The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: billt on November 01, 2011, 08:11:45 AM
-
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-warns-west-window-of-opportunity-to-thwart-iran-nuclear-program-is-closing-1.393036
This is going to be the next big battle ground in the Middle East. I'm surprised Israel hasn't hit them yet. There is no way they will tolerate a nuclear Iran, or should they. Right now I would say it's a 50/50 chance we will get dragged into it. Most likely not with Hussein, but after he is gone. If it isn't over by then. Israel doesn't screw around with these things the way we do. They fight 6 day wars, not 10 year ones.
-
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-warns-west-window-of-opportunity-to-thwart-iran-nuclear-program-is-closing-1.393036
This is going to be the next big battle ground in the Middle East. I'm surprised Israel hasn't hit them yet. There is no way they will tolerate a nuclear Iran, or should they. Right now I would say it's a 50/50 chance we will get dragged into it. Most likely not with Hussein, but after he is gone. If it isn't over by then. Israel doesn't screw around with these things the way we do. They fight 6 day wars, not 10 year ones.
Actually, they have fought a fifty year war and are losing. The lesson is this. We (the West), are great at winning wars. We suck at occupations. If its a question of crushing an army we can do that, no problem. Ask us to subdue a hostile population? Not so much. In our favor, even the brutality of the Russians and the Nazi's didn't prove that they were much better at it. If it were a military to military issue the smart money is on Israel. Problem is that the game has changed, and none of us have figured out how to deal with it. How do you deter or bribe a suicide bomber? Until we figure that one out (and there is a solution, I hope), I'm not all that confident that the the old metrics of warfare are worth much. At the end of the day, the Israelis can whip any army in the region. That said, the old South African army had a slogan, "Thirty Days to Cairo". It was a boast, but it wasn't too far off the mark. The question they couldn't answer, and the reason Mandela became President was this. "What then White Boy"? Damned if I know. :-\
FQ13
-
They will hit Iran's nuclear facilities much the same as they did Iraq. There are more of them spread out over a larger area, and it will no doubt require more sorties to accomplish, but there is no doubt Israel has been planning this for months, if not years. This was a threat to them during the Bush years. As far as them "losing", I don't know of a single country on this planet that could have survived for 64 years surrounded by such blood thirsty enemies.
-
They will hit Iran's nuclear facilities much the same as they did Iraq. There are more of them spread out over a larger area, and it will no doubt require more sorties to accomplish, but there is no doubt Israel has been planning this for months, if not years. This was a threat to them during the Bush years. As far as them "losing", I don't know of a single country on this planet that could have survived for 64 years surrounded by such blood thirsty enemies.
I seriously doubt air strikes will do it. The Iranians learned from the Ossrik (sp?) incident as well as the strike on the Syrian nuclear reactor. I hate to "blame W" (actually, I LOVE to blame W ;) :P), but if we were to have attacked any of the "Axis of Evil" it should have been Iran. It will take boots on the ground to wipe this program out, where there actually are WMDs hidden in multiple locations with redundancy factors built in. I have no doubt that Israel will bomb. I have huge doubts that it will do the job. Given our position in a Shiite dominated Iraq, we can't invade. Reason number.....that Cheney was an idiot. If we were to have launched a war of choice, it should have been against Syria or Iran, not Iraq.
FQ13
-
I'm not understanding why you think they need "boots"? Once the facilities have been destroyed, that's it. There is nothing required to "mop up". This is how they destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactors. They were in and out in a couple of hours.
-
FQ, It was "Osirak" .
When the Israeli's hit the Syrian Nuke facility a couple years ago they owned Syria's air defense system through computer hacking, no one is quite sure exactly how they did it, but it is common knowledge that Syria was completely unaware of the fleets of IDF aircraft and helicopters in their airspace. These included ground forces who seized nuke materials, documents, and North Korean personnel.
Taking out the Iranian program would pose little challenge to the IDF, some of their options would include,
1 Hitting the reactors to remove the supply of fissionable material as with Iraq.
2 Hitting the enrichment facilities, it is known the Iranians are using thousands of high speed centrifuges to do this, even a bomb that did not penetrate the facility could throw these centrifuges out of balance and cause the facility to destroy it's self.
3 They have the ability to nuke Tehran removing the current leadership and generating a Japanese style horror of Nuclear weapons.
None of these require "boots on the ground".
-
Actually, they have fought a fifty year war and are losing. The lesson is this. We (the West), are great at winning wars. We suck at occupations. If its a question of crushing an army we can do that, no problem. Ask us to subdue a hostile population? Not so much. In our favor, even the brutality of the Russians and the Nazi's didn't prove that they were much better at it. If it were a military to military issue the smart money is on Israel. Problem is that the game has changed, and none of us have figured out how to deal with it. How do you deter or bribe a suicide bomber? Until we figure that one out (and there is a solution, I hope), I'm not all that confident that the the old metrics of warfare are worth much. At the end of the day, the Israelis can whip any army in the region. That said, the old South African army had a slogan, "Thirty Days to Cairo". It was a boast, but it wasn't too far off the mark. The question they couldn't answer, and the reason Mandela became President was this. "What then White Boy"? Damned if I know. :-\
FQ13
If there is a way, I think it will require eradicating the place they are germinated, cultivated and recruited.
-
I'm not understanding why you think they need "boots"? Once the facilities have been destroyed, that's it. There is nothing required to "mop up". This is how they destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactors. They were in and out in a couple of hours.
Iran's are decentralized and spread out over a number of locations. Many of these are under ground and located near civilian population centers. The Qom (sp?) facility is exhibit A. Its the holiest city to Shiite Islam. One stray bomb that destroys a mosque (or a satchel charge planted by the Iranians who claim a bomb destroyed the mosque) and it is Jihad. Think of an airstrike on Rome. You hit the Vatican? You have a problem.
FQ13
-
Taking out the Iranian program would pose little challenge to the IDF, some of their options would include,
1 Hitting the reactors to remove the supply of fissionable material as with Iraq.
2 Hitting the enrichment facilities, it is known the Iranians are using thousands of high speed centrifuges to do this, even a bomb that did not penetrate the facility could throw these centrifuges out of balance and cause the facility to destroy it's self.
3 They have the ability to nuke Tehran removing the current leadership and generating a Japanese style horror of Nuclear weapons.
None of these require "boots on the ground".
I agree. These are sophisticated facilities that don't require much to screw them up to the point of total disfunction. Personally, I think it's time to use option 3. The Muslims respect swift blinding force. It's time they got some. F.Q.....You asked "How do you deter, or bribe a suicide bomber." I suspect about 3.5 Megatons air bursting over Tehran would have a very humbling effect on these animals, and would be a step in the right direction to tranquilize them. Much like the Japs, they'll soon realize they will run out of cities before Israel runs out of bombs. The UN will of course whine to the max, but who cares?
-
If there is a way, I think it will require eradicating the place they are germinated, cultivated and recruited.
Yes, most definitely. It's time.
-
One stray bomb that destroys a mosque (or a satchel charge planted by the Iranians who claim a bomb destroyed the mosque) and it is Jihad.FQ13
We already have "Jihad". It's time we do something to win it.......DECISIVELY!
-
Syria, with all it's internal problems, is also saber-rattling, if the West intervenes....However, over the Spring, The US did sell our state of the art, super dee duper bunker buster bombs to Israel.
Israel is and has been the pit bull of the Middle East...Just like the Gurkhas. The Muslim world knows that Gurkhas will simply behead and kill them, no muss, no fuss. (This gets their attention).
The UN, and the rest of the world has attempted to "water down" Israel...Hamas can launch 200 rockets a day into Israel,....big deal, no world reaction,...
Israel takes two helicopters, and targets a couple rocket launchers staged on forced civilian apt. bldgs; it makes the MSM Evening news,..."World Condemnation, Make It Stop, UN Condemns the Actions Of Israel"....
"F"'em,...
I say it should have been 200 helicopters, after the Israeli Air Force went in with some "bigger stuff".....
The fanatical Muslims actually want this,...and nukes really, really, bad, to nuke Israel back,...because there are MILLIONS AND MILLIONS MORE Muslims. They know the expected Muslim casualties, but don't care, there's more to take the places of the glowing and incinerated.
So after the radiation levels, level off, the Muslims will get Israel back.
BUT,....
At some point, Israel will simply say "That's Enough"...
Let's review:
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/twyacht/dontfuckwithisrael.jpg)
And, history is on their side.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/11/02/israel-test-fires-missile-that-can-hit-iran-1866648425/
Move the minute hand on the doomsday clock to 2 minutes to midnight.
-
Here's what the Brits are saying.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/israeli-uk-media-report-increased-planning-confrontation-iran-211736856.html
Just as the United States is preparing to unwind itself from its involvement in the Middle East--departing Iraq and transferring lead security responsibilities in Afghanistan to Afghans by 2014--a new round of tension appears to be surfacing between Iran and Israel.
Reports in the Israeli press indicate that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are working to convince other members of Netanyahu's cabinet and Israeli security chiefs that Israel needs to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear program.
Netanyahu and Barak "are trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action against Iran, a senior Israeli official has said," Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Wednesday in a piece co-bylined by four reporters. The two officials "recently persuaded Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking Iran, to support such a move," according to the Ha'aretz acount, which has garnered an unusual degree of attention from western policymakers.
The Ha'aretz report followed a piece late last week by Israel's leading columnist, Nahum Barnea, on the front page of Israel's largest circulation daily Yediot Ahronoth, titled "Atomic Pressure." It begins: "Have the prime minister and defense minister settled on a decision, just between the two of them, to launch a military attack on the nuclear facilities in Iran?" The piece then continues:
This question preoccupies many people in the defense establishment and high circles of government. It distresses foreign governments, which find it difficult to understand what is happening here: One the one hand, there are mounting rumors of an Israeli move that will change the face of the Middle East and possibly seal Israel's fate for generations to come; on the other hand, there is a total absence of any public debate. The issue of whether to attack Iran is at the bottom of the Israeli discourse.
In the bigger picture, such developments aren't earthshaking. Israel has long harbored serious concerns about Iran's developing nuclear capacity--and Netanyahu has sought to rally global opinion behind efforts to stem Iran's nuclear ambitions. What's striking, however, is that American diplomacy hands are paying exceptionally close attention to these latest reports.
Washington Middle East analysts note, among other things, that the timing of the reports is significant: Israel has lately found itself isolated in regional diplomatic debates in the wake of the so-called Arab Spring uprisings. What's more, these U.S. experts say, anxiety over Iran's nuclear ambitions has spread well beyond Israel proper, to rival Arab states such as Saudi Arabia. And diplomacy watchers in the States also note that the Israeli media reports appear to be sourced to those members of the Israeli security establishment who have traditionally opposed a unilateral strike against Iran--largely on the grounds that such an action would blindside Washington.
From Israel's perspective, it may feel "it has little to lose" from carrying out strikes on Iran, in terms of its regional standing, Marc Lynch, a Middle East expert at George Washington University, told Yahoo News Wednesday. "It sees its strategic position [amid the Arab awakening] as deteriorating. There is no peace process."
But Lynch also noted the sense within the Israel press that "Israel might do it" may have another purpose: to push U.S. President Barack Obama to implement tougher sanctions and pressure on Iran--or else.
"I still don't see [an Israeli attack on Iran] as a high probability," Lynch said. "My sense of this is [Israeli leaders may] see this as an opportunity to once again ramp up pressure and containment and sanctions on Iran. I have no sense the United States is ramping up for war. But communications between the U.S. and Israel is not all that it could be. How much of this is gamesmanship to force the U.S. to do tougher sanctions, [and how much of this is] there's a window of opportunity to have a serious discussion they might take a shot."
The media reports also come as the UN atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is due to issue a report on Iran's nuclear program Nov. 8.
"The [IAEA] report will almost certainly raise tensions in a region made volatile by this year's Arab revolutions and the turmoil in Syria," the Guardian's diplomatic editor Julian Borger wrote Wednesday. "In the absence of a tough new UN security council resolution, the US will face the dilemma of acting militarily without an international mandate, or risk missing Iran's window of vulnerability to attack."
"Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned," a separate Guardian report Wednesday said. The UK Defense Ministry "believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government."
All of these trends are sobering, given an increasingly war-weary climate of opinion in the United States. American citizens have lately been looking for the enormous commitment of resources that the United States has undertaken in the past decade of warmaking in the Middle East to be channeled into domestic improvements to the stalled-out U.S. economy--nation-building at home, as Obama recently put it.
Meanwhile, it's not as though relations between the United States and Iran are exactly placid at the moment. The State Department said it had received a seven-page "rant" of a letter from Iranian authorities this week rejecting recent American allegations that members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force had conspired in an assassination plot against the Saudi envoy to Washington.
-
Maybe a good time to buy more ammo before another shortage. :-\
-
Maybe a good time to buy more ammo before another shortage. :-\
If you want anything from IMI you better get it now.
-
Maybe a good time to buy more ammo before another shortage. :-\
Hell, if we are going after Iran, which W should have done rather than targeting Iraq, I'll donate my 5.56 to the cause.
FQ13
-
Hell, if we are going after Iran, which W carter should have done rather than targeting Iraq, I'll donate my 5.56 to the cause.
FQ13
You just can't help it, can you ?
-
You just can't help it, can you ?
Tell me I'm wrong and I'll apologize. Bet you can't. ;)
FQ13
-
3 wars at once is something only a Democrat or an intellectual is dumb enough to try.