U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-06-2015, 10:11 PM
 
Location: Sector 001
7,168 posts, read 5,983,335 times
Reputation: 8113

Advertisements

Not unless they want their country turned into glass... just saying. They can't go bombing Iran without support from their allies.. they will get annihilated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2015, 10:43 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,210,251 times
Reputation: 17979
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPolo View Post
I don't think Israily bombing Iran is going to prevent Iran from getting weapons, Israel can't really do what we did in Iraq, they are a small country. So Israel bombing Iran, to take out their research facilities, Iran will build more..
One forgets just what Israel did in the seven days war even more impressive with large enemy combined forces than we face in Iraq. Israel will never go down to defeat; no matter what it takes.No country has learn the lessons Israel has.Iran is not a great military force I the region at all.one also has to remember that Iran has more enemies in the region than Israel also. who do not want them to get the bomb. Such as Saudi's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2015, 12:45 AM
 
8,245 posts, read 6,064,838 times
Reputation: 10605
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
Iran started a nuclear program in the 50s, back when it was a US client. It restarted the program in the 80s, as a member of the NPT.

It was entirely predictable that removing Saddam would lead to more instability in the Middle East. Saddam's Iraq was a counterweight to Iran to the north and to Saudi Arabia to the south. There was a certain amount of stability in the balance of powers against each other. By removing Saddam and putting Iraq up for grabs, there was a scramble for Baghdad. When the Shi'a won the Sunnis and Kurds took advantage of the weak central government to press for autonomy. While US troops limited the ability of the Sunnis to totally self rule, the absence of those troops opened the door. And so we have the predicted splintering of Iraq.

Note also that I did not say "it'll naturally bring more security and calm to the region." I said, "If there is a deal, there will be no Israeli bombs in Iran. There will be no war between Iran and Israel. There will be a recalibration of Middle East relations. And probably more stability."
Fair enough, though I still disagree with "probably".. I wouldn't say God himself could "probably" bring stability to the area. it's just an inherently unstable area.. Would anyone have really predicted 10 years ago the position Libya is in now? that was really considered a pretty stable country.. And the US was getting along with them fairly well after the settlement over the Pan Am bombing..

half the countries there would probably shoot Mohammed for being a representation of Mohammed.

Quote:
Israel bombed the Iraqi reactor and may have spurred an Iraqi weapons program. More importantly, the US was not actively negotiating an agreement with Iraq for safeguards on its nuclear program. Israel would not risk the hit to US relations that bombing Iran's program would represent if there is a deal. Israel needs the diplomatic cover, the military assistance, and the intelligence assistance too much.

Make no mistake, if there is a deal, then the political cost to Israel would be too high even if they could set back the program. In conjunction with the limits on their ability to set back the program, it's not even a strategy worth serious consideration. Their only bet, under Netanyahu, is to lobby the US Congress to fight its battle with the White House and hope that the next President will reverse course. That bet is dangerous, because it risks undermining Israeli credibility and relationships with the Democratic Party, one of the two likely sources of US Presidents for years to come. I think that Netanyahu is playing with fire if he does not get in line when a deal is reached.
Depends on your definition of 'weapons program'.. It pretty well STOPPED the Iraqi nuclear program. Did it lead to more development of the Iraqi chemical weapons program? An argument certainly could be made that it did.

Pretty hypocritical of the Democratic Party.. How did they react to nuclear missiles being placed within 50ish miles of the US in the 60's? How would we react today to Cuba developing a 'peaceful' nuclear program? Let's look at how we reacted in the 90's..

Juragua Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obviously, not the same as the Israeli's are reacting now.. But.. We weren't happy about it.

As for Israel needing the US.. Yes.. But the US needs Israel.. And even though they don't realize it.. All the middle eastern countries need Israel as well.. Because, quite frankly, Israel existing, while it's the cause of much unrest.. Gives them a common enemy. If they didn't have Israel.. Would they turn on each other?

If a deal is reached that is unacceptable to Israel.. What the hell kind of deal is it? Shouldn't THEY be at the table on this? Seems we're really telling them.. Sit back, we'll take care of it, we'll make the deal and you'll be happy with it.

I'm not weighing in on whether what they will do is 'right'.. My point is that Israel will do what Israel feels is right for them. Is there a certain amount of 'sabre rattling' going on here? I have no doubt of that. Do I think Israel is bluffing? No. Will they follow through on their threats? If they feel it is right.. Without question. After all.. If we (the US) are wrong.. Well.. We say "oopsie"? Israel has a lot more on the line here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2015, 07:02 AM
Status: "Finally Done With C-D BYE BYE" (set 26 days ago)
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,947 posts, read 21,540,733 times
Reputation: 15436
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
Israel won't bomb if there is a deal. Netanyahu will try to lobby the Senate & Congress not to confirm the deal, to block it, to ratchet up sanctions, or anything else he can get them to do that puts a wrench in the deal. But they won't attack Iran if the US has a deal with Iran. That would burn down the last bridge between the US Executive branch and Israel.

Quote:
In other words, Iran wants more centrifuges--a lot more. Enough, in fact, for a nuclear power program. But they are potentially willing to limit the number of centrifuges for a set amount of time, and allow intrusive inspections in exchange for lifting sanctions, building international confidence in their program, and normalizing the program.
Except they've recently been caught (again) lying about what they have and hiding facilities. So saying they will allow intrusive inspections is not accurate and never has been.

Quote:
In the long-term, of course, the program would not be limited to 5,000 centrifuges. That is a confidence-building and temporary (10 year) measure.
First off 10 years is not temporary. We all know that kind of time frame means permanent.

Quote:
Egypt and Saudi Arabia are rivals to Iran. They benefit from US containment of Iranian ambition. Along with Israel, they fear that a deal with Iran will normalize US-Iran relations and limit their own advantages over Iran, which stem from their close relationships with the United States.
Very possible. I would also add that having relations somewhat "normalize" with Iran means they'd actually have to fight their own battles in the region.

Quote:
There certainly were covert operations against Iran's nuclear program, and they had an impact, but there was no death blow to the program, and there is not likely to be one.

I agree that Obama probably dislikes Netanyahu, and vice versa, but I disagree on the reason. I think that Obama expects Netanyahu to act as the junior partner in the alliance--which he is--but Netanyahu has different designs. He attempts to use public pressure and the Congress to get what he wants from the White House. He actively tries to undermine (e.g., leaks of sensitive negototiation information) US foreign policy in the Middle East.
So Netanyahu plays the same game that Obama's played over his reign and he's the bad guy?

Quote:
In truth, the Netanyahu government's aims are not compatible with US national interests. In the long run, a US rapprochement with Iran would actually benefit Israeli security. But Netanyahu's government relies on fear to rule--fear of Iran, fear of Gaza, fear of the White House. Other US President's have faced similar problems in the past, but the calculus is changing. If the Israel-at-all-costs vote can't swing enough states, then US Presidents can take a more nuanced stance in Mideast politics.

By pushing so hard against US foreign policy, Netanyahu is accelerating the opening of this gap between the US and Israel. Ironically, the harder he pushes, the easier it becomes for the US to ignore him, because more voters question his aims. If Netanyahu really wanted to prevent a deal, he would be much better served by taking a lower-profile, more nuanced stance. But his coalition might not survive that approach.
In truth this seems more of Obama's "it's MY way or the highway" attitude.


Quote:
It would be impossible for Iran to transfer nuclear weapons to Hezbollah without alerting US and other intelligence agencies. It's simply not a realistic scenario.
Yes, because our intel in the region is oh so accurate. Given this admins track record with regard to foreign relations and their proven (lack of) ability to predict what will happen it gives little comfort that we'd be watching. What can a blind person see after all?

Quote:
They have actually stated that an Iran with the capability to get the bomb is unacceptable. The problem is they don't have the power to prevent that.
Sure they do. If the U.S. told them "do what you need to do" they would and could.


Quote:
If there is a deal, there will be no Israeli bombs in Iran. There will be no war between Iran and Israel. There will be a recalibration of Middle East relations. And probably more stability.
Let me finish by asking this one question. "If someone repeatedly says they want to annihilate you at what point to you actually believe them?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2015, 07:30 PM
 
Location: Blue Ridge
20,901 posts, read 22,762,465 times
Reputation: 8641
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
....
If there is a deal, there will be no Israeli bombs in Iran. There will be no war between Iran and Israel. There will be a re-calibration of Middle East relations. And probably more stability.

By what's in the Internet, the deal is falling apart.
Quote:
"If there is no deal then we walk away," Obama said in the interview, which aired on "CBS News Sunday Morning" and in expanded form on the network's "Face the Nation" show.

"If we cannot verify that they are not going to obtain a nuclear weapon, that there's a breakout period so that even if they cheated we would be able to have enough time to take action -- if we don't have that kind of deal, then we're not going to take it," he said.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News...each-deal.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2015, 08:30 PM
 
1,519 posts, read 1,159,111 times
Reputation: 1780
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
One forgets just what Israel did in the seven days war even more impressive with large enemy combined forces than we face in Iraq. Israel will never go down to defeat; no matter what it takes.No country has learn the lessons Israel has.Iran is not a great military force I the region at all.one also has to remember that Iran has more enemies in the region than Israel also. who do not want them to get the bomb. Such as Saudi's.
True the 6 day war was a great Isreali victory. But what about the Yom Kippur War. Israel almost lost that one. It is true however that Israel will never go down without taking a lot of countries with her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2015, 12:42 PM
 
3,493 posts, read 1,708,423 times
Reputation: 2220
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
Except they've recently been caught (again) lying about what they have and hiding facilities. So saying they will allow intrusive inspections is not accurate and never has been.

First off 10 years is not temporary. We all know that kind of time frame means permanent.

Very possible. I would also add that having relations somewhat "normalize" with Iran means they'd actually have to fight their own battles in the region.

So Netanyahu plays the same game that Obama's played over his reign and he's the bad guy?

In truth this seems more of Obama's "it's MY way or the highway" attitude.

Yes, because our intel in the region is oh so accurate. Given this admins track record with regard to foreign relations and their proven (lack of) ability to predict what will happen it gives little comfort that we'd be watching. What can a blind person see after all?

Sure they do. If the U.S. told them "do what you need to do" they would and could.

Let me finish by asking this one question. "If someone repeatedly says they want to annihilate you at what point to you actually believe them?"
That time frame does not mean permanent. International agreements, especially in the nuclear power arena, often have time horizons that seem long in the 24-hour news cycle world. Iran is already allowing inspections.

On Netanyahu and Obama, the difference is that Obama does not dig into Israeli domestic politics the way that Netanyahu now has. The other difference is that the US is not the junior partner in the alliance.

Intelligence agencies can detect the movement of a nuclear weapon. An ICBM does not exactly fit in a suitcase.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40154.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruzhany View Post
By what's in the Internet, the deal is falling apart.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News...each-deal.html
That's what people said with Obama's "ten year freeze" comment, but then Iran publicly warmed to the idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 10:05 AM
Status: "Finally Done With C-D BYE BYE" (set 26 days ago)
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,947 posts, read 21,540,733 times
Reputation: 15436
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
That time frame does not mean permanent. International agreements, especially in the nuclear power arena, often have time horizons that seem long in the 24-hour news cycle world. Iran is already allowing inspections.

On Netanyahu and Obama, the difference is that Obama does not dig into Israeli domestic politics the way that Netanyahu now has. The other difference is that the US is not the junior partner in the alliance.

Intelligence agencies can detect the movement of a nuclear weapon. An ICBM does not exactly fit in a suitcase.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40154.pdf



That's what people said with Obama's "ten year freeze" comment, but then Iran publicly warmed to the idea.
How about the fact they lied about the amount of facilities they have (again)? If you can't verify then any agreement is worthless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 11:56 AM
 
3,493 posts, read 1,708,423 times
Reputation: 2220
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
How about the fact they lied about the amount of facilities they have (again)? If you can't verify then any agreement is worthless.
I assume you are referring to the NCRI "revelation." Secretary of State Kerry indicated that the US is aware of the site, but did not confirm that it is a nuclear site.

The first independent reports on the site (NCRI is hardly a disinterested party) are rather more pedestrian:
That Secret Iranian
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2015, 10:00 PM
 
768 posts, read 870,299 times
Reputation: 1182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
Nick, why don't you review this article:
Covert war against Iran's nuclear scientists: a widow remembers - CSMonitor.com

I think there is already a covert war going on and I think the USA and Israel are winning it. The assassination of 5 top scientists, the Stuxnet Virus, unexplained explosions - to me it all points toward a steady successful attempt to set Iran back. I am hopeful that this war will continue.


I do think that Obama truly dislikes Netanyahu, but that's a function of Obama's ideology. Obama views the US as fundamentally unfair to its citizens and views the US as creator of the world's problems.

During his speech, Netanyahu referenced a few major episodes where Israel took action by itself and he did so with the purpose of reminding everyone that Israel is a sovereign nation who will act in its own interests. And I say, "Good for him".

If Obama had embarrassed me by giving me that expressionless dead eye stare that he gave Netanyahu, I would do what I could to embarrass Obama. So good for Netanyahu. Obama has shown himself to be a light weight in the international arena, and got himself poked in the eye for it.

Here's an article with a picture of "the stare". It is playground stuff and I am embarrassed to have a President who engages in such activities.
Report: Obama Has Cut Intelligence Cooperation with Israel | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

Good post. My thought; I do believe that Mossad does not need the help of the CIA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top