News Israel's Possible Attack on Iran: An Objective Analysis

[Bobbywhy]

Here are two paragraphs from an article quoting L. Panetta, US Secretary of Defense, who says the US should NOT attack Iran.

"Military action against Iran could have "unintended consequences" in the region, the US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, said on Thursday, hours after Tehran warned that an attack against its nuclear sites would be met with "iron fists".

Panetta, who took over the Pentagon's top job in July, said he agreed with the assessment of his predecessor, Robert Gates, that a strike on Iran would only delay its nuclear programme, which the west believes is aimed at making an atomic bomb."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/11/leon-panetta-warns-iran-strike

 

[MarcoD]

Why? I understand some topics tend to inflame a proliferation of responses. I also understand some topics require a further look by highly-educated folks who can bring the sums of their experience to bear upon the problem.

Because you end up discussing the disinformation from either side while people are dying?

 

[nobahar]

If Israel was "pushing for war" as you say, wouldn't they already be bombing?

Nope.

I am with RootX on this that we should maintain the ban on discussing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

When was this banned? Some prominent members - such as Hurkyl -started threads on this topic.

Here's one paragraph from an article that argues the USA should attack Iran:

"The closer Iran gets to acquiring nuclear weapons, the fewer options will be available to stop its progress. At the same time, Iran's incentives to back down will only decrease as it approaches the nuclear threshold. Given these trends, the United States faces the difficult decision of using military force soon to prevent Iran from going nuclear, or living with a nuclear Iran and the regional fallout."

What's the "regional fallout"? US presence and Israeli policies (I mention this because it's relevant to the Iran topic) are a major destabilising factor in the region: the quotation seems to suggest the US is having some kind of mediating role in the middle east. According to a poll by AII: "The continuing occupation of Palestinian lands and U.S. interference in the Arab world are held to be the greatest obstacles to peace and stability in the Middle East." http://aai.3cdn.net/5d2b8344e3b3b7ef19_xkm6ba4r9.pdf

A Pew poll also finds attitudes towards the US are unfavourable, and that the US is a military threat: "Majorities in six of the seven predominantly Muslim countries surveyed say they are very or somewhat worried that the U.S. could become a military threat to their country someday", and "As is the case with his performance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ratings for Obama’s handling of Iran and the situation in Afghanistan are extremely low".
http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/05/17/arab-spring-fails-to-improve-us-image/2/

There seems to me an inherent supposition that the US 1) is some kind 'bringer of justice' and 2) it has some right to intervene in the middle east. If Iran isn't entitled to Nuclear weapons in the middle east, then why is the US? What about Israel, supported by the US, that hasn't even signed the NPT.

Because you end up discussing the disinformation from either side while people are dying?

I don't know, if you can raise awareness, it's not a bad thing I suppose.

 

[WhoWee]

Nope.

 

[mheslep]

as for the whole wiping israel off the map nonsense, that is an intentional lie.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html

That WaPo article does not support your "nonsense", "intentional lie" interpretation.

In addition, the article references photos such as this one:

with this explanation:

This banner appears on the building which houses the Center for the Basij Resistance in the Judicial Branch, which is part of the Basij Resistance in Government Ministries and Departments. The Basij are “mobilization forces” used as reserves for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) [Iranian IRGC]

 

[rootX]

Why? I understand some topics tend to inflame a proliferation of responses. I also understand some topics require a further look by highly-educated folks who can bring the sums of their experience to bear upon the problem.

Shutting off these threads only closes solutions.

Properly managed, on the other hand, there's no longer a need to go down that road.

Ah, the decisions we make! Make them good ones! Better yet, make them great ones.

When was this banned? Some prominent members - such as Hurkyl -started threads on this topic.

See https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3498221&postcount=3

I don't know, if you can raise awareness, it's not a bad thing I suppose.

There is awareness and there is nonesense/propaganda.

You guys can always make a thread in "Forum Feedback & Announcements" in regards to any "moderation" issues you see here. Personally, I also don't know what in specific led to the ban on discussing Israel-Pales issues but I liked the decision.

 

[rootX]

http://www.energybulletin.net/stori...il-use-30-reduce-grave-national-security-risk

Or this 2008 paper stressing that laying the mines is pretty low tech and hard to combat...

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/IS3301_pp082-117_Talmadge.pdf

Here's one paragraph from an article that argues the USA should attack Iran:

"The closer Iran gets to acquiring nuclear weapons, the fewer options will be available to stop its progress. At the same time, Iran's incentives to back down will only decrease as it approaches the nuclear threshold. Given these trends, the United States faces the difficult decision of using military force soon to prevent Iran from going nuclear, or living with a nuclear Iran and the regional fallout."

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136655/

Your link doesn't work.

The consequences of a nuclear armed Iran seem to be more speculative than the consequences of attacking Iran. e.g. what will lead to "the regional fallout"?

I don't think Iran is as stupid as people think and will actually dare to do something like "wiping Israel off the map" but I do think that attacking Iran will create a very messy situation as it says in those aperion links. Russia might also involve in this mess(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15617657).

 

[Bobbywhy]

OOPS! Sorry, I truncated the website erroneously. Please try:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...y-obama-should-take-out-irans-nuclear-program

 

[Proton Soup]

That WaPo article does not support your "nonsense", "intentional lie" interpretation.

In addition, the article references photos such as this one:

with this explanation:

and again, this all comes down to what people think "Israel" is. it is obvious that they object to the religious nature of the state (which is perhaps hypocritical). the recent statement clearly precludes any sort of genocidal solution, which is what it seems the Israeli government wants us to believe. actually, it sounds like they want a "regime change", and not using the sort of means that the west has been imposing on the middle east.

“The Islamic Republic’s proposal to help resolve the Palestinian issue and heal this old wound is a clear and logical initiative based on political concepts accepted by world public opinion, which has already been presented in detail. We do not suggest launching a classic war by the armies of Muslim countries, or throwing immigrant Jews into the sea, or mediation by the UN and other international organizations. We propose holding a referendum with [the participation of] the Palestinian nation. The Palestinian nation, like any other nation, has the right to determine their own destiny and elect the governing system of the country.”

— Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, October 2, 2011

but if singular instances of military leaders rubbing shoulders with genocidal holy men are going to be our measures of starting wars, then it should be noted that we can find these idiots in Israel as well. and Lior is really not one to back pedal or mince words, he affirms these views when confronted.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/t...inisters-idf-commander-to-honor-racist-rabbi/

 

[rootX]

OOPS! Sorry, I truncated the website erroneously. Please try:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...y-obama-should-take-out-irans-nuclear-program

The most substance I got out of that article was:

Beyond regional nuclear war, Tehran's acquisition of these weapons could be a catalyst for additional proliferation throughout the Middle East and beyond. Few observers have failed to note that the United States has treated nuclear-armed rogues, such as North Korea, very differently from non-nuclear ones, such as Iraq and Libya. If Iran became a nuclear power and the United States reacted with a policy of containment, nuclear weapons would only be more appealing as the ultimate deterrent to outside intervention.

It's only here they provide their opinion on what would happen if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. While I agree that nuclear race must be prevented at all costs however, the second point is more of a U.S. concern than it is of Middle East/world.

 

[LaurieAG]

Ha, I was watching a TV series the other day called 'Civilisations' and apparently around 500bc the Persians liberated Babylon and freed the exiled Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia

The rules and ethics emanating from Zoroaster's teachings were strictly followed by the Achaemenids who introduced and adopted policies based on human rights, equality and banning of slavery.[citation needed] Zoroastrianism spread unimposed during the time of the Achaemenids and through contacts with the exiled Jewish people in Babylon freed by Cyrus, Zoroastrian concepts further propagated and influenced the Abrahamic religions. The Golden Age of Athens marked by Aristotle, Plato and Socrates also came about during the Achaemenid period while their contacts with Persia and the Near East abounded. The peace, tranquility, security and prosperity that were afforded to the people of the Near East and Southeast Europe proved to be a rare historical occurrence, an unparalleled period where commerce prospered and the standard of living for all people of the region improved.[65]

 

[Proton Soup]

OOPS! Sorry, I truncated the website erroneously. Please try:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...y-obama-should-take-out-irans-nuclear-program

eh, i got my doubts. the IAEA report is based on old news supplied by the USG. nothing is new but the sudden desire to hit them right now.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...rt-Why-it-may-not-be-a-game-changer-after-all

The report is based on more than 1,000 pages of information shared with the agency by US intelligence in 2005, one year after they were apparently spirited out of Iran on a laptop computer. But deep skepticism about the credibility of the documents remains – Iran has long insisted they are forgeries by hostile intelligence agencies – despite a concerted attempt by the IAEA to verify the data and dispel such doubt.

"It's very thin, I thought there would be a lot more there," says Robert Kelley, an American nuclear engineer and former IAEA inspector who was among the first to review the original data in 2005. "It's certainly old news; it's really quite stunning how little new information is in there."

and there's more if you're bored.
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/iaea-...nfused-nanodiamond-production-with-nukes.html

 

[Lisa!]

 

[nobahar]

Edit: I removed this because, although it was a response to someone else's post, I don't think it was on-topic. (I'm trying hard to stay on-topic).

 

[rhody]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bunker-buster-bomb-20111117,0,3582708.story"

Packed with more than 5,300 pounds of explosives and more than 20 feet long, the giant bunker-busting bombs were tested at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, the site of the first atomic bomb test during World War II.

Earlier this month, Brig. Gen. Scott Vander Hamm, who oversees the B-2 fleet at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, told Air Force Magazine that there is "no other weapon that can get after those hard and deeply buried targets" like the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. It "is specifically designed to go after very dense targets … where enemies are putting things that the president of the United States wants to hold at risk."

"Our past test experience has shown that 2,000-pound penetrators carrying 500 pounds of high explosive are relatively ineffective against tunnels, even when skipped directly into the tunnel entrance," the report said. "Instead, several thousand pounds of high explosives coupled to the tunnel are needed to blow down blast doors and propagate a lethal air blast throughout a typical tunnel complex."

By 2009, with concerns about Iran's and North Korea's missile capabilities reaching new highs, the Pentagon said there was an "urgent operational need" to speed up the weapon development process.

That's a 10X greater punch than the previous models.

Rhody...

 

[DoggerDan]

Rhody, I wonder if the Iraelis have something similar? They don't have a B-52, but they have C-130 cargo planes. Dropped from high enough altitude, it won't matter what drops it. GPS-guidance and the proper configuration will ensure it hits and destroys its target.

Back on topic, the fact that Iran has said many times it will wipe Israel off the map as soon as it achieves the means to do so would be incentive enough (for me, at least) for a first strike. Then again, perhaps I'm being too simple-minded by not allowing myself to be wiped off the map, first, "just to be sure they weren't bluffing."

There are some things where it's ok to bluff. Poker is one of them. Nuclear war is not.

 

[Proton Soup]

the US and Israel have been threatening to bomb Iran for what, 10 or 20 years now? it's a bit sick when you think about it. somehow Iran is the bad guy when they haven't invaded anyone in ages.

in any case, I'm surprised no one caught the news of the Mossad/MEK strike in Iran already.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/t...onfirms-mossad-sabotage-behind-missile-blast/
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/t...-at-least-15-dead-many-wounded-some-severely/

but the bigger story, imo, is this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russias-military-chief-potential-conflicts-near-russian-borders-may-grow-into-nuclear-war/2011/11/17/gIQAWQTJUN_story.html?wprss=rss_world

russia isn't mentioning iran specifically here, but i think it's too obvious to not be implied.


and, i can't remember the source, but we've been supplying israel with bunker-busting fuel/air bombs for some time now...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

in any case, I'm surprised no one caught the news of the Mossad/MEK strike in Iran already.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/t...onfirms-mossad-sabotage-behind-missile-blast/.

Current Iranian official denies Mossad sabotage behind missile blast.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/16/explosion-at-military-base-an-accident-iran-insists"

I wouldn't take the word of former Iranian official, nor of a current one either.

 

[mheslep]

the US and Israel have been threatening to bomb Iran for what, 10 or 20 years now? it's a bit sick when you think about it.

That's over the mark and requires a source.

somehow Iran is the bad guy when they haven't invaded anyone in ages.

Are you aware that Iran is partly responsible for thehttp://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/iran/ptrsniran53003opn.pdf", that Iran has had agents in Iraq introducing IED's for use against US and Iraqi forces, that Iran sponsors Lebanese based Hezbollah financially and with arms enabling its frequent attacks on Israel and Lebanese opposition, that Iran planned to execute the Saudi ambassador to the US? If so then the above statement is deliberately misleading.

 

[Proton Soup]

Are you aware that Iran is partly responsible for thehttp://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/iran/ptrsniran53003opn.pdf", that Iran has had agents in Iraq introducing IED's for use against US and Iraqi forces, that Iran sponsors Lebanese based Hezbollah financially and with arms enabling its frequent attacks on Israel and Lebanese opposition, that Iran planned to execute the Saudi ambassador to the US? If so then the above statement is deliberately misleading.

what, and you think we're not ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran

 

[MarcoD]

I guess the long-term strategic relevance is Iran becoming a nuclear-arms supplier to the rest of the world.

If you're really paranoid, it isn't about Israel, but about -the Arab world doubles its population every generation- 600 million angry starving people with nukes in thirty years.

Heck, I don't even know whether I should be that paranoid.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Two new options that are now “On the table” (to use diplomatic language) regarding Iran’s nuclear program:

1. New bomb that is much faster and has a vastly greater range than our remotely piloted drones. With pinpoint accuracy this new weapon seems ideal for modern offensive warfare at standoff distances. See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/army-test-in-hawaii-launches-weapon-capable-of-traveling-5-times-the-speed-of-sound/2011/11/17/gIQA77vJWN_story.html

2. Last week the US Air Force took delivery of America's heaviest non-nuclear bomb on order from Boeing. At 30,000 pounds (13,607kg) the "Massive Ordnance Penetrator" is nearly five US tonnes (4535kg) bigger than the heaviest in its arsenal and designed to destroy targets deep underground. It is so heavy that either a B2 or B52 would be needed to deliver it. See:

http://www.wtkr.com/news/military/la-fi-bunker-buster-bomb-20111117,0,7519435.story

 

[mheslep]

what, and you think we're not ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran

I asked not for misdirection but for a source on your statement about the US and Israel threatening to bomb Iran for 10 or 20 years, which you labeled sick. The rest, "somehow Iran is the bad guy" I take to be deliberately misleading.

 

[apeiron]

I asked not for misdirection but for a source on your statement about the US and Israel threatening to bomb Iran for 10 or 20 years, which you labeled sick. The rest, "somehow Iran is the bad guy" I take to be deliberately misleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_relations#Israel_threatening_Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–United_States_relations#.22Axis_of_evil.22_speech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_military_action_against_Iran

 

[MarcoD]

Man, look at the map: Syria, Iraq, Iran, then Afghanistan. If the US/Israel or even Europe starts a war there, you might end up fighting more than a million soldiers.

I don't like Iran having nukes, but I am not sure one can do a lot about it at the moment. And the worst thing is that this would be a war the western world cannot afford to lose.

(Then again, guess it's a question of scale since the US has 1.4M troops...)

 

[Proton Soup]

I asked not for misdirection but for a source on your statement about the US and Israel threatening to bomb Iran for 10 or 20 years, which you labeled sick. The rest, "somehow Iran is the bad guy" I take to be deliberately misleading.

i took your request as silly.

 

[WhoWee]

Man, look at the map: Syria, Iraq, Iran, then Afghanistan. If the US/Israel or even Europe starts a war there, you might end up fighting more than a million soldiers.

I don't like Iran having nukes, but I am not sure one can do a lot about it at the moment. And the worst thing is that this would be a war the western world cannot afford to lose.

(Then again, guess it's a question of scale since the US has 1.4M troops...)

If you're suggesting the US would need an equal number of troops to fight the countries mentioned - I would disagree. This would also require an assumption that Iraqi forces would join the caliphate. I doubt there would be a reason to chase the standing armies of the aforementioned countries through mountain passes or extract them from civilian hideouts - would there? The challenge would more likely be terrorism.

 

[MarcoD]

If you're suggesting the US would need an equal number of troops to fight the countries mentioned - I would disagree.

Nah, I just underestimated the size of the US army. Had to look it up, the US can win that war. It won't be like a stroll through a forest, though, and there'll be post-war problems since the US might need permanent bases in Iran indefinitely since 40% of the world's oil goes past Iran.

 

[mheslep]

i took your request as silly.

Yes I get it. Iran has admittedly tense, even antagonistic relations with much of the western world and other middle eastern countries, and given this state of affairs one could say historically among nations that some day might lead to military action; no doubt there are plans in the Pentagon, in addition to invading Antarctica, for Iran. Certainly one can find pundits with a website that call for it. Certainly the US and others have accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism and of continuing a nuclear weapons program. But you fill free to twist this to say the US, i.e. the US government in public, has been "threatening to bomb Iran" for decades. Then you go on to pretend Iranian innocence with "somehow Iran is the bad guy" counter to the historical record. When called on this statement you redirect to US actions. Yes I get it.

 

[apeiron]

no doubt there are plans in the Pentagon, in addition to invading Antarctica, for Iran.

It is plausible that the Pentagon prepares for every scenario. But here you seem to basing your case on the claim that the Pentagon is treating Iran and, say, Antarctica with equal seriousness of intent. And you would agree that is in fact quite untrue?

Given two statements - the US has signalled clear intent to bomb Iran with only a little more pushing, and the US has signalled no more aggression towards Iran than it has to, say, Antarctica - well, I know which one sounds like intentional misdirection to me.

The first statement is arguably too strong (it we were inside the administration the past decade, perhaps the element of bluff is much larger, or opinions are divided as might be expected between hawks and doves).

But the second statement seems flat wrong and should be withdrawn. I follow the politics of Antarctica pretty closely, and while there is a real game going on down there, the US have already done all the invading they need to for the moment. IMO, before WhoWee asks.

I also note that you have now dropped the demand for support for "Israeli threats".

 

[mheslep]

But the second statement seems flat wrong and should be withdrawn.

What, this statement?

...the Pentagon is no more serious about invading Iran than it is about invading Antarctica.

But I did not make that statement; you like to pretend I did. Is that fun?

I mention Pentagon plans because there are no doubt plenty of Chompskyite blog sites stating awareness of Pentagon military plans for military action against Iran, which no doubt is the case, though the existence of such plans without more context and knowledge of their immediacy means little or nothing. I suspect such is the stuff that leads to claims made here in PF as fact about the US threatening to bomb Iran, which was read "somewhere".

 

[apeiron]

I suspect such is the stuff that leads to claims made here in PF as fact about the US threatening to bomb Iran, which was read "somewhere".

Yeah right. It must all be that, as you "suspect".

Can't possibly be anything to do with past events like Bush's axis of terror speech - http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/print/20020129-11.html - where Iran was one of the three nations that got named as being ones the US would not tolerate developing weapons of mass destruction?

And whoops, what happened in Iraq subsequently shouldn't be misconstrued by anyone who had been labelled as being also in the pre-emptive firing line?

So where do folks get the crazy idea that Iran has ever been threatened? Geez, I just don't know.

 

[WhoWee]

Nah, I just underestimated the size of the US army. Had to look it up, the US can win that war. It won't be like a stroll through a forest, though, and there'll be post-war problems since the US might need permanent bases in Iran indefinitely since 40% of the world's oil goes past Iran.

There is another alternative - make a deal with Russia, China and the EU to share the Persian oil 4 ways and pay a very small royalty for the crude.

 

[Proton Soup]

Yes I get it. Iran has admittedly tense, even antagonistic relations with much of the western world and other middle eastern countries, and given this state of affairs one could say historically among nations that some day might lead to military action; no doubt there are plans in the Pentagon, in addition to invading Antarctica, for Iran. Certainly one can find pundits with a website that call for it. Certainly the US and others have accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism and of continuing a nuclear weapons program. But you fill free to twist this to say the US, i.e. the US government in public, has been "threatening to bomb Iran" for decades. Then you go on to pretend Iranian innocence with "somehow Iran is the bad guy" counter to the historical record. When called on this statement you redirect to US actions. Yes I get it.

ok, i guess if your watching the news isn't enough, or anything I've posted, or others have posted, is convincing to you that we've been moving toward this confrontation for a long time now, then i will give you more.

see Mearsheimer and Walt, http://www.abebooks.com/9780374531508/Israel-Lobby-U.S-Foreign-Policy-0374531501/plp" , Ch. 10 - Iran in the Crosshairs, pg. 280-305.

M&W list 111 references in the above chapter.

if you're so inclined, i'd also like to hear your opinion on why we should attack Iran. and your opinion on what i posted earlier from Gen Wesley Clark, whether you think there is any correlation to the nations he lists vs those already attacked, and how the remainder correlates to the current situation.

 

[Proton Soup]

Ehud Barak: Iranian nuclear program not really about Israel

http://www.jewishjournal.com/israel/article/ehud_barak_iranian_nuclear_program_not_really_about_israel_20111118/

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11995

 

[tiny-tim]

I wonder how many Israeli airforce pilots are still locked up for conscientiously refusing to fly missions with a high potential for civilian casualties.

uhh? did you just make that up?

no israeli pilots have ever been locked up for conscientiously refusing to fly missions with a high potential for civilian casualties

and although some have objected to "targeted killings" of individual terrorists (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israeli_military#The_pilots.27_letter), there's no reason to believe that any of them would conscientiously refuse to take part in a conventional attack on nuclear weapons facilities!

Ha, I was watching a TV series the other day called 'Civilisations' and apparently around 500bc the Persians liberated Babylon and freed the exiled Jews.

this is fairly well-known …

it's described in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (in the Bible), and eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity

Also Israel is not a REAL democratic state; it is a country which was established based on the Zionism as “a national country for the Jews around the world".

israel (like the uk) has no constitution, but it is obviously a democratic state, with freedom of religion, of the press, of assembly, of sexual orientation, etc, and with full and equal voting rights for all its citizens (and many arab members of parliament)

in what sense is that not democratic?

If you are not a Zionist, then you can not be a member in their Kennesite "Parliament"

… I have to admit that several of those Kennasite members are anti-Zionism

make up your mind!

 

[klimatos]

If you're suggesting the US would need an equal number of troops to fight the countries mentioned - I would disagree. This would also require an assumption that Iraqi forces would join the caliphate. I doubt there would be a reason to chase the standing armies of the aforementioned countries through mountain passes or extract them from civilian hideouts - would there? The challenge would more likely be terrorism.

We wouldn't be fighting troops. We would be fighting armed civilians just as we are now in Iraq and Afghanistan. And fighting against an armed invader of your country is not terrorism. Were the American irregulars who fought the Hessians in the Revolutionary War terrorists?

 

[LaurieAG]

uhh? did you just make that up?

no israeli pilots have ever been locked up for conscientiously refusing to fly missions with a high potential for civilian casualties

This is from the wiki link you posted tiny-tim, its from the 27 pilots' letter.

We, for whom the Israel Defense Forces and the Air Force are an inalienable part of ourselves, refuse to continue to harm innocent civilians.

They weren't locked up they were forced out.

In response, the Chief of Staff announced that the pilots would be grounded and will no longer be allowed to train cadets in the country's flight school

 

[tiny-tim]

I wonder how many Israeli airforce pilots are still locked up for conscientiously refusing to fly missions with a high potential for civilian casualties.

uhh? did you just make that up?

They weren't locked up they were forced out.

so you did make it up!

(oh, and of course they weren't forced out, they were transferred to non-combat roles)

 

[mheslep]

...
if you're so inclined, i'd also like to hear your opinion on why we should attack Iran.

From earlier:

...
...
I add last that I don't see, on balance, today, that a military attack on Iran to stop it from getting a weapon would be wise, effective, or warranted, but I don't come to that conclusion from pretending nothing bad can happen should Iran acquire a weapon, as Ron Paul suggests.

 

[Proton Soup]

thanks, mheslep

 

[scottbekerham]

Israel or US attack on iran would mean a catastrophe for Israel. Iran's missiles can easily reach israel and Iran has advanced military power . It's not like a war between Israel and Hamas . Israel will be very stpid to do an action like that.

 

[russ_watters]

Thread locked due to unacceptably low quality. Shoulda just let it die.