The US REJECTS Israeli arms request

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.

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?

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.

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.

Israel is in the advanced stageas of preparing to attack Iran.

This is basically an op ed piece where the US is trying to wash it's hands of any wrong doing when Israel finally does decide to attack Iran.

Watch how quick the weapons are made avail after the strike.

The scheduling seems to be right on time, and I feel bad that people can't see this.

Cosmo wrote:

...
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.

Heavy bombers would probably be less effective than F-15s or F-16s with PGMs, anyhow. F-16s did the dirty work in Iraq. The Israelis probably already have AGM-130s ... As for flying though Iraqi airspace, I think such a thing could be arranged. The question of whether or not the US should let Israeli aircraft through can be debated ... Regardless, I think the US would aid such a strike in anyway possible, short of actually participating in the bombing.
I agree with your points ... It IS funny and sad.

spyguy wrote:

I'm well aware about enriched uranium. are you going to back up your claim. I'll ask again. where are you getting the 3% number and how do you know what kind of reactors Iran has?

It's common knowledge as far as I'm aware....but you're free to use wikipedia or google to find out.

....and if Iran already has specialized bomb making reactors that nobody knows about then bombing their power stations isn't going to make one scrap of difference other than make them race to build nuclear weapons on their secret ones.

again the IAEA is happy...

it's all bullshit propaganda designed to make a case for WMD so Iran can be attacked.