Iran Update...

K

Keenly

Guest
just throwing it out there

if you detonate the nuke above ground the resulting fallout will me minimal...

fallout is not really the issue here its how the rest of the world would freak out if that happened
 

duguP

Active Member
Oh Gr8! The lil bastards are going to cause a nuclear war.Its a sign of the times were in,They need to send a small squad of elites in to ass out the leader of Iran in covert fashion and sabotage their nuclear material facility..if only it would happen.

LoL .. Those "lil bastards" have been in existance, and plenty of wars for the past 3000 years. It's no sign of the times. The world is gonna end in 2012 anyways, so what are you worried about, Nostradamus? :P
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
"war of aggression" is there such thing as a war of non aggression? Point is just refer to it as a war.
Waging a war of aggression means you are the aggressor.

If you invade another country without provocation, that's an act of war.

If you are invaded by another country, that is an act of defense.

The Nazi's were the aggressors.
The Vietcong were the aggressors.
etc.
 

Woomeister

Well-Known Member
Well then, what has the world been thinking for the last 7 years? What has all the negotiations been about? The carrots of offerings?

All the nations should have just called you guys.... you know what Iran is going to do. You know they don't really mean what they say.

You know.............. You guys sure could have saved many nations billions of dollars. Speak up next time when you come across a gem of an idea, that no one else has. The negotiations prove they don't think that's the case, and/or is it something you take a chance on? Think it through...... know your opponent.
The negotiations have been to prevent Iran gaining Nuclear power/warheads as the West and Israel dont want the balance of power shifted. They dont believe that Iran would use any hypothetical warhead, if they did then Israel and the US would be in their like a shot, imagine the price of Oil if there was a threat of Nuclear bombs dropping in the middle east, we are after all not talking Scuds!!! Iranians want to be able to do what many other nations can, choose their own future. Power cuts are prevalent and nuclear power would solve this problem. Threats are prevalent, nuclear warheads would solve this problem. All your views CJ are only that, there is no proof, if there were proof Israel would be sending sorties over Tehran by now. Iran has nothing to gain by using nuclear weapons, but much to gain by having them. Any country outside of Europe does...
 

fitch303

Well-Known Member
Waging a war of aggression means you are the aggressor.

If you invade another country without provocation, that's an act of war.

If you are invaded by another country, that is an act of defense.

The Nazi's were the aggressors.
The Vietcong were the aggressors.
etc.
War itself is an act of aggression, why not say "Israel waged war" idk it seems a little redundant but point taken.
 

The Warlord

Well-Known Member
The negotiations have been to prevent Iran gaining Nuclear power/warheads as the West and Israel dont want the balance of power shifted. They dont believe that Iran would use any hypothetical warhead, if they did then Israel and the US would be in their like a shot, imagine the price of Oil if there was a threat of Nuclear bombs dropping in the middle east, we are after all not talking Scuds!!! Iranians want to be able to do what many other nations can, choose their own future. Power cuts are prevalent and nuclear power would solve this problem. Threats are prevalent, nuclear warheads would solve this problem. All your views CJ are only that, there is no proof, if there were proof Israel would be sending sorties over Tehran by now. Iran has nothing to gain by using nuclear weapons, but much to gain by having them. Any country outside of Europe does...
Iran has nothing to gain by using nukes...


What about the 72 virgins they all get when Isreal retaliates and they all go to heaven?

Please don't take the above too seriously. i only 1/2 meant it. Just having fun. :-P
 

Woomeister

Well-Known Member
  • <LI itxtvisited="1">Main Entry: 1war <LI itxtvisited="1">Pronunciation: \&#712;wo&#775;r\ <LI itxtvisited="1">Function: noun <LI itxtvisited="1">Usage: often attributive <LI itxtvisited="1">Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
  • Date: 12th century
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : variance, odds 3
&#8212; war·less \-l&#601;s\ adjective
 

CrackerJax

New Member
-The 1948 war is the original example of Israeli aggression. By the end of that war, Israel has annexed the Palestinian Arab territories of Galilee, Auja, parts of Gaza Strip, and parts of the West Bank, all of which were parts of the Palestinian Arab state according to the Partition resolution. Israeli forces had attacked Palestinian territories, particularly Galilee, well before the Arab states entered the war. If you go back to the memoirs of all Israeli leaders, you'll find that they wanted to annex Jerusalem, which was in the middle of the Arab territory of the West Bank. To do that they penetrated the West Bank to Jerusalem, that is why there is a corridor linking Israel to Jerusalm. Finally, the Israeli forces, the Haganah, had a plan known as Plan Dalet, according to which they attacked Palestinian villages to evict Palestinians from them, in our time now we call this ethnic cleansing. All this has nothing to do with the intervention of other Arab states in the war. The Israeli aggression has continued ever since by not allowing Palestinian refugees, who were evicted by Israelis from their towns and villages, to return to their property,. That is why the problem has continued until today.



No, I havn't skipped anything. Every war Israel has been in has been a war waged of agression against it's arab neighbors. I posted that little bit in bold because you missed it the first time around, and I guess you missed it the second time around too, because you're still asking the same things...

So you ignore the original Israeli aggression and look at the reaction to it as aggression? Yet you call the men and women fighting for their country in the middle east against the US ''terrorists''. If Israel are the good guys the your ''terrorists'' are also the good guys, which would make us the bad guys.

That was the point.

The 1967 war was a pre-emptive war launched for expansion by Israel... wtf are you even talking about now?

See that's obviously the problem with you CJ, you look at the reactions instead of the causes, you don't wish to get to the bottom of the animosity in the region, you just want to spread democracy through the barrel of a gun and hope the middle east simply bows down at our expansion and illegal occupation.

The fighting has gone on for years, reactions to the new conflicts need to be looked at in the context of history, you can't just take one example - Hamas firing rockets into Israel - and say that Israel is being attacked.. What about the blockades, what about the embargos, is that not an act of aggression? Keeping the people who occupy your country completely suppressed in every aspect? That IS an act of aggression and Israel is at fault. I wouldn't stand for it, neither would you CrackerJax, and I thought you'd be man enough to admit it. If you were Palestinian, you'd sure as fuck be singin' a different tune than you are now. It's easy to look at the situation from 10,000 miles away and think you've got it all figured out, but the reality on the ground is there are much bigger problems that need to be solved, and to solve them BOTH states must admit the faults of their past, not just the Arab ones. Israel is infalable to most Americans, they're the window of democracy to that entire region, when in reality they've got as much dirt as any of their neighbors, only difference is they've got bigger toys to play with, which ALWAYS results in ridiculous numbers of casualties, usually in the civilian population.

But I guess it's all justified in your mind eh, CJ...


What are you smoking son.....

Israel never attacked any of its neighboring nations in either 1948 or 1967. Israel was the one who was attacked. Israel was outgunned and outnumbered. If the Arab nations didn't want to lose ground, they should have kept the peace. In war, there is risk. Any land taken during a war is negotiated later. You don't simply go back to old borders.... otherwise every nation would risk war if there was nothing to lose but ppl. PPl are a cheap resource compared to land. History tells you that much.

The Arab states (Egypt excepted) do not respect the law. In the end it is not really about religion differences. It's about Arab humiliation on the battlefield, and also the fact that Israel turned that area into a garden and a economic regional powerhouse, without the benefit of oil. And last but not least, Israel represents democracy, something the fiefdom of Arab nations abhor. It is a thorn in their side. Instead of adopting the better more efficient system of democracy, they'd rather pull the thorn, and keep the status quo of monarchy and tribal rule, both backward remnants from the past. Instead of the Arab nations coming to terms with their own short comings, they'd rather blame someone else.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
What are you smoking son.....

Israel never attacked any of its neighboring nations in either 1948 or 1967. Israel was the one who was attacked. Israel was outgunned and outnumbered. If the Arab nations didn't want to lose ground, they should have kept the peace. In war, there is risk. Any land taken during a war is negotiated later. You don't simply go back to old borders.... otherwise every nation would risk war if there was nothing to lose but ppl. PPl are a cheap resource compared to land. History tells you that much.

The Arab states (Egypt excepted) do not respect the law. In the end it is not really about religion differences. It's about Arab humiliation on the battlefield, and also the fact that Israel turned that area into a garden and a economic regional powerhouse, without the benefit of oil. And last but not least, Israel represents democracy, something the fiefdom of Arab nations abhor. It is a thorn in their side. Instead of adopting the better more efficient system of democracy, they'd rather pull the thorn, and keep the status quo of monarchy and tribal rule, both backward remnants from the past. Instead of the Arab nations coming to terms with their own short comings, they'd rather blame someone else.

-you can't look at Israili aggression, embargos and blockades, as simply business as usual. That's Israeli oppression

-the Arab states reaction to Israeli aggression is always much smaller, which suggests a defensive stance. Israel on the other hand always kills civilians, women, children... Not saying the Arab states don't kill civilians, just that the ratios aren't even questionable, I'd be glad to pull up some charts.

-Israel is one of the main causes of such widespread terrorism worldwide and in the US. Our support for Israel is what causes us so many problems. We support them no matter what. I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm saying we should support who is right in the conflict, not who is our ''friend''. Wtf kind of politics is that?
 

CrackerJax

New Member
see the pic above? see what was allotted by the UN for israel and palestine? see where it stands now? oops!
It stands there now because the Arabs keep attacking.... and losing ground with each defeat. Einstein......

I personally loath Israel and there disgusting policies.
Their policies are there because of Arab aggression. Another Einstein.

Waging a war of aggression means you are the aggressor.

If you invade another country without provocation, that's an act of war.

If you are invaded by another country, that is an act of defense.

The Nazi's were the aggressors.
The Vietcong were the aggressors.
etc.
You left off the Arabs.

The negotiations have been to prevent Iran gaining Nuclear power/warheads as the West and Israel dont want the balance of power shifted. They dont believe that Iran would use any hypothetical warhead, if they did then Israel and the US would be in their like a shot, imagine the price of Oil if there was a threat of Nuclear bombs dropping in the middle east, we are after all not talking Scuds!!! Iranians want to be able to do what many other nations can, choose their own future. Power cuts are prevalent and nuclear power would solve this problem. Threats are prevalent, nuclear warheads would solve this problem. All your views CJ are only that, there is no proof, if there were proof Israel would be sending sorties over Tehran by now. Iran has nothing to gain by using nuclear weapons, but much to gain by having them. Any country outside of Europe does...
That was one long opinion which now flies in the face of world opinion. You are quite alone in that. Tehran and Moscow are ur friends.

-you can't look at Israili aggression, embargos and blockades, as simply business as usual. That's Israeli oppression

-the Arab states reaction to Israeli aggression is always much smaller, which suggests a defensive stance. Israel on the other hand always kills civilians, women, children... Not saying the Arab states don't kill civilians, just that the ratios aren't even questionable, I'd be glad to pull up some charts.

-Israel is one of the main causes of such widespread terrorism worldwide and in the US. Our support for Israel is what causes us so many problems. We support them no matter what. I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm saying we should support who is right in the conflict, not who is our ''friend''. Wtf kind of politics is that?
Non-sense. It's not even comparable. Israel aggression is strictly defensive and reactionary to the Arab aggression. If Hamas and ilk stopped attacking, there would be NO violence. What is so difficult to understand.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Non-sense. It's not even comparable. Israel aggression is strictly defensive and reactionary to the Arab aggression. If Hamas and ilk stopped attacking, there would be NO violence. What is so difficult to understand.

Then why does Israel break the peace agreements?

"The Israeli army still regularly patrols and redeploys into Palestinian-controlled areas"

''Palestinians have not made much progress in reducing violent actions of Palestinian against Israel and Israelis.''

"Initially, Hamas and Islamic Jihad unilaterally declared a 45-day temporary ceasefire."
 

CrackerJax

New Member
The peace agreements are broken by Hamas. Read the papers some....it is Hamas who starts firing into civilian populations, not the Israelis.

The Israelis RESPOND to the attacks..... wouldn't you?
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
The peace agreements are broken by Hamas. Read the papers some....it is Hamas who starts firing into civilian populations, not the Israelis.

The Israelis RESPOND to the attacks..... wouldn't you?
Absolutely. But how can you look past Israeli blockades and embargos? They keep the Palestinians so oppressed they starve to death and get poor quality medical care or none at all. This is the stuff that leads to Hamas rising to power and 80% of the population supporting them. It's all Palestinian reaction to Israeli aggression.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Again... nonsense. The only reason why Israel ever blockades is because of the terrorism.

The party that can stop all of this is UNWILLING to. As long as Hamas and Syria can find ppl to overlook terrorism (you), they will continue.

No one SUPPORTS the Palestinians more than the Israelis.... no one. Certainly NOT the Arabs. The Palestinians are the sacrificial lambs for the Arabs.... they have no intention of saving them.
 

fitch303

Well-Known Member
Again... nonsense. The only reason why Israel ever blockades is because of the terrorism.

The party that can stop all of this is UNWILLING to. As long as Hamas and Syria can find ppl to overlook terrorism (you), they will continue.

No one SUPPORTS the Palestinians more than the Israelis.... no one. Certainly NOT the Arabs. The Palestinians are the sacrificial lambs for the Arabs.... they have no intention of saving them.
We have a winner :dunce:
 

Woomeister

Well-Known Member
The peace agreements are broken by Hamas. Read the papers some....it is Hamas who starts firing into civilian populations, not the Israelis.

The Israelis RESPOND to the attacks..... wouldn't you?
Yes, because we all know how unbiased and factually motivated newspapers are....If you really want to know about Israel I suggest you read the 575 page report on Israel human rights records.

Human Rights and Israel

The United Nations fact-finding mission examining Israel's IDF Operation Cast Lead against the Islamic terror organization Hamas in Gaza has been published. Headed by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, the mission's 575-page report (PDF format) concluded that "Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity."
This bald statement condemns Israel out of hand and consigns it to the heap of rogue states and regimes which regularly and without conscience disregard human rights, trampling on the basic civil liberties of its citizens and those of other countries.:blsmoke:
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Oh please. don't ever quote the UN to me. They are a joke in that regard.

Let's get back on track, Israel aside.

Please tell me again how Iran needs nuclear energy? Not nuclear weapons, but nuclear power. Why do they need it? Inform me please.....
 

Woomeister

Well-Known Member
Oh please. don't ever quote the UN to me. They are a joke in that regard.

Let's get back on track, Israel aside.

Please tell me again how Iran needs nuclear energy? Not nuclear weapons, but nuclear power. Why do they need it? Inform me please.....
Firstly, your ability to sweep any facts under the carpet is a joke in regard to Israel. Secondly Iran does have a need for nuclear energy with its current energy issues.

Tel Aviv - Due to its abundance of gas and oil resources, not many countries believe that Iran truly needs nuclear power for energy purposes. However, when one looks at the energy situation in Iran, it becomes evident that there is in fact a dire need.
Iran's total electricity production capacity stands at 33,000 megawatts (MW). 75% is from natural gas, 18 percent from oil, and 7 percent from hydroelectric power. Meanwhile, due to the fast rate of industrialization and population growth, demand for electricity is growing at 8% a year.
This year Iran has witnessed a severe drought. The citizens of the scenic city of Esfahan (described as the Florence of the East), were shocked to see that the Zayande rood river, which runs through the city centre, has completely dried up. Similar scenes were reported from other major sources of water.
According to some forecasts, Iran's water problems are only going to get worst in the future. This has meant that instead of producing 6,500 megawatts, Iran hydro electric infrastructure has only produced 1500, thus creating a significant shortage.
There have also been sever problems with other sources of energy such as oil and gas, due to decaying infrastructure, which has been caused by sanctions and bad management.
This has meant that Tehran, a city of 14 million inhabitants, has been plunged into darkness for at least two hours a day, over the last six months. This is why Iranian newspapers carry daily schedules about which neighborhood will have its electricity cut and at what time. Similar problems have been reported in other parts of the country.
The last time there were power cuts in Iran was during the war against Iraq, and for a limited time afterwards. This makes the hot summer days for many Iranians unbearable. It also causes significant damage to the economy.
Iran's requirement for nuclear energy is justified. Nuclear power would enable the Iranian government to make up the energy shortage, using an efficient technology. Also, it would enable it to export gas at higher price thus earning more income, instead of using it at home for domestic energy purposes.
The recent incentives package from the EU would have allowed Iran to have technical support from the West to use nuclear technology for the production of energy. However the doubts surrounding Iran's nuclear intentions have made this difficult, and so have president Ahmadinejad's constant threats.
For now it seems that Iran's genuine energy concerns are hostage to the balance of power struggle between the Iranian government and the West.:roll:
 
It is really funny, though. Before going to Iraq, we never had any hard evidence of wmd's, and now that the US is funding Russia to help Iran and we have concrete evidence of wmd's, we will most likely not do anything until a country is attacked.
Oh god, America is the most paranoid nation on earth. No offence folks, but your news media and government actually enjoy making you all paranoid. I have been to the states and some of the news stories were absolutely farcical.

Dont believe the media.

As regards Israel and Palestine. I urge any of you to go to Palestine and see what the people go through. Then you will see who the true agressors are and it isnt palestine!!

Before you say it, no I am not a muslim and never was.
 
Top