View Poll Results: Who Will Win? That is, in possession of the land?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Israel

    3 30.00%
  • The Palestinians

    1 10.00%
  • Two States

    4 40.00%
  • Neither, some other State or people rule.

    0 0%
  • Neither, mutual destruction.

    1 10.00%
  • One State, two peoples

    1 10.00%
  • One State, one people (intermarriage)

    0 0%
Results 1 to 20 of 535

Thread: War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads)

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Yes, there is a reason: since the US is no longer the world's sole economic superpower, it cannot reasonably aspire to be the world's sole military superpower. It's no longer an affordable luxury.

    The military options have been assessed and found wanting. Invasion is not realistically affordable, and would not be even in a world where we could simply go out and invade anyone who doesn't do what we want. Air attack is unlikely to achieve the desired objective and the range of potential - in fact probable - undesirable consequences is severe. No realistic option has been proposed.

    It takes no courage whatsoever to propose impractical and pointless plans and accuse those who fail to adopt them of lacking courage. People who bluster about what others ought to do don't have to face the consequences of ill-advised action.
    This conversation is a wonderful example of what I have been saying...

    These plans? They are to achieve what?

    What is the US position (the government position and not that what certain individuals would like it to be) on whether Iran can be allowed to develop nukes? It appears that they don't what Iran to have nukes but at the same time do not have the courage to make sure that does not happen. There is no doubt that if there was the required backbone amongst the politicians the military could prepare 20 possible military options and those "smart" guys in and around this administration could figure out at least one political strategy.

    It would be better for the US to do like what the Brits did when they ran away from their Empire that they state clearly that they have no interest in Iran and its nuclear programme and will not get involved in the internal affairs of this sovereign state.

    The message (at the moment) to the world is that the US is indeed too weak and therefore unable to do anything about the Iran nuclear programme. It is this perceived weakness that lets those like Al-Qaeda in the Yemen and Somalia believe that they have nothing to fear from the US... and they are probably correct.

    Oh yes and it takes no courage to take the course of least resistance.
    Last edited by JMA; 09-12-2010 at 10:07 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 03-21-2014, 01:56 PM
  2. War is War is Clausewitz
    By Michael C in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 421
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 12:41 PM
  3. Gurkha beheads Taliban...
    By Rifleman in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-30-2010, 02:00 AM
  4. War is War
    By Michael C in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 10-09-2010, 06:23 PM
  5. A Modest Proposal to Adjust the Principles of War
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 02:38 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •