|
On June 15 2010 02:27 ChApFoU wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 08:52 Half wrote:On June 14 2010 07:16 mkchoi0801 wrote:
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world. Are you argueing that the allies could have defeated the Nazis without U.S support? Not a fucking chance. They could probably have won the European front without direct military reinforcements from the U.S, but not without the billions of dollars funneled to them in the form of munitions, weapons, supplies and vehicle. tl;dr We did "save the world". As in the war could not have been won without extreme US support. USSR would have won it anyway but then more than half of the world would have been communist (which, under Staline, wasn't particularly cool  ) Anyway to stay on topic of course it's a bad thing than Iran gets the nuke but this kind of raids also motivates the harsh feelings towards the west among the arab and overall muslim world. I mean if I was them I'd be pissed off. My country is considered as a menace to world peace and on the other hand we have Israel, who has screwed over so many UN resolutions nobody pays attention anymore and gets away with having a load of nukes and fucking around with it's military every two month.
The USSR also received substantial support from the US though in the form of money, weaponry, vehicles, clothing and other military equipment that the SU was severely lacking in. The US also took away the threat of a Japanese invasion from Japan, helped to stop the Italians from being of any real use to the Germans and bombed a lot of German industry into the ground which could have helped Germany's war effort on the ostfront out a lot. The USSR could not have defeated Germany by itself, as it was it was only Hitler's major failings as a general that caused Germany's invasion to fail.
To be fair though Stalin also made a lot of disastrous mistakes that lost him countless entire armies of men.
On topic: I fully support an Israeli raid to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities, they're one of the two countries in the world crazy enough to launch a nuke for no reason.
|
... how exactly did we get from Saudis potentially allowing overly rights for the IAF into this again?
On Topic:
Just out of morbid curiosity I started thinking about what this scenario would look like if it played out, since Israel seems intent on destroying whatever facilities they "think" are involved, even though so far the Western world hasn't been able prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
1. Iran's Air Force will definitely be tested. Ironically, Saudi Arabia might have already given Iran an unintentional signal as to when to expect a strike - all the Iranians have to do is monitor the Saudi air defense network.
2. Bombing a nuclear reactor sitting right next to the Persian Gulf is a pretty stupid idea to me. Huge risk of contamination if you can't do it exactly right.
3. If I'm Iran, I'm getting ready to mine the Strait of Hormuz, with teams ready to go the instant the first bomb hits. Anyone who believes the Iranians (like anyone else) would just sit back and take this is dreaming. Yeah, their air defense network could certainly be improved, but you can retaliate in all kinds of ways, many of which will probably have a negative impact on gas prices, at least. Israel already gets away with a ton of crap, but it would be interesting to see how people react if they're perceived to be the reason for increased prices, if only temporarily.
4. This could backfire on Israel in epic fashion. Suppose it's not perfect - planes get shot down (likely). Pilots get captured or killed. Huge propaganda boost for Tehran. Potential targets ae probably hardened, but not necessarily isolated away from civilization. When Iraq's reactor complex was bombed in the 80s, the site wasn't active yet, in contrast to Iran's, which means that the risk of radioactive material spreading after an attack is huge. Does Israel *really* want to deal with the political fallout from that scenario? Then again, it seems like the Israeli government doesn't actually give a fuck what people think.
All in all, I have no idea why Iran doesn't just leave the NPT. Then they can actually get nukes legally and military action is even harder to justify.
|
I think the pro-bomb if all other options fail arguments rely to heavily on the assumption the bombing will prevent Iran's acquisition of a bomb. I'm fairly unconvinced that Iran couldn't decentralize the effort or just dig deeper. As far as I know nuclear bunker busters were even ruled out because they are useless.
|
"Islamic Republic of Iran", everyone knows nukes are not saves in the hands of religious extremists.
|
Knowing Isreal they will just nuke the crap out of all of Iran including residential areas then they will just claim that all of the attacked areas were nuclear facilities.
|
On June 15 2010 04:32 Cain0 wrote:
"Islamic Republic of Iran", everyone knows nukes are not saves in the hands of religious extremists.
Then why does America have them?
I'm not trying to troll here (merely playing devil's advocate), but the USA are zealously religious to the point where atheists are the least trusted group in America, "In God We Trust" on the money, Pledge of Allegiance, the whole controversy over the fact that Obama has a Muslim name.
Whilst I understand the argument that countries such as North Korea shouldn't have nuclear weapons because they would be prone to use them, having the USA as the "world police" to prevent others from gaining them seems irresponsible. The USA have started more wars in the past 50 years than North Korea have, so why does the USA "deserve" them and not others?
Ideally no country should have nuclear weapons, but now that the technology is out there that is impossible. I doubt that even a country like North Korea (sorry to use them as my only example, but I believe them to be the most suited) would nuke someone without provocation; at the moment they already have enough artillery to wipe out Seoul but they refrain.
Nuclear weapons are being used to strengthen the people who already have them. The allies of the USA, UK etc. are allowed them but anyone who disagrees with us isn't. It's not because they're more prone to use them, it's because we want complete control of the world.
|
On June 14 2010 06:11 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 13 2010 02:31 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:29 Whiplash wrote:On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:15 zer0das wrote:On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing. Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel. If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America? Not North Korea but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started? Technically, 0 have been started by America. If you want to drop the technicalities, then maybe two? No, I'd still say 0 were started by America. vietnam, iraq ,afhanistan... 3 started by America..
If you want to go into technics you could say that the American Revolution for independence was an "American started war," but then again America didn't exist back then. Also the civil war was completely American so if you want to count that then that would work too.
|
Well actually if you re looking for a countrey to blame it would be mine.
We helped the israeli with their nuclear technology,
we built the reactor in Iraq, twice! (we rebuilt when it was first destroyed) and we also helped Iran with his, even offering to enrich their nuclear fuel in France.
But guess what, i dont think anybody hates us (okay Sarkozy might have changed this) because France actually gives logical reasons to its actions.
Now everyone can disagreee with a state policy but when they give logical reasons, it s more likely to be accepted than if they make up reasons.
As it has been said by a coule of people in this thread, most countries are tied with each other by their economy. No state actually has any sort of true independance. Just look at what s happening with the Eurozone right now.
Making threat is also a good way to save the face when local elections come.
Imagine you re a top official and you see North Korea building up and showing off.
You have two choices :
a) Declare war and go for it
b) warn than if they go on you l ldeclare war, and give sanctions every time they go on anyways.
Which one do you think is the most likely to happen?
Obviously it doesnt work all the time (Georgia_Russia, 2008) but it s a more logical course of actions
and one last line for the whole "evil" and "good" thing.
International politics dont revolve around religious notions (or very rarely), those are merely a cover or a way to explain the situation more simply than it actually is.
"LEt s attack A because they are evil" is easier to say that "Let s attack A because if we dont, they might cause the market to become unfavorable to us, and we ll lose money'.
humans are neither evil nor good, they are sentient imperfect beings and they live with their default, greed being the dominant one at a political level.
The rest is control or belief but doesnt weigh much for actual decision. or else we would attack England because they drive on the opposite side of the road (and that s an heresy!)
Offtopic on WW2: we have a saying " with "if" you d put Paris in a bottle". It is pointless to argue what would have happend with or without America. Since most of the informations are secret anyways (real axis/ally trade, why was Russia not at war with japan until mid 1945? etc....). so grow up and get over it, it really looks like a stupid kid debate to me (like I m the best because i m from the best place, nah!)
|
Without getting drawn into the greater debate I'd just like to make some points:
Since the advent of nuclear weapons, there have been no full blown wars between nuclear powers. Nukes make people tread carefully and place a ceiling on the intensity of a war before everything spirals out of control. It is quite likely that without nukes, at some point the Cold War would have turned into a Hot War. I'd take a dozen wars the size of the Vietnam War over another WWII any day.
Iran makes make a lot of noise but keeps its actions mostly low-key. The last war Iran was involved in was, what, when Iraq invaded Iran in the 80s? In all likelihood, theocracy or not, they aren't looking to start spreading instant sunshine around. This does not mean I think that Iran having nukes is a good thing - I just don't think it's going to bring down Armageddon, and if it comes to it, I'm sure we'll manage to live with it. By the way, total nuclear disarmament is just about impossible as long as nukes are effective and one could argue that reducing stockpiles actually increases the chances somebody will try for a first-strike. If you're looking towards reducing military spending, nukes are the last place I'd look, since they're one of the most cost effective strategic weapons.
There's no denying that the US works towards its own interests, like any other state. On the whole, however, I think we could have done much worse. Any action the US takes is bound to step on some toes - in fact, one might even say that any action any state takes is bound to do so.
Going off topic, but the people proclaiming that the US singlehandedly saved Europe from the Nazis need to get some perspective. The Soviet Union was the primary force behind the defeat of the Nazis - something like 80% of all casualties were on the Eastern Front. Lend-Lease was very helpful, but didn't really kick in until after the Red Army already managed to halt the German offensive. We might have paid in materiel, but the Russians paid in blood. It's quite unfair their contribution is downplayed so often.
|
On June 15 2010 08:30 WGT-Baal wrote:
why was Russia not at war with japan until mid 1945?
Khalkhin-Gol had a lot to do with it
|
In this sort of situation, it's unlikely Israel would act unilaterally. If there was to be an air-strike on Iran's reactor's which is possible. It would be with at least tacit approval from the US and likely European/Asian nations.
Israel ends up being the bad cop that does the dirty work in this situation. As far as a nuclear Iran, no way in hell. Sorry, I'd rather no nuclear powers with state sponsored terrorism. They don't have to have it and use it, though I'm not so sure they wouldn't try and play hard ball once they got it... so much as give it to someone else to use. There was a real big stink awhile ago with the Pakistani nukes and the Taliban's offensive possibly claiming control over some of them, a serious threat indeed.
Then again, it's not as if you need a full on nuclear bomb to get notice, even simple dirty bombs are a major issue and threat.
|
On June 15 2010 02:52 Funnytoss wrote:
... how exactly did we get from Saudis potentially allowing overly rights for the IAF into this again?
On Topic:
Just out of morbid curiosity I started thinking about what this scenario would look like if it played out, since Israel seems intent on destroying whatever facilities they "think" are involved, even though so far the Western world hasn't been able prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
1. Iran's Air Force will definitely be tested. Ironically, Saudi Arabia might have already given Iran an unintentional signal as to when to expect a strike - all the Iranians have to do is monitor the Saudi air defense network.
2. Bombing a nuclear reactor sitting right next to the Persian Gulf is a pretty stupid idea to me. Huge risk of contamination if you can't do it exactly right.
3. If I'm Iran, I'm getting ready to mine the Strait of Hormuz, with teams ready to go the instant the first bomb hits. Anyone who believes the Iranians (like anyone else) would just sit back and take this is dreaming. Yeah, their air defense network could certainly be improved, but you can retaliate in all kinds of ways, many of which will probably have a negative impact on gas prices, at least. Israel already gets away with a ton of crap, but it would be interesting to see how people react if they're perceived to be the reason for increased prices, if only temporarily.
4. This could backfire on Israel in epic fashion. Suppose it's not perfect - planes get shot down (likely). Pilots get captured or killed. Huge propaganda boost for Tehran. Potential targets ae probably hardened, but not necessarily isolated away from civilization. When Iraq's reactor complex was bombed in the 80s, the site wasn't active yet, in contrast to Iran's, which means that the risk of radioactive material spreading after an attack is huge. Does Israel *really* want to deal with the political fallout from that scenario? Then again, it seems like the Israeli government doesn't actually give a fuck what people think.
All in all, I have no idea why Iran doesn't just leave the NPT. Then they can actually get nukes legally and military action is even harder to justify.
User was warned for this post
|
Keeping in tradition, expect Israel/America to start the strikes first as usual..
[link to www.israeltoday.co.il］
Headline News
Monday, July 19, 2010 Israel Today Staff
Report: Israel convinces Obama to plan for Iran strike
"According to a report in Time magazine Israel has managed to convince Washington to put the option of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities back on the table.
Israel has long argued that all of the international sanctions against Iran are pointless unless Western powers are prepared to back them up with the threat of force.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressing that point since US President Barack Obama pushed through a new package of sanctions at the UN Security Council last month.
In the past few weeks, Time reported that US Central Command has been devising a thorough plan of targeted air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The article claimed that Israel has been brought into that planning process.
Israel is also reportedly still revising its own independent plan of attack, should a solo mission against Iran become necessary."
|
i donno man, the last time someone told me iraq has WMD, things fucked up pretty bad.
if israel bomb iran, it clearly gives iran the right to declare war in retaliation WITH the consent of the UN (it clearly says so in the UN charter).
|
Although this may be rude, people who are siding with Iran are the most idiotic people. Finally, Israel can take care of the nuclear threat Iran had. Iran having a nuke is the last thing anyone wants.
|
On July 20 2010 14:11 Illusion. wrote:
Although this may be rude, people who are siding with Iran are the most idiotic people. Finally, Israel can take care of the nuclear threat Iran had. Iran having a nuke is the last thing anyone wants.
and u think the rest of the muslims in the world are going to just take that?
i m sure the jews have killed enuf ppl. and if they want more blood, they should be going after the germans.
|
On July 20 2010 14:14 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 14:11 Illusion. wrote:
Although this may be rude, people who are siding with Iran are the most idiotic people. Finally, Israel can take care of the nuclear threat Iran had. Iran having a nuke is the last thing anyone wants. and u think the rest of the muslims in the world are going to just take that? i m sure the jews have killed enuf ppl. and if they want more blood, they should be going after the germans.
Where are these "rest of the muslims" going to come from? Saudi Arabia? The single most conservative Shiite country in the world that detests Iran and most of what it stands for? Or perhaps Egypt? Egypt has, after all, so much to gain from another disastrous war with Israel. Maybe...Syria. Yeah, Syria is a regional powerhouse alright, especially with outdated Soviet equipment up against the IDF. Indonesia? Nope. Maybe the North African states? Lybia! Doubt it.
|
On July 20 2010 14:14 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 14:11 Illusion. wrote:
Although this may be rude, people who are siding with Iran are the most idiotic people. Finally, Israel can take care of the nuclear threat Iran had. Iran having a nuke is the last thing anyone wants. and u think the rest of the muslims in the world are going to just take that? i m sure the jews have killed enuf ppl. and if they want more blood, they should be going after the germans.
lol, i dont know why so many naive people like you fall for that kind of anti-semetic propaganda.
|
On July 20 2010 14:25 Illusion. wrote:
lol, i dont know why so many naive people like you fall for that kind of anti-semetic propaganda.
perhaps because you live in a country run by jews?
most Americans dont realize this, since the USSR is dissolved, USA has been the most frequent use of veto power in the UN and majority of it was used to protect Israel when the rest of the world has condemned their atrocities.
|
On July 20 2010 14:30 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2010 14:25 Illusion. wrote:
lol, i dont know why so many naive people like you fall for that kind of anti-semetic propaganda. perhaps because you live in a country run by jews? most Americans dont realize this, since the USSR is dissolved, USA has been the most frequent use of veto power in the UN and majority of it was used to protect Israel when the rest of the world has condemned their atrocities.
give me an example of these "Atrocities" your making yourself sound like a neo-nazi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
