Israel...Have the stakes just increased?

[Oberon]

Well said MattJ.

When one looks at it from an outside point of view, humanity has changed very little from its initial existence. Sure, we've got better sticks now, and better animal hides, and we don't need slaves because we have machines to do it for us, but at the end of the day it boils down to who has the bigger stick, or who has the bigger pile of meat. Basic instincts, and you can see it in animals...we just put a fancy face on it and call it society, but it's not so dissimilar to those we call 'lower creatures'.

Hark at me...you can tell it's getting late...I'd best be off to bed.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Its us or them. And when you strip away the layers of impractical teachings, its kill or be killed.

You make sound like we fighting an enermy with equal capacity to attack us on the same scale as we can attack them. Not the case with islamic terrorists.
The threat that terrorists actuallly pose to you and me is next to nothing, even if you discount the last two wars - we are more likey to die of cancer, be hit be a car, or murdered by one of our fellow citizens (in that order)
The war on terror has little or nothing to do with terrorism, our governments did not invade iraq and afganistan to prevent a another 9/11
you think they would spent trillions of dollars and soldiers lives just for that? Its totally uneconomical.
You dont need me to tell you the real reasons.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

You make sound like we fighting an enermy with equal capacity to attack us on the same scale as we can attack them. Not the case with islamic terrorists.
The threat that terrorists actuallly pose to you and me is next to nothing, even if you discount the last two wars - we are more likey to die of cancer, be hit be a car, or murdered by one of our fellow citizens (in that order)
The war on terror has little or nothing to do with terrorism, our governments did not invade iraq and afganistan to prevent a another 9/11
you think they would spent trillions of dollars and soldiers lives just for that? Its totally uneconomical.
You dont need me to tell you the real reasons.

The threat of a nuclear Iran is not them sending an ICBM to America or Europe, although they are gaining the technology to build such missiles.

The threat is prolifertion of a nuclear suitcase bomb to terrorist proxies of theirs. Or several.

The threat is Western nations being vulnerable to nuclear blackmailing.

The threat is that they realise their threat to wipe out the biggest hate object there is in Islam: Jews (=the Jewish state). They said so often enough. You have had a glimpse inside their heads convincing you that they do not mean what they say? Remember, you are talking not about rational, cold-blooded politics, but irrational religious ressentiments.

The threat is a nuclear arms race, since several players like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia will not sit still being intimidated by a nculear armed rival such as Sunni Persia. And such an arms race in that region full of animosities! Religious irrationalism! Centuries-old hate! Ovber one m illenia of (unsolved) internal civil war! You will crave to get back the cold war instead, by comparison.

If I would be in need of an enemy to overhwelm and to wipe out, I would love to have somebody like you. And that should make you think.

P.S. And one idea you can delete from your script: Israel is not about forming a bridgehead in the Gulf to secure control of Iranian oil!

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The threat of a nuclear Iran is not them sending an ICBM to America or Europe, although they are gaining the technology to build such missiles.

The threat is prolifertion of a nuclear suitcase bomb to terrorist proxies of theirs. Or several.

The threat is Western nations being vulnerable to nuclear blackmailing.

The threat is that they realise their threat to wipe out the biggest hate object there is in Islam: Jews (=the Jewish state). They said so often enough. You have had a glimpse inside their heads convincing you that they do not mean what they say? Remember, you are talking not about rational, cold-blooded politics, but irrational religious ressentiments.

The threat is a nuclear arms race, since several players like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia will not sit still being intimidated by a nculear armed rival such as Sunni Persia. And such an arms race in that region full of animosities! Religious irrationalism! Centuries-old hate! Ovber one m illenia of (unsolved) internal civil war! You will crave to get back the cold war instead, by comparison.

If I would be in need of an enemy to overhwelm and to wipe out, I would love to have somebody like you. And that should make you think.

Ah-ah hold your horses, Iran is a slightly different kettle of fish.
I was refering to war on terror up until this point in time.

Iran likes to push its luck and stir the pot - but then the same can be said Isreal, and we dance bloody circles around them!

[Skybird]

Ah, the old Bush-phrase, okay... that phrasing was utmost stupidity, yes.

[1480]

Iran likes to push its luck and stir the pot - but then the same can be said Isreal, and we dance bloody circles around them!

The lesser of all evils. Perhaps.... the most stable country in the region.

[Jimbuna]

Going back to original topic....I'm of the opinion Israel will strike Iran if and when it is beyond all doubt Iran has developed a nuclear capability and they (israel) are convinced they must ensure survival of the nation.

I don't see what alternative they have, especially if they perceive their allies are unwilling to act for concerns over possible escalation into a global nuclear conflict.

Of course I hope this scenario doesn't come about but I fear Iran sooner rather than later will leave Israel with no alternative.

[Skybird]

Iran currently moves centrifuges that are linked in cascades to a new location that is much harder to reach for a military strike, also it is worried that Iran would move any-weapon-capable material that it has produced into hiding, making it unavailable for strikes or even just intel gathering.

I am relatively sure, therefore, that if a military option really is on the table for Israel (I am still not 100% sure, since they depend too much on US assistance), there will be a strike not just once Iran gained a nuclear capacity, but that there will be a strike BEFORE it gains that capacity.

Waiting with it until it is too late, simply makes no sense. Not when it is about weapon-capable nuclear material.

Last thing Obama can want is a new war now, before the election. Waiting until after election however may prove to come too late. Iran is reported to have increased its efforts after the stuxnet attack, and that the damage from that cyberattack is almpost completely compensated by now. I think they do all they can to get what they want before the US electons. That maximises their chances.