They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by holyland red, Mar 17, 2010.

  1. Jan 6, 2012

    digitalnirvana Part of Team Smashed

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Messages:
    7,142
    I am sorry, did I say the US is trying to control the spread of nuclear weapons? I have no comment on the Iran situation, my response was to Peterstorey's comment mentioning India's nuclear capability in a list of some other countries.

    Neither did I. But India has a declared no-first-use policy. Reiterating, my response was to stress on the fact that India is a separate case, not to be clubbed together with Pakistan/DPRK simply because all these countries are nuclear capable.

    No. It would be the same old story if a third power were to arm Iran to counterbalance Israel. Iran by all accounts is developing their capability in-house, with no direct aid from any world power. Pakistan and DPRK were directly aided by China.
  2. Jan 6, 2012

    peterstorey Specialist In Failure

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    35,780
    Location:
    ... and they are lovely beyond any singing of it.
    You can't just ignore it because the parallels with Iran are evident.
  3. Jan 6, 2012

    digitalnirvana Part of Team Smashed

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Messages:
    7,142
    It is not actually, that is what I was trying to say. India is a completely separate situation than Iran is/was in. Except the economic situation of pre-1991 India and current Iran, there is no comparison. I am not ignoring India's nuclear program's history either and am OK to discuss, but that is not for this thread. Currently we are talking off topic.
  4. Jan 7, 2012

    sglowrider Against Oral Equality

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    6,082
    Location:
    Hell on Earth
  5. Jan 7, 2012

    mjs020294 Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    16,828
    :lol:

    Jamaran was part of Iran's 16th fleet of warships which returned home last week after accomplishing a 70-day mission in the Gulf of Aden and the high seas where the Iranian warships defended the country's cargo ships and oil tankers against attacks by Somali pirates.


    Lets set aside the fact you are trawling the web for any shred of evidence that supports your view, no matter how dubious the information......his point was its ironic the US came to the aid of Iranians. If the shoe was on the other foot the US merchant seamen would be under arrest for spying now.

    Some good shots on the news earlier of the Iranians hugging US military personnel when they were rescued. It will be interesting to see how it gets reported on Iranian TV.

    edit - OMG, that site is hilarious. Talk about a big pile of steaming propaganda. Why would anyone go near that site unless they had a gun to their head. :eek: Although it is kind of funny and addictive.
  6. Jan 7, 2012

    Danny1982 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    13,023
    Location:
    Old Trafford
    :lol: Can't take the news that you don't like do you?

    First of all, I got there through Google News that I browse everyday. They had it on their main news page like a week ago.. You just didn't click on it because you didn't like the title.

    Second, Talking about propaganda, I wonder then why would anybody wanna get anywhere near foxnews! ;)

    Third, the comparison with the hikers who were INSIDE the borders of Iran? Yes, that's the same..
  7. Jan 7, 2012

    mjs020294 Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    16,828
    Lets pretend for a second I watch Fox News, which I have never done for a single minutes of my life. Fox is heavily biased but it it not a propaganda machine for a controlling regime. Its funny how often idiots on here even bring up Fox News. Its a cable channel with ratings around 1-2 million out of a population of over 310 million.

    I don't even watch mainstream news in the US/UK because of the biased. The very last thing any impartial person would do is read a site like FARS.

    Big fecking deal if an Iranian boat responded to a distress call. Any boat is legally obligated to help others in distress at sea.
  8. Jan 7, 2012

    Mozza It’s Carrick you know

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    20,433
    Location:
    Let Rooney be Rooney
    So why you making a big deal of the yanks helping the Iranians?
  9. Jan 7, 2012

    mjs020294 Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    16,828
    I didn't :rolleyes:

    Helping a distressed vessel is a tad different that taking military action against pirates. The irony it is was the very same fleet the Iranians have been posturing against that was helping out an Iranian merchant vessel. They had been held captive a month.


    I bet this guy will be popular back home:

    On Friday, Fazel ** Rehman, a 28-year-old Iranian fisherman, had a warmer greeting for the carrier task force.

    It is like you were sent by God,” said Mr. Rehman, huddled under a blanket in this vessel’s stern. “Every night we prayed for God to rescue us. And now you are here.”


    [​IMG]
  10. Jan 7, 2012

    gooDevil Worst scout ever

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    22,393
    Location:
    The Kids are the Future
    I don't watch Fox News either, i do see some clips now and again, like on the daily show. My impression is one of a propaganda machine for a controlling regime.
  11. Jan 7, 2012

    Plechazunga Grammar partisan who sleeps with a real life Ryan

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    51,762
    Location:
    Where Albert Stubbins scored a diving header
    Why is it that people who want the US to lay off Iran feel this need to make the US and Iranian governments equivalent?

    These positions can be held at the same time you know: 1) Iran is run by a hideously immoral autocratic theocracy, and it would be very worrying if they acquired nuclear weapons; 2) It would be immoral and stupid to go to war with them in order to stop them getting nuclear weapons. 3) If there's a better way of stopping them, it might be worth trying.

    For the record, if I was in the Iranians' position, I'd want to get nukes too. In the short term it boosts their regional power (until the Saudis and Egyptians else respond by getting them too). In the long term, by current demographic trends within 30 years Israel will no longer be majority secular. Of the two sets of religious loons, I have marginally more faith in the rabbis not suicidally launching nukes than the mullahs...but that's only because they can't press buttons on shabbas, which rules out one day of every week.
  12. Jan 7, 2012

    Saliph Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,078
    Location:
    Norway
    Well, I have a lot less 'faith' in the rabbis launching nukes than the mullahs, seeing as there is no mainstream notion of martyrdom and jihad in Judaism. That's what's really scary about Islamists getting a hold of a nuclear weapon. The deterrence factor is gone.

    But hey, either side is perfectly capable of creating a clusterfeck beyond repair.
  13. Jan 7, 2012

    Plechazunga Grammar partisan who sleeps with a real life Ryan

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    51,762
    Location:
    Where Albert Stubbins scored a diving header
    Judaism pretty much invented the concept of martyrdom.

    Martyrdom in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  14. Jan 7, 2012

    Saliph Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,078
    Location:
    Norway
  15. Jan 7, 2012

    africanspur Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,234
    If the Mulllahs were as obsessed with martyrdom and jihad as they're made out to be, they could just get it all done with and attack one of the US allies (Israel/Saudi) in the region right now. Or, even better, just close the straits or go for the fifth fleet just on their doorstep? Save themselves years and a whole load of money and just get their jihad and martyrdom in there now.
  16. Jan 7, 2012

    Saliph Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,078
    Location:
    Norway
    Their wish for martyrdom is balanced only by their wish to inflict as much misery, death and destruction as possible on their enemies. Attacking Israel/USA/Saudi now fulfills only one of those ambitions. Attacking them with nukes... now we're talking.
  17. Jan 7, 2012

    mjs020294 Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    16,828
    Its a shit news station for sure but to compare it to something like Fars is ridiculous. Fox has an obvious biased whereas Fars is a propaganda machine for the government. Fox is watched by less than 1% of the US population, I am guessing a very large percentage of Iranians are forced fed Fars.
  18. Jan 7, 2012

    africanspur Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,234
    Interesting. Can you link me to the many instances in history which prove that the shiites are exceptional in their desire for martyrdom and holy war, to a level unparalleled in other religions or even in sunni Islam?

    Could you also tell me why this majority Shiite country or empire, one that is so indoctrinated in the ideals of martyrdom and jihad, hasn't started a war for hundreds of years? Were they waiting for nukes to be invented?

    Then, why you would be so convinced that Iran and the Mullahs would immediately launch a nuclear strike on Israel/US installations in the region, when Israel's minister of defence has said that Israel is aware that Iran's nuclear programme is not about Israel, while the head of Mossad has said that a nuclear Iran would not be an existential threat to Israel? Are you privy to information about Iran's nuclear programme or Israel's security that these two are not?

    Finally, you said that the scariest thing about Islamists getting nukes is that the deterrence factor would be gone. Ignoring that this flies straight in the face of MAD, why would there have been any deterrence for a set of brutal, martyrdom-seeking fundamentalists in the first place?
  19. Jan 7, 2012

    africanspur Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,234
    My impression of fox is a channel that is watched by only a few and thankfully influences only a small percentage of those. It seems to have been amplified a bit here in the UK because of the sheer stupidity of people like Beck and O'Reilly and our desire to constantly portray the Americans as stupid.
  20. Jan 8, 2012

    Saliph Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,078
    Location:
    Norway
    - Right. First of all, I thought it was rather obvious that I was taking the argument to the extreme (though I absolutely think that the Islamic doctrines of jihad and martyrdom posing a potential problem is a valid point, and has to be taken into consideration). But hey, I'll play, I like a challenge.
    Second, who said anything about Shiites? Iran going nuclear will surely lead to Saudi doing likewise, and you have to take that into consideration.
    I don't need to prove anything to you, but for Shiite suicide bombing and lunacy you need look no further than Iraq. Exceptional in this regard they are not, but they are certainly no strangers to irrational violence.

    - Erm, within the context of my point, no it doesn't.
  21. Jan 8, 2012

    africanspur Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,234
    Having read your previous thoughts on Islam on this board, there was such little departure from the past that the illogical stance to take would have been assuming hyperbole on your part.

    Iran going nuclear will not lead to the Saudis doing likewise. The Saudis going nuclear tends to elicit this kind of reaction from those that have visited the kingdom: :lol:. They'll do their usual. Hard rhetoric, funding various groups to achieve their aims and running off crying to the US. They won't (sorry, can't) build a nuke.

    There is little rational about war. There was little rational about Europeans twice in a century dragging the rest of us into your ridiculously destructive wars. There was little rational about sending hundreds of thousands of men over the top of the trenches to be slaughtered by machine gun fire to gain a few inches. There was little rational about the attack on Pearl harbor. There was little rational about the US and USSR pointing their thousands of nukes at each other and the world for 40 years. And yet that all happened, just within the last 100 years. And these are the supposedly 'civilised, secular' nations that we're all supposed to look up to as a model!

    One could argue that the Iraq war was also irrational violence but who wants to open that can of worms eh?

    There is little rationality involved when it comes to war. The very act of war is irrational.

    Yes but your point flies in the face of all logic and historical context. MAD is what has governed nuclear relations since their invention (even for the Islamic country just to the South East of Iran). And considering that your point was that the Iranians are jihad and martyrdom obsessed maniacs, who love these whether equipped with nukes or not, what is the deterrence being removed were they to acquire nuclear weapons?

    So I'll ask again. What has made this jihad, martyrdom obsessed country refrain from launching themselves into jihad and martyrdom since the first half of the 18th century? And what information are you privy to, regarding Iran's nuclear programme and Israel's national security, that neither Barak nor Pardo are?
  22. Jan 8, 2012

    africanspur Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,234
    Not to mention that for all the huffing and puffing about the Islamic history of blah and blah, the most violent and aggressive regime in the region by far was a secular, Arab nationalist one.
  23. Jan 8, 2012

    Plechazunga Grammar partisan who sleeps with a real life Ryan

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    51,762
    Location:
    Where Albert Stubbins scored a diving header
    As far as I can see, most of the time the mullahs act fairly rationally, in their own interests - at least once you accept the fundamentally irrational premise of religious theocracy.

    Certainly wanting nukes seems completely rational. There are American troops in three countries they share borders with, and loads more just across the Gulf. They border a nuclear-armed Pakistan, with a nuclear-armed and increasingly belligerent Israel a few hundred miles away.

    It's also rational, though probably in vain, for the US and Israel to try damn hard to stop them getting nukes, and for Western democracies to hope they succeed. But launching an attack would be catastrophic IMO, with probably worse results than letting them get the bomb.
  24. Jan 8, 2012

    Mozza It’s Carrick you know

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    20,433
    Location:
    Let Rooney be Rooney
    You did make a big fuss and continue to do so. So far you've posted a link, a quote and a picture, no fuss at all
  25. Jan 8, 2012

    Cali Red Full Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,885
  26. Jan 8, 2012

    mjs020294 Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    16,828
    I didn't post the link , that was my point. I only responded to link to Fars. And if some of you actually read the account of what happened the Americans went above and beyond under difficult circumstances in this instance
  27. Jan 8, 2012

    mjs020294 Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    16,828
    Iraq's reactors were taken out with little fuss, and technology has improved since then. Precision bombing and cruise missiles can neutralist the Iranian facilities without too much incident. The Iranians can then make the decision to mount some sort of attack and lose their entire military or lick their wounds and forget about obtaining nukes.
  28. Jan 8, 2012

    Danny1982 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    13,023
    Location:
    Old Trafford
    What a fun game you play there..

    Israel, with all of its power, couldn't make a small group like Hezbollah lose its entire military, and stopped the war after failing to achieve any of the objectives they set to achieve before the war.

    If you think wars can be predictable, you know nothing about wars. Can't say Iran will win, obviously the US is a more powerful nation, militarily, but I still find the idea that the US will kill them like a bug extremely ignorant, and irresponsible.

    I do blame the video games though for making some children/people think that war is just a simple, controllable, fun, and always winnable thing.

    I think had more people gone to Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Lebanon, may be they would have understood the word "war" a bit more.
  29. Jan 8, 2012

    mjs020294 Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    16,828
    Israel aren't the US and Hebollah are not a country with traditional military installations.

    Two gulf wars highlighted just how easily the US can gain air supremacy. The US experiences and technological advancements in recent years gives them a ridiculous advantage in most "war" situations.

    I don't play video games, haven't picked up a joystick controller for 25+ years. I do however live and work amongst many military personnel that work at CENTCOM.

    How do you know where I have been? Lets leave it at that. However my son's GF dad is on a plane to Afghanistan right now, his second visit in a month. Many of my neighbors have served in Afghanistan and Iraq (multiple deployments), and one or two have even died there.

    Said it before but every male (and some female) members of my family in the last 100 years has served in the British military. My son is contracted to the US military and will commission when he finishes college. There are very few people with a better understanding of the consequences of war, trust me.
  30. Jan 8, 2012

    Danny1982 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    13,023
    Location:
    Old Trafford
    The US navy is there to protect the interests of the United States. When that means deterring pirates then I think it's a good thing, when that means interfering with other countries and starting wars, I think it's a bad thing..

    For God's sake even the Iranian government thanked the US for that..

    BBC News - Iran describes US Navy rescue as 'humanitarian'
  31. Jan 8, 2012

    Danny1982 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    13,023
    Location:
    Old Trafford
    I wish him safety and a quick return to his home.

    We obviously disagree about the other points, so I won't repeat them again..

    Just wanna raise a new point here.. Why do you think the Iraq war was won?

    First, it lasted for far more than what was planned.
    Second, thousands of American (and other) lives were lost.
    Third, it turned out that there wasn't really any WMDs!
    Fourth, the US removed one of Iran's biggest enemies, and installed arguably one of their biggest allies.
    Fifth, the US army got out of Iraq without even installing military bases there, or even benefitting economically to compensate for its huge losses.

    Now:
    1- Was the Iraq war really won from the US perspective?
    2- Was it really worth the lives lost in the process?
    3- If I take you back to 2003, knowing what you know now, will you make the same decision again?
    4- If the US government get to go back to 2003, knowing what they know now, will they make the same decision again?

    That's how complicated wars can be, and we are talking about one of the easiest wars for the US from your perspective.

    The wisest decision the US ever made was NOT to attack the Soviet Union, and it's was the biggest victory the US ever achieved..
  32. Jan 8, 2012

    Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,249
    Supports:
    Chelsea
    Wars can rarely be judged immediately following them, we will not know for quite some time the ramifications of it.

    It was most certainly a folly, especially the reasons for it - Blair before the conflict went on and on about WMDs and said it wasn't about humanitarian reasons and after it he would not stop talking about how many people Hussein killed - that pretty much says it all on that front.

    With regard to the war itself, that lasted about four weeks - the United States military is a fighting machine, not an occupier. What came later was quite different from the war, something that was horribly misjudged and horrendously overlooked by Washington as we have heard of since.
  33. Jan 8, 2012

    mjs020294 Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    16,828
    You are having difficulties detaching the military campaign from the occupation that followed. The "war" last a few weeks and the allied forces only suffered 179 losses.

    The actual invasion/war was incredibly easy. If they decided to take action against Iran it would be devastating for the Iranian military. If that conflict was kept to establishing air supremacy and bombing the US could achieve their goals with very limited losses.

    I was dead against the invasion of Iraq in 2002/03 because it would lead to a costly invasion and leave Iraq in a fractured turmoil for decades.
  34. Jan 8, 2012

    Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,249
    Supports:
    Chelsea

    Indeed, the number of Americans killed due to enemy hostility in both the recent actions in Libya and the Kosovo War are zero.
  35. Jan 8, 2012

    Kaos Full Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    18,041
    Location:
    Sadboys 2001.
    And the civilian casualties? Or are we going to ignore those?
  36. Jan 8, 2012

    mjs020294 Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    16,828
    They are not relevant to the discussion.
  37. Jan 8, 2012

    Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,249
    Supports:
    Chelsea
    They have nothing to do with the abilities of the American military to win a war without sacrifice.
  38. Jan 8, 2012

    Kaos Full Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    18,041
    Location:
    Sadboys 2001.
    Understood, but they really ought to be. There's a lot of talk on how feasible and stress-free a precise assault would be from the view point of the assaulter (used as a justification in some cases), but almost nothing on the civilian impact it'll have. A considerable number of people were killed in Libya and Kosovo despite being no casualties from those eliciting the bombings.
  39. Jan 8, 2012

    mjs020294 Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    16,828
    Any attack on Iran would be nothing like Libya or Kosovo.

    Most military campaigns are planned around taking out military installations. If the purpose is to neutralize the Iranian nuclear program then the civilian casualties will be minimal. How many civilians died as a result of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear facilities?
  40. Jan 8, 2012

    Kaos Full Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    18,041
    Location:
    Sadboys 2001.
    I'm not really talking about casualties brought about directly from an attack (which was low in the case of Iraq '81, but fairly high in Belgrade and Libya), but rather those brought about consequentially in the period to follow.

    The issue which a few people have begun to touch on here is the wave of destabilisation that would occur in an attack as provocative as this. In the Balkans for example, the ethnic murders committed by all sides had increased AFTER the bombings; In Iraq the vast majority of violence had been carried out (and is still being carried out) AFTER the country was destabilised by the military campaign in 2003. More recently today in Libya, many pro-Gadaffi supporters have been massacred by these Libyan rebels who have now acclimatised themselves with certain elements of Al Qaeda (no mention of it in the news of course) since there remains little in the form of a security apparatus.

    Iran will be no different - its surrounded by Arab countries that want it to fall, while boasting loyalty from powerful and prominent proxy factions in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. Provoking it would be disastrous for the whole region because of the inevitabl shitstorm that would follow.

Share This Page