Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iran - Pag…

On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote:
I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon

On July 20 2010 14:36 Illusion. wrote:

give me an example of these "Atrocities" your making yourself sound like a neo-nazi.

On July 20 2010 14:36 Illusion. wrote:

give me an example of these "Atrocities" your making yourself sound like a neo-nazi.

On July 20 2010 14:53 KissBlade wrote:
Bullying or not, just because the US happens to own nukes doesn't mean other countries should. The less that owns them, the better, since all it really takes is one person in charge to decide to make that "crazy" decision. You are trying to argue a case of "ethics" in international politics, which is flawed in and by itself. Ethically, I don't support a fuck ton that this country is doing but as a citizen, boy am I glad it's following through with them since it benefits this country and by extension, me.

However, I fail to see how Saudi Arabia giving Israel clear skies to attack Iran is a positive thing for us. As many have mentioned, we are already carrying flak for the support of Israel and I'm not sure how playing out another Middle Eastern conflict is good for our interests. Israel can only play the "preemptive strike defense" card for so long.

On July 20 2010 14:58 KwarK wrote:
Given Israel's history I don't think it's at all unreasonable for Israel to maintain that if its neighbours ever got another chance they'd act to wipe Israel out. They've tried it several times already. The only thing that keeps the peace is that history suggests Israel would win which would just be embarrassing. So on the contrary, the longer Israel keeps doing pre-emptive strikes the better. By maintaining a strong defence Israel stops the Middle East from imploding.

On July 20 2010 15:00 FindingPride wrote:
doesnt matter how UN really feels about israel.
U.S controls the world as is.

On July 20 2010 15:06 dybydx wrote:

the US is here to bring you democracy. and they wont take "no" for an answer.

On July 20 2010 14:39 Elegy wrote:
Blatant violation of international law as it pertains to settlements in occupied territories,

denial of humanitarian aid in many cases (as certified by Amnesty),

On July 20 2010 15:09 kzn wrote:


I would like to stress, once again, the ludicrous nature of the very concept of "international law". Law requires authority to back it. There is no authority that can "legitimately" claim the right to enforce international law, nor is there an authority that even has the strength to stand up to Israel that actually wants to do so.

There are no laws in war, and Israel is in a war, no matter what idealists say.



Because Amnesty international is a completely unbiased source whose word is gospel, right?

There's as much evidence for the "aid" that was denied being military in nature as there is against it.

On July 20 2010 15:12 afg-warrior wrote:
your right there is no international law...i never really believed in it either. its just something the powerful use against their weaker enemies when its convenient...it works one way only really

On July 21 2010 03:52 ImFromPortugal wrote:
"Russia dismisses Iran, insists pending missile deliveries covered by sanctions (AP)"

so Iran is still vulnerable to any aistrike, the S-300 promised by Russia long ago are not going to be delivered, now the Russian say its because of the sanctions but the deal was made long before any of this happened. The s-300 would boost iranians defense capabilities and make any airstrike by Usa or Israel even more difficult.

"The S-300 is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems currently fielded [2]. Its radars have the ability to simultaneously track up to 100 targets while engaging up to 12."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrGHGOGmL-8&feature=related

On July 21 2010 04:17 sikyon wrote:


That's good. The delivery of the S-300 system was what was most likely to percipitate war, since Isreal does not have access to F-22 or B-2 bomber. F-35 stealth is a crapshot.

In any event, I think that people are too hard on Isreal's strategies and tactics. Look at it this way. If one day a bunch of people from Mexico started lobbing rockets over the US border at US cities, the US would say "WTF YOU STOP THAT RIGHT NOW MEXICO"

If it happened again the US would say "THAT'S IT YOU RETARDS" and invade mexico to take control of the situation. But of course when Isreal does it everyone says "noooooooo it's been going on for decades, you doing stuff now is out of proportion!"

I mean, Iran having nukes would be like Cuba having nukes - a hostile nation (Except I think Iran is much more hostile to Isreal than Cuba is to the US) next door that repeatedly said they wanted to wipe you off the map.

I'm in Canada, and I for one welcome our (old) American overlords!

On July 20 2010 14:36 Jollyburner wrote:


lol @ this...

cmon dude, really? were going to war with iran. its going to be somewhere between bad and nuclear holocaust.

ill bet any1 cold hard $$ were (USA + friends) at war with iran within 3 years. ill give 3:1. ill give 1:1 its within 18 months.

On July 21 2010 04:49 fellcrow wrote:

I'll take that bet at 1:1 odds with USA + friends, which means what exactly. UN involvement. 2+ countries that we have good relations with at time of war decleration? How much you thinking about betting?