Get with the program. People who have put on a uniform are special.... because they have put on a uniform.
You know it must make sense somehow:03:

I like you alot...really...but you dont really know what you talking about here.

Can you demonstrate exactly how your new idea is any different from all the previous attempts and how it would actually somehow work this time?
Your line about quick and decisive action without worrying about PR is exactly the same crap they spewed last time.
If your neighbours make a stand to fight it was going to be their last stand last time too.
I know exactly what I am talking about, and I am talking about you supporting trying the same things again and again with the same advertised objectives again and again yet again and again achieving only the same inevitable results...which will lead to you trying the same thing again next time with the same advertised objectives and the same spiel that it is going to work this time as it really honestly isn't the same thing again and again and this will be different somehow...which again will give you the same results.

Who said it was the only region populated? Given Bibi's reference to it doing good for the arab countries - this comment makes no sense.

Point taken. However, Bibi has proven in the past that he is no warmonger. His actions - trying to rally the international community - which you rightly state shares blame - demonstrate he is trying to avoid a conflict.

What is inhumane about it?

First of all - no it won't. The majority of targets are underground and not in the middle of cities. The above ground targets WILL likely spread some contaminant - but those contaminants from an explosion do not rival the effects of an actual nuclear exchange. Its like comparing a "dirty nuclear bomb" to an actual nuclear explosion. Taking out the facilities would not result in a thermonuclear reaction. That does not mean that there is no danger from it, but your acting like attacking such sites is equitable to a nuclear detonation at them - and that is highly inaccurate.

Let me play devil's advocate. You claim this will cost the lives of "tens of thousands". While I disagree - lets use that number for argument's sake. So - tens of thousands. How many do you think will die if Israel faces a nuclear attack - and thus is forced to retaliate? 7.6 Million live in Israel alone. Iran has a population of more than 74 Million. Lets say 2/3 casualties. 50 Million lives lost - on both sides. Not counting the loss of life that will occur when Pakistan and India see nukes flying and add their own. Or the countless dead in the aftermath. The middle east going off - your going to see 100 Million dead on the most conservative estimate.

I agree that it is avoidable - but that isn't within Israeli control. If it turns out that it is not avoidable - I disagree that the death of "tens of thousands" as you claim - somehow is not morally justified when weighed against the deaths of 50-100 Million.

Ultimately - a conflict goes on the heads of those who wage it or cause it to be waged. Both sides will have their hand in it - but Iran could avoid this by not being the bellicose, terrorist supporting regime it is. Thus, by refusing to diffuse this issue - they become responsible for the actions they create - and thus the possible deaths of their own civilians. To argue against that would be like saying that Adolf Hitler - and Hermann Goering as you mentioned before - were not responsible for the vast and overwhelming costs that Europe - and the German people - paid due to WW2.

Israel is not innocent to be sure. To call their position "anti-humanitarian" is however a gross misrepresentation. Their position on Iran is simple - no nuclear weapons. How is having a nuclear weapon a "humanitarian" issue for Iran? Israel is willing to support a nuclear ENERGY program in Iran provided it meets the mandates and inspection rules of the IAEA. Iran is unwilling to meet that demand - because having a clandestine nuclear weapons program when your openly and fully inspected is too difficult for them.

:o Opposing a nuclear armed Iran is somehow "anti-humanitarian"..... I just can't see it...

Irrelevant since Bibis comment about it doing good made no sense.
Now his comment might have made sense if the Gulf states were not currently all sitting on their own powder kegs, but as they are his offer of lighting another fuse can only been seen for what it is.

When i talk about decisiveness it does not mean that IDF has some magic solutions.
It is about protecting or minimizing damage to own civilians in time of war by all means.

Just look at previous "campaigns" , it is easy easy to see that IDF was fighting with a hand tied behind its back.
It will not happen with missiles raining on Tel-aviv.


bw
Only magical solution is if somehow people stop acting crazy in ME.

What do you mean by ignoring?
Is Israeli national policy to have some wars from time to time for the heck of it?
Bibi wakes up in the morning with itchy finger?

Just take a look around ME east and see what is happening....this place is nuts.
its like zombie apocalypse or something like that....:doh:

What???????
Exactly the same rubbish as last time.
They declared that civilians simply didn't exist, everything was therfore a target which means their hands were officialy not tied in any way...it was still a disaster and still led to more incoming missiles not less.

Now that would be magic.

Rubbish or not...im not going to argue about it.
Hopefully it all plays out without the need for war.

MH the problem is that the game is rigged.
they keep on upping the ante while trying the same old things thinking that maybe this time will work out different.
They have pushed their acceptable stake up to and beyond the reasonable limits and still not won, every time they hold 4 aces and the others still turn up a hand of five aces.
The only two ways to up the stakes for a "win" is by going for all out regional genocide and or using a pre emptive nuclear option, but either one would really amount to suicide for the State so you still lose.
Whe the game is rigged and the stakes are totally unacceptable the only option left is to change the game.
Unfortunately Bibi is a nut and seem to enjoy the game as it currently is.

If you talk about last Lebanon war it was mismanaged.
There had been no obvious objective besides whooping hizbollah a bit where possible.
It was also managed like some small scale operation in west bank back in 2000s.
A direct consequence of army dealing with intifada for too long and becoming sort of police force not adequate for real war in terms of training and state of mind.
Things have changed by now....actually it is back to old school but with twists....

As I see some people still are very concerned about the well-being of thew agressor, while the same people refuse to care for the wellbeing of people - in Western cities. The biggest threat from a nuclear Iran is not an exchange with Israel, although that cannot be ruled out since you are dealing with religious hysterics holding the power in Iran.The biggest threats are

- the incalculatable risks and instability coming from a a nuclear Iran, because Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey all three can be taken for sure to react to a nuclear Iran by gettin g their own nukes;

- and proliferation of nukes or nukie know how to to either other regimes hostile to the West and America (in a bit to form alliances and to do some pain to Wahsington), and - and that worries me the most:

- terror groups that get used as proxies that either launch a dirty suitcase bomb in New York or London or Frankfurt, or plant them around the Western world and by that make Western governments completely vulnerable to nuclear blackmailing.

Haplo seems to imply that their subterranean facilities that are burried deep under mountains still can be reached by conventionel ammunitions. I am not sure of that, as a matter of fact I have doubts that parts of their programs even can be reached by mini-nukes anymore. A local contamination will be the result of any of the two scenarios, with mini-nukes causing more radiating debris reahcing into the atmosphere. However, that does not compare to "nuking a city" or a full "nuclear war", like it was implied by some people int he past. And the tlak never has been of "nuking cities". If a decision is made to destroy their facilties by force, this force needs to be directed against:

- command and control and air defence
- local defences at taregt sites
- facilities connected to the nuclear weapon program, and their reactor.

Only of the third target category, some objectives which are indeed extremely hardened qualify for trying to crack them open by nukes.

Also, the heads maintaining their program - engineers, commanders - need to be identified, found targetted and killed. The Israelis already started with that some time ago, but seem to have found the delay caused by that unsatisfying.

Near the borders or coasts, commando operation and fast ground assaults may be an alternative, though an extremely risky one. the best option to destroy hardened facilities underground, is by taking them and then blowing them up from within. But that is unlikely a scenario, and as said: extremely risky. Not all such attempts will be successful, maybe not even the better part of them. I do not expect to see such actions in case of an attack on Iran. Anyhow, ground combat is no option anyway to take all of Iran. A ground invasion is something that most likely can be ruled out completely. It simply is not realistic a scenario. The country is really big. The population is hostile, and telling you by experience: extremely patriotic. The n umbers in forces in order to spreasd all over iran and reach all those 300+ critical installations that play a role for their nuke program, simply will be impossible to be collected. I think it would take several hundred thousands of troops - not rotating in and out. Simultaneously.

I have no doubt that this task is too big to be carried out by Israel alone. It may choose to try it nevertheless - put of despair. However. For the time being, recent comments by Ehud Barrak seem to indicate that they are aware of their limited reach and want to give the impression of having reasons why they give it more time (he said that earlier this year Iran apparently made a decision to freeze nuclear development - something I will never believe, I see it as Israeli diplomatic tactics). They know they have not even a chance to cause lasting damage without the Americans. So, more time is ticking away, time that is being used by Iran, I have no doubt. And so it will become even more difficult to hit them where it hurts their program.

I personally think the point of time when their program indeed could have been destroyed by bombing it into pieces, has long since passed. Another masterful achievement by dreamy Western diplomacy.

I also think this: compared to a nuclear Iran, nuclear Pakistan - already not shy of raising troubles, playing double games and proliferating nuclear key know-how to rogue nations - does compare like a purring kitty compares to a hungry tiger. Nuclear Iran will give us much more fun and entertainment to enjoy, than Pakistan ever did.

And finally I think the Western public will not wake up before the first nuclear terror strike has hit a Western metropole. And even then some hopeless cases will not stop telling us that Islam has nothing to do with it and that it is our own fault that they hate us so much.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Thank God that Skybird is not in charge of anything.

I firmly believe that Romney plans to take us into Iran. I also think that it will be another Iraq. With Israel pushing us to war and the neocons back in charge it will be disastrous. God help my poor country.

Ditto :yep:

I dunno. I don't get that sense from Romney. He strikes me as a guy who would be a lot more focused on domestic issues than foreign ones.

^Good statment!

Though I have little love for Romney, my guess is as far as Iran goes it will be more of the same with him at the helm.

Even when North Korea tested their first nuke, South Korea and Japan saw no need to embark on their own nuclear programs for a deterrence force (before anyone says that Iran is different because of them being religious whack-jobs, try to remember that a dead man is still the "President" of North Korea). The United States need only re-affirm their commitments to their alliances to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel. After all, nukes aren't needed as a deterrence when it comes to countries like Iran; with the gloves off, two CVBGs can make the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo look like campfires by comparison.