Skip to comments.
Israel expands war arsenal to deal with Iranian nuclear threat
AP ^
| Dec 8 2005
| Steven Gutkin
Posted on 12/08/2005 10:45:07 PM PST by jmc1969
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
1
posted on
12/08/2005 10:45:07 PM PST
by
jmc1969
To: jmc1969
these reporters are just silly. why would the US and Israel announce their plans to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities? They treat it as if it were a crime to keep plans secret or something.
2
posted on
12/08/2005 10:47:44 PM PST
by
Nipplemancer
(Abolish the DEA !)
To: jmc1969
3
posted on
12/08/2005 10:53:12 PM PST
by
Slings and Arrows
(Note for visitors at Arafat's grave - first dance, THEN pee.)
To: jmc1969
The best defense is a strong pre-emptive strike..
4
posted on
12/08/2005 10:54:26 PM PST
by
RTINSC
(Being Offended is the Natural Consequence of Leaving Your Home...)
To: jmc1969
The Iranian Regime will fall faster than a French Soldiers Rifle when the shiite hits the fan. The Mullahs in Iran do not have the support of the 16 to 30 year olds in that pathetic Islamofacist hell hole
5
posted on
12/08/2005 10:55:46 PM PST
by
MJY1288
(THE DEMOCRATS OFFER NOTHING FOR THE FUTURE AND THEY LIE ABOUT THE PAST)
To: Nipplemancer; jmc1969
It seems a lot of reporters are still in the "Watergate" mode of "revealing secrets." Yes, we need a press that questions and investigates, but with respect to threats to national security, and our response to that threat, they need to tread very carefully. Some reporters would probably reveal the D-Day plans if they were around back then!
As for Iran, I am very concerned. The Iranian leader is many horrible things, but credit him for telling us honestly what he thinks - that Israel has no right to exist. I'd almost rather think that he is just mouthing off for public consumption or somehow trying for some bargaining position with the world. But it's quite possible that he's a "true believer" fanatic who would risk destroying much of his own nation and the region to get rid of Israel. And of course Israel can't take that risk.
If there is something I don't know about the situation that makes this post needlessly alarmist, I'd be happy to be corrected. Thanks in advance, anyone!
6
posted on
12/08/2005 10:56:59 PM PST
by
cvq3842
To: jmc1969
He said Iran would most likely retaliate by making "life miserable for the United States in Iraq" and launch attacks against Israel through proxies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas. They'd retaliate by continuing to do what they're already doing? Not much of a downside to attacking them then.
To: JohnBovenmyer
Iran would most likely retaliate by making "life miserable for the United States in Iraq" and launch attacks against Israel through proxies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas.
They'd retaliate by continuing to do what they're already doing? Not much of a downside to attacking them then.
My question is why isn't our President Bush doing something, anything against Iran and Syria for that matter, in the face of their continued blatant support for the terrorists that are killing our troops every stinking day?
8
posted on
12/08/2005 11:02:22 PM PST
by
TomasUSMC
(FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
To: RTINSC
dude
can you xplain the need for surgical strikes when iran is playing on antoher field... nuclear strikes with total annihlation which is hardly surgical?
is israel after some sort of award for civility in the face of total annihlation?
9
posted on
12/08/2005 11:06:44 PM PST
by
jackson29
To: jackson29
Are you suggesting Israel should wait for Iran to nuke them before taking action, dude? What other field is Iran playing on, dude?
10
posted on
12/08/2005 11:11:10 PM PST
by
RTINSC
(Being Offended is the Natural Consequence of Leaving Your Home...)
To: jmc1969
Our US Government needs to get some clean, safe nuclear bunker buster production going, so that nuclear cratering devices won't be necessary.
11
posted on
12/08/2005 11:11:54 PM PST
by
familyop
("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
To: JohnBovenmyer
They'd retaliate by continuing to do what they're already doing? Not much of a downside to attacking them then That is my sentiment EXACTLY. Hit 'em and hit 'em hard.
Nam Vet
12
posted on
12/08/2005 11:15:46 PM PST
by
Nam Vet
(The Gaulistinians are rioting to reclaim the ancient 'holy ground' of Paris.)
To: jmc1969
Seems to me Iran is just BEGGING for it.
13
posted on
12/08/2005 11:15:54 PM PST
by
Cougar66
(If I had ever wanted a woman to be President, I'd have voted for John Kerry)
To: RTINSC
I think he's asking why Israel is only talking about surgical strikes when Iran is threatening total destruction. IOW, why is Israel only talking about a small operation. They too should respond with total annihilation. That's the different field they're on. He thinks they should take action, and it should be total not some small precision strike at some plant somewhere.
14
posted on
12/08/2005 11:27:22 PM PST
by
jeltz25
To: jeltz25
Iran doesn't have the bomb or delivery method at present. Soon, maybe, but not now. Israel will not let them get to the point where they have the capability to launch nukes at Israel. Israel will not launch nukes at Iran unless Iran has them ready to fly.
15
posted on
12/08/2005 11:34:49 PM PST
by
RTINSC
(Being Offended is the Natural Consequence of Leaving Your Home...)
To: Cougar66; jmc1969
<< Seems to me Iran is just BEGGING for it. >>
Since 1979 the manifestation of evil that is called Iran has begged for it.
Unfortunately when its forces, in an overt and blatant act of war, over-ran our Teheran Embassy, the same manifestation's representative was already occupying our Washington White House.
[Great tag line!]
16
posted on
12/09/2005 12:03:45 AM PST
by
Brian Allen
(Patriotic, Immigrant & therefore a 'Hyphenated,' AMERICAN-American by choice. An Aviator by Grace.)
To: cvq3842
Some reporters would probably reveal the D-Day plans if they were around back then! Truer words have never been spoken!
17
posted on
12/09/2005 12:13:37 AM PST
by
ozoneliar
("The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants" -T.J.)
To: IAF ThunderPilot
18
posted on
12/09/2005 5:32:24 AM PST
by
Convert from ECUSA
(Not a nickel, not a dime, stop sending my tax money to Hamastine!)
To: RTINSC
dude, hippotheticaly speaking if Iran sere to attempt to wipe little innocent israel off the map, they would indiscriminately nuke israel. with zero concern for loss of life nor collateral damage. their objective, imo, would be total annihlation. thus they are playing on a different plane, with different rules.
so that is why I ask of the author and of israel.... why consider"surgical" removal. why not play by the same rules as the opposition?
To: MJY1288
It should be remembered that the Germans lost 27000 dead
during the battle for France in 1940, the French lost 100000
dead combatants.
Thats on top of the slaughter of WWI. French troops have nothing to prove in terms of bravery.
I don't think the Israelis are counting on the Persians
tossing the towel as readily as you suggest. Their losses
in 1973 battles taught them not to underestimate their
enemies.
20
posted on
12/09/2005 6:58:45 AM PST
by
rahbert
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson