Netanyahu says strike on Iran would be good for Arabs - Page 2

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.

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,

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, 03:21 PM

Maybe ya are right there...

Agiel7 · 10-31-12, 04:56 PM

If Israel has viable long-term solutions short of nuking Iran to bedrock, then the world is all ears.

...

Nope? Okay, back to sanctions.

If Iran stays the course they're on, then they will be reduced to North Korea levels of misery because of their spectacularly mismanaged economy even before the sanctions happened, and they will have no one to blame but the Ayatollahs. Except unlike the North Koreans, Iranians don't think the Ayatollahs created the world and that their country is paradise on earth.

Armistead · 10-31-12, 06:31 PM

I think the next step will be a date set for a military response if they don't comply. Either way it's coming to a head next year.

Jimbuna · 10-31-12, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead

I think the next step will be a date set for a military response if they don't comply. Either way it's coming to a head next year.

I fear you may well be right.

August · 10-31-12, 06:58 PM

The date might already be set, just secretly. I don't think a public announcement would do any good and would just give the Iranians time to prepare. The element of surprise would be necessary to have a chance at success.

Armistead · 10-31-12, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

The date might already be set, just secretly. I don't think a public announcement would do any good and would just give the Iranians time to prepare. The element of surprise would be necessary to have a chance at success.

Hard to know, but a set date for possible attack might be tried first, let's face it, blowing up nuke plants is a dangerous thing. Most agree, it will take a mass effort, mostly to deal with Iran's possible counterattacks. It will be much more than a few air strikes on the plants, we'll have to a massive force in the area.
I think it will be like all our wars there, build up mass defenses, give dates and see what happens. If we attack, we have to assume counterattacks are coming and we'll deal with that by going on the offensive taking out government and military targets, missle launchers, etc.....It will be a war, not a strike.

MH · 11-01-12, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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

In terms of casulaties in civilian population it is most likely the case since the methods of terror organizations like hamas or hizbolah is to fire missles from populated areas.
This time if missles start falling on entire coutry the game might be very diffrent.

CCIP · 11-01-12, 03:45 AM

Yes, because Israel is the only country in the region that is populated by people.

Look, I understand the military implications of this, and from all signs this war is likely already inevitable. It's not solely Israel's fault; the international community is really letting everyone down here. I have always considered and still consider this whole thing resolvable, if only the pressure and sanctions on Iran were more determined and less than token. Nobody seems to care enough to enforce peaceful measures, and everybody seems to have developed this tunnel vision of "oh well, Israel's gonna bomb them anyway..."

Other than that, I don't care what Bibi's military background and losses are. By the same token, we could sing praises to that great WWI ace, Hermann Goering, as a model of a politician and humanitarian leader who understood the implications of war. Or, you know, any other terrible bloody person who also happened to be a war hero at some point. One doesn't exclude the other.

My real concern is the pathetic, inhumane marketing of this war that Netanyahu's government is engaged in. His childish bomb graphic and his peddling of this to the Arab world on cold, dirty politics should offend any civilized person. What you have to understand is that this is a war that will come at a cost of tens of thousands Iranian civilians, who have nothing to do with the nuclear program, to be dead, injured, homeless, poisoned, and otherwise suffering. And you're going to reduce it to a risk calculation and hedge it in terms like "threat" or a silly bomb graphic? Really? Lao Tze said it's okay to press the button and kill tens of thousands of people? Who else? Tell me more about how noble and great it is to bomb other countries and blow up nuclear facilities.

There is no moral justification for this, particularly as the whole thing would be avoidable given enough international will. From where I stand, Israel's leadership is not solely responsible for it at all, but their position has been narrow-minded and anti-humanitarian. I think the fact that several posters here have successfully ignored the fact that Iran is also populated by humans really nails that message home for me. If you are willing to conveniently ignore that on the scale of national policy, then your society deserves no protection from anything.

11-01-12, 03:52 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

In terms of casulaties in civilian population it is most likely the case since the methods of terror organizations like hamas or hizbolah is to fire missles from populated areas.
This time if missles start falling on entire coutry the game might be very diffrent.

Have you been drinking the patriot juice again?
In the last attempt on the northern front despite operating on the basis that there were "no civilians at all" the troops failed to reachmany of their planned destination, took much longer to reach those points they did get to and managed to achieve their aim of stopping the rockets by amazingly getting an increase of them on a daily basis.
You idea of a different game appears to be more of an attempt of the same failed game again and again.

10-31-12, 11:29 AM	#18
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, 03:21 PM	#22
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	Maybe ya are right there... __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

10-31-12, 06:58 PM	#26
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,221 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	The date might already be set, just secretly. I don't think a public announcement would do any good and would just give the Iranians time to prepare. The element of surprise would be necessary to have a chance at success. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

11-01-12, 03:45 AM	#29
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	Yes, because Israel is the only country in the region that is populated by people. Look, I understand the military implications of this, and from all signs this war is likely already inevitable. It's not solely Israel's fault; the international community is really letting everyone down here. I have always considered and still consider this whole thing resolvable, if only the pressure and sanctions on Iran were more determined and less than token. Nobody seems to care enough to enforce peaceful measures, and everybody seems to have developed this tunnel vision of "oh well, Israel's gonna bomb them anyway..." Other than that, I don't care what Bibi's military background and losses are. By the same token, we could sing praises to that great WWI ace, Hermann Goering, as a model of a politician and humanitarian leader who understood the implications of war. Or, you know, any other terrible bloody person who also happened to be a war hero at some point. One doesn't exclude the other. My real concern is the pathetic, inhumane marketing of this war that Netanyahu's government is engaged in. His childish bomb graphic and his peddling of this to the Arab world on cold, dirty politics should offend any civilized person. What you have to understand is that this is a war that will come at a cost of tens of thousands Iranian civilians, who have nothing to do with the nuclear program, to be dead, injured, homeless, poisoned, and otherwise suffering. And you're going to reduce it to a risk calculation and hedge it in terms like "threat" or a silly bomb graphic? Really? Lao Tze said it's okay to press the button and kill tens of thousands of people? Who else? Tell me more about how noble and great it is to bomb other countries and blow up nuclear facilities. There is no moral justification for this, particularly as the whole thing would be avoidable given enough international will. From where I stand, Israel's leadership is not solely responsible for it at all, but their position has been narrow-minded and anti-humanitarian. I think the fact that several posters here have successfully ignored the fact that Iran is also populated by humans really nails that message home for me. If you are willing to conveniently ignore that on the scale of national policy, then your society deserves no protection from anything. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

10-31-12, 01:06 PM	#19
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.

10-31-12, 04:56 PM	#23
Agiel7 Gunner Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 97 Downloads: 16 Uploads: 0	If Israel has viable long-term solutions short of nuking Iran to bedrock, then the world is all ears. ... Nope? Okay, back to sanctions. If Iran stays the course they're on, then they will be reduced to North Korea levels of misery because of their spectacularly mismanaged economy even before the sanctions happened, and they will have no one to blame but the Ayatollahs. Except unlike the North Koreans, Iranians don't think the Ayatollahs created the world and that their country is paradise on earth.

10-31-12, 06:31 PM	#24
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	I think the next step will be a date set for a military response if they don't comply. Either way it's coming to a head next year.