Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 207

Thread: Iran

  1. #1
    BHCWarman88
    Guest

    Angry Iran

    I am becoming intersted in this Iran Nuclear Program Crap. I think Iran already has a Bad name, so the Minute they tryo doing this, we got to label iran as "oh my god,they going to make weapons!!!!!!!!"


    not really. how do you really know that? But Again, you can't Trust Iran to the Sense that,THey Raided our U.S Embrassy,they got sudicdie bombers from their conutry going to Iraq (?) and crap. I read in my Magainze I get every 2 weeks that Iran Preseident said if the U.S or the Brits attack them, they will send, 40,000 trained Sudice Bombers to US and British Tagerts. My God,they will blow us to Hell if you think about it. 40,000 people blowing themselves up isn't like 9/11,with just 20 or so Hi-Jackers and taking over 4 plans, and 3 out of the 4 made it, expect for Flight 93 (go Flight 93!)


    but I think

    get out the H bomb
    if we attack Iran,just bomb them with the H Bomb and some other minor nukes,that should handle it..

  2. #2
    Gangrenous Member Justiciar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Stockport, England
    Posts
    1,116

    Default Re: Iran

    It is, saddly, innevitable. Seems more likely that Ahmadinejad claimed Iran had the capability to instantly send 40,000 trained soldiers against the US and it's allies. 40,000 scuicide bombers? Yah. Bull. Either he was talking out of his arse or this magazine was going all dramatic.

  3. #3
    smell the glove Senior Member Major Robert Dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    OKRAHOMER
    Posts
    7,424

    Default Re: Iran

    It is all a conspiracy for a war from the west, France already has buildings leased in Iranian neighborhoods to put in bagel factories which would exclusively serve invading forces and Iranians who register as innocents. Several wealthy English political families have rented booths in salons to cater to Westeners in need of a cut and shave. The United States will benefit from the vast amounts of capital and manpower that is going to developing the Osprey, it will creat jobs and tax money. Meanwhile, when the Osprey is finished it will enable a single company of Marines to take and hold an area the size of South America, which means we will need only 60 or so Marines to keep Iran locked down. This will save us billions in military spending as we will only need few hundred soldiers (and half a dozen Ospreys!) active in the nation at once, and with a few hundred we could run 4 wars at once.

    The Osprey also cracks corn, so it can be used in humanitarian missions as well.
    Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!

  4. #4
    smell the glove Senior Member Major Robert Dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    OKRAHOMER
    Posts
    7,424

    Default Re: Iran

    No, I'm explaining how the industrial complexes of the West want a war in Iran, because people like Dick Cheney want to get more drunk and sleep.
    Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!

  5. #5
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Iran

    Using nukes has been kinda taboo since '45, for bloody obvious reasons. I don't really see what the US would stand to gain from breaking the practice, save for more bad publicity in one shot than they've managed to corner in the whole period since WW2 ended...

    A newspaper here incidentally recently quoted a four star General(ret.) acerbically observing that all the Iranians need to take Basra is ten mullahs and one car with loudspeakers.
    Last edited by Watchman; 04-23-2006 at 07:36.
    "Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."

    -Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

  6. #6
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    7,686

    Default Re: Iran

    America was contemplating using Nukes in Korea. What a mess that would have been!

    Iran will fight back if invaded... that's news? What would the USA do if invaded?

    "Get out the H bomb"...

    I don't doubt your enthusiasm, but the complete lack of the geopolitical realities of the area appear to be missing. Perhaps a bit of

    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  7. #7
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by BHCWarman88
    but I think

    get out the H bomb
    if we attack Iran,just bomb them with the H Bomb and some other minor nukes,that should handle it..
    Clever thinking. That would be the last thing you ever did. And the last thing anybody else on this earth ever did. The moment the taboo on nukes is broken by one of the major powers, then you can say goodbye to earth.

    If Iran would get a nuke and use it, and the attacked country would respond by nuking Iran, there is a chance that the results wouldn't turn out with everyone wanting to use nukes. But the moment someone like USA, France, Russia, China or similar use a nuke as an offensive weapon, and not as revenge against a nuke, then everything will surely go to ****. For example if firing a nuke as revenge against chemical weapons will immediately be considered an excuse by all nations to immediately start using nukes, in which case we can say goodbye to earth.

    It's also a fallacy to think that launching of mininukes won't trigger the disaster. Quantitative moral rules never work - imagine if we'd say that all nukes below a certain weight of uranium would be called mininukes and be allowed. Then everyone would use nukes that were just below that limit. Eventually someone will happen to slip over the limit by accident or deliberately because the other side has managed to go closer to the limit than they could, and then everyone will want to slip over the limit, or someone discovers a new more powerful way of detonating the same weight, with the result that the mininukes become like real nukes. In any case, the moment mininukes are allowed, the disaster will be triggered too.

    Suggesting that a nuke be fired is the most naive thing that could ever be suggested. Coming from people living in the militarily most powerful nation of the world I'm really starting to worry...
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  8. #8
    smell the glove Senior Member Major Robert Dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    OKRAHOMER
    Posts
    7,424

    Default Re: Iran

    They should make a movie about this utterly terrifying nuke standoff!
    Bush could be played by Tim Conway, it would cement his legacy, and the oatmeal guy could be Cheney. Satan could play the ldeader of Iran and Morgan Freeman could be the wholesome black guy from the UN who tries to diffuse it all.
    Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!

  9. #9
    Intifadah Member Drish's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Kebabylon
    Posts
    816

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Watchman
    A newspaper here incidentally recently quoted a four star General(ret.) acerbically observing that all the Iranians need to take Basra is ten mullahs and one car with loudspeakers.
    "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr."


    I only defended myself and the honor of my family - Nazanin

  10. #10
    L'Etranger Senior Member Banquo's Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hunting the Snark, a long way from Tipperary...
    Posts
    5,602

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
    Suggesting that a nuke be fired is the most naive thing that could ever be suggested. Coming from people living in the militarily most powerful nation of the world I'm really starting to worry...
    I don't think it is naive. The reasoning behind your post is fallacious in that not everyone has nuclear weapons. Most of those that do don't have adequate inter-continental ability. The old doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction no longer holds sway, as the USA almost certainly has the ability now to bomb even a big nuclear power and still defend itself completely against any reprisal strike. Even Russia would be unable to guarantee getting any of its capability through the US shield - or indeed off the ground at all, should the US strike first.

    We should be grateful that this capability is in the hands of a stable democracy. It is a little concerning that many of the neo-cons seem to think first strike nukes are a serious option in the modern world, but I doubt if the American people would allow this to happen beyond sabre-rattling. Lots of hardline conservatives like to talk tough - they are usually all mouth and trousers.

    This is at the root of the Iran problem. Even if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, they would be unable to use it because they know they would be vapourised. It's a dick-measuring exercise. Instead of responding with empty threats, the West should be recognising Iran's legitimate desire to be seen as a regional power and guarantee that they won't be attacked. The loonies currently in power in Iran see that North Korea (plus probable but highly useless bomb) are not threatened with attack, so they want the same guarantee. Either we give it with diplomacy, or they try to get it via a bomb.

    Ahmadinejad won't last. He is made safer at the moment because he has successfully baited the 'Great Satan' and most people support even their idiotic leaders when the country is threatened. He is also helped since Iran is finally winning the war in Iraq. But he is largely loathed, even by the poor who originally voted for him. No ordinary Iranian is keen on confrontation with the USA, but they have their national pride too.

    And before anyone brings up suicide bombers and nutty leaders to argue that they just might be mad enough to try a nuclear attack, remember that all these leaders are very fond of their palaces and comforts - they get other people to commit suicide, they aren't too keen on that option themselves.
    "If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
    Albert Camus "Noces"

  11. #11
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Haruchai
    I don't think it is naive. The reasoning behind your post is fallacious in that not everyone has nuclear weapons. Most of those that do don't have adequate inter-continental ability. The old doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction no longer holds sway, as the USA almost certainly has the ability now to bomb even a big nuclear power and still defend itself completely against any reprisal strike. Even Russia would be unable to guarantee getting any of its capability through the US shield - or indeed off the ground at all, should the US strike first.

    We should be grateful that this capability is in the hands of a stable democracy. It is a little concerning that many of the neo-cons seem to think first strike nukes are a serious option in the modern world, but I doubt if the American people would allow this to happen beyond sabre-rattling. Lots of hardline conservatives like to talk tough - they are usually all mouth and trousers.

    This is at the root of the Iran problem. Even if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, they would be unable to use it because they know they would be vapourised. It's a dick-measuring exercise. Instead of responding with empty threats, the West should be recognising Iran's legitimate desire to be seen as a regional power and guarantee that they won't be attacked. The loonies currently in power in Iran see that North Korea (plus probable but highly useless bomb) are not threatened with attack, so they want the same guarantee. Either we give it with diplomacy, or they try to get it via a bomb.

    Ahmadinejad won't last. He is made safer at the moment because he has successfully baited the 'Great Satan' and most people support even their idiotic leaders when the country is threatened. He is also helped since Iran is finally winning the war in Iraq. But he is largely loathed, even by the poor who originally voted for him. No ordinary Iranian is keen on confrontation with the USA, but they have their national pride too.

    And before anyone brings up suicide bombers and nutty leaders to argue that they just might be mad enough to try a nuclear attack, remember that all these leaders are very fond of their palaces and comforts - they get other people to commit suicide, they aren't too keen on that option themselves.
    No, it's not a fallacy. First of all you only have defenses against long-range missile transported nukes, not nukes moved into USA in other ways. Russia would easily be able to move a long-range stealth submarine to the American coast, unload a nuke near a coastal city rather than fire a nuke by missile, then detonate it. It's a serious fallacy to think you're immune to nukes. It's also a serious fallacy to think that even if you were immune to nukes today, think using nukes now wouldn't have consequences. Weapon technology changes quickly, and so does power balance. And even if power balance didn't change quickly, it's a fallacy to think you can do whatever you like because you have power. That's what makes people want to dedicate their lives to hurting you even if they have to die for it, and what gives fuel to extremistic islamists. The foolish and navie rhetorics of some Americans is helping the extremist islamists more than any of the measures bin Laden and other terrorist leaders can do themselves. Even suggesting usage of a nuke as anything but revenge against a nuke, is stupdity beyond reason and a person who does that should be kept in a mental hospital because he's a threat to mankind due to his madness. And if he isn't mad but only ignorant, he should at least be kept away from power until he learns something about politics. Launching a third nuke is to doom earth and mankind to death. There's no exception, there are no excuses. Using as a rhetoric is about as clever as having a politician saying: "We hereby declare war" or "We're going to genocide this or that population", then afterwards say "I'm just kidding!". And by stable democracy do you mean a democracy where only the same 2 parties switch between power? Remember that if you are seriously considering launching a nuke then you're a greater threat than Iran can ever be.

    Furthermore, another fallacy and contradition - the reason for an attack on Iran is that you're afraid of Iran using nukes against you. Why be afraid of Iiran using nukes against you if you're immune to nukes? So because you're immune to nukes you attack Iran with nukes so that everyone wants to start nukes, because you want to prevent Iran from getting nukes to use against you, because nukes are dangerous... Now make up your mind - are you immune to nukes or not
    Last edited by Rodion Romanovich; 04-23-2006 at 15:30.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  12. #12
    L'Etranger Senior Member Banquo's Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hunting the Snark, a long way from Tipperary...
    Posts
    5,602

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
    No, it's not a fallacy. [snip] Now make up your mind - are you immune to nukes or not
    Calm down laddie, and read again what I actually wrote. Nowhere was I advocating actual use of nuclear weapons, merely noting that if the US was to decide on a first strike, they would likely get away with it - as things stand.

    And if you take another deep breath, you may notice that I'm Irish not American, and we haven't got any nukes at all. Your venom is misplaced.
    Last edited by Banquo's Ghost; 04-24-2006 at 20:54. Reason: Removed inflammatory comment
    "If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
    Albert Camus "Noces"

  13. #13
    Evil Sadist Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Urbana, IL
    Posts
    2,551

    Default Re: Iran

    The old doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction no longer holds sway, as the USA almost certainly has the ability now to bomb even a big nuclear power and still defend itself completely against any reprisal strike. Even Russia would be unable to guarantee getting any of its capability through the US shield - or indeed off the ground at all, should the US strike first.
    Whoa, our missile shield has been reliable since when? And when did it gain the ability to stop massive nuclear attacks like that which Russia would throw at us.


    GoreBag: Oh, Prole, you're a nerd's wet dream.

  14. #14
    German Enthusiast Member Alexanderofmacedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Where Columbus condemned the natives
    Posts
    3,124

    Default Re: Iran

    I saw a political cartoon about American and Iranian tensions. It was the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.


  15. #15
    L'Etranger Senior Member Banquo's Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hunting the Snark, a long way from Tipperary...
    Posts
    5,602

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by discovery1
    Whoa, our missile shield has been reliable since when? And when did it gain the ability to stop massive nuclear attacks like that which Russia would throw at us.
    I was addressing a possible first strike capability. The Russian nuclear arsenal is old, manned largely by drunks and addicts and was never as fearsome as made out in Soviet times. If the US really wanted to (and I stress I am neither advocating this nor believe anyone in the States does either) they could probably take out all of the Russian capability before Putin and his cronies could do aught.

    Including subs, as you'll find that the US Navy probably knows where every Russian sub that can sail (not many any more) actually is from hour to hour.
    "If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
    Albert Camus "Noces"

  16. #16
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Haruchai
    Calm down laddie [snips out nazi communistic speech]

    I'm Irish not American [snips out anti-american communistic terrorist speech]
    What does it matter if you're American or Irish? Who said my post was directed at you just because the opening of it was a comment on a quote by yours? And please stop the speeches preaching nazi and communistic idealogy, they don't belong here.

    edit: needed some bold font
    Last edited by Rodion Romanovich; 04-23-2006 at 17:37.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  17. #17
    L'Etranger Senior Member Banquo's Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hunting the Snark, a long way from Tipperary...
    Posts
    5,602

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
    And please stop the speeches preaching nazi and communistic idealogy, they don't belong here.

    "If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
    Albert Camus "Noces"

  18. #18
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    14,642

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Drish
    That reminds me of people suggesting to nuke Dariush to hell....

  19. #19
    BHCWarman88
    Guest

    Unhappy Re: Iran

    but you know,Ahmadinejad can get Thousands of Sudice Bombers,if not 40,000, Proably at leadt 5 or 10 thousands because those Mulisms will do anything,or only the Radcial Ones anyhow.

  20. #20
    Texan Member BigTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, United States of America.
    Posts
    1,187

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by BHCWarman88
    I am becoming intersted in this Iran Nuclear Program Crap. I think Iran already has a Bad name, so the Minute they tryo doing this, we got to label iran as "oh my god,they going to make weapons!!!!!!!!"


    not really. how do you really know that? But Again, you can't Trust Iran to the Sense that,THey Raided our U.S Embrassy,they got sudicdie bombers from their conutry going to Iraq (?) and crap. I read in my Magainze I get every 2 weeks that Iran Preseident said if the U.S or the Brits attack them, they will send, 40,000 trained Sudice Bombers to US and British Tagerts. My God,they will blow us to Hell if you think about it. 40,000 people blowing themselves up isn't like 9/11,with just 20 or so Hi-Jackers and taking over 4 plans, and 3 out of the 4 made it, expect for Flight 93 (go Flight 93!)


    but I think

    get out the H bomb
    if we attack Iran,just bomb them with the H Bomb and some other minor nukes,that should handle it..
    The problem if Iran gets Nukes is they will most likely use them. Their leader is a bit of a loon, who thinks he's going to create the next great persian empire. They not only have suicide bombers in Iraq, but they've hit far off places like Israel. They've funded and created many terrorist groups. Their sole purpose for existence since the end of the Iran and Iraq war was to kill the USA. They blame us for the loss of that war, seemingly forgetting it was sadams military stupidity that saved them.

    As for them sending suicide bombers to countries that support us, it depends on what we do. If we where to just use airstrikes and destroy all their nuclear facilities, and then make it very clear to them that worse will happen. Then probably not, Iranians do value there lives. If we invade and dont have a large enough force, then probably.

    And no hydrogen bombs wouldnt be a good idea, too big to indiscriminate in their targeting. They also release some radiation, all be it less then a fission bomb. Though there is the neutron bomb they've been working on for awhile, that would leave no radiation, and leave most buildings standing past 1/2 a mile.

    Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
    And please stop the speeches preaching nazi and communistic idealogy, they don't belong here.
    Wew I bet no one saw this thread degrading into "YOUR A NAZI!!". There's no reason for the comparison, in fact the Nazi's were allys of iran.
    Last edited by BigTex; 04-23-2006 at 18:57.
    Wine is a bit different, as I am sure even kids will like it.
    BigTex
    "Hilary Clinton is the devil"
    ~Texas proverb

  21. #21
    Gangrenous Member Justiciar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Stockport, England
    Posts
    1,116

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
    And please stop the speeches preaching nazi and communistic idealogy, they don't belong here.
    Well that made sense.. I don't recall Haruchai mentioning the Working Man's Master Race at any point.

  22. #22
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by BigTex
    Wew I bet no one saw this thread degrading into "YOUR A NAZI!!". There's no reason for the comparison, in fact the Nazi's were allys of iran.
    Iran today does not compare to Iran back then. Plus there was no formal alliance, they just had a common enemy in Britain. And your God's pope was an ally of the Germans, who later became Nazis. So feel owned, by your own logic.

    Well that made sense.. I don't recall Haruchai mentioning the Working Man's Master Race at any point.
    Exactly, and where do you find anti-American text in my post? Nowhere. Just because I don't agree with his favorite party about political questions, he says "why do you hate freedom?" or tries to defame me like nazis and communists did during their dictatorship regimes, by writing "snips anti-American rant", to make me look like anti-American. So he's very much a nazi and communist in my eyes, but that's just my own opinion, which I hadn't intended to explain at length until you asked for it.

    As for the nuking, sure go ahead, but don't say afterwards that the people with higher IQ than you didn't warn you before.
    Last edited by Rodion Romanovich; 04-23-2006 at 19:37.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  23. #23
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    You should try arguing the topic at hand, not making petty personal remarks every post that reek of something you'd see in a Diablo II conversation.
    Well, it would be easier if Haruchai wouldn't accuse me of being anti-American because I'm against launching of nukes and destruction of earth and mankind. Go back to where the whole thing begun and you can see how it all started. Now, however, that he's stopped the accusations I believe the discussion can go back to the topic initially discussed.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  24. #24
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Haruchai has not once advocated the use of nukes in this thread. He has stated the possibility, and the probably eventuality of what would occur in that scenario. You are the one taking things out of hand.
    He started the flaming by calling me anti-American for not wanting to use nukes.

    It's about time to get back on topic or the mods will probably close this thread...
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  25. #25
    Gangrenous Member Justiciar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Stockport, England
    Posts
    1,116

    Default Re: Iran

    I see a joke taken too hard and a dissagrteement turned sour(er). I don't think Haruchai meant to insult you. Try being a little more polite, say your sorry to each other, and drop it tbh. It's getting in the way of the topic.

  26. #26
    Awaiting the Rapture Member rotorgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in Kansas anymore Toto....
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: Iran

    Hi guys and gals!

    I'm enjoying this arguement and thought I'd wade in a bit. The main problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is threefold:

    1. They will use it, probably against Isreal which would certainly respond with a massive retaliation strike. It was only some quick negotiations that kept them from doing so to Iraq during Desert Storm after being attacked by SCUD missles.

    2. Such a destabilization of the middle east would bring on the battle of Armageddon (or at least one very much like it) mentioned in various prophecies. I'm quite sure that an ecenomic depression from the soaring oil prices, brought on by this action, would force the hand of the western countries so dependent on oil to strike back hard.

    3. It clearly stands in the way of the stategic aims of the Bush/Cheney administration to eliminate the possibility of any strategic competitor from emerging after the fall of the Soviet Union. This is outlined in the Strategic Defense Planning Guide , published by Mr. Cheney and co- authored by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992 during the previous Bush administration. They simply cannot afford to let their control of the oil reserves of the region to slip into the hands of any such regional power. My guess is that they would rather fight than negotiate.

    Hmm....what shall we do?

    "Cry havoc...and let slip the dogs of war!" Shakespeare
    Last edited by rotorgun; 04-23-2006 at 20:12.
    Rotorgun
    ...the general must neither be so undecided that he entirely distrusts himself, nor so obstinate as not to think that anyone can have a better idea...for such a man...is bound to make many costly mistakes
    Onasander

    Editing my posts due to poor typing and grammer is a way of life.

  27. #27
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,750

    Default Re: Iran

    Rotogun, yes, you beat me to it. I would however add that Iran is still committed to the destruction of Isreal.

    As to this idea that once one guy uses a Nuke everyone will want to is bull. Think about it, there is a reason for that stigma and the H-Bomb is more powerfull by an order of magnitude. Using one will result in a bloody conventional war. If the US gets Nuke happy the European nations would invade post-haste, once the battle is on American soil they can't use Nuke anymore.

    Regardless it is not going to happen and to ensure it doesn't happen the US is willing to go to war with Iran, if they do it will have to be shrot, fast and devastating, scorched earth. At the moment there is no other option.

    Needless to say this is something no one wants, which is why the US isn't rattling its sabre much.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  28. #28
    L'Etranger Senior Member Banquo's Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hunting the Snark, a long way from Tipperary...
    Posts
    5,602

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
    If the US gets Nuke happy the European nations would invade post-haste, once the battle is on American soil they can't use Nuke anymore.

    I think I misunderstand. Are you suggesting that the EU would go to war with the USA?
    "If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
    Albert Camus "Noces"

  29. #29
    Texan Member BigTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, United States of America.
    Posts
    1,187

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Haruchai
    I think I misunderstand. Are you suggesting that the EU would go to war with the USA?
    The EU can't go to war with the US. And if they were to declare war, the US has enough nukes to blanket the world. Nuclear escalation is idiotic wont happen. Escalation would take to long and if they'res enough fusion bombs going off then the huge detrimental effects would be seen before it would reach such levels.

    H-Bomb is more powerfull by an order of magnitude.
    Insanely more powerful then the ones droped in WWII. Most of the ICBM's have multiple warheads also, some upwards of 36, the ones on submarines have 14. One warhead is enough to decimate a major city, but agian nukes are detorents to war. For 60 years they've worked also, nukes arent a great blemish on this world, they've actually created peace. Something that would not have lasted 20 years after WWII if they hadent existed.
    Wine is a bit different, as I am sure even kids will like it.
    BigTex
    "Hilary Clinton is the devil"
    ~Texas proverb

  30. #30
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by rotorgun
    Hi guys and gals!

    I'm enjoying this arguement and thought I'd wade in a bit. The main problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is threefold:

    1. They will use it, probably against Isreal which would certainly respond with a massive retaliation strike. It was only some quick negotiations that kept them from doing so to Iraq during Desert Storm after being attacked by SCUD missles.
    You sound quite certain. Bought a new crystal ball, or have you found out you're Nostradamus reborn...?

    Plus isn't Israel's all-but-officially-admitted nuclear deterrent plus actual capacity to use it somewhta bigger than Iran's anyway ? Iran may have a categorical rage on for Israel, but that doesn't mean they'd be willing to do a double suicide to get it done away with. And doesn't USA have some sort of defense agreement going with Israel ? One suspects if Iran went to do something as nutty as using nukes the Americans could not but come down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks if only to salvage their credibility with certain other dependents and protegs - like Taiwan and Japan...

    Certain parts of the Iranian top brass may have a Cause or two, but I singularly doubt if they'd be willing to go kamikaze on it - or if their less enthusiastic peers would let them, if it came down to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
    If the US gets Nuke happy the European nations would invade post-haste, once the battle is on American soil they can't use Nuke anymore.
    ...
    ...
    ...wut ?

    No, seriously. What ? Invade ? What with ? Commercial passenger liners and cargo ships perhaps ? And I can only imagine what they'd be telling the soldiers; "let's all go get our throats cut boys!" perhaps ? Aside from the crisis-response force the EU's putting together, the only countries in the club with meaningful capacity for overseas power projection are the UK and France. The former pundits often accuse of being an US lapdog if not an outright Trojan Horse, the latter is famous for its unscrupulous and almost elegantly opportunistic Realpolitik. Nevermind now that the aforementioned power-projection capacity is mainly of the "colonial police" calibre - France in particular has a long track record of meddling in its former African colonies and the UK still has odd overseas enclaves that need looking after (think Falklands), but neither has or even wants the capacity to fight major Great Power league wars overseas. Aside from these two, who retained such minor intervention ability almost more for the prestige than anything else, all European armies of any note built themselves around the idea of fighting a very desperate holding action against the Soviets after WW2. Thankfully for everyone they never had to find out how well they'd prepared, but in any case the up-and-comer boy band US got to handle the Big Global Hitter gig. The Old World band, although grizzled stage veterans, had kind of finally burned out while on tour, and aside from some minor solo gigs was content to rest on its (ill-gotten) laurels and pass the time playing the local scene.

    Lemme tell ya what EU will do if the US goes and does something as idiotic as dropping one of Them Bombs. They'll suddenly go all poker-faced and put on these really fake-looking plastic smiles, and smile and nod and be very polite to their runaway colony all the while cutting every tie they have with it they can in the hopes of escaping the blast radius. I'd imagine they'd also bend over backwards to help the irate and irradiated locals fix what now can be and save whomever is possible, just to point out they're much nicer people than those nasty folks beyond the Atlantic who really never had any manners anyway, now where did we go wrong with his upbringing.

    They'll probably also be going into a full paranoia mode that gives an entirely new meaning to Fortress Europe, in the case someone ignores the message.
    "Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. --- Proof of the existence of the FSM, if needed, can be found in the recent uptick of global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Apparently His Pastaness is to be worshipped in full pirate regalia. The decline in worldwide pirate population over the past 200 years directly corresponds with the increase in global temperature. Here is a graph to illustrate the point."

    -Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO