NationStates Jolt Archive

In the eyes of the George and co. Iran's nuclear ambitions are a major threat. It's also on the axis of evil and forces it's citizens to live under Islamic Law.

And lately it's been been sticking its proverbial tongue out at the Western World.

So, will America decide it needs to go premptive on Iran's ass? And if she does, what will be the results? Could the USA REALLY drop an other Nuclear Weapon? And finally, where will the rest of the World stand?

Hmmmmm, this could lead to a very interesting World War Three...

In the eyes of WORLD AND CO.! Even europe agrees Iran is a problem.

In the eyes of WORLD AND CO.! Even europe agrees Iran is a problem.

Hmmmm.... don't hate me for this, but I was including Blair and Chiraic and all with the co.

And what do you mean even Europe! :p

Hmmmm.... don't hate me for this, but I was including Blair and Chiraic and all with the co.

And what do you mean even Europe! :p


When you said Bush and CO I assume you mean his admin.


Its well known that europeans are not the most gung ho about war on any level...

In the eyes of the George and co. Iran's nuclear ambitions are a major threat. It's also on the axis of evil and forces it's citizens to live under Islamic Law.

And lately it's been been sticking its proverbial tongue out at the Western World.

So, will America decide it needs to go premptive on Iran's ass? And if she does, what will be the results? Could the USA REALLY drop an other Nuclear Weapon? And finally, where will the rest of the World stand?

Hmmmmm, this could lead to a very interesting World War Three...

funny,it looks like you agree for it

Bush hasn't got enough time left to go to war, and besides, America's troops are pretty tied up at the moment without another conflict to worry about.

Bush hasn't got enough time left to go to war, and besides, America's troops are pretty tied up at the moment without another conflict to worry about.


Yeah he does, invade Iran on his last day in power to screw over the next president..if its a democrat. Nice parting gift!

Bush hasn't got enough time left to go to war, and besides, America's troops are pretty tied up at the moment without another conflict to worry about.
And that's why the nuclear option looms so threateningly... :(

And that's why the nuclear option looms so threateningly... :(

I doubt it could happen... SOMEONE would fire back...

I doubt it could happen... SOMEONE would fire back...
Not that I'm for that option, but no one would defend Iran with nuclear weapons.

Maybe they should play a LAN game of BF2 in the UN building. the winner "wins" the conflict.

Now THAT would be something new :D

And that's why the nuclear option looms so threateningly... :(

I don't think Iran is dumb enough to use nukes. The most likely scenario would be that they are completely destroyed, along with most of the rest of the world.

Iran doesn't have nukes. It's still miles away form a real usable Nuke.

Not that I'm for that option, but no one would defend Iran with nuclear weapons.
explain why a nation whithout nuke should loose against one with 10 000 of them.
And explain why some are more equal than others

explain why a nation whithout nuke should loose against one with 10 000 of them.

72 virgins in heaven.

Maybe they should play a LAN game of BF2 in the UN building. the winner "wins" the conflict.

Now THAT would be something new :DWhat happened to the good old method of playing a round of risk? :(

72 virgins in heaven.
So one may use porn,while the other one don't.
What's up?

explain why a nation whithout nuke should loose against one with 10 000 of them.
And explain why some are more equal than others
I don't need to explain any of that because I'm not making a moral statement. I'm simply saying that there is no nuclear armed nation tat would fire nukes at the US if the US nuked Iran. No country at all is going to attack America unless they have reason to believe that America is about to attck them.

I don't need to explain any of that because I'm not making a moral statement. I'm simply saying that there is no nuclear armed nation tat would fire nukes at the US if the US nuked Iran. No country at all is going to attack America unless they have reason to believe that America is about to attck them.

So that is why the us made nukes,they just fell treatend;)

So that is why the us made nukes,they just fell treatend;)
Of course. That exactly why we built nukes. The US and USSR built their arsenals on the MAD doctrine: Mutually Assured Destruction. If you try to destroy us, we will destroy you. The point to building any weapons of war at all, from a foot soldier to a tank to a submarine is because you want others to think twice about attacking you. That's not just true for the US, it's true for every country.

it's true for every country.
you forget "other" between every and country

but i get your point nonetheless;)

you forget "other" between every and country

but i get your point nonetheless;)
Okay, but I stand by my grammer. :D

Lets surrender.

We'd beat Iran. Guaranteed.

How long is the question, Iran is more prepared than Iraq was so it would take longer. I do know, however, that the US military has even more things they want to test out, such as the small diameter bomb system. And then there's me......

:p

explain why a nation whithout nuke should loose against one with 10 000 of them.
And explain why some are more equal than others

Because some are run by sane people, and some, such as Iran, are run by nutjobs with middle east domination on their mind.

Bush hasn't got enough time left to go to war, and besides, America's troops are pretty tied up at the moment without another conflict to worry about.

Bingo. That's not to mention that Iran's nuclear program is extensive enough that just taking it out, ignoring the other problems, would be a major undertaking.

We'd beat Iran. Guaranteed.

How long is the question, Iran is more prepared than Iraq was so it would take longer. I do know, however, that the US military has even more things they want to test out, such as the small diameter bomb system. And then there's me......

Well, at least you recognise some of the realities. ;)

Bingo. That's not to mention that Iran's nuclear program is extensive enough that just taking it out, ignoring the other problems, would be a major undertaking.



Well, at least you recognise some of the realities. ;)

I'll hopefully be .mil by this time next year.

The Israelis would be good for a go at Iran as soon as they wrap up in Lebanon. Supposedly their 3 guys have been sent to Iran.

We'd beat Iran. Guaranteed.

How long is the question, Iran is more prepared than Iraq was so it would take longer. I do know, however, that the US military has even more things they want to test out, such as the small diameter bomb system. And then there's me......

:p

Hell if it comes to war, and Iran attacks US soil, you can bet that there will be a crater where Tehran used to be.

I'll hopefully be .mil by this time next year.

The Israelis would be good for a go at Iran as soon as they wrap up in Lebanon. Supposedly their 3 guys have been sent to Iran.

Not to mention the direct support Hezbollah's getting in men and arms from Iran (what's the IRG KIA count up to now in south Lebanon - 20 or so?)

Not that I'm for that option, but no one would defend Iran with nuclear weapons.
Maybe Israel would!

Meanwhile, I don't consider defeating the Basji a problem.

Just don't hang around for nationbuilding - they don't teach that in Infantryschool.

I don't think Iran is dumb enough to use nukes. The most likely scenario would be that they are completely destroyed, along with most of the rest of the world.

Nonsense. Iran could destroy one or two cities; the US would glass Iran. Most of the world wouldn't even be effected.

I don't need to explain any of that because I'm not making a moral statement. I'm simply saying that there is no nuclear armed nation tat would fire nukes at the US if the US nuked Iran. No country at all is going to attack America unless they have reason to believe that America is about to attck them.

North Korea. And no American president is gonna survive his office by losing a whole city cause he started off nuclear tit for tat.

Just don't hang around for nationbuilding - they don't teach that in Infantryschool.

Afghanistan showed how much good that line of thought did. And Iraq proved how bad the idea of nation building according to the PNAC agenda is idiotic.

The rule of thumb, throw the dumbasses out of office and replace them with people who can tell which end is up. Toss the yes men out too.

Well, there are massive pro-western demonstrations at Iran's universities. They have a large student population yearning to be free. I'm thinking less all-out war, more covert CIA operation.

the US would glass Iran.

I'm I the only one that gets a vision of a broken bottle shoved in the ayatollah's face when I read this?

u americans worry abt ppl u think have nukes but really dun have any... and yet ignore the one screaming that they have one.... from the way the US treats north korea.... iran should have nukes mayb they will get better treatment. plus if a country got 200 000 troops next to you and den calls u a member of an axis of evil i guess u have the right to feel threatened... most of da time america makes its own mess

I'm I the only one that gets a vision of a broken bottle shoved in the ayatollah's face when I read this?
Too bad radical muslims dont drink alchahol. We would have to import a special ceremonial bottle, possibly of Bud or some other beer that nobody will care about wasting, that the Bush can shatter on a table and utter some pre-prepared witty comment before performing plastic surgery on Iran's leadership.

Of course, I personally see Bush pulling the 'Amature Bottlefighter' skit where when he tries to break the top off, the whole bottle shatters in his hand.
Seen it before, not a pretty sight.

u americans worry abt ppl u think have nukes but really dun have any... and yet ignore the one screaming that they have one.... from the way the US treats north korea.... iran should have nukes mayb they will get better treatment. plus if a country got 200 000 troops next to you and den calls u a member of an axis of evil i guess u have the right to feel threatened... most of da time america makes its own mess
...
...
...
TERRORIST!

u americans worry abt ppl u think have nukes but really dun have any... and yet ignore the one screaming that they have one.... from the way the US treats north korea.... iran should have nukes mayb they will get better treatment. plus if a country got 200 000 troops next to you and den calls u a member of an axis of evil i guess u have the right to feel threatened... most of da time america makes its own mess

Sorry i didn't understand that.

Sorry i didn't understand that.
Its A-Rab-IC, 'cause he's a terrorist. Get yer scatter-gun and le's blast 'im back ta Teh-RAN.

So, will America decide it needs to go premptive on Iran's ass? And if she does, what will be the results? Could the USA REALLY drop an other Nuclear Weapon? And finally, where will the rest of the World stand?

Hmmmmm, this could lead to a very interesting World War Three...

1. No, the US will not do a pre-emptive strike on Iran. That would lead to an all out war and the US is a bit busy elsewhere.

2. Could the US drop a Nuke? Yes, they could but won't. There is no good reason for us to do so. Iran is a threat, but not much of a threat to the US yet. Their weapons cannot reach us yet. They are much more of a threat to Israel, other countries in the Middle East, and Europe.

3. Where will the rest of the World stand? On their collective asses, crying, wailing, and passing resolutions in the UN that Iran can and will thumb their nose at.

could lead to WW III...I hate to break this to you but we are already in WW III and the enemy is radical Islam, not Islam but radical Islam.

Afghanistan showed how much good that line of thought did. And Iraq proved how bad the idea of nation building according to the PNAC agenda is idiotic.


Non Aligned, meet PJ o'Rourke, PJ, meet Non Aligned.

The idea behind having an army is killing folks and breaking things.

If you want nation-building, try a Peace Corps or summat similar.

The rule of thumb, throw the dumbasses out of office and replace them with people who can tell which end is up. Toss the yes men out too.

You can't do that in a democracy. It idn't constitutional to know which end is up in a Democracy.

Iran doesn't have nukes. It's still miles away form a real usable Nuke.

Want to bet your life on that?

Want to bet your life on that?

*grins* Nope. Yours, not his.

72 virgins in heaven.

http://www.reneelevy.com/Dessins/DejaPasseAng/72virgins.jpg :D

Well, there are massive pro-western demonstrations at Iran's universities. They have a large student population yearning to be free. I'm thinking less all-out war, more covert CIA operation.

Where is Ollie North when you really need him? :p

Where is Ollie North when you really need him? :p


Working with Grover Norquist and secretly helping the muslims?

And then there's me......

Are you superhuman?

Meanwhile, I don't consider defeating the Basji a problem.

Just don't hang around for nationbuilding - they don't teach that in Infantryschool.
Rebuilding is the only option after an invasion. It worked after WW2.

could lead to WW III...I hate to break this to you but we are already in WW III and the enemy is radical Islam, not Islam but radical Islam.
No it isn't a war. It's global, but it's too small-scale to be a war.

Bush hasn't got enough time left to go to war, and besides, America's troops are pretty tied up at the moment without another conflict to worry about.

Getting rid of the Iranian regime would just about eliminate the resistance in Iraq.

We'd beat Iran. Guaranteed.

How long is the question, Iran is more prepared than Iraq was so it would take longer. I do know, however, that the US military has even more things they want to test out, such as the small diameter bomb system. And then there's me......

:p
Maybe you will be one of the 80,000?

http://www.traprockpeace.org/podcasts_transcripts/index.php/2005/11/28/4/

But, if that fails, the military has been told to be prepared to send troops from Azerbaijan, along the Caspian Sea coast, to the outskirts of Tehran where it would project a force of 40-60,000. The Iranian people would be motivated by our presence and rise up and overthrow the mad Mullahs of Tehran. We’ll even put another 20-30,000 Marines on the coast where we can control the Straits of Hormuz, preventing the Iranians from shutting down that. .. oil shipping lane. What happens when that doesn’t work? And it doesn’t take a mathematical whiz to figure that it’s not going to work, ladies and gentlemen. Iran is a nation about 2.5 times the size of Iraq. Iran has a population of almost 50 million people, and we’re talking about putting 60-80,000 troops on the ground. We can’t control a nation of 25 million people with 161,000 troops. What makes us think we’re going to control 50 million with 80,000? It’s not going to happen. Now is where it gets really frightening, because the Bush administration, if they go down this course of action, will have no choice at that point in time but to use nuclear weapons, and they have already developed the weapons — they call them usable nukes. It’s funny that term, usable. This is not about mutually assured destruction anymore. This is not about deterrence. The Bush administration has radically departed from past doctrine to say that we will have a family of nuclear weapons that are usable nuclear weapons, meaning that we can conceive of using them, and then they’ll say we could use them preemptively in a non-nuclear environment, meaning that it’s not about opposing somebody with nuclear weapons or biological weapons or chemical weapons, it’s we can use them any time we want to if it’s in the strategic national interest of the United States.

Getting rid of the Iranian regime would just about eliminate the resistance in Iraq.
You do like those rose coloured glasses huh?

In the eyes of the George and co. Iran's nuclear ambitions are a major threat. It's also on the axis of evil and forces it's citizens to live under Islamic Law.

And lately it's been been sticking its proverbial tongue out at the Western World.

So, will America decide it needs to go premptive on Iran's ass? And if she does, what will be the results? Could the USA REALLY drop an other Nuclear Weapon? And finally, where will the rest of the World stand?

Hmmmmm, this could lead to a very interesting World War Three...

Answer number one: no

Answer number two: Iran suffering severe damage from air and missile strikes.

Answer number three: Not unless Iran uses them first.

Answer number four: depends on why it was started to begin with.

Of course. That exactly why we built nukes. The US and USSR built their arsenals on the MAD doctrine: Mutually Assured Destruction. If you try to destroy us, we will destroy you. The point to building any weapons of war at all, from a foot soldier to a tank to a submarine is because you want others to think twice about attacking you. That's not just true for the US, it's true for every country.

"He who desires peace, prepares for war"

"He who desires peace, prepares for war"
Earlier you talked about desiring peace. Was I misreading your statement?

Also, those who are constantly at war, know no peace.

Earlier you talked about desiring peace. Was I misreading your statement?

No you did not misread my statement. I do desire peace. I always want peace but one must be prepared to fight in case diplomacy fails and a war results from said failed diplomacy. Look at the Cold War for example. Both sides were ready to kill one another but both sides maintained peace between one another because they knew that they could wipe eachother out if one side started something.

Another example I could point to is the Korean Peninsula. Both sides know that each other is ready to fight if someone does something that is going to result in both sides shooting at one another.Why do you think that they still talk to one another? They are trying to prevent war from reoccuring on the peninsula. I just wish North Korea had a better leader but one works with what one is given.

Also, those who are constantly at war, know no peace.

Indeed.

Have a look at the theory of PEAK OIL.

'Evil' and 'Nuclear' are the words used to create fear in the masses so America (and its allies) can get about securing the last of the worlds oil supplies.

Trade-up to a smaller car whilst your gass guzzler is still worth something!

Trade-up to a smaller car whilst your gass guzzler is still worth something!
why don't take one of this hybrid cars, instead?

Getting rid of the Iranian regime would just about eliminate the resistance in Iraq.
Getting rid of the Bush regime would just about eliminate the neocon movement in North America.

bush prolly wants a war here. he wants to rule the world.

bush prolly wants a war here. he wants to rule the world.
Nah, he just wishes the world was comprised of his ranch. And nothing else.

You do like those rose coloured glasses huh?


You are so naïve. Iran has been the main support of the Iraqi terrorists, AND the rest of the terrorists around the world.

You have to go to the head in order to kill the beast.

In the eyes of the George and co. Iran's nuclear ambitions are a major threat. It's also on the axis of evil and forces it's citizens to live under Islamic Law.

And lately it's been been sticking its proverbial tongue out at the Western World.

So, will America decide it needs to go premptive on Iran's ass? And if she does, what will be the results? Could the USA REALLY drop an other Nuclear Weapon? And finally, where will the rest of the World stand?

Hmmmmm, this could lead to a very interesting World War Three...


Please do not bomb Iran, :(

I am planning to visit Iran in April

(Sure there are less personal and better arguments for not bombing Iran but still...)

Getting rid of the Iranian regime would just about eliminate the resistance in Iraq.


You are soooo funny :D

The main terrorist base was sunni Arab supporters of the previous regime. Iran would support the Shi'i majority that is in power at the moment.

Now you no longer have to worry about this sunni resistance because with 1500 dead in the last month due to sectarian violence, the resistance is no longer the problem; a civil war along religious and ethnic lines is. Think Ruanda, Bosnia and Sudan...

Actually this is not as funny as I thought it was :(

Theres absolutely no reason to go to war with Iran.

Theres absolutely no reason to go to war with Iran.

And what if they continue to violate International Law?

And what if they continue to violate International Law?
What international law are they violationg? And dont give me that nuclear shit, everything they are doing is OK by the NPT, which Israel hasnt even signed.

What international law are they violationg? And dont give me that nuclear shit, everything they are doing is OK by the NPT, which Israel hasnt even signed.

If they are making nuclear weapons, then that clearly violates the NPT since they are a non-nuclear weapon signatory to it.

If they are making nuclear weapons, then that clearly violates the NPT since they are a non-nuclear weapon signatory to it.

And since there is 0 evidence of that...

America isn't "too busy" in Iraq and Afganistan to designate a force to take care of Iran - if anyone actually believed that then Iran would have tried their luck attacking US interests by now.

Logistically however, Iran is too large and united to occupy (unlike the infant Iraq, a new country with arbitrary borders, Iran is a continuous socio-political entity going back some 4,000 years), and so an Iraqesque occupation is out of the question, I say the best option would be for the USAF to perform some surgical strikes against Iran's nuclear targets (not as quick as it sounds, there are a lot of targets), and leave Iran with a warning that there is more to come if it does not clean up its act.

What international law are they violationg? And dont give me that nuclear shit, everything they are doing is OK by the NPT, which Israel hasnt even signed.
Because Iran (previous regime) has signed the treaty they are entitled to buy nuclear materials for energy purposes, but they must allow inspections...

Those that have not signed the treaty were not allowed to receive nuclear materials, from other countries and had to develop the knowledge themselves.

Because the west did not trust Iran they did not receive Nuclear materials even though they had signed the treaty, they also had to develop the knowledge themselves, yet Iran still must allow inspections...:confused:

And since there is 0 evidence of that...

And when one cannot inspect them,in accordance with the NPT....

If they are making nuclear weapons, then that clearly violates the NPT since they are a non-nuclear weapon signatory to it.

Note that all the nuclear signatory powers are also in violation...

Note also that many in the region do have these weapons (China, Russia, India Pakistan and Israel), and that Iran has few friends... It would probably need security guarantees to abandon its project.

And when one cannot inspect them,in accordance with the NPT....

Who said you cant? Who said you need to?

edit: By the way:

Iran says it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors say there is no evidence of a weapons program.

“Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Under the treaty, signatories have the right to develop nuclear energy. All they are required to do is to make reports to the IAEA and keep their facilities open to inspection. Iran complies with these requirements.

“There is no Iranian "defiance." When news media report 'defiance,' they purvey disinformation. The 'seals' on Iranian facilities were placed there voluntarily by the Iranians while they attempted to resolve the false charges brought by the Bush administration. The 'Iran crisis' is entirely the product of the Bush administration's determination to deprive Iran of its rights as a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty.”

Note that all the nuclear signatory powers are also in violation...

Note also that many in the region do have these weapons (China, Russia, India Pakistan and Israel), and that Iran has few friends... It would probably need security guarantees to abandon its project.

Then they should pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty as North Korea did.

You know what, forget it. Be afraid of Iran. The big bad brown people who worship Allah are going to get you. Dont breathe, you might choke.

Who said you cant? Who said you need to?

edit: By the way:

Now a link to said story please.

You know what, forget it. Be afraid of Iran. The big bad brown people who worship Allah are going to get you. Dont breathe, you might choke.

Your racist attitude is getting old. :rolleyes:

Then they should pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty as North Korea did.


Would this prevent a reaction? You do not seriously believe that Iran is in the clear once it has pulled out of the treaty, do you?

Would this prevent a reaction? You do not seriously believe that Iran is in the clear once it has pulled out of the treaty, do you?

Oh I know they will not be in the clear but then the charge of violating International Law will be dropped.

Now we have Iran…a nation with the audacity to make decisions without first asking for U.S. permission. We are faced with the spectacle of America (the only nation to have used nuclear weapons on civilians) warning the world about how nuclear weapons might, well, be used on civilians. We can’t allow just anyone to sneak around and acquire such technology (well, except Israel). We can’t allow those Commie Chinese (Cold War II, anyone?) to arm men so evil they might, well, use nuclear weapons on civilians. Before you know it, Iran will be using depleted uranium and white phosphorous, abusing prisoners, setting up interrogation centers in Eastern Europe, spying on its own people, and fixing elections at home and abroad.

I honestly think nothing's going to happen.

I honestly think nothing's going to happen.

I do not think anything is going to happen either.

I do not think anything is going to happen either.
there are so much voices,we just don't know(anymore)

You are so naïve. Iran has been the main support of the Iraqi terrorists, AND the rest of the terrorists around the world.

You have to go to the head in order to kill the beast.
The US has been mucking in Middle East politics for quite some time now, and it appears that the more the US gets involved, the worse it gets for the Middle East and the US. I guess you won't be satisfied until a couple of US cities are vapourized?

Why do you hate America?

Getting rid of the Iranian regime would just about eliminate the resistance in Iraq.
Think about that statement for awhile and then perhaps you will realize how inaccurate it is.

I ain't worrying.

With the Hezbollah putting a huge spotlight on the danger of iran getting a nuke ...I'd say that if the U N fails again and the EU fails with iys appeasment bullshit like they always seem to do..Chamberlain must have been their role model..

Then the US will more than like ly bomb the living bezeesus out of every plant..facility and other means that Iran has to produce a Bomb or other Nuclear device..and Iran will be powerless to stop it..of course they will luanch a few gazillion missiles at Israel in retaliation and try to close the waterways to prevent oil deliveries ..but that will get them only further
escalation and an infastructure suited for donkey carts and cadles .

Iran will be pushed back to 5th world status and make Somolia look like a vacation spot .

No invasion needed. Just major destruction of the military and the infastructure , electrical procduction ,roads ,bridges , air ports ...

You want to play poker..be prepared to show your hand .

Irans playing with a huge gorilla and they only weigh about 150 lbs with string bean arms .

They keep pressing this they will destroy themselves.

Just get it over with..what in 19 days or so ?


The targeting list are already made the plans are in place ..19 days gives enough time for a response to diplomacy...if its a no deal

then you get an ultimatum..48 hrs or you lose your ability to be an industrialised nation ....and btw have your civilians move out of the following areas scheduled for destruction...

Iran can only sit and watch the bombs and missiles fall.

So whats next for Abbadabadulla to do ?


And BTW..those troops being sent to Iraq??? Why do they have to be for Iraq...they may be there to defend Iraq from Iran...in case they go insane and decide to attack Iraq to get at the US ..then its Iranian sandwitch time .

Plans are already in -place to deal with Iran and its nukes...all thats needed now is the balls .

The care for the Iranian people, which just want to live their lives does not go far eh...

Theres absolutely no reason to go to war with Iran.


I agree that war is not the best option, covert action is probably better. The population of Iran is quite Pro-west.

Think about that statement for awhile and then perhaps you will realize how inaccurate it is.


Open your eyes and see that it is dead on accurate.

We'd beat Iran. Guaranteed.
At what?

The Civilian Annihilation Challenge or something?
How long is the question, Iran is more prepared than Iraq was so it would take longer.
No military force can take over Iran. It's too large, and the people are very willing to defend themselves, the average age is low and most of the populace is prepared to fight.

Plus they've got quite a good army and their Special Forces are excellent.

The answer to how long is "if you thought Vietnam was bad, you really, really don't want to attack Iran... seriously..."
I do know, however, that the US military has even more things they want to test out, such as the small diameter bomb system.
Declaring war and killing people to "try things out" is a bit out of order, no?
And then there's me......

:p
Since you're not in the military yet and would probably be a bit gung-ho and get yourself killed (which would be a bit sad, even if I do dislike you a lot), I wouldn't be in favour of attacking Iran if I was you.

With the Hezbollah putting a huge spotlight on the danger of iran getting a nuke ...I'd say that if the U N fails again and the EU fails with iys appeasment bullshit like they always seem to do..Chamberlain must have been their role model..

Then the US will more than like ly bomb the living bezeesus out of every plant..facility and other means that Iran has to produce a Bomb or other Nuclear device..and Iran will be powerless to stop it..of course they will luanch a few gazillion missiles at Israel in retaliation and try to close the waterways to prevent oil deliveries ..but that will get them only further
escalation and an infastructure suited for donkey carts and cadles .

Iran will be pushed back to 5th world status and make Somolia look like a vacation spot .

No invasion needed. Just major destruction of the military and the infastructure , electrical procduction ,roads ,bridges , air ports ...

You want to play poker..be prepared to show your hand .

Irans playing with a huge gorilla and they only weigh about 150 lbs with string bean arms .

They keep pressing this they will destroy themselves.

Just get it over with..what in 19 days or so ?


The targeting list are already made the plans are in place ..19 days gives enough time for a response to diplomacy...if its a no deal

then you get an ultimatum..48 hrs or you lose your ability to be an industrialised nation ....and btw have your civilians move out of the following areas scheduled for destruction...

Iran can only sit and watch the bombs and missiles fall.

So whats next for Abbadabadulla to do ?


And BTW..those troops being sent to Iraq??? Why do they have to be for Iraq...they may be there to defend Iraq from Iran...in case they go insane and decide to attack Iraq to get at the US ..then its Iranian sandwitch time .

Plans are already in -place to deal with Iran and its nukes...all thats needed now is the balls .
I'm guessing white, mid-teens to late-twenties, never been in any armed service, but thinks they're great at Op. Flashpoint, so could probably handle the real thing, may well have been living in their parents' house for all of their life, racist and an Islamophobe.

Does that correlate to you in any way?

I'm guessing white, mid-teens to late-twenties, never been in any armed service, but thinks they're great at Op. Flashpoint, so could probably handle the real thing, may well have been living in their parents' house for all of their life, racist and an Islamophobe.

Does that correlate to you in any way?

Kinda harsh... but prolly true.

hmmmm


Irans playing with a huge gorilla and they only weigh about 150 lbs with string bean arms .

Adult males range in height from 165-175 cm (5 ft 5 in-5 ft 9 in), and in weight from 140-165 kg (310-365 lb). Females are about half the weight of males.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla

Can't even get that right.

What a div.

1. No, the US will not do a pre-emptive strike on Iran. That would lead to an all out war and the US is a bit busy elsewhere.

2. Could the US drop a Nuke? Yes, they could but won't. There is no good reason for us to do so. Iran is a threat, but not much of a threat to the US yet. Their weapons cannot reach us yet. They are much more of a threat to Israel, other countries in the Middle East, and Europe.

3. Where will the rest of the World stand? On their collective asses, crying, wailing, and passing resolutions in the UN that Iran can and will thumb their nose at.

could lead to WW III...I hate to break this to you but we are already in WW III and the enemy is radical Islam, not Islam but radical Islam.

I like you.

At what?

The Civilian Annihilation Challenge or something?

No military force can take over Iran. It's too large, and the people are very willing to defend themselves, the average age is low and most of the populace is prepared to fight.

Plus they've got quite a good army and their Special Forces are excellent.

The answer to how long is "if you thought Vietnam was bad, you really, really don't want to attack Iran... seriously..."

Declaring war and killing people to "try things out" is a bit out of order, no?

Since you're not in the military yet and would probably be a bit gung-ho and get yourself killed (which would be a bit sad, even if I do dislike you a lot), I wouldn't be in favour of attacking Iran if I was you.

We can play as dirty as Iran wants to.

Declaring war, killing the bad guys, and removing an oppressive regime with the added benefit of testing out new and lethal methods of killing are an added side bonus.

If I am killed....





Not much for me to worry about huh, since I'll be dead and spending eternity in heaven eh?

If their populace wants to fight, we have plenty of ways to remove that will to fight. Legal, too! :D

Funny, the 400 man Iraqi army team that attacked a US SOF group in Iraq the first time around lost the will to fight when 170 or so of their own guys fell to 6 Americans. Hopefully Iranians have more brains than Saddam Era ING did.

I agree that war is not the best option, covert action is probably better. The population of Iran is quite Pro-west.

:eek: Almost forgot it. Better trigger another [name a colour] Revolution:)

We can play as dirty as Iran wants to.

Declaring war, killing the bad guys, and removing an oppressive regime with the added benefit of testing out new and lethal methods of killing are an added side bonus.

If I am killed....

Not much for me to worry about huh, since I'll be dead and spending eternity in heaven eh?

If their populace wants to fight, we have plenty of ways to remove that will to fight. Legal, too! :D

Funny, the 400 man Iraqi army team that attacked a US SOF group in Iraq the first time around lost the will to fight when 170 or so of their own guys fell to 6 Americans. Hopefully Iranians have more brains than Saddam Era ING did.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and Iraq has been a cakewalk. Also, Iran actually has an air force and anti-aircraft.

And if you die you are going to go to heaven huh? All you will miss out on is the 72 virgins.

And if you die you are going to go to heaven huh? All you will miss out on is the 72 virgins.

If I am wrong, I appologize in advance, but it is not polite to make fun of other people's faith.

Open your eyes and see that it is dead on accurate.
Your original post:

Getting rid of the Iranian regime would just about eliminate the resistance in Iraq.
Iraq, courtesy of the US invasion has resulted in a new Shiite dominated government that will invariably have closer ties with the Shiites in Iran. So, I would suggest that if the US attacks Iran, then US forces in Iraq will have to deal with what they already have on their plate, plus a Shiite uprising. That would more than double the current opposition to the US occupation.

Good plan Stan. :rolleyes:

Declaring war, killing the bad guys, and removing an oppressive regime with the added benefit of testing out new and lethal methods of killing are an added side bonus.

This here is most likely the thinking of a boy who grew up believing in GI Joe.


If I am killed....

Not much for me to worry about huh, since I'll be dead and spending eternity in heaven eh?

Considering how much hate mongering you have, not to mention this 'shoot em all' mentality, if any form of afterlife justice exists, you're afterlife would be in somewhere rather painful.

Besides, I just noted something rather ironic in your post. You've been noted as saying Muslim suicide bombers/extremists don't care about their lives because they'll go to the heaven for their cause.

And here you are saying the same thing....

You terrorist.


If their populace wants to fight, we have plenty of ways to remove that will to fight. Legal, too! :D

It was also legal for Treblinka to exist you realize. But of course, you don't care. It's only the 'dirty arabs' doing the dying.


Funny, the 400 man Iraqi army team that attacked a US SOF group in Iraq the first time around lost the will to fight when 170 or so of their own guys fell to 6 Americans. Hopefully Iranians have more brains than Saddam Era ING did.

This assumes that the training for their infantry was worse than that of the Iraqi army. And that they've been under crippling sanctions for the greater part of the decade.

A fools assumption.

If I am wrong, I appologize in advance, but it is not polite to make fun of other people's faith.

If DM here can do it, I don't see why he should complain when the reverse is applied.

If DM here can do it, I don't see why he should complain when the reverse is applied.

Let me rephrase:

No one has the right to bash another person's religion be it Buddha, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Krishna, Shinto, etc.

Ha, personally, I think that Bush is the Problem. Not Iran.

Actually, I think the World is a problem. Isreal has lost it's Mind, No one knows what Iran is doing, they don't even seem to be all that scared of America (Or Great Satan, ;)), the leader of Iran is slowly becoming like-able and seeming to be innocent, Bush is a complete Psycho, he has gotton Pro-Bush Leaders elected all over the World, Such as Stephan Harper and Tony Blair. Lebanon.... I have no idea what they are doing. China, last I heard, they wanted to whip America off the planet, North Korea wants the same, Anti-Americanism has reached whole new levels EVERYWHERE, The United Nations has shown multiple times how much of a useless organization it is, Iraq was knocked back into the stone age, Russia is giving it's Missiles away to some countries, Cuba is scared stiff of America towering over it ready to stomp on it, The North American Union is in the future then may delete the borders and Join up Canada, The States and Mexico, Here Terrorist, there Terrorist, Everywhere a terrorist terrorist, America is looking even more hostile then ever before, Afghanistan is STILL being delt with, America has pissed off the whole world, Religion is effecting Politics (Like Christian effecting Gay Marriage), Travel (Air) and Attitude (Lot's a rasism to the Muslim Community), The Lebanese are becoming growing more Anti-American ("Death to America!!!"), and they are all coming to Canada, so we can expect some more excitement in North America soon. World War Three is around the corner, Iran is sided with Russia and China, so if America slaps Iran, America may get it back, The 9/11 incident is questionable....

Thank You George Bush for Starting the 21st Century with a flying start with the 3rd World War!

/End Rant

If I am wrong, I appologize in advance, but it is not polite to make fun of other people's faith.
I wasn't making fun of the posters religion. I was drawing a point of reference, whereby both Christians and Muslims believe in God, but the Muslim faith believe that there is a greater reward for martyrdom. You don't see too many Christian suicide bombers?

After reading some of DM's posts, I do question his concept of Christianity.

Let me rephrase:

No one has the right to bash another person's religion be it Buddha, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Krishna, Shinto, etc.

Maybe, but until DM learns this, along with quite a few others on this board, they deserve every bashing they get.

Besides, I figure his skull is thick enough that he'll bounce back with some kind of body armor composed out of his ego. He's that kind of person.

After reading some of DM's posts, I do question his concept of Christianity.

Those with evil in their hearts are not christians by definition as a Christian is supposed to love their neighbors even if those neighbors do wrong.

Those with evil in their hearts are not christians by definition as a Christian is supposed to love their neighbors even if those neighbors do wrong.
Your naive idealism is charming. Please, never let the sad reality alter you.

This thread reminds me of an interesting article (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/hypocrisy_Parenti.html)that I read recently:

Our policy makers also argue that right-wing governments, for all their deficiencies, are friendly toward the United States, while communist ones are belligerent and therefore a threat to U.S. security. But, in truth, every Marxist or left-leaning country, from a great power like the Soviet Union to a small power like Vietnam or Nicaragua to a minipower like Grenada under the New Jewel Movement, sought friendly diplomatic and economic relations with the United States. These governments did so not necessarily out of love and affection for the United States, but because of something firmer-their own self-interest. As they themselves admitted, their economic development and political security would have been much better served if they could have enjoyed good relations with Washington.

If U.S. Ieaders justify their hostility toward leftist governments on the grounds that such nations are hostile toward us, what becomes the justification when these countries try to be friendly? When a newly established revolutionary or otherwise dissident regime threatens U.S. hegemonic globalists with friendly relations, this does pose a problem. The solution is to (1) launch a well-orchestrated campaign of disinformation that heaps criticism on the new government for imprisoning the butchers, assassins, and torturers of the old regime and for failing to institute Western electoral party politics; (2) denounce the new government as a threat to our peace and security; (3) harass and destabilize it and impose economic sanctions; and (4) attack it with counterrevolutionary surrogate forces or, if necessary, U.S. troops. Long before the invasion, the targeted country responds with angry denunciations of U.S. policy. It moves closer to other "outlawed" nations and attempts to build up its military defenses in anticipation of a U.S.-sponsored attack. These moves are eagerly seized upon by U.S. officials and media as evidence of the other country's antagonism toward the United States, and as justification for the policies that evoked such responses.

Yet it is difficult to demonstrate that small countries like Grenada and Nicaragua are a threat to U.S. security. We remember the cry of the hawk during the Vietnam war: "If we don't fight the Vietcong in the jungles of Indochina, we will have to fight them on the beaches of California." The image of the Vietnamese getting into their PT boats and crossing the Pacific to invade California was, as Walter Lippmann noted at the time, a grievous insult to the U.S. Navy. The image of a tiny ill-equipped Nicaraguan army driving up through Mexico and across the Rio Grande in order to lay waste to our land is equally ludicrous. The truth is, the Vietnamese, Cubans, Grenadians, and Nicaraguans have never invaded the United States; it is the United States that has invaded Vietnam, Cuba, Grenada, and Nicaragua, and it is our government that continues to try to isolate, destabilize, and in other ways threaten any country that tries to drop out of the global capitalist system or even assert an economic nationalism within it.
Does any of that seem familiar? Sure seems to be bang on?

Your naive idealism is charming. Please, never let the sad reality alter you.

:confused:

Those with evil in their hearts are not christians by definition as a Christian is supposed to love their neighbors even if those neighbors do wrong.
Exactly my point.

This thread reminds me of an interesting article (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/hypocrisy_Parenti.html)that I read recently:


Does any of that seem familiar? Sure seems to be bang on?
Oh yeah. Completely.

American Propaganda sickens me...

Your naive idealism is charming. Please, never let the sad reality alter you.
You know, it may be idealism, but it is far superior to an attitude of hate, lust, greed, and anger.

You know, it may be idealism, but it is far superior to an attitude of hate, lust, greed, and anger.
amen

I wasn't making fun of the posters religion. I was drawing a point of reference, whereby both Christians and Muslims believe in God, but the Muslim faith believe that there is a greater reward for martyrdom. You don't see too many Christian suicide bombers?

After reading some of DM's posts, I do question his concept of Christianity.

Let's be fair, muslims didn't used to do this either. It's a relatively new phenomenon. Let's see if it spreads yet, before passing judgment about what christians will and won't do.

Let's be fair, muslims didn't used to do this either. It's a relatively new phenomenon. Let's see if it spreads yet, before passing judgment about what christians will and won't do.
I wasn't passing judgement. I was simply making an observation, that for the most part, appears to be true so far.

I wasn't passing judgement. I was simply making an observation, that for the most part, appears to be true so far.

Agreed.

Rebuilding is the only option after an invasion. It worked after WW2.


No it isn't a war. It's global, but it's too small-scale to be a war.


i disagree.
tell the french partisans they were not in a war,or the aussie coast watchers.

you may not think it is a war,but i contend it is.

even worse then war,it is a clash of culture/civilizations.

granted...by and large most muslim's want to be left alone,like me...and islam is not inherently violent,nor is the millions of followers of islam.
however the religion has been hijacked by either very devout strict adherents with a warped take on the teachings...or very cynical and evil people.

i like alot about islam,then again,i like buddhism,am a roman catholic(gasp)and wish no ill on anyone..period!

however,no insult,your a fool if you dont see what this is....a WAR...plain and simple...just the rules are goofy now.

you have a handful of extremists,perverting the religion for whatever their aim..and yes..they are murdering innocent people left and right....while the civilized world has tried to attain minimum civvie casualties...yet that is their goal?

i dont pretend to know their motives...but the fact is they have declared their falafel or whatever (fatwah)against the west...and they have killed thousands of innocents to that aim...i dont know what you call that..disgruntled?
i call it war when they blow up innocent people(non com's)to further what goal?

chamberlain comes to mind with some of the west"s attitude.they should be stamped out like any enemy should be in a war.

i understand they have grievances...most brought upon themselves...think about it...and most are uneducated cannon fodder..but the fact remains,if your intent is to indiscrimmately kill my kid cause he is white,or american,or brit,or whatever...i am at war with you...pretty simple!

they want to live in the stoneage..then i say blast them into the stoneage.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and Iraq has been a cakewalk. Also, Iran actually has an air force and anti-aircraft.

And if you die you are going to go to heaven huh? All you will miss out on is the 72 virgins.

So did Iraq back in the 90's :D.

Yep.

If DM here can do it, I don't see why he should complain when the reverse is applied.

Since when have I lashed out at muslims?

Can't seem to find it.

This here is most likely the thinking of a boy who grew up believing in GI Joe.



Considering how much hate mongering you have, not to mention this 'shoot em all' mentality, if any form of afterlife justice exists, you're afterlife would be in somewhere rather painful.

Seeing as how you are atheist, it's hard to fathom you beleive in anything supernatural.

Besides, I just noted something rather ironic in your post. You've been noted as saying Muslim suicide bombers/extremists don't care about their lives because they'll go to the heaven for their cause.

Well, they don't. I'd sure like to stay alive. Who will be around to care for my parents when they are old? I have plans for the future, and they don't mean jack if I am not around to complete them. Meanwhile, little johhny hadj lovingly and carefully slips on his suicide vest and heads towards the nearest bus terminal....If I die, I die. That's it. I have fire insurance. If I live, great, I have work to do.

And here you are saying the same thing....

You terrorist.

Christian and muslim= the same? Dude....

It was also legal for Treblinka to exist you realize. But of course, you don't care. It's only the 'dirty arabs' doing the dying.

And the purpose of Treblinka was to exterminate Jews. The purpose of war with Iran isn't to exterminate "Dirty arabs" or Arabs in General (Iranians are persian, slightly different than Arabs). It's to stop a rogue nation from getting nukes, nuking the US, Israel, etc and creating havoc.

If you mean "dirty arabs" to be THESE guys...
http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=2767218

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=2767208

We are in agreement.

Never have I advocated just "Hell, let's nuke the stupid camel jockeys! Damn bastards! Sendem' all to hell, let God sort them out!". What I have advocated is for the elemination of Islamic fascists. However, I guess you seem to think that means" OMG! HE WANTS TO KILL ALL MUSLIMS! OMFG!"/Islamic facists=normal peaceful muslims. Logical ? Naaah....




This assumes that the training for their infantry was worse than that of the Iraqi army. And that they've been under crippling sanctions for the greater part of the decade.

Umm that was Gulf War one...before all the sanctions on Saddam. They WERE the fourth largest, if I recall. Iraqi Army doesn't compare with US army. Us SOF don't exactly have 'lax' requirements for training. I don't think I'd ever cut the muster for the kind of stuff they require you to do. It's hard..google it.

A fools assumption.

Yours? Most likely.

At what?

The Civilian Annihilation Challenge or something?

No military force can take over Iran. It's too large, and the people are very willing to defend themselves, the average age is low and most of the populace is prepared to fight.

Plus they've got quite a good army and their Special Forces are excellent.

The answer to how long is "if you thought Vietnam was bad, you really, really don't want to attack Iran... seriously..."

Declaring war and killing people to "try things out" is a bit out of order, no?

Since you're not in the military yet and would probably be a bit gung-ho and get yourself killed (which would be a bit sad, even if I do dislike you a lot), I wouldn't be in favour of attacking Iran if I was you.



Hell they fought the vaunted Iraqi army to a standstill a few years back!:rolleyes:

The care for the Iranian people, which just want to live their lives does not go far eh...


Ask Abuladababob why he wants them dead . He has his own little " deomcracy " problem at home to deal with and he's from the hard liner faction of the revolutionary government that is trying to keep controll over a young and yearning and learning , population...he needs his " devils ' formula to work . so out comes the great Satan and his manufactured war in lebanon and a crisis over Nukes...:rolleyes:


When abadabadoobabob gets his ass kicked ..Iran can join the world.
And thats what the people want .

He and his crew want an Islamic revolution ..fuck the rest of the world including his people who do not aggree .

Ask Abuladababob why he wants them dead . He has his own little " deomcracy " problem at home to deal with and he's from the hard liner faction of the revolutionary government that is trying to keep controll over a young and yearning and learning , population...he needs his " devils ' formula to work . so out comes the great Satan and his manufactured war in lebanon and a crisis over Nukes...:rolleyes:


When abadabadoobabob gets his ass kicked ..Iran can join the world.
And thats what the people want .

He and his crew want an Islamic revolution ..fuck the rest of the world including his people who do not aggree .

ahmadinejad

Ask why the current regime becomes popular each time the US makes another of its silly statements.

Iranians want change, yes, more personal freedoms, yes

Involvement from the US in their affairs, no way!

They have not forgotten the coup against Mosadeq, they have not forgotten the US support for the repression of the Shah, they have not forgotten the actions of the US advisers under the capitulation rights, they have not forgotten that America has shot down a civillian airliner....

And the Iranian people now view nuclear technology as a point of pride; why is everyone else allowed to use these things. Why give technology to India, why not Iran...

They love your people, but they hate your regime as much as you hate theirs

Ask Abuladababob why he wants them dead . He has his own little " deomcracy " problem at home to deal with and he's from the hard liner faction of the revolutionary government that is trying to keep controll over a young and yearning and learning , population...he needs his " devils ' formula to work . so out comes the great Satan and his manufactured war in lebanon and a crisis over Nukes...:rolleyes:


When abadabadoobabob gets his ass kicked ..Iran can join the world.
And thats what the people want .

He and his crew want an Islamic revolution ..fuck the rest of the world including his people who do not aggree .

good thing he doesn't have supreme power then, eh?

although Khameini isn't that much better :P

good thing he doesn't have supreme power then, eh?

although Khameini isn't that much better :P

There is no supreme power in Iran, not since the death of Khomeini...there are various influencial factions.

The most influencial figure is probably Rafsanjani...

Still, he lost the presidency to ahmadinejad...

There is no supreme power in Iran, not since the death of Khomeini...there are various influencial factions.

The most influencial figure is probably Rafsanjani...

Still, he lost the presidency to ahmadinejad...

I heard that from a US diplomat I think he said that Iran almost has three seperate governments and they "advance and receed" at will. Influencing what they want seperating themselves from what they don't

I heard that from a US diplomat I think he said that Iran almost has three seperate governments and they "advance and receed" at will. Influencing what they want seperating themselves from what they don't

seperate governments is overstating it, see it as changing coalitions...

Iran is not a democracy, but has some stable democratic elements and there are checks and balances present agianst stupidity like launching nukes at Israel ;)

changes of power do occur, making revolution less likely...

If Pakistan were to have nukes I would be more worried than Iran having them, luckily they have none :p

seperate governments is overstating it, see it as changing coalitions...

Iran is not a democracy, but has some stable democratic elements and there are checks and balances present agianst stupidity like launching nukes at Israel ;)

changes of power do occur, making revolution less likely...

If Pakistan were to have nukes I would be more worried than Iran having them, luckily they have none :p

Pakistan has nukes.....i think.......link coming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuclear_weapon_programs_worldwide.png

Pakistan has nukes.....i think.......link coming
They certainly do.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/nuke.htm

They certainly do.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/nuke.htm

i'm not too worried about Musharraf using them. i'm afraid of Musharraf getting ousted by islamists who gain posession of his atomics

i'm not too worried about Musharraf using them. i'm afraid of Musharraf getting ousted by islamists who gain posession of his atomics

Sure they have em :D

Musharraf getting ousted is indeed a danger...

Sure they have em :D

Musharraf getting ousted is indeed a danger...


oh...you were being sarcastic....well, im a retard

Since when have I lashed out at muslims?

Can't seem to find it.


Really? I think you might be suffering from acute memory loss then. Sand niggers, towel heads, pork coated bullets, etc, etc. All of these terms were used by you against a particular ethnic group, and you've rarely demonstrated more than a passing interest of actually getting the guilty party.

Furthermore, you also advocated that all the inmates of a certain American run Prison in cuba be taken out to see and drowned en masse without even a trial to determine their actual guilt.

Thirdly, your use of Hadji as the target of your vitriol. Hadji does not refer to Muslim extremists, or terrorists of any sort. It is a common term meant to apply to those who have taken the pilgrimage to Mecca. Guess who those are? Muslims.

If you can't remember, either you're lying or you've got bad memory.


Seeing as how you are atheist, it's hard to fathom you beleive in anything supernatural.


What I believe is not what you believe. And by forcing you to confront what you really are, your beliefs would be a much better tool by which to break you.


Well, they don't. I'd sure like to stay alive. Who will be around to care for my parents when they are old? I have plans for the future, and they don't mean jack if I am not around to complete them. Meanwhile, little johhny hadj lovingly and carefully slips on his suicide vest and heads towards the nearest bus terminal....If I die, I die. That's it. I have fire insurance. If I live, great, I have work to do.

Uh huh, and yet you still seem so sure that you'll get this afterlife paradise of yours. Just like Muslim extremists. Not every extremists uses a suicide vest you note. If you think that, you probably have been ignoring facts.


Christian and muslim= the same? Dude....


The difference is only in name. When they both have become extremists, there is no practical difference between the two. That is why they both cannot exist in the same plane of reality. They are mutually exclusive.


And the purpose of Treblinka was to exterminate Jews. The purpose of war with Iran isn't to exterminate "Dirty arabs" or Arabs in General (Iranians are persian, slightly different than Arabs). It's to stop a rogue nation from getting nukes, nuking the US, Israel, etc and creating havoc.


Treblinka's publicly stated purpose was to intern sabatours, traitors and other undesirables. It's real purpose of course was murder camp. The same principle applies to this war here. The reasons you've listed are only a small part of the real reason, reasons that would never sell to the "morally righteous" American public.


Never have I advocated just "Hell, let's nuke the stupid camel jockeys! Damn bastards! Sendem' all to hell, let God sort them out!". What I have advocated is for the elemination of Islamic fascists. However, I guess you seem to think that means" OMG! HE WANTS TO KILL ALL MUSLIMS! OMFG!"/Islamic facists=normal peaceful muslims. Logical ? Naaah....

I refer you to the top of my reply.

But as an added addendum, if I remember correctly, you explicitly agreed with Deep Kimchi's recommendation that a virus be created to sterilize all Muslims.


Umm that was Gulf War one...before all the sanctions on Saddam. They WERE the fourth largest, if I recall. Iraqi Army doesn't compare with US army. Us SOF don't exactly have 'lax' requirements for training. I don't think I'd ever cut the muster for the kind of stuff they require you to do. It's hard..google it.

The first Gulf War occured while the Iraqi army was extended past its borders, and by then, they were already exhausted by the war against Iran. Iran in this situation, has no such handicap.

If war was to occur against Iran, they WILL inflict heavy losses among the civilian shipping of the gulf, disrupting oil shipments heavily. Furthermore, they are likely to have learned the lesson of Iraq quite closely, and will in many cases take up guerilla warfare against the US army, something which it sucked at and has taken no real steps to rectify.

Ask Abuladababob why he wants them dead . He has his own little " deomcracy " problem at home to deal with and he's from the hard liner faction of the revolutionary government that is trying to keep controll over a young and yearning and learning , population...he needs his " devils ' formula to work . so out comes the great Satan and his manufactured war in lebanon and a crisis over Nukes...:rolleyes:


When abadabadoobabob gets his ass kicked ..Iran can join the world.
And thats what the people want .

He and his crew want an Islamic revolution ..fuck the rest of the world including his people who do not aggree .
You are a victim of American Religious Propaganda.

Personally, I believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he says he doesn't plan to do anything with the Nuclear fuel. As an athiest, I never fell for America's Christian-Styled Propaganda.

We actually PROMISED this. We signed a treaty with them to allow them to create Nuclear Energy! (Canada, America, Britain and one other - I forget) and now because they are Islmaic, we won't let them?

I also believe Mahmoud ever since we acted like total jerks to them. We (Canada) lied and said they were planning on forcing badges on the Jewish Community of Iran. We had to apolagize once we found out the idiot who said this was a liar and made the whole thing up.

Also, the only reason Hezbollah was banned as an organization from Canada is because Isreali-Canadian Reporters actually lied and tricked the Canadian People. It would be perfectly legal in Canada, as we did not believe it as a terrorist organization, if the people wern't shown Religious Propaganda.

I'm not Anti-Semitist of course, in fact, the whole Toronto incident shocked me.... We Canadians happen to get out of hand in Protests...... Let's not forget the "Peace Marches". Last about half of all the American Flags in North America with those. ;)

I of course think everything in the Middle East was first thought up by Great Sata- I mean The Fictional States of America. ;)

I heard that from a US diplomat I think he said that Iran almost has three seperate governments and they "advance and receed" at will. Influencing what they want seperating themselves from what they don'tYes or No

do you actually believe everything the US gov tells you about Iran ?

Fuck I hope not. Nothing is more sad, insane and pathetic on this earth than war. The LAST thing we need right now is another one.

Bush is a complete Psycho, he has gotton Pro-Bush Leaders elected all over the World, Such as Stephan Harper and Tony Blair

Oh.... and he had the power to fix elections in the UK and Canada how?

Oh.... and he had the power to fix elections in the UK and Canada how?

Voodoo, obviously. :p

You are a victim of American Religious Propaganda.

Personally, I believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he says he doesn't plan to do anything with the Nuclear fuel. As an athiest, I never fell for America's Christian-Styled Propaganda.

We actually PROMISED this. We signed a treaty with them to allow them to create Nuclear Energy! (Canada, America, Britain and one other - I forget) and now because they are Islmaic, we won't let them?

I also believe Mahmoud ever since we acted like total jerks to them. We (Canada) lied and said they were planning on forcing badges on the Jewish Community of Iran. We had to apolagize once we found out the idiot who said this was a liar and made the whole thing up.

Also, the only reason Hezbollah was banned as an organization from Canada is because Isreali-Canadian Reporters actually lied and tricked the Canadian People. It would be perfectly legal in Canada, as we did not believe it as a terrorist organization, if the people wern't shown Religious Propaganda.

I'm not Anti-Semitist of course, in fact, the whole Toronto incident shocked me.... We Canadians happen to get out of hand in Protests...... Let's not forget the "Peace Marches". Last about half of all the American Flags in North America with those. ;)

I of course think everything in the Middle East was first thought up by Great Sata- I mean The Fictional States of America. ;)

No one said they could not have nuclear power..thats the whole point of argument..they wont abide by the treaty that they signed that allowed them the technology...NON proliferation..no NUKES for weapons.

The world doesn't need more countries with nukes it needs LESS .
The US according to Irans revolutionary government is the " Great Satan " and must be destroyed...So it would be STUPID for the US to allow a nation that sponsors terrorism and is an enemy of the US to have nukes ..just on that point alone. then add the danger to the region and the rest of the world .

I dont see a war but I do see the destruction of the ability to produce Nukes .

I have actually studied Iran and its history with the US from the late 1800's to date , to try to understand better the causes of conflict .

Can you say the same ?

I do not do propaganda . I leave that for the tools .

No one said they could not have nuclear power..thats the whole point of argument..they wont abide by the treaty that they signed that allowed them the technology...NON proliferation..no NUKES for weapons.

Do not forget, that here is currently no evidence for Iran producing nuclear weaponry…
Furthermore, any agreement should allow the Iranian government and people to save face by allowing the development of nuclear energy. For, access to the technology has become a mater of national pride for Iranians…

I have actually studied Iran and its history with the US from the late 1800's to date , to try to understand better the causes of conflict.
I am sincerely proud of you

I hope we will soon be seeing the evidence of that in your posts then :D

You are a victim of American Religious Propaganda.

I stopped reading after this point. Please do not attack another person because of religion.

No one said they could not have nuclear power..thats the whole point of argument..they wont abide by the treaty that they signed that allowed them the technology...NON proliferation..no NUKES for weapons.

The world doesn't need more countries with nukes it needs LESS .
The US according to Irans revolutionary government is the " Great Satan " and must be destroyed...So it would be STUPID for the US to allow a nation that sponsors terrorism and is an enemy of the US to have nukes ..just on that point alone. then add the danger to the region and the rest of the world .

I dont see a war but I do see the destruction of the ability to produce Nukes .

I have actually studied Iran and its history with the US from the late 1800's to date , to try to understand better the causes of conflict .

Can you say the same ?

I do not do propaganda . I leave that for the tools .
Studying history and understanding it, are two different thoughts for you? You love propaganda.

Anyways, it is not okay for Iran to develop nuclear energy, but it is okay for the US to develop "usable" nukes? No wonder the world scrambles back into the nuclear arms race. We can thank Bush for making the spectre of nuclear halocaust to be revisted.

Armageddon Back on the Table (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1116-11.htm)

U.S. ratchets up debate on `usable' nuclear weapons
Critics fear fallout from Bush cadre's pro-nuke strategy

But since the Bush administration presented its radical "Nuclear Posture Review" in March, 2002, pro-nuclear officials have been pushing steadily ahead toward developing weapons that will cross the line that separates conventional from unconventional warfare, threatening half a century of disarmament negotiations, treaties and taboos.

This month, the Senate endorsed an Energy and Water Appropriations Bill allocating $7.5 million to research on nuclear "bunker-buster" bombs and $10.8 million to plans for nuclear "pit" facilities to produce triggers for new nuclear bombs. Both sums were reduced from totals originally requested by Bush officials.

A final environmental study is being prepared to determine how and where the pits should be manufactured.

Crucial to the administration's hopes for developing a new generation of nukes was the repeal in May of a 1993 ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons — those with a force of less than 5 kilotons, or 5,000 tonnes of TNT.

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, by comparison, was approximately 15 kilotons.

"A one-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated 20 to 50 feet underground would dig a crater the size of Ground Zero in New York and eject one million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air," says California Senator Diane Feinstein, an opponent of usable nuclear weapons.

The development of any new nuclear arms would require testing. And as early as June, 2001, Bush also signalled that he might consider ending an 11-year moratorium on underground nuclear blasts.

He called for a scientific review of the Nevada test site that resulted in shortening the time it would take to restart nuclear test explosions from 36 months to no more than 18 months from the time an order to resume nuclear testing is given.
Escalating the drive for nuclear weapons, is not good for the US or the world.

Hell they fought the vaunted Iraqi army to a standstill a few years back!:rolleyes:
And the vaunted US army has been fighting Iraqi insurgents for 3 and 1/2 years now, with no end in sight, and terrorism has increased. What will happen if the US attacks Iran? My guess is that any gains that have been made in Iraq would be out the window because the governing shiites of Iraq are certainly more closely aligned with Iran than the previous regime under Saddam.

In the eyes of the George and co. Iran's nuclear ambitions are a major threat. It's also on the axis of evil and forces it's citizens to live under Islamic Law.

And lately it's been been sticking its proverbial tongue out at the Western World.

So, will America decide it needs to go premptive on Iran's ass? And if she does, what will be the results? Could the USA REALLY drop an other Nuclear Weapon? And finally, where will the rest of the World stand?

Hmmmmm, this could lead to a very interesting World War Three...
Just like America forces Democracy?
America sticks its handsin the Cookie Drum full of oil.
Bush says yes.
13,000 US dead
yes
Feeble