Seems like the israeli's might do the job for us

Real Life Events.

Go off topic and I will break you!

Moderator: Dictators in Training

Seems like the israeli's might do the job for us

Postby DESX » Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:46 pm

Considering their is a very very good chance I think that we will invade iran if they do not comply more with the UN nuclear inspections this might be a better choice of action.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_ ... an_nuclear

Israeli Hints at Preparation to Stop Iran By JOSEF FEDERMAN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 38 minutes ago



JERUSALEM - Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

ADVERTISEMENT


"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.

His comments at an academic conference stopped short of overtly threatening a military strike but were likely to add to growing tensions with Iran.

Germany's defense minister said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that "all options" should remain open.

Asked by the Bild am Sonntag weekly whether the threat of a military solution should remain in place, Franz Josef Jung was quoted as responding: "Yes, we need all options."

French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Saturday that Chirac's threats reflect the true intentions of nuclear nations, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

"The French president uncovered the covert intentions of nuclear powers in using this lever (nuclear weapons) to determine political games," IRNA quoted Asefi as saying.

Israel long has identified Iran as its biggest threat and accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran says its atomic program is peaceful.

Iran broke U.N. seals at a uranium enrichment plant Jan. 10 and said it was resuming nuclear research after a 2 1/2-year freeze. Germany, France and Britain said two days later that talks aimed at halting Iran's nuclear progress were at a dead end and called for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, will meet Feb. 2 to discuss possible referral.

Israel's Mofaz said sanctions and international oversight of Iran's nuclear program stood as the "correct policy at this time."

In Germany, Jung called himself "confident that there will be a diplomatic solution in the case of Iran."

Israeli leaders have also repeatedly said they hope the crisis can be resolved through diplomacy, and they said any military action would have to be part of an international effort. They have denied having plans for a unilateral preventive strike.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Tehran might still agree to Moscow's offer to move its uranium enrichment program to Russia, a step backed by the United States and Europeans as a way to resolve the deadlock.

Israel's concerns about Iran have grown since the election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said last year that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

On Friday, Iran's Students News Agency reported Friday that Central Bank governor Ebrahim Sheibani said Iran had begun moving its foreign currency reserves from European banks and transferring them to an undisclosed location as protection against possible U.N. sanctions.

Sheibani backed away Saturday from his statement that the transfers were already underway, and Iran's Central Bank said there had been no change in its currency policy.

Estimates put Iranian funds in Europe at as much as $50 billion.


Guessing the U.S. would provide much military assistance. Like air support, give Israel F-15's etc. More weaponry. Guessing the U.S. would also send like a good 3-5k troops + conduct any special op's missions + conduct sorties against all air defense's and communication and gain air superiority to basically make way for the israeli invasion. Would be much better just to do this because israel would most likely take care of most of the ground invasion.
Image
User avatar
DESX
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:33 am

Postby Arlos » Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:20 am

WTF are you smoking, Israel wouldn't invade, that would be asinine. If they choose the military option, it would almost certainly be in the form of an air strike, similar to the one they did on Iraq's nuclear research facility back in 1981. I seriously doubt that Israel has anywhere near sufficient ground force to actually invade Iran in force and hold onto the territory.

-Arlos
User avatar
Arlos
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:39 pm

Postby DESX » Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:33 am

I highly doubt that israel would launch an airstrike against Iran by itself and think to take out it's nuclear reactors. Iran now has 25-100 shahab-3 ballistic missles which can reach israel. Dont think missle's falling on tel-aviv would be any good. Israel does have the only anti-ballistic missle defense system in the world currently but it is still a very thin defense network. If anything U.S. stealth bomber's would try to target all the ballistic missile sites and take them out with JDAM bunker busters, bush's administration already announced that they have sold 5,000 JDAMs to israel after the missle sites have been destroyed it would be followed by a joint coallition attack spearheaded by the IDF forces from israel. I didnt say that israel would attack by itself but they would provide most of the man-power. The IDF forces number around the same as the Iranian military. Somewhere around 250,000.

Israeli forces are more modernized and more technologically advanced then Iranian forces.

The other problem is exactly how to inflict sufficient damage on the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has as at least 24 suspected nuclear facilities scattered around the country. Some are underground; others are (intentionally) located by major population areas to ensure civilian casualties during a raid.

Israel has a limited missile defense system, missiles raining in on Tel Aviv, a city of 3 million, could be devastating. But Israel could threaten to respond to Iranian strikes on Israeli civilian targets with nuclear weapons.
Image
User avatar
DESX
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:33 am

Postby Kramer » Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:35 pm

you al lare assuming that Israel would be doing this ALONE. That doesn't seem to be the case, seems liek they would plenty of worldwide help if the politics were played right, which it seems things are in ttheir favor :dunno:
Mindia is seriously the greatest troll that has ever lived.
    User avatar
    Kramer
    NT Traveller
    NT Traveller
     
    Posts: 3397
    Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:50 pm
    Location: tha doity sowf

    Postby Kramer » Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:36 pm

    DAMN. Looks like I need to do some review of my Mavis Beacon.....
    Mindia is seriously the greatest troll that has ever lived.
      User avatar
      Kramer
      NT Traveller
      NT Traveller
       
      Posts: 3397
      Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:50 pm
      Location: tha doity sowf

      Postby labbats » Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:48 pm

      I know everything about mideast politics and all the angles both pro and con of every action possible in every scenario.

      Sincerely,

      No One
      labbats
      Mr. Ed
      Mr. Ed
       
      Posts: 3597
      Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:21 am

      Postby Diekan » Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:34 pm

      WW III incoming!
      User avatar
      Diekan
      NT Deity
      NT Deity
       
      Posts: 5736
      Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:14 am

      Postby araby » Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:38 pm

      Israeli's aren't going to do the job "for us"-- they said in the article that they want to resolve through diplomacy and would need international backup in the case of a strike against Iran.

      guess the question is, once they meet with the "watchdogs" on 2-2, will they compromise?
      Image
      User avatar
      araby
      Nappy Headed Ho
      Nappy Headed Ho
       
      Posts: 7818
      Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:53 am
      Location: Charleston, South Carolina

      Postby DESX » Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:04 pm

      Ashly wrote:Israeli's aren't going to do the job "for us"-- they said in the article that they want to resolve through diplomacy and would need international backup in the case of a strike against Iran.

      guess the question is, once they meet with the "watchdogs" on 2-2, will they compromise?


      Yes we already know that they wont attack alone. I said that they would spearhead most of the ground invasion if we attacked Iran just like the U.S. spearheaded the attack in Iraq. They did say that diplomacy would be the first option but im pretty sure you know that Iran has a history of saying that they will accept nuclear inspections and then like 2 months later not allow anymore which is just giving them more time to develop nukes. The U.S. realizes this and so does israel so if this doesnt get solved soon im guessing military action in the next year or 2.
      Image
      User avatar
      DESX
      NT Veteran
      NT Veteran
       
      Posts: 1029
      Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:33 am

      Postby Spazz » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:03 pm

      The JEWS attacking a muslim country will do wonders for peace in the middle east i am sure.
      WHITE TRASH METAL SLUMMER
      Why Immortal technique?
      Perhaps its because I am afraid and he gives me courage.
      User avatar
      Spazz
      Osama bin Spazz
      Osama bin Spazz
       
      Posts: 4752
      Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:29 pm
      Location: Whitebread burbs

      Postby Harrison » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:17 pm

      Fuck the middle east.
      How do you like this spoiler, motherfucker? -Lyion
      User avatar
      Harrison
      NT Legend
      NT Legend
       
      Posts: 20323
      Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:13 am
      Location: New Bedford, MA

      Postby Spazz » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:25 pm

      I actually agree with you . I think every country in the great sandbox has its share of wackos and assholes that just wont stop fighting or antagonizing one another. Not that i want iran or any other crazies over there to have nukes but I can see why they would want em.
      WHITE TRASH METAL SLUMMER
      Why Immortal technique?
      Perhaps its because I am afraid and he gives me courage.
      User avatar
      Spazz
      Osama bin Spazz
      Osama bin Spazz
       
      Posts: 4752
      Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:29 pm
      Location: Whitebread burbs

      Postby DESX » Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:10 pm

      Iran Sanctions Could Drive Oil Past $100 By BRAD FOSS and GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writers
      Sun Jan 22, 6:39 PM ET



      A surge in oil prices last week to almost $70 a barrel on concerns about the restart of Iran's nuclear program only hints at what may lie ahead.

      ADVERTISEMENT


      Prices could soar past $100 a barrel, experts say, if the U.N. Security Council authorizes trade sanctions against the Middle Eastern nation, which the West accuses of trying to make nuclear bombs, and Iran curbs oil exports in retaliation. A sharp global economic slowdown could follow.

      That's the dilemma the United States and European nations face as they decide whether to act. But Iran would also pay a hefty price if the petro-dollars that now represent 80 percent of export revenues are reduced, potentially stirring civil unrest in a nation with a 14 percent unemployment rate.

      "They would shoot themselves in the foot," said Mustafa Alani, director of national security and terrorism studies at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center. "It's one thing to test the market psychology, it's another to take the actual step and stop oil exports."

      Iran, the second-largest oil producer within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, exports roughly 2.5 million barrels per day — 1 million barrels more than current excess production capacity worldwide. It also controls the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping lane in the Middle East.

      "Even if Iran pulled a small amount of its oil off the market, say it pulled a half million barrels a day, I could see oil prices literally jumping over the $100 per barrel mark," said James Bartis, a senior researcher at Rand Corp.

      But other oil analysts say prices would likely not climb much higher than $75 a barrel before strategic reserves would be released and demand would begin to taper off as economic activity slowed around the world.

      So who would be hurt more? The United States and other nations say it would be Tehran and argue against succumbing to economic blackmail in any case. "We cannot be intimidated by economic threats from their side," Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss, told CNN.

      The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that oil exports finance about half of the Iranian government's budget. And while high oil prices have boosted the annual growth rate to about 5 percent, Iran has never really recovered from its 1980-1988 war against Iraq and trade restrictions on sensitive technologies. The Iran Nonproliferation Act, which the U.S. Congress passed in 2000, deters international support for Iran to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and missile-delivery systems.

      For weeks, Iran's state television has sought to show a people united behind the leadership, showing passer-by on Tehran city streets expressing their support for the country's strivings for nuclear independence.

      Still, Alani of the Gulf Research Center questioned "whether the ordinary citizens will be willing to risk sanctions and endure a lot of suffering like the Iraqis suffered for 13 years" under U.N. sanctions.

      Oil consuming nations, meanwhile, have at least one ace up their sleeves — crude reserves. The United States and other members of the International Energy Agency have a combined 1.48 billion barrels of oil in their emergency stocks. That's equivalent to about 600 days of Iran's net oil exports of 2.4 million barrels per day.

      OPEC might be able to add 1.5 million barrels per day to world production, mostly from Saudi Arabia. And oil analyst Fadel Gheit at Oppenheimer & Co. in New York said Russia might be able to crank up exports by about 500,000 barrels once its domestic home-heating demand eases.

      Gregory L. Schulte, chief U.S. delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency, accused Iran last week of deceiving the world about its atomic program, declaring that moves to haul it before the U.N. Security Council were meant to deny "the most deadly of weapons to the most dangerous of countries."

      His comments were part of increasing international pressure on Iran since it removed seals from uranium enrichment equipment earlier in the month and said it would start small scale work on the process that can make both fuel and the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

      "It's a very difficult situation where you don't know which side is going to blink first," said Leonard Spector, deputy director of the Monterey Institute of International Studies' Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

      It's also not clear the United States could win a referral on sanctions at the Security Council, where members Russia and China are Iran's main allies. Both have strong economic and strategic ties to Iran, with China a large oil consumer and drilling partner and Russia a key supplier of arms and nuclear technology and services for what Tehran says is a peaceful program. Additionally, oil-rich Russia would benefit from higher prices and increased demand for its crude if Iran's oil were off the market.

      Influential India, which imports 75 percent of the crude it consumes, some from Iran, is a wild card in the referral struggle.

      It joined the U.S., Britain, France and Germany in September to back an IAEA resolution that set the stage for reporting Iran for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But pressure is building on the Indian government not to vote against Iran when the 35-nation IAEA board meets Feb. 2 to consider actual referral.

      "India must not allow itself to be dragooned into joining the Washington-led nuclear lynch mob against Iran," The Hindu, one of India's most influential newspapers, cautioned Thursday. "Aside from the lack of any legal basis for threatening Iran with sanctions, India should consider what the U.S. pressure on Tehran will do to international oil prices as well as to the overall security scenario in West Asia."

      The United States and its allies are thought to have the majority behind them on any vote for referral. Still they would like to see India, China and Russia on board — all three countries carry weight among other IAEA board nations, and Moscow and Beijing have a vote on the Security Council on what to do about Iran, once it is referred.


      Didn't actually think of this one.
      Image
      User avatar
      DESX
      NT Veteran
      NT Veteran
       
      Posts: 1029
      Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:33 am

      Postby Spazz » Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:17 pm

      Lets just let em have a nuke whats the worst that could happen :)
      WHITE TRASH METAL SLUMMER
      Why Immortal technique?
      Perhaps its because I am afraid and he gives me courage.
      User avatar
      Spazz
      Osama bin Spazz
      Osama bin Spazz
       
      Posts: 4752
      Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:29 pm
      Location: Whitebread burbs

      Postby DESX » Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:39 pm

      spazz wrote:Lets just let em have a nuke whats the worst that could happen :)


      Nuclear war >< :lol:
      Image
      User avatar
      DESX
      NT Veteran
      NT Veteran
       
      Posts: 1029
      Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:33 am

      Postby Spazz » Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:00 pm

      Or not. Lotta countries have nukes and ya dont see em nuken each other .......
      WHITE TRASH METAL SLUMMER
      Why Immortal technique?
      Perhaps its because I am afraid and he gives me courage.
      User avatar
      Spazz
      Osama bin Spazz
      Osama bin Spazz
       
      Posts: 4752
      Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:29 pm
      Location: Whitebread burbs

      Postby Harrison » Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:37 pm

      They're not fucking crazy ayatolhahs either...
      How do you like this spoiler, motherfucker? -Lyion
      User avatar
      Harrison
      NT Legend
      NT Legend
       
      Posts: 20323
      Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:13 am
      Location: New Bedford, MA

      Postby Spazz » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:15 am

      You think if iran had nukes they would launch em soon as they were made or do you think they would sit on em like the other countries that have em do ? I dont think theres a country on this planet that wants to engage in a nuculer war. Second i dont give a god damn if they blow isreal of the face of the earth But i do care about gas prices goin up even higher and i do care about more tax dollars and more troops in another war. Maybe if they all had nukes peace negotiations would go better cuz they would have to compromise or perish. Maybe if they all had nukes theyll blow each other the fuck up and well have less enemies to deal with later.
      WHITE TRASH METAL SLUMMER
      Why Immortal technique?
      Perhaps its because I am afraid and he gives me courage.
      User avatar
      Spazz
      Osama bin Spazz
      Osama bin Spazz
       
      Posts: 4752
      Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:29 pm
      Location: Whitebread burbs

      Postby Captain Insano » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:52 am

      Hey if we all hold hands and believe and god and jesus and shit everything will be O.K. :blcake:
      Tossica: No, you're gay because you suck on cocks.

      Darcler:
      Get rid of the pictures of the goofy looking white guy. That opens two right there.

      Mazzletoffarado: That's me fucktard
      Vivalicious wrote:Lots of females don't want you to put your penis in their mouths. Some prefer it in their ass.
      User avatar
      Captain Insano
      Nappy Headed Ho
      Nappy Headed Ho
       
      Posts: 8368
      Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:04 pm
      Location: SoCal

      Postby DESX » Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:33 am

      spazz wrote:You think if iran had nukes they would launch em soon as they were made or do you think they would sit on em like the other countries that have em do ? I dont think theres a country on this planet that wants to engage in a nuculer war. Second i dont give a god damn if they blow isreal of the face of the earth But i do care about gas prices goin up even higher and i do care about more tax dollars and more troops in another war. Maybe if they all had nukes peace negotiations would go better cuz they would have to compromise or perish. Maybe if they all had nukes theyll blow each other the fuck up and well have less enemies to deal with later.


      See I dont actually think that Iran will use the nukes if they are developed. But they sure as hell will use them as a cash crop. They are a terrorist supporting country which would most likely sell them to the hezbollah. Which will in turn blow a big fucking hole somewhere on earth with it. Yeah the M.A.D (mutual assured destruction) strategy isnt all that great either, you said they can either compromise or perish, but shit we all know how close we got to perishing during the cuban missile crisis. I also dont disagree and think they should blow each other to hell but I wouldn't really want it being cold year round.
      Image
      User avatar
      DESX
      NT Veteran
      NT Veteran
       
      Posts: 1029
      Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:33 am


      Return to Current Affairs

      Who is online

      Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

      cron