Israel believes Iran will have a bomb within a year and have hinted at a preemptive strike to try and wipe out these capabilities. Well we need to let Israel know that they cannot do that and if we did we would be bluffing because theres no way we wouldn't be involved as Iran would send fighters through Iraq towards Israel and the entire area would become chaos. Our soldiers are up to their neck in Iraq right now imagine if 10 million non-uniformed Iranian fighters came trampling through towards Israel? We wouldn't be able to do anything outside of pulling out of Iraq or having a bloodbath! A war with Iran could would definitely bring immediate Russian and Chinese aid and unlikely but maybe maybe maybe....intervention thus ww3? Yet we continue to vow to defend Israel.

I just don't see us, israel and UK being able to overwhelm Iran without a heavy cost.

1. The EU and the USA, while being all bent out of shape about Iran's program never said a peep about Israel's secret program nor did they "harshly" punish India and Pakistan for theirs. In fact we cancelled the few sanctions we had in place against both nations. If you wish to ban nukes, be consistant about it!
2. Iran want to become a first world nation and has the absolute right to do so. The biggest thing that separates first world from third world nations is the development and enrichment of nukes.
3. Iran has no history of aggression against other countries. In fact they have been victimized by other nations attacking them or causing them trouble- including the UK and USA.

but as long as they are against Israeli imperialism they mst be EVIL

7/22/2008 11:00:07 AM

Bush said the other day that if Isreal went off the chain against Iran they were on their own

I hope he sticks to that

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 11:16 AM. Reason : .]

7/22/2008 11:16:48 AM

^I don't understand how you forsee a situation where Israel attacks Iran and Iraq isn't part of it. Iraq is in between the two so the airspace and more importantly the "sneaking" of 500k Iranian guerrillas through would cause a problem. Do we let them pass through? I don't see that happening in a million years and we sure as hell don't have enough soldiers over there now to fight a ground war with Iranian blenders in Iraq.

7/22/2008 11:29:24 AM

ICBM

---

sometimes i wish that the entire middle east would just nuke the shit out of each other and basically take themselves out. One less headache for the rest of the world.

but unfortunately we couldn't stay out of it because of all the oil.

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 11:47 AM. Reason : sd]

7/22/2008 11:45:27 AM

once we become non-dependant on oil from that part of the world, we won't give a shit what the Book of Revelations has to say.

7/22/2008 12:00:31 PM

I personally am against the idea of the middle east nuking itself into oblivion.

7/22/2008 12:14:32 PM

yeah i dont get why we cant just all get along

7/22/2008 12:17:54 PM

because it is in our nature to secure resources for the survival of our group over other groups. basic caveman instincts.

7/22/2008 12:41:44 PM

Quote :

"sometimes i wish that the entire middle east would just nuke the shit out of each other and basically take themselves out. One less headache for the rest of the world. but unfortunately we couldn't stay out of it because of all the oil."

They can go ahead and nuke themselves to hell. We could still get the oil out afterwards.

7/22/2008 4:12:47 PM

Quote :

"1. The EU and the USA, while being all bent out of shape about Iran's program never said a peep about Israel's secret program nor did they "harshly" punish India and Pakistan for theirs. In fact we cancelled the few sanctions we had in place against both nations. If you wish to ban nukes, be consistant about it!"

Its tough to be consistent over a time period spanning multiple administrations. Bush has made non-proliferation and fighting terrorism a primary foreign policy objective. It follows that they would target Iran's nuclear operation.

Quote :

"2. Iran want to become a first world nation and has the absolute right to do so. The biggest thing that separates first world from third world nations is the development and enrichment of nukes."

This sounds like a talking point from Ahmadinejad. The biggest thing separating the first world nations from third world nations is economic development. And besides, there have been many, many proposals for nuclear development or fuel in Iran provided by European or Asian contractors. The issue is weapons-grade nuclear enrichment that Iran seems hellbent on attaining.

Quote :

"3. Iran has no history of aggression against other countries. In fact they have been victimized by other nations attacking them or causing them trouble- including the UK and USA."

They have a history of funding, training, and supplying weapons to terrorists, particularly the kind of terrorists that attack Israelis and Americans. They also have a history of taking Americans hostage, and lately they have been making incendiary statements about how Israel should be "wiped off the map". Pardon Israel for being concerned.

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 5:19 PM. Reason : 2]

7/22/2008 5:18:34 PM

Quote :

"Iran want to become a first world nation and has the absolute right to do so. The biggest thing that separates first world from third world nations is the development and enrichment of nukes"

I dont think that this is correct at all. If you had to pick one thing this would be it?

7/22/2008 5:30:56 PM

Quote :

"The biggest thing that separates first world from third world nations is the development and enrichment of nukes."

Canada, Japan, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, etc are third world countries. Wow, I learned something today.

7/22/2008 8:27:43 PM

lol

7/22/2008 8:31:42 PM

Quote :

"Iran has no history of aggression against other countries."

Embassies are considered to be the territory of their nation of origin, and attacking one is therefore an act of war. I won't even get into the hostage situation itself, or the subject of other channels of possible Iranian aggression in more recent years.

Quote :

"The biggest thing that separates first world from third world nations is the development and enrichment of nukes."

This is preposterous. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, and they are far from being "First World." Norway, Sweden, and Canada are without doubt part of the First World, and have no enrichment facilities.

Quote :

"The EU and the USA, while being all bent out of shape about Iran's program never said a peep about Israel's secret program nor did they "harshly" punish India and Pakistan for theirs."

Israel, Pakistan, and India also don't have three decades of anti-American belligerence working against them. American nuclear proliferation policy is rooted primarily in our national self-interest, with a general opposition to nuclear weapons being a comparatively minor concern.

Quote :

"Well we need to let Israel know that they cannot do that and if we did we would be bluffing because theres no way we wouldn't be involved as Iran would send fighters through Iraq towards Israel and the entire area would become chaos."

This seems unlikely, for a few reasons:

1) The very same limitations you mentioned work against Israel to almost the same extent. They have slightly more force projection ability, but not enough to make a substantial first strike likely or even possible. Without our cooperation, Israel can't mount an effective military action, therefore making it very likely that they won't.
2) Iran would have to go through more than just Iraq to get to Israel, since the latter two countries don't share a border. They'd have to also march right through Jordan or Syria -- more likely Jordan, since it has a longer border with Israel/Palestine. This leads in part to point #3...
3) Iran marching through Iraq and another Arab country would piss off an Arab population that is already somewhat wary of it. The Arab countries don't like Israel, it's true, but they don't like the idea of an Iran that is willing to blast through its borders, either.
4) Iran does not have the logistical capability to supply, transport, and command any large force in the kind of operation you are describing.
5) Iran does not have anywhere near 10 million fighters of any kind. They claim that their paramilitary volunteer force has perhaps 12.5 million members (which is dubious anyway), but admit that of those, only 3 million are combat-capable.

More to come.

7/22/2008 8:49:36 PM

Quote :

"Israel, Pakistan, and India also don't have three decades of anti-American belligerence working against them. American nuclear proliferation policy is rooted primarily in our national self-interest, with a general opposition to nuclear weapons being a comparatively minor concern."

Well only one nation has been evil enough to actually use one(two and on populated areas :shock:, and came a button away from ending it all on a separate occasions. Only one nation has recently randomly invaded a sovereign nation.

Quote :

"Israel, Pakistan, and India also don't have three decades of anti-American belligerence working against them. "

lol and have you ever stopped and investigated as to why they have this belligerence? let me guess because they're jealous???? or is it because....they hate arr freedom? lmao

Quote :

"Embassies are considered to be the territory of their nation of origin, and attacking one is therefore an act of war. I won't even get into the hostage situation itself, or the subject of other channels of possible Iranian aggression in more recent years."

I know you won't. That would reveal the fact that students (not to be confused with the iranian government) took the hostages as retaliation to the cia coup that devastated the country.

Quote :

"They have a history of funding, training, and supplying weapons to terrorists, particularly the kind of terrorists that attack Israelis and Americans. They also have a history of taking Americans hostage,"

So do we, I can front you a few sources so if you need work, get at me.

Quote :

"they have been making incendiary statements about how Israel should be "wiped off the map". Pardon Israel for being concerned."

Would you not feel the same if New York was suddenly taken over by Aboriginis and all Americans kicked out?

Quote :

") Iran marching through Iraq and another Arab country would piss off an Arab population that is already somewhat wary of it. The Arab countries don't like Israel, it's true, but they don't like the idea of an Iran that is willing to blast through its borders, either."

O they would be glad but no need to worry, this wouldn't be a tank war. The iranians would discretely move and be welcomed and housed by civilians thus unbombable and there are handheld Russian weapons that can take out our best tanks now. Think Hezbollah on steroids.

7/22/2008 9:24:13 PM

Quote :

"Would you not feel the same if New York was suddenly taken over by Aboriginis and all Americans kicked out?"

please clarify just what you mean by this statement as it applies to the topic at hand.

7/22/2008 9:29:03 PM

Before I enter this conversation, I must know-- is this real talk?

7/22/2008 9:30:57 PM

6) Russian and Chinese aid would be, at most, a slight possibility in the event that we pre-emptively struck Iran; it would be almost entirely out of the question if they made a military action like the one you describe. Outright military intervention by them on behalf of Iran would not happen in either case. For one thing, it's logistically impossible for those countries to give material aid to Iran directly; neither country borders it, and would once again have to go through two countries to get there. Naval transport is cut off by our sizeable fleet presence in the area, and air bases in central Asia and the Indian ocean do likewise to airlifts. In short, the only way Russia and China could aid them is if they truly did want a world war, and neither of them has any inclination to that effect.

Lastly, I am very confused by your last comment:

Quote :

"but as long as they are against Israeli imperialism they mst be EVIL"

You can say a lot of things about Israel, but suggesting it has imperialist motives is just intellectually dishonest. They haven't made any territorial gains in decades, and have in fact relinquished territory larger than themselves peaceably and through diplomatic means.

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 9:33 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2008 9:32:55 PM

Quote :

"Well only one nation has been evil enough to actually use one"

OK, so in the process of ending a war against an enemy that started the whole thing by surprise, we dropped a nuclear weapon. Tell me how in the name of God's ass that applies to anything being discussed in this thread.

I think I was pretty clear: we get really worked up when countries that hate us get bigger weapons. We are less concerned when countries that are our friends get bigger weapons. Iran does not like us. What is so silly about us not wanting them to have the bomb? I'm perfectly willing to be a hypocrite (and I'm far from conceding the point that we are) if it means I don't get bombed.

Quote :

"lol and have you ever stopped and investigated as to why they have this belligerence?"

I'm a political science major specializing in international relations. The subject has come up a time or two.

We helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran and installed the idiot Shah. OK, so Iran has legitimate reasons to dislike us. When did I ever say they didn't? More to the point, what does that have to do with anything?

Quote :

"That would reveal the fact that students (not to be confused with the iranian government) took the hostages"

The students did so most of a year after the Shah had been ousted and replaced by the current regime; they did so with the subsequent support of the Ayatollah; they were in no way hindered by any element of the government of Iran as per its duties; the crisis was prolonged by the government for more than a year in spite of all international law and response.

Quote :

"The iranians would discretely move and be welcomed and housed by civilians thus unbombable "

How do you discretely move an army of any size, let alone the one you are describing?

What about the sizeable portion of Iraqis that have no love for Iranians?

This concept of a stealth army is one of the most laughable things you've proposed in a litany of highly laughable things. It also outright contradicts the description you provided in your earlier post.

[Edited on July 22, 2008 at 9:49 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2008 9:47:27 PM

Quote :

"please clarify just what you mean by this statement as it applies to the topic at hand."

Sleep on it...and I'll get back at you in the morning if you still need help.

Quote :

"You can say a lot of things about Israel, but suggesting it has imperialist motives is just intellectually dishonest. They haven't made any territorial gains in decades, and have in fact relinquished territory larger than themselves peaceably and through diplomatic means."

so what does anything they did before 19(pick a year) get grandfathered in or something?

Quote :

"a war against an enemy that started the whole thing by surprise"

It was a preemptive stirike against inevitable us intervention but still, the rising sun was evil, I'm not arguing that, but no civilian population deserves to be bombed like that. It was a pure act of evil. Why not use the bomb on a battle island or close packed fleet, nope. use it on 2 populated cities.

Quote :

"Tell me how in the name of God's ass that applies to anything being discussed in this thread."

Because we have some nerve to not allow someone to have nukes because they "aren't responsible enough" when we are the only ones, so far that weren't responsible enough and we have funded more terrorism than anyone. We virtually invented terrorism.

Quote :

"what does that have to do with anything?"

As a sovereign nation, Iran has the right to protect itself.

Quote :

"the crisis was prolonged by the government for more than a year in spite of all international law and response."

You do know this was done by Ronald Reagan, don't you? For the upcoming election.

Quote :

"How do you discretely move an army of any size, let alone the one you are describing?"

More importantly, how do you detect a secret army camouflaged as civilians in the least secure place on the planet?

Quote :

"What about the sizeable portion of Iraqis that have no love for Iranians?"

If UNC were to play the soviet national team in basketball, you guys would all be tarheels for a day.

Quote :

"This concept of a stealth army is one of the most laughable things you've proposed in a litany of highly laughable things. It also outright contradicts the description you provided in your earlier post."

I don't know why its so hard for you to understand. Its the way things are headed. Hezbollah showcased a watered down version of it a few years ago and were fiesty. How do you think they got all their Iranian weapons? Its 2008. nations like Russia, China and Iran can move things in disguise, especially small things.

7/23/2008 12:20:17 AM

i hope i'm not the only one that wants israel to blow up the nuclear facilities

7/23/2008 12:34:01 AM

Quote :

"Because we have some nerve to not allow someone to have nukes because they "aren't responsible enough" when we are the only ones, so far that weren't responsible enough and we have funded more terrorism than anyone."

Jimmy Carter? Is that you? Blame America first.

Quote :

"We virtually invented terrorism."

OK, you're an idiot.

Quote :

"As a sovereign nation, Iran has the right to protect itself."

As the world's lone superpower, we have the right to strive for nuclear non-proliferation.

Quote :

"You do know this was done by Ronald Reagan, don't you? For the upcoming election."

Oh, great. A fucking conspiracy theorist. Just FYI, that is pure nonsense and the fact that you believe it shows just how far out in left field you really are.

7/23/2008 1:01:46 AM

Is this fucking guy LiusClues or something?

7/23/2008 2:00:56 AM

Well, I'm pretty sure hes a troll and certain he is an idiot; but I'm not sure what regular user he is.

7/23/2008 7:14:39 AM

i'd actually like to sit down with this guy and see how much he knows about the State of Israel

7/23/2008 8:37:37 AM

He's not liusclues, you suspended him and we're fighting to get him back.

7/23/2008 8:51:16 AM

Quote :

"As a sovereign nation, Iran has the right to protect itself"

so do we.

Quote :

"Because we have some nerve to not allow someone to have nukes because they "aren't responsible enough" when we are the only ones, so far that weren't responsible enough "

no matter how horrible they were, any person that has half a brain knows that the atomic weapons used in Japan saved more lives than they took. its convienient to disregard the months of carpet and fire-bombings that would've precluded an invasion of Japan and devastated the entire population.

7/23/2008 8:59:02 AM

Civilians shouldn't be bombed period. We had our naval base attacked.

Quote :

"is this real talk?"

This is rael talk.

I am not anti-anything-lol. I read everything I can get my hands on, even U.S. controlled media. Then I form my opinion, not someone else's being "put" on me.

I have found through research, such as, reading the same article printed in 5 other countries and then reading what U.S. papers/media says about the story-It does not appear to be the same at all. It has been spun so far as lead you to believe what one writing the story would have you think.

I like to think for myself, give me the facts, and I'll come to my own conclusions. I don't need facts left out so when I read your story, your opinion becomes mine.

I have read about Israel in almost all print around the world.

The single thing I keep hearing from foreign papers is "do the American people know what they are paying for", "do they know the atrocities placed on the Palestinian people with their dollars", "why do they allow this to happen?" On and on...

If you really ask yourself why do we support Israel, I'm pretty sure 90% or better have no clue, I've read my arse off, and still don't know why, but I know it makes no sense-none at all.

Why do we blindly support these guys?

The fact that the jewish lobby greases the pockets of both parties to the extreme might have somehting to do with the political support? Tell me what has Israel really really done for us to warrent such generosity? The USS Liberty?The Akula class attack submarine in large part is the result of Israels spying.

Our woes in the middle east have firm roots in our very biased approach to Israel and their misdeeds.
Yes Israels neighbors have attacked them. And Israel has attacked their neighbors as well. Israel does a great job of provoking a fight and then crying foul. Its easy when you have the USA as a sugar daddy.

My brother trained with the Israeli defence forces. He has a powerful respect for their skills and abilities. He also got to see and hear first hand how they treat arabs. No not those who actually did anything wrong but the first ones they can catch after something happens. I would be all for putting the boots to a captured terrorist that just blew up a school but these guys just don't bother to wait. Imagine if you watched your father who has done no wrong get beatings, jailed and prevented to go to work. Your family suffers. No apologies, no compensation, just accept it.Next they bulldoze your home without warning. All your possessions still inside. Oh we signed a peace treaty and will return the lands we took from you. But instead build settlements on them instead.
No I guess this wouldn't cause some strong hard feelings.

Watch some news other than CNN or US based media. No not arab news because they sling it the other way.

I say let Israel stand on its own. They are wealthy and don't need our money. They leach and use us. Let them answer up for what they do without us to shield them. They will learn to play nice. Even Israeli citizens are becoming fed up with their gov constant abuse of their neighbors.

Quote :

"please clarify just what you mean by this statement as it applies to the topic at hand."

The bottom line is we are probably not even planning to invade Iran because of some bull**** nuclear disarmament.

Have you all forgot Saddam's non existent "wmd's"? Nothing found, because we all know it was a lie to "we the people" and the world. Most of the world knew it was a lie, but it has taken Americans a 8 trillion deficit, $140 a barrel crude, $4+ gas, all goods across the board increased, and the American dollar's value declining. And the Bush/Cheney dynasty with their hands in everything. I think most Americans should have figured out the racket. The planning of the invasion of Iran, as Iraq, has nothing to do with our fear of wmd's or nukes (maybe providing Israel a buffer though). Both countries were/are not going to trade crude for U.S. dollar exchange. Iran wants/is to convert to the Euro, and also wants all of opec to follow.

Quote :

"You can say a lot of things about Israel, but suggesting it has imperialist motives is just intellectually dishonest."

I don't know what that says to you but to me, it screams "we takin ova"
And when Iran suggests Israel be "wiped off the map" it is often spun by biased media outlets when in reality they are talking politically and not the entire country be removed physically but the Israeli regime be wiped out.

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 10:09 AM. Reason : one city at a time]

7/23/2008 10:05:28 AM

Look, I hate to burst your bubble, but this talk about 10 million Iranians crossing the Middle East to go screw around with Israel nothing more than a fantasy at best. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that your 10 million number is hyperbole. Otherwise, you're talking about the theoretical membership of nearly the entire Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and there's no way they'd ever send that many paramilitary forces out of Iran with so many less-than-friendly neighbors.

Speaking of which, what makes you think that Arab nations like Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, or Syria are going to let millions of Persian fighters across their territory? Sure, a few thousand fighters and a couple crates of weapons here or there is one thing, but even a pro-Palestinian nation is going to have second thoughts about entire armies moving across their sovereign territory. Even Shia Iraq, which I'm sure holds a lot of sympathies for their Iranian bretheren, while willing to accept aid and a few fighters from Iran is hardly going to let millions of soldiers stream across their borders. If I've learned anything from the history books, its that the only power that truly rivals religion in motivating people to take up arms is nationalism.

I seriously doubt the Chinese or the Russians would provide any significant aid to the Iranians beyond the current level of arms sales that they're conducting. Do you seriously think the Chinese or the Russians are going to risk direct war, or even a proxy war, with the United States over Iran? This isn't the Cold War era.

Quote :

"1. The EU and the USA, while being all bent out of shape about Iran's program never said a peep about Israel's secret program nor did they "harshly" punish India and Pakistan for theirs. In fact we cancelled the few sanctions we had in place against both nations. If you wish to ban nukes, be consistant about it!"

I agree. It was stupid and inconsistent. So I won't dispute this. However, does the fact that Israel, India, and Pakistan posessing nuclear weapons somehow make it acceptable for us to give up nuclear non-proliferation efforts? Are you saying that since these nations now have nukes, we should just give up and let other nations go ahead and pursue nuclear weapons as well?

Quote :

"2. Iran want to become a first world nation and has the absolute right to do so. The biggest thing that separates first world from third world nations is the development and enrichment of nukes."

Other people have pounded on this issue, but I'll reiterate it. Does possessing nuclear weapons make Pakistan and North Korea first world nations? Does the lack of nuclear weapons make Canada and Japan third world states? Does Germany's lack of nuclear weapons diminish their political clout compared to a nuclear France?

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant nuclear enrichment and not nuclear weapons. Has nuclear enrichment made Brazil or South Africa first world powers? If Iran truly is pursuing nuclear power, then why produce a program that can enrich weapons grade nuclear material? Why not pursue an approach that doesn't produce fissile material? Why not take up multinational offers to purchase a Russian nuclear facility? It doesn't make sense unless they're goal is a nuclear weapons capability.

Quote :

"3. Iran has no history of aggression against other countries. In fact they have been victimized by other nations attacking them or causing them trouble- including the UK and USA."

I won't deny that Iran has gotten the short end of the stick over the last century or so. Yet to say that they're just a victim is misleading at best. Iran has funded a lot of extremely violent organizations and which has helped to destabilize a lot of other nations. I won't deny that the United States and other nations have done this as well, but again, does that somehow make it morally right for Iran to do the same? Is that reasonable?

Now, as for your original point about Israel bombing Iran, I personally think its not the best move at this point, and Israel will probably suffer from it as a result. However, to talk about some great Iranian invasion is completely out of touch with reality. Yes, they could make our lives miserable in Iraq, but I don't think Iraq itself will put up with it either; their people are sick of war, and with an end to the American occupation and a hope for some sort of normalcy now in sight, do you think they're going to welcome an influx of Iranian fighters with flowers and sweets?

7/23/2008 1:29:01 PM

Quote :

"so what does anything they did before 19(pick a year) get grandfathered in or something?"

Well, since they've given back every territorial gain they've gotten by force except for the Golan Heights and West Bank, and given that all of those territorial gains were the result of winning defensive (or at least clearly pre-emptive) wars...kinda, yeah. Like I say, you can call Israel a lot of names, but "imperialistic" has an actual definition that the country simply does not meet.

Quote :

"It was a preemptive stirike against inevitable us intervention . . . but no civilian population deserves to be bombed like that."

The first part is preposterous given American isolationism at the time, and the second part is extremely debatable. Rather than get into it, I'll point to Iran's solid civilian-killing record and ask how you manage to get from ideological point A (don't attack civilian populations) to point B (let's let Iran have the bomb).

Quote :

"Because we have some nerve to not allow someone to have nukes because they "aren't responsible enough""

Who has said that? Who? Name one goddamn person.

I've told you several times already: we're not going to allow Iran to have nukes because Iran doesn't like us or our friends.

Quote :

"As a sovereign nation, Iran has the right to protect itself."

What in the fuck are you talking about? Operation Ajax happened fifty years ago. Nothing they do about it now qualifies as "protecting itself." It qualifies as bitterness and revenge.

Quote :

"You do know this was done by Ronald Reagan, don't you?"

Really? Ronald Reagan kept fifty-some Americans hostage for more than a year to win an election? Man, you'd think there would have been something on the news about that. Or maybe it's the case that you've departed from reality entirely.

Quote :

"More importantly, how do you detect a secret army camouflaged as civilians in the least secure place on the planet?"

For all the incompetence and disorder in the world, it's still pretty fucking easy to notice tens or hundreds of thousands of people moving consistently in one direction, especially when they don't even speak the same goddamn language. Or is Iran going to secretly train its entire stealth army to speak fluent Arabic with Iraqi accents? To say nothing of all of them having to carry substantial military equipment. And of the fact they'd be cut off from supplies, because even the percentage of Iraqis that would help them doesn't have enough food, etc. to spare for an ENTIRE ARMY. And of the fact that it would be impossible to coordinate them unless they traveled in groups, which are also easy to recognize. And of the fact that once they got to Israel, they'd only have the things they carried on them. So that's maybe, what, a few AK-47 clips? You're going to sneak an entire army across two countries just so that your soldiers can fire 90 bullets a piece?

Quote :

"If UNC were to play the soviet national team in basketball, you guys would all be tarheels for a day."

Wow. You seriously just compared NCSU-UNC rivalry to the antipathy between Iraq and Iran, two countries which went to war not to long ago and inflicted unspeakable casualties on each other.

Quote :

"Hezbollah showcased a watered down version of it a few years ago and were fiesty."

Hezbollah moved a relatively small amount of personell and equipment within one small country in a defensive war. At no time did they move large numbers of troops over a long distance, covertly through the population. How does that situation in any way resemble the one you describe of "ten million" troops "trampling" across Iraq (and Jordan)?

Quote :

"Its 2008. nations like Russia, China and Iran can move things in disguise, especially small things."

Them and every other group on the world since the dawn of time. Smuggling isn't new to 2008. But regardless of how advanced it's gotten, it's still not really possible to move army-level amounts of anything without being clearly noticed.

Quote :

"I don't know what that says to you but to me, it screams "we takin ova""

Nothing in that map demonstrates imperialist tendencies. It may demonstrate a number of negative things, but that's not one of them. Besides, how much of that land was granted by the United Nations? That's a notoriously imperialistic body right there. And how much of the rest was won in a defensive war?

-----------

Let's review some key facts here:

You have failed to respond to a large percentage of the arguments made against you. Whenever you get called out on something being bullshit, you just ignore it and move on.

You started this thread acting like you were just so very sincerely concerned about American troops on the ground, and when that didn't work you started with the anti-American, pro-Iranian ranting pretty fucking quick.

For all your talk about all the different news sources you read, you have backed up none of your ideas with an article or source. This omission is especially glaring on some of your more ludicrous claims (like the Iranian stealth army).

You have created a double standard wherein you want us to hold Israel and the United States accountable for things they did 30, 50, 60 years ago, but berate us for failing to ignore Iranian transgressions in the same time-frame or more recently.

Just wanted all of that clearly stated.

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 1:56 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2008 1:49:52 PM

^Wow, good post.

I like how wethebest is posting pictures from http://www.nogw.com. I had to look up that site:

Quote :

" George W. Bush - Terrorist in the White House Web site that exposes the corrupt Bush administration and his terrorist organization. We pull together the resources that expose the death and destruction of this Illuminati organization, in their bid for global domination. The value of human life is falling fast with the Bush Cheney regime in power in Washington. egime change starts in Washington. "

Nice, unbiased source there.

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 2:02 PM. Reason : 2]

7/23/2008 2:01:49 PM

I just hope that whatever side of the argument everyone in here is on, you all agree that military action against Iran, either by us or Israel, is probably not the best idea in the world right now.

7/23/2008 3:21:01 PM

Quote :

"I seriously doubt the Chinese or the Russians would provide any significant aid to the Iranians beyond the current level of arms sales that they're conducting. Do you seriously think the Chinese or the Russians are going to risk direct war, or even a proxy war, with the United States over Iran? This isn't the Cold War era."

Thats the type of arrogance thats going to do us in. Do you seriously think the US is going to risk direct war, or even a proxy war, with the China over Israel? I don't know if you know this, but Iran is very important to China's future.

Quote :

"However, does the fact that Israel, India, and Pakistan posessing nuclear weapons somehow make it acceptable for us to give up nuclear non-proliferation efforts? Are you saying that since these nations now have nukes, we should just give up and let other nations go ahead and pursue nuclear weapons as well?"

No, but we should at least get rid of ours before we go telling people who can and canot make them, ya know? since we do indeed have more than all non-Russia countries combined. Non proliferation needs to start right here. You can't lead without first setting the example.

Quote :

"Other people have pounded on this issue, but I'll reiterate it. Does possessing nuclear weapons make Pakistan and North Korea first world nations? Does the lack of nuclear weapons make Canada and Japan third world states? Does Germany's lack of nuclear weapons diminish their political clout compared to a nuclear France?"

These countries don't have to worry about being randomly bombed or invaded.

Quote :

"I won't deny that the United States and other nations have done this as well, but again, does that somehow make it morally right for Iran to do the same? Is that reasonable?"

So basically we are the only ones that can do wrong but if anybody else does a fraction of the wrong we do then it is our duty to police them? Makes sense.

Quote :

"I've told you several times already: we're not going to allow Iran to have nukes because Iran doesn't like us or our friends."

Lol I fell out of my chair. This sounds like some 12 year old girl bullshit. "You don't like my friend you can't be in our club"
Why don't they like us and our "friend" Israel? (btw friendship usually implies a two way relationship)

Quote :

"What in the fuck are you talking about? Operation Ajax happened fifty years ago. Nothing they do about it now qualifies as "protecting itself." It qualifies as bitterness and revenge."

How is making a weapon revenge? Nobody actually uses nuclear weapons (except that one country) the main reason for them is to deter other countries from fucking with you and only use it in desperation.

Quote :

"Really? Ronald Reagan kept fifty-some Americans hostage for more than a year to win an election? Man, you'd think there would have been something on the news about that. Or maybe it's the case that you've departed from reality entirely."

Its not my fault you never heard of the "october surprise". My posts are all based on the basic assumption that you guys know history, and thats a big fault I'll have to work on. The term is now used in almost every election but this is why. There have been congressional hearings and widespread coverage on this Reagan conspiracy. The Iranians and members of the Reagan campaign came forward and admitted its truth but the entire thing was covered up and thrown out.

Quote :

"You're going to sneak an entire army across two countries just so that your soldiers can fire 90 bullets a piece?"

rockets

Also, the Shi pop especially would be delighted to see an ismlamic force flush the Americans out.

Quote :

" Hezbollah moved a relatively small amount of personell and equipment within one small country in a defensive war."

Tell me how all this stuff and training made it from Iran to Lebanon since moving stuff that far is impossible.

Quote :

"But regardless of how advanced it's gotten, it's still not really possible to move army-level amounts of anything without being clearly noticed. "

We don't have the ability to cover the entire country? hell, We don't even have the ability to handle the civilians in Iraq today.

Quote :

"Nothing in that map demonstrates imperialist tendencies. It may demonstrate a number of negative things, but that's not one of them. Besides, how much of that land was granted by the United Nations? That's a notoriously imperialistic body right there. And how much of the rest was won in a defensive war?"

You can't gain land in a strictly defensive war, its oxymoron and just because the united nations granted it makes it right? so if the united nations awards all your property to me in the morning and I kick you out you'd be ok with that?

I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.

... Winston Churchill to the Palestine Royal Commission (1937)

/imperialism

Quote :

"You have failed to respond to a large percentage of the arguments made against you. Whenever you get called out on something being bullshit, you just ignore it and move on. "

Like what? Sorry if I missed any of your comments but I'm a busy guy. Show me them again and I'll get back with you as soon as I can.

Quote :

"You started this thread acting like you were just so very sincerely concerned about American troops on the ground, and when that didn't work you started with the anti-American, pro-Iranian ranting pretty fucking quick."

I am concearned. Our troops are sitting ducks out there right now and if Iran popped off they could easily be wiped out without massive reinforcements. They know where all of our Iraqi camps are.

Quote :

"I like how wethebest is posting pictures from http://www.nogw.com. I had to look up that site:"

Who cares what the site says if the map is correct thats all that matters. Maps are completely objective, you know that. Right? You can't seriously be that desperate to start swinging already. Its still early.

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 3:23 PM. Reason : China]

7/23/2008 3:22:45 PM

^^No, a peaceful resolution would be much better.

However, it worked pretty well for Israel back in the 80's when they bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities. I can't really blame Israel for being paranoid given the number of times they have been attacked and the constant threats against them.

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 3:27 PM. Reason : 2]

7/23/2008 3:23:31 PM

I've argued quite strongly and frequently against the apparent rush to military action in Iran. The option should remain on the table, but as you say, not the best idea in the world.

However, for all of the reasons it would be a bad idea, an invisible stealth army of Iranians pouring across the Middle East straight to Israel is not one of them.

7/23/2008 3:23:40 PM

Wow, OK, gonna do a double post here because a fuckton just got posted.

Quote :

"I don't know if you know this, but Iran is very important to China's future."

Not as important as we are. They can't offer anything as important as the giant market we provide for Chinese goods.

Quote :

"No, but we should at least get rid of ours before we go telling people who can and canot make them, ya know?"

I like the evolution of the argument here:

"We shouldn't tell Iran what to do because we let Israel, India, and Pakistan have nuclear weapons."

"We shouldn't tell Iran what to do because we used nuclear weapons."

"We shouldn't tell Iran what to do because we have nuclear weapons."

Quote :

"These countries don't have to worry about being randomly bombed or invaded."

Neither did Iran, until they started working on the Big One. Besides, your point is ludicrous anyway, at least with regards to Japan. You'll recall they live right next door to a belligerent nuclear power that can hit every speck of its territory with missiles.

Quote :

"So basically we are the only ones that can do wrong but if anybody else does a fraction of the wrong we do then it is our duty to police them? Makes sense."

It makes perfect sense. Hypocrisy has no meaning on the international stage, except insofar as it corrodes credibility. But that's not at issue here.

We can punish people for doing things we've done. We killed all our Indians and enslaved all our blacks -- should we have ignored the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Darfur? We launched aggressive wars against Mexico and Spain -- should we just shrug our shoulders every time one country invades another? We obliterated two Japanese cities with nuclear bombs. If North Korea did the same tomorrow, would you demand that we sit back and say, "Japan, we'd like to help, but it wouldn't make sense for us to punish NK for something we've done."

Quote :

"Lol I fell out of my chair. This sounds like some 12 year old girl bullshit. "You don't like my friend you can't be in our club""

You're a goddamned retard. And the sad thing is, I don't even think you're a parody, as do some people around here. I think you're depressingly earnest and serious.

One: I said Iran doesn't like us, first and foremost.

Two: The differences between "friend" as applies to international relations and "friend" as it applies to individuals are vast and complex.

Three: Israel isn't the only friend of ours that Iran dislikes. They have plenty of reasons to dislike the British as well. In general they're not what you'd call "bosom pals" with the rest of the West, either.

Quote :

"Why don't they like us and our "friend" Israel?"

Well, given that Israel and Iran have never been involved in a military conflict, Israel had no role whatsoever in the major intelligence intrigues in that country, and Iran is not forced to deal with any sizeable Palestinian refugee population, I'd have to say that the number one reason Iran doesn't like Israel is because Iran's leadership uses it as a scapegoat to gain influence in the Muslim world and distract its own population.

Quote :

"How is making a weapon revenge? Nobody actually uses nuclear weapons (except that one country) the main reason for them is to deter other countries from fucking with you and only use it in desperation."

I still fail to see what any of this has to do with a CIA operation that happened half a century ago. When I questioned its relevance the first time, you said "Iran has a right to defend itself." How one defends itself from an event that is IN THE PAST, I don't know.

Ignoring your pointless reference to Ajax for the time being, OK, nuclear deterrence is a reasonable concept. The only problem is that, as I've said, Iran wouldn't have anything to deter if they weren't working on their deterrence. Nobody remotely important was talking about attacking Iran from the end of the hostage crisis up until the present nuclear issue. We and the rest of the Western World were content to let it be until that came along.

Quote :

"Its not my fault you never heard of the "october surprise"."

I'm getting really tired of this "You don't agree with me completely on its ramifications so you must never have heard of it" bit. I suppose next you'll say I've never heard of the Iran-Contra Scandal or Oliver North.

Since arguing the matter with you would be another pointless diversion, I'll allow, for the sake of argument, that Reagan was guilty as sin of his involvement. That still does nothing to reduce blame on the Iranian government. Once again you have tried to save face by changing the subject from your mistakes to America's.

"Iran took our embassy."
"Uh-uhn, students did!"
"With government complicity and assistance."
"Yeah, well...Reagan did it!"

Your efforts are increasingly pathetic, your motives increasingly clear. You're just salisburyboy with worse English, fewer sources, and less passion.

Quote :

"rockets"

OK, so let's assume Iran has enough rocket launchers to equip the stealth army it doesn't have. Let's even assume it has basically an infinite supply of rockets (it doesn't). Without major (and very visible) logistical support, how many rockets do you think the Iranian stealth soldiers can carry with them?

Quote :

"Also, the Shi pop especially would be delighted to see an ismlamic force flush the Americans out."

By now it should be painfully obvious that the Shias are not the only game in Iraq. And even among them, there is some anti-Iranian antipathy.

Quote :

"Tell me how all this stuff and training made it from Iran to Lebanon since moving stuff that far is impossible."

Because when you are at peace it is remarkably easy to send stuff and training from point A to point B. Your scenario implies open military conflict between Iran, the US, and Israel, under which circumstances such transport becomes a valid target of military strikes rather than customs officials.

The Lebanese situation also involved a much smaller amount of material and few, if any, personnel.

Quote :

"We don't have the ability to cover the entire country"

We don't have the ability to effectively control the entire country, but ARMIES ARE BIG. Armies require LARGE AND ELABORATE SUPPLY LINES. Iranians are distinguishable from Iraqis by language and ethnicity.

We don't have total coverage of Iraq, but it's not like there's a gaping whole you could march the goddamn Revolutionary Guard through.

Quote :

"You can't gain land in a strictly defensive war, its oxymoron"

OK, let's walk through this:

1) Countries attack Israel
2) Israel fights them off
3) Israel gains land

I realize that your concept of military strategy involves giant stealth armies, but in fighting a defensive war you don't beat the enemy back to your borders and then just hold tight. Doing so would give momentum and mobility to the enemy. Fighting a defensive war doesn't mean you can't fight aggressively. "Defensive wars" are just conflicts launched by other people against you.

Quote :

"just because the united nations granted it makes it right?"

No, but it makes a damn good case against your ludicrous "imperialism" claim.

Quote :

"/imperialism"

OK, so Churchill was imperialist and racist. Yes, I know. What's your point?

Quote :

"Show me them again and I'll get back with you as soon as I can."

You are capable of reading, even if comprehension often seems to escape your grasp. I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through the thread again. Nor are you "busy." You're posting on a college message board in the middle of the day.

Quote :

"Our troops are sitting ducks out there right now and if Iran popped off they could easily be wiped out without massive reinforcements."

A moving, if misplaced, concern. Our troops in Iraq are ill-suited to patrol hostile civilian populations, it's true. But they are exceedingly efficient at dealing with armies. We may have to adjust our posture to deal with an Iranian attack, but we could most definitely repel it while simultaneously destroying Iran's infrastructure. It's because Iran knows this that I don't think it will push us too far.

Moving as it is, though, your "concearn" comes off as largely insincere. You have spent the lion's share of your time in this thread bashing America and Israel, and whenever you talk about the Iranian army you seem to imply that it's going to sneak past our troops in Iraq and avoid engaging them altogether.

Which is it? A stealth army or a frontal assault?

Quote :

"Maps are completely objective, you know that."

Maps are only as objective as the cartographer.

7/23/2008 4:10:22 PM

^ Damn, Ian. Don't hurt'em!

Quote :

"RedGuard: Do you seriously think the Chinese or the Russians are going to risk direct war, or even a proxy war, with the United States over Iran? This isn't the Cold War era."

No?

Russia, at least, seem to disagree over the latter.

(I know it's the NY Sun, but there are plenty of sources on this:

http://www.nysun.com/opinion/putins-new-cold-war/70910/ )

I've been entertaining the idea lately that what we're involved in is exactly that; a proxy war. I mean, a trillion dollars isn't enough to break our back economically, but the resultant inflation is certainly enough to weaken us significantly as a superpower. Then again, I'm talking about Iraq and not Iran, so the relevance is off...

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 4:20 PM. Reason : quote HOLOCAUST]

7/23/2008 4:19:55 PM

Quote :

"Not as important as we are. They can't offer anything as important as the giant market we provide for Chinese goods. "

I forgot that we are, and will continue to be the only people that demand chinese goods

Quote :

" I like the evolution of the argument here:"

Different arguments.

first quote was a response to "don't allow a nation to develop nukes"
second quote was a response to "we can't let the wrong nations get nukes"
third quote was a response to "should we just give up on non proliferation"

three different sub-arguments

Quote :

"Neither did Iran, until they started working on the Big One. Besides, your point is ludicrous anyway, at least with regards to Japan. You'll recall they live right next door to a belligerent nuclear power that can hit every speck of its territory with missiles."

Japan isn't allowed a military and Iran was invaded by Iraq before.

Quote :

"It makes perfect sense. Hypocrisy has no meaning on the international stage"

Tell that to the people all over the world whose hearts are melting for us right now.

Quote :

"We can punish people for doing things we've done. We killed all our Indians and enslaved all our blacks -- should we have ignored the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Darfur? We launched aggressive wars against Mexico and Spain -- should we just shrug our shoulders every time one country invades another? We obliterated two Japanese cities with nuclear bombs. If North Korea did the same tomorrow, would you demand that we sit back and say, "Japan, we'd like to help, but it wouldn't make sense for us to punish NK for something we've done.""

All these examples are things we've done in the past but aren't currently doing now. We can't try to rid the rest of the world of nuclear weapons while we have a huge pile of them sitting pretty. Your logic would form a straight path if we USED to have nuclear weapons but we still do. We no longer have slavery, indian genocide and the other things mentioned.

Quote :

"Israel isn't the only friend of ours that Iran dislikes. They have plenty of reasons to dislike the British as well. In general they're not what you'd call "bosom pals" with the rest of the West, either."

Britain has been right by our side in all of this shit. In fact, It was the british that lead the way in the fraudulent creation of Israel in the first place.

Quote :

"Iran is not forced to deal with any sizeable Palestinian refugee population"

They aren't force to but theres a strong sense of brotherhood in the Islamic world, something we have no concept of.

Quote :

"I still fail to see what any of this has to do with a CIA operation that happened half a century ago. When I questioned its relevance the first time, you said "Iran has a right to defend itself." How one defends itself from an event that is IN THE PAST, I don't know."

I never said defend itself from the past. They have a right to defend build defense for the same reason we spend more than anyone on defense. What if one day the rouge leader of a powerful nation decided to make an Iraq out of them?

Quote :

"Iran wouldn't have anything to deter if they weren't working on their deterrence. "

By your logic, why don't we just disband our entire military. We have nobody to worry about. Canada and Mexico aren't going to invade and nobody has thought about us aside from things we caused with our military.

Quote :

"That still does nothing to reduce blame on the Iranian government. Once again you have tried to save face by changing the subject from your mistakes to America's."

My mistakes? I'm not Iran. It doesn't reduce the blame on Iran but it shows that the blame can be shared with the American government for doing the same exact thing. Sure, reagan didn't take the hostages, neither did the Iranian government, but both parties allowed the crisis to go on longer than it had to.

Quote :

"Without major (and very visible) logistical support, how many rockets do you think the Iranian stealth soldiers can carry with them?"

Look man, I don't know where you're going with this but I'm not an Iranian general and have no military experience but I have read several articles about the possibilities or an Iranian war and the guerilla tactics they would use should pretty much be common knowlede by now.

Quote :

"By now it should be painfully obvious that the Shias are not the only game in Iraq. And even among them, there is some anti-Iranian antipathy."

It would be in the interest of all the non-american supporters to get us out of the region first and sort things out later. There are many loyalists that still want power and also people that want general instability. This would be a golden opportunity for everyone to come out of the woodwork and attack US soldiers.

Quote :

"Because when you are at peace it is remarkably easy to send stuff and training from point A to point B. Your scenario implies open military conflict between Iran, the US, and Israel, under which circumstances such transport becomes a valid target of military strikes rather than customs officials. The Lebanese situation also involved a much smaller amount of material and few, if any, personnel. "

Well its peacetime now I'm sure they are preparing for the possibilities.
Iran sent about 1000 to 1500 Pasdaran revolutionary guards to Lebanon. These took over a Lebanese army base, and trained the Hezbollah

Quote :

"We don't have the ability to effectively control the entire country, but ARMIES ARE BIG. Armies require LARGE AND ELABORATE SUPPLY LINES. Iranians are distinguishable from Iraqis by language and ethnicity. We don't have total coverage of Iraq, but it's not like there's a gaping whole you could march the goddamn Revolutionary Guard through."

lol. this is 2008. The days of marching armies are over. These guys will do their best to blend in I assure you they won't march in uniform. Get familiar with guerrilla warfare.

Quote :

"OK, so Churchill was imperialist and racist. Yes, I know. What's your point?"

Israel was created on this same ideology.

Quote :

"Nor are you "busy." You're posting on a college message board in the middle of the day."

I'm at work and posting on breaks.

Quote :

"But they are exceedingly efficient at dealing with armies. We may have to adjust our posture to deal with an Iranian attack, but we could most definitely repel it while simultaneously destroying Iran's infrastructure. It's because Iran knows this that I don't think it will push us too far."

Again, you are stuck in the 1800s. There won't be an army to identify. Are troops are not prepared at all to deal with blended fighters and child fighters. Plus antitank technology has recently moved ahead of tank technology so most of our advantages would be neutralized Iran knows THAT!

Quote :

"Moving as it is, though, your "concearn" comes off as largely insincere. You have spent the lion's share of your time in this thread bashing America and Israel, and whenever you talk about the Iranian army you seem to imply that it's going to sneak past our troops in Iraq and avoid engaging them altogether."

Of course I'm going to bash American foreign policy (as will most of our troops) and the fraudulent nation of Israel as well.

Quote :

"Which is it? A stealth army or a frontal assault?"

You're asking the wrong guy on this one. There may be an Iranian General or Iranian military strategist that posts on this forum though.

Quote :

"Maps are only as objective as the cartographer"

That map is 100% accurate. Deny that.

7/23/2008 5:24:59 PM

The map is 100% accurate.

The context in which it's being used is a complete sham.


You're mixing truth with falsities in crafting what is, ultimately, simply an anti-semitic argument.

7/23/2008 5:50:56 PM

i kind of like 1947's UN plan...they each have a good sized chunk of land

Stage 4 doesn't seem fair to the Palestinians and Stage 1 doesn't seem fair to the Israelis

7/23/2008 5:59:31 PM

Quote :

"I've been entertaining the idea lately that what we're involved in is exactly that; a proxy war. I mean, a trillion dollars isn't enough to break our back economically, but the resultant inflation is certainly enough to weaken us significantly as a superpower. Then again, I'm talking about Iraq and not Iran, so the relevance is off..."

I'm sure the Russians and the Chinese don't mind selling to the Iranians and get a thrill out of how it pokes the United States. However, I think the current era is different because there are a lot more political and economic constraints to restrain all sides. When I think proxy war, I'm thinking about the bad old days in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua. Also, I think the Russians and Chinese have a limit as to how much they'll protect Iran: while they've protected them against the worst sanctions, they're still trying to restrain the Iranians overall nuclear ambitions (as seen with the joint offers with the US and the EU). After all, how will China get their oil and natural gas out of Iran if the Persians and Israelis are dropping bombs on each other?

Quote :

"Thats the type of arrogance thats going to do us in. Do you seriously think the US is going to risk direct war, or even a proxy war, with the China over Israel? I don't know if you know this, but Iran is very important to China's future."

Iran is important to China's future, but why would the Chinese go around the world to aid them against the Israelis? Especially since the Chinese and the Israelis also share a rather friendly and important strategic relationship, trading military technology and other goodies. No, China is not going to fight a war with Israel for Iran's sake, and the Chinese will probably not directly or significantly aid the Iranians if they came marching into Iraq, especially since the United States is preparing to pull out (which opens opportunities for the Chinese to get a piece of Iraqi oil). China wants access to natural resources, and Iran destabilizing the region by marching 10 million soldiers across the Middle East is not in their interests.

Quote :

"No, but we should at least get rid of ours before we go telling people who can and canot make them, ya know? since we do indeed have more than all non-Russia countries combined. Non proliferation needs to start right here. You can't lead without first setting the example."

I don't disagree, and the United States continues to gradually reduce the number of warheads in conjunction with the Russians and other nations, but again, given the time it takes to coordinate this, does that mean we should not bother with pushing for nonproliferation while we take the years to negotiate arms reductions treaties with other nuclear powers? Also, Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which bounds them legally to certain safeguards which they have continuously disregarded.

Quote :

"These countries don't have to worry about being randomly bombed or invaded."

But that wasn't your point, your point was that having a nuke somehow makes them magically into a first world nation. Besides, does that justify the Iranians violation of international treaties and norms? If you're going to say that its okay because the United States did it, does that mean that the United States should just continue doing whatever it wants because the Iranians are doing the same thing? Or the United States should stop its arms reductions and rebuild their nuclear arsenal because the Iranians are doing it?

Quote :

"So basically we are the only ones that can do wrong but if anybody else does a fraction of the wrong we do then it is our duty to police them? Makes sense."

No, we did wrong, and we're paying the price for it in blood, treasure, and political influence. However, just because a nation made mistake, does that mean that they should not bother speaking out when others do so? Also, this isn't just the United States speaking out against Iran. This is the collective effort of a broad coalition: the United States, the entire European Union, the Russians, and the Chinese.

7/23/2008 6:08:11 PM

Quote :

"RedGuard: After all, how will China get their oil and natural gas out of Iran if the Persians and Israelis are dropping bombs on each other?"

Other pipelines? Ships?

The market finds a way.

Quote :

"RedGuard: (which opens opportunities for the Chinese to get a piece of Iraqi oil)"

Albeit a small one. The biggest fields are already taken by, well...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Quote :

"Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat."

Deal's done
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4228258.ece

7/23/2008 7:55:14 PM

Since people of different races and religions cannot get along in the middle east what makes people think they can get along in Europe where there's millions of muslim immigrants

[Edited on July 23, 2008 at 8:34 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2008 8:31:37 PM

Quote :

"I forgot that we are, and will continue to be the only people that demand chinese goods "

We're not the only game in town, but we are far and away the biggest, and will continue to be until well after this particular crisis is past. The U.S. and China may disagree on a lot, but we're dependent on each other.

Quote :

"Japan isn't allowed a military"

Which may change very soon, and which is only partly relevant anyway because Japan does have its self-defense forces, which are an (admittedly small) military in all but name.

Quote :

"Iran was invaded by Iraq before."

So? The government that did it has been smashed to pieces and is no longer a going concern. Lots of other countries have been attacked in the past by a government/country that no longer exists, you don't see all of them clamoring for nuclear deterrents.

Quote :

"Tell that to the people all over the world whose hearts are melting for us right now."

National actors have operated on the same principle forever. The very individuals who hate us so strongly for our hypocrisy are themselves hypocrites for not hating their own governments or factional leaders by doing the same kinds of things.

Quote :

"Your logic would form a straight path if we USED to have nuclear weapons but we still do."

This would be a lot more compelling if you hadn't repeatedly berated the U.S. for being so "evil" because it dropped two bombs 63 years ago. Maybe when you pin down your actual position I'll be able to respond to it.

Quote :

"We can't try to rid the rest of the world of nuclear weapons while we have a huge pile of them sitting pretty."

There's a number of arguments to be made here about the weapons giving us the ability to negotiate that disarmament from a position of strength. Also about how our disarmament would not cause anybody else's. Also about how we still have to deter two other very large nuclear powers from using nuclear weapons. Etc., etc.

Quote :

"Britain has been right by our side in all of this shit."

Their meddling in Iranian politics long precedes ours.

Quote :

"It was the british that lead the way in the fraudulent creation of Israel in the first place."

Fraudulent? It might have been a number of negative things, but this isn't one of them. It was done by the British with their own territory and approved by the closest thing the world has to a legitimate coordinating body. Once again we have you throwing around a word without regard to its actual meaning.

Quote :

"They aren't force to but theres a strong sense of brotherhood in the Islamic world, something we have no concept of."

Oh right, the bond, I remember. Certain runs deep. The Arab Muslims killing black Muslims in Sudan, Sunni Muslims killing Shia Muslims in Iraq, hardline Muslims killing slightly-less-hardline Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia hating each other, and all the rest are just...um...exceptions to the bond. Rare, rare exceptions.

Quote :

"I never said defend itself from the past."

No, what you did was to REPEATEDLY PRATTLE ON ABOUT THE CIA IN IRAN WITHOUT EVER, EVER EXPLAINING ITS RELEVANCE

NOT ONE GOD DAMN TIME

Quote :

"By your logic, why don't we just disband our entire military."

We don't have a problem with Iran because of its military. I don't have a problem with it having a military. Every nation with any sense whatsoever should have a military. The whole reason we created a standing military was to ward off the English and French, who were taking advantage of us because we didn't have one.

Quote :

"My mistakes? I'm not Iran."

Yes, your mistakes. Iran isn't the one constantly making factual and logical errors in this thread. You get called out, you get presented with a decent counterargument, and you immediately point the finger at America to distract the conversation.

Quote :

"Look man, I don't know where you're going with this but I'm not an Iranian general and have no military experience"

Common sense. You have described several scenarios, provided no outside support for their plausibility, and offered no logical explanation for the same. You think they can and would do a certain thing, and I've not seen one reason why.

Quote :

"I have read several articles"

Let's see 'em.

Quote :

"Well its peacetime now I'm sure they are preparing for the possibilities."

Unless they have already stockpiled supplies and soldiers right next door to Israel, what the fuck does it matter? The whole point is that once they're embroiled in this massive war you envision, mass sneakiness will be out of the question.

Quote :

"Iran sent about 1000 to 1500 Pasdaran revolutionary guards to Lebanon."

OK, even if this is accurate, it's not hard to move 1500 people during peacetime.

Quote :

"Get familiar with guerrilla warfare."

I never denied that Iran could use guerrilla warfare. But "guerrilla warfare" is not a massive movement. "10 million" soldiers crossing Iraq is not guerrilla warfare.

Quote :

"Israel was created on this same ideology."

If it was -- irrelevant. You have claimed that Israel is imperialist. In order for that to be the case it must act like an empire. Show me it doing so.

Quote :

"There won't be an army to identify."

Again, I have not denied that Iran could conduct successful guerrilla operations in Iraq. Plenty of people claim they already have. I have denied that they could get an army-sized force across Iraq.

Quote :

"Plus antitank technology has recently moved ahead of tank technology so most of our advantages would be neutralized Iran knows THAT!"

This claim about antitank technology keeps being made by you alone and with no support whatsoever. I'm aware that Israel ran into some trouble in Lebanon and lost some Merkavas, which are fine tanks but not exactly Abrams. Besides which we are capable of playing better to our strengths in Iraq, being that we would have an initially defensive posture and the opportunity to move in open terrain.

Quote :

"You're asking the wrong guy on this one."

No I'm not. You have made several disparate claims in this thread. You initially claimed an impossibly large force smashing through Iraq. When questions were raised about the feasibility of that scenario, you claimed a massive army sneaking quietly through Iraq. When further questions were raised about that you claimed a guerrilla conflict in Iraq. The scenarios are different, they are not linked, they are presented as foregone conclusions with no support and they are changed whenever you find yourself unable to continue arguing their merits.

Quote :

"That map is 100% accurate. Deny that."

To the best of my knowledge it is. It demonstrates population shifts, sanctioned plans, and the Arabs' repeated mistake of attacking Israel.

7/24/2008 12:38:01 AM

wethebest

Please add reading the below to your "to do" list if you'd like to be taken seriously in here:

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-to-win-arguments-dos-donts-and-sneaky-tactics.html

Quote :

"How to win Arguments - Dos, Don’ts and Sneaky Tactics Do: 1) Stay calm. Even if you get passionate about your point you must stay cool and in command of your emotions. If you lose your temper – you lose. 2) Use facts as evidence for your position. Facts are hard to refute so gather some pertinent data before the argument starts. Surveys, statistics, quotes from relevant people and results are useful arguments to deploy in support of your case. 3) Ask questions. If you can ask the right questions you can stay in control of the discussion and make your opponent scramble for answers. You can ask questions that challenge his point, ‘What evidence do you have for that claim?’ You can ask hypothetical questions that extrapolate a trend and give your opponent a difficulty, ‘What would happen if every nation did that?’ Another useful type of question is one that calmly provokes your foe, ‘What is about this that makes you so angry?’ 4) Use logic. Show how one idea follows another. Build your case and use logic to undermine your opponent. 5) Appeal to higher values. As well as logic you can use a little emotion by appealing to worthy motives that are hard to disagree with, ‘Shouldn’t we all be working to make the world better and safer for our children?’ 6) Listen carefully. Many people are so focused on what they are going to say that they ignore their opponent and assume his arguments. It is better to listen carefully. You will observe weaknesses and flaws in his position and sometimes you will hear something new and informative! 7) Be prepared to concede a good point. Don’t argue every point for the sake of it. If your adversary makes a valid point then agree but outweigh it with a different argument. This makes you looked reasonable. ‘I agree with you that prison does not reform prisoners. That is generally true but prison still acts effectively as a deterrent and a punishment.’ 8) Study your opponent. Know their strengths, weaknesses, beliefs and values. You can appeal to their higher values. You can exploit their weaknesses by turning their arguments back on them. 9) Look for a win-win. Be open-minded to a compromise position that accommodates your main points and some of your opponent’s. You cannot both win in a boxing match but you can both win in a negotiation. Don’t: 1) Get personal. Direct attacks on your opponent’s lifestyle, integrity or honesty should be avoided. Attack the issue not the person. If the other party attacks you then you can take the high ground e.g.’ I am surprised at you making personal attacks like that. I think it would be better if we stuck to the main issue here rather than maligning people.’ 2) Get distracted. Your opponent may try to throw you off the scent by introducing new and extraneous themes. You must be firm. ‘That is an entirely different issue which I am happy to discuss later. For the moment let’s deal with the major issue at hand.’ 3) Water down your strong arguments with weak ones. If you have three strong points and two weaker ones then it is probably best to just focus on the strong. Make your points convincingly and ask for agreement. If you carry on and use the weaker arguments then your opponent can rebut them and make your overall case look weaker."

7/24/2008 1:58:03 AM

I refuse to follow Don't #1. I get a certain perverse pleasure out of following an articulate, well-reasoned argument with "you cockbag."

7/24/2008 3:13:35 AM

Quote :

""wiped off the map"."

Those words were never used, thus you cannot place it in quotes. Its common knowledge that was a mistake in translation made by the IRNA and other nations picked up their report and spread it like wild fire. If you look at the actual transcript the word for neither map nor israel are in it. additionally, "wiped off the map" is an english idiom which would likely not have a direct translation in persian. please think before regurgitating diatribe.

7/24/2008 10:22:41 AM

Quote :

"So? The government that did it has been smashed to pieces and is no longer a going concern. Lots of other countries have been attacked in the past by a government/country that no longer exists, you don't see all of them clamoring for nuclear deterrents."

You never know what the future holds and that region in particular is known for instability.

Quote :

"are themselves hypocrites for not hating their own governments or factional leaders by doing the same kinds of things. "

Who said they don't? but the difference is they don't go all around the world forcing people to be like them claiming that they are the humanitarians of the world and the way they run their country is how every country should be ran because they are so superior.

Quote :

"There's a number of arguments to be made here about the weapons giving us the ability to negotiate that disarmament from a position of strength. Also about how our disarmament would not cause anybody else's. Also about how we still have to deter two other very large nuclear powers from using nuclear weapons. Etc., etc."

I'm sure the rest of the world feels the same way. They aren't going to want us to get rid of everyone elses then call truce. Thing is, we need them the least.

Quote :

"It was done by the British with their own territory "

I forgot it broke off of the Britain and floated down through the straight, across the sea and onto Asia, at which point Palestinians ran on and tried to wrongfully claim the land and somehow made it look like they had been their 1000 years. My bad. Bottom line is the entire creation and existance of Israel is a fraud.

Quote :

"No, what you did was to REPEATEDLY PRATTLE ON ABOUT THE CIA IN IRAN WITHOUT EVER, EVER EXPLAINING ITS RELEVANCE NOT ONE GOD DAMN TIME "

I said thats why they don't like us. You act like its a crime for them not liking us.

Quote :

"We don't have a problem with Iran because of its military. I don't have a problem with it having a military. Every nation with any sense whatsoever should have a military. The whole reason we created a standing military was to ward off the English and French, who were taking advantage of us because we didn't have one."

A military means nothing anymore as stated in this thread. Iraq had one of the largest militarys. You need something more emphatic to deter invasion from a modern power.

Quote :

"Let's see 'em."

I'm not into saving/collecting every news article or study I read just so I can later show it to someone who is uninformed of the situation. I read it, I have it in my head, its real. Thats all I need. I'm not a professor, never claimed to be and neither am I here to squander in your ignorance of the topic. You have access to the world wide web at your fingertips and it is a powerful tool if you use it wisely. Seek and you shall find.

Quote :

"If it was -- irrelevant. You have claimed that Israel is imperialist. In order for that to be the case it must act like an empire. Show me it doing so."

Britain was the empire, they gave the Zionists land that they had "acquired" through imperialism. This land was already home to Palestinians and they were moved out so the Zionists could move in from Europe because some Europeans were being mean to them.

Quote :

"You're mixing truth with falsities in crafting what is, ultimately, simply an anti-semitic argument."

What is anti semitic about my argument? I live in a Jewish town and many Jewish people feel the same way as I, just as many Americans are against aggression of the American empire.

Quote :

"I'm Jewish and what is good for Israel is not good for me. I am one of a great many Jews who do not support the Israeli Agenda. In fact, it makes me sick."

Wrong is wrong and right is right. Shouldn't matter what color religion or nationality you are and Israel is wrong.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/955766.html
Israeli source
'Palestinians are victims of the Holocaust'

7/24/2008 11:16:01 AM

you know you are in a losing argument when you use;

Quote :

"You never know what the future holds"

7/24/2008 11:50:11 AM

Quote :

"You never know what the future holds and that region in particular is known for instability."

Instability that Iran is helping to maintain and worsen. And vague, undefined possible future threats is a terrible reason for wanting nuclear weapons, all the more so when it is presented alongside Iran's repeated and violent statements and actions against the United States, Israel, Britain, and others.

Quote :

"but the difference is they don't go all around the world forcing people to be like them"

There is exactly *one* reason for this: they can't.

Every single time a group or nation has had the ability to influence and coerce others in the history of the world, it has done so. Right now we have the power and they don't. And frankly, I don't think it's such a crime for us to want to keep that power to prevent its use against us.

Besides which, your statement is factually wrong. Going around the world trying to force other people to be like them is exactly what global terrorist networks do.

Quote :

"They aren't going to want us to get rid of everyone elses then call truce."

Of course. That's why nuclear disarmament isn't in the cards, at least not any time in the foreseeable future. We might see reductions, but nothing more. And all of that is why singling out America for its nuclear arsenal is so stupid. The exact same motivations are keeping each nuclear country from disarming. The only exception to this rule has been South Africa, which gave up its meager arsenal as a result of governmental change and its status as a total international pariah.

Quote :

"Thing is, we need them the least."

How do you figure? We're pretty high on the list of global nuclear targets. Many if not most of the world's terrorist groups would like to use one on us. Though China has every motivation to be friendly now and in the near future, as you say, that may (and probably will) change at some point in the future, during which time it will only become more capable. Russia has a bigger stockpile than us, though you seem happy to ignore their role in this whole thing.

Quote :

"I forgot it broke off of the Britain and floated down through the straight, across the sea and onto Asia, at which point Palestinians ran on and tried to wrongfully claim the land and somehow made it look like they had been their 1000 years."

*Yawn*

You know how the Palestinians keep losing so much of their land? They keep starting fights and losing them. Britain was happy to take the land grab, but they wouldn't have been there in the first place if the Ottomans hadn't picked the wrong side in WWI. In fact, the last time anyone aggressively went in and took Palestinian land was when the Ottomans took it over. Maybe if some of them would consider their history they'd figure out that they're bad at wars.

By the "logic" you have repeatedly used in this argument, the creation and existence of every nation in the Americas, Africa, most of Asia, parts of Europe, and the whole of Australia is fraudulent. In every single case, European imperialist powers conquered and then split up territory inhabited by an indigenous population. So why are you ranting so much about how terrible Israel is and ignoring, say, Argentina, which even this century endorsed wholesale oppression and slaughter of its native peoples?

Quote :

"You act like its a crime for them not liking us."

No I don't. In fact I have specifically stated that it's their right not to like us, that I understand why they don't like us, and I can live with the fact that they don't like us. However, them not liking us is an excellent reason to not want them to have nuclear weapons.

Quote :

"A military means nothing anymore as stated in this thread."

This statement is preposterous. Conventional military force is still a major deterrent to invasion. It's a big part of the reason we leave North Korea alone, even before their pathetic effort at building a bomb. Fighting them would result in massive casualties and damage to South Korea.

Quote :

"Iraq had one of the largest militarys."

Iraq had a poorly trained army with little discipline and terrible leadership. Size matters, but the rest matters more. The Iranian army is by all accounts better off. Its size and quality, coupled with other factors (the size and terrain of the country, for example) have served quite well to stave off foreign intervention. These factors together are why I and other reasonable people oppose hasty military action against it.

Quote :

"I'm not into saving/collecting every news article or study I read just so I can later show it to someone who is uninformed of the situation."

You lose.

"Well, I mean, I know all this stuff is real, it's not my job to prove it to you"

Yes, it is your job. You made it your job when you decided that you wanted to post in the Soap Box. So far, every element of your posting has been unsubstantiated by logic or evidence.

Quote :

"Britain was the empire, they gave the Zionists land that they had "acquired" through imperialism."

We've already covered that Britain is imperialist.

7/24/2008 12:55:37 PM