Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on January 31, 2007, 06:43:13 pm
-
There's plenty of indicators going around, too many to list in fact - I assume you all read the news. Everyone from business types to Russian brass are prediciting a strike against Iran some time soon, March or April. Around the end of February will be the deadline set by the Security Council for Iran to stop enrichment or face the next step.
There's currently three carrier assault groups in or around the Persian Gulf and for the first time ever a Navy guy is going to be appointed as the head of CENTCOM - which might indicate that the navy might playa crucial role. On top of everything, Bush is ramping up the "Iran-is-to-blame-for-all-problems-in-Iraq" rhetoric, so I'm thinking that a casus belli will be coming soon.
On the other hand, there's also indications that Khamenei (not dead after all) is going to force Ahmadinejad to back down and temporarily cease enrichment in order to get back to the negotiating table. If this happens, Bush will have a lot tougher time making the case for war, but if he's already determined that war is the only way, like with Iraq, Iran's actions will be irrelevant.
I'm hoping Bush goes for a record here. Cause I don't think there's been a single US Prez who's managed to start three wars during his term. Someone call Guiness.
-
:-/
-
50 posts on war.
-
50 posts on no war. A dem controlled congress and public outcry from it's constituents won't let it happen.
EDIT: But I'd like everyone to know that if there is a full scale war with Iran, hellooooo draft!
-
I used to be anti-war for ideological reasons. Now all I ask is that the ****'s collision with the fan be postponed until I'm at the end of my rich, full life.
-
50 posts on no war. A dem controlled congress and public outcry from it's constituents won't let it happen.
EDIT: But I'd like everyone to know that if there is a full scale war with Iran, hellooooo draft!
Depends on what kind of war it is. If its just airstrikes and some special forces then the risks to American forces is comparatively minimal depending on Iran's SAM defenses and the effectiveness of modern anti-SAM weapons. Its once the Americans try and dig in do they appear to have problems.
I don't think its going to happen...I haven't seen as many indicators and it almost seems to be off the agenda. It does make it hard for competing factions in Iran to force their own people to come to the table when the behavior of the US administration in Iraq was essentially to invade regardless of what the Iraqi's were doing. But hopefully internal pressure steps up, the enrichment stops, and an alternative energy plan (of which many have been floated) can assist the Iranians in their electricity requirements (if thats what they actually want).
-
I used to be anti-war for ideological reasons. Now all I ask is that the ****'s collision with the fan be postponed until I'm at the end of my rich, full life.
I used to be anti-war for ideological reason. Now all I ask is that the ****'s collision with the fan be sufficiently entertaining. A massive Middle-East clusterfu** is every war-nerd's wet dream come true. Iran has actual bark to back up its bite, and any conflict would be highly unconventional, and therefore highly interesting.
Anyway, I think it's clear that when I say "war", I don't mean invasion. Bush may be reckless, but he's not suicidal - an invasion would be a total disaster within about three minutes flat. Even Special Forces raids across the border are a major liability, seeing as how America's SF haven't exactly had an examplary record in Iraq and the IRGC aren't pushovers by any means.
-
Iran's defences will be completely flattened within the first week. Bush isn't really that stupid... he's just unliked. He'll probably end up throwing thousands of SSM's to anything of strategic importance to Iran. Well, bye-bye all SAM sites, bunkers, airfields, armories, and possible even the nuke plants theyre running. It'll be fun... :not:
-
i dont want war... i want global nuclear holocaust :D
-
I don't like this. :ick:
-
i dont want war... i want global nuclear holocaust :D
I agree, let's have a nuclear war that completely decimates the Northern Hemisphere, leaving Australia as the remaining global superpower. That'd be awesome.
-
i dont want war... i want global nuclear holocaust :D
I agree, let's have a nuclear war that completely decimates the Northern Hemisphere, leaving Australia as the remaining global superpower. That'd be awesome.
Leaving Australia to freeze and slowly starve to death as the massive amounts of dust enterring the atmosphere slowly hides the sun for months.
-
I think it'll be tough for him to do it any time in the next two years, maybe setting up his succsesor to do it, but I can't see him getting it started
-
There's currently three carrier assault groups in or around the Persian Gulf and for the first time ever a Navy guy is going to be appointed as the head of CENTCOM - which might indicate that the navy might playa crucial role. On top of everything, Bush is ramping up the "Iran-is-to-blame-for-all-problems-in-Iraq" rhetoric, so I'm thinking that a casus belli will be coming soon.
Well, let's look at it bit by bit.
There are multiple reasons that the Navy is getting CENTCOM's command. One is that the Army has done ****ed up. Everything. The Marines have generally come through (we've got a Marine in charge of the Joint Chiefs for that) but it's not considered politically correct to praise them for their successes because of some things a minority have done. The Navy is the only service that has delievered a 100% success rate however.
A Navy guy in command of CENTCOM basically means however that if the war comes, there will be no ground war. We're looking at a reprise of the '70s and '80s. Operations Earnest Will and Preying Mantis, the Tanker War. The USN has been the traditional implement of imposing chastisement on the uppity in the Gulf, and a very successful one. You can ask the crews of the Joshan and Sahand if you don't believe me.
The Iranian Navy will not last long. I give it about a week. Their air force may prove more difficult to exterminate but will never be a serious factor. The danger if there is one lies in their mining the Straits of Hormuz and possibly all the mobile Silkworm batteries they've bought. The Silkworms are vunerable to air attack, however, and Iran uses the same kind of Soviet-style air defense system that was so spectacularly demolished in the opening hours of the First Gulf War. As for mine warfare, the USN is better equipped to deal with the threat then they were 5 years ago.
That and of course mining the Straits of Hormuz will piss off pretty much the entire world, and everyone from Poland to China can be expected to contribute to trying to keep them clear.
We may or may not see a similar Scud situation as we did in the First Gulf War, but the US has given much thought and effort to the problem of Theater Ballistic Missile defense since then...and the Scud hasn't gotten any more accurate.
And you know, Iran is at least tactly allowing some of the problems in Iraq to continue. More problem people and things come in that way then any other.
-
Well, the good thing is that we won't have to worry about money, because we can definitely afford another war. Wait, I messed that up. I meant to say that this is a horrible idea because we have no money and we definitely cannot afford another war.
-
1.5m man standing Army vs. Coalition forces stretched to their limit in Iraq...
Can we postpone for a few years lads?
-
1.5m man standing Army vs. Coalition forces stretched to their limit in Iraq...
Can we postpone for a few years lads?
Naaah, just need to make it a holy war and then use guided munitions - the whole problem with these Afghanistan and Iraq things has been maintaining the illusion that it's in the name of peace and democracy rather than acquiring territory. Accept that it's all about the oil, and you don't need troops - only enough high explosives to level every building in the country.
:)
-
You have no idea how easy that solution is sounding right now...
-
You have no idea how easy that solution is sounding right now...
Well, it's what every person in the White House and Pentagon is thinking......
-
i dont want war... i want global nuclear holocaust :D
I agree, let's have a nuclear war that completely decimates the Northern Hemisphere, leaving Australia as the remaining global superpower. That'd be awesome.
WTF mate?^^
-
If Amedinijad keeps opening his mouth and is as cavalier about displaying his nuclear progress, there might just be an Israeli attack on Iran. But like it or not, a state like Iran whose leader openly denounces the holocaust and calls for the annihilation of Israel on an almost weekly basis must not be allowed to have nukes. War is not an unnecessary social program that billions of dollars are being wasted on. War is how real problems in the world are solved, it doesnt matter how much the war costs.
-
If Amedinijad keeps opening his mouth and is as cavalier about displaying his nuclear progress, there might just be an Israeli attack on Iran. But like it or not, a state like Iran whose leader openly denounces the holocaust and calls for the annihilation of Israel on an almost weekly basis must not be allowed to have nukes. War is not an unnecessary social program that billions of dollars are being wasted on. War is how real problems in the world are solved, it doesnt matter how much the war costs.
If history shows anything, it's that starting a war really solves very little.
-
I'm glad to see that the maturity level of the forum has been maintained since I left. Betting on a war? Have you no taste?
-
If history shows anything, it's that starting a war really solves very little.
That's what I've been saying all along! Hitler really was very little. Thanks a lot, Japan.
:p
-
100 posts on Failure to care imminent.
-
If the US bombs Iran, then what's to stop the Iranian army from rolling into Iraq and crushing the coalition forces?
-
I'm glad to see that the maturity level of the forum has been maintained since I left. Betting on a war? Have you no taste?
I'm glad to see you still have the sense of humor of a Benedictine monk during Lent. Well, I'm not glad, but saying "I'm glad" enhances the rapier wit of my cutting retort.
-
If the US bombs Iran, then what's to stop the Iranian army from rolling into Iraq and crushing the coalition forces?
That would be the logistical problems inherent in moving 5 million men when your communications infrastructure has been blown to ****? Plus, The US army's problems in Iraq don't stem from them being a weak or underequipped army - it stems from an army trained to and equipped for open waqrfare being put into an assymetrical urban warfare situation and expected to perform. It'd still be a potent force when facing the Iranians in a standard mechanized battle.
-
100 posts on Failure to care imminent.
Let 'em come, why the hell would anyone post if they didn't care.
If the US bombs Iran, then what's to stop the Iranian army from rolling into Iraq and crushing the coalition forces?
Maybe the large military force that's two generations ahead of Iran?
Three Carrier groups worth of air power, and massive numbers of troops, and God knows how much armor and artillery... they'd have a fight on their hands.
And I'm not saying this is a good thing, I hate war, but the idea of Iran launching an attack on Iraq and the massive military buildup there is kind of... preposterous.
EDIT: Black Wolf beat me.
-
Also take into account the Air Superiority the US would have from the start, the technological superiority, and the better trained and better equiped soldiers. The Iranians wouldnt have a prayer of winning. They might get some kills, but it would be a no contest.
The problem is that nobody wants to look at Iran as "the enemy" and therefore doesnt want to do anything about the situation. They do not have equal rights to nuclear technology just because the US has it. There are evil people in the world and like it or not, they want to do bad things to us.
-
Iran are developing nukes and rattling sabres and we all talk about war and yet more invasions. HOOAH ::) If the world police are going to unleash their slightly stretched might somewhere, should it be N Korea who now actually have nukes?
Oops, I forgot, they have no oil, they're too close to China and they'd put up a REALLY good fight.
BTW, war isn't big or clever.
-
Iran are developing nukes and rattling sabres and we all talk about war and yet more invasions. HOOAH ::) If the world police are going to unleash their slightly stretched might somewhere, should it be N Korea who now actually have nukes?
Oops, I forgot, they have no oil, they're too close to China and they'd put up a REALLY good fight.
BTW, war isn't big or clever.
Nah, if N.Korea attempted to launch a nuke, China would destroy them in minutes.
Why?
1. Show and proof of military strength
2. it would really make them look good to everyone else, and maximize exports
-
Iran are developing nukes and rattling sabres and we all talk about war and yet more invasions. HOOAH ::) If the world police are going to unleash their slightly stretched might somewhere, should it be N Korea who now actually have nukes?
Oops, I forgot, they have no oil, they're too close to China and they'd put up a REALLY good fight.
BTW, war isn't big or clever.
Nah, if N.Korea attempted to launch a nuke, China would destroy them in minutes.
Why?
1. Show and proof of military strength
2. it would really make them look good to everyone else, and maximize exports
At least their motives are better than the US's :sigh:
-
Iran are developing nukes and rattling sabres and we all talk about war and yet more invasions. HOOAH ::) If the world police are going to unleash their slightly stretched might somewhere, should it be N Korea who now actually have nukes?
Oops, I forgot, they have no oil, they're too close to China and they'd put up a REALLY good fight.
BTW, war isn't big or clever.
As WeatherOp says, the instant the North Koreans try anything beyond showing off, China will beat them down.
-
If north Korea nuked anyone, it would be Japan. And then China would go "tut tut, naughty naughty kimmy!" and then privately cheer him on.
-
If north Korea nuked anyone, it would be Japan. And then China would go "tut tut, naughty naughty kimmy!" and then privately cheer him on.
You mean cheer on what's *left* of him after what equates to around 500 megatons worth of nuclear ordinance lands in his backyard.
-
100 posts on Failure to care imminent.
Let 'em come, why the hell would anyone post if they didn't care.
If the US bombs Iran, then what's to stop the Iranian army from rolling into Iraq and crushing the coalition forces?
Maybe the large military force that's two generations ahead of Iran?
Three Carrier groups worth of air power, and massive numbers of troops, and God knows how much armor and artillery... they'd have a fight on their hands.
And I'm not saying this is a good thing, I hate war, but the idea of Iran launching an attack on Iraq and the massive military buildup there is kind of... preposterous.
EDIT: Black Wolf beat me.
Given that the US Army as-is can't stabilise Iraq, I doubt the arrival of a few hundred thousand Iranian troops - probably using relatively modern technology but using guerilla tactics ala the current insurgency and civil war - would be anywhere near as easy to handle as you're presuming.
However, as it stands Iraq is lined up to fall straight into Iranian 'hands' anyways; the dominant political party is an offshoot of a Tehran-based anti-Saddam insurgent group (reputedly still funded and armed by the Iranians). In the even of a war, though, I doubt the US could handle two full-scale insurgencies at once.
-
In the even of a war, though, I doubt the US could handle two full-scale insurgencies at once.
Indeed, the danger being that the US might fall back on unconventional weapons should a war-effort fail to gain traction.
-
In the even of a war, though, I doubt the US could handle two full-scale insurgencies at once.
Indeed, the danger being that the US might fall back on unconventional weapons should a war-effort fail to gain traction.
Albiet I think the US can wipe out pretty much anyone with conventional weapons if they decide to give up the pretext of humanitarian goals.
-
Ah, point.
-
1. US starts on Iran, the religous factions unite and a war starts, USA are mostly religous Christian's vs Middle East's Islam. Other religons see this as a chance to exterminate the Islamists and join in, then turns into holy war with the USA, the UK is shortly forced to join making it very difficult for Europe indeed.
2. You got a war, USA vs Iran. then stupid or not Iran attacks US supplied Isreal with a nuke, the Jordanese, the Palistinian's, the Eygptian's, the Turk's and the Greek's all respond with a mass ground attack on Iran. The Pakistani's join in because they could be next in the nuking process. The Russian's launch a massive air strike against Iran. That then prompts the Koreans to launch a nuke over China to the USA while the USA is down, the Chinese and the Japanese immediatly respond by begining a mass force invasion of Korea because of ignorging what the Chinese and Japanese said about nukes.
3. You get propaganda wars on Iran and in the end, Iran starts on the USA with 5 nukes and wipes the USA out completly. then you got every other country that has nukes and wipes the Iranian's off the face of the earth with over 40 nukes.
Its a possiblity no matter how stupid. I hope the USA is fully prepared for what could happen, as an example of 3 possiblities above.
as a pointer on iraq, the USA could'nt of kept iraq anyway, the insurgents have made it clear since day one that the USA is not welcome, so far thousands of dead Americans and hundreds of dead innocent iraqi's, do you think that will stop?.
Besides that the fact remains is the USA wants a ally in the Middle East, aside Isreal, to help them point out what goes on that continent, witch means the USA have a problem. They either; stop investing in Iraq and bomb it sky high or continue the safeguard process...
-
100 posts on Failure to care imminent.
Let 'em come, why the hell would anyone post if they didn't care.
If the US bombs Iran, then what's to stop the Iranian army from rolling into Iraq and crushing the coalition forces?
Maybe the large military force that's two generations ahead of Iran?
Three Carrier groups worth of air power, and massive numbers of troops, and God knows how much armor and artillery... they'd have a fight on their hands.
And I'm not saying this is a good thing, I hate war, but the idea of Iran launching an attack on Iraq and the massive military buildup there is kind of... preposterous.
EDIT: Black Wolf beat me.
Given that the US Army as-is can't stabilise Iraq, I doubt the arrival of a few hundred thousand Iranian troops - probably using relatively modern technology but using guerilla tactics ala the current insurgency and civil war - would be anywhere near as easy to handle as you're presuming.
Drop two or three zeroes out of that number. You simply cannot move numbers that large unless you have a lot of time or really, really incompetent opponents.
Hundreds or thousands Iranian fighters could be dangerous to coalition but for them Iraq would propably be a deadly place. You have to realize that even in Iran-Iraq war ****es frequently volunteered to fight Iranians - the threat of an external enemy always unites otherwise heterogenic country, Iraq has went through this. Also, such an act would pretty much form a legitimate casus belli for both Iraq and USA, unless Iran denies all ties with the insurgents. At that point supporting more than several thousand Iranian guerillas becomes hard, if not even impossible - and that is ignoring the local powerplay.
However, as it stands Iraq is lined up to fall straight into Iranian 'hands' anyways; the dominant political party is an offshoot of a Tehran-based anti-Saddam insurgent group (reputedly still funded and armed by the Iranians). In the even of a war, though, I doubt the US could handle two full-scale insurgencies at once.
US does not want to occupy Iran - pretty much every single leader says it's a dumb ****ing idea, including the administration. Bombing campaign is the only option right now, with very limited SF use and absolutely no standing there.
Also, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580375,00.html
say what you want about the source, but you know the drill
-
Centrixo...what the hell are you smoking? Seriously, where do you get this kind of ****? This goes beyond merely idiotic to full-on bat**** "you're not out of your mind, you're not even out of your head, you're out of your whole friggin' body" insane.
Iran has no nukes yet. That is the point. Even if they did, Iran would never manage to successfully deliever a nuke to the US. (And five nukes is not enough to wipe the US out, much less stop the response. SSBN. Look it up.) Israel is a remote possiblity, but most Iranian methods for delievering such a weapon would be easily stopped in their tracks by the IDF.
-
Iran has no nukes yet. That is the point. Even if they did, Iran would never manage to successfully deliever a nuke to the US. (And five nukes is not enough to wipe the US out, much less stop the response. SSBN. Look it up.) Israel is a remote possiblity, but most Iranian methods for delievering such a weapon would be easily stopped in their tracks by the IDF.
well according to your US itellegence you thought Iraq had nukes, so il push the limits on crap like this.
-
Centrixo...what the hell are you smoking? Seriously, where do you get this kind of ****? This goes beyond merely idiotic to full-on bat**** "you're not out of your mind, you're not even out of your head, you're out of your whole friggin' body" insane.
Iran has no nukes yet. That is the point. Even if they did, Iran would never manage to successfully deliever a nuke to the US. (And five nukes is not enough to wipe the US out, much less stop the response. SSBN. Look it up.) Israel is a remote possiblity, but most Iranian methods for delievering such a weapon would be easily stopped in their tracks by the IDF.
They could always go for nonconventional ways. Smuggle a nuke somewhere etc.
However, that act would propably be self-defeating since Iran is, right now, the prime suspect if something like that happened and doing something this colossally stupid would propably lead to annihilation of their entire society and state. Nukes are a weird weapon - they are used offensively but more often they are defensive in nature. A nuke is too good bargaining chip to just waste in some prank, even the suspicion of a country possessing nukes immediately gives them more leverage in politics and makes them far less juicy target.
And oh, the conspiracy theories! They would be magnificent!
-
Iran has no nukes yet. That is the point. Even if they did, Iran would never manage to successfully deliever a nuke to the US. (And five nukes is not enough to wipe the US out, much less stop the response. SSBN. Look it up.) Israel is a remote possiblity, but most Iranian methods for delievering such a weapon would be easily stopped in their tracks by the IDF.
well according to your US itellegence you thought Iraq had nukes, so il push the limits on crap like this.
What the hell does this mean? Because someone cherry-picked unreliable intel years ago means that in completely different situation they must be wrong again? What?
You didn't even address his main point - how, where and why would Iran deliver and detonate a nuclear bomb, if they had them?
-
well even the most stupid point could turn out to be right, i dont see why you dont want to see this, its a very real possibility!. ok you tell me a better way then, your turn :yes:
-
well even the most stupid point could turn out to be right, i dont see why you dont want to see this, its a very real possibility!. ok you tell me a better way then, your turn :yes:
Just because something has been wrong before does not mean that in other case they will be automatically wrong. Right now, not a single credible agency says that Iran has nukes and you have said that they do. When questioned about this, you are trying to handwave your way out. We [those who think that as long as there isn't any solid or even indirect evidence of Iran aquiring nukes] cannot prove a negative and we don't have to - the burden of proof is on you to prove that Iran actually does have nukes.
Just because something MIGHT be right does not mean one should give it equal weight when discussing options and possibilities. There is a very slight possibility that we are all just a biological experiment condutcted by huge self-aware computer system we know as Jupiter. Your logic is incredible faulty and that's why we are questioning you - if you can come up with evidence about Iran's nuclear weapon program please do.
-
lol and you say my logic is faulty... and this supposed super computer is'nt?!
Now as it seems we are on the same lines Janos, im glad you agree with me :P.
-
I want to start that betting pool. I bet 2 Euros.
-
yeah i bet 5 euros :nervous:
-
lol and you say my logic is faulty... and this supposed super computer is'nt?!
Now as it seems we are on the same lines Janos, im glad you agree with me :P.
Ohhhhhhh Janos just got owned.
-
lol and you say my logic is faulty... and this supposed super computer is'nt?!
Now as it seems we are on the same lines Janos, im glad you agree with me :P.
Your logic is faulty. I was pointing out the fact that you said that because something is possible it should be taken seriously. Pretty much everything which is logically consistent is possible, but if your assumptions fly against the face of currently established consensus (about Iran possessing a nuclear weapon in this particular case), then no, we don't have to give equal footing to your assumptions and consider them a valid critique unless you back it up somehow.
If you are unaware of grasping this metaphor:
well even the most stupid point could turn out to be right, i dont see why you dont want to see this, its a very real possibility!. ok you tell me a better way then, your turn
There is a very slight possibility that we are all just a biological experiment condutcted by huge self-aware computer system we know as Jupiter.
,
then I don't really know what to say.
lol and you say my logic is faulty... and this supposed super computer is'nt?!
Now as it seems we are on the same lines Janos, im glad you agree with me :P.
Ohhhhhhh Janos just got owned.
yeah this pain makes me slit my wrists and listen to the monkees :(
Also I bet 2e for limited aerial campaign.
-
Well Janos if Iran has nukes and you didnt listen, what would you say then?
I would like to hear and see your reaction one of these days :nod: the same with ngtmgr.
if not then i have been owned, and as nothing has been found yet you and i can only speculate... so putting like that you would need to hear every single bit of talk incase it might/could be true.
-
I'm hoping Bush goes for a record here. Cause I don't think there's been a single US Prez who's managed to start three wars during his term. Someone call Guiness.
Yeah, and every terrorist nuke in the world is aimed at my country just because some incompitent asshole is president.
-
Yeah, and every terrorist nuke in the world is aimed at my country just because some incompitent asshole is president.
I believe the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole and other terrorist attacks like that occured BEFORE bush was president. Even so, it really doesnt matter why the terrorists hate us, and on that same point nothing we do will make them like us, and that worries me why people want the terrorists, who blow up members of their religious sect for PR purposes, to like us.
Amazing though how Bush the "incompetent asshole" 'tricked' the Democrats and the rest of the country into going to war.
-
I believe the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole and other terrorist attacks like that occured BEFORE bush was president. Even so, it really doesnt matter why the terrorists hate us, and on that same point nothing we do will make them like us, and that worries me why people want the terrorists, who blow up members of their religious sect for PR purposes, to like us.
The US has always been high on the list of targets for the simple reason that it stands as the most powerful nation in the world socially, economically and militarily. When folks from all round the world feel their calls aren't being heard, they believe blowing themselves up in public spaces of a nation like the US is the best avenue of approach to bring attention to themselves and their cause. This threat is everpresent as long as the world is subject to poverty, bloodshed, and all that bad stuff we don't like to trouble ourselves with, that much is obvious.
Now, contrary to what you have expressed, the point Harbinger was making is not that Bush is to blame for all the deluded fools who strap C4 to their chests and target the innocent, the mere idea of it is laughable. Instead, I believe he was merely highlighting the fact that the acts of the current administration has served to exacerbate the threat to his country, create what has quickly turned into both a breeding-ground for terrorists and a shining reinforcement for their beliefs/cause, and all-up made the world that much less safe for the rest of us. Granted, it is plainly false to attribute the current world-climate in this regard to Bush and his cronies alone, but it is equally false to purport he is without blame.
Amazing though how Bush the "incompetent asshole" 'tricked' the Democrats and the rest of the country into going to war.
Please. You and I both know there was a lot more to that than you make it seem.
-
suicide bombers & terrorists, found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism)
The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” a product of internal logic, devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government's legitimacy, while increasing the legitimacy of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[6] The September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon are examples of this. Attacking the World Trade Center symbolizes that the terrorists can threaten the economic foundation of America and its capitalist ideals, and attacking the Pentagon symbolizes that America's great and prided military strength is yet vulnerable at its very core to the terrorists power.
-
Saying that hunting down and killing these people where they live is exacerbating the problem is like saying that attacking the Japanese after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor is only going to make them more angry at us and make them want to kill us even more. Granted that the terrorists arent a nation/state but they reside in dictatorships and totalitarian nations that sponsor them. You are still implying that by hunting these people down makes us less safe.. im sorry but i just dont understand how wiping them out by the truck load makes us less safe.
-
You just answered you own query. By sponsors and because of that many more will rise an contine where previous terrorists failed. So yes i'm implying that.
-
Saying that hunting down and killing these people where they live is exacerbating the problem is like saying that attacking the Japanese after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor is only going to make them more angry at us and make them want to kill us even more. Granted that the terrorists arent a nation/state but they reside in dictatorships and totalitarian nations that sponsor them. You are still implying that by hunting these people down makes us less safe.. im sorry but i just dont understand how wiping them out by the truck load makes us less safe.
Hunting them down? No, that's an acceptable way of preventing attacks. However, the US Administration has been doing a little bit more than just 'hunting down the big, bad terrorists'. In the past few years Terrorists have indeed been wiped out by the proverbial truck-load, i'll give you that, but then I never said doing so was anything less than effective. Instead, I highlighted the plain fact that the playground the Administration has created for budding terrorists, coupled with the "come get me" attitude they've expressed in damn near every press conference they've held on the subject, is of course going to exacerbate the threat.
Let me use your analogy to illustrate: This situation is akin to the US building aircraft factories for the Japanese mere hours after Pearl Harbour, then telling the Japanese armed forces they don't have the stones to do anything, and finally informing the world everyone is safer for having done so.
-
That indeed isn't right, if the Jap's didn't have the balls, they would of never used one man subs for kamikaze missions and planes for kamikaze missions on military boats, the USA were lucky to have Aussies and Brits around to reinforce the boat devisions back then. Then you got the hidden bunkers on the tiny islands near Japan, most sources say these island's were deathtraps and usually took days to months to clear out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War)
The same holds true for today, terrorists still have thier mission, albiet Bin Laden gone and Al Zaqaui gone it has weakened them?. i don't think its weakend them at all!, and you look at todays figures countries like, Italy and France withdrew, because they didn't want to be the ones to say "Ok i'm sorry for your loss Mr/Mrs Blogs" so they were feeling it was not safe to stay there, while their people were thinking about giving up on the government and overthrowing them for a republic if not.
the USA now controls Iraq but the Terrorist don't like thier holy land of Allah taken by Christians and Democracy, and the USA says "Ok give me your best shot, i dare you!", so far their words are not solid, and the foundation is starting to give. so these words should of gotten to the USA by now, so what could happen? :blah:
-
Saying that hunting down and killing these people where they live is exacerbating the problem is like saying that attacking the Japanese after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor is only going to make them more angry at us and make them want to kill us even more. Granted that the terrorists arent a nation/state but they reside in dictatorships and totalitarian nations that sponsor them. You are still implying that by hunting these people down makes us less safe.. im sorry but i just dont understand how wiping them out by the truck load makes us less safe.
I think thats a poor analogy unfortunately although some parallels still exist there are some critical differences. The Japanese attacked the US at Peal Harbor because the idea was to cripple America's naval forces for long enough that the Japanese Empire could expand, consume the raw materials required, and then properly face the Americans down. It was a calculated risk that was somewhat exacerbated on its own by the US's trade embargo starting in the early 40's. This was largely about natural resources and nationalism.
Osama and his bunch attacked the US in 1993 and 2001 (not to mention the 1997 bombings in Kenya and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole) because they felt that the Americans had "violated their holy lands" by stationing troops and forces in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War. The Americans were asked to come into Saudi Arabia in 1991 but Osama doesn't see it that way and has been in a long standing family feud with the rest of the Bin Ladens and the other influential families that basically run everything in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was actually planning to lead Al Qaeda against Saddam in 1991 and push them out of Kuwait but obviously American military might is quite a bit quicker.
So thats the whole situation in a nutshell. It has very little to do with the Japanese. As WWII works out, the Japanese and the Allies fight it out for quite a while. The situation for Japan becomes somewhat desperate as the US and allies have immense resources both raw and industrial and Japan has very little. The desperation goes so far as to start the "special squadrons" or kamikaze as they become known for and are quite effective at absolutely savaging the US Navy taking out many of the smaller ships. Several Essex class fleet carriers were withdrawn from battle due to damage from these attacks. Some of the smaller escort or "jeep carriers" were sunk or severely crippled. Japan eventually surrendered on the word of the emperor and despite the machinations of many of the military officers who were committed to fighting it out.
Going back to the present day...the suicide bombers in Iraq have very little to do with Bin Laden or 911. They just want the Americans out who they feel are defiling their hold lands. And there are several rival factions that are just as interested in blowing each other up as they are American troops so its a really messy situation. Iraq is a country of political convenience of the early 1900s and its not very convenient anymore (and probably wasn't then either). So a possible solution to the problem is to pull American troops and forces out of the Middle East and possibly divert Bin Laden's attention to the infighting that will be going on for a long time...thats what they want anyways. It may not be a good idea to but thats what they want to happen. No US influence in the middle east. Its like we don't want Al Qaeda in North America or Europe.
I don't disagree with you completely but I think the analogy is grossly flawed. There are some parallels but this is less about resources (as far as the terrorists are concerned) and more about land and religion and holy sites and that sort of thing.
I'm of mixed feelings on just what the US should do. I think the only thing that sort of sticks in my mind is that US troops should probably be given their last little chance and then get the US soldiers out of harms way and see what goes from there. If the Iraqi's want a single unified country then they can form it...or if they want to split into three smaller countries then they can do that too. But they have to want to and I think we need to realize that democracy and all that good stuff that works in Europe just isn't something that necessarily works in a situation such as that. Not yet...I think they have to do it on their own.
-
When (not if) the US pulls out, Iraq is going to become Yugoslavia circa '91. The signs are everywhere. You've got the same basic ingerdients: a mid-sized, medium-poor nation, decades of rule by a autocratic government that acted as a unifying force, three main ethnic groups and strong seperatist feelings among all of them...once the Americans leave and the international spotlight leaves with them, the kid gloves come off and things start getting bloody. I'm betting on Iraq remaining a war-torn shtihole for a good half a decade.
But back to Iran...there's reports that the US has damning evidence of Iranian influence behind the recent Kerbala attacks which killed 5 American soldiers, but it's withholding the evidence for some reason. This one is tough to decipher. If the US had proof against Iran, do they have any reason at all to delay publishing it? Unless they're making secret deals with Khamenei and the moderates/anti-Ahmadinejad conservatives for Iran to stop funding Iraqi militias. It just depends on what's more important to Bush: stopping Iranian progress on their nuclear program or salvaging what little reputation he and the GOP, and not going down in history as a complete failure. If the Iranians can "make Iraq work", Bush (or other Republicans) might be willing to give them leeway in exchange for Iranian cooperation in wiping the egg which is currently dripping down the administration's face.
-
I believe the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole and other terrorist attacks like that occured BEFORE bush was president. Even so, it really doesnt matter why the terrorists hate us, and on that same point nothing we do will make them like us, and that worries me why people want the terrorists, who blow up members of their religious sect for PR purposes, to like us.
The US has always been high on the list of targets for the simple reason that it stands as the most powerful nation in the world socially, economically and militarily. When folks from all round the world feel their calls aren't being heard, they believe blowing themselves up in public spaces of a nation like the US is the best avenue of approach to bring attention to themselves and their cause. This threat is everpresent as long as the world is subject to poverty, bloodshed, and all that bad stuff we don't like to trouble ourselves with, that much is obvious.
Now, contrary to what you have expressed, the point Harbinger was making is not that Bush is to blame for all the deluded fools who strap C4 to their chests and target the innocent, the mere idea of it is laughable. Instead, I believe he was merely highlighting the fact that the acts of the current administration has served to exacerbate the threat to his country, create what has quickly turned into both a breeding-ground for terrorists and a shining reinforcement for their beliefs/cause, and all-up made the world that much less safe for the rest of us. Granted, it is plainly false to attribute the current world-climate in this regard to Bush and his cronies alone, but it is equally false to purport he is without blame.
Amazing though how Bush the "incompetent asshole" 'tricked' the Democrats and the rest of the country into going to war.
Please. You and I both know there was a lot more to that than you make it seem.
I wholeheartedly agree.
-
Trying to parrellel the current "conflict" to WW2 is just stupid. In the American media, there have been enough world war 2 references to make churchill spin in his grave.
Bush has been trying to paint Iran as being just like Nazi Germany was just before it invaded Poland.
-
The differences are;
1, Iran has nuclear capabilities and we might not know if they already have nukes.
2, the Nazis controlled Austria, parts of Czechslovakia, parts of France, parts of Norway and after most of poland.
3, there is half-century between Iran today and Nazi 'yeserday'.
4, Iran is religous and Nazis only wanted an 'Ayren' race with no morale or religous beliefs(hence the Jews were killed, gassed etc..)
5, Hitler was a Genosidal maniac.
6, there is alot of countries between Germany and Iran.
the only point where i see relevance is that Bush-Hitler connection in a way.
but this is about Iran.
im not sure what the people at Tehran are thinking, why build an old aging missile created half-century ago? The only benefits i could see is; them being bombed sky high, if it is indeed true.
-
The differences are;
1, Iran has nuclear capabilities and we might not know if they already have nukes.
2, the Nazis controlled Austria, parts of Czechslovakia, parts of France, parts of Norway and after most of poland.
3, there is half-century between Iran today and Nazi 'yeserday'.
4, Iran is religous and Nazis only wanted an 'Ayren' race with no morale or religous beliefs(hence the Jews were killed, gassed etc..)
5, Hitler was a Genosidal maniac.
6, there is alot of countries between Germany and Iran.
the only point where i see relevance is that Bush-Hitler connection in a way.
but this is about Iran.
Thanks for clearing that up for me, buddy. :rolleyes:
-
4, Iran is religous and Nazis only wanted an 'Ayren' race with no morale or religous beliefs(hence the Jews were killed, gassed etc..)
That depends. The concept of the Fuhrer Cult is often seen as a religious one.
-
But a cult of personality merely attempts to imitate religion, and can't really be compared to a proper religion with centuries of practice behind it.
-
Well Janos if Iran has nukes and you didnt listen, what would you say then?
I would like to hear and see your reaction one of these days :nod: the same with ngtmgr.
Well then I'm wrong, so what? Do you really think I just go "lalalalala" and refuse to think about Iran having nukes - I am pointing out that the best evidence for Iran having nukes is very, very circumstantial and often quite dubious, so arguing like Iran already possessed a nuke requires quite a lot of proof.
if not then i have been owned, and as nothing has been found yet you and i can only speculate... so putting like that you would need to hear every single bit of talk incase it might/could be true.
Well I said it because YOU YOURSELF said that because something is possible we should think about it. You are spinning faster than I thought is even possible.
-
But a cult of personality merely attempts to imitate religion, and can't really be compared to a proper religion with centuries of practice behind it.
I don't think religion is defined by age, though; at heart it's just a belief system in x or y, not a zzz year old belief system in x and y.
Insofar as Iran having nukes goes - I doubt they'd have them and not have tested them (I can't think of a nation who'd be willing to take the risk and capable of delivering a functional set of warheads to Iran - unlike Israel, which probably got US help for its program, thus circumventing the need for testing somewhat). Although the Iranian geology is less stable than, for example, North Korea, it's unlikely they'd be able to hide a detonation greater than 1kt (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10471&page=77); and that sort of yield wouldn't be much use as a 'proper' deterrent nuke (because most of these countries really just want nukes to deter the US from attack - they're aware the consequences of starting a war with nukes would be their annihilation, and no proper dictator seeks their own death)
-
Do you really think I just go "lalalalala" and refuse to think about Iran having nukes - I am pointing out that the best evidence for Iran having nukes is very, very circumstantial and often quite dubious, so arguing like Iran already possessed a nuke requires quite a lot of proof.
did you listen to yourself janos?, you are ignorant. you ovbious don't want to know and you say its impossible, this is what i am grabbing at. that is plain ignorance.
well I said it because YOU YOURSELF said that because something is possible we should think about it. You are spinning faster than I thought is even possible.
yes i said its possible, but i said about nukes not super computers get it right :P your the one thats spinning. are you going to keep this up?
religion itself is soo old that certain rules that were in latin or arabic have probably been changed. could be why there was holy wars.
-
Do you really think I just go "lalalalala" and refuse to think about Iran having nukes - I am pointing out that the best evidence for Iran having nukes is very, very circumstantial and often quite dubious, so arguing like Iran already possessed a nuke requires quite a lot of proof.
did you listen to yourself janos?, you are ignorant. you ovbious don't want to know and you say its impossible, this is what i am grabbing at. that is plain ignorance.
Shut up. I have asked you to come up with any kind of evidence that Iran has nukes and so far you have given none. Instead of, you know, actually responding to my points you now decide to call me ignorant. That's worthless. Do you ever actually address the arguments? Don't try to strawman your way out of this. You don't give any evidence, you don't argue even as well as a pre-schooler, and you're calling me ignorant? Well pardon me then - of course I will stay ignorant if you don't say anything useful at all.
well I said it because YOU YOURSELF said that because something is possible we should think about it. You are spinning faster than I thought is even possible.
yes i said its possible, but i said about nukes not super computers get it right :P your the one thats spinning. are you going to keep this up?
Jesus christ, are you retarded?
You say that "something is possible so evidence shmevidence".
I say that that is idiotic and say that it's also possible that [jupitersupercomputer].
It's a god damn metaphor, do you get it?
MY POINT WAS THAT IT'S IDIOTIC TO SAY THAT JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING MIGHT BE POSSIBLE THIS POSSIBILITY IS EQUAL TO MORE PROVEN CONCEPTS WITH ACTUAL RESEARCH OR FACTS BEHIND THEM
NOT ALL HYPOTHESISES YOU COME UP WITH ARE PLAUSIBLE OR SENSIBLE
NOT ALL OF THEM REQUIRE SIMILAR ANALYSIS ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL
religion itself is soo old that certain rules that were in latin or arabic have probably been changed. could be why there was holy wars.
i have no idea what this is about and i don't want to find out either
-
ahh someone is annoyed here, well atleast i know there are humans here instead of mechanical zombies finally :P.
preschooler, well ok you address your CAPITAL letter writing Janos before i will even attempt reading it. but hey im not the one acting like a child who has addressed his payback in capitals plus, look at what i have written above so far.. and its all on the middle east thats Iraq and Iran and nukes.
the admins asked me for constructive critisism and thats what ive delivered on, if you find me a challenge is because i learn fast :P.
ok you show me your super computer then? and il give you links on news so far about Iran if you want to try push it further ive got alot of sources to prove you wrong. if you don't have the info on that super computer of yours from jupiter then i won't give you anything :D.
as for holy wars, i guess your a religous man. il back out of that.
-
Can we stop all this ****ing moronic namecalling please? ::)
-
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
Hey Centrixo: I heard that Janos told Fred's friend's sister that you're, like, super gay, but then she was like "nuh uh" and then Fred told Janos and now he wants to fight you after school at the flag-pole. And if you don't show up, he's going to tell all the girls that you chickened out, and they'll totally laugh at you.
eidt: the point is moot anyway. If Iran had a dozen nukes tommorow, they wouldn't use them. The government is made up of fundamentalists, yes, but not in the bin Laden mold. They are supporters of a strict form of Islam, yes, but they're not revolutionaries. In other words, they are businessmen in robes. And like any nation, their goals are preserving the nation and expanding its wealth, power and prestige. The fact that the official ideology is Islamist in nature does not mean that Iran will place some religious agenda above its own wellbeing. I, for one, would feel no less safe in a world with a nuclear-armed Iran. And if you think otherwise, either you are seeing some evidenc I'm not, or you're reading too many Tom Clancy novels (and I use that term loosely).
-
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
Hey Centrixo: I heard that Janos told Fred's friend's sister that you're, like, super gay, but then she was like "nuh uh" and then Fred told Janos and now he wants to fight you after school at the flag-pole. And if you don't show up, he's going to tell all the girls that you chickened out, and they'll totally laugh at you.
thanks for the rumour :P.
i raise my bet on iran to 10 euros.
eidt: the point is moot anyway. If Iran had a dozen nukes tommorow, they wouldn't use them. The government is made up of fundamentalists, yes, but not in the bin Laden mold. They are supporters of a strict form of Islam, yes, but they're not revolutionaries. In other words, they are businessmen in robes. And like any nation, their goals are preserving the nation and expanding its wealth, power and prestige. The fact that the official ideology is Islamist in nature does not mean that Iran will place some religious agenda above its own wellbeing. I, for one, would feel no less safe in a world with a nuclear-armed Iran. And if you think otherwise, either you are seeing some evidenc I'm not, or you're reading too many Tom Clancy novels (and I use that term loosely).
whos Tom Clancy? but thats not the point, the world isn't safe anyhow with as you say terrorist running around, druggies, theifs, jockies, pyschopaths, traders, etc etc..
well Rictor i am happy your sticking up for Janos but im waiting on his word on that super computer of his, and your not going to get a thing until janos spits it out :cool:.
his word against mine.
-
ahh someone is annoyed here, well atleast i know there are humans here instead of mechanical zombies finally :P.
preschooler, well ok you address your CAPITAL letter writing Janos before i will even attempt reading it. but hey im not the one acting like a child who has addressed his payback in capitals plus, look at what i have written above so far.. and its all on the middle east thats Iraq and Iran and nukes.
You still haven't answered my question about Iran's nukes though and that's what I was asking for, whatever you might have written about Syria or whatever has jack **** to do with this argument. Does Iran have nukes or not? If they do, what evidence there is?
Of course I am annoyed - you dodge questions and still, in the umpteenth reply, seem to be unable to answer a very, very simple question. I didn't say a thing about your typing, only your capability to argue coherently and logically.
the admins asked me for constructive critisism and thats what ive delivered on, if you find me a challenge is because i learn fast :P.
Yeah you are challenging, because you cannot answer questions and change topic and position in every single reply you give. It's not a very good thing!
ok you show me your super computer then? and il give you links on news so far about Iran if you want to try push it further ive got alot of sources to prove you wrong. if you don't have the info on that super computer of yours from jupiter then i won't give you anything :D.
ahahaha
You are unable to grasp a simple ****ing metaphor when I have explained it two times already, and no I do not have any kind of burden of proof in this very argument because you yourself were the first to argue for Iran possessing nukes. You have to prove it, and because you obviously know what you are talking about coming up with sourced evidence shouldn't be hard.
But because you quite understand what the word metaphor means:
There is no Jupiter supercomputer. It's logically possible, but even arguing for existence of one would require a leap of faith or superhypersensational evidence. Since neither exist, discussing said hypothetical "Jupiter supercomputer" argument equally with more proven concepts, like existence of oxygen or sky being blue to us, is useless and intellectually dishonest.
Refusing to back statements ought to lead to monkeying, this is getting ridiculous.
as for holy wars, i guess your a religous man. il back out of that.
I haven't argued with you about religion, and I don't want to. If you quote someone make it clear whom you quote.
-
janos, *cough* you know what im asking for, give me the info, please? :D
-
janos, *cough* you know what im asking for, give me the info, please? :D
No I don't know and you are evading the question. You do realize that you have the burden of proof on you if you go ahead and imply that Iran has nuclear weapons, right?
-
your word against mine. Janos you are not getting a thing until you prove that super computer. Final!.
-
your word against mine, janos you are not getting a thing until you prove that super computer.
Do I have to prove a metaphor?
-
so you got no supercomputer huh?, then ive got nothing more to say, you loose Janos! :D
-
so you got no supercomputer huh?, then ive got nothing more to say, you loose Janos! :D
ahhhahahahahhaha
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
-
ahhhahahahahhaha
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
... Janos just lost the fight against me, end of story.
-
/me puts his face in his hands in disgust.
-
I think Centrixo is an0n.
-
I think Centrixo is an0n.
Not even an0n is smart enough to act that dumb.
-
Bah! I could do it.
-
Them's big words, little man.
-
I think you're overestimating the breadth of the task. One simply has to have a sufficient understanding of logic and argument structure to appropriately break the rules, then embellish the product with sloppy writing, insolence and obliviousness in some way that conveys a consistent persona, which is really an artistic decision. I'm sure many of us could invent fun characters like Centrixo.
-
/me puts his face in his hands in disgust.
*says in jack sparrow voice
It's HLP, love. :p :arrr:
-
I think you're overestimating the breadth of the task. One simply has to have a sufficient understanding of logic and argument structure to appropriately break the rules, then embellish the product with sloppy writing, insolence and obliviousness in some way that conveys a consistent persona, which is really an artistic decision. I'm sure many of us could invent fun characters like Centrixo.
Ah, I see the pattern here, you're Centrixo. A cunning deception, but ultimately fruitless. How long did you expect to keep up the charade with the super-smart likes of me around? Truly, the fox has been out-foxed.
-
BLAST! You have lured me out of my perfect disguise by appealing to my all-too-fallible ego! I HAVE BEEN FOILED IN A MOST ANCIENT GREEK FASHION!
And I would've gotten away with it, if it weren't for you meddlin' kids!
-
Another day, another crime solved. All in a days work for a super-sleuth like me. *Dusts hands*
-
*End-of-cartoon laughter, with everyone standing around as the camera pulls out*
-
whos Tom Clancy? but thats not the point, the world isn't safe anyhow with as you say terrorist running around, druggies, theifs, jockies, pyschopaths, traders, etc etc..
Ah yes, those damned evil Jockeys. Tiny buggers are always up to no good.
-
so you got no supercomputer huh?, then ive got nothing more to say, you loose Janos! :D
Answer the question. I'll rephrase it if you didn't get it before:
What proof do you have that Iran has nuclear weapons?
To rephrase his post, Janos said something to this extent:The concept of Iran being nuclear-armed is as ridiculous as saying that we are all controlled by a supercomputer from Jupiter.
Just because we can say something as a possibility, doesn't mean it has any credibility.
-
The concept of Iran being nuclear-armed is as ridiculous as saying that we are all controlled by a supercomputer from Jupiter.
You my friend, have stumbled onto the truth of things.
And by that i mean... we are all controlled by a supercomputer from Jupiter.
-
The concept of Iran being nuclear-armed is as ridiculous as saying that we are all controlled by a supercomputer from Jupiter.
You my friend, have stumbled onto the truth of things.
And by that i mean... we are all controlled by a supercomputer from Jupiter.
To be honest I was propably drunk when I wrote that, because it's not that likely.
edit: j/k, Iran has done some pretty suspicious things but nothing damning yet.
Edit 2: How the hell am I supposed to be able to argue with someone who does not validate his arguments and does not understand what the word "metaphor" means and switches burden of proof and is a living example of logical fallacies and thinks that because he does not validate his arguments in any way he "wins the debate", whatever that means? :( This makes me sad.
-
whos Tom Clancy? but thats not the point, the world isn't safe anyhow with as you say terrorist running around, druggies, theifs, jockies, pyschopaths, traders, etc etc..
Ah yes, those damned evil Jockeys. Tiny buggers are always up to no good.
Not to mention The Ifs (http://theifs.com/)!
-
I just figured Jupiter was the only logical place where Google could keep all their servers, not that it controlled us! :eek:
-
I just figured Jupiter was the only logical place where Google could keep all their servers, not that it controlled us! :eek:
the gubmint is withholding evidence
-
If Amedinijad keeps opening his mouth and is as cavalier about displaying his nuclear progress, there might just be an Israeli attack on Iran. But like it or not, a state like Iran whose leader openly denounces the holocaust and calls for the annihilation of Israel on an almost weekly basis must not be allowed to have nukes. War is not an unnecessary social program that billions of dollars are being wasted on. War is how real problems in the world are solved, it doesnt matter how much the war costs.
I disagree. No matter how much you dislike Amedinijad, he is the elected leader and his country has EVERY right in the world to deveop nuclear power.
Denouncing the Holocaust is an idiotic thing (altough I do belive the numbers were overblown to begin with), but then again there is no law against being stupid.
And I belive he stated that Israel should be erased from the maps, which can be understood in several ways:
a) destroy everything
b) remove it from the world map as it is (not accpeting the current borders of Israel)
c) that Israel shouldn't be counted as a real state/country
But regardless of what he meant it's just talk and he's just one man, so a nuke attack on Israel or USA is as likely as USA attacking China..
-
If Amedinijad keeps opening his mouth and is as cavalier about displaying his nuclear progress, there might just be an Israeli attack on Iran. But like it or not, a state like Iran whose leader openly denounces the holocaust and calls for the annihilation of Israel on an almost weekly basis must not be allowed to have nukes. War is not an unnecessary social program that billions of dollars are being wasted on. War is how real problems in the world are solved, it doesnt matter how much the war costs.
I disagree. No matter how much you dislike Amedinijad, he is the elected leader and his country has EVERY right in the world to deveop nuclear power.
Denouncing the Holocaust is an idiotic thing (altough I do belive the numbers were overblown to begin with), but then again there is no law against being stupid.
And I belive he stated that Israel should be erased from the maps, which can be understood in several ways:
a) destroy everything
b) remove it from the world map as it is (not accpeting the current borders of Israel)
c) that Israel shouldn't be counted as a real state/country
But regardless of what he meant it's just talk and he's just one man, so a nuke attack on Israel or USA is as likely as USA attacking China..
He's one man who is appealing, and appeasing, hard-liners in his country. That means there is a political will within Iran to gain nuclear weapons. Do you honestly think it's a good idea to let them have such power?
-
He's one man who is appealing, and appeasing, hard-liners in his country. That means there is a political will within Iran to gain nuclear weapons. Do you honestly think it's a good idea to let them have such power?
I say let them. They want nuclear arms more for defense than going all suicidal and attempting to put the smackdown on Israel. Once they have nuclear weapons and feel more secure, they might open up to diplomacy a tad more.
-
He's one man who is appealing, and appeasing, hard-liners in his country. That means there is a political will within Iran to gain nuclear weapons. Do you honestly think it's a good idea to let them have such power?
USA has them, UK has them, France has them, China has them, Israel has them.. So YES I think it's a good idea to let them have such power.
-
He's one man who is appealing, and appeasing, hard-liners in his country. That means there is a political will within Iran to gain nuclear weapons. Do you honestly think it's a good idea to let them have such power?
USA has them, UK has them, France has them, China has them, Israel has them.. So YES I think it's a good idea to let them have such power.
Ummmm, 2 things. One; you do you think nuclear weapons per se are a good idea? Secondly; don't you think there's just a bit of moral difference between the listed countries (even Israel) and a country controlled by a man who happily hosted a holocaust denial conference and said "Israel must be wiped off the map"?
-
Secondly; don't you think there's just a bit of moral difference between the listed countries (even Israel) and a country controlled by a man who happily hosted a holocaust denial conference and said "Israel must be wiped off the map"?
We know Amedinijad's crazy, but the question is whether he that very special kind of crazy require for him to willingly sacrafice himself and his entire nation for his beliefs? Until that question is answered, morally a war is out of the question. Of course, morals never dictate whether or not you start a war, but still...
-
That's a risk you're willing to take then? You're quite the gambler.
-
I'm not the one in the firing line, so I can afford it.
-
Secondly; don't you think there's just a bit of moral difference between the listed countries (even Israel) and a country controlled by a man who happily hosted a holocaust denial conference and said "Israel must be wiped off the map"?
We know Amedinijad's crazy, but the question is whether he that very special kind of crazy require for him to willingly sacrafice himself and his entire nation for his beliefs? Until that question is answered, morally a war is out of the question. Of course, morals never dictate whether or not you start a war, but still...
Surely if we're not going to remove all nuclear weapons, the least we can do is stop the nutbag lunatics getting them? I don't want any nation to have nukes, but if you force me into a choice between keeping some and removing some, I think it's the ones controlled by anti-semitic lunatics I'd rather see removed.
-
Ahmadinejad is not a very popular president among those who wield the true power in Iran right now - the clerics (Ahmadinejad is pretty much a figurehead) do not support him because his antics are not good for Iran and the council. Even if he wanted to order an attack on Israel (highly unlikely, to say the least), he couldn't, because he simply does not have that kind of power! Pasdaran is subject to supreme leader, and they happen to be the ones who control the missile forces. Even in a case of full-blown civil war the nuclear escalation is highly unlikely.
Also, Iran having nukes is in direct conflict with NPT which Iran has signed. Developing nuclear power is not. That's why the entire issue is whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weaponry, not whether or not they are developing nuclear power.
Here's some reading for people: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1991316,00.html
Basically, Ahmadinejad is pretty ****ed, unless some foreign country ****s up even worse. People seem to think that Ahmadinejad is some really, really psycho guy, when in reality he's a relatively weak populist in a country surrounded by real or perceived threats.
-
Ahmadinejad is not a very popular president among those who wield the true power in Iran right now - the clerics (Ahmadinejad is pretty much a figurehead) do not support him because his antics are not good for Iran and the council. Even if he wanted to order an attack on Israel (highly unlikely, to say the least), he couldn't, because he simply does not have that kind of power! Pasdaran is subject to supreme leader, and they happen to be the ones who control the missile forces. Even in a case of full-blown civil war the nuclear escalation is highly unlikely.
Also, Iran having nukes is in direct conflict with NPT which Iran has signed. Developing nuclear power is not. That's why the entire issue is whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weaponry, not whether or not they are developing nuclear power.
Here's some reading for people: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1991316,00.html
Basically, Ahmadinejad is pretty ****ed, unless some foreign country ****s up even worse. People seem to think that Ahmadinejad is some really, really psycho guy, when in reality he's a relatively weak populist in a country surrounded by real or perceived threats.
The problem is that Ahmadinejad is one of two things. One is that he is representative of the populaces political wishes - vitriolic, even genocidal anti-semitism. The other is that he isn't, but still is the hand-picked leader (thanks to a selected candidate pool for elections) from the ruling council.
-
Basically, Ahmadinejad is pretty ****ed, unless some foreign country ****s up even worse. People seem to think that Ahmadinejad is some really, really psycho guy, when in reality he's a relatively weak populist in a country surrounded by real or perceived threats.
If he really was surrounded by real or percieved threats, there are much better ways of dealing with them. Diplomacy has after all been defined as the art of saying "Good dog" while you look for a rock. A soft answer turneth away wrath, so you can shoot it in the head when it's not looking. And so on.
Besides, if you actually look at the countries surrounding Iran the only one that's construable as threatening right now is Iraq.
-
The problem is that Ahmadinejad is one of two things. One is that he is representative of the populaces political wishes - vitriolic, even genocidal anti-semitism. The other is that he isn't, but still is the hand-picked leader (thanks to a selected candidate pool for elections) from the ruling council.
Umm, so what? Besides if you are talking about Ahmadinejad's notorious speech about Israel and wiping them out, it didn't quite go as genocidial. He was advocating destruction of Israel regime. If he was really antisemitic, the Jews wouldn't propably be a religion with official status and representation in Iranian Parliament.
-
The problem is that Ahmadinejad is one of two things. One is that he is representative of the populaces political wishes - vitriolic, even genocidal anti-semitism. The other is that he isn't, but still is the hand-picked leader (thanks to a selected candidate pool for elections) from the ruling council.
Umm, so what? Besides if you are talking about Ahmadinejad's notorious speech about Israel and wiping them out, it didn't quite go as genocidial. He was advocating destruction of Israel regime. If he was really antisemitic, the Jews wouldn't propably be a religion with official status and representation in Iranian Parliament.
Why does the Iranian parliament matter? I thought they weren't supposed to have any actual power........in any case, I don't see why the makeup of the Iranian parliament allowing a (tiny) minority group to exist precludes the anti-semitism of the countries leaders.
It's worth noting that, like all non-Muslims, Iranian/Persian jews are subject to state-sanctioned discrimination & sharia law. Movement outside Israel (perhaps referencing the emigration of something like 60-90,000 of the Jewish population since the Islamic Revolution) is restricted with limited visas and passport rights. Jewish pupils are also compelled to attend school during the Sabbath
-
It's worth noting that, like all non-Muslims, Iranian/Persian jews are subject to state-sanctioned discrimination & sharia law.
To be fair, they're not really subjected to Shar'ia law as it was intended. The Shar'ia actually grants considerable leeway to Judaic and Christian enclaves in areas under Muslim control. They are granted leave to govern themselves in all internal matters but must submit to Muslim will in external ones; an extra tax is levied on them but not much of one (IIRC no more then 7% extra and this is considered extraordinary); and they are denied the right to bear weapons.
So it's not really Shar'ia law.
-
Basically, Ahmadinejad is pretty ****ed, unless some foreign country ****s up even worse. People seem to think that Ahmadinejad is some really, really psycho guy, when in reality he's a relatively weak populist in a country surrounded by real or perceived threats.
If he really was surrounded by real or percieved threats, there are much better ways of dealing with them. Diplomacy has after all been defined as the art of saying "Good dog" while you look for a rock. A soft answer turneth away wrath, so you can shoot it in the head when it's not looking. And so on.
Besides, if you actually look at the countries surrounding Iran the only one that's construable as threatening right now is Iraq.
Real or perceived. They have USA on both sides and hey it's Amerikkka, Iraq is in shambles and whoever wins Iran loses, Israel whom Iran consider's to be US's lapdog or vice versa, take your pick. You know, I am not quite following Ahmadinejad's rail of thought either and he is certainly an... "interesting character", but I do not believe Iran as a regime is suicidial. Why does the Iranian parliament matter? I thought they weren't supposed to have any actual power........in any case, I don't see why the makeup of the Iranian parliament allowing a (tiny) minority group to exist precludes the anti-semitism of the countries leaders.
It's worth noting that, like all non-Muslims, Iranian/Persian jews are subject to state-sanctioned discrimination & sharia law. Movement outside Israel (perhaps referencing the emigration of something like 60-90,000 of the Jewish population since the Islamic Revolution) is restricted with limited visas and passport rights. Jewish pupils are also compelled to attend school during the Sabbath
The parliament is worth ****. They are useless, powerful in domestic questions but weak in real-politiks and foreign policies. It's the cleric council that wields the highest power in Iran, even in their de jure law. Iranian government is a mixture of democratic and undemocratic organizations, and undemocratic organizations have the upper hand in "hard issues".
Of course Iran allowing a minority group to exist is kinda supposed to happen and if they didn't it would be really tough news. Jewish emigration can, and propably does have many different reasons, but still Iranian jews are not a persecuted group as far as I know. They have their own represenation, and even if this is purely for propaganda reasons it still speak heavily for Iran's relatively lax approach to Judaism.
The entire argument at hand has more to do with the entire argument of Ahmadinejad, accused of being the highest authority, which he is not, being a vitriolic anti-semitist, when even in his famous speech he does not qualify as such.
-
That's a risk you're willing to take then? You're quite the gambler.
IMHO, Iran is no more likely to lauch a nuclear stike (if he had nukes) than the other nucler powers (primarely thinking about the USA and Isreal)
If I had to chose between a national copy of Bush or Ahmadinejad running my country, I'd chose the latter. He taks no s*** from the "wolrd"!
-
The parliament is worth ****. They are useless, powerful in domestic questions but weak in real-politiks and foreign policies. It's the cleric council that wields the highest power in Iran, even in their de jure law. Iranian government is a mixture of democratic and undemocratic organizations, and undemocratic organizations have the upper hand in "hard issues".
Of course Iran allowing a minority group to exist is kinda supposed to happen and if they didn't it would be really tough news. Jewish emigration can, and propably does have many different reasons, but still Iranian jews are not a persecuted group as far as I know. They have their own represenation, and even if this is purely for propaganda reasons it still speak heavily for Iran's relatively lax approach to Judaism.
The entire argument at hand has more to do with the entire argument of Ahmadinejad, accused of being the highest authority, which he is not, being a vitriolic anti-semitist, when even in his famous speech he does not qualify as such.
I would think Ahmadinejad is pretty obviously anti-semitic given his actions in hosting what was effectively a Holocaust denial conference; that act to me indicates he sees no distinction between 'Zionist' and 'Jew' - him not, say, trying to exterminate the domestic Jewish population is simply a matter of relative threat. Plus, I find it hard to see how Ahmadinejad could be selected by the ruling clergy (which, in effect, he is given the rather undemocratic nature of Iranian elections) without knowledge and implicit support of his views.
That's a risk you're willing to take then? You're quite the gambler.
IMHO, Iran is no more likely to lauch a nuclear stike (if he had nukes) than the other nucler powers (primarely thinking about the USA and Isreal)
If I had to chose between a national copy of Bush or Ahmadinejad running my country, I'd chose the latter. He taks no s*** from the "wolrd"!
And he drives the economy and foreign relations into the ground doing so...... Kim Jong-Il takes even less ****, would you prefer him?