The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-24-2013, 12:04 PM   #1
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,900
Default preparing for Armageddon

Insanity has come to pass. The US will supply Israel with the technological means - which it has lacked, up to now -- to launch a long range aerial assault on Iran.

For more than a quarter century I have been warning that the US is being dragged toward WW III by Israel. With this transfer of technology the dangers will rise to a new level.

Whoever made this decision should be strung up by his cojones.

MHG


Reversing policy, US will sell Israel aerial refueling planes

by Times of Israel Staff

Cutting-edge items in massive new arms deal to be finalized during Hagel visit reflect ‘understandings’ over possible Israel strike on Iran, Israeli TV reports

***


April 20, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"TOI" - US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will finalize a huge arms deal with Israel during his visit starting Saturday, under which Israel will for the first time be permitted to purchase US aerial refueling planes and other ultra-sophisticated military equipment that could prove vital to any Israel strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The deal is to be finalized during Hagel’s visit — his first stop on his first overseas trip since taking over from Leon Panetta — during his talks with Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon. But most of its content was agreed upon with Ya’alon’s predecessor Ehud Barak. Hagel’s first meeting with a foreign counterpart after taking up his post was with Barak at the Pentagon in early March. Hagel said at that meeting that, while the US continues to believe there is still time to address the threat of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons through diplomacy, that window is closing.

Prominent among the Israeli purchases are an undisclosed number of KC-135 aerial refueling planes. Previously, the US refused to sell such planes to Israel. “The change of policy,” Israel’s Channel 2 reported on Friday night, constitutes “something of a hint over the understandings between the two nations regarding the possibility that Israel will seek (US assent) to strike at Iran.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long indicated a readiness to resort to force if all else fails to halt Iran’s nuclear program, and has repeatedly alleged that the West is being duped by Iran in diplomatic contacts, and that Tehran is merely “buying time” while it advances toward the bomb. The danger posed by Iran was the key issue discussed by Netanyahu and Barack Obama when the US president visited Israel last month.

The “new generation of KC-135 refueling tanker planes would let Israel’s warplanes stay in the air longer, an ability essential for any long-range mission — like a strike by Iran,” the New York Times reported Friday.

KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft “would allow Israeli war planes to stay in the air for longer to carry out long-range missions — such as a strike on Iran’s nuclear installations,” echoed London’s Daily Telegraph.

Also being purchased by Israel are V-22 Osprey aircraft, a tilt-rotor hybrid that can take off and land like a helicopter and then fly like an airplane, as well as precision-guided missiles and advanced radar for Israeli fighter aircraft. It would be the first sale of the V-22 to a foreign nation. “Israel could use the Osprey for patrolling its borders, coastline and out to sea, and for moving troops to troubled areas,” Friday’s Times report said.

The Times added: “Israel also would receive antiradiation missiles. Launched from a warplane, they can home in on an adversary’s air-defense radar signals and destroy those sites. New, advanced radars for Israel’s military jets also would be in the package.”

One goal of the overall arms deal, the Times said, was “to ensure that Israel continues to field the most capable armed forces in the region to deter Iran and counter a range of threats.”

The arms sale was outlined to Congress on Thursday, the Times said. “Congressional officials said members were seeking assurances that the package was in keeping with American policy to guarantee Israel’s ‘qualitative military edge’ while not recklessly emboldening Israeli hawks,” it added — a presumed reference to any possible Israeli military intervention in Iran. Obama made clear while in Israel that he did not believe time had run out on a diplomatic solution.

In all, the US Defense Department is working out final details of a huge $10 billion in sales of warplanes, transport aircraft, and advanced missiles to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, amid concerns about the growing threat from Iran, Pentagon and congressional officials said. Israel’s purchases will largely be financed out of the annual US military aid package to Israel.

The US has spent the past year negotiating with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates on the deals.

The United Arab Emirates would purchase 26 F-16 warplanes under the deal, as well as advanced air-launched missiles. Three Pentagon officials who briefed reporters on the arrangement Friday said the UAE segment of the deal is valued at $4 billion to $5 billion. They did not specify the value of the sales to Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are expected to buy advanced air-launched missiles.

One official said the deals were briefed to Congress on Thursday by Wendy Sherman, the State Department’s undersecretary for political affairs, and James Miller, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for policy.

Hagel will visit Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Associated Press contributed to this report.

© 2013 The Times of Israel
Attached Images
File Type: jpg rfuel-635x357.jpg (33.3 KB, 73 views)
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-24-2013, 12:05 PM   #2
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,900
Default

original source
http://www.timesofisrael.com/reversi...ueling-planes/
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 12:21 PM   #3
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

The Israeli Air Force already uses KC-130 and KC-707s, they have had aerial refueling capabilities for decades. Furthermore, they have featured the F-15 for years as well, which has an effective combat radius of over 1000mi, well within the distance from, say, Tel Aviv to Tehran.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 12:30 PM   #4
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
The Israeli Air Force already uses KC-130 and KC-707s, they have had aerial refueling capabilities for decades. Furthermore, they have featured the F-15 for years as well, which has an effective combat radius of over 1000mi, well within the distance from, say, Tel Aviv to Tehran.
Sorry -- you are wrong.

Until now -- they have not had the long range capability to reach Iran (and return) with their fighter-bombers.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 12:37 PM   #5
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,900
Default

According to former CIA agent Phil Girardi, Israel at present only has a dozen tankers capable of refueling operations -- not nearly enough to stage an attack on Iran -- which would involve refueling at least 50 aircraft.

This is why the just-announced sale is so important.

MHG

http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-to-...he-job/5310065
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 12:53 PM   #6
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,667
Default

gaffe short-strokes it because his fantasy is to see Israel take on Iran and get destroyed in the process, and to have the US so utterly demoralized that it slinks off the world stage entirely, humiliated and ashamed.

Then gaffe will rejoice.

PS - An easy question that doesn't require any math, gaffe: When was the US at its apex? 21 November 1963?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 12:57 PM   #7
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

I simply said they have had aerial refueling and long range capabilities for awhile. Both statements are true. The sale will simply provide Israel with better technology to do so. Considering that the Iranian Air Force is flying mostly 70s tech and worse, the Israelis could have simply attained MORE of what they already had push come to shove. Of course I'm one of those crazy people who believes Israel will only attack if push DOES come to shove, so...
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 01:01 PM   #8
El Guapo
aka mav_7. who?
 
El Guapo's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: VA (heart is in TX)
Posts: 3,935
Default

I'm surprised they want to purchase the disaster ridden Osprey. Either way, good move. Go Israel!
El Guapo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 01:28 PM   #9
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Gaff gaff gaff. This is just smart policy.

Leverage against Iran requires at least some kind of realistic threat of military action.

Iran knows we're not going to attack them directly. Nobody else in the region is capable of doing the job. Not to mention, who else in the neighborhood could you trust more with this kind of firepower?

No good can come of negotiating with them from a position of complete weakness.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 01:57 PM   #10
bronco militia
OMG...this is horrible!
 
bronco militia's Avatar
 
THE GREATEST

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: colorado springs, co
Posts: 24,385
Default

$10 billion could buy a lot of pressure cookers
bronco militia is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 11:15 AM   #11
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
I simply said they have had aerial refueling and long range capabilities for awhile. Both statements are true. The sale will simply provide Israel with better technology to do so. Considering that the Iranian Air Force is flying mostly 70s tech and worse, the Israelis could have simply attained MORE of what they already had push come to shove. Of course I'm one of those crazy people who believes Israel will only attack if push DOES come to shove, so...
Push comes to shove, meaning...Netanyahu decides to destroy another neighboring country.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 11:16 AM   #12
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Gaff gaff gaff. This is just smart policy.

Leverage against Iran requires at least some kind of realistic threat of military action.

Iran knows we're not going to attack them directly. Nobody else in the region is capable of doing the job. Not to mention, who else in the neighborhood could you trust more with this kind of firepower?

No good can come of negotiating with them from a position of complete weakness.
huh?

Negotiating from weakness? You are saying the US is weak? What are you saying exactly?
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 11:21 AM   #13
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,900
Default

The US is ALREADY at war with Iran.
MHG


The Strategic and Moral Bankruptcy of U.S. Sanctions Policy Toward Iran

By Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle34650.htm

April 17, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - The Obama administration and other sanctions advocates claim that U.S.-instigated sanctions against the Islamic Republic are meant to achieve a range of objectives (changing Iran’s “nuclear calculus,” getting Iran “back to the negotiating table” and making it “negotiate in good faith,” strengthening the “credibility and leverage” of “pro-engagement camps” inside Iran, preventing military action by the United States and Israel, “political signaling” at home and abroad, and maintaining “unity” within the P5+1).

Appearing on HuffPost Live earlier this month, Flynt pointed outthat, in fact, U.S.-instigated sanctions against Iran are achieving virtually none of the objectives sanctions proponents claim they are intended to achieve: “Other than, possibly, sanctions as a stand-in for military action by the United States or Israel, other than that I don’t think the sanctions are working to achieve any of the objectives.”

More pointedly, Flynt took on the analytic conclusions and policy recommendations regarding U.S. sanctions policy advanced by National Iranian American Council (NIAC) president Trita Parsi — who also appeared on the HuffPost Live segment with Flynt — and a recent NIAC study on sanctions.

We have long criticized NIAC’s position on sanctions — favoring “targeted sanctions” against the Iranian government while claiming to oppose broad-based sanctions that impact ordinary Iranians — as an intellectually incoherent and politically hypocritical posture that enables the Obama administration’s illegal, morally offensive, and strategically counter-productive sanctions policy.

Now Parsi and NIAC are trying to help the administration figure out how to make this illegal, morally offensive, and strategically counter-productive policy more “effective.”

More specifically, Flynt pushed back against Parsi’s argument that, while sanctions have put “a tremendous amount of pressure on [the Iranian] economy,” they have not “changed the calculus of the Tehran regime” on the nuclear issue, because Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei has a “strong and dominant narrative” that “depicts the West as being invariably against Iran’s development, that this is actually not about the nuclear program — it’s about the West trying to subdue Iran, making it dependent.”

For sanctions to alter Tehran’s nuclear calculus, Parsi holds, the Obama administration needs to shape “a countervailing narrative to this.”

Responding to this argument, Flynt notes, “Trita has framed it in terms of the Supreme Leader having a ‘narrative’ about what sanctions say about U.S. intentions toward Iran and that there needs to be some sort of countervailing narrative. In fact, there’s not a countervailing narrative because, in many ways, the Supreme Leader’s narrative about the nuclear issue and about America’s ultimate intentions toward the Islamic Republic [is] not wrong.

“The Supreme Leader has said, just within the last couple of weeks, if the United States wants a diplomatic solution to the nuclear issue, it’s very easy: recognize Iran’s right to safeguarded enrichment, stop trying to get them to suspend, stop trying to get them to go to zero enrichment and we can have a nuclear deal.

“But the Obama administration, even though it’s had multiple opportunities to make clear that that’s where it wants to go, refuses to do that. Its stated position is it still wants to get Iran to a full suspension — stop enriching uranium. And as long as that’s the case, there is no countervailing narrative that can be had; the Supreme Leader’s narrative is actually validated.”

Flynt goes on to underscore that “the way the sanctions have been drawn up, and the fact that whereas even just a few years ago, most of them were imposed by executive orders (which are more or less at the discretion of the White House), but now most of the sanctions have been written into law,” belies the proposition that sanctions are somehow intended to promote a diplomatic solution:

“If you actually look at the language in the bills — that these are the conditions Iran would have to meet in order for the President to be able to say ‘we’ve satisfied these conditions and I’m therefore lifting sanctions’ — the Islamic Republic could allow the U.S. government to come in, dismantle every centrifuge in Iran, cart them back to [the U.S. nuclear laboratory at] Oak Ridge (like Qadhafi in Libya did), and there would still not be a legal basis for lifting the sanctions.

“[The Iranians would also] have to stop talking to, dealing with groups like Hizballah and HAMAS, that we want to call terrorist groups, and they basically have to turn themselves into a secular liberal democracy in order to meet our standards on ‘human rights.’ The President can’t lift them, even if the Iranians surrender to him on the nuclear issue. So the idea that this is somehow meant to encourage a diplomatic outcome … that’s just not real.”

With regard to the impact of sanctions, another HuffPost Live panelist — Sune Engel Rasmussen, a Danish journalist who has reported from Tehran — points out that, “in living standards, Iran is not a developing country, and it’s a lot more affluent than many of the neighboring countries. …

“If you were in Tehran for a week, for example, except when you changed your money you might not get a sense of this insane inflation. Because you still have big billboards advertising clothes stores, you still have a lot of cars in the streets, people are still shopping, you still have people drinking three- or four-dollar cappuccinos in north Tehran. That doesn’t mean the average Iranian is not suffering…

“But then when you talk about whether that leads to civil unrest, for example, then we also have to remember that many Iranians still remember an eight-year war with Iraq, when they were living on food stamps. So they’ve seen a lot more suffering than they’re seeing now.”

Picking up on Sune’s observations, Flynt elaborated on the impact of sanctions — including their indirect contribution to Iranian economic reform: “Anyone who has been in Tehran recently, you can talk to people and definitely get a sense of how sanctions are making daily life harder for more and more people. But the idea that the economy is collapsing is just not borne out by on-the-ground reality.

“It’s also worth pointing out — and I’ve had any number of Iranians, official and otherwise, say this to me — that sanctions, in some ways, actually help Iran, in that they give the government a kind of political cover to take some steps toward what you might call economic reform, that would be politically difficult otherwise.…

“Iran has done more to expand non-oil exports, it is less dependent on oil revenues for both its government budget and to cover its imports, than any other major oil-exporting country in the Middle East. It has done far more in that kind of diversification than Saudi Arabia or any of the states on the other side of the Persian Gulf…

“[Take] the issue of the devaluation of the currency: the Iranian riyal has been overvalued for at least a decade, but no Iranian government has been able or willing actually to let the riyal come back to something like its natural value. Now, because of sanctions, this has happened. And as a result, Iran’s non-oil exports have become much more competitive, and are growing. In percentage terms, they can now cover 50-60 percent of their imports with non-oil exports.”

Finally, on the question of whether sanctions amount to economic war against Iran, Flynt says, “We’re at war, and it’s not just an economic war. We’re engaged in cyber-attacks against high-value Iranian targets, we’re sponsoring covert operations by groups inside Iran that, in any other country in the world, we would call terrorist operations. We are definitely waging war against the Islamic Republic.”

Flynt Leverett served as a Middle East expert on George W. Bush’s National Security Council staff until the Iraq War and worked previously at the State Department and at the Central Intelligence Agency. Hillary Mann Leverett was the NSC expert on Iran and – from 2001 to 2003 – was one of only a few U.S. diplomats authorized to negotiate with the Iranians over Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and Iraq. They are authors of the new book, Going to Tehran. Direct link: http://goingtotehran.com
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 11:35 AM   #14
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,671

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

You do realize that Iran is a terrorist state. Right? They killed 264 of our Marines in 1983 and have been funding and carrying out attacks against us for decades, including 911. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/wo.../20terror.html

Last edited by Rohirrim; 04-25-2013 at 11:37 AM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 12:33 PM   #15
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
huh?

Negotiating from weakness? You are saying the US is weak? What are you saying exactly?
Your buddy Mahmoud knows America isn't going to attack him. But he knows we might allow Israel to do so. Anything we can do to further highlight that real possibility in his mind is all win.

Direct question, though, Gaff. What does the United States lose by selling weapons to Israel? It's good for US manufacturing, and it's hard to envision a safer place to sell weapons that will never end up pointed at an American soldier.

So what's the problem here?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 04:06 PM   #16
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
You do realize that Iran is a terrorist state. Right? They killed 264 of our Marines in 1983 and have been funding and carrying out attacks against us for decades, including 911. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/wo.../20terror.html
So, Iran was involved in 9/11? You must be kidding. If not, you are on drugs.

Your selective memory about 1983 is also breathtaking. Why were US Marines in Lebanon in the first place? I'm sure you don't know.

For the record, Ronnie Ray-gun ordered Marines into Lebanon in the aftermath of Israel's unprovoked invasion in June 1982.

We were there supporting Israel's aggression -- hence the vast majority of Lebanese viewed the US as the enemy -- a foreign occupier.

What did the friends of liberty -- our ancestors -- here in the US do to foreign occupiers (i.e. the British) in the 1770s?

FYI, we killed them.

You should be venting your anger about what happened to our Marines on R Reagan, for stupidly putting them in harm's way.

Last edited by mhgaffney; 04-25-2013 at 04:28 PM..
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 04:10 PM   #17
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Your buddy Mahmoud knows America isn't going to attack him. But he knows we might allow Israel to do so. Anything we can do to further highlight that real possibility in his mind is all win.

Direct question, though, Gaff. What does the United States lose by selling weapons to Israel? It's good for US manufacturing, and it's hard to envision a safer place to sell weapons that will never end up pointed at an American soldier.

So what's the problem here?
Mahmoud?

We attacked Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Chile, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos....and now Syria.

Why not Iran?

Of course we will. In fact, we are already at war - and have been for years, staging covert ops, drone overflights, cyber-attacks plus a killing economic blockade.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 05:40 PM   #18
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Mahmoud?

We attacked Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Chile, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos....and now Syria.
There are so many different scenarios there that you've watered down the definition of 'attack' in any military sense to essentially nothing.

Quote:
Why not Iran?
You really think with all the hyperbole and preventative grief that spilled out during the Bush years, they'll feel free to toss it all aside and go in anyway? Iraq would be a picnic compared to Iran. We don't have the political will left for that kind of war.

Quote:
Of course we will. In fact, we are already at war - and have been for years, staging covert ops, drone overflights, cyber-attacks plus a killing economic blockade.
If our lust is for blood, as you seem to think, why would we jump through all these hoops instead of just going for the jugular?

Oh, and you ignored my last question. How does selling arms to Israel hurt the United States?

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 04-25-2013 at 05:46 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 04:26 PM   #19
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
There are so many different scenarios there that you've watered down the definition of 'attack' in any military sense to essentially nothing.

You really think with all the hyperbole and preventative grief that spilled out during the Bush years, they'll feel free to toss it all aside and go in anyway? Iraq would be a picnic compared to Iran. We don't have the political will left for that kind of war.

If our lust is for blood, as you seem to think, why would we jump through all these hoops instead of just going for the jugular?

Oh, and you ignored my last question. How does selling arms to Israel hurt the United States?
Yes, despite the Bush years, Obama will do it.

Why? Because Obama takes orders from the military-industrial-complex -- which is just another side of too-big-to-fail, the corporate - financial elite.

They need continuing wars for a variety of reasons. You should Google the Report from Iron Mountain, circa 1960s.

Obama has continued and even accelerated Bush's war policies.

I never said it was a lust for blood. The agenda is full spectrum dominance -- to dominate the world into the future for as long as possible.

BTW, full spectrum dominance is not my term. It was coined by the plutocrats who run Amerika.

Selling arms to Israel makes the Israeli extremist government of Bibi Netayahu more audacious. Bibi has had a tough time because his own generals and security people oppose a war with Iran. They know how reckless it would be -- and dangerous.

But give Netanyahu the latest armaments and even this wack job might succeed in overcoming his generals. He wants a war.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 04:37 PM   #20
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,667
Default

An easy question that doesn't require any math, gaffe: When was the US at its apex? 21 November 1963?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 04:47 PM   #21
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Yes, despite the Bush years, Obama will do it.

Why? Because Obama takes orders from the military-industrial-complex -- which is just another side of too-big-to-fail, the corporate - financial elite.

They need continuing wars for a variety of reasons. You should Google the Report from Iron Mountain, circa 1960s.

Obama has continued and even accelerated Bush's war policies.

I never said it was a lust for blood. The agenda is full spectrum dominance -- to dominate the world into the future for as long as possible.

BTW, full spectrum dominance is not my term. It was coined by the plutocrats who run Amerika.

Selling arms to Israel makes the Israeli extremist government of Bibi Netayahu more audacious. Bibi has had a tough time because his own generals and security people oppose a war with Iran. They know how reckless it would be -- and dangerous.

But give Netanyahu the latest armaments and even this wack job might succeed in overcoming his generals. He wants a war.

MHG
If Israel's ready to strike to take out Iranian nukes, more power to 'em. Only one side has vowed to completely eradicate the other. I'd prefer those same nutjobs not have nuclear weapons.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 05:36 PM   #22
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,900
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
If Israel's ready to strike to take out Iranian nukes, more power to 'em. Only one side has vowed to completely eradicate the other. I'd prefer those same nutjobs not have nuclear weapons.
You obviously have been brainwashed to say what you did.

Have you forgotten, in 2007 all 16 US intelligence agencies agreed that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program -- in 2003.

How rare is it for all of the intel agencies to agree? I'd say -- rare indeed. Yet, they did.

Their assessment has not changed in the years since. Notice, this means we are in the same situation as before the 2003 attack on Iraq. Saddam had no WMD -- yet the neo cons convinced the American public he had them.

The same type of propaganda mill has been tirelessly at work for years in the case of Iran.

Also -- look at the historical record. How many times has Iran attacked its neighbors in the modern era. Answer: zero.

Yet it has been repeatedly attacked by others, by the UK, the US CIA, the Soviets, Iraq, and there are probably other cases.

Stop watching Faux and CNN. Read and study.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 05:44 PM   #23
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,667
Default

An easy question that doesn't require any math, gaffe: When was the US at its apex? 21 November 1963?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 06:43 PM   #24
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,900
Default

Paul Craig Roberts offers some clear thinking about Iran -- and why an attack is likely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4HV6ugZrW0
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 09:03 PM   #25
Meck77
.
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,588
Default

Lao Tzu- "Prepare for the difficult while it's still easy".

Why would anyone even question this ancient idea? *shrug*

Nobody really knows what the future may bring but coming from but why wouldn't you prepare for the future when it's easy?
Meck77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:40 AM.


Denver Broncos