EPT"Former CIA and FBI officials predict that Israel will take America into war with Iran this month"
Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iran - Pag…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
"Former CIA and FBI officials predict that Israel will take America into war with Iran this month" | ||
|
Blanke
Canada180 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15313 Posts
The only aircraft Isreal really has to strike Iran is the F15E, of which they have about 25 in service. Each F15E can carry two bombs large enough to destroy larger ground installations. The F15 can not reach Iran to strike but would have to be refueled in flight, twice. The IDF has not enough refueling aircraft nor the bases in the region to operate such crafts. Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan would never give Israel clear skies. That leaves Saudi Arabia and Turkey as potential partners. Relations to Turkey are at an all time low, so they also will not grand overflight rights in the next couple of years. Which leaves Saudi Arabia. Saudi and Israel have excellent relations on the political level, but both can never admit that. That's why Saudi immediately denied granting Israel clear skies. But lets assume they stand down and the 25 F15 can cross the Gulf. First given their range they could only attack sites near the coast. If you look where the most important nuclear site, Isfahan, is located, that's not helping much. Now let's say they can theoretically reach targets within Iran. That still leaves out the Iranian air defense. They will be completely ready since with hours of flight time and in flight refueling the attack just can not come at a surprise. Even with the sorry shape of the Iranian air force, they are not 80ies Iraq. Their MIG 29 could easily take on F15E which are out on a air to ground attack and as such only carry light air to air weapons. And then there is the much more effective ground to air defense, where they field the most excellent S-300 Russian GTA missile systems. In theory you could imagine the IDF arming half their strike force with air to air and anti radar missiles, but that would leave you a total of 24 bombs to drop, assuming 0 losses to air defense flying in. That will just not ever stop any nuclear program, unless they go all in an drop 24 nukes. In addition to their airforce the navy could deploy their subs which are said to be armed with cruise missiles, 4 per sub of which they have 4, which would give them another 16 potential strikes, but again only in coastal near regions. If you look at it realistically, the IDF has about 0% chance to destroy anything in Iran unless they drop the big ones, or even reach Iran with their airforce for that matter. To perform any successful attack, it has to be closely coordinated with their US allies, who would have to refuel the IDF planes and clear the Iranian air defense as much as possible. But then they could just as well go out and total out bomb Iran themselves with cruise missiles and wouldn't have to worry about the few Israeli F15s at all. So, the Israel is not going to "drag the US into war with Iran". If Israel strikes, it will be together with the US, and the US doing about 98% of the work. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
but really, from a political stand point, Israel receive alot of aids from the US. the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide. without US support, Israel would have been "wiped off the map" already. | ||
|
DrZogg
Germany21 Posts
now I did indeed register here.. but not to argue with some douchebags over sc2 related stuff, to complain about the bragging, flaming and stupitity going on in some threads, and sometimes even the arrogance of the admins ("... otherweise, shut the fuck up!"), but to express how glad I am with the opinions shared here concerning the ME crisis. I read a lot about the ME, esp. israel, and in every german newspaper forum, where the people think of themselves as educated and having an objective opinion and so on (what makes it worse), 95% of the comments make me sick cause its raging israel (or US)-bashing without even trying to understand the facts. it makes me sick, so now I dont visit any political forum.. but now I see that the ME is discussed HERE! I thought "uh oh" and only read the first page - to see that nearly every comment was at least reasonable. I laughed when i saw that the user of the only stupid comment on page1 got temp. banned..! I guess on the other 27pages there will be posts that would make me rage too, but Im really glad to see that a good %age of the sc2 players here still got some reason and sanity concerning their assessment of the most important conflict of this generation. the world media is SO fucked up in all this, playing sc2 for me is also a way to forget about all this for a while.. we (the still sane people) can only hope, that israel still knows where irans nuke program exactly is, and that israel has more tricks up her sleeve than her enemys anticipate. israel still has to military edge, and the whole civilized world has to hope that it stays that way. the irianian regime has to fall, as soon as possible. it would be the best thing ever if the oppressed people themselves topple the regime, but thats unlikely, also because stupid europe doesnt support the opposition nearly enough. if it doesnt collapse or give in - it wont give in, because everything the regime focuses on, is the bring about armaggeddon (to hasten the coming of the 12th imam), and before it collapses it will peroform an all out attack (which would be good for several reasons). if iran becomes democratic, peace will be achieved in the ME, but only then! its important that we all gonna stand with israel and the iranian opposition | ||
|
DrZogg
Germany21 Posts
1. the IAF can reach every target in iran 2. the S-300 air defense is not in the hands of the iranian regime. (they claimed they got 2-3 batteries now. I hope not. but that wouldnt be enough.) 3. the rest the the air defense as well as the iranian air force is shit compared to the israeli army. Iran is bluffing in many ways. a devastating attack on the nuke facilities by israel is more than possible. but the US could still do it much better, also from a political standpoint, the US should attack if the other options have prooved to be not enough. so I dont see how your view is realistic at all. oh and by the way, the US is already at war with iran! since 1979. and israel doesnt have anything to do with it. | ||
|
WeSt
Portugal918 Posts
I begin to see a pattern. Should rather attack Israel, that pseudo-nazi democracy. Also I really doubt the US would consider attacking Iran, that's just a bad idea. Unless you want thousands of soldiers dead and 30 years of suicide bombing. | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15313 Posts
Let's say they can fly in straight. That still doesn't change that they only have 25 of those birds. Agreed though the 0% was an exaggeration. Much like your "they can hit anything anywhere". My original point was anyway that if Israel is going to strike, then it's going to alongside the US. Other than that welcome to TL. Please consider reading the rules of this forum, especially the one about typing in English, which includes proper capitalization. Also, somewhat on topic: | ||
|
Blanke
Canada180 Posts
"OOOH!! THIS IS BAD!!!" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/iran-digging-mass-graves_n_676612.html Digging mass graves? Are they asking for bloodshed now? | ||
|
muse5187
1125 Posts
On August 11 2010 09:21 Blanke wrote: To quote the Heavy from TF2, "OOOH!! THIS IS BAD!!!" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/iran-digging-mass-graves_n_676612.html Digging mass graves? Are they asking for bloodshed now? Sounds like someone not from Iran trying to rile up americans, hmmm | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On August 06 2010 20:09 dybydx wrote: lol zatic knows his shit. but really, from a political stand point, Israel receive alot of aids from the US. the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide. without US support, Israel would have been "wiped off the map" already. Hardly. At this point Israel is very much secure among its neighbors. It provides their leaders domestic political leverage while still selling them the best guns money can buy. The only war that's fought now is in PR because none of them want to admit there is no national will to protect Palestinians. As of now, its presence stabilizes the region. It's unfortunate that things like the recent border deaths are tolerable for the sake of politics. Also, don't use the misquoted Ahmadinejad line like that. :/ EDIT: And yeah, zatic is right. Israel may have the best military in the region but they don't have the numbers to conduct a legitimate bombing campaign on Iran, especially given they'll really need to be using much heavier bunker busters to get anything done, and I'm not even sure their bomb technology is adequate for that. | ||
|
ayababa
Australia347 Posts
soon china will be the new super power, this doesn't mean they are suddenly allowed to produce nukes.. in my opinion, the only group who should be able to produce nukes is the UEC "united earth confederacy" .. and we're still 400 years away from that ever happening. | ||
|
DrZogg
Germany21 Posts
On August 11 2010 10:20 Jibba wrote: Hardly. At this point Israel is very much secure among its neighbors. It provides their leaders domestic political leverage while still selling them the best guns money can buy. The only war that's fought now is in PR because none of them want to admit there is no national will to protect Palestinians. As of now, its presence stabilizes the region. It's unfortunate that things like the recent border deaths are tolerable for the sake of politics. Also, don't use the misquoted Ahmadinejad line like that. :/ EDIT: And yeah, zatic is right. Israel may have the best military in the region but they don't have the numbers to conduct a legitimate bombing campaign on Iran, especially given they'll really need to be using much heavier bunker busters to get anything done, and I'm not even sure their bomb technology is adequate for that. of course israel wouldnt exist without US support. they wouldve been overrun decades ago. thats why israelis are very nervous about obama beeing in charge now. he has great intensions and is very articulate, but he is indeed naive when it comes to the Middle east. his appeasment attempts are very dangerous, in the long run for all democratic nations. I hope he'll listen to the right advice..! "the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide." the majority in the US understands that israel will have no choice if sanctions wont work (and they wont). so israel will strike only with the ok from the US obviously. given the fact that israel is already isolated (only having a few friendly countries left), it wont be political suicide. "The only war that's fought now is in PR because none of them want to admit there is no national will to protect Palestinians. As of now, its presence stabilizes the region. It's unfortunate that things like the recent border deaths are tolerable for the sake of politics." there is much more going on than a PR war. israel is relatively secure only cuz of its qualitative military edge (thats to the US too obv.). what do you mean by "protect the pal.."? who, protect from what? the palestinian presence stabilizes the region? that doesnt make sense to me. the last sentence I also dont get. :-/ the US should do the military strike. but obama wont do it I guess.. so israel will. I only gotta say, dont underestimate the israeli military. by that I mean "best military in the region" is a clear understatement. they can do it because they have to be able to. | ||
|
DorF
Sweden961 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
wadadde
270 Posts
On August 12 2010 21:59 DrZogg wrote: of course israel wouldnt exist without US support. they wouldve been overrun decades ago. thats why israelis are very nervous about obama beeing in charge now. he has great intensions and is very articulate, but he is indeed naive when it comes to the Middle east. his appeasment attempts are very dangerous, in the long run for all democratic nations. I hope he'll listen to the right advice..! "the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide." the majority in the US understands that israel will have no choice if sanctions wont work (and they wont). so israel will strike only with the ok from the US obviously. given the fact that israel is already isolated (only having a few friendly countries left), it wont be political suicide. "The only war that's fought now is in PR because none of them want to admit there is no national will to protect Palestinians. As of now, its presence stabilizes the region. It's unfortunate that things like the recent border deaths are tolerable for the sake of politics." there is much more going on than a PR war. israel is relatively secure only cuz of its qualitative military edge (thats to the US too obv.). what do you mean by "protect the pal.."? who, protect from what? the palestinian presence stabilizes the region? that doesnt make sense to me. the last sentence I also dont get. :-/ the US should do the military strike. but obama wont do it I guess.. so israel will. I only gotta say, dont underestimate the israeli military. by that I mean "best military in the region" is a clear understatement. they can do it because they have to be able to. What do you know of Obama's intentions? And why do you assume that Iran is even working on nuclear weapons? I'm not saying that there isn't or wasn't something to that claim, but there's certainly no conclusive evidence. Ah, the old appeasement line. Whenever there's the choice between war and peace some guy feels it's appropriate to reference Hitler's expansionism. Well, don't you think that the Iranian regime has displayed vastly more rational behaviour than Hitler? Maybe that's still not good enough. I'm just saying that just because Iran isn't a democracy that it merits bombing campains or anything of the sort. In fact it might be a reasonable policy if it were applied consistently. This isn't about freedom. You're free to imagine that such elevated goals are at the heart of real world considerations, but they're not. It's really complete nonsense that Israel has no other choice than to strike Iran (if it really is developing nuclear weapons). Israel could just accept that Iran is also a nuclear nation and it would have to behave accordingly in relation to it. Obviously it's always a nasty situation when two nations that consider eachother as enemies both aquire nuclear weapons. I hardly think that a situation like the India-Pakistan one is desirable. It could also be argued that the Middle-East should be a nuclear free zone, but for some reason that's the silliest idea in the world. No, we must remain determined to, in practice, support any policy of the Israelis. Why? Stability. Oh, okay. And peace. Oh yes, of course. Where would all those poor countries in the region be if it weren't for a single nuclear god towering over them. Seriously though, it's hard to know with absolute certainty what all the motivations of the US governments are/were but one could remark that the whole Israeli-Palestinian situation isn't to the disadvantage of local dictators. People in most of the Middle East lack half-decent journalism and the place is rife with conspiracy theories. The only extra thing one needs to channel thinking away from adressing the real problems in those countries is a great demon and Israel performs that role admirably. 'Stability' may seem like the best thing in the world if you're living a thousand miles away, but doing away with the oppression of Palestinians could be benificial to more than just the Palestinians (and the Israelis themselves). The US has the power to allow sanctions on Israel. Or it could choose to change its relationship; perhaps apply some mild pressure? The US could do a lot of good without even dropping one bomb. They prefer control though, which is also evident when one looks at the situation in Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and a lot of other 'allies', official or not. User was warned for this post | ||
|
TwoPac
United States163 Posts
On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote: If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. User was temp banned for this post. If the military have AK's then mass murderers should have them too! | ||
|
TwoPac
United States163 Posts
On June 13 2010 03:04 Gunman_csz wrote: I am not taking sides but rather playing devils advocate. How does one judge/define "responsibility"? By their words or their actions? Because USA has both the history of using nukes and habit of engaging in wars. Sorry If I went a little off topic, The debate of moral superiority and moral authority is intriguing and interesting. Ok, would you rather have the US invade japan and lose 50000+ soldiers? Honestly I'm sick of when people piss on Truman for using the bombs. Roosevelt would've done it. Woodrow would've done it. Any other american president would've done it because the american opinion of 150000 dead japanese is not worth a single american boy. Not to mention what would've happened to the presidents if the public found out that he had a weapon that could've saved 50000 soldiers. | ||
|
DrZogg
Germany21 Posts
On August 12 2010 23:27 wadadde wrote: What do you know of Obama's intentions? And why do you assume that Iran is even working on nuclear weapons? I'm not saying that there isn't or wasn't something to that claim, but there's certainly no conclusive evidence. Ah, the old appeasement line. Whenever there's the choice between war and peace some guy feels it's appropriate to reference Hitler's expansionism. Well, don't you think that the Iranian regime has displayed vastly more rational behaviour than Hitler? Maybe that's still not good enough. I'm just saying that just because Iran isn't a democracy that it merits bombing campains or anything of the sort. In fact it might be a reasonable policy if it were applied consistently. This isn't about freedom. You're free to imagine that such elevated goals are at the heart of real world considerations, but they're not. It's really complete nonsense that Israel has no other choice than to strike Iran (if it really is developing nuclear weapons). Israel could just accept that Iran is also a nuclear nation and it would have to behave accordingly in relation to it. Obviously it's always a nasty situation when two nations that consider eachother as enemies both aquire nuclear weapons. I hardly think that a situation like the India-Pakistan one is desirable. It could also be argued that the Middle-East should be a nuclear free zone, but for some reason that's the silliest idea in the world. No, we must remain determined to, in practice, support any policy of the Israelis. Why? Stability. Oh, okay. And peace. Oh yes, of course. Where would all those poor countries in the region be if it weren't for a single nuclear god towering over them. Seriously though, it's hard to know with absolute certainty what all the motivations of the US governments are/were but one could remark that the whole Israeli-Palestinian situation isn't to the disadvantage of local dictators. People in most of the Middle East lack half-decent journalism and the place is rife with conspiracy theories. The only extra thing one needs to channel thinking away from adressing the real problems in those countries is a great demon and Israel performs that role admirably. 'Stability' may seem like the best thing in the world if you're living a thousand miles away, but doing away with the oppression of Palestinians could be benificial to more than just the Palestinians (and the Israelis themselves). The US has the power to allow sanctions on Israel. Or it could choose to change its relationship; perhaps apply some mild pressure? The US could do a lot of good without even dropping one bomb. They prefer control though, which is also evident when one looks at the situation in Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and a lot of other 'allies', official or not. User was warned for this post I will make the effort to answer you because I think you may not have those opinions out of arrogance and a disgusting ideology, but because you just dont know better. you seem honest and you're not insulting, so... I'll try to change your mind a bit  first of all, what you're writing is the opinion of the vast majority of europeans, and this makes me so sick, I cant even tell you. I'll try to keep it short so I wont sit on this post the whole day, gotta train my zerg macro later "What do you know of Obama's intentions? And why do you assume that Iran is even working on nuclear weapons? I'm not saying that there isn't or wasn't something to that claim, but there's certainly no conclusive evidence." 1. you can conclude his intensions and views on the topic by watching his speeches (esp. his kairo speech), his actions (shaking hands with chavez, saying he still wants to sit at the table with the "islamic republic of iran" one week after the crackdown of the protests in iran - thereby stabbing the opposition in the back.. etc etc.). but hey, as i said, his intensions are good ofc., achieving peace in the ME. but his road to peace is exactly the wrong one. later maybe more on that if ya want. 2. at this point you have to admit that you actually dont know much about iran - about the regime, its ideology (!), history, current politics.. right? its really obvious so dont be stubborn. If you insist I will give you some quotes of irans leaders, but you might aswell just believe me, or even better, look for yourself, that iran wants the atomic bomb and works as hard as it can to get it. thats just an undisputable fact. there is evidence, tons of evidence. to sum up their ideology rly short: its first and foremost antisemetic, and its apocalypical. even the considered moderade ex-prsident of around 2000 said that it would be a fair trade to drop a nuke on israel to remove this cancer, and reveive one as retailiation. the perish of iranian nation would be worth it. the ideology of the regime is not nationalistic after all. its all about the higher purpose: the 2nd coming of the 12th imam, whose law will rule the entire world etc. ahmadinejad and his clique truly believe that they can hasten the coming of the imam by spreading chaos through war, by fighting the unbelievers etc etc., to clean the world from all the..erm..sins etc. israel is first in line. these facts, summed up badly, are important to keep in mind when talking about their intentions, and the difference between a nuke in the hands of this crazy dangerous regime and the US or israel. "Ah, the old appeasement line. Whenever there's the choice between war and peace some guy feels it's appropriate to reference Hitler's expansionism. Well, don't you think that the Iranian regime has displayed vastly more rational behaviour than Hitler? Maybe that's still not good enough. I'm just saying that just because Iran isn't a democracy that it merits bombing campains or anything of the sort. In fact it might be a reasonable policy if it were applied consistently" 1.yeah well, the appeasement didnt work with hitler, did it? and ahmadinejad talking about zionism as being a cancer(!!) thats responsible for all evil in the world, controling the US.. he is denying the holocaust, making a conference called "the world without zionism..", calling for israels destruction hundreds of times..when is the reference to the nazis fitting if not in this case? 2.the regime seems to act rational, yes. even many so called "middle east experts" say that the regime is rational and therefore wont commit suicide by going all out war against israel. well, thats just not true. everyone who will have an honest and close look at the ideology and behavior of the regime will see that its in fact suicidal. it couldnt be more dangerous, only if they acquire an atomic bomb. even the israel-hating arabic countries like the saudis and egypt know that and hope that israel will do the dirty work for them.. "This isn't about freedom. You're free to imagine that such elevated goals are at the heart of real world considerations, but they're not." In the end, it is about freedom, as cheesy as this sounds. for the majority of the iranians it is too. for israel its about survival, ones more. and europe doesnt give a shit. "Israel could just accept that Iran is also a nuclear nation and it would have to behave accordingly in relation to it." giving the facts that I've written just now, israel can of course not accept that. and to write that they then "have to behave accordingly in relation to it" is just disgusting, im sorry. what do you mean by that anyway. in reality it would mean that 6 mio. jews have to leave israel or just die sooner or later in one of the most horrible wars ever. and another thing: its obvious that israel has nuke as deterriation. it would NEVER use it, every sane person knows that. thats why israels neighbours dont have a problem with it since decades. I have to jump to the end of your post cause I dont have much time left (im at work till 7 :D) The US has the power to allow sanctions on Israel. Or it could choose to change its relationship; perhaps apply some mild pressure? The US could do a lot of good without even dropping one bomb. They prefer control though, which is also evident when one looks at the situation in Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and a lot of other 'allies', official or not. you got it wrong. why should the US put sanctions on israel? the already are apllying mild pressure (whats stupid enough). for what do you blame israel now? what should they do? I guess to "end the oppression of the palestinians?" another mindless myth about what I could write pages now.. there is no oppression, israel conquered some land in a defensive war for strategical reasons and was ready to trade it for peace. today they build checkpoints and fences cause suicide bombers want to get into heaven by blwoing up jews. someone smart stated the obvious in the following words: "if the arabs lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the israelis did there would be genocide." its thats simple, really | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
| ||
|
DrZogg
Germany21 Posts
On August 13 2010 02:00 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: DrZogg, you're conflating Ahmadinejad with the leadership of Iran (pretty much every instance of "extremist views" you've cited have stemmed from Ahmedininjad), which isn't true - the Ayatollah is the actual theocratic ruler. Even if you might make the leap in assuming that there is some tacit consent of the clergy when they do not suppress Ahmadinejad's statements, that's less the case since there has been a straining of their relationship - their support of Ahmadinejad is more a "he's not the other guy": the other primary candidate Rafsanjani, who has opposed the Ayatollah in matter of politics. If anything, the clergy prefer to throw Ahmadinejad around to try to secure their own practical goals. I know that khomenei is the one with the actual power and that the views of ahmadinejad are actually not that important. but it doesnt make a difference. to keep it simple I talked about "the regime" most of the time. its actually a little more complicated, but the important thing is that khomenei wants to hasten the coming of the 12 imam as badly as ahmadinejad does. there is obviously a power struggle going on in iran. the mullahs are losing the power (to say it in very simple, maybe too simple words) to the even more extreme revolutionary guards.the views and ideology Ive explained are of course not only those of ahmadinejad but of the whole ruling regime, which only two years ago where just the mullahs, but today even many of them are opposing the agenda of the revolutionary guards, on whose side khomenei is on. | ||
| ||
