What's America's temperature for another war?

SNKorSWM

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
10 Year Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Posts
15,152
Point is, no matter what the world’s largest super power and by far the world’s most powerful Army does will just be responded to negatively.

I'm afraid that distinction belongs to China. XD
 

Supernaut_

Banned
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Posts
194
wrong answer.

deliberate trolls are boring and undesired here. Bye. We don't need stupid nerbs diluting our awesome drama.

I am sorry I must have misunderstood the "Come for the Drama" title. I do however see the error of my ways discussing politics when multiple countries are in the forums.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
60,434
I am sorry I must have misunderstood the "Come for the Drama" title. I do however see the error of my ways discussing politics when multiple countries are in the forums.

If you came for the drama then you are in the wrong place. People come for the games.
 

SML

NEANDERTHAL FUCKER,
20 Year Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Posts
11,170
Rick Santorum is dominating Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri tonight. It's due the the Komen foundation and overturning Prop 8 being in the news this week, I'm sure, but he also happens to be the biggest hawk in the race.
 

DangerousK

MotoGP and Formula 1 Freak
20 Year Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2001
Posts
9,350
It's possible that Americans may only want war because it's the only profit generating division of the US government. Taxes are purely domestic, and don't really help the US economy. But selling weapons to foreigners brings cash into the US government, which was the basic tenet of governments a few centuries back: mercantilism. The US is one of a few countries that can fully supply a war. Even its own wars. And either a foreign government will pay to keep those military businesses running, or or future tax payers will. As long as a conflict can fabricated, money can be made.

It's an archaic economic strategy. That's the problem when you allow your country to be run by people without creative vision: they fall back on primitive means to achieve national security.

Might be one of the best posts I've ever seen.

Makes me proud to be an American knowing the government has become nothing more than an entity of pure greedy that keeps feeding on everything.
 

bokmeow

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Posts
11,314
And The Onion hit another one out of the park

Another observant piece courtesy of The Onion.

Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon
FEBRUARY 9, 2012 | ISSUE 48•06

Iran_Worried-R_jpg_635x345_crop-smart_upscale_q85.jpg


TEHRAN—Amidst mounting geopolitical tensions, Iranian officials said Wednesday they were increasingly concerned about the United States of America's uranium-enrichment program, fearing the Western nation may soon be capable of producing its 8,500th nuclear weapon. "Our intelligence estimates indicate that, if it is allowed to progress with its aggressive nuclear program, the United States may soon possess its 8,500th atomic weapon capable of reaching Iran," said Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, adding that Americans have the fuel, the facilities, and "everything they need" to manufacture even more weapons-grade fissile material. "Obviously, the prospect of this happening is very distressing to Iran and all countries like Iran. After all, the United States is a volatile nation that's proven it needs little provocation to attack anyone anywhere in the world whom it perceives to be a threat." Iranian intelligence experts also warned of the very real, and very frightening, possibility of the U.S. providing weapons and resources to a rogue third-party state such as Israel.
 

SNKorSWM

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
10 Year Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Posts
15,152
They should just worry about the first one that reaches. XD
 

bokmeow

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Posts
11,314
As Xander Crews has pointed out, the recent rash of Israeli embassy attacks were false flag attacks, but perception is reality in this low-intensity media war. Hell, a war on Iraq was sold to the American public on the flakiest speculation of aluminum tubes for nuclear enrichment, and mobile chemical weapon laboratories.

It has generated discussion what kind of fallout could result from escalating rhetoric towards Iran:
it could be like the 1st Gulf War, where there was substantial Iraqi-American support for military action, and little enmity in mainstream discourse towards Iraqi-Americans;
or it could result in different degrees of various scenarios that have played out throughout recent history, such as the detention of Japanese-Americans during WWII, witch hunts for Communists during the Cold War, and the surveillance, "enemy combatant" detention of muslims and Arab-Americans today.

Ynet News said:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4189204,00.html
Iran: Israel, allies behind India attack
Jewish state bombed own embassies, Iranian Foreign Ministry says after wife of Israeli Defense Ministry rep in India wounded in car blast
Published: 02.13.12, 21:22 / Israel News

Israel and its allies are behind Monday's bombing in India and the thwarted terror attack in Georgia, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast charged Monday.

In a statement, the spokesman claimed the attacks were the latest phase in the Jewish state's psychological war against Tehran, the IRNA news agency said. He added that Israel targeted its own embassies in a bid to undermine Iran's friendly ties with India and Georgia.

"The Zionist regime has a high record of criminal actions against humanity and it is the first suspect of any terrorist operation in the world,” Mehmanparast said. "Tehran condemns terrorism in strongest terms as Iran has been a victim of terrorism."

Earlier, Iran's ambassador to India dismissed Israeli allegations that Tehran was behind the India and Georgia terror incidents.

"Any terrorist attack is condemned (by Iran) and we strongly reject the untrue and irresponsible comments by an Israeli official,' Mehdi Nabizadeh was quoted as saying. "These accusations are untrue and sheer lies, like the previous times.'"

An explosion tore through an Israeli diplomat's car in the vicinity of the Israeli Embassy in New Delhi, India, Monday, wounding four people, including the wife of an Israeli Defense Ministry representative and her driver.

An initial probe into the attack revealed that the envoy's wife left the embassy with her driver after a day of work at the mission in order to pick up her children from school. The explosion took place a short while before she arrived at the school, apparently after a bomb was attached to the vehicle.

Earlier, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Iran and Hezbollah of being behind Monday's double terror attack on the Israeli embassies in India and Georgia.
 
Last edited:

bokmeow

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Posts
11,314
Arshin Adib-Moghaddam weighs in. While not pointing to false flag operations, makes the case that Iran has little to gain from staging terrorist attacks on soils of countries with which it has, or is cultivating, good relationships.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/15/iran-israeli-diplomats-attacks
Iran seems an unlikely culprit for the attacks on Israeli diplomats
Tehran has good relations with Thailand, India and Georgia. Why would it endanger that by planting bombs there?
Arshin Adib-Moghaddam
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 February 2012 15.00 EST

Let's assume that sections of the military and security apparatus in Iran are responsible for the string of bombings in Georgia, Thailand and India. What would be the motive? The argument that Iran is retaliating for the murder of five civilian nuclear scientists in Iran is not plausible. If Iran wanted to target Israeli interests, it has other means at its disposal. It is hard to imagine that the Iranian government would send Iranian operatives to friendly countries, completely equipped with Iranian money and passports – making the case against them as obvious as possible.

If the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are as professional, highly trained and politically savvy as we have been told repeatedly by Israeli politicians themselves, if they have successfully trained and equipped the cadres of Hezbollah and other movements with paramilitary wings in the region, then why would they launch such a clumsy and self-defeating operation?

And why India, Georgia and Thailand, three countries that Iran has had cordial relations with during a period when Iran is facing increasing sanctions spearheaded by the United States? A few days ago, India agreed a rupee-based oil and gas deal with Iran and resisted US pressures to join the western boycott of the Iranian energy sector. As a net importer of 12% of Iranian oil, India's total trade with Iran amounted to $13.67bn in 2010-2011. What would be the motive for damaging relations with one of Iran's major trading partners and regional heavyweights?

For Iran it doesn't make sense to risk alienating India by launching an assassination attempt in the capital of the country. Similarly, Iran has good economic and political relations with Georgia and Thailand. Why would the leadership in Tehran risk a major crisis with these countries during this sensitive period when IAEA inspectors are moving in and out of Iran to investigate the country's nuclear programme?

The true answer is that at this stage no one knows for sure who is behind the attacks. There have been news reports that the security agencies in India are examining the similarities between the explosion in Delhi and the Jama Masjid shooting and blast in 2010 when similar methods were used. According to these reports, the culprits could be the so-called Indian Mujahideen, which is unrelated to Iran and which is opposed to India's relations with Israel. There are several other such groups that support the Palestinian cause and that have targeted India before.

It is politics that will prevail over the truth in this case; the Netanyahu administration will attempt to exploit the situation in order to make the case for increasing sanctions against Iran. Undoubtedly, it will attempt to derail Iranian-Indian relations, which has been a primary objective of the administration's grand strategy to isolate Iran. For the Netanyahu administration, the culprit of these attacks has to be the Iranian government, irrespective of the truth, because it is politically expedient to represent the country as an existential threat in order to hype up the nuclear issue and to divert attention away from the Palestinian question. Certainly, on the fringes of the Israeli right wing the drumbeats for war will beat louder.

The Iranian government, on the other hand, will continue to deny any involvement in order to ward off a diplomatic fallout. Iran is not interested in any military confrontation. But at the same time Israel is a convenient bogeyman for Iran's own right wing. Cyclical, confined confrontation with Israel is politically useful in order to foster support for the country's policies, both domestically and in the wider Arab and Islamic world. Finally, the international community, including the Obama administration, is likely to contain the repercussions of what happened in order to give diplomacy a chance, and to cool down the hawks in Tel Aviv. We are in the middle of the realm of politics then, not the truth.

Apart from a tiny minority that is tied to the military industrial complex, no one really has a penchant for yet another disastrous war in the Islamic world. One thing is certain, however. If the current cold war between Israel and Iran is not managed diplomatically sooner rather than later, the tensions will continue to rise with potentially devastating consequences for Israelis and Iranians alike.

Policies of terror and intimidation yield wars; diplomacy and dialogue yield peace and stability. It is time that this fundamental logic of international politics is enforced in west Asia and north Africa. To that end, the case for reconciliation has to be made continuously and emphatically, especially during periods of massive rage and trepidation. We are exactly at such a decisive juncture. It is all the more imperative then that intellectual acumen and analytical sobriety prevail over the resurgent pro-war lobby.
 

RATM

Zack de la Neo,
Joined
Jun 11, 2002
Posts
784
As soon as the U.S. backs off a certain area we have countries invading other countries.

You're right! Think of all the American lives that have been lost in foreign wars that we had no involvement in. It's unbelievable!

The U.S., through many un-agreeable or possibly despicable acts, has kept the world in check and keep many nations from killing one another.

And what has kept Americans from unjustifiably killing others? Don't assume that the US has moral high ground.

50 years ago we used to have a party of peace and non-intervention, they were called the republicans. Now we have nothing. It's a shame that the democrats never formed an effective opposition during the Bush years. When your presidential candidate's platform is based on opposition to a war that he himself voted on, you know somethings not right (speaking John Kerry of course). I guess the hawkish tendencies of that party are simply too historically ingrained.

On another note, Persian women are HAWT.
 

Lagduf

2>X
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Posts
46,682
Which thread do I go to to bitch about Israel's administrative detention policy? Sounds like the Apartheid Era South Africa detention practices.
 

bokmeow

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Posts
11,314
When Israel strikes Iran, U.S. will not be briefed beforehand, according to Associated Press — presumably Israel expects U.S. to fight the war when Iran retaliates.

The level of political engagement Israelis has towards war with Iran? Apathy, according to this Ha'aretz article, as Israeli fans beg Netanyahu to attack Iran only after Madonna plays in Israel.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-02-27-21-30-53

AP sources: Israel wouldn't warn US on Iran strike

By KIMBERLY DOZIER
AP Intelligence Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Israeli officials say they won't warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The pronouncement, delivered in a series of private, top-level conversations with U.S. officials, sets a tense tone ahead of meetings in the coming days at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

Israeli officials said that if they eventually decide a strike is necessary, they would keep the Americans in the dark to decrease the likelihood that the U.S. would be held responsible for failing to stop Israel's potential attack, said one U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions. The U.S. has been working with the Israelis for months to convince them that an attack would be only a temporary setback to Iran's nuclear program.

Israeli defense officials confirmed that there are no plans to alert the U.S. ahead of time about any operation against Iran, though they stressed no decisions have been made on whether to attack. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a confidential security matter.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak delivered the message to a series of high-level U.S. visitors to the country, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the White House national security adviser, the director of national intelligence and top U.S. lawmakers, all trying to close the trust gap between Israel and the U.S. over how to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Netanyahu delivered the same message to all the Americans who have traveled to Israel for talks, the U.S. official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive strategic negotiations.

The Pentagon and the Office of Director of National Intelligence declined comment. White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday he would not answer "speculative" questions about Israeli intentions.

"We have very close relationships with our Israeli counterparts. We have deep engagement at every level," Carney said.

He repeated the Obama administration's commitment to resolving questions about Iran's disputed nuclear program through diplomacy and economic pressure.

Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the International Atomic Energy Agency has raised alarms that its uranium enrichment program might be a precursor to building nuclear weapons.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, testifying before Congress Tuesday, reiterated the administration's position that Iran has not decided whether to pursue a nuclear weapon.

"But...people sometimes say and do things that are at variance with what one might expect. It still is quite bewildering to me why Saddam Hussein wanted everybody to believe that he had chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons of mass destruction, when apparently he did not."

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress Tuesday that he has not counseled Israel to not attack Iran.

Asked during a Senate hearing to clarify his comments in a television interview earlier this month, Dempsey said "we've had a conversation with them about time." And he added that he would "absolutely not" take military force against Iran off the table.

Israel's U.N. representative did not directly address the possibility of a strike in remarks Tuesday.

"I think decision by the international community to do more sanctions on Iran ... is very, very important," said Israel's U.N. ambassador, Ron Prosor, after a Security Council meeting on the Middle East. "I think the international community can do a lot in that field before it's too late."

Israel's secret warning is likely to worry U.S. officials and begin the high-level meetings with Israel and the U.S. far apart on how to handle Iran.

But the apparent decision to keep the U.S. in the dark also stems from Israel's frustration with the White House. After a visit by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, the Israelis became convinced the Americans would neither take military action, nor go along with unilateral action by Israel against Iran. The Israelis concluded that if there were any strike they would have to conduct it unilaterally - a point they are likely to hammer home in a series of meetings over the next two weeks in Washington, the official said.

Barak will meet with top administration and congressional officials during his visit. Netanyahu arrives in Washington for meetings with President Barack Obama next week.

The behind-the-scenes warning belies the publicly united front the two sides have attempted to craft with the shuttle diplomacy to each other's capitals.

"It's unprecedented outreach to Israel to make sure we are working together to develop the plan to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon," and to keep Iran from exporting terrorism, said Maryland Rep. C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

He traveled there with the intelligence committee chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., to meet Israel's prime minister and defense minister, along with other officials.

"We talked about the fact that sanctions are working and they are going to get a lot more aggressive," Ruppersberger added.

Rogers told CNN on Monday: "I got the sense that Israel is incredibly serious about a strike on (Iran's) nuclear weapons program. It's their calculus that the administration ... is not serious about a real military consequence to Iran moving forward.

"They believe they're going to have to make a decision on their own, given the current posture of the United States," he added.

U.S. intelligence and special operations officials have tried to keep a dialogue going with Israel despite the high-level impasse, offering options such as allowing Israel to use U.S. bases in the region to launch such a strike, as a way to make sure the Israelis give the Americans a heads-up, according to the U.S. official and a former U.S. official with knowledge of the communications.

Cooperation has improved on sharing of intelligence in the region, according to one current and one former U.S. official. Israel is providing key information on Syria, for instance, now that the U.S. has closed its embassy and pulled out its diplomats and intelligence officials stationed there, the U.S. official said.

---

AP National Security Writer Anne Gearan, and AP writers Lolita C. Baldor and Donna Cassata in Washington and Edith M. Lederer at the U.N. contributed to this report.

Dozier can be followed on Twitter (at)kimberlydozier.
 
Last edited:

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
34,074
We should give Iran a nuclear weapon...

Test whether or not they actually give a fuck about the the health and safety of the Palestinian people.




PS: The answer is that they don't give a fuck about a bunch of backwards-ass Arabs.
 
Last edited:

bokmeow

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Posts
11,314
Well, buried under all this inflammatory rhetoric and political demagoguery, is the fact that Iran has invaded no country, not even after the Islamic Revolution took over Iran. Desire to conduct nuclear research is its prerogative, and analysts have chimed in to say Iran has not made a decision to construct a bomb.

Many intelligence analysts and military brass have also pointed out that Iran is far from irrational or suicidal. It has reached out diplomatically several times under moderates — US responding by attaching Iran with the label of "axis of evil" was not the wisest of diplomatic maneuvers.

Oh and, just to clear myself before I am preemptively attached with the label of "Iran supporter," I am not interested in supporting a government that has a questionable human rights record, corruption, and engineered a fraudulent election result.

We should give Iran a nuclear weapon...

Test whether or not they actually give a fuck about the the health and safety of the Palestinian people.




PS: The answer is that they don't give a fuck about a bunch of backwards-ass Arabs.
 

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
34,074
The clerics aren't irrational/suicidal, neither is the civil administration. But the Guard... They are not even keeled at all. And by many accounts, the clerics have lost control of the Guard.

Anyways...
I don't get why Iran is putting so much effort into nuclear fission and not petrol refinement. They currently need refined products much more than they need nuclear fusion. And once they have the refineries in place, then they will have more leverage to start nuclear fission.
 

bokmeow

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Posts
11,314
Bibi is going to raise America's temperature for another war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...ands-obama-military-action-iran?newsfeed=true
Israeli PM demands Obama commit to military action if Iran sanctions fail
Binyamin Netanyahu pressing for explicit threat from US ahead of crucial meeting with Obama next week in Washington

Chris McGreal in Washington

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 March 2012 12.43 EST

Barack-Obama-and-Benjamin-001.jpg

Israeli officials say that Binyamin Netanyahu is not happy with Obama's 'vague assertion' that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty

Israel is pressing Barack Obama for an explicit threat of military action against Iran if sanctions fail and Tehran's nuclear programme advances beyond specified "red lines".

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is expected to raise the issue at a White House meeting on Monday after weeks of intense diplomacy in which Obama has dispatched senior officials — including his intelligence, national security and military chiefs — to Jerusalem to try and dampen down talk of an attack.

Diplomats say that Israel is angered by the Obama administration's public disparaging of early military action against Iran, saying that it weakens the prospect of Tehran taking the warnings from Israel seriously.

The two sides are attempting to agree a joint public statement to paper over the divide but talks will not be made easier by a deepening distrust in which the Israelis question Obama's commitment to confront Iran while the White House is frustrated by what it sees as political interference by Netanyahu to mobilise support for Israel's position in the US Congress.

"They are poles apart," said one diplomatic source. "The White House believes there is time for sanctions to work and that military threats don't help. The Israelis regard this as woolly thinking.

They see Iran as headed towards a bomb, even though they agree there is no evidence Tehran has made that decision yet, and they want the White House to up the ante. The White House has the Europeans behind its position but it's losing Congress."

The mood is not helped by worsening distrust between the two leaders. Relations soured within weeks of Obama coming to power after he attempted to pressure Netanyahu to halt construction of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories.

Netanyahu told his weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday that Iran will dominate his talks with Obama.

"There is no doubt that one issue will be at the centre of our talks, and that is, of course, the continued strengthening of Iran and its nuclear programme," he said.

Israeli officials say that Netanyahu is not happy with Obama's "vague assertion" that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. The Israeli prime minister wants Obama to state unequivocally that Washington is prepared to use force if Iran's nuclear programme advances beyond specified red lines.

US administration sources say that Obama is unlikely to make a major shift in policy in public although he may give Netanyahu firmer assurances in private.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the administration is intent on preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon but that for now it is committed to using sanctions and diplomacy.

"We believe that there is time and space to continue to pursue that approach," he said. "Even as we refuse and make clear that we do not take any option off the table in our effort to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon," he said.

But last month the Guardian revealed that some American officials are convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear programme, and believe that the US will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so.

One of the principal differences is over timing. The US continues to say it believes Iran has not yet decided whether or not to develop a nuclear bomb, and that even if it does it is perhaps years away from being able to do so.

Israel's defence minister, Ehud Barak, was in Washington this week for meetings with vice-president Joe Biden and US defence secretary Leon Panetta, among others, at which he pressed his view that a direct decision by Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon is not the immediate issue so long as it continues to build the means to do so, and that the matter is urgent.

The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, told Congress this week that during a recent visit to Jerusalem the principal difference was over the question of how long to give sanctions and diplomacy an opportunity to work. "We've had a conversation with them about time, the issue of time," he said.

Dempsey was one of several senior US officials to travel to Israel in recent weeks, including Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon, and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper.

Dempsey infuriated Netanyahu with comments that it is "premature" to launch an attack and that an Israeli assault on Iran would be imprudent and destabilising, and not achieve Israel's objectives. He also said that Iran is a "rational" player and should be treated as such.

Netanyahu met a group of US senators last week, including John McCain, and complained strongly about Obama administration officials publicly opposing an Israeli strike on Iran.

After the meeting, McCain criticised the White House position. "There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat. Unfortunately there clearly is some," he said.

McCain described relations between the US and Israel as in "very bad shape right now" saying that differences over Iran have caused "significant tension". He appeared to side with the Israeli position in noting that "there is very little doubt that Iran has so far been undeterred to get nuclear weapons".

The Republican chair of the House of Representatives intelligence committee, Mike Rogers, said on Monday after meeting Israeli officials that there is a wide difference of opinion between Israel and the White House.

"I got the sense that Israel is incredibly serious about a strike on [Iran's] nuclear weapons programme. It's their calculus that the [US] administration … is not serious about a real military consequence to Iran moving forward," he said. "They believe they're going to have to make a decision on their own, given the current posture of the United States."

Last week, 12 senators sent the president a letter warning that he should not allow Tehran to buy time by engaging in fruitless diplomatic negotiations, expected to begin in the coming weeks. They demanded that Obama insist Iran halt its uranium enrichment programme before talks begin.

More than half the members of the Senate have backed a resolution that some see as pressing for an attack in declaring that the White House should not pursue a policy of "containment".

Senator Joe Lieberman, one of the sponsors of the resolution, said it is intended "to say clearly and resolutely to Iran: You have only two choices – peacefully negotiate to end your nuclear program or expect a military strike to end that programme."

Critics of the resolution said that it smacks of a congressional authorisation for an attack on Iran. That view was reinforced when the sponsors declined a request from some Democrats to amend it to clarify that the resolution did not imply consent for war.

Israeli officials told the Associated Press this week that Israel will not notify the US before an attack on Iran. US officials scoff at the idea that Washington would not know an assault is coming, and the Israeli position may be intended to allow the White House to deny any responsibility.
 

Yodd

Iori's Flame
20 Year Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2002
Posts
8,214
Its about time we told Israel to go and get bent.

Of course Israel is going to demand that we lay the hammer down on Iran as they can't stand the thought of fighting their own fight.

"Why should we use our resources, man power or loss of life when we can just have the US go in and do it for us?"

Fuck them. If Israel still has a beef with Iran, let them go and take care of that shit on their own.
 

SNKorSWM

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
10 Year Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Posts
15,152
Back in the Bush era, the US would oblige willingly without the need of Israeli PM personally flying into DC to demand action. XD
 

Lagduf

2>X
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Posts
46,682
The best part about this whole situation is the absolutely hypocrisy of it all.

Israel has nuclear weapons. Perhaps dozens or hundreds.

If for some reason Iran launched a nuke against Israel there would be no war.

Israel would wipe Iran off the map in the worst nuclear attack the world would has seen to date.

Where are the sanctions against Israel?
 

bokmeow

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Posts
11,314
The best part about this whole situation is the absolutely hypocrisy of it all.

Israel has nuclear weapons. Perhaps dozens or hundreds.

If for some reason Iran launched a nuke against Israel there would be no war.

Israel would wipe Iran off the map in the worst nuclear attack the world would has seen to date.

Where are the sanctions against Israel?

++1.

Israel gets away with its conduct 'cos U.S. gives it the diplomatic cover.

Even though the misappropriation of Judaism for the "Jewish state" has lost a sizable bloc of support from conscientious Jews --sometimes referred to as "post-Zionist" -- it has made up for in support from the evangelical fundamentalists that believe in Revelation theology. Matters not that the evangelicals believe when all Jews return to Israel, they will burn at the stake or convert to Christianity -- "as long as the money is good" is the sentiment of Jewish settlers that benefit from the largess.


Money is also good for the industry that profits off of urging viewers to send Jews back to Israel.
 

Lagduf

2>X
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Posts
46,682
$70 sends one Jew back to Israel.

LOL

I heard NPR frame the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu as a discussion on the "Iranian Nuclear Threat."

What threat is that, exactly? It's nothing more than a fabricated threat to drum up support for god* knows what policies and actions that will undoubtedly see thousands dead, the pockets of corporations lined with cash, and the continuing erosion of Civil Liberties . The worst part is that a military action against Iran would probably have bipartisan support in the US congress. LOL - guess we know where their loyalty lies.

Where the fuck was the talk of military action against North Korea when they DETONATED A NUCLEAR WEAPON in 2006.

I mean, it's clear this whole "situation" actually has nothing to do with a nuclear Iran.

*pick whichever god you like best, I choose Crom.
 
Last edited:
Top