Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainDan
The 9-11 planes WERE transponding (and were in fact legitimate flights) and deviated very little. Plus it's pretty unimaginable to compare the very tame pre 9-11 US air space to the heavily militarized (and jumpy) Mideast's airspace.
|
Sigh, lets just put this on the shelf - and perhaps come back to it later - in a more appropriate setting.
Quote:
|
And of course, with "tanker options" there is no need to increase the flight distance, and increase hostile nation flyovers by diverting to Georgia. And if you weren't planning to stop there, what's the point to going there?
|
You haven't even begun to account for the all the constraints involved - many of which are 'non technical' in nature.
Quote:
|
I would agree that the US would likely support Israel in such a move (at the very least, not interfere). I'm therefore also sure the American-controlled airspace over Iraq would be available,
|
Depends on this or that - and also who, what why and how - after that.
Quote:
|
but they are VERY unlikely to get any such leeway from Russia, Turkey, and/or Iran to challenging them in getting to Georgia.
|
Gee, are you sure about Russia ????
Who said anything about gittin' in.....expand your thinking
Quote:
|
And there just isn't any benefit to doing so.
|
Dead wrong in the most fundamental way possible. Then there is a sort of 'pop up' option.... which hopefully and most probably is 'off the table'.
Quote:
|
Now, I would certainly want none of this to happen,
|
Good, neither do I - in case you haven't noticed I'm not a big fan of the attack on Pearl Harbor - and while its not an adequate or legitimate justification - The Japanese had more justification than we or Israel do with regards to Iran. Actually in regards to IranUS, its the other way around
Quote:
|
but I can also understand that if the guy who said, "We will wipe Israel off the map" were to acquire nuclear weapons, that this might make the Israelis somewhat scared.
|
As you say,
if.
Blessedly he did not.
Very unfortunately, he was misquoted - and in a sense, we all know the rest.
If you do your homework here - you can confirm all this yourself.
And if you were told you the story behind the misquote
sourcing and related - you might not believe it anyway - I didn't until confirmed.
No, it is
not an American or Israeli source or spin story - to start.
********************
Something for you to consider although there is 'better' out there its a very good piece.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...02/comment.usa
Quote:
* Jonathan Steele
o The Guardian,
o Friday June 2 2006
It is 50 years since the greatest misquotation of the cold war.
At a Kremlin reception for western ambassadors in 1956, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev announced: "We will bury you."
Those four words were seized on by American hawks as proof of aggressive Soviet intent.
Doves who pointed out that the full quotation gave a less threatening message were drowned out.
Khrushchev had actually said: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you."
It was a harmless boast about socialism's eventual victory in the ideological competition with capitalism.
He was not talking about war.
Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president.
Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say
he wants Israel "wiped off the map".
Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case.
The remarks are not out of context.
They are wrong, pure and simple.
Ahmadinejad never said them.
Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated.
|
In technical terms the distortion is even 'worse' than not saying it at all.