monty16 Posted June 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) Let's clear this up, no nation with nuclear weapons will attack another that has nuclear weapons. Pretty damn obvious isn't it. The only possibility would be a nuclear attack on a nation that has recently obtained it's nuclear deterrant to outside aggression. But that phase passes very quickly and even North Korea is now immune to US attack. Bullies are nearly always cowards but bullies also know that a revenge strike on their soil with a nuclear weapon is just out of the question. It's interesting though to try to understand why Army Guy would want to argue that? I think it might be a reluctance to give up the notion of the US losing it's image of being invulnerable. His example of Israel was a rather dishonest way of attempting to prove this point because he can't bring himself to concede the point. Small countries with little in the way of effective conventional weapons and no nuclear weapons will obviously continue to strike out against the nuclear powers. They too understand the dynamics of it and know that being a small player gains them immunity from a revenge nuclear strike by a major nuclear power. That is obviously because of the badge of dishonour that comes with any nuclear armed country resorting to nuclear weapons. In a way, it's been the saving grace for Iran because the US understands it would be opening Pandora's box. It doesn't want to be seen as the great satan that initiated a nuclear war. And especially so Israel, because if no nation thinks it can get away with nuking the Zionist scourge, both Israel and others completely understand that if Israel resorts to a nuclear strike, it's toast. And so, the great equalizer. Nuclear weapons have become our saviour in many ways and so many times over the years since the US resorted to nukes. The US understands very well that no matter how powerful it becomes, it can never fulfill it's goal of world domination by resorting to it's only real and meaningful "Weapons of Mass Destruction." It's exactly the opposite for the US now. A nuclear strike against it is certain and in my opinion, dead certain within perhaps 30 years or less. And then, the real downside for the US is going to be deciding which of it's many victims struck back in revenge and who they will choose to destroy to get even. Edited June 17, 2014 by monty16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 Both of you just don't get it....Why would the US use nuclear wpns to fight another nation, when it can accomplish it's goals with conventional wpns a thousand times over....US has spent countless Bils on missle defense just for this one reason. to counter a small nuclear attack from a rougue nation such as Iran, North korea etc Iran does not have a nuclear wpn as of yet, and does not have the means to place it on US soil....even if Iran had a nuclear wpn, at most it would give the US time to pause and figure out how to eliminate this threat via conventional means....If you think Iran will breath a sign of relief once they have a couple of wpns your wrong there still remains the possiablity of military action" the Game as you say will be still on.... What would give the US the most concern would be if they used a nuclear device on their own soil to disrupt a US conventional attack....while Iran is crazy, not sure how far they would go...but i would assume finding Iranian Nuclear wpns would be the first and formost mission of US military....Same with North Korea if there was a cause to attack the north then they would.... With such a massive Conventional military force how could you discount this option.... As for my Israelis example you are under the impresion that both wars were a piece of cake for Israel, you might want to check out some history, Israel got very lucky in the last war they faught.....and you totally threw out the falkland war as an example.... Just because a nuclear nation has not attacked another has not happened as of yet....does not mean it will never happen.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) "Irrational regimes" like Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear arms and it is a mistake to think Tehran's ambitions can be contained, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on U.S. television. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/11/us-nuclear-iran-netanyahu-idUSTRE66A1FI20100711 "So when the president (Obama) says that he's determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and that all options are on the table, I think that's the right statement of policy." http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/11/us-nuclear-iran-netanyahu-idUSTRE66A1FI20100711 President Obama told the crowd that "diplomacy backed by pressure" could succeed. He added that, "Iran's leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." http://www.cfr.org/iran/candidates-us-iran-policy/p26798?cid=ppc-Google-issue_tracker-president_on_iran&gclid=COStsorT_r4CFXMR7AodQF0A1A During that debate, Romney stated that it was "unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon," and referenced the range of economic, diplomatic, and military measures he would employ to deter Tehran. "If you'd like me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon," he said. http://www.cfr.org/iran/candidates-us-iran-policy/p26798?cid=ppc-Google-issue_tracker-president_on_iran&gclid=COStsorT_r4CFXMR7AodQF0A1A And your right maybe some people within Iran are reasonable, but here is some world leaders that think a little differently, they either think Iran and it's leadership is a little whacked....or they agree that perhaps Iran is not ready for a nuk wpn..... Bibi's words have no weight or credibility. He is just a slimey salesman who has been crying about how Iran is a few months away from nuclear weapons since the early 90's. The rest of the quotes you have posted do not discount what I posted earlier, which is that the Iranians are not 'crazy' or irrational. The truth is that you cannot have a militarily aggressive country like Israel, who is not willing to sign the NPT or allow inspections of their nuclear weapons and expect its neighbours to sit silent. Threats and sanctions did not stop Iran's nuclear program. It increased it. We're now seeing that negotiations and engagement are doing a lot more than the other approach. Perhaps the U.S. has learned that bullying and threats and Israel's policy of no engagement is not the way to go. Obama has done the right thing by abandoning Bibi's approach, which had become U.S. policy towards Iran. Edited June 18, 2014 by marcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 Bibi's words have no weight or credibility. He is just a slimey salesman who has been crying about how Iran is a few months away from nuclear weapons since the early 90's. The rest of the quotes you have posted do not discount what I posted earlier, which is that the Iranians are not 'crazy' or irrational. The truth is that you cannot have a militarily aggressive country like Israel, who is not willing to sign the NPT or allow inspections of their nuclear weapons and expect its neighbours to sit silent. Threats and sanctions did not stop Iran's nuclear program. It increased it. We're now seeing that negotiations and engagement are doing a lot more than the other approach. Perhaps the U.S. has learned that bullying and threats and Israel's policy of no engagement is not the way to go. Obama has done the right thing by abandoning Bibi's approach, which had become U.S. policy towards Iran. I think Israel has the most to lose here, regardless who is in power ...for them it is life and death... While what they have said does not come out and say Iran is a whacky state, why is all of them say Iran is not going to get Nuclear wpns period....all opitions are on the table....if Iran was a cool calm memeber of the world then why not....and yet the world has spoken and said no ...why ? is it deep down they think Iran is whacked and is not to be trusted with a Nuclear wpn...Why is Iran not able to obtain a Nuclear wpn, while the world stood by and allowed India, Pakistan.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 Both of you just don't get it....Why would the US use nuclear wpns to fight another nation, when it can accomplish it's goals with conventional wpns a thousand times over.... So why would anyone use one? Which is different from the need of possessing one as a deterrent. Go toe to toe with another nation owning nuclear weapons. Let's see how that pans out. WEAPONS not wpns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 Also tactical nukes are still nukes. Bunker busters are small nukes. So the notion that the US would not use nuclear weapons against someone else is preposterous. We can even bring in DU rounds into this equation if one desires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 Sometimes it's just a matter of them not understanding due to still being precocious teenagers with their hormones acting up. It's temporary with most of them. Here's how to help them in the short term. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=pictures+of+big+weapons&qpvt=pictures+of+big+weapons&FORM=IGRE It doesn't help in shutting them up but it does help them to say more and more stupid things! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 Suffice to say that the US won't be dicking around with Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, India, France, Israel, China, and the other club members anytime soon! And if Iran, then soon. Not later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Also tactical nukes are still nukes. Bunker busters are small nukes. So the notion that the US would not use nuclear weapons against someone else is preposterous. We can even bring in DU rounds into this equation if one desires. Tac Nuclear wpns have not been used on an other nation ever....that includes bunker busters ( which most are made from conventional material.) Yes the US would use it's Nuclear wpns in a MAD context or a frist strike if it warrented, but none have been used since they used them on Japan..... DU rounds are not considered a WMD never have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Suffice to say that the US won't be dicking around with Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, India, France, Israel, China, and the other club members anytime soon! And if Iran, then soon. Not later. Look we had this discussion already, US Russia and china France Israel, are members of the big boys club, they have enough wpns system to make it impossiable to destroy them on a first strike, meaning there would be nuclear wpns left for them to launch a counter attack....hence the MAD theory.... North Korea, and soon Iran don't have that option...so once the US takes those few wpns out then what its back to square one, and they would be open to a conventional attack....i know it is a difficult concept for you to understand....there is no MAD theory here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 I think Israel has the most to lose here, regardless who is in power ...for them it is life and death... While what they have said does not come out and say Iran is a whacky state, why is all of them say Iran is not going to get Nuclear wpns period....all opitions are on the table....if Iran was a cool calm memeber of the world then why not....and yet the world has spoken and said no ...why ? is it deep down they think Iran is whacked and is not to be trusted with a Nuclear wpn...Why is Iran not able to obtain a Nuclear wpn, while the world stood by and allowed India, Pakistan.... I think Iran has more to lose than Israel since Iran does not have the top military in the world backing it up and protecting it. The U.S. has bases surrounding Iran, pointing its weapons at it. If Iran were to ever think about using nuclear weapons (after having the technology), they would be attacked right away. The notion that Israel should be able to get away with its aggressive military actions, undeclared nuclear weapons, unwillingness to sign the NPT, its continuous expansion in the Occupied Territories because it is "about its survival" or "about its security" is an old and tired excuse and PR scheme which not many people buy any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Look we had this discussion already, US Russia and china France Israel, are members of the big boys club, they have enough wpns system to make it impossiable to destroy them on a first strike, meaning there would be nuclear wpns left for them to launch a counter attack....hence the MAD theory.... North Korea, and soon Iran don't have that option...so once the US takes those few wpns out then what its back to square one, and they would be open to a conventional attack....i know it is a difficult concept for you to understand....there is no MAD theory here... O.k. we'll play make believe and toy soldiers if that's what you want. But after we kill all the little soldiers I'm going to have to talk a bit of reality, o.k? Has the US 'taken out' North Korea's nuclear weapons yet? When will it 'take them out'? Oh, oh, oh, me, me, I know! The US is going to 'take out' N.Korea's Nuclear weapons when they use them on the US! Right? Your only problem is that you've 'taken out' too many pizzas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 I think Iran has more to lose than Israel since Iran does not have the top military in the world backing it up and protecting it. The U.S. has bases surrounding Iran, pointing its weapons at it. If Iran were to ever think about using nuclear weapons (after having the technology), they would be attacked right away. The notion that Israel should be able to get away with its aggressive military actions, undeclared nuclear weapons, unwillingness to sign the NPT, its continuous expansion in the Occupied Territories because it is "about its survival" or "about its security" is an old and tired excuse and PR scheme which not many people buy any more. Spare everybody the gung-ho war bravado! In truth both Israel and Iran have everything to lose, no question after Iran gets it's nuclear deterrant to US/Israel's war. Haven't you ever heard the word 'obscene' used for that sort of talk? It's obscene for two reasons. One, it shouldn't even be contemplated by decent people. And two, Iran would never use nuclear weapons on Israel. And vice versa after Iran has it's own to strike back. Go Iran! There in lies the greatest hope for the 21st. century! And not discounting the very minimal risk that either side would want to commit suicide on behalf of their country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Your such a dink, I'm getting tired of you twisting my words around to make your self look like some appionted expert that has been shoveling us shit ....You have already agreed to the fact that the few wpns that Iran will have , and the few that North Korea has can be taken out with US conventional wpns.....If the US had the need to attack NK or Iran for any reason it would do just that, with conventional wpns why is that so hard to understand, that is what the Missle defense system is for......Unless you are saying NK has more missles than the US can intercept then the edge go's to the US....guess that means the game is still on....If you have a source that says different by all means teach me, if you don't then your whole debate is full of shit...your ball... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Niether Iran or NK pose any threat to the US. The idea of mutually assured destruction doesn't apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Niether Iran or NK pose any threat to the US. The idea of mutually assured destruction doesn't apply. MAD applies to all nations that possess nuclear weapons. So first of all, what numbnuts doesn't understand is that no nuclear armed nation is going to strike an upstart such as North Korea after the fact. North Korea is 'home free' so to speak. No, neither Iran or N.Korea pose any threat to the US. To suggest otherwise is just an imaginary hurdle we must step over. And vice versa for the case of North Korea being a non-threat to the US. That's all cheap and transparent propaganda for who knows what purpose other than demonizing. But so far, the US/Israel poses a great threat to Iran. There lies the greatest threat to the world of nuclear war. A US/Israel nuclear strike on Iran. If anyone cares to disagree with that then they need name a greater threat. But the threat ends after Iran procures it's nuclear deterrent to US/Israel nuclear war. It will also end the threat of US/Israel conventional war with the purpose of destroying Iran's nuclear capability before the fact. Only fools don't understand that! Or perhaps, they understand but are too wrapped up in the gung-ho war rhetoric to admit it. My mission for the near future is to make them wish they didn't get so wrapped up in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 I think Iran has more to lose than Israel since Iran does not have the top military in the world backing it up and protecting it. The U.S. has bases surrounding Iran, pointing its weapons at it. If Iran were to ever think about using nuclear weapons (after having the technology), they would be attacked right away. The notion that Israel should be able to get away with its aggressive military actions, undeclared nuclear weapons, unwillingness to sign the NPT, its continuous expansion in the Occupied Territories because it is "about its survival" or "about its security" is an old and tired excuse and PR scheme which not many people buy any more. This is my opinion, i don't think Iran is stable enough to have Nuclear wpns, Why is it that the west does not want them with any nuclear capabilities....Iran has not proven to be that stable guy, in fact many of the leaders in that country would love to see Israel be pushed into the sea....Iran already knows that even a single war head would be very deadly to Israel, and they would not be able to recover form it it would be left in a weaken state enough so that perhaps other ME countries might be tempted to finish them off........that being said Israel has over 400 nuclear wpns, iran would cease to exist along with most of the ME....but that does not seem to frighten Iran or it's leadership....that is the problem.... Does it matter, all that matters is where does the US stand, on the issue of Israel.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) The threat doesn't end once the other party obtains Nukes. Pakistan v India remains a tinderbox even though MAD applies. Especially when one nations has issues of fundamentalist Islam within its ranks. What's to stop Iran from nuking Iraq if the Sunnis take control again? Edited June 19, 2014 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 The only way either of you are not going to understand is if you pre-condition yourselves to believe that all the people of the ME Arab countries place no value on human lives. If you can manage that then you can promote your scenarios of a first strike nuclear attack by Iran. So go ahead and immerse yourselves in that self-serving rhetoric if you wish. You see, that's the sort of US propaganda that promotes the idea. It's the propaganda that is trying to convince you that Iran would strike first with nuclear weapons. It's the only real argument there could be for hitting Iran with either nuclear or conventional weapons 'before' they obtain their nuclear deterrent. So in fact, you both have to come to the realization that US propaganda is causing you to promote nuclear war against Iran. Congratulations! The threat of a US/Israel nuclear strike on Iran ENDS when Iran gets it's nuclear capability. Get used to the idea, it's not hard to do. It's what has happened in the case of N.Korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 MAD applies to all nations that possess nuclear weapons. So first of all, what numbnuts doesn't understand is that no nuclear armed nation is going to strike an upstart such as North Korea after the fact. North Korea is 'home free' so to speak. No, neither Iran or N.Korea pose any threat to the US. To suggest otherwise is just an imaginary hurdle we must step over. And vice versa for the case of North Korea being a non-threat to the US. That's all cheap and transparent propaganda for who knows what purpose other than demonizing. But so far, the US/Israel poses a great threat to Iran. There lies the greatest threat to the world of nuclear war. A US/Israel nuclear strike on Iran. If anyone cares to disagree with that then they need name a greater threat. But the threat ends after Iran procures it's nuclear deterrent to US/Israel nuclear war. It will also end the threat of US/Israel conventional war with the purpose of destroying Iran's nuclear capability before the fact. Only fools don't understand that! Or perhaps, they understand but are too wrapped up in the gung-ho war rhetoric to admit it. My mission for the near future is to make them wish they didn't get so wrapped up in it. Mad does not apply to all nations with a few Nuclear devices....how could it, you think the US pres is shitting his pants because NK has a few devices....I'm saying that currently the US has enough conventional wpns systems at it's disposal to knock out any NK missles before they get spooled up....that would eliminate any MAD would it not....it's simple math i had a few missles now they are gone , now i have none, what is the US going to do now........and lets just say one gets lose , just for aurgument sake....what did the US build the Missle defence system for.....if you did some reading.... just some .....what scares the US is a wall of missles coming from the big players....that is what MAD is all about.....not some little whack job in NK or Iran.....But you can't see that "which is why your a dick, and i'm numbnuts.... Is NK korea or Iran a threat, well from the outside looking in i'd say yes....if they were not a threat why does the US military put so much men and material into surrounding their borders....i mean if they were no threat then why the DMZ....why have men standing on gaurd with live ammo.....Do they do that for other nations.... The US / Israel first nuclear strike on Iran is a product of your imigination, first question would be WHY would they, when they have a massive conventional force to destroy Iran with a few weeks.....turned into another Iraq.... I'd be interested on how it would end the threat of conventional war by the US or Israel...give a souce something that says the US will not attack Iran with conventional forces if Iran has a Nuclear wpn.....Are you saying that Iran would use a Nuclear wpn on their own soil ? how are they going to attack the US homeland.....in a suit case.... It's not gung ho rhetoric it's common sense.....just that your way to smart to see it.... Your goal should be not to get to wrapped up in your self....and to find that tinfoil hat soon.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted June 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 Take your pick: Israel could use tactical nuclear weapons on Iran israelmatzav.blogspot.com/.../israel-could-use-tactical-nuclear.html 2010-03-28 · The Washington Post reports that a Washington think tank suggests that Israel could use tactical nuclear weapons in a strike against Iran. Despite the 65 ... . Congressman Says U.S. Should Use Nuclear Weapons If It ... thinkprogress.org/security/2013/12/04/3018431/duncan-hunter-iran-nukes 2013-12-04 · ... use tactical nuclear weapons on Iran if ... the U.S. should detonate a nuclear weapon in ... use of nuclear weapons against Iran ... . Why the US Shouldn’t Nuke Iran | The Diplomat thediplomat.com/2013/12/why-the-us-shouldnt-nuke-iran Congressman Duncan Hunter wants to use nuclear weapons against Iran. That’s irresponsible and should be repudiated. . Rep. Hunter: US Should Use Tactical Nukes on Iran if ... www.defensenews.com/article/20131204/DEFREG02/312040017/Rep-Hunter... 2014-06-04 · The US should consider using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran if ... “The first use of nuclear weapons against Iran would ... Not a U.S . Government ... . Rep. Duncan Hunter Wants Nukes Used If U.S. Bombs Iran www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/17108-rep-duncan... ... to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, U.S ... use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iran is ... use of nuclear weapons against Iran would ... . US Plan to Attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons, Devised Under ... globalresearch.ca/obama-prepares-protracted-afghanistan-occupation/... 2012-10-20 · ... the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran ... strike use” of nuclear weapons against Russia ... to tactical nuclear weapons, ... . Rep. Hunter Is Wrong About Using Nuclear Weapons Against ... www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/12/06/rep-hunter-is... 2013-12-06 · ... could risk the scale of death and destruction seen in U.S. nuclear attacks ... States should be willing to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. . Will The U.S. Nuke Iran? - INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12569.htm ... tactical nuclear weapons regardless of whether Iran is any way involved in such an attack against the U.S ... use nuclear weapons against non ... . US Plan to Attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons, Devised Under ... www.pakalertpress.com/2012/10/21/us-plan-to-attack-iran-with... 2012-10-21 · U.S. plans to attack Iran with a mix of ... the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran ... with regard to tactical nuclear weapons, ... . Israel could use tactical nukes on Iran: thinktank | Reuters www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/26/us-nuclear-iran-israel-nukes... 2010-03-26 · ... tactical nuclear weapons are designed to ... would authorize the use of such nuclear weapons, ... weapons against Iran would come ... If you're going to be too ignorant to even try to understand then I'm not going to waste my time playing toy soldiers with you. Time to 'take out' another pizza? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 19, 2014 Report Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Niether Iran or NK pose any threat to the US. The idea of mutually assured destruction doesn't apply. Iraq posed no threat either. If there was a threat it was an economic one and not a terrorist or wmd threat. Syria poses no threat either. So why is the west funding terrorism to take down a tyrant? What gives here? Edited June 19, 2014 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted June 20, 2014 Report Share Posted June 20, 2014 Spare everybody the gung-ho war bravado! In truth both Israel and Iran have everything to lose, no question after Iran gets it's nuclear deterrant to US/Israel's war. Haven't you ever heard the word 'obscene' used for that sort of talk? It's obscene for two reasons. One, it shouldn't even be contemplated by decent people. And two, Iran would never use nuclear weapons on Israel. And vice versa after Iran has it's own to strike back. Go Iran! There in lies the greatest hope for the 21st. century! And not discounting the very minimal risk that either side would want to commit suicide on behalf of their country. I am not sure how your comments are a response to mine. I don't think you really understood my comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted June 20, 2014 Report Share Posted June 20, 2014 This is my opinion, i don't think Iran is stable enough to have Nuclear wpns, Why is it that the west does not want them with any nuclear capabilities....Iran has not proven to be that stable guy I would take the Israeli and American General's opinion over yours and Netanyahu's. Of course the Western governments would not want any country to go to nuclear. Especially a country that doesn't sing the same political tunes as most of the West. Namely, its stance and criticism of Israel. I am glad to see that the U.S. is engaging Iran. This is the only way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 20, 2014 Report Share Posted June 20, 2014 And i get what you are saying, but Netanyahus comments are coming as the leader of that nation....meaning despite what the rest of the people say around the table, it is normally the bosses opinion that everyone goes with.....Gen's don't make policy....they follow it... I'm glad as well, talking is always better than direct action... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.