PDA

View Full Version : "Our Finger is always on the trigger"


Rev7
07-09-2008, 02:38 PM
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/09/iran.missiles/index.html)

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran test-fired a long-range missile on Wednesday in response to what it says are threats from Israel and the United States, Iranian officials said.


"We want to tell the world that those who conduct their foreign policy by using the language of threat against Iran have to know that our finger is always on the trigger and we have hundreds and even thousands of missiles ready to be fired against predetermined targets," Gen. Hossein Salami, commander of the Revolutionary Guard ground forces, said on state TV.

"We will chase the enemies on the ground and in the sky and we are able react strongly to enemy's threats in shortest possible time."

Totenkopf
07-09-2008, 02:41 PM
Ain't blustering grand. :rolleyes:

EnderWiggin
07-09-2008, 03:02 PM
Wow. That's great.

_EW_

Litofsky
07-09-2008, 03:02 PM
'Force with force,' it seems, is an undeniable claim of our species. However, I think that Gandhi summarizes this kind of action nicely: "An eye for an eye makes us all blind."

mur'phon
07-09-2008, 03:08 PM
Wake me when they test a nuke, we allready knew they had long range misiles.

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-09-2008, 03:16 PM
I'm not that surprised, the current administration (in addition to the Democratic and Republican candidates) are using that Toby Keith song where he talks about boots going up asses as their foreign policy.

Arcesious
07-09-2008, 04:26 PM
If all these countries don't stop playing chicken, someone's going to get hurt.

Rev7
07-09-2008, 04:31 PM
Whos playing chicken? Iran? They sound pretty serious to me...

Astor
07-09-2008, 04:35 PM
Sounds more like they're playing 'let's take on the world and nuke Israel at the same time' to me.

*Don*
07-09-2008, 04:36 PM
Honestly speaking I feel that Iran's "state run" news service might be exagerating the size of their stockpile.

Still, in all seriousness, I really can't blame them for acting like this.

Rev7
07-09-2008, 04:39 PM
Sounds more like they're playing 'let's take on the world and nuke Israel at the same time' to me.
...and America...

mur'phon
07-09-2008, 04:43 PM
Is playing doing the same, just swithch Israel for "the rest of the middle east:D

As for their seriousness, they are definitely serious about making anyone attacking them pay in any way they can. When it comes to them attacking, it seems hihgly unlikely, as there is little for them to gain, and much to loose by doing so.

Rev7
07-09-2008, 04:44 PM
Exactly! It makes me wonder why they would still say it. :giveup:

mur'phon
07-09-2008, 04:56 PM
Huh? His comment was about "answering" threats to Iran, not about attacking anyone. As for why their leaders somtimes talk about offensive action against others, it's all about uniting the people against an outside threat.

Rev7
07-09-2008, 04:59 PM
It would still be attacking if one of these predetermined missiles hit the U.S or any other country, now wouldn't it? I know that he wasn't talking about 'attacking', though. ;)

Arcesious
07-09-2008, 05:41 PM
All of these countries are using threats of force. And it's getting really old... All this saber rattling is nothing more than a game of chicken. All of our leaders are just having temper-tantrums because none of them are getting what they want.

mur'phon
07-09-2008, 05:56 PM
But theese so called "temper-tauntrums" can get them what they want. Irans leaders wants to unite the people behind them, how? Outside enemy. They also make it perfectly clear what will happen should they be attacked, hopefully making others think twice before doing so. You might call it "temper-tauntrums", though I call it an efective (if unpleasant) way for the leaders to achieve their goals.

Rev7
07-09-2008, 06:06 PM
All of these countries are using threats of force. And it's getting really old... All this saber rattling is nothing more than a game of chicken. All of our leaders are just having temper-tantrums because none of them are getting what they want.
Yes, I agree that it is getting old, but this needs to be taken seriously. All of these threats should be taken seriously. I think that at one point, it will not just be "saber rattling".

Arcesious
07-09-2008, 07:23 PM
That's exactly what I'm saying. If they all don't stop this stupid contest of force, they're all going to really mess things up for everyone else, if they haven't completely messed up everything already.

Jae Onasi
07-09-2008, 09:09 PM
Iran's missiles don't have the range to reach the US. The missiles may be long range, but that's not the same as intercontinental. These missiles do have the range to reach our allies, not only Israel but also Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, among others.

Saber--rattling in the Middle East is nothing new. Violence and threats thereof have been going on since Esau got mad at Jacob for stealing his blessing, if not before that. Certainly it's dangerous to play the game of brinksmanship, but I _think_ Iran will make waves without actually going through with their threats. The sane generals couldn't help but notice how little time it took for the US military to decimate Iraqi forces. They would have to face that force if they attacked one of our allies and that ally requested our help. The big question is if enough voices of reason exist in the Iranian military to prevent war.

Totenkopf
07-09-2008, 09:21 PM
But theese so called "temper-tauntrums" can get them what they want. Irans leaders wants to unite the people behind them, how? Outside enemy. They also make it perfectly clear what will happen should they be attacked, hopefully making others think twice before doing so. You might call it "temper-tauntrums", though I call it an efective (if unpleasant) way for the leaders to achieve their goals.

Untill and unless their "bluff" is called.

Rabish Bini
07-10-2008, 12:24 AM
Sounds more like they're playing 'let's take on the world and nuke Israel at the same time' to me.
Sounds to me more like, "Let's go on a suicide mission and see how long it takes until we get stopped!"

I'm not worried

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-10-2008, 05:51 AM
Iran's missiles don't have the range to reach the US. The missiles may be long range, but that's not the same as intercontinental. These missiles do have the range to reach our allies, not only Israel but also Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, among others.lol

Jae Onasi
07-10-2008, 07:28 AM
lol

Yeah, yeah, laugh away, but they're still called 'allies' by the diplomatic corps, even if they're royally screwing over our economy with oil. :D

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-10-2008, 07:36 AM
Yeah, yeah, laugh away, but they're still called 'allies' by the diplomatic corps, even if they're royally screwing over our economy with oil. :DAlso their government sucking so ****ing much they're causing more trouble than they're worth vis a vis terrorism.

John Galt
07-12-2008, 10:26 PM
Going nuclear is the rational choice from the perspective of smaller nations, as it seems like those are the only nations that the greater powers respect. Case in point: India and Pakistan.

Arcesious
07-12-2008, 11:35 PM
Rationality is a term subject to misuse by the irrational. (The Iranian government thinkign they're doing the logical thing, but actually not)

mur'phon
07-13-2008, 05:45 AM
Untill and unless their "bluff" is called.

If you by calling their bluff mean massive coalition invasion, sure, but that's a huge loose/loose scenario for all involved.

John Galt: Agreed

Arc: mind explaining why it's irrational? Their logic seems sound, if nasty, to me.

Totenkopf
07-13-2008, 12:10 PM
One doesn't have to invade with a huge army to call a bluff, however. When it comes to jingoism and sabber rattling, the results are never good for at least someone, if not all.

Arc: logic is a process, not an end.

Arcesious
07-13-2008, 02:24 PM
Logic is a process usually followed by a conclusion formed by a judgement. These judgements are subject to bias; and, in fact, creating a conclusion requires 'bias' towards beleif and analysis of something's revelence or value. In the case of the Iranian goverment, I'd say that their negotiation tactics are a flawed conclusion created by a narrow minded, biased judgement, thus, irrational. (However, it is impossible for any human being to avoid being biased in some way.)

They were not irrational in wanting to make sure Isreal leaves them alone, however. They were irrational in threatening the rest of the world with nukes.

mur'phon
07-13-2008, 03:01 PM
Tot: The only bluff to call is their ability to strike the U.S directly, and the strenght of their army. Tell me, how will they be harmed by someone calling their bluff?

Arc: The nuclear threatening did improve their standing in much of their back yard, which, for a shi'ite country on "continent" sunni is a huge benefit. It also works/ed fairly well to fire up their people. A final benefit is that the carrots offered it if it stops just get bigger and sweeter. Besides, how likely is it that they'll be harmed, with the security counsil playing "my veto is bigger than yours", and nothing else nasty in the pipeline, my guess is that they'll come out ahead.

Totenkopf
07-13-2008, 05:16 PM
Well, I think the kind of hurt you're looking for is forcing someone's hand*, not merely calling their bluff. If they are truly bluffing, most of the hurt is prestige and probably economic. Might also lead others to believe that a series of airstrikes would be enough to repeat an Osirak.

*by which I mean doing something that makes them miscalculate to the point of a military exchange. Japan and Germany wrote America off as weak (willed, if not materially) and acted accordingly, with dire results for themselves. Not claiming Iran= Japan/Germany (or WW2), just that they were led to or allowed themselves to believe they were in a stronger postion than they ended up being in vis-a-vis their adversary.