edit again, I’m retarded…
I tried to quote, ended up editing, lost the whole post…
Fuck it.
In regard to terrorist proxies being given an Iranian nuclear explosive, it’s worth noting that the Islamic Republic has long had the dual-use biological and chemical technologies to produce biological and chemical weapons; yet there have been no Iranian sponsored CBRN terrorist attacks.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Yes. We’ll see.
The mullahs do harp on the anti-America rhetoric, which one would do if one were trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Something that our hawkish politicians and pundits in the United States never, ever do, of course.
And an aphorism about barking dogs comes to mind.
In the meantime, Iran, along with Jordan and Egypt, may be the only power in the region capable of controlling the spread of the Islamic State, which to my eyes appears to be the more noxious of adversaries.
We may at very least rest easy in the knowledge that if ISIS ever do acquire a nuclear weapon, it will not have come from Iran.
[/quote]
I don’t rest easy in that at all. Death to Israel can make strange bed fellows. In as much as they hate each other now in the whole sunni/ shiite thing, an opportunity arising may change enemy to adversary. If ISIS do get a nuclear weapon, Iran would still be high on my list of culprits. It wouldn’t take much to turn foe in to friend in order to achieve common terror goals. While they hate each other ideologically, they do have common goals. Rest easy, in other words, I will not. Having ISIS deliver a nuclear payload to Israel would be very beneficial to Iran. They would be able to achieve a long stated goal and have a scapegoat. Sure it’s hypothetical at this point, but stranger things have happened. I wouldn’t rule it out based on the current situation. [/quote]
Isn’t the US currently providing Iranian Militias airborne intelligence while they fight ISIS to regain (city name escapes me)?
So… If we are working with Iran, who wants to kill us, the Jews and ISIS, to kill ISIS, who wants to kill us, the Jews and anyone that isn’t one of them; why would Iran suddenly team up to kill the Jews, knowing we and the Jews would just fuck them both up?
I guess I’m saying that it makes no sense to sorta kill enemy #2 to turn around and use them to kill enemy #1, knowing full well they might have hard feelings for shooting them first.
But then again, FP isn’t even remotely my area of remotely close to bare bone knowledge and understanding. [/quote]
Yeah, that was kind of what I was thinking. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and even if he’s also the enemy of my friend, it does not necessarily follow that he will arm our mutual enemy to attack their mutual enemy, who is my friend.
Who says foreign policy is complicated? It’s just like high school.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
edit again, I’m retarded…
I tried to quote, ended up editing, lost the whole post…
Fuck it. [/quote]
Got you covered, Beans.
I quoted your whole post just above.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If the documents leaked by Edward Snowden are correct, and al-Baghdadi was trained by Mossad, then it kind of makes me wonder whether he really REALLY wants the death of Israel, or is just pretending to in order to give his growing gang of malcontents something to rally around.[/quote]
Can someone please explain to me why anyone thought the creation of ISIS out of a band of terrorists who were one of three main enemies during the Iraq occupation, the others being the remnants of the Baath Party, & the Mahdi Militia, was a good idea and why would it benefit Israel to have these crazies so close to their border? How is this a better situation than having Assad in charge?
[/quote]
What was one of the stated benefits of the Iraq debacle? The fact that it brought all the al Qaeda crazies out of the woodwork and concentrated them in a single area.
Well, consider this to be a continuation of that policy, only now the crazies are marching in formation and waving black flags so they’ll be easier to identify and shoot.
Besides, it’s politically complicated to shoot at Syrian soldiers. Much easier to shoot at members of a terrorist organisation.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
To the point, evil is evil. The shrieking, apocalyptic Iranians and the cold, conniving Russians – both embody pure evil. Which ones are crazier seems obvious to me and not to you. Oh well.[/quote]
Do you mind descending to my level and educating me on what makes the Iranians crazier than the Russians?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Because, as Sting said “The Russians love their children too”. (or some crap), while the Iranians used children to clear minefields.[/quote]
And the Russians sent tens of thousands of their children off to war during WW2.
As for your claims on the Iranians, from wiki-
“Iranian law prohibits the recruitment of those under 16, basing itself on the Koranic traditions about war. However, the state broke those rules by the middle of the Iran-Iraq War. As nationalism and anger to the Iraqi invasion spread, some children (along with old men) volunteered for the Basij militia, often from areas destroyed by the Iraqi invasion. All were volunteers, often more passionate about their cause than their adult counterparts, and were mostly over 13 years of age. In 1984, Iranian president Ali-Akbar Rafsanjani said, “all Iranians from 12 to 72 should volunteer for the Holy War.”[46] Young volunteers’ participating in war was heavily utilized by Western media for Anti-Iranian propaganda, and among most popular stories was alleged “distribution of plastic keys to paradise.” Most of such stories were really myths, propaganda, or embellished stories, and the child soldiers simply fought alongside their adult counterparts, often in Basij RPG or mine clearing teams. A small number of schoolchildren currently serve in the ranks of the Basij, an Iranian paramilitary force, according to CSUCS, generally above the age of 16. They have reported that the state conscripts for the regular army at age 19- while accepting volunteers at age 16- and those at 17 can work for the police.[47]”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Only going to address a couple of these.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The KH-55 range is 1550 miles not 1300. That extra 250 miles of range goes a long way in Europe. But that is only if they are in the mood to be nice by respecting borders and launch from inside their own airspace. [/quote]
2500 kilometers is 1300 nautical miles, which is what you use when you are talking about flight. Presumably the rocket would be flying, and not covering 1550 statute miles on a truck.
My mistake. Perhaps they can retrofit their existing 747s with solid fuel rocket engines.
I’d say that any approach of an Iranian airliner to US airspace would be looked at extremely askance. I mean, if there were any direct flights out of Teheran that could come anywhere near US airspace.[/quote]
They only had eight 747’s. But the sanctions prevent them from getting spare parts to maintain them properly so more than half of them aren’t flying anymore or are about to be retired.
You have ridiculous excuses for everything just so you can rationalize your stupidity. If the Iranians were going to attack the US Maybe they would fly a plane out of another territory. It’s not like every plane flying everywhere on the globe is being tracked.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Only going to address a couple of these.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The KH-55 range is 1550 miles not 1300. That extra 250 miles of range goes a long way in Europe. But that is only if they are in the mood to be nice by respecting borders and launch from inside their own airspace. [/quote]
2500 kilometers is 1300 nautical miles, which is what you use when you are talking about flight. Presumably the rocket would be flying, and not covering 1550 statute miles on a truck.
My mistake. Perhaps they can retrofit their existing 747s with solid fuel rocket engines.
I’d say that any approach of an Iranian airliner to US airspace would be looked at extremely askance. I mean, if there were any direct flights out of Teheran that could come anywhere near US airspace.[/quote]
They only had eight 747’s. But the sanctions prevent them from getting spare parts to maintain them properly so more than half of them aren’t flying anymore or are about to be retired.
You have ridiculous excuses for everything just so you can rationalize your stupidity. If the Iranians were going to attack the US Maybe they would fly a plane out of another territory. It’s not like every plane flying everywhere on the globe is being tracked.[/quote]
While we’re on the subject of ridiculous excuses for justifying stupidity, please tell me what you think would be the excuse for justifying a preemptive nuclear attack on the most powerful military empire in the history of the world by a pipsqueak Islamic republic that hasn’t started a war or invaded another country since before the aforementioned military empire declared its independence from the previously most powerful military empire in the history of the world.
It would be ironic if they did, considering they would be unconsciously emulating Alexander, a pipsqueak king of a pipsqueak country, who had the audacity to take on the most powerful military empire in the history of the world…which was Persia!
He won, of course, because despite being a pipsqueak, he had superior technology. Something that the Persians do not now have.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
What was one of the stated benefits of the Iraq debacle? The fact that it brought all the al Qaeda crazies out of the woodwork and concentrated them in a single area.
[/quote]
I thought it was to topple the Saddam regime…Oh well, but weren’t the terrorists already concentrated in a single area…that area being Afghanistan? Still makes no sense to me.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Because, as Sting said “The Russians love their children too”. (or some crap), while the Iranians used children to clear minefields.[/quote]
And the Russians sent tens of thousands of their children off to war during WW2.
As for your claims on the Iranians, from wiki-
“Iranian law prohibits the recruitment of those under 16, basing itself on the Koranic traditions about war. However, the state broke those rules by the middle of the Iran-Iraq War. As nationalism and anger to the Iraqi invasion spread, some children (along with old men) volunteered for the Basij militia, often from areas destroyed by the Iraqi invasion. All were volunteers, often more passionate about their cause than their adult counterparts, and were mostly over 13 years of age. In 1984, Iranian president Ali-Akbar Rafsanjani said, “all Iranians from 12 to 72 should volunteer for the Holy War.”[46] Young volunteers’ participating in war was heavily utilized by Western media for Anti-Iranian propaganda, and among most popular stories was alleged “distribution of plastic keys to paradise.” Most of such stories were really myths, propaganda, or embellished stories, and the child soldiers simply fought alongside their adult counterparts, often in Basij RPG or mine clearing teams. A small number of schoolchildren currently serve in the ranks of the Basij, an Iranian paramilitary force, according to CSUCS, generally above the age of 16. They have reported that the state conscripts for the regular army at age 19- while accepting volunteers at age 16- and those at 17 can work for the police.[47]”[/quote]
Look up the 12th Imam and Iran. What is the Russian or Communist equivalent of this belief? Do the Russians believe they have a hand in bringing back the risen Messiah?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
While we’re on the subject of ridiculous excuses for justifying stupidity, please tell me what you think would be the excuse for justifying a preemptive nuclear attack on the most powerful military empire in the history of the world by a pipsqueak Islamic republic that hasn’t started a war or invaded another country since before the aforementioned military empire declared its independence from the previously most powerful military empire in the history of the world.[/quote]
Here is the theory:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Because, as Sting said “The Russians love their children too”. (or some crap), while the Iranians used children to clear minefields.[/quote]
And the Russians sent tens of thousands of their children off to war during WW2.
As for your claims on the Iranians, from wiki-
“Iranian law prohibits the recruitment of those under 16, basing itself on the Koranic traditions about war. However, the state broke those rules by the middle of the Iran-Iraq War. As nationalism and anger to the Iraqi invasion spread, some children (along with old men) volunteered for the Basij militia, often from areas destroyed by the Iraqi invasion. All were volunteers, often more passionate about their cause than their adult counterparts, and were mostly over 13 years of age. In 1984, Iranian president Ali-Akbar Rafsanjani said, “all Iranians from 12 to 72 should volunteer for the Holy War.”[46] Young volunteers’ participating in war was heavily utilized by Western media for Anti-Iranian propaganda, and among most popular stories was alleged “distribution of plastic keys to paradise.” Most of such stories were really myths, propaganda, or embellished stories, and the child soldiers simply fought alongside their adult counterparts, often in Basij RPG or mine clearing teams. A small number of schoolchildren currently serve in the ranks of the Basij, an Iranian paramilitary force, according to CSUCS, generally above the age of 16. They have reported that the state conscripts for the regular army at age 19- while accepting volunteers at age 16- and those at 17 can work for the police.[47]”[/quote]
Look up the 12th Imam and Iran. What is the Russian or Communist equivalent of this belief? Do the Russians believe they have a hand in bringing back the risen Messiah?[/quote]
No idea.
However, the American Christian equivalent is the belief that the Messiah will not return until the Kingdom of Israel is fully restored… meaning, until all the Jews return to Israel and restore the Temple of Solomon. Which, I suppose, explains in part the fervent Zionism of many Evangelical Christians.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
While we’re on the subject of ridiculous excuses for justifying stupidity, please tell me what you think would be the excuse for justifying a preemptive nuclear attack on the most powerful military empire in the history of the world by a pipsqueak Islamic republic that hasn’t started a war or invaded another country since before the aforementioned military empire declared its independence from the previously most powerful military empire in the history of the world.[/quote]
Here is the theory:
That was a pretty neat promotional video. The Russian have come a long way in the visual effects department. And what a cool idea to put missile launchers in shipping containers. Wish I’d thought of it. I wonder who the two neighbouring countries in the video are supposed to be, one idyllic and one bellicose. The Dominican Republic and Haiti? Costa Rica and Nicaragua? Louisiana and Texas?
Of course, in order to create a nuclear electromagnetic pulse, you kind of have to have nuclear weapons.
So the theory is, if I understand correctly, that the Iranians are going to hastily cobble together a nuclear warhead, which they will affix to a missile, which they will then hide in a shipping container, which they will then furtively transport to someplace off the Atlantic coast of the US, then launch the nuclear missile UNDETECTED into the ionosphere, where it will explode, causing power outages all along the Eastern Seaboard. Allahu Akbar!!
Seems like an awfully Rube Goldbergian plan, and a miserable waste of a perfectly good nuclear warhead, which the Iranians still don’t have.
If their goal is to humiliate Obama, I think there are much simpler ways.
Like just letting him speak.
And in any case, while the shipping crate EMP missile theory does somewhat address the question of how, it still doesn’t tackle the issue of why.
Why would the Iranians take such a huge risk? What do they stand to gain by attacking the most powerful country on earth?
The Japanese had a very good reason. They really thought they could cripple the Pacific Fleet and prevent us from intervening in their theft of the European colonies in Asia. And they were already caught up in the glee of conquest.
What benefit, real or imagined, could the Iranians, who I repeat have not started a war since the 1730s, possibly derive from launching an unprovoked nuclear strike on the United States?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
It’s not like every plane flying everywhere on the globe is being tracked.[/quote]
No, but every plane flying into North American airspace is.