I don't think anyone is suggesting an invasion of Iran. Of course, if they start attacking tankers or try to close the Straits of Hormuz, then they would have to forfeit their navy and possibly their coastline. This operation would require a cruise missile attack to degrade their air defenses, then stealth bombers carrying bunker buster bombs. It isn't necessary to eradicate their nuke facilities 100%. Just degrade them enough and kill enough of their nuke scientists to make further progress unlikely. I think Bush will feel enormous pressure to do something before he leaves office, as his likely successor will undoubtedly sit by and watch them develop a nuclear arsenal.
yes. i think iran should have the bomb. both pakistan and india have the bomb and have had great tensions for many years between the 2. no war though same with usa and ussr. much tension, but no war. if there was no bomb, id say both these examples would have had pretty tough nasty wars. id say the bomb - as sure as there is a hole in my ass - is a great weapon of peace not war because everyone is too scared to use them. if i was living nextdoor to the israelis and under threat from the yanks, id want a bomb too just in case. surely it is hypocritical to let one country develop bombs under the table but not another? especially when that country has a lengthy track record of aggressiveness and land grabs. im not talking iran here. anyway, why not invade n korea? theyre another bunch of nutters. before you americans get on yer high horses about how moral and right you lot are, please remember that your country is the only country that has ever used a nuke in aggression. america is also the country that creates most of the tensions in the middle east. anyway - lets get a breath of reality here: if israel attack, then its good bye israel. all the other middle east countries will have their excuse. amerika cant attack cos it has so little resource after iraq & afghanistan. america has no friends so it MUST do it alone. also, this iranian president is really all mouth and no trousers, and his support within the country is dwindling.
Just put Tom on ignore. He is brain nutrition deficient most likely. For him to change his thinking it would have to start up first. Believe me, after 50 years in California among the vegans I know whereof I speak. Israel is playing the game of "whoever cares the least wins" right now, hoping they can get somebody else to do the work and spend the political capital. Gee, do you think they can hoodwink the current administration into doing it for them??
ONE sub? Some patrol boats and two vintage missile destroyers? A stealth mission through the Strait of Hormuz to the Persian Gulf? I hear the Liechtenstein Navy is formidable as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Israeli sub?now armed with nuclear missiles? Israel planning to attack nuclear sites in Iran? By Nathan Guttman, Haaretz correspondent, and Reuters Israel is prepared to launch an attack on Iran's nuclear sites in order to prevent them from becoming operational, the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel reported. The Los Angeles Times meanwhile reported that Israel has the capability to fire nuclear warheads from submarines. Basing its disclosure on U.S. government officials and Israeli sources, the report claimed that Israeli submarines are armed with U.S.-made Harpoon cruise missiles. Israel has modified nuclear warheads to fit these Harpoon missiles, and the missiles have been modified so that they can hit land targets, the report added. The Der Spiegel report said that Israel is prepared to launch an attack in Iran against facilities used in that country's nuclear weapons development program. According to this report, Israeli officials fear Iran's nuclear program has reached an advanced stage, and a special Mossad unit has been ordered to formulate an attack plan against the nuclear weapons program sites in Iran. The magazine quoted an Israeli fighter pilot as saying that the mission was complicated but technically feasible. According to the report, Israel has information on six nuclear sites in Iran, three of them previously unknown to the rest of the world, and plans to have F16 fighter planes attack the sites simultaneously. The deployment of the modified Harpoon cruise missiles, the Los Angeles Times said, completes Israel's nuclear program. Israel now has the capability of launching nuclear missiles from the land, air and sea, the report claimed. Israel has never formally acknowledged possession of nuclear weapons. Experts in the West believe Israel's arsenal contains between 100 and 200 advanced nuclear bombs. Some U.S. public figures claimed that Israeli nuclear capability complicates international efforts to stop Iran's nuclear weapons procurement efforts. A senior U.S. official said Israel's nuclear capabilities are a "magnet" spurring Arab countries to develop nuclear weapons of their own.
Doesn't it make you wonder who's the real threat to whom down there? "a list of UN resolutions that Israel has not complied with, far more than Iraq. Note that she has also illegally developed nuclear weapons. Further, the situation is far worse than would at first appear, it involves the serious distortion of the official Security Council record by the profligate use by the United States of its veto power. (See Table) Israel's, defiance goes back to its very beginnings. This collection of resolutions criticizing Israel is unmatched by the record of any other nation as Israel stands in violation of more UN resolutions than ANY OTHER NATION ON EARTH." http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1372 Interesting comparison leading to the war http://bitterfact.tripod.com/israel/unresolutions.html each resolution can be checked on the UN site for more info. Who makes decisions? Who benefits? I wonder what are my tax dollars working on these days....
I believe Israel will strike if they determine that the big players are going to talk tough but do nothing. Iran made it clear a few months ago that they want to remove Israel off the face of the globe. With threats like that can you blame them for wanting to protect themselves? Maybe the U.N. could talk some sense into Iran (just kidding, what a joke the U.N. is). Maybe they could warn them about a 100 times, threaten to hold their breath if they don't comply.
what evidence do you base these assertions on? not the unsubstantiated soundbites, puerile political speeches, talking-head blustering that they used to sell the iraq debacle -- most or all of which have been shown to have been disingenuous, or even flat-out lies -- but real evidence of these "entrenched crazies," "suffering," the "tyranny," supporting terrorism, the "indoctrination," etc. this is not a rhetorical question - it would be very helpful to review actual, verifiable, tangible evidence.
iran will have the bomb soon, same as india & pakistan... might as well start getting used to the thought... of course that'll make it more difficult next time round for the US to remove a democratically elected leader and replace him with a friendly shah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran#United_States_and_the_Shah but hey... thats life...