Is war inevitable between Iran and Israel?

[Elmer Gantry]

Insidious?

That's funny...break out your copy of "The protocols of the elders of Zion"

Jewish groups have every right to lobby governments on behalf of Israel.

LMAO, that was a bit tame. I was expecting to be called a Nazi at least.

 

[Flashy]

LMAO, that was a bit tame. I was expecting to be called a Nazi at least.

I don't make Nazi comparisons lightly...there is a subtle difference between a moron and a party of mass murdering fascists.

I am comfortable just calling you an ignoramus

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Yes, unless the US get them first. Some countries just seemed destined for war - not peace... Pity!

Who, the US?

Unfortunately, nukes=respect in this world, and the only way to bypass it would be to make nuclear weapons obsolete. As for the I vs I issue, I keep thinking of Computer games based on the Crusades...have our world leaders played them recently?

 

[Notaguru2]

If you want to go to war with Iran, just vote for McCain. It's that simple. However, be prepared for a draft, because Iranians aren't Iraqis and they'll stomp our fucking asses if we take the same half-ass approached to Iran as we did to Iraq.

 

[dong20]

Circumstances of the issue aside, the main issue I have with the use of 'inevitable' in this context is because it implies the absence of choice. Aside from natural disasters (and then just barely) fatalism should play no role when contemplating the potential death of thousands.

 

[Drifterwood]

I am on this planet Flashy and your response to me says far more about you than perhaps you realise. I made the point that I was presenting a non US POV, what you have to say about that is not relevant. I am not interested in your internal propaganda. We are not interested in your need to purge any contradictory view. We know what the truth is.

 

[mitchymo]

I agree with the briefest post from 'monster' about religion being the biggest influence on wars but at the same time 'land' is usually the focus.
I found this thread very interesting actually.
I think that the fact that Iran has not launched any offensive attacks over the last however many years is irrelevent in regards to its ambitions.
Some nation is actively supporting islamic extremist ideals because terrorists need it lest they have only guns primarily to fight with, wheras these guys are using rockets and explosives. Iran is the most likely candidate as everyone knows of its desire for the destruction of Israel and its far from transparent communication with the IAEA.
Iran needs to go nuclear to achieve its goals for the obvious reason that not only has Israel got its own decent defense but it has the strongest allies, which infuriates extremists.
If Israel's wrong-doings are being largely over-looked by the international community it is because much of the world respects and will actively defend its right to live in peace without threat from 'terror' largely instigated by those who refuse to recognize the state.
On a final note which i found quite interesting also...the prophecist 'nostradamus' has mentioned that in the early 21st century that israel would be involved in a 'great war' the outcome of which would result in victory for them but for the removal from 'the map' of Khartoum, so perhaps all eyes should be as much focused on what is going on in Syria too!

 

[Drifterwood]

Khartoum is the Capital of Sudan. But don't let that stop you proposing a pre-emptive strike against Syria.

 

[B_The Greek Dude]

Yes.

 

[mitchymo]

Khartoum is the Capital of Sudan. But don't let that stop you proposing a pre-emptive strike against Syria.

LOL...your quite right...i meant Damascus (i'm always getting syria and sudan mixed up)
I'm not suggesting a pre-emptive strike tho

 

[B_RedDude]

The state of Israel should never have been constituted as it was after World War II. It is a vestige of colonialism.

 

[tripod]

The funny thing about this whole situation is that you guys had eight damn years to accomplish your invasions and bombing of the Arab world.

All you could do is fuck up ROYALLY in Iraq... and you didn't really do shit in Afghanistan because the Taliban is on the rise and the coalition forces are only really in control of Kabul in Afghanistan.

You right wingers had eight years to do your "awesome" agenda.

You had an intensely right wing administration with the SMARTEST right wing minds in the world at the AIE running the show...

And you couldn't do fucking SHIT!!!!

What's even funnier is that out of those eight years, you had four that were completely free from democratic obstructions... you had the House, the Senate, the Presidency and arguably the Supreme Court...

And all you did was blunder and make mistakes.

It was really rather pathetic.

Now, you wanna sit here and bitch and whine about how we need to bomb some more countries (none of you talk about invasion now, 'cause you know that won't fucking work). It's hilarious... GIVE IT UP ALREADY.

YOU HAD YOUR FUCKING TOTAL CHANCE TO PUSH YOUR AGENDA STRAIGHT THROUGH AND REMAKE THE WORLD ACCORDING TO YOUR RIGHT WING STANDARDS AND ALL THAT YOU DID WAS MAKE BLUNDER AFTER BLUNDER.

You guys absolutely DO NOT know how to run a government, you have archaic notions of how things should run... you right wingers are so old school that you would fit right in with medieval feudalism.

Always tryin' to show how tough you are... it's really rather pathetic.

You had your eight long years... now step the fuck aside and let a more intelligent way of dealing with problems come into being. The funny thing is, you right wingers are TOTAL control freaks and have a HUGE problem relinquishing the reigns of power, but you will have to, because, it's over for your way of doing things for a while.

And the only person you have to blame for it is YOURSELVES.

 

[Flashy]

I am on this planet Flashy and your response to me says far more about you than perhaps you realise.


I never said you were not on this planet. If you have such a problem with my response, it was because i actively rebutted some of your ridiculous assertions...most notably, that the non-radical elements are somehow not in charge in Iran...which is laughable.



I made the point that I was presenting a non US POV, what you have to say about that is not relevant.

You are more than welcome to present a "non-US POV". Just make sure it is based on the truth. I can present a non-european POV to you and say that the Alps are not in Europe, but are in fact in Asia, that does not mean that my view of where the Alps are is correct.


I am not interested in your internal propaganda. We are not interested in your need to purge any contradictory view. We know what the truth is.

I see...so the truth, which is that radicals are still in fact in charge in Iran. (This is not an Internal U.S. issue, or internal U.S. propaganda, but a fact...i hate to point you in the direction of pro-western iranian students being suppressed and other fascist and radical behavior taken by the Mullahs, and the IRG)

I do not need need to purge your views, since they are so stupid as to be transparent. Only you could possibly say that the radicals are no longer in Power in Iran.

Only you could mention factual U.N. resolutions against Israel, but then ommit another fact that there is a 52 nation muslim voting bloc, who has formed a staunch anti-Israel bloc for decades. That is a fact in the same way that resolutions against Israel are. Those resolutions don't exist without that voting bloc.

I am sure you know what the truth is...since you are so good at ignoring it.

It is frankly amazing that there is such a tolerant and non-radical government in power in Iran now...strange, that the whole world has been so worried about them, not just the U.S. and Israel. The entire arab world is worried...

but i guess they are not that radical. They are warm and cuddly. Thank goodness the iranian government has become a big teddy bear.

you are a fool.

 

[Flashy]

I agree with the briefest post from 'monster' about religion being the biggest influence on wars but at the same time 'land' is usually the focus.
I found this thread very interesting actually.
I think that the fact that Iran has not launched any offensive attacks over the last however many years is irrelevent in regards to its ambitions.
Some nation is actively supporting islamic extremist ideals because terrorists need it lest they have only guns primarily to fight with, wheras these guys are using rockets and explosives. Iran is the most likely candidate as everyone knows of its desire for the destruction of Israel and its far from transparent communication with the IAEA.
Iran needs to go nuclear to achieve its goals for the obvious reason that not only has Israel got its own decent defense but it has the strongest allies, which infuriates extremists.
If Israel's wrong-doings are being largely over-looked by the international community it is because much of the world respects and will actively defend its right to live in peace without threat from 'terror' largely instigated by those who refuse to recognize the state.
On a final note which i found quite interesting also...the prophecist 'nostradamus' has mentioned that in the early 21st century that israel would be involved in a 'great war' the outcome of which would result in victory for them but for the removal from 'the map' of Khartoum, so perhaps all eyes should be as much focused on what is going on in Syria too!

very good post...(except for the Khartoum part) :wink:

 

[Flashy]

Khartoum is the Capital of Sudan. But don't let that stop you proposing a pre-emptive strike against Syria.

Why shouldn't the Israelis strike Syria?

It is not pre-emptive at all. According to international law, Syria is still at war with Israel. Syria has never made peace with ISrael, unlike Egypt and Jordan.

There has never been a cessation of war between Syria and Israel.

At the moment, Syria helps in the funding of Hezbollah.

Surely, Israel aside, you cannot seriously approve of Syria's meddling in the affairs of a U.N. Nationa state (Lebanon). Syria is at fault for a hell of alot of the problems in Lebanon, and a great deal of the suffering in LEbanon is fomented by the Syrians...

Most of the lebanese, who want a peaceful existence without the influence of Israel or Syria, want Syria OUT of Lebanon. ISrael is not in Lebanon at the moment, but Syria's tentacles and its support for Hezbollah are.

But don't let that fact stop you.

it is hysterical that your blind hatred of Israel, actually leads you to support Syria, who has been oppressing the Lebanese for decades.

Just cause you have such blind hatred for the US and Israel and some of their policies, it is hysterically funny that your "non-US" view, constitutes effective support for Iran and Syria, which cannot be justified no matter whose foreign policy you support...unless you are a fascist or an Islamist.

nice going.

 

[Flashy]

The state of Israel should never have been constituted as it was after World War II. It is a vestige of colonialism.

yeah...the jews should never have been returned to their homeland to form the only democratic micro-state in the whole pathetic mess of a region. They should have been just left to be slaughtered in Germany, Russia, Poland, the Middle east etc...

let's remove the jews and create another muslim terror-state...not enough of those around.

 

[Flashy]

The funny thing about this whole situation is that you guys had eight damn years to accomplish your invasions and bombing of the Arab world.

All you could do is fuck up ROYALLY in Iraq... and you didn't really do shit in Afghanistan because the Taliban is on the rise and the coalition forces are only really in control of Kabul in Afghanistan.

You right wingers had eight years to do your "awesome" agenda.

You had an intensely right wing administration with the SMARTEST right wing minds in the world at the AIE running the show...

And you couldn't do fucking SHIT!!!!

What's even funnier is that out of those eight years, you had four that were completely free from democratic obstructions... you had the House, the Senate, the Presidency and arguably the Supreme Court...

And all you did was blunder and make mistakes.

It was really rather pathetic.

Now, you wanna sit here and bitch and whine about how we need to bomb some more countries (none of you talk about invasion now, 'cause you know that won't fucking work). It's hilarious... GIVE IT UP ALREADY.

YOU HAD YOUR FUCKING TOTAL CHANCE TO PUSH YOUR AGENDA STRAIGHT THROUGH AND REMAKE THE WORLD ACCORDING TO YOUR RIGHT WING STANDARDS AND ALL THAT YOU DID WAS MAKE BLUNDER AFTER BLUNDER.

You guys absolutely DO NOT know how to run a government, you have archaic notions of how things should run... you right wingers are so old school that you would fit right in with medieval feudalism.

Always tryin' to show how tough you are... it's really rather pathetic.

You had your eight long years... now step the fuck aside and let a more intelligent way of dealing with problems come into being. The funny thing is, you right wingers are TOTAL control freaks and have a HUGE problem relinquishing the reigns of power, but you will have to, because, it's over for your way of doing things for a while.

And the only person you have to blame for it is YOURSELVES.

ummmmm, Tri, who are you talking to? LOL.

Are you sure you are in the right thread and this wasn't supposed to be in the Iraq thread? :biggrin1:

 

[tripod]

ummmmm, Tri, who are you talking to? LOL.

Are you sure you are in the right thread and this wasn't supposed to be in the Iraq thread? :biggrin1:

Me thinks that Flashy knows all... I had a rough night last evening and I clearly posted this in the wrong thread, I thought about cutting and pasting it in the proper thread, but... I thought that doing so would be me being a douche (douche = ass x 2)... I guess I had no problems being an ass once, I was all fired up... now, I just feel like I needed more sleep. :smile:

 

[dong20]

For all the confidence; how many here have been in Iran and thus know even a little more than they may have gleaned from the 'scaremongering' and posturing in the red tops? Much of what's written there is rooted in a ... disingenuous attempt to portray Ahmadinejad as the one wielding power.

Ahmadinejad is widely and deeply unpopular, he doesn't represent broad popular opinion and his power is in decline. I agree with Flashy (et al) that there are extreme radical elements within Iran that crave a US attack, their reasons should be obvious, but they're equally unrepresentative of broader Iranian society and power broking. Remember, rhetoric hurled from the pulpit of foreign affairs is a hallmark of desperation as much as it is one of intent.

Fallon's 'resignation' removed perhaps the last significant obstacle to Bush earning himself (and, quite possibly a few of us) a fiery legacy, should he so choose. The long term repercussions aren't guaranteed, nothing is, but even given the calibre of the current US administration it should surely demand pause for thought when assessing the risk of pre-emptive engagement, the consequences of which are at surely at least as unacceptable as those some here consider would result from (to cite Kagan) - "Giving futility its chance".

Incidentally, I'm surprised no one has expanded the discussion to consider the low profile being kept by China and Russia on this building tension. A significant US intervention in Iran would be very much to their benefit, and detriment of the US and EU. That's a factor that seems to have been entirely overlooked by posters, so far.

To be fair, I've seen convincing arguments in almost direct opposition to the above, that advocate carpet bombing Iran back to the stone age, today - but here's a common theme (flaw) with many of there proponents, very few appear willing to address or even acknowledge the likely consequences. for some, hurting the 'bad guys' is clearly justification enough, even if it ends up hurting the 'good guys' more.

Who can say they know definitively the correct course of action? I know I don't and I mistrust anyone who says they do, partly because I suspect they either don't understand the issue fully and completely (no apparent consideration of Chinese/Russian advantage), or because they are unwilling to entertain the possibility of being wrong, or both.

But let me posit a single concept; the enduring stability and overriding priority of the nation state. Think about this in the context of for example, post renaissance Europe, or more recently if you prefer, the former Soviet Union. Much changed, but more stayed the same - but what motivated the sacrifices necessary to achieve that underlying continuity, despite the rhetoric?

Bomb now, pay later may have the elegance of simplicity, but the bill could kill you.

 

[Flashy]

For all the confidence; how many here have been in Iran and thus know even a little more than they may have gleaned from the 'scaremongering' and posturing in the red tops? Much of what's written there is rooted in a ... disingenuous attempt to portray Ahmadinejad as the one wielding power.

Ahmadinejad is widely and deeply unpopular, he doesn't represent broad popular opinion and his power is in decline. I agree with Flashy (et al) that there are extreme radical elements within Iran that crave a US attack, their reasons should be obvious, but they're equally unrepresentative of broader Iranian society and power broking. Remember, rhetoric hurled from the pulpit of foreign affairs is a hallmark of desperation as much as it is one of intent.

Fallon's 'resignation' removed perhaps the last significant obstacle to Bush earning himself (and, quite possibly a few of us) a fiery legacy, should he so choose. The long term repercussions aren't guaranteed, nothing is, but even given the calibre of the current US administration it should surely demand pause for thought when assessing the risk of pre-emptive engagement, the consequences of which are at surely at least as unacceptable as those some here consider would result from (to cite Kagan) - "Giving futility its chance".

Incidentally, I'm surprised no one has expanded the discussion to consider the low profile being kept by China and Russia on this building tension. A significant US intervention in Iran would be very much to their benefit, and detriment of the US and EU. That's a factor that seems to have been entirely overlooked by posters, so far.

To be fair, I've seen convincing arguments in almost direct opposition to the above, that advocate carpet bombing Iran back to the stone age, today - but here's a common them with many of there proponents, very few appear willing to address or even acknowledge the likely consequences. for some, hurting the 'bad guys' is clearly justification enough, even if it ends up hurting the 'good guys' more.

Who can say they know definitively the correct course of action? I know I don't and I mistrust anyone who says they do, partly because I suspect they (I know I don't) either don't understand the issue fully and completely (no apparent consideration of Chinese/Russian advantage), or because they are unwilling to entertain the possibility of being wrong, or both.

But let me posit a single concept; the enduring stability and overriding priority of the nation state. Think about this in the context of for example, post renaissance Europe, or more recently if you prefer, the former Soviet Union. Much changed, but more stayed the same - but what motivated the sacrifices necessary to achieve that underlying continuity, despite the rhetoric?

Bomb now, pay later may have the elegance of simplicity, but the bill could kill you.

once again dong, you make far too much sense :wink:

i agree, that a very large majority of Iranians want a more westernized and modern Iran...unfortunately, the lunatics there run the show.

An attack would turn alot of those western elements against us indeed... but at this point, if the westernized elements in Iran cannot throw off the lunatics that run the show, there may be little choice.

If the attacks were limited to an utter destruction of the nuclear sites, and the entire IRG complex of bases and apparatus, that might be the only thing that would have a chance...

but I would rather have an Iran that was angry with us over the attack, but with the lunatics out of power, or totally destroyed, then a nuclear armed iran with the lunatics in charge with a majority of pro-west populus with zero control over the regime.

It is, unfortunately, one gigantic clusterfuck. :frown1: