No, we're not. Some seeing Iraq as a US weakness, that US troops are bogged down in Iraq. You are correct, however, we're right there. We could launch off carriers as well, we do train with Israeli fighter flying off AMerican carriers.

READ the title of the thread Cognac. It says Israel not US. If israelis as we are told to believe can do the job what are you so hyped up about?
And who is "we" in here? Are you a member of a deathsquad/ a marine or just another geezer who thinks he/ she knows it all? I could say that you are talking nonesense here and elaboorate that you are a republican with a tilted right wing view who thinks Bush has done a great job. Sorry but that's a tad as subjective as your argument is here.

Not at all! Keep telling yourself that if it helps massage your ego. I have passed this phase long time ago.
On a serious note I still maintain that US meddling in Iran's affair is a big mistake not only because of political ramifications but there is absolutely no justification for doing so. 
Still have not answered the question. When can I redeem my bet preferably with interest? Common Charles 4th July is just round the corner. Is there something us uninformed members should learn from Cognac Martell?

Iran thinks that they can do whatever they choose and Allah will protect them. The problem is that the rest of the world do not believe in Allah

How many times was I referenced? I lost count. Martel was no crusader, moron, he fought a defensive battle. And the Muslims bringing "learning and many improvements" did so at the end of a sword...your drool still dried on the history class desk. Martel was long before the Crusades even began, stupid, he and Leo allowing the formation of the Holy Roman Empire...eventually forming the nation-states of Europe. Cassie, your extraordinary ignorance of history doesn't surprise me, you're unbalanced, emotional, and clueless. There is a reason why Christianity was permitted to thrive and prosper, it was no mistake. The Muslims were cut down...and rather visciously never to return.

There is a reason Islam dominates the ME, rolling through north Africa into Spain and then being snipped off in southern France. In the east, Constantinople saw a furious defense against the "improvement" bringing Muslims who came with an army and naval attachment some 300,000 strong. Less than 30,000 recrossed the Taurus Mountains in utter defeat. Early 8th century following the death of Mohammed, not during the crusades.

You never had a chance, Cass.

And back on topic following Charlie's attempt at a history lesson about his choice of his screen name, LOL, Cass is shortened version of Cassandra. Who made some very valid predictions about the future, though they didn't work out that well for her on a personal level, not because the predictions were wrong, but because she didn't put out for Apollo as
she promised. But moving on back to the topic of the thread. From the NY Times this morning, the editor is agreement with "Cassandra."  An attack on Iran would be a disaster.

June 10, 2008
EDITORIAL
Threatening Iran

Israeli leaders spent last week talking tough about Iran and threatening possible military action. The United States and the other major powers need to address Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but with more assertive diplomacy — including greater financial pressures — not more threats or war planning.

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who is bedeviled by a corruption scandal that could drive him from office, led the charge. “The Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means,” he said in Washington, a day before meeting President Bush at the White House.

Then Israel’s transportation minister, Shaul Mofaz, who is jockeying to replace Mr. Olmert as head of the ruling Kadima Party if the prime minister is forced to resign, declared that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks “unavoidable.”

We don’t know what’s going on behind closed doors in Washington — or what Mr. Olmert heard from Mr. Bush. But saber-rattling is not a strategy. And an attack on Iran by either country would be disastrous.

The whole editorial can be read on the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/opinion/10tue1.html?pagewanted=print

An attack on Iran won't be a disaster. Actualy, the attacks on Iraq until Saddam's fall weren't disasters, only the occupation of Iraq was. But no one is talking of Iranian occupation of course.

Destroying key strategic targets and nuclear facilities and the Iranian fleet and airforce, won't cause any material disaster of any scale on Israel or the West.

However it will disrupt oil supply and set on fire the already crazy inflated oil prices to unsustainable levels and crash stock markets around the world. That, nobody wants. Not even Saudis who owns sizeable part in US stocks.

Figures you'd be spoutin make believe while I'm schooling you with actual history. What an appropriate post from you Cassie, clueless as the day is long. Fake as it gets, unaware, random, irrelevant.