Didn't we try that with Napoleon?
I am not sure how many of the people of Iran support the policies of the current regime, or if it is even possible to know. However, the people of Israel voted Netanyahu into power with the clearly stated mandate to do what he is doing. In particular, the policy that the Palestinians never have a state of their own is widely held in Israel. The recent Louis Theroux documentary on the attitude of the Israelis towards the Palestinians was quite shocking. I do have an issue with people who hold those kind of views.
"Iranian men, HALLEUJAH! Iranian men, AMEN!"
Maybe you're wrong here. While a country has a right to enact a pre-emptive strike if it believes that it is in imminent danger of being attacked by another, I'm not entirely sure that there was any imminent danger; the American intelligence and that of the International Atomic Energy Agency both agreed that there was no imminent threat. I suppose it all depends on the definition of "imminent", really; Netanyahu has been crying imminence for decades now, so please forgive me for not believing him.
The first gulf war was a completely different situation. It was a clear case of one sovereign state invading another and there was a UN resolution condemning Iraq's actions. I'm not aware of any UN resolution authorising the latest military strikes against Iran.
which is what I said!
The UN is finished as a useful body without changes. Surely you can see that? The chances of any resolution passing at present are about zero due to the security council veto.
because it is REALLY complicated! Life isn't a Tom Clancy novel.
twice! second time finished him off though
I should have said expected rather than asked.
This is not quite correct. The USA had not built up thier military forces prior to entering the second world war. They quickly ramped up both manpower and production after entering the war. By comparison our total armed forces number at the start of the war was c.897,000.
they clearly kept up thier military spending after the war and the size of that military underpinned peace in the west. The whole point of NATO was founded on that strength and size.
indeed - but it took them ages to do so with several false starts and failures.
There were clearly signals this missile attack was coming as the USA ( and UK) issued warnings ahead of time. The damage was limited and seems designed for domestic consumption in Iran ( same as the response to the first Israeli attack). It is part of the understood diplomatic response.
As I understand it, Iran informed it's neighbours ahead of the missile attack.
www.bbc.co.uk
Can’t really criticise him too much for that, it’s probably the first time I’ve agreed with what he said.
I'm glad you said that. I can't stand the man normally, but I can't stop watching the video clip. He is 100% right.
Yes, amazingly, for once I agree with him.
He is actually dead right either by accident or design - the animosity runs so deep and so long with Israel and Iran that neither does actually know what the (hell) they are doing. Israel may be a very competent military opponent but they are losing credibility by the day.
Bill Clinton used it before, although not sure it was an official statement. Funnily enough, despite it being 29 years ago, he used the f-word in reference to, believe it or not, Benjamin Netanyahu. It's almost as if he has been an arrogant nutjob his entire career:
responsiblestatecraft.org
While Vice-President, Biden infamously said into Obama's ear: "This is a big f*****g deal!" This was in reference to the recently passed "Obama-care" bill.
