Russian rocket deliveries to Iran started [Archive]

Marc L

24th November 2006, 07:05 AM

zenith-nadir

24th November 2006, 07:39 AM

One reason. $$$$$ Or what ever the symbol for rubles is.

MarcIt's "three cyrillic characters forming the Russian equivalent of 'RUB'". http://www.xe.com/gen/symbols/xecom-illegal-to-copy-0440-0443-0441.gif ;)

Darth Rotor

24th November 2006, 07:43 AM

Russian rocket deliveries to Iran started (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/24/061124134543.qth288nm.html)

Putin isn't stupid, so why in the hell would he allow air defence rocket systems to be shipped to a country that is lining all their ducks up in a row to start the apocalypse?

Because that is what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is doing. Getting ready to start the apocalypse. Don't kid yourself that he is not. He really belives in the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501428.html).

The guy openly says Israel must be wiped off the map and the holocaust didn't happen. He also is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. So after he goes after the "little satan" who's next? The big satan, America.

So why is Russia helping him?
How are Russian Air Defense systems being sold to Iran a more sinister development than US Air Defense systems sold to Japan or South Korea?

DR

zenith-nadir

24th November 2006, 08:13 AM

How are Russian Air Defense systems being sold to Iran a more sinister development than US Air Defense systems sold to Japan or South Korea?

DRWell, for one thing, Japan and South Korea aren't gearing up for the apocalypse. Yet I truely believe Ahmadinejad is. Therefore providing him with defensive military systems is the last thing one should be doing right now.

Ahmadinejad believes the apocalypse will happen in his own lifetime. (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060205-100341-6320r.htm)

'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html)

Iranians fear their fanatical leader is plotting a nuclear apocalypse. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006030123,00.html)

Apocalypse now ushered by Ahmadinejad (http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iran/201361)

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 09:06 AM

.... He also is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. So after he goes after the "little satan" who's next? The big satan, America.
No offence, but Iran -- even if it had primitive nuclear weapons -- is absolutely no threat at all to the USA.

A massive true-ICBM-building program is way beyond Iran's capabilities; and without large numbers of true ICBM's, Iran simply poses no threat to the USA at all.

The only way Iran could ever adversely affect the USA is by driving up the price of oil, a threat the USA could really easily obviate totally simply by insisting on and enforcing rigorous miles-per-gallon standards for all cars and trucks in the USA (something it won't do and will never do, but is able to do).

So, while Iran obviously poses a nasty genuine potential threat to Israel, it does not even pose a potential genuine threat to the USA at all.
So why is Russia helping him?
Why not? Russia's interests are not the same as the USA's interests.

Huntster

24th November 2006, 09:13 AM

No offence, but Iran -- even if it had primitive nuclear weapons -- is absolutely no threat at all to the USA.

Russian air defense weapons certainly pose no threat. U.S. air power will simply destroy them on their first sorties. May as well sell them to a fool than throw them away.

Any Iranian nuclear device, however, even primitive, is a huge threat, since Iran has established no qualms regarding their interactions with terrorists who would love to smuggle such a device into the U.S.

The only way Iran could ever adversely affect the USA is by driving up the price of oil, a threat the USA could really easily obviate totally simply by insisting on and enforcing rigorous miles-per-gallon standards for all cars and trucks in the USA (something it won't do and will never do, but is able to do).

Oh. Another guy who's going to "conserve" himself to the next gas station, only to find nothing for sale.

firecoins

24th November 2006, 09:17 AM

No offence, but Iran -- even if it had primitive nuclear weapons -- is absolutely no threat at all to the USA..
A massive true-ICBM-building program is way beyond Iran's capabilities; and without large numbers of true ICBM's, Iran simply poses no threat to the USA at all.
So, while Iran obviously poses a nasty genuine potential threat to Israel, it does not even pose a potential genuine threat to the USA at all.

Nuclear war in only a threat if the USA could be hit? Your so USA centric. Hitting Israel with nuke is okay for you? And Israel retaliates hitting Iran and possibly nearby Arab states? What wll that do to world oil supplies? It appears that nuclear war in the Middle East is a threat to everyone including Russia, China and Europe.

Beerina

24th November 2006, 09:34 AM

One reason. $$$$$ Or what ever the symbol for rubles is.

Marc

More than that, he's also playing the old Cold War game where you arm your opponent's opponents for the purpose of creating a thorn in their side. Which means Putin sees the west as his opponent, a disturbing development on top of all the state censorship he's instituted.

Beerina

24th November 2006, 09:35 AM

How are Russian Air Defense systems being sold to Iran a more sinister development than US Air Defense systems sold to Japan or South Korea?

DR

Because Iran would execute you for asking that question, while Japan and South Korea would not?

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 09:37 AM

*snicker*
Huntster, I'm sorry, but I will concentrate on someone else for a change, just for the moment. This one here is just to bizarre to pass up on. Pardon me please, but as you will see the opportunity is too good to pass up on.
:)
Nuclear war in only a threat if the USA could be hit?
D'oh. IOW, it's only a threat to the USA if it is a genuine threat to the USA.
Let me know what is so hard to understand about that. :)
Your so USA centric.
Ha ha ha ha HA! :D If I may say so, Huntster has been implying I'm anti-American, while you claim I am "USA centric".
I find this brilliant, and very funny.
:)
The OP's author, Sabra, explicitly raised the question of a direct threat to specifically the USA.
I replied specifically to that exact question.
Let me know what is so hard to understand about that. :)
Hitting Israel with nuke is okay for you?
Have you even the slightest shred of evidence for that? Or did you just make it completely up?
:)
What wll that do to world oil supplies?
You failed to read all my post, I see. :)
I explicitly discussed the risk of rise in oil prices in relation to a direct threat to the USA. Go back and re-read my post.

Or stick around; I enjoy this all in a perverse way. :)

Huntster

24th November 2006, 09:48 AM

....Huntster has been implying I'm anti-American, while you claim I am "USA centric".
I find this brilliant, and very funny.....

I state no such thing. If I believe you to be "anti" anything, it is anti-Huntster.

I'm not so sure that is brilliant or funny, but you are beginning to appear humorous.

firecoins

24th November 2006, 09:54 AM

*D'oh. IOW, it's only a threat to the USA if it is a genuine threat to the USA.
Let me know what is so hard to understand about that.

Not only do I understand that, I disagree with it, which is why I replied.
Nuclear war anywhere is a threat to everone on this planet, which is why I accused you of being USA centric as you only seem to care if the US get hit. I think seeing this in terms of whether the USA can be hit by Iranian nukes or not is very short sighted. No one prior to 9/11, thought the attacks on 9/11 was reasonable. It is within Iran's capability to put a nuke on a ship and take that ship into a US harbour and blow it up. I am sure Iran can find people willing to do a suicide attack. The Iranian president is threatening to destroy Israel. For that reason and that reason alone, I am against Iran having a nuke. Or anyone helping them out. The threatened use of a nuclear bomb reguardless of where they are capable of hitting is a global threat.

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 10:02 AM

Not only do I understand that,
Congratulations, :) though I think your statement may well be premature.
Nuclear war anywhere is a threat to everone on this planet,
Nonsense.
How did Hiroshima or Nagasaki affect Togo? If a nuclear war happened between India and Pakistan today, it would really affect no-one else directly. Except maybe Afghanistan.
which is why I accused you of being USA centric
Silly. :p
as you only seem to care if the US get hit.
Very very silly. :p
I don't even live in the USA, and I don't want to.
I think
Next time try reading a post more closely instead.
It is within Iran's capability to put a nuke on a ship and take that ship into a US harbour and blow it up.
Wow! I am sure --- NOT! :p --- that Iran would accept destroying part of one American city in return for the sure retaliatory destruction of all of Iran by the USA.

IOW, I think your scenario is a very empty fantasy. It won't happen. The negative effects for Iran would simply be too great.

Huntster

24th November 2006, 10:19 AM

...Nonsense.
How did Hiroshima or Nagasaki affect Togo?

It placed them (along with everyone else) within the possibility of nuclear war.

If a nuclear war happened between India and Pakistan today, it would really affect no-one else directly. Except maybe Afghanistan.

No problem or concern for China, Nepal, Tibet, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Shir Lanka, or Tajikistan?

Everybody else should just yawn and go back to sleep?

If such is the case, why is everybody so up in arms regarding U.S. activity in Iraq? No nuclear weapons are being used or threatened to be used. Just your run-of-the-mill ordnance. Nothing to be concerned about, right?

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 10:24 AM

It placed them (along with everyone else) within the possibility of nuclear war.
meh, what an empty possibility so far. Everyone else has far more pressing problems.
No problem or concern for China, Nepal, Tibet, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Shir Lanka, or Tajikistan?
Nope. :) Wind patterns over all likely possible targets in India and Pakistan mean minimal fall-out for all the countries you mentioned.
Everybody else should just yawn and go back to sleep?
I like the rhetorical false dichotomy, :) , art for art's sakes after all, but that's all it is.

Do try to keep in mind what we are discussing at the moment. We are discussing direct threats. That really can't be so hard to grasp.
If such is the case, why is everybody so up in arms regarding U.S. activity in Iraq?
* sigh *
Is the art of sticking to the point so despised by you?

firecoins

24th November 2006, 10:28 AM

Congratulations, :) though I think your statement may well be premature. .
Premature to what exactly?

Please, don't move to the US. I don't where you live. I hope it isn't Canada or Mexico. That is too close to me.

Nuclear is probably the most pressing problem on this planet.

Pakistan and India blowing each other up isn't problem for you? Iran and Israle blowing each other up also isn;t a problem?
The nuking Japan ended WWII but it started the cold war which has led to the problems we had today, so yes nuclear warefare is a problem.

bjb

24th November 2006, 12:12 PM

Do not ask for whom the bomb tolls, it tolls for thee.

Even so, Iran's new air defense system doesn't scare me. They're only good for shooting down airplanes that are trying to bomb Iran. They don't work against cruise missiles, and I'm pretty sure Russian air defense systems aren't any good against American stealth aircraft. In fact, I think this is good news for everyone involved. Russia gets money from Iran, Raytheon gets to build more AGM-88 missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM), and Bush gets another excuse to complain about Iran. Even the Iranian leaders are happy because they are showing their people that they're doing something to prevent George Bush's invasion of their country.

Kopji

24th November 2006, 12:36 PM

The Tor-M1 is a low to medium-altitude missile fired from a tracked vehicle against airplanes, helicopters and other airborne targets.

If they ended up in Iraq it might not be too good.

firecoins

24th November 2006, 01:07 PM

Darth Rotor

24th November 2006, 01:16 PM

Well, for one thing, Japan and South Korea aren't gearing up for the apocalypse. Yet I truely believe Ahmadinejad is. Therefore providing him with defensive military systems is the last thing one should be doing right now.

Ahmadinejad believes the apocalypse will happen in his own lifetime. (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060205-100341-6320r.htm)

'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html)

Iranians fear their fanatical leader is plotting a nuclear apocalypse. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006030123,00.html)

Apocalypse now ushered by Ahmadinejad (http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iran/201361)
What is the difference between public utterances and actual intent?

Think.

For the last 15 years, look at the delta between what is said and what is done.

DR

Darth Rotor

24th November 2006, 01:18 PM

Because Iran would execute you for asking that question, while Japan and South Korea would not?
Nope. Wrong, and asinine, answer.

South Korea is only recently a relatively open society. It spent some decades (after the Korean War) as yet another US-supported ally run by autocrats.

DR

Dave1001

24th November 2006, 02:01 PM

Russian rocket deliveries to Iran started (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/24/061124134543.qth288nm.html)

Putin isn't stupid, so why in the hell would he allow air defence rocket systems to be shipped to a country that is lining all their ducks up in a row to start the apocalypse?

Because that is what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is doing. Getting ready to start the apocalypse. Don't kid yourself that he is not. He really belives in the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501428.html).

The guy openly says Israel must be wiped off the map and the holocaust didn't happen. He also is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. So after he goes after the "little satan" who's next? The big satan, America.

So why is Russia helping him?

Ahmadinejad does not really believe in the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, any more than Pat Robertson really believes Jesus is coming back. Those are just propaganda tools. Russia is probably selling rocket systems to Iran to (1) make money, and (2) be a geopolitical player. It's probably not great for the United States. But with American troops surroung Iran in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, I don't think it puts America in anywhere near a crisis position yet either.

firecoins

24th November 2006, 02:02 PM

What is the difference between public utterances and actual intent?

Think.

For the last 15 years, look at the delta between what is said and what is done.

DR
public utterences are very important. We hope they are just that but when someone is advocation nuclear holocaust and they have the means to do it, you must take them seriously until proven otherwise. Hopefully its just talk but it would be stupid to not take Iran seriously.

South Korea and Japan have never threatened another nation. Japan really can't . But evan if they had WMDs I don't hink they are of much concern in using them.

zenith-nadir

24th November 2006, 02:23 PM

What is the difference between public utterances and actual intent? DRHitler's political ideology was spelt out pretty clearly in Mein Kampf. And he did what he said he was gonna do. Ahmadinejad's political ideology is spelt out in what he says openly, publicly, that Israel will be destroyed, the holocaust was invented to embarass Germany, he has "divine inspiration", Satan inspires Mr Bush, and Iran will be fully nuclear.

People didn't pay much attention to Hitler at first, and people aren't paying much attention to Ahmadinejad. Yet Hitler was dead serious, and so is Ahmadinejad. I heard a great analogy last night on TV. It went like this:

"Imagine David Koresh with nuclear weapons. Imagine David Koresh, not with hundreds of followers, but millions of followers, with nuclear weapons, wanting to obliterate America, wanting to obliterate America`s allies..."

Ahmadinejad is part of a cult which believes they were put here on Earth to bring the Mahdi back in a great religious war between true believers and infidels. Feel free to research it as I am not making this up.

Ahmadinejad does not really believe in the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, any more than Pat Robertson really believes Jesus is coming back. Those are just propaganda tools. How well do you know Ahmadinejad? Because he really does believe in his divine mission like Bin Laden and others believe in their divine missions..

Darth Rotor

24th November 2006, 02:24 PM

South Korea and Japan have never threatened another nation. Japan really can't . But evan if they had WMDs I don't hink they are of much concern in using them.
Short memory. "Japan, 1931-1945" for fifty, Alex. :p

DR

Darth Rotor

24th November 2006, 02:27 PM

Hitler's political ideology was spelt out pretty clearly in Mein Kampf. And he did what he said he was gonna do. Ahmadinejad's political ideology is spelt out in what he says openly, publicly, that Israel will be destroyed, the holocaust was invented to embarass Germany, he has "divine inspiration", Satan inspires Mr Bush, and Iran will be fully nuclear.

People didn't pay much attention to Hitler at first, and people aren't paying much attention to Ahmadinejad. Yet Hitler was dead serious, and so is Ahmadinejad.
Godwin for fifty, Alex.
I heard a great analogy last night on TV. It went like this:

"Imagine David Koresh with nuclear weapons. Imagine David Koresh, not with hundreds of followers, but millions of followers, with nuclear weapons, wanting to obliterate America, wanting to obliterate America`s allies..."
Far more interesting analogy. :)
Ahmadinejad is part of a cult which believes they were put here on Earth to bring the Mahdi back in a great religious war between true believers and infidels. Feel free to research it as I am not making this up.
I am aware of the legend of the 12th Mahdi.
How well do you know Ahmadinejad? Because he really does believe in his divine mission like Bin Laden and others believe in their divine missions..
He's a politician. So, let me get this right: you buy his ******** hook, line, and sinker?

DR

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 03:06 PM

Pre...Please, don't move to the US. I don't where you live. I hope it isn't Canada or Mexico. That is too close to me.
And you accuse me of being too "USA centric". Good for a laugh, eh? :D
Nuclear is probably the most pressing problem on this planet.
Stuff and nonsense. Codswallop. Enough with the scare stories already; nuclear war stopped being a real global problem with the end of the Cold War. Many nations can't afford to even make sure most of their citizens have enough to eat or have clean drinking water, and you're egocentric enough to wave nuclear war fantasies around? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh.
Pakistan and India blowing each other up isn't problem for you? Iran and Israle blowing each other up also isn;t a problem?
Go back and read the posts properly, then reply to the point.
The nuking Japan ended WWII but it started the cold war which has led to the problems we had today, so yes nuclear warefare is a problem.
Nonsense again. The Cold War actually started up in the 1930's, it's only that the Americans were all isolationist back then in silly ways and never noticed, and so weren't involved much.

Had the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki never happened, and the war with Japan been won by purely conventional means, the Cold War between the USSR and the USA would have still started soon after --- with much bigger chances of it having become a very hot war, too.

The MAD doctrine and balance of power may well have saved us a Third World War following on very shortly from the Second World War.

firecoins

24th November 2006, 04:44 PM

Stuff and nonsense. Codswallop. Enough with the scare stories already; nuclear war stopped being a real global problem with the end of the Cold War. Many nations can't afford to even make sure most of their citizens have enough to eat or have clean drinking water, and you're egocentric enough to wave nuclear war fantasies around? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh. . Do you think
Amadinejad cares about poor people? What abou Kim Jo Il?
North Korea and Iran can't afford food for their people but they both develop nuclear weapons. Amadinejad continues to threaten nuclear holocaust of Israel.

Weapons proliferation and nuclear war not a problem.
1.Iran to groom Bin Laden successor
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/14/wiran14.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/14/wiran14.xml)

2. Iran ready to share weapons systems
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-11-06T103853Z_01_BLA626240_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-MISSILES.xml&src=rss&rpc=22 (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-11-06T103853Z_01_BLA626240_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-MISSILES.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)

firecoins

24th November 2006, 04:48 PM

Russian nuclear engineer being dispatched to Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061124/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpolitics_061124151325

An oil producing country like Iran nueed nuclear power for energy!:rolleyes:

Dave1001

24th November 2006, 04:49 PM

Do you think
Amadinejad cares about poor people? What abou Kim Jo Il?
North Korea and Iran can't afford food for their people but they both develop nuclear weapons. Amadinejad continues to threaten nuclear holocaust of Israel.

Weapons proliferation and nuclear war not a problem.
1.Iran to groom Bin Laden successor
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/14/wiran14.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/14/wiran14.xml)

2. Iran ready to share weapons systems
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-11-06T103853Z_01_BLA626240_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-MISSILES.xml&src=rss&rpc=22 (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-11-06T103853Z_01_BLA626240_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-MISSILES.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)

Don't we have to be a bit skeptical about these reports, given the misinformation leading up to the 1st gulf war, and the recent Iraq war?

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 04:54 PM

Do you think Amadinejad cares about poor people? What abou Kim Jo Il?
Personally I am sure you don't either. You only use the nuclear-Iran thing as a scare tactic.

The use of such scare tactics by the Bush admin and others were exactly what led to the current mess in Iraq2 right now; so please don't try using them here.

Just answer to the point instead.
North Korea and Iran can't afford food for their people
But you don't care about that, you only proliferate fantasies of threats where there are none.

firecoins

24th November 2006, 04:55 PM

Don't we have to be a bit skeptical about these reports, given the misinformation leading up to the 1st gulf war, and the recent Iraq war?
We have to be skeptical about everything. That being said their is no love between Iran vs Israel and the US. Iran is suspected to be helping guerilla fighters in Iraq and Amadinejad publically threatening Israel. Certain Israeli politicians are signalling that Israel may attempt to replicate what they did with Iraq if the workd does not act.

It seems very strange that an oil rich country need nuclear power for energy which is part the cover story.

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 05:02 PM

....It seems very strange that an oil rich country need nuclear power for energy which is part the cover story.
Then explain why the USA needs Three-Mile Island.

The USA is oil-rich; got it?

firecoins

24th November 2006, 05:13 PM

Personally I am sure you don't either. You only use the nuclear-Iran thing as a scare tactic. This is a thread about Russia selling Irna weapons. I thougnt it was. Talking about Iran and their threats of nuclear war in a thread about Iran and Russain means I dont care about poor people. Right:rolleyes: Talking about nuclear war, violence and weapons proliferation, I dont care about poor people. :rolleyes: Thats it! Your right let poor people eat yellow cake!

Worry about Armajideen threatening to blow Israel off the face of the map getting weapons from Russian. Means I don't care about poor people.:rolleyes:

Since this thread is not about poor people but about Iran and its relationship to Russia in weapons proliferation maybe we can focus the thread on the threat at hand, save poor people for another thread that deals with economics.

firecoins

24th November 2006, 05:16 PM

Then explain why the USA needs Three-Mile Island.

The USA is oil-rich; got it?yes that it! you convinced me! Of what I have no idea! you solved all the worls problems! and to think it was so easy! :rolleyes:

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 05:25 PM

This is a thread about Russia selling Irna weapons.
Which is why you have scattered false accusations and strawman arguments all over the place like confetti?

Just answer to the point.
Since this thread is not about poor people
And it's not about your appeals to emotion either. So just answer to the point.yes that it! you convinced me!
Can't say the same for you. You've tried convincing us Iran is some major threat to the world overall. You've failed.

firecoins

24th November 2006, 05:32 PM

And it's not about your appeals to emotion either. So just answer to the point.
Appealing to the existance of poor people does not evoke an emotional response at all. Of course not its a logical argument you put foward. You have a point to respond to.

Can't say the same for you. You've tried convincing us Iran is some major threat to the world overall. You've failed.
Have I failed? Oh I am so disappointed! It must because I don't care about poor people.

Iran's nuclear arament certainly is no problem for anyone but Israel and who cares about them, those crazy Israelis.

We all know that there is no poor people in Israel or occupied terretories to be concerned about if Iran fires a nuclear weapon at them. Right?

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 05:38 PM

Iran's nuclear arament .......doesn't exist yet.
So enough with the scaremongering already.
certainly is no problem for anyone
If Iran had genuine nuclear weapons, it would be a problem for anyone near it. Just like Pakistan. How come you aren't worried about Pakistan, who is known to have nuclear weapons?
Israel
Israel has actually got a large nuclear strike capability. Don't you ever follow the news?
If Iran threatened Israel, Israel's capability to mount a retaliatory nuclear strike in large proportions should be enough to scare off Iran. Let alone the USA's reaction.
those crazy Israelis. We all know that there is no poor people in Israel or occupied terretories to be concerned about
Your argument is getting badly incoherent. Badly so. Bizarrely so, in fact. ;)

firecoins

24th November 2006, 05:45 PM

...doesn't exist yet.
So enough with the scaremongering already.

If Iran had genuine nuclear weapons, it would be a problem for anyone near it. Just like Pakistan. How come you aren't worried about Pakistan, who is known to have nuclear weapons?

Israel has actually got a large nuclear strike capability. Don't you ever follow the news?
If Iran threatened Israel, Israel's capability to mount a retaliatory nuclear strike in large proportions should be enough to scare off Iran.

Your argument is getting badly incoherent. Badly so. Bizarrely so, in fact. ;)

The argument is to prevent Iran from getting nukes so it can't follow through on its threats. Israel and Pakistan are not threatening to nuke anyone of the face of the Earth. That is a substanial difference. I worried about Pakistan to the extent that they have given nulcear info to Iran. Pakistan won't nuke India because India will nuke it back. Mutually assured destruction is preventing war. It is a concern Israel gets attacked by Iran, it will use it nuclear arsenal. Nuclear war is an enemy in and of itself. The Soviet Union and the US were reliable to react in their best interest. The dozens of nuclear armed nations are not guaranteed to do that now. That's a problem, even for poor people.

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 05:59 PM

The argument is to prevent Iran from getting nukes
Now how do you propose to do that?
.... Pakistan are not threatening to nuke anyone of the face of the Earth
Ha ha ha ha. Pakistan's nuclear weapons are a direct threat to India and were made exactly for that.

Don't you ever follow the news? :)
I worried about Pakistan to the extent that they have given nulcear info to Iran.
So Pakistan is a problem, but for some reason you won't tell us you don't want to worry about Pakistan, but you only want to worry about Iran. Weird. :)
Pakistani scientists have been directly responsible for proliferating nuclear weapons know-how. Now just why do you not tackle that?
Pakistan won't nuke India because India will nuke it back. Mutually assured destruction is preventing war.
Then by the same token Iran would not nuke Israel because Israel would nuke it back. :)
Nuclear war is an enemy in and of itself.
So is dysentery, but dysentery kills many many more millions than so far nuclear war ever did.
The Soviet Union and the US were reliable to react in their best interest. The dozens of nuclear armed nations are not guaranteed to do that now. That's a problem, even for poor people.
God only knows what you want to say here, but who decides the lines? Why Pakistan but not Iran?
Do answer. To the point. :)

firecoins

24th November 2006, 06:01 PM

I called you USA centric because you claimed I should not worry about Iran and their military build up because they can't fire missles at the US mainland. Than you said poor people were a bigger problem. Should I care about poor people who live outside the US or is that a scare tactic?

Huntster

24th November 2006, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
It placed them (along with everyone else) within the possibility of nuclear war.

meh, what an empty possibility so far. Everyone else has far more pressing problems.

That just means "everyone else" has bigger problems.

Quote:
No problem or concern for China, Nepal, Tibet, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Shir Lanka, or Tajikistan?

Nope. Wind patterns over all likely possible targets in India and Pakistan mean minimal fall-out for all the countries you mentioned.

Remarkable response.

So you have no problem whatsoever with Chernobyl, even though it was a simple faux pas? No evil intent? "No problem" for the "locals"?

Please; give me an answer to that one.............

Do try to keep in mind what we are discussing at the moment. We are discussing direct threats. That really can't be so hard to grasp.

Again, I do not relinquish power to define what "we" are discussing at any particular time, especially since you like to wander (and at interesting points).

Quote:
If such is the case, why is everybody so up in arms regarding U.S. activity in Iraq?

* sigh *
Is the art of sticking to the point so despised by you?

Do I need to go back and cite you?

firecoins

24th November 2006, 06:05 PM

You seem to think by worrying about Iran specifically I am not concerned about other nuclear countries. what an argument! lo just like I am not worried about poor people. They can't fire a nuke at the US either.

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 06:05 PM

That just means "everyone else" has bigger problems.
Bingo! :) Most people round the world have much bigger problems than the threat of nuclear war.
:)
See? I knew we could come to agreement.
Please; give me an answer to that one......
When you can actually ask a question which is to the point, and not some transparent and bizarre strawman, I will be happy to answer it.
:)

The Fool

24th November 2006, 06:07 PM

The sky is falling.....

firecoins

24th November 2006, 06:12 PM

So Pakistan is a problem, but for some reason you won't tell us you don't want to worry about Pakistan, but you only want to worry about Iran. Weird. Pakistani scientists have been directly responsible for proliferating nuclear weapons know-how. Now just why do you not tackle that?

This thread is about Iran and weapons proliferation. Pakistan is a major problem I am worried about Pakistan and proliferation but they have not made any offensive threats and are cooperating with the world. Hmmmm could not possibly be a different situation.

Then by the same token Iran would not nuke Israel because Israel would nuke it back. :). Iran is making offensive threats. what you make of that since that is what this thread is about.

So is dysentery, but dysentery kills many many more millions than so far nuclear war ever did. Damn! We are 1 nuclear war away from curing dysentary. Just so close.

God only knows what you want to say here, but who decides the lines? Why Pakistan but not Iran?
Do answer. To the point. :)
Everyone. Not just Iran who is the topic of the thread. We can start Pakistan thread if you would like.

firecoins

24th November 2006, 06:14 PM

Bingo! :) Most people round the world have much bigger problems than the threat of nuclear war.
:)
See? I knew we could come to agreement.

When you can actually ask a question which is to the point, and not some transparent and bizarre strawman, I will be happy to answer it.
:)
Yes blow up all the poor people in the Middle East. Yippie!:catfight:

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 06:18 PM

firecoins

24th November 2006, 06:28 PM

firecoins, I would love to answer you, but your last posts make no points to answer. Can you please remedy that? Thanks! :)

Oh, BTW, you are completely wrong about Pakistan; Pakistan has actually been in a lowlevel war for the last 40 years with India, and has had 3 real declared wars with India in that period too. Pakistan's nuclear force is a direct threat to India --- which is what it was developed to be.

Or do you not know about Kashmir etc.?
You know I never heard of Kasmir:rolleyes: Pakistan and India at war? Really!:rolleyes: News to me!:rolleyes: Yeah being worried about nuclear war and weapons proliferation, Pakistan never crossed my mind, genius!:rolleyes: I guess its because I don't worry about poor people, genius! Yeah nuclear war that affects over a billion people isn't important.:cool:

Of course I am not arguing that Pakistan nuclear threat isn't important. You are since poor exist.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/20/iran.europe/index.html

Gurdur

24th November 2006, 07:02 PM

You know I never heard of Kasmir:rolleyes:
I thought so. BTW, it's Kashmir, not "Kasmir". :)
Pakistan and India at war? Really!:rolleyes: News to me!:rolleyes: Yeah being worried about nuclear war and weapons proliferation, Pakistan never crossed my mind, genius!:rolleyes: I guess its because I don't worry about poor people, genius! Yeah nuclear war that affects over a billion people isn't important.:cool:
Let me know when a nuclear war actually affects "over a billion people" and you might have some point. Till then, it's only incoherency.
Of course I am not arguing that Pakistan nuclear threat isn't important. You are since poor exist.
May I ask if English is your first language? Just wondering.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/20/iran.europe/index.html
Big deal. Looney Iranian politician "threatens" Europe in totally empty way.
I should worry? Worry, shmorry. :)

Huntster

24th November 2006, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
That just means "everyone else" has bigger problems.

Bingo! Most people round the world have much bigger problems than the threat of nuclear war.

I agree, although the threat of world war involving nuclear weapons is huge, especially with the strategy of "mutually assured destruction" as the only effective deterrent thus far to ward nuclear war off.

And that won't work with terrorists................

See? I knew we could come to agreement.

We agree?

Quote:
Please; give me an answer to that one......

When you can actually ask a question which is to the point, and not some transparent and bizarre strawman, I will be happy to answer it.

Why do I doubt that claim?

Huntster

24th November 2006, 07:59 PM

The sky is falling.....

That's what many in the environmental community claim.

Huntster

24th November 2006, 08:01 PM

....Oh, BTW, you are completely wrong about Pakistan; Pakistan has actually been in a lowlevel war for the last 40 years with India, and has had 3 real declared wars with India in that period too. Pakistan's nuclear force is a direct threat to India --- which is what it was developed to be.

Or do you not know about Kashmir etc.?

That is precisely what I was referring to when I mentioned India and Pakistan.

But you knew that all along, didn't you?

Huntster

24th November 2006, 08:05 PM

.....Let me know when a nuclear war actually affects "over a billion people" ...

If you need to be alerted during such an affair, I suspect you'll have to wait for the clue.

The rest of us will likely be real busy..............

Big deal. Looney Iranian politician "threatens" Europe in totally empty way.
I should worry? Worry, shmorry. :)

Yeah. You should worry. At the very least, you should be aware, alarmed, focused, and on the right page.

But, then, that's up to you.

If you're not, you just don't matter.

President Bush

24th November 2006, 08:16 PM

The sky is falling.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK4s9gwgUvs&mode=related&search=

zenith-nadir

25th November 2006, 03:06 AM

Godwin for fifty, Alex. DR

The sky is falling.....

Naivete didn't help Neville Chamberlain either. I feel you both utterly misjudge Ahmadinejad. The similarities are there.

"Speaking to a crowd in the southern city of Roudan, Hormozgan province, Ahmadinejad said, “The Islamic Republic is the continuation of the path of the prophets which came to begin a great movement and the final occurrence”." iranfocus.com (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5274)

"Ahmadinejad describes himself as a fundamentalist, has no qualms about asserting that there can be no democracy in Islam, rejects free-market economics, and insists on "religious duties" rather than human rights." iranpressnews.com (http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/005783.html)

"Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad says that when he delivered his speech at the UN General Assembly in September, he felt there was a light around him...Iranian legislator Akbar Alami has questioned Ahmadinejad's apparent claims, saying that even Islam's holiest figures have never made such claims." RFE/RL (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/11/184cb9fb-887c-4696-8f54-0799df747a4a.html)

He's a politician. So, let me get this right: you buy his ******** hook, line, and sinker?

DRHitler was a politician, so was Stalin and Pol Pot. What does "being a politician" have to do with anything? Do you "buy" Bin Ladens' rhetoric? If Al Qaeda had nuclear weapons, do you think New York would've only been hit with a couple airplanes on 9-11?

"On Iran, by contrast, the report, (the 9-11 report), concludes that al Qaeda's relationship with Tehran and its client, the Hezbollah militant group, was long-standing and included cooperation on operations, the officials said." washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4191-2004Jul21.html)

"Intelligence officials were alarmed by reports from Iran that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was trying to persuade al-Qa'ida to promote a pro-Iranian activist to a senior position within its leadership, the paper said." theaustralian.news.com (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20759752-31477,00.html)

Iran's nuclear arament certainly is no problem for anyone but Israel and who cares about them, those crazy Israelis.To Ahmadinejad Israel is the "little Satan", a small piece of America, America is the "Big satan".

Darth Rotor

25th November 2006, 10:12 AM

This is a thread about Russia selling Irna weapons. I thougnt it was.
Surface to air missiles, which are missiles designed to defend a nation from air attack, and missile attack. With some of the mouthing off going on in Israel and the US these days, the perception that better Air Defense will tend to be a deterrent to a US or ISraeli air attack seems to be the real issue. Oh, and Russia making some cash. :)
Talking about Iran and their threats of nuclear war in a thread about Iran and Russain means I dont care about poor people. Right:rolleyes: Talking about nuclear war, violence and weapons proliferation, I dont care about poor people. :rolleyes: Thats it! Your right let poor people eat yellow cake!
Nuclear weapons is not the issue in this sale. The nuclear engineering assistance from Russia for some of the Iranian reactors would be, and is in an older thread.
Worry about Armajideen threatening to blow Israel off the face of the map getting weapons from Russian.
Is a bloody red herring. Air Defense Missiles are no threat to Israel, unless the IAF were sent to attack Iran. (Which I doubt.)
Since this thread is not about poor people but about Iran and its relationship to Russia in weapons proliferation maybe we can focus the thread on the threat at hand, save poor people for another thread that deals with economics.
No, it is not about weapons proliferation. Iran already has SAM's, but it wants better ones as a precaution against US attacks on Iran.

If you bother sticking to the main point, you'll wander off into pointless territory less frequently. We all derail, though, so I understand the ease with which one changes subject in mid thread. (Guilty as charged, your honor! :p )

DR

firecoins

25th November 2006, 10:50 AM

Surface to air missiles, which are missiles designed to defend a nation from air attack, and missile attack. With some of the mouthing off going on in Israel and the US these days, the perception that better Air Defense will tend to be a deterrent to a US or ISraeli air attack seems to be the real issue. Oh, and Russia making some cash. :)

Nuclear weapons is not the issue in this sale. The nuclear engineering assistance from Russia for some of the Iranian reactors would be, and is in an older thread.

Is a bloody red herring. Air Defense Missiles are no threat to Israel, unless the IAF were sent to attack Iran. (Which I doubt.)

No, it is not about weapons proliferation. Iran already has SAM's, but it wants better ones as a precaution against US attacks on Iran.

If you bother sticking to the main point, you'll wander off into pointless territory less frequently. We all derail, though, so I understand the ease with which one changes subject in mid thread. (Guilty as charged, your honor! :p )

DR

Why would Iran need to ward off an air attack? Hmmm because they may be attacked in realtion to what? Their nuclear program. Russia and China see fit to still arm Iran so they get access to oil. Russia and CHina arm Iran for oil while Israel is worried Iran will follow through on it threats. Should we be worried a war might break out?

Gurdur

25th November 2006, 11:05 AM

Why would Iran need to ward off an air attack?
Mabe they took all the recent threats of the USA neocons for a "regime change by force" in Iran seriously?

Too bad for the neocons that Iraq2 turned out so disasterously, otherwise the neocons would be marching right now on Tehran.

Do you have any idea of how many times the USA and UK have intervened in Iran within the last 60 years? Do you think the Iranians forget that just to be a convenient target for more such adventurism?

Darth Rotor

25th November 2006, 01:22 PM

Why would Iran need to ward off an air attack?
In the last six months, if you bother to read the US press, there are a lot of policy wonks, and others in government, who don't rule that out: an air attack on Iran. You will also note in the past 6 months not a few talking heads in Israel making similar comments.

Like Mahmoud, I consider it all a load of political hot air.
Hmmm because they may be attacked in realtion to what? Their nuclear program. Russia and China see fit to still arm Iran so they get access to oil. Russia and CHina arm Iran for oil while Israel is worried Iran will follow through on it threats. Should we be worried a war might break out?
OK, so, let's attack:
India
Pakistan
Israel
UK
France
North Korea

For their Nuclear Weapons Program. Better yet, just attack Israel and Pakistan, as they did not sign the NPT did stealth Nuclear Programs, and hit them about the same day we bomb Iran for theirs. :p

DR

Darth Rotor

25th November 2006, 01:30 PM

Naivete didn't help Neville Chamberlain either. I feel you both utterly misjudge Ahmadinejad. The similarities are there.
So were Saddam's "similarities," trumpeted about by certain wordsmiths. Saddam's motives and methods were, were, for the record, more Stalinist than Hitlerite. A different flavor was Pappa Doc Duvalier. Another flavor of ******** was named Pinochet. None of these guys was Hitler, they were ********* of their own style.

But oddly enough, Hitler is the immediate "go to ******** of the week" symbol for anyone a Jew wants to demonize, Sabra. Your Koresh argument made more sense, and was a far more stimulating analogy. "Nutcase with nukes" strikes me as a far more real problem than Adolf reincarnated. So, tell me how Iran nukes Israel without killing about a million or so Arab Muslims? Work with me here.

I've read quite a bit of Mahmoud's rhetoric, albeit translated into English. He is playing to the home crowd, and a selected audience in the Muslim world. He's not the only guy with a case of the ass over Israel. He's also not the only politician who uses blunt, startling speech to grab headlines so the rest of his message gets across.

I note that the IDF is developoing a BMD system, similar to the US program. IMO, that is a brilliant move. It is better than running about and crying "wolf" everytime someone in the Muslim world talks trash about Israel.

I recall an infamous UN resolution, "Zionism = Racism." Pure anti-Israeli, anti-Jew trash talk. The trash talking about Israel is a tired wheeze, as tired as the Hitler references are becoming.
To Ahmadinejad Israel is the "little Satan", a small piece of America, America is the "Big satan".
Yes indeed, the "Jew-Crusader" sound byte is also Old News. What does that have to do with the sale of Air Defense Missiles, which are aimed at countering US adventurism in the Persian Gulf?

Funny, you have yet to answer the mail on that.

DR

Huntster

25th November 2006, 02:19 PM

....Too bad for the neocons that Iraq2 turned out so disasterously, otherwise the neocons would be marching right now on Tehran.....

Huh?

Please describe the "disaster."

If you're referring to the political hullaballo, I'd say that it has been a huge factor in the occupation, and that the disasterous effects have yet to manifest themselves (but will soon).

I'm curious how you define "disaster."

Huntster

25th November 2006, 02:22 PM

In the last six months, if you bother to read the US press, there are a lot of policy wonks, and others in government, who don't rule that out: an air attack on Iran. You will also note in the past 6 months not a few talking heads in Israel making similar comments.

Like Mahmoud, I consider it all a load of political hot air.....

Forgotten Osirak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak) so soon?

Huntster

25th November 2006, 02:27 PM

.....So, tell me how Iran nukes Israel without killing about a million or so Arab Muslims?....

Who says Iranians would give much of a damn about a million or so Palestinians?

Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. The growing civil war in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiites illustrates that quite well.

I note that the IDF is developoing a BMD system, similar to the US program. IMO, that is a brilliant move.

As it was for the U.S. to do so.

Gurdur

25th November 2006, 02:30 PM

Please describe the "disaster."
There are quite a few threads on Iraq2 already, and the situation there has even been described to you personally in posts on other threads, so go back and read them. Or just pay attention to the news. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/default.stm) Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.
And more sheeeeesh (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1956706,00.html); how come you haven't answered all those other posts regarding the Iraq2 mess? It's immaterial to me if you want to live in cloud-cuckoo land; even Prime Minster Blair of the UK has admitted specifically that it is a "disaster". (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1951240,00.html) It's even lost the Republicans the Congressional elections --- notice that? :D
If you're referring to the political hullaballo
Nope (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69067)
I'm curious how you define "disaster."
The usual way, with a rational and calm assessment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6067958.stm).

Huntster

25th November 2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Please describe the "disaster."

There are quite a few threads on Iraq2 already, and the situation there has even been described to you personally in posts on other threads, so go back and read them. Or just pay attention to the news. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

From your link:

DEATHS SINCE MAR 2003
Iraqi civilians: Estimates from 47,000 (Iraq Body Count) and 655,000 (Lancet, 2006)
Iraqi security forces*: 5,556
US military: 2,812
UK military: 120
Other coalition military: 119
Journalists: 77

Not to make light of the situation, but when compared to some 800,000 dead in Rwanda in 100 days in 1994, this isn't overwhelming...........yet.

Nor is the Iraqi infrastructure completely destroyed like in Europe in 1945.

What we have is classic sectarian violence, and it is being fed by untouchables across borders.

And more sheeeeesh; how come you haven't answered all those other posts regarding the Iraq2 mess?

What posts?

It's immaterial to me if you want to live in cloud-cuckoo land;

No clouds here. It's clear and damned cold, and the cuckoo birds have migrated south.

even Prime Minster Blair of the UK has admitted specifically that it is a "disaster".

Linky, please?

Quote:
If you're referring to the political hullaballo

Nope

Yeah. I'd imagine you'd like to avoid that discussion.

Quote:
I'm curious how you define "disaster."

The usual way, with a rational assessment.

Try to inject some balance in that assessment.

Gurdur

25th November 2006, 03:44 PM

Not to make light of the situation, but when compared to some 800,000 dead in Rwanda in 100 days in 1994, this isn't overwhelming...........yet.
And compared with A GIANT ASTERIOD wiping out 99% of life on Earth, it's nothing. :D Oh wow, so what?
What a cruddy and evasive argument of yours. :p
The fact that it is a disaster is not disproven by there being bigger disasters; deal with it.
Nor is the Iraqi infrastructure completely destroyed like in Europe in 1945.
Nor is all life wiped out not even leaving bacteria.
Oh dear, what a silly and tiresomely evasive argument of yours. Deal with the point.
Linky, please?
Since I gave you a direct link to his own words in my post, go back and deal with it
...I'ld imagine....
You imagine far too much. :p Going to quote the Gospel of Matthew at me again? :p
...balance....
*snicker* :D

Huntster

25th November 2006, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not to make light of the situation, but when compared to some 800,000 dead in Rwanda in 100 days in 1994, this isn't overwhelming...........yet.

And compared with A GIANT ASTERIOD wiping out 99% of life on Earth, it's nothing. Oh wow, so what?
What a cruddy and evasive argument of yours.
The fact that it is a disaster is not disproven by there being bigger disasters; deal with it.

And the fact that it's a devolving situation, if we continue to play political games, it may very well turn into a big disaster.

And I am dealing with it.

You?

Quote:
....Going to quote the Gospel of Matthew at me again?

Sure: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew23.htm)

Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If one swears by the temple, it means nothing, but if one swears by the gold of the temple, one is obligated.' Blind fools, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that made the gold sacred?

Gurdur

25th November 2006, 04:45 PM

...it may very well turn into a big disaster.
It's one already. :p Blair has admitted it, the USA military more than hint at it (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php), Rumsfeld had to resign in disgrace because of it, Blair has admitted it overtly, the British military admit it.

Who are you again? :p
Sure: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew23.htm)
Goodness, so you want to quote Scripture at me.

I have some for you! :)

Isaiah 42:18
Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see
:)

And since you seem boastful of the USA, and xenophobic, here too:
Psalm 49:20
Man in his pomp yet without understanding is like the beasts that perish.
Isaiah 13:11
...I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant, and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.

and of course a quote from Kipling:
All your pomp and glory shall be one with Ninevah and Tyre

and
Isaiah 14:11
Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps; maggots are laid as a bed beneath you, and worms are your covers.

Huntster

25th November 2006, 05:01 PM

...Who are you again?

The Huntster.

Goodness, so you want to quote Scripture at me.

You asked.

I have some for you! :)

Isaiah 42:18
Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see
:)

For some context, here is the rest of the chapter (verses 18-25 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah42.htm)):

You who are deaf, listen, you who are blind, look and see! Who is blind but my servant, or deaf like the messenger I send? You see many things without taking note; your ears are open, but without hearing. Though it pleased the LORD in his justice to make his law great and glorious, This is a people despoiled and plundered, all of them trapped in holes, hidden away in prisons. They are taken as booty, with no one to rescue them, as spoil, with no one to demand their return. Who of you gives ear to this? Who listens and pays heed for the time to come? Who was it that gave Jacob to be plundered, Israel to the despoilers? Was it not the LORD, against whom we have sinned? In his ways they refused to walk, his law they disobeyed. So he poured out wrath upon them, his anger, and the fury of battle; It blazed round about them, yet they did not realize, it burned them, but they took it not to heart.

And since you seem boastful of the USA, and xenophobic, here too:
Psalm 49:20
Man in his pomp yet without understanding is like the beasts that perish.

More context: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm49.htm)

But God will redeem my life, will take me from the power of Sheol. Selah Do not fear when others become rich, when the wealth of their houses grows great. When they die they will take nothing with them, their wealth will not follow them down. When living, they congratulate themselves and say: "All praise you, you do so well." But they will join the company of their forebears, never again to see the light. For all their riches, if mortals do not have wisdom, they perish like the beasts.

Isaiah 13:11
...I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant, and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.

More: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah13.htm)

Lo, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with wrath and burning anger; To lay waste the land and destroy the sinners within it! The stars and constellations of the heavens send forth no light; The sun is dark when it rises, and the light of the moon does not shine. Thus I will punish the world for its evil and the wicked for their guilt. I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant, the insolence of tyrants I will humble.

Now, that was a fun and neat exercise, but it has nothing to do with political activities affecting the outcome of armed struggle.

The U.S. military invaded and toppled Saddam's regime, killed his sons in armed battle, captured Saddam, turned him over to the Iraqi government for trial, saw a fair election there, and now the Shiite government who has taken control is allowing Shiite militias to run rampant.

And people like yourself seem to bask in it as if you have won some sort of victory.

Gurdur

25th November 2006, 05:08 PM

The Huntster.
IOW, you are a nobody. You're not involved in it, you only pay the taxes supporting it. Other people who are actually involved in it call it what it is --- a disaster. You wish to deny it, but your opinion is just not important, is it now? At all.
The U.S. military invaded and toppled Saddam's regime
and the USA Bush admin totally stuffed up the occupation, leading to the present disaster. :p
Something you are desperate to evade. Tough luck.
And people like yourself seem to bask in it as if you have won some sort of victory.
I despise people who habitually throw around false accusations; that happens to be a false accusation of yours, like others of yours.

Your vacuous cheerleading is only that; other people have to deal with the situation as it really is.

Huntster

25th November 2006, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
The Huntster.

IOW, you are a nobody.

As far as you're concerned, that's right. Virtually nameless. Just another voice crying out from the wilderness.

You're not involved in it, you only pay the taxes supporting it.

Nope. I'm involved indirectly now, and deployable.

Other people who are actually involved in it call it what it is --- a disaster.

I say it's a political disaster, and we got into it militarily because of a series of intelligence disasters.

You wish to deny it, but your opinion is just not important, is it now? At all.

That's right. My opinion is meaningless.

Just like yours.

Quote:
The U.S. military invaded and toppled Saddam's regime

and the USA Bush admin totally stuffed up the occupation, leading to the present disaster.
Something you are desperate to evade. Tough luck.

The administration's stated goal up front were the capture of Saddam and his gang, the capture of all WMDs, and democratic elections. They've all occurred.

Now the Shiites are screwing it up, and you're loving it.

Quote:
And people like yourself seem to bask in it as if you have won some sort of victory.

I despise people who habitually throw around false accusations; that happens to be a false accusation of yours, like others of yours.

Such as?

Your vacuous cheerleading is only that; other people have to deal with the situation as it really is.

I'm involved.

firecoins

25th November 2006, 09:03 PM

I despise people who habitually throw around false accusations; that happens to be a false accusation of yours, like others of yours.
Since you have accussed me not caring about poor people, does this mean you hate yourself?

firecoins

25th November 2006, 09:07 PM

Mabe they took all the recent threats of the USA neocons for a "regime change by force" in Iran seriously?

Too bad for the neocons that Iraq2 turned out so disasterously, otherwise the neocons would be marching right now on Tehran.

Do you have any idea of how many times the USA and UK have intervened in Iran within the last 60 years? Do you think the Iranians forget that just to be a convenient target for more such adventurism?
The US, UK and Israel would not be all worried about Iran's nuclear program at all. No need for concern considering Iran's threats. Of course not. No chance Iran may start a war themselves. :rolleyes:

zenith-nadir

26th November 2006, 02:35 AM

So were Saddam's "similarities," trumpeted about by certain wordsmiths. DRIrrelevant conclusion. Just because the UN and just about every intelligence agency in the world was wrong about Saddam doesn't also make everyone wrong about Ahmadinejad.

But oddly enough, Hitler is the immediate "go to ******** of the week" symbol for anyone a Jew wants to demonize, Sabra. DR"Hitler is the goto guy for jews, therefore if a jew says it it must be false..." Argumentum ad hominem. ;)

I didn't say Ahmadinejad was Hitler. I said Ahmadinejad was telegraphing his intentions like Hitler telegraphed his intentions in Mein Kampf. In a striking similarity Mein Kampf means "my struggle" and Jihad can also mean "struggle."

Your Koresh argument made more sense, and was a far more stimulating analogy. "Nutcase with nukes" strikes me as a far more real problem than Adolf reincarnated. DROnce again, I didn't say Ahmadinejad was Hitler. I said Ahmadinejad was telegraphing his intentions like Hitler telegraphed his intentions in Mein Kampf.

So, tell me how Iran nukes Israel without killing about a million or so Arab Muslims? Work with me here. DRIran doesn't have to nuke Israel. You are thinking in terms of deterrable powers. Militant Islam is suicidal and puts zealotry and ideology above survival. Iran can hand the bomb off to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah and let one of their suicide troops run it into the endzone. When Hizbollah fired it's rockets at Israel it killed muslim-Israelis, when Palestinian suicide bombers strike a restaurant/bus/market that also kills muslim-Israelis, when suni and shiite bombers strike in Iraq it kills muslim-Iraqis.

This belief that Iran, or it's subordinates, could never ever possibly kill other muslim is a fantasy.

I've read quite a bit of Mahmoud's rhetoric, albeit translated into English. He is playing to the home crowd, and a selected audience in the Muslim world. DRYes. A "home crowd" that has millions of followers who believe in the Apocalypse.

He's not the only guy with a case of the ass over Israel. He's also not the only politician who uses blunt, startling speech to grab headlines so the rest of his message gets across. DRBut he is the only one who, (see the multiple links in post #5), believes in the Apocalypse.

I note that the IDF is developoing a BMD system, similar to the US program. IMO, that is a brilliant move. It is better than running about and crying "wolf" everytime someone in the Muslim world talks trash about Israel. DROnce again Argumentum ad hominem.

I recall an infamous UN resolution, "Zionism = Racism." Pure anti-Israeli, anti-Jew trash talk. The trash talking about Israel is a tired wheeze, as tired as the Hitler references are becoming. DRIrrelevant conclusion.

Yes indeed, the "Jew-Crusader" sound byte is also Old News. What does that have to do with the sale of Air Defense Missiles, which are aimed at countering US adventurism in the Persian Gulf?

Funny, you have yet to answer the mail on that.

DRThe question you asked in post #4 was:

"How are Russian Air Defense systems being sold to Iran a more sinister development than US Air Defense systems sold to Japan or South Korea?"

In post #5 I did answer that question directly. Immediately after you asked it. The answer was:

"Well, for one thing, Japan and South Korea aren't gearing up for the apocalypse."

Darth Rotor

26th November 2006, 07:12 AM

This belief that Iran, or it's subordinates, could never ever possibly kill other muslim is a fantasy.
Not the point I am making. The political problem for Iran, in a nuclear attack on Israel, is the very real problem to deal with in the aftermath, at the political level: how to answer up to the Arab World for the slaughter, by the tens of thousands, of Arabs in the Holy Land. That Iran, and Iranians, don't mind killing an Arab here and there isn't the issue, given their agenda in supporting Shia Arabs, generally, over Shunnah and others. (The issues in Lebanon and Iraq leap to mind.) On that order of magnitude, Iran's profile is low, as a catalyst to existing animosities. The wholesale destruction, of both sites and persons en masse in the Holy Land is a problem on a scale that can't, and won't be, ignored by Irans rivals in the Muslim world.

Your non sequitur is cast aside for the trash that it is.

The question you asked in post #4 was:

"How are Russian Air Defense systems being sold to Iran a more sinister development than US Air Defense systems sold to Japan or South Korea?"

In post #5 I did answer that question directly. Immediately after you asked it. The answer was:

"Well, for one thing, Japan and South Korea aren't gearing up for the apocalypse."[/QUOTE]
Your answer does not address the question. Air Defense as a deterrent to attack in Iran is a valid defensive security concern for Iran, whoever is in power. (I'll pass on my judgment concerning how easily US EW efforts can or will defeat the Iranian IAD network, as it would lead to a bit of a derail.)

This is a far different matter, for regional stability (IMO it enhances it due to whatever deterrent effect it offers) that offensive missiles, and the potential development of nuclear weapons.

DR

zenith-nadir

26th November 2006, 08:16 AM

Not the point I am making. The political problem for Iran, in a nuclear attack on Israel, is the very real problem to deal with in the aftermath, at the political level: how to answer up to the Arab World for the slaughter, by the tens of thousands, of Arabs in the Holy Land. DRYou are still thinking in terms of deterrable powers. Iran doesn't have to do anything. They have plenty of folks to do it for them.

The Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/#2):

Q: Does Iran sponsor terrorism?
A: Yes. The U.S. State Department has called Iran the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.”

The US had suitcase nukes in the early 60's, (the W54). So the technology is nearly 40 years old. It is very possible, given time and motive, that a small nuclear device could eventually be delivered off the coast of Tel Aviv or Haifa. Or maybe it comes in a container full of goods on a truck. Who knows? The yield of such a device can be around 1 kiloton of TNT, cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb) . Muslims in Gaza or the West Bank would not be wiped out, but that sure would make a huge hole in Tel Aviv or Haifa though.

So the logic that Iran would never do such a thing, "the slaughter, by the tens of thousands, of Arabs in the Holy Land", is removed. Because there would be no slaughter of tens of thousands of Arabs, just thousands of Israelis living in Tel Aviv or Haifa.

Then, when the spotlight is turned on Iran, they go "Who us? We didn't do it." And they don't have to, there are plenty of folks in Hizbollah, Hamas or Islamic Jihad that would just love to do it. Plausible deniability.

Your non sequitur is cast aside for the trash that it is. DR Seems like my entire argument is cast aside "for the trash that it is" ;)

It's puzzling because you are so dead-set against even entertaining the thought. Eventhough I have cited that:
Ahmadinejad describes himself as a fundamentalist who believes in the apocalypse,
Many others describe Ahmadinejad as a fundamentalist who believes in the apocalypse,
Ahmadinejad calls for the destruction of Israel,
Ahmadinejad calls the holocaust a myth,
Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government sponsor Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad,
Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government are about to go nuclear.Whereas your argument is based upon your gut feeling that Ahmadinejad is just full of hot air and playing to the crowd.

This is a far different matter, for regional stability (IMO it enhances it due to whatever deterrent effect it offers) that offensive missiles, and the potential development of nuclear weapons.DRI don't think anyone should be selling arms to Iran at this time. The past few pages of this thread lay out why I think that, including citations.

Huntster

26th November 2006, 09:14 AM

....Just because the UN and just about every intelligence agency in the world was wrong about Saddam doesn't also make everyone wrong about Ahmadinejad.

Thanks for that reminder to all regarding western intelligence failures. You're right, our intelligence may be correct regarding Ahmadinejad, but with the intel failures of the recent past, I restate my utmost concern regarding the intelligence our civilian leadership is getting.

Huntster

26th November 2006, 09:18 AM

.... The US had suitcase nukes in the early 60's, (the W54). So the technology is nearly 40 years old. It is very possible, given time and motive, that a small nuclear device could eventually be delivered off the coast of Tel Aviv or Haifa. Or maybe it comes in a container full of goods on a truck. Who knows? The yield of such a device can be around 1 kiloton of TNT, cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb) . Muslims in Gaza or the West Bank would not be wiped out, but that sure would make a huge hole in Tel Aviv or Haifa though......

More importantly, the Soviets had it, too. The Soviet NBC weapon drawdown illustrated the worrisome WMD inventory control that the Soviets suffered.

Considering Russia's current problem with organized crime, Russia's current relationship with Tehran, Iran's propensity to employ terrorists, and western intelligence's poor performance overall recently as well as it's specific performance regarding non-state entities, I would think many more folks would be extremely concerned with terrorism involving WMDs.

firecoins

26th November 2006, 12:29 PM

Considering Russia's current problem with organized crime, Russia's current relationship with Tehran, Iran's propensity to employ terrorists, and western intelligence's poor performance overall recently as well as it's specific performance regarding non-state entities, I would think many more folks would be extremely concerned with terrorism involving WMDs.
yep

Darth Rotor

27th November 2006, 05:51 AM

Forgotten Osirak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak) so soon?
Nope. The assumption that such a raid will be successful (surprise and lousy IAD in Iraq and Saudi were contributing factors) strikes me as overly optimistic.

As to the "Persians/Arabs" matter, yes indeed, noted, however, the problem for Iran, once again at the political level, is that most of the powers in the Gulf region are indeed Arab, and the ripple effects of such an attack don't inlcude a lot of positive outcomes, not to mention risks of damage to Muslim holy sites in the Holy Land.

RL isn't a war game, it is a continuum. (An observation I often think was ignored in Washington in the run up to Iraq War.)

ETA: I want to clear something up here. I am not a fan of Iran, whoever is in charge or the front man, since about 1979 and the hostage deal. Iran has been the primary enemy of the USA in the Persian Gulf region for 27 years, the Ayatollah's have been consistent in their enmity with the US, and have been generally a royal pain in the arse to the US. They support Al Sadr with money, they sent Pasderan and agents provocateurs into the Balkans, they openly support a number of terrorist organiztions, to include Hezbollah, and are all around camel dung from my point of view.

I object to the Chicken Little approach to a point defense missile system, Tor 1, which has a range from 1-12 km, an operational envelope up to about 20,000 feet AGL, and is optimized for sub-sonic and helicopter type targets. The fire control system's ability to track and engage up to 48 targets is a nice selling point for a defensive missile system, designed to defend high value targets. (It is also jammable, spoofable, and other wise vulnerable to EW, as any radar guided missile system is.)

Conflating this capability, a legitimate upgrade of Iran's IAD network, with nuclear weapons is a red herring, it is sensationalism, and is as intellectually dishonest as the conflation between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda's 9-11 WTC operation. The context is wrong. The tactical and technical details are wrong. The attitude is hysterical.

IMO, the clear and present danger Iran poses to global security is mining the Straights and the Persian Gulf shipping lanes for the purpose of economic/political suasion versus US and Europe, and to a certain extent some of the Asian nations who rely on Gulf oil. Leverage. The noise about Israel is, as I see it, a smoke screen. The real damage they do to Israel is the style of political judo they achieved with the support for and arming of Hezbollah, and for that matter, the damage they still do to the US is the under the table support to some factions in Iraq, whose campaigns of violent power grabbing is a means of politically eroding US image, political influence, and stature in the Mid East. In the medium to long term, the nuclear matter is a letitimate concern, no question. What isn't a strategic concern is point defense.

If the Russians were selling Iran Scuds, Scud improvement packages, and-or extended range ballistic missiles, I'd be singing a different tune.

DR

zenith-nadir

27th November 2006, 01:06 PM

...not to mention risks of damage to Muslim holy sites in the Holy Land. DR The only holy site that means anything to muslims is the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. One could explode a small nuclear device in Haifa and not touch the Al-Aqsa Mosque 100 miles away in Jerusalem. One could explode a small nuclear device in Tel Aviv and not touch the Al-Aqsa Mosque 40 miles away in Jerusalem.

What I am trying to say is that there is no risk of damage to Muslim holy sites in the Holy Land if a terrorist targets either Tel Aviv, (pop 400,000), or Haifa, (pop 300,000) with a small nuclear device.

Ahmadinejad Predicts Collapse of Israel, U.S., U.K. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aZ4VnVrSM8kE&refer=uk)

(Bloomberg) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted the collapse of Israel, the U.S. and Britain, attacking what he called their ``oppressive behavior.''

Darth Rotor

27th November 2006, 01:16 PM

Ahmadinejad Predicts Collapse of Israel, U.S., U.K. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aZ4VnVrSM8kE&refer=uk)

(Bloomberg) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted the collapse of Israel, the U.S. and Britain, attacking what he called their ``oppressive behavior.''

And Donald Rumsfeld predicted that the US would be greeted as liberators, and that it would only cost three billion in US funds for reconstruction efforts.

So what?

I see your point on the matter of a suitcase nuke in Israel, and find your reasoning sound. The matter of dead Muslims then becomes a matter of weighing the ends and means, and the risks of what the Arab world (not to mention anyone else) will do in retaliation.

I find this a more interesting topic, germane to the matter at hand: a possible shift among the real power brokers, the Ayatollahs (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20061119-111823-3650r.htm).

I don't see Mahmoud as much more than an opportunist, and a front man.
Extremist Vying To Become Top Ayatollah

Cleric supports suicide attacks against Israel

By Colin Freeman, London Sunday Telegraph

TEHRAN -- A hard-line cleric who opposes all dialogue with the West is a leading contender to become Iran's next supreme spiritual leader.

In a move that would push the country even further into the diplomatic wilderness, Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, 71, who publicly backs the use of suicide bombers against Israel, is campaigning to succeed Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini, 67, as the head of the Islamic state.

Considered an extremist even by fellow mullahs, he was a fringe figure in Iran's theocracy until last year's election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a fellow fundamentalist who views him as his ideological mentor.

He is known to many Iranians as "Professor Crocodile" because of a notorious cartoon that depicted him weeping false tears over the imprisoning of a reformist journalist.
DR

Huntster

27th November 2006, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Forgotten Osirak so soon?

Nope. The assumption that such a raid will be successful (surprise and lousy IAD in Iraq and Saudi were contributing factors) strikes me as overly optimistic.

Not if U.S. Stealth technology is used.

However, Iranian atomic assets are likely spread out and not centralized, if they learned a lesson from Osirak, but if decent intelligence is available outlining as many locations as possible, Russian SAMS won't be much of a factor.

What's more, U.S. technological intelligence in this area is much stronger than human intelligence.[/quote]

As to the "Persians/Arabs" matter, yes indeed, noted, however, the problem for Iran, once again at the political level, is that most of the powers in the Gulf region are indeed Arab, and the ripple effects of such an attack don't inlcude a lot of positive outcomes, not to mention risks of damage to Muslim holy sites in the Holy Land.

All true, however, if Ahmadinejad is as dangerous as some are suggesting, I'm not sure such factors are deal busters.

I want to clear something up here. I am not a fan of Iran, whoever is in charge or the front man, since about 1979 and the hostage deal. Iran has been the primary enemy of the USA in the Persian Gulf region for 27 years, the Ayatollah's have been consistent in their enmity with the US, and have been generally a royal pain in the arse to the US. They support Al Sadr with money, they sent Pasderan and agents provocateurs into the Balkans, they openly support a number of terrorist organiztions, to include Hezbollah, and are all around camel dung from my point of view.

I feel the same way.

Conflating this capability, a legitimate upgrade of Iran's IAD network, with nuclear weapons is a red herring, it is sensationalism, and is as intellectually dishonest as the conflation between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda's 9-11 WTC operation. The context is wrong. The tactical and technical details are wrong. The attitude is hysterical.

I agree with that, too. Ahmadinejad as a threat to Israel is a decoy and diversion, and it will catch some fish in the net. I don't think those are high-value fish.

IMO, the clear and present danger Iran poses to global security is mining the Straights and the Persian Gulf shipping lanes for the purpose of economic/political suasion versus US and Europe, and to a certain extent some of the Asian nations who rely on Gulf oil. Leverage.

That is indeed a threat, but I don't see it as a current threat, or one becoming more imminent because of Iranian nuclear ambitions. As long as western navies continue to keep the Gulf and Straits patrolled and safe, that threat will not likely manifest itself.

The noise about Israel is, as I see it, a smoke screen. The real damage they do to Israel is the style of political judo they achieved with the support for and arming of Hezbollah, and for that matter, the damage they still do to the US is the under the table support to some factions in Iraq, whose campaigns of violent power grabbing is a means of politically eroding US image, political influence, and stature in the Mid East.

I couldn't have written it better myself.

In the medium to long term, the nuclear matter is a letitimate concern, no question.

And the Iranian nuclear matter, as much the concern that it is, is beginning to become old hat, after the Pakistani and Indian nuclear situations.

This situation (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/05/980512-wt.htm) worried me greatly:

U.S. intelligence agencies failed to detect any signs that India was preparing for the underground nuclear weapons blasts carried out yesterday and were embarrassed by New Delhi's extensive efforts to hide the tests.
The Indians engaged in elaborate "denial and deception" of U.S. satellites and other spying in the weeks leading up to the three tests at the nuclear center near Pokhran, in the northwestern state of Rajasthan bordering Pakistan.
"We had zero warning," said an administration official close to the CIA.
The intelligence failure has heightened concerns among U.S. officials about the ability to monitor cheating on a proposed international nuclear testing ban being considered for ratification by the Senate.
"There were three tests, and none were detected," said a Senate aide. "If our satellites can't tell us what was happening, what does that say about their ability to verify the [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty]?"....

zenith-nadir

27th November 2006, 03:44 PM

I see your point on the matter of a suitcase nuke in Israel, and find your reasoning sound.

DR:alc:

I'm not a nutcase, just wary of Ahmadinejad because he is so similar in the way he's telegraphing his intentions much like Hitler telegraphed his intentions in Mein Kampf.

I don't see Mahmoud as much more than an opportunist, and a front man.

DRDefinitely. He's the public face of the Mullahs, and those dudes are wack.

iranpressnews (http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/014929.html) - "The world is presently at its most wicked. It is beyond human help. It requires only a nudge to implode and prepare for the divine ruler, the Saheb-ul-Zaman (the Mahdi, the Lord of the Age) to come and set it aright. It is the sacred duty and privilege of every Muslim to do all he can to hasten the death of the old world and the birth of the global Islamic Ummeh. Thus goes the thinking of Iran’s ruling mullahs and their hand-picked president Mahmood Ahmadinejad."

It's total David Koresh. That is why I feel they would have no problem, once armed, to send a terrorist proxy off to Tel Aviv or Haifa with a dirty bomb. They are that insane. They would never fire off a missle because everyone between Iran and Israel would track that missile launch.

firecoins

27th November 2006, 06:24 PM

would anyone agree leaders who do thing in the name of God are wack jobs? Yes I include Bush but especially the Ayatollahs and both have their hands on the red button.

Yes I agree US intelligence has been a disaster which only increases my concern that Iran may use a nuke not caring about mutual destruction.

Don't tell me something stupid like I don't care about poor people while telling me I am using scare tactics. :confused:

Darth Rotor

28th November 2006, 06:34 AM

:alc:

I'm not a nutcase, just wary of Ahmadinejad because he is so similar in the way he's telegraphing his intentions much like Hitler telegraphed his intentions in Mein Kampf.

Definitely. He's the public face of the Mullahs, and those dudes are wack.

iranpressnews (http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/014929.html) - "The world is presently at its most wicked. It is beyond human help. It requires only a nudge to implode and prepare for the divine ruler, the Saheb-ul-Zaman (the Mahdi, the Lord of the Age) to come and set it aright. It is the sacred duty and privilege of every Muslim to do all he can to hasten the death of the old world and the birth of the global Islamic Ummeh. Thus goes the thinking of Iran’s ruling mullahs and their hand-picked president Mahmood Ahmadinejad."

It's total David Koresh. That is why I feel they would have no problem, once armed, to send a terrorist proxy off to Tel Aviv or Haifa with a dirty bomb. They are that insane. They would never fire off a missle because everyone between Iran and Israel would track that missile launch.
Mein Kampf, Mein Schmampf: the generic level of anti Semitism was an enabling factor. Antipathy towards Jews was hardly confined to Germany in the interwar period. Why else the energy, and urgency, of the Zionist movement of the late 19th/early 20th century, that led to a successful outlet for those who feared the worst?

Letting Godwin go is good, and again, I found your original Koresh analogy far more worthy.

DR