No we wouldn't use chemical weapons.
We would just use bullets and bombs
Israel 🇮🇱 State of Israel Thread
- Thread starter 49ersfootball
- Start date
We would just use bullets and bombs
1.Becouse after taking with USA ambassador he get that impression.I dunno,if USA official was incopetent or provoked Saddam.
2.Muslims do not destroyed christians there from 650AD,only those who american invasion made powerfull.And Syria was attacked by USA,too - but luckily for christians there,USA lost.
3.Which mean - USA helped islamist remove alawites.Luckilly for everyone,and partially thanks to Iran help,USA failed convert another country into muslim hellhole.
4.But Turkey wont conflict with Iran.They are stronger,and USA and Izrael still are attacking Iran.Who is helping rebels among iranian turkish tribes ? all of those 3 countries.And only turks would profit from that.
And the fastest Saudi go down,the better for everybody.
5.USA in 1956 do not fought soviets,even when they butchered Hungary.They together was taking down colonial empires.
So,Egypt do not betrayed anybody,becouse USA and soviets acted as friends in those times.
6.Both USA and Izrael hurt Iran first - so they have right to hate them.
And i do not say to not support anybody - only not support those who massacre local christians,who lived there from Apostols times.It is really so much for USA ?
Or Saddam was an idiot who saw what he wanted to see. Considering his other decisions, that is not an unlikely option.
They destroyed them locally from time to time, and usually treated them as second class citizens. So its not such a big change to outright kicking them out.
It still was and is a hellhole of a different classic kind.
That's an insanely wide statement and you know it. If Saudis go down, they will go down either to ISIL-likes of some kind or Iran. And both are crazy islamists, while Sauds are just typical banana republic royalty who pretend to be crazy islamists for popularity.
They had no way to do anything about Hungary without starting WW3. Yes, USA were not huge fans of colonial empires, and they had their reasons.
And that is exactly how they did betray USA. They double dipped support and then told one side to fuck off. That's who got betrayed.
Did they? USA was massively supporting Iran, they still use the top tier aircraft from that time. Iran is one thing, Shia islamists are another, Shah treated them like shit, alongside commies, but then again, that was not entirely undeserved either.
But USA didn't massacre them, islamists did. There were always islamists in Middle East since Islam exists.
USA just fucked up in suppressing them half-assedly.
1.Idiot would not remain alive there.He attacked Kuwait only becouse after taking with USA ambassador was sure,that they do not react.
2.Treating christians as second class is muslim norm.Yet they lived in Iraq - till USA invasion in 2003.
3.In Syria christians could still live as second class citizen,just like everybody who is not alavite.In Iraq there is no more christians.
4.In Iran christians live as second class citizens,and womans still have lesser then man rights.Saudi murder christians,and let womans treat as cattle.
5.Yes,they could.USA could burn soviets,soviets could not burn USA.And soviets knew that.If USA wonted save Hungary,they would do that.If they cared about USA future,they would provoke war over Hungary to burn soviets before they could do that to USA,not caring about Hungary fate.
They did nothing.Only thanks to Reagan and soviets leaders lack of faith USA survived.
And USA prefered soviets to colonial empires - which mean they helped replace unjust states into soviet hellholes.
6.And how it hurt USA? when Izrael allied with Putin now could cost USA war.
7.Shah was prosecuting muslims,not islamists.and paid for that.
8.Yes,USA even have no guts to massacre christians personally.They removed/or tried remove/ people who let them live and gave power to those who wonted them death.7 year old child could quess how it would end.
And if they do not knew in Iraq,they certainly knew in Syris - and still tried the same.
No, he was an idiot who heard what he wanted to hear. There are even transcripts available.
US Ambassador: Diplomatically states that USA is trying to be neutral on their border dispute, but they are concerned about the force buildup and would like to ask their intentions.
Saddam: They clearly have no problem with me using these forces to invade Kuwait and won't do anything about it!
No, until rise of ISIL.
Not all.
Christianity in Iraq - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Christianity in Syria - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Unlikely.
Pentagon Slams Door On Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Transparency - Federation of American Scientists
The Pentagon has decided not to disclose the current number of nuclear weapons in the Defense Department’s nuclear weapons stockpile. The decision, which came as a denial of a request from FAS’s Steven Aftergood for declassification of the 2018 nuclear weapons stockpile number, reverses the U.S...
fas.org
What did Soviets have? Number wise they had warheads in mere hundreds, but they probably could hurt USA back, and absolutely wreck Europe, they had this 3 MT thermonuclear bomb since 1955, deliverable by Tu-16 bomber.
RDS-37 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So sure, USA probably could have won the nuclear war with losing only about few dozens of cities.
Europe would have been a nuclear wasteland, especially the border area between west and east, to stop the Soviet conventional forces, and pretty much make taking over any countries logistically impossible.
How would that have helped Hungary?
Egypt could close Suez Canal in case of WW3, especially if USA did not react to it by supporting Israel to threaten Egypt into not doing that freely.
Shah was a Muslim himself too. Of course islamists didn't think he was religious enough.
The Islamic State has arisen during Obama term. Same people who did Libya, the stupid Iran deal, the Russia reset, and cheered on Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt. Yes, a child making random decisions by throwing a coin would do better than a bunch of anticolonialist leftists.
Last edited:
A recent IDF/US marines training session:
No, he was an idiot who heard what he wanted to hear. There are even transcripts available.
US Ambassador: Diplomatically states that USA is trying to be neutral on their border dispute, but they are concerned about the force buildup and would like to ask their intentions.
Saddam: They clearly have no problem with me using these forces to invade Kuwait and won't do anything about it!
No, until rise of ISIL.
Not all.
Christianity in Iraq - Wikipedia
300 to 900k out of 1.2m also left Syria, so its not much better there.Christianity in Syria - Wikipedia
Unlikely.
We're talking about 2500 mostly simple warheads that have to be delivered by freefall bomb.Pentagon Slams Door On Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Transparency - Federation of American Scientists
The Pentagon has decided not to disclose the current number of nuclear weapons in the Defense Department’s nuclear weapons stockpile. The decision, which came as a denial of a request from FAS’s Steven Aftergood for declassification of the 2018 nuclear weapons stockpile number, reverses the U.S...
What did Soviets have? Number wise they had warheads in mere hundreds, but they probably could hurt USA back, and absolutely wreck Europe, they had this 3 MT thermonuclear bomb since 1955, deliverable by Tu-16 bomber.
RDS-37 - Wikipedia
So sure, USA probably could have won the nuclear war with losing only about few dozens of cities.
Europe would have been a nuclear wasteland, especially the border area between west and east, to stop the Soviet conventional forces, and pretty much make taking over any countries logistically impossible.
How would that have helped Hungary?
Egypt could close Suez Canal in case of WW3, especially if USA did not react to it by supporting Israel to threaten Egypt into not doing that freely.
Shah was a Muslim himself too. Of course islamists didn't think he was religious enough.
The Islamic State has arisen during Obama term. Same people who did Libya, the stupid Iran deal, the Russia reset, and cheered on Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt. Yes, a child making random decisions by throwing a coin would do better than a bunch of anticolonialist leftists.
1.If USA wonted stop him,they would told him that attacking Kuwait means war.
2.Wiki you take told that arabs start attacking christian in 2003 in Iraq,and they fled then.Those who survived live in Kurdistan.
3.Goverment of Syria saved christians where they could.And now it is 50%,not 10% like in Iraq - and in Iraq all survivors are in part not controlled by Iraq goverment,but Kurds.
4.Soviets in 1961 had 30 missiles capable of hitting USA.In 1956 - certainly less.So,USA would lost top 10 cities.Soviets knew that - so,if USA wonted Hungary safe,they would delivered ultimatum.And soviet would stop,just like they stopped in 1961 without war.If USA cared about Hungary.
5.If USA cared about USA,they would use Hungary as pretext and start war.Europe would burn,as well as 10 american cities - but soviets would cease to exist.
Remember,that soviet wonted conqer entire world,not mere Europe.As long as soviet state existed,USA was in danger.
Only reason why USA do not get burned later - soviet leaders cease to belive in their own shit,and when faced with starting war in which they die or soviet collapse,they choosen collapse.
Lenin,Sralin,Kruszczow - they all would choose mutual anihilation.Becouse they belived.
6.What WW3? till Reagan presidency USA cooperated with soviets.Soviets would simply take country from within,just like their useful idiots did now.
7.Iranian are shia muslim,and shah really was more iranian nationalist then beliver.
8.Agree.With one exception - with turkey going ottomans again,attacking Iran is stupid.we need them to fight turks.Persia never invaded Europe,but turks did so.Unless we wont Vienna battle 3,somebody must fight them on their borders.
Iran is only candidate now.
American diplomats don't talk openly like that, for better and for worse. And it only gets worse with them since then.
Of course they didn't live there when Kurdistan was being gassed.
But now they would rather live with Kurds than the Arab neighbors who wanted to attack them but didn't while the dictator was keeping a boot on everyone's necks equally.
Implying Assad gives a damn. Manpower is manpower, as long as its more loyal to him than to islamists.
That was still the age of "bombers will always get through". Soviets had some bombers, and in nuclear war, they need to get through only once. Even 50% attrition per mission is acceptable.
My point exactly. It is perfectly in line with western attitudes now and then. They cared more about western Europe not being nuked into ruin than symbolically helping Hungarian opposition (in the end the war, fallout and resulting famine would kill way more Hungarians and even more other people than the crackdown anyway).
And they have correctly identified that time is on the west's side. If it wasn't, then your solution would have had a much better argument for it.
It wouldn't have helped USA's internal security anyway.
Yes, and? Yet still the nationalists are the more "rational" political faction in Iran, but they aren't in charge now.
Be realistic about Turkey. Its a second rate power with failing economy. Most of their tanks are even more obsolete than our T-72 junkyard. If they don't ally with Russia or take Arab's oil to shore up their economy, they won't get anywhere, and Russia is not desperate enough to let Turkey take the Balkan countries that are Russia's buddies.
Meanwhile if Iran takes Arab's oil, they will be just as dangerous as Neo-Ottomans would be after doing the same. Either way Europe would be hit by an Arab refugee even bigger than the last one.
Hence USA rationally wants Arabs to keep holding the oil under western protection.
History Learner
Well-known member
You mean inventions like the Russians inventing graphene or the original active protection system? How about the Chinese leading the way in green energy, with the worlds largest sea based solar panel for example? First quantum based satellite? The list goes on and on.
]
Joint Israel-UAE Mission Rescued Dozens of Afghan Women, Human Rights Activists From Kabul - Algemeiner.com
International efforts to rescue vulnerable Afghans after the country's takeover by the Taliban included the first-ever joint aid mission between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, almost one year after the two nations normalized ties. The operation brought 41 Kabul Afghans — including human...www.algemeiner.com
Israel Aids U.S. Campaign in Iraq
Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
Israeli Drones Support U.S. Operations in Kosovo
Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.The Gulf War
Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.
So you admit the Israelis don’t aid us in our campaigns? I asked you where the Israeli contingents in Afghanistan and Iraq were and your response Is to post about them aiding Afghan refugees lol? Lithuania is a better ally than Israel at this point.
You have yet to establish that all, besides attempting to gaslight it into existence here.
49ersfootball
Well-known member
I see things have escalated on this thread 😕
VictortheMonarch
Victor the Crusader
It seems to have derailed over whether the Shah was Islamic or a false believer.
Let talk about Hungary and prospect of war in 1956 elsywhere,and how USA helped massacre christian in Iraq by remowing Saddam.
Here - talk about Izrael stupidity in attacking Iran,when it is in conflict with Turkey which is stronger.When you attack weaker fighter,stronger would finish him.And what then?
Turkey not only hold of part of Europe once,they hold Palestine,too .
And unless arabs have good army.Let assume,that Syria fallen.Turkey take them,then Lebannon,and could retake Jerusalem.
Remember,that they not only did genocide in past,they are no shy to do that again.This time victims could be jews.
So,Izrael,if have smart leaders,would not antagonize Iran now.They need somebody strong to fight turks,and Iran is only candidate there.
Turkey:
1. Isn't going for nukes.
2. Isn't bordering Israel.
3, There's 50/50 chance that Turkey will choke (economically or politically) on trying to take over Arab countries.
So Israel is perfectly happy to let them be angry at them... as long as they do it from far away.
There is also still a chance that wannabe Sultan loses power at some point and another government not interested in simping for islamists will take over again.
If that would happen, Israel will be Turkey's ally again.
If that happens, Israel is going to start taking them seriously. But at the moment, it's Iran who is closer to taking over Lebanon and Syria both. Israel already had major fights with Iran's proxy in Lebanon - Hezbollah. They are also getting shot at with a lot of rockets made in Iran, and none made in Turkey.
"Did a genocide or wish they could" is a pretty apt description for all of Israel's neighbors.
They have no choice in that matter. Iran needs to be visibly antagonistic to Israel just to support its imperial ambitions, as that gives them public support with "Arab Street", and if they do a good job it humiliates the Arab leaders who are expected to do it by their people but don't.
Its pretty much the same for Erdogan, except he has a slightly easier job because he's a fellow Sunni.
King Arts
Well-known member
Iran does not need to antagonize Israel for its Imperial ambitions yet. They do it because they are aggressive Islamists. If they were a rational Zoroastrian state that wanted to gobble up Iraq and was working on nukes slowly they could be friendly with Israel.
It is a "soft" need, but it certainly helps their political efforts all over the region, especially in future plans to co-opt at least some Sunni islamists. Perhaps even convert them. After all, if they do a better job pursuing the islamist causes than the Sunnis, that in fact is going to mean quite a bit in these circles.
VictortheMonarch
Victor the Crusader
I swear, the more I think on it, it seems that those of faith and grace to their god are catching up to us. Damned that election for giving us a sinful and depraved government.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Huh, missed this one somehow.
Also, y'know, Graphene occurs in nature, it was not invented by Russians. It's simply single-atom-thick layers of graphite, the stuff in every pencil. It was isolated in 2004 in Manchester England, coincidentally not a part of Russia, but the scientists who did the isolating had Russian ancestry, which I guess in your mind means Israel isn't doing medical research? Something like that maybe? Honestly, I have no idea where you're going with it, just that you're both wrong factually and even if you were right, it wouldn't support your claims anyway, I don't believe anybody thinks all research whatsoever comes from Israel.
That's a pretty bizarre goalpost shift you've made there, along with some factual errors. We started at "What does Israel provide the US?" and now somehow you're saying their varied contributions don't count if any other nation apparently does... anything at all. I mean, how on earth does Russia developing an APS they deployed on Russian tanks benefit the US as much as an Israeli system deployed on American tanks?
Also, y'know, Graphene occurs in nature, it was not invented by Russians. It's simply single-atom-thick layers of graphite, the stuff in every pencil. It was isolated in 2004 in Manchester England, coincidentally not a part of Russia, but the scientists who did the isolating had Russian ancestry, which I guess in your mind means Israel isn't doing medical research? Something like that maybe? Honestly, I have no idea where you're going with it, just that you're both wrong factually and even if you were right, it wouldn't support your claims anyway, I don't believe anybody thinks all research whatsoever comes from Israel.
No, I've established it quite well. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make the facts quit existing.
1.Turkey is in Syria,just like Iran.Unless Iranian,do not fought ISIS,but Kurds.And i bet that they trying to get nukes.If you belive that they become cyvilized,why not treat Iran the same ?
2.Even when Izrael steal more arab land ,Hezbollah used less then 10% of their rockets.Why? becouse Izrael is not major enemy for them.
3.Arab actually never genocided anybody.Enslaved and murdered some - yes,genocided - no.The same goes for Iranian.Only turks did so.
4.Iran,as shia,would be never supported by sunni.So,they could forget that.And do not get beaten by turks is for them more important,especially when turkish tribes living in Iran are supported by Erdogan.
If both sides were equally strong,Izrael should just sit and eat popcorn.When Iran is weaker,they should help them,not fight.Otherwise - they could be under turks again.
@King Arts - rational zoroastrian taken Jeruzalem and enslaved christian there in 614AD.With jewish help.
They took a border area tens of kilometers wide, due to their own toruble with them. Iran has its hands all over the whole place, with tens of thousands of Hezbollah fighters, IRGC, plus economic and political influence.
How? When?
No one cares if they are civilized or not, nevermind the differing definitions of that, what everyone cares about is what they are doing.
On that account Turkey is much less of a threat to Israel than Iran.
If they start doing different things, they probably will reevaluate.
And?
Shitty rockets with the deployment tactics they have are terror weapons. They are hardly anything by the standards of industrialized armies with batteries of truck mounted Grads, so what they have is of minimal military use. It is a terror weapon for them, and a terror weapon's job is to inspire terror. If they fire them off, they do very little, kill few hapless civilians, get them airstrike'd, but after the weapons are spent, they no longer can inspire terror. They do that best when they are kept ready and their use can be threatened regularly.
Not only they have, its a recent one.
Darfur genocide - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Iran: The 1988 Massacre Of Political Prisoners Amounts To Genocide - NCRI
In a conference coinciding with the 33rd anniversary of the 1988 massacre of political prisoners in Iran, more than 1,000 political prisoners and witnesses of torture in prisons and dungeons of the clerical regime demanded an end to the impunity enjoyed by the regime leaders and to prosecute...
www.ncr-iran.org
Twitter execs refused Israel’s request to remove Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei tweets
Twitter executives last month rebuffed a request from the Israeli government to remove tweets from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for the genocide of the Israeli people …
nypost.com
Yes, its a tough one, but common hatred of Israel is something they have in common with Sunnis, so they are going with that.
When Turkey has its own Hezbollah on their borders and becomes the main sponsor of Palestinian terrorists, they will certainly worry about Turkey becoming too much of a pain for them. As for now, that's Iran.