Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Winner, Apr 9, 2006.
I hope they nuke the US in responcse if an attack occurs
Too much Dr Strangelove Sidhe?
I dont see that the US will be able to get the EU or UN on board for more than "targeted" sanctions - eg dont mess with the oil, just the bank ac's and visas of the leadership.
I would have thought the us would use israil as a proxy, but if it doesnt have the hardware... Maby they will give israil the hardware, humm
I trully dont know....time will tell.
Nobody in their right mind is going to use nukes over this. I dont even think Kim Jong Il would even use them.
Ah someone got the joke, makes me feel better
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
OH and just to remain on topic I agree with your second and third sentiments.
EDIT: also inspired by Dr Evil, an evil genius Im secretly hoping to acquire a nuke from Krablakhistan too and hold the world to ransom, but the antimatter thing seems cheaper and more practical At least in the long term.
The part of tha article that gives the game away is that thew US were stirring up ethnic antagonisms in Iran so that the country would implode without a US bullet being fired. This sounds like more plausible to me, wouldn't work or obvious reasons but reason never stands in the way of a religiously inclined superleader.
I read somewhere that the Democrates still hold a grudge againt the Iranians and wouldn't vigorouly oppose Bush on this.
I don't think it will happen in this administration of Bush but i have to say with the manpower already focus in the war in Afganistan and Iraq,i say as long as we stay in those countries,Iran should in the long run,change internally.In the history of war and peace,countries always make alliances and always make new enemies.I would not be surprised to see Iran and USA getting along some day.
I don't forsee any type of outside attack on Iran being successful at anything besides proving that the US is more willing to use force than to negotiate with less militarily equipped countries. Imperialism 2.0 anybody? Either way, any attack on Iran will unite the Iranians against the United States, which has had a long history of meddling in Iranian affairs until the deposition of the Shah. Sure locals may want a regime change from the theocracy that currently dominates the country, but more likely than not nobody wants to see the United States to come and do that for them. As for inciting ethnic tensions within Iran, I don't think it will be very effective. The country is mostly united under Shiism, and many of the groups mentioned in the article are actually well integrated into Iran's government. IIRC, Iran's last president, Khatami, is an Azeri.
Right now Iran is playing all of its political cards, nobody can say if they are actually developing nukes or simple powerplants, nobody can say that these nukes will end up in terrorist's hands. Right now, Iran knows it can challenge the United States into doing what it wants, backing down, at a time that we are lacking international support. If the United States had perfect international legitimacy at this point I doubt Iran would even bring up the nuke card.
I thought this was Empire v 1.01 as learned from the Brits
Not any time soon, No.
I hope you get hit by a car, but we can both wish in one hand and crap in the other. Let's see which one fills up first.
Thats by far the best saying I've heard this week. I'm going to keep it and use it next time a customer wants something totally unrealistic.
Bush as messiah:
Of course once you open pandoras box it is literially impossible to put things back they way there were.
The "threshold" for using nukes, mirco nukes/tactical nukes has just been lowered consiberabilly. As well as establisting acceptable standards for pre-emptive strikes.
There of course will be postive as your stated for the reputation of the US as well as some serious blowback.
What if Iran is developing a nuclear weapon?
I don't think sending group troops in would be the best option. We should just bomb it to the stone ages then leave. No casualties.
Iran is different from Iraq in that the elect that crazy guy. While I feel sympathy for the Iraqis who suffer in the hands of Saddam, I don't feel the same for people who elect an idiot.
Those are some amazing bombs that can reduce a country to the "stone age" yet don't cause any casualties.
You don't have any sympathy for your own countrymen, then?
What about it? Is that illegal? Or is is just a matter of the US wanting that WMD only in their hands?
This is revolting. No casualties?? Iranians aren't humans?
Use the bolded part in a thread about American casualties in Iraq.
Seymour hersh is the same one who exposed the Abu Ghrab is he not?
From what i have read from him he seems to be pretty accurate but I can't wonder if they are just plans that the pentagon goes through the same as it would plan for a nuclear attack on Korea or China or Russia.
The hypocrisy of such a thing if it did happen.
But then again some of Irans facilities are so deep and large that the only way of being sure of success is to by using underground nukes so if that was the case and Bush wanted to destroy them no matter what, maybe he is going to use them
And the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.
Red Stranger's point of view is exactly the same as that of Iranians who wish "Death to America"... and he's either unaware of it, or he's fully aware and simply feels himself superior. Either way is scary.
True, the bolded part is perfect to use in a topic about american casualties in Iraq.
About Iran: Maybe it will happen. But There's Russia, and theses guys apear to be moving they lil' palitos. It seems that Russia and China have something bigger for protecting Iran... I wonder why...
Separate names with a comma.