Israel - Iran Conflict Seems More Likely

[darkendless]

I hear you. Here's the conversation, as I've been hearing it so far:

Ahmedinejad: "I hate Zionism and Israel sucks."
Netanyahu: "Oh my God! A racist! Everybody! Quick! We have to start a war with Iran right away!"
Ahmedinejad: "If we are attacked, we will fight back!"
Netanyahu: "Oh my god! Did you hear that violent rhetoric? Get the bombs ready, there's no time to lose!!"

Did you miss the UN speeches by that lunatic asking for the total destruction of Israel?

 

[Alceste]

Did you miss the UN speeches by that lunatic asking for the total destruction of Israel?

I believe he's taking about his feverish daydreams, not his military plans.

 

[Alceste]

I think the world needs to stop underestimating Irans millitary power.

I'm not sure the policy makers do. I sometimes think they're hoping world war three will be as effective as world war two was at stimulating a sluggish economy.

 

[Shermana]

Iran alone is poking?

The US even helped Iraq acquire & use WMDs against Iran.
United States support for Iraq during the Iran
The US & Israel have been openly threatening direct attack for some time, in addition to covert attacks.
It strikes me that Iran has good reason to want nuclear weapons, given the danger we pose to them.

Israel aided Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. Iran was the one who decided to sour relations first and officially denounce Israel and directly support her enemies through proxy groups first. If Israel didn't stop Iraq's nuclear ambitions, Iran would be filled with radioactive craters to this day.

Iran technically may owe Israel her very existence.

 

[Shermana]

Take excessive religious fervor, add a generous helping of emotion
with a dash of gasoline, & even the normally sane can lose sanity.

So you're agreeing that it's insane to believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

I guess they're enriching Uranium well past the civilian power level just to take the reactors for a test drive.

 

[Alceste]

So you're agreeing that it's insane to believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

I guess they're enriching Uranium well past the civilian power level just to take the reactors for a test drive.

It's insane to think it's worth starting a war over, whether they are or not, and there is no evidence that they are.

 

[F0uad]

Wow this argument that Iran is creating one single nuclear bomb therefore should be bombed is very strange maybe you forgot but Israel has over 250 of them. Why should i favour Israel over Iran?

Did you miss the UN speeches by that lunatic asking for the total destruction of Israel?

So does Israel all the time should we bomb them?

Israel aided Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. Iran was the one who decided to sour relations first and officially denounce Israel and directly support her enemies through proxy groups first. If Israel didn't stop Iraq's nuclear ambitions, Iran would be filled with radioactive craters to this day.

Iran technically may owe Israel her very existence.

What Israel technically did was bomb the nuclear buildings of Iraq in fact Iran bombed them first what was build by the help of the US and Israel themselves. Sold some weapons to Iran that is where it ends you forget that in the 80's there was a pro western government ruling in Iran who did US bidding. America and Israel are well known to bomb and attack on whoever doesn't do there bidding.

So you're agreeing that it's insane to believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?

I guess they're enriching Uranium well past the civilian power level just to take the reactors for a test drive.

Well clearly you haven't studied the subject in depth, more then 45% of the enrichment is for civilian services therefore making there enrichment only 35% while one single bomb needs 100.

 

[BSM1]

It's insane to think it's worth starting a war over, whether they are or not, and there is no evidence that they are.

Suppose you had a neighbor that says he's wants to lay a baseball bat against your head. Then suppose this neighbor buys a lathe and a supply of hardwood. Are you really going to take him seriously if he smiles and tells you he's just turning table legs?

 

[Alceste]

Suppose you had a neighbor that says he's wants to lay a baseball bat against your head. Then suppose this neighbor buys a lathe and a supply of hardwood. Are you really going to take him seriously if he smiles and tells you he's just turning table legs?

Are you talking about Netanyahu's constant threats against Iran? :sarcastic

 

[BSM1]

Are you talking about Netanyahu's constant threats against Iran? :sarcastic

I believe there is a difference between a threat and a promise.

 

[Shermana]

What Israel technically did was bomb the nuclear buildings of Iraq in fact Iran bombed them first what was build by the help of the US and Israel themselves. Sold some weapons to Iran that is where it ends you forget that in the 80's there was a pro western government ruling in Iran who did US bidding. America and Israel are well known to bomb and attack on whoever doesn't do there bidding.

There was a pro Western government in Iran in the 80s? Can you link to this? Were they really just taking hostages in 1980 as part of a puppet scheme by the Republicans to make the Dems look bad? I think you're deliberately avoiding the fact that without Israel, Iran would be filled with radioactive craters curteousy of Saddam, that's just a fact. Now where do you get this idea that the 1980s saw a Pro-Western Iranian government? Did you mean the 1970s before 1979? When Israel was helping Iran against Saddam, it was the Islamic Regime in power, where did you learn otherwise?

As for Iran bombing Iraq first, I believe Saddam attacked first but the Iranians did make it out like they were planning on invading, and they were involved in fomenting Rebelliousness in the North. But Iraq moved in with the tanks and jets first, do you have a link that says Iran bombed them first?

Well clearly you haven't studied the subject in depth, more then 45% of the enrichment is for civilian services therefore making there enrichment only 35% while one single bomb needs 100.

A single bomb needs Uranium enrichment at 100%? 45% is used for civilian services? You only need 20%, and they're working on their way to the 80% which is standard for most missiles. I think we're on different pages.

 

[F0uad]

There was a pro Western government in Iran in the 80s? Can you link to this? Were they really just taking hostages in 1980 as part of a puppet scheme by the Republicans to make the Dems look bad? I think you're deliberately avoiding the fact that without Israel, Iran would be filled with radioactive craters curteousy of Saddam, that's just a fact. Now where do you get this idea that the 1980s saw a Pro-Western Iranian government? Did you mean the 1970s before 1979? When Israel was helping Iran against Saddam, it was the Islamic Regime in power, where did you learn otherwise?

As for Iran bombing Iraq first, I believe Saddam attacked first but the Iranians did make it out like they were planning on invading, and they were involved in fomenting Rebelliousness in the North. But Iraq moved in with the tanks and jets first, do you have a link that says Iran bombed them first?

Yes i meant 1979 the government itself wasn't fully anti-western until 1982 but your right on the years. Israel did not bomb Iraq to save Iran that claim is laughable it did so for its own interest and to remain the only nuclear power in the middle-east hence it wants to bomb Iran now. I wasn't talking about the war but the bombing of the nuclear buildings in Iraq.

A single bomb needs Uranium enrichment at 100%? 45% is used for civilian services? You only need 20%, and they're working on their way to the 80% which is standard for most missiles. I think we're on different pages.

Well i am not sure what you call most missiles since most of them use 90% what is equal to u235 if i am correct. Iran is a huge country, 20% would only mean that it can power 10 to 20% of the country i hope you accept the fact that if you take away the 20 or 40% you would need to enrich those amounts again before you can start counting the nuclear capabilities for a weapon.

If Iran really wants them they can get them in probably a year or two however these would be small ones and only a amount of one or two at max its not that nuclear enrichment is easy.

However this wasn't my point my point is why is Israel the only that that can posses nuclear weapons in the middle-east? I am pretty sure that the majority in the middle-east rather sees Iran with nuclear bombs then Israel. The only way wherein the bombing is justified is when Israel doesn't posses nuclear bombs themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

Suppose you had a neighbor that says he's wants to lay a baseball bat against your head. Then suppose this neighbor buys a lathe and a supply of hardwood. Are you really going to take him seriously if he smiles and tells you he's just turning table legs?

The only real & explicit threats I've heard lately are by Israel & the US towards iran.
Iran doesn't actually say they plan to attack Israel, although they do say they'll defend themselves.

 

[BSM1]

[

quote=Revoltingest;3100965]The only real & explicit threats I've heard lately are by Israel & the US towards iran.
Iran doesn't actually say they plan to attack Israel, although they do say they'll defend themselves.

[/QUOTE]

Obviously we are going to disagree on this matter. Only history will determine who's right. But thankfully we live in a country where we can have different viewpoints without worrying about someone showing up at our door wearing a dynamite tee shirt. (Not counting my psycho daughter-in-law of course.)

 

[Shermana]

Yes i meant 1979 the government itself wasn't fully anti-western until 1982 but your right on the years. Israel did not bomb Iraq to save Iran that claim is laughable it did so for its own interest and to remain the only nuclear power in the middle-east hence it wants to bomb Iran now. I wasn't talking about the war but the bombing of the nuclear buildings in Iraq.

I did not mean to imply that Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor just to save Iran. I mean to say that a major effect of doing so was not allowing him to launch said nuclear missiles at Iran. This fact needs to be well understood. Israel very well could have in fact saved Iran from nuclear winter. Whether that was their main intention or not.

Well i am not sure what you call most missiles since most of them use 90% what is equal to u235 if i am correct. Iran is a huge country, 20% would only mean that it can power 10 to 20% of the country i hope you accept the fact that if you take away the 20 or 40% you would need to enrich those amounts again before you can start counting the nuclear capabilities for a weapon.

I don't think we're on the same page regarding how enrichment works.

If Iran really wants them they can get them in probably a year or two however these would be small ones and only a amount of one or two at max its not that nuclear enrichment is easy.

All you need is one in a Hezbollah suitcase.

However this wasn't my point my point is why is Israel the only that that can posses nuclear weapons in the middle-east? I am pretty sure that the majority in the middle-east rather sees Iran with nuclear bombs then Israel. The only way wherein the bombing is justified is when Israel doesn't posses nuclear bombs themselves.

Why would they rather see Iran with nukes? So they can all gang rush Israel at once without threat of retaliation? I think Saudi Arabia doesn't want a nuclear Iran whatsoever.

 

[Alceste]

I believe there is a difference between a threat and a promise.

Then why do you side with Chicken Little?

 

[F0uad]

I did not mean to imply that Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor just to save Iran. I mean to say that a major effect of doing so was not allowing him to launch said nuclear missiles at Iran. This fact needs to be well understood. Israel very well could have in fact saved Iran from nuclear winter. Whether that was their main intention or not.

Well Iraq was a threat for Israel and there is where it ends Iran had nothing to do with Israel except that there was was a huge Jewish community in Iran and there still is. Iraq didn't had nuclear weapons during the time of war they were still developing it and who brought those nuclear buildings there in the first place so who is really to blame?

I don't think we're on the same page regarding how enrichment works.

Ok

All you need is one in a Hezbollah suitcase.

Well you clearly don't understand how Nuclear bombs work they are not that simple to transport or really hide. Hezbollah works for Iran Hezbollah is Iran it doesn't strike without Iran's permission so my argument stands why can Israel have over 200 and Iran none.. Can Israel be the only threat in the middle-east?

Why would they rather see Iran with nukes? So they can all gang rush Israel at once without threat of retaliation? I think Saudi Arabia doesn't want a nuclear Iran whatsoever.

Well we both agree that Israeli is a dark spot on the map for the middle-eastern countries until they accept Palestine as sovereign state. I rather see Iran with nukes since its foreign policy is much friendlier then that of Israel.

Well Saudi's government isn't really the biggest player in the middle-east any-more and its just America's puppet. Even Saudian Arabians the common civilians prefer Iran then Israel heck any muslim would and this has nothing to do with the Sunni, Shia or being Jewish but Israeli's policies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Obama not bluffing over Iran military threat, Biden tells Aipac | World news | guardian.co.uk

Barack Obama's threats to use military force to prevent Iran securing a nuclear weapon are more than idle bluffs, vice-president Joe Biden told the biggest pro-Israeli lobbying group Aipac on Monday.Biden said that while the US preferred a diplomatic solution to the standoff with Iran, a military option remained on the table.
"The president of the United States cannot, and does not, bluff. President Barack Obama is not bluffing," Biden told the audience in Washington.
Israel is seeking assurances of support from the US, should it decide to launch air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.

OK, it sounds really bad, but how much can we trust Biden to relate real policy, given his gaffes?
His statements at this venue give credence to claims that the US is manipulated by the Israeli lobby.

 

[Shermana]

Obama not bluffing over Iran military threat, Biden tells Aipac | World news | guardian.co.uk


OK, it sounds really bad, but how much can we trust Biden to relate real policy, given his gaffes?
His statements at this venue give credence to claims that the US is manipulated by the Israeli lobby.

And what would the Israeli lobby be without tens of millions of Christians and Israel supporters whose votes and opinion can make or break the policy makers?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well we both agree that Israeli is a dark spot on the map for the middle-eastern countries until they accept Palestine as sovereign state. I rather see Iran with nukes since its foreign policy is much friendlier then that of Israel.

Just ask the folks in Syria and Lebanon.