"Ahmadinejad: Iran is determined to eradicate Zionism"

They'll be even bigger fools if they disregard what runs silently in the depths of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. I was incorrect when I said that we could turn Teheran into a glass parking lot in ten minutes. In actuality, it would take no more than three....

And, changing topics slightly, in fairness, the first time I ever hear about a bunch of militant Christians decapitating Muslims and flaunting it on the internet, I'll be just as enthusiastic and insistent that they should be wiped out without mercy also....

 

I agree particularly as multilateral disarmament appears to be a non-starter.

 

Their apparent desire to develop nuclear energy as a complimentary source of energy as their means of meeting future projected demand, does not run counter to their ability to access resources in the depths of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian sea.

Your apparent cheerleading for the nuclear annihilation of Iran is all the more reason why that nation would be justified in developing nuclear weapons to avoid this eventuality. The US only attacks nations that are relatively weak and are incapable of a response.

If you were talking about a conventional attack, I would like to remind you that Iran is not a broken country of 28 million people like Iraq, but a militarily strong nation of some 80 million. Iran will be no pushover.

 

Iran made clear infidels are subhumans, no wonder they despise the only democratic and infidel state in the region.

 

I'm not cheerleading for anyone's destruction. I did get highly annoyed at the cavalier response by one poster to my having pointed out that Christians haven't beheaded any Muslims and paraded it around on the internet.

There are many different ways to conduct warfare, obviously. Unfortunately for the United States, we have not engaged intelligently in any war or "police action" since the end of World War II. That certainly includes Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan....

The intelligent way for the USA to fight a war is from the air, using ground forces only after the enemy has been completely destroyed by use of our air power. Even without the benefit of MIRV-equipped, Ohio-class nuclear submarines, we could use conventional fuel-air bombs, dropped from conventional jet-propelled aircraft and, with no difficulty, turn Teheran into a parking lot. Maybe not a "glass" parking lot, but a nice, flat parking lot, nevertheless....

If Iran would get rid of those *******ed religio-maniacs that rule it through a theocracy, the Iranian people would prosper as never before, and have nothing to worry about from us!

 

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty becomes defunct when Iran acquires nuclear weapons technology because Iran will have demonstrated how the Treaty can be gamed successfully.

 

Right, despite the fact that Iran hasn't attacked anybody for centuries other than the one ocassion when she attacked Iraq in self-defence during the 1980s?

 

But why would you want to attack a country that has done you no harm or threatened you? Your assumption that the Iranian's want what you want is unfounded.The problem with many American's is they assume that all cultures conform to their model of society. When I was growing up, a scene from the movie 'Easy Rider' stuck with me. Jack Nicholson, Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper were sitting around the camp fire, smoking hash and looking up at the night sky, laughing and joking. On the surface they were free as birds. But in reality, this freedom was an illusion, trumped as it was by external forces.

However, as Jack remarked to his friends: "Don't go around telling everybody you are not free, because there will be others who will go around killing and maiming to prove to you that they are". It appears that there are too many people willing to kill and maim as their means of attempting to endorse an illusionary freedom, usually in the name of democracy and liberty. It seems as though you are one of those people.

You emphasize the barbaric practice of beheading apparently oblivious to the fact that US bombs not only behead but pulverize bones and smash internal organs too.. But hey, that's ok and more "civililized" because it is undertaken by a guy in uniform from thousands of feet who looks at a screen and presses and button as opposed to a guy in a turban with a sword.

 

Really? If, after Iran aquires nuclear weapons, a small unmarked Yacht or fishing vessel turns into a mushroom cloud near Tel Aviv, are you sure Obama would turn Iran into ash? Really?

Heck, even if Iran goes ahead and fires a missile at Israel for everyones radar to see, are you confident that Obama would give the order?

 

And then you woke up from your slumber?

 

If it could be determined that the attack was from Iran, then yes, I would imagine an international coalition would support the invasion of Iran.

Remember, we invaded Afghanistan over much less provocation.

 

I suppose I've described two scenarios.

In one, there isn't any clear evidence Iran is involved. Just a mushroom cloud where Tel Aviv or New York once was.

What now?

This wasn't a problem in the old cold war. If New York went up, there was a credible threat we'd just nuke all the commies.

But now?

In the second, less likely scenario, Iran is being flagrant, or sloppy enough to get caught somehow.

Afghanistan didn't have nukes. There is no conventional war and regime change with a nuclear Iran. The only question is if we're using nukes as well, or just sucking up losses.

 

Why do you use British spelling conventions?

In any event, the possession of nuclear weapons by any state inexorably leads to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by forces that feel threatened by those weapons. America/Soviet Union. Soviet Union/China. China/India. India/Pakistan. America/North Korea.

 

We spend an awful lot on international espionage. I would hope that our current operations are enough to keep tabs on anything as dangerous as either scenario.

That being said, I don't view Iran as being as serious of a threat as many here seem to. Pakistan worries me far more.

 

How do you know if Iran destroyed Israel that we'd destroy Iran and its Muslim population of 70 million Muslims to retaliate? Hell, our current leaders don't believe in peace through strength. Instead they believe in peace through fantasy based nation-building missions to win the hearts and minds of Muslims who are obligated to hate our unbeliever guts no matter what. How do you come us with your absurd crap?

Hell, if Iran eradicated Israel, Obama would quietly rejoice, and the left in America and Europe would hold parades in celebration.

 

Oh please.

Weve all been through this, blowing up buses or launching rockets at schools are things israel has itself done many times from the 1940s to recently. They dont sponsor terrorists, the israelis actually did it all by themselves.

This is old hat here, you really think youve got some rapier point to make about the evil of the iranians that cant be countered by similar examples of evil on the other side?

 

The Grand Ayatollah is even more crazed about the 12th Imam and about destroying Israel than Ahmadinejad. Not to mention also that Ahmadinejad can't scratch his ass without it first being approved by the Grand Ayatollah. The truth is you couldn't be more naive or gullible.

Not only that but when you claim that Iran isn't suicidal, it is obvious that you are looking at the Islamic world through the lens of Western civilization and assuming that Muslims see the world exactly the same way we do in the West when the reality is Islamic civilization is a completely alien civilization relative to Western civilization. Indeed, the obvious reality is you don't have the first clue what you are talking about and your idiotic assumptions couldn't be anymore unhinged or naive.

 

By the way, why do you americans here constantly brag about your ability to turn iran into a parking lot?

Why dont you have the courage to say 'kill millions of men women and children'??

Anyway, if you do that, indeed youll have low scale war against the entire religion of islam and many many more people. So really youre not going to do that.

And neither is iran going to assure its own regime change by nuking anyone. Nor is it possible or desireable for iran to let slip any nukes to anyone else. Those nukes arent contraband like an AK47 or C4. Theyd be irans most precious defence asset, something they couldnt trust to some bunch of guerrillas. Nor do they view wiping out millions of people as islamic in any sense, they have said so clearly again and again.....not that you guys will listen.
Better to keep fantasy alive of endless war eh?

 

Pretty much. OYM is a perfect example of this mindset.

 

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and several Gulf States have already announced that if Shi'a Iran gets nukes that they will also get nukes in response, as Iran's acquisition of nukes will render the NPT not worth the paper it was signed on. In addition, Pakistan, thanks to the help of American foreign aid has produced far more nukes than it needs to counter India and destroy India many times over in anticipation of Iran acquiring nukes and rendering the NPT worthless, as Pakistan plans on becoming the nuclear supermarket for the Sunni Islamic world.

The reality is not only must Iran be prevented from getting nukes at all cost, but Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and nuclear weapons program must be destroyed as well, as the world can't afford to let the Islamic world with its mandate to make Islam supreme throughout the world become armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. It's bad enough already that they have trillions of dollars to pursue the global jihad perpetually.

 

Why don't you?

What you mean? We already have low scale war as Islam is waging jihad against all unbelievers around the world already, In fact, Islam has been waging jihad perpetually against unbelievers via hot and cold jihad for the past almost 1400 years nonstop perpetually. Apparently, you live in fantasy land.

Anyway, I don't get it, why should we wait until Iran gets nukes first to react when the cost is going to be exponentially far higher, when we can easily act now to stop them beforehand when the cost is going to be far cheaper?

Another naive and gullible kafir infidel looking at the Islamic world through the lens of Western civilization. That seems to be endemic on this forum. The reality is you couldn't be more clueless or oblivious! Nevertheless, the biggest problem if Iran gets nukes is the Sunni Islamic world has already announced that it will also nuke up in response to a Shi'a Iran acquiring nukes. Hence, the Islamic world, along with its mandate to make Islam supreme throughout the world, will not only possess trillions of dollars in which to pursue the global jihad perpetually, but it will also become armed to the teeth with nuclear arms, and Pakistan with its far larger nuclear arsenal than necessary, can't hardly wait for Iran to render the NPT worthless, so its main export can become nuclear arms.

I don't know what you are smoking, but whatever it is it must be super strong stuff! Whew!

Yeah right...the right just goes to war for war's sake according to you and your incredibly narrow mind.

 

Not quite. You are the one stupidly claiming that we would destroy Iran in retaliation if they destroyed Israel!

 

Anyway, can anyone of you Muslim apologizing and jihad sympathizing delusional leftists please explain to me why it is Iran is so determined to destroy Israel? I mean what did Israel even do to (*)(*)(*)(*) off Iran so badly that it is obsessed with destroying Israel? Are is it determined to destroy Israel as its first step to spreading its Islamic revolution worldwide?

 

Under Obama? What are you smoking dude?

 

Don't know other countries but Turkey never said that she would get nukes in response.

Guys are you sure that you know the region well enough? Because some of your political analysis are just total BS.

Turkey has got NATO nukes since the early days of cold war.