Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Israel launches attack on Iran

Batt Boy said:
It exists. No doubt it's a target as were the senior scientists. I am just saying the fundamental mission is regime change. There are other rouge countries with nukes like North Korea and Pakistan but they aren't threats to Israel. If the pre-79 regime was in power, or anyone not fundamentally built on Israel's destruction, no one would be bombing. The long term mission is regime change. The nuke presents a tool to get there.
Click to expand...
So Israel will just need help destroying an enrichment facility that will be the first of (presumably) many dominoes to fall that will result in regime change. The nuclear stuff is all a front for public consumption to build support for some good old fashioned nation building. The fact that regime change is being talked about by multiple people on this message board doesn’t mean that the job of fooling the US populace will be a failure, they will clearly believe it’s all about the nuclear program.

That about the weight of it?
 
Lando said:
So Israel will just need help destroying an enrichment facility that will be the first of (presumably) many dominoes to fall that will result in regime change. The nuclear stuff is all a front for public consumption to build support for some good old fashioned nation building. The fact that regime change is being talked about by multiple people on this message board doesn’t mean that the job of fooling the US populace will be a failure, they will clearly believe it’s all about the nuclear program.

That about the weight of it?
Click to expand...
your words are too confusing to understand
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

At what point does Russia get further pulled in? Iran is the supplier of Shahed drones and surface to air missiles. I have no doubt Putin wants to “mediate” in order to keep the Iranian military support flowing.
 
Batt Boy said:
your words are too confusing to understand
Click to expand...
There’s a reason for that. The whole bit about regime change was a non sequitur.

You posited that Israel’s defense capabilities were being degraded which would require more direct US involvement. When I questioned support for that you veered off into capability of taking out an enrichment facility and how that would require direct US involvement.

My only point has been that it’s very possible that Israel made a poor choice that will have degraded its defenses and failed to reach its goals. You have mentioned the need for more direct US involvement. There’s a possibility that doesn’t happen, or at least doesn’t happen to the degree necessary.

Words stopped making sense because the target moved every time the idea that Israel may have made a mistake was broached.
 
Lando said:
There’s a reason for that. The whole bit about regime change was a non sequitur.

You posited that Israel’s defense capabilities were being degraded which would require more direct US involvement. When I questioned support for that you veered off into capability of taking out an enrichment facility and how that would require direct US involvement.

My only point has been that it’s very possible that Israel made a poor choice that will have degraded its defenses and failed to reach its goals. You have mentioned the need for more direct US involvement. There’s a possibility that doesn’t happen, or at least doesn’t happen to the degree necessary.

Words stopped making sense because the target moved every time the idea that Israel may have made a mistake was broached.
Click to expand...
It is permitted to discuss multiple topics in this thread, no? I made a comment about the IDF's inability to take out Fordow. They simply don't have the tools. I made another comment about the what I think is driving the IDF overall. I might be wrong. I think I am right. As for your attempts to put words in my mouth, I don't get it, but carry on any way you wish. I still don't understand what you are getting at.
 
I’ll make it really straightforward. Direct US involvement is not a guarantee and any plan that relies on that for success is a potentially bad one. Assurances that the plan is actually much broader in scope makes that problem significantly worse.

My posts have had near fortune cookie depth. “This might be a mistake with negative consequences” is hardly a bold position to take. I find the need to deflect from this very basic idea somewhat telling.
 
Lando said:
I’ll make it really straightforward. Direct US involvement is not a guarantee and any plan that relies on that for success is a potentially bad one. Assurances that the plan is actually much broader in scope makes that problem significantly worse.

My posts have had near fortune cookie depth. “This might be a mistake with negative consequences” is hardly a bold position to take. I find the need to deflect from this very basic idea somewhat telling.
Click to expand...
Agreed and I'm pulling against direct US involvement. It's telling the Iranians haven't targeted in theatre bases yet despite saying they would. They know the IDF is pulling for our involvement.
 
It seems so far that the Iranians are having a hard time coordinating ballistic launches. Day one they sent 151. Day 2 47 and today they report via Faytuks that they sent 30. More might launch later, but clearly it wasn't just the senior ballistic staff that was eliminated. They are largely political anyway. Much of the mid level was likely "disrupted" as well and they do the work.
 
[This is a pro-Israel Polish site that also is quite right wing (like … verrrry right wing otherwise) site — I forget virtually no one knows the details of all the weird sites I follow/share]:

 
Meanwhile, earthquake detection in Iran suggests HEAVY bombing (which got changed to “binging” at first by applicable software — Apple?) by Israel — of Fate saying GFY to the Iranian PTB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top