Israel considers pre-emptive strike on Iran. Sky News.

[[KMA]Avenger]

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16101552

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... ck-nuclear

They say they have to attack Iran in the next 2 to 4 weeks because that's when their reactors go online (i think!).
what i see happening is Syria will be next before Iran, but either way it happens, If Israel decides to attack iran they should be left to do the dirty work themselves.
England's Military is nowhere near as formidable as it used to be and we wouldn't be able to offer much in the way of support to Israel and so it would be down to the good ol USofA to once again provide the muscle and the blood for Israeli interests.
Sooner or later an attack on Iran will happen. we've pissed off half the (if not all) the Muslim world, this will be the final straw. anyway you look at it this could lead to WW3.

If Israel wants to strike Iran so badly, screw them and their lobbyists. let them do it on their own!

This isn't set in stone and if enough pressure is put on Israel it can be stopped. i refuse to believe that the average Israeli supports this.

[Ashu]

How would this lead to WW3? What do you think the sides and participants would be?

[RepliMagni]

On 11 October 2011 the United States claimed to have foiled a plot by the Iranian government that included bombing the Israeli (as well as Saudi) embassies in Washington, DC and Buenos Aires, which some claim could be viewed as an act of war against the parties involved

If they did attack Iran, then Syria and the Lebanon would likely stick their oars in, and they'd have all kinds of problems with Palestinians - but the biggy could be Egypt's position: since the regime change popular opinions against Israel and pro-Palestine have led to all kinds of confrontations. Israel could well find themselves attacked on all fronts. And they'd be the aggressors which would be a tough sell for gaining international support.

I can't realistically see it happening. I don't think UK/USA/Israel will actually go to war with Iran....certainly it would bring down the coalition gov't in UK, probably bring down Obama's gov't too...it's one thing to "consider" something or "plan" for that contingency, it's another thing entirely to actually carry it out....

[Lithium]

the fall of new Babylon is near , the south will strike the east and that will start it.

[[KMA]Avenger]

How would this lead to WW3? What do you think the sides and participants would be?

Read Albert Pikes book, Morals and dogma published in 1872 i believe. in the book Pike wrote that "they" needed to have 3 world wars, and why "they" need them.
Now, we can argue day and night about who "they" are and if "they" exist at all, that's not the point here, if you read the book it explains how it will be started and which nations will make up the opposing sides.
Read that book and you will say "wow! that's exactly how today's geopolitical scene looks".

Besides all that, Russia and China have trade agreements with Iran. so IF it kicks off either Russia and China wade in or they back off and let Iran stand alone...if you was a western leader would you take the chance and call Russia and China's bluff?

[Coulson]

Good. An actual world scale war could very well save the economy.
Time to invest in weapons manufacturers.

[Legendary Apophis]

I've read that already, hmm I don't really know what to think about.

Good. An actual world scale war could very well save the economy.
Time to invest in weapons manufacturers.

Economy during and after wars is usually a disaster the bigger said wars are, the worst it becomes. Abyssal costs for Iraq war is a recent example...
Because it's not just about weapons manufacturers and military vehicles/planes makers. It's one thing to win the main battle but it's another thing to keep said victory lasting while you occupy the territories..

[[KMA]Avenger]

Good. An actual world scale war could very well save the economy.
Time to invest in weapons manufacturers.

That is one of the most disgusting and despicable comments i have ever read on these boards!

before you open your mouth in support of war you should look at some of the pictures of civilians blown up by Obamas "humanitarian bombings and kinetic actions" in Libya. take a long hard look at other people blown up and shot to pieces all in the name of saving people and giving them freedom.

I'm sorry, but anyone who supports war should not be allowed to have an opinion!

[RepliMagni]

I'm sorry, but anyone who supports war should not be allowed to have an opinion!

You keep doing this on these boards and it is getting really annoying. Stop telling people they should "not be allowed to have an opinion", or "aren't entitle to an opinion" - it just looks silly

[Legendary Apophis]

I'm sorry, but anyone who supports war should not be allowed to have an opinion!

You keep doing this on these boards and it is getting really annoying. Stop telling people they should "not be allowed to have an opinion", or "aren't entitle to an opinion" - it just looks silly

Indeed, otherwise, where's the freedom of speech?

[[KMA]Avenger]

Would you trust someone who supports war with a vote?

I'm all for free speech, but what do you say to someone who wants war but more often than not-are not in the military, and most likely would go hide under the bed if war broke out, but have no problem sending others to do the fighting?

My personal opinion, if you support war then you should be sat in front a tv and shown images of babies and people who have been blown up and have limbs missing, then be allowed to say openly they support war.

[Coulson]

Economy during and after wars is usually a disaster the bigger said wars are, the worst it becomes. Abyssal costs for Iraq war is a recent example...

That's primarily caused by poor management, and due to the fact that despite the fact that a war was raging a peacetime economy was kept operational. Also don't count out the internet subprime bubbles that affected the economy. The war in Iraq was a disaster of epic proportions, due to the poor decisions made specifically in regards to the hasty and uncoordinated exit strategy. Hurrying out before your people tear down your government is a poor motivator.

Because it's not just about weapons manufacturers and military vehicles/planes makers. It's one thing to win the main battle but it's another thing to keep said victory lasting while you occupy the territories..

Interestingly enough, I can make a profit regardless of how pathetic the war is being handled by governments. After all, all profit the weapons manufacturers make ends up in my pockets through dividend.

That is one of the most disgusting and despicable comments i have ever read on these boards!

That is one of the most generic and substandard reactions I have ever read on these boards!

before you open your mouth in support of war you should look at some of the pictures of civilians blown up by Obamas "humanitarian bombings and kinetic actions" in Libya. take a long hard look at other people blown up and shot to pieces all in the name of saving people and giving them freedom.

Individuals are of no consequence as long as the whole stands to gain. Wars aren't fought to give people freedom, though you can pretend they're. You can't be that naive. I support war to strengthen any one powers position in the world. I don't support random wars without any territorial or economic gains. If you don't have the power to keep me away from your resources, you don't deserve your resources. Might makes right.

I'm sorry, but anyone who supports war should not be allowed to have an opinion!

Contrary to you, I'll allow you to have your opinion. I'm in favor of freedom, but I understand it if you're not.


I don't pretend to be right in a moral sense. In fact, it's probably a very un-Western thing to say what I just said. Feel free to disagree. Contrary to some, I won't deny you your right to free speech.

My personal opinion, if you support war then you should be sat in front a tv and shown images of babies and people who have been blown up and have limbs missing, then be allowed to say openly they support war.

You're a very emotional and irrational man, aren't you?

[Juliette]

I'm sorry, but anyone who supports war should not be allowed to have an opinion!

You keep doing this on these boards and it is getting really annoying. Stop telling people they should "not be allowed to have an opinion", or "aren't entitle to an opinion" - it just looks silly

*grin* Exactly.

@Phil: Never knew you were that outspoken. I knew we agreed on principles, but this surprises me. I like it. Better be careful though. Arguments can get heated around these here parts, and you are easily misunderstood. Use a little nuance here and there.

[[KMA]Avenger]

Read what i wrote before your last post...

And FYI, might does not make right. might simply gives you the ability to go around killing people, wiping out whole nations and stealing everything in sight, only to turn around and give China the contracts for the resources...

If i was you i would go away and read General Smedley Butlers book War is a Racket and then rethink your opinion and what you have said so far.


PS, i would have responded sooner but FF froze up on me for like 10 mins



Edit:

@Phil: Never knew you were that outspoken. I knew we agreed on principles, but this surprises me. I like it. Better be careful though. Arguments can get heated around these here parts, and you are easily misunderstood. Use a little nuance here and there.

Don't worry sweetie, i wont take offence.

[Legendary Apophis]

In my opinion this could go the following
I. First strike, due to superior forces, side A defeats side B in many strategic places, and causes great casualties to side B. Side A appears to be winner of first strike.
II. Retaliation, depending on side B losses, one way or another will be used by side B to strike back. Probably not as effective as chapter I.
III. Neither side wants to give up, so side B turns into "snipers", and use guerrilla tactics to do most damages the quickest way. Side A controls the territories, but is open to side B attacks. If side B receives foreign support by funding, mercenary troops, weapons etc...it will make the war last longer. It's about which side will be the most stubborn.

You will be aware that depending on "excuses" given to the war and their validity along with how war will go as results, the public opinion will change, and it might also be a factor of changing side A's plans...

Of course, the winners in this and other wars are weapons manufacturers. However, in the situation of a world war, the fight would be taken world wide, and casualties for side A would be MUCH BIGGER than in the Iraq war example...because their homelands would be targeted. Example, world war 2 for Nazi Germany, two fronts, facilities and factories targeted along with a lack of troops backup. I would say, don't expect a world war 3 to have just four or five thousands total losses in side A's army...not to mention the fact the facilities could be targeted, and there the apparent total profits from weapon manufacturers could change a little..