NationStates Jolt Archive

From a UK paper this time, not the fanciful pages of DEBKA...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html

I have a very bad feeling about this. I have the feeling that the US is at least going to help them with aerial refueling, satellite imagery, and possibly with jamming or SAM suppression.

ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.

The order came after Israeli intelligence warned the government that Iran was operating enrichment facilities, believed to be small and concealed in civilian locations.

Iran’s stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, are causing mounting concern.

The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, will present his next report on Iran. El-Baradei, who received the Nobel peace prize yesterday, warned that the world was “losing patience” with Iran.

Well the US sold all those armarments such as "bunkerbusters" a few months back. I knew they wouldn't be collecting dust somewhere. Thing is that they will have to fly over Iraq to do it. Since Iraq has the best Airforce in the world at the moment. It would be difficult for Israel to make it through without permission from the US. They could perhaps fly through Jordan, Saudi Arabia. But again the Saudi's use the same types of planes as the Israeli's. So this may be interesting.

Israel did the same thing to Iraq in the 80's; it kept them from getting the bomb during the Gulf War. If they do it, I support them 100%.

That's just trouble waiting to happen.

Iraq has the worlds best airforce?

Well the US sold all those armarments such as "bunkerbusters" a few months back. I knew they wouldn't be collecting dust somewhere. Thing is that they will have to fly over Iraq to do it. Since Iraq has the best Airforce in the world at the moment. It would be difficult for Israel to make it through without permission from the US. They could perhaps fly through Jordan, Saudi Arabia. But again the Saudi's use the same types of planes as the Israeli's. So this may be interesting.
The Iraqis at this point don't really have an Air Force. It's the US Air Force.

The last time this happened, Israel attacked the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. If they hadn't, don't you think it would have been a little more difficult to take military action against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War? I'm not necessarily agreeing, with this course of action, just providing a justification. Also, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stated that Israel should be "wiped off the map" back in October. Can you see how they'd be a little concerned?

They can't keep secrets anymore. someone always leaks it. I would have loved to see Mahmoud Ajalamahambadahad's face when his facilities were blown up.

They can't keep secrets anymore. someone always leaks it. I would have loved to see Mahmoud Ajalamahambadahad's face when his facilities were blown up.
Ahmadinejad. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

There is no doubt that Israel has the capability and will to strike.

The question is: Will the Iranians strike back?

No time like the present to start a nuclear powered World War.

Iraq has the worlds best airforce?

The American airforce. ;)

They can't keep secrets anymore. someone always leaks it. I would have loved to see Mahmoud Ajalamahambadahad's face when his facilities were blown up.I doubt he'd be surprised.

If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, do you think it would pre-emptively use it on Israel? The thought scares me shitless. But if they did, it would almost certainly involve destroying the Dome of the Rock and killing millions of Palestinians in the process.

The American airforce. ;)

They're not very likely to prevent Israel attacking Iran, are they?

If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, do you think it would pre-emptively use it on Israel? The thought scares me shitless.

Why would they?

Why would they?
See earlier comments about wiping Israel off the map.

There is no doubt that Israel has the capability and will to strike.

The question is: Will the Iranians strike back?


Theoretically the Israeli's af could use a water route to Iran with there planes. Therefore not insulting to many nations with there airforce flyovers. Now Iran on the other hand could not fly without a direct path to Israel. Therefore Iranian fighters and bombers would most likely be blown from the sky before they reached Israel. Israel would also meet the Iranian AF over a nuetral country if they seen fit. However the skies would be crowded with US fighters when they got there.

They're not very likely to prevent Israel attacking Iran, are they?

Well I highly doubt that they would try and fly through Iraq without US permission. If they did, then they do really risk being shot down.

Theoretically the Israeli's af could use a water route to Iran with there planes. Therefore not insulting to many nations with there airforce flyovers. Now Iran on the other hand could not fly without a direct path to Israel. Therefore Iranian fighters and bombers would most likely be blown from the sky before they reached Israel. Israel would also meet the Iranian AF over a nuetral country if they seen fit. However the skies would be crowded with US fighters when they got there.
I just hope to God that Iran doesn't have any stealth aircraft.

See earlier comments about wiping Israel off the map.

You'll notice very few mullahs are suicide bombers. They mostly lead from behind. They don't want to die.

If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, do you think it would pre-emptively use it on Israel? The thought scares me shitless. But if they did, it would almost certainly involve destroying the Dome of the Rock and killing millions of Palestinians in the process.


I think the real possibility of Israel launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran. It is well thought that Israel possesses the bomb.

I just hope to God that Iran doesn't have any stealth aircraft.

Uhh no...

From a UK paper this time, not the fanciful pages of DEBKA...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html

I have a very bad feeling about this. I have the feeling that the US is at least going to help them with aerial refueling, satellite imagery, and possibly with jamming or SAM suppression.
You think this is a problem? The sooner Israel eliminates Iran's nuclear weapons programme, the better.

I just hope to God that Iran doesn't have any stealth aircraft.

They don't. Their military is technologically backward compared to the US; it's probably just a bunch of older model Russian or Soviet planes, and anything they could buy off of third party nations' US technology.

I think the real possibility of Israel launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran. It is well thought that Israel possesses the bomb.
Israel has had the bomb since the 60's, but a PRE-EMPTIVE nuclear strike seems almost beyond the realm of possibility. The only scenario I could see Israel using nuclear weapons is if it were engaged in a military conflict and was at risk of being taken over. But as demonstrated in 1948, 1967, and 1973 (a war in which my father fought), quality trumps quantity.

You think this is a problem? The sooner Israel eliminates Iran's nuclear weapons programme, the better.

It won't eliminate it, just delay it and drive it further underground. It will create massive tension in the region, inspire a new generation of terrorists, and weaken the movement for democracy in Iran. That's a problem.

It won't eliminate it, just delay it and drive it further underground. It will create massive tension in the region, inspire a new generation of terrorist, and weaken the movement for democracy in Iran. That's a problem.
Then what's your solution?

Israel has had the bomb since the 60's, but a PRE-EMPTIVE nuclear strike seems almost beyond the realm of possibility. The only scenario I could see Israel using nuclear weapons is if it were engaged in a military conflict and was at risk of being taken over. But as demonstrated in 1948, 1967, and 1973 (a war in which my father fought), quality trumps quantity.

Ok, I see your point. But let's throw this scenerio out there. What if some "unnamed" nation is known recently to have aquired the bomb. Likely through there own well documented attempts or through a third party. Then said nation says we are going to wipe Israel off the map! Of course the comments are downplayed by that nations foreign ministry as misunderstood. What would Israel do? They don't know exactly where the bomb is in this nation. Although they do know where the leadership is at any given time. Do you make a strike to cut the head off the snake?

Ok, I see your point. But let's throw this scenerio out there. What if some "unnamed" nation is known recently to have aquired the bomb. Likely through there own well documented attempts or through a third party. Then said nation says we are going to wipe Israel off the map! Of course the comments are downplayed by that nations foreign ministry as misunderstood. What would Israel do? They don't know exactly where the bomb is in this nation. Although they do know where the leadership is at any given time. Do you make a strike to cut the head off the snake?
If assassination could provoke a larger conflict, no. The whole idea is to prevent having your population liquidated an any cost.

Then what's your solution?

Well, not attacking Iran would be a start. Let the democracy movement grow. I honestly believe the Iran is no threat to anyone, and will be properly democratic within the next twenty years.

Iraq has the worlds best airforce?

I think what the poster meant to say is, "The worlds best Air Force is in Iraq." He/she can correct me if I'm wrong.

There is no doubt that Israel has the capability and will to strike.

The question is: Will the Iranians strike back?

What do they have to strike Israel back with?

P.S. Does Israel have an aircraft carrier? I don't think they do, but...

I think what the poster meant to say is, "The worlds best Air Force is in Iraq." He/she can correct me if I'm wrong.

Nah, meant to say exactly what I said. Just takes some thought from the reader to figure it out. Using a quote originally by president Karzai of Afghanistan. He was asked if he thought that the Taliban would be completely defeated. His response was "We have the best military in the world right now. Of course we will defeat them."

What do they have to strike Israel back with?

P.S. Does Israel have an aircraft carrier? I don't think they do, but...

They have ariel refueling. That will do the trick.

If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, do you think it would pre-emptively use it on Israel? The thought scares me shitless. But if they did, it would almost certainly involve destroying the Dome of the Rock and killing millions of Palestinians in the process.

From the way the President of Iran has been talking, I think they would. They have already purchased missiles from either Russia or China that are quite accurate and capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Theoretically the Israeli's af could use a water route to Iran with there planes. Therefore not insulting to many nations with there airforce flyovers. Now Iran on the other hand could not fly without a direct path to Israel. Therefore Iranian fighters and bombers would most likely be blown from the sky before they reached Israel. Israel would also meet the Iranian AF over a nuetral country if they seen fit. However the skies would be crowded with US fighters when they got there.

I thought Iran had air-to-air refueling capabilities.

There is no doubt that Israel has the capability and will to strike.

The question is: Will the Iranians strike back?

No they'll just give Hamas tons of weopons and stuff.

No they'll just give Hamas tons of weopons and stuff.

Can you blame them?

It seems a lot of people have problems separating Iran's rhetoric about "wiping out Israel" from its real interests.

When an Iranian politician says "wiping out Israel," its the same kind of grandstanding nonsense as a US politician saying "enemies of freedom."

Israel is home to some very holy sites for the Muslim religion, and it isn't a very big country.

An atomic bomb would probably ruin many of those sites, as well as kill scores of Muslim Palestinians.

On the other hand, an atomic bomb, in Iran's hands, could serve the same function it serves for every other nuclear-armed country, that of a deterrent.

If "terrorists" wanted an atomic bomb, it would probably be easier and safer to buy one with saudi money than be given one by the iranians.

Then what's your solution?

How about covert action by the West to bolster the Democracy movement in Iran and hope for a peaceful political revolution and the overthrow of the radical government. I don't think very many of the younger generation in Iran are happy with the government.

I thought Iran had air-to-air refueling capabilities.

Yeah they do have air to air refueling but the fact is where would these tankers have to fly? A flying gas station makes a very easy target for an airforce that couldn't protect them.

Can you blame them?

yes

From a UK paper this time, not the fanciful pages of DEBKA...
It's not what the Israeli press says (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3182678,00.html):

Sources at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem denied Sunday morning the reports that Israel is preparing to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.

"There is no such thing. This has never been planned," they said.

Or: (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475720368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

In response to the Sunday Times article, Maj.-Gen. (Res.) Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's foreign policy department, said in an interview to Israel Radio that while a military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities could not be ruled out, Israel was a partner in international diplomatic efforts to address the threat from Teheran.

Gilad denied the Times allegations that Israel planned to attack Iran in March 2006.

All I can say about this (which I'm against 100%) is that, if Sharon wants to do this for Israel’s security then okay, but, if it is for votes, then that's a problem. I’m against this because of the irony, the idea that it’s okay for a tiny nation (size and population wise) such as Israel to “probably” possess nuclear bombs but not okay for Iran (which existed for thousands of years, has close to 70M people). Surely by now, Israel's neighbours have learned the pre-emptive manners of Israeli air forces. As far as targeting Iran, I believe some or any Israeli pilots might not return, because it is a long way back to Israel once the sites are bombed. Israeli generals cannot rely on past missions (bombing Iraqi nuclear facilities), no matter how successful they were.

I can't wait for Israel to do it. I mean show the Iranian who really walks the walk or what not. And in the case of a major war between the two, you can bet your but I'll give up my American citizenship and become an Israeli, to protect the Promised Land.

If Iran did launch a nuclear warhead pre-emptively I don't think it would go for Jerusalem, or close to any Palestinian settlement. If that were the case then Iran would not only have the entire western world against them but also most likely the arab world, leaving them with no allies. My bet is that is a nuke is launched, it mysteriously explodes in the air or during the launch, you know as an act of God, protecting his people. The same way that God has helped Israel over come their enemies since the re-creation in 1948. But just my thoughts :D

Then what's your solution?the solution is taking away all nukes from everyone in the Middle-East...

And setting a worldwide embargo for whatever Gov refuses to give his Nukes.

Whether Iran has the will to strike back or not isn't the real question. The question is would they have the capabilities after an IAF air strike. My thoughts on the subject would be that they would not.

Israel has a history of striking hard, fast and first. I don't think there is anyone in the Middle east capable of stopping them. The Iranians do not have the technology to stop them, even with the new missle defense systems they bought recently from Russia.

While I would agree that the will to fight might reside in the hearts and minds of the Iranian people, you must understand the culture of the people. For thousands of years they have always gained/lost ground around a position of power. The reason that al Quaida thought they could get away with the WTC bombings, was because they were looking at the recent history of the US, al la Vietnam, Somalia. Obviously they were mistaken.

Israel has dealt in the region just as long historicaly as any of the other nations in the region as an ethnic group if not a country. Believe me when I tell you that Iran will not have the capability to strike back at Israel if this happens. Neither will any other middle eastern/North African country.

And don't believe that Israeli intelligence doesn't know exactly where the nuclear "power" plants are. Israeli Intelligence operates differently from western intelligence. They know exactly where to go when the time comes.

the US in this case would aregue for retstraint as they did during the Persian Gulf War. Israel then listened to the US and did nothing. Israel will not do that again. And the US in all fairness has not right to stop them since they also "pre-empted" Iraq. And if Israel really needed the Patriot codes in order to fly over Iraq, they could get them in a heartbeat. I personaly think that they already have them.

The article said that Israel already had SF assets on the ground in Iran. BELIEVE IT!!

I can't wait for Israel to do it. I mean show the Iranian who really walks the walk or what not. And in the case of a major war between the two, you can bet your but I'll give up my American citizenship and become an Israeli, to protect the Promised Land.


So it's good is Israel launches a pre-emptive strike and bad if Iran launches a pre-emptive strike. Why?

So it's good is Israel launches a pre-emptive strike and bad if Iran launches a pre-emptive strike. Why?because Hollywood says we are the good guys :D no I am not from Israel... I am impersonating them for sarcasm purposes

The last time this happened, Israel attacked the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. If they hadn't, don't you think it would have been a little more difficult to take military action against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War? I'm not necessarily agreeing, with this course of action, just providing a justification. Also, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stated that Israel should be "wiped off the map" back in October. Can you see how they'd be a little concerned?

It should be whiped off the map, but not by military action.. heavens no... the other settlers were there first. I would be angry if some random people were just like "Oh here have this little section no-one else cares about..!"

I can't wait for Israel to do it. I mean show the Iranian who really walks the walk or what not. And in the case of a major war between the two, you can bet your but I'll give up my American citizenship and become an Israeli, to protect the Promised Land.

*sigh* the promised land could be a lot of things.. are you suse you wouldn't be dieing in vein?
Most people think America is the promised land.. others beleive we have not discovered it yet.

So it's good is Israel launches a pre-emptive strike and bad if Iran launches a pre-emptive strike. Why?Because an Israeli pre-emptive strike would be against Iranian nuclear sites with conventional weapons, with the aim of disableing Iran's nuclear capabilities. An Iranian pre-emptive strike would be against Israeli cities with nuclear weapons with the aim of "wiping Israel off the face of the map".

So it's good is Israel launches a pre-emptive strike and bad if Iran launches a pre-emptive strike. Why?

Because Israel isn't a fundamentalist theocracy that funds terrorist groups around the world, and has no desire to destroy cultures that they find offensive.

Because an Israeli pre-emptive strike would be against Iranian nuclear sites with conventional weapons, with the aim of disableing Iran's nuclear capabilities. An Iranian pre-emptive strike would be against Israeli cities with nuclear weapons with the aim of "wiping Israel off the face of the map".

I agree.

Guess what's going to happen if Israel attacks, I dare you. Iran won't just sit there and take it.

I doubt there will even be an attack, however.

Because an Israeli pre-emptive strike would be against Iranian nuclear sites with conventional weapons, with the aim of disableing Iran's nuclear capabilities. An Iranian pre-emptive strike would be against Israeli cities with nuclear weapons with the aim of "wiping Israel off the face of the map".

You really think Iran is going to nuke Jerusalem?

Because Israel isn't a fundamentalist theocracy that funds terrorist groups around the world, and has no desire to destroy cultures that they find offensive.

Israel is a "Jewish State" that has time and time again sought the utter submission and destruction of the Palestinians as an independent people and obey the will of Israel as an underclass.

Israel isn't the golden temple of peace and democracy that you make it out to be.

You really think Iran is going to nuke Jerusalem?You really think they care?

You really think they care?

It's a Muslim holy site, IIRC

Israel is a "Jewish State" that has time and time again sought the utter submission and destruction of the Palestinians as an independent people and obey the will of Israel as an underclass.

Israel isn't the golden temple of peace and democracy that you make it out to be.Last I checked, Israel had withdrawn from Gaza (you know, that thing the Palestinians wanted them to do), and the Palestinians are still senting suicide bombers to Israel. But that's getting off topic.

What do they have to strike Israel back with?

P.S. Does Israel have an aircraft carrier? I don't think they do, but...

OOPS, I meant to say, "What does Iran have to strike back with if Israel strikes them?" I don't think they have any tankers like Israel does and their aircraft are old US and Russian aircraft.

Israel is a "Jewish State" that has time and time again sought the utter submission and destruction of the Palestinians as an independent people and obey the will of Israel as an underclass.

Israel isn't the golden temple of peace and democracy that you make it out to be.maybe not a golden temple, but it has not sought the "utter destruction" of any people.

Israel's faults in regards to the Palestinians are legion, but were in the past more products of ingnorance and denial rather than willful destruction. The Palestinians have only aquired the characteristics of an independant peple quite recently, and they are now, in fact, being treated as such.

There is no comparing it to Iran.

Guess what's going to happen if Israel attacks, I dare you. Iran won't just sit there and take it.

I doubt there will even be an attack, however.They wouldn't want to, but what are they going to do?

Israel is a "Jewish State" that has time and time again sought the utter submission and destruction of the Palestinians as an independent people and obey the will of Israel as an underclass.

Israel isn't the golden temple of peace and democracy that you make it out to be.

It's not perfect, but it's nowhere near as bad as Iran. Israel and Palestine at least try to work with each other.

They should have attacked Iran anyway.

It's a Muslim holy site, IIRCOnce again, do you really think they care? To them, destroying the Jews is more important than preserving holy sites, and therefore, taking one of their holy sites while destroying Israel is perfectly acceptable.

Israel is a "Jewish State" that has time and time again sought the utter submission and destruction of the Palestinians as an independent people and obey the will of Israel as an underclass.

Israel isn't the golden temple of peace and democracy that you make it out to be.
Israel has definitely not made all the right choices in its past, but to say they are trying to perpetrate either the enslavement or genocide of the Palestinians is proposterous. Most Jews in Israel areen't fanatics, and bare no ill will to the Palestinians, but the terrorist groups that their government has been unable to control. Israel obviously isn't in a peaceful area, but it is a modern, western style democracy that give the same excellent civil liberties and political freedoms to everyone, not just this fictitous Jewish aristocracy you speak of. Is Israel perfect? No! Do thy mnake a concentrated effort to kill or enslave civillians"? No!
So please, get your facts straight.

Once again, do you really think they care? To them, destroying the Jews is more important than preserving holy sites, and therefore, taking one of their holy sites while destroying Israel is perfectly acceptable.

Well, with an opinion like that, I imagine you have plenty of examples where the Iranians destroyed Muslim holy sites so they could kill Jews. Give me a few examples.

It's not what the Israeli press says (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3182678,00.html):

Sources at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem denied Sunday morning the reports that Israel is preparing to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.

"There is no such thing. This has never been planned," they said.

Or: (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475720368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

In response to the Sunday Times article, Maj.-Gen. (Res.) Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's foreign policy department, said in an interview to Israel Radio that while a military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities could not be ruled out, Israel was a partner in international diplomatic efforts to address the threat from Teheran.

Gilad denied the Times allegations that Israel planned to attack Iran in March 2006.

There is little doubt in my mind that the military in Israel have plans to strike the Iranian nuclear facilities. I have no doubt that the American military has plans to do the same thing. British and NATO also have plans. That's what militaries do, they make plans, keep them locked up, and update them from time to time. Then if they ever need them all they have to do is dust them off.

The question then should be, "Will they use those plans, and when?"

Personally, I agree with Iran's president: I think Israel should be wiped off the map.

Personally, I agree with Iran's president: I think Israel should be wiped off the map.

Don't expect any dates with the "jewish" girls my man. Would probably be advisable to keep that comment to yourself in the real world.;)

Personally, I agree with Iran's president: I think Israel should be wiped off the map.Well... I do not agree with the "wiping-of-the-map" guy...

But..I agree with the one that says Israel should move back to Europe.. or move to Rhode-Island

Personally, I agree with Iran's president: I think Israel should be wiped off the map.

I think I just lost all respect for you, TPE. You always seemed like a great guy until this very moment.

Well... I do not agree with the "wiping-of-the-map" guy...

But..I agree with the one that says Israel should move back to Europe.. or move to Rhode-Island

Now thats funny...I don't care who you are!

Now thats funny...I don't care who you are!then why did you reply?

there is no greater threat to peace in the middle east and indeed the world than the state of Israel

So it's good is Israel launches a pre-emptive strike and bad if Iran launches a pre-emptive strike. Why?

Because Israel's ultimate goals in such an attack wouldn't involve the extermination of every single Muslim in Iran.

I blame Jimmy Carter and his band of buffoons for causing this mess (and 9/11 as well). If he had supported Shah Pahlavi AS PROMISED, Iran could conceivably still be a moderately pro-Western monarchy, no revolution would have occured, and radical Islam's seed wouldn't have entrenched itself as deeply as it has around the world. But no, instead he decides to abandon one of the best allies the USA ever had because of the Shah's crackdown on the militants, which ultimately led to the foundation of a psychopathic regime whose crimes far surpassed those of the previous government.

then why did you reply?

You have never seen a comedian by the name of Larry the Cable Guy have you?? It's kind of his signature line.

there is no greater threat to peace in the middle east and indeed the world than the state of Israel

Israel is the SECOND biggest threat to world peace, the first threat is George Bush II and his dreams for an Imperal Bush Dynasty in America.

there is no greater threat to peace in the middle east and indeed the world than the state of IsraelWhen Israel attacks Iran... (and I think Israel is crazy enough to start the War)... Al-Quaeda will feel justified in exploding a WMD in NY.. either a Nuclear device or something else...

Israel attack would also unite the Shias and the Sunny groups against the US.

When Israel attacks Iran... (and I think Israel is crazy enough to start the War)... Al-Jazeera will feel justified in exploding a WMD in NY.. either a Nuclear device or something else...

Israel attack would also unite the Shias and the Sunny groups against the US.
Why, may I ask, do you think Israel, a western-style democracy with free speech, is more likely to start a war than the theocratic, dictatorial state of Iran, where any opposition would be crushed?

Israel is the SECOND biggest threat to world peace, the first threat is George Bush II and his dreams for an Imperal Bush Dynasty in America.


ok then israel is the biggest threat to peace in middle east and second in world that better ?

You have never seen a comedian by the name of Larry the Cable Guy have you?No.
But I have seen a comedian by the name of Canned Logic.

There is little doubt in my mind that the military in Israel have plans to strike the Iranian nuclear facilities. I have no doubt that the American military has plans to do the same thing. British and NATO also have plans. That's what militaries do, they make plans, keep them locked up, and update them from time to time. Then if they ever need them all they have to do is dust them off.

The question then should be, "Will they use those plans, and when?"

Celtlund, you are a smart individual, and completely right. Hell, there must be a million plans mouldering in file cabinets. Israel in particular will make contingency plans, since the neighbours aren't on great terms and have already attacked in the past.

I sincerely doubt the Iranians were doing anything but grandstanding with the "wiped off the map" comment. No country is ready to tangle with Israel: they've got the Mossad, an army that "defended" their way into the Golan Heights and the Sinai last time they were attacked, and the strong possibility of being a nuclear state.

Why, may I ask, do you think Israel, a western-style democracy with free speech, is more likely to start a war than the theocratic, dictatorial state of Iran, where any opposition would be crushed?


because Israel likes to think its this big player in the world.

Why, may I ask, do you think Israel, a western-style democracy with free speech, is more likely to start a war than the theocratic, dictatorial state of Iran, where any opposition would be crushed?I am not the only one who thinks Israel will start a War]...just reads the posts...all you have to do is read the posts...

most of the posters in this very thread do in fact think that.. [COLOR="Red"]Israel will proceed with an act of War against Iran.

Why, may I ask, do you think Israel, a western-style democracy with free speech, is more likely to start a war than the theocratic, dictatorial state of Iran, where any opposition would be crushed?

I haven't heard anything about Iran planning a pre-emptive strike.

there is no greater threat to peace in the middle east and indeed the world than the state of Israel

You forgot to add "except for Hamas."

Israel is the SECOND biggest threat to world peace, the first threat is George Bush II and his dreams for an Imperal Bush Dynasty in America.
Please tell me you don't believe what you're posting. Bush is an idiot, but the people of the US would never permit a royal family. To be honest everyone, these posts saying Israel is the greatest threat to world peace are unfounded. why? Because even though Israel is the strongest force in a powderkeg of a region, it is still a democratic government that answers to the people, not itself. I'd be more concerned about places like Iran or North Korea where it is hard to impossible to dissent against the Government.

I am not the only one who thinks Israel will start a War...just reads the posts...all you have to do is read the posts...

most of the posters in this very thread Think Israel will proceed with an act of War against Iran.
As someone said earlier, governments draw up plans all the time. I bet you anything the pentagon has all sorts of invasion plans it would never use. Of course the Israelis would plan in case a war with Iran occured, that doesn't mean it will happen, and they know it's in their best interests to try peaceful methods like the nuclear talks first.

Well, with an opinion like that, I imagine you have plenty of examples where the Iranians destroyed Muslim holy sites so they could kill Jews. Give me a few examples.You don't get it, do you. To them everything is disposable, from people to holy sites. If they are willing to sacrifice millions of young men to fight Iraq (who were Muslums and not the great 'infidels' the Jews are made out to be), then why do you think they wont sacrifice a holy site to follow Allah's orders and destroy the Jews?

You forgot to add "except for Hamas."

as well as "and Islamofascism."

because Israel likes to think its this big player in the world.

Like it or not Israel is a big player in the world. In the Middle East, they are the SuperPower.

There is not a country in their immediate region that could defeat them. In the Six Day War, with all of the countris of Islam stacked against them, and with Russian advisors, (over 10,000), interspersed among the Islamic nations, they still could not be beaten.

Again, they are big players on the world stage.

When Israel attacks Iran... (and I think Israel is crazy enough to start the War)... Al-Jazeera will feel justified in exploding a WMD in NY.. either a Nuclear device or something else...

No they won't - because they know CNN would retaliate.

I haven't heard anything about Iran planning a pre-emptive strike.You haven't been listening.

I am not the only one who thinks Israel will start a War...just reads the posts...all you have to do is read the posts...

most of the posters in this very thread Think Israel will proceed with an act of War against Iran.

The act of war has been committed by Iran. Israel has the right to defend itself, and I hope they attack Iran nuclear reactor.

You don't get it, do you. To them everything is disposable, from people to holy sites. If they are willing to sacrifice millions of young men to fight Iraq (who were Muslums and not the great 'infidels' the Jews are made out to be), then why do you think they wont sacrifice a holy site to follow Allah's orders and destroy the Jews?

No I don't get it. You keep making statments like "To them everything is disposable, from people to holy sites." without any factual basis to back it up.

I say that if they think killing Jews will get them into heaven then they are highly unlikely to destroy anything that's holy, because that will get them sent to hell.

You haven't been listening.

Feel free to inform me. I am always willing to learn.

The act of war has been committed by Iran.

What act of war?

Like it or not Israel is a big player in the world. In the Middle East, they are the SuperPower.

There is not a country in their immediate region that could defeat them. In the Six Day War, with all of the countris of Islam stacked against them, and with Russian advisors, (over 10,000), interspersed among the Islamic nations, they still could not be beaten.

Again, they are big players on the world stage.


my point was Israel loves to push above its weight, and by using a pre emptive strike on Iran it is doing exactly that, it will open up a far greater can of worms than it could ever handle

another thing that pisses me off about Israel is that anyone who criticizes them is instantly a Nazi, let it go ffs you got your little section of the world

my point was Israel loves to push above its weight, and by using a pre emptive strike on Iran it is doing exactly that, it will open up a far greater can of worms than it could ever handle

another thing that pisses me off about Israel is that anyone who criticizes them is instantly a Nazi, let it go ffs you got your little section of the world
Erm...like it or not, Isreal could pwn every single nation in the middle east.

No they won't - because they know CNN would retaliate. I was wondering how long would it take for soemone to notice it.. :D

Good reflexes BunnyDucks

my point was Israel loves to push above its weight, and by using a pre emptive strike on Iran it is doing exactly that, it will open up a far greater can of worms than it could ever handle

another thing that pisses me off about Israel is that anyone who criticizes them is instantly a Nazi, let it go ffs you got your little section of the world

Israel is only "pushing back" Think of a time when Israel hasn't been on the offensive. They have been since the day the nation was founded.

They are big enough to take care of themselves I guess. They don't need me!:p

I don't think your a Nazi. I don't agree with you, but not a Nazi.

Erm...like it or not, Isreal could pwn every single nation in the middle east.


yeah because none of the Muslim countries would ban together if a Jewish nation attacked one of them.

single handedly yeah they could no doubt take on each and every middle eastern country but attacking one at the same time as oppressing a muslim people in their own land, you really think other Islamic states will just sit back and watch

The act of war has been committed by Iran. You can say that.. In fact.. if you want.. you could say that the sky is purple...

but you saying it.. does not make it true.

What do they have to strike Israel back with?

P.S. Does Israel have an aircraft carrier? I don't think they do, but...
No. They have a few small ships which are capable of catapult-launching two or four aircraft, but which have no way of retrieving them.

No I don't get it. You keep making statments like "To them everything is disposable, from people to holy sites." without any factual basis to back it up.

I say that if they think killing Jews will get them into heaven then they are highly unlikely to destroy anything that's holy, because that will get them sent to hell.

Look at what is happening in Iraq. The idiots who make up the insurgency, have no scruples, they don't care who they kill. In fact most of the civilian casualties can be laid right at their feet. They use mosques and hospitals as staging areas. They most certainly would not hesitate to destry the Dome of the Rock, if it would kill a million Israelites in the process.

Feel free to inform me. I am always willing to learn.You know, that whole thing about wiping Israel off the face of the map and all.

While there is no way to verify the accuracy of the allegation, waht is true is that Israel would have a legitimate reason to conduct a preemptive attack. Regardless of how someone may call this as "another example of Israeli militarism" or whatever, let's think about this: if you were a national leader, and the leader of another nation said that your nation "should be wiped off the map like a blot" while sponsering the development of nuclear weapons, then would you simply sit and wait?

It makes perfect and logical sense.

They most certainly would not hesitate to destry the Dome of the Rock, if it would kill a million Israelites in the process.

They would. The Iranian goverment wouldn't.

yeah because none of the Muslim countries would ban together if a Jewish nation attacked one of them.

single handedly yeah they could no doubt take on each and every middle eastern country but attacking one at the same time as oppressing a muslim people in their own land, you really think other Islamic states will just sit back and watch

In most of Isreal's wars, they utterly laid the smack down on a coalition of Arab nations.

With the quality and expertiese of the Isreili armed forces, I would bet that it coult take the on every single nation in the middle east together.

They would. The Iranian goverment wouldn't.That is who we are talking about, isn't it?

You know, that whole thing about wiping Israel off the face of the map and all.

That's not a preemptive attack. That's a threat. There's a large difference.

That is who we are talking about, isn't it?

No. Your "they" referenced terrorists.

That's not a preemptive attack. That's a threat. There's a large difference.Well then, if you mean it like that, I haven't heard anything about Israel planning a pre-emptive strike.

In most of Isreal's wars, they utterly laid the smack down on a coalition of Arab nations.

With the quality and expertiese of the Isreili armed forces, I would bet that it coult take the on every single nation in the middle east together.

Yeah, but don't you know that Iraq gave all of it's WMD to Iran seconds before the US invaded. That might even the fight.

No. Your "they" referenced terrorists.And who is sponsering 'them'?

Actually Israel COULD have lost the Six-Day War. The Jordanians were lukewarmly interested in the war. They had accurate artillery that they never used... If they did, Israel would have lost a good percent of their airfields.

But now it's quite unlikely. The IDF (Israeli, not Indian), is one of the most advanced militaries in the world. Within the region, the IAF (Israeli, not Indian) has a greater sortie capability than the United States.

I think the biggest mistake most people are making, is that they're assuming that Iran is stupid. What Iran is actually doing is the same thing North Korea is doing. Iran can't really get nuclear weapons, thanks to Israel. However, they can threaten, and they can threaten, and possibly get concessions in return for dumping their nuclear program.

On the other hand, you shouldn't overestimate the power of airstrikes. The nuclear manufactures should be located deep within the country, and there should be a lot of radar sites before hand. Intelligent use of SAMs can knock down even stealth aircraft, as one can tell from the Kosovo war where the Serbs managed to down an F-117 with antiquated anti-air. The question is sort of: does Iran have the human resource capability to pull something like this off?

Look at what is happening in Iraq. The idiots who make up the insurgency, have no scruples, they don't care who they kill. (..) They most certainly would not hesitate to destry the Dome of the Rock, if it would kill a million Israelites in the process.

I respectfully disagree. Some of the primary reasons for the anger at Israel, besides the Palestinian affair, are their possession of holy sites. Jerusalem is important enough that I don't think that Iran would be willing to launch nuclear weapons at it.

And at the same time, I believe there is a serious difference between the Iraqi insurgents and the Iranian government. The Iraqis want Americans to destroy mosques so that they can rail to the population at large that they are in, "Crusades, the Sequel." The Iranians, on the other hand, have a functioning country to look after.

Can you blame them?
Yes.

It's been quite well known for many years now that several countries first priority after development of 'the BOMB' would be to wipe Israel off the face of the earth........ so of course Israel is going to try and preent that. Duh.... what are you morons discussing about should they, could they, are they right to?....

OF COURSE THEY (Israel) should have a preemptive strike!! Iran is one of those countries that have stated it would.

Well then, if you mean it like that, I haven't heard anything about Israel planning a pre-emptive strike.

Did you read the OP? That is what this entire conversation is about.

Yeah, but don't you know that Iraq gave all of it's WMD to Iran seconds before the US invaded. That might even the fight.

...Iran wouldn't be crazy enough to use WMDs in any attack.

Iran may be a fundamentalist theocracy, but it isn't stupid.

While there is no way to verify the accuracy of the allegation, waht is true is that Israel would have a legitimate reason to conduct a preemptive attack. Regardless of how someone may call this as "another example of Israeli militarism" or whatever...I did not call it "Israeli militarism"

I clearly called it "Israel act of War against Iran"... I even used red letters (so you do not miss it) ...like this:

"Israel act of War against Iran"

...can you see it now?

Did you read the OP? That is what this entire conversation is about.I was trying to point out that there is still no *proof* that Israel is planning a pre-emptive strike, it's all just speculation. Same with Iran.

The article said that Israel already had SF assets on the ground in Iran. BELIEVE IT!!
True. So does the US.

It's been quite well known for many years now that several countries first priority after development of 'the BOMB' would be to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Really? I'm sure if it's quite well know you'll have no problem backing that up with a link.


OF COURSE THEY (Israel) should have a preemptive strike!! Iran is one of those countries that have stated it would.

If I recall correctly, the President said that "Israel should be wiped off the map." Not would. And not would be wiped off the map by Iran.

So it's good is Israel launches a pre-emptive strike and bad if Iran launches a pre-emptive strike. Why?
How about because Iran has threatened to "annialate Israel," whereas Israel has a burning desire to be left the frack alone? Ya think???

Israel has, in the last 60 odd years, invaded all of its neighbours, so don't make it out to be some innocent little child.
Also, if Israel invaded Iran it would cause outrage in the Islamic communities and would probably spark dozens of suicide attacks in Israeli cities.

I was trying to point out that there is still no *proof* that Israel is planning a pre-emptive strike, it's all just speculation. Same with Iran.

However the speculation that Israel is going to attack Iran is coming from a newspaper on the back of senior military sources.

The speculation that Iran is going to attack Israel is coming from you.

There's a slight difference.

The real solution to this problem is to wipe out all religion in the world through an extensive international education plan.

Israel has, in the last 60 odd years, invaded all of its neighbours, so don't make it out to be some innocent little child.
Also, if Israel invaded Iran it would cause outrage in the Islamic communities and would probably spark dozens of suicide attacks in Israeli cities.

Erm...Isreal doesn't share a land boarder with Iran.

How about because Iran has threatened to "annialate Israel," whereas Israel has a burning desire to be left the frack alone? Ya think???

And it shows this burning desire by launching an assault on another country? Odd move.

OF COURSE THEY (Israel) should have a preemptive strike!! Iran is one of those countries that have stated it would.Iran has stated they would attack Israel?

Have a Link for that?

Israel has, in the last 60 odd years, invaded all of its neighbours, so don't make it out to be some innocent little child.
Also, if Israel invaded Iran it would cause outrage in the Islamic communities and would probably spark dozens of suicide attacks in Israeli cities.You forgot to mention that they did it in self defense. In all cases, the other countries had commited acts of war against Israel, and Israel retaliated.

All organised religion that is. I don't mind some insecure old woman thinking that, when she dies of cancer in winter because she can't afford the heating bill, she won't get to see all of her relatives again.

Iran has stated they would attack Israel?

Have a Link for that?

When a government official comes out and states that Isreal should be wiped off the map, to me that represents a valid threat.

If Bush came out and said that North Korea should be wiped off the map, what would you think?

my point was Israel loves to push above its weight, and by using a pre emptive strike on Iran it is doing exactly that, it will open up a far greater can of worms than it could ever handle

another thing that pisses me off about Israel is that anyone who criticizes them is instantly a Nazi, let it go ffs you got your little section of the world
Israel doesn't push around it's weight because it is a show-off, it does so because it is imperative it protects the safety of its people by discouraging invaders.

People who criticize Israel are not instantly labeled nazis. Many people, including Jews both in Israel and in the rest of the world, freely criticize Israel, which of course makes mistakes, as do the rest of the world. That doesn't make them nazis and, as a jew, I can tell you we don't precieve them as such.

Finally, I assume the letting go part refers to the Nazis and the holocaust? I'll tell you why we can't let it go: It was the single most deadly, traumatic event in the history of Judaism, and will forever cast a shadow on both the jewish people and the rest of the world. Try forgetting that...

You forgot to mention that they did it in self defense. In all cases, the other countries had commited acts of war against Israel, and Israel retaliated.

You don't need to invade other countries to defend yourself, especially not when you have a far more extensive military than them.

Now kiddies, pay attention for a moment.

Let's try to elevate this conversation above the level of who has the biggest guns and who is the biggest psychotic bully etc.

Let's imagine that Israel, supported indirectly by the USA, launches a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

What would be the most likely consequences of this action and who would benefit from it?

Israel has, in the last 60 odd years, invaded all of its neighbours, so don't make it out to be some innocent little child.
Also, if Israel invaded Iran it would cause outrage in the Islamic communities and would probably spark dozens of suicide attacks in Israeli cities.

You my friend are wrong. Israel has never "invaded" a single country. While they have taken it upon them selves to use the "pre-emptive" strikes in order to cripple, (quite effectively I might add), they have always defended. The invading armies (Egypt, Syria and the like), have always given up ground. Any good soldier knows that when you take ground, you hold it. Hence the territorial gains during the Six Day War.

When a government official comes out and states that Isreal should be wiped off the map, to me that represents a valid threat.

He failed to say that Iran would do the wiping. The threat is non-specific.

You my friend are wrong. Israel has never "invaded" a single country. While they have taken it upon them selves to use the "pre-emptive" strikes in order to cripple, (quite effectively I might add), they have always defended. The invading armies (Egypt, Syria and the like), have always given up ground. Any good soldier knows that when you take ground, you hold it. Hence the territorial gains during the Six Day War.

And the settlements which they have built upon them which have been deemed illegal by the rest of the world?

I was trying to point out that there is still no *proof* that Israel is planning a pre-emptive strike, it's all just speculation. Same with Iran.Maybe.. but..

I think Israel is Crazy enough to start a War with Iran...

I ts a bad time to buy New York Real State.. the Forecast is not looking good..

True. So does the US.

Quiet! Not so loud, use smaller type

He failed to say that Iran would do the wiping. The threat is non-specific.
So? It was a government official making the statement.

Again, If President Bush came out and said "North Korea should be wiped off the map", would you not think that it would be the US doing the wiping?

there is no greater threat to peace in the middle east and indeed the world than the state of Israel
Oh? And just why is that? 'Cause their existence pisses off the Arabs? :rolleyes:

Israel did the same thing to Iraq in the 80's; it kept them from getting the bomb during the Gulf War. If they do it, I support them 100%.

Same, Iran is nothing but bad news.

He failed to say that Iran would do the wiping. The threat is non-specific.
The president of Iran is HEAD OF STATE. He sybolically represents the doctrine of the country. By saying Israel should be wiped off the map, he was implying Iran would at the least be complicit if another country did so. So stop the senseless nitpicking over a few unnecessary words.

You my friend are wrong. Israel has never "invaded" a single country. While they have taken it upon them selves to use the "pre-emptive" strikes in order to cripple, (quite effectively I might add), they have always defended. The invading armies (Egypt, Syria and the like), have always given up ground. Any good soldier knows that when you take ground, you hold it. Hence the territorial gains during the Six Day War.

And also, there is no way of gaining land from another country, if you have not invaded it. Oh no, I forgot, the other countries called up Jerusalem and said "we'd really love you to have our land".

Again, If President Bush came out and said "North Korea should be wiped off the map", would you not think that it would be the US doing the wiping?

No. Because he'd accuse me of putting words in his mouth.

Iran has stated they would attack Israel?

Have a Link for that?

You don't read the news do you.

When a government official comes out and states that Isreal should be wiped off the map, to me that represents a valid threat.

If Bush came out and said that North Korea should be wiped off the map, what would you think?I say...NK would NOT be justified to bomb US Nuclear facilities.

...and I am sure the International community would agree with me.

You don't need to invade other countries to defend yourself, especially not when you have a far more extensive military than them.I don't know what you've been smoking, but Israel has never had 'far more extensive' military capabilites that any of their nieghbors. In fact, they've had far less extensive capabilites. They were just able to utilize their military more effectivley than their neighbors.

And also, there is no way of gaining land from another country, if you have not invaded it. Oh no, I forgot, the other countries called up Jerusalem and said "we'd really love you to have our land".

And I suppose the Isrealis called up the Arabs and said, "we really don't want this nation that the UN gave us. Please take it away and kill us. Thanks!"?

And the settlements which they have built upon them which have been deemed illegal by the rest of the world?
They've finished the process of abandoning the Gaza settlements. They're starting on the West Bank. Happy?

BTW, Israel withdrew from much of what they captured in their wars.

Israel is the SECOND biggest threat to world peace, the first threat is George Bush II and his dreams for an Imperal Bush Dynasty in America.
Oh, BROTHER! Talk about living in your own little bubble of blathering bullshit belief! :rolleyes:

You don't read the news do you.What do you think?

..you've seen me often enough around here.

Now kiddies, pay attention for a moment.

Let's try to elevate this conversation above the level of who has the biggest guns and who is the biggest psychotic bully etc.

Let's imagine that Israel, supported indirectly by the USA, launches a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

What would be the most likely consequences of this action and who would benefit from it?

The most likely consequences would be....nothing. the UN would hem and haw around for a little while. Issue a "report" but ultimately nothing would get done. The benefits would be that the State of Israel just might be left alone for awhile. Or the benefit might go to the Muslim world. But when has anyone really taken an intrest in what the Muslim world has thought.

If the powers that be back in the day had any thought to what people wanted they would have done a better job at slicing up their empires back when it mattered. Not waited 60 odd years for some one else to have to come in and clean the mess up.

I don't know what you've been smoking, but Israel has never had 'far more extensive' military capabilites that any of their nieghbors. In fact, they've had far less extensive capabilites. They were just able to utilize their military more effectivley than their neighbors.

Like the fighter jets and the nuclear weapons, which by the way, Iran does not have (just making power plants I'm afraid), not that they would have any less fundamental right to than Israel (which HAS invaded all of its neighbours).

When a government official comes out and states that Isreal should be wiped off the map, to me that represents a valid threat.

If Bush came out and said that North Korea should be wiped off the map, what would you think?

That Government official happens to be the President of Iran which gives Isreal some measure of concern. :D

The president of Iran is HEAD OF STATE. He sybolically represents the doctrine of the country. By saying Israel should be wiped off the map, he was implying Iran would at the least be complicit if another country did so. So stop the senseless nitpicking over a few unnecessary words.

The use of the word "implying" in that means I'm right. He never said Iran would attack Israel.

They've finished the process of abandoning the Gaza settlements. They're starting on the West Bank. Happy?

BTW, Israel withdrew from much of what they captured in their wars.

And these are all positive steps on the road to Israel becoming a civilised, law-abiding country.

I say...NK would NOT be justified to launch missiles at the US Nuclear facilities.

...and I am sure the International community would agree with me.

And I would agree.

But, my point still stands. The statements made by the president was a legitimate threat. If evidence is found that Iran is indeed prepairing for a strike, Isreal would have the right to defend itself.

And I would agree.

But, my point still stands. The statements made by the president was a legitimate threat. If evidence is found that Iran is indeed prepairing for a strike, Isreal would have the right to defend itself.

If conclusive evidence was found.

As someone said earlier, governments draw up plans all the time. I bet you anything the pentagon has all sorts of invasion plans it would never use. Of course the Israelis would plan in case a war with Iran occured, that doesn't mean it will happen, and they know it's in their best interests to try peaceful methods like the nuclear talks first.
Hell, the US even has a contingency plan outlining what steps to take should [ unnamed nation ] decide to conduct a water-borne landing to sieze the Panama Canal! Heh!

And these are all positive steps on the road to Israel becoming a civilised, law-abiding country.
That the entire middle east wants to destroy.

And also, there is no way of gaining land from another country, if you have not invaded it. Oh no, I forgot, the other countries called up Jerusalem and said "we'd really love you to have our land".

You totally missed the point. The day that Israel was declared a state, Egypt, Syria, Saudi, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and every other country declared war on Israel. What would you have had them do? Lay down and take it like good little Jews. Think man!!

If conclusive evidence was found.

If it sadisfied them.

I don't know what you've been smoking, but Israel has never had 'far more extensive' military capabilites that any of their nieghbors. In fact, they've had far less extensive capabilites. They were just able to utilize their military more effectivley than their neighbors.

No. By utilizing your military force with greater effectiveness, you suggest that you are making better strategic use of your military force. I think what you mean is that the IDF is eminently well-trained, well-led, well-equipped, a statement supported by the historical evidence. However, this does mean that the IDF has a far more extensive military capability than any of their neighbors.

Personally I'd like to see the Iranians try to stop an incoming airstrike by the IsAF. The IsAF has no true stealth aircraft available. The IsAF would have to knock down all the radar/SAM sites down in order to gain clear access to the nuclear sites. What will determine the result will be either Israeli spec-ops strikes, or Iranian incompetence.

That the entire middle east wants to destroy.

Yes, as, if the rest of the world declared a nation for Jews in the USA, you would want it destroyed, most probably.

That the entire middle east wants to destroy.

Or New Zealand, wherever you are.

Like the fighter jets and the nuclear weapons, which by the way, Iran does not have (just making power plants I'm afraid), not that they would have any less fundamental right to than Israel (which HAS invaded all of its neighbours).Once again, you fail to put that in context. For instance, the context that every war Israel has fought has been provoked by many acts of war on the Arab's part. For example, in 1973, Egypt and Syria made full scale invasions of Israel. I'd count that as an act of war. EDIT-forgot to add this; I'm sure Iran doesn't have fighter jets.

You totally missed the point. The day that Israel was declared a state, Egypt, Syria, Saudi, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and every other country declared war on Israel. What would you have had them do? Lay down and take it like good little Jews. Think man!!

Now personally, if I was creating a nation and every single one of my neighbours wanted it destroyed, this would tell me something...

Now kiddies, pay attention for a moment.

Let's try to elevate this conversation above the level of who has the biggest guns and who is the biggest psychotic bully etc.

Let's imagine that Israel, supported indirectly by the USA, launches a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

What would be the most likely consequences of this action and who would benefit from it?

Consequences: All the Arab states would rant and rave about it. Nothing more. Iran couldn't do much about it as they have no capability to strike back. The UN might condem Isreal but wouldn't pass any sanctions.

The whole world would benefit from it, especially Israel and Europe. The reason I say Europe is the missiles that Iran has bought have the capability of carrying a nuclear weapon as far as Europe.

Mid East countries would also benefit as they wouldn't have a big dog on the block that could threaten them. IMHO.

That's not a preemptive attack. That's a threat. There's a large difference.
No, it's the next best thing to a declaration of war, is what it is.

Once again, you fail to put that in context. For instance, the context that every war Israel has fought has been provoked by many acts of war on the Arab's part. For example, in 1973, Egypt and Syria made full scale invasions of Israel. I'd count that as an act of war.

I never said it wasn't an act of war...

Consequences: All the Arab states would rant and rave about it. Nothing more. Iran couldn't do much about it as they have no capability to strike back. The UN might condem Isreal but wouldn't pass any sanctions.

The whole world would benefit from it, especially Israel and Europe. The reason I say Europe is the missiles that Iran has bought have the capability of carrying a nuclear weapon as far as Europe.

Mid East countries would also benefit as they wouldn't have a big dog on the block that could threaten them. IMHO.

There's a chance the airstrike might fail, since Israel does not have stealth aircraft. There's also the chance that the US might ship F-117 or B-2s on a loan basis to Israel for the job, which means that the bombing will more likely than not be a success.

It would be VERY satisfying to watch the IsAF finally screw up a job, but not wholly a certainty.

I'd definitely support a strike against Iran, particularly since they threatened the very existence of Israel. I'd like to see Iran eliminated as a threat.

Let's imagine that Israel, supported indirectly by the USA, launches a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
A pre-emptive strike on nuclear Facilities? The only way Israel could do so in a way that would identify them rather than the US as the prime aggressor would be with long-range ballistics. And if we're talking missile attacks on nuclear plants... Mishandled, we could wind up with an insane casualty rating. And I'd rather not see that, no matter who the victims may be.

Yes, as, if the rest of the world declared a nation for Jews in the USA, you would want it destroyed, most probably.

I would not like the decision passed down by the UN, but so goes law.

No, it's the next best thing to a declaration of war, is what it is.

Indeed. But it was being suggested previously that it equalled a pre-emptive strike. Which it clearly doesn't.

There's a chance the airstrike might fail, since Israel does not have stealth aircraft. There's also the chance that the US might ship F-117 or B-2s on a loan basis to Israel for the job, which means that the bombing will more likely than not be a success.

It would be VERY satisfying to watch the IsAF finally screw up a job, but not wholly a certainty.
It's not that hard to blow a hole through a radar network. I believe the Isrealis did in in 1973.

What we seem to be overshadowing is that, by my understanding, Iran hasn't broken the law and Israel, by invading Iran would be breaking the law. Iran, like every other nation in the world, has a perfectly legitimate right to develop nuclear power plants.

What we seem to be overshadowing is that, by my understanding, Iran hasn't broken the law and Israel, by invading Iran would be breaking the law. Iran, like every other nation in the world, has a perfectly legitimate right to develop nuclear power plants.

Yes, that is true.

But, with the comments made by the President, and the assumed Iranian Nuclear Weapons program, it could very well be a threat.

Here's the historic problem with Islamic militarys. They have no middle management, i.e. you are either a private or an officer. There are no seargents to enforce discipline.

When all of the muslim world declared war on Israel in '48, that was there main problem. was no Top to bottom communication. The Israelis went to war back then with a hdge podge of weapons. They were vastly outnumbered and out gunned. They were however, better led, and had an NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer) corps to lead the battle. Today's quasi modern Islamic armies are no different. Thay lack discipline and are poorly led. I know this to be a fact, because I have seen them in action.

And many of you are splitting hairs, talking about what a threat is and isn't. And don't forget. Iran is a Theocracy. Like it or not, The same ideology that runs through the minds of the terrorists, runs through the minds of those in the Iranian governement.

Yes, that is true.

But, with the comments made by the President, and the assumed Iranian Nuclear Weapons program, it could very well be a threat.

When Bush declared his was on Islam, sorry, terrorism, we didn't assume he'd be using nuclear weapons, despite the fact that the US is the only country to ever do so aggressively.

Now kiddies, pay attention for a moment.

Let's try to elevate this conversation above the level of who has the biggest guns and who is the biggest psychotic bully etc.

Let's imagine that Israel, supported indirectly by the USA, launches a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

What would be the most likely consequences of this action..?I do not know.. Nobody know... we do not have Future-telling-Chrystal-balls.

The likely consequences range from absolutely nothing happening to WWIII.

I think It will trigger a War...that will be won by Israel... Iran will never sign any War-end papers... so the war will never officially end...Israel will win the War.. the same way US won the Iraq War... The peace will not be reachable.. Iran will intensify insurgent groups like Hezbolla...

wetter any of this takes place or not... The Muslim Arabs will get nukes sooner or later.. It can be Saudi-Arabia or Iran or any Oil Rich country...

Russian or Pakistani Tech...

When Bush declared his was on Islam, sorry, terrorism, we didn't assume he'd be using nuclear weapons, despite the fact that the US is the only country to ever do so aggressively.

Hmm...Last time I checked, Mr. Bush had not declaired war on anyone. Although I might be behind the times. But I digress.

Conventional Weapons can't wipe a nation off the map.

Hmm...Last time I checked, Mr. Bush had not declaired war on anyone. Although I might be behind the times. But I digress.

Conventional Weapons can't wipe a nation off the map.

Yet conventional weapons can destroy an idea..?

There's a chance the airstrike might fail, since Israel does not have stealth aircraft. There's also the chance that the US might ship F-117 or B-2s on a loan basis to Israel for the job, which means that the bombing will more likely than not be a success.

It would be VERY satisfying to watch the IsAF finally screw up a job, but not wholly a certainty.

The radar and anti-aircraft systems Iran has is old US stuff that they can't maintain because they can't get the parts. They might have some old Russian equipment also but most of that stuff can be defeated. Israel has the latest equipment installed in their aircraft so it should be fairly easy to penetrate the Iranian defenses.

No way could the US get away with "loaning" them any stelth aircraft. They wouldn't even need our tankers as they have their own. Isreal could smack Iran the same way we smacked Lybia.

No. By utilizing your military force with greater effectiveness, you suggest that you are making better strategic use of your military force. I think what you mean is that the IDF is eminently well-trained, well-led, well-equipped, a statement supported by the historical evidence. However, this does mean that the IDF has a far more extensive military capability than any of their neighbors.

Personally I'd like to see the Iranians try to stop an incoming airstrike by the IsAF. The IsAF has no true stealth aircraft available. The IsAF would have to knock down all the radar/SAM sites down in order to gain clear access to the nuclear sites. What will determine the result will be either Israeli spec-ops strikes, or Iranian incompetence.I never said they were better equiped. The point I was trying to make is that Israel was equipped worse than it's neighbors, but was able to use it's equipment more effectivley.

Like it or not, The same ideology that runs through the minds of the terrorists, runs through the minds of those in the Iranian governement.

No. Iran is not some giant terrorist nation. If that was so it would be in permanent war with Israel.

Yet conventional weapons can destroy an idea..?
He'd have to blow up the whole world, not that I'm entirely convinced he's stupid enough to.

Yet conventional weapons can destroy an idea..?
No, it can't.

Nuclear weapons can, however, destroy a nation.

Indeed. But it was being suggested previously that it equalled a pre-emptive strike. Which it clearly doesn't.
True, but it could easily provoke one.

No, it's the next best thing to a declaration of war, is what it is.hmmm..

It is an Act-of-War.. or Not?

Coulda..Woulda..Shoulda... are not good enough for War-Room decisions. You should know that soldier Eut ;)

When Bush declared his was on Islam, sorry, terrorism, we didn't assume he'd be using nuclear weapons, despite the fact that the US is the only country to ever do so aggressively.

Bush never declared war on Islam. He has even stressed that terrorists are perverting a great religion.

It's not that hard to blow a hole through a radar network. I believe the Isrealis did in in 1973.It was in '82. Israel had problems with radar in 1973.

No, it can't.

Nuclear weapons can, however, destroy a nation.

But Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, nor is there any proof of their intention to.

What we seem to be overshadowing is that, by my understanding, Iran hasn't broken the law and Israel, by invading Iran would be breaking the law. Iran, like every other nation in the world, has a perfectly legitimate right to develop nuclear power plants.

There is a difference between invading and a pre- emptive strike. To invade, Israel would have to take and hold ground. While they prolly could do it, it wouldn't be in their best intrest to. Now a pre-emptive strike on a nuclear facility isn't necessarily breaking any laws. Well the UN might say it would be breaking international law, but I would say that the laws of a sovereign nation fully outweigh international law.

Hell, we play that way right here. Sovereignty is sacrocact.

Iran, like every other nation in the world, has a perfectly legitimate right to develop nuclear power plants.
Bull-frakking-shit!

but I would say that the laws of a sovereign nation fully outweigh international law.

you are joking...?

Sovereignty is sacrocact.

Which is why you support the sovereign nation of Irans quest to gain nuclear weapons for itself, yes?

Bull-frakking-shit!

Are you denying that every nation in the world, has a perfectly legitimate right to develop nuclear power plants?

Yet conventional weapons can destroy an idea..?
No, but a better idea can! :p

No. Iran is not some giant terrorist nation. If that was so it would be in permanent war with Israel.You mean like all the other Islamic nations, with the exception of Egypt and Jordan.

This is another scare tactic to get Iran in line with Western demands. If Israel is the stick, I wonder what is the carrot?

No. Iran is not some giant terrorist nation. If that was so it would be in permanent war with Israel.
It isn't??? :eek:

You mean like all the other Islamic nations, with the exception of Egypt and Jordan.

Drunken walked into that one :mad:

hmmm..

It is an Act-of-War.. or Not?

Coulda..Woulda..Shoulda... are not good enough for War-Room decisions. You should know that Eut ;)
I thought we were talking about civilian politicians. Silly me! :p

No. Iran is not some giant terrorist nation. If that was so it would be in permanent war with Israel.

The state of Iran has been at permanent war with Israel since her founding! The destruction of Israel is written into her constitution, (or facsimile thereof).

But Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, nor is there any proof of their intention to.

Enriched Uranium (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm) is not needed for civilian nuclear projects.

But Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, nor is there any proof of their intention to.
Uh ... not according to the UN inspectors.

Uh ... not according to the UN inspectors.
My point exactly

The state of Iran has been at permanent war with Israel since her founding! The destruction of Israel is written into her constitution, (or facsimile thereof).

Really? Then why all the fuss about one remark?

The state of Iran has been at permanent war with Israel since her founding! The destruction of Israel is written into her constitution, (or facsimile thereof).
Slight nitpick. Iran has been at permanent war with Israel since the founding of the Islamic Republic. The Shah and Israel were very intimate allies.

Enriched Uranium (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm) is not needed for civilian nuclear projects.

I bet it gives them a bit of extra umph though, like chili does a good curry.

I bet it gives them a bit of extra umph though, like chili does a good curry.

Just like a core Meltdown is like a bad case of heartburn.

:p

I bet it gives them a bit of extra umph though, like chili does a good curry.
oomph*

Really? Then why all the fuss about one remark?So, you acknowledge that Iran could very well attack Israel with nuclear weapons given the chance?

Which is why you support the sovereign nation of Irans quest to gain nuclear weapons for itself, yes?

Irans quest for "nuclear power" is a joke, and everyone knows it. They are sitting on one of the largest oil deposits in the known world.

However for arguments sake, I support the right of a sovereign nation to develope whatever they need to defend themselves. But with power comes resposibility. And military consequences if misused.

Just like a core Meltdown is like a bad case of heartburn. :p

Shall I say "my point exactly" again? I love saying that even when it isn't apt.

So, you acknowledge that Iran could very well attack Israel with nuclear weapons given the chance?

Well apparantly they and ever single other Islamic nation have been at war with Israel forever. Not a lot of reporting or fighting in this war, is there?

Irans quest for "nuclear power" is a joke, and everyone knows it. They are sitting on one of the largest oil deposits in the known world.

Maybe they want to save the environment. No doubt the Qu'ran expresses some opinion on the matter?

Irans quest for "nuclear power" is a joke, and everyone knows it. They are sitting on one of the largest oil deposits in the known world.

America have lots of oil, they've still been using nuclear power plants for ages.

Slight nitpick. Iran has been at permanent war with Israel since the founding of the Islamic Republic. The Shah and Israel were very intimate allies.

Your right. That's what I meant!:p

Well apparantly they and ever single other Islamic nation have been at war with Israel forever. Not a lot of reporting or fighting in this war, is there?Except for the constant refusal of peace from every single Islamic nation (except Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon).

I bet it gives them a bit of extra umph though, like chili does a good curry.Thats it!!!.. I am taking a break for.... Coffee :D

Since Israel is already at a state of war with Iran, a pre-emptive strike would not start a state of war....

and Conscribed Comradeship, I cannot quote you directly, cause there was too much of your crap I had to read through, to get to this 15th page, but when Israel was created, after the UN General Assembly vote, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt invaded it. Its creation was not an invasion, it was created in the exact same way Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria were created.

The rest of the muslim countries declared war on Israel (except Iran). Israel has been in a state of war with them until now. Except Jordan and Egypt, which it signed a peace treaty with. Iran was friendly until the revolution in 1979.

The war in 1956 was an invasion on Egypt however, because Egypt naturalized the canal, which pissed of the British and the French.
Israel gave back the land.

1967 was a pre-emptive strike on Egypt after Egypt asked for the UN peacekeepers to be removed, and formed a boycot.

1973 war was a surprise attack on Israel by Syria and Egypt.

It's really only invaded Lebanon and Egypt.

And if you really want to know, during the 1948, these are the armament details of both armies, stats taken from wikipedia.com

IDF Arabs
Tanks 1 w/o gun 40
Armored cars (w/ cannon) 2 200
Armored cars (w/o cannon) 120 300
Artillery 5 140
AA and AT guns 24 220
Warplanes 0 74
Scout planes 28 57
Navy (armed ships) 3 12

Nuclear power is relatively clean, cheap, and long lasting.

And if Fusion ever gets off the proverbial ground...

Nuclear power is relatively clean, cheap, and long lasting.

And if Fusion ever gets off the proverbial ground...

Gonna take at least till 2012.

America have lots of oil, they've still been using nuclear power plants for ages.

Nobody in that neck of the woods, as a whole, gives a rat's ass about the environment. And Nuclear power makes up about 1% of America's power production and usage.

it was created in the exact same way Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria were created.
Firstly, I love speaking crap. Secondly, do you mean to say that Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria were all created by the same U.N. that has only created one nation?

Better late than never...

Since Israel is already at a state of war with Iran, a pre-emptive strike would not start a state of war.... Iran does not recognize the state of Israel in Palestine land... Their position has always been that Israel should have been Created in Europe...

But so far.. neither has commited an Act-Of-War on the other.

Better late than never...
I hope that was directed to me...?

Because Israel's ultimate goals in such an attack wouldn't involve the extermination of every single Muslim in Iran.

I blame Jimmy Carter and his band of buffoons for causing this mess (and 9/11 as well). If he had supported Shah Pahlavi AS PROMISED, Iran could conceivably still be a moderately pro-Western monarchy, no revolution would have occured, and radical Islam's seed wouldn't have entrenched itself as deeply as it has around the world. But no, instead he decides to abandon one of the best allies the USA ever had because of the Shah's crackdown on the militants, which ultimately led to the foundation of a psychopathic regime whose crimes far surpassed those of the previous government.
Really, you blame Jimmy Carter? Personally, I blame Hadrian for kicking the Jews out of Judea in the first place. Damn you, Hadrian! How could you not have foreseen the consequences of your actions?!

I hope that was directed to me...?

No, I quoted DDs last post about fusion power, but he deleted it.

Really, you blame Jimmy Carter? Personally, I blame Hadrian for kicking the Jews out of Judea in the first place. Damn you, Hadrian! How could you not have foreseen the consequences of your actions?!
:p those pesky Romans.

No, I quoted DDs last post about fusion power, but he deleted it.
aww

:p those pesky Romans.

I blame Moses for settling in Canaanite land.

No, I quoted DDs last post about fusion power, but he deleted it.

It's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10079055&postcount=233) still there. I just deleted the double.

I blame Moses for settling in Canaanite land.
I blame that nasty snake for telling Adam and Eve about the apple tree.

Well apparantly they and ever single other Islamic nation have been at war with Israel forever. Not a lot of reporting or fighting in this war, is there?

The fighting occurs sporadically. There used to be reporting, but people have stopped caring. Everytime a Muslim blows him/herself up in a market-place filled with innocent Israelis, it is an act of their continuing war. Everytime an Apache helicopter with a blue star-of-David on the side puts a Hellfire missile into an apartment, it is an act of their continuing war. The other Middle-Eastern nations and Israel have effectively called a cease-fire, but the war is far from over.

Which is beside the fact that there doesn't need to be fighting for their to be a war. Keep in mind the fact that the South Koreans and North Koreans are still at war with each other, it's just that there's been fifty years of cease-fire.

As previously mentioned, every nation has plans for every concievable conflict. The US probably has plans for an invasion of the United Kingdom and vice versa. The difference is, though, that more probable plans get up-dated more often than less probable ones. For instance, a plan for an invasion of North Korea would be much more up-to-date than, say, a plan for an invasion of Japan. Given what Iran has been saying about Israel and what the rest of the world has been saying about Iran, it really shouldn't surprise anyone that Israel is revisiting their plans for aerial actions against Iran.

Finally, here's a question: If you had to choose one nation in the Middle-East to live in, which one would it be?

I blame that nasty snake for telling Adam and Eve about the apple tree.

Hmmm...Thats about as far as it goes, isn't it?

The fighting occurs sporadically. There used to be reporting, but people have stopped caring. Everytime a Muslim blows him/herself up in a market-place filled with innocent Israelis, it is an act of their continuing war. Everytime an Apache helicopter with a blue star-of-David on the side puts a Hellfire missile into an apartment, it is an act of their continuing war. The other Middle-Eastern nations and Israel have effectively called a cease-fire, but the war is far from over.

Which is beside the fact that there doesn't need to be fighting for their to be a war. Keep in mind the fact that the South Koreans and North Koreans are still at war with each other, it's just that there's been fifty years of cease-fire.

As previously mentioned, every nation has plans for every concievable conflict. The US probably has plans for an invasion of the United Kingdom and vice versa. The difference is, though, that more probable plans get up-dated more often than less probable ones. For instance, a plan for an invasion of North Korea would be much more up-to-date than, say, a plan for an invasion of Japan. Given what Iran has been saying about Israel and what the rest of the world has been saying about Iran, it really shouldn't surprise anyone that Israel is revisiting their plans for aerial actions against Iran.

Finally, here's a question: If you had to choose one nation in the Middle-East to live in, which one would it be?

Are you actually crazy?

Hmmm...Thats about as far as it goes, isn't it?
Using one stone and all that.

Firstly, I love speaking crap. Secondly, do you mean to say that Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria were all created by the same U.N. that has only created one nation?

No. I mean that after world war 1, the ottoman empire collapsed, the land was split between Britian and France
Iraq in 1932
Lebanon in 1943
Jordan in 1946
Syria in 1946 (i think)
Egypt in 1922