View Full Version : What to do with Iran? (Evil Conservatives welcome!)
masterazn
05-02-2006, 03:13
Well then:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/04/iran.wrap/index.html
What do you guys think should happen with Iran, a supposedly dangerous country trying to acquire arms? Do you think sanctions are counter-productive? If so, what should be done instead? Invade maybe? Diplomatic "talks"?
To me, it's clear Iran will probably never let inspectors in and the worst can only be assumed. I vote sanctions first to see what happens.
EDIT:
On a side note:
NOOooOOoOoOoooOOOoOooOo!!! (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/03/russia.vodka.reut/index.html)
LukeJames
05-02-2006, 03:25
Draw slanderous religious pictures and air-drop them.
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-02-2006, 03:28
We have to make sure they cannot build a bomb. A world with a nuclear armed Iran is a world that will see war on a level that cannot be comprehended.
The only solution short of a full-scale war is to blow a large part of Tehran off the planet. Several MOABs dropped on the city, taking out their government is the way to kill the least amount of innocents and still ensure that the bastards die. The mission would have to be supported by a massive air defense suppression effort. How that would be handled is best left to the people that do that for a living.
Since that isn't going to happen, let's look at what is the most likely scenario. They're going to get nukes. Tel Aviv is going to be vaporized. Israel is going to vaporize Iran and anybody else that gets in their way. Amid the chaos, India and/or Pakistan decide to eliminate the other with a first strike. China either invades Taiwan or vaporizes it. Possibly large portions of Japan as well.
Then things really get bad.
I wasn't alive for the Cuban Missle Crisis. But as I heard it described on the radio, this week shall be henceforth known as Crap My Pants Week. It's starting to look very likely that before the year is over, the world is going to change yet again.
Let's set em up the bomb!
buttershug
05-02-2006, 04:04
We have to make sure they cannot build a bomb. A world with a nuclear armed Iran is a world that will see war on a level that cannot be comprehended.
The only solution short of a full-scale war is to blow a large part of Tehran off the planet. Several MOABs dropped on the city, taking out their government is the way to kill the least amount of innocents and still ensure that the bastards die. The mission would have to be supported by a massive air defense suppression effort. How that would be handled is best left to the people that do that for a living.
Since that isn't going to happen, let's look at what is the most likely scenario. They're going to get nukes. Tel Aviv is going to be vaporized. Israel is going to vaporize Iran and anybody else that gets in their way. Amid the chaos, India and/or Pakistan decide to eliminate the other with a first strike. China either invades Taiwan or vaporizes it. Possibly large portions of Japan as well.
Then things really get bad.
I wasn't alive for the Cuban Missle Crisis. But as I heard it described on the radio, this week shall be henceforth known as Crap My Pants Week. It's starting to look very likely that before the year is over, the world is going to change yet again.
The bible says in the end times an army of 100 million men will come through the Kashmir (sp) pass. I forget the details but I remember I read it was 100 million men which of course was incomprehensible in biblical times. So I guess China will march eastward after they are done with Taiwan.
I don't see how annihilating part of their largest city is intended to keep down innocent casualities... :scratch:
superdave
05-02-2006, 04:23
either leave them alone or wipe every one of them off the planet.
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-02-2006, 04:39
I don't see how annihilating part of their largest city is intended to keep down innocent casualities... :scratch:
All of Tehran will cease to exist if Israel uses a nuke against them. A MOAB destroys a much smaller area. 200 yard radius in a densely packed and well built area and 600 yard radius in an open field. Nukes measure in miles.
I know what you're getting at. How can you kill some to save many? Some will die no matter what. The idea is to save as many as possible.
In WW2 we would have gladly blown Berlin off the planet in 1942 if we could have. We couldn't and it took destroying much of Europe to defeat Germany. We can destroy part of Tehran now and prevent a larger, nuclear war. It's a choice between killing ten thousand or ten million. Which makes you less of a butcher?
Sokar Rostau
05-02-2006, 04:43
First of all, there is no evidence, other than innuendo, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Why is it so hard to believe that in a time when many people dismiss Islamic states as medieval, or even stone age, that such a state may wish to invest in it's future and build nuclear power plants? Of course they wouldn't because Muslims are evil, loathsome, jealous, cave-dwelling hatemongers whose every waking desire is the wholesale slaughter of the West so they MUST be building bombs, right? I smell yellowcake...
Secondly, I was under the impression that Americans were fervent believers in the right to self defence. That is certainly the cry when any type of restriction of firearms is mentioned. Americans believe they have a right to keep a loaded Uzi under their pillows because one day someone might break into their house and threaten them with a Magnum. Israel secretly, and illegally, acquired nuclear weapons and some of those are aimed at Tehran - do the Iranian people not have a right to self defence? Or do only those that have shown a willingness to use such weapons offensively have such a right?
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-02-2006, 05:10
No evidence? Have you been living under a rock or in a cave lately? Aaah, you're not going to accept anything short of a nuke going off. And then you'll blame the US for it anyway.
We can destroy part of Tehran now and prevent a larger, nuclear war ... Which makes you less of a butcher?
Listening to Smeg's rant ... this dialogue comes to mind:
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.
President Merkin Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
05-02-2006, 06:08
That's a great movie because so much of it is believable. The best satire is.
Moosashi
05-02-2006, 07:28
Categorical imperative vs. consequentialism. Whether you believe it is justified to attack Iran to prevent them from obtaining nukes is a measure of how broadly you apply your principles (or whether you have principles at all beyond complete selfishness)
jimmyboy
05-02-2006, 16:01
Well then:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/04/iran.wrap/index.html
What do you guys think should happen with Iran, a supposedly dangerous country trying to acquire arms? Do you think sanctions are counter-productive? If so, what should be done instead? Invade maybe? Diplomatic "talks"?
To me, it's clear Iran will probably never let inspectors in and the worst can only be assumed. I vote sanctions first to see what happens.
EDIT:
On a side note:
NOOooOOoOoOoooOOOoOooOo!!! (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/03/russia.vodka.reut/index.html)
I still vote sanctions.
Worked with Iraq. Will work with Iran.
And in a worst case scenario, let Israel do it's own work, which they will gladly do. No need to occupy Iran's 70 million when we can't even occupy Iraq's 25 million.
We've enough problems at home. I think we need a time-out in trying to police the world.
BTW, when the Russians and Chinese say sanctions are "counter-productive." They don't mean that it won't work. It means that as a major trading partner to Iran, Russia and China will be losing major business deals e.g. not produtive.
stormrage112345
05-02-2006, 16:19
Wouldn't it me more important to worry about all the nukes from China/ Russia? Oh, and how would trashing China affect our economy?
EliManning
05-02-2006, 17:16
Well, first it's important to remember that the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty Article IV section 1 affirms the inalienable right of all signatories, including Iran, to develop, research, produce, and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which is all that Iran has said they're doing. Only now has Iran violated the treaty, as IAEA verification is required by Article III. Invasion is not an appropriate response to such a minor and first time violation, and the UNSC will not authorize such a course at this point. With Russia holding veto power in the SC it seems unlikely that even sanctions will be put into place.
However, even if sanctions are applied, Article X grants all signatories the right to withdraw from the treaty at any time given three months notice. If sanctions are applied, the incentive for Iran will be to withdraw and begin developing nuclear weapons, since they'll already be facing the consequences of having developed them whether or not they ever actually intended to. The best course for now is to maintain diplomacy and try to bring Iran back into compliance with Article III so that we can actually know what they're doing. This will also be the approach supported by war hawks, since manipulating the IAEA into doing your pre-war intel work for you became a proven strategy in Iraq.
Also, as an aside, it's pretty hypocritical for the US to be leading this charge considering we've handed out about 200 nuclear weapons under NATO agreements, essentially putting the entire organization in violation of NPT Articles I and II. We should be refering ourselves to the UNSC.
buttershug
05-02-2006, 17:23
I still vote sanctions.
Worked with Iraq. Will work with Iran.
I honestly don't know if you are serious or being sarcastic. If you are being serious what is your criteria for sanctions "working"? I suspect, they keep the country in question out of the news so you don't have to think about them.
EliManning
05-02-2006, 17:32
I honestly don't know if you are serious or being sarcastic. If you are being serious what is your criteria for sanctions "working"? I suspect, they keep the country in question out of the news so you don't have to think about them.
Sanctions to keep Iraq from developing weapons worked fantastically. Why do you think Iraq had no weapons? It wasn't because Hussein was a nice guy and felt like cooperating with his treaty obligations. Iraq hasn't been out of the news for any one period of 24 consecutive hours in the last 20 years, so that certainly can't be it.
Iran is a much different fish from Iraq though, despite similarities in geography and spelling.
Edit: And I don't mean nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Iraq had literally almost no weapons. The best thing they have at their disposal even today is our own unexploded ordinance hooked up to a cell phone.
oui, no evidence for Irani nuke producing capabilities. plz provide evidence smeg. all i've heard asserts Iran's at least a decade from attempting it.
20 second search: http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/01/iranunable.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_co/intelligence_congress_5
Sokar Rostau
05-02-2006, 18:33
Didn't you know? There's a reputable dealer in Nigeria...
Didn't you know? There's a reputable dealer in Nigeria...
ah lol, so we shall now commence fiery death in nomine patre. tis but prudent ok?
My opinion is on record. I'll just add that Iran isn't about to listen to diplomacy and no-one in their right mind honestly thinks they aren't aiming to develop nuclear weapons - this is the government that voted to continue their nuclear program and followed it up with a standing round of "death to America". How much more obvious does it have to be? They're just playing for time and everyone knows it. Sanctions won't stop them either, Iraq is not comparable (even if you really think sanctions worked in that case).
The bible says in the end times an army of 100 million men will come through the Kashmir (sp) pass. I forget the details but I remember I read it was 100 million men which of course was incomprehensible in biblical times. So I guess China will march eastward after they are done with Taiwan.
I'm pretty sure that's not true. A lot of people say a lot of crazy crap is in the Bible, for one reason or another.
In WW2 we would have gladly blown Berlin off the planet in 1942 if we could have. We couldn't and it took destroying much of Europe to defeat Germany.
That's right, they fought the war the hard way and didn't slaughter thousands of civilians because they were too chicken**** to invade.
*cough* Hiroshima *cough*
Didn't you know? There's a reputable dealer in Nigeria...
Nice one. :thumbsup:
i feel genuineli oppressed bi the violent tone of Evil. and the akin.
forgive me loss of the letter to the right of t.
- james joice
masterazn
06-02-2006, 01:54
Did James Joyce really spell it all wrong too?
That's right, they fought the war the hard way and didn't slaughter thousands of civilians because they were too chicken**** to invade.
*cough* Hiroshima *cough*
*cough* Dresden *cough*
jimmyboy
06-02-2006, 06:26
I honestly don't know if you are serious or being sarcastic. If you are being serious what is your criteria for sanctions "working"? I suspect, they keep the country in question out of the news so you don't have to think about them.
You don't want to go there. Even Bush and the GOP has dropped that argument.
*cough* Dresden *cough*
Dresden was a military target with incidental civilian casualties. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted at civilians. Maybe 35,000 died in Dresden and about 335,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - off by an order of magnitude.
DurfBarian
06-02-2006, 08:45
Actually Nagasaki had considerable naval facilities, which is one reason why you don't hear quite as much shouting about it as you do about Hiroshima.
I think President Bush has clearly answered the Iran question:
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." —George W. Bush, Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
:shocked:
Drosselmeier
06-02-2006, 10:35
Dresden was a military target
That's not true at all. Dresden had very little military production and few troops vere stationed there. It was full of refugees and injured soldiers recieving treatment though.
That's not true at all. Dresden had very little military production and few troops vere stationed there. It was full of refugees and injured soldiers recieving treatment though.
Well, there's an interesting article about it on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
But I'd point out that whatever the outcome, Dresden was originally (at least officially) intended as a military strike, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki were explicitly and unashamedly intended as attacks on civilians.
Truman's officially stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Which I think puts the two attacks in very different classes.
Actually Nagasaki had considerable naval facilities, which is one reason why you don't hear quite as much shouting about it as you do about Hiroshima.
That's true, but that just made Nagasaki "value-added" as a target. The whole point of deploying atomic bombs was to use terrorism to make Japan capitulate, military damage was icing on the cake.
That's true, but that just made Nagasaki "value-added" as a target. The whole point of deploying atomic bombs was to use terrorism to make Japan capitulate, military damage was icing on the cake.
Yeah... But the Allies won so we're the good guys.
Given the japanese treatment of civilians in China and of Allied POWs I think they lose some of their right to complain about the US using somewhat ruthless methods, which incidently worked and brought the war to a close in a matter of days. Particulary these days when there seem to be efforts to write some of their atrocites from history. (But then what atrocities were committed by allied forces that were erased from history because we won?)
Given the japanese treatment of civilians in China and of Allied POWs I think they lose some of their right to complain about the US using somewhat ruthless methods, which incidently worked and brought the war to a close in a matter of days. Particulary these days when there seem to be efforts to write some of their atrocites from history. (But then what atrocities were committed by allied forces that were erased from history because we won?)
Well I never suggested the Japanese army were nice guys. That's immaterial: it's not about who they are, it's about who we are. Et cetera. Also, I don't think bringing the war to a speedy resolution justifies terrorism and war crimes.
Well I never suggested the Japanese army were nice guys. That's immaterial: it's not about who they are, it's about who we are. Et cetera. Also, I don't think bringing the war to a speedy resolution justifies terrorism and war crimes.
Of course it can never be put to the test, but personally I think the bombs led to fewer casualties (both civilian and allied soldiers) than a full invasion of Japan and a prolonged war required to reach the stage where a full invasion capeable of success was possible.
FreezerBurn
06-02-2006, 18:06
But I'd point out that whatever the outcome, Dresden was originally (at least officially) intended as a military strike, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki were explicitly and unashamedly intended as attacks on civilians.
That's true, but that just made Nagasaki "value-added" as a target. The whole point of deploying atomic bombs was to use terrorism to make Japan capitulate, military damage was icing on the cake.
That's an interesting opinion. Unfortunately it has more to do with opinion than it does with fact. Truman ordered that only military targets be selected. Both cities had military targets. And there's nothing in any historical records to suggest the United States targeted civilians. From Truman's diary:
We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.
Anyway we "think" we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.
This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful
Drosselmeier
06-02-2006, 18:58
Well, there's an interesting article about it on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
But I'd point out that whatever the outcome, Dresden was originally (at least officially) intended as a military strike, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki were explicitly and unashamedly intended as attacks on civilians.
Some problem with the link, so I couldn't read the article. I'd be careful about trusting Wikipedia though. It's open source.
The indiscriminate bombings of major german cities was intended to break the spirit of the germans. You don't fire bomb an entire city in order to destroy the factories on the outskirts of town. These are facts.
Necrochild313
06-02-2006, 21:19
I say we drop pigs on Iran's capital, and threaten a second wave if they don't cooperate.
DurfBarian
07-02-2006, 02:52
Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
Ha ha, because we already firebombed Tokyo into cinders and there's nothing left to knock down! :shocked:
FreezerBurn
07-02-2006, 03:03
Ha ha, because we already firebombed Tokyo into cinders and there's nothing left to knock down! :shocked:
You misunderstood that statement. The old capital was Kyoto. The new capital was Tokyo. Truman was saying it would be inconceivable to bomb either of those cities for their cultural significance and the huge civilian populations.
Sokar Rostau
07-02-2006, 06:08
I say we drop pigs on Iran's capital, and threaten a second wave if they don't cooperate.
While I am sure that you said that to be sarcastic, it would be an effective use of psychological warfare, even better - drop bacon bombs. Of course, it's biggest effect would be to absolutely inflame the Islamic world, no doubt provoking extremists to lash out thereby giving America a reason to squish them into itty bitty pieces - "See! See! We do something nice by dropping food aid and they send bombs back! We were only trying to help! Best we bomb those ungrateful heathens... they won't be hungry then!"
DurfBarian
07-02-2006, 06:36
You misunderstood that statement. The old capital was Kyoto. The new capital was Tokyo. Truman was saying it would be inconceivable to bomb either of those cities for their cultural significance and the huge civilian populations.
I understood the statement perfectly well. That's why I used the word "Tokyo" in my statement. And Tokyo was very much a military target at the time; it was the capital of the nation and the location of its leadership, at least when they weren't off hiding in bunkers in Karuizawa or somewhere.
And my point stands about the city already having been leveled by bombs and firestorms. Your "inconceivable to bomb either of those cities" makes no sense, unless "either of those cities" means Kyoto alone.
DrunkPotHead
07-02-2006, 06:37
The reason why we're not worried about Russia and China having nukes is because they are both rational countries. While they may have shady policies and go about it wrong, they want their country to prosper. They realize that if they use their nukes, they would get nuked back and everyone would lose.
Iran on the other hand is ruled by Islamists who aren't rational. They already threatened to take Israel off the map and I don't think that being nuked back would stop them.
FreezerBurn
07-02-2006, 06:55
I understood the statement perfectly well. That's why I used the word "Tokyo" in my statement. And Tokyo was very much a military target at the time; it was the capital of the nation and the location of its leadership, at least when they weren't off hiding in bunkers in Karuizawa or somewhere.
And my point stands about the city already having been leveled by bombs and firestorms. Your "inconceivable to bomb either of those cities" makes no sense, unless "either of those cities" means Kyoto alone.
in the context we were discussing, it was inconceivable to bomb kyoto or tokyo with a nuke.
also, we didn't target japan's leadership (specifically the emperor) for a couple reasons. 1) if we had bombed the emperor's palace, we believed the Japanese would have been so outraged that they would have fought to the death no matter how futile the fight. 2) with the emperor gone, the military would have been entirely in charge with the same result. they would have fought to the death. this, combined with the city's large population and cultural significance helped eliminate it as a target.
DurfBarian
07-02-2006, 07:07
None of that changes the fact that we *did* bomb Tokyo into ashes, and those bombing runs *were* heavily concentrated on the east side of the Yamanote loop, right near the imperial palace. Must have had some awfully good intelligence if we made sure to drop those bombs and set off the amazing firestorms only when Showa wasn't home.
FreezerBurn
07-02-2006, 08:05
we intentionally avoided bombing the palace. it's a huge complex. fairly easy to miss if you try. but even easier to hit if you really want to.
roomonfire
07-02-2006, 09:41
i think america will invade regardless now...
On what do you base this profound observation?
FreezerBurn
07-02-2006, 10:10
ignorance.
roomonfire
07-02-2006, 13:06
ignorance.
please explain...
SaroDarksbane
07-02-2006, 13:36
please explain...
Actually, I think the "explanation" ball is in your court.
masterazn
07-02-2006, 14:00
Wow interesting thread.
Just curious to see how these lines of thinking are going.
Which do you think is more justifiable as an act of war:
1) The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the USA knowing that there would be massive civilian casualties. Is this fair considering it instigated Japan's surrender? Or is it completely unacceptable at the cost of so many lives?
or
2) The assault on Pearl Harbour by Japan without declaring war on the USA and also attacking on a day where they knew they would have an edge. Do you think this as cowardly or clever?
-masterazn
No evidence? Have you been living under a rock or in a cave lately? Aaah, you're not going to accept anything short of a nuke going off. And then you'll blame the US for it anyway.True enough. But perhaps the problem is one of reading comprehension (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17973)?
Sanctions to keep Iraq from developing weapons worked fantastically. Why do you think Iraq had no weapons? It wasn't because Hussein was a nice guy and felt like cooperating with his treaty obligations. Iraq hasn't been out of the news for any one period of 24 consecutive hours in the last 20 years, so that certainly can't be it.Dr. Revisionist strikes again!! Uh, since you're so badly disconnected from reality, I'll explain - most of the chemical agents (which were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been in Saddam's arsenal) had a limited shelf life. You know, like bread?
His biological agents, one vial of which was found after the war, were even more unstable but were easily grown, just like mold. Mold dies if it doesn't have something to live in, you know.
He dumped the stale/dead product in the Tigris river, and didn't necessarily make more, because he knew there would be a better chance of getting caught. But it wasn't like he decided to stockpile vast amounts of pesticide in military bunkers because he was afraid of a mosquito invasion, or that he had bought new carrier shells, and spraying drones because he was developing a passion for model rocketry or R/C.
Edit: And I don't mean nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Iraq had literally almost no weapons. The best thing they have at their disposal even today is our own unexploded ordinance hooked up to a cell phone.Yeah, I use RPG's for hunting just like the Fedayeen do. :rolleyes:
I suppose that the fact that I was nowhere near successful in destroying the 4th largest army in the world (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/army.htm) escaped you... Maybe you should go back to watching Mikey Moore's kite flying coverage, since that seems to be about your speed.
roomonfire
07-02-2006, 15:13
i'm not going to try and justify myself, i haven't done extensive research on this topic, or any to be frank, it was, and is, my humble opinion... i suppose i believe this due my lack of respect for american politics and their foreign policy in recent years... not to mention their belief in the fact they can do whatever they want.
i'm not going to try and justify myself, i haven't done extensive research on this topic, or any to be frank, it was, and is, my humble opinion... i suppose i believe this due my lack of respect for american politics and their foreign policy in recent years... not to mention their belief in the fact they can do whatever they want.Perhaps I should threaten you with annihilation, proceed to sack your embassy, and finally set your car on fire, just to help clarify your perspective... :laughing:
WebDragon
07-02-2006, 16:36
If we don't do this, they'll use their nuclear weapons. If we don't do that, they'll destroy the world. If, if, if...
Who historically has used a nuclear strike preemptively?
Who is now again contimplating pushing the button again?
After all is said and done, the US or their Israeli allies will be the agressors here. That much we can be sure of.
If we don't do this, they'll use their nuclear weapons. If we don't do that, they'll destroy the world. If, if, if...
Who historically has used a nuclear strike preemptively?
Who is now again contimplating pushing the button again?
After all is said and done, the US or their Israeli allies will be the agressors here. That much we can be sure of.
Hey, WD, long time no see! :flowers:
But I'll take exception on your second question - I've not heard any legitimate Western representative refer to "pushing the button". On the other hand, what exactly should we think Mr. A^*%&#$%$#jad means by 'wipe Israel off the map'?
I know you're better at the language than we are, but what exactly is nuanced about that statement (or the hundreds of similar statements which the Western press suddenly seems to have realized are part & parcel of Mideast political speeches)? You advocate that the West simply sit on its thumbs, perhaps, and not take him at his word?
SaroDarksbane
07-02-2006, 18:53
Who historically has used a nuclear strike preemptively?
No one that I know of. But the difference between the Cold War and today is, the USSR wanted to survive. With religious fanatics, this is not always the case. Nuclear deterrance works by establishing mutually assured destruction. if your opponent is not afraid of such destruction, but you are, then what do they have to lose?
Who is now again contimplating pushing the button again?
No one that I know of who owns nukes at the moment. Of course, since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just recently said "Israel must be wiped off the map", we can assume that when he gets nuclear weapons, that number may reasonably increase from zero to one.
I am not, nor have I ever been, SaroDarksbane...
SaroDarksbane
07-02-2006, 19:37
I am not, nor have I ever been, SaroDarksbane . . . err . . . jmervyn.
FreezerBurn
07-02-2006, 19:40
No one that I know of who owns nukes at the moment. Of course, since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just recently said "Israel must be wiped off the map", we can assume that when he gets nuclear weapons, that number may reasonably increase from zero to one.
you must not have heard any of the rhetoric coming from Kim Jong Il. or reports that they now have a handful of nuclear weapons.
iran is a modern society for the most part. they're not looking for mutual destruction. their motivation isn't to wipe israel off the map. it's to have a deterrent against US invasion.
SaroDarksbane
07-02-2006, 19:57
you must not have heard any of the rhetoric coming from Kim Jong Il.Such as? Just curious.
it's to have a deterrent against US invasion.Which ironically may get them invaded. How amusing.
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
07-02-2006, 20:07
No one that I know of. But the difference between the Cold War and today is, the USSR wanted to survive. With religious fanatics, this is not always the case. Nuclear deterrance works by establishing mutually assured destruction. if your opponent is not afraid of such destruction, but you are, then what do they have to lose?
Nothing. They believe they have 72 virgins awaiting them. Death to them is a reward. You cannot deter somebody that wants to die.
No one that I know of who owns nukes at the moment. Of course, since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just recently said "Israel must be wiped off the map", we can assume that when he gets nuclear weapons, that number may reasonably increase from zero to one.
Not all of Israel will be destroyed. The muslims want Jerusulem for themselves. Tel Aviv is the first to go. As soon as that happens, Israel is not going to be deterred from reducing most of the middle east to radioactive goo. Nobody wins. Everybody loses. And the oil isn't available.
Which ironically may get them invaded. How amusing.I'm sure urbane Iranians (of which there's probably more than a few still left in-country) were in stitches when Mr. A-hole-jad proposed that the Muslim world could cope with an Israeli nuclear counterattack.
Sure, there are many extremely civilized Iranians - I grew up with several (including a true hottie). That's not who we're discussing - we're discussing the frothing lunatics who didn't bat an eye using human wave attacks against Iraq, nor would mind similar tactics against (the laughable concept of) a U.S. invasion.
SaroDarksbane
07-02-2006, 20:30
we're discussing the frothing lunatics
Of course. I never said differently.
FreezerBurn
07-02-2006, 20:40
Such as? Just curious.
Well, for one he once threatened to nuke the west coast of the united states. He's also threatened to nuke Japan before. But for some reason, we brush his threats aside as meaningless rhetoric. While some people try to use anything Iran says as a pretext to invade.
The North Korean crisis offers only bad and worse choices for the United States. Kim Jong Il cultivates an air of lunacy, and threatens to nuke the Western critics who are more concerned with the plight of his North Korean people than he is.
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson062905.html
Which ironically may get them invaded. How amusing.
Very doubtful. Our military is already over-extended. No one would support us in any shape or form. We've learned our lesson about occupying a foreign country by now. Even Rumsfeld should be able to imagine it's more costly to hold a country than it is to take one over. Iran's military is far superior to Iraq's when we invaded. It would take a huge military operation. It would further aid extremists. At that point, it'd look to muslims like we were going to invade every muslim nation on earth, slaughtering innocent civilians as we go. So why not sign up for Jihad and die fighting. Iran is one of the largest exporters of oil. Any disruption of that would cause an economic crisis.
Those are just the reasons I can think of off the top of my head. There's no way we're invading Iran.
SaroDarksbane
07-02-2006, 20:49
There's no way we're invading Iran.
I completely agree, but the irony that we are even talking about it is not lost.
Of course, knowing that invasion would be ridiculous and unsupportable, they shouldn't need nukes, now should they? =P
Sir EvilFreeSmeg
07-02-2006, 21:02
Well, for one he once threatened to nuke the west coast of the united states. He's also threatened to nuke Japan before. But for some reason, we brush his threats aside as meaningless rhetoric. While some people try to use anything Iran says as a pretext to invade.
The difference is Jim Jong "Mentally" Ill wants to remain alive to oppress his people. The Iranian leaders don't care. You can deter somebody that wants to live. You can only assist those that wish to die.
Very doubtful. Our military is already over-extended.
How so? We have 150,000 in Iraq. That's it. We just happen to have that many more who've returned. Those men and women get the privilage of not being deployed overseas. At any given moment they can be ordered to anywhere for the remainder of their enlistment. Dont' fall victim to the lies by those that don't know.
No one would support us in any shape or form.
Is that so? I seem to recall hearing the German PM calling them akin to Nazis. For a German to go that far is tantamount to their saying they're going to take the lead. They learned their lesson and have sworn to make sure it doesn't happen again.
We've learned our lesson about occupying a foreign country by now.
What lesson is that? That people enjoy not being oppressed? That foreign terrorists will come in if supported by Iran. Oops. So much for foriegn support.
Even Rumsfeld should be able to imagine it's more costly to hold a country than it is to take one over.
And yet we did it to Japan and Germany. Look at them now.
Iran's military is far superior to Iraq's when we invaded. It would take a huge military operation.
A fly is a far superior bug than a mosquito. Both die when hit with a sledgehammer.
It would further aid extremists. At that point, it'd look to muslims like we were going to invade every muslim nation on earth, slaughtering innocent civilians as we go.
Only those nations that support terrorism. We're not invading other muslim nations that are peaceful. Like Libya. They've chosen to stop supporting terrorism and voila! no invasion. Amazing!
So why not sign up for Jihad and die fighting. Iran is one of the largest exporters of oil. Any disruption of that would cause an economic crisis.
A nuclear war between Iran and Israel would be worse by many orders of magnitude.
Those are just the reasons I can think of off the top of my head. There's no way we're invading Iran.
You also said there was no way Bush was going to beat Kerry. And yet it happened, just like I said it would. Will wonders never cease?
FreezerBurn
07-02-2006, 21:39
I completely agree, but the irony that we are even talking about it is not lost.
it is kind of funny. but not all that unexpected.
Of course, knowing that invasion would be ridiculous and unsupportable, they shouldn't need nukes, now should they? =P
a little paranoia goes a long way. also, there's the threat of a nuclear israel. they can get a little nutty at times.
FreezerBurn
07-02-2006, 21:48
The difference is Jim Jong "Mentally" Ill wants to remain alive to oppress his people. The Iranian leaders don't care. You can deter somebody that wants to live. You can only assist those that wish to die. How so? We have 150,000 in Iraq. That's it. We just happen to have that many more who've returned. Those men and women get the privilage of not being deployed overseas. At any given moment they can be ordered to anywhere for the remainder of their enlistment. Dont' fall victim to the lies by those that don't know. Is that so? I seem to recall hearing the German PM calling them akin to Nazis. For a German to go that far is tantamount to their saying they're going to take the lead. They learned their lesson and have sworn to make sure it doesn't happen again. What lesson is that? That people enjoy not being oppressed? That foreign terrorists will come in if supported by Iran. Oops. So much for foriegn support. And yet we did it to Japan and Germany. Look at them now. A fly is a far superior bug than a mosquito. Both die when hit with a sledgehammer. Only those nations that support terrorism. We're not invading other muslim nations that are peaceful. Like Libya. They've chosen to stop supporting terrorism and voila! no invasion. Amazing! A nuclear war between Iran and Israel would be worse by many orders of magnitude. You also said there was no way Bush was going to beat Kerry. And yet it happened, just like I said it would. Will wonders never cease?
You've caught Merv's disease. Not the unbridled naivety. You already had that. But responding to every single sentence of a post. It's tedious and a waste of time. The person I was talking to understood the point. So that's good enough for me.
By the way, I never said Bush couldn't beat Kerry. I remember saying that Bush could win by playing to homophobic religious nutjobs. And stroking fears of terrorism. What ever happened to those weekly nonspecific terror threats? Code orange! Code orange! Kerry's gaining in the polls!
Daethwalker
11-02-2006, 09:06
First of all, there is no evidence, other than innuendo, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Why is it so hard to believe that in a time when many people dismiss Islamic states as medieval, or even stone age, that such a state may wish to invest in it's future and build nuclear power plants? Of course they wouldn't because Muslims are evil, loathsome, jealous, cave-dwelling hatemongers whose every waking desire is the wholesale slaughter of the West so they MUST be building bombs, right? I smell yellowcake...
Secondly, I was under the impression that Americans were fervent believers in the right to self defence. That is certainly the cry when any type of restriction of firearms is mentioned. Americans believe they have a right to keep a loaded Uzi under their pillows because one day someone might break into their house and threaten them with a Magnum. Israel secretly, and illegally, acquired nuclear weapons and some of those are aimed at Tehran - do the Iranian people not have a right to self defence? Or do only those that have shown a willingness to use such weapons offensively have such a right?
Neither the US or Israeli governments make public speaches calling for the complete destruction of Iran either. Or deny the wholesale slaughter of millions of people during the "Holocaust" of WWII. Iran has been offered alternative solutions to this problem. But, they would rather start a nuclear war than look like they "backed down".
I use to not have a problem with Islam. In fact even after 9/11, I argued with friends and family constantly. In support for freedom of religion and the rights of the Islamic world. I still think that the majority of the world's Islamic believers are a loving and caring group of people.
But, they are a silent majority. And if they continue with this silence, or if they continue to allow a vocal minority of extremists to present the world with their views and face of Islam, I think we will see a "Nuclear Holy War" within the next decade or so.
Islamists the world over need to wage war against these extremists, who commit terror, murder and mayhem in the name of both their God and greatest Prophet. And they need to do it swiftly and publicly. Including arresting and imprisoning Imans and other religious and public officials who continuoslly call for the death and destruction of entire countries, religious groups, etc...
Otherwise, the rest of the world will eventually believe ... as they are already starting to ... that the "vocal minority" speaks for and is approved by the "silent and actionless majority".
Islamists are over a Billion strong. Probably less than a cple of million dance and laugh in the streets at the death and destruction of innocents. But, as far as the world is concerned, thanks to the silence of the majority, over a Billion people dance, laugh and cry tears of joy over the wholesale slaughter and butchery of innocents. And over a Billion people cry out in hunger for more death and destruction, wishing to "cleanse" the world of all "unbelievers".
This silence, will eventually lead the rest of the world ... as it is already doing ... to believe that their is a real threat, to not only their "way of life", but their very existance. Pushed far enough, scared enough, they will strike back, out of fear, if for no other reason.
Drosselmeier
11-02-2006, 11:46
(including a true hottie)
Iranian women are the most beautiful women there is.
Nothing. They believe they have 72 virgins awaiting them. Death to them is a reward. You cannot deter somebody that wants to die.
Are we talking about Al Qaeda or Iran? What am I doing, I'm talking to the man who thought the riots in France were Al Qaeda's doing...
No one would support us in any shape or form.
Smeg's right on this one. You'll have a lot less trouble getting the UN along for this war. The only real problem you face on that score is the lingering bad taste in their mouths because of the catastrophe that was Iraq.
We've learned our lesson about occupying a foreign country by now.
Ha! If Vietnam and Korea didn't teach it to you, Iraq sure wouldn't.
How so? We have 150,000 in Iraq. That's it. We just happen to have that many more who've returned. Those men and women get the privilage of not being deployed overseas. At any given moment they can be ordered to anywhere for the remainder of their enlistment. Dont' fall victim to the lies by those that don't know.
I know you're a Communist, but somewhere in the back of your mind you must realise that wars cost MONEY. This (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) is how much the Iraq war alone currently costs. Think you can afford another one? A much bigger one in fact - Iran would be a bigger war than Iraq. Go ahead and bankrupt America. We all know how much you hate a solvent economy, comrade.
A fly is a far superior bug than a mosquito. Both die when hit with a sledgehammer.
Of course you'll slaughter their army. Just like in Iraq. And then the insurgency will start and you'll start fighting the REAL war. Just like in Iraq. You never learn, do you? Over two thousand lives couldn't drive that lesson through your thick skull.
Iranian women are the most beautiful women there is.
Phht. Not bad, but they're not even in the top ten.
Wow interesting thread.
Just curious to see how these lines of thinking are going.
Which do you think is more justifiable as an act of war:
1) The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the USA knowing that there would be massive civilian casualties. Is this fair considering it instigated Japan's surrender? Or is it completely unacceptable at the cost of so many lives?
or
2) The assault on Pearl Harbour by Japan without declaring war on the USA and also attacking on a day where they knew they would have an edge. Do you think this as cowardly or clever?
-masterazn
I think you should start a new thread for that.
Drosselmeier
11-02-2006, 12:39
Phht. Not bad, but they're not even in the top ten.
Well... my judgement might be impaired. Please see the thread I posted a few minutes ago.
:undecided:
Well... my judgement might be impaired. Please see the thread I posted a few minutes ago.
:undecided:
For once I think I'll admit that it's subjective.
stormrage112345
11-02-2006, 17:02
When reasoning fails and it's time for war, if they've got nukes, why not just nuke them first? I mean, there must be more countries in the world that could back it up, and there's no way they could take out every country at once. If I'm making no sense, it's probably because I'm tired and I want a nap.
EliManning
11-02-2006, 18:18
Somebody tell me again why anyone thinks the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is worth fighting a war for. Plenty of non-signatories are nuclear powers, plenty of signatories are nuclear powers, and anybody can pull out any time they want. It doesn't do anything at all, let alone provide justification for full on war between nuclear powers. It, in fact, is essentially intended to do the opposite of providing that justification.
You guys should just 'fess up. This is about the holocaust cartoon.
Somebody tell me again why anyone thinks the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is worth fighting a war for. Plenty of non-signatories are nuclear powers, plenty of signatories are nuclear powers, and anybody can pull out any time they want. It doesn't do anything at all, let alone provide justification for full on war between nuclear powers. It, in fact, is essentially intended to do the opposite of providing that justification.
You guys should just 'fess up. This is about the holocaust cartoon.
You usually make more sense than this, Eli. You can't seriously be unconcerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Quite apart from the whole annihilate-Israel thing, I saw footage of their parliament (or is it a senate?) passing the motion to continue their nuclear program. The entire room got up for a standing round of "death to America".
Yes, yes, I know the non-proliferation treaty is a worthless piece of paper - like a lot of things in the UN the big countries aren't willing to give the organisation teeth that may be used against them. But stopping the spread of nuclear weapons to regimes like Iran should be everyone's top priority. Iraq was the wrong war, no doubt about it. Iran is a very different question.
You usually make more sense than this, Eli. You can't seriously be unconcerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Quite apart from the whole annihilate-Israel thing, I saw footage of their parliament (or is it a senate?) passing the motion to continue their nuclear program. The entire room got up for a standing round of "death to America".
Yes, yes, I know the non-proliferation treaty is a worthless piece of paper - like a lot of things in the UN the big countries aren't willing to give the organisation teeth that may be used against them. But stopping the spread of nuclear weapons to regimes like Iran should be everyone's top priority. Iraq was the wrong war, no doubt about it. Iran is a very different question.
This is seen as George Bush wanting to attack Iran.
Eli hates anything that is seen as coming from George Bush.
If George Bush doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, then, by Gods, Iran should have them.
And the world is wrong for wanting to stop the peaceful President of Iran from getting anything he wants and doing anything he wants, as long as it's in opposition to the policies of George Bush.
This is why people like Smeg call Liberalism a mental illness.
This is why people like Smeg call Liberalism a mental illness.
Don't you start that with me...
Don't you start that with me...
Hey, you ran off the only other person I argued with.
EliManning
12-02-2006, 18:00
This is seen as George Bush wanting to attack Iran.
Eli hates anything that is seen as coming from George Bush.
If George Bush doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, then, by Gods, Iran should have them.
Right, because I mentioned George Bush so many times in that post or even on this forum. Can we get real here?
And the world is wrong for wanting to stop the peaceful President of Iran from getting anything he wants and doing anything he wants, as long as it's in opposition to the policies of George Bush.
I guess not. Why don't you guys flip-flop some more? The US (which is currently a full two wars less peaceful than Iran is) proliferates nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-powers as defined by the NPT under NATO agreements and that's ok with you. Iran wants nuclear energy (which is an inalienable sovereign right according to the NPT) and you want to wipe them off the face of the earth. Which sounds like the bigger threat to you - a nation at war and proliferating nuclear weapons, or a nation not at war and not proliferating nuclear weapons?
In the other thread we're talking about how the US doesn't have the resources to tackle genocide in Darfur, yet in this thread we all think we have the resources to tackle Iran. Which one sounds like something we can handle to you - starving, poorly equipped, and untrained Africans, or the Iranian army that wiped the floor with the Iraqi army that's currently wiping the floor with us? For that matter, which sounds like the more pressing concern - ongoing genocide or the possibility of nuclear proliferation in no fewer than ten years?
You can't seriously be unconcerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Quite apart from the whole annihilate-Israel thing, I saw footage of their parliament (or is it a senate?) passing the motion to continue their nuclear program. The entire room got up for a standing round of "death to America".
Judging from this thread I'd say that makes us about even. That aside, Iran could already have attacked Israel at pretty much any time if that were their goal. They already know that the result of their military even sneezing too hard at Israel will be nothing short of their own complete destruction. I have absolutely no clue where you guys are getting this idea that Iran can develop a nuclear weapon over night and would use it against Israel once they did.
The NPT is not a deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons are. The reason we've invested billions upon billions of dollars and years upon years of our time in our nuclear arsenal is so everyone knows that if you mess with us, we can destroy you. For all of post-WWII history our nuclear strategy has been that we won't be the aggressors, but we'll damn sure be the victors if we have to. Allowing some saber rattling (they are literally surrounded by our military and have been for years now, of course they're going to trashtalk) to scare us into being the aggressors essentially defeats us right out of the gate. Let's grow a pair and stick to our guns. We don't need to start wars to prevent wars. Iran knows what happens if they attack Israel, and they'll continue not attacking Israel just like always.
Hey, you ran off the only other person I argued with.Don't worry, Borty, I can pretend I'm a lib if Donny won't play.
Well... my judgement might be impaired. Please see the thread I posted a few minutes ago.
:undecided:
Oh, I thought for a minute you posted some hot Iranian femme links :cloud9:
But your tastes aside, Persian women are often considered high in the ranking - not as much as, say, specific oriental lines, but hot nonetheless.
The one I knew was amazing. And she this a Ukranian/USSR girlfriend... a loser like me could burn a lot of kleenex over those two.
Hey, you ran off the only other person I argued with.
Actually, I think he was more mad at you than me... I'll fill you in later.
I don't mind arguing with you, but not with Smeg-style arguments. One Smeg is enough for any forum.
Don't worry, Borty, I can pretend I'm a lib if Donny won't play.
That's a good idea. In fact I think you should slap on a "Hillary 08" badge, put the complete Michael Moore collection on a DVD turntable and step into llad's shoes in the interest of forum balance. KillerAim, Bortaz and Smeg together have the various levels of conservative zeal covered. You're really kind of redundant anyway - sort of a "Smeg Lite" or should I say, "Smeglito".
stormrage112345
13-02-2006, 00:03
Right, because I mentioned George Bush so many times in that post or even on this forum. Can we get real here?
I guess not. Why don't you guys flip-flop some more? The US (which is currently a full two wars less peaceful than Iran is) proliferates nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-powers as defined by the NPT under NATO agreements and that's ok with you. Iran wants nuclear energy (which is an inalienable sovereign right according to the NPT) and you want to wipe them off the face of the earth. Which sounds like the bigger threat to you - a nation at war and proliferating nuclear weapons, or a nation not at war and not proliferating nuclear weapons?
In the other thread we're talking about how the US doesn't have the resources to tackle genocide in Darfur, yet in this thread we all think we have the resources to tackle Iran. Which one sounds like something we can handle to you - starving, poorly equipped, and untrained Africans, or the Iranian army that wiped the floor with the Iraqi army that's currently wiping the floor with us? For that matter, which sounds like the more pressing concern - ongoing genocide or the possibility of nuclear proliferation in no fewer than ten years?
Judging from this thread I'd say that makes us about even. That aside, Iran could already have attacked Israel at pretty much any time if that were their goal. They already know that the result of their military even sneezing too hard at Israel will be nothing short of their own complete destruction. I have absolutely no clue where you guys are getting this idea that Iran can develop a nuclear weapon over night and would use it against Israel once they did.
The NPT is not a deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons are. The reason we've invested billions upon billions of dollars and years upon years of our time in our nuclear arsenal is so everyone knows that if you mess with us, we can destroy you. For all of post-WWII history our nuclear strategy has been that we won't be the aggressors, but we'll damn sure be the victors if we have to. Allowing some saber rattling (they are literally surrounded by our military and have been for years now, of course they're going to trashtalk) to scare us into being the aggressors essentially defeats us right out of the gate. Let's grow a pair and stick to our guns. We don't need to start wars to prevent wars. Iran knows what happens if they attack Israel, and they'll continue not attacking Israel just like always.
Methinks this is the best post we've heard all thread. Seconded.
That's a good idea. In fact I think you should slap on a "Hillary 08" badge, put the complete Michael Moore collection on a DVD turntable and step into llad's shoes in the interest of forum balance. KillerAim, Bortaz and Smeg together have the various levels of conservative zeal covered. You're really kind of redundant anyway - sort of a "Smeg Lite" or should I say, "Smeglito".Well, I'll do my best. I voted an all-Dem/Indy ticket in Indiana, you know.
But as to forum balance, if you didn't notice Eli and Stormrage, to say nothing of alexzed... (I think I've confused alexzed with the guy from the USSR who was here a while back).
Drosselmeier
13-02-2006, 14:11
But as to forum balance, if you didn't notice Eli and Stormrage, to say nothing of alexzed... (I think I've confused alexzed with the guy from the USSR who was here a while back).
A while as in fifteen or more years ago?
But as to forum balance, if you didn't notice Eli and Stormrage, to say nothing of alexzed... (I think I've confused alexzed with the guy from the USSR who was here a while back).
Eli's too rational, Storm is too irrational... alexzed is the top contender.
A while as in fifteen or more years ago?
No, that was when I voted the Dem ticket! :smile:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.