this tread is about the statistics and guesing. even if you support by ideaoligy one of the side, its about what you think will happen, not what you hope or want to. so "Israel people are braver" "the iranian have the right to destroy israel" - Out, "the IDF as prove himself useful and has the tools for the job" "Iran have a strong anti-air defence system" - In.
so guys, do you think that an attack in Iran by Israel will stop the Developing of an atomic bomb by Iran, will only slow it or will do nothing at all? do you think that the damage in the home front Will be worth it or will cost too many lives and damage? and - does Israel need to wait for USA to interfere or Israel need to do it by herself, "befor its too late"?
firstly, my opinion is that Netanyau is trying to make a 'scene', make the problem be bigger than its actualy is. sure that an nuclear Iran is a treat to Israel, but attacing it will only give them an Excuse to attack us, saying that they are defending against us. even that the Israeli is a very strong army {one of the bests in the world}, the Iranian showd us that they are not to be disregard. they fought for 8 years against Iraq. so tehy wont break up easly, like some in Israel hope {like the eygeption army in 1967 - againt, i dont disregard them too. like i dont blame the french army in WW2}. and, unlike the US army, we wont get the support of the locals who oppose the regiem, as it will be easier to Hammedinijad to unit the Iranian against the 'zionists', while USA is more nautral to them. and, unlike USA, saudi-arabia as said that they wont let our airplanse to fly over her Territory and will shoot them if they will. afcors they will never do this to USA army.
so, i think that we {Israel} need to let USA make the move, maybe help as we can, and not do it ourself. not because of cowardness or that we are affraid, but because of the fact that the USA army is much much stronger and have a better chanses to sucssed, while the Israeli army has less chance to gain support inside Iran and to defeat Iran befor a devisteted rocket barrage on us.
Nicho, MAD only applies when both groups are ruled by reason and rationality. When both countries want what's best for their citizens, than neither will use nuclear force against each other. However Iran doesn't fall under that category. They are a theocracy, and do not necessarily want what's best for Iranians as long as they get their way with destroying Israel.
Yet another person who conflates and obfuscates rationality. I'll just quote the delightful Fareed Zakaria:
A number of you asked me whether I agree with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey who described Iran as a ârational actorâ on my program a couple of weeks ago.
My answer is: I very much agree with General Dempsey. Â Itâs very important to understand, however, what it means to talk about a ârational actor.â Â A rational actor is not a reasonable actor. It is not somebody who has the same goals or values as we have.
In international affairs or economics, the term rational actor is used to describe somebody who is concerned about their survival, prosperity or strength and is making calculations on the basis of these concerns. Â It describes someone who calculates costs and benefits.
We all assume Iran is a rational actor â" even the most hawkish people in this debate â" when we assume that pressure on Iran will make a difference. We are assuming that Iran is watching the costs of its actions, calculating them and, presumably, will recognize that the costs outweigh the benefits. This is all that it means to say that Iran is a rational actor. Indeed, Iran has been very calculating in its behavior, far more so than other so-called radical, revolutionary regimes. If you look at Maoâs China, he talked openly about destroying the world and about sacrificing half of China so that global communism could survive. The Iranians never talk like that and they certainly donât do things like that. Their behavior for 30 years has been calculating. They respond to inducements and pressures in ways that are completely understandable.
Their goals are not ours, of course, but thatâs a very different issue.
This problem wouldn't exist if warmonger Republicans like Bush/Cheney haven't invaded Iraq and killed Saddam because Iraq used to watch Iran and Iran used to watch Iraq so they were not a threat.
Iran always been a threat since 1979....in fact it goes way back, when the Americans propped up the corrupted Shahs of Iran, which explains partially why the Iranians are loathed to trust the Americans.
Iran always been a threat since 1979....in fact it goes way back, when the Americans propped up the corrupted Shahs of Iran, which explains partially why the Iranians are loathed to trust the Americans.
I agree but when two countries hate each other and happens to be neighbors, it's a benefit for the rest of us because they are two busy watching each other. Simple isn't it? It's the good old divide and conquer strategy.
They also happen to be major oil producers, sitting on the most explosive religious faultline in the Muslim world, and the global hotbed of terrorism....
Uh yeah, not such a good thing having such an animosity after all....In fact the last time those two got involved "watching each other" half of the major powers had to step in and supply arms and support in one way or another.
Of course they are! They need to start WW3, Reason? Well when you start a War money sky rockets to the roof, America needs money cause they're bankrupt and even though they wont last long with all that money, they will still be able to dig them self out of the grave. ~Haxor
Of course they are! They need to start WW3, Reason? Well when you start a War money sky rockets to the roof, America needs money cause they're bankrupt and even though they wont last long with all that money, they will still be able to dig them self out of the grave.
so your solution for the crisis is war. i feel bad for you tbh..
and why would that be WW3? world war. means that there is 1 war going on, on nearly all the continents. it doesn't matter that loads of countries will be involved whit that war. as long the fighting only happens in that 1 county (or 2 / 3) then it's not a world war. take a example of afghanistan.
I'm not an expert on the subject and I didn't have the courage to read all the posts, but I saw an interview and had to think of that thread..
So that interview was made with Akbar Etemad, father of the Iranian nuclear program, in July: Interview First off I have to say I really don't like the Mulah regime and so.
I have one critique to that guy, he says a lot 'We didn't/don't do that' or 'We don't have that', but admits that he's 'not in the governments head'. On the other hand, he IS the pioneer of the nuclear program after all.
But he also voices quite a criticism, and if he's correct, the current stand of the West and Israel is very hypocritic and in fact illegal. And I'm ready to think he's not completely wrong.
In what way? sure, its sound 'unfair' that some countries have nuke and some not. but thats how life go. the strongs want to stay strongs, like britian went to wars not about anything but maintaining its power. there "job" {utlist in there eyes} was to keep europe balanced. so does USA now {even if it is not perfet and have many ugly sides}. if Iran will get one, they will use it. they want it to becaome a super power. to conquer Iraq, saudi arabia and all the gang.
Israel on the other hand, have it for survival. there wont be a seconde metzada , or a seconde holocaust.
sure, for a viewr from the side its look unfair, but my ideaoligy about nuke is that its 'ok' as long as it a defensive wepone. I can make you a owe, to swear in every way, that as long as i live we wont use it as a wepone. we wont shoot it on a nation to defeat it. and nicho, i am to pray that the days wher people like me are still the one who run this country will remind for ever. but its true, the arabic population and the stuiped spoill mass, which getting racsist and racsist because of the occupation {not a major yet, and if i judge corectly, are starting to decrease} will be the major. then we have a problme. but the one who "control" it are still 'good peoples'.
think what could happen if nazy germany or japan got a nuke in ww2? they were preety close. they would us it. and Iran is in this very Scenario. they want to crush there enemies. saudi-arabia,Iraq and all the arab Peninsula, then Israel and then Usa. they will use it for terror, we use it as a defensive wall, the biggest "Iron dome" we can have.
I violently disagree; the Iranian regime has actually been very calculating and rational since 1979. It's not very hard to understan why they want to possess nuclear missiles, to the North is Russia, to the East Pakistan and Afghanistan, to the West the traditional enemy of Iraq and to the South is Sunni Saudi Arabia. Four of these are armed by the USA and have US bases; Iran is perfectly rational in the political sense of the word. They might utilize rhetorical bluster on a grand scale, but they never joined the Arab states in attacking Israel, the Shah was pro Israel I know, but remarkably apart from sponsoring proxies, they don't seek an active confrontation.
One example of Iran's rationality is its refusal to attack Aghanistan and the Taliban when they attacked and massacred the Iranian consulate.
'Good people' don't oppress a whole population for silly land claims and don't plan to attack other countries only because it wants the same than they have.
Don't you see what is happening? People are discussing seriously about attacking a country on mere suppositions. The US attacked Irak to, officially, find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. Did they find any? No. We don't have much more proof today about bomb building in Iran than we had about WMDs in Irak. The West is eager to silence Iran whose leaders have been so openly anti-west; Israel is eager to play with their muscles in order to put more weight to their claims. Both are eager to show their power and suppress the weak, and the media coverage about all those suppositions has made people believe that Iran is actually building a bomb; but that's not proven.
Again, I'm not particularly fond of the Iranian leadership either, but let's wait and see. Their people are wandering off thanks to the stricter dressing rules and other codes; but by attacking them we'd give them a real reason to hate the West. I'm starting to think it would be more towards our interests to let the Iranian people handle the situation, than to do something that might turn them all against us.
'Good people' don't oppress a whole population for silly land claims and don't plan to attack other countries only because it wants the same than they have.
The US attacked Irak to, officially, find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. Did they find any? No.
In all fairness, the US was lied to by an Iraqi worker who claimed to have seen nukes. All the worker wanted was for Saddam Hussein to fall, so he lied to the CIA.
but by attacking them we'd give them a real reason to hate the West
So you're saying they hate us for a "fake" reason?
Not gonna start an entire Israel/Palestine debate, but you should see the lovely people that you support.
I don't support terrorists, and I support neither Israeli, Palestinian nor Irani government. That doesn't mean I cannot be critical about their actions from time to time.
In all fairness, the US was lied to by an Iraqi worker who claimed to have seen nukes. All the worker wanted was for Saddam Hussein to fall, so he lied to the CIA.
So all their 'roof' was one single witness? Did they try to confirm it somehow? Even if yes, we all know the US was all too happy to 'intervene'.
So you're saying they hate us for a "fake" reason?
They say we manipulate the weather to their disadvantage...
But anyway I didn't mean real as in, existent, but more as in, founded.
