China backs up Iran

[silver 2039]

Every country that hasn't a superpower status(except 3) are in danger to be invaded at any time now or in the future.

Who are those 3?

 

[Bugfatty300]

in Iraq war we heard the UNHEARD! that "small" nuclear bombs are being developed and they will be used in the "war for terror" along with the radiation that those bombs will cause to the area that they'll been dropped.

Wheres your link?

 

[cgannon64]

They are trying to develop small nuclear bombs to use in bunker-busting missiles, but they have neither developed nor used them yet.

 

[Bugfatty300]

They are trying to develop small nuclear bombs to use in bunker-busting missiles, but they have neither developed nor used them yet.

I know that. Where is the evidence that they will used?

 

[romelus]

What diplomatic cost? Who will defend Iran? North Korea?

it's the same stupidity that put bush in hot water. only terrorists will be unhappy with saddam and iraq getting invaded right?

Because Israel doesn't have the capabilities of the USAF.

you can't bomb known targets? if israel wants to destroy some enrichment plants, very few would doubt they couldn't

I'm talking about what the US will do if it would allow Iran to gain nukes and will then be attacked by hezbollah.

and i said iran was not stupid enough to just give nukes to hezbollah. and even if hezbollah got their hands on a nuke, they'd spend it on israeal before the US

1. The US had all the reasons in the world to know about the sep 11th attackers. Israel had no interests in telling the US about them. Yet we did so anyway. That's how an alliance works - you sometimes do things because they're for the good of your ally.
2. That's a very naive way to treat an organization that killed and hijacked hundreds of Americans, had commited the biggest anti American terror attacks untill september 11th, had acted in America more than once and is reported to have cells in northern America.
3. As President Bush said in an address to Congress on September 20, 2001, "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated."
-http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/

some comments
1. israel shared intelligence because there was no downside. the cost (internationally) for bombing legal enrichment sites is high. i already said if there's no cost, bush would have done it already
2. nobody disputes hezbollah are bad guys. but apparently the US has its own priorities whether you agree with them or not
3. it does not end at al qaeda, but you can't tell me al qaeda is already finished, and that the US should just move on to something else

As to Israel, we'll attack their nuclear facilities as soon as we'll get our shipment of long range stealth bombers You don't really think that it would make any difference? It's not like an Israeli attack can take place without American knowledge and support, and in any case our enemies view the two countries as one body.

precisely, if US allows or helps israel attack iran, they still suffer the diplomatic cost. so no

 

[G-Man]

it's the same stupidity that put bush in hot water. only terrorists will be unhappy with saddam and iraq getting invaded right?

Iran is hated by the Arab world. And if they'll refuse a deal that'll stop Uranium enrichment you'll have Europe's backing as well.

you can't bomb known targets? if israel wants to destroy some enrichment plants, very few would doubt they couldn't
...
precisely, if US allows or helps israel attack iran, they still suffer the diplomatic cost. so no

We can bomb known targets. But when these targets are thousand of miles away and without the US's support the only weapon we have that can get there are jericho missiles. And they're not precise enough to have any effect without carrying a nuke.

and i said iran was not stupid enough to just give nukes to hezbollah. and even if hezbollah got their hands on a nuke, they'd spend it on israeal before the US

What will the US do if Iran has nukes and hezbollah crashes a plane into the sears tower?

some comments
1. israel shared intelligence because there was no downside. the cost (internationally) for bombing legal enrichment sites is high. i already said if there's no cost, bush would have done it already
2. nobody disputes hezbollah are bad guys. but apparently the US has its own priorities whether you agree with them or not
3. it does not end at al qaeda, but you can't tell me al qaeda is already finished, and that the US should just move on to something else

1. There was a downside when Israel didn't retaliate during the first gulf war. There was a downside when Israel allowed the US to test Soviet equipment before it fully tested it. There was a downside when Israel gave in to American diplomatic pressure time and time again. So now we're putting our own diplomatic pressure, in favor of an attack on Iran.
2+3. Why can't the US fight more than one terrorist organization at a time? Do you not learn from history, that igoring a problem just makes it worst? After ignoring radical Islam in favor of damaging the soviets, and after ignoring Saddam's actions in favor of stopping Iran, now you're gonna ignore hezbollah and Iran in favor of fighting al qaeda?

 

[Jawz II]

Isreal also shares intel with the US. Mossad is probaly the best intelligence agency in the world.

they share intel with the us when they are not too busy spying on the us

did you all knew that mossad knew about the clinton/monica thing before everybody else?

i also read that they were gonna use it to make clintoon more cooperative, although im not sure how reliable that info is, i dont even remember were i read it

 

[G-Man]

they share intel with the us when they are not too busy spying on the us

As if American spy satellites don't pass over Israel...

did you all knew that mossad knew about the clinton/monica thing before everybody else?

I didn't know that. What makes you think so?

 

[TheTruth]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/06/china.iran/index.html



now what will the US do? the whole problem with iran is what they are doing is 100% legal, and it's impossible to prove their intent

This is interesting! We all have a front row seat in viewing the initiating of WWIII. Alliances are forming and most importantly, resources are running low.

America is an economy and a population growing, but its resources are dimishing. The only way to survive longer is to get more. Iraq had more. Iran has more. The only problem with this is America isn't the only nation with needs. China needs. Hell, China has government ordered blackouts. China knows Iran has what it needs. A 25 year gas contract, a deal to develop oil fields, o'yeah, they have there future planned. China did this without war, though. America did it with deciet, lies and than war.

The sad thing is, the American people are letting it happen. All in the name of "The War on Terror". The German people believe too, in "The War on Terror".

 

[G-Man]

The US and China aren't in the same position. The US already has many allies as well as its own sources to provide it with oil. Also, I doubt there would be another world war over oil - such a war would eliminate much of the world's remaining oil, and even the winner will probably end up with higher oil prices, so you'll have nothing to gain in such a war.

 

[Jawz II]

As if American spy satellites don't pass over Israel...
I didn't know that. What makes you think so?

satelites are in orbit, theres no way to control their path
not that the us isnt spying on israel they prolly do


the CIA makes me think so
it was pretty big news at the time, of ocurse it was waaaaay over shadowed by the monica gate itself

 

[romelus]

Iran is hated by the Arab world. And if they'll refuse a deal that'll stop Uranium enrichment you'll have Europe's backing as well.

first, i don't buy into iran is hated by the arab world. in fact, many arabs are probably proud that iran is standing firm against the US and israel. europe wants iran to stop enrichment, but they want to do this through diplomacy. they are against an attack to stop enrichement. therefore, the diplomatic cost of an attack now is extremely high, especially after iraq was such a mess

We can bomb known targets. But when these targets are thousand of miles away and without the US's support the only weapon we have that can get there are jericho missiles. And they're not precise enough to have any effect without carrying a nuke.

you can have mid air refueling if needed. you can also use special ops if israel is determined enough. the keyword is that the US has to allow this. and so far bush hasn't

What will the US do if Iran has nukes and hezbollah crashes a plane into the sears tower?

before that happens, iran has to make a nuke. the US won't let that happen. however, currently the issue is legal enrichment, not nuke making

1. There was a downside when Israel didn't retaliate during the first gulf war. There was a downside when Israel allowed the US to test Soviet equipment before it fully tested it. There was a downside when Israel gave in to American diplomatic pressure time and time again. So now we're putting our own diplomatic pressure, in favor of an attack on Iran.
2+3. Why can't the US fight more than one terrorist organization at a time? Do you not learn from history, that igoring a problem just makes it worst? After ignoring radical Islam in favor of damaging the soviets, and after ignoring Saddam's actions in favor of stopping Iran, now you're gonna ignore hezbollah and Iran in favor of fighting al qaeda?

1. sharing intelligence didn't cause the events you described. you also have to agree israel has much more to gain from the alliance than the US
2,3. americans are already tangled in iraq in the forseeable future. attacking iran is more than just an aircraft carrier commander telling a pilot, "tonight you go drop a bomb here". i have to repeat that the diplomatic cost for an unsanctioned attack on a nation that is only performing legal enrichment is astrological

 

[TheTruth]

The US and China aren't in the same position. The US already has many allies as well as its own sources to provide it with oil. Also, I doubt there would be another world war over oil - such a war would eliminate much of the world's remaining oil, and even the winner will probably end up with higher oil prices, so you'll have nothing to gain in such a war.

If you feel safe in your reality, than stay there. To people like you, the US has no equal. Take the blind fold off, please....

2005 == draft...

 

[G-Man]

first, i don't buy into iran is hated by the arab world. in fact, many arabs are probably proud that iran is standing firm against the US and israel. europe wants iran to stop enrichment, but they want to do this through diplomacy. they are against an attack to stop enrichement. therefore, the diplomatic cost of an attack now is extremely high, especially after iraq was such a mess

The Arab world is very strongly against Iran. Iran tries to gain influence in the gulf area and is a threat to most gulf countries. As to europe, they know that if diplomacy won't work a military move is innvitable.

you can have mid air refueling if needed. you can also use special ops if israel is determined enough. the keyword is that the US has to allow this. and so far bush hasn't

Ofcource he hasn't approved it. There's still time for diplomacy.

before that happens, iran has to make a nuke. the US won't let that happen. however, currently the issue is legal enrichment, not nuke making

Once they get the ability to enrich uranium they can get nukes with very little chance of the US finding out.

1. sharing intelligence didn't cause the events you described. you also have to agree israel has much more to gain from the alliance than the US
2,3. americans are already tangled in iraq in the forseeable future. attacking iran is more than just an aircraft carrier commander telling a pilot, "tonight you go drop a bomb here". i have to repeat that the diplomatic cost for an unsanctioned attack on a nation that is only performing legal enrichment is astrological

1. Israel has more to gain only because it takes advantage of it. If the US had listened to Israeli intelligence they could've stopped the sep 11th attacks, save thousands of people and, if you want to discuss it in practical terms, hundreds of billions of dollars. That's a lot more than Israel gains. As to the events I described - which of them didn't happen?
2. What kind of diplomatic cost?

 

[G-Man]

If you feel safe in your reality, than stay there. To people like you, the US has no equal. Take the blind fold off, please....

2005 == draft...

So you counter my arguments by not replying to them and just saying that I'm wrong?

 

[romelus]

The Arab world is very strongly against Iran. Iran tries to gain influence in the gulf area and is a threat to most gulf countries. As to europe, they know that if diplomacy won't work a military move is innvitable.

i think that's wishful thinking, but obviously you have different ideas. let's just leave it at that

Ofcource he hasn't approved it. There's still time for diplomacy.

good. i was frankly a little surprised you admitted diplomacy is still possible

Once they get the ability to enrich uranium they can get nukes with very little chance of the US finding out.

not quite. you can bet the US and israeli intelligence are focusing intensely on just such an event

besides, if you wanna bomb nuke development sites, you'd need to know where they are too

1. Israel has more to gain only because it takes advantage of it. If the US had listened to Israeli intelligence they could've stopped the sep 11th attacks, save thousands of people and, if you want to discuss it in practical terms, hundreds of billions of dollars. That's a lot more than Israel gains. As to the events I described - which of them didn't happen?
2. What kind of diplomatic cost?

1. the events weren't caused by israel sharing 9/11 intelligence. you said sharing that intelligence had a cost on israel, and then you listed those events. those events weren't caused by intel sharing.
2. diplo cost as i posted earlier. iraq hasn't done anything illegal yet - no international support for attacking - if a country attacks unilaterally - diplo cost. very simple

 

[G-Man]

good. i was frankly a little surprised you admitted diplomacy is still possible

It is possible as long as Iran isn't capable of developing a nuke.

not quite. you can bet the US and israeli intelligence are focusing intensely on just such an event

besides, if you wanna bomb nuke development sites, you'd need to know where they are too

US and Israeli intelligence are saying that Iran is trying to develop a bomb.

1. the events weren't caused by israel sharing 9/11 intelligence. you said sharing that intelligence had a cost on israel, and then you listed those events. those events weren't caused by intel sharing.
2. diplo cost as i posted earlier. iraq hasn't done anything illegal yet - no international support for attacking - if a country attacks unilaterally - diplo cost. very simple

1. No, I listed events that took place earlier, like the trasfer of the P-12 radar and of the Mig-21 to the Americans for study.
2. I didn't ask why, I asked what. You didn't specify that.

 

[romelus]

It is possible as long as Iran isn't capable of developing a nuke.

it is possible as long as iran isn't developing a nuke

US and Israeli intelligence are saying that Iran is trying to develop a bomb.

do you have support links. something along the lines of a CIA spokesperson saying "we have intelligence that iran is currently attempting development of a nuke", not just "we believe iran wants to make a nuke"

I didn't ask why, I asked what. You didn't specify that

simply take any page out of the iraq book, and magnify it several times

just to throw out some costs for starters:
internally within the US: civil unrest, impeachment attempt, riots and possibly violence, draft if US needs to remove iranian leadership and occupy iran, civil war in the worst scenario

internationally: further loss of american credibility, further encouragement for europe, russia and china to form tighter relations, possible break up between the US and the UN, dramatically increased terrorism (iran now will not hold back), possible mid east war, possible world war

 

[G-Man]

it is possible as long as iran isn't developing a nuke

No it isn't. Once Iran has the ability to create a nuke without the rest of the world knowing about it it's a matter of destroying its ability or of taking a very substantial risk.

do you have support links. something along the lines of a CIA spokesperson saying "we have intelligence that iran is currently attempting development of a nuke", not just "we believe iran wants to make a nuke"

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2003.htm

simply take any page out of the iraq book, and magnify it several times

Why magnify it? Iran is one of the least favorite countries in the world, and there are many indications that they're trying to build nuclear weapons. Europe had shown little opposition to attacking it and the arab world probably puts pressure on the US to do so. Yet bombing these nuclear sites will create a stronger reaction than invading and changing the regime of a country that had the support of both Europe and the Arab world?

just to throw out some costs for starters:
internally within the US: civil unrest, impeachment attempt, riots and possibly violence, draft if US needs to remove iranian leadership and occupy iran, civil war in the worst scenario

Do you seriously believe bombing Iran's nuclear facilities can lead to a civil war?

internationally: further loss of american credibility, further encouragement for europe, russia and china to form tighter relations, possible break up between the US and the UN, dramatically increased terrorism (iran now will not hold back), possible mid east war, possible world war

What mid east war? Who'll fight it? And why would it turn into a world war?

 

[TheTruth]

So you counter my arguments by not replying to them and just saying that I'm wrong?

I didn't say anything about you being wrong. What you said is your own belief, so believe it.

The next war won't be like the last two. No sir. Why should it be? The old ways take to long for half a million man and women to die. This time the killing machine will be much quicker. You don't think the US and so many other countries spent all that money on weapons and don't plan to use them when given the opportunity. Just look at history. After America created it's death ray how long did they wait to use it? Not long at all.

The next war won't last years. No way. 6 months tops. And in those six months the world will be changed forever.

btw: I don't argue with people. That waste to much time and energy trying to convince someone there wrong and I'm right. I state my opinioun and facts if I have them and leave it be. I've learned no matter how many facts, sources or what ever you give someone, they always have a reason or excuse to either dismiss what you say or ignore it all together. So what's the point. On this forum, there are very few open minded people.

Lets see if you, Mr. G, have an open mind. Take 27mins and listen....
http://www.suesupriano.com/audio/MikeRuppert.mp3