HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Israel Dismisses Warnings...

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:00 PM

Israel Dismisses Warnings From US About Attacking Iran

By Jeremy Herb - 02/22/12 12:39 PM ET

Israel’s foreign minister on Wednesday said it's not the business of the United States whether his country decides to attack Iran.

Foreign Minister Avigor Lieberman said that warnings from the United States and Russia about an attack would not affect Israel’s decision-making.

“ is not their business,” Lieberman said in an interview with an Israeli TV station Wednesday, according to The Associated Press.

“The security of the citizens of Israel, the future of the state of Israel, this is the Israeli government’s responsibility,” he said.

MORE...

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/212021-israeli-fm-decision-to-attack-iran-not-business-of-us

57 replies, 7285 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply Israel Dismisses Warnings From US About Attacking Iran (Original post)
Purveyor Feb 2012 OP
mattvermont Feb 2012 #1
truth2power Feb 2012 #42
bloomington-lib Feb 2012 #2
Lars77 Feb 2012 #5
flexnor Feb 2012 #11
Ruby the Liberal Feb 2012 #3
Comrade Grumpy Feb 2012 #4
Ruby the Liberal Feb 2012 #23
sarcasmo Feb 2012 #13
Autumn Feb 2012 #6
lark Feb 2012 #7
flexnor Feb 2012 #8
flexnor Feb 2012 #9
flexnor Feb 2012 #10
lonestarnot Feb 2012 #22
flexnor Feb 2012 #25
lonestarnot Feb 2012 #26
Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #36
Ruby the Liberal Feb 2012 #24
Scootaloo Feb 2012 #28
flexnor Feb 2012 #12
AverageJoe90 Feb 2012 #27
flexnor Feb 2012 #31
AverageJoe90 Feb 2012 #44
flexnor Feb 2012 #47
AverageJoe90 Feb 2012 #48
leveymg Feb 2012 #52
AverageJoe90 Feb 2012 #55
sdghjtyjty Feb 2012 #14
L0oniX Feb 2012 #17
flexnor Feb 2012 #19
L0oniX Feb 2012 #21
flexnor Feb 2012 #15
L0oniX Feb 2012 #16
mainer Feb 2012 #18
flexnor Feb 2012 #20
jpak Feb 2012 #54
Centrik Feb 2012 #29
leftynyc Feb 2012 #34
Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #30
JustABozoOnThisBus Feb 2012 #32
Gringostan Feb 2012 #33
leftynyc Feb 2012 #35
Douglas Carpenter Feb 2012 #38
leftynyc Feb 2012 #40
Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #41
leftynyc Feb 2012 #43
Gringostan Feb 2012 #50
leftynyc Feb 2012 #51
Gringostan Feb 2012 #53
leftynyc Feb 2012 #56
NickB79 Feb 2012 #57
Douglas Carpenter Feb 2012 #37
AverageJoe90 Feb 2012 #45
Douglas Carpenter Feb 2012 #46
AverageJoe90 Feb 2012 #49
Democrat18 Feb 2012 #39

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:08 PM

1. why then do they take

our money? I think we should cease all military aid, as they can take care of it themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mattvermont (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 03:28 PM

42. Oh Geez! Great minds think alike. When I read the OP I thought, " Big talk for a country

that takes Billions of $$ in aid from us every year.

Hey, Avigor...Why don't you look up 'chutzpa' in your dictionary???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:10 PM

2. I hope it's not our business when Iran counter-attacks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloomington-lib (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:27 PM

5. The military-industrial complex will make it their business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lars77 (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:28 PM

11. we must guard against the acquisition

 

we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:12 PM

3. Avi Lieberman is an idiot.

Stuff has come out of his mouth in the last 2 decades that would make Pol Pot blush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:26 PM

4. And he is the foreign minister of Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 09:21 PM

23. You do understand coalition governance, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:35 PM

13. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:29 PM

6. What an ass he is

who does he think helps them out? If it's none of our business then why do we give the military aid? I'm all for saying what they do is none of our business as long as we can quit helping them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:38 PM

7. Total lunatic BS

We give them all the airplanes & military might they can stand. Fine, you think it's none of our business, then don't use our planes, bombs, etc. Also, he knows very damn well that if Israel get into this war, they will come running to us begging for more weapons and will want us to bail them out of their stupid illbegotten mess.

I wish American pols would be brave enough to say "FU" to the zionists and let them be bear the brunt their own hubris, but NO, that will never happen. We'll get dragged into the melee and end up paying for the entire misadventure. That's why they'll do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:20 PM

8. 'it's not the business of the United States'-> my, that's interesting

 

we should cut off military and financial aid, immediately and permanently

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:23 PM

9. you pay for Israel, at the pump

 

again, and again, and again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:25 PM

10. 'Foreign Minister Avigor Lieberman' I thought he was a senator?

 

boy, when he left the party, he really left the party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flexnor (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 09:17 PM

22. I think you are thinking of droopy dog, they are not one in the same are they? nope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #22)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 09:36 PM

25. I've always thought he was snagglepus, not droopy

 

always thought he looked and sounded like snagglepus

wish he would exit stage right, even





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flexnor (Reply #25)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 09:45 PM

26. Leiberheave is Droopy Dog.

Jon Stewart does an excellent job of the Droopy Dog rendition. Sounds just fucking like him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flexnor (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 01:48 PM

36. Lieberman's photo should go into Wikipedia, as the definitive illustration of the "shit-eating grin"

Anybody here write for Wikipedia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flexnor (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 09:23 PM

24. Israel doesn't have a senate. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 02:28 AM

28. Invest in lifts

'cause it wooshed juuuuust a teensy bit overhead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:33 PM

12. In the 1970s, and until the end of the 1980s

 

it was strongsly believed that such a thing could lead to an all out nuclear exchange, world war 3, with life as we knew it changed

while the risk has been lowered, the perception has been lowered far more than the reality

and one of these times.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flexnor (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 01:07 AM

27. that's only about half true.

Not only has the risk been lowered exponentially, but the perception is actually far, far, higher than the actual likelihood.
Unfortunately, 90% of the WW3 fearmongering is solely to keep the people afraid, and not just in America, either.
Do people honestly think that Moscow would be foolish enough to gamble with the lives of 160 million people over a nation that doesn't even really respect them?

The neo-cons would love us to believe that WW3 is inevitable, but it isn't. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. If you may be old enough, btw, do you remember Yom Kippur? Israel was in serious trouble from invasion and even the Soviets under Brezhnev weren't willing to risk WW3.

I don't doubt that a regional war could wreak much geopolitical and economic havoc, and it can also be said that nuclear terrorism is a very real possibility....but WW3? I'm sorry, but no.













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 06:53 AM

31. google 'able archer 83'

 

'Do people honestly think that Moscow would be foolish enough to gamble with the lives of 160 million people over a nation that doesn't even really respect them? '

that's a very simpliistic statement - you're refering to the rationality of 'mutually assuring destruction' or MAD. The devil in the details of that strategy is 'launch on warning', which heads down the slippery slope of 'if you think their missiles are coming, you've got to get your's in the air before they hit - or even if you think THEY think you're going to hit them, then they're going to hit you, and you have to hit them before they do it' and just a couple of minutes to figure this all out, with a primative network of computers and sensors prone to false warnings (which happened in able archer 83, a LT col on the russian side sacrificed his career to override a false warning, not eveyone would do that)

If you're ever in Tucson, AZ, stop in and see this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Missile_Museum

and come back and tell me that is was just a 9 megaton bogyman

or this one if you're near rapid city, sd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Missile_National_Historic_Site

(havent seen the latter one)

or watch this movie on google video 'countdown to looking glass'

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8786950669565492785

1984 movie about a nuclear war with Iran, in the straits of hormuz, the setting is like watching it in your home on CNN (a different fricticious network). Has none other than eric severide and newt gingrich in the story AS THEMSELVES

the above is fiction, but able archer 83 was not. it was a nato exercise that the russians, paranoid from reagan's 'evil empire' speech earlier that year thought was cover for the real thing



wikipedia entry able archer 83

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

2 months before able archer 83, 'the day after' aired on ABC national TV, key part, nuclear war in kansas city - the scene opens with missiles being visible over a lawrence kansas football game




from http://hnn.us/articles/58928.html

"Reagan watched a videotape of ABC’s 1983 television movie, The Day After, and recorded in his diary that the production was “very effective & left me greatly depressed.” The Day After, which depicted a nuclear attack on Lawrence, Kansas, showed the horrible suffering of American victims of radiation. At the time of its release, Reagan worried that the TV film’s popularity might embolden the “anti-nukes,” but in the longer run The Day After seems to have impressed him with the importance of reversing a dangerous course in the cold war. During his second term, Reagan became less attentive to the advice of hawks and more receptive to advisers who recommended arms agreements with the Soviets. The Day After is one among many factors that may have inspired Reagan’s evolution from a cold warrior to a more open-minded negotiator"

that's my arguement that the threat was real. your arguement that is was fake is based on.......what?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flexnor (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 04:32 PM

44. I know about Able Archer 83, and Countdown to Looking Glass.

Some very interesting stuff here, it can be admitted, but I have to be honest and say that it doesn't really disprove my point.
There was indeed a very real possibility of atomic war in 1983 and '84; tensions were at the highest they'd ever been since the Cuban Missile Crisis and Europe was at the very center, with NATO on one side and the Warsaw Pact on the other, all with thousands of nukes ready to launch perhaps literally at a moment's notice. The Cold War, however, came to a close in 1991, and other than perhaps the Black Brant incident in Jan. 1995, we haven't even come remotely close to nuclear war since. And I should also mention that CtoLG largely revolved around Saudi Arabia and Oman for a flashpoint, not Iran, and Central Europe for The Day After(granted, though, the BBC's Threads did use the bombing of Mashhad as one of the several flashpoints).

So, you certainly are right on one thing: atomic war between Russia and the U.S. was a very real thing just over 20 years ago, and particularly in the '80s and during the Cuban Crisis, and thankfully Reagan came to his senses after watching TDA(which, IMO, is one of the most important films of the late 20th Century). However, though, we haven't had to really worry about it since then, apart from the occasional fearmongering(particularly from neo-cons).

If there is one thing we can be legitimately concerned about, it would be nuclear terrorism, since many bombs have gone missing since 1991. And the threat might not just come from foreign terrorists, either.........

(P.S., frankly, I doubt Iran would be able to attack the U.S. directly anyway. They simply don't have the tech to build any ICBMs yet, and I think there'll be a revolution before they can get to that stage.)






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 05:17 PM

47. i fully agree that Iran is no threat, in and of themselves, with or without nukes

 

and that we are far better off with containment, as they are already contained by overwhelming odds no matter what they aquire, israel has about 200 nukes

but i think we get too complacent about the cold war being over, russia still has a lot of nukes, and has alliances in the middle east - i think it's as dangerous to assume that they could never return to cold war status, as it was to assume back then they could never return to being a semi-ally like they were in wwii

world wars tend to be about the alliances that get sucked in, not the primary parties

wwi being the stupidest thing, an assasination of the archduke of austria, something nobody should have cared about, but a powderkeg was already in place

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flexnor (Reply #47)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 06:54 PM

48. Some truth here, but may I add:

1.)The Archduke was a relatively important character and not hated by many like Ahmadinejad is(in fact, probably the opposite)!

2.)World War I definitely was about the alliances, mostly, that is true. But I beg to differ re: WWII, as many recognized Hitler as a completely out-of-control madman who desired to eventually bring all of Europe under the heel of Nazi Germany, and only those nations who really sympathized with them dared even support the alliance(Finland may be an exception to that rule, however, as not many fascists existed there at that tim but many non-socialist Finns feared Stalin).

3.)There may eventually be a semi-Cold War of sorts, but it will likely be against China and will be more economic than military.

4.)Obama has already shown serious reluctance to get dragged into yet another war. What makes people assume that Moscow will get involved to protect a country which not only doesn't respect them(Iran, of course) but has assisted terrorists in Russia's southwest?

We can both agree that Iran poses no direct threat to the U.S.; it does not mean, however, that Iran isn't a threat period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #27)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 09:48 AM

52. They said that World War One was the 'war nobody wanted." Nonetheless . . .

we got it. Thirty million died.

Those who don't learn from history multiply the body-count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #52)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 07:19 PM

55. That last part is true, but things are different here.

We've all learned from MAD, particularly us and the Russians. Again, who really believes that Moscow would be willing to sacrifice 160 million Russians? Not I. You have to realize that WWI, and the hypothetical WW3 are an entirely different ball game no matter what the neo-cons say otherwise. They're trying to convince us that the Russians will do anything for Iran even though that country has been caught fomenting terrorism in that country's southwest over and over again. It not only reminds of Bush's 'Axis of Evil' speech but also some of the Cold War propaganda of old(although MAD was a very real possibility up until the end of the '80s).

Nobody wants another Middle East war, but don't you see? This WW3 fearmongering some of us seem to have bought into not only doesn't help our cause but actually harms it because it makes us look like a bunch of paranoid crazies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)


Response to sdghjtyjty (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:44 PM

17. Go away you asshole!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:48 PM

19. how do you get that bug on your message?

 

i want to use that, i almost crushed it with my finger, untill i realied it scrolled

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flexnor (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:56 PM

21. \../

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:38 PM

15. a zillion dollars over 60 years hasnt earned one ounce of respect

 

and it doesnt need to, when they can just pull strings via AIPAC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:41 PM

16. They'll take our money but not our advice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:44 PM

18. War between Iran and Israel? We should sit it out.

Let them deal with the consequences of their own actions. As Israel says, it's not our business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 08:50 PM

20. the only thing we should bring out is popcorn nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 05:25 PM

54. We would have to "sit it out" - gasoline would be $8 a gallon - if you could find it.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 02:34 AM

29. We totally should!

Popcorn, and Nachos! Who'll bring the beer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Centrik (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 11:45 AM

34. Really?

Will you be celebrating the deaths of the Jews or the Muslims?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 02:39 AM

30. It's all a show; we've been helping Israel. We just want deniability

We asked them to appear to be acting on their own, against our "disapproval"

Probably they'll be dropping US-designed bunker buster bombs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 07:18 AM

32. I think that's right

When they drop the U.S. made bombs, it'll be on targets identified (in part) by U.S. satellite surveillance.

edit to remove a smartass (and factually wrong) comment about FDR and neutrality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 11:10 AM

33. Whose airspace are they going to violate to get there? NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gringostan (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 11:47 AM

35. Don't kid yourself

NOBODY in that region wants Iran to get nukes. They'll be lining up to let the Israeli's use their air space. Why do you think you haven't heard boo from any of the countrys in the region?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 02:03 PM

38. there is absolutely no way than any Middle Eastern government can admit openly that they allowed

Last edited Thu Feb 23, 2012, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

the IAF to use their airspace to attack Iran. No doubt some prominent officials within regional governments might privately think it to themselves, But since neither Israel or the United States have non-nuclear weapons capable of penetrating Iran's more advanced undeground bunkers - the point is almost moot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #38)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 03:14 PM

40. They don't have to do it openly

Just turn their backs (which they will do). I think you meant moot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #40)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 03:23 PM

41. No problem: through Syria which is busy now; then Iraq with no air defense; then hit Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #41)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 03:33 PM

43. Exactly

That'll be the easiest thing to navigate. As I already stated, nobody in the region wants Iran to have nukes and they'll be thrilled if Israel takes care of it for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 09:08 AM

50. I think you have to look at the logistics

I think you have to look at the logistics; in order to attach Iran you will need to send multiple fighter/bomber sorties as there are more then one target. Targets in Iran are going to be outside of fighter range, so you will need KC tankers for refueling. The tankers would need fighter cover as they would be in potentially hostile airspace. Finally, there is the Iranian missile defense systems going in country and going out. No Arab country could give consent on the sly or claim ignorance after the fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gringostan (Reply #50)

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 09:28 AM

51. Disagree vehemently

On the contrary - there is a very good reason you don't hear any other Arab country taking up for Iran and they most certainly will turn the other way while the US or Israel goes after Iran (which I think would be a bad idea for different reasons) - I'm not sure if it's only the Sunni/Shia thing but that is certainly a part of it.

I'm a weapons moron so I have to ask - does it have to come from the air? Don't we have ICBM's that can be shot from ships?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #51)

Sat Feb 25, 2012, 05:00 PM

53. We do - do the Israelis? NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gringostan (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 05:23 AM

56. No idea (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gringostan (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 02:01 PM

57. Mostly Iraq's, but they don't have an airforce anymore to worry about

And the US is under no obligation to defend Iraqi airspace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 01:58 PM

37. Panetta & Pentagon admits their "bunker buster" bombs cannot penetrate Iran's underground facilitie



Haaretz: The futility of attacking Iran By Reuven Pedatzur
Published 03:42 09.02.12

Senior American defense officials told The Wall Street Journal that even the largest bomb in the hands of the American military, the one known as the "bunker buster", is not able to penetrate and destroy those of the Iranian nuclear installations that are buried deep underground. Panetta admitted that the Americans do not possess the means of penetrating facilities like the underground uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, near Qum. This is where the problem lies. Some of the nuclear facilities in Iran, especially those that are critical for the continuation of its nuclear program activities, are located deep below the surface and protected by reinforced concrete fortifications. This makes the task of destroying them almost completely impossible. In Israel, those involved have ignored the limitations of these bombs that are supposed to annihilate the nuclear sites; but ignoring this will not solve the operational problem that those planning the attack will have to deal with.

If Israeli Air Force planes succeed in reaching the targets and in dropping bombs on them with great accuracy, but they are nevertheless not destroyed, this would pose questions about the justification of a military operation. If those critical sites are not annihilated, the Iranian nuclear program will be postponed only for a relatively short period.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-futility-of-attacking-iran-1.411840

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 04:36 PM

45. IMHO, any first strike on Iran, would almost certainly backfire badly on Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 04:49 PM

46. I think their capacity to hit Israel is limited

Still they can cause some real damage. Their ability to hit the Gulf States especially Kuwait is very strong and their ability to inflict damage is very real. But whoever they hit - it will almost certainly drag the U.S. into the conflict - What happens next is unpredictable and extremely dangerous

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Douglas Carpenter (Reply #46)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 10:10 PM

49. If there's one thing I can say, is this:

Any nuclear bombs going off in the Middle East, might just crash the world's economy all over again, and not only that, but we could see terrorism on a scale not seen since the Cold War era......and perhaps one or a few of these attacks might just be atomic in nature.....very dangerous indeed. =(

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 02:31 PM

39. I happen to agree with Mr. Lieberman

 

It is none of our business. But it's also none of our business to give his regime a penny of American money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread