Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: xrtoronto on February 11, 2006, 02:42:59 PM
-
Who is most likely to carry this out? This looks like it's inevitable. Will it be done by Israel? or the US? a coalition of western nations?
When?
Is there anybody out there that doesn't think 'we' should do this?
-
Israel and the US.
-
Is there anybody out there that doesn't think 'we' should do this?
(http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/mmsource/image/2006-2-1/Cindy-arrested.jpg)
-
I don't think It should be done but I also don't think we have much of a choice. A strike on Iran might piss off a whole bunch of Iraqis and turn that country into even more civil war. We havn't even seen ugly there yet. Then it's probably something that has to be done. Of course Europe had a spinectomy a decade ago so they'll just sit back like a mother-in-law and criticise the US for taking action while secretly thank us for doing so.
-
Guns, I thought that Iraqis dont like Iranians, or vice versa. Or am I wrong?
-
Didint they move the nukular research/enrichment thingy under ground...into caves or something like that a few years back?
-
Originally posted by BlueJ1
Guns, I thought that Iraqis dont like Iranians, or vice versa. Or am I wrong?
You are right if you mean the iraqui sunnites or the iraqui kurds,
but you are wrong if you mean the majority of the iraqui people - the shi ´ites.
They are under command of Grand Ajatollah Sistani - an iranian.
And if you check the results of the iraqi elections tehn you will find out that the United Shi ite alliance - whiyh is a pro-iranian party - has won the elections in Iraq.
Especially the southeast region in Iraq with the cities of Kerbala, Nedjaf and Basra are supporting Iran and vice-versa.
-
Originally posted by babek-
You are right if you mean the iraqui sunnites or the iraqui kurds,
but you are wrong if you mean the majority of the iraqui people - the shi ´ites.
They are under command of Grand Ajatollah Sistani - an iranian.
And if you check the results of the iraqi elections tehn you will find out that the United Shi ite alliance - whiyh is a pro-iranian party - has won the elections in Iraq.
Especially the southeast region in Iraq with the cities of Kerbala, Nedjaf and Basra are supporting Iran and vice-versa.
Yup what he said.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Didint they move the nukular research/enrichment thingy under ground...into caves or something like that a few years back?
We have a secret squad of Canadian attack beavers....the can naw into any underground facility.
-
Yes, send Sheehan over there, she can boast how much she, too, hates the United States. And maybe, since the Iranians love to hang people for a wide range of "minor crimes", they can sling her up too?
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
Who is most likely to carry this out? This looks like it's inevitable. Will it be done by Israel? or the US? a coalition of western nations?
When?
Is there anybody out there that doesn't think 'we' should do this?
No, we shouldnt do this. Iran is trying to provoke the US. Bait us. Let the European community handle this one, we are busy.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
No, we shouldnt do this. Iran is trying to provoke the US. Bait us. Let the European community handle this one, we are busy.
funny you should say this...just tonight I was thinking "...is it possible that Iran is baiting someone to attack over the nuclear program...and as soon as the attack has begun, they will launch a whole mess of missiles that are already in place to attack Israel?" So no matter who attacks, they strike at Israel. It makes sense to me because their pres seems to be provoking something...I mean how stupid is he? Or is this what his plan is?
-
There exists the possibility that the clown believes it is his duty as a Muslim to incite the final conflict, and he is working his bellybutton off to do it.
-
why don't we just send a stealth bomber or a cia agent over there to kill him
-
This is from a European newpaper dated Sunday 12/06
US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 12/02/2006)
Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.
Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
Click to enlarge
They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.
"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."
The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear programme. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the virulent anti-Israeli threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling.
The Bush administration has recently announced plans to add conventional ballistic missiles to the armoury of its nuclear Trident submarines within the next two years. If ready in time, they would also form part of the plan of attack.
Teheran has dispersed its nuclear plants, burying some deep underground, and has recently increased its air defences, but Pentagon planners believe that the raids could seriously set back Iran's nuclear programme.
Iran was last weekend reported to the United Nations Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency for its banned nuclear activities. Teheran reacted by announcing that it would resume full-scale uranium enrichment - producing material that could arm nuclear devices.
The White House says that it wants a diplomatic solution to the stand-off, but President George W Bush has refused to rule out military action and reaffirmed last weekend that Iran's nuclear ambitions "will not be tolerated".
Sen John McCain, the Republican front-runner to succeed Mr Bush in 2008, has advocated military strikes as a last resort. He said recently: "There is only only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."
Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has made the same case and Mr Bush is expected to be faced by the decision within two years.
By then, Iran will be close to acquiring the knowledge to make an atomic bomb, although the construction will take longer. The President will not want to be seen as leaving the White House having allowed Iran's ayatollahs to go atomic.
In Teheran yesterday, crowds celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution chanted "Nuclear technology is our inalienable right" and cheered Mr Ahmadinejad when he said that Iran may reconsider membership of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
He was defiant over possible economic sanctions.
link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/12/ixnewstop.html)
-
we'd be nuts to try it without a million man army and the logistical capability to deploy and supply it in multiple 'hot' spots woldwide.
...because it WILL be Islam's Pearl Harbor. We better be ready for the Wrath of Islam and able to snuff it with exceptional speed and finality wherever 'Jihad' flares up.
-
Originally posted by babek-
You are right if you mean the iraqui sunnites or the iraqui kurds,
but you are wrong if you mean the majority of the iraqui people - the shi ´ites.
They are under command of Grand Ajatollah Sistani - an iranian.
And if you check the results of the iraqi elections tehn you will find out that the United Shi ite alliance - whiyh is a pro-iranian party - has won the elections in Iraq.
Especially the southeast region in Iraq with the cities of Kerbala, Nedjaf and Basra are supporting Iran and vice-versa.
Thankyou.
-
would someone PLEASE POST a picture of a canadian ATTACK beaver.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
would someone PLEASE POST a picture of a canadian ATTACK beaver.
(http://www.slowchildrenplaying.com/ftp/beaver.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
would someone PLEASE POST a picture of a canadian ATTACK beaver.
(http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8156/canbeaverjpg6ea.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
...because it WILL be Islam's Pearl Harbor. We better be ready for the Wrath of Islam and able to snuff it with exceptional speed and finality wherever 'Jihad' flares up.
they Pearl Harbored us already. Its about time to Hiroshima them.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Didint they move the nukular research...
Hey, you speak like dubya ! ;)
-
we'd be nuts to try it without a million man army and the logistical capability to deploy and supply it in multiple 'hot' spots woldwide.
...because it WILL be Islam's Pearl Harbor. We better be ready for the Wrath of Islam and able to snuff it with exceptional speed and finality wherever 'Jihad' flares up.
Hardly Hang. Before 1991 Saddam Hussein had the world's third largest Army. After 1991 Saddam Hussein had the world's third largest army.
Iran's army and military capacity worry me just as much as drinking enough water to prevent a hangover in the morning.
-
it`s B2 time
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
funny you should say this...just tonight I was thinking "...is it possible that Iran is baiting someone to attack over the nuclear program...and as soon as the attack has begun, they will launch a whole mess of missiles that are already in place to attack Israel?" So no matter who attacks, they strike at Israel. It makes sense to me because their pres seems to be provoking something...I mean how stupid is he? Or is this what his plan is?
Yea, its awfully suspicious that he is standing on the pulpit announcing to the world that he is going to go nuclear and as fast as possible. Most nuclear programs are top secret. Maybe a bargaining chip?
-
Originally posted by babek-
You are right if you mean the iraqui sunnites or the iraqui kurds,
but you are wrong if you mean the majority of the iraqui people - the shi �ites.
They are under command of Grand Ajatollah Sistani - an iranian.
And if you check the results of the iraqi elections tehn you will find out that the United Shi ite alliance - whiyh is a pro-iranian party - has won the elections in Iraq.
Especially the southeast region in Iraq with the cities of Kerbala, Nedjaf and Basra are supporting Iran and vice-versa.
Wow, and we spent $400,000,000,000.00 dollars to make the way for another Iran in iraq. Good grief.:(
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Hey, you speak like dubya ! ;)
heheh,, I am glad somebody else noticed that. Nookuler, dude.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Hardly Hang. Before 1991 Saddam Hussein had the world's third largest Army. After 1991 Saddam Hussein had the world's third largest army.
Iran's army and military capacity worry me just as much as drinking enough water to prevent a hangover in the morning.
Then you have no idea what the terrain of Iran looks like. It's Mount Everest to Iraq's Grand Canyon. Troops deployment aside, the terrain rivals Afghanistan like proprotions. But I'll guess since you go to Penn State, you already knew this.
Karaya
-
I did. I wasn't saying we should invade Iran. I was saying that Iran's military forces are of no concern to me.
Being an Architectural Engineer I know how tragic the architecture and building styles of Iran is. They have the same style as many houses in Iraq. The worst thing to happen to a house in Iraq is torrential rain. The worst thing to happen to the same house is an earth quake.
Thousands upon thousands die from the inability to reach them in time after every earth quake because of shoddily built homes.
-
now I know. Thanks fellas...I have alway had a fond attraction to Beavers and the Canadian Attack Beavers are SecKSiE!
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Being an Architectural Engineer...
I thought you were a student? Are you a graduate student, an EIT or a PE?
-
I dont think the world will be safe until everyone has nuclear weapons.
-
I thought you were a student?
Minor technicality. Doesn't mean I am clueless though.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I dont think the world will be safe until everyone has nuclear weapons.
yeah, no terrorist should be without one :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I dont think the world will be safe until everyone has nuclear weapons.
interesting idea Pongo!
we could call them "PNW" ... personal nuclear weapons
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Minor technicality. Doesn't mean I am clueless though.
Wow. Have you thought about becoming a comedy writer instead? ;)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I dont think the world will be safe until everyone has nuclear weapons.
Oh yea thats a great idea, while your at it why not give them all chemical, and biological weapons too, along with a ICBM to launch them anywhere in the world they want to?
I don't think anybody should have weapons of mass destruction. I wish they'd never been invented.
-
Originally posted by dmf
Oh yea thats a great idea, while your at it why not give them all chemical, and biological weapons too, along with a ICBM to launch them anywhere in the world they want to?
I don't think anybody should have weapons of mass destruction. I wish they'd never been invented.
Were it not for nuclear weapons, there would likely have already been at least one more war at least twice as devastating as World War II by now.
-
Actually if it wasn't for nuclear weapons, there wouldn't be the threat of total world desturction, or nuclear winter. I don't know about you but I'd much rather move from a war zone, than watch a mushroom cloud going up while I wait for the blast to kill me. Even if you survive teh inital blask what about the radiation that lasts for 1000 years?
I'm not anti-nuclear, just anti-nuclearbomb
-
What about North Korea? That other dastardly villian from the "Axis of Evil" They still getting a free pass?
How about Pakistan? While not an explicit member of the "Axis of Evil" they continue to harbor (using the neo-con threshhold of "if they pass thru a country they did it with that gov'ts aid and abetting) the worst of them, the AQ terrorists, in the outer regions and provinces.
And don' forget that they are a Muslim country who possess "the bomb" and were responsible for passing criticle info to Iran (and IMO more likely others)
-
Wow. Have you thought about becoming a comedy writer instead?
Yes, I did consider becoming a lawyer / politician. Oh you meant straight comedic writer...
-
If I die from a nuclear blast...well, I die from a nuclear blast.
I don't live my life every day worrying about some podunk country half a world away with a crackpot dictator. I don't gain anything by being stressed out and worried about a nuclear holocaust. If it happens, it happens.
I trust that the people in power, while stupid and corrupt, aren't stupid enough to plunge the world into Armeggedon over stupid crap.
Of course, my plan for a nuclear launch is to just get in my car and drive towards ground zero. Less traffic and more fireworks...
-
As usual the War Nerd probably says it best.
http://www.exile.ru/2005-January-27/war_nerd.html
-
Originally posted by texace
If I die from a nuclear blast...well, I die from a nuclear blast.
I don't live my life every day worrying about some podunk country half a world away with a crackpot dictator. I don't gain anything by being stressed out and worried about a nuclear holocaust. If it happens, it happens.
I trust that the people in power, while stupid and corrupt, aren't stupid enough to plunge the world into Armeggedon over stupid crap.
Of course, my plan for a nuclear launch is to just get in my car and drive towards ground zero. Less traffic and more fireworks...
We'd all die from nuclear bomb blasts. But if I were you I wouldn't trust the people in power any farther than I could throw tham.
-
"As usual the War Nerd probably says it best."
You aint kidding. That guy nails the bullsyeye. thanks for the link.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
(http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/mmsource/image/2006-2-1/Cindy-arrested.jpg)
Ever wonder what the expression "stuck on stupid" meant?
Well here is an example:
The grinning idiot that clingings to Je$$e Jack$on is Cindy Sheehan... the sob sister protesting the war at Bush's ranch, who lost her son in the war, the same son she gave up in her divorce when he was 7 years old.
And by the way if you wonder why she has so much free time ... she is going through another divorce right now and guess what? She is giving up custody of another son.
As Forest Gump once wisely proclaimed, "Stupid is as stupid does."