Gravitymaster 0 #1 January 23, 2006 Iran says Palestine is center of Islam, fight against arrogance Tehran, Jan 21, IRNA Syria-Iran-President President Ahmadinejad said Friday Palestine is the center of the final stages of the battle between Islam and arrogance, saying the Palestinian Intifada is progressing. The plots hatched by enemies against Palestine should not be overlooked even for a moment, Ahmadinejad noted in a meeting with leaders of the Palestinian resistance movements in Damascus, Syria. Ahmadinejad arrived in Damascus on Thursday upon the official invitation of his Syrian counterpart -- President Bashar al-Assad. He spoke of the importance of the Palestinian cause and stressed the cause will not come be materialized if occupiers continue to occupy even a tiny part of Palestine's territories. He stressed that unity, coordination and sympathy among resistance groups for the Palestinian cause is the only guarantee for Palestine's liberation. The Islamic Republic of Iran supports the Palestinian cause of statehood and liberation of Islamic territories from occupiers, he added. Elsewhere, he noted that one of the reasons westerners were lined up against Iran's undeniable right to gain peaceful nuclear technology was because of Iran's uncompromising support for Palestine. The visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Syria is considered another gesture of political support to Damascus and the Islamic resistance, said Hamas political leader Khaled Mishaal. The Hamas official extended his thanks to the Iranian president for his firm stance on the Palestinian issue, saying the resistance group, Hamas, considers resistance the only way to resolve the Palestinians' rights and success of their avowed goals. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can anyone give me a valid reason why it's a good idea for Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #2 January 23, 2006 > Can anyone give me a valid reason why it's a good idea for Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Yes, I'll give you one. It gives us a ligitimate right to Light the bastards up. I only said that because it really pisses off liberals. Look its only a matter of time the Iranian Government will have to come to terms for a peaceful out come or a military response that could bring an all out war in the middle east. The Iranian Government as been a sponsor of terrorist and supporters of Hamas for many years. The Iranian's have no real Airforce, Navy, or the refining capacity to provide for their gasoline needs. They import the majority of their gas and would be cut off with a Naval Blockade, as well as US forces on two seperate borders. The US has the ability to launch raids from Iraq / Afgan. and the Sea. If we were forced to pursue a military option and provided we ingaged our enemy with the intent to win a complete victory, it would be over fairly quickly say no more than a few weeks. If past history is any indication the left will come to Irans defence and will gather in the streets of New York by the thousands, and will remind the world that Iran is a peace loving country and that Israel and the US are the true evil of the world. Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #3 January 23, 2006 QuoteThe US has the ability to launch raids from Iraq / Afgan. and the Sea. If we were forced to pursue a military option and provided we ingaged our enemy with the intent to win a complete victory, it would be over fairly quickly say no more than a few weeks. Yup, we quickly took care of business in Afghanistan and even quicker in Iraq. Yup, complete victory. They rolled over and shook our hands as they were trembling at the omnipotent force of the millitary. Going to war with Iran would not be a wise move. As invading Iraq is, for the most, a failure. Invading Iran would, most likely, spark an all out war against the US. Unless you have not noticed, the US is not at all popular in the Mideast. Invading a country, Iraq, that was not a threat made the US an even tastier target. Invading Iran would awaken sleeper cells world wide and start a bloodbath. Most actions against Iran would not be good for anyone. Sanctions would cripple the world as stemming the flow of crude would push oil prices well over $100.00 a barrel and bring most countries, namely the US, to a grinding halt. The US is already pushed to the limit, millitary wise, and would be in further jeopardy of another enemy, N. Korea, if they were to attack Iran, thus thinning it's millitary capabilities even more. To believe that attacking such a country as Iran would be an easy task is foolish and dangerous when you consider the fact that the Iraqies who have been fighting the US has been doing so with very little and causing major damage to the so called "coalition". Iran is far greater equipped and has greater backing to take on an US invasion. War with Iran? Be real, wake up and look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing quick there."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #4 January 23, 2006 Quote> Can anyone give me a valid reason why it's a good idea for Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Yes, I'll give you one. It gives us a ligitimate right to Light the bastards up. I only said that because it really pisses off liberals. ============= Speaking as a card-carrying moderate, I seriously doubt that many informed, intelligent liberals (sorry for the redundancy) in the US would be very pissed at that, or even disagree with it much. Much the way it had to be pointed out that most US liberals support the military mission in Afghanistan. ================ Quote>>If past history is any indication the left will come to Irans defence and will gather in the streets of New York by the thousands, and will remind the world that Iran is a peace loving country and that Israel and the US are the true evil of the world. ======================== Same answer. You might find them gathering in droves in Paris, but New York? Not a chance in hell. I'll bet you don't like Bush-bashers who bash Bush just for the sake of the bashing. Well, liberal-bashers are in the same category. If you dislike political liberalism, just say so. But using "group slander" is nothing more than preaching to a choir of dittoheads; and it's a tepid substitute for thoughful, well-reasoned analysis and commentary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,456 #5 January 23, 2006 >If we were forced to pursue a military option and provided we ingaged >our enemy with the intent to win a complete victory, it would be over fairly >quickly say no more than a few weeks. "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." (Rumsfeld, 3/7/03) "I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." (Cheney, 3/16/03) "The administration’s top budget official [Mitch Daniels] estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion." (NYT, 2/2/03) There's that old proverb - "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." And of course there's the Who - "Won't get fooled again." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #6 January 23, 2006 Quote"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." (Rumsfeld, 3/7/03) I don't know what's going to happen, but it sure would be more productive if any military operations against Iran were focused on taking out nuc-ular capability, not replacing the government. THAT goal might take just a few days or weeks. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #7 January 23, 2006 So what do you see as an alternative? Allow Iran to continue to develop their nuclear program with a good chance they produce a nuclear weapon? I'd really like to hear your solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NelKel 0 #8 January 23, 2006 I don't know what's going to happen, but it sure would be more productive if any military operations against Iran were focused on taking out nuc-ular capability, not replacing the government. THAT goal might take just a few days or weeks.<< Is it possible for the US to strike with steath, and never take responsibility? I'm sure someone would figure it out. I mean how did these targets get hit with precision, no civilian casualties, and no one knows how/who did it. Sneaky _________________________________________ Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #9 January 23, 2006 Greater diplomatic pressure? Unilateral nuclear disarment? Sanctions would only increase hatred towards the US and any country that is in bed with the US, not to mention what it would do to the worlds energy source. Past millitary actions against Iran as proved to be futile. We had a major chance in the early 80's and walked away. I was there during the build up in 1980-81. It was haze grey as far as the eye could see in the IO. We did nothing but sit while Iran waited. We gave support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and, well, we all know what came of that. There is no doubt that Iran is a powder keg poised to go off if touched the wrong way. How it is touched needs to be examined carefully so not to start what could quickly escalate to nuclear war not only with Iran but the other threat, N. Korea, whom is just waiting to bite. I believe that the leadership of our country has been blind for the last 25 years or more by "American Pride". To proud to say they screwed up. To many with the "America, love it or leave it" attitude. America cease being the America during WW2 shortly after said war. We are not loved by many and many from other countries here at SC aknowledge this fact. I doubt anyone has a clear cut idea on how to deal with the mounting threats of our world. It is becoming dangerously unstable and more so each and every day. Flat out waging war on Iran will, without doubt, start an all out war on the US and its supporters. What has happened since the invasion on Iraq will look like just kids fighting in a sandbox. Saddam, who is not very religous in the way most muslims are, is not very well liked by anyone in the Mideast and most really didn't give a damn. Iran is completely different and have support by a high number of Islamic states thus giving them the upperhand in the Mideast on all sides. Something needs to be done and quick, but extremely carefully."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NelKel 0 #10 January 23, 2006 Allow Iran to continue to develop their nuclear program with a good chance they produce a nuclear weapon?<< They already have it, just not the delivery system, other than the back of a pickup truck. The Iraian Government is moving around assets, moving missile locations to keep the spy satellites busy. They are with drawing their money from european investments. Some 50 billion has been reported. Their president has been confirmed as a terriost. He was identified by a survivor who was a hostage over 20 years ago. He stated that the Jew's were never persecuted, and Isreal should be wiped off the map. Israel, is dealing with all of these threats from Iran, umong others. Their Prime Minister is ill from a stroke. The VP in charge is untested, and it is an election year for them. Guess whats next?_________________________________________ Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NelKel 0 #11 January 23, 2006 Something needs to be done and quick, but extremely carefully.<< Precision strikes. Arm Israel. Quietly_________________________________________ Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #12 January 23, 2006 http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pdf/npp/15-Iran.pdf#search='iranian%20nuclear%20capability' Long read but very informative on Irans capability to carry out a nuclear war"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NelKel 0 #13 January 23, 2006 http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pdf/npp/15-Iran.pdf#search='iranian%20nuclear%20capability'_________________________________________ Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #14 January 23, 2006 Suppose Iran continues to defy Diplomatic pressure. What then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NelKel 0 #15 January 23, 2006 Suppose Iran continues to defy Diplomatic pressure. What then? <<< The only people who have influence over Iran are Russia and China. Not trying to rule out the N.Koreans either. Know why?_________________________________________ Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #16 January 23, 2006 This is a very interesting statement made after the Iran-Iraq war With the West’s conspicuous silence over Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iran, the leaders in Tehran decided that acquiring those weapons was the only means of ensuring self-defense. Shortly after the cease-fire, Akbar Hashemi- Rafsanjani, then–speaker of the Iranian parliament and commander-in-chief of Iran’s armed forces and later Iran’s president, declared: With regard to chemical, bacteriological, and radiological weapons training, it was made very clear during the war that these weapons are very decisive. It was also made clear that the moral teachings of the world are not very effective when war reaches a serious stage and the world does not respect its own resolutions and closes its eyes to the violations and all the aggressions which are committed in the battlefield. We should fully equip ourselves both in the offensive and defensive use of chemical, bacteriological, and radiological weapons. From now on you should make use of the opportunity and perform this task. (emphasis added) If all peaceful means to quench the rising threat fails, the whole world will suffer, not just Iran and the US. We should all hope that diplomacy prevails and this does not escalate to all out warfare. But history has pretty much shows that it only takes one shot and the whole thing will go up in flames. Whether or not Iran is equipped to wage NBC warfare is yet to be seen. Who wants to take the chance that they are? They have stated, much like N. Korea, when push comes to shove, they will fight to the death."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 January 23, 2006 Don't want to answer the question, huh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #18 January 23, 2006 QuoteThere's that old proverb - "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." And of course there's the Who - "Won't get fooled again." That's tough talk, but what can you, I, or anyone we know actually DO to prevent our government from doing whatever the fuck it wants to -- no matter which asshole party is running it? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #19 January 23, 2006 QuoteDon't want to answer the question, huh? If all peaceful means to quench the rising threat fails, the whole world will suffer, not just Iran and the US. We should all hope that diplomacy prevails and this does not escalate to all out warfare. But history has pretty much shows that it only takes one shot and the whole thing will go up in flames. Whether or not Iran is equipped to wage NBC warfare is yet to be seen. Who wants to take the chance that they are? They have stated, much like N. Korea, when push comes to shove, they will fight to the death. This was my answer to "what then". I hope that diplomacy does prevail as a war with Iran will not be a cakewalk. The US will not waltz into Tehran like they did into Baghdad. Our armed forces have already been stretched to the limit with no end in sight in Iraq. Iraq is on the edge of civilwarfare and the US is stuck in the center of it with no way out. To cut and run would only bolster more hatred towards the US. Going into Iran any time in the future would not be wise as we are bogged down in the quaqmire that is Iraq. Considering also the regrouping of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and the need for more US troops in that region to stem any further build up, moving troops into Iran will weaken our forces even greater (I can only imagine that this is great news to the N. Koreans). Again there will be no end in sight and no real strategy to wage war in Iran. Much as there was no real strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq. We cannot afford for any more warmongering but can afford to extend diplomacy. To be to quick to march into Iran will spark an all out war aimed at crushing the US at all cost (again, consider N. Korea). One shot started WW1 and will most likely start WW3. We may have the guns but they have the numbers. We will be in for the long, long haul if we take but only one step over the line. I think that many agree that there is a bad ("good" does not apply here) chance that this will spiral into warfare, conventional and also NBC. Glad I still have my old NBC warfare suit as I may need it eventually. Should had never turned my MK4 gas mask into a grassmask. One last toke before the vaporizing effect of the nuclear dawn..."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #20 January 23, 2006 I think you are overlooking the fact that most of Europe is behind a non-Nuclear Iran. Those countries that are tepidly supporting sanctions will no doubt bend to the pressure of their citizens if the price of gasoline increases sharply. At present, Iran is refusing any Diplomatic efforts and that combined with the article I posted above only reinforces their hard line rejection of such efforts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #21 January 23, 2006 QuoteThey already have it, just not the delivery system, other than the back of a pickup truck. This is incorrect. Thanks to Russia, N. Korea, and China, Iran has plenty of missles -- they just don't (yet) have a nuclear payload to use with them. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #22 January 23, 2006 http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/index.html "Iran has plenty of missles -- " Indeed they do.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #23 January 23, 2006 Quotehttp://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/index.html "Iran has plenty of missles -- " Indeed they do. According to the map they don't currently have the capability to reach Israel, their highest value target. Do you know which of their current supply of missilles have the capability to carry a nuclear warhead? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #24 January 23, 2006 You are right that most of Europe is hoping for a non-nuclear Iran but they must also know that sanctions will push crude prices well beyond the ceiling. Iran has the upperhand in that regard. If Iran were to hold back on the flow of oil and push the price up they would quickly garner support against the US from many who are already questioning the reasons why the US invaded Iraq. http://www.iranian.com/MajidTehranian/2002/September/Oil/ Two things that are true is oil and arms, who has the most of both rules the planet. The US has the arms. The Mideast has the oil. Both want what the other has. It is a shame and disgrace to all that this is quickly spiraling into a precursor to war for whatever reason. If this does come to a conventional, or worst, NBC warfare it will change the planet and divide everyone. It will be difficult to know who is for who as loyalties will waver from one side to the other. Will the US be viewed as the greater evil or will Iran? I do believe that one thing is certian, millions will die and many more will be maimed in an all out war in the Mideast. Whether the US is justified or not it will forever be tarnished."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #25 January 23, 2006 QuoteAccording to the map they don't currently have the capability to reach Israel, their highest value target. Do you know which of their current supply of missilles have the capability to carry a nuclear warhead? From many news sources: Shahab 3, payload 1.2 tons . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
