User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 4:57:16 PM EDT
[#1]
AHEM......you're forgetting one very strong people:  I dont think they have a problem sending in a small, well-trained group of special forces to take care of the issues. Plus they dont give a rats ass about world opinion. They are in it for survival only. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 4:58:44 PM EDT
[#2]
Good point. Has Israel ever been beaten in a military conflict? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 4:59:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Israel will do nothing, it lacks the capability to do it conventionally and going nuclear is suicide. ANdy |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:01:15 PM EDT
[#4]
agreed, they would not send in a ground force big enough to invade Iran |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:04:45 PM EDT
[#5]
Israel learned the concept of a proxy war from the British.
    
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:06:24 PM EDT
[#6]
Drop a nuke on them, and they will stay far underground.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:07:23 PM EDT
[#7]
The other thing people tend to forget is that Israel has not gone toe to toe with a Western trained non Arab armed forces. Iranians are 'Aryans' and not 'run away at the first shot Arabs', they are good and brave warriors as Saadam found, they know their shit and were US/UK trained back in the day. ANdy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:09:30 PM EDT
[#8]
Dude, I have no clue. I still wonder why it wouldn't have been possible to go after Iran instead of Iraq first. Wouldn't the intelligence have been more solid? Wouldn't we have the same potential to accomplish what we want (shake up the region) now?
Now we're in Iraq, but Iran is developing the nukes, and we're just patiently waiting for them to be referred to the UN Secuirty Council--which will promptly send them to time-out for 5 minutes  .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:10:04 PM EDT
[#9]
So what, so Iran gets nuclear weapons. China, the Soviet Union, India and Pakistan are countries that are incredibly UNSTABLE!!! But to this point no leader has been stupid enough to use them. Just like in the Cold War, there was an understood consequence between us and the USSR. M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction). It is my opinion that Amajehanadad or whatever his wacky name is, that he won't use them, it's just a deterence to have them. Same goes with North Korea, they want them to have as a deterence from invasion or pre-empive strikes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:11:51 PM EDT
[#10]
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it", MG.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:12:59 PM EDT
[#11]
If nothing is done about this then the entire world should STFU because it doesn't mean shit unless you are talking about a turd world country like Iraq or Asscrackastan. I see this as a put up or shut up situation for many key world leaders. Good, bad or indifferent, it's ante up time.
It would not be a walk in the park but most things that are worth doing are not easy. My only hope is that if something is done about Iran, using military force, it is done with the intent of winning and using EVERYTHING at our disposal if necessary. Thus saving American solders. I am of the opinion that we are a year or more away from gaining the bare minimum of world support needed for military action. I see the whe world as too nervous and upset about Iraq still. Then again why should Europe be in any hurry, the Petro-Euro has much to gain this coming March. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:16:00 PM EDT
[#12]
MAD only works when your opponent is rational, and cares if he gets blown up. If you're intent on causing armegeddon or think you'll be a martyr... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:17:16 PM EDT
[#13]
While I understand your point that some other countries have them that are not our that stable. The difference is Iran is a country that is a state sponser of terror, many of the insurgents in Iraq were sponsered by Iran. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:17:19 PM EDT
[#14]
While they could not actually field an effective conventional ground campaign, I don't see why they could not engage in clandestine special ops type raids on nuclear facilities that could not be reached by air forces. The air force could provide extraction of small specialized ground forces while they are conducting bombing missions. That's my chairborne command center's best plan to date anyway. The US could assist in gaining air superiority for enough time to complete the mission. No need to engage in a conventional battle, or to take and hold ground. This would also minimize civilian casualties. I'm sure they already have intelligence gathering assests in theatre. This would be very risky, and possibly not completely effective. If the operation was not successful Iran could retaliate. That's when things would get ugly. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:19:15 PM EDT
[#15]
Exactly. And if anyone thinks Iran won't give up nukes to Al Qaeda or similar groups is mentally lost. HH |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:19:18 PM EDT
[#16]
I just don't see that we have enough people to do anything against Iran on our own. We would need other nations help, and not just Ukraine and Poland or whoever.
And can you see the Europeans, who are actually in range of such weapons, raising a fuss? Plus, no one has hard evidence they have a weapons program--the capability, and certainly the motive, but no evidence. We are uncomfortable with the government being in control of those weapons, but that is about it. I do not foresee the frog jumping out of the pot in time to save its skin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:20:08 PM EDT
[#17]
The Petro Euro... why would the Europeans raise a fuss, only the US and Britain stand to loose. The "Petro Euro" Putin hinted at it, Saddam Hussein did it, Iran is flirting with it and OPEC is cautious about it Iraq, Iran, Russia, Venezuela and OPEC itself have all broached the notion of pricing oil in Euros rather than US dollars to some extent. The only person who actually did it was Saddam Hussein, and look what happened to him (the conspiracy theory is unfounded apparently). Venezuela even experimented with swaps and trades avoiding the dollar altogether. Such a switch would not appear on the surface to be so vitally important but considering that American economic and military might depends so heavily on two factors; the role of the dollar as international reserve currency and the use of the dollar for oil purchases on the international market, such a switch might make the US Treasury nabobs begin to twitch. Take away these two pillars and the house crumbles, some even going so far as to say that the United States would be transformed into a North American Argentina, drowning in debt with a currency devalued by about 40%. The billions of dollars each year that are acquired to purchase oil means that the American way of life, currently military expansion, foreign occupations and high budget deficits, are subsidised by the petro dollars that are printed with gay abandon by the US Treasury in the knowledge that any inflation dangers will be swallowed up by the excessive demand. In return the dollars that are used to pay for the oil either end up safely in central bank vaults as part of the reserve currency stash or are re-invested in the United States, thus once again sustaining the US economy usually via Treasury bills thus kindly financing the US deficit. International conflict As far back as 1992 Martin Feldstein, for some now a candidate to head the Fed, caused a stir with an article in the Economist hinting at a scenario of international conflict between the EU and the US and between EU member states as a result of the introduction of the Euro. The EU and the US would clash head on over their currencies and the EU member states would end up returning to armed conflict as a result of the ECB's inability to fight unemployment and hardship in specific regional areas. The article caused a stir at the time and was thought to be slightly unflammatory but nevertheless proving that competition from the Euro is on the Washington agenda. OPEC Mr Javad Yarjani, Head of the OPEC Petroleum Market Analysis Dept gave an interesting speech in April 2002 entitled "Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill" broaching this very subject. The tone was cautious but certainly in the long term the issue of switiching billing currencies was by no means out of the question. The real issue was the fledgling nature of the Euro itself and its lack of credibility and performance history. Unrealistic Does the world actually need an alternative to the dollar? Politically speaking there are many countries that would be prepared to lead the way, out of spite or political ideology, but the petroleum sector would need a far better reason than mere cussedness for upsetting its smooth running pricing, trading and settlements machine. On a practical level, there would be extra costs related to risk. Both buyers and sellers would be open to additional currency hedging costs if the Euro were introduced alongside the dollar and there would be internal arbitrage between the two billing currencies that would potentially disrupt the mechanism. A Weak Dollar Previously one of the most compelling arguments for keeping the billing of oil contracts in dollars was the fact that the US was a large importer of petroleum products but the Eurozone now imports more than the USA. There are geographic imperatives as well. It would be absurd for an Asian country to sell oil to the US in euros but it might make more sense for the Russians for example to sell their oil to the Euro zone in Euros especially in times when the dollar is weak. The Russians have found to their cost that being tied to dollars their economy is inextricably tied to the fortunes of the dollar on the international currency markets. If the US administration is pursuing a weak dollar policy to promote domestic manufacturing the Russians in turn see their oil revenues diminish in value. The UK and Norway The UK and Norway are Europe's biggest producers of oil. The UK has not adopted the Euro and Norway has not even joined the EU. Until these two major players in North Sea oil production are integrated into the Euro zone it would appear unlikely that even the international crude oil benchmark, Brent, would be re-denominated into Euros. The Euro - an alternative to the dollar? The Euro is still an immature currency with significant structural anomalies particularly the non-adherence of the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden. If the Eurozone were to extend to all of the 25 member states of an enlarged Europe and the European Central Bank demonstrated that it had the ability to combat regional economic imbalances within the Eurozone, stimulate growth and not merely act as a price stabilizer and inflation buster the prestige of the Euro would be such that it could well warrant a reputation as a powerful rival to the dollar. Fiat dollar The dollar, since 1971, when Richard Nixon closed the gold window, has not been backed by gold but the dollar's predominant position as reserve currency and oil billing currency mean that the dollar is essentially backed by oil. Other countries are judged on government policies and economic fundamentals, this is not the case with the US which can get away with a runaway deficit despite the fact that the economy may be in precarious condition. This is a luxury that the Euro may one day inherit from the dollar. Why replace the dollar? There is no pressing need to replace the dollar with the Euro but those countries that lose out when the dollar is weak might want to have an alternative to a 100% exposure to US dollars. However, the complex system of trading and pricing that is already in place is not going to be revolutionised on a whim. Anti-American sentiment might equally be a spur to change, especially if some of the major producers and exporters begin to see the US as an unsafe pair of hands with rogue unilateral policies. Threatening a switch might become a novel way of limiting the worst excesses of neo-conservatism. Allston Mitchell europe.tiscali.co.uk/index.jsp?section=Business&level=preview&content=160462 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:42:15 PM EDT
[#18]
When I saw this I was blown away, I thought that Vito guy was smarter than that I looked it up and found that "Aryan" does not mean Nordic as I has always thought. But wouldnt that mean a large part of Iraqis are Aryan? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 6:01:35 PM EDT
[#19]
To my knowledge, Iraqis are an Arabic people; they may be Shiites, but that has more to do with their historical proximity to Iran than anything else I think. I think Aryan could also be taken to mean Indo-European.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 6:15:41 PM EDT
[#20]
Iran, you're next. Step away from the nuclear weapons programs or be the victim of a nuclear weapons program that hit the proving grounds on 16 July 1945.
Given the drain on our troops and our resources, if we go into Iran, expect it to involve nukes. It's the only economical way to achieve our objective. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 6:51:39 PM EDT
[#21]
In case you've forgotten, ignoramus, the Israelis did the same thing to Saddam's nuclear plant in 1981. Their aircraft have only gained range since '81, and their weapons more accuracy. They WILL strike Iran, if it becomes the only option to keep them from going nuclear. How many times have you been to Israel? How many Israeli F-15s or F-16s have you seen? How many Israeli pilots do you know? How many Israeli government officials do you know? If you answered 'none' to three or more of these questions, then shut up and stop spewing bullshit. I mean no insult to you, but it really pisses me off when people talk about things that they have no knowledge of. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 7:09:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Murdock, you're crazy. lol. The Iraqi installation that the Isrealis hit was not nearly as protected as the Iranians are. They learned from that strike. I'm not saying they won't strike, but I agree with ANdy, they're in a difficult situation, they couldn't do it alone. Syria would move in on Isreal probably, then Egypt. Then it WOULD go nuclear. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 7:17:26 PM EDT
[#23]
i'm no historical expert, but haven't syria, iran, and egypt tried that before? |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 7:20:19 PM EDT
[#24]
Yeah, and USC won 34 games in a row... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 7:21:24 PM EDT
[#25]
I seriously doubt that the United States military lacks the capability to take out Iran's underground facilities. What we say our weapons are capable of, and what they really can do are often two very different things. At the very least we should be able to get enough explosives underground via some sort of "bunker buster" to shake things up enough that Iran would be set back a few months, giving us and Israel enough time to expand our capabilities.
Neither the United States or Isreal would be up to a full-scale invasion of Iran, this would basically be a hit and run operation. Does anyone remember anything about the proposed nuclear bunker buster? If news of a prototype/program was made public I would find it very difficult to believe that we don't have any working examples at the moment. I'm sure that we have had plans for dealing with underground weapons facilities since early on in the cold war. There is also no way for us (civilians I mean, I'm sure our military has a pretty good idea) to know for sure what Isreal is capable of militarily. Something will be done about Iran. Whether or not it is a complete job is another story. We will certainly be able to take out their reactors as well as many of their above ground production facilities. I also sincerely doubt that Iran has underground missile silos, menaing that if they actually want to launch a nuclear weapon, it has to be brought to the surface at some point in time. If we are able to blow the entrances and exits of those facilities off of the face of this earth, the Iranians will be unable to do anything until recovery crews are able to clear up the debris (and I don't see the United States or Isreal allowing that to happen for a great while). A covert insertion of special ops troops is also a possible option. This would of course require close air support for insertion and extraction, as well as air superiority. I would be surprised if Isreal didn't already have people on the inside preparing for sabotage operations, it would only make since. That would also set back Iran's plans a little while until we were able to build up enough muscle to deal the final blow. Again, I would be very surprised if neither the United States or Isreal had the capability to take out Iran's programs. If Iran gains nuclear capability, Isreal will most likely be forced to go nuclear pre-emptively. This isn't going to have a happy ending no matter what happens. All in all, I think that the Iranians are going to have more than their fair share of fires and casualties to deal with in the not too distant future. At least that is how I envision this going, but I'm just internet Speshul Forces. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 7:23:33 PM EDT
[#26]
If you honestly think the US is going to use nuclear weapons, especially in the tinderbox of the middle east (you're forgetting Iran's ally, Syria, who also has nuclear and biological weapons within range of our troops) you need to step away from the crack-pipe. I doubt we're going to do anything about Iran. Israel has proven that they are more than capable of destroying anything they feel is a threat to their national security (Osirak, anyone?). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 7:23:40 PM EDT
[#27]
1. Naval blockade.
2. Airstrikes on oil pipelines. Wait for the inevitable decline in Iran's oil dependant economy. Of course, in the meantime, you do have to put up with the world's wailing and crying for Iran's sweet crude. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 7:24:11 PM EDT
[#28]
The problem for the Israelis is the distance to target and back. They would have to fly over Iraq and politically it would be unacceptable to a new government and would cause GWB problems.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 7:25:44 PM EDT
[#29]
But USC didn't have nuclear weapons in the end zone either  Should Syria, Iran, and/or Egypt attempt to invade Isreal, the Isrealis would certainly be expecting it. I wouldn't be surprised if at the same time they launched strikes on those nations' air bases. Isreal has destroyed entire air forces on the ground before, and I'm sure they could do it again. The United States also has a great deal of military strength in theater. Our carriers would most certainly be diverted to assist. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 7:40:25 PM EDT
[#30]
I suspect there might be a couple of places they could fly that they wouldn't get detected... That's just a guess on my part, but given the disarray the Iraqi government is in, and the fact that their military is still heavily dependent on us, I suspect there are large portions of the iraqi sky that aren't controlled by the Iraqis at this moment. Again, just a guess -- but it makes sense to me. Iraq's a big country -- a few F16's could fly through undetected pretty easily. Even if they were detected, that gives the US a bit of deniability -- "what planes? We never saw anything!" That's kind of set the tone for our relationship with Israel for a long time -- we sort of pretend to keep them in check, and turn a blind eye when they decide to go on and do whatever they please anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 7:41:52 PM EDT
[#31]
What is this 'Isreal' nation you speak of? I can find no record of its existance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 7:51:30 PM EDT
[#32]
I recall hearing that Israel had cruise missils they could use instead of aircraft. I don't think they could totally wipe out the program, but I don't see a reason why they couldn't cause some damage and set it back some.
-K |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 7:59:42 PM EDT
[#33]
And the weapons the Israelis hit the Iraqi plant with were not nearly as powerful, your point was?
This is different from the last 68 years... How?
Yes they can, period.
For those that slept through history, that already happend, twice. The result was the same both times: absolute victory for the Israelis, and no nuclear weapons used. Once more, how many Israelis do you know? How many times have you been to Israel? How many members of the IAF do you know? |
|||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 8:07:40 PM EDT
[#34]
WHEN we react to this threat on civilization. It must be with the blessing and/or help of the other superpowers, mainly Russia, China, and Syria. We cannot continue spreading our troops all over the world to fight when there are other countries who have a greater interest in these problems than the US.
I am very proud of our troops all over, however I am concerned with the lack of troops here at home and in locations that are volatile and undermanned. The European, middle east, and other countries that are actually in range of the missiles need to step up and quit counting on our troops to fight all the sensitive battles for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 8:21:36 PM EDT
[#35]
Which is why Israel will take action, if they must. We aren't the ones inside these freaks missile range while their leader says "Israel should be wiped of the map" and their top general says "If I had access to nuclear weapons, I would immediately use them on Tel Aviv". The Israelis can't risk that, a single nuclear warhead would effectively destroy their entire country. They aren't stupid, they know what they must do, and they have the tools needed to do it. The world be damned, when your arse is on the line, you do what you have to do, screw whoever it pisses off. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 8:41:23 PM EDT
[#36]
Still trying to figure out why it's necessary to KNOW an Israeli soldier, or pilot, or janitor. But I have been to Israel, so I guess according to your IQ test, I'm not a complete idiot. The phrase "History repeats itself" isn't a hard and fast rule, lighten up. I'm not saying they would fail, but it would get very nasty, and it wouldn't be without GREAT risk. If it were that easy, they would've already done it. JEEZ |
||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 8:43:46 PM EDT
[#37]
The bit you all are missing here is that their new leader, Ahmadinejad, is WAY off in left field. He's of a sect, Hojatieh, that even ole Ayatollah Khomeini thought was over the edge. The kicker is that Ahmadinejad thinks its his thing in life to hasten the return of the mahdi. His sect believes that wont happen until theres intense suffering in the world. He also believes its his thing to facilitate Islam's rule of the entire world. I can see why there's much angst about Iran having nukes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 8:59:53 PM EDT
[#38]
Tom Clancy's book MARINE (copyright 1995 btw) has a fictional account of US Marines going into Iran to make a nuclear facility 'cold' and recover weapons grade plutonium. May no longer be so fictional/offbase 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 9:02:43 PM EDT
[#39]
I thought this link relevant: www.israeli-weapons.com/index.html
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 9:29:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Because it's hard to know their mindset if you don't know any.
Perhaps not.
Since the last Arab-Israeli war, the Arabs have only lost military might, while the Israelis have gained, what the hell makes you think it'd be any more costly to them than the last two?
And having a mad man a stones throw away with a dozen nuclear warheads and pure hate for everything you are isn't a "GREAT risk"?!?
Just like if it was so easy to knock Saddam down, we would've done it years ago.. right? Except we didn't, for whatever reason. When we finally did, he fell like a deck of cards. This is little different. |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 9:35:30 PM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 9:49:24 PM EDT
[#42]
you should do the same. i'll bet my petro euros that you know nothing about israel also. unless you are sitting next to sharon's bedside wiping his drool and interpreting his "arghh, ool, uhll...", you need to shut up , too no insult intended. nothing will happen. they will go nuclear, as any other nation who truly wanted to go nuclear has. why shouldn't they. why shouldn't they have the right? because we deem them unstable? do you think the north koreans, iranians, indians, pakistanis, israealis, french, brits, americans, russians, etc...are ready to blow up the world? do you think nations are stable because they take american dollars? wake the fuck up. nations are sovereign, they will do what is politically possible to gain a seat at the nuclear table. i don't blame any nation for wanting nuclear weapons. i applaud it because it sickens me that "developed" and "civilized" nations like ourselves deem others too dangerous to have such weapons. what is the only country in the world to have killed with a nuclear weapon? how do you expect to have influence in the world when we have degraded ourselves and our ideals regarding torture, domestic spying, etc.... i've spent a fortune on keyboards because i puke everytime i hear one of you keyboard commandos spout your idiotic views, all the while keeping your heads down and chewing the cud that this adminstration is feeding you. the united states is in no position to dictate anything to any country in the world. we need to fix our house before we speak of sanctioning and bombing other countries for wanting the same kind of power we do. only through example can we regain our leadership role. all of you idiots need to cool your jets with glory dreams of commandos and bombs. no insult intended. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 10:05:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Nice trolling!
 CA 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 10:22:09 PM EDT
[#44]
Hard not to know anything about a country when you've spent a fair part of your life there.
Make me.
None taken, yet.
Why shouldn't a convicted felon be able to buy a gun? Why shouldn't they have the right?
Correct.
Do you know anything about Iran? Do you know anything about the man running that country? HE ISN'T SANE, and you have no problem with letting him build a few megatons of weaponry?
Correct.
Unless you're talking about a nation lead by escapees from a funny farm, in which case there's no telling just what they may do.
You do understand that the man who is now president of Iran is a terrorist? He built bombs that were used to blow up markets and pizza parlors. He was also one of the main leaders behind the hostage taking at the Iranian embassy. He currently supports terrorists in Bosnia and Iraq. And you want to give him nuclear weapons?
The United States, which used two nuclear warheads to end the bloodiest war in history, saving far more lives than were taken by their use, your point is? Said war, by the way, was caused by ignoring the threats from several insane dictators.
Torture? You mean female soldiers putting panties on peoples heads? You know some Americans would pay good money for that? 
Funny, since I don't like 'this adminstration', I'm a Libertarian. But don't let things like facts ruin a perfectly good anti-American rant.
This says otherwise: .jpg)
We want, and have that power to keep our peace. Iran wants it to destroy its neighbors and keep its people under the Mullahs tyranny. But of course, to you, all cultures are equal to folks like you, except for the western culture, that is.
Just like Britain could only stop Nazi German by 'example'? Sorry, that was already tried, it was called 'peace in our time', Chamberlain's action caused the bloodiest war in history, as will you, if anyone listens to your moronic illogic.
I dream of a world without Mullahs who invented the term 'suicide bomber' pointing nuclear warheads at peaceful nations. One where we can beat our swords into plows and learn of war no more. But sometimes it takes violence to bring about peace, that's a simple lesson of history. Ignoring an insane dictator has been done many times, and they all resulted in massive bloodshed. If it happens again, that blood will be on your hands. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 10:45:27 PM EDT
[#45]
www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/04/27/us_oks_bunker_buster_bombs_for_israel/
Israel purchased bunker busters last year from the U.S. that can be dropped from an F-15. A quote from the article: "The Israelis want to be able to attack Iran's underground nuclear weapons facilities," said John Pike, a military expert at Globalsecurity.org in Alexandria, Va. The propose sale should give notice to Tehran that the United States will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power if diplomatic efforts fail, he said." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 10:53:48 PM EDT
[#46]
Um folks, there is an easier way to remove the threat of nukes in Iran's hands.
Not by bombing a hard to destroy facility, but by removing the political leadership that gives the orders. Bomb the Iranian leadership, and the military/police forces that keep them in power, and watch what happens... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 10:56:45 PM EDT
[#47]
In the great AR15.com tradition, Do Both!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 11:24:09 PM EDT
[#48]
im from CA dont group me in with that moron... somthing needs to be done, cuz once the iranians offload a nuke to a terrorist group(it WILL happen) hes gonna be spouting a whole new rhetoric... some people just dont understand, or they choose not not. fuck whet the world thinks of you, its your ass on the line... not theirs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 11:28:34 PM EDT
[#49]
SO what are you then? Israeli Defence Minister? You seem to be the 'Expert in an Instant'..... You need to try and look at a map sometimes and plot some ranges on it.... Hitting Iraq was a short hop over the desert... Iran has facilities on the far side of Iran way outside the practical range of the IDF. And it really pisses ME off when people assume I have no knowledge of things I speak about... I'm with the .Mil . ANdy |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2006 11:48:46 PM EDT
[#50]
So spending a large part of my life in Israel makes me an 'expert in an instant'? Yet you, having probably never been there, can somehow read the minds of people you've never met? Yeah, sure.
If you'll recall, back in 1981, everyone said Iraq's nuclear facilities were out of range of Israels short-ranged early model F-16s. Last I checked, Osirak is still an empty landmark to a forgotten nuclear program. And you're the one that needs to look at a map and plot some ranges on it. Israels current strike range is well in excess of 2,200 nautical miles. Iran's eaternmost territory is only 1,500 nautical miles away.
Then you'd best buy earplugs, those sonic booms you'll to be hearing are going to be Israeli. |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
