My parents seem to be enjoying entertaining the thought of thinking that this is a sign of the end times, or 'Great Tribulation' about to happen any time... :lol:
But, when you look at it differently, all it's ever been is a war over religion and belief, territory, the unfairness towards palestinians several decades ago, and the arrogance, greed, and sufferage of man.
Arc: Several decades ago? Have you ever seen their boulevards of broken glass, urine and crap? The houses being demolished because palestinians can't get building permits? The dozends of people going through the sewage system to awoid standing for hours at checkpoints? The walls ripping their land to pieces? I could go on and on, point being it is still happening.
Edit: Oh, wait... Sorry. I misinterpretted your post. At the time I made the post your replied to, I had momentarly forgotten about how long this has been going on... Carry on. ;)
Edit: Oh, wait... Sorry. I misinterpretted your post. At the time I made the post your replied to, I had momentarly forgotten about how long this has been going on... Carry on. ;)
The above Palestinian/Israel one has been going on since 1948 ;)
What's the big deal? Just because Israel trains for contingencies does not mean they will actually bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. The US trained on how to attack the Soviet Union, but we never did. We train on various scenarios, with the hope that we will never have to carry them out. You cannot get a bully to stop without a credible threat of force.
You cannot get a bully to stop without a credible threat of force.
Israel are a bully :xp:
I am curious how that idea was started, since, from all the reading I've done -admittedly not as much as I would like in this area- I've come to the conclusion that Israel has mainly been getting attacked ever since they were able to set up shop where they are.
Granted there was Lebanon, but I'm generalizing here. So, I would appreciate it if you could clarify how Israel is a bully. Please?
First, look at the history of the land mass of Palestine. Then look at a recent map of a palestinian city, try to trace a way from a residental area to a typical workplace, add 5 hours for every checkpoint you need to pass to see how long it would take to get there. Read up on the palestinian pain, notice town butcherings, refugee camp destruction, etc. Should start you off quite nicely.
I was talking to my Dad about this the other day, and he said that they (Israel) does this all the time. :giveup:
You mean reharsing attack plans? Sure, however this time it might not be just a bluff. A lot of Israels regional power comes from being the sole nuclear power in the region, with Iran armed, Israel can no longer strike wherever and whenever it wants. It also makes it possible for opponents in a war to take and hold territory. Besides, most analysts expect that if Israel intend to attack Iran, it'll be just after the U.S election. Late enough that they won't be acused of trying to influence the election, early enough so that they can "force" the U.S to support them.
^^^
So let me get this straight:
You're in favor of a terrorist nation having access to nukes?
I was talking to my Dad about this the other day, and he said that they (Israel) does this all the time.
You mean reharsing attack plans? Sure, however this time it might not be just a bluff.
I don't think anyone had mentioned this...sorry if someone had, didn't read the whole thread.
This sure as hell wasn't a bluff, and it sure as hell wasn't rehearsing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera)
^^^
So let me get this straight:
You're in favor of a terrorist nation having access to nukes?
I'll hazard a guess here. He probably would say he's not, but that Israel has them anyway. I'd also have to say that if he thinks that Iran having nukes would be a regional equivalent of the MAD doctrine is shortsighted. If the Iranians could be trusted to only use nukes in the event that they themselves were attacked first, it might be arguable that standing by while they develop nuclear weapons and doing nothing might be justifiable. Given the apocalyptic mentality of the radical muslim, it's the eqivalent of cutting your nose off to spite your face.
^^^
So let me get this straight:
You're in favor of a terrorist nation having access to nukes?
Are you saying the Israel is a terrorist nation? Or Iran?
Are you saying the Israel is a terrorist nation? Or Iran?
I don't think Q is... I think however the Israeli government is a bunch of terrorists, guess I can kiss good bye to visiting the blood... sorry Holy Land if their security services review my posts here. ;)
I don't think anyone had mentioned this...sorry if someone had, didn't read the whole thread.
This sure as hell wasn't a bluff, and it sure as hell wasn't rehearsing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera)
Since that time, especially after the first Gulf War, several prominent US politicians have "retroactively supported" the operation.[9] Those who believe that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons in the 1980s view Operation Opera as necessary action, even if it were considered a clear violation of international law by the U.N. Security Council. Some legal scholars believe that the action did not violate international law since it followed the rule of anticipatory self-defense.[10]
Professor Louis Rene Beres wrote that, "Israel’s citizens, together with Jews and Arabs, American, and other coalition soldiers who fought in the Gulf War may owe their lives to Israel’s courage, skill, and foresight in June 1981.";)
Are you saying the Israel is a terrorist nation? Or Iran?Well, uh, since Israel already has nukes, and has had them for decades without using them I might add, I guess that would probably mean that I'm referring to Iran. :p
Tot: Your mind reading skills are fairly good, I do however disagree with your assesment of Irans "sanity". While Amadhinejad preaches death and destruction, the real leader is far more modest, though what he says would have been cause for concern, if what he said was directed at other nations instead of at his own citizens. Look at Irans foreign policy, they might be a unpleasant country, but they are at least rational. Besides, Iran dosen't really want Israel wiped out, it actually benefits quite a lot from its existence. Shi'ite and Sunnis are quite happy to fight each other, and being one of few Shi'ite countries, it is quite happy to have a lightning rod called Israel close by.
Q: There are allready quite a few of those, has worked out reasonable enough so far, though in my perfect world neither Israel, or Iran would have nukes.
Da Man: Just because they have done it in the past dosen't neccesarly mean they'll do it again, though I guess it's to much to ask to have them learn from that failed attack.
R7: Both
J7::D
Well, I think that Jonathan makes a good point in a round about fashion, by which I mean that we really aren't talking about Iranians, Israelis, Americans, etc.. BUT their governments. As for Osirak, Mur'phon, is that the "failed attack" to which you refer? If so, could you explain your reasoning there? I think that the Iranians may have learned from that incident, as their nuke facilities aren't all sitting in one spot.
Failed attack if the goal was to prevent it's neighbours from getting the bomb, if the goal was just to prevent one of them, it was a sucsess.
Q: There are allready quite a few of those, has worked out reasonable enough so far, though in my perfect world neither Israel, or Iran would have nukes.You'll have to forgive me when I say that I believe that your attitude towards a subject as grave as nuclear proliferation is more than a tad bit flippant.
Da Man: Just because they have done it in the past dosen't neccesarly mean they'll do it again, though I guess it's to much to ask to have them learn from that failed attack.Did we read the same article? That strike couldn't have been more successful.
Well, I think that Jonathan makes a good point in a round about fashion, by which I mean that we really aren't talking about Iranians, Israelis, Americans, etc.. BUT their governments.
I think it is a key detail people often forget; there is a big difference between the people and governments. All to quickly other nations individuals are dehumanised and turned into a stereotype who all think and believe the same thing. e.g. People talk about Iran as if everyone in Iran want's Nukes and hates the west, which isn't true; Iran has a very large middle class, who are very westernised and bare not hatred at all of the West. Also the impression I get from my Iranian friends here, is that the government isn't much popular at all...
You'll have to forgive me when I say that I believe that your attitude towards a subject as grave as nuclear proliferation is more than a tad bit flippant.
You may as well face it Q; in reality all the worlds Nuclear weapons should just be in mine and mur'p's possession.
Did we read the same article? That strike couldn't have been more successful.
No kidding :lol:.
"Outcome: Success".
Can't get much more successful than that.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html)
i always thought of outkast's "bombs over baghdad" as the iraq war's theme song, who has a suggestion for the iran war's theme song?
;)
Well, uh, since Israel already has nukes, and has had them for decades without using them I might add, I guess that would probably mean that I'm referring to Iran. :p
Just makin' sure. ;)
R7: Both
Hmmm :|
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html)
Good ol' American media. I wonder if the Iranians could read this?
Good ol' American media. I wonder if the Iranians could read this?Yeah when I see "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb" I blame the media because them reporting this will obviously get people killed and the current administration rejecting intelligence reports won't ever get people killed. Ever. I mean, authority figures can never do anything wrong otherwise they wouldn't be authority figures they'd be criminals mirite rev mah boi? And on top of that, who do we the people think we are what with all this demanding to "know" things about what the government (allegedly) does I mean seriously, what the hell guys?
Well, seeing as how seymour hersh figured so prominently in that story, I see it as somewhat suspect. I've no doubt that US war planners have been looking at Iran, though. Given a lack of hard intelligence assets on the ground there, I'd be surprised if we had a really good picture of their true intent. Also, have to wonder how those in the intelligence community have come to this conclusion, given the aforementioned lack of humint and Iran's spreading out of it's nuke related infrastructure.
J7: I hear the same from my "local" Iranians.
You'll have to forgive me when I say that I believe that your attitude towards a subject as grave as nuclear proliferation is more than a tad bit flippant.
Believe what you like, though it would be nice if you could provide some reasons for your belief. Besides, how do you intend to prevent proliferation?
That strike couldn't have been more successful.
Poor choice of words on my part, yes it was a succes if the goal was to delay a weapon program in Iraq, of course, gulf war made the delay permanent. It also showed that Israel is willing to strike anything it considers a threat/"dosen't like". Now, this would be fine if Israel had the power of a larger country, and was able to project an image of invulnerability. However it isn't and it dosen't, thus Iran figures it can withstand an Israeli assault. When a close by country shows it's willingness to use force, you naturally want to protect yourself, thus the strike help to convince Iran (and others) that it needs nuclear weapons.
It won the battle, but it might have helped cause a war.
Hmmm :|
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Tot: Agreed
So.....the $64000 question is..........will we be at war with Iran before year's end? If so, will the middle class recognize it's chance to shed itself of the clerics and usher in a newer govt reflecting their own purported beliefs? Afterall, we keep hearing from emigre`s and other sources that the youth of Iran more or less hate their rulers. If opportunity knocks, will they recognize it and open the door? I wonder......
Well, seeing as how seymour hersh figured so prominently in that story, I see it as somewhat suspect.He may have a bias, however Hersh has distinguished himself as a journalist, and I think his career more than makes up for it.
I'm sure he'd be flattered to hear that. ;) Still not enough to convince me that his bias doesn't overshadow his work.
Tot: No, won't happen. While the rulers have their power base among the (very numerous) poor, nothing will unite persians more than an army knocking at their door. Of course, if enough important people of Qom throws their wight behind the invaders, it could work, but that is higly unlikely.
I pretty much figure that as well. Will be interesting to see where (if at all) the intersection between opportunism and nationalism occurs. Also one of the reasons I'd tend to disregard as overly relevant claims of pro-western sentiment among the younger masses. If they aren't willing to shed the yoke of an oppressive regime, does it really matter where they stand (assuming the goal is to defeat their leaders, not "rebuild" their country)? Regardless, I think it would be a mistake to just waltz in expecting an "easy" campaign w/o first checking to see if you couldn't provide enough support for a revolution to topple the regime from within, while smashing it's military might from w/o.
Agreed, though if you want to stop it from geting nukes, you'd either need a regieme change, or a full scale occupation. One is unlikely, the other is likely to cause more death and destruction to U.S forces than Nam.
Believe what you like, though it would be nice if you could provide some reasons for your belief. Besides, how do you intend to prevent proliferation?Okay. How about this?A lot of Israels regional power comes from being the sole nuclear power in the region, with Iran armed, Israel can no longer strike wherever and whenever it wants.If Iran succeeds in obtaining nukes then Israel, master of the preemptive strike, will probably do whatever is necessary to render them unable to use them, up to and possibly including nuking them, IMO, and they will not bother to ask for the rest of the world's permission before doing so. It would spark the very conflict that you claim to want to prevent.
Why would they do so? Well because, just like me, they believe that the Iranian government just might be crazy enough to either try to nuke them, or, far more likely IMO, to distribute nuclear weapons to terrorists. Allowing Iran to possess nukes is an unacceptable scenario, period. It is the definition of insanity.Agreed, though if you want to stop it from geting nukes, you'd either need a regieme change, or a full scale occupation. One is unlikely, the other is likely to cause more death and destruction to U.S forces than Nam.I'm sorry, but please do not insult the Vietnamese by comparing Iran's military capabilities to theirs. Iran could not beat Iraq after eight long years of war, and our military beat down Iraq in, like, eight days. Twice. :) Not that I want our forces to invade, mind you. Our military is spread thin enough as it is. I'd be perfectly willing to sit back and let the Israelis do it, though. ;) I guess that's just my Machiavelian side rearing its ugly head. :devsmoke:
I'm sorry, but please do not insult the Vietnamese by comparing Iran's military capabilities to theirs. Iran could not beat Iraq after eight long years of war, and our military beat down Iraq in, like, eight days. Twice. :) Not that I want our forces to invade, mind you. Our military is spread thin enough as it is. I'd be perfectly willing to sit back and let the Israelis do it, though. ;) I guess that's just my Machiavelian side rearing its ugly head. :devsmoke:
Hehe, Iraqis were surrendering BEFORE the war officially started. :lol:
You gotta have a damn good military to do that. ;)
Hehe, Iraqis were surrendering BEFORE the war officially started. :lol:
You gotta have a damn good military to do that. ;)
Would you want to fight for a guy who was oppressing and brutalising you, to keep him in power?
Would you want to fight for a guy who was oppressing and brutalising you, to keep him in power?
Some of them didn't seem to have a problem with what he was doing. Including foreign nations.
That's for a different thread though. ;)
Why would they do so? Well because, just like me, they believe that the Iranian government just might be crazy enough to either try to nuke them,
Please show me something sugesting Iran is an irational country willing to to cause its own destruction.
or, far more likely IMO, to distribute nuclear weapons to terrorists. Allowing Iran to possess nukes is an unacceptable scenario, period. It is the definition of insanity.
Iran is shi'ite and have no interest in leaking nukes to terrorist for fear of them being used against itself. This is one area where it and the U.S could cooperate, preventing terrorism on their own teritory is high on boths list of priorities. Still, if you are afraid of nuclear leaks, why not bugger Pakistan, they even got an up and running nuclear smugling ring.
I'd be perfectly willing to sit back and let the Israelis do it, though. I guess that's just my Machiavelian side rearing its ugly head.
Well, at least we have an ugly side in common:D
Since you don't want the U.S to invade, I'll just deal with the Israel version.
First, geography is very much against the Israelis, either they'll have to buldoze through neighbours, or do an amphibious assault under a hail of misiles. To make things worse, both Hizbullah and Hamas will raise hell, baiting Israel with missiles, making Israels small size painfull (misiles can hit any city), raids or if they move enough men to Iran, hit and run assaults.
Then comes the problem of Irans size, occupying it is not really a feat Israel can pull off. Then add the large army, even larger milita, and hordes of people willing to fight for their country, and you see why Dubaya haven't already invaded. I can provide more reasons for why Israel can't pull it off if you wish.
Some of them didn't seem to have a problem with what he was doing. Including foreign nations.
The whole opression thingy? The U.S didn't have a problem with that, otherwise you'd be involved in a lot more wars, and would have stopped supporting allied opressors.
Iran is shi'ite and have no interest in leaking nukes to terrorist for fear of them being used against itself. This is one area where it and the U.S could cooperate, preventing terrorism on their own teritory is high on boths list of priorities. Still, if you are afraid of nuclear leaks, why not bugger Pakistan, they even got an up and running nuclear smugling ring.
Would be more correct to state that they'd have no interest in nukes falling into sunni hands. Still, the arabs (and possibly even the Persians) might be willing to settle for the ole "the enemy of my enemy" routine. Nukes appear to be the ultimate trump card, directly or via 3rd parties. I doubt Iran would really be all that willing (in its current regime) to cooperate with America to stem further proliferation, especially in light of Israel's "suspected" nuke status.
As I alluded to in a previous post, when we talk about Iran, we're likely not talking about the emigre` community or the average Iranian (or at least the westernized/educated one). The question in most people's minds is about the degree to which the mullahs will try to use jihadis to press whatever their agenda is on a global front. It's probably not a good idea to project western "rationalism" onto people from another culture. Since they don't necessarily share our values, the strain of logic they employ will likely differ from our own.
As to your points on Israel, I think that Osirak is not repeatable for reasons aforementioned. It wouldn't be necessary for Israel to attempt an invasion of Iran (they have less ability there than we do), however, commando raids and airstrikes might be sufficient to cripple (not remove, however) Iran's nuke program. It's also likely to be something of a pyrhhic victory if they try, all the more so if nukes are involved.
Given that the great majority (75% +) of the world's nations are despotic, it's only natural that ANY country looking out for its interests is likely to make what would strike others as amoral/immoral alliances or relationships. Ce le vie, I s'ppose.
Would be more correct to state that they'd have no interest in nukes falling into sunni hands.
Tot: Iran have had weapons sold to sji'ite muslims, only to see them end up used against sji'ites in for instance Iraq. While conventional weapons can be sold/given despite that since the "colateral damage" is acceptable, a nuke simply isn't. And once Iran get (yes, I think it's inevitable) a nuke, it'll have plenty of reasons to prevent others from aquiring it.
Still, the arabs (and possibly even the Persians) might be willing to settle for the ole "the enemy of my enemy" routine.
Which is presisely why Iran want Israel weakened, but not destroyed.
or the average Iranian
The average iranian is poor and pious, which is why the system is considered acceptable to them.
however, commando raids and airstrikes might be sufficient to cripple (not remove, however) Iran's nuke program.
Several problems with that aproach, first airstrikes will be a pain after Iran bought some nasty russian anti-air misiles. Commando raids are hard for obvious reasons. Getting in with the "tools of the trade", remaining undetected, getting close, overwhelming defences, do it fast enough that they won't get the airforce up their behinds, in short it's extremely risky.
Then we have the problem of not knowing how many sites, and which type of sites Iran has, at least one was only found after an insider revealed it. So it might delay it alot, a little, or not at all, then consider that Iran will strike back, and Israel is in a rather nasty position.
...Iran have had weapons sold to sji'ite muslims, only to see them end up used against sji'ites in for instance Iraq. While conventional weapons can be sold/given despite that since the "colateral damage" is acceptable, a nuke simply isn't. And once Iran get (yes, I think it's inevitable) a nuke, it'll have plenty of reasons to prevent others from aquiring it.
...Which is presisely why Iran want Israel weakened, but not destroyed.
...Several problems with that aproach, first airstrikes will be a pain after Iran bought some nasty russian anti-air misiles. Commando raids are hard for obvious reasons. Getting in with the "tools of the trade", remaining undetected, getting close, overwhelming defences, do it fast enough that they won't get the airforce up their behinds, in short it's extremely risky.
Then we have the problem of not knowing how many sites, and which type of sites Iran has, at least one was only found after an insider revealed it. So it might delay it alot, a little, or not at all, then consider that Iran will strike back, and Israel is in a rather nasty position.
Iran also fought Iraqi shiites and sunnis for 8 +/- years, so I'm not convinced they were too worried about these shiites using them to create chaos by killing each other as well as westerners. Iran gains most by keeping Iraq destabilized. If the regime in Iran is sane (maybe or not), they would likely know that a terrorist nuke going off in Israel would automatically be assumed curtesy of Iran and would risk retaliation. But.....if the leadership of Iran believe that this will bring forth their cherished 12th Imam (and consequently their own salvation)...can you really be sure they wouldn't risk it? I knew a guy from Jamaica that thought if I shot him with a gun, that God wouldn't let it hurt him, even at point blank range. Beliefs can cause people to do odd things.
To the rest of your points, I'm pretty much in agreement. Iran's greatest advantages are its mountainous terrain and the spreading out of its nuke facilities. While I don't doubt that special forces types could penetrate Iran (probably have), it is correct that their task would be herculean in nature. As to the Russian equipment, seeing is believing. Their stuff has a spotty track record when exported.
The whole question of "what will they do if they get the bomb" reminds of the movie Wrong Is Right. Once the terrorist in the film gains control of his country, he loses interest in nuke terrorism b/c now he has too much to lose. Let's hope the mullahs see it that way too. :)
Iran also fought Iraqi shiites and sunnis for 8 +/- years, so I'm not convinced they were too worried about these shiites using them to create chaos by killing each other as well as westerners.
Should have written itself rather than sji'ites. Iran isn't terribly worried about terrorists/freedom fighters using their guns, guns are relatively harmless. It is also likely that most of those guns will be used to further Irans goals, those that aren't are insignificant. Besides, since terrorists/freedom fighters will always get their hands on guns, why shouldn't Iran profitt from it?
Iran gains most by keeping Iraq destabilized.
Only for as long as said chaos is seen as a U.S failure. In the longer run, Iraq is likely to be one of Irans few allies, but for now, we agree.
If the regime in Iran is sane (maybe or not), they would likely know that a terrorist nuke going off in Israel would automatically be assumed curtesy of Iran and would risk retaliation.
Which is the same reason I don't believe Israel will use nukes to try to halt Irans nuke programme.
As to the Russian equipment, seeing is believing. Their stuff has a spotty track record when exported.
Yes, but say that to the guy in who get the blame for every plane shot down, even a few down will be seen as a failure, and put him on his way to an early retirement. Besides, the Russians like to strutt their stuff at the border, seeing is believing so if it works, I feel sorry for israels pilots.
But.....if the leadership of Iran believe that this will bring forth their cherished 12th Imam (and consequently their own salvation)...can you really be sure they wouldn't risk it? I knew a guy from Jamaica that thought if I shot him with a gun, that God wouldn't let it hurt him, even at point blank range. Beliefs can cause people to do odd things.
When have Iran acted like an irrationall theocrazy? As you said, seeing is believing:D
The whole question of "what will they do if they get the bomb" reminds of the movie Wrong Is Right. Once the terrorist in the film gains control of his country, he loses interest in nuke terrorism b/c now he has too much to lose.
Gah, seems like I'll have to watch another movie this year, they ruin me (both of them):D
We are in agreement that Iran seeks to destabilize Iraq long enough to make it untenable for America to remain and long enough to consolidate its influence over that country's lawmakers (or at least enough of them).
I'd agree that it's unlikely (extremely) that Israel would resort to a preemptive nuke strike to take out Iran's growing nuke infrastructure (even if it could succeed, the fallout would likely make them more hated than they are now).
As regards the Russian equipment......seeing is believing.;) Not saying they can't produce decent stuff, just that it has often faired poorly vs its American/European counterparts. Perhaps the problem has mostly been poor training and grasp of tactics (+stripped down Soviet equipment) by their client states. Remember, SH was believed to possess an awesome state of the art anti-aircraft system. Time will tell......or perhaps hopefully not have to.
Crazy, it would seem, is probably in the eye of the beholder. Right now, I think it's the classic case in Iran of the mullahs likely using the "great satan" as a means of distracting the populace from their (the govt's) own enormous failures. Now, if the mullahs really believe in this 12th Imam stuff.......how sane would you view them as being. ;)
Now, if the mullahs really believe in this 12th Imam stuff.......how sane would you view them as being.
About as sane as those that think they can force christs return:D
Yeah, I was almost going to mention the whole argument that people see Bush as trying to force the Second Coming, as though mere humans could force the hands of God... :lol: