Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran

news24 said:
You are being a tool.

Our country and others refused to grant NATO the blessings because of what transpired in Libyia. NATO asked to implant no flying zone over Libya which the majority of UN members agreed was a good idea, but NATO went beyond it's mandate and became a tool for regime change with might. They bombed the he'll out of Libya even months after it's air defended had collapsed completely.

So what will be thier excuse this time in Syria? No flying zone? That's what you get when you are not being up front about your intentions and the ask support of other countries.
Click to expand...

And yet despite all the terrible things that happened in Libya, I tend to think the people are better off.

Also what you say is not strictly true, south africa with the other security council members voted in UN resolution 1973 which among other things also called for a no fly zone.

The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter:

>demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
>imposes a no-fly zone over Libya;
>authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force";
>strengthens the arms embargo and particularly action against mercenaries, by allowing for forcible inspections of ships and planes;
>imposes a ban on all Libyan-designated flights;
>imposes an asset freeze on assets owned by the Libyan authorities, and reaffirms that such assets should be used for the benefit of the Libyan people;
>extends the travel ban and assets freeze of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 to a number of additional individuals and Libyan entities;
>establishes a panel of experts to monitor and promote sanctions implementation
Click to expand...

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973

The members on the security council knew exactly what they were voting in and statements to the contrary I believe are/were just to show solidarity with Gaddafi, also note not one member of the security council opposed the motion {through 5 did abstain}
 
Well, well, well... http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/08/world/meast/iran-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

IAEA said:
"The agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," the report said. "After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device."
Click to expand...

I believe we'll see an Israeli strike very soon now.
 
I want a GTI said:
Can't wait.
Click to expand...

No one is going to attack anyone... Nobody develops nuclear weapons with the intention of ever using them. It's merely for political leverage... Israeli's won't want to start a war either man!!! What they will be doing is refining their missile defense systems...
 
marine1 said:
The world actually does need it. It would be far worse to have them nuclear.
Click to expand...

Fair emuff, where do I sign up....??

[video=youtube;5BcMof_kwNk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BcMof_kwNk&feature=related[/video]
 
marine1 said:
Same, at least we can agree on this :D. Israel will show the Arab world once again
Click to expand...

Question... if you read a newspaper headline which said "Israel slaughters 100 street kids for no good reason" and the article is proven as being factual.

Would you still act like a sheep and continue to endorse Israel simply because they are Israel and you clearly dislike the "Arab world" ?
 
Marine how many people with half a brain believed the same prior to the iraq invasion. I reckon some still believe that story.

The report is poor actually, basically iran has no bomb nor can they build one so I was wrong I thought it would be worse than it is. They cannot launch an attack based on that report. Its looking more and more like a big terror attack will be needed within the US or israel and then place the blame on iran. Russia and china will veto more santions and an attack.
 
Cloudster said:
Question... if you read a newspaper headline which said "Israel slaughters 100 street kids for no good reason" and the article is proven as being factual.

Would you still act like a sheep and continue to endorse Israel simply because they are Israel and you clearly dislike the "Arab world" ?
Click to expand...
Tell me do you bother to read my posts? I condemn where they act illegally. Go and read before making foolish statements
 
killadoob said:
Marine how many people with half a brain believed the same prior to the iraq invasion. I reckon some still believe that story.

The report is poor actually, basically iran has no bomb nor can they build one so I was wrong I thought it would be worse than it is. They cannot launch an attack based on that report. Its looking more and more like a big terror attack will be needed within the US or israel and then place the blame on iran. Russia and china will veto more santions and an attack.
Click to expand...

If the IDF turn the Nuclear plants into craters and Iran retaliates with a terror attack, would that be justified?
 
sandmanm34 said:
No one is going to attack anyone... Nobody develops nuclear weapons with the intention of ever using them. It's merely for political leverage... Israeli's won't want to start a war either man!!! What they will be doing is refining their missile defense systems...
Click to expand...

I'm aware that it won't be a nuclear war. I don't get how people go on with phrases like "nuke them" and nuke this and that.

Nevertheless, this war will happen sooner or later. Conventional warfare.
 
Fudzy said:
If the IDF turn the Nuclear plants into craters and Iran retaliates with a terror attack, would that be justified?
Click to expand...

Yup if they start a war they must not use the term terror attack if iran hits them back.

Totally justified although folks like marine won't agree and will call it a terror attack because they don't know the difference between terror and war anymore. If you bomb a county without cause then expect to get hit and don't come with terror attack rubbish either.

A question I have been wondering. If they do bomb the nuke sites what are the chances of a melt down? Would they effectively be nuking iran?
 
Fudzy said:
If the IDF turn the Nuclear plants into craters and Iran retaliates with a terror attack, would that be justified?
Click to expand...

A terror attack directed at military targets yes. A terror attack directed at civilians no.
 
marine1 said:
Tell me do you bother to read my posts? I condemn where they act illegally. Go and read before making foolish statements
Click to expand...

Interesting that you condemn when they act illegally. The question is, (i) What do you regard as illegal and which set of laws or conventions do you use as a reference point?

(ii) Does the International Court of Justice, the legal arm of the United Nations, hold any credibility in your eyes?

(iii) Do you consider the acquisition of territory by means of military conquest as illegal?
 
Last edited:
marine1 said:
Tell me do you bother to read my posts? I condemn where they act illegally. Go and read before making foolish statements
Click to expand...

Direct me to where you condemned an action by Israel.

And answer the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X