Netanyahu says strike on Iran would be good for Arabs

CaptainHaplo · 10-30-12, 08:55 PM

Considering that he has served on the front lines, been under fire himself (and wounded) - rest assured he doesn't take the reality of war lightly.

The reality is that a nuclear Iran is a danger to everyone in that area. Netanyahu was correct. A non-nuke Iran is less dangerous. These are simple facts.

However - his way of stating it was not the best.

TLAM Strike · 10-31-12, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddie

That's easy for Netanyahu to say, as long as someone else is doing the actual fighting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Considering that he has served on the front lines, been under fire himself (and wounded) - rest assured he doesn't take the reality of war lightly.

Thank you CH, I was going to mention that, he served in two wars and several smaller incidents and was wounded saving a bunch of hostages. Not to mention his brother was killed in the line of duty during Operation Entebbe.

If someone like that says war is the answer, you have to listen.

Jimbuna · 10-31-12, 08:44 AM

I doubt the Israelis have the capability to take out the underground facilities but a retaliatory strike on said foe would probably be a different matter.

It will be interesting to see what the US does, if anything, after the presidential elections.

CaptainHaplo · 10-31-12, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

If someone like that says war is the answer, you have to listen.

So many people talk war vs peace and claim that the "hawkish" are quick to fight because they don't understand the cost. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For those who serve - the reminder of how horrible conflict or battle can be is not very far away. For those who have lost friends, you never forget. For those who have faced death and survived - you are never the same again.

No - those who serve - and even moreso those who have faced battle - understand the horror more than those who sit at home protesting and whining. Force is never a good option - but there comes a time when it truly is the only option. That happens when the cost of doing nothing is higher than the cost of doing something. That is the situation that Bibi finds his country in - and he is brave enough to face that.

Jimbuna · 10-31-12, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So many people talk war vs peace and claim that the "hawkish" are quick to fight because they don't understand the cost. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For those who serve - the reminder of how horrible conflict or battle can be is not very far away. For those who have lost friends, you never forget. For those who have faced death and survived - you are never the same again.

No - those who serve - and even moreso those who have faced battle - understand the horror more than those who sit at home protesting and whining. Force is never a good option - but there comes a time when it truly is the only option. That happens when the cost of doing nothing is higher than the cost of doing something. That is the situation that Bibi finds his country in - and he is brave enough to face that.

Good post

eddie · 10-31-12, 11:29 AM

My point was that I don't believe Israel can sustain a war against Iran because of the distance involved. Once they attack iran, their first strike better do the job, because they will have their handsfull with Hamas from southern Lebanon and Palestine. It will then fall on the US to sustain the attacks, which we could do. We would hammer them from the air and sea. Doubt we could afford a land war, but the Air Force and Navy certainly could put the hurt on them. The Iranians could get a few hits in themselves, but the response would not be to their liking. Even without using nukes.

MH · 10-31-12, 01:06 PM

The distances issue works both ways.
Also from hardware and abilities point of view regardin this issue i rather bet on IDF.
The style of dealing with Gaza and Lebanon if need arises also will be diffrent.
It will be fight about quick and decisive gains to stop rocket fire and protect own population not about PR like brfore.
If our good neighbors put on fight it will be their last...in particular for their leadership.

Jimbuna · 10-31-12, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH

The distances issue works both ways.
Also from hardware and abilities point of view regardin this issue i rather bet on IDF.
The style of dealing with Gaza and Lebanon if need arises also will be diffrent.
It will be fight about quick and decisive gains to stop rocket fire and protect own population not about PR like brfore.
If our good neighbors put on fight it will be their last...in particular for their leadership.

If it does come to this it could be the bloodiest conflict for the region yet.

Gerald · 10-31-12, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Thank you CH, I was going to mention that, he served in two wars and several smaller incidents and was wounded saving a bunch of hostages. Not to mention his brother was killed in the line of duty during Operation Entebbe.

If someone like that says war is the answer, you have to listen.

Right,

10-30-12, 08:55 PM	#1
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Considering that he has served on the front lines, been under fire himself (and wounded) - rest assured he doesn't take the reality of war lightly. The reality is that a nuclear Iran is a danger to everyone in that area. Netanyahu was correct. A non-nuke Iran is less dangerous. These are simple facts. However - his way of stating it was not the best. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

10-31-12, 08:44 AM	#3
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,552 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	I doubt the Israelis have the capability to take out the underground facilities but a retaliatory strike on said foe would probably be a different matter. It will be interesting to see what the US does, if anything, after the presidential elections. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

10-31-12, 11:29 AM	#6
eddie Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,023 Downloads: 99 Uploads: 0	My point was that I don't believe Israel can sustain a war against Iran because of the distance involved. Once they attack iran, their first strike better do the job, because they will have their handsfull with Hamas from southern Lebanon and Palestine. It will then fall on the US to sustain the attacks, which we could do. We would hammer them from the air and sea. Doubt we could afford a land war, but the Air Force and Navy certainly could put the hurt on them. The Iranians could get a few hits in themselves, but the response would not be to their liking. Even without using nukes. __________________ Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I'm kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me. Al Capone

10-31-12, 01:06 PM	#7
MH Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 3,184 Downloads: 248 Uploads: 0	The distances issue works both ways. Also from hardware and abilities point of view regardin this issue i rather bet on IDF. The style of dealing with Gaza and Lebanon if need arises also will be diffrent. It will be fight about quick and decisive gains to stop rocket fire and protect own population not about PR like brfore. If our good neighbors put on fight it will be their last...in particular for their leadership.