Iran = stupid. More worried about cockwaving than actually running the country...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It's as if they're inviting/teasing Israel into attacking Natanz. I mean why give away the precise location of them publicly? It seems fishy to me.
They're just asking to have a JDAM stuck through the roof tbh.
Israel will bomb it if they suspect it is making weapon grade Pu
Not that simple. The consequences of failure could be immense. It could place the entire Arabic world behind Iran, who currently only enjoy limited support throughout the Arab world. I'm quite sure Iran will be as prepared as possible for an attack, unlike Iraq back in the 80s.loubot wrote:
Israel will bomb it if they suspect it is making weapon grade Pu
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-08 05:08:57)
nothing to discuss. If Tehran says its for production of energy that is enough for me.
I don't think Israel is going for the popularity vote in the middle east. Granted a strike could put a tension on the US efforts in Afghan or Iraqi.CameronPoe wrote:
Not that simple. The consequences of failure could be immense. It could place the entire Arabic world behind Iran, who currently only enjoy limited support throughout the Arab world. I'm quite sure Iran will be as prepared as possible for an attack, unlike Iraq back in the 80s.loubot wrote:
Israel will bomb it if they suspect it is making weapon grade Pu
It is one of those, "Wait and See What Happens"
I dug this up: Israel Seek Clearence for Airstrike
By Con Coughlin in Tel AvivIsrael is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.
To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.
A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons.
"We are planning for every eventuality, and sorting out issues such as these are crucially important," said the official, who asked not to be named.
"The only way to do this is to fly through US-controlled air space. If we don't sort these issues out now we could have a situation where American and Israeli war planes start shooting at each other."
As Iran continues to defy UN demands to stop producing material which could be used to build a nuclear bomb, Israel's military establishment is moving on to a war footing, with preparations now well under way for the Jewish state to launch air strikes against Teheran if diplomatic efforts fail to resolve the crisis.
The pace of military planning in Israel has accelerated markedly since the start of this year after Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, provided a stark intelligence assessment that Iran, given the current rate of progress being made on its uranium enrichment programme, could have enough fissile material for a nuclear warhead by 2009.
Last week Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, announced that he had persuaded Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad for the past six years and one of Israel's leading experts on Iran's nuclear programme, to defer his retirement until at least the end of next year.
Mr Olmert has also given overall control of the military aspects of the Iran issue to Eliezer Shkedi, the head of the Israeli Air Force and a former F-16 fighter pilot.
The international community will increase the pressure on Iran when senior officials from the five permanent of the United Nations Security Council and Germany meet at an emergency summit to be held in London on Monday.
Iran ignored a UN deadline of last Wednesday to halt uranium enrichment. Officials will discuss arms controls and whether to cut back on the $25 billion-worth of export credits which are used by European companies to trade with Iran.
A high-ranking British source said: "There is a debate within the six countries on sanctions and economic measures."
British officials insist that this "incremental" approach of tightening the pressure on Iran is starting to turn opinion within Iran. One source said: "We are on the right track. There is time for diplomacy to take effect."
Last Updated: 12:30am GMT 25/02/2007
Time will tell.
Iran WILL be attacked at some point. . . .
They are gonna go too far and get whats comin' to em'
I hope those arrogant pricks get exactly whats comin'!! They mettled in Iraq, they have fucked with the oil markets, supported terrorist groups across the middle east, takin' British Marines hostage. . . . AND on top of that want a nuclear fucking weapon!! Its time for some country wide JDAMS!!
They are gonna go too far and get whats comin' to em'
I hope those arrogant pricks get exactly whats comin'!! They mettled in Iraq, they have fucked with the oil markets, supported terrorist groups across the middle east, takin' British Marines hostage. . . . AND on top of that want a nuclear fucking weapon!! Its time for some country wide JDAMS!!
lol. Like the west hasn't tramped all over their backyard like an ignorant self-obsessed fuckwit.fadedsteve wrote:
arrogant pricks
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-08 05:37:28)
Iran may be run by silly fundamentalists, infact so are the U.S. However, both countries aren't stupid enough to ever use Nuclear Weapons. Or supply them to fringe groups. Or do anything that could see themselves nuked in retaliation.
Mutually Assured Destruction, Iran fears that it's next on the U.S invasion list (probably rightly so, seeing as they fund terror groups) so they want to be able to have something to prevent that. I don't think the U.S would invade Iran if they had nukes. Why do you think the U.S hasn't tried invading Pakistan, and is trying to become bff with them.
Mutually Assured Destruction, Iran fears that it's next on the U.S invasion list (probably rightly so, seeing as they fund terror groups) so they want to be able to have something to prevent that. I don't think the U.S would invade Iran if they had nukes. Why do you think the U.S hasn't tried invading Pakistan, and is trying to become bff with them.
Well sure. . . . .CameronPoe wrote:
lol. Like the west hasn't tramped all over their backyard like an ignorant self-obsessed fuckwit.fadedsteve wrote:
arrogant pricks
But it wasnt like the Muslim Sultans of old didnt march up and down North Africa, Turkey, up through Macadonia, Greece and Spain. . . . like arrogant pricks!!
Are you high??Mek-Izzle wrote:
Iran may be run by silly fundamentalists, infact so are the U.S. However, both countries aren't stupid enough to ever use Nuclear Weapons. Or supply them to fringe groups. Or do anything that could see themselves nuked in retaliation.
Mutually Assured Destruction, Iran fears that it's next on the U.S invasion list (probably rightly so, seeing as they fund terror groups) so they want to be able to have something to prevent that. I don't think the U.S would invade Iran if they had nukes. Why do you think the U.S hasn't tried invading Pakistan, and is trying to become bff with them.
You dont think Iran will have Hezbollah do their dirty work for them. . . . you must be smokin that killer ass Afghani opium!!
Man, your fucking Christianity comes from the same place. I hate it when Christians and Muslims bash each other, like they're different. Christianity isn't a European religion. All Christians are just that because they got raped by Christians or converted by Missionaries. Same for Islam.fadedsteve wrote:
Well sure. . . . .CameronPoe wrote:
lol. Like the west hasn't tramped all over their backyard like an ignorant self-obsessed fuckwit.fadedsteve wrote:
arrogant pricks
But it wasnt like the Muslim Sultans of old didnt march up and down North Africa, Turkey, up through Macadonia, Greece and Spain. . . . like arrogant pricks!!
Sometimes I think, Nuking the ME isn't a bad option. Revenge for the shittyness they've brought upon the world via Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
Errr...fadedsteve wrote:
Iran WILL be attacked at some point. . . .
They are gonna go too far and get whats comin' to em'
I hope those arrogant pricks get exactly whats comin'!! They mettled in Iraq, they have fucked with the oil markets, supported terrorist groups across the middle east, takin' British Marines hostage. . . . AND on top of that want a nuclear fucking weapon!! Its time for some country wide JDAMS!!
1. The US 'meddled' in Iraq (did I say meddled, I meant invaded).
2. The US have supported terrorist groups in Venezuela, Cuba and across central and South America.
3. The US have nukes and they sat back and gladly let their bum buddies Israel acquire nukes too.
How are they different from you guys exactly?
We dont threaten to create a second holocaust. . . . . i.e. want to kill all jews or anything racial group (something Iran regularly praises and says they want to do!)Braddock wrote:
Errr...fadedsteve wrote:
Iran WILL be attacked at some point. . . .
They are gonna go too far and get whats comin' to em'
I hope those arrogant pricks get exactly whats comin'!! They mettled in Iraq, they have fucked with the oil markets, supported terrorist groups across the middle east, takin' British Marines hostage. . . . AND on top of that want a nuclear fucking weapon!! Its time for some country wide JDAMS!!
1. The US 'meddled' in Iraq (did I say meddled, I meant invaded).
2. The US have supported terrorist groups in Venezuela, Cuba and across central and South America.
3. The US have nukes and they sat back and gladly let their bum buddies Israel acquire nukes too.
How are they different from you guys exactly?
All the groups we have supported have been in response to Communist and or nationalistic despot leaders spreding their bullshit in South America!
Yea we have nukes, but when have we used them against someone in an offensive manner?? The attack on Horoshima and Nagasaki was defensive and meant to save American lives.
What are you on about fafedsteve? His argument makes perfect sense. Iran aren't going to attack Israel just for the hell of it if they get nuclear weapons, the fallout would ruin their own nation not to mention the Israelis would strike back and obliterate them. If Saddam actually did have WMDs the current situation might have been a different story.fadedsteve wrote:
Are you high??Mek-Izzle wrote:
Iran may be run by silly fundamentalists, infact so are the U.S. However, both countries aren't stupid enough to ever use Nuclear Weapons. Or supply them to fringe groups. Or do anything that could see themselves nuked in retaliation.
Mutually Assured Destruction, Iran fears that it's next on the U.S invasion list (probably rightly so, seeing as they fund terror groups) so they want to be able to have something to prevent that. I don't think the U.S would invade Iran if they had nukes. Why do you think the U.S hasn't tried invading Pakistan, and is trying to become bff with them.
You dont think Iran will have Hezbollah do their dirty work for them. . . . you must be smokin that killer ass Afghani opium!!
The US have been hinting and hinting at a possible invasion of Iran lately, what's the one thing that might provide a very good reason for them not to? ...the threat of nuclear weapons.
When Iran gets the bomb, they will start their campaign of blackmail across the world. . . .Braddock wrote:
What are you on about fafedsteve? His argument makes perfect sense. Iran aren't going to attack Israel just for the hell of it if they get nuclear weapons, the fallout would ruin their own nation not to mention the Israelis would strike back and obliterate them. If Saddam actually did have WMDs the current situation might have been a different story.fadedsteve wrote:
Are you high??Mek-Izzle wrote:
Iran may be run by silly fundamentalists, infact so are the U.S. However, both countries aren't stupid enough to ever use Nuclear Weapons. Or supply them to fringe groups. Or do anything that could see themselves nuked in retaliation.
Mutually Assured Destruction, Iran fears that it's next on the U.S invasion list (probably rightly so, seeing as they fund terror groups) so they want to be able to have something to prevent that. I don't think the U.S would invade Iran if they had nukes. Why do you think the U.S hasn't tried invading Pakistan, and is trying to become bff with them.
You dont think Iran will have Hezbollah do their dirty work for them. . . . you must be smokin that killer ass Afghani opium!!
The US have been hinting and hinting at a possible invasion of Iran lately, what's the one thing that might provide a very good reason for them not to? ...the threat of nuclear weapons.
If someone stands up to them, they will put the weapon in the hands of a rogue terrorist group (Hezbollah) and order them to strike in response. They are a fundalmentalist, racist, "fly by the seat of their pants" regime that doesnt give a shit! Did anyone think they would capture British Marines in international waters for no reason?? What makes you think they wouldnt attack Israel if given the ultimate weapon? are you that naive?? I think you are!
And no one is invading anyone. . . . We are mearly going to bomb the fucking shit out of their nuke facilities with the Israeli, British, and American air forces!! Hopefully sooner than later!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2008-04-08 05:54:17)
Iran actually threatens what they call the 'Zionist Entity' not Judaism as a whole. There are some 30,000 Jews living in Iran and several prominent members of the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community around the world (even some from Israel I believe) were invited to and attendedfadedsteve wrote:
We dont threaten to create a second holocaust. . . . . i.e. want to kill all jews or anything racial group (something Iran regularly praises and says they want to do!)
their rather weird 'holocaust discussion'. I don't think Iran wants to 'cleanse' LES New York or Coney Island....
So basically you're content to have your nation kill anyone who holds a different set of principles to your own? Anyone who believes in a different type of economic structure deserves a bullet in the cranium? What happened to the feared 'South East Asia domino effect' after Vietnam won the war? Nothing, that's what. Your country often kills through unfounded fear.fadedsteve wrote:
All the groups we have supported have been in response to Communist and or nationalistic despot leaders spreding their bullshit in South America!
I'm not going to argue about the pros and cons of that act, I actually think it was necessary in the context of the war, but the fact of the matter is the US used them in offence not defence. Their navy had been decimated and they no longer posed a threat to sovereign US territory.fadedsteve wrote:
Yea we have nukes, but when have we used them against someone in an offensive manner?? The attack on Horoshima and Nagasaki was defensive and meant to save American lives.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-08 05:57:02)
I know the whole jews in Tehran are the largest in the middle east outside of Israel rant. . . . The Iranians still hate them and wish to do them harm as evidenced by them allowing Hezbollah to fire indiscriminantly into areas where civilians live.CameronPoe wrote:
Iran actually threatens what they call the 'Zionist Entity' not Judaism as a whole. There are some 30,000 Jews living in Iran and several prominent members of the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community around the world (even some from Israel I believe) were invited to and attendedfadedsteve wrote:
We dont threaten to create a second holocaust. . . . . i.e. want to kill all jews or anything racial group (something Iran regularly praises and says they want to do!)
their rather weird 'holocaust discussion'. I don't think Iran wants to 'cleanse' LES New York or Coney Island....So basically you're content to have your nation kill anyone who holds a different set of principles to your own? Anyone who believes in a different type of economic structure deserves a bullet in the cranium?fadedsteve wrote:
All the groups we have supported have been in response to Communist and or nationalistic despot leaders spreding their bullshit in South America!I'm not going to argue about the pros and cons of that act, I actually think it was necessary in the context of the war, but the fact of the matter is used them in offence not defence. Their navy had been decimated and they no longer posed a threat to sovereign US territory.fadedsteve wrote:
Yea we have nukes, but when have we used them against someone in an offensive manner?? The attack on Horoshima and Nagasaki was defensive and meant to save American lives.
I am content with our nation fighting Communists, despots, and Drug lords with irregular forces. . . . Yes
Japan was planning a massive insurgent campaign against our Marines and Navy, we did the right thing and ended the war the way we did. Nothing good would have come if America did an amphibious landing on the shores of Japans mainland.
No, you just go about the business of wiping out the Muslim population of the world by launching war after war; actions speak louder than words...and by the way I believe it was Ahmedinejad and not the Iranian people who made the comment about wiping Israel off the map (and he didn't say he wanted to wipe every Jew off the map, it was more of an allusion to wanting to see the pirate state of Israel dismantled).fadedsteve wrote:
We dont threaten to create a second holocaust. . . . . i.e. want to kill all jews or anything racial group (something Iran regularly praises and says they want to do!)
I always find it hilarious when Americans think it's okay to pick sides because they believe they're on the right side. Luis Posada Carriles killed 73 civilians on Cubana flight 455 with training and assistance from the CIA...God Bless America.fadedsteve wrote:
All the groups we have supported have been in response to Communist and or nationalistic despot leaders spreding their bullshit in South America!
You're the ONLY country to use them in an offensive manner.fadedsteve wrote:
Yea we have nukes, but when have we used them against someone in an offensive manner?? The attack on Horoshima and Nagasaki was defensive and meant to save American lives.
read above. . . .Braddock wrote:
No, you just go about the business of wiping out the Muslim population of the world by launching war after war; actions speak louder than words...and by the way I believe it was Ahmedinejad and not the Iranian people who made the comment about wiping Israel off the map (and he didn't say he wanted to wipe every Jew off the map, it was more of an allusion to wanting to see the pirate state of Israel dismantled).fadedsteve wrote:
We dont threaten to create a second holocaust. . . . . i.e. want to kill all jews or anything racial group (something Iran regularly praises and says they want to do!)I always find it hilarious when Americans think it's okay to pick sides because they believe they're on the right side. Luis Posada Carriles killed 73 civilians on Cubana flight 455 with training and assistance from the CIA...God Bless America.fadedsteve wrote:
All the groups we have supported have been in response to Communist and or nationalistic despot leaders spreding their bullshit in South America!You're the ONLY country to use them in an offensive manner.fadedsteve wrote:
Yea we have nukes, but when have we used them against someone in an offensive manner?? The attack on Horoshima and Nagasaki was defensive and meant to save American lives.
And NO we have NEVER used nukes in an offensive capacity, that is simply false!
Oxford dictionary definition for offensive:fadedsteve wrote:
read above. . . .Braddock wrote:
No, you just go about the business of wiping out the Muslim population of the world by launching war after war; actions speak louder than words...and by the way I believe it was Ahmedinejad and not the Iranian people who made the comment about wiping Israel off the map (and he didn't say he wanted to wipe every Jew off the map, it was more of an allusion to wanting to see the pirate state of Israel dismantled).fadedsteve wrote:
We dont threaten to create a second holocaust. . . . . i.e. want to kill all jews or anything racial group (something Iran regularly praises and says they want to do!)I always find it hilarious when Americans think it's okay to pick sides because they believe they're on the right side. Luis Posada Carriles killed 73 civilians on Cubana flight 455 with training and assistance from the CIA...God Bless America.fadedsteve wrote:
All the groups we have supported have been in response to Communist and or nationalistic despot leaders spreding their bullshit in South America!You're the ONLY country to use them in an offensive manner.fadedsteve wrote:
Yea we have nukes, but when have we used them against someone in an offensive manner?? The attack on Horoshima and Nagasaki was defensive and meant to save American lives.
And NO we have NEVER used nukes in an offensive capacity, that is simply false!
adjective
1. causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying: offensive television commercials.
2. unpleasant or disagreeable to the sense: an offensive odor.
3. repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting: an offensive remark; an offensive joke.
4. pertaining to offense or attack: the offensive movements of their troops.
5. characterized by attack; aggressive: offensive warfare.
–noun
6. the position or attitude of aggression or attack: to take the offensive.
7. an aggressive movement or attack: a carefully planned naval offensive.
Are you saying the bomb went off by accident or something?
Main Entry: 1de·fen·sive
Pronunciation: \di-ˈfen(t)-siv, ˈdē-ˌ\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1: serving to defend or protect <defensive fortifications>
2 a: <defensive behavior> b: of or relating to the attempt to keep an opponent from scoring in a game or contest <a player with good defensive skills>
3 a: valuable in defensive play <a defensive card in bridge> b: designed to keep an opponent from being the highest bidder <a defensive bid>
P.S. THE ATTACK WAS NOT A NAVAL ATTACK! It was an a bomb dropped by an airplane!!
Pronunciation: \di-ˈfen(t)-siv, ˈdē-ˌ\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1: serving to defend or protect <defensive fortifications>
2 a: <defensive behavior> b: of or relating to the attempt to keep an opponent from scoring in a game or contest <a player with good defensive skills>
3 a: valuable in defensive play <a defensive card in bridge> b: designed to keep an opponent from being the highest bidder <a defensive bid>
P.S. THE ATTACK WAS NOT A NAVAL ATTACK! It was an a bomb dropped by an airplane!!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2008-04-08 06:11:10)
4. The US supported Saddam for many years, he was the good guy remember?1. The US 'meddled' in Iraq (did I say meddled, I meant invaded).
2. The US have supported terrorist groups in Venezuela, Cuba and across central and South America.
3. The US have nukes and they sat back and gladly let their bum buddies Israel acquire nukes too.
PS You forgot the support the US gave to the IRA - by not defining them as a terrorist organisation and allowing them to raise funds and arms in the US. Funds and expertise then found their way to the Libyans BTW. Blowback FTW!
One- maybe, two - days apart - no way. It was an open air weapons test and a message to the Russians.The attack on Horoshima and Nagasaki was defensive and meant to save American lives.
Japan was already finished at that point.
Actually I think most of the despots had US backing.All the groups we have supported have been in response to Communist and or nationalistic despot leaders spreding their bullshit in South America!
And what business is it of yours what goes on in South America, or Vietnam, or Afghanistan for that matter? Does your bullshit smell better than theirs?
Supporting terrorists is invariably a bad thing.
Fuck Israel