Iran

[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

[BHCWarman88]

Very Weak

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

[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

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 .

[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

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

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.

[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

spinning once again - someone needs Are you attempting to revise history once again?

[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.
And Louis, be aware of the irony.

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.

[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.
And Louis, be aware of the irony.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.