Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran
Comments
-
So when one questions and postulates its conspiracy theory is it? What I stated has and does happen in the case of Iraq, now Iran probably. So not just theory but fact.
Apparently we are also suppose to ignore the fact that Israel ongoing settlement project also constitutes an invasion (albeit a colonial one).........0 -
For a while now the Left Wingers have denounced anyone who said that Iran is building a nuclear weapon as "racist, bigotted, right-wing, Daily Mail-reading, Islamophobic, Tory, baby-eating, Zionist warmongerers".
In light of this IAEA report which says that Iran is building a nuclear weapon I think those of us, including me, who have always suspected that Iran is building a nuclear weapon deserve an apology.0 -
For a while now the Left Wingers have denounced anyone who said that Iran is building a nuclear weapon as "racist, bigotted, right-wing, Daily Mail-reading, Islamophobic, Tory, baby-eating, Zionist warmongerers".
In light of this IAEA report which says that Iran is building a nuclear weapon I think those of us, including me, who have always suspected that Iran is building a nuclear weapon deserve an apology.
You clearly haven't read the report, it says nothing of the sort.0 -
just because there is the urge to do something, does not mean that anything you do is okay ...
i don't know if they were responsible for 911, or if the country itself was allowing these "terrorists" to operate freely ...
they could have had a trial? all i'm saying here is that it was an excuse, and you seem to agree. there were other options.
The Taliban admitted al Qaeda were operating with impunity within their borders, they were considered allies to the point of commanding units within the Taliban army.
The US demanded Osama was handed over to face questioning and possible trial, the Taliban refused to do so and even refused to crack down on further al Qaeda operations. The far left seem to believe it was because of insuffiecent evidence on the part of the US, there was more than enough considering the magnitude of the crime and especially considering the history. It was far from the first attack planned and carried out from the area.
It was an act of war (again, not the first) carried out by a declared ally of another state intended to and resulting in the deaths of 1000's of American civilians. Hard to think of a better "excuse" for a war.
That people are incapable of seperating in their minds the causes and nuances that lead to both the Iraq and Afghan wars is very indicative of their mindset with regard to Iran. Very clearly they have axes to grind, and cannot bring themselves to look at the situation with any other mindset other than "Zionist + America = baaaaad".
I have yet to see a good argument against further sanctions towards Iran. All boil down to "I like that they stand up to Israel" or " America does not push with the same strength to punish everyone who illegaly aquires nuclear weapons" (ironically calling for them to be the "world police" that the same people no doubt so dissparigingly call the US in different situations).
The difference with Iraq, and this is key, is that the IAEA claimed they had no nuclear weapons and were no longer pursuing it. It is very telling that many here claim the IAEA is an "American puppet". No doubt when the IAEA report agrees with them it is the ultimate arbiter of what should or should not be done, as is so often the case with people that site international law to fortify their arguments - it only really matters when it agrees with them.
Again, all this is very indicative of a group that have their made up about how the situation should be dealt with as soon as they hear who is involved, there is little nuance to their thinking, and the childishness of their "but its not FAIR that they dont have nuclear weapons and the US does", without any regard for the massive consequences for such thinking in the region and around the world bears this out.0 -
-
-
So Iran should then be allowed to aquire nuclear weapons?
Should Israel be allowed to have nuclear weapons? The stunning hypocrisy of supporters of Israel in that regard is always forgotten.
To answer your question, no Iran shouldn't have them, but that doesn't change the fact that Israel is aggressively engaged in a colonial project outside its borders, which clearly shows that Israel has no issues with invading people. Also, a bit rich of nuclear Israel to complain about anyone else wanting them.
Also, one of the main reason anyone else would want those weapons in the first place, is due to Israel having them, but sure let ignore the elephant in the room as per usual.0 -
it's in iran next to the nukes .. tell me when you find it ...For a while now the Left Wingers have denounced anyone who said that Iran is building a nuclear weapon as "racist, bigotted, right-wing, Daily Mail-reading, Islamophobic, Tory, baby-eating, Zionist warmongerers".
In light of this IAEA report which says that Iran is building a nuclear weapon I think those of us, including me, who have always suspected that Iran is building a nuclear weapon deserve an apology.0 -
Shure the Yanks have not had a good invasion since 2003 and Israel is always up to invade its neighbours with big brother to back it up. Its nearly Presidential election time, a good war will help, plus the US economy is in the pits, so get peoples minds off the gloom, go to war, then a nice bit of rebuilding once the war is done. Anybody see a pattern here. Once Iran is done, who next,..... back to the Russians or will it be the Chinese?
sick of hearing this so ill post it only one more time. It is an urban myth that war is good for the economy. http://economics.about.com/od/warandtheeconomy/a/warsandeconomy.htm
If you think American people would give a crap about a war in Iran, which would be over very quickly in the "exciting sense" of military manouvers etc whilst many are finding it hard to meet mortgage payments and that this war would somehow "distract" them from not being able to pay their kids tuition fees then you have an incredibly skewed vision of what people care about0 -
Advertisement
-
was this before of after the evidence was presented ... oh wait no evidence ...The US demanded Osama was handed over to face questioning and possible trial, the Taliban refused to do so and even refused to crack down on further al Qaeda operations.
well at least the us have always handed over it's citizens when another state asks for them for alleged offences ... oh sorry they don't ....
actually .. you're right this is in now way shows how the us over reacts ..0 -
You clearly haven't read the report, it says nothing of the sort.
From The Telegraph:
The UN atomic agency has "serious concerns" about Iran's nuclear activities, and has "credible" information Tehran may have worked on developing atomic weapons, a report said on Tuesday.
"The agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme," the keenly awaited International Atomic Energy Agency report, seen by AFP, said.
"After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the agency finds the information to be, overall, credible.
"This information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device."
It added: "The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.
"Given the concerns identified above, Iran is requested to engage substantively with the agency without delay for the purpose of providing clarifications."
The Vienna-based agency said some of its more than 1,000 pages of information indicated Iran has done work "on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components."
Previous IAEA assessments have centred on Iran's efforts to produce fissile material - uranium and plutonium - which can be put to peaceful uses like power generation, or be used to make a nuclear bomb.
But the new update focuses on Iran's alleged efforts towards putting the radioactive material in a warhead and developing missiles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8877429/IAEA-report-serious-concerns-on-Iran-nuclear-activities.html
It looks as though those people who suspected all along that Iran is building nukes were right all along.0 -
Should Israel be allowed to have nuclear weapons? The stunning hypocrisy of supporters of Israel in that regard is always forgotten.
To answer your question, no Iran shouldn't have them, but that doesn't change the fact that Israel is aggressively engaged in a colonial project outside its borders, which clearly shows that Israel has no issues with invading people. Also, a bit rich of nuclear Israel to complain about anyone else wanting them.
Also, one of the main reason anyone else would want those weapons in the first place, is due to Israel having them, but sure let ignore the elephant in the room as per usual.
No. However, Israels hypocrisy on the matter is only a small piece of a puzzle that COULD end with many nuclear armed states in the most volatile region on earth. The inability of the pro-Palestine crowd to see the forest for a tree is always forgotten
Why should the US forget completly about their own national security and interests in an attempt to be the ultimate arbiter of "fairness" in the Middle East? I DO think it would be better if there were a powerful state that could bring Israel more to task for its breaches of international law, that the US does not do this does not lessen the importance of them doing it elsewhere.
It is not the main reason, their are a multitude of reasons including national prestige, the ability to then project power vastly more effectivly in the region and, perhaps worst of all, it will cement the current regime in power. Israel having nuclear weapons is a nice card to play as it gains so much support around the world but a nation which has difficulty feeding its own people does not spend billions of dollars on a weapons program just because another state whom they dislike has the same.0 -
was this before of after the evidence was presented ... oh wait no evidence ...
well at least the us have always handed over it's citizens when another state asks for them for alleged offences ... oh sorry they don't ....
actually .. you're right this is in now way shows how the us over reacts ..
Over reacts? What a charming dismissal of the reaction to 1000's of deaths. Personification of a state shows an enormous immaturity in your understanding of international relations.
Yes ok CT forum is that way =>
If you believe the Taliban were well within their rights to continue the support of an organistation that had taken responsibility for attacking US civilians numerous times in the past and had the express aim of doing so wherever they found them following the attacks and preceding them then I'm just extatic that you merely express a minority view on the subject.
Osama was not ana Afghan citizen, that you dont even know this is very telling of your level of knowledge.
Regarldess, if you think 911 was just an excuse by those damn yanks to go after the Afghans rescources you can start your own thread.0 -
Bin Laden died in 2001 of renal failure, after denying at length any involvement in the atrocities. I can't believe there people out there so stupid as to believe the kleptocratic version of 9/11. Box-cutters? Cave-dwelling mastermind? Top-Gun drunkard ace pilots? Perfect, symmetrical implosions?
Good God, are people this stupid? Their responses are disturbing, 'Conspiracy theorists', they say. Afterall who in their right mind question the people who made up WMD-in-Iraq fluff? :pac:0 -
Yes yes you are too clever for me. I'm just uncomfortable with the truth so I try and bury my head in the sand. Thanks for opening my eyes. I'm going to ignore you now.0
-
Advertisement
-
So Iran should then be allowed to aquire nuclear weapons?
You could argue for the same reasons that Israel has them, a deterrent? Or is there another reason Israel has nuclear weapons? Let's face it, Iran feels threatened, and justifiably so. Its neighbour was invaded, so logically Iran feels it needs a big stick.0 -
-
You could argue for the same reasons that Israel has them, a deterrent? Or is there another reason Israel has nuclear weapons? Let's face it, Iran feels threatened, and justifiably so. Its neighbour was invaded, so logically Iran feels it needs a big stick.
Two of its neighbours. Iraq was invaded, Afghanistan was invaded, there are threats eminating from Azerbaijan, Pakistan was bombed and US Carrier lurk large. These kleptocrats, who - by the way, would never tell a lie to us, have bombed and murdered in a 360 degree radius.
When Iran is bombed, they'll fast-track their nuke programme or else they'll go ahead and buy one on the black market. Its not that difficult for a Country the size of Iran to do either. There is no nuclear threat from Iran now. But within ten years of the first kleptocrat bomb falling, there will be. As former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said - Iran doesn't have nukes, but if you bomb them - 'Pick your city' (I.e. which US city you want vaporised).0 -
You could argue for the same reasons that Israel has them, a deterrent? Or is there another reason Israel has nuclear weapons? Let's face it, Iran feels threatened, and justifiably so. Its neighbour was invaded, so logically Iran feels it needs a big stick.
I dont really care if they feel they need one, for whatever reason. The fact remains continuing proliferation is a bad thing and must be seen to be punished.
Not that I believe Israel has the right to nuclear weapons but from a security perspective Israel was in a much much more pecarious postition than Iran is, even with Irans continuing beligerence on the nuclear issue. I hope that the irony that its security is most threatened by its continued pursuit of nuclear wespons is not lost on you.
Further, your point does not address the wider issues at all - the preassure will put on surrounding states to do the same. The issues it is putting forward NOW as the US, which Iran has spent the last 40 years seeking to demonise and threaten in various ways, is understandibly twitchy over the "Death To America" Iranian regime getting the bomb. The enormous weakening of the IAEA treaty as state after state flouts it.
Again, an argument in favour of doing nothing must go a little further than "Israel has one, whats the problem with everyone else getting it?"0 -
From The Telegraph:
The UN atomic agency has "serious concerns" about Iran's nuclear activities, and has "credible" information Tehran may have worked on developing atomic weapons, a report said on Tuesday.
"The agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme," the keenly awaited International Atomic Energy Agency report, seen by AFP, said.
"After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the agency finds the information to be, overall, credible.
"This information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device."
It added: "The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.
"Given the concerns identified above, Iran is requested to engage substantively with the agency without delay for the purpose of providing clarifications."
The Vienna-based agency said some of its more than 1,000 pages of information indicated Iran has done work "on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components."
Previous IAEA assessments have centred on Iran's efforts to produce fissile material - uranium and plutonium - which can be put to peaceful uses like power generation, or be used to make a nuclear bomb.
But the new update focuses on Iran's alleged efforts towards putting the radioactive material in a warhead and developing missiles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8877429/IAEA-report-serious-concerns-on-Iran-nuclear-activities.html
It looks as though those people who suspected all along that Iran is building nukes were right all along.
is it just me or does above not say these were activities that took place before 2003 which is common knowledge already.
After 2003 it says "that some activities may still be ongoing"
That is just speculation. It doesnt confirm Iran is presently building a nuclear weapon anywhere.0 -
Advertisement
-
Border-Rat wrote: »Two of its neighbours. Iraq was invaded, Afghanistan was invaded, there are threats eminating from Azerbaijan, Pakistan was bombed and US Carrier lurk large. These kleptocrats, who - by the way, would never tell a lie to us, have bombed and murdered in a 360 degree radius.
When Iran is bombed, they'll fast-track their nuke programme or else they'll go ahead and buy one on the black market. Its not that difficult for a Country the size of Iran to do either. There is no nuclear threat from Iran now. But within ten years of the first kleptocrat bomb falling, there will be. As former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said - Iran doesn't have nukes, but if you bomb them - 'Pick your city' (I.e. which US city you want vaporised).
Just wondering if you know what a kleptocracy actually IS?0 -
-
Should Israel be allowed to have nuclear weapons? The stunning hypocrisy of supporters of Israel in that regard is always forgotten.
To answer your question, no Iran shouldn't have them, but that doesn't change the fact that Israel is aggressively engaged in a colonial project outside its borders, which clearly shows that Israel has no issues with invading people. Also, a bit rich of nuclear Israel to complain about anyone else wanting them.
Also, one of the main reason anyone else would want those weapons in the first place, is due to Israel having them, but sure let ignore the elephant in the room as per usual.
If Israel didn't have nuclear weapons then their arab enemies would have continued conventional war against them until they eventually got good at it or got lucky.
to quote Golda MeirWe don't thrive on military acts. We do them because we have to, and thank God we are efficient.0 -
Border-Rat wrote: »No, you're right. By the way why did Mossad find 9/11 a joyous and funny event?
Because they did it obviously. No other reason I can think of. I bet EVERYONE that found it funny and joyous did it. Like a massive practical joke.
You must be a detective.0 -
So far the argument in favour of doing nothing whilst Iran aquires nuclear weapons has been one massive tu quoque, with some typical tinfoil hat theories thrown in (which actually have little or nothing to do with the actual discussion, but goes a long way to establishing the mindset of those that consider Iran an innocent victim).
There has been little or no acknowledgment of the wider implications, or indeed of ANY implications other than "Iran and Israel will now be on a more even footing". Too any observer, this is an incredibly weak argument.
The arguments against WAR are many and varied (that could but not have been made here well). The arguments against further sanctions untill Iran respects its international obligations have been practicall non existant.0 -
Because they did it obviously. No other reason I can think of. I bet EVERYONE that found it funny and joyous did it. Like a massive practical joke.
You must be a detective.
Yes, thats it. Just joke your way out of an inconvenient question.So far the argument in favour of doing nothing whilst Iran aquires nuclear weapons has been one massive tu quoque,
And how is that? When talking about hypocrisy, one only has to look at who has shown more aggression; Iran, an NPT signatory who has attacked no-one in hundreds of years, or Israel, a nuclear-armed menace who flaunts the NPT and has attacked its neighbours repeatedly.with some typical tinfoil hat theories thrown in (which actually have little or nothing to do with the actual discussion, but goes a long way to establishing the mindset of those that consider Iran an innocent victim).
Which tinfoil hat theories would these be? Anything like the one about WMD?
There has been little or no acknowledgment of the wider implications, or indeed of ANY implications other than "Iran and Israel will now be on a more even footing". Too any observer, this is an incredibly weak argument.The arguments against WAR are many and varied (that could but not have been made here well). The arguments against further sanctions untill Iran respects its international obligations have been practicall non existant.
Which obligations is it rejecting? Where exactly do you get your updates on geo-political affairs from, X-Men comics?
Don't you know, folks, theres a Mooslim conspiracy afoot. No, we really mean it this time, they definitely are developing WMD this time. Honest, no foolin'.0 -
Border-Rat wrote: »Yes, thats it. Just joke your way out of an inconvenient question.
If you think someone celebrating something means they did it, then laughing at you is all I can do.
Look up argument from final consequences. Very basic logical fallacy that you make right off the bat.
9 11 conspiracy theorists are like religious zealots, I have no interest in debating with you, replace "You have no faith" with "inconvenient question" or "your so naieve" and your in exactly the same territory. Please go read a good skeptical site on the matter, its been done to death by 100's of organistations and people. None of which have reached your conlcusions then had their ideas stand up to peer review. It could be that they are all in on it. Or that perhaps YOU are the stupid one. Ill let you come to your own conlcusion.
I just appreciate how cosey it is for CTers that their ideas of who the REAL enemy always so happily coincide with their political views.Border-Rat wrote: »And how is that? When talking about hypocrisy, one only has to look at who has shown more aggression; Iran, an NPT signatory who has attacked no-one in hundreds of years, or Israel, a nuclear-armed menace who flaunts the NPT and has attacked its neighbours repeatedly.
Please google tu quoqoe. You just did EXACTLY the same thing again.Border-Rat wrote: »Which tinfoil hat theories would these be? Anything like the one about WMD?
The WMD's were never backed up by the UN or several intelligence agencies around the world. Very big difference between healthy skepticism and believing that every situation that arises which may challenge your political pre conceptions being "da joos" and their consipracies.Border-Rat wrote: »Which obligations is it rejecting? Where exactly do you get your updates on geo-political affairs from, X-Men comics?
To the NPT. This is why there are sanctions. How do you not know this? If it WAS from the X-men comics I would still have a better knowledge of the situation than you have, or donth have as you contniually demonstrate.Border-Rat wrote: »Don't you know, folks, theres a Mooslim conspiracy afoot. No, we really mean it this time, they definitely are developing WMD this time. Honest, no foolin'.
Pakistan is Muslim, it already has a few hundred, whatever that has to do with it.
You know you really would be better of in the CT forum, or maybe you should read some articles on the issue first.0 -
Border-Rat wrote: »They were largely targeted Kuwaiti and Iraqi tankers and had nowhere near the capability they have today.
And the forces opposing them had nowhere near the capability they have today either.
When the US finally got fed up with Iran's mucking around with the shipping, the Iranian Navy suddenly discovered that they had a higher ratio of spare parts to ships than they had the day before. I see nothing to indicate that a re-run would not be a likelihood.
NTM0 -
If you think someone celebrating something means they did it, then laughing at you is all I can do. 9 11 conspiracy theorists are like religious zealots, I have no interest in debating with you, replace "You have no faith" with "inconvenient question" or "your so naieve" and your in exactly the same territory. Please go read a good skeptical site on the matter, its been done to death by 100's of organistations and people. None of which have reached your conlcusions then had their ideas stand up to peer review. It could be that they are all in on it. Or that perhaps YOU are the stupid one. Ill let you come to your own conlcusion.
I just appreciate how cosey it is for CTers that their ideas of who the REAL enemy always so happily coincide with their political views.
Please answer the (Very simple) question I have posed to you. Why did Israeli Mossad agents jump for joy, high-five and mock the flaming carnage with a zippo lighter? And while you're at it, how did they know to have a camera erected to 'document the event'?Please google tu quoqoe. You just did EXACTLY the same thing again.
There is nothing to defend. Iran has done nothing wrong.The WMD's were never backed up by the UN or several intelligence agencies around the world. Very big difference between healthy skepticism and believing that every situation that arises which may challenge your political pre conceptions being "da joos" and their consipracies.
Cop-out. You speak as if its three different Countries leading the charge this time. No, the sabre-rattlers are again, the UK, the USA and Israel. Liars, known frauds.To the NPT. This is why there are sanctions. How do you not know this? If it WAS from the X-men comics I would still have a better knowledge of the situation than you have, or donth have as you contniually demonstrate.
If you're no going to answer my questions, stop replying to me. Once again, which obligations is Iran neglecting?Pakistan is Muslim, it already has a few hundred, whatever that has to do with it.
Another evasion reply. Yes, I was directing you towards the laughable kleptocrat lie about Iraq, that is almost identical, but you chose to ignore that, too.
Israel bombed Iraq in 1981. It attacked Gaza and 2003. Israel invaded the Lebanon in 2006. Israel bombed Syria in 2007. Israel shoots people in international waters. Israel has nuclear weapons.
Iran has attacked nobody since 1981, it has no nuclear weapons.0 -
I dont really care if they feel they need one, for whatever reason. The fact remains continuing proliferation is a bad thing and must be seen to be punished."
Nuclear weapons or not, Iran is threatened by the US and Israel. Its a real threat and not just paranoia. As an independent country, regardless of its ideals, Iran has a right to have nuclear weapons if Israel has them. What they would do with them is a different matter. The US fails to see that it cannot be respected if it applies rules for all the other nations in the region but less or none for Israel. I would not be happy with Iran having nuclear weapons, as I am not happy with Israel currently having them. I fear that the the US has effectively pushed Iran down this road. The US has its nuclear weapons as a deterrent, at least that was always the excuse, and it could be argued that it has worked , so why not let Iran have them as well for the same reasons? One can argue that Iran wants Israel obliterated, but the same can be said for the Israelis who would perhaps wish the same on Iran and a few others. Indeed the diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks indicated that a former Israeli PM was constantly asking that the US attack Iran. I cannot remember exactly who it was.0 -
Advertisement
-
SamHarris, i'm enjoying your myopic prattling and virtual word for word neo con angle straight out of a PNAC release or a Dick Cheney speech or something.
It's amusing to me:)0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »And the forces opposing them had nowhere near the capability they have today either.
When the US finally got fed up with Iran's mucking around with the shipping, the Iranian Navy suddenly discovered that they had a higher ratio of spare parts to ships than they had the day before. I see nothing to indicate that a re-run would not be a likelihood.
NTM
These forces have shown shocking ineptness in the face of asymmetrical warfare, this was proven in the Millenium War games. I have just outlined how Iran will shut the Hormuz Strait. Other than present a 'America STRONG' response, you haven't outlined how this paper tiger will re-open it. So, lets hear it.
a) How does super-duper America deal with radiation at or beyond Chernobyl levels at the head of the Persian Gulf and its proximity to shipping?
b) When MRBM's are being launched from totally random spots throughout Iran, how does America stop this without a land invasion? I'd like to hear of the weapon that can put a stop to this.
c) How do they clear out the northern enclaves of Hormuz of anti-ship cruise missiles? Amphibious landing? Where are those troops coming from? Iran has a conventional army of 600,000 and a paramilitary force of 9,000,000. Will they just sit around while someone is trying to launch an amphibious landing? How long will this invasion take?
d) 160,000 proxy troops in Iraq, the Badr Brigade and the Badr Army not to mention the infiltrated army and police will shut down Iraqi oil. How will America respond to this? Another invasion of Iraq? Seeing as how these militias have weapons that the Sunni militia did not have, i.e. MANPAD's and ATGM's, several times the deployment of even 2007 troop levels will be needed. Where are they come from?
I just have to laugh at people who look at America through marvel-comic eyes. They think that America will deal with Iran, without even offering a reason why, when America can't even deal with Afghanistan.0 -
SamHarris, i'm enjoying your myopic prattling and virtual word for word neo con angle straight out of a PNAC release or a Dick Cheney speech or something.
It's amusing to me:)
Your views on pretty much everything are hilarious to me. You have demonstrated time and again you are incapable of arguing on my level, so really I couldnt be bothered talking to you.
Why am I the only person that ever gets talking to the CT freaks? I guess everyone else just learns to ignore you guys.0 -
Your views on pretty much everything are hilarious to me. You have demonstrated time and again you are incapable of arguing on my level, so really I couldnt be bothered talking to you.
Why am I the only person that ever gets talking to the CT freaks? I guess everyone else just learns to ignore you guys.
So Sam, you think Iran should be "punished" eh?
Yes. Quite. That says it all for me. You've swallowed too much propaganda for me to help you obviously..0 -
Nuclear weapons or not, Iran is threatened by the US and Israel. Its a real threat and not just paranoia. As an independent country, regardless of its ideals, Iran has a right to have nuclear weapons if Israel has them. What they would do with them is a different matter. The US fails to see that it cannot be respected if it applies rules for all the other nations in the region but less or none for Israel. I would not be happy with Iran having nuclear weapons, as I am not happy with Israel currently having them. I fear that the the US has effectively pushed Iran down this road. The US has its nuclear weapons as a deterrent, at least that was always the excuse, and it could be argued that it has worked , so why not let Iran have them as well for the same reasons? One can argue that Iran wants Israel obliterated, but the same can be said for the Israelis who would perhaps wish the same on Iran and a few others. Indeed the diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks indicated that a former Israeli PM was constantly asking that the US attack Iran. I cannot remember exactly who it was.
No it does not. YOU think it does. But not according to international law.
Again, if you cant see the problem with nuclear proliferation you can do your own research on why it is a bad thing. A simple google search should suffice.
Why do I have a feeling you would not be defending so whole heartedly Israels right to WMDs if the postitions of the two countries were revearsed?
Why should America not look out for its interests in the region? Are you really arguing a nation does not have the right to bring into the world view the aquisition of weapons by a declared enemy state? The Iranian regime creates its own reasons for needing nuclear weapons, to argue that this is once again the US' fault is completly historonic.0 -
Border-Rat wrote: »These forces have shown shocking ineptness in the face of asymmetrical warfare, this was proven in the Millenium War games. I have just outlined how Iran will shut the Hormuz Strait. Other than present a 'America STRONG' response, you haven't outlined how this paper tiger will re-open it. So, lets hear it.
a) How does super-duper America deal with radiation at or beyond Chernobyl levels at the head of the Persian Gulf and its proximity to shipping?
b) When MRBM's are being launched from totally random spots throughout Iran, how does America stop this without a land invasion? I'd like to hear of the weapon that can put a stop to this.
c) How do they clear out the northern enclaves of Hormuz of anti-ship cruise missiles? Amphibious landing? Where are those troops coming from? Iran has a conventional army of 600,000 and a paramilitary force of 9,000,000. Will they just sit around while someone is trying to launch an amphibious landing? How long will this invasion take?
d) 160,000 proxy troops in Iraq, the Badr Brigade and the Badr Army not to mention the infiltrated army and police will shut down Iraqi oil. How will America respond to this? Another invasion of Iraq? Seeing as how these militias have weapons that the Sunni militia did not have, i.e. MANPAD's and ATGM's, several times the deployment of even 2007 troop levels will be needed. Where are they come from?
I just have to laugh at people who look at America through marvel-comic eyes. They think that America will deal with Iran, without even offering a reason why, when America can't even deal with Afghanistan.
Nobody can deal with afghanistan. Far too many mountains.
America's best bet is to get that shale oil flowing.
( Its not about oil, of course)0 -
So Sam, you think Iran should be "punished" eh?
Yes. Quite. That says it all for me. You've swallowed too much propaganda for me to help you obviously..
Yes, I believe any nation that flouts so regularly international law should be economically made to feel that they cannot continue to ignore rules designed to protect all of us from nuclear armageddon. But thats just me I guess.
Yup if only I could keep up with the CT brigades jumps in logic and propensity for double think and ridiculous levels of hypocrisy and perception bias I might have the same intricate knowledge of international affairs as you. Guess the Joos just got to me, hit me with some of their pheromones.
What are you even arguing?0 -
Border-Rat wrote: »Bin Laden died in 2001 of renal failure, after denying at length any involvement in the atrocities. I can't believe there people out there so stupid as to believe the kleptocratic version of 9/11. Box-cutters? Cave-dwelling mastermind? Top-Gun drunkard ace pilots? Perfect, symmetrical implosions?
This is the politics forum. It is for rational minds. The conspiracy forum -->
( or is it <--)0 -
Border-Rat wrote: »I just have to laugh at people who look at America through marvel-comic eyes. They think that America will deal with Iran, without even offering a reason why, when America can't even deal with Afghanistan.
The destruction of the Taliban as a sate entity took a matter of weeks. Same with Iraq and Saddam. You are confusing state building and the destruction of certain capabilities.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nobody can deal with afghanistan. Far too many mountains.
America's best bet is to get that shale oil flowing.
( Its not about oil, of course)
This is the point. Iran is covered in mountains and is also drilled to the guts with tunnels and bunkers. They can move one missile with a range of 2000km and incredible accuracy from one location to another underground. Launch it out of randoms spots at targets such as Saudi oil wells, Kuwaiti oil wells and Dimona. There is no way to stop this except by invading Iran or enduring it untill they run out of missiles, which could go on indefinitely because the Koreans, Russians and Chinese supplied them for this reason in the first place.
An invasion of Iran is not happening, the Americans don't have the economy to go through with it and the draft required would cause a revolution.
You can't defeat Iranian asymmetrical response with Call of Duty aerial gadgets. Its not happening, no matter how 'awesome' or appealing they are on TV. They could precision bomb till the cows came home, but its pointless if you don't where the next missile will be launched from. And this is before anyone mentions a possible Russian or Chinese response. China especially has vested interest in Irans well-being.0 -
-
No it does not. YOU think it does. But not according to international law.
Again, if you cant see the problem with nuclear proliferation you can do your own research on why it is a bad thing. A simple google search should suffice.
Why do I have a feeling you would not be defending so whole heartedly Israels right to WMDs if the postitions of the two countries were revearsed?
Why should America not look out for its interests in the region? Are you really arguing a nation does not have the right to bring into the world view the aquisition of weapons by a declared enemy state? The Iranian regime creates its own reasons for needing nuclear weapons, to argue that this is once again the US' fault is completly historonic.
The point is Iran is a sovereign country. I just said I would not be happy with Iran having nuclear weapons, but that does not mean it does not have a right to defend itself, even by use of a deterrent. Regardless of nuclear weapons Israel/US are out to get Iran.....fact, soon or in the future. Israel does not afford rights to the Palestinian people so I find it very hypocritical of it playing the victim here.0 -
:rolleyes: There is no oil in Afghanistan. Do people jsut make things up as they go along these days?
If my memory serves me right it is a strategic corridor between east and west and something about natural gas. So its important in the run of things to own it or have rights/access.0 -
Border-Rat wrote: »Please answer the (Very simple) question I have posed to you. Why did Israeli Mossad agents jump for joy, high-five and mock the flaming carnage with a zippo lighter? And while you're at it, how did they know to have a camera erected to 'document the event'?
Christ I cant make this any clearer - PEOPLE BENEFITING FROM AN EVENT MEANS NOTHING OTHER THAN THEY BENEFITED. I saw Palestinians cheering on the street. Bet they were in on it too. Its ARGUMENT FROM FINAL CONSEQUENCES - a logical fallacy I ahve pointed out time and again. Your argument is going no where, drop it.Border-Rat wrote: »There is nothing to defend. Iran has done nothing wrong.
Not according to the NPT. Your not very good at this, are you? Look it up. Since 2003 (under the administartion of who I beleive people said was removed for not co operating with America on Iraq?) they were deemed to be seeking nuclear weapons and in breach of the NPT. This lead to the sanctions, continuing un co operation with the NPT has lead to further sanctions. This is all well documented, you really should google it before you state what you deem are facts.Border-Rat wrote: »Cop-out. You speak as if its three different Countries leading the charge this time. No, the sabre-rattlers are again, the UK, the USA and Israel. Liars, known frauds.
Incorrect. Israel did not push for war with Iraq at all, it deemed Iran the real enemy. Again, the IAEA did not believe Iraq still had WMDs, hence the controversy. Im becoming convinced that you actually know little or nothing about this entire thing...Border-Rat wrote: »If you're no going to answer my questions, stop replying to me. Once again, which obligations is Iran neglecting?
Holy **** how can you miss that? THE NPT!
There are many reports, this was the first http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdfBorder-Rat wrote: »Israel bombed Iraq in 1981. It attacked Gaza and 2003. Israel invaded the Lebanon in 2006. Israel bombed Syria in 2007. Israel shoots people in international waters. Israel has nuclear weapons.
Iran has attacked nobody since 1981, it has no nuclear weapons.
How can you keep making the same logical mistakes repeatedly? Israels actions may be wrong, but this does not mean that their enemies suddenlty have the right to flout international law in a similiar fashion. If I didnt know bettere I would say alot of people here hope Iran gets the bomb to teach Israel a lesson, either through its use or its threat. Its very clear, however that the wish for Iran to have a WMD comes much more from a hate for Israel than any real argument that anything but bad will come from it.0 -
If my memory serves me right it is a strategic corridor between east and west and something about natural gas. So its important in the run of things to own it or have rights/access.
Every place is "important" to some degree. If there was a goal for rescources, you honestly cant thinnk of a couple of hundred places that would be more suitable to "frame"? Im not discussing CT's anymore, its pointless. If you want to learn how to critically think and avoid the many errors that lead people to fall into the CT mindset, there are plenty of sites that help.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes, I believe any nation that flouts so regularly international law should be economically made to feel that they cannot continue to ignore rules designed to protect all of us from nuclear armageddon. But thats just me I guess.
International law. Flouts so regularly?
Oh dear. Don't make me barf. Economic santions?? Yeah let's starve the Iranian children Madeline Albright style eh?
Or even better. Why not bomb them back to the stone age, and get paid to rebuild the place; with the added bonus of controlling oil during peak oil and your pathetic "safeguarding American interests in the region"Yup if only I could keep up with the CT brigades jumps in logic and propensity for double think and ridiculous levels of hypocrisyand perception bias I might have the same intricate knowledge of international affairs as you. Guess the Joos just got to me, hit me with some of their pheromones.
What are you even arguing?
:pac:Another load of complete an utter horse manure.
You're really out doing yourself tonight with your spiteful accusations. Ooh we're all anti-semites!!
Reminds me of that time you dumped that atrocious drivel on the "Islam is a religon of peace" thread in A+A in your desperation to impart your odious opinion on that subject.0 -
The point is Iran is a sovereign country. I just said I would not be happy with Iran having nuclear weapons, but that does not mean it does not have a right to defend itself, even by use of a deterrent. Regardless of nuclear weapons Israel/US are out to get Iran.....fact, soon or in the future. Israel does not afford rights to the Palestinian people so I find it very hypocritical of it playing the victim here.
Iran is a soverign state in a world where that comes with certain rights, one of which is a CIVILIAN nuclear program under the auspices of the IAEA. No, Iran does NOT have a right to nuclear weapons, this is not up for contention - it is oen of the founding documents of the post WW 2 world.
If the US is out to "get" iran they have no one to blame but themselves. That is not to say I want war with Iran by any means, or belive it should come to that however Iran have done little or nothing to endear themselves to the most powerful country in the world. They pay the price for that.0 -
Every place is "important" to some degree. If there was a goal for rescources, you honestly cant thinnk of a couple of hundred places that would be more suitable to "frame"? Im not discussing CT's anymore, its pointless. If you want to learn how to critically think and avoid the many errors that lead people to fall into the CT mindset, there are plenty of sites that help.
I find your comments insulting to the extreme. Its a poor debater that resorts to conspiracy theory accusations when they are clearly unable to argue or see other points. You have your mind made up, punish Iran because it broke the Laws, just like Israel does constantly so dose it deserve punishment? Please do not answer as I would rather a grown up discussed the matter, clearly you are not one.0 -
International law. Flouts so regularly?
Oh dear. Don't make me barf. Economic santions?? Yeah let's starve the Iranian children Madeline Albright style eh?
Or even better. Why not bomb them back to the stone age, and get paid to rebuild the place; with the added bonus of controlling oil during peak oil and your pathetic "safeguarding American interests in the region"
:pac:Another load of complete an utter horse manure.
You're really out doing yourself tonight with your spiteful accusations. Ooh we're all anti-semites!!
Reminds me of that time you dumped that atrocious drivel on the "Islam is a religon of peace" thread in A+A in your desperation to impart your odious opinion on that subject.
Yes that Islam is not a relgion of peace. What a controversial and odius view :rolleyes: I remember how well you argued your position there as well "I dont like it or you!". Was really fantastic.
You are clearly hysterical. Go back to the CT forum, its safer for you there.
Considering the person I accused of anti-semetism was banned abotu a month later for an almost scary rant about "the jews" I clearly wasnt far wrong.0 -
I find your comments insulting to the extreme. Its a poor debater that resorts to conspiracy theory accusations when they are clearly unable to argue or see other points. You have your mind made up, punish Iran because it broke the Laws, just like Israel does constantly so dose it deserve punishment? Please do not answer as I would rather a grown up discussed the matter, clearly you are not one.
I have siad REPEATEDLY Israel should be punished for breaking international law. I ahve also pointed out repeatedly that the fact that it is not is NOT a good reason for everyone else to be able to do the same, particularly in the most volatile region on earth. Apologies if it seems insulting, but its just one after another with no evidence to back up massive claims other than the existence of a certain resoucrce, or pipe, or celebration. That is NOT the fashion in which a theory is developed, and I will disregard them with exactly the contempt they are worthy of.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement