Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Im only going by what the documentary states my friend. I am of the impression that documentaries are based upon fact. Perhaps not the most accurate of fact but factualy based.
|
An 'inaccurate fact' is an oxymoron. If it's not accurate, then it's a faulty documentary or a faulty individual point, and therefore inadmissible in an argument, my friend.
Heh, you're basically saying "It's okay to use facts even if they're "not the most accurate..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asim Aquil
Not many people will agree with you... You won't be able to continue air raids indefinitely as the number of civilian casualties would be on the rise.
You are overplaying the impact of air raids.
|
Unless Iran is stupid enough to put its nuclear facilities right near population centres, then the civilian casualties are not likely to hinder efforts much, especially considering the numbers that have died in US bombing efforts before. And who's going to give in first - US willingness to tolerate Iranian civilian casualties in the continual destruction of an Iranian nuclear programme, or Iranian willingness to tolerate Iranian civilian casualties in the continual... You get the point.
Quote:
|
Was there any doubt to this? I mean hardly anyone in the world does not synonymize an Israeli military campaign with automatic US involvement.
|
1948. US supplies a lot, but doesn't get involved itself.
1956... US goes against Israeli policy!
1967... US doesn't get involved itself.
1973... US considers getting involved... but doesn't.
1982. Ditto.
1991... alright you may have the slimmest point - Saddam threw Scuds at Israel, and US was heavily involved in shooting them down, or trying to.
Intifadas... Ditto.
2006. Ditto.
There have been no major involvements (sorry, any at all?) of US forces in direct support of an Israeli military campaign, unless you or OoE or someone, anyone at all, wants to correct me.
At every stage and throughout the last 60 years, the US has supplied Israel with a hell of a lot of weapons. However, never in the quantity to visit the sort of LONG-RANGE harm on Iran that you're talking about.
Quote:
|
The only difference being the Israelis are more gung ho and radical and the US would search for ample justification. Justification which the US government is already convinced it has.
|
If it had, it would have probably launched something already.
Quote:
|
Maybe one of the Mod's can help post a link to one of my older threads. Rest assured I "sh!t you not". This was in the news/editorial.
|
In other words, I put more effort into finding your own source than you did. I looked through the wiki page with Firefox's trusty search function, and found plenty of PAF boasting about taking on the Israelis with token forces sent to aid the Arabs, but nothing about an incident so major it required 3/4 of the PAF scrambled (ignoring the strategic stupidity of tying up so much of your forces while sitting next to India).
Okay, suppose wiki is unreliable. google search.
Seen From Israel, the Signs Point to a Nuclear Arms Race
Ah yes, apparently F-16s (maybe misidentified PAF ones?
) were apparently around apparently the Pakistani border at apparently around the time of the nuclear detonation. Conducting surveillance? With an F-16? Strikes against Pakistan, with a short-ranged single-engined light fighter?
Gimme a break. Israel has plenty of motivation, but until they get bases near Pakistan or amazing inflight refuelling capabilities, or just go the whole hog and buy refurbished B-52s from America (real Sci-Fi here, now)... I still call BS.
Quote:
|
Dude I didn't provide a specific number because I didn't know it. But there you go, by your own numbers 288 cruise missiles is way too many! AGM's as you pointed out...
|
Unlikely, since it would be easier simply to launch Tomahawks from the massive amount of naval assets - including the prized Iowa-class! - in the Gulf rather than bother with air-launched missiles, except maybe to hit the northern extremities of Iraq.
Quote:
|
Of course, these days other more lethal weapons would be used too. MOABs? Were they used recently? Against the Taliban?
|
What's your point? Maybe they were used once or twice against very sparsely populated caves and whatnot. In all likelihood, Israel has no MOABs and probably no capability to realistically deliver them... as I've been at great pains to explain in this thread, even if the US considered supplying them on an emergency basis, which is ridiculous considering that Israeli C-130 pilots haven't trained to push a 10 ton explosive brick out their planes' backsides, literally.
Quote:
|
Well Israel will draw the US in. My point that Iran is incapable of taking on Israel (not invasion, but you know the random occasional bombing), Iran won't mess with a USA around there too. The conflict IS between Israel and Iran, the US is just choosing sides and butting in.
|
And because of its vastly superior capability to actually deliver munitions on target, it will dominate the conflict and really change its name.
You might as well call WWII, "The Polish-German War," using your logic!
Quote:
|
Ok now, I won't call the US's ability to actually pull off a very good supply of bombs and munition as ludicrous. It CAN be done. They got some youngsters from the tribal belt, supplied (AND TRAINED!) them with a big stockpile of weaponry who took on the Soviet Union!
|
Which youngsters from the tribal belt took on the Soviet Union? The mujahedeen? You calling some Stingers a "big stockpile of weaponry"? Really...
Quote:
|
Israel which is one of the best trained and equipped armies in the region would probably fare better.
|
Yes it would, but not really against Iran. Afghanistan was guerilla warfare - you're talking about Israel visiting serious harm on a country 1,000 miles away. Really, you aren't comparing MOABs to CIA training and Stingers?
This has been said before: You're a moderator of a defence forum, but what you say stretches anything remotely possible, even to a totally war-inexperienced 17-year-old like me.
Quote:
|
Leave it. I had to look back too. I asked a question somewhere up there and it was responded by another question and... Well leave it.
|
You're not the only one with the right to ask questions here. Your questions and points are often so outlandish that they can only be responded to with disbelief, which may take the form of a rhetorical question.