Report: Israel Won't Warn U.S. Before Strike On Iran

[toomuchtime_]

I do wish you would post a link to quotes

Don't know how to use google?

Google

I also know this sites rules on linking to quotes

So your objection was procedural, not substantive. I see.

 

[Ropey]

Don't know how to use google?

Google

I also know this sites rules on linking to quotes

So your objection was procedural, not substantive. I see.

Jos was thread hijacking against the rules.

 

[Jos]

Jos was thread hijacking against the rules.

I'm not sure if your thread hijacking is against the rules, but I asked you to link to quotes as you have been known to lie in the past
Also, posting the contents of a PM without permission is also a nono

 

[Ropey]

Jos was thread hijacking against the rules.

I'm not sure if your thread hijacking is against the rules, but I asked you to link to quotes as you have been known to lie in the past

Also, posting the contents of a PM without permission is also a nono

Prove the lie you say I made.

Report whoever is posting contents of a PM.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/israe...ess-in-gaza-and-jerusalem-14.html#post4893995

^ Another 'lie' of mine disproved.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The US has effectively given the IRanians a green light to do whatever they want. They have indicated they are more scared of an Israeli military strike than an Iranian nuke.
Israel needs to tell Uncle to fuck off we'll handle it. Thank us later.

Yeah, well given that Israel doesn't have the capability to really pull of an airstrike, and would inflame the entire Islamic world if they did, they are just saber-rattling, hoping the rest of the world will put the pressure on Iran to prevent a war.

Nuclear Iran. Learn to deal.

Suggesting Isreal is, "just saber-rattling" defies history (or, maybe history has been rewritten and I missed the newest iteration).

 

[Jos]

Jos was thread hijacking against the rules.

I'm not sure if your thread hijacking is against the rules, but I asked you to link to quotes as you have been known to lie in the past

Also, posting the contents of a PM without permission is also a nono

Prove the lie you say I made.

Report whoever is posting contents of a PM.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/israe...ess-in-gaza-and-jerusalem-14.html#post4893995

^ Another 'lie' of mine disproved.

I don't mind being called a liar and sometimes I do, but this was withholding the truth.

And if you don't see that. Grow another head.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-m...211-bet-on-the-us-and-lost-3.html#post3259205

.

 

[Ropey]

I'm not sure if your thread hijacking is against the rules, but I asked you to link to quotes as you have been known to lie in the past

Also, posting the contents of a PM without permission is also a nono

Prove the lie you say I made.

Report whoever is posting contents of a PM.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/israe...ess-in-gaza-and-jerusalem-14.html#post4893995

^ Another 'lie' of mine disproved.

I don't mind being called a liar and sometimes I do, but this was withholding the truth.

And if you don't see that. Grow another head.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-m...211-bet-on-the-us-and-lost-3.html#post3259205

.

When someone asks me a question and I don't want to lie, I don't say yes or no and that's not proof of a lie. Have you heard of the fifth amendment? You want me to indict myself? No, you prove the lie.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The US has effectively given the IRanians a green light to do whatever they want. They have indicated they are more scared of an Israeli military strike than an Iranian nuke.
Israel needs to tell Uncle to fuck off we'll handle it. Thank us later.

Yeah, well given that Israel doesn't have the capability to really pull of an airstrike, and would inflame the entire Islamic world if they did, they are just saber-rattling, hoping the rest of the world will put the pressure on Iran to prevent a war.

Nuclear Iran. Learn to deal.

It may be on your wish list but it is not a given that Israel cannot effectively strike Iran's nuclear and long range missile programs. In fact, the analyses I've seen give Israel a better than 70% chance of succeeding and that's without accounting for Israel's medium and long range missiles, its heavy drones and the likely insertion of large numbers of special operation forces to take out selected targets.

The two arguments usually made against the success of an Israeli strike are the fortifications at Fordow and Natanz and that Israel has only five refueling tankers we know of. Even if Israel has only five refueling tankers its strike aircraft can be refueled at the rate of at least 40 per hour, meaning that five tankers would be adequate but require careful planning with little room for error, but many large aircraft can be converted to become refueling tankers and since the Israelis are a resourceful and technically sophisticated people, it is not unlikely that having been refused the sale of additional refueling tankers by the US they have made their own. Keep in mind that it was thought impossible in 1967 that Israel's Mirage fighters could fly far out to sea and then swing around and attack Egypt's air defenses from the rear because of the Mirage's limited range, but the Israelis modified the planes and did what the Soviets who had installed and were operating Egypt's air defenses thought was impossible.

In 1981, France had built Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor with think hardened concrete walls that were though to be impervious to an air assault with conventional weapons of the time, but the Israelis put on a demonstration of precision bombing, hitting the same spots over and over again until the walls were so weakened that the reactor was unusable. Neither the Israelis' 5,000 lb. bunker busters nor the US' 30,000 lb. bunker busters may be able to take out the Fordow or Natanz facilities, but repeated hits on the same spot will likely excavate a hole deep enough to weaker the structures to the point where they are unusable according to the latest US military estimates.

 

[JoeB131]

The US has effectively given the IRanians a green light to do whatever they want. They have indicated they are more scared of an Israeli military strike than an Iranian nuke.
Israel needs to tell Uncle to fuck off we'll handle it. Thank us later.

Yeah, well given that Israel doesn't have the capability to really pull of an airstrike, and would inflame the entire Islamic world if they did, they are just saber-rattling, hoping the rest of the world will put the pressure on Iran to prevent a war.

Nuclear Iran. Learn to deal.

Suggesting Isreal is, "just saber-rattling" defies history (or, maybe history has been rewritten and I missed the newest iteration).

Of course they are. The Zionists would much rather have us send out poor American kids to kill the people they are afraid of. And our politicians are happy to oblige.

Bin LAden- Killed by the US.
Khadafy- Killed by the US
Saddam- Killed by the US.

I think Israel did get some high ranking Hamas Guys... but usually, they just ask us to come by with a big boot and stomp whoever is scaring them.

 

[JoeB131]

It may be on your wish list but it is not a given that Israel cannot effectively strike Iran's nuclear and long range missile programs. In fact, the analyses I've seen give Israel a better than 70% chance of succeeding and that's without accounting for Israel's medium and long range missiles, its heavy drones and the likely insertion of large numbers of special operation forces to take out selected targets.

The two arguments usually made against the success of an Israeli strike are the fortifications at Fordow and Natanz and that Israel has only five refueling tankers we know of. Even if Israel has only five refueling tankers its strike aircraft can be refueled at the rate of at least 40 per hour, meaning that five tankers would be adequate but require careful planning with little room for error, but many large aircraft can be converted to become refueling tankers and since the Israelis are a resourceful and technically sophisticated people, it is not unlikely that having been refused the sale of additional refueling tankers by the US they have made their own. Keep in mind that it was thought impossible in 1967 that Israel's Mirage fighters could fly far out to sea and then swing around and attack Egypt's air defenses from the rear because of the Mirage's limited range, but the Israelis modified the planes and did what the Soviets who had installed and were operating Egypt's air defenses thought was impossible.

In 1981, France had built Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor with think hardened concrete walls that were though to be impervious to an air assault with conventional weapons of the time, but the Israelis put on a demonstration of precision bombing, hitting the same spots over and over again until the walls were so weakened that the reactor was unusable. Neither the Israelis' 5,000 lb. bunker busters nor the US' 30,000 lb. bunker busters may be able to take out the Fordow or Natanz facilities, but repeated hits on the same spot will likely excavate a hole deep enough to weaker the structures to the point where they are unusable according to the latest US military estimates.

Osirik was a single sight, built pretty much out in the open. It wasn't fortified or even near completion yet. (IN fact, construction had stopped due to a rerouting of resources to the war with Iran.)

The Iranians have scattered their facilities, and the world really doesn't know about all of them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell you what, Chippy, when you go out there and volunteer for the military, I'll take it seriously.

We don't need boots on the ground to take out the mullahs, Dippy.

YOu work on the assumption the Mullahs are the problem. The reality is the Mullahs represent teh popular will.

Ugly truth. Iran is a Democracy. The have elections. They are subject to internal politics.

In fact, we almost had a deal with Mahmoud on the Uranium, until Mosavi (the oppossition leader) cried that Iran shouldn't give up her nuclear assets.

YOu work on the assumption the Mullahs are the problem. The reality is the Mullahs represent teh popular will.

Yeah, that's why they're always cracking down on student protesters.

Ugly truth. Iran is a Democracy.

OMG! You're joking, right?

 

[JoeB131]

Just as much of a "Democracy" as we are.

No one can run in Iran that the Mullah's haven't approved.

And no one runs in America that Wall Street hasn't approved.

Get real, Chippy. the game is played on multiple levels, most of which you're too stupid to see.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just as much of a "Democracy" as we are.

No one can run in Iran that the Mullah's haven't approved.

And no one runs in America that Wall Street hasn't approved.

Get real, Chippy. the game is played on multiple levels, most of which you're too stupid to see.

Ugly truth. Iran is a Democracy.

You are funny! Not real bright though. Ugly truth.

 

[JoeB131]

Just as much of a "Democracy" as we are.

No one can run in Iran that the Mullah's haven't approved.

And no one runs in America that Wall Street hasn't approved.

Get real, Chippy. the game is played on multiple levels, most of which you're too stupid to see.

Ugly truth. Iran is a Democracy.

You are funny! Not real bright though. Ugly truth.

They have elections. They have choices. Sometimes the choice you don't expect wins.

The world was surprised when Mamoud won the first time. they didn't know how the votes would play out.

I know this is a concept you don't understand, but sometimes Democracy means, People make choices you don't like.

The west is very ignorant of Iran, it's history and culture. This is what our biggest problem is in dealing with them. It's why we've miscalculated so badly so many times.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just as much of a "Democracy" as we are.

No one can run in Iran that the Mullah's haven't approved.

And no one runs in America that Wall Street hasn't approved.

Get real, Chippy. the game is played on multiple levels, most of which you're too stupid to see.

Ugly truth. Iran is a Democracy.

You are funny! Not real bright though. Ugly truth.

They have elections. They have choices. Sometimes the choice you don't expect wins.

The world was surprised when Mamoud won the first time. they didn't know how the votes would play out.

I know this is a concept you don't understand, but sometimes Democracy means, People make choices you don't like.

The west is very ignorant of Iran, it's history and culture. This is what our biggest problem is in dealing with them. It's why we've miscalculated so badly so many times.

No one can run in Iran that the Mullah's haven't approved.

 

[JoeB131]

No one can run in Iran that the Mullah's haven't approved.

And no one can run in America who the bankers on Wall Street haven't approved.

We all have our cultural authorities, do we not?

The Bankers on Wall Street can live with Obama. They'd like Romney, but they know that he isn't electable, they can live with Obama for another four years. They can't live with Ron Paul, which is why Ron Paul will never be President.

In 2005, the Mullahs would have been fine with Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a guy who had served as president previously from 1980 to 1997. In 2009, they'd have been fine with Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who had served as PM before the office was abolished in favor of a stronger presidency.

They also realize there is a popular will.

Sorry, just is. They'd have probalby liked those other mainstream guys, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is more of a crowd pleaser.

Simply put, if we don't understand the politics there (and I'll admit, there are nuances I don't understand), we are liable to seriously miscalculate.

Not that you'll go down to a recruiters office when we do.

 

[Jroc]

No one can run in Iran that the Mullah's haven't approved.

And no one can run in America who the bankers on Wall Street haven't approved. We all have our cultural authorities, do we not?

The Bankers on Wall Street can live with Obama. They'd like Romney, but they know that he isn't electable, they can live with Obama for another four years. They can't live with Ron Paul, which is why Ron Paul will never be President.

In 2005, the Mullahs would have been fine with Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a guy who had served as president previously from 1980 to 1997. In 2009, they'd have been fine with Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who had served as PM before the office was abolished in favor of a stronger presidency.

They also realize there is a popular will.

Sorry, just is. They'd have probalby liked those other mainstream guys, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is more of a crowd pleaser.

Simply put, if we don't understand the politics there (and I'll admit, there are nuances I don't understand), we are liable to seriously miscalculate.

Not that you'll go down to a recruiters office when we do.

The bankers and the mullahs..Two peas in a pod

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No one can run in Iran that the Mullah's haven't approved.

And no one can run in America who the bankers on Wall Street haven't approved.

We all have our cultural authorities, do we not?

The Bankers on Wall Street can live with Obama. They'd like Romney, but they know that he isn't electable, they can live with Obama for another four years. They can't live with Ron Paul, which is why Ron Paul will never be President.

In 2005, the Mullahs would have been fine with Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a guy who had served as president previously from 1980 to 1997. In 2009, they'd have been fine with Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who had served as PM before the office was abolished in favor of a stronger presidency.

They also realize there is a popular will.

Sorry, just is. They'd have probalby liked those other mainstream guys, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is more of a crowd pleaser.

Simply put, if we don't understand the politics there (and I'll admit, there are nuances I don't understand), we are liable to seriously miscalculate.

Not that you'll go down to a recruiters office when we do.

And no one can run in America who the bankers on Wall Street haven't approved.

BS.

They can't live with Ron Paul, which is why Ron Paul will never be President.

But you said no one can run without the bankers approval.
You've already disproved your claim.

Not that you'll go down to a recruiters office when we do.

I'm still not clear on why I need to enlist when we start bombing Iran. Spell it out?

 

[Lakhota]

Robert Naiman: On Iran Strike, Israelis Trust Obama Over Bibi

Opinion: Do Israelis support a strike on Iran? - Shibley Telhami - POLITICO.com

 

[JoeB131]

No one can run in Iran that the Mullah's haven't approved.

And no one can run in America who the bankers on Wall Street haven't approved. We all have our cultural authorities, do we not?

The Bankers on Wall Street can live with Obama. They'd like Romney, but they know that he isn't electable, they can live with Obama for another four years. They can't live with Ron Paul, which is why Ron Paul will never be President.

In 2005, the Mullahs would have been fine with Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a guy who had served as president previously from 1980 to 1997. In 2009, they'd have been fine with Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who had served as PM before the office was abolished in favor of a stronger presidency.

They also realize there is a popular will.

Sorry, just is. They'd have probalby liked those other mainstream guys, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is more of a crowd pleaser.

Simply put, if we don't understand the politics there (and I'll admit, there are nuances I don't understand), we are liable to seriously miscalculate.

Not that you'll go down to a recruiters office when we do.

The bankers and the mullahs..Two peas in a pod

They are both about equally evil...