lazboy 1 Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) According to the BBC Israel has carried out an exercise that appears to have been a rehearsal for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, US officials have told the New York Times. More than 100 Israeli F-15 and F-16 fighter jets took part in manoeuvres over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece in the first week of June, US officials said. Several US officials briefing the New York Times said the exercise was intended demonstrate the seriousness of Israel's concern over Iran's nuclear activities, and its willingness to act unilaterally. The exercise involved Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots, the newspaper reported. The helicopters and refuelling tankers flew more than 1,400km (870 miles), roughly the distance between Israel and Iran's main uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. A spokesman for the Israeli military said the air force "regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel". Edited June 20, 2008 by lazboy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TX3RN0BILL 3 Posted June 20, 2008 Osiraq, ACT II Shouldn't it better be called "OsiraN" then? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreyCap 0 Posted June 20, 2008 Iran has most definitely learned from the Iraq strike. The place would be crawling with AAA and SAM's on full alert. I can't imagine conventional aircrafts like F-16s being successful. Maybe the U.S. can lend them a few stealths... And din't I read somewhere that the Iranian nuclear site is built underground? It might even be GBU-28 proof. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
triplethr3at 0 Posted June 20, 2008 I think the israeli's have a way to deal with the A-A threat. The israelis wouldnt consider an attack unless they thought it would be succesful. Israelis are nuts but not suicidal. Its been common knoledge for a while that the irsraelis have plans for an all out priemptive strike on Iran with support for US carrier based aircraft and american bombers from turkey. I dont think Iran is as much of a threat as everyone sais it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted June 20, 2008 I think the israeli's have a way to deal with the A-A threat. The israelis wouldnt consider an attack unless they thought it would be succesful. Israelis are nuts but not suicidal. Its been common knoledge for a while that the irsraelis have plans for an all out priemptive strike on Iran with support for US carrier based aircraft and american bombers from turkey. I dont think Iran is as much of a threat as everyone sais it is. they're not. But what they send back........... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted June 20, 2008 I just hope we have a better post-war plan for Iran than we did for Iraq. We can't let the current Iranian governement continue to exist, because they are the principle sponsor and facilitator of terrorism world-wide. We could put the Shah's son back on the throne, and fix bumbling Carter's 30-year old mistake. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted June 20, 2008 Or nuke the whole Middle East and be done with the problem altogether. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted June 20, 2008 Or nuke the whole Middle East and be done with the problem altogether. If humanity is going to advance any further we may have to get rid of the dead weight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) Few weeks ago the prime minister of Israel said they are ready for a nuclear intervention... also, i found this interesting thing.... http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nucl...-animation.html Edited June 20, 2008 by Silverbolt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreyCap 0 Posted June 20, 2008 Or nuke the whole Middle East and be done with the problem altogether. That's a good idea, but the radioactive cloud would eventualy make it bad for us... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Syrinx 13 Posted June 20, 2008 Or nuke the whole Middle East and be done with the problem altogether. I do believe you've been reading my mind! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 144 Posted June 20, 2008 Nuking the middle east over even Iran is not a realistic option. Did everyone forget that Israel IS a middle eastern country, albeit a Jewish one ? And regardless of what low yield yarn is spun can anyone truly guarantee that there will be no impact on Israel ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted June 20, 2008 Nuking the middle east over even Iran is not a realistic option. Did everyone forget that Israel IS a middle eastern country, albeit a Jewish one ? And regardless of what low yield yarn is spun can anyone truly guarantee that there will be no impact on Israel ? No one really wants to do that, but humanity does a serious problem with regard to regard to radical Islam, and Iran is the nexus. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted June 20, 2008 Do someone know the real meaning of Diplomacy ?!?!? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 144 Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) No one really wants to do that, but humanity does a serious problem with regard to regard to radical Islam, and Iran is the nexus. MOABS, the entire B-2 fleet equipped with MOAB's and atleast one cluster dispersal unit per aircraft filled with nudie mags. EDIT:- @ Silverbolt, diplomacy with Iran will have as much success as it did with Hitler. Edited June 20, 2008 by Atreides Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted June 20, 2008 MOABS, the entire B-2 fleet equipped with MOAB's and atleast one cluster dispersal unit per aircraft filled with nudie mags. I'm partial to blanketing the country with CBU's filled with pork rinds. For those who don't have access to this delicacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_rind Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted June 20, 2008 Do someone know the real meaning of Diplomacy ?!?!? di - plo - ma -cy -noun 1. A delaying tactic used to lull your opponent into a false sense of security while you prepare for a surprise attack. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted June 20, 2008 Do someone know the real meaning of Diplomacy ?!?!? diplomacy is best conducted with radical, deranged jihadist regimes with your knee in your opponents chest and your knife at his throat. diplomacy is warfare conducted by another means, just as warfare is diplomacy conducted by another means. The failure to understand that is what leads to war through miscalculation. There are very few people involved in the diplomatic arena who clearly understand that. (see Chamberlein and Hitler re 1938, Cold War stand-off) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted June 20, 2008 also, the term "Cease Fire" (as generally practiced in the Middle East) is a diplomatic term which means - "Re-arm and Re-load". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bounder 0 Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) this is nothing new the IDF always rehurse for actions on any threat,as do we. Trust me we have plans to,we may just hand over current intel we gather and do a "target handoff" as we call it,but things are almost at the ready on any know "problem" Edited June 20, 2008 by Bounder Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) di - plo - ma -cy -noun 1. A delaying tactic used to lull your opponent into a false sense of security while you prepare for a surprise attack. i like this concept Ok, but i have the theory : If you conquer someone by the money , is much better than Military way.... that's because of this "big stick policy" the world have the great number of extremists and some Modal Rebels(ie:American/Israel haters,assholes at all.) BTW, don't forget, we have extremists in both sides ,so "Fire at will" isn't a good way to solve the problems, it's a short time solution, but i think its the worse of the options,in long time will spent a lot of money. I take as a base, the NGC documentary that i watched about the 90's North Korea Crisis ,the Clinton administration just discard the diplomatically option and put the strength at first option! Luckily someone got a brilliant idea to open a dictionary and found the beautiful word: "Diplomacy" . I don't like to say something about that, because it's not my business, the country and weapons aren't mine, but it's what i think hehe. Edited June 20, 2008 by Silverbolt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreyCap 0 Posted June 20, 2008 We're just venting a little. We all know droping nukes on people is bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted June 20, 2008 We're just venting a little. We all know droping nukes on people is bad. we're venting here, but Israel really take this possibility Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted June 20, 2008 We're just venting a little. We all know droping nukes on people is bad. amen!! that is one briefcase that I am glad I no longer have to carry........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
