Originally Posted by SoonerProphet
So since you are against Israel's right to preemptively DEFEND themselves, and throw out the "F those Likudniks"...I'm the prick thrown' out the race card...Gotcha.
So since you are against Israel's right to preemptively DEFEND themselves, and throw out the "F those Likudniks"...I'm the prick thrown' out the race card...Gotcha.
OleVet Posse Instigator
The US is trying to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran for a peaceful nuclear program. One they are entitled to under the NPT. If they attempt to destroy it the Persians will certainly bolt from the NPT and any ability to curb/monitor their program is gone.
No, they can bomb whoever the **** they want, they just can't fly through us controlled airspace. That makes us complicit in the attack and opens us a can we may be trying to avoid. To support another country over your own is treason.
Likud, not for sure you means what you think.
Stoopid thread. I doubt the 'report' is true.
My personal favorite tho is........ "Duck Hunters Shoot Down Angel".
5-0
BOY HOWDY !!!!
Well if the Iranians are allowed a "peaceful" nuke program under the NPT what is all of the hubub about? Is it because they weren't going to build a peaceful nuke program? Certainly the Israelis don't think so and, again, if we weren't still in Iraq this wouldn't even be an issue. Why isn't the Iraqi air force controlling their own air space? Why can't they defend themselves against ISIS?
Administration denies Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli warplanes
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...raeli-warplan/
The issues have been over levels of enrichment from its centrifuges. There has been zero proof of a "weapons" program. Many in Israel, the intel and military, have been skeptical of Bibi's alarmism over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Much of what he has stated in the past has turned up false. We are no longer guarantors of Iraqi sovereignty, doubt the Shia regime would be pleased if the IAF flew in their airspace on route to bomb Iran.
Many? How many? Where do you get this info?
OleVet Posse Instigator
http://www.timesofisrael.com/gantz-h...f-iran-attack/
Gantz, who retired in February after 38 years of service, also revealed a dispute between the political leadership, which was moving toward a military strike, and the IDF, opposed to such a move.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...630040,00.html
Leaked cable reveals that Israeli intelligence thought Iran was much further from building nuclear weapons in 2012 than prime minister claimed in address to Congress.
Those are two, what is your def of many? Google is some cool **** bro.
Were the enrichment levels defined in the NPT? Were countries that were signatories to the agreement obligated to provide proof or allow inspections that they were in compliance with the NPT (I really don't know, just asking)? I don't doubt that from the Israeli perspective things will be slanted towards Iran's nuke program.
With Iraq in control of its own airspace what would keep the Israelis from launching the attack now? Since the Iraqi air force (along with a poor army) seemed incapable of being a sufficient deterrent to ISIS I wonder why the Israelis would blink about launching an attack if they were convinced of hostile Iranian intentions.
From wiki-
"The treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but restricts this right for NPT parties to be exercised "in conformity with Articles I and II" (the basic nonproliferation obligations that constitute the "first pillar" of the Treaty). As the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station uses enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be able either to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market. Mohamed ElBaradei, then Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has called the spread of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities the "Achilles' heel" of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. As of 2007 13 states have an enrichment capability."
I could only speculate as to why the IDF hasn't attacked.
Hell, most of the ME WANTS Israel to bomb Iran(Aryan) and take out their nuke capabilities, they just don't have the will, equipment or politics to do it. No one on the Gulf wants Iran to have a nuke and would be very happy to see some one do something about it, just not them...
Everything progressives do is aimed at weakening democracy, capitalism and the social and cultural institutions that support those things...... They are about subjugating people and being a ruling class.
Thanks.
I believe sovereign nations should be allowed to pursue their own best interests on energy/armaments although it is questionable that an oil exporting country like Iran really needs nukes...but hey, maybe they're going after clean energy. I would also understand why a country in Israel's position might see such a program as provocative.
But we're gone now...(well I think we are gone except for that ISIS thing) so nobody should be blocking the Israelis if they want to go after Iran.
Yeah, I found the original report hard to believe. That's not to say it wasn't actually discussed at some point, but I seriously doubt it got to a point where the president made a threat like that.
The Israelis are more than capable of a strike without needing to involve the US in any manner. They're also not stupid enough to do it at this time. I'm sure the rhetoric is more geared toward their upcoming election than anything else.
They have the equipment to strike, but they are also not interested in the retaliation that would follow. While there are many in the region that have no interest in a nuclear armed Iran, there are many that hate Israel more.
I do agree that they don't have the politics to strike.
Posting Permissions
