[luelling]

They are probably a good five years off from producing a nuke as a weapon...but do you really think we can stop them??? Air strikes won't do it and a good chunk of the Iraqis hold an allegance to the Iranian government (through their Iatolya sp?). If we invaded with troops, which would probably be needed, we would face a bloody battle and probably a defeat.

For those that think we are invicible.... a hard insurgency that is willing to die for the cause (much the same way Fidel Castro won power) can defeat any profesional army becuase they don't care. You think a soldier getting paid 20k a year wants to be blown up?? yet they face an enemy that will, for free and at any cost, kill himself just to kill several of us.

 

[blue]

I give them a year. And the US won't do anything.

Good for the Iranians.

 

[LordOpie]

I give them a year. And the US won't do anything.

Good for the Iranians.

uhh, good that they're pursuing nukes?

 

[BurlyShirley]

For those that think we are invicible.... a hard insurgency that is willing to die for the cause (much the same way Fidel Castro won power) can defeat any profesional army becuase they don't care. You think a soldier getting paid 20k a year wants to be blown up?? yet they face an enemy that will, for free and at any cost, kill himself just to kill several of us.

Well, that's true only if we fight a media-friendly, watchout for civilians type war. We could actually level the ****ing place if we NEEDED to. Seriously.

 

[noname]

Well, that's true only if we fight a media-friendly, watchout for civilians type war. We could actually level the ****ing place if we NEEDED to. Seriously.

I say total media blackout for 5 days, then send in the reporters to help the red cross look for survivors.

 

[ridetoofast]

I give them a year. And the US won't do anything.

Good for the Iranians.<---why?

i dearly hope you don't rue the day you said this for all of our sake.

 

[blue]

If we're to use standard conservative (you know, the idiots pushing the "TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO EAT YOUR BABIES" rhetoric) Realist theory, Iran is assumed to be rational and is NOT going to nuke the US/Israel/whoever. The development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a deterrence move.

Wouldn't you want your state to have some method of deterrence if some nutcase labeled your state part of an "Axis of Evil"?

 

[valve bouncer]

Well, that's true only if we fight a media-friendly, watchout for civilians type war. We could actually level the ****ing place if we NEEDED to. Seriously.

Way to hold the high moral ground. What are you lot fighting for again?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Way to hold the high moral ground. What are you lot fighting for again?

Who the **** said anything about the moral highground? If it comes to us getting nuked or them, I pick them. Call me selfish and see if I give a ****.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Who the **** said anything about the moral highground? If it comes to us getting nuked or them, I pick them. Call me selfish and see if I give a ****.

you&#180;d have to kill a lot of arabs to avoid any of them going back at you in any form at any point in the future..
and what are they? like a billion only???

 

[noname]

Speaking of . . . .. . . . ..

Iran News Apr 16th, 2006 - 14:44:56
Page One > Iran News



Mullahs' suicide squads: 40,000 Iranian arab-parasts on alert in Iran
Apr 16, 2006

Mullahs have formed battalions of about 40,000 Iranian arab-parast suicide bombers to strike British and American targets if its nuclear facilities are attacked, says a media report. The report published in the British News paper 'Sunday Times' claims that the main force was first seen last month parading in olive-green uniforms with explosive packs around their waists.

According to report Hassan Abbasi, head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards, said in a speech that 29 western targets had been identified.

The newspaper claimed that it had heard a tape recording in which Abbasi vowed that Britain's demise is on their agenda.

Mullahs have been at loggerheads with the Western countries over its nuclear programme.


Earlier, the US has condemned Iran's announcement it has successfully enriched uranium for nuclear fuel, saying "once again they have chosen the pathway of defiance."

The West, led by the US, believes that Iran plans to build nuclear weapons, and says the move only underscores why the global community has serious concerns about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Iran's move would only result in further isolation, and the United States will have to consult with its allies on what the next step in the diplomatic standoff would be, McClellan said.

© Iranian.ws

 

[LordOpie]

If we're to use standard conservative (you know, the idiots pushing the "TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO EAT YOUR BABIES" rhetoric) Realist theory, Iran is assumed to be rational and is NOT going to nuke the US/Israel/whoever.

Ok, you don't believe the US, etc. when they say Iran is a threat? Would you believe the leader of Iran when he says they're a threat?

On Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at the conference and said Israel's existence constitutes a "threat on the Islamic world," but vowed to remove the threat soon, characterizing Israel as a "rotten tree."

link

Are you sure you want Iran to have nukes?

 

[valve bouncer]

Who the **** said anything about the moral highground? If it comes to us getting nuked or them, I pick them. Call me selfish and see if I give a ****.

So actually how are they gonna nuke you? Seems like you are in favour of indiscriminately killing Iranians regardless of whether they actually pose a threat to you or not. Is that what you want your country to stand for? Actually don't answer that I probably know what your answer is going to be.

 

[noname]

Valve Bouncer, really I wouldn't we wouldn't care under normal circumstances, but when you have someone this far off his rocker with his finger on the button.......

Iran News Apr 15th, 2006 - 17:47:42
Page One > Iran News



"Iran president filth" got 4 fired
Apr 15, 2006
WorldNetDaily.com

Iran prez arrests 4 over text message
Fires head of phone company, sues over claim he doesn't wash

When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got an anonymous text message suggesting he didn't wash enough, he did not take it lying down.

He fired the president of the phone company, had four people arrested, took other legal action and accused those involve of conspiring with the Israeli foreign intelligence service Mossad, according to the Iranian opposition website Rooz Online.

The website says Ahmadinejad, known throughout the world as a hard-liner who has threatened Israel with destruction and questioned the Holocaust, is the target of many barbs among the populace in his country.

But the mullah regime doesn't show much of a sense of humor. Of particular concern are jokes comparing Iran's nuclear ambitions with sex. Several people have reportedly received court summonses for sending nuclear-related jokes, according to the website.

Tehran has taken a tough stance against opposition on the Internet. Many of the nation's estimated 70,000 to 100,000 bloggers have faced harassment or imprisonment. The regime has acknowledged monitoring text message traffic.

&#169; Iranian.ws

 

[noname]

Those guys really need to get laid more, or maybe smoke some weed or something.

 

[valve bouncer]

Those guys really need to get laid more, or maybe smoke some weed or something.

Well I won't disagree with you there. The one thing to remember about this guy is that he doesn't really hold any real power. That still resides with the ayatollahs. This guy is on borrowed tme anyway, the clerical regime in Tehran is just using him to wring concessions from the West at a time when the US and it's allies are vulnerable over the Iraq fiasco. When his usefulness is over he'll be replaced.
As has been said before, an emboldened Iran is just another in the long line of foreign policy disasters this foolish war has brought to the Americans and their allies.

 

[blue]

Let me put up these two comparisons...

China/Taiwan ROC

Iran/Israel

The Iranians will NOT nuke Israel, simply because it isn't rational. Any Iranian nuclear action against Israel/US will result in the decimation of Iran. They aren't that stupid. If you develop nukes, you don't have to bend over for the Amis. It's that simple.

Why do you think Bush is so keen on SDI?

 

[blue]

Well I won't disagree with you there. The one thing to remember about this guy is that he doesn't really hold any real power. That still resides with the ayatollahs. This guy is on borrowed tme anyway, the clerical regime in Tehran is just using him to wring concessions from the West at a time when the US and it's allies are vulnerable over the Iraq fiasco. When his usefulness is over he'll be replaced.
As has been said before, an emboldened Iran is just another in the long line of foreign policy disasters this foolish war has brought to the Americans and their allies.

Presicesly. The current president of Iran is a pawn, nothing more. The US is in a very compromising position right now when it comes to "rogue" states.

 

[DaveW]

Course they haven't broken any treatys or international laws like the US has ......

The IAEA and UN security council have not actually told them to stop

These guys have been involved in LESS terrorism than the Pakistani's and have been vastly more stable too.

 

[The Amish]

Who the **** said anything about the moral highground? If it comes to us getting nuked or them, I pick them. Call me selfish and see if I give a ****.

CAn I get an AMEN!

 

[BurlyShirley]

So actually how are they gonna nuke you? Seems like you are in favour of indiscriminately killing Iranians regardless of whether they actually pose a threat to you or not.

Where did I say that? Im speaking only in terms of capability here. Im not even in favor of a war with Iran at this point, let alone indiscriminately killing their citizens, but as I said, if it gets to the point that its our citizens or theirs who are going to die, I pick theirs. Too bad so sad.

 

[valve bouncer]

Where did I say that? Im speaking only in terms of capability here. Im not even in favor of a war with Iran at this point, let alone indiscriminately killing their citizens, but as I said, if it gets to the point that its our citizens or theirs who are going to die, I pick theirs. Too bad so sad.

Capability? What a pointless road to go down. The US has the "capability" to turn the whole planet into a glowing pile of radioactive rubble, let alone Iran, so mentioning it is just so much macho chest thumping. Quite obviously a no holds barred war in Iran is highly unlikely but at this stage it's easy to be blase about the potential loss of Iranian lives when they are the ones who are really going to suffer in a war that won't be fought on American soil.

 

[LordOpie]

...they are the ones who are really going to suffer in a war that won't be fought on American soil.

Substitute "they" for anyone and I'm fine with that.

I don't want war, period. But if a war happens, better their soil then mine.

PS: there are way too many nukes on the planet, don'tcha think? Why add to the insanity?

 

[valve bouncer]

Substitute "they" for anyone and I'm fine with that.

I don't want war, period. But if a war happens, better their soil then mine.

PS: there are way too many nukes on the planet, don'tcha think? Why add to the insanity?

Again it's easy to be blase when it's a good guess that the other bloke is gonna get the pointy end of the stick. And no I don't think the Iranians should have nukes, maybe if you guys gave up some of yours you might set a good example.

 

[Westy]

Luckily we have lost all legitimacy and trust with the international community to do anything about it. Funny thing is now our policy is to let the UN take care of it.

 

[LordOpie]

Again it's easy to be blase when it's a good guess that the other bloke is gonna get the pointy end of the stick. And no I don't think the Iranians should have nukes, maybe if you guys gave up some of yours you might set a good example.

It's not blasé... it's fear. I'm afraid of my house getting blown up, which is why I, logically, don't want war on my soil. I don't want war anywhere.

But if it happens, I'm not going to volunteer to host the party.

 

[blue]

it's fear

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how to embrace the Neo-Conservative mindset...

 

[noname]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how to embrace the Neo-Conservative mindset...

Are you saying we should not be concerned at all with them?
Clinton tried that approach and yet we were still attacked multiple times.

 

[noname]

Maybe I worry about it a little more because the guys who piloted the planes into the towers had been scoping out my town before the attacks, . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

 

[LordOpie]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how to embrace the Neo-Conservative mindset...

hey, way to take it out of context.

So you're in favor of more nukes on the planet? So noted.

 

[blue]

Let me put this in plain words:

We have far larger things to worry about than terrorism. Why 95% of the American public thinks otherwise is ridiculous.

Maybe if we stoped dicking around with other countries, they wouldn't hate us so goddamned much, and we wouldn't have to worry that they were developing nukes.

In short, Iran is rational, and will not use the nukes it will create unless it is attacked.

Nobody seemed to dump a load in their pants when Pakistan (in a far more volatile situation with a neighbor, as well as a FAR more unstable country) blew up a nuke.

I'm far more concerned with Pakistan and North Korea having nukes. North Korea worries me more, not just because they have missiles that can strike the West Coast, but because of the level of irrationality their government has displayed. They play recklessly, and they have nothing to lose.

 

[DaveW]

On Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at the conference and said Israel's existence constitutes a "threat on the Islamic world," but vowed to remove the threat soon, characterizing Israel as a "rotten tree."

link

Are you sure you want Iran to have nukes?

In case you missed it:
Ahmadinejad Did Not Say - "Wipe Israel Off The Map":

(according to the turks who are one of the few countrys that get on ok with Israel)

 

[The Amish]

In short, Iran is rational, .

Dumbest monkey on the planet hands down

 

[BurlyShirley]

In short, Iran is rational, and will not use the nukes it will create unless it is attacked.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHHHH

poor kid.

 

[The Amish]

And they wonder why we dont elect liberals

 

[BurlyShirley]

And they wonder why we dont elect liberals

Hell, the kid's from Salt Lake City, he's probably does think a fundamentalist govt. is rational.

 

[fluff]

If you look at the situation dispassionately why is Iran so irrational compared to the US?

 

[noname]

If you look at the situation dispassionately why is Iran so irrational compared to the US?

aside from the words coming out of the guys own mouth?
Granted I don't think they will have nukes anywhere near as soon as they say they will, it will probly be several years before they are even ready to test one, and even then it will be far too heavy for the missiles they have now and they would never be able to get a plane capable of delivering one over enemy soil.
I just would much rather stop them before they go nuclear than after.
Right now they are just waiting out Bushs term because they know he is the only one willing to stop them.

 

[fluff]

aside from the words coming out of the guys own mouth?
Granted I don't think they will have nukes anywhere near as soon as they say they will, it will probly be several years before they are even ready to test one, and even then it will be far too heavy for the missiles they have now and they would never be able to get a plane capable of delivering one over enemy soil.
I just would much rather stop them before they go nuclear than after.
Right now they are just waiting out Bushs term because they know he is the only one willing to stop them.

It's not really that different to Bush's 'Axis of Evil' garbage. Following that little gem and the invasion of Iraq it's hardly surprising that Iran look to develop nuclear weapons, it's probably (in their eyes) the only way to stop the US invading.

Iran's current regime (ie. post-Shah) has not invaded too many other countries - the US has certainly invaded more and killed more civilians in the process.

The US is still the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon, still has more than anyone else and is still developing them.

No, I don't want Iran to have nukes but there is more than a whiff of double standards about the US/UK position.

 

[noname]

It's not really that different to Bush's 'Axis of Evil' garbage. Following that little gem and the invasion of Iraq it's hardly surprising that Iran look to develop nuclear weapons, it's probably (in their eyes) the only way to stop the US invading.

Iran's current regime (ie. post-Shah) has not invaded too many other countries - the US has certainly invaded more and killed more civilians in the process.

The US is still the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon, still has more than anyone else and is still developing them.

No, I don't want Iran to have nukes but there is more than a whiff of double standards about the US/UK position.

Absolutist arguments of everyone or no one are rediculous. We've also invaded Germany, Italy, France, Japan, etc. Wahahahah.
Damn right we used it, everyone seems to bring that up while ignoring the context of the time, shall I give you a little history lesson of the atrosities of the Japanese? The incredibly horrid things they were doing? It had to be done, and facing the same situation we'd do it again.