Iran Is Threatening

[8236]

I didn't reply to it because the thoughts of what is LIKELY to happen from all this is scary. It amazes me HOW WE ALL sit here not realizing how close this world is to MAJOR conflict. I really do think that Iran is going to be a flash-point very soon and frankly, it scares the shit outta me!

We cannot sit by and let them get nukes. If we do, they will blackmail us as sure as taxes and death.

I must be the only scumbag liberal (common sense?) person on this board!
It seems to me that the real threat of nuclear destruction diminished after the Cuban 'thing' in 61/62 and virtually disappeared after the fall of the Soviets. Am I living in some strange alternate reality?

As if some tin pot dictatorship is going to pose a threat to the US of A! Remember, they are ruled by - guess wot! - Tin pot dictators, who rather enjoy their luxiourious lifestyles - and would be very loath to lose it.

Wakey wakey America! Time to enter reality now.

 

[8236]

Well since no one picked up the thread for Iran, I will. Interesting just to watch how far the Euros will go with this:

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/11/wiran11.xml

Can anyone on this board please tell me why it is acceptable for Israel or Pakistan to posess nukes and not Iran.

Answers involving 'democracy' are obviously nonsense.

Answers involving 'obey the US of A and you can have them', I would accept: Lets not beat around the Bush here.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

it is about intention....Israel isn't going to bomb Israeli citizens...Israel isn't gonna use nukes to try and takeover Iraq and kuwait and s.a. to get an oil monopoly...this would be catastrophic...Israel WILL nuke anybody that seriously threatens them....this "why do they get to have them if those guys can't" argument is really pretensious...we're all grownups and can recognize the individual character of certain regimes....no cookie cutter policy should be adopted....for ANY region...much less the middle east....

its like when parents treat two kids differently...."why does HE get to stay out...."
parents: "he's EARNED our trust..."
I don't think anyone would argue we can trust Iran not to make a run on the Saudis and the fledgling Iraqi country if it gets nukes.....I'll blow up Tehran ma damn self before that happens.

 

[8236]

it is about intention

its like when parents treat two kids differently...."why does HE get to stay out...."
parents: "he's EARNED our trust..."
I don't think anyone would argue we can trust Iran not to make a run on the Saudis and the fledgling Iraqi country if it gets nukes.....I'll blow up Tehran ma damn self before that happens.

1: Intention: Pretension: DONT MAKE ME LAUGH! America has lost any and all credibility in that department with the Iraq invasion. Daddy Bush got humiliated - lets invade.

2: Dunno what you read, but, by far the most dangerous nuclear confrontation situation in the world involves: Pakistan and India.

3: Iran make a run on the Saudis????? Why???? Oil? Sand? Dates and palm trees? That argument smacks of 'crossed off Iraq -> next target?'
I CHALLENGE YOU TO STAND UP FOR S.Arabia AS A NATION ANY BETTER THAN IRAN. In fact it's worse, it's a family business, and far more of a dictatorship - run by lo and behold- the Saud family.
They are the good guys though- THEY AGREE WITH AMERICAN POLICY.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

1: Intention: Pretension: DONT MAKE ME LAUGH! America has lost any and all credibility in that department with the Iraq invasion. Daddy Bush got humiliated - lets invade.

2: Dunno what you read, but, by far the most dangerous nuclear confrontation situation in the world involves: Pakistan and India.

3: Iran make a run on the Saudis????? Why???? Oil? Sand? Dates and palm trees? That argument smacks of 'crossed off Iraq -> next target?'
I CHALLENGE YOU TO STAND UP FOR S.Arabia AS A NATION ANY BETTER THAN IRAN. In fact it's worse, it's a family business, and far more of a dictatorship - run by lo and behold- the Saud family.
They are the good guys though- THEY AGREE WITH AMERICAN

why would I defend Saudi Arabia?

what does that have to do with the topic?

pakistan and india...agreed..but again

what does that have to do with the topic?

we're talking about Iran and i am right about their intentions...Israel isn't looking to nuke arabs off the earth....you can't say the same for the arab governments...its in the hamas doctrine......i'll let you try again...

 

[drac]

Can anyone on this board please tell me why it is acceptable for Israel or Pakistan to posess nukes and not Iran.

Answers involving 'democracy' are obviously nonsense.

Answers involving 'obey the US of A and you can have them', I would accept: Lets not beat around the Bush here.

The idea is to limit number of countries which have nukes. The limitation leads to better control. Countries who already poses nukes cannot be very easly forced to remove it. Therefore the only way to control (and by that i do not mean american control) is to limit number of countries who have them.
In addition:
Israel - there is no official confirmation from israel that way have any. Maybe it is only a plot and everyone else bought it. Also, out of all countries surrounding israel, only 2 recognize it. So it will be hard to force israel to getrid of the weapons (if they have it).

Pakistan - India have it. so...

Intention: Pretension: DONT MAKE ME LAUGH! America has lost any and all credibility in that department with the Iraq invasion. Daddy Bush got humiliated - lets invade.

That was a valid point. I do not get your response, what does America has to do with israel or pakistani intention?????

And here is my question. Why does Iran needs nukes? Anyone attacking it or is position to do so? Why does Iran wants this kind of dangerous weapon, for what reason?

 

[drac]

I agree this should be tried. But history tells us this kind of movement cannot succeed through peaceful means. The Teheran government has the military at their disposal, and are not open to compromise.

Time is a critical factor, we cannot let them develop into a serious threat hoping the Iranian people will take care of the problem. They have the ability to produce serious dirty bombs NOW! They have the ability to deliver them to targets with 800+ miles NOW! They are within a few years of developing critical mass bombs as well.

The time to take out the Iranian ability to wage nuclear war on any level is VERY SOON! I'd try the diplomatic course first, but I wouldn't give it more than maybe till the end of the year to work.

What we should not do is engage in a ground war. Just like in Iraq, we should neutron bomb the facilities and infrastructure that threatons us, and leave the internal politics to the indiginous population, having made the clear statement that "no matter what political system you choose, you cannot develop WMD's of any kind".

Wade.

In order to do that we must have a higher moral ground (using neutron bombs). Which we do not, since we have nukes.

 

[wade]

In order to do that we must have a higher moral ground (using neutron bombs). Which we do not, since we have nukes.

Why?

We simply need to make it impossible for there to be further WMD prolifieration. The easiest way to do this is to make the consequences of such aspirations so harsh that no one will try it.

Neutron bombs are clean, do minimal material damage, and are cheap. If these were used in a limited fassion to take out nuclear refineries, storage facilities, and key personel involved, it would significantly deter any nation from trying to develop nukes in the future.

=====

As for why it's okay for India/Pakistan to have the bomb, but not Iran, the problem is they already do have the bomb, it's very hard to take it away once built and positioned. It was impossible to stop Pakistan's project once India had it.

As for the Israeli bomb, the USA decided to give it to them to make sure their enemies would realize that continued attacks on Israel could not succeed. I personally think this was a bad decision, but it's done and overwith now.

Wade.

 

[drac]

Why?
We simply need to make it impossible for there to be further WMD prolifieration. The easiest way to do this is to make the consequences of such aspirations so harsh that no one will try it.
Neutron bombs are clean, do minimal material damage, and are cheap. If these were used in a limited fassion to take out nuclear refineries, storage facilities, and key personel involved, it would significantly deter any nation from trying to develop nukes in the future.

I do not like the idea of one more country (especially such as iran) to have nukes, but at the same time i do not feel comfortable using wmd to stop others from getting them. There should be another way. Plus as i understand some the refineries are close to civilian centers, so how would you deal with massive human casualties. And the precedence of using such weapon in peacfull time does not exist nor should it(the next thing you know russians will use tactical nukes to deal with chechens)

As for why it's okay for India/Pakistan to have the bomb, but not Iran, the problem is they already do have the bomb, it's very hard to take it away once built and positioned. It was impossible to stop Pakistan's project once India had it.

Exactly my point as i stated in my previous post

As for the Israeli bomb, the USA decided to give it to them to make sure their enemies would realize that continued attacks on Israel could not succeed. I personally think this was a bad decision, but it's done and overwith now.

See my previous post. In addition, this is a misconception. France helped israel with its nuclear program, not usa. Usa did not want israel to have and did not help it. (granted radiocative material was stolen from usa by massad, but it was not with the help of usa goverment)

 

[wade]

I do not like the idea of one more country (especially such as iran) to have nukes, but at the same time i do not feel comfortable using wmd to stop others from getting them. There should be another way. Plus as i understand some the refineries are close to civilian centers, so how would you deal with massive human casualties. And the precedence of using such weapon in peacfull time does not exist nor should it(the next thing you know russians will use tactical nukes to deal with chechens)

Neutron bombs are not normal nuclear weapons. They can be quite focused, causing minimal damage outside the immediate target area. They also cause no appreciable fallout. The only reason we don't use them is the reaction is of the nuclear type, and there is a stigma against use of any nuclear type weapons. While a large neutron bomb could be considered a WMD, small ones really are not such. The main advantage they have is that normal reinfrocments won't protect against neutron radiation, so we can kill the target group w/o having to saturate the area, which would lead to large collateral damage (ie: killed civilians).

Wade.

 

[Annie]

Neutron bombs are not normal nuclear weapons. They can be quite focused, causing minimal damage outside the immediate target area. They also cause no appreciable fallout. The only reason we don't use them is the reaction is of the nuclear type, and there is a stigma against use of any nuclear type weapons. While a large neutron bomb could be considered a WMD, small ones really are not such. The main advantage they have is that normal reinfrocments won't protect against neutron radiation, so we can kill the target group w/o having to saturate the area, which would lead to large collateral damage (ie: killed civilians).

Wade.

Alright, you've now given added points to your reasoning regarding the use of neutron bombs. Again, you are basically flooding with this topic. You ignore all other points brought up by other posters. I don't know about Drac, but I do know the rest of us understand what the neutron bomb is and what it does, even me, who lacks a serious interest in specific weapons. Neutron bomb has been around a long time.

How about you post on some of the other points? Serious advice from mod!

 

[Annie]

Yeah, the Iranians are developing offensive weapons, while Israel develops defensive, but the Israelis are the aggressor.

Excerpt:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040815/wl_nm/iran_israel_missiles_dc

Iran Warns Its Missiles Can Hit Anywhere in Israel
2 hours, 8 minutes ago

By Paul Hughes

TEHRAN (Reuters) - A senior Iranian military official said Sunday Israel and the United States would not dare attack Iran since it could strike back anywhere in Israel with its latest missiles, news agencies reported.

Iranian officials have made a point of highlighting the Islamic state's military capabilities in recent weeks in response to some media reports that Israeli or U.S. warplanes could try to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities in air strikes.

Iran last week said it carried out a successful test firing of an upgraded version of its Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile. Military experts said the unmodified Shahab-3 was already capable of striking Israel or U.S. bases in the Gulf.

"The entire Zionist territory, including its nuclear facilities and atomic arsenal, are currently within range of Iran's advanced missiles," the ISNA students news agency quoted Yadollah Javani, head of the Revolutionary Guards political bureau, as saying.

"Therefore, neither the Zionist regime nor America will carry out its threats" against Iran, he said.

An attack on Iran "could only be carried out by angry or stupid people. For that reason, officials of the Islamic Republic must always be prepared to counter possible military threats," Javani said in a statement, ISNA reported.

 

[wade]

Alright, you've now given added points to your reasoning regarding the use of neutron bombs. Again, you are basically flooding with this topic. You ignore all other points brought up by other posters. I don't know about Drac, but I do know the rest of us understand what the neutron bomb is and what it does, even me, who lacks a serious interest in specific weapons. Neutron bomb has been around a long time.

How about you post on some of the other points? Serious advice from mod!

Apparently you do not, since you ascribe large scale effect to (optionally) small scale weapons.

How about someone else offering a cost effective way to deal with the terrorism problem? Rather than just suggesting we keep spending more and more and sending out troops to invade every country we think might somehow, even remotely, be supporting terrorism? Espeically if they have oil.

Other points? There are very few meaningful points being made here. It's mostly just a forum for right-winger's to pat each other on the back and cheer for more and more destruction of what America is supposed to be about.

Very sad, I chose this board because I thought it was open to debate and discussion - but apparently it isn't. The Moderator decides what is to be discussed or not.

You should call it the Kathianne's right-wing Message Board, not the US Message Board. Real "moderators" rarely post their opinions in the forum the moderate, and NEVER start opinion oriented topics. You don't seem to even understand what a moderator's job is!

Wade.

 

[nycflasher]

Apparently you do not, since you ascribe large scale effect to (optionally) small scale weapons.

How about someone else offering a cost effective way to deal with the terrorism problem? Rather than just suggesting we keep spending more and more and sending out troops to invade every country we think might somehow, even remotely, be supporting terrorism? Espeically if they have oil.

Other points? There are very few meaningful points being made here. It's mostly just a forum for right-winger's to pat each other on the back and cheer for more and more destruction of what America is supposed to be about.

Very sad, I chose this board because I thought it was open to debate and discussion - but apparently it isn't. The Moderator decides what is to be discussed or not.

You should call it the Kathianne's right-wing Message Board, not the US Message Board.

Wade.

TIme to get out the ruler :whip3:

 

[Annie]

Apparently you do not, since you ascribe large scale effect to (optionally) small scale weapons.

How about someone else offering a cost effective way to deal with the terrorism problem? Rather than just suggesting we keep spending more and more and sending out troops to invade every country we think might somehow, even remotely, be supporting terrorism? Espeically if they have oil.

Other points? There are very few meaningful points being made here. It's mostly just a forum for right-winger's to pat each other on the back and cheer for more and more destruction of what America is supposed to be about.

Very sad, I chose this board because I thought it was open to debate and discussion - but apparently it isn't. The Moderator decides what is to be discussed or not.

You should call it the Kathianne's right-wing Message Board, not the US Message Board. Real "moderators" rarely post their opinions in the forum the moderate, and NEVER start opinion oriented topics. You don't seem to even understand what a moderator's job is!

Wade.

Because you are relatively new, I'm not going to ding you for what you had done. However, I do suggest you read the rules:

2- Flaming - It's understood and expected that flaming (An insulting criticism or remark meant to incite anger, as on a computer network) will occur when discussing politics and other sensitive issues. I ask once again to have common sense prevail. This is not an invitation to flame someone for no reason because the board tolerates the occassional outburst. Members that are here solely to be disruptive will be removed. Overuse of personal attacks as a method of debate is detrimental to the board. Again, the occassional outburst will be tolerated, incessant flaming will not.

Moderators are not allowed to flame members, therefore members cannot flame the moderators. I expect the moderators to be held to a different standard than the rest of the board, and I also expect they will get the respect they deserve in return. Flaming of a moderator will result in a warning. On the 3rd warning your account will be banned.

3- Flooding post after post same thing - Please do not make the same post in multiple forums. The moderators will decide which posting section is most appropriate and the rest will be deleted.

11- Banning -Users that break any rules will be issued a warning, either in the thread the offense took place in or via PM. Continued breaking of the rules will result in a temporary ban of your account, anywhere from 24hrs up to 2 weeks. If the conduct is severely detrimental to the board, the account will be banned permanently.

Moderators will decide whether or not someone has broken the rules. These decisions will not be questioned by existing members. There will be no airing of grievances on the board, in ANY forum, about the way the board is ran. Any posts condemning moderator action will be deleted. Further posts on the subject will result in a ban. If a user has a concern about the board they are free to PM a moderator or administrator.


I did not WARN you, I suggested that you stop on the same topic, again because you were relatively new. You have now flamed me. For that, I am giving you a warning. In another thread, I already answered your complaint. http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=142643&postcount=24

Stop whining, either post or don't, following the rules, which you really should read.

 

[Hobbit]

Apparently you do not, since you ascribe large scale effect to (optionally) small scale weapons.

How about someone else offering a cost effective way to deal with the terrorism problem? Rather than just suggesting we keep spending more and more and sending out troops to invade every country we think might somehow, even remotely, be supporting terrorism? Espeically if they have oil.

Other points? There are very few meaningful points being made here. It's mostly just a forum for right-winger's to pat each other on the back and cheer for more and more destruction of what America is supposed to be about.

Very sad, I chose this board because I thought it was open to debate and discussion - but apparently it isn't. The Moderator decides what is to be discussed or not.

You should call it the Kathianne's right-wing Message Board, not the US Message Board. Real "moderators" rarely post their opinions in the forum the moderate, and NEVER start opinion oriented topics. You don't seem to even understand what a moderator's job is!

Wade.

It's Jim's board, anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). Anything can be discussed, by moderators or otherwise, and most of the moderators (if not all) are conservative, but they don't tend to throw their weight around unless flamed. The board tends to be conservative because it had a conservative climate when started, that and over half the liberals that show up here post copy and paste rhetoric in the new thread they started in EVERY SINGLE FORUM, call members idiots and spout rhetoric instead of posting facts, eventually flame a moderator, flame again for being warned not to do it, then get the account deleted along with half their posts. BTW, be glad it was Kathianne instead of Jim. Jim gets quite irritated at people telling everything he's doing wrong with his board, especially in insulting and condescending tones. He would've ripped you a new one.

As for the neutron bomb thing, you can get in all the discussion you want if you start a new thread in the "War on Terrorism" forum called something like, "Why not use neutron bombs?" But please, don't bring it up in every thread you post to. That gets annoying.

 

[freeandfun1]

Apparently you do not, since you ascribe large scale effect to (optionally) small scale weapons.

How about someone else offering a cost effective way to deal with the terrorism problem? Rather than just suggesting we keep spending more and more and sending out troops to invade every country we think might somehow, even remotely, be supporting terrorism? Espeically if they have oil.

Other points? There are very few meaningful points being made here. It's mostly just a forum for right-winger's to pat each other on the back and cheer for more and more destruction of what America is supposed to be about.

Very sad, I chose this board because I thought it was open to debate and discussion - but apparently it isn't. The Moderator decides what is to be discussed or not.

You should call it the Kathianne's right-wing Message Board, not the US Message Board. Real "moderators" rarely post their opinions in the forum the moderate, and NEVER start opinion oriented topics. You don't seem to even understand what a moderator's job is!

Wade.

It is not our fault that YOU don't want to debate. You only want us to agree with you. When we point out your ignorance, you just get mad and start making claims that nobody uses facts, or whatever. You are the only one I have seen (well, you and your other liberal friends on these and other boards) that does not care about facts and that is throwing around OPINIONS. It is not our fault that, opinions being like assholes, your's stinks!

 

[Annie]

It's Jim's board, anyway (correct me if I'm wrong). Anything can be discussed, by moderators or otherwise, and most of the moderators (if not all) are conservative, but they don't tend to throw their weight around unless flamed. The board tends to be conservative because it had a conservative climate when started, that and over half the liberals that show up here post copy and paste rhetoric in the new thread they started in EVERY SINGLE FORUM, call members idiots and spout rhetoric instead of posting facts, eventually flame a moderator, flame again for being warned not to do it, then get the account deleted along with half their posts. BTW, be glad it was Kathianne instead of Jim. Jim gets quite irritated at people telling everything he's doing wrong with his board, especially in insulting and condescending tones. He would've ripped you a new one.

As for the neutron bomb thing, you can get in all the discussion you want if you start a new thread in the "War on Terrorism" forum called something like, "Why not use neutron bombs?" But please, don't bring it up in every thread you post to. That gets annoying.

Thanks Hobbit! I needed this quote: "BTW, be glad it was Kathianne instead of Jim. Jim gets quite irritated at people telling everything he's doing wrong with his board, especially in insulting and condescending tones. He would've ripped you a new one." I am the one with patience.

DK is a self-proclaimed 'liberal', but he means in the classical sense. Hey, in the classical sense we all are!

 

[Hobbit]

Thanks Hobbit! I needed this quote: "BTW, be glad it was Kathianne instead of Jim. Jim gets quite irritated at people telling everything he's doing wrong with his board, especially in insulting and condescending tones. He would've ripped you a new one." I am the one with patience.

DK is a self-proclaimed 'liberal', but he means in the classical sense. Hey, in the classical sense we all are!

I forgot DK was a mod. I knew I was missing somebody and I was sure there was liberal mod, I just forgot who it was. DK, moderator and conservative in sheep's clothing.

 

[drac]

Neutron bombs are not normal nuclear weapons. They can be quite focused, causing minimal damage outside the immediate target area. They also cause no appreciable fallout. The only reason we don't use them is the reaction is of the nuclear type, and there is a stigma against use of any nuclear type weapons. While a large neutron bomb could be considered a WMD, small ones really are not such. The main advantage they have is that normal reinfrocments won't protect against neutron radiation, so we can kill the target group w/o having to saturate the area, which would lead to large collateral damage (ie: killed civilians).

Wade.

i see, thank you for info. Still i would think the political failout of this would be big. Not sure if it worth the risk