backtop


Print 108 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Apr 13 at 3:22 PM


The Arrow missile, seen here during its launch, successfully intercepted a ballistic missile that simulated Iran's most advanced possible future warhead. Israel says it's ready to shoot down nukes and traditional missiles from Iran and others.  (Source: AP)
"Bring it on," says Israel

While the 90s saw a time of relative peace, with the Iraq war and the escalate tensions with Iran, Israel is staying alert and preparing for any kind of assault.  The Israeli Air Force just wrapped up the 17th test of its new missile defense system and is confident that it can now shoot down any ballistic nuclear missiles that Iran or others could shoot at it.

The Palmahim Base launched an Arrow interceptor at a Blue Sparrow Missile, fired from an F-15 fighter jet.  The missile was designed to mimic an Iranian Shihab 3 missile, the kind of missile that Israel expects Iran to potentially use as a nuclear weapon delivery platform.  The Blue Sparrow has a split warhead and advanced radar-evading capabilities.  While the Shihab 3 ballistic missile currently lacks these capabilities, it is believed that Iran is working to develop them.  The test was jointly conducted by the IAF and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

An integral part of the new missile defense system is its new Green Pine radar system.  This highly accurate radar system was deployed to the Negev Desert in 2008.

Brig.-Gen. Daniel Milo, commander of the IAF's Air Defense Division said that the test's success, despite poor visibility, was a testament to the readiness of the country's missile defense program.  He states, "The Arrow technology is always improving, and we cannot forget that the enemy is also advancing with its capabilities."

It is unclear how well the system will work against Iran's latest missile, though -- the Sajjil.  The Sajjil is Iran's first solid fuel rocket.  Solid fuel allows the rocket to have a much greater accuracy than the previous liquid designs.  The missile has a range of 2,000 km.  Iran also has a stockpile of several BM25 intercontinental missiles which it purchased four or more years ago from North Korea.

The Arrow is also exceptionally effective against the Syrian Scud D, which is capable of delivering traditional and nontraditional payloads to anywhere in Israel.  Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the test "another achievement for Israel on its way to obtaining a multi-level missile defense system, starting with the Iron Dome to defend against short-range rockets, and to the Arrow."

The Israel missile defense system helps provide valuable test data to help the U.S. develop and improve its own missile shield.  The U.S., like Israel, claims its missile defense shield to be active and ready to destroy any nuclear threat.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By therealnickdanger on 4/9/2009 9:44:26 AM , Rating: 5
What's so stupid is that there are millions of Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Anglos, Africans, etc. all living peacefully within Israel's borders. Suicide bombers and rocket attacks from the outside kill all of the above, yet the press tells us that it's "Juden VS All".

If Iran is smart, and it isn't, it won't so much as fart in Israel's direction. Tehran will be a crater.




RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By smackababy on 4/9/2009 9:49:19 AM , Rating: 5
I still don't see why countries mess with Israel. They hold their own against all odds, and kick butt doing it. Not a country I'd mess with.


By lukasbradley on 4/9/2009 10:18:09 AM , Rating: 5
If Israel operated in a vacuum, your point might be valid.

However, Israel does not operate in a vacuum. The Arrow missile was funded almost completely by the United States starting in the late 80s. The missile was fired from an F-15, which was also donated as a part of US aid. The vast majority of Israel's military technological prowess is a direct result of the donations from countries.

The United States reacted with great vigor at Cuba being armed by the USSR. Other middle eastern nations have had the same concern at Israel's bolstered status.

I'm not condoning anything here. What I'm trying to elicit is the situation is much, much more complex than Country A defending itself from evil Country B.


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By omnicronx on 4/9/2009 10:31:36 AM , Rating: 3
Israel buys most of its weapons from the US, they are not merely given away. They have a huge budget for a country of their size, mainly from the millions upon millions of dollars in donations from Jews in the US and around the world. Not to mention even if other Middle eastern countries gain nuclear capabilities, they will still have a larger stockpile than all middle eastern countries combined for a long time. They also have a large amount of highly trained ground forces, as all citizens over the age of 18 must serve a minimum of 3 years for men, and 2 years for woman.

As the OP said, Israel is not a country to mess with, if backed into a corner, they could turn pretty much any middle eastern nation into a crater.


By lukasbradley on 4/9/2009 10:42:38 AM , Rating: 2
Drastically incorrect. The majority of US arms are received as grants. The loan component of the FMF was phased out years ago.


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By omnicronx on 4/9/2009 1:02:32 PM , Rating: 5
Military Aid from the US only accounts for 20% of their annual military spending, they bought 6 billion dollars worth of arms from the US during the first five years of the Bush administration alone, not to mention the billions of dollars in contracts with US weapons manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon(they manufacture Tomahawk and sidewinder missiles) and Boeing.

Furthermore only 70% of the US aid is spent on US weaponry.
If you think the majority of their weaponry is paid for with US tax dollars, you would be wrong.


By lukasbradley on 4/9/2009 5:25:06 PM , Rating: 1
You are perverting statistics, and what I stated. Please explain the US$14.516B of grants and financing through the Foreign Military Financing program during the 2001-2005 years and how it relates to the US$6B in purchases.

If you have trouble in doing so, I can help you understand it.


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By Joz on 4/9/2009 10:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
While you are technicaly correct in some aspects, currently Israel devolops and uses more if its own technology.
A small list would be:
Merkava tank
Galil
Travor
Desert Eagle
Jericho
GALAT'Z
Uzi (and all its lovely lovely lovely differnt forms.)
Corner Shot
Several flavors of automated and remote control weapons platforms for ships, tanks and other sea/land vehicles.

Personaly, my favorites are the Merkava, Travor and the Corner Shot.


By therealnickdanger on 4/9/2009 10:43:10 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not nit-picking your list, I'm just sharing this because I just learned this over the weekend:

The Desert Eagle is and always has been invented/designed right here in Minneapolis by Magnum Research. All DEs used to be manufactured in Israel, but that contract recently ended and they will soon no longer build them. This according to a Magnum Research rep at a gun show I just went to. (I also fired the deagle while I was there - awesome!)


By lukasbradley on 4/9/2009 10:45:05 AM , Rating: 1
I never insinuated all of their military technology is acquired from foreign sources.

However, I find it funny that most of your examples are arms either designed by US companies or as join ventures with US companies.


By Joz on 4/9/2009 12:14:25 PM , Rating: 3
Not to nitpick you guys, but most of the stuff I listed is primarly developed in Israel, sometime is devoloped in copperation with other nations and companies, and some of it is requested in design by Israel. But otherwise, they are Isareli designed/used or otherwise exlusively contracted by Israel.

And please, dont insult me by saying "so and so" and "such and such" I served two years voulunteer duty in the IDF, varius rolls.


By Chillin1248 on 4/9/2009 5:26:58 PM , Rating: 3
Many yes.

As a IDF soldier I personally find that my favorite/reliable weapons are made by the U.S.A.; M4A1, M24, M240 and HMWWV... Scratch the last one.

-------
Chillin


By Yaron on 4/10/2009 5:27:40 AM , Rating: 2
Shalom shalom
Just for kicks :)

You still in the army or in reserve?


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By Chaser on 4/9/2009 4:01:25 PM , Rating: 3
Israel wants to live in peace and be left alone. But sadly that doesn't happen. Rocket launches daily from Gaza mostly is a sad reality that rarely gets reported by most news agencies.
quote:
The United States reacted with great vigor at Cuba being armed by the USSR. Other middle eastern nations have had the same concern at Israel's bolstered status.

What?


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By andrinoaa on 4/9/2009 4:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad the Palestinians had to ruin the party. How dare they want recognition of their plite! How dare they want to go back to their parents homes and olive groves, yes how dare they! The irony is that over the past 60yrs , so much money and energy has been wasted in fighting. Imagine if the Palestinians were compensated and included, how much we ALL could have saved. What a bloody waste it has been and looks to be for the forseeable future. Yes "Mondo Cane" !


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By Goty on 4/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By Mk4ever on 4/9/2009 9:11:43 PM , Rating: 3
???

I don't know what kind of sources may give or lead you to such conclusions, but I ask you, please read a lot more about the issue you are talking about before posting.


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By Goty on 4/10/2009 12:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
I've done plenty of research. Israel was formed out of the British Mandate of Palestine, which was simply land parceled out to Britain by the League of Nations after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following WWI. "Palestine", as the region between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River was called, became Israel (an Arab majority state) and the Transjordan became the country of Jordan. So, the land you claim was a Palestinian state went through three distinct phases in the last century: First it was part of the Ottoman Empire, then it was a British territory, and then it became the free state of Israel.

Now, where exactly in that entire century was Israel EVER a Palestinian state? "Palestinians" only exist because they are the people who inhabited the geographical region known as Palestine and decided to not call themselves Israelites after the state they lived in was dissolved following WWI.


By Chaser on 4/10/2009 9:00:47 AM , Rating: 2
Reality check. Thank you.


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By Wierdo on 4/10/2009 12:28:03 PM , Rating: 4
Palestine always existed as a land where Arab muslims, christins, and jews co-existed. The european jews came in with major external funds and bought land from the native farmers, then they excluded the local populations from their industries, which caused friction. It's like if rich mexicans came to Texas during the depression, bought all the land and then treated Non-mexican Texans like N*'s.

But that's that past, the current problem is that the Israeli goverment currently consists of only right (two-state solution, and ethnic cleansing to move Israeli Arabs into the second state) and extreme right (no two state solution and more land grabs) so that means we'll be subsidizing them for perpetual regional instability for another generation at least.


By Guttersnipe on 4/12/2009 2:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
wishful thinking, it was a place where from time to time they'd mob and kill each other. its why jews banded together to form protective militias which were the seeds of the future military forces during the first war.

as for the rest...the muslims can talk about israel with less hypocrisy when they give the kurds their own state. right now the turks, iranians, iraqis don't even mention a word about a two state solution. it is how it is when only things matter when jews are involved.


By smitty3268 on 4/10/2009 12:06:29 AM , Rating: 4
So if the government came and bulldozed your house down, then gave the land to some wealthy Muslims to build a new house, you'd be fine with that?

I mean, it's not your land. Eminent domain says that it's the governments land. You didn't lose anything, you never owned it because the government says you didn't.

Seriously, now, there's a lot of bullshit going on in the middle east. People on both sides see it as their sacred duty to drive out the other side and reclaim their holy land. We've sided with Israel in the conflict because they're more Westernized and more similar to us. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not try to pretend that the situation is simpler than it really is. Nothing is ever black and white.


By codeThug on 4/9/2009 10:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not a country I'd mess with.


No doubt...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-z_00M3Bro&feature...


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By penumbra on 4/9/2009 10:40:06 AM , Rating: 1
Jeez, no wonder no one got a 5 in this post.
Ballistic missiles are as old as World War 2. Hitler had them. The thing is, even a traditional air defence radar can track them and we know from projectile/ ballistic motion that if an object starts at one point, where it would be at time "T". so its very easy to track it down. Plus, Ballistic missiles are easier to shoot down if they are still in the first half of their flight, i.e. still rising up while the rate of change of velocity going down. Once it turns at it's maximum height and starts to increase velocity it becomes difficult to shoot and track it down.

But my question is, what if Iran gets cruise missiles, even, subsonic ones, Their Radar can't detect it can it?


By stromgald30 on 4/9/2009 4:55:24 PM , Rating: 3
Ballistic missiles are old, but they're still around. Why? Because they're cheap and they work well enough. Tracking one is easy, but shooting it down isn't. Even on ascent and at its peak, you're still trying to hit something moving very, very fast. Cruise missiles are easier to shoot down because they're relatively slow.

I'm not sure why you think Israel's radar wouldn't be able to track cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are basically just like a small UAV filled with ordnance. They wouldn't be hard to detect unless they are 1) stealth or 2) hide in the ground clutter. Considering Iran's level of tech, I don't think 1 is possible. As for 2, it depends on Israel's radar systems vs. Iran's terrain following technology. Personally, I'd bet on Israel.


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By penumbra on 4/9/2009 5:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
As far as i know, a high level air force radar can easily track down a ballistic missile in its trajectory rather than their flight. For example, Pakistan main ballistic missiles with ranges upto 4500km and beyond are 2m in diameter and more than 12 m long. Thats a pretty big cross section. Once your radar tracks it, all you need is a highly mobile SAM to take radar's guidance and shoot the ballistic missile down.
I don't even know why they are afraid of Iran. Just another cause to Pursue their own nuclear weapons. USA and Israel can have them, but muslims nations can't. right.
I can proudly say Pakistan has them, and unlike Israel who wanted to bomb our program in 1988, and they couldn't do it because they knew any aircraft won't survive the return journey. Pakistan stated in 1996 we have abandoned nuclear weapons program. 1997 CIA publishes report to confirm that. 1998 Pakistan conducts 5 nuclear "Hot Tests". Again, Israel wanted to bomb Pakistani nuclear program with help from Indian airbases. F-16s lying around on Indian Airbases, when they don't have any, meant Israel was ready. But then again cowards couldn't do it. So now the moral of the story is, muslims are not gonna be deprived of nuclear weapons. Israel itself well and truly knows, if they meddle with us we can literally wipe them out. I don't even think that Iran is a threat.

The thing you said about cruise missiles, well the Pakistani ones are terrain hugging tested to avoid radar at subsonic speeds for upto 600km, submarine and air launched.
A radar has tracking range in shape of a inverted cone (Pointed side down, maximum area at top). hence if you can guide the cruise missile around that vacuum of tracking, basically it's evading the radar.

Last there is the question of multiple trackings for Ballistic missiles, as Iran may send in decoys. You can't tell which one is loaded.


By stromgald30 on 4/9/2009 6:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't even know why they are afraid of Iran. Just another cause to Pursue their own nuclear weapons. USA and Israel can have them, but muslims nations can't.
quote:
But then again cowards couldn't do it. So now the moral of the story is, muslims are not gonna be deprived of nuclear weapons.

Despite what you may think, the US and UN opposition to nations having nuclear arms has nothing to do with religion. I could care less if a Muslim country has nuclear weapons. I do have a problem with countries controlled by stupid governments fixated on their own petty little issues having nuclear weapons because they're most likely to use them. And IMO, the little stunt pulled by both Pakistan and India in 1998 falls in that category of 'stupid'. I'd be much happier if both countries didn't have nuclear weapons.

In addition, the US is NOT pursuing any more nuclear weapons. There are plenty stockpiled in Russia and the US that no more nuclear weapons are being developed by either side.

Israel acts out of fear most of the time and that's the problem. Your comment of F-16s on Indian airbases just shows what lengths India was willing to go to take out Pakistan's nuclear capability. I don't think it reflects much on Israel or the US. F-16s are generally interceptors, not attack bombers. If Israel truly wanted to bomb Pakistan, they'd have done it themselves using F-15s flying from Israel, not F-16s based in India.

A regular SAM can not shoot down a ballistic missile. It's like trying to hit a bullet with another bullet. The size and cross-section only affects detection, not the ability to shoot it down. Sure, SAMs have some maneuverability and tracking, but the accuracy required is still more than what the SAMs that China, Russia, India, or Pakistan are capable of.

Radar is not as simple as you seem to make it. If the terrain is relatively flat, radar towers can be used. There are also AWACS planes whose radars point downward to see ground hugging cruise missiles. Of course, you get a lot of radar reflection from the trees, buildings, etc. on the ground, but good radars can pick out an object moving at 200+mph along the ground.

Yes, Iran could send decoys, and there's really no solution to the decoys other than maybe detecting differences in thermal signatures or just shooting all of them down.


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By penumbra on 4/10/2009 12:31:49 AM , Rating: 2
What utter nonsense.

In 1988 it was USA who stopped Israel from taking action against the Pakistani research. Because Pakistan was running the covert war and raising freedom fighters for the USA to fight off the Soviets from Afghanistan, which they did. Same freedom fighters that USA raised that you now call terrorists.
As i have mentioned earlier, the only reason for wars is that USA and Israel see an apparent threat and then go after it. After all it employs millions of people directly and indirectly.

Lastly, even if Israel Fighers, f-15 or f-16, came into Pakistan at Mach 2.0 speeds, do you think they would make it back alive? So you think we would wait and get bombed while our Mirages, F-16s and f-7s just watch the show? Nice man...keep dreaming.

I think i will refrain from posting here as only the Jews are spamming here. Being proud of a country that i am very proudly saying that i don't recognize neither would ever do.

Even if Ahmadinejad said something of wiping Israel out, his supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei didn't agree. But Israel went in front of the world asking for sympathy and nothing else. You seriously need to get over what happened in WWII. What Israel is doing now in Gaza is no different. So why should it feel safe?

And China has the capability to shoot down satellites...and so pretty much the ballistic missiles.
And about Russia...they have the S-400 which you can read here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400

its just a matter of time before these come in hands of India and Pakistan.

So keep on dreaming....oh maybe you were laid off with a pink slip or some Brown man from South Asia took away your job and your girl.

jeezz.


By stromgald30 on 4/10/2009 3:23:09 AM , Rating: 2
Did you not even read my post? Your first few paragraphs somewhat agree with what I said or miss the point completely.

I said that if Israel wanted to bomb Pakistan, they would. Sure, the US would strongly advise against that, but why would they base F-16s in India for that? Your earlier point about possible Israeli F-16s striking from India doesn't make sense.

I'm sure if it did happen, Pakistan wouldn't stand idly by. I never said Pakistan would. I said that Israel could strike at specific targets in Pakistan if they wanted to. For that matter, they could probably do that, technologically speaking, to any other country except maybe Russia and the US.

China's demonstration means very little. A satellite has a very well known flight path. China invested weeks of analysis and calculations on the flight path to make sure it worked. Hitting a missile that was launched less than 15 minutes ago is a different story.

OK, I admit, I was wrong about the Russia's capabilities. They had only developed it in 2004, and I haven't kept close enough track of all their new developments.

Your pathetic attack on me just shows that you're running out of arguments. Next time, put up some facts instead of resorting to ad hominem.


By Felofasofa on 4/10/2009 4:18:40 AM , Rating: 2
That S-400 Wiki link is pretty funny. Most capability of Russian hardware is grossly overstated, usually by Western Media encouraged by our military. Films like Hunt for Red October don't help. Silent propulsion blah blah, when in reality the Russians are yet to perfect a SLBM system even today. The Russians themselves have absolutely no confidence in most of their systems, only we did.


By beerhound on 4/11/2009 3:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
Just a small correction. F-16 most definitely are used in an attack role. In fact they are used more often in a ground attack roll than in air to air. For the type of mission mentioned above (blowing up a nuke facility) the configuration would depend on how far they needed to fly and if they had tanker support. If it can fly the mission on internal fuel (about 1000 US gal for the 1 seat or 800 for the 2 seat) or have tanker support, then they would most likely carry 2 2000lb bombs under each wing. If they need to carry drop tanks, then it would be 1 bomb under each wing.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/10/2009 12:30:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So now the moral of the story is, muslims are not gonna be deprived of nuclear weapons. Israel itself well and truly knows, if they meddle with us we can literally wipe them out . I don't even think that Iran is a threat.


As an American, I want to thank you for helping dispel the idea that you're all a bunch of crazies looking to get your hands on nukes so you can wipe out your ancient enemies...

Oh wait, nevermind. Thanks for nothing !


By Clairvoyance on 4/11/2009 3:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
The only reason ballistic missiles are still around is because politics prevented the development and deployment of technology to counter them. The inherent weaknesses of ballistic missiles (highly visible, easily predictable trajectory) and the principles of exploiting them are well known. The US has been intercepting ballistic missiles since the '60s. The Soviet Union built an operational ABM system around Moscow in the '70s. But it was politics, not practicality, that retarded ABM development, and thus gave the ICBM a several decades undeserved extension on life.

Cruise missiles are actually quite difficult to intercept. A radar on a 100ft mast has a radar horizon of about 45 km against a cruise missile flying at 100ft AGL. You need AWACS and fighters with advanced radars to reliably defend against low flying targets. The only reason it seems easy is because we've invested a lot into technology designed to do just that - the same systems effective against low flying aircraft are also effective against a small, suicidal unmanned low flying aircraft.

Conversely, the only reason intercepting ballistic missiles seems hard is because our defense systems built in the past decades are optimized for aircraft - comparatively slow, low altitude, and highly maneuverable. You need the opposite for ballistic missiles: large, high energy, very fast interceptors; maneuverability optional. Compare PAC-2 to PAC-3, SM-2 to SM-3 or 9M96 to 48N6E2. Very different missiles for very different roles, fired from similar platforms.

Only now has development begun again on ABM (and even now political obstacles still exist). Once ABM widely proliferates - barring politics, if you have a space program, you also have ABM - expect ballistic missiles to go the way of obsolete. All of the tactics and evolving technology that bombers and cruise missiles use in their arms race with defenses: low altitude penetration, evasion, armed penetration, electronic warfare, stealth; are not available to ballistic missiles.
The most significant challenge in shooting down ballistic missiles was not their extremely high speed, but the political barrier. Once this is gone, BMs don't have a prayer.

Before anyone says MIRVs or decoys:

MIRV technology was always a cost reduction measure. The infrastructure required to support, protect, and most importantly, control an ICBM is hugely expensive. Hardened silos, operations and maintenance crews, and C3I costs a lot. Coupled with treaties that limit numbers of missiles, it just makes sense to load up more relatively cheap warheads and get the most out of the big money you've already spent.
A MIRV bus is quite vulnerable - since warheads are unpowered, and the bus itself has only enough fuel to reposition itself between warhead separations, it's quite the basket with many eggs in it. Remember, the warheads only have a rather narrow window in which they must separate if they are to hit their targets. Too soon or too late and they'll miss. MIRVs were only viable in the absence of ABM.

Decoys are a dumb idea that's never been really taken seriously. It may be possible to use radar reflective surfaces to give an object a larger RCS. It may be possible to give it a power source to increase its thermal signature. And it's also theoretically possible to precisely engineer these features to resemble an actual warhead. But you also need the decoy to have the same approximate mass as the real warheads, or else their trajectories will be easily distinguishable. At this point... why not just add another warhead? Every decoy you put on your missile is one warhead the enemy just destroyed without ever firing a shot.


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By DASQ on 4/9/2009 10:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
Well they didn't really kick much butt in Lebanon now did they.


By MrBungle123 on 4/9/2009 11:03:08 AM , Rating: 3
Israel like the US often pulls its punches.


By HyrcanusSparta on 4/9/2009 11:31:41 AM , Rating: 1
For sure.

Instead of working on missiles or lasers to intercept missiles,

you could issue a warning to iran,hizbollah,hamas to stay indoors and use lasers to blind everyone in the open.

Why would they be there if they aren't sighting a weapon?

Arabs and iranians don't have the minds to comprehend what could be done to them.


By Fallen Kell on 4/9/2009 3:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
The only problem with that is that blinding weapons are banned by inter-national conventions and are punishable as war crimes by the criminal courts in Hague.

Some weapons that could blind are not necessarily banned, but usage is restricted, such as white phosphorus in urban areas (a complaint filed against Israel during recent actions).


By aegisofrime on 4/9/2009 11:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting that you should say that. I just watched "The Last King of Scotland", and I learned about Operation Entebbe from watching that film.

Only Israel will have the balls to send their military to a foreign country to rescue fellow countrymen held hostage by Palestinian terrorists, potentially violating another country' sovereignty, AND preparing for the likelihood of said country's military retaliating. Amazing stuff.


By retrospooty on 4/9/2009 10:07:50 AM , Rating: 1
"If Iran is smart, and it isn't, it won't so much as fart in Israel's direction. Tehran will be a crater. "

Yup... You dont mess with the Zohan. =)

But seriously... Correct - Iran will be a crater. Israel is like the kid who got picked on through grade school, then when he got older, and was big enough to defend himself, flips out and over-reacts to any slight insult and beats people to a pulp. the moral - stay the helll away from that dude...


By PitViper007 on 4/9/2009 11:12:00 AM , Rating: 4
Actually, I think Israel is pretty restrained in its responses concidering the provocation it gets constantly.


By aegisofrime on 4/9/2009 11:27:09 AM , Rating: 5
Agreed. But look at it from Israel's point of view. They are surrounded by countries populated by people who really hate them and have in the past actually tried to destroy them, but failed. And of course we have the holocaust. This is really Rambo/Chuck Norris/Insert random hero that's backed into a corner. If you want to take Israel out, they are going to destroy you ten times over first.


By retrospooty on 4/9/2009 11:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely right... more reason not to mess with them. Iran cant handle them, much less us.


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By andrinoaa on 4/9/2009 4:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
Just because they are phsycho, doesn't give them license to do as they please. Some day the chickens will come home to roost. Karma is a powerful force. Oldies say " live buy the sword, die by the sword". History is littered with "little empires". Thats one reason powerful weapons in the hands of men is always asking for it. It may not be today or 1000yrs hence, but it comes around.


By Spuke on 4/9/2009 5:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because they are phsycho, doesn't give them license to do as they please.
So it's ok for the other countries to launch rockets and suicide bombers into Israel but Israel's occasional retaliations are "chickens will come home to roost"? I would say YOU are the one that's psycho.


By majorpain on 4/9/2009 10:16:26 AM , Rating: 2
History will tell so...


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By 85 on 4/9/09, Rating: -1
By Spuke on 4/9/2009 5:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what you forget is that pres Ahmadinejad
I believe that most of what he says is rhetoric to appease the radicals in his country. Besides, he's a politician and you know how they are. Anything for a vote.


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By abzillah on 4/9/2009 6:10:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What's so stupid is that there are millions of Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Anglos, Africans, etc. all living peacefully within Israel's borders.


I would love it if Isreal would allows these others, (muslims, arabs, anglos, africans, etc) to hold political office.


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By Yaron on 4/10/2009 5:41:26 AM , Rating: 3
Israel does allow them to hold political offices.

There are are arab muslim parliament members and cabinet ministers. There are Muslim Doctors, Lawyers, Judges and soldiers / officers in the Israeli army as well. In fact, there are battalions of Arab muslims and Druz in the Israeli army - and they are very good warriors in fact. I know, I served with some of them.

Why did you think we do not allow them to participate in normal life activities?

As for Africans - well, about 20 years ago there was a considerable arrival of Jews from Ethiopia - their younger generation is already pretty well integrated into the Israeli society (army, civilian, government). In the last few years there has been a growing torrent of Sudanese arriving here fleeing from Darfur. They cross through Egypt into Israel and they like Israel a lot (duh!). Most of them are Muslim by the way. It will take for them quite some time to integrate though - the world they are coming from is very different from Israel.

Regarding Anglos - I assume you are referring to people from the UK and US - if so, they have the easiest time of all integrating into our country and they are deeply involved in every level you can imagine.

enough said :)


RE: Upcoming real estate investment opportunity
By abzillah on 4/10/2009 11:30:08 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Isra...

quote:
Arab political parties

[edit] The legal status of Arab political parties

Amendment 9 to the 'Basic Law: The Knesset and the Law of Political Parties', states that a political party "may not participate in the elections if there is in its goals or actions a denial of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people, a denial of the democratic nature of the state, or incitement to racism."[126][127] Although Arab parties have been repeatedly banned under this legislation, those bans have been overturned by the Supreme Court and the only party currently banned is the right-wing Jewish Kach party.[128]

An Israeli Central Elections Committee ruling which allowed the Progressive List for Peace to run for the Knesset in 1988 was challenged based on this amendment, but the committee's decision was upheld by the Israeli Supreme Court, which ruled that the PLP's platform calling for Israel to become "a state of all its citizens" does not violate the ideology of Israel as the State of the Jewish people, and thus section 7(a) does not apply.[129]

In December 2002, Azmi Bishara and his party, Balad, which calls for Israel to become "a state of all its citizens," were banned by the Israeli Central Elections Committee, for refusing to recognize Israel as a "Jewish democratic state"[130] and making statements promoting armed struggle against it. The Supreme Court overruled the decision in January 2003.[131] When, in December 2005, Bishara told an audience in Lebanon that Arab citizens "[...]are like all Arabs, only with Israeli citizenship forced upon them [...] Return Palestine to us and take your democracy with you. We Arabs are not interested in it,"[132] this was denial of the democratic nature of the state once more.

In 2009, the Israeli Central Elections Committee banned two Arab parties from running in upcoming parliamentary elections. [133]Arab MKs charged that the ban was motivated by anti-Arab racism while the CEC accused the Arab parties of incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. The ban was later overturned by the Israeli Supreme Court. [134]


By Yaron on 4/10/2009 1:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
Pfffff.... you are sending me wikipedia links?!
It is my country you clown...

There are Arab muslim parliamentary members as we speak and have been for many many years. In the last Israeli government there was an arab muslim minister.

As to the political parties that where rejected by the election comity - well, when you go to Lebanon to meet with Hizballah representatives - the Nazis who declare that they want to destroy the country you are representing, when your party leader (Mr. Azmi Bishara) is a de-facto spy for Iran & Syria, when you go to Syria (an enemy country) and meet with their security officials - what do you think should happen to the party you represent? what do expect that country to do? what would any country do? why shouldn't we just allow them to place Nazi flags on our parliament building?

You think Hizballah are not Nazis? Think again:
http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/hezbollah_salute.jpg
http://www.cornermark.com/hiddenfolder/enemies/hez...
http://www.jewcy.com/files/images/Hizballah.mid-si...

I remind all readers - these are the guys that are fully supported by Iran and Syria... yeah, it's "just" a way to salute... whatever.

The most ridiculous thing of all is that the only country in the middle east where Arabs can live in a democracy without being oppressed is.... Israel. The only country that they can criticize, mock, spit on, curse and talk freely about it's problems without being sent to jail, tortured and murdered by the regime is... Israel.

But there must be some red lines and when they go meet with our sworn enemies that call for our destruction that red line is broken. Then when we try and react, our supreme court protects their rights. But this is the meaning of democracy... isn't it?

I am dying to see an arab standing in the middle of Damascus and cursing the Syrian president, burning his picture. Then I want to see him go about freely without being arrested, tortured and murdered. Then we can speak about Israel.

Your turn dumbass.


great
By NeoConned08 on 4/9/2009 10:15:22 AM , Rating: 3
So now maybe pre-emptively attacking Iran, who is the 4th largest exporter of petroleum on this planet, won't occur. That probably wouldn't be very good with the current state of economic affairs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Prolifera...

Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has not.

"The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, and is continuing its work on verifying the absence of undeclared activities. As recently as October 2007, IAEA Director General ElBaradei reported that IAEA inspections had not found any evidence that Iran was making nuclear weapons. Russia further said in November 2007 that it had not seen any evidence of Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon. In February 2008, the IAEA reported that all declared nuclear material remained accounted for."

So basically, all the experts say that Iran is NOT building a bomb. The propaganda you see being spewed forth from the television is the EXACT same thing that was done for Gulf of Tonkin, WMD's in Iraq and most of the previous wars we have been involved in. Judging from our track record I'm pretty sure years from now it will come out that oh....Iran really wasn't trying to make a bomb. As for them making a bomb, they have a neighbor (Israel) who has shown that it can be very aggressive and WILL target civilians according to their very own troops:

http://www.miamiherald.com/457/story/960764.html

''We were supposed to go in with an armored vehicle called an Ahzarit, break into the door and start to shoot inside and simply go up floor by floor. . . . I call this murder . . . to go up floor by floor and every person that we see we were to shoot,'' he said. ''Aviv'' served as a squad leader with the Givati unit in the Gaza neighborhood of Zeitoun.

Scores of Palestinians were treated at Gaza hospitals for burns that may have come from shells containing white phosphorus, illegal in heavily populated areas. The issue came up only briefly at the conference, when a sergeant, identified as Yossi, said, ``There was a lot of use of white phosphorous.''

If I were in Iran's position I would probably try to build a nuke. They have India and Pakistan near them who have nukes as well, neither of which have signed the NPT either. So to expect Iran to just sit there and not desire a right to defend itself from attacks just doesn't make very much sense to me viewing it from their perspective. Again however, all the facts to date show that they are not building a nuke.

There are more Jews living in Iran than anywhere else in the entire Middle East outside of Israel.

There isn't any suicide bombing going on in Iran and Iraq never had any suicide bombers in its entire history until after we invaded them.
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=6712

What I don't get is the people who unilaterally support Israel (even if it has committed war crimes)can't seem to grasp that the conflict between her and the rest of the Arab world isn't any of our business. We provide Israel's *enemies* with 3 times the amount of foreign aid that we provide to Israel. How is this beneficial?

Regardless of what anyone thinks our support for Israel is going to cease at some point because we no longer have the funds necessary to do so. We also do not have the Constitutional authority to funnel weapons/foreign aid to any country.

All the facts point to our blindly supporting Israel while propping up brutal regimes in the Middle East is not conducive to peace in that part of the world nor is it in our best national security interests.




RE: great
By Murloc on 4/9/2009 11:01:37 AM , Rating: 2
you're right, I don't think iran would be so stupid to use the bomb anyway, as israel would istantly burn tehran to the soil.


RE: great
By BernardP on 4/9/2009 11:17:03 AM , Rating: 3
Speaking of pre-emptive strike.

Israel has nuclear capability. Israel has missiles. Israel has submarines.

If a sub-launched nuclear missile attack was to come from the Indian Ocean to anhihilate Iranian nuclear installations, who could tell with certainty which country launched this attack?

Israel could plausibly deny it, and Iran would have nothing to retaliate with.


RE: great
By smackababy on 4/9/2009 11:41:07 AM , Rating: 2
Whose to say other countries wouldn't assume and attack anyway? The last thing we need is a world war. Although, the last one did pull us out of a huge recession. Now, if only I had a submarine...


RE: great
By NeoConned08 on 4/9/2009 12:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
It's a common fallacy that WW2 pulled us out of the Great Depression. It didn't. Neither did the Iraq War pull us out of a recession. War is never good for an economy regardless of who is the attacker/attackee.

http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/12/23/thomas-woods-3...

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/woods2.pdf


RE: great
By Bubbacub on 4/9/2009 1:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
it was pretty good for the USSR economy in ww2. the war wiped out all the economies of industrialised competitors in western europe and gave them carte blanche to ruthlessly develop their own. they started the war as the poor man of europe and ended it as the main regional superpower and one of 2 worldwide superpowers.

p.s. i accept that they did lose 20 million people in the process and this was perhaps not a great deal for the russians of the time!


RE: great
By jjmcubed on 4/9/2009 2:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
How many did they lose to Stalin Vs. WWII?


RE: great
By Bubbacub on 4/9/2009 9:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
no one is sure but people reckon he killed around 5 - 10 million people (not all russians - e.g. he killed a lot of ethnic germans, poles etc. in eastern europe after the war ended - hence all the germans are now in germany, poles in poland, ukranians in ukraine etc.). If you include deaths from famine due to moronic attempts to implement collectivised farming then you can add another 6-8 million.

its amazing how stalin appears to have 'got away' with it in terms of being made a villain (at least as compared to hitler)


RE: great
By TomZ on 4/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: great
By Chaser on 4/9/2009 4:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
Just as increased borrowing and spending will get us out of this "economic crisis" as well.


RE: great
By MadMan007 on 4/9/2009 5:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
fyi there was a pretty severe recession after WW2.


RE: great
By NeoConned08 on 4/9/2009 8:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
no, im not kidding. Go look at the links I posted and look at the numbers. WW2 did not get us out of the depression. It wasn't until 1946 and later when the government cut spending by 2/3 and taxes by 1/3 that we recovered. Hoover/FDR meddling in the economy are what continued the Great Depression. Had they done nothing, let the malinvestments be liqiudated and cut taxes AND spending we wouldn't have had it. We would have had a mild recession instead, just as was the case in 1921.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policie...

This is common knowledge amongst many economists now. It's just taking a bit of time to catch up with the mainstream.

Also, war is always a net negative on the economy because it is taking resources in the form of steel/wood/people etc OUT of the economy and diverting them elsewhere (typically in a very inefficient manner) when they COULD be used for things that are bought and sold in the economy. War is pretty much inevitable at certain times but to say that it is a boost to our economy is just an outright falsehood.

Government doesn't actually produce anything, it redistributes. For every dollar spent on bombs or tanks or a soldiers pay it must first be taken from the thing which is actually producing the wealth which is We the People that make up the economy.


RE: great
By metasin on 4/10/2009 12:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
The majority of economists today would agree that WWII did not get us out of the depression; neither did the vast majority of Roosevelt's economic policies. Sure some programs like FDIC and SSI are still around today but go back and look at the alphabet soup that was put into action during the first 100 days of his admin. How many of those worked? The market crashed again during his administration after all.
Now having millions of working age men fighting and dying in a war does make the unemployment numbers look better. After the war the US was in a good position because our infrastructure was nowhere near as decimated as Europe, but our economic growth was not great during that time period either.


RE: great
By Spuke on 4/9/2009 4:08:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Israel could plausibly deny it, and Iran would have nothing to retaliate with.
Please. Iran would simply blame Israel AND the US for the attack and launch an attack on Israel. And other Middle East countries would join in on the attack because they now have a "reason" to attack Israel.


RE: great
By William Gaatjes on 4/9/2009 12:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has not. "The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, and is continuing its work on verifying the absence of undeclared activities. As recently as October 2007, IAEA Director General ElBaradei reported that IAEA inspections had not found any evidence that Iran was making nuclear weapons. Russia further said in November 2007 that it had not seen any evidence of Iran trying to build a nuclear weapon. In February 2008, the IAEA reported that all declared nuclear material remained accounted for." So basically, all the experts say that Iran is NOT building a bomb. The propaganda you see being spewed forth from the television is the EXACT same thing that was done for Gulf of Tonkin, WMD's in Iraq and most of the previous wars we have been involved in. Judging from our track record I'm pretty sure years from now it will come out that oh....Iran really wasn't trying to make a bomb. As for them making a bomb, they have a neighbor (Israel) who has shown that it can be very aggressive and WILL target civilians according to their very own troops:


True.

To make it worse, Israel can and will use any weapon available. It's still concurrent tribes fighting like 2000 years and longer ago about religions. And when it comes to nuclear arsenal. Israel has a big pile of it's own. It started in 1959. They sure tricked the USA then :). Israel just removed the entrances to the lower nuclear research levels, placed bricked walls and a little paint and the US observers did not no anything for a while. It was kind of convenient tho, the israel nuclear weapons program around the sixties and Lyndon Johnson approved everything israel wanted after kennedy's death...



RE: great
By TerranMagistrate on 4/9/2009 6:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
With hostile nations at very turn for the Israelis, what else would you expect?

And these hostilities mainly stem from the genocidal hatred for Jews in Islam morso than an issue of land.


RE: great
By hadifa on 4/9/2009 8:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...stem from the genocidal hatred for Jews in Islam..


Yeah Medieval Europe treated them greatly in the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms up to the Holocaust.

They fared much better in Islamic countries than in christian ones for centuries.

Even under Ottoman Empire they would raise to Ministerial roles

It's not like most of the Islamic rulers were just and pious -they were mostly non-Muslim in everything but name- but for the most part, they shared the injustice equally regardless of religion.

History of the Jews in Turkey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_i...

Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_...


RE: great
By William Gaatjes on 4/10/2009 12:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
I always wondered why there is so much hatred for the jewish people. We are all people some good, some bad. And religion does not make someone a better person or a worse person. It's because people with extreme right wing or extreme left wing idea's that cause problems. Extremists, the magic word. Extreme executing of a religion is one such example. Extreme execution of a political conviction is another example.

A Dutch comedian Youp van het Hek once said :

Niet nadenken, mee doen.
Niet meedenken, na doen.

Rougly translated it means :

Do not think for yourself, just join.
Do not think together, just copy the behaviour.

That pretty much sums it up.


RE: great
By TerranMagistrate on 4/10/2009 9:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
Let me assure you that there is nothing "extreme" about this aspect of Islam, which may come as a surprise to many. It is found in the texts considered most holy in this particular religion. It all comes down to whether a follower is pious or not and whether the interpretation is literal or not.


RE: great
By William Gaatjes on 4/11/2009 2:39:47 AM , Rating: 1
A wise word :

Never take any religous book literally !
In the most optimistic scenario it is a history book descripting history. And old ways of man do not fit the modern age.

A sidenote...

Since there are jeiwsh people here i have a question :
I do wonder why jewish religious people claim one cannot be a jew if the mother was not jewish.

The only biological explanation i can think of is that
mitochondria are only passed on by the mother and not the father. But i do not see jewish people live longer or having less disease or being more strong. They are the same as any other person.

The only difference i see is what i also see with asian people. Supporting the children in their education and keeping business in the family.


RE: great
By BrightMoon on 4/11/2009 8:19:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I do wonder why jewish religious people claim one cannot be a jew if the mother was not jewish.

In here: http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/10-1...

It seems to answer your question. As for a "biological" explanation: If you only have a Jewish father, you can't be sure if the child is really his...


RE: great
By William Gaatjes on 4/12/2009 4:14:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Torah does not always state every law explicitly. In the case of Matrilineal Descent, the practice is derived from Deuteronomy 7: 4, "Because he will lead astray your son from before Me" To understand this verse, look at the preceding verse, which states: " And you shall not intermarry with them, your daughter you shall not give to his son and his daughter you shall not take for your son". Verse 4 should have stated "Because SHE will lead astray your son", for the non-Jewish girl that your son married ('your' meaning Jewish) should be the one that would lead your son astray. So who is the 'HE'? It might be the girl's father, but in general, women leave their father's house and live in their husband's house; they would then not be living with her father. Hence, it would not make sense for the girl's father to lead "your son" astray if your son doesn't live with him. The Rabbis concluded that 'HE' is the man that your daughter married, and 'your son' mentioned in verse 4 is your grandchild, meaning Jewish grandchild. Thus, verse 4 is referring back to the middle section of verse 3. It reads like this, "your daughter you shall not give to his son because he will lead astray your son" This shows that the child of a Jewish girl and a non-Jewish boy will be Jewish. It is not uncommon for the Torah to refer to a grandchild as an actual child. For instance, Kings I 15: 11 states, " And Asa did that which was correct in the eyes of God just like David his father". David was not Asa's father. He was his great-great-grandfather. Additionally, Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (ie, a Jew). On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives . They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.


Assuming these texts are correct, i have the following to write :

The only thing i see here is the concurrency between tribes. Do a little research and you will find that waaaay back in time there where many jewish tribes all having their own version of religion. And before that you had the sun worshippers. I do find it strange, at least 20.000 years of sun worshipping and from 1 moment to the other we have these "god created the earth first 6000 year ago" religions. Even in Texas they are planning to teach these ideas again on school.

I find it extreme. Islam or Jew, If i would hypothetically speaking meet such a girl i would probably not even be allowed to marry her because here religion would not allow it. I would have to turn to that religion as well. That is extreme and discriminating enough for me. Now these are not the only religions that force people to be seperate but you understand what i mean.

quote:
As for a "biological" explanation: If you only have a Jewish father, you can't be sure if the child is really his...


That kind of proves the point of not being together because of love but forced to be together because it is good for the 2 joining families increasing their wealth and influence. It is typical tribe behaviour. A practice still common in the middle east (and in some aristocratic cases in the west as well)is prearranged marriage or in some rare cases forced marriage. Now i would not be surprised that in the past this was pretty common. You where forced to marry someone you do not love. Hence the chance of people commiting adultery increases significantly. Kind of easy to debunk all these sacred rules. These sacred rules are based on psychology, nothing more.

On a sidenote, The woman gives all of her cell cytoplasma including mitochondria because of the egg. The man only passes on his chromosomes and on a very rare ocassion some mitochondrial dna with his sperm cell.


RE: great
By MadMan007 on 4/9/2009 5:57:58 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, that really doesn't deserve to be a -1, it's good reading at the very least. I guess it goes to show how worthless comment ratings are.


Don't Understand this one
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 4/9/2009 9:46:57 AM , Rating: 2
"Solid fuel allows the rocket to have a much greater accuracy than the previous liquid designs. "

????




RE: Don't Understand this one
By aegisofrime on 4/9/2009 10:01:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing that that's because the liquid propellant tends to slush around while flying, maybe the missile unstable.

Then again it's just a guess.


RE: Don't Understand this one
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/9/2009 10:02:36 AM , Rating: 2
Typically you have to fuel liquid rockets before launch. Liquid fuels are too dangerous to store long term. The faster firing timing ("rifle-readiness") combined with their lighter weight (does not need complex burn equipment) makes solid fuel rockets more accurate/better at responding to threats than liquid fuel designs.


RE: Don't Understand this one
By Bubbacub on 4/9/2009 1:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
accuracy refers to the ability of a missile to hit its target.

this has nothing to do with solid vs liquid fueled rockets.

there are other advantages including ease of storage, simpler design (i.e. no failure prone turbo pumps etc.). these don't make it more or less accurate. i think this is misleading and should maybe be corrected.


Are you forgetting ...
By TA152H on 4/9/2009 12:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
Are you folks forgetting that if Israel were to nuke Iran, without any use of nuclear weapons by Iran, we are treaty bound to nuke Israel? Since Iran is a member of that treaty, all nuke members would be obligated to nuke Israel. I'm pretty sure the Russians would like it, too.

So, I don't think Israel would be too quick to turn Iran into an ashtray, even if they were overrun. They'd be turned into an ashtray. In one instance, they'd be overrun, and still have hope the United States would step in and restore at least part of their country, but in worst case, the people would still live (I seriously doubt they would be exterminated, unless Turks were involved, since that's their thing, but they are allies of Israel, for now), whereas the worst case after a nuclear strike would be nothing in Israel would be left.

Even in a lost war, nukes bring negative effects.




RE: Are you forgetting ...
By Bubbacub on 4/9/2009 1:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
what treaty are you referring to? israel are NOT in NATO.

are you thinking about UN resolutions against genocide? as the current leadership of Sudan are happily aware the UN has no teeth whatsoever to prevent or even bring to justice after the fact perpetrators of genocide.


RE: Are you forgetting ...
By Exedore on 4/9/2009 2:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we are treaty bound to nuke Israel?


Show me this treaty.


RE: Are you forgetting ...
By Spuke on 4/9/2009 4:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
You are thinking about MAD and that's not how it works. Also, we (the US) never adopted this as our only strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_dest...


the enemy
By Suntan on 4/9/2009 3:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Brig.-Gen. Daniel Milo… …He states, "The Arrow technology is always improving, and we cannot forget that the enemy is also advancing with its capabilities."


Say what you want about Israel or Iran. It’s still refreashing to here a guy speak plainly. With all the political posturing, and two-faced BS, that goes on; at least this guy doesn’t candy coat how he feels about the Iranians.

-Suntan




RE: the enemy
By rcc on 4/9/2009 3:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. I imagine it's an easier mindset when the other guy has come out and said that your country and it's people should be wiped off the globe.


RE: the enemy
By Suntan on 4/9/2009 5:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
At least you know where he stands.

Lets be frank, the mindset of the leaders in that region of the world hasn’t changed in thousands of years, just the rhetoric.

-Suntan


RE: the enemy
By rcc on 4/13/2009 3:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
lol, even the rhetoric hasn't changed much when you boil it down.


Iran a peaceful nation.
By xmdxtremek on 4/9/2009 8:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why people think Iran would ever launch an attack on any country in the world. They have not invaded any country over 200+ years or shown any hostility. America is butt hurt that Iran is independent from them and wants to sell oil in euros now. The president of Iran never said Israel will be wiped off the map but Israel will be wiped off the pages of history for their inhumane actions against Palestine. There is no room for totalitarianism anymore today.

Iranian people are pure nationalists(this is not another Iraq everyone) and every single person will die for their country when under attack. Its proven by Iran&Iraq war(in which Iraq invaded Iran) FULLY funded by US and the UK. Chemical/bio weapons were used against Iran. Iran defended for 10 years and had the chance to invade Iraq but did not push further. The military did not win that war it was the people who fought for their country a nation of 70 almost million people.

Who are the real terrorists really? Which country in history used 2 nukes? Which country is at war with 3+ countries? Which country is causing the most casualties in the world?

I just cant believe how the media is so powerful that can make a whole country which their main principles are based on peace look so evil.

Keep in mind the majority of Iranian people aren't happy with their government and will be dealt with fairly soon. But when it comes to defending their country they will defend their countrymen no matter how bad the government has treated them.




RE: Iran a peaceful nation.
By SRoode on 4/9/2009 9:25:57 PM , Rating: 1
Who are the real terrorists? Are you serious?

Iran (and many of the Middle Eastern countries) do no "launch an attack" (read declare war) on countries. There are too many tangible repercussions involved with doing something so public. Instead, these countries privately fund terrorist organizations to murder innocents. Iran has shown hostility... Do we so soon forget the American hostages during Carter's presidency? "Based on peace?"

Who are the real terrorists? That's easy, in the majority, it's the terrorists that are coming from the Middle East. In most part, they are uneducated religious Zealots who do not know any better. IMO, they do what they do because they have nothing consider the righteousness of their actions against except their own religion, and their own government's beliefs. They do not, and are incapable, of truly thinking for themselves. That is something that for the most part a Westernized education affords.

Which country used 2 nukes... The USA of course. Ask a senior citizen of China, Taiwan, or any other Eastern Asian country if that was correct (let's leave the Westernized countries out of it, because that's too easy). The Japanese were in the same situation (maybe even worse) as some of the Middle Eastern countries at that time. The Emperor was a God, and his word was more than law, it was a word from God. The atrocities that the Japanese army were responsible for are no where near as documented as the Nazis, but were horrible. The USA made the decision to end the war as quickly as possible. Did the USA kill innocent people? Yes. Would more innocent people have been killed if the war continued? Who knows, but in the end the war was over.

The USA has been in several major wars in it's history. The Revolutionary War (England), WWI (Germany), WWII (Germany, Japan, Italy) are probably the three biggest. What do they have in common? All enemies are now allies. All countries are prosperous and have a high education level and standard of living. None of these countries drive buses into crowds and blow up innocent people.

You can say what you want about the USA, but I feel history shows that that an educated and well compensated populous is the best prevention for radical and violent attacks. The USA does not attack radically and without provocation. Nor does Great Britain, nor does France, nor does Spain, nor does Canada, nor does etc... The etc's are countries who's citizens are educated, and who's citizens are still not trying to fight a holy war.

I feel you are the one who is uneducated, and I also feel that you are the one who is blinded by nationalism, and the blindfold by your own media.


RE: Iran a peaceful nation.
By William Gaatjes on 4/10/2009 12:52:12 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Who are the real terrorists? That's easy, in the majority, it's the terrorists that are coming from the Middle East. In most part, they are uneducated religious Zealots who do not know any better. IMO, they do what they do because they have nothing consider the righteousness of their actions against except their own religion, and their own government's beliefs. They do not, and are incapable, of truly thinking for themselves. That is something that for the most part a Westernized education affords.


When i look at the opinion of most western people then that opinion is not any different when compared to the opinion of middle east terrorists. Middle east terrorist usually are as manipulated as possible while carrying the burden of lost family and friends over wars financed or started in the political west. Usually these people are mentally scared and lost contact with the real world. Also, mental diseases occur in the middle east as well. I bet you that most of these terrorist people have nothing to live for even when they would have lived a normal life. You take someone who want's to commit suicide, brainwash that person and you have a perfect suicide bomber. Is it really that hard to grasp that the people in the middle east are just that, people like you and me. Propaganda and suffering. It is all you need...

Do not be so simple minded. Look at your former president. Clearly no leader material. But a perfect scapegoat. It's politics in the worst way. Look at many decades of politics. Not just years... You will find an unsettling amount of parallels.

quote:
The USA does not attack radically and without provocation. Nor does Great Britain, nor does France, nor does Spain, nor does Canada, nor does etc... The etc's are countries who's citizens are educated, and who's citizens are still not trying to fight a holy war.


You just proved how complex life is. With the last US against iraqi war the us invaded Iraq while Iraq had nothing to do with the twin tower attack. It where political and mostly economic reasons. On a side note, I do wonder what relation is with the destruction of WTC 1,2 and 7(?) in 2001 and the economic crisis. Beside the huge amount of money that went into the military bankrupting the USA even more. There was a lot of money made. Carlyle group anyone ? Halliburton any one ? How about Brown and Root ?
How about Lockheed Martin ? To name a few.
To be honest, Brown and Root does a lot of contract work in britain but you see where i am going.

If you start digging, you will find much parallels between the reocurring rebuilding and destroying of Palestina and what the US has done and is doing in Iraq. It is the same principle. For now it is over but i can assure you it will start again.

Lets sum it up :
Much profit's are made while one get's the change to test ones new weapons. How ?

One uses made up propaganda.
One attacks a country and destroys the infrastructure.
After the war one rebuilds the country. This looks good in the media. One get's the opinion of the people behind him. One get's to sell a lot of weapons to the western countries and make more profit. One get's service contracts lasting for decades for weapons sold to those other countries. Income assured. It is a whole new ball game.



The point is...
By samoya22 on 4/10/2009 11:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
Hypocrisy, irony, single-mindedness: call it what you will, Israel has learned to treat the countries around it (and the Palestinians) as the Jews were treated by people in Europe circa 1930s-1940s. Fear-mongering and knee-jerk violence spread by extremists in the government aren't so much a symptom of the problem as they've become routine, they've become the traditional response to any challenge--be it diplomatic or otherwise.

Israel's government is addicted to violence. The US government is the pushing the weapons. The Israeli government uses the weapons with impunity. The countries around Israel suffer to watch the Palestinian people being beaten like little red-haired step-children and fear for their own safety.

The perspectives on the issue we get here in America from mainstream media are ridiculously misinformed--not just biased--misinformed.




RE: The point is...
By Steve1981 on 4/10/2009 11:35:46 AM , Rating: 2
As someone who watches from the outside, I can't say I have any particular sympathy for any "side" in this mess. That isn't to say I don't pity the people in the refugee camps. However, the leadership on all sides leaves something to be desired.

You mention the surrounding countries that watch with horror as the Palestinians are abused by Israeli hands. Never mind that Israel isn't the only country with Palestinian refugees that are treated like garbage... As much sympathy as those neighbors might have, for the most part they don't want those refugees in their society either.

As far as the Palestinian leadership: I understand that their people have suffered. However, when facing a military force that could annihilate you at a whim, does it make sense to try and antagonize them with rocket attacks and suicide bombings, or negotiate?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Israel is on the moral high ground here. But at this point, I don't believe the ball is in their court if the Palestinians want to change their condition. That is solely in their hands.


RE: The point is...
By Guttersnipe on 4/12/2009 2:51:13 AM , Rating: 2
its not just that, the surrounding countries have their own oppressed people. namely the kurds and their aspirations for their own state. it is a deep hypocrisy they dont want to acknowledge.

and these muslim countries rant and rave over how israel fights terror. look at how pakistan has to do it, they don't just bulldoze a few houses, they get rid of entire villages in their fight. but luckily, they aren't jews!


By 91TTZ on 4/9/2009 5:05:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Solid fuel allows the rocket to have a much greater accuracy than the previous liquid designs


Solid fuel does not improve the accuracy of the missile. If anything, it makes it slightly less manageable while in flight since you can't throttle down a solid rocket like you can with a liquid rocket. It does, however, make it easier to store and you can launch them on much less notice since you don't need to fuel them up with cryogenic liquids before launch.

quote:
Iran also has a stockpile of several BM25 intercontinental missiles which it purchased four or more years ago from North Korea.


The BM-25 is not an intercontinental missile. It has less than half the range of an ICBM.




I totally misread the title...
By dflynchimp on 4/9/2009 7:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
Thought it said "Israel Says It's Ready to ACCEPT Iranian Nukes"...which could still mean the same thing, but would be ten times funnier.

On topic tho. I agree with everyone who sais Israel is not one to be messed with. The problem is that logic is not one of the founding tenets that Iranian leadership follows. President Imadinnerjacket for example seems to have more than a few screws (and ping pong balls) loose in his head.




Three Simple Rules from Kubrick
By rburnham on 4/10/2009 10:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
"Your Commie has no regard for human life, not even of his own. For this reason men, I want to impress upon you the need for extreme watchfulness. The enemy may come individually, or in strength. He may even appear in the form of our own troops. But however we must stop him. We must not allow him to gain entrance to this base. Now, I'm going to give you THREE SIMPLE rules: First, trust NO one, whatever his uniform or rank, unless he is known to you personally; Second, anyone or anything that approaches within 200 yards of the perimeter is to be FIRED UPON; Third, if in doubt, shoot first then ask questions later. I would sooner accept a few casualties through accidents rather losing the entire base and its personnel through carelessness. Any variation of these rules must come from me personally. Any variation on these rules must come from me personally. Now, men, in conclusion, I would like to say that, in the two years it has been my privilege to be your commanding officer, I have always expected the best from you, and you have never given me anything less than that. Today, the nation is counting on us. We're not going to let them down. Good luck to you all."




Solving Middle east problems
By omgwtf8888 on 4/13/2009 11:50:28 AM , Rating: 2
I believe we need to see the United Nations leave the comfort of New York and move to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the heart of so many religions, it should be converted into a world heritage site under the control of UN, much like Washington DC is in the US. This would put the UN in a more neutral location and provide a base for peace. With a stable base in Jerusalem, tourism and the economy could pick up and provide jobs and income for the area. Bottom line is people with jobs and homes don't wanna blow things up.




Are you forgetting ...
By TA152H on 4/9/2009 12:45:37 PM , Rating: 1
Are you folks forgetting that if Israel were to nuke Iran, without any use of nuclear weapons by Iran, we are treaty bound to nuke Israel? Since Iran is a member of that treaty, all nuke members would be obligated to nuke Israel. I'm pretty sure the Russians would like it, too.

So, I don't think Israel would be too quick to turn Iran into an ashtray, even if they were overrun. They'd be turned into an ashtray. In one instance, they'd be overrun, and still have hope the United States would step in and restore at least part of their country, but in worst case, the people would still live (I seriously doubt they would be exterminated, unless Turks were involved, since that's their thing, but they are allies of Israel, for now), whereas the worst case after a nuclear strike would be nothing in Israel would be left.

Even in a lost war, nukes bring negative effects.




But Iran has no nukes
By PrinceGaz on 4/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: But Iran has no nukes
By sdoorex on 4/9/2009 10:34:05 AM , Rating: 2
As much as I am against many Israel's actions in the region as well as the support the US has given them, parts of your argument do not make sense.

First, Iran and Israel would duke it out over religion as history would prove. Even with the threat of total nuclear annihilation, I think that the more radical parts, which seem to have control or at least influence the governments of each country, would be willing to go to war.

Second, I support Iran getting nuclear power generation as much as the next country, but just because a government says one thing it doesn't mean it won't do another.

Third, this system is probably not just for defense from Iran, but from anyone else who would stand against Israel, whether that be Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, or anyone.


RE: But Iran has no nukes
By Veerappan on 4/9/2009 10:45:14 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Besides even if Iran did have nukes, why would they want to use them against Israel. I know there is a slight religious disagreement between them but its not like anybody would risk starting a war over trivial beliefs about god and other made-up stuff.


The sarcasm runs strong in this one...

And in the remote chance that you're actually not being sarcastic, start reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade


RE: But Iran has no nukes
By dastruch on 4/9/2009 5:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
+1


RE: But Iran has no nukes
By FITCamaro on 4/9/2009 11:58:33 AM , Rating: 2
God I hope you're being sarcastic and aren't possibly that stupid.


RE: But Iran has no nukes
By andrinoaa on 4/9/2009 5:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
They deserve each other! If you trace the genetics back, they have a common ancestor. The story of Cane and Able comes to mind, how very IRONIC! They are human, doh! Stupidity is a common trait among us humans. Next!?


RE: But Iran has no nukes
By MadMan007 on 4/9/2009 5:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Haha like that matters. Sunni and Shi'ite Mulsims go at it all the time and they're much more closely 'related.' Religious motivation for war is stupid but it's just one option, if it wasn't religion it would be something else. Sadly it's human nature, or maybe just nature nature.


RE: But Iran has no nukes
By TerranMagistrate on 4/9/2009 6:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, either you're extremely uninformed or intentionally deceptive.


RE: But Iran has no nukes
By MadMan007 on 4/9/2009 6:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
Come on man, it was sarcasm. Didn't the part about IRAN of all palces trying to reduce their dependence upon fossil fuel imports from politically unfirendly coutries tip you off?


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki