AQ on the run, or a ruse?

[/dev/null]

which again, proves your point that an Israeli attack on Iran is a de facto US attack.

579019[/snapback]

[Scraps]

Israel has nukes, whether they admit it or not.

579340[/snapback]

 

So you're advocating the Israel become only the second country to use Nuclear weapons?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

So you're advocating the Israel become only the second country to use Nuclear weapons? 

579383[/snapback]

 

I'm not advocating sh--. I'm just saying that I think it's possible that the Israelis WOULD use them if they felt that Iran was close.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

They do have cruise missiles and mid-range ballistic missiles, yes?

 

Just a thought.

579321[/snapback]

 

I don't know about cruise missiles. Ballistic missiles...yes, they have them. And yes, they have nukes. And not even the Israelis are dumb enough to execute an unprovoked strike with nuclear weapons.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I don't know about cruise missiles.  Ballistic missiles...yes, they have them.  And yes, they have nukes.  And not even the Israelis are dumb enough to execute an unprovoked strike with nuclear weapons.

579397[/snapback]

 

Just like they weren't dumb enoush to attack six of their neighbors pre-emptively even though they were outnumbered what, 8-1?

 

Just a thought.

 

IMO, if the Israelis feel Iran is close they'll either use whatever means possible to cripple Iran's capability or they'll pull the old Wild West Sherriff routine, showing their guns in a public test.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Just like they weren't dumb enoush to attack six of their neighbors pre-emptively even though they were outnumbered what, 8-1?

 

Just a thought.

 

IMO, if the Israelis feel Iran is close they'll either use whatever means possible to cripple Iran's capability or they'll pull the old Wild West Sherriff routine, showing their guns in a public test.

579413[/snapback]

 

There IS a difference between the Six-Day war and nuking Iran. At the very least, the Israelis live and die on American support, and they know damned well that support goes away if they nuke another country for the sake of a potential threat.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

There IS a difference between the Six-Day war and nuking Iran.  At the very least, the Israelis live and die on American support, and they know damned well that support goes away if they nuke another country for the sake of a potential threat.

579429[/snapback]

 

True enough. But what about a public nuclear test a'la Pakistan?

[Scraps]

True enough. But what about a public nuclear test a'la Pakistan?

579443[/snapback]

 

 

What about it? Everybody assumes they have them.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

What about it?  Everybody assumes they have them.

579449[/snapback]

 

If Iran knows that their enemy has them without a doubt, and knows that the Israelis' missile capabilities are far better than their own, I seriously doubt that even Iran would have the balls to launch a first strike on Israel.

[Scraps]

If Iran knows that their enemy has them without a doubt, and knows that the Israelis' missile capabilities are far better than their own, I seriously doubt that even Iran would have the balls to launch a first strike on Israel.

579455[/snapback]

 

That wouldn't prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons though.

[Mickey]

If Iran knows that their enemy has them without a doubt, and knows that the Israelis' missile capabilities are far better than their own, I seriously doubt that even Iran would have the balls to launch a first strike on Israel.

579455[/snapback]

I don't think that anyone, let alone Iran, has any doubts that Israel has them.

[Alaska Darin]

That I know of, the 5th Special Forces Group that specializes in the Middle East and Central Asia, a squadron of RC-135 survelillance planes and the linguists who manned the platforms, at least 30 CIA Case Officers and the CIA station chief in Islamabad and Predator Drones were among the assets that were taken out of Afghanistan and went to Iraq.

Ah, so now the Afghanis and Iraqis speak the same language? That's news to me.

 

So you're defending something that is unwinnable and can easily be used to entangle ourselves in other countries affairs at great financial and human costs, subvert our rights and divert focus from the people who have repeatedly attacked us and declared war on us because a war against said people is short sighted?  I'd prefer to think of it as more focussed and manageable.

578602[/snapback]

I'm not defending it. The fact of the matter is that the strategy you're advocating is the same one that allowed Al Qaeda to grow in the first place.

 

I never advocated the war in Iraq and I'm not going to Monday morning QB it now. It's far too late in the game. The US Government + cash = foriegn policy disasters (one after another). In 20 years we'll have some idea on how good or bad the decision to invade Iraq was.

[Scraps]

Ah, so now the Afghanis and Iraqis speak the same language?  That's news to me. 

581111[/snapback]

 

Oh puhleazze, stop treating me like Petrino in Albany. That is not what I said and you know it. Pashto and Dari are the official languages of Afghanistan, however there are at least 26 other languages spoken there. Arabic, Kurdish, Assyrian, Turkmen, Armenian are among the languages spoken in Iraq, but there are certainly more. I'm sure Farsi is common to both countries to some extent.

 

That really isn't the issue. The fact is that there were plenty of Arabic speaking members of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Many linguists who might know Uzbek or Pashto might also know Arabic or Farsi. There was, and still is, a shortage of linguists in these languages who can also hold clearances. It is common sense that if you move most of these assets from Afghanistan to Iraq that the prosecution of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan will suffer.

 

I'm not defending it. The fact of the matter is that the strategy you're advocating is the same one that allowed Al Qaeda to grow in the first place.

 

There are many factors that allowed Al Qaeda to grow. Bin Laden making world wide contacts during the Afghan struggle against the Soviets, the abject corruption by the ruling families in most Arabic countries and in Saudi Arabia in particular, the Saudi decision to rely on western forces to counter Saddam in Gulf War I instead of embracing Bin Laden's proposals, the Saudi refusal to confront the Bin Laden situation, the Palestinian/Israeli issue, the presance of Western forces in Saudi Arabia throughout the 90s and Clinton's refusal to try to kill the bastard even if it meant collateral damage or mistakes were made were among them. Trying to kill Bin Laden and his top lieutenants with extreme prejudice was not a strategy that allowed Al Qaeda to grow.

[Alaska Darin]

That really isn't the issue.  The fact is that there were plenty of Arabic speaking members of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.  Many linguists who might know Uzbek or Pashto might also know Arabic or Farsi.  There was, and still is, a shortage of linguists in these languages who can also hold clearances.  It is common sense that if you move most of these assets from Afghanistan to Iraq that the prosecution of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan will suffer.

There are many factors that allowed Al Qaeda to grow.  Bin Laden making world wide contacts during the Afghan struggle against the Soviets, the abject corruption by the ruling families in most Arabic countries and  in Saudi Arabia in particular, the Saudi decision to rely on western forces to counter Saddam in Gulf War I instead of embracing Bin Laden's proposals, the Saudi refusal to confront the Bin Laden situation, the Palestinian/Israeli issue, the presance of Western forces in Saudi Arabia throughout the 90s and Clinton's refusal to try to kill the bastard even if it meant collateral damage or mistakes were made were among them.  Trying to kill Bin Laden and his top lieutenants with extreme prejudice was not a strategy that allowed Al Qaeda to grow.

581184[/snapback]

Nice tap dance. At the end of the day ignoring small fires until they fester out of control is a very bad strategy.

[Scraps]

Nice tap dance.  At the end of the day ignoring small fires until they fester out of control is a very bad strategy.

581396[/snapback]

 

So now you're arguing that we should act as World Cop?

[Terry Tate]

That really isn't the issue.  The fact is that there were plenty of Arabic speaking members of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.  Many linguists who might know Uzbek or Pashto might also know Arabic or Farsi.  There was, and still is, a shortage of linguists in these languages who can also hold clearances.  It is common sense that if you move most of these assets from Afghanistan to Iraq that the prosecution of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan will suffer.

Sounds like common sense when you explain it that way. But having worked missions on both targets you reference, sometimes on the same shift, I can assure you that targets worldwide can be exploited without moving a single linguist anywhere.

[Scraps]

Sounds like common sense when you explain it that way. But having worked missions on both targets you reference, sometimes on the same shift, I can assure you that targets worldwide can be exploited without moving a single linguist anywhere.

583930[/snapback]

 

What about the hardware collecting the data?

[Terry Tate]

What about the hardware collecting the data?

583960[/snapback]

In this specific case, that is not an issue either.

 

Just wanted to clarify that intelligence collection is not as much an either/or proposition as boots on the ground. Adding missions or targets surely places additional strains on resources, but today's technology allows for a lot more flexibility than the hard choice of putting a rifleman in one location or the other. That's all I meant to say.