Crazy? atleast he knows his history!!

I think America could have enough troops if need be. We have alot in Europe and Asia just sitting around doing nothing' date=' so if we had to we could call alot out of those area's and use them in Iran.[/quote']

 

 

I doubt that Europe would help the US to invade Iran. But if Iran is the first to strike then I think that Europe will be eager to help the US.

 

 

Edit: To be honest, I hope that Europe won't give any support to them if they invade Iran. But me as a belgian soldier I wouldn't complain to go there myself if Iran attacks any other country ... not at all.

I doubt that Europe would help the US to invade Iran. But if Iran is the first to strike then I think that Europe will be eager to help the US.

 

 

Edit: To be honest, I hope that Europe won't give any support to them if they invade Iran. But me as a belgian soldier I wouldn't complain to go there myself if Iran attacks any other country ... not at all.

 

No Europe would not, you are correct. But im pretty sure America has alot of American troops all over Europe. I think we have 50,000 in Korea, couple thousands in the rest of asia and alot in Europe. But i could be wrong.

Yeah ... the US even has some bombs here in Belgium (Kleine Brogel) so there must be some troops here as well, I think you're right about that but I don't think they can be used for a war. They are to defend the places where they are at the moment.

Problems within the government on the plan for Iran it seems...

 

US may accept Iranian nuclear bomb

 

Sarah Baxter / London Times | October 1 2006

 

AMERICA is going to have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran, US intelligence analysts have concluded at a secret meeting near Washington.

Senior operatives and outside experts from the intelligence community were almost unanimous in their view that little could be done to stop Iran acquiring the components for a nuclear bomb, The Sunday Times has learnt.

 

Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities was rejected on the grounds that the intelligence needed for successful air strikes was lacking. “We only have an imperfect understanding of the extent and location of the Iranian programme,” said one source with knowledge of the meeting. “Even if we got the order to blow it up, we wouldn’t know how to.”

 

The White House’s earlier enthusiasm for military strikes if all else failed has cooled after warnings from the Pentagon and intelligence analysts that the risk to reward ratio of taking action was too high. At best 80% of the targets are mapped out and then only sketchily. The “collateral damage” to civilians could be considerable, sources say.

 

“Unless you can be 100% effective and set the programme back by two decades, you’ll just get a short-term delay and you may not produce a result that is better than the current one,” an intelligence analyst said.

 

General John Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, has warned that striking Iran could cripple oil supplies, unleash a “surrogate” terrorist army and lead to missile attacks on America’s regional allies. The army is particularly concerned about Iran’s ability to destabilise an already chaotic Iraq.

 

John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, has told President George W Bush that there is no rush to use force as Iran’s nuclear programme is beset with technical errors. “He has been saying, ‘Slow down, it’s not an immediate problem’,” said Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

 

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has staked her reputation on achieving a negotiated settlement with the help of the “EU3” nations of Britain, France and Germany.

 

“President Bush is not going to take military action against the advice of the secretary of state, US generals and the director of national intelligence,” Clawson said.

 

British sources confirmed that the military option was receding. “There are clear signs that the White House is keener on following a political approach,” said a senior British source. “There’s never been an appetite in the Pentagon for taking Iran on and the EU3 might get a deal that would bring the Iranians to the negotiating table in a reasonable fashion.”

 

Despite reports that the Iranians were willing to suspend their programme secretly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has defiantly announced that Iran’s “atomic work” will not stop for a single day.

 

Intelligence analysts concluded at last week’s meeting that there were no negotiating carrots or sticks, such as sanctions, capable of persuading Iran to halt its pursuit of nuclear know-how — which it maintains is for peaceful energy purposes.

 

“The sobering view is that even if there is a deal, the Iranians would cheat,” another source said.

 

“The conclusion is that America is going to have to live with the bomb unless there’s some miracle, such as a major accident, a major defector or an orange revolution,” the source added, referring to the people’s protests that brought reformers to power in Ukraine. None of these scenarios is considered likely.

 

In a sign that a military option remains theoretically on the table, a group of minesweepers that could be used to clear any potential Iranian oil blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have been given “prepare to deploy” orders, which could see them leaving port for the Gulf as early as today.

 

The biggest deterrent might come from the Israelis, not the Americans. Israeli defence sources are increasingly convinced that it will fall to them to stop a nuclear Iran. In their view Iran should not be allowed to get to the “point of no return” where it has the know-how to build a bomb.

 

“The Israelis are going to have to make a decision earlier than we do,” Clawson said. “That’s a real problem for us.”

 

 

As if they ever really wanted a bomb.

America and Europe will have to live with a nuclear Iran UNTIL it uses a the bomb, then all hell will break out and Europe and America after many lives are lost will have to take action. We could save lives and nip this in the bud, but Europe is not with us

America and Europe will have to live with a nuclear Iran UNTIL it uses a the bomb' date=' then all hell will break out and Europe and America after many lives are lost will have to take action. We could save lives and nip this in the bud, but Europe is not with us[/quote']

like what happened in world war 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why iran

 

isreal have a nuclear weapons,why usa didt say its wrong and isreal must take out his nuclear weapons at the same time situation of isreal such as situation of iran but there is little differant usa supporting isreal.

isreal have a nuclear weapons' date='why usa didt say its wrong and isreal must take out his nuclear weapons at the same time situation of isreal such as situation of iran but there is little differant usa supporting isreal.[/quote']

 

Israel is stable with dozens of arab states around it wanting to genocide them, they need nukes as a last case weapon. They are close allies with the sames enemies as us so they are not a threat. So on one side you have a nation that is our good frienda and ally that would never first strike with a nukes on the other you have a religious nut who wants nukes to bring the 12th imam out of the well. THATS the difference

like what happened in world war 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We used a nuke in ww2 at the end to save lives, NOT as a first strike weapon. Onlydid so to end the war and save japanese lives.

What absolute BS. I'm sorry but the way you have been taught history is completely skewed.

Sorry my history comes from many sources with many different political interest. I dont confuse history and politics with issues such as this.

 

IE we dropped 2 A bombs on Japand and they STILL didnt want to give up, not til Russia invaded Manchuria did they start to realize they had no chance and when american BS'd them into belieiving we had thousands of nukes they gave up

 

A full scale land invasion of japanese homeland would cost millions of lives as did the invasion of Germany

 

Germany and Japan had almost the same amount of citizens. The main difference is Japan's were willing to fight it out longer. SO a ground invasion would have costed millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of Russians

 

so I ask you what is better a few hundred thousand dead or a few millions?

 

I'd take a few hundred thousand over a few million any day. Im sorry it is you who confuses your political views with history.

 

One subject you cant touch me in is history, specially that of ww2.

Country Pop. Killed/Mising Wounded Total(Military) Civilian (deaths)

 

 

Germany 78m 3.5 million 4.6 million 8.1 million 2million

 

Japan 72m 1.75 million ?? ?? 350,000

 

So a full out invasion of a similar sized country of Germany killed 2 million civilians. Avoiding one in japan saved millions.

tell me

 

1st of all i think this is not the right place 2 talk rudely about religion or religious believes

U say tht israel surrounded by arabs & they 've the right 2 keep on nukes last line deffence tht mean u r admit with tht israel nukes program established 4 war, while iran decleared 4 more than million time tht it's own program r for peacful use like 4 electricity & so on...

isreel - as u said- surrounded by dozens of arabs who wait 4 the chnce 2 genocide on it ..man israel surrounded with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, & Lebanon & there is the red sea & Sinai between it & KSA..so if u 've a minimum charge of plitics information u would kno tht Egypt & Jordan 've peace agreenment with israel, about Syria the israeli offecials always repeat the Syria is a weak country with a weak army & thy always say tht there is no need 4 being afraid of them, then we came 2 lebanon which is Israel strikin them & kill kids & women there only 4 practicing its army..about KSA u cant say a word coz Saudi Arabia consider 1 of the most powerful ally 2 th US ..so could u tell me why Israel keeping a nuks program 4 war usage till now?

1st of all i think this is not the right place 2 talk rudely about religion or religious believes

U say tht israel surrounded by arabs & they 've the right 2 keep on nukes last line deffence tht mean u r admit with tht israel nukes program established 4 war, while iran decleared 4 more than million time tht it's own program r for peacful use like 4 electricity & so on...

isreel - as u said- surrounded by dozens of arabs who wait 4 the chnce 2 genocide on it ..man israel surrounded with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, & Lebanon & there is the red sea & Sinai between it & KSA..so if u 've a minimum charge of plitics information u would kno tht Egypt & Jordan 've peace agreenment with israel, about Syria the israeli offecials always repeat the Syria is a weak country with a weak army & thy always say tht there is no need 4 being afraid of them, then we came 2 lebanon which is Israel strikin them & kill kids & women there only 4 practicing its army..about KSA u cant say a word coz Saudi Arabia consider 1 of the most powerful ally 2 th US ..so could u tell me why Israel keeping a nuks program 4 war usage till now?

 

When a nation is outnumbered in the tens of millions by people who want only to kill all of them, a nuke is ok for defence. As in Iran a nation who WANTs to kill millions and start the end war its not ok. THAT is the difference. One has it to defend off people who want genocide, the other wants it FOR genocide.

1st of all i think this is not the right place 2 talk rudely about religion or religious believes

U say tht israel surrounded by arabs & they 've the right 2 keep on nukes last line deffence tht mean u r admit with tht israel nukes program established 4 war, while iran decleared 4 more than million time tht it's own program r for peacful use like 4 electricity & so on...

isreel - as u said- surrounded by dozens of arabs who wait 4 the chnce 2 genocide on it ..man israel surrounded with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, & Lebanon & there is the red sea & Sinai between it & KSA..so if u 've a minimum charge of plitics information u would kno tht Egypt & Jordan 've peace agreenment with israel, about Syria the israeli offecials always repeat the Syria is a weak country with a weak army & thy always say tht there is no need 4 being afraid of them, then we came 2 lebanon which is Israel strikin them & kill kids & women there only 4 practicing its army..about KSA u cant say a word coz Saudi Arabia consider 1 of the most powerful ally 2 th US ..so could u tell me why Israel keeping a nuks program 4 war usage till now?

 

 

Peace agreements dont mean anything - Hitler had one with Czechoslavkia and the USSR and look what happened.

And as for the A-bomb in Japan - after Hiroshima, the leaders of Japan got together and they were indeed talking about surrendering - It was only with Nagaski however that the leaders who wanted the war to end got enough support to do that. Howeve at the time we didnt know that for sure.

 

Japan still had over a million soliders in China, and going by the battle of Iwo Jima - a battle thought over a mere 8 square miles. It lasted 6 weeks and resulted in over 45,000 casulaites. Out of a army of 100,000 the US suffered casualites 1in4 - 25,000 and the Japanese - out of a army of 20,000 thought nearly to the last man - 18,000 died.

 

Out of 20,000 men only about 200 lived to be captured the US.

 

And that was over some rock in the Pacific - imagine fighting in Japan!

And as for the A-bomb in Japan - after Hiroshima, the leaders of Japan got together and they were indeed talking about surrendering - It was only with Nagaski however that the leaders who wanted the war to end got enough support to do that. Howeve at the time we didnt know that for sure.

 

Japan still had over a million soliders in China, and going by the battle of Iwo Jima - a battle thought over a mere 8 square miles. It lasted 6 weeks and resulted in over 45,000 casulaites. Out of a army of 100,000 the US suffered casualites 1in4 - 25,000 and the Japanese - out of a army of 20,000 thought nearly to the last man - 18,000 died.

 

Out of 20,000 men only about 200 lived to be captured the US.

 

And that was over some rock in the Pacific - imagine fighting in Japan!

 

I can and the death told would have been millions higher if we didnt end the war with the A bomb

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict?

 

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think? uh, here's the site in question: Middle East conflict

Apparently Israel have planned another war on Lebanon that will be starting soon and Hezbollah want to cancel the national tribunal for Lebanon investigating in the assasination of former PM Rafik al Harir and other martyrs and Christian leader (Patriarch Sfeir) says it's not unlikely that hezbollah might try to overthrow the government.

I'm too depressed to go dig up article online:sick:

Head of Lebanese Christian community urges sacrifice

Dec 23, 2010

 

Beirut- The head of the Christian Maronite community in Lebanon called Thursday in his Christmas message on all rival Lebanese sides to 'sacrifice' for Lebanon.

 

'The holidays, as every year, arrived amidst a split among the Lebanese, and the faithful cannot hide their concerns about their country,' Patriarch Nasrallah Butros Sfeir said in the message.

 

'Nations can only survive with its citizens' sacrifices,' he urged. 'Loyalty to Lebanon must be sacred.'

 

Sfeir came under harsh attack this week from the Iranian and Syrian-backed Lebanese Shiite movement, Hezbollah, after he expressed fears that Hezbollah would stage a coup d'etat to seize control of Lebanon.

 

Hezbollah lawmaker Ali Fayyad on Wednesday hit back at Sfeir, telling him 'we are not coup-seekers and this is not on our mind.'

 

Lebanon is celebrating Christmas amid tensions following reports that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) will soon issue its indictment into the 2005 assassination of Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri. It is expected that some Hezbollah members might be fingered for involvement in the murder.

 

Some leaders in Lebanon are concerned that should the court indict Hezbollah members, it could lead to a new civil strife in Lebanon:bigcry:

 

source

the issue with all of this is so sad.... :(

How's the social enviroment like right now, ceader'schild?

How's the social enviroment like right now, ceader'schild?

 

it's pretty unstable:confused: a lot better now though than how it was a week ago when the situation was really shaken up and this professor at uni told us to leave early and go straight home everyone was sure war was about to start but everything cooled down in time for Christmas.But we don't expect it to stay this way after new year:( (my name is Rita;))

it's pretty unstable:confused: a lot better now though than how it was a week ago when the situation was really shaken up and this professor at uni told us to leave early and go straight home everyone was sure war was about to start but everything cooled down in time for Christmas.But we don't expect it to stay this way after new year:( (my name is Rita;))

 

Well, that's good. Is it like a constant subject, like in the air everywhere? :thinking:

Oh, ok. Hey Rita :)