Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Opinions & Editorials
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Opinions & Editorials Discuss Is it wrong to talk to Iran? at the General Forum; I have heard some who are vehemently opposed to any direct talks with Iran. I can never understand this position. ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2013, 08:48 AM
Mikeyy's Avatar
Enchanted One
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 50,107
Thanks: 14,712
Thanked 14,467 Times in 10,504 Posts
Default Is it wrong to talk to Iran?

I have heard some who are vehemently opposed to any direct talks with Iran. I can never understand this position. Talking to our enemy doesn't concede anything and is preferable to seeing our men and woman killed or thousands of Iranians killed.

We have seen polling that shows that the Iranian public likes Americans. When you act belligerent and do nothing but threaten you stir nationalistic patriotism in the people of Iran and the positive feeling toward America begins to shift.

Don't misunderstand me. I think the regime is a sponsor of terrorism. I think they are already responsible for the deaths of Americans and our allies. I'm no Pollyanna when it comes to that government. But eventually that regime will fall. When it does who will take over? People who hate America or those who look to the U.S. as a model to emulate? It's called deplomacy and long term thinking.

It would help on two fronts. It would empower those in Iran who want a more western style democracy and establish to our allies that we have made every effort if we need to form a military coalition.

It could even have the effect of working out an agreement. I doubt it but it could happen. I just think it doesn't hurt to talk to your enemies up to the point you have to kick their asses.

What is gained by not talking?
__________________
KARMA IS ONLY A BITCH IF YOU ARE
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2013, 10:30 AM
Master
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,728
Thanks: 178
Thanked 1,063 Times in 681 Posts
Default Re: Is it wrong to talk to Iran?

While I have no problem talking with Iran, I think it will do absolutely no good. There are many who say that "while we are talking we aren't fighting". what they forget is that in the end it comes down to fighting when one side is totally dedicated to it. And it only makes the bloodshed worse in the end.
The Iranian leadership knows it has nothing to fear from the current administration. Barring an act that cannot be ignored, we will not currently undertake to remove these lunatics from control of this nation. Given that, there is no reason for them to negotiate in good faith, or even to negotiate at all. Also given that, there is no reason for us to negotiate at all.
While I can see negotiations to resolve problems without bloodshed, without a credible threat of force, such a negotiation is only talking to hear your own jaws flap.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2013, 01:47 PM
mlurp's Avatar
INDEPENDENT
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Some Place
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,988
Thanks: 15,120
Thanked 8,311 Times in 6,509 Posts
Default Re: Is it wrong to talk to Iran?

talks can take some people far and others not quite that far, as one side stalls to meet it goals.

And has proven it will take everything the west tosses it's way. As just the people suffer not the regime nor their top miltary branchs.

I have two sides of the same coin to present. Now you decide which will in the end prevail.

I know with Obama in the WH we might not back our best or once best friends in this area of the M.E.

Yet he might just open the door for them and let it play out. I kind of can't really know what Obama might do.

But I do know if we keep playing this "lets talk game" and Iran isn't on the same page, ..

Yet I am but would like to see my gandchildern live as long as me if not longer.

Quote:
Biden: U.S. Would Hold Direct Talks If Iran Serious

Saturday, Februar 2, 2013

The United States is prepared to hold direct talks with Iran in the standoff over its nuclear ambitions, Vice President Joe Biden said Saturday -- but he insisted that Tehran must show it is serious and Washington won't engage in such talks merely "for the exercise."

Now how do we know after so long if they have gotten serious?

During a trip to an international security conference in Germany, Biden also addressed Syria's civil war. He met with top Syrian opposition leader Moaz al-Khatib and with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov of Russia, a longtime ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Separately, al-Khatib met with Lavrov for the first time, offering a glimmer of hope for stalled diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict, though the Russian minister later sounded skeptical.

Washington has indicated in the past that it's prepared to talk directly with Iran, and talks involving all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany have made little headway while several rounds of international sanctions have cut into Iran's oil sales and financial transactions.

.................................................. CONTINUED ...........................................
Biden: U.S. Would Hold Direct Talks If Iran Serious

While Israel and the new govt., and I would bet their military are thinking this is the way to handle this situation. Getting ready and by a certain date just do the deed.

Quote:
.Iran threat is paramount for new Israeli government: Netanyahu

By Ori Lewis | Reuters – 19 hrs ago.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday took on the job of forming a new government and said its most important task would be to ensure that Iran does not gain nuclear arms.

President Shimon Peres formally called on Netanyahu to assemble a new coalition following the January 22 general election in which Netanyahu's rightist Likud-Beitenu emerged as the biggest party. It controls 31 seats in the 120-seat parliament.

"The paramount task of the government that I will form will be to stop Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said as he accepted the mandate from Peres.

Israel and the West suspect that Iran is working to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran says its nuclear atomic program is purely for peaceful purposes.

Netanyahu also hinted at the security dangers posed by advanced Syrian weapons being transferred from Syria to Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas and its apparent chemical weapons arsenal, but he did not specifically name the country.

"We will also have to deal with other deadly weaponry that is being amassed around us and threatens our cities and our citizens," he added.

Israel has remained silent, but diplomats, Syrian rebels and regional security sources said on Wednesday that Israeli jets had bombed a convoy near the Lebanese border, apparently hitting weapons destined for Hezbollah. Syria also accused Israel of bombing a research site near Damascus.

................................................ CONTINUED .............................................
Iran threat is paramount for new Israeli government: Netanyahu - Yahoo! News

Well what do you think? Will America be ready and will it back Israel when the time comes?

That is if the assumed date does come..
__________________
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation... One is by sword... The other is by debt."

John Adams 1826



Life is to valuable to waste so moral up and live life right.

Cause with Jesus, you can live on after the Judgement.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2013, 02:11 PM
Topcat's Avatar
Not Banned . . . YET!
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Wonderful Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,515
Thanks: 5,240
Thanked 1,737 Times in 1,191 Posts
Default Re: Is it wrong to talk to Iran?

If by talk you mean tell them were the bear sh*t in the buckwheat fine. Let them know that we can make their nation a smoking lifeless ruin.
__________________
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2013, 02:29 PM
mlurp's Avatar
INDEPENDENT
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Some Place
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,988
Thanks: 15,120
Thanked 8,311 Times in 6,509 Posts
Default Re: Is it wrong to talk to Iran?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topcat View Post
If by talk you mean tell them were the bear sh*t in the buckwheat fine. Let them know that we can make their nation a smoking lifeless ruin.
And Topcat there in lies the problem.. Neither America nor Israel wants to harm Irans people.

Even if all failed and war broke out. Irans people like America for the most part.
Mostly the young ones around say 40 something and under.

Although some even older, like us. Even after we failed them twice. In the early 80's we backed the soon to be evil Iraq leader in his war against Iran.

And then again in the early to mid 2000 period when the Nations people started their riots and we failed to get involved and help them in any way.

Yet still they like the West and just want to live peacefully, earn a living (which America has seen to it most can't do) have families and live like they once did before Khomeini returnd from France and took over the power and decided to make an Islamic Nation of Iran.

Now do you see the problem?

Besides we are not a nation that wipes out all of an enemies people! We have never done this.

Or have you missed both wars in Iraq and the one we are now slowly withdrawing from in Afghanistan?
__________________
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation... One is by sword... The other is by debt."

John Adams 1826



Life is to valuable to waste so moral up and live life right.

Cause with Jesus, you can live on after the Judgement.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2013, 02:47 PM
Mikeyy's Avatar
Enchanted One
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 50,107
Thanks: 14,712
Thanked 14,467 Times in 10,504 Posts
Default Re: Is it wrong to talk to Iran?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlurp View Post
And Topcat there in lies the problem.. Neither America nor Israel wants to harm Irans people.

Even if all failed and war broke out. Irans people like America for the most part.
Mostly the young ones around say 40 something and under.

Although some even older, like us. Even after we failed them twice. In the early 80's we backed the soon to be evil Iraq leader in his war against Iran.

And then again in the early to mid 2000 period when the Nations people started their riots and we failed to get involved and help them in any way.

Yet still they like the West and just want to live peacefully, earn a living (which America has seen to it most can't do) have families and live like they once did before Khomeini returnd from France and took over the power and decided to make an Islamic Nation of Iran.

Now do you see the problem?

Besides we are not a nation that wipes out all of an enemies people! We have never done this.

Or have you missed both wars in Iraq and the one we are now slowly withdrawing from in Afghanistan?
Topcat is a tough girl with other peoples lives. No point in having a discusion with her in an intelligent way.
__________________
KARMA IS ONLY A BITCH IF YOU ARE
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2013, 02:54 PM
Mikeyy's Avatar
Enchanted One
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 50,107
Thanks: 14,712
Thanked 14,467 Times in 10,504 Posts
Default Re: Is it wrong to talk to Iran?

BTW mlurp, Where do you get a comment like this? Are you on the koolaid too?

"I know with Obama in the WH we might not back our best or once best friends in this area of the M.E."

Everyone says Obama has done more for Israels security than any POTUS to date. The Israelis say so. I get real tired of this bullshlt I really do

Here is just one example. Why don't you educate yourself rather than spew the right wing talking points? How about the "Iron Dome" for example?



The initial funding and development of the Iron Dome system was provided and undertaken by Israel. This allowed for the deployment of the first two Iron Dome systems. Subsequently, funding for an additional eight Iron Dome systems—along with funding for a supply of interception missiles—is currently being provided by the United States, with two of these additional systems having been delivered by 2012. Funding for the production and deployment of these additional Iron Dome batteries and interceptor missiles was approved by the United States Congress, after being requested by President Obama in 2010. In May 2010, the White House announced that U.S. President Barack Obama would seek $205 million from U.S. Congress in his 2011 budget, to spur the production and deployment of additional Iron Dome batteries. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor stated, "The president recognizes the threat missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah pose to Israelis, and has therefore decided to seek funding from Congress to support the production of Israel's short range rocket defense system called Iron Dome." This would be the first direct U.S. investment in the project. Such financial assistance could expedite the completion of the defensive system, which has long been delayed by budgetary shortfalls. A few days later, on 20 May 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the funding in a 410–4 vote. The bill, the United States–Israel Missile Defense Cooperation and Support Act (H.R. 5327), was sponsored by Representative Glenn C. Nye of Virginia. This money was expected to be included in the 2011 budget. Once the money is received in 2011, it will still take a further 18 months before the additional batteries are delivered to the air force.


On 9 May 2011, Haaretz published that Defense Ministry director general Maj. Gen. (res.) Udi Shani said that Israel plans to invest nearly $1 billion in the coming years for the development and production of Iron Dome batteries. "We are no longer approaching this in terms of initial operational capabilities but are defining the final target for absorbing the systems, in terms of schedule and funds. We are talking about [having] 10–15 Iron Dome batteries. We will invest nearly $1 billion on this. This is the goal, in addition to the $205 million that the U.S. government has authorized," Shani said.


On 4 April 2012, Reuters reported that a senior Israeli official, during a briefing to a small group of journalists in condition of anonymity, predicted an increased interception range of up to 250 km, as well as more flexible aiming of Iron Dome units, thus lowering the number of batteries needed for full deployment in Israel. That would help Israel to cope with the prospect of reduced funding from the United States, while a "new round" of talks about missile-defense funding would be completed in two to three months, he anticipated. While praising American largess, the official said US planners have asked Israel to "point out honestly where the upper limit is in terms of what can be implemented" with the Iron Dome. He said the US is "deep in (fiscal) challenges itself", so it does not want to "give money for the sake of it".


In exchange for the second tranche of deployment funding, the United States is asking Israel for access to, and a stake in, elements of the system's technology.


On 17 May 2012, when Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the Pentagon issued a statement from the Secretary saying in part, "I was pleased to inform Minister Barak that the President supports Israel's Iron Dome system and directed me to fill the $70 million in assistance for Iron Dome that Minister Barak indicated to me Israel needs this fiscal year."



On 18 May 2012, the United States House of Representatives passed the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, with $680 million for Iron Dome in Section 227. The report accompanying the bill, 112-479, also calls for technology sharing as well as co-production of Iron Dome in the United States in light of the nearly $900 million invested in the system since 2011.


SECTION 227, IRON DOME SHORT-RANGE ROCKET DEFENSE PROGRAM, would authorize $680.0 million for the Iron Dome system in fiscal years 2012–15 in PE 63913C for procurement of additional batteries and interceptors, and for operations and sustainment expenses. This section would also require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to establish within MDA a program office for cooperative missile defense efforts on the Iron Dome system to ensure long-term cooperation on this program. The committee is aware that National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) included $205.0 million for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system for the State of Israel. The committee notes that the Iron Dome system has proven very effective at defeating threat rockets launched at protected targets. The committee also notes that if the full $680.0 million is used on the program, the total U.S. taxpayer investment in this system will amount to nearly $900.0 million since fiscal year 2011, yet the United States has no rights to the technology involved. The committee believes the Director should ensure, prior to disbursing the authorized $680 million for Iron Dome, that the United States has appropriate rights to this technology for United States defense purposes, subject to an agreement with the Israeli Missile Defense Organization, and in a manner consistent with prior U.S.–Israeli missile defense cooperation on the Arrow and David's Sling suite of systems. The committee also believes that the Director should explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system.

On 4 June 2012, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee included $210 million for Iron Dome, in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, S.3254. The bill has been reported out of committee and is waiting to be assigned a date for consideration by the full Senate.

SEC. 237, AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR IRON DOME SHORT-RANGE ROCKET DEFENSE PROGRAM, said that of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 by section 201 for research, development, test, and evaluation, defense-wide, and available for the Missile Defense Agency, $210,000,000 may be provided to the Government of Israel for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense program as specified in the funding table in section 4201.

[edit] Co-production with the United States

With the United States on track to greatly increase funding for Iron Dome, there have been calls for technology transfer and co-production of Iron Dome in the United States. Just as the US and Israel share co-production of the Arrow III missile system, with Boeing manufacturing 40–50 percent of the production content, there has been support in the U.S. Congress, media and think tanks in favor of co-production.[40] The U.S. House of Representatives included report language in its FY-2013 Defense Authorization Act supporting Iron Dome with $680 million but also instructing that the Director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, "should explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system."[41] There are media reports that the Pentagon is requesting similar language in the Senate Defense Authorization Act as well as the respective House and Senate defense appropriations bills for 2013.[42] Adding Iron Dome to the list of high-tech military programs built jointly by both nations would help further strengthen ties between Israel and America.[43]

[edit] Development

[edit] Design

In 2005, Brig. Gen. Danny Gold, then head of Maf'at, decided to start the program that would include the system's research and a demonstration of the intercepting system.[13][14] In 2007, Israel commissioned the development of Iron Dome, choosing Israeli contractor Rafael over the American giant Lockheed Martin. Israeli company mPrest Systems was put in charge of programming the core of Iron Dome's battle management system. Iron Dome went from the drawing board to combat readiness within less than four years, a remarkably short period of time for a weapons system designed from scratch, according to military experts.[44]


There was no system like this, anywhere in the world, in terms of capabilities, speed, accuracy. We felt like a start-up

—Eyal Ron, a manager at mPrest[44]

[edit] Testing

Iron Dome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
KARMA IS ONLY A BITCH IF YOU ARE
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2013, 03:18 PM
mlurp's Avatar
INDEPENDENT
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Some Place
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,988
Thanks: 15,120
Thanked 8,311 Times in 6,509 Posts
Default Re: Is it wrong to talk to Iran?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
Topcat is a tough girl with other peoples lives. No point in having a discusion with her in an intelligent way.
I think each person has a right to voice their opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
BTW mlurp, Where do you get a comment like this? Are you on the koolaid too?

See the comment right above this.

"I know with Obama in the WH we might not back our best or once best friends in this area of the M.E."

Everyone says Obama has done more for Israels security than any POTUS to date. The Israelis say so. I get real tired of this bullshlt I really do

Here is just one example. Why don't you educate yourself rather than spew the right wing talking points? How about the "Iron Dome" for example?



The initial funding and development of the Iron Dome system was provided and undertaken by Israel. This allowed for the deployment of the first two Iron Dome systems. Subsequently, funding for an additional eight Iron Dome systems—along with funding for a supply of interception missiles—is currently being provided by the United States, with two of these additional systems having been delivered by 2012. Funding for the production and deployment of these additional Iron Dome batteries and interceptor missiles was approved by the United States Congress, after being requested by President Obama in 2010. In May 2010, the White House announced that U.S. President Barack Obama would seek $205 million from U.S. Congress in his 2011 budget, to spur the production and deployment of additional Iron Dome batteries. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor stated, "The president recognizes the threat missiles and rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah pose to Israelis, and has therefore decided to seek funding from Congress to support the production of Israel's short range rocket defense system called Iron Dome." This would be the first direct U.S. investment in the project. Such financial assistance could expedite the completion of the defensive system, which has long been delayed by budgetary shortfalls. A few days later, on 20 May 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the funding in a 410–4 vote. The bill, the United States–Israel Missile Defense Cooperation and Support Act (H.R. 5327), was sponsored by Representative Glenn C. Nye of Virginia. This money was expected to be included in the 2011 budget. Once the money is received in 2011, it will still take a further 18 months before the additional batteries are delivered to the air force.


On 9 May 2011, Haaretz published that Defense Ministry director general Maj. Gen. (res.) Udi Shani said that Israel plans to invest nearly $1 billion in the coming years for the development and production of Iron Dome batteries. "We are no longer approaching this in terms of initial operational capabilities but are defining the final target for absorbing the systems, in terms of schedule and funds. We are talking about [having] 10–15 Iron Dome batteries. We will invest nearly $1 billion on this. This is the goal, in addition to the $205 million that the U.S. government has authorized," Shani said.


On 4 April 2012, Reuters reported that a senior Israeli official, during a briefing to a small group of journalists in condition of anonymity, predicted an increased interception range of up to 250 km, as well as more flexible aiming of Iron Dome units, thus lowering the number of batteries needed for full deployment in Israel. That would help Israel to cope with the prospect of reduced funding from the United States, while a "new round" of talks about missile-defense funding would be completed in two to three months, he anticipated. While praising American largess, the official said US planners have asked Israel to "point out honestly where the upper limit is in terms of what can be implemented" with the Iron Dome. He said the US is "deep in (fiscal) challenges itself", so it does not want to "give money for the sake of it".


In exchange for the second tranche of deployment funding, the United States is asking Israel for access to, and a stake in, elements of the system's technology.


On 17 May 2012, when Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the Pentagon issued a statement from the Secretary saying in part, "I was pleased to inform Minister Barak that the President supports Israel's Iron Dome system and directed me to fill the $70 million in assistance for Iron Dome that Minister Barak indicated to me Israel needs this fiscal year."



On 18 May 2012, the United States House of Representatives passed the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, with $680 million for Iron Dome in Section 227. The report accompanying the bill, 112-479, also calls for technology sharing as well as co-production of Iron Dome in the United States in light of the nearly $900 million invested in the system since 2011.


SECTION 227, IRON DOME SHORT-RANGE ROCKET DEFENSE PROGRAM, would authorize $680.0 million for the Iron Dome system in fiscal years 2012–15 in PE 63913C for procurement of additional batteries and interceptors, and for operations and sustainment expenses. This section would also require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to establish within MDA a program office for cooperative missile defense efforts on the Iron Dome system to ensure long-term cooperation on this program. The committee is aware that National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) included $205.0 million for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system for the State of Israel. The committee notes that the Iron Dome system has proven very effective at defeating threat rockets launched at protected targets. The committee also notes that if the full $680.0 million is used on the program, the total U.S. taxpayer investment in this system will amount to nearly $900.0 million since fiscal year 2011, yet the United States has no rights to the technology involved. The committee believes the Director should ensure, prior to disbursing the authorized $680 million for Iron Dome, that the United States has appropriate rights to this technology for United States defense purposes, subject to an agreement with the Israeli Missile Defense Organization, and in a manner consistent with prior U.S.–Israeli missile defense cooperation on the Arrow and David's Sling suite of systems. The committee also believes that the Director should explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system.

On 4 June 2012, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee included $210 million for Iron Dome, in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, S.3254. The bill has been reported out of committee and is waiting to be assigned a date for consideration by the full Senate.

SEC. 237, AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR IRON DOME SHORT-RANGE ROCKET DEFENSE PROGRAM, said that of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 by section 201 for research, development, test, and evaluation, defense-wide, and available for the Missile Defense Agency, $210,000,000 may be provided to the Government of Israel for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense program as specified in the funding table in section 4201.

[edit] Co-production with the United States

With the United States on track to greatly increase funding for Iron Dome, there have been calls for technology transfer and co-production of Iron Dome in the United States. Just as the US and Israel share co-production of the Arrow III missile system, with Boeing manufacturing 40–50 percent of the production content, there has been support in the U.S. Congress, media and think tanks in favor of co-production.[40] The U.S. House of Representatives included report language in its FY-2013 Defense Authorization Act supporting Iron Dome with $680 million but also instructing that the Director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, "should explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system."[41] There are media reports that the Pentagon is requesting similar language in the Senate Defense Authorization Act as well as the respective House and Senate defense appropriations bills for 2013.[42] Adding Iron Dome to the list of high-tech military programs built jointly by both nations would help further strengthen ties between Israel and America.[43]

[edit] Development

[edit] Design

In 2005, Brig. Gen. Danny Gold, then head of Maf'at, decided to start the program that would include the system's research and a demonstration of the intercepting system.[13][14] In 2007, Israel commissioned the development of Iron Dome, choosing Israeli contractor Rafael over the American giant Lockheed Martin. Israeli company mPrest Systems was put in charge of programming the core of Iron Dome's battle management system. Iron Dome went from the drawing board to combat readiness within less than four years, a remarkably short period of time for a weapons system designed from scratch, according to military experts.[44]


There was no system like this, anywhere in the world, in terms of capabilities, speed, accuracy. We felt like a start-up

—Eyal Ron, a manager at mPrest[44]

[edit] Testing

Iron Dome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
for the links Mikeyy but my mind was thinking of his last election, where he made the premier wait in his office.

And note I didn't do any attacks I just gave my own thoughts. So now Obama has made a change.

GREAT I can respect that to. Yet you need not go off on a triad to just tell me he has changed when it come to Israel.

Heck Mikeyy, I quit watching him do speechs, because they all seem like he is still campaigning & attacking the GOP.

Which to bring you upto date on my position, which is I don't care for either parties & to hell with most politics...

Yet I have a right to say my opinions.

So stop taking all I say {which is not the news I posted but my opinion at that time} and making it the important part of what I posted.
__________________
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation... One is by sword... The other is by debt."

John Adams 1826



Life is to valuable to waste so moral up and live life right.

Cause with Jesus, you can live on after the Judgement.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2013, 03:21 PM
faithful_servant's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Beautiful conservative Central Oregon
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,291
Thanks: 6,030
Thanked 8,054 Times in 5,528 Posts
Default Re: Is it wrong to talk to Iran?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
I have heard some who are vehemently opposed to any direct talks with Iran. I can never understand this position. Talking to our enemy doesn't concede anything and is preferable to seeing our men and woman killed or thousands of Iranians killed.

We have seen polling that shows that the Iranian public likes Americans. When you act belligerent and do nothing but threaten you stir nationalistic patriotism in the people of Iran and the positive feeling toward America begins to shift.

Don't misunderstand me. I think the regime is a sponsor of terrorism. I think they are already responsible for the deaths of Americans and our allies. I'm no Pollyanna when it comes to that government. But eventually that regime will fall. When it does who will take over? People who hate America or those who look to the U.S. as a model to emulate? It's called deplomacy and long term thinking.

It would help on two fronts. It would empower those in Iran who want a more western style democracy and establish to our allies that we have made every effort if we need to form a military coalition.

It could even have the effect of working out an agreement. I doubt it but it could happen. I just think it doesn't hurt to talk to your enemies up to the point you have to kick their asses.

What is gained by not talking?
I've never heard anyone vehemently oppose talking with Iran. Could you point us to the folks that do so, since it's at the heart of your assumption....?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 02-03-2013, 05:42 PM
Mikeyy's Avatar
Enchanted One
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 50,107
Thanks: 14,712
Thanked 14,467 Times in 10,504 Posts
Default Re: Is it wrong to talk to Iran?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlurp View Post
I think each person has a right to voice their opinions.



for the links Mikeyy but my mind was thinking of his last election, where he made the premier wait in his office.

And note I didn't do any attacks I just gave my own thoughts. So now Obama has made a change.

GREAT I can respect that to. Yet you need not go off on a triad to just tell me he has changed when it come to Israel.

Heck Mikeyy, I quit watching him do speechs, because they all seem like he is still campaigning & attacking the GOP.

Which to bring you upto date on my position, which is I don't care for either parties & to hell with most politics...

Yet I have a right to say my opinions.

So stop taking all I say {which is not the news I posted but my opinion at that time} and making it the important part of what I posted.
Maybe what you have missed is the attempt by the haters to create a distance between Obama and Israel. If you look Obama hasn't "Changed" He has been doing this sort of thing with Israel since he came into office. You hold on to BS that someone had to wait too long for Obama. Do you know the history here? Let me show you where it started.

The Original Snub:
The relationship has pretty rocky from the start. In the spring of 2009, while Barack was still in the glowing honeymoon phase of his presidency, he called on Israel to place an immediate halt on settlement construction before a meeting with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. This was a bit of a shift from the preceding administration, which had diplomatically dubbed the settlements “unhelpful.” To which Bibi reportedly said something to the effect of, “Really dude? Seriously? Not a chance. And by the way, not cool for you to ask, bro. Not cool.”

The “Thanks for Coming All This Way” Snub:
Like any well-delivered diplomatic “screw you,” this was a snub in (at least) two acts. Two weeks for Netanyahu’s 2010 Oval Office meeting, Biden went to Israel to lay the groundwork for reopening the peace process and reaffirm the United States’ “absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security.” On the second day of his trip, he was blindsided by the announcement of a new expansion of settlements—a point of stark contention between the U.S. and Israel—that Biden took as an affront to his goodwill mission. Not only did he condemn the timing and content of the announcement, he showed up an hour and a half late to dinner with Netanyahu that night, just to drive the point home.


Netanyahu doesn't like Obama on a personal level and for that matter is a friend on Mitt Romney's. That is a personal thing between the two men. But not between Obama and Isreal no matter how much the right tries to hype it. Ehud Barak,

Ehud Barak, The deputy Prime minister and defense minister of Israel said

"I should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing in regard to our security more than anything that I can remember in the past.”

That is a real soldier speaking. Not some bloated beauracrat. like Bibi.

You are a smart guy. Think about why the right would want to make people believe there is a rift between Israel and Obama. It ain't that hard to get. You are being hoodwinked. I mean you seem upset that Bibi made a unannounced trip and played it off by saying he hadn't planned to see Obama anyway. But why aren't you pissed off at how Bibi treated our V.P.?

Screw Bibi. He is a jerk and a right wing punk. Obama has good support in Israel not that that matters but Bibi is not Israel. He is a minority.
__________________
KARMA IS ONLY A BITCH IF YOU ARE
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
iran, talk, wrong

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0