Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who cares about faith in the West?

Israel has advanced radar and tracking systems. They have over 300 nuclear warheads by most estimates I have read. They are able to assure the destruction of Iran on their own.

Iran won't be long allied with Syria when the fallout blows. In any event, that alliance is easy enough to destroy.

The thing is, Iran is not without the ability to respond to an Israeli pre-emptive strike currently. Do you think that with all of the nuclear "research" they've been doing they haven't manufactured dirty bombs? That they would refrain from using chemical weapons in response to an attack?

If Israel attacks Iran, tens-hundreds of thousands of Israelis die. US warships are attacked, medium range missles are launched at Bahgram and The Green Zone, Iraqi Shiaa stop messing with Sunnis and come after our troops in Iraq full force, and Hezhollah goes over the border into Israel with everything they have.

It seems to me that I'm being asked to swallow the concept of an Iranian leadership so desperate to kill Jews (while 40,000 of them live in Iran) that they will accept the destruction of 90%+ of their population in order to do so the momment they have a dozen nukes...but won't retaliate if those hated Jews bomb their country?

What kind of monsters sleep under YOUR bed? [Wink]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ones with big long scary names like Ahmadinejad.
[Smile]
Note that I wasn't saying Iran would attack, I'm saying Israel's screwed if they do. And you're right about the possibility of chemical weapons.
So if they won't attack pre-emptively, will they if Israel steals a march on them and hits their nukes, with or without nukes of their own?

Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If Israel makes a Nuclear First Strike...God help them. We (the US) will no longer be able to afford to do so.

I fully expect they will counterattack, against Israel and the US. If Israel uses conventiental weapons, I expect Iran will as well.

They had chemical weapons in 1981...but didn't use them until Saddam did first.

They know Israel has no ability to launch a land campaign against them. The only real threat to their existance Israel has is Nuclear. However, they would be fools to expect to be able to use their long range capacity "latter". They have to launch much of it or risk having it destroyed when the US inevitabley intervenes.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Here's a nightmare scenario: Iran sends a couple nukes to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, thus beheading Israel and killing much of its population. They immediately afterward send their air force (which is considerable, by the way) to bomb Israeli air bases. The odds are about 50/50 on an Israeli commander, without any serious civilian leadership (remember they're all dead in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv) taking initiative and scrambling jets. Even if they do, Iran's suprise attack will probably catch most of their planes on the ground. Syria, grabbing its chance, declares war and invades. With superior air cover for the Syrians, the odds are again about 50/50 of Israel holding out"

dont discredit us so much martel. we have early warning systems that can detect Irani missiles and shoot them down (the Arrow) and we can detect Irani planes long before they arrive to Israeli air space.

and our airforce is more considerate then theirs.
chemical weapon attack on israel will not be as effective as you might think, 90% of the population has gas masks, and most of the population has special rooms in their houses that are air tight.

If we attack Iran successfully, i seriously doubt they will strike back, because they know that they cant (NOW) inflict serious damage to us on their own, it will be much better for them to cry to the world how bad Israel is and how good they are. if hizballah will invade israel, they will lose their single advantage on us, once hizbullah will go out of their hidouts the IDF/IAF will wipe them out.
during the second lebanon war, the IDF won in every engagment against hizbullah fighters and killed hundreds of them, they know this.
there will be an influx of terrorist actions against Israel, but there are allways influxes, and Israel lived trough them ever since it was founded.

I think that a successfull attack on Iran, will do more at silencing the ME then errupting it, since Israel will regain its position as the super power, and not only that, most other arab countries secretly wish for israel to be done with Iran's nuclear program anyhow.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Folks, if Iran shot a single nuclear weapon at Israel, it (Iran) would have about 45 minutes tops before the entire country is turned into crispy, blackened little toaster-strudel in response. They know this. We know it. Everybody knows it.

Iran is not a country full of suicide bombers. Iran is not even a particulary warlike society.

Offer this analysis from Greogry Cochran in the American Conservative:

quote:
The usual argument is that many Muslims are willing, even eager, to die for jihad, that the prospect of 72 woefully inexperienced virgins makes the entire Muslim world undeterrable and therefore highly dangerous. Since a handful are willing to die for a cause, the people running Arab/Muslim governments must be too—even if they’ve never shown the slightest sign of it. Again, the focus has been on governments that had nothing to do with 9/11 and in fact opposed fanatical Wahhabi Islam. Somehow such states are considered especially likely to go crazy.

But Muslim rulers don’t act like that. In fact, they never have, not even in the early days of Islamic conquest. People who aren’t afraid to die lose wars: the enemy is always happy to oblige them. Patton knew this.

Muslim states fight wars in much the same way as Europeans have over the past few hundred years, only, of course, far less efficiently. Look at the record. Recall the Iran-Iraq War, back in the 1980s, for example. A nation shows its true nature in war, just as an author reveals himself in his book. Iran fought, all right—clumsily—but it didn’t fight with incredible fanaticism, even back when the fire of the Islamic revolution still burned bright. Many young men marched into murderous fire but no more so than at Gettysburg or the Somme. Iran didn’t take as many casualties (relative to its size) as most of the major players in WWI, not nearly as many as we did in the Civil War. They quit first, which might show common sense but certainly does not show exceptional fanaticism.

As a practical matter, anyone who is all that willing to die for his principles seems to manage to do so early in his career, well before he achieves high office. Most of the people running Iran today could have easily become martyrs under the Shah if they’d felt like it. Somehow they avoided it. In fact, somehow the people who do achieve high office—in every environment—don’t seem to have any principles at all, let alone ones they’re willing to die for. Funny how that works.



Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hannibal, when you underestimate the enemy long enough, you eventually pay for it.

Would the Arrow system knock down some missles? I have no doubt it would...even if the Patriots didn't in GWI. 3,000 or so? I'm bettin a lot get through, and I ain't normally a bettin' man.

Israel definately out-killed Hezbollah in actions both sides tried to keep limited in scope. However, Hezbollah has never exactly gone all out against Israel, have they?

I'm not saying Israel will fall if it strikes Iran, I'm saying Israel will suffer. I certainly wouldn't put the sort of faith in an anti-missle system that has yet to be proven in combat that you do if it was my ass on the line.

If Israel makes a significant attack on Iran, it will be the start of WWIII.

I've told you before, you are only the center of your own world.

I can't begin to fathom for a momment how you have constructed for yourself an enemy that will commit sucide in order to erradicate your people with no provocation, but will not respond if you slap them around a bit.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WeAreAllJust LooseChange
Member
Member # 3411

 - posted      Profile for WeAreAllJust LooseChange         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KidB - I couldn't have put it better.

Thanks!

Posts: 174 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have to agree with Jesse...look, the Israeli military is all fine and good, but Hezb'Allah is not a nation, and as such does not have access to the resources of a nation. Iran will fight better. And a serious strike on Iran? Then Israel has war with at least Iran and Syria, revolts in Lebanon, possibly war from Jordan, if the King can't get his people under control, and possibly Egypt or Turkey. Not fun. Maybe they can handle it, maybe not.
Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Big C
Member
Member # 3404

 - posted      Profile for Big C     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess you have to ask yourself, which government/society most closely matches ours--Israel's or Iran/Syria/Egypt/Turkey/Saudi Arabia?

You all know the answer.... Do you have the integrity necessary to admit it to yourselves and support the country deserving your support?

Posts: 171 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dalilama
Member
Member # 3485

 - posted      Profile for Dalilama   Email Dalilama   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now, I didn't say that Israel would walk away from this unscathed, I simply said if any military commander decided that a nuclear attack will be launched against Israel when Iran has nuclear weapons AND chooses this contingency plan above who knows how many others that the Israeli military has compiled; it has a chance of being used. I'm not saying it's the right decision looking at the situation right now, but if the situation should change, this plan might be the best plan Israel has available. Many innocents would die, and that is never a good thing. The question is: Can you justify using nuclear weapons against a military target in order to stop a nuclear attack on your country? (Not saying Iran would do that, but there is always a chance)

About the strength of the Israeli military...Israeli troops are probably extremely well-trained, well-armed, and diciplined....and completely outnumbered. The difference in weaponry is probably not that great, but Iran doesn't have as many U.S. Suppliers, they mostly supply themselves.

About Ahmadinejad.. here is the wikipedia definition of his government powers:

Supreme Leader

Main article: Supreme Leader of Iran

The Supreme Leader of Iran is responsible for delineation and supervision of "the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran". The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Assembly of Experts elects and dismisses the Supreme Leader on the basis of qualifications and popular esteem. The Assembly of Experts is responsible for supervising the Supreme Leader in the performance of legal duties

[ January 12, 2007, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Dalilama ]

Posts: 8 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
C?

quote:
I guess you have to ask yourself, which government/society most closely matches ours--Israel's or Iran/Syria/Egypt/Turkey/Saudi Arabia?

You all know the answer.... Do you have the integrity necessary to admit it to yourselves and support the country deserving your support?

I don't define support as endorsing a friends policy of urinating on the inmate in the cell across the hall while he's making a shank out of a spoon.

How do you define support?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Big C
Member
Member # 3404

 - posted      Profile for Big C     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"How do you define support? "

Well Jesse, in your case I think we'd have to define it as whatever that orifice between your nose and chin will accommodate.

Now that I've defined support, how would you, Jesse?

[ January 14, 2007, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 171 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dalilama
Member
Member # 3485

 - posted      Profile for Dalilama   Email Dalilama   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hey guys, calm it down a sec, keep it civil, no personal attacks if you please

Jesse, how is showing support for an ally endorsing a scandal that happened in their country? Last time I checked, Israel's policies towards POWs didn't include "urinating on the inmate in the cell across the hall while he's making a shank out of a spoon"

I would define support as trust between two nations, the trust that their goals are similar enough that war will not occur between them, military support in case of attack, economic support in case of depression, simply put: the spirit of goodwill

Posts: 8 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
without nuclear weapons, Iran cant do any real damage to us.

even if they launch everything they've got on us. it wont be enough.

i seriously doubt they can reach us with their air force, and that if at all, any of their planes will even reach striking distance.
and launcing rockets on israel, with the chance that most of them wont hit the mark, is not worth it if those missiles arent nuclear.

we on the other hand, can attack them with rockets submarines and aircraft.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dalilama?

That would be called an analogy. Hannibal isn't a native english speaker, and he appears to have gotten that.

Big C

You are now the very first person I have reported to OM. Congrats.


Hannibal

Their "air force" such as it is isn't really a threat to Israel. You are absolutely right.

We differ on the possible effect of their Missles, and on the effectiveness of the Arrow system. So be it. Neither has actually been tested in combat.

Now, what if the strike is made and *fails* to destroy their highly dispersed nuclear weapons program?

What will the repercussions be for the US after permiting Israel to use Iraqi airspace?

If repeated strikes prove necessary, how is it possible for Israel to avoid war with Syria?

If they do launch what they've got, if they "only" kill a few hundred Israelis, what happens from there?

Does Israel try to wage a long distance air war untill Iran cries uncle?

Assuming Iran responds, what's YOUR vision of the outcome?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dalilama
Member
Member # 3485

 - posted      Profile for Dalilama   Email Dalilama   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My vision of the outcome is a Middle East bathed in radiation. If any country is known to use nuclear weapons on any non-military or even a quasi-military target, many countries will be hostile. They may or may not declare war against the offender, but International Relations take the plunge. we know have either a cold war-like situation, with a bipolar system (You're with us or them) or a fragmented international community. This would probably start World War 3, but hopefully, we'd be able to keep the fighting to the Middle East, and not contaminate the world with the byproducts of WMD.

Also Jesse, how was that an analogy? DID the U.S.A. say "Great Job" when that happened? If that happened?

Posts: 8 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now, what if the strike is made and *fails* to destroy their highly dispersed nuclear weapons program? -- I will answer that one last

What will the repercussions be for the US after permiting Israel to use Iraqi airspace?
"Permiting" ? has it came down to that? do you admit that we are actually a quasi 51st state that does what the USA orders us to do? I'd like to think that in such dire straits Israel will not "ask for permition" it will be more like a coordination of flight path, or letting you know that its going to happen, or at the worst case, flying under the radar hight all over Iraq.

If repeated strikes prove necessary, how is it possible for Israel to avoid war with Syria?
If a single strike fails, it will be virtually impossible to strike again, we whould have to launch a hundred or more planes to make sure that it takes only one strike. we have done a similar deed in the past, on operation "Moked" we launched 168 fighters to simultaniouslty attack airbases all over the arab world and that was 40 years ago. and it was successfull.

a war with syria? what can i say, I doubt syria will attack Israel for the promotion of an Irani interest, If they attack us, they wont last more then a week and that is giving them credit, unlike hizballah once their airforce is destroyed the war will be over. it will be an unnessasery war for both Israel and Syria, because they know that they cant win, and they know that israel will not attack them, unless being attacked first.

If they do launch what they've got, if they "only" kill a few hundred Israelis, what happens from there?
thats a tough one, if their retaliation is minimal, Israel IMO will do nothing, If they kill hundreds of civilians, we might retaliate, with our own missiles, but not on cities, on power plants and stuff like that. as of now, we can bring them back to the stone age, they cant do the same for us.

Does Israel try to wage a long distance air war untill Iran cries uncle?
No, Israel doesnt have the money or the means, and Israel doenst want to go to "War" with Iran, our goal is merely to postpone their nuclear build-up. we dont need to go over there and level their factories and ruin their country, we merely want to destroy their nuclear facilities, we will not wage war on them.
Note that we can launch missiles of our own on all their airbases. they have nothing that can stop our missiles from hitting the target.

Assuming Iran responds, what's YOUR vision of the outcome?
If Israel is successfull, then IMO Iran will not respond against Israel directly, but will attempt a "political war" and in parallel urge hizballa and the palestinian organizations to greatly increase their activities.
but these things have allready happned in the past, they were mostly unpleasent, but we coped with them.
If Iran retaliates against the american forces at the golf, they will have a war with you in that case, they are doomed. they will not retaliate against you directly aswell. but do the same thing - increase terror attacks on american targets.
you are allready up to here with that, so the situation for you, wont change that much

Now, what if the strike is made and *fails* to destroy their highly dispersed nuclear weapons program?
Then the IAF sucks, and that is impossible, the IAF is the best, and it allways came trough in the past. it has to do the job, because the fate of the country is decided by that act. faliure is not an option.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Big C
Member
Member # 3404

 - posted      Profile for Big C     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hannibal, in that your ass is quite literally on the line in this issue, I believe that your credibility and analysis are of the highest order.

Presently, Iran has not demonstrated the capability to reliably strike Israeli targets with its missile forces. It's an open question whether their missile capability or nuclear capability reach maturity first. One could make the case that they're running both programs in parallel--hoping to achieve both simultaneously.

In the meantime, if Israel strikes their nuclear facilities, I would expect Iran to use Hizballah to conduct retaliatory strikes. What we don't know is what nasty surprises Hizballah might have up its sleeve interms of warheads or longer range rockets. It's my understanding that Hizballah's capabilities and some of the weapons they had acquired came as something of a surprise to Israeli forces over the summer of 2006.

Should Israel conduct an airstrike, they do not have to overfly Iraq. And I must inform you Hannibal, the Israeli Air Force could not avoid our detecting them. Airplanes cannot "fly under" radar coverage from AWACS.

This brings us all to an interesting dilemma. Certainly, Israel does not see itself as a 51st state. It's kind of ironic that many in the US--both supporters of Israel and its detractors do. In any event, Let's say Israel chooses not to inform the US of an impending strike on Iran. And let's say we detect the strike force crossing Saudi airspace. If we don't intercept the strike, we'll certainly be seen as complicit. If we do intercept the strike, there might be other unpleasant ramifications. Perhaps, Israel might suggest a certain window during which we stand down our early warning network for "maintenance?"

And finally, in the aftermath of such an attack, while Israel weathers Hizballah's onslaught, might our troops in Iraq weather an onslaught from Iran's missile forces--which cannot reach Israel but can reach Iraq? Did you know the US just deployed additional Patriot SAM (ATBM?) batteries to the region? It was on the news.

As to Syria, I doubt it would take more than 72 hours to neutralize any threat from them.

And Jesse, I know how you don't define support, I'm still waiting to find out how you do?

[ January 14, 2007, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Big C ]

Posts: 171 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hannibal, the US currently provides Iraqs air-defence. They are also a sovereign nation, and aren't the 51st State either. It is an issue if Israel uses their airspace to conduct an attack without our permission.

You know I have told you more than once that Israel should act in it's own best interest. That doesn't negate the potential consequences for our troops if we allow Israel to use air-space we are responsible for defending.

You're absolutely right that their ability to defend against your air-strikes and missles is virtually nill. However, their air-fields won't really be all that important in such a conflict. Their air-force isn't much an issue.

You're right that the IAF is plane for plane, pilot for pilot, the best in the world...and yet it didn't enjoy much success against Hezbollah last year when it came to hitting hardened targets designed by Iran.

In addition, the IAF can only do as well in this instance as the target selection by Israeli intelligence allows...and according to several reports more than a few bunker-busters were wasted last year on targets Hezbollah had abandoned.

I don't think Syria will act in response to one assualt on Irans nuclear program, but if the conflict is prolonged they may be forced to.

At the end of the day, however, even if the attack were entirely succesfull...it wouldn't stop Iran from starting up it's program again.

Let's assume you're right, and the only "response" is an out break of rioting in the occupied territories and a few volleys of Katushkas from southern Lebanon.

How does this action prevent the situation from being the same in 3-4 years as it is now?

Dali-

Iran is the inmate across the hall. The shank is nuclear weapons. Urinating on them is an air-strike.


C

When you appologize for violating the rules of this forum, we can talk.

[ January 14, 2007, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Big C, you are right, we dont have stealth fighters, and i guess the AWACS is the best at what it does. I do know though from my service, that when Israeli F-15s practiced against american F-15's your guys couldnt get a lock on due to special israeli made electronic warfare pods. so who knows.

Israel will have to "play dirty" to attack Iran, since there is no official state of war between our two countries, and we will have to cross the airspaces of a few countries, with or without asking their permittion.

I am also 100% sure that a moment after a decision to go is made, the first person our PM will call is the american president.
but i dont think that when push comes to shove, the USA can order us not to attack Iran.
you can apply pressure, ask to postpone, but at the end, if nothing else stops Iran from gaining nukes, and no one else does anything to stop them, the "Mesada Syndrom" will gain the upper hand, and Israel will attack Iran.

Jesse :
"yet it didn't enjoy much success against Hezbollah last year "
sure, because hizbullah hid inside villages or even incide the city of Beirut, so the IAF tried very much not to kill civilians, and in that i think it was rather successfull. on the other hand, to blow a nuclear reactor up, we will drop everything we've got.

" the target selection by Israeli intelligence allows..."
I also hope that the Intelligene corps know what they are doing [Smile] but then again, there are several sites, that once blowing them up will defenetly crippe Iran, and every one knows where and what those sites are.

"How does this action prevent the situation from being the same in 3-4 years as it is now?"

What prevented Saddam Hussein from doing the same thing? what can i say, we'll cross the bridge when we get there, right now, the situation is close to critical.

Big C

"Hizballah's capabilities and some of the weapons they had acquired came as something of a surprise to Israeli forces over the summer of 2006. "

on the one hand, yes, hizbullah did surprise us with their capabilities and equipment they have. but on the other hand, in every land engagment we have defeted hizbullah fighters and killed hundreds of them.
the Army is going trough a very serious and intense proccess of learning from mistakes that were made during the second lebanese war.
the Israelis are very disapointed of the army and the way it waged the war and we hope that lessons are learned from the mistakes.
but with that said, the army used less then 20% of its forces during the war.
If hizbullah strikes Tel-Aviv, and violates UNRes 1701, with all the "peace force" that resides there, Israel will get very angry.


You know what will be the best?

that instead of us sneaking or not behind your backs, a massive force of both the USA and Israel attacks Iran and divides the targets togather.
after all, if any country strikes alone, the other will be viewed as a complicit, so why not plan and do it togather? our armies never officially acted togather before. a massive joint strike will be cool dont you think?

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hannibal-

I'm not talking the inability of the IAF to do a dirty ground-force job no Air Force is capable of, rooting Hezbollah out of villages.

I'm talking about the survival of Hezbollah bunkers near the border.

We think we know what the primary sites are, sure, and it would be easy enough to destroy the reactors they've been trying to build for nearly 30 years. They don't need reactors to make a couple nukes, they need them to make lots.

Saddam was in the middle of a war with Iran [Smile] That kind of put some limits on trying to rebuild his nuclear program. He also seemed to be set on going the reactor route at the time.

However, if he hadn't invaded Kuwait, his program would have produced nukes anyway.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does the fear of Iran attacking Israel with the nuclear weapons they're allegedly developing arise from something other than Ahmadinejad's call to "wipe Israel off the map"? I strongly suspect that the meaning of that phrase is lost in translation.

First, Hamas uses that same phrase (as translated by English media), but they would obviously oppose the use of nuclear weapons on land that they believe belongs to them.

Second, I doubt that a devout Muslim would support the destruction of Jerusalem, the home of David and Jesus. Some Muslims also believe that Muhammed ascended to heaven in Jerusalem (even though it's not mentioned in the Koran).

Third, 20% of legal citizens in the state of Israel are Muslim (not counting those in lands run by Palestinian Authority, according to the 2005 Israeli census). Over a million dead Muslims is enough to give even the most extreme of Jihadists pause.

I can't prove it, but I suspect that Iranians might consider something along the lines of "regime change" a fairer translation of the phrase. And I highly doubt it's a call for the use of nuclear weapons.

[ January 14, 2007, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: TCB ]

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TCB,

1)were Hizbullah concerened when they attacked Israeli cities last summer, killing arab-Israeli civilians in the process?
2)Iran wanted to destroy Israel long before they started a nuclear program
3)a nuke on Tel Aviv wont kill that many muslims
and will practically destroy my country. since maybe half of its population(including myself) resides in the fallout range.
4)sure, when they met "wipe Israel off the map" they actually ment kill all the jews inside israel,or drive all the jews away and destroy Israel's existance. -- thats why he said "wipe off the map, which is a more general term then "nuke off the map" and yet, it doesnt changes the fact that Iran wants to destroy Israel.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Big C
Member
Member # 3404

 - posted      Profile for Big C     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TCB:

I wonder if you would contend that Hitler's, Himmler's, and Heydrich's advocacy of a final soultion to the Jewish question were mistranslated as well?

In my opinion, you are being willfully (dare not use the term) in how you interpret very plain statements. For the last 28 years Iran has been very plain regarding its plans for Israel. Hizballah, Hamas, and the PLO have been very plain too. Collectively, or independently, the intend to kill all of the Jews in Israel. Any other interpretation of their goals is self-delusion

Posts: 171 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Big C
Member
Member # 3404

 - posted      Profile for Big C     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hannibal:

We could probably go round-and-round over US and Israeli electronic warfare capabilities, but it would be pointless. Let's agree that both sides are quite capable and its a good thing if we never fight.

I agree with your analysis regarding how an Israeli PM might inform a US President. I fully agree with your assertion that Israel must base such a decision on its best interests, no ours. And yes, were such a strike to become necessary, it would be ideal to conduct it jointly.

Such jointness would present a mammoth problem for the US in that we try to get along with segments of the Muslim world. One wonders how well the "Muslim street" and their respective countries' political "leadership" might tolerate such an operation?

Personally, I believe Iran's nuclear program needs to be disrupted. Sooner would be better than later. I cannot speak to whatever political calculus my government might employ when it eventually faces this issue as opposed to its current practice of asking our "staunch" European allies to dissuade Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Posts: 171 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Eh, Israel isn't ON Iranian maps to begin with.

Saudi maps either, for that matter.

It's possible that it was a "we will bury you" momment, I don't speak Farsi, but it's unlikely that such mistranslation wouldn't have been clarified by now.

C, there's no getting around the fact that Iran has not exiled or slaughtered Persian Jews. They've had 28 years to do it. Jew killing plainly isn't their motivation and isn't commanded by their whack job version of Islam.

What *is* "commanded" is subjegation of Jews and Christians in territory that is now or has ever been part of Islam.

If Lebanon had been created only from the area around Mt. Beirut and had a 70% Christian Majority, it would be considered as big an enemy as Israel and would be just as hated.

Projecting European hatred of Jews onto an Islamic framework doesn't work. It simply isn't the same beast.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Hannibal turn into a good Dhimmi and let the Supreme Leader of Iran tell him when his curfew is and what trades he can engage in!!

The PLO has actually been very clear from it's founding: They want most of the Jews out of Israel by whatever means necessary.

Hamas wants them ALL out by whatever means necessary...violent means perfered.

Hezbollah? What do they want? What day of the week is it. Which one of their leaders are you asking?

Hannibal

We both know there is a difference between killing a few dozen of your own and killing millions of your own (more likely, tens of millions when Israel retaliates).


Iran inherited an existing Nuclear program at the time of the Revolution...they're been trying to get it on-line ever since.

A nuke on Tel-Aviv (and do we really think they would pop just one) would certainly kill several hundred thousand Muslims. I really doubt Iran would launch with just one Nuke, and if they aquire production capacity *and use it* you're right. Israel will cease to exist.

So will Iran.

You're right. The leadership of Iran wants to destroy Israel. There is no point in arguing about precisely what they mean by "destroy".

The questions are

1) Do they want to do so badly enough to commit mass suicide?

2) Where are they in terms of aquiring the ability to do so.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hannibal:
I think Jesse addressed your first and third points. Regarding your second and fourth-- Iran's officially proposed "solution" to the Israeli-Palestian conflict is to send back all the Palestinians who emigrated because of the Arab-Israeli war and have a popular vote to determine governance. (Israel is obviously opposed to that solution because it would result in a Jewish minority and thus an end to Israel.) The proposal is obviously objectionable to Israel, but I don't see where it suggests the massacre of all Jews in Israel.

Iran is clearly Israel's enemy, but there are many reasons why attacking Israel with weapons of mass destruction is a bad idea. They would have to be completely irrational fanatics to launch nukes.

Big C:
I'm a skeptic by nature, but I don't deny historical facts like the Holocaust, nor am I anti-Semetic.

Jesse:
Translation debates may be too esoteric for newspapers. Wikipedia has a good summary of the controversy. Here its article on Ahamdinejad and Israel. They address the translation controversy early in the article. Some people translated the phrase as something like "erased from the pages of history." It's still the statement of an enemy, but it doesn't imply a nuclear attack to me.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Big C
Member
Member # 3404

 - posted      Profile for Big C     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Big C:
I'm a skeptic by nature, but I don't deny historical facts like the Holocaust, nor am I anti-Semetic."


OK TCB....

Did the wolf say, "I'm gonna eat you," or "I'm gonna eat ewe."

So, if you happen to be a sheep of the female persuasion, are you a skeptic, or dinner?

Posts: 171 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
moodi
Member
Member # 3020

 - posted      Profile for moodi   Email moodi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

You're right. The leadership of Iran wants to destroy Israel. There is no point in arguing about precisely what they mean by "destroy".

The questions are

1) Do they want to do so badly enough to commit mass suicide?

2) Where are they in terms of aquiring the ability to do so.



Iran talks about "Israel's destruction" because that kind of talk...sells. Every nut job who ruled in the Arab world used the same tactic to buy support among foolish Arabs. Today, the same leaders only talk about "strategic" peace which only mean "strategic" to their own survival as dictators down the throats of their own people.

This whole nuclear "standoff" is between the U.S and Iran. If anyone is going to destroy anything, it's going to be between the U.S and Iran. With the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, no nukes are going off soon.

P.S. I have been hearing about "Iran is close to making a nuclear weapon" since the early/mid 90's. Every five years, it seems, the same reports delay the nuke making by 5-10 more years. Who's in charge of making such predictions?

Posts: 134 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, a source who might possibly know something about the subject, stated that Iran is very close to developing a nuclear weapon, a claim that has never been made by Iran before. We know they have several nuclear sites that have stepped up activity recently. They do not have the capability to send a nuke at Israel yet; but that's like saying you'll put off calling the police until the armed man who's coming up your stairs actually breaks down an apartment door.
Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, when we are moving more and more carrier battle groups into his region and building up troop strength in neighboring countries, of course they're suddenly very close to a Nuke.

It's not really a statement of probative value.

I mean, what is he going to say? We're five years from a nuke, so don't fear to attack us? We already bought five and smuggled them in from former Soviet Republics, so hit us now before we use them?

Whether or not we are really building up to attack Iran (and I personally think we are) isn't really relevant. They think we are. Their public statements will be designed to try to scare us off.

From what I can tell, they basically have gone wiggier since Bush named them part of the "Axis of Evil". They've been going from appeasement to defiance on a pretty regular basis.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Big C
Member
Member # 3404

 - posted      Profile for Big C     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gosh Jesse, you had me hoping (saints preserve us!) that we had common ground: "I mean, what is he going to say? We're five years from a nuke, so don't fear to attack us? We already bought five and smuggled them in from former Soviet Republics, so hit us now before we use them?"

Then, you come across with, "From what I can tell, they basically have gone wiggier since Bush named them part of the "Axis of Evil". They've been going from appeasement to defiance on a pretty regular basis."

I ask, does the USA get the benefit of the doubt if Iran repeatedly refers to it as "the Great Satan." And, when has Iran shown any type of appeasement toward US concerns?

In your reality, is the United States subject to a higher standard of conduct than Iran? If so, why? Is it because the US is an "enlightened" Western civilization, whereas Iran is composed of poor, dumb, ignorant Muslims who do not know what passes for civilized behavior? Does the US accrue "ignorance points " because Iran (formerly known as Persia) has had a relatively well-developed civilization for more than 2,500 years whereas the predecessors of English civiliztion (i.e. US)lived in mud huts and caves 2,500 years ago?

I just want to know what your intellectual conceptual framework accommodates?


edited by OM for unnecessary and inappropriate comments

[ January 17, 2007, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 171 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
From what I can tell, they basically have gone wiggier since Bush named them part of the "Axis of Evil". They've been going from appeasement to defiance on a pretty regular basis.
The pendulum of Irani politics may be starting to swing in the other direction. Ahmadinejad is not any more popular in Iran than Bush is here, but a crucial difference is that he is bound by more government checks/balances. Iran is directly and indirectly supporting anti-Israel movements throughout the ME, but I don't see any strong evidence that they want open hostilities with any country. OTOH, Bush is thoroughly frustrated with Iran and might want to provoke them in a way that legitimizes a military strike against their nuclear development plants. I say might because in some ways we have as little insight into our own government's plans and intentions as we do into theirs.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Iran is clearly Israel's enemy, but there are many reasons why attacking Israel with weapons of mass destruction is a bad idea. They would have to be completely irrational fanatics to launch nukes. "

Like... denying the holocaust maybe? isnt that irrational and fanatic?

Jesse, sorry i took so long
"
1) Do they want to do so badly enough to commit mass suicide?

2) Where are they in terms of aquiring the ability to do so. "

1) the chances THEY whould do somthing of the sort are greater then lets say ,Belgium, a more intelligent resonde : what if they make a "less tracable" attack on israel, that is, ofcourse people will now that some how they are responsible, but it wont come from them. what if hizbullah launches the nuke, or Al-Qaeda, or a newly formed terrorist organization that will take responsibility for nuking my country, it doesnt have to be mounted on an Irani made missile.

if that will be the case, whould the world immidietly blame Iran? i know how it will go, the europeans will want to "investigate" it will take 10 years untill they finish their investigation, what then? will what's left of israel attack Iran after 10 years?
Even the USA will want solid proofs before its doing somthing drastic.
Iran wants to destroy us, they support virtually everything that moves that wants to destroy us. how can a sane person even consider it a possibility that they will have a nuklear arsenal.

2)getting closer by the day, they have started making centrefuges and installing them, they didnt have that technology six months ago. they are defenetly getting closer. If you remmember my posts at this forum, I thought that some time around 2006 there whould be an action against Iran. a few months ago Israel papers reported that there is an aparant setback in their nuclear program, But things are going critical, i estimate that somthing drastic in their case will happen by the end of 2008 for sure.

honestly, i hope, if it is possible, that the "action" will take place AFTER i finish my B.Sc because who knows what will happen here afterwards [Smile]

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
moodi
Member
Member # 3020

 - posted      Profile for moodi   Email moodi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I read a Kuwaiti journalist's report today that two Israeli submarines joined American warships/submarines in the Persian Gulf.

Any truth to those reports?

Posts: 134 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whether or not "the world" does, Hannibal, Israel has nothing to lose by flattening Iran if her people are nuked. I think we can agree that right now, if a Nuke went off in Israel, everything the IDF could launch would hit Iran in 15 minutes.

It's those very centrifuges I question the ability of the IAF to take out in one massive strike, Hannibal. The reactor sites are easy. If most of the centrifuges survive, however, that leaves Israel in a position even more exposed than it is now with an enemy still on a path to nuclear weapons and - I think we can agree on this - certain to strike once it has them.

C, you need chill. I can't say it any simpler than that. We disagree, period. I am not attacking you and have not attacked you.

First, I don't expect any nation to meet the same standards I set for my own. I honestly don't expect my nation will ever reach my highest hopes for it within my lifetime. That's got nothing to do with the Racism of Low Expectation (tm).

Because I don't believe it's acceptable for *any* Nation, the US or Israel or Zimbabwe or Iran, to launch an attack that will likely start WWIII and may very well result in the destruction of life as we know it if there is any feasible way to avoid it does not mean I am sympathetic to the ******* currently controling Iran.

The Iranian Government has issued two public letters essentialy begging for a step down in the tension between our countries. They got to it after 9/11 promising safe harbor for any of our Aircraft that ran into trouble and needed their air fields, and providing us with various other forms of assistance.

Do you know about the candlelight virgil in Tehran in memory of the people we lost that day?

We didn't bloodlessy stop Libyas WMD program by refusing to talk untill they agreed with us...we did it by talking to them untill they agreed.

Israel didn't get Syria to propose a *very* workable peace deal by refusing to talk to them..talking to them in spite of Syrias rhetoric concerning Israel.

Right now, we have essentially no diplomatic relationship with Iran. We don't know what might or might not be possible if we actually engaged them. We've made peace with worse monsters than these. For that matter, so has Israel.

We have only tried threats, we have no cause to say Diplomacy cannot work.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yes, but Iran is repeatingly stating that they will talk to anyone even to the US, but they will never talk to Israel, because they dont recognize its existance.

(allthough this sentence has some inner logic contradictions, you get the point)

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh, no Muslim nation ever recognizes Israels existance until after the talking [Smile]

I do get the point, though Hannibal. The "Islamic Revolution" government isn't going to come to the table with Israel. You're right.

However, if the US could shut down any realistic hopes that government has of building a Nuke, it wouldn't matter that much would it?

If the Nuclear threat is removed, Iran is something Israel can live with. Sure, Hezbollah sucks, but if peace with Syria happens, Hezbollah has little in the way of funding or munitions.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
sure, I have no problem that the nuclear threat is removed, as long as it is removed.

the problem is, that the americans are bogged in Iraq, the UN is a miserable entity that doesnt worth the land its sitting on, the europeans kiss the arab's ass for oil.

nothing remotely , at this moment, is done to even postpone just a little bit, let alone cancel their nuclear program.

Thats why Israel is all aggrevated.

(by the way, my point was that in order to "evade" from some one, you must recognize its there, so there is a logical flaw in saying "I am not willing to talk to Israel, because i dont recognize its existance) its like saying i am not willing to go around the pole because there is no pole (Boink!)

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
moodi
Member
Member # 3020

 - posted      Profile for moodi   Email moodi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why doesn't Israel give up it's nukes as well? Wouldn't this actually help matters more in the region? If your enemy has a superior weapon, it makes sense to actually try and develop a rival threat! Doesn't this apply to Iran as well?

For the record, I am against Iran or any OTHER nation having such disastrous tools of destruction. Why? Because such weapons don't actually create "Peace". They create a false sense of it.

The only reason (good reason) we have against Iran acquiring nukes is that the regime there is crazy and might use them as a quick way to go to heaven. That might be partially true (I don't really agree with that), but Israel has religious nuts that are just as bad as their Iranian counterparts (and they do form a respected percentile of the total population). Orthodox Jews have a higher fertility rate than their liberal counterparts and thus in the future (mid-long term) you might see a hardliner "regime" there.

Again, I am not saying any of the above justifies Iran's nuclear ambitions, but you have to see how the other part views the current situation. Anyone who preaches the theme Nukes Protect Me is only calling for the rival nation to think in the same way.

Posts: 134 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1