teh JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

[dutch508]

bermudat  (384 posts)      Mon Apr-21-08 11:24 PM
Original message http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5612517
Isn't it common knowledge that Israel has nukes?
 Advertisements [?]When Senator Clinton was interviewed by Olbermann, she was talking about about nuclear retaliation if Iran

bombs Israel. She said if Iran gets nukes, it will set off an arms race and Iran could not be allowed to be

the only country with nukes. I've read many times on DU that Israel has nukes. Is it true or not? Hmmm,

who to believe, Senator Clinton or the posters on DU?

a sane, rational person would know that Sen. Clinton has been briefed at the highest levels, whilst the DUmpmonkeys haven't raised themselves out of the basement levels. BUT!- what says the hive?

rockymountaindem (1000+ posts)      Mon Apr-21-08 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. Officially, no. Unofficially, yes. 
 I have heard some of my professors say that Israel's program is probably at the level of France's qualitatively and at the level of China's quantitatively.

 

er....what?

Ichingcarpenter (1000+ posts)      Mon Apr-21-08 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. It was confirmed that it was tested in South Afrika when it was under
 apartheid.

confirmed by...who?

nyccitizen (9 posts)      Mon Apr-21-08 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. They have them but do not acknowledge them.
 
They have up to 400 nuclear weapons but are not a declared nuclear power, like the US/China/Russia/etc. The IDF keeps their military cards close to their chest, for obvious reasons. It is taboo for an American or Israeli politician to acknowledge or discuss Israel's nuclear arsenal. 

ok....

mrone2  (465 posts)       Mon Apr-21-08 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. Israel and weapons of mass destruction
 Israel and weapons of mass destruction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel is widely believed to possess a substantial arsenal (an estimated 100 to 200) of nuclear weapons,<1> and maintains intercontinental-range ballistic missiles to deliver them. Officially Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing nuclear weapons. The U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment has recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared chemical warfare capabilities, and an offensive biological warfare program.

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass...

 

Well, if WIKI says it it must be true!

Diamond Dog (261 posts)      Mon Apr-21-08 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
13. Israel is a rogue state and ought to be regarded as such. n/t

I was not aware gator trolled DU.

WA98070 (135 posts)      Tue Apr-22-08 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
17. Tom Clancey says they do; and he thought of using airplanes to crash into ...
 buildings long before 9/11, so they must.

If she knows classified information she cannot reveal it, even if it is "common knowledge."

 

Juniperx (1000+ posts)       Tue Apr-22-08 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
37. Quite frankly, I'm afraid of "US" having nukes more than anyone else!
 With Commander Dumbass in charge of the button... jeez... I'm surprised he hasn't let 'em fly by now.

yes, because we've already used nukes on poor ol' Japan!

[Mr Mannn]

Scratch a liberal. uncover an anti-Semite.

Hate its not just for Nazis anymore, its for liberals too!

[Chris_]

Speaking of DUmmies and anti-semitism...I've come to believe that if you were to remove the hate, racism, stupidity, and arrogance from the DUmmies all that would be left would be a very bad smell.

[formerlurker]

Does Israel have nuclear capability?  maybe.... maybe not.

[Ptarmigan]

Anti-Semitism is pervasive at the DUmp.

[Gwitness]

yes, because we've already used nukes on poor ol' Japan!

Wasn't it a Demcrat that ordered the use of Nukes on Japan?

[DumbAss Tanker]

If Iran tried to nuke Israel, I expect the Israelis would retaliate strongly enough that there wouldn't be any point in us jumping in.  The only real productive use of our strategic weapons in this is as a deterrent to things getting that far, which her comment does actually help even if it is devoid of sense in its own terms.

[formerlurker]

If Iran tried to nuke Israel, I expect the Israelis would retaliate strongly enough that there wouldn't be any point in us jumping in.  The only real productive use of our strategic weapons in this is as a deterrent to things getting that far, which her comment does actually help even if it is devoid of sense in its own terms.

Oh I disagree.    If Iran makes any attempt at nuking Israel we have to take them out.  Period.   Israel, while capable of handling an invasion, does not have the capability to completely take out Iran's military and nuclear facilities.

An attack on our ally is an attack on our country.   The US and GB will respond, and they will do the job thoroughly.   

[Chris_]

If Iran tried to nuke Israel, I expect the Israelis would retaliate strongly enough that there wouldn't be any point in us jumping in.  The only real productive use of our strategic weapons in this is as a deterrent to things getting that far, which her comment does actually help even if it is devoid of sense in its own terms.

Oh I disagree.    If Iran makes any attempt at nuking Israel we have to take them out.  Period.   Israel, while capable of handling an invasion, does not have the capability to completely take out Iran's military and nuclear facilities.

An attack on our ally is an attack on our country.   The US and GB will respond, and they will do the job thoroughly.   

...not if Sh*tlery or the obamanation is in the White House. 

[BlueStateSaint]

If Iran tried to nuke Israel, I expect the Israelis would retaliate strongly enough that there wouldn't be any point in us jumping in.  The only real productive use of our strategic weapons in this is as a deterrent to things getting that far, which her comment does actually help even if it is devoid of sense in its own terms.

Oh I disagree.    If Iran makes any attempt at nuking Israel we have to take them out.  Period.   Israel, while capable of handling an invasion, does not have the capability to completely take out Iran's military and nuclear facilities.

An attack on our ally is an attack on our country.   The US and GB will respond, and they will do the job thoroughly.   

Actually, any nukes that the US or GB used would probably just stir up the glass that was made by the French nukes that would be fired, from their "Force de Frappe."

[Chris_]

If Iran tried to nuke Israel, I expect the Israelis would retaliate strongly enough that there wouldn't be any point in us jumping in.  The only real productive use of our strategic weapons in this is as a deterrent to things getting that far, which her comment does actually help even if it is devoid of sense in its own terms.

Oh I disagree.    If Iran makes any attempt at nuking Israel we have to take them out.  Period.   Israel, while capable of handling an invasion, does not have the capability to completely take out Iran's military and nuclear facilities.

An attack on our ally is an attack on our country.   The US and GB will respond, and they will do the job thoroughly.   

...not if Sh*tlery or the obamanation is in the White House. 

That's true. The 3 am call and he answers "Don't bug me, I'm having waffles!"

[Chris_]

That's true. The 3 am call and he answers "Don't bug me, I'm having waffles!"

Or, "I already answered, like, eight questions!  Leave me alone!"

[DumbAss Tanker]

If Iran tried to nuke Israel, I expect the Israelis would retaliate strongly enough that there wouldn't be any point in us jumping in.  The only real productive use of our strategic weapons in this is as a deterrent to things getting that far, which her comment does actually help even if it is devoid of sense in its own terms.

Oh I disagree.    If Iran makes any attempt at nuking Israel we have to take them out.  Period.   Israel, while capable of handling an invasion, does not have the capability to completely take out Iran's military and nuclear facilities.

An attack on our ally is an attack on our country.   The US and GB will respond, and they will do the job thoroughly.   

What treaty of alliance would that fall under, pray tell?

[Chris_]

If Iran tried to nuke Israel, I expect the Israelis would retaliate strongly enough that there wouldn't be any point in us jumping in.  The only real productive use of our strategic weapons in this is as a deterrent to things getting that far, which her comment does actually help even if it is devoid of sense in its own terms.

Oh I disagree.    If Iran makes any attempt at nuking Israel we have to take them out.  Period.   Israel, while capable of handling an invasion, does not have the capability to completely take out Iran's military and nuclear facilities.

An attack on our ally is an attack on our country.   The US and GB will respond, and they will do the job thoroughly.   

What treaty of alliance would that fall under, pray tell?

The JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOish one! ;)

[DumbAss Tanker]

If Iran tried to nuke Israel, I expect the Israelis would retaliate strongly enough that there wouldn't be any point in us jumping in.  The only real productive use of our strategic weapons in this is as a deterrent to things getting that far, which her comment does actually help even if it is devoid of sense in its own terms.

Oh I disagree.    If Iran makes any attempt at nuking Israel we have to take them out.  Period.   Israel, while capable of handling an invasion, does not have the capability to completely take out Iran's military and nuclear facilities.

An attack on our ally is an attack on our country.   The US and GB will respond, and they will do the job thoroughly.   

What treaty of alliance would that fall under, pray tell?

The JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOish one!

Damn, how could I have forgotten about the JOOTO alliance?!?

 

[djones520]

If Iran tried to nuke Israel, I expect the Israelis would retaliate strongly enough that there wouldn't be any point in us jumping in.  The only real productive use of our strategic weapons in this is as a deterrent to things getting that far, which her comment does actually help even if it is devoid of sense in its own terms.

Oh I disagree.    If Iran makes any attempt at nuking Israel we have to take them out.  Period.   Israel, while capable of handling an invasion, does not have the capability to completely take out Iran's military and nuclear facilities.

An attack on our ally is an attack on our country.   The US and GB will respond, and they will do the job thoroughly.   

What treaty of alliance would that fall under, pray tell?

http://www.lebanonwire.com/prominent/historic_documents/1981_us_israel_memorandum_of_understanding.asp

I found that, but it seems pretty cut and clear that it's only in the case of Soviet aggression.  Since the Soviet Union no longer exists, I'm gonna dig around to see if this was updated.

[formerlurker]

If Iran tried to nuke Israel, I expect the Israelis would retaliate strongly enough that there wouldn't be any point in us jumping in.  The only real productive use of our strategic weapons in this is as a deterrent to things getting that far, which her comment does actually help even if it is devoid of sense in its own terms.

Oh I disagree.    If Iran makes any attempt at nuking Israel we have to take them out.  Period.   Israel, while capable of handling an invasion, does not have the capability to completely take out Iran's military and nuclear facilities.

An attack on our ally is an attack on our country.   The US and GB will respond, and they will do the job thoroughly.   

What treaty of alliance would that fall under, pray tell?

The isolationism-doesn't-work 101 treaty.   Iran is actually Europe's problem, which makes it NATO's problem.  We sat back when the EU asked us to while they did their futile lame ass attempts at diplomacy with Iran.   All the while Israel sending message after message while they watch the clock tick on that they cannot sit back and allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. 

Israel acting unilaterally against Iran would be disasterous as they cannot complete the job.   Iran throwing missiles out in response -- yeah, not so good for our troops in theater or our allies in Europe.   

Any nuclear attack on our ally affects us directly and must be responded to in kind.  You all know who will be doing the responding.  No action by the US?  are you kidding me right now?

[DumbAss Tanker]

If Iran tried to nuke Israel, I expect the Israelis would retaliate strongly enough that there wouldn't be any point in us jumping in.  The only real productive use of our strategic weapons in this is as a deterrent to things getting that far, which her comment does actually help even if it is devoid of sense in its own terms.

Oh I disagree.    If Iran makes any attempt at nuking Israel we have to take them out.  Period.   Israel, while capable of handling an invasion, does not have the capability to completely take out Iran's military and nuclear facilities.

An attack on our ally is an attack on our country.   The US and GB will respond, and they will do the job thoroughly.   

What treaty of alliance would that fall under, pray tell?

The isolationism-doesn't-work 101 treaty.   Iran is actually Europe's problem, which makes it NATO's problem.  We sat back when the EU asked us to while they did their futile lame ass attempts at diplomacy with Iran.   All the while Israel sending message after message while they watch the clock tick on that they cannot sit back and allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. 

Israel acting unilaterally against Iran would be disasterous as they cannot complete the job.   Iran throwing missiles out in response -- yeah, not so good for our troops in theater or our allies in Europe.   

Any nuclear attack on our ally affects us directly and must be responded to in kind.  You all know who will be doing the responding.  No action by the US?  are you kidding me right now?

Ahh, the "Because I wanna" theory.  They're "Allies," not "Us," and the "Ally" part of that is actually rather foggy with respect to their current enemies as opposed to the now-defunct USSR, nor is it supported by any real defense treaties, and it is also belied by our multiple attempts to be a "Neutral" party in trying to make peace deals between them and their assorted neighbors.  Lack of clarity in exactly what we would go to war over led directly to both the Korean War and Gulf I, so if we want to make anyone believe we would treat an attack on Israel as an attack on us, they're not going to be convinced unless we have a mutual defense treaty, which we don't.  What the Hell we'd really get out of that is a mystery except insofar as it cools any perceptions by the Arabs and Farsis that they can win if they are sneaky and devastating enough, and thus preserves an uneasy peace without pumping a lot of dangerous isotopes into the stratosphere, but at the cost of destroying any deniability we have for weird shit the Israeli government does since it would make us their full-on sponsor.
I'm not saying a US attack on Iran wouldn't happen, but it is by no means a foregone conclusion if they try to strike Israel.  I don't believe for a second we would use nukes in a preemptive attack on Iran prior ot them actually delivering some themselves, but I also don't think we want to be anywhere in the area if it comes down to an Israeli retaliatory strike.  Our troops in the area are an excellent reason why we don't want to see anyone popping nukes in either direction.
"But the Jooooos have never admitted to having nukes," some of you say.  I realize there is lots and lots of selective thinking about Israel on the right (Mostly "Pro" but then there's always guys like Gator who are stuck on "Implacable hatred"), but there isn't any real doubt about them having nuclear weapon manufacture and delivery capabilities, and that thanks in no small part to their black programs from espionage to plutonium theft conducted against us plus of course a lot of deviousness, black money, and plain old lying in their own "Peaceful" atomic power program.   

[Chris_]

Admittedly my info is several years old, but an acquaintance of mine that is former IDF told me that Israel has 50 - 60 short and intermediate range ballistic missiles with nuke warheads (a few with MIRV capability) in hardened silos concealed very ingeniously around the country.  Additionally they have between 60 and 80 airdrop weapons, and lastly have developed nuke-tipped cruise missiles for the new subs that are being built for them by the Germans.

Assuming this to be the case, their capability is nearly equivalent to  India, and substantially greater than China, and Pakistan.  Further assuming that their average warhead is somewhere in the 100 - 200 kiloton range, they have more than enough capability to make Iran uninhabitable for a few centuries, as well as most of the rest of the arab world.  Further, they have been at this for several decades, and know how to properly maintain a nuclear arsenal at its peak effectiveness, unlike the "newcomers" to the club.  I suspect that Israel is very nearly equal in capability to the US in the ability to design and build these weapons.

I further have no doubt whatsoever, that if Israel were attacked with a nuclear weapon from one of its arab neighbors, the war would likely be over before we heard that it was happening.......no need for us to get involved, other than providing aid to the survivors......

I acknowledge that Israel has kept their capability close to the vest to avoid the inevitable great outcry from the UN and their willing accomplices, but if I were the PM, I think I would make a tourist attraction out of a few sites, just for fun.......but that's just me.

doc

[formerlurker]

If Iran tried to nuke Israel, I expect the Israelis would retaliate strongly enough that there wouldn't be any point in us jumping in.  The only real productive use of our strategic weapons in this is as a deterrent to things getting that far, which her comment does actually help even if it is devoid of sense in its own terms.

Oh I disagree.    If Iran makes any attempt at nuking Israel we have to take them out.  Period.   Israel, while capable of handling an invasion, does not have the capability to completely take out Iran's military and nuclear facilities.

An attack on our ally is an attack on our country.   The US and GB will respond, and they will do the job thoroughly.   

What treaty of alliance would that fall under, pray tell?

The isolationism-doesn't-work 101 treaty.   Iran is actually Europe's problem, which makes it NATO's problem.  We sat back when the EU asked us to while they did their futile lame ass attempts at diplomacy with Iran.   All the while Israel sending message after message while they watch the clock tick on that they cannot sit back and allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. 

Israel acting unilaterally against Iran would be disasterous as they cannot complete the job.   Iran throwing missiles out in response -- yeah, not so good for our troops in theater or our allies in Europe.   

Any nuclear attack on our ally affects us directly and must be responded to in kind.  You all know who will be doing the responding.  No action by the US?  are you kidding me right now?

Ahh, the "Because I wanna" theory.  They're "Allies," not "Us," and the "Ally" part of that is actually rather foggy with respect to their current enemies as opposed to the now-defunct USSR, nor is it supported by any real defense treaties, and it is also belied by our multiple attempts to be a "Neutral" party in trying to make peace deals between them and their assorted neighbors.  Lack of clarity in exactly what we would go to war over led directly to both the Korean War and Gulf I, so if we want to make anyone believe we would treat an attack on Israel as an attack on us, they're not going to be convinced unless we have a mutual defense treaty, which we don't.  What the Hell we'd really get out of that is a mystery except insofar as it cools any perceptions by the Arabs and Farsis that they can win if they are sneaky and devastating enough, and thus preserves an uneasy peace without pumping a lot of dangerous isotopes into the stratosphere, but at the cost of destroying any deniability we have for weird shit the Israeli government does since it would make us their full-on sponsor.
I'm not saying a US attack on Iran wouldn't happen, but it is by no means a foregone conclusion if they try to strike Israel.  I don't believe for a second we would use nukes in a preemptive attack on Iran prior ot them actually delivering some themselves, but I also don't think we want to be anywhere in the area if it comes down to an Israeli retaliatory strike.  Our troops in the area are an excellent reason why we don't want to see anyone popping nukes in either direction.
"But the Jooooos have never admitted to having nukes," some of you say.  I realize there is lots and lots of selective thinking about Israel on the right (Mostly "Pro" but then there's always guys like Gator who are stuck on "Implacable hatred"), but there isn't any real doubt about them having nuclear weapon manufacture and delivery capabilities, and that thanks in no small part to their black programs from espionage to plutonium theft conducted against us plus of course a lot of deviousness, black money, and plain old lying in their own "Peaceful" atomic power program.   

Tyrannies of Targeting

But despite these possible proximate reasons for the Israeli government giving the "go-ahead" for an attack on Bushehr before it is up and running, successfully dealing militarily with Iran's nuclear program is no small task. First, while Bushehr is certainly a key element in Iran's vast nuclear program, due to its ability to produce large amounts of bomb-worthy fissile material (i.e., plutonium) for weapons use, it is not the only element that needs to be addressed. To cripple -- or at least set back -- Iran's nuclear program, the IDF would have to hit other major sites: the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, the Arak heavy water facility and the Isfahan uranium conversion complex, plus, possibly, tens of other nuclear-related sites around the country. (The Iranians are also reportedly building a 40-megawatt research reactor at Arak, which, like Osirak, is too small for power production, but just right for the production of plutonium from its spent fuel, according to experts.)

There's also the tyranny of distance. Iran is a lot farther from Israel than Iraq -- and the targets are not conveniently clustered like at Osirak. They're spread across Iran -- a country nearly four times the size of California (or neighboring Iraq). Since key targets are out of range of Israel's ballistic missiles, the routing of strike packages would also present significant challenges. This raid would be more difficult that the Osirak raid in which IDF fighters slipped with impunity along the Jordanian and Saudi borders. Besides the most likely flight skirting Jordan and Saudi Arabia en route to Iran, IDF fighters could also go through or along the borders of Turkey (a friendly country) or Syria (a nonfriendly country), or a combination thereof, pushing flight routes of about 1,200 miles.

Secrecy would be a problem, too. While Israel has good operational security -- witness how much is still unknown about the Syrian raid -- an airstrike would require an armada of fighter, tanker, airborne early warning and electronic intelligence aircraft, which would light up radars across the region.

Even an uncoordinated, surprise Israeli air raid would likely quickly be known to others, especially the U.S., which "owns" the airspace in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf with its vast array of land, sea and air platforms and sensors. (Considering the geography, the possibility of unintended engagements between U.S. and Israeli forces almost eliminates the possibility of no notice being given to U.S. command authorities before a strike is launched.)

Many of the potential targets in the Iranian nuclear set, like the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, are also hardened, located near population centers and even buried as far down as 70 feet below ground. Plus, the Iranians are not likely to take this lying down. In addition to ground-based air defenses, including SA-5s and I-Hawk, the Iranian Air Force will throw an assortment of aging air assets at the Israelis, including MiG-29s, Su-24/25s, F-14s, F-4s, F-5s, F-7s and F-1s.

Moreover, an Israeli strike would severely complicate regional politics, especially for the U.S., which is (incorrectly) seen as Israel's handler. An attack by the Jewish state on a Muslim country, even troublesome Iran, would not be taken well at all in the region, especially on the "street." The situation would be further exacerbated, especially in some quarters of Iraq, if it were perceived -- or it were actually the case -- that the U.S. allowed the IDF to use parts of Iraqi airspace for, or turned a blind eye to, an attack on neighboring Iran.

Mission Impossible?

While these challenges to an IDF preventive strike against Iranian nuclear targets are significant, the mission, if embarked upon by Israel as a matter of national security, could be a success. The Israelis could advise the Americans of the strike in advance, allowing the two sides to deconflict their forces and providing a degree of freedom of movement in the gulf area for the IDF to operate if Washington supported the effort. Regional Arab states likely would not intervene, even if they became aware of the raid in progress. But they would protest vociferously after the strike, while privately breathing a sigh of relief, considering concerns surrounding an ascendant Iran.

Depending on the level of tactical engagement with the Iranians, the Israeli fighters, especially the F-15s, have the range to hit key targets. Precision-guided and penetration weapons such as JDAMs would likely be effective against hardened and buried targets. Nukes -- as some have suggested -- would not be necessary. But, the distances involved could limit the loiter time of Israeli fighters for dealing with emerging targets, especially those that might be involved in a counterstrike against Israel, such as Shahab-class road-mobile ballistic missiles. Of course, Israel's small fleet of cruise missile-capable, Dolphin-class diesel submarines, deployed to the Persian Gulf, could play an important role in a strike, especially against Bushehr in southern Iran. Israeli commandos could also play a role.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed021208c.cfm

The short of it is, Israel may pull it off with our assistance, but why they hell would we want them to do that when we know we can get the job done and done right/thoroughly without their involvement?   Israel attacking an Arab nation at that magnitude brings a whole lot of fallout that will greatly affect the global economy.  The US with our European allies doing it (Great Britian, perhaps France) we will get the squawking from the UN, the half assed protests from Arab nations, the imperialist bullsh%t from the DU and Paul fanatics, and meh -- it will pass.   

Israel goes alone with US assistance of air space use, refueling and rescue support -- we cross our fingers they get the job done, and brace for the retaliation bombing strikes from Iran to our troops in theater and key European targets if Israel fails.    No way we take that chance.  We don't need a ridiculous cobweb covered treaty to figure out where we stand in this equation.

GWB has told Israel to cool their heels.   They aren't going to do so for long.

[Crazy Horse]

Unless something changes we won't attack Iran............If Iran attacks Isreal we will respond, Iran currently attacks Isreal with rockets it provides Dhimmie's friends Hamas, but if Iran attacked we would intervene. If Isreal attacks, we would have a stand off approach..............hell Isreal took out the place in Syria and the Syrians first said the IDF AF dropped their tanks and ran when lit up...............we know that not to be true and it looks as if the Isrealies fooled em and ****ed em up

[formerlurker]

Unless something changes we won't attack Iran............If Iran attacks Isreal we will respond, Iran currently attacks Isreal with rockets it provides Dhimmie's friends Hamas, but if Iran attacked we would intervene. If Isreal attacks, we would have a stand off approach..............hell Isreal took out the place in Syria and the Syrians first said the IDF AF dropped their tanks and ran when lit up...............we know that not to be true and it looks as if the Isrealies fooled em and ****ed em up

You can't fly stealth when a tanker is pulling you.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The short of it is, Israel may pull it off with our assistance, but why they hell would we want them to do that when we know we can get the job done and done right/thoroughly without their involvement?   Israel attacking an Arab nation at that magnitude brings a whole lot of fallout that will greatly affect the global economy.  The US with our European allies doing it (Great Britian, perhaps France) we will get the squawking from the UN, the half assed protests from Arab nations, the imperialist bullsh%t from the DU and Paul fanatics, and meh -- it will pass.   

Israel goes alone with US assistance of air space use, refueling and rescue support -- we cross our fingers they get the job done, and brace for the retaliation bombing strikes from Iran to our troops in theater and key European targets if Israel fails.    No way we take that chance.  We don't need a ridiculous cobweb covered treaty to figure out where we stand in this equation.

GWB has told Israel to cool their heels.   They aren't going to do so for long.

Israel hauling its own water on this makes small beer as to how Israel is perceived outside the US, and substituting us for them does nothing positive for the "us" part of that equation, yeah, what a great idea.

[formerlurker]

The short of it is, Israel may pull it off with our assistance, but why they hell would we want them to do that when we know we can get the job done and done right/thoroughly without their involvement?   Israel attacking an Arab nation at that magnitude brings a whole lot of fallout that will greatly affect the global economy.  The US with our European allies doing it (Great Britian, perhaps France) we will get the squawking from the UN, the half assed protests from Arab nations, the imperialist bullsh%t from the DU and Paul fanatics, and meh -- it will pass.   

Israel goes alone with US assistance of air space use, refueling and rescue support -- we cross our fingers they get the job done, and brace for the retaliation bombing strikes from Iran to our troops in theater and key European targets if Israel fails.    No way we take that chance.  We don't need a ridiculous cobweb covered treaty to figure out where we stand in this equation.

GWB has told Israel to cool their heels.   They aren't going to do so for long.

Israel hauling its own water on this makes small beer as to how Israel is perceived outside the US, and substituting us for them does nothing positive for the "us" part of that equation, yeah, what a great idea.

I had no idea we made decisions based on how we are perceived by the world.   The article I posted is a great one and pretty much addresses my position that Arab countries for the most part will be fine with it after their initial half-hearted squawking .  Israel attacking however -- not so much.   Our problem is that they can't do it without us anyway (oh no!!  Germany will really hate us then!  <---- come on!), and Israel really can't do the job right which will place our interests in a dire position. 

We do it with our allies.  Israel stays home.   The bad feelings within the Arab community will be over before they start.   Ron Paul gets more material for the 2012 presidential elections.......

Imperalist bastards!