Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Isreal and American forces ready to attack Iran within days

1111214161721

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    meglome wrote: »
    Personally I'd rather no country had nuclear weapons. Since that isn't possible I'd be happy that no more country's had nuclear weapons. And especially country's with fundamentalist governments of any flavour. No matter what I feel about the US having nuclear weapons they do have strict rules about how they are handled and used, and they have not been used in anger since 1945. I have no idea what Iran would do but it does worry me.

    It's arguable, I reckon the US government is as fundamentalist as any they criticise for the same, only we tend to let off because it's in a form we're conditioned to be comfortable with. When I pay close attention to the rhetoric of their presidents, it's pretty obvious where the vast majority of their voting pool lies. Personally, I think Christian fundamentalism is just as scary as Islamic fundamentalism, but that's just my opinion.

    Fact is though, no evidence has been provided that Iran has a nuclear weapons' program. None. In fact, as has been pointed out earlier on this thread, even the US (and other) intelligence service claim that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

    And I agree, personally I'd rather no country had nuclear weapons, the resources spent on 'defence' for one year alone could abolish world poverty entirely, and in an ideal, saner world, it would've been done long ago ... maybe I am a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    forget a REAL Iran WAR with thousands of American troops before November 2012 elections (perhaps never).

    Never, let's hope never.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    It's arguable, I reckon the US government is as fundamentalist as any they criticise for the same, only we tend to let off because it's in a form we're conditioned to be comfortable with. When I pay close attention to the rhetoric of their presidents, it's pretty obvious where the vast majority of their voting pool lies. Personally, I think Christian fundamentalism is just as scary as Islamic fundamentalism, but that's just my opinion.

    I agree with most of this. However the US has not used any nuclear weapons in anger since the second world war and have strict protocols as to how they are controlled.
    Fact is though, no evidence has been provided that Iran has a nuclear weapons' program. None. In fact, as has been pointed out earlier on this thread, even the US (and other) intelligence service claim that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

    Well I don't know one way or the other. However I don't need to turn to the dark side (become a CT'er ;) ) to imagine that spending the vast sums of money building nuclear power plants and all the associated plants in an oil rich country, just for electricity, doesn't really make sense.
    And I agree, personally I'd rather no country had nuclear weapons, the resources spent on 'defence' for one year alone could abolish world poverty entirely, and in an ideal, saner world, it would've been done long ago ... maybe I am a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

    I agree.

    Wow all this agreement I may have to sit down.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    I think nuclear weapons have prevented a major war from breaking out between the major powers. If there were no nukes, I think theres a higher chance that ww3 would have started some time ago


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,787 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    Civilians would inevitably die during an invasion, don't be so stupid. Japanese civilians were being trained to resist an American invasion, even children were being trained to be suicide bombers. The two nukes were the least worse choice the allied commanders could have made.

    How stupid do you think I am exactly?
    I never said civilians wouldn't have died in an invasion, I made the point that there wouldn't have been as many killed as there were by the atomic blasts.
    Not to mention the long term devestation of nuclear fallout.
    In my opinion war is the greatest waste of time imaginable, neither an invasion or a nuclear attack should have happened, but I have to disagree with you when you say that a nuclear attack was the lesser of two evils, thats just plain stupid I'm afraid.

    Glazers Out!



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    nullzero wrote: »
    How stupid do you think I am exactly?
    I never said civilians wouldn't have died in an invasion, I made the point that there wouldn't have been as many killed as there were by the atomic blasts.
    Not to mention the long term devestation of nuclear fallout.
    In my opinion war is the greatest waste of time imaginable, neither an invasion or a nuclear attack should have happened, but I have to disagree with you when you say that a nuclear attack was the lesser of two evils, thats just plain stupid I'm afraid.

    Well sorry if I misunderstood you, but I think more civilians would have died in an invasion, if you look at Okinawa, a massive ammount of civilians died, so if the Japanese home islands were invaded then they would have been even more fanatical about defending their homeland.
    And nuclear fallout was poorly understood at the time.

    And why exactly is it stupid to say it was the lesser of 2 evils?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,787 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    And why exactly is it stupid to say it was the lesser of 2 evils?

    It's a nuclear strike, I'm assuming you know what that means in terms of devestation, not only to human life but to the affected area.
    I would have thought it would be quite elementary.

    Glazers Out!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    Yes I know what it is, its not as if the other options were much better.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    meglome wrote: »
    Wow all this agreement I may have to sit down.

    Ya know, I sometimes think if everybody here ever sat down over a pint or something in fleshspace, we'd all be surprised just how much we do agree ... yeah, even with King Mob ;)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭Yitzhak Rabin


    Ya know, I sometimes think if everybody here ever sat down over a pint or something in fleshspace, we'd all be surprised just how much we do agree ... yeah, even with King Mob ;)

    Would never happen, no one would turn up.

    CT'ers would be too paranoid to turn up and think it was a conspiracy to get them all in one place.

    Skeptics wouldn't believe it was going to happen. No matter how much evidence you provided, we still wouldn't believe that the meeting was real.

    :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    yekahs wrote: »
    Would never happen, no one would turn up.

    CT'ers would be too paranoid to turn up and think it was a conspiracy to get them all in one place.

    Skeptics wouldn't believe it was going to happen. No matter how much evidence you provided, we still wouldn't believe that the meeting was real.

    :pac:

    hehehe, spot on :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,737 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    nullzero wrote: »
    So the U.S forces would have indiscriminatly killed cilivians is what you're saying?
    70,000 died in Hiroshima, between 40,000 and 75,000 in Nagasaki, not to mention the deaths caused by the after affects of the radiation.
    Use your head will you?

    You should do some research, millions would have died if the US invaded

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Right back at ya.
    "It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
    - General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
    Commanding General of the U.S. Army
    Air Forces Under President Truman
    I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
    - General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
    - General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
    - Admiral William D. Leahy
    Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
    "Some of my conclusions may invoke acorn and even ridicule.
    "For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.
    "And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
    - Stewart L. Udall
    US Congressman and
    Author of "Myths of August"
    Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
    - U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study
    "Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
    - J. Samuel Walker
    Chief Historian
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    Source: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/pre-cold-war/hiroshima-nagasaki/us-responses-to-bomb.htm

    Harry S Truman - War Criminal
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html?q=pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/truman.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,219 ✭✭✭Lab_Mouse


    yekahs wrote: »

    Skeptics wouldn't believe it was going to happen. No matter how much evidence you provided, we still wouldn't believe that the meeting was real.

    :pac:
    In fairness it would take more than a youtube video to persuade me:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    Lab_Mouse wrote: »
    In fairness it would take more than a youtube video to persuade me:)

    Here is a YT vid anyway :D



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Here is a YT vid anyway :D

    we're using Fox News as proof now?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29 animalhuger


    Torakx wrote: »
    I heard about this yesterday evening from a friend in Norway,listening to the radio there he said he heard the US had sent something like 18 more ships.
    He was proclaiming ww3 was about to start.
    I will be watching China/N Korea and Russia for more action before i make that statement.

    They were sending ships through Egyipt a few weeks ago but they dident know exactly where they where going.

    Iran has a right to nuk power for f**k sake they have the I.A.E.A watching EVERYTHING!its just gona be another Iraq!but what they dont realise is Iran is not like the rest of the mid-east it has some flaws but overall its a good country with an ancient history,the people are freindly and dont forget Iran aswell as most mid-east state's are freindly toward Ireland

    If israel bombs their powwer plants the whole region will unite with Iran.

    And may be all the euro israeli's will go home and Palestine will be freed

    israel is not a state!it ended OVER!1000 YEARS AGO!

    Palestine=Ireland:).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    They were sending ships through Egyipt a few weeks ago but they dident know exactly where they where going.

    Iran has a right to nuk power for f**k sake they have the I.A.E.A watching EVERYTHING!its just gona be another Iraq!but what they dont realise is Iran is not like the rest of the mid-east it has some flaws but overall its a good country with an ancient history,the people are freindly and dont forget Iran aswell as most mid-east state's are freindly toward Ireland

    If israel bombs their powwer plants the whole region will unite with Iran.

    And may be all the euro israeli's will go home and Palestine will be freed

    israel is not a state!it ended OVER!1000 YEARS AGO!

    Palestine=Ireland:).

    Israel is a state, its been recognised by the majority of the international community. And I doubt there'll be an attack. You may have noticed in the news recently and today, that the US is withdrawing from Iraq, wouldn't be something they'd do if they were going to strike Iran, and Israel isn't capable of attacking Iran on its own.

    And Palestine != Ireland


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭fontanalis


    They were sending ships through Egyipt a few weeks ago but they dident know exactly where they where going.

    Iran has a right to nuk power for f**k sake they have the I.A.E.A watching EVERYTHING!its just gona be another Iraq!but what they dont realise is Iran is not like the rest of the mid-east it has some flaws but overall its a good country with an ancient history,the people are freindly and dont forget Iran aswell as most mid-east state's are freindly toward Ireland

    If israel bombs their powwer plants the whole region will unite with Iran.

    And may be all the euro israeli's will go home and Palestine will be freed

    israel is not a state!it ended OVER!1000 YEARS AGO!

    Palestine=Ireland:).

    Huhh! Why not Israel = Ireland by that logic?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    meglome wrote: »
    we're using Fox News as proof now?

    If it were the same person stating "we wont attack Iran", Some skeppie would post it, and rightly so. :rolleyes:

    It wouldn't be considered absolute "proof", but it would be a pretty decent addition to the argument that a strike certainly is/was at least being considered.

    What's your stance here ? They wont strike ? There is no proof that they will strike ? or what ?

    Kinda seems like a pathetic argument imo when the truth is that you haven't got a bloody clue weather they will strike or not.

    I mean, if you don't hear it from FOX news, where are you going to hear it ? The horses mouth ? Have you got contacts in the Israeli/American government ? No, so we take whatever information we can get.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    Israel is a state, its been recognised by the majority of the international community. And I doubt there'll be an attack. You may have noticed in the news recently and today, that the US is withdrawing from Iraq, wouldn't be something they'd do if they were going to strike Iran, and Israel isn't capable of attacking Iran on its own.

    And Palestine != Ireland


    I dunno, the Israeli state appears to operate as a law unto itself and that vid TW posted was pretty clear. 'We have the technology' to strike, basically saying to the Americans that if you don't do it, we will and it's gonna be your fault when we do. Then again, that's if MSM is anything to go by ...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    I dunno, the Israeli state appears to operate as a law unto itself and that vid TW posted was pretty clear. 'We have the technology' to strike, basically saying to the Americans that if you don't do it, we will and it's gonna be your fault when we do. Then again, that's if MSM is anything to go by ...

    Theres been plenty of posts here saying that if Israel do this they will come out of it badly. So they're highly unlikely to do it, especially without American help, who are currently downscaling their military instead of building it up.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    Theres been plenty of posts here saying that if Israel do this they will come out of it badly. So they're highly unlikely to do it, especially without American help, who are currently downscaling their military instead of building it up.

    Of course it would come out badly, but not for the few folks who stand to gain. Doesn't it always turn out badly ?

    Define badly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    Theres been plenty of posts here saying that if Israel do this they will come out of it badly. So they're highly unlikely to do it, especially without American help, who are currently downscaling their military instead of building it up.

    Well this is it, we should try to stay away from the trap of believing they think like us, that they operate under the same morality - 'come out badly' on our level of things, the common man, is going to war in the first place, which for the warmongers in charge is a good thing. With or without America, none of the basturds in line to profit will see one minute of the front line anyway.

    Though if Israel does kick off, America will be 'forced' to join in at some stage. Probably like they did in the last war, on the side most likely to win :rolleyes:

    Edit: had to put 'forced' in inverted commas. It's pretty obvious (to my mind) we'd be talking about two prongs of the same military offensive.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    It looks better if America don't start the fight this time. They can't be the only ones seen to be protecting us. Aren't America and Israel one and the same anyway ?

    Amsraelica :P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit


    It looks better if America don't start the fight this time. They can't be the only ones seen to be protecting us. Aren't America and Israel one and the same anyway ?

    Amsraelica :P

    Yeah, it would look great for the Americans if the Israelis kicked it off, and then they can wade in like the movies and save the day.

    Amsraelica ... Arms-really-killer ... ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,152 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Theres been plenty of posts here saying that if Israel do this they will come out of it badly. So they're highly unlikely to do it, especially without American help, who are currently downscaling their military instead of building it up.


    Do you mean decreasing their miliyary spending or increasing it at a lower rate?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    Of course it would come out badly, but not for the few folks who stand to gain. Doesn't it always turn out badly ?

    Define badly.
    As in large parts of Israel destroyed and high civilian casualties from facing at least evenly matched foes. I assume they'd be at least facing Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and increased activity in Palestine. They'd probably face the possibility of losing land too, aswell as being weakened militarily and leaving themselves vulnerable to attacks by their neighbours in the future, including the ones currently friendly to the US
    Though if Israel does kick off, America will be 'forced' to join in at some stage. Probably like they did in the last war, on the side most likely to win
    I for one am glad that America joined the two world wars, if thats the ones you are referring to, and the US was attacked in the second one. And the US can't afford a war now, so they would discourage Israel from going on a suicide mission.
    Do you mean decreasing their miliyary spending or increasing it at a lower rate?
    I mean withdrawing troops from Iraq, not something you'd do if you were preparing for war in the area.

    On the point of decreasing military spending, Britain is decreasing its military spending I believe, probably a few other allies too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭TalkieWalkie


    As in large parts of Israel destroyed and high civilian casualties from facing at least evenly matched foes. I assume they'd be at least facing Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and increased activity in Palestine. They'd probably face the possibility of losing land too, aswell as being weakened militarily and leaving themselves vulnerable to attacks by their neighbours in the future, including the ones currently friendly to the US

    Parts of Israel destroyed, civilian casualties, facing Iran,Syria, Increased activity in Palestine..... This is not a result of war, this is a reason to strike. Don't you think that every single move is planned ?

    Civilian casualties LMFAO :D
    I for one am glad that America joined the two world wars, if thats the ones you are referring to, and the US was attacked in the second one. And the US can't afford a war now, so they would discourage Israel from going on a suicide mission.

    America didn't "join" the first 2 world wars. (you say "join" like they joined a club and got a membership). They instigated the 2 wars :rolleyes:
    I mean withdrawing troops from Iraq, not something you'd do if you were preparing for war in the area.

    It's about appearance. As I said, It would look better if Israel start the fight.
    ("America wanted peace, they withdrew troops for the area")
    Will be the headline somewhere along the line..
    On the point of decreasing military spending, Britain is decreasing its military spending I believe, probably a few other allies too.

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Wake up !!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 831 ✭✭✭IrelandSpirit




    I for one am glad that America joined the two world wars, if thats the ones you are referring to, and the US was attacked in the second one. And the US can't afford a war now, so they would discourage Israel from going on a suicide mission.

    Well, I for one think the attack on Pearl Harbour was a false flag to get the American people onside for joining in, but that's a topic that's been done to death at this stage.

    What I believe could happen is the US will make a public show of discouraging Israel, while secretly supporting them - gotta remember that they've been arming the Israeli state to the teeth for years - and although no doubt the death toll would be high, we're talking about people who do not care about these things: a million here, a million there, plenty more where they came from.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement