Safe Mode: On
War With Iran A Terrible Idea - Here's Why

"Should Israel decide to launch a strike on Iran, its pilots would have
to fly more than 1,000 miles across unfriendly airspace, refuel in the
air en route, fight off Iran's air defenses, attack multiple underground
sites simultaneously — and use at least 100 planes.That is the
assessment of American defense officials and military analysts close to
the Pentagon, who say that an Israeli attack meant to set back Iran's
nuclear program would be a huge and highly complex operation...".* The
Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down, including the over-hyped
nuclear capability of Iran and why it would be a bad idea for the US to
get involved in another war.


Added: Feb-22-2012 Occurred On: Feb-22-2012
By: Surfsock
In:
World News, Iran, Other Middle East
Tags: Israel, Iran, Zionist, USA, jews, war mongering,
Location: Israel (load item map)
Marked as: approved
Views: 5472 | Comments: 113 | Votes: 6 | Favorites: 2 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • As an American, I say let Iran have nuclear energy for power! Israel, fight your own battles.

    Posted Feb-22-2012 By 

    (8)

  • I dont take serious anything this young Turd has to say.
    We have missiles too besides planes.

    He never talks about the precedent if Iran got nukes.....every other Arab Islamic nation will follow suit!

    It might not be a good idea to attack Iran....It would be an even worse idea to let them get nukes.

    Posted Feb-23-2012 By 

    (2)

    • Comment of user 'blaine131' has been deleted by author!
    • @Freejay Israel got nukes, so why shouldnt Iran get it? Maybe you will stop terrorising the region if they do get the nukes..

      Posted Feb-23-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @twista
      Who is Israel terrorizing?
      Who has Israel threatened to wipe out?
      And Israel isnt run by religious extremist fanatics

      Posted Feb-23-2012 By 

      (1)

    • @Freejay The palestinians. You are worse than Nazi-Germany.

      Posted Feb-23-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @twista i think you are the first person that i've ever heard say that iran should have nukes. israel aside, no one in that entire region wants iran to have nukes. they are too fucking crazy.

      Posted Feb-23-2012 By 

      (0)

  • the Young Turks, lol

    Posted Feb-22-2012 By 

    (2)

  • I LOVE Cenk, my favorite lib D-Bag.

    His arrogance and smugness has drawn me in from day one. I only wish he still had a network show on MSNBC so I had some evening entertainment again.

    Posted Feb-22-2012 By 

    (2)

  • I would love to Israel go down. Too many reasons to list.

    Posted Feb-22-2012 By 

    (1)

  • you don't fight off defense air forces, you attack them! The day that whole area is a glowing pit will be a bad day for the world but a great day for humanity.

    Posted Feb-22-2012 By 

    (1)

  • Just wrap it up by next week. I payed $4.25 a gal. At $5.00 Gallon I will steal someone's bike to go to work.

    Posted Feb-22-2012 By 

    (1)

  • what an idiot.. This guy is using Norway as an example for who Irael would attack and the U.S would stand by Israel side. I don´t think so. This is a small country , but Norway has been mentioned as the nr 1 ally of the u.s during ww2 - along side with greatbritain. The role Norway has as a peacekeeping nation - Humanitarian nation. If all the countries Norway has helped would forget our position in the world? I don´t think so. This guy talks to much without thinking first.

    Posted Feb-23-2012 By 

    (1)

  • Young Turks = Armenian Genocide!

    Posted Feb-22-2012 By 

    (1)

  • whatever AIPAC decides, US go with it.

    Posted Feb-22-2012 By 

    (1)

  • Israel Nukes Iran, USA first strikes China and Russia, Russia second strikes any survivors

    NWO takes over and makes slaves of the remaining humans.

    Posted Feb-23-2012 By 

    (1)

  • NEOCONSERVATIVE

    1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

    2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

    First Known Use of NEOCONSERVATIVE
    1952

    sounds like bs to me.. otherwise i dont have a problem with this report by cenk.. even tho he is an ageing hippie liberal douche

    Posted Feb-22-2012 By 

    (0)

    • @TreeGoat This is actually the first time I actually agree with this douche, until the point where he got political and started to trash the right, as if all conservatives are warmongers.

      Posted Feb-23-2012 By 

      (0)

  • This is not just about Iran. This is Russia and China playing a dangerous game of nuclear proliferation. They believe that having nuclear buffer nations (North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran) strenghtens their military position against us because it divides our focus. I believe they will offer nuclear technology to a South American nation next (i.e. Venezuela). Using these locations as a potential proxy attack position in the future or at least threaten such.

    We should not engage Iran at this ti More..

    Posted Feb-23-2012 By 

    (0)

  • Love the sub titles

    Posted Feb-22-2012 By 

    (0)

  • Comment of user 'Rastafelix' has been deleted by author!
    • @Rastafelix hmm i think they'd be cutting it close especially with the bomb load.

      Posted Feb-22-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @febreze

      Mid air/flight refuel, its been around for decades............

      Posted Feb-23-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @Rastafelix The f-16 block 60 with CFT's has an unrefuelled combat radius(6000lbs ordinance) of 450mi. The 4 main targets in Iran are between 700 and 1100 miles. Which reans that arial refuelling has to take place over the Meditterranian, Jordan, Iraq or Saudi Arabia. The Med is still too far away from the targets to be of much benifit. The other options are very dubious diplomatically. Therefore without US assistance its beyond the capibilities of the F-16. The f-15e may be able to reach the t More..

      Posted Feb-23-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @dankmofo obviously i thought the issue here was getting a sufficient number of the air refueling planes in the air........ .... .....

      Posted Feb-23-2012 By 

      (0)

    • @febreze The IAF actually has 8 KC-707s. Thats more than enough refuelling capacity. The real problem is refuelling close enough to the targets so that the warplanes can deliver an adequate ordinance load. The only feasible place seems to be Saudi Arabia, which may be diplomatically difficult to secure refueling rights.

      Posted Feb-23-2012 By 

      (0)