Israel embassies planning for Iran strike

It's ynet so take it with a grain of salt. Be aware, however, that the best time to strike is during a new moon. So two weeks.



http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...186799,00.html

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

It's ynet so take it with a grain of salt. Be aware, however, that the best time to strike is during a new moon. So two weeks.



http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...186799,00.html

The Persians don't have it in them.

[Clip-Clop]

I wish Netanyahu were our President.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I wish Netanyahu were our President.

Yeah, but i want to see his birth certificate first....

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Yeah, but i want to see his birth certificate first....

We can make a second exeception to correct the first mistake.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

We can make a second exeception to correct the first mistake.

OUCH!

[hi_im_god]

the more israel talks about an iranian strike the less likely i think they are to make one. you don't telegraph military plans. this is part of a diplomatic offensive.

israel (and the u.s.) want to goad iran into making a first move. that would give cover for u.s. involvement. israel just doesn't have the conventional deep strike capability needed for any assurance of success. they need to refuel bombers going and coming.

the israeli raids in iraq and syria were against single ground level targets. this is a different animal with multiple hardened underground targets.

the sad news is the best anyone can hope for from a successful raid would be a 3-5 year delay. iran will have a nuclear weapon in this decade. no one outside iran can stop it.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

the more israel talks about an iranian strike the less likely i think they are to make one. you don't telegraph military plans. this is part of a diplomatic offensive.

israel (and the u.s.) want to goad iran into making a first move. that would give cover for u.s. involvement. israel just doesn't have the conventional deep strike capability needed for any assurance of success. they need to refuel bombers going and coming.

the israeli raids in iraq and syria were against single ground level targets. this is a different animal with multiple hardened underground targets.

the sad news is the best anyone can hope for from a successful raid would be a 3-5 year delay. iran will have a nuclear weapon in this decade. no one outside iran can stop it.

It always scares me when I am the voice of reason- I trust you are scared

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by geeker2

It always scares me when I am the voice of reason- I trust you are scared

i survived clicking on kevin's "well, i know this explains it all" link in esoteric.

nothing scares me after that.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i survived clicking on kevin's "well, i know this explains it all" link in esoteric.

nothing scares me after that.

Ror!!

[bigrun]

Will: GOP's rhetoric on national defense: murky, counterproductive

Hours — not months, not weeks, hours — after the last U.S. troops left Iraq, vicious political factionalism and sectarian violence intensified. Many Republicans say Barack Obama's withdrawal — accompanied by his administration's foolish praise of Iraq's "stability" — has jeopardized what has been achieved there. But if it cannot survive a sunrise without fraying, how much of an achievement was it?

Few things so embitter a nation as squandered valor, hence Americans, with much valor spent there, want Iraq to master its fissures. But with America in the second decade of its longest war, the probable Republican nominee is promising to extend it indefinitely.

Since 2001, the United States has waged war in three nations, and some Republicans appear ready to bring the total to five, adding Iran and Syria. (The Weekly Standard, of neoconservative bent, regrets that Obama "is reluctant to intervene to oust Iran's closest ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.") GOP critics say Obama's proposed defense cuts will limit America's ability to engage in troop-intensive nation-building. Most Americans probably say: Good

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/o...mu-ar-1674445/

[bigrun]

By: Times-Dispatch Staff | Richmond Times Dispatch
Published: February 09, 2012 Updated: February 09, 2012 - 12:00 AM

Count Patrick Buchanan among the skeptics. The American conservative doubts both that Iran has decided to deploy nuclear weapons and that it seeks war with the United States.

Buchanan makes his case by citing things Iran has not done. Despite its aggressive rhetoric it has not taken action that would provoke an American strike. His argument implicitly says that U.S. muscle serves as a deterrent. Iran realizes it cannot prevail in a direct confrontation with Satan.

Buchanan undermines his argument by identifying the usual suspects as warmongers. Israel and the neo-conservatives are behind the bellicosity, as they usually are. Buchanan asks essential questions, nevertheless.

The problem for hardliners, including ourselves, is that George Bush gave pre-emption a bad name.

Israel will strike first. We'll crowbar our way in afterwards that way the presstitutes can facef.uck the sheep with semantics.