BF2S Forums The Unthinkable

CameronPoe wrote:

What a complete load of unfounded hogwash. Blatant scaremongering.  . . . "The fanatics running Iran are developing nuclear weapons, not as a means to extort money from the West a la north Korea but with the express purpose of firing them."
How the fuck would he know with such certainty that Iran had 'the express purpose of firing them (if developing them at all).  . . . All Iran and Ahmedinejad has professed a desire to do is wipe the country of Israel from the map.  . . . It's not some genocidal ambition - it is regional powerplay and bravado aimed at scaring Israel, whom they deeply fear (given their nuclear arsenal).

BASICALLY: Steve Forbes is a petty, heavily-zionist-leaning, neo-conservative warmonger who will say whatever it takes to persuade people of a danger that is much less imminent or threatening than he makes it out to be.

All Ahmedinejad desires is to wipe Israel off the map?  Oh, is that all?  Well, shit, let's just get out of the way.  We'll just wait to do something until the threat is imminent.  What the hell was I thinking?

Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-12-06 09:32:43)

Iran cooperated with the US when it overthrew the Taliban. It's not like there isn't precedent for jointness in that realm.

And re: Pakistan and instability, the main difference between Pakistan and Iran is what is waiting in the wings if the current regime falls. In the case of Iran its likely to be, if not pro-Western, at least a government less hostile or neutral (think China). In the case of Pakistan its likely to be something similar to the Taliban, but nuclear armed.

Ahmedinejad's statements notwithstanding, there's really nothing to indicate that the actual power base in Iran (the Ayatollah's) are any less likely to change the status quo. The only reason the current president of Iran was elected is because most of the reformists boycotted the elections.

Personally, I'm more uncomfortable with the reality that Pakistan has nuclear weapons than with the thought of Iran having them. More than likely what will happen is that a kind of bipolar stability will result from the two regional powers both having a parity of capabilities (Iran and Israel).

This article is the biggest load of BULLSHIT I have ever read. Period.

Edit: What is really unthinkable is the fact that people actually pay money to read this preposterously idiotic drivel.

Last edited by oug (2006-12-06 16:04:32)

Reciprocity wrote:

ATG wrote:

Yes, but because its so disorganized with a shaky government they will not become united enough to be a problem. Iran is a completely different ballgame.

disorganization and shaky goverments are safe?  Maybe 50 years ago this was the rule, in the long gone realm of conventional war.  I'm not concerned about an overwhelming force of little Pakistanis running around with AK's.  I'm concerned with the nuclear weapons Pakistan does have.  I'm concerned with where those weapons could be sent.  I'm not talking about on the tip of ICBM or on the wing of a jet.  I'm talking about in the back of a truck, climbing throught the hills of Afganistan to who knows where.

I'm not saying Iran isn't a huge problem, but Iran is comprably very wealthy, and religious crazyness withstanding, has a lot more to lose.

Exactly.  Good post.