Your certainty is certainly more than a bit knee-jerky on both counts. I know, it's a liberal thing.Obama get beaten? You ARE out of touch. Their is no "proxy" we will be at war if Israel uses our weapons.
Obama get beaten? You ARE out of touch. Their is no "proxy" we will be at war if Israel uses our weapons.
Hmm... it wasn't that way in Libya, and yes it was a totally different situation and circumstance.... I'm just saying I don't think it's that black & white.
So you're worried what the Iranian government thinks? Most report that Iran thinks they are at war with the U.S. already. What Gadaffi thinks? Irrelevant then and now since he's worm food.Of course it was the same. You don't think Gadaffi felt that the US was at war with him? How dumb do you think he was?
So far safe enough - at least the Israeli's aren't worried about Pakistan launching missiles into Israel to kill all the joos. Not so with Iran, probably due to geographic proximity, intelligence, and the amount of moronic rhetoric coming from Iran in the past decade. And goose hunt? Nah... that's not it at all. It's a seek and destroy mission. Israel doesn't want to show the world their actions are justified, they could care less what others think is or is not justified. They'll just destroy what they see is a threat to their existence. Much easier; cleaner.It is just that we didn't care in Libya. Iran can put the whole Western world in lot of hurt, just by closing the Straights.
And for what for? Another goose hunt for WMD's? Pakistan has them by the dozen, how safe is that?
We shouldn't give or sell weapons to other countries regardless if they are friend or foe. If history has taught us anything is that allies can turn into enemies and I would rather not give or sell something that can used against us or our troops in the future.
So far safe enough - at least the Israeli's aren't worried about Pakistan launching missiles into Israel to kill all the joos. Not so with Iran, probably due to geographic proximity, intelligence, and the amount of moronic rhetoric coming from Iran in the past decade. And goose hunt? Nah... that's not it at all. It's a seek and destroy mission. Israel doesn't want to show the world their actions are justified, they could care less what others think is or is not justified. They'll just destroy what they see is a threat to their existence. Much easier; cleaner.
Here, we begin to see how the military has encouraged the attitudes and emotional repertoire of its soldiers through a specific sentiment; the feeling of being and of acting Jewish. This reflects one striking feature of the Gdud 50 soldiers’ notion of Ruach Tsahal, namely the fact that the soldiers’ military action is regulated by emotional and experiential constraints, and not by legal boundaries. IDF soldiers are trained in ethical codes; not in international law. According to one IDF official I spoke to this is problematic but nevertheless highly efficient: “Ethics is much more fluid. It is emotional, in a way. But it doesn’t give you firm guidelines. So, even though soldiers know everything about ethics, they still don’t know anything about law. That is, they don’t really know what is wrong and what is right. But that’s okay: international institutions only bring confusion” ("Yitzhak" 07/04/09). The IDF therefore operates in line with recent revisions in military thinking, which suggest that ↑ “concerns of ethics and efficacy are increasingly congruent”, as ethics are internalized through the reorientation process that occurs when recruits turn into soldiers.
Give? No. Israel should purchase.I agree and that is why the US should not give them to Israel
Give? No. Israel should purchase.
Give, by allow Israel to have possession of. Until Israel does give a damn about International Law and what the International community thinks, America would be very foolish to give Israel those things, as, as has already been mentioned one can never know when one's friend turns into one's enemy, especially one who does not give a damn what anyone thinks. Apart from that it is well known Iran has not even decided to build the things, but keep up the pressure and a bit more bombing and she will. No one seems to want Iran to have bombs. The most likely way to ensure she does not decide to build them is not to make her have to.
Give a bunkerbuster basically means free support, the free projectile, the free service and the free logistics to use it. Because they're special.
And if not those things train them to use and support it themselves.
Iran ‘smart concrete’ to protect N-sites from US bunker busters
As tension escalates between the US and Iran, American officials are increasingly concerned that the use of “smart concrete” may render Iranian nuclear sites impervious to US bunker-buster bombs.
An article published by Aggravate Research website, which represents Aggravate Industries, stated that due to Iran's geographical situation, the country is under constant threat of earthquakes.
As a result, the website said, Iranian engineers are very good at developing “ultra-high performance concrete” (UHPC) which is among the toughest and most rigid building materials in the world.
-snip-
“Unlike conventional concrete, Iranian concrete is mixed with quartz powder and special fibers - transforming it into high performance concrete that can withstand higher pressure with increased rigidity,” the article stated.
Due to its combination, the new Iranian-made concrete is an excellent building material with peaceful applications like the construction of safer bridges, dams, tunnels, increasing the strength of sewage pipes, and even absorbing pollution.
However, the article said, like any dual-use technologies that carry both civilian and military applications, the UHPC can also be used to protect underground facilities from bombardment, which could pose a real headache for military endeavors into Iran.
Do we sell bunker busters to...... anyone?
True, but I think Israel is a safe bet as a long-term ally
especially if Obama gets beaten in November.
If Israel wants to take out Iran's alleged weapon's then let Israel do it themselves.Anyway, far better to fight by proxy and Israel might be willing to take out Iran's weapons in their own self interest.
No, it's not. Said fallacy is based upon predicting -- erroneously -- the outcome of a purely chance event (such as flipping a coin). The future actions of a country (or a person) that relate to its actions in the past is not pure chance since humans are involved in determining/initiating those actions.This is a classic example of "gambler's fallacy", I think we should probably concentrate on re-braining ourselves rather than de-fanging Israel.give them the bunker buster and give iran ONE nuclear weapon
then let's see if israel engages in a foray into sovereign iranian territory
we must de-fang israel
our focus on iranian actions are misdirected. that country has not initiated war with another in 200 years. we cannot say that about israel for 200 weeks
If Israel wants to take out Iran's alleged weapon's then let Israel do it themselves.
Give, by allow Israel to have possession of. Until Israel does give a damn about International Law and what the International community thinks, America would be very foolish to give Israel those things, as, as has already been mentioned one can never know when one's friend turns into one's enemy, especially one who does not give a damn what anyone thinks. Apart from that it is well known Iran has not even decided to build the things, but keep up the pressure and a bit more bombing and she will. No one seems to want Iran to have bombs. The most likely way to ensure she does not decide to build them is not to make her have to.
Aren't we discussing "bunker-busters" because this is carrot the U.S. is holding out to Israel in exchange for its not taking out Iran's "alleged" weapons?
In your opinion is Iran going slow now?Israel at war with Iran is a threat to the entire area and US interests. There is also no evidence that bunker busters or any other air attack would eliminate the ability of Iran to produce nuclear weapons. It would however garantee that Iran would move as fast as possible with it as a result.
I disagree. They can make their own, if they want one bad enough.I say give it to them. Up the ante. Obama probably won't.
The US should not be giving or selling weapons to any country period.As I said before if Israel wants to take out Iran's alleged weapons then let Israel do it on its own without American help.You seem to forget all the other allies in the past that turned enemy.Israel will be no different and I would rather not be giving or selling a country something that could be used against us or our troops in the future.
I say give it to them. Up the ante. Obama probably won't.
Israel asks U.S. for arms that could aid Iran strike - Yahoo! News
I am not up on weapons.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?