Time to Bomb Iran out of existance

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by pisser

They want Israel OBLITERATED along with the US.



So once again, I say kill um first, before they have the chance to kill you!

NO OTHER SOLUTION. PERIOD.

but Israel is small and has no oil...

Wouldn't just be easier to kill the ones that have had and stole the nukes?

Why not be practical about it?

[multi]

Earth to Pisser:
What part of "nothing like that would ever happen" don't you understand ?

I agree on not agreeing to deals with terrorists and I am not saying arm the Arabs like happend though the 80&90's to even the playing field ,more I am saying
get them to start disarming ,scaling down the military on all sides in a mutual way. Israel cant afford to keep up their military incursions into Lebanon and Gaza for too much longer without looking like the bad guy. A drastic change in approach is required
at some stage in future ,the drastic change for some people is for them all to start a nuclear war with each other ,with Iraq the way it is and current attitudes of all the big power players in the game
they just might get their wish.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by multi

they just might get their wish.

Odds are within the next 10 years somebody over there gets nuked.

It would be cheaper to move all the 'Israelis' one more time. It is a very small country that would easily fit in the CA deserts. Give each and every one of them a million $ for the move and be done with it.

Them fucs can't wait to use the BOMB...........

[TankGirl]

Originally Posted by Nicobie

Odds are within the next 10 years somebody over there gets nuked.

It would be cheaper to move all the 'Israelis' one more time. It is a very small country that would easily fit in the CA deserts. Give each and every one of them a million $ for the move and be done with it.

I like your proposition, Nic. Instead of being surrounded by enemies the Israelis would be surrounded by American friends. They would not need their 300 or so (?) nukes anymore so US could take them into its possession and thereby stabilize the world a lot. Nor would US need anymore to spend huge sums of money to arm Israel with expensive modern fighters, missiles and whatever - the million dollar 'start money' per Israeli would be peanuts compared to the long term savings for the US taxpayers. Having their own land the Palestinians could focus working hard for the development of their own state and society instead of living on global welfare and planning suicide attacks. And as we already know Israelis to be hard working and skillful business people, they would make the CA deserts bloom in no time and have great friendly consumer market of the US just next door. And as for the holy land thing for the religious ones, this being a God-created Earth, why wouldn't CA be just as holy as some little piece of land in the Middle East?

[floydian slip]

there ya go tg's idea could bring peace to the ME, and a shitstorm to Nics house lol

[TankGirl]

Originally Posted by floydian slip

there ya go tg's idea could bring peace to the ME, and a shitstorm to Nics house lol

The idea was Nic's - the Nobel Peace Prize will belong to him.

[pisser]

I need whatever you guys are smoking...........

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by pisser

I need whatever you guys are smoking...........

It makes more sense and would be cheaper than the alternatives.

Think about it. Israel is way way smaller than San Bernardino county in CA.

[pisser]

Originally Posted by Nicobie

It makes more sense and would be cheaper than the alternatives.

Think about it. Israel is way way smaller than San Bernardino county in CA.

Yeah, but we would have to build um a wailing wall.....

[theknife]

interesting and insightful take on on Iran:

"A detailed new report issued this week from Britain's top foreign policy think tank, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, says "Iran's influence in Iraq has superseded that of the United States, and is increasingly rivaling the U.S. as the main actor at the crossroads between the Middle East and Asia."

Moreover, the report says, the Bush administration has directly helped strengthen Iran to become a major regional power.

"The war on terror removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein -- Iran's two greatest regional rivals -- and strengthened Iran's regional leverage in doing so," it says, adding that "Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah has reinforced Iran's position as the region's focal point against U.S.-led policy."

Iran's role within other embattled areas in the region like Afghanistan and southern Lebanon has now increased hugely, says the report, which was prepared with considerable input from British officials and diplomats, as well as academics and regional experts.

"While the U.S. has been playing poker in the region, Iran has been playing chess. Iran is playing a longer, more clever game and has been far more successful at winning hearts and minds," says Nadim Shehadi, one of the report's authors and a fellow of the Institute's Middle East department.

The report stresses that the Bush administration and its allies have yet to appreciate the extent of Iran's regional relationships and standing -- a dynamic which is the key to understanding Iran's newly found confidence and belligerence towards the West. As a result, the U.S.-led agenda for confronting Iran is "severely compromised by the confident ease with which Iran sits in its region."

"While the U.S. may have the upper hand in 'hard' power projection, Iran has proved far more effective through its use of 'soft' power," the report says. "The Bush administration has shown little ability to use politics and culture to pursue its strategic interests while Iran's knowledge of the region, its fluency in the languages and culture, strong historical ties and administrative skills have given it a strong advantage over the West."

our belligerent, drunk-guy-in-a-bar-looking-for-a-fight approach to MIddle East policy seems to have done nothing but strengthen Iran and islamic fanatacism in general.

The point is that Tehran seems to have more options than President Bush, who right now seems to be faced with the choice of accepting a nuclear Iran, trying to impose some hollow sanctions, or looking at that military option that he always says is on the table.

well, economic sanctions usually don't seem work very well and the military option has no history of success in the Middle East. so why is a nuclear Iran is any more ominous than a nuclear Pakistan or North Korea?

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by theknife

interesting and insightful take
well, economic sanctions usually don't seem work very well and the military option has no history of success in the Middle East. so why is a nuclear Iran is any more ominous than a nuclear Pakistan or North Korea?

Because Pakistan and North Korea don't give millions of dollars and weapons to terrorist, nor do they say out in public certain countries should be completely destroyed.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Sinner

ecause Pakistan and North Korea don't give millions of dollars and weapons to terrorist, nor do they say out in public certain countries should be completely destroyed.

right - al queda is now based in pakistan, a country with nukes and lots of goverment support for ben laden and the taliban, but we need to think about attacking iran because they might have nukes in 5 or 10 years.

In Pakistan, signs of al Qaeda all around

Five years after 9/11, Pakistan appears to have replaced Afghanistan as the group's center of gravity.

Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are widely believed to be in the more remote parts of this country. Two of the London subway bombers planned and trained for their mission here.

And al Qaeda's production company, As Sahab, also apparently does much of its work in Pakistan.

The Pakistani government has cut a deal with the Taliban in Waziristan province that essentially allows the group to run its own affairs as long as it promises not to export terror across the border to Afghanistan.

Waziristan is one of the places where bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are thought to have hidden out and where As Sahab produces its work.

[Sinner]

Blah - Blah Blah knife ---

"Pakistan is committed to its policy on the war on terror, and Osama caught anywhere in Pakistan would be brought to justice," the country's top army spokesman, Gen. Shaukat Sultan, told The Associated Press.

Under the deal, the militants are to halt attacks on Pakistani forces in the semiautonomous region and stop crossing into nearby eastern Afghanistan to attack U.S. and Afghan forces, who are hunting al-Qaeda and Taliban forces there.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...tm?POE=NEWISVA


I could give more sources but you give one, I will give one.


Show me something where the government of Pakistan directly makes a threat towards another country.

[theknife]

IAEA: U.S. Report on Iran 'Dishonest'
By GEORGE JAHN

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - A recent House of Representatives committee report on Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.

what a shocker - yet another rush to war based on bullshit. deja vu all over again. maybe this time we can fiind out before we kill 50,000 people and waste $500 billion dollars.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8K565400.html

[albed]

Or the lesson from Iraq that if you shut out UN inspectors you'll get your ass kicked, might have to be repeated for the slow learners.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by theknife

what a shocker - yet another rush to war based on bullshit. deja vu all over again. maybe this time we can fiind out before we kill 50,000 people and waste $500 billion dollars.

What rush to war?

[albed]

It's a parrot thing.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

What rush to war?

this one:

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: So how likely is a U.S. military strike against Iran? And would it lead to all-out war?

Joining us now is retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner. He’s taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, the Air War College, and the Naval War College. Colonel, thanks very much for coming in. You’ve just prepared a paper for the Century Foundation entitled "Considering the U.S. Military Option for Iran." You speak to a lot of people, plugged in.

What is your bottom line? How close in your opinion is the U.S., the Bush administration, to giving that go-ahead order?

COL. SAM GARDINER, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): It’s been given. In fact, we’ve probably been executing military operations inside Iran for at least 18 months. The evidence is overwhelming. From both the Iranians, Americans, and from Congressional sources.

- CNN, 9/18/06

video link

[theknife]

a handy guide to potentially dangerous countries, for the reality-challenged:

[Mazer]

Here's the permalink to knife's video if anyone else wants to see it.

So, if we've been sending small groups of special forces into Iran for the past 18 months, with nary a word going to the press untill now, how is that a rush, exactly? Seems more like a slow mosey, or even a lazy, relaxing perambulation. At this rate it's possible that no American troops have died in Iran since the war on terror started and costs have been low enough that nobody even noticed. You're such an alarmist, knife. When the president asks Congress for the funding needed for military action in Iran, that's when you'll know that something big is happening there.