead. its needs to be about 70%.

Statistically, your right. 20% is nowhere near 90% (you need around 90% enriched uranium for nuclear weapons). But Iran aren't at 20%, they're at 40%, and this isn't statistics, it's nuclear science. The technology requirements for the production of 90% HEU are roughly the same as those for 40% HEU so they're actually closer than you think. And that's quite aside from their recent interest in research-type heavy water reactors, which produce plutonium that only requires refinement rather than enrichment to become weapons-grade; realistically, it's through heavy-water-type plutonium breeding reactors that most states who have obtained nuclear weapons after the "big five" have got them. True enough, I still maintain that Iran is some 10 years away from a deliverable warhead by conventional means, but that doesn't change the fact they could have a large, crude warhead in two or perhaps even less. Plenty of unconventional delivery means for a nuclear weapons- like by false-flagged container ship into, say, Eilat.

Its driven by a few money hungry warmongers radical right wing nut jobs on both sides who never wanna see peace and propriety.

I'll agree with that. Israel gets a lot of stick for it's part in the conflict- some definitely deserved (e.g. in relation to improper use of force in Gaza), some not (e.g. Osirak) but people seem to ignore the fact that Israel has been legally and verbally committed to a two-state solution for about two decades now- ever since Yitzhak Rabin's second term starting in 1992 (another point at which peace could have been achieved if it not were for the actions of violent fanatics). It has, historically, been the Palestinian minority's failure- for whatever reason, be it historical, religions, militant or even anti-Semitic- to accept the existence of the state of Israel, a component part of a two-state solution. You can criticise Israel all you want for improper use of force, questionable barricades/blockades and unfair treatment, but fundamentally they're committed to the state of Palestine existing, independent, free and in both state's interest peaceful. It's actually been the actions of members of the so-called "liberation" movement- notably Yassir Arafat who not only preached violence against Jews around the world, regardless of heritage and origin, but funded and sponsored the Abu Nidal Organisation- the strategic and operational forefather of al-Qaeda; who supported the Ba'athist invasion of Kuwait and the Iraqi genocide of Kurds- who have been responsible for the failures of the roadmap.

September 13, 2012

Yeah.. WWIII is absolutely not what an Israeli attack on Iran is going to be.

Lay off the CoD.

you don't know much about the history between Israel and Iran, do you?

the WW3 hypothesis has nothing to do with a Call of Duty fantasy.

it's just basic history.

most foreign policy experts agree that Israel will NEVER allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons systems.

if Israel thought that Iran was getting very close, they would strike first in an attempt to prevent its completion. and most of these same experts agree that if a nasty war broke out between these 2 states, the Western powers would be dragged into the conflict. this is because Pakistan would be forced to choose between a rock and a hard place and Palestinians would likely rally to the side of the Iranian's.

this powder keg could easily start the next world war.

if you don't think so, you're just ignorant.

no one is saying that it's going to happen 100%

but it's likely.

So, you honestly think that China and Russia (let's ignore Palestine, as they don't have the strength to wage WWIII) will side with Iran and continue to provide Iran with weaponry and training if such a sensitive conflict broke out? The US would have to provoke China and Russia big-time to make them do such a thing.

Yes, maybe you'll have a very long conflict in Iran, but a World War? The US would have to piss a fair share of people off in order for them to be shortsighted enough to side with an unstable country such as Iran. And, if you're going to look at the US/NATO side of the spectrum, something like that has happened before, twice.

And yes, I'm well-informed about the history of Persia and her relationship with Israel.

Not China, we depend on them too much, Russia however, is a different story. We would most likely not have an qualms with going to war with them.

EDIT: And I must say, Greenline and sivispacem are quickly becoming my favorite members in the General Chat area.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Bellic 4 life

September 13, 2012

So... How is this gonna end? Are they gonna nuke each other? Because that would be bad.

September 13, 2012

This crap is bible prophecy? God please dont do this to me. I have so many years ahead of me

September 14, 2012

You cannot deny that Jews lived in the holy land before 1948 saying that is historically inaccurate.

Indeed, you cannot deny that Jews lived in the holy land before 1948. They were the first independent civilisation with a modern religion to do so.

Also saying Palestinans did NOT own the land or even live there is historically inaccurate.

Actually it isn't, because "Palestinian" isn't an historical identity. Palestine was a geographical term that did not refer to a nation, independent state or part of a larger empire. Also, it was first used by the Egyptians after the Canaanites inhabited it.

Fact is that Palestinian( Christians & Muslims lived in Palestine) Jews also lived side by side they got along great way before 1948 even to the point of inter-marriage.

Further back in history, sure. In modern history, not a chance. From the mid-1800s onwards, the Palestinian Arab population subjected Jewish settlers to extreme violence and persecution. Arguably, the same has happened since 1947 (or at least since 1967, when Israel took the lands that would have constituted the Palestinian state had the Arab community's response to a two-state solution not been an attempted invasion of Israel), just on a more limited scale.

During the holocaust European Jews escaped persecution and sought refuge with their Arab counterparts who were the only ones to fully protect them.

Factually wrong- the Palestinians actually rose up against Jewish settlers and killed somewhere between 400 and 1,000 of them before their revolt was crushed by the British. Unfortunately, Palestine- and sadly the wider Arab world- has quite a history of anti-Semitism which has contributed to the problems between Israeli and Palestine. Be it the 1945 boycot of Jewish products, the funding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by the Nazi regime during the mid 1930s, generations of blood libel accusations leading to hundreds if not thousands of deaths. Sadly, Nazi propaganda during the Second World War, plus their activity in the Middle East and North Africa has made the climate of at least latent suspicion considerably worse.

Moving on to the conflict. Zionism does play a major in hostilities.

Arguable, especially seen as if it weren't for the most ironic recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize ever, Yassir Arafat, the Arab-Israeli conflict would have probably been settled in 1996-7, when the road-map was drawn up, or in 2005-6 at the end of the Second Intifada. The current Israeli government do seem to be vehemently against the two-state solution but the decade of governments that preceded them most certainly weren't. Violence from the Palestinian territories, most notably Gaza, and the illegitimate targeting of Israeli civilians in mass-casualty attacks, as opposed to programmes of passive resistance and disobedience, are what has caused the peace process to cave in and have directly led to the election of a more hostile, right-leaning Israeli government. It's been the refusal of aggressors in the Palestinian territories to recognise Israel's right to existence which have prevented the establishment of two states, not vice versa.

One is Zionism does not recognize any other faiths.

Factually wrong, again. Zionism is predominantly a belief in Jewish nationalism. It does not cast scorn on any other religion, promote persecution, and does recognise the existence and beliefs of other religions. It fundamentally disagrees with Jewish peoples being assimilated into other cultures, but actively encourages the assimilation of other cultures and religions into an Israeli state.

It calls Non-Jews the slaves of Jews.

Extreme Zionism, perhaps. But, as I've said before, Zionist ideology has died out quite considerably since the establishment of Israel as a state. And judging entire cultures and religions by their outliers is always a logical fallacy. It's akin to claiming that all Sunni Muslims are Qutbists, al-Qaeda supporters and Takfirs- a mindless straw man.

Zionism from its beginning is a racist hateful movement built upon the quest of domination.

Pure hyperbole and propaganda. Claiming that Zionism is a racist movement is practically anti-Semitism of its own right, as the vast majority of Jews subscribe to the idea of Israel as an independent, Jewish state.

Zionism and the Pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC not only is major player for war its the financier to the conflict. That's why 6 billion dollar a year in military equipment is given to Israel each and every year.

Trust me, you'd be astonished at how reciprocal the relationship is. Do you have any idea how many surveillance technologies, remotely-operated vehicles, close-in-weapons systems, active protection systems, electronic components et al are in operation with the US armed forces which are designed and produced in Israel? Besides, a strong Israel is in the interest of the US- no-one is denying that because to do so would be to blatently ignore strategic realities. But a powerful, heavily armed nation does not necessarily equal a violent aggressor. Unfortunately, your ability to objectively assess circumstances over a historical period appears to have been muddled by a personal bias.

Its become a money generating conflict that never has an end.

The theory of perpetual war generating money is utterly self-contradicting as it does not account for resources consumed in the pursuit of conflict. All perpetual wars are by default negative-sum games for all participants because in a long-term strategic engagement it is nigh-on impossible for a combatant to profit, as the cost of manpower, materiel and logistics will always outweigh the spoils of war.

In reality 20% enrichment is NO where near the level of nuclear warhead. its needs to be about 70%.

Statistically, your right. 20% is nowhere near 90% (you need around 90% enriched uranium for nuclear weapons). But Iran aren't at 20%, they're at 40%, and this isn't statistics, it's nuclear science. The technology requirements for the production of 90% HEU are roughly the same as those for 40% HEU so they're actually closer than you think. And that's quite aside from their recent interest in research-type heavy water reactors, which produce plutonium that only requires refinement rather than enrichment to become weapons-grade; realistically, it's through heavy-water-type plutonium breeding reactors that most states who have obtained nuclear weapons after the "big five" have got them. True enough, I still maintain that Iran is some 10 years away from a deliverable warhead by conventional means, but that doesn't change the fact they could have a large, crude warhead in two or perhaps even less. Plenty of unconventional delivery means for a nuclear weapons- like by false-flagged container ship into, say, Eilat.

Its driven by a few money hungry warmongers radical right wing nut jobs on both sides who never wanna see peace and propriety.

I'll agree with that. Israel gets a lot of stick for it's part in the conflict- some definitely deserved (e.g. in relation to improper use of force in Gaza), some not (e.g. Osirak) but people seem to ignore the fact that Israel has been legally and verbally committed to a two-state solution for about two decades now- ever since Yitzhak Rabin's second term starting in 1992 (another point at which peace could have been achieved if it not were for the actions of violent fanatics). It has, historically, been the Palestinian minority's failure- for whatever reason, be it historical, religions, militant or even anti-Semitic- to accept the existence of the state of Israel, a component part of a two-state solution. You can criticise Israel all you want for improper use of force, questionable barricades/blockades and unfair treatment, but fundamentally they're committed to the state of Palestine existing, independent, free and in both state's interest peaceful. It's actually been the actions of members of the so-called "liberation" movement- notably Yassir Arafat who not only preached violence against Jews around the world, regardless of heritage and origin, but funded and sponsored the Abu Nidal Organisation- the strategic and operational forefather of al-Qaeda; who supported the Ba'athist invasion of Kuwait and the Iraqi genocide of Kurds- who have been responsible for the failures of the roadmap.

No Seriously. Before 1948 Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully that's a fact. I'm sure attacks happened but their nothing more than crimes. Just like Jewish settlers today attack civilians, and even kill. Their not a government policy nor are they endorsed its just a violent crime.

Well that's the problem a minority group who are self proclaimed freedom fighters or militants can derail an entire peace process. Even the person who killed Yizhak Rabin claimed he killed him for the greater good of his country. When people are occupation and are controlled by the oppressor, you have to expect violent resistance its a human normal response. Whether you disagree or agree its a point of view that must be addressed.

Look at modern Zionism in Israel today. You said Zionism "actively encourages the assimilation of other cultures and religions into an Israeli state". Now that's a complete flip of the truth. Look recently on the issue of illegal immigration of South Sudanese, Eritreans and Ethiopian and Africans in general. Israeli politicians describe them openly as a threat to Jewish culture and identity. They created the largest ever holding facility to round up all Africans "Suspected" of being illegal and have them deported even those who know they will be killed upon arriving back to their country. Their was protest against the moves of course but these things still happened because they majority of Israeil believe in an extreme version of Zionism where only white Jewish people are considered to be the true descendents of the Land.

Listen I'm against foreign Aid in General I think its stupid to fund any nations military. Why spend Billions arming another country while people here in America go broke and lose their jobs. Makes no sense. Actually if you look it at my view. Israel would be a stronger nation without foreign aid. Here's how. Israel's neighbors, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE. Are all supplied by the US with equipment not all are free but we do allow gulf states to buy in large numbers of high tech equipment which leads to a middle east that is heavily armed to the teeth with modern weapons. Now if we sold military goods only to countries that are stable, are good to their people, are not oppressive. Israel would probably the only nation that qualifies now. Its not a personal bias but more of Logic thinking. Look at Pakistan is that a country that is good enough to have nukes. No. But still American Military Aid still flows UN-questioned to a country that in the near future might become the US Worst enemy.

I can see the Political science major in you. Which is pleasing to see. But some wars are profitable if you look closely at who profits. I don't think Defense companies in the US or the USSR complained when defense spending in those countries dwarfed most of the worlds budget combined. For over 40 years this lasted and people mad trillions of dollars. Now was the conflict between the US and USSR so broken that it wasn't repairable? of course not. but the hyping of the Threat on both sides. The Red Scare, the pre-emptive wars that were quickly declared all point to a scary trend that war is quick, and many times the wrong thing to do.

Iran would never use nukes in the middle east or even think about devolving nukes. It would set off another Arms race in the middle east. Iran's neighbors would be quick to obtain Nuclear weapons. And lead to greater instability. I still have confidence that Iran's program is peaceful for now. But surely if attack Iran's program won't be. It would only give thousands more reasons for them to get one. The most important thing here is to be level headed and to think through before any action is taken. The last thing needed is all out warfare in the middle east. It won't be a happy ending.

I agree always the small minority actions will be so great that the majority feels the effects. You gotta just believe in the majority and push through the acts of ignorance. For like Anwar Sadat once said " Peace is greater than any piece of Land"

September 15, 2012

No Seriously. Before 1948 Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully that's a fact.

I don't disagree that in some communities, at some times, this was true. However to insinuate that all Arabs and Jews lived in peace before 1948 is a gross inaccuracy. Case in point, as I demonstrated, the Palestinian uprisings of 1936-9, and the Arab boycott of Jewish goods in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War- neither of these is the actions of a peaceful community. Jewish immigration into the Palestinian Mandate through the 1920s fuelled violence, with riots leading to massacres of Jews in 1920, 1921 and 1929. In fact, it was violence by the Palestinian populations against the Jewish minority which resulted in the British White Paper of 1939, which was effectively an attempt to stop Jewish immigration into Palestine that left tends of thousands of holocaust survivors stateless and effectively discriminated against.

Well that's the problem a minority group who are self proclaimed freedom fighters or militants can derail an entire peace process. Even the person who killed Yizhak Rabin claimed he killed him for the greater good of his country. When people are occupation and are controlled by the oppressor, you have to expect violent resistance its a human normal response. Whether you disagree or agree its a point of view that must be addressed.

I do agree that the violence enacted by a minority is a somewhat rational response to a perceived occupation, but this does not account for the actions of the Second Intifada in particular. This came immediately after the Oslo accords and the Camp David summit, at a time when the finalisation of a two-state solution was probably at its closest since 1947/8. It was not a time of particularly heightened aggression from Israel towards the Palestinian Territories- quite the opposite, in fact, despite the blame game taking place at Camp David- yet Palestinian rioters attacked innocent worshippers at temple mount without provocation. Then there was the Palestinian Authority's security services being involved in the lynching of two unarmed Israeli reservists, as well as the raft of suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians. These are not the rational actions of an organised movement try to resist an occupation; far from it. It's true that Israel responded in kind with violence but as a true state they hold a monopoly on the use of violent force inside their borders and are permitted to use violence in defence of lives and maintenance of security. As a non-state body the same is not true of Islamic Jihad, et al.

Look at modern Zionism in Israel today. You said Zionism "actively encourages the assimilation of other cultures and religions into an Israeli state". Now that's a complete flip of the truth. Look recently on the issue of illegal immigration of South Sudanese, Eritreans and Ethiopian and Africans in general. Israeli politicians describe them openly as a threat to Jewish culture and identity. They created the largest ever holding facility to round up all Africans "Suspected" of being illegal and have them deported even those who know they will be killed upon arriving back to their country. Their was protest against the moves of course but these things still happened because they majority of Israeil believe in an extreme version of Zionism where only white Jewish people are considered to be the true descendents of the Land.

This isn't true at all, either. The fact that Israel has granted temporary citizenship status to all individuals of Eritrean and Sudanese citizens fleeing violence without assessing them on a case-by-case basis is a step further than most Western countries have done in dealing with asylum seekers. Figures suggest that despite approximately 59,000 illegal immigrants being smuggled into Israel through Egypt as of April 2012, only 1,900 individuals have been imprisoned awaiting deportation or detailed examination of asylum or economic migrant cases. This is not a demonstration of a nation whose policy is staunchly anti-migration; in fact, the opposite is true. Many of those on the right of the Israeli political spectrum have actually criticized the fact that such a small proportion of illegal immigrants are detained by the state. In fact, in May 2010 figures suggested that of 24,000 undocumented citizens, 17,000 had been granted special visas as non-deportable asylum seekers. That's a higher proportion of visa recognitions than almost anywhere else in the developed world.

Listen I'm against foreign Aid in General I think its stupid to fund any nations military. Why spend Billions arming another country while people here in America go broke and lose their jobs. Makes no sense. Actually if you look it at my view. Israel would be a stronger nation without foreign aid. Here's how. Israel's neighbors, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE. Are all supplied by the US with equipment not all are free but we do allow gulf states to buy in large numbers of high tech equipment which leads to a middle east that is heavily armed to the teeth with modern weapons. Now if we sold military goods only to countries that are stable, are good to their people, are not oppressive. Israel would probably the only nation that qualifies now. Its not a personal bias but more of Logic thinking. Look at Pakistan is that a country that is good enough to have nukes. No. But still American Military Aid still flows UN-questioned to a country that in the near future might become the US Worst enemy.

I'm not quite sure what point you are making here? You're spot on about Pakistan but you'd also be surprised at exactly what is being done there clandestinely to undermine the more militant aspects of the security apparatus and political landscape, not least the ISI. I also don't feel that it's reasonable to lump the entire "military assistance" budget spent by the US on Pakistan as if it were all suspect arms deals. The vast majority of it is not; it's logistical, strategic and operational support designed specifically to counteract violent Islamist non-state actors and therefore increase Pakistani internal security, to the obvious benefit of the United States. Unless one is going to provide a full breakdown of figures indicating exactly what was spent on logistical support, what on training/development, and what on arms supplies, then it's quite misleading to dismiss military assistance funding as solely arms deals. Because it simply isn't.

I can see the Political science major in you. Which is pleasing to see. But some wars are profitable if you look closely at who profits. I don't think Defense companies in the US or the USSR complained when defense spending in those countries dwarfed most of the worlds budget combined. For over 40 years this lasted and people mad trillions of dollars. Now was the conflict between the US and USSR so broken that it wasn't repairable? of course not. but the hyping of the Threat on both sides. The Red Scare, the pre-emptive wars that were quickly declared all point to a scary trend that war is quick, and many times the wrong thing to do.

But the translation from the idea that arms companies profit from instability (which in itself is a huge simplification, just look at the wild fluctuations in the defence and security market over the last 4-5 years despite a relatively constant level of violent activity) into politically-sanctioned action is much less clear-cut. Firstly, if it was truly the views of the defence contractors which dictated strategic policy, why vest some much time on slow-burning, irregular limited wars rather than engaging in a full-on perpetual war economy? Dealing with irregular combatants and non-conventional threats is difficult for the supplier as expensive technology is of limited effect and operational nous and strategic foresight become the two primary weapons. A campaign based on hearts and minds and maintaining basic security and services does not equal big bucks for the defence contractors. Secondly, it's in the interest of defence companies to ensure that the populace remains supportive of military operations as then the likelihood of increased funding is increased. We've definitely not seen this characteristic in modern conflicts from the early Cold War (or at least the end of McCarthyism onwards); complicity in aspects such as the bomber and missile gap was not political in its origins but based in a cosy relationship between military and defence industry- it was military intelligence predictions that drove the increase militarisation of the 50s through 70s, not political decision making.

Iran would never use nukes in the middle east or even think about devolving nukes. It would set off another Arms race in the middle east. Iran's neighbors would be quick to obtain Nuclear weapons. And lead to greater instability. I still have confidence that Iran's program is peaceful for now. But surely if attack Iran's program won't be. It would only give thousands more reasons for them to get one. The most important thing here is to be level headed and to think through before any action is taken. The last thing needed is all out warfare in the middle east. It won't be a happy ending.

Unless Iran is building a nuclear submarine, there is absolutely no reason they should be enriching Uranium above around 20% HEU unless it's for the purposes of building a nuclear weapon. Similarly, there is absolutely no purpose in Iran having non-power-generating reactors capable of breeding Plutonium, or the facilities to process Plutonium, unless they are attempting to develop nuclear weapons- well, unless they have a space programme and need Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators. Iran is also the primary benefactor of any unrest in the Middle East- the Arab Spring is a perfect example. There's little indication that Iran would use nuclear weapons if they had them- they'd be far too rudimentary and difficult to deliver to have any operational value- but as a strategic power play that created greater instability, it would be a perfect solution. And then, as the international community begins to shun their neighbours for turning their backs on the NPT, Iran can continue funding clandestine wars and terrorist organisations to further destabilise their already-isolated adversaries. I'm not advocating an attack on Iran but there's certainly a strategic value in them developing a nuclear weapon, and all indications of their action and direction is that they intend to.

September 15, 2012

mhhhhhhhh of course USrael will invade iran, since they are controlled by the zionist israel terror state and its zionist AIPAC lobby in USrael.

the german news said that the iran-israel war will start in september and will take 30 days with about 500 deaths, but they lie, they said similar thing with iraq too that iraq should take only few months and how long did it took ? 8 years with millions of deaths.

Israel forces USrael to go to war (not the first time)

September 15, 2012

the german news said that the iran-israel war will start in september and will take 30 days with about 500 deaths, but they lie, they said similar thing with iraq too that iraq should take only few months and how long did it took ? 8 years with millions of deaths.

When did they say that??

September 15, 2012

the german news said that the iran-israel war will start in september and will take 30 days with about 500 deaths, but they lie, they said similar thing with iraq too that iraq should take only few months and how long did it took ? 8 years with millions of deaths.

When did they say that??

yahoo.de, few weeks ago

EDIT : here is the link http://de.nachrichten.yahoo.com/debatte-um...-130530736.html

September 15, 2012

EDIT: Oh, its you. Us here at the Mossad forums don't like talking to you.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Greenline

September 15, 2012

the german news said that the iran-israel war will start in september and will take 30 days with about 500 deaths, but they lie, they said similar thing with iraq too that iraq should take only few months and how long did it took ? 8 years with millions of deaths.

When did they say that??

yahoo.de, few weeks ago

EDIT : here is the link http://de.nachrichten.yahoo.com/debatte-um...-130530736.html

Oh look, the anti-Semite is back. Did you bring your friend AtomicPunk along too?

Do you ever actually read the content of anything you post? The German Yahoo article alludes to statements made by Matan Vilnai, a former major General in the IDF, who stated a limited attack against Iran to destroy their nuclear programme would likely turn into a circa 30-day exchange of hostilities which would result in the deaths of approximately 500 Israel civilians from Iran's MRBM arsenal, as well as any combat pilots lost over Iranian territory on targeted strikes. It's nothing to do with a full-scale invasion of Iran which couldn't be accomplished in 30 days on purely logistical grounds even if the entire country was unpopulated. And it was John Hulsman, an apparent foreign policy expert and risk consultant, who made the September estimate, not the IDF or anyone directly connected to Israel. A strike in September is incredibly unlikely.

September 15, 2012

the german news said that the iran-israel war will start in september and will take 30 days with about 500 deaths, but they lie, they said similar thing with iraq too that iraq should take only few months and how long did it took ? 8 years with millions of deaths.

When did they say that??

yahoo.de, few weeks ago

EDIT : here is the link http://de.nachrichten.yahoo.com/debatte-um...-130530736.html

Oh look, the anti-Semite is back. Did you bring your friend AtomicPunk along too?

Do you ever actually read the content of anything you post? The German Yahoo article alludes to statements made by Matan Vilnai, a former major General in the IDF, who stated a limited attack against Iran to destroy their nuclear programme would likely turn into a circa 30-day exchange of hostilities which would result in the deaths of approximately 500 Israel civilians from Iran's MRBM arsenal, as well as any combat pilots lost over Iranian territory on targeted strikes. It's nothing to do with a full-scale invasion of Iran which couldn't be accomplished in 30 days on purely logistical grounds even if the entire country was unpopulated. And it was John Hulsman, an apparent foreign policy expert and risk consultant, who made the September estimate, not the IDF or anyone directly connected to Israel. A strike in September is incredibly unlikely.

sorry but im not anti-semitic like the mainstreammedia tell that sh*t.

here i give you a few conspiracy theories which are anti-american and anti-semitic :

- 9/11 was a terrorist attack, bin laden aka tim osman and the 19 hijackers did it (anti-semitic and anti-american conspiracy theory since 9/11 was an zionist job and judaism rejects zionism, so it anti-semitic, and since 9/11, USrael got destroyed from inside with partiot act, NDAA etc... its no USA anymore, its a dictatorship state now and USA is about freedom, so its a anti-american conspiracy theory the official story about 9/11. oh and i almost forgot it, the official 9/11 story is also a anti-islamic conspiracy theory.)

- 7/7 was a terrorist attack, done by 4 young muslim mens, read above to know that the official conspiracy theory is a anti-islamic, anti-semitic and anti-british conspiracy theory.

- Supporting Israel is anti-semitic since israel is a zionist state and zionist government that control the world with its zionist lobby in EVERY country, and most of the jews does NOT support israel and its government and its system, also judaism reject zionism, so supporting israel is anti-semitic but pro-zionist.

there are many more official anti-semitic, anti-islamic, anti-american conspiracy theories but i am watching right now the series "dexter" (very good TV series).

September 15, 2012

the german news said that the iran-israel war will start in september and will take 30 days with about 500 deaths, but they lie, they said similar thing with iraq too that iraq should take only few months and how long did it took ? 8 years with millions of deaths.

When did they say that??

yahoo.de, few weeks ago

EDIT : here is the link http://de.nachrichten.yahoo.com/debatte-um...-130530736.html