[Shipsyspeepay]

Who smuggled them into Israel and when?

US NAVY back in 1980s.

[masaredera]

In fact two weeks earlier, while visiting Israel, Edwards laid out his position on Iran quite succinctly: “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons . . . The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.”

Hillary Clinton pushed virtually the same bitter line while addressing the annual AIPAC convention held in New York City last week. “U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,'' Clinton told the crowd of Israel supporters. “In dealing with this threat . . . no option can be taken off the table.''

Barack Obama has also been upfront about how he would deal with Iran, arguing that he would not rule out the use of force and supports surgical strikes of alleged nuclear sites in the country if diplomacy (read: coercion) fails. To put it bluntly, none of the front running Democrats are opposed to Bush’s dubious “war on terror” or his bullying of Iran. They support his aggression in principle but simply believe a Democratic presidency could handle the job more astutely. All put Israel first and none are going to fundamentally alter U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Why the Democrats won’t save us: Clinton, Edwards and Obama call for striking Iran

Essentially what i have long argued. When it comes to foreign policy there is very little separating dems and repubs. You guys need a third party.

Andrew

[merloermfgj]

US NAVY back in 1980s.

Got a link? A source?

I'd like to see it.

[Serttyfd]

Essentially what i have long argued. When it comes to foreign policy there is very little separating dems and repubs. You guys need a third party.

Andrew

You can have all the parties in the world, but nothing changes until the industrial military complex is put in check.

Military-industrial complex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is the CORE of corruption in America.

[masaredera]

You can have all the parties in the world, but nothing changes until the industrial military complex is put in check.

Military-industrial complex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is the CORE of corruption in America.

The military industrial complex is a monster, no question.

A third party unconnected to the lobbyists is the only hope of countering that influence.

Andrew

[Shipsyspeepay]

Got a link? A source?

I'd like to see it.

Cant...Its classified.You have to get the info from the CIA. There were reports nukes were shipped to israel during the reagan years.But Israel denies it.
But theres one sorce proves israel has nukes right now but they still denie it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yp91GUmEZDE

[merloermfgj]

Cant...Its classified.You have to get the info from the CIA. There were reports nukes were shipped to israel during the reagan years.But Israel denies it.

O I C'

So, there is no proof. Just wild, unbacked speculation?

[Shipsyspeepay]

They got nukes all right.See the link? But i cant prove the US smuggled ours to israel. But think about it,,How could israel get nukes in the early years of reagan? No one would give israel nukes except the US am i wrong?

[rasiasertew]

Can anyone answer/speculate the question:
"What will happen if USA would bomb Iran?"

- From where and with what would it bomb? [If from sea, tell me how near the fleet has to come.]

- Don't you believe that Iran is capable to close Hormuz?

- Do you think that there would come out any oil from Bahrain, Saudi-Arabia, Iraq after that?

- Do you think that Iran and others would/would not attack western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?
- How would the troops in Iraq get what they needed (Your capacity by air covers some 35%).

- How would the rest of the world react?

- Was it just empty words when Putin said (2006) that Iran gets whatever it needs (armour) if it is attacked?


Maybe this should be a different thread, but all threads seems to avoid these questions.



Henry

[AAAESLLESO]

Can anyone answer/speculate the question:
"What will happen if USA would bomb Iran?"

It would fuck them up big time and have global consequences.

- From where and with what would it bomb? [If from sea, tell me how near the fleet has to come.]

If from the Sea: The Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean. We have lots of naval power in the region that DoD admits to and considering the tension in the region there is probably plenty more attack submarines lurking about armed with Tomahawk missiles whose whereabouts are classified. (one of them even collided with a commercial vessle in the hormuz strait about a month ago IIRC)

As far as range is concerned...

The TOMAHAWK weapons system is the U.S. Navy’s premier, precision strike standoff weapon for attack of long range, medium range and tactical targets. The TOMAHAWK cruise missile is armed with either nuclear, conventional unitary or conventional submunitions payloads and is capable of being launched from surface ships and submarines. Tomahawk cruise missiles are designed to fly at low altitudes, high subsonic speeds, and are flown over an evasive route by several mission tailored guidance systems. In any weather, day or night, TOMAHAWK cruise missiles can fly up to 1,350 miles (nuclear) 1,000 miles (conventional) to deliver their payloads with incredible accuracy. http://www.strikenet.js.mil/pma-280/description.htm

More than a stones throw...And AFAIK nobody has ever shot down a Tomahawk.

(just out fishing...Where the fuck did THAT come from!)

And don't forget those aircraft carriers etc...

[Thifiadardivy]

The military industrial complex is a monster, no question.

A third party unconnected to the lobbyists is the only hope of countering that influence.

Andrew

Well said.

[lymnCymment]

I don't see democracy in America.
Parties are changing but the policy stay the same.
So what is the difference among dems and republicans if their policy is the same...

[Lydiaswingert]

Is there a betting line on which candidate AIPAC decides will be the Democratic nominee?

[rasiasertew]

So Hairballxavier, how do you see the rest of the questions?
- Don't you believe that Iran is capable to close Hormuz?

- Do you think that there would come out any oil from Bahrain, Saudi-Arabia, Iraq after that?

- Do you think that Iran and others would/would not attack western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

- How would the troops in Iraq get what they needed (Your capacity by air covers some 35%).

- How would the rest of the world react?

- Was it just empty words when Putin said (2006) that Iran gets whatever it needs (armour) if it is attacked?
Henry

[AAAESLLESO]

Don't you believe that Iran is capable to close Hormuz?

Well they tried that before and we have been there ever since. Remember the Tanker Wars? Operation Earnest Will? This was the start of US military involvement in the Persian Gulf.

Remember Iraq fucking nailed the USS Stark with two exocet missiles, remember the USS Roberts getting blasted by an Iranian mine. Remember we destroyed half the Iranian navy in like a day afterwards and took out their oil platforms??

But that is in the past. The relevant thing is that we just do not know how long they could close Hormuz, and that is enough to scare tankers away. If they even hit one oil prices will go through the roof temporarily.

If they hit several tankers, and they do have the capability to fuck up some merchant vessels... well there is only so many tankers and bulk carriers in the world and they take a long fucking time to build/repair/replace. There are no "extra tankers" or bulk carriers sitting around to replace them. It would cause a supply disruption.

And if they hit a US warship, well, double that skyrocketing oil price effect. Speculators would go nuts.

But if Iran tries that shit again while Bush is in office that would probably be the end of that regime IMO.

I think it would be game on, no punches pulled. And the shit will hit the fan.

I don't think Iran will do that, not while W is in office.

[YpbWF5Yo]

Is there a betting line on which candidate AIPAC decides will be the Democratic nominee?

Absolutely.

Nothing will change until AIPAC and Israel are removed from the center of American government.

Democrats are simply the lessor of two evils and anyone expecting anything more than slightly less evil will be sadly disappointed.

[merloermfgj]

They got nukes all right.See the link? But i cant prove the US smuggled ours to israel.

O I C

And there it is...

[LesLattis]

In fact two weeks earlier, while visiting Israel, Edwards laid out his position on Iran quite succinctly: “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons . . . The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.”

Hillary Clinton pushed virtually the same bitter line while addressing the annual AIPAC convention held in New York City last week. “U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,'' Clinton told the crowd of Israel supporters. “In dealing with this threat . . . no option can be taken off the table.''

Barack Obama has also been upfront about how he would deal with Iran, arguing that he would not rule out the use of force and supports surgical strikes of alleged nuclear sites in the country if diplomacy (read: coercion) fails. To put it bluntly, none of the front running Democrats are opposed to Bush’s dubious “war on terror” or his bullying of Iran. They support his aggression in principle but simply believe a Democratic presidency could handle the job more astutely. All put Israel first and none are going to fundamentally alter U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Why the Democrats won’t save us: Clinton, Edwards and Obama call for striking Iran

Yeah... Whatever. They would say the same thing about North Korea. To say that they shouldn't be allowed to have Nukes is not an endorsement of War.

I think the pre-emptive Wars are on Bush's lap. I doubt anyone's going to let him start another one. If we go to war with Iran, it will be after diplomatic talks, sanctions, supporting internal enemies of the Iranian government, and all other methods fail.

I also say Iran should not have Nukes, but at the same time, I think it would be stupid to invade them. What's our plan of attack? If we take out the government, then what happens then? We finish the job of destabilizing the entire middle east and spread our armed forces so much that a draft will become necessary. Not a good move.

[casinobonusa]

In fact two weeks earlier, while visiting Israel, Edwards laid out his position on Iran quite succinctly: “Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons . . . The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.”

Hillary Clinton pushed virtually the same bitter line while addressing the annual AIPAC convention held in New York City last week. “U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,'' Clinton told the crowd of Israel supporters. “In dealing with this threat . . . no option can be taken off the table.''

Barack Obama has also been upfront about how he would deal with Iran, arguing that he would not rule out the use of force and supports surgical strikes of alleged nuclear sites in the country if diplomacy (read: coercion) fails. To put it bluntly, none of the front running Democrats are opposed to Bush’s dubious “war on terror” or his bullying of Iran. They support his aggression in principle but simply believe a Democratic presidency could handle the job more astutely. All put Israel first and none are going to fundamentally alter U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Why the Democrats won’t save us: Clinton, Edwards and Obama call for striking Iran

Can you post a link from a more credible site? I've never heard of inteldaily. The article is very ambiguous... Thanks

[BJEugene]

I can just see a Liberal Army, all dressed in PINK tights, and BELLS on their POINTED shoes, armed with PILLOWS & MARSHMELLOWS!!! Be sure YOU take plenty of fuckin WHITE Flags and a French advisor with you!!!!