Iran promises retaliation if Israel attacks

[Az]

So? Heck, The Saudis would probably refuel us, if we'd really take out the nukes. We just have to be real hush hush about it.

[GePap]

Riiiight.....

The Saudi's are not worried enough about Iran's nukes to be stupid enough to do something like that. Plus, they probalby remmebre those weapon shipments to Iran Israel made, at a time they were lending tens of billions to Saddam.

They would get a much bigger kick teling the Iranians you were coming-then even if Israel then succeeded in taking out their targets, they get brownie points for muslim solidarity, and if Israel fails, well, a great victory against the Zionist enemy....

[Az]

Yeah, because the Saudi royals really care about the struggle against the Zionist enemy.

muslim solidarity? The Iranians aren't even muslims by their standards. Saudis give a toss about Israel only in the context of the stablity of their regime. Iran is a much bigger threat to the stability of their regime, with the evergrowing Shia minority.

[GePap]

The biggest threat to them is the growing population period and the fact all their real leaders are 70 years old plus. Israel is a good diversion, as always. Besides, if word ever got out SA helped Israel, the Royal family would be in deep trouble. SA has been reaching out to Iran since the neocons got to town,a nd really, warning Iran ahead of time is a win win for SA- whatever the outcome, they win. That is the kind of situation you want to be in.

[Az]

How do they win by actually letting Israel fly over their territory and not trying to intercept?

[:) Smiley]

Doesn't Israel have its own ballistic missiles?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

QUIETLY, U.S. PREPARES FOR ISRAEL STRIKE ON IRAN

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The United States has been examining the prospect that Israel will attack Iranian nuclear facilities in an attempt to prevent the Islamic republic from completing an atomic bomb as early as this year.

U.S. analysts and government sources said the Bush administration has discussed the prospect of an Israeli air strike at several levels of government. They said the issue has been examined in terms of the diplomatic, military and security implications for the United States, particularly its military presence in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.

The issue of Iran's nuclear weapons program was discussed by President George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon during the latter's visit to the White House on April 14. The sources said the two men were alone during the brief discussion in an effort by the president to gauge a likely Israeli response to the completion of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

"It would be intolerable for the Middle East if they [Iran] get a nuclear weapon," Bush said after meeting Sharon.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
How do they win by actually letting Israel fly over their territory and not trying to intercept?

They wouldn't do that.

When I stated that the only way for Israel to get at Iran is to fly over Turkey, or Iraq (under US occupation) or SA, Panag said Israel could always fly over the sea. Which means flying around SA-now, this is not realistic because SA would get more than enough time to detect an attack and warn Iran.

This is the point you came in at.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Smiley
Doesn't Israel have its own ballistic missiles?

Yup, Israel has the Jericho 2 missile which probably has the range to hit most of Iran depending on the weight of its payload.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/artillery/jericho-12/jericho-2.html

Israel also current has 3 state of the art German built Dolphin Class diesel subs which are believe to be equiped with modified Popeye Turbo cruise missiles that have a nuclear warhead and a range of 1,500 kilometers.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/dolphin/Dolphin.html

These submarines are capable of heading close to the Iranian coast in the Persian Gulf and then launching their missiles. The plan is to always have one at sea in order to give Israel a second strike capability so Israel's enemies can't concievably escape nuclear attack by launching their own nuclear weaponry first and achieving complete surprise. Israel is also apparently interested in buying two more submarines to further enchance this capability.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=264394&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0

[Joseph]

Originally posted by GePap


NO, they didn't. The point is that it was America's TANKS and GROUNDTROOPS, NOT the airforces that beat Saddam twice. Hence your point, that an airwar alone is enough, is WRONG. In fact, we can go with the whole SERBIA example for you...something you barely ever even mention...

four WHOLE subs? that would take the Navy... what... 15 minutes to destroy?

A bit more, actually, it will depend on when we find them.



sadly the situation on the ground is no longer the same.

You have no ideal how good our boats (Subs) are, I do.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, we never took the entire forces under 50% (and this comes from one of the professors who has access to the Military's own studies after the war of the effectiveness of the air war)-certain units, certainly.

I checked, and it turns out they lost 48% of their tanks, 30% of APC's, and 59% of their arty. Not far off.

Without invading they will still get nukes. Hence the air campaing fails.

Not if we bomb their reactors. Also, deploying troops on the ground != invasion. We could still attack over land, just not actually topple their government (and then have to set up a new one).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
I'm relatively surprised at the good perception of US intelligence and war capabilities posted in this thread. I would have thought that the Iraq fiasco had exposed the weaknesses of both to everyone by now.

That's the one thing it hasn't done. Rather, it's proven that American troops are orders of magnitude better than the opposition.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Not politically they aren't.

IT'S ALL A ZIONIST CONSPIRACY!!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!

[Panag]

Originally posted by GePap


Oh, Of course: lets see, take off near tel Aviv- head to the med...then.......Fly over egyptian airspace to get to the Red sea, then fly several thousand miles around Arabia, which of course will give plenty of time for the saudis to know you are headed Iran's way, and then finally get accross the Arabian peninsula to strike at Iran.. and then what? Cause I assume you want them to be able to fly back, right?

Or go over the mediterranean, then fly over turkey yo get to the black sea, then either fly over turkey again to hit iran, or fly over Armenia and Aizerbaijan to get to Iran..ypu, another quicky....

hi ,





take a look at a serious map , ....

gulf of Eilat , red sea , make a left fly over the idian ocean and your there , ....

there is something called an international corridor if you take a look at the international airspace maps and regulations , ......


but why make things hard if a thing like iraq can be pulled of again , ....


have a nice day

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Kucinich
[q] Originally posted by GePap


I checked, and it turns out they lost 48% of their tanks, 30% of APC's, and 59% of their arty. Not far off.

Check again-make sure you are getting the final reports. If the report you look at says, for example, that the patriot had a high success rate, then you are looking at hogwash.

Not if we bomb their reactors. Also, deploying troops on the ground != invasion. We could still attack over land, just not actually topple their government (and then have to set up a new one).

Oh please. 1. you don't need reactors solely to make nukes. You can use centerfuges to enrich uranium. Israel's attakc on Iraq's reactors only slowed porgress. Nothing anyone here has said shows why the fantasy attacks you kids think would occur would be any more permenant.

Also, deploying troops on the ground does equal invasion: putting your troops univited in the soil of a foreign state is the damned definition of invasion.