The official " will israel do it " discussion

[uncle money bags]

Israel is a sovereign nation, and the third largest nuclear power on earth. We shouldn't intervene - at all. You can send your kids to die for them, I'll keep mine here - thanks.

uncle money bags
True, Israel is a sovereign nation. So was Austrian Anschluss in 1936, the Sudetenland in 1938, followed by Czechoslovakia, Poland in 1939, Denmark, & Norway in 1940 followed by Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, & France. Yugoslavia & Greece in 1941 followed by Russia including the Baltic states.
Would you have sent your kids then? Would you have gone yourself?

Is there an impending threat of that?

Not that I know of, this was a hypothetical question to flesh out an answer as to what would be the minimum standard the previous poster would consider qualified for American military intervention. I was trying to see if the poster considered state sponsored terrorist attacks were enough to justify sending our military or would it take conventional military forces, flying a national flag, crossing a border, and engaging in war. I made the point later that this type of conflict is not fought in the manner of the second example.

Yes, or at least this is your best scenario for why we should get involved in any military action. This is the reason we have a "Department of Defense".

I agree with you here, and would add to that any nation which materially assisted whoever attacks us, or put another way the allies of my enemies should reap the same reward.

Last I checked, it's Americans that are in their neigborhood blowing **** up and shooting people, not Iranian soldiers in our neighborhood doing that. Who's at war with who? What have the Iranians done to us, exactly? Since 1979, anyway? Don't Americans even realize just a little bit that they are victims of propaganda on a massive scale? Our press tells the morons in this country that "so-and-so" is our enemy, and we all clamor to turn them and their countries into a "glass parking lot". What makes us so different from some of those of the 1930s and 1940s that were led to believe some were their enemy, and needed to be eliminated? If people would pause just long enough to look into it, they'd see that the Iranian people actually don't hate us, and kind of like some of our western ways. So we should "nuke" them because their leaders and Israel's leaders hate each other? And that's a good excuse for us to send our kids there to die en masse? Christ sakes, people; look at the bigger picture. We're being played for many reasons, some of which we don't even know. Our real enemies are D.C., Tel Aviv, and Tehran, not the people at their mercy.

uncle money bags

Yes we are in the middle east. We are not in Iran as far as I know, and if we are i suspect the Iranian government doesnt know either. Regardless, by your same logic of defense, what business is it of Iran if we are in Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan? We havent attacked Iran so why are their forces and war making materials being used against us? I suggest it is because they can,; and without flying the flag of a nation, as it were, they can kill the infidel without taking their "nation" to war, which would be their destruction.
Anyone who seriously suggests the Arab nations should be nuked is speaking from frustration and anger without taking the whole situation into account. No sane person believes that a nuclear strike in the middle east by us is a logical step to eliminate the Islamic threat. On the contrary the radical Islamic leaders of the those same countries think differently. They believe that the use of any weapon which will rid the world of the infidel, regardless of the cost, even including the loss of their own lives is acceptable. It is those people which are the threat, not the every day citizen of those nations,( on this we agree!).
My original post asked the question if Israel will attack Iran. My answer to that is," If they believe they need to to prevent the destruction of Israel by the radical Islamist leaders of Iran with nuclear weapons." I never said, and did not advocate, for the purpose of this discussion, Israel should nuke Iran. So far they have been doing a pretty good job killing scientists, Islamists, and breaking equipment. With any luck they will be able to prevent the Mullahs from acquiring a nuclear strike capability without an all out war with Iran.

As far as " sending my kids to fight to fight for them". Well I take that kind of personal, but i defer to your right to have that opinion because that is what freedom is all about. My kids are fully cooked so they can make their own decisions about what they feel is right and wrong in this matter, and God bless them whatever their choice is. Having said that, I have been over there and I recognize the enemy for what they are and what they want. As a result i believe killing them in their country is far better than waiting for it to come here, at which point my kids may not have the choice to fight or not.



God, I hope you're right. And God help us if you're wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

[71buickfreak]

I believe YOU are the one picking and choosing. The examples from Leviticus and Deuteronomy are Old Testament Law for which (in believing the literal meanings) Jesus fulfilled and therefore voided. The Ezekiel chapters are a Prophecy. Still yet to be fulfilled.

One is a law and one is a prediction. The law you are using is an old law at that so at one time, yes, that's the way it literally was. However, Jesus fulfilled all of that crap for us with a new law based on love and a relationship with God rather than ritualistic legalistic crap.

You've just been schooled.

This is what I was going to say. Except he said it better.

 

[Vamoose]

As far as " sending my kids to fight to fight for them". Well I take that kind of personal

You should take it personal. You're the one doing the proselytizing in this thread. If you're not willing to sacrifice your own you should find something else to preach about.

Arm them both to the teeth. Then stand back and let them have at it if they want to fight.

 

[uncle money bags]

You should take it personal. You're the one doing the proselytizing in this thread. If you're not willing to sacrifice your own you should find something else to preach about.

Arm them both to the teeth. Then stand back and let them have at it if they want to fight.

Dude, Im just asking questions and giving my opinion, just like everyone in this thread, and I know my opinion is worth exactly what you pay for it. Do you think the opinions that are opposed to mine are " proselytizing or preaching ", or just the opinions you disagree with? I asked some hypothetical questions to further the discussion and got called out on them.
As far as "arming them both to the teeth...", I dont disagree with you, to a point. Unless there is a direct threat to the United States I dont think troops should be committed to a fight. Much more importantly, when troops are committed they should be allowed to do their job without restrictions that hobble them right out of the gate.

 

[wylekyote]

It's going to be a very difficult. Israel would have to fly over hostile Arab airspace, refuel in the air and hit Multiple targets. The link below shows three uranium enrichment facilities. Israel was successful in a preempt airstrike on a single nuclear site in iraq in June of 1981. But today the situation is Iran is one country over and has many Nuclear sites. Estimates are it would take israel to deploy Up to 46 f-15's, 20 f-16's and seven kc-135 tankers. I bet USAF would provide at least awac support and maybe tanker support. One atomic bomb can take out Israel. Israel is only 8 miles wide at one point. They don't have resources for a second chance. Their survival strategy is very different from us. Israel is surrounded by enemies. Pretty interesting report below.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/glob...eli-airstrike-irans-nuclear-facilities/48945/

I think you're right about the "no second chance" for Israel. Israel only has the resources for a single, fairly limited, offensive air strike against Iran's nuclear targets. Israel isn't going to be able to walk through the back door unnoticed like the last time when they destroyed the Osirak reactor in Iraq, so they're going to have to send that many more planes (most of which will require refueling in the air) in order to make sure their bombs make it past enemy fighters/AAA and to the targeted facilities. If they fail, it's very possible that either a) Israel gets wiped offed the map, b) WWIII, c) Both

The strike on the Osirak facility in Iraq was done by 14 Israeli planes (6 F15's as escorts and 8 F16's carrying bombs, if I remember right) but they were able to 'trick' both the Jordanian and Saudi radar operators, so they didn't encounter any resistance. Iran also has a pretty formidable air defense system. I would guess the US has the technology at its disposal to defeat a lot of the Iranian systems, or if nothing else we probably have the sheer depth of resources to overwhelm Iran (as long as Iran's friends don't show up! Let's all just pray that by some miracle the US doesn't get involved). Israel, on the other hand, just doesn't have the equipment (unless they have some damn good ECM's they feel like "testing"). Iran has several good, phased array radar (ie, capable of intercepting multiple precision guided munitions, ICBM's, and, of course, planes, simultaneously) missile defense systems at it's disposal. The "Iranian designed" Mersad system, Russian Tor's and S-300's are the newest in Iran's arsenal. Even if Israeli planes/munitions have capable electronic countermeasures, Iran has the resources to shoot 2-3+ missiles at every plane Israel sends at them. Israel is going to take the blame for attacking (if they choose to do so) regardless of the outcome, and the world is undoubtedly going to be focused on Israel for some time afterwards. If Iran manages to protect their key nuclear assets, which I think we can probably assume are deep inside a mountain at their Fordow nuclear facility, then Israel is kinda screwed at that point.

That's just my 2 cents.

 

[3inSlugger]

It isn't America's business to be in the Middle East.

 

[cjjtulsa]

Unless there is a direct threat to the United States I dont think troops should be committed to a fight. Much more importantly, when troops are committed they should be allowed to do their job without restrictions that hobble them right out of the gate.

Fully agree.

 

[inactive]

uncle money bags
True, Israel is a sovereign nation. So was Austrian Anschluss in 1936, the Sudetenland in 1938, followed by Czechoslovakia, Poland in 1939, Denmark, & Norway in 1940 followed by Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, & France. Yugoslavia & Greece in 1941 followed by Russia including the Baltic states.
Would you have sent your kids then? Would you have gone yourself?

Well, remember we declared war on Japan after they (as a country, not as a terrorist cell) attacked us. Germany declared war on US thereafter.


So far as I know, we have not declared war on any middle eastern country, and none has declared war on us. Have individual groups? Yes. But no country has bombed out soil (notwithstanding embassies which of dubious at best existence in these ****hole nations).

So as you said, I don't think there is a direct threat to us, and hasn't been in Afghanistan or Iraq. Or Libya or Syria or Egypt or Lebanon... We need to bring 'em home, and keep our Navy on patrol on our coasts.

 

[wylekyote]

It isn't America's business to be in the Middle East.

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, we're already in way too deep and it's late in the game. America has chosen its allies, and it would take decades of peacetime politics for the lineup to change much.

 

[uncle money bags]

Well, remember we declared war on Japan after they (as a country, not as a terrorist cell) attacked us. Germany declared war on US thereafter.


So far as I know, we have not declared war on any middle eastern country, and none has declared war on us. Have individual groups? Yes. But no country has bombed out soil (notwithstanding embassies which of dubious at best existence in these ****hole nations).

I agree with you on this point. I opined in an earlier thread that in the latest iteration of modern armed conflict it seems that nation states that are hostile toward the United States use surrogates;( tied by religion not nationalism or politics) to fight us rather than attacking as nation specifically to thwart our military response against them. A good example, in my opinion, and I have to give credit where it is due, of how to engage the enemy hiding behind the cloak of a nation is the use of drones in Pakistan. Now if we would just stop giving them money...but thats another thread.

So as you said, I don't think there is a direct threat to us, and hasn't been in Afghanistan or Iraq. Or Libya or Syria or Egypt or Lebanon... We need to bring 'em home, and keep our Navy on patrol on our coasts.

I disagree that there isnt a direct threat to the U.S. in those nations, but I do agree that those nations do not pose a direct threat to us, and your right we do need to bring home our troops, but I believe it is because we are not letting them do their job.