Iran

[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..

[Justiciar]

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.

[Major Robert Dump]

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.

[Major Robert Dump]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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"...:inquisitive:

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 :book:

~:smoking:

[Rodion Romanovich]

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...

[Major Robert Dump]

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.

[Dâriûsh]

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. :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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... :dizzy2: Now make up your mind - are you immune to nukes or not

[Banquo's Ghost]

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. :laugh4:

[discovery1]

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.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

And please stop the speeches preaching nazi and communistic idealogy, they don't belong here.


~:confused:

[Husar]

:laugh4:
That reminds me of people suggesting to nuke Dariush to hell....:no:

[BHCWarman88]

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.

[BigTex]

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.

[Justiciar]

And please stop the speeches preaching nazi and communistic idealogy, they don't belong here.
Well that made sense.. :no: I don't recall Haruchai mentioning the Working Man's Master Race at any point.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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. :laugh4:


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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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...

[Justiciar]

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.

[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.

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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? :inquisitive:

[BigTex]

I think I misunderstand. Are you suggesting that the EU would go to war with the USA? :inquisitive:

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.

[Watchman]

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...? :inquisitive:

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.


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.

[BHCWarman88]

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.

[Redleg]

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.:wall:

[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.



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 technologyWhat 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.

[rotorgun]

=Watchman]You sound quite certain. Bought a new crystal ball, or have you found out you're Nostradamus reborn...? :inquisitive: :laugh4:
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?

[Redleg]

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.

[AggonyDuck]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.



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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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?

[Watchman]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[BigTex]

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!

[solypsist]

okay guys let's get back on track.

[Kagemusha]

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.:embarassed: 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.:sick2:
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.

[Avicenna]

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"

[Avicenna]

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

Prodi.

[Ser Clegane]

Prodi.

Actually it's Carlo Azeglio Ciampi (Prodi is the designated Prime Minister)

[Watchman]

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...

[Ser Clegane]

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 ~:)

[rotorgun]

[/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.

[Watchman]

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...
:inquisitive:
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...

[Louis VI the Fat]

the assumption that Ahmajeddin is an unrestrained, suicidal lunatic [...]

Would someone care to explain why this is ? Here (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/berman200601190821.asp) 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.


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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

[Redleg]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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. :bow:

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

[BigTex]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[BigTex]

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.

[BHCWarman88]

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..

[Watchman]

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

[rotorgun]

[QUOTE=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.

[Kagemusha]

I dont understand why Russia keeps popping up in this conversation as a possible military ally of Iran. Its true that Russians make harsh statements all the time on their foreign policy.But the truth behind that is that those statements are infact aimed to Russian domestic policy. Its just a way of Russian politics to feed the sense of strength and honor of Russians and get some cheap points in the process. If Russia would really be hostile towards the West it would have escalated already few years back when the Baltic states entered NATO.At the moment there are NATO planes covering for example the Airspace of Estonia,only couple hundred kilometers from St.Petersburg.Back then the West entered really in the area that Russia thinks its part of its sphere of influence.And they didnt reacted anyway in the end.
If Iran would be put on trade embargo or attacked,it would only benefit the Russia,becouse as one of the biggest countries in Oil business the increase of Oil prizes would just increase her profits. If you look at any reacent conflicts,some Russian politics always give very hard statements,but like i sayed in the start of the post,in the end it doesnt have anything to do with her foreign politics.

[Redleg]

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.


So would you rather have a war over the possiblity of nuclear weapons being built in Iran? Again the United States can posture and bluster about the status of the Nuclear Weapons in Iran. Just like Iran is posturing and blustering about the nuclear material.

Committing troops against Iran will stretch our forces to the point that a national call-up will have to happen, (a draft along with a complete mobilization of all National Guard and Reserve forces.) Using Nuclear Weapons against another nation will also require the same call-up. Your kidding yourself if you don't think the use of nuclear weapons will not result in a heavy price to the United States.

The point is that the United States has done exactly what you have stated about the Iran postion.


Its about time we taught them that they cannot get away with building nukes, violating treaties, and being an arrogant arse.

The United States has done all three. We are not in a postion of diplomatic strength to be demanding Iran behaves. We can demand they behave from a military strength standpoint, and even an economic one - but not from a diplomatic one.

[Ser Clegane]

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?

Seriously - what can we realistically expect to do?

If Iran is indeed planning to develop nuclear weapons - and personally, I see no reason to believe that they aren't - what can we (or the world) realistically do about it?

Massive sanctions might work, however, sanctions imposed by the UN are completely unrealistic IMO as I have serious difficulties visioning a scenario in which China would support such sanctions (perhaps a guarantee by other security council members that they will replace the oil that China wouldn't get from Iran in case of an embargo - quite expensive and somewhat unlikely, but theoretically possible - and I guess China would insist on some other goodies on top of that).
Problem: I think it is beyond any doubt that Iran would go the extra mile to e.g., further destabilize the situation in Iraq which would result in a quite messy situation (compared to which the current situation might actually look stable and safe).

Strikes that only target the nuclear facilities would be completely worthless IMO - they would at best buy time to delay the inevitable, at the cost of a destabilization of the region (see above). It might be worthwhile if such strikes buy enough time to delay the nuclear ambitions enough until a regime change takes place (quite a gamble - a too risky one IMO).


A massive multinational invasion would be another option - I don't even think the US public would support such an endeavor that would dwarf the Iraq invasion in terms of costs in money and casualties - let alone any other Western nation. And apart from the extremely unlikely public support I also have some doubts that the massive loss of lives, the economic disaster and the resulting instability of the region would be justified by what could be gained by it (although Iran is currently one of the last nations I would like to see having access to nuclear weapons - objectively we already have a nation that could easily turn into a similar extremist state during the next 5 years and that already has nuclear weapons: Pakistan).

I won't even go into pre-emptive nuclear strikes as I think that most sane people will not consider this to be an actual option - once this becomes a viable option, we are entering a new era that I would rather not witness during my lifetime.

The bottomline seems to be that, in the end, all that the world seemingly can realistically do if Iran really is going after nuclear weapon technology, is to watch and hope that responsibility and the realization that nukes are a weapons that only gives you safety as long as you do not use it go hand in hand with the gain of power.

Do I like that idea? No! (and this development could hardly come at a worse time, with a seemingly mad demagogue being in a powerful position in Iran).
But unfortunately we will probably have to get used to the fact that Iran will not be the last nation that gains access to nukes (and which we would rather like not to have access).
To use a quote from Babylon 5:
"The avalanche has already started - it is to late for the pebbles to vote"

[Redleg]

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 might want to study history. The Taliban was given several outs to the problem - they refused to comply or negotate with anyone concerning the issue. A direction Iran is chosing to go at this time, but not all diplomatic recourses have been exhausted at this time.

Same situation with Iraq and Saddam Hussan - 14 times diplomacy was tried to resolve the issue, along with 12 years of conflict over the skies of Iraq. The failure of diplomacy can also be attribute to both sides (the United States, and Iraq). Are you wishing to go down this same path with Iran?

Are you willing to face the consequences of another war in the Middle-East on the resources of the United States. (include young men in that resource).



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..

Not at all - if Russia does not supply them with the material needed for futher research the cost raises dramaticly for Iran. If the European Union refuses to trade with Iran - the cost becomes high for Iran. Lots of ways to apply pressure without warfare that has not been done.

The United States has a history of conflict with Iran. The United States can not negotate a settlement to the issue because of that conflict. To much "face" would be lost. However Iran can negotate a peaceful solution with Europe and the United Nations if it so wishes. One must allow this process to be attempted.

While I think the UN is a worthless enity - it must be allowed to show wether it has truely become the useless enity I believe it is, or to prove itself still a player on the diplomatic stage of peaceful solutions to crisis.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

if Iran weren't controlled by some scary people looking forward to the return of the twelfth imam I wouldn't be too concerned. Hell, I wouldn't even have a problem with people looking forward to a messianic figure appearing if it weren't that it sounds like a great conflict is needed for the Mehdi to put in an appearance.

I'd say that a nuclear bomb could start such a great conflict.

[Redleg]

Seriously - what can we realistically expect to do?


Trade embrago's, diplomatic pressure, use the economic power of the EU to inform Iran about the wrongness of thier stated postion.



If Iran is indeed planning to develop nuclear weapons - and personally, I see no reason to believe that they aren't - what can we (or the world) realistically do about it?

Only the above - warfare is a last resort based upon the actions of Iran.



Massive sanctions might work, however, sanctions imposed by the UN are completely unrealistic IMO as I have serious difficulties visioning a scenario in which China would support such sanctions (perhaps a guarantee by other security council members that they will replace the oil that China wouldn't get from Iran in case of an embargo - quite expensive and somewhat unlikely, but theoretically possible - and I guess China would insist on some other goodies on top of that).
Problem: I think it is beyond any doubt that Iran would go the extra mile to e.g., further destabilize the situation in Iraq which would result in a quite messy situation (compared to which the current situation might actually look stable and safe).

The west must be willing to stand up - or not. Appeasement is what Iran is after, is the west willing to appease Iran, or is it willing to stand up and do the right thing. The United States is not in a postion to make demands of Iran, however Europe is.



Strikes that only target the nuclear facilities would be completely worthless IMO - they would at best buy time to delay the inevitable, at the cost of a destabilization of the region (see above). It might be worthwhile if such strikes buy enough time to delay the nuclear ambitions enough until a regime change takes place (quite a gamble - a too risky one IMO).


war with Iran must be a total war - or not at all.




A massive multinational invasion would be another option - I don't even think the US public would support such an endeavor that would dwarf the Iraq invasion in terms of costs in money and casualties - let alone any other Western nation. And apart from the extremely unlikely public support I also have some doubts that the massive loss of lives, the economic disaster and the resulting instability of the region would be justified by what could be gained by it (although Iran is currently one of the last nations I would like to see having access to nuclear weapons - objectively we already have a nation that could easily turn into a similar extremist state during the next 5 years and that already has nuclear weapons: Pakistan).

I won't even go into pre-emptive nuclear strikes as I think that most sane people will not consider this to be an actual option - once this becomes a viable option, we are entering a new era that I would rather not witness during my lifetime.

The bottomline seems to be that, in the end, all that the world seemingly can realistically do if Iran really is going after nuclear weapon technology, is to watch and hope that responsibility and the realization that nukes are a weapons that only gives you safety as long as you do not use it go hand in hand with the gain of power.

Do I like that idea? No! (and this development could hardly come at a worse time, with a seemingly mad demagogue being in a powerful position in Iran).
But unfortunately we will probably have to get used to the fact that Iran will not be the last nation that gains access to nukes (and which we would rather like not to have access).
To use a quote from Babylon 5:
"The avalanche has already started - it is to late for the pebbles to vote"


Agree with the rest for the most part - however the question still remains.

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

[Avicenna]

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...

a-woops. I assumed that PM and President were one and the same :sweatdrop:

[Watchman]

:dizzy2: You could say that in a sense that sort of proves my point...


Did the world not learn a lesson about appeasement in 1938?Oh, Christ...
:rtwno:
Lions.

[Ser Clegane]

Trade embrago's, diplomatic pressure, use the economic power of the EU to inform Iran about the wrongness of thier stated postion.

The west must be willing to stand up - or not. Appeasement is what Iran is after, is the west willing to appease Iran, or is it willing to stand up and do the right thing. The United States is not in a postion to make demands of Iran, however Europe is.

I completely agree that the West and especially the EU should try to put as much economic pressure on Iran as possible - however, I remain very sceptical that this will in the end be enough.
If Iran would only be after the prestige of gaining access to nuclear energy without depending on supplies from other nations (i.e. Russia) this pressure might be enough (but then, if that was Iran's aim we would currently only witness a relatively harmless power game).
However, if Iran is after nuclear weapons I fear pressure from Western nations will not be sufficient - China needs to be included - and persuading China to support an embargo might require concessions that the EU and the US might consider to costly.
Not saying that it is impossible and shouldn't at least be tried, but I fear the chances are pretty slim - we will see if the West can create a scenario in which Iran's leadership gets the impression that China might buy into an embargo and which also allows Iran to gracefully accept a compromise.

[Redleg]

:dizzy2: You could say that in a sense that sort of proves my point...

Oh, Christ...
:rtwno:
Lions.

Remind me what your point was, I missed it given that I normally ignore your posts.

[Redleg]

I completely agree that the West and especially the EU should try to put as much economic pressure on Iran as possible - however, I remain very sceptical that this will in the end be enough.
If Iran would only be after the prestige of gaining access to nuclear energy without depending on supplies from other nations (i.e. Russia) this pressure might be enough (but then, if that was Iran's aim we would currently only witness a relatively harmless power game).
However, if Iran is after nuclear weapons I fear pressure from Western nations will not be sufficient - China needs to be included - and persuading China to support an embargo might require concessions that the EU and the US might consider to costly.
Not saying that it is impossible and shouldn't at least be tried, but I fear the chances are pretty slim - we will see if the West can create a scenario in which Iran's leadership gets the impression that China might buy into an embargo and which also allows Iran to gracefully accept a compromise.

Thats the answer I was after.

If the west does not want to see Iran develop nuclear weapons it will have to be willing to pay a price. Wether that price be a deal with the China, or war. I prefer the peaceful solution, but appeasement now would only result in a higher price sometime in the future.

[Watchman]

Remind me what your point was, I missed it given that I normally ignore your posts.I'm flattered. The point about not all presidents being equal.

[Kagemusha]

I agree with Redleg and i think he is being a realist in this issue by pointing it out that everything else should be tryed before even thinking of military solution and also if there is no will from Our Western Nations to use all peacefull measures then we have to accept that Iran is a Nuclear power and also it must be made very clear to Iran so it understands in what kind of danger it has put its citizens by accuiring Nuclear weapons.
Ser Clegane about the trade Embargo and China.If the case is that We can not create an Embargo against Iran without China?Doesnt it that then already mean that Chinas trading power has become so great that they can control the policy of West?
I just hope that infact the case is not that we the West have just came so attached to our Economical profits that we choose loosing lives more happily then loosing profits.

[Watchman]

I think the main point is the simple fact the embargo would be rather hollow if China didn't deign to go along with it. The point isn't China's trade with the West, but with Iran.

'Course, if the embargo has to go through the Security Council there's the little issue of a permanent-member veto too...

[Redleg]

I think the main point is the simple fact the embargo would be rather hollow if China didn't deign to go along with it. The point isn't China's trade with the West, but with Iran.

'Course, if the embargo has to go through the Security Council there's the little issue of a permanent-member veto too...

Which would go about once again proving what I think about the UN.

[Ser Clegane]

Doesnt it that then already mean that Chinas trading power has become so great that they can control the policy of West?

Ultimately, I think the answer is yes. The economic power of the Western nations (and their allies in Asia) would still be strong enough to significantly hurt Iran - however, IMO China alone would be a strong enough trading partner to keep an Iran that is determined to get what it wants "alive" (and the Chinese economy has become too powerful and interlinked with Western nations that it could be "bullied" into supporting a boycott by threatening to boycott it as well if China continues trade with Iran)

[Watchman]

Well, it was built during the Cold War...

'Sides, it's better than nothing.

[Ser Clegane]

'Course, if the embargo has to go through the Security Council there's the little issue of a permanent-member veto too...

If Western nations can start an invasion of Iraq without security council approval an embargo without security council approval probably isn't unthinkable either.

[Kagemusha]

To be honest i agree that im very pessimistic about UN solving the problem. And when you look at the measures taken by EU.It seems more like that EU is just negotiating for the sake of negotiating. So the most possible scenario is just that if Iran wants its Nuclear capacity,Iran gets it.Lets just hope that Iran also aknowledges the responsibility what possessing weapons of mass destruction brings along.

[BigTex]

Ultimately, I think the answer is yes. The economic power of the Western nations (and their allies in Asia) would still be strong enough to significantly hurt Iran - however, IMO China alone would be a strong enough trading partner to keep an Iran that is determined to get what it wants "alive" (and the Chinese economy has become too powerful and interlinked with Western nations that it could be "bullied" into supporting a boycott by threatening to boycott it as well if China continues trade with Iran)

China's to dependant on Europe and the US it doesnt hold all the keys. If the EU and US were to come to the agreement of an embargo against iran then China could be muscled in with a little thing called tariffs. Granted it would hurt everyones economy for a bit, but China would eventually agree if they didn't, they'd eventually be broke. We arent so dependent on china that it would crush our economy's either. There are many countries that are developing now that would quickly fill their place, think philipines and india.


Originally posted by Redleg
If the west does not want to see Iran develop nuclear weapons it will have to be willing to pay a price. Wether that price be a deal with the China, or war. I prefer the peaceful solution, but appeasement now would only result in a higher price sometime in the future.

I'm in total agreement, except I have very little faith in the diplomatic solutions. I'm fully aware that war will cost tens of thousands of US/EU soldiers lives, and it would last for over a decade more then likely. Appeasement is a means to no end, it just escalates, look at what the Huns did to the Byzantines, bribery led to bigger bribery. Thats is what appeasement is though, bribery to not build nukes.

Iran is a difficult animal, every new option leads to a bigger struggle, and every struggle will lead to pain. Iran just doesnt understand Pax Atomica, if they get the bomb they wont use it to create peace. They will use it to create a jewish holocaust. Whatever we do with Iran, we must not back down from that route, we have to stick to it. We can't let the Cindy Sheehans of the world dissuade us when we are halfway down the road, we can't turn back then.

[solypsist]

who does everyone always say "invasion" ?? there's no need to invade - all it would take is a bombing run to set their nuclear program back to the stone age. totally winnable. they have no nukes again and mission accomplished.



A massive multinational invasion would be another option - I don't even think the US public would support such an endeavor that would dwarf the Iraq invasion in terms of costs in money and casualties - let alone any other Western nation. And apart from the extremely unlikely public support I also have some doubts that the massive loss of lives, the economic disaster and the resulting instability of the region would be justified by what could be gained by it (although Iran is currently one of the last nations I would like to see having access to nuclear weapons - objectively we already have a nation that could easily turn into a similar extremist state during the next 5 years and that already has nuclear weapons: Pakistan).

[Watchman]

Whatever we do with Iran, we must not back down from that route, we have to stick to it. We can't let the Cindy Sheehans of the world dissuade us when we are halfway down the road, we can't turn back then.You know, parts about that sound really, really creepy. They ring uncomfortably close to some excerpts from rhetoric I've seen from some, oh, fifty-sixty years ago.
:inquisitive:
Just thought I'd point that out.

[KrooK]

Warman don't watch american news
they are being CENSORED
Iran don't want attack nor USA nor IRAQ.
Furthermore this is only 1 really democratic coutry on middle east and they don't support terrorist. In Afghanistan they silently helped americans. Now they simply want be independent.

[BigTex]

Warman don't watch american news
they are being CENSORED
Iran don't want attack nor USA nor IRAQ.
Furthermore this is only 1 really democratic coutry on middle east and they don't support terrorist. In Afghanistan they silently helped americans. Now they simply want be independent.

https://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e331/Thammure/ir7xp3.jpg

Take a break from the coffee, and turn off the X-Files for awhile.

[Watchman]

Well, it's true that not counting India Iran is pretty much the exact one nation that can be considered democratic in the south-central part of Asia between Turkey and... wait, which is the first SE Asian democratic country counting from the west...?

[BHCWarman88]

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.


UN Won't Act on Anything if it involes War,The UN Troops run away like Panizes when they get shot at.



That Cindy Sheenan needs to Understand that, Her son jonied the Army. What do you expect when your kid jonis the Army?? that he or she will stay here?? not if there a War like in Iraq. When you join a Army,before or During a War, you taking a Risk that, if it before a war, that a War can happen anytime,and if it during a War, you taking a risk that,you may or may not be deploy on the Front Lines,and if you are, you taking another Risk of getting Killed. But when you join the Army, you Defending your Country, War or No War,and if you die defending your Country, you should be Honored like the rest of the US troops who died for the US Nation, not to have some Mommy whine about it God almigty.




and Krook

"Warman don't watch american news
they are being CENSORED
Iran don't want attack nor USA nor IRAQ.
Furthermore this is only 1 really democratic coutry on middle east and they don't support terrorist. In Afghanistan they silently helped americans. Now they simply want be independent."


but Iran Wants to take Irsreali Off the Map,Period .
and that's a Ploblem. Starting their "nuclear" program just as they saying that Krook,Really doesn't say much. Well, Afghanistan and Iraq Needs to get on their Feet,we can baby them for years to Come, or it Will Become Another Vietnam,it just can'y..

[BigTex]

Well, it's true that not counting India Iran is pretty much the exact one nation that can be considered democratic in the south-central part of Asia between Turkey and... wait, which is the first SE Asian democratic country counting from the west...?

From west to east.

Egypt, Turkey, Cyprus, Isreal, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Georgia, Armenia, Iran, Azerbalian, Kuwait, Qatar, URE, Turkmenistan, Oman, Afghanistan, Pakistan.

Here's a map, its a big one.

https://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e331/Thammure/middle_east_95.jpg

[Lord Winter]

The Iranians have UN treaty on there side, the NPT guarantees each state the right to nuclear power, and unless if the West can prove Iran is building weapons, Iran can keep saying that they are being denied there rights.



If the west does not want to see Iran develop nuclear weapons it will have to be willing to pay a price. Wether that price be a deal with the China, or war. I prefer the peaceful solution, but appeasement now would only result in a higher price sometime in the future.
Completly agree, but the question is will there be enough public support to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons or will we set the dangerous president that if you make the cost for the united states to high you can kick them around.




war with Iran must be a total war - or not at all. Only if we come in with the goal of making sure Iran never pursues nuclear weapons again. But there are options were we could maybe initiate a regime change. Besides total war would just inflame the people of Iran and extremist muslims like al quida, not to mention complicate the post war situation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think I misunderstand. Are you suggesting that the EU would go to war with the USA? :inquisitive:

I'm not going to quote everyone on what I said. I said nuke happy, i.e. they threatan to start blowing people up willy-nilly, in that case the EU, China and probably Russia, would have to invade. However the proposition is slightly less likely than the US actually trying to blow up the planet.

As to actually fighting America, the only real problem is getting there, which is a big problem.

As I said Iran aquiring Nuclear weapons would seriously upset the balance of power and destabalize the region. That alone should be enough reason to invade. Bear in mind, the Strategic objective would be to remove Iran's nuclear capability. A smart commander would initiate a WWII level bombing campaign on all the cities and instalations involved in the refinement of Urananium and then repulse the Iranian land army when they moved into Iraq. Once said Army is rendered inoperable and the nuclear capability is removed you can pack up and go home.

That would be the way to achieve the strategic objective, because the objective doesn't require you to hold the country or change the regime. Its not nice, it wouldn't be popular but it would be smart.

Using Nukes is just stupid, WWII was probably the only time using Nukes was ever clever.

[Redleg]

The Iranians have UN treaty on there side, the NPT guarantees each state the right to nuclear power, and unless if the West can prove Iran is building weapons, Iran can keep saying that they are being denied there rights.

The west also have the same treaty on their side. So both sides can continue to site the other as attempting to violate the treaty.



Completly agree, but the question is will there be enough public support to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons or will we set the dangerous president that if you make the cost for the united states to high you can kick them around.

An even dangerous one will be set - that the world community will always appease those who are aggressive in pursueing their own agenda. I see how everyone focus only on the United States in that aspect. The European Union has just a big a stake in this as the United States. The United Nations has just a big of a stake as the United States also.



Only if we come in with the goal of making sure Iran never pursues nuclear weapons again. But there are options were we could maybe initiate a regime change. Besides total war would just inflame the people of Iran and extremist muslims like al quida, not to mention complicate the post war situation.

If the nations of the world decide that Iran must be stopped by means other then diplomacy - if thier not willing to face war on its most destructive level - then the world just better let Iran do what it wants.

Any military option will intiate some type of warfare beyond a simple bombing strike against Iran to halt their production/research of nuclear weapons. If one goes to war without using every resource that is at their disposial - then they are setting themselves up for failure. If one disregards the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq in that aspect - then they deserve what will happen when it esclates beyond the abilities of the forces alreadly committed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, it's true that not counting India Iran is pretty much the exact one nation that can be considered democratic in the south-central part of Asia between Turkey and... wait, which is the first SE Asian democratic country counting from the west...?

Your quip is outstripping your wit here -- your often viscious with your humor, but usually clear. Do you want us to name the Westernmost Asiatic Democracy? (Russia) The Westernmost Southeast Asiaitic Democracy exlcusive of India? (Thailand or Russia, again) Or perhaps you mean name any Democracy aside from Turkey or Iran in the Middle East? (Israel, btw, though I'm not sure you personally recognize their right to exist).

[Banquo's Ghost]

As to actually fighting America, the only real problem is getting there, which is a big problem.

Hmm.

You know the first rule of warfare: 'Never invade Russia in winter'?

I think you just trumped it. How about:

'Never invade an overwhelming nuclear superpower via the Atlantic/Pacific.'

:laugh4:

[Haudegen]

I don´t think that Iran deserves the label "democracy". In the elections there the mullahs decide who can be a candidate for parliament.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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."


Yes, the problem is the risk that the negotiations will start with a few minutes of humiliating comments from Iran until they would trust the negotiation. But a good president should be strong enough to be able to cope with being humiliated. Being humiliated for a few minutes is not a high price for avoiding what could possible spiral into an Armageddon like war within 5-10 years from that time.


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?

The security has already been staked for centuries, by allowing any nation that might become hostile in the future to exist. It's impossible to find a situation where security isn't risked in one way or another. Therefore it's necessary to make sure that the hostility decreases, alternatives are given, and so on. If the hostility gets great enough Iran might even manage to buy nukes from countries like Russia or Pakistan without having to own the facilities. They could have done that already if they wanted to. The fact that they haven't, shows that they are not yet hostile enough to want to use a nuke. Therefore no first strike is necessary. However, if Iran starts creating facilities for massproduction of nukes and have say 10 or more nukes on the way for completion, then there's reason for worries. But until then, it's so likely that they aren't that hostile yet that any further attacks because we don't trust them would only bring them closer to the point where they will consider using nukes.

One possible solution that I have mentioned was to offer a cheaper energy supply solution than Iranian nuclear power plants. Together with such a treaty there could be a non-attack promise lasting for those 10 years, and in return for the promise Iran would promise not to build nuclear power plants or nuke creation facilities during these 10 years, and also allow inspections of suspicious sites during these 10 years. This solution would take into account the most probable desires Iran has behind it's nuclear power program, and the safety concerns USA has, but there might be more things the parts desire so those have to be agreed upon by communication and negotiation, from a president strong enough to be able to handle the humiliation and lack of trust problems that would exist at the beginning of such a discussion, and be able to overcome them. Ideally the communication could even be held in a text-based form by computers to avoid staring-games and herd mentality effects that would reinforce the existing lack of trust and instead allow for a more honest communication. Face to face communication has seldom worked well for discussing important political questions. There should also be enough time for both sides to formulate their answers, so a more forum-like than chat-like communication would be ideal for the discussions.

[spmetla]

Right now as I see it and as stated by previous posts in this thread the only immediate solution is a total economic embargo involving US, EU, Russia, and China. Unfortunately most of the nations needed I doubt would be willing to do this. Iran has oil and needs to buy foriegn goods and if all it's oil markets and imports were forced to come from a single nation that nation would probably prefer temperary economic prosperity to a loss (think Prussia leaving Austrian Empire alone to Napoleon). It's only be a short term solution but for that nation but that's likely to be ignored.

Russia is happy to play one against the other. Although it's still a power since the end of the Cold War it's been scrambling for it's lost prestige and I think Putin would be willing to leave the US and possibly the EU out alone against Iran to weaken their standing in the world and help Russia's ailing economy.

China is in the same boat as Russia, it sees Iran as a potential to weaken "the West" economcially and diplomatically and the requirement for Chinese approval to any serious embargo on Iran might be what the Chinese are looking for to assert itself as a serious worldpower and not just a marketplace for Western goods.

The EU unfortunately is too indecisive to do anything in the near future to Iran. The amount of time for desicions to be made along with the understandable distaste for war that Europe has gotten in recent years makes putting real pressure on Iran unlikely. I don't believe that the EU will take Iran seriously as the threat it is now until it HAS already gotten the nuclear power it's seeking and the capability to extend their missile range it's current range of the Balkans to Berlin, London, and Paris. By that time when the danger of war is too great I find it hard to imagine that any European nation will risk conflict with Iran. I also feel that the Iranians are well aware of that and know that time is on their side.

The only nation right now with the might to project power and change in Iran in a military manner is the US. As said earlier war with Iran would have to be total war. The possible use of nuclear weapons is there but I imagine that would only occur if the Iranians already have nuclear weapons and only as a first stike weapon against those Iranian nuclear sites. The US ground forces are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Central Command for coalition forces in the Middle East (Quatar) is within easy missile and strike fighter range. Although the Naval and Aero threat threat to the US and current Coalition forces would be shortlived (although very dangerous) and the cabalility of US Strategic forces to project themselves in Iran with extreme force even without nuclear weapons is all hindered by the presence of venerable troops in Iraq in Afghanistan. Despite the qualitative advantage the US has over Iran the numbers of conventional forces that the Iranians could send into Iraq and Afghanistan would be unstopable. The US Army and Marines simply aren't capable of fighting a large scale conventional war and policing Iraq at the same time. This present danger to the US is probably the key reason the current administration hasn't come to blows with Iran just yet.

As Redleg said the US has too much on it's plate, right now the Iranians hold too many advantages if war between the US and Iran happened. They would probably add succesfully Iraq and possibly Afghanistan to their new Persian Empire and the problem is that they are well aware of this. The USAF can bomb all it wants but history has shown that short of nuclear weapons you can't bomb a country into submission. The EU is the only ally the US has that could supplement the troops the US doesn't have numerically and of sufficient quality to completely win a war with Iran. Sealanes and Airspace aren't enough. The EU needs to step up economic pressure and be absolutely willing to use force together with the US if nessasery otherwise it's diplomacy won't be taken seriously and we WILL have a nuclear Iran to deal with.

[Husar]

If China won´t help the UN with an Embargo, the UN could invade China, set up a puppet government and all will be fine.
Sometimes the solution is so easy and obvious.:idea2:

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

did you hear the news?
The Iranian leadership are apparently saying that they are willing to start transfering nuclear technology to other countries.

:no:

:skull:

[Louis VI the Fat]

If China won´t help the UN with an Embargo, the UN could invade China, set up a puppet government and all will be fine.
Sometimes the solution is so easy and obvious.:idea2:Yes, but if things were this easy the UN might as well save itself the trouble and invade Iran and set up that puppet regime there...:idea2:

[Avicenna]

Nah, the UN wouldn't. The US, Japan and Australia wouldn't support it, seeing as China is a major trading partner with these three countries. Without the support of the 2 countries that dish out the most cash of the UN and give the UN most of its troops.. I don't think an attack could take place. Anyway, it's not that easy to go to war. Who'd voluntarily sign up against China? It would be close to certain death for the first troops there, that's for sure. Nobody wants a world war now, either.

[Husar]

Yes, but if things were this easy the UN might as well save itself the trouble and invade Iran and set up that puppet regime there...:idea2:
No, that would mean a lot of losses in the war with Iran.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No, that would mean a lot of losses in the war with Iran.Uh, yes, I must admit there is a compelling logic to the statement that avoiding war with Iran would prevent a lot of losses in the war with Iran.

But just why it for that reason somehow would be preferable to attack China is a bit beyond me. Maybe I missed the irony in your previous post.

[Lord Winter]

The EU unfortunately is too indecisive to do anything in the near future to Iran. The amount of time for desicions to be made along with the understandable distaste for war that Europe has gotten in recent years makes putting real pressure on Iran unlikely. I don't believe that the EU will take Iran seriously as the threat it is now until it HAS already gotten the nuclear power it's seeking and the capability to extend their missile range it's current range of the Balkans to Berlin, London, and Paris. By that time when the danger of war is too great I find it hard to imagine that any European nation will risk conflict with Iran. I also feel that the Iranians are well aware of that and know that time is on their side.

If the world truly wants to stop nuclear profilation they must do it now or else any country will think they can get away with it.

[Don Corleone]

Iran has pretty much already said as soon as they become nuclear capable, they are going to do whatever it takes to eliminate Israel. I would imagine this includes a nuclear first strike against Israel. They're also now saying they will freely distribute nuclear technology around the world.

It's not a question of if, but when. But hey, maybe we need to have some more discussions and 'express our lack of willingness to accept all this' at the UN. It's surely worked wonders for us thus far.

[Ser Clegane]

Iran has pretty much already said as soon as they become nuclear capable, they are going to do whatever it takes to eliminate Israel. I would imagine this includes a nuclear first strike against Israel. They're also now saying they will freely distribute nuclear technology around the world.

Actually I am pretty sure that they didn't say it this way as it would mean that they admit to developing nuclear weapons which they clearly didn't (yet).

The sabre rattling towards Israel is not a threat to nuke them as soon as possible (doing so would be quite silly), but serves as a means to present Iran as the champion of the muslim world against the "common foe" Israel, to gather the support of the muslim world for Iran's nuclear ambitions.

What's your suggestion what should be done, Don?


China's to dependant on Europe and the US it doesnt hold all the keys. If the EU and US were to come to the agreement of an embargo against iran then China could be muscled in with a little thing called tariffs. Granted it would hurt everyones economy for a bit, but China would eventually agree if they didn't, they'd eventually be broke. We arent so dependent on china that it would crush our economy's either. There are many countries that are developing now that would quickly fill their place, think philipines and india.
No - China doesn't "hold all the keys" but to believe that the West could "muscle" China into supporting a boycott of its newly chosen main supplier of oil, just by increasing tariffs and starting a trade war is a bit optimistic to say the least.
And if you believe that the Philippines or India could just "quickly fill China's place" I am wondering what that idea is based on - do you think that all the Western investments in China can just be packed together in a couple of weeks and be shipped to another country?


who does everyone always say "invasion" ?? there's no need to invade - all it would take is a bombing run to set their nuclear program back to the stone age. totally winnable. they have no nukes again and mission accomplished
I doubt that a bombing run will be sufficient to set the nuclear program back to the stone age - AFAIK the setup of the facilities suggests that they cannot easily be completely destroyed by a targeted (conventional) airstrike alone.

[BHCWarman88]

https://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e331/Thammure/ir7xp3.jpg

Take a break from the coffee, and turn off the X-Files for awhile.


haha,I love that pic,lol yup..




but Anyhow,


UN can't do anything,like,Say "don't go to war,don't go to war" then when Isreial gets blow to Heck and Back "well,lets vote to see what countries want to go to war or not" screw the UN.


Second,

I see no Appreatly Threat from China.Russia won't join in a War,they aren't ready for a major one anyhow. But what Can China do with 2,000,000+ Troops? Do they actually have Excellent Mitliary Weapons, or Merdciore Weapons and just plain on taking out USA if we go to war with Iran??

[Ser Clegane]

But what Can China do with 2,000,000+ Troops? Do they actually have Excellent Mitliary Weapons, or Merdciore Weapons and just plain on taking out USA if we go to war with Iran??

~:confused:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I doubt that a bombing run will be sufficient to set the nuclear program back to the stone age - AFAIK the setup of the facilities suggests that they cannot easily be completely destroyed by a targeted (conventional) airstrike alone.

Agreed. Iran, having learned the lesson of its neighbor in the 1980's has a far more diffuse and physically difficult to reach set-up of key sites and facilities. But difficult is not impossible. While emulating the Israelis one-strike/one facility takeout would be impossible, anything we can detect we can bomb and -- with the right bomb -- kill. Admittedly, some of the facilities in those mountains might require developing a penetrator the likes of which has not yet been seen, but don't count it out.

[Lord Winter]

haha,I love that pic,lol yup..




but Anyhow,


UN can't do anything,like,Say "don't go to war,don't go to war" then when Isreial gets blow to Heck and Back "well,lets vote to see what countries want to go to war or not" screw the UN.


Second,

I see no Appreatly Threat from China.Russia won't join in a War,they aren't ready for a major one anyhow. But what Can China do with 2,000,000+ Troops? Do they actually have Excellent Mitliary Weapons, or Merdciore Weapons and just plain on taking out USA if we go to war with Iran??
The UN's main role in Iran is sanctions. The bigist worry from chinia and russia is there veto power over any sanctions proposed.


But what Can China do with 2,000,000+ Troops? Do they actually have Excellent Mitliary Weapons, or Merdciore Weapons and just plain on taking out USA if we go to war with Iran?? 2,000,000 troops and 400 nuclear weapons. Weapons arent everything in war far from it, as clauswitz (sp) said there is more to war then just war.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmm.

You know the first rule of warfare: 'Never invade Russia in winter'?

I think you just trumped it. How about:

'Never invade an overwhelming nuclear superpower via the Atlantic/Pacific.'

:laugh4:

True, my point was a Nuke is like a sniper rifle, useless up close.

Iran has stated from the get go that they want to destroy Isreal, thats nothing new. As I said before, a quick bloody war to destroy Iran's nuclear capability and then a defensive action against their non-nuclear forces is the best option. Regime change isn't possible really, so it isn't worth trying.

As to China, they're like Russia, numbers are all they really have. Soviet Doctrine requires a totally infleaxable force to guard against mutiny. Kill the generals and the house of cards collapses.

I think with Iran it has always been a question of "when." A country that has as one of its stated aims the destruction of another country is not legitimate. As to the practicalities of nuking Isreal, think about it, this is the culture that gave us suicide bombers.

[BHCWarman88]

*You might want to study history.* The Taliban was given several outs to the problem - they refused to comply or negotate with anyone concerning the issue. A direction Iran is chosing to go at this time, but not all diplomatic recourses have been exhausted at this time.

Same situation with Iraq and Saddam Hussan - 14 times diplomacy was tried to resolve the issue, along with 12 years of conflict over the skies of Iraq. The failure of diplomacy can also be attribute to both sides (the United States, and Iraq). Are you wishing to go down this same path with Iran?

Are you willing to face the consequences of another war in the Middle-East on the resources of the United States. (include young men in that resource)


*actually do*






Ok,if Diplomatic resources won't work,what will we do? Boycott? ok,sounds good.Now,if Boycotting Fails,what then? No other Options,so,War is the only Option after those 2 been exhasuted.


Yes,I would,there would be no Other Options if Boycotting And/Or Diplomatic Resources failed.

[Tribesman]

As to the practicalities of nuking Isreal, think about it, this is the culture that gave us suicide bombers.

I thought that was the Japanese culture , or the Sri Lankan culture .

A country that has as one of its stated aims the destruction of another country is not legitimate.
You mean like N.Korea , China ( up until recently Taiwan) , Turkey , Armenia Azerbaijan , Russia , hey you could even add Britain and the US to the list , or India , Pakistan . Or if you look at political parties stated aims you could add Israel and Palestine
Not to mention that many of those already have nukes , and have several have given nuclear technology to others .


One major problem in gaining consensus for any action is credibility , some silly bugger has been shown to cry wolf when there was none , now they cry wolf again but it falls on slightly jaded ears .
To reinforce their cries they recently issued an intelligence assesment on Iran from a certain Iranian exile group , which was strange as the group is on the proscribed terrorist organisations list and I thought that they didn't deal with terrorists , let alone terrorists that were backed by Saddam .:inquisitive:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As to the practicalities of nuking Isreal, think about it, this is the culture that gave us suicide bombers.
I thought that was the Japanese culture , or the Sri Lankan culture .
Japan was different, in that they were flying their planes into ships, the equivelant of a glory charge by a group of Western Knights. Its an extreme example but the thinking is somewhat different. As to Sri-Lanka, while I'm vagely aware of what you're talking about I must confess ignorance as to details. If they were Muslims my point stands. Regardless the Jihad Matyr was my main point and that stands.


A country that has as one of its stated aims the destruction of another country is not legitimate.
You mean like N.Korea , China ( up until recently Taiwan) , Turkey , Armenia Azerbaijan , Russia , hey you could even add Britain and the US to the list , or India , Pakistan . Or if you look at political parties stated aims you could add Israel and Palestine
Not to mention that many of those already have nukes , and have several have given nuclear technology to others .[QUOTE=Tribesman]

Who have Britain and the US pledged to utterly destroy and drive into the see? As to China and North Korea, they're on my list already. The others, well with the exception of Palastine and Isreal I don't know what you're talking about. India and Pakistan are currently at peace, albeit an uneasy one.


[QUOTE=Tribesman][One major problem in gaining consensus for any action is credibility , some silly bugger has been shown to cry wolf when there was none , now they cry wolf again but it falls on slightly jaded ears .
To reinforce their cries they recently issued an intelligence assesment on Iran from a certain Iranian exile group , which was strange as the group is on the proscribed terrorist organisations list and I thought that they didn't deal with terrorists , let alone terrorists that were backed by Saddam .:inquisitive:

Don't get me stated on the way America does buisness. As to crying wolf, just because it had run away by the time we got there doesn't mean it wasn't there and this time we can see the wolf coming. Although I do agree, there is justifiably little confidence these days.

[KrooK]

Big Tex and you go to school, learn other langue and listen to the news there.
Good option for you would be listenting to BBC - they are impartial.
Otherwise you will be like you president.

[Redleg]

Big Tex and you go to school, learn other langue and listen to the news there.
Good option for you would be listenting to BBC - they are impartial.
Otherwise you will be like you president.

Very Weak :no:

[BHCWarman88]

Very Weak :no:



Agreed

[Papewaio]

All those who are saying that getting on the bad side of China is okay I suggest turning off your PC now.

Because it may be a long time before you get any more (cheap) electronics and you may want to preserve what you have.

How many countries actually have a trade surplus with China?


The U.S. Department of Commerce today reported that the international deficit in goods and services trade reached a record level of $726 billion in 2005, an 18% increase over 2004. The U.S. merchandise deficit alone, which excludes services, was $782 billion, also an 18% increase. The overall deficit increased $1 billion in December alone, to the third highest monthly level on record. The goods and services deficit as a share of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) increased to an unprecedented 5.8% in 2005 (Figure A ). Rapid increases in the price of oil and related products were responsible for 63% of the increase in the deficit. The growth of the trade deficit with China, which reached $202 billion in 2005, was responsible for the entire increase in the United States’ non-oil trade deficit. The trade deficit in manufactured products (net of refined petroleum) increased $46 billion, to $655 billion (an 8% increase).

USA

China's Trade Performance (http://www.uschina.org/public/documents/2006/02/foreign-trade-2006.html)

[Tribesman]

Japan was different, in that they were flying their planes into ships, the equivelant of a glory charge by a group of Western Knights. Its an extreme example but the thinking is somewhat different. As to Sri-Lanka, while I'm vagely aware of what you're talking about I must confess ignorance as to details. If they were Muslims my point stands. Regardless the Jihad Matyr was my main point and that stands.

So Japan was different , because they were killing by commiting suicide , the western knights were different because they were becoming glorious martyrs , you confess ignorance of the modern terrorist suicide bombers which pre date those in the mid-east , but regardless of that its the muslims that gave the world suicidal killers .....Right :dizzy2:

Who have Britain and the US pledged to utterly destroy and drive into the see?

Well that would be Saddam Hussains Iraq , they pledged to utterly destroy it , and they are , same with the Talibans Afghanistan .Now they want the same with the mullahs Iran .
As to China and North Korea, they're on my list already.
So two more countries on the list then .
The others, well with the exception of Palastine and Isreal I don't know what you're talking about.
Ummmm...they are all countries that wish to destroy other countries , there are plenty more to add to the list if you want .
India and Pakistan are currently at peace, albeit an uneasy one.

Yeah strange sitution there isn't it , whatever happened to that independant country that was given its right to self determination and independance at the time of partirtion ? Kashmir was its name .

So your point was , Iran is unique because of its aims , but it is just like many other countries....errrr...not quite unique then .

As to crying wolf, just because it had run away by the time we got there doesn't mean it wasn't there and this time we can see the wolf coming.
OMG ....don't tell me you are one of them conspiracy nuts who still think it was all shipped off to Syria or Narnia .:laugh4:

[Husar]

All those who are saying that getting on the bad side of China is okay I suggest turning off your PC now.

Because it may be a long time before you get any more (cheap) electronics and you may want to preserve what you have.

How many countries actually have a trade surplus with China?

My suggested puppet government in China would not only reduce the losses in the war with Iran, it would also allow us to keep up trade with them.:idea2:
And Louis, be aware of the irony.:2thumbsup:

Concerning the more serious problem of Iran´s nuclear capabilities, I remember the Israelis doing a successful aerial raid to destroy an Iraqi reactor back in the 80ies or so. Apparently Iraq didn´t try to build a new reactor. I don´t know the circumstances about Iran´s reactor(where it geographically is, how it is guarded, how competent/trained their AAA is) but a similar thing might work here, too. Or 100 conventional cruise missiles or something like that(100 so they can´t intercept them all of course).
Iran will then be very upset of course, but the wuestion is whether they really dare to strike back.

[Redleg]

Japan was different, in that they were flying their planes into ships, the equivelant of a glory charge by a group of Western Knights. Its an extreme example but the thinking is somewhat different. As to Sri-Lanka, while I'm vagely aware of what you're talking about I must confess ignorance as to details. If they were Muslims my point stands. Regardless the Jihad Matyr was my main point and that stands.

So Japan was different , because they were killing by commiting suicide , the western knights were different because they were becoming glorious martyrs , you confess ignorance of the modern terrorist suicide bombers which pre date those in the mid-east , but regardless of that its the muslims that gave the world suicidal killers .....Right :dizzy2:

Attempting to spin the difference is rather disingenuous. In one examble the suicidal effort is done in battle, in the other the suicidal effort is done against a civilian target. One was done in battle, one is done as a political tool.

Throwing Sri-Lanka into the discussion is also rather disingenuous since the use of terrorist bombing of civilians pre-dates even that conflict. And if one reviews history just a tad - they will find that while the Tamil Tigers have prefected the tactic, most of the first of the modern sucidial bombings happened in the Middle-East.

Since I am too Lazy to dig out a book - Wikipedia has a write up on it.

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


Modern suicide bombing as a political tool can be traced back to the assisination of Czar Alexander II of Russia in 1881. Alexander fell victim to a Nihilist plot. While driving on one of the central streets of St. Petersburg, near the Winter Palace, he was mortally wounded by the explosion of hand-made grenades and died a few hours afterwards. The Czar was killed by the Pole Ignacy Hryniewiecki (1856-1881), who died while intentionally exploding the bomb in during the attack.

[Tribesman]

The Czar was killed by the Pole Ignacy Hryniewiecki (1856-1881), who died while intentionally exploding the bomb in during the attack.
Ah , so it was Polish Muslims then :2thumbsup:

Attempting to spin the difference is rather disingenuous. In one examble the suicidal effort is done in battle, in the other the suicidal effort is done against a civilian target.
Vive la difference Red , since yesterdays suicide bombing in Egypt was against a military target then how does that spin into it ?
most of the first of the modern sucidial bombings happened in the Middle-East.

Yep and most of the first suicide bombings in the Middle-East were also against military targets ..... so the point is....does any of that factually fit with this statement ....think about it, this is the culture that gave us suicide bombers. ?.....nope .

Funnily enough , the lazy link you gave puts the first suicide bombing in Israel down to the Japanese , but I suppose they could have been radical Muslim communist Japanese , just to fit with the "culture" thing ~;)
Members of the JRA became instructors in martial art and Kamikaze operations at several Hezbollah training camps bringing the suicide techniques to the Middle East.

[BigTex]

Big Tex and you go to school, learn other langue and listen to the news there.
Good option for you would be listenting to BBC - they are impartial.
Otherwise you will be like you president.

Learn to take a joke. And no the bbc isnt impartial. Personally I find most european newspapers to be anti-USA, and why would I want to read a paper that blames me and my country for all evils? And yes, yes Iran wants to attack the USA, and yes they are assisting terrorists in iraq. Please, I insist were is the NewYork Times being censored, and please don't bring up conspiracy therories, the last one just about killed those poor little aliens in Area 51.

[spmetla]

My suggested puppet government in China would not only reduce the losses in the war with Iran, it would also allow us to keep up trade with them.:idea2:
And Louis, be aware of the irony.:2thumbsup:

Concerning the more serious problem of Iran´s nuclear capabilities, I remember the Israelis doing a successful aerial raid to destroy an Iraqi reactor back in the 80ies or so. Apparently Iraq didn´t try to build a new reactor. I don´t know the circumstances about Iran´s reactor(where it geographically is, how it is guarded, how competent/trained their AAA is) but a similar thing might work here, too. Or 100 conventional cruise missiles or something like that(100 so they can´t intercept them all of course).
Iran will then be very upset of course, but the wuestion is whether they really dare to strike back.


First of all you'd have to fight a war with china to establish a puppet goverment there which would be costly and time consuming and by the time it would be won Iran would have had nuclear weapons for a long time. That and the Chinese already have nuclear weapons along with a huge army and air force (shoddily equiped but overwhelming numbers).

Iran has LOTS of potentional sites for it's nuclear reactor spread throughout their country. The terrain is mountainous and a lot of their strategic capabilities (conventional arms) are already stored underground which is where they'd probably conduct their nuclear research. Get through their AA is not really the problem, B-2 bombers can enter Iranian airspace and bomb at will but if the targets are buried targets and hardened then the B-2 would have to drop fairly substantion munitions to completely destroy it.

I'd bet all my money on an Iranian counterattack happening. If the US wasn't worried about a counterattack then military action would probably already have happened but with so many Coalition forces with short distances of Iran's borders and the in ability for the USAF and USN to provide 100% fighter protection for all ground forces in the region would probably mean that US troops would have to face Iranian air attacks along with defending against an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

To take military action against Iran you'd have to plan on a full out conventional war against Iran and with the US's ground forces bogged down already in a guerilla war they wouldn't be able to at the same time fight off the Iranian Army. This is why the US can not take action on Iran without the EU. Although Russia could provide numbers it's army is in a state of deteroration and is in no shape for another war in Southern Asia. The EU specifically France and Germany are the only "allied" nations that have the numbers of troops available and of sufficient quality and training to supplement the US's forces. Of course as we all well know niether of these nations are likely to take action soon against Iran and Germany is without the capabilities to transport troops in large numbers overseas. Therefore the ball effectively falls in the France's court. They have the naval and aerial capability and their Army is definately up to the task. But they'd have to deal with the probablity of mass riots (again) within their borders if they were to attack an Islamic nation such as Iran along with the political problems and civilian discontent of having to fight a costly (monetarialy and in human lives) war that they'd rather appease instead.

[BHCWarman88]

or..

Just Nuke Iraq,that will take care of the Gurilla Warfare and we can concrete our troops there on Iran now..

[spmetla]

I think having to fighting in nuclear fall isn't much of a combat mulitiplier.

[rotorgun]

I think having to fighting in nuclear fall isn't much of a combat mulitiplier.
Roger that! If you've never spent about four hours in an NBC suit and protective mask combination in the middle of a hot desert (I have), than you have no idea the can of worms you are wanting to open up by nuking Iraq. I would rather take my chances with a horde of suicide bombers coming at me than having to deal with fighting in nuclear fallout. I might as well kill as many of them as I can, cause I would never survive the radiation.

@BHCWarman88: Real good plan there hotshot! I need a few guys like you in my unit.

[Husar]

First of all you'd have to fight a war with china to establish a puppet goverment there which would be costly and time consuming and by the time it would be won Iran would have had nuclear weapons for a long time. That and the Chinese already have nuclear weapons along with a huge army and air force (shoddily equiped but overwhelming numbers).
Ok, I quoted you, and now I will quote....
be aware of the irony.
~;)

Concerning the other part, I was just saying that with Iraq bombing their testreactor worked and it might work with Iran as well.

[Lord Winter]

or..

Just Nuke Iraq,that will take care of the Gurilla Warfare and we can concrete our troops there on Iran now..
just and nuke do not go in the same sentence together. There would be massive civilian casualties, fall out that would probably spread to other countries, not to mention the uproar that would be initiated in congress, and when I say uproar I am talking about impeachment.

[BHCWarman88]

"massive civilian casualties"
awwww

and how Many Civilians Died Alreeady due to those Stupid Gureilla Fighters Sudicene Bombers Killed Already?? I think I heard 16,000 thousands or so.Mabye I'm wrong,but that Midde East is F up,period.

[Louis VI the Fat]

"massive civilian casualties"
awwww

and how Many Civilians Died Alreeady due to those Stupid Gureilla Fighters Sudicene Bombers Killed Already?? I think I heard 16,000 thousands or so.Mabye I'm wrong,but that Midde East is F up,period.Yes, but that's why those Stupid Gureilla Fighters Sudicene Bombers are called terrorists. I was told America went to war in Iraq to combat this terrorism, not join it.

Because unlike them, the West is supposed to value innocent lives. To neither wantonly kill nor torture people. There is always the urge to avenge, to give in to hatred and fear. To unleash your full power and rage, uncontrolled. But by choosing that path you will join them in the dark side...

[Ice]

"massive civilian casualties"
awwww

and how Many Civilians Died Alreeady due to those Stupid Gureilla Fighters Sudicene Bombers Killed Already?? I think I heard 16,000 thousands or so.Mabye I'm wrong,but that Midde East is F up,period.

I don't think you grasp the power a nuclear weapon has. It would be much higher then 16,000 dead.

[spmetla]

Ok, I quoted you, and now I will quote....
~;)

Concerning the other part, I was just saying that with Iraq bombing their testreactor worked and it might work with Iran as well.

Sorry for taking your post seriously, sometimes my brain doesn't fully register what it reads. :dizzy2:

One of the reasons that the Israeli strikes were so succesful was because at the time the Iraqi miiltary was tied up in the Iran Iraq war. Iraq's succesful offensive of the previous fall had already bogged down due to unexpected resistance and the Iraqi Air Force was fully engaged with Iran. With their armed forces all tied up in this engagement risking a war with Israel as well would have been folly.

The situation in Iran at present is different. This time the nuclear aspirer is the one with no military entanglements and the would be enforcer is the one bogged down in military conflict. If the US wasn't tied down with a war already it could engage in strikes easily and with no or at least little fear of retaliation but unfortunately the situation is not that.


massive civilian casualties"
awwww

and how Many Civilians Died Alreeady due to those Stupid Gureilla Fighters Sudicene Bombers Killed Already?? I think I heard 16,000 thousands or so.Mabye I'm wrong,but that Midde East is F up,period.


Iraq has a population of about 10 million with just under 6 million living in Baghdad alone. The idea of nuking Iraq to kill the militants is just plain stupid, not to mention where would we nuke? Would we systematically wipe every city and town off the maps of Iraq to kill an estimated 20,000 guerilllas? I just hope that your comments weren't meant to be taken serious.

[Lord Winter]

and how Many Civilians Died Alreeady due to those Stupid Gureilla Fighters Sudicene Bombers Killed Already?? I think I heard 16,000 thousands or so.Mabye I'm wrong,but that Midde East is F up,period.
A nuclear bomb does more then make a really big explosion, it tosses huge amounts of radioactive 'fallout' up into the air that can kill. The fall out can travel hundreds of miles.

[Samurai Waki]

Because unlike them, the West is supposed to value innocent lives. To neither wantonly kill nor torture people. There is always the urge to avenge, to give in to hatred and fear. To unleash your full power and rage, uncontrolled. But by choosing that path you will join them in the dark side...

I can see it now. Lord President Darth A. Vader and his Senate Republican Majority Leader Predator. :2thumbsup:

[Husar]

I can see it now. Lord President Darth A. Vader and his Senate Republican Majority Leader Predator. :2thumbsup:
:laugh4: I thought that, too.:laugh4:


Sorry for taking your post seriously, sometimes my brain doesn't fully register what it reads.

One of the reasons that the Israeli strikes were so succesful was because at the time the Iraqi miiltary was tied up in the Iran Iraq war. Iraq's succesful offensive of the previous fall had already bogged down due to unexpected resistance and the Iraqi Air Force was fully engaged with Iran. With their armed forces all tied up in this engagement risking a war with Israel as well would have been folly.

The situation in Iran at present is different. This time the nuclear aspirer is the one with no military entanglements and the would be enforcer is the one bogged down in military conflict. If the US wasn't tied down with a war already it could engage in strikes easily and with no or at least little fear of retaliation but unfortunately the situation is not that.
No problem, I had a great laugh when you took me seriously. ~;)

This morning I came across this map (http://focus.msn.de/politik/ausland/iran/iran-grafik) (klick "Zoom in den Irak", then hover over the nuclear, rocket, chem weapon and bio weapon symbols) which shows Iran has several nuclear facilities, so I think my idea wouldn´t work that easily.

[BigTex]

Originally posted by Louis VI the Fat
Because unlike them, the West is supposed to value innocent lives. To neither wantonly kill nor torture people. There is always the urge to avenge, to give in to hatred and fear. To unleash your full power and rage, uncontrolled. But by choosing that path you will join them in the dark side...

Come to the dark side Louis.

https://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e331/Thammure/DarthBushWins.jpg

https://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e331/Thammure/rummycomic.jpg

[Louis VI the Fat]

Gah! The evil mind games of those Sith Lords have no power over the French mind.


http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/starwars/star-wars-smiley-023.gif

[Sjakihata]

Is that little yellow ball the manifestation of the French?

:juggle2:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Gah. For the French mind, the idea is everything.

It is the northern mind that is hampered by concern over physical manifestations, practicalities and a sense of realism. :book:

[Sjakihata]

Touched - or should I allow myself to say; touché ~;)

edit:
the direct line from Socrates/Plato to the French - I quite like that

[Redleg]

The Czar was killed by the Pole Ignacy Hryniewiecki (1856-1881), who died while intentionally exploding the bomb in during the attack.
Ah , so it was Polish Muslims then :2thumbsup:
spinning once again - someone needs :help: Are you attempting to revise history once again? :laugh4:

[rotorgun]

In an attempt to get a little back on topic, consider this. If one looks at the situation dispassionately, the main reason that the Iranian threat to develop nuclear weapons is taken so seriously by the United State led coalition is that it would be a serious obstacle to the sucessful establishment of any kind of stabilization in the region. Assuming, for a moment, that the "liberation" of Iraq is accomplished. Bases, with an Anglo/American presence will still be needed for generations until the Iraqis are thouroughly democratized and their military, police, and infrastructure are sufficient for them to operate on their own. (IMHO) If this is so, Iran simply cannot be allowed to have a strike capability capable of harming such a force "in being" so badly as a nuclear weapon may. I qoute:


Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared.(Revelation 16:12, New KJV)

In military terms, a pre-emptive strike by Iran against the coalition could lead to a defeat of the conventional forces in Iraq, destabilizing the strategic situation, and opening up the region for an invasion of Isreal by a "Persian led" coalition of Islamic nations.


And they gathered then together to a place called in Hebrew, Armegeddon. (Revelation 16:16, New KJV)

While I allow that the above quotes are a bit melodramatic, such a fear is already on the minds of some planners. A counterattack by Iran is a possibility for real, and quite plausable. From a military viewpoint, it would be essential to eliminate such a capability-by diplomacy if possible, or by force if required. Any armchair general in the world can forsee such a scenario. Do you think that the Pentagon, or the UK equivalent (forgive my ignorance) do not? No, for any chance of long term sucess in the Persian Gulf, Iran's threat must be nuetralized. I shall not debate the moral implications of this situation in my post; many others have already done so eloquently. I ask you my freinds, to consider the question objectively. If this war in Iraq is lost, the whole region could be plunged into utter darkness and political chaos. While I am bitterly opposed to the hypocratic premises that my country, and it's allies, have entered upon such a venture, we cannot afford to fail. Too much has been lost, too many lives, too much treasure, too much honor. I am deeply saddened by the events that have transpired.

May God help us all if we falter. I pray for our sucess, and for the peace in the Middle East. May God give wisdom to Christian and Muslim alike.

[Divinus Arma]

In other words:

Boomski (http://www.hash.com/users/weevil/vids/mushroom.mpg).

[rotorgun]

In other words:

Boomski (http://www.hash.com/users/weevil/vids/mushroom.mpg).

Not nessecarily. I am not advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran, a convetional one perhaps, and that only if diplomacy, sanctions, and international pressure fail. It will be Boomski, however, if Iran is allowed to proceed with their plans. Their government is too fanatic under its current regime to resist the temptation of nuclear confrontation with the west. There is too much at stake for them. They must be curtailed, or at least delayed (IMHO) for the plans of the Bush/Blair/whoever coalition to suceed. This is the can of worms that they have opened. The bed has indeed been made, and must now be layed upon.

[spmetla]

Like rotogun said, a premptive nuclear strike on Iran is not needed. Besides what would be the message put out by stopping nuclear ambitions with nuclear force? Not to mention the repurctions that would happen throughout the world and not to mention that fully justified rage the the muslims throughout the world would express.
This problem needs to be solved diplomatically and if not that way then militarily but with conventional forces. Too bad Russia and China won't even agree to an economic embargo. The Chinese ambassador to the UN said something to the extent of "this situation is delicate and we don't want to make it more complicated" in other words "we need their oil and don't think it our problem, scew you"

[Banquo's Ghost]

A nuclear bomb does more then make a really big explosion, it tosses huge amounts of radioactive 'fallout' up into the air that can kill. The fall out can travel hundreds of miles.

Indeed. The funny thing about any advocacy of bombing Iraq, or even Iran would be that Israel would almost certainly become uninhabitable because of fallout.

The ultimate success for extremist suicide bombing. :dizzy2:

[BHCWarman88]

I think My Teacher Told me if USA got enough bombs to blow the World up 300 times or if the all The Counties got Enough Bombs to Blow the World up 300 Times..



diplomatically? it not going to Work,Make Iran Mad Enough,and Good Bye Isreail,and Good Bye half the Word


in other Words

Iran+ ANY War (with or without Nuke attacks against Iran)= WW3





Btw,

The French are Loonies Anyhow..

[Sjakihata]

I think My Teacher Told me if USA got enough bombs to blow the World up 300 times or if the all The Counties got Enough Bombs to Blow the World up 300 Times..



diplomatically? it not going to Work,Make Iran Mad Enough,and Good Bye Isreail,and Good Bye half the Word


in other Words

Iran+ ANY War (with or without Nuke attacks against Iran)= WW3





Btw,

The French are Loonies Anyhow..

First of all, are you a second account of Abokase? Second of all, you make really no sense at all and finally third go Steelers !

Now, what is it your teacher is trying to say? And no, an Iranian war will not result in ww3, definately not.

ps. sorry I cant understand most of your post, that pittsburghian accent just overwhelms me.

[spmetla]

think My Teacher Told me if USA got enough bombs to blow the World up 300 times or if the all The Counties got Enough Bombs to Blow the World up 300 Times..



diplomatically? it not going to Work,Make Iran Mad Enough,and Good Bye Isreail,and Good Bye half the Word


in other Words

Iran+ ANY War (with or without Nuke attacks against Iran)= WW3





Btw,

The French are Loonies Anyhow..

Why call the French loonies! They're with us and the UN on this issue. Keep you're bigotry to yourself, especially to people that we need help from. The only problem is the unlikelyness that France would join us in military action if it came to that but as for diplomacy and embargoing Iran they're all with us as well as the UK. The problem is the two other big powers with veto power against any sanctions are China and Russia and they aren't being cooperative.

[Justiciar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4960478.stm

Dumbass thing to do..

[rotorgun]

Have the attacks been substantiated? I can't see why Iran would want to engage the coaltion yet. It makes no sense....definately loopie. :shrug:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Have the attacks been substantiated? I can't see why Iran would want to engage the coaltion yet. It makes no sense....definately loopie. :shrug:

The PKK are defined as terrorists by Bush. Terrorists are bad. Iran is just pursuing the war on terrorism by bombing Iraqis. Bush now loves Iran. :love:

Hey, it worked for Pakistan. :dizzy2:

[Tribesman]

Have the attacks been substantiated?
Its the third time this month , isn't your media covering Irans role in the war on terror :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Has it reported any of Turkeys actions this month in the same region against the same terrorists ?
Oh its all so confusing . Iran bad , terrorists bad , Iran fighting terorists bad , terrorists fighting Iran bad . But don't forget , a free Iraq will not be a haven for terrorists and a free Iraq will not be a threat to its neighbours , well apart from the terrorist havens in Iraq and those neighbours who are actually living next door~;)

It makes no sense....definately loopie.
Iraq defined in six words .:2thumbsup:

[Dâriûsh]

Turkish and Iranian troops have frequently crossed into Iraqi Kurdistan. It is nothing new.

[Spetulhu]

Turkish and Iranian troops have frequently crossed into Iraqi Kurdistan. It is nothing new.

Funny how everything changes depending on who is doing it and why.

Saddam massacring Kurds was nothing important until someone needed a few more reasons for invading Iraq. Then it was the ultimate evil.

Turkish troops fighting the same Kurds Saddam wanted dead is War on Terrorism since Turkey is a NATO member.

Iran fighting Kurds (yep, the same guys again) is a sign they're preparing to attack the US in Iraq.

Hmm. :inquisitive:

[doc_bean]

Just heard on the radio that iran ahs threatened to attack Israel if the US 'attacks' them.


I'll go stock up on food now...:help:

[Dutch_guy]

Just heard on the radio that iran ahs threatened to attack Israel if the US 'attacks' them.


Would Irani missles be able to actually reach Israel ?

If not, how is it they plan to attack Israel, bombings and other frequently used insurgent tactics ?

:balloon2:

[doc_bean]

Would Irani missles be able to actually reach Israel ?


They claim so.

[LeftEyeNine]

Around 200.000 Turkish troops deployed for a new operation into Northern Iraq. Chaos was what "liberators" wanted there and here it is -all "poisoning" the neighbors around. Great.

[Tribesman]

Chaos was what "liberators" wanted there and here it is
Come on LEN , be fair , they didn't really want chaos .
Its just that they forgot to to turn their brains on .

[Husar]

I wonder what would happen if the Austrians came into Germany to hunt down a few Poles or if the Canadians would deploy 100.000 troops to Texas and hunt some Mexicans...

It´s just completely unnormal what happens down there, seems like everybody walks into Iraq as they please and nobody really cares.:juggle2:

Maybe we could hunt some jewish bankers in Switzerland.:wall:

[LeftEyeNine]

Chaos was what "liberators" wanted there and here it is
Come on LEN , be fair , they didn't really want chaos .
Its just that they forgot to to turn their brains on .

I do not prefer underestimation with them. Their plans work like a greased brand new machine.

[LeftEyeNine]

I wonder what would happen if the Austrians came into Germany to hunt down a few Poles or if the Canadians would deploy 100.000 troops to Texas and hunt some Mexicans...

It´s just completely unnormal what happens down there, seems like everybody walks into Iraq as they please and nobody really cares.:juggle2:

Maybe we could hunt some jewish bankers in Switzerland.:wall:

If those Mexicans or Poles terrorized your cities, and the related countries did not move a finger about it, you'd choose a similar way.

You still think this is a Kurd hunt, don't you ?

[Redleg]

If those Mexicans or Poles terrorized your cities, and the related countries did not move a finger about it, you'd choose a similar way.

You still think this is a Kurd hunt, don't you ?

You might want to rethink your statement here, especially since the amount of illegal crossings into the United States has yet to cause a 200,000 troop deployment into Mexico. Then take into consideration that Mexican Armed forces have been seen to operate illegally into the United States, often under the pay of non-governmental enities (read drug lords).

[LeftEyeNine]

You might want to rethink your statement here, especially since the amount of illegal crossings into the United States has yet to cause a 200,000 troop deployment into Mexico. Then take into consideration that Mexican Armed forces have been seen to operate illegally into the United States, often under the pay of non-governmental enities (read drug lords).

So what opposes what I wanted to mean over there ?

[Redleg]

So what opposes what I wanted to mean over there ?

That the statement itself contradicts the reality on the ground.

[BHCWarman88]

[QUOTE=spmetla]Why call the French loonies! They're with us and the UN on this issue. Keep you're bigotry to yourself, especially to people that we need help from. The only problem is the unlikelyness that France would join us in military action if it came to that but as for diplomacy and embargoing Iran QUOTE]
Um,ok buddy....




Sjakihata
Yea,GO Steelers. it not my Pittsburgh Accent, it just I can't do Grammer why and I not a good Speller (and I bet half you guys think I was a forgein Spanish guy or something who could not speak english good,lol)




Iran with their Threats against Isreail,and their Nuclear Program to "Make" Enegry doesn't make Sense.they think we that stupid to belive they not making Weapons?? I bet you if we don't invade,they going to blow Isreal Apart within 2 years..

[LeftEyeNine]

Iran with their Threats against Isreail,and their Nuclear Program to "Make" Enegry doesn't make Sense.they think we that stupid to belive they not making Weapons?? I bet you if we don't invade,they going to blow Isreal Apart within 2 years..

Ahmedinecad wouldn't be able to do it better to paint the Iranian society's eyes without mentioning about his hatred towards Israel. Some well-known tactic applied by leaders in countries where there are social traumas and poverty.

I have really started to worry about what we will be doing with our nuclear reactor to be built in Sinop. Do we need an invasion ?

[Papewaio]

Cynical mode engaged:

North Korea blames South Korea for its social ills.
South Korean tells its people it can't spend more on social systems as they are on a semi-war footing with North Korea.

China says Taiwan is a renegade province and hence the need for 300 missiles plus nukes aimed at Taiwan.
Taiwan does a South Korea and blames its social ills on China.

Iran selects Israel as the reason for its problems.

USA does the same with Mexican immigrants.

Every country does it to some degree, North Korea and Iran choose a nuke option, South Korea and USA choose a wall option.

All the time the suppliers of military infrastructure chuckle each time they look at their bank accounts.

[Tribesman]

I bet you if we don't invade,they going to blow Isreal Apart within 2 years..
I will take that bet . How much do you wish to donate to my beer fund ?
Easy money :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Husar]

All the time the suppliers of military infrastructure chuckle each time they look at their bank accounts.
I agree.
And Germany needs more living space in the east...:inquisitive: :laugh4:

[doc_bean]

I have really started to worry about what we will be doing with our nuclear reactor to be built in Sinop. Do we need an invasion ?

Turkey can't develop nuclear reactors either ?

[LeftEyeNine]

Turkey can't develop nuclear reactors either ?

The location -Sinop- has been determined. Unless there is a nationwide protest -there has been minor ones- against it, we are likely to be a nuclear country as well. Gah..

[BHCWarman88]

Cynical mode engaged:

USA does the same with Mexican immigrants.

Every country does it to some degree, .


Look at the Satctics. Sure,they may do the Low paying jobs us Fancy Amercians don't want,I understand that fine and danily,but you see they rack up billions of dollars in expensives because they too Lazy and stupid to come into USA the Legal Way like Millions of ohter Mexcians and other people actually did??





Second,


Tribemen,I think I will.148 Dollars sound good for the bet??



Aslo,I got a Question,

you know at the bottm of each Thread is the Person's Name of who started it,well,I started this thread,so why does it say
Ser Clegane
started it when I really actually did?? I'm just curious..

[Strike For The South]

The Iranian presdint dosent have the cojenes. He may be N-V-T-S nuts but not that nuts.

[Papewaio]

Look at the Satctics. Sure,they may do the Low paying jobs us Fancy Amercians don't want,I understand that fine and danily,but you see they rack up billions of dollars in expensives because they too Lazy and stupid to come into USA the Legal Way like Millions of ohter Mexcians and other people actually did??


How are income taxes paid in the US?

In Aus the employer pays the tax based on the amount earned in the current pay period straight to the government. And the employees submit the tax return at the end of the financial year.

If it is the same then in the US the missing tax money is because of the employers not the employees...

[Ser Clegane]

Aslo,I got a Question,

you know at the bottm of each Thread is the Person's Name of who started it,well,I started this thread,so why does it say
Ser Clegane
started it when I really actually did?? I'm just curious..

For some reason it appears that certain actions (not sure yet what actions exactly) of an Admin in a thread sometimes lead to this Admin being listed as the starter of the thread.
It's a bug ... I mean ... uhm ... "feature" ... yes - feature :yes:

[doc_bean]

The location -Sinop- has been determined. Unless there is a nationwide protest -there has been minor ones- against it, we are likely to be a nuclear country as well. Gah..

Am I missing something here, or doesn't just about any country in Europe have nuclear reactors and so is a nuclear country ?

Nobody's going to stop Turkey though, the US loves you guys :balloon2:

[LeftEyeNine]

Am I missing something here, or doesn't just about any country in Europe have nuclear reactors and so is a nuclear country ?

Nobody's going to stop Turkey though, the US loves you guys :balloon2:

No you're not missing anything there. It may be my wrong definition. It's just how we're used to say it here.

US loves and hates everyone around here, don't you know. Deal the cards, pick the bets.

[Redleg]

How are income taxes paid in the US?

In Aus the employer pays the tax based on the amount earned in the current pay period straight to the government. And the employees submit the tax return at the end of the financial year.

If it is the same then in the US the missing tax money is because of the employers not the employees...

The emmployer pays both the employer's share and the wage earners.

At the end of the year the wage earner files his 1040 form where he verifies that the amount paid into during the year is correct, and either pays more or gets some back based upon the tax tables and the allowed deductions.

The system is bad.

The use of illegal labors allows the employer to avoid not only paying the illegal immigrant workers share, but the percentage that the employer must also pay.

Prosecution of employers who utilize illegal immigrants is one of the keys issues in solving the problem.

[BigTex]

The emmployer pays both the employer's share and the wage earners.

At the end of the year the wage earner files his 1040 form where he verifies that the amount paid into during the year is correct, and either pays more or gets some back based upon the tax tables and the allowed deductions.

The system is bad.

The use of illegal labors allows the employer to avoid not only paying the illegal immigrant workers share, but the percentage that the employer must also pay.

Prosecution of employers who utilize illegal immigrants is one of the keys issues in solving the problem.

You also need a SS number, which you can't get if your here illegally. So most illegals don't pay taxes. Since employers benefit so much from the cheap labor and paying even less becuase they don't need to pay for taxes or workers comp. Then yeah we need to start cracking down on criminal employers.

[BHCWarman88]

For some reason it appears that certain actions (not sure yet what actions exactly) of an Admin in a thread sometimes lead to this Admin being listed as the starter of the thread.
It's a bug ... I mean ... uhm ... "feature" ... yes - feature :yes:


Just Remember, I made this Thread m8,lol :laugh4: :laugh4:




Throw the Empolyers in Jail. Get the Illrails Workers,ship them back to Mexico,better yet,throw them in Jail Too. I hate the idea of,just giving them Aritinmatine on the deal they been here X and X Amount of Years and pay back taxes and such..

[BHCWarman88]

I aslo Wonder if Isearil Actually got the Nukes to blow Iran off the Map if they go to war..

[Redleg]

An interesting and breaking story on Iran and the United States

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iran_nuclear


In a major policy shift, the United States said Wednesday it is prepared to join other nations in holding direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program if Iran first agrees to stop disputed nuclear activities that the West fears could lead to a bomb.


Interesting development will it lead somewhere or nowhere?

[BHCWarman88]

they might make some Progess,but I highly Doubt it,because they won't stop it for Nothing if they making a Bomb..

[BHCWarman88]

What you guys think of this Article?? I think it's praticlly a Bunch of Bull.. They won't stop the Programs for Nothing Unless they do a Embrago and/or Santicons..

[Banquo's Ghost]

I believe it is an astute diplomatic ploy by the US Administration, and well done.

Iran has to respond positively, or further isolate itself. Any friends it has on the Security Council will be put on the back foot. The President is shown to be statesmanlike and willing to consider all options instead of sabre-rattling.

[Tribesman]

What you guys think of this Article?? I think it's praticlly a Bunch of Bull.. They won't stop the Programs for Nothing Unless they do a Embrago and/or Santicons..
Iran says its propoganda ....
Iran's official state news agency, Irna, dismissed the offer as propaganda. "It's evident that the Islamic Republic of Iran only accepts proposals and conditions that meet the interests of the nation and the country. Halting enrichment definitely doesn't meet such interests," the agency said. "Given the insistence by Iranian authorities on continuing uranium enrichment, Rice's comments can be considered a propaganda move."

Two other problems with Americas proposal , China and Russia , it is neccesary to get their agreement, which is not likely . Same with theembargo/sanctions , decades of sanctions have not worked , and unless China and russia agree to join the embargo sanctions they will not work , it is not in China or Russians interest to voluntarily agree , and to 2convince" themto agree is going to be very very expensive .So does the West have the money and willingness to be able to bribe Russia and China ?
Probably not .:shrug:

[BHCWarman88]

We Could Sanction China and Russia Could,if it was Possbile..

[Pannonian]

We Could Sanction China and Russia Could,if it was Possbile..
Wouldn't imposing sanctions on China mean the collapse of the US economy?

[Ice]

We Could Sanction China and Russia Could,if it was Possbile..

Yeah, that's a great idea. Let's impose sactions on, first, someone who could mutually destroy us, if pissed off enough, and we have been working to cool down our relations with for the last 60 years. Second, let's put sactions one of our largest, if not the largest, trading partner who also has nukes. WOW THAT SOUNDS GREAT!!! (end sarcasam)

In other news, it seems the Iranians have rejected our offer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/01/us.iran/index.html


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran rejected on Thursday a U.S. proposal to join multilateral talks as offering no "new and rational solution" to Iran's nuclear case, according to Iran's state-run news agency.

This was an excellent play with politics for the US. It showed we still wanted to talk, but keep our tough guy imagine. The Iranians really had not choice but to reject it because they needed to keep up their "bad ass" look for their people. Since the US will never let Iran, knowingly, build a nuke, this can't be good.

[rotorgun]

Maybe this should be in a poll, but who is really afraid, personally, politically, or morally against the Iranians having a nuke?

I am not personally against it, because it is hypocritical for me, as a citizen of the world's biggest owner of nukes, to deny any other citizen of another country the right to live under the fear they create. Politically I suppose I have to be against it for obvious reasons, if I were wanting my government to rule the world. Morally I am against any nation having these terrifying toys. I have been living under the fear of them for my entire life, and would feel better if they were all launced toward the sun to burn up in its caronasphere. :scared:

I think we should let them have the damned things, and then introduce them to the concept of MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. Then they can be as afraid as I am.
:helloo:

[BHCWarman88]

I'm not Scared.. Why Should I be?? I remember my Dad telling me how Pittsburgh (where I live at) had alot of those Anti Missle Things since we had alot of Steel Mills and Such,and Since we was one of the Potenally Tagets,but Now,we don't,and I highey doubt it they would blow my Town to Hell and Back..

[Ice]

I'm not Scared.. Why Should I be?? I remember my Dad telling me how Pittsburgh (where I live at) had alot of those Anti Missle Things since we had alot of Steel Mills and Such,and Since we was one of the Potenally Tagets,but Now,we don't,and I highey doubt it they would blow my Town to Hell and Back..

Pittsburgh would be one of the last places they would strike... it has hardly anything on value these days. Almost all the industry has left. Besides, the Iran couldn't even get a nuclear missile to the United States. That kind of technology would take years to develop and tons of money.

[BHCWarman88]

Pittsburgh would be one of the last places they would strike... it has hardly anything on value these days. Almost all the industry has left. Besides, the Iran couldn't even get a nuclear missile to the United States. That kind of technology would take years to develop and tons of money.



I was Refering to the Cuban Missle Crisis in the 60's.. They Could come up with it if they were obessed with havign a War with us,but Highy Doubt they would like to take part in one..

[spmetla]

It doesn't matter if Iran doesn't have missiles capable of reaching the US, in just a few years they'll be able to reach Vienna and soon after that Berlin, Paris, Moscow, and London. And to attack the US all you'd need is a mechant ship, it doesn't take much to put a nuke of anysize in a container and looking at all the nautical traffic the US gets from the middle east it doesn't need be an Iranian ship to do it. And of course there is the threat that Iran might give the nuke to terrorists which unlike the Saddam Al Queda links are actually true. They fund and train lots of terrorists that are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[BHCWarman88]

Yeah.. Stick it on a Ship,send it to a Habor,or send the Nuke from the Ship and there you go..

[rotorgun]

It doesn't matter if Iran doesn't have missiles capable of reaching the US, in just a few years they'll be able to reach Vienna and soon after that Berlin, Paris, Moscow, and London. And to attack the US all you'd need is a mechant ship, it doesn't take much to put a nuke of anysize in a container and looking at all the nautical traffic the US gets from the middle east it doesn't need be an Iranian ship to do it. And of course there is the threat that Iran might give the nuke to terrorists which unlike the Saddam Al Queda links are actually true. They fund and train lots of terrorists that are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan.


BHCWarman88 Yeah.. Stick it on a Ship,send it to a Habor,or send the Nuke from the Ship and there you go.

Great plan....and then Iran is wiped off the face of the earth, never to be remebered except as those insane maniacs who wanted to get 72 virgins in the afterlife, and so lit off a nuke in New York harbor. I am deeply impressed by this brilliant tactical blunder. Seriously, is one harbor worth losing your entire nation and population?
:huh2:

[BHCWarman88]

What do you Mean by that Rotor,I don't really Catch you There..

[Ice]

What do you Mean by that Rotor,I don't really Catch you There..

He means is attacking the US with a nuke worth getting destroyed over?

[BHCWarman88]

oh ok.. No it is Not,Because it would,to me,only Spark another WW3.. in a Radcial Scerino, Russia and China would Lauch Missles at America,Britian would Lauch Missles at them,and that's WW3.. That just a Example..

[Papewaio]

Great plan....and then Iran is wiped off the face of the earth, never to be remebered except as those insane maniacs who wanted to get 72 virgins in the afterlife, and so lit off a nuke in New York harbor. I am deeply impressed by this brilliant tactical blunder. Seriously, is one harbor worth losing your entire nation and population?
:huh2:

Nowing the intelligence community they would identify the flag of choice for the cargo ship as coming from some other place. And whoosh goes the wrong country... sorry France :oops:, UK? Aus? Israel...dammit it was the Iranians :skull: ... all the time some other group is giggling in glee.

[spmetla]

That's why I said it doesn't even have to been an Iranian ship. 9/11 used American aircraft, why would any foriegn ship be harder. In fact it would be far easier to do. And then if flash boom a nuke goes off in New York City there'd be no ship left anyhow. Almost untraceable, yeah they could try and track what ships were on a course recently toward NYC but that'd leave a lot of doubt about ship was the ship and who built and sold the bomb.
I doubt if most terrorist even seriously want the US to be nuked but I'd rather not allow them the option. Pakistan and North Korea are already loose enough with their secrets let's not add Iran to the list.

[Avicenna]

Warman, who on earth would launch a nuke at anyone, much less America?

Also, Iran can't be compared to Soviet Russia. Even if you do compare note:
- During the '60s, America was less powerful than now
- The Soviets were far more powerful than Iran is now
- The Soviets still didn't dare to launch

Russia and China launching missiles at America is just ridiculous and wouldn't happen. Who would want America's wrath, as well as the rest of NATO?

[BHCWarman88]

Yea,but Russia was Just Testing Kenndy in the 60's though..

[Shaka_Khan]

https://twitter.com/Ahmadinejad1956/status/838368123170480129

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Errr, Shaka...

This thread should have been left in the ground.

[Beskar]

Feel free to make a new thread about Iran, not use one which is 11 years old.