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

On July 25 2010 10:19 Bob300 wrote:

So once the Jews attack that they could go back and say that Israel attacked first and they wouldn't get in trouble.

On July 25 2010 02:24 KwarK wrote:

Russia is still in absolutely no position to be on anyones side in anything. Their economy is still not functioning after the turmoils of the 90s. Diplomatically their name is still worth something but they'd have trouble intervening in a war involving a great power, let alone a superpower.

On July 25 2010 10:05 KwarK wrote:

Democracy is not necessarily the same thing as pacifistic lol. That's a false conclusion.

On July 25 2010 10:28 Sfydjklm wrote:

Russia's economy is only not functioning on domestic level. Internationally disregarding Russian trade power is impossible- strictly because of how much oil/gas/valuable metals they export.
And obviously Russia has enough firepower to annihilate the planet, but thats an unlikely scenario, the military conflict would pretty much be carried out cold war style, and who knows how powerful russian intelligence is these days. It's likely to not be able to hold a candle to the US counterparts, but ignoring their actions perhaps would not be possible either.

On July 25 2010 10:39 KwarK wrote:

Nukes are worthless in a localised conflict and the Russian economy, while still impressive, is less capable than that of any Western power right now. Diplomatically they're a power but I would be extremely surprised if they thought it was a good idea to actually get into a conflict. They have nothing to gain and are in no position to throw shit away.

On July 25 2010 10:19 Elegy wrote:


Yes, because a House resolution is oh-so-binding, and a war with Iran would obviously mean a long-term occupation of the entire Iranian nation.

/sarcasm T_T

On July 25 2010 10:25 travis wrote:


ISRAELIS, NOT JEWS
ISRAELIS

that's like nigeria attacking a country and you saying "so once the blacks attack..."

On July 25 2010 18:49 wadadde wrote:

Don't be an idiot. The US wants to control Iran, because that would mean control of the oil + benifits for western (especially US ( 'defense' )) corporations. Iran isn't being branded as evil because it's an Islamic regime, or because it wants a nuclear deterrent (allegedly). It's being targeted ever since they overthrew the US-backed dictator in the seventies. Just like the situation with Cuba, it is true independance from the US (the freedom to disobey) that they want to destroy. Do you think the Iranians will freely elect a US stooge after they're bombed into submission? Dream on.
The US is a failed democracy because it allows corporations to 'influence' elections. There isn't as much as a membrane seperating the buisiness community from the congress (or the media for that matter). If you let the money machines run your country then it is hardly surprising that expansion and invester profits will be the drivers behind every single policy, except perhaps certain cultural policies that don't matter. Institutionalised election fraud, it's a bitch. Have some self-respect.
Israeli politics, but the way, is no longer very rational at all. It is a regime to be feared by its neighbours. If your more rational terror state allows its mad dogs to run wild, then the chances of war and every imaginable ensuing related misery will become likely. Anyone who gives a damn about peoples lives should be very worried about every step closer to war. Iran having nuclear weapons is also dangerous, but it's only more dangerous than the current situation if Israel remains committed to its rabid brand of foreign policy (= if the US lets them).

On July 25 2010 23:05 Sfydjklm wrote:
actually one of the things that make Iran so lucrative for the US is because they have large pro-western population. So it's hardly out of realm of possibility that a US-backed political figure will be elected if the war if fought with minimum casualties.

On July 25 2010 23:11 dybydx wrote:

but isnt the whole pt of democracy is for the ppl choose their own representatives?

if some foreign entity is going to put someone in charge to ensure their own interests how is this different from colonialism?

....our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Since the days of Halaka your city and your lands have been subject to the tyranny of strangers, your palaces have fallen into ruins, your gardens have sunk in desolation, and your forefathers and yourselves have groaned in bondage. Your sons have been carried off to wars not of your seeking, your wealth has been stripped from you by unjust men and squandered in distant places.

On July 26 2010 00:20 Sfydjklm wrote:
the iranian unrest of last year was caused by elections being rigged. So it's a grey-territory question.
One can describe it as a semi-democracy aimed at creating a full-fledged democratic state in the future.

On July 25 2010 23:05 Sfydjklm wrote:

actually one of the things that make Iran so lucrative for the US is because they have large pro-western population. So it's hardly out of realm of possibility that a US-backed political figure will be elected if the war if fought with minimum casualties.

On July 25 2010 19:11 wadadde wrote:

Hmmm, you've got a point, but aren't Palestinians still in reality a part of Israel.. shouldn't the people who live in a country be referred to as inhabitants of that country regardless of whether they are second class citizens in their second class territories. "Jews" isn't perfect, but I wonder why you don't see a problem with "Israelis"... Also, it's not the palestinian population, or any other ethnic or religious super-minority within the first class territories that will initiate or support any attack, right? How about Israeli jews? Too long? Ah, fuck it, just say jews if the context clearly suggests that you mean Israeli jews. Or should I have screamed that shit at the top of my e-lungs?

On July 26 2010 01:12 wadadde wrote:

How is the war going to be fought with minimal casualties? You're talking about the Iraq plan here.. You can't fight a proud people (even a somewhat disgruntled people) and expect them to do nothing...to cheer while their brother or mother is being burried, their city lies in ruin, etc. The only way to achieve a 'clean' victory is to convince the current rulers that resistance is futile and even then the government would have to sell out the sovereignty of their own people. This is fantasy-land stuff. Armed islamists will just move or spread to the streets of Iran and there's no way America can occupy 3 countries at once. War is misery and democracy is a fickle beast. I'm not saying that the war can't be won, I'm just saying that the plans would be full of holes. Israel doesn't care about controlling the oil though.. so I'm only affraid that the US will use Israel to (help) bomb Iran and that there's going to be very little follow-up. It's way to early to try the Iraq experiment again... Americans wouldn't put up with yet another huge long-term investment.

On July 26 2010 01:41 travis wrote:


Let's think about this for a bit here.

so, your argument is that calling them "israelis" doesn't make sense because palestinians are also israelis(not worth arguing). that doesn't make any sense at all. if they are also israelis then what is the problem with calling them israelis. saying "the israelis attack" says absolutely nothing about what % of the country is for or against that attack.


"the japanese attacked china"

"the germans attacked russia"

"the persians attacked sparta"

do any of those statements talk about how much support there is for the attack? or talk about the ethnicities within the countries?

Every single person of minority in the U.S. could have against for the war in Iraq and every single white person could have been for it but people would still say "when the U.S. attacked..." or "when america attacked...". They wouldn't say "when the whites attacked", because that's racist. There are white people outside of america.

I was talking about differentiating between ethnicity/race and nationality - because to not do so is racist.

On July 26 2010 01:57 Sfydjklm wrote:

a revolution based invasion is one way to make the casualties minimum.
But I don't have much faith in it. When was the last time a large country has displayed any brilliant strategy?