Israel vs. Iran after March 2006?
dump...@hotmail.com
means "other than
diplomacy" to stop it. See:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18441_Irans_Manhattan_Project&only
Is this just sabre-rattling?
dav19...@nowhere.com
Mailman
Forgive my curiosity, but how is it supposed to be done? Last I looked at
a map there were a few countries in between the two...
--
Mailman
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
George Z. Bush
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:13:29 +0000, dav1936531 wrote:
>
>> On 1 Dec 2005 22:49:26 -0800, dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Is this just sabre-rattling?
>>
>> No.
>> Dave
>
> Forgive my curiosity, but how is it supposed to be done? Last I looked at
> a map there were a few countries in between the two...
Um.....overflying without permission? Even Israelis are smart enough to know
that it's easier to receive forgiveness than permission, so why bother? Just go
for it!
George Z.
FatKat
Go for what? In 1981, there was just one facility, in a country that
was already embroiled in a shooting war with another country - and the
Iraquis were back to work about a decade later. Iran is 1) further
out; 2) may have numerous facilities spread out and 3) isn't currently
at war against anybody. So what specific plan of action do you
recommend?
dump...@hotmail.com
bandied
about in public for so long, it's a good bet that Iran has hidden,
hardened and/or
dispersed the elements of its nuke program as well as it can.
How much damage can non-nuclear air and missile strikes do to Iran's
nuclear
program?
George Z. Bush
You're asking me? I was just throwing my 2 cents in to respond to a
hypothetical question from Dave. So, go for what? Speaking as an Israeli
MIGHT, go for anything that represents a legitimate target and a threat against
the security of MY country like, for instance, a nuclear facility or two or
three or how many ever.
As for your objections, (1) the distance between Israel and Iran is hardly an
insurmountable problem given the range of modern day military aircraft and
in-flight refueling capabilities, and (2) any nation only capable of dealing
with one target at a time ought not start a pissing match with an adversary, and
(3) they have only to call it a preemptive war against terrorism to make it
every bit as believable and palatable as our strike against Iraq was to the rest
of the world.
As for what specific plan of action I might recommend, I wouldn't be presumptive
enough to present anything in behalf of the Israelis.....I'm sure they have far
better minds available to assign to that task than anything mine could put
together.
George Z.
George Z. Bush
I have no idea, nor do I have an idea of whether or not the Israelis have low
yield nukes capable of deep penetration that they might consider worthy enough
of commitment to that kind of conflict. Just as a WAG, I'd suspect that they do
have them although I don't have a clue as to how ready they might be to commit
them.
George Z.
Kerryn Offord
Except one country they almost have to overfly is Iraq.. Currently being
"protected" by USA...
So, if the Israeli's overfly Iraq without the Americans doing anything,
like trying to shoot them down or asking them to please go back the way
they came...
It won't be just the Israeli's asking for forgiveness....
George Z. Bush
It'd be roughly the equivalent of them sitting there and taking it with Saddam's
Scuds raining down on them during the Gulf War just because we asked them to
stay out of it. Just keep in mind that the history of modern Israel does not
include any instances of them running from a fight. The legal beagles call it
"quid pro quo", a Latin phrase that translates loosely into "give me this and
I'll give you that" or "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" or perhaps more
literally "for this, (you get) that".
They'd ask us to stay out of it, as we once asked them, and we'd do it because
we owe them one. We'd not only turn a blind eye to their flyover, but we'd be
almost guaranteed a heads up from them by way of flight plans before the fact.
That's the way the big boys play.
George Z.
Peter Kemp
<ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>George Z. Bush wrote:
>> Um.....overflying without permission? Even Israelis are smart enough to know
>> that it's easier to receive forgiveness than permission, so why bother? Just go
>> for it!
>>
>> George Z.
>
>Except one country they almost have to overfly is Iraq.. Currently being
>"protected" by USA...
>
>So, if the Israeli's overfly Iraq without the Americans doing anything,
>like trying to shoot them down or asking them to please go back the way
>they came...
>
>It won't be just the Israeli's asking for forgiveness....
Quite. If the US stops them, all hell will break loose in the US
Israel lobby, and if they don't stop them the pressure will be
unstoppable on the Iraqi to order out the US, leaving it very
vulnerable.
--
Peter Kemp
"Life is short...drink faster"
BernardZ
dump...@hotmail.com says...
For anyone interested in this subject here is an excellent article on
this subject
http://www.usafa.af.mil/df/inss/OCP/ocp59.pdf
Conclusion: Israel taking out Osiraq with one-shot and delaying Saddam
atomic bomb was a oncer.
--
It takes a lot of study to figure out how Euclid=3Fs geometry is based on
=3Fself-evident=3F truths.
Observations of Bernard - No 90
TJ
to Iran. It will be interesting to note if the Russians then do a deal
for the supply of SA-10 (GRUMBLE) or SA-20 (GARGOYLE).
Rob Arndt
retribution, Gerald Bull assassination, Iraqi nuclear reactor strike,
HAMAS leadership systematically killed by aircraft, helos,... and uh...
exploding telephones!
I think "Never Again" MEANS "Never Again"! To allow Iran to even have
the possibility of making raw material for a nuke is reason enough to
attack them. I just hope that in addition to an airstrike they use the
German-supplied dolphin subs to launch cruise missiles as well.
DT88
p.s For those interested, Spielberg's Munich massacre reprisal movie
"Munich" will be in theaters Dec 23rd.
Stephen Harding
Un-necessary worry.
The US has been at war with Iran since June (IIRC).
The Press isn't being very negative about the event, so I
presume we are either winning or have already won. So
Iranian nukes are now a moot concern for the Israelis.
SMH
FatKat
George Z. Bush wrote:
> FatKat wrote:
> > George Z. Bush wrote:
> >> Mailman wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:13:29 +0000, dav1936531 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1 Dec 2005 22:49:26 -0800, dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is this just sabre-rattling?
> >>>>
> >>>> No.
> >>>> Dave
> >>>
> >>> Forgive my curiosity, but how is it supposed to be done? Last I looked at
> >>> a map there were a few countries in between the two...
> >>
> >> Um.....overflying without permission? Even Israelis are smart enough to know
> >> that it's easier to receive forgiveness than permission, so why bother?
> >> Just go for it!
> >>
> >> George Z.
> >
> > Go for what? In 1981, there was just one facility, in a country that
> > was already embroiled in a shooting war with another country - and the
> > Iraquis were back to work about a decade later. Iran is 1) further
> > out; 2) may have numerous facilities spread out and 3) isn't currently
> > at war against anybody. So what specific plan of action do you
> > recommend?
>
> You're asking me? I was just throwing my 2 cents in to respond to a
> hypothetical question from Dave.
Sorry George, you said, so I asked.
> Speaking as an Israeli
> MIGHT, go for anything that represents a legitimate target and a threat against
> the security of MY country like, for instance, a nuclear facility or two or
> three or how many ever.
Or maybe a dozen. How many targets are possobly legitimate that this
raid becomes a full scale war of the kind that harms rather than
strengthens Israel's security. Or wa that more of your two cents?
> (1) the distance between Israel and Iran is hardly an
> insurmountable problem given the range of modern day military aircraft and
> in-flight refueling capabilities,
Which would require multiple re-fuels over arab territory or, even
better, American occupied Iraq, which implicates the US in this attack
as the '81 attack did not. Or perhaps we're channeling "Iron Eagle",
in which it's perfectly plausible for an invading aircraft, loaded to
the gills with fuel, to penetrate deep into an enemy's airspace and
completely manhandle aircraft operating over their own airfields.
> and (2) any nation only capable of dealing
> with one target at a time ought not start a pissing match with an adversary,
Do we know that that category does not include Israel. BTW, if the
raid proves costly enough, expect Isreal to deal with more than one
target, in more than one country.
> (3) they have only to call it a preemptive war against terrorism to make it
> every bit as believable and palatable as our strike against Iraq was to the rest
> of the world.
Which, judging by the tenor of this NG, is nowhere near believable or
palatable as would be to worth going for it.
George Z. Bush
> George Z. Bush wrote:
(Snip)
>> You're asking me? I was just throwing my 2 cents in to respond to a
>> hypothetical question from Dave.
>
> Sorry George, you said, so I asked.
>
>> Speaking as an Israeli
>> MIGHT, go for anything that represents a legitimate target and a threat
>> against the security of MY country like, for instance, a nuclear facility or
>> two or three or how many ever.
>
> Or maybe a dozen. How many targets are possobly legitimate that this
> raid becomes a full scale war of the kind that harms rather than
> strengthens Israel's security.......
I have no idea. However, based on the fact that Israel is still around as a
viable state, it's pretty safe to assume that they have enough competent people
in their policy making activities to make decisions of that nature, I don't see
any need to do it for them. Why don't you take a stab at it if it makes you
happy?
......Or wa that more of your two cents?
Now, now....getting a little testy, are we! Everything I say here is my two
cents, just as is everything you say. About the only thing we can be pretty
sure of is that there's nobody in either Jerusalem or Teheran waiting
breathlessly for us to tell them what to do or what's going to happen. That's
the nature of life on the USENET.
>
>> (1) the distance between Israel and Iran is hardly an
>> insurmountable problem given the range of modern day military aircraft and
>> in-flight refueling capabilities,
>
> Which would require multiple re-fuels over arab territory or, even
> better, American occupied Iraq, which implicates the US in this attack
> as the '81 attack did not. Or perhaps we're channeling "Iron Eagle",
> in which it's perfectly plausible for an invading aircraft, loaded to
> the gills with fuel, to penetrate deep into an enemy's airspace and
> completely manhandle aircraft operating over their own airfields.
I think I just said something like that.....so I guess we agree on that point
more or less.
>
>> and (2) any nation only capable of dealing
>> with one target at a time ought not start a pissing match with an adversary,
>
> Do we know that that category does not include Israel.....
We do not, except for the fact that they historically have not started what
they've had to abandon because of lack of staying power. On that basis, I don't
think it's unreasonable, although you're entitled to your own opinion on that.
> .....BTW, if the raid proves costly enough, expect Isreal to deal with more
> than one
> target, in more than one country.
Again, based on history, I'd imagine that they'd be prepared for that
eventuality in any event.
>
>> (3) they have only to call it a preemptive war against terrorism to make it
>> every bit as believable and palatable as our strike against Iraq was to the
>> rest of the world.
>
> Which, judging by the tenor of this NG, is nowhere near believable or
> palatable as would be to worth going for it.
Maybe....Maybe not. That's a decision they'd have to make as part of their
"go-no go" evaluation.
George Z.
dump...@hotmail.com
>
> Quite. If the US stops them, all hell will break loose in the US
> Israel lobby, and if they don't stop them the pressure will be
> unstoppable on the Iraqi to order out the US, leaving it very
> vulnerable.
>
> --
> Peter Kemp
>
> "Life is short...drink faster"
Since Iran and Iraq fought a war a few years ago, and since Iran is
supplying the Iraqi
insurgents, wouldn't it be better for Iraq if Iran didn't get nukes?
dump...@hotmail.com
What about Su-27's or additional MiG-29's?
Matthew G. Saroff
It's LGF.
I consider Tom and Ray Magliozzi to be more reliable
sources.
--
--Matthew Saroff
_____ * For a succesful technology, *
/ o o \ * reality must take precedence over *
______|_____|_____ * public relations, for Nature *
uuu U uuu * cannot be fooled." *
* - Richard P. Feynman *
fredf...@spamcop.net
Iranian underground nuclear sites have been suggested
as a potential target for the proposed Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrator (RNEP).
I've read estimates of 1,000,000 civilian casualties in Iran,
Pakistan and Afghanistan should the RNEP be used at
just one of the known Iranian sites. Unlike the Hiroshima
and Nagasaki bombs, which were airbursts, or US tests
which were either on towers or deep underground a shallow
detonation would maximizes the fallout with terrible
consequences downwind.
I think the Israelis would hesitate to kill lthat many innocent
people, but the prevailing wind does blow away from Israel.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
George Z. Bush wrote:
> Kerryn Offord wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >
> > So, if the Israeli's overfly Iraq without the Americans doing anything,
> > like trying to shoot them down or asking them to please go back the way
> > they came...
> >
> > It won't be just the Israeli's asking for forgiveness....
>
> It'd be roughly the equivalent of them sitting there and taking it with Saddam's
> Scuds raining down on them during the Gulf War just because we asked them to
> stay out of it. Just keep in mind that the history of modern Israel does not
> include any instances of them running from a fight. The legal beagles call it
> "quid pro quo", a Latin phrase that translates loosely into "give me this and
> I'll give you that" or "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" or perhaps more
> literally "for this, (you get) that".
>
> They'd ask us to stay out of it, as we once asked them, and we'd do it because
> we owe them one. We'd not only turn a blind eye to their flyover, but we'd be
> almost guaranteed a heads up from them by way of flight plans before the fact.
> That's the way the big boys play.
>
If Iran aqdvances far enough toward the development of
nuclear weapons we should do it instead of the Israelis.
We would catch almost as much hell for it if the Israelis
did it as if we did anyways. We can can drop JDAMS
on hardened sites for as long as it takes to destroy them
or at least cut them off and carpet bomb the surface with
B52s on a daily basis to keep them that way.
If it were the case that Israel was comitted to a nuclear
first strike against Iran (or anybody else for that matter)
we would have to step in and stop them, and the only
reliable way to do that would be to do the job ourselves,
not for Israel but for the world..
Israel may have at least technological parity with the US
but they can't possibly have the same gross capacity of
sheer conventional throwweight that the US could
bring to bear on the problem.
--
FF
nuke
Israel should be nuked immediately.
Bardo...@yahoo.com
dump...@hotmail.com
strikes on Iran's
nuclear facilities by March of 2006. See:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html
dump...@hotmail.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501428.html
dump...@hotmail.com
the Arrow air defense
system. See:
http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/12195p3.xml
dump...@hotmail.com
2-year suspension.
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4592140.stm
Considering Iranian nuclear activities are likely dispersed at many
secret locations, were
those seals ever really much of a hinderance to the Iranians to begin
with?
dump...@hotmail.com
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/11/03247.shtml
Israel is accelerating it's strike plans against Iran.
Jim Yanik
news:1137002858.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> According to:
>
> http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/11/03247.shtml
>
> Israel is accelerating it's strike plans against Iran.
>
>
With their government messed up with Sharon's medical problems,they might
not be able to act in time(due to politics).
One of the estimates of Iran's achieving a single nuke is only a few months
from now.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
dump...@hotmail.com
Grantland
January 13, 2006
The Bombs of March
Countdown to War with Iran?
By MIKE WHITNEY
Iran will defend itself if it is attacked by the United States or Israel.
Defending one's country against unprovoked aggression is sanctioned under
international law and is a requirement of true leadership. We would expect no
different if either the United States or Israel was attacked.
The Sharon and Bush administrations' have done an admirable job of poisoning
public opinion against Iran; interpreting President Ahmadinejad's comments as a
potential danger to Israel's welfare. But such statements, however offensive,
are commonplace in the Middle East and cannot be construed as a credible threat.
In fact, Iran has not demonstrated any territorial ambitions nor is it involved
in the occupation of any foreign country as is true of both the United States
and Israel.
Media-Hype; beating the war drums, again
The media has assumed its traditional role of fanning the flames for war by
providing ample space for the spurious allegations of administration officials,
right-wing pundits, and disgruntled Iranian exiles, while carefully omitting the
relevant facts in Iran's defense.
As always, the New York Times has spearheaded the propaganda war with an article
by Richard Bernstein and Steven Weisman which lays out the sketchy case against
Iran. In the first paragraph the Bernstein-Weisman combo suggest that Iran has
restarted "research that could give it technology to create nuclear weapons."
Nuclear weapons?
Perhaps, the NY Times knows something that the IAEA inspectors don't? If so,
they should step forward and reveal the facts. More likely, however, they are
simply following in the tradition of mentor Judith Miller whose scurrilous
front-pages articles misled the nation to war with Iraq.
There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
None.
Not even George Bush would make that claim.
There's also no evidence that Iran has the centrifuges necessary to enrich
uranium to weapons-grade material. These are the two issues which should be
given greatest consideration in determining whether or not Iran poses a real
danger to its neighbors, and yet, these are precisely the facts that are absent
from the nearly 2,500 articles written on the topic in the last few days.
IAEA chief Mohammed Elbaradei has repeatedly stated that his team of inspectors,
who've had the opportunity to "go anywhere and see anything", has found nothing
to corroborate the assertions of the US or Israel.
On the other hand, we know that the U.S. has developed a new regime of low-yield
"usable" nuclear weapons to destroy underground bunkers. We also know that the
militarists in the Pentagon have threatened to use nuclear weapons in a "first
strike" preemptive attack, and that the main players in the Defense Dept.
unanimously believe that nuclear weapons should be used as part of America's
strategy for global security.
Iran claims that developing nuclear weapons runs counter to their religious
beliefs, while the Bush administration (as per the Nuclear Posture Review)
believes that nuclear weapons are an integral part of the war on terror.
Rumsfeld has even shaken up the Pentagon to further surround himself with
like-minded people who support this basic thesis.
Perhaps, our fear of Iran is misplaced?
Presently, the administration is trying to bring Iran before the UN Security
Council for violations that date back more than 2 years. Since then, there have
been no violations and Iran has willingly complied with strict enforcement of
its treaty obligations under the NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) as well as
other "confidence-building" measures which it freely accepted as a sign of
good-will.
In truth, Iran is entitled to enrich uranium under the terms of the NPT and has
agreed to do so in a manner that is consistent with the strict rules of the
IAEA. Iran will not, however, give up its "inalienable right" to convert uranium
for peaceful purposes, such as making fuel for use in nuclear power plants.
No other nation except Iran has been asked to forgo its rights under the NPT.
The Bush administration expects the UN to annul parts of the treaty simply to
accommodate its unfounded suspicions. But, why should Iran agree to be treated
like an underling just to satisfy Bush? After all, Iran initially signed the NPT
as a way of reducing nuclear weapons while Israel, the U.S., and other nations
were busy building a new generation of nukes.
Besides, the conversion process takes place in front of IAEA inspectors and
cameras that are set up to film the entire procedure. The IAEA is required to
report any violations to the UN Security Council for punitive action. The
watchdog agency was very successful in analyzing the true state of Iraq's
"alleged" nuclear program. There's no need to suspect that they won't succeed
here as well. (Israel, Pakistan and India all avoided this regimen and developed
nuclear weapons secretly)
The Last Straw
Britain's Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who played such a critical role in
disseminating the lies that preceded the Iraq war, has been equally disingenuous
regarding Iran.
"For two and a half years, we've been working with Iran and the rest of the
international community to bring Iran into compliance with its very clear
obligations not to do anything that leads to suspicions they are developing a
nuclear weapons capability."
Straw knows, of course, that Iran has not violated its treaty obligations for
over two years and has been in full compliance since then. His statement only
confirms what reasonable people already know; Washington wants another war.
The Bush administration knows that there's no hope of passing a Security Council
resolution for sanctions against Iran. Neither Russia nor China would agree to
penalties nor is there any proof of wrongdoing. The case will simply be used to
increase public suspicion and fear while Israel-Washington put the final touches
on their battle plans.
It is worth noting, however, that Iran will be attacked without a shred of
evidence that they have nuclear weapons, a nuclear weapons program, or even a
long-range plan for hostilities against the US or Israel. In other words, they
are completely innocent.
Now that the administration has abandoned the internationally recognized
benchmark of an "imminent threat", it has also disposed of any other reasonable
claim to justify unprovoked aggression. Iran will be attacked without pretext
and without congressional or UN authorization invoking the executive authority
to prosecute the war on terror by "all necessary and appropriate means".
The determination to attack Iran goes back more than a decade to now famous
policy documents (PNAC) which support the idea of integrating Iranian resources
into the global system while eliminating potential adversaries of Israel in the
region. This first phase is intended to defang the regime and leave it
vulnerable to future invasion or regime change.
The forthcoming attack will probably unfold as surgical strikes by Israel on
perhaps as many as 12 facilities and weapons sites. Both Israel and the US have
signaled to Iran that retaliation will escalate quickly into nuclear war. In
fact, the Pentagon hawks may desire such a conflict to deter future adversaries
in Latin America and Asia.
If Iran does respond with force, there's no telling how things will play out.
The markets could nosedive, the dollar could fall precipitously, and vital oil
shipments could be indefinitely disrupted. (Read the business page and see how
jittery many analysts are) If the conflagration goes nuclear, then we can expect
that China, Russia and Venezuela will take firm steps to demonstrate their
disapproval. Oil shipments from Venezuela may be cut off while China stages a
destructive sell-off of its $769 billion in foreign-exchange.
Then, of course, there's the likelihood that the attacks will draw the Iraqi
Shiites into an alliance with the Sunni-backed resistance making occupation of
Iraq even more tenuous. Or, perhaps the Mullahs will deploy state-sponsored
jihadiis across the globe targeting American energy facilities and commercial
interests. In any event, there could be hefty price to pay for Washington's
recklessness.
Whatever the cost, the attack seems likely to be carried out sometime on or
before March 2006 when Iran plans to open its new oil bourse. The new exchange
which directly challenges the continued dominance of the greenback in the oil
trade (the largest commodity traded in the world) poses an "existential threat"
to the well-being of western financial institutions and elites.
Beyond the media subterfuge of "nuclear weapons" and "non-compliance", the
empire is marching resolutely to war; voluntarily risking nuclear holocaust to
preserve the system of privilege and concentrated wealth.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at:
fergie...@msn.com
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
http://www.participate.net/node/964
http://www.participate.net/node/964#comment
US And EU Want Iran To Go Before UN Security Council...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/16/us-and-eu-want-iran-to-go_n_13908.html
dontcowerf...@yahoo.com
'greater Israel' agenda:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewforum.php?f=24
dump...@hotmail.com
dump...@hotmail.com
would not let anyone who threatened its existence obtain weapons of
mass destruction as officials headed to Moscow for talks over Tehran's
nuclear programme.
See:
http://www.spacewar.com/news/Israel_Will_Not_Allow_Iran_To_Obtain_WMDs.html
dump...@hotmail.com
"nuclear option" for Iran.
See:
Is this just brinksmanship? Or will something come of this?
Jim Yanik
news:1137893545.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Israel has limited means to do anything about Iran;it's farther away than
Iraq,and has heavy air defenses,and widely dispersed and deep-tunnelled
sites to be destroyed.
Israel's air force was stretched to the limit just to do Osirak.
Phred
Yes, the IAF was stretched to its limits to take out Osirak 20 years
ago. I have a funny feeling Israel made at least a few upgrades in the
past 20 years though.
Rob Arndt
nuke-tipped Israeli cruise missiles through the torpedo tubes. AFAIK,
the Israelis could sit in the Med and fire salvos of them at Iran. Iran
has no response to that threat.
Israel also has an ABM system and plenty of nuclear missiles and bombs
to go along with new F-15 and 16I aircraft.
Iran MAY have up to four illegal nukes purchased from the FSU back in
1994 but this is nothing against over 400 Israeli nukes. The published
estimate of just half that number is due to underestimation of
production at the Negev reactor for decades. Israel has nuke categories
even the US does not have or use such as Neutron weapons, nuclear
landmines, nuclear artillery (improved) ... and suspected of working on
or possessing limited backpack nukes.
Iran is seriously fucking with the wrong nation in a nuclear showdown.
Israel is more willing to use nukes than even the US under Bush. Back
in WW2 had the US gotten the bomb earlier the target was Germany first.
Israel's "Nazi Germany" is Iran. Compared to the Iranian President's
war rants and denial of the Holocaust, Saddam's rantings pre-ODS were
just an annoyance.
This time, the stakes are much higher and Israel is in a crisis on
multiple fronts. With steelfisted Sharon out of the picture, SOMEONE in
Israel this very minute IS making a decision whether or not to attack
Iran in a pre-emptive strike. Don't fool yourself that diplomacy will
prevail, especially when the Bush administration stands firmly behind
Israel and may wait for them to strike before giving us an excuse to
strike as well. Instead of MOAB, maybe this time we test out some new
nukes!
If only Roosevelt was alive today... Teddy Roosevelt!!!
DT88
Phred
Perhaps, but if it comes down to that moment, the US would rather push
the button and take the heat, so to speak, and be the world bully
rather than risk an all-out war in the Middle East. Israel won't
object, but won't stand by if the US does nothing. The US probably
wants to take out Iran more than Israel does. While Israel was
threatened, the Bush administration is setting standards and will back
it up, which would send a clear message to N. Korea, but I doubt the
great golfer will flinch.
There is no 'Persian League' to defend Iran which is not an Arab
nation. Arabs also did not come to the aid of their fellow Muslims in
Europe, the US did. The Arab League nations are scared to attack
Israel right now. They do, however, view suicide bombers as a way to
break down Israel without an all out war, and consider getting Gaza as
a reward for suicide bombings - Hamas and PIJ say that constantly.
dump...@hotmail.com
Phred
>Iran has been secretly expanding its nuclear facilities. See:
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/22/wiran22.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/22/ixnewstop.html
I have never doubted that. The fact that Israel is reported to be
seriously considering action at this time tells me that Iran may be
near completing the assembly of a nuke, and the threats of a test from
Teran back that up. Have you noticed that no UN officials or other
negotiators are in Iran at this time? Hhmmm..... I wonder why.
dump...@hotmail.com
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Says_Will_Use_Ballistic_Missiles_If_Attacked.html
Jim Yanik
news:1138771034.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Iran is threatening to use ballistic missiles if attacked. See:
>
> http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Says_Will_Use_Ballistic_Missiles_I
> f_Attacked.html
>
>
chemical or bio warheads could still devastate Israel or other Western
countries within missile range.
Park an AEGIS ship for ABM defense in the Gulf before any bombing campaign
to take way Iran's nuclear facilities,-shoot down their ballistics over
Iranian territory.
dump...@hotmail.com
Weapons:
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Commentary_Later_Than_We_Think.html
If you thought Bush was a religious nut, you ain't seen nuthin' yet!
Jim Yanik
news:1138947621.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
I nore that it says that Iran has been working on their nuclear program for
*18 years*.