Iran Nuclear Standoff

[HURAKAN]

Cold War all over again.

[wbug1]

Terrarr, I'd be more afraid of being shot by someone in a major US city than being blown up by an Islamic terror group.

New York had just under 500 homicides in 2007. Of those, only about 70 were committed by strangers, the rest were the result of domestic disputes.


al Qaeda killed just under 3000 New York workers in a couple of hours.

If terror groups get a nuclear weapon, they can kill more than that.

Yeah, but Al Qaeda, if it was them, don't fly planes into building every year, while New York is just one of many cities in the United States, which has 17,000 murders and over 1,000,000 violent crimes every year. So, you ask me, if I was visiting the US what I would be worried about, the answer is clear. Iran does not equal a terrorist group, and the Iranian government would have to be fools (and they aren't) to let any terrorist group get a bomb.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Iran has used the terror group Hezb'Allah as their version of the French Foreign Legion for almost their entire history.

They order terror strikes through Hezb'Allah, and then have what is known as plausible deniability.

And one can claim Iran is smarter than to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, but their leaders have implied just that, and have said that they could survive a nuclear reprisal from Israel, but Israel ( a nation smaller than New Jersey) would not survive a nuclear attack on it.


During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran sent children to walk through mine fields, so they'd be killed, not more experienced soldiers. The Islamic faith does not have the same regard for life that most other religions do.

I know it is considered old fashioned among the sophisticates in Europe, the same type of people who counseled for surrending Czechoslovakia to Hitler, to ever consider using force against evil, but allowing evil the chance to grow just increases the magnitude of the killing when someone with a Churchillian spine finally says "enough".

[Ed Mahmoud]

This may be political in the geopolitical sense, but I consider the United Nations worse than useless.


Not just countries like Cuba and Saudi Arabia winding up on human rights councils.


The United Nations Security Council. 5 nations with veto power and a permanent seat. Supposedly the five winners of World War 2. Except France surrendered quickly to the Nazis, and had to be saved by Britain and the US. The China that opposed Japan fell to totalitarians. Russia was one of the aggressors of the war, invading Finland, signing the Molotov-von Ribbentrop non-aggression treaty with Hitler, and participating in the invasion of Poland that started the war.

China seeks resources, and not having much of a moral base, is willing to support genocide in Sudan and potential madmen in Iran to get it. After a ten year experiment with democracy, Russia is drifting back into Soviet style totalitarianism, with the free press shut down, and a renewed sense that their identity resides in opposing the United States. Russia is making valuable hard currency selling Iran the equipment to build its nuclear weapons, and tension in the area and corresponding higher oil prices increases the value of Russias oil exports.


All the UN can do is vote out meaningless and toothless resolutions. And the General Assembly can criticize the one democracy in the Middle East, which grants citizenship to Arabs, and even lets them serve in the Knesset (Parliament), for responding to terror attacks, while ignoring the human righst abuses in neighboring countries.


I wish the US would withdraw from this failed league of nations.

[cycloneye]

Cold War all over again.

If all war breaks out in the middle east,Russia will side with Iran,U.S. will side with Israel and all bets are off of having World War 3. The big sleeper will be China in terms of what they do.Will China be the peacemaker or they choose sides?

[wbug1]

Iran has used the terror group Hezb'Allah as their version of the French Foreign Legion for almost their entire history.

They order terror strikes through Hezb'Allah, and then have what is known as plausible deniability.

And one can claim Iran is smarter than to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, but their leaders have implied just that, and have said that they could survive a nuclear reprisal from Israel, but Israel ( a nation smaller than New Jersey) would not survive a nuclear attack on it.


During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran sent children to walk through mine fields, so they'd be killed, not more experienced soldiers. The Islamic faith does not have the same regard for life that most other religions do.

I know it is considered old fashioned among the sophisticates in Europe, the same type of people who counseled for surrending Czechoslovakia to Hitler, to ever consider using force against evil, but allowing evil the chance to grow just increases the magnitude of the killing when someone with a Churchillian spine finally says "enough".

No one wins in a nuclear war, but I agree that the current Iranian leader is a fruitcake for his comments on the holocaust and his threats. As it is, I don't find Bush to be on an even keel himself. Iran's military isn't anywhere as weak as Iraq's, but Iran should be watched like a hawk, that's for sure.

[Derek Ortt]

Terrarr, I'd be more afraid of being shot by someone in a major US city than being blown up by an Islamic terror group.

New York had just under 500 homicides in 2007. Of those, only about 70 were committed by strangers, the rest were the result of domestic disputes.


al Qaeda killed just under 3000 New York workers in a couple of hours.

If terror groups get a nuclear weapon, they can kill more than that.

Yeah, but Al Qaeda, if it was them, don't fly planes into building every year, while New York is just one of many cities in the United States, which has 17,000 murders and over 1,000,000 violent crimes every year. So, you ask me, if I was visiting the US what I would be worried about, the answer is clear. Iran does not equal a terrorist group, and the Iranian government would have to be fools (and they aren't) to let any terrorist group get a bomb.

The bolded part of your post just destroyed any and all credibility that you may have had

[Derek Ortt]

Cold War all over again.

If all war breaks out in the middle east,Russia will side with Iran,U.S. will side with Israel and all bets are off of having World War 3. The big sleeper will be China in terms of what they do.Will China be the peacemaker or they choose sides?

I highly doubt Russia will blow the world up for Iran

[wbug1]

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran sent children to walk through mine fields, so they'd be killed, not more experienced soldiers. The Islamic faith does not have the same regard for life that most other religions do.

I'm quite sure the Quran says nothing about it being OK to send kids into minefields, as I'm QUITE sure the bible doesn't say anything about it being OK for the Americans to bring slaves from Africa, or indeed for banks to charge interest rates on loans.

[Ed Mahmoud]

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran sent children to walk through mine fields, so they'd be killed, not more experienced soldiers. The Islamic faith does not have the same regard for life that most other religions do.

I'm quite sure the Quran says nothing about it being OK to send kids into minefields, as I'm QUITE sure the bible doesn't say anything about it being OK for the Americans to bring slaves from Africa, or indeed for banks to charge interest rates on loans.

The slave trade was essentially over by the time the US was established. Roughly half of the United States outlawed slavery from the beginning. The English, French, Spanish and Portuguese, ie, Europeans, were the ones who brought African slaves to the Americas.

[wbug1]

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran sent children to walk through mine fields, so they'd be killed, not more experienced soldiers. The Islamic faith does not have the same regard for life that most other religions do.

I'm quite sure the Quran says nothing about it being OK to send kids into minefields, as I'm QUITE sure the bible doesn't say anything about it being OK for the Americans to bring slaves from Africa, or indeed for banks to charge interest rates on loans.

The slave trade was essentially over by the time the US was established. Roughly half of the United States outlawed slavery from the beginning. The English, French, Spanish and Portuguese, ie, Europeans, were the ones who brought African slaves to the Americas.

I hope you're not suggesting that the early Europeans weren't Americans? Because if they were in America.. I call them Americans. Besides, all that's over now, isn't it? With a young Obama to become President?

[southerngale]

I hope you're not suggesting that the early Europeans weren't Americans? Because if they were in America.. I call them Americans. Besides, all that's over now, isn't it? With a young Obama to become President?

The election isn't until November and we don't know who our next President will be yet. We also won't be discussing that here as politics are not allowed.

I only skimmed a few posts. Something tells me I need to go back and read further.

[wbug1]

What was it I remember, America a melting pot and Canada a tossed salad.

[Ed Mahmoud]

I've just noticed a certain smugness before from Europeans, over things like the African slave trade. The English/Spanish/French/Portuguese bringing slaves to the New World may have been in America, but they were citizens of European countries. The United States didn't exist. It wasn't just the English either, if you want to go there.


And the European smugness, back when they were as monolithic as it comes, ethnically, toward America's problems with racism.

But now I see stories of ethnic tensions in Scandinavian countries, big riots in France, a resurgence of Flemish nationalist groups in Belgium, a whites only British National Party in the UK, and I just have to allow myself a touch of schadenfreude.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Quitting time...

[Cryomaniac]

The BNP have a reasonable amount of support in inner-city areas, and I think they will probably get 1 or 2 seats at the next election =/.

To keep this non-political, which is becoming increasingly difficult, in my mind there is no way Russia would openly declare war on the west. It would be MADness (Pun, massively intentional). I do think that they could easily get away with funding Iran though, which of course gives a reason why what Derek said about Iran's effectiveness (or lack of it) could be wrong.

[Derek Ortt]

How much would Russia fund Iran though? Would it be enough to make a significant difference? And if it is just monetary funding, there is a time lag prior to being able to take that on the battlefield

[Cryomaniac]

How much would Russia fund Iran though? Would it be enough to make a significant difference? And if it is just monetary funding, there is a time lag prior to being able to take that on the battlefield

The point is, there's nothing to say they haven't been doing it already. They have certainly sold weapons to Iran already, and have supposedly been training Iran's nuclear officials.

[vbhoutex]

Fair warning. This thread became way too close to becoming a flame war and too political. It seems to have settled down now but any more of what I saw several posts ago by different individuals could easily result in some actions being taken by staff. Let's not ruin it. This thread has been remarkably good as far as the discussion has gone on the topic without getting over the line politically or otherwise. Let's keep it that way.

[cycloneye]

I second what the administrator said.