Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
There are so many different scenarios there that you've watered down the definition of 'attack' in any military sense to essentially nothing.
You really think with all the hyperbole and preventative grief that spilled out during the Bush years, they'll feel free to toss it all aside and go in anyway? Iraq would be a picnic compared to Iran. We don't have the political will left for that kind of war.
If our lust is for blood, as you seem to think, why would we jump through all these hoops instead of just going for the jugular?
Oh, and you ignored my last question. How does selling arms to Israel hurt the United States?
Yes, despite the Bush years, Obama will do it.
Why? Because Obama takes orders from the military-industrial-complex -- which is just another side of too-big-to-fail, the corporate - financial elite.
They need continuing wars for a variety of reasons. You should Google the Report from Iron Mountain, circa 1960s.
Obama has continued and even accelerated Bush's war policies.
I never said it was a lust for blood. The agenda is full spectrum dominance -- to dominate the world into the future for as long as possible.
BTW, full spectrum dominance is not my term. It was coined by the plutocrats who run Amerika.
Selling arms to Israel makes the Israeli extremist government of Bibi Netayahu more audacious. Bibi has had a tough time because his own generals and security people oppose a war with Iran. They know how reckless it would be -- and dangerous.
But give Netanyahu the latest armaments and even this wack job might succeed in overcoming his generals. He wants a war.