Panetta says Israel will strike Iran in March, April or May

[GoneBezerk]

Yeah, in your kook world....the US military is the troublemaker.

I find it strange the countries around the middle east work/train with us, but not with Iran. Strange for your world.

We train alongside the Saudis and the Jews.

The Iranians support Assad killing his people and LH shooting rockets into Israel, but of course all this is the fault of the US military.

You are just a nut that would have your head cut off in.....Iran, but you got lucky being born here.

Ok kook, the Founding Fathers didn't mind if the British Navy or even "pirates" plundered our trade ships bound for France....

You are clearly not balanced in the head.

Nice try but no. You keep avoiding the issue which is, as the Founders intended, the interests of individual US citizens. This Free Trade you cheerlead for;

HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE INTEREST OF INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES CITIZENS?

You will refuse to answer that as you know it obliterates your argument. Because perpetuating what you call Free Trade only perpetuates US trade deficits and outflows of privately held $USDs offshore to foreign entities which then transfer these $USDs to the US government in exchange for either US Treasuries or OPEC petroleum. The individual US citizen is severely damaged by this wealth-transfer arrangement as it requires regulatory gov intervention to gridlock domestic private industry and private wealth creation. This is fact and if you can't understand how that works, you ought to crack open an intro to economics textbook and learn how the world works.

You try to use this deceptive meme of "Free Trade" to justify military hyper-interventionism but the problem for you is that I know more about your strategy than you do. So don't try to tell me that perpetuating a net-negative (for US citizens) to perpetuate another net-negative (for US citizens) is in the best interest of voters.

If the US actually exported anything other than our currency and military you'd have a point. But it doesn't and you don't.

 

[imbalance]

Yeah, in your kook world....the US military is the troublemaker.

I find it strange the countries around the middle east work/train with us, but not with Iran. Strange for your world.

We train alongside the Saudis and the Jews.

The Iranians support Assad killing his people and LH shooting rockets into Israel, but of course all this is the fault of the US military.

You are just a nut that would have your head cut off in.....Iran, but you got lucky being born here.

Ok kook, the Founding Fathers didn't mind if the British Navy or even "pirates" plundered our trade ships bound for France....

You are clearly not balanced in the head.

If the US actually exported anything other than our currency and military you'd have a point. But it doesn't and you don't.

Again; good for the ruling class in those countries, not so good for individual US citizens. You continue to expose yourself.

 

[saveliberty]

Buick sells more cars in China than the US and has for several years now imbalance. Try to keep up.

 

[imbalance]

Buick sells more cars in China than the US and has for several years now imbalance. Try to keep up.

Good for Buick but what's your point? Do you think globalization "Free Trade" has benefited the American auto industry?

 

[saveliberty]

Buick sells more cars in China than the US and has for several years now imbalance. Try to keep up.

Good for Buick but what's your point? Do you think globalization "Free Trade" has benefited the American auto industry?

Well, my first point is there are things other than what you stated that are exports. I think globalization is going to happen at some point regardless. Hopefully other industries can learn from the auto industry on how to transition better. Building better vehicles does benefit the auto industry, although how they did it did cause problems.

 

[JoeB131]

The internet gives Burger King fry rack technicians the ability to show off their English skills and their knowledge of world events (foreign policy and the threats).

Thanks to algore for the laughs.

Frankly, guy, you haven't given me a reason why I should be all that worried about an Iranian nuclear bomb yet.

Nothing in Iran's history indicates to me that they'd use it.

In fact, only one country has ever used nuclear weapons on defenseless civilians, and that's the United States. Maybe the world should be worried we have bombs.

 

[saveliberty]

Let the Israelis deal with Iran. Ship them some Patriot missiles and sit back.

 

[JoeB131]

Let the Israelis deal with Iran. Ship them some Patriot missiles and sit back.

Patriot missiles are only good for shooting down other missiles, and they had a high failure rate even then. The Iranians get around that by launching a bunch of missles with dummy warheads.

 

[saveliberty]

Let the Israelis deal with Iran. Ship them some Patriot missiles and sit back.

Patriot missiles are only good for shooting down other missiles, and they had a high failure rate even then. The Iranians get around that by launching a bunch of missles with dummy warheads.

That was a long time ago.

 

[JoeB131]

Let the Israelis deal with Iran. Ship them some Patriot missiles and sit back.

Patriot missiles are only good for shooting down other missiles, and they had a high failure rate even then. The Iranians get around that by launching a bunch of missles with dummy warheads.

That was a long time ago.

The problem with anti-Missile defense in general is that it's like hitting a bullet with a bullet.

 

[saveliberty]

Patriot missiles are only good for shooting down other missiles, and they had a high failure rate even then. The Iranians get around that by launching a bunch of missles with dummy warheads.

That was a long time ago.

The problem with anti-Missile defense in general is that it's like hitting a bullet with a bullet.

So knocking a jet fighter out of the sky is a stupid concept huh?

 

[JoeB131]

That was a long time ago.

The problem with anti-Missile defense in general is that it's like hitting a bullet with a bullet.

So knocking a jet fighter out of the sky is a stupid concept huh?

Jet fighters don't go as fast as missiles...

Point was, Patriot Missiles in Gulf War 1 missed incoming SCUDs. And we are talking about SCUDs here which were pretty primitive to start with.

 

[Ropey]

Israel's used to saying that all options are on the table. So are the Americans. Now Panetta let out information saying that a possible Israeli attack on Iran is oncoming. I remember when Bolton said that Israel will strike Iran if Obama is elected so it's not as though this is a new method of interactive diplomacy or some such nonsense.

More of the same? Yeah, I'd say so.

Why? Where's the bombers? Unless he's saying Israel is going to hit Iran with nuclear missiles, Israel will need the US Stealth B-2's to use the bunker busters and Obama is clearly not giving permission for that because Panetta is making it clear that it's a unilateral move which means "no B-2's.

I don't see Israel hitting Iran with nukes and I don't see them able to do much of anything other than wait or go all out.

 

[JoeB131]

Israel's used to saying that all options are on the table. So are the Americans. Now Panetta let out information saying that a possible Israeli attack on Iran is oncoming. I remember when Bolton said that Israel will strike Iran if Obama is elected so it's not as though this is a new method of interactive diplomacy or some such nonsense.

More of the same? Yeah, I'd say so.

Why? Where's the bombers? Unless he's saying Israel is going to hit Iran with nuclear missiles, Israel will need the US Stealth B-2's to use the bunker busters and Obama is clearly not giving permission for that because Panetta is making it clear that it's a unilateral move which means "no B-2's.

I don't see Israel hitting Iran with nukes and I don't see them able to do much of anything other than wait or go all out.

I think they are playing a bit of a game themselves. They are saying to the world community, "You do something about this or we will", but a war would wreck the world economy, so the world would have an interest in doing something. So once again, the Zionists are trying to manipulate everyone else into doing their bidding.

The thing is, I don't think it will work. People are sick of playing hall monitor in the Mideast Insane Asylum.

 

[Ropey]

Israel's used to saying that all options are on the table. So are the Americans. Now Panetta let out information saying that a possible Israeli attack on Iran is oncoming. I remember when Bolton said that Israel will strike Iran if Obama is elected so it's not as though this is a new method of interactive diplomacy or some such nonsense.

More of the same? Yeah, I'd say so.

Why? Where's the bombers? Unless he's saying Israel is going to hit Iran with nuclear missiles, Israel will need the US Stealth B-2's to use the bunker busters and Obama is clearly not giving permission for that because Panetta is making it clear that it's a unilateral move which means "no B-2's.

I don't see Israel hitting Iran with nukes and I don't see them able to do much of anything other than wait or go all out.

I think they are playing a bit of a game themselves. They are saying to the world community, "You do something about this or we will", but a war would wreck the world economy, so the world would have an interest in doing something. So once again, the Zionists are trying to manipulate everyone else into doing their bidding.

The thing is, I don't think it will work. People are sick of playing hall monitor in the Mideast Insane Asylum.

They all play the games. The US plays the most right now. They're pretty damned good.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Wow, this thread got very personal. History and possible future wars should be able to be discussed without resorting to highschool insults people.

Just sayin......

 

[saveliberty]

I seem to have miss placed an order for daisy cutters....

...oh well, they'll show up sooner or later.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I seem to have miss placed an order for daisy cutters....

...oh well, they'll show up sooner or later.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzSIKDpyfE&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Doc Holiday in Tombstone ( - YouTube[/ame]

 

[freedombecki]

Israel's used to saying that all options are on the table. So are the Americans. Now Panetta let out information saying that a possible Israeli attack on Iran is oncoming. I remember when Bolton said that Israel will strike Iran if Obama is elected so it's not as though this is a new method of interactive diplomacy or some such nonsense.

More of the same? Yeah, I'd say so.

Why? Where's the bombers? Unless he's saying Israel is going to hit Iran with nuclear missiles, Israel will need the US Stealth B-2's to use the bunker busters and Obama is clearly not giving permission for that because Panetta is making it clear that it's a unilateral move which means "no B-2's.

I don't see Israel hitting Iran with nukes and I don't see them able to do much of anything other than wait or go all out.

I think they are playing a bit of a game themselves. They are saying to the world community, "You do something about this or we will", but a war would wreck the world economy, so the world would have an interest in doing something. So once again, the Zionists are trying to manipulate everyone else into doing their bidding.

The thing is, I don't think it will work. People are sick of playing hall monitor in the Mideast Insane Asylum.

They all play the games. The US plays the most right now. They're pretty damned good.

Panetta said something, but it might not quite be on target.

 

[Ropey]

I think they are playing a bit of a game themselves. They are saying to the world community, "You do something about this or we will", but a war would wreck the world economy, so the world would have an interest in doing something. So once again, the Zionists are trying to manipulate everyone else into doing their bidding.

The thing is, I don't think it will work. People are sick of playing hall monitor in the Mideast Insane Asylum.

They all play the games. The US plays the most right now. They're pretty damned good.

Panetta said something, but it might not quite be on target.

I agree with becki and I believe his target is a backhand response to Israel. I think it was Panetta expressing the current US administration's view that if Israel wants to attack Iran, it will have to do it unilaterally.