Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Israel Vs Iran = New US War?  
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2678 posts, RR: 8
Posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1646 times:

http://www.freep.com/usatoday/articl...%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp

Many sources I've found when Googling Iran and Israel news show more and more articles believing that should Israel attack Iran unilaterally, the US will inevitably get involved. So I ask: just how certain are we that if this scenario were to unfold it will happen like that?

IMO, should Israel choose to reject US advice to not attack Iran and Iran goes all out against Israel, I say tough luck. Now, before the attacks start coming in, I think that a country that chooses to not pay attention to other greater powers urging restraint it certainly capable of withstanding whatever comes its way.

The US is in no position to start yet another war and one which is certain to cripple the country's financial status. Whether due to a surging deficit or oil prices shooting up to $150-$200 or more, this war will certainly costs the US dearly.

So do you think that if Israel attacks Iran without the go-ahead it will draw the US to another war? And if it does happen, should the US go to Israel's aid should the tide turn in Iran's favor?

Another scenario: would Arab countries defend Israel in the even that Iran gains the upper hand? After all, it's no secret that many Arab countries see Iran as a threat.


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCentre From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1625 times:

Israel doesn't have the logistics to carry a unilateral swift attack against Iran. They can threaten and play hardball as much as they want, it's just they can't carry on such a mission. Hence the need for US support, or dragging the US into such a war.
I would say Iran and Israel are both sovereign countries, and the US should stay out of this, since there is no confirmation of such a nuclear weapon programs exists, read this (just fresh out of the oven):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/wo...-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=1&hp

Quoting einsteinboricua (Thread starter):
So do you think that if Israel attacks Iran without the go-ahead it will draw the US to another war? And if it does happen, should the US go to Israel's aid should the tide turn in Iran's favor?

This is what Israel is trying to do, start the war and leave it to the US to end it. Last I checked Israel is not our 51st state.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Thread starter):
would Arab countries defend Israel in the even that Iran gains the upper hand? After all, it's no secret that many Arab countries see Iran as a threat.

Highly doubt it, Israel and Iran are seen as an equal threat in the region.
Also, remember that the Iranian nuclear weapon program, if it exists, is a response to the only nuclear power in the region which is Israel.



I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 690 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1610 times:

The 2000s were a lost decade for America by many metrics and it's very easy to find lots of measures showing things were much better in 1999 than anytime since. IMO the optional wars against enemies that had no possibility to damage America in any substantial way are largely to blame.

How many more lost decades can America afford?


Pu


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8206 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1596 times:

It depends who attacks first. If Iran is attacked first, I feel it would be their right to respond in any fashion they believe is necessary. Hopefully not killing civilians, but in the past, we have killed many civilians during retaliatory strikes overseas.

I don't buy the yarn that Israel can have nukes and threaten Iran with military strikes, but that Iran can't even attempt a national defense. That's obvious hypocrisy. JMO. If we want peace, let us not strike other countries unilaterally and start wars. If we want war, let us not blame our opponent for waging war against us. Which is a completely honorable thing for them to do.


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3841 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1588 times:

Despite what some of the far-right hawks might say, I dont foresee the U.S. becoming involved militarily with Iran because of the costs and logistics--I can only see the U.S. becoming involved in a diplomatic role with the Russians acting as mediators to this Iran-Israel mess.

User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2032 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1503 times:

I have a hunch that Israel will light a match to the powder keg, one way or another, before long. I also have a hunch that the superpowers on the security council will officially agree to issue a few strongly worded letters, and appoint Kofi Annan to bitch and moan, but otherwise stay out of it as long as Iran leaves the shipping lanes alone. Meanwhile, the powers that be will unofficially cash-in via the sides they happen to be selling weapons to.

Quoting Pu (Reply 2):
IMO the optional wars against enemies that had no possibility to damage America in any substantial way are largely to blame.

You mean the enemy that murdered 3000 people of various nationalities on American soil, destroyed billions of dollars worth of property owned by individuals and companies of various nationalities, and cost the international community billions of dollars in economic loss?

I'd say that's pretty substantial, not just for America but for the entire international community.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 3):
Hopefully not killing civilians

Iran and their proxy goons will find a way to maximize civilian casualties in order to protect their own skins, as per usual.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineFingerLakerAv8r From United States of America, joined May 2011, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1190 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 5):
You mean the enemy that murdered 3000 people of various nationalities on American soil, destroyed billions of dollars worth of property owned by individuals and companies of various nationalities, and cost the international community billions of dollars in economic loss?

The enemy that was not in one of two countries we invaded. If anyone find's those peskt Iraqi WMD or any link to AlQuaida (pre 9/11) I got a crisp 20.00 bill as a reward.

And as for country number two I will always find it a bit odd that we paved it damn near flat (the word daisycutter will forever be one of my favorites) to find the guy in question... next door. Ah well, still got em!


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8741 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1183 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Thread starter):
Another scenario: would Arab countries defend Israel in the even that Iran gains the upper hand? After all, it's no secret that many Arab countries see Iran as a threat.

They would not defend Israel but they would be passive, tolerating IAF jets overflying their territory doing the job they'd like to do themselves. .

Quoting Centre (Reply 1):
Highly doubt it, Israel and Iran are seen as an equal threat in the region.

Iran is aggressive aganst its neighbours, Israel defends itself only when necessary.



Quoting Flighty (Reply 3):
It depends who attacks first. If Iran is attacked first, I feel it would be their right to respond in any fashion they believe

If Iran dares to attack, it would be by nuclear bomb. They do not have the capability of sending fighters to Israel, all they eventually could do is missiles. . Israel would send some nukes back and I would trust their technology a bit more than what the Iranians have.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10735 posts, RR: 38
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1173 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 7):
If Iran dares to attack, it would be by nuclear bomb.

Iran does not have a nuclear bomb. Not one.
You must be thinking of the wrong country. Pakistan, India, Israel, not Iran.

Iran will not attack anyone. They have not attacked anyone in ages.
Iran/Iiraq - that was defensive. Iraq were the attackers.

Iran does not have ICBMs to attack the U.S.

If Israel feels threatened, let them take care of it.
If they attack Iran they will have to accept the consequences.
Fair game.

Why should the U.S. go to war for israel?

Are you ready to go to Iran and be deployed there to fight for Israel?
I suppose not. So if you aren't, then why should others do it?

[Edited 2012-02-28 08:17:15]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8741 posts, RR: 28
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 8):
ran does not have a nuclear bomb. Not one.
You must be thinking of the wrong country

Madame, the whole issue is about Iran trying to get the bomb. If you care to read my text you will see the words "if" and "would be". I also mentioned that Iran does not have the conventional capability of attacking Israel, other than by their muppets in Lebanon and Gaza.

If Israel does not realise a pre-emptive attack and if Iran gets the bomb finished they will use it. That sets them apart from the other countries you mentioned.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10735 posts, RR: 38
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1157 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 9):
if Iran gets the bomb finished they will use it.

Did you attend secret talks with the top Iranian Generals and their Minister of Defense? Did you talk to Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran?

How do you know they will "finish the bomb"? What if they never started one?
How do you know that "if" they finish the bomb they are "going to use it"?

Your "ifs" really make no sense to me.

Aside from Israel hard-liners no one wants to go to war against Iran. There is way too much risk involved. Israel would have to create a false-flag event such as the attack on the USS Liberty and blame it on the Iranians to start a war? Could very well be but it would be total insanify if you ask me.

Attacking Iran will not be a walk in the park.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3389 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1127 times:

Alright!! Another oil war!

User currently offlineSFBdude From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1111 times:

Iran nuking israel would make no sense what so ever. I have a hard time believing that is their plan.

User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8206 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1063 times:

Quoting SFBdude (Reply 12):
Iran nuking israel would make no sense what so ever. I have a hard time believing that is their plan.

But, many politicians think we should start a war, a war of aggression, just because they imagine that Iran will do that. A war because of something they imagine.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1052 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Thread starter):
Another scenario: would Arab countries defend Israel in the even that Iran gains the upper hand? After all, it's no secret that many Arab countries see Iran as a threat.

Arab countries would defend Israel from Iran once the Jews / Israelis no longer run the country, so if right of return is granted and all Palestinians etc. return and take up citizenship, yes, Arab countires would defend a fellow Arab country against Iran.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 3):
I don't buy the yarn that Israel can have nukes and threaten Iran with military strikes, but that Iran can't even attempt a national defense. That's obvious hypocrisy. JMO. If we want peace, let us not strike other countries unilaterally and start wars. If we want war, let us not blame our opponent for waging war against us. Which is a completely honorable thing for them to do.

Well the US, EU, Russia, UN and others certainely invested billions in attempting to prevent India, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea from developing nuclear weapons for no reason?

Quoting SFBdude (Reply 12):
Iran nuking israel would make no sense what so ever. I have a hard time believing that is their plan.

Well based on the physical size of the country, one in the right place with favourable wind conditions would eliminate the "Jewish / Israeli" situation in the Middle East for a long long time. It is a situation where the physical size of the country becomes a liability in a nuclear war. The number of nukes required to devastate the USA and Soviet Union assured MAD due to the size of the nations and population distribution.
I am attempting to be careful in the way I write the following, the world first saw Kamikazi attacks on a mass scale in WWII in the Pacific and deemed it an aboration, in the middle east today, such suicide attacks are more commonplace, persons may rightly or wrongly infer intent on a larger scale if the rhetoric against Israel's existence is regarded as real.


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3841 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1014 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 10):
Did you attend secret talks with the top Iranian Generals and their Minister of Defense? Did you talk to Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran?

How do you know they will "finish the bomb"? What if they never started one?
How do you know that "if" they finish the bomb they are "going to use it"?

Your "ifs" really make no sense to me.

They make sense to plenty of people wrestling with the decision whether or not to launch a preemptive strike. These are the same exact questions being debated in many a government office right now, especially those in Moscow, Tel Aviv, and Washington.

It also doesn't matter knowing, as a matter of fact, "if" Iran will finish a bomb, or "if"it will use it. What matters is what others outside the country perceive or presume what Iran will do based on Iran's past behavior/actions or willingness to cooperate with the international community. This is a game of high stakes chicken and Iran could be completely bluffing...or they could not be.


User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7006 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 992 times:

One thing is I would trust the US and Israel intelligence along with others countries getting together to figure things out if they were certain that Iran had a nuclear bomb and/or was planning any type of attack.

If Iran for some reason was crazy enough to attack Israel with a nuke well that would be the end of Iran IMO. A preemptive strike on Israel, especially one with a large amount of life would end Iran and put it into the history books. That is why I think Iran does not want to nor will attack. Hopefully everything will be done diplomatically. Honestly at this moment I am watching the situation but not very worried about it. It just makes no sense for Iran to want to do anything that may be the end of its regime.

Quoting par13del (Reply 14):
I am attempting to be careful in the way I write the following


Writing things carefully? (see below) Anyway lets not get into that.

Quoting par13del (Reply 14):
Well based on the physical size of the country, one in the right place with favourable wind conditions would eliminate the "Jewish / Israeli" situation in the Middle East for a long long time.
Quoting par13del (Reply 14):
Arab countries would defend Israel from Iran once the Jews / Israelis no longer run the country,



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3334 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 976 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 4):
Despite what some of the far-right hawks might say, I dont foresee the U.S. becoming involved militarily with Iran because of the costs and logistics--I can only see the U.S. becoming involved in a diplomatic role with the Russians acting as mediators to this Iran-Israel mess.

I agree and also the Iranian people are largely supportive of the US IIRC and if the US started a war in any way they would lose support of the Iranian people and Iran in a big country.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 5):

You mean the enemy that murdered 3000 people of various nationalities on American soil, destroyed billions of dollars worth of property owned by individuals and companies of various nationalities, and cost the international community billions of dollars in economic loss?

Ok 9/11 was tragic and no one contests that but us in North America has to buck up.
London experienced basically that daily during WW2 and when you look at some of the atrocities going on in places like Syria and Sudan 9/11 pales in comparison.

The world didn't change when 9/11 happened North America just joined the real world.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2347 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 958 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 16):
One thing is I would trust the US and Israel intelligence along with others countries getting together to figure things out if they were certain that Iran had a nuclear bomb and/or was planning any type of attack.

Just like that intelligence on those WMD's in Iraq right?

If anything should be done - and if is a huge if - the best thing for Israel or "the west" to do is help the Iranian people to another revolution and dispose of the nutjobs. Maybe the Israeli commandos in Herc's during the middle of the night gig wont work again, but a few incognito suits with cooperation from the underground resistance could surely take out a few choice figureheads and let the people do the rest.

If the US or anyone truly cared, its not about nukes that probably dont exist, its not about oil, its not about shipping lanes - its the people of Iran who deserve their rights and liberties. As we know, the motives are not pure, otherwise they would not have attacked Libya and left harsh dictators to murder their own people in Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, Sudan and elsewhere. No invasion of Syria on the horizon yet either.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8206 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 948 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 15):
This is a game of high stakes chicken and Iran could be completely bluffing...or they could not be.

Iran only spoke about "wiping Israel off the map" in the context of a defensive war in which Iran had every right to defend against Israeli military action. The Iran notion of victory requires Israel to attack them. That is exactly what they want.

I think any attack against Iran would be very anti-Israel. Israel should strive for moral high ground. But Iran is trying to goad Israel into abandoning any moral high ground. Then, Israel loses.

Quoting flymia (Reply 16):
A preemptive strike on Israel, especially one with a large amount of life would end Iran and put it into the history books.

Of course, we agree there. Iran could just announce they would never do a pre-emptive attack. Yet, they don't announce it because in their hearts, they want Israel to hit them now. Kind of like "pull my finger."

[Edited 2012-02-28 20:35:57]

User currently offlinetexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4265 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 939 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 4):
Despite what some of the far-right hawks might say, I dont foresee the U.S. becoming involved militarily with Iran because of the costs and logistics--I can only see the U.S. becoming involved in a diplomatic role with the Russians acting as mediators to this Iran-Israel mess.
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 8):
Why should the U.S. go to war for israel?

In an election year, if Israel attacks Iran, and especially if Iran counter-attacks, the U.S. will be drawn into the war. Congress would act immediately, saying something along the lines of, "While it is regrettable that Israel had to launch a preemptive strike to prevent Iran from completing a nuclear weapon, Iran's disregard for international law and their brazen attack on the people of Israel shows Iran's intent to exterminate Israel. The United States will not allow this to happen." Not taking Israel's side would be political suicide for almost everyone in Congress. So, regardless of whether or not the Congressmen and women think it is a good idea to declare war, only those leaving Congress after this term or who are safe in their seats no matter what they do will even think about voting against a declaration of war or an "initiation of military action."

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A PR War Or Has US Vs Iran Started Quietly? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 15:52:09 by Oly720man
US Vs Iran In 1987-1988 posted Wed Jan 9 2008 16:43:37 by Sprout5199
Iran To Declare WAR Against US Story posted Sat Sep 28 2002 14:48:15 by Artsyman
Wikileaks Releases Second Batch Of US War Logs posted Sat Oct 23 2010 00:41:11 by Yellowstone
Iran: Attack Us And U.S. Interests Will Burn posted Tue Jul 8 2008 06:23:08 by Flynavy
Why Is Israel Important To The US? posted Tue Feb 27 2007 02:28:00 by Mbj-11
New US Government Seal posted Thu Feb 15 2007 01:25:28 by Cfalk
Two Teens Boil Puppy-Because Of US War? posted Sat Feb 10 2007 03:10:35 by Fumanchewd
New US Navy Recruiting Video. posted Tue Jan 16 2007 20:00:35 by FXramper
New US Electronic Passport Difference? posted Mon Sep 11 2006 16:46:56 by Eastern023