Israel preparing for attacking Iran soon.

[ERGO]

Dildoduck:
Imagine where that teeny tiny country the made the desert bloom etc etc would be without the United States.
***
That teeny tiny country made the desert bloom way before the United States came into the picture.
This is attributed to the great Ben Gurion: We can do difficult tasks, the impossible takes a bit longer.

"The country that makes the desert bloom", Israel , destroys hundreds of West Bank olive trees to lay settlement water line

Israel destroys hundreds of West Bank olive trees to lay settlement water line | Mondoweiss

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSn4XipOU_g&feature=related]Israeli settlers uproot Palestinian olive trees - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1ovdA1VZ-c&feature=related]Jew Settlers Stoning Palestine Christian Children walking to school - YouTube[/ame]

 

[amir]

ERGO:Where exactly do you get your information from? "Fair and Balanced" Fox News LOL Lots of Laughs. The Zionists control the Media in America, that's just a fact.

If I put up so many holes than take the time to elaborate. It's easy just to SAY this...it's quite another to elaborate.

***

You ask questions then answer them yourself. No, I don't regularly watch FOX News, nor do I support
(violent) settlers, but I am fair and balanced. I don't agree with whatever Israel/ies do and recognize propaganda when I see it. But you sir are being disingenuous. You talk about Israel brutality, home demolition and uprooting of trees, without bothering with the pesky cause and effect.
Not one word about blowing up ice cream or pizza parlors, daily barrage of rockets and missiles, severing the head of infants from you, while like a parrot you repeat what you've been fed.
Jews/Israel control of US media, banks, government, congress.........
I get my information from the real sources, you know, people who live there. How about you, oh I know, Press or Aljazeera TV.

 

[Roudy]

And how can they do that?

Please be precise in your answer.

Moron wants a precise answer as to Israel's plans with Iran. I can tell you one thing. It will be very high tech and never been used before type of weapons will be implemented. The whole country and military will be paralyzed, by the time they come to, it will be all but over and done with.

And how will that achieve the goal Buford suggests - of regime change?

Again - please be specific.

At the drop of the first bomb the people use the opportunity to rise up and overthrow the Islamists. It could even be a coordinated effort. Besides not one Iranian soldier will be ready to give his life for the savage Mullahs. The people will be hanging them from lamp posts in no time.

 

[ERGO]

ERGO:Where exactly do you get your information from? "Fair and Balanced" Fox News LOL Lots of Laughs. The Zionists control the Media in America, that's just a fact.

If I put up so many holes than take the time to elaborate. It's easy just to SAY this...it's quite another to elaborate.

***

You ask questions then answer them yourself. No, I don't regularly watch FOX News, nor do I support
(violent) settlers, but I am fair and balanced. I don't agree with whatever Israel/ies do and recognize propaganda when I see it. But you sir are being disingenuous. You talk about Israel brutality, home demolition and uprooting of trees, without bothering with the pesky cause and effect.
Not one word about blowing up ice cream or pizza parlors, daily barrage of rockets and missiles, severing the head of infants from you, while like a parrot you repeat what you've been fed.
Jews/Israel control of US media, banks, government, congress.........
I get my information from the real sources, you know, people who live there. How about you, oh I know, Press or Aljazeera TV.

The cause and effect of the problems in Israel....Palestine, in the Middle East in general started a long time ago with the Zionist agenda that emanated from Theodore Herzl's first meeting in Basel, Switzerland to the Balfour Declaration... to the Irgun and Stern gang terrorists operations...I'll elaborate...

Zionist-dominated mainstream media vividly portrays Israel as a tiny embattled nation seeking peace in a sea of Arab hostility. 1 Arabs, we are told, commit acts of terror while Israel only resorts to violence out of self-protection. The facts of history paint a very different picture.

Far from deploring terror, Israel has sanctioned terror to seize and expand its territory since its beginnings. In 1944, Zionist leaders in Israel faced two alternatives. They could continue to allow the British and Arabs to occupy Palestine , who would continue to pressure Israel to concede a Palestinian state. Or they could drive both British and Arabs out. Israelis chose the latter.

Members of the Zionist ruling elite and their clandestine terrorist enforcers--the Jewish Agency, Hagana, Irgun and the Stern Gang--began to exert every possible terrorist means to dominate Palestine . Their strategy was simple: the more respectable Zionist establishment would take the "high road" and officially disavow terrorism. Meanwhile, Zionist terrorists would commit any crime needed to disrupt British occupation and to panic Arabs into flight. The Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem, available in most university libraries, documents from British records more than five hundred violent or terrorist incidents against Palestinians and the British occupation between 1939 and 1948. These included bombings, booby traps and landmines, kidnappings and torture of prisoners, bank robberies, murders of Arabs, and assassinations of police and British officials. 2


Source for information:http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/israelfoundedonterror.htm

 

[ERGO]

"I get my information from the real sources, you know, people who live there. How about you, oh I know, Press or Aljazeera TV."

Here's some information from people that live there or have lived there...you know "real sources" watch if you dare!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_jvXnPG9Xc]OCCUPATION 101 (The real tragedy mainstream media won't tell you about) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA1lDow-0rk]The Zionist Story. (Full Documentary) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Moonglow]

And gas prices will explode, Obama will get the blame. No speculators will get the blame! Oh, whomever!
Anyway, the world's largest user of oil will suffer a huge economic setback.

So you are saying gas prices are "reasonable" right now, in that you believe prices are not currently "exploding" enough for you? I'm one who believes gas prices are WAY out of control right now, and YES, Obama gets the blame. His failed energy policies have set the bar for higher prices on nearly everything we consume, including food -for years to come. America sits on vast reserves of energy it cannot use (in amounts that would eclipse the levels Iran exports) simply because of failed doctrine all in the guise of "saving the environment" are continuing to erode America's prosperity as we speak... Regardless of what Israel, or anybody else with "sense" has in mind for Iran.

Crude Oil Glut at Cushing May Worsen as New Production Outstrips New Outbound Pipeline Capacity, an

PR-USA.net - Crude Oil Glut at Cushing May Worsen as New Production Outstrips New Outbound Pipeline Capacity, an

Prices are dropping has gone down 55 cents in my area over the last three weeks.

 

[Saigon]

At the drop of the first bomb the people use the opportunity to rise up and overthrow the Islamists. It could even be a coordinated effort. Besides not one Iranian soldier will be ready to give his life for the savage Mullahs. The people will be hanging them from lamp posts in no time.

Yes - this is very much the arrogant, racist and ill-informed thinking that cost the US 3,000 lives in Iraq.

Ever heard of Viet Nam, Roudy?

 

[sharif]

Instead of Iran needs to be removed Inshahallah Israel won't stay in this world if ATTACKED IRAN?

If USA dream to give defeat Iran but do not consider Iran as Saudi Arabia or any other country? USA too early forgotten 1979 defeat from Iran when failed to realsed their 54 hostages? at the time of Jimmy Carter president.

United States and Isarel and all allies if think to defeat Iran than taken mistaken and underestatime Iranian power or strength?

 

[Artevelde]

Instead of Iran needs to be removed Inshahallah Israel won't stay in this world if ATTACKED IRAN?

If USA dream to give defeat Iran but do not consider Iran as Saudi Arabia or any other country? USA too early forgotten 1979 defeat from Iran when failed to realsed their 54 hostages? at the time of Jimmy Carter president.

United States and Isarel and all allies if think to defeat Iran than taken mistaken and underestatime Iranian power or strength?

Try to learn English first.

 

[Artevelde]

At the drop of the first bomb the people use the opportunity to rise up and overthrow the Islamists. It could even be a coordinated effort. Besides not one Iranian soldier will be ready to give his life for the savage Mullahs. The people will be hanging them from lamp posts in no time.

Yes - this is very much the arrogant, racist and ill-informed thinking that cost the US 3,000 lives in Iraq.

Ever heard of Viet Nam, Roudy?

While I completely disagree with the fairly stupid assertion that bombing Iran's nuclear program will somehow in and of itself lead to the overthrow of the current Iranian regime, I also find the comparison to Vietnam completely a-historical and stupid.

As for Iraq, the US intervention there was succesful and did overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein.

 

[Artevelde]

Moron wants a precise answer as to Israel's plans with Iran. I can tell you one thing. It will be very high tech and never been used before type of weapons will be implemented. The whole country and military will be paralyzed, by the time they come to, it will be all but over and done with.

And how will that achieve the goal Buford suggests - of regime change?

Again - please be specific.

At the drop of the first bomb the people use the opportunity to rise up and overthrow the Islamists. It could even be a coordinated effort. Besides not one Iranian soldier will be ready to give his life for the savage Mullahs. The people will be hanging them from lamp posts in no time.

That's really wishful thinking on your part. Bombing Iran's nuclear program may or may not be succesful in halting their nuclear program and therefore may or may not be a good idea, but this bombing will not drive away the current regime.

 

[zzzz]

And how will that achieve the goal Buford suggests - of regime change?

Again - please be specific.

At the drop of the first bomb the people use the opportunity to rise up and overthrow the Islamists. It could even be a coordinated effort. Besides not one Iranian soldier will be ready to give his life for the savage Mullahs. The people will be hanging them from lamp posts in no time.

That's really wishful thinking on your part. Bombing Iran's nuclear program may or may not be succesful in halting their nuclear program and therefore may or may not be a good idea, but this bombing will not drive away the current regime.

Any attack on Iran by Israel will be against the nuclear program and not on the regime. The thought is that disabling the nuclear program for several more years gives the Israelis time, time that regime change may come from within. Also by selectively hitting just the nukes it is a surgical strike and Iran can bluster all they want (for face) and not go to total war. If the Israelis hit the government or religious center of Iran then it would be total war.

 

[Saigon]

At the drop of the first bomb the people use the opportunity to rise up and overthrow the Islamists. It could even be a coordinated effort. Besides not one Iranian soldier will be ready to give his life for the savage Mullahs. The people will be hanging them from lamp posts in no time.

Yes - this is very much the arrogant, racist and ill-informed thinking that cost the US 3,000 lives in Iraq.

Ever heard of Viet Nam, Roudy?

While I completely disagree with the fairly stupid assertion that bombing Iran's nuclear program will somehow in and of itself lead to the overthrow of the current Iranian regime, I also find the comparison to Vietnam completely a-historical and stupid.

As for Iraq, the US intervention there was succesful and did overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Do you see any connection between the conflicts in Afghanistan and Viet Nam? Iraq and Viet Nam?

And haven't both those conflicts been compared to Viet Nam by extremely highly qualified sources?

Because I would say Iran would be harder to conquer and control than either Afghanistan or Iraq - both because of geography, culture, religion and politics.

 

[Artevelde]

Yes - this is very much the arrogant, racist and ill-informed thinking that cost the US 3,000 lives in Iraq.

Ever heard of Viet Nam, Roudy?

While I completely disagree with the fairly stupid assertion that bombing Iran's nuclear program will somehow in and of itself lead to the overthrow of the current Iranian regime, I also find the comparison to Vietnam completely a-historical and stupid.

As for Iraq, the US intervention there was succesful and did overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Do you see any connection between the conflicts in Afghanistan and Viet Nam? Iraq and Viet Nam?

And haven't both those conflicts been compared to Viet Nam by extremely highly qualified sources?

Because I would say Iran would be harder to conquer and control than either Afghanistan or Iraq - both because of geography, culture, religion and politics.

No, I see no connection between Afghanistan and Vietnam and anybody with even only a cursory knowledge of both conflicts knows how fundamentally different they are. The only "sources" who compare to Vietnam are people who like to draw stupid analogies because they are too lazy or ignorant to distinguish between different conflicts. Furthermore, the more people refer to Vietnam when talking about current conflicts the more likely they are to know absolutely nothing about Vietnam.

And how do you get from bombing Iran's nuclear program to "conquer and control"? The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

[Saigon]

Artevelde -

Two conflicts can be very different and still have significant aspects in common.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan required the involvement of vast numbers of US troops, and cost large numbers of US lives. Regime change in Iran would require a similar commitment.

All 3 conflicts saw US troops bogged down for years longer than was originally intended - it is in this sense that the 3 conflicts have much on common.

 

[Artevelde]

Artevelde -

Two conflicts can be very different and still have significant aspects in common.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan required the involvement of vast numbers of US troops, and cost large numbers of US lives. Regime change in Iran would require a similar commitment.

All 3 conflicts saw US troops bogged down for years longer than was originally intended - it is in this sense that the 3 conflicts have much on common.

None of the three conflicts you mention have very much in common. The numbers of troops involved and the number of other troops involved is uncomparable. The situations and context in uncomparable. Simply the fact that you use words like "US troops bogged down" shows you don't grasp the nature of any of these three conflicts.

Again, where do you go from bombing Iran's nuclear program to conquest or other commitments?

 

[Saigon]

Artevelde -

If the goal is regime change (and that isn't my suggestion) then a land invasion will be required, without question I think.

Obviously the total force utliized in Viet Nam and the subsequent death toll were higher than in Iraq or Afghanistan, but the three conflicts have several patterns in common:

1) All 3 conflicts were intended as relatively short-term actions, which extended several years beyond their original concept.

2) All 3 cost more US lives than had been anticipated.

3) All 3 suffered from poor Military Intelligence, poor strategy and a tendency to underestimate the opponent.

4) All 3 lacked popularity at home and failed to win hearts amongst often reluctant allies.

I call that a lot on common, even if you don't.

 

[Artevelde]

Artevelde -

If the goal is regime change (and that isn't my suggestion) then a land invasion will be required, without question I think.

Obviously the total force utliized in Viet Nam and the subsequent death toll were higher than in Iraq or Afghanistan, but the three conflicts have several patterns in common:

1) All 3 conflicts were intended as relatively short-term actions, which extended several years beyond their original concept.

2) All 3 cost more US lives than had been anticipated.

3) All 3 suffered from poor Military Intelligence, poor strategy and a tendency to underestimate the opponent.

4) All 3 lacked popularity at home and failed to win hearts amongst often reluctant allies.

I call that a lot on common, even if you don't.

All 4 of your contentions are wrong. You really have a completely simplistic view of these conflicts.

 

[Roudy]

Instead of Iran needs to be removed Inshahallah Israel won't stay in this world if ATTACKED IRAN?

If USA dream to give defeat Iran but do not consider Iran as Saudi Arabia or any other country? USA too early forgotten 1979 defeat from Iran when failed to realsed their 54 hostages? at the time of Jimmy Carter president.

United States and Isarel and all allies if think to defeat Iran than taken mistaken and underestatime Iranian power or strength?

Sharif you know that shithole Mosque in Qom and the well that you shi'ite animal imbiciles throw rocks at the jin down there? Inshallah Israel will level it. Then you have to only worry about the jins in the Islamic toilet Mohammad warned you about, that enter through your orifices in the toilet.

 

[Jos]

Artevelde -

If the goal is regime change (and that isn't my suggestion) then a land invasion will be required, without question I think.

Obviously the total force utliized in Viet Nam and the subsequent death toll were higher than in Iraq or Afghanistan, but the three conflicts have several patterns in common:

1) All 3 conflicts were intended as relatively short-term actions, which extended several years beyond their original concept.

2) All 3 cost more US lives than had been anticipated.

3) All 3 suffered from poor Military Intelligence, poor strategy and a tendency to underestimate the opponent.

4) All 3 lacked popularity at home and failed to win hearts amongst often reluctant allies.

I call that a lot on common, even if you don't.

Makes you wonder if anyone reads "the art of war" these days