Benjamin Franklin Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Either I missed the sarcasm or that is the all time best TBD Freudian slip. 724258[/snapback] Intentionally subtle.
cåblelady Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Actually, all I meant was to quote Kelso's Helmet's stupidity.But, since we're going to discuss it...yeah, what Chicot said. It's not a question of "Can we bomb Iran, please?", but "Can we fly through your airspace to bomb Iran, please?" 723930[/snapback] You forgot to say, "Mother, may I?"
Typical TBD Guy Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 I can't believe I'm about to say this, but Wacka actually makes a good point. 724205[/snapback] A point I made way back in post #119, which is what is starting to really piss me off about this forum. People are so bent on bashing others that they'll overlook any ideas that might initiate actual debate... And for the record, Crap Thrower and his ilk, yes of course I'm willing to open my mind about some alternative choices outside of immediately bombing Iranian nuke facilities (what sick person would actually prefer an all-out war if it can be avoided?). Um, but first I'd like to hear them. It's one thing to constantly identify flaws in potential solutions, quite another to offer one's own. Now getting slightly back on topic, does anyone know more about China's role in Mid East diplomacy? This was an intereting question MattyT raised (post #185), and I don't want to see it get buried.
chicot Posted July 17, 2006 Posted July 17, 2006 Well, if the assumption is that they'd never use them for fear of American reprisal, then what good is it to have them? And if you think military intervention in NK isn't on the plate, you're nuts. 724168[/snapback] The purpose is to use them as a weapon of last resort. Say the US invaded Iran, hellbent on regime change. With nothing left to lose, they could fire them all off at Israel. Knowing that they had that sort of capability would make the US very wary of such a course of action.
MattyT Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 Now getting slightly back on topic, does anyone know more about China's role in Mid East diplomacy? This was an intereting question MattyT raised (post #185), and I don't want to see it get buried. 724407[/snapback] Thank you. This was an article that I had read about China (and Russia) being the linchpin for diplomacy. http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=7065970 Disclaimer: This links to premium content, but they are currently running a "one day pass" where you watch an add and then you get to see the pay stuff. But it's worth the read IMO.
cromagnum Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 Both the -15I and the -16I have an unrefuelled combat range of about 800 miles. Not that they could carry much in the way of munitions over that distance...but they can operate at that range... And let's not forget Jordan and Syria, either. The Jordanians would probably let an Israeli strike through unhassled (they'd rather live - they've got a history of being practical and looking the other way). The Syrians would not only challenge a strike overflying Syria, I wouldn't be surprised if they challenged a strike overflying Jordan. And yes, I know the stock answer is that the IAF can take apart any Arab air force or air defense in short order...but we're not talking about dominating defended airspace, we're talking about overflying it, which are two very different things. Unless someone also wants to postulate a full campaign against Syria to take down their entire air defense network as a prelude to a limited strike against Iran...which would be even more insane than overflying Iraq without permission... 723963[/snapback] What about Israels surface to surface nuclear/conventional cruise missles with a range of 1000mi. or launched from a sub?
PastaJoe Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 The purpose is to use them as a weapon of last resort. Say the US invaded Iran, hellbent on regime change. With nothing left to lose, they could fire them all off at Israel. Knowing that they had that sort of capability would make the US very wary of such a course of action. 724421[/snapback] Iran and North Korea have learned the lesson of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Hurry up and get nuclear weapons before the U.S. invades. Just the opposite message that the administration thought it would send.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 What about Israels surface to surface nuclear/conventional cruise missles with a range of 1000mi. or launched from a sub? 724490[/snapback] Nothing with the kind of accuracy they'd need. A good portion of Iran's nuclear program is in underground, hardened bunkers, the kind of thing that needs a precise deep penetrator...the kind of thing you can't really mount on a Jericho II. Their sub forces...rumor is they have three new submarines of German design that can deploy into the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf, and carry nuclear cruise missiles. I can believe the latter; the former I think is a stretch, as it's a non-trivial matter to sail a diesel submarine with 45 days' provisions from Tel Aviv (or wherever they're based - might be Haifa) to the Indian Ocean unsupported...particularly if they don't transit the Suez Canal, which I suspect they don't do (I could be wrong...but the paperwork involved in sailing through the Suez would mean Israeli subs would be transiting in the open, which is completely inconsistent with typical Israeli military practice). But either way...both platforms would only be effective combined with nuclear weapons against Iranian nuclear targets. And Israeli nuclear policy is based on ambiguity: everyone suspects Israel has nukes, but no one knows they do, which is just how the Israelis want it. Plus, the Israeli nuclear program is intended specifically for strategic use against a dire and immediate threat against the very existence of Israel...and it's a pretty far stretch to characterize Iran's nuclear program as such, all Iran's rhetoric notwithstanding. I just don't see where it's in Israel's interest to drastically change their long-standing nuclear policy of ambiguity to eliminate an Iranian threat that's less real than hypothetical. It's NOT in their interests, frankly: they'd be more secure maintaining the ambiguity of their program in the face of an active Iranian weapons program than they would be nuking an Iranian program and lifting the veil of ambiguity over theirs. Doesn't mean they wouldn't do it - people have a very funny way of doing things that are not in their best interests. Just means they'd be pretty stupid to.
OGTEleven Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 Iran and North Korea have learned the lesson of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Hurry up and get nuclear weapons before the U.S. invades. Just the opposite message that the administration thought it would send. 724503[/snapback] Are you just being antagonistic or do you really believe people like Kim and AminananoIcantspellit are getting nukes because of the US? If the US never even existed, guys like this would still find an enemy and go after nukes. Stop cutting them slack they are not even close to deserving.
Wacka Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 They want nukes which they will use to try to wipe Israel off the map. Just like the Nazis, it's all the Jews fault. That's why they're called Islamofascists.
cromagnum Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 Are you rooting for us to lose in this War on Terror? 724224[/snapback] You might want to take a look at this, before you go bombing iran and add to the chaos. This is where bin laden was the focus back in 01, I realize that we are conducting a GWOT and at the same time nation building to promote democracy in hopes of a more peaceful mid-east. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060717/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
MattyT Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 Are you just being antagonistic or do you really believe people like Kim and AminananoIcantspellit are getting nukes because of the US? If the US never even existed, guys like this would still find an enemy and go after nukes. Stop cutting them slack they are not even close to deserving. 724551[/snapback] How is attemptiing to explain their motives "cutting them slack?" You just don't like PJs politics. What would you do if the US military had all of your borders surrounded? People say that Ahmadinejad is crazy (I agree he's nutty), but wouldn't he be crazier NOT to make a move like this?
Tux of Borg Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 How is attemptiing to explain their motives "cutting them slack?" You just don't like PJs politics. What would you do if the US military had all of your borders surrounded? People say that Ahmadinejad is crazy (I agree he's nutty), but wouldn't he be crazier NOT to make a move like this? 724625[/snapback] Ahmadinejad is president but he still needs the support of Iran's mullahs or clerics.
MattyT Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 Ahmadinejad is president but he still needs the support of Iran's mullahs or clerics. 724721[/snapback] Absolutely....which he obviously does.
OGTEleven Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 How is attemptiing to explain their motives "cutting them slack?" You just don't like PJs politics. What would you do if the US military had all of your borders surrounded? People say that Ahmadinejad is crazy (I agree he's nutty), but wouldn't he be crazier NOT to make a move like this? 724625[/snapback] PJ and I have different politics. We are both well aware of this fact. You have misinterpreted my post. Let me re-word it for you. If the US was never on the face of the Earth, the current leaders of N Korea and Iran would still be pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening people with them. This is because they are megalomaniacs. Joe "cut them slack" by implying the US is the reason for these morons pursuing nuclear weapons. I disagree with that position wholeheartedly. In your post, you see a causal relationship between us being in Iraq and Iran pursuing nukes? Did they ever pursue nukes before we were there? The North Korean pursuit also dates Bush. What do you think these gentlemen would be doing as alternatives if we were not in Iraq? Perhaps picking daisies and helping old ladies cross the street?
cromagnum Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 Here's a link about the estimated 25.000 americans in lebanon and how some of them are trying to get the hell out of there. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/...=cnn_topstories
MattyT Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 PJ and I have different politics. We are both well aware of this fact. You have misinterpreted my post. Let me re-word it for you. If the US was never on the face of the Earth, the current leaders of N Korea and Iran would still be pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening people with them. This is because they are megalomaniacs. Joe "cut them slack" by implying the US is the reason for these morons pursuing nuclear weapons. I disagree with that position wholeheartedly. In your post, you see a causal relationship between us being in Iraq and Iran pursuing nukes? Did they ever pursue nukes before we were there? The North Korean pursuit also dates Bush. What do you think these gentlemen would be doing as alternatives if we were not in Iraq? Perhaps picking daisies and helping old ladies cross the street? 724845[/snapback] Not sure why you think I misinterpreted your post, but thanks for the rehash. N Korea's pursuit is a given...Kim wants to be held in the same regard as countries like India or Pakistan (Pakistan being a very real threat to the GWOT, IMO) as a "blessed possessor" of nukes. Never gonna happen. Iran is clearly (to me) stepping up its efforts to let the whole world know that they will be a player. More than ever, they NEED nukes.....as a bargaining chip. It offers them rewards (incentive packages that they wouldn't be offered otherwise) and potentially buys them time before the US eventually comes knocking on their door. Like you said, they are megalomaniacs who's pursuit of nukes undoubtedly predates current events. However, you can't deny that there is a sense of urgency in Iran's position. That's what happens when the country that names you in a triumvirate of evil proceeds to occupy the land and sea that surrounds you...peacefully or otherwise. If you think about everything that's going on in that region, we actually invaded the least potentially destructive country in the Middle East.
GG Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 If you think about everything that's going on in that region, we actually invaded the least potentially destructive country in the Middle East. 724894[/snapback] At times, the madness has its reasons...
OGTEleven Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 Not sure why you think I misinterpreted your post, but thanks for the rehash. N Korea's pursuit is a given...Kim wants to be held in the same regard as countries like India or Pakistan (Pakistan being a very real threat to the GWOT, IMO) as a "blessed possessor" of nukes. Never gonna happen. Iran is clearly (to me) stepping up its efforts to let the whole world know that they will be a player. More than ever, they NEED nukes.....as a bargaining chip. It offers them rewards (incentive packages that they wouldn't be offered otherwise) and potentially buys them time before the US eventually comes knocking on their door. Like you said, they are megalomaniacs who's pursuit of nukes undoubtedly predates current events. However, you can't deny that there is a sense of urgency in Iran's position. That's what happens when the country that names you in a triumvirate of evil proceeds to occupy the land and sea that surrounds you...peacefully or otherwise. If you think about everything that's going on in that region, we actually invaded the least potentially destructive country in the Middle East. 724894[/snapback] These are all excuses for Iran. We are the cause of neither their desire nor their sense of urgency. Their leader himself claims he is readying the path for the islamic messiah (not the exact term, but you know what I mean). If we weren't there he'd simply find another reason.
cromagnum Posted July 18, 2006 Posted July 18, 2006 If you think about everything that's going on in that region, we actually invaded the least potentially destructive country in the Middle East. 724894[/snapback] Now with Iran looking to build a nuclear bomb, I wonder what the U.S. plans are for a permanent military base in Northern Iraq. Keeping an eye on Iraq and Iran situations , just in case Iran goes more loco, and to keep the U.S. installed iraq democracy protected?
Recommended Posts