Jeeta

Maybe they do and maybe I'm wrong, I just have this strange feeling it's a bad idea and it's Vietnam all over again.

Yuckystuff

Iran is overwhelmingly Shia (90%+), so I'm not sure that is as much of an issues as it was in Iraq. Perhaps regionally, but Iran has never gone to war unprovoked so I don't see why it would be an issue.

I have, but Iraq invaded them. Aided by the US I might add...

jetto

I should sue you for TM infringement. Your nick is too close to mine and causes confusion in the consumer's mind. Plus you dare disagree with me!

Jeeta

Lol wut?

Cool story bro.

Fatbat

Haha, one of those US cruisers or destroyers could destroy every Iranian ship in that picture from beyond the horizon. There are five of them in that picture and a carrier to top it all off. There's a second carrier group somewhere nearby.

Let's not kid ourselves.

__________________
BRAD SHAW - GRAPHIC DESIGN [ WEB - PRINT - IDENTITY ] >>>

guerilla

All opposition to the state as a state is always evil. The state never tolerates anarchists or effective reformers.

Fascism is a specific system of political economy. It gets used to mean "bad government" but it is actually something well defined which does not necessarily have anything to do with theocracy in particular. Note, Hitler and Mussolini came to power as fascists via democracy. America has a very fascistic economy and it is a constitutional republic.

I think a theocracy, depending on the religion, and how strictly the religion is enforced, could be much better than secular democracy, which is essentially amoral.

In a secular democracy, there are no morals, except that the state is always right. In a theocracy, there is rule by moral right, which might be at times barbaric and backwards, but the laws are consistent with that moral ethic. Politicians are confined to acting within the moral rules, not the whims of the voters or the money of special interests. Right and wrong are defined absolutely.

As an aside, just as the Muslims have no right to impose Sharia law on you, you have no right to impose western secular ethics on them. If you insist your morals are superior, they can also make the same claim. These are value judgments, subjective and individual.

You gotta remember, when the Danes were burning women at the stake as witches, Muslims already had 900 years of women having a right to inheritance, initiate divorce and to conduct business as private property owners.

I am not defending Islam or attacking any other religious ideal. My ethics are such that all aggression is wrong, whether it is attacking Iran to prevent them from building a bomb (or really, to protect oil interests) or attacking them to overthrow their government and way of life (apparently nothing was learned from the Islamic Revolution against the Shah and western values).

Live and let live. The Persians by and large are quite charming people.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

guerilla

But the economies of the world have a right to limit their trade through sanctions?

Bit of a double standard isn't it?

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

mimoza3

problem starts with an event that includes a non Muslim an a Sharia case, the implementation of the law does not stop at Muslims, so they will ultimately force it on a non Muslim.
You also need to remember that Islam is based on expansion and rapid growth, it did not do it by being nice to people, the most common phrase used is "Islam or the sword" - that is this religions interpretation of "live and let live"
And I do agree that many Iranians are charming people, those who are not religious fanatics.

wezcountry

Not really. They just need to stand-down their nuclear weapons programme and they'll be welcomed back into the club.

tom29944

Its not WWII idiot... Iranian will fire hundreds of those missiles from mountains and desserts to US ships...















Grow up

wezcountry

Fascism is really ugly. I live in Italy and people tell me about the time when the country was under Mussolini. It was terrible, repressive and violent. Secular democracy does have its faults and should be in a process of constant reform, but it would appear to be the best model for securing peace and prosperity for the majority of people. That said, if people want to vote themselves into national socialism, for example, then they need to live with the consequences.

A theocracy would be awful on many grounds but the main issue is that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are immoral in themselves because their gods do immoral acts and break their won moral code on a whim (e.g. compare the commandment 'do not kill' with the endless killings ordered by god in the old testament. Incidentally yahweh is complicit in slavery, infanticide, genocide, ethnic cleansing, rape of female prisoners of war, human sacrifice and on it goes).

Your point about female Muslim property rights is moot on at least two counts: In Islam, women themselves are property; Islam itself does not appear to have developed since 900 years ago whilst Christianity has moved-on.

The bigger geo-political picture is probably about oil, in the end. However that doesn't stop me from wanting the Iranian weapons programme to end.

Netphase

LOL. You have to be trolling.

Moxie

Other members of the club can have nukes, but they can't? And do you really know that they have a nuclear weapons program? The US has been wrong on their statements about weapons of mass destruction before.

__________________

guerilla

1. What club?

2. Why do they need to stand down when the Brits, Chinese, Americans, French and Israelis have nukes?

3. You are aware that there is ZERO proof of an Iranian weapons program?

It is a double standard. It's a double standard on nukes, on truth and on sovereignty.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

cheshire

I'm not sure about America's modern military weapons but we had the SCUD system back in Desert storm which shot down enemy rockets mid-air. I'm pretty sure nearly 20 years later we can still do that. More than likely we'd shoot them down over their airspace and dump the fallout on their citizens and land.

Irans missile systems are more than likely old de-classified cold-war era shit that they bought from the Russians.

Their airforce consists of Russian Migs and Amerian F-14's from the 80's. We can pretty much neutralize that by just not selling them parts to repair their planes.

__________________

guerilla

All non-voluntary government is contradictory (illogical). So that's sorta a wash.

On the above, I would simply say that moral rules are not for God. Universal morality doesn't apply to the creator, just as you don't expect your children to behave the same way you expect of your pets. The "rules" or moral laws are for man only.

Women are not property in Islam. To repeat, when women in the west were still chattel slavery into the 18th century, women in Islam had rights to property ownership and financial independence for almost 1000 years.

Islam is the only religion I know where the husband pays the wife a dowry at the time of marriage, and that gives her financial independence within the marriage. In the west, men had to be paid by the girl's family in order to marry.

Islam defines the roles of men and women differently, and thus not equal, but it's not particularly punishing towards women from what I know. It is a very hard and absolute religion in some ways, but not always in practice.

I am unaware of any update to the Christian Bible in the last 300 years.

Perhaps you mean culturally? If so then I think you have to give Muslims credit for having a lot of cultural heterogeneity. Singapore is much different than Pakistan, which is much different culturally than Egypt and Turkey.

The danger of painting people with a broad brush is that it is easy to end up outside the lines of fact.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

blogginginc

And of course, even if that's the scenario, the US Navy will go deep into the strait without letting the Air Force destroy every single one of these targets first........

__________________

wezcountry

If Iran had a nuclear arsenal do you think the world would be a safer place or a less safe place?

wezcountry

There is a lot that could be said in response to the above but it's quite difficult to keep a good flow in the discussion when other issues are dropping in and out. It's an emotive issue. Besides which I am trying to get my head round the UBot4 interface - haven't opened UBot for months and now have a long list of urls to process.

lukep

Safer. By far.

If you can't understand why then you're simply basing your thoughts on irrational fear.

Try asking yourself why the following statement is true:

Every country that has gotten a Nuke hasn't been invaded since.

If it still doesn't become clear to you, then look at the military history of India and Pakistan.

__________________

guerilla

More nukes in general makes us all less safe, but if Iran got a nuke, it would reduce the potential for war in the middle east.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

MSTeacher

A lot of people in this thread should brush up on the non-proliferation treaty and related stuff. Iran is a signatory to the treaty, which among other things says that all states are allowed the pursuit of peaceful atomic energy. Which is what the Iranians have been working toward for a long time. And there is zero conclusive proof that Iran is pursuing atomic weapons. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they are. Or have bought or been given them.

The second a state contrary to the new world order crowd wants to build atomic energy infrastructure - a potential ticket to lasting first world status and a threat to their hegemony - their efforts are spun as aggressive and the sheep end up believing they're trying to make bombs.

Read up on cobalt 60 for a scary piece of the atomic weapons discussion.

__________________

b_sun

Naw dog, the Iraq dudes had the SCUDS, Americans had the PATRIOT missle. MERICA FCUK YEAH.

__________________

LOGOS - BANNERS - HEADERS - CHARTS - BUSINESS CARDS ---> http://tinyurl.com/designgrind

cheshire

I stand corrected.

__________________

Fatbat

Well then, the Americans best flee with their tails between their legs lest Iranian blow them all up.

__________________
BRAD SHAW - GRAPHIC DESIGN [ WEB - PRINT - IDENTITY ] >>>

Fatbat

1 nuke isn't going to be much of a deterrent. They'd have to actually be able to deliver it effectively on target for it to be a threat. That means it has to travel by air, most likely getting shot down before it ever got to where it was going, or it would have to be carried or driven, also not easy. It would give Israel even more incentive to preemptively strike at any place they thought the nuke might be.

__________________
BRAD SHAW - GRAPHIC DESIGN [ WEB - PRINT - IDENTITY ] >>>

guerilla

M.A.D. is the deterrent. One nuke is just the spark.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

Fatbat

I don't think that Iran having a nuke, or even 5 is mutually assured destruction. Their assured destruction most likely or at least a severe beat down. I think them acquiring a nuke would actually increase the chance of war, not decrease it.

__________________
BRAD SHAW - GRAPHIC DESIGN [ WEB - PRINT - IDENTITY ] >>>

Fatbat

Nothing?

__________________
BRAD SHAW - GRAPHIC DESIGN [ WEB - PRINT - IDENTITY ] >>>

Yuckystuff

I'll bite (although it's already been touched on early in this thread). Nuclear armed countries are not attacked. If Iran had nukes, there would be no war - how exactly would that make the world less safe in your opinion?

MSTeacher

As of now now nuclear armed countries haven't been attacked outright in full acts of war, but the CIA/MI6/Mossad crowd has been running black ops and drone strikes on Pakistan since Obama got into office after saying in no uncertain terms prior to his election that he would unilaterally attack them. Might be just semantics but I think there's a notable difference between attacks and an full scale war.

Not saying a nuclear Iran would not prevent war but the US is really pushing its limits more than ever now that the empire is in a prolonged downward slide and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization crowd continues to gain strength. Not to mention we're pretty much in a new Cold War despite most Americans thinking Russia somehow stopped their military R&D at some point and they're no longer a military superpower.

(Iran does have some modern stuff to contend with, including mirved anti-radar missiles, mach 3 sunburn missiles, the Kowsar, and they're also not dummies when it comes to big rockets. With the correct attack strategy they could definitely do some damage.)

__________________

Jack7Gordon

The Iranian army has no chance

Yuckystuff

If Iran does not get nuclear weapons - there will be war.
If Iran does get nuclear weapons - there will not be war.

Remember North Korea was on the same shit list until they developed nukes and now we don't hear a peep out of that part of the world.

peacestone

1. Israel allegedly had nukes in the late 60's. And was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan in 1973 (Yom Kippur War).
2. Pakistan attacked India in 1999 (The Kargil War) a year after both countries tested nukes.
3. Also we got em' and Bin Laden didn't give a flying a fuck. How easy you forget 9/11...

So this whole "having nukes makes a country immune to attack" argument is bullshit.

Yuckystuff

1 - Israel first tested nuclear weapons in 1979, so this point is incorrect and invalid.

2 - The Kargil War was not a war, it was a conflict in a disputed area of Kashmir originally believed to be caused by independent insurgents from Pakistan (and not state sponsored). India responded locally to regain the disputed areas of Kashmir - there was no outright war between the two countries. It came out later that Pakistan was more involved than they pretended to be, (rather than just being initiated by local terrorists), but the Mutually Assured Destruction resulting from both countries having nukes is what kept that skirmish to a minimum and prevented all out war. Had it happened a few years earlier before Pakistan developed nukes, India could have easily used it as an excuse to wage all out war against Pakistan. The presence of nukes on both sides kept the actual damage to a minimum.

3 - Bin Laden was not a country, so this point is completely invalid. The attack on 9/11 was a suicide mission, what the fuck would they care about nukes?

The fact remains, we would have attacked North Korea if they hadn't developed nukes, and now all is calm over there. Do you honestly think Iran wants to develop nukes for any reason other than to protect themselves from invasion? Do you really think they are suicidal and plan on lobbing a few nukes at Israel just to be wiped off the face of the earth 45 minutes later?

Fatbat

How do you figure the US would have attacked North Korea?

__________________
BRAD SHAW - GRAPHIC DESIGN [ WEB - PRINT - IDENTITY ] >>>

dtea206

I doubt they would do it, but I do think another war is coming.

Full Article HERE

mimoza3

Iran with a nuclear weapon will be much more dangerous to its soni good neighbors than it would be to Israel, that is also why the US is responding so quickly, do not fool yourselves to think those navy movements are because of Israel, rather Saudi interests or maybe orders...

Yuckystuff

"Axis of Evil"?

Fatbat

Just because they gave it a fancy name doesn't mean they would attack it. The North has something like 14,000 artillery pieces pointed at Seoul and the US couldn't destroy them all before that city would be flattened. That, and the probability of getting into it with China would be pretty high I think. Nah, without nukes the North still wouldn't have been attacked because the ramifications of doing so are so severe.

I don't agree that a country having a nuke guarantees that it won't be attacked and you can be damn sure that Israel will do everything in their power to destroy any nuclear weapon capability Iran might manage to assemble.

__________________
BRAD SHAW - GRAPHIC DESIGN [ WEB - PRINT - IDENTITY ] >>>

Yuckystuff

We'll never know for sure, but we do know that the country in the "Axis of Evil" that got nukes went untouched whereas the two that didn't already got taken out, or is about to.

If Iran had a couple of nukes, it's unlikely Israel would attack, because Iran would respond. Without nukes, Israel will attack. It's just a matter of time.

MSTeacher

I don't think Israel will definitely attack on their own in the near future. They're not strong enough to do it themselves. They got their asses handed to them a few years ago going up against some pretty rudimentary asymmetric warfare. One of their signature tanks was basically rendered irrelevant.

They have a strong air force. But even that's not strong enough and they know it because they're begging for better bunker busters to drill into Iran's mountain and underground facilities. Even the warmongers over there are saying war's not coming soon.

I don't even think Israel will start a war with Iran with the hope or even the guarantee that the US will follow them. If the powers that be want it done they'll set up a false flag to get the US to break the ice. They're no strangers to that strategy..

__________________

peacestone

You need to have them before you test. Dig deeper than the first paragraph on Wikipedia and you will see that not only do many allege they had them before 1973, they also allege Israel had them during the 1967 war.

Also in 1991 Israel was again attacked, this time 40+ SCUD missiles shot by Iraq into Israel. So if Israel had nukes, it didn't deter an attack by Saddam Hussein.

It sounds like you agree that Pakistan attacked India while knowing India had nukes.

That was the point. They don't give a fuck.

During the Bush administration Korea shut down their nuclear facilities, During the Obama administration Korea opened them back up.

Iran has been funding its proxy Hizzbullah with arms for decades. Iran also openly supports Hamas. If Iran acquires nukes they can supply these terrorist organizations with nukes. I would rather not see terrorists with nukes, would you?

MSTeacher

Remind me again why they're terrorists?

Or phrased another way, if they're terrorists what are the US and Israel?

__________________

Kiopa_Matt

You guys can't really compare North Korea to Iran. Just look at a world map to see why. Taking NK wouldn't be of any massive benefit. On other hand, look at Iran... dead center in the Middle East, Gulf of Oman, Caspian Sea, loads or resources... to a geo-political leader, Iran is one of the sexiest beasts on the planet right now.

I don't know, I guess time will tell. Who knows, maybe the deterrent from China and Russia is enough to stop an invasion of Iran. I can't see either China or Russia just sitting idly by while the US takes control of the entire Middle East almost. What happens if the US goes into Iran, and China just sends in 1.5 million soldiers, and decides to take Iran for itself? Time will tell...

__________________
xMarkPro -- Ultimate Blog Network Management
Streamline your marketing operations. Centralize management of domains, pages, Wordpress blogs, sponsors, link codes, media items, sales and traffic statistics, plus more!

Yuckystuff

Isn't that what they use the US for?

I can allege that Israel sells Palestinian children into the global sex trade, but that doesn't make it true. There is no evidence that Israel had nukes anywhere near 1967, so I'll side with the evidence rather than allegations.

That was while the US was attacking Iraq - did you forget? Do you really think Israel would nuke a country as it is being taken over by its biggest ally? And even then, Bush Sr. had to do a lot of talking and make a lot of promises to keep Israel on the sideline as the US finished off Iraq.

If that's what you got out of what I wrote, you should reread it.

Nobody is suggesting we should let Al-Qaeda develop nuclear weapons. The point is that Iran should have weapons to provide a deterrent to being attacked. Al-Qaeda had no country to protect. It's the difference between giving a gun to a homeowner vs. giving one to a criminal. One provides a defense of their life and property (Iran) and one uses it to commit crimes and murder people (criminal ie Bin Laden). Not sure how much more I can draw the distinction.

Bullshit, North Korea developed their nuclear weapons during the Bush Administration, and tested them as well in 2006.

If Iran openly support Hezbollah, wouldn't giving them nukes guarantee the annihilation of Iran? Do you really think Iran wants to be wiped off the face of the earth?

peacestone

The Israeli air-force could turn back the Iranians nuclear program 10+ years, lets not kid ourselves. It won't be as easy as they did to Syria and Iraq's nuclear ambitions though.

The assumption was made multiple times ITT, that nations with nuclear weapons are immune to attack, therefore by Iran developing a nuke, Iran will be safer, the ME will be safer, and the world will be safer I pointed out multiple occasions where countries who had nukes have been attacked. So this premise, is historically inaccurate.

You say that Israel didn’t have nuclear weapons until the moment they were “tested” in 1979 and said that any assertion made that they had them prior to this is an allegation and has no credence. The vela incident also has no factual proof that it was Israeli's, and while many sources may say it was an Israel test, there are just as many reputable sources that maintain Israel had nukes while they were attacked in 1967 & 1973.

The details surrounding why Iraq launched 40 scuds at Israel, and what Israel did or didn’t do after they were attacked are simply irrelevant. Again the claim was that nations with nukes, do not get attacked, and I have pointed out that they in fact do.

Moving on to India. You admitted that “Pakistan was more involved than they pretended to be” - your words - that to me translates to you excepting the fact that Pakistan was behind the attack. So either you except the historical fact that Pakistani soldiers along side militants infiltrated India, or you don't? You do know that the Prime Minister of Pakistan admitted that they attacked India? Don't you? And weather you want to classify a conflict where thousands of combatants lost their lives as a “skirmish” and not a war is irrelevant - the claim was made that nations with nukes do not get attacked and I have pointed out that they do.

Now to Bin Ladin. You said “Nobody is suggesting we should let Al-Qaeda develop nuclear weapons” . But you would suggest that Iran develop nukes - a state sponsor of a terrorist organization (Hezbollah) who has targeted and killed more US civilians and military personnel next to Al Quida? You don’t see any danger there do you...

If Iran gets the bomb, not only could they supply their proxy terrorist organization with nukes, but the entire ME will race for nukes: Egypt/Syria/Saudi/UAE -----> Oil hits $200 a barrel.

So I don’t know about you, but I would much rather live in a world where terrorists who are aiming at me don’t have easy access to nuclear weapons, and gas doesn’t cost $10/gal. So you can continue to support Iran getting nukes as making the world a “safer place”, I will continue to hope they stop developing them, or US and/or our allies bring them back to days of the first Caliph.

Moxie

The US supported Bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians and they've supported shady groups in Latin America, etc. You can bet the farm that they never considered giving nukes to any of these organizations.

__________________

clyde

That would work if there were no Muslims in Western Countries, AND there were no Kafir's (non-muslims) in Islamic countries AND all Muslims are free to leave Islam without having to face the death penalty.

Societies through secular democracy is the only way to live if we want to embrace multi-culturalism. Why should a SINGLE religion dictates what EVERYBODY should live by when religion is just a BELIEF of a few. i.e there's no proof/evidence that sending a couple to jail for kissing in public will do any good to society. Not even going to get into stoning. Have you ever witnessed stoning or caning? The law mandates that it's done in public.


The USA has it right, separation of church and state, and do what's best for the people based on laws that are discussed and thought out, not randomly picked from the history book from 600 years ago.

Coming from an Islamic background all I can say is I'm just glad it's the way it is today. You're right, Islam was the progressive religion 600 years ago.

Obviously, it's always easier to play the "we don't give a fuck about the ME" card.

__________________