Support NeoGAF

[doncale]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/543087.html

By Haaretz Staff and The Associated Press

Israel Air Force Commander-in-Chief Major General Eliezer Shakedi said Monday that Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran in light of its nuclear activity.
But in a meeting with reporters, Shakedi wouldn't say whether he thought Israel was capable of carrying out such a mission alone, as it did when it bombed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor near Baghdad in 1981.

When asked whether Israel has a plan for the Iranian nuclear program, Shakedi replied, "You know that for obvious reasons, I won't say even a word."

But when asked whether he was confident the air force could provide the answer to the Iranian threat, Shakedi replied, "I must be prepared for everything."

The Israeli air force commander also discussed the fluid situation in neighboring Lebanon.

The assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri "can create a new picture in Lebanon," Shakedi said.

With Syria, Hezbollah guerrillas and Hezbollah's Iranian benefactors all operating in Lebanon, "we understand who has interests" in Hariri being out of the picture, he said.

Asked whether the IAF has changed its deployment since the assassination, he replied, "Of course we won't let the other side hit us."

"We have a job to protect the citizens of Israel," Shakedi said. "I hope that there won't be a war - but you know, no one knows."

when the time comes, I wonder if the IAF will use F-16s again, as it did in 1981 against Iraq's nuclear reactor

 

[BigJonsson]

They'd only do it if they were sure that Iran was up to no good because of what that attack would do for the Islamic regime in IRan

 

[Fatty Melon]

Of course. Just yesterday, Israel received the first batch of F16Is (total later on should be 102) from the US, all paid for with American tax dollars.
Israel had problems reaching the Iraqi reactors back then with the fuel capacity their early F16s had , so apparently, these new jets have been modified specifically to reach longer distances.

 

[Particle Physicist]

this sounds like they are just preparing for the worst.

 

[Particle Physicist]

all paid for with American tax dollars.

not completely. the US has also benefited from their alliance with israel. they share technology with israel.

 

[whytemyke]

Better them than us.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Better them than us.

very true.. unfortunately.. i think we are going in no matter what.

 

[whytemyke]

very true.. unfortunately.. i think we are going in no matter what.

Probably. And I don't mean to sound like a pessimistic asshole, but ultimately it really is better them than us. We can at least publicly condem the attacks and spin it into international publicity gain, while Israel is going to be hated regardless of what they do.

Bush will be able to say he took a stand against Israel, stood up for world peace, and would also then have a reason to put US peacekeepers into the country to help rebuild it.

 

[Drensch]

Sounds like do it yourself kit for WW3.

 

[doncale]

I cannot fucking wait

 

[cs060mk2]

Think about the games that will come out 50 years from ww3 about ww3.. they will be fuckin sweet

 

[bob_arctor]

Heh Remember about a day prior to the Inauguration, Dick Cheney was on the Imus radio show and the subject of Iran was raised. When asked it we were going to go after them next, Cheney said something like "Well, we don't want to start a war in the Middle East", which is an insulting enough statement considering that bastion of happyfuntime Iraq sucking up lives left and right , but then he adds that "Maybe Israel will take them out and leave the rest of us to clean up diplomatically".

I paraphrased of course, but not by much.

 

[Phoenix]

Sounds like do it yourself kit for WW3.

Yeah, because WW3 started in 1981 when Israel blew the crap out of the Osiraq Baghdad nuclear reactors in Iraq.

 

[Drensch]

Because Iran is currently without nuclear weapons and embroiled in a war with Iraq, and 150k US troops were in Iran at that time. Oh and Iraq was highly unstable with no government, army or infrastructure. And Al queda is currenly fighting off the Soviets in Afgahanistan.

 

[bob_arctor]

Yeah, because WW3 started in 1981 when Israel blew the crap out of the Osiraq Baghdad nuclear reactors in Iraq.

Yeah, operating with impunity will stop most wars before they even start. Here, I want you to meet impunity:

 

[Senior Lurker]

I cannot fucking wait

You cannot fucking wait? Then I hope something like this happens. Yeah I know it was a rescue mission but still. What the source doesn't mention though is how the hostages were treated fairly, and were let to celebrate christmass as well (with xmass tree and all).

So the saga continues. Potential danger to Israel? Bomb em! Potential danger to USA? Bomb em! You know even though this is talking about a possibility of an air strike from Israel, in many parts of the world Israel is but an example of the US's tyranny (with the lovely support and alliance between the two).

The issues between Iran and the US (and Israel) go way back. From the days of the Shah (and probably before), to the days of the war with Iraq right after. The US was involved whether it's obvious or not. So it's not too much of a surprise that this might happen. Didn't the US actually specify a budget before just for the sake of causing trouble inside of Iran? I wish I could find a source but I could've sworn I actually heard it from American sources.

But what have Iran done wrong towards other countries exactly? Did they go and invade/attack others or threaten to do so before?

This was actually supposed to go in the previous thread with the speculation of America attacking Iran in June, but this felt like a continuation so I thought I post here. There is something that I would like to hear from you guys about. Back when Bush was first elected, all I could hear/read around me was disapproval of his actions. "Sorry about our president, we didn't vote for him" was something that I came across as well, probably indicating how Bush won the electoral votes and not the majority? Then came the elections for the following term, and Bush came out winning both, with a difference of (3 Millions?) in majority votes. Did americans change their minds about Bush, or what happened exactly?

Heck, a video tape of the mother fucker Bin Ladin gets released 3 days before the elections "advising" americans to not vote for Bush for their safety. Then there was a shift in the polls in favor of Bush (before that it was fairly close, fluctuating if I am not mistaken?). If you are an american, and you hear this message from an enemy (maybe THE enemy) would you take his advice, or would you consider that to be showing weakness and opt to do the opposite instead? Seeing the results it's almost as if Bin Ladin was telling americans to vote for Bush!!

Consider me thinking aloud in the previous paragraph. So my question was, did some people change their minds towards bush because they saw that he actually brought good to the country over the 4 years and opposed terrorism the right way, or was there another reason? It either slipped my mind or I just didn't know .

 

[Forsete]

Be aware, Iran now has the capacity to strike Israel.

Irans "new" Shahab-3 has a range of 1300-1500km and is a ballistic missile so you cant protect yourself from it.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

You would be silly to think Isreal cant strike Iran Either.

 

[Error Macro]

You cannot fucking wait? Then I hope something like this happens. Yeah I know it was a rescue mission but still. What the source doesn't mention though is how the hostages were treated fairly, and were let to celebrate christmass as well (with xmass tree and all).

So the saga continues. Potential danger to Israel? Bomb em! Potential danger to USA? Bomb em! You know even though this is talking about a possibility of an air strike from Israel, in many parts of the world Israel is but an example of the US's tyranny (with the lovely support and alliance between the two).

The issues between Iran and the US (and Israel) go way back. From the days of the Shah (and probably before), to the days of the war with Iraq right after. The US was involved whether it's obvious or not. So it's not too much of a surprise that this might happen. Didn't the US actually specify a budget before just for the sake of causing trouble inside of Iran? I wish I could find a source but I could've sworn I actually heard it from American sources.

But what have Iran done wrong towards other countries exactly? Did they go and invade/attack others or threaten to do so before?

This was actually supposed to go in the previous thread with the speculation of America attacking Iran in June, but this felt like a continuation so I thought I post here. There is something that I would like to hear from you guys about. Back when Bush was first elected, all I could hear/read around me was disapproval of his actions. "Sorry about our president, we didn't vote for him" was something that I came across as well, probably indicating how Bush won the electoral votes and not the majority? Then came the elections for the following term, and Bush came out winning both, with a difference of (3 Millions?) in majority votes. Did americans change their minds about Bush, or what happened exactly?

Heck, a video tape of the mother fucker Bin Ladin gets released 3 days before the elections "advising" americans to not vote for Bush for their safety. Then there was a shift in the polls in favor of Bush (before that it was fairly close, fluctuating if I am not mistaken?). If you are an american, and you hear this message from an enemy (maybe THE enemy) would you take his advice, or would you consider that to be showing weakness and opt to do the opposite instead? Seeing the results it's almost as if Bin Ladin was telling americans to vote for Bush!!

Consider me thinking aloud in the previous paragraph. So my question was, did some people change their minds towards bush because they saw that he actually brought good to the country over the 4 years and opposed terrorism the right way, or was there another reason? It either slipped my mind or I just didn't know .

Are you head of Khamenei's PR department? Or just a member of Hezbollah?

 

[mrklaw]

FFS. Isn't anyone else tired of news agencies reporting fact, then tarting it up with made up headlines? Its like GAF sometimes.

The guy says they have to be ready for anything. He's an Air Force guy, so he would say that. That headline could just as well read "Israeli Airforce must be prepared for BaconWhores" and it'd be technically true, but not what was said.

 

[King Jippo]

What the source doesn't mention though is how the hostages were treated fairly, and were let to celebrate christmass as well (with xmass tree and all).

Yeah, I head it was a regular love fest over there - especially at Christmas time. How considerate of them with that tree thing.

If only Jimmy Carter wasn't such a pussy...

 

[Azih]

Are you head of Khamenei's PR department? Or just a member of Hezbollah?

Oh please, why don't you actually respond to the post instead of dismissing it with a pithy one line response?

 

[Senior Lurker]

Error Macro said:

"Are you head of Khamenei's PR department? Or just a member of Hezbollah?"

Haha, very funny. I am sure neither of those 2 need a guy like me. Iran has been taking care of themselves, and Hezbollah kicked-out Israel from southern Lebanon. You think I have to be one of them to speak on their defense? I just feel any possible/potential attack on them is not justified. Especially noting what they had to go through since the shah was overthrown and after the revolution. Having said that though, I have to say that attacking Iran won't be as easy as attacking Afghanistan or Iraq (if that was considered easy, which apparently it wasn't so).

Despite the many many Iranians who oppose the current regime there (especially the ones outside of Iran), you have others who, while they might not completely agree with the current regime, would not like to have their country attacked. In Iraq, which was ruled by one of the most fucked-up people who walked the earth, we didn't see a total opposition to the American army since people (at least most of them) wanted rid of Saddam. In Iran it's not the same. You hear stories of journalists disappearing and stuff, but hey you know what? More terrible stuff has happened in Iraq and hardly any of it was let out at the time. So in Iran it could be a minority who dislikes the system (or it could be more) but you won't really know if you just focus on what the minorities say. Where am I going with this? Iran won't be a cakewalk if an attack ever happens. In Iraq it was an attack to bring freedom and check on the WMD , while in Iran it would be an attack for the nuclear shit. People there won't stand and do nothing.

King Jippo said:

"Yeah, I head it was a regular love fest over there - especially at Christmas time. How considerate of them with that tree thing.

If only Jimmy Carter wasn't such a pussy..."

It's clear that this didn't rub well on you. I mentioned it to give more detailed information, and to point out that it wasn't a case of "Meet our demands or we'll behead one of yours every week". So now it's not considerate that they let them celebrate christmass? Or maybe you wanted to read that they beat the shit out of them everyday and pissed on them for good measure, so that you find it easier to direct your anger?

And oh, if you were in Carter's shoes and witnessed a perfectly-planned rescue event that took into account something as basic as weather conditions go horrible wrong, chances are you might have letout the juices yourself .