Peter Cairns Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Moronic Max, Two good questions, Firstly he could be a returnie in the back door, but on the other hand, is it likely that there are two people like that on earth. Secondly, I assume rationality and the problem with any state giving a nuke to nutters is that they'd have to be nuts to either do it, or think they could get away with it. It's fine for an episode of "24", but thats just fantasy entertainment ( like women finding Kiether Sutherland attractive). Once Iran has them like with Russia over Cuba, or China over Korea, we'll all have to tread a bit more carefully, and watch what they say, but it shouldn't be unstable. Look at from Irans perspective, what possible rational reason is there for starting a war, and even if they did, it's pretty much believed that they've had smallpox available for years, which would be a more effective weapon against the US. I remember ages back i used the idea of FBI style offender profiling for saddam, and if you looked at his risk of crimes he had a pattern of attacking weak people in his neighbourhood who he felt threatened and he could rob. Taking on the US would have been like a small town thief, punk, and bully attacking the local Navy SEALs training camp, it just didn't make sense. At some point the US fell in to the trap of saying "he's a mad dictator and if he's mad, his actions don't have to make sense, so we are in danger". For me that just doesn't make sense. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oren_m Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Originally posted by TanksMucho: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by oren_m: I still cannot understand why people like ThankMucho are allowed to be born... I can give a lucid answer. My parents are loving and tolerant folk, when they had me, little did they know their son would be on to your country's and people's ruinous designs on mine. Who's America's worst friend and enemy? Israel. Who's a threat to the globe? That's right. Whose barks will no longer be heeded (hoepfully)? Right again. There's yet a lot you're incapable of understanding, so Spare us the sentimental malarky why don't ya. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TanksMucho Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Originally posted by John D Salt: If you're in arbitrage and derivatives, why can't you convert dollars to pounds accurately? Oh yeah, I remember, you're a Jew-hating imbecile. John.Is that a really bad thing :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TanksMucho Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Moronic Max, Two good questions, Firstly he could be a returnie in the back door, but on the other hand, is it likely that there are two people like that on earth. Peter. The reality-based camp says more than two Peter, estimates are in the billions and rising. :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TanksMucho Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Originally posted by oren_m: Now i got it, you are not anti-semitic, you are just stupid, i am really feeling sorry for you and for people like you.Bravo, a compassionate nance and Yamaha head @ that too. First go learn English, then take a hike Kike 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 TanksMucho, eh if you are in Arbritage and derivitives, how come your profilre has you down as a travel agent... Oh and you collect stamps too, gee what a life... Oren-M, Don't rise to the bait mate, especially when it's a maggot.... Apart from anything else, you of all people should beaware of comments about certain types of people not being allowed to be born. Peter, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronic Max Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 It's fine for an episode of "24", but thats just fantasy entertainment ( like women finding Kiether Sutherland attractive). Did they actually do that in 24? I gave up on it 1/3 of the way through the first season. It strained my suspension of disbelief past the breaking point. Secondly, I assume rationality and the problem with any state giving a nuke to nutters is that they'd have to be nuts to either do it, or think they could get away with it. I dunno. I want to believe that, but for that reason I'm reluctant to believe it. If that makes sense. In other words, since I know that's the conclusion I'd like to come to, I'm not sure I can trust myself to come to it "objectively". That, and I don't assume rationality. I don't assume irrationality either, but, as far as I can tell (going on my own experiences and my limited historical reading), people are not (solely) creatures of logic and rationality. Even--or perhaps especially--people who have great power. Oren, what Peter said. Don't feed the troll. Unless you find out where the guy is in the real world, of course. If you manage that, have fun. And post pics. Otherwise, ignore, ignore, ignore. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC_Stele Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 You're probably right that Israel won't act on its own to conduct an effective campaign. Their best bet would be to go in jointly with the US or at least with any assistance from the US by limited means through the intel community (ie-satellite imagery, human intel, etc). The US proved that it can aid so called termites against formidable foes, just look at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Although Israel would be eager to look for a solution for an effective air campaign, it would definately be much much harder than the Iraq raid. Saddam had only one facility to be hit, while Iran currently has dozens of sites as well as underground facilities. Hitting all sites would probably be impossible and at best it would only slow the intentions of Iran wanting a nuke. By the way, it's worth mentioning that Aljazeera.com says Israel can't carry out an attack on Iran...heheh. Well never mind, probably not worth mentioning.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 TanksMucho... we have no use for your viewpoints here. Seeing as you expected to "not last more than one post", you're admitting to being trolling, and hence it won't be a surprise that you're now banned from further posts. TanksButNoTanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Thanks Moon, Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oren_m Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Great, now back to Iran, maybe just an air strike would'nt happen, but what about SF operation? The US army has lots of them stationed in Iraq, Saudi arabia an the Emirates, ofcours it would be very simple to insert them to the Iranian borders, but it could be very usful. I think it could be done just like the SF did it in Afganistan, they could call in air strikes and attack the facilities from the ground using explosives. Oren_m 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucero1148 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 using SF might be doable but wouldn't the extraction be difficult to the point where they would risk it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat69 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 I know it is older but I could not let this stand! Originally posted by oren_m: Just remember that during the 1930's until the invastion to Poland, Hitler did'nt broke any treaties also, that's still does'nt made him a peacefull human being.This is not true! Germany broke the peace treaty They occupied the Rheinland-area that was supposed to be a demilitarized zone. They introduced compulsory military service (despite the fact that this was not allowed and that there troop strength was limited to 100.000), started rearming (otherwise there would not have been so many tanks, guns ... because they were not allowed to have/produce tanks and heavy artilliery). They started rearming the marine ... The annexation of Austria was also forbidden. They also occupied The Czech Rebuplic. So they "broke" many treaties! Yet France, UK and the other allies did not react. So please get some information before you post such rubbish! Oh just spotted that John D Salt posted nearly the same thing. Originally posted by oren_m: So the fact that Iran "only" have the nuclear knowledge makes it a good target for a regieme changing war. Ahmadinajad speaks freely and publicly about the distruction of israel and against the western world, i'm not even speaking about his opinions about gay people and even about other arab ethnic groups such as the Sunnis. So, think what would such a man will do with a nuclear bomb... You do know that Iran is allowed to use atomic energy for civil projects? Iran (beside Pakistan, India and Israel) signed the NPT, so other signator countries are encouraged to HELP Iran in their efforts for a nuclear plant. Do you also know, that the real leader in Iran is The Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei who also controlls the army? Ahmadinejad's yickel-yak is just a way to detract from his broken election pledges. And in fact there aren't ANY proves at the moment that Iran is workign on an atomic bomb. So another War of aggression? [ April 25, 2006, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: mat69 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Two replies in one. Firstly special forces, although the US could get some support on the ground from the likes of the Kurds, it would be nothing like what they had from the Northern Alliance, where they were like in Northern Iraq effectively targeting for an advancing army ( all be it a rag tag one). For one thing you have to cross the Zagros mountains and thats a hard trek even if you don't have to stay hidden. I know the US has some good CSAR and special forces helicopters, but in those conditions and altitude range would be a big issue. As to calling in air strikes, I'd suspect that the iranian sights probably have Laser detectors deflectors and probably even GPS jamming, so anyone "designating" a target from the ground is taking a huge risk, and if anything should make the US think twice about putting people in on the ground lets just mention the word "Hostage", ( I could add the words "Spy" and "Firing Squad"). We could raise the same issues with any pilot that was unlucky enough to bail out. In addition for ever one the US could infiltrate across either border the Iranians could put at least ten the other way, and particularly for the British around Basra thats an issue, in addition West and North west Afghanistan haven't been a security issue really since the invasion, but that could quickly change too. Second point. Iran is pretty near it's quota for opec and has very little additional production capacity. In addition it is one of the members which doesn't like the idea of pumping out it's oil reserves at a high rate just to supply americans who don't like it with cheap gas. So from it's point of view, how do you increase revenue, within a higher quota, or increased production and digging in to your long term reserves? Answer, do something that pushes up the price without having to cut back on your production. The opec target price for oil is somewhere in the region of $35 and I think Iranian production cost are about $10. At 2.5m barrells a day thats about $63m . But make people think there might be a war and hey presto, $75 a barrell gives you an extra $40 profit or $100m a day extra, without having to raise production or invest a penny. Question is, is the Iranian president that clever, Is he thick but the people with the real power, are happy to let him bang his drum and push up the price, or is it just a cock up. I am not really a conspiracy kind of guy, so I think this is probably a bit far fetched but i thought I'd put it in anyway. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romulus Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 It's kind of ironic that we are funding Iran's nuclear program by buying their oil. And there is the small issue of Iran considering selling their oil for euros, not dollars. Just like Iraq did before the invasion (promptly changed by the occupation government). http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0830/p03s01-wome.html I think it's hard to find anyone willing to take 'evidence' from the US seriously anymore after the attack on Iraq. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 I just looked it up some stats. iran's got a population of well over 66 million (roughly the population of France + Belgium combined) with some 17 million males of military/home defense age (15-64 yrs old). A literacy rate of over 70%, which is pretty decent. I suspect the overall U.S. literacy rate is not really as high as we imagine it to be - I'd guess maybe 83%? If the U.S. were to 'seriously' start a war with Iran how many million of them would we have to kill before events turned in our favor? And does anybody really imagine an outcome that leaves a more stabile region afterwards? God save us all from the strategic thinking of Cheny, Rumsfeld, and the Fox news network. As an alternative to this war talk, I'd suggest quietly and diplomatically reminding them that the U.S. possess a stockpile of some several thousand nukes including exponentially worse thermo-nuke warheads and multiple delivery platforms, and it would be inadvisable for them to ever ever EVER use whatever nukes they manage to build on us. [ April 25, 2006, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Kurtz, look on the bright side, they haven't started buying your ports yet..... Worst comment i heard was a report on a meeting in the run up to the liberation of Kuwait where a journalist met rich young kuwaities in a Cairo Casino. When he asked them if they were willing to fight to free there country one of them said, "Why should we, we have our white slaves to do that". MikeyD, Iran knows all about US cap[abilities, but I actually don't think they are concerned, because they have no intention of attacking America. They want to be the most influencial power in the gulf, and to have Islamic government throughout the region, but thats a sort of Islamic Monroe doctrine. They also want to deter Israel and the US from using military power unilaterally against them or their interests. When. and like most here I think it is when they have the ability to make a bomb, they will be in a hugely strengthen position regionally, both to bully there neighbours (without actually using force) and to play the role of leader of the islamic world ( which is what they really want). I don't think the US or UK should be overly worried, but if I was an undemocratic arab leader with an unhappy population who though a nuclear Iran was a great step forward, I'd be worried. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviola Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Look at from Irans perspective, what possible rational reason is there for starting a war, and even if they did, it's pretty much believed that they've had smallpox available for years, which would be a more effective weapon against the US. Peter. Throughout their modern history, Republican administrations have steadfastly searched for and invented enemies. A foreign enemy to Republicans is crucial to their style of governance, for they believe foreign policy is their strong suit. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Bush Senior administration was distraught, how could it govern without an obvious enemy. So it zeroed in on Japan, maybe most forgot, but Japan became the corporate cannibal who’s attempting to saturate America with Japanese commercial interest. The Republican enemy-invention machine began sowing the neo surprise attack theory. But this time, an attack in the form of a corporate Japanese Trojan Horse. In other words, conservatives of the 90s asserted that the “Japs” are coming again but this time through Hollywood, Wall Street, Jap electronics, incapacitating trade deficits, hostile alliances, and they had to be stopped. Then a miracle happened, an obvious, easier to sell enemy presented itself to Bush Senior’s administration on a golden platter. Saddam alleviated the Republican governance crisis, the Japanese were forgiven and the rest as they say is history. That Bush Senior wasn’t able to exploit his liberation of Kuwait vs. Clinton is his problem, more able incumbents could’ve succeeded. Enter Iran, the new and necessary invention which must sustain the Republican style of governance. Wars have a way of saving Republican ass, and if at first they don’t succeed they parlay. It really doesn’t matter whether Iran represents a threat or not, after a long search and interviews with Syria and North Korea, the winner and chosen enemy for Republican sustenance is Iran. In order for Republicans to live in office, Iran must die. After Iran, they’ll reassess Venezuela, and if not Venezuela, Belarus, and if not.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 France and Germany warned Iran this week not to pursue their nuclear research program. In fact, France and Germany warned Iran that if they didn't stop their program they would, you know, warn them again. [ April 25, 2006, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviola Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Originally posted by Abbott: France and Germany warned Iran this week not to pursue their nuclear research program. In fact, France and Germany warned Iran that if they didn't stop their program they would, you know, warn them again. The USA warns North Korea to not go CaCa everday. And if the DPRK dares to devolop more than 100 nukes, you know, the US will have to go oui oui, OH non, SHEIZE. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Originally posted by Saviola: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Abbott: France and Germany warned Iran this week not to pursue their nuclear research program. In fact, France and Germany warned Iran that if they didn't stop their program they would, you know, warn them again. The USA warns North Korea to not go CaCa everday. And if the DPRK dares to devolop more than 100 nukes, you know, the US will have to go oui oui, OH non, SHEIZE. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviola Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Originally posted by Abbott: Oh yeah? Well bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis. Yeah? Yeah? Not only are you poopy drawers, but after losing le nouveau Duce Berlusconi, Spain’s Asnar and soon-to poo Blair, the US formed the Coalition of the ShhShhing with Papua New Guinea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Originally posted by Saviola: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Abbott: Oh yeah? Well bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis. Yeah? Yeah? Not only are you poopy drawers, but after losing le nouveau Duce Berlusconi, Spain’s Asnar and soon-to poo Blair, the US formed the Coalition of the ShhShhing with Papua New Guinea. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviola Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Originally posted by Abbott: We don't need no stinkin' coalition we know what to do. Besides Russia has agreed to help Iran build a nuclear reactor. Yeah, because when you think well-built nuclear reactor you think Russia.We’re gonna escalate a bit now, just a bit. Yes, you sure know what to do. You know how to defeat unequipped, raggedy armies who scram when they hear Boo! And you brilliantly assess the necessary troop level for occupations too. Add to all that your super expertise on how to quell an ensuing insurgency. Not only do you stop Baghdadi sniper fire with your foreheads in preparation for the German World Cup, but you also discover and dismantle biblical-era IEDs AFTER they explode in yo face. You also know how to watch under-your-nose Zarqawi videos giving you the finger. And Bin Laden tapes practicing hyena giggles at ya. Because when you think of well-built US Humvees and Strykers, you think daily Iraqi theater pyrotechnics. Iran may yet serve you mustard before you Americanize it a la Iraq. :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.