Israeli PM says Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons
Tuesday, January 17, 2006; Posted: 2:08 p.m. EST (19:08 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/17/olmert.iran/index.html

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- As Israeli diplomats departed for Russia on Tuesday to discuss deep concerns about Iran's nuclear facilities, acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the Jewish state cannot allow Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances.

Iran's Islamic government recently broke seals on its nuclear facilities and said it will resume research for civilian nuclear power purposes. International leaders fear Iran will use its nuclear technology to develop weapons.

"Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us [to] have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence," Olmert said at a Tuesday news conference.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Israeli officials have said they hope to use diplomacy to diffuse any possible nuclear crisis with Iran, and only to use military force as a last resort. An Israeli attack ordered by Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1981 destroyed a nuclear reactor in Iraq.

Olmert is acting as Israel's leader as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon remains hospitalized in a coma following a massive stroke January 4. Medical experts have said it is unlikely that he will be able to return to his duties, even if he survives. (Full story)

Israeli conservative Likud party leader Benjamin Netanyahu, a possible political rival of Olmert's, said this month that Iranian nuclear weapons would be "dangerous to Israel and dangerous, in fact, to the world. And I think we have to find ways -- which could include diplomatic and other ways -- to prevent that from happening."

President Bush, after discussing the situation Friday during a White House meeting with Germany's newly elected chancellor, said, "The current president of Iran has announced that the destruction of Israel is an important part of their agenda, and that's unacceptable. And the development of a nuclear weapon, it seems like to me, would make him a step closer to achieving that objective."

Iran's announcement that it would restart its nuclear program has prompted Britain, France and Germany to call for an emergency meeting next month of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran had been following a two-year suspension while it conducted talks with the European countries. (Full story)

Changed landscape
Sharon's stroke has changed the political landscape of the Mideast, with elections set for the Palestinian legislature next week and Israeli's parliament on March 28.

Olmert, who was named interim leader of Kadima in place of Sharon, said he hoped to resume peace talks with the Palestinians following the Israeli elections.

Olmert said the Palestinian Authority must disarm terrorist groups as condition for a permanent peace agreement.

The Islamic fundamentalist Palestinian group Hamas, which advocates the destruction of Israel, is expected to be the major challenger to the ruling Fatah Party in the upcoming Palestinian Authority legislative elections.

On the issue of Jewish settlers in the West Bank, Olmert said that Israel will not allow "lawlessness" to continue in Hebron and said that settlers who violate the law will be dealt with "harshly."

Israeli troops have battled rioters for the past four days in the Jewish enclave in Hebron. Rioters have tried to prevent Israeli troops from carrying out a court order to evacuate eight Jewish families who have been squatting in the city's wholesale market.

Israel Defense Forces have declared the Jewish settlement in Hebron a "closed military zone" and have set up road blocks around the Hebron to prevent protesters from entering the city.

Last week, Olmert worked quietly behind the scenes to consolidate the leadership of Kadima, the new centrist party that Sharon founded after leaving the right-wing Likud party he had belonged to for more than 30 years.

Recent polls show that if elections were held now with an ailing Sharon, Kadima would win the majority of seats in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. The polls predicted that Kadima would control more seats than the left-wing Labor Party, headed by Amir Peretz, and Likud.

Ishmael, son of Abraham = Muslims

Isaac, son of Abraham = Jews

So close, yet so far apart.

amen, wmac.
i think we all can envision the us - or the israelis - taking care of those reactors and other attendant equipment, as they should, if the iranians do not stand down.

The powderkeg has GOT to blow. Someone drop the match and let's get it over with, shall we?

Think I'm gonna start paying more attention to those Nostradamus specials on the History Channel.

If one of the rulers in either country starts wearing a blue crown, I'm diggin' a bomb shelter!








(actually, it probably isn't a bad idea to dig one anyway.)

Those sites are going to be hard targets, well protected with Russian weapons. I'm thinking it would be smart to go for the leadership. The next guy up might worry about his hide a bit more and STFU.

I certainly HOPE the USA allows Israel to "deal" with Iran without any interference from our government.

Given Israel's 100% assured retaliation record which followed Israel's prior "warnings" to the Islamic nations, Iran MUST realize the Israelis will most CERTAINLY do whatever it takes, including bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities into dust, to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon capability.

And... REMEMBER... those in the "know" have indicated Israel already HAS nuclear capability.

Israel KNOWS if any of the Islamic nations achieve a nuclear capability, they won't hesitate to use it against Israel or any other nation that is the focal point of Islamic hatred including the USA, England, France, Germany and any number of other nations world-wide.

Islam would do well to remember Japanese Adm. Yamamoto's comment that he uttered upon hearing that the attack on Pearl Harbor was considered a "sneak attack" by the American People. He gasp, [color:"red"]"I fear all we have done is arouse a sleeping giant and filled him with a great resolve!"[color:"/"]

Yamamoto was educated in America and was familiar with the American "sense-of-fair-play" and "honor". He realized it had been badly mauled by the Japanese attack... and he knew how Americans would (and "did") react to such an attack.

Ultimately, Japan become the ONLY nation on earth upon whom a nuclear weapon was... or ever has been... USED.

The American People are a fair and just people. However, I sense we are losing patience with the nations of Islam. We've been tolerating Islamic attacks on our citizens for well over 2 decades.

Therefore, it seems to me it would behoove the Islamic nations to "police" their own ranks because, as sure as the sun rises in the east, if an Islamic nuclear or "dirty bomb" attack was made on the USA, the American People wouldn't take the time nor have the inclination to make an attempt to decide WHICH Islamic nation or nations were at fault... they would DEMAND our government take full and final retaliation against Islam... possibly ALL of Islam!

Ron, you said--

"Israel KNOWS if any of the Islamic nations achieve a nuclear capability, they won't hesitate to use it against Israel or any other nation that is the focal point of Islamic hatred including the USA, England, France, Germany and any number of other nations world-wide."

Actually, one Islamic nation already has the bomb, but Pakistan seems more likely to use it on their Hindu neighbors than on Israel or the West. Particularly as long as al Quida keeps trying to blow up Musharraf.

The problem with the Iranian nuclear program is that it is spread out and in hardened sites---very difficult to hit it all. Unlike the Iraqi Osiris reactor which was a big fat target for the IDF.

I'm sure they will find a way to shut the program down, while the UN dithers and considers perhaps maybe someday possibly suggesting some kind of sanctions....or something...or not.

Jim--

Nostradamus over The Apokalupsis(unveiling) to John?
Revelation, that is. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Whether it's close or not I cannot say, but I fear the worst - "troubles of which the earth has not seen" - is yet to come.

Israel is the one country that I wouldn't screw with right now.........

I'm with VA and Marvin Gaye "Let's get it on!"

A few thoughts. Ymmv.

On one side:

First, Iran is in a declared state of war with Israel. Second,
Iran is paying off the Hizbollah of Lebanon to try and pick
fights with the Israelis along their northern border. It is
estimated that the Iranians, through Syria, have shipped
approximately 10,000. (Yup, ten thousand) rockets to
Hizbollah. Including some that theoretically have the
range to hit several of Israel's largest cities. Third,
Iran is attempting to infiltrate the Palestinian armed
groups and pay them to attack Israel. And it is thought
that several of the most recent attacks were instigated
by Iranian paymasters. Fourth, a lot of this is emanating
from the Iranians because the domestic popularity of the
regime is slipping and they want their population to rally
around their regime in the face of foreign enemies.

Balancing that:

Iran is a long way from Israel, over a lot of hostile territory.
And a lot of the airspace in between is owned by the US.
We would know who was there. We would want to know
why. And it would be blatently obvious that we allowed
passage through our airspace. And we have 150,000 soldiers
who would be targets for retaliation. Including kidnapping.
And including revenge by the Shiites in the south who are
assumed to be heavily infiltrated by the Iranians.

Second, Israel does not have the US's global capacity.
Nor do they have a large conventional strategic force.
Third, the Iranian target is huge, very hidden and
dispersed, heavily fortified, and highly protected.
Fourth, anybody who gets shot down is not likely to
be rescued. At least not in one piece. Fifth, there are
still 20,000 Jews living in Iran. (Who cant get out.)
Sixth nuclear Iran is a problem for everybody in the region.
If Iran nukes Saudi and Kuwait fields, then stirs up trouble
in southern Iraq, Europe and Asia are going to have to kiss
Iranian butts to get any oil. And they can always blackmail
the locals. With the exception of Israel, none of the other
countries can project much power outside of their borders.
And precious little inside. The locals would have no real
choice but to bow to the Iranians or eat a few nukes with
no possibility of retaliating. Seventh, there are still a few
years before the Iranians cross the line. Maybe something
might happen in the meantime.

My guess is that Israel cannot easily do it by themselves. And
the threat is almost as big against us and the Europeans. Plus
there appear to be a few more years before action must be
taken. If we can extricate ourselves from Iraq in the next
few years, we and a fig leaf of Europeans may take action
ourselves. (And I am not advocating cut and run in Iraq.)
I think that the Europeans would have the cojones if they
thought the cost-benefit analysis was "conveniently" in their
favor.

What a mess!


Chuck

Nice outline of what everybody is up against. The solution is to subvert and overthrow the government of Iran through student groups; the very same way the Shah was overthrown.

Naw, f'k it. Drop the match, light this puppy, and let's get the [bleep] settled once and for all. Look, Israel kicked the [bleep] out of ALL the Arab countries in less than a week... twice. Right now, all they'd have to do is scoot through Jordan low and fast, and their in Iraqi/U.S. controlled air space. Result? Iran gets blasted. Then, Syria and SA get in, along with Egypt. Big f'kin' deal. The U.S. holds the fort in the Gulf, Israel knocks the hell outta Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, and it's done. Finally.

Flip the switch. This one has been coming for a LONG time, and it's time has come.

Dude, the Iranians aren't Arabs. They're Persians and they know how to fight and they are fighters. This is the country that sent 100,000 men at a time, many of them unarmed, in giant human wave attacks against the modern army of our ally at the time, Saddam Hussein. Though they lost hundreds of thousands, they eventually won. They are not soft.

This is not a war to wish for even if it is necessary at some point.

Israel will have it's hands full with Syria. Iran has been pumping up it's military for years with American oil dollars and Russian parts and equipment. I think the Syrian's are as pumped up to attack Israel as Israel is to fight Syria. It will be a knife fight in a telephone booth. kwg

Joe---yes, those would be the human wave assaults that Saddam's troops broke up with nerve gas artillery shells---oops, no, that can't be because we know Bushitler lied about the WMDs. Those hundreds of thousands of dead Iranian soldiers are just playing possum. You can get up now, guys.


Seriously, a non violent solution is devoutly to be wished for, but I despair. We've got an Iranian despot who is either batsh!t crazy or doing a great imitation of Hitler---the MSM have been trying to soft pedal his ravings, but he's been pretty explicit about what he's going to do to the Jews--in Israel and elsewhere--and the Brits, as the mother of evil---that would be us. This guy simply can't be allowed to get an operational deliverable nuke. And we can't ignore him and hope he's just kidding. Doesn't this all have a kind of 1938 feel about it?

And the fact that he's a religious fanatic looking forward to an apocalypse means he won't respond to events the way a rational western (even Communist) leader would. He may very well feel that a nuclear armaggedon with Israel and the Great Satan is a good thing---the ultimate jihad.

No happy ending in sight here.

Yep. And, as we should have done then, let's get this done now and be done with it. So it might be a knife fight in a phone booth, as one called it. Yes, it might very well be so. But, better a knife fight in a phone booth that a shoot-out in your own home, IMHO.

I have the utmost faith and confidence in the IDF. They can, and will, more than hold their own. With us, and I suspect the Brits, that's plenty to do this, do this right, and do it fast.

Cynically, we just need the Iranian nutcase to throw the first punch so we (U.S., Israel, and U.K.) can drop the gloves and bust open the biggest cans of whoop-azz in our arsenals. And, no, even if one of our places (Israel, U.K., U.S.) gets a nuke in a city, I don't think that a nuclear response will be sent. No need for it, and by NOT doing it, everything else possible can be, and will be, used.

the syrians have no shot against the israelis, period.
the iranians have got to be handled - now.
did you notice condi's attitude in today's 'papers?
look for it, boys: heavy duty strikes against those supposedly hardened sites. some of them artillery tube aerial darts filled with HE soon will be delivered.

I don't know how many of you have been to the Holy Land, but I worked for a company ten years ago that sent me there to do some radio engineering, and it is very depressing there....I spent half my time in a bomb shelter. We need to end this madness over there.....SOON.

To the best of my knowledge, the Iranians still have the jets the Iraqis flew there in 1990 plus aircraft of there own. If one launched from Iran today would it make it to Israel before we could shoot it down?. Plus, how many nukes are gone from Russia at the end of the cold war and who has them? I doubt every Russian was thrilled with the breakup of the USSR and still holds a grudge against the west. What a better opportunity than to sell nuclear technology to a renagade country that has money.

I think Syria will be more formidable than some of you think. They are motivated zellots and they will fight to the bitter end.

The best thing we did was separate Iran and Syria by invading Iraq. Could you imagine the coalition if Saddam were still in power and allowed Iran to cross into Syria or flat joined in the battle. Regardless of whether there were WMD's; tactically, invading Iraq was a good decision. I haven't heard much from the WMD naysayers lately. Look at the big picture. kwg

Someone said the Iranians are 'a few years from crossing the line'...NOT TRUE. The line exists where the capability to enrich uranium is. That isn't far away-like maybe a few months NOT years.

I believe the Israeli's will strike, touching off a war not just limited to that region, but the Gog-Magog war predicted in the Bible. All the players are assembled, most of the peices have fallen into place..all that remains pretty much is just for the first shot to be fired.

I kinda think of this as 'gut-check' time for the world. Once these events BEGAN years ago, it was time to start looking to the skies. The longer the clock ticks just means the more important to consider the signs and get right!

I agree with you Pyledriver. A war with Iran is the beginning to something much much bigger than what some of you are thinking.

A few carefully chosen head shots could go a long way toward avoiding a war

How about this scenario: We start rattling the missiles until it looks to all the world we're going to hit Iran at any moment. Then....we blow the crap out of North Korea with a hail of missiles followed by a blitzkreig raid on Pyongyang by a joint strike force of U.S. & S. Korean troops, hang that little nut of a president, and leave.
Then Condi Rice could say to that little nut of an Iranian president, "Any questions?"

Of course, it wouldn't be that easy because the U.S. will never use the force at it's disposal. Even when we should.
Then again, if we ever did something like that, there would be a lot fewer libs in the country - they'd all be dead from strokes!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Looks like there'll be some good TV footage soon....the Iraq stuff's getting old anyway...

Iran's nuclear sites will be almost imposible to destroy. They are widely scattered with considerable redundancy. They are buried deep underground, so deep that even bunker/ground penetrating bombs will probably not reach them. The Iranians learned their lessons from observing Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear program.

Unless we want a widespread confligration, we need to consider any military action on these sites as a last resort. Also, Pakistan is a nation that is always on the brink of civil war and Musharraf may find himself unemployed (i.e., replaced by a fundamentalist government). An attack on Iran may spark a civil war leading to Musharraf's replacement. Pakistan's nuclear weapons will then be in the hands of the new government!

I'm afraid that the US is in no position to attack Iran or North Korea. Iraq and Afghanistan presently account for over 1/3 of our troop strength. Any available reserves are needed for replacements and necessary training. Additional US troops are committed in Korea, Bosnia, counter-terrorism activities, etc. We just do not have enough troops to do anything now.

I want to go on the record,saying that you are full of [bleep]!!!
Bart

And what do you think the 4 million man North Korean Army would be doing while we engaged in this little jaunt?

I know that you are not seriously serious, but some of you have a totally inflated idea of our capabilities.

Our ace in the hole is air superiority. If we ever face someone who can deny us air superiority, even for a short time, our troops will be in big trouble.

Both Iran and North Korea probably have the most sophisticated air defense networks in the world right now. Iran is probably working hand in fist with the Russians on theirs. Despite what we may think, the Russians make some very good stuff.

In the 73 war, Israel would have gone under but for us because of the unexpected effectiveness of the Arab air defenses. The Iranians will have the Russians' latest stuff.

Iran would be our worst nightmare as far a war goes. There is the very real possibility of taking a beating, at least in the short term. Then, if we start kicking Iranian ass, expect the Russians and the Chinese to intervene. You could also expect an Islamic Revolution in Pakistan and maybe Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Pakistan has the bomb, so then the new Islamo crazy state of Pakistan would be nuclear armed. They might decide to bomb us and India at the same time. In the words of Fred Sanford, "This could be the big one!"

Actual question to Israel concerning Iran, "How far are you willing to go?"

Actual answer: " About 2,000 Kilometers." (the distance from Israel to Tehran).


Any questions?

And let's not forget Iran's bug f**k president is one of those who held our embassy people for far too long (over 10 seconds).

--------------------------------

I must concur with Bart, despite that he is from Texas. There are few targets that exist in the world that we MIGHT ever have to hit that we have not analyzed and determined solutions for. We have done WAY more than that for targets of such a high priority as nuke sites in Iran.

Expat

My thought is the coordinates to each site have already been programed into an onboard computer in a cruise missle on several different submarines already in an ocean somewhere. kwg

To Bart and other readers:

I probably have more experience in planning things like this scenario than most readers. Believe me, we will get lost in a real quagmire if we take action - we are VERY thin in reserve ground and air capability. Our penetrating bombs (e.g., GBU-28 w/ BLU-113 penetrator) may not penetrate deep enough through deep rock to reach Iran's labs and facilities. Besides, we have a finite (classified) number of these weapons and there are many targets.

From a diplomatic angle (and I know you really don't care about this angle), we will loose many marginal allies - there are a number of nations that help us behind the scenes so their populations do not become "restless" and over throw the government.

Pakistan is one such government - it is a politically unstable government and President Musharraf
has turned to repressive measures to keep the population in check. Even so, there are many tribal areas (home to Osama Bin Laden and others) into which government troops do not venture (they do not control their own territory). Now, suppose President Musharraf�s government is overthrown, how do you think the following government will use Pakistan's nukes?

North Korea has an army of over 700,000 troops, 10,000 artillery pieces and 2,000+ tanks. There are over 11,000 underground, protected facilities nationwide; 4,500 of them are within 100 Km of South Korea. Do you believe that North Korea will just sit still?

Our air power is better than anyone else and will dominate in any area we can get a sufficient number of front-line combat aircraft. But to win a war you need to conquer and occupy territory and that takes ground forces (that are now tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan and other US committments). Also, the US population (you excepted, of course) will probably get tired of large-scale military casualties.

djs, I find your analysis accurate. Too little too late.Peace comes when one has no enemies. Patton wanted to square it away, Mac Arthor wanted to square it away, as did Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush 1&2. The defeatist's have done us in.

Good analysis, although your figures on the North Korean Army are a bit low. Those figures you cite are the ones who are just a few klicks from the border and ready to "jump". The active duty army is a little over one million and the rest are as follows:

The Reserve Military Training Unit consist of approximately 1.7 million persons (men 17-45 and unmarried women 17-30) who are not either in active duty or important rear area personnel. They are mobilized under supervision of provincial military units, for a total of forty days' training out of the year.
The Worker-Peasant Militia is a combination of older men aged 45-60, along with men ages 17-45 and unmarried women ages 17-30 who are not included in Reserve Military Training Unit. They train for a total of thirty days out of the year. Their current numbers stand at 4.1 million.
The Young Red Guards consist of 1.2 million male and female Higher Middle (High) School students aged 14-16. They are subject to a mandatory four-hour drill session every Saturday and a total of 160 hours of on-campus drills annually. A total of 450 hours of off-campus training is also mandatory.


So, if you count active duty and first line reserves, the North Korean Army is nearly 3 million strong. If you count the rest, it is huge. Either way, it is a formidible force with huge numbers of good, if not great, equipment. They are also very "hard" people.

djs,

The deep penetrating weapons we've been developing over the past few years weren't for caves in Afghanistan -- they have hardened underground targets in North Korea, and now Iran, written all over them.

Unless you have access to highly classified information, you don't know the capabilities of our "bunker-buster" penetrating weapons, just like I don't. For all that those of us outside the "need-to-know"-realm know, our Air Force might be capable of taking out every hardened nuclear facility in both Iran and North Korea within a matter of hours. On the other hand, we might not be able to do that right now either -- but I don't know, and the Iranians don't know, either.

Additionally, some of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th Century were Jewish (many of them played a big role in our development of the first nuclear weapons), and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Israel was developing bunker-busting bombs to rival any of ours. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

For those who want more detail than Joe's excellent summary on the NoKo order of battle and capabilities, here's a link to a whole bunch of links on the subject.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/northkorea/

What do you suppose the kill ratio would be between, say, the 82nd Airborne and its tactical air support versus the starving coersced members of the Great Leader's Worker Peasant Battalions? A thousand to one? 5,000 to 1? It would be very, very ugly.

The NoKos are indeed a hard people, as are the southerners. Remember the lefties tried to argue against both wars with Iraq because the Iraqis had such a large, battle tested army and all those freaking Soviet weapons. Remember the "experts" saying we'd need 50,000 body bags before we got to Baghdad? Third world armies just can't cut it in the face of a modern, high tech army with ovdrwhelming technology and firepower. They may be brave, and they may even be true believers, but that just means more of them die.

Their hardness and courage wouldn't count for much when the first few hundred thousand are incinerated by stealth bombers and cruise missiles, the C3I structure is decapitated, and special ops people seize the airfields. The outcome of the initial military confrontation is a foregone conclusion---the ultimate consequences are not. And nobody wants to see hundreds of thousands of more or less innocent Korean civilians killed because their masters are depraved.

But none of that would ever happen unless the ChiComs give their blessing, and if they come around it will be handled in a more discrete, Oriental way with only a little, carefully selected blood shed. One hopes.

BTW I can never hear that little prick referred to as Dear Leader without thinking of Boris Badenov's boss, Fearless Leader.

NoKo has traded food and medicines for military equipment. Gotta wonder how many would defect for some hot meals?

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Target rich environment

South Korea would require little assistance from US ground forces to defeat North Korea right now. I've got "pretty good" and "pretty current" insight into both sides' order of battle and status of forces.

This vignette from todays DEBKA FILE sums up what Israel is up against. In a nutshell, General Halutz states that Irans nuclear arsenal is just a part of the matrix, he feels confident they have their heel on the bastard's necks and will apply pressure at the appropriate time. I tried to find an article in the Jerusalem Post last week that stated it is common knowledge in the Israeli military that they were responsible for the death of an Iranian General in that plane crash in Iran last month.


IDF chief of staff Lt.-Gen Dan Halutz says Israel�s strategic situation has never been better, aside from the Iranian threat

January 17, 2006, 11:20 PM (GMT+02:00)

Iran�s potential acquisition of nuclear weapons will pose an existential threat to Israel, said Israel�s top soldier in a lecture at Haifa University Monday, Jan. 17. At the same time, he said he was extremely satisfied with the present national security situation.

DEBKAfile�s strategic experts note that Israel faces not one but three strategic menaces that are even more immediate than the Iranian bomb.

1. The certain Hamas election win in the Jan 25 Palestinian general election potentially imperils Israel�s existence � not because the Palestinian Islamic group is capable of conquering Beersheba or any other Israeli city, but because its victory at the polls will place Israel in the path of armed onslaught its bellicose parent, the Muslim Brotherhood. Halutz is fudging the issue when he proposes waiting for after the election to see where the Palestinians are heading; it is already plain: in the same direction as the Muslim Brotherhood, towards a campaign to destroy Israel.

Any country in the Muslim Brotherhood�s sights is in existential peril. Hosni Mubarak acted to protect his regime when, unlike Israel, he prevented its adherents from openly challenging him in the December election.

2. Al Qaeda has marked Israel down as a main target. The acuteness of this danger may be measured by two yardsticks:.

First, by the impact of a mega-attack on the scale of the 9/11 assault on America. Americans are still conscious of the indelible imprint this atrocity left on their national life. Since then, the United States has been drawn into protracted wars on global terror. Israel lacks the geographical, economic and military resources of the United States; a major al Qaeda assault might therefore leave the Jewish state with a scant chance of survival.

Second, More than 150,000 American troops plus 50,000 allied soldiers are unable to vanquish al Qaeda in Iraq and are on the verge of retreat. The Palestinians see in Iraq an analogy for their own case. Whether this is true or not, this sense colors their strategic attitude, which the Israeli government and armed forces have failed to discourage, thereby placing the country in existential danger.

3. It is always possible that all three foes will band together, with or without Iran and the Hizballah, for a concerted effort to destroy Israel.

There is no guarantee that one or more of these threats to Israel�s existence will not mature before the Iranian bomb.

ironbender;

I like the way you think. Hmmm... open a few Hooters on the SoKo side of the DMZ, put up big screens to show the very nice interior "decor" of those places, and some fans to blow the smell of real food North...

Better make those restaurants big enough to seat a REALLY big party... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Good, then we should bring you and the 35,000 or so other soldiers home from South Korea, right?

Sounds like a grand idea to me.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

RLW;
every country has it's naysayers. Isreal is under tremendous pressure. I am surprised they have not wiped out the arab race. They have tollerated much more than this country ever would. I beg to differ, that America has been drawn in to protracted wars; The american people have chosen to wipe out terrorist's and those who support them. Progress at vanquishing said terrorists,is being made in leaps and bounds. Anyone that doubts this has blinders on. The palestinian cause is one of total hate and should be ignored. As with any multi-faceted problem, one disects it into pieces, and handles it accordingly. Running up the white flag is not an option, and it is not the American way.

At the risk of starting another harangue regarding a possible Israeli response to Iran�s nuclear program, I�ll throw some fuel onto the campfire. It seems that a number of campers admire Israel and wish that the US would follow its example. True, Israel exists in a dangerous part of the world and its� post-WWII settlers suffered horrible experiences at Nazi hands. The nation is beleaguered, and the US has supported it both financially and morally. How have we been repaid?

Check some of the following sites:
�http://www.ussliberty.org/� and read the report �War Crimes Report Filed by USS Liberty Survivors�. In 1968, Israel attacked a US Navy ship (USS Liberty) in international waters for a period of several hours. 34 Americans were killed in action and 173 were wounded in action, out a crew compliment of 294.

�http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spying.html�, and
�http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/motherofallscandals.html�
Read about deeply seated Israeli spy operations against the US that compromised intelligence and US security.

�http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1212-06.htm� and
�http.//newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/18/224826.shtml�
Read about Israeli investments in US telecommunication companies that conduct wire taps of US citizens (perhaps yours?).

Anyway, Israel does things to its best ally that exceed the bounds of friendship.

1) Yeah, almost forty years ago the IDF screwed up and attacked our ship. [bleep] happens in wars. Kind of like our shooting down that Iranian airliner. Unfortunate, but not evidence of anything.
2) Israeli spying on the US is irritating---I'm sure our spying on them is also irritating to the Israelis. But frankly, any secret of ours that they stole was probably more secure in Israeli hands than in ours.
3)They invested in a company-----and.....
Of course, newsmax is famous for running stories that nobody else picks up.

If that's your complaints, I'll stick with the Israelis as allies, thanks.

DJS:I thought this is what you were implying with your first post. You state America will loose in a war with Iran. You state Isreal is a lost cause and will be destroyed. You say America will be defeated by Al Queda. I say you are misinformed, an enemy simpathizer, a KKK member or all of the above. Your drivvle carries no more credence here.

Did you notice the Liberty was not sunk? Damage Control!

djs;

No [bleep], huh? No exactly a top secret clearance topic there.

Yeah, the Israelis f'ked up. We know it; they know it. Both sides acknowledged it and moved past it. Does it still suck for the seamen on-board then? Absolutely.

But, if my arse was in the sling, there are danged few units outside the IDF that I'd want backing me up other than the Israelis. I'll take the Israelis, pound-for-pound, against any force on the planet up to 10 times their size, any day, and twice any day in the Middle East.

--------------------------------------

It is happening now, but in a way and pace that is transparent to most of the general public. Our presence has shrunk from 37k to 32k during my time here. Remember all those boys from 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (SECOND TO NONE!) kicking butt in Iraq a year ago? They went there from Korea and did not return. That unit now resides at Ft Carson. We are getting ready to shrink again and there are major changes in mission allocation, command and control of US/ROK forces (a US general currently commands all ROK armed forces during war), organization of forces, and positioning of forces ongoing. We will continue to have some troops and command and control capability here for a good while, but the presence is undergoing major changes, shrinking, and moving.

Expat

What happened to the USS Liberty by the IDF was no mistake. There are some hard points to make here because both sides had major points of contention, but I'll take a shot. The short story is this. The USS Liberty was a electronic surveillance vessel. It was monitoring Israel's communications and feeding info to the Syrians and Egyptians. Some of this info was not too flattering in terms of Israel's possible courses of action, but the info we were feeding Israel's enemies was also hampered their ability to effectively defeat the invaders. Israel felt its national survival was at stake, so they did what they thought they had to to stop the flow of information. You will note they did not sink; they damaged it to the point in which they thought it could no longer transmit. You will also note we did not respond because it would have brought into sharp focus world-wide the mission and activites of that ship. While the death of US service members infuriates me, I think I would want my country to respond in a like manner if a country was listening to our comms and transmitting our scheme of maneuver and mission endstate to the enemy.

I'm now zipping up my asbestos jump suit............

Can't we just all get along, follow the democrats lead, and get on our hands and knees, and pray to Islam that they won't hurt us. All of this retalitory talk gives me the hives................................
LOL......I'm with the Marvin Gaye crowd
"LET'S GET IT ON".........it's all those little turds understand.

Expat;

Exactly. I cannot, and will not fault the Israelis for doing what they did, nor do I condone it. Much like the Brits post-1812. We were once, for a brief time, enemies. Now, we are allies, and the closest thereof, having proven ourselves to each other on the fields of battle, and sworn to it in blood. Anyone who has worn a uniform knows that oath.

Again, I'd trust the IDF with my life. Moreover, I'd trust the IDf with my DAUGHTER's life. There are DAMNED few in whose hands I'd consider that precious life safe.

Clear enough?

No need for the suit. You are right on. Our boys did one heck of a job keeping it afloat. Well trained men doing what they were trained to do. DC was my line of work my first seven years.

Scott, what were you on?

USS Sylvania AFS 2
USS Grand Canyon AR28

The rest of the time I was a hard hat diver.

My reserve time was spent in submarine repair. I spent several years going to Pearl then spent the last eight years at Bangor WA. Stuff I can�t say a lot about. It totals to 18 years for retirement and 24 years for pay. I have six gold hash marks and a gold MR1 crow on my blues.

Grandfather was on an LCI/G; uncle was on a sub tender, great-uncles on carriers.

Girlfriend's sister is a 1st Class, and her fiance' is a Lt. (mustang).

BTW - one of my cousins (g'fathers 1st cousins) was one of the last enlisted pilots in the USN. Second highest enlisted (by 3.5 months seniority) when he retired. On subchasers.

PM me. We'll talk... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

4bear,
I agree that the IDF General quoted in the DEBKAFILE was off the mark stating the USA is placating. Those of us who monitor the war on terrorism beyond the pop media know we are kicking ass. The IDF knows it too. I think his statements were an attempt to encourage more action on the right and to appease the american left in one swoop. It's obvious to me that the Arab culture needs to be kept entangled in their own guts. Steady as she goes.

ExatFromOK writes:
"israel felt its national survival was at stake, so they did what they thought they had to to stop the flow of information. You will note they did not sink; they damaged it to the point in which they thought it could no longer transmit. You will also note we did not respond because it would have brought into sharp focus world-wide the mission and activites of that ship."

Note in photograph the extensive damage done by bombing, straffing and torpedos in photo. You don't tropedo a ship just to prevent electronic signals from being received or transmitted.

The Liberty's skipper received the Medal of Honor for his actions in saving his ship. I doubt that would have been the case if it were a "limited attack". I have see the MOH citation. Nowhere does it mention the nationality of the attackers. Interesting.

Paul

ExpatFromOK said:



That's the most ridiculous version I've ever heard of why Israel attacked the USS Liberty, show me verification of that.

Most people thing a torpedo hits a ship and explodes. Not true.

A torpedo travels under a ship and as soon as the magnetic signature decreases, that is it just passes under the ship it detonates. This creates a high pressure bubble that raised the ship in the water then lets it fall back, one of those two actions breaks the back of the ship, that breaks the keel and the ship sinks.

If the Liberty had been successfully torpedoed it would have gone down. No DC could have saved it.

The attack on the USS Liberty

The fact is that the Liberty picked up Israeli radio traffic that an Israeli army unit had massacred 300 Egyptian POW's. A US Navy surveillance plane heard the Israelis confirm that they had sighted an American ship. The Israelis, wanting to cover up the massacre, for fear of world opinion turning against them, acted rashly. Americans need to grow up and realize that nations do not have friends, they have allies, and alliances can be a very fleeting and amorphous thing.

-------------------------

The Israelis could have done anything they wanted to this ship. It could not defend itself. They surveyed the damage at close range in an observation helicoptor. If they wanted, they could have put her at the bottom of the sea.

Yep.

Agreed, Expat. The only thing you said that I take issue with is regarding the U.S. sharing the intel with the Egyptians and the Syrians. That DID NOT happen and the Israeli's knew that.

-------------------------------------------

I'm not taking sides in this issue in regard to Israel, but I will just say that there are a lot of careerists in our government that are absolute enemies of Israel.

Expat

I have known many Navy service members over the decades.
Every one of them has been patriotic and served our country
with honor and well-deserved pride. Every one has sworn to
protect this country, with their life, if necessary. I have the
highest respect for them. (Even though I went Army. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> )

To believe the conspiracy theories, it seems to me that one has
to accept that the United States Navy has been corrupt and
lying about it for over 45 years, And doing so to protect a
foreign power. I am sorry, but I must respectfully say that
I just don't see that argument.

Chuck

I sometimes wonder if most of the world doesn't just expect Israel to take it all out -- destroy the vexing site(s) and then be portrayed once again as a pariah for having done what others dare not do (but sorta wish they could).

No one on the Liberty acted dishonorably. Those Sailors were executing the mission they were given by the officers appointed over them. They did an incredible job keeping that ship afloat.

HOOAH

Both the Navy sailors and the civilians on board the Liberty acted honorably and courageously; they each did their duty and the damage control was excellent.

Earlier, someone wrote that torpedoes are designed to run beneath the ship and then explode under the keel, creating a large void, breaking the keel (and therefore the ship) in two. This would obviously sink it. True, modern torpedoes, such as the Navy�s Mk. 48 and the British Tigerfish, are designed to do just this. Earlier technology torpedoes, which were used by the Israelis against the Liberty, are designed to explode on impact and blow a hole in the ship�s side.

Fortunately, Israel did not have Mk. 48�s when they attacked the Liberty.

I have eaten lunch sitting on a 48.

That's what I'd call a power lunch. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

It's just fine as long as you don't burp.

Spent a lot of time working on Tridents. MK 48 is the least of what you find there. When I first started working on Tridents there would be 288 warheads abord.