Iran Leader Calls for Israel's Destruction
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Really ? What do you think they would seek to build ? I'd guess bombs and people to strap them to.
I'm sure they will. But who are they going to attack? There will be a thousand differernt factions fighting for control and all of them more interested in defeating each other than the west. Their terrorist efforts would be exhausted against one another.
Christian Graus wrote:
I think this is a pipe dream.
Well, what we are doing now is a pipe dream. And it is also a pipe dream to believe that any amount of touchy feely diplomacy in that region is ever going to do any good. But I believe that there are more people in the middle east who would fight to build more modern societies if the back of the Islamic fundamentalist instrastructure could be broken than there are terrorists. If these people were given a fighting chance, I think they would prevail. It would be a bloody mess, but frankly, I don't see any way to avoid a bloody mess. I just do not believe that there is a bloodless solution to any of this. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote:
I just do not believe that there is a bloodless solution to any of this.
On that, I certainly agree. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
I don't think it would be too difficult for anyone who had a copy of Jane's military aircraft to figure out that F-15's would have to refule somewhere. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
My son isn't. He'll be 18 in about 14 months.
cripes! I have a grandson who is finishing Marine bootcamp in a week. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon
Hell, I still have an 11 year old at home... :sigh: "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel Should Iran be allow to get the bomb? This is a huge red flag.
That sounds pretty mild to me. You may not realize this but almost all the Arab nations dislike Israel. That doesn't mean their going to start chucking nukes around because they can. Think about it - if one nation gets away with a nuclear strike, it would only encourage others - there would have to be masive retaliation. A more likely scenario is a nuclear device loaded onto a ship and detonated, with no clue as to who did it. Muslim Pakistan already has the bomb and could possibly accomplish this kind of strike, but they haven't.
-
kgaddy wrote:
Well they are already doing that. What is the diffrence?
The difference is that they would have nothing to lose.
kgaddy wrote:
THey already said they want to destroy Israel. What else do you need?
I'm not sure what you mean here. They made a threat, so we should nuke them ? US meddling in the Middle East, particularly in relation to Israel, is the reason the whole area is shot to hell to start with.
kgaddy wrote:
This pipe dream came true in Lebanon.
I didn't say it was impossible, but the idea that any country will follow the US model, when initially forced to, is what doesn't hold true for me. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
S meddling in the Middle East, particularly in relation to Israel, is the reason the whole area is shot to hell to start with.
You need to read up on history. Isreal was attacked the day after it became a nation in 1948. This had nothing to do with the US. That area was already messed up. And yes, if a man is bulding a nuke and he says he is going to blow you and your family up, you better blow him up first. Of course you can choose not too, but you will be removed from the gene pool forever.
Christian Graus wrote:
I didn't say it was impossible, but the idea that any country will follow the US model, when initially forced to, is what doesn't hold true for me.
Forced too? Read stan's post again. He said he would leave it and hopfully they would see how well Iraq's system was going and follow it.
-
Wow! I'd love to see that too, but for the oposite reason of yours. It would be like trying to extinguish fire with gasoline. Americans would become radioactive in the middle-east for the next 20 years. You would have to say goodbye for cheap oil, goodbye to any influence in the region, ... Oh, well, it would be to good to be true. Even Bush can't be so crazy...:sigh: Dadinho é o caralho! Meu nome agora é Zé Pequeno, porra!
Leandro Firmino da Hora in the best movie[^] you'll ever see.Diego Moita wrote:
Americans would become radioactive in the middle-east for the next 20 years. You would have to say goodbye for cheap oil, goodbye to any influence in the region, ...
Compared to what? Now? It is way past time for us to be concerning ourselves one way or another with how anyone in the middle east feels about anything. The only reason international Islamic terrorism exists is because of its secure bases of operation in the middle east. If those are eliminated, they are impotent to stage the kinds of attacks we have been seeing for the last several years. They will have no choice but to fight each other to restore stability to their own region. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
That sounds pretty mild to me. You may not realize this but almost all the Arab nations dislike Israel. That doesn't mean their going to start chucking nukes around because they can. Think about it - if one nation gets away with a nuclear strike, it would only encourage others - there would have to be masive retaliation. A more likely scenario is a nuclear device loaded onto a ship and detonated, with no clue as to who did it. Muslim Pakistan already has the bomb and could possibly accomplish this kind of strike, but they haven't.
-
It's diffrent when you are about to have the bomb and then start making threats. I have not heard Pakistan call for the destruction of Israel.
-
I wish Bush would just go ahead and invade Iran and Syria. Politically, he doesn't have much left to lose, and we certainly need to take them out. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
And thats the problem with having a max of two terms in office. First term is to get reelected, second term is to settle scores
-
And thats the problem with having a max of two terms in office. First term is to get reelected, second term is to settle scores
Can't say I disagree with that - although I think settling scores would be the least of the problems with it. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Can't say I disagree with that - although I think settling scores would be the least of the problems with it. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
:laugh: Apparently. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Diego Moita wrote:
Wow! I'd love to see that too, but for the oposite reason of yours.
Diego Moita wrote:
It would be like trying to extinguish fire with gasoline. Americans would become radioactive in the middle-east for the next 20 years. You would have to say goodbye for cheap oil, goodbye to any influence in the region, ...
Wow, I didm't realize you hated America so much. Let me ask you this, based on what you read (assuming you read the articles), do you think something should be done?
kgaddy wrote:
Wow, I didm't realize you hated America so much.
Oh, please! You can do better than repeating political propaganda tricks, can't you? Analyze this: a) English is not my native language. It took me time, money and effort to learn it. And it is the language of America. b) I am using a PC (American invention) running Windows (made in...). c) I am posting in a forum (frequented mostly by Americans) in the internet (invented at ...) Now, I might not be too bright, but I can spell "contradiction" and consult a dictionary. If I "hated america", I wouldn't be speaking/writing here, wouldn't be in a language you'd understand and wouldn't be writing to you, right?;) It is not about hating america, it is about hating imperialism. America is wonderfull when is not bad.
kgaddy wrote:
do you think something should be done?
Honestly? I think this imbroglio (or quagmire) can only have a chance of success if you redefine success. Iraq is lost for the mobs already. The better the Bush administration can do now is try to save some of it's interests: the Saudi cleptocracy, Kuwait, Bahrein, Mubarak, etc. Dadinho é o caralho! Meu nome agora é Zé Pequeno, porra!
Leandro Firmino da Hora in the best movie[^] you'll ever see. -
So what made you dislike Americans so much? Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Rob Graham wrote:
So what made you dislike Americans so much?
Please read my answer to kgaddy bellow. Dadinho é o caralho! Meu nome agora é Zé Pequeno, porra!
Leandro Firmino da Hora in the best movie[^] you'll ever see. -
Diego Moita wrote:
Americans would become radioactive in the middle-east for the next 20 years. You would have to say goodbye for cheap oil, goodbye to any influence in the region, ...
Compared to what? Now? It is way past time for us to be concerning ourselves one way or another with how anyone in the middle east feels about anything. The only reason international Islamic terrorism exists is because of its secure bases of operation in the middle east. If those are eliminated, they are impotent to stage the kinds of attacks we have been seeing for the last several years. They will have no choice but to fight each other to restore stability to their own region. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote:
Compared to what? Now?
Yep! There are still some interests to defend : the cleptocracies in Egipt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and the oily friends in Kuwait, Bahrein, etc.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If those are eliminated, they are impotent to stage the kinds of attacks we have been seeing for the last several years. They will have no choice but to fight each other to restore stability to their own region.
A brazilian proverb for you: "I planted a seed of 'if' and got an 'almost' this big". That means: trust in invalid assumptions and expect a disaster. Lots of 'if' justified the invasion of Iraq and its clear they make less sense each passing day. The same way the 'if's you're assuming to justify bombing more bad guys in the middle east also don't hold. The main ones: -You don't have enough soldiers to do it; -You may have resources (read dollars) to do it, but you can't spend them on this. Not after tax cuts and Katrina. -It would be devastating for your interests there. Dadinho é o caralho! Meu nome agora é Zé Pequeno, porra!
Leandro Firmino da Hora in the best movie[^] you'll ever see. -
A theory based on one guy. Not really proof. And my point was still that I have not heard the president of Pakistan threaten Israel like Iran's president did. kgaddy (on my wife's computer)
Pakistani president and neither any leader from Pakistan ever called for attack on Israel, instead Pakistan moved a step further by shaking hands with Israel (Pakistan held first official contact with Israel last month). But motivation behind this is nothing but the resolution of Palestine dispute. While sitting in US or Europe, you just cant imagine level of grievances prevailing in this part of world against Israel. Everyday there are news of Israeli attacks on Palestinians. Palestanians are poor, they dont have money enought to eat well, dress well, get educated. yet Israel attacks them every now and then very proudly as they were fighting with some super power. You must understand this thing fuels resentment against Israel. Few people says only muslims are against Israeli aggressions... no gentleman, no! every sane person when watches prevailing situation in israel/palestine with clear adn unbiased mind, very easily deduces who is the aggresser (Israel) and who is the oppressed. (Palestine) So when Irani president says Israel would be destroyed, you should see this in full context. One last word, Pakistan though never said it would attack Israel ever, but angry emotions of Pakistani people against Israel are known to everyone. So if ever Israel attacks Iran (as some of my coder fraternity proposed here) Pakistan would be forced to retaliate and help Iran. I hope I made my point clear... dont comment on something without going deep into history and visualising the whole context...
-
I don't think it would be too difficult for anyone who had a copy of Jane's military aircraft to figure out that F-15's would have to refule somewhere. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Who the fuck is Jane, and how the hell does she know so much about guns and shit? I worked in defense in the UK, we had Jane's Nuclear Subs, Jane's attack helicopters... she must be some psycho babe! Nunc est bibendum -- modified at 6:14 Thursday 27th October, 2005