You think the US will launch the strikes? We could be looking forward to a repeat of the 1981 Osirak incident. Iran knows this, and they're scared of Israel's air superiority in the region. Iran is taking the threat so seriously they began building new air defense platforms around their reactors two years ago, Only after the completion of a viable SAM defense did Iran begin to officially threaten retaliation to any strike so extreme that Israel will be left crippled beyond recognition.

Iran has called for the extermination of a memberstate of the UN, which is grounds for removal, and they've done it so often, it's not like the news has just managed to slip past all concerned parties. I think it's pretty obvious that the top brass in the international community is turning a blind eye to Iranian rhetoric, hopeful that diplomatic solutions will gain traction in a country with a parliament and rather levelheaded citizens.

this whole thread is shit

quote:

Originally posted by Rhuckus You think the US will launch the strikes? We could be looking forward to a repeat of the 1981 Osirak incident. Iran knows this, and they're scared of Israel's air superiority in the region. Iran is taking the threat so seriously they began building new air defense platforms around their reactors two years ago, Only after the completion of a viable SAM defense did Iran begin to officially threaten retaliation to any strike so extreme that Israel will be left crippled beyond recognition.

I dunno about Israel attacking...I think the US will use all of it's pressure to prevent them from attacking since they know the whole situation will get beyond anyone's control if Israel attacks.

The US runs the risk of losing support from it's moderate friends in the region too if that happens (Saudis, Jordan & Egypt).

I think that the US might be acting as more of an Israeli proxy in this case, threatenning Iran on behalf of Israel as much as on behalf of itself.

But hey, who knows...maybe Israel will just decide to launch the strike without telling anyone.

These are interesting times for sure...

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse I dunno about Israel attacking...I think the US will use all of it's pressure to prevent them from attacking since they know the whole situation will get beyond anyone's control if Israel attacks. The US runs the risk of losing support from it's moderate friends in the region too if that happens (Saudis, Jordan & Egypt).

the Sunni states i.e. Saudi Arabia and Gulf states and Jordan and Egypt are behind Bush on taking out their Nuke facilities. not so much Israel but they would look the other way IMO if Israel decided to on their own.

the focus should be and has been on Iran. Iran needs to be isolated diplomatically and we have done our best to do that thru the Security Council.

we need balls of steel to deal with Iran. something a lot of countries don't have. they don't listen otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer WHEN was the last time Iran attacked or invaded another country you poor Mexican refugee?

Hey this is not the way to talk, dont forget you are also a poor refugee in west... and your dad licked someone's ass to get residence status in west.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid This is too funny. Iranians stand no chance to an armed force of 100 000 marines and the american air force and navy. You know what I say? Bring it on!

HA! Did Iraq stood a chance?

First clear the two miles strip from Baghdad Airport to Baghdad city with that 100 000 marines with tiny little gagdgets like infrared vision and stuff.. Iraqies fucked US with homemade pistols and second hand AK47s.

The truth is US 'soilders' are shit scared of being in Iraq, they cry,they send emo letters back home, saying they dont want to die, because they know they will die, and if they stay Iraqies will fuck them. Those cute little US soilders which Hollywood show in movies looks only good in movies.. in reality they sweat and shit in their pants when Bush says we need more re-inforcements.. American soilders are pussies.

___________________
___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the Sunni states i.e. Saudi Arabia and Gulf states and Jordan and Egypt are behind Bush on taking out their Nuke facilities. not so much Israel but they would look the other way IMO if Israel decided to on their own. the focus should be and has been on Iran. Iran needs to be isolated diplomatically and we have done our best to do that thru the Security Council. we need balls of steel to deal with Iran. something a lot of countries don't have. they don't listen otherwise.

you could be right, I think the Sunni moderate/friendly states' reaction is too close to call at this point.

You're also right that the US does need balls of steel in this game of geo-politcal chicken, but I don;t think attacking pre-emptively is the winning strategy. Diplomatic isolation would be the best course, but getting anything done on the security council will be tough with China wielding a veto (and a huge contract for Iranian oil...ironically to make cheap goods to be shipped to the US).

quote:

Originally posted by Purple The truth is US 'soilders' are shit scared of being in Iraq, they cry,they send emo letters back home, saying they dont want to die, because they know they will die, and if they stay Iraqies will fuck them. Those cute little US soilders which Hollywood show in movies looks only good in movies.. in reality they sweat and shit in their pants when Bush says we need more re-inforcements.. American soilders are pussies.

k.

Tell me you wouldn't pee in your pants at the thought of falling into the hands of the militia and dying a horrific tortured death. And most of the soldiers out there are probably in their 20s. Some are not even 20. It's one thing to be a bravado on the forums and quite another, to be out there in the front.

___________________

Download and review ! Omega_M - In the Mix (Beta Version)

Originally posted by twilightki : It feels like something you'd listen to at 4 in the morning, or listen to in your car while you're going in a tunnel.

Last edited by Omega_M on Jan-13-2007 at 20:44

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M k. Tell me you wouldn't pee in your pants at the thought of falling into the hands of the militia and dying a horrific tortured death. And most of the soldiers out there are probably in their 20s. Some are not even 20. It's one thing to be a bravado on the forums and quite another, to be out there in the front.

You seee if the war was justified and real worth to die for, they would not have any problems with it, but they all know its fake and for political wins.. thats why they dont want to be their and die.. its an unecessary war.. with no point or goals,.,;. a uselesss act of unsolicitated agression which wasnt necessary.. but the mother ****** Bush invaded it for his personal family vendetta and political ambitions.. I hope he rots to death in a jail in Hague, if not than Iraqis fuck US hard and destroys everyone living in it, just like US has done for Iraqies.

___________________
___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King 5)Bush is mentally retarded.

that alone could lead to a war lol

quote:

Originally posted by Rhuckus Iran has called for the extermination of a memberstate of the UN, which is grounds for removal, and they've done it so often, it's not like the news has just managed to slip past all concerned parties. I think it's pretty obvious that the top brass in the international community is turning a blind eye to Iranian rhetoric, hopeful that diplomatic solutions will gain traction in a country with a parliament and rather levelheaded citizens.

Right because Israel hasnt circumvented dozens of UN resolutions, which would also be grounds for removal. All the players in this tragic comedy have their share of wrongs done my friend, no one here has the 'moral high ground'. It's a matter of pragmatism at this point. It is not practical for the US to attack Iran right now, they are overstreched and they have no way of securing a positive reaction for the middle east. Of the other two recent invasions they've done recently they managed to mishandle both of them, not a very enticing track record i would say. So why don't you try and build up a practical case for attacking Iran, instead of boring us with rehashed arguments.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Right because Israel hasnt circumvented dozens of UN resolutions, which would also be grounds for removal. All the players in this tragic comedy have their share of wrongs done my friend, no one here has the 'moral high ground'. It's a matter of pragmatism at this point. It is not practical for the US to attack Iran right now, they are overstreched and they have no way of securing a positive reaction for the middle east. Of the other two recent invasions they've done recently they managed to mishandle both of them, not a very enticing track record i would say. So why don't you try and build up a practical case for attacking Iran, instead of boring us with rehashed arguments.

Why would i build up a practical case for attacking Iran when i don't think it's the best action? Kindly note that i stated it was Top Brass in the INTERNATIONAL community that was turning a blind eye. There is no strong-arm, "we will remove your memberstate status" rhetoric coming from the UN aimed at Iran, but threatening rhetoric has been aimed at Israel. You jump at me with claims of moral high ground like you think I'm a Zionist before you even understand my position. Did i say that it would be a wonderful idea if Israel attacked Iran? Did I suggest the U.S. should use Israel as a proxy to strike Iran? No, because i don't agree with those claims.

Israel has made threats to bomb Iran's nuclear capabilities, and they've made strikes of this nature in the past, so it is a possibility that we will see a repeat. I read this thread quickly and didn't notice a mention of Osirak or Iranian air defense around nuclear sites, but if someone already said it and I'm "rehashing" i sincerely apologize. I thought it pertinent seeing as how the US has weapon trading treaties and promises with Israel, and if we uphold these agreements after Israel instigates violence, we're looking at a very, erm, spicy situation.

If you'd really like a case for attacking, one could be made based upon the enrichment of uranium despite specific promises not to do so. Doesn't hold much water with me as a case for war, but warrant for a strike under the current administration? I don't think it's much of a logical stretch.

Oh, and one more thing: impractical? The US is already in Afghanistan and Iraq. I learned how to play connect the dots when i was six years old No, seriously though you're right. While Iran is still in talks with Russia, why wouldn't we let that option be exhausted before escalating? (That's a rhetorical question, i know "Bush is retarded" has already been suggested)

quote:

Originally posted by Purple but they all know its fake and for political wins.

no man, only you know it's fake.