You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Should Israel strike Iran?
- Thread starter The Kin2
- Start date
There are a surprisingly large number of well connected corporations (Halliburton, GE etc etc) that are making enormous amounts of $$$s out of the current Iranian status quo. Nothing is likely to change until the people profiting from the current situation find other places to "invest".
The "lend lease" program was passed by Congress in March 1941.http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq59-23.htm
Quote from gunslinger:
FWIW I dont believe the US supplied any arms to Britain pre 1941, they did however aid in sending boots, clothing, food and transports, all of which were extremely impt in helping Britain.
Didnt Germany have an alliance with Japan knowing full well the plan would be for them to control the Pacific, including the US interests there, thereby having the Japanese fight the US?
Earlier this year there was yet another interesting coincidence concerning the "equal partnership" / coalition of the billing.
"The final payment of £45m will be made by the 31 December, meeting a 1945 obligation to repay the debt in full.
"Repayment of the war loans to the US Government is expected to be completed on December 31 2006," the Treasury's Ivan Lewis said in a written commons reply. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4970720.stm
"The final payment of £45m will be made by the 31 December, meeting a 1945 obligation to repay the debt in full.
"Repayment of the war loans to the US Government is expected to be completed on December 31 2006," the Treasury's Ivan Lewis said in a written commons reply. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4970720.stm
Splitting hairs, huh? They had every chance to surrender, just like their daddy, they did not.Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Exactly how did they kill themselves?
Anyway, I understand your position, you disapprove the attack on Osirak without a UN resolution and you don't see any problem with Iraq (Iran, Lybia etc) having nuclear weapons because they are "only talking" about wiping Israel off the map and no one can seriously believe they mean it.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
We don't really know that they had a chance to surrender when they were killed, now do we?
In addition, if American soldiers die in a firefight, in which they cannot win...are they suicidal? Or brave warriors for their cause? Dying fighting is now considered suicidal?
Oh, and they were not leaders either...
In addition, if American soldiers die in a firefight, in which they cannot win...are they suicidal? Or brave warriors for their cause? Dying fighting is now considered suicidal?
Oh, and they were not leaders either...
Quote from dddooo:
Splitting hairs, huh? They had every chance to surrender, just like their daddy, they did not.
Anyway, I understand your position, you disapprove the attack on Osirak without a UN resolution and you don't see any problem with Iraq (Iran, Lybia etc) having nuclear weapons because they are "only talking" about wiping Israel off the map and no one can seriously believe they mean it.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Quote from Pabst:
The "lend lease" program was passed by Congress in March 1941.http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq59-23.htm
I know, I was thinking about russia, they are afterall on the same continent, well kinda.
Quote from Pabst:
Honestly I don't know what the fuck you're saying. I'm sure if Iran were to bomb Israel that the Israelis have a military response plan in place.
Saddam used inflammatory language toward the U.S., attempted to assassinate a former American President, funded Hamas suicide bombers in violation of U.N. resolutions from the Gulf War and even still the left is 100% against the U.S. being in Iraq. Yet those same libs think Israel should bomb Iran over threats. How much you wanna bet that if Israel goes to war with Iran within 48 hours it's another American war.
i agree america has its fingerprints all over this conflict. i also thing its a matter of time before iran is directly in the fray. however, the U.S. has already shot its bolt in iraq. they dont have enought manpower to clash with Iran. So the only way is to build a coalition which will be tough to impossible....especially with china and russian bastards....
Quote from niceneasy:
i agree america has its fingerprints all over this conflict. i also thing its a matter of time before iran is directly in the fray. however, the U.S. has already shot its bolt in iraq. they dont have enought manpower to clash with Iran. So the only way is to build a coalition which will be tough to impossible....especially with china and russian bastards....
"shot it's bolt in Iraq"
This is a misconception propogated by anti-American media players.
Just compare:
5 years ago:
(1) a few ships in international waters
(2) Saddam and UN in charge, both stuffing their Swiss bank accounts as fast as possible
today:
(1) 150,000 troops stationed close to Iran border...
Including virtually permanent facilities in US friendly Kurdistan.
(2) Half the US fleet in Persian Gulf area.
(3) Friendly governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(3) Many years experience fighting Islamic Fascist insurgencies.
What a dramatic shift in power !!!!!!!
Especially, since no one would ever contemplate invading Iran...
They just need to blow up 50-100 locations connected to the Iranian nuclear program...
Setting it back 10 years.
This is a ** trivial assignment ** for US military...
And Bush will NEVER leave office with the Iranian nuke program in place.
If America does not defang Iran...
Then, strategically, Israel will be have no choice but to use nuclear weapons to take out their enemies.
Repeat...
The end game is actually very simple.
Islamic Fascism is defeated ** from within ** the Arab world...
Or Israel will be forced into a first strike nuclear attack.
There is no other strategic option.
What we are seeing today... is just foreplay.