Iran will deliver telling blow

[SRCivic98]

to me I would watch and see if this guy of Iran is really up to his world but also if I was him, I would keep some of my own weapons and distribute more weapons to people I knew hated this country with a passion. I do see something coming and I'm here to tell you everyday that I look outside the feeling keeps getting stronger. If Iran is ignored and they launch a nuclear war head towards us here in the United States then yeah this government would "hopefully" fire back at the missile to stop it. But they usually fire twenty or fourty missiles for one of another country's. If anything I would fire two missiles. one being the nuclear warhead and the other being an EMP. Or you could just detonate the nuclear missile in the stratosphere so you don't kill anyone but instead you create a nuclear EMP. This would do the same effect of an EMP but even stronger because of the chemical compound that's involved in making a nuclear warhead. Then I would launch the real deal at who ever I was attacking.....like I said, I keep getting this feeling something is about to happen and everyday it's getting worse. And this bull crap about Obama helping turn back the "doomsday clock" and getting a "Noble Peace Reward" is a huge load of...well you know. We here in the United States are about to get a rude awakening and nothing will be able to stop it from happening here soon....but instead we'll have to team up together and fight to keep what is our's because that'll be all we'll have left afterwords.

[+DieChecker]

I think if the Iranians actually had ICBM technology, they would Nuke the English first. They seem to have a especial hatred for the British and the English in particular. They routinely call Israel and the USA the tools and stooges of the British.

If they had a short range nuke, or truck mounted nuke, they would of course attack Israel first. But, their contempt for other Muslim nations is not too far behind the British, US and Israel.

The idea that if they had a nuke, they would not use it is foolish. Surely they would need to test one to show they did it. And what better way then to accidentally let one get taken by a terrorist network that attacks the West with it? Ideally, for Iran, they would not do that without having a couple other nukes in backup. The threat of a pistol with one bullet against 10 unarmed men is a bluff, but fire and kill one man, while having a clip of 20 more bullets and you have barganing power.

That is what it seems to me.

[el midgetron]

I think if the Iranians actually had ICBM technology, they would Nuke the English first. They seem to have a especial hatred for the British and the English in particular. They routinely call Israel and the USA the tools and stooges of the British.

I have never heard anything more insulting in my life!!! The USA is nobodys stooge but Israel's.

The idea that if they had a nuke, they would not use it is foolish. Surely they would need to test one to show they did it. And what better way then to accidentally let one get taken by a terrorist network that attacks the West with it?

If they wanted to demonstrate their capabilities, a detonation of a "peaceful nuclear device" would seem to be the standard method counties use. Using it to attack another country (even by proxy) would almost certianly ensure a retaliation.

Anyway, I highly doubt they have a nuke (unless Russia or China gave them one).

[+DieChecker]

I have never heard anything more insulting in my life!!! The USA is nobodys stooge but Israel's.

If they wanted to demonstrate their capabilities, a detonation of a "peaceful nuclear device" would seem to be the standard method counties use. Using it to attack another country (even by proxy) would almost certianly ensure a retaliation.

Anyway, I highly doubt they have a nuke (unless Russia or China gave them one).

Agreed. Even if they make one it will be years and years before they have a second. And I don't think they would risk even using that one, unless they had another in backup. Even with secret labs, they are decades away from being a true danger, nuke-wise anyway.

Edited February 9, 2010 by DieChecker

[MichaelW]

It would be an even better surprise if on that day Israel attacked Iran, caught Ahmadinejad and tortured him in public.

As funny as that would seem, I think we both know it will never happen. Can you imagine all the crap Israel would get from the U.N because it attacke poor defenceless Iran?

[MARAB0D]

As funny as that would seem, I think we both know it will never happen. Can you imagine all the crap Israel would get from the U.N because it attacke poor defenceless Iran?

Iran has just sent rats and worms to the orbit. No one attacks a space power.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

As funny as that would seem, I think we both know it will never happen. Can you imagine all the crap Israel would get from the U.N because it attacke poor defenceless Iran?

Israel already gets plenty of crap from the UN simply for daring to exist. I think Netanyahu's speach to the UN General Assembly was the equivalent of a "Go [censored] yourself" message.

I think you can watch it on YouTube.

[Corp]

I think the surprise will be a large three layered cake.

[RamblingRebel]

I just don't get where a few folk are saying that Iran would nuke another country. IMHO the only countries who are arrogant enough to do his are America and/or Israel.

[Corp]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/10/technology/google_iran_gmail/index.htm?section=money_latest

They're getting rid of Gmail and opening up their own government run email service.

I hope this isn't their big blow. If it is I'm very disappointed.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Corp

[J.B.]

We'll just have to wait and see. You hear two sides to this, Ahmenijad is insane, or a reporter who went on the Daily Show talked about how it's all an act to keep his constituents from deposing him. The Middle East is quite full of warlords, as that is the type of person that Islam celebrates as a great leader. You get warlord mentaliites everywhere, it's just more announced in the Middle East because, A. The media and government want us watching there to hide bad things happening here, and B. Islam is one of the few religions, if not the only, that will outright say, "We want a warlord, only way to heaven is to die in combat."

[+DieChecker]

Great!!

XXX_XXX42@fear.iran

[The Silver Thong]

We'll just have to wait and see. You hear two sides to this, Ahmenijad is insane, or a reporter who went on the Daily Show talked about how it's all an act to keep his constituents from deposing him. The Middle East is quite full of warlords, as that is the type of person that Islam celebrates as a great leader. You get warlord mentaliites everywhere, it's just more announced in the Middle East because, A. The media and government want us watching there to hide bad things happening here, and B. Islam is one of the few religions, if not the only, that will outright say, "We want a warlord, only way to heaven is to die in combat."

I have been accused of being anti American in the past and present but this is not true. However America is the only country to drop nukes on civilian targets and to wage war on nations due to terrorists. Terrorists have no nation they live next door to you. The war on terror is as much a sham as the war on drugs.

[MARAB0D]

I have been accused of being anti American in the past and present but this is not true. However America is the only country to drop nukes on civilian targets and to wage war on nations due to terrorists. Terrorists have no nation they live next door to you. The war on terror is as much a sham as the war on drugs.

...or a war on the house insects. Just nuke those nations which still host them! You say this aloud, they would move you on pro-American list and you may get a nice job, say a Climatologist.

Edited February 11, 2010 by marabod

[Hugh]

It's interesting that over time, there has been a massive troop buildup in Iraq, and Afghanistan... and Iran sits right in the middle between the two...

[MARAB0D]

It's interesting that over time, there has been a massive troop buildup in Iraq, and Afghanistan... and Iran sits right in the middle between the two...

This may have been a plan, but the reality is such that Iran is safe. Afghan troops lack the supplies (these are carried through Russia and Taleban-controlled areas, both would be cut) and face a war on two fronts. What is planned on a map, not always fits the ground situation.

[ExpandMyMind]

Methinks Iran is on the verge of getting it's backside kicked all over the middle east.

oh really? what have they done to deserve this?

[ExpandMyMind]

Well, at least the Shah was modernizing and Westernizing Iran. Say what you want about the government, but Iran as a whole was 100 times better than it was after the Islamic Revolutionaries rose to power.

that is completely incorrect. when the sha was in power, the rich thrived. everyone else, including the large majority of poor that made (and still makes) up the country, continued to suffer.

[ExpandMyMind]

Under the current government, you'd be jailed, raped and then executed if you speak against the Supreme Leader, so it's not much different.

and again, that is completely incorrect.

ask yourself this, out of the hundreds of thousands of people to protest over the past year, what percentage have been arrested?

0.000001%? who knows, but i'm sure we can agree that it has been a tiny amount. the reason for this being... the troublemakers are treated harshly, not (as you say), anyone who speaks out.

[ExpandMyMind]

On the contrary, Iran's automobile manufacturing capacity has doubled since the Revolution. Iran also has a modern freeway network, train and air network as well. Many enjoy a nice standard of living and a vast majority of the population can afford petrol, a car and even their own houses. They can even vote freely for their president but I'll admit, Amadenejad did fix the recent ones. Even so, many Iranians enjoy a lifestyle which is free from relative corruption.

If I remember correctly, an Iranian court ordered a man to buy his wife 150,000 roses because he squandered most of the couple's money.

Don't belive anything Fox News says. Because all of it's BS.

i agree with your post here, except for the bolded part. you do realise that there isn't a single shred of evidence, not a single shred, that the election was fixed, don't you?. and indeed, there is more evidence, far more evidence, to suggest that the outcome on the election was fair and what was expected by any organisation that actually researched the situation beforehand.

but why let facts get in the way of a good yarn, i suppose.

[ExpandMyMind]

Michael, Iran is much more PROGRESSIVE than the rest of Middle East! The laws and government are retarded in it, but this goes against the mood of the population. At least one half there are Atheists, who have to pretend being the believers being afraid of career obstacles or even direct inquisitive action. I am constantly encountering Iranian scientists and engineers here in NZ and in Oz, and even lower educated Iranians here are mostly free-thinkers. Their Theocracy lives its last years, as soon as Khamenei dies, the entire system would collapse. Mullahs know this and are desperate in their insisting on Sharia, which only makes the things worse for them, what we see is agony of the regime. The women, which are 50% of population, are struggling to get rid of the ruling throwbacks, and only the special Sharia police forces them to wear those black clothes over their versace jeans and French make-up. BBC had a good report on this dualism of Iranian lifestyle - they pray outside the house and inside it they make swingers parties with whiskey and dances. Even the farmers there make their own wine and keep 50-gallon clay jars under ground for the mullah not to notice. This county cannot be even compared to Saudi Arabia.

excellent post. along with every post of el midge's in this thread.

[ExpandMyMind]

"11 protesters sentenced to death for "waging war against God" and seeking to topple the government." (source: Al Jazeera News)

in other words, enemies of the state are excecuted... while i don't believe in executions, i can understand why a regime would find it necessary to execute the western backed and funded troublemakers that have been inciting violence at almost ever 'reformist' rally.

so i'm not exactly sure what your point here is.

It would be an even better surprise if on that day Israel attacked Iran, caught Ahmadinejad and tortured him in public.

you're a tw*t pseudo. pure and simple. sorry for the name-calling but sometimes it's just, called for.

I think if the Iranians actually had ICBM technology, they would Nuke the English first. They seem to have a especial hatred for the British and the English in particular. They routinely call Israel and the USA the tools and stooges of the British.

this deserves a facepalm.

The idea that if they had a nuke, they would not use it is foolish. Surely they would need to test one to show they did it. And what better way then to accidentally let one get taken by a terrorist network that attacks the West with it? Ideally, for Iran, they would not do that without having a couple other nukes in backup. The threat of a pistol with one bullet against 10 unarmed men is a bluff, but fire and kill one man, while having a clip of 20 more bullets and you have barganing power.

That is what it seems to me.

may i ask you which country north korea attacked to show it was a nuclear power? or did they give one to terrorists to use, to prove they had the capability?

sorry, it seems you changed your tune for some reason anyways.

Agreed. Even if they make one it will be years and years before they have a second. And I don't think they would risk even using that one, unless they had another in backup. Even with secret labs, they are decades away from being a true danger, nuke-wise anyway.

what made you change your mind so quickly die?

I just don't get where a few folk are saying that Iran would nuke another country. IMHO the only countries who are arrogant enough to do his are America and/or Israel.

exactly!

[Black Red Devil]

Tension between the US and Iran heightened dramatically today with the disclosure that Barack Obama is deploying a missile shield to protect American allies in the Gulf from attack by Tehran.

The US is dispatching Patriot defensive missiles to four countries – Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait – and keeping two ships in the Gulf capable of shooting down Iranian missiles. Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia develop a force to protect its oil installations.

American officials said the move is aimed at deterring an attack by Iran and reassuring Gulf states fearful that Tehran might react to sanctions by striking at US allies in the region. Washington is also seeking to discourage Israel from a strike against Iran by demonstrating that the US is prepared to contain any threat.

The deployment comes after Obama's attempts to emphasise diplomacy over confrontation in dealing with Iran – a contrast to the Bush administration's approach – have failed to persuade Tehran to open its nuclear installations to international controls. The White House is now trying to engineer agreement for sanctions focused on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, believed to be in charge of the atomic programme.

Washington has not formally announced the deployment of the Patriots and other anti-missile systems, but by leaking it to American newspapers the administration is evidently seeking to alert Tehran to a hardening of its position.

continues -

http://www.guardian....s-missiles-gulf

You know, I can understand the reason why Iran isn't allowed to build nuclear weapons. Iran did sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty which basically declares that none of the current 189 nations in the world who signed the Treaty from 1968 onwards are allowed to build nuclear weapons. Hence, the reason for the sanctions right?. Add to this, their regime is run by islamic fundamentalist lunatics and you have two good reasons to oppose and stop their nuclear program.

What gets me is the hypocrisy of world politics.

• Israel, India and Pakistan (3 great US allies) have Nukes, and Pakistan built them after 1970. Not allowed, why no sanctions?

• Israel, India and Pakistan have never agreed to sign the Treaty, which from the start was always meant to reduce and totally disarm ALL nations who had nukes before the Agreement (Soviet Union, US, UK, France, China, Israel and India) and stop all others from building them (the rest of the 189). In my book, someone that holds nuclear weapons but refuses to sign the NPT shows a lack of interest towards world peace and is non committal and dangerous as much as someone else contravening the Treaty by intentionally wanting to build them. What happens if the politics in one of these "non committal" countries changes and they become agressive?
  

• North Korea was part of the NPT but have been allowed to almost complete their nuclear program after they pulled out of the NPT. I wonder how much China has to do with this and I wonder why nobody in the world seems that concerned. Maybe because 99% of the world owes money to China and North Korea are good allies with China? Or maybe because North Korea isn't close to Israel?

• Article VI of the Treaty: Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. Considering the Treaty was signed 40 years ago when are we going to see the cessation and nuclear disarmament on behalf of the US, UK, China and Russia? The START and 2002 U.S.-Russia Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions has helped reduce the amount of nukes but there are still enough nukes in their arsenals to blow the world to quantum particles!
• NATO nuclear sharing has allowed the US in the past to store their nuclear weapons in allied NATO countries such as Germany, Italy, Greece, Canada. These countries signed the NPT!! So why was the US allowed to transfer nuclear weapons to another country? And this other country accept them? This contravenes Article I & II of the NPT. Why no sanctions?

My link

Edited February 11, 2010 by BlackRedLittleDevil

[ExpandMyMind]

excellent points black. but, unfortunately, it seems futile to try to point out the double standards that this subject seems entangled with.

[Black Red Devil]

excellent points black. but, unfortunately, it seems futile to try to point out the double standards that this subject seems entangled with.

Yeah mate you're not wrong. I almost gave up writing it a few times thinking "I'm just wasting my time"