I can't think of any ME country that the world should allow to have nukes. I think Iran especially. They have their hands in every violent act in some shape or form relating to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups. I don't understand how they are sending arms unless by ship unless there is some agreements going on between Turks, Kurds, and U.S. forces though. And they are traditional enemies of Iran. The politics in the ME are mind boggling. It should be worth military action to keep them from having nukes. With nuclear weapons they will immmediatly become very difficult to deal with.
U.S. Shoots Down Iranian Drone Flying Over Iraq
- Thread starter ToughOmbre
- Start date
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
Nukes are one of the biggest issues that will need to be dealt with. Again, it's a tough one. Iran wants to join the nuke club mainly as a power projection thing, IMHO. The problem with the US, Israel or even the UK dictating to Iran that they cannot have nukes is that it will simply look hypocritical when all three of those nations have nukes of their own. I completely agree with Amsel that the current regime in Iran cannot and should not be trusted with anything larger than a firecracker, but it will be very hard convincing them that they don't need nukes when the two nations they see as the greatest threat both have them. Having said that, disarming Israel might well be a positive step for the region. A country with a sixty year history of swift and unilateral violence ( and I'm not just talking about Pakistan 
), is not a prime candidate, IMHO, for membership of the nuke club, nor will that nation's status as the only nuclear player in the region do any good for regional stability.
), is not a prime candidate, IMHO, for membership of the nuke club, nor will that nation's status as the only nuclear player in the region do any good for regional stability.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Disarming Isreal? C'mon that's utter folly. What the hell does Isreal have to gain from disarming? Absolutely nothing.
Ask the same question of Britain in 1938. Or the US in 1940. BS. I'm sick and tired of pacifism being touted as a means of eliminating world strife. Name one world influencing country, regime or people who in the face of hostility threw up their arms and professed pacifism that has continued to exist in an historically influential manner.
BS.
Ask the same question of Britain in 1938. Or the US in 1940. BS. I'm sick and tired of pacifism being touted as a means of eliminating world strife. Name one world influencing country, regime or people who in the face of hostility threw up their arms and professed pacifism that has continued to exist in an historically influential manner.
BS.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
evangilder
"Shooter"
Having said that, disarming Israel might well be a positive step for the region. A country with a sixty year history of swift and unilateral violence ( and I'm not just talking about Pakistan
Disarming Israel would be a step toward their own annihilation, especially with Iran very close, if not already in the nuke weapons club.
Let me ask you something, if I had a gun pointed at your head while yours was pointing at my head, would you drop yours and hope that I didn't blow your head off?
Israel is a tiny island in the middle of a bunch of people that want to see them destroyed. Remember the Six Days War, or Yom Kippur War. Israel has often faced numerically superior forces, and manages to survive. But the survive because of better weapons, better intel and better tactics. I would trust Israelis with nuclear weapons WAY more than some Islamic fundamentalist with an axe to grind against Israel or the west.
Besides that, asking Israel to give up any of it's weapons would be along the lines of me to ask you to stop breathing. Isn't going to happen.
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Scary cartoon.
I think the Iran shouldn't get mad if we shot down their drone. I'm sure the people of Iraq wouldn't want to have Iran spying on them, they aren't that happy with our presence there.
But maybe they will at least realize that we don't want Iran in Iraq either, and regard us as an ally in that sense.
I think the Iran shouldn't get mad if we shot down their drone. I'm sure the people of Iraq wouldn't want to have Iran spying on them, they aren't that happy with our presence there.
But maybe they will at least realize that we don't want Iran in Iraq either, and regard us as an ally in that sense.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
That could also play into the hands of the peace-makers BT, many Iranians have declared deep dissatisfaction at the way money is squandered on so-called prestige projects. Armored-dinnerjacket's more moderate predecessor is counting on that sentiment at the next Iranian presidential election for another term in office.
The US, UK and possibly the Soviet Union can hold that their nuclear arsenals have maintained peace for the last 60-odd years, rather than allow a wide-scale breakout of nuclear war. I doubt the same could/would be said of a nuclear Iran, not with Mr Dinnerjacket at the helm, anyway.
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Remember
if Israel is well armed there economy will tank as it it is they sell arms to anyone withy a dollar and they do very well at it
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Oh well, maybe he isn't after all...
Iran's Khatami won't run for president, state news agency says - CNN.com
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
I'm not suggesting that Israel disarm while Iran builds nukes - I'm suggesting that NO-ONE in the ME has any nukes at all, because no nation there can be trusted not to use them. And I'm definitely not suggesting conventional disarmament - that would be crazy for both sides. They both need conventional arms to protect their territorial integrity if attacked by the other.
Your argument works both ways Evan - do you really expect Iran to halt it's nuke program when they know the Israelis have nukes themselves? Both sides need to put the damn things away, IMHO. While Israel has viable weapons and Iran does not, you are going to have major problems convincing Iran that Israel will not attack them.
And Matt, I am not a pacifist. I wrote in my first AND second posts that the option to use military force should and must be reserved - but it should only be deployed after all diplomatic channels have failed. It is an essential part of the negotiating process, but IMHO it should not be a dominant one.
Essentially, my logic boils down to this. Israel has spent the last six decades fighting it's neighbours. It has often won the wars, and while Israel still continues to exist as a nation, it is no more secure than it was in 1948. The enemy keeps coming back for more. Fighting just isn't working. Why carry on doing something that hasn't worked for sixty years? Long term security is only going to be gained by settling the disputes in the region and REMOVING the reasons for fighting. That won't be a speedy process, nor will it be a particularly pleasant one for either party. It may well turn out to be a lot harder and more painful than fighting a war. But the last sixty years have shown that Israel cannot secure lasting peace and security by fighting for it.
Now I know I'm probably going to get called all kinds of things for suggesting such a thing, but so be it. I think there are many people who think a war with Iran is needed because it is the way things have always been done in this situation, and it is in some ways less demanding of society than an attempt to discuss and reach agreement with the Muslim polity might be. Is it really worth sacrificing thousands more lives (if not millions), just so we can avoid the hard work of sitting down with our enemies and forging a lasting peace?
Your argument works both ways Evan - do you really expect Iran to halt it's nuke program when they know the Israelis have nukes themselves? Both sides need to put the damn things away, IMHO. While Israel has viable weapons and Iran does not, you are going to have major problems convincing Iran that Israel will not attack them.
And Matt, I am not a pacifist. I wrote in my first AND second posts that the option to use military force should and must be reserved - but it should only be deployed after all diplomatic channels have failed. It is an essential part of the negotiating process, but IMHO it should not be a dominant one.
Essentially, my logic boils down to this. Israel has spent the last six decades fighting it's neighbours. It has often won the wars, and while Israel still continues to exist as a nation, it is no more secure than it was in 1948. The enemy keeps coming back for more. Fighting just isn't working. Why carry on doing something that hasn't worked for sixty years? Long term security is only going to be gained by settling the disputes in the region and REMOVING the reasons for fighting. That won't be a speedy process, nor will it be a particularly pleasant one for either party. It may well turn out to be a lot harder and more painful than fighting a war. But the last sixty years have shown that Israel cannot secure lasting peace and security by fighting for it.
Now I know I'm probably going to get called all kinds of things for suggesting such a thing, but so be it. I think there are many people who think a war with Iran is needed because it is the way things have always been done in this situation, and it is in some ways less demanding of society than an attempt to discuss and reach agreement with the Muslim polity might be. Is it really worth sacrificing thousands more lives (if not millions), just so we can avoid the hard work of sitting down with our enemies and forging a lasting peace?
I understand your ideas and concerns BT. I however feel that the goverment and leaders of the muslim countries in the ME have proven that they are the problem over there and will only rest when the jews are wiped out or run out of Isreal. The Arabs, Persians and other muslims have their own countries that they run into the ground; what is their obsession with killing the jews? I think that blaming Isreal for the problems in the ME is unfair and is missing the glaring truth. The muslims want the Isrealis gone. Isreal should not have to capitulate.
Our Drones probe Iranian Airspace all the time.
and shooting missles or is that pakistan?
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
I'm not looking to blame Israel for everything, nor am I suggesting that they capitulate. But neither should the Palestinians lose their homeland, nor should Israel receive unconditional US support for military operations carried out with total disregard for civilian casualties. To blame the Muslim govts for all of the region's problems is to miss another glaring and extremely uncomfortable truth - the region was not like this prior to 1948, and the appearance of Israel has led to all manner of issues which no-one has ever tried to resolve except at gunpoint. That hasn't worked for sixty years, so why insist on continuing? To repeat the point in my original post, any peace settlement must address the concerns of BOTH sides and attempt to do so in an equitable manner. That cannot be done while Israel refuses to take any responsibility for her role in the region and is supported in that attitude by the US, which until recently has refuse to permit any criticism of Israel and her policies. While Muslim behaviour toward Israel is clearly unacceptable, there are elements of Israeli behaviour which are equally unacceptable (shelling UN held schools and causing massive civilian casualties, for example), and Israel needs to take responsibility for her actions and deal with those who have gone beyond the limits of what is acceptable. That is the only basis on which peace can be built.
The perfect weapon for shooting down a UAV:
Laser-equipped ground vehicle used to shoot down UAV
.
.
Laser-equipped ground vehicle used to shoot down UAV
.
.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Honestly, BT... you think that Isreal is "no more secure than it was in 1948"? You are a fool. Exactly what hasn't worked for 40 years... defense? Surely you aren't that stupid. Removing the reasons for fighting means the destruction or "removal" of Isreal from the middle east.
Your statements are not worthy of response. I'm an cretin for even taking the time to respond to such nonsense.
BTW, do you even contribute to our forum other than the political section?
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
I do contribute elsewhere Matt, in the aviation and modeling forums, although I will grant that these discussions have drawn me in over the past weeks. I should maybe do myself a favour and avoid them for a while, as I have tried to do in the past.
If you don't agree with my point of view fine - it is after all just a point of view, like yours. I regret that this discussion has suddenly come down to this level, as it seemed to be constructive and engaging, even though most of the posters are at the other end of the spectrum than myself.
I'm not going to respond to the political points in your last post as it seems clear to me what kind of a response I will get from you. and I have no wish to see things go in that direction. I will remove myself from this discussion so that it can continue uninterrupted, and I will keep myself away from these discussions as it was honestly never my intention to cause disruption on the board, only to engage in an intelligent debate.
Cheers
BT
If you don't agree with my point of view fine - it is after all just a point of view, like yours. I regret that this discussion has suddenly come down to this level, as it seemed to be constructive and engaging, even though most of the posters are at the other end of the spectrum than myself.
I'm not going to respond to the political points in your last post as it seems clear to me what kind of a response I will get from you. and I have no wish to see things go in that direction. I will remove myself from this discussion so that it can continue uninterrupted, and I will keep myself away from these discussions as it was honestly never my intention to cause disruption on the board, only to engage in an intelligent debate.
Cheers
BT
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Your response was much more respectable than my challenge. Apologies. BT, I (and the other mods) are frustrated with the political discussions. Most forum participants don't realize (and I'm likely giving away a secret here) that the Mods/Admins have their own sub-forums. In it, we too have divisive conversations that disturb us in their ability to separate, as opposed to bring us together.
While you may think otherwise, many of the Mods/Admin on this site are NOT right wing conservatives (yes, don't count me in that camp
). I am not asking you to remove yourself (at a potential penalty to membership), but rather to refocus your obvious energy to the primary purpose of this forum's objective... WW2 aviation.
Cheers
While you may think otherwise, many of the Mods/Admin on this site are NOT right wing conservatives (yes, don't count me in that camp
). I am not asking you to remove yourself (at a potential penalty to membership), but rather to refocus your obvious energy to the primary purpose of this forum's objective... WW2 aviation.Cheers
Attachments
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
Your response was much more respectable than my challenge. Apologies. BT, I (and the other mods) are frustrated with the political discussions. Most forum participants don't realize (and I'm likely giving away a secret here) that the Mods/Admins have their own sub-forums. In it, we too have divisive conversations that disturb us in their ability to separate, as opposed to bring us together.
While you may think otherwise, many of the Mods/Admin on this site are NOT right wing conservatives (yes, don't count me in that camp
Cheers
No worries Matt. I only intended to butt out of this thread to avoid any potential disturbance. Message received loud and clear, you'll find me over on the aviation board 8)
