Israeli air attack kills 54 civilians, including 19 children

You see, THATS RACIST.

Obviously you see Hezbollah as an inferior race.

 

I am not surprised that you think/believe that a government which has 1) never undertaken a campaign of aggression against its neighbors -- in the process igniting WWIII -- nor 2) a massive genocide of 4-6 million people is 'comparable' to a government which did just that.

Only in your twisted reality, Roxran...

 

Only to play to the media and world stage. I seriously doubt there's little difference between the IDF and Hezbelloh.

I think it's such bull that a war is started over a "border" raid meant to capture a few soldiers to broker a prisoner exchange. Can anyone honestly tell me that a few soldiers lives are worth destabilising an entire nation - forcing millions to flee and live in hardship, and risk a regional war?

 

You just don't know what happens as nuclear proliferation spreads. When you have Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran all with nukes and radical segments to their political parties - you just don't know when some Al Qaeda type group could get their hands on a bomb and ship it over to us as a nice Christmas present.

Of course, it's not likely to go to Houston....but then again, maybe New York will be too secure? Doubt it.

 

The F-15i's were purchased in 1998 & 1999.

I believe that you and most others are seriously over estimating the quality of air coverage in Iraq. If Israel had tried it in the first weeks or months of the invasion, I would agree but I don't believe they have any impetus to be particularly vigilant at this point.

Iran hasn't been able to get spare parts for the F-14 since 1979. If any of those planes still fly I would be flabbergasted. By the time the F-14's were taken out of service with the U.S. the planes were 2x as expensive to fly as any other planes because of all the maintenance that needed to be done on them.

As to how effective a strike would be, I have no idea.

 

man, you guys know a lot about a lot of stuff!

 

I never said that you equated Israel with Nazi Germany. I said that you spoke up in support of Panda and krnxsnoopy when they made a highly flawed comparison between Israel and the Nazis. I brought up Iran because using the same criteria that they used, the same comparison could be made, with the added bonus that they want to kill a bunch of Jews. I never equated Iran with Nazi Germany. I don't know if you just were not following the converstion or are being intentionally obtuse.

I don't think there is any way you can deny that "[1]The Nazis killed innocent people on purpose, [2]with the explicit intent of wiping out the entire race of people of which those innocents were a part. In that, the Nazis have much more in common with Hizballah, Hamas, and the government of Iran than with Israel." Setting aside the collateral damage argument and going with the theory that Israel is intentionally killing innocent people in Lebanon, I would say that makes all of the actors mentioned equal as far as criteria 1, but the rhetoric of Hizballah and Iran certainly fit better into criteria 2 than Israel. If you disagree it means that you believe either a) Hizballah, Iran, Hamas, and Israel all have the same commonality with Nazi Germany (whatever level of commonality that may be) wrt killing innocent people for the purpose of genocide, or b) Israel has more commonality with Nazi Germany wrt killing innocent people for the purpose of genocide than Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas.

 

how many muslims has died because of israel's actions?

vs

how many jews has died because of hozbollah/hamas actions?

actions speak louder than words

 

Are you stupid??

I never called Israel - NAZIS.. I said they're doing the same Sh*t cause they CAN. By same **** I mean picking on someone weaker. You're as stupid as that other moron.

 

I think Hezoballah is baiting Israel to kill Muslims. They then just become martyrs to thier cause. Many Muslims have died because of Hezoballah too.

 

Iran is situated more then 1,000 kms from Israel. It is a vast country,
and all the meaningful nuclear targets are, and most probably will
continue to be, situated far from its Western borders. That means
that once Israel decides to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will have
to plan a sustainable attack on a number of targets that are situated
1,500-1,700 kms from Israel. For that purpose, Israel can use only
its air force. The targets usually are far from the Indian Ocean, and
Israel has no significant seaborne air power assets. Although Israel
has some military relationships with friendly states that are situated
closer to Iran, most notably, Turkey and India, these states also are
keeping a friendly relationship with Iran, and it is highly unlikely
that they would let Israel use their territories for the purpose of
attacking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. This means that the Israeli
attack aircraft would have to take off from air bases in Israel, fly
1,500-1,700 kms to the targets, destroy them, and then fly back 1,500-
1,700 kms. It is also possible that the flight would be even longer
for the Israeli planes because they would have to fly through the air
space of Jordan and Iraq to use the direct shorter route to Iran. Flying
through Jordan without the explicit or implicit permission of the
Jordanians would hurt relations with a friendly Arab state. Flying
over Iraq without coordination with the United States would lead to
a clash with U.S. interceptors. Any attempt at coordination with the
United States or asking permission from Jordan might compromise
the operation. It is also very doubtful whether Jordan and the United
States would be willing to be involved in such Israeli operations. As
a result, the Israeli planes would have to use the longer route over
the Indian Ocean, with minimal penetration of the air space of other
states.

The IAF does not have any bombers. Its air fleet consists only of
fighter-bombers with limited range of action. Israel has 25 F-15I and
137 F-16C/D fighter-bombers. It is going to improve its long range
capability in 2004 with few operational F-16I aircraft with greater
range of action then the F-15I, but the burden of the attacks would be
laid mostly on the F-15I aircraft that have better capabilities at longer
ranges. F-15I has a radius of action of 1,270 kms. The corresponding
one for F-16C/D is 925 kms and for F-16I, 2,100 kms (but Israel will
have only few of them at the relevant time).30 The real operational
radius is even shorter because for parts of the route, the planes would
have to fly at low altitude to avoid radar detection. That shortens the
range of flight because of higher fuel consumption at low altitudes.
It means that the attack aircraft would need to be refueled at least
twice, on their way to the targets and from the targets. That adds
complication to the operation because Israel has only a few air
refuelers based on Boeing 707 aircraft platforms. Such aircraft are
very vulnerable, and therefore air refueling cannot take place in
hostile air space.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub629.pdf

To hit Osirak in 1981, Israel's bombers flew in low over Saudi Arabia. In a study published late last year by the U.S. Army War College, Brom suggests that a strike against Iran's facilities could arrive by way of the Indian Ocean—roughly twice the operational radius of Israel's newest strike aircraft under optimal flying conditions. But Israel's fleet of specialized planes for in-flight refueling—five aging KC-130H tankers—doesn't have the capacity to get all those aircraft there and back again. The only way to manage it would be with a covert stopover midway—it's anybody's guess where.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11182458/site/newsweek/

 

thats just like saying when bush said "bring it on", he was baiting muslims to kill americans..

and alot of americans has died because US govt.

 

correct.

 

Interesting, Hayes, and conflicts with both Ottomaton's post, and my own opinion, which is that Bush would offer close support to Israel for a strike on Iran's atomic weapons facilities, and that Jordan would do nothing, having no real alternatives. Totally agree that AWACS, both ours and the Saudi's, would detect an Israeli attack, and that Israel would need assistance from somebody(s) to pull off an operation that had a ghost of a chance of destroying Iran's capabilities.

People frequently seem to think that Israel can take out those facilities anytime, if they want to. I think it would be very hard, with huge logistical obstacles to deal with. Even if they have logistical support from somewhere, and no one is taking pot-shots at their aircraft as they fly back and forth on multiple strikes, and it would take many, many strikes, IMO, to do the job, it would be a very tough assignment for their superb air force. Iran has had the money, and the inclination, to work on their air defenses, even if their air force is woefully out-gunned, and if Israel thinks that they are suffering from Hezbollah's missile attacks, acting as Iran's surrogate, they would be far more damaged by Iran's missile retaliation, IMO.

Strictly looking at it from an Israeli viewpoint, for discussion purposes, it looks like they could use some of those retired F-111's we used to have. Very heavy payloads, and very good range, if I remember correctly. Modernized, they could have been very effective for something like this.

Mango knows a LOT about this stuff, if he feels like chiming in.




Keep D&D Civil.

 

I don't want to get in a argument over the other stuff, but this drew my attention. The first time I read this I had no problem with this statement, but I went back and thought it out and this is actually not correct.

The closer to the ground you get the thicker the air is. The thicker the air is the less energy required to keep you aloft. When you go higher, you have less support from the air, but you also have less friction. The big deal with going high is so that you can go really fast because there is no atmosphere to offer resistance which translates itself to friction heat.

When you get really close to the ground you get 'ground effect' that diminishes with height which is a variation of the effect seen on hovercraft and ekronoplans. This means less energy for lift and so less energy for flying.

 

Nope. It takes more gas to fly low. There is less drag and the engines also run more efficiently in colder temperatures (ie higher).

For example: "The use of extended low altitude operations to insure the B-52's penetration capability further degraded the design strike range. The overall inefficiency of jet engine operations at low level, coupled with slower operating speeds, greatly reduced range at low altitude. For example, if the B-52H flew at high altitude on a nuclear strike mission, it had a maximum unrefueled range of approximately 9,000 nm. On a similar strike mission with 2,400 nm flown at 500 feet, the operations planners could count on only a 6,300-nm range with the addition of one refueling."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-history.htm

 

Actually you are wrong and I am wrong, but you are more right than me.Please excuse me not posting references, I looked it up in a paper book, which do not hyperlink too well.

Fuel economy is dependent on pressure altitude, speed, and aerodynamic and engine related factors. You are more right in that at the higher crusing speeds that military aircraft fly at, the optimal altitude is higher than lower. It is not, however, at their rated altitude cieling, but below it.

From what I gather each type of airplane has a rough estimate chart for their crusing speed where they look up what the outside temprature is, and it tells them what pressure altitude to fly at for best economy.

Pressure altitude is altitude measured by barometric pressure. As the temprature changes the pressure altitude changes relative to the actual altitude.

 

I was referencing this comparison:

I never claimed that you equated Isral with Nazis. I only said that your comparison was flawed, becuase of it's lack of exclusivity (ie there are a lot of countries that feel justified in killing innocents, among them every allied nation in WWII) and because the same argument can be made more effectively against the other side (ie. Hizballah - and Iran by extension - as well as Hamas attack Israeli civilians specifically and on purpose. You might want to work on your reading comprehension before you start calling people stupid.

 

If the raw number of casualties is your measurin stick, then the side with better weapons will always coincidentally be the side that is more focused on genocide. I don't think that is a supportable position.

Edit: Sorry for the double post, I should have combined those 2 replies.

 

So if the US happened to kill more Germans or Japanese during WWII, what is that supposed to imply?