Israeli minister alternatives to attack on Iran running out

[Beet]

Ben, we need more people like you within the Democratic party, so I urge you to return. Or at least become an independent.

And yes, if Iran attacked Israel, it would be nuts to suggest the US not back Israel.

[Franzl]

And yes, if Iran attacked Israel, it would be nuts to suggest the US not back Israel.

I think Ben was advocating going to war even if Israel is the one to launch a preemptive attack, not sure though. That's what I'd call crazy.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

And yes, if Iran attacked Israel, it would be nuts to suggest the US not back Israel.

I think Ben was advocating going to war even if Israel is the one to launch a preemptive attack, not sure though. That's what I'd call crazy.

My thinking was that if Israel went to war with Iran, we would help them.

Of course the US should intervene if Iran attacked Israel.  If that happened, we should send enough troops to Iran to whip it in a day.

[Sbane]

And yes, if Iran attacked Israel, it would be nuts to suggest the US not back Israel.

I think Ben was advocating going to war even if Israel is the one to launch a preemptive attack, not sure though. That's what I'd call crazy.

My thinking was that if Israel went to war with Iran, we would help them.

Of course the US should intervene if Iran attacked Israel.  If that happened, we should send enough troops to Iran to whip it in a day.

Too bad they are a little preoccupied in Iraq. Or are you advocating moving all our national guard to the middle east. Perhaps we should have a draft? That would stop this bullsh**t in a second.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

And yes, if Iran attacked Israel, it would be nuts to suggest the US not back Israel.

I think Ben was advocating going to war even if Israel is the one to launch a preemptive attack, not sure though. That's what I'd call crazy.

My thinking was that if Israel went to war with Iran, we would help them.

Of course the US should intervene if Iran attacked Israel.  If that happened, we should send enough troops to Iran to whip it in a day.

Too bad they are a little preoccupied in Iraq. Or are you advocating moving all our national guard to the middle east. Perhaps we should have a draft? That would stop this bullsh**t in a second.

No; I advocate pulling troops out of Iraq, and instead sending them to Iran.  Remember, I want to being pulling troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Bringing in a draft would get AIPAC members and their families homes burned down by angry rednecks/urban hardboys within a month of the next US mideastern war Israel causes. Since I'll be out of draft age(the normal targets are 18 to the low 20s) relatively soon by all means do it but please wait until say... 2013 to do it.

[Sbane]

And yes, if Iran attacked Israel, it would be nuts to suggest the US not back Israel.

I think Ben was advocating going to war even if Israel is the one to launch a preemptive attack, not sure though. That's what I'd call crazy.

My thinking was that if Israel went to war with Iran, we would help them.

Of course the US should intervene if Iran attacked Israel.  If that happened, we should send enough troops to Iran to whip it in a day.

Too bad they are a little preoccupied in Iraq. Or are you advocating moving all our national guard to the middle east. Perhaps we should have a draft? That would stop this bullsh**t in a second.

No; I advocate pulling troops out of Iraq, and instead sending them to Iran.  Remember, I want to being pulling troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.

I am glad you support a pullout from Iraq but the truth is that we cannot even pull out of there in a hurry. We went in without thinking and now we cannot pull out doing the same. So we really will not be prepared for a war with Iran for another 3 or 4 years. Interstingly the ayatollah of Iran has said that Nuclear weapons are against Islam. So if Iran does indeed make nukes would he have to declare a fatwah on himself? lol

[Albus Dumbledore]

Given Iran's neighbors(Israel and the KSA), IMO it's perfectly justified in having nukes given the rogue nature of both regimes.

[Хahar 🤔]

And yes, if Iran attacked Israel, it would be nuts to suggest the US not back Israel.

I think Ben was advocating going to war even if Israel is the one to launch a preemptive attack, not sure though. That's what I'd call crazy.

My thinking was that if Israel went to war with Iran, we would help them.

Why would we aid in a preemptive war? We can't let another nation dictate our foreign policy.

[Franzl]

And yes, if Iran attacked Israel, it would be nuts to suggest the US not back Israel.

I think Ben was advocating going to war even if Israel is the one to launch a preemptive attack, not sure though. That's what I'd call crazy.

My thinking was that if Israel went to war with Iran, we would help them.

In other words, you would also support Israel in a preemptive attack on Iran. Is that correct?

While we're at it, since Israel enjoys our "full support", could we launch an attack on Syria, too? After all, nothing is too good for our "best friends".

[dead0man]

I am glad you support a pullout from Iraq but the truth is that we cannot even pull out of there in a hurry. We went in without thinking and now we cannot pull out doing the same. So we really will not be prepared for a war with Iran for another 3 or 4 years.

I'm pretty sure we've done this before.  We don't need to pull out of anywhere to send Iran back to the stone age.  Our B2's and B52's are not tied down Iraq.  We couldn't occupy Iran next week, but we could (and would if we needed to) totally destroy their military.

[Sbane]

I am glad you support a pullout from Iraq but the truth is that we cannot even pull out of there in a hurry. We went in without thinking and now we cannot pull out doing the same. So we really will not be prepared for a war with Iran for another 3 or 4 years.

I'm pretty sure we've done this before.  We don't need to pull out of anywhere to send Iran back to the stone age.  Our B2's and B52's are not tied down Iraq.  We couldn't occupy Iran next week, but we could (and would if we needed to) totally destroy their military.

The thing is that Iran would respond in some way or more likely in multiple ways. They would block the straits of Hormuz and cause the whole world headaches. Hezbollah would start sending rockets into Israel and there could be a possible invasion of Iraq. The biggest headache would be the mahdi army in Iraq. Just imagine what kind of sh**t they would start to stir up again. I love your can do attitude, but blowing sh**t up is not always the right option.

[dead0man]

But we've (well, they've) dealt with Hezbollah sending rockets into Israel (do they ever stop?).  We've dealt with the nutcases funded by Iran in Iraq.  Plus, both of those things wouldn't continue indefinitely if we killed Iran's military might.  The only thing you mention that they could do would be to fark up oil transportation leaving the region, but they could only do that if they started it.  They couldn't defeat Iraq 20 years ago whereas we made them look foolish, twice.  And it took days.  Why do you think Iran's military (remember, we're not occupying anything here.  We're just defeating their military.) would fare any better than Iraq did against us?

[Sbane]

But we've (well, they've) dealt with Hezbollah sending rockets into Israel (do they ever stop?).  We've dealt with the nutcases funded by Iran in Iraq.  Plus, both of those things wouldn't continue indefinitely if we killed Iran's military might.  The only thing you mention that they could do would be to fark up oil transportation leaving the region, but they could only do that if they started it.  They couldn't defeat Iraq 20 years ago whereas we made them look foolish, twice.  And it took days.  Why do you think Iran's military (remember, we're not occupying anything here.  We're just defeating their military.) would fare any better than Iraq did against us?

We will destroy their military if we wish it so but is it necessary to do it is the biggest question. Honestly everything will be fine if we have the world behind us, but if it is just us and Israel, things could go wrong. The oil crisis would be blamed on us not Iran if we or Irsael bombed them first. We would at least need full western european cooperation if we wished to do this. I hope the bush administration learned something from Iraq but I doubt it. Then there is the little thing of China having tons of investments in Iran and India is starting to. They aren't just going to go along with us you know. The whole Nuclear deal with India fell apart over the Iran issue. So there could be other unintended consequences as well.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I am glad you support a pullout from Iraq but the truth is that we cannot even pull out of there in a hurry. We went in without thinking and now we cannot pull out doing the same. So we really will not be prepared for a war with Iran for another 3 or 4 years.

I'm pretty sure we've done this before.  We don't need to pull out of anywhere to send Iran back to the stone age.  Our B2's and B52's are not tied down Iraq.  We couldn't occupy Iran next week, but we could (and would if we needed to) totally destroy their military.

The thing is that Iran would respond in some way or more likely in multiple ways. They would block the straits of Hormuz and cause the whole world headaches. Hezbollah would start sending rockets into Israel and there could be a possible invasion of Iraq. The biggest headache would be the mahdi army in Iraq. Just imagine what kind of sh**t they would start to stir up again. I love your can do attitude, but blowing sh**t up is not always the right option.

I must say I agree. The slightest bomb falling on Iran would be the beginning of such a mess, you gave some examples.

On the other hand, if we remember 6 days war, we remember that Israel destroyed the full egyptian air force by bombings, putting this country down.

But, back on the first hand, more than the examples given by sbane, I think we can also wonder on what will Russia and China do, with Iran? Against Iran? Neutral? Especially if Iran make a resistance to US army of a few months, seeing a possible sticking of US/Coalition in Iran, so in Middle-East (Irak, Iran, Afghanistan) wouldn't it encourage them to military help Iran in the way to make fall the power of the US, pretexting some anti-imperialist actions? Is that impossible?

Still on this, I heard this morning that economists wonder more and more on the scenario of a US attack against Iran this year, and they previous if that happens a 200$ barrel of oil

[Sbane]

I am glad you support a pullout from Iraq but the truth is that we cannot even pull out of there in a hurry. We went in without thinking and now we cannot pull out doing the same. So we really will not be prepared for a war with Iran for another 3 or 4 years.

I'm pretty sure we've done this before.  We don't need to pull out of anywhere to send Iran back to the stone age.  Our B2's and B52's are not tied down Iraq.  We couldn't occupy Iran next week, but we could (and would if we needed to) totally destroy their military.

The thing is that Iran would respond in some way or more likely in multiple ways. They would block the straits of Hormuz and cause the whole world headaches. Hezbollah would start sending rockets into Israel and there could be a possible invasion of Iraq. The biggest headache would be the mahdi army in Iraq. Just imagine what kind of sh**t they would start to stir up again. I love your can do attitude, but blowing sh**t up is not always the right option.

I must say I agree. The slightest bomb falling on Iran would be the beginning of such a mess, you gave some examples.

On the other hand, if we remember 6 days war, we remember that Israel destroyed the full egyptian air force by bombings, putting this country down.

But, back on the first hand, more than the examples given by sbane, I think we can also wonder on what will Russia and China do, with Iran? Against Iran? Neutral? Especially if Iran make a resistance to US army of a few months, seeing a possible sticking of US/Coalition in Iran, so in Middle-East (Irak, Iran, Afghanistan) wouldn't it encourage them to military help Iran in the way to make fall the power of the US, pretexting some anti-imperialist actions? Is that impossible?

Still on this, I heard this morning that economists wonder more and more on the scenario of a US attack against Iran this year, and they previous if that happens a 200$ barrel of oil

I really wonder what the price of gasoline will be after the straits of hormuz are blocked. That is when the real fun will begin as people realize their own self interests. Especially if we are fighting Iran for Israel, expect a backlash in America and the rest of the world for that matter.

[opebo]

Of course the US should intervene if Iran attacked Israel.  If that happened, we should send enough troops to Iran to whip it in a day.

The Empire does not have enough troops to make this happen.  Remember how the US was defeated by the Vietnamese, Ben.  America may be ruthless, brutal, and well supplied with weaponry, but brave resistance fighters can still have some success against it.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Of course the US should intervene if Iran attacked Israel.  If that happened, we should send enough troops to Iran to whip it in a day.

The Empire does not have enough troops to make this happen.  Remember how the US was defeated by the Vietnamese, Ben.  America may be ruthless, brutal, and well supplied with weaponry, but brave resistance fighters can still have some success against it.

America is neither ruthless or brutal.

[Franzl]

Of course the US should intervene if Iran attacked Israel.  If that happened, we should send enough troops to Iran to whip it in a day.

The Empire does not have enough troops to make this happen.  Remember how the US was defeated by the Vietnamese, Ben.  America may be ruthless, brutal, and well supplied with weaponry, but brave resistance fighters can still have some success against it.

America is neither ruthless or brutal.

America can be, and is sometimes. Don't be naive.

Of course, Opebo is always happy if someone fights against America. But we're used to that.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Of course the US should intervene if Iran attacked Israel.  If that happened, we should send enough troops to Iran to whip it in a day.

The Empire does not have enough troops to make this happen.  Remember how the US was defeated by the Vietnamese, Ben.  America may be ruthless, brutal, and well supplied with weaponry, but brave resistance fighters can still have some success against it.

America is neither ruthless or brutal.

America can be, and is sometimes. Don't be naive.

You're right, but we rarely are.

[Хahar 🤔]

Of course the US should intervene if Iran attacked Israel.  If that happened, we should send enough troops to Iran to whip it in a day.

The Empire does not have enough troops to make this happen.  Remember how the US was defeated by the Vietnamese, Ben.  America may be ruthless, brutal, and well supplied with weaponry, but brave resistance fighters can still have some success against it.

America is neither ruthless or brutal.

America can be, and is sometimes. Don't be naive.

You're right, but we rarely are.

Classic naïveté.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Of course the US should intervene if Iran attacked Israel.  If that happened, we should send enough troops to Iran to whip it in a day.

The Empire does not have enough troops to make this happen.  Remember how the US was defeated by the Vietnamese, Ben.  America may be ruthless, brutal, and well supplied with weaponry, but brave resistance fighters can still have some success against it.

America is neither ruthless or brutal.

America can be, and is sometimes. Don't be naive.

You're right, but we rarely are.

Classic naïveté.

Sometimes, rarely, often. I would just say it has been several times and is more and more.

Naïveté is entered in the English language?

[Hash]

Of course the US should intervene if Iran attacked Israel.  If that happened, we should send enough troops to Iran to whip it in a day.

The Empire does not have enough troops to make this happen.  Remember how the US was defeated by the Vietnamese, Ben.  America may be ruthless, brutal, and well supplied with weaponry, but brave resistance fighters can still have some success against it.

America is neither ruthless or brutal.

America can be, and is sometimes. Don't be naive.

You're right, but we rarely are.

Classic naïveté.

^^

[Хahar 🤔]

Naïveté is entered in the English language?

It has, though it is usually spelled "naivete". I like using the accents on my keyboard, though.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Naïveté is entered in the English language?

It has, though it is usually spelled "naivete". I like using the accents on my keyboard, though.

I didn't know US keyboard had accent. That's to write French words?