The Online Onslaught Forums


By contributing to Online Onslaught, you'll help make sure we're around for years to come. Toss us as little as a few bucks, or as much as your generosity allows. Thanks!

Last active: Never Not logged in [Login ]

Printable Version |
Subscribe | Add to Favorites
New Topic New Poll
Author: Subject: um... oh shit...
mr_mysterious2
Showstopper






Posts 709
Registered 3-2-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: New Japan

posted on 1-18-2005 at 10:58 PM Edit Post
um... oh shit...

Let's hope this is all exaggeration and bluster.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20050118/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc_11

Thanks GWB, for making the world a safer place...

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Eli
The Immortal One






Posts 4503
Registered 1-4-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Careworn

posted on 1-19-2005 at 12:04 AM Edit Post
It seems like it is almost a certainty.





The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   Eli 's Aim   Eli 's Yahoo
folby
The Great One






Posts 3399
Registered 9-11-2003
Location schmocation
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 1-19-2005 at 12:31 AM Edit Post
ONWARD~!

In all seriousness, we have two choices: Iran can have nuclear weapons, or we can do something about it. Now, there are several ways to deal with this, not all of which include violence. Truthfully, this should have been dealt with a long time ago, but as you may or may not know, we're a little busy elsewhere in the middle east, for some reason that's not exactly apparent to me.

View User's Profile Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   folby 's Aim
mr_mysterious2
Showstopper






Posts 709
Registered 3-2-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: New Japan

posted on 1-19-2005 at 02:26 AM Edit Post
This is such a predictable result. Now things are worse. The question now is what the hell does the rest of the world do. Invasion could be a bad idea. If they have a delivery system, you could say goodbye to Tel Aviv if the World invaded.

Frankly, who can blame Iran? The Middle East has been treated like the West's bitch for so long now, you can't blame them for wanting to defend themselves. The problem is, at least when the Soviets had nukes, they were atheists. A religious state like Iran having Nukes is very unpredictable.

The one thing we have in our corner is the Iranian people. There's a large movement that is sick of the mullahs and is very open to Western political ideologies. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq turned a lot of the population against the US. Another invasion would surely kill that pro-democracy movement.

Right now, its time for Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Canada to step up and start actively supporting the democracy movement in Iran. If the US gets too involved it will lose all credibility. Unfortunately, it seems the rest of the world doesn't have the confidence to take the lead without the US onside and the US doesn't have the humility to trust the rest of the world to be able to do anything.

Looks like another war. I'm starting to feel decidedly apocalyptic.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Endo
Fella






Posts 454
Registered 4-30-2002
Location Virginia Beach
Member Is Offline

Mood: hypoxic

posted on 1-19-2005 at 03:16 AM Edit Post
You should Mr. Mysterious. WW3 is going to be a religious and cultural war, pretty much another crusades only this one will probably end with total annihilation of one (or both) sides. It can be avoided, but for it to happen our domino theory must carry out, and Iraq must (somehow) be a semi-stable, improving democracy for about 30 years.

Why 30? By that time they'll have a generation of Iraqis who have grown up entirely under democracy. They will have seen things continue a steady improvement, and will (hopefully) see nations around them not enjoying the same freedoms. Conversely, a whole generation of people in the other countries will see Iraq grow and become more prosperous while their own countries stagnate. Sadly, that's a long time to wait.

What's going on right now is nothing more than cold-war style bluster. If the Islamic World (for lack of a better term) unites, declares nuclear ambitions, and quits their intertribal squabbling, we've got the same setup we had originally, probably ending with us bankrupting them, probably by reducing the dependance of the world on oil. That process will probably repeat for a while until people finally figure out how to get along despite some of those people being decidedly Jewish.

The military speak was very vague, and to me sent more of a "we can do geurilla warfare" vibe than a "we're ready to go maneuver warfare on your ass" vibe. Of course we don't rule out military action as an option, else we're a pussy without a "last resort," and of course they bluster and brag how they can beat us back, because otherwise they beg for an internal revolt.

Now if shit does hit the fan and nukes start flying, the mideast will likely explode itself. They'll fire at Israel first, Israel will spread as much love as they can, and we'll (unfortunately) lose a lot of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines in the process. On the plus side, they'll MAD themselves into the glass and the world will be forced to get off the oil teat. Or we'll just plunge into a nuclear wintery ice age, one of the two.

If they attack, they won't attack any Europeans not immediatly and closely allied with the US. Doing so would instantly involve the rest of the infidel world, while attacking the US and it's allies is OK, since we're arrogant Americans and deserve it or something like that. They know this, we'll get something close to home, probably NBC (Nuke, Bio, Chem), there will suddenly be a lot of Israelis on vacation, and SSBNs in the gulf will start lobbing Trident class thermonuclear ballistic warheads at the mideast. Sure, it'll suck for both sides, but (technically) they WMD'd us first, hearts were broken, and we responded "in kind."

Now having thought this through, the one problem for us becomes (again) that they're dying for Allah and go straight to paradise with 75 perpetual virgins each. Which is why a semi-conventional war (non-WMD) would be another crusade. They're like a Zombie, we can't kill them, that only furthers their cause. We have to destroy them, which unfortunately means coming up with an ethical way to destroy Islam. If we're at the Islam vs The World point already, no biggie, just destroy Islam, win the war, write the history books, we're all good. If not, we basically have to goad them into fucking up royal first and attacking a neutral nation, using NBC weapons, or publicly proclaiming that they were abandoning the Geneva Convention Rules of War. It's hard to get someone to touch the third rail intentionally when they know they're gonna die if they do.

No matter what happens, this won't be a war like WWI or WWII. This won't be like Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, or Enduring Freedom. This will be a non-civilian war. And while that does make things easier for me (bomb 'em all, everyone's a bad guy ), it also worries me quite a bit.

(For those who don't know, I'm a 2ndLt with the Marines currently in Jet Training. Oh, and stupid fucking smileys)

[Edited on 19-1-2005 by Endo]





"Why do you watch that? It's fake! IT'S FAKE!!" - My mother
"I know." - Me

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Endo 's Aim
benoitbrokemyneck
John Edwards is a faggot.






Posts 4109
Registered 3-17-2002
Location Inside The Internets
Member Is Offline

Mood: not dead yet

posted on 1-19-2005 at 05:37 AM Edit Post
"...the Islamic Republic is not a place for adventurism," ~ former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani



That quote should be the new slogan for their tourism department.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Shaggy
The Great One






Posts 3225
Registered 12-21-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 1-19-2005 at 04:49 PM Edit Post
I can't remember where I read it, but I recall reading that the Iranians have over 8000 trained sleeper troops in America, ready to be activated when called upon. 8000 people could do a helluva lot of damage in America with guerrilla warfare considering the effect Malvo and Muhammad had, and the fact that the Unibomber lasted for decades.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 1-19-2005 at 07:14 PM Edit Post
Effing computer keeps crashing. This will be the 4th attempt.

Iran is all talk on this one. The leaders do not have popular support. Their armed forces, to say the least, aren't able to defend against any attack of the USA. The population of Iran is also the most pro American of any in the Middle East.

If they get close to nukes, Israel will remove the threat. They did it to Iraq, and they will do it to Iran. 10 gets you 20 that once there is a democratic government in Iraq, the new leadership will open up their airspace to the IAF for just such a contingency.

The grip of the Iranian leadership is tenuous at best. You want a catalyst to a popular uprising? Launch a nuke or attack Iraq. It's bluster. Much like the "line of death" and the "the streets will flow with the blood of the unbelivers" and so on.

It's a cultural thing.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
Omega
Call me McIan






Posts 1466
Registered 4-29-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: MacIan

posted on 1-19-2005 at 07:34 PM Edit Post
I would take that bet that Iraq, no matter who is in charge would open thier airspace to the IAF. They would never do it casue it woudl piss off a hell of a lot of right wing people, and there are a lot of them around in Iraq still, who still want to see Israel eliminated from the planet.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 1-20-2005 at 05:40 AM Edit Post
You think Iraq, Saudi Arabia or any ME country wants Iran to have the bomb? Unlikely, to say the least.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
chretienbabacool
The Great One






Posts 3444
Registered 3-5-2003
Location Columbia, MO
Member Is Offline

Mood: Go Cubs!

posted on 1-20-2005 at 05:02 PM Edit Post
Well, if Iraq gets an Iran backed theocracy for its government, what then?





Go Cubs!

And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who "intends" to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of "the dysfunction in the black community"?

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
Omega
Call me McIan






Posts 1466
Registered 4-29-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: MacIan

posted on 1-20-2005 at 05:39 PM Edit Post
I think the hatred for Israel is greater than the fear that Iran would get the bomb, if they dont have it already.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 1-21-2005 at 07:16 AM Edit Post
I think their fear of Iran threatening Baghdad with nuclear annihilation (which they will do to export the glorious Islamic revolution) is much larger than their hatred of Israel.

Iraqis know who has been funding the terrorists within their own country. It ain't Israel. They know who their enemy is.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
Slade
The Immortal One






Posts 4741
Registered 11-10-2002
Location Wherever I Damn Well Please
Member Is Offline

Mood: 423-GET-FAME

posted on 1-21-2005 at 04:39 PM Edit Post
I, for one, welcome Iran's attempts to obtain nuclear power. The day that Iran gets nuclear weapons is the day that they need not fear the threat of war ever again. When nations obtain nuclear weapons their citizens automatically become safe on their own soil. Oh sure, the United States has seen its fair share of fighting since the end of WWII, but it has never happened on its own territory. No state with nuclear weapons has ever been invaded (or attacked) by another and it will never happen. It is a law of political warfare.

Being in possession of nuclear weapons ensures the safety of your nation. It also gives your state the ability to threaten other states. The only reason to have them is to intimidate weaker states. A display of power will almost always keep them in line. This is not good news for the United States, not because they would then have to go to war with Iran, but because Iran would become a great power in the region, with the ability to influence Iraqi domestic policy thanks to its nuclear capabilities.

I contend that the United States will not do anything to Iran, not because it got into a large mess in Iraq, but because it does not have sufficient intelligence on the current nuclear capabilities of Iran. It does not know whether Iran has weapons of mass destruction, that is, it does not know whether going to war with Iran can result in the destruction of our planet.

If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction nobody would have invaded for fear that it would come at great cost. What is a couple thousand lives on the ground over many months compared to tens or hundreds of thousands in one swift missile launch? Taking the rational choice approach, one finds that it is the fear of retaliation that causes states not to start armed conflict with other states that have the ability to annihilate them.

Why did the Soviets not launch a full nuclear attack on the United States when Ronald Reagan was caught on the radio announcing that he had signed legislation banning the Soviet Union forever and that they would begin a nuclear assault in five minutes? One would think that if they were given a five minute warning that they would have struck first. They did not strike first because rational actors do not commit to actions that will set off a chain of events that could result in them being blamed for the total destruction of large portions of the planet. The Soviets took the rational approach to the problem, which was to react only if it was necessary.

More states should possess nuclear weapons. It would be the best, and most cost effective, way to ensure that their national security objectives are met. The greater the number of states that possess nuclear weapon, the greater the number of people can be assured that they will be safe from external threats.





The award for the most laughable cringe-worthy attempt at clever colour commentary goes to:

"When you're dating The Architect, you start to get some more plans." - Renee Young, Extreme Rules 2019

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Omega
Call me McIan






Posts 1466
Registered 4-29-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: MacIan

posted on 1-21-2005 at 04:47 PM Edit Post
Slade while tha arguement is compelling you forget one major aspect of US dominance, it is not simply having "the bomb" bbut having a delivery system to put "the bomb" anywhere on the planet that they want. See even if Iran get a nuclear weapon they have no way to use it against America because they are a long way developing any ICBMs. Sure they could threaten Iraq and Afghanistan and maybe on a good day Pakistan or Kuwait but they would not be able to drop an nuke on New York or LA like the Russians could back in the good old cold war.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 1-21-2005 at 07:28 PM Edit Post
Slade,

I think your perceptions of the Iranian governing body are somewhat skewed. They don't want nukes as a deterrent, they want nukes as an actual weapon to be used. They will nuke Israel, thus affecting Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq.

These guys make Jim Jones and David Koresh look like well balanced and stable individuals.

Omega,

Delivery system? Think outside the box and forget about ICBM's. What has the methodology of the Iranians been as they conduct their low level war against the West?

[edit to fix saluatation]

[Edited on 1-21-2005 by Krydor]






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
Omega
Call me McIan






Posts 1466
Registered 4-29-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: MacIan

posted on 1-21-2005 at 07:45 PM Edit Post
Big K

its a lot different threat level when there is a nuclear power as your enemy that has an effective delivery system such ICBMs when compared to a terrorist network that might be able to smuggle a nuke into your country.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 1-21-2005 at 07:54 PM Edit Post
Large O,

All I'm asking you to do is apply the methodology of terrorists to how they would deliver a nuke. Hell, the Soviets couldn't build a reliable delivery system with a fairly good industrial society. It's unlikely the Iranians could build a small enough warhead to fit a missile. It's unlikely their missiles are accurate or fast enough to get to their intended targets.

They do what they do with the tools around them. They pick targets of opportunity, not so much on their value, but ease of access.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
Omega
Call me McIan






Posts 1466
Registered 4-29-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: MacIan

posted on 1-21-2005 at 08:10 PM Edit Post
I am not saying that the Iranians would not have one hell of a bang if they decided to use a nuclear weapon what I am saying is that there is more of a threat from MIRV ICBMs than there is from one Iranian nuke. And I would not insult the Russian missile program, they put a guy in space first, had a fully operation space station that outlived it projected lifespan and those rockets are now used to lauch many commercial satelities into orbit.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Slade
The Immortal One






Posts 4741
Registered 11-10-2002
Location Wherever I Damn Well Please
Member Is Offline

Mood: 423-GET-FAME

posted on 1-22-2005 at 04:58 AM Edit Post
Of course Iran wants nuclear weapons to use. They want to use them as a means of staving off would be attackers and to intimidate weaker states. They do not want to fire nuclear arms. I think it is safe to assume that Iran would not fire a nuclear weapon at Israel or at anybody else. If it were to do that, then Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei and/or President Ali Mohammad Khatami-Ardakani would have to be irrational actors. To say that they are irrational actors willing to launch nuclear missiles at their enemies is also to say that they wish to act in a manner that could very easily result in having others topple their regime.





The award for the most laughable cringe-worthy attempt at clever colour commentary goes to:

"When you're dating The Architect, you start to get some more plans." - Renee Young, Extreme Rules 2019

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 1-22-2005 at 07:55 AM Edit Post
Slade,

I don't think they are rational, at least by what free people consider "rational". They stone 12 year old girls, eliminate those of different faiths, and have been conducting a low intensity war against the USA since 1979.

Don't make the same perceptual mistakes Neville Chamberlain made in the 30's. What are the goals of the Iranian Council of nutjob Mullahs? Glorious Worldwide Islamic Revolution and destruction of the lesser and greater Satans.

Anything they do to the US or its allies will be considered an act of war, so why wouldn't they use a nuke if they had one? Iran is on the list. Battle hardened US and British troops are on either border.

Iran will blink.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
Slade
The Immortal One






Posts 4741
Registered 11-10-2002
Location Wherever I Damn Well Please
Member Is Offline

Mood: 423-GET-FAME

posted on 1-23-2005 at 11:14 PM Edit Post
I think they are rational. Rational actors, as state leaders, do not act in a manner that will result in their loss of power. That means that Iran will not launch nuclear bombs at anybody. They will be used as a last resort to punish would be attackers. They want nuclear weapons to let the world know that they are capable of causing much destruction and for that reason they should leave Iran alone.

Everything you mentioned after stating that you do not believe the Iranian government to be rational does not, in fact, make them irrational. It may make their behaviour unethical (and I believe it does), but unethical behaviour is not necessarily irrational behaviour. Certain unethical actions make incredible sense if you understand what the goals of the actors are. For instance, Ayatollah Khameni and President Khatami are more rational than any Western politician for the simple fact that they do not risk losing their power by seeking to have it confirmed in popular elections. If you do submit yourself to a procedure that may result in a legitimate loss or challenge of your power, you can continue to wield it with greater ease.





The award for the most laughable cringe-worthy attempt at clever colour commentary goes to:

"When you're dating The Architect, you start to get some more plans." - Renee Young, Extreme Rules 2019

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
benoitbrokemyneck
John Edwards is a faggot.






Posts 4109
Registered 3-17-2002
Location Inside The Internets
Member Is Offline

Mood: not dead yet

posted on 1-23-2005 at 11:30 PM Edit Post
Battle hardened US and British troops are on either border.



Perhaps not....

From the Daily telegraph
Britain 'argues against Iran attack'

From correspondents in London

January 23, 2005

FOREIGN Secretary Jack Straw has reportedly drawn up Britain's case against a military strike on Iran amid fears US President George W. Bush may seek support for a new conflict.

Mr Straw had produced a 200-page dossier that ruled out military action and made the case for a "negotiated solution" to thwart Iran's suspected ambition to produce nuclear weapons, The Sunday Times said.

It said a peaceful solution led by Britain, France and Germany was "in the best interests of Iran and the international community", while referring to "safeguarding Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology".

The dossier, entitled Iran's Nuclear Program, was quietly issued in the House of Commons on the eve of Mr Bush's inauguration last week for fear of provoking a public rift with Washington, the newspaper said.

However, it added that privately tensions were running high between the two nations.

The approach contrasts with the British government's two Iraq dossiers, which were trumpeted to make the case for joining the US-led invasion on March 2003.

The Sunday Times said the message that the British Government wanted no part in another war in the Middle East would be reinforced by Prime Minister Tony Blair. He is to meet Mr Bush in Brussels next month.

The paper said Mr Straw would also make the case when he met US secretary of state nominee Condoleezza Rice, a Bush confidante, in London next month.

The perception that the United States is embarking on a course of confrontation with Iran has grown since The New Yorker magazine reported this week that US commandos had been operating inside Iran since mid-2004, secretly scouting targets for possible air strikes.

The Pentagon attacked the story by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh as "riddled with errors of fundamental fact", but did not expressly deny conducting covert reconnaissance missions.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, declaring on a radio talk show this week that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of global problems, warned that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike on its own to shut down Iran's nuclear program.

But Cheney played down the likelihood of US military action.

AFP

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Krydor
The Man






Posts 5425
Registered 10-28-2002
Location In
Member Is Offline

Mood: Going to Maiden

posted on 1-24-2005 at 08:10 PM Edit Post
Slade,

If this was a simple case of deterrence (A'la MAD), I might agree. However, based on regieme policy and actions, it isn't that they wish to defend their borders from invasion. Rather, they wish to expand their borders via nuclear threat. Threat, or heaven forbid, actual release of nukes.

Iran is being run by an expansionalist regieme of fundamentalists. They expect to hold power simply by internal force and external scapegoating. That isn't going to work.

The desire to hold power is, overall, rational. The means and the cost to do so are what defines the rationality of the enterprise.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Krydor 's Aim   Krydor 's Yahoo
chretienbabacool
The Great One






Posts 3444
Registered 3-5-2003
Location Columbia, MO
Member Is Offline

Mood: Go Cubs!

posted on 1-24-2005 at 08:15 PM Edit Post
Iran is being run by an expansionalist regieme of fundamentalists.

Now that sounds familiar, I think I'm living in one of those. Sorry, too good to pass up:-)





Go Cubs!

And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who "intends" to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of "the dysfunction in the black community"?

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member

New Topic New Poll


go to top


Powered by XMB 1.8 Partagium Final SP1
Developed By Aventure Media & The XMB Group
Processed in 0.1644790 seconds, 21 queries