Well coming from the guy that thinks EVERYTHING is some huge evil government conspiracy i dont care what you think.

oooooh.

 

It's a pity you react in such a way.

 

....disappointing

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Why the hell is that here for?

 

Are you retarded?

 

Off topic. And it's off topic on purpose, it's not like the converstion before brought us to discuss that.....Get rid of it.

 

'Iran's supreme leader forbids nukes'

 

AP/Jerusalem Post | September 23 2006

 

Iran's supreme leader has prohibited any use of nuclear weapons by his country, Iranian First Vice President Parziv Davoudi said Friday.

 

Davoudi, one of 10 vice presidents in Iran, also warned that his government would retaliate against any military action against it.

 

"Any aggressor should purge the idea of invading Iran from its mind because our armed forces are serious and powerful enough to counterattack," Davoudi said at a military parade in Teheran.

The remarks were likely directed toward the United States, which is mired in a showdown with the Islamic state over its nuclear ambitions. Teheran claims its nuclear program is geared only to generate electricity, but the US says Iran aims to produce nuclear weapons.

 

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have said that under the Islamic thought, nuclear weapons are illegitimate.

 

Davoudi said the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had stirred "insecurity and terrorism" throughout the world.

 

He spoke at a military parade marking the 26th anniversary of the Iran-Iraq war. The procession included a display of Iranian missiles, including the Shahab-3, which is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

 

An upgraded version of the ballistic missile has a range of more than 2,000 kilometers - capable of reaching Israel and US forces in the Middle East.

 

The weapon's name means "shooting star" in Farsi.

oooooh.

 

It's a pity you react in such a way.

 

....disappointing

 

hahaha

I have gotten in debate several times over the recent israel/lebanon conflict and can't give a straight out reason why Israel attacked Lebanon. The other person has always started with, "Israel did it to get back the two soldiers" and then sometiems saying that they felt israel went overboard. I usually have to revert to talking a bit about the history of israel being aggressive and a horrible human rights abuser, but i feel as if this doesn't have the same weight in showing a person why they did it this time.

 

I recognize Israel as imperialist, and that it has aims at growing larger and more dominant, but what did it specifically gain from causing so much damage to Lebanon? as far as i know it isn't being given fat reconstruction contracts for the damage it caused, nor does it now get cheaper or more access to natural resources. Did Israel maybe just want to punish lebanon and reassert its regional hegemony? or was lebanon becoming an economic competitor/potential military contender that israel wanted to setback some. was this attack a trial ballon to see what world opinion would think, as to assess the climate in preparation for a larger attack to come? and possibly a zero tolerance for rebellious acts like hezobollah kidnapping israeli soldiers (even though this is hypocrtical taking into account how many people israel has kidnapped)? did they just have too many weapons from the USA that they wanted to effectively get rid of (what more effective than killing innocent people)? or was this really the USA's call? and if this is so, I still ask the same questions of why. A combination of these reasons (and if so, if possible a listing of their importance)?

 

anyways, sorry for asking several of the possible explanations, i just want to make sure that the aim of my question is properly understood. If there is an essay that would best give me the answer, specifically on this conflict, that would definitley suffice.

Thank you, my fellow humans,

There are quite a few Muslim countries that are 'terrible human rights abusers'

 

Lets not forget them.

 

And lets not forget to the Hisbollah 'fighters' who hid amongst civillans. Thats why alot of civillans died.

 

And lests not forget the 1973 war which you guys started and in which far many more people died.

There are quite a few Muslim countries that are 'terrible human rights abusers'

afew speechless

all muslims not few

 

Lets not forget them.

 

And lets not forget to the Hisbollah 'fighters' who hid amongst civillans. Thats why alot of civillans died.

they are not mogest civilain ppl they are civilian ppl in south and have aright to defending from them selves

And lests not forget the 1973 war which you guys started and in which far many more people died.

to back own land sania

plz read again my essay...

Why Bush Will Nuke Iran

September 26, 2006

 

by Paul Craig Roberts

 

The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East.

 

The U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Generals in both war theaters are stating their need for more troops. But there are no troops to send.

 

Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see any point in sacrificing its blood and money for the sake of American hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not enthralled over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony.

 

The "coalition of the willing" has evaporated. Indeed, it never existed. Bush's "coalition" was assembled with bribes, threats, and intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan, let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS' 60 Minutes on Sept. 24, 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the "coalition." Brute coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that "you are with us" or "be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age." Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire Service, reporting from Islamabad on Sept. 16, 2001, on the pressure Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, stated: "'Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st century or the Stone Age' is roughly how U.S. officials are putting their case."

 

That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping the U.S. slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush's attempt to exercise U.S. hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the U.S. destruction of Pakistan: "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that's what I did." Nevertheless, he said, he refused Bush's "ludicrous" demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly demonstrated against the U.S.: "If somebody's expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views."

 

Bush's defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's defeat by Hezbollah in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the U.S. and Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The U.S. has battled in Iraq longer than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out of control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The king of Saudi Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as unrest over the American/Israeli violence against Muslims builds to dangerous levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who do not think that Egypt should be a lackey of U.S. hegemony. The king of Jordan understands that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian into Jordan.

 

Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate. Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is that Iran can respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover, an American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have changed U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran.

 

Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.

 

Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America's will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their fate.

 

Revised U.S. war doctrine concludes that tactical or low-yield nuclear weapons cause relatively little "collateral damage" or civilian deaths, while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the enemy. The "fear factor" disheartens the enemy and shortens the conflict.

 

University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority on nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances, such as Russia/China, form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by an American nuclear attack on Iran that it would mean the end of Japan's sycophantic relationship to the U.S.

 

There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth cooperation in order to avoid destruction.

 

Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand the might of the United States and that America can rule by force alone.

 

Hirsch believes that the U.S. military's opposition to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia, and China, but there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of nuclear weapons at the behest of U.S. hegemony.

 

It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government and have no organized opposition in American politics.

its pretty clear, bush is one of the worst leaders in US history.

 

i don't know if its relevant, but may of the US presidents have fought in wars...

 

bush, clinton in vietnam etc...

 

are these wars an excuse to try and establish leaders with 'credibility'?

Bush never served in Vietnam - He got his dad to get him into the Texas reserve airforce thing. From Rotten:

 

After Yale, Bush successfully dodged the draft by volunteering for a six-year hitch in the Texas Air National Guard. This required some serious string-pulling, but the Bushes had lots of friends in high places. Evidently hoping to avoid winding up in Southeast Asia, on his application George checked the box labeled do not volunteer under the heading "overseas assignment."

 

Bush was immediately accepted into the Guard, where he got promoted in record time. He was also fast-tracked into the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, which involved skipping over a waiting list full of qualified applicants. And then for four years he did as little work as possible, just the minimum required to remain in the unit, which was based in Houston.

 

Then in May 1972, with two years left on his enlistment, George headed off to Alabama and requested reassignment to an inactive postal unit there. This request was a little odd for an Air National Guardsman, seeing that the outfit had no airplanes. Bush's request was denied. But for some reason he decided to stick around Alabama for a few months and didn't return to his Houston post until he was required to receive an annual physical.

 

Then, for some reason, Bush was grounded by his commander for "his failure to accomplish annual medical examination." Either he never showed up, or he flunked it. We don't know for certain because his military records are sealed, and can only be made public with the subject's assent. Bush has never chosen to make them available.

 

The most plausible theory is that George ran into a problem with the compulsory drug testing. If he did show up for the physical, maybe he flunked the urinalysis. If he didn't show up, maybe it was out of fear of what the drug test would reveal. Whatever the reason, Bush never flew again. And he still had another two years to go on his enlistment. So he just sat around. In fact it's unclear exactly what, if anything, he did during those two remaining years. The only thing we know for sure: whatever it was involved neither flying planes nor getting shipped off to Vietnam.

Bush would never Nuke Iran. You've gone off the deep edge Gareth once again.:stunned:

What? Why must you be so wrong in the way you reply all the time?

 

It's not ME who is saying these things I mearly posted an article that I thought was interesting.

 

I'm not 100% sure whether nukes will be used but they might. Your thinking a massive huge A-Bomb but that's not what would happen. Small tactical nukes are a perfect way of penetrating & destroying more confined areas. However they do leave behind areas full of nuclear fall-out contamination.

 

Damn, it's always you who fucks things up. I've gone of the deep edge?? Have I?? I don't think so.....it's a perfectly normal discussion. Nobody else thinks it's odd discussing such things.

 

And ok, because you simply said they won't without any sort of reasoning then....you know, you must be right.

First of all a first strike nuke would turn the world more agaisnt us, turn most of the US against Bush and his party. It woudlnt be worth it to any politician to use a nuke unless we had to

Yeah, it'll remind the Japanese of Hiroshima and they will then they will cut most ties with the US. China and Japan will come together in allience.

 

It's turn the leaders in the US into the new Hiltlers. It's all part of the creation of world chaos which then can fixed by world government and stipping away nearly all freedom/constitutional rights.

 

I'm not sure that leaders within europe are fully independant of America that there will be enough of a fight against it.

Yeah, it'll remind the Japanese of Hiroshima and they will then they will cut most ties with the US. China and Japan will come together in allience.

 

It's turn the leaders in the US into the new Hiltlers. It's all part of the creation of world chaos which then can fixed by world government and stipping away nearly all freedom/constitutional rights.

 

I'm not sure that leaders within europe are fully independant of America that there will be enough of a fight against it.

 

It would be suicide for any US politician or President to first strike with a small nuke, they would never do it for fear of the repercussions. They would be thrown out of office and hated by the world encluding most of the US. No one would dare commit political, social and possibly physical suicide like that.

Really?......

 

Nah.

 

These nukes don't even appear like conventional nukes. They pack more of a punch than normal missiles but are used to blast under the surface.

Well this talk is all hypothetical. Using nukes is the worst case scenario.

 

America doesnt have the manpower to fight Iran- its struggling for recruits for the army, its strecthed enough in Iraq as it is and it would end up a disaster. The world would be outraged.

 

Your just being a scaremonger, getting people all worried... (didnt they say that about Churchill thou?)

I believe the Bush Administration said themselves that they were 'planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'.

 

So I'm not the scaremonger.

I'm planning myself to be a millionaire by this time next year - Does that mean i'm going to be one?

I don't know - do you actually possess one million pounds but just have it hidden somewhere secure and are thinking about using it to desvastate a section of the world?

Well this talk is all hypothetical. Using nukes is the worst case scenario.

 

America doesnt have the manpower to fight Iran- its struggling for recruits for the army, its strecthed enough in Iraq as it is and it would end up a disaster. The world would be outraged.

 

Your just being a scaremonger, getting people all worried... (didnt they say that about Churchill thou?)

 

I think America could have enough troops if need be. We have alot in Europe and Asia just sitting around doing nothing, so if we had to we could call alot out of those area's and use them in Iran.

heh, these crazy american TV presenters