Iran's Missile Launch [Archive] - The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community

Bronco Jamus

07-09-2008, 12:25 PM

No, which is why we should engage in conversation instead of threatening them with military action. When we do that, we get **** like them testing weapons to flex their muscle back. Don't you think their desire for nukes is directly related to our dick swinging in the middle east? You think they want it for some motiveless world domination? come on. They dont hate our "freedom"

They have no muscle. They would get crushed. Compound that with the fact, and Obama agrees, that they are funding militias in Iraq and you have a situation past diplomacy.

On the other hand, I do think they have a severe energy problem that could be greatly enhanced by nuclear power, but when their President gets in front of people and screams death to Isreal it proves they cannot be trusted.

Also...
From a certain POV, the "mucsle flexing" is a type of diplomacy. However, if they ever sent a missle into Isreal they would get creamed and it wouldn't be us doing it either.

Dude, support your country.

alkemical

07-09-2008, 12:30 PM

alkemical

07-09-2008, 12:32 PM

Hotrod

07-09-2008, 12:45 PM

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 12:53 PM

They have no muscle. They would get crushed. Compound that with the fact, and Obama agrees, that they are funding militias in Iraq and you have a situation past diplomacy.

On the other hand, I do think they have a severe energy problem that could be greatly enhanced by nuclear power, but when their President gets in front of people and screams death to Isreal it proves they cannot be trusted.

Also...
From a certain POV, the "mucsle flexing" is a type of diplomacy. However, if they ever sent a missle into Isreal they would get creamed and it wouldn't be us doing it either.

Dude, support your country.

Support my country? Sorry if I don't have blind faith in war mongering retards. God, I hate when people like you view dissent as being unpatriotic. It's so sophomoric

Obama does recognize Iran as a threat but is a supporter of diplomacy. We are not past diplomacy, we never even TRIED it. And they scream death to Israel, not because they hate Jews. If the jews were relocated to Oklahoma after ww2 and not israel, they wouldnt give a crap. Maybe we if speak with them to get on the same page as them, we can move forward from there. The reason terrorist groups exist is because they believe there is injustice against them...its not some blind hatred towards "freedom" or the rest of the world. It's political. It's always been political. It'll always be political. I love how you just want to use the same playbook that clearly isn't working. You think Iraq is a mess? Try attacking Iran, especially with our depleted military.

And their president has no power. He's a puppet of the Ayatollah.

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 12:54 PM

Exactly the socialist hippy party does not understand that the war on terror is hard work.

The retard right wing party doesnt understand that blindly attacking countries because we don't like how they govern and protect themselves is incredibly shortsighted and moronic.

Bronco Jamus

07-09-2008, 01:06 PM

Support my country? Sorry if I don't have blind faith in war mongering retards. God, I hate when people like you view dissent as being unpatriotic. It's so sophomoric

Obama does recognize Iran as a threat but is a supporter of diplomacy. We are not past diplomacy, we never even TRIED it. And they scream death to Israel, not because they hate Jews. If the jews were relocated to Oklahoma after ww2 and not israel, they wouldnt give a crap. Maybe we if speak with them to get on the same page as them, we can move forward from there. The reason terrorist groups exist is because they believe there is injustice against them...its not some blind hatred towards "freedom" or the rest of the world. It's political. It's always been political. It'll always be political. I love how you just want to use the same playbook that clearly isn't working. You think Iraq is a mess? Try attacking Iran, especially with our depleted military.

And their president has no power. He's a puppet of the Ayatollah.

Unless you work in the State Department it's all blind faith. As far as invading Iran, I don't believe that's the solution either, but blowing their nuclear facilities to pieces is if they threaten us or Isreal. Since they are so intent on death to Isreal, then I can only support them not having nuclear tech. In my mind all they would have to do is use diplomacy with Isreal and us and ask. "What can we do to build our power facilities and let you know we are not using weapons of mass destruction?"

But it's all our fault, right?

Your ideals have it's place, but sometimes it doesn't work. This is one of those times.

Bronco Jamus

07-09-2008, 01:07 PM

The retard right wing party doesnt understand that blindly attacking countries because we don't like how they govern and protect themselves is incredibly shortsighted and moronic.

What's equally moronic is the language you use to communicate your ideas. Why don't you try some diplomacy, and then people might be more accepting of your ideas. Otherwise you couldn't sell a bucket of water to guy that was on fire.

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 01:19 PM

Unless you work in the State Department it's all blind faith. As far as invading Iran, I don't believe that's the solution either, but blowing their nuclear facilities to pieces is if they threaten us or Isreal. Since they are so intent on death to Isreal, then I can only support them not having nuclear tech. In my mind all they would have to do is use diplomacy with Isreal and us and ask. "What can we do to build our power facilities and let you know we are not using weapons of mass destruction?"

But it's all our fault, right?

Your ideals have it's place, but sometimes it doesn't work. This is one of those times.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not saying its guarenteed to work, but the fact that they aren't even TRYING is a grave mistake and just is the continuation of bad policy. Alienation normally does not work and it CERTAINLY hasn't with the middle east and the "axis of evil"

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 01:20 PM

What's equally moronic is the language you use to communicate your ideas. Why don't you try some diplomacy, and then people might be more accepting of your ideas. Otherwise you couldn't sell a bucket of water to guy that was on fire.

I was simply, and angrily, responding to Hotrod's post. If he's gonna say stupid ****, then i will say it too

Bronco Jamus

07-09-2008, 01:28 PM

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not saying its guarenteed to work, but the fact that they aren't even TRYING is a grave mistake and just is the continuation of bad policy. Alienation normally does not work and it CERTAINLY hasn't with the middle east and the "axis of evil"

Well, the truth is we don't know exactly what has been tried. It's not hard to believe that this SD hasn't done all it can from diplomacy perspective.

24champ

07-09-2008, 01:32 PM

cutthemdown

07-09-2008, 01:34 PM

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 01:35 PM

Well, the truth is we don't know exactly what has been tried. It's not hard to believe that this SD hasn't done all it can from diplomacy perspective.

Do you really believe this administration has done all it could on the diplomacy front?

Hotrod

07-09-2008, 01:35 PM

I was simply, and angrily, responding to Hotrod's post. If he's gonna say stupid ****, then i will say it too

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/113-2/crybaby.jpg

Bronco Jamus

07-09-2008, 01:41 PM

Do you really believe this administration has done all it could on the diplomacy front?

I think they have probably tried everything they could short of being the lesser in the deal. I feel confident they have offered Iran money(a bribe) as well. Just like we did with North Korea, and I imagine Iran told us to get lost.

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 01:41 PM

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 01:42 PM

I think they have probably tried everything they could short of being the lesser in the deal. I feel confident they have offered Iran money(a bribe) as well. Just like we did with North Korea, and I imagine Iran told us to get lost.

Complete and total speculation. mostly because north korea proved itself to be worthless with their nuclear program. Iran and North Korea are really apples and oranges

Hotrod

07-09-2008, 01:44 PM

Complete and total speculation. mostly because north korea proved itself to be worthless with their nuclear program. Iran and North Korea are really apples and oranges

Complete and total speculation on your part as well. Information on what we have or have not done is handed out on a need to know and you are simply not special enough to be considered a person who needs to know.

Bronco Jamus

07-09-2008, 01:49 PM

Complete and total speculation.

You asked my what I thought. Of course it's going to be speculation.

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 02:21 PM

Complete and total speculation on your part as well. Information on what we have or have not done is handed out on a need to know and you are simply not special enough to be considered a person who needs to know.

Judging from how the administration handled this in the past (iraq) and their constant rhetoric that dimploacy=appeasement (and is foolish...which was both McCain and HIllary's swipe at Obama), i'll assume they didnt take great diplomacy measures with Iran. Their thought process has been consistent that they don't agree with diplomacy.

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 02:21 PM

You asked my what I thought. Of course it's going to be speculation.

fair enough

NYBronco

07-09-2008, 04:30 PM

My first thought when I saw the news of the missile launch was Iran putting fear back into the oil market and driving the price back up from its recent "slump".

Rigs11

07-09-2008, 04:31 PM

Exactly the socialist hippy party does not understand that the war on terror is hard work.

Talk about a moniker. Dubya is that you?

24champ

07-09-2008, 05:03 PM

Proof of this?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/04/10/diplomacy-stalls-as-irans-nuclear-program-advances.html

Also care to explain why the UN is imposing worthless sanctions on Iran?

Tombstone RJ

07-09-2008, 05:08 PM

My first thought when I saw the news of the missile launch was Iran putting fear back into the oil market and driving the price back up from its recent "slump".

I dunno about that, it's possible. However, I think this is more of a reaction to Israel's F-16 flights over the Mediterreanean Sea. Both Israel and Iran are sabre rattling right now.

Fact is, it's becoming an unstable situation and Iran claiming it will shut down Persian Gulf shipping lanes if it is attacked, is tantamount to dragging the entire Persian Gulf region into a military conflict.

Hopefully, calmer heads will prevail.

elsid13

07-09-2008, 05:13 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070900235.html?hpid=topnews

It always surprises me how warmongers (like Bush and McCain) will use this as an example of why they were correct to suspect Iran of being hostile, completely ignoring the fact that this is just Iran's response to the US threats and hostility.

Would it kill them to TRY diplomacy?

I think it really need to be two part approach. The military threat needs to be there to ensure they are willing to come to the table to talk, and diplomatically there needs to be wiliness on the West part to give them something to uphold Iranian "honor". You can not have one without the other to force change.

Hotrod

07-09-2008, 05:20 PM

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/04/can_of_whoop_ass.jpg

elsid13

07-09-2008, 05:26 PM

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/04/can_of_whoop_ass.jpg

He would most likely end up using it on himself accidentally

Hotrod

07-09-2008, 05:27 PM

He would most likely end up using it on himself accidentally

LOL

For some reason that pic cracks me up. I've been waiting to use it for awhile.

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 06:05 PM

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/04/10/diplomacy-stalls-as-irans-nuclear-program-advances.html

Also care to explain why the UN is imposing worthless sanctions on Iran?

That article supports that diplomacy is NOT being used. Weird headline.

24champ

07-09-2008, 06:19 PM

That article supports that diplomacy is NOT being used. Weird headline.

We don't deal with Iran directly for obvious reasons. We are using other channels like the UN pressure Iran in stopping it's enrichment program.

dissatisfaction is building with the fact that three U.N. Security Council resolutions—and assorted other financial and political pressures from Washington and European capitals—are producing no policy change in Tehran. Russia and China's reluctance to step up sanctions dramatically is also growing.

Three worthless UN Resolutions....and Iran just laughs at us. Not only that they continue to threaten the west...

Iran's "nuclear victory," Ahmadinejad said, "is the start of the ever-increasing destruction of the imperialistic state," a typical Iranian allusion to the United States.

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 06:29 PM

We don't deal with Iran directly for obvious reasons. We are using other channels like the UN pressure Iran in stopping it's enrichment program.

Three worthless UN Resolutions....and Iran just laughs at us. Not only that they continue to threaten the west...

You took the one paragraph out of that to fit your agenda. 3 UN sactions (which seem like threats in this case) is not exactly fulfilling a diplomacy agenda. America has a hardline stance when negotiating with Tehran, and that needs to change.

And i honestly couldnt care less what Ahmadinajad says...he's just a figurehead.

24champ

07-09-2008, 06:37 PM

You took the one paragraph out of that to fit your agenda. 3 UN sactions (which seem like threats in this case) is not exactly fulfilling a diplomacy agenda. America has a hardline stance when negotiating with Tehran, and that needs to change.

So you want appeasement...

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 06:46 PM

So you want appeasement...

wow, you actually fell into exactly what i was complaining about before....TALKING doesnt mean giving. Quit comparing these guys to Nazi Germany...they arent, they arent even close, they just dont have the power nor the money to become the threat youre making them out to be.

BABronco

07-09-2008, 06:59 PM

So you want appeasement...

appeasement? try peace. try getting our asses out of the ME yesterday.

24champ

07-09-2008, 07:03 PM

wow, you actually fell into exactly what i was complaining about before....

Who cares.....

TALKING doesnt mean giving. Quit comparing these guys to Nazi Germany...they arent, they arent even close

Guess thats why they kill gays and other people against the government...they want to kill every jew on the planet.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cI-DiaBi7VE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cI-DiaBi7VE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Nah they aren't Nazis... ::)

they just dont have the power nor the money to become the threat youre making them out to be.

Funny I heard that in the 90's about Al-Queda on both sides of the aisle...

Keep defending these ****heads.

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 07:20 PM

Who cares.....

Guess thats why they kill gays and other people against the government...they want to kill every jew on the planet.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cI-DiaBi7VE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cI-DiaBi7VE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Nah they aren't Nazis... ::)

Funny I heard that in the 90's about Al-Queda on both sides of the aisle...

Keep defending these ****heads.

Comparing Iran to the Nazi Party is just SO completely off i dont know where to begin. They just arent that kind of threat. And, im not saying i agree with Iranian politics, but its not exactly our place to play moral leader.

And now youre comparing Al-Queda to the nazi party? Al-queda is a terrorist organization that GOT LUCKY due to many many factors, first of which is flawed hijacking policy that, in an instant, changed forever.

You want to continue the same BS gameplan that hasn't worked in the middle east. It hasnt worked, won't continue to work, it's time for diplomacy (which should have always been in place anyway)

24champ

07-09-2008, 07:25 PM

Comparing Iran to the Nazi Party is just SO completely off i dont know where to begin. They just arent that kind of threat. And, im not saying i agree with Iranian politics, but its not exactly our place to play moral leader.

And now youre comparing Al-Queda to the nazi party? Al-queda is a terrorist organization that GOT LUCKY due to many many factors, first of which is flawed hijacking policy that, in an instant, changed forever.

You want to continue the same BS gameplan that hasn't worked in the middle east. It hasnt worked, won't continue to work, it's time for diplomacy (which should have always been in place anyway)

Might as well just go ahead and stick your head in the sand.

Bronco_Beerslug

07-09-2008, 07:40 PM

This is why we need the missile defense shield in Poland and Czech. Bush getting those agreements signed to put the missiles there was a good thing. Russians are pissed but oh well Iran has missiles and we must try and thwart that threat.

This will just make Europeans and Americans more resolved to stop Iran from building a nuke.Yep, a really good thing. Russia is now promising to stage missiles on the borders of any countries that allow the U.S. to put missiles on it's borders.

And of course, this would be the exact response of the U.S., if done to us.

SonOfLe-loLang

07-09-2008, 07:43 PM

Might as well just go ahead and stick your head in the sand.

Right, my heads in the sand. Do your research and stop listening to the propaganda. If its up to you, our military will be stretched thin all over the middle east, while creating chaos, more animosity, and more terrorists. Hostility is not always the answer and, actually, rarely is. Diplomacy deserves its chance before we do something stupid like invading a country that was never a threat at all.

Bronco_Beerslug

07-09-2008, 07:50 PM

They have no muscle. They would get crushed.
At what cost to us? Iran definitely has the capability to take out any or all of our carriers in the Gulf with their mobile and fixed missile systems.

Imagine what that scenario would do to us and cause throughout the world.

Tombstone RJ

07-09-2008, 08:45 PM

Comparing Iran to the Nazi Party is just SO completely off i dont know where to begin. They just arent that kind of threat. And, im not saying i agree with Iranian politics, but its not exactly our place to play moral leader.

And now youre comparing Al-Queda to the nazi party? Al-queda is a terrorist organization that GOT LUCKY due to many many factors, first of which is flawed hijacking policy that, in an instant, changed forever.

You want to continue the same BS gameplan that hasn't worked in the middle east. It hasnt worked, won't continue to work, it's time for diplomacy (which should have always been in place anyway)

I think you are missing the point of the comparison of Iran to the Nazis. The Nazis and the Iranian government are very similar in the indoctrination of youth into their movement. The video demonstrates something akin to the brainwashing of Hitler Youth.

TheDave

07-09-2008, 10:49 PM

SonOfLe-loLang

07-10-2008, 12:09 AM

I think you are missing the point of the comparison of Iran to the Nazis. The Nazis and the Iranian government are very similar in the indoctrination of youth into their movement. The video demonstrates something akin to the brainwashing of Hitler Youth.

Its still absolutely apples and oranges. You cant compare the two. Its a different culture, different time, different everything. You cant pick and choose details and then compare them to the nazi party. Thats like saying lots of Americans are Nazi's because they like to wear Hugo Boss clothing and he designed the SS uniform.

24champ

07-10-2008, 12:15 AM

Its still absolutely apples and oranges. You cant compare the two. Its a different culture, different time, different everything. You cant pick and choose details and then compare them to the nazi party. Thats like saying lots of Americans are Nazi's because they like to wear Hugo Boss clothing and he designed the SS uniform.

http://compoundthinking.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/istock_000002694919xsmall.jpg

dekers

07-10-2008, 12:29 AM

Unless you work in the State Department it's all blind faith. As far as invading Iran, I don't believe that's the solution either, but blowing their nuclear facilities to pieces is if they threaten us or Isreal. Since they are so intent on death to Isreal, then I can only support them not having nuclear tech. In my mind all they would have to do is use diplomacy with Isreal and us and ask. "What can we do to build our power facilities and let you know we are not using weapons of mass destruction?"

But it's all our fault, right?

Your ideals have it's place, but sometimes it doesn't work. This is one of those times.

You said it a lot better then i could have. :notworthy

cutthemdown

07-10-2008, 12:29 AM

Yep, a really good thing. Russia is now promising to stage missiles on the borders of any countries that allow the U.S. to put missiles on it's borders.

And of course, this would be the exact response of the U.S., if done to us.

Who cares Russia isn't going to attack. If they feel the need to respond like that they should. I happen to think they don't want to spend the money on a system they know they won't use. They would rather put the money somewhere else IMO. For one there navy is in bad shape.

cutthemdown

07-10-2008, 12:31 AM

One of these days someone is going to have to explain to me why anyone believes that Iran poses any sort of threat to Israel. At this stage Iran is 5-10 years away from developing their first nuclear weapon while Israel has 60-80 (some estimates put their stockpile as high as 400 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/)).

Seriously, if Iran was stupid enough to use their 1st nuke on Israel they would do nothing more than guarantee their own extinction.

Sounds like a quick solution to our "Iran" problem...

what if they just give the nuke to hezzbollah and let them launch it? Does Israel respond to Lebonon, Syria or Iran? The point is 5-10 yrs will be here before you know it. Saying they are 5 yrs away and acting like that is so long we need not worry is pretty shortsighted IMO.

SonOfLe-loLang

07-10-2008, 12:32 AM

http://compoundthinking.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/istock_000002694919xsmall.jpg

UNITED STATES IRAN
Population 303,824,646 65,875,223
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) $13.8 trillion $0.75 trillion
Defense spending fiscal year 2009 $711 billion $7.2 billion
Total troops 2,580,875 895,000
Main battle tanks 8,023 1,613
Reconnaissance vehicles 348 35
Armored infantry fighting vehicles 6,719 610
Armored personnel carriers 21,242 640
Artillery units 8,041 8,196
Helicopters 5,425 311
Submarines 71 6
Principal surface combatants 106 5
Patrol and coastal combatants 157 320
Mine warfare ships 9 5
Amphibious ships 490 21
Fighter aircraft 3,538 286
Long-range bomber aircraft 170 None
Transport aircraft 883 136
Electronic warfare/intelligence aircraft 159 3
Reconnaissance aircraft 134 6
Maritime patrol aircraft 197 8
Anti-submarine warfare aircraft 58 None
Airborne early warning aircraft 53 None
Nuclear warheads ~5,400 None

Theres your "threat." I have my head in the sand and you want to continue failed policy and politics until the world explodes. Maybe I do want to keep my head in the sand if I have to live in your world

cutthemdown

07-10-2008, 12:35 AM

anyone who thinks Iran would launch a missile from Iran is crazy. They would either just threaten to launch it all the time disrupting the gulf whenever they want. I mean cmon if we let them build a nuke and test it like N Korea did we are screwed in the gulf from that point on.

If they did want to use it they would try and make it look like they didn't do it.

I'm not sure though can scientists tell where a bomb came from after it explodes? maybe the nuke material lends itself to where it was created I don't know for sure, but if they could just sneak it into Lebanon you know they would.

More then likely though Iran just wants to be the big dog in the region. If they are only Arab country with the bomb that makes them very powerful in the region.

TheDave

07-10-2008, 12:45 AM

what if they just give the nuke to hezzbollah and let them launch it? Does Israel respond to Lebonon, Syria or Iran? The point is 5-10 yrs will be here before you know it. Saying they are 5 yrs away and acting like that is so long we need not worry is pretty shortsighted IMO.

Pretending that the nuclear Pandora's Box can be closed and that Iran is the only one capable of sharing this "secret" with terrorists is short sighted. I've said it a million times... stop pretending we can keep the world from discovering 1940's technology. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the fall of the Soviet Union made this technology available to the highest bidder.

As for who would Israel retaliate against... If Iran's only nuke goes online in 2013 and suddenly goes missing only to be magically detonated in the holy land... I'm guessing they will figure out who did it.

24champ

07-10-2008, 12:45 AM

a
I'm not sure though can scientists tell where a bomb came from after it explodes? maybe the nuke material lends itself to where it was created I don't know for sure, but if they could just sneak it into Lebanon you know they would.

Yes they can, could be a problem since Iran is using Russian technology for Nuclear capability but I am positive scientist can find out the origins of the nuke.

24champ

07-10-2008, 12:53 AM

As for who would Israel retaliate against... If Iran's only nuke goes online in 2013 and suddenly goes missing only to be magically detonated in the holy land... I'm guessing they will figure out who did it.

I don't know where you get the 2013 figure from, but they are a lot closer than you think. The Mossad Chief Meir Dagan says Iran is going have the capability by 2009 at the earliest and at the same time said there is time for diplomacy.

TheDave

07-10-2008, 01:02 AM

I don't know where you get the 2013 figure from, but they are a lot closer than you think. The Mossad Chief Meir Dagan says Iran is going have the capability by 2009 at the earliest and at the same time said there is time for diplomacy.

The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before "early to mid-next decade," according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453_pf.html

People here kept saying 5-10 years so I took the lesser number of 5 years or 2013

24champ

07-10-2008, 01:12 AM

People here kept saying 5-10 years so I took the lesser number of 5 years or 2013

I don't really put much stock on the NIE reports.

Here is where I got the closer estimate.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/802743.html

Dagan said that since June Iran has been intensifying efforts to enrich uranium and is trying to have some 3,000 centrifuges working toward that end by 2007. According to intelligence estimates, Iran will cross the technological point of no return when these centrifuges work non-stop for three months.

The Mossad chief said that the centrifuges will be in operation for more than a year by 2008 and will produce about 25 kilograms of enriched uranium. This translates into one or two more years before Iran can make a nuclear weapon.

SonOfLe-loLang

07-10-2008, 01:46 AM

I don't really put much stock on the NIE reports.

Here is where I got the closer estimate.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/802743.html

haha, you dont put much stock in NIE reports, but you believe Mossad...as they clearly dont have an agenda. Right.

Taco John

07-10-2008, 02:14 AM

anyone who thinks Iran would launch a missile from Iran is crazy. They would either just threaten to launch it all the time disrupting the gulf whenever they want. I mean cmon if we let them build a nuke and test it like N Korea did we are screwed in the gulf from that point on.

We are already screwed in the Gulf. We're just trying to pull the hot coal from the fire at this point.

We've delivered Iraq to Iran and the Islamic Revolution. Research the Dawa Party and their ties to Iran.

A war against Iran is just a pretense for fixing what Bush broke. He didn't get the secular democratic government that he gambled on - the one that was supposed to sweep the middle east like a bunch of dominoes. Instead, the Iraqis elected the Dawa party - a group that we had categorized as a terrorist organization.

24champ

07-10-2008, 02:56 AM

haha, you dont put much stock in NIE reports, but you believe Mossad...as they clearly dont have an agenda. Right.

The NIE is essentially...garbage. Just recently the NIE said Iran stopped their nuclear program in 2003, but yet they are still enriching uranium. We know the 2002 NIE report on Iraq is crap. Keep in mind the public NIE doesn't show the whole story, there is classified stuff omitted out of the report. The 2005 Iranian NIE said they were hellbent on having a nuclear weapons programme, and International pressure be damned. Now two years later they say they "halted" the program? Something doesn't jive here...and I don't buy it.

“We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)”

How do you jump from the 2005 report to the 2007 one? And "Moderate Confidence." I already don't like the report by those two words.

“To be frank, we are more skeptical,” a senior official close to the agency said. “We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.”

The official called the American assertion that Iran had “halted” its weapons program in 2003 “somewhat surprising.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Even the IAEA who have been soft on Iran, thinks the NIE report is fishy. When the IAEA sounds tougher than us on Iran, it just scary.

By the way, Mossad is probably the best intel agency in the world. They even warned the CIA and FBI that something was brewing before 9/11.

According to research by ZEIT, between December 2000 and April 2001 a whole horde of Israeli counter-terror investigators, posing as students, followed the trails of Arab terrorists and their cells in the United States. In their secret investigations, the Israelis came very close to the later perpetrators of Sept. 11. In the town of Hollywood, Florida, they identified the two former Hamburg students and later terror pilots Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi as possible terrorists. Agents lived in the vicinity of the apartment of the two seemingly normal flight school students, observing them around the clock.

The trail of the suspects was not picked up

Not long after, however, the agents were discovered by the U.S. authorities and deported to Israel. As is usual in such cases, the discovery was not made public and caused much annoyance between the traditionally competitive intelligence services, Mossad and CIA.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,216421,00.html

use babelfish to translate the page...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-10-2008, 03:59 AM

....they are funding militias in Iraq....

:oyvey:

Unbelievable.

The same right-wing rubes are lining up to buy the same snake oil from the same crooked salesman for the second time!

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/774/snakeoilme8.jpg

Bronco_Beerslug

07-10-2008, 05:58 AM

Who cares Russia isn't going to attack. If they feel the need to respond like that they should. I happen to think they don't want to spend the money on a system they know they won't use. They would rather put the money somewhere else IMO. For one there navy is in bad shape.Are you really this ignorant? They ALREADY have a multiple "missile" systems. They WILL deploy it on Poland's and anyone else's borders that stage U.S. missiles as would the U.S. if Russia deployed missiles along our borders.
anyone who thinks Iran would launch a missile from Iran is crazy. They would either just threaten to launch it all the time disrupting the gulf whenever they want. I mean cmon if we let them build a nuke and test it like N Korea did we are screwed in the gulf from that point on.
Geeeezus, of course they will if they are attacked, and the U.S. and Israel are threatening to attack them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran test-fires more missiles in Persian Gulf (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080710/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_missiles_26;_ylt=Avh8moBduTRUN_59rDx.hF0E1vAI )

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 20 minutes ago

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran test-fired more long-range missiles overnight in a second round of exercises meant to show that the country can defend itself against any attack by the U.S. or Israel, Iranian state television reported Thursday.

The weapons have "special capabilities" and included missiles launched from naval ships in the Persian Gulf, along with torpedoes and surface-to-surface missiles, the broadcast said. It did not elaborate.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20080710/capt.cps.myi86.100708040141.photo03.photo.default-512x328.jpg?x=400&y=256&sig=pfbOpOOdM0qIHNSoD51Cog--
In a handout picture released on the news website of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, four long and medium range missiles rise into the air after being test-fired at an undisclosed location in the Iranian desert. Iran test-fired a missile it said is capable of reaching Israel, angering the United States amid growing fears that the standoff over the contested Iranian nuclear drive could lead to war.
(AFP/SEPAH News)

The report came hours after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran that Washington will not back down in the face of threats against Israel.

"We are sending a message to Iran that we will defend American interests and the interests of our allies," Rice said Thursday in Georgia at the close of a three-day Eastern European trip.

Among the missiles Iran said it tested Wednesday was a new version of the Shahab-3, which officials have said has a range of 1,250 miles and is armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead.

That would put Israel, Turkey, the Arabian peninsula, Afghanistan and Pakistan all within striking distance.

Wednesday's missile tests were conducted at the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf through which up to 40 percent of the world's oil passes. Iran has threatened to shut down traffic in the strait if attacked.

Another Iranian state channel, Press TV, quoted a senior Republican Guard commander Thursday as saying Iran would maintain security in the Strait of Hormuz and the larger Gulf.

Gen. Mohammad Hejazi, chief of the Guards' joint staff, called the missile tests a "defensive measure against invasions," according to the channel's Web site.

Iran will not jeopardize the interests of neighboring countries, he said without elaborating.

Oil prices jumped on news of Wednesday's tests, rising $1.44 to $137.48 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-10-2008, 07:03 AM

Wonder what the neocons are going to do to goad Iran into striking first?

alkemical

07-10-2008, 07:54 AM

One of these days someone is going to have to explain to me why anyone believes that Iran poses any sort of threat to Israel. At this stage Iran is 5-10 years away from developing their first nuclear weapon while Israel has 60-80 (some estimates put their stockpile as high as 400 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/)).

Seriously, if Iran was stupid enough to use their 1st nuke on Israel they would do nothing more than guarantee their own extinction.

Sounds like a quick solution to our "Iran" problem...

Stop making ****ing sense dammit, don't you see all these people that need distracted?!

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 09:21 AM

Stop making ****ing sense dammit, don't you see all these people that need distracted?!

The mentallity expressed by TheDave is the same European mentality that allowed Hitler to continue on. Had they taken the lumps ahead of time, then Hitler might never have marched across Europe. We cannot allow Iran to have Nuclear Weapons, period. Not until the stop talking about killing the US and Isreal.

alkemical

07-10-2008, 10:04 AM

The mentallity expressed by TheDave is the same European mentality that allowed Hitler to continue on. Had they taken the lumps ahead of time, then Hitler might never have marched across Europe. We cannot allow Iran to have Nuclear Weapons, period. Not until the stop talking about killing the US and Isreal.

Translation: The killing must continue

bronco militia

07-10-2008, 10:52 AM

In an Iranian Image, a Missile Too Many

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/10/world/ledemissiles1.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/10/world/ledemissiles2.jpg

Top, the image that Agence France-Presse obtained from Sepah News on Wednesday. Below, another image that The Associated Press received from the same source on Thursday.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/01/science/0709-lede-IRAN.jpg

In the four-missile version of the image released Wednesday by Sepah News, the media arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, two major sections (encircled in red) appear to closely replicate other sections (encircled in orange). (Illustration by The New York Times; photo via Agence France-Presse)

SonOfLe-loLang

07-10-2008, 10:56 AM

The NIE is essentially...garbage. Just recently the NIE said Iran stopped their nuclear program in 2003, but yet they are still enriching uranium. We know the 2002 NIE report on Iraq is crap. Keep in mind the public NIE doesn't show the whole story, there is classified stuff omitted out of the report. The 2005 Iranian NIE said they were hellbent on having a nuclear weapons programme, and International pressure be damned. Now two years later they say they "halted" the program? Something doesn't jive here...and I don't buy it.

How do you jump from the 2005 report to the 2007 one? And "Moderate Confidence." I already don't like the report by those two words.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Even the IAEA who have been soft on Iran, thinks the NIE report is fishy. When the IAEA sounds tougher than us on Iran, it just scary.

By the way, Mossad is probably the best intel agency in the world. They even warned the CIA and FBI that something was brewing before 9/11.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,216421,00.html

use babelfish to translate the page...

I'm not doubting Mossad's ability (I saw Munich:), but I cant take the word of a country that;s constantly threatened by Iran. There's just no way you can expect an honest report, of course they want America to attack them. It's like when i was in hebrew school and took a halocaust class. We didn't learn much truth beyond a bunch of angry rants (which I understand of course) but you cant get a historical/truthful viewpoint when emotion or agenda is involved.

cutthemdown

07-10-2008, 10:56 AM

My point was Iran wouldn't launch a first strike nuke attack on Israel not that they wouldn't fire missiles if attacked. If attacked of course they would.

My point was to the argument that Iran won't ever launch a nuke because they know the response would be destruction. That is the theory of mutual destruction that was occurring in the cold war. This theory won't work with Iran because they are a not a superpower. They don't have enough missiles to insure the destruction of the USA. Because of that they would launch a sneak attack if they were to launch a first strike.

I believe they would smuggle the nuke into Lebanon and let hezzbollah launch it.

SonOfLe-loLang

07-10-2008, 10:57 AM

cutthemdown

07-10-2008, 10:58 AM

I also read about the fact the picture is doctored. Weird they must have been worried about bad press from one missile not performing.

cutthemdown

07-10-2008, 10:58 AM

It's NOT the goddamn same...Iran's military just isnt that kind of threat. look at the comparison i put above

It really isn't the same and I agree it's a bad comparison.

cutthemdown

07-10-2008, 11:00 AM

Rigs11

07-10-2008, 11:07 AM

It's a different threat. The world has changed a lot since 1936 that's for sure.

Iran gaining a nuke is a whole different kind of threat. It's even worst then letting the Nazis go unchecked like Europe did in the early 1930's.

We can't let a country that has threatened to wipe other countries off the map gain nuclear weapons. How in the world can any of you want Iran to build nuclear weapons. Is that really a world you want?
meh North korea has nuclear weapons.Look how that turned out.Pakistan is the one you should be worried about, not Iran who is still 10 years away from nukes.And if they get them who cares. they are not stupid enough to use them.If anything it would keep israel in check which is badly needed.

cutthemdown

07-10-2008, 11:41 AM

meh North korea has nuclear weapons.Look how that turned out.Pakistan is the one you should be worried about, not Iran who is still 10 years away from nukes.And if they get them who cares. they are not stupid enough to use them.If anything it would keep israel in check which is badly needed.

I do worry about Pakistan and India having nukes because they have fought wars in the past.

I suggest however that it is different because Iran doesn't yet have nukes. Once a country has them it becomes more difficult to deal with them. Let's not make the same mistake with Iran that we did with N Korea. Your supposition that because Clinton and Bush blew it allowing N Koreas program to move forward and be completed that we should let Iran also develop nukes is laughable to me.

Hell since N Korea and Pakistan have nukes lets just let everyone have them. Yipppeeeeee!!!! Ya that makes a lot of since moron.

cutthemdown

07-10-2008, 11:42 AM

riggs arguing Iran having nukes would be a good thing is a total joke. What a moron you are.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 01:37 PM

Translation: The killing must continue

Maybe. I would rather do a little bit of evil to create a greater amount of good.

Rigs11

07-10-2008, 01:45 PM

riggs arguing Iran having nukes would be a good thing is a total joke. What a moron you are.
you're the idiot.Aswer me this. Has Iran ever attacked the US or threatened to?Don't bring up the latest squbble with the US as they were threatened first.Has Iran ever invaded another country?Why is it that Israel can have hundreds of nukes that we have provided them but not Iran? I can't believe that you simpletons fell for it with Iraq and are falling again for it with iran.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 01:49 PM

Rigs11

07-10-2008, 01:52 PM

Yes. They have and are currently trying to invade Iraq. They started this mess by funding insurgents in Iraq.

please be more specific in your posts. And do you have anything to backup your overall "Yes" statement?the insurgents of which you speak are iraqis that don't want us in their country.If china invaded the US would you fight them? If canada offered you aid in fighting them would you accept it?

alkemical

07-10-2008, 01:57 PM

Maybe. I would rather do a little bit of evil to create a greater amount of good.

Beliefs: The true death of intelligence and the founder of hypocrisy.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 01:58 PM

please be more specific in your posts. And do you have anything to backup your overall "Yes" statement?the insurgents of which you speak are iraqis that don't want us in their country.If china invaded the US would you fight them? If canada offered you aid in fighting them would you accept it?

Our intelligence says that Iran is funding insurgents killing our soldiers. This is an act of War in itself. Plus you are forgetting the Iran/Iraq war and so on. So yes Iran has started this with us.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 01:59 PM

Beliefs: The true death of intelligence and the founder of hypocrisy.

Ridiculous statements: The one you just posted. :)

alkemical

07-10-2008, 02:04 PM

Ridiculous statements: The one you just posted. :)

Hey man, i just have a knack for pointing out the truth. If you don't like it, that's your problem - not mine.

SonOfLe-loLang

07-10-2008, 02:06 PM

Our intelligence says that Iran is funding insurgents killing our soldiers. This is an act of War in itself. Plus you are forgetting the Iran/Iraq war and so on. So yes Iran has started this with us.

Our intelligence said Iraq was a major threat with weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence also stated that taking over the country wouldnt be a big mess. Our intelligence laughed when naysayers said it would become the next vietnam. Excuse me while i dont trust our intelligence and this hostile way of thinking which is, clearly, not working

Rigs11

07-10-2008, 02:07 PM

Our intelligence says that Iran is funding insurgents killing our soldiers. This is an act of War in itself. Plus you are forgetting the Iran/Iraq war and so on. So yes Iran has started this with us.

Is that the same intelligence that we told us iraq had WMD's? We funded Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. Was that an act of war? or is it ok when we do it? And you didn't answer my question about what you would od if china invade the US.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 02:20 PM

Our intelligence said Iraq was a major threat with weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence also stated that taking over the country wouldnt be a big mess. Our intelligence laughed when naysayers said it would become the next vietnam. Excuse me while i dont trust our intelligence and this hostile way of thinking which is, clearly, not working

That's a different situation. It doesn't mean we can no longer ever trust out intelligence ever agin. Obama, for example, belives this intelligence.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 02:21 PM

Is that the same intelligence that we told us iraq had WMD's? We funded Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. Was that an act of war? or is it ok when we do it? And you didn't answer my question about what you would od if china invade the US.

See above on the intelligence question.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 02:22 PM

Hey man, i just have a knack for pointing out the truth. If you don't like it, that's your problem - not mine.

It's your belief. Which then your quote applies to you own statment.

Rigs11

07-10-2008, 02:25 PM

See above on the intelligence question.

you failed to answer a couple of questions

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 02:26 PM

please be more specific in your posts. And do you have anything to backup your overall "Yes" statement?the insurgents of which you speak are iraqis that don't want us in their country.If china invaded the US would you fight them? If canada offered you aid in fighting them would you accept it?

Yes I would fight them.

Yes I would accept aid from Canada.

Neither of which is the same as what Iran is doing.

alkemical

07-10-2008, 02:46 PM

It's your belief. Which then your quote applies to you own statment.

Not really. I'm not the one crowing for murder and death in the name of "good". I'm sorry you don't like being called out on being a hypocrite. But if it bothers you, do something about it.

Rigs11

07-10-2008, 02:47 PM

Yes I would fight them.

Yes I would accept aid from Canada.

Neither of which is the same as what Iran is doing.

Explain

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 02:50 PM

Not really. I'm not the one crowing for murder and death in the name of "good". I'm sorry you don't like being called out on being a hypocrite. But if it bothers you, do something about it.

You're not making any sense. You either want to protect your country and it's interests or you don't. Would you kill 10,000 to save 10 million?

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 02:52 PM

Explain

These insurgents are not the majority of Iraqis. Ergo, they are not a sovereign country. The Iragi governemnt does not want them blowing up it's citizens. You cannot justify Iran funding them.

TailgateNut

07-10-2008, 02:54 PM

You're not making any sense. You either want to protect your country and it's interests or you don't. Would you kill 10,000 to save 10 million?

WTF?

You are hitting "Codeman status"!

alkemical

07-10-2008, 02:58 PM

You're not making any sense. You either want to protect your country and it's interests or you don't. Would you kill 10,000 to save 10 million?

No, you aren't making any sense. In order to do a little evil, you become what you fight against. You lose when that happens.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 02:59 PM

WTF?

You are hitting "Codeman status"!

I don't understand what this means.

But again...and this is off topic of Iran killing our soldiers, which Rigs11 and amjes123 seems to condone.

Let's say your are the leader of a country. You are presented with the decision of saving 10,000 lives and losing 10 million lives, or condeming 10,000 lives to save 10 million lives. Which would you do?

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 03:00 PM

No, you aren't making any sense. In order to do a little evil, you become what you fight against. You lose when that happens.

That's idealogical crapola(for lack of a better term).

alkemical

07-10-2008, 03:00 PM

That's idealogical crapola(for lack of a better term).

Why, because it doesn't jive with your ideological crapola of murder is good, the ends justifies the means? Tell me what ideology that is...that's the fundamentalist mentality - that's what that is.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 03:01 PM

Why, because it doesn't jive with your ideological crapola of murder is good?

Answer the question:

Let's say your are the leader of a country. You are presented with the decision of saving 10,000 lives and losing 10 million lives, or condeming 10,000 lives to save 10 million lives. Which would you do?

alkemical

07-10-2008, 03:03 PM

Answer the question:

Let's say your are the leader of a country. You are presented with the decision of saving 10,000 lives and losing 10 million lives, or condeming 10,000 lives to save 10 million lives. Which would you do?

I'd volunteer my own in exchange for theirs.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 03:06 PM

I'd volunteer my own in exchange for theirs.

That's not one of the options. I didn't think you would answer the question honestly anyway. You would just be in one of the groups. The 10 million or the 10,000. So which would you do. There really is no right answer. Just one that would be the greater amount of good(which could be subjective, but that's a tangent outside of the scope of the question).

alkemical

07-10-2008, 03:07 PM

That's not one of the options. I didn't think you would answer the question honestly anyway. You would just be in one of the groups. The 10 million or the 10,000. So which would you do. There really is no right answer. Just one that would be the greater amount of good(which could be subjective, but that's a tangent outside of the scope of the question).

No, i answered exactly as i would have. But see, that's the problem with fundamentalists.... their thinking is so binary. There's only this way and this way.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 03:10 PM

No, i answered exactly as i would have. But see, that's the problem with fundamentalists.... their thinking is so binary. There's only this way and this way.

The question is binary, but those are the options. As a leader of any group or system choices are oftern binary. So, 10,000 or 10 million which would you do.

alkemical

07-10-2008, 03:27 PM

The question is binary, but those are the options. As a leader of any group or system choices are oftern binary. So, 10,000 or 10 million which would you do.

Offer mine.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 03:34 PM

Offer mine.

That's not one of the option.

Rigs11

07-10-2008, 03:40 PM

These insurgents are not the majority of Iraqis. Ergo, they are not a sovereign country. The Iragi governemnt does not want them blowing up it's citizens. You cannot justify Iran funding them.

Actually the majority of Iraqis want us out. the insurgents are the ones that actually do somehting about it.In the end they are all Iraqis that don't want us there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29poll.html

Why is it that Malaki is friends with Iran?

Rigs11

07-10-2008, 03:56 PM

I don't understand what this means.

But again...and this is off topic of Iran killing our soldiers, which Rigs11 and amjes123 seems to condone.

Let's say your are the leader of a country. You are presented with the decision of saving 10,000 lives and losing 10 million lives, or condeming 10,000 lives to save 10 million lives. Which would you do?

i don't condone the killing of our troops,but do you honestly expect them not to get killed when they are occupying a country?So let me get this straight,The US installs the Shah in Iran leading to massive civilians being killed.Dumbya labels them as a member of the axis of evil, shets on them after they help us in Afghanistan following 911, threatens them with military action, and yet they are supposed to stand idly by when their neighbors fight the occupation in Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

Tombstone RJ

07-10-2008, 03:58 PM

Maybe. I would rather do a little bit of evil to create a greater amount of good.

Translation: the devil is in the details.

Honestly, you can't defend this type of thinking. This type of justification leads to things like... genocide.

Tombstone RJ

07-10-2008, 04:14 PM

UNITED STATES IRAN
Population 303,824,646 65,875,223
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) $13.8 trillion $0.75 trillion
Defense spending fiscal year 2009 $711 billion $7.2 billion
Total troops 2,580,875 895,000
Main battle tanks 8,023 1,613
Reconnaissance vehicles 348 35
Armored infantry fighting vehicles 6,719 610
Armored personnel carriers 21,242 640
Artillery units 8,041 8,196
Helicopters 5,425 311
Submarines 71 6
Principal surface combatants 106 5
Patrol and coastal combatants 157 320
Mine warfare ships 9 5
Amphibious ships 490 21
Fighter aircraft 3,538 286
Long-range bomber aircraft 170 None
Transport aircraft 883 136
Electronic warfare/intelligence aircraft 159 3
Reconnaissance aircraft 134 6
Maritime patrol aircraft 197 8
Anti-submarine warfare aircraft 58 None
Airborne early warning aircraft 53 None
Nuclear warheads ~5,400 None

Theres your "threat." I have my head in the sand and you want to continue failed policy and politics until the world explodes. Maybe I do want to keep my head in the sand if I have to live in your world

If I'm doing my math right, the US is spending approximately 5% of it's GDP on defense, and the little ole county of Iran is spending closer to 10% of it's GDP on defense. So, in essence, they are spending twice as much as we are on the military.

But, I might be getting my numbers wrong.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 04:22 PM

i don't condone the killing of our troops,but do you honestly expect them not to get killed when they are occupying a country?So let me get this straight,The US installs the Shah in Iran leading to massive civilians being killed.Dumbya labels them as a member of the axis of evil, shets on them after they help us in Afghanistan following 911, threatens them with military action, and yet they are supposed to stand idly by when their neighbors fight the occupation in Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

Well. It's like I said: You either support our countries interests or you don't. We cannot allow Iran to gain access to nuclear weapons

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 04:26 PM

Translation: the devil is in the details.

Honestly, you can't justify this type of thinking. This type of justification leads to things like... genocide.

But these are the types of decisions you can be faced with as a leader of a country or large organization. And they are tough, because no one wants to cause the deaths of anyone. The particulars surrounding our hypothetical don't matter for this exercise. One road leads to x amount of deaths and another leads to y amounts of deaths, and x < y.

Tombstone RJ

07-10-2008, 04:48 PM

But these are the types of decisions you can be faced with as a leader of a country or large organization. And they are tough, because no one wants to cause the deaths of anyone. The particulars surrounding our hypothetical don't matter for this exercise. One road leads to x amount of deaths and another leads to y amounts of deaths, and x < y.

Of course this nation faces tuff decisions about Iran in the near future, but it's insane to defend war by justifying the number of casualties in the short term.

Instead, diplomacy has to be used. That does not mean cow-towing to the Iranians, indeed, I don't believe they can be trusted, nor do I believe the are a "peaceful" regime. They are hate mongers, and they hate America and what we represent, and they see Israel as the US's puppet.

The Iranian's are using the Palestinians as an excuse to wipe out Israel. IMHO, you have to deal with the Palestinian issue, in order to placate the Iranians.

elsid13

07-10-2008, 04:50 PM

you're the idiot.Aswer me this. Has Iran ever attacked the US or threatened to?Don't bring up the latest squbble with the US as they were threatened first.Has Iran ever invaded another country?Why is it that Israel can have hundreds of nukes that we have provided them but not Iran? I can't believe that you simpletons fell for it with Iraq and are falling again for it with iran.

1983 - Iran funding terrorists, with direct material support, blew up the Marine Barracks in Beirut.

Currently the Iran Revolutionary Guard QAD Special Detachment is training Al -Sader Militia in Iraq. It also believed that they are provide material support and intelligence

Also just reported in USA Today Hezbollah (direct supported in Iran and Syria) is now in Iraq training insurgents and might be involved in operations.

Sorry it was Boston Globe were I read it - http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/07/03/britain_seeks_to_punish_hezbollah/

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 04:51 PM

Of course this nation faces tuff decisions about Iran in the near future, but it's insane to defend war by justifying the number of casualties in the short term.

Instead, diplomacy has to be used. That does not mean cow-towing to the Iranians, indeed, I don't believe they can be trusted, nor do I believe the are a "peaceful" regime. They are hate mongers, and they hate America and what we represent, and they see Israel as the US's puppet.

The Iranian's are using the Palestinians as an excuse to wipe out Israel. IMHO, you have to deal with the Palestinian issue, in order to placate the Iranians.

I am not justifing casualties. What I was responding to was the idea that everything is good or has to be to be successful.

The reality is this: Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. Isreal isn't going to let that happen and nor is the United States.

cutthemdown

07-10-2008, 06:27 PM

you're the idiot.Aswer me this. Has Iran ever attacked the US or threatened to?Don't bring up the latest squbble with the US as they were threatened first.Has Iran ever invaded another country?Why is it that Israel can have hundreds of nukes that we have provided them but not Iran? I can't believe that you simpletons fell for it with Iraq and are falling again for it with iran.

dude you said Iran getting nukes would be a good thing. How can you defend that position? I agree that Iran has reasons to not like America and not trust us. I also agree that iran has not invaded any countries. My point is regardless of that we can't let them have nukes.

EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION THAT IRAN HAVING NUKES WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO COUNTER ISRAEL.

cutthemdown

07-10-2008, 06:30 PM

These insurgents are not the majority of Iraqis. Ergo, they are not a sovereign country. The Iragi governemnt does not want them blowing up it's citizens. You cannot justify Iran funding them.

Riggs came right out and said Iran having nukes would be good because Israel needs to be checked. Thinking like this is so out there I don't even see why you argue with him anymore. You can't reason with someone who wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. He's so anti american now he can't see how bad that would be.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 06:37 PM

Riggs came right out and said Iran having nukes would be good because Israel needs to be checked. Thinking like this is so out there I don't even see why you argue with him anymore. You can't reason with someone who wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. He's so anti american now he can't see how bad that would be.

Like I said earlier, I am in favor of them having Nuclear Power provided they demostrate that thye are using it just for that. Allow the UN to inspect them regularly. However, they have demostrated in public comments that they want to destroy Isreal and the US. Based on a news report I saw this morning and the comments from people in the SD before Congress, we are trying to use diplomacy to get them to stop their weapons program. They will not play ball. They are painting themselves into a corner. Riggs has empathy for their situation, but dang they have to prove they are not creating WMD's.

It's sad that the Bush Admin has put public opinion in this sitaution with it's Iraq report to the UN.

Bronco_Beerslug

07-10-2008, 06:57 PM

In the four-missile version of the image released Wednesday by Sepah News, the media arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, two major sections (encircled in red) appear to closely replicate other sections (encircled in orange). (Illustration by The New York Times; photo via Agence France-Presse)No they don't.
I also read about the fact the picture is doctored. Weird they must have been worried about bad press from one missile not performing.Any links for these facts? And Iran does not have to worry about firing less than superior missiles as they have hundreds that are very worrisome to the U.S. government and Israel. They also are in possession of many that will sink an aircraft carrier with one hit and the U.S. government also knows this very well.

Bronco Jamus

07-10-2008, 07:07 PM

No they don't.
Any links for these facts? And Iran does not have to worry about firing less than superior missiles as they have hundreds that are very worrisome to the U.S. government and Israel. They also are in possession of many that will sink an aircraft carrier with one hit and the U.S. government also knows this very well.

How would you see it playing out here if they destroyed one of our ships?

Bronco_Beerslug

07-10-2008, 07:09 PM

How would you see it playing out here if they destroyed one of our ships?I don't see them attacking us or anyone else first. BUT if Israel or the U.S. did attack them we better not have any carriers in the Gulf.

24champ

07-10-2008, 08:03 PM

I'm not doubting Mossad's ability (I saw Munich:), but I cant take the word of a country that;s constantly threatened by Iran. There's just no way you can expect an honest report, of course they want America to attack them.

Wow...

So let me get this straight, we shouldn't believe the Mossad because they have an agenda? Just like we shouldn't have believed them before nine/eleven?

24champ

07-10-2008, 08:10 PM

Our intelligence said Iraq was a major threat with weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence also stated that taking over the country wouldnt be a big mess. Our intelligence laughed when naysayers said it would become the next vietnam. Excuse me while i dont trust our intelligence and this hostile way of thinking which is, clearly, not working

Well I agree with your last portion of the post. I don't trust our intel either, I don't believe it has changed for the better lately but the first portion of the post made me laugh. You point out our intel F ups, but yet you believe the 2007 NIE report on Iran? :giggle:

jhat01

07-10-2008, 08:16 PM

I found this little piece on the web. He makes a good point. For all of Iran's rhetoric, they know they would be committing suicide to attack.

"Our Israeli friends like to remind us of the danger Iran presents to them, but between the two nations, which one is the more dangerous? Iran is too far from Israel to bring its air, sea or land forces to bear against it. Iran might be able to lob ballistic missiles at Israeli cities, but any warhead it throws at Israel would pale in comparison to what Israel throws back ."

jhat01

07-10-2008, 08:18 PM

another interesting quote from this retired Navy CO.

"From an analytic perspective, attacking Iran would be such an irrational course of action that only a hatch full of boobies would contemplate taking it."

"Sadly, "a hatch full of boobies" precisely describes the people in charge of the United States just now."

mhgaffney

07-10-2008, 08:22 PM

We've been working on this diplomacy crap for the last few years. Each time the United States or Europe makes a proposal they laugh in our face. Right now Europe wants to send a diplomat to Iran to discuss what would it take for them to stop enrichment. Iran doesn't seem to open to that idea. So I don't have much hope for diplomacy to work.

Fact of the matter is, Iran is a couple years away at the most from getting the bomb. Time is running out for diplomacy to work...

Congrats Champ, you have just won the moron of the week award.

Here's some medicine for what ails you. This is an article from Esquire magazine (Nov 2007) about two of Bush's former national security advisers -- who despite their conservative politics quit in disgust over the stupidity and arrogance they witnessed in the Bush White House.

These are not Hippies -- but Republicans. Indeed, they were insiders at the White House and became so horrified by what they personally witnessed that they began to speak out in an effort to try to warn America about the rush to a wider war with Iran.

Read this -- and wake up. Then get angry. Here's the link:

http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107

24champ

07-10-2008, 08:29 PM

Congrats Champ, you have just won the moron of the week award.

Coming from you, I could really care less what you think, Mr. Mini Nuke.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-10-2008, 08:33 PM

Coming from you, I could really care less what you think, Mr. Mini Nuke.

Well, that's one way to bypass the question of whether what he said in his last post was true or not, I guess.

24champ

07-10-2008, 08:54 PM

Well, that's one way to bypass the question of whether what he said in his last post was true or not, I guess.

I could care less LABF. The dude is a walking anti-Semite/Nazi. **** him.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-10-2008, 08:58 PM

I could care less LABF. The dude is a walking anti-Semite/Nazi. **** him.

You've gotta be kidding me?

I gave you credit for being educated enough to understand the difference bewteen anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

Tombstone RJ

07-10-2008, 09:12 PM

I am not justifing casualties. What I was responding to was the idea that everything is good or has to be to be successful.

The reality is this: Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. Isreal isn't going to let that happen and nor is the United States.

It sounded to me like you were justifying causalties, but whatever. Saying Iran can't have nuclear weapons is fine, I agree. IMHO, the solution to that problem lies in negotiating a peace between Israel and the Palestinians. If you do this, you take the legs out from underneath Iran for needing nukes.

Spider

07-10-2008, 09:19 PM

It sounded to me like you were justifying causalties, but whatever. Saying Iran can't have nuclear weapons is fine, I agree. IMHO, the solution to that problem lies in negotiating a peace between Israel and the Palestinians. If you do this, you take the legs out from underneath Iran for needing nukes.

the answer is closing off that Strait of Hormuz or what ever it is called

Tombstone RJ

07-10-2008, 09:23 PM

the answer is closing off that Strait of Hormuz or what ever it is called

I don't understand, how would that resolve anything?

Spider

07-10-2008, 09:25 PM

I don't understand, how would that resolve anything?

Pretty simple really , Iran has no refineries , they only import gas , export oil , you cut off the shipping lane , Iran is pretty rugged terrain , they have issues ,cutting off Strait of Hormuz you starve them out ...... Let them eat yellow cake ......

Tombstone RJ

07-10-2008, 09:37 PM

Pretty simple really , Iran has no refineries , they only import gas , export oil , you cut off the shipping lane , Iran is pretty rugged terrain , they have issues ,cutting off Strait of Hormuz you starve them out ...... Let them eat yellow cake ......

Creative thinking Spide, but in the long run, I think it would cause more problems than solve. China and North Korea (I think it's them) might take issue with this policy, not to mention good ole Russia. In essence, this could escalate rapidly.

However, it has potential, but only under certain conditions. It would have to be a world wide embargo, that is, it would have to be accepted by alot of other nations, kinda like how the Gulf War was won.

Spider

07-10-2008, 09:40 PM

Creative thinking Spide, but in the long run, I think it would cause more problems than solve. China and North Korea (I think it's them) might take issue with this policy, not to mention good ole Russia. In essence, this could escalate rapidly.

However, it has potential, but only under certain conditions. It would have to be a world wide embargo, that is, it would have to be accepted by alot of other nations, kinda like how the Gulf War was won.

**** em , european countries are on board with Sanctions ...... I forget the #'s but I heard on the radio alot of countries are on board with a sanction .... the sanctions have ot be enforced ... close the Strait of Hormuz.. in 2 months time Iran will have a brand new attitude

cutthemdown

07-10-2008, 09:47 PM

**** em , european countries are on board with Sanctions ...... I forget the #'s but I heard on the radio alot of countries are on board with a sanction .... the sanctions have ot be enforced ... close the Strait of Hormuz.. in 2 months time Iran will have a brand new attitude

If you close the straights Iran has said they will attack and that a blockade would be an act of war. The Euros/Russians/Chinese would never agree to a blockade of Iran IMO so it's all moot. If it comes to force it will be a huge air and missile strike that is over in a few hours.

Then we would sit back and see what Iran does.

Spider

07-10-2008, 09:50 PM

If you close the straights Iran has said they will attack and that a blockade would be an act of war. The Euros/Russians/Chinese would never agree to a blockade of Iran IMO so it's all moot. If it comes to force it will be a huge air and missile strike that is over in a few hours.

Then we would sit back and see what Iran does.
yeah so ? they attack .... really didnt expect then to sit back and take it , but I doubt they could hit a target like a war ship ...... Chancews are what Iran has is something along the lines of a scud ..... bastards are lucky they didnt light their own asses up test firing these things ........

Tombstone RJ

07-10-2008, 10:04 PM

Where's John Lennon when you need him...

Rigs11

07-10-2008, 10:36 PM

dude you said Iran getting nukes would be a good thing. How can you defend that position? I agree that Iran has reasons to not like America and not trust us. I also agree that iran has not invaded any countries. My point is regardless of that we can't let them have nukes.

EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION THAT IRAN HAVING NUKES WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO COUNTER ISRAEL.

It's not that hard to understand. I think you have stated on many occasion that israel has a right to have nukes because everyone in the middle east hates them and they are our allies. I have continuously asked why everyone in the middle east hates them and no answer was offered.But it goes further than that and has been stated on this board that it is of strategic importance to us to have an ally in the middle east. Now yahoos like yourself come around and call me anti american because I don't support our hypocritical views of letting some countries have nukes and others not. I have asked before and I will ask again. What threat does Iran pose us?Have they ever invaded another country?What is this boogeyman mentality that you have?Go ahead an bring up 911 like your ilk constantly does when cornered ,and yet the pilots were form sauidia arabia. Our ally right?We give 13 billion a year in weapons to israel, what they can't take care of themselves?

Tombstone RJ

07-10-2008, 10:41 PM

It's not that hard to understand. I think you have stated on many occasion that israel has a right to have nukes because everyone in the middle east hates them and they are our allies. I have continuously asked why everyone in the middle east hates them and no answer was offered.But it goes further than that and has been stated on this board that it is of strategic importance to us to have an ally in the middle east. Now yahoos like yourself come around and call me anti american because I don't support our hypocritical views of letting some countries have nukes and others not. I have asked before and I will ask again. What threat does Iran pose us?Have they ever invaded another country?What is this boogeyman mentality that you have?Go ahead an bring up 911 like your ilk constantly does when cornered ,and yet the pilots were form sauidia arabia. Our ally right?We give 13 billion a year in weapons to israel, what they can't take care of themselves?

God your lazy. If you did the least little bit of research into the history of the ME, you'd know why all the Islamic countries around Israel refuse to accept it's existance.

Your lazy, and opinionated. That's a dangerous combo.

Rigs11

07-10-2008, 10:43 PM

God your lazy. If you did the least little bit of research into the history of the ME, you'd know why all the Islamic countries around Israel refuse to accept it's existance.

Your lazy, and opinionated. That's a dangerous combo.

Well enlighten me professor.You're a war monger and a simpleton. Dangerous?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-11-2008, 01:11 AM

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/party-platform.jpg
</center>

cutthemdown

07-11-2008, 01:31 AM

It's not that hard to understand. I think you have stated on many occasion that israel has a right to have nukes because everyone in the middle east hates them and they are our allies. I have continuously asked why everyone in the middle east hates them and no answer was offered.But it goes further than that and has been stated on this board that it is of strategic importance to us to have an ally in the middle east. Now yahoos like yourself come around and call me anti american because I don't support our hypocritical views of letting some countries have nukes and others not. I have asked before and I will ask again. What threat does Iran pose us?Have they ever invaded another country?What is this boogeyman mentality that you have?Go ahead an bring up 911 like your ilk constantly does when cornered ,and yet the pilots were form sauidia arabia. Our ally right?We give 13 billion a year in weapons to israel, what they can't take care of themselves?

I'm just not worried Israel will use a nuke and Iran I'm not sure about. I understand the theory riggs every country has a right to develop technology they want. I also however support the worlds right to regulate a power like a nuclear bomb because letting everyone build them would be nuts IMO.

alkemical

07-11-2008, 08:32 AM

That's not one of the option.

That's exactly the problem with fundamentalist behavior.

Bronco Jamus

07-11-2008, 09:19 AM

That's exactly the problem with fundamentalist behavior.

It's just a hypothetical that you refuse to answer. There is no fundamentalist behavior. So which would it be: 10,000 or 10 million?

alkemical

07-11-2008, 09:28 AM

It's just a hypothetical that you refuse to answer. There is no fundamentalist behavior. So which would it be: 10,000 or 10 million?

I answered your question. You just don't like my answer.

alkemical

07-11-2008, 09:30 AM

See, instead of justifying and continuing war -

I have a different idea. Why not pull the rug out from the M.E. - lets work on creating economic stability by changing the energy markets. Wow, once they don't have any money - they can't do ****!!

Imagine that!!!

Bronco Jamus

07-11-2008, 09:37 AM

I answered your question. You just don't like my answer.

You have two options. You can save 10,000 or 10 million. Which way do you go?

alkemical

07-11-2008, 10:06 AM

You have two options. You can save 10,000 or 10 million. Which way do you go?

I guess that's what all fundamentalists think like, eh. "We must kill for the good, we must kill for the cause. There is no answer but death."

I have answered your question. I would sacrifice myself for the all.

Bronco Jamus

07-11-2008, 11:16 AM

I guess that's what all fundamentalists think like, eh. "We must kill for the good, we must kill for the cause. There is no answer but death."

I have answered your question. I would sacrifice myself for the all.

You didn't answer the question. You have two options. What you do with your life is of no consequence in the senario. It's logical to do a little bit of "evil" to create a greater amount of good. It's reality and it happens all the time in nature.

alkemical

07-11-2008, 11:18 AM

Tombstone RJ

07-11-2008, 11:28 AM

You didn't answer the question. You have two options. What you do with your life is of no consequence in the senario. It's logical to do a little bit of "evil" to create a greater amount of good. It's reality and it happens all the time in nature.

Jamus, your trying to deal in absolutes. When you think only in terms of absolutes, you end up making costly mistakes, esp. when it comes to sensitive issues like national security.

Bronco Jamus

07-11-2008, 11:28 AM

So then you are Lucifer.

Anyway, now that you've got that out of your system.

Bronco Jamus

07-11-2008, 11:31 AM

Jamus, your trying to deal in absolutes. When you think only in terms of absolutes, you end up making costly mistakes, esp. when it comes to sensitive issues like national security.

There exist times when absolutes occur in nature. Either this or that. That doesn't mean that every situation is this or that. I never said or implied that. It's a hypothetical question to show amesj523 that his belief can run into problems when presented with certain situations.

Tombstone RJ

07-11-2008, 11:31 AM

Well enlighten me professor.You're a war monger and a simpleton. Dangerous?

Really, that is what I am? Can you do one simple thing and look at all my posts on this thread and then make the same accusation?

Please try.

Tombstone RJ

07-11-2008, 11:40 AM

There exist times when absolutes occur in nature. Either this or that. That doesn't mean that every situation is this or that. I never said or implied that. It's a hypothetical question to show amesj523 that his belief can run into problems when presented with certain situations.

Yes there are absolutes in nature, but that doesn't mean they translate well to more abstract issues like right and wrong. And absolutes can be dangerous when dealing with national security issues.

Are absolutes sometimes necessary, yes. But those absolutes generally arize when all diplomacy has failed. As for dealing with Iran, diplomacy can be used by addressing the Palestinian problem. That does not mean compromising Isreal's security, it simply means acknowledging there's a problem, and then trying to deal with that problem.

The Lone Bolt

07-11-2008, 12:55 PM

Congrats Champ, you have just won the moron of the week award.

Here's some medicine for what ails you. This is an article from Esquire magazine (Nov 2007) about two of Bush's former national security advisers -- who despite their conservative politics quit in disgust over the stupidity and arrogance they witnessed in the Bush White House.

These are not Hippies -- but Republicans. Indeed, they were insiders at the White House and became so horrified by what they personally witnessed that they began to speak out in an effort to try to warn America about the rush to a wider war with Iran.

Read this -- and wake up. Then get angry. Here's the link:

http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107

Well I read this article and it contains lot of opinion and little substance.

Furthermore, it selectively omits important information, to wit:

Leverett plunged right into a dramatic new peace proposal floated by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Calling for "full normalization" in exchange for "full withdrawal" from the occupied territories, Abdullah promised to rally all the Arab nations to a final settlement with Israel. In his brand-new third-floor office at the Old Executive Office Building, a tiny room with a very high ceiling, Leverett began hammering out the details with Abdullah's foreign-policy advisor, Adel Al-Jubeir. When Ariel Sharon said that a return to the '67 borders was unacceptable, Al-Jubeir said the Saudis didn't want to be in the "real estate business" -- if the Palestinians agreed to border modifications, the Saudis could hardly refuse them. Al-Jubeir believed he had something that might actually work.

But the White House wasn't interested. Sharon already rejected it, Rice told Leverett.

At the Arab League meeting, Abdullah got every Arab state to sign his proposal in a unanimous vote.

The White House still wasn't interested.

What the article fails to report is that Abdullah's plan included the "right of return", which is nothing more than a de facto destruction of the state of Israel by flooding Israel proper with arabs who would then have the political power to reverse every law on Israel's books.

http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

Essentially, this sham "peace proposal" states: "Sure we can have peace. Just let us destroy Israel and then there will be peace!" Is it any wonder the Israelis rejected it?

This article clearly has an anti-Israel bias.

cutthemdown

07-11-2008, 01:30 PM

Well I read this article and it contains lot of opinion and little substance.

Furthermore, it selectively omits important information, to wit:

What the article fails to report is that Abdullah's plan included the "right of return", wich is nothing more than a de facto destruction of the state of Israel by flooding Israel proper with arabs who would then have the political power to reverse every law on Israel's books.

http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

Essentially, this sham "peace proposal" states: "Sure we can have peace. Just let us destroy Israel and then there will be peace!" Is it any wonder the Israeli's rejected it?

This article clearly has an anti-Israel bias.

Exactly a right of return for refugees and there children who have grown to such a number that Israelis might as well pack there bags for America and call it a day.

Jeruselum as a capital, and right of return are deal breakers and the Arabs and Persians know this. That's why they throw it out there to try and look like the want a peaceful resolution to this.

Let's not forget a war was fought and Israel won. To the victor goes the spoils right? The Palestinians should be happy with getting Gaza and the West Bank. They ain't getting any part of Jerusalem anytime soon without fighting for it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-11-2008, 07:35 PM

This article clearly has an anti-Israel bias.

Perhaps it all balances out in the end insofar as people like you have a decidedly pro-Israel/anti-Arab bias.

Right-wing war mongers like you will never understand that our failure to be a fair broker in such conflicts is one of the main reasons why they hate us (not because of our "freedom.")

bronco militia

07-11-2008, 11:57 PM

from drudge:

IRAN MISSILE TEST BLUFF: OLD ROCKETS, BOGUS VIDEO Fri Jul 11 2008 15:18:02 ET

Many of Iran's claims related to missile tests during "Great Prophet III" war games -- appear to be smoke and mirrors!

The missiles tested DID NOT not have 2,000-kilometer range, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report on Saturday.

Iran DID NOT launch a Shahab-3 missile, able to reach Israel.

It was an older missile that was out of production, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.

And a video showing what appeared to be many missiles being fired -- is actually one missile, filmed from different angles!

NYT's Bill Broad is planning to quote military insiders.

Developing...

elsid13

07-12-2008, 06:15 AM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-12-2008, 07:53 AM

It wouldn't surprise me. Iran's military logistic capability for complex weapons systems isn't very good. In fact over the last 3 years the Iranian have been attempting to buy parts from DoD surplus sells to keep thier tactical fighters and Hawk Anti-Air batteries.

Maybe Der Chimpenfuhrer will borrow a page from daddy's playbook and sell them a few stinger missiles too. ;)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-12-2008, 07:55 AM

Sales to Iran grow during Bush administration

U.S. exports to Iran have grown by more than 1,300% under President Bush, jumping from $8.3 million in 2001 to $146 million in 2007, according to a study by the Associated Press (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ir8KdsEyRL4d8aTjQKTD3fapykowD91PKDJ00).

The wire service, citing its review of trade data, says the USA sent $158 million worth of cigarettes to the charter member of the so-called "Axis of Evil" between 2001 and 2007. "Other surprising shipments to Iran during the Bush administration: brassieres, bull semen, cosmetics, fur clothing, sculptures, perfume, musical instruments and possibly even weapons," AP says.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/sales-to-iran-g.html

Spider

07-12-2008, 07:58 AM

As I said , They are damn lucky they didnt blow them selfs up .

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-12-2008, 08:04 AM

Spider

07-12-2008, 08:08 AM

Holy crap - I just looked at that number again:

U.S. exports to Iran have grown by more than 1,300% under President Bush, jumping from $8.3 million in 2001 to $146 million in 2007, according to a study by the Associated Press (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ir8KdsEyRL4d8aTjQKTD3fapykowD91PKDJ00).

1,300%?

Damn!

For a country that's supposed to be so evil and such a threat to America that Napoleon Bonehead won't even talk to them, the frat boy sure has winked at a whole lotta 'bidness' thrown their way.

Meh . thats nothing , did you hear about rangle breaking a new york city code ? Now thats something to worry about

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-12-2008, 08:11 AM

Meh . thats nothing , did you hear about rangle breaking a new york city code ? Now thats something to worry about

;D

TailgateNut

07-12-2008, 08:54 AM

Meh . thats nothing , did you hear about rangle breaking a new york city code ? Now thats something to worry about

...I also heard of some gay couples who want to wed...now that's a real threat.

Spider

07-12-2008, 09:00 AM

...I also heard of some gay couples who want to wed...now that's a real threat.

Oh just what we need , Gays getting married then burning Flags in our front yard ........;D

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-12-2008, 09:07 AM

Oh just what we need , Gays getting married then burning Flags in our front yard ........;D

And hey - who cares that Bush 'goofed' and sent the country to war on "faulty intelligence" and ~4,100 soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis died - at least he didn't get a blowjob from an intern or violate a NYC housing code, right...?

See?

I can argue like a right-winger too. ;)

Spider

07-12-2008, 09:12 AM

And hey - who cares that Bush 'goofed' and sent the country to war on "faulty intelligence" and ~4,100 soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis died - at least he didn't get a blowjob from an intern or violate a NYC housing code, right...?

See?

I can argue like a right-winger too. ;)

:~ohyah!:

cutthemdown

07-13-2008, 01:23 PM

Holy crap - I just looked at that number again:

U.S. exports to Iran have grown by more than 1,300% under President Bush, jumping from $8.3 million in 2001 to $146 million in 2007, according to a study by the Associated Press (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ir8KdsEyRL4d8aTjQKTD3fapykowD91PKDJ00).

1,300%?

Damn!

For a country that's supposed to be so evil and such a threat to America that Napoleon Bonehead won't even talk to them, the frat boy sure has winked at a whole lotta 'bidness' thrown their way.

Actually most of the imports were cigarettes and refridgerators. The thinking is by getting the Iranian people hooked on American and western products we can force a change in Iran based on consumerism. I'm not saying it will work only that this thinking is the reason for doing it.

baja

07-13-2008, 02:17 PM

Actually most of the imports were cigarettes and refridgerators. The thinking is by getting the Iranian people hooked on American and western products we can force a change in Iran based on consumerism. I'm not saying it will work only that this thinking is the reason for doing it.

Or kill them off with lung cancer and fast food

dekers

07-13-2008, 04:46 PM

Or kill them off with lung cancer and fast food

that was good :rofl:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-13-2008, 06:44 PM

baja

07-13-2008, 07:03 PM

OK - so how do you explain the bull semen? :kiddingme ;)

Tent pole grease???

Rigs11

07-13-2008, 09:11 PM

Or kill them off with lung cancer and fast food

Mccain actually said this on video.Yes he was joking, but what a stupid thing to say during an election year.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I9HuY_0VZBI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I9HuY_0VZBI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

cutthemdown

07-13-2008, 09:17 PM

OK - so how do you explain the bull semen? :kiddingme ;)

Hmmm I'm no expert on semen. I will defer to you on that one.

I think it's smart to try and trade with Iran to get certain products to there people. In the game civilization trading with someone is the best way to make nice. I imagine that goes true in some ways for the real word also.

True I would be upset if it was military items or things of that nature. But as a whole I'm not against the Iranians having fridges or even bull semen.

mhgaffney

07-13-2008, 09:55 PM

The population of Iran is very young. Most Iranians are under thirty years old.

There is a very strong progressive movement in the country. Most Iranians look to the west -- and want a secular government and more freedom. The progressive movement was actually strong enough in the 1990s to elect a liberal government. I think this was in 1996-97. This came as a big shock to the Mullahs.

At that time there was tremondous popular support for positive social change in Iran. However, this positive tide ran up against the ultra conservative power of the Mullahs -- and for a time it looked like there would be civil war.

The liberal government blinked, however, then, backed down. They did not want a blood bath. After this, the liberal government could not move ahead with the agenda of social change. Because they failed to deliver they lost popular support.

Just like our US Congress, which was elected to end the Iraq war -- yet instead became a rubber stamp for Bush. As a result of this cowardice here in the US - the polls now show that Americans have even more contempt for Congress than the president. Even though Bush is at rock bottom, Congress is even lower.

In Iran the Mullahs have been able to maintain their hold on power -- just like the neocons here. They play on fear and, no doubt, the threat of the US behemoth in the region. It is a tried and true formula. Look around: It has worked beautifully for the neocons.

Still, Ahmedinejad was only elected in Iran because the liberal/progressives could not agree and ran a split ticket. This favored the lone conservative candidate.

There is tremendous hope for Iran. It is an ancient culture and a vibrant people. Positive changes will come -- but ONLY if the US does not attack. US aggression only strengthens the hard line Mullahs -- just as the quote terrorist attack of 9/11 greatly strengthened reactionaries here in the US.

Americans need to wake up to the big world we live in -- and embrace the diversity of cultures, races, customs, religions etc. Human diversity makes the world a much more intersting place.

Iran should be a strong US ally. If we can survive this present crisis without a wider war -- things can greatly improve. But Americans must turn off their TVs and travel abroad on the internet. The more that Americans learn about the world we live in -- the greater the chance for an enduring peace -

JFK referred to it as REAL peace in his May 1963 speech at American University, in which he called for an end to the Cold War.

It was the greatest speech by a US president since FDR. Khruschev was so impressed that he allowed the speech to be played and replayed over the length and breadth of the USSR. Which was unprecedented.

Five months later JFK was dead -- gunned down by the US military industrial complex/ intelligence community, which did not want a thaw in east-west relations, for their own greedy insane reasons.

MHG

Dukes

07-13-2008, 10:33 PM

Americans need to wake up to the big world we live in -- and embrace the diversity of cultures, races, customs, religions etc. Human diversity makes the world a much more intersting place.

This is one of the more idiotic comments by gaff in a while, and that's really saying something. Can you name one country in the world that is more diverse than the US? Anyone? Bueller?

baja

07-13-2008, 10:53 PM

This is one of the more idiotic comments by gaff in a while, and that's really saying something. Can you name one country in the world that is more diverse than the US? Anyone? Bueller?

He's talking about the whole world Dukes and he is 100% correct. I guess you haven't had a chance to travel much Dukes. I have traveled extensively and the USA is bland compared to many places.

baja

07-13-2008, 11:02 PM

Mccain actually said this on video.Yes he was joking, but what a stupid thing to say during an election year.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I9HuY_0VZBI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I9HuY_0VZBI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That POS is Bush II What an embarrassment that old fool is.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

07-14-2008, 07:25 AM

July 13, 2008

President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran

President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.

Continues:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece