• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Iranian problem

CapelDodger said:
A pertinent post. If Israel could launch an air-attack across Iraq and back without the US detecting and responding it would (a) not be regarded as credible by the non-US world, nor much of the US population, and (b) scare the Pentagon witless. If the US detected and did not respond, as they might claim, that would have to be because (a) Israel is special in some way (reinforcing the Elders of Zion thesis) or (b) Israel is indeed, as has often been argued, a cat's-paw of Western Imperialist Christendom.

None of this would appear as good for most of the Israeli electorate. So, short of a military coup, it won't happen before March.
Click to expand...
Or maybe the US would detect and not respond, due to thinking "Good, at least we don't have to worry about doing it now."
 
Can't imagine the Saudis scrambling their jets to intercept high-flying unidentified aircraft out over the Red Sea. The Saudis might even be told of the mission in progress by the USA (which maintains some oversight on the Saudi AWACS program, as a condition of the original sale). I don't think the House of Saud will be too upset about Iran being denied a nuclear weapons capability, and they can cry crocodile tears after the fact...

Also, one thing that is not being considered, Israeli submarines.
These have modified cruise-missiles on board.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1012-02.htm

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

CapelDodger says that Hutch's idea of overflying Iraq is "A pertinent post."

I couldn't disagree more.
The IAF will fly the route that takes them into international waters, with no overflights of 3rd countries. See my own really pertinent post!
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
However, in the case of Iran, we have multiple leaders giving shockingly similar accounts of what they want to do. This supports that they mean what they say.
Click to expand...
Who the hell is "they"? The conservatives that brought Ahmed-thingy on because they had nobody else are already disowning him. His anti-Israeli rhetoric is a reflection of his weakness. Holocaust denial is not in itself a declaration of genocidal intent. It actually recognises that the Holocaust was horrific, unspeakable, shameful. Nothing is denied unless shame attaches to admission.

The idea of removing the Jewish State of Israel from the map is one I agree with. Like most of the states of the world, it hasn't been there long. This has nothing to do with genocide, it just requires the people of Palestine as they are now forming a multi-ethnic, democratic, equal-opportunity state. Along with the good bit of Jordan, handing the sandy bits to the Iraqi Sunnis - massive acreage but worthless, and good PR can promote the acreage angle.

Only when Palestine is free of conflict can it ally with the Lebanon and really make some waves in the Eastern Med, and the world in general. And only when the Jews of the world wake up from the zionist nightmare can they just be Jewish again and ponder what that means.
 
C-D, going along with the Iranian President, "The idea of removing the Jewish State of Israel from the map is one I agree with."

Good luck to ya, C-D.
Here's an organization you can write to and volunteer your services.
Fondation Secours Mondial (FSM)

Let us know how it goes...
 
webfusion said:
CapelDodger says that Hutch's idea of overflying Iraq is "A pertinent post."

I couldn't disagree more.
The IAF will fly the route that takes them into international waters, with no overflights of 3rd countries. See my own really pertinent post!
Click to expand...
You postulate that the IAF could fly around international boundaries, by utilising all sorts of resources they've been allowed to buy, but does this really get around the US detection and response? The US has serious surveillance of under-sized geese flying over the Indian Ocean way before they come near the Gulf. They will know about an Israeli strike, according to any scenario even when money is no object. They will know about it hours before it happens. They will try to prevent it. Unless they dont want to - the cat's-paw hypothesis - or they actually don't know it's hapening - the scared-enough to impose sanctions and completely re-think their Middle East strategy. After all, it's all very well when the Israeli-Arab conflict is a test-bed for US-USSR military technology, but if the tail starts wagging the dog and the dog notices, the tail loses.
 
I don't postulate anything --

C-D, my posting clearly says "Copyright, 2005 - Mark G. Levey" and the postulations contained in my post are his, and his alone.

I am not sure what you are afraid of.
The Israelis are gonna take out Natanz or Isfahan, so what?

Woof. Woof.
 
CapelDodger said:
Unless they dont want to - the cat's-paw hypothesis...
Click to expand...
What about my "Cool, my ally is doing some good work for me. That's what allies are for." hypothesis? What's so terrible about the US and Israel being allies, and both thinking that Iran's getting nuclear capabilities is a bad thing?
 
webfusion said:
Good luck to ya, C-D.
Click to expand...
Your side will need more than luck.

Here's an organization you can write to and volunteer your services.
Click to expand...
Opposition to the idea of a Jewish State requires no organisation. To oppose a Jewish State is not to subscribe to some other ideology. I have no religion, no ideology and no nation. I'm not a joiner. If you think that the Jewish State will survive to celebrate its centenary (2048), I will bet a barrel of beer against you. I'll also bet a barrel that Jewishness will survive the Jewish State.
 
The Islamist "scholars" running Iran's government are not your everyday fundamentalist religious types, they are full-on, praying-for-martyrdom, absolute, certified religious fanatics, of the most sincere kind. These guys put the "hard" in hardcore. The tyrannical Mullahs who now run Iran with an iron fist are every bit on par with Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. Only they are Shiites, instead of Sunni Wahhabis. But mentally, in terms of hardcore Islamist belief, many of these Mullahs are in the same place as Bin Laden. And guess who will have their fingers on the nuke button?

As Sam Harris pointed out in "The End of Faith," it was one thing to have the Russians and Americans with their mutually assured destruction. That doesn't work when one side gets teary-eyed at the mere thought of becoming "martyrs".

Every time you read about some new "negotiation" between the Iranians and whomever, read it like this, "blah blah blah *Iran is stalling for more time* blah blah blah *Iranian engineers are working to make bombs* blah blah blah . *Iran is stalling for more time* blah blah blah ."

Iran is dead-set on getting nukes. Every single action they have taken so far has pointed as evidence to this. It is my belief that neither Israel nor the United States will allow this to happen. Therefore, war is inevitable.

If this happens soon, Bush will have to stress to the Iranian population that the U.S. is not against Iranian people having nuclear technology, but it is against the current regime getting that technology. The other worry is Iran launching large volumes of missiles into American military camps in Iraq and into Israel's general population. That will be tough to defend against. But I guess war is hell.
 
Last edited:
BS Investigator said:
The Islamist "scholars" running Iran's government are not your everyday fundamentalist religious types, they are full-on, praying-for-martyrdom, absolute, certified religious fanatics, of the most sincere kind. These guys put the "hard" in hardcore. The tyrannical Mullahs who now run Iran with an iron fist are every bit on par with Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. Only they are Shiites, instead of Sunni Wahhabis. But mentally, in terms of hardcore Islamist belief, many of these Mullahs are in the same place as Bin Laden. And guess who will have their fingers on the nuke button?

As Sam Harris pointed out in "The End of Faith," it was one thing to have the Russians and Americans with their mutually assured destruction. That doesn't work when one side gets teary-eyed at the mere thought of becoming "martyrs".

Every time you read about some new "negotiation" between the Iranians and whomever, read it like this, "blah blah blah *Iran is stalling for more time* blah blah blah *Iranian engineers are working to make bombs* blah blah blah . *Iran is stalling for more time* blah blah blah ."

Iran is dead-set on getting nukes. Every single action they have taken so far has pointed as evidence to this. It is my belief that neither Israel nor the United States will allow this to happen. Therefore, war is inevitable.

If this happens soon, Bush will have to stress to the Iranian population that the U.S. is not against Iranian people having nuclear technology, but it is against the current regime getting that technology. The other worry is Iran launching large volumes of missiles into American military camps in Iraq and into Israel's general population. That will be tough to defend against. But I guess war is hell.
Click to expand...
I agree with every word you said. Which is unfortunate, because I'm not happy that some sort of military action is inevitable. But I think in this case, it is. Iran will not give up their quest for nukes. And the rest of the world can't sit by and let Iran get them. That leaves one option. North Korea is a good lesson here. They went and developed nukes, despite what they were telling the rest of the world. And now, they are nearly impossible to deal with. I'm afraid Iran is the same situation. I'm not happy about that, but that's life. We have to face lots of things in life that we don't like. Sucks sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom