Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 207

Thread: Iran

  1. #31
    BHCWarman88
    Guest

    Red face Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
    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.


    First 2 setences are well known facts,no need to say that again.

    EU won't attack the US. Yeah, like Russia,China,NK(North Korea) and the rest of EU will send 1 A or H Bomb each to the US and blow us to Heck and back.
    Using Nukes against Iran will have to be Used. if We invade,you damn well know they going to use Nukes + those "40,000 sudice Bombers" that Iranian Prsident said he "will use". And using one of "them bombs" will end the war fast. Look at Japan in WW2 for my prime Example.

  2. #32
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Iran

    The discussion about the United States using Nuclear weapons against Iran is somewhat misplaced and well in short ridiculous.

    The justification to use a nuclear weapon against Iran by the United States does not exist.

    Once a weapon is present - and Iran begins to saber rattle with it - then a justification might exist. But until then all the world has is Iran's violation of a treaty about non-prolifitation (SP) of the weapons in which they gained excess to nuclear energy technology.

    I don't see the world wanting to stop Iran's development. The United Nations is once again showing how useless of an organization it truely is, and once again instead of focusing on the violation that Iran is currently doing in regards to their development of nuclear weapons - some people are focusing on the wrong issue.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  3. #33
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: Iran

    The possibility of the EU and America going to war with each other is nill. For the same reason that Denmark and Canada do not go to war over an island. The idea is preposterous.


    But until then all the world has is Iran's violation of a treaty about non-prolifitation (SP) of the weapons in which they gained excess to nuclear energy technology
    What the world will have are nuclear armed Mullahs, fanaticists, some with delusions of a coming apocalyps. (But I think you already agree with that).

    I'm not willing to take my chances that they won't use them, and I wouldn't want to exclude any means of preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons, including a pre-emptive strike.
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  4. #34
    Awaiting the Rapture Member rotorgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in Kansas anymore Toto....
    Posts
    971

    Arrow Re: Iran

    =Watchman]You sound quite certain. Bought a new crystal ball, or have you found out you're Nostradamus reborn...?

    LOL...no I don't have delusions of being a prophet or seer. I was not so much referring to all of the Iranian population, merely the insane fool that is running the show. While I have no certain intelligence on the matter, I have somehow, after the events of 911, been shocked into taking these Muslim madmen a bit more seriously.(No offense meant to any non-mad Muslim bretheren)
    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 protegés - 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.
    I certainly hope you are right. I would feel much better about the whole matter if the Iranian government would take some measures, such as impeaching this man who makes these threats against Isreal and the United States. Perhaps the world would be more convinced of their claims of wanting nuclear fuels for peaceful uses. How much power does this...so called President yeild? His popularity with his people, if the media can be believed, makes me think that he has much power.
    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.
    Well, and truly spoken. Perhaps it is you with the clarvoiant abilities my freind?
    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.

  5. #35
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    The possibility of the EU and America going to war with each other is nill. For the same reason that Denmark and Canada do not go to war over an island. The idea is preposterous.
    Correct - the EU will not go to war with the United States.

    What the world will have are nuclear armed Mullahs, fanaticists, some with delusions of a coming apocalyps. (But I think you already agree with that).
    Of course we are in agreement.

    I'm not willing to take my chances that they won't use them, and I wouldn't want to exclude any means of preventing them from obtaining nuclear weapons, including a pre-emptive strike.
    Then its up to the United Nations, and primarily the EU to settle the matter with Iran. Something so far they seem unable to do. The United States has enough on its plate at this time and the rest of the world must decide to take action. If they are unwilling to take action concerning Iran then one must allow Iran to process Nuclear Weapons.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  6. #36
    Le Grand Quack Senior Member AggonyDuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,708

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
    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.
    That is definately a false assumption, simply because we're not having a WWIII at the moment and you can damn well be assured that Nuking Iran wouldn't actually start one. To be honest if USA did drop a nuclear missile at Teheran, the biggest reaction would be by Human Rights activists and Islamic extremists.
    Of course there would also be a lot of discontent about by everyone, but simply if the USA did it with a decent reason, then neither the EU or anyone else for that sake would actually sanction the US. The biggest probs for the US with using nuclear weapons on Iran come from the population of the US itself and the waves of Islamic extremists that arise to meet the barbarians from the west.

  7. #37
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Iran

    A few things you seem to forget:
    1. Russia is standing on Iran's side. They get money from helping Iran with nuclear power. Thus, an attack on Iran will severe relations between USA and Russia.

    2. Secondly, the moment someone uses nukes, the old non-usage mutual understanding ends. Which means there won't be an instant armageddon, but there will be an armageddon for sure the moment any of the nuke using countries end up in diplomatical conflict.

    Quote Originally Posted by rotorgun
    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.
    Only way for Iran to nuke Israel is by missile, and Israel has the same anti-nuke missile system USA has. Also, if Israel responds to a nuke attack with nukes, it won't break the current implicit non-usage treaty between nuke-owning countries. In fact, Israel can probably send enough nukes and regular bombs to kill twice as high a percentage of the Iranian population as the Iranian nukes killed, before the revenge will be seen as exaggerated enough to break the implicit treaty. Also, Iran won't launch nukes if they know the revenge for nukes is nukes. So if there's no attack on Iran, there is a chance for peace and stability. Besides nobody even knows whether Iran is going to use the rest-products of their nuclear power plants for bombs, that's an assumption you're treating as if it were a truth. The other alternative, to attack a country with a nuke because maybe it will use it's nuclear power plant rest products for nukes, will however for sure result in armageddon. Maybe not instantly, but it'll break the implicit treaty.

    What's interesting is that you apparently don't understand one of the basic rules of diplomacy - to see why your demands can't be accepted, so you can get an honest chance of thinking through how those demands can be changed to avoid a conflict and achieve a compromise. Iran needs nuclear power to replace the energy loss when they run out of oil. To demand that they don't get nuclear power plants is an impossible demand to make, and they'll surely do anything they can to fight for their right to supply themselves with this basic resources needed for survival on earth today - energy. If you don't have energy supply you are degraded to a stone age life-style at best. So first of all to make that demand you have to offer Iran to supply them with energy. Secondly you must guarantee that the price of that supply won't be higher than their price for supplying themselves with nuclear power would be. Thirdly you need to lower the price even further to be able to compete with the last important advantage of Iranian nuclear power plants - that they own the power plants and don't risk losing power due to diplomatical instability, like for example much of Scandinavia almost starved because of the world wars even when neutral, and similar things. Unless you can provide these things, you have a conflict where Iran will surely want to fight back. If you decide to use nukes to genocide part of their population, then you can be even more sure they'll fight back even more fiercely, where there's also a risk that your popularity in the world decreases, and Russia might get involved, and the implicit treaty of non-usage of nukes is broken. It's your choice, but you should know all the consequences of the choice before you make it. And I'd also like to inform the paranoids out there that I'm not their enemy, I'm holding the opinion that nuking shouldn't be done for the sake of the entire world population, and guess what - the concept world population includes America. An anti-American is a man who never criticises America, always praises America, until the day he suicide bombs Americans without forewarning. The day I praise the idea of nuking a nation because it doesn't want to accept that it isn't allowed to have energy to supply it's people, then you can be scared. Until then, listen to what I have to say because if you ask appropriate questions about my argumentation rather than calling me anti-American like Haruchai, you usually end up understanding why I hold my standpoint and most people in the end realize that my points were valid and helpful, as was my intention.

    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.
    Oil is already running out so we'll have that "battle" either way in that case. Or a responsible nation whose government isn't the rape-bitch of it's corporations' lobbyist groups could put some of it's tax money into researching synthetic fuels and similar, or we vote for a party that has an ideology compatible with a life without so much transportation.
    Last edited by Rodion Romanovich; 04-24-2006 at 13:51.
    Under construction...

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

  8. #38
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    Correct - the EU will not go to war with the United States.
    Erm, did you intentionally phrase it in such a manner that it leaves open the option of the US going to war with the EU?
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  9. #39
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Iran

    Well, that one is at least theoretically possible - seeing as how the US actually has the projection capacity to try somehting of the sort. In practice it'd take some extraordinary circumstances indeed - one thing the World Wars taught is Thou Shalt Not Fight With Thine Peers, and the technology gap between US and Euro armies isn't big enough that the former could except victory without hideous costs.

    'Sides, thus far the "Democratic Peace" hypothesis has held. Have fun trying to convince US voters the patently democratic, human-rights-respecting, trading-partner Euros need going war with...

    I certainly hope you are right. I would feel much better about the whole matter if the Iranian government would take some measures, such as impeaching this man who makes these threats against Isreal and the United States. Perhaps the world would be more convinced of their claims of wanting nuclear fuels for peaceful uses. How much power does this...so called President yeild? His popularity with his people, if the media can be believed, makes me think that he has much power.
    Not all Presidents are equal. Ours, for example, is largely a decoration; does anyone even know what the Italian one is called...? I'm under the impression the Iranian president is about in the middle range as far as invested power goes - but you'll also have to keep in mind some of the peculiarities of the Iranian system, such as the ...whatwasitcalled... Council of Watchers or whatever that bunch of old men in black ropes with de facto veto rights was called. Personally I suspect they let Ahmajeddin or what his name now was to run his mouth as both a distraction and a sort of publicity stunt.

    It's also entirely possible his office de facto gives him jack all say in these matters in the first place. I don't know much of the Iranian CoC, and how it works in practice.

    If I'm not entirely mistaken the Iranian official ideology is one of "Islamic revolution", correct ? Right now they're about the sole example, and I'm willing to bet the mullahs aren't willing to sacrifice the sole bastion of the movement for naught. If the Prez starts running too loose odds are the rest of the adminstration reins him in rather promptly - remember, despite its peculiarities Iran is a constitutional republic. If that for some reason fails, I find it slightly difficult to believe the mullahs would let the flagbearer nation of Islam (as they see it, anyway) get obliterated just because.

    'Course, it's different if they too want to pop a few nukes... but sufficient motivation for that is mildly difficult to imagine.
    "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

  10. #40
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Erm, did you intentionally phrase it in such a manner that it leaves open the option of the US going to war with the EU?
    Not at all the converse is also true, the United States will not go to war with the EU.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  11. #41
    Texan Member BigTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, United States of America.
    Posts
    1,187

    Default Re: Iran

    Russia can't and wont get involved in a war if we invade Iran.

    1. Their broke, they also need to sell their goods somewere, and China isnt so fond on imports.

    2. their army is unpayed overworked and stretched very thin. They've been fighting loosing battles in a number of urban centers for over a decade and they arent to worried if we invade iran.

    3. Don't even think China will rescue Iran in a war, they need to peddle their goods to US, and Europe.

    Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Erm, did you intentionally phrase it in such a manner that it leaves open the option of the US going to war with the EU?
    If Finland goes nuclear we must invade! Their vast forests are home to forest nymph extremists, and we cannot allow them to get ahold of a nuclear bomb. Contingency plans have already been drawn, Finland must not get the bomb!
    Wine is a bit different, as I am sure even kids will like it.
    BigTex
    "Hilary Clinton is the devil"
    ~Texas proverb

  12. #42
    karoshi Senior Member solypsist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    New York New York
    Posts
    9,020

    Default Re: Iran

    okay guys let's get back on track.

  13. #43
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,452

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by BigTex
    If Finland goes nuclear we must invade! Their vast forests are home to forest nymph extremists, and we cannot allow them to get ahold of a nuclear bomb. Contingency plans have already been drawn, Finland must not get the bomb!
    Oh Crap!There goes the Operation Forest Nymph. We just have to create a new plan for world domination. But please if you have to invade,please dont do it after any national holidays becouse you know people can be very on bad mood when having a hangover.
    But to the topic.I think at the moment situation is that the Iran will be the next country with Nuclear weapons capability.There really isnt true will from anybody to stop that.What the rest of the world can do is to make sure to the Iranians that if they want to come in and play in the major leagues.They better think twice what could be the results of their actions.The Nuclear capacity will no doubt bring prestige to Iran around the middle east.But we have to remember that the Pakistan also already has a nuclear weapons and they havent tryed to pull of anything after they got those.Personally i think Iran is acting stupid if they want to have nuclear weapons.Becouse if you have them the possibility of being aimed by others with their arsenal tends to grow a liiiittle bit.And when those are aimed at you there is always also the distinct possibility that those will be fired upon you also.
    Last edited by Kagemusha; 04-24-2006 at 16:31.
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  14. #44
    Member Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Terra, Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, somewhere in this universe.
    Posts
    2,746

    Default Re: Iran

    You don't seriously think that the government told the terrorists to go to Iraq did you?

    "We've had enough of you boys in the prison. Go have some fun in Iraq"

  15. #45
    Member Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Terra, Solar System, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, somewhere in this universe.
    Posts
    2,746

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Watchman
    Not all Presidents are equal. Ours, for example, is largely a decoration; does anyone even know what the Italian one is called...?
    Prodi.

  16. #46
    Senior Member Senior Member Ser Clegane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Running in circles in the white tower
    Posts
    6,603

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiberius
    Prodi.
    Actually it's Carlo Azeglio Ciampi (Prodi is the designated Prime Minister)

  17. #47
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Iran

    Uh... have I been on crack for the past week, or isn't he the Prime Minister ? I seem to recall Italy was one of those cases where the President is largely an ornament and the PM is the big shot...
    "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

  18. #48
    Senior Member Senior Member Ser Clegane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Running in circles in the white tower
    Posts
    6,603

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Watchman
    I seem to recall Italy was one of those cases where the President is largely an ornament and the PM is the big shot...
    That is correct

  19. #49
    Awaiting the Rapture Member rotorgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in Kansas anymore Toto....
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: Iran

    [/QUOTE=LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix]A few things you seem to forget:
    1. Russia is standing on Iran's side. They get money from helping Iran with nuclear power. Thus, an attack on Iran will severe relations between USA and Russia.[/QUOTE]

    What you seem to forget is that Iran is currently in competition with Russia over the sale of oil to China, the fastest growing economy in the world. While she may make a fuss about our coming conflict with Iran publicly, I feel that she would welcome it privately as it would get rid of a competitor. As others have said, she is broke, and needs the buisness.

    [/QUOTE]2. Secondly, the moment someone uses nukes, the old non-usage mutual understanding ends. Which means there won't be an instant armageddon, but there will be an armageddon for sure the moment any of the nuke using countries end up in diplomatical conflict.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed, but what would your country do if it were attacked by a madman in such a way? I doubt that they would vote to have a tea social and discuss the matter.

    [/QUOTE] Also, Iran won't launch nukes if they know the revenge for nukes is nukes. So if there's no attack on Iran, there is a chance for peace and stability. Besides nobody even knows whether Iran is going to use the rest-products of their nuclear power plants for bombs, that's an assumption you're treating as if it were a truth.[/QUOTE]

    How can you be so sure? Have you listened to the threats of the President of Iran? I have not made this assumption in actuality. I will be the first one to applaude the efforts of the Iranians to develop nuclear energy for peaceful uses. It's just a little hard for me to trust them after all that has passed.

    [/QUOTE]What's interesting is that you apparently don't understand one of the basic rules of diplomacy - to see why your demands can't be accepted, so you can get an honest chance of thinking through how those demands can be changed to avoid a conflict and achieve a compromise. Iran needs nuclear power to replace the energy loss when they run out of oil. To demand that they don't get nuclear power plants is an impossible demand to make, and they'll surely do anything they can to fight for their right to supply themselves with this basic resources needed for survival on earth today - energy. If you don't have energy supply you are degraded to a stone age life-style at best[/QUOTE].

    It is the fact that they had refused to allow inspections by the international community until only recently, and when they did agree, it was only a small team of what....about five inspectors? These could only go where the Iranians would allow. In a country that size, do you think that there is a possibility that they might be hiding something? As much as it pains me to do so, I agree with Secretary of State Condaleza Rice that a little more transparency would do a great deal to restore faith.

    [/QUOTE]An anti-American is a man who never criticises America, always praises America, until the day he suicide bombs Americans without forewarning.[/QUOTE]
    Huh?

    [/QUOTE]The day I praise the idea of nuking a nation because it doesn't want to accept that it isn't allowed to have energy to supply it's people, then you can be scared.[/QUOTE]

    I agree. As I have said, however, does this apply to a nation that has chanted "Death to America....Death to Isreal" so often that it now sounds like a broken record?

    [/QUOTE]Until then, listen to what I have to say because if you ask appropriate questions about my argumentation rather than calling me anti-American like Haruchai, you usually end up understanding why I hold my standpoint and most people in the end realize that my points were valid and helpful, as was my intention.[/QUOTE]

    I never claimed that you were anti-American. Those are words you put in my mouth. I happen to think your arguments are very enlightening. I hope that you feel that my viewpoints are not the mad ravings of a lunatic, but the thoughts of a reasonably intelligent person, who is perfectly willing to see my government come to a peaceful solution to all this. I stand a fair chance of being directly involved as I am a member of the military and would be glad to not have to get involved. We are quite commited in Iraq in any case.

    [/QUOTE]Oil is already running out so we'll have that "battle" either way in that case. Or a responsible nation whose government isn't the rape-bitch of it's corporations' lobbyist groups could put some of it's tax money into researching synthetic fuels and similar, or we vote for a party that has an ideology compatible with a life without so much transportation.[/QUOTE]

    No one could be in more agreement with you. I long for the day when this world can do so. I am not in favor of the use of fossil fuels, but I still get into my car and drive to work every day like billions of others. If I had any sense, I would move closer to work, and ride my horse there every day. The problem with that is that I would likely be arrested for violating some kind of town ordinance.
    Last edited by rotorgun; 04-24-2006 at 21:52.
    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.

  20. #50
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Iran

    This constant fall-back to the assumption that Ahmajeddin is an unrestrained, suicidal lunatic and the rest of the Iranians, be they of the ruling circles or the Great Unwashed, would be willing to sheerfully go along with him in the case he was, is becoming quite tedious. What is it with this knee-jerk categorization of anyone who blows hot air back at the US in a belligerent manner as a certified madman ? I mean, I distinctly recall the sort of flak that was thrown at Prez Fox of Mexico and others of the sort only a while ago, which seemed to carry much the same tone too...

    Would someone care to explain why this is ? I'd like to be convinced the reasons aren't what I'm assuming them to be, as I would actually like to think higher of Americans than that...
    "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

  21. #51
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Watchman
    the assumption that Ahmajeddin is an unrestrained, suicidal lunatic [...]

    Would someone care to explain why this is ?
    Here you go. And, for no other reason than my love for mild provocations, I took care to find an American source to expand on my statement that 'What the world will have are nuclear armed Mullahs, fanaticists, some with delusions of a coming apocalyps'.

    Ahmadinejad is more than just a retrograde radical; he is also a messianic missionary. Iran's president is a disciple of the Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, an obscure Iranian cleric who preaches a radical strain of Shiite liberation theology. Ahmadinejad, like his mentor, believes fervently in the return of the Mahdi, or Twelfth Imam — a second coming that many are convinced will occur as a result a regional conflagration.

    It should come as no surprise, then, that Ahmadinejad is actively courting a crisis with the West. In a recent closed-door session of the foreign policy and national security committee of the majles, Iran's parliament, Ahmadinejad laid out the cornerstone of his foreign-policy strategy. The past decade-and-a-half of "détente," Ahmadinejad told lawmakers, had cost the Islamic republic dearly. The message was unmistakable: It is now time for confrontation.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Thank goodness for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In five short months, Iran's radical new president has managed to do what legions of policy analysts and intelligence warnings have not: jolt the world awake to the growing global threat posed by an ascendant Iran.




    Since taking office on August 4, 2005, Ahmadinejad has unapologetically steered Iran onto an all-too-familiar foreign-policy course. In October, he caused an international furor when, speaking at a major anti-Zionism conference in Tehran, he declared that the state of Israel was a "tumor" that should be "wiped off the map." Undeterred, Ahmadinejad used a subsequent televised address in early December to undertake a debunking of the "myth" of the Holocaust. Most recently, he has launched a rhetorical war on Israel, calling for the "relocation" of the Jewish state from the Middle East to either Canada or Europe.

    But Ahmadinejad's animus isn't simply directed toward Israel. To hear Iran's president tell it, a titanic struggle is underway between Islam and the West, and his country is on the front lines. "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny . . . a historic war between the oppressor [Christians] and the world of Islam," Ahmadinejad has announced.

    To American and European ears, this harsh rhetoric certainly seems unsophisticated. But it would be a mistake to write off Iran's radical-in-chief as a political novice. After all, Ahmadinejad is a seasoned strategic operator.

    Depending on which account one believes, he was either one of the original student radicals that seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran in the opening days of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, or one of the men who subsequently interrogated the American hostages in Tehran's notorious Evin prison. Thereafter, Ahmadinejad served as a commander in the Pasdaran, the feared clerical army created by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to serve as the "shock troops" of the Islamic Revolution.

    He is still very much a believer. Ahead of the June presidential elections that catapulted him to power, Ahmadinejad reportedly took a pilgrimage to Khomeini's tomb, where he publicly declared his devotion to the founder of the Islamic republic. And he has been quick to prove it. In the months since his election, the Iranian president has launched a full-bore offensive against foreign influence and domestic "corruption." Over the past three months, his administration has issued new restrictions on foreign travel for government officials, banned Western music from Iran's radio and television stations, and effectively frozen the publication of any new books in the country.

    But Ahmadinejad is more than just a retrograde radical; he is also a messianic missionary. Iran's president is a disciple of the Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, an obscure Iranian cleric who preaches a radical strain of Shiite liberation theology. Ahmadinejad, like his mentor, believes fervently in the return of the Mahdi, or Twelfth Imam — a second coming that many are convinced will occur as a result a regional conflagration.

    It should come as no surprise, then, that Ahmadinejad is actively courting a crisis with the West. In a recent closed-door session of the foreign policy and national security committee of the majles, Iran's parliament, Ahmadinejad laid out the cornerstone of his foreign-policy strategy. The past decade-and-a-half of "détente," Ahmadinejad told lawmakers, had cost the Islamic republic dearly. The message was unmistakable: It is now time for confrontation.

    Even more ominously, the Iranian leader is succeeding in marrying this radical worldview with 21st-century weaponry. Under Ahmadinejad's guidance, Iranian officials have noticeably hardened their stance on the central issue of the looming showdown between Iran and the West: the regime's nuclear program. Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran's powerful supreme national security council and the Iranian regime's point-man on nuclear issues, recently threatened Europe with dire consequences should nuclear negotiations not turn out to the Islamic republic's liking. "If we lose," Larijani told reporters in Tehran in early January, "the same will also happen to [Europe] and they will have to prepare themselves to live in a hell."

    In his seminal manifesto, Islamic Government, written in exile and published just two weeks before his triumphant return to Iran in February 1979, Khomeini outlined what would be come the guiding philosophy of his regime: "To create a victorious and triumphant Islamic political revolution . . . to unite the Moslem nation, [and] to liberate [all] its lands." Today, fueled by messianic fervor, his most prominent follower is openly and methodically putting these principles into practice — and making progress.

    If Ahmadinejad has his way, the whole world will soon feel the consequences.

    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  22. #52
    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 rotorgun
    Agreed, but what would your country do if it were attacked by a madman in such a way? I doubt that they would vote to have a tea social and discuss the matter.
    Of course if attacked by nukes you may use nukes back. But only AFTER being attacked, and only if the attack was by nukes. All these factors are needed for avoiding an end to the implicit treaty.

    How can you be so sure? Have you listened to the threats of the President of Iran? I have not made this assumption in actuality. I will be the first one to applaude the efforts of the Iranians to develop nuclear energy for peaceful uses. It's just a little hard for me to trust them after all that has passed.
    Most muslim people I know have another way of communicating, often being more prone to threats, but it's usually empty threats. Not a good way of behaving in politics if you want to stimulate peace. It's also bad that the individual suicide bomber organizations never say what they demand/want in order to stop their attacks. So we can only guess, and in this case the guess is that Iran wouldn't accept measures preventing them from getting nuclear power because they want a secure and cheap resource of energy when they run out of oil. Both sides are extremely bad at communicating properly and it requires a person prepared to almost humiliate himself to communicate properly with the threats of Iran. Still, it can be done, and must be done, or the price is too high - for both parts.

    It is the fact that they had refused to allow inspections by the international community until only recently, and when they did agree, it was only a small team of what....about five inspectors? These could only go where the Iranians would allow. In a country that size, do you think that there is a possibility that they might be hiding something? As much as it pains me to do so, I agree with Secretary of State Condaleza Rice that a little more transparency would do a great deal to restore faith.
    The inspections are nothing you have an automatic right to ask for. You probably want them, but there's no right for it. It's not something that justifies nuking them if they refuse inspections. Given that USA has earlier shown that they're prepared to invade countries in the Middle east (Afghanistan and Iraq comes to mind), it's understandable if Iran wants to keep anything they can about their military secret.

    Huh?
    That wasn't directed at you but I might have made a mistake making it look like that was the case.

    I agree. As I have said, however, does this apply to a nation that has chanted "Death to America....Death to Isreal" so often that it now sounds like a broken record?
    It's pure scare tactics and almost entire empty threats on their part. Surely there's some parts of real threat behind it, but if you look at how many of those who chant that that actually carry out an action in that direction, it's less than a PPM (parts per million).

    I never claimed that you were
    Again this was not directed at you. I've realized by this threat that people automatically assume everything in the post is reply to them if you quote them in part of the post. I will keep that in mind and apologize to Haruchai for my first post (the one above the anti-American accusation he made), because it might indeed have seemed like an attack on him. It shows the weakness of words for communicating, but can also teach us a lesson very applicable to the USA-Iran relations question - only when the discussion has been going on for a while do the misunderstanding become clear enough that they can be understood as misunderstandings.

    I happen to think your arguments are very enlightening. I hope that you feel that my viewpoints are not the mad ravings of a lunatic, but the thoughts of a reasonably intelligent person, who is perfectly willing to see my government come to a peaceful solution to all this. I stand a fair chance of being directly involved as I am a member of the military and would be glad to not have to get involved. We are quite commited in Iraq in any case.
    No problem, your view is fairly moderate and actually very close to my own in many ways, in that you are interesting in avoiding the nuking. It also seems like you're really meaning it too as you are ready to listen to suggestions for methods to avoid the nuking, and are ready to take part in finding such ways yourself.

    No one could be in more agreement with you. I long for the day when this world can do so. I am not in favor of the use of fossil fuels, but I still get into my car and drive to work every day like billions of others. If I had any sense, I would move closer to work, and ride my horse there every day. The problem with that is that I would likely be arrested for violatinfg some kind of town ordinance.
    Under construction...

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

  23. #53
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
    Of course if attacked by nukes you may use nukes back. But only AFTER being attacked, and only if the attack was by nukes. All these factors are needed for avoiding an end to the implicit treaty.
    Actually this is incorrect. The United States has not ratified a treaty that states it would not use first strike nuclear weapons ever.


    Most muslim people I know have another way of communicating, often being more prone to threats, but it's usually empty threats. Not a good way of behaving in politics if you want to stimulate peace. It's also bad that the individual suicide bomber organizations never say what they demand/want in order to stop their attacks. So we can only guess, and in this case the guess is that Iran wouldn't accept measures preventing them from getting nuclear power because they want a secure and cheap resource of energy when they run out of oil. Both sides are extremely bad at communicating properly and it requires a person prepared to almost humiliate himself to communicate properly with the threats of Iran. Still, it can be done, and must be done, or the price is too high - for both parts.
    So you are advocating that every other nation just cave into Iran's posturing?

    Did the world not learn a valuable lesson back in 1938 about appeasement?


    The inspections are nothing you have an automatic right to ask for. You probably want them, but there's no right for it. It's not something that justifies nuking them if they refuse inspections. Given that USA has earlier shown that they're prepared to invade countries in the Middle east (Afghanistan and Iraq comes to mind), it's understandable if Iran wants to keep anything they can about their military secret.
    You might want to read the treaties signed by Iran concerning nuclear weapons before making such a claim. The International Atomic Engery Commission would disagree with you on this statement, I believe.

    It's pure scare tactics and almost entire empty threats on their part. Surely there's some parts of real threat behind it, but if you look at how many of those who chant that that actually carry out an action in that direction, it's less than a PPM (parts per million).
    You misunderstand the nature of the threats and the language used, Iran has given credance to the nature of their threats. Just look at some of the funding and founding of groups that are fighting against Israel.

    Since the world community is unwilling to actually take a stance against Iran gaining nuclear weapons - the only viable option left is to welcome them to the community of nuclear weapon nations - and inform them of the number of nuclear weapons now targeted at their nation, along with a very quiet warning about what will happen if any nuclear explosion by terrorists is traced back to them either directly or indirectly.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  24. #54
    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

    And I will apologise to you, Legio, for characterising your arguments as anti-American. It was harsh of me and I should have retracted it.

    In fact, I agree with you about the futility of nuclear weapon use.
    "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"

  25. #55
    Texan Member BigTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, United States of America.
    Posts
    1,187

    Default Re: Iran

    Originally posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
    Most muslim people I know have another way of communicating, often being more prone to threats, but it's usually empty threats. Not a good way of behaving in politics if you want to stimulate peace. It's also bad that the individual suicide bomber organizations never say what they demand/want in order to stop their attacks. So we can only guess, and in this case the guess is that Iran wouldn't accept measures preventing them from getting nuclear power because they want a secure and cheap resource of energy when they run out of oil. Both sides are extremely bad at communicating properly and it requires a person prepared to almost humiliate himself to communicate properly with the threats of Iran. Still, it can be done, and must be done, or the price is too high - for both parts.
    Caving into terrorist demands will not at any point stop them. It will merely point out that this is how you get what you want. They wont even attempt to go about anything peaceful. It is much like a child throwing a tantrum, if you give in and give them what they want then they will see that tantrum as an effective means of receiving what they want. Caving in will solve nothing, but only serve to bread more of the same and possibly worse. You must be rigid and not back down and they will eventually give up.

    As for humiliating ourselves to get iran to talk with us, no. This will only make them see that they have struck a cord with their threat. We the USA and EU have the position of power in diplomacy and backing down and bowing down will lose it. If they require us to humiliate ourselves just to communicate then they need to be righteously b*tch slapped back into their rightful position. Iran and their leaders think atm that they can get away with quite alot and receive no counterstrike, and rightly so they have for awhile. Its about time we taught them that they cannot get away with building nukes, violating treaties, and being an arrogant arse. Be it through trade embargo's, or war.
    Last edited by BigTex; 04-24-2006 at 20:46.
    Wine is a bit different, as I am sure even kids will like it.
    BigTex
    "Hilary Clinton is the devil"
    ~Texas proverb

  26. #56
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by BigTex
    Caving into terrorist demands will not at any point stop them. It will merely point out that this is how you get what you want. They wont even attempt to go about anything peaceful. It is much like a child throwing a tantrum, if you give in and give them what they want then they will see that tantrum as an effective means of receiving what they want. Caving in will solve nothing, but only serve to bread more of the same and possibly worse. You must be rigid and not back down and they will eventually give up.

    As for humiliating ourselves to get iran to talk with us, no. This will only make them see that they have struck a cord with their threat. We the USA and EU have the position of power in diplomacy and backing down and bowing down will lose it. If they require us to humiliate ourselves just to communicate then they need to be righteously b*tch slapped back into their rightful position. Iran and their leaders arrogantly think atm that they can get away with quite alot and receive no counterstrike, and rightly so they have for awhile. Its about time we taught them that they cannot get away with building nukes, violating treaties, and being an arrogant arse. Be it through trade embargo's, or war.

    The problem with the United States attempting to do this BigTex is that we would be the pot calling the kettle black. Europe and the United Nations must accomplish this task through diplomacy if it is to be resolved without war.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  27. #57
    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 Redleg
    The problem with the United States attempting to do this BigTex is that we would be the pot calling the kettle black. Europe and the United Nations must accomplish this task through diplomacy if it is to be resolved without war.
    Peaceful solutions are great. But the UN wont act, China and Russia wont allow that to happen. We're still trying to figure out how exactly we say "you cannot build nukes". EU is to busy with themselves. Personally I would much prefer the trade embargo. In fact it is probably the most effective answer, but again the China/Russia problem. But I would not like to be in a world with a nuclear iran. They've funded far to many terrorist groups and have a wonderful habit of chanting "death to Isreal... Death to USA" every sunday. The sad part is this will most likely happen, but bowing down and humiliating ourselves is not the answer.
    Last edited by BigTex; 04-24-2006 at 20:58.
    Wine is a bit different, as I am sure even kids will like it.
    BigTex
    "Hilary Clinton is the devil"
    ~Texas proverb

  28. #58
    BHCWarman88
    Guest

    Talking Re: Iran

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    The problem with the United States attempting to do this BigTex is that we would be the pot calling the kettle black. Europe and the United Nations must accomplish this task through diplomacy if it is to be resolved without war.

    but you can't do this though Dipomacy. You think the Talibian Would have Handed Osama Bin Laden over in 2001,eh,no.How about Saddum Hussan giving himself up,eh no.

    you think Iran Will give up this Nuclear Program by the Countries Saying "well,we don't want war,please stop...." oh ok, what we gonna do?? Boycott them? Ok go ahead, Iran will get even more mad,and it won't be looking good anyhow Redleg..

  29. #59
    Ming the Merciless is my idol Senior Member Watchman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    7,967

    Default Re: Iran

    Yeah, and another major war would be such an obviously better alternative...
    "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

  30. #60
    Awaiting the Rapture Member rotorgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in Kansas anymore Toto....
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: Iran

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
    Of course if attacked by nukes you may use nukes back. But only AFTER being attacked, and only if the attack was by nukes. All these factors are needed for avoiding an end to the implicit treaty.
    This is why I feel that any pre-emptive strike, if that is what it comes to, should be conventional, and directed solely at their nuclear fuel producing facilities. The technology is available for this. I would much rather see a negotiated settlement, however long it takes, if possible.

    Most muslim people I know have another way of communicating, often being more prone to threats, but it's usually empty threats. Not a good way of behaving in politics if you want to stimulate peace. It's also bad that the individual suicide bomber organizations never say what they demand/want in order to stop their attacks. So we can only guess, and in this case the guess is that Iran wouldn't accept measures preventing them from getting nuclear power because they want a secure and cheap resource of energy when they run out of oil. Both sides are extremely bad at communicating properly and it requires a person prepared to almost humiliate himself to communicate properly with the threats of Iran. Still, it can be done, and must be done, or the price is too high - for both parts.
    What do you suggest would be a suitable way for such a solution to come about? I can't imagine that the Bush administration or the Isreali governmaent is going to send a diplomat to publicly bow down and perform proskenisis to the Iranians, saying "Please oh great one, live forever, do not attack us with a missle."

    The inspections are nothing you have an automatic right to ask for. You probably want them, but there's no right for it. It's not something that justifies nuking them if they refuse inspections.
    I do not advocate a nuclear strike, as I've outlined above. As for the inspections, perhaps an agreement to impeach their insane President would quell my country's fears.

    Given that USA has earlier shown that they're prepared to invade countries in the Middle east (Afghanistan and Iraq comes to mind), it's understandable if Iran wants to keep anything they can about their military secret.
    Given the suicide attacks of 911, I suppose we are a bit prone to overreact. While the invasion of Iraq is debatable, what alternative was there to invading Afghanistan? The Taliban was so in bed with Osama Bin Laden and crew that there was no other way IMHO. I only wish that the Bush Whitehouse had not botched it so badly as to let them escape into Pakistan, as it happened. There is so much that was wrong with how that operation went, that I cannot begin to speak of it objectively; I brings tears to my eyes even now. The people of the United States are still bitterly disappointed over this. I'm afraid that the whole situation has tainted our views about the Islamic world for good.

    It's pure scare tactics and almost entire empty threats on their part. Surely there's some parts of real threat behind it, but if you look at how many of those who chant that that actually carry out an action in that direction, it's less than a PPM (parts per million).
    I sincerely hope that you are right, but would you stake the security of your country on this assumption withuot some tangable action on the part of Iran? As my wife is fond of reminding me, actions speak louder than words. How should Isreal feel about this? Do they not have a right to exist? I agree that something must be done to bring peace between them and the Palestinians, but should they be wiped off the face of the earth because they cannot find a way?

    No problem, your view is fairly moderate and actually very close to my own in many ways, in that you are interesting in avoiding the nuking. It also seems like you're really meaning it too as you are ready to listen to suggestions for methods to avoid the nuking, and are ready to take part in finding such ways yourself.
    I shall be the first to congratulate all parties if a cordial agreement can be reached. I always try to remember the words of one of my drill instructors "Never aim your weapon at anything that you do not intend to destroy and remember, a bullet cannot be stopped once it leaves the muzzle." Apologies accepted by all means. God Bless.
    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.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... 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