Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on September 23, 2004, 07:34:08 PM
-
I'm of the beleif that Iran as a country should not be allowed to have nukes at all. With that premise being said.....Do you think an air strike agianst Iran's facilities could be pulled off and would be an exceptable solution to the delema?
EDIT: by exceptable solution I imply that diplomatic measures have failed.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm of the beleif that Iran as a country should not be allowed to have nukes at all. With that premise being said.....Do you think an air strike agianst Iran's facilities could be pulled off and would be an exceptable solution to the delema?
EDIT: by exceptable solution I imply that diplomatic measures have failed.
Only if those airstrikes themselves contained nukes:D
-
Were not camping next door because we think the real estate will be the next vacation spot of the world.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Only if those airstrikes themselves contained nukes:D
OK refrase here.....do you think it will work w/ conventional weapons.
New subtopic......if Bush wins the election I completly beleive that Iran is the next target. NOW, with that said I don't think he's gonna go for regiem change just a total dismantlement of their nuke program.....anyone think it might be a bit different?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Were not camping next door because we think the real estate will be the next vacation spot of the world.
I dont know about that, have you seen the new Girls Gone Wild: Fellujah video, im thinking its gonna be the next hot spring break destination.
Back on topic, we would probably get more world wide support for thos attacks then we did on Iraq.
-
who are you to dictate to others what they wish for.....
Why do you have Nukes?
-
Gunslinger said:
"New subtopic......if Bush wins the election I completly beleive that Iran is the next target."
With what? Using what? You don't even have enough people to deal with Iraq.... and you think you can go ahead and start another war? Against Iran?
Earth to you.
-
sure, if wanted a nuke war fine go ahead.
but the el facto is you can't get them all with one strike.
-
Why not attack France, they have Nukes and clearly hostile to USA. Should take you only a day or two.
-
Thats the best thing ive heard on these boards :aok
-
..or just 15 minutes for them to surrender your guess is better than mine ;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Gunslinger said:
"New subtopic......if Bush wins the election I completly beleive that Iran is the next target."
With what? Using what? You don't even have enough people to deal with Iraq.... and you think you can go ahead and start another war? Against Iran?
Earth to you.
B17 you are exempt from showing any type of intellect in this thread....serioulsy...did you even read the topic
Nash....I was just asuming a conventional air strike on their production facilities. Not hard to do, could probably be done from US soil.
The whole reason I'm bringing this up is because I feel it is nescesary. Iran is not a responsable country and I do not feel that it has earned the right to possess nukes.
Also, I feel the international community shudders at the thaught of Iran having nukes but does not have the stomach to appose it. Would the US hating in the world right now prevent doing the responsible thing?
-
Originally posted by SLO
who are you to dictate to others what they wish for.....
Why do you have Nukes?
Because Canada wasn't smart enough to develop them.... :rofl
-
Gunslinger said:
"Would the US hating in the world right now prevent doing the responsible thing?"
It may...
-
Originally posted by Nash
Gunslinger said:
"New subtopic......if Bush wins the election I completly beleive that Iran is the next target."
With what? Using what? You don't even have enough people to deal with Iraq.... and you think you can go ahead and start another war? Against Iran?
Earth to you.
Our air force is pretty bored right now... and our army is fighting a political war... so... the election is over and then, good bye PC fight. :D
The insurgents can count their days nyumbered... 41 days worth.
-
I don't think you have enough guys right now to change the face of the Iraq war.
Bush wins?
Then you get enough guys; *how* you get enough guys is another subtopic to this subtopic.
Just some random bombing of Iran isn't going to do squat. Prolly make things worse.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I don't think you have enough guys right now to change the face of the Iraq war.
Bush wins?
Then you get enough guys; *how* you get enough guys is another subtopic to this subtopic.
Just some random bombing of Iran isn't going to do squat. Prolly make things worse.
Nash my thinking wasnt a ground invasion at all. I gotta go w/ bohdi here to say we have a TON of air assets not doing much with plenty of local airspace to fly through......would you agree w/ an airstrike against Iran's nuke capabilities if diplomatic measures failed....would you feel more comfortable with the UN going along with it?
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Why not attack France, they have Nukes and clearly hostile to USA. Should take you only a day or two.
I take it you are assuming France would develop a backbone and resist that long? LOL
-
"you tell me
over and over again my friend
You dont beleive we're on the eve of destruction"
just a thought
Pretty decent song too
-
We would'nt have to do anything.
I think Isreal would take care of that one
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger:
"would you agree w/ an airstrike against Iran's nuke capabilities if diplomatic measures failed....would you feel more comfortable with the UN going along with it?"
Solid (and I mean not fairy-tale) evidence of Iran having Nukes?
I could be talked into a bombing... hell yah.
Not that it would be exactly fair, if all things were considered. But I don't care so much about that. It would eliminate another wild-card.... which I'm all for.
With all apologies to Iran, there are too many other things to have to be worrying about at the moment. Timing is everything. You lose too bad so sad.
-
gun, yes i did not only read the title but also your post.
Again i will say if you want nukes launched at us bases and irsreal then fine go ahead and use military force. i have a feeling iran is more than willing to fire them.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
Again i will say if you want nukes launched at us bases and irsreal then fine go ahead and use military force. i have a feeling iran is more than willing to fire them. [/B]
Uhh... I hate to say this but I don't think Iran has nukes....yet
-
note the *yet*
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
gun, yes i did not only read the title but also your post.
Again i will say if you want nukes launched at us bases and irsreal then fine go ahead and use military force. i have a feeling iran is more than willing to fire them.
Well than elaborate young grass hopper.....who would be launching them? Iran? Sorry wrong answer....They do not as of yet have the capability to deliver said weapons....wich I fear they would use without the blink of an eye
-
i bet you could fit a nuke into a suit case, do you agree?
-
Iran is interesting. I just saw a Frontline episode on Iranian reformist journalists. It was very surprising. You have about half the population that are young, western leaning and reform minded (born after the revolution), and the other half that is more conservative. There is a popular reform minded president that has no power, but fairly strong support, and a religious fundamentalist council in real, but shallow control.
The thing about Iran is that there is a real reform effort underway, and both the reformists and conservatives realize that neither has the power to fully dominate the other, and both seem to want to avoid a violent revolution. There is some degree of latitude to the press, but to stay open the press knows what lines not to cross (and crossing them gets the papers shut down). But, they do push that line, and they talk openly about it, about the need to stay in print even if only as a neutered opposition voice. And it's a line that allows criticism of at least the social issues in a fairly open manner and the political issues in a subtle and careful manner.
Even the people interviewed on the street spoke fairly openly about knowing that there are lines and edited truths, seemingly without a high degree of "Stalinist" type fear. You also notice many women in senior production and management positions. You see them asking “fairly” tough questions of male conservative officials (that get red lined out in the final editing most of the time). And you see the religious official “spinning” Mohammed as the ultimate reformer and doing a slick PR redirection job -- like a US politician stealing the opposition’s platform.
So there is a good chance that Iran will work itself out eventually. The reporters interviewed noted the limitations, expressed frustrations, openly but subtly criticized the government and noted that they will continue to work for change. Similarly, they noted that they still have hope because they love their country. That was readily apparent. So, a strike might solve short-term goals, if successful, but it might very well eliminate the eventual long-term reform that would make Iran less of a threat, nuclear or otherwise. It would probably be more valuable to the current ruling council than the weapons themselves.
It was really surprising. Iran seemed, frankly, far more open and Western than, say, the Peoples Republic of China. Perhaps somewhere between the mainland and Hong Kong. More open than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, socially and where the media is concerned. As an aside, Marlon Brando’s death, which happened while filming, was front page news.
Charon
-
Charon - great post.
You are exactly right. If you (we) wind up meeting an Iranian, what is perhaps the most striking is that they are very "western", and probably a hell of a lot more educated than us.
They are NOTHING like the stereotypical Middle Easterner... Yet, they are in this "Axis of Evil"?
Mkay... whatever....
In terms of solidness - they are an Israel waiting to happen.
Why are they the enemy? They had to be, because we were Iraq's friend in the war against them... after we were Iran's friend....
No no... Iran aint the boogeyman as it's being fed to you. Nothing like what you currently think.
But OH NO IRAN DEVELOPING NUKES!
Yet Pakistan and India are the bastions of trustworthiness?
These guys get nukes, none of ya bat an eye.
-
Originally posted by Nash
They are NOTHING like the stereotypical Middle Easterner...
Hmmmm, really?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2936772.stm
-
Yes really.
Read Charon's post again.
There is a bit of a power struggle between the old and young... the young being pro-reform.
And frankly, it's a pretty healthy fight, quite civil.
But no - you won't meet the old cleric-types who try and impose this kind of thing. They aint going to last much longer anyways...
Unless....
Unless.... they get invaded.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
i bet you could fit a nuke into a suit case, do you agree?
Not entirly. Making a nuke small enough to fit in a suitcase....call me crazy...reqired some finesse (SP). I don't think the Iranians are far enough along in there program to acheive this...I MAY BE WRONG THOUGH i"M NOT 100% I'M JUST SPECULATING.
I think that the program should be taken out before its aloud to get to that point.
-
To be honest, I'm for just not doing anything.
If diplomatic talks fail, just be like, okay, gg.
If we have to go to Iran to use force to deny them nuclear weapons, we would most likely still be in Iraq at this time.
Even if it was just Air Force, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush, if re-elected, would want the army in there for some good ol' ground war. Because lets admit, I bet hes having fun with military reports, feeling all big and tough like his dad from the Desert Storm.
If this happens, then the draft happens.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Why not attack France, they have Nukes and clearly hostile to USA. Should take you only a day or two.
Q- How many frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
A- don't know, it's never been attempted.
-
Q- Why French Navy warships have glass bottom?
A- To keep in touch ith the rest of the fleet.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yes really.
Read Charon's post again.
There is a bit of a power struggle between the old and young... the young being pro-reform.
And frankly, it's a pretty healthy fight, quite civil.
But no - you won't meet the old cleric-types who try and impose this kind of thing. They aint going to last much longer anyways...
Unless....
Unless.... they get invaded.
so if the old start winning the power struggle do you agree that their program needs to be stopped?
I certainly do. I don't agree that things w/ Iran are as black and white but when it comes to Nukes myself and I hope the world community wants certainty.
Yes pakistan and India both have them and probably cannot be stopped but does that mean we let another country to develop the capability?
-
The old won't win the power struggle.
Iran is the US's biggest friend within 10 years... unless the US completely blows it.
-
Yeah, let's strike Iran while we have undermanned forces in Iraq. That will work out dandy.
-
Originally posted by Nash
The old won't win the power struggle.
Iran is the US's biggest friend within 10 years... unless the US completely blows it.
Nash,
Well said.
GS,
I think you underestimate US air power......but the political side of it involving russia is rightly so.
BUT, If it did happen I would hope that there wouldnt be a major build up in tension then an advertised shock and awe...it would be a complete surprise. I would be dollars to doughnuts that US planners allready have the strike planned out and possible rehearsed.
RPM.....The topic is strictly about a conventional air strike....something that is not in short supply in Iraq.
-
"and there's the "Russian connection". The Iranian reactor is a Russian design, being built by Russian engineers, protected by modern Russian defences with crews instructed by Russian "military advisers", and if and when the reactor goes online it will be fuelled by Russian uranium. If Russians die in the strike the political fallout may be severe. "
Since when did the "latest Russian" protection ever protect against a modern US attack?
If the US decides to go after Iran, nothing will stop it imho.
-
Gun, I understand the conventional strike. I was refering to the repercussions from those muslims that are less than friendly. You think we are seeing insurgency now, just strike Iran.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
How so? I did say a B-2 or F-117 could do the job.
sorry missread the post. Yes a bomber strike force with figheters running screen and wild weasle could easily set the program back a good decade.
as far as reacihng them.....don't we have air bases right next door? :)
Going to bed now...thanks for the discussion:aok
-
Originally posted by Nash
And frankly, it's a pretty healthy fight, quite civil.
Really? Pardon my skepticism. These folks would seem to disagree with your assessment.
"The Islamic fundamentalists who rule Iran have suppressed women in the cruelest manner over the past two decades. Inhuman punishments such as stoning, execution, and flogging of women in public under bogus pretexts were stepped up in 2001."
http://www.peacewomen.org/campaigns/regions/westasia/iran.html
-
Maybe we should have went into Iran instead. If so then right now Irans military would be destroyed, insurgency would be there, and Sadam would be sweatin bullets of wmd.
edit: This just occured to me today.
-
"This just occured to me today. "
No way! You are a genious.
-
Ok, if you say so! Whatever hurts brain the most.
-
Earning the right to earn nukes? When did Pakistan and India earn that right? And given that they have cold war going on right now over Kashmir (both sponsor civilian killing terrorist insurgents), which very nearly turned hot a couple of years ago, surely they aren't responsible custodians of ballistic city-****ers.
Also, what's with the hard-on for military action?
-
I think the US ought to get around to finishing at least one of their current wars before they start any more.
-
Hard on for military action mostly due to be a fat arse sitting safely behind his computer. no suprise there.
"I think" <--- heh
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
Because lets admit, I bet hes having fun with military reports, feeling all big and tough like his dad from the Desert Storm.
If this happens, then the draft happens.
I can't begin to tell you how far off the map you are. I've never met or talked to GWB, but I would bet everything I have that he's not feeling "all big and tough" about the 1000 plus young American lives that have been lost, and I don't think he's in a competition with his dad.
As far as the draft is concerned, the only person that has brought it up has been a democrat. I doubt that his base would be willing to support him.
Iran? I don't know what we should do. I do know that another country like that with nuclear capability is a step in the wrong direction. NK included. Do they have the ability to retaliate with conventional weapons? Do they have the ability to retaliate with non-conventional means?
The response needs to be considered in any decision.
-
"If the US decides to go after Iran, nothing will stop it imho."
Gee, you think so?
Any USN CV Battle Group would be capable of doing the job in an afternoon, not to mention that the sites are fixed and therefore extremely vulnerable to SSN and Surface Group attack from Tomahawks, you probably could level the entire facility and not violate their airspace.
The whole "can the US do it" thing is a bit of a forgone conclusion, yes? The Serbs had a very good air defence network compared to anything the Iranians have (or any other middle east country, save Israel) im sure, and they couldn't do squat against a NATO air strike.
...The politics of it, thats a different can of worms, just like N. Korea, its "doable" but is it the right move?
...one last thing just remember that the only place in the Mid East that had a spontaneous, supportive protest against the terrorists on 9-11 was in Tehran. Food for thought before its decided to blow them to mars.
-
Originally posted by Squire
...one last thing. Just remember that the only place in the Mid East that had a spontaneous, supportive protest against the terrorists on 9-11 was in Tehran. Food for thought before its decided to blow them to mars.
-
The Iranians have a much more up to date SAM network than the Serbs. State of the art Russian stuff. Although, I shouldn't think any defence is impenetrable.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The Iranians have a much more up to date SAM network than the Serbs. State of the art Russian stuff. Although, I shouldn't think any defence is impenetrable.
Not arguing with you here. Will be interested in seeing this statement refuted though should the Israelis or someone else decide to test this state of the art Russian stuff. Can just hear Boroda or GScholz now, "well, they didn't have trained operators" or "the equipment wasn't properly maintained" or .... ;)
-
I don't think anyone is claiming the defence is impenetrable, but rather that losses would be much higher than has been seen in recent conflicts.
-
Yeah, I understood that Dowding. I'm just guessing what will be said should someone get in and out without losing a plane. I'm willing to bet that should that happen the excuses will abound.
-
And afterwards will you guys start crying "foul" if a few Iranian nutbags penetrate a couple of American Nuclear plants and blow them up?
-
"The Islamic fundamentalists who rule Iran have suppressed women in the cruelest manner over the past two decades. Inhuman punishments such as stoning, execution, and flogging of women in public under bogus pretexts were stepped up in 2001."
What do they say about our friends the Saudis?
The women reporters interviewed seemed sad when they addressed the social aspects of life, and indirectly acknowledged the hardships of married women Iran which I believe put them further under the fundamentalist religious laws than otherwise. Most vowed not to get married. The ruling council obviously has conservative supporters, and when you move out of Tehran into the sticks, I imagine you face fewer secular controls and more old time religion.
But, the openness was surprising in that their faces weren't covered, they traveled and socialized with men not of their immediate family, the woman typesetter supervisor scolded the editor for being late with his articles, they worked in Western type jobs, they were educated, (several were smoking hot, at least their faces, but that's beside the point :)) and I imagine they drove if needed. Far more open than most of the region.
It really was surprising. I had a "lump them all together" mindset myself, but you just didn't see the overt oppression, or any particular fear about expressing "carefully" negative opinions by both the reporters and the average citizens. Obviously the fundamantalists would change this in a heartbeat if they could, but it was informative that they apparently didn't have enough power to be a Taliban.
Charon
[edit: Although leading reform journalists who go too far are imprisoned for various periods of time, and their papers shut down, torture wasn't a main concern - being out of a job was. The editor in chief of the paper being profiled even bragged about his prison time as a badge of honor. And, he was back at work.]
-
I will add that they did note a sense of political apathy among the population since the religious ruling council negated most of the viable reform candidates from the last election.
One female political reporter stated she wouldn't cover the parliment anymore, as it was somewhat pointless (but you got the impression she was just depressed at the turn of events). And, conditions are open enough and good enough that it was hard to rile up the average reform minded citizen to do anything overt about it. But they also stated that its cyclical process and they would keep grinding away as hard as they could while still staying open until the next upswing comes along.
Charon
-
If we decide to do this what army are we going to fight this war with..
Considering we are bogged down with stop loss; and as such retainment after such stoploss is going to be pathetic how are we going to have the manpower for a 3 front war.. and occupation.. gizmos and gadgets only go far infantry is called the king of battle for a reason.. (3 fronts being Iraq, Iran, and Afgan) (lets not mention that fine report that came out yesterday saying were are to thin to meet the demand of our military actions either..)
And by doing such we would signal a clear and present danger to DPRK (iraq down.. Iran down.. who next on the axis of evil..)
DPRK is no childsplay.. Million + troops 10k pieces of Arty.. Nukes and terrain and weather that will make your head spin..
Not to mention 50 years of fortification on every mountain top from Seoul to Pyongyang.. Good luck.. it would be the bloodiest war since ww1 trench warfare.. (we would win just it would be Prryric victory)
Iran is no pushover either.. after Saddams war against them their millitary is sound and unscathed for over 10 years.. (they outsmarted us with wmd claims taking us down a notch while they have become Middle Eastern superpower made possible with the fall of Iraq. Not bad for a dim whit country the press keeps claiming they are..) (persians have been scheming since Darius if we read our history we would have seen this ploy they got us into.. Rumsfield doesn't read history if he did he would have read what happened to the British 1917 in bagdad, talk about Deja Vu and history repeating itself is a understatement..)
Im against a Iran strike.. not now.. the logistics dont support it..
Israel would get sucked in somehow and then ww3 in the middle east... If you want that just be shure to be on the first boat over there..
My suggestion is let them play their cards and we react.. by doing such (catching them lying about Nukes) we get global support against them when they play bad.. as opposed to the halfarse support (not including UK or ROK) we have in Iraq from a preeumptive war......
Doctoryo
-
Who said anything about invading Iran? We are talking about destroying their nuke making capability. Our Air Force is not over taxed.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating we whup up on Iran just now. Israel is probably the most threatened from a Nukuler Iran, let them do what's in their best interest.
-
we hit their nuke capability they invade iraq and afgan at same time...(minimal western boarder of afgan and pump up the warlords) That would be tactically sound repsonse.. and force a all out invasion knowing we are stretched thin.. Then pump money into Iraq (shia) to start a Civil War.. We would be Fubar.. Short term they would quagmire us.. Long term we would work them over and in doing so would spread more hatred that the USA is attacking islam..
Then the escalation would happen..
Iran would lob some death israels way either chemical or nuke and then ww3
Iran's holding the cards.. we hit their facilites i got 3 to 1 they conterattack especially with our forces in the region within arms reach.. read your history on the persians they are not knumbskulls.. and this nuke crapola is a power play for the region..
My opinion is contain Iran until our forces have withdrawn from iraq.
Then if they still are lying, (about peaceful nuclear energy) go coalition on them...
DoctorYo
-
I think any more countries getting nukes is both sad and wrong; and I'd hope diplomacy could halt it.
I also think an American strike would be both successfull; and very wrong, both moraly and pragmaticaly.
Moraly; because if being peacefull means anything; it means an end to first strikes.
Pragmaticaly; because the current fight is against international terrorism; not national state regimes (though of course they can be interwined); American is not at present under a clear and present danger from _the_state_ of Iran (we're not talking crazy rich *******s with a miny private army; we're talking a "proper" full state project) and the aftermath would not advance American aims in the region.
It's accepted that any percieved threat against the _purported_ Iranian arsenal is Isreali? Has Iran ever made first strike threats against Isreal (honest question; I really don't know).
What treaties has Isreal signed as a nuclear power? Sholtz? Bueller?
-
Making a lot out of a single F-117 being lost dont you think? I mean, use them long enough one is going to be lost, even due to mechanical failure...they aren't magical planes.
How many went down in the last 2 Gulf Wars?
As for the Iranian Air Defence they have no experience at all dealing with a western air force using tried and true tactics against them, the Iraqi's were hardly much of a test in their latest war, 2 decades ago. Their new equipment is fine and dandy, they have no experience using it, and they would be up against some of the best a/c and crews in the world. Its the same old same old, you cant just "buy" a country a bunch of Migs, MBTs, and SAMs, and expect them to put up a decent fight. We saw that in the 1st Gulf War, didn't we?
-
GScholz KNOWS personally how the F-117 went down.
-
"They are also not "officially" a nuclear power, but everyone knows they've got them since they've set off a few in tests. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, the French are responsible for giving them all they needed for nukes by 1958
The French also helped Iraq build it's reactor.
-
I think any more countries getting nukes is both sad and wrong; and I'd hope diplomacy could halt it.
I also think an American strike would be both successfull; and very wrong, both moraly and pragmaticaly.
Moraly; because if being peacefull means anything; it means an end to first strikes.
Pragmaticaly; because the current fight is against international terrorism; not national state regimes (though of course they can be interwined); American is not at present under a clear and present danger from _the_state_ of Iran (we're not talking crazy rich *******s with a miny private army; we're talking a "proper" full state project) and the aftermath would not advance American aims in the region.
It's accepted that any percieved threat against the _purported_ Iranian arsenal is Isreali? Has Iran ever made first strike threats against Isreal (honest question; I really don't know).
What treaties has Isreal signed as a nuclear power? Sholtz? Bueller?
-------------------------------------------------------------
seeker I think the majority of the concern w/ Iran and nukes is not so much that they'll use them but that they cannot control them.
It is an unstable region and whos to say that they (nukes) end up in the wrong party's hands. I do beleive that is the biggest concern.
Besides us what's stopping them from nuking Baghdad and controling a huge chunk of the ME.
What's stopping them from handing a few nukes over to well trained cell with the garuntee they'll go off in washington.
-
Y'all have a pretty weird take on Iran.
-
Y'all have a pretty weird take on Iran.
------------------------------------------------------
why so? Do you want them to have nukes?
-
Like I said before, no... I don't want them to have Nukes.
One more country having them is one more too many.
But like, these people in Iran are not your enemy.
-
"Originally posted by Nash
Like I said before, no... I don't want them to have Nukes.
One more country having them is one more too many.
But like, these people in Iran are not your enemy. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nash, the people of any nation are never the enemy, it's always the government that runs the country.
The people of Iran are not our enemy, but the rulers definatley are a threat and we need to make sure they do not get their hands on nukes.
-
Yeah... real big threat...
You gotta understand...
These Iranians have been at war with Iraq for ages.
Do you think, that perhaps, they saw in Iraq what you did?
The only reason you were on Iraq's side during the war against Iran is that you had flipper floppered the whole relationship so many times that by the time the arrow landed on Iraq, the war was afoot.
-
If Iran had nukes, they would be a huge threat. Iraq tried their best to invade them and failed.
Now Iraq is weak.
-
More than Pakistan or India or North Korea.
Explain the sudden urgency to get medieval.
-
sigh... we're at the rapid-fire portion of tonight's episode.
Please edit your posts for spelling only.
Thank you. :)
-
what Nash?
-
You change yer post and my answer to yer post suddenly seems bizarre.
Rove is up to this. Is this another republican dirty trick? :)
-
I did not change my post???? which post???
Really, being honest. I did not change a post.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I don't think Israel has signed any treaties. They are also not "officially" a nuclear power, but everyone knows they've got them since they've set off a few in tests.
Israel is not signed on any of the nuke treaties.
No nukes were set off in tests in Israel. It's not like you have safe place to try it.
The official response to "the" question is: "we will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the middle east".
The technology is obviously there, so this is a matter of what is the definition of "having" a nuke.
There is no justification for the US to ban nukes in Iran. The US is the nuclear superpower and the only country to actually use a nuke in a war.
So the only reasoning there is, is: "Iran should not have nukes because we don't like it".
I also prefer Iran with out nukes. There's just no "legal" or "just" way to deny them of it. It will never pass in the UN and the US will be alone in this. again.
Bozon
-
Whatever...
Anyways 5-4-3-2-go
We're back with this evening's installment of Rapid-Fire, the rancorous and completely off the wall series of posts by dimwits.
Thank you and welcome back. As I was saying Nuke... what's up with the hair?
-
Nash, I promise you that I did not change a post. In fact, I don't see a post from you that makes any reply from you seem bizzare.
I'm not kidding Nash, I don't know what you are talking about.
-
Okay well... this is some weird watermelon then...
Cuz I DISTINCTLY saw...
I can't even describe...
This is mutha%$#^* creepy....
I don't feel safe here man.....
-
Well, I have been drinking Nash, so I will give you the benifit of a doubt.
What did you see that I changed? I'm not trying to be an ass, honestly curious.
-
It looked like a dragon.
-
LOL!
Check you email dumb-arse!
-
rgr :)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
OK refrase here.....do you think it will work w/ conventional weapons.
New subtopic......if Bush wins the election I completly beleive that Iran is the next target. NOW, with that said I don't think he's gonna go for regiem change just a total dismantlement of their nuke program.....anyone think it might be a bit different?
Firstly, the army that was supposed to go into Iran is bogged down in iraq. If we turn our attention to iran, we will be bled to defeat, slowly. Second, are the sources telling us about irans nukes the same that told us about iraqs?
Iran insists they use their nuclear program for electricity.
I say send in the weopns inspectors.
Even if Iran has nukes, so what? Pakistan and India have nukes also. Pakistan has harbored anti US terrorist for years!
How many of YOUR kids are you willing sacrifice for this war?
You sound like a General wanna be, whats your plan for victory in Iraq? What is Bushs? How many dead US soldiers? The war in Iraq is turning worse every day! We have no plan for Iraq, let alone Iran!
Face it, this whole battle is for control of the worlds oil supply,
and i beleive iran was next in line, but that has to be put on hold, indefinately. Look at Bushs face. He will not survive another 4 years at the helm. God forbid Cheney take over our military, if he hasnt already.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Hard on for military action mostly due to be a fat arse sitting safely behind his computer. no suprise there.
"I think" <--- heh
Perfect thinking from a French BassTurd... Have you surrendered yet?
*stirring the pot*
:rofl
-
You have a fat arse too? Fess up
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Yeah, let's strike Iran while we have undermanned forces in Iraq. That will work out dandy.
how dare you interrupt the airmchair generals wild fantasy with common snese. You conspiracy kook. You libruul.