Flint, you managed to make another pointless thread again...

"Israel just concluded their second long range training mission. 800 miles out, with simulated rescue of many downed aircraft in a major air operation over the Med Sea."

Sources please!

"Usually if there are two training missions the first is a feasibility study, and the second is the specific target training."

Sources please!

"One of the questions needing to be asked is if Israel will resort to nuclear strikes on the buried and hardened nuclear facilities."

Soup is never eaten as hot as it's served, is what we say..

"The whole of this shows how desperate Israel is to prevent a nuclear Iran, which has sworn to kill Israel at all costs as well as has increased their grandstanding recently."

Soup is never eaten as hot as it's served, is what we say..

"Iran is known to be shipping IED's into Iraq, previously via diplomats and more recently with members of their military."

Sources please! IED's can be about everything. I wouldn't calll missiles IEDs though, they're not that advanced. Besides, define "Iran" and "Iraq"..

"Iran being a great destabilizer in the region has sworn on many repeated, including recent, occasion to end the United States and Israel."

I thought it was Israel that really destabilised the whole middle eastern region..

"Israel recently attacked a Syrian nuclear weapons site that they were creating with help from the Pakistani Nuclear Father guy who sent them blueprints, equipment, and experts. Iran also received such help as well as N. Korea. N. Korea is also suspect in furthering Syria's training and of shipping some radioactives to Syria to boot."

Sources Flint, please, sources..

"why so obsessed with sources? go do a google search yourself you lazy slob! it's not like he's forcing you to read the thread"

just go to fox news... is there any better source?

but really, when you are trying to make a point it really helps for you to post some sources, if you do not give them why should other people search for them? or even believe in your opinions? You can't just give facts with saying where they came. Thats like saying Bush is intelligent.

"why so obsessed with sources? go do a google search yourself you lazy slob! it's not like he's forcing you to read the thread"

Cause it's the base of any argument. And Flint usually uses tainted sources (but now he just doesn't bother) to post half-truths half the time

I could google, but it's an unseperatable part of the one who posts such statements that he must give them. If not, human sciences would be fiction

Yes, as I expected, it's nothing more than sending a message in the world. They just wanted to show their muscles. It doesn't directly imply a(nother) regretful war is unavoidable, as Flint put it..

Didnt they already do that?

Oh no wait, that was afganistan...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html

According to this you would be invading russia, then urselfs, then Iran

"@ Atlan, Exalted Forum Mod extraordinaire

The first thing you write is:
"Flint, you managed to make another pointless thread again..."
Then why bother with the long post and 2 follow ups ?"

I just pointed out why his post was useless. And then I reacted on other people's posts..

"Israel SHOULD take out the enrichment plant.  Especially if:
1.  Those Nukes that Iran builds will be used on Israel......because thats who they are for.
2.  The Europeans wont do it.....because they dont have a back bone.
3.  The US wont do it, because even when 3000 American Civilians are killed, and the Military responds.....the Leftist-Elitists that now have direct influence on our Govt. and Media ...... Will get upset.
So, I hope Israel does it......and the US can use ELint to open a corridor for their attack, and the US can run diplomatic interference for the Israelis.
After all......wont Europe actually, behind closed doors, breath a sigh of relief....although publicly blasting Israel ?"

If the Leftist-elitists are calling the shots, then it must be because the larger part of your country agrees with them, BW.

Invading Iran with whatever force would be a bad thing. Iran is slowly evolving positivly (not in a straight line though), invading it would switch the balance towards a radical anti-western islamic movement, wich a new generation is now trying to liberate itself from.
No one wants a war, defenatly not a nuclear one, I'm sure that the cold-war principle of threatening will, in the end be a better solution than invading, destroying whatever's there and feed the hatred towards Israel and the West.
If anything was shown in the last 40 years of conflicts in the middle east against a non-islamic force, it's that the war is never really over. Invading Iran would be a terrible mistake..

"One of the questions needing to be asked is if Israel will resort to nuclear strikes on the buried and hardened nuclear facilities."

Who syas Israel has said nuclear weapons, esspecially without a nuclear program. Plus why would Isreal, a country that can be wiped clean by mabye 3-4 Nukes, want to start a Nuclear War?

Personally I think its only a matter of months before Iran and Israel go to war. If they do, Israel will most likely win, since the US and Great Britain would go in to support them. But then again, Europe as a whole might side with Israel because its in their best interests Iran loses anyways, as BW said they would 'behind closed doors, breath a sigh of relief'.

ok guys, rip Skoe apart.

1) He cant do research

2) He is woefully incorrect in his stances he acts as if he is sure on

3) He cannot admit he is wrong ever

4) He even went so far as to say Turkey is Neutral... LOL!

"Usually if there are two training missions the first is a feasibility study, and the second is the specific target training."

Do armies only train in the build up to war? The Swiss army must all be really fat.

I wonder if anyone has considered why no country with the exception of the US has ever used nuclear weapons.  The US A bombs dropped on Japan showed the world how devastating those weapons were, and since the US had shown a willingness to use them, admittedly they may not have known just how powerful the bombs were, Russia felt a need to build their own nukes to act as a deterrent, but let's think broader than that.

Knowing how devastating nuclear weapons are what kind of lunatic would ever consent to use them as anything but a last resort?  Think about that for a while.  Now how would the world react to such a lunatic?  Probably put him down as fast as they could before he used them again wouldn't they.

So Iran is currently building nukes, or at least supposedly, in much the same way Russia started building them, someone who really doesn't like you has them, it'd be a good idea for you to have them too.  So I don't think we can really condemn Iran for wanting nukes, but what would happen if either side actually used them?  Could you imagine the backlash from the Democratic world alone if Israel or Iran used nukes as a first strike?  I know personally I'd be marching on Parliament DEMANDING that whichever side was responsible be wiped of the face of the planet, and I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment.  So if Israel were to launch nukes at Iran, even as bad as Iran is, Israel would, and in my mind should, probably be destroyed.

Einstein
>>"in much the same way Russia started building them"

>>How so?

DPS
>>in much the same way Russia started building them, someone who really doesn't like you has them, it'd be a >>good idea for you to have them too.

"The strategic use of tactical nuclear weapons would not bring the same civilian casualties as the A-Bombs."

I wasn't even considering civilian casualties, though those suck too, I was simply talking about sheer destructive power and the fact that anyone not killed instantly will suffer a long and painful death.