‘Israel to Give Obama 12 Hours Notice on Attacking Iran’

[SMOKE 1,426]

Why is it the U.S. has to care if Iran gets the bomb?

oil. can you imagine what will happen to energy prices if a hostile nutter in the region actually has the power to whipe out another counry out w/ nukes? just saber rattling would cause massive price spikes.

Edited January 27, 2012 by SMOKE

[웃 910]

oil. can you imagine what will happen to energy prices if a hostile nutter in the region actually has the power to whipe out another counry out w/ nukes? just saber rattling would cause massive price spikes.

No, just let them be. Whatever they do, whatever aid they give, whatever they buy, whoever they make war with...they need to sell oil to do it. they have NO other way to make money. Turmoil results in more oil sales and a drop in prices. During the Iran-Iraq war oil prices dropped to less than $10 per barrel after being as high as $50.

the THREAT of turmoil sends oil prices up but ACTUAL turmoil and war drop the prices right out the bottom. Bad news for Texas, which is why Bush supported the interventions.

Bring our troops home, we will buy their oil cheap so we can sell them bullets and rifles.

[SMOKE 1,426]

sorry. if iran decided to nuke saudi arabia...coz they're 'friendly' w/ the west. not start a shooting war. nuke them. oil prices would go threw the roof.

Edited January 27, 2012 by SMOKE

[Pooky 3,784]

So that they don't "accidentally" scuttle another US warship.

Israel made no bones about the attack on the USS Liberty in private to the US government. It was no accident that they took out the US intelligence gathering vessel, to avoid any information on their imminent Syrian attack being passed on, or falling into the wrong hands.

More interestingly, the US Navy had a carrier group within easy range for providing aerial cover the Israelis had no hope of matching. So why did President Johnson order it not to intervene?

Evidently Obama is not inclined to invade Iran, or he would have done it already.

Whether he wanted to, or not, the USA does not have the capability to mount an independent invasion of Iran, so your point is rather moot.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Whether he wanted to, or not, the USA does not have the capability to mount an independent invasion of Iran, so your point is rather moot.

The U.S. has far more capacity to launch an invasion of Iran than Israel does. That's why Netanyahu keeps pushing for it.

Sure it would bankrupt the U.S. even further, would have little chance of achieving the stated goals, and would cause terrible destruction to innocent people and lasting regional turmoil. Kind of like the war in Iraq. But that didn't stop a "right-minded" President.

[Pooky 3,784]

The U.S. has far more capacity to launch an invasion of Iran than Israel does.

But the USA still does not have the military capability to mount an independent invasion of Iran.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

But the USA still does not have the military capability to mount an independent invasion of Iran.

Sure it does.

But it wouldn't be successful, no doubt there.

[Pooky 3,784]

Sure it does.

But it wouldn't be successful, no doubt there.

Then it doesn't

Thanks for agreeing with me, even though you don't want to.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Pooky

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Then it doesn't

Thanks for agreeing with me, even though you don't want to.

What don't you understand about being able to launch an invasion, but not being able to make it successful (meet the stated goals of the invasion) ?

[Pooky 3,784]

What don't you understand about being able to launch an invasion, but not being able to make it successful (meet the stated goals of the invasion) ?

What don't you understand about not launching an invasion with no chance of success?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

What don't you understand about not launching an invasion with no chance of success?

You mean like Iraq or Afghanistan ?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You mean like Iraq or Afghanistan ?

Or Cuba

[Pooky 3,784]

You mean like Iraq or Afghanistan ?

Both were winnable. To a large extent, both have had favourable outcomes. Politics played an enormous role in handicapping the military's ability to reach complete success.

Iran is vastly different from either. And there is no chance for success, a fact clearly visible at the outset. The US military is facing swingeing cuts in materiel and manpower, announce in the recent defence budget. There is no way the USA could mount a successful independent invasion, against what would be a highly motivated and numerically superior opposition, even with a local base to stage a comprehensive air campaign.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Both were winnable. To a large extent, both have had favourable outcomes. Politics played an enormous role in handicapping the military's ability to reach complete success.

Iran is vastly different from either. And there is no chance for success, a fact clearly visible at the outset. The US military is facing swingeing cuts in materiel and manpower, announce in the recent defence budget. There is no way the USA could mount a successful independent invasion, against what would be a highly motivated and numerically superior opposition, even with a local base to stage a comprehensive air campaign.

Favorable outcomes ??? Iraq has been laid to waste; it's on the brink of disaster, heading toward civil war. Afghanistan is still in chaos.

Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were failures from the get go. And of course those countries weren't nearly as organized and advanced as Iran.

However (unfortunately) there are people who are stupid enough and/or arrogant enough to try to take the U.S. into a military confrontation with Tehran. Netanyahu figures anyone but Obama will do.

[Pooky 3,784]

Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were failures from the get go.

Blinkered as ever, I see.

Afghanistan - eliminate Al Qaeda training camps - done.

Iraq - remove Saddam Hussein - done.

It was only after these occurred that the politicians tried to lose both of them.