What will Iran bomb first? [Archive]

FireGarden

19th September 2008, 02:34 AM

They will probaly use their puppets Hezbollah. Come on why should people believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. David Duke supports Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is friends with people like Bashar al-Assad, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales. Saddam Hussein did not respond to Operation Opera.

The Iranians bombed Osirak before the Israeli copycats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

This was during the Iraq-Iran war. That period of time when Saddam was America's puppet and couldn't afford to piss them off.

There was an international reaction to Israel's attack:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera#International_political_reaction

Iran is under no illusion that the UN will do anything to Israel or America in response to an attack. If Iran is attacked, it knows it will be bombed again the year after. And the year after that. There is no international system of defence for Iran. No law will protect Iran. Their only defence is to make an attack expensive.

So they will bomb American forces in the region. They will close the Strait of Hormuz. They might even bomb Gulf States which are friendly with America -- especially if they allow America to make use of bases in those nations.

Israel is not going to wait and see if Syria and Hezbollah get involved. Israel believes in pre-emption. So there will be a war on that front too. Hezbollah will be given permission to use its most powerful missiles. And Syria has a much, much bigger arsenal of same.

Not to mention that Russia will look really bad if its anti-aircraft system goes on failing again and again. Who would bother buying Russian high-tech arms? So Russia may feel it needs to defend its arms trade.

How happy will China be that oil trade is disrupted? Oil at 200 dollars a barrel? Even higher prices?

The world may decide that America is just too expensive and decide to make clear to PNAC dead-enders that this is not -- and has never been -- an American century.

RandFan

19th September 2008, 02:43 AM

While I don't know if you're referring to the involved fundamentalist -Jews, -Born again Christians or -Muslims here... Do Christians and Jews believe in the return of the Mahdi? That should be a clue, but then again, you're Oliver.
That said, I don't think Jews hope for or care about Armageddon. I wouldn't put it past many Christians but I think there are more Muslims pushing for the apocalypse than Christians but I could be wrong.

I think it will be Tel Aviv to be wiped out because of the Israeli Ministry of Defense being located there. Do you fantasize about that?

richardm

19th September 2008, 03:14 AM

Edit: Oops, misread the OP.

gtc

19th September 2008, 03:59 AM

Iran is under no illusion that the UN will do anything to Israel or America in response to an attack. If Iran is attacked, it knows it will be bombed again the year after. And the year after that. There is no international system of defence for Iran. No law will protect Iran. Their only defence is to make an attack expensive.

Iran is responsible for its own actions. If it doesn't want to be bombed then it shouldn't be funding organisations that attack other countries; it should stop attacking foreign naval vessels in the gulf; it should tone down its rhetoric towards its neighbours; it should stop trying to develop nuclear weapons and it should maybe think about granting its citizens the civil rights that they are entitled to. Then it could complain about how the UN isn't leaping to its defense.

Note that I am explicitly not suggesting that Iran should be attacked. I am just pointing out that your attempt to portray Iran as the victim here is ludicrous.

FireGarden

19th September 2008, 05:46 AM

Iran is responsible for its own actions. If it doesn't want to be bombed then it shouldn't be funding organisations that attack other countries; it should stop attacking foreign naval vessels in the gulf; it should tone down its rhetoric towards its neighbours; it should stop trying to develop nuclear weapons and it should maybe think about granting its citizens the civil rights that they are entitled to. Then it could complain about how the UN isn't leaping to its defense.

Note that I am explicitly not suggesting that Iran should be attacked. I am just pointing out that your attempt to portray Iran as the victim here is ludicrous.

What is ludicrous is to take my prediction as picking sides. If Iran is attacked it will defend itself. That's not portraying Iran as an innocent victim. The most I have done is say that the UN will not do anything to punish an attack on Iran. And you have not shown how that statement is wrong. (I think you imply that an attack on Iran shouldn't be punished. But I'm not sure.)

and, btw,
America funds organisations that attack other countries.

Israel attacks fishing boats in Gaza territorial waters, which Israel has unilaterally marked as 6 miles from the coast instead of 20.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2446157.0.scottish_activist_films_isra eli_navy_shooting_at_gaza_fishermen.php

America says all options are on the table, regarding Iran -- is that "toned down" enough?

Iran has the right to develop nuclear power and the technology that goes with it. That they are building weapons has not been proven.

WildCat

19th September 2008, 07:15 AM

That period of time when Saddam was America's puppet
:dl:

WildCat

19th September 2008, 07:18 AM

What is ludicrous is to take my prediction as picking sides. If Iran is attacked it will defend itself. That's not portraying Iran as an innocent victim.
And when Iran uses its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah to attack Israel, Israel can defend itself, yes?

Oh right, you think countries should be allowed to attack Israel with impunity. :rolleyes:

Oliver

19th September 2008, 07:54 AM

Here is my statement, Oliver and Parky76. I put my family, friends, country, and countries where I have family and friends and which I think of as my country's allies, before Iran. I don't want Israel or anyone else to bomb Iran, which I think (to paraphrase some statesman or other) would be worse than a crime -- it would be a mistake. But if inescapable push comes to unavoidable shove I know which side I am on.

You can cheer the Iranians on, if that floats your boat or makes you feel good. I disagree.

Did you mean cheer for Iran - or cheer for reality? I never said
I'm for Iran - all I say is same rights for all. A point which is hard
to grasp, I know.

But even if you don't seem to understand the OP out of personal
emotions, we're still talking about Iranian retaliation after their
nuclear facilities are being attacked. It might not even be a bombing,
but assuming that Iran will watch and look away is just absurd - no
matter where your family lives.

Darth Rotor

19th September 2008, 08:12 AM

Berlin

Oliver

19th September 2008, 08:32 AM

Berlin

Western or eastern? :D [ "Insider Joke" ]

Oliver

19th September 2008, 10:27 AM

Do Christians and Jews believe in the return of the Mahdi? That should be a clue, but then again, you're Oliver.
That said, I don't think Jews hope for or care about Armageddon. I wouldn't put it past many Christians but I think there are more Muslims pushing for the apocalypse than Christians but I could be wrong.

Do you fantasize about that?

Fantasizing about what? TA being a possible target or the defense
ministry being in TA?

Oh, and don't forget all the Nuts who will support Israel's strike
against Iran for the sake of "Jesus's coming" while assuming that
Muslims are pushing hard.

Darth Rotor

19th September 2008, 10:29 AM

Western or eastern? :D [ "Insider Joke" ]
West Berlin, of course, don't want the Pope's Revenge to be destroyed. ;)

For the non insiders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernsehturm

Hmmm, wait a second, it's Iran under the mullahs doing the attacking? Sorry, East Berlin. That radio TV tower is of course a prime target. :(

Oliver

19th September 2008, 10:43 AM

West Berlin, of course, don't want the Pope's Revenge to be destroyed. ;)

For the non insiders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernsehturm

Hmmm, wait a second, it's Iran under the mullahs doing the attacking? Sorry, East Berlin. That radio TV tower is of course a prime target. :(

LOL - I could live with that, no matter if eastern or western Berlin. And
they're used to it anyway. :boxedin:

And I don't really know concerning the Mullahs - there are a lot of influential
Iranians who say there will be retaliation, just like this guy did just recently:

SPIEGEL: And if Israel still doesn't trust your government and attacks Iranian nuclear facilities? Nahavandian: Those who attack us provoke retaliation. It would be a real mistake to underestimate Iran's desire to stand up for itself.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,565699,00.html

Darth Rotor

19th September 2008, 10:45 AM

And I don't really know concerning the Mullahs - there are a lot of influential
Iranians who say there will be retaliation, just like this guy did just recently:
The Mullahs are the one's in charge, and will have quite a hand in the form of any retaliation as mentioned by the Spiegel snippet.

It is hardly news that the response to being bombed, by anyone, is not 'Thank you sir, may I have another?'

DR

Oliver

19th September 2008, 10:59 AM

The Mullahs are the one's in charge, and will have quite a hand in the form of any retaliation as mentioned by the Spiegel snippet.

It is hardly news that the response to being bombed, by anyone, is not 'Thank you sir, may I have another?'

DR

So Ahmadinejad isn't a Mullah? [Need confirmation on that for the ignorant Idiots out there]

And yes, that's the point of this thread. It's in no way anti-semitic to point
out that Iran will not laugh about the fundamentalists aggressive approaches.

Oliver

19th September 2008, 11:03 AM

By the way, DR: What do you expect Iran's retaliation is going to be once somebody
smashes their hope to get their energy-crisis under control?

Oliver

19th September 2008, 12:09 PM

For those who voted "All of the above": Based on what rational thoughts?

WildCat

19th September 2008, 04:39 PM

For those who voted "All of the above": Based on what rational thoughts?
They're making fun of you.

Dragoonster

19th September 2008, 05:01 PM

So no thoughts on that missle I linked to that could possibly reach Tel Aviv etc? On a casual look it also seems it's targetting is quite poor. If true and Iran counterattacks, would they be justified in sending those towards valid targets (perhaps within or near populated cities) with the expectation that they would likely miss?

Darth Rotor

19th September 2008, 09:33 PM

So Ahmadinejad isn't a Mullah? [Need confirmation on that for the ignorant Idiots out there]
Uh, no, he is not. He's the president. See this diagram:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10962464c89629bdc2.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5822)
And yes, that's the point of this thread. It's in no way anti-semitic to point out that Iran will not laugh about the fundamentalists aggressive approaches.
Care to explain what you think the words I underlined in your statement mean? As written, they are gibberish.
What do you expect Iran's retaliation is going to be once somebody smashes their hope to get their energy-crisis under control?
Nuclear energy isn't their sole solution set to their energy problem. Refining and developing their reserves are also issues their government needs to address. No one needs to bomb them for them to sustain a self inflicted wound on the petroleum score.

Not sure what their reaction would be, but given a certain amount of Persian Pride, doubtless they'd find a way to make some people bleed. As they say, payback can be a sumbitch.

DR

RandFan

19th September 2008, 11:33 PM

...Iran will not laugh about the fundamentalists aggressive approaches.Goes both ways. Israel isn't laughing either. They are taking Irans rhetoric very seriously.

RandFan

19th September 2008, 11:35 PM

Uh, no, he is not. He's the president. See this diagram::D

Either my cynicism is unfounded or your optimism is infinite.

RandFan

19th September 2008, 11:45 PM

For those who voted "All of the above": Based on what rational thoughts?I can't accept that there exists a place absent of idiots. As Holmes said, "once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth".

Think of planet X as Z and and all of the above as X.

X cannot be not X.

Oliver

20th September 2008, 08:24 AM

Uh, no, he is not. He's the president. See this diagram:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10962464c89629bdc2.png

Care to explain what you think the words I underlined in your statement mean? As written, they are gibberish.

Nuclear energy isn't their sole solution set to their energy problem. Refining and developing their reserves are also issues their government needs to address. No one needs to bomb them for them to sustain a self inflicted wound on the petroleum score.

Not sure what their reaction would be, but given a certain amount of Persian Pride, doubtless they'd find a way to make some people bleed. As they say, payback can be a sumbitch.

DR

What exactly is gibberish about the fact that those who are pushing
for an attack on Iran despite the evidence are fundamentalists themselves?
This also includes "World Police"-, Christian- and Jewish politically
fundamental ideologies/worldviews/philosophies.

Also: The Iranians don't have to do anything the western fundamentalists
demand. They are a sovereign country. They just could quit their member-
ship with the IAEA and kick every inspector out of the country. Then you
could start to go ape about the blackout.

And for clarification: If you hold the opinion of "We have the right to do
everything if we like to", then welcome to the world of fundamentalism -
or good ol' Caucasian Worldview, if you prefer to name it this way.

However: This thread is about possible targets and why people think
it will be a probable target.

Shall I explain what possible targets means so we can discuss on-topic? :confused:

RandFan

20th September 2008, 10:29 AM

And for clarification: If you hold the opinion of "We have the right to do everything if we like to", then welcome to the world of fundamentalism - or good ol' Caucasian Worldview, if you prefer to name it this way. ?

You make an argument why this kind of thinking is universal and I'm thinking, damn, Oliver is actually sounding coherent. Then you label it "Caucasian worldview". As if the problems of this world are caused only by white Europeans (yes that includes Americans). Your hypocrisy is showing again.

Shall I explain what possible targets means so we can discuss on-topic? To what end? Caucasians are bad. What more do you need to say?

Oliver, if you really want a serious and sincere discussion you need to behave in a serious and sincere way.

Oliver

21st September 2008, 01:58 AM

Just to let you know that this topic isn't out of touch with reality:

Todays News:

JP: Ahmadinejad: We'll stop any attacker (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1221976323948&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
AFP: Ahmadinejad warns of response if Iran attacked (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5juhz0iwnnSOJQTf6QOnCOIzkHaBQ)
PTV: PTV: Iran's armed forces fully prepared (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=70102&sectionid=351020101)

"Hundreds of troops marched past the official podium, followed by military hardware, including the Shahab-3 missile, which television commentators said had a range of 2,000 km (1,250 miles), putting Israel in range." Source: WP (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092100144.html)

RandFan

21st September 2008, 02:09 AM

"Hundreds of troops marched past the official podium, followed by military hardware, including the Shahab-3 missile, which television commentators said had a range of 2,000 km (1,250 miles), putting Israel in range." Source: WP (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092100144.html)Iran isn't helping itself or the world. It's suicidal.

"We and you ought not pull on the ends of a rope in which you have tied the knots of war. Because the more the two of us pull the tighter the knot will be tied. And then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction. For such is the logic of war. If people do not display wisdom they will clash like blind moles and then mutual annihilation will commence."

--a message from Khrushchev to Kennedy concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis

Oliver

21st September 2008, 03:30 AM

Iran isn't helping itself or the world. It's suicidal.

I fully understand that. So I would argue that destroying Irans nuclear
facilities in the first place is making the Knot as tight as it could get.
After that, everything is possible and out of international control.

Oliver

21st September 2008, 03:50 AM

And for clarification, I should add that if Israel and the US thinks that
Iran is an enemy of Israel right now - you may have no Idea what Israels
status will be after the strike against Iran's nuclear facilities...

A wave of radicalism spreading throughout the whole Iranian State including
the moderate Iranians comes to mind. Just like after 9/11, when everybody
cried "retaliation!".

Sword_Of_Truth

21st September 2008, 05:11 AM

By the way, DR: What do you expect Iran's retaliation is going to be once somebody
smashes their hope to get their energy-crisis under control?

Iran, being in a huge energy crisis anyway, will lose it's
nuclear plant.

I'm sorry... but this bizarre belief of yours that Iran is in an "energy crisis" is utterly absurd.

They export 2 million barrels of oil per day, can build 6,000 centrifuges yet they can't light a barrel of oil underneath a boiler?

That's just plain stupid to think that. There is no Iranian energy crisis.

Sword_Of_Truth

21st September 2008, 05:13 AM

Oliver

21st September 2008, 05:16 AM

I'm sorry... but this bizarre belief of yours that Iran is in an "energy crisis" is utterly absurd.

They export 2 million barrels of oil per day, can build 6,000 centrifuges yet they can't light a barrel of oil underneath a boiler?

That's just plain stupid to think that. There is no Iranian energy crisis.

Of course there is none in YOUR news... :rolleyes:

Iran's lights are going out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/02/iran.energy)

egslim

21st September 2008, 05:18 AM

Iran isn't helping itself or the world. It's suicidal.
In what way do you consider Iran suicidal? Step away from the rethoric for a moment, and look at its actions. I've always considered actions more important than words anyway.

Showcasing missiles that can hit Israel, while under conceivable threat of airstrike from said country, is not suicidal, it's a very reasonable move to (hopefully) act as a deterrent.

Irans actions have always been pragmatic with regards to its national security and economic interests, its "Persian pride", and with a little religion mixed in. Its state-owned condom factory proves the country's policy makers are not crazed religious fanatics. Their actions are arguably more secular than those of contemporary US politics.

Sword_Of_Truth

21st September 2008, 05:28 AM

Of course there is none in YOUR news... :rolleyes:

Iran's lights are going out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/02/iran.energy)

Fine... I'll say it again.

Iran exports 2 million barrels of oil a day.

There is no Iranian energy crisis.

Oliver

21st September 2008, 05:36 AM

Fine... I'll say it again.

Iran exports 2 million barrels of oil a day.

There is no Iranian energy crisis.

Of course, they turn off electricity in their major cities every day just for
the fun of it! :D

[Did you even read the article?]

And what do you think, will be Iran's Target after the bombing of their Reactor?

egslim

21st September 2008, 05:38 AM

Iran exports 2 million barrels of oil a day.

There is no Iranian energy crisis.
While it is true Iran produces enough crude oil, the country lacks sufficient refinery capacity to turn it into useful products: a mere 1.6 million barrels per day a year ago. (http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11618)

Sword_Of_Truth

21st September 2008, 05:41 AM

Of course, they turn off electricity in their major cities every day just for
the fun of it! :D

Must be.

I've put the answer right under your nose twice now and yet you still can't see it.

Are you stupid or just obstinate?

Sword_Of_Truth

21st September 2008, 05:44 AM

While it is true Iran produces enough crude oil, the country lacks sufficient refinery capacity to turn it into useful products: a mere 1.6 million barrels per day a year ago. (http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11618)

They could choose to build the needed refinery capacity along with a few more conventional power-plants. Instead they choose to build gas centrifuge cascades.

But that wouldn't give them the "holocaust-in-a-can" they are after, would it?

Oliver

21st September 2008, 05:52 AM

Must be.

I've put the answer right under your nose twice now and yet you still can't see it.

Are you stupid or just obstinate?

Well, I could ask you the same. However - if the US would face those
circumstances like Iran has right now, everyone including you would
cry for nuclear energy. But if Iran does it: "They want Nukes". Yeah,
exactly the kind of logic I suspected.

Plus what egslim said.

Anyway: Still no Idea what Iran would attack as retaliation? [You remember
that OP-thingy, don't you?]

Darth Rotor

21st September 2008, 06:07 AM

And for clarification, I should add that if Israel and the US thinks that
Iran is an enemy of Israel right now - you may have no Idea what Israels status will be after the strike against Iran's nuclear facilities...
1. Are you aware that the part I underlined are two nouns and a conjunction?

2. What strike on Iranian nuclear facilities? Are you bucking for the million?

3. A wave of radicalism spreading throughout the whole Iranian State including the moderate Iranians comes to mind. Just like after 9/11, when everybody
cried "retaliation!".

I'd substitute chauvinism for radicalism in that last bit, but I actually agree with you that an enemy without will provide a rallying point for the diverse elements of Iranian social and political groups.

I think one might call "moderate Iranians" "Persians" but that's a bit of hairsplitting and wordplay.

Darth Rotor

21st September 2008, 06:10 AM

While it is true Iran produces enough crude oil, the country lacks sufficient refinery capacity to turn it into useful products: a mere 1.6 million barrels per day a year ago. (http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11618)
A question worth asking is why Iran never bothered to bolster its infrastrcture, though I think part of the answer is reliance on some of their PG neighbors.

How are the US and Iran similar? Less than brilliant domestic energy policy. Hey, we have something in common, maybe we can talk to these people. :D

FireGarden

21st September 2008, 08:10 AM

They could choose to build the needed refinery capacity along with a few more conventional power-plants.

They're doing that too:
http://www.payvand.com/news/07/feb/1215.html

The Abadan refinery was rebuilt after the war with Iraq; the Arak refinery was completed in 1993; Bandar Abbas refinery in 1997.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3932439/IRAN-The-Refineries.html

But, even for Iran, oil only lasts so long. Why should they burn it rather than sell it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

In March 1974, the Shah envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out, and declared, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23 000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants."

[...] At the time, Richard Cheney was the White House Chief of Staff, and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

And read this ad:
Guess who's building nuclear power plants?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shah-nukeIran.jpg

Iran has a right to nuclear technology. It's a big-money business. In 50 years, the USA might be building reactors based on an Iranian design -- and paying for the privilege!

Oliver

21st September 2008, 10:25 AM

The thing is, Firegarden, that some people in here get some other
type of news in contrast to the rest of the world. I use to call it
Singlesided Propaganga News.

RandFan

21st September 2008, 12:28 PM

Of course, they turn off electricity in their major cities every day just for the fun of it! Did you bother to read your article? a result of bad planning and corruption They turn off electricity because of stupidity and corruption.

Did you even read the article?Did you?

And what do you think, will be Iran's Target after the bombing of their Reactor? And how many nukes will America send to Iran in retaliation of Iran's bombing of Iraq? And how many nukes will Russia send to America in retaliation?

RandFan

21st September 2008, 12:31 PM

The thing is, Firegarden, that some people in here get some other type of news in contrast to the rest of the world. I use to call it.In all sincerity I've never seen a hint of objectivity from you. You regurgitate left wing talking points as if that is your breakfast.

I honestly don't think you know what real news is.

Look in the mirror sometime.

Oliver

22nd September 2008, 03:50 AM

Did you bother to read your article? They turn off electricity because of stupidity and corruption.

Did you?

And how many nukes will America send to Iran in retaliation of Iran's bombing of Iraq? And how many nukes will Russia send to America in retaliation?

Yes, I read the article. It doesn't matter what caused the energy
problem - it matters how to solve it. And some crazy fundamentalists
coming from abroad and making it worse, surely does lead to even more
radicalism inside Iran. Maybe Russia may even sponsor some Nukes to
their friends in Iran? That really would make me laugh as a result of
Israels hawkish stupidity to prevent Iran from having Nukes. ;)

SDC

22nd September 2008, 07:05 AM

RandFan

22nd September 2008, 08:36 AM

That really would make me laugh as a result of
Israels hawkish stupidity to prevent Iran from having Nukes. Damn that would be so funny. We should have a party. Think how funny it will be when Israelis have radiation poisioning. It's just too damn funny.

Oliver

22nd September 2008, 03:10 PM

It is foolish to imagine that the Russians will supply Iran with nuclear weapons. No one in his/ her right mind believes that, Oliver. As for "friends" like Putin's government, well...

Oliver, you certainly appear to be moving beyond discussion into advocacy. Do you ever re-read your messages?

Seriously. Do you guys ever follow the political news outside the election circus? :confused:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Russia-Iran nuclear deal signed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4301889.stm)
[/URL]Russia ratchets up US tensions with arms sales to Iran (http://cns.miis.edu/research/iran/rusnuc.htm)
Nuclear and Missile Technology Assistance to Iran (http://cns.miis.edu/research/iran/rusnuc.htm)[URL="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4781027.ece"]

Hello? Anybody out there? :confused:

SDC

22nd September 2008, 05:19 PM

RandFan

22nd September 2008, 08:10 PM

Seriously. Do you guys ever follow the political news outside the election circus? Sure, we just don't drink your kool-aid.

Thanks though.

egslim

23rd September 2008, 12:14 AM

They could choose to build the needed refinery capacity along with a few more conventional power-plants. Instead they choose to build gas centrifuge cascades.
They are trying to build the needed refinery capacity, unfortunately, the sanctions are in the way.

Though from the Iranian perspective, a few years of economic hardship now seems a worthwhile investment to obtain permanent security against US attack in the future.

But regardless of whether you consider it self-imposed, you do admit Iran actually faces an energy crisis.

egslim

23rd September 2008, 12:32 AM

A question worth asking is why Iran never bothered to bolster its infrastrcture, though I think part of the answer is reliance on some of their PG neighbors.
Despite its considerable energy resources, Iran is fairly poor on a per capita basis, because it's population is so large, and because the country is very mountaineous. Also remember that oil prices were an order of magnitude lower only about ten years ago. Poor relations with the US didn't help either for attracting foreign investment.

I agree Iran should have bolstered its infrastructure before, but considering domestic economic difficulties that was probably easier said than done.

Matteo Martini

23rd September 2008, 01:12 AM

Oliver, do you claim that the Russians would give or sell nuclear weapons to Iran? That was the question. My answer is "not damned likely." I am well aware that they are supplying other nuclear technology.
[..]

Why not likely?

1) Russia is pissed off by the American Government, recently
2) If they sell weapons to Iran secretly, they may not be discovered;
3) Russia/Iran relations are quite good, recently
4) Iran having weapons would would weaken America` s position in the area; to the advantage of Russia

gtc

23rd September 2008, 01:28 AM

2) If they sell weapons to Iran secretly, they may not be discovered;

What is the point of having nuclear weapons if no one knows you have them?

egslim

23rd September 2008, 01:30 AM

Why not likely?
Because selling nukes to Iran dilutes Russia's own position in the world as a nuclear power.

1) Russia is pissed off by the American Government, recently
If they want to hurt the US, better do it with something that benefits themselves. Sevastopol springs to mind. Hurting yourself because it also hurts your enemy is poor strategy.

2) If they sell weapons to Iran secretly, they may not be discovered;
Perhaps, but that's no reason to do it.

3) Russia/Iran relations are quite good, recently
They are also long term competitors as energy suppliers.

4) Iran having weapons would would weaken America` s position in the area; to the advantage of Russia
Not really, since Russia doesn't have the clout to take America's place in the Gulf.

Matteo Martini

23rd September 2008, 01:58 AM

Because selling nukes to Iran dilutes Russia's own position in the world as a nuclear power.

From 11 nuclear bomb owning countries to 12.
What a difference..

If they want to hurt the US, better do it with something that benefits themselves. Sevastopol springs to mind. Hurting yourself because it also hurts your enemy is poor strategy.

How will Iran having one or two nukes hurt Russia?

Perhaps, but that's no reason to do it.

They are also long term competitors as energy suppliers.

World is quickly moving to thin-film solar panels energy

Not really, since Russia doesn't have the clout to take America's place in the Gulf.

What are the other superpowers in the Gulf?

Matteo Martini

23rd September 2008, 01:59 AM

What is the point of having nuclear weapons if no one knows you have them?

I wrote that they will secretly buy nukes, and then publicly tell they have them, without specifying from which country they got them..

gtc

23rd September 2008, 02:45 AM

I wrote that they will secretly buy nukes, and then publicly tell they have them, without specifying from which country they got them..

I believe the Americans have mastered the process of elimination.

Do you honestly think that Russia would be willing to give nuclear weapons to a country that is not its ally and is practically on its borders? Knowing that if it did this, it would be picking a monumental fight with Europe, Israel, Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, China, the US, and the UN?

Matteo Martini

23rd September 2008, 02:50 AM

I believe the Americans have mastered the process of elimination.

Do you honestly think that Russia would be willing to give nuclear weapons to a country that is not its ally and is practically on its borders? Knowing that if it did this, it would be picking a monumental fight with Europe, Israel, Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, China, the US, and the UN?

Would Iran having weapons be a problem for India? China? Turkey? Pakistan? Iraq?
Why?
And why do the Russian have to tell anyone that it is was them (and not Pakistan, China, India, ..) who sold the weapons?
What if Russia only sells the equipment and the know-how?

gtc

23rd September 2008, 03:12 AM

Would Iran having weapons be a problem for India? China? Turkey? Pakistan? Iraq?

It should be obvious why Pakistan, Turkey and Iraq would be concerned given their proximity and less than satisfactory relations with Iran.

China and India are regional rivals to Pakistan and I would expect them to respond if Pakistan increased its nuclear capability in response to Iran. Neither side would be happy if access to the gulf was threatened either.

Why?
And why do the Russian have to tell anyone that it is was them (and not Pakistan, China, India, ..) who sold the weapons?
What if Russia only sells the equipment and the know-how?

Again, it would eventually become obvious.

richardm

23rd September 2008, 04:19 AM

I wonder if Russia would particularly care if anyone knew they'd provided expertise, equipment or even weapons? It would be a good "Up Yours!" to the rest of the international community, which would play well at home, and after all what could anyone do about it?

I'm sure it would be in breach of a number of treaties, though; I just wonder if at this point Russia would be prepared to say "Sod it".

Matteo Martini

23rd September 2008, 04:49 AM

It should be obvious why Pakistan, Turkey and Iraq would be concerned given their proximity and less than satisfactory relations with Iran.

China and India are regional rivals to Pakistan and I would expect them to respond if Pakistan increased its nuclear capability in response to Iran. Neither side would be happy if access to the gulf was threatened either.

Too many suppositions..

Ziggurat

23rd September 2008, 09:35 AM

So Ahmadinejad isn't a Mullah? [Need confirmation on that for the ignorant Idiots out there]

No, he is not.

Ziggurat

23rd September 2008, 09:42 AM

From 11 nuclear bomb owning countries to 12.
What a difference..

No, Matteo. It isn't simply the increase from 11 to 12 that matters: it's the fact that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would be rendered completely meaningless.

How will Iran having one or two nukes hurt Russia?

Why on earth would you think they would stop at one or two? Nobody does.

World is quickly moving to thin-film solar panels energy

Uh, no. No, it isn't.

What are the other superpowers in the Gulf?

Nobody can take America's place in the gulf, because nobody else has the naval power to do so. America could withdraw completely, and Russia still wouldn't be able to replace it: they simply don't have the ships.

Oliver

23rd September 2008, 02:39 PM

No, he is not.

So he is not the ruler of Iran after all? :confused: - You know, the guy with the missile button in his office. :p

Ziggurat

23rd September 2008, 03:13 PM

So he is not the ruler of Iran after all? :confused:

You really don't know anything about Iran, do you?

Ahmadinejad does not rule Iran. He is the president. "Mullah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah)" is a word for an Islamic clergyman. Ahmadinejad has no religious training, he is only a politician. The guy who is actually in charge is the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khameini). While Ahmadinejad plays a more direct role in the day-to-day operations of government, Khameini effectively has veto power over basically everything he does. The religious leadership (the mullahs) have ultimate control in Iran, not the elected government. It is a source of constant ammusement that you are willing to spout off about subjects such as the government of Iran when you are so trasparently and woefully ignorant of them.

Oliver

23rd September 2008, 03:58 PM

You really don't know anything about Iran, do you?

Ahmadinejad does not rule Iran. He is the president. "Mullah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah)" is a word for an Islamic clergyman. Ahmadinejad has no religious training, he is only a politician. The guy who is actually in charge is the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khameini). While Ahmadinejad plays a more direct role in the day-to-day operations of government, Khameini effectively has veto power over basically everything he does. The religious leadership (the mullahs) have ultimate control in Iran, not the elected government. It is a source of constant ammusement that you are willing to spout off about subjects such as the government of Iran when you are so trasparently and woefully ignorant of them.

Thank you for contradicting nearly the whole Pro-Israel community
and Media. It's much more credible if you explain it to those who
are not willing to use a rational mind.

Ziggurat

23rd September 2008, 04:14 PM

Thank you for contradicting nearly the whole Pro-Israel community and Media.

Did I say Ahmadinejad had no influence? No, I did not. He's got influence. Furthermore, he's only President because the mullahs let him be president - nobody even gets on the ballot without their approval. His actions are constrained by their approval, and if he's talking about wiping out Israel, that means at least a significant fraction of those mullahs approve of such statements.

It's much more credible if you explain it to those who are not willing to use a rational mind.

That's why I'm trying to explain it to you (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anti-americanism-in-europe-is-fueled-by-ignorance/), Oliver.

gtc

23rd September 2008, 04:24 PM

Too many suppositions..

Thank you for contradicting nearly the whole Pro-Israel community
and Media. It's much more credible if you explain it to those who
are not willing to use a rational mind.

And with these two posts, my involvement in the thread is done.

dudalb

23rd September 2008, 04:33 PM

Oliver

23rd September 2008, 04:58 PM

Oliver is now busy proclaiming what a great leader the president of Iran is by offering to meet with McCain or Obama. Oliver has truly become the village idiot of JREF.
But his descent into Anti Semitism is sad,really, sad.

Well, point out any Antisemitism - or apologize.

However: What will Iran attack in retaliation for the destruction for
the Iranian Reactor? Are you mentally capable to think about such
a question?

Ziggurat

23rd September 2008, 05:14 PM

However: What will Iran attack in retaliation for the destruction for the Iranian Reactor?

Your cluelessness shines through once again. It isn't their reactor (which isn't built yet) which is the problem at the moment. It's their centrifuges.

dudalb

23rd September 2008, 05:26 PM

Well, point out any Antisemitism - or apologize.

However: What will Iran attack in retaliation for the destruction for
the Iranian Reactor? Are you mentally capable to think about such
a question?

Well , your ranting about "The Jew Controlled Press" would strike most people as Anti Semitic.

Oliver

23rd September 2008, 05:26 PM

Your cluelessness shines through once again. It isn't their reactor (which isn't built yet) which is the problem at the moment. It's their centrifuges.

No, the international Media reports that the Reactor is a highly probable
target as well. While centrifuges enriching uranium-235to a level of 3.7
percent while 90% is needed to build a nuke. No threat here unless you're
arguing like a two years old child losing it's pacifier (http://erstories.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ivan-screams1.jpg).

However - and no matter what Israel would attack, what would be Iran's
retaliation? - Did you think about the answer yet?

dudalb

23rd September 2008, 05:28 PM

I know I am in Godwin territory but I can't resist it:

If Adolf Hitler were alive today, and opposed the Bush Administration, then Oliver would support him.

Oliver

23rd September 2008, 05:29 PM

Well , your ranting about "The Jew Controlled Press" would strike most people as Anti Semitic.

The majority of Jews in Israel and America have a liberal stance favoring
a peaceful solution. And I'm in complete harmony with those lovely people.
Hardly Antisemitic, is it? - And now try to answer the OP's Question:

What would Iranians retaliation look like?

Ziggurat

23rd September 2008, 05:30 PM

No, the international Media reports that the Reactor is a highly probable
target as well. While centrifuges enriching uranium-235to a level of 3.7
percent while 90% is needed to build a nuke.

Are you out to set a new record for consecutive errors? Those same centrifuges which can enrich uranium from natural levels to 3.7% can further enrich it from 3.7% to 90%. All it takes is time. That they haven't done so yet says nothing about their capacity to do so in the future.

dudalb

23rd September 2008, 05:40 PM

I think Oliver is trying to set the record for stupid posts.
What amazes me is that Oliver seem totally obliviously to the comtempt that he is held in by almost everybody who is a regular at JREF.Even people who might agree with his general political views think he is an idiot.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Oliver

23rd September 2008, 05:41 PM

Are you out to set a new record for consecutive errors? Those same centrifuges which can enrich uranium from natural levels to 3.7% can further enrich it from 3.7% to 90%. All it takes is time. That they haven't done so yet says nothing about their capacity to do so in the future.

So? Did they [Iranians] enrich the Uranium to a higher level yet? :confused:

You acknowledge that a sentence like "The Breach of Rule 10 removed. could rob a bank
because he now owns a gun now" is no valid argument to put him into
jail. So why does your imagination diffuse rationality and justice in case
of Iran?

And you still didn't think about the OP: What kind of retaliation do
you expect? - You certainly should think about that question if you're
in favor of destroying anything on Iran's soil.

SDC

23rd September 2008, 05:58 PM

Heck with it. Reported for a vile bigoted comment, Oliver.

Oliver

23rd September 2008, 06:03 PM

Heck with it. Reported for a vile bigoted comment, Oliver.

And you're still not addressing the op, right?

SDC

23rd September 2008, 06:07 PM

Oliver, your comments are vile and bigoted. I hope that you never are allowed to post again.

Ziggurat

23rd September 2008, 06:09 PM

So? Did they [Iranians] enrich the Uranium to a higher level yet? :confused:

Maybe. They've hidden their progress on nuclear program before.

You acknowledge that a sentence like "The ******* could rob a bank
because he now owns a gun now" is no valid argument to put him into
jail. So why does your imagination diffuse rationality and justice in case
of Iran?

Thanks for that insight into your true nature. You're not only antisemitic, you're racist as well.

International relations are not the equivalent of domestic law, but even if you want to play that game, your scenario isn't the appropriate equivalent. The police most certainly will act if someone talks about how they want to rob a bank and then goes and buys a gun.

And you still didn't think about the OP: What kind of retaliation do
you expect? - You certainly should think about that question if you're
in favor of destroying anything on Iran's soil.

I have indeed thought of it. Iran would most likely use their Hezbollah proxies to attack. Furthermore, I have not taken a position on whether or not Israel should attack Iran's nuclear program. The answer to that depends heavily on details concerning risks of such a mission and probability of success which I am not privy to.

Oliver

23rd September 2008, 06:27 PM

Maybe. They've hidden their progress on nuclear program before.

Thankfully, the US-NIE has a clear summing regarding the question.

Thanks for that insight into your true nature. You're not only antisemitic, you're racist as well.

Nope - I'm just pointing out the kind of racism we're talking about
in here. You can replace Breach of Rule 10 removed. with Iran. The same kind of
racist thinking is at work here. You just may not have understood
your personal relation to the indeed racial example I made.

International relations are not the equivalent of domestic law, but even if you want to play that game, your scenario isn't the appropriate equivalent. The police most certainly will act if someone talks about how they want to rob a bank and then goes and buys a gun.

So? How does Iran want to get "Teh Nuke". Still no evidence. That's
my point.

I have indeed thought of it. Iran would most likely use their Hezbollah proxies to attack. Furthermore, I have not taken a position on whether or not Israel should attack Iran's nuclear program. The answer to that depends heavily on details concerning risks of such a mission and probability of success which I am not privy to.

Not really. The Israeli point is that Israel doesn't have any dominance
left over the region once anyone else does have Nukes. They're clearly
playing the bully here. But they don't see how protecting Israel with
most hawkish measurements does indeed undermine Israel's reputation,
national security and future. There is no solution to this unless they
start to make friends rather than enemies.

And I'm not an enemy of Israel. I'm just against digging themselves
even deeper into the mud of self-destruction and opposition.

moon1969

23rd September 2008, 06:27 PM

They should bomb North Korea but I forget that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad loves people like Kim Jong-il and Robert Mugabe.

Oliver

23rd September 2008, 06:35 PM

They should bomb North Korea but I forget that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad loves people like Kim Jong-il and Robert Mugabe.

Your arguments are childish. So what about the OP: What would
Iran's retaliation look like after an attack on their soil?

Oliver

23rd September 2008, 06:38 PM

Oliver, your comments are vile and bigoted. I hope that you never are allowed to post again.

Huh? Skepticism sucks? At JREF? Seriously?

Let's try to make valid arguments - and we may see who is right about
a topic and who is just whining about himself being out of arguments,
shall we? :">

Oliver

23rd September 2008, 07:57 PM

Oliver, do you claim that the Russians would give or sell nuclear weapons to Iran? That was the question. My answer is "not damned likely." I am well aware that they are supplying other nuclear technology.

So did Putin call you up (he speaks fluent German, I believe, since he was stationed there as a young man) and tell you otherwise? "Yes, Oliver Oliverovich, I have decided to supply Iran with actual nuclear weapons."

ETA: I do not really believe your patronymic is "Oliverovich." I just tossed that in for the heck of it.

ETA2: And what do you mean by "you guys"?

No, I'm not saying that Russia will send a postcard to Iran with
a Nuke attached on it. The facts, on the other Hand, say that
Russia provides missile technology, nuclear fuel and nuclear
knowhow to Iran. They don't have to send nukes to Iran if they
provide everything else for Iran to make Nukes for themselves.
But that's not the topic of this thread: There is no evidence
for Iran trying to get Nukes at the current time. The question
is: What will the retaliation looks like:

Your on-topic answer to this is....

Metullus

23rd September 2008, 08:51 PM

Well, point out any Antisemitism - or apologize.The irony is breathtaking! I'm still waiting for you to afford me the same courtesy you demand from SDC. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3203169#post3203169)

Ziggurat

24th September 2008, 10:10 AM

Not really. The Israeli point is that Israel doesn't have any dominance
left over the region once anyone else does have Nukes. They're clearly
playing the bully here.

Iran has killed Israeli civilians via its terrorist proxies. Israel has never attacked Iran, directly OR by proxy. And you're claiming Israel is the bully?

And I'm not an enemy of Israel.

No, you're not. You just favor enemies of Israel at every opportunity. It takes a sophisticated mind like yours to appreciate the nuanced difference, I'm sure.

Doctor Evil

24th September 2008, 11:41 AM

Iran has killed Israeli civilians via its terrorist proxies. Israel has never attacked Iran, directly OR by proxy.

Which reminds me something I have seen in the news (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1023767.html) today:
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez asked Iran on Tuesday to hand over several citizens suspected of planning the deadly 1994 bombing of an Argentine Jewish center, so they can face a local trial.

"I would ask the Islamic Republic of Iran in accordance with international law...accept that Argentine justice can put on trial...those citizens who have been accused," Fernandez told the U.N. General Assembly in New York.

Argentina has asked for the arrest of former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, seven other Iranians and a former Hezbollah guerrilla leader on charges they masterminded the blast, which killed 85 people.

Oliver

24th September 2008, 05:08 PM

Iran has killed Israeli civilians via its terrorist proxies. Israel has never attacked Iran, directly OR by proxy. And you're claiming Israel is the bully?

No, you're not. You just favor enemies of Israel at every opportunity. It takes a sophisticated mind like yours to appreciate the nuanced difference, I'm sure.

Nope - I don't favor Iran, I just think that if Israel attacks Iran, Iran
has every right to make an counterattack. Call me nonpartisan, that
would be the most truthful description of my POV.

Ziggurat

24th September 2008, 06:05 PM

Call me nonpartisan,

I know you too well to ever do that.

Oliver

25th September 2008, 01:18 AM

I know you too well to ever do that.

BS.

25th September 2008, 01:40 AM

you'r with them or against them....

Bush made it clear, nonpartisan, neutrality etc do not exist anymore.
You are one of the Good guys or one of the evil doers.

but Oliver, you are from a "Schurken Staat" anyway, isnt Germany still on the axis of evil?

Oliver

25th September 2008, 03:16 PM

but Oliver, you are from a "Schurken Staat" anyway, isnt Germany still on the axis of evil?

Last time I checked, we still had relations with Iran. So yes. :p

Matteo Martini

26th September 2008, 06:18 PM

No, Matteo. It isn't simply the increase from 11 to 12 that matters: it's the fact that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would be rendered completely meaningless.

The number of nuke-owning countries has not already increased after 1968 (year when the NPT was signed)?

Why on earth would you think they would stop at one or two? Nobody does.

Or 30? 40?
What would it change? Is not North Korea having nukes?

Uh, no. No, it isn't.

Yes.

A new report from Greentech Media and the Prometheus Institute forecasts that worldwide thin-film solar production will grow eightfold by 2010, with amorphous silicon leading the way.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/thin-film-solar-to-reach-42-gw-1372.html

Nobody can take America's place in the gulf, because nobody else has the naval power to do so. America could withdraw completely, and Russia still wouldn't be able to replace it: they simply don't have the ships.

So, countries in the Gulf will handle the politics, the economy of the countries in the Gulf

Matteo Martini

26th September 2008, 06:20 PM

Oliver, your comments are vile and bigoted. I hope that you never are allowed to post again.

Hello, freedom of speech in America!!

Ziggurat

26th September 2008, 06:44 PM

The number of nuke-owning countries has not already increased after 1968 (year when the NPT was signed)?

It has, but not by signatories. Do you need me to explain why that might be significant?

Or 30? 40?
What would it change?

A lot. One or two don't provide a very reliable deterrent. 30 or 40 does.

Is not North Korea having nukes?

We're not really sure. They had a failed test, suggesting they tried to make one but somehow screwed up.

Yes.

A new report from Greentech Media and the Prometheus Institute forecasts that worldwide thin-film solar production will grow eightfold by 2010, with amorphous silicon leading the way.

An eight-fold growth from a starting point of a pittance doesn't constitute the world moving rapidly to solar power.

So, countries in the Gulf will handle the politics, the economy of the countries in the Gulf

That's a nice sentiment. But it doesn't address the claim that was made. None of the countries in the gulf have the naval power to ensure the safety of shipping through the gulf. The United States does.

Dragoonster

26th September 2008, 06:58 PM

It has, but not by signatories. Do you need me to explain why that might be significant?

Significant yeah, but not completely meaningless. The precedent of North Korea's withdrawal in order to pursue nukes is already set. It certainly is a problem if Iran doesn't withdraw--I agree with you there. But it wouldn't shock me if they do as soon as they think their program is far enough along to survive.

That would be an unfortunate exception. But the NPT also serves as a framework for the distribution of non-weapons nuclear technology. The contribution to India by the US despite India not being party could be as significant to the integrity of the NPT as Iran is being.

That's a nice sentiment. But it doesn't address the claim that was made. None of the countries in the gulf have the naval power to ensure the safety of shipping through the gulf. The United States does.

I thought there was only one CBG in the Gulf, or there was pre-war. I'd imagine Russia, Britain, and France could take over if that's all that needs replacement. All have carriers. India has a carrier too (?) and is one of the largest navie in the world, and is much closer than any of those or the US. Of course there's no real reason for any of these countries to want to patrol the gulf.

I don't know exactly what the US is protecting by doing so either. (aside from the obvious naval support for two ongoing wars/occupations).

If the US withdrew (assuming its other presence there was also gone or perfectly accepted) what would the result be? Clashes between Arab fishing trawlers? Pirates attacking oil tankers?

Pardalis

26th September 2008, 07:00 PM

If the US withdrew (assuming its other presence there was also gone or perfectly accepted) what would the result be? Clashes between Arab fishing trawlers? Pirates attacking oil tankers?

At least Hussein is out of the equation.

Matteo Martini

26th September 2008, 08:22 PM

It has, but not by signatories. Do you need me to explain why that might be significant?

Please do, since any nation can withdraw from any treaty any time

A lot. One or two don't provide a very reliable deterrent. 30 or 40 does.

What is wrong with Iran, having a deterrent weapons against a US attack?

We're not really sure. They had a failed test, suggesting they tried to make one but somehow screwed up.

Pakistan?

An eight-fold growth from a starting point of a pittance doesn't constitute the world moving rapidly to solar power.

If an eight-fold increase in two years is not a rapid growth, God knows what a rapid growth is..

That's a nice sentiment. But it doesn't address the claim that was made. None of the countries in the gulf have the naval power to ensure the safety of shipping through the gulf. The United States does.

Safety against who? Those countries themselves?

Oliver

27th September 2008, 06:51 AM

Of course there's no real reason for any of these countries to want to patrol the gulf. I don't know exactly what the US is protecting by doing so either.

:boggled:

Safety against who? Those countries themselves?

Matteo, what do you think will be Iran's reaction to an attack on their Reactor?

SDC

27th September 2008, 09:05 AM

Hello, freedom of speech in America!!

I expect you are unable to see the irony of your statement when you post this in a site which is based in the US. Plus the fact that no one running this place is going to accede to my tantrum.

Nope, not you. You are a universal genius. All bow to your will.

Oliver

27th September 2008, 09:58 AM

I expect you are unable to see the irony of your statement when you post this in a site which is based in the US. Plus the fact that no one running this place is going to accede to my tantrum.

Nope, not you. You are a universal genius. All bow to your will.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110745bf82a7b405d.jpg

So what, SDC, will Iran's retaliation look like? - And do you agree
that those Iranian N-Words should own guns to retaliate the same
way just like us? :rolleyes:

SDC

27th September 2008, 10:04 AM

Ah, blessed peace! No more of Oliver's posts.

Beerina

27th September 2008, 10:29 AM

"Iran better leave beer alone!" http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_231748de5f378396b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13932)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_231748de5f01b5e0d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13930)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/231748de5f16155d3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13931)

RandFan

27th September 2008, 10:48 AM

..do you agree that those Iranian N-Words should own guns to retaliate the same way just like us? Just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them racist. You are quite literally race baiting. Oliver, would you please improve the quality of your posts?

As to your question, guns are fine, I wish no one would own thermo nuclear weapons. It would be especially good that a nation that is looking forward to the Apocalypse and return of the Mahdi wouldn't own them. Yes, America has some of the same sentiment but we are a Democracy and it is rather unlikely for a leader who might buy into that BS to launch warheads. Iran, not so much.

Is it arrogant to own nuclear weapons and not want others to have them? Sure, is it reasonable? Damn straight!

Oliver

27th September 2008, 12:27 PM

Is it arrogant to own nuclear weapons and not want others to have them? Sure, is it reasonable? Damn straight!

Replace "Nukes" with "Guns" and "others" with "Blacks" and you're doing
the same exact thing that people in your area did quite a while back.

Damn straight racism. [Same argument - different time]

So does Iran have the right to retaliate once being attacked?

Yes or No?

Pardalis

27th September 2008, 12:45 PM

Replace "Nukes" with "Guns" and "others" with "Blacks" and you're doing the same exact thing that people in your area did quite a while back.

Damn straight racism. [Same argument - different time]

Only in your mind Oliver. It's trully discusting what you are trying to do here.

You're making a rare strawman-ad-hominem, you're trying to build a racist strawman of your opponent, to try to discredit any opinion he may have that contradicts you.

Trully, you have no idea how to debate intelligently.

Oliver

27th September 2008, 01:03 PM

Only in your mind Oliver. It's trully discusting what you are trying to do here.

You're making a rare strawman-ad-hominem, you're trying to build a racist strawman of your opponent, to try to discredit any opinion he may have that contradicts you.

Trully, you have no idea how to debate intelligently.

Well, point out the difference between:

Blacks shouldn't be allowed to have "weapons" as well because they "might, could, would..."

and

Iranians shouldn't be allowed to have "weapons" as well because they "might, could, would..."

Same thing, other race. No?

Anyway ... Same question to you, Goury:

Does Iran have the right to retaliate once being attacked?

Yes or No?

Oliver

27th September 2008, 01:21 PM

In other Words:

Does Iran have the right to relaunch their Nuke Program once they
are being attacked? From their National Security point of View, they
certainly have.

And they certainly have every "God-given" right to defend themselves.

A right we western people usually grant every human or society - unless
we're shifting into racist waters. ;)

Pardalis

27th September 2008, 01:53 PM

Well, point out the difference between:

Blacks shouldn't be allowed to have "weapons" as well because they "might, could, would..."

and

Iranians shouldn't be allowed to have "weapons" as well because they "might, could, would..."

Same thing, other race. No?

No.

27th September 2008, 01:57 PM

but The Iranians are totaly evil, we all know that.

Pardalis

27th September 2008, 02:04 PM

but The Iranians are totaly evil, we all know that.

That's your strawman, boy.

RandFan

27th September 2008, 02:09 PM

So does Iran have the right to retaliate once being attacked?

Yes or No?Sure. Do they have the right to commit crimes against humanity?

Yes or no?

RandFan

27th September 2008, 02:11 PM

Blacks shouldn't be allowed to have "weapons" as well because they "might, could, would..." Who is making this argument? Who made this argument? Citation (source) please?

Yes, everyone knows you don't have a source but just pulled it out of your ass but we should make the fact formal.

Iranians shouldn't be allowed to have "weapons" as well because they "might, could, would..."

Same thing, other race. No?Same thing to nothing is nothing.

It's silly nonsense.

RandFan

27th September 2008, 02:16 PM

but The Iranians are totaly evil, we all know that.Pardalis beat me too it but it bears repeating.

Strawman. BS. Nonsense.

But don't let that stop you.

Oliver

27th September 2008, 02:18 PM

Sure. Do they have the right to commit crimes against humanity?

Yes or no?

No. Will they?

RandFan

27th September 2008, 02:25 PM

No. Will they?If they use a thermonuclear device against Israel they most certainly will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_humanity).

FTR: The firebombing of Dresden and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes against humanity.

Oliver

27th September 2008, 02:57 PM

If they use a thermonuclear device against Israel they most certainly will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_humanity).

FTR: The firebombing of Dresden and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes against humanity.

So were the bombing of china and Iraq. You see that Iran's History till the
revolution is virtually innocent concerning crimes against humanity. And
I'm not talking about their law system here, which you might define as
crime against humanity as well. Yet you are for actions without any evidence
against Iran, virtually opposing your own sense of justice due to the place
you grew up.

I assume that's the result of fears rather than objectivity based on facts
regarding their nuclear goals.

Of course, Israel is a "one bomb state". That surely is a reason to
be concerned about Iran wanting a nuclear bomb.

My point, however, is: Once Israel does attack Iran's nuclear facilities,
the Iranians may reactivate their nuke-program, pull out of the IAEA and
most probably will elect an even more radical leadership.

That's not in Israel's interest. Therefore it's a lose-lose situation in
which the choice to accept that Iran is a sovereign State, solving
the Palestinian Problem and starting a friendly diplomacy, is the wiser
choice for Israel's survival. Because I have no doubt's about Iran's
retaliations - the question is, what would they be.

Is this a radical, irrational view I hold? I don't think so - unless you're
able to point out the flaws in my POV.

Pardalis

27th September 2008, 03:03 PM

Your english has improved in one post Oliver.

Oliver

27th September 2008, 03:14 PM

Your english has improved in one post Oliver.

I don't know why you think it did improve - but thank you very much, Goury. :)

Pardalis

27th September 2008, 03:17 PM

I don't know why you think it did improve - but thank you very much, Goury. :)

Sometimes you can articulate your thoughts, like the above post, an other times you can barely express yourself, and only rely on strawmen and smilies.

Split personality maybe...

Oliver

27th September 2008, 03:31 PM

Sometimes you can articulate your thoughts, like the above post, an other times you can barely express yourself, and only rely on strawmen and smilies.

Well, it depends on the issue if I make a rather short comment thinking
that it will be understood the way I intended - or I explain my position a
little bit more detailed if I think someone doesn't include some important
details to a topic. In the post in question, I'm just explaining what I didn't
want to put into the OP in the first place. First I wanted to point out what
exactly we are talking about when people cheer for attacking Iran (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123989), namely:

Retaliation

Pardalis

27th September 2008, 03:35 PM

Well, it depends on the issue if I make a rather short comment thinking that it will be understood the way I intended - or I explain my position a little bit more detailed if I think someone doesn't include some important details to a topic.

I think you do have two distinct posting styles. Stick to the latter. The former only ends up offending people and make you look stupid.

when people cheer for attacking Iran (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123989)You mistook sarcasm with cheering.

RetaliationYes, every time you feel Iran is being attacked, you retaliate. Why is that?

RandFan

27th September 2008, 04:13 PM

So were the bombing of china and Iraq. You see that Iran's History till the revolution is virtually innocent concerning crimes against humanity. And I'm not talking about their law system here, which you might define as crime against humanity as well. Yet you are for actions without any evidence against Iran, virtually opposing your own sense of justice due to the place you grew up. I assume that's the result of fears rather than objectivity based on facts regarding their nuclear goals.You are rambling. What are you talking about? China? Iraq? What is my "sense of justice"?

Of course, Israel is a "one bomb state". That surely is a reason to be concerned about Iran wanting a nuclear bomb. I don't know what "one bomb state" means. What does this have to do with the discussion?

My point, however, is: Once Israel does attack Iran's nuclear facilities, the Iranians may reactivate their nuke-program, pull out of the IAEA and most probably will elect an even more radical leadership. I seriously doubt they could elect a more radical leadership. Ahmadinejad already wants to see the end of Israel.

That's not in Israel's interest. Therefore it's a lose-lose situation in which the choice to accept that Iran is a sovereign State, solving the Palestinian Problem and starting a friendly diplomacy, is the wiser choice for Israel's survival. Because I have no doubt's about Iran's retaliations - the question is, what would they be. You mean the Neville Chamberlain route?

Is this a radical, irrational view I hold? I don't think so - unless you're able to point out the flaws in my POV.5,000 years of military history and Neville Chamberlain are reason enough to be concerned with yout POV.

FTR: I'm not against diplomacy but anyone that thinks that the choice of options is a no brainer is ignorant of history. Pure and simple.

RandFan

27th September 2008, 04:14 PM

First I wanted to point out what
exactly we are talking about when people cheer for attacking Iran (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123989), namely:?

Who is doing this? Specifically? A quote would be nice.

Your not going to give it are you? I think we both know why.

Oliver

27th September 2008, 05:18 PM

You are rambling. What are you talking about? China? Iraq? What is my "sense of justice"?

I don't know what "one bomb state" means. What does this have to do with the discussion?

I seriously doubt they could elect a more radical leadership. Ahmadinejad already wants to see the end of Israel.

You mean the Neville Chamberlain route?

5,000 years of military history and Neville Chamberlain are reason enough to be concerned with yout POV.

FTR: I'm not against diplomacy but anyone that thinks that the choice of options is a no brainer is ignorant of history. Pure and simple.

Why do you bring up this lie over and over again???

Imam ([B]Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

See? :confused: [And tell me if you spot the words "Map", "Nuke", "Israel", "Genocide", "Wiping off" or something similar in between nevertheless. :boggled:]

Anyway: Explain to me what Tehran may be able to do after an attack on them. And why an attack is the wiser option for Israel in the first place - despite the "Game Changer" aspect for the US.

Pardalis

27th September 2008, 05:24 PM

I don't know what "one bomb state" means. What does this have to do with the discussion?

I think Oliver, or his better half, is talking about the fact that it only would take one bomb to destroy Israel.

http://main.pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronrosenbaum/2006/12/21/israel_alas_is_not_going_to_wi.php

Oliver

27th September 2008, 05:31 PM

?

Who is doing this? Specifically? A quote would be nice.

Your not going to give it are you? I think we both know why.

I'm talking about the agenda-driven mindset that this is a normal
thing to do without thinking about the consequences. And by cheering
I'm also talking about the "Iran is Evil" chorus which is dominant in here
and in the US Media.

Oliver

27th September 2008, 05:34 PM

I think Oliver, or his better half, is talking about the fact that it only would take one bomb to destroy Israel.

http://main.pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronrosenbaum/2006/12/21/israel_alas_is_not_going_to_wi.php

Yes.

RandFan

27th September 2008, 05:36 PM

Why do you bring up this lie over and over again??? What lie?

Imam ([B]Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from). What?

See? :confused: [And tell me if you spot the words "Map", "Nuke", "Israel",

"Genocide", "Wiping off" or something similar in between nevertheless. :boggled:]I've not a clue Oliver. What?

Anyway: Explain to me what Tehran may be able to do after an attack on them.What?

And why an attack is the wiser option for Israel in the first place -despite the "Game Changer" aspect for the US. Unlike you I don't claim to be an expert while at the same time talking out my ass. I'm not so presumptious or arrogant as to say that I know what is the wiser move.

RandFan

27th September 2008, 05:40 PM

I'm talking about the agenda-driven mindset that this is a normal thing to do without thinking about the consequences. And by cheering I'm also talking about the "Iran is Evil" chorus which is dominant in here and in the US Media.

So, no quotes? No proof? You just assert that it is true and it is true?

RandFan

27th September 2008, 05:43 PM

Yes.It would seem that Iran is determined to do so. Of course they would kill many Muslims but retaliation doesn't take that into account does it.

Oliver

27th September 2008, 05:46 PM

So, no quotes? No proof? You just assert that it is true and it is true?

No, I chose the wrong word using "cheering". My apologies. But you
surely know what I meant nevertheless, don't you?

RandFan

27th September 2008, 05:52 PM

But you surely know what I meant nevertheless, don't you? There are people on this forum who are critical of the policies of many Islamic nations and the religion of Islam in general. Those people are far more objective in their criticism of Islam and Islamic nations than you are of America, IMO.

Oliver

27th September 2008, 06:01 PM

It would seem that Iran is determined to do so. Of course they would kill many Muslims but retaliation doesn't take that into account does it.

"Seem" is a pretty vague interpretation, isn't it?

You completely ignore that throwing a nuke on Israel is self destruction
for Iran - or at least the Iranian Regime. You understand that, don't you?

So if you understand that, why do you think the Iranians DON'T understand
this simple equation? [And try to make a factual point other than "We're
rational, Iranians are not"]

And you might miss the broader Picture. It is NOT solely about Israel's
national Security, it's also about Iran's influence in the Middle East once
they WOULD! have Nukes. Something the US does not want since they
love the way they and Israel have things in control down there. [Added:
Obama calls it a "Game changer".]

And in contrast to Iran's self-destruction by using a Nuke against Israel,
retaliation is being tolerated for any country being attacked, depending
on the target.

Oliver

27th September 2008, 07:13 PM

What lie?

What?

I've not a clue Oliver. What?

What?

Ahmadinejad said [in his controversial sentence about "wiping Israel off the map"] :

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Or to make you understand:

Ahmadinejad's own words: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

Literal Translation:

"Khomeini said this regime occupying Jerusalem must from page of time vanish from."

See? No "wiping off the map Genocide" BS in there.

RandFan

27th September 2008, 07:46 PM

See? No "wiping off the map Genocide" BS in there. And if George Bush said that he regime of Iran would be wiped off the map? You would laugh and have a beer? BS and you know it.

If George Bush said that you KNOW that there would be outrage and that outrage would be quite appropriate. Ahmadinejad words are provocative and dangerous considering the stakes.

Don't be so gullible Oliver. Don't be so sycophantic to rush to this guys defense to parse his rhetoric.

Ahmadinejad says Israel will soon disappear (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080602124328.f6eyi8y1&show_article=1)

"I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed," he said to a group of foreign visitors ahead of the 19th anniversary of the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Oliver, honestly, how the hell is the "regime" of Israel supposed to disappear? Be honest here. Israel is a democracy with strong support of its citizens. How does Ahmadinejad propose to get rid of the regime without getting rid of the people? And why the rhetoric of "wiping off the map" or "destroying Israel".

You are dishonest to defend this.

WildCat

27th September 2008, 08:13 PM

See? No "wiping off the map Genocide" BS in there.
The Iranians disagree with you, as I've pointed out to you numerous times.

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped01.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped02.jpg
Both the above are from an anti-Israel/pro=Palestinian rally in Tehran last March 9.

Below is a billboard in Tehran, from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin):
http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/zluhig.jpg

Note Ahmedinejad never claims he's been mistranslated: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm#

So take your translation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine Oliver. :rolleyes:

Oliver

27th September 2008, 08:20 PM

And if George Bush said that he regime of Iran would be wiped off the map? You would laugh and have a beer? BS and you know it.

If George Bush said that you KNOW that there would be outrage and that outrage would be quite appropriate. Ahmadinejad words are provocative and dangerous considering the stakes.

Don't be so gullible Oliver. Don't be so sycophantic to rush to this guys defense to parse his rhetoric.

Oliver, honestly, how the hell is the "regime" of Israel supposed to disappear? Be honest here. Israel is a democracy with strong support of its citizens. How does Ahmadinejad propose to get rid of the regime without getting rid of the people? And why the rhetoric of "wiping off the map" or "destroying Israel".

You are dishonest to defend this.

Nobody said "wiped off the map". So how is it relevant to the discussion?
And if Bush would use the term "wiped off the map", I actually would take
him serious given his history.

Again, he [Ahmadinejad] never said "wiping off the map". I just posted
the actual sentence in my last post. :boggled:

And Ahmadinejad is talking about the Regime in it's current form, not
"Teh evil Joos":

"As soon as anyone objects to the behaviour of the Zionist regime, they're accused of being anti-Semitic, whereas the Jewish people are not Zionists," Ahmadinejad said. "Zionism is a political party that has nothing to do with Jewish people."

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE48P1JS20080926

Plus he seems to believe that the Regime will collapse, not being
nuked off the map, something you seem to be dreaming about:

"Today, the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse, and there is no way for it to get out of the cesspool created by itself and its supporters. The Islamic Republic of Iran, while fully respecting the resistance of the oppressed people of Palestine and expressing its all-out support for it, submits its humane solution based on a free referendum in Palestine for determining and establishing the type of state in the entire Palestinian lands to the distinguished Secretary General of the UN."

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1024097.html

RandFan

27th September 2008, 08:23 PM

Nobody said "wiped off the map". So how is it relevant to the discussion?He said it would be destroyed.

Plus he seems to believe that the Regime will collapse, not being nuked off the map, something you seem to be dreaming about:See above.

RandFan

27th September 2008, 08:24 PM

The Iranians disagree with you, as I've pointed out to you numerous times.

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped01.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/20080310IranIsraelWiped02.jpg
Both the above are from an anti-Israel/pro=Palestinian rally in Tehran last March 9.

Below is a billboard in Tehran, from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin):
http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/zluhig.jpg

Note Ahmedinejad never claims he's been mistranslated: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4384264.stm#

So take your translation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine Oliver. :rolleyes:Oliver?

Oliver

27th September 2008, 08:48 PM

The Iranians disagree with you, as I've pointed out to you numerous times.

So take your translation and stick it where the sun doesn't shine Oliver. :rolleyes:

So your evidence for a threat for Israel are photos? Aren't truthers supposed to do that? :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110748deefa7eb37a.jpg

RandFan

27th September 2008, 08:56 PM

So your evidence for a threat for Israel are photos? Aren't truthers supposed to do that? I don't think so. When did they do that? Evidence?

Oliver

27th September 2008, 08:56 PM

He said it would be destroyed.

Linky?

RandFan

27th September 2008, 08:59 PM

Linky? Post #165. Do you even bother to read the posts? Are you so certain that you are right that you don't care what others say?

Ahmadinejad says Israel will soon disappear (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080602124328.f6eyi8y1&show_article=1)

"I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed," he said to a group of foreign visitors ahead of the 19th anniversary of the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Oliver

27th September 2008, 09:05 PM

Post #165. Do you even bother to read the posts? Are you so certain that you are right that you don't care what others say?

Well, so where did he say HE or IRAN will destroy it? Given his speech to the
UN, where he states that the Israeli Zionist Regime will collapse, wouldn't
it be destroyed if a collapse would happen?

Your link says nothing about a threat coming from Iran. Don't you see?

RandFan

27th September 2008, 09:07 PM

Your link says nothing about a threat coming from Iran. Don't you see? And if the US engaged in rhetoric that said that Iran would soon be destroyed. Are you honestly saying that wouldn't be provacative?

Oliver

27th September 2008, 09:29 PM

And if the US engaged in rhetoric that said that Iran would soon be destroyed. Are you honestly saying that wouldn't be provacative?

Yes, provocative indeed given the fact that Iran did NOTHING to the US
PLUS the US does have a pretty ugly history of converting Rhetoric into
Policy.

Would I support any aggressive intervening policies based on provocative rhetoric?

No.

[You may keep in mind that it is Israel and the US provoking Iran for
decades now being evildoers, terrorstates etc. So I'm actually surprised
that Ahmadinejad is pretty calm, visits the US and talks to Jews and
Media within the US.]

The US not even attending his speech at the UN, I mean IN THEIR OWN
COUNTRY! on the other hand... :rolleyes:

WildCat

27th September 2008, 10:27 PM

So your evidence for a threat for Israel are photos?
The photos show how the Iranian's themselves translated Khomeini's remarks (which Ahmedinejad quoted) into English, and the BBC link shows Ahmedinejad defending those remarks without once claiming he'd been misquoted due to translation error.

I'm pretty sure the Iranians can do a Farsi-English translation better than you can Oliver.

RandFan

28th September 2008, 12:25 AM

Yes, provocative indeed given the fact that Iran did NOTHING to the US PLUS the US does have a pretty ugly history of converting Rhetoric into Policy.How is that an answer. You are now moving the goal posts.

FireGarden

28th September 2008, 04:17 AM

Oliver, honestly, how the hell is the "regime" of Israel supposed to disappear?

Why did you quote an article which again makes clear that Ahmadinejad is talking about the regime?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080602124328.f6eyi8y1&show_article=1

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," he said.

As to how... It is precisely because Israel claims to be a democracy.

Olmert has gone on record as saying that "Israel is done for" if there is no two state solution. You cannot have apartheid and call yourself a democracy. Israel's control of the West Bank and Gaza -- the seperation (apartheid) fence -- is an injustice that more and more people are taking issue with.

Carter's book "Peace not apartheid" brought the wider issue to the attention of many. The lives of Palestinians are being controlled by a government they cannot vote for.

Olmert's words:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html

"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz Wednesday, the day the Annapolis conference ended in an agreement to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement by the end of 2008.

"The Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us," Olmert said, "because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."

So even Olmert says that Israel is at risk.
Do you think the two-state solution will ever come to pass? I don't. So I see Olmert's warning as a weaker version of Ahmadinejad's: the state of Israel will disappear.

And why the rhetoric of "wiping off the map" or "destroying Israel".

The "wipe of the map" line is from a translation by an Iranian agency. The phrase translated does not have the same warlike meaning as the English phrase.

The USSR was wiped out: "Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out." (See later link)

So the USSR has been wiped out, has disappeared, vanished from the page of time. It is no more. Thanks to Gorbachev for pulling the trigger, dropping the hammer or otherwise beginning the destruction and annihilation of the political entity once (but no more) known as the USSR.

No genocide.
No war.
No military attack.

That is the language used by Ahmadinejad. Read the experts. Look at the context which is even given by sites like Jihadwatch -- they know that mentioning "regime" and comparisons to the USSR makes no difference to the people who are determined to believe that Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler.

http://jihadwatch.org/archives/014390.php
"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out"

ETA: there is quite a bit of analysis here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

28th September 2008, 04:50 AM

So your evidence for a threat for Israel are photos? Aren't truthers supposed to do that? :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110748deefa7eb37a.jpg

lol :)

but i did not dear to say anything about photoshop.

RandFan

28th September 2008, 09:47 AM

...makes no difference to the people who are determined to believe that Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler.You mean the guy that claims that there are no homosexuals in his country? A country that kills homosexuals. Do you mean the guy that believes in the Apocalypse and hopes for the return of the Mahdi? Do you mean the guy that says he needs nuclear energy because his nation is sitting on one of the largest energy reserves in the world? The man who has turned down offers of nuclear energy from other nations?

Hmmm....

Oliver

28th September 2008, 10:03 AM

The photos show how the Iranian's themselves translated Khomeini's remarks (which Ahmedinejad quoted) into English, and the BBC link shows Ahmedinejad defending those remarks without once claiming he'd been misquoted due to translation error.

I'm pretty sure the Iranians can do a Farsi-English translation better than you can Oliver.

Wildcat, I have to work using Photoshop on a daily basis. So while
I don't believe that Iranians would put English slogans about the
destruction of Israel onto anything within their country - just like
Americans don't publish slogans in Farsi, I don't believe in Photos.

Provide factual evidence - or at least a Footage of the placards that
you believe to be real. Preferably about slogans like: "We will nuke Iran".

FireGarden

28th September 2008, 01:22 PM

You mean the guy that claims that there are no homosexuals in his country? A country that kills homosexuals.

That means he's going to nuke Israel?

Do you mean the guy that believes in the Apocalypse and hopes for the return of the Mahdi?

That means he's going to nuke Israel?
He uses the story of the Mahdi for political gain, even saying that the Mahdi is guiding government, and gets criticised for doing so:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703587.html

"If, God forbid, Ahmadinejad means that Imam Zaman [Mahdi] supports the government's actions, this is wrong. Certainly Imam Zaman would not accept 20 percent inflation rates, nor would he support it or many other mistakes that exist in the country today," wrote Gholam-reza Mesbahi Moghadam, a cleric belonging to a powerful faction close to Iranian businessmen and established religious figures.

[...] Imam Mohammad al-Mahdi, the last of 12 Shiite holy figures or imams, is believed to have gone into occultation near what is now the Iraqi city of Samarra. Shiites say he will return when mankind reaches a state of spiritual perfection, rationality and morality.

Since Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005, he has made the "hastening of the coming of Imam Mahdi" an important political theme and used it, for example, to justify slashing interest rates in an effort to help poor Iranians.

Frightening stuff!

Do you mean the guy that says he needs nuclear energy because his nation is sitting on one of the largest energy reserves in the world? The man who has turned down offers of nuclear energy from other nations?

Hmmm....

So old.
The Shah pursued nuclear power, with the support of the USA. Here's the ad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shah-nukeIran.jpg

Even if the oil was going to last for a 1000 years, it makes sense to sell it rather than burn it. And that's ignoring the profit that can be made from the nuclear industry itself. Who will patent the power stations that will be built in 50 years time? Must it be America? Why not Iran? In the next 100 years, the nuclear industry will be big money.

And, finally, would you trust Russia to supply your power stations?

RandFan

28th September 2008, 01:41 PM

That means he's going to nuke Israel? You godwined the thread with a reference to hitler. I don't think Hitler nuked anyone. If Hitler is the emodiement of evil then I think murdering people because of their sexual orientation is a fair comparison.

That means he's going to nuke Israel? That would be a strawman. I never said that Ahmidinejad was going to nuke Israel. It's my assertion that this guy is a religious nutcase who wants weapons grade nuclear fuel and has a stiffie for the elimination of Israel in a political powder keg that is Israel v Palestine.

Since Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005, he has made the "hastening of the coming of Imam Mahdi" an important political theme and used it, for example, to justify slashing interest rates in an effort to help poor Iranians. And has rachted up his rhetoric against Israel and saught weapons grade nuclear fuel.

And, finally, would you trust Russia to supply your power stations?If I were Iran? Damn straight. There is nothing that would prevent them from staring the program again.

FG: This isn't only a concern for GWB. The Russians are concerned. The UN is concerned. Washington Post. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601136.html)

Perhaps "it's no big deal" is a convenient rhetorical device but it's not based on an honest assesment of the situation.

FireGarden

28th September 2008, 02:05 PM

You godwined the thread with a reference to hitler.

I don't think that's fair.
Ahmadinejad is compared to Hitler.
Via Google:
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3427247,00.html

Next time someone mentions Ahmadinejad, I might say they Godwined the thread.

If I were Iran? Damn straight. There is nothing that would prevent them from staring the program again.

If you were Iran?
What if you were America? Would you trust the Russians to supply American power stations?

Perhaps "it's no big deal" is a convenient rhetorical device but it's not based on an honest assesment of the situation.

Who said no big deal? Of course it's a big deal. Iran already has the technology to build a nuclear bomb. It would take them time and resources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Estimate#2007_NIE_on_Iranian _nuclear_program

I'm sure if they are attacked they will build a nuke. How would America stop it? Reduce Iran to the level of North Korea and then below? And expect China to watch as its investments and oil supply gets hit?

RandFan

28th September 2008, 02:55 PM

I don't think that's fair. In this instance it is.

If you were Iran?Yes.

What if you were America? Would you trust the Russians to supply American power stations? The dynamics aren't the same. If America had a relationship with Russia like Iran, didn't have nuclear weapons, wasn't a super power, was a theocratic dictatorship then yeah. Sure.

Of course it's a big deal. Iran already has the technology to build a nuclear bomb. It would take them time and resources. And fuel. Don't forget they need to stock pile the fuel.

I'm sure if they are attacked they will build a nuke. How would America stop it? Reduce Iran to the level of North Korea and then below? And expect China to watch as its investments and oil supply gets hit?Seems like a good reason to use every effort to keep it from happening.

Oliver

28th September 2008, 04:12 PM

Seems like a good reason to use every effort to keep it from happening.

"Every effort" like what?

The point is that an attack on Iran will give them the ULTIMATE reason/
excuse to finally go and build that damn thing so all the fanatics on the
other side of the isle [US and Iran] are finally going to shut the hell up,
leaving Iran alone.

And then? ... Popcorn (http://vodpod.com/watch/280320-america-to-the-rescue)? :popcorn1

Ziggurat

28th September 2008, 04:25 PM

The point is that an attack on Iran will give them the ULTIMATE reason/
excuse to finally go and build that damn thing

What on earth makes you think that the lack of an excuse would ever keep the Iranians from building nuclear weapons?

RandFan

28th September 2008, 04:28 PM

The point is that an attack on Iran will give them the ULTIMATE reason... I don't claim to know what the solution is. To think that doing nothing will avert a crisis or that doing something like a pre-emptive strike will start the crisis is just a bunch of speculation. I'm not so presumptious.

I do know that the dumbest thing Iran can do is build a bomb. It will get orders of magnitude numbers of bombs pointed at them for every one they deploy.

Given Ahmadinejad I doubt he cares.

It's really unfortunate becuase Iran could dial down the rhetoric and work with the international community and resolve this issue. When America acts the way Iran is now they are rightly critisized. When Iran does it it's applauded.

Ziggurat

28th September 2008, 04:38 PM

Please do, since any nation can withdraw from any treaty any time

Actually, they cannot. They must give notice before leaving the treaty. Doing so indicates to the world that they intend to become a nuclear power, and the world will likely respond (as they have with North Korea) unfavorably. But for a signatory to simply violate the treaty would mean that the world wouldn't know who was and wasn't a nuclear power. It undermines the entire basis of the NPT, and could lead to rapid proliferation as countries would have little incentive to abide by the treaty and lots of incentive not to.

What is wrong with Iran, having a deterrent weapons against a US attack?

Rather a nonsequitor from the point under debate (whether or not Iran would stop at one or two nukes).

Pakistan?

Pakistan (and India) was never an NPT signatory. How is it that you don't know this?

If an eight-fold increase in two years is not a rapid growth, God knows what a rapid growth is..

I didn't say it wasn't rapid growth. But you claimed more than that. You claimed that "World is quickly moving to thin-film solar panels energy". Well, it isn't. Even with this increase, solar power makes up a pittance of the world's energy supply. And it will continue to make up a pittance for a long time to come.

Safety against who? Those countries themselves?

Among others. Aren't you familiar with the tanker wars of the 1980's? But also against terrorists, who have struck against shipping before (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/17/yemen.france), and will likely try to do so again.

Dragoonster

29th September 2008, 09:22 AM

I don't claim to know what the solution is. To think that doing nothing will avert a crisis or that doing something like a pre-emptive strike will start the crisis is just a bunch of speculation. I'm not so presumptious.

I do know that the dumbest thing Iran can do is build a bomb. It will get orders of magnitude numbers of bombs pointed at them for every one they deploy.

If I were Iran I'd much rather have things pointed at me than be invaded.

Was getting nukes the dumbest thing Pakistan ever did?

Given Ahmadinejad I doubt he cares.

It's really unfortunate becuase Iran could dial down the rhetoric and work with the international community and resolve this issue. When America acts the way Iran is now they are rightly critisized. When Iran does it it's applauded.

If by "resolve this issue" you mean Iran loses the capacity to build nukes, then you're ignoring their simple concerns beyond the saber-rattling. Iran spews rhetoric yeah, but America spews rhetoric and acts on it. America isn't criticized so much for its rhetoric about Saddam being a madman, terrorist, false claims, etc., we're criticized because we invaded the country.

Can you guarantee that if Iran ceases working for nukes the US will neither invade, nor foment internal strife for say, the next 20 years?

Take away all the rhetoric and all the ideology. A country already allied with one of two nuclear powers in your area quickly allies with the other one (which is a dictatorship at the time), and invades a non-nuclear country on your border as a result of an attack on them. During the following year it calls you one of an "Axis of Evil", another member of which, also on your border, it invades using dubious justification, against most international wisdom. It begins testing the waters for similar justifications it just used to invade your neighbor. It puts part of your armed forces on its FTO, which move could be argued to give justification for an invasion. Surely there's a rather simple national security equation to make here. Get nukes.

Oliver

29th September 2008, 10:19 AM

What on earth makes you think that the lack of an excuse would ever keep the Iranians from building nuclear weapons?

Because they have a real energy crisis. You would know that
reading international news. They actually have to shut down
major cities due to not being able to supply enough energy.
And "oh boy", the Iranian Citizens aren't happy about that. [Pointing
to next years elections here]

So why do you think they would attack Israel with nukes
given the fact that this is self-destruction. It's stupid to
assume, Iran is going to destroy themselves. There is no
reason whatsoever to think that Iranians are that dumb.

Is there?

Oliver

29th September 2008, 10:26 AM

WildCat

29th September 2008, 10:55 AM

Wildcat, I have to work using Photoshop on a daily basis. So while
I don't believe that Iranians would put English slogans about the
destruction of Israel onto anything within their country - just like
Americans don't publish slogans in Farsi, I don't believe in Photos.

Provide factual evidence - or at least a Footage of the placards that
you believe to be real. Preferably about slogans like: "We will nuke Iran".
Maybe you should start a thread in Conspiracy Theories about how the New York Times is photoshopping pics of billboards in Tehran. :rolleyes: And also, how the BBC mistranslated Ahmedinejad who didn't bother to correct the translation and instead actually defended it!

The sources are reliable, your denial of reality in desperate defense of the Iranian Mullahs is noted.

Ziggurat

29th September 2008, 11:06 AM

Because they have a real energy crisis.

That's not an answer. That suggests a reason for pursuing nuclear power generation regardless of what they decide to do with weapons. But nothing about your response indicates that they would stop their pursuit of weapons if only they lacked an excuse.

So why do you think they would attack Israel with nukes
given the fact that this is self-destruction.

Did I ever say they would? No, I did not. I've said before, and I'll say again, the threat from a nuclear-armed Iran extends FAR beyond the threat of them using nuclear weapons directly. Suppose, for example, Iran sponsored a 9/11 scale terrorist attack. What would be the response? As it stands now, we would probably attack them and topple their government. But if they had nuclear weapons, would we risk it? Likely not. Nuclear weapons would allow Iran to VASTLY increase their sponsorship of terrorism without fear of their regime being toppled in response. They could also reprise the tanker wars to prop up oil prices, which would be VERY bad for the global economy but great for them. Do you honestly not understand why a nuclear-armed Iran is a serious risk? Are you really so blinded by your reflexive anti-Americanism that you refuse to recognize the danger?

Oliver

29th September 2008, 11:16 AM

Maybe you should start a thread in Conspiracy Theories about how the New York Times is photoshopping pics of billboards in Tehran. :rolleyes: And also, how the BBC mistranslated Ahmedinejad who didn't bother to correct the translation and instead actually defended it!

The sources are reliable, your denial of reality in desperate defense of the Iranian Mullahs is noted.

No, a photo means nothing in todays photoshopped world. As a Skeptic,
you shouldn't buy that at all. You remember that this is what skepticism
is all about, don't you?

Footage would be much harder to fake.

And despite of all of that. A placate in Iran says nothing about the
Iranians Regime. Just like a "Kill Jews" placate in the US says nothing
about the regime.

But I'm sure, being a skeptic yourself, you know that ... Don't you? :rolleyes:

So what about the point I made: Nuking Israel is self-destruction to
Iran. You agree?

Oliver

29th September 2008, 11:22 AM

That's not an answer. That suggests a reason for pursuing nuclear power generation regardless of what they decide to do with weapons. But nothing about your response indicates that they would stop their pursuit of weapons if only they lacked an excuse.

Did I ever say they would? No, I did not. I've said before, and I'll say again, the threat from a nuclear-armed Iran extends FAR beyond the threat of them using nuclear weapons directly. Suppose, for example, Iran sponsored a 9/11 scale terrorist attack. What would be the response? As it stands now, we would probably attack them and topple their government. But if they had nuclear weapons, would we risk it? Likely not. Nuclear weapons would allow Iran to VASTLY increase their sponsorship of terrorism without fear of their regime being toppled in response. They could also reprise the tanker wars to prop up oil prices, which would be VERY bad for the global economy but great for them. Do you honestly not understand why a nuclear-armed Iran is a serious risk? Are you really so blinded by your reflexive anti-Americanism that you refuse to recognize the danger?

No, "What if Doomsday scenarios?" isn't any factual point to act on
suspicions. Iran does have every right to have nuclear Powerplants
and enrich their own nuclear fuel. That's their IAEA-given right, period.

Also, given the fact that they have the right to get Nukes like everyone
else, being a sovereign state, what is your problem with that other than
having no evidence whatsoever for them trying to get their hands on a
nuke?

Even if: It's not your god-damn business. Especially when your country
owns nukes as well. It's no basis for any valid argument - well, besides
racist arguments, of course.

WildCat

29th September 2008, 12:05 PM

No, a photo means nothing in todays photoshopped world. As a Skeptic,
you shouldn't buy that at all. You remember that this is what skepticism
is all about, don't you?

Footage would be much harder to fake.
Oliver, the Khomeini remarks Ahmedinejad quoted were translated as "wiped off the map" for nearly 3 years without anyone, much less Ahmedinejad, claiming it was mistranslated. All of a sudden an Iranian apologist claims it was a mistranslation, and you automatically decide that is what it really is, solely because it fits your agenda. That's not very skeptical, is it?

Now you're claiming that the pics from the Tehran conference last March were photoshopped! Of course, you provide no evidence at all for this claim... :rolleyes:

Why don't you start by showing us the original pics you claim were photoshopped? Be sure to provide the source...

eta: BTW Oliver, the pics from the March 9 conferernce in Tehran were taken by Reuters photographer Morteza Nikoubazl. I eagerly await your expose on how he faked the pics...

Sword_Of_Truth

29th September 2008, 12:40 PM

So your evidence for a threat for Israel are photos? Aren't truthers supposed to do that? :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110748deefa7eb37a.jpg

Why does anyone take Oliver seriously?

WildCat

29th September 2008, 01:28 PM

Why does anyone take Oliver seriously?
No, I just want to see how far he'll go defending his translation fantasy. As it stands, the New York Times and Reuters are faking photographs according to Oliver... :boggled:

Oliver

29th September 2008, 01:41 PM

No, I just want to see how far he'll go defending his translation fantasy. As it stands, the New York Times and Reuters are faking photographs according to Oliver... :boggled:

Yes, they are. Provide evidence to the contrary. I'm sure there were
a lot of other Photographs at this historic "Israel-wiping" event that
took photos from different perspectives. And yes, I know that Photos
from the Pentagon can fool Americans into believing to go to war. So
I'm not impressed at all. Your point -however- is... ?

And you seem to agree. Ahmadinejad never said "I will wipe Israel off the map".
See, one step closer to the truth. :)

WildCat

29th September 2008, 02:43 PM

Yes, they are. Provide evidence to the contrary.
That's not how it works Oliver. You're the one making the claim the photographs by the New York Times and Reuters phoitographer Morteza Nikoubazl were faked, you prove it.

Sword_Of_Truth

29th September 2008, 02:45 PM

Yes, they are. Provide evidence to the contrary.

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii57/vulken/Los%20Angeles/head-up-ass.jpg

Ziggurat

29th September 2008, 03:39 PM

No, "What if Doomsday scenarios?" isn't any factual point to act on suspicions.

Your thought process is as mangled as your English.

Also, given the fact that they have the right to get Nukes like everyone
else, being a sovereign state,

Uh, no. Clue for the clueless: sovereignty doesn't allow a state to violate its treaty obligations.

what is your problem with that other than
having no evidence whatsoever for them trying to get their hands on a
nuke?

What exquisite incoherence. On the one hand, you say they've got a right to nukes, and on the other, you say that we shouldn't do anything because we can't prove that they're getting nukes. These arguments are not compatible. That you would use mutually contradictory arguments betrays your true objective: all you care about is opposing the US.

Even if: It's not your god-damn business. Especially when your country
owns nukes as well.

Well, no. It very much is our business. It is the business of every signatory of the NPT whether or not another signatory violates that treaty.

It's no basis for any valid argument - well, besides
racist arguments, of course.

Bwahahahahaha! I must confess, I didn't see that one coming. But really, how pathetic can you get? You've devolved into a charicature.

Pardalis

29th September 2008, 04:00 PM

Why did you quote an article which again makes clear that Ahmadinejad is talking about the regime?

I understand your point, about the distinction between the "regime" and the "country", but is it any way for a head of state to be talking? Are these words the words a head of state should be using at all?

Didn't Bush get reproached about calling Iran, Irak and NK "the Axis of Evil". I'm not sure about you, but Ahmadinejad's quotes about "death to Israel", "Israel is a stinking corpse" (and so on) seem far worst than the "Axis of Evil" quote.

I asked you once in another thread, and you didn't answer: Why the violent rhetoric if Ahmadinejad allegedly wants peace in the region?

RandFan

30th September 2008, 12:31 AM

If I were Iran I'd much rather have things pointed at me than be invaded. Nuclear weapons have never stopped conventional war. America has been in war with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and other skirmishes. Our nuclear weapons won't prevent us from being atacked.

Was getting nukes the dumbest thing Pakistan ever did? Yeah. It was. I think every nation that has acquired them has a noose around its neck. (see links below)

America isn't criticized so much for its rhetoric about Saddam being a madman, terrorist, false claims, etc., we're criticized because we invaded the country. The rhetoric scared and pissed people off. People were marching in the streets BEFORE the invasion.

Can you guarantee that if Iran ceases working for nukes the US will neither invade, nor foment internal strife for say, the next 20 years? There are no guarantees but what pretext will the US use for invasion? What good would it do America?

Take away all the rhetoric and all the ideology. A country already allied with one of two nuclear powers in your area quickly allies with the other one (which is a dictatorship at the time), and invades a non-nuclear country on your border as a result of an attack on them. During the following year it calls you one of an "Axis of Evil", another member of which, also on your border, it invades using dubious justification, against most international wisdom. It begins testing the waters for similar justifications it just used to invade your neighbor. It puts part of your armed forces on its FTO, which move could be argued to give justification for an invasion. Surely there's a rather simple national security equation to make here. Get nukes.

I think there is a much safer equation. Focus on governing your country and stop giving the people with nukes and large armies a reason to ramp up an arsenal against you. Nuclear weapons aren't going to save Iran and they are idiots if they honestly think they will.

It rather sucks knowing someone has thermo nuclear devices pointed at you.

I wish like hell America never got them. I wish we could figure out away not be a nuclear power and stop playing world police. I'm not an isolationist but playing last emperor hasn't done us much good.

Fail-Safe (1964) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058083/)

Fail-Safe (2000) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0235376/)

Dr. Strangelove (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/)

Be careful what you wish for.

FireGarden

30th September 2008, 02:23 AM

I understand your point, about the distinction between the "regime" and the "country", but is it any way for a head of state to be talking? Are these words the words a head of state should be using at all?

Didn't Bush get reproached about calling Iran, Irak and NK "the Axis of Evil". I'm not sure about you, but Ahmadinejad's quotes about "death to Israel", "Israel is a stinking corpse" (and so on) seem far worst than the "Axis of Evil" quote.

So Bush talks softly but hits other nations on the head with a big stick. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric isn't helpful from the point of view of getting the problems to go away. You want to decide who is worse? Go ahead.

ETA:
I asked you once in another thread, and you didn't answer: Why the violent rhetoric if Ahmadinejad allegedly wants peace in the region?

Some of his comments are to make clear that attacking Iran will be expensive. Others simply crow about things going badly for America and Israel.

Why did Bush talk about WW3 if Iran even gains the knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071017.html

we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

Neither actually wants to start a war, because both know it will be expensive.

FireGarden

30th September 2008, 02:55 AM

Nuclear weapons have never stopped conventional war. America has been in war with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and other skirmishes. Our nuclear weapons won't prevent us from being atacked.

Yeah. It was. I think every nation that has acquired them has a noose around its neck. (see links below)

Having nuclear weapons brings problems. But it also solves others. Compare Iraq and N Korea.

And, regardless of what Bush said above, Iran simply having the technical ability to build nuclear weapons has made America think twice about attacking. At least by openly doing it themselves, or by openly letting Israel do it -- there are some reports of American support for terrorist groups which attack Iran, unproven so far.

The NIE has said that Iran has the ability to build a nuke, it would just take time and resources. It's a bit of a deterrent. It means that an attack on Iran can't just be a one-off bombing campaign -- regardless of how Iran responds to the initial attack.

Dragoonster

30th September 2008, 03:12 AM

Nuclear weapons have never stopped conventional war.

I beg to differ. Most recent example may be Pakistan, whether vs. us or vs. India.

America has been in war with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and other skirmishes. Our nuclear weapons won't prevent us from being atacked.

No, our thousands-mile wide oceans to either side will. None of the countries you mentioned had nukes at the time either. We've never invaded a nation with nukes.

Yeah. It was. I think every nation that has acquired them has a noose around its neck. (see links below)

So we should let Iran have nukes?

The rhetoric scared and pissed people off. People were marching in the streets BEFORE the invasion.

Because they knew the US would make good on its rhetoric. Iran never sided with the other Arab countries during their wars with Israel. And it's never started a war.

There are no guarantees but what pretext will the US use for invasion? What good would it do America?

I wondered the same before Iraq, and it didn't matter.

I think there is a much safer equation. Focus on governing your country and stop giving the people with nukes and large armies a reason to ramp up an arsenal against you.

Which could apply as well or more to the United States.

Nuclear weapons aren't going to save Iran and they are idiots if they honestly think they will.

It rather sucks knowing someone has thermo nuclear devices pointed at you.

I wish like hell America never got them. I wish we could figure out away not be a nuclear power and stop playing world police. I'm not an isolationist but playing last emperor hasn't done us much good.

It's not hard to figure out how to stop playing world police. Hundreds of other countries have and are doing fine.

Be careful what you wish for.

I'm not sure what you think I am wishing for. As an American, I wish my country would end the rhetorical hypocrisy, propping up of dictators while espousing democracy, switching loyalties on a dime, invading and staging coups, and supporting Israel with $billions a year with no conditions. I wish we would stop screwing up the Middle East. Not try to fix it--we've proven we suck at that too. Just back off and view it as a trading area and not much more.

As for what I wish for Iran, I wish them health. Same as Israel and any other country.

30th September 2008, 05:04 AM

Yes, they are. Provide evidence to the contrary. I'm sure there were
a lot of other Photographs at this historic "Israel-wiping" event that
took photos from different perspectives. And yes, I know that Photos
from the Pentagon can fool Americans into believing to go to war. So
I'm not impressed at all. Your point -however- is... ?

And you seem to agree. Ahmadinejad never said "I will wipe Israel off the map".
See, one step closer to the truth. :)

http://www.shawnbaldwin.com

the guy that took the picture in question.
look at his other pictures, i dont have the ompression he faked it. Nor do i have the impression he had an agenda while taking pictures.

Pardalis

30th September 2008, 12:28 PM

So Bush talks softly but hits other nations on the head with a big stick. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric isn't helpful from the point of view of getting the problems to go away. You want to decide who is worse? Go ahead.

"Axis of Evil"

"Death to Israel"

Which is worse, from a diplomatic view? I think the answer is obvious, you obviously have a bias if you think the latter is inoffensive.

Some of his comments are to make clear that attacking Iran will be expensive. Others simply crow about things going badly for America and Israel.
This doesn't answer my question.

Why did Bush talk about WW3 if Iran even gains the knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon?This doesn't answer my question, again.

In the Bush quote you just posted, he speaks of Ahmadinejad's violent rhetoric. So it's Ahmadinejad rhetoric that starts all the trouble. If he wants peace, then why does he uses these words?

With that quote you've just shot your argument in the foot. Your quote proves Ahmadinejad is the agent provocateur in this conflict.

Oliver

30th September 2008, 12:59 PM

"Axis of Evil"

"Death to Israel"

Which is worse, from a diplomatic view? I think the answer is obvious, you obviously have a bias if you think the latter is inoffensive.

This doesn't answer my question.

This doesn't answer my question, again.

In the Bush quote you just posted, he speaks of Ahmadinejad's violent rhetoric. So it's Ahmadinejad rhetoric that starts all the trouble. If he wants peace, then why does he uses these words?

With that quote you've just shot your argument in the foot. Your quote proves Ahmadinejad is the agent provocateur in this conflict.

Oh, what Rhetoric did others use that made little Bush invade their countries? :rolleyes:

So it all comes down to "My free speech is good. Your free speech
is evil"? - despite history being in disagreement regarding the facts? :boggled:

And who the **** said "Death to Israel"??? I still didn't read anything
about the Iranian Regime saying that. And you thinking they "mean"
this or that is Trooferish, at best.

Pardalis

30th September 2008, 01:02 PM

So it all comes down to "My free speech is good. Your free speech
is evil"? - despite history being in disagreement regarding the facts?
It's not about free speech, it's about a certain decorum and protocol in world diplomacy. Heads of state can't just call for the death and destruction of another country without any consequences.

If Ahmadinejad's rhetoric wasn't this vile and aggressive the US might be less aggressive in return.

And who the **** said "Death to Israel"??? I still didn't read anything
about the Iranian Regime saying that. And you thinking they "mean"
this or that is Trooferish, at best.http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4046433&postcount=26

It doesn't really matter if he meant the "regime" or the "country", it's bad enough that he used that kind of language, and keeps using it given the present tensions.

Oliver

30th September 2008, 01:15 PM

It's not about free speech, it's about a certain decorum and protocol in world diplomacy. Heads of state can't just call for the death and destruction of another country without any consequences.

If Ahmadinejad's rhetoric wasn't this vile and aggressive the US might be less aggressive in return.

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4046433&postcount=26

It doesn't really matter if he meant the "regime" or the "country", it's bad enough that he used that kind of language, and keeps using it given the present tensions.

What death and destruction of what country? What are you dreaming
about here?

If I say that Israel will collapse due to taking a dead end road, are
you going to say that I want to destroy Israel?

Ahmadinejad said exactly that: The Zionist movement will vanish due
to a self-inflicted collapse.

Where the heck does that mean: "Die Jews, die! I nuke you. Genocide
much!!!111! I kill you - and you, too!".

But seriously: Ahmadinejad isn't a westerner like you. He does not
have to take a western point of view. He is not a member of the
western world. You understand such simple things, don't you?

I'm asking because you behave like if you assume that Middle-Eastern
people have to act in a western way. Which, of course, is idiotic - at best!

Pardalis

30th September 2008, 01:24 PM

What death and destruction of what country? What are you dreaming about here?

FckLO8HcNyo

But seriously: Ahmadinejad isn't a westerner like you. He does not
have to take a western point of view. He is not a member of the
western world. You understand such simple things, don't you?

Are you saying that since he's not a westerner, he's not bound by international treaties and regulations?

You really like to bend over backwards for this guy that much?

Oliver

30th September 2008, 01:52 PM

FckLO8HcNyo

Are you saying that since he's not a westerner, he's not bound by international treaties and regulations?

You really like to bend over backwards for this guy that much?

What the ...! Goury, are you telling me that because the Videos
subtitle says "Death to Israel", that's exactly what Ahmadinejad
said? ... You are a truther!

Funny that the Media around the world missed that Youtube video. :boggled:

And what do you mean by "international treaties and regulations"?
Iran is member of the international IAEA - they didn't have to join
them, but they did. And they are providing all information the IAEA
have a right to know. Therefore, they are allowed to have a reactor,
no matter what Isreal or America wants.

So who exactly seems to be unbound to "international treaties and
regulations" here?

Also, Iran is an independent, sovereign country. If they don't want
French-Canadian Germans in their country, so be it. That's what
sovereignty is all about - and no matter if both of us are complaining
about it or not.

FireGarden

30th September 2008, 04:05 PM

"Axis of Evil"

"Death to Israel"

Which is worse, from a diplomatic view? I think the answer is obvious, you obviously have a bias if you think the latter is inoffensive.

I really don't care which rhetoric is worse.
The actions of Bush are far worse than the actions of Iran. That matters much more.

Heads of state can't just call for the death and destruction of another country without any consequences.

But they can go around bombing other nations? Bush talks softly and very nicely. But he's a barstool. Out of Ahmadinejad and Bush, who is the closer to Hitler? Bush. By a few 100,000 deaths.

This doesn't answer my question.

This doesn't answer my question, again.

It does answer your question.
Iran doesn't want to be attacked. So they talk tough. Or, at least, they get some of their politicians to talk tough. If you can't see that as an answer, then you have a big problem.

In the Bush quote you just posted, he speaks of Ahmadinejad's violent rhetoric. So it's Ahmadinejad rhetoric that starts all the trouble. If he wants peace, then why does he uses these words?

With that quote you've just shot your argument in the foot. Your quote proves Ahmadinejad is the agent provocateur in this conflict.

America's rhetoric has always been sweetness and light but translates into "Our way or the highway". And it has always been backed up with war. Name the years in which America did not bomb a foreign country and stop judging things as a poetry contest.

I couldn't give a damn whose rhetoric is worse.

Pardalis

30th September 2008, 06:04 PM

I really don't care which rhetoric is worse.

But that's what my question was about. Thanks for not answering again.

But they can go around bombing other nations? Bush talks softly and very nicely. But he's a barstool. Out of Ahmadinejad and Bush, who is the closer to Hitler? Bush. By a few 100,000 deaths.Thanks for the Godwin point, and therefore making me win this argument. :)

It does answer your question.
Iran doesn't want to be attacked. So they talk tough. Or, at least, they get some of their politicians to talk tough. If you can't see that as an answer, then you have a big problem.

It's not an answer, it's a pathetic apologetic excuse.

You're trying to make it seem "normal" for a head of state to be using such words. The "He's just talking tough" BS doesn't work, he is accountable for the words he uses, especially in such a volatile region, especially in such tense times.

I couldn't give a damn whose rhetoric is worse.I couldn't give a damn about what you don't give a damn, it only is obvious you don't want to answer the question, and are making gymnastics to excuse Ahmadinejad and bring this always back to the US' fault.

This is not about the US, we're talking about Iran.

Besides, your Hitler reference has made you lose all credibility.

gtc

30th September 2008, 06:28 PM

IBecause they knew the US would make good on its rhetoric. Iran never sided with the other Arab countries during their wars with Israel. And it's never started a war.

But they fund and equip Hamas and Hezbollah who have regularly attacked Israel.

But they can go around bombing other nations? Bush talks softly and very nicely. But he's a barstool. Out of Ahmadinejad and Bush, who is the closer to Hitler? Bush. By a few 100,000 deaths.

What a stupid comparison.

RandFan

1st October 2008, 12:16 AM

I beg to differ. Most recent example may be Pakistan, whether vs. us or vs. India.Speculating is always fun.

So we should let Iran have nukes? "Let?" I'm not so presumptuous. It amazes how much people like Oliver and others speak with such confidence as to what will happen given A or B.

Because they knew the US would make good on its rhetoric. Iran never sided with the other Arab countries during their wars with Israel. And it's never started a war. Oh, well.... are you serious? All I can say is I guess the concern over at the UN is for naught then... on the other hand... yeah, I'm going to go with the UN and the others that say this is something that ought to concern us.

I wondered the same before Iraq, and it didn't matter. Again, serous? You didn't know anything about 12 years of WMD? I don't know about you but I could see that pretext coming a mile away.

Which could apply as well or more to the United States.
Duh! Sorry. But I'm not at all happy about the US beating the war drums.

I wish we would stop screwing up the Middle East. Not try to fix it--we've proven we suck at that too. Just back off and view it as a trading area and not much more.Sounds good. I don't think we've screwed up the Middle East. I'm quite confident it is, was and likely will be screwed up plenty without the US. I think in some ways we help. In some ways we exacerbate. If you honestly think all of the problems in the Mid-East are America's making then you've been drinking the Kool-Aid.

FTR: America isn't really just a boogey man. These nations that bitch and moan about America are happy to take our money when we hand it out. And having a Democracy in the Mid-East isn't really the worst thing in the world. I'm not happy with America's role as world police but don't get drunk on the idea that the problems of this world are all due to America or that the world would break out in peace and prosperity if America were simply to go away. That's such tired old propaganda that has no basis in reality.

As for what I wish for Iran, I wish them health. Same as Israel and any other country. Don't hold your breath if America turns its back. Perhaps we should turn our back but don't think for a moment that Iran wishes for Israel's health.

FireGarden

1st October 2008, 02:58 AM

But that's what my question was about. Thanks for not answering again.

Thanks for the Godwin point, and therefore making me win this argument. :)

I love Godwin -- except the part where no-one bothers to address the point. On the continuum from saint to Hitler, Bush is clearly the guy who started an agressive war and killed loads of people. Wherever you put him on that continuum, he is closer to Hitler than Ahmadinejad is.

It's not an answer, it's a pathetic apologetic excuse.

You're trying to make it seem "normal" for a head of state to be using such words. The "He's just talking tough" BS doesn't work, he is accountable for the words he uses, especially in such a volatile region, especially in such tense times.

You're trying to make it seem like it's more important what a head of state says than what he does. "All options are on the table" -- why that's very kind hearted of you, Mr Bush. Thanks for not bringing to mind the image of Iran as a stinking corpse. What? You didn't actually rule that out because "All options are still on the table" -- well, don't worry, you're being judged by those who measure your words without reference to your previous actions.

I couldn't give a damn about what you don't give a damn, it only is obvious you don't want to answer the question, and are making gymnastics to excuse Ahmadinejad and bring this always back to the US' fault.

This is not about the US, we're talking about Iran.

I know you're not talking about the US. You can't defend the actions of the US, so you want to move the debate into areas where you still feel able to defend: When will Iran stop talking about death and destruction? Can't they just tell us they will defend themselves and leave the rest to our imagination?

Why do they have to crow about the American economy going bad? Can't they just smile in private?

The world is changing and previously powerful nations have to eat a bit of crow. But why do they have to ram that down our throats with hyperbole?

Why do they have to wish for the destruction of their enemies? Can't they just hope their enemy will prosper like America hopes it's enemies will prosper?

Want more Godwin?
Here's a fun little agitprop, courtesy of google:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x99480

:D

Dragoonster

1st October 2008, 05:12 AM

Speculating is always fun.

It's better than flatly asserting something which may not be true.

"Let?" I'm not so presumptuous. It amazes how much people like Oliver and others speak with such confidence as to what will happen given A or B.

You seemed to be arguing that nations with nukes don't have many security advantages over those which don't, or even net disadvantages.

Oh, well.... are you serious? All I can say is I guess the concern over at the UN is for naught then... on the other hand... yeah, I'm going to go with the UN and the others that say this is something that ought to concern us.

Yes, there are concerns. No, the concerns aren't as bad as many claim via hyperbole or taking rhetoric at face value.

Again, serous? You didn't know anything about 12 years of WMD? I don't know about you but I could see that pretext coming a mile away.

The US gave a multitude of pretexts--humanitarian concern, breaking UN resolutions, Iraq firing at fly-by planes, Iraq linked to 9/11, WMDs as either a program or actually existing, false Iraqi "intelligence" sources, etc. They went from one to the other as soon as each looked weak. They both cited UN resolutions, and reneged on putting forth a final resolution because it wouldn't have passed. They cited UN and IAEA searches and documents, and disputed Hans Blix's ongoing searches.

Very soon after the invasion, they began prepping the spin for a possible future invasion of Iran. They claimed WMDs being shipped there, and Syria. Claimed Iranian navy belligerance, and other stuff I forget.

In short, they demonstrated they could use various pretexts, and would go ahead even when/if the pretexts were found very weak. No reason to think they wouldn't have done the same to Iran if they decided they wanted to invade it as well. I imagine the effort to gain US civilian's acceptance would follow the same route, no matter how flimsy.

Duh! Sorry. But I'm not at all happy about the US beating the war drums.

Sounds good. I don't think we've screwed up the Middle East. I'm quite confident it is, was and likely will be screwed up plenty without the US. I think in some ways we help. In some ways we exacerbate. If you honestly think all of the problems in the Mid-East are America's making then you've been drinking the Kool-Aid.

I don't. But far too many of them are of our making.

FTR: America isn't really just a boogey man. These nations that bitch and moan about America are happy to take our money when we hand it out. And having a Democracy in the Mid-East isn't really the worst thing in the world. I'm not happy with America's role as world police but don't get drunk on the idea that the problems of this world are all due to America or that the world would break out in peace and prosperity if America were simply to go away. That's such tired old propaganda that has no basis in reality.

I've never thought or written that all the problems are due to America or any of these other strawman positions. The region is full of less-than-ideal ideologies, governments, and politics. But adding to that with foolish US foreign policy has made things worse.

As for democracies, depends on your definition--Yemen is a new democracy, relatively stable considering its age. Didn't even need the US to invade it to happen. Egypt and Turkey are other examples, if not directly in the Middle East they are close enough, and majority Muslim. Countries like Jordan are also fairly democratic aside from their Monarchy.

And someone supporting US foreign policy there shouldn't even mention democracy as a serious goal. For decades our closest non-Israel allies have been extremely anti-democratic. Saudi Arabia is the least democratic Arab nation, until a few years ago not having any government positions open to voting, whereas all others at least allowed it for some of their legislature. Pakistan was at the time of our recent alliance a military dictatorship. We overthrew or helped to overthrow democracies in favor of supposedly stable dictators in the past. And despite our lauding of democracy, when Palestinians elected Hamas via a fair election, we refused to recognize them as a legitimate government and instead supported the coup of Fatah, helping to overthrow yet another democracy.

Our history is that we base our alliances on friendliness and comportment to our policies, regardless of whether the ally is a democracy or dictatorship.

Don't hold your breath if America turns its back. Perhaps we should turn our back but don't think for a moment that Iran wishes for Israel's health.

I don't.

The US can aid Israel if it's legitimately attacked. I don't think it's acceptable to preemptively attack on its behalf, or to lend credence or moral support if Israel preemptively attacks. If I did think that I'd also think Iran has the right to preemptively attack to preempt the preemptive attack, and so on. Either both are acceptable or neither are.

WildCat

1st October 2008, 07:34 AM

The US can aid Israel if it's legitimately attacked. I don't think it's acceptable to preemptively attack on its behalf, or to lend credence or moral support if Israel preemptively attacks. If I did think that I'd also think Iran has the right to preemptively attack to preempt the preemptive attack, and so on. Either both are acceptable or neither are.
Yes, both are acceptable. But Iran is actually attacking Israel through its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, who they train, arm, and fund. They are also rattling the saber with the "Israel must be wiped off the map" comments, no matter how many of their apologists try to water down the translation.

If Israel attacks Iran there wouldn't be anything preemptive about it, since Iran is already attacking Israel. This is what you and Oliver seem to be ignoring in your arguments.

Dragoonster

1st October 2008, 09:46 AM

Yes, both are acceptable. But Iran is actually attacking Israel through its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, who they train, arm, and fund. They are also rattling the saber with the "Israel must be wiped off the map" comments, no matter how many of their apologists try to water down the translation.

If Israel attacks Iran there wouldn't be anything preemptive about it, since Iran is already attacking Israel. This is what you and Oliver seem to be ignoring in your arguments.

Yes, Iran aids these groups. But Israel has taken full advantage of counterattacking or attacking them directly and that mini-theater seems equitable. That is, it is way more risk for Israel to attack Iran or Iran to attack Israel than for them to skirmish via proxies. And that fight is at least relatively stable. The fight over south Lebanon, the territories, and terrorist attacks will not stop due to a strike on Iran's nuclear ambitions. I don't see much connection re: justification for that.

Iran is subject to sanctions and economic freezeouts by the US, Israel and allies for their support of terrorism, and that seems the proper response. A strike on Iran's nuclear facilities has little to do with that aspect of the conflict, but solely aimed at brunting Iran proper's threat. Also though you probably disagree, I don't think the threat of Hamas, Hezbollah and others is all that great. Both are moving more to political arms as their main operation, attempting to gain credibility in their own governments, and it seems like the violence by both has decreased.

I don't find the rhetoric compelling as justification for anything beyond a call for censure. For me it's a giant leap from Ahmedinejad and other's statements (assuming they mean exactly what you think they mean, for every Iranian in charge now or in the future) to Iran either launching a nuclear first strike on Israel, or handing nukes to non-state terrorist groups. Giant leap.

If the various politics, rhetoric, and sanctions magically maintain their current level for decades, I don't expect anything bad to happen if Iran gets nukes. If however, the US and/or Israel are determined to prevent this by military means, we may find ourselves in a self-fulfilling prophecy, by living up to the threat that Iran believes we could be.

And at least for me as an American, I don't think protecting Israel from what I consider a very slight risk via preemptive aggression is worth us getting involved in something that could lead to another, much more difficult and unwinnable war, which would add more decades to our involvement in the Middle East. Which would add decades of trouble for our own economy. And which would spur more terrorists, and hostile and neutral countries to desire the US and Israel more harm. I want us less involved, not more involved, in creating further turmoil and blowback in the ME.

WildCat

1st October 2008, 10:59 AM

And at least for me as an American, I don't think protecting Israel from what I consider a very slight risk via preemptive aggression is worth us getting involved in something that could lead to another, much more difficult and unwinnable war, which would add more decades to our involvement in the Middle East.
There you go again with the "preemptive" nonsense! Iran is attacking Israel, you even admitted it. Call it escalation, but stop with the nonsense that an attack on Iran by Israel would be a preemptive strike.

As for US involvement there wouldn't be an invasion by ground forces. We have the ability to defang Iran with air power alone. Nobody is advocating an invasion!

Oliver

1st October 2008, 11:45 AM

There you go again with the "preemptive" nonsense! Iran is attacking Israel, you even admitted it. Call it escalation, but stop with the nonsense that an attack on Iran by Israel would be a preemptive strike.

As for US involvement there wouldn't be an invasion by ground forces. We have the ability to defang Iran with air power alone. Nobody is advocating an invasion!

So Iran and Hezbollah are the same thing then? :confused:
Do you listen to yourself from time to time? :D

Pardalis

1st October 2008, 12:09 PM

I love Godwin

No kidding. Godwin is the mark of the intellectual coward.

You're trying to make it seem like it's more important what a head of state says than what he does. "All options are on the table" -- why that's very kind hearted of you, Mr Bush. Thanks for not bringing to mind the image of Iran as a stinking corpse. What? You didn't actually rule that out because "All options are still on the table" -- well, don't worry, you're being judged by those who measure your words without reference to your previous actions.
Still not answering my question.

I know you're not talking about the US. Read the thread title, the US is not the topic of this thread. For you to constantly bring this back to the US shows your bias.

You can't defend the actions of the US, so you want to move the debate into areas where you still feel able to defend: Again, this thread isn't about the US.

This shows you only want to attack the US, and ARE INCAPABLE of any criticism on Iran.

When will Iran stop talking about death and destruction? Can't they just tell us they will defend themselves and leave the rest to our imagination? They are not being attacked at this moment, so why are they using this language?

It's nothing more than provocation. Sorry to criticize your beloved friend.

WildCat

1st October 2008, 05:52 PM

So Iran and Hezbollah are the same thing then? :confused:
Do you listen to yourself from time to time? :D
Iran arms, trains, supplies, and funds Hezbollah. It's astonishing that you don't know this.

gtc

1st October 2008, 06:31 PM

Iran arms, trains, supplies, and funds Hezbollah. It's astonishing that you don't know this.

He seems to have a blind spot over this.

Dragoonster

1st October 2008, 08:48 PM

There you go again with the "preemptive" nonsense! Iran is attacking Israel, you even admitted it. Call it escalation, but stop with the nonsense that an attack on Iran by Israel would be a preemptive strike.

Tell us how a surgical attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will cause a decline in Iranian aid to Hamas and Hezbollah. Or are you advocating another kind of attack?

As for US involvement there wouldn't be an invasion by ground forces. We have the ability to defang Iran with air power alone. Nobody is advocating an invasion!

What does "defanging Iran" have to do with Hamas and Hezbollah, to justify the attack as a reciprocity rather than a preemption?

How can you guarantee the defanging will succeed?

FireGarden

2nd October 2008, 02:04 AM

No kidding. Godwin is the mark of the intellectual coward.

Exactly.
Aren't you embarrassed to have brought it up?

Still not answering my question.

Read the thread title, the US is not the topic of this thread. For you to constantly bring this back to the US shows your bias.

Again, this thread isn't about the US.

No. You read the thread title.
"What will Iran bomb first?" And one of the options in the poll is indeed America. I'm entirely on topic.

This shows you only want to attack the US, and ARE INCAPABLE of any criticism on Iran.

They are not being attacked at this moment, so why are they using this language?

It's nothing more than provocation. Sorry to criticize your beloved friend.

I can criticise Iran. And Ahmadinejad: Inflation in Iran is at around 20% Ahmadinejad is a lousy administrator. He's put too much government money into the economy and made things worse rather than better.

But he hasn't caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people -- unlike your beloved friend. And I don't think he is the type to go around detonating nuclear bombs.

As for his rhetoric...
America is convinced that a hit and run against Iran is not possible. The rhetoric may have been a part of convincing America of that.

If America attacked Iran, Iran would respond against targets in the Gulf and against Israel. America would have to become involved in another war it cannot afford -- because Bush is also a bad administrator.

Hence the lack of attack against Iran. I consider a lack of attack to be the closest to peace that is available at this moment.

That, once again, is still my answer to your question.

Oliver

2nd October 2008, 03:28 AM

Iran arms, trains, supplies, and funds Hezbollah. It's astonishing that you don't know this.

Old Hat. I asked if Iran and Hezbollah are the same thing. You
said, that this is the case: "Iran supports Hamaz and Hezbollah,
ergo Iran attacked Israel."

It's like saying: "Zionists took away Palestinian land and declared it to
be Israel, ergo: Zionists attacked/invaded Palestine."

However: My point remains that an attack on anything within Iran
using US-Israeli Military won't solve anything. It's just one step closer
to what Khamenei [and Ahmadinejad] referred to in his recent speech:

Khamenei said Israel "has weakened day by day ... Today, officials of the Zionist regime acknowledge that they are moving towards weakness, destruction and defeat," according to state television. Khamenei added that the Zionists' failure and defeat is absolute. [Source: Khamenei: Iran won't let Palestinians be alone (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3604126,00.html)]

You agree?

WildCat

2nd October 2008, 06:03 AM

Tell us how a surgical attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will cause a decline in Iranian aid to Hamas and Hezbollah. Or are you advocating another kind of attack?
When did I claim it would? Maybe you could argue what I say instead of the straw men you are so fond of?

What does "defanging Iran" have to do with Hamas and Hezbollah, to justify the attack as a reciprocity rather than a preemption?
It's astonishing to me that you're still using words like "preemptive" to describe an attack on a nation that has been attacking another nation for years through proxies. What color is the sky in your world? Israel will do what it feels necessary to defend itself against Iran's unprovoked aggression. We know the only thing preventing Iran from expanding its aggression from proxy war to direct attack is Israeli military superiority. Certainly, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons changes that dynamic.

How can you guarantee the defanging will succeed?
Guarantee? This is the real world... I can't guarantee I will make it home alive the next time I get behind the wheel of my car. Maybe things can be guaranteed on Planet X, but not here.

WildCat

2nd October 2008, 06:08 AM

Old Hat. I asked if Iran and Hezbollah are the same thing. You
said, that this is the case: "Iran supports Hamaz and Hezbollah,
ergo Iran attacked Israel."
I see, so we won't ever see you making claims about US interventions against foreign governments unless said interventions involve direct action by US military forces, correct? :rolleyes:

It's like saying: "Zionists took away Palestinian land and declared it to
be Israel, ergo: Zionists attacked/invaded Palestine."
No, because that is a false statement. Would you like to try again?

However: My point remains that an attack on anything within Iran
using US-Israeli Military won't solve anything. It's just one step closer
to what Khamenei [and Ahmadinejad] referred to in his recent speech:
And what will solve everything Oliver? Do you have a "final solution" in mind?

You agree?
Obviously not.

Oliver

2nd October 2008, 06:35 AM

I see, so we won't ever see you making claims about US interventions against foreign governments unless said interventions involve direct action by US military forces, correct? :rolleyes:

No, because that is a false statement. Would you like to try again?

And what will solve everything Oliver? Do you have a "final solution" in mind?

Obviously not.

Huh? When did I say that US covert Op's in Iran justifies Iran to attack
Israel since Israel is pushing those Terror-acts against a Regime?

I know it is a false statement. That was my point. ;)

Yes, the final solution would be peace. Which means that Israel
would have to be an appeaser.

So you agree with Ahmadinejad's and Khamenei's `dead end statements´?

WildCat

2nd October 2008, 07:02 AM

Huh? When did I say that US covert Op's in Iran justifies Iran to attack
Israel since Israel is pushing those Terror-acts against a Regime?

I know it is a false statement. That was my point. ;)
Your point seems to change with every post, and frankly none of them are making any sense.

Yes, the final solution would be peace. Which means that Israel
would have to be an appeaser.
So how does Israel appease a genocidal group that calls for its destruction?

So you agree with Ahmadinejad's and Khamenei's `dead end statements´?
What gives you that idea?

Pardalis

2nd October 2008, 10:17 AM

Exactly.
Aren't you embarrassed to have brought it up?

?

You're the one who made the grotesque reference to Hitler.

You're not making any sense.

As for his rhetoric...
America is convinced that a hit and run against Iran is not possible. The rhetoric may have been a part of convincing America of that.

snip

Hence the lack of attack against Iran. I consider a lack of attack to be the closest to peace that is available at this moment.
So let me get this straight. By threatening Israel (now you seem to agree that "Death to Israel" is meant literally as a threat to the country, and not to the "regime"? You're contradicting yourself here), Iran is bullying the US that if it attacks, it'll make due on its threat?

And you call that peace?

You excuse Ahmadinejad for talking tough because it is threatened by the US, but the US is wrong about talking tough because Iran is threatening Israel? Talk about double standards.

Think of it that way: maybe the only reason Iran hasn't destroyed Israel already is because the US is making threats that if they do Iran will pay the price? The only reason Israel is still there today is the US. So by your logic, shouldn't the US threats against Iran be considered preserving the peace as well?

It's the chicken or the egg. Either Iran is threatening Israel and America won't stand for it and are making pressure on them, or America is threatening Iran (reason?) and Iran is threatening Israel as retaliation. The only problem is that in both possibilities, Iran is threatening Israel. Iran threatening Israel in both cases is unacceptable, and you can't escape that conclusion.

Iran is ideologically opposed to the state of Israel, it has a reason to want to destroy it. What is the reason for the US to want to attack Iran if not for its support and protection of the Jewish state?

Nice mental gymnastics. Ever considered le Cirque du Soleil?

FireGarden

2nd October 2008, 02:27 PM

?

You're the one who made the grotesque reference to Hitler.

You're not making any sense.

You're the one who brought up Godwin. Let me guess... You think that is the intellectual way to react to a mention of Hitler?

So let me get this straight. By threatening Israel (now you seem to agree that "Death to Israel" is meant literally as a threat to the country, and not to the "regime"? You're contradicting yourself here), Iran is bullying the US that if it attacks, it'll make due on its threat?

I don't see where I have contradicted myself. Iran has said it will retaliate. It has not said it would strike first. America hasn't taken a first strike off the table.

And you call that peace?

I said a lack of attack is the closest to peace we can get at the moment.

You excuse Ahmadinejad for talking tough because it is threatened by the US, but the US is wrong about talking tough because Iran is threatening Israel? Talk about double standards.

If you recall, I'm the one who doesn't give a damn whose rhetoric is worse. It's America's actions which I have condemned. America is anti-peace because it invades and destroys nations.

You are the one that is trying to turn this into a poetry contest, asking "Who has the nicest sound-bytes?" Over there is a damn -- it was not donated by me.

Think of it that way: maybe the only reason Iran hasn't destroyed Israel already is because the US is making threats that if they do Iran will pay the price? The only reason Israel is still there today is the US.

Well, let's see...
What evidence do you have that Iran would attack a nuclear power? People saying that a rival government will bite the dust.

Now what evidence do I have that America would bomb Iran if they thought it would cost them little? Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan --- Pakistan!!!! A nuclear power and member of the coalition of the willing. America will bomb its ally against the express wishes of its ally. What chance Iran? Come on: be serious!

The only reasons Iran has not been bombed is because Iran has promised to retaliate with force -- and America believes that promise.

Iran is ideologically opposed to the state of Israel, it has a reason to want to destroy it. What is the reason for the US to want to attack Iran

LOL
America is ideologically oppossed to Iran. More to the point, it has a history of attacking nations it is ideologically opposed to. (Or, at least, the weak ones who cannot defend themselves in any meaningful way).

It even has a history of attacking Iran: in 1953 they helped take out a democratically elected government because America was "ideologically" opposed to the idea of Iran nationalising the oil industry. And in the war Saddam started, America sided with Saddam -- with Rumsfeld shaking his hand twice.

Oliver

2nd October 2008, 03:03 PM

It even has a history of attacking Iran: in 1953 they helped take out a democratically elected government because America was "ideologically" opposed to the idea of Iran nationalising the oil industry. And in the war Saddam started, America sided with Saddam -- with Rumsfeld shaking his hand twice.

...while selling WMD ingridients and Military stuff to both sides, Iran and Iraq:

US support for war:
U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq _war)
U.S. support for Iran during the Iran–Iraq war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq _war)

So according to Wildcat, Israel is to blame for attacking Iran, not Saddam.
Because the US, being Israels Ally, funded Saddam in the first place. :boggled: :p

Oliver

2nd October 2008, 03:10 PM

Your point seems to change with every post, and frankly none of them are making any sense.

So how does Israel appease a genocidal group that calls for its destruction?

What gives you that idea?

When did Iran call for Israel's destruction? And how are they genocidal
when even they say it's all about the Zionist regime that will collapse
due to it's self-chosen way, not about Jewish people in general?

What gives me the Idea? Uhm, 60 years of conflict based on the fact,
that Israel's only chance to survive is A. Peace - or B. a never ending
support from pretty powerful forces from far away places.

You know that Israel wouldn't exist if no one would care. So why do you
think that Ahmadinejad and his Pal don't have any point talking about the
collapse of Israel?

Do you think that the West will never give up on Israel, no matter what?
We saw it before in another military intervention a short while ago, one
stupid political move, and allies turn around over night.

Ergo, Peace is the only stable solution. Which means that Israel has to
give up some loved things, maybe even the close strategical ties
to the US which didn't do any good in the long run.

Dragoonster

2nd October 2008, 03:17 PM

When did I claim it would? Maybe you could argue what I say instead of the straw men you are so fond of?

I'm asking you questions because your points aren't clear. You apparently call a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities as a continuation of the attack Iran makes on Israel via their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. I'm trying to find out if I'm reading you right. Or if you're talking about a different sort of attack.

It's astonishing to me that you're still using words like "preemptive" to describe an attack on a nation that has been attacking another nation for years through proxies. What color is the sky in your world? Israel will do what it feels necessary to defend itself against Iran's unprovoked aggression.

Unprovoked? How can Iran be attacking Israel via proxies but Israel not be attacking Iran via proxies? If Hamas & Hezbollah = Iran, then Israel is attacking Iran as well. Thus an Iranian attack wouldn't be preemptive either, and it would be as justified as an Israel attack. You seem to be advocating different rules for the same situation.

We know the only thing preventing Iran from expanding its aggression from proxy war to direct attack is Israeli military superiority. Certainly, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons changes that dynamic.

An Iranian ground force having to cross through either Turkey or Iraq, then Syria doesn't prevent a direct attack? Your "knowledge" claims are exaggerated.

Or do you mean solely an air/missle attack? How would nukes change that? They wouldn't, the IDF would still have massive superiority for both.

So...exactly what direct attack are you talking about here? If you don't want me to strawman you, start putting forth specific arguments.

Guarantee? This is the real world... I can't guarantee I will make it home alive the next time I get behind the wheel of my car. Maybe things can be guaranteed on Planet X, but not here.

You just claimed the US has the ability to defang Iran through air power alone. Were you again exaggerating?

WildCat

2nd October 2008, 07:07 PM

I'm asking you questions because your points aren't clear. You apparently call a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities as a continuation of the attack Iran makes on Israel via their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. I'm trying to find out if I'm reading you right. Or if you're talking about a different sort of attack.
Here's the point: Iran has been waging an unprovoked war on Israel for years now. If Israel decides it is not in their interest to allow Iran to acquire weapons with which Iran could more effectively attack Israel they certainly have that right.

Unprovoked? How can Iran be attacking Israel via proxies but Israel not be attacking Iran via proxies? If Hamas & Hezbollah = Iran, then Israel is attacking Iran as well. Thus an Iranian attack wouldn't be preemptive either, and it would be as justified as an Israel attack. You seem to be advocating different rules for the same situation.
because Israel is not attackling Iran! They are defending themselves against the proxy army trained, funded, supplied, and armed by Iran which has attacked and continues to attack Israel proper. Israel has never attacked Iran, either directkly or by proxy.

An Iranian ground force having to cross through either Turkey or Iraq, then Syria doesn't prevent a direct attack? Your "knowledge" claims are exaggerated.

Or do you mean solely an air/missle attack? How would nukes change that? They wouldn't, the IDF would still have massive superiority for both.

So...exactly what direct attack are you talking about here? If you don't want me to strawman you, start putting forth specific arguments.
It's quite simple - Iran is actively attacking Israel through its proxy armies Hamas and Hezbollah. It is certainly not in Israel's interests for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, which could only embolden them to step up their attacks once they are protected by the nuclear umbrella. Or who knows, maybe they decide to nuke Israel directly in order to bring the return of the 12th Imam.

You just claimed the US has the ability to defang Iran through air power alone. Were you again exaggerating?
How does that entail an exaggeration? You demanded a guarantee, I pointed out that there is no such thing in the real world. There are only degrees of certainty.

It seems to me that some people here have the impression that Iran is some innocent little country, minding it's own business, being bullied by the big bad evil US and Israel.

UnrepentantSinner

2nd October 2008, 07:52 PM

Or who knows, maybe they decide to nuke Israel directly in order to bring the return of the 12th Imam.

I just love when the crazy comes out while ranting about how crazy they are. :rolleyes:

WildCat

2nd October 2008, 09:24 PM

I just love when the crazy comes out while ranting about how crazy they are. :rolleyes:
Yeah, because a country run by Shiite Islamic fundies would never try to carry out the core belief of their religion. They'll stop with stoning prostitutes, hanging homosexuals, repressing other religions, etc... but never even think about that 12th Imam! Just like you'd have no problems with fundamentalist Christian Zionists in charge of the US nuclear stockpile I'm sure.

Pardalis

2nd October 2008, 09:37 PM

You're the one who brought up Godwin. Let me guess... You think that is the intellectual way to react to a mention of Hitler?

What are you babbling about?

Making a comparison with Hilter when the discussion has nothing to do with WW2 is Godwin.

What the hell is this ridiculous conversation?

I don't see where I have contradicted myself. Iran has said it will retaliate. It has not said it would strike first. America hasn't taken a first strike off the table.

That is not what we were talking about. We were talking about Iran's rhetoric of "death to Israel" which was used before the present tensions.

It's America's ... America.

Again, not the topic of this thread, and nothing to do with my question.

You're a one-track mind, you might want to go check this out with a professional.

What evidence do you have that Iran would attack a nuclear power?

Its own words.

The only reasons Iran has not been bombed is because Iran has promised to retaliate with force -- and America believes that promise.

I think it's the opposite, the only reason Israel is still there today is because of the US.

This is pointless, the rest of your post is again about the US, so we're going in circles, and besides, the conversation ended with your Hitler nonsense.

Pardalis

2nd October 2008, 09:39 PM

So according to Wildcat, Israel is to blame for attacking Iran, not Saddam.Because the US, being Israels Ally, funded Saddam in the first place. :boggled: :p

More so did France and Germany. Ziggurat or Wildcat mentioned that with evidence a few dozen pages ago, you might want to go back and read.

RandFan

3rd October 2008, 12:08 AM

It's better than flatly asserting something which may not be true.The worst of two evils is only of value you when you have a dichotamy. Surely you have other options.

You seemed to be arguing that nations with nukes don't have many security advantages over those which don't, or even net disadvantages. Our nukes didn't protect us from 9/11 and it ensures that other nations with nukes have them pointed at us.

The US gave a multitude of pretexts--humanitarian concern, breaking UN resolutions, Iraq firing at fly-by planes, Iraq linked to 9/11, WMDs as either a program or actually existing, false Iraqi "intelligence" sources, etc. They went from one to the other as soon as each looked weak. They both cited UN resolutions, and reneged on putting forth a final resolution because it wouldn't have passed. They cited UN and IAEA searches and documents, and disputed Hans Blix's ongoing searches. So is there some confusion on your part or are you square now?

I don't. But far too many of them are of our making. I don't know how many are too many. I'm guessing you don't control for your own bias when it comes to analysis?

And someone supporting US foreign policy there shouldn't even mention democracy as a serious goal. For decades our closest non-Israel allies have been extremely anti-democratic. Saudi Arabia is the least democratic Arab nation, until a few years ago not having any government positions open to voting, whereas all others at least allowed it for some of their legislature. Pakistan was at the time of our recent alliance a military dictatorship. We overthrew or helped to overthrow democracies in favor of supposedly stable dictators in the past. And despite our lauding of democracy, when Palestinians elected Hamas via a fair election, we refused to recognize them as a legitimate government and instead supported the coup of Fatah, helping to overthrow yet another democracy. We are venturing into a rather large area of contention. I don't see the point of debating every instance. I certainly don't see America's intervention the way you do. It's mixed. Some good some bad. What's the net? I'm guessing it depends on one's bias.

Our history is that we base our alliances on friendliness and comportment to our policies, regardless of whether the ally is a democracy or dictatorship. Overly simplistic.

The US can aid Israel if it's legitimately attacked. I don't think it's acceptable to preemptively attack on its behalf, or to lend credence or moral support if Israel preemptively attacks. If I did think that I'd also think Iran has the right to preemptively attack to preempt the preemptive attack, and so on. Either both are acceptable or neither are. Again, I think that is a bit overly simplistic.

FireGarden

3rd October 2008, 03:43 AM

What are you babbling about?

Making a comparison with Hilter when the discussion has nothing to do with WW2 is Godwin.

What the hell is this ridiculous conversation?

[...] This is pointless, the rest of your post is again about the US, so we're going in circles, and besides, the conversation ended with your Hitler nonsense.

So my guess was right: you think that the intellectual way to respond to a mention of Hitler is to say "Godwin" and move on.

You can't deny that it is Bush who has been aggressive and caused the deaths of many people. Acts of which Hitler is an example. If Bush had left money under my pillow, I might have compared him to the tooth fairy. There are probably some on Wall Street who do -- but they're the sort who understand a comparison doesn't have to be exact.

That is not what we were talking about. We were talking about Iran's rhetoric of "death to Israel" which was used before the present tensions.

It is what we are supposed to be talking about. Follow your own advice and read the title of the thread and the question in the poll: "What place will Iran bomb first as retaliation?"

I've not tried to hide that Iran wants to see the end of Israel. The comparison they have used most is the end of the USSR. You have not made the case that Iran intends to destroy Israel by starting a war. Israel cannot sustain itself anymore than the USSR could. Olmert himself has said that Israel is finished without a two-state solution.

So all you're left with is rhetoric and no intent to attack -- unless Iran is attacked first.

If you take Wildcat's point about Hezbollah... Hezbollah was started in the 1980's as a resistance army. It was succesful in forcing Israel out of Lebanon and in getting prisoners released. Today, they talk about stopping Israeli fighters flying in Lebanese skies and getting back the Shebbah Farms. And, actually, I would say that Hezbollah is another reason why Iran has NOT been attacked. Israel tried to take out Hezbollah and saw how difficult it would be. Syria would be Hezbollah on steroids. Iran would be Syria on steroids. Hence -- no war. Iran will not start it. And neither will Israel.

Again, not the topic of this thread, and nothing to do with my question.

Your question is not the topic of this thread. America, as a target of Iranian retaliation, is a topic of this thread.

I think it's the opposite, the only reason Israel is still there today is because of the US.

I would agree in the sense that there would be boycotts against Israel -- just like there were boycotts against apartheid South Africa.

But your belief is that Iran would bomb Israel if America agreed not to do anything about it. You can't give any evidence to support that belief.

OTOH, I have given evidence to support my belief that America would bomb Iran if Iran could not defend itself: How many times has Pakistan -- nuclear powered ally of America -- been bombed by America? I haven't counted. I suppose you really like the rhetoric coming out of Pakistan at the moment: "Oh please. Please.... We're your friend."

Dragoonster

3rd October 2008, 04:19 AM

The worst of two evils is only of value you when you have a dichotamy. Surely you have other options.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Your quote was "Nuclear weapons have never stopped conventional war." Quite an oversure statement imo, and I gave an example where it may indeed have stopped conventional war.

Our nukes didn't protect us from 9/11 and it ensures that other nations with nukes have them pointed at us.

9/11 wasn't an invasion. Nukes would likely protect Iran from an invasion. Iran is much, much, much more capable of being invaded than the United States (I hope that opinion isn't biased).

So is there some confusion on your part or are you square now?

Huh? You asked what pretext could be used to attack Iran, implying (or so I thought) that it would be difficult for the US to form one. It wouldn't be, I gave a slew of various pretexts proffered in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, and how some could be applied to Iran.

I don't know how many are too many. I'm guessing you don't control for your own bias when it comes to analysis?

What? I was responding to your strawmanning of my position with "If you honestly think all of the problems in the Mid-East are America's making [...]"

You consented that "in some ways we exacerbate" and it's my opinion that that exacerbation has outweighed the good we've done. That's what "too many" means here. I gave some examples later on.

We are venturing into a rather large area of contention. I don't see the point of debating every instance. I certainly don't see America's intervention the way you do. It's mixed. Some good some bad. What's the net? I'm guessing it depends on one's bias.

It'll have to if you won't discuss the particulars.

Overly simplistic.

There are plenty of examples of alliance or creation of despotic, undemocratic regimes. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, Iran. Balanced against Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Turkey. A lot can be excused by having to thwart Soviet influence, but a) the canard of "spreading/promoting democracy as a consistent foreign policy" is still a canard, and b) we've continued this lousy foreign policy post-USSR dissolution. I imagine the next blowback state will be Pakistan, a decade or less after we leave there and Afghanistan.

But nevermind, you don't want to discuss particulars.

Again, I think that is a bit overly simplistic.

Not much point in continuing this discussion, feel free to have the last post.