# Ahmadinejad refuses to rule out nuclear weapons.



## B-17engineer (Sep 18, 2009)

What do you think?

Ahmadinejad refuses to rule out weapons - Iran- msnbc.com


----------



## evangilder (Sep 18, 2009)

It would be naive to think that his nuclear program was only for "peaceful" purposes.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 18, 2009)

VERY naive.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 18, 2009)

I think the program is there to extract concessions out of European nations in particular. I think if they think they can use these weapons without retaliation, they wouldnt hesitate. But the meer threat and existence of these weapons is achieving a lot for Iran.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Sep 18, 2009)

Sorry, but I can't believe when he says it's only for 'peaceful purposes'.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 18, 2009)

Madmen should never be trusted.


----------



## diddyriddick (Sep 19, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Sorry, but I can't believe when he says it's only for 'peaceful purposes'.



"Peaceful" extortion from his neighbors, perhaps.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 19, 2009)

Of course he has no desire to use them peaceful purposes. He is a mad man who wants to see Israel removed from the map. I also would not hold it against him to try and gain more land in the ME.


----------



## PJay (Sep 19, 2009)

Israel has nukes. Iran wants nukes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 19, 2009)

PJay said:


> Israel has nukes. Iran wants nukes.


I seriously doubt that Israel has a "death to Iran" mindset, as opposed to Ahma-nutjob's vision of a utopian islamic world ruled by a single person (he's graciously offered to be the first) by whatever means nessecary...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 19, 2009)

[sarcasm] Well thank God we are going to try and reason with an unreasonable person! [/sarcasm]


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 19, 2009)

I think he'd refuse to listen if we tried. I think he wants us to negotiate for personal gains.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Sep 19, 2009)

Hmm, can't say I'm surprised. Maybe the Clerics (Ayatollah?) influenced him with this (I think they have more power in the government than he does, please correct me if I'm wrong). Still, we might have to keep an eye on Iran, least US and the UK (not sure about the rest of the UN, but I'm not holding them to high standards).


----------



## Erich (Sep 19, 2009)

what a *ick-wad, he needs to get laid.

the fool even tries something, Israel will pulverize the whole country. He should know this to be true it has been repeated in the worlds media enough times. If ahmijdipstick would quit drinking toilet water he would smarten up


----------



## Amsel (Sep 20, 2009)

Erich said:


> what a *ick-wad, he needs to get laid.
> 
> the fool even tries something, Israel will pulverize the whole country. He should know this to be true it has been repeated in the worlds media enough times. If ahmijdipstick would quit drinking toilet water he would smarten up


The main problem facing Isreals' preemptive strike on Irans nuclear facilities may be the current American Democratic Congress. I would not be surprised to see the more liberal congressmen try to push to defend Irans' airspace and nuclear plants by force. There is a growing anti-Isreal sentiment in the administration and Democratic party. It would be a terrible thing for America to shoot down another democratic nations aircraft in their attempt to defend themselves against another holocaust.


----------



## Erich (Sep 20, 2009)

sorry Amsel will tell you no-one tells or thinks for Israel they will do what they feel necessary given the time and place.


----------



## Amsel (Sep 20, 2009)

Yes sir, agreed. I just hope that we can support them during these increasingly dangerous times, when alliances are shifting.


----------



## PJay (Sep 20, 2009)

It's political posturing. No Iranian gov saying 'Peace with Israel' would last long.
Parallels. Argentine gov and the claim on the 'Malvinas'
Spanish gov and Gibraltar.
Israeli gov stopping expansion into Palestine territory.
Ahmadinejad wouldn't bomb Israel because much of Iran would be turned into radioactive glass if he did.
Mad? Remember Ronald Raygun and his 'evil empire' comments? JOKING about bombing Russia?
I worry more about Pakistan, a place with nukes AND delivery systems which is about as stable as a tower of Jello.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 20, 2009)

Khamenei seems a little keener to deny them than his president

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Khamenei 'rejects' nuclear bombs


----------



## stasoid (Sep 20, 2009)

PJay said:


> I worry more about Pakistan, a place with nukes AND delivery systems which is about as stable as a tower of Jello.



Agreed 100%.
Pakistan with its nukes is like a monkey with grenade - half population can not read and write, radical movements and absolute poverty makes this country more dangerous to the World then Iran and North Korea combined.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 21, 2009)

stasoid said:


> Agreed 100%.
> Pakistan with its nukes is like a monkey with grenade - half population can not read and write, radical movements and absolute poverty makes this country more dangerous to the World then Iran and North Korea combined.



You just described North Korea and Iran as well, so I dont understand your point.

At least Pakistan is not threatening to destroy its neighbors like Iran is.


----------



## PJay (Sep 21, 2009)

It's polemic. You don't believe what politicians say, do you?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 21, 2009)

PJay said:


> It's polemic. You don't believe what politicians say, do you?





Who me? 

Does or does not Iran and N. Korean threaten their neighbors with nuclear war?

Aren't both nations people living in poverty?

Do or do not both nations have radical movements (Iran the most in this case...).

Both nations have very high illiteracy rates.

So again how are they different from Pakistan in the case. At least Pakistan does not threaten a scorched earth on its neighbors. I agree that Pakistan is a real problem and threat to stability in the region and world, but how are they worse than Iran or N. Korea. The only way I see is if a Nuke falls into the wrong hands. N. Korea or Iran having nukes is already in the wrong hands.


----------



## PJay (Sep 21, 2009)

Pakistan actually has nukes and missiles. I'd think NK and Iran are actually more stable.


----------



## Erich (Sep 21, 2009)

stable ? hardly with those 2 clowns in charge, all they have to do is mis pms once and who knows what they are capable of.

lets clear the air about your bullshit about Israel taking over more phillistine/palestinian lands shall we, take a nice long visit and see first hand what is going on, Chris named it well, the folks are brutally poor due to their own inactivity and those they elected in charge.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 21, 2009)

PJay said:


> Pakistan actually has nukes and missiles. I'd think NK and Iran are actually more stable.



Keep living in a fantasy world buddy. 

Just because someone has Nukes does not mean they are going to blow everyone to hell. Based off of this last post of yours, the USA, England, France, Russia, China are all unstable....

So again I ask you these questions (and please stop skirting around the facts).

1. How is Pakistan less stable than Iran and N. Korea?
2. When has Pakistan threatened to blow anyone to hell and back just for the hell of it?
3. Do Iran and N. Korea not threaten to blow everyone to hell and back on a regular basis?
4. Does Iran and N. Korea have a pretty radical government?
5. Are Iran and N. Korea not made up of a large population base that lives in poverty?

So lets see. Iran and N. Korea have radical governments, people living in poverty, and openly threaten to destroy their neighbors, and are actively pursuing nuclear weapons and you think they are stable????


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 21, 2009)

Just something you guys would like to see....


----------



## PJay (Sep 21, 2009)

1. I think the Pak gov is more likely to fall than NK or Iran. Leaving useable nukes to whoever grabs them.
2. THIS Pak gov no. See above answer.
3. Yes. Posturing and polemic. See previous posts.
4. They both exaggerate an external threat to stay in power. I don't like either of them but I worry about Pakistan more. Iran's recent election was probably as valid as the recent Afghan election.
5. Surely the average wage of a country is not what we're discussing?

Edit. Nice picture. What makes you think it's actually true?

Erich, I said that an Israeli gov which SAID it was going to stop expansion wouldn't last long.
What any gov says and what a gov does are different.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 21, 2009)

PJay said:


> 5. Surely the average wage of a country is not what we're discussing?



No but people that living in poverty with very little education are more likely to believe and follow a radical government.



PJay said:


> Edit. Nice picture. What makes you think it's actually true?



Do you actually believe that Iran is not trying to make nuclear weapons? Seriously...


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 21, 2009)

Exactly. What Adler said. They have the resources, well the Uranium part for that matter.


----------



## stasoid (Sep 21, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You just described North Korea and Iran as well, so I dont understand your point.
> 
> At least Pakistan is not threatening to destroy its neighbors like Iran is.



Pakistan is not thretening - it's acting - terrorizing its neighbor India, hosting terrorist training camps on its own soil, supplying jihadists all over the world, weather it's Chechnya, Bosnia, Afganistan, Iraq, you name it.

Living standards are very low - GDP per capita somewhere around 2.500USD. Compare it to 12.000USD GDP per capita in Iran.

Literacy rate in Iran is close to 80%, to the best of my knowlege they have science and industry over there, when most of Pakistanis live literaly in caves, only 30% of women can read and write.

Iran has oil, so, it's future is bright. What does Pakistan have? A bunch of hungry pesants leading a 16th century lifestyle? They have nothing to lose, really.

The problem with Iran is only its current leadership. Once it's changed they have good chances to become a prosperous and peaceful country.

Same with N Korea - hardworking peaceful people like South Koreans. Their regime will eventually evolve into a moderate and more open, something like China today.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2009)

stasoid said:


> Pakistan is not thretening - it's acting - terrorizing its neighbor India, hosting terrorist training camps on its own soil, supplying jihadists all over the world, weather it's Chechnya, Bosnia, Afganistan, Iraq, you name it.



You just described Iran and N. Korea again. Go read up on the history of these nations and look at all they have done. Some of it will probably churn your stomach.

Besides India does the same to Pakistan. It is a two way street over there...



stasoid said:


> Literacy rate in Iran is close to 80%, to the best of my knowlege they have science and industry over there, when most of Pakistanis live literaly in caves, only 30% of women can read and write.



I seriously doubt that it is 80%. The majority of the country does not live in big cities. They live in small towns, women have no rights. The people are illiterate enough to fall into the arms of the radical clerics.



stasoid said:


> Iran has oil, so, it's future is bright. What does Pakistan have? A bunch of hungry pesants leading a 16th century lifestyle? They have nothing to lose, really.



Iran has no future until it lets go of the radical clerics ruling it. Until it gets rid of its policy of nuclear destruction of Israel and destabilizing the region, it has no future...



stasoid said:


> The problem with Iran is only its current leadership. Once it's changed they have good chances to become a prosperous and peaceful country.



You just described any country in the world. 



stasoid said:


> Same with N Korea - hardworking peaceful people like South Koreans. Their regime will eventually evolve into a moderate and more open, something like China today.



Maybe in the future. But we are in the *now*. At this moment, N. Korea is one of the most destabilizing, volotile and aggresive nations in the world. They have already started one war, almost re-started on almost a yearly basis, and with its leadership is a time bomb ready to go off. Hopefully it will not...


----------



## PJay (Sep 22, 2009)

DerAdler, I'm probably over-cynical about Western Intell reports. But i remember 'Iraq's WMDs' and the US/Russki 'Missile Gap' and 'Bomber Gap'.


----------



## Amsel (Sep 22, 2009)

I am always surprised to hear that likely intelligent people actually think that Hussein did not have WMD's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2009)

PJay said:


> But i remember 'Iraq's WMDs



So do, I was over there. You say, don't believe everything the govt. tells you (you are correct), but also don't believe everything the press tells you...


----------



## PJay (Sep 22, 2009)

Iraq certainly HAD WMD's but I read that they had been buried under roads etc.
They were notable by their absence in Gulf War 2.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Sep 22, 2009)

They still have them. If the Iraquis could bury a Mig in the desert, how hard do you think it is to bury half a dozen crates of sarin gas?


----------



## Erich (Sep 22, 2009)

PJays the things are documented well enough in photos, we gave them ample time to bury and move to places like Syria, this is all known fact. We have covered this several times on this forum during the last party over there...........


----------



## Maestro (Sep 24, 2009)

There is something on the fire and I don't like the smell of it...

Does anyone else sees WWIII coming up or is it just my very imaginative mind ? Iran wants to attack Israel, Israel will retaliate with help from the US, Pakistan and all other Muslim countries will throw their men into the battle yelling : "Allah Akbar ! Jihad ! *Jihad ! JIHAD !*"

India, who never liked Pakistan, will not miss its chance to attack it. The British Commonwealth will surely jump in to protect their old colony. North Korea will probably try to make some gains using the back door, with help from China. And Russia, in such a situation with their Tsaristic leader, will surely try to invade East-Europe (may be even the whole God damn continent).

I don't like this at all...


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Sep 24, 2009)

Maybe your right Maestro, but it's still too early to speculate (still to many what if's, not enough clarity in the situation, least that's what I think). 
Still, I doubt the UN will do anything about trying to stop this escaluation until it literally comes up and bites them in the [email protected]@.


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 24, 2009)

I think Maestro though, that one bomb as said before isn't an arsenal. So Israel will blown Iran off the map with no necessary help.


----------



## Maestro (Sep 25, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> Still, I doubt the UN will do anything about trying to stop this escaluation until it literally comes up and bites them in the [email protected]@.



Yeah... Just like the good ol' SDN with Hitler.

"Hitler can't rearm, he doesn't have the right to..."

*Poland falls*

"Hitler has rearmed ! We must do something !"

*Holland falls*
*Belgium falls*
*France falls*


----------



## evangilder (Sep 25, 2009)

The UN is worthless and corrupt. Don't expect them to do anything that would be for the good of the world. They have too many agendas that are often anti-west. One only needs to have seen the highlight reel from this weeks UN love-fest to see that nothing is really going to happen aside from lip service. The UN provided a global stage for despots like Ahmadinejad and Ghaddafi. 

I wish we would have launched a second strike on Libya when we had a chance. While strike 1 shut Ghaddafi up for a while, he's back, and just as venomous. Erich, your velodrome needs an annex.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 25, 2009)

Agreed 100% Eric....

Im actually kinda surprised that the Mossad has not actually taken matters of State Security to the right level... Terminate this fu*ker and get back on track..


----------



## parsifal (Sep 25, 2009)

Nearly all the western nations are saying that the UN is outdated and so cumbersome as to be unworkable. Our PM has been pushing to transfer international fiscal management to the G-20. Everyone is saying that the UN cannot do its job anymore. 

I never had much faith in the UN, but short of running around bullying everyone with regional agreements, and the rule of the gun, I cannot see a viable alternative soon. Perhaps running the world affairs from the G-20 is the best alternative, as it is these tin pot nothing countries that cause most of the problem. Even though ther have been disagrements with Russia, France and the like, these are at least dialogues. Gaddafi and Im a nut job dont want constructive dialogue. I thihnk the best way to deal with these suckers is to not deal with these suckers....even if that means paying more for oil. These guys need us more than we need them. And a for "police actions" or "peacekeeping", the G-20 nations provide 99% of the resources anyway, so who cares about these tin pot countries


----------



## Butters (Sep 25, 2009)

I don't think that the situation warrants running around yelling, 'The sky is falling! the sky is falling!", just yet... It's not 1939, Iran is not Nazi Germany, and Ahmadinejad is not Hitler, hyperbole to the contrary.

Ahmadinejad does not rule Iran with an iron fist, and even if he did, it does not follow that he would act in accordance with his vitriolic rhetoric. The leaders of the Islamic countries are a cynical bunch, but they are not generally fools. They know what plays well with their audience, but they also know that Israel serves their political ends far better by its existence than it would by being destroyed. Israel is the one thing that unifies the deep division between the Sunnis and the Shiites. It also serves as a useful scapegoat for diverting the frustration and anger of their miserable citizens. The mob marching in the streets screaming their hatred against the Zionists is a mob that is not screaming for the heads of their leaders...

The Israelis are well aware of the progress of the Iranian nuclear program. They also have the means at their disposal to render it ineffective. That they have not attempted to do so strongly suggests that they do not believe that the possible threat is commensurate with what it would cost them, both politically and militarily, to neutralize it. The Iranian leadership is also aware of this. So they bluster on as ever, successfully impressing the Muslim masses with their defiant rhetoric.

"Much sound and fury, signifying nothing"...

JL


----------



## Amsel (Sep 26, 2009)

Actually Irans' hands are very bloody with Jewish and American blood. They are the leading state sponsor of terrorism and have been linked to thousands of murders since 1984, when the US State Department recognized them as a leading sponsor of terrorism. They train, fund, and arm Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as well as the insurgency in Iraq. Are these the type of people that need nuclear weapons? If they are allowed to produce nukes, I can almost guarentee that those who could have stopped them will one day wish they did.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 26, 2009)

This point in history is not unlike many other times in the past where the politicians make deals and screw each other in the back while the people on the street only see what's supposed to be seen.

And in the end, after the smoke clears and the bodies are counted, the finger pointing begins...

Been this way for thousands of years and since people never learn from the past, I figure it'll keep going on until we push humanity into extinction...


----------



## Maestro (Sep 26, 2009)

Butters said:


> "Much sound and fury, signifying nothing"...



I don't think so... Islamic revolution is what put Ahmadi-douchebag's party to power. Members of that party are all conservative Muslims (AKA Islamists or even Jihadists).

Jihadists consider any acts of killing as worth the price as long as the name of Allah is pronounced. In other words, they are mad with God as much as Europeans dictators were mad with power.

Can you thrust a mad man ? No.
Can you thrust a mad man who's greatest fantasy is to destroy the West ? No.
Can you thrust a mad man who's greatest fantasy is to destroy the West *and* who believes that 72 virgins are waiting for him in heaven if he gives his life for Allah ? *F*CK, NO !*


----------



## Butters (Sep 26, 2009)

So now you can read minds? Sorry, but I suspect otherwise...

You don't know what those Iranians are thinking. Or what they want. All you're really doing is drawing inferences from what the media reports. And given the general attitude towards the veracity of the media I see here, I'm somewhat mystified by your uncritical acceptance of their 'biased' reporting in this matter. Just as I am by your use of capitalized expletives. Do you really think that it adds support to your argument?

The members of the Iranian regime are not interested in the promised virgins and a chance to meet Allah. Or at least not right now. That's for the chumps they cynically deliver up to Allah... If a martyr's suicide is all it would take to achieve their goals, doncha think that they would have already taken the easy route? Since they haven't, perhaps what they really want to accomplish is something more down to earth. Like change the world to match how it ought'a be. At least from their perspective...Sound familiar?

Again, Ahmadinejad is not a dictator. His power is shared. Shared with the same people who are quite happy to deal with the Israelis when it serves their interests to do so. Or have you forgotten 'Iran-Contra'? They may hate Israel, and do what they can to inflict injury upon her people, but only so far as they can get away with without suffering too much damage in return. They are pragmatists. Hateful, bigoted pragmatists, but pragmatists all the same. Sure, they want nukes, but just because they want them, it does not follow that they want to use them. Esp if by doing so can only lead, as they well know, to their utter destruction. It's a matter of honor and prestige as much as anything else. They certainly won't sacrifice themselves, 72 virgins or not, for the sake of the Palestinians. Hell, they don't even like the Palestinians -certainly not the Sunni majority. All they care about is what the Palestinians symbolize.

Get a grip, pal. It ain't Armeggedon quite yet.


----------



## Maestro (Sep 27, 2009)

Of course I can't read minds... But are you gonna wait until they strike to act ? Just like the French at the Maginot line in 1940 ? Because, if you didn't know, nukes are not like the German Blitzkrieg, they are way faster and more destructive.

Ahmadinedjad is not a dictator ?!?  *Hey, breaking news guys !*

For sure he is not a dictator technically speaking, he was elected (in a very doubtful way, remember the riots of last summer), but he still rule the country as he (and his little Islamist friends) wants it. His power is shared just like Hitler's power was shared with the Nazi Party.

By the way, do you know that Heavy Metal music is illegal in Iran ? And that just having long hair and wearing a black t-shirt makes the Iranian authorities believe that you are a Satanist ? You can be thrown in jail just for doing one of the following (taken from the documentary _Global Metal_) :

- Possessing heavy metal records
- Selling heavy metal records
- Having long hair and wearing a black t-shirt
- Painting/drawing graffitis of heavy metal bands (i.e. Metallica or Slayer)
- Satanism

If we look at things that are not linked to heavy metal, the following can get you in jail/stoned to death :

- A wife cheating on her husband
- A girl having sex before wedding
- Demonstartions/riots
- A woman sueing a rapist without having a male witness of the act (like if that would be easy to find)

So Iran is not a dictatorship ? Think again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2009)

Maestro said:


> Of course I can't read minds... But are you gonna wait until they strike to act ? Just like the French at the Maginot line in 1940 ? Because, if you didn't know, nukes are not like the German Blitzkrieg, they are way faster and more destructive.
> 
> Ahmadinedjad is not a dictator ?!?  *Hey, breaking news guys !*
> 
> ...



Just to point something out, those are not necessarily policies of a dictatorship. Any government can enact such laws. It has nothing to do with being a dictatorship.

Iran is not a dictatorship per say. While I agree that it is pretty much one, because I believe the elections were a farce which makes it a defacto dictatorship, on paper it is not.


----------



## Maestro (Sep 27, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just to point something out, those are not necessarily policies of a dictatorship. Any government can enact such laws. It has nothing to do with being a dictatorship.



Uh, yeah... Thanks for putting me back on tracks, here. 

However, on the heavy metal part, they are still stepping on the Freedom Of Speech.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Interesting...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past - Telegraph


----------



## RabidAlien (Oct 4, 2009)

Sounds like another quarter-jewish corporal I've read about, who attacked the Jews even though, by his own definition, he was one....


----------



## Butters (Oct 4, 2009)

Now that is interesting. I went to the Al Jazeera site to see what they had to say about it, but there was nothing yet.

Can't wait to see what the Iranians have to say about having a Jew in charge...

JL


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 4, 2009)

That'll go over like a turd in the punch bowl. Of course it will be the US and UK's fault.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 4, 2009)

Oh they'll put a spin on it, you can bet on that...

Just like the "Holocaust never happened", "Islam possessed Jerusalem first", the "United States is persecuting muslims" and so on...


----------



## stona (Oct 4, 2009)

Is being jewish a religious or racial question? Hands up nazis. If his parents converted to Islam and he accepted their faith then he is surely a muslim.
I notice this appeared in the Daily Telegraph, a newspaper not unknown for printing ...erm... planted stories, true or not.
We should beware of double standards. We hardly went mad with rage when Vanunu revealed Israel's nuclear weapons program but then most of our western governments had (illegally) helped them with it and obviously therefore had known about it all along. He blew the whistle on them as much as the Israelis.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 4, 2009)

I think it's more of the rhetoric then anything else. If Israel and sworn to wipe off a Muslim country off the map I'm sure there would have been some serious concern when they had gotten the weapon- just as if any Western country had done the same.


----------



## stona (Oct 4, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I think it's more of the rhetoric then anything else. If Israel and sworn to wipe off a Muslim country off the map I'm sure there would have been some serious concern when they had gotten the weapon- just as if any Western country had done the same.



I agree and was not trying to equate Israel and Iran. I think a lot of Iranian (and other islamic states) rhetoric stems from them feeling misunderstood and unfairly treated by the western world. Israel's nuclear program is just as illegal as Iran's. They focus this resentment particularly on the U.S. as the pre-eminent western power. We really do need to communicate with these people though I appreciate that it is difficult to talk to someone who is holding a grenade and threatening to kill you!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> Sounds like another quarter-jewish corporal I've read about, who attacked the Jews even though, by his own definition, he was one....



If you are talking about Hitler, the theory and rumors that his father was part Jewish have been proven to be false.


----------



## RabidAlien (Oct 5, 2009)

Hadn't heard that, Adler, thanks! (I'd read somewhere that it was his Grandmother who was Jewish, though)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 5, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> Hadn't heard that, Adler, thanks! (I'd read somewhere that it was his Grandmother who was Jewish, though)



Nope, but we got this way off topic...


----------



## RabidAlien (Oct 5, 2009)

My bad! Now...back to the regularly-scheduled topic...


----------



## ToughOmbre (Oct 13, 2009)

Speaking of Ahmadinejad and nuclear weapons...... 

From Fox News.....

*Plan B for Iran? U.S. Wants Bunker-Buster Fast*

TO


----------



## Maestro (Nov 6, 2009)

Uh, oh... Look at what I just found...

Report: Iran Tested Advanced Nuclear Warhead - Iran | Map | News - FOXNews.com


----------



## Amsel (Dec 2, 2009)

> Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said it is not necessary to hold discussions with the West, Reuters reported.
> 
> "Iran's nuclear issue has been resolved ... We will hold no talks (with major powers) over this issue. There is no need for talks," Ahmadinejad told state television, according to Reuters.



Ahmadinejad: 'Friendly Relations' With U.N. Nuclear Watchdog Are Over - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

I thought our new, friendly, soft power would woo them into our coalition for sure.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 28, 2009)

For the first time ever, Israel has called ALL of its ambassadors and consuls home for meetings this week in Jerusalem.


First Heads of Mission Conference to be held in Jerusalem-24-Dec-2009


> The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, headed by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Liberman, will host a conference next week (27-31 December) for Israeli Heads of Missions. At the conference, Israel’s ambassadors and consuls general serving throughout the world will discuss broad diplomatic and strategic issues.
> 
> This is the first time a conference for all of Israel’s Heads of Missions has been held. The idea is to facilitate direct dialogue with the country’s leaders, mutual updates on major diplomatic issues, and a discussion of action plans to deal with the challenges awaiting the State of Israel in the international arena in the coming year, including the Iranian threat.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 28, 2009)

I just pray they dont try and fire a nuclear rocket at israel. It will get very nasty if something like that happens


----------



## evangilder (Dec 28, 2009)

Nasty isn't the word for it. If Iran fired a nuclear weapon at Israel, Iran would become the worlds largest ashtray and things in the Middle East would be changed forever.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 28, 2009)

Something has to give and it looks like it's in the works. If the US/UN/EU isn't getting it together and stopping this, then the Israelis will probably do it themselves. Nothing new there. But I don't think they can get it done. To stop the Iranians building a bomb, there have to be sustained airstrikes, not just one timer. And that's probably beyond the Israeli capability. They can set them back some, but...

That recall of the Ambassadors is a worrying development.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 28, 2009)

I am 100% pro-Isreali and hope and that the west continues to back Isreal. Things have not been good for the Isrealis this year.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 28, 2009)

Things are looking pretty chaotic in Iran right now, the people are rioting heavy in the streets. The Police have been shooting into the crowds again, but this time the civilians are shooting back.

This could one of two ways...one being the government of Ahmanutjob gets toppled and the people get the more pro-democratic guy in there.

Or, Ahmanutjob decides to totally crack down on the people and uses that as an excuse to hurl a few missiles at Israel to create an internal diversion. (you know the rhetoric: It's Israel's fault for the civil unrest, the U.S. made him do it, blah blah blah)


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 28, 2009)

I actually was thinking along the same lines (attacking Israel to change the focus of his citizens). The only worse thing then a mad man, is a mad man with nukes.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 28, 2009)

Nuclear exchanges frighten the hell out of me. If Iran did fire five or six nukes at Israel, could Israel retaliate? If they could not, would the west undertake a massive retaliation on her behalf? 

If the ayrhabs did pull the nuclear trigger, there should be a massive, unequivocal and terrifying response. The Arabs think we are weak because they think in essentially medieval terms. If it was us at their mercy, they would hesitate to cut half our heads off, and enslave the rest of us. Because we struggle with feelings of guilt and moral correctness, they just think we are pissants, deserving of no respect at all.....


----------



## timshatz (Dec 29, 2009)

parsifal said:


> If the ayrhabs did pull the nuclear trigger, there should be a massive, unequivocal and terrifying response. The Arabs think we are weak because they think in essentially medieval terms. If it was us at their mercy, they would hesitate to cut half our heads off, and enslave the rest of us. Because we struggle with feelings of guilt and moral correctness, they just think we are pissants, deserving of no respect at all.....



If they take a shot at Israel, they'll shoot back. Nuclear exchange, definitely. However, I don't think the US would get involved at that level. I honestly don't think the guy in the white house would get involved. Even with the Isaelis getting hit first, I think President Obama would not react. The guy isn't that type (and I think our enemies know it) The Israelis would launch and that would be that. 

The question that pops into my mind is how much is going to go back and forth. I've heard the Israelis have in excess of 100 warheads. But what do the Iranians have? I wouldn't be suprised if they had a couple, up to half a dozen or so, nukes at present. But the delivery system and yield are questionable. If the Iranians do send a nuke at Israel, how many will they send back? With a "one nuke country" like Israel, it could be a full retaliation because there's not much left at home.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 29, 2009)

I can see the nutjob in Iran dropping a nuke on hisr own country and claiming it was from Israel.


----------



## RabidAlien (Dec 29, 2009)

Or smuggling them across the borders in trucks, and detonating them without any sort of warning. It'd be the ultimate suicide-bomber's wet-dream. Or try to get them close to an Israeli nuke site, pop em off, and then sit back and claim that it was their own faulty nukes that went. See? No launches from MY country...!


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 29, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Nuclear exchanges frighten the hell out of me. If Iran did fire five or six nukes at Israel, could Israel retaliate? If they could not, would the west undertake a massive retaliation on her behalf?
> 
> If the ayrhabs did pull the nuclear trigger, there should be a massive, unequivocal and terrifying response. The Arabs think we are weak because they think in essentially medieval terms. If it was us at their mercy, they would hesitate to cut half our heads off, and enslave the rest of us. Because we struggle with feelings of guilt and moral correctness, they just think we are pissants, deserving of no respect at all.....


Some slight political errors in your view
Iranians aren't Arabs, they're Persians and Arab/Persian relations are probably a damn sight more strained than Arab/Western relations; any strike by the Persians would probably have the Arab world looking to the West rather than rising up against it. It's not an unrealistic scenario, Egypt are hardly bosom buddies of Israel, but M'Barak laughed (in a political sense) at Saddam Hussein's attempt to draw Israel into Desert Storm with the Scud launches and bear in mind that both Egypt and Iraq are Arab nations - M'Barak wasn't going to let Hussein play the ethnic card.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 29, 2009)

I dont think it matters whether they are arab, or persian, muslim or christian. For whatever reason, these people do not think or have the same value system as us, and ther are elements of that society that think beheading people is morally okay, or sending twelve year olds into a crowded market is a way to get to heaven. For me its a small step from that kind of crime to lobbing nuclear bombs in the general direction of Israel. 

Iran has already demonstrated its complete disdain for the west by its failure to comply with numerous calls to cease their nu8clear program....and we have reacted with our characteristic euro-based vaccilation and weakness. The Iranians have hosted holocaust denial oriented sessions. They sponsor terrorist organizations that destroy sovereign countries, and we do nothing about it. They display flagrant disregard for international protocls and diplomatic immunity and we do nothing about it......I think they are being greatly encouraged and tempted by our weakness to detonate a bomb, or six, by the way we behave. 

What we need to do is demonstrate a zero tolerance for these people. They send in their suicide bombers, we send in our b-52s....they sponsor a terrorist organization, we confiscate their overseas assets and send the proceeds to the victims of their sponsored organzation , that kind of thing 

Churchill showed the way as to how the Nazis needed to be dealt with 70 years ago. We have forgotten the lessons that we learnt all that time ago. We need to re-learn what we have forgotten.


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 30, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I dont think it matters whether they are arab, or persian, muslim or christian. For whatever reason, these people do not think or have the same value system as us, and ther are elements of that society that think beheading people is morally okay, or sending twelve year olds into a crowded market is a way to get to heaven. For me its a small step from that kind of crime to lobbing nuclear bombs in the general direction of Israel.
> 
> What we need to do is demonstrate a zero tolerance for these people. They send in their suicide bombers, we send in our b-52s....they sponsor a terrorist organization, we confiscate their overseas assets and send the proceeds to the victims of their sponsored organzation , that kind of thing
> 
> Churchill showed the way as to how the Nazis needed to be dealt with 70 years ago. We have forgotten the lessons that we learnt all that time ago. We need to re-learn what we have forgotten.


You've intertwined alot of sentiments here
and I'm having trouble bifurcating one from the other in order to answer: 

There's no law against not having the same value system as us and there's a fair number of occasions where our insistence on imposing our value system on others has gotten us into trouble. Beheading/stoning/suppression of womens rights, however distasteful, are internal affairs and are unlikely to get thousands or even millions killed in a nuclear firestorm. 

Sending a child suicide bomber into high-density social areas on the other hand, is an act of terrorism, not that of a sovereign state (that I know of).

None of the sovereign Arab nations are threatening to build a bomb in the face of international sanctions but Iran is. You are correct, it is irrelevant whether they are Arab, Persian, Christian or Muslim but in this case they are Persian and I doubt any Arab would welcome the mis-association simply because they come under the Islam umbrella.

Terrorist organisations may well contain high numbers of Arab players but whether radicalised at an early age or simply the choice of a disaffected citizen, it's a choice nonetheless and if all the terrorists involved in Al Qa'eda were somehow known to be Arab, it still doesn't make them a sovereign nation. Imagine the same flawed logic applied on the streets of Belfast... 

Can you explain how a B-52 bomber strike is a rational response to suicide bombers?
Confiscation of their overseas assets make far more sense.

Parallels with Churchill's war on Fascism are few, for one he was fighting a uniformed, readily-identifiable enemy under a formal declaration of war; soldiers, tanks (and B-52s) made far more sense. Two, the world was a much bigger place in WWII and far less mobile. Three, the stakes weren't so high in the vanishingly small space of time it takes to detonate a nuclear warhead; it would take weeks of bombing to raze a city to the same degree of destruction and 

i. at least you'd know it was coming
ii. you can move in straight after hostilities cease and start building again

I think we're already demonstrating zero tolerance, it's just that when you're fighting an invisible enemy, you've got to be much more careful about what you hit. As far as Iran is concerned however, they're running out of width to manoeuvre in; the incumbent is as unpopular with his electorate as he is with the international community and that's a war on two fronts just waiting to happen.


----------



## Soren (Dec 30, 2009)

If Iran drops a bomb on Isreal EUROPE will respond immediately and bomb Iran back to the stone ages, and I am in no doubt that the US will get involved as-well. Europe stood by the US in Iraq Afghanistan, the US will do the same in the event Europe gets into a crysis.


----------



## Butters (Dec 30, 2009)

Nice to see at least one rational response to the current situation...

Airstrikes at this stage of the game would only solidify the theocrats' hold on power. There is no evidence that the Iranians have any working A-bombs at the present time. Or that they would use them if they did.

JL


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> If Iran drops a bomb on Israel, EUROPE will respond immediately and bomb Iran back to the stone ages, and I am in no doubt that the US will get involved as well. Europe stood by the US in Iraq Afghanistan, the US will do the same in the event Europe gets into a crisis.


The US carries Europe
we may be an commercial/industrial powerhouse but militarily we're a midget and what we do have lacks resolve. NATO whines and hides in the corner every time it's asked to bare its teeth and the UN doesn't even have any teeth to bare.

Rather than risk conflagration, Europe will send in the diplomats.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 30, 2009)

I think Russia would respond more then Europe would, which is actually not a bad thing.


----------



## javlin (Dec 31, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I think Russia would respond more then Europe would, which is actually not a bad thing.



But hasn't Russia backed Iran for the last few years with trade and technology.I feel that Russia would align itself against the West for they have been playing already with the oil and natural gas moving into Europe.It's a touchy situation to say the least but one has to be concerned that the egg will be dropped one day.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 1, 2010)

_You've intertwined alot of sentiments here
and I'm having trouble bifurcating one from the other in order to answer: _

Thats because you are trying to intellectualise the debate. This is precisely what the pacifist lobby did prior to WWII, and they played their part in costing the world 50 million lives. I put it to you that you are sentamentalising the argument as well, trying to slick up what is an old argument...."they are not all bad"....maybe, but they are bad for the way of life and the values that my society cherishes. That needs people to get sentimental and not try and cloud the issue with intelectualising and rationalising in what our system would call evil. 

_There's no law against not having the same value system as us and there's a fair number of occasions where our insistence on imposing our value system on others has gotten us into trouble. Beheading/stoning/suppression of womens rights, however distasteful, are internal affairs and are unlikely to get thousands or even millions killed in a nuclear firestorm. _

Except when they start beheading, stoning or denying our rights. Bismark coined a term that is very applicable to these situations, its called realpolitik. Intellectualising the argument merely tends to get people killed in my book. Now, I am not saying we get all gung ho and start dropping bombs on every person who doesnt agree with us. But the iranians clearly do not have our interests at heart and they have to learn some important life lessons real quick. If we ***** foot around with these guys, that is going to reinforce their beliefs....they need to realize if they tread on our feet, we are likley to stomp back. 

I dont try to moralise or politicise the argument in any way. We should call a spade a spade, and deal with it...

_Sending a child suicide bomber into high-density social areas on the other hand, is an act of terrorism, not that of a sovereign state (that I know of)._

Except that Iran sponsors organizations that do just that. These organization assassinate leaders they dont like, they lob shells into other countries and then cry war crime when that country retaliates. If you dont think Iran is sponsoring terrorist groups thenI dont know what planet you are from I am afraid 

_None of the sovereign Arab nations are threatening to build a bomb in the face of international sanctions but Iran is. You are correct, it is irrelevant whether they are Arab, Persian, Christian or Muslim but in this case they are Persian and I doubt any Arab would welcome the mis-association simply because they come under the Islam umbrella_.

Are you kidding???? What about Pakistan. And in the case of the second pont you raise, there are Arab groups like Hezbollah and at least a dozen other organizations that receive finance, personnel, weapons, you name it, from Iran...

_Terrorist organisations may well contain high numbers of Arab players but whether radicalised at an early age or simply the choice of a disaffected citizen, it's a choice nonetheless and if all the terrorists involved in Al Qa'eda were somehow known to be Arab, it still doesn't make them a sovereign nation. Imagine the same flawed logic applied on the streets of Belfast... _


I agree, but why are you inferring this is my logic. My country have large numbers of disaffected groups, but they arent harvested and groomed to strap on bombs and blow thenmselves up for some ism. This is not a uniquely Arab phenomena, you are right, but iran has gallons of Arab blood on its hands for doing precisely the things you say they dont.... 

Can you explain how a B-52 bomber strike is a rational response to suicide bombers?
Confiscation of their overseas assets make far more sense.

These people do not think in terms of the 21st century. The principal of a massive retaliation may make them think twice about dropping bombs, recruiting children, supporting terrorist groups and the like. Its not sophisticated, and it is not the answer to every situation, but neither is the idea of appeasing their demands. Evil should not be rewarded, it should be punished


_Parallels with Churchill's war on Fascism are few, for one he was fighting a uniformed, readily-identifiable enemy under a formal declaration of war; soldiers, tanks (and B-52s) made far more sense. Two, the world was a much bigger place in WWII and far less mobile. Three, the stakes weren't so high in the vanishingly small space of time it takes to detonate a nuclear warhead; it would take weeks of bombing to raze a city to the same degree of destruction and 

i. at least you'd know it was coming
ii. you can move in straight after hostilities cease and start building again_

The parralels to Churchill are that prewar, an intellectualised few brainwashed the majority into believing that war was obsolete, and peace must be maintained at any cost. This increased the cost of defeating the evil when finally it was realized it had too be done, and no amount of theorising and rationalizing would avoid.

The parralels to me in this debate are obvious, and it disturbs me that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Iran represents a clear threat to regional security, and through its sponsorship of terrorism, is a threat to the world in general. They need to be neutralized. We did it with Hussein, pre-2003, but didnt relaize it, we should apply a similar solution to iran. Its not pretty, it lacks sophistication and intellectual appeal, but the quicker its done, the less livesw will be lost 

_I think we're already demonstrating zero tolerance, it's just that when you're fighting an invisible enemy, you've got to be much more careful about what you hit. As far as Iran is concerned however, they're running out of width to manoeuvre in; the incumbent is as unpopular with his electorate as he is with the international community and that's a war on two fronts just waiting to happen._

I do agree with you, but people like this that are cornered, tend to lash out and become even more dangerous as the end gets closer


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 1, 2010)

javlin said:


> But hasn't Russia backed Iran for the last few years with trade and technology.I feel that Russia would align itself against the West for they have been playing already with the oil and natural gas moving into Europe.It's a touchy situation to say the least but one has to be concerned that the egg will be dropped one day.



Yea they have, but Russia really has/had nothing to fear from them. However, with nukes that would change everything.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 1, 2010)

There is one thing I learned while working with animals, you cannot reason with a rabid dog.

You cannot reason with an unreasonable person.


----------



## Maestro (Jan 1, 2010)

The main problem is, if we strike first (like the US did with Irak), we will be seen (again) as the bad guys... Peoples will claim that we are there for oil and blah, blah, blah...

As a result, we shall be on our own against them, because foreign countries won't do anything if they don't feel directly threatened themselves. Do you honestly think that Germany, France or even Russia will send troops in if we strike first ? And Iran's military isn't like Irak's... I doubt we could win without some help.

Think of it that way : Europe thinks like the USA was thinking in both World Wars. They won't attack unless their own ass is at stake. (USA entered WWI when Germany sank the ship _Lusitania_ in 1915 and then the _Vigilentia_ in 1917. And they entered WWII after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.)

What I'm gonna say could sound harsh to some, but I think we should let Iran detonate an A-bomb on a foreign country first, then go in and bomb the living sh*t out of them. That way, Europe will realize that their situation is critical and will most likely join the party.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 1, 2010)

Wow, we opened the "Political Section" ! 

Every nation in the world is unstable to a degree.
Every nation in the world has a gov that can change or threaten its neigbors.

But of all those nations, with all that they bring to the world, Iran and NK are the most dangerous at this time based on their level of threats, availabilty to do it and the will of the gov to do it.

Pakistan has its problems as do other nations but nothing on the scale of Iran and NK.

Butters your post # 46 had me thinking....



> I don't think that the situation warrants running around yelling, 'The sky is falling! the sky is falling!", just yet... It's not 1939, Iran is not Nazi Germany, and Ahmadinejad is not Hitler, hyperbole to the contrary...



No but it could be 1941 Japan with a weak spiritual leader and a bunch of fanatics whispering in his ear...


----------



## parsifal (Jan 1, 2010)

Your right NJ, we are headed for dangerous waters I think, maybe time to take the hands off the wheel for a bit


----------



## Erich (Jan 1, 2010)

I go back to this..........someone in the US govt hierarchy promised he would get out and get our troops home, so with that being stated and made clear then I wait this twenty - 10 for my Velodrome. let the construction begin !


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 1, 2010)

Maestro said:


> What I'm gonna say could sound harsh to some
> but I think we should let Iran detonate an A-bomb on a foreign country first, then go in and bomb the living sh*t out of them


Or possibly even insane
any Western power using the lives of foreign populations as checks and balances on the intentions of a despotic half-wit are no better than he is.
If (or when) they start chucking bombs back in retaliation, you can write off Israel and large portions of Europe as uninhabitable for the next few hundred years, not to mention a death toll running into millions. Unless of course you're counting on the US Missile Defence Shield to intercept every single one of them; impressive system but not a gamble I'd take with x million lives...

Your argument doesn't work on any level of rational thinking, if a lunatic stands up and starts running through the crowd at a ballgame waving a gun, do the Police think they should let him kill a fan first to ascertain whether the situation is critical or not, then go in and shoot the living sh*t out of him?

We need to make sure this angry little man never gets his hands on a nuclear weapon.


----------



## Maestro (Jan 1, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Or possibly even insane
> any Western power using the lives of foreign populations as checks and balances on the intentions of a despotic half-wit are no better than he is.
> If (or when) they start chucking bombs back in retaliation, you can write off Israel and large portions of Europe as uninhabitable for the next few hundred years, not to mention a death toll running into millions. Unless of course you're counting on the US Missile Defence Shield to intercept every single one of them; impressive system but not a gamble I'd take with x million lives...
> 
> ...



I agree 100% with the principle, here. However, as I stated earlier, I doubt any other countries would openly support us... (I.E. declaring war on Iran.)

That country is led by religious zealots who won't esitate to cry "Jihad" the minute we will attack them "without any provocation". Add this to the fact that everyone will see that war as a "war for oil", and you won't only be fighting Iran, but also all Muslim countries joining the Jihad... And this without getting any help from European powers.

That situation is kind of tricky, to say the least.


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 1, 2010)

_Thats because you are trying to intellectualise the debate. This is precisely what the pacifist lobby did prior to WWII, and they played their part in costing the world 50 million lives. I put it to you that you are sentamentalising the argument as well, trying to slick up what is an old argument...."they are not all bad"....maybe, but they are bad for the way of life and the values that my society cherishes. That needs people to get sentimental and not try and cloud the issue with intelectualising and rationalising in what our system would call evil. _

Far from it
What I am saying is let's make sure we've 

- identified and singled out the bad guy
- got our priorities right

it is a Gulf Persian state that is attempting to build a bomb, not a Gulf Arab state. Let's concentrate on Iran.

Let's assume the situation reaches boiling point and we could also assume for argument's sake that this situation is resolved to the international community's satisfaction. Primary goal achieved.

_Except that Iran sponsors organizations that do just that. These organization assassinate leaders they dont like, they lob shells into other countries and then cry war crime when that country retaliates. If you dont think Iran is sponsoring terrorist groups then I dont know what planet you are from I am afraid _

Secondary goals may well fall into place as a matter of course; Hezbollah no longer have an active financier and while this doesn't necessarily mean the end of them, it does make life alot harder; with Iran out of the picture, who's going to take on Hezbollah as a going concern?

Tertiary goals such as stoning/decapitation etc are unlikely to be solved by this chain of events and may well never be but that is really a matter for the people of that state with international human rights lobbying lending support. This should not be interpreted as finding their punitive system agreeable.

There is nothing intellectual about my views, there is certainly nothing sentimental about them. I have simply chosen to identify the villain and prioritise his transgressions above all else that's going on in the region at this current time. 

I'm from the same planet as you, weekdays only.

_The principal of a massive retaliation may make them think twice about dropping bombs, recruiting children, supporting terrorist groups and the like_

Despite the massive effort, they didn't think twice in Vietnam, why do you think Islamic suicide bombers would be any different? I don't think the Vietnamese were particularly 21st century either.

_The parallels to Churchill are that prewar, an intellectualised few brainwashed the majority into believing that war was obsolete, and peace must be maintained at any cost. This increased the cost of defeating the evil when finally it was realized it had too be done, and no amount of theorising and rationalizing would avoid._

I don't believe I've insisted that 'war is obsolete', we simply need to make sure we don't infer a 'corporate blame' on the Gulf states. Ahmadinejad is currently wooing the moderate Arab states ahead of any conflict with the US and Israel; for their sakes, we need to be seen pointing the finger unmistakeably at Iran. If nothing else, I don't think the US military are 'theorising' about a new bunker-buster.


----------



## Amsel (Jan 2, 2010)

> Iran dismissed an end-of-2009 deadline imposed by the Obama administration and its international partners to accept a U.N.-drafted deal to swap most of its enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. The deal would reduce Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium, limiting—at least for the moment—its capability to make nuclear weapons.
> 
> The U.S. and its allies have demanded Iran accept the terms of the U.N.-brokered plan without changes.
> 
> ...


Iran warns West it will make its own nuclear fuel


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 3, 2010)

and it just keeps getting better.....


----------



## Maestro (Jan 3, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> and it just keeps getting better.....



Yep... Personnally I predict World War III will start really soon. But it is just my personnal opinion.


----------



## Soren (Jan 4, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> The US carries Europe
> we may be an commercial/industrial powerhouse but militarily we're a midget and what we do have lacks resolve. NATO whines and hides in the corner every time it's asked to bare its teeth and the UN doesn't even have any teeth to bare.
> 
> Rather than risk conflagration, Europe will send in the diplomats.



Europe has no teeth?? Want me to list the number of forces material we can muster? I promise you Europe has teeth, it's just not as ready to display them as others are. Europe is the most war torn region in history, and it seems it has had enough, which was about time really.

The UN is reluctant to go to war because of past experiences, but if forced it will bring down hell upon the opposition.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 4, 2010)

Soren - the EU might, and NATO might, but the UN won't bring anything - the Security Council is too focused on self interest and too many are in conflict with respect to Iran.


----------



## Soren (Jan 4, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Soren - the EU might, and NATO might, but the UN won't bring anything - the Security Council is too focused on self interest and too many are in conflict with respect to Iran.



Actually I meant the EU, don't know why I wrote the UN, you are right about the UN.


----------

