Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oh well had to happen sooner or later, I have a sneaking feeling this is somehow going to end in a mushroom cloud somehwere in the world.

generalgrog wrote:

jbunny wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Dogma, tell that to our great Overlord who's promise to pull out of Iraq still hasn't happened yet.

Amongst many other promises he has yet to keep.

Fateweaver...why do you feel the need to rub peoples nose in it?

As a republican and fellow Obama dislikist, please take this stuff out of my thread...OK?

GG

What?

I thought it was obvious that I was trying to keep the thread on topic, and what fate was doing was an obvious attempt to steer the topic to Obama bashing. Which could be ok if it was pertaining to Obama's policy toward Iran....however he brought up Iraq, tottally taking it off topic for no reason.

GG

Sorry GG but I wasn't trying to steer the thread to Obama bashing. I was just saying........bah nevermind.

Frazzled wrote:marching and fighting as we speak Ragnar. Power to the people!

Democracy's inspiring, isn't it?

Fateweaver wrote:Dogma, tell that to our great Overlord who's promise to pull out of Iraq still hasn't happened yet.

It would be unwise to leave a weak state without support, we have to run Iraq for now, simply because Iraq can't run itself yet. Though Obama has drawn done troop levels in that nation, and it was said early on that the quickest realistic timetable (based on nothing more than military logistical data) was something like 42 months.

Mattyrm wrote:Just to point out that not all Europeans agree with Lord Loss

Everyone has there own opinions, this is pretty obvious.

dislike of Muslims after 4 tours of the sandbox

So you compare all Muslims to the Muslim extremists you fought in Afghanistan?

Frazzled wrote:marching and fighting as we speak Ragnar. Power to the people!

One of the main reasons we should try to rein in Israel for as long as possible.

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:marching and fighting as we speak Ragnar. Power to the people!

Democracy's inspiring, isn't it?

To quote the last line of Charlie Wilson's war (represented in laws district strangely enough)
"we'll see."

I think most people feel that a showdown is coming soon. There is no way that Israel will allow a "nukular" armed Iran under the current regime. Am I right?

GG

No-one wants a nukular Iran under the current regime, except maybe some other extremist states.

Half the Iranians don't want the current regime.

generalgrog wrote:I think most people feel that a showdown is coming soon. There is no way that Israel will allow a "nukular" armed Iran under the current regime. Am I right?

GG

I don't see why not. There was no way Korea, Japan, or America wanted a nuclear north korea. Grandstanding aside, I won't bet against the isrealites taking action, but I'm not going to bet for them either.

Hey LL as i said, its not rational, but i fear my mind may have been warped slightly. I dont have nightmares or post traumatic stress, but i genuinelly have a problem with giving a gak when i hear about the Iraqis blowing each other up...

Does that make me a bad person?

mattyrm wrote:Hey LL as i said, its not rational, but i fear my mind may have been warped slightly. I dont have nightmares or post traumatic stress, but i genuinelly have a problem with giving a gak when i hear about the Iraqis blowing each other up...

Does that make me a bad person?

Yes.

generalgrog wrote:I think most people feel that a showdown is coming soon. There is no way that Israel will allow a "nukular" armed Iran under the current regime. Am I right?

GG

The issue isn't one of desire, but capacity. We can't afford a land war with Iran. It would be like Iraq, but much, much worse. Airstrikes are an option, but they don't guarantee the elimination of nuclear material, and would very likely galvanize the population against us. Targeted sanctions are a good idea, as they will limit what Iran can do to support Hezbollah and other militants; hopefully giving Israel room for progress on that front. Unfortunately, the Chinese are reticent to agree to them, and we need them on board for maximum effectiveness.

Honestly, in this particular case, our long relationship with Israel is a huge liability. We need to control them, as any action they take will directly affect our position in the region. Not that we can't adapt to a world in which Israel is actively bombing Iran, but it would be nice to avoid the inconvenience.

Remind me again, what's the only state that has actually used a nuclear weapon in warfare? (Two of them, in point of fact.)

Mannahnin wrote:They’ve been working on it for a long time.

Iran’s younger population is relatively well-educated, egalitarian, and technologically literate. Remember that they held demonstrations in the street in OUR SUPPORT after 9/11.

Did none of you nuke-‘em advocates watch the demonstrations after the last election? The government is still pretty scummy, but the people are largely good folks, and would make good allies. I don’t want those people dead. As they gradually inherit the reins of power, Iran will be less and less of a threat, and more and more of an ally.


I’m not sure how peacefully the next few years will go, though.

I am sure there are some very nice people in Iran. I know a girl whose father was from Iran. I also have no doubt in my mind that if Iran got a nuke they would use it on us or Isreal at the first most oppertune time for time. I'm all for peaceful options, but if they get a nuke there will be no peaceful end to this situtation.

And sorry but if it is going to come down to my family dieing or thier families dieing i will choice theirs every day. You have to protect your own first and foremost.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:I think most people feel that a showdown is coming soon. There is no way that Israel will allow a "nukular" armed Iran under the current regime. Am I right?

GG

The issue isn't one of desire, but capacity. We can't afford a land war with Iran. It would be like Iraq, but much, much worse. Airstrikes are an option, but they don't guarantee the elimination of nuclear material, and would very likely galvanize the population against us. Targeted sanctions are a good idea, as they will limit what Iran can do to support Hezbollah and other militants; hopefully giving Israel room for progress on that front. Unfortunately, the Chinese are reticent to agree to them, and we need them on board for maximum effectiveness.

Honestly, in this particular case, our long relationship with Israel is a huge liability. We need to control them, as any action they take will directly affect our position in the region. Not that we can't adapt to a world in which Israel is actively bombing Iran, but it would be nice to avoid the inconvenience.

I agree with most of this except for the "Israel is a liability part". My belief is that the Israeli intellegence knows 100 times more than we do about what's going on in Iran, so until Israel starts to get nervous, we don't really have much to worry about. Putting sanctions and such is a good way to try and slow the confrontation down I guess.

GG

Shhhh jbunny.

That is anti-American to speak that way. It's only American that all Iranians are = to all US citizens.

Matty- It's understandable. Whether you're a bad person on the whole depends on a much bigger picture, but not giving a crap about people dying doe tend to weigh in on the negative.

Shuma at least i have realised i have an issue, and there is a good reason behind my slightly irrational dislike of a certain group of people, im not proud of it. I would argue however that being one of the most sizeable trolls i have ever witnessed in ten years of forum use makes you a bad person, and for no reason other than you like upsetting people via keyboard?

mattyrm wrote:Shuma at least i have realised i have an issue, and there is a good reason behind my slightly irrational dislike of a certain group of people, im not proud of it.

Same thing happened to Vietnam vets, WWII vets.

GG

Oooh matty, now I owe you a pint. I just spit 7-UP all over my keyboard.

Profiling is wrong or something. I'm willing to bet 90% of the so called "humanitarians" have profiled in their lives. Not on purpose mind you but subconsciously most people will profile or stereotype based on personal experience.

I profiled every retail job I worked. I'd keep one eye on 80yo women in walkers that came into the liquor store I worked at. I kept 2 eyes on young males and females between 21 and 35. I guess that makes me a bad person to worry more about a spry 21yo trying to steal a bottle of vodka than to worry about an 80yo that can barely walk faster than a turtle stealing a bottle of Chianti.

jbunny wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Did none of you nuke-‘em advocates watch the demonstrations after the last election? The government is still pretty scummy, but the people are largely good folks, and would make good allies. I don’t want those people dead. As they gradually inherit the reins of power, Iran will be less and less of a threat, and more and more of an ally.

I’m not sure how peacefully the next few years will go, though.

I am sure there are some very nice people in Iran. I know a girl whose father was from Iran. I also have no doubt in my mind that if Iran got a nuke they would use it on us or Isreal at the first most oppertune time for time. I'm all for peaceful options, but if they get a nuke there will be no peaceful end to this situtation.

And sorry but if it is going to come down to my family dieing or thier families dieing i will choice theirs every day. You have to protect your own first and foremost.

Well of course, if we have to choose them or us. But I don't believe it'll actually come to that. I doubt that even the pretty scummy and repressive government of Iran would drop the bomb, because they know Israel would annihilate them in return. It's Mutually Assured Destruction, much like us and the Soviets back in the day. All through the 60s, 70s, and 80s there were a whole lot of people who grew up expecting we would all die in a nuclear exchange with the USSR. Thankfully, it didn't turn out that way. Maybe I'm an optimist to think that a standoff with Iran will turn out similar, but so far history's suggested that I may be right.

Or the real fear is they give one to Hezzbullah which does it for them.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:Remind me again, what's the only state that has actually used a nuclear weapon in warfare? (Two of them, in point of fact.)

The US, and how many American lifes did it save by not having to invade Japan? Operation Downfall put the lost of Allied troops in the millions and Japanese troops and civilians in the tens of millions. now compare that to the 500,000 that died in each blast.

mattyrm wrote:Just to point out that not all Europeans agree with Lord Loss, i am British and i entirely agree with bombing people.

I totally did not expect this...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

jbunny wrote:The US, and how many American lives did it save by not having to invade Japan? Operation Downfall put the loss of Allied troops in the millions and Japanese troops and civilians in the tens of millions. now compare that to the 128,000 people in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki.

Fixed. No need to overestimate for dramatic effect now...

Mann, the difference is the US and Russia were not lead by radical religious leaders that think they are doing God's work by killing all of the Jews.

Why not JEB? I was in the military, i realise that sometimes, people need bombing! Maybe im not as bomb happy as some people.. but hey, its gotta happen sometimes. I dont think war is nice, but if theres gonna be one, i like to think we can win. And that needs bombs!

There isn't a whole lot of difference between wanting to wipe out an ideology (Communism or Capitalism) and wanting to wipe out an ethnicity. Both entail a lack of rational decision making, as evidence in large part by the 'evil empire' rhetoric that came out of, and directed, the US in the late 70's/early 80's.

I just wasn't expecting you to throw it out so freely Matt. I often muse over Robert E. Lee when people become a bit too hawkish for my tastes. He was a gentlemen to a tee, and I find his writing to be both liberating and calming. A strange paradox to be sure...

"It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it." - Gen. Robert E. Lee

Frazzled wrote:Or the real fear is they give one to Hezzbullah which does it for them.

That's why sanctions aimed at cutting the logistical ties to Hezbollah are a good idea; placating the fear of the unlikely, but terrible.