434 2 #1 October 12, 2008 We will see this attack coming quite soon, and believe me we have just seen the very beginning on the 3. WW! Some key decision makers in Israel fear that unless they attack Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities in the next few months, while George W Bush is still president, there will not be another period when they can rely on the United States as being anywhere near as supportive in the aftermath of a unilateral attack. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4926251.ece Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #2 October 12, 2008 Israel, Iran, Iraq, India, Indiana .... I get all those all those "I" countries confused ... now which one's which again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #3 October 12, 2008 Just warming up! RUSSIA'S GLOBAL WAR GAMES By Pavel Felgenhauer Thursday, September 25, 2008 This week the Russian armed forces began month-long strategic military exercises called Stability 2008. According to the Defense Ministry, the scenario suggests "a worsening of the situation and an escalation of crisis situations into military confrontation" (www.mil.ru, September 20). The composition of the forces and ministries that will be involved in the exercise does not leave any doubt—it’s a scenario of a nuclear war in which Russia and its ally Belarus will face the United States. and NATO. http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373395 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #4 October 12, 2008 I'm not a history or economics scholar (by a big margin) and defo no conspiracy nut but the last BIG economy crash seems to have been solved (?) as a result of WW2 (True/False or coincidence?) (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #5 October 12, 2008 This is the third or fourth article I've seen from the British press sounding an alarm about an Israeli attack on Iran in the past six months or so. Every time, it's a "new" indicator. I do not believe that Israel would take unilateral action against Iran. First, it would be virtually impossible without direct cooperation with Turkey, and the US at a minimum. Plus, I do not believe that Israel's current defense configuration would enable it to effectively strike all of the known sites, let alone hit suspected ones. One map: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2665/1629/400/IranNuclear.jpg Another map: http://www.lastingnews.com/maps/iran_nuclear_facilities.html Also, recall this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1 Is it completely out of the realm of possibility, no, but probability and effective? No. Having said that, should Iran be concerned about their vulnerability to such an attack? Yes. Their defense hardware isn't all that different from what the Syrians have, and they didn't know they were hit until the Israelis were on the way out in September 2007.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #6 October 12, 2008 I dont think Israel would hesitate at any time to defend it self regardless of who is in power in Wahsington. While Irans president spews anti semetic crap all the time the real power in Iran does not espouse the same crap. I think Israel knows this. Nick D had a very good thread a few weeks back on Iran. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #7 October 12, 2008 Have you ever been to Israel, and do you know what they publish in the news? Do know what they think about the arabs? We see how Bush talks about the world, and we se accurate the same retoric as the ones published from Iran! Nothing is different just the language! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #8 October 12, 2008 Iran is not an Arab country, it is Persian. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #9 October 12, 2008 If they wear tea cloths then they is Ayrabs right? - didn't you know that (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
434 2 #10 October 12, 2008 Sorry I did write wrong http://www.persiansarenotarabs.com/ I guess there is many of you guys who believe Norway is the capital of Sweeden as well! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #11 October 12, 2008 They're all Vikings, right? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #12 October 12, 2008 Quote This is the third or fourth article I've seen from the British press sounding an alarm about an Israeli attack on Iran in the past six months or so. Every time, it's a "new" indicator. I do not believe that Israel would take unilateral action against Iran. First, it would be virtually impossible without direct cooperation with Turkey, and the US at a minimum. Plus, I do not believe that Israel's current defense configuration would enable it to effectively strike all of the known sites, let alone hit suspected ones. One map: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2665/1629/400/IranNuclear.jpg Another map: http://www.lastingnews.com/maps/iran_nuclear_facilities.html Also, recall this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1 Is it completely out of the realm of possibility, no, but probability and effective? No. Having said that, should Iran be concerned about their vulnerability to such an attack? Yes. Their defense hardware isn't all that different from what the Syrians have, and they didn't know they were hit until the Israelis were on the way out in September 2007. Me thinks the logistics alone involved, Syria vs Iran are on a much grander scale. Never know w/ the Isrealsi. But if they did I'm sure the the US would be complicit. Covertly of course. I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #13 October 13, 2008 Quote Me thinks the logistics alone involved, Syria vs Iran are on a much grander scale. Never know w/ the Isrealsi. But if they did I'm sure the the US would be complicit. Covertly of course. Indeed, and I'm sure the US facilitated Israeli use of Turkish airspace to take out that site in Syria. The problem is this, the Iranian people are whom we need to reach, along with their revolutionary guard leadership. The people are certainly not thrilled with the failure of the promises from their revolution 30 years ago, and the military leadership must be growing weary of the rhetoric of Ahmedinejad and disjointed drivel from the religious leadership. The US, through various back-channels really needs to turn up the HUMINT in Iran to turn things around once and for all. I have a few Iranian friends and they are the most natural cultural ally to the west - in that east-west band from Morocco to China.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #14 October 13, 2008 Quote Quote Me thinks the logistics alone involved, Syria vs Iran are on a much grander scale. Never know w/ the Isrealsi. But if they did I'm sure the the US would be complicit. Covertly of course. Indeed, and I'm sure the US facilitated Israeli use of Turkish airspace to take out that site in Syria. The problem is this, the Iranian people are whom we need to reach, along with their revolutionary guard leadership. The people are certainly not thrilled with the failure of the promises from their revolution 30 years ago, and the military leadership must be growing weary of the rhetoric of Ahmedinejad and disjointed drivel from the religious leadership. The US, through various back-channels really needs to turn up the HUMINT in Iran to turn things around once and for all. I have a few Iranian friends and they are the most natural cultural ally to the west - in that east-west band from Morocco to China. Damn Max. You're starting to sound like Obama. LOL. And I'm sure we have covert ops going all day long. SO's AND ops to help w/ dissention w/in the govt./masses (meaning winning the pro western kids over.) Time will tell. Hopefully it will all work out for the best.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #15 October 13, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Me thinks the logistics alone involved, Syria vs Iran are on a much grander scale. Never know w/ the Isrealsi. But if they did I'm sure the the US would be complicit. Covertly of course. Indeed, and I'm sure the US facilitated Israeli use of Turkish airspace to take out that site in Syria. The problem is this, the Iranian people are whom we need to reach, along with their revolutionary guard leadership. The people are certainly not thrilled with the failure of the promises from their revolution 30 years ago, and the military leadership must be growing weary of the rhetoric of Ahmedinejad and disjointed drivel from the religious leadership. The US, through various back-channels really needs to turn up the HUMINT in Iran to turn things around once and for all. I have a few Iranian friends and they are the most natural cultural ally to the west - in that east-west band from Morocco to China. Damn Max. You're starting to sound like Obama. LOL. And I'm sure we have covert ops going all day long. SO's AND ops to help w/ dissention w/in the govt./masses (meaning winning the pro western kids over.) Time will tell. Hopefully it will all work out for the best. Oh hell no!! I sound better than him all day long...I'm not talking about legitimizing their government and leaders, if anything, I'm talking about being a bigger agitator...a much bigger agitator....So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #16 October 13, 2008 They don't have to go thru Turkey. With a few "winks" and post-event crocodile tears here and there, they can go across Jordan and Iraq; or they can use their in-flight refueling capacity (which they have) to go around the Arabian Peninsula. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #17 October 13, 2008 QuoteThey don't have to go thru Turkey. With a few "winks" and post-event crocodile tears here and there, they can go across Jordan and Iraq; or they can use their in-flight refueling capacity (which they have) to go around the Arabian Peninsula. I know they have in-flight refueling, but is it the type of KC-135/KC-10 tankers? The peninsula would add an additional 6000 air miles round trip, I don't think their capacity is that great, it doesn't seem to be in line with the doctrine of their defense stature (based on the size of Israel).So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #18 October 13, 2008 QuoteI know they have in-flight refueling, but is it the type of KC-135/KC-10 tankers? I could tell you; but then, well ... you know... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #19 October 13, 2008 Quote Oh hell no!! I sound better than him all day long...I'm not talking about legitimizing their government and leaders, ...... I guess you and the General disagree."I do think you have to talk to enemies," Petraeus said Wednesday at an appearance at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, when asked about potential dialogue with the Taliban. "You've got to set things up. You've got to know who you're talking to. You've got to have your objectives straight," he said. "But I mean, what we did do in Iraq ultimately was sit down with some of those that were shooting at us. What we tried to do was identify those who might be reconcilable." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95530871 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #20 October 13, 2008 Quote They will be suicide soldiers, seamen and airmen. If Iran is attacked, Russia and China will supply it with arms. Well I say old boy, one really must admire their spunk...eh what?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #21 October 13, 2008 Quote"I do think you have to talk to enemies," Petraeus said Wednesday at an appearance at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, when asked about potential dialogue with the Taliban. Yeah, he's talking about the Taliban, I'm talking about Iran... Quote"You've got to set things up. You've got to know who you're talking to. You've got to have your objectives straight," he said. "But I mean, what we did do in Iraq ultimately was sit down with some of those that were shooting at us. What we tried to do was identify those who might be reconcilable." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95530871 This second quote is the key to how he succeeded in Iraq, those talks were not an attempt at legitimization, but rather finding those that had to be removed from the picture. The Taliban will fold the same way.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #22 October 13, 2008 Quote If they wear tea cloths then they is Ayrabs right? - didn't you know that LOLWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #23 October 13, 2008 QuoteThey're all Vikings, right? If they wear pointy horns on their head.....When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #24 October 13, 2008 QuoteQuote"I do think you have to talk to enemies," Petraeus said Wednesday at an appearance at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, when asked about potential dialogue with the Taliban. Yeah, he's talking about the Taliban, I'm talking about Iran... Quote"You've got to set things up. You've got to know who you're talking to. You've got to have your objectives straight," he said. "But I mean, what we did do in Iraq ultimately was sit down with some of those that were shooting at us. What we tried to do was identify those who might be reconcilable." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95530871 This second quote is the key to how he succeeded in Iraq, those talks were not an attempt at legitimization, but rather finding those that had to be removed from the picture. The Taliban will fold the same way. He was asked about the Taliban and then used Iraq as an example. Sounds like he meant "enemies", not "some enemies". I don't have time today to watch the whole presentation to hear the actual question/answer exchange so I could be wrong. Or maybe not. [url] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #25 October 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote"I do think you have to talk to enemies," Petraeus said Wednesday at an appearance at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, when asked about potential dialogue with the Taliban. Yeah, he's talking about the Taliban, I'm talking about Iran... Quote"You've got to set things up. You've got to know who you're talking to. You've got to have your objectives straight," he said. "But I mean, what we did do in Iraq ultimately was sit down with some of those that were shooting at us. What we tried to do was identify those who might be reconcilable." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95530871 This second quote is the key to how he succeeded in Iraq, those talks were not an attempt at legitimization, but rather finding those that had to be removed from the picture. The Taliban will fold the same way. He was asked about the Taliban and then used Iraq as an example. Sounds like he meant "enemies", not "some enemies". Hey, you have to be selective in which enemies you can talk to, or you make the Republicans look like hypocrites.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
