Tux of Borg Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Uhhhh...0. It doesn't exist. You probably meant F-15I...800 miles, realistically. Tehran's at the extreme edge of their range...but that's only if they can get through Saudi or Iraqi air space. Which is functionally our air space. Which means the only way the IAF can hit Iran anyway is if they send a big flower basket and a "Pretty please with sugar on top" to the White House. Which is not a foregone conclusion, BTW. The last thing the White House wants is for Israel to piss off Iran in a region-wide conflict with us stuck in between them in Iraq...which little adventure, oh-by-the-way, we undertook to stabilize the region to begin with, which sure as hell would go straight down the crapper if Israel hit Iran with our blessing... 723828[/snapback] And where would the F-15/F-16s be refueling at, over Iraq? It certainly would make the US look guilty of supporting the attack. I doubt if Iran would let their nuclear sites be bombed without retaliation. What happens if Iran engages Israel planes over Iraqi airspace, or if they decide to shoot off some ballistic missiles in the region. I can only see bad things happening if Israel should carry out such an attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 And where would the F-15/F-16s be refueling at, over Iraq? It certainly would make the US look guilty of supporting the attack. I doubt if Iran would let their nuclear sites be bombed without retaliation. What happens if Iran engages Israel planes over Iraqi airspace, or if they decide to shoot off some ballistic missiles in the region. I can only see bad things happening if Israel should carry out such an attack. 723947[/snapback] Bad things already ARE happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 And where would the F-15/F-16s be refueling at, over Iraq? It certainly would make the US look guilty of supporting the attack. I doubt if Iran would let their nuclear sites be bombed without retaliation. What happens if Iran engages Israel planes over Iraqi airspace, or if they decide to shoot off some ballistic missiles in the region. I can only see bad things happening if Israel should carry out such an attack. 723947[/snapback] 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Uhhhh...0. It doesn't exist. The last thing the White House wants is for Israel to piss off Iran in a region-wide conflict with us stuck in between them in Iraq...which little adventure, oh-by-the-way, we undertook to stabilize the region to begin with, which sure as hell would go straight down the crapper if Israel hit Iran with our blessing... 723828[/snapback] I seriously disagree here. What better way to get involved with Iran then to get "dragged" in by Israel. Kind of like the WW2 scenario. I think Bush would love if Israel started wth Iran (or if Iran starts with Israel). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I seriously disagree here. What better way to get involved with Iran then to get "dragged" in by Israel. Kind of like the WW2 scenario. I think Bush would love if Israel started wth Iran (or if Iran starts with Israel). 723969[/snapback] And have the entire region blow up in our faces? You can't deal with Iran as though they exist in a vacuum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 And have the entire region blow up in our faces? You can't deal with Iran as though they exist in a vacuum... 723975[/snapback] I know you know your sh-- on this, so I'm asking a sincere question (for once) here: WHat else can we do? Diplomacy won't work. What other option is there? Sanctions? Hello $6.00 gas prices. The world already has shown that they don't give a crap. The only other option is the US/Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 What better way to get involved with Iran then to get "dragged" in by Israel. Kind of like the WW2 scenario. 723969[/snapback] Yeah baby. We need a world war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 And that's why it's a waste of time discussing it with you. When you can ONLY see it in those terms, there's no room for discussion anyway. The question of Iran policy is an interesting discussion...with people like X. Benedict, or KTFABD, or Blue Fire, or KRC, who are actually capable of discussing it. With morons like you, or Wacka, or stuckincincy, it's useless. 723689[/snapback] Love your sterquilinous comments! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I seriously disagree here. What better way to get involved with Iran then to get "dragged" in by Israel. Kind of like the WW2 scenario. I think Bush would love if Israel started wth Iran (or if Iran starts with Israel). 723969[/snapback] The sick thing is that you're using this as a positive "what if" scenario. WTF is wrong with people? Yeay, WW3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 The sick thing is that you're using this as a positive "what if" scenario. WTF is wrong with people? Yeay, WW3? 724023[/snapback] I'm sure Ed is polishing his rifle and his helmet as we speak in anticipation. Anyone who actually relishes the thought of this kind of war had better be enlisted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 The sick thing is that you're using this as a positive "what if" scenario. WTF is wrong with people? Yeay, WW3? 724023[/snapback] I think it's less rooting for a WW than it is hoping to see a vile evil and a threat to global security permanently dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I think it's less rooting for a WW than it is hoping to see a vile evil and a threat to global security permanently dealt with. 724029[/snapback] Ding ding ding. At this point, there is no other viable option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I'm sure Ed is polishing his rifle and his helmet as we speak in anticipation. Anyone who actually relishes the thought of this kind of war had better be enlisted. 724027[/snapback] Koom-bay-ya BushBad! Koom-bay-ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 The sick thing is that you're using this as a positive "what if" scenario. WTF is wrong with people? Yeay, WW3? 724023[/snapback] There is no other alternative G. Talking isn't working. If we do nothing, we'll be looking back in ten years saying, "geez, maybe we should have done something then." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Ding ding ding. At this point, there is no other viable option. 724033[/snapback] I remember this drum beat about four years ago, it then changed to democracy spreading throughout the mid east, after the search for the wmd claims turned up empty. I also remember how easy that mission would be as told by the drummers While I agree that Iran with nukes is scary it would be nice to discuss all available options and ramifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 There is no other alternative G. Talking isn't working. If we do nothing, we'll be looking back in ten years saying, "geez, maybe we should have done something then." 724035[/snapback] And if you do something and it all blows up in your face, you'll be looking back thinking "geez, maybe we shouldn't have done something then". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Ding ding ding. At this point, there is no other viable option. 724033[/snapback] There are always options. I would hope that a regional war, that would most likely go global, is a last resort. With that being said, I don't think Israel will let Iran become a nuclear threat. Something about Iran's comments about wanting Israel wiped off the map or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 There is no other alternative G. Talking isn't working. If we do nothing, we'll be looking back in ten years saying, "geez, maybe we should have done something then." 724035[/snapback] You are a !@#$ing moron. First, if you think a world war will bring some end to global extremism and terror, you dumber than I already think. Second, in case you didn't get the memo, a world war would be a terror to everyone. Living in fear of an occasional civilian attack is more preferable to war with China and Russia. Third, the last time we had a world war, there was one nuclear power. I assume (risky) you understand there are more now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I remember this drum beat about four years ago, it then changed to democracy spreading throughout the mid east, after the search for the wmd claims turned up empty. I also remember how easy that mission would be as told by the drummers While I agree that Iran with nukes is scary it would be nice to discuss all available options and ramifications. 724044[/snapback] What're you talking about? Nuke'em all! It's cool! It worked on my video game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 You are a !@#$ing moron. First, if you think a world war will bring some end to global extremism and terror, you dumber than I already think. Second, in case you didn't get the memo, a world war would be a terror to everyone. Living in fear of an occasional civilian attack is more preferable to war with China and Russia. Third, the last time we had a world war, there was one nuclear power. I assume (risky) you understand there are more now. 724048[/snapback] Why don't we all hold hands and sing a song. I'm sure that would work, you tool. Typical liberal response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts