Israel Making Plans for Iran

[sexonaplate]

*cough* Impeach *cough*

[Hippie3]

no one really cared about the people

speak for yourself,
many fine young men and women
died
because they cared...

[Hippie3]

Originally Posted by sexonaplate

*cough* Impeach *cough*

i think that's a very bad idea
because of the precedent it would set.

and don't think for a minute
that if the dems take control this fall
and use their newly acquired power
to impeach bush
that their decision won't come back
with a vengeance upon them
and us all.

if you think it's been bad until now,
just try living in a country
where we impeach the president every two years.

besides,
if you impeach bush
guess who takes over ?
hint- it ain't gonna be john kerry.

[sexonaplate]

Because of what kind of precedent it would set if he was impeached??
What about the precedent it would set if he wasn't impeached. The man has pretty much ignored any rules and laws he wanted to, there is video of him being warned about Katrina, doing nothing and heading back to finish his vacation.... If that doesn't warrent impeachment then take me out to the woods and shoot me now, because dimocracy has failed completly.

Didn't your country impeach clinton over a damn blow job, even though he finished the term? Oh right he was a democrat, and didn't have "god's support"

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"
*sniffs finger*

[Hippie3]

you had better re-read the constitution-
if we impeached every incompetent president
who could serve a full term ?

impeachment is only for serious offenses
like treason, or for criminal felonies.

clinton remained in office.

his 'crime' was lying to a grand jury,
not getting a BJ...

further
if push came to shove
bush could do the same as nixon did-
resign so that his V.P. becomes president,
new president quickly gives full pardon to old president
and life goes on.

that is how it works,
do not think impeaching bush will make anything better,
it would leave the republicans still in the white house
just mad as hell.
big improvement
yeehaw.

[sexonaplate]

I don't know enough about U.S. politics or your constitution to really continue any debate.

I guess it boils down to - Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't.

[Hippie3]

you're not even american
and you're calling for the impeachment of our president ?

talk about interfering in the internal affairs of another nation.
LOL

[SharkieJones]

Israel, eyeing Iran, seeks long-range missiles
5/23/2006 7:26:00 PM GMT






A U.S.-made Tomahawk cruise missile

"The issue of Iran is a very serious one," Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told CNN last Sunday, adding that Tehran’s alleged quest for nuclear weapons “can be measured by months rather than years". Asked if he expected U.S. and European pressure to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment program, Olmert replied: "I prefer to take the necessary measures to stop it, rather than find out later that my indifference was so dangerous."

Israel has come to view Iran as its number one enemy, alarmed by Tehran’s nuclear program and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map". Olmert’s comments indicate that Israel is already considering launching a strike on Iran’s nuclear sites soon. This speculation was heightened after top Israeli security officials said that the Israeli government speeded up efforts to develop long-range cruise missiles that could be used against the Islamic Republic.

Escalating anti-Iranian rhetoric, Israel’s former army chief claimed last week that Tehran is working on developing long-range missiles which could threaten the whole of Europe. "Iran already has surface-to-surface missiles capable of being equipped with nuclear warheads with a 1,500 (930 miles) kilometer range but it will in the future have missiles with a range of 5,000 kilometers, which will threaten the whole of Europe," Aharon Zeevi told a conference in Tel Aviv on Monday.

All indications show that Israel does not plan to rely on either the United Nations or the United States in resolving the Iranian nuclear dispute. The U.S. Vice President Cheney said 18 months ago that the “Israelis may well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards."

However, any Israeli action against Tehran couldn’t take place without a green light from the White House. This wasn’t the case when Israeli warplanes destroyed Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981 during the Iran-Iraq war. But the greater ranges to Tehran’s nuclear sites might make planes less efficient to execute the operation. Israeli defense analysts say that radar-evading cruise missiles, designed to locate and strike distant targets, are more practical than warplanes.

At Israel's National Day reception in Washington last month, an Israeli official, speaking privately and not fore attribution, said he believed that Israel would strike Iran in the next “month or two or three”, suggesting that fighter bombers wouldn’t be involved as they were to take out Iraq's Osiraq and that cruise missiles would be used. Asked about the difficulty of destroying Iran’s nuclear sites given the fact that they’re widely scattered across the country, the Israeli official said that Israel has its own geo-stationary spy-in-the-sky satellite taking constant pictures of Iran with a resolution down to 70 centimeters. "We know far more than anyone realizes," he said.

Israel, the 4th largest military power in the world, is the only nuclear power in the Middle East and the world’s sixth country to acquire atomic weapons, a title its government has never admitted nor denied. Despite its policy of nuclear ambiguity, Israel’s nuclear arsenal is estimated between 200 and 300 warheads. Unlike Iran, the Jewish state refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which allows its signatories to research, develop and produce nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes.

According to an article on the World Peace Herald, Israel developed about 100 Jericho-II medium-range ballistic missiles, which has a range between 1,500 to 3,500 kilometers, depending on payload weight. There are also unconfirmed reports of an upgraded Jericho-3 missile with a range of over 3,000 kilometers. The missiles could be deployed in underground caves and silos.

Moreover, the Jewish state has several satellites in orbit, including Ofeq-1 through Ofeq-5 and the recent Eros B spy satellite which is specifically designed to spy on Iran's nuclear sites and defense installations and is capable of capturing images on the ground as small as 70 centimeters.

Only the United States and Russia are known to have mastered all aspects of cruise missiles’ production. And Washington has turned out past Israeli requests to purchase the long-range cruise missiles. "A top priority has been put on developing this technology, in light of the Iran situation, as well as improving the Arrow," an Israeli security source told Reuters, referring to the anti-missile ballistic defense system designed by state-run Israel Aircraft Industries.

In 2004, Jane’s Defense Weekly said that Israel Military Industries had fielded the country's first cruise missile, but noted that its range was only around 300 km (190 miles). Moreover, previous media reports stated that the government arms manufacturer Rafael created at least a prototype cruise missile by attaching a jet booster to its medium-range Popeye missile.

Israel’s efforts to develop long-range cruise missiles were sped up after the U.S. turned down an Israeli request to purchase its Tomahawk cruise missiles in 2000, during peace talks with Syria. The Israeli government claimed at the time that it would need the missiles to make up for the loss of "strategic depth" if it wants to return the occupied Golan Heights to Syria. But the Israeli request went unmet, and defense experts said Washington’s rejection was to avoid an arms race in the Middle East.

"The United States would not want to export such a capable weapon at such sensitive times," said Jane's analyst Robert Hewson, noting that Tomahawks can carry nuclear warheads.

The Iranian nuclear program is on top of Olmert’s agenda on his first visit to Washington, which began on Monday. An Olmert confidant said after a White House summit on Tuesday that Israel would renew its request for Tomahawks. Israel might also argue that Olmert’s unilateral plan to leave parts of the occupied West Bank, while keeping large settlements, would cost Israel strategic depth that would need to be balanced with better weapons. "

"It (Tomahawk) was requested in the past. I believe it will be requested again, especially in light of the kind of threats Israel is facing in the future," the Olmert confidant said.

Israeli defense analyst Alon Ben-David suggested that Washington might end up selling the Tomahawks to the Israelis in order to curb Israel’s rival cruise missile program. "If the Americans discover that Israel is close to a credible cruise-missile capability, I expect they will be quick to curb it by finally coming up with the Tomahawks," he said.

However, some Israeli defense experts expressed skepticism about the usefulness of Tomahawks against Iran’s nuclear facilities that are heavily fortified than Iraq’s Osiraq.

Its worth mentioning that the Tomahawks are guided by a coded global positioning system network controlled by the Pentagon, meaning any Israeli launch would have to be approved by Washington. This is extremely alarming after media reports suggested that the U.S. is readying plans to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations and topple its regime. The U.S. State Department's top proliferation official recently said the Bush Administration is determined to ensure that "not one centrifuge spins in Iran." It is clear that Israel is certainly poised to stop the spinning.

[SharkieJones]

I think that things will be very hairy in the world if Israel bombs Iran. What do you all think? Will this take place?

[oibchip]

It's not only possible, It's likely....pretty damn scary if ya ask me

[OmBudsMan]

It wouldn't be the first time Isreal carried out preamptive strikes....but then again can you blame them if they do? I mean Iran is threating to destroy their state. And as crazy as Iran's leadership is, they actully may be serious and also able to do so if they develop(or already have developed) WMDs.

And then the situation will get very hairy indeed.

[siam_jim]

It is sad, I do have many friends that are Israelis, I do find they to be very patient and rational but out spoken, very educational and worldly. Not like others in that region. Which I find very barbaric and non-rational.
peace
siam

[Bobcat]

S-C-A-R-Y

[Hippie3]

i just hope
IF
israel starts a war with iran
that they do the job right.
kicking a hornet's nest is seldom a good plan, imho.

[mycolord]

Remember the 6 day war? If/when Isreal attacks, they will finish the job. Like mentioned above this wont be the first time.

Here is a reasoning as to why Isreal is so vicious when they preemptively strike or decide to attack/defend themselves as explained to me by an Isreali friend.
"If a country on this planet gets in a war, and lose, they return home beaten and under certain conditions, but they still have a home. If Isreal gets in a war and loses, they will be exterminated, there will be no home. Losing is not an option"

I hope it can all be diplomatically worked out, but im not betting on that horse.

[Hippie3]

i thought i saw a recent news blurb that said bush had ok'd the sale of like over 1000 cruise missiles to israel,
but i can't find the link now.

[dead_diver]

Knowing how the Israeli army operates I don't think they would hesitate to use nukes if push came to shove. I will quote a friend of mine who was a Captain in the Israeli army in regards to the military attitude there..."were all fucking crazy". Scary but true.

[SharkieJones]

What a nightmare.

[oibchip]

Iv'e nevr been into organized religion much but Bible prophecy sure does say that this could be the start of the end. The end for this life anyways

[Hippie3]

yeah, the 'coincidence'
with revelations' "armageddon"
is a bit concerning,
hope yer right with god.

[oibchip]

ME 2

[SharkieJones]

The end of times, perhaps.

[TVCasualty]

Whose kids are standing between Israel and Iran, should those two countries get into a fight? Hmmm. The whole scenario seems well-planned from certain perspectives, the US perspective not being one of them.

An oil-rich nation like Iran being hell-bent on developing nuclear technology does tend to suggest a military motive; why else spend all that money when you're sitting on massive oil reserves? This has all the makings of a totally insoluble conflict.

At least a nuclear winter would counteract the effects of global warming! (from the 'every cloud has a silver lining' department)

[koreanindica]

yeah a radioactive silver lining

[Hippie3]

one really objectively cannot blame the iranians for wanting nukes,
they have, afterall, many nukes aimed at them
so why not aim a few back, eh ?
however
geo-realpolitik is not about fairness,
it's about preserving hegemony
and iran is under the gun.
hope they blink first
'cause i don't think
israel or bush will.

[SharkieJones]

I seriously doubt the Iranians will blink, after all, if they die they get to partake of the virgins in heaven.
Even if the Israelis do destroy the nukes, I can't see them invading Iran. While they are, in fact, a military power in the world, they are still surrounded and any prolonged battle may be to their detriment.
While the other Arabian countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt are busy kissing ass for their economic aid, I'm sure they would jump at the chance to do something sneaky while Israel's bogged down in Persia.
To make a long story short, I think that any attack in the region would result in a horrible loss of life on both ends. The Iranians have no nukes but they do have chemical & biological weapons and the missles to carry them. Iran is also a state run by a fundamentalist religion; never a good mix.

[Hippie3]

see,
the thing is
if israel goes nuclear on iran
the iranians will never get a shot off in return.

a few high altitude airbursts to start the war
would fry any EM equipment, including missile guidance systems,
fire control, etc.

follow up with a few more lower altitude airbursts
to start fires spanning hundreds of square miles

followed by the earth-penetrating bunker busters
and the iranians will be
throwing rocks as a main weapon system.

the israelis won't need to invade
a radioactive ashtray.

when it comes to nukes
he who shoots first
wins.

[SharkieJones]

U.S. plans “star wars” bases in Europe to counter Iran
5/25/2006 7:00:00 PM GMT








The U.S. first deployed a missile defense system in October 1975

The United States is seeking to establish a new anti-missile defense system in central Europe to counter any future attack from Iran, a plan that stirred controversy in Europe and prompted fierce opposition from Russia.

The Pentagon’s proposal, which comes amid growing tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, is calling for the deployment of 10 anti-missiles interceptors at a European site by 2011. An interceptor consists of a rocket that carries a 155-pound "kill vehicle," which is designed to locate and collide with an enemy missile warhead. The Pentagon has already asked Congress for $56 million to start work on the anti-missile site. The final cost of the project is estimated at $1.6 billion. Pentagon officials say a recommendation on a European site will be presented this summer to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

According to an article on the New York Times, the most likely bases for the anti-missile system are Poland and the Czech Republic. Perhaps the most logical site for the shield would have been Britain, but the growing domestic unpopularity of Prime Minister Tony Blair - who is due to meet President Bush in Washington today - and opposition to the Iraq War have ruled that option out, an unnamed U.S. official told the Times.

Analysts say the establishment of an anti-missile base in Eastern Europe would have enormous political implications as the new shield would bring a direct U.S. military presence in Europe. For example, the deployment of interceptors in Poland would create the first permanent American military presence on that country’s soil and strengthen relations between the defense establishments of the two nations.

According to the Times, Pentagon and State Department officials visited Warsaw last month to discuss the project. "They asked us officially if we were still interested in discussing the issue," Poland's deputy foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, said in April. "Of course we said yes and we are awaiting details”.

On the other hand, the Czech Republic sought to avoid public discussion of the project, fearing that it could affect the results of the June parliamentary elections. As a result, U.S. officials have refrained from talking openly about a potential site on Czech territory. But it remains an option that both countries want to discuss privately, said an American official, who demanded anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue.

The United States already has a very close military relationship with Eastern European nations. Poland has been a staunch ally of the U.S. ever since Communism collapsed there in 1989. It allowed the U.S. army to rehearse helicopter attacks on its soil before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and later sent troops to the war-torn country. Poland and the Czech Republic, along with eight other East European nations, are NATO members.

The shield plan prompted fierce criticism from Russia which says that the U.S.’s hidden agenda is to expand its presence in the former Warsaw Pact nation and jeopardize cooperation between NATO and Moscow. Gen. Yuri N. Baluyevsky, the chief of the Russian military's general staff, has even tried to stir up Polish opposition to the plan. "What can we do?" General Baluyevsky told the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza in December. "Go ahead and build that shield. You have to think, though, what will fall on your heads afterward. I do not foresee a nuclear conflict between Russia and the West. We do not have such plans. However, it is understandable that countries that are part of such a shield increase their risk."

Sergei Ivanov, the Russian Defense Minister, also hinted at further strain on already-fragile relations between Russia and NATO, telling a Belarus newspaper that the shield would have "a negative impact on the whole Euro-Atlantic security system”, adding that the mooted site for the system was "dubious, to put it mildly”.

This is not the first time the missile shield has divided the U.S. and Russia. In 2002, President Bush angered Moscow when he cleared the way for anti-missile deployments by withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Moscow. The possible deployment of anti-missiles in Eastern Europe is the latest chapter of a story that has stirred controversy over the U.S.’s missile defense program, which began in 1983 with President Ronald Reagan’s vision of a space-based antimissile shield, quickly dubbed “Star Wars”. But despite more than 20 years of work and tens of billions of dollars in spending, the U.S. knows that any such shield would not be able to counter attacks from Russia, which possess a nuclear arsenal comparable to the United States.

By building an antimissile base in Europe, the Pentagon is seeking to position the interceptors close to the projected flight path of Iranian missiles that could be aimed toward Europe or continue on a polar route to the United States. To improve the coverage against a possible Iranian attack, the Pentagon is already upgrading a radar complex at Fylingdales, a British air base, and plans to begin similar work at the American Thule Air Base in Greenland.

Iran doesn’t have any weapons capable of hitting Western Europe, let alone an intercontinental missile that could strike the United States. But as divisions grow between the West and Tehran grow over its uranium-enrichment program, and with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warning that Iran poses a threat not only to Israel but to the West, Washington is determined to send another signal of its determination to act.

However, defense experts say that Iran is a long way from developing the technology it needs to build intercontinental-range missiles. "As far as we can tell, Iran is many years away from having the capability to deliver a military strike against the U.S.," said Gary Samore, vice president of the MacArthur Foundation and a former aide at the National Security Council. "If they made a political decision to seriously pursue a space launch vehicle it would take them a decade or more to develop the capability to launch against the U.S."

[SharkieJones]

Have you read this latest Hip? To me it's starting to shape up as a WW3 senario.