1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Iran Leader: Israel Will Be Annihilated

Discussion in 'The OT' started by tomcrown1, Apr 14, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Apr 16, 2006 #61 of 202
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    i.e. black is white and white is black.... I'd beware of zebra crossings if I were you.:lol:

    Come on, the guy SAID Israel should be "wiped off the face of the earth" - just a few breaths of air after bragging about his progress to get nuclear weapons which would make that just a bit easier. You want to debate whether he is clinically insane? Debate away, I don't care. He's still a danger to world peace whether he's a raving lunatic or diabolical evil - Hitler or Manson, it don't make a bit a difference to me. He is a threat.
     
  2. Apr 16, 2006 #62 of 202
    Fifty Caliber

    Fifty Caliber Banned User

    979
    0
    Jan 4, 2006
    For once I agree with you.
     
  3. Apr 16, 2006 #63 of 202
    Opynion

    Opynion Godfather

    403
    0
    Mar 21, 2006
    Some people in this thread want to pretend that he is not a threat,
    or maybe :scratch: that is just what they really want, for him to have the opportunity to wipe Israel off... :rolleyes: :cool:
     
  4. Apr 17, 2006 #64 of 202
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Why? Is Israel dirty? Perhaps our next aid package should include Windex and paper towels?

    The issue is not if "he"(Iran) is a threat. It's who is he a threat to, and when.

    Currently, "he" and/or Iran is a threat to NOBODY!!! Perhaps in a few years they MIGHT be a threat to Israel. But even then not to the USA. And this assumes not only that they produce a workable bomb, but also an adequate delivery system. In this case it would necessarily seem to have to be a rocket as the Israeli Air Force could certainly intercept and shoot down any plane. And I'm assuming they have already been supplied by US with the latest high-tech radar to detect it loooong before it reachs Israeli air space.

    In this equation, the bomb is the easy part. Saddam's Scuds could barely make it to Israel in '91 and with lame accuracy. And Iraq is a lot closer! Pakistan has been working on rockets a lot longer than Iran(assuming Iran's even working on rockets) and it's suspected even their most advanced rocket doesn't have the payload necessary for even their smallest bomb. The irony is they can send the rocket, they just can't send the bomb along with it.:p

    Anyway, any nation's first bombs are bound to be pretty clunky. Just look at Fat Man and Little Boy. Neither Pakistan nor Iran are up to producing the compact bombs we or even the Russians produce, and no where near the rocket capabilities needed. I suppose they could somehow get a rocket from Russia or even China. But I don't think either of them would want to get mixed up in that kind of deal.

    And of course, this all assumes that even if Iran gets a viable bomb and adequate rocket, they will throw everything away for that one swipe at Israel, a "swipe" that could very well end in failure. However, even if they tried and failed, the gloves would be off! If an Iranian rocket were shot down in the Negev with an atomic warhead on it, exploded or not, Iran would be immediately subject to massive retaliation, possibily including nukes from not only the US but probably Israel as well. And I think with the general support of the international community, even most of the Arab/Islamic states. IF Iran fired a nuclear tipped missile with the intention of "nuking" Israel, nobody could argue it wasn't time to put the hammer down on them.

    But, the question here is whether we should attack them NOW for something they might or might not have in the future and what they may or may not do with it IF they get it?

    That's a lot of "mights, mays, ifs, ands, or buts". Are you willing to start a THIRD war in the region based on them?
     
  5. Apr 17, 2006 #65 of 202
    tommccann

    tommccann Legend

    182
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    My question is: Will the American people stand by again and allow the president to start another war based upon dubious intelligence? Before we start looking to Iran we need to look at our own leadership and wonder what planet they are living on!

    Fighting a war to achieve peace has rarely worked...especially when we don't even know who the "enemy"is!
     
  6. Apr 17, 2006 #66 of 202
    AllieVi

    AllieVi Hall Of Fame

    1,530
    0
    Apr 10, 2002
    I spent a year of my life in Viet Nam while disagreeing with our involvement there, so apparently I'm willing to subordinate my beliefs to my country.

    That experience caused me and many others to scrutinize the decisions of our leaders. Winning that war was billed as essential to our survival and we were told that, if we failed, the entire Asian continent would fall into the communist camp. Our trade and access to oil supplies were supposedly threatened. A loss there was supposed to be be catastrophic. It didn't work out that way, and life goes on (for some of us).

    I'd like a government that involves itself less with events on the other side of the globe and more with domestic economic issues. I'd like it to take steps to reduce our dependency on oil from unstable parts of the world. I'd also like it to balance the budget and pay off our national debt.

    What kind of government are you looking for?
     
  7. Apr 17, 2006 #67 of 202
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    And Pyongyang now plans to develop even larger missiles--the Taepo Dong-I and -II--with ranges exceeding 1,500 and 4,000 kilometers respectively. North Korea actively markets all of its missiles to customers in the Middle East, including Iran, Libya, Syria and Egypt. (See related story: North Korea's Missile Exports.)
    http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/nkorea/nukemiss.html
    just one link I found, and even it is a bit dated. You are seriously underestimating the capability of Iran to drop a nuke on Israel. And Iranian students often study in the US, the "clucky" Fat Man is also a bit of an overstatement. While not being as efficient as US technology perhaps, it would be effecient enough. Iran has plenty of SCUD-B and SCUD-C which are quite capable of being outfitted with a nuke. They may not be as accurate as US technology, but do you really think they have to be if the target is Tel Aviv or Jerusalem? Accuracy is needed if you want to plop it down on a military base and miss the civilian center. Not a concern to Iran.

    So you're argument is that we should wait until there are a few million dead, then it would be Ok to put the hammer down. .... Oh, Ok - silly me to think you were just being an anti-Bush partisan. :sure: :p

    First, do you recall how the 1st World War started? It didn't start with a massive offensive. It started because a Serbian terrorist group assassinated Ferdinand. Then each action, brought a reaction by neighboring countries,... Germany into Belgium, Britain declaring war then on Germany,.... a whole domino effect into the entire region was engulfed in war. Now, what would the effect be if say, someone laid a nuke on top of Jerusalem????
     
  8. Apr 17, 2006 #68 of 202
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    Ah, the nice, gentle fellow admits that he is enriching uranium that is perfectly useful for his "intended", peaceful purpose as is. We don't NEED intelligence to know what he is doing since he gives a progress report each step of the way. Do you actually believe that he is NOT attempting to build a bomb?
     
  9. Apr 17, 2006 #69 of 202
    tommccann

    tommccann Legend

    182
    0
    Mar 23, 2002

    Of course, I am sure Iran is trying to build a bomb. North Korea has built a number of bombs. Is there talk of attacking them? No, because one of our closest allies largest city, Seoul, is only 35 miles from the border!

    Our President and his administration has the attacks of 9/11 as a blank check to start wars based upon dubious intelligence. Bush won't say it but his "War on Terror" is war upon anyone who doesn't fall in line with his ideology, and shame on us, the American people, that we haven't held our government accountable!
     
  10. Apr 17, 2006 #70 of 202
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    I think you have the sides reversed here. You might want to check. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Apr 17, 2006 #71 of 202
    Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    We didn't nuke Japan because of Pearl Harbor. We nuked them to end the war (and save millions). Estimates ranged up to 5-10 million Japanese dead if we had to invade.

    Not to say that the firebombing of Germany was right, though.
    Millions died in Russia (our ally) but not in G and J (our enemies).
     
  12. Apr 17, 2006 #72 of 202
    Opynion

    Opynion Godfather

    403
    0
    Mar 21, 2006
    The U.S. needs the Alaska oil, that's the only place where the U.S. could have the greatest supply of oil; and, it's no use in trying to balance the budget and pay off the national debt, as long as we have irrational presidents that luv to stick their noses around the world, like in Iraq for example, it's was understandable to go Afghanistan, to search for the terrorists of 9/11
    but it made no sense at all, to invade Iraq.
    G.B.jr. went on a crazy rampage with tax-payers money, only for his personal reason of getting Iraq's oil, it was very easy for him to send soldiers to Iraq, but it wasn't easy for him to go to Vietnam, alot of chickens refused to go to Vietnam, if you know what I mean. :lol:
     
  13. Apr 17, 2006 #73 of 202
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,575
    373
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    What you said here is really the crux of the issue. A LOT of people seem to want to jump on the attack bandwagon based on a lot of hypotheticals.

    Meanwhile, I'd be willing to bet most of those same people would cry "foul" if police showed up to their door to arrest them for something they had not done, but that a neighbor claimed they had heard them say out loud.
     
  14. Apr 17, 2006 #74 of 202
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    So, your logic is that "since he gives a progress report each step of the way", Iran IS planning to develop a bomb AND IS planning to use it to attack Israel.

    I'm not saying we should trust that they AREN'T planning either of these. But would it make you feel better if this were all clandestine? That they were trying to keep their projects secret?

    Of course they want a "bomb". It will prevent US from attacking them. They know it and we know it. And "WE" want to keep that option open.

    All efforts should be made to convince Iran they have no need for a bomb. But the emphasis should be on "convince". I'm not sure holding a gun to their head is the right approach. So far, it seems to have "convinced" them of the opposite!
     
  15. Apr 17, 2006 #75 of 202
    Radicalman

    Radicalman Cool Member

    23
    0
    Apr 21, 2005
    I think we send them over something a lot more lethal than nukes...: Open up a Hooters franchise in downtown Tehran....Those chicks will send them screamin'...
     
  16. Apr 17, 2006 #76 of 202
    Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    You can't equate neighborhood policing with interational politics. Bad analogy. But if you like- the state can come and take your children due to the suspicion of child abuse. Which of course has no bearing at all regarding the situation with Iran.

    Iran already supports terror. Iran is defying the world in trying to get nuclear technology. They aren't an innocent bystander here.
     
  17. Apr 17, 2006 #77 of 202
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    They want a bomb to fulfill their dream of eliminating Isreal from the map, PERIOD. If you think they want it to keep us from attacking them you are also a dreamer.
     
  18. Apr 17, 2006 #78 of 202
    tommccann

    tommccann Legend

    182
    0
    Mar 23, 2002

    And in return Iran will be removed from the map, then Russia will retaliate in support of the former Iranian government and so on......
     
  19. Apr 17, 2006 #79 of 202
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,575
    373
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    In other words... you don't want to extend rights to other nations that you believe we in the USA have for ourselves.

    Two wrongs don't make a right, or so the cliche goes.

    So go ahead and kill everyone who looks at you funny or says something you don't like... then when you're done with that, watch your back because you probably have said something that someone else didn't like and they will be gunning for you.

    Great way to live! :(
     
  20. Apr 17, 2006 #80 of 202
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    And the firebombing of Tokyo?

    There are several possible excuses for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Saving millions" is just the most popular and reassuring one. I'm willing to chalk up the decision to a little naivete about the effects, although they should have had a pretty good idea what they would do. The military viewed the bomb as just another high explosive. A demonstration could have been done. Dropping one in Tokyo Bay and blinding half the population might have been effective for instance.

    But the hidious little secret may be that we were in fact conducting an experiment. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of little strategic importance and therefore had not previously been heavily bombed. They were "virgin" targets and therefore perfect to study the effect of an atomic bomb on cities and their populations. So was it a coincidence we choose those two targets? We could have targeted Tokyo where Japan's leadership could have witnessed the devastation first hand. But Tokyo had already been virtually destroyed and it would be harder to distinguish the bomb's effects from previous destruction.

    Lastly, Russia's declaration of war on Japan was probably the deciding factor in both our decision to drop the bombs AND Japan's decision to surrender. This was August with Winter fast approaching. Japan had no fuel and was squeezing pine cones to make a very poor substitute for gasoline. A siege over the Winter would have probably brought them to their knees without the need for an invasion. However, Stalin would not have been willing to wait. He was after territory and perhaps even the Japanese mainland. Not an attractive prospect for either US or Japan! The cost of an invasion in human terms was of little concern to Stalin. He would have gladly thrown human wave after human wave against Japan to acheive his goals. Russia already had 50 million dead, what's a few more million?:(

    Now keeping Russia out of Japan was a good thing and a smart move for everyone involved except of course for Stalin. And everybody knew it, especially the US and Japan. Whether "dropping the bombs" was necessary to this end is debatable and dubious. In fact the final surrender terms were essentially what Japan had offered BEFORE Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked. And contrary to popular belief and the propaganda at the time, it was NOT an "unconditional" surrender. The "condition" was the emperor would remain as titular leader of Japan and would not be tried for war crimes, which he certainly could have been. And that was about the ONLY "condition" Japan was still holding out for BEFORE the bombs!

    So, in conclusion.:D Japan's surrender, and the use of "the bombs" probably had less to do with "saving millions" and more to do with political and military considerations(not necessarily poor excuses). "Saving millions" was just the comforting PC explanation for vaporizing a couple hundred thousand civilians in two blinks of the eye.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page