US attack on Iran?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Is that a legit story on the front page, or a hoax? I want to believe the latter :dead:

[Enigma]

It's one reporters opinion based on his "sources" from what I can tell. I would highly doubt it.

But hey, we have 2 strike carrier groups out there. We are ramping up war games. Our current administration loves political suicide. why not?

[TLAM Strike]

This will no doubt be postponed due to my April 2 invason of Earth followed by my April 3 victory celibration. :yep:

[Enigma]

April 3 victory celibration

Oohh, can we come? :yep:

[waste gate]

Have we heard what it looks like on the Iranian side of the border?

The Iranians took captive 15 Brits recently, tested new missles, launched subs, threatened another legitimate nation with annihihatalion (Isreal), thumbed their noses at the UN, fund, God only knows, how many terrorist groups, need I go on?
I do not claim to know what the Iranians are getting at, but it looks as if they want something very badly.

[ASWnut101]

But hey, we have 2 strike carrier groups out there. We are ramping up war games. Our current administration loves political suicide. why not?


Oh, and the Iranians are ramping up the wargames, not us Enigma. The only one attempting political (and literal) suicide would be Mr. Achmedinijad.


It's one reporters opinion based on his "sources" from what I can tell. I would highly doubt it.

For once, I agree. The only way we are going to attack Iran at this point is if they strike first.

[Enigma]

Oh, and the Iranians are ramping up the wargames, not us Enigma. The only one attempting political (and literal) suicide would be Mr. Achmedinijad.

Dont get me wrong, I agree %100. My point was simply that it isnt beyond our administration to take unneccesary military action under dangerous pretenses. Thats all.

Having said that, when I said we were ramping up war games, I was referring to, well, the US ramping up war games.


The US Navy has begun its most extensive manoeuvres in the Gulf region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but denies sabre-rattling aimed at Iran.

Two aircraft carriers, plus their strike groups, have sailed to the region and have begun war games involving as many as 100 US war planes. The exercises follow Iran's capture of 15 British navy personnel, and high tension over its nuclear programme.

..Simply pointing out that 2 carrier groups, a french carrier, war games, and supposedly massing on the border smells like a fight is about to begin. However. Agree with you (for once? I had no idea..) that we are not about to start a war with Iran without being hit first.

[Iceman]

:o Don't ask me why but this thread made me think of this song here...:o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iupbNAGVaJc

[ASWnut101]

Whoa, random!:lol:

[ASWnut101]

Oh, and the Iranians are ramping up the wargames, not us Enigma. The only one attempting political (and literal) suicide would be Mr. Achmedinijad.

Dont get me wrong, I agree %100. My point was simply that it isnt beyond our administration to take unneccesary military action under dangerous pretenses. Thats all.

Having said that, when I said we were ramping up war games, I was referring to, well, the US ramping up war games.


The US Navy has begun its most extensive manoeuvres in the Gulf region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but denies sabre-rattling aimed at Iran.

Two aircraft carriers, plus their strike groups, have sailed to the region and have begun war games involving as many as 100 US war planes. The exercises follow Iran's capture of 15 British navy personnel, and high tension over its nuclear programme.

..Simply pointing out that 2 carrier groups, a french carrier, war games, and supposedly massing on the border smells like a fight is about to begin. However. Agree with you (for once? I had no idea..) that we are not about to start a war with Iran without being hit first.

I hardly call "moneuvers" "war games." But, what ever.

[Enigma]

Um...ok? I mean, its right there in the article. 100 planes conducting strike maneuvers. Is Red Flag a war game? How is this not a war game?

Nevermind. Silly argument.

[Penelope_Grey]

What puzzles me is why the warship allowed those 15 men to be taken in the first place without doing something!

[Tchocky]

What puzzles me is why the warship allowed those 15 men to be taken in the first place without doing something!

From the Beeb -


The officer at the Ministry of Defence justified the lack of reaction by the British personnel. Their rules of engagement, he said, were adequate for self-defence, but they were taken by surprise as they left the ship they had inspected.


Two Iranian boats with far heavier weapons - rocket launchers and heavy machine guns against rifles and pistols - came alongside after indicating a friendly attitude.
Communications were lost immediately and then the two British boats were escorted by the Iranians and about four other Iranian boats "swarmed" in.

Some gaps in British preparations were evident from what the officer said. A Lynx helicopter monitoring the boarding had returned to the mother ship HMS Cornwall, which could not get nearer because of shallow water, and by the time the Cornwall realised what has happening, the British were on the Iranian side.
Iranian boats had about "three minutes" in which they made their approach, according to the officer, but nobody on the British side saw them. Mr Blair said the attitude of the British personnel had been "entirely sensible". If they had fired, there would "undoubtedly have been severe loss of life".

[waste gate]

Um...ok? I mean, its right there in the article. 100 planes conducting strike maneuvers. Is Red Flag a war game? How is this not a war game?

Nevermind. Silly argument.

The US Air Force Red Flag is an exercise designed to put pilots under the stress of ACM with a reduced risk to life and limb. The exercise is intended to place pilots in situations which approximate actual combat. The end is to allow pilots to engage the enemy at a tactical level having seen the afore mentioned enemy's tactics and recognizing those tactics and how to respond to those tactics with the ultimate end being the death of the opposition.

[Enigma]

Yeah, I know. I live beneath where the jets take of from. I sit on mountains and watch them do it. It's a war game.

[waste gate]

What puzzles me is why the warship allowed those 15 men to be taken in the first place without doing something!

Ive asked the same question to myself and aired it on this forum. Some one either F...ked up or it is policy. Either way it was F...ked up.

[melnibonian]

What puzzles me is why the warship allowed those 15 men to be taken in the first place without doing something!
From what the British Government say it has to do with the rules of engagement. Let's turn the question to its head for a moment though. Can you imagine what would have happened if the British ship had open fire? Probably the Iranians would have either fired back or there would have been casualties. Can you imagine the political and moral standing in such a situation? Things are not as easy as they seem some times.

[waste gate]

What puzzles me is why the warship allowed those 15 men to be taken in the first place without doing something!
From what the British Government say it has to do with the rules of engagement. Let's turn the question to its head for a moment though. Can you imagine what would have happened if the British ship had open fire? Probably the Iranians would have either fired back or there would have been casualties. Can you imagine the political and moral standing in such a situation? Things are not as easy as they seem some times.

I'm sure the ROE were in play. But if I'm an Iranian in a small boat, and If I see a warship bearing down on my position at a high rate of speed I would be seriously thinking about getting my behind the hell out. Perhaps the British ROE had been compromised and the Iranians knew that they were safe in their action.

[Enigma]

If the report Tchocky posted is accurate, it makes alot more sense. What doesnt make sense to me so far is why I havent seen Blair on TV telling the Iranians to release his people today, or be prepared for the consequences. Its ultimatum time. Give them 72 hours to release the sailors.

Having said that, it's probably good that Blair isnt as hot tempered as I am when it comes to such situations. I think if we were talking about 15 sailors being held by some other country, I wouldnt be as impatient with it. But given Irans history, and our recent repeated bashing of heads with them, im not liking this one bit.

[melnibonian]

What puzzles me is why the warship allowed those 15 men to be taken in the first place without doing something!
From what the British Government say it has to do with the rules of engagement. Let's turn the question to its head for a moment though. Can you imagine what would have happened if the British ship had open fire? Probably the Iranians would have either fired back or there would have been casualties. Can you imagine the political and moral standing in such a situation? Things are not as easy as they seem some times.

I'm sure the ROE were in play. But if I'm an Iranian in a small boat, and If I see a warship bearing down on my position at a high rate of speed I would be seriously thinking about getting my behind the hell out. Perhaps the British ROE had been compromised and the Iranians knew that they were safe in their action.
What I'm trying to say here is that the Royal Navy kept their cool and did not allow themselves to be drown into a gun fight. In my opinion the way the Royal Navy and the British Government handled the issue was (and so far still is) correct.

[Tchocky]

I'm sure the ROE were in play. But if I'm an Iranian in a small boat, and If I see a warship bearing down on my position at a high rate of speed I would be seriously thinking about getting my behind the hell out. Perhaps the British ROE had been compromised and the Iranians knew that they were safe in their action. The boats were in too shallow water for the Cornwall to come to them, check my post from the BBC.

What I'm trying to say here is that the Royal Navy kept their cool and did not allow themselves to be drown into a gun fight. In my opinion the way the Royal Navy and the British Government handled the issue was (and so far still is) correct. Definitely. Don't start a war unless you absolutely have to
http://www.petersellersappreciationsociety.com/Pictures/FCharacter/GroupCaptain(G-C)LionelMandrake.jpg

[Penelope_Grey]

I can't understand why though the government is allowing 15 men to be held hostage. I hope to god some dialogue has been opened.

[waste gate]

If the report Tchocky posted is accurate, it makes alot more sense. What doesnt make sense to me so far is why I havent seen Blair on TV telling the Iranians to release his people today, or be prepared for the consequences. Its ultimatum time. Give them 72 hours to release the sailors.

Having said that, it's probably good that Blair isnt as hot tempered as I am when it comes to such situations. I think if we were talking about 15 sailors being held by some other country, I wouldnt be as impatient with it. But given Irans history, and our recent repeated bashing of heads with them, im not liking this one bit.

From November 4, 1979, through January 20, 1981. The Islamic regime, held 63 diplomats and three additional U.S. citizens hostage inside the American diplomatic mission in Tehran, Iran.

This is what these people do.

[melnibonian]

If the report Tchocky posted is accurate, it makes alot more sense. What doesnt make sense to me so far is why I havent seen Blair on TV telling the Iranians to release his people today, or be prepared for the consequences. Its ultimatum time. Give them 72 hours to release the sailors.
And then what? Send in the SAS to release them? Cause more trouble in the relations with Iran?

Having said that, it's probably good that Blair isnt as hot tempered as I am when it comes to such situations. I think if we were talking about 15 sailors being held by some other country, I wouldnt be as impatient with it. But given Irans history, and our recent repeated bashing of heads with them, im not liking this one bit.
I agree with you on this one. It will probably take some time. There will be some kind of deal under the table and the sailors will go home eventually. It's the unfortunate world of politics I'm affraid.

[melnibonian]

I can't understand why though the government is allowing 15 men to be held hostage. I hope to god some dialogue has been opened.
The British Government is not allowing anything. They are in no position to allow or not to allow stuff to happen. They just need to sit down with Iran and see how they can sort this thing out. There will be deals in the end, but angry talk and shows of force will not bring the solution closer in my opinion.

[Oberon]

This will no doubt be postponed due to my April 2 invason of Earth followed by my April 3 victory celibration. :yep:

No, no, no, your timing is all out....

Should be July 4th, then you can have the victory celebration and Independence Day in one party.

These guys got it right.

http://www.bibleetnombres.online.fr/image2/inde4jul.jpg

[Wim Libaers]

Is that a legit story on the front page, or a hoax? I want to believe the latter :dead:

Well, if one looks at the front page of that site ( http://www.rense.com/ ), one can't help but notice there's something special about it.

[STEED]

( http://www.rense.com/ )

Not rense again, AL will make a sarcastic remark or a clever one. :roll:

[fatty]

Is that a legit story on the front page, or a hoax? I want to believe the latter :dead:

Well, if one looks at the front page of that site ( http://www.rense.com/ ), one can't help but notice there's something special about it.

Special in the way its front page has hands-down the funniest picture of Dick Cheney I've ever seen. He's really up to no good in that one. It must be the red tint.

http://jmgillis.com/cheney.jpg
"Why make trillions when we could make... billions?"

[gnirtS]

What puzzles me is why the warship allowed those 15 men to be taken in the first place without doing something!

What could it do? It was 8 miles away at the time, the soldiers themselves were armed only with SA80s so fighting back would have been suicide.

There was helicopter top cover for the first part but it returned to cornwall to refuel.

Theres nothing cornwall could do from 8 miles away to assist. If it opens first then lots of people are dead on both sides.

So many inconsistencies in the MoDs account today anyway there maybe other reasons for not trying anything. How both iranian boats allegedly sneaked up and ambushed is an interesting claim given the radar coverage of the entire area by land and sea.

As the USA continues to provoke iran at every oppertunity hoping to get a reaction and therefore excuse to bomb it these incidents are just going to get more and more common.

[Yahoshua]

Iran is defying the world with their drive for nuclear power while refusing oversight to ensure that Iran doesn't build nuclear weapons.

I'm intrigued how this became the fault of the U.S. Please explain.

[Tchocky]

Provocations? Ask anyone on the USSJohn C. Stennis

[gnirtS]

Given americas incredible hypocrisy on the nuclear issue it really has no right to dictate to others what they can and cant do. They cant mention things like geneva convention either. The laughable "nuclear ambiguity" clause with israel makes it even more of a farce. Another country "not allowed" nukes but is allowed to have 200+ warheads as long as it doesn't really admit it.

If actions and words had agreed with each other then fine but double standards are in force.

Iran has had its neighbour invaded by a hostile state which is now being used as a staging ground. Having been threatened and bullied now for years its backed into a corner.
As North Korea proved, the only language bush understands is conflict so the only way to make sure you wont be attacked is to get a nuclear weapon. Then he'll wander off and bomb somewhere else he cant spell or find on a map. Its bought new state of the art missiles off russia specifically designed to target UAVs - due mainly to the UAVs that have been and still are invading its airspace.

[gnirtS]

[quote=Penelope_Grey]IThey just need to sit down with Iran and see how they can sort this thing out. There will be deals in the end, but angry talk and shows of force will not bring the solution closer in my opinion.

ANY attempt to use force or threats will simply back Iran further into the corner. The situation at the moment isnt serious. It'll be over in a few weeks at most, neither side is going to want to provoke the other into anything. If tensions aren't raised its a non issue, they'll be quietly released and that'll be the end of it. If threats are made Iran wont want to be seen as weak and give in so theres far less chance of a release.

[Enigma]

Gnirts, after reading some of your posts in the last 5 minutes, I just have to ask out of my own curiosity....

Where, exactly, are you from?

[gnirtS]

The UK.

[moose1am]

8 mile away? What's the range on those rubber inflatable boats? And were these small boats not searching an ocean going vessel? What's the draft of that vessel and how deep was the water this ship was located in? Can't the British ship sail in the same waters?

Were these small British Boats not attached to this larger British War Ship?

I wish that the news media would get more details about this story.




What puzzles me is why the warship allowed those 15 men to be taken in the first place without doing something!

What could it do? It was 8 miles away at the time, the soldiers themselves were armed only with SA80s so fighting back would have been suicide.

There was helicopter top cover for the first part but it returned to cornwall to refuel.

Theres nothing cornwall could do from 8 miles away to assist. If it opens first then lots of people are dead on both sides.

So many inconsistencies in the MoDs account today anyway there maybe other reasons for not trying anything. How both iranian boats allegedly sneaked up and ambushed is an interesting claim given the radar coverage of the entire area by land and sea.

As the USA continues to provoke iran at every oppertunity hoping to get a reaction and therefore excuse to bomb it these incidents are just going to get more and more common.

[RedMenace]

Given americas incredible hypocrisy on the nuclear issue it really has no right to dictate to others what they can and cant do. They cant mention things like geneva convention either. The laughable "nuclear ambiguity" clause with israel makes it even more of a farce. Another country "not allowed" nukes but is allowed to have 200+ warheads as long as it doesn't really admit it.

If actions and words had agreed with each other then fine but double standards are in force.



Bingo! You hit the nail on the damn head. No country respects, or even FEARS, a nation that shows SUCH a display of hypocrisy. "You can't have those. What do you mean "how come you can?" Because we're the godamm United States of America, that's why!"

Not only that, what you mentioned about Israel is TOO true. You can build all the warheads you want as long as you never admit you have them, apparently.

In my opinnion, everyone (or no-one at all works too should have nuclear weapons. MAD is the only deterrent there is.

[The Avon Lady]

Given americas incredible hypocrisy on the nuclear issue it really has no right to dictate to others what they can and cant do. They cant mention things like geneva convention either. The laughable "nuclear ambiguity" clause with israel makes it even more of a farce. Another country "not allowed" nukes but is allowed to have 200+ warheads as long as it doesn't really admit it.

If actions and words had agreed with each other then fine but double standards are in force.

Iran has had its neighbour invaded by a hostile state which is now being used as a staging ground. Having been threatened and bullied now for years its backed into a corner.
As North Korea proved, the only language bush understands is conflict so the only way to make sure you wont be attacked is to get a nuclear weapon. Then he'll wander off and bomb somewhere else he cant spell or find on a map. Its bought new state of the art missiles off russia specifically designed to target UAVs - due mainly to the UAVs that have been and still are invading its airspace.
Wah! Wah! Boo hoo! Mommy, Joey's got a nuke. I want one, too!! :oops:

Why No Nukes for Iran? The rules of the game. (http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson021706.html)

Pathetic this has to be spelled out.

[Ark]

Given americas incredible hypocrisy on the nuclear issue it really has no right to dictate to others what they can and cant do. They cant mention things like geneva convention either. The laughable "nuclear ambiguity" clause with israel makes it even more of a farce. Another country "not allowed" nukes but is allowed to have 200+ warheads as long as it doesn't really admit it.

Given the fact that America is hardly a country known for it's support of terrorists......


Oh forget it.

[Tchocky]

Given the fact that America is hardly a country known for it's support of terrorists......

Oh forget it. NORAID, Afghanistan, Contra, there's a few others. Granted, The US doesn't support them anymore (or do they? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/25/wiran25.xml)

Don't mean to be confrontational, but in some places around the world the US is known for doing exactly that, supporting terrorists/ism.

[Ark]

Given the fact that America is hardly a country known for it's support of terrorists......

Oh forget it.
NORAID, Afghanistan, Contra, there's a few others. Granted, The US doesn't support them anymore (or do they? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/25/wiran25.xml)

That would depend on how you define "terrorism".

"Good deeds do not go unpunished"

Try to help, get it used on you later.

The Coalition isn't fighting the insurgency, the Coalition is fighting my ex-fiance.

[Tchocky]

not worth it

[Ark]

"Good deeds do not go unpunished"

Try to help, get it used on you later.

The Coalition isn't fighting the insurgency, the Coalition is fighting my ex-fiance.

Help? Bars in Boston funding the IRA under the noses of the authorities?

F*CK HELP



lolol

You can't control all of the people all of the time.

Humans are inherently flawed.

[Ishmael]

Found this link to the French language edition of Novosti predicting an attack on April 6, Good Friday. I checked the English language edition but was unable to find the story there. These predictions are coming from the Russian Defense Ministry, according to the story.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

[Tchocky]

zzzzip

[Ark]

*EDIT* Miscommunication

[Tchocky]

I was laughing at how you compare the US to Iran (and the large font).

That comparison is "bloody" hillarious (as is the large font). But feel free to assume the worst.
Where in sweet hell did I do that? (the US/Iran comparison)
Oh, the large font was in reaction to your characterisation of terrorist funding as "help". Wasn't supposed to be funny

[Yahoshua]

To avoid further miscommunications regarding serious conversation and injected humor, I import to you:

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/sarcasm_on.gif

[Ark]

I was laughing at how you compare the US to Iran (and the large font).

That comparison is "bloody" hillarious (as is the large font). But feel free to assume the worst.
Where in sweet hell did I do that? (the US/Iran comparison)
Oh, the large font was in reaction to your characterisation of terrorist funding as "help". Wasn't supposed to be funny


When I said "America isn't exactly known for supporting terrorism (in reference to the discussion about why Iran can't have nukes, but the U.S. can)", and you provided some example sof how you think America does support terrorism.

If I misread your responses, my apologies.


*EDIT* The "help" line was to set up my next line about my ex-fiance. I tried to HELP her and I ended up getting hosed later. lol

[Tchocky]

*shakes head, rubs eyes*

waaaarrgggh. less coffee needed. less jumpy

[Yahoshua]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/sarcasm_on.gif

No my good sir! The coffee and resulting ulcer will keep you awake long enough to REALLY think/write up a Skybird length response!:yep:

If you feel yourself dozing off, have a soda to go with your ulcer!!

(Yes I know there's a special place in hell for me........and it' being second in command).

[Ark]

*shakes head, rubs eyes*

waaaarrgggh. less coffee needed. less jumpy

lol

I need to drink less coffee as well.

[Tchocky]

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/sarcasm_on.gif

No my good sir! The coffee and resulting ulcer will keep you awake long enough to REALLY think/write up a Skybird length response!:yep:

If you feel yourself dozing off, have a soda to go with your ulcer!!

(Yes I know there's a special place in hell for me........and it' being second in command).

http://photos-519.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v47/205/17/54800767/n54800767_30257519_8486.jpg

Contemplating - been awake for two days, conference at 9am........oh no

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Wah! Wah! Boo hoo! Mommy, Joey's got a nuke. I want one, too!! :oops:

The same can be said of Israel.

In fact, if the point of nukes is to deter other people from hitting you, Iran (and admittedly, Israel) arguably has a greater need at present than say the United Kingdom or France. I doubt anyone is due to invade them and they've got a darn big ally with the most capable nuke and conventional forces, while a darn big country (US) is thinking about invading Iran.

Why No Nukes for Iran? The rules of the game. (http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson021706.html)

Pathetic this has to be spelled out.

Sounds like a self-serving diatribe conveniently by someone who lives in a nation that already has all the advantages. Lucky him. The six reasons he postulate really boil down to "I want to continue to be able to push around nations that don't agree with us, and we can't do that if they have nukes."

[Morts]

Have we heard what it looks like on the Iranian side of the border?

The Iranians took captive 15 Brits recently, tested new missles, launched subs, threatened another legitimate nation with annihihatalion (Isreal), thumbed their noses at the UN, fund, God only knows, how many terrorist groups, need I go on?
I do not claim to know what the Iranians are getting at, but it looks as if they want something very badly.
i say nuke em:rotfl:

[Boris]

I think Iran is either being very very stupid, or very very smart.

Alot of what they have been doing has been internatinal provocation, poking a stick at the big boys if you will, but staying just shy of war. Given the convenient rise in oil price out of each provocation, and the massive financial gains Iran has made as a result, you don't have to be a genius to figure out what they're doing. They'll probably keep making money in this way for as long as they can get away with it.

[joea]

Found this link to the French language edition of Novosti predicting an attack on April 6, Good Friday. I checked the English language edition but was unable to find the story there. These predictions are coming from the Russian Defense Ministry, according to the story.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

Oh yea then it won't happen April 6...or will it? :hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

Sounds like a self-serving diatribe conveniently by someone who lives in a nation that already has all the advantages.
Sounds like someone who waves away numerous rational points that explain why every Tom, Dick and Harry shouldn't be able to have nukes.

But it's just the world. Go ahead and ruin it. See if anyone cares. Obviously not.

[The Avon Lady]

Wah! Wah! Boo hoo! Mommy, Joey's got a nuke. I want one, too!! :oops:
The same can be said of Israel.
Really? Who back in the 60s, 70s and 80s threatened to eliminate even a single Arab nation and its population?

Nice try at immoral equivalence.
In fact, if the point of nukes is to deter other people from hitting you, Iran (and admittedly, Israel) arguably has a greater need at present than say the United Kingdom or France. I doubt anyone is due to invade them and they've got a darn big ally with the most capable nuke and conventional forces, while a darn big country (US) is thinking about invading Iran.
Having a greater need at present doesn't mean one shouldn't consider the future.

As for Iran, well what are we to think of a rogue nation that calls for other's destruction?

Yeh, too bad Hitler didn't have the bomb. It would only have been fair.

[squigian]

Dinnerjacket'll be gone by July. Why?

1. He has failed in his election promise to reduce corruption
2. Inflation has grown to 19%
3. Unemployment is at 11.2%
4. Moderate Iranians and reformists are slowly and quietly gaining ground

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Sounds like someone who waves away numerous rational points that explain why every Tom, Dick and Harry shouldn't be able to have nukes.

But it's just the world. Go ahead and ruin it. See if anyone cares. Obviously not.
I guess I'd have to go over them in more detail. Point 1 is actually correct. The fewer powers there are with nukes, the easier the nuclear situation is to control. However, for a "have" to say this is utterly hypocritical. It is similar to a rich man saying that other people getting rich will drain our natural resources faster, so others shouldn't get rich. The first part is true but the 2nd part is hypocritical.

Point 2 is actually a self-kicker. He goes with the old one that democracies don't attack each other. In his next sentence, however, says that democracies like fighting. Since democracies don't like to fight each other but they like fighting, presumably it means they like fighting others that aren't democracies, which means they are very likely to attack places like Iran, the old Soviet Union ... no wonder they all feel like owning some nukes.

As for the other part, generally the decision to make war is highly centralized into the Executive branch of government even in democracies . Even with the US War Powers Act, a President still has 60-90 days of freedom. The legislative is simply too slow and has too many players to make the fast war decisions. Unfortunately, that means at the end of the day, nuclear launches also only require the connivance of a few men, whether in a democracy or dictatorship.

Point 3 is a whine - the other guy might be better at brinksmanship, so we can't let them win.

Point 4 is utterly hypocritical. The intentions of a leader is entirely externally perceived - Iran probably sees Bush as a barely stable leader. As the Soviet government did with Reagen. The other four are capability-related arguments for threat. To put it in perspective the US has enough money to buy influence and exemption, a nuclear and a conventional arsenal to threaten anyone it pleases, missiles and strategic bombers (why bother with terrorists or commandoes to deliver the nukes to where to want them when you have a first rate strategic delivery system).

Point 5 is a infringement of sovereignty. You don't do things according to my logic, so you must have evil intentions.

Point 6 is egocentric. For one thing, Russia is PART OF EUROPE. For another thing, the reality of life is that the basic principles of nuclear weapons are known and making them work is an engineering problem. While there is no doubt that espionage allowed the Soviet Union to avoid a few clear mistakes and get to the bomb faster, there is no justification for the arrogance of such statements as "In fact, the story of nuclear proliferation is exclusively one of espionage, stealthy commerce, or American and European-trained native engineers using their foreign-acquired expertise. Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran have no ability themselves to create such weapons, in the same manner that Russia, China, and India learned or stole a craft established only from the knowledge of European-American physics and industrial engineering."

[The Avon Lady]

Sounds like someone who waves away numerous rational points that explain why every Tom, Dick and Harry shouldn't be able to have nukes.

But it's just the world. Go ahead and ruin it. See if anyone cares. Obviously not.
I guess I'd have to go over them in more detail. Point 1 is actually correct. The fewer powers there are with nukes, the easier the nuclear situation is to control. However, for a "have" to say this is utterly hypocritical. It is similar to a rich man saying that other people getting rich will drain our natural resources faster, so others shouldn't get rich. The first part is true but the 2nd part is hypocritical.
So "anti-liberal regimes gained stature and advantage by the ability to destroy Western cities" is equivalent to haves and have-nots?

Fascinating.
Point 2 is actually a self-kicker. He goes with the old one that democracies don't attack each other.
Oldies are often goodies.
In his next sentence, however, says that democracies like fighting.
No. You twist words to suit yourself. He says:

"Although they are prone to fighting — imperial Athens and republican Venice both were in some sort of war about three out of four years during the 5th century B.C. and the 16th century respectively — consensual governments are not so ready to fight like kind."
Since democracies don't like to fight each other but they like fighting,
Which he never said.
presumably it means they like fighting
Which he never said.
others that aren't democracies, which means they are very likely to attack places like Iran, the old Soviet Union ... no wonder they all feel like owning some nukes.
Again you ignore the relevant point or maybe you just don't fathom it:

"but not the catastrophe of a nuclear Pakistan that, with impunity de facto, offers sanctuary to bin Laden and the planners of 9/11. The former governments operate under a free press, open elections, and free speech, and thus their war-making is subject to a series of checks and balances. Pakistan is a strongman's heartbeat away from an Islamic theocracy. And while India has volatile relations with its Islamic neighbor, the world is not nearly as worried about its arsenal as it is about autocratic Pakistan's."

SNIP SNIP SNIP.

No more time to deal with someone who cherry-picks half sentences to suit his fancy.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Really? Who back in the 60s, 70s and 80s threatened to eliminate even a single Arab nation and its population?

Nice try at immoral equivalence.
1) Your answer is a red herring because we were discussing the phenomena of people wanting nukes.
2) The State of Israel's VERY existence began as a ill-conceived UN plan decided to award the majority of land to a minority of Jews. Starting from that point, Israel has quietly eliminated a Arab nation (the state hasn't been formed yet, but the nation of people was there) called Palestine. What's left of them were either forced to flee to such paradises as Jordan or are subsisting in places like Gaza - neither of which are anywhere close to heaven AFAIK.
3) There are several ways to interpret Ahmadinejad's speech, not all of which calls for eliminating the Israeli people, though the State in its present location is definitely a goner. Considering that he did say that he wants Israel relocated to someplace like Germany ... actually, if you ignore the Holocaust Denial part, the idea actually makes moral sense (though it is way too late to practically consider executing it). The current placement has only the advantage of ancient religion. The position infringed on an Arab majority. It certainly did not provide much security (I think anyone can agree on that) for the Jewish people. And even without the threat of attacks, Europe is arguably a much better place to live than the Middle East desert!

As for Iran, well what are we to think of a rogue nation that calls for other's destruction?
4) What are we to think of a nation that actually EXECUTES an attack against the will of the United Nations (yes, I know it is the UN, but it is the closest body that comes to representing the will of all the states of the world).
5) Nations like Iran are your justification for continuing to own nukes. That's your guarantee that Iran won't attack you. In turn, Iran's nukes prevent (or so they hope) the US from attacking them.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

So "anti-liberal regimes gained stature and advantage by the ability to destroy Western cities" is equivalent to haves and have-nots?

Fascinating.

Analogies must fly over your head. Anyway, the statement also means that before "anti-liberal regimes gained stature and advantage", the "liberal regimes" had the unilateral advantage of being able to destroy the cities that belong to regimes they think are "anti-liberal" with impunity. Tell me whether this is very good, and whether regimes that want to preserve such power are really so liberal in the first place.

Oldies are often goodies.

True.

No. You twist words to suit yourself. He says:

"Although they are prone to fighting — imperial Athens and republican Venice both were in some sort of war about three out of four years during the 5th century B.C. and the 16th century respectively — consensual governments are not so ready to fight like kind."

Which is exactly what I said. They don't like to fight with each other. But they get into fights a lot (they are prone to it). Tell me, if a democratic nation does not fight with other nations but fights a lot, what could it possibly be fighting against.

[quote]Again you ignore the relevant point or maybe you just don't fathom it:

"but not the catastrophe of a nuclear Pakistan that, with impunity de facto, offers sanctuary to bin Laden and the planners of 9/11. The former governments operate under a free press, open elections, and free speech, and thus their war-making is subject to a series of checks and balances. Pakistan is a strongman's heartbeat away from an Islamic theocracy. And while India has volatile relations with its Islamic neighbor, the world is not nearly as worried about its arsenal as it is about autocratic Pakistan's."

There are at least two points in your quoted section. I went for point 2. Seriously, however, the US is unlikely to invade Pakistan after they just did Afghanistan and Iraq, whether the Pakis got nukes or not, so Point 1 hardly matters.

[ASWnut101]

Given americas incredible hypocrisy on the nuclear issue it really has no right to dictate to others what they can and cant do. They cant mention things like geneva convention either. The laughable "nuclear ambiguity" clause with israel makes it even more of a farce. Another country "not allowed" nukes but is allowed to have 200+ warheads as long as it doesn't really admit it.

Um, ever heard of the UN? Virtually the everyone in the UN want Iran to drop it's nuke program. We are not "out to get anyone" by ourselves. The US simply cannot attack Iran at this point. Until the UN (Unfortunatly) agrees on more strict sanctions, the Stennis and the other CVN will sit in the Persian Gulf, in International Waters, abiding by the law.



Iran has had its neighbour invaded by a hostile state which is now being used as a staging ground. Having been threatened and bullied now for years its backed into a corner.

Hostile state? Unless you are talking about the Ayatollah and his cronies in the `80s, no body has touched Iran (Excluding the Iran-Iraq war).


As North Korea proved, the only language bush understands is conflict so the only way to make sure you wont be attacked is to get a nuclear weapon. Then he'll wander off and bomb somewhere else he cant spell or find on a map.

Right. That's why we invaded Indonesia when the Tusnami hit, while they were weak.:roll:

Its bought new state of the art missiles off russia specifically designed to target UAVs - due mainly to the UAVs that have been and still are invading its airspace.

State of the Art? You can shoot down a predator with a stinger. And if you know about the patrol patterns of the CIA/Army's UAV program, you should be expecting a knock at your front door by the "Men in Black."

[Ishmael]

Here's a link to an interview with Prince Hassan of Jordan, King Abdullah's uncle, given to the largest English language Turkish newspaper in Turkey. I found a lot of interesting insights in it.

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=105953&bolum=8

[The Avon Lady]

Here's a link to an interview with Prince Hassan of Jordan, King Abdullah's uncle, given to the largest English language Turkish newspaper in Turkey. I found a lot of interesting insights in it.

"http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=105953&bolum=8"
What might those insights be?

[The Avon Lady]

The State of Israel's VERY existence began as a ill-conceived UN plan decided to award the majority of land to a minority of Jews.
Two words for your ilk: Dear World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LWC_7kTeWc).

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The State of Israel's VERY existence began as a ill-conceived UN plan decided to award the majority of land to a minority of Jews. Two words for your ilk: Dear World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LWC_7kTeWc).
The first ~105 seconds or so seems to be a sarcastic version of "We Jews had been persecuted for millenia."

The next ~15 seconds is a barely concealed ignorance of the fact that we barely recognize 100 year old land claims these days, let alone "nineteen hundred", especially if another population had already moved in and settled during the intervening 1900 years.

~15 seconds advance. Yes, I guess getting your own "little state" was a nice idea, EXCEPT you stepped over some people to do so. Why? Just to get a peace of crummy desert whose only advantage is that your ancestors "nineteen hundred years ago lived in?"

~45 seconds advance. 67 Jews were killed (1929 Palestinian riots, total of 133 Jews dead) in one town called Hebron or Habron. Maybe, however, they were feeling threatened by Britain's support to build the Jewish nation right on their soil? Furthermore, many Jews got saved by hiding out in Arab homes. When the riot blew over, 195 Arabs were sentenced, but also 34 Jews, including two that were to have received the death penalty. Gee, what have they done?

We are up to 3:30 now. The Palestinians want their self-determination. At the end, considering what happened to them, their efforts can be seen as prophetic. Let the Jews get a foothold and ... well, look what happened to them.

From 3:30-3:42, the narrator degenerates to lies. He's either very dumb or very biased to believe that 1967 was the only valid upset. The idea of the "tiny" Israel is rather hollow since it was BIGGER than tiny Palestine.

From 3:45-4:00, gee, maybe they are killing you because you are sitting on their land? And what about all the Israeli "security actions" in "response".

Nice whine b/w 4:00 and 4:20. The idea it was all the land they wanted when a Jewish minority got the majority of the land is ... ah... maybe they hate you because you are sitting on what they see as their land?

Maybe the Arabs tried so hard to push you off because the allocation was unjust? That once they even state they accept it, what little of getting it will go?

~4:30-4:50: Meanwhile, Israelis quietly write to each other (so they can't even justify their actions as trying to get support) about deliberately provoking the Syrians. And in the end, it was Israel who launched an all out attack, and ultimately proved that they had more than an adequately favorable correlation of forces.

4:50-5:05: Maybe you guys should have set up your nation where you don't have to work so hard to "stay alive".

Conclusion: Typical bland Israeli propaganda. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it was made by a Rabbi. Nice production by amateur standards, though.

[RedMenace]

I'll have to agree that I view the Israeli nation as a bad idea. Not just for the Arabs, but for the Jews as well! I mean, why the hell do they want to move to a place where... people don't want them... and are willing to kill them for that?

And yes, the video is quite **** as it doesnt adress many impotant points, and manages to twist facts.

I have nothing against a Jewish state, as long as you arn't stepping on other people's toes.

[1mPHUNit0]

Dear, an ethnic state it's a racial state
call it Sionist State
call it Suth Afrika....
And my country Palestine was not an ethnical state.
And never will be...because will be
and because it's Palestine
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4300/immagine1oz1.png

[Oberon]

Oh god it's spreading... :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

Moderator team to damage control stations! I repeat Moderator team to damage control stations!!

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/0bc287ad-de85-4e74-9508-adde98223a7d/0/damagecontrol.jpg

[Skybird]

I said before that I also think the way in which the state of Israel was founded in that place was a very bad idea and was doomed to create eternal problems. But this mistake was not done 6 years back, but sixty years back - two generations. Correcting it by deconstructing Israel now would cause the same kind and ammount of injustice than it did back then. So for pragmatical reasons, I recognize Israel's right to exist.

Before the jewish exodus to Palestine, there may have been the Palestinians in rule. but they also cannot claim to be the original owner of that place. And Islam also did not take the place peacefully, and before the Islamic invasion, it was a Roman province, rebellious-Jewish, but also orthodox christian due to Christianity being the state religion in late Rome. Before Rome, the place was the stage for endless tribal wars between different ethnicities. Everybody and nobody can say to have rightful claims for that piece of land full of sand and rocks and stones only.

In the end it is no holy land at all. It is a land doomed to cause endless conflict, forever. Sounds more like hell than holy land. From those generations living today, almost nobody rightfully can claim to have roots to the place before the time of WWII, by his own experience. That'S why I don'T understand the fetish being made out of Jeruslem, the country, and all that. It all is so highly irrational.

You reap like your people have sowed (?) in the past, and in the present. That is true for all tribes and ethnicites that claim to have a relations to that place. So maybe everybody is just getting what he deserves in that eternal conflict. Who is master and who is slave has changed several times there. And it will change several times again in future times to come, of this I am relatively sure. This construct called Israel is too fragile and too exposed and strategically too difficult to defend forever as if it could leave a major mark in the centuries of history.

[1mPHUNit0]

No dear, it's not the point
The point was the agreement Husayn Mcmahon
and so on....

Very long and complicated existencial problem
for us
http://www.casalepodererosa.org/cultur/iniziative/palestina/311205.jpg

[Jimbuna]

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/4084/trollszp8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I started this thread to get people's opinions on the article about a pending attack on Iran. Not its origins and yet another thread of the same debate that has been covered time and again :cry:

[ASWnut101]

Let's act civil so TK wont close it again.


Like I said, we wont attack unless attacked first. Not for a while, really.

[Ishmael]

Here's a link to an interview with Prince Hassan of Jordan, King Abdullah's uncle, given to the largest English language Turkish newspaper in Turkey. I found a lot of interesting insights in it.

"http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=105953&bolum=8" (http://)
What might those insights be?

Well, he does refer to the "Clean Break" paper written for PNAC by Richard Perle & Ben Netanyahu in 1996 which is the blueprint for the neocon's adventures in the Middle East. If you aren't familiar with it, perhaps you should bone up on your homework.

But the main reason I pay attention to what he says is his position as a moderate voice in the Arab world these past 50 years. Combine that with his position as the main foreign policy advisor to King Abdullah and his family's place as both the Sherifs of Mecca for 1000 years and his relatives ruled in Iraq for 50 years and you can see that it may be worthwhile listening to what he has to say. He also points out the historical nature of Ottoman reform before the advent of World War I.

The danger he points to is the Balkanisation of the Arab & Muslim world leading to a 100-year war in the region. So who would benefit from such a state of affairs?

[baggygreen]

In my opinion, as i've said several times, Iran needs an ass-kicking, now.:yep:

Suppose we leave them be, Britain can yell n kick n scream about their sailors and absolutely nothing will get done. Hostages stay hostages, and we get more condemnation, more sanctions followed by more retaliatory threats to shut down the Gulf, thus increasing oil prices and like someone already said, they get richer off it. Extra funds in the coffers means more to spend on their nuke program, as well as more funds to buy more sophisticated weaponry.

Essentially, we'd be letting them do as they please and they can thumb their noses at us all the more when they conduct a test. All that is ignoring the potential chaos that will ensue if coalition forces left Iraq, because its a pretty damn good assumption that Iran will merge with their shiite brethren, and isnt that a pleasant, comforting thought for us!


Worst case scenario: we have a soft, left-wing govt in power in the US (and others) who wont do anything to stop iran, and will then complain loudly about the republicans lack of foresight in not attacking iran when they had the chance, before nukes supplied by iran go off all over the western world. then the govts would call for discussions on how to sanction iran without offending their feelings.

[micky1up]

dont worry as soon as they approach getting a viable nuclear weapon israel will do what nessessary as they did with iraq's french provided nuclear reactor

[Tchocky]

The Iranians haven't a clue, they didnt even put bags over their heads or leave them in forced positions.
Savages (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2047128,00.html)

[elite_hunter_sh3]

so who wants to start a pool and bet and see who bombs iran first?

and another pool going to see how long iran will last?

:up:

[baggygreen]

i think thats a mighty fine idea! you wanna contact the local TAB elite??:lol:

[ASWnut101]

Iran actually claims that they are "hostages." That means they kidnapped the sailors illegally. That means the Britain has the right to bomb them back to the stone age.


$20 bucks Britain will try a rescue, but America will come to save her butt. Again.:arrgh!: (Really, I think the Brits will go first)

$20 bucks that Iran's government lasts about two weeks.



EDIT: Oh crap. I just saw the other thread for it.

[Skybird]

Just a theory.

as a matter of fact, ahmadinejad's sympathy scores with Iranian population are in free fall. He is loosing power and influence. Even the highest cleric council gave him a cold greeting some time ago.

what is best to boost your support scores? Distracting attention focused on you. give your critics an enemy from outside.

Couldn't it be that Ahmadinejad is actively seeking and hoping for a military strike by the West over the hostages, or the nuclear program? It would rally the Iranian people (which I still remember to be very proud of their country, no matter where they politically stand) if not behind Ahmadinejad, but then around the Iranian flag, and silence his critics over his hostile course towards the West. He then could say: "Look, I told you so that they just waited to strike us! We need our nuclear program, do you understand that now?" At the same time it is clear that Iran has very strong and incalculable tools for retaliation available, in Lebanon, in Iran, concerning the oil markets, and the anti-western terror scene. Any military action will not be limited to the Iranian region. Iran also has the ability to absorb air strikes alone, and they are no real threat to the key components of their nuclear program if such strikes are limited to conventional means. An intervention on the ground Iran must not fear (and I volunteer for shooting every Western leader seriously considering a major ground invasion in Iran).

If during the upcoming meetings in mid-April Iran does not offer an exchange (the UK sailors versus the Iranian prisoners the Americans took), I would take that as a hint that this theory maybe could be true. Ahmadinejad is fighting for his political survival, and he wouldn't be the first one hoping for a war to solve his problems.

[yankee-V]

I agree with Skybird, Ahmadinejad seems to be grasping at straws with this move. He's been flogging the Nukes = Nationalism issue for the last couple of years, and is still getting some traction from that. But sanctions over the issue are likely, and Iran is by most estimates still several years away from having a working bomb.

He gets more immediate bang for his buck out of something as stupid as taking hostages at sea. There's quite a tradition of nabbing adversary nationals in this way. Usually with at least the threat of a show trial and some coerced statements from the hostages to the press.

Neither we nor Britain are going to start bombing, we didn't do it in 1979, we're not going to do it now.

Nice Try Mahmoud...

[moose1am]

One more Aircraft Carrier and it's battle group sailed toward the Middle East recently from the US West Coast. It won't take very long for it to arrive on station in the Middle East.

News media reports suggest that this carrier is a replacement for the Eisenhower or the Stennis. But as soon as it arrives that will position three Aircraft Carriers in the region.

With Iran taking British navy personal HOSTAGE and the US conducting war games off the Coast of Iran in the Persian Gulf things can get dicey real fast.

Since the US does not have a Embassy in Iran anymore it makes it hard to talk to the Iranians. And who really knows who controls Iran at this time? New stories suggest that there is a battle among the top Iranian Generals on what to do with the British Sailors.

Our last action against Iran was when one of our ships shot down an Iranian Air Liner thinking it was an attacking F14 fighter jet.

Last week the news media reported rumors that Iran has fired a missile at the US Navy in the Persian Gulf. But the US Navy said that was false. But who really knows what's going on in the Persian Gulf? I don't think any CCN, Fox or MSNBC reporters would be out in the gulf in a ship trying to see what's going on. And I doubt they they are flying over the Gulf observing ever thing going on there.

I do know one thing. Oil Prices shot up and with the US demand for gasoline increasing as fast as the air temperature the price for oil may continue up again.

I wish that the US had secured our oil supply back in 1972/72 when OPEC was first formed.

We are going to have to secure the oil supply from as many parts of the world as possible if the US economy is to continue to grow.