A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
As pointed out elsewhere, Iran's facilities are probably hardened and embedded such that typical Israeli raids won't dent them.

However, this won't prevent Israeli raids on standard infrastructure (radar, military bases, oil wells, bridges, etc) which would make those nukes a bit more ineffective.

If you can't take out Iran's nuclear arsenal, bombing its oil wells sounds like a sub-optimal solution.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Ah, gotta love those Palis. When there are no jews to kill, they just kill their own:

An argument for ending the occupation, if I ever heard one.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you can't take out Iran's nuclear arsenal, bombing its oil wells sounds like a sub-optimal solution.

Why don't we just invade Iran? The oil revenues would pay for the invasion in, like, 3 years or something.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Hasn't Israel left Gaza? And what's the alternative to leaving them there? Bus tickets to Damascus?

I guess Isreal could live without Gaza (from a military defensive point of view). But the West Bank is the tough point.

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
I don't think that they care about anything other than what they believe is necessary for self-preservation.

If this were true they would have ethnically cleansed the West Bank a long time ago. Isn't that where are the suicide bombers are coming from and where they will continue to come from?

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Why would the Israeli's care about the happiness of a group of people whose leaders (democratically-elected and otherwise) have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel?

Exactly. And I would add to that why would they ever expect the Palestinian people ever to accept Isreal. So why not push these people out of the West Bank?

If I am wrong about this then two thing have to happen.

1) At some point Isreal will have to give up the West Bank but still be able to effectively defend their borders

2) The Palestinians will at some point accept the idea that they will be occupied by Isreal indefinitely.

If Isreal does not ethnically cleans the West Bank is there some other option that is open to them that I am not aware of?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
An argument for ending the occupation, if I ever heard one.

So do you think that Isreal should pull out of the West Bank? You don't think that would make them extremely vulnerable militarily? Isn't one point of the West Bank like four miles from the ocean?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
So do you think that Isreal should pull out of the West Bank? You don't think that would make them extremely vulnerable militarily? Isn't one point of the West Bank like four miles from the ocean?

It wasn't a serious comment.

I don't see how Israel can give up the West Bank.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Spanky
I guess Isreal could live without Gaza (from a military defensive point of view).

Does live. Israel pulled everyone, military and civilian, out of Gaza. Doesn't keep them from exerting itself militarily in Gaza from time-to-time.

But the West Bank is the tough point.

If this were true they would have ethnically cleansed the West Bank a long time ago. Isn't that where are the suicide bombers are coming from and where they will continue to come from?

Do you forsee this "cleansing" being by displacement or genocide? I don't see Israel going for the latter option, except as the last act of a nation about to be "pushed into the sea". But where do they displace them to? No arab (or other) country has expressed any interest in providing the residents of the west bank a permanent home.

Exactly. And I would add to that why would they ever expect the Palestinian people ever to accept Isreal. So why not push these people out of the West Bank?

Again, to where? What is the middle east's version of 1870s Oklahoma?

Isn't one point of the West Bank like four miles from the ocean?

About 9, but that isn't a meaningful difference.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Does live. Israel pulled everyone, military and civilian, out of Gaza. Doesn't keep them from exerting itself militarily in Gaza from time-to-time.

The fact that Isreal has to go in there form time to time to do stuff kind of shows that Isreal needs some influcence in Gaza to protect themselves. However, they could maybe just build a wall around it.

Originally posted by Cletus Miller

Do you forsee this "cleansing" being by displacement or genocide? I don't see Israel going for the latter option, except as the last act of a nation about to be "pushed into the sea". But where do they displace them to? No arab (or other) country has expressed any interest in providing the residents of the west bank a permanent home.

Genocide is out of the question (obviously). But maybe pay another country to take them. Or pay the people to leave? It seems that the optimal time to do it is during a war (that is when the pushed out the Arabs for Isreal proper), so it should have been done in 67.

Originally posted by Cletus Miller About 9, but that isn't a meaningful difference.

Kind of like the difference between three twentieths of one percent and one fifth of one percent.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
If you can't take out Iran's nuclear arsenal, bombing its oil wells sounds like a sub-optimal solution.

Other than the occassion lovely Persian rug, about the only thing paying for the Iranian's nuclear programme (as well as funding Hezzbollah, Hamas and Iraq Shia militias) is its oil exports.

The mullahs have also let their oil producing infrastructure rapidly deteriorate over the years, choosing to spend money on foreign terror than capital improvements.

If you take out their ability to produce oil, you cut off Iran's nuclear capabilities at the well, literally.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
Kind of like the difference between three twentieths of one percent and one fifth of one percent.

Why are you so obsessed with me? I throw out a mild math correction and you are so massively insecure that now you just lurk around waiting for opportunities to make little jabs at me. How long were you stewing about my math comment to you before you found an opening to bring it up on the PB board again? Weeks or even months? How long were you lurking on the politics board waiting for an opportunity when this fraction correction presented itself?

I guess I won't get a chance to see your answer unless someone else quotes it. Oh well. Such a loss.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Other than the occassion lovely Persian rug, about the only thing paying for the Iranian's nuclear programme (as well as funding Hezzbollah, Hamas and Iraq Shia militias) is its oil exports.

The mullahs have also let their oil producing infrastructure rapidly deteriorate over the years, choosing to spend money on foreign terror than capital improvements.

If you take out their ability to produce oil, you cut off Iran's nuclear capabilities at the well, literally.

As useful as Iran's oil wells and bridges, I was trying to make a point about the wisdom of bombing a country with nuclear weapons. But North Korea doesn't have many oil wells, and it seems to have figured out how to built nuclear weapons anyway.

[Ignore]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Why are you so obsessed with me? I throw out a mild math correction and you are so massively insecure that now you just lurk around waiting for opportunities to make little jabs at me. How long were you stewing about my math comment to you before you found an opening to bring it up on the PB board again? Weeks or even months? How long were you lurking on the politics board waiting for an opportunity when this fraction correction presented itself?

I guess I won't get a chance to see your answer unless someone else quotes it. Oh well. Such a loss.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you take out their ability to produce oil, you cut off Iran's nuclear capabilities at the well, literally.

The resulting oil price shock wuld likely throw the U.S. economy into recession and have any number of unforeseen economic consequences, entirely aside from the political consequences.

That may be preferable to a nuclear-armed Iran, but . . .

S_A_M

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
As useful as Iran's oil wells and bridges, I was trying to make a point about the wisdom of bombing a country with nuclear weapons. But North Korea doesn't have many oil wells, and it seems to have figured out how to built nuclear weapons anyway.

We've seen how insignificant NK's weapon was via their test. You have to assume that any weapon from Iran would be less than that, since their program is ostensibly years behind NK.

Whereas Israel's arsenal could turn the entire Middle East to glass.

Given that, would Iran dare to launch the first unconventional military attack?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
We've seen how insignificant NK's weapon was via their test. You have to assume that any weapon from Iran would be less than that, since their program is ostensibly years behind NK.

Whereas Israel's arsenal could turn the entire Middle East to glass.

Given that, would Iran dare to launch the first unconventional military attack?

I can't keep the rules of this game straight. Are we assuming that the crazy Muslims (tm) who run Iran are rational or not?