NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I don't claim to be educated about this topic, which is, of course why I'm asking it. So, to those of you who are, please be polite.

There's a lot, (I shouldn't say a lot)...There's definately hatred going on in the Muslim world between the Shi'a minority(Iran, East Iraq) and the Sunni majority (Everyone else but Oman, Druze not forming a majority anywhere).

So, here's the question:
With most Muslim countries being Sunni, some officially so, and Iran being the only Shi'a state in the world, would Sunni Muslim countries support(or at least condone) a US offencive against Iran, or would they band together in a pan-Islam bortherhood and support Iran?

Now, I don't claim to be educated about this topic, which is, of course why I'm asking it. So, to those of you who are, please be polite.

There's a lot, (I shouldn't say a lot)...There's definately hatred going on in the Muslim world between the Shi'a minority(Iran, East Iraq) and the Sunni majority (Everyone else but Oman, Druze not forming a majority anywhere).

So, here's the question:
With most Muslim countries being Sunni, some officially so, and Iran being the only Shi'a state in the world, would Sunni Muslim countries support(or at least condone) a US offencive against Iran, or would they band together in a pan-Islam bortherhood and support Iran?
I say we'll be finding out pretty soon...

If the sunni countries didn't band together when the U.S. curbstomped Iraq, I don't think they would shed many tears over Iran.

Especially because they have never liked Iran.

they would be against it as most civilized nations like stability and all that jazz

however that doesn't mean anybody is going to be willing to side with Iran

Dunno.






But Iran takes the "International Sticking-It-To-The-Man" award from North Korea.

If the sunni countries didn't band together when the U.S. curbstomped Iraq, I don't think they would shed many tears over Iran.

Especially because they have never liked Iran.

Most of the Gulf States have an air of neutrality towards Iran, mostly because they don't want to antagonize Iran.

They do, however, spend a lot of money on weapons, solely for the purpose of defending themselves against possible Iranian attack. They buy US and European weapons by the shipload.

So, while their words may be neutral or quiet, their money is talking. If Iran attempted to shut down the Persian Gulf (and they've tried stupidly to do this before), none of the Gulf states would shed a tear while the Iranian Air Force was shot down, or the Iranian Navy was sunk, or Iranian harbor facilities were destroyed.

On the other hand they probably would not be happy with another occupation - and frankly, there no political will in the US for such an occupation.

On the subject of nuclear ambitions, the EU and US seem to be largely on the same page - we're walking it through the cycle of diplomacy first. As of this post, it looks like Iran is still wanting to be a complete ass, and it looks like the countdown to severe political and economic sanctions has begun.

Sanctions have been of little worth in the Middle East, especially when oil money is involved. While they seem to have had a positive effect on diplomacy with North Korea (a nation of starving, impoverished people with no natural resources worth anything on the world market aside from uranium and crude nuclear technology), they will probably not affect the Iranian government or power structure. Big news will be made of the suffering of common Iranians under sanctions, who will be suffering only because their leaders are assholes. Despite this, the leaders of the US and EU will be blamed for every suffering child in Iran, and no one will blame the Iranian leaders. The inevitable corruption that sanctions and oil engender will take place, and once again, people will blame the EU and US for putting useless sanctions in place.

The Iranians know all of this. There is no lever, short of occupying or destroying Iran, that will be effective. Even if they use a nuclear weapon at some point in the near future on Israel, there will still be no political stomach for invading and occupying Iran. They will get away with it, because they have oil, and the West is too full of self-loathing to act.

Well, most of the other nations probably wouldn't help Iran, but they'd be extremely uncomfortable if a war were to happen.

1. Most states, or at least the majority of people in them, dislike the US more than Iran. Iran is still Muslim by Sunni standards (though not according to Wahabis, but they're a minority). The idea of the US gaining even more influence in the region won't be liked.

2. The idea of Iran winning through guerilla warfare or otherwise would be absolutely terrifying. For instance, when Hezbollah stood its ground against Israel, Hezbollah, despite its Shia roots, became a big symbol throughout the Middle East. An interesting statistic was that after the war their were a lot more boys being named Hassan Nasrallah (I think that's it anyways, the leader of Hezbollah). In the same manner, if Iran were to hold off the US the same could happen. Thus, the leaders of their respective countries would seem inactive and incompetent (at failing to address the US, hurting their power and stability) while Iran would be idolized. This is a nightmare scenario for countries like Saudi Arabia because of the soft power (and hard power) Iran would gain from such an event, and it would destabilize their own regimes.

3. It would be terrible for business as well. Let's not forget that it wouldn't take much to blockade the Straits of Hormuz (though I would assume the US would pay utmost attention to the area). On the off-chance that Iran were to succeed in such a blockade, even for 24 hours, it would do a lot of damage across the Middle East as well as the world.

There are probably other reasons to, but those are some that come to mind.

How about, if/when the Iraqi shit hits the fan (if/when Obama pulls out of Iraq, knowing that McCain has demonstrated his willingness to stay), what will Iran and the other few Sunni-majority nations around Iraq do?

Iraq itself is a pretty diverse nation, considering each religious party is represented in double digits in the percentages of the Iraqi population...

How about, if/when the Iraqi shit hits the fan (if/when Obama pulls out of Iraq, knowing that McCain has demonstrated his willingness to stay), what will Iran and the other few Sunni-majority nations around Iraq do?

Iraq itself is a pretty diverse nation, considering each religious party is represented in double digits in the percentages of the Iraqi population...


Excellent question. I think that the country would fall apart and go the Balkan route-three countries, with a Kurdish northern country, a Sunni middle, and a Shi'ia south.

I also believe Iran would make a move at that point. Specificaly, the Shat-al-Arab.

The sheer instability and speculation in the global oil market that would come from a shooting war (or the intertion thereof) with Iran should be enough to dissuade any nation with a weak economy from attacking Iran...

$200+/barrel oil anyone? $6/gallon for gas?
You'd be looking at the possible collapse of the American economy.

How about, if/when the Iraqi shit hits the fan (if/when Obama pulls out of Iraq, knowing that McCain has demonstrated his willingness to stay), what will Iran and the other few Sunni-majority nations around Iraq do?

Iraq itself is a pretty diverse nation, considering each religious party is represented in double digits in the percentages of the Iraqi population...

You can expect it to be worse than has it ever been in the past 5 years*.

*Not that I support us being there, just saying.

You can expect it to be worse than has it ever been in the past 5 years*.

*Not that I support us being there, just saying.

You know what? As an Aerican/USian (for you euros) I really don't care anymore if the Iraqis kill each other to the last man. The Turks and Iranians can all get involved and have a good old-fashioned battle royale. I don't give a damn who kills who anymore as long as we're not involved in it, and the oil keeps flowing. This is what we get for trying to bring freedom and democracy to people who didn't want it.

Excellent question. I think that the country would fall apart and go the Balkan route-three countries, with a Kurdish northern country, a Sunni middle, and a Shi'ia south.

I also believe Iran would make a move at that point. Specificaly, the Shat-al-Arab.

Ah, it's good someone thinks along the lines that I do about that. :)

Ah, it's good someone thinks along the lines that I do about that. :)

Absolutely. :D I did a term paper on the real Gulf War, and that waterway was the primary motivation behind it.

As an Aerican/USian (for you euros) I really don't care anymore if the Iraqis kill each other to the last man...This is what we get for trying to bring freedom and democracy to people who didn't want it.

... which is the typical sentiment that turns the intelligent American into what the rest of the world will call, stereotypically, the arrogant American.

:rolleyes:

... which is the typical sentiment that turns the intelligent American into what the rest of the world will call, stereotypically, the arrogant American.

:rolleyes:

I recall a Briton on this forum who said that Middle-Eastern strife was not worth a pound of British money or a drop of British blood.

This is what we get for trying to bring freedom and democracy to people who didn't want it.

Bollocks. Nobody has ever gone to war for the express purpose of "freedom and democracy". It's always only because they see a threat to themselves, they have something the aggressor wants, or they are obligated by treaty.

So, here's the question:
With most Muslim countries being Sunni, some officially so, and Iran being the only Shi'a state in the world, would Sunni Muslim countries support(or at least condone) a US offencive against Iran, or would they band together in a pan-Islam bortherhood and support Iran?

They'd shoot their mouths off against the US, but I don't think that they would actually give military support.

Now, I don't claim to be educated about this topic, which is, of course why I'm asking it. So, to those of you who are, please be polite.

There's a lot, (I shouldn't say a lot)...There's definately hatred going on in the Muslim world between the Shi'a minority(Iran, East Iraq) and the Sunni majority (Everyone else but Oman, Druze not forming a majority anywhere).

So, here's the question:
With most Muslim countries being Sunni, some officially so, and Iran being the only Shi'a state in the world, would Sunni Muslim countries support(or at least condone) a US offencive against Iran, or would they band together in a pan-Islam bortherhood and support Iran?
I don't think they'd support Iran, but they won't support the US either, and I think they will actively exploit the US for their own domestic propaganda. When it comes to the realpolitik of the region, they'll be happy to see Iran lose influence because of a destabilizing war. However, when it comes to their own domestic propaganda, those same Shi'a that the Sunni leaders will idly watch get bombed will magically turn into "Muslim brothers being attacked by the imperialist Great Satan" for purposes of distracting their disgruntled populations, further cementing their own dictatorships, and recruiting for terrorist organizations.

Attacking Iran is a lose-lose-lose proposition for the US. We will gain no allies. We will get no help. We will be villified and targeted for terrorism because of it. We will be further abandoned by allies in the rest of the world. It will bankrupt us and further damage our ability to defend our own territory. And it will play right into the hands of our true enemies by letting them claim legitimization for their complaints against us. I feel sick to my stomach every time I think about how much Bush and Cheney want to do it. Those stupid, fucking, murderous morons.

I feel sick to my stomach every time I think about how much Bush and Cheney want to do it. Those stupid, fucking, murderous morons.

Well, things seem to be heating up a bit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7515589.stm

Well, things seem to be heating up a bit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7515589.stm


i hope to hell Iran accepts.

I think the Congress will give Bush a grisly, grim "fuck you" if Bush wants to sacrifice more people to whatever god he has.

If the Iranian shit hits the fan...

They will be able to take out Godzilla!

http://blog.wired.com/defense/images/2008/07/11/iranzilla3.jpg

They'd shoot their mouths off against the US, but I don't think that they would actually give military support.

I concur. They're not wild about us, but they're not wild about Iran, either, (and which one is actually in their back-yard, so to speak.)

i hope to hell Iran accepts.

...but I wouldn't exactly hold my breath.

I think the Congress will give Bush a grisly, grim "fuck you" if Bush wants to sacrifice more people to whatever god he has.

...but I also think Bush doesn't give a tinker's damn what Congress thinks.

Well, things seem to be heating up a bit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7515589.stm

I am very, very, very unhappy. My only hope is that everyone will drag their asses and do nothing about anything until the US election is over.

...but I also think Bush doesn't give a tinker's damn what Congress thinks.

If he declares war without ANY congressional approval, then he'll be impeached - and quite possibly there won't be a war anyways.

If he declares war without ANY congressional approval, then he'll be impeached - and quite possibly there won't be a war anyways.

I'm not so sure. This s.o.b. has been a prime target for impeachment for a good long time, now, and it keeps not happening.
I truly hope you are right about no war, I really do.

I'm not so sure. This s.o.b. has been a prime target for impeachment for a good long time, now, and it keeps not happening.
I truly hope you are right about no war, I really do.

At this point it would be just TOO out there. To be sure, Bush masturbates every hour to the image of dead and gored Iranian children, but he won't manage to pull that off.

If he declares war without ANY congressional approval, then he'll be impeached - and quite possibly there won't be a war anyways.
That's what the optimists said the first time around.

I'm not so sure. This s.o.b. has been a prime target for impeachment for a good long time, now, and it keeps not happening.
I truly hope you are right about no war, I really do.
Ditto.

I am very, very, very unhappy. My only hope is that everyone will drag their asses and do nothing about anything until the US election is over.

...Congress will certainly TRY to, but who knows WHAT Dubya Dipshit will do?

That's what the optimists said the first time around.

True, but it's a LOT harder for him at this point to try and create some new porn material to himself.

...Congress will certainly TRY to, but who knows WHAT Dubya Dipshit will do?
I'm more interested in what the generals will do at this point than Congress. More and more of them seem to be trending towards inertia, and that is kind of the only thing that keeps me from despairing, at the moment.

True, but it's a LOT harder for him at this point to try and create some new porn material to himself.
Don't underestimate the Chimp-in-Chief. If there's one thing he knows how to do, it's jack himself off.

The Gen.'s will do what they always do; hem'n'haw and say it's impossible, a bad idea, a disaster-in-waiting, and then receive and carry out their marching orders.

... which is the typical sentiment that turns the intelligent American into what the rest of the world will call, stereotypically, the arrogant American.

:rolleyes:

So be it. Not to say that an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life, but I care a heck of a lot more, because they're people that are culturally similar to me, and from the same background and country that I'm from. If that's arrogant...*shrugs shoulders*

Bollocks. Nobody has ever gone to war for the express purpose of "freedom and democracy". It's always only because they see a threat to themselves, they have something the aggressor wants, or they are obligated by treaty.

I'm sure we went to war for something else (Oil), but we could have secured that and left 3 years ago. I think Bush actually has a hard-on about securing some form of democratic government in Iraq, as it's the only way to secure any sort of positive legacy from this war. I mean, it's not like we found any WMD's. We certainly didn't make Iraq a safer place for most of it's citizens. Did we stabilize the region? Heck no. And oil certainly isn't cheaper. So what else of his list of BS reasonings can he stick with and try to PR spin into a success?

I say they destroy the dome rock and disprove the muslim religion once and for all... here's how it would go.

*Boom*

Hey dude, where's this apocolypse you promised us?

The Gen.'s will do what they always do; hem'n'haw and say it's impossible, a bad idea, a disaster-in-waiting, and then receive and carry out their marching orders.

They just have to keep hemming and hawing and organizing the necessary forces and submitting budgets until January.

They just have to keep hemming and hawing and organizing the necessary forces and submitting budgets until January.

Unless Bush tells them to get their asses in gear, anyway.

You know what? As an Aerican/USian (for you euros) I really don't care anymore if the Iraqis kill each other to the last man. The Turks and Iranians can all get involved and have a good old-fashioned battle royale. I don't give a damn who kills who anymore as long as we're not involved in it, and the oil keeps flowing. This is what we get for trying to bring freedom and democracy to people who didn't want it.

I've always liked my democracy and freedom served in bombs and bullets, too.

I've always liked my democracy and freedom served in bombs and bullets, too.

and a side of freedom fries.

I say they destroy the dome rock and disprove the muslim religion once and for all... here's how it would go.

*Boom*

Hey dude, where's this apocolypse you promised us?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps 1.5 billion people starting several wars due to it, resulting in the destruction of humanity? Of course, not to mention the fact that it is as morally wrong as destroying each and every Christian Church.

You don't do your reputation any favor when you post such tripe.

Oh, I don't know, perhaps 1.5 billion people starting several wars due to it, resulting in the destruction of humanity? Of course, not to mention the fact that it is as morally wrong as destroying each and every Christian Church.

You don't do your reputation any favor when you post such tripe.

You don't do yourself any favours when you take me seriously... :D

You don't do yourself any favours when you take me seriously... :D

check..


...aaaand, mate, I think.

check..


...aaaand, mate, I think.

*Dances the victory dance*

You don't do yourself any favours when you take me seriously... :D

WHY YOU...

Ah well.

Crap. :p

WHY YOU...

Ah well.

Crap. :p

Worry not my friend. You win some, you lose some.

Oh, I don't know, perhaps 1.5 billion people starting several wars due to it, resulting in the destruction of humanity? Of course, not to mention the fact that it is as morally wrong as destroying each and every Christian Church.

You don't do your reputation any favor when you post such tripe.

Wouldn't destroy humanity. Wars, yes. But the destruction of humanity, nope.

You'll notice that in genocidal conflict, morality takes a holiday.

*Dances the victory dance*

I'll be back. :p

Wouldn't destroy humanity. Wars, yes. But the destruction of humanity, nope.

You'll notice that in genocidal conflict, morality takes a holiday.

You'll also notice that the genocidal conflict would be started by the US under that scenario. And I believe you think whatever happens to the population of the country that STARTS a genocidal conflict is, as WWII has told us, fair game...

You'll also notice that the genocidal conflict would be started by the US under that scenario. And I believe you think whatever happens to the population of the country that STARTS a genocidal conflict is, as WWII has told us, fair game...

The problem is, no one else in the world has the wherewithal to project global power, as in invading anyone else, in credible fashion.

Especially no Muslim nation.

The problem is, no one else in the world has the wherewithal to project global power, as in invading anyone else, in credible fashion.

Especially no Muslim nation.

Oh, that would change when it became 1.5 billion people whose religion you just attacked to its very core. It wouldn't be different from bombing Beijing, really.

Oh, that would change when it became 1.5 billion people whose religion you just attacked to its very core. It wouldn't be different from bombing Beijing, really.

I'll repeat - they don't (and couldn't put together) any means of invading the US before they would be eliminated.

We already have enough nuclear weapons and delivery systems to do it now.

Where are they going to get the wherewithal in 20 minutes?

I'll repeat - they don't (and couldn't put together) any means of invading the US before they would be eliminated.

We already have enough nuclear weapons and delivery systems to do it now.

Where are they going to get the wherewithal in 20 minutes?

You seem to assume that Russia, China, and the EU would take the nuclear fallout caused by you lightly. And that Pakistan wouldn't take the cue to bomb either you or India, with nothing to lose. And that your own Muslims wouldn't get sick and tired of being treated like the Jews in Germany 1930. And so on.

and a side of freedom fries.

Holy freedom fries! Run Robert Run!!!

You seem to assume that Russia, China, and the EU would take the nuclear fallout caused by you lightly. And that Pakistan wouldn't take the cue to bomb either you or India, with nothing to lose. And that your own Muslims wouldn't get sick and tired of being treated like the Jews in Germany 1930. And so on.

You assume that

a) bombs require fallout (it's only an issue if you're not doing airburst)
b) we wouldn't put them in camps quickly at the start

I also think it's pretty lame that Iran published pictures of missiles being fired - that they Photoshopped in order to show that they had more "missiles".

Very lame, actually.

That would be as lame as if we did this:

http://digg.funniestclip.com/iran_photoshop/mag.jpg

You assume that

a) bombs require fallout (it's only an issue if you're not doing airburst)
b) we wouldn't put them in camps quickly at the start

a) So, you'd deliver nuclear bombs to every major Muslim city by... UPS?

b) Jewish people = Recognizable by descendency and surname. Muslim people = "Oh, he's brown, so, he may be a Muslim." People of Arab descent = Not necessarily Muslim. Net result, a militia NOT put in concentration camps and knowing what you're up to.

c) If you attacked every country with a sizable Muslim population, the world would turn on you.

I also think it's pretty lame that Iran published pictures of missiles being fired - that they Photoshopped in order to show that they had more "missiles".

Very lame, actually.

It's just like korea showing that missile going up - then revealing they only had one missile left. :D

c) If you attacked every country with a sizable Muslim population, the world would turn on you.

If you nuked Mecca, no nation would retaliate militarily.

If you nuked Iran, no nation would retaliate militarily.

Just clean out the dens of the most fanatical. Pakistan, Afghanistan.

If you don't know enough about nuclear weapons delivery to know what airburst is, you can now refrain from commenting.

If you nuked Mecca, no nation would retaliate militarily.

If you nuked Iran, no nation would retaliate militarily.

Just clean out the dens of the most fanatical. Pakistan, Afghanistan.

If you don't know enough about nuclear weapons delivery to know what airburst is, you can now refrain from commenting.

No nation. Only an entire culture.

And I will not. Because both you and I know how immoral and stupid such an action would be, and I will not shut up until I drive that undeniable truth home.

In all honesty I don't think there will be peace in the Middle East until either Israel is destroyed or the entire muslim religion is bought down. In other words, never.

No nation. Only an entire culture.

And I will not. Because both you and I know how immoral and stupid such an action would be, and I will not shut up until I drive that undeniable truth home.

It's nearly doable. Who cares if it's immoral?

Has that stopped any such event in history? Are you saying we went to war with Germany to stop the Holocaust? Or, is the real truth that we found that stopping it was a lucky sideeffect?

The US President at the time didn't give a flying fuck about the Holocaust, and no one believed it at the time. If that had been the ONLY reason to go to war, no one would have.

Anyone invade Rwanda?

We only invaded Kosovo because it's right on Europe's doorstep. And apparently their governments are getting tired of Muslims who don't assimilate.

As long as everyone still got their oil and minerals from the areas further from Western Europe, no one would give a shit how many people were whacked out of existence - no one with any clout - no one with the ability to project global power and stop it.

Mark my words - one day, there will be a nuclear detonation of an Islamic terror device in the US - and on that day, a half billion people will perish in retaliation.

Mark my words - one day, there will be a nuclear detonation of an Islamic terror device in the US - and on that day, a half billion people will perish in retaliation.

Thereby justifying the previous action and resulting in the US being destroyed in retaliatory wars and unwillingness to trade with a mass-murdering nation.

Fair enough, but your definition of "doable" leaves a whole lot to be desired.

Thereby justifying the previous action and resulting in the US being destroyed in retaliatory wars and unwillingness to trade with a mass-murdering nation.

Fair enough, but your definition of "doable" leaves a whole lot to be desired.

No one has a choice but to trade with us. China, for instance, doesn't care if people are mass murdered. See them trade closely with Sudan?

No one would retaliate who actually has the ability.

No one has a choice but to trade with us. China, for instance, doesn't care if people are mass murdered. See them trade closely with Sudan?

No one would retaliate who actually has the ability.

Let's see:

People start trading with CHINA, which has power. China seizes the opportunity to stop trading with you, becoming, itself, the true superpower. That alone would sunder your economy.

Let's see:

People start trading with CHINA, which has power. China seizes the opportunity to stop trading with you, becoming, itself, the true superpower. That alone would sunder your economy.

Unfortunately, they don't give a shit who they sell to. You should know that already.

They hate Muslims in their own country, and are jailing them just for being uppity. They wouldn't give a rat's ass.

Just like many people on this forum give a rat's ass that Iran says it's going to wipe out Israel while accumulating enriched uranium with enrichment facilities that take it way past the percentage needed for nuclear power plants.

Even the EU and IAEA agree that's what Iran is doing - and no one gives a shit - many posters on this forum believe that's probably an OK thing to do.

Well, don't cry after they try it, because there won't be any Iranians in Iran afterwards.

Unfortunately, they don't give a shit who they sell to. You should know that already.

They hate Muslims in their own country, and are jailing them just for being uppity. They wouldn't give a rat's ass.

Just like many people on this forum give a rat's ass that Iran says it's going to wipe out Israel while accumulating enriched uranium with enrichment facilities that take it way past the percentage needed for nuclear power plants.

Even the EU and IAEA agree that's what Iran is doing - and no one gives a shit - many posters on this forum believe that's probably an OK thing to do.

Well, don't cry after they try it, because there won't be any Iranians in Iran afterwards.

"They" who, DK?

"They" who, DK?

Nodinia, for one, doesn't believe that Iran is looking to build nukes to nuke Israel.

You probably don't, either. You'll say, "that's the same stuff they were saying about Iraq".

Nodinia, for one, doesn't believe that Iran is looking to build nukes to nuke Israel.

You probably don't, either. You'll say, "that's the same stuff they were saying about Iraq".

I meant who are those nations jailing Muslims for being uppity.

But by all means, yes, I'll say it. That's the same stuff Bush was saying about Iraq, which was invaded and came up with no WMDs. Do you have a counterpoint to that?

Just like many people on this forum give a rat's ass that Iran says it's going to wipe out Israel while accumulating enriched uranium with enrichment facilities that take it way past the percentage needed for nuclear power plants.

Even the EU and IAEA agree that's what Iran is doing

Just what are you referring to here, exactly?

What levels of enrichment have the Iranians reached, in your mind?

I meant who are those nations jailing Muslims for being uppity.

But by all means, yes, I'll say it. That's the same stuff Bush was saying about Iraq, which was invaded and came up with no WMDs. Do you have a counterpoint to that?

Yes, the EU and IAEA are saying it more than Bush is. Meanwhile, the US is quietly just doing the diplomacy thing - we even sent an envoy to this last round of talks, just to show we're trying.

And France is saying it, too. Louder than we are.

And the Iranians don't deny they're doing the enrichment past the necessary limit for civilian power. They just get quiet after saying "it's their right".

the Iranian President is steadily going on about wiping out Israel.

Just what are you referring to here, exactly?

What levels of enrichment have the Iranians reached, in your mind?

The second generation of centrifuges which the Iranians are currently installing will take the enrichment over 93%.

The IAEA has put this in their reports.

You don't need 93% for a commercial reactor.

the Iranian President is steadily going on about wiping out Israel.

Bush has often talked about a marriage "protection" amendment. Got that yet?

Bush has often talked about a marriage "protection" amendment. Got those already?

People should be worried when Bush says that stuff, just like when Ahmadinejad says that stuff.

When Iran launches a nuke, I'll be laughing at you. You might have to stop posting forever, out of shame.

The second generation of centrifuges which the Iranians are currently installing will take the enrichment over 93%.

The IAEA has put this in their reports.
So you're talking about two different things (Actual enrichment and enrichment capabilities) and presenting them as one. Gotcha.

And the Iranians don't deny they're doing the enrichment past the necessary limit for civilian power. They just get quiet after saying "it's their right".
So when did they do that? Have they ever admitted going beyond 4,7%? Have the IAEA ever claimed that they've done so?

When Iran launches a nuke, I'll be laughing at you. You might have to stop posting forever, out of shame.

IF Iran ever launches a nuke, it will be closely related to the fact that the US destabilized the whole area and frightened Iran into a corner by going to war with Iraq. Which will result in me informing everyone that I was right about Iraq.

IF Iran ever launches a nuke, it will be closely related to the fact that the US destabilized the whole area and frightened Iran into a corner by going to war with Iraq. Which will result in me informing everyone that I was right about Iraq.
I suppose it's important in the middle of a nuclear holocaust to show how you were right.

I suppose it's important in the middle of a nuclear holocaust to show how you were right.

LOL!

Well...

It is for me. If I ever died in such a situation, I'd try and crawl up to the nearest dying Republican and use my last breath to say "I told you so". Or message him with it, due to being Brazilian. >.>

Now, I don't claim to be educated about this topic, which is, of course why I'm asking it. So, to those of you who are, please be polite.

There's a lot, (I shouldn't say a lot)...There's definately hatred going on in the Muslim world between the Shi'a minority(Iran, East Iraq) and the Sunni majority (Everyone else but Oman, Druze not forming a majority anywhere).

So, here's the question:
With most Muslim countries being Sunni, some officially so, and Iran being the only Shi'a state in the world, would Sunni Muslim countries support(or at least condone) a US offencive against Iran, or would they band together in a pan-Islam bortherhood and support Iran?

Eh, officially, the secular Middle Eastern regimes would be overjoyed, or at a minimum, not upset at Iran getting obliterated. The Middle Easterners themselves would probably flip a shit at yet another example of the "US mounting a crusade against Islam". You'd probably see a huge spike in terrorism.

LOL!

Well...

It is for me. If I ever died in such a situation, I'd try and crawl up to the nearest dying Republican and use my last breath to say "I told you so". Or message him with it, due to being Brazilian. >.>

No worries, I'll tell him for you.

No worries, I'll tell him for you.

How kind. ;)

It's nearly doable. Who cares if it's immoral?


Obviously, not immoral people like you.

No one has a choice but to trade with us. China, for instance, doesn't care if people are mass murdered. See them trade closely with Sudan?

No one would retaliate who actually has the ability.
And now you're demonstrating your psychic powers, eh? Is this what the tea leaves have been telling you? I think you need a different brand of tea, since that "no one has a choice but to" kiss our ass approach is already out of date.

Seriously, DK, people like you are the reason the US is in the shithole it's in. I have no respect for the nonsense you spout on this topic. None at all. It is disgustingly immoral as well as ignorant as a bag of rocks. And you've been spouting the same juvenile, unrealistic, ill-informed, lying, pro-genocide crap for as long as I've been on NSG. And you've never been right about a single one of your claims. Not once so far. When are you going to catch a clue?

If he declares war without ANY congressional approval, then he'll be impeached - and quite possibly there won't be a war anyways.

Wrong. There was a law, or a stipulation to a law, I believe passed with the Patriot Act after 9-11, that gives the President authority to attack any "terrorist target" without Congressional approval. Because certain sectors of the Iranian military are a terrorist organization (at least according to the US government), we could theoretically strike many parts of Iran without approval, Iran would declare war on us, and then the military can do what it wants to them.

The problem is, no one else in the world has the wherewithal to project global power, as in invading anyone else, in credible fashion.

Especially no Muslim nation.

That's not really the problem. Soft power, our ability to influence people without sticking up our guns, is crucial to maintaining hegemony if not our stability, and we would lose ALL of our soft power from such an attack, we would be World Enemy #1. Other nations would be much more willing to stand up against a globally hated US, which means the chance of someone attacking us conventionally or with nuclear weapons would escalate greatly.

Furthermore, nations like Pakistan are friendly with us now, and the leaders probably would be after an Iran/Saudi Arabia strike, but the fact is that people around the Muslim world are going to be enfuriated. So the leaders will either act harshly, or they'll be deposed in bloody revolution. You might think 1.5 billion angry people with potential access to nukes, as well as AK-47s, anti-tank, and anti-aircraft weapons are a joke, but some of us are smarter than a fifth grader.

Let's not forget the consequences of nuking the entire region also. You really think Israel is cool with the fallout from such an attack? What about Russia and India? There are going to be several powerful nations receiving a ton of fallout, and they're not going to be very happy about it. Furthermore, nuking the Middle East means we destroy tons of energy infrastructure (which would take years and years to rebuild) while also setting lots of oil on fire. The short term consequences of this would be global economic collapse, which even if it didn't kill the US economy immediately, would be an inevitable collapse because in the world of today, if some of us go down, we all do.

The usage of many, powerful nuclear weapons would adversely affect world health, and bring about the possibility of deadly bacterial/viral mutations, as well as grave decreases in world agriculture, environmental and ecological damage, great losses in biodiversity, and the potential for a "nuclear holocaust". I can explain every specific problem above, but I think you have the logical capacity to figure it out, let me know if that's not the case. Ultimately, for some foolish dick-waving, you risk the extinction of human life, and possibly all life on earth (or the universe for that matter).

If you're not convinced this is a bad idea, there's plenty of other scenarios as to how this would be a complete fuck-up.

If you nuked Mecca, no nation would retaliate militarily.

If you nuked Iran, no nation would retaliate militarily.

Just clean out the dens of the most fanatical. Pakistan, Afghanistan.

If you don't know enough about nuclear weapons delivery to know what airburst is, you can now refrain from commenting.

See above.

In all honesty I don't think there will be peace in the Middle East until either Israel is destroyed or the entire muslim religion is bought down. In other words, never.

If we're going to go "Blame religion" don't forget Christianity too. There are still idiots today who want Israel gone because they think it will bring about the "rapture".

And of course, oil too. No more oil in the Middle East means no more reason for foreign powers to interfere.

Actually screw that. There will be peace in the Middle East when every single human being is dead or unable to reach the Middle East.

If we're going to go "Blame religion" don't forget Christianity too. There are still idiots today who want Israel gone because they think it will bring about the "rapture".

And of course, oil too. No more oil in the Middle East means no more reason for foreign powers to interfere.

Actually screw that. There will be peace in the Middle East when every single human being is dead or unable to reach the Middle East.

Christianity is far more responsible for Israel's existence then attempting to bring about it's demise, especially the Christian right in the US. Not that that's a good thing.

There will be peace in the Middle East, once Israel stops expanding its settlements and manages an effective and fair way to deal with Palestine and Palestinian refugees. Not to place the blame entirely on Israel, the US will have to stop interfering militarily and politically, because many Muslims in the Middle East right now feel like they're being crusaded against. The final point that will bring about Middle Eastern peace is for the current governments to reform themselves dramatically to better represent the will of their people and give their citizens a greater share in oil wealth. At that point (in the eyes of a Middle Easterner) terrorism and Islamofascism look more like a menace to society then the saviors of it.

Israeli society actually had a highly regimented racial caste system, it basically goes as follows:

European Jews, who came from Europe after the Holocaust and have controlled the apparatus of state and all the big financial interests.

Hassidic Jews, those Jews from the middle-east and Arab states.

Black Jews, the Ethiopian 'falashas' and so on.

Non-Jewish Arab Israeli 'citizens', who have lived as repressed second class citizens for decades.

Non-Jewish Arabs in the Palestinian territory, who have neither citzen rights and have had their property and land stolen and raped for over 40 years, their citizens are murdered by Zionist troops daily, their houses bulldozed on a whim.

Israeli society actually had a highly regimented racial caste system, it basically goes as follows:

European Jews, who came from Europe after the Holocaust and have controlled the apparatus of state and all the big financial interests.

Hassidic Jews, those Jews from the middle-east and Arab states.

Black Jews, the Ethiopian 'falashas' and so on.

Non-Jewish Arab Israeli 'citizens', who have lived as repressed second class citizens for decades.

Non-Jewish Arabs in the Palestinian territory, who have neither citzen rights and have had their property and land stolen and raped for over 40 years, their citizens are murdered by Zionist troops daily, their houses bulldozed on a whim.

Do you have anything even remotely resembling an idea of what you're talking about? Literally nothing in that post is true or even makes sense.

European Jews aren't a uniform thing, especially with the influx of Slavic Jews following the fall of the Soviet Union. Hassidic Jews are a specific religious interpretation of Judaism, rather than a geographically distinct grouping of Jews; what you seem to be talking about are Sephardi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefardi), which is still a bit of a misnomer as that article states but fits the bill for colloquial purposes. I'm not really sure of the status of Ethiopian Jews in Israeli society, as far as I know it isn't really a big issue, other social matters being slightly more pressing.

As for your last two little categories, that's a whole different set of issues that you are definitely ill-equipped, intellectually and educationally, to make much comment on, judging from your posting history. *shrug*

Christianity is far more responsible for Israel's existence then attempting to bring about it's demise, especially the Christian right in the US. Not that that's a good thing.

They way I hear it, the rapture nuts saw the establishment of modern Israel as a necessary prelude to its destruction, ushering in the rapture.


There will be peace in the Middle East, once Israel stops expanding its settlements and manages an effective and fair way to deal with Palestine and Palestinian refugees. Not to place the blame entirely on Israel, the US will have to stop interfering militarily and politically, because many Muslims in the Middle East right now feel like they're being crusaded against. The final point that will bring about Middle Eastern peace is for the current governments to reform themselves dramatically to better represent the will of their people and give their citizens a greater share in oil wealth. At that point (in the eyes of a Middle Easterner) terrorism and Islamofascism look more like a menace to society then the saviors of it.

Not going to happen anytime soon. The way high level scandals keep popping up in Israel's political elite, particularly with links to construction firms points a number of fingers at the expansionist factions of Israel's population means that short of foreign powers with really big sticks getting involved in military enforced peacekeeping, and maybe judicial affairs, Israel's never going to give up on expansion or fair and effective ways for dealing with the Palestinian issue.

The US on the other hand, is not going to stop interfering with the Middle East while it still holds strategic resources of interest to them.

Lastly, the governments of the Middle East might have had, at some point, a greater leaning towards a more liberal form of government, but the power politics of the Cold War pretty much made such things a nigh impossibility. And with the damage done by the US going to war in the Middle East, along with the usual power plays it has engineered in the last 40 years or so in the region, have effectively tainted any form of liberalism and equality as a sign of Western influence.

Everyone is pretty much set in their ways right now, so any hope for peace is not going to happen until at the very least, the next generation.

:gas: LALALALA

It's nearly doable. Who cares if it's immoral?

People who, unlike you, do have a sense of morality.

Shit, did you really just say this? Might as well say, "Well, I am able to fuck children. Who cares if it's immoral?"

Although of course, genocide is far more immoral than mere child rape. But both are just as OK in your book, by your own admission of immoral apathy.


Mark my words - one day, there will be a nuclear detonation of an Islamic terror device in the US - and on that day, a half billion people will perish in retaliation.

You really need to get over your rather fantasy roleplay need for vicarious genocide, persecution and violence. Your nipples are so hard they're poking through my screen. There are children reading this forum, man. I know you don't give a shit about morality, but you might PRETEND to.

In all honesty I don't think there will be peace in the Middle East until either Israel is destroyed or the entire muslim religion is bought down.
Or both?

I got to make my post #2000 a few days ago, and now-- I get to do it again!