Moderator’s Note: All of you knock it off, right now. You want to flame each other, take it to the Pit.
As to this:
Don’t go there. You follow the rules, I don’t care what your “attitude” or your political views are; but if you insult anybody else in Great Debates, you will be banned.
You are referring to the Ghauri missile, I believe. It has a range of about 2,500 km. Jerusalem would be right on the edge of that range. It would be pushing it.
As for low flying jets or commercial airliners, I think in the event of nuclear exchange, there won’t be too many airliners approaching Israel from Pakistan or Iran for very long.
I’ve noticed. This isn’t a surprise as you’ve been wrong about ME issues just about every time you post on the subject. It would be better for everyone if you just stopped, or bothered to do a little research at least.
We already have. Israel is not going anywhere in our lifetime. Although, it may give up the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestians.
**
Let me guess, the Jews? How original.
Um, no. That’s not how it works here. :wally
**
I think we all know the answer to that. Iran wouldn’t use it first, since it would mean their immediate annihilation.
No. That’s false. The US supplied both sides with weapons and logistical support, and provided neither side with troops. Please stop lying.
You mean, except for all the times that it has been. I suppose it was a glorious victory when Russia and Britain picked apart and divided Iran between them. Or when Britain was picking the government of Iran. Or, depending on if you are counting the old Persian Empire, it was defeated when Alexander conquered it. Plus when the Arabs defeated it. Or when the Mongols overran it. Or the Turks. If you are talking about the modern state of Iran, then you are right that it has never been defeated. But mostly because it has been in only one full fledged war and had help.
If history has taught us anything, it is that Iran is just like any other nation and has seen its share of victories and defeats.
**
No, actually, they are quite accurate.
It’s good that you’ve decided to bow out. You are in way over your head here. Especially since you’ve pretty much been wrong in just about everything you’ve had to say on the subject. But keep trying. Persistance can be a virtue. Plus, you’re entertaining.
OK, I posted that before I saw MEBuckner’s warning. I don’t think there’s anything offensive in it, but if there is I take it back. Just to be safe.
Got it, Iran = terrorism. Now I should stop Bush?
Well , if the shoe fits ,then it fits
Well , the time line is now for 2005. If you want to start discussing when American Forces will be ready to start engaging any further enemies
Declan
Im afraid both Israel and the US are taking the wrong turn here. Iran, Syria, Egypt and SA could all be pretty close to developing the bomb. Israel would be decimated by the use of only 2-3 depending on fallout.
I think were getting closer to a time where pissing nations of is a bad choice. According to this report the number of groups capable of making the bomb stands at 130 although a few mentioned are not as healthy as they once were. There is a time when a nation should just step back and say “Im staying out of this one”, but Im afraid the chistian right and the Jewish (Zionist) Lobby are just to influential.
I would stay out of large cities.
Let’s break this down to a simple axiom:
If the US was justified in attacking Afghanistan, and most of us agree they were,
Then Israel is justified in attacking Syria.
Threats of terrorism, nuclear terrorism, and observations about the “Zionist lobby” sure do make me think Bush is heading in the wrong direction. :dubious:
Theres a lot of knee-jerk reaction here.
Lets all calm down.
I am uneasy about this attack. But if Israel has proof of what they claim then they have a case (providing is not in a civilian area).
I do however need to see the proof.
To have any possible justification for agression you need to show the link between your target and your cause – and suspicion doesn’t count it has to be hard evidence.
As adaher says above this is very similar to the US adventures in Afghanistan which has some legitimacy, unfortunatley it is also very similar to the US action in Iraq which would appear to have very little (going by the criteria above)
Of course it would be suicide to attack Syria at the moment because they have all of Iraqs WMD’s dont they … 
If the Israeli’s can prove that it was a terrorist camp they struck then sure it’s justifable. However there’s a big difference between a justifable move and a smart move.
Long term this does nothing for the security of the reason and I would argue moves us closer to a serious war in the Middle East. which I suspect is not in Israel’s long term interests either.
However, I can see the sense in this move. Namely It keeps Israel in the US’s good books. They don’t move aganist Arrafat, which the Bush Administration is keen they not do. Plus Syria gets a shot across the bows without the Americans having to risk further PR crisis.
I am sure the israeli government knows that attacking one “terror” camp by air will have zero impact on its internal security. It does however play well with the voters, and distracts from the real issues. Its called doing a Clinton.
As the majority of contributors to this thread make reference to the existance of the Israeli WMD capability, specifically nuclear, would any of you like to help me out on the “Israel kills Arafat, What Next?” thread. Oh, apart from 2Thick that is please. “Nothing personal”. he says 
Like this thread, it has got off topic rather recently, but whatever… I have a non-believer on my hands.
Specifically, has anyone got a sub to Jane’s Intelligence Report that they could cut and paste out some independent, universally respected, research on the issue. I have access in hard copy only.
The poster above me wasn’t aware of this, so this being Straight Dope I thought I’d provide the informatio.
As for 2Thick, he desrves a pat on the back for setting a new olympic record in jingoism.
Jane’s ain’t cheap. Might be better off going to a library and checking out a hard copy. It’d a couple years old, but…
I suspect that the attack isn’t so much a move that’s intended for military effect as it is one intended for political effect.
link will expire
Since I have been asked so nicely:
That was about the following reaction:
to this posting of mine:
**
which was cited only partly by Fang, sigh.
In general, I meant my posting as it was already interpreted by other posters for me afterwards. I.e. I am talking about the never ending spiral of violence.
However:
Note that I said Israel destroys a “building” not a “terrorist camp”. But you are apologized, Fang, not many people know that Israel not only destroys terrorist camps but also private houses and civilian infrastructure.
And when they kill alleged terrorists (=without trial), they don’t just shoot them. They drop 1000kg bombs on their houses killing some tens of civilians, including children.
Since you asked for it, for further emphasis due to your request, I change my older posting into:
Apparently Syria and Israel never ceased to be in the state of war.
Anyway, nothing new will happen. Where is the difference to other recent events? Israel blows up this private building, Israel kills those innocent civilians. Palestineans blow up this Café, Palestineans blow up that Café… It’s all the same anyway.
If there is outrage, then I ask myself why there was no outrage before, when Israel dropped bombs on houses of Hamas leaders in Palestinia, killing women and children.
Do you think Israel would do it?
That would be precedent in history and the end of Israel. No other country would cooperate anymore. It would not just be feared, but loathed.
And, as 2Thick pointed out, Pakistan would “object”… Perhaps India would “object” to Pakistan’s objection, but would Israel risk a nuclear exchange between 3 states? That would be more than stupid.
Back to the original subject of the thread: Israels strike against Syria. Apparently I am not the only one who thinks that the strike is not just motivated by protection from terrorists:
Cite from the Financial Times link someone posted here.
And while we’re on the subject of 2000 pound bombs, I’d like to point out that 2Thick’s mighty Iranian Shahab-4 may be capable of carrying a 1000 kilogram payload–not terribly larger than the bomb which Israel dropped on Gaza on July 22. That the Gaza bomb “flattened” four buildings and killed and injured just short of 200 people.
I say “may be capable” because the Shahab-4 is still in development. The Shahib-3, which probably can’t reach Israel with a 1000 kilogram payload, only finished testing this summer. About half of the Shahab-3s tested to date have failed.
Moreover, we can be pretty certain that Iran does not yet possess the thousands and thousands of missiles which would be necessary to “flatten” Israel with conventional warheads. And while one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day, it’s unlikely Iran has one, and if they build one themselves the first generation attempt is likely to weigh considerably more that either the Shahab-3 or the Shahab-4 is capable of carrying.
Flonks, obviously Israel would use it’s nuclear option only if they felt the survival of the country was in question. If Iran is launching nukes at Israel, do you think Israel would refrain from responding? And if Israel is being overrun by conventional troops, the likelyhood is that every Israeli citizen would be massacred. If arab armies are perpetuating a second holocaust against Israel, wouldn’t you think the nuclear gloves would come off? What good is public opinion if your citizenry is all dead?
And if you don’t think the arabs would massacre the entire population of Israel, please explain why. It seems the only likely outcome if Israel lost the war.
Can we take the extensive discussion about Iran to mean that several posters believe this could be a step down the road toward an all-out Middle Eastern war?