• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel Asks for Bunker Buster

Obama get beaten? You ARE out of touch. Their is no "proxy" we will be at war if Israel uses our weapons.
Your certainty is certainly more than a bit knee-jerky on both counts. I know, it's a liberal thing.
 
Obama get beaten? You ARE out of touch. Their is no "proxy" we will be at war if Israel uses our weapons.

Hmm... it wasn't that way in Libya, and yes it was a totally different situation and circumstance.... I'm just saying I don't think it's that black & white.
 
Hmm... it wasn't that way in Libya, and yes it was a totally different situation and circumstance.... I'm just saying I don't think it's that black & white.

Of course it was the same. You don't think Gadaffi felt that the US was at war with him? How dumb do you think he was?
It is just that we didn't care in Libya. Iran can put the whole Western world in lot of hurt, just by closing the Straights.
And for what for? Another goose hunt for WMD's? Pakistan has them by the dozen, how safe is that?
 
Last edited:
Of course it was the same. You don't think Gadaffi felt that the US was at war with him? How dumb do you think he was?
So you're worried what the Iranian government thinks? Most report that Iran thinks they are at war with the U.S. already. What Gadaffi thinks? Irrelevant then and now since he's worm food.

So am I to understand you're not buying Obama's position that the U.S. wasn't militarily involved in Libya?

It is just that we didn't care in Libya. Iran can put the whole Western world in lot of hurt, just by closing the Straights.
And for what for? Another goose hunt for WMD's? Pakistan has them by the dozen, how safe is that?
So far safe enough - at least the Israeli's aren't worried about Pakistan launching missiles into Israel to kill all the joos. Not so with Iran, probably due to geographic proximity, intelligence, and the amount of moronic rhetoric coming from Iran in the past decade. And goose hunt? Nah... that's not it at all. It's a seek and destroy mission. Israel doesn't want to show the world their actions are justified, they could care less what others think is or is not justified. They'll just destroy what they see is a threat to their existence. Much easier; cleaner.
 
We shouldn't give or sell weapons to other countries regardless if they are friend or foe. If history has taught us anything is that allies can turn into enemies and I would rather not give or sell something that can used against us or our troops in the future.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you. We have been sharing weapons with Israel for 50+ years without such repercussions.
 
So far safe enough - at least the Israeli's aren't worried about Pakistan launching missiles into Israel to kill all the joos. Not so with Iran, probably due to geographic proximity, intelligence, and the amount of moronic rhetoric coming from Iran in the past decade. And goose hunt? Nah... that's not it at all. It's a seek and destroy mission. Israel doesn't want to show the world their actions are justified, they could care less what others think is or is not justified. They'll just destroy what they see is a threat to their existence. Much easier; cleaner.

I agree and that is why the US should not give them to Israel

Here, we begin to see how the military has encouraged the attitudes and emotional repertoire of its soldiers through a specific sentiment; the feeling of being and of acting Jewish. This reflects one striking feature of the Gdud 50 soldiers’ notion of Ruach Tsahal, namely the fact that the soldiers’ military action is regulated by emotional and experiential constraints, and not by legal boundaries. IDF soldiers are trained in ethical codes; not in international law. According to one IDF official I spoke to this is problematic but nevertheless highly efficient: “Ethics is much more fluid. It is emotional, in a way. But it doesn’t give you firm guidelines. So, even though soldiers know everything about ethics, they still don’t know anything about law. That is, they don’t really know what is wrong and what is right. But that’s okay: international institutions only bring confusion” ("Yitzhak" 07/04/09). The IDF therefore operates in line with recent revisions in military thinking, which suggest that ↑ “concerns of ethics and efficacy are increasingly congruent”, as ethics are internalized through the reorientation process that occurs when recruits turn into soldiers.

Religion and coming to terms with soldiering in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) | openDemocracy
 
Last edited:
Give? No. Israel should purchase.

Give, by allow Israel to have possession of. Until Israel does give a damn about International Law and what the International community thinks, America would be very foolish to give Israel those things, as, as has already been mentioned one can never know when one's friend turns into one's enemy, especially one who does not give a damn what anyone thinks. Apart from that it is well known Iran has not even decided to build the things, but keep up the pressure and a bit more bombing and she will. No one seems to want Iran to have bombs. The most likely way to ensure she does not decide to build them is not to make her have to.
 
Last edited:
Give, by allow Israel to have possession of. Until Israel does give a damn about International Law and what the International community thinks, America would be very foolish to give Israel those things, as, as has already been mentioned one can never know when one's friend turns into one's enemy, especially one who does not give a damn what anyone thinks. Apart from that it is well known Iran has not even decided to build the things, but keep up the pressure and a bit more bombing and she will. No one seems to want Iran to have bombs. The most likely way to ensure she does not decide to build them is not to make her have to.

Give a bunkerbuster basically means free support, the free projectile, the free service and the free logistics to use it. Because they're special.
And if not those things train them to use and support it themselves.
 
Give a bunkerbuster basically means free support, the free projectile, the free service and the free logistics to use it. Because they're special.
And if not those things train them to use and support it themselves.

I am not up on weapons. I take it the bunker buster is a kind of weapon. The ME forum had some Israel apparently had for getting through hard structures. I thought they were the very thing.

Are you saying that the US provides free weapons and free help in the training and use of? That surely would only happen if it were in the US interest to act in that way and certainly at the moment it is not.
 
This is on Press tv so it may be a lie

Iran ‘smart concrete’ to protect N-sites from US bunker busters

As tension escalates between the US and Iran, American officials are increasingly concerned that the use of “smart concrete” may render Iranian nuclear sites impervious to US bunker-buster bombs.


An article published by Aggravate Research website, which represents Aggravate Industries, stated that due to Iran's geographical situation, the country is under constant threat of earthquakes.

As a result, the website said, Iranian engineers are very good at developing “ultra-high performance concrete” (UHPC) which is among the toughest and most rigid building materials in the world.

-snip-

“Unlike conventional concrete, Iranian concrete is mixed with quartz powder and special fibers - transforming it into high performance concrete that can withstand higher pressure with increased rigidity,” the article stated.

Due to its combination, the new Iranian-made concrete is an excellent building material with peaceful applications like the construction of safer bridges, dams, tunnels, increasing the strength of sewage pipes, and even absorbing pollution.

However, the article said, like any dual-use technologies that carry both civilian and military applications, the UHPC can also be used to protect underground facilities from bombardment, which could pose a real headache for military endeavors into Iran.




PressTV - Iran ?smart concrete? to protect N-sites from US bunker busters
 
True, but I think Israel is a safe bet as a long-term ally

I bet people probably said the same thing about numerous other allies the US had.

especially if Obama gets beaten in November.

Considering the RINO(Romeny) and the Scumbag(Gingrich) that the GOP is propping up Obama is guaranteed a 2nd term.

Anyway, far better to fight by proxy and Israel might be willing to take out Iran's weapons in their own self interest.
If Israel wants to take out Iran's alleged weapon's then let Israel do it themselves.
 
give them the bunker buster and give iran ONE nuclear weapon

then let's see if israel engages in a foray into sovereign iranian territory

we must de-fang israel

our focus on iranian actions are misdirected. that country has not initiated war with another in 200 years. we cannot say that about israel for 200 weeks
This is a classic example of "gambler's fallacy", I think we should probably concentrate on re-braining ourselves rather than de-fanging Israel.
No, it's not. Said fallacy is based upon predicting -- erroneously -- the outcome of a purely chance event (such as flipping a coin). The future actions of a country (or a person) that relate to its actions in the past is not pure chance since humans are involved in determining/initiating those actions.
 
If Israel wants to take out Iran's alleged weapon's then let Israel do it themselves.

Aren't we discussing "bunker-busters" because this is carrot the U.S. is holding out to Israel in exchange for its not taking out Iran's "alleged" weapons?
 
Give, by allow Israel to have possession of. Until Israel does give a damn about International Law and what the International community thinks, America would be very foolish to give Israel those things, as, as has already been mentioned one can never know when one's friend turns into one's enemy, especially one who does not give a damn what anyone thinks. Apart from that it is well known Iran has not even decided to build the things, but keep up the pressure and a bit more bombing and she will. No one seems to want Iran to have bombs. The most likely way to ensure she does not decide to build them is not to make her have to.

I have to disagree, the most likely way to ensure Iran does not get "the bomb" is to blow the bastards so far back that they will think the stone-age is modern technology.
 
I wouldn't give one American life for Israel but if it was in my power to do so, I would ship them 25,000 bunker busters tomorrow morning.
 
Aren't we discussing "bunker-busters" because this is carrot the U.S. is holding out to Israel in exchange for its not taking out Iran's "alleged" weapons?

The US should not be giving or selling weapons to any country period.As I said before if Israel wants to take out Iran's alleged weapons then let Israel do it on its own without American help.You seem to forget all the other allies in the past that turned enemy.Israel will be no different and I would rather not be giving or selling a country something that could be used against us or our troops in the future.
 
Israel at war with Iran is a threat to the entire area and US interests. There is also no evidence that bunker busters or any other air attack would eliminate the ability of Iran to produce nuclear weapons. It would however garantee that Iran would move as fast as possible with it as a result.
In your opinion is Iran going slow now?
Which country's "leader" has stated his goal is the destruction of Israel?
We should be providing every possible sort of support to Israel and the Iranian people. They are the country that needs to be fundamentally transformed, not ours.
 
There was a guy from Israel on 60 minutes last night, can't remember his name but he supposedly has been the one organizing all the hits on nuke scientist in Iran. He doesn't want Israel to bomb Iran, he wants to wait until USA is forced to do the bombing so Israel isn't attacked. I see his point, you have to care about your own country first but obama should care about our country first and encourage Israel to do it and give them the bombs to do it with.
 
The US should not be giving or selling weapons to any country period.As I said before if Israel wants to take out Iran's alleged weapons then let Israel do it on its own without American help.You seem to forget all the other allies in the past that turned enemy.Israel will be no different and I would rather not be giving or selling a country something that could be used against us or our troops in the future.

I haven't forgotten anything; in fact, I haven't commented at all on allies that have become enemies and am not quite sure to which enemies you refer. I simply asked a question: Isn't the reason this is new because the Admin may have extended a carrot to Israel in exchange for Israel's not acting against Iran?
 
I say give it to them. Up the ante. Obama probably won't.

Israel asks U.S. for arms that could aid Iran strike - Yahoo! News

Actually, it seems that Iran's nuclear program has already been taken out (Wikileaks emails indicate Stratfor discovered Israel already destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities | The Raw Story) ('Israel has destroyed Iran nuclear infra... JPost - International).

Thus, we now must ask: If Iran's nuclear facilities have been taken out, why do we want to go to war with them?
 
I am not up on weapons.

or anything else that isn't spoon fed to you at the Islamist hate sites you use to form your world view.
 
Back
Top Bottom