reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
Interesting, Israel's F16's aren't going to fair well against this S-300 system then?! Its not the most stealthy of planes, but i'm thinking that
the Israelis would perhaps launch an attack from sea first to eliminate the Iranians communications..
I seriously think if it happens Israel will go it alone with only US logistical and intelligence support.
I think Mofaz's stance on Iran won't differ much from Olmert's, but lets face it, Olmert has been the softest and most negotiable of Israeli
leaders for a long time, regardless they are both of Kadima. The only real foreign policy change will be through a Likud government, of which if
voted in, will consider it a mandate for an even tougher foreign policy...
Israel, U.S. Exacting Date Of Attack On Iran, page 2
privacy
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 08:11 AM by theblunttruth
reply to post by Harlequin
What source is this? Do you have a link? I'd be suprised if this was true, Pakistan and Iran haven't always had the best of relations... Besides which weren't the CIA aware of the locations of all Pakistani nuclear warheads?
As much as i am against the Iranian regime developing nuclear warheads, i find the hypocrisy of allowing Pakistan warheads and not Iran ridiculous. I'd argue that if any country was infact guilty of terrorist activity and instability then it was Pakistan, particularly considering the amount of corruption there and the Al Qaeda tribal presence...
[edit on 7-8-2008 by theblunttruth]
What source is this? Do you have a link? I'd be suprised if this was true, Pakistan and Iran haven't always had the best of relations... Besides which weren't the CIA aware of the locations of all Pakistani nuclear warheads?
As much as i am against the Iranian regime developing nuclear warheads, i find the hypocrisy of allowing Pakistan warheads and not Iran ridiculous. I'd argue that if any country was infact guilty of terrorist activity and instability then it was Pakistan, particularly considering the amount of corruption there and the Al Qaeda tribal presence...
[edit on 7-8-2008 by theblunttruth]
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 09:03 AM by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by mopusvindictus
Thank you for your kind invitation, but i personally am fine with my country. I forgot who, but someone i agree with said something like this once - i drink from small glass, but it is mine. Nobody knows what the future will bring (well, except 2012 guys
) but i kind of hope for the best.
As for another Lebanon strike - ????? Why? Iran is a potential existential threat with a fanatic at top, but Lebanon is not. Even Hizballah is not. There will be zero support for such an action (Lebanon) in the general public and as far as i see the same in political circles. I think that purpose of the source of this article is to explain new anti-aircraft system Hizballah is building in south Lebanon for Lebanese and Westerners, not to describe real situation.
As for Iran - there might be a strike at its nuclear facilities (i surely hope not nuclear - it will be new heights of hypocrisy then) and missiles will rain on Israel and there might be a new war in the region. Not the first. Sadly not the last. I see no reason for direct US involvement because in previous wars there was no such involvement and Egypt was not weaker then Iran is now.
Thank you for your kind invitation, but i personally am fine with my country. I forgot who, but someone i agree with said something like this once - i drink from small glass, but it is mine. Nobody knows what the future will bring (well, except 2012 guys
) but i kind of hope for the best. As for another Lebanon strike - ????? Why? Iran is a potential existential threat with a fanatic at top, but Lebanon is not. Even Hizballah is not. There will be zero support for such an action (Lebanon) in the general public and as far as i see the same in political circles. I think that purpose of the source of this article is to explain new anti-aircraft system Hizballah is building in south Lebanon for Lebanese and Westerners, not to describe real situation.
As for Iran - there might be a strike at its nuclear facilities (i surely hope not nuclear - it will be new heights of hypocrisy then) and missiles will rain on Israel and there might be a new war in the region. Not the first. Sadly not the last. I see no reason for direct US involvement because in previous wars there was no such involvement and Egypt was not weaker then Iran is now.
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 10:24 AM by observer
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
I realize that Ahmedinejad is a bit loony.. but ultimately don't the Mullahs pull the levers? If that is the case, then listen to what they say. They do not by any stretch of the imagination like Israel, but from what I have read the issues seem to be about the policies of the country, not the Israeli people themselves (after all there are about 10,000 Jews in Iran).
Politically Ahmedinejad is terribly weak right now, the last regional elections showed that. His party lost alot of seats on the local level. He will most likely not be president after the next national elections.
The Iranian economy is poor, being propped up by inflated oil revenue. Which is stoked by his madman talk and Israeli and American bluster. Anyone ever notice that when one of the three players here says someting full of doom that the price of oil bounces dramtically? Think it's accidental? It's a win win for the U.S and Iran when he says something like "let's destroy Israel" Exxon reaps huge profits, as does Iran.
The Iranian population (not the politicians mind you) are pretty pro-West... unless we BOMB them. Then you will see a jingoistic fervor rise up over the country, thus making a large scale war inevitable and pushing the young pro-West Iranian popluation out of reach.
I don't even want to get into what Russia and/or China might do if this flares up.
I get the feeling sometimes that Bush and the many other powers that be are actually reading the "Left Behind" series as a policy paper.
The world has gone bonkers
Obs out
I realize that Ahmedinejad is a bit loony.. but ultimately don't the Mullahs pull the levers? If that is the case, then listen to what they say. They do not by any stretch of the imagination like Israel, but from what I have read the issues seem to be about the policies of the country, not the Israeli people themselves (after all there are about 10,000 Jews in Iran).
Politically Ahmedinejad is terribly weak right now, the last regional elections showed that. His party lost alot of seats on the local level. He will most likely not be president after the next national elections.
The Iranian economy is poor, being propped up by inflated oil revenue. Which is stoked by his madman talk and Israeli and American bluster. Anyone ever notice that when one of the three players here says someting full of doom that the price of oil bounces dramtically? Think it's accidental? It's a win win for the U.S and Iran when he says something like "let's destroy Israel" Exxon reaps huge profits, as does Iran.
The Iranian population (not the politicians mind you) are pretty pro-West... unless we BOMB them. Then you will see a jingoistic fervor rise up over the country, thus making a large scale war inevitable and pushing the young pro-West Iranian popluation out of reach.
I don't even want to get into what Russia and/or China might do if this flares up.
I get the feeling sometimes that Bush and the many other powers that be are actually reading the "Left Behind" series as a policy paper.
The world has gone bonkers
Obs out
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 11:14 AM by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by theblunttruth
Surely your not referring to the recent crisis because Pakistan along with India has been backing Iran pretty much all the way, to the dismay of Washington who keeps pressuring Musharraf go along with the "War of Terror".
Musharraf supports Iran's right to peaceful Nuclear technology
www.thenews.com.pk...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.atimes.com...
I don't think the US will gain much support from Pakistan in a move against Iran, sure they have bases on Pakistani soil which could be used to stage aerial campaigns, but they have a much bigger presence in Afghanistan which is right next door.
I don't think Pakistan is going to give the US an inch here, Musharraf is determined to win back support from the conservative majority in Pakistan who see him as an American puppet taking orders from Washington.
This isn't the first time America have been drawn into a struggle with Pakistan to get them to cooperate with their regional iniatives:
www.whitehouse.gov...
jihadwatch.org...
They're slowly backing out of their close relationship with the US as they realise it's costing them friends back home.
What source is this? Do you have a link? I'd be suprised if this was true, Pakistan and Iran haven't always had the best of relations...
Surely your not referring to the recent crisis because Pakistan along with India has been backing Iran pretty much all the way, to the dismay of Washington who keeps pressuring Musharraf go along with the "War of Terror".
Musharraf supports Iran's right to peaceful Nuclear technology
President Gen Pervez Musharraf assured Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad on Thursday night that Pakistan would always have Iran’s interests close to its heart.
www.thenews.com.pk...
"In my capacity, I have told everyone that we cannot afford confrontations with Iran," President Musharraf told the Saudi daily Arab News in an interview in Islamabad.
"We cannot open new fronts."
"When I go to the US and meet the leadership, I will tell them we have to close fronts.
We have a front in Iraq, a front in Afghanistan, a front in Palestine and a front in Kashmir.
"Let us close all these fronts because they are affecting the Muslim world. So we in Pakistan are playing this role and we will continue to play this role," the president went on to say.
www.globalsecurity.org...
Washington could be miscalculating that only the Shi'ites in Sunni-dominated Pakistan will feel alienated by Musharraf's unfriendly attitude toward Tehran. The fact is, in emotive terms, the average Pakistani citizen is bound to view US hostility toward Iran as yet another instance of Washington's "crusade" against the Islamic world.
www.atimes.com...
I don't think the US will gain much support from Pakistan in a move against Iran, sure they have bases on Pakistani soil which could be used to stage aerial campaigns, but they have a much bigger presence in Afghanistan which is right next door.
I don't think Pakistan is going to give the US an inch here, Musharraf is determined to win back support from the conservative majority in Pakistan who see him as an American puppet taking orders from Washington.
This isn't the first time America have been drawn into a struggle with Pakistan to get them to cooperate with their regional iniatives:
www.whitehouse.gov...
jihadwatch.org...
They're slowly backing out of their close relationship with the US as they realise it's costing them friends back home.
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 11:36 AM by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by observer
Your absolutely on the mark, and it's 30,000 Jews, not 10,000; and even those Jews reject Israel's hardline stance on their Nuclear programme.
Ahmadinejad himself has cleared up the distinction but of course Western media didn't take notice of this on the level that they did when they mistranslated the famous "Wiped off the map" speech which was outright propaganda.
ahmedismailibrahim.wordpress.com...
He never said Israel or Jews should be wiped off the map. That was a complete fabrication by the Western media outlets.
news.bbc.co.uk...
That was a later response to all these rabid anti-Semitism accusations.
Ahmadinejad and the religious leaders and Ayatollahs first and foremost have a problem with the conservative Kadima party and Olmert, not with Israel or Jews as a whole.
Alot of people misunderstand this and immediately jump the gun and assume Ahmadinejad is insane.
He's not, he's simply outspoken.
These Zionists have been relentlessly backing American policy on Iran since day one and are only doing so to keep their favour with their Masters who provide them with billions of dollars worth of arms per year.
Israel is the who started with the hawkish threats:
www.haaretz.com...
www.presstv.ir...
Everyone of course over looks these thinly veiled attacks and instead focuses on every step, word and breath Ahmadinejad makes waiting for a convenient slip up to use against him.
I prioritise my attention onto who ALREADY HAS Nukes, not on who COULD have nukes.
If anyone pulls a Hiroshima here you can be sure it won't be Iran.
Wow, I can't believe I'm hearing these words for once...
If the West bomb Iran, all that's going to do is rally the Iranians against a highly unpopular regime and destroy all chances of a moderate Iran rising up organically within the next lifetime.
Then an invasion at that stage will be necessary in Washington's eyes to pacify Ahmadinejad's radical regime and if it comes to that we can pretty much forget about the Middle East being stable in the next 5 centuries or so.
Let's hope diplomacy prevails.
the issues seem to be about the policies of the country, not the Israeli people themselves (after all there are about 10,000 Jews in Iran).
Your absolutely on the mark, and it's 30,000 Jews, not 10,000; and even those Jews reject Israel's hardline stance on their Nuclear programme.
Ahmadinejad himself has cleared up the distinction but of course Western media didn't take notice of this on the level that they did when they mistranslated the famous "Wiped off the map" speech which was outright propaganda.
Ahmedinejad actually said,“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise”.
ahmedismailibrahim.wordpress.com...
He never said Israel or Jews should be wiped off the map. That was a complete fabrication by the Western media outlets.
"Some people think if they accuse me of being anti-Jew they can solve the problem.
"No, I am not anti-Jew," he said. "I respect them very much."
"Let us remember that there in Palestine there are Muslims, Christians and Jews who live together," he said.
news.bbc.co.uk...
That was a later response to all these rabid anti-Semitism accusations.
Ahmadinejad and the religious leaders and Ayatollahs first and foremost have a problem with the conservative Kadima party and Olmert, not with Israel or Jews as a whole.
Alot of people misunderstand this and immediately jump the gun and assume Ahmadinejad is insane.
He's not, he's simply outspoken.
These Zionists have been relentlessly backing American policy on Iran since day one and are only doing so to keep their favour with their Masters who provide them with billions of dollars worth of arms per year.
Israel is the who started with the hawkish threats:
"All options are on the table, not only in the future.
www.haaretz.com...
"If Iran continues its nuclear weapons program, we will attack it," claimed Shaoul Mofaz.
"Other options are disappearing. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear program," Mofaz
www.presstv.ir...
Everyone of course over looks these thinly veiled attacks and instead focuses on every step, word and breath Ahmadinejad makes waiting for a convenient slip up to use against him.
I prioritise my attention onto who ALREADY HAS Nukes, not on who COULD have nukes.
If anyone pulls a Hiroshima here you can be sure it won't be Iran.
The Iranian population (not the politicians mind you) are pretty pro-West... unless we BOMB them.
Wow, I can't believe I'm hearing these words for once...
If the West bomb Iran, all that's going to do is rally the Iranians against a highly unpopular regime and destroy all chances of a moderate Iran rising up organically within the next lifetime.
Then an invasion at that stage will be necessary in Washington's eyes to pacify Ahmadinejad's radical regime and if it comes to that we can pretty much forget about the Middle East being stable in the next 5 centuries or so.
Let's hope diplomacy prevails.
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 12:03 PM by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
If it is the only thing he said about the issue - nobody will make such a deal out of it. But i see how he keeps saying the following:
www.presstv.ir...
Look at the date. It is not 2005, and it is Iranian site so translation is correct.
www.usatoday.com...
His suggestions on moving Jews "back" to US and Europe, his other - not less questionable claims - it all is not looking too innocent while developing nukes. I do not think he is anti-semitic (he actually is very semitic
) but he simply is locked on very dangerous ideas that are based
on religious believes. So it it is not one slippage of tongue. It is a consistent ideology.
Add to it nuke - i am not sure what will happen.
I also do not like "he started first" games, but he indeed started the flaming first. I do not recall our fire-starters talking in 2005, he did - this famous "misunderstood" wipe of the map thingy.
And as for nations that already have nukes - do you think that it is wise to threaten country with nukes with "removal"? And do it not once, and do it while developing own nuke...
I do agree with you on this (for what it's worth)
mistranslated the famous "Wiped off the map" speech which was outright propaganda.
If it is the only thing he said about the issue - nobody will make such a deal out of it. But i see how he keeps saying the following:
I must announce that the Zionist regime, with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene,” Ahmadinejad said.
“I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed,” he added.
www.presstv.ir...
Look at the date. It is not 2005, and it is Iranian site so translation is correct.
Israel was the standard bearer of Satan and the Jewish state would soon fall apart
www.usatoday.com...
His suggestions on moving Jews "back" to US and Europe, his other - not less questionable claims - it all is not looking too innocent while developing nukes. I do not think he is anti-semitic (he actually is very semitic
) but he simply is locked on very dangerous ideas that are based
on religious believes. So it it is not one slippage of tongue. It is a consistent ideology. Add to it nuke - i am not sure what will happen.
I also do not like "he started first" games, but he indeed started the flaming first. I do not recall our fire-starters talking in 2005, he did - this famous "misunderstood" wipe of the map thingy.
And as for nations that already have nukes - do you think that it is wise to threaten country with nukes with "removal"? And do it not once, and do it while developing own nuke...
I do agree with you on this (for what it's worth)
Let's hope diplomacy prevails
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 12:30 PM by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
Of course they won't, it'll be forcing themselves to admit they outright lied and put words in his mouth, they'd much rather keep up the smear campaign.
Make no mistake he never called for the destruction of Israel or it's people:
www.mohammadmossadegh.com...
www.juancole.com...
So starting wars based on somebody's personal opinions about historical incidents are now valid justifications?
Come on, don't stretch the margin.
I won't deny Ahmadinejad is a habitual line-stepper when it comes to remarks about Zionism and Jewry, but his beliefs are his own. He does not speak for Iran nor the Supreme Leader or Ayatollahs.
Making the Iranian people suffer because of what their President said strikes me as a pretty unfair conviction.
Bush can't even put together a friggin' sentence properly, should we take him literally now?
"It's just a goddamn piece of paper!" - (referring to the constitution)
""Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Sounds like a good enough justification to overthrow the Bush Admin on paper no?
Ahmadinejad is not anti-Semitic in the least; Washington knows they have no solid evidence on Iran.
Discrediting their President helps make their false pretences for war suddenly seem less crazy.
Saddam went through the same thing, remember?
He was supposed to have been feeding dissidents into shredding machines prior to the 2003 Invasion...
Guess what? It was bull.
www.spectator.co.uk...
www.guardian.co.uk...
Nothing new really. Go back to 1991. George Bush Snr. pulled the same stunt with the first Gulf War. Remember the famous story of Nurse Nayirah?
Some random Kuwaiti girl who claimed Iraqi soldiers were taking newborn babies out of incubators and letting them die on the floor.
And Congress actually bought this lemon and used it as justification for an invasion.
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.guardian.co.uk...
Like father like son.
I think people just need to give Iran a break. They have done little to justify such widely-circulating speculation and suspicion all fuelled by the same people who said Saddam had WMD's.
Wakey, wakey time I say, somebody's crying wolf yet AGAIN.
Pressuring them and cornering them and threatening them is the perfect way to go about creating another hostile regime in the Middle East and forcing them to actually develop Nuclear weapons.
You keep prodding them in the ass with a stick and sooner or later they're going to snap.
Why the double standard with Iran though?
Israel is at war. Israel has been in a permanent state of war since it's inception 60 years ago.
Israel has threatened to USE nuclear weapons, in certain situations.
Israel denies IAEA inspectors to it's top secret research facility in Dimona like Iran does.
Israel is just as likely to use Nuclear weapons as Iran is, if they get to that stage.
As far as I'm concerned there's no reason why Iran cannot have a nuclear programme as well.
Everyone is relentlessly trying to make an example out of Iran here when they haven't done a thing to justify it. Their not at war, they haven't started a war since the 1800's or whatnot, they haven't been conclusively linked to the bloodshed in Iraq.
There's no need to make a problem when there isn't one.
Either the present the cold, hard facts in plain sight or a take a hike, it's as simple as that.
Prove Iran is a danger, past what they're President says...
Or else just back off...
Before America actually creates a problem for itself here and Iran starts developing Nuclear weapons for real.
If it is the only thing he said about the issue - nobody will make such a deal out of it.
Of course they won't, it'll be forcing themselves to admit they outright lied and put words in his mouth, they'd much rather keep up the smear campaign.
Make no mistake he never called for the destruction of Israel or it's people:
www.mohammadmossadegh.com...
www.juancole.com...
it all is not looking too innocent while developing nukes. I do not think he is anti-semitic (he actually is very semitic ) but he simply is locked on very dangerous ideas that are based on religious believes. So it it is not one slippage of tongue. It is a consistent ideology.
So starting wars based on somebody's personal opinions about historical incidents are now valid justifications?
Come on, don't stretch the margin.
I won't deny Ahmadinejad is a habitual line-stepper when it comes to remarks about Zionism and Jewry, but his beliefs are his own. He does not speak for Iran nor the Supreme Leader or Ayatollahs.
Making the Iranian people suffer because of what their President said strikes me as a pretty unfair conviction.
Bush can't even put together a friggin' sentence properly, should we take him literally now?
"It's just a goddamn piece of paper!" - (referring to the constitution)
""Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Sounds like a good enough justification to overthrow the Bush Admin on paper no?
Ahmadinejad is not anti-Semitic in the least; Washington knows they have no solid evidence on Iran.
Discrediting their President helps make their false pretences for war suddenly seem less crazy.
Saddam went through the same thing, remember?
He was supposed to have been feeding dissidents into shredding machines prior to the 2003 Invasion...
Guess what? It was bull.
www.spectator.co.uk...
www.guardian.co.uk...
Nothing new really. Go back to 1991. George Bush Snr. pulled the same stunt with the first Gulf War. Remember the famous story of Nurse Nayirah?
Some random Kuwaiti girl who claimed Iraqi soldiers were taking newborn babies out of incubators and letting them die on the floor.
And Congress actually bought this lemon and used it as justification for an invasion.
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.guardian.co.uk...
Like father like son.
I think people just need to give Iran a break. They have done little to justify such widely-circulating speculation and suspicion all fuelled by the same people who said Saddam had WMD's.
Wakey, wakey time I say, somebody's crying wolf yet AGAIN.
Pressuring them and cornering them and threatening them is the perfect way to go about creating another hostile regime in the Middle East and forcing them to actually develop Nuclear weapons.
You keep prodding them in the ass with a stick and sooner or later they're going to snap.
And as for nations that already have nukes - do you think that it is wise to threaten country with nukes with "removal"?
Why the double standard with Iran though?
Israel is at war. Israel has been in a permanent state of war since it's inception 60 years ago.
Israel has threatened to USE nuclear weapons, in certain situations.
Israel denies IAEA inspectors to it's top secret research facility in Dimona like Iran does.
Israel is just as likely to use Nuclear weapons as Iran is, if they get to that stage.
As far as I'm concerned there's no reason why Iran cannot have a nuclear programme as well.
Everyone is relentlessly trying to make an example out of Iran here when they haven't done a thing to justify it. Their not at war, they haven't started a war since the 1800's or whatnot, they haven't been conclusively linked to the bloodshed in Iraq.
There's no need to make a problem when there isn't one.
Either the present the cold, hard facts in plain sight or a take a hike, it's as simple as that.
Prove Iran is a danger, past what they're President says...
Or else just back off...
Before America actually creates a problem for itself here and Iran starts developing Nuclear weapons for real.
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 01:07 PM by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
Of course he's going to talk tough and make empty threats just like the West do. It's posturing.
He wants Iran to appear strong and unrelenting to the rest of the world.
What do you expect him to say on live TV? "I'm really scared of Israel and the Am-Am-Americans..."
So he's outspoken, that's not proof that he's evil.
There is NO conclusive proof so far Iran is developing Nuclear weapons. None.
In fact all signs point towards the fact Iran has actually halted it's Nuclear Programme since 2003 due to mounting International Pressure and has not made any significant attempts to restart it since:
www.boston.com...
www.telegraph.co.uk...
I honestly think Iran saw what happened to Iraq in 2003 and panicked and simply pulled the plug because they didn't want the US to come knocking by their door.
Washington knows this which is why they've been desperately trying to paint Iran as a clear & present threat with all of this propaganda because they still want to go through with it.
You honestly think Ahmadinejad is going to launch a nuke at Israel and then watch as his own country is vaporised by a massive counter attack?
Sigh. WHY would he do that?
What would that achieve for him? He's not suicidal.
So he kills a few ten thousand Israelis and the next day Iran is a smouldering crater, yeah that'll work out great for him.
Just because he's Muslim doesn't mean he doesn't value his own life.
I think you have Ahmadinejad confused with Osama here...
Well let me put it to you this way...
What would you expect him to do? Sit there and let Israel bomb him back into the stone age?
Yeah he wants to fight back against an aggressor, oh he's a nutcase!
Iranian leader known for its strict fundamentalist religious views, the one with a potential finger on the potential red button, is constantly speaking in a certain manner while developing nuclear weapon potential. This is a potential danger.
Of course he's going to talk tough and make empty threats just like the West do. It's posturing.
He wants Iran to appear strong and unrelenting to the rest of the world.
What do you expect him to say on live TV? "I'm really scared of Israel and the Am-Am-Americans..."
So he's outspoken, that's not proof that he's evil.
There is NO conclusive proof so far Iran is developing Nuclear weapons. None.
In fact all signs point towards the fact Iran has actually halted it's Nuclear Programme since 2003 due to mounting International Pressure and has not made any significant attempts to restart it since:
www.boston.com...
www.telegraph.co.uk...
I honestly think Iran saw what happened to Iraq in 2003 and panicked and simply pulled the plug because they didn't want the US to come knocking by their door.
Washington knows this which is why they've been desperately trying to paint Iran as a clear & present threat with all of this propaganda because they still want to go through with it.
If next step conflict will happen - millions of innocent people in the whole region will die. This is the way i see it.
You honestly think Ahmadinejad is going to launch a nuke at Israel and then watch as his own country is vaporised by a massive counter attack?
Sigh. WHY would he do that? What would that achieve for him? He's not suicidal.
So he kills a few ten thousand Israelis and the next day Iran is a smouldering crater, yeah that'll work out great for him.
Just because he's Muslim doesn't mean he doesn't value his own life.
I think you have Ahmadinejad confused with Osama here...
but i did not see Iranian president once claiming that he will not attack Israel (Zionist regime will do) if not attacked first.
Well let me put it to you this way...
What would you expect him to do? Sit there and let Israel bomb him back into the stone age?
Yeah he wants to fight back against an aggressor, oh he's a nutcase!
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 01:08 PM by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by theblunttruth
The Navy alone would be insufficient for a direct attack.
Israel has only a few missile boats, and considering Hezbollah managed to score a few hits with WW2-era Katyusha rockets on Israeli gunboats during the 2006 Lebanon conflict; they'd prove serious fodder for Iran's wide array of anti-shipping missiles with no air support.
They do have some Dolphin Class submarines from Germany which are possibly capable of deploying water-launched cruise missiles but with only 3 submarines in service I doubt they could have much of an effect, also their short range would limit their ability to attack hardened Iranian targets in remote regions.
The quickest way for Israel to pull off a strike with a reasonable chance of having an impact of Iran's alleged Nuclear programme would be to fly squadron's of F-16/F-15's armed with GBU "bunker busting munitions" direct to Iran, refuelling in mid-air.
This would be risky to say the least.
Not only does Iran have a potent S-2-A defence network made up of large quantities of Russian SAM systems....
They possess:
# SA-3 Goa / Pechora-2A (Russian upgrade of the basic SA-3 Goa)
# SA-6 Gainful / Kub
# S-200 Locally upgraded and improved [3]
# S-300PMU1 possibly from Belarus.[5]
# SA-15 Gauntlet / Tor-M1
# SA-7 Grail
# SA-16 Gimlet
# SA-18 Grouse
en.wikipedia.org...
Some pretty potent stuff, especially the S-200/300 series, which are more than a match for unsupported fighter groups.
But also, Iran's nuclear facilities are extremely hardened installations to say the least.
It's doubtful one huge sortie of F-16's would even make a dent with ordinary, non-Nuclear GBU's.
Recent articles in AWST show that Iranians have hardened their bunkers & nuclear facilities using alternating patterns of 10" reinforced concrete and 10 feet of packer earth some as deep as 200 feet of this type of layer.
We are talking anywhere from 70-100 feet of concrete and 70-100 feet of packed earth.
The GBU-28 can penetrate about 100 feet maximum.
The Israeli's would most likely need to resort to using nuclear warheads to actually get the job done.
And that's of course where the trouble starts.... a nuclear first strike...
Quite a step for any nation to take in the world, let alone Israel.
Who KNOWS what could arise from that.... Russia, China, the US could all be drawn into a major confrontation, the consequences could be disastrous.
The Navy alone would be insufficient for a direct attack.
Israel has only a few missile boats, and considering Hezbollah managed to score a few hits with WW2-era Katyusha rockets on Israeli gunboats during the 2006 Lebanon conflict; they'd prove serious fodder for Iran's wide array of anti-shipping missiles with no air support.
They do have some Dolphin Class submarines from Germany which are possibly capable of deploying water-launched cruise missiles but with only 3 submarines in service I doubt they could have much of an effect, also their short range would limit their ability to attack hardened Iranian targets in remote regions.
The quickest way for Israel to pull off a strike with a reasonable chance of having an impact of Iran's alleged Nuclear programme would be to fly squadron's of F-16/F-15's armed with GBU "bunker busting munitions" direct to Iran, refuelling in mid-air.
This would be risky to say the least.
Not only does Iran have a potent S-2-A defence network made up of large quantities of Russian SAM systems....
They possess:
# SA-3 Goa / Pechora-2A (Russian upgrade of the basic SA-3 Goa)
# SA-6 Gainful / Kub
# S-200 Locally upgraded and improved [3]
# S-300PMU1 possibly from Belarus.[5]
# SA-15 Gauntlet / Tor-M1
# SA-7 Grail
# SA-16 Gimlet
# SA-18 Grouse
en.wikipedia.org...
Some pretty potent stuff, especially the S-200/300 series, which are more than a match for unsupported fighter groups.
But also, Iran's nuclear facilities are extremely hardened installations to say the least.
It's doubtful one huge sortie of F-16's would even make a dent with ordinary, non-Nuclear GBU's.
Recent articles in AWST show that Iranians have hardened their bunkers & nuclear facilities using alternating patterns of 10" reinforced concrete and 10 feet of packer earth some as deep as 200 feet of this type of layer.
We are talking anywhere from 70-100 feet of concrete and 70-100 feet of packed earth.
The GBU-28 can penetrate about 100 feet maximum.
The Israeli's would most likely need to resort to using nuclear warheads to actually get the job done.
And that's of course where the trouble starts.... a nuclear first strike...
Quite a step for any nation to take in the world, let alone Israel.
Who KNOWS what could arise from that.... Russia, China, the US could all be drawn into a major confrontation, the consequences could be disastrous.
reply posted on 7-8-2008 @ 01:13 PM by pluckynoonez
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
You sound like Tom Cruise in that one movie when he says "you are charged with the future murder of..."
We have every right to be "fearful" or at least create fear of them. Our policies in the Middle East are barbaric. We crush throats. So it would stand to reason we can have any nation come into their own as far as defending themselves. I say, change the policy. Be nice to other countries. It is that simple. Quit acting like a demon all the while demonizing everyone else...but I fear it is too late for that. Cheney wants his war, Russia and China will respond as well, and we will have millions of casualties as you feared, only it will come sooner than your projected later.
You sound like Tom Cruise in that one movie when he says "you are charged with the future murder of..."
We have every right to be "fearful" or at least create fear of them. Our policies in the Middle East are barbaric. We crush throats. So it would stand to reason we can have any nation come into their own as far as defending themselves. I say, change the policy. Be nice to other countries. It is that simple. Quit acting like a demon all the while demonizing everyone else...but I fear it is too late for that. Cheney wants his war, Russia and China will respond as well, and we will have millions of casualties as you feared, only it will come sooner than your projected later.
Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can\'t opt out
Posted 17 days ago with 78 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 78 member flags
BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran\'s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
Posted 2 days ago with 72 member flags
Posted 2 days ago with 72 member flags
FDA\'s New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It"
Posted 9 days ago with 53 member flags
Posted 9 days ago with 53 member flags
Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering
Posted 4 days ago with 41 member flags
Posted 4 days ago with 41 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Gingrich Campaign Being Investigated for ‘Illegal Acts’
Breaking Political News, Posted 14 minutes ago
Breaking Political News, Posted 14 minutes ago
WW3...Russia, Iran, China, The Shanghai Cooperation Organization...we're almost there.
World War Three, Posted 18 minutes ago
World War Three, Posted 18 minutes ago
Faith, Hope and Love Mirrored by Hate, Hopelessness and Unbelief
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 53 minutes ago
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 53 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Be sure to NOTICE how Threatening they are to YOU!!! Warning Graphic Footage!
US Political Madness, Posted 16 hours ago, 33 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 16 hours ago, 33 flags
Video: Angry Dad Shoots Daughter's Laptop [Posts on Facebook]
General Chit Chat, Posted 14 hours ago, 30 flags
General Chit Chat, Posted 14 hours ago, 30 flags
Nat Rothschild loses libel action against Daily Mail
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 17 hours ago, 30 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 17 hours ago, 30 flags
Current Potential Habitable Worlds - Update February 2012
Space Exploration, Posted 9 hours ago, 19 flags
Space Exploration, Posted 9 hours ago, 19 flags
Threatened by a Ron Paul victory in Maine, GOP (insider spills beans) adds last minute caucuses.
2012 US Elections, Posted 6 hours ago, 17 flags
2012 US Elections, Posted 6 hours ago, 17 flags
Egypt: Muslims attempt to purge village near Alexandria of its Christian population
Middle East Issues, Posted 12 hours ago, 15 flags
Middle East Issues, Posted 12 hours ago, 15 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Video: Angry Dad Shoots Daughter's Laptop [Posts on Facebook]
General Chit Chat, Posted 14 hours ago, 214 replies
General Chit Chat, Posted 14 hours ago, 214 replies
BREAKING rumour: Kim Jong-Un assassinated?
Breaking Political News, Posted 11 hours ago, 156 replies
Breaking Political News, Posted 11 hours ago, 156 replies
Most Canadians want the death penalty back
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 10 hours ago, 95 replies
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 10 hours ago, 95 replies
Egypt: Muslims attempt to purge village near Alexandria of its Christian population
Middle East Issues, Posted 12 hours ago, 76 replies
Middle East Issues, Posted 12 hours ago, 76 replies
Be sure to NOTICE how Threatening they are to YOU!!! Warning Graphic Footage!
US Political Madness, Posted 16 hours ago, 75 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 16 hours ago, 75 replies
EWTN (Catholic TV Network) Sues Obama Admin Over Mandate
US Political Madness, Posted 12 hours ago, 71 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 12 hours ago, 71 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.482 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.482 seconds
