dreamdancer 0 #1 November 3, 2011 another pearl harbour? QuoteBritain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned. The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government. In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign. They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclearstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #2 November 4, 2011 Same old story, Israel makes threats to bomb which will kick off a regional war. The US gets a call from the Israeli PM warning them of their forth coming action and the US decided to do it for them to prevent a regional war and the UK gets dragged in behind them again. Will it happen? I think its only a matter of time. Will it be successful? No.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #3 November 4, 2011 Same old story, huh? When exactly did it happen in the past when Israel threatened to bomb someone and the US stepped in and did it for them? Iran is not just an Israeli problem and I'm not sure Israel can (it definetly shouldnt have to) take care of it alone. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #4 November 4, 2011 do you think the attack should go ahead - or do you agree with these guys... QuoteIsrael's prime minister has ordered an investigation into alleged leaks of plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, it has been reported. According to the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jarida, the main suspects are the former heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet, respectively Israel's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies. Netanyahu is said to believe that the two, Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin, wanted to torpedo plans being drawn up by him and Ehud Barak, the defence minister, to hit Iranian nuclear sites. Tzipi Livni, leader of the opposition Kadima party, is also said to have been persuaded to attack Netanyahu for "adventurism" and "gambling with Israel's national interest". The paper suggested that the purpose of the leaks was to prevent an attack, which had moved from the stage of discussion to implementation. "Those who oppose the plan within the security establishment decided to leak it to the media and thwart the plan," it said. Both Dagan and Diskin oppose military action against Iran unless all other options – primarily international diplomatic pressure and perhaps sabotage — have been exhausted. In January the recently retired Dagan, a hawk when he was running the Mossad, called an attack on Iran "the stupidest idea I've ever heard". http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/israeli-pm-investigation-iran-leakstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #5 November 12, 2011 QuoteNo matter that Israel, the Middle East’s only nuclear power, already has an arsenal measured in the hundreds. One Iranian nuke on Tel Aviv would trigger those hundreds falling on Iran. When the Israelis justify their anti-Iran hysteria by saying that even one Iranian nuke would trigger a regional nuclear arms race it’s a coded way of saying: For every nuke you make we’ll make many more, and we’re ready to use them all; if you attack us you’re committing national suicide. It’s an article of faith for most Israelis that Iranian leaders are perfectly ready -- some say eager -- to do just that. The commonly assumed (though rarely articulated) explanation: The Iranians, like all Jew-haters, are irrational. They’ll pay any price to kill Jews. Of course the real irrationality is the idea that the Iranians would commit suicide. If they are working on a nuke, it’s not to be used but to be publicly brandished. Like North Korea, Pakistan, and India, Iran may want to join the nuclear club because it’s the only way for a regional power to be taken seriously on the world stage. Since the early days of the cold war, nations have pursued nukes more for their symbolic value than any practical value they might have. Israeli leaders surely understand this, even if many of their voters don’t. If we could ask Barak what “vital interest” would justify such massive slaughter in Israel, and if he answered honestly, he’d say that there is no practical interest involved. It’s all in the realm of symbolism. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/11-2stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #6 November 13, 2011 QuoteAn Israeli attack could probably manage at most a dozen targets, using more than 100 F-15 and F-16 aircraft. Three German-designed Dolphin submarines equipped with conventional cruise missiles could also be ordered into the Persian Gulf to take part, although it is thought that Israel's Jericho-3 ballistic missiles are to inaccurate to play a role. But how effective the mission would be is another matter. At best, Israel can hope to delay Iran from building a bomb by two to four years, experts assess. Optimists hope that within such a period, Iran's Islamist regime could collapse and give may to a more moderate government. But it could equally redouble its nuclear efforts, this time arguing that it now had every right to produce a weapon. As Mr Panetta warned during a Pentagon briefing last Thursday, such a strike would also have a "serious impact" on the region. Iran could blockade the Straits of Hormuz, through which 25 per cent of the world's oil exports are shipped, sending energy prices soaring. US military assets in the Gulf could come also come under attack from Iranian Scud missiles. Iran would almost certainly fire its Shahab ballistic missiles at Israeli cities and press Hizbollah and Hamas, the militant Islamist groups it funds and equips, to unleash their huge rocket arsenals from their bases in Lebanon and Gaza. Despite this, last week Mr Barak - making a rare venture in such sensitive territory - predicted that fewer than 500 fatalities would arise "if people stayed at home". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8886543/Israel-refuses-to-tell-US-its-Iran-intentions.htmlstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
