http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/05/iran.us/?iref=mpstoryview

Thing is, the militia's have been constantly sniping but Iran wants us to stop attacking.

You'd think they'd want to increase their world standing by talking to the militias first and then coming to us.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, any input?

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/05/iran.us/?iref=mpstoryview

Thing is, the militia's have been constantly sniping but Iran wants us to stop attacking.

You'd think they'd want to increase their world standing by talking to the militias first and then coming to us.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, any input?

They are playing the media... If you notice, Iran is taking many US like stances lately. They complain to the UN when they are threatened, somewhat like when the US complains about Iran being a threat.

Now they are taking the "no talks without pre conditions" stance. they are generating sympathy by attempting to show that they are the good guys, and they wont talk to the "bad guys" until we stop launching attacks.... Remember, Iranians are masters of chess, and they are probably playing this out how they want.

Hmmm thought it was Russia and US that generated the most Grand Masters of chess in recent history?? ;P

Hmmm thought it was Russia and US that generated the most Grand Masters of chess in recent history?? ;P

Well there is much evidence that chess was invented in Persia, and there are quite a few Iranian chess masters.

Just none that are well known apparently.

Just none that are well known apparently.

I guess I will continue the derail just a bit more :)

Thu, 01 Jun 2006
Iranian chess player Mahjub gets “Grand Master” promotion

Iran's Morteza Mahjub celebrated his promotion to the “grand master” in the 37th Chess Olympiad in Turin, Italy, Thursday.

Mahjub registered his name as Iran's fourth grand master as he won six points in nine rounds, scoring the 2,612 rating.


http://www.iransportspress.com/?c=48&a=3262

Let's go full on with the derail:

FIDE top 100 male list, April 2008

http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men

Let's go full on with the derail:

FIDE top 100 male list, April 2008

http://ratings.fide.com/top.phtml?list=men

I wonder what the top 100 has to do with what I said... I never claimed they were the top 100 in the fide, I simply claimed they are masters of Chess.

They possibly invented the damn game, and half the pieces are named persian words. They also have Chess Grand Masters... And there is no title higher then GM, so what is the point of this?

My point in my original response was that they are playing the media and the UN like a game of chess.

Wow, look at #5, Magnus Carlsen. Born in 1990?!

Calm down Jedd. Fild and Fandros were merely making light of Iran's quantity of Grand Master chess players because of your statement that "Iranian's are masters of chess". I was continuing to poke fun by showing that the federation that actual measures whether or not you can call yourself a Grand Master lacks any Iranians in the tops 100.

No need to get all defensive and uptight. :confused:

Calm down Jedd. Fild and Fandros were merely making light of Iran's quantity of Grand Master chess players because of your statement that "Iranian's are masters of chess". I was continuing to poke fun by showing that the federation that actual measures whether or not you can call yourself a Grand Master lacks any Iranians in the tops 100.

No need to get all defensive and uptight. :confused:

Ah, I understand... I found that actually kind of funny that none of them were in the top 100.

On another derail note... Iranians are also known for their weight lifters.... :)

Yeah nobody cares Jedd.
Are you like dating an Iranian? Otherwise, shut the fuck up with it all.

Yeah nobody cares Jedd.
Are you like dating an Iranian? Otherwise, shut the fuck up with it all.

You are such an ass... I didn't even start the derail. Go drink some tea, or brush your teeth.

Yeah nobody cares Jedd.
Are you like dating an Iranian? Otherwise, shut the fuck up with it all.

QFE and +rep :)

I have a hard time understanding how little people seem to care that we're not unlikely to attack Iran before the end of the year.

Well, Halo, I guess you sure showed me how well these threads can go without any moderation! I take it all back now.

So you're saying there's a definitive correlation between a lack of grandmaster chess players and imminent US invasion?

Two thumbs up for objective moderation. How... professional?

I like yea Sanchek, but you're starting to get on my tits a bit. Sometimes people swear - ooops - on this forum. Sometimes they wander from topic to topic. It doesn't mean you have to create three new forum sections, split the 11 post thread into 5 different topics and scatter enjoyment into the wind.

Like I said - sit back and enjoy. Try and avoid a nose-bleed.

Two thumbs up for objective moderation. How... professional?

I like yea Sanchek, but you're starting to get on my tits a bit. Sometimes people swear - ooops - on this forum. Sometimes they wander from topic to topic. It doesn't mean you have to create three new forum sections, split the 11 post thread into 5 different topics and scatter enjoyment into the wind.

Like I said - sit back and enjoy. Try and avoid a nose-bleed.

You forgot to mention that sometimes there is a dumb brit who doesn't add anything to any debates, yet likes to enter threads just to tell Jedd he doesn't care, effectively showing he cares enough to not only read the thread, but to post.


-Edit

And he actually knows cuss words other then "shite"

It worked with Russia, didn't it? Lots of grand masters of chess, no attack yet!

'You are such an ass... I didn't even start the derail. Go drink some tea, or brush your teeth.'

- Stop making love to your camel? Har har C I can do it 2!!!11!!

'You are such an ass... I didn't even start the derail. Go drink some tea, or brush your teeth.'

- Stop making love to your camel? Har har C I can do it 2!!!11!!

Hmm... Seeing how I am American... living in America... your har har gets a -5 on a scale of 1-10

/derail off

Iraq's elected government has every right to remove unlawful militias (Sadr and others) from its own borders, whether they're aligned with Iran or not.

Chess masters. LOL Only when you continue to play their game and let them continuously get away with it. This game is about to change.

/derail off

Iraq's elected government has every right to remove unlawful militias (Sadr and others) from its own borders, whether they're aligned with Iran or not.

Chess masters. LOL Only when you continue to play their game and let them continuously get away with it. This game is about to change.

Lets see... Without firing a shot, Iran has had its biggest enemy removed from power, and has loyal governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is called chess my friend...

“For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” -Sun Tzu

That's like saying I won the Kentucky Derby because I emailed someone in Louisville last year.

"YAY! We're all winnners!"

That's like saying I won the Kentucky Derby because I emailed someone in Louisville last year.

No, it would be more like if you had influence over the horse and the rider that won, and them winning won you millions of dollars.

Let's see, without firing a shot...

Iran is subject to international sanction, has its neighbours on both sides occupied by its worst enemies, has seen its main waterway turned into a Western lake, and shits a brick anytime someone from America thinks publically about invading.

Yeah... they pulled a coup alright, just on themselves.

Remember, Iranians are masters of chess.....

Which rule in Chess, allows the player to turn 1 of his pieces into a different color, scream "God is Great", and detonate it, destroying all of the surrounding pieces?

Let's see, without firing a shot...

Iran is subject to international sanction, has its neighbours on both sides occupied by its worst enemies, has seen its main waterway turned into a Western lake, and shits a brick anytime someone from America thinks publically about invading.

Yeah... they pulled a coup alright, just on themselves.

You lack the intimate knowledge of the region to debate this.

Karzai and Talabani have huge ties to Iran. Iran had been trying to get Talabani in power of Iraq for a long time through groups they were funding within Iraq to overthrow Sadaam.

The US will eventually leave Iraq, and with a Democratic president sooner, rather then later. The temporary inconvenience of having the US on their border means nothing.

The IRGC wants a confrontation with the US, they want to use it as an excuse for all out war with the US and the expelling of the US from the middle east. Whether or not they can achieve such a feat is up for debate. But claiming they are scared is not backed by the facts.

They constantly take actions that put us on edge, yet play it off like it is normal. The Iranians are more pissed about the Persian Gulf being labeled as the Arabian Gulf, then they are with us being there at the moment.

Iran achieved a victory with Talabani becoming the president of Iraq, and they now are increasing their influence in both countries even more, by taking part in rebuilding and contracts with the government, as well as giving aid and taking in refugees.

Which rule in Chess, allows the player to turn 1 of his pieces into a different color, scream "God is Great", and detonate it, destroying all of the surrounding pieces?

The same rule that lets one side take over the entire board and launch nukes on the parts of the board that don't submit.

Eh, wasn't trying to start a war...was merely asking for input on this recent news out of Iran.

As for the chess thing, I've more than a passing interest and was suprised to hear that Iran was a chess powerhouse. I couldn't remember the last time I had heard of a world class chess grandmaster out of Iran.

Wasn't trying to be offensive on either count.

The same rule that lets one side take over the entire board and launch nukes on the parts of the board that don't submit.

Why do you nuke your own territory, that by your own admission, is your's to begin with?

Why do you nuke your own territory, that by your own admission, is your's to begin with?

Its not your territory until you take it :)

It is if the entire board is your's, as you said in your statement....
Why not admit this isn't Chess that the Iranians are playing, but some mongoloid version of checkers....

It is if the entire board is your's, as you said in your statement....
Why not admit this isn't Chess that the Iranians are playing, but some mongoloid version of checkers....

What in gods name are you talking about?

And why are you derailing so blatantly?

Oh, Jedd sat down and had a chat with the Ayatollah today and he told him that Iranian policy regarded the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by American, British and allied forces as a "temporary inconvenience".

Don't play history and politics with me, boy. You'll be sucking on your mumma's titties before dinner.

Your arguments are so see-through it makes us all wince to read them.

Oh, Jedd sat down and had a chat with the Ayatollah today and he told him that Iranian policy regarded the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by American, British and allied forces as a "temporary inconvenience".

Don't play history and politics with me, boy. You'll be sucking on your mumma's titties before dinner.

Your arguments are so see-through it makes us all wince to read them.

Oh please... contribute... It would make a welcome change from your usual bullshit.

That sound, going over your head, was my point.

*Draws a picture for Jedd*
Chess is a game of strategy, Checkers is a game of violence.
What the Iranians are playing, isn't even close to chess. It's more like checkers, where the pieces explode when you don't abide by the every changing rules.

'Oh please... contribute... It would make a welcome change from your usual bullshit.'

- While your bullshit is your contribution, Teddy.

That sound, going over your head, was my point.

*Draws a picture for Jedd*
Chess is a game of strategy, Checkers is a game of violence.
What the Iranians are playing, isn't even close to chess. It's more like checkers, where the pieces explode when you don't abide by the every changing rules.

You failed to understand why I attributed it to chess.... Chess is a game of strategy indeed... Hence why Sun Tzu's quote fits Iran.

“For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” - Sun Tzu


Iran with the decline of US presence, will have increased influence, and possibly even limited control of Iraq and Afghanistan. The will of the people of those countries will far outweigh any US power play.

The bottom line is this... Iran, without waging war to do it...

Removed Sadaam from power (thanks USA)
Gained even more influence in Iraq and Afghanistan (thanks USA)
Gained the image of the lone Muslim state standing to the United States

The power they have gained by us taking out their enemies and putting people they want, in power of those countries, is nothing compared to the influence they have gained by standing up to a bogged down Super power.

If you fail to see the strategy behind their actions, you are not looking close enough.

They have walked a thin line of hostility and non hostility. Pushing as an aggressor, and then withdrawing as the victim just as quick to build more sympathy.

Our views on them mean nothing compared to how the people in the region view them. And right now, Iran is to the Muslims, as the USA was to the world in the past. And with 1/3rd of the world being muslim... That is BIG!

'Oh please... contribute... It would make a welcome change from your usual bullshit.'

- While your bullshit is your contribution, Teddy.

Nice contribution...

The bottom line is this... Iran, without waging war to do it...

Removed Sadaam from power (thanks USA)
Gained even more influence in Iraq and Afghanistan (thanks USA)
Gained the image of the lone Muslim state standing to the United States
I can see the third being something they actively maneuvered into, but I don't see how you can attribute the others to any strategy of Iran's. What did they do that brought us to Afghanistan or Iraq? I can't think of any significant link there.

You also have to weigh in the increasing chance that their game will lead to military retaliation. If we bomb all of their nuclear power facilities off the map, that seems like a net loss.

I can see the third being something they actively maneuvered into, but I don't see how you can attribute the others to any strategy of Iran's. What did they do that brought us to Afghanistan or Iraq? I can't think of any significant link there.

You also have to weigh in the increasing chance that their game will lead to military retaliation. If we bomb all of their nuclear power facilities off the map, that seems like a net loss.

It isn't that they brought us to Iraq and Afghanistan, it is that they stayed out of our cross hairs until after we were already in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran could have been a main target after 9/11 just as easily, and without the military being in Iraq and Afghanistan, a war with Iran would have been a much higher chance for success. They continued skirting the line, staying just out of our target, meanwhile working on Nuclear power, and modernizing their military.

The strategy was more inline with keeping themselves out of the conflict, just long enough to step in when the US is weakened.

A bombing of Iran's Nuclear facilities will lead to an all out war, and many elements in the Iranian military would love for this to happen. Like I said, the IRGC wants a war with the US. They have been preparing for it for years.

The strategy is in the timing. Once the Nuclear plants and reactors are functional, it is against International law to attack them.

If the US breaks International law to attack a functional Nuclear reactor, with NO PROOF that Iran had moved on to manufacturing nuclear weapons, and people and land are killed and contaminated, the US will be facing something it may not be used to... The entire middle east will be shut down to us.

The contamination will spread into Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan... There will be international condemnation for the attack. We will be kicked out of our bases, we will be seen as murderers.

It is bad for Iran, but it is their ultimate goal to see us gone. If we attack Iran's nuclear reactors, we will be making a huge mistake.

Iran has set itself up to stand for Islam, and every action we are taking against them is ruining our chances for peace in the ME. Iran gains influence, and we lose influence.

I thought the goal was to win with your land and people intact, or am I missing the point?

Kinda hard to celebrate "winning" if your people are killed and your land is irradiated....

It isn't that they brought us to Iraq and Afghanistan, it is that they stayed out of our cross hairs until after we were already in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran could have been a main target after 9/11 just as easily, and without the military being in Iraq and Afghanistan, a war with Iran would have been a much higher chance for success. They continued skirting the line, staying just out of our target, meanwhile working on Nuclear power, and modernizing their military.

The strategy was more inline with keeping themselves out of the conflict, just long enough to step in when the US is weakened.

A bombing of Iran's Nuclear facilities will lead to an all out war, and many elements in the Iranian military would love for this to happen. Like I said, the IRGC wants a war with the US. They have been preparing for it for years.

The strategy is in the timing. Once the Nuclear plants and reactors are functional, it is against International law to attack them.

If the US breaks International law to attack a functional Nuclear reactor, with NO PROOF that Iran had moved on to manufacturing nuclear weapons, and people and land are killed and contaminated, the US will be facing something it may not be used to... The entire middle east will be shut down to us.

The contamination will spread into Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan... There will be international condemnation for the attack. We will be kicked out of our bases, we will be seen as murderers.

It is bad for Iran, but it is their ultimate goal to see us gone. If we attack Iran's nuclear reactors, we will be making a huge mistake.

Iran has set itself up to stand for Islam, and every action we are taking against them is ruining our chances for peace in the ME. Iran gains influence, and we lose influence.


Two quick answers to that which I put in bold...

No , they really do not....and no they have no way to prepare.

There is no debate here Jedd. Iran would topple as a functional military within weeks. There is nothing they can do to prepare for the decimation of their infrastructure.

That being said I don't want us going there and starting a war. I'd much rather see Iran topple from the inside of it's own corruption as opposed to us using force ;(

Two quick answers to that which I put in bold...

No , they really do not....and no they have no way to prepare.

There is no debate here Jedd. Iran would topple as a functional military within weeks. There is nothing they can do to prepare for the decimation of their infrastructure.

That being said I don't want us going there and starting a war. I'd much rather see Iran topple from the inside of it's own corruption as opposed to us using force ;(

The IRGC does want war with the US... They are the most fervent Islamic defenders you could say... We are Satan to the commanders of the IRGC. Ask Iranians living in Iran, the IRGC is blatantly Anti-US, and wants a war.

And regarding preperation for war, you are thinking of a conventional war. Iran has 2 main goals in a war with the US... Sink our ships, which it has the capability to do...

Once they can no longer sink our ships, thanks to our taking out their launchers. Their next goal is to dig in for a massive insurgency with trained soldiers, using previously hidden assets, such as tanks, fighters, and other conventional weapons which will be used in accordance with Asymmetric warfare.

Imagine Iraq x500

The simple threat of such a war would deter an invasion of their country, and that is what they are counting on.

The common answer to this is that the US will not invade, but will launch airstrikes... Well, Iran will counter, and will fight. If we are to contain Iran, it will require a massive invasion. Which is why, if Bush decides to launch an Airstrike on Iran, it may be the biggest mistake any president has ever made in the history of the US. We will not be able to count on our muscles protecting us from a counter attack this time. Cause they don't care if they die to protect their home, just like us.

Now if Iran gets their hands on Nukes.... Then just add that to the equation.

We will not be able to count on our muscles protecting us from a counter attack this time. Cause they don't care if they die to protect their home, just like us.

Now if Iran gets their hands on Nukes.... Then just add that to the equation.

So being killed by the thousands will have no effect? They will Jihad to the last Iranian? Sounds like a clear cut case for taking no prisoners, for the U.S.

And if they get their hands on nukes, how exactly will that be helpful? Nuclear weapons without a viable delivery system? What will they do? Strap them on their backs and do the suicide bomb thing? Or detonate one, claim the U.S. did it, and gain world sympathy?

Are they really that rabid?

Oh hell Jedd that's where you are mistaken. At this point our goal would be to destroy the infrastructure and remove their ability and desire to project their power.

The Iranian AF would be a joke, and make no mistake any hard placed defenses of Iran would be an afterthought.

I hope we never put boots on the ground, but again make no mistake...pushed too far the US can and will wage an action that'll leave Iran a non player for years to come.

As for sinking our boats, you can't do that if you're hiding inland. Our Navy is ready willing and able to push any Iranian force out of the water and 20 miles inland.

You forgot to mention that sometimes there is a dumb brit who doesn't add anything to any debates, yet likes to enter threads just to tell Jedd he doesn't care, effectively showing he cares enough to not only read the thread, but to post.


-Edit

And he actually knows cuss words other then "shite"


Christ, but you are full of yourself.

They will fight to the last Iranian? Who are you, Chemical Jed'ali?

Look, the Ayatollah has a mascot. It's Jedd doing his Churchill speech.

So being killed by the thousands will have no effect? They will Jihad to the last Iranian? Sounds like a clear cut case for taking no prisoners, for the U.S.

And if they get their hands on nukes, how exactly will that be helpful? Nuclear weapons without a viable delivery system? What will they do? Strap them on their backs and do the suicide bomb thing? Or detonate one, claim the U.S. did it, and gain world sympathy?

Are they really that rabid?

If Iran is facing "obliteration" do you doubt that a nuclear weapon would be used on US forces? If it is in the hands of the Iranians at such a time?

Iran is not Iraq... Iran is not the Taliban.... Iran is the home of the descendants of an ancient civilization. They are too proud of their people and their history to surrender. A war with Iran, whether you like it or not, will be the last war the US fights for a LONG time.

OMG Halo, he DOES sound like Churchill...

+ Rep for teh Limey!

And Jedd, if the Iranians blew themselves to kingdom come, with their own nuclear device, I don't think it would stop the U.S from fighting future wars....

Oh hell Jedd that's where you are mistaken. At this point our goal would be to destroy the infrastructure and remove their ability and desire to project their power.

The Iranian AF would be a joke, and make no mistake any hard placed defenses of Iran would be an afterthought.

I hope we never put boots on the ground, but again make no mistake...pushed too far the US can and will wage an action that'll leave Iran a non player for years to come.

As for sinking our boats, you can't do that if you're hiding inland. Our Navy is ready willing and able to push any Iranian force out of the water and 20 miles inland.

Iran currently has the capability to sink our ships, but would not have that capability shortly after conflict begins... That is why I said they would start with that, and then switch to Asymmetric warfare.

The Sunburn missile alone will cause us enough problems until we take the launchers out, and even then we would have to deal with Iran's Asymmetric Naval force. Everything they do is revolving around getting a first strike off, and then hiding. As weak as their navy is, they have the capability with their midget subs to deal a lot of damage in the straight and in the gulf.

The point is not whether or not Iran can survive a full on War with the US... They cannot.

The point is that the US cannot wage a full on war at this time, and even if we could, there would be enough public outcry to weaken the war machine.

At this time... we can take land on Iran's coast... but hold it? Impossible

If Iran is facing "obliteration" do you doubt that a nuclear weapon would be used on US forces? If it is in the hands of the Iranians at such a time?

Iran is not Iraq... Iran is not the Taliban.... Iran is the home of the descendants of an ancient civilization. They are too proud of their people and their history to surrender. A war with Iran, whether you like it or not, will be the last war the US fights for a LONG time.


You are up in the night bud, I won't question your knowledge in kitchen redesign and I suggest you leave war to the boys over there that are fighting it ;P

They will fight to the last Iranian? Who are you, Chemical Jed'ali?

Look, the Ayatollah has a mascot. It's Jedd doing his Churchill speech.

Looks like you have nothing else to add other then the usual bashing of Jedd.

How do you feel? More of a man after that last post?

You are up in the night bud, I won't question your knowledge in kitchen redesign and I suggest you leave war to the boys over there that are fighting it ;P

Is that the best you could do?

'Iran is not Iraq... Iran is not the Taliban.... Iran is the home of the descendants of an ancient civilization.'

- Yay he wants to play history.

So you're saying Iraq *isn't* home to an ancient civilization? Oh you hopeless ignoranus. Mesopotamia, Mosul, Basra, these (that comprise modern day Iraq) were the craddle's of civilization, long before the barbarious Medes spilled onto the screen. Iran is a land of mountains and deserts - no dynasty ever built their wealth and power there, with as much success as Mesopotamian powers - unless they controlled that land. For over a millenium Persia was gangbanged by almost every imperial power. From the Arabs, Ottomans, Iberians and most recently, British and Russians (who carved Persia up during the First and Second World Wars).

Sure, it's got some pretty history. But I would hardly call it more important than Iraq, nor more accomplished, nor as successful.

There's nothing to suggest Iran could withstand a Western occupation than Iraq or Afghanistan (ok, perhaps more so than the latter). I'm sure if America et al got as involved as in Iraq, ie military occupation, then it would be a sticky, bloody mess, but tactically? On the battlefield? They'd get their fucking arses kicked. Don't be so stupid as to believe otherwise.

And fighting to the last man isn't an accomplishment, it just means you've lost and you don't realise it.

'Iran is not Iraq... Iran is not the Taliban.... Iran is the home of the descendants of an ancient civilization.'

- Yay he wants to play history.

So you're saying Iraq *isn't* home to an ancient civilization? Oh you hopeless ignoranus. Mesopotamia, Mosul, Basra, these (that comprise modern day Iraq) were the craddle's of civilization, long before the barbarious Medes spilled onto the screen. Iran is a land of mountains and deserts - no dynasty ever built their wealth and power there, with as much success as Mesopotamian powers - unless they controlled that land. For over a millenium Persia was gangbanged by almost every imperial power. From the Arabs, Ottomans, Iberians and most recently, British and Russians (who carved Persia up during the First and Second World Wars).

Sure, it's got some pretty history. But I would hardly call it more important than Iraq, nor more accomplished, nor as successful.

There's nothing to suggest Iran could withstand a Western occupation than Iraq or Afghanistan (ok, perhaps more so than the latter). I'm sure if America et al got as involved as in Iraq, ie military occupation, then it would be a sticky, bloody mess, but tactically? On the battlefield? They'd get their fucking arses kicked. Don't be so stupid as to believe otherwise.

And fighting to the last man isn't an accomplishment, it just means you've lost and you don't realise it.

The pride the Iranians have in the persian empire is unrivaled. There is a huge difference between Persians and Arabs. Arab army's have proven to be tactically deficient. From Egypt almost losing their entire air force to an attack while they were still grounded, to Iraq being unable to invade a broken leaderless Iran who's generals had either fled or been executed, with help from the greatest super power in the world.

The Iraqi's don't go around talking about their ancient civilization, they don't get mad when someone tries to change a body of water to another name, because they are Arabs. There are some persians in Iraq, but the bottom line is that Iraqi's fought because they were afraid of their leader...

When the US attacked most of them fled, and defected, and went into hiding. Your comparison is weak.

I also think its hilarious that someone would say that Iranians are afraid of America attacking, and that they would act the same as Iraqi's did...

Guess what... Iran could stop their nuclear program and bow to us if they are afraid... Wonder why they haven't

The logic here is so amazing!

Guess what... Iran could stop their nuclear program and bow to us if they are afraid... Wonder why they haven't



You are mistaking stupidity for bravery. There's a fine line between the two, and the difference is timing.

You are mistaking stupidity for bravery. There's a fine line between the two, and the difference is timing.

Stupidity?

LOL

What is smarter then waiting until your enemy is bogged down in 2 wars, and then while working on your nuclear program, providing weapons to the enemies of your enemy at the exact same time, to make it impossible for your enemy to attack you?

Sounds brilliant.

And I didn't think Iran had anything to do with Al Quaeda....

And I didn't think Iran had anything to do with Al Quaeda....

They are giving weapons to Al SADR!

Why is everything Black or white to you man? You need to get out more.

Its not USA and Al Queda...

Its USA, Al Queda, Islamic Jihad, Mahdi Army, Pejak, etc etc

The world is not just made of us and them... there are MANY different THEMS!

Well, we all know where you stand, Jedd....

Well, we all know where you stand, Jedd....

Where do I stand Sixee?

The pride the Iranians have in the persian empire is unrivaled.

This statement alone makes the rest of the points you raise not worth reading. You are so biased in your views that you ignore the Japanese whose culture and heritage are based on exactly that same sense of pride in their empire. And, that is only one example, albeit the first that comes to my mind when I think of a civilization based on pride and honor.

You are an unabashed cheerleader for Iran. We all get that. You are also irrelevant to most debate because of your intense bias.

Now, which of your bff's will be first to bash me for being so ungentle with you.

What is smarter then waiting until your enemy is bogged down in 2 wars, and then while working on your nuclear program, providing weapons to the enemies of your enemy at the exact same time, to make it impossible for your enemy to attack you?Why have you vehemently denied this in the past?

This statement alone makes the rest of the points you raise not worth reading. You are so biased in your views that you ignore the Japanese whose culture and heritage are based on exactly that same sense of pride in their empire. And, that is only one example, albeit the first that comes to my mind when I think of a civilization based on pride and honor.

You are an unabashed cheerleader for Iran. We all get that. You are also irrelevant to most debate because of your intense bias.

Now, which of your bff's will be first to bash me for being so ungentle with you.

So you think of Japan first and you think it changes my argument because???

How did the war against Japan go?

Now I am not relevant cause I am biased?

If you answer this right, I will give you a cookie.

In a debate regarding the USA and Iran... who would be more biased?

The Iranian American, or the American?

Why have you vehemently denied this in the past?

There was no evidence in the past, Now I am seeing that they are indeed arming shia militant groups.

Ya know how I justified it Akipt?

"Better to fight them over there, then over here"

I guess if they learn from us, they can't go wrong, right?



We have so many lessons we can teach people... Man, if everyone just acts like the USA! The world will be so peaceful!

I think there's an important distinction between not supporting US interventionism and actually supporting Iran arming fundamentalist terror groups. It's one thing to discuss and understand what Iran's doing with AQ, but another thing completely to condone it.

Escalation definitely isn't in anyone's best interests.

I think there's an important distinction between not supporting US interventionism and actually supporting Iran arming fundamentalist terror groups. It's one thing to discuss and understand what Iran's doing with AQ, but another thing completely to condone it.

Escalation definitely isn't in anyone's best interests.

I am not proud of them for what they are doing, I just understand why.

So you think of Japan first and you think it changes my argument because???

How did the war against Japan go?

Now I am not relevant cause I am biased?

If you answer this right, I will give you a cookie.

In a debate regarding the USA and Iran... who would be more biased?

The Iranian American, or the American?

I did not say anything about changing your argument; I pointed out how your statement that Iranian's pride in the persian empire was unrivaled was a biased statement. This is typical jedd. When an inaccuracy or contrasting point of view is presented, you run to the neg rep, and then change the focus of the other poster.

You are a mere cheerleader; ascribing the title of a debater to yourself is cute, but just as grandiose as many of your arguments touting the greatness of Iran.


edit: If you were arguing many points on many threads at once, would that make you a mass-debater?

I did not say anything about changing your argument; I pointed out how your statement that Iranian's pride in the persian empire was unrivaled was a biased statement. This is typical jedd. When an inaccuracy or contrasting point of view is presented, you run to the neg rep, and then change the focus of the other poster.

You are a mere cheerleader; ascribing the title of a debater to yourself is cute, but just as grandiose as many of your arguments touting the greatness of Iran.


edit: If you were arguing many points on many threads at once, would that make you a mass-debater?

Once again, since you have such a hard time grasping this point... The fact that I argue a point that you do not agree with, does not make me ANYTHING other then another person posting his opinion.

Your "BIAS" is what causes you to reject not only my opinion, but me because of it.

The fact that I argue a point that you do not agree with




You do not argue points; you keep jumping around and changing tangents in a feeble attempt to look superior with your in-depth, intimate knowledge of what is happening in Iran, a country at odds with the U.S.

I pointed out your statement was biased, using the Japanese as an example of a contrast. You tossed a neg rep, and went on the predictable whiny rant about me being biased toward you, which I have admitted freely in the past.

None of your posturing changes the fact that the Japanese are just as prideful, if not more, in their empire and culture as the Iranian people, which is what I was pointing out and which you have not replied to, choosing instead to do the expected "wah-wah-wah' routine.

You do not argue points; you keep jumping around and changing tangents in a feeble attempt to look superior with your in-depth, intimate knowledge of what is happening in Iran, a country at odds with the U.S.

I pointed out your statement was biased, using the Japanese as an example of a contrast. You tossed a neg rep, and went on the predictable whiny rant about me being biased toward you, which I have admitted freely in the past.

None of your posturing changes the fact that the Japanese are just as prideful, if not more, in their empire and culture as the Iranian people, which is what I was pointing out and which you have not replied to, choosing instead to do the expected "wah-wah-wah' routine.

And what you fail to realize is the reason that I dismissed your post is because you did nothing but prove one of my points while trying to disprove another.

If Iran is a war on the scale of Japan during WW2.... Will I be right?

Try to keep up

I don't understand their motivation.

They are risking bringing incredible suffering on their people.
Why?

If Iran saber rattles too much and actually provokes a war they will be destroyed. For what? Whats the gain? Regional Hegemony?
Sure we will feel bad, we will wail and gnash or teeth, but in the end, it wont be our country bombed out and devastated.

Think of this. What could the Iranian response be if we bombed their nuke and leadership facilities? A terrorist attack inside the US? Sure, they could probably manage it operationally, but Iran would be a glass parking lot the next day. I promise you, if they were caught responsible for a 9/11 attack, we WOULD nuke them. I am 100% sure of this. Tehran would cease to exist.

There is no winning end game for Iran if this keeps playing out. At some point they have to fold.

I don't understand their motivation.

They are risking bringing incredible suffering on their people.
Why?

If Iran saber rattles too much and actually provokes a war they will be destroyed. For what? Whats the gain? Regional Hegemony?
Sure we will feel bad, we will wail and gnash or teeth, but in the end, it wont be our country bombed out and devastated.

Think of this. What could the Iranian response be if we bombed their nuke and leadership facilities? A terrorist attack inside the US? Sure, they could probably manage it operationally, but Iran would be a glass parking lot the next day. I promise you, if they were caught responsible for a 9/11 attack, we WOULD nuke them. I am 100% sure of this. Tehran would cease to exist.

There is no winning end game for Iran if this keeps playing out. At some point they have to fold.

It may be that their ability to maintain rational thought has been overridden by their deep hatred for America, and their obsession with independence. Or, they know something we don't. For all we know they may have a few nukes from Ukraine. The ones that went missing. Perhaps they will piss us off to the point we are about to attack, and then do an underground nuke test... Who knows!

...

I promise you, if they were caught responsible for a 9/11 attack, we WOULD nuke them. I am 100% sure of this. Tehran would cease to exist.

There is no winning end game for Iran if this keeps playing out. At some point they have to fold.


There's no winner in this situation at all. War Games anyone? MAD, someone else would nuke us in retaliation...

There's no winner in this situation at all. War Games anyone? MAD, someone else would nuke us in retaliation...

Thank you Taleren, at least someone see's the reality of the situation... Regardless of how many times over we could destroy Iran, there are consequences. Happy that the war is not on our doorstep for the moment?

Nuke Iran and the war will have been brought directly to our doorstep. Even nuking them in response to a terrorist attack will be the end of our safety as we know it.

/sarcasm on
Murdering 10million+ people in response to an attack that kills a couple thousand Americans will be seen as very proportionate. /Sarcasm off

You went out on a ledge and jumped the hell off Jedd.

Sorry you feel so driven to stand up for Iran's saber rattling. You might note I said I didn't want us to go to war but should we....

It does not behoove Iran to keep up their bs. When even you see them arming the milita groups it's easy to draw a line to what's coming soon.

You went out on a ledge and jumped the hell off Jedd.

Sorry you feel so driven to stand up for Iran's saber rattling. You might note I said I didn't want us to go to war but should we....

It does not behoove Iran to keep up their bs. When even you see them arming the milita groups it's easy to draw a line to what's coming soon.

Everything Iran is doing, we have done at some time or another in history, I don't see it as any big deal.

And not in response to Fandros, but to the thread in general. If we attack Iran over Civilian nuclear power, with no smoking gun evidence. The NPT will be null and void, and prepare to see many other countries who have signed drop out.

I think them arming the Militia's will warrant some sort of repercussions ;(

I think them arming the Militia's will warrant some sort of repercussions ;(

Come on Fandros, we did the same shit to the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Maybe we should just... Leave?

I really hope we don't go to war with Iran.

I agree with L2 that Iran doesn't have any chance of achieving a victory by going down this path. I also think that while Iran's defeat may be inevitable, we would undoubtedly suffer some dire consequences as well.

War and subterfuge are perfectly valid tools of foreign policy... When used correctly and judiciously. The media and some right-wing groups really seem to be chomping at the bit to get in there, and I'm not confident that many of them have considered the consequences.

If Iran attacks the United States or our protectorates in any way, shape, or form, then we should and will deal with them accordingly. What we absolutely do not need is another Iraq. If we do attack Iran without real merit, this will not be a zero-sum affair.

It will not be fun.

Are we willing to have another Great Depression for another war (a war with Iran can be 'won' but at what cost to us and our kids)? Oil will dry up. Our economy will be in shambles. We can 'beat' Iran, but what do we actually 'win?'

Come on Fandros, we did the same shit to the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Maybe we should just... Leave?

Funny how you defend and claim Iran doesn't and when they do you throw up 30 year old history.

Iran fucked up, they're going to pay....the manner of currency will be decided err long. I just hope Iran back down, says sorry and resumes peaceful negotiations....

If not it's going to leave a mark on the land formerly known as Persia ;l(

Funny how you defend and claim Iran doesn't and when they do you throw up 30 year old history.

Iran fucked up, they're going to pay....the manner of currency will be decided err long. I just hope Iran back down, says sorry and resumes peaceful negotiations....

If not it's going to leave a mark on the land formerly known as Persia ;l(

Would have been nice if we never got them started down the nuclear path in that 30 year old history you are so unhappy with bringing up.

You really don't debate do you, you simply cheer for Iran and hope we turn aside at their paper tiger machismo.

I started out asking wth is up with Iran, only to have you pull your usual act.

Sorry man, hope you have all your family state side.

You really don't debate do you, you simply cheer for Iran and hope we turn aside at their paper tiger machismo.

I started out asking wth is up with Iran, only to have you pull your usual act.

Sorry man, hope you have all your family state side.

Cheer for Iran for what? What the hell are they doing that I am cheering for, or have reason to cheer for?

You seem awfully happy at the idea of being able to blow Iran off the map.

Then read my posts again Ain.....stop with the bouncing ball only means I have to read every 3rd word shit.

I've said I hope we don't, but I am damn tired of Iran arming milita's that are hurting my friends/family and fellow countrymen.

Would have been nice if we never got them started down the nuclear path in that 30 year old history you are so unhappy with bringing up.


I thought they just wanted it for electrical power?

*waits for the quote/3 page article Jedd will dredge up to support his cheerleading*

And this thread would not be complete without me beating my dead horse:


When the fuck are they going to investigate Cheney and Halliburton and their role in Iran's nuclear program, and why Cheney is so adamant on doing some bombing in Iran, and what exactly he wants destroyed?

I've said I hope we don't, but I am damn tired of Iran arming milita's that are hurting my friends/family and fellow countrymen.Cue quasi-emotional anecdotal 'evidence' to support a completely retarded foreign policy.

Guess what? Everyone here knows we can destroy Iran. Why then, do you need to bring it up in every single one of your last couple of posts? 'I hope your family is stateside'?

Just shut the fuck up. Please. You obviously have no concept of the ramifications that blowing Iran off the map would have. Your attitude is identical to the myopic retardation that GWB and his kin used to get us into Iraq to begin with.

Please tell, what would be your plan after we decided to destroy Iran? (Let's see if you can put together an actual coherent thought that doesn't consist of 'But my friends are dying!' - which if you haven't noticed, is ironically Obama-esque).

Oh sod off Ainwein, your only opinion comes from the prof that stuffs you one side down the other. You have ZERO life experiences to base shit on so shut up and toddle off while the adults make fools of themselves okay?

Fucking inept dumbass, hate my stories and ways to connect to a situation but by fucking god you clicked on my thread.

You lack anything of value, you suck at it all and give nothing back....thanks

Good lord Ain, you lackluster twit, I said over and over again I don't want to go to war.

You have a hardon for me much akin to Yuego in his hayday....

Get over yourself and grow up son, some day you'll have to account for your life and look back and realize it's naught but a life led by someone else....


I don't want war with IRAN....

Now quit clicking on my threads you sick fuck...

Thats the weirdest double post ever.

Aye it was, once I realized he opened my own thread it made me go....errrr so I added a post.


I've told the lil git I don't want war how many times? At least with Jedd I understand his ire, with Ain it's merely about what his last teacher gave him to regurgitate.

Frustrates me, a college degree should mean more than some young punk with nothing more to offer than a judgmental and yet empty mind....

Yeah. If I could only sign up for the military, so I could go overseas and shoot people, becoming both a foreign policy expert, and a master at personally attacking people twice my junior on internet message boards at once!


Woot!


You have no idea what I have done, or what I will do, you miserable fuck.

EDIT: I'm sure Fandros shoots mostly guilty people. My bad =P

Sorry man, hope you have all your family state side.

Iran fucked up, they're going to pay....

If not it's going to leave a mark on the land formerly known as Persia ;l(

lol

That's all you have to offer, funny to claim being twice my jr but taking too much time constantly hanging on my every word. Attacking me, reading half of my post and jumping up to knock down America. Soo proud your parents must be to see you leave that shell of a basement you claim as your own.

Stay out of my threads and posts junior, you don't belong.

Please stay out, I won't jump in the threads you start about barbies and such....sheeeshhh


I promise!! pinky swear if that puts it more inside your ballpark.

Good lord son, you are pathetic...try to disguise the fact you lack substance bitte. I'm not your father, I don't have to coddle you.

Yeah. If I could only sign up for the military, so I could go overseas and shoot people, becoming both a foreign policy expert, and a master at personally attacking people twice my junior on internet message boards at once!


Woot!


You have no idea what I have done, or what I will do, you miserable fuck.

EDIT: I'm sure Fandros shoots mostly guilty people. My bad =P

For the last time you inbred, self grabbing, emotional self masturbating self.....

I'm USAF...I don't shoot folks ya fucknut

I have a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science from a 10 ten Poli Sci School.

I know more about it than you do. I'm sorry. You can call me immature, make jokes about my parent's basement? (I haven't lived at home in 5 years), and so forth. This is just a fact - I'm sorry. I bring facts, you bring bullshit insults and jokes about barbies. I don't know what else to tell you.

I'm sure when I finish my masters you will still be going on about how I get all of my stuff from nitwit professors and those damned liberal talkshows... Whatever.

I have a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science from a 10 ten Poli Sci School.

I know more about it than you do. I'm sorry. You can call me immature, make jokes about my parent's basement? (I haven't lived at home in 5 years), and so forth. This is just a fact - I'm sorry. I bring facts, you bring bullshit insults and jokes about barbies. I don't know what else to tell you.

I'm sure when I finish my masters you will still be going on about how I get all of my stuff from nitwit professors and those damned liberal talkshows... Whatever.


You know more than I do sure, what your told.../nods

I said again and again you fucking twerp that I didn't want war but I wasn't going to ever sit back and watch fools blow up my friends who serve so you can serve yourself.

Grow up kid, the degree means lil till you live and sacrifice.

Now stay out of my threads, you don't belong other than to bitch and whine.

I thought they just wanted it for electrical power?

going Nuclear does not imply weapons, it implies going Nuclear. Amazing how words are put in my mouth, and then used against me. Real Genius this poster is, I tell ya!

Sorry to interrupt you guys in the middle of your debat..... fuckfest.

But if Military service is now going to be touted as knowledge and ranks you as a political elite, then I guess all the illegal aliens serving in our military should come share their vast knowledge on foreign affairs... REPUBLI ZING!

Bottom line Fandros, and please don't take this in a bad way(though I am sure you will) Your experience in the Air Force, is nothing but experience in the Air Force. Sorry to break it to ya bro, but your told what they want you to know, when they want you to know it, and you don't even have the option to make your own decisions or have your own opinions about it.

Please don't tout that as your vast experience in the subjects we discuss.

If you are such a political powerhouse as you say, then you would learn from history, rather then push it aside and make comments about current situations without referencing to the past.

Bottom line is that the shit that we did in the past is relevant to the shit that is being done to us now. Just cause you don't want to hear it, doesn't make it irrelevant.

Look if I was to only tout my experience in the USAF I could respect that comment.

But I don't, I've likely read more and listened more than most folks could imagine outside a specific college education. I refuse to be told what to think and as such I push to make folks see beyond their paper.

You are wrong to think that you are told something in the USAF and have to accept it. That shows how wrongheaded you are about our military. We are taught to think , to push and to evaluate. I took that, pushed beyond my small town origins and learned more.

I happen to disagree with ya Jedd on Iran, you find it funny that I agree with you on Obama and you don't mention that now?

When was the last time you were there Jedd, when was the last time you were sniped at (yes I was , not like the lying bitch Clinton) while working out in your compound. I gave food, candy/water, soccer balls to the kids over the very wall that was used to kill my real life friends 6 months later.

Ainwein is a fool, I might give you shit Jedd but at least I respect you for your own thought. My thoughts are real, life experiences brought to bear because they should. I didn't learn my opinion at a paperback novel, or because a professor decryed the use of power by the US.

I'm 42, I've pushed myself my entire life to learn more outside the ivy halls *yes I have college creds, tho I quit after it went beyond tech and into opinion*.

Jedd, your entire post is one of constant speculation. You just keep repeating that Iranian's are brave compared to Iraqi's. And that they are more proud?

The only factual evidence you have is that you're the boy-lover of the Ayatollah and he tells you these things during pillow-talk.

Arab nationalism has been far stronger in history (specifically second half of the twentieth century) than anything Iran has ever had to offer.

Hey, remember when Persia succumbed to Arab invasion?
Since then Persia has had very little to offer the world that has been remotely impressive. It's a backwater.

The only reason it appears to have the romantic label of defying a superpower, that you so obsessively attach to it, is for the simple reason that we haven't invaded and stomped it into oblivion...yet. N Korea and Burma have equally defied Western powers, and have not been invaded.

Wow... are they tactically more superior than America? Did they supposedly "win" a nonexistent victory?

Your obsession with the Ayatollah and his gang just proves time and again to everyone on this forum that any opinion you spose was created by Ayatollah pillow-talk long before you had the ability to form an opinion yourself.

Get a fact. Or a clue.

I've said I hope we don't, but I am damn tired of Iran arming milita's that are hurting my friends/family and fellow countrymen.

I'm pretty sure they were damn tired of us doing the same thing in the 1980s, you know, when HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THEM DIED, including civilians. The situation is not black and white, and while Jedd may be making a fool of himself with the Persian pom-poms, Iran didn't pick this fight, we did.

Letting them become a nuclear state may not be a fantastic idea, but our prior fifty years of "containment" policy towards them has obviously not helped the situation and while we could flatten every building between Iraq and Afghanistan, the last president we had with any actual military leadership background made a particularly profound statement about whether or not the bloody annihilation of a civilization was any real kind of "victory."

I'm not arguing against that point Malse, at all.

Tho what I'm predicting since the start of this thread is that many American folks are willing to accept a Pyrrhic victory as long as the ideals that Isam seems to embrace don't become the norm.

I would argue that "most American folks" are open to that primarily because they have never had to think about the costs, in the monetary, ethical, and political sense -- and those would become very real, very quickly when the Islamic part of the world turned on us and brought their economic interests with them (read: China), and our long standing allies were too horrified, disgusted, and pragmatic to lift a finger in our defense. An open war with a Muslim country is the absolute worst thing we could do to combat the spread the fundamentalist Islam. Iraq has been bad enough, at least we deposed and sponsored the execution of a secular dictator ...

The only factual evidence you have is that you're the boy-lover of the Ayatollah and he tells you these things during pillow-talk.


True that, now that was funny.

Jedd, your entire post is one of constant speculation. You just keep repeating that Iranian's are brave compared to Iraqi's. And that they are more proud?

Iraqi's fought out of fear because their leader would kill them. Iranians fight to defend their country because they are proud to be Iranian. How do you not see the difference? No country has a monopoly on brave men, and I am quite aware of that.

The only factual evidence you have is that you're the boy-lover of the Ayatollah and he tells you these things during pillow-talk.

"Anger and insults are the common replacement for those with no proof of what they desperately want to believe."-Freud

Arab nationalism has been far stronger in history (specifically second half of the twentieth century) than anything Iran has ever had to offer.

Yet Arabs in modern times have

gotten their asses kicked by Israel when they completely outnumbered them
Submitted to outside influence such as ours
gone against the will of their people to accept foreigners on their lands
Failed to invade Iran with a more organized and equipped Army, with help from the greatest super power in the worldHey, remember when Persia succumbed to Arab invasion?
Since then Persia has had very little to offer the world that has been remotely impressive. It's a backwater.

Since then they have had little to offer?

I disagree. Some of the best doctors, dentists and engineers in the world are Iranian.

The only reason it appears to have the romantic label of defying a superpower, that you so obsessively attach to it, is for the simple reason that we haven't invaded and stomped it into oblivion...yet. N Korea and Burma have equally defied Western powers, and have not been invaded.

North Korea and Burma are not the second biggest oil producers in the world, Iran is. Can't help ya if you don't see the graver danger they face standing up to us then N. Korea, and Burma.

Wow... are they tactically more superior than America? Did they supposedly "win" a nonexistent victory?

I never said they were tactically more superior then America. There is one thing I will say about America though. Our leaders do not learn from history, and that is a tactical flaw. Overruling your generals to find ways to gain acceptance for what you want will only lead to gigantic blowback.

Your obsession with the Ayatollah and his gang just proves time and again to everyone on this forum that any opinion you spose was created by Ayatollah pillow-talk long before you had the ability to form an opinion yourself.

"Anger and insults are the common replacement for those with no proof of what they desperately want to believe."-Freud

Get a fact. Or a clue.

I have both, yet you invalidate your entire post with insults.

learn to debate. or be quiet.

I would argue that "most American folks" are open to that primarily because they have never had to think about the costs, in the monetary, ethical, and political sense -- and those would become very real, very quickly when the Islamic part of the world turned on us and brought their economic interests with them (read: China), and our long standing allies were too horrified, disgusted, and pragmatic to lift a finger in our defense. An open war with a Muslim country is the absolute worst thing we could do to combat the spread the fundamentalist Islam. Iraq has been bad enough, at least we deposed and sponsored the execution of a secular dictator ...

If we attack Iran we should just forget about the spreading of Islamic fundamentalism.

My worry is that a terrorist group will be able to get their hands on a nuke and set one off on American soil. Americans are going to want blood, no matter whose it is. Can we really nuke Iran if the situation is similar to the 2006 Lebanon-Israel conflict? Israel got away with blowing up their airports and stuff, but could we really nuke a state based on the actions of a select few?

Iranians fight to defend their country because they are proud to be Iranian. Defense and pride in your nation don't go very far when you are overwhelmed by a superior army. Just ask the Polish.


I disagree. Some of the best doctors, dentists and engineers in the world are Iranian. You forgot chess players.


I never said they were tactically more superior then America. But, you said they were awesome "chess players", and that chess is a game of tactics. Now it isn't? Or they aren't playing chess now?

And you have said more than "one thing" about America. Usually, it coincides with the "Death to America" rhetoric we hear out of Tehran.

Defense and pride in your nation don't go very far when you are overwhelmed by a superior army. Just ask the Polish.

It means something when you have prepared an asymmetric war plan against the US for 20 years

You forgot chess players.

har har

But, you said they were awesome "chess players", and that chess is a game of tactics. Now it isn't? Or they aren't playing chess now?

Of course... I never said that they could beat America through those tactics. They have stayed out our sights at the same time as working on nuclear power, and keeping us bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan by supplying militia's.

This in no way implies that Iran has better military tactics then the US. But you love putting words in my mouth cause its the only thing you know how to do here, since you actually know very little about the history or the people in the middle east.

And you have said more than "one thing" about America. Usually, it coincides with the "Death to America" rhetoric we hear out of Tehran.

Find me a quote of me saying something that coincides with the "Death to America" rhetoric you hear out of Tehran. If you don't follow up this post with evidence, then please kindly Shut the fuck up.

with Ain it's merely about what his last teacher gave him to regurgitate.




I am not wanting to start a big flame war with Ain, 'cus I do like a lot of what he has to say, and the ideas he has brought up, like the book club.

BUT, at times he really does remind me of the sterotypical Berkely student, expressing his righteous indignation that his country is anything less than what he has been taught by his prof's it should be. Or, I might also compare him to the PETA spokes-gal that wants the to screw over the jockey that rode Eight Belles in the derby the other day, blaming him for the horses injuries and subsequent euthanasia. She stated clearly that it does not matter if he is guilty of negligence, he should have his life ruined for riding the horse, just as the trainers and owners also should. It is that kind of rabid "out-there" thinking that Ain tends to attack with, at times.

I write it off to the stress of exams.

A war with Iran, whether you like it or not, will be the last war the US fights for a LONG time.
I didn't even have to go that far back....

Now, will YOU Kindly STFU?

Or, I might also compare him to the PETA spokes-gal that wants the to screw over the jockey that rode Eight Belles in the derby the other day, blaming him for the horses injuries and subsequent euthanasia.
Was she wearing leather shoes?:D

I didn't even have to go that far back....

Now, will YOU Kindly STFU?

You are stretching BIG time...

That in no way is evidence of what you said...

How is that "Death to America" rhetoric?

It is simply in my opinion, and the opinion of others... true.

We will be economically bankrupt, our dollar will be destroyed, our military in shambles after 3 wars, the third of which will be the biggest war we have waged since WW2.

Errr Jedd there is no way you can convince me that Iran will be equal to WW2.

You vastly overestimate their military might. I also hope we don't do anything so foolish as to put boots on the ground. It's not neccessary to occupy Iran to stop them from projecting their presence into Iraq imho.

Errr Jedd there is no way you can convince me that Iran will be equal to WW2.

You vastly overestimate their military might. I also hope we don't do anything so foolish as to put boots on the ground. It's not neccessary to occupy Iran to stop them from projecting their presence into Iraq imho.

/sigh

I never said it would be equal to WW2... I said it would be our biggest war we will have waged SINCE WW2

In other words, Death to America.

I can't help it of your vaguely worded, pseudo-cryptic statements aren't fully formed. Perhaps they didn't teach you that when you learned to "debate"....?

Biggest war since WWII? Not even close. Vietnam or Korea, maybe......

In other words, Death to America.

I can't help it of your vaguely worded, pseudo-cryptic statements aren't fully formed. Perhaps they didn't teach you that when you learned to "debate"....?

wow... you got problems.

You just hear what you want to hear it seems.

That's fine, and I applaud your ability to say something without resorting to childish insults like Fandros does.


It is that kind of rabid "out-there" thinking that Ain tends to attack with, at times.I'm not sure what I've ever said that is so 'out there'.

People generally respect people with higher education. I wouldn't question Nydia's knowledge on genetics - I know nothing about it and she is obviously an expert because of professors telling her stuff.

The problem with politics is that EVERYONE thinks they are an expert. Do I learn from my professors? Of course. Do I agree with all of them? Of course not.

Do I lend them, all of whom hold the highest degrees in their respectable fields, more credence than Fandros? Um, yes.

I'm not saying there is not a reasonable way to present the ideas that Fandros holds... I completely disagree with him, but there are plenty of people who are able to further those ideas in a professional and well-articulated manner, all supported by evidence.

You can keep attacking me for my education all you want. It qualifies me to get jobs in arenas where we actually deal with issues like this, which is more than I can say for Fandros.

In other words, Death to America.


Dude...

Can you please change your political affiliation to something other than libertarian? =(

In other words, Death to America.

I can't help it of your vaguely worded, pseudo-cryptic statements aren't fully formed. Perhaps they didn't teach you that when you learned to "debate"....?

Biggest war since WWII? Not even close. Vietnam or Korea, maybe......

Iran is much stronger and well entrenched in their land/society than north vietnam or north korea. They have much better technology than either of those countries. Iran would have the advantage of it being our third concurrent war, which limits the power we could convey in any attack/invasion.

I am not an Iran cheerleader. I am a realist. We cannot afford another war right now. We do not want another war right now, it would further degrade our economy. Gas would be 10 bucks a gallon, we'd have terrorism on our soil, our standing around the world would take a further hit, and we already have a tired military from continual redeployment back into war zones. If we go to war with Iran, we'd have to implement the draft again. We'd have to be done waging war with Iraq and Afghanistan, because we'd need our materials from those fronts in Iran.

Iran is a much stronger, and much more well prepared country for war than either Iran or Afghanistan were. We could 'defeat' Iran, just like we 'defeated' Vietnam, and just like Iraq is 'Mission Accomplished.' But what would we really 'win' for the benefit of our country? We would be bankrupt as a nation. We'd be less secure because we'd have more Islamic Fundamentalism. We'd have less oil to try and rebuild our economy. We'd lose most if not all of our Middle Eastern allies (outside of Israel). For what? Just so we can destroy what Cheney helped to build?

Kind of reminds me about a saying I have in regards to computer technicians: I'd rather have a technician with two years of hands on experience, than one with four years of education...

Wisdom generally trumps book knowledge in most instances.

That and you generally become more Conservative, as you get older.

;)

When you receive formal education on how to fix computers, you are learning how to fix computers.

Now, please convince me how working on airplanes enables you to understand the political dynamics of the Middle East region. Explain to me how it gives you knowledge on voting trends in America. Does it provide you with the 100+ years of Iranian history that is really crucial in solving all of this? (On second thought, you probably don't think that is very important)

Book knowledge... Haha. Good god.

Kind of reminds me about a saying I have in regards to computer technicians: I'd rather have a technician with two years of hands on experience, than one with four years of education...

Wisdom generally trumps book knowledge in most instances.

That and you generally become more Conservative, as you get older.

;)

I don't know. Even as I get older, as I earn more, as I pay more in taxes, etc. I still think it's a sham that we have such a large % of our children not covered by health care. I am still every bit as 'anti-war' as I was when I was younger. I still believe that decriminalization of controlled substances would decrease violent crime.

I still believe in pro-choice. I am still pro death penalty (yes this isn't liberal, but I've felt this way as long as I can remember). I still think our education system sucks and needs an overhaul.

I am willing to pay the taxes needed to ensure health care and education to our children, as long as our law makers become accountable for their spending.

In fact, as my Dad gets older, he shies further and further from the Republican party.

Kind of reminds me about a saying I have in regards to computer technicians: I'd rather have a technician with two years of hands on experience, than one with four years of education...

Wisdom generally trumps book knowledge in most instances.

That and you generally become more Conservative, as you get older.

;)

now let's put your example in context. Would you trust a person who actually worked as a chef for 2 years to work on your computer over a guy who went to school for four years to learn how to fix computers,

Haha. I'm not sure that makes sense Jedd. =P

He means that experience is > knowledge in the same field.

Experience fixing computers is better than learned knowledge on how to fix computers.

I'm simply saying that military service =/= experience in political science.

Haha. I'm not sure that makes sense Jedd. =P

He means that experience is > knowledge in the same field.

Experience fixing computers is better than learned knowledge on how to fix computers.

I'm simply saying that military service =/= experience in political science.

Exactly, just as cooking has nothing to do with computers :)

Ain, I was speaking of his age and life experience, as opposed to his profession.
But you are right, his profession doesn't lend much to the Political Science field.

Tal, saying that today's Republican Party is Conservative is about as far from the truth as you can possibly get. Heck, I almost consider it an insult that the two are correlated.

Jedd, you have quite possibly made the stupidest statement in this thread with that offering. Why not compare apples and turnips?

Kind of reminds me about a saying I have in regards to computer technicians: I'd rather have a technician with two years of hands on experience, than one with four years of education...

What kind of moron takes four years to learn to how "fix computers." Reboot, reinstall, reformat takes 20 minutes. No amount of doing that will ever teach you how a transistor works or what voltage oscillation means.


Edit: How do I detach this thing from the thread without starting a new one, overmodder?

Sad that you think a profession is all that makes a man.

I spent years volunteering for the Republican partys various election drives back in Indiana in the early to mid 80's.

I'd studied and read, on my own mind you, reports and interviews that form my opinions.

I've worked along side peoples from the ME both during my time in Desert Storm and in recent times.

I've supervised various folks of various genders/cultures/religions and ages.

I've lived, you on the other hand have thrown out an elitist attitude simply because you learn at the feet of men who tell you how to think.

You started this tirade Ain, when you attacked me for using "aenectodal" bullshit I think you titled it. So please refrain from acting put upon bub, I simply won't let some green wet behind the ears student try to tell me what I feel and experienced was , how did you put it, fucked up?

A life of living and experiencing is much greater than reading books listed to you by a curriculum.

I know you don't get it, it's part of the wisdom thing Six is referring to.

So none of that gives me the right to speak on political subjects? That's a crock of elitist shit and you damn well know it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/05/iran.us/?iref=mpstoryview

Thing is, the militia's have been constantly sniping but Iran wants us to stop attacking.

You'd think they'd want to increase their world standing by talking to the militias first and then coming to us.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, any input?


Ok, Iran has been arming the militias, and providing aid and comfort to Sadr. The point was raised that Iran could take a different approach that might gain them more cred with folks, and what do folks think about that.

From that initial post, we have gone right to the same old same old, with jedd cheerleading for Iran and throwing up his Freud quote to make himself look intelligent, Ain jumping on the "leave jedd alone" wagon and missing the point that Fannie was not advocatiing war with Iran, the usual sport of toying with jedd that Halo and Sixee and I enjoy. But, there are some important points that are raised.

1. We have been "allowed" to attack Iraq and end the Saddam Hussein regime because he was considered a loose cannon by those in the neighborhood, and it met with the long-term goals of some of the other leaders in the region. That Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would be so completely arrogant to ignore the Military commanders and engage in the invasion without sufficient troops and end-game planning most likely surprised those in the region as much as it did those of us in America. But, further aggression toward any other country in the region would serve to unite the Muslim factions against us as a common enemy.

2. Muslims have been spreading across the globe via emigration and conversion. The majority of those practice the Islamic faith of peace and respect; it is a small minority that follows the fanatical/extremist form of Islam which, just like Christian extremists, will scour the religious texts for passages that will justify any outrageous and/or illegal behaviors in the name of their God. If the U.S. were to give the appearance (as an attack on Iran surely will) of prosecuting a war against Islam, we could very well face insurgencies within our own borders from those extremist and fringe radicals that have been waiting for a reason.

3. Because there will always be tensions between the middle east and the U.S., over issues such as Israel and oil and interference in national politics and the attack on our country, there will always be the threat of a larger scale war. We have never offered anything to the countries of the middle east other than money, and military security. There needs to be an offer of something that can provide a future to the average citizen, whether that be some form of industry that can offer employment, or a service based economy similar to what India has co-opted from the U.S. If unemployment cannot be reduced, the extremists will always have disenchanted souls looking for a way to strike out at something or someone.



We will either have an all-out holy war between Christianity and Islam; we will decimate (or as Hillary puts it obliterate) the middle east including any country that is not showing a willingness to be cooperative, thereby drawing the the rest of the planet into taking sides and initiating an even more formidable "cold war"; or, we can take a global approach and assist the region in capitalizing on it's resources to further benefit it's people, and thereby including them into the world body as partners rather than enemies. Nuclear power is the future of the planet, in conjunction with solar and wind power, and no nation should be denied access. Monitoring should be conducted by the U.N. on all nuclear nations, and it is not at all unreasonable for Iran to be objecting to what must come across as prejudicial demands.

If Iran truly wants to be a part of the global community, dialog works much better than bluster. They need only look at Dubya's alienating of former staunch allies to understand how that works.

Finally, someone reads my posts in this thread and see me saying over and over and over again I don't want war with Iran. Hell I don't want war with anyone ;(

My son is 16, last thing I want is him forced into military service via a draft. A draft that will come if we start another war.

That being said something has to be done, Iran needs it's nose bloodied in some manner so they'll stop indirectly killing our troops. Or some aide given to the more moderates in Iran so they pressure the like of their President into waking the hell up.

and missing the point that Fannie was not advocatiing war with Iran

I don't want to fight you, but im just saying...


Dont fuck with me man!

Ill fuck you up if you do!

Your family better not be around because Im gonna destroy you!


But yeah... I don't want to fight.

And yeah. His sig is about blasting people relentlessly. Right.

Ok, Iran has been arming the militias, and providing aid and comfort to Sadr. The point was raised that Iran could take a different approach that might gain them more cred with folks, and what do folks think about that.

From that initial post, we have gone right to the same old same old, with jedd cheerleading for Iran and throwing up his Freud quote to make himself look intelligent, Ain jumping on the "leave jedd alone" wagon and missing the point that Fannie was not advocatiing war with Iran, the usual sport of toying with jedd that Halo and Sixee and I enjoy. But, there are some important points that are raised.

1. We have been "allowed" to attack Iraq and end the Saddam Hussein regime because he was considered a loose cannon by those in the neighborhood, and it met with the long-term goals of some of the other leaders in the region. That Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would be so completely arrogant to ignore the Military commanders and engage in the invasion without sufficient troops and end-game planning most likely surprised those in the region as much as it did those of us in America. But, further aggression toward any other country in the region would serve to unite the Muslim factions against us as a common enemy.

2. Muslims have been spreading across the globe via emigration and conversion. The majority of those practice the Islamic faith of peace and respect; it is a small minority that follows the fanatical/extremist form of Islam which, just like Christian extremists, will scour the religious texts for passages that will justify any outrageous and/or illegal behaviors in the name of their God. If the U.S. were to give the appearance (as an attack on Iran surely will) of prosecuting a war against Islam, we could very well face insurgencies within our own borders from those extremist and fringe radicals that have been waiting for a reason.

3. Because there will always be tensions between the middle east and the U.S., over issues such as Israel and oil and interference in national politics and the attack on our country, there will always be the threat of a larger scale war. We have never offered anything to the countries of the middle east other than money, and military security. There needs to be an offer of something that can provide a future to the average citizen, whether that be some form of industry that can offer employment, or a service based economy similar to what India has co-opted from the U.S. If unemployment cannot be reduced, the extremists will always have disenchanted souls looking for a way to strike out at something or someone.



We will either have an all-out holy war between Christianity and Islam; we will decimate (or as Hillary puts it obliterate) the middle east including any country that is not showing a willingness to be cooperative, thereby drawing the the rest of the planet into taking sides and initiating an even more formidable "cold war"; or, we can take a global approach and assist the region in capitalizing on it's resources to further benefit it's people, and thereby including them into the world body as partners rather than enemies. Nuclear power is the future of the planet, in conjunction with solar and wind power, and no nation should be denied access. Monitoring should be conducted by the U.N. on all nuclear nations, and it is not at all unreasonable for Iran to be objecting to what must come across as prejudicial demands.

If Iran truly wants to be a part of the global community, dialog works much better than bluster. They need only look at Dubya's alienating of former staunch allies to understand how that works.

Except for the part where you talk shit(which I am used to by now) I agree with your entire post... Good one!

Tal, saying that today's Republican Party is Conservative is about as far from the truth as you can possibly get. Heck, I almost consider it an insult that the two are correlated.


I agree completely. The only thing 'conservative' to the Republican party is their moral values/religious values they try to impart on the populace.

Ain, as usual your reading comprehension belies this great college education you keep touting.

My quote is a simple one, try to follow along. If you are going to wage war commit 100%. Anything less is allowing the enemy a chance.

Our military might has to mean something, has to be brutal and to be feared as a force so that our diplomacy has teeth.

Since Vietnam, including it of course, we have fought with PR more in mind than the results. Look what it has garnered us so far ;(

So yes, blast them till they relent. Make it horrible so neither side wishes to engage ever again. That is not an attitude or statement that says I want war, that's one saying I want it to be finale.

On the topic of education:

It depends on the subject matter. Political science is a "soft science", where it is relatively difficult to show that an idea is objectively "right" or "wrong". As a result there is a greater risk of professors' personal opinions influencing ideas held by students.

Compare that with, say, mathematics, where statements can be objectively and rigorously proven. There simply isn't much room for opinion; even when it comes to mathematical conjectures, personal opinion usually doesn't matter, since students routinely derive results from hypothetical statements. Saying "Suppose there are infinitely many twin primes" and deriving results is no different from saying "Suppose x is an integer" and deriving different results.

Disclaimer: This does not make mathematics somehow "better" than political science. It is just inherently different, and broad generalizations about education bug me because of differences like this.

Except for the part where you talk shit(which I am used to by now) I agree with your entire post... Good one!

But...but...but....it's what I do! :cool:


Seriously tho', the discussion regarding Iran can be more productive (IMO) by looking at options for cooperative dialog than antagonistic dialog, on all sides.
Look at how badly the U.S. fucked up Iraq's oil production, which was supposed to be the source of rebuilding revenues. If we were to send our aircraft into Iranian territory, a natural target would be the oil pumping facilities, to cut off their revenue. This could be the straw that could break the will of the Iranian people to follow Ahmanutjob, but at the same time would infuriate those countries who rely on Iran for fuel. Unfortunately, it would need to be a full-out air assault on infra-structure if for no other reason than to keep our soldier's feet off the soil, and that would include the oil fields.

And Ain, that is what I take from Fannie's sig. War is fucked up, but if you are going to engage in it you have to go full out to win. I am legally blind in my left eye, and the left side of my face is wired together, and I look back at Nam and how we ended that and wonder what for? I don't want all these troops missing limbs, and suffering PTSD, and the families with an empty chair at the table, to be left asking themselves the same thing about Iraq. Or any future conflict. If there is justified reason to wage war, than wage it to fucking win.

But, let's try something different, if possible.

Wage war to win? What a horrible concept! I thought we waged war to feel guilty about it years later.....:rolleyes:

Did I really see someone post that Irainians have given this world "great dentists".....I laughed really hard at that for some reason. A dentist?!!!

Bylimet,

The difference between Vietnam or Iraq and say the Revolutionary War or WW2 was justification. Our reasons to enter the latter 2 were well justified and stood the test of time and history. Imposing capitalism on Vietnam and protecting ourselves from the mythical WMDs have proven to be a pile of bullcrap. Many think the issue with Iran isn't something we should dare mess with. We won't engage hard like that when there are so many in this country and around the world who question, doubt, and disprove our motives ... and thank God for that.

Did I really see someone post that Irainians have given this world "great dentists".....I laughed really hard at that for some reason. A dentist?!!!

What do you do, that you are laughing at dentists?

Dentists are evil ......

Never mind what I do Jedd and most people on this forum already know, I was simply laughing that you think Iranians have given the world great dentists...a fucking root canal has always been a root canal....maybe they gave us better braces? Wow...get over yourself.

Oh yea this guy is tight with the Iraninans...apparently he didn't hear about your chest thumping of great Iranian denistry.

http://g2.wnd.com/images/sadr.jpg

Never mind what I do Jedd and most people on this forum already know, I was simply laughing that you think Iranians have given the world great dentists...a fucking root canal has always been a root canal....maybe they gave us better braces? Wow...get over yourself.

And I am sure a doctor is just a doctor right? Shit... Medicine is just medicine... and engineers? who cares... a jet is just a jet... right?


Ridiculous!

Never mind what I do Jedd and most people on this forum already know, I was simply laughing that you think Iranians have given the world great dentists...a fucking root canal has always been a root canal....maybe they gave us better braces?
But they do it with pride!

Oh yea this guy is tight with the Iraninans...apparently he didn't hear about your chest thumping of great Iranian denistry.

http://g2.wnd.com/images/sadr.jpg

Oh Jesus, I think I wet myself laughing!

But they do it with pride!



Oh Jesus, I think I wet myself laughing!

Are you seriously trying to make a statement with that post? or just having it a laugh?

-Edit

Didn't see that Ibudin added that in later...

Ibudin obviously doesn't know the difference between a dentist and a militia leader...

And we've found the WMD...

I bet that guy's breath smells like mustard gas...

I think we could find a new revenue source for Iran: Stick about three tons of coal up Jedd's rectum, and mention "Iran"...

*BOOM* The world's largest diamond....

ROFL Ibudin!

I think we could find a new revenue source for Iran: Stick about three tons of coal up Jedd's rectum, and mention "Iran"...

*BOOM* The world's largest diamond....

You are a sad man :)

Ain, as usual your reading comprehension belies this great college education you keep touting.

My quote is a simple one, try to follow along. If you are going to wage war commit 100%. Anything less is allowing the enemy a chance.

Our military might has to mean something, has to be brutal and to be feared as a force so that our diplomacy has teeth.

Since Vietnam, including it of course, we have fought with PR more in mind than the results. Look what it has garnered us so far ;(

So yes, blast them till they relent. Make it horrible so neither side wishes to engage ever again. That is not an attitude or statement that says I want war, that's one saying I want it to be finale.

fandros...when 98.43% of your posts is "WE IS GONNA FUCK THEM UP YA'ALL WOOOOOOOOO" and then the last 1.57% of it is "but i dont want a war, honestly" it does seem rather weird, you have to admit.

Bylimet,

The difference between Vietnam or Iraq and say the Revolutionary War or WW2 was justification. Our reasons to enter the latter 2 were well justified and stood the test of time and history. Imposing capitalism on Vietnam and protecting ourselves from the mythical WMDs have proven to be a pile of bullcrap. Many think the issue with Iran isn't something we should dare mess with. We won't engage hard like that when there are so many in this country and around the world who question, doubt, and disprove our motives ... and thank God for that.


Which is why I said let's try something different, if possible.

fandros...when 98.43% of your posts is "WE IS GONNA FUCK THEM UP YA'ALL WOOOOOOOOO" and then the last 1.57% of it is "but i dont want a war, honestly" it does seem rather weird, you have to admit.


Much a dork you are, reading comprehension is also your foe I see.

Which is why I said let's try something different, if possible.

I'm on board! The only thing a military encounter with Iran will accomplish is costing us and them a ton of money and resources while pissing off the Middle East even more.

There you have it... You all just pointed out why Obama is the man to be our president... Out of all the nominee's he is the only one who offers a road other then conflict... GASP he wants to TALK to them!!!! /faint!

Talking is great. I'm all for diplomacy, and allowing it to work.

However, when diplomacy fails, what do you do? Just say, "Oh Well, I guess we just have a difference of opinion." and walk away?

Diplomacy should be the first avenue, but not the only answer.

Ok here is one smart Irainian! Although he is a Candian and US educated.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/05/09/physics.nima/index.html

I always like seeing stories of people like this, with phenomenal intellects and ways of looking at the world. I would hope he has a long life, because seeing what he has already attained and accomplished by 30, his potential contributions to science could be immense.

I always like seeing stories of people like this, with phenomenal intellects and ways of looking at the world. I would hope he has a long life, because seeing what he has already attained and accomplished by 30, his potential contributions to science could be immense.


He's 36, but the point still stands hehe

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8839


Consider the Consequences of Bombing Iran’s Nuclear Power Plants, and Pray

by Floyd Rudmin

Global Research, April 29, 2008

Email this article to a friend
Print this article

The US government has recently increased the belligerence of its tone towards Iran.

A string of reports in a variety of newspapers suggest war is on the way: the Mail & Guardian April 1, the Rutland Herald April 4, the Telegraph April 7, the International Herald Tribune April 11, the Washington Post April 12, the Washington Times April 16, the Progressive April 24, the Santa Monica Mirror April 24, Asia Times April 25, the International Herald Tribune April 25, the Toronto Star April 25, the Christian Science Monitor April 25, the Washington Post April 26, the Washington Times April 26, First Post April 26, Los Angeles Times April 26, the Washington Times April 26, and the Telegraph April 26.

Two offensive aircraft carriers fleets are now on station near Iran and another is reportedly en route. In late March, Saudi Arabia practiced how it will cope with nuclear fallout following a US attack on Iran. In early April, Israel practiced how it will cope with retaliatory missiles following a US attack on Iran. Everyone in the region is getting ready for the bombing of Iran’s nuclear power plant and enrichment facilities. Iran, too, is ready for war.

The US is said to have 10,000 targets in Iran. Primary among these are all nuclear facilities, including the nuclear power plant at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf coast near Kuwait, and the nuclear enrichment facilities in Natanz near Esfahan. Bushehr is an industrial city, with nearly 1 million residents. As many as 70,000 foreign engineers work in the region, which includes a large gas field. Natanz is Iran’s primary enrichment site, north of Esfahan, which also has nuclear research facilities. Esfahan is a world heritage city with a population of 2 million.

Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor has 82 tons of enriched uranium (U235) now loaded into it, according to Israeli and Chinese news reports. The plant is scheduled to become operational this summer, producing electricity. The Natanz enrichment facility is operating a full capacity, enriching uranium for use in reactors according to IAEA reports.

According to the Center for Disease Control, the uranium 235 used in nuclear reactors has a half life of 700 million years. As nuclear reactor fuel is used, it turns into uranium 238, which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. These radioactive isotopes are dangerous to health because they emit alpha particles and because they are chemically toxic. When inhaled, they damage lung tissue. When ingested, they damage kidneys and cause cancer in bones and in liver tissues. According to a recent review of medical research, uranium exposure causes babies to be deformed or born dead.

Never in history has it happened that nuclear power plants and nuclear enrichment facilities have been deliberately bombed. Such facilities, everywhere in the world, operate under severe safety conditions because the release of radioactive materials is deadly, immediately and also long after exposure. If the USA or Israel deliberately bomb a fully fueled nuclear power plant or nuclear fuel enrichment facilities, containment will be breached; radioactive elements will be released into the environment. There will be horrific deaths for families in the surrounding vicinity. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated 3 million deaths would result in 3 weeks from bombing the nuclear enrichment facilities near Esfahan, and the contamination would cover Afghanistan, Pakistan, all the way to India.

Reactors and enrichment facilities are built of extra strong concrete, often with multiple layers of containment domes, often built underground. Bombing such facilities will require powerful explosives, earth penetrator war heads, maybe nuclear warheads. The explosions will blow the contamination high into the atmosphere. Where will it go is a question that is difficult to predict.

During the January 1991 Gulf War, many oil wells in Kuwait were set afire. According to the US State Department, “black rains were reported in Turkey, and black snow fell in the foothills of the Himalaya Mountains”. The radioactive plumes from bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities would reach the same destinations, in the same weather conditions. But the radioactive plume might go north, into Europe. During the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by the USA, UK, Australia, and others, armour piercing shells and bombs tipped with depleted uranium (U238) were used. It took 9 days for uranium particles from these weapons in Iraq to reach England, where air sample filters showed a 300% increase in uranium particles attributable to the war. The weather patterns at the time that carried the particles to England passed over central Turkey, the Ukraine, Austria, Poland, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, to England, then over Norway and Finland to the Arctic. This was reported by The Times, summarizing a study in European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics.

The nuclear fallout from bombing Iran will have a half life of 700 million years. That is a duration difficult to comprehend. Jesus Christ was preaching a mere 2 thousand years ago. In the evolution of humans, our earliest ape-like ancestors were walking upright a mere 5 million years ago. The Bush administration and its Israeli advisors are now planning to contaminate the planet for 700 million years. From the rhetoric of Presidential candidates John McCain and Hillary Clinton, they, too, think that is a good idea. The US media seem to applaud.

Either Americans do not understand what it is they are preparing to do, or they think themselves immune to the consequences. The planet is not large. What goes around, comes around. Smoke from the Gulf War oil fires went around the world and was detected in South America. Radioactive fallout from bombing a nuclear reactor will also go far, especially considering that it has millions of years to make the trip.

The Persian Gulf nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran have more than half the world’s known oil reserves. The 1981 study by Fetter and Tsipis in Scientific American on “Catastrophic Releases of Radioactivity” estimated that bombing a nuclear reactor would cause 8600 square miles around the reactor to be uninhabitable, depending on which way the wind blows. Bombing the Bushehr reactor will mean half of the world’s oil is instantly inaccessible. Bombing Iran means that Americans will not be driving cars any where, any more, for a long, long time. The American Way of Life will be finished. An economic collapse unimagined by Americans will follow. Mechanized farming and food transport will be finished. Famine is a possibility. Food riots are a certainty, in the land of plenty, with the fuel gauge on empty.

The nations of the world cannot rely on the USA and its Israeli advisors to be rational about bombing reactors. It is insane to say, “All options are on the table”, and it is a crime against humanity. The USA and Israel are preparing the public to accept such insanity by announcing that they successfully bombed a Syrian nuclear reactor, with no ill effects. Israel has also recently released video of its 1981 bombing of the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq. See, it’s easy. Nothing bad happens. But those were both construction sites, not loaded reactors full of tons of enriched uranium.

Peoples and governments in the Persian Gulf, in the Middle East, in Europe, and down wind in India and China need to take effective actions now to stop this insanity. Once radiation is released, UN resolutions cannot put it back in containment.

Americans with family and friends serving in the military forces in the Persian Gulf, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan need to wonder how expendable the Bush administration considers them to be.

The planet pleads, “Do not bomb nuclear reactors”.

I sure hope we do not eat dirt on this. :(

With all that, why isn't the Iranian line of thinking: "Maybe we shouldn't pursue nuclear energy."?

With all that, why isn't the Iranian line of thinking: "Maybe we shouldn't pursue nuclear energy."?

Why should they not be able to pursue nuclear energy? It just happens to be the highest volume power source currently available to people on this planet.

Why should they not be able to pursue nuclear energy? It just happens to be the highest volume power source currently available to people on this planet.

Cause they are evil!

I see reason why they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. They have been willing to support terrorists with their weapons (don't but but the US me, we haven't given nukes to terrorist organizations, and no I don't consider Israel a terrorist organization).

I see no reason why they can't have peaceful nuclear power plants though. Obviously that would give them fuel for bombs, so it's a touchy subject. I just can't agree with disallowing a country the ability to better supply their people with needs (food, power, water, etc.).

I see reason why they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. They have been willing to support terrorists with their weapons (don't but but the US me, we haven't given nukes to terrorist organizations, and no I don't consider Israel a terrorist organization).

I see no reason why they can't have peaceful nuclear power plants though. Obviously that would give them fuel for bombs, so it's a touchy subject. I just can't agree with disallowing a country the ability to better supply their people with needs (food, power, water, etc.).

In the first part of your response you compared apples to oranges. Because Iran has given weapons to "terrorist organizations" and the US hasn't given nukes to any is why Iran shouldn't be allowed Nuclear weapons?

The US has also armed "Terrorist organizations" The PKK which Turkey has been fighting, had been found to have been using American weapons. They also admitted that the US sent truck loads of weapons to them in return for their support in Iraq.

Claims last spring by deserters from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) that U.S. trucks were delivering arms to PKK bases in the Qandil Mountains of northern Iraq have resulted in a series of denials and investigations by Washington (Milliyet, July 2). Since then, Turkey claims to have seized quantities of U.S.-supplied arms from the Kurdish militants of the PKK. Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul noted that some of the weapons seized from the PKK (including U.S.-made M-16 rifles) came from U.S. shipments to the Iraqi army, but added that if direct arms shipments were discovered, "our relations [with the United States] would really break apart" (Kanal A TV, July 15). In response, a U.S. spokesman declared, "such reports would have no basis in fact" (New Anatolian, July 17).

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373618
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13928634

The PKK is a terrorist organization.

Therefore both the US and Iran have given/sold weapons to "Terrorist organizations".

I do however agree with the second part of your post.

My point is, yes, the US has given/sold arms to 'terrorist' or 'rogue' organizations, but we've never sold a nuke or nuclear technology to those organizations. Some of the people that Iran has supported recently had a facility blown up, and we all know what would have come from that had that reactor gone live. Yes, I'm well aware that North Korea provided the reactor, but Syria is an ally to both.

I DO see a huge risk with the current regime in Iran if they were to acquire nuclear weapons. I am sure you do too Jedd, but you will be remiss to admit to it in this forum.

My point is, yes, the US has given/sold arms to 'terrorist' or 'rogue' organizations, but we've never sold a nuke or nuclear technology to those organizations. Some of the people that Iran has supported recently had a facility blown up, and we all know what would have come from that had that reactor gone live. Yes, I'm well aware that North Korea provided the reactor, but Syria is an ally to both.

We also, along with France led to Israel acquiring nuclear weapons. If there was proof that Iran was responsible for selling Nuclear technology for weaponization I would agree with you 100%.

We are allies with Israel and they, a religious country who believes they are the chosen people now have nuclear weapons. Therefore double standards are once again being applied.

I DO see a huge risk with the current regime in Iran if they were to acquire nuclear weapons. I am sure you do too Jedd, but you will be remiss to admit to it in this forum.

I respect your opinion, however I disagree. If there is one thing that Iran does not have to prove, it is that they are not aggressive, and have not initiated a war for over 200 years, nor have they used chemical weapons or committed mass murder. All of which I would consider in my opinion of whether or not a country would be responsible with Nuclear weapons.

Is the region volatile? yes, yet nukes have been a part of that region for quite sometime.

Jedd, I could have predicted your response, even before you wrote it.

Ok, Here's an interesting thought: Nuclear reactors need water to keep them cool. How does an arid country like Iran get enough water to cool said reactors?
Note: Seawater won't do it, you have to have freshwater to keep them cool unless you are using a different type of reactor.

Jedd, I could have predicted your response, even before you wrote it.

Ok, Here's an interesting thought: Nuclear reactors need water to keep them cool. How does an arid country like Iran get enough water to cool said reactors?
Note: Seawater won't do it, you have to have freshwater to keep them cool unless you are using a different type of reactor.

Iran receives water from Pakistan. Iran also has many forests with a lot of rain and snow. What does this have to do with anything?

thats some mighty thin straws youre grasping at sixee

Wiggo whats your take on Iran and nuclear power and or nuclear weapons. Sorry if I missed your stance on it...........

My take on it.

let Iran have whatever they want. Nuclear power, nuclear weapons, whatever they want. I have always said this, let all the countrys have nuclear power and or weapons. I really doesn't matter to me. Someone wants to blow one off in my back yard, most likely won't know it when it happens anyways. When it does, I know we have plenty of Trident Subs that will take care of who ever started it, zero worries here. We all have to die some time.

You do realize of course, that the amount of water needed to cool a reactor would triple or quadruple the intake of water they already use?

Note: Seawater won't do it, you have to have freshwater to keep them cool unless you are using a different type of reactor.


Wrong again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lucie_Nuclear_Power_Plant

my take on iran and nuclear power? they should, and all signs say that they are already, follow the international treaties (in this case the NPT), ergo power:yes, nukes:no. but then again i disagree with anyone having the 'right' to possess nuclear weapons, they should already be dismantled.

edit: id also like to add that saying iran doesnt have the right to nukes while isreal does is hypocrisy of the highest level.

I don't see the dismantling ever happening, not to mention they could slap them back together fast anyways. It would be a nice dream world to live in, just not going to happen.

Secondary coolant. Primary coolant being FRESH WATER. My guess is the saltwater doesn't come into direct contact with any of the components of the reactor. If it did, it would likely corrode anything it touched.

Nice try, though Velvet.

well yes, i dont either, but that doesnt make it anymore 'right' in my opinion.

Primary coolant bieng a sealed enviroment. I guess it must suck bieng an Iranian then and living in a country with zero access to fresh water at all, poor bastards.
Then again maybe i was just trying to disguise your complete ignorance of world geography.

Primary coolant bieng a sealed enviroment. I guess it must suck bieng an Iranian then and living in a country with zero access to fresh water at all, poor bastards.
Then again maybe i was just trying to disguise your complete ignorance of world geography.

i hear they drink the urine of elder male goats, exclusively.

i hear they drink the urine of elder male goats, exclusively.

Do you know how much elder male goat urine is required to run the equipment at the oil refineries? It doesn't run on elder female goat urine.How will Iran get that elder male goat urine?

Do you know how much elder male goat urine is required to run the equipment at the oil refineries? It doesn't run on elder female goat urine.How will Iran get that elder male goat urine?

oh my god, are they buying the elder male goat urine from terrorists?! GASP! we must act now people, lest they acquire a stockade of urine!

Blix: West approach on Iran 'hypocritical'
Wed, 14 May 2008 17:53:20

Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix hammers world powers for their 'hypocritical' approach to the Islamic Republic's nuclear issue.

In a recent interview with Channel Four News, Blix said the West's approach to Tehran's nuclear standoff is in marked contrast to that of North Korea.

"The North Koreans have been offered guarantees against any attacks from outside, the Iranians have not been offered this as far as we know, nor have they been offered diplomatic relations which the North Koreans have been," said the former IAEA chief.

"When you see talks now with the North Korean and the Iranian, they sit there and are told by the US and others, who retain all these weapons, you should not have all these nuclear weapons, that it is a danger for you, it is not a danger for us, it is for the safety of the world. That is very hypocritical," Blix affirmed.

He explained that Washington's recently-adopted 'policy of containment' is failing to resolve international issues, stressing that 'there are many things that can be done on the Western side'.

The Swedish politician, who led the hunt for Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, is widely considered as one of the vocal critics of Washington's invasion of Iraq in 2003.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=55677&sectionid=351020104

US: No security guarantee for Iran
Wed, 14 May 2008 19:17:49

Russia's calls for providing security guarantees aimed at resolving Tehran's nuclear standoff have fallen on deaf ears in the White House.

"Security guarantees are not something we are looking at the moment," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe on Wednesday.

"As we've been saying, details (of the incentive package) are still being worked out and will be presented to the Iranian government soon. The one who needs to give security guarantees is Iran, because they keep threatening to wipe Israel off the map," he added.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov urged world powers on Tuesday to ensure Tehran's security in order to break the international deadlock over the Islamic Republic's uranium enrichment activities.

"I think the 'Six' could make the following step: directly put concrete offers on the negotiating table, give Iran security guarantees and ensure a more distinguished place in negotiations on the situation in the Middle East," Lavrov had said.

US reluctance to consider security guarantees for Iran is seen as an indication of Washington's double standard approach to the country's nuclear program.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=55684&sectionid=351020104

More cut and paste please!!!

More cut and paste please!!!

Less worthless trolling please.

Paste some more links to redunant information...OMG Hans Blixx.

Paste some more links to redunant information...OMG Hans Blixx.

Sorry, maybe I should post Ibudin's opinions instead, since he holds such a important position in the world.

and you as well, you hold what position in this world? My god you are full of yourself.

and you as well, you hold what position in this world? My god you are full of yourself.

??

You first complain about my posts because of Hans blix... then when I comment on why his opinion is more important then yours and warrants me linking it, you comment on me?

I would listen to Hans blix personally as well. So, I guess we are in agreement?

Or should none of us post here? I am so confused Ibudin. Try again?

Ibudin dude...you starting to look like a tool who is just e-stalking Jedd.

US plot to nail Iran backfires
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - The George W Bush administration's plan to create a new crescendo of accusations against Iran for allegedly smuggling arms to Shi'ite militias in Iraq has encountered not just one but two setbacks.

The government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki refused to endorse US charges of Iranian involvement in arms smuggling to Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, and a plan to show off a huge collection of Iranian arms captured in and around the central city of Karbala had to be called off after it was discovered that none of the arms was of Iranian origin.

The news media's failure to report that the arms captured from Shi'ite militiamen in Karbala did not include a single Iranian weapon shielded the US military from a big blow to its anti-Iran strategy.

The Bush administration and top Iraq commander General David Petraeus had plotted a sequence of events that would build domestic US political support for a possible strike against Iran over its "meddling" in Iraq, and especially its alleged export of arms to Shi'ite militias.

The plan was keyed to a briefing document to be prepared by Petraeus on the alleged Iranian role in arming and training Shi'ite militias that would be revealed to the public after the Maliki government had endorsed it, and that would be used to accuse Iran publicly.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen told reporters on April 25 that Petraeus was preparing a briefing to be given "in the next couple of weeks" that would provide detailed evidence of "just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability". The centerpiece of the Petraeus document, completed in late April, was the claim that arms captured in the southern city of Basra bore 2008 manufacture dates on them.

US officials also planned to display to reporters Iranian weapons captured in both Basra and Karbala. That sequence of media events would fill the airwaves for several days with spectacular news framing Iran as the culprit in Iraq, aimed at breaking down US congressional and public resistance to the idea that Iranian bases supporting the meddling would have to be attacked.

But events in Iraq did not follow the script. On May 4, after an Iraqi delegation had returned from meetings in Iran, Maliki's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a news conference that Maliki was forming his own cabinet committee to investigate the US claims. "We want to find tangible information and not information based on speculation," he said.

Another adviser to Maliki, Haider Abadi, told the Los Angeles Times' Alexandra Zavis that Iranian officials had given the delegation evidence disproving the charges. "For us to be impartial, we have to investigate," Abadi said.

Dabbagh made it clear the government considered the US evidence of Iranian government arms smuggling to be insufficient. "The proof we want is weapons which are shown to have been made in Iran," Dabbagh said in a separate interview with Reuters. "We want to trace back how they reached [Iraq], who is using them, where are they getting it."

Senior US military officials were clearly furious with Maliki for backtracking on the issue. "We were blindsided by this," one of them told Zavis.

Then the Bush administration's plot encountered another serious problem.

The Iraqi commander in Karbala had announced on May 3 that he had captured a large quantity of Iranian arms in and around the city. Earlier, the US military had said that it was up to the Iraqi government to display captured Iranian weapons, and now an Iraqi commander was eager to do just that. Petraeus' staff alerted US media to a major news event in which the captured Iranian arms in Karbala would be displayed and then destroyed.

But when US munitions experts went to Karbala to see the alleged cache of Iranian weapons, they found nothing they could credibly link to Iran.

The US command had to inform reporters that the event had been canceled, explaining that it had all been a "misunderstanding". In his press briefing on May 7, Brigadier General Kevin Bergner gave some details of the captured weapons in Karbala but refrained from charging any Iranian role.

The cancelation of the planned display was a significant story, in light of the well-known intention of the US command to convict Iran on the arms smuggling charge. Nevertheless, it went unreported in the world's news media.

A report on the Los Angeles Times' blog "Babylon and Beyond" by Baghdad correspondent Tina Susman was the only small crack in the media blackout. The story was not carried in the Times itself.

The real significance of the captured weapons collected in Karbala was not the obvious US political embarrassment over an Iraqi claim of captured Iranian arms that turned out to be false. It was the deeper implication of the arms that were captured.

Karbala is one of Iraq's eight largest cities, and it has long been the focus of major fighting between the Mahdi Army and its Shi'ite foes. Muqtada declared his ceasefire last August after a major battle there, but fighting resumed there and in Basra when the government launched a major operation in March. Thousands of Mahdi Army fighters have fought in Karbala over the past year.

The official list of weapons captured in Karbala includes nine mortars, four anti-aircraft missiles, 45 rocket propelled grenade (RPG) weapons, 800 RPG missiles and 570 roadside explosive devices. The failure to find a single item of Iranian origin among these heavier weapons, despite the deeply entrenched Mahdi Army presence over many months, suggests that the dependence of the Mahdi Army on arms manufactured in Iran is actually quite insignificant.

The Karbala weapons cache also raises new questions about the official US narrative about the Shi'ite militia's use of explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) as an Iranian phenomenon. Among the captured weapons mentioned by Major General Raied Shaker Jawdat, commander of the Karbala police, were what he called "150 anti-tank bombs", as distinguished from ordinary roadside explosive devices.

An "anti-tank bomb" is a device that is capable of penetrating armor, which has been introduced to the US public as the EFP. The US claim that Iran was behind their growing use in Iraq was the centerpiece of the Bush administration's case for an Iranian "proxy war" against the US in early 2007.

Soon after that, however, senior US military officials conceded that EFPs were in fact being manufactured in Iraq itself, although they insisted that EFPs alleged exported by Iran were superior to the home-made version.

The large cache of EFPs in Karbala which are admitted to be non-Iranian in origin underlines the reality that the Mahdi Army procures its EFPs from a variety of sources.

But for the media blackout of the story, the large EFP discovery in Karbala would have further undermined the credibility of the US military's line on Iran's export of the EFPs to Iraqi fighters.

Apparently understanding the potential political difficulties that the Karbala EFP find could present, Bergner omitted any reference to them in his otherwise accurate accounting of the Karbala weapons.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE16Ak02.html

Iranian embassy employees shot in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iranian Embassy employees and their driver were shot Thursday in a Baghdad incident that some reports said involved Iraqi troops. An Iraqi Interior Ministry official said five employees of the Iranian Embassy were shot and wounded about 9 p.m. in Baghdad. The official said there had been conflicting reports about the shooting.

An Interior Ministry report said unidentified gunmen in northern Baghdad fired on two SUVs carrying the five employees and driver, who were transported to an Iraqi hospital. The Baghdad Operations Command, however, reported that an Iraqi army patrol was shot at and returned fire at the SUVs -- injuring the embassy workers and their driver, according to the official.

Meanwhile, Iran (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/iran)'s semi-official FARS news agency was reporting that three Iranians and one Iraqi employee of the embassy were injured when shot by "unidentified terrorists." The agency quoted an Iranian Embassy official as saying the group was traveling to visit the graves of two religious leaders when 16 bullets were fired at their vehicle from another vehicle.

FARS identified the injured Iranians as Abolfazl Zavvar Mohammadi, Akbar Ghasemi and Majid Jaberi, and said Jaberi was in critical condition at a hospital.

Iran's state-run Islamic Republic News Agency was blaming the United States for the attack. "U.S. agents carried out terror attacks on Iranian Embassy staff in Baghdad," a bulletin on IRNA's Web site said. Another message posted eight minutes later read, "Iran holds the U.S. government responsible for terror attacks on Iranian Embassy staff in Baghdad."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/15/iranians.attacked/index.html

Iran slams murder attempt at embassy
Thu, 15 May 2008 23:07:37

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini has condemned the assassination attempt against Iranian diplomats in Baghdad.

"The onus is on occupational forces to ensure the security of embassy personnel in Baghdad. The distrustful safety measures taken by US military forces in Iraq have become a serious cause for concern as it is stoking instability in the country," said Hosseini on Thursday.

"The Islamic Republic is determined to launch extensive investigations on the assassination attempt and will pursue the incident through Iraqi officials," he added.

Hosseini criticized US President George W. Bush for attempting to portray Iran as a threat, describing the echelon's effort as an example of an inhumane act committed against international regulations by the invaders and terrorist groups.

Three Iranian embassy personnel were seriously injured after unknown terrorists opened fire on their car on Thursday.

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=55882&sectionid=351020101