http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...24/wiran124.xml Israel has said that they won't let Iran get nuclear weapons and it looks like they are not playing around. I think Israel should do the bombing (if their is a bombing) and then we back them up if sh*t hits the fan. I don't really have an opinion on if we should bomb them or not...I've got mixed ideas and I'm reading up on Iran right now, so hopefully in the next couple months I should know what I'm talking about. If there is a bombing, what would happen afterward would be interesting/possibly scary. Iran has said that they will strike US/Israeli interests if they are attacked...oh boy.
Unfortunately the only thing the US has going for them militaristically is a large nuclear payload, and no president is going to take the bad PR of using a nuke, which means we need to pull out of Iraq if we want to get involved in Iran. I say let Israel handle it, they've got enough brawn. Israel actually has more powerful bombs than us (though we have more). The tricky thing is that Russia has some ties with Iran and is quietly improving their militaristic and financial situation and we would not want to get Russia, who still has close to a teraton of firepower at their disposal, involved.
and gas prices will reach the 10$ a gallon mark if we do this. Probably will be the biggest propaganda ever.
Iran is the start of Pandora's box if we haven't already opened that one already. Once again - the United States thinks its the big bad boss of the world, and wants to pick on the Middle East once again. At this point - if we attack Iran - it is clear that this Presidency has a vendetta against the Middle East. Once we attack Iran, I am certain we will be going into Syria because of their ties. I wouldn't be surprised if we did, anyways, because Syria has been in the news many times. The United States shouldn't be bitching at Iran - there is no proof of actual Nuclear Weapons - the President has clearly stated that they are expanding on their energy technology and investing in Nuclear energy - nothing is wrong with that. I am SO glad that the Iranian President is standing up to the U.S. - I am sick of the US just barging in on countries and pointing fingers. The Irani President is doing what's best for his country - he is being a President, defending his country in anyway possible. If Israel, or the US decides to attack Iran, they have every right to attack Israel, and I would support it. I applaud Iran's President - he is actually a very good man, and he is honest - Mr. Bush should learn something from him.EDIT: Also - say Iran does decide to make Nuclear Weapons - why the F*ck not? Israel has Nukes, so does the US - why can't Iran. They are only trying to protect their country. The United States is more likely to attack anyone than Iran. I don't think Iran would just go into random countries to start trouble - they aren't the preemptive type.
Iran wants the enriched Uranium for the purpose of making Nuclear weapons, not nuclear energy. Iran has a large untapped abundance of oil, and coal. both thoses resources would be easier for them and much more cost efficant to produce the required energy. Israel will likely be the ones attack Iran, not the US, the US will however be backing Israel. one of the reason why the President wants the increase in troops in Iraq is to act as a buffer zone between Iran and Israel. Iran will not openly attack US forces, even if the US is indirectly supporting Israel, because Iran does not want the US to have the "moral high ground" if there is a war. Iran also knows that a premptive strike against the US would be a bad thing. The tide against the wars in the middle east would change favorably towards them if Iran attacked first.Ahmadajadine is a very smart man, he may be a nutcase but he does understand the politics on the world stage even more so than guys like Adolph Hitler. He wants to get Iran to be a world power, and he has done a lot of good in that country. But he does know that going toe-to-toe with the US, or even Israel would ruin all he has worked to acomplish.Iran has also been boasting of their stealth missle, the problem with that is their radar systems are no were near effective as the radar systems that the US currently has. The Iranians claim that their missle is capable of sinking an aircraft carrier. what they are not taking into account is their missle has no were near the range required to hit an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean. also, the US would launch planes based in Iraq, Afghanistan, Diego Garcia, Qatar, and Turkey to bomb military instalations early on in any conflict with Iran, so their missle would likely be distoried before they knew what happened. I say they'd launch planes from ground based locations because the FA-117, B-2, F-22 and B-52 aren't able to land on a carrier. those are the US principal bombing aircraft, and the 117, and B-2 are both stealth, and like I said before the Iranian radar systems are out dated. The only way Iran could use that missle would be to do a pre-emptive strike, which again would be completly stupid because they would lose support from countries like Russia, which means no arms, and no enriched Uranium. thus they'd likely get bombed into the stoneage and left that way with no rebuilding help from the US.Even if there is a war with Iran, which I think is highly unlikely, I don't see the US sending in many ground forces. the occupation of Iraq, and Afghanistan has spread US forces to thin as it is. so any conflict would likely just be airial and naval bombardments with special forces going in to eliminate key targets.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Feb 24 2007, 05:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Iran wants the enriched Uranium for the purpose of making Nuclear weapons, not nuclear energy. Iran has a large untapped abundance of oil, and coal. both thoses resources would be easier for them and much more cost efficant to produce the required energy. Israel will likely be the ones attack Iran, not the US, the US will however be backing Israel. one of the reason why the President wants the increase in troops in Iraq is to act as a buffer zone between Iran and Israel. Iran will not openly attack US forces, even if the US is indirectly supporting Israel, because Iran does not want the US to have the "moral high ground" if there is a war. Iran also knows that a premptive strike against the US would be a bad thing. The tide against the wars in the middle east would change favorably towards them if Iran attacked first.Ahmadajadine is a very smart man, he may be a nutcase but he does understand the politics on the world stage even more so than guys like Adolph Hitler. He wants to get Iran to be a world power, and he has done a lot of good in that country. But he does know that going toe-to-toe with the US, or even Israel would ruin all he has worked to acomplish.Iran has also been boasting of their stealth missle, the problem with that is their radar systems are no were near effective as the radar systems that the US currently has. The Iranians claim that their missle is capable of sinking an aircraft carrier. what they are not taking into account is their missle has no were near the range required to hit an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean. also, the US would launch planes based in Iraq, Afghanistan, Diego Garcia, Qatar, and Turkey to bomb military instalations early on in any conflict with Iran, so their missle would likely be distoried before they knew what happened. I say they'd launch planes from ground based locations because the FA-117, B-2, F-22 and B-52 aren't able to land on a carrier. those are the US principal bombing aircraft, and the 117, and B-2 are both stealth, and like I said before the Iranian radar systems are out dated. The only way Iran could use that missle would be to do a pre-emptive strike, which again would be completly stupid because they would lose support from countries like Russia, which means no arms, and no enriched Uranium. thus they'd likely get bombed into the stoneage and left that way with no rebuilding help from the US.Even if there is a war with Iran, which I think is highly unlikely, I don't see the US sending in many ground forces. the occupation of Iraq, and Afghanistan has spread US forces to thin as it is. so any conflict would likely just be airial and naval bombardments with special forces going in to eliminate key targets.</div>Awesome - you broke down the the United States' war strategy - thats great you know all that stuff...but WHY would we attack Iran?? Like you mentioned in your post - Iran would never attack anyone preemptively - which is true. They don't pose a threat to us - just because they have Nuclear Weapons is not a good enough reason. It also isn't a good enough reason to dissable a country just based on isolated weaponary support they gave to Iraq. It will be complete BS to attack Iran - like I said once before - this Presidency has a vendetta.
If you believe he is developing this technology for nuclear energy...well your a fool. If you believe Ahmadinejad is a great and honest man...well your a fool again....In my mind it's not possible to call for the elimination of a race of people and be 'considered a good man' Reppin... Do I think the media portrays Ahmadinejad in a 'wrong' light? Yes. Ahmadinejad is more moderate than people think he is. Do I think Iran has a right to have nuclear weapons? Sure, do I want Iran to have nuclear weapons, no. Do I think the US is a 'bully', in some ways yes. Do you become the strongest country in the world not being a bully, no. When you have two strong minded people that won't budge, this is what happens.
What's to discuss? It's a nice place to visit. They have pretty crappy burgers with too many pickles, but the kabob is excellent. You can go against some great backgammon players over there, it's pretty fun. They only have dial-up internet though, which sucks. They have some pretty interesting movies on TV. Every win in soccer leads to people in the streets celebrating. I don't know if I'm going there again since if you're at a certain age you are forced to go to the army, maybe not if you are still a student though, but I'm not sure.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>it is clear that this Presidency has a vendetta against the Middle East</div>Why the f*ck wouldn't the US have a vendetta against The Middle East? It's a f*cked up region.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>EDIT: Also - say Iran does decide to make Nuclear Weapons - why the F*ck not? Israel has Nukes, so does the US - why can't Iran. They are only trying to protect their country. The United States is more likely to attack anyone than Iran. I don't think Iran would just go into random countries to start trouble - they aren't the preemptive type.</div>Because their president is mentally ill and an outspoken anti semite and racist.
Iran, like any country in the middle east shouldn't have Nuclear weapons because, the one thing the middle east has proven in 7,000 years of human history is the region is a volitile and violent region. The primary concern for Iran having Nuclear weapons is that terrorist could end up with them. The Iranian government wouldn't give them to a terrorist organization but some of those nutjob Cleriqs, might be able to bribe a few key personal to get one for a terrorist organization; or Iran could funnel their Nuclear weapons to Syria, which would use them on Israel. A Nuclear weapon is pretty much just a weapon of terror now days, their primary function has always been that, but they had a secondary function to distory a hard to hit strategic target(or so said the Government in 1954). but with the advent of precision guided and computerized rockets and missles they aren't as effect as they once were. You may not even be able to distory a city with one any more with all the new building codes. One reason the Hiroshima bomb was so devistating was because the city was made of wood, a modern day metropolis is mostly concrete and steel, so the area around ground zero would be effected, but the surrounding area would most likely stay intact. the real problems which would occur from a Nuclear weapon is the radiation posioning, and the burns. This is of corse based off of the Nuclear weapons test the government has allowed the public to see, it really wouldn't suprise me if the US government doesn't have a nuke that vaporizes entire countries.
Is the situation in Iran serious? I wouldn't know, because there hasn't been a new Colbert Report in the past week.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You may not even be able to distory a city with one any more with all the new building codes. One reason the Hiroshima bomb was so devistating was because the city was made of wood, a modern day metropolis is mostly concrete and steel, so the area around ground zero would be effected, but the surrounding area would most likely stay intact. the real problems which would occur from a Nuclear weapon is the radiation posioning, and the burns. This is of corse based off of the Nuclear weapons test the government has allowed the public to see, it really wouldn't suprise me if the US government doesn't have a nuke that vaporizes entire countries.</div>I beg to differ. The "little boy" bomb dropped on hiroshima was about 13 kilotons in power. Russia has tested bombs with 50 megatons of firepower (and it was deliberately modified to NOT achieve its full potential), estimated to be able to entirely devastate a 110 mile radius, or 38000 square miles. That's enough to completely eliminate 1/4th of the United Kingdom, or to wipe out the entire population of Israel, and do some damage to Jordan, Egypt, and Syria at the same time. Obviously nukes that Iran builds will not have that kind of destruction capabilities (though you'd be surprised since they have Russian ties) but it is still incorrect to think that nukes are no longer weapons of incredible amounts of power.
The US wouldn't need ground troops to fight Iran. The best part about the United States Military is its power projection. In other words, it can fight and have the ability to win a war without all of its forces being intact. USA and the UK are the only powers that can do that. So, let's say USA and Iran did fight it out, the US could just use its air force to do all the dirty work. Put some carriers in the Persian Gulf, Mediterranian, Indian Ocean etc. have some KC-10's orbiting for in flight refuling and you got yourself a 24/7 bombing campaign designed to shower all non-believers with 90,000 tons of hell.Of course using Israel as a Proxy is a much better idea.
Since we are on the subject of Iran...during the weekend I went to Tasty Kabob and has some delicious Iranian food and desert.YUM!And my new baby cousin was born ova der.http://mail.google.com/mail/?realattid=fil...11242ca3cf914c4
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MaRdYC26 @ Mar 6 2007, 06:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Please don't trash talk Iran. It is of my native country.Just some basic respect.-Thanks guys.</div>Sorry, I can't respect a country that treats it's women the way Iran does.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LakersFan247 @ Mar 6 2007, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sorry, I can't respect a country that treats it's women the way Iran does.</div>Iran actually treats them better than most Middle-Eastern countries. They still wear those things on their head, but it was more of a fashionable thing than a rule. Lots of colors and styles and the rules on how it should cover weren't strict. Women are treated with respect over there too and I heard something about Ahmadinejad trying to improve women's rights, just small things here and there. They follow basic religious rules like what I said and praying separately, but women are treated well. You don't really know what you're talking about there...
lol, nah...It's kabob. Lets find a good description somewhere...Kabab Barg is a Persian style barbecued lamb or beef. The main ingredients of Kabab Barg are fillets of beef tenderloin, onion and olive oil.Good stuff..it is usually served with the tomato fire grilled with it.Oh and here's the pic of my cousin
