NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh come on. Blair for one would be exaulted at yet another opportunity to follow the US crawling on his knees. For the rest of the continent. Well, hard to say realy.

It all depends on what's in it for them.

If we had offered France and Russia lucrative oil deals more lucrative than the ones they already had, they would have marched into Iraq with us.

It all depends on what's in it for them.

If we had offered France and Russia lucrative oil deals more lucrative than the ones they already had, they would have marched into Iraq with us.

Hell, they would've booted Saddam out themselves while the US watched. LOL! Though I think the French would surrender at first contact. :D

wanted to expand the war into China, which we didnt want to start WWIII. Then we could have really whipped some ass.

You think that, do you?
The Chinese were quit happily driving you back, weren't they? And yes, you did fortify the DMZ and held out there, but unless you wanted to Nuke the place, like McArthur, you couldn't have beaten a mass of motivated soldiers like that.

You think that, do you?
The Chinese were quit happily driving you back, weren't they? And yes, you did fortify the DMZ and held out there, but unless you wanted to Nuke the place, like McArthur, you couldn't have beaten a mass of motivated soldiers like that.

Then how the hell did we drive them from the Capitol of South Korea? They were tossed back across the 38th Parallel themselves, the Chinese were.

Then how the hell did we drive them from the Capitol of South Korea? They were tossed back across the 38th Parallel themselves, the Chinese were.
The usual reasons: too long supply lines, massive US bombing of everything that moves etc
------
My original point still stands though:
Iran is a nation that is slowly modernising itself, by linking today to the long-forgotten past.
Iran is also slowly going a more and more democratic way. Such things take time, be patient.
Attacking Iran would not only be unjustifiable (unless you wanna go that pre-emption road again) but stupid. You would have a harder time than beating Iraq. We can be pretty certain (but I said that about Iraq before the war as well) that they do have chemical weapons to fire at the US army. And you'd leave another collapsed state, with any imposed democracy being meaningless.

It's just not worth your time and effort, people. So just leave them alone.

The usual reasons: too long supply lines, massive US bombing of everything that moves etc
------
My original point still stands though:
Iran is a nation that is slowly modernising itself, by linking today to the long-forgotten past.
Iran is also slowly going a more and more democratic way. Such things take time, be patient.
Attacking Iran would not only be unjustifiable (unless you wanna go that pre-emption road again) but stupid. You would have a harder time than beating Iraq. We can be pretty certain (but I said that about Iraq before the war as well) that they do have chemical weapons to fire at the US army. And you'd leave another collapsed state, with any imposed democracy being meaningless.

It's just not worth your time and effort, people. So just leave them alone.

Nowadays, it would certainly be possible to beat any conventional army of that nature (millions of motivated people in human waves). The weapons today are far more lethal than those of the 1950s. Not only would any concentration of troops and vehicles be defeated, most of them would be dead.

The two Iraqi Republican Guard divisions who sortied out of Baghdad right before the fall of the city took 80 percent casualties in a little over a minute. The reason? Several B-52s were dropping a new type of cluster bomb - one that corrects its position down to the release point, and then the individual bomblets home in on vehicles and people before blowing up.

You couldn't move any concentration of infantry across any terrain without being hit by this sort of thing now. Not to mention weapons like MLRS, etc. It would be a massacre.

We could very well defeat Iran - destroy its current government so that it would not return - destroy its industries - destroy its agricultural capability - and decimate its infrastructure (powerplants, dams, roads, bridges, etc.) with very few casualties and in very short order.

Occupying the country is another matter completely, as we have seen in Iraq. We could probably take Iran in roughly the same period of time - and end up with a similar insurgency in a similar period of time.

We do better against insurgents than we did in Vietnam. Eight times less casualties and deaths (as a running rate). A lot of that is due to advanced personal body armor. We also have a much higher kill rate against insurgents than anyone in history (28 to 1). But, it's not enough to kill insurgents.

If the people don't like you, you get more insurgents.

Most soldiers I've talked to who are currently in Iraq don't have any bad feelings from the Iraqis. It depends on your area of the country. Right now, the Kurds and Shiites are glad we came, think we should leave soon, but not yet. The Sunnis who used to be in power are at the very least sullen.

The tailored fallout weapons are designed with a specific kind of fallout to be generated. It isn't the traditional "make this a ground burst and send hot dirt in the air".

They even have an ability to adjust the exact amount produced, so that the range is specifically and accurately limited.

It's not a counterforce weapon - it's intended to kill every living thing in the area.

The fallout is also selected for maximum biological uptake - it's an element that your body desperately wants to take in - and retain.is this the very secret gay bomb again? :D

sure is a deep secret, cos i never heard of it.

is this the gay bomb again? :D
No, that would be too much fun.

Think of it as advanced 1970s technology. Sort of a human version of the bug bomb.

No, that would be too much fun.

Think of it as advanced 1970s technology. Sort of a human version of the bug bomb.bug bomb?

http://re2.mm-c.yimg.com/image/528538775
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=%22bug+bomb%22&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t

-snip-
Great, so you are really good at slaughtering human beings! Wow.

How does that justify trying it out again?

Great, so you are really good at slaughtering human beings! Wow.

How does that justify trying it out again?
I'm not justifying it.

How do you justify Iran's plans? They've announced repeatedly that the only reason for their ICBM program and their nuclear weapons ambitions is the utter destruction of Israel.

Like I posted before, we'll wait and see what the Europeans can do. We'll probably wait all the way past the point where the negotiations fail, and Iran nukes Israel.

Then we'll clean house. I do not expect an occupation.

How do you justify Iran's plans? They've announced repeatedly that the only reason for their ICBM program and their nuclear weapons ambitions is the utter destruction of Israel.
What plans?
Is America working itself into a frenzy again? Just what, 2 years after the last one?
ICBM means Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, right (not that I'd have to tell you that, cowboy ;) )? How is their program (if it exists then) intercontinental?

I said this before but please, why don't you be so nice and assume a basic sense of rationality from others?
What would Iran as a nation, as a people or as a political party have to gain fron nuking a country such as Israel?
Many people in the US hate China, but you don't go and nuke China, do you?

And why is it okay for Israel to have nukes, but not for Iran?

How do you justify Iran's plans? he dont have to justify Iran Nukes, we dont have to justify Iran Nukes,

not any more than India nukes or Pakistan nukes or Israel nukes.

What plans?
Is America working itself into a frenzy again? Just what, 2 years after the last one?
ICBM means Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, right (not that I'd have to tell you that, cowboy ;) )? How is their program (if it exists then) intercontinental?

I said this before but please, why don't you be so nice and assume a basic sense of rationality from others?
What would Iran as a nation, as a people or as a political party have to gain fron nuking a country such as Israel?
Many people in the US hate China, but you don't go and nuke China, do you?

And why is it okay for Israel to have nukes, but not for Iran?

The plans that were revealed during the Clinton administration. The speeches that they give on a regular basis, declaring their intentions for nuclear weapons. And what they intend to do with them. Iran is not the US. To assume that they have the same perceptions and sensibilities as a typical Western nation (or even China) is specious.

As an example:
"You should make the world understand that Israel is the oppressor and that Israel must be destroyed," Ayatollah Ali Meshkini said during the nationally televised 8 December 2001 Friday Prayers in Qom.

The examples of these statements are far too numerous to reproduce here.

And then here's their ICBM programs...

Shahab-5 / Kosar
December 1996 news reports claim that Iran is developing a 3500-mile (5500-km) missile that would be capable of reaching Europe. The technology for this system was cited as coming from Russia and North Korea. [Reuters 1996] Initially it was reported that the missile would become operational by the year 2000, though other [less implausible] reports claims that Iran intends to complete the development of this system within five to ten years. It is possible that this missile is a Taepodong 2 derivative. There were few other indications that this is in fact an active development project.

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London) reported on 14 June 2004 that a military source in the Iranian Ministry of Defense, "in a meeting last week with Revolutionary Guards commanders, Khamenei said that Israel was planning to attack Iran's nuclear installations and the Iranian military soon, and therefore defense and military preparedness should be boosted as soon as possible. Khamenei stressed that the increase in petroleum prices allowed Iran to allocate a larger budget to its military projects. [Iran's] Ministry of Defense received $1 billion to resume its Shihab 4 and Shihab 5 project.... [President] Khatami halted the project of the Shihab 4, whose range is 2,800 [which covers Western Europe], and the Shihab 5, whose range is 4,900-5,300 km [and which can reach the U.S.], because he thought it was a project incompatible with Iran's strategic interests and defense needs." [MEMRI]

Iran has reportedly given some priority to the development of a surface-to-surface missile known as the Kosar, which has a reported 4,000-km. range. In July of 1999, it was suggested that the Shahab-5 first stage utilizes a Russian SS-5/R-14, RD-216 two engine cluster, however, this report is mis-informed. The SS-5 is substantially larger than the CSS-2. The CSS-2 also uses a totally different four thrust chamber engine from the RD-216.

Before developing this technology with the North Koreans, the Iranians evidently attempted to obtain this technology from NPO Trud (a Russian firm) but failed. The Iranians requested that a "gas, pumping turbo-machinery" joint venture worth $7 million be launched. Iran made the contract with out giving specifications. NPO Trud became suspicious when the Iranians refused to provide the specifications for the machinery they had contracted. Once Trud got the specifications, the Russian company realized that the Iranians had actually tried to get Trud to give the Iranians missile technology in the form of new pump turbo-machinery. NPO TRUD notified the Russian government, and the Russian government put an end to the contract. This is one occasion when the Missile Technology Control Regime had worked in Russia. NPO Trud was replaced by a joint stock company in 1994. No sanctions were brought against the Russian company that replaced NPO Trud. Although NPO Trud had initially been accused of providing the SS-4's RD-214 engine to the Iranians, in fact this particular engine was neither developed nor produced by NPO Trud. It is apparent that the sources of these reports were unfamiliar with the Russian entities developing these rocket engines.


Some sources claim that the Russians are helping a solid-fuel design team at the Shahid Bagheri Industrial Group in Teheran develop a 2800-mile missile, capable of reaching London and Paris, and a 6300-mile [10,000 km] range missile that could strike cities in the eastern United States. These reports are poorly documented and would appear to be highly speculative.

On August 6, 2003 a report by Sankei Shimbun cited military sources that indicated that North Korea was planning to export components of its Taepodong 2 missile to Iran where North Korean experts would assemble the components in a facility near Tehran. The negotiations between North Korea and Iran began sometime 2002 and were expected to be completed in October 2003.

In May 2004 Middle East Newsline reported that Western intelligence sources Teheran had been negotiating with Pyongyang for the purchase of the Taepo Dong-2 as Iran's first intercontinental ballistic missile as well as a space launcher. It was also claimed that in 2003 North Korea had discussed the Taepo Dong-2 with Libya and Syria, but neither country expressed serious interest.

On 16 February 2005 Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, U.S. Navy, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, testified that "We judge Iran will have the technical capability to develop an ICBM by 2015. It is not clear whether Iran has decided to field such a missile.

I'm not justifying it.

How do you justify Iran's plans? They've announced repeatedly that the only reason for their ICBM program and their nuclear weapons ambitions is the utter destruction of Israel.

Like I posted before, we'll wait and see what the Europeans can do. We'll probably wait all the way past the point where the negotiations fail, and Iran nukes Israel.

Then we'll clean house. I do not expect an occupation.

I'm unfamiliar with these announcements. Can you send me a source?

What plans?
And why is it okay for Israel to have nukes, but not for Iran?


Its not alright with me that Israel has nukes. They are the most likely to use them if they are threatened. I dont like it that India and Pakistan have them either.
But they already have them. Taking nukes away is a much larger problem than preventing them from having them in the first place.

I dont have the whole story, but I thought I heard today, something along the lines of North Korea assisting/consulting Iran on the construction of underground bunker facilities for the purpose of processing weapons grade materials?
Is this true, or was I dreaming?

Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London) reported on 14 June 2004 that a military source in the Iranian Ministry of Defense, "in a meeting last week with Revolutionary Guards commanders, Khamenei said that Israel was planning to attack Iran's nuclear installations and the Iranian military soon, and therefore defense and military preparedness should be boosted as soon as possible. Khamenei stressed that the increase in petroleum prices allowed Iran to allocate a larger budget to its military projects. [Iran's] Ministry of Defense received $1 billion to resume its Shihab 4 and Shihab 5 project.... [President] Khatami halted the project of the Shihab 4, whose range is 2,800 [which covers Western Europe], and the Shihab 5, whose range is 4,900-5,300 km [and which can reach the U.S.], because he thought it was a project incompatible with Iran's strategic interests and defense needs." [MEMRI]



holy shit, can you possibly imagine some uppity leader announcing without foundation that another country was a direct threat and preparing for either defensive measures or even a pre-emptive military action in response?


How goddamn stupid is that?



Why, that would be almost as stupid as a pronouncement that a missile with a 5,300 KM range could reach the US from IRan given that the distance between Tehran and Washington is pretty much twice that amount......

The plans that were revealed during the Clinton administration. The speeches that they give on a regular basis, declaring their intentions for nuclear weapons. And what they intend to do with them. Iran is not the US. To assume that they have the same perceptions and sensibilities as a typical Western nation (or even China) is specious.

As an example:
"You should make the world understand that Israel is the oppressor and that Israel must be destroyed," Ayatollah Ali Meshkini said during the nationally televised 8 December 2001 Friday Prayers in Qom.



There is a HUGE difference in rhetoric and reality......surely you can see that?

plz go on invade Iran ( i don't like arabs anyway )

The Iranians aren't Arabs, you ignorant sod! There are only about 3% of Arabs in Iran.

Ignorance, combined with fear, combined with utter disregard for human life, is a terrible thing. And people like Whispering Legs and the other warmongering nutcases advocating the invasion of a country they know nothing about, based on scaremongering tactics and a lust for blood, are a prime example of that.

Iran is not going to nuke Israel. To think otherwise is so absurd I don't even know why anyone's debating it. Those who believe it will are just aggressive, frightened, ignorant people who are unable to see Iran as anything more than "teh enemy, omg", a member of that ridiculous and fictitious "axis of evil", know nothing about that country at all and are incapable of coherent, rational thought.

Sorry for the rant, but aggressively asserted stupidity and ignorance is starting to really piss me off.

There is a HUGE difference in rhetoric and reality......surely you can see that?

This is the position of ALL of the hardliners - hardliners who currently form the backbone of the current government. Without the approval of the clerics, the current leader of Iran can do nothing.

They are thinking of this from a religious perspective. Because they are religious clerics.

The non-clerics in the government translate this into "we view the threat as Israel".

And the policy becomes one of obtaining a nuclear weapon in order to destroy Israel.

Its not alright with me that Israel has nukes. They are the most likely to use them if they are threatened. I don't like it that India and Pakistan have them either.most of the world thinks that Israel would not have nukes if it wasn't for the US...

for most of the World sees that if Israel has nukes its the US fault...if Israel ever uses nukes it will be the US fault...

so...if shit happens...and the world blames the US for it (and they would be right to blame the US)...I will post a 4 words message in this thread...

"I told you so"

This book explains it all:

Answering Only to God: Faith and Freedom in Twenty-First-Century Iran (Henry Holt and Company, 2003),

I started reading all the posts frok the beginning and I came to 6th page (I couldn't read more :) ) and I can't belive that someone thinks that throwing nukes would solve any problem :)
I realy belive US won't attack Iran or NK, i think they "learned their lesson" in Iraq, they are in great deficit and they realy don't have the money to do that, and that's the only reason they let EU to negotiate :)

This is the position of ALL of the hardliners - hardliners who currently form the backbone of the current government. Without the approval of the clerics, the current leader of Iran can do nothing.

They are thinking of this from a religious perspective. Because they are religious clerics.

The non-clerics in the government translate this into "we view the threat as Israel".

And the policy becomes one of obtaining a nuclear weapon in order to destroy Israel.

To say that Iran is looking at its international affairs in purely religious terms makes no sense. If that were the case why did they accept arms sales from the "Great Satan" during the 1980s during the Contra arms scandal when the overthrow of the Shah was relatively fresh and the clerics were at their acendence. Indeed why have the Iranians negotiating at all with America or other non-Muslim nations? Because they are logical in their own way.

To obtain a nuclear capacity makes no sense when you consider the implications. As stated before its more their fear of American troops near their borders, a political elite seemingly willing to invade and no current defense against US conventional forces except for nukes.

To turn it around, due to the known religious tendencies of Bush and his core and critical support from the Christain right are we to say it is their goal to destroy all those "evil doers" in the "Axis of Evil". For to destroy evil in in all its forms must be a good thing from a Christian point of view. I wouldn't say American foreign policy is influenced to such a degree by religion, neither would I say Iran.

most of the world thinks that Israel would not have nukes if it wasn't for the US...

for most of the World sees that if Israel has nukes its the US fault...if Israel ever uses nukes it will be the US fault...

so...if shit happens...and the world blames the US for it (and they would be right to blame the US)...I will post a 4 words message in this thread...

"I told you so"

I see it as far more likely that the Iranians nuke Israel first.

Then Israel retaliates.

Assuming there's anything left, the US nukes the rubble in Iran for good measure.

Something to the people who seem to think I'm advocating nuking Iran.

I'm not.

I'm just pointing out that unless the Council of Guardians in Iran suddenly comes to its senses and abandons the idea of turning Israel into an open-air rotisserie, then Iran WILL nuke Israel.

It's only a matter of time now. The Europeans believe that this can all be stopped by simple negotiation. The Iranians are only negotiating to buy time - they are resuming moving towards production.

It is only a matter of time before the European effort fails. This is because they are negotiating with a set of religious figures who are not thinking as a Western country would think.

most of the world thinks that Israel would not have nukes if it wasn't for the US...

for most of the World sees that if Israel has nukes its the US fault...if Israel ever uses nukes it will be the US fault...

so...if shit happens...and the world blames the US for it (and they would be right to blame the US)...I will post a 4 words message in this thread...

"I told you so"


In my opinion, Israel would not only not have nukes, but they would likely be a smoking crater if it wasnt for the US.
I dont like our support of Israel. I dont know what they have on us, but I dont think they would exist without the United States. they couldnt possibly defend themselves from so many determined enemies for so long-with or without nukes.

I started reading all the posts frok the beginning and I came to 6th page (I couldn't read more :) ) and I can't belive that someone thinks that throwing nukes would solve any problem :)

Believe it. These fora are full of them. A few weeks ago there was a thread full of people seriously saying that the US should drop nukes on North Korea, and slaughter millions of innocent people. It's absolutely sickening.

If my opinion of the human race weren't so low already, I'd feel thoroughly depressed. As it is, the full depth of it still continuously appalls me. They are ignorant, irredeemably stupid, cowering in fear of "the enemy", filled with a lust for blood, and lacking any kind of regard for human life.

You'll have to get used to seeing a lot of it around here.

To say that Iran is looking at its international affairs in purely religious terms makes no sense. If that were the case why did they accept arms sales from the "Great Satan" during the 1980s during the Contra arms scandal when the overthrow of the Shah was relatively fresh and the clerics were at their acendence. Indeed why have the Iranians negotiating at all with America or other non-Muslim nations? Because they are logical in their own way.

To obtain a nuclear capacity makes no sense when you consider the implications. As stated before its more their fear of American troops near their borders, a political elite seemingly willing to invade and no current defense against US conventional forces except for nukes.

To turn it around, due to the known religious tendencies of Bush and his core and critical support from the Christain right are we to say it is their goal to destroy all those "evil doers" in the "Axis of Evil". For to destroy evil in in all its forms must be a good thing from a Christian point of view. I wouldn't say American foreign policy is influenced to such a degree by religion, neither would I say Iran.

The Iranian government has moved back and forth in terms of conservative religion affecting its politics. Right now, the people of Iran would like to be more moderate, but the conservatives have now consolidated their power in the Council of Guardians - no moderation will be possible for the forseeable future. And when they were at war with someone else, practicality came out.

But now they view themselves as the only Islamic nation that can destroy Israel - it's their responsibility to do so. And they are influenced by religion within their government, because it's enshrined in the government as the Council of Guardians. A body composed entirely of conservative clerics.

The US has no comparable body, so no comparison can be made.

I see it as far more likely that the Iranians nuke Israel first.

Then Israel retaliates.

Assuming there's anything left, the US nukes the rubble in Iran for good measure.

Something to the people who seem to think I'm advocating nuking Iran.

I'm not.

I'm just pointing out that unless the Council of Guardians in Iran suddenly comes to its senses and abandons the idea of turning Israel into an open-air rotisserie, then Iran WILL nuke Israel.

It's only a matter of time now. The Europeans believe that this can all be stopped by simple negotiation. The Iranians are only negotiating to buy time - they are resuming moving towards production.

It is only a matter of time before the European effort fails. This is because they are negotiating with a set of religious figures who are not thinking as a Western country would think.

But the Soviets didn't nuke the West even though many cold war warriors saw it as inevitable. So why is this the case for Iran? Again I question this line of thinking...

The Iranian government has moved back and forth in terms of conservative religion affecting its politics. Right now, the people of Iran would like to be more moderate, but the conservatives have now consolidated their power in the Council of Guardians - no moderation will be possible for the forseeable future. And when they were at war with someone else, practicality came out.

But now they view themselves as the only Islamic nation that can destroy Israel - it's their responsibility to do so. And they are influenced by religion within their government, because it's enshrined in the government as the Council of Guardians. A body composed entirely of conservative clerics.

The US has no comparable body, so no comparison can be made.

Refer to my previous post. Nuclear weapons chnage all considerations. I cannot see your "inevitability" argument holds......

Something to the people who seem to think I'm advocating nuking Iran.

I'm not.


Good.

But you're still very wrong to believe that Iran will ever nuke Israel. They won't. Yes, the Iranian government is dominated by religious whackos, and yes, the ayatollah is virtually powerless because of them, but that doesn't mean that, at core, they're not fundamentally pragmatic. To nuke Israel would be suicidal, and they're not going to do that. And before you draw up a comparison with suicide bombers, that's not the kind of people you find rising to the highest levels of government. Now that they're there, they'll want to stay there. Alive.

In my opinion, Israel would not only not have nukes, but they would likely be a smoking crater if it wasnt for the US.
I dont like our support of Israel. I dont know what they have on us, but I dont think they would exist without the United States. they couldnt possibly defend themselves from so many determined enemies for so long-with or without nukes.

Well they defeated 5 Armies of the Arab League and I don't think they had US help in the matter back in 1948.

But the Soviets didn't nuke the West even though many cold war warriors saw it as inevitable. So why is this the case for Iran? Again I question this line of thinking...

The Soviets didn't nuke the West because they are of the same gaming mindset as the Americans.

We share a common heritage, and their government was not that far from our own. Neither country was based in religion, either.

It became apparent soon after the Cold War began, that neither could realistically expect to engage in nuclear war and survive as a government or nation.

Iran, on the other hand, could survive an exchange with Israel. Israel would not survive.

Just as Pakistan and India could have a nuclear exchange and survive at this time.

China could fire all of its missiles at the US, and the US might be seriously damaged, but it would survive as a nation.

I do not believe that most of the world would think that the US nuking Iran after Iran uses a nuclear weapon is a good idea. In fact, I believe that most nations would oppose it - and that Iran would likely get away with nuking millions of people out of existence.

But the Soviets didn't nuke the West even though many cold war warriors saw it as inevitable. So why is this the case for Iran? Again I question this line of thinking...

Because the Soviet Union knew the US would nuke them if they nuked any western nation. It goes back to that whole Mutually Assured Destruction mentality.

Both sides wanted to avoid an all out nuclear war.

The Soviets didn't nuke the West because they are of the same gaming mindset as the Americans.

We share a common heritage, and their government was not that far from our own. Neither country was based in religion, either.

It became apparent soon after the Cold War began, that neither could realistically expect to engage in nuclear war and survive as a government or nation.

Iran, on the other hand, could survive an exchange with Israel. Israel would not survive.

Just as Pakistan and India could have a nuclear exchange and survive at this time.

China could fire all of its missiles at the US, and the US might be seriously damaged, but it would survive as a nation.

I do not believe that most of the world would think that the US nuking Iran after Iran uses a nuclear weapon is a good idea. In fact, I believe that most nations would oppose it - and that Iran would likely get away with nuking millions of people out of existence.

You're reiterating cold war nuclear theory of acceptable nuclear exchanges. This was debunked as a theory. Any nuclear exchange is unacceptable. Iran will not nuke Israel, however it will use them to coerce those that threaten it,
i.e. the US and her allies.

And what do you mean the US and the Soviets was of the "same gaming mindset"? If you read some of the declarations of Le May among others, the Soviets were a godless people, hell bent on world domination. War was inevitable. What is the difference between Iran and Soviet Union? One believes in God and the other doesn't? Thus because of Iran's religious leanings its inevitable, (that and it can survive, which I don't understand what you mean by "surviving"). Just because its in her Constitution that it can't change. For example until 1999 the Republic of Ireland had the "unification of South and North" in their Constitution. They renounced this. Are Catholics less fundamentalist than Muslims? I'll leave that to others to debate.....

I do not believe that most of the world would think that the US nuking Iran after Iran uses a nuclear weapon is a good idea. In fact, I believe that most nations would oppose it - and that Iran would likely get away with nuking millions of people out of existence.
the World will condemn whoever strikes first.

most of the world thinks that Israel would not have nukes if it wasn't for the US...

for most of the World sees that if Israel has nukes its the US fault...
...
Israeli nuclear programme was at the beginning closely aligned with the French, I suppose.

the World will condemn whoever strikes first.
That goes without saying.

But I doubt that the world will say that the retaliation was a good idea, unless it is entirely non-nuclear.

The Soviets didn't nuke the West because they are of the same gaming mindset as the Americans.

We share a common heritage, and their government was not that far from our own. Neither country was based in religion, either.Interesting

That goes without saying.
includes a preemptive strike on reactors...That goes without saying.

You're reiterating cold war nuclear theory of acceptable nuclear exchanges. This was debunked as a theory. Any nuclear exchange is unacceptable. Iran will not nuke Israel, however it will use them to coerce those that threaten it,
i.e. the US and her allies.

M.A.D. has not been debunked. Your right that any nuclear exchange is bad. Since Iran already stated their intentions, I declare them a threat. Shall we nuke them now or later?

..I suppose.
Who do you "suppose" paid for the Israeli nuclear programme.

I ll give you a hint...It was not the Israely tax payers...they cant even afford the CAT buldozers on their own.

M.A.D. has not been debunked. Your right that any nuclear exchange is bad. Since Iran already stated their intentions, I declare them a threat. Shall we nuke them now or later?
Nuke them now, why wait.

I say we make a constitution amandement that read:
we must nuke every country that me or Corneliu declares a threat. :rolleyes:

Who do you "suppose" paid for the Israeli nuclear programme.

I ll give you a hint...It was not the Israely tax payers...they can even afford the CAT buldozers.
The reactor at Dimona was built in late 50s with French assistance. Did the US pay for its construction? I am very much in doubt, considering that the US had vague notions of its purpose (I'm sure Americans weren't in a habit of sending U-2s to fly over Windscale).

Nuke them now, why wait.

Because the EU is negotiating :D

Gee, I remember Afghanistan was a MORE mountainous country with a population motivated by self-defense, and with 20 years of fighting experience. As I recall, we kicked their asses in very short order - something another major nation, the USSR, was never able to do
You never kicked their asses and you will never kick them. This is the typical kind of media propaganda working here.
The Afghani's just did what they learnt in the past 25 years, they pulled back into the mountains and continued their fight with the "thousand cuts" strategy. Today i read that the UK MoD is considering pulling 5500 men out of Iraq and into Afghanistan because they cant handle it and the number of casualties on European side is increasing.
I'll tell you one thing about the USSR, they came closer to controlling the nation than you ever will. And the US supported the mujahideen in the Eighties, today they dont have any support at all.

Let's try to use some small semblance of accuracy here shall we? Just this once?


Afghanistan was already under foreign occupation - the Taliban - when we went in, and we did so with the aid of the Afghani warlords - not their opposition.
Foreign Occupation? Taliban come from the Kandahar region, they are not foreigners. Again, the media at work! Back in the Second Anglo-Afghan war of 1880 Mullah Mushki Alam from the Taliban incited tribal warriors to fight against the British. One of those groups was led by Mirwais Khan Hotaki, a Taliban warlord. During the Soviet occupation they were part of the Peshawar Tanzeem leaders, Under commander Nabi (A moderate, not a fundamentalist he was also a former Communist officer)
The warlords did not aid you in any way, only the Northern alliance did, because they could gain from it. Many Taliban today receive aid from those warlords

Which is to say that the general population of Afghanistan was NOT motivated by self defense at all, because the general population of Afghanistan was anti-taliban.
Half the populations doesnt care who leads, if you ask them today they'll say Karzai is good, if the Taliban return then they will be good.
The other half supports the Taliban, because they are the only government in many years that has some control over the nation.

But, of course, even in a country that DID want stability and help the opportunites to make a real impression went right down the shitter as it took almost two years even to begin the most pressing infrastucture work such as the Kabul-Kandahar highway etc. The promised billions of Aid were reduced to a trickle and instead diverted to the bigger PR nightmare a country away. Afghanistan COULD have been the real showcase of helping Muslims acheive a full, functioning, independant deocratic government to put "freedom on the march", but they got dropped in the gutter like a $2 whore as the men, material, and money headed off for Baghdad.
Democracy in Afghanistan? You must be joking.
My brother is an officer in the Belgian Army and has been stationed in Afghanistan. The new government has no control outside Kabul and its army is corrupt to the bone. He personally saw how Afghan soldiers mistreat civilians, kidnap people and demand ransoms, kill almost at random, etc etc and he couldnt intervene, he was not allowed to. The way I know the American(US whatever) government I know they wont let their men intervene either, simply because that would be 'disrespectful' towards the Karzai government.
The political scene is dominated by warlords and will continue to be so for the next few decades.

So now we have the elected President of KAbul surrounded by autonomous warlords who are right back to selling opium to americans to feed their power base,

We have outbreaks of cholera in the country because the required power and sanitation works were never seriously addressed.
Correct, some warlords make lots of money from the gasreserves too. How long will it take before they start exploiting other resources to buy weapons? (the gasreserves were found by the Soviets in 1964 so they still have a long way to go before they run dry.)

We have increasing re-penetration by the Taliban who are taking advantage of the power vacuum in the country, requireing recent discussions of the need to increase troop deployments to quell what could have been eliminated in the first year.
As I said, you could not have eliminated them, they receive support all over the country. One of the Southern warlords (Sherzai) is a staunch Taliban supporter, yet he is a friend of Karzai and the US. Explain that!
People like Mullah Omar escaped captivity, and you wonder how it was possible? Didnt the Afghan population support the liberation?
You know in the early Nineties, a General of the Afhan Army tried to take power in a coup (The Tanai revolt, the man was Shah Nawaz Tanai), but president Najibullah, former head of the Afghan secret service was on to him and Tanai fled to Pakistan.
Two weeks later he was back in Afghanistan holding a pressconference in his communist uniform, saying he joined Gulbuddin Hekmatyars group. Tanai, a Hardline communist siding with Hekmatyar, the Muslim fundamentalist. Learn from it.


Indeed, what we have is the recipe for another abject failure of foreign policy implementation leading to the continued suffering of the Afghani people who were raring to get on with building a better country and better lives for themselves when we went in.


And, as mentioned, they were a people who mostly WERE ON OUR SIDE. Not "motivated by self defense" as you falsely claimed.

The Taliban ended the civil war between the different factions and brought stability, allowing the civilians to rebuild their homes. Thank you all for bringin an end to that.
Yes, the Taliban are oppressive. But history learns us that it is the only way to govern Afghanistan. In the past 200 years there was only one leader who controlled Afghanistan. Only one leader who was succeeded peacefully.
Abdur Rahman (nicknames: The Iron Amir and Assassin) He ruled the country with an Iron hand crushing dissidence with terrible cruelty. He stamped out the periodic crimewaves that swept across the nation ; criminals were stoned to death or impaled on stakes, others were hung in cages near the scene of their crime and left to die of starvation. cheating merchants had their ears severed and displayed over their bussiness.
When he died his son Habibullah rose to power, but noone dared to object out of fear. Rahman also created a real Afghan army and a decent administrative system for his government (offcourse he had spies everywhere).

Because the EU is negotiating :D
you are just a piece of chicken shit :D

M.A.D. has not been debunked. Your right that any nuclear exchange is bad. Since Iran already stated their intentions, I declare them a threat. Shall we nuke them now or later?

Ahhhhhh, Corneliu, we meet again. I wasn't refering to M.A.D. That still exists, in the Iranian case a much smaller version, i.e. against US ground troops.

But I was refering to Limited nuclear exchanges, i.e. tactical exchanges. It was debunked because it was realised that escalation would inevitably occur, i.e. M.A.D. But this is not the Cold War. National security is not under threat. Again what the Iranians have said is rethoric, no different from any politican promising to do one thing and then compromising over the other.

If you think the US national security is under threat you should not be worried about Iran but the ex-Soviet c.3000 nuclear suitcase nuclear bombs that went missing at the end of the Cold War.....

The decision to use nuclear weapons by a Western government would lead to too many adverse implications. I don't see how you could justify it, unless attacked first, which the Iranians won't do, due to MAD. They are just scared and looking for something to defend themselves with.

you are just a piece of chicken shit :D

I've been called worse! :D

Ahhhhhh, Corneliu, we meet again. I wasn't refering to M.A.D. That still exists, in the Iranian case a much smaller version, i.e. against US ground troops.

Ahh ok! My apologies. :)

But I was refering to Limited nuclear exchanges, i.e. tactical exchanges. It was debunked because it was realised that escalation would inevitably occur, i.e. M.A.D.

Don't have a heart attack but I actually do agree with you here.

But this is not the Cold War. National security is not under threat.

Actually it is under threat. Our National Security is under constent threat but no longer by the USSR but by rogue states like Iran and North Korea not to mention under threat by terrorism too.

Again what the Iranians have said is rethoric, no different from any politican promising to do one thing and then compromising over the other.

I believe it rhetoric too but to play devils advocate, What if it isn't rhetoric but a promise?

If you think the US national security is under threat you should not be worried about Iran but the ex-Soviet c.3000 nuclear suitcase nuclear bombs that went missing at the end of the Cold War.....

Your telling me not to worry about this? LOL! The US Intelligence is worried about those missing nukes. And yea Iran is still a threat to our National Security. What if they pawn their nukes to terrorists? The world will be in trouble then.

The decision to use nuclear weapons by a Western government would lead to too many adverse implications. I don't see how you could justify it, unless attacked first, which the Iranians won't do, due to MAD.

MAD only works using the rational man theory. I don't think Iran is rational due to their hatred of the US and Israel.

They are just scared and looking for something to defend themselves with.

Oh they are scared alright. I'll grant you that (Wow, agreeing alot in this post).

Actually it is under threat. Our National Security is under constent threat but no longer by the USSR but by rogue states like Iran and North Korea not to mention under threat by terrorism too.



I believe it rhetoric too but to play devils advocate, What if it isn't rhetoric but a promise?



Your telling me not to worry about this? LOL! The US Intelligence is worried about those missing nukes. And yea Iran is still a threat to our National Security. What if they pawn their nukes to terrorists? The world will be in trouble then.



MAD only works using the rational man theory. I don't think Iran is rational due to their hatred of the US and Israel.



hahahahahahahah....... :) I love it, two people that were going hammer and tongs at each other last time now can agree on some points.

I also agree completely that the US is under threat, constantly, if you're number 1, people are after you any which way they can.

Again I agree that the statements might be promises not mere rehetoric but unlike you I still think that Iran comes under the "rational man theory" in some degree. Because the French hate you and villify your nation I still see them as being under the theory. Even though people may hate each other conditions may stop that hatred going to blows, in this case nukes as Israel and the US are armed and would retaliate.

On the missing suit case bombs, I was just saying that there are more threat opportunities from terrorists pursuing these weapons than a nation state obtaining them as you have a state to target. Iran I'm unsure is a threat to the US as a nation, more US troops deployed in Iraq.

Linked with the above point. Iran has subsisded and supported terrorists groups. But to supply them with nukes would be the excuse that the West would need to pursue a regime change in Iran. I suppose they could do it, but the risks and fall out are too great, (i.e. the rational man theory I still think applies)

I have to skip off home but I'll be back on in a few hours to debate some more....

Laters,

:cool:

hahahahahahahah....... :) I love it, two people that were going hammer and tongs at each other last time now can agree on some points.

I also agree completely that the US is under threat, constantly, if you're number 1, people are after you any which way they can.

Again I agree that the statements might be promises not mere rehetoric but unlike you I still think that Iran comes under the "rational man theory" in some degree. Because the French hate you and villify your nation I still see them as being under the theory. Even though people may hate each other conditions may stop that hatred going to blows, in this case nukes as Israel and the US are armed and would retaliate.

On the missing suit case bombs, I was just saying that there are more threat opportunities from terrorists pursuing these weapons than a nation state obtaining them as you have a state to target. Iran I'm unsure is a threat to the US as a nation, more US troops deployed in Iraq.

Linked with the above point. Iran has subsisded and supported terrorists groups. But to supply them with nukes would be the excuse that the West would need to pursue a regime change in Iran. I suppose they could do it, but the risks and fall out are too great, (i.e. the rational man theory I still think applies)

I have to skip off home but I'll be back on in a few hours to debate some more....

Laters,

:cool:

All good points! Damn. Why can't we agree more. We might be even better friends :D

Take care dude :cool:

The fault for the current violence in the Middle East lies entirely with the Palestinians. Israel’s actions are wholly justified as an appropriate response to suicide bombings.
Isreal is a country that has faced death and humiliation of suicide bombs and unpredictable future. No country in the world has suffered like the citizens of Isreal.

I gues you've never heard of the King David Hotel, or Lord Moyne or the Irgun. And I belive your the one who has bashed other people knowledge on history, please touch up on your own.

On 16 February 2005 Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, U.S. Navy, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, testified that "We judge Iran will have the technical capability to develop an ICBM by 2015. It is not clear whether Iran has decided to field such a missile.

So in 10 years they might have an ICBM, but then again they might not even have bothered? Don't know about the rest of you but I'm running for the hills.

Just to set some things straight, Iran doesn't have biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, just conventional. They currently have a nuclear program to build a reactor which is quite reasonably seen as worrying by others because it could lead to them acquiring nuclear weapons. They don't have them yet, they may never have them and if they did most likely they would never use them. Being Muslim does not remove your capacity for rational thought as some of you previous posters seemed to be implying.

Israel on the other hand, has a stockpile of an estimated 400 nuclear warheads sold to them by the US. 'Sold' is perhaps not the right word since they were bought with US aid money, which in 2005 has currently amounted to $360,000,000, making it the top recipient of US aid in the world, same as it is every year.

Israel has a history of aggression against its neighbors with the Six Day war and its continuing oppression of the Palestinian people. It has, as mentioned above, extensive nuclear capabilities. The US in pursuing their Middle-East policies have flooded the region with arms, offered unstinting support for Israel no matter what their actions, and are currently occupying the neighboring country of Iraq after having otherthrown Saddam Hussein who the US originally supported as a rival to Iran. Given this, it seems a little hard to believe that Iran is the problem, and even harder to hear the US claim the moral highground

I gues you've never heard of the King David Hotel, or Lord Moyne or the Irgun. And I belive your the one who has bashed other people knowledge on history, please touch up on your own.
right, some organization used terror in aim to get country established. this is similarity between the present and the past terror.
however, there is some differences as well:
1- the jewish "terrorists" didn't try to kill all the british.
2- they mostly warn before they act to prevent british casualities.
3- their aims was military ones.
4- they try to build and develope their land. you can't say that on the palastinians terrorists that create anarchy of gun-owners in the areas they ruled (when israel give them chance to rule by themselves).
5- the "israeli terrorist" mostly wasn't religious and the religion wasn't important part of their motives.
6- the "israelis" tried to get any area they can for the country. they don't want other things, except the right to country.

They don't have them yet, they may never have them and if they did most likely they would never use them. Being Muslim does not remove your capacity for rational thought as some of you previous posters seemed to be implying.maybe not, but being a religious radical is, and that exactly what iran is.

btw, how you can see in israel lack in rational thought, at the same breath of saying that iran isn't?
Israel on the other hand, has a stockpile of an estimated 400 nuclear warheads sold to them by the US. 'Sold' is perhaps not the right word since they were bought with US aid money, which in 2005 has currently amounted to $360,000,000, making it the top recipient of US aid in the world, same as it is every year.we had are own nuclear progrram. why would we buy nukes from USA, if we can create them?
btw, the usa aid, is even not 1% from the israeli budget, so get real. the only problem with is aid is that we can't use him to anything, except aquiring of US weapons.
Israel has a history of aggression against its neighbors with the Six Day war and its continuing oppression of the Palestinian people. I think they had at least the same amount of agression against us. the independence war, the yom-kipur war, the treats to close the tanks become close to the border before the six-day war, and their continueing use of terror, are just some examples.
It has, as mentioned above, extensive nuclear capabilities. Iran and their supported terrorist will had it in 2-3 more years. what your point?
The US in pursuing their Middle-East policies have flooded the region with arms, offered unstinting support for Israel no matter what their actions, and are currently occupying the neighboring country of Iraq after having otherthrown Saddam Hussein who the US originally supported as a rival to Iran.USA gave arms to egypt and saudia as well, their support to israel isn't worse than the european support to the arabs, and there actions in iraq aren't connected to israel. what you try to prove?
Given this, it seems a little hard to believe that Iran is the problem, and even harder to hear the US claim the moral highgroundmaybe not for you. to israel iranians nukes are one of the worst nightmares. still it is world-wide problem if you consider the iranian support for global terrorists.
as I said before, the USA aren't the issue. the important thing is to prevent from the nukes to be in the hands of the looney radicals with the terrorist friends.

right, some organization used terror in aim to get country established. this is similarity between the present and the past terror.
however, there is some differences as well:
1- the jewish "terrorists" didn't try to kill all the british.
2- they mostly warn before they act to prevent british casualities.
3- their aims was military ones.
4- they try to build and develope their land. you can't say that on the palastinians terrorists that create anarchy of gun-owners in the areas they ruled (when israel give them chance to rule by themselves).
5- the "israeli terrorist" mostly wasn't religious and the religion wasn't important part of their motives.
6- the "israelis" tried to get any area they can for the country. they don't want other things, except the right to country.

1. True
2. Sometimes, also true
3. Not so, Buses, railways, even cafe's were hit by the Irgun. Although many targets were military they did hit and kill many civilian and non-military targets.
4. I don't know much about what Israel has done witht he land, I've heard a few things about them making the land much more fertile exc but not enough to comment. Though that doesn't excuse the acts they committed.
5. From what I know they definetly were religous, if it wasn't for religion(them being Jewish in the first place) none of it would have happened. Also religion was a major factor in them choosing Palestine for a homeland instead of africa as many had suggested and offered to them.
6. The Jews were offered part of Africa to live in but wanted palestine so it wasn't just any area they wanted. And how is this different from what the Palestinians want for themselves?

note:I'm in no way anti-Jewish or Israeli.

USA gave arms to egypt and saudia as well, their support to israel isn't worse than the european support to the arabs, and there actions in iraq aren't connected to israel. what you try to prove?

I think Egypt is actually the second biggest reciever of aid after Israel. Also I've heard that we might even be planning to build a tank factory in Egypt, not sure about that but I've heard some things about it might be happening. But while we arm Egypt we don't help them along as much as we do Israel militarily.

I think Egypt is actually the second biggest reciever of aid after Israel.I say we stop all that welfare...$360,000,000, can pay for a lof of US schools and hospitals...

And the policy becomes one of obtaining a nuclear weapon in order to destroy Israel.
You know, you are thinking of Iran right after the revolution. Have you ever seen Iran? Even on TV (other than on the news)? Or known anyone from Iran?
I cannot believe that you think Iran would actually do such a thing. You know the reason that Iran and North Korea are developing these programs (if they are) is a very simple one:
They have been singled out for US invasions!
Remember the whole axis of evil talk? These are precaution measures if I've ever seen any.

And pretty much all the Iranians I've spoken to (five they were) said
a) the ayatollahs are too extremist and hurt the country on large (in the past)
b) things are changing though, with a bit of patience things will turn out just fine
c) they cannot comprehend why the US would want to go to war with them
d) they don't hate Israel. (although 4 of them felt very strongly pro-palestine)

note:I'm in no way anti-Jewish or Israeli.
Isn't it a sad sign of our times that you always have to add that to an argument?
It's almost like a natural protection against criticism...

that no mod has thrown down the ban stick and got rid of a few ppl for a few days. lotta flaming and trolling going on here. ah well, it was a funny read :P heading home now.

And pretty much all the Iranians I've spoken to (five they were) said

Do they speak for the whole country?

a) the ayatollahs are too extremist and hurt the country on large (in the past)

Accurate but they are incharge

b) things are changing though, with a bit of patience things will turn out just fine

We can only pray and hope that they do.

c) they cannot comprehend why the US would want to go to war with them

We don't and we've said that we don't too.

d) they don't hate Israel. (although 4 of them felt very strongly pro-palestine)

Not surprised about the paranthesis statement.

1. We can only pray and hope that they do.
2. We don't and we've said that we don't too.
3. Not surprised about the paranthesis statement.

1. Praying ain't gonna do anything. Sometimes democracy comes from the people (I know, it must be hard to conceive) rather than from outside force.

2. Good. Many people on this thread seem to think otherwise though. Let's hope they don't represent the US population.

3. Should you be?
I was merely bracing myself against possible allegations of "that's bullshit, all Iranians hate Israel etc"

1. Praying ain't gonna do anything. Sometimes democracy comes from the people (I know, it must be hard to conceive) rather than from outside force.

Don't insult my intel Leonstein. I know where democracy comes from. We are talking about Iran here. Hopefully change will come from the people and it probably will. I'm praying for it to happen.

2. Good. Many people on this thread seem to think otherwise though. Let's hope they don't represent the US population.

Because they don't have ears to listen to what the administration is saying. They have stated that the US doesn't want a war with Iran.

3. Should you be?

Nope

I was merely bracing myself against possible allegations of "that's bullshit, all Iranians hate Israel etc"

Not from me. I am more tolerant than others. I don't group everyone into one category like some people on here from both sides do.

Isn't it a sad sign of our times that you always have to add that to an argument?
It's almost like a natural protection against criticism...

It is but I've been accused of varius things in the past and don't feel like dealing with that crap again.


But on to the actual topic of this thread, the whole invasion of Iran. Sure America can bomb the shit out of Iran exc exc. But were are we going to find the troops to actaully invade while holding down iraq and Afghanistan at the same time? We're already stretched amazingly thin and Iran is not only bigger but ahs rougher terrain than Iraq. It cost a lot more to occupy a mountanous, rough area than it does somewhere like Iraq.(Look at Afghanistan, compare costs for troops deployment/upkeep for number of troops and compare it with Iraq, of course the overall number will be higher for Iraq but on a per troop basis Afghanistan is more expensive.) That of course is assuming we take over the country. Being bigger and more mountanous and(not sure about this but from what I've heard) better equipped an invasion of Iran would be harder, bloodier and take more people to do. not to mention the sudden steroid injection the insurgency in both Afghanistan and Iraq would recieve.

I'm seriusly doubting America has the ability to take over Iran at the moment and unless we can somehow put together a coalition, an actual coalition with nations contributing more than a few dozen troops per nation. If we were going to invade someone it would probaly be Syria which would be much easier but I'm doubting we could do that by ourselves but thats a different issue.