I've often wondered why they don't just do that. It seems far easier than having to go through all the trouble of invading. That said, you need someone with a few guns waiting to take over straight away, otherwise it all collapses in chaos.Turquoise wrote:
There are times when I wonder if the U.S. falling is such a bad thing. Then again, I often wonder if it would be such a bad thing for the Middle East to just implode upon itself.CameronPoe wrote:
War with Iran? lol. Methinks the US strategists need to have a good hard think about the consequences of that for the entire region. The west might as well kiss goodbye to all middle eastern oil for the forseeable future if war does occur. Anarchy will reign, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will fall and it would be difficult to see any path back. Remember how well Iraq is going? Remember that 9% of US oil comes from the Persian gulf?
The way I see it.... If we are stupid enough to invade Iran, we'll deserve every one of the negative repercussions it would cause. On the other hand, I can't say that I sympathize much with Iran either.
Ideally, we'd just assassinate the Ayatollah and all the ultraconservatives in Iran, so that the rest of Iran is free to live as they please. Of course, that's a lot easier said than done.
I've just finished reading up on the modern political history of Iran. What people in the west fail to understand is that what they have there is as close to a democracy as you're going to get in the middle east. That government and political system was hard fought for and is popular. If people think it's going to collapse by shooting a few people then they're severely mistaken. The Iranians have a far greater sense of national identity than any other muslim nation and they would not take kindly to having their elected leaders assassinated.ghettoperson wrote:
I've often wondered why they don't just do that. It seems far easier than having to go through all the trouble of invading. That said, you need someone with a few guns waiting to take over straight away, otherwise it all collapses in chaos.Turquoise wrote:
There are times when I wonder if the U.S. falling is such a bad thing. Then again, I often wonder if it would be such a bad thing for the Middle East to just implode upon itself.CameronPoe wrote:
War with Iran? lol. Methinks the US strategists need to have a good hard think about the consequences of that for the entire region. The west might as well kiss goodbye to all middle eastern oil for the forseeable future if war does occur. Anarchy will reign, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will fall and it would be difficult to see any path back. Remember how well Iraq is going? Remember that 9% of US oil comes from the Persian gulf?
The way I see it.... If we are stupid enough to invade Iran, we'll deserve every one of the negative repercussions it would cause. On the other hand, I can't say that I sympathize much with Iran either.
Ideally, we'd just assassinate the Ayatollah and all the ultraconservatives in Iran, so that the rest of Iran is free to live as they please. Of course, that's a lot easier said than done.
Iranian national identity is a trinity of three things:
a) Devout and conservative islam;
b) A long and glorious history of ancient empire (Cyrus the Great and such figures);
c) Freedom from the influences and interferences of the west.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-04 03:58:56)
I was under the impression that Mr. Armedineajad (sp) wasn't very popular over there? Or is that wrong?CameronPoe wrote:
I've just finished reading up on the modern political history of Iran. What people in the west fail to understand is that what they have there is as close to a democracy as you're going to get in the middle east. That government and political system was hard fought for and is popular. If people think it's going to collapse by shooting a few people then they're severely mistaken. The Iranians have a far greater sense of national identity than any other muslim nation and they would not take kindly to having their elected leaders assassinated.ghettoperson wrote:
I've often wondered why they don't just do that. It seems far easier than having to go through all the trouble of invading. That said, you need someone with a few guns waiting to take over straight away, otherwise it all collapses in chaos.Turquoise wrote:
There are times when I wonder if the U.S. falling is such a bad thing. Then again, I often wonder if it would be such a bad thing for the Middle East to just implode upon itself.
The way I see it.... If we are stupid enough to invade Iran, we'll deserve every one of the negative repercussions it would cause. On the other hand, I can't say that I sympathize much with Iran either.
Ideally, we'd just assassinate the Ayatollah and all the ultraconservatives in Iran, so that the rest of Iran is free to live as they please. Of course, that's a lot easier said than done.
He's just one man. The recent local elections brought loads of moderates back into the fray thus reducing the power of Ahmedinejad to do what he wants. Turquoise advocated killing Ayatollah Khameini - the equivalent in your case being killing Queen Elizabeth.ghettoperson wrote:
I was under the impression that Mr. Armedineajad (sp) wasn't very popular over there? Or is that wrong?CameronPoe wrote:
I've just finished reading up on the modern political history of Iran. What people in the west fail to understand is that what they have there is as close to a democracy as you're going to get in the middle east. That government and political system was hard fought for and is popular. If people think it's going to collapse by shooting a few people then they're severely mistaken. The Iranians have a far greater sense of national identity than any other muslim nation and they would not take kindly to having their elected leaders assassinated.ghettoperson wrote:
I've often wondered why they don't just do that. It seems far easier than having to go through all the trouble of invading. That said, you need someone with a few guns waiting to take over straight away, otherwise it all collapses in chaos.
Ah, fair enough. To be honest, I was never very into the idea of invading Iran, more just that shooting leaders in general seemed like an easier way than invasion to bring 'democracy' to where ever it isn't really wanted.CameronPoe wrote:
He's just one man. The recent local elections brought loads of moderates back into the fray thus reducing the power of Ahmedinejad to do what he wants. Turquoise advocated killing Ayatollah Khameini - the equivalent in your case being killing Queen Elizabeth.ghettoperson wrote:
I was under the impression that Mr. Armedineajad (sp) wasn't very popular over there? Or is that wrong?CameronPoe wrote:
I've just finished reading up on the modern political history of Iran. What people in the west fail to understand is that what they have there is as close to a democracy as you're going to get in the middle east. That government and political system was hard fought for and is popular. If people think it's going to collapse by shooting a few people then they're severely mistaken. The Iranians have a far greater sense of national identity than any other muslim nation and they would not take kindly to having their elected leaders assassinated.
I don't see why you all think that killing elected leaders would change something... Iran is not like Iraq, where we had a one-man government so to speak. Killing the person in charge would only serve to create martyrs out of nowhere and thus strengthen any policy they might represent. And for the record, democracy IS wanted. "Democracy ala GWB" is not. But then again the latter is not democracy. More like corporate takeover on a country scale...ghettoperson wrote:
Ah, fair enough. To be honest, I was never very into the idea of invading Iran, more just that shooting leaders in general seemed like an easier way than invasion to bring 'democracy' to where ever it isn't really wanted.
ƒ³
That's why I put apostrophes around democracy.oug wrote:
I don't see why you all think that killing elected leaders would change something... Iran is not like Iraq, where we had a one-man government so to speak. Killing the person in charge would only serve to create martyrs out of nowhere and thus strengthen any policy they might represent. And for the record, democracy IS wanted. "Democracy ala GWB" is not. But then again the latter is not democracy. More like corporate takeover on a country scale...ghettoperson wrote:
Ah, fair enough. To be honest, I was never very into the idea of invading Iran, more just that shooting leaders in general seemed like an easier way than invasion to bring 'democracy' to where ever it isn't really wanted.
Well, it would be nice to have the international inspectors in there wouldn't it. Ahmadinerjacket booted them out.BN wrote:
"Citing unnamed diplomatic sources"ATG wrote:
That was hard;BN wrote:
Blinders are off.
Iran is abiding by the nuclear proliferation treaty. I have not seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/09/iran.nuclear/
Monday, March 10, 2003
That was hard.
Where have i seen this before...oh yeah. About 3 months before the Iraq war.
To use the word of a great man "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
Where have i seen this before...oh yeah. About 3 months before the Iraq war.
To use the word of a mediocre president "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on ...you.... fool me ...???....you can't get fooled again" .
Understand, I am categorically opposed to war with Iran at this time. I think that if they were to get and use a nuke on Israel, it would be worse for them than for Israel.
If we are going to go to war, I support the Powell doctrine which says go in with overwhelming massive force and get the job done, then get out.
Certainly the Ayatollahs could be taken out like the Mossad has done but it's a better job for the Iranian students. What we need to do is promise them air support, and stick to it. Should the students revolt, Ahmadinerjacket and his diaper headed masters are toast.
We just need the World Community to put some teeth behind the resolutions they pass.
I think this whole war in the Middle East is exactly what our real enemies want. Those enemies are the ROC and the former USSR.
Just like the Soviets were bled and weakened in Afghanistan we are being bled and weakened in Iraq.
It will reach a unstoppable momentum and we will wake up one day to realize our massive military machine ran out of gas while we all watched the Super Bowl.
90% of China's military energy, planning and resources are being spent training and equipping for a war with the United States. People laugh. They say we have nukes. So do they. They also have tens of thousands of cargo containers pulling into U.S. docks every week.
I imagine them one day being opened by the dock workers. Instead of clothing and Walmart goods it's full of tanks and bayonet wielding screaming red Chinese infantry.
What good will our nukes do then?
why should Israel be the only country in the middle east to have nuclear weapons, a country that thinks they are the chosen people of god and that has proven time and time again that they can brutally murder thousands of civilians.
NOW don't get me wrong I'm not supporting the Arabs or the palestinians, i don't like either the Israelis or the Arabs, their a butch of warmongers.
NOW don't get me wrong I'm not supporting the Arabs or the palestinians, i don't like either the Israelis or the Arabs, their a butch of warmongers.
Good post ATG
As for the Iran situation its got to be a international force that goes if it comes to that, no more pussy footing around with Ahmedinejad, we have all heard what hes been saying and I for one do not think hes bluffing.
It can not fall down to just the American and British forces etc again, I can't speak for the American forces, but the British ones are way over stretched as it is at the moment.
Before its to late and get to War, The UN needed to do more be it sanctions, threat of military action.
I only hope that the genuine normal Iranian people see Ahmedinejad for what he is and get rid of him before its too late.
I really can't see the Israeli's standing by if nothing is done by the UN, and deep down I really don't blame after whats been said.
Its a scary world at the moment, lets hope we (the world I mean) act before its too late.
As for the Iran situation its got to be a international force that goes if it comes to that, no more pussy footing around with Ahmedinejad, we have all heard what hes been saying and I for one do not think hes bluffing.
It can not fall down to just the American and British forces etc again, I can't speak for the American forces, but the British ones are way over stretched as it is at the moment.
Before its to late and get to War, The UN needed to do more be it sanctions, threat of military action.
I only hope that the genuine normal Iranian people see Ahmedinejad for what he is and get rid of him before its too late.
I really can't see the Israeli's standing by if nothing is done by the UN, and deep down I really don't blame after whats been said.
Its a scary world at the moment, lets hope we (the world I mean) act before its too late.
Owned.
lol @ OP link right now.... message says "we've all gone to the pub": http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/times_hp.html
To go off topic for a moment,
Mossad is a scary bunch of motherfuckers. To quote an old history professor of mine, "You do not mess with the Israeli Secret Police..."
Mossad is a scary bunch of motherfuckers. To quote an old history professor of mine, "You do not mess with the Israeli Secret Police..."
LOL!UON wrote:
lol @ OP link right now.... message says "we've all gone to the pub": http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/times_hp.html
"IAEA said that Iran had notified it of its intentions and invited it to inspect the facilities."ATG wrote:
That was hard;BN wrote:
Blinders are off.usmarine2007 wrote:
"If Tehran doesn't comply by the end of the 60-day period stipulated by the U.N., the Security Council will consider new measures beyond the economic sanctions."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070203/ap_ … an_nuclear
US is not the only one saying things. Take off your blinders.
Iran is abiding by the nuclear proliferation treaty. I have not seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/09/iran.nuclear/
I guess they overlooked the fact that IAEA invitations and transparency with this regard is what lets the NPT function as it does.....you do realize you cannot have a functioning Nuclear power plant without fuel, so it would be difficult to get this fuel without centrifuges of which you are not required to purchase from a third party. Hence all speculations with regards to the usage is imply via the US interpretation which we have labeled them around this time frame as being part of the "axis of evil," how can they be the axis of evil when they present plans to the US in order to mitigate any kind of sanctions, but then to only have it turned down then presented again a few years down the line as if the first offer never occurred and speak of the irrationality of that administration is simply odd to say the least.
Israel FTW!!!!
Killing the evil bastards for all of us. Thank you Israel, for your people truely are the choosen ones.
Killing the evil bastards for all of us. Thank you Israel, for your people truely are the choosen ones.
This is not excellent. This is fucked up. Murdering a scientist is not a good thing.ATG wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2583167,00.htmlThis is excellent.A PRIZE-WINNING Iranian nuclear scientist has died in mysterious circumstances, according to Radio Farda, which is funded by the US State Department and broadcasts to Iran.
An intelligence source suggested that Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, a nuclear physicist, had been assassinated by Mossad, the Israeli security service.
The only news in recent weeks to derail the out of control freight train leading to U.S/Iran war is this.
I hope they/we hunt them down ruthlessly and scatter them like cockroaches in sudden light.
This is so much preferable to massive bombing.
?
Is war with Iran a foregone conclusion?
And those of you advocating invasion and assassinating (murdering) the Iranian leadership, well we can see how well that worked in Iraq, can't we?
Leave them alone. Let them work out their own problems. Less Americans will die that way.
This is either an act of war or an act of terrorism.Major_Spittle wrote:
Israel FTW!!!!
Killing the evil bastards for all of us. Thank you Israel, for your people truely are the choosen ones.
How can you support it?
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot.
You mean if Israel proclaimed the annihilation of Iran?BN wrote:
This is either an act of war or an act of terrorism.Major_Spittle wrote:
Israel FTW!!!!
Killing the evil bastards for all of us. Thank you Israel, for your people truely are the choosen ones.
How can you support it?
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot.
No. Try to keep up with the TOPIC at hand dear.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
You mean if Israel proclaimed the annihilation of Iran?BN wrote:
This is either an act of war or an act of terrorism.Major_Spittle wrote:
Israel FTW!!!!
Killing the evil bastards for all of us. Thank you Israel, for your people truely are the choosen ones.
How can you support it?
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot.
What if say a naughty Iranian spy dude sneaked into Israel and popped off say....Ehud Olmert or their equivalent nuclear nerd?
Now imagine what would happen.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I think you missed the point.m3thod wrote:
No. Try to keep up with the TOPIC at hand dear.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
You mean if Israel proclaimed the annihilation of Iran?BN wrote:
This is either an act of war or an act of terrorism.
How can you support it?
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot.
What if say a naughty Iranian spy dude sneaked into Israel and popped off say....Ehud Olmert or their equivalent nuclear nerd?
Now imagine what would happen.
Your 'point' was irrelevant to the topic.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
I think you missed the point.m3thod wrote:
No. Try to keep up with the TOPIC at hand dear.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
You mean if Israel proclaimed the annihilation of Iran?
What if say a naughty Iranian spy dude sneaked into Israel and popped off say....Ehud Olmert or their equivalent nuclear nerd?
Now imagine what would happen.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
It is perfectly relevant since it is the reason why this happened in the first place.m3thod wrote:
Your 'point' was irrelevant to the topic.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
I think you missed the point.m3thod wrote:
No. Try to keep up with the TOPIC at hand dear.
What if say a naughty Iranian spy dude sneaked into Israel and popped off say....Ehud Olmert or their equivalent nuclear nerd?
Now imagine what would happen.
The question that has been levied and the focal point of discussion in this thread is what would Israel have done IF an Iranian James bond had managed to knock off a significant member of its population?Fancy_Pollux wrote:
It is perfectly relevant since it is the reason why this happened in the first place.m3thod wrote:
Your 'point' was irrelevant to the topic.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
I think you missed the point.
Now you can rabbit on about ArmaniJacket's desire to wipe Israel off the map citing "that the reason in the first place" well I'm sure it is, but it's not what was asked in this thread.
Now please continue as you're proving the content of my sig.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
He said Israel should be wiped off the map, it doesn't mean hes going to. Similarly, I should be refraining from forum-whoring on company time but here I am...
Does anybody know about fatwa, and if/how/when they can be revoked or ignored?
Does anybody know about fatwa, and if/how/when they can be revoked or ignored?
Last edited by Pubic (2007-02-04 17:44:08)