Iran's Nuclear Program

Pazaz 21

EireRoadUser wrote:

someone told me israel only exists to keep the jews in america happy.
It doesn't make sense to me ,all the trouble the country causes and gets away with.

WTF ?? Ya, i'm sure their real happy watching their fellow Jew's getting blown-up on a daily basis, ya that has to make them real happy. LOL.

Fionnanc

blueshirt wrote:

In the 1973 war, Israel would have been defeated without an American emergency air lift of weapons and equipment. This is a fact.

Not quiet true. The Arabs had massive quantities of Soviet weaponry. Had ongoing airlift of supplies. Of note in the initial assault 2000 Syrian MBT attacked 91 Israeli MBTs in the Golan while a similar Egyptian armoured force bypassed the BAR LEV line on the Suez which was only manned by a battalion of reservest( about aq company in each fort). 1 in 3 of the ARab infanrty carried a manportable guided anti-tank rocket(sagger) compared to 7 years previously when a typical Egyptian infantry battalion had 1 100mm Recoiless AT GUn and 2 smaller man portable AT guns. The tanks in the Arab armies were the most modern available while the Israeli tanks were a mixture of 1950's American tanks, WWII era tanks, French medium tanks and captured arab tanks from 67 war.
The 1973 war saw the 2nd largest tank battle in history, when approx 300 ISraeli MBTs fought a meeting engagement with 2000 Egyptian MBTs. By the fourth week of the war the Israeli had fought off the Syrian assault and had recrossed the Suez Canal. The Americans fearful of a Superpower standoff threatend to stop the arms airlifts if Israel advanced any further to Cairo.
Also for fear of provoking superpower standoff the Americans delayed airlift of munitions until the third week of the war, by then the tide had turned in the ISrael's favour.
THe Israeli's learned from this and therefore are now self sufficient in munition supply and MBT manufacture(Merkava Main Battle Tank). Successfully battle tested in Lebanon against Syrian armour(Destroyed 50 Syrian MBT, with loss of 1-2 Merkava with no death of Israeli crewman).
In short the Soviet supply of weapons and personnel was massively larger than the American supply to Israel and probably qualiatively superior too(SAM6, AT-1 Sagger, MIG and Suckoi jets). At the time the Americans didn't have such a large technological lead as today.

fly_agaric

KerranJast wrote:

:rolleyes: Bush may be right wing, rely on his lackies rather than Generals for advice and not consider International opinion/law when making decisions, but he's never started a war that resulted in the deaths of 62 million people or tried to exterminate an entire race.

LOL - so true.
It's hard not to laugh at the rubbish people are posting on this thread about how Bush=Hitler and the Americans deserve to be "nuked" by Iran. Very sad to see that some people here are so poisoned with hatred for the US that they couldn't give shít about the many people from Ireland who live there or have relatives and friends living there.

The US military should look to the brains of boards.ie for ultra-dense and ultra-hard material for use in a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Pazaz 21

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Goodwins law, you lose:rolleyes:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Pazaz 21

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Never said it wasn't a fair remark,have compared Bush to Hitler myself (see previous posts on this thread).

Still dosen't negate the point that you violated Goodwins Law, now does it!!:rolleyes:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Fionnanc

Dudes we must remain united to face down the Islamofascist threat and their Western(pseudosocialist) apologists/fifth columnists.

Pazaz 21

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

http://members.tripod.com/~goodwin_2/law.html

The custom has evolved that the first party to utter "Hitler" or "Nazi" has lost the discussion, and the thread terminates.

Sorry Fionnanc, must .... not ..... appear .... weak !!!:rolleyes:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Pazaz 21

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Same difference

Fionnanc

It seems the Gerry Adams good Hitler bad brigade have left this topic
Note: the only difference between Gerry Adams and Hitler is scale.
Eretz yIsrael

Manic Moran

joebhoy1916 wrote:

America wants war the whole time then when something like 9/11 happens everyone comdemns it well dont get me
wrong i dont think it was right i fell bad for people who
died on the planes but not for the people in the pentagon.

Dude, calm down, take a breath, and relax.. Type with a bit more care. Much more dignified.

Attacking Iran would just make more 9/11 suicide bombers
do you not think so?

I'm not sure. Part of me worries that that would be the case, but I also can't help wondering if anyone who's anti-Western enough to kill themselves isn't already about to do so as it is. After all, after Afghanistan and Iraq, what's one more country?

Your American do you think your country is right in what
there doing?

As regards Iran? Yes. The thought of a nuclear-armed Iran does not fill me with reassurance and peace of mind. This would be the case regardless of if America was in Iraq/Afghanistan or not.

They are a threat to middle east and world peace because America has given them nuclear weapons

Yes, such a threat because of their nukes that in the thirty-something years that they've been a nuclear power, they've nuked everyone that has pissed them off.

NTM

Ping Chow Chi

Maybe the Palestinians are just trying to create what the King David Hotel bombing did for the Isreal'ies?

Its worth noting that if they had done that now, they would have been black listed by the world as a terrorist organization, but that act helped make Isreal.

Would I feel safer if Iran had nukes?......no

If I was an arab though whould I feel that the west where picking on arab's (after seeming leting Isreal and NK obtain nukes) ... well yes I would.

Squaddy

Earthman wrote:

Lets not.
Post any more rubbish like that here and you will be banned.

Im expressing my opinion nothing wrong with that!

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote:

Yes, such a threat because of their nukes that in the thirty-something years that they've been a nuclear power, they've nuked everyone that has pissed them off.
NTM

opps talking about isreal

EireRoadUser

Does america keep showing it's teeth (teeth being nuclear weapons) everytime it's not getting what it wants.

Sooner or later someone will crack.

joebhoy1916

Manic Moran wrote:

after Afghanistan and Iraq, what's one more country?



As regards Iran? Yes. The thought of a nuclear-armed Iran does not fill me with reassurance and peace of mind.

NTM

well i kinda figured you would say that.


As for Iran like i already said they arent
doing anything illegal its every countrys
right to have a nuclear power station if
they wished to do so.

If America was building one and a country
like Iran asked them to stop do you think
they would?

Squaddy

Iran have every right to build a nuclear station if they want, they do have a population of 68 million to support and they do need to grow their economy.

Squaddy

EireRoadUser wrote:

Does america keep showing it's teeth (teeth being nuclear weapons) everytime it's not getting what it wants.

Sooner or later someone will crack.

Yes and its because of America, wait and see now America will regret everythng in the next 20 or 30 years when the unborn generations grow up in countries such as Iraq, afghanistan and Iran etc... these children will be raised to hate america just like Irish/english war..

Pazaz 21

If you were an Iranian would you want to deal with someone who thought you were a raving fanatic who was bend on destruction. I mean shouldn't we be giving Iran the benefit of the doubt and treat it like a civilised country and not some sort of James Bondesque baddie who is hell bent on world domination ?

EireRoadUser

Personally I think a hell of a lot of people like the idea of America ,the arabs ,asians and soviets.

Ever since bush was elected america has gone downhill big time I think ,maybe I just think this because it's my time to view the news ,but I really thought everything was running smoothly as could be expected.

That guy just seems to have the most bovine attitude when he speaks.

Squaddy

Pazaz 21 wrote:

If you were an Iranian would you want to deal with someone who thought you were a raving fanatic who was bend on destruction. I mean shouldn't we be giving Iran the benefit of the doubt and treat it like a civilised country and not some sort of James Bondesque baddie who is hell bent on world domination ?

Yes you would think so, I wish they where treated right but I dont think we'll see this happening. We have a war monger called Bush who is following his father who failed and so will Bush..

Pazaz 21

EireRoadUser wrote:

Personally I think a hell of a lot of people like the idea of America ,the arabs ,asians and soviets.

Please elaborate on what you mean by the IDEA of America, the arabs, asians and soviets.

Manic Moran

joebhoy1916 wrote:

As for Iran like i already said they arent
doing anything illegal its every countrys
right to have a nuclear power station if
they wished to do so.

I'm inclined to agree. The issue isn't over whether Iran can have a nuclear reactor or not, the issue is over whether or not the rest of the world trusts Iran with the technology to create its own fissionable material to put into that reactor.

On the one hand, the argument that a country is entitled to be totally self-sufficient if it has the capability to do so is a compelling one. As Iran has its own uranium sources, why should it be reliant on Russia to process it? If it really were that simple, and if we lived in a black-and-white world, that would be the end of it.

Unfortunately, we live in a world with many shades of grey. Other countries in the world have a vested interest as well, in that they really would rather not see nuclear weapons in the hand of questionable governments who might well use them without ample provocation. These concerns are just as valid to these countries as the self-sufficiency concern is to Iran. This is why proposals such as the Russian compromise have been offered. An internationally acceptable compromise solution seems pretty reasonable given the real-world constraints, would you not agree?

NTM

EireRoadUser

IDEA ,ideal ,I mean the whole work hard and be free thing, land where anyone can achieve anything.
I'm sure people don't visit america because everyone is in chains

Gurgle

Manic Moran wrote:

I also can't help wondering if anyone who's anti-Western enough to kill themselves isn't already about to do so as it is.

It seems to be slipping your mind that these are people first, muslims second and arabs third.
How do you make a person want to blow himself up to hurt you?
Maybe start a war in his city that winds up with him burying his family.

The Iranian government is anti-US, and with good reason considering how they've been played in the past. They still have to either a) answer to or b) oppress 68 million people to stay in power. Thats not easy. Dropping or attempting to drop a nuke on Israel would certainly be the end of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and it would be an end soaked in the blood of Iranians, just like the end of Saddam's regime.

North Korea are safe.
They have nukes.

Its as simple as that, the Iranian governent needs a nuclear deterrent if it is to continue to exist in its present form for more than another couple of years.

Pazaz 21

EireRoadUser wrote:

IDEA ,ideal ,I mean the whole work hard and be free thing, land where anyone can achieve anything.
I'm sure people don't visit america because everyone is in chains

The soviets were free? I don't think so, no say in the running of the country, no money, no food, oh ya, Stalin wasn't that nice a guy either !! That also goes for asians and arabs to a smaller extent.(Replace stalin with the appropriate dictator/leader, Mao, etc)

joebhoy1916

Manic Moran wrote:

On the one hand, the argument that a country is entitled to be totally self-sufficient if it has the capability to do so is a compelling one. As Iran has its own uranium sources, why should it be reliant on Russia to process it? If it really were that simple, and if we lived in a black-and-white world, that would be the end of it.

Unfortunately, we live in a world with many shades of grey. Other countries in the world have a vested interest as well, in that they really would rather not see nuclear weapons in the hand of questionable governments who might well use them without ample provocation. These concerns are just as valid to these countries as the self-sufficiency concern is to Iran. This is why proposals such as the Russian compromise have been offered. An internationally acceptable compromise solution seems pretty reasonable given the real-world constraints, would you not agree?
NTM

Why are you talking about Russia they
offered to make the uranium for them
ages ago but they said no.

Would ya not think after the Iraq
war they would be worried there country
could be next after all if they did have
a nuclear bomb nobody would attack
them. There learn that from NK
it was them a few months ago America
couldnt get what they wanted so they
turn on Iran.