Home› A Moving Train

The US REJECTS Israeli arms request

spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
edited August 2008 in A Moving Train
well thats interesting. I thought we have already declared war with Iran.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402708,00.html

JERUSALEM — The United States has rejected an Israeli arms request that would have improved Israel's capability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, a frontpage report in Israel's Haaretz newspaper said on Wednesday.

The U.S. warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests, the paper said. The unsourced report also says the U.S. demanded that Israel give it a heads-up if it decides to strike Iran.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    I guess it would make more sense if this didn't happen:
    http://www.forward.com/articles/13709/
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    _outlaw wrote:
    I guess it would make more sense if this didn't happen:
    http://www.forward.com/articles/13709/

    please keep posts on topic yada yada yada
  • Strangest TribeStrangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    spyguy wrote:
    well thats interesting. I thought we have already declared war with Iran.

    They're already arming Israel. This is just a big political shit on public awareness.
    the Minions
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    They're already arming Israel. This is just a big political shit on public awareness.

    yes we arm Israel. but Israel made a specific request that we denied and also warned AGAINST attacking Iran. why do you choose to ignore those details?
  • bigdvsbigdvs Posts: 235
    They are saying its just propaganda, we are saying no just for the headline and Israel already has all of the weapons from us to blow the Iranian nuke works. Though the truth is we are telling Israel no because a. talks continue with Iran (diplomacy, who woulda thunk), b. Iraq is getting better (the public would turn quickly, Shia especially) c. price of oil (its just starting to stabalize and wall street needs the good news that we are keeping the peace not inciting more trouble in and around the region). But these have been our interests and reasons for holding Israel back from attacking Iran for sometime now so its not really a story. Yet FOX ran with it yesterday, but that right there tells a lot of the story for people (that it came from FOX).
    "The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
    — Socrates

  • Strangest TribeStrangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    spyguy wrote:
    yes we arm Israel. but Israel made a specific request that we denied and also warned AGAINST attacking Iran. why do you choose to ignore those details?

    Maybe you didn't see the big wink ;) we gave Israel when we opposed their request.

    How dare they go to war with Iran before we can beat the war drum over here.
    the Minions
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    bigdvs wrote:
    They are saying its just propaganda, we are saying no just for the headline and Israel already has all of the weapons from us to blow the Iranian nuke works. Though the truth is we are telling Israel no because a. talks continue with Iran (diplomacy, who woulda thunk), b. Iraq is getting better (the public would turn quickly, Shia especially) c. price of oil (its just starting to stabalize and wall street needs the good news that we are keeping the peace not inciting more trouble in and around the region). But these have been our interests and reasons for holding Israel back from attacking Iran for sometime now so its not really a story. Yet FOX ran with it yesterday, but that right there tells a lot of the story for people (that it came from FOX).

    It appears to me that alot of people (on this board particularly) do not have an open mind. they only see things the way they want to see it.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    spyguy wrote:
    well thats interesting. I thought we have already declared war with Iran.


    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402708,00.html

    JERUSALEM — The United States has rejected an Israeli arms request that would have improved Israel's capability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, a frontpage report in Israel's Haaretz newspaper said on Wednesday.

    The U.S. warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests, the paper said. The unsourced report also says the U.S. demanded that Israel give it a heads-up if it decides to strike Iran.
    ...
    It does not say what was requested... I am guessing it was Advanced Air-To-Ground Attack Missiles.
    And isn't the last thing the world needs right now is the wildcard being played by Israel? We have our troops in a Shi-ia majority neighbor... what do we do? Support Israel and fight the Shi-ites in Iran with Shi-ites in Iraq watching our backs? Or sit it out as hoards of Iranian refugees cross the porous borders into Iraq? The last thing we need is a third party to stir things up in that fucking hornet's nest.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    It does not say what was requested... I am guessing it was Advanced Air-To-Ground Attack Missiles.
    And isn't the last thing the world needs right now is the wildcard being played by Israel? We have our troops in a Shi-ia majority neighbor... what do we do? Support Israel and fight the Shi-ites in Iran with Shi-ites in Iraq watching our backs? Or sit it out as hoards of Iranian refugees cross the porous borders into Iraq? The last thing we need is a third party to stir things up in that fucking hornet's nest.

    That's it.
    ---

    It's just a simple call the US had to make, it can't afford more chaos in that area. On top of that, America already has both of it's leg's cut off right now.

    But this is not the first time America has rejected an arms request by Israel. Only to change it's mind shortly after.

    It's almost like Israel has America by it's balls? Nah...
  • Strangest TribeStrangest Tribe Posts: 2,502
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    It does not say what was requested... I am guessing it was Advanced Air-To-Ground Attack Missiles.
    And isn't the last thing the world needs right now is the wildcard being played by Israel? We have our troops in a Shi-ia majority neighbor... what do we do? Support Israel and fight the Shi-ites in Iran with Shi-ites in Iraq watching our backs? Or sit it out as hoards of Iranian refugees cross the porous borders into Iraq? The last thing we need is a third party to stir things up in that fucking hornet's nest.

    My vote is to just sit back pop some popcorn and watch them fuck each other over there.
    the Minions
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    Strangest Tribe wrote:
    Maybe you didn't see the big wink ;) we gave Israel when we opposed their request.

    How dare they go to war with Iran before we can beat the war drum over here.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    spyguy wrote:
    yes we arm Israel. but Israel made a specific request that we denied and also warned AGAINST attacking Iran. why do you choose to ignore those details?


    1. Maybe the key phrase of this article is 'would have improved Israel's capability to attack Iran's nuclear faciities'.

    Doesn't this suggest that Israel already has the capabilty, they just want better odds.


    2. Why warn Israel against attacking - then ask for a heads-up?

    That's like saying: I'm warning you, don't go over your Ex's place, you know it always trouble, but, hey, if you do go let me know ahead of time so I can be prepared to back you up.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    yea so?
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    puremagic wrote:
    1. Maybe the key phrase of this article is 'would have improved Israel's capability to attack Iran's nuclear faciities'.

    Doesn't this suggest that Israel already has the capabilty, they just want better odds.


    2. Why warn Israel against attacking - then ask for a heads-up?

    That's like saying: I'm warning you, don't go over your Ex's place, you know it always trouble, but, hey, if you do go let me know ahead of time so I can be prepared to back you up.


    Israel likely does already have the capacity. They took out Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. This would be a similar strike. So yes, you're right.
    As for asking for a head's up ... You could be right on that too, or it could be to afford the US an opportunity to intervene diplomatically before a military strike is tried. Time will tell.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Israel likely does already have the capacity. They took out Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. This would be a similar strike. So yes, you're right.
    As for asking for a head's up ... You could be right on that too, or it could be to afford the US an opportunity to intervene diplomatically before a military strike is tried. Time will tell.

    Of course they have the ability to hit iran. but does America have the ability to back Israel enough for an all out war with iran?
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    MrBrian wrote:
    Of course they have the ability to hit iran. but does America have the ability to back Israel enough for an all out war with iran?

    Sure, although "all out war" needs to be specified. Iran has little or no capacity to strike successfully at Israel directly, although they could certainly up their military support of Hezbollah and other groups, which would cause Israel all sorts of problems.
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    By the way, I think people should concede the original poster's point, which was that the U.S., while Israel's biggest supporter/arms supplier, has in fact shifted its stance as of late, at least to some degree. Support of Israel's actions is no longer unilateral, and hasn't been for some time. There has been a shift, beginning when Abbas and other moderate Palestinians rose to prominence. Could the U.S. do a lot more? Absolutely. But things are no longer as black and white as they once were.
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    MrBrian wrote:
    Of course they have the ability to hit iran. but does America have the ability to back Israel enough for an all out war with iran?

    what is all out war? full invasion and regime change? similar to Iraq. that would never happen. this has always been about stopping their nuke program. which means bomb their nuke facilities.
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    reborncareerist wrote:
    By the way, I think people should concede the original poster's point, which was that the U.S., while Israel's biggest supporter/arms supplier, has in fact shifted its stance as of late, at least to some degree. Support of Israel's actions is no longer unilateral, and hasn't been for some time. There has been a shift, beginning when Abbas and other moderate Palestinians rose to prominence. Could the U.S. do a lot more? Absolutely. But things are no longer as black and white as they once were.

    I'm glad someone gets it ;) cheers mate
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Sure, although "all out war" needs to be specified. Iran has little or no capacity to strike successfully at Israel directly, although they could certainly up their military support of Hezbollah and other groups, which would cause Israel all sorts of problems.

    A few years ago a report hinted that Iran has cells or the ability to suicide bomb multiple targets in multiple countries.

    Iran does not really need missles when it's people are willing to die for the battle upfront.

    As far as pure military weapons go, very few countries could touch israel in that regard.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    spyguy wrote:
    what is all out war? full invasion and regime change? similar to Iraq. that would never happen. this has always been about stopping their nuke program. which means bomb their nuke facilities.

    Which is gonna lead to trees that produce cup cakes? or war with iran on a major level?
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Israel likely does already have the capacity. They took out Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. This would be a similar strike. So yes, you're right.
    As for asking for a head's up ... You could be right on that too, or it could be to afford the US an opportunity to intervene diplomatically before a military strike is tried. Time will tell.


    I only hope that time is on our side because we are pushing the envelop and I honestly don't think that the people or the politicians of the world can take much more without someone doing something to begin the end. Forgetting all the possible reasons behind the 5 day war between Russia and Georgia, it just shows how stressed things have become.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    MrBrian wrote:
    A few years ago a report hinted that Iran has cells or the ability to suicide bomb multiple targets in multiple countries.

    Iran does not really need missles when it's people are willing to die for the battle upfront.

    As far as pure military weapons go, very few countries could touch israel in that regard.

    True enough ... If not the Iranians directly, other terrorist groups could be tapped to launch attacks. That's a scary scenario, actually. A few suicide bombings, and Israel would probably turn Iran into the next Lebanon (cluster bomb central).
  • NevermindNevermind Posts: 1,006
    spyguy wrote:
    what is all out war? full invasion and regime change? similar to Iraq. that would never happen. this has always been about stopping their nuke program. which means bomb their nuke facilities.
    You dont think they should have nuclear energy?
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    Nevermind wrote:
    You dont think they should have nuclear energy?

    a 100% transparent one? sure. I'm sure you think thats their sole purpose right?
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    reborncareerist wrote:
    Israel likely does already have the capacity. They took out Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. This would be a similar strike. So yes, you're right.
    As for asking for a head's up ... You could be right on that too, or it could be to afford the US an opportunity to intervene diplomatically before a military strike is tried. Time will tell.
    ...
    I think they would need a longer ranged standoff weapon, such as an AGM-130, to hit targets in Iran. Israel would have to use either F-15 or F-16 fighters since they do not have any heavy bombers. And Iraq (a.k.a U.S. Military) would have to grant permission to fly over their air space, which Israel would probably not request and would do it anyway. That leaves our Air Force in the region to deal with Israeli warplanes illegally entering the airspace with hostile intent. It gets really ugly from there.
    ...
    And actually, it's kind of ironic that Iran's nuclear program was originally concieved to fend off... Iraq. With the immediate threat of Sadam Hussein out of the picture, they can train their cross hairs on Israel. Funny and sad at the same time.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    :yawn:
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    reborncareerist wrote:
    By the way, I think people should concede the original poster's point, which was that the U.S., while Israel's biggest supporter/arms supplier, has in fact shifted its stance as of late, at least to some degree. Support of Israel's actions is no longer unilateral, and hasn't been for some time. There has been a shift, beginning when Abbas and other moderate Palestinians rose to prominence. Could the U.S. do a lot more? Absolutely. But things are no longer as black and white as they once were.


    I agree with you in that politically, we have begun to speak more objectively with Israel. It has been whispered in several corners after we got control of Iraq that Israel's political influenece in the U.S. would shift. The U.S. still needs and will continue to support Israel militarily, but it has begun the political weening process.

    I don't, however, agree with the media's interpretation of this story suggesting that we are putting Israel on notice.
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • NevermindNevermind Posts: 1,006
    spyguy wrote:
    a 100% transparent one? sure. I'm sure you think thats their sole purpose right?
    I do. They dont need to make nukes. They just have to ask Russia. is there any proof they're building weapons?
  • spyguyspyguy Posts: 613
    my2hands wrote:
    :yawn:

    sleepy?
Sign In or Register to comment.