PDA

View Full Version : Israel seen rehearsing Iran attack


Det. Bart Lasiter
06-20-2008, 04:56 PM
Man oh man I can't wait for the U.S. to get in on the action this is gonna be a good 'un. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN1939158020080620)


If Israel goes ahead with this at the very least the U.S. will be fighting this war by proxy so I am definitely pumped to be able to fund a war between two other countries with my tax dollars since I totally missed out on the CIA backing coups in 3rd world countries.

Arcesious
06-20-2008, 05:33 PM
That was sarcasm, right? Anyways, I'm not a tax-paying citizen yet, but I wish our politicians could learn to mind their buisness about the world...

MacTavish
06-20-2008, 05:42 PM
but I wish our politicians could learn to mind their buisness about the world...

I agree, well said.

Jae Onasi
06-20-2008, 05:44 PM
Well, Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the face of the planet, so I can't blame Israel for not wanting to have a love-in with Iran.

Web Rider
06-20-2008, 05:48 PM
Well, Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the face of the planet, so I can't blame Israel for not wanting to have a love-in with Iran.

No one is asking Israel to love Iran, and Iran can SAY whatever it wants. Freedom of speech and all that right? Iran hasn't attacked Israel, so Israel has no right to attack Iran, "preemptive" attack is BS.

Det. Bart Lasiter
06-20-2008, 05:49 PM
Yeah but you can blame them making idiot moves the U.S. might end up having to clean up.

jonathan7
06-20-2008, 05:53 PM
Well, Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the face of the planet, so I can't blame Israel for not wanting to have a love-in with Iran.

The above just shows why the Iranians want to get weapons.

Some facts about Israel:

Israel has nuclear weapons.

They massacred Palestinians when they took over in the late 1940's.

They flouted more UN resolutions than Saddam ever did.

78% of Palestinian children live below the poverty line.

Given the above and if your an Arab country would you really be particularly fond of them?

That's not to say I like the Iranian government; one of my best friends is a young Iranian, and if he ever returns home he will be killed. They are a very nasty government; but so is the Israeli government. (hint, look at what they did to the civilians in Lebanon; a quite wonderful own goal - a great recruitment advertisement for Islamic fundamentalists).

[/End Rant] ;)

Sigh, I'm sure those in the region will continue to slaughter each other for the foreseeable future. Hate just breeds hate, as Ghandi remarked along the following lines; if everyone acts out 'an eye for an eye' the whole world ends up blind.

mur'phon
06-20-2008, 05:55 PM
Meh, I doubt even the occupation nation is insane enough to attack Iran. Look at what happened when they faced off against a Iran backed milita in Lebanon. That, and they have just secured a peace deal with Hamas, and while both sides intend to break it at some point, why do it right after it's negotiated?

Best guess is that the politicans want to boost their hawkish credentials.

J7: rant aproved:D

Rev7
06-20-2008, 06:02 PM
Well, Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the face of the planet, so I can't blame Israel for not wanting to have a love-in with Iran.
Yup.

Unfortunately things may start happening soon... :giveup: :(

*Don*
06-21-2008, 09:43 AM
The above just shows why the Iranians want to get weapons.

Some facts about Israel:

Israel has nuclear weapons.

They massacred Palestinians when they took over in the late 1940's.

They flouted more UN resolutions than Saddam ever did.

78% of Palestinian children live below the poverty line.

Given the above and if your an Arab country would you really be particularly fond of them?

That's not to say I like the Iranian government; one of my best friends is a young Iranian, and if he ever returns home he will be killed. They are a very nasty government; but so is the Israeli government. (hint, look at what they did to the civilians in Lebanon; a quite wonderful own goal - a great recruitment advertisement for Islamic fundamentalists).

[/End Rant] ;)

Sigh, I'm sure those in the region will continue to slaughter each other for the foreseeable future. Hate just breeds hate, as Ghandi remarked along the following lines; if everyone acts out 'an eye for an eye' the whole world ends up blind.

I cosign everything you just said.
It's times like these that I really feel that the world needs another Gandhi...

Arcesious
06-21-2008, 10:34 AM
Or another Freidrich Neitzche...

mur'phon
06-21-2008, 10:41 AM
Why? Palestine is probably the place with the highest concentration of cynics.

jonathan7
06-21-2008, 10:52 AM
Or another Freidrich Neitzche...

I have to concur with mur'p and *Don* that a Jewish or Palestinian Gandhi would be far more useful in such circumstances. Nietzsche never commanded the respect of vast amounts of people, and could he ever relate to the masses in the same way Gandhi did? I doubt it.

Well, Nietzsche did argue that if someone hurts you, you shouldn't repay them with good, and you shouldn't gain revenge on them either. What you should do is use what they did to you and use it to make you stronger; showing them that they did you good.

I'm not sure they Jewish and Palestinian mothers could use the above to comfort them; I mean; I doubt any parent would feel the death of their child could ever be a good thing. Given Nietzsche never had children I cannot venture as how he would of responded to their deaths.

Q
06-21-2008, 10:53 AM
Personally, I'd be delighted if Isreal launched a preemptive (their specialty) invasion of Iran, smashed their armed forces, wiped out their terrorist training camps, put an end to their nuclear ambitions and executed their mad dog of a president. That would make my decade. :)

mur'phon
06-21-2008, 10:56 AM
Q: Remember Lebanon? Do you really think they could take on Iran (well, without using nukes)?

Don: I really doubt a Ghandi would be able to do much, even when atempting to free a country from a occupation nation that was de-colonizing, it still ended with a blodbath.

jonathan7
06-21-2008, 11:00 AM
Personally, I'd be delighted if Isreal launched a preemptive (their specialty) invasion of Iran, smashed their armed forces, wiped out their terrorist training camps, put an end to their nuclear ambitions and executed their mad dog of a president. That would make my decade. :)

I really hope that is a poor attempt at humour.

If not you have serious issues; the majority of Iranians are innocent civilians who are oppressed by their government and they would get caught in the cross fire. In such a war the casualty list would go into the millions the majority innocent.

Even philosophers will praise war as ennobling mankind, forgetting the Greek who said: 'War is bad in that it begets more evil than it kills.'

I'm not going to pull any punches; If you think the above is a good thing you are quite frankly evil...

To reiterate an earlier point I made; Hate just breeds hate, as Ghandi remarked along the following lines; if everyone acts out 'an eye for an eye' the whole world ends up blind.

The above Scenario would certainly see an end to a Jewish state; I think pretty much most Muslims would unite and attack...

It would be catastrophic! You'd be talking World War 3 and a death count of at least a billion.

Q
06-21-2008, 11:03 AM
@mur'phon:
A: Remember the Yom Kippur War? Even when attacked on all sides by a numerically superior foe and suffering heavy losses they manage to beat back their attackers and expand their territory. This has happened more than once.

@j7: Oh, I'm completely serious. And I'm not evil; I'm just not a bleeding-heart pacifist who thinks that fanatics who openly support terrorism should be handled with kid gloves. Iran is a terrorist nation, and has been for decades. While I'm certainly not against it's civilians, I believe that it's regime needs to be eliminated for the good of all.

jonathan7
06-21-2008, 11:07 AM
@mur'phon:
A: Remember the Yom Kippur War? Even when attacked on all sides by a numerically superior foe and suffering heavy losses they manage to beat back their attackers and expand their territory. This has happened more than once.

Yeah, just as the British ruled half the world; fighting foes of always superior numbers and often attacked from all sides.

Such a view conveniently forgets military weapons; you were financed and backed by the Americans, and had technological superiority; against an enemy who were not united but greatly divided and made several massive tactical errors. Such a victory under such circumstances is inevitable.

mur'phon
06-21-2008, 11:09 AM
Yes, I remember, key word attacked, I have no doubts israel can break almost any "local" army in defence/counterattack, but as seen in Lebanon attacking isn't their strong point, except for surgical strikes.

Q
06-21-2008, 11:34 AM
Yeah, just as the British ruled half the world; fighting foes of always superior numbers and often attacked from all sides.Someone's feeling guilty about their nation's imperialist past. Learn that in school, did you? ;)

This has nothing to do with imperialism. It has to do with ensuring global security.

Such a view conveniently forgets military weapons; you were financed and backed by the Americans, and had technological superiority; against an enemy who were not united but greatly divided and made several massive tactical errors. Such a victory under such circumstances is inevitable.Ha! They were backed by the Soviets! And Isreal made a grave tactical error by being caught with their pants down, yet they still prevailed. Besides, I never said that such an operation would be militarily feasible or wouldn't have negative consequences; I just stated that I would be delighted if Iran's terrorist regime, it's nuclear ambitions and it's military were squashed. I wouldn't care who did it.

jonathan7
06-21-2008, 11:37 AM
Someone's feeling guilty about their nation's imperialist past. Learn that in school, did you? ;)

I don't feel guilty over things I have no say over; indeed I would say that the British empire did a better job of running many countries than they do now. (That includes Palestine).

This has nothing to do with imperialism. It has to do with ensuring global security.

:rolleyes:

Ha! They were backed by the Soviets! And Isreal made a grave tactical error by being caught with their pants down, yet they still prevailed. Besides, I never said that such an operation would be militarily feasible or wouldn't have negative consequences; I just stated that I would be delighted if Iran's terrorist regime, it's nuclear ambitions and it's military were squashed. I wouldn't care who did it.

Pot, Kettle... Black!

War should be avoided as far as it can be, as it is always the innocent who suffer.

You also forget you could just as easily write;

Israel's terrorist regime, its nuclear arsenal and it's military were squashed.

I'm sure some hold the above opinion; and your all going to end up killing each other; and perpetrating a never ending circle of pain, death and destruction.

Q
06-21-2008, 12:02 PM
I don't feel guilty over things I have no say over; indeed I would say that the British empire did a better job of running many countries than they do now. (That includes Palestine).I'm going on the record by stating that it was a grave error on the part of both of our our governments in giving Palestine over to the Jews in the first place. People already lived there and it was bound to cause trouble. We should have let them settle here in the US. All of them. I'm afraid that racism played a part in that decision. Racism against the Palestinians as well as the Jews.

War should be avoided as far as it can be, as it is always the innocent who suffer.Another Briton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chaimberlain) who shared your views. See how well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement_of_Hitler) it worked out for him?

I'm sure some hold the above opinion; and your all going to end up killing each other; and perpetrating a never ending circle of pain, death and destruction.Such is life in the real world. I'll take realism, warts and all, over misguided idealism any day. Ambitious dictators should not be coddled.

Arcesious
06-21-2008, 12:10 PM
J7: Perhaps a group of philosophers of kinds like Gandhi and F.N... A person like F.N would only need to use the socratic method to get through to the people at first...

Qliveur: What's all this about misguided idealism? What's your proof that it's misguided? Perhpas war will work to a degree- but negotiation and diplomacy can work. Thing with war most people don't seem to relaize is you don't need to actually fight all your battles... You could instead negotiate. With an unreasonable person, a coup infiltration strategy works fine too...

Q
06-21-2008, 12:33 PM
@Arc:
See the links that I provided above for the hallmark case in point as to why diplomacy doesn't work against megalomaniacal dictators.

And yes, a coup might work if the Iranians were up for such a thing. It would be great if the Iranians could share in the benefits of the global community.

Arcesious
06-21-2008, 12:40 PM
Thing is, Qliveur, unlike in that case, the USA has more military power to back us up in negotiation than Iran does. Iran can't threaten us all too much, becuase in this case, the 'good guy' and the 'bad guy have switched places.

jonathan7
06-21-2008, 12:47 PM
I'm going on the record by stating that it was a grave error on the part of both of our our governments in giving Palestine over to the Jews in the first place. People already lived there and it was bound to cause trouble. We should have let them settle here in the US. All of them. I'm afraid that racism played a part in that decision. Racism against the Palestinians as well as the Jews.

We don't disagree on that.

Another Briton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chaimberlain) who shared your views. See how well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement_of_Hitler) it worked out for him?

I would review how I phrased my sentence, as I did so carefully, as I knew the droll attempt would be made to liken me to Nev...

I think we should have begun WW2 with Germany after the anaxed parts of Czechoslovakia.

War is a tragedy, and should be avoided, you may want to review my thread on Zimbabwe to see that there are times war should be used. Iran has not done enough to warrant an invasion.

Q. If Israel wasn't as aggressive as it was, would Iran be behaving the way it is?
A.I don't think anyone can say.
Q. Is their leader an idiot?
A. Yes.
Q. In reality would Iran ever destroy Israel?
A. Not if Iran attacks first.
Q. Could Iran be manipulating Israel into attacking to have 'the moral high ground'?
A. Possibly.

Such is life in the real world. I'll take realism, warts and all, over misguided idealism any day. Ambitious dictators should not be coddled.

Sir, making a strawman out of me, maybe what you would like to do, however what you have said above is far from the truth.

See the current state of Iraq to see what would happen in Iran. I think the Iranian people may well topple their own government, especially if the middle-classes continue to grow.

The comments by president Ahmadinejad were purely political in ends, if Iran ever attacked Israel the US would strike back; if Iran used Nukes against you, both yourself and the US would counter strike.

@Arc:
And yes, a coup might work if the Iranians were up for such a thing. It would be great if the Iranians could share in the benefits of the global community.

It is clear sir, you don't know much about Iran. Read any books about the current country? Got an best friends who were thrown out the country?

Web Rider
06-21-2008, 01:20 PM
Qliveur, I expect to see you on the front lines.

I'd never support any war I wouldn't fight in. So then, are you willing to be in the forefront of the assault against Iran? If you're not, I'd really question why you desire to see other people kill each other.

Q
06-21-2008, 01:27 PM
I would if I could. I'm ineligible for military service or I'd be in Iraq or Afghanistan right now doing my part.

I feel that I should apologize for bringing my extremist views into Kavar's where they are obviously not welcome. Carry on.

jonathan7
06-21-2008, 02:01 PM
I would if I could. I'm ineligible for military service or I'd be in Iraq or Afghanistan right now doing my part.

Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Voltaire

Do note that; you have freedom of speech and freedom of action are two entirely different things. If you could have freedom of action you would cause World War 3; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavrilo_Princip

I feel that I should apologize for bringing my extremist views into Kavar's where they are obviously not welcome. Carry on.

Kavar's is a place for discussion and debate; many of us disagree... You may want to consider why ;)

As for wanting to fight? War is hell, it brings out the worst in good men, and brings out the 'best' in bad men. It destroys the soul; why would you want to be in one?

Det. Bart Lasiter
06-21-2008, 02:32 PM
Such is life in the real world. I'll take realism, warts and all, over misguided idealism any day. Ambitious dictators should not be coddled.Damn right. We should coddle the nation of invisible sky wizard worshipers who drop cluster bombs without regard for civilian casualties and most likely creates more terrorists than it kills. And I love how they had a war criminal for a Prime Minister. I thought that was really special.

Arcesious
06-21-2008, 03:56 PM
As for wanting to fight? War is hell, it brings out the worst in good men, and brings out the 'best' in bad men. It destroys the soul; why would you want to be in one?

Indeed... I quote F.N:

"Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

Damn right. We should coddle the nation of invisible sky wizard worshipers who drop cluster bombs without regard for civilian casualties and most likely creates more terrorists than it kills. And I love how they had a war criminal for a Prime Minister. I thought that was really special.

Haha... :lol: Jmac, you have a great skill in comedic sarcasm...

*Don*
06-21-2008, 07:03 PM
Don: I really doubt a Ghandi would be able to do much, even when atempting to free a country from a occupation nation that was de-colonizing, it still ended with a blodbath.

You have a valid point.
However, the bloodbath that you're referring to was mostly brought about when Pakistan and India separated. The bloodshed occured after Gandhi's death and it was mostly divided along religious lines. Had Gandhi lived, I get the feeling it might have turned out differently....
Nevertheless, if not a Gandhi, we definitely need another charismatic leader in the middle east. One that both sides can look up to. (As of yet, no person comes to my mind).

jonathan7
06-21-2008, 07:08 PM
You have a valid point.
However, the bloodbath that you're referring to was mostly brought about when Pakistan and India separated. The bloodshed occured after Gandhi's death and it was mostly divided along religious lines. Had Gandhi lived, I get the feeling it might have turned out differently....
Nevertheless, if not a Gandhi, we definitely need another charismatic leader in the middle east. One that both sides can look up to. (As of yet, no person comes to my mind).

I agree with your points on Gandhi.

The tragedy of Palestine, is had the Palestinians followed the Martin Luther King line of non-violent resistance, I think they would have had their own state and I think a lot less bloodshed would have occurred. Unfortunately they took the path of violent resistance.

Q
06-21-2008, 07:51 PM
The tragedy of Palestine, is had the Palestinians followed the Martin Luther King line of non-violent resistance, I think they would have had their own state and I think a lot less bloodshed would have occurred. Unfortunately they took the path of violent resistance.I totally agree with you here. I found it more than a little ironic that Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize.

jonathan7
06-21-2008, 07:59 PM
I totally agree with you here. I found it more than a little ironic that Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize.

I agree, given all he had done, everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten it, and that his apparent "U-turn" made up for this.

I do also think the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin to have been a grave tragedy as well; it would have been interesting to see where the Middle East would be now had he lived.

mur'phon
06-22-2008, 08:34 AM
The tragedy of Palestine, is had the Palestinians followed the Martin Luther King line of non-violent resistance, I think they would have had their own state and I think a lot less bloodshed would have occurred. Unfortunately they took the path of violent resistance.

In a perfect world, I'd agree. However Israel have given them little reason to trust in peacefull resistance. Whenever a peace deal is negotiated, Israels responsibilities are "shoulds", while Palestines responsibilities are "musts". Settlements are being built, "assasinations" are still caried out, and the only visible results are that more land is lost and entrenched by the Israelis. Would you still stop the violence when the only visible result is loss of land?
Besides, we are not talking about an old colony wishing freedom, or a discriminated group with lesser rights (well, that too, but you get my point), we are talking recent occupation, do you blame the French/Polish/Norwegian resistance during ww2 for fighting back too? I realize that you say should, but frankly, I don't think it would have been much different, nevermind that it's not realistic to expect a people to not resist an occupation forcefully.

I found it more than a little ironic that Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Part of the point of the prize is to encourage peace, and give a tiny push towards a better future. Sometimes it turns out well, De Clerk got the prize partly in order to help things along, so did Arafat.

jonathan7
06-22-2008, 10:17 AM
In a perfect world, I'd agree. However Israel have given them little reason to trust in peacefull resistance. Whenever a peace deal is negotiated, Israels responsibilities are "shoulds", while Palestines responsibilities are "musts". Settlements are being built, "assasinations" are still caried out, and the only visible results are that more land is lost and entrenched by the Israelis. Would you still stop the violence when the only visible result is loss of land?
Besides, we are not talking about an old colony wishing freedom, or a discriminated group with lesser rights (well, that too, but you get my point), we are talking recent occupation, do you blame the French/Polish/Norwegian resistance during ww2 for fighting back too? I realize that you say should, but frankly, I don't think it would have been much different, nevermind that it's not realistic to expect a people to not resist an occupation forcefully.

Your points are interesting, though I disagree. One of the reason's for the Black enfranchisement success was not responding to violence; it generates public sympathy and outrage when peaceful protesters are harmed, it takes a long time, but eventually works. In the case of Israel it would work, but cause international outrage and external pressure. The US couldn't back Israel as the Middle East's "only" democracy; if International outrage was loud enough.

Peaceful resistance wouldn't of worked with Hitler; a violent resistance was needed; although perhaps violent resistance by Palestinians would be accepted by the International community if they only hit Military targets instead of civilians.

mur'phon
06-22-2008, 11:02 AM
Western countries have been able to support many abusive governments before, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to support Israel in the "Gandhi" scenario. And a difference compared to the blacks, they had been opressed for ages, every right gained was a victory, the Palestinians lost almost everything overnight, acepting every part of what they had for not fighting back for them was hard, when they never got anything back for peacefull acts it became nigh on impossible.
In adition, how do you expect them to trust the western countries when they say they want them to have equal rights with Israelis, when the moment the vote for the "wrong" party they are punished?

I agree that hitting military targets would be far better, but in the palestinians case it's often an act of desperation, easily taken advantage of by some groups. If we want to stop that, cut away their motivation, or negotiate with someone who can prevent them.
Besides, it's hard for palestinians to accept that they should not strike civilians, when Israel continues to do so. Do I agree with that mentality?No. Can I understand it? Yes.

ForeverNight
06-23-2008, 09:56 AM
@Mur'phon: ?

"Act of Desperation"
Act: "[P]erform an action[.]" (Source (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Act&btnG=Search))

Desperation: "[A] state in which everything seems wrong and will turn out badly[.]" (Source (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=define%3A+Desperation&spell=1))

So, and act of desperation is an action during a a state in which everything seems wrong and will turn out badly.

So, when all those rockets were being fired indiscriminately into Israel in order to hit as many Jews as could be, that was from desperation?

Interesting.

jonathan7
06-23-2008, 10:09 AM
Israel (and Palestine): "[A] state(s) in which everything seems wrong and will turn out badly[.]"

Fixed ;)

So, and act of desperation is an action during a a state in which everything seems wrong and will turn out badly.

So, when all those rockets were being fired indiscriminately into Israel in order to hit as many Jews as could be, that was from desperation?

Interesting.

I would say so, Israel has the advantage of a Military and is viewed as an occupational force - the above rocket attacks are an act of desperation and of hatred. And are no different to the same attacks Israel mounts in Palestinian territories; both sides seem to think they have the moral high ground (which neither does) and this said moral high ground seems to give both sides the "right" to kill indiscriminately.

Violence only breeds more violence - do you try and put out a fire in your garden by setting your house on fire?

mur'phon
06-23-2008, 11:12 AM
First of all, the rockets aren't meant to kill as many as possible (suicide bombers are a different matter), they are meant to scare the settlers away. Look at the number of kills, if they really wanted to kill, they'd use frag warheads on their quassams. And yes, as J7 said, it's from desperation and hatred, imagine if the U.S was occupied by a group of amadi moslems in need of a homeland, americans squesed into small areas, criss crossed with walls and checkpoints, wouldn't you feel desperate?

J7: I'd say the Palestinians have the moral high ground, though I don't think they have the right to kill indiscriminately. And just curious, which solution do you propose to the problem?

jonathan7
06-23-2008, 11:23 AM
J7: I'd say the Palestinians have the moral high ground, though I don't think they have the right to kill indiscriminately. And just curious, which solution do you propose to the problem?

Personally I think any moral high ground was lost many thousand of deaths ago...

a)I think Jerusalem should be made an international city under the jurisdiction of the UN. I would declare Palestine a separate state with its own Government; provide aid and nation rebuilding. Israel should withdraw from occupied territories. (Unfortunately those Jews and Palestinians living in peace together, I think will suffer under the above.

b) Give everyone 72 hours to evacuate the area and nuke it; thus meaning if they really want to argue over a nuclear wasteland let them do so....

Da_Man_2423
06-23-2008, 02:01 PM
Personally I think any moral high ground was lost many thousand of deaths ago...

a)I think Jerusalem should be made an international city under the jurisdiction of the UN. I would declare Palestine a separate state with its own Government; provide aid and nation rebuilding. Israel should withdraw from occupied territories. (Unfortunately those Jews and Palestinians living in peace together, I think will suffer under the above.

b) Give everyone 72 hours to evacuate the area and nuke it; thus meaning if they really want to argue over a nuclear wasteland let them do so....

Wait, so you would do all those things in letter a, and then just nuke it?

jonathan7
06-23-2008, 02:13 PM
Wait, so you would do all those things in letter a, and then just nuke it?

lol, no I don't think either will happen, it was an either or option...

Q
06-23-2008, 02:33 PM
I'd say the Palestinians have the moral high ground, though I don't think they have the right to kill indiscriminately.They would have the moral high ground if they hadn't resorted to terrorism. Doing so has destroyed their credibility.
Personally I think any moral high ground was lost many thousand of deaths ago...Agreed. By both sides.
a)I think Jerusalem should be made an international city under the jurisdiction of the UN. I would declare Palestine a separate state with its own Government; provide aid and nation rebuilding. Israel should withdraw from occupied territories. (Unfortunately those Jews and Palestinians living in peace together, I think will suffer under the above.

b) Give everyone 72 hours to evacuate the area and nuke it; thus meaning if they really want to argue over a nuclear wasteland let them do so....Heh, "b" is kind of reminiscent of Soloman and his handling of the baby ownership dispute. ;)

Da_Man_2423
06-23-2008, 02:33 PM
lol, no I don't think either will happen, it was an either or option...

Ah, it was a bit misleading to me.

Both were a bit extreme and would probably be met with wide criticism.

Declaring a city like Jerusalem under the jurisdiction of the UN would make a lot of people mad I think. Given it's religious status, I don't think a lot of people would buy that solution.

Nuking is self-explanatory.

jonathan7
06-23-2008, 02:56 PM
Ah, it was a bit misleading to me.

Both were a bit extreme and would probably be met with wide criticism.

The first I would argue is what needs to happen for peace; don't think it's going to happen though. The problem being there are extremists on both sides, and *they* have to be satisfied and don't give a monkeys about anyone else. Unfortunately; this means the Palestinian extremists won't be happy till all the Jews are dead, and vice-versa won't be happy until all the Holy land is back under Jewish control. - So the innocent suffer, people not involved have their children killed, and want revenge and become involved, creating an endless circle of violence.

Declaring a city like Jerusalem under the jurisdiction of the UN would make a lot of people mad I think. Given it's religious status, I don't think a lot of people would buy that solution.

Perhaps; but it is precisely for that reason it should be under UN control, Jews, Muslims and Christians all claim it for their own, so why not have a third party in charge? During the Crusades (Christians v Muslims) the Jews were given the keys to the city.

Heh, "b" is kind of reminiscent of Soloman and his handling of the baby ownership dispute. ;)

Aye, the hope would be for everyone to see sense, if they did or not is another matter entirely.

The Source
06-23-2008, 03:19 PM
Regardless about how we all feel about war, the process and end result is damn ugly. Even though we try to use diplomacy to settle conflicts, sometimes war is a necessary means to protect one’s people and nation. Governments in the Middle East have been stomping on Israel since day one. Most of us don’t live in the region, so we are not faced with visible threats from day to day. ‘Saber Rattling’ is always used to ward off foreign threats. Since the world is too bound by politics, I give Israel all of my blessings and prayers.

jonathan7
06-23-2008, 04:39 PM
Regardless about how we all feel about war, the process and end result is damn ugly.

Agreed.

Even though we try to use diplomacy to settle conflicts, sometimes war is a necessary means to protect one’s people and nation. Governments in the Middle East have been stomping on Israel since day one. Most of us don’t live in the region, so we are not faced with visible threats from day to day. ‘Saber Rattling’ is always used to ward off foreign threats. Since the world is too bound by politics, I give Israel all of my blessings and prayers.

Israel has been stomped all over by other governments? Did you see what they did to Lebanon?

I really hope you live in an alternate reality to me; otherwise you must be very selectively reading and watching the news.

mur'phon
06-23-2008, 07:49 PM
J7: While I generally agree with plan A, are we talking about the original (and rejected) U.N plan? And you know what Israel promise to do with the nukes in the event of scenario B? That hope is not worth milions of deaths from Israeli nukes.

Q: The difference is that the terrorist attacks (the bloodbath kind at least) is carried out by relatively small extremist groups whereas the crimes of Israel is (for the most part) done by the state, and since it's a (imperfect) democracy...

Arcesious
06-23-2008, 07:57 PM
My parents seem to be enjoying entertaining the thought of thinking that this is a sign of the end times, or 'Great Tribulation' about to happen any time... :lol:

But, when you look at it differently, all it's ever been is a war over religion and belief, territory, the unfairness towards palestinians several decades ago, and the arrogance, greed, and sufferage of man.

mur'phon
06-23-2008, 08:05 PM
Arc: Several decades ago? Have you ever seen their boulevards of broken glass, urine and crap? The houses being demolished because palestinians can't get building permits? The dozends of people going through the sewage system to awoid standing for hours at checkpoints? The walls ripping their land to pieces? I could go on and on, point being it is still happening.

Arcesious
06-23-2008, 08:08 PM
Edit: Oh, wait... Sorry. I misinterpretted your post. At the time I made the post your replied to, I had momentarly forgotten about how long this has been going on... Carry on. ;)

jonathan7
06-23-2008, 08:15 PM
Edit: Oh, wait... Sorry. I misinterpretted your post. At the time I made the post your replied to, I had momentarly forgotten about how long this has been going on... Carry on. ;)

The above Palestinian/Israel one has been going on since 1948 ;)

Point Man
06-28-2008, 07:36 PM
What's the big deal? Just because Israel trains for contingencies does not mean they will actually bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. The US trained on how to attack the Soviet Union, but we never did. We train on various scenarios, with the hope that we will never have to carry them out. You cannot get a bully to stop without a credible threat of force.

jonathan7
06-28-2008, 07:40 PM
You cannot get a bully to stop without a credible threat of force.

Israel are a bully :xp:

ForeverNight
06-29-2008, 11:01 AM
I am curious how that idea was started, since, from all the reading I've done -admittedly not as much as I would like in this area- I've come to the conclusion that Israel has mainly been getting attacked ever since they were able to set up shop where they are.

Granted there was Lebanon, but I'm generalizing here. So, I would appreciate it if you could clarify how Israel is a bully. Please?

mur'phon
06-29-2008, 11:20 AM
First, look at the history of the land mass of Palestine. Then look at a recent map of a palestinian city, try to trace a way from a residental area to a typical workplace, add 5 hours for every checkpoint you need to pass to see how long it would take to get there. Read up on the palestinian pain, notice town butcherings, refugee camp destruction, etc. Should start you off quite nicely.

Rev7
06-29-2008, 02:31 PM
I was talking to my Dad about this the other day, and he said that they (Israel) does this all the time. :giveup:

mur'phon
06-29-2008, 03:14 PM
You mean reharsing attack plans? Sure, however this time it might not be just a bluff. A lot of Israels regional power comes from being the sole nuclear power in the region, with Iran armed, Israel can no longer strike wherever and whenever it wants. It also makes it possible for opponents in a war to take and hold territory. Besides, most analysts expect that if Israel intend to attack Iran, it'll be just after the U.S election. Late enough that they won't be acused of trying to influence the election, early enough so that they can "force" the U.S to support them.

Q
06-29-2008, 05:42 PM
^^^
So let me get this straight:
You're in favor of a terrorist nation having access to nukes?

Da_Man_2423
06-29-2008, 05:59 PM
I was talking to my Dad about this the other day, and he said that they (Israel) does this all the time.


You mean reharsing attack plans? Sure, however this time it might not be just a bluff.

I don't think anyone had mentioned this...sorry if someone had, didn't read the whole thread.

This sure as hell wasn't a bluff, and it sure as hell wasn't rehearsing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

Totenkopf
06-29-2008, 06:02 PM
^^^
So let me get this straight:
You're in favor of a terrorist nation having access to nukes?



I'll hazard a guess here. He probably would say he's not, but that Israel has them anyway. I'd also have to say that if he thinks that Iran having nukes would be a regional equivalent of the MAD doctrine is shortsighted. If the Iranians could be trusted to only use nukes in the event that they themselves were attacked first, it might be arguable that standing by while they develop nuclear weapons and doing nothing might be justifiable. Given the apocalyptic mentality of the radical muslim, it's the eqivalent of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Rev7
06-29-2008, 06:07 PM
^^^
So let me get this straight:
You're in favor of a terrorist nation having access to nukes?
Are you saying the Israel is a terrorist nation? Or Iran?

jonathan7
06-29-2008, 06:09 PM
Are you saying the Israel is a terrorist nation? Or Iran?

I don't think Q is... I think however the Israeli government is a bunch of terrorists, guess I can kiss good bye to visiting the blood... sorry Holy Land if their security services review my posts here. ;)

Rev7
06-29-2008, 06:13 PM
Okay then.

Q
06-29-2008, 06:27 PM
I don't think anyone had mentioned this...sorry if someone had, didn't read the whole thread.

This sure as hell wasn't a bluff, and it sure as hell wasn't rehearsing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
Since that time, especially after the first Gulf War, several prominent US politicians have "retroactively supported" the operation.[9] Those who believe that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons in the 1980s view Operation Opera as necessary action, even if it were considered a clear violation of international law by the U.N. Security Council. Some legal scholars believe that the action did not violate international law since it followed the rule of anticipatory self-defense.[10]

Professor Louis Rene Beres wrote that, "Israel’s citizens, together with Jews and Arabs, American, and other coalition soldiers who fought in the Gulf War may owe their lives to Israel’s courage, skill, and foresight in June 1981.";)
Are you saying the Israel is a terrorist nation? Or Iran?Well, uh, since Israel already has nukes, and has had them for decades without using them I might add, I guess that would probably mean that I'm referring to Iran. :p

mur'phon
06-29-2008, 06:29 PM
Tot: Your mind reading skills are fairly good, I do however disagree with your assesment of Irans "sanity". While Amadhinejad preaches death and destruction, the real leader is far more modest, though what he says would have been cause for concern, if what he said was directed at other nations instead of at his own citizens. Look at Irans foreign policy, they might be a unpleasant country, but they are at least rational. Besides, Iran dosen't really want Israel wiped out, it actually benefits quite a lot from its existence. Shi'ite and Sunnis are quite happy to fight each other, and being one of few Shi'ite countries, it is quite happy to have a lightning rod called Israel close by.

Q: There are allready quite a few of those, has worked out reasonable enough so far, though in my perfect world neither Israel, or Iran would have nukes.

Da Man: Just because they have done it in the past dosen't neccesarly mean they'll do it again, though I guess it's to much to ask to have them learn from that failed attack.

R7: Both

J7::D

Totenkopf
06-29-2008, 06:40 PM
Well, I think that Jonathan makes a good point in a round about fashion, by which I mean that we really aren't talking about Iranians, Israelis, Americans, etc.. BUT their governments. As for Osirak, Mur'phon, is that the "failed attack" to which you refer? If so, could you explain your reasoning there? I think that the Iranians may have learned from that incident, as their nuke facilities aren't all sitting in one spot.

mur'phon
06-29-2008, 06:51 PM
Failed attack if the goal was to prevent it's neighbours from getting the bomb, if the goal was just to prevent one of them, it was a sucsess.

Q
06-29-2008, 06:51 PM
Q: There are allready quite a few of those, has worked out reasonable enough so far, though in my perfect world neither Israel, or Iran would have nukes.You'll have to forgive me when I say that I believe that your attitude towards a subject as grave as nuclear proliferation is more than a tad bit flippant.
Da Man: Just because they have done it in the past dosen't neccesarly mean they'll do it again, though I guess it's to much to ask to have them learn from that failed attack.Did we read the same article? That strike couldn't have been more successful.

jonathan7
06-29-2008, 07:07 PM
Well, I think that Jonathan makes a good point in a round about fashion, by which I mean that we really aren't talking about Iranians, Israelis, Americans, etc.. BUT their governments.

I think it is a key detail people often forget; there is a big difference between the people and governments. All to quickly other nations individuals are dehumanised and turned into a stereotype who all think and believe the same thing. e.g. People talk about Iran as if everyone in Iran want's Nukes and hates the west, which isn't true; Iran has a very large middle class, who are very westernised and bare not hatred at all of the West. Also the impression I get from my Iranian friends here, is that the government isn't much popular at all...

You'll have to forgive me when I say that I believe that your attitude towards a subject as grave as nuclear proliferation is more than a tad bit flippant.

You may as well face it Q; in reality all the worlds Nuclear weapons should just be in mine and mur'p's possession.

Da_Man_2423
06-29-2008, 07:08 PM
Did we read the same article? That strike couldn't have been more successful.

No kidding :lol:.

"Outcome: Success".

Can't get much more successful than that.

Det. Bart Lasiter
06-29-2008, 09:47 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html

i always thought of outkast's "bombs over baghdad" as the iraq war's theme song, who has a suggestion for the iran war's theme song?

Rev7
06-30-2008, 12:03 AM
;)
Well, uh, since Israel already has nukes, and has had them for decades without using them I might add, I guess that would probably mean that I'm referring to Iran. :p
Just makin' sure. ;)


R7: Both

Hmmm :|
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html

Good ol' American media. I wonder if the Iranians could read this?

Det. Bart Lasiter
06-30-2008, 01:15 AM
Good ol' American media. I wonder if the Iranians could read this?Yeah when I see "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb" I blame the media because them reporting this will obviously get people killed and the current administration rejecting intelligence reports won't ever get people killed. Ever. I mean, authority figures can never do anything wrong otherwise they wouldn't be authority figures they'd be criminals mirite rev mah boi? And on top of that, who do we the people think we are what with all this demanding to "know" things about what the government (allegedly) does I mean seriously, what the hell guys?

Totenkopf
06-30-2008, 06:38 AM
Well, seeing as how seymour hersh figured so prominently in that story, I see it as somewhat suspect. I've no doubt that US war planners have been looking at Iran, though. Given a lack of hard intelligence assets on the ground there, I'd be surprised if we had a really good picture of their true intent. Also, have to wonder how those in the intelligence community have come to this conclusion, given the aforementioned lack of humint and Iran's spreading out of it's nuke related infrastructure.

mur'phon
06-30-2008, 08:08 AM
J7: I hear the same from my "local" Iranians.

You'll have to forgive me when I say that I believe that your attitude towards a subject as grave as nuclear proliferation is more than a tad bit flippant.

Believe what you like, though it would be nice if you could provide some reasons for your belief. Besides, how do you intend to prevent proliferation?

That strike couldn't have been more successful.

Poor choice of words on my part, yes it was a succes if the goal was to delay a weapon program in Iraq, of course, gulf war made the delay permanent. It also showed that Israel is willing to strike anything it considers a threat/"dosen't like". Now, this would be fine if Israel had the power of a larger country, and was able to project an image of invulnerability. However it isn't and it dosen't, thus Iran figures it can withstand an Israeli assault. When a close by country shows it's willingness to use force, you naturally want to protect yourself, thus the strike help to convince Iran (and others) that it needs nuclear weapons.
It won the battle, but it might have helped cause a war.

Hmmm :|

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Tot: Agreed

Totenkopf
06-30-2008, 02:30 PM
So.....the $64000 question is..........will we be at war with Iran before year's end? If so, will the middle class recognize it's chance to shed itself of the clerics and usher in a newer govt reflecting their own purported beliefs? Afterall, we keep hearing from emigre`s and other sources that the youth of Iran more or less hate their rulers. If opportunity knocks, will they recognize it and open the door? I wonder......

Det. Bart Lasiter
06-30-2008, 02:39 PM
Well, seeing as how seymour hersh figured so prominently in that story, I see it as somewhat suspect.He may have a bias, however Hersh has distinguished himself as a journalist, and I think his career more than makes up for it.

Totenkopf
06-30-2008, 02:43 PM
I'm sure he'd be flattered to hear that. ;) Still not enough to convince me that his bias doesn't overshadow his work.

mur'phon
06-30-2008, 02:49 PM
Tot: No, won't happen. While the rulers have their power base among the (very numerous) poor, nothing will unite persians more than an army knocking at their door. Of course, if enough important people of Qom throws their wight behind the invaders, it could work, but that is higly unlikely.

Totenkopf
06-30-2008, 08:39 PM
I pretty much figure that as well. Will be interesting to see where (if at all) the intersection between opportunism and nationalism occurs. Also one of the reasons I'd tend to disregard as overly relevant claims of pro-western sentiment among the younger masses. If they aren't willing to shed the yoke of an oppressive regime, does it really matter where they stand (assuming the goal is to defeat their leaders, not "rebuild" their country)? Regardless, I think it would be a mistake to just waltz in expecting an "easy" campaign w/o first checking to see if you couldn't provide enough support for a revolution to topple the regime from within, while smashing it's military might from w/o.

mur'phon
06-30-2008, 09:13 PM
Agreed, though if you want to stop it from geting nukes, you'd either need a regieme change, or a full scale occupation. One is unlikely, the other is likely to cause more death and destruction to U.S forces than Nam.

Q
06-30-2008, 10:47 PM
Believe what you like, though it would be nice if you could provide some reasons for your belief. Besides, how do you intend to prevent proliferation?Okay. How about this?A lot of Israels regional power comes from being the sole nuclear power in the region, with Iran armed, Israel can no longer strike wherever and whenever it wants.If Iran succeeds in obtaining nukes then Israel, master of the preemptive strike, will probably do whatever is necessary to render them unable to use them, up to and possibly including nuking them, IMO, and they will not bother to ask for the rest of the world's permission before doing so. It would spark the very conflict that you claim to want to prevent.

Why would they do so? Well because, just like me, they believe that the Iranian government just might be crazy enough to either try to nuke them, or, far more likely IMO, to distribute nuclear weapons to terrorists. Allowing Iran to possess nukes is an unacceptable scenario, period. It is the definition of insanity.Agreed, though if you want to stop it from geting nukes, you'd either need a regieme change, or a full scale occupation. One is unlikely, the other is likely to cause more death and destruction to U.S forces than Nam.I'm sorry, but please do not insult the Vietnamese by comparing Iran's military capabilities to theirs. Iran could not beat Iraq after eight long years of war, and our military beat down Iraq in, like, eight days. Twice. :) Not that I want our forces to invade, mind you. Our military is spread thin enough as it is. I'd be perfectly willing to sit back and let the Israelis do it, though. ;) I guess that's just my Machiavelian side rearing its ugly head. :devsmoke:

Da_Man_2423
07-01-2008, 12:19 PM
I'm sorry, but please do not insult the Vietnamese by comparing Iran's military capabilities to theirs. Iran could not beat Iraq after eight long years of war, and our military beat down Iraq in, like, eight days. Twice. :) Not that I want our forces to invade, mind you. Our military is spread thin enough as it is. I'd be perfectly willing to sit back and let the Israelis do it, though. ;) I guess that's just my Machiavelian side rearing its ugly head. :devsmoke:

Hehe, Iraqis were surrendering BEFORE the war officially started. :lol:

You gotta have a damn good military to do that. ;)

jonathan7
07-01-2008, 12:25 PM
Hehe, Iraqis were surrendering BEFORE the war officially started. :lol:

You gotta have a damn good military to do that. ;)

Would you want to fight for a guy who was oppressing and brutalising you, to keep him in power?

Da_Man_2423
07-01-2008, 02:03 PM
Would you want to fight for a guy who was oppressing and brutalising you, to keep him in power?

Some of them didn't seem to have a problem with what he was doing. Including foreign nations.

That's for a different thread though. ;)

mur'phon
07-01-2008, 03:50 PM
Why would they do so? Well because, just like me, they believe that the Iranian government just might be crazy enough to either try to nuke them,

Please show me something sugesting Iran is an irational country willing to to cause its own destruction.

or, far more likely IMO, to distribute nuclear weapons to terrorists. Allowing Iran to possess nukes is an unacceptable scenario, period. It is the definition of insanity.

Iran is shi'ite and have no interest in leaking nukes to terrorist for fear of them being used against itself. This is one area where it and the U.S could cooperate, preventing terrorism on their own teritory is high on boths list of priorities. Still, if you are afraid of nuclear leaks, why not bugger Pakistan, they even got an up and running nuclear smugling ring.

I'd be perfectly willing to sit back and let the Israelis do it, though. I guess that's just my Machiavelian side rearing its ugly head.

Well, at least we have an ugly side in common:D
Since you don't want the U.S to invade, I'll just deal with the Israel version.
First, geography is very much against the Israelis, either they'll have to buldoze through neighbours, or do an amphibious assault under a hail of misiles. To make things worse, both Hizbullah and Hamas will raise hell, baiting Israel with missiles, making Israels small size painfull (misiles can hit any city), raids or if they move enough men to Iran, hit and run assaults.
Then comes the problem of Irans size, occupying it is not really a feat Israel can pull off. Then add the large army, even larger milita, and hordes of people willing to fight for their country, and you see why Dubaya haven't already invaded. I can provide more reasons for why Israel can't pull it off if you wish.

Some of them didn't seem to have a problem with what he was doing. Including foreign nations.

The whole opression thingy? The U.S didn't have a problem with that, otherwise you'd be involved in a lot more wars, and would have stopped supporting allied opressors.

Totenkopf
07-02-2008, 02:21 AM
Iran is shi'ite and have no interest in leaking nukes to terrorist for fear of them being used against itself. This is one area where it and the U.S could cooperate, preventing terrorism on their own teritory is high on boths list of priorities. Still, if you are afraid of nuclear leaks, why not bugger Pakistan, they even got an up and running nuclear smugling ring.


Would be more correct to state that they'd have no interest in nukes falling into sunni hands. Still, the arabs (and possibly even the Persians) might be willing to settle for the ole "the enemy of my enemy" routine. Nukes appear to be the ultimate trump card, directly or via 3rd parties. I doubt Iran would really be all that willing (in its current regime) to cooperate with America to stem further proliferation, especially in light of Israel's "suspected" nuke status.

As I alluded to in a previous post, when we talk about Iran, we're likely not talking about the emigre` community or the average Iranian (or at least the westernized/educated one). The question in most people's minds is about the degree to which the mullahs will try to use jihadis to press whatever their agenda is on a global front. It's probably not a good idea to project western "rationalism" onto people from another culture. Since they don't necessarily share our values, the strain of logic they employ will likely differ from our own.

As to your points on Israel, I think that Osirak is not repeatable for reasons aforementioned. It wouldn't be necessary for Israel to attempt an invasion of Iran (they have less ability there than we do), however, commando raids and airstrikes might be sufficient to cripple (not remove, however) Iran's nuke program. It's also likely to be something of a pyrhhic victory if they try, all the more so if nukes are involved.

Given that the great majority (75% +) of the world's nations are despotic, it's only natural that ANY country looking out for its interests is likely to make what would strike others as amoral/immoral alliances or relationships. Ce le vie, I s'ppose.

mur'phon
07-02-2008, 12:09 PM
Would be more correct to state that they'd have no interest in nukes falling into sunni hands.

Tot: Iran have had weapons sold to sji'ite muslims, only to see them end up used against sji'ites in for instance Iraq. While conventional weapons can be sold/given despite that since the "colateral damage" is acceptable, a nuke simply isn't. And once Iran get (yes, I think it's inevitable) a nuke, it'll have plenty of reasons to prevent others from aquiring it.

Still, the arabs (and possibly even the Persians) might be willing to settle for the ole "the enemy of my enemy" routine.

Which is presisely why Iran want Israel weakened, but not destroyed.

or the average Iranian

The average iranian is poor and pious, which is why the system is considered acceptable to them.

however, commando raids and airstrikes might be sufficient to cripple (not remove, however) Iran's nuke program.

Several problems with that aproach, first airstrikes will be a pain after Iran bought some nasty russian anti-air misiles. Commando raids are hard for obvious reasons. Getting in with the "tools of the trade", remaining undetected, getting close, overwhelming defences, do it fast enough that they won't get the airforce up their behinds, in short it's extremely risky.
Then we have the problem of not knowing how many sites, and which type of sites Iran has, at least one was only found after an insider revealed it. So it might delay it alot, a little, or not at all, then consider that Iran will strike back, and Israel is in a rather nasty position.

Totenkopf
07-02-2008, 03:56 PM
...Iran have had weapons sold to sji'ite muslims, only to see them end up used against sji'ites in for instance Iraq. While conventional weapons can be sold/given despite that since the "colateral damage" is acceptable, a nuke simply isn't. And once Iran get (yes, I think it's inevitable) a nuke, it'll have plenty of reasons to prevent others from aquiring it.
...Which is presisely why Iran want Israel weakened, but not destroyed.
...Several problems with that aproach, first airstrikes will be a pain after Iran bought some nasty russian anti-air misiles. Commando raids are hard for obvious reasons. Getting in with the "tools of the trade", remaining undetected, getting close, overwhelming defences, do it fast enough that they won't get the airforce up their behinds, in short it's extremely risky.
Then we have the problem of not knowing how many sites, and which type of sites Iran has, at least one was only found after an insider revealed it. So it might delay it alot, a little, or not at all, then consider that Iran will strike back, and Israel is in a rather nasty position.

Iran also fought Iraqi shiites and sunnis for 8 +/- years, so I'm not convinced they were too worried about these shiites using them to create chaos by killing each other as well as westerners. Iran gains most by keeping Iraq destabilized. If the regime in Iran is sane (maybe or not), they would likely know that a terrorist nuke going off in Israel would automatically be assumed curtesy of Iran and would risk retaliation. But.....if the leadership of Iran believe that this will bring forth their cherished 12th Imam (and consequently their own salvation)...can you really be sure they wouldn't risk it? I knew a guy from Jamaica that thought if I shot him with a gun, that God wouldn't let it hurt him, even at point blank range. Beliefs can cause people to do odd things.

To the rest of your points, I'm pretty much in agreement. Iran's greatest advantages are its mountainous terrain and the spreading out of its nuke facilities. While I don't doubt that special forces types could penetrate Iran (probably have), it is correct that their task would be herculean in nature. As to the Russian equipment, seeing is believing. Their stuff has a spotty track record when exported.

The whole question of "what will they do if they get the bomb" reminds of the movie Wrong Is Right. Once the terrorist in the film gains control of his country, he loses interest in nuke terrorism b/c now he has too much to lose. Let's hope the mullahs see it that way too. :)

mur'phon
07-06-2008, 04:54 PM
Iran also fought Iraqi shiites and sunnis for 8 +/- years, so I'm not convinced they were too worried about these shiites using them to create chaos by killing each other as well as westerners.

Should have written itself rather than sji'ites. Iran isn't terribly worried about terrorists/freedom fighters using their guns, guns are relatively harmless. It is also likely that most of those guns will be used to further Irans goals, those that aren't are insignificant. Besides, since terrorists/freedom fighters will always get their hands on guns, why shouldn't Iran profitt from it?

Iran gains most by keeping Iraq destabilized.

Only for as long as said chaos is seen as a U.S failure. In the longer run, Iraq is likely to be one of Irans few allies, but for now, we agree.

If the regime in Iran is sane (maybe or not), they would likely know that a terrorist nuke going off in Israel would automatically be assumed curtesy of Iran and would risk retaliation.

Which is the same reason I don't believe Israel will use nukes to try to halt Irans nuke programme.

As to the Russian equipment, seeing is believing. Their stuff has a spotty track record when exported.

Yes, but say that to the guy in who get the blame for every plane shot down, even a few down will be seen as a failure, and put him on his way to an early retirement. Besides, the Russians like to strutt their stuff at the border, seeing is believing so if it works, I feel sorry for israels pilots.

But.....if the leadership of Iran believe that this will bring forth their cherished 12th Imam (and consequently their own salvation)...can you really be sure they wouldn't risk it? I knew a guy from Jamaica that thought if I shot him with a gun, that God wouldn't let it hurt him, even at point blank range. Beliefs can cause people to do odd things.

When have Iran acted like an irrationall theocrazy? As you said, seeing is believing:D

The whole question of "what will they do if they get the bomb" reminds of the movie Wrong Is Right. Once the terrorist in the film gains control of his country, he loses interest in nuke terrorism b/c now he has too much to lose.

Gah, seems like I'll have to watch another movie this year, they ruin me (both of them):D

Totenkopf
07-08-2008, 11:37 AM
We are in agreement that Iran seeks to destabilize Iraq long enough to make it untenable for America to remain and long enough to consolidate its influence over that country's lawmakers (or at least enough of them).

I'd agree that it's unlikely (extremely) that Israel would resort to a preemptive nuke strike to take out Iran's growing nuke infrastructure (even if it could succeed, the fallout would likely make them more hated than they are now).

As regards the Russian equipment......seeing is believing.;) Not saying they can't produce decent stuff, just that it has often faired poorly vs its American/European counterparts. Perhaps the problem has mostly been poor training and grasp of tactics (+stripped down Soviet equipment) by their client states. Remember, SH was believed to possess an awesome state of the art anti-aircraft system. Time will tell......or perhaps hopefully not have to.

Crazy, it would seem, is probably in the eye of the beholder. Right now, I think it's the classic case in Iran of the mullahs likely using the "great satan" as a means of distracting the populace from their (the govt's) own enormous failures. Now, if the mullahs really believe in this 12th Imam stuff.......how sane would you view them as being. ;)

mur'phon
07-08-2008, 01:31 PM
Now, if the mullahs really believe in this 12th Imam stuff.......how sane would you view them as being.

About as sane as those that think they can force christs return:D

Totenkopf
07-08-2008, 09:05 PM
Yeah, I was almost going to mention the whole argument that people see Bush as trying to force the Second Coming, as though mere humans could force the hands of God... :lol: