Mitt Romney........ D. O. A. - on November 06, 2012

[Ms Tree]

Israel is very capable of delivering a strike that far, it would involve a complex operation and the deep underground targets would be hard to get. But they have the KC 135's (707's) and KC 130's in their airforce to do it. Range is not the issue they have.

And if you don't think its every american hating quack middle east gov't's wet dream to detonate a nuke in the continental US you are an idiot.

Sound like the crowd that wrote the old terrorist manuals for the airlines....."Comply with the terrorist demands"....."do not make them feel threatened"....etc.

Not really sure why I even mentioned the tankers as it does not seem they will play a big roll. Look where Iran is on the map and then look at Israel. I think it is unlikely that Turkey or S.A. will give over flight permission. In order for the fighters to have any loiter time they need to refuel over the Caspian or the Gulf. If Iran takes out any or some of the tankers that leaves the fighters out in the cold. Iran has substantial air defense so it's not like the Israelis (as good as they are) will have a cake walk in there. The number of sites and the protection they have makes success doubtful at best. Most accounts I have read indicate that Iran may be set back a bit but the likely hood of wiping out the program is highly unlikely.

This is a really bad situation any way you want to look at it. Trying to take out Iran would cause oil prices to freak the phuck out to the point that we along with the rest of the world would beg for $5 a gallon fuel. Iraq and Afghan had nothing to fight back with Iran does. They have substantial air defense. They have a mountainous terrain and they are zealots. I do not believe they would use nukes preemptively but I do believe they would use them defensively.

Personally I hope everyone is just talking about attacking. If someone actually does it, I do not believe it will end well for anyone.

 

[Keroseneuser]

Not really sure why I even mentioned the tankers as it does not seem they will play a big roll. Look where Iran is on the map and then look at Israel. I think it is unlikely that Turkey or S.A. will give over flight permission. In order for the fighters to have any loiter time they need to refuel over the Caspian or the Gulf. If Iran takes out any or some of the tankers that leaves the fighters out in the cold. Iran has substantial air defense so it's not like the Israelis (as good as they are) will have a cake walk in there. The number of sites and the protection they have makes success doubtful at best. Most accounts I have read indicate that Iran may be set back a bit but the likely hood of wiping out the program is highly unlikely.

This is a really bad situation any way you want to look at it. Trying to take out Iran would cause oil prices to freak the phuck out to the point that we along with the rest of the world would beg for $5 a gallon fuel. Iraq and Afghan had nothing to fight back with Iran does. They have substantial air defense. They have a mountainous terrain and they are zealots. I do not believe they would use nukes preemptively but I do believe they would use them defensively.

Personally I hope everyone is just talking about attacking. If someone actually does it, I do not believe it will end well for anyone.

It is a general conclusion of everybody (except maybe Iran) that the iranian airforce is no match for the Israel airforce. Israel is modern front line fighters and the iranian have a mix of ancient parts starved F-14's, f-4's and a few modern chinese and russian fighters but not enough to make a difference. The tankers would not be in the line of fire, aside from some ultra lucky golden bb the iranian fighters would have no chance of reaching a tanker.

Once inside Iran the Israelies would have to contend with surface to air missles but in this regard the Israeli F-15's and 16's as as capable as US fighters are at defeating them. meaning there is a risk of some losses but not enough to stop the attack.

Distance is the main factor as we have discussed. Latest I have read analysts figure through Iraq would be the preferred route. Basically zero airdefence there since we have withdrawn. (not that US fighters would ever fire on israeli tankers or fighters anyhow) Overflight of jorden would be an issue but jorden and israel are currently under pretty good terms from what i read.

Israeli submarines would probably play a role as well in a strike according to reports. I do not know the capabilities of their subs but judging by what I read I am guessing they have similar systems that mirror the capabilities of tomahawk missles or maybe even tomahawk missles that are sub deployed.

Everyone seems to agree that Israel wont be able to effect complete shutdown of Irans nuke program but it can do enough damage to slow it. And for right now that is all Israel needs. If nobody is doing anything to stop it then slowing it is the only option left at the moment and I am completly convinced they will strike between now and spring unless political winds change and they get some help on the issue that is more than sanctions. If I were in their position and a extreamist state has publically said israel must be destroyed and that same state is activly developing nukes....well I would do everything I could to slow or remove that nuke threat. The potential cost of not doing it could be far too great.

Who we elect this november WILL have a bearing on how this turns out. You won't see israel do anything before november 6th I don't think. But depending on how the morning of nov 7th looks in the US political scene will be the deciding factor for israel. That I am sure of. I do not believe Israel has any confidence what so ever of real support on this issue from Obama.

 

[muff daddy]

I doubt Israel will go at Iran. They do not have the range for their fighters to go in and back without tanker support. The sites are far too well protected. The likely hood for success is slim from what I have read. I would not be surprised if Netanyahu is doing this to seem tough for the population.

Maybe an ace up their sleeve.

Israel might resort to Azerbaijan’s strategic geographic position to strike Iran’s atomic sites, Reuters has reported, reviving rumours officially denied by both Israel and Azerbaijan.
­Leaked intelligence from two former Azeri military officers with links to serving personnel and two Russian intelligence sources all told Reuters that Baku and Tel Aviv are considering the Azeri bases for military use against Tehran.
If Tel Aviv is to act without Washington’s support, the Israeli war plan would need to compensate for the handicap of acting alone – notably carrying out long-range reconnaissance, bombardment and rescue missions.
Such a possibility could potentially be drawing near as last week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the UN’s General Assembly that Tehran is only a year away from the "red line" for atomic capacity.
Washington has on numerous occasions stressed that the time for diplomacy and sanctions to deal with Iran has not run out. Israel continues to lobby for a potential military solution to concerns over Iran’s atomic facilities; something that many analysts believe will have dire consequences for the region.
Nevertheless, a member of the Azeri parliament's foreign affairs committee admitted to Reuters that Israel would need Baku’s support if it were to attack Iran as it would face a “refuelling” problem if it goes so far as taking the military option.
“I think their plan includes some use of Azerbaijan access,” Rasim Musabayov added. “We have (bases) fully equipped with modern navigation, anti-aircraft defenses and personnel trained by Americans and if necessary they can be used without any preparations.”
But officials in Azerbaijan’s president office have denied the speculation.

 

[Kev3188]

Again............someone doesn't get the point ! People like the one in the video honestly believe that if they vote for Barrack they will get a free cell phone, free gas and their mortgages paid for them !

So just where are they getting "THEIR" information...................Kev?

Beats me.

Why are you so quick to perpetuate the same misinformation?

 

[signals]

Wow...............right over your head ! I expected that from Barry-O, not you !

"Iran's new president created a sense of outrage in the west yesterday by describing Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the face of the earth". Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is more hardline than his predecessor, told students in Tehran that a new wave of Palestinian attacks would be enough to finish off Israel."

"He said: "Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, [while] any [Islamic leader] who recognises the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world." He was addressing a conference titled The World Without Zionism."
http://www.guardian..../27/israel.iran

Rejoyce...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/17/world/meast/iran-ahmadinejad/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Soon you might not have Ahmadinanutjob to push around anymore! His rhetoric only means what has been said by the entire Arab world in that they don't recognize Israel as a nation or state!

 

[signals]

People in Arkansas will believe anything.

That explains the Clinton phenomenon.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Beats me.

Why are you so quick to perpetuate the same misinformation?

You are partly to blame as you perpetuate misinformation about the cost of the program. If you have phone service (telecom customer), you pay their bill.

 

[southwind]

Brother, YOU REALLY have a problem with BLACK PEOPLE !
From your 'cooler MONKEY logo to the picture of the woman in the youtube to......aw shiite, I could go on, and on, and on !

But you got the right 'handle,........"southwind" !

Some things NEVER will change.
You NIT WITS still celebrate Robert E Lee's birthday down there ?

No , I don't have a problem with people of "Any" color. My problem is Demorat Libtards ( hint Quag) , like yourself, who believe that any reason is a good reason to throw the race card on the table.................it's getting old and if you didn't know Clinton was billed the first black president , a phase that didn't originate with me, then you need to remove yourself from the conversation ! And saying Barrack will receive the majority of his votes based on his skin color, is not racist...................it's the "FACT'S" !

Beats me.

Why are you so quick to perpetuate the same misinformation?

Why are you so quick to dismiss it ?

You are partly to blame as you perpetuate misinformation about the cost of the program. If you have phone service (telecom customer), you pay their bill.

Hence, known as "No free lunch!"

 

[Kev3188]

You are partly to blame as you perpetuate misinformation about the cost of the program.

Wrong. Explaining how it actually works is not misinformation.

If you have phone service (telecom customer), you pay their bill.

Never contended otherwise. Of course those that object to doing so can simply cancel their service (or not renew their contract). Easy.

Maybe you should explain to Southwind the difference between a tax, and a universal service fee.

 

[Kev3188]

Why are you so quick to dismiss it ?

Because it's light years away from reality.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Wrong. Explaining how it actually works is not misinformation.

Never contended otherwise. Of course those that object to doing so can simply cancel their service (or not renew their contract). Easy.

Maybe you should explain to Southwind the difference between a tax, and a universal service fee.

Actually, you said the program didn't cost the taxpayer anything!

Maybe both you and the lady in the video need to learn what Lifeline really is, and how it's funded (hint: it's not from Obama, and doesn't cost you anything as a taxpayer).

Is that information or misinformation?

I have no problem helping those truly in need of phone service and I feel that I speak for all of us. I do however object to the gross oversight and widespread abuse inherit in the program.

I don't need to cancel my cell phone service to spite the abusers of the system. The abuse in the program is finally getting the attention the taxpayers demand.

Changes to the program are in the works and that is what will save the program for those that truly need it.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Because it's light years away from reality.

Jesus, Kev,
STOP and think for a moment what you're trying to accomplish !!!!!!!!!!!!

There are three words in your post, but only " 2." .are compatable/interchangeable.

1. 'Kev3188'

2. REALITY

3. southwind

See what I mean ol' friend ?????

 

[Kev3188]

Actually, you said the program didn't cost the taxpayer anything!

That's correct. It's not a tax, it's a user fee. It costs a person as a consumer. There is a big difference.

Is that information or misinformation?

Info that debunks a convenient soundbite.

I have no problem helping those truly in need of phone service and I feel that I speak for all of us. I do however

object to the gross oversight and widespread abuse inherit in the program.

Great, so does most everyone. That goes for any program, really.

Jesus, Kev,
STOP and think for a moment what you're trying to accomplish !!!!!!!!!!!!

There are three words in your post, but only " 2." .are compatable/interchangeable.

1. 'Kev3188'

2. REALITY

3. southwind

See what I mean ol' friend ?????

Ha!

 

[southwind]

Because it's light years away from reality.

Doesn't change the fact that this woman and millions of others "BELIEVE" they have a free ObamaPhone headed their way.............that and the fact that Barrack will receive votes based on skin color alone, are indisputable !

Jesus, Kev,
STOP and think for a moment what you're trying to accomplish !!!!!!!!!!!!

There are three words in your post, but only " 2." .are compatable/interchangeable.

1. 'Kev3188'

2. REALITY

3. southwind

See what I mean ol' friend ?????

Another informative post from Barry-O !
Where's your reply to post # 128.................Barry-O ?

 

[Kev3188]

Doesn't change the fact that this woman and millions of others "BELIEVE" they have a free ObamaPhone headed their way.............that and the fact that Barrack will receive votes based on skin color alone, are indisputable !

Millions? You sure? How 'bout a source...

That's not a "fact," and it's certainly *not* indisputable.

P.S. I'm sure Romney will get votes based on his skin color alone as well. Unfortuantely, that's just how it (still) is in the US.