NationStates Jolt Archive

Two sunni clerics in Iraq have been assasinated in as many days. Perhaps Iran is behind the assasinations. By stoking the fires of civil war in Iraq they can keep the US military bogged down there and avoid military action when we find out that they have not actually stopped their nuclear program. If they can buy enough time they will become a nuclear power before we can intervene.

And Iran becoming a nuclear power is automatically a bad thing? At least they might help keep Isreal in check...

And Iran becoming a nuclear power is automatically a bad thing? At least they might help keep Isreal in check...
yes it is a bad thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! exclamation mark!

Israel doesn't need to be kept in check. They have never invaded their neighbors except in self defense. They even gave back Sinai. Israel has behaved with incredible restraint given the fact that they are surrounded by neighbors who's official policy is to wipe Israel off the map, and the constant terrorist acts aimed at their civilian population.

Apart from taking Isreal from the Palestinians in the first place and then occupying the parts of the Palestinian's own country which the U.N. had ordered be left to them...Why exactly is Iran having Nukes a bad thing? Other than the fact that more people with more nukes is a bad thing, the Isrealis have nukes, the Indians have nukes, the Pakistanis have nukes and they aren't complained about so it can't be to stop nukes getting into the hands of fundamentalists or dictatorships...

It's about limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the hands of dangerous regimes. Iraq has long been a state sponsor of terrorism. What's to stop them from handing over a nuclear weapon to one of their terrorist cells in Israel and sparking a regional nuclear war? Iran's nukes would destabilize the region. Even the Saudis would then feel the need to develop a nuclear deterrant.

It's about limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the hands of dangerous regimes. Iraq has long been a state sponsor of terrorism. What's to stop them from handing over a nuclear weapon to one of their terrorist cells in Israel and sparking a regional nuclear war? Iran's nukes would destabilize the region. Even the Saudis would then feel the need to develop a nuclear deterrant.

Even though i agree that a middle east in which all countries have nukes would be a terrible thing, i find it hard to argue that Iran has no right to have nukes.
The US has nukes, and is developping new ones right now; some European countries have nukes, Russia has them, China, India, etc. You can't deny someone else the right to do something you are guilty of yourself. There's no evidence of WMD's in Iraq, but nearly all western democracies have every imaginable type of WMD in their arsenal.

Even though i agree that a middle east in which all countries have nukes would be a terrible thing, i find it hard to argue that Iran has no right to have nukes.
The US has nukes, and is developping new ones right now; some European countries have nukes, Russia has them, China, India, etc. You can't deny someone else the right to do something you are guilty of yourself. There's no evidence of WMD's in Iraq, but nearly all western democracies have every imaginable type of WMD in their arsenal.
The US, China, Russia, India, and Europe are not very likely to use nukes. They are also not going to sell their nuclear technology. I don't think Iran can be trusted not to sell nukes, or to transfer them to a terrorist organization so that they can be used against their enemies while Iran denies any involvement. You sure can deny someone else's right to do something that you yourself do. For instance, we deny convicted felons the right to own guns. Iran is an outlaw state, we should deny them nukes.

Apart from taking Isreal from the Palestinians in the first place and then occupying the parts of the Palestinian's own country which the U.N. had ordered be left to them...Why exactly is Iran having Nukes a bad thing? Other than the fact that more people with more nukes is a bad thing, the Isrealis have nukes, the Indians have nukes, the Pakistanis have nukes and they aren't complained about so it can't be to stop nukes getting into the hands of fundamentalists or dictatorships...

1) they took Irsael from Great Britain, which was preparing to give it to them.

2) they took the rest in wars to defend their very existence.

3) boo-fucking-hoo.

The US, China, Russia, India, and Europe are not very likely to use nukes. They are also not going to sell their nuclear technology. I don't think Iran can be trusted not to sell nukes, or to transfer them to a terrorist organization so that they can be used against their enemies while Iran denies any involvement. You sure can deny someone else's right to do something that you yourself do. For instance, we deny convicted felons the right to own guns. Iran is an outlaw state, we should deny them nukes.

There is one nation which :

1. Possesses the most WMDs (i.e. chemical and biological weapons as well as nuclear weapons).
2. Has a policy of "pre-emptive" strikes.
3. Has a record of ignoring the UN and other nations when in pursuit of its own agenda.
4. Belives that invasion to enforce "regime change" is justified
5. Is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons.

Now, who is an "outlaw" state ????
Who should be denied nukes???

And your best argument is "You sure can deny someone else's right to do something that you yourself do." - little wonder, but poor defence, no logic, but pure spite.

There is one nation which :

1. Possesses the most WMDs (i.e. chemical and biological weapons as well as nuclear weapons).
2. Has a policy of "pre-emptive" strikes.
3. Has a record of ignoring the UN and other nations when in pursuit of its own agenda.
4. Belives that invasion to enforce "regime change" is justified
5. Is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons.

Now, who is an "outlaw" state ????
Who should be denied nukes???


You make some very valid points. The US does have some actions and materials, for which it needs to answer. However, none of them are all that germaine to the topic of this thread. :rolleyes:

I think it is highly likely that Iran is involved in the current instability in Iraq. Why wouldn't they be? Iraq and Iran have been openly hostile to each other for a long time now. It is not in the best interest of Iran to see a flourishing Federalist state in it's neighbourhood, nor is it in it's best interest to see America successful in any endeavour in the region. In addition, we have the fact of previous Iranian involvement in the instability of Iraq.

Having said all that, there is no reason to think that it isn't the Syrians, or that it is an officially sanctioned action by any government. From whaqt I have seen, things are actually calming down between the Shia and Sunni, so it could be extremists on either side of that divide, as well.

Which nation has as it's public policy for the complete destruction of Israel? Which country on it's army day has it's people chant "Death to America etc..." Which country harbors and supports terrorists? No I am not talking about France.

Iran. I just hope that the US or at least Israel blows up Iran's capabilities before they come online.
Because you choose to be blinded by your liberalism, you prefer to be apologists and haters of the US and/or Israel. This is your choice of course, thank god that you people don't make up the contents of the military. Then we would all be speaking German or Russian, or now a days offering prayers every day to Mecca and kowtowing to the extremests that lead Islam today. Or like many other Muslims who stay silent to their fellow Muslims who claim Mohamads permission to be terrorists.
You prefer to believe the media and the enemy's propoganda, it succeeds in making you feel guilty, so be it. Your weakness won't budge me or thankfully (hopefully) the many who feel as I.

I kind of like the idea of the US leading the world. Why do you think that it's the most popular country in the world to immigrate to? The American dream is every man and womans dream.

I am not an apologist. I am thankfull. Thanks to those who serve their country. Thanks to those that (I borrow) monkey stomped the Nazis/Germans both wars, and will do so to the terrorists in this world! Did I forget ... stoped communism in it's tracks.

oops... rant over.

Which nation has as it's public policy for the complete destruction of Israel? Which country on it's army day has it's people chant "Death to America etc..." Which country harbors and supports terrorists? No I am not talking about France.

Iran. I just hope that the US or at least Israel blows up Iran's capabilities before they come online.

Because you choose to be blinded by your liberalism, you prefer to be apologists and haters of the US and/or Israel. This is your choice of course, thank god that you people don't make up the contents of the military. Then we would all be speaking German or Russian, or now a days offering prayers every day to Mecca and kowtowing to the extremests that lead Islam today. Or like many other Muslims who stay silent to their fellow Muslims who claim Mohamads permission to be terrorists.
You prefer to believe the media and the enemy's propoganda, it succeeds in making you feel guilty, so be it. Your weakness won't budge me or thankfully (hopefully) the many who feel as I.

I kind of like the idea of the US leading the world. Why do you think that it's the most popular country in the world to immigrate to? The American dream is every man and womans dream.

I am not an apologist. I am thankfull. Thanks to those who serve their country. Thanks to those that (I borrow) monkey stomped the Nazis/Germans both wars, and will do so to the terrorists in this world! Did I forget ... stoped communism in it's tracks.

Kraketoa wins the thread. :cool:

Kraketoa wins the thread. :cool:

By what definition, he's just spewing out the normal stuff that comes around.

Spewed the "normal" stuff. Back at you!

Thankfully it is "normal".

Kraketoa wins the thread. :cool:

Are you a chearleader or a puppet.

I think we would prefer to see someone who can argue a point of view.

Spewed the "normal" stuff. Back at you!

Thankfully it is "normal".

Yeah, normal for those who have no clue of history, current world politics etc etc

Spewed the "normal" stuff. Back at you!

Thankfully it is "normal".

If an emotional, irrational, illogical and inaccurate rant is considered "normal", then the situation has deteriorated worse than I had thought.

How about a reasoned response to the facts that I and other have mentioned, and less of the rhetoric.

If an emotional, irrational, illogical and inaccurate rant is considered "normal", then the situation has deteriorated worse than I had thought.

How about a reasoned response to the facts that I and other have mentioned, and less of the rhetoric.

:eek: me thinks you wish for far too much sir (or madam!) ;)

:eek: me thinks you wish for far too much sir (or madam!) ;)

Methinks you are right.

BTW, I'm an Aussie.

Just call me "mate".

"Sir" should remain for those who have been knighted (usually for some notorious commercial exploitation these days).

Madam is far too close too "madame", and thus hints at dubious employment.

Crikey!

Look, your definition of logical, rational, and accurate means that :

- America didn't save europe from the nazis
- America didn't save europe from communism
- Black is White!

You ask for rational discourse, then very conveniently obfuscate one point kraketoa makes : WHICH COUNTRY ADVOCATES THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF ISRAEL, AND OPENS ALMOST EVERY SENATORIAL SESSION WITH THE SONG "DEATH TO AMERICA" ?

Well hot damn, keep on ranting and raving about the evil capitalists who gave their lives so that you could :

- Choose your spouse.
- Choose your job.
- Choose your religion.
- Choose the state/country in which you want to live.

So now that the "cheerleader" points out your factually stupid point of view, unless you decide to immediately emigrate to iran, live there, be oppressed there, and shut the fuck up...

Oh, but yes, the general consensus is all about that! How silly of me, I always thought that the "rebel" kids in high school were so rooting for coca-cola, macdonald's and other rebellious causes such as freedom of enterprise!

If you're still in your teens, I can understand that kind of thinking.
If you're over 17, put your Che Guevara T-shirt back in the trash it belongs to, trim your hair, and get a life, plzokthx.

/pot to kettle, anyone?

- America didn't save europe from communism


And you're saying they did. Now you have to tell me how exactly did "America" (I assume you don't mean the continent) save Europe from communism?

Look, your definition of logical, rational, and accurate means that :

- America didn't save europe from the nazis
- America didn't save europe from communism
- Black is White!

You ask for rational discourse, then very conveniently obfuscate one point kraketoa makes : WHICH COUNTRY ADVOCATES THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF ISRAEL, AND OPENS ALMOST EVERY SENATORIAL SESSION WITH THE SONG "DEATH TO AMERICA" ?

Well hot damn, keep on ranting and raving about the evil capitalists who gave their lives so that you could :

- Choose your spouse.
- Choose your job.
- Choose your religion.
- Choose the state/country in which you want to live.

So now that the "cheerleader" points out your factually stupid point of view, unless you decide to immediately emigrate to iran, live there, be oppressed there, and shut the fuck up...

Oh, but yes, the general consensus is all about that! How silly of me, I always thought that the "rebel" kids in high school were so rooting for coca-cola, macdonald's and other rebellious causes such as freedom of enterprise!

If you're still in your teens, I can understand that kind of thinking.
If you're over 17, put your Che Guevara T-shirt back in the trash it belongs to, trim your hair, and get a life, plzokthx.

/pot to kettle, anyone?


Firstly, you again fail to address any of my points re the US and its current policies and possession of WMDs.

Secondly, the Americans didn't save Europe from the Nazis - check your history, the Russians won the war. You can easily confirm this fact by checking on what Europe looked like at the end of it. Hint : Churchill mentioned an "iron curtain".

Thirdly, I have not mentioned freedom of choice, or the capitalist system. Neither should you, they are not the subject of this thread.

Sadly, you appear to have lost the plot.

Why is communism a bad thing incidentally?
The U.S has been fighting it for years, but the actual ideas behind communism aren't necessarily "Evil."

Admittedly Joseph Stalin's 5 year kill everyone plan didn't help matters, but that was just him going Nuts.

While I don't believe the theory in the original post. I find the situation in Iraq very strange. The Sunni, who would seem more likely to elect a secular, democratic government, fight the process at every turn. The Shia, who would seem to like nothing more than an Iranian-style theocracy, embrace the idea of elections, or it seems that way. The US, fights the Sunnis. Very strange!

Why is communism a bad thing incidentally?
The U.S has been fighting it for years, but the actual ideas behind communism aren't necessarily "Evil."

Admittedly Joseph Stalin's 5 year kill everyone plan didn't help matters, but that was just him going Nuts.
Communism isn't evil. Unrealistic and misguided, without question!

Remember.....the U.S. was the first one to get nukes. BTW, once you get nukes, its hard to get rid of them. Besides, we use them as a detterent against other countries that would give them. Once someone nukes someone.....WW3 anyone?

Communism isn't evil. Unrealistic and misguided, without question!

Granted its a long shot, but the Americans (or the government) has always fought against it like it threatens their way of life. I just don't see what the U.S is so afraid of.

Remember.....the U.S. was the first one to get nukes. BTW, once you get nukes, its hard to get rid of them. Besides, we use them as a detterent against other countries that would give them. Once someone nukes someone.....WW3 anyone?

So why can't any other country have nukes as a deterrent against the States using them?

Two sunni clerics in Iraq have been assasinated in as many days. Perhaps Iran is behind the assasinations. By stoking the fires of civil war in Iraq they can keep the US military bogged down there and avoid military action when we find out that they have not actually stopped their nuclear program. If they can buy enough time they will become a nuclear power before we can intervene.

Don't worry. We're way ahead of you.

Look, your definition of logical, rational, and accurate means that :

- America didn't save europe from the nazis
- America didn't save europe from communism
- Black is White!

You ask for rational discourse, then very conveniently obfuscate one point kraketoa makes : WHICH COUNTRY ADVOCATES THE COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF ISRAEL, AND OPENS ALMOST EVERY SENATORIAL SESSION WITH THE SONG "DEATH TO AMERICA" ?

Well hot damn, keep on ranting and raving about the evil capitalists who gave their lives so that you could :

- Choose your spouse.
- Choose your job.
- Choose your religion.
- Choose the state/country in which you want to live.

So now that the "cheerleader" points out your factually stupid point of view, unless you decide to immediately emigrate to iran, live there, be oppressed there, and shut the fuck up...

Oh, but yes, the general consensus is all about that! How silly of me, I always thought that the "rebel" kids in high school were so rooting for coca-cola, macdonald's and other rebellious causes such as freedom of enterprise!

If you're still in your teens, I can understand that kind of thinking.
If you're over 17, put your Che Guevara T-shirt back in the trash it belongs to, trim your hair, and get a life, plzokthx.

/pot to kettle, anyone?

Right, the first two you got right, and thats all i was making the point about in the first place. But once again you take what we said and put words into our mouths again. I have never stated anything about the topic on this thread, i mearly pointed out that Kraketoa spouted out some absolute rubbish that had nothing to do with the thread itself.

True, Iran might get some nukes, but will they use them. Doubtful, as they know all to well that if they did they would not live to see the next dawn. Personally, i don't think either country that has been put forward in this arguement has a history to be proud of and that nukes should be forever banned. But thats not realistic. So as for an answer i have non, but i dislike people who put forth rhetoric in place as fact.

Granted its a long shot, but the Americans (or the government) has always fought against it like it threatens their way of life. I just don't see what the U.S is so afraid of.
It's not a long shot. It's impossible and dangerous and has lead to nothing but deprivation and oppression anywhere it has been attempted. Those seem like good reasons to fight it.

What part of my "rhetoric" was not fact ?

That the Russians won WWII is probably for another thread, and probably very interesting. Although I think you are stretching. Remember Japan was still fighting when the war in Europe was finished.

It was the US and English who smashed the industrial back of the Axis powers.

Communism in concept is a "nice" thing, but the only people that made that work in a very limited way was Israel. I don't know of any more, maybe later on vietnam.. now I am stretching. However in practice in general it sucked, and it still sucks... look at N.Korea, China. This type of governing is just like the type of rulers that exists in Iran, etc...


p.s.
you are right however it was a very abstract way of adding to the thread, I was reading posts and responding to them.

Iran is definately a player, and even though I consider them the enemy, they would be stupid not to be playing in Iraq. As do I am sure many other nations. Iran however has alot more to lose when the US wins, and Iraq does go democratic. A large part of Iraq is shi'ite.

The long term objectives for both US and Iran are what should be more at focus rather than what we expect or hear in the media. And to play by the rules as the US tries to do is very hard in warfare. Iran uses proxies and they do whatever they want.
Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people, I doubt that he did it alone, it took a whole packet of nuts to do that!

The US has earned the right (IMO) to govern or at least try to the WMD of the world because the UN does a shit job of it, and arguing about it will be null and void when Iran tests their first nuke. And in my eyes they are the enemy. And I don't care if the enemy does not "like" me.

Firstly, you again fail to address any of my points re the US and its current policies and possession of WMDs.

You always turn the question around. Please stop. Answer the first question. Which country, that EVIDENTLY WANTS NUKES, chants "death to america" every parliament session's opening? Now, answer the other rhethorical question, which country built them first, enforced their "way of life", which is what we use as a standard the world over whenever we want to "benchmark" democracies?


Secondly, the Americans didn't save Europe from the Nazis - check your history, the Russians won the war. You can easily confirm this fact by checking on what Europe looked like at the end of it. Hint : Churchill mentioned an "iron curtain".


The russians won the war. Now I've seen it all. Mapristop, Tovaritch! The Iron Curtain - now that's something you should read up on, as well. It is not because the soviets invaded and claimed half of Germany that it won the war. And let's look at both sides of europe post-war, then. One has economic development up the wazoo, the other one still lies in its communist shit, waist-deep in misery, with ongoing civil wars in just about every binational or puppet state to ever establish contact with Russia. So, yeah, Russia won that kind of war, if you want to. You should try living in Ukraine.


Thirdly, I have not mentioned freedom of choice, or the capitalist system. Neither should you, they are not the subject of this thread.


You have implied it, and you know it. "Boo-hoo, lookit da mean americunz! Dey gots huge bombz! Dey snarling an' horrible! Why dey don't let peaceful countries like Iran develop their own???" Well, my answer is, because it's a constant for the mentally challenged to criticize Rome, or the current superpower, just out of spite. Without America, my whole family wouldn't have survived WW2 and its aftermath. YOU choose to criticize a democracy, and the model for democracies in the world, because like it or not, Americans have fucking good reasons to be proud of their country.


Sadly, you appear to have lost the plot.


Did you have a point? I mean, other than "DEATH TO AMERICA" ?

What part of my "rhetoric" was not fact ?

That the Russians won WWII is probably for another thread, and probably very interesting. Although I think you are stretching. Remember Japan was still fighting when the war in Europe was finished.

It was the US and English who smashed the industrial back of the Axis powers.

Communism in concept is a "nice" thing, but the only people that made that work in a very limited way was Israel. I don't know of any more, maybe later on vietnam.. now I am stretching. However in practice in general it sucked, and it still sucks... look at N.Korea, China. This type of governing is just like the type of rulers that exists in Iran, etc...

Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people, I doubt that he did it alone, it took a whole packet of nuts to do that!

The US has earned the right (IMO) to govern or at least try to the WMD of the world because the UN does a shit job of it, and arguing about it will be null and void when Iran tests their first nuke. And in my eyes they are the enemy. And I don't care if the enemy does not "like" me.


Well in your original post it seemed like you stated it was purely the USA that won both WWI and II. Apologies if i misunderstood what you were getting at. That was the only bit i was objecting to.

I agree communism sucks, as a concept it was brilliant, in practice its just a waste. Even the Chinese are turning towards capitalism to try and get their economy stronger than the american one.

As for the americans right. I'm not sure how they earned it, but i agree, if someone needs to do it, the americans shall be in there, but they need to give their backing to a reform of the UN and try and go through that route.

Iran may be the enemy in your eyes and you may not care, but Iran is going to be a damn sight harder to deal with than Iraq, so it might be a case of bluffing them until you can really take out their capabilities. Besides, you really think all Iranians hate the US, just because of the rhetoric in their songs? Its the radical few, like in every country, its just that Iran has more than their fair share...

What part of my "rhetoric" was not fact ?

That the Russians won WWII is probably for another thread, and probably very interesting. Although I think you are stretching. Remember Japan was still fighting when the war in Europe was finished.

It was the US and English who smashed the industrial back of the Axis powers.

Communism in concept is a "nice" thing, but the only people that made that work in a very limited way was Israel. I don't know of any more, maybe later on vietnam.. now I am stretching. However in practice in general it sucked, and it still sucks... look at N.Korea, China. This type of governing is just like the type of rulers that exists in Iran, etc...

Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people, I doubt that he did it alone, it took a whole packet of nuts to do that!

The US has earned the right (IMO) to govern or at least try to the WMD of the world because the UN does a shit job of it, and arguing about it will be null and void when Iran tests their first nuke. And in my eyes they are the enemy. And I don't care if the enemy does not "like" me.

Kindly explain how "The US has earned the right (IMO) to govern or at least try to the WMD of the world ". Surely, the only thing which confers the "right" to govern would be the free consent of the governed - an amusing system, usually equated with freedom and democracy. Or do those concepts not apply on this occassion?

If WMDs are a problem, either no one should have them, or everyone should have them (a return to the MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction theory).

Again, if WMDs are a problem, then lets remove them from the cointries which have them - don't worry about Iran, go after North Korea. Or is that perhaps an unattractive proposition simply and purely because they DO have WMDs.

Besides, who is going to believe any US cry of "WMDs, WMDs" anymore. You may recall the story of the boy who cried "wolf".

Well, I think that either of them should have nukes.

Iran is not democratic, it's controlled by religion.
USA is not democratic, it's controllod by money.

They have something common:
Both are inflexible to negotiate but very keen to start wars.
Both are inable to support poorer members of own nation
but are very able to support war in foreign nation.

@Kraketoa
I live in the small neighbour country of russia. My country has
never recieved any military aid from usa. We have fought against
the russians many times but we still speak our own language.
We have minority of islamic religion but we don't have terrorists.
On our country the president is directly selected by people
and the presidents usualy have history of political or diplomatic
career. The usa president has a shady history of oli business with
saudi arabian monarchy and genes of war president who lost
the only war let his allies be slaughtered. And he is chosen by
states not by votes from people. So in my point of view the
americans talk a lot about democracy but exercise it less.

And your acclaims of stoping communism don't have any proof to
back them up. Russia stopped communism a little while ago.
USA tryed to stop the communism in cuba, korea and vietnam
and failed in all countries.

And there is more countries in europe than Italy, France, Germany and
England. So the americans did actualy save europe. They just helped
to save France from Germany, Italy from Italians and invaded half of
germany. You should read more history.

And its not really serving your country if your country is not attacked.
In Afganistan thats the case but in Irak is serving the oil corporatins.
It's not a long shot. It's impossible and dangerous and has lead to nothing but deprivation and oppression anywhere it has been attempted. Those seem like good reasons to fight it.

Yes, the "communism" is a side form of "sosialism". Sosialism is
a beatifull ideology but is has no realistic possibilities to work
in human communities. It states that all people are equal
in every way, not dependant to abilities and no one owns
anything. Everything is owned by nation and nation is owned
by everyone. The american ideology is that everyone is
owning something; money, land, rights to lakes, irak oil,
nuclear weapons, tobacco company, rights to some
specific way to do things, technology, air, etc
So the americans feel treathened by the idea that they
have to share something with someone.

Right, the first two you got right, and thats all i was making the point about in the first place. But once again you take what we said and put words into our mouths again. I have never stated anything about the topic on this thread, i mearly pointed out that Kraketoa spouted out some absolute rubbish that had nothing to do with the thread itself.

True, Iran might get some nukes, but will they use them. Doubtful, as they know all to well that if they did they would not live to see the next dawn. Personally, i don't think either country that has been put forward in this arguement has a history to be proud of and that nukes should be forever banned. But thats not realistic. So as for an answer i have non, but i dislike people who put forth rhetoric in place as fact.

We will make sure that they WILL NOT USE THEM. Our "CoAllition" will grow.

The russians won the war. Now I've seen it all. Mapristop, Tovaritch! The Iron Curtain - now that's something you should read up on, as well. It is not because the soviets invaded and claimed half of Germany that it won the war. And let's look at both sides of europe post-war, then. One has economic development up the wazoo, the other one still lies in its communist shit, waist-deep in misery, with ongoing civil wars in just about every binational or puppet state to ever establish contact with Russia. So, yeah, Russia won that kind of war, if you want to. You should try living in Ukraine.

So the fact they got to Berlin, were the first army to stop the germans advance and drew half the german army away from the western front etc etc has nothing to do with that at all?

We will make sure that they WILL NOT USE THEM. Our "CoAllition" will grow.

Unless the US goes about it the right way, the coalition will have only 2 or maybe even 1 memeber. (UK & US or just the US itself)

Unless the US goes about it the right way, the coalition will have only 2 or maybe even 1 memeber. (UK & US or just the US itself)

That's enough.

Ok.
I think (my opinon) that the US has earned the right, because of .. read my first post.. you know the rhetoric one.

I don't need the US government to tell me the Iranians have WMD, I believe they do from my own countries Intel. As well as this, I believe the Iraqi's had WMD but moved it to Syria/Lebanon. The fact that the media says different does not prove anything!

It would be wrong for me to imply the US was the sole reason that WWII was won. However without them we would have lost. (we is general for all allies) So with them we won, without them we would have lost. Without them Russia would have lost as well. (IMO)

Unless the US goes about it the right way, the coalition will have only 2 or maybe even 1 memeber. (UK & US or just the US itself)

I just call it the 53 state america.

So the fact they got to Berlin, were the first army to stop the germans advance and drew half the german army away from the western front etc etc has nothing to do with that at all?

So, did they contribute to victory, or WIN the war on ALL fronts? I dunno, doesn't look like the world listens the red army choir to me. Seen japan, lately?

Mister T would tell you to "crack open da books!", on this one.

/pity da fool
//still awaiting answers from my other post... :rolleyes:

That's enough.


Yup, although i think the US will wait for a few years before tackling Iran. Its too tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan to force a major conflict with a possible nuclear power. Either that or they will wait for one single piece of evidence that they can link Iran to an attack in Israel then get them to help too...

I just call it the 53 state america.

THAT IS STILL MORE THAN ENOUGH. (Do you have any facts to back you up?)

Sebastian Sethe, out of interest what country are you from?

There is always more history that I can read and learn. However I will stick to my opinion up to now. Prove me wrong. (I mean this in a polite way)

Kellarly, Russia go to Berlin first, I think however a little more background is needed to understand why.

I don't need the US government to tell me the Iranians have WMD, I believe they do from my own countries Intel. As well as this, I believe the Iraqi's had WMD but moved it to Syria/Lebanon. The fact that the media says different does not prove anything!

So if the US thinks that someone has WMD, They have the right to
do full scale attack and invade another country? In fact if the US
think theres good canal place in panama they can go and grap it
because its not owned by rebublican american?


It would be wrong for me to imply the US was the sole reason that WWII was won. However without them we would have lost. (we is general for all allies) So with them we won, without them we would have lost. Without them Russia would have lost as well. (IMO)

Read more history, the russians raced american english and english
forces to berlin and succeeded. The russians where just about to
finnish finland and baltics where a drive trough. The americans
came to drive their own intrest; democratic europe.

Sebastian Sethe, out of interest what country are you from?

There is always more history that I can read and learn. However I will stick to my opinion up to now. Prove me wrong. (I mean this in a polite way)

Kellarly, Russia go to Berlin first, I think however a little more background is needed to understand why.

Finland (the country between russia and sweden)

The US I believe will not "invade" Iran. They might (hopefully) carry out air strikes against them. This will be enough. If the Iranians "invade" Iraq the will lean a very good lesson on why guerilla warfare is the only one that will work against the US and allies. Infact I would be morbidly interested to see it. Although when one plane takes out a whole battalion of tanks, then maybe they will understand... as I am sure they do. They are not stupid.

Which nation has as it's public policy for the complete destruction of Israel? Which country on it's army day has it's people chant "Death to America etc..." Which country harbors and supports terrorists? No I am not talking about France.

Iran. I just hope that the US or at least Israel blows up Iran's capabilities before they come online.
Because you choose to be blinded by your liberalism, you prefer to be apologists and haters of the US and/or Israel. This is your choice of course, thank god that you people don't make up the contents of the military. Then we would all be speaking German or Russian, or now a days offering prayers every day to Mecca and kowtowing to the extremests that lead Islam today. Or like many other Muslims who stay silent to their fellow Muslims who claim Mohamads permission to be terrorists.
You prefer to believe the media and the enemy's propoganda, it succeeds in making you feel guilty, so be it. Your weakness won't budge me or thankfully (hopefully) the many who feel as I.

I kind of like the idea of the US leading the world. Why do you think that it's the most popular country in the world to immigrate to? The American dream is every man and womans dream.

I am not an apologist. I am thankfull. Thanks to those who serve their country. Thanks to those that (I borrow) monkey stomped the Nazis/Germans both wars, and will do so to the terrorists in this world! Did I forget ... stoped communism in it's tracks.

oops... rant over.


Yawn. Usually jumped up American bullshit. Who is to say they have nukes? This from the administration who was 100% sure that Iraq had WMD's. Attacking Iran will do more for global terrorism than leaving them alone. They shouldnt charge into another conflict with Iraq tetterring on the brink of civil war.
Your the one who is believing propaganda.
And guess what, killing terrorists wont stop it, its not a conventional war, kill one and you inspire 20 more to take their place. Till the root causes are delt with you will always have extremeists. Simple as that.

Ok.
I think (my opinon) that the US has earned the right, because of .. read my first post.. you know the rhetoric one.

I don't need the US government to tell me the Iranians have WMD, I believe they do from my own countries Intel. As well as this, I believe the Iraqi's had WMD but moved it to Syria/Lebanon. The fact that the media says different does not prove anything!

It would be wrong for me to imply the US was the sole reason that WWII was won. However without them we would have lost. (we is general for all allies) So with them we won, without them we would have lost. Without them Russia would have lost as well. (IMO)


First point, fair enough, your opinion.

Second one, i think Iraq had the capability to build them, but as they couldn't even reinforce their own tanks or buy new ones, they simply didn't have the large financial backing that they needed to produce WMDs en mass. Plus i think all of their original chem weps. were used either against Iran or their own people.

Third one. Glad we agree. I believe that without US OR Russia, we (all other allies) would have been up shite creek without a paddle.

THAT IS STILL MORE THAN ENOUGH. (Do you have any facts to back you up?)

I'm not sure what you mean, you understood me wrong. I'm not
saying that the americans and english wouldn't be able to take out
soldiers of any individual country.

Yawn. Usually jumped up American bullshit. Who is to say they have nukes? This from the administration who was 100% sure that Iraq had WMD's. Attacking Iran will do more for global terrorism than leaving them alone. They shouldnt charge into another conflict with Iraq tetterring on the brink of civil war.
Your the one who is believing propaganda.
And guess what, killing terrorists wont stop it, its not a conventional war, kill one and you inspire 20 more to take their place. Till the root causes are delt with you will always have extremeists. Simple as that.

I Agree, we can influence and back them up, and this way slowly
implement democracy to iran. But we can not do this if the usa
is giving them source of hate. (we = europe)

While I don't believe the theory in the original post. I find the situation in Iraq very strange. The Sunni, who would seem more likely to elect a secular, democratic government, fight the process at every turn. The Shia, who would seem to like nothing more than an Iranian-style theocracy, embrace the idea of elections, or it seems that way. The US, fights the Sunnis. Very strange!

It's because, under Saddam's regime, the Sunni were the favoured minority and thus had positions of power. But with democracy, as the Sunni are a minority, they feel aggravated at at not only losing their positions of power but under the democratic system would also be susceptable to the wishes of the Shia majority

Put it this way. British forces will not take part in an attack on Iran. Theres an election here next year and Labour would lose if they did. Theres still alot of disquiet about the misleading reasons for the Iraq war. If America attacks Iran it will do so alone.

Put it this way. British forces will not take part in an attack on Iran. Theres an election here next year and Labour would lose if they did. Theres still alot of disquiet about the misleading reasons for the Iraq war. If America attacks Iran it will do so alone.

Agreed. But after the election, presuming they win, who knows? Its a very slim chance, but the chance is always there.

Agreed. But after the election, presuming they win, who knows? Its a very slim chance, but the chance is always there.

Nope no way, they would never get away with it. It would take video footage of the Iranians testing a nuke for it to be even considered. People here arent gonna swallow the same 'we think they have WMD's' story twice.

It's because, under Saddam's regime, the Sunni were the favoured minority and thus had positions of power. But with democracy, as the Sunni are a minority, they feel aggravated at at not only losing their positions of power but under the democratic system would also be susceptable to the wishes of the Shia majority

I was under the thought that Sunni's are 60% of population of iraq?

Even if they where the democracy brings them down, because
the Shia's and the minority in north (the ones that turkish shoot)
would have some word in the goverment.

I know where Finland is I have a Finnish relative.
http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=28271 is a good source on information. (for me)

Burnzonia. Whatever. What is to say that the media is correct? I think everyone realizes that this war on terrorism is not conventional.

Put it this way. British forces will not take part in an attack on Iran. Theres an election here next year and Labour would lose if they did. Theres still alot of disquiet about the misleading reasons for the Iraq war. If America attacks Iran it will do so alone.

That confuses me a lot. The labour union goes against its own
members and UN and goes to war with capitalistic nation with
rebublican war president.

Yup, although i think the US will wait for a few years before tackling Iran. Its too tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan to force a major conflict with a possible nuclear power. Either that or they will wait for one single piece of evidence that they can link Iran to an attack in Israel then get them to help too...

A lot can happen in 4 years.

A lot can happen in 4 years.

Yup, 4 years and 2 months ago people would have mocked you for talking about a war with Iraq and Afghanistan.

For a strategic air strike/s the Brits are not needed. Neither are the Israelis, although the airforce has been practicing.

For a strategic air strike/s the Brits are not needed. Neither are the Israelis, although the airforce has been practicing.

The Israelis have done it before. They took out that nuclear power plant that they suspected of producing the stuff.

A lot can happen in 4 years.

I'm holding back (and will continue). You pontificators are making it up. The "Domino" theory failed in Viet Nam. And Reagan called their bluff. If it wasn't for us, you would be sucking rice.

[QUOTE=Kraketoa]I know where Finland is I have a Finnish relative.
http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=28271 is a good source on information. (for me)
[QUOTE]

Not so good on finnish view point. The author is not finnish, Hes name
is half american half swedish. and he credits usa too much. And he
reports only small parts of small period.

The Israelis have done so, however this time would be a different story.

Amongst many that I am not privy to know/understand.
Politically the US will be blamed anyway because they would have let the Israelis use the Iraqi air space.

Logistically, although there are new aircraft that are capable of the distance flying this range.... and to take out all the necessary targets, well I don't think there is enough aircraft to do this in a surprise attack.
Then there is the air defenceses that would have to taken care of as well.

By submarine (Israeli) ... this might be a possiblilty. Special forces, I hesitate to guess that they are there already.

Maybe the US will overcome the stigma and let Israel openly help them. This I am sure (IMO) would be welcomed.

Not so good on finnish view point. The author is not finnish, Hes name
is half american half swedish. and he credits usa too much. And he
reports only small parts of small period.
What you mean not Finnish? Max is Finnish but I agree that he seems to intentionaly forget to mention some facts and events.

Not so good on finnish view point. The author is not finnish, Hes name
is half american half swedish. and he credits usa too much. And he
reports only small parts of small period.

I read more than one language, however Finnish is not one of them. :-D If you have another source .... <enter here> I imagine your take would be with a Finnish bias ... no?

@Helioterra
He doesn't sound very finnish. And he twistes things. It sounds like
the finnish are living only because the americans told russians so.
Mayby his body is finnish, heart swedish and brain american.

How about a source with accurate history with no bias ??

Well, I think that either of them should have nukes.

Iran is not democratic, it's controlled by religion.
USA is not democratic, it's controllod by money.

They have something common:
Both are inflexible to negotiate but very keen to start wars.
Both are inable to support poorer members of own nation
but are very able to support war in foreign nation.

@Kraketoa
I live in the small neighbour country of russia. My country has
never recieved any military aid from usa. We have fought against
the russians many times but we still speak our own language.
We have minority of islamic religion but we don't have terrorists.
On our country the president is directly selected by people
and the presidents usualy have history of political or diplomatic
career. The usa president has a shady history of oli business with
saudi arabian monarchy and genes of war president who lost
the only war let his allies be slaughtered. And he is chosen by
states not by votes from people. So in my point of view the
americans talk a lot about democracy but exercise it less.

And your acclaims of stoping communism don't have any proof to
back them up. Russia stopped communism a little while ago.
USA tryed to stop the communism in cuba, korea and vietnam
and failed in all countries.

And there is more countries in europe than Italy, France, Germany and
England. So the americans did actualy save europe. They just helped
to save France from Germany, Italy from Italians and invaded half of
germany. You should read more history.

And its not really serving your country if your country is not attacked.
In Afganistan thats the case but in Irak is serving the oil corporatins.


Yes, the "communism" is a side form of "sosialism". Sosialism is
a beatifull ideology but is has no realistic possibilities to work
in human communities. It states that all people are equal
in every way, not dependant to abilities and no one owns
anything. Everything is owned by nation and nation is owned
by everyone. The american ideology is that everyone is
owning something; money, land, rights to lakes, irak oil,
nuclear weapons, tobacco company, rights to some
specific way to do things, technology, air, etc
So the americans feel treathened by the idea that they
have to share something with someone.

Perfectly put!

The Israelis have done it before. They took out that nuclear power plant that they suspected of producing the stuff.

Any bets?

Perfectly put!

What is your (U-----s) point? And what important group do you think that you represent?

Two sunni clerics in Iraq have been assasinated in as many days. Perhaps Iran is behind the assasinations. By stoking the fires of civil war in Iraq they can keep the US military bogged down there and avoid military action when we find out that they have not actually stopped their nuclear program. If they can buy enough time they will become a nuclear power before we can intervene.

Anyone standing to gain from prolonging the conflict in Iraq could be behind the assasinations. Someone who owes a lot of dollars for example.

What is your (U-----s) point? And what important group do you think that you represent?

Don't know if I represent an important group. At least not by mandate. Do you? As for my point, it was rather simple. Which part of it would you like to have explained?

Any bets?
It absolutely will not happen, or Israel won't do it anyway. Most of Iran's nuclear facilities are deep underground, so a non nuclear strike probably won't do shit. If they were an easy target Israel would have bombed them already.

Soviet... you don't know I assume what you are talking about. If so, I stand corrected, but then you would have to explain.

Israel will not strike Iran even if the target are very easy. And it will not use nukes unless provoked. (chem/bio nuke)

Think about this. If Israel were to strike Iran ... say now, excluding the facts like, logistics, US friend/foe codes.... Hizbollah have many thousands of missiles aimed at Israeli cities. These missiles will be lit up and be used in a counter strike.

edit to add some news :
"Iran wants to exempt part of its uranium enrichment program from freeze it agreed to"

Like I say, we will know they have nukes, if nothing is done about it of course, when they do a nuke test.

There is one nation which :

1. Possesses the most WMDs (i.e. chemical and biological weapons as well as nuclear weapons).
2. Has a policy of "pre-emptive" strikes.
3. Has a record of ignoring the UN and other nations when in pursuit of its own agenda.
4. Belives that invasion to enforce "regime change" is justified
5. Is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons.

Now, who is an "outlaw" state ????
Who should be denied nukes???

And your best argument is "You sure can deny someone else's right to do something that you yourself do." - little wonder, but poor defence, no logic, but pure spite.
1 The US has no biological weapons. Just samples of them for vaccine research. The US chemical weapon stockpile is obsolete and awaiting destruction. The US nuclear arsenal protected the world from Soviet domination
2 Pre-emptive strikes don't necessarily involve WMD. BTW, I was against pre-emptively striking Iraq. I wouldn't be so opposed to striking N. Korea or Iran.
3 Everyone ignores the UN when it's convenient. The UN is a weak, toothless institution more often driven by partisan politics and greed than by ethics.
4 Sometimes regime change is justified, Hitler, the Emperor of Japan
5 Yeah, we used them. We used them to save more lives than an invasion would have killed.

And you're saying they did. Now you have to tell me how exactly did "America" (I assume you don't mean the continent) save Europe from communism?
Because Europe's militaries couldn't even slow down the Soviet war machine. Because we provided the nulcear weapons needed to keep the soviets peacefull.

Why is communism a bad thing incidentally?
The U.S has been fighting it for years, but the actual ideas behind communism aren't necessarily "Evil."

Admittedly Joseph Stalin's 5 year kill everyone plan didn't help matters, but that was just him going Nuts.
Remember the bread lines in the Soviet Union? The low standard of living? Remember the suffering of the Chinese under Mao's "Great leap foreward"?
No communist government has ever given it's people a free press, or a high standard of living, or freedom of conscience. People fled communist countries in droves to come to Europe and the USA. Only a handfull went the other way.

So why can't any other country have nukes as a deterrent against the States using them?
It really depends on the country. France and India can be trusted. Iran has long used terrorists to strike nations that were militarily more powerful. I wouldn't put it past them to transfer a nuke to a terrorist organization in order to attack Israel or the US. This would trigger a nuclear war.

1 The US has no biological weapons. Just samples of them for vaccine research. The US chemical weapon stockpile is obsolete and awaiting destruction. The US nuclear arsenal protected the world from Soviet domination
2 Pre-emptive strikes don't necessarily involve WMD. BTW, I was against pre-emptively striking Iraq. I wouldn't be so opposed to striking N. Korea or Iran.
3 Everyone ignores the UN when it's convenient. The UN is a weak, toothless institution more often driven by partisan politics and greed than by ethics.
4 Sometimes regime change is justified, Hitler, the Emperor of Japan
5 Yeah, we used them. We used them to save more lives than an invasion would have killed.


Get your head out of the US's arse please and take a step back!

Of course the US is ALWAYS right in what it does regardless of human life... what a load of balls. and you people who side with isreal need to stop watchin fascist Fox news and think about things for a while rather than just accepting what your frightning governement feeds you. grow up.

furthermore, it is NOT acceptable for ANY nation to possess nuclear weapons, however, it is even less acceptable to go in and blow the country up first "just in case" they decide to use them.

and in reference to joey p's ramblings, just because the UN can be side steped, does not give you the right to ignore the world's requests and just go on fucking things up anyway. just think, if the US hadn't been so damn selfish and stupid and had listened to the UN, then 100,00 people wouldn't be goddamn DEAD you fucking losers. it makes me want to be sick.

Right, the first two you got right, and thats all i was making the point about in the first place. But once again you take what we said and put words into our mouths again. I have never stated anything about the topic on this thread, i mearly pointed out that Kraketoa spouted out some absolute rubbish that had nothing to do with the thread itself.

True, Iran might get some nukes, but will they use them. Doubtful, as they know all to well that if they did they would not live to see the next dawn. Personally, i don't think either country that has been put forward in this arguement has a history to be proud of and that nukes should be forever banned. But thats not realistic. So as for an answer i have non, but i dislike people who put forth rhetoric in place as fact.
Why do you doubt they'll use them? Remember, they are guided by god. Unlike George bush, the mullahs don't need to be elected, and can punish any and all dissent.

It's about limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the hands of dangerous regimes. Iraq has long been a state sponsor of terrorism. What's to stop them from handing over a nuclear weapon to one of their terrorist cells in Israel and sparking a regional nuclear war? Iran's nukes would destabilize the region. Even the Saudis would then feel the need to develop a nuclear deterrant.

I agree that Iranian nuclear arms would present a rather ugly diplomatic problem, but after spending the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary, why would Iran even think of just handing over a nuke to terrorists? The idea is just preposterous, especially given that, if a nuke "mysteriously" blew up in one of our cities, we could analyze the fallout, determine where it was from, and then blast them to smithereens.

Iran wants nuclear weapons for the respect they grant a nation. Not to arm terrorists.

I was under the thought that Sunni's are 60% of population of iraq?

Even if they where the democracy brings them down, because
the Shia's and the minority in north (the ones that turkish shoot)
would have some word in the goverment.
Sunnis are the minority. Shia muslims are the 60% majority. The ones the Turks shoot are the Kurds, nominaly sunni, but heading in a more democratic and secular direction than the rest of Iraq seems to be going.

Apart from taking Isreal from the Palestinians in the first place and then occupying the parts of the Palestinian's own country which the U.N. had ordered be left to them...Why exactly is Iran having Nukes a bad thing? Other than the fact that more people with more nukes is a bad thing, the Isrealis have nukes, the Indians have nukes, the Pakistanis have nukes and they aren't complained about so it can't be to stop nukes getting into the hands of fundamentalists or dictatorships...

Yorkshire boy, YOUR GOVERNMENT, THE UK, TOOK WHAT WAS PALESTINE AND MADE IT THE JEWISH STATE KNOWN AS ISREAL!!!!!

Any bets?
Are you disputing the FACT that Israel took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq before?

Get your head out of the US's arse please and take a step back!

Of course the US is ALWAYS right in what it does regardless of human life... what a load of balls. and you people who side with isreal need to stop watchin fascist Fox news and think about things for a while rather than just accepting what your frightning governement feeds you. grow up.

furthermore, it is NOT acceptable for ANY nation to possess nuclear weapons, however, it is even less acceptable to go in and blow the country up first "just in case" they decide to use them.

and in reference to joey p's ramblings, just because the UN can be side steped, does not give you the right to ignore the world's requests and just go on fucking things up anyway. just think, if the US hadn't been so damn selfish and stupid and had listened to the UN, then 100,00 people wouldn't be goddamn DEAD you fucking losers. it makes me want to be sick.

Get your head out of your ass and stop making things up about me. I don't watch Fox news. I am a liberal on most subjects. I don't accept everything my government says. For instance I was against the Iraq war from the beginning. Instead of making things up about others why don't YOU grow up and address what others actually say rather than what you imagine. Asshole

Why do you doubt they'll use them? Remember, they are guided by god. Unlike George bush, the mullahs don't need to be elected, and can punish any and all dissent.

So is G.Bush (guided by god) according to what he said during the election. I mean i doubt they will use them, because they know all too well that they would be annihilated if they ever did use them.

Are you disputing the FACT that Israel took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq before?

In Iran as well...

:rolleyes: ... This is pathetic. :rolleyes: :sniper: :gundge:

Yorkshire boy, YOUR GOVERNMENT, THE UK, TOOK WHAT WAS PALESTINE AND MADE IT THE JEWISH STATE KNOWN AS ISREAL!!!!!

Actually the UN took the territory and put it under british administration, we then divided it into two seperate states with Jersualem as an 'International City' between the two. When we left the Israelis began their programme of conquring Palestinian land and the US began their policy of blocking any UN resolution demanding a return to the original boundaries.

So is G.Bush (guided by god) according to what he said during the election. I mean i doubt they will use them, because they know all too well that they would be annihilated if they ever did use them.
I said geogie was talking to the invisible guy upstairs, but he has to live up to the will of his people. Starting a nuclear war won't go over too well. The mullahs in Iran have absolute control. If their imaginary friend tells them to nuke someone there's nobody to tell them it's a bad idea.

George Bush with nukes is the most dangerous leader on the planet, even iran arent dumb enough to use a nuclear strike of any kind on anyone, it can be easily tracked down to its source of origin.
Its not in the terrorists intrests to nuke the US as it would bring back the mass international support post 9/11 instead of the international isolation that the US finds itself in now.

Actually the UN took the territory and put it under british administration, we then divided it into two seperate states with Jersualem as an 'International City' between the two. When we left the Israelis began their programme of conquring Palestinian land and the US began their policy of blocking any UN resolution demanding a return to the original boundaries.
Israel is, for the most part, only taking necessary action to defend their existance. I do beleive some of the west bank settlements should be dismantled, but some buffer area is neccesary to keep Israel safe.

Israel is, for the most part, only taking necessary action to defend their existance. I do beleive some of the west bank settlements should be dismantled, but some buffer area is neccesary to keep Israel safe.

What about the Palestinians right to defend their existance? I think it must be returned to the original boundaries.

Soviet... you don't know I assume what you are talking about. If so, I stand corrected, but then you would have to explain.

Israel will not strike Iran even if the target are very easy. And it will not use nukes unless provoked. (chem/bio nuke)

Think about this. If Israel were to strike Iran ... say now, excluding the facts like, logistics, US friend/foe codes.... Hizbollah have many thousands of missiles aimed at Israeli cities. These missiles will be lit up and be used in a counter strike.

edit to add some news :
"Iran wants to exempt part of its uranium enrichment program from freeze it agreed to"

Like I say, we will know they have nukes, if nothing is done about it of course, when they do a nuke test.

Ok sorry I didn't respond sooner, had to go somewhere. Here is an exerpt of an article I just found on the internet (see bottom). Despite what you may hear in the media Hizboallah is not exactly a menacing force which poses any real threat to Israel. They are basically a rag tag militia, with some rocket launchers and mortars, none of which have a range more than a mile or two. I doubt very much that they have hundreds of missiles which could hit Israel's cities. Israel won't do anything against Iran not out of political concerns but because the Iranian nuclear facilities will be too hard to hit. The Israelis would have to fly a long way and would easily be detected by Iranian radar. Futhermore the Israelis don't have any heavy bombers with the necessary fire power to destroy a nuclear facility, especially those that are buried deep underground. I'm sure the Israelis wish they could destroy the Iranian facilities, but an F-15 which is about the most powerful aircraft Israel has isn't going to get the job done. It would make a lot more sense to get the Americans do it for them since they have they have the firepower to do it.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

If Israel were to decide to act alone and attack Iran's nuclear facilities, it would face a greater challenge than it did with Osirak. Natanz, Bushehr, and Arak are much farther away from Israel than Osirak. Moreover, these facilities are located hundreds of miles from each other, which makes them more difficult to attack simultaneously. Yiftah Shapir, an Israeli analyst, explains: "Israel's options to counter the threat are limited. A preemptive strike against Iran's missile or nuclear assets is problematic because the targets are too far away, too numerous and dispersed, and too well protected - some of them in deep underground installations."[26] Furthermore, it is unlikely that Israel would receive permission from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan to pass through their airspace en route to Iran. Due to widespread domestic opposition, Turkey denied the United States use of its territory in the attack on Iraq despite large financial inducements. It would be difficult for the Turkish government to justify cooperating with an Israeli attack on another Muslim country. The Saudi government is currently in a severe struggle with domestic militant Jihadi elements who deem the al-Saud ruling family Western lackeys and infidels. Under these circumstances, it would be very difficult and dangerous for the Saudis to grant Israel permission to overfly their airspace to attack Iran, given its potential to further destabilize their domestic security position. The Jordanian regime is in a position similar to Saudi Arabia, although it has usually been more accommodating of Israeli needs. Should Israel use the Jordan route to Iran, it would have to overfly Iraqi airspace, which is controlled by the United States. For the United States to agree to allow Israeli overflight of Iraqi airspace en route to Iran would necessarily be seen as equal American complicity in the attack.

Deaths of two clerics (who were probably enemies of the USA) is no reason to attack Iraq. Do to so would be problematic.

Current situation in Iraq is that the Shia 60% of the pop. are quiet, minimal involvement in the rebellion. Sunni are doing the heavy lifting, have killed most of the Americans in the post invasion rebellion.

No attempt is going to be made to cease the funding for this Sunni rebellion.

On the contary the administration may be aiming to attack Shia Iran. This could motivate an additional 12 million (Shia) into rebellion in Iraq and will require America to pacify 60 million Iranians. The Americans have not been able to quash a rebellion amoung 5 million (Sunni) Iraqi. It would be surprising if America could hold 77 million people under occupation successfully. If they attempt to do so expect casualty rates to increase dramatically.

What about the Palestinians right to defend their existance? I think it must be returned to the original boundaries.
Nobody is threatening Palestinian existance. There are numerous nations who have stated the intent to destroy Israel. The original boundaries are unrealistic. There isn't enough of a buffer area to protect from outside attack.

Nobody is threatening Palestinian existance. There are numerous nations who have stated the intent to destroy Israel. The original boundaries are unrealistic. There isn't enough of a buffer area to protect from outside attack.

That is ridiculous. The UN originally split the land giving the Palestinians 46 percent of the land and Israel 54 percent. Following the 1948 war that changed to the Palestinians only getting 22 percent of their historical land. Now with the settlements the Israelis want to steal even more. The Palestinians are facing vicious land stealing enemy bent on destroying them as a nation. Furthermore Israel is estimated to have around 400 nuclear warheads. I think it is a safe bet that one one will be invading them anytime soon.