[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Don’t they have like submarines and a navy, airforce and army and are supplied with anti-ship missiles?
I’d like to see your reaction if Iran had an aircraft carrier a few miles from your coasts.
[/quote]
We have the same defenses that Iran has.
[quote]lixy wrote:
They don’t want nukes. They want nuclear energy for civil power.
[/quote]
So, we can trust their word about this, but about wiping Israel off the map, that is another thing entirely. How do we know that “the nuclear energy for civil power” was translated correctly?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Are you living in a freak’n cave? Why don’t you ask the IAEA if “Iran cooperates with the international community.”[/quote]
Ask them yourself.
In case you didn’t know, the International Community extends beyond Washington.
I don’t swallow anything. Gkhan claimed that Iran “wants” nukes, which Tehran denies. He’s allowed to speculate, but when he presents it as fact, I have to intervene.
Man, you really are naive, or blinded by ideology, or both.
What’s baffling is that none of you get the core of the issue. It’s not about Iran making nukes as much as them having the option to make nukes if they decide to go down that road in the future. That’s the reason the US will never compromise despite whatever cooperation Iran displays. If it was up to Washington, they wouldn’t allow Iran to have centrifuges.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
We have the same defenses that Iran has.[/quote]
Quit fucking around. You know that the US would declare it a casus belli faster than ProfX swallows his morning eggs.
[quote]lixy wrote:
What’s baffling is that none of you get the core of the issue. It’s not about Iran making nukes as much as them having the option to make nukes if they decide to go down that road in the future. That’s the reason the US will never compromise despite whatever cooperation Iran displays. If it was up to Washington, they wouldn’t allow Iran to have centrifuges.[/quote]
Lixy,
I think what you’re missing in all this, what we’re all missing, is that the first reason the Iranian government wants nukes is to intimidate its own population. Rebellious regions or groups are less likely to try and break away if they think they’ll be nuked.
And what better way to demonstrate to your own people than to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ or hurt ‘The Great Satan’?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
What’s baffling is that none of you get the core of the issue. It’s not about Iran making nukes as much as them having the option to make nukes if they decide to go down that road in the future. That’s the reason the US will never compromise despite whatever cooperation Iran displays. If it was up to Washington, they wouldn’t allow Iran to have centrifuges.
Lixy,
I think what you’re missing in all this, what we’re all missing, is that the first reason the Iranian government wants nukes is to intimidate its own population. Rebellious regions or groups are less likely to try and break away if they think they’ll be nuked.
And what better way to demonstrate to your own people than to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ or hurt ‘The Great Satan’?
[/quote]
And what is your justification for this viewpoint?
I’m genuinely curious to hear.
On a related aside,do you know anyone,personally,that has been to Iran in the last year or so?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
We have the same defenses that Iran has.
Quit fucking around. You know that the US would declare it a casus belli faster than ProfX swallows his morning eggs.[/quote]
You would hope so I’m sure. But if the aircraft carrier is in international waters off our coast, so be it. We might put a few submarines in the water to keep an eye on it, but we are not like the Iranians. We would not launch a speed boat full of explosives into it for the hell of it.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,965226-4,00.html
Scifi, right?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
On a related aside,do you know anyone,personally,that has been to Iran in the last year or so?[/quote]
If you do, fill us in. Know any women who went there? What did they say?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
On a related aside,do you know anyone,personally,that has been to Iran in the last year or so?
If you do, fill us in. Know any women who went there? What did they say?[/quote]
My father was there on 3 occasions in the last two years.He has lived and worked in many Muslim countries in the last 10 years (Algeria,Saudi Arabia,Egypt and many others,till the presentt.)
He found Iran to be the most urbane,westernized of all.He did not personally encounter any of the anti western sentiment that they are credited with in so many circles.While his experiences were limited to Tehran,he also commented on the much more integrated position of women there as opposed to other staunchly Muslim countries.He said their dress,visibility and general demeanor had more in common with western culture than ‘Muslim’.
And of course the fact that Iranians are Persians,and always being thought of as Arabs by the the west,does rankle them somewhat.
So thats an abridged version of what I have been told by someone who has actually been there,and whose judgement I trust and believe in implicitly.
Not that anecdotal, first person imformation is the be all or end all of anything.
Just some conversation fodder for the thread.
[quote]lixy wrote:
What’s baffling is that none of you get the core of the issue. It’s not about Iran making nukes as much as them having the option to make nukes if they decide to go down that road in the future. That’s the reason the US will never compromise despite whatever cooperation Iran displays. If it was up to Washington, they wouldn’t allow Iran to have centrifuges.[/quote]
What’s baffling is that you don’t seem to understand exactly what “nukes” offer it’s wielders. You do understand mutual self destruction, don’t you? Or are you assuming that having “them” will end in stalemate; a deterrent from invasion?
Let’s just presume the USA invaded Iran. And Iran had these nukes. What would they do with them? Shoot them across the world, and hit US cities? I don’t believe they have the tech necessary for this. Or do they shoot them and hit US soldiers invading Iran? Or do they just shoot them at Israel?
For Iran to have an effective nuke plan, they need ICBM capabilities. Are you for this lixy? Equality in destructive capability as an answer to US hegemony?
Iran, which wants the option to develop nukes later (as you put it), has a history of abducting foreigners for hostages as a course of Politics, but you rage against the (US) Machine. Laughable.
[quote]kroby wrote:
Let’s just presume the USA invaded Iran. And Iran had these nukes. What would they do with them? [/quote]
I don’t know. But I’m sure the US army commanders are not exactly willing to find out.
ICBM isn’t voodoo.
And the US has a history of bombing and invading countries, overthrowing democratically elected regimes, and supporting terrorism. If we were to gauge who’s country is more belligerent, Iran would appear as a harmless kitten compared to the US.
Do you really want me to bring up the foreigners you guys abducted recently?
[quote]lixy wrote:
And the US has a history of bombing and invading countries, overthrowing democratically elected regimes, and supporting terrorism. If we were to gauge who’s country is more belligerent, Iran would appear as a harmless kitten compared to the US.
Do you really want me to bring up the foreigners you guys abducted recently?[/quote]
For those of you who just joined in:
The topic of the thread is France is preparing to attack Iran. We’re talking about the US because Lixy hates us and gets off by bashing us.
Might I remind you that the US is not the only country in the history of the world which has overthrown a democratically elected regime, and we are not the only country in the world which has supported terrorism.
Iran has done it’s share disrupting two democratically elected countries, it sponsors terrorism and adbucted foreigners of it’s own, so what are you trying to prove with this? That the US is just as bad as Iran or vice versa.
[quote]kroby wrote:
For Iran to have an effective nuke plan, they need ICBM capabilities. Are you for this lixy? Equality in destructive capability as an answer to US hegemony?
[/quote]
They do not need ICBM’s.
They could smuggle them in using Hezbollah or a number of other proxy Iranian terror groups and set them off.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
kroby wrote:
For Iran to have an effective nuke plan, they need ICBM capabilities. Are you for this lixy? Equality in destructive capability as an answer to US hegemony?
They do not need ICBM’s.
They could smuggle them in using Hezbollah or a number of other proxy Iranian terror groups and set them off.[/quote]
Yup. History shows that if a weapon is available, someone uses it. These crackpots are ANXIOUS to use it, esp on Israel.
Question for Lixy:
In the “France preparing to attack Iran” thread, I wrote:
“They want nukes and wonder why we are afraid, and they are afraid of an aircraft carrier?”
You responded:
'Quit the disinformation. They don’t want nukes. They want nuclear energy for civil power"
Yet in this thread, you wrote:
“A nuclear armed Iran is something that will shift (more accurately, restore) the balance of power in the ME and that’s a power the US isn’t willing to give up. America wants total hegemony over the region - if not the world - and other countries will always challenge that any way they can.”
NUCLEAR ARMED. THAT DOES NOT MEAN NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR CIVIL POWER!
And, if it is “nuclear energy for civil power” how exactly is this a challenge to America’s alleged “hegemony over the region-if not the world?”
They can not challenge us with civil power.
They can challenge us with a bomb.
You are starting to sound like Iran’s President more and more.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Question for Lixy:
In the “France preparing to attack Iran” thread, I wrote:
“They want nukes and wonder why we are afraid, and they are afraid of an aircraft carrier?”
You responded:
'Quit (sic) the disinformation. They don’t want nukes. They want nuclear energy for civil power"
Yet in this thread, you wrote:
“A nuclear armed Iran is something that will shift (more accurately, restore) the balance of power in the ME and that’s a power the US isn’t willing to give up. America wants total hegemony over the region - if not the world - and other countries will always challenge that any way they can.”
NUCLEAR ARMED. THAT DOES NOT MEAN NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR CIVIL POWER!
And, if it is “nuclear energy for civil power” how exactly is this a challenge to America’s alleged “hegemony over the region-if not the world?”
They can not challenge us with civil power.
They can challenge us with a bomb.
You are starting to sound like Iran’s President more and more.
[/quote]
He usually waits a page or 2 to contradict himself. Good find!!!