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.
Please!!! Isreals Air Force is top notch. They have some of the best fighter pilots in the world. They have the newest and most modern military equipment.
And, their ground forces are top notch.
Isreal has "gone it alone" several times before -
You obviously have never been involved in any military operations of any kind.
The quality of their pilots have nothing to do with logistics of supporting such an operation.
The fact is that without the US help in the logistics department the Israelis do not have the capability to conduct a long range strike.
That has nothing to do with how new their equipment is and how well their pilots are trained. That has to do with the fact that Israel has never developed and never will develop a forward deployed and long range strike military. They do not have the money nor the policy of doing it.
Israel has not gone at it "several times before". They have striked into western Iraq, Syria and lebanon, a far shorter distance then iran is with the nations having less capability than Iran.
You will never see it from Isreal, hence if they are such a great threat now, why hasn't it happened? They are presumed to be further along in development then anyone else has been in the region.
Because of their development of nuclear weapons - with a missile delivery system.
According to the IAEA's chief inspector, ElBaradei, Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons or a delivery system. Now like Hans Blix who said the same of Iraq in early 2002, I suspect we will now ignore this as well? In the end, we, or shall I say, the Jim Juice drinkers will believe that that same people who said the Iraq was to soon be capable of bringing mushroom clouds to NY City will now believe the same of Iran, contrary to IAEA findings.
Let me ask, do you find it hypocrytical that Iran has signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and has no weapons yet Israel has nuclear weapons but has not signed this treaty as they would then be subject to the same kind of IAEA inspections?
Because of their development of nuclear weapons - with a missile delivery system.
Le's look at this - They can't develop one because as a signatory of the NNPT it violates the treaty. The can't be attacked because the treaty allows them to legally develop Nuclear weapons. The IAEA says they grudgingly are in compliance.
Isn't this the perfect platform for diplomacy? Keep in mind we have them ten-thousand points to zero and it'll take them ten to fifteen years to even score.
One word.
Diplomacy.
You're a Professional Negotiator - I read your posts. What course of action makes the most sense?
And, you are going to hold diplomatic talks with the one who, once again, says they intend to wipe Isreal off the face of the planet - and soon?
The leadership of both country's are meeting next week. If they've agreed to talk why can't we. We should at the very least join in the discussion. There is always a middle-ground, you can't reach it sitting at the peak, unless you call a summit.
How many times have we heard "that's my price", until we get an offer? Reality it would seem is also negotiable.
Why would Iran want to discuss anything with us as we are doing the EXACT same thing when we talk about "nuking Iran" or regime change, or the Israeli air force making air strikes.
So it is good that we discuss the possibilities of using nuclear weapons against a country that as of yet has none, but it is bad when a country who has none says it wishes regime change in Israel?
A tiny threat. I guess 19 saudi hijackers could be perceived as a "tiny" threat also, right? Look what they accomplished. Are they "tinier" than Iran?
Maybe you've overlooked the longstanding Bush/Saudi friendship. The Saudis are good guys, according to your fearless leader. Just because they support the Sunni insurgents in Iraq doesn't make them a problem. Iran supporting the Shia insurgents is an urgent problem that needs quick action though, if you can take Bush/Cheney's words at face value.
And, there weren't "19 Saudi hijackers". Of the 19 9/11 hijackers, only 15 were Saudi.
None were Iraqi.
So, Bush attacks Iraq in retaliation.
Accordingly, since Iran hasn't taken any overt against America either, they obviously are a priority target.
It Obama arrogance. He knows the secret words that'll change everything. Really. Just believe.
Exactly. Only it's no secret that in order to negotiate, one must talk. An integral part of any negotiation is one's belief in the possibility of reaching an accord. I prefer someone with the arrogance of knowing they can be successful if they work hard and reach the best compromise.
This is where win-win situations exist. In the middle.
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.
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.
