Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 115
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Still, the Iranians had a choice, and they voted not for the moderate candidate, but for the ideological extremist, even if was mostly for his Robin Hood attitude.
    Yeah, you are so cool you don't have to care about pissing people off. That's why you got rid of the elected PM in Iran and supported the corrupt Shah so long, without realizing his people were so pissed off about him/you that they installed an Islamitic regime instead of the Shah, which was followed by the kidnappings in the US embassy, Irangate, the Iran-Iraq Gulf Wars, etc. Musharraf losing power in Pakistan is an ongoing danger greatly increased by an attack on Iran, whether you like it or not. [HTML]It's also increased by killing a dozen or two innocent woman and children though US airstrikes on Pakistani villages, btw.[/HTML]Iran has about 5% of world oil production, so it is not all-important. It imports e.g. 30% of its gasoline, an embargo would certainly hurt.
    Since you decided to bring up the missle strike, here is a link that explains who these "women and children" as you call them targeted and took out.
    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigat...ory?id=1517986
    "ABC News has learned that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.
    Pakistani authorities tell ABC News they have confirmation that Mursi was among those on the guest list for the late-night meeting. The authorities say al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was also expected to attend but apparently changed his mind."
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  2. #62  
    I think my Google searches aren't working properly. Could someone help me?

    I was looking for examples of economic sanctions that caused the desired political change. Darn thing didn't turn up anything but examples of how they were used as "signals".

    Maybe we should use a letter-writing campaign to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At least Amnesty International has a track record for some successes.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  3. #63  
    In my opinion, the solution would be starting the trade and having a relationship with Iran! Applying sanctions and seeing them as an enemy helps people get closer to the radicals over there! But the young population in Iran is huge and growing! If US lets them see how the rest of the world lives like compared to how young people and women are treated over there, everything will change slowly slowly but positively. That's what I think, it'll be a longer shot but it'll also be the best solution instead of putting Nuclear Power Iran against Nuclear Power Israel against each other.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    I think my Google searches aren't working properly. Could someone help me?

    I was looking for examples of economic sanctions that caused the desired political change. Darn thing didn't turn up anything but examples of how they were used as "signals".

    Maybe we should use a letter-writing campaign to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At least Amnesty International has a track record for some successes.
    Maybe you did not look in the right place? South Africa's Apartheid Regime is one example, Colonel Gaddafi's Libya is another (in this case not regime change, but change of pro-terrorist behaviour). The case of the Sowjet Union is also an example of a conflict won without a major war (even though there is not that much time in this case, obviously).

    The chance for successful sanctions are a bit better in Iran than they were e.g. in Iraq because Ahmadinejad is not an all-powerful dictator, but part of a relatively diverse political system. Other elements may think twice whether a nuclear bomb is worth it, or realistic at all.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaelic
    In my opinion, the solution would be starting the trade and having a relationship with Iran! Applying sanctions and seeing them as an enemy helps people get closer to the radicals over there! But the young population in Iran is huge and growing! If US lets them see how the rest of the world lives like compared to how young people and women are treated over there, everything will change slowly slowly but positively. That's what I think, it'll be a longer shot but it'll also be the best solution instead of putting Nuclear Power Iran against Nuclear Power Israel against each other.
    The carrot (economic co-operation etc.) and stick (sanctions, embargo, force) approach was what the EU tried, but so far, the carrot didn't work.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Maybe you did not look in the right place? South Africa's Apartheid Regime is one example,
    I didn't look it up, but didn't it take nearly a decade or longer? Don't have that much time right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Colonel Gaddafi's Libya is another (in this case not regime change, but change of pro-terrorist behaviour).
    I think, Reagan's bombing his house has a lot to do with it too. Also seeing what we did this last round in Iraq, Libya voluntarily handed over all of their WMDs for fear that we would target him next.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The case of the Sowjet Union is also an example of a conflict won without a major war (even though there is not that much time in this case, obviously).
    Agreed it we don't have that time...but the weapons build up forming a standoff had a great deal to do with this as well. I can't ever recall what sanctions were used specifically, but it was only a part of a lot bigger picture.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The chance for successful sanctions are a bit better in Iran than they were e.g. in Iraq because Ahmadinejad is not an all-powerful dictator, but part of a relatively diverse political system. Other elements may think twice whether a nuclear bomb is worth it, or realistic at all.
    I think I might agree...how is that for an stand on opinion? The reason I say that is that Iran right now is in one it's best conditions to endure sanctions. The political pressure that we hope would come internally from sanctions may very be able to be squashed and / or used to actually unite them together because then they have a "visible" enemy causing them harm. Propoganda is a VERY powerful tool never to be underestimated.




    Also, what were your thoughts on the China issue concerning Iran that I questioned about above?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 01/18/2006 at 10:07 PM.
  7.    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Maybe you did not look in the right place? South Africa's Apartheid Regime is one example,
    True as far as it goes. South Africa wanted to be a part of the wider world, though and was therefore able to be influenced by sanctions. Iran wants to lead the Islamic world. Sanctions by the "West" will do little, even assuming we can gather the will to impose them.
    Colonel Gaddafi's Libya is another (in this case not regime change, but change of pro-terrorist behaviour).
    Years and years of sanctions against Libya (not by the entire world, either...) with no change until we invaded Iraq and you want to credit the sanctions? That's wishful thinking at best.
    The case of the Sowjet Union is also an example of a conflict won without a major war (even though there is not that much time in this case, obviously).
    Leaving aside the memory of all those who dies in the myriad small wars fought between East and West during, the Cold War - I fail to see the relevance to the current discussion. At any right you are correct - I don't think we'll have 50 years to decide this.
    The chance for successful sanctions are a bit better in Iran than they were e.g. in Iraq because Ahmadinejad is not an all-powerful dictator, but part of a relatively diverse political system. Other elements may think twice whether a nuclear bomb is worth it, or realistic at all.
    On the contrary, he is the figurehead of a regime full of people who believe as he does. He is not pushing for the bomb in spite of others in Iranian government - he is their public face. "Relatively-diverse"??? Compared to what, North Korea?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  8.    #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaelic
    In my opinion, the solution would be starting the trade and having a relationship with Iran! Applying sanctions and seeing them as an enemy helps people get closer to the radicals over there! But the young population in Iran is huge and growing! If US lets them see how the rest of the world lives like compared to how young people and women are treated over there, everything will change slowly slowly but positively. That's what I think, it'll be a longer shot but it'll also be the best solution instead of putting Nuclear Power Iran against Nuclear Power Israel against each other.
    You make a good point in that the population of Iran tends to be quite pro-American - it is the leadership class, the mullahs, that are the enemy. Actually, this reminds me quite a bit of Cold War Poland - a pro-American population lorded over by an anti-American leadership class.

    The problem with sanctions is that the majority of the pain will be felt by that relatively pro-American populace.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    You make a good point in that the population of Iran tends to be quite pro-American - it is the leadership class, the mullahs, that are the enemy. Actually, this reminds me quite a bit of Cold War Poland - a pro-American population lorded over by an anti-American leadership class.

    The problem with sanctions is that the majority of the pain will be felt by that relatively pro-American populace.
    So would war.

    There are not right or wrong answers in this situation. Just worse or massively bad options. It is simply a matter of taking your best guess among a barrel of bad choices.
  10. #70  
    Interesting article below...don't know if I'ld agree with the conclusion of appeasement, but I do agree that Ahmadinejad is trying to provoke the west...

    ran and the art of crisis management
    By Sami Moubayed

    DAMASCUS - The first six months of Mahmud Ahmadinejad's term as president of Iran deserve to be observed rationally, away from all the anti-Iran rhetoric being heard in the Western world.

    The 49-year-old leader is someone who is clearly dying for world attention. He has earned it by moving ahead with his nuclear



    program, and now faces the threat of United Nations sanctions against his country, despite the objections of Russia and China.

    There is plenty of talk in the international press about UN sanctions and US military strikes as an effective way to destroy the ambitions of Ahmadinejad. Confrontation, however, would not work with the Iranian president. To deal with Iran, the West must understand Ahmadinejad.

    The Western perception of the Iranian leader has been distorted with reports about him being involved in the Iran hostage crisis of 1979 at the US Embassy in Tehran and in the assassination of Kurdish dissidents in Vienna in 1989. Many dismiss Ahmadinejad as immature, wild and foolish, someone similar to Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, but it would be very wrong not to take him seriously.

    A man who survived the Iranian revolution, lived through the bloody Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s and emerged as president with a landslide victory in 2005 is no fool. He is certainly not mad, but an ambitious man, in his own special way, who has an agenda for Iran that he makes no attempt at hiding.

    The secret behind Ahmadinejad
    Ahmadinejad is a populist leader. One of his goals is "putting the petroleum income on people's tables". This explains his surprising success in last year's presidential elections. He was elected by poor and young Iranians, meaning he has a popular mandate that the Americans should not forget. He is not a dictator who came to power through a military coup, against the will of the Iranians.

    An aide to the Iranian president recently said that Ahmadinejad dreams of creating a Persian empire, with its capital in Tehran.

    In his own words, Ahmadinejad is inspired in these dreams by the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the 1979 revolution, and former Egyptian president Gamal Nasser, who revolutionized Egyptian society from 1952 to 1970 and entered history as the man to defy the United States, Britain and Israel.

    Nasser lost his wars with the West (with a brief exception in 1956) but in the long run that did not really matter. What mattered was that Nasser restored confidence to the Arabs - fake confidence perhaps, but confidence nevertheless that they have a cause that they must promote and defend. In promoting this cause, he believed, there were no taboos or red lines.

    That is exactly where Ahmadinejad stands today. Like Nasser, he has a cause he wants to promote and defend. Like Nasser, he wants to enter history as a man who defied the West. And like him, he also has no taboos or red lines. One thing the world must understand is that talk is often cheap in the Third World, especially since the Nasserist era. Not everything people say will materialize. Ahmadinejad wants to "wipe Israel off the map", but he will never drag his country into such a senseless war - unless the Israelis or the Americans strike first.

    He knows how costly and difficult it would be to sustain such a war, given Israel's alliance with the US. His remarks about wanting to destroy Israel are just provocative rhetoric said with the aim of enhancing his popularity in the Iranian street and Muslim world. The paranoid West and the Israelis made a big fuss over his statements, which in reality are no different from remarks read every single day in the state-run dailies of Syria, the private dailies of Egypt and Jordan, the Al-Manar TV of Hezbollah, and the mass rallies of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine.

    How to deal with the president?
    The West has to decide: Do they want to confront the Iranian president, or appease him? Confronting him would be too costly for the US, especially since President George W Bush is entangled in a mess in Iraq. He does not have the manpower for another war, nor the funds, nor the international backing.

    Also, all of America's Shi'ite allies in Iraq are former proteges and current allies of the Iranian regime. Ranging from Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari to the Shi'ite leader Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim and the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (who is Iranian and not Iraqi), these leaders would never tolerate a war on Iran.

    They also would never tolerate US-engineered sanctions on Tehran. If they decide to abandon the Americans in Iraq, and side with revolutionary Shi'ites such as Muqtada al-Sadr, this would be America's worst nightmare. Also, Iran is difficult to break because of its size, wealth and religious zeal. Any US war on Iran that did not achieve a total regime change would be a failure by US standards, and the Americans cannot afford another failure in the Persian Gulf region.

    A successful strike would have to target at least a dozen nuclear production centers. Iran, fearing the worst, has spread these all over the country in well-protected areas, making the task even more difficult for the Americans.

    One of the loudest voices calling for military action against Ahmadinejad is not the United States but Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party and former prime minister of Israel. He said attacking Iran "is the Israeli government's primary obligation. If it is not done by the current government [of ailing Ariel Sharon], I plan to lead the next government to stop the Iranians."

    Larry Derfner, who writes in the Jerusalem Post, commented: "Preemptive military attack is not a strategy for stopping the spread of nuclear weapons anymore. A nuclear Iran isn't a cause for indifference but neither is it a cause for dread and certainly not for recklessness. A nuclear Iran is actually acceptable. We can live with it."

    If Ahmadinejad is bombed by the Americans or the Israelis, all this will do is increase his power at home and enforce his determination to further challenge the Americans and Israelis. It would make him more radical, popular and uncontrollable. This is not Saddam Hussein. He has not been in power for 30 years. He does not have billions of dollars to protect or palaces to cling on to. In short, he has nothing to lose from war with the Americans.

    In fact, he is pushing the Americans into confrontation. One explanation might be that Ahmadinejad promised a lot during election time last year, but after coming to power discovered that it would be difficult to deliver his social, political and economic reforms. To keep the people occupied, and divert their attention from domestic troubles, the president decided to confront the US and the international community, knowing perfectly well that, preoccupied with Iraq, they would bark back but not confront him.

    He talks about sensitive issues such as the Holocaust and destroying Israel partially to please the Iranian street, but mainly because these are just jargon slogans that in reality mean nothing.

    Therefore, if one accepts that Ahmadinejad wants to provoke a crisis, the best way is to deprive him of it. This means the best way to deal with Ahmadinejad is appeasement. That term, popularized in the prelude to World War II, is based on pragmatism and fear of war, where a certain uncomfortable condition is tolerated to avoid armed conflict.

    Some see it as synonymous with weakness and cowardice, but in reality appeasement can take great courage and wisdom. The greatest example from history is the appeasement of Adolf Hitler by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain in the Munich Agreement of September 1938. Chamberlain's appeasement was surrendering Czechoslovakia, the only remaining democracy in Central Europe, to Germany in exchange for a promise by Hitler that that this would be his last territorial claim in Europe.

    As it turned out, however, this only enhanced Hitler's ambitions, bringing him to the conclusion that he was dealing with cowards who would be unable and unwilling to stand in his way as he occupied the rest of Europe.

    This is what the West must reconsider, however, before applying appeasement to Ahmadinejad. Chamberlain appeased Hitler because the bloody memories of World War I still haunted the people of Europe. Britain was very reluctant to go to war against Hitler because of the psychological trauma that resulted from the vast number of deaths in World War I.

    In Britain, up to 40% of all young men had been killed in combat. King George V had famously said he would rather abdicate and stand in central London's Trafalgar Square, singing the communist anthem, than let his country go through another deadly war as the one of 1914-18. Although the king of England was eventually dragged into World War II, his wisdom is worth noting by the current leaders of the West.

    Ahmadinejad, by being so controversial, believes he can survive the storm with Washington. If a showdown with the West arises, he would welcome it and not shy away from confrontation, seeing it as a golden opportunity to make history and secure for himself a legacy as the man who fought the US.

    Let us not forget that this man's idols are Nasser and Khomeini, not Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi. Confrontation that would not break him would actually make him stronger inside Iran. If Washington ignored Ahmadinejad, the results would be much more rewarding for the US. The Americans must accept the reality that sooner or later, as long as they are weak in the Middle East and defeated in Iraq, Iran will develop its nuclear program.

    It has the power, money and intention to do so. If Iran does achieve this power, the US should find creative ways to persuade Iran, by diplomacy rather than confrontation, not to use these weapons for war purposes. One way is to remember that Iran has no direct conflict with Israel. It is at war with the Zionist state because Israel is at war with the Palestinians. If a fair Palestinian-Israeli peace deal were reached under US auspices, then Iran would have no reason to be at war with Israel.

    A coalition is rapidly emerging against the Iranian president from within the Iranian regime. It is created by a strange combination of conservatives, reformers, officers and clerics who all worry that his policies are driving Iran into a head-on collusion with the international community.

    The more the US pressures Ahmadinejad, the more likely the opposition against him will be silenced, because it is common for people to rally around their leader when he is confronted by an external threat. If the Americans were to ignore Ahmadinejad, his radical policies inside Iran would increase, and so would resentment to his rule.

    The majlis (parliament) is not too fond of Ahmadinejad, having rejected all of his cabinet candidates for the oil portfolio and objected to the appointment of his allies in senior government office. They see him as wild and irrational, and if he continues to make mistakes, or fails to deliver his promises to the Iranian people, they could eject him from office.

    Iran, after all, given all its faults, is not a Stalinist dictatorship. Ahmadinejad is not alone in power and he shares authority with the majlis, the Guardians Council and Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    The ayatollah was a former supporter of the Iranian president, especially during last year's elections. Today, however, he has seemingly lost faith in Ahmadinejad, empowering the Expediency Council, a non-elected body headed by ex-president Hashemi Rafsanjani, to monitor the president.

    The Americans should let the system of checks and balances do its business in Iran. Its power alone can marginalize Ahmadinejad. The Iranian system, from within, has enough power either to weaken the Iranian president, or at least control his authority, if not remove him from power before his tenure ends.
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA19Ak03.html
    _________________
    aka Gfunkmagic

    Current device: Palm Pre
    Device graveyard: Palm Vx, Cassiopeia E100, LG Phenom HPC, Palm M515, Treo 300, Treo 600, Treo 650, Treo 700p, Axim X50v, Treo 800w



    Please don't PM me about my avatar. For more info go here.

    Restore your Pre to factory settings using webos doctor and follow these instructions
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Well, thank Allah for the Iranians!!

    Iran Announces Conference on Holocaust



    This should be fair and balanced!
    If you think about it, what did he really say that a majority of Muslims from Morraco to Indonesia do not already believe? That is the Jews use the victumhood of the Holocaust to justify the occupation of Palestine. I, of course, totally disagree and abhor this rationalization, but it is the truth (what many muslim believe)...
    Last edited by Gaurav; 01/19/2006 at 04:31 AM.
    _________________
    aka Gfunkmagic

    Current device: Palm Pre
    Device graveyard: Palm Vx, Cassiopeia E100, LG Phenom HPC, Palm M515, Treo 300, Treo 600, Treo 650, Treo 700p, Axim X50v, Treo 800w



    Please don't PM me about my avatar. For more info go here.

    Restore your Pre to factory settings using webos doctor and follow these instructions
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Years and years of sanctions against Libya (not by the entire world, either...) with no change until we invaded Iraq and you want to credit the sanctions? That's wishful thinking at best.
    The turning point was not after the war in Iraq. Already in 1999, Libya handed over Libyans involved in the "Lockerbie bombing (Pan AM Flight 103) to British police, in order to avoid the effects of the sanctions. It was a gradual process over several years.
    Leaving aside the memory of all those who dies in the myriad small wars fought between East and West during, the Cold War - I fail to see the relevance to the current discussion. At any right you are correct - I don't think we'll have 50 years to decide this.
    True, 50 years would be too long, and obviously, sanctions have not been overly successful in the past. However, lets not pretend the "stick" approach of military strikes is always successful. The Vietnam war or Pig Bay come to mind.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. #73  
    I agree that military use is not always successful....or else the producers of the History Channel's show Military Blunders would be out of a job......but I never seen sanctions work by themselves.

    For example, with Libya we showed little hesitation to bomb his personal lodgings, a fact that I think was always in the front of his mind.

    The key is use as many other methods as possible, without ever taking out the miliatary option.......and don't bluff when you say you are going to use it. Then the other options, like sanctions, and diplomacy carry a lot more weight and only then do they become successful.

    This is the problem with the UN and othe countries like France is they talk a lot wind and never any action....and people know it.

    Not using Military, but having it in everyone's mind that it is a VERY viable option can be a very peaceful way to handle situations.....again as long as we are willing to hold to our bluff.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Also, what were your thoughts on the China issue concerning Iran that I questioned about above?
    If you were China, who would you side with, the West or Iran. Sure, they have oil, but they are not the only ones. China always waits long before they decide which side to take, but I guess a (trade) conflict with the West would be worse for them than a conflict with Iran.

    The whole story is quite complicated, of course, e.g. the fact that China (and e.g. Saudi Arabia) finance quit a large proportion of the US deficits also causes interdependencies... not sure who would suffer more in a conflict.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by gfunkmagic
    Interesting article below...don't know if I'ld agree with the conclusion of appeasement, but I do agree that Ahmadinejad is trying to provoke the west...

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA19Ak03.html
    The concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) from the Cold War would also apply for Iran: If they hit Israel, Teheran would be gone, too. "I hope the Russians love their children, too", as Sting put it, also works for Iranians, I'm sure.

    What's a nuclear bomb good for anyway, when retaliation is certain?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    This is the problem with the UN and othe countries like France is they talk a lot wind and never any action....and people know it.
    There were French soldiers killed, too, in the US war against the Taliban in Afghanistan following 9/11, and also 18 Germans.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by gfunkmagic
    If you think about it, what did he really say that a majority of Muslims from Morraco to Indonesia do not already believe? That is the Jews use the victumhood of the Holocaust to justify the occupation of Palestine. I, of course, totally disagree and abhor this rationalization, but it is the truth...
    Achmadinejad's provocative point went further, he said that the Holocaust was a "myth".

    Besides, it is quite obvious that the Holocaust is used as an argument for taking Palestinian land by many.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Achmadinejad's provocative point went further, he said that the Holocaust was a "myth".

    Besides, it is quite obvious that the Holocaust is used as an argument for taking Palestinian land by many.

    That was not my point. What I was trying to point out is that the west should not so easily dismiss Ahmadinejad as a crazy as many have done regarding the comments about the Holocaust. Not because he is right, which obviously wrong, but b/c his comments only mirror what many in the muslim world already feel and believe which IMO is much more disturbing. There is a corrosive and deadly swirl of consiparcy that envelops the muslim world that nullifies any arguement of fact or reason regarding much of the news and truth. Much of that is due to the decline of its own civilization and the power of fundamentalist Islam. It is to these masses that Ahmadinejad is trying to appeal when he makes these outrageous statements...statements that are actually not that outrageous in the streets of Damascas, Cairo or Karachi. He wants to portray himself as the leader of the muslim world by pandering to the emotional and illogical hatred of Jews...
    _________________
    aka Gfunkmagic

    Current device: Palm Pre
    Device graveyard: Palm Vx, Cassiopeia E100, LG Phenom HPC, Palm M515, Treo 300, Treo 600, Treo 650, Treo 700p, Axim X50v, Treo 800w



    Please don't PM me about my avatar. For more info go here.

    Restore your Pre to factory settings using webos doctor and follow these instructions
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) from the Cold War would also apply for Iran: If they hit Israel, Teheran would be gone, too. "I hope the Russians love their children, too", as Sting put it, also works for Iranians, I'm sure.

    What's a nuclear bomb good for anyway, when retaliation is certain?
    Not if Isreal hits them before they finish their bomb, which imo is unlikely since I doubt Isreal has the intelligence to know where all their nuclear facilities are anyway. Secondly, provoking Isreal may be the main objective of Iran in the first place, since such an attack would justify their nuclear "technology" program to many in the muslim and wider (south) world. It actually is a no win situation for Isreal unfortunately...
    _________________
    aka Gfunkmagic

    Current device: Palm Pre
    Device graveyard: Palm Vx, Cassiopeia E100, LG Phenom HPC, Palm M515, Treo 300, Treo 600, Treo 650, Treo 700p, Axim X50v, Treo 800w



    Please don't PM me about my avatar. For more info go here.

    Restore your Pre to factory settings using webos doctor and follow these instructions
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by gfunkmagic
    Not if Isreal hits them before they finish their bomb, which imo is unlikely since I doubt Isreal has the intelligence to know where all their nuclear facilities are anyway.
    Maybe the following deal could be a good solution: if Israel nukes Iran first, Pakistan has the obligation of nuking Israel, while if Iran nukes Israel first, the West (the US, France or Great Britain) nukes Iran. This would ensure mutual destruction, so there would be little interest in starting the whole thing.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions