Israel, our ally.

usamamasan1

and your guy Barry thinks $400 to PBS is cool.

anyway, i know all about iran and a map.



The way i understand it, if Israel hits the sites without their greatest ally, US, they can delay the bomb by ~2years. If US gives our ally Israel a hand ~4years. Either way, Iran is getting nuked up. Something has to give.
Sanctions are hurting innocent people. Targeted attacks on WMD facilities are probably more effective. Especially coming from a position of strength. I believe in America and I think our next President will lead from a position of strength and not passivity.

gimmesometruth27

usamamasan1 wrote:

and your guy Barry thinks $400 to PBS is cool.

anyway, i know all about iran and a map.



The way i understand it, if Israel hits the sites without their greatest ally, US, they can delay the bomb by ~2years. If US gives our ally Israel a hand ~4years. Either way, Iran is getting nuked up. Something has to give.
Sanctions are hurting innocent people. Targeted attacks on WMD facilities are probably more effective. Especially coming from a position of strength. I believe in America and I think our next President will lead from a position of strength and not passivity.

way to quote romney's speech :fp:

there are no targeted attacks. there is always collateral damage. israel is the schoolyard bully who is going to get his friends to help him fight because he is unwilling or unable to handle things when the target actually fights back. israel would not risk a larger scale war. their people do not want it. they have mandatory service for their young people. those people are going to be forced into a war that they don't want and it will backfire on them. that is why they need the US to help.

since you are a fiscal conservative, how can you reconcile your positions of fiscal responsibility and call for more war that can not be paid for? you can't. that position is not based on any reality and it is a pipe dream.

what you and romney do not realize is, the posturing romney is doing like he did yesterday and what you are doing on this message board is the exact reason that people in the rest of the world hate us. following bush and his cowboy policies, they have this impression of americans that bush embodied. now romney is going to personafy that image.

usamamasan1

emoticon

gimmesometruth27

you are also forgetting that russia will get involved if we attack iran.

after 11 years of endless war, thousands of americans dead, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, the desired outcomes have not been achieved, are you prepared to commit us to ANOTHER foreign war in that region?

gimmesometruth27

usamamasan1 wrote:

emoticon

care to address my post?

Newch91

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

and your guy Barry thinks $400 to PBS is cool.

anyway, i know all about iran and a map.



The way i understand it, if Israel hits the sites without their greatest ally, US, they can delay the bomb by ~2years. If US gives our ally Israel a hand ~4years. Either way, Iran is getting nuked up. Something has to give.
Sanctions are hurting innocent people. Targeted attacks on WMD facilities are probably more effective. Especially coming from a position of strength. I believe in America and I think our next President will lead from a position of strength and not passivity.

way to quote romney's speech :fp:

there are no targeted attacks. there is always collateral damage. israel is the schoolyard bully who is going to get his friends to help him fight because he is unwilling or unable to handle things when the target actually fights back. israel would not risk a larger scale war. their people do not want it. they have mandatory service for their young people. those people are going to be forced into a war that they don't want and it will backfire on them. that is why they need the US to help.

since you are a fiscal conservative, how can you reconcile your positions of fiscal responsibility and call for more war that can not be paid for? you can't. that position is not based on any reality and it is a pipe dream.

what you and romney do not realize is, the posturing romney is doing like he did yesterday and what you are doing on this message board is the exact reason that people in the rest of the world hate us. following bush and his cowboy policies, they have this impression of americans that bush embodied. now romney is going to personafy that image.

Romney has already hired 17 of his 24 foreign policy advisers who were also Bush's advisers. We saw how that worked out.

Newch91

usamamasan1 wrote:

and your guy Barry thinks $400 to PBS is cool.

anyway, i know all about iran and a map.



The way i understand it, if Israel hits the sites without their greatest ally, US, they can delay the bomb by ~2years. If US gives our ally Israel a hand ~4years. Either way, Iran is getting nuked up. Something has to give.
Sanctions are hurting innocent people. Targeted attacks on WMD facilities are probably more effective. Especially coming from a position of strength. I believe in America and I think our next President will lead from a position of strength and not passivity.

PBS/early childhood education > war

Newch91

Video wondering if Netanyahu is meddling in our election.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/201 ... ction.html

Byrnzie

usamamasan1 wrote:

Iran, the worlds central banker of international terrorism, is close to getting nukes. A targeted campaign on their illicit nuke sites is imminent IMO.

Courtesy of 'Drowned Out':
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... No.-1-1992

For more than quarter of a century Western officials have claimed repeatedly that Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result is always declared "unacceptable" and a possible reason for military action, with "all options on the table" to prevent upsetting the Mideast strategic balance dominated by the US and Israel.

And yet, those predictions have time and again come and gone. This chronicle of past predictions lends historical perspective to today’s rhetoric about Iran.

1984: Soon after West German engineers visit the unfinished Bushehr nuclear reactor, Jane's Defence Weekly quotes West German intelligence sources saying that Iran's production of a bomb "is entering its final stages." US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.

1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."

1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to have nuclear warheads by 1999. "Iran is the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East," Peres warned, "because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militanCY."

1992: Joseph Alpher, a former official of Israel's Mossad spy agency, says "Iran has to be identified as Enemy No. 1." Iran's nascent nuclear program, he told The New York Times, "really gives Israel the jitters."

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

Iran, the worlds central banker of international terrorism, is close to getting nukes. A targeted campaign on their illicit nuke sites is imminent IMO.

Courtesy of 'Drowned Out':
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... No.-1-1992

For more than quarter of a century Western officials have claimed repeatedly that Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result is always declared "unacceptable" and a possible reason for military action, with "all options on the table" to prevent upsetting the Mideast strategic balance dominated by the US and Israel.

And yet, those predictions have time and again come and gone. This chronicle of past predictions lends historical perspective to today’s rhetoric about Iran.

1984: Soon after West German engineers visit the unfinished Bushehr nuclear reactor, Jane's Defence Weekly quotes West German intelligence sources saying that Iran's production of a bomb "is entering its final stages." US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.

1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."

1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to have nuclear warheads by 1999. "Iran is the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East," Peres warned, "because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militanCY."

1992: Joseph Alpher, a former official of Israel's Mossad spy agency, says "Iran has to be identified as Enemy No. 1." Iran's nascent nuclear program, he told The New York Times, "really gives Israel the jitters."

Those Iranians must be stupider than we all thought.

DO you have a list of the sanctions by year against Iran? If not I'll try to find a google machine around here.

You point is well made. The flip side is I'm wondering if any reaction to Iran (ie sanctions) have they helped push this back at all and is that the reason 1995-1999 is now into 2012 an later?

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

DO you have a list of the sanctions by year against Iran? If not I'll try to find a google machine around here.

You point is well made. The flip side is I'm wondering if any reaction to Iran (ie sanctions) have they helped push this back at all and is that the reason 1995-1999 is now into 2012 an later?

You have Google too, right? Why don't you check it out? Why do I always have to do all the work around here?

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

DO you have a list of the sanctions by year against Iran? If not I'll try to find a google machine around here.

You point is well made. The flip side is I'm wondering if any reaction to Iran (ie sanctions) have they helped push this back at all and is that the reason 1995-1999 is now into 2012 an later?

You have Google too, right? Why don't you check it out? Why do I always have to do all the work around here?

Ah shit I forgot to google it. I'll do so tomorrow. Honestly, I just thought you'd have it at your fingertips.

catefrances

whygohome wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

Their influence in this election is despicable. Could it be illegal as well?
Anyway, Fox News says they are our allies, so I guess they are!

we meddle in other countries' elections all the time....

This is true. And sometimes with force. Gee, why do people hate us?

'we' hate your freedoms and your way of life. tho not me personally... im australian therefore live in the world of sunshine and lollypops. theres nothing about the US for me to envy.

catefrances

usamamasan1 wrote:

and your guy Barry thinks $400 to PBS is cool.

anyway, i know all about iran and a map.



The way i understand it, if Israel hits the sites without their greatest ally, US, they can delay the bomb by ~2years. If US gives our ally Israel a hand ~4years. Either way, Iran is getting nuked up. Something has to give.
Sanctions are hurting innocent people. Targeted attacks on WMD facilities are probably more effective. Especially coming from a position of strength. I believe in America and I think our next President will lead from a position of strength and not passivity.

HOLY SHIT!!! my country has uranium mines and a nuclear research facility as well... guess its only a matter of time before the US military comes a-knocking. :shock: anyone got a basement i can hide out in til the percieved danger passes???

peacefrompaul

catefrances wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

and your guy Barry thinks $400 to PBS is cool.

anyway, i know all about iran and a map.



The way i understand it, if Israel hits the sites without their greatest ally, US, they can delay the bomb by ~2years. If US gives our ally Israel a hand ~4years. Either way, Iran is getting nuked up. Something has to give.
Sanctions are hurting innocent people. Targeted attacks on WMD facilities are probably more effective. Especially coming from a position of strength. I believe in America and I think our next President will lead from a position of strength and not passivity.

HOLY SHIT!!! my country has uranium mines and a nuclear research facility as well... guess its only a matter of time before the US military comes a-knocking. :shock:

cincybearcat

catefrances wrote:

HOLY SHIT!!! my country has uranium mines and a nuclear research facility as well... guess its only a matter of time before the US military comes a-knocking. :shock: anyone got a basement i can hide out in til the percieved danger passes???

Where do you live?

catefrances

cincybearcat wrote:

catefrances wrote:

HOLY SHIT!!! my country has uranium mines and a nuclear research facility as well... guess its only a matter of time before the US military comes a-knocking. :shock: anyone got a basement i can hide out in til the percieved danger passes???

Where do you live?

australia, why does that matter?

gimmesometruth27

catefrances wrote:

australia, why does that matter?

uh oh, australia is next!! we are gonna put bases all over your continent!!

oh wait, we already have bases there.... :fp:

usamamasan1

Question from the moderator in the third Presidential Debate:
MR. SCHIEFFER: "... Red lines, Israel and Iran. Would either of you... Would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States, which of course is the same promise that we give to our close allies like Japan?
And if you made such a declaration, would not that deter Iran? It's certainly deterred the Soviet Union for a long, long time when we made that -- when we made that promise to our allies."
Good question... a request to clarify what has been a very intimate but imprecise relationship -- challenging an American president -- or future president -- to make a stark commitment to Israel on his own accord, without seeking the consent of the Senate or Congress. Which, who knows, one chaotic night at three in the morning, he might be called upon to do.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Well, first of all, Israel is a true friend. It is our greatest ally in the region. And if Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel. I've made that clear throughout my presidency. And -- "
Just a minute, he didn't really answer... but the moderator was there:
MR. SCHIEFFER: "So you're saying we've already made that declaration?"
Good Question, but dodged again:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: "I will stand with Israel if they are attacked."
Unasked question: What does stand by" mean, Mr. President? Cheer from the sidelines? Send emergency arms, dispatch rockets to shoot down incoming missiles, as was done in past crises by the U.S?
But Obama went on.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: "And this is the reason why, working with Israel, we have created the strongest military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history. In fact, this week we'll be carrying out the largest military exercise with Israel in history, this very week."
Unasked Question: Does that mean, Mr. President, that American armed forces would become directly involved if Israel were attacked?... if say, its perimeter defenses were overwhelmed? If the Arabs or Iranians were marching on Tel Aviv? If not, what is the point of carrying out the "largest military exercises in history" with Israel? Exercising for what?"
Next to a question about economic sanctions against Iran...
PRESIDENT OBAMA:" ... the reason we did this is because a nuclear Iran is a threat to our national security and it's threat to Israel's national security. We cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world."
Unanswered question: Nuclear arms race? Hasn't Israel had nuclear weapons for decades now, Mr. President?
And now to Romney on Israel:
MR. ROMNEY: "Well, first of all, I -- I want to underscore the -- the same point the president made, which is that if I'm president of the United States, when I'm president of the United States, we will stand with Israel. And -- and if Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily."
Unanswered Question: Uh, again, what does that mean, Governor? Would you commit boots on the ground? Cruise missiles? Destroyers? Under what circumstances?
Then, when the subject of Egypt's shaky new government came up
PRESIDENT OBAMA: "They [the Egyptians] have to abide by their treaty with Israel. That is a red line for us, because not only is Israel's security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels."
Mr. President, could you explain why America's security is dependent on a treaty between Egypt and Israel?
If these question weren't asked during the debate, did any hear them asked by any of the pundit afterwards?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb ... 06101.html


Hmmmm. Emoticon

Byrnzie

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oc ... ing-street

Iran military action not 'right course at this time', Downing Street says

Government reiterates its current opposition to military action against Iran after revelation US has requested use of UK bases


The government has reiterated that it does not believe military action against Iran would be appropriate at the moment, following the disclosure that Britain has rebuffed US requests to use UK military bases to support the buildup of forces in the Gulf.

Downing Street said: "We are working closely with the US with regard to UK bases" but "the government does not think military action is the right course at this point of time".

David Cameron made a lengthy speech last week urging Israel to show restraint, and pointing to the way in which sanctions are having an impact on the Iranian economy.


The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories.

The US approaches are part of contingency planning over the nuclear standoff with Tehran, but British ministers have so far reacted coolly. On Friday, Downing Street said such contingency planning was something that was done as a matter of routine.

They have pointed US officials to legal advice drafted by the attorney general's office and which has been circulated to Downing Street, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.

It states that providing assistance to forces that could be involved in a pre-emptive strike would be a clear breach of international law on the basis that Iran, which has consistently denied it has plans to develop a nuclear weapon, does not currently represent "a clear and present threat".

"The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans."

Sources said the US had yet to make a formal request, and that they did not believe an acceleration towards conflict was imminent or more likely. The discussions so far had been to scope out the British position, they said.

"But I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise."

The situation reflects the lack of appetite within Whitehall for the UK to be drawn into any conflict, though the Royal Navy has a large presence in the Gulf in case the ongoing diplomatic efforts fail.

The Guardian has been told that a British military delegation with a strong navy contingent flew to US Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, this summer to run through a range of contingency plans with US planners.

The UK, however, has assumed that it would only become involved once a conflict had already begun, and has been reluctant to commit overt support to Washington in the buildup to any military action.

"It is quite likely that if the Israelis decided to attack Iran, or the Americans felt they had to do it for the Israelis or in support of them, the UK would not be told beforehand," said the source. "In some respects, the UK government would prefer it that way."

British and US diplomats insisted that the two countries regarded a diplomatic solution as the priority, but this depends on the White House being able to restrain Israel, which is nervous that Iran's underground uranium enrichment plant will soon make its nuclear programme immune to any outside attempts to stop it.

Israel has a less developed strike capability and its window for action against Iran will close much more quickly than that of the US, explained another official. "The key to holding back Israel is Israeli confidence that the US will deal with Iran when the moment is right."

With diplomatic efforts stalled by the US presidential election campaign, a new push to resolve the crisis will begin in late November or December.

Six global powers will spearhead a drive that is likely to involve an offer to lift some of the sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy in return for Tehran limiting its stockpile of enriched uranium.

The countries involved are the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China. Iran will be represented by its chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili.