Black Dog Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Pro israel or anti holocaust? As for your links, what's so outrageous about saying you will act if attacked? Any different from the rhetoric coming from the U.S. and its mid-east ally? Either way.....Iran should be neutered. Sooner the better. And why is that? Heck, let's have some fun with this. Muster all the surviving Iran Hostage Crisis prisoners from 1979 and fly them to Nevada to "hot pickle" Iran from a Predator trailer in the desert. Payback is a BITCH! The hostages that Canada got out after your people botched the job? Iran attacked Iraq last week. Artillery laid on the Kurds.... And? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 As for your links, what's so outrageous about saying you will act if attacked? You don't find terrorism outrageous? You think if I attack a military target it's okay for you to attack a daycare? Any different from the rhetoric coming from the U.S. and its mid-east ally? You will have to direct me to where the US and "it's mid east ally" have threatened to launch missiles at an Iran civilian centre. And? And? Is Iran attacking Iraq a good thing or a bad thing? Maybe if they gassed them you will have an easier time making up your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 The hostages that Canada got out after your people botched the job? Yes....especially them. Better to die as an American than to be free as a fake Canadian. McCain stayed in the Hanoi Hilton even when Canada tried to smuggle him out with a Canuck flagged backpack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 You don't find terrorism outrageous? You think if I attack a military target it's okay for you to attack a daycare? Given you're endorsing a first strike policy, it seems a little funny to be getting all squeamish about the civilized conduct of war. You will have to direct me to where the US and "it's mid east ally" have threatened to launch missiles at an Iran civilian centre. If you want to start a fucking war, don't cry about the consequences, is all I'm saying. Maybe Iran can borrow the "we were attacking military targets but they were hidden in civilian areas" line. That always hooks the punters. And? Is Iran attacking Iraq a good thing or a bad thing? I dunno. Is it like when Turkey attacked Iraq? Or when Israel attacks Syria? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Yes....especially them. Better to die as an American than to be free as a fake Canadian. Strange that you would be so disdainful of the hostages who escaped, since they chose to be free as fake Canadians and all. McCain stayed in the Hanoi Hilton even when Canada tried to smuggle him out with a Canuck flagged backpack. sure sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Strange that you would be so disdainful of the hostages who escaped, since they chose to be free as fake Canadians and all. It was their choice....I'm a hardcore bastard and would rather die like a Navy Seal thrown on the tarmac than slither away as a fake subject of the Crown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Given you're endorsing a first strike policy, it seems a little funny to be getting all squeamish about the civilized conduct of war.If you want to start a fucking war, don't cry about the consequences, is all I'm saying. You are beyond your depth. Premptive strikes and the civilized conduct of war are not at odds with each other. Launching terror attacks against civilian population centres is. Yoiu must be one of those who think the only justification for war is after the blow has landed. But I will note, you have no problem with terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 I dunno. Is it like when Turkey attacked Iraq? Or when Israel attacks Syria? It's like when Turkey attacked...but not like Syria....and not like when we attacked France... Good thing or bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 You are beyond your depth. Premptive strikes and the civilized conduct of war are not at odds with each other. Except you're not actually talking about a preemptive strike. The definition of preemptive strike is, loosely, "we are going to be attacked, so we will attack first. It is not "we might, at some uncertain point in the future, be attacked, so we will attack first." Launching terror attacks against civilian population centres is. Like this ? You must be one of those who think the only justification for war is after the blow has landed. Or if there's, you know, an actual and immediate threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Like this ?Or if there's, you know, an actual and immediate threat. Dresden was definately a terror attack. So was London, Coventry etc etc.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Except you're not actually talking about a preemptive strike. The definition of preemptive strike is, loosely, "we are going to be attacked, so we will attack first. If Iran doesn't comply it is safe to assume the worst. In that case it is a premptive attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 If Iran doesn't comply it is safe to assume the worst. In that case it is a premptive attack. Yup...duck and cover Iranian style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 If Iran doesn't comply it is safe to assume the worst. In that case it is a premptive attack. You're talking about a preventative, not preemptive war. In other words, war based on fears and not necessarily a demonstrated threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xul Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/1...many/index.html The photo of rockets in the link looks like a kind of Katyusha. Even if they are missiles, I doubt their ranges would be more than 150km. Usually a long range missile takes the vertical lift off to go through the thick part of atmosphere as soon as posible for reduceing air-resistance and increasing its range. Only short range rockets take the declining lift off like cannons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 There is a good quote from Herr von Bismarck on preventative war: I would ... never advise your Majesty to declare war forthwith, simply because it appeared that our opponent would begin hostilities in the near future. One can never anticipate the way of divine providence securely enough for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Iran attacked Iraq last week. Artillery laid on the Kurds.... Like anyone cars about the Kurds, Turkey has been making cross border raids for years, but no one says crap about it. Only since it is EVIL IRAN .... and because the US has this agenda for the middle east... anyone else could bomb the Kurds and no one will say boo about it. Not to mention even the US downplayed the latest rocket tests from Iran today. It was a left over rocket that failed the day before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 There is a good quote from Herr von Bismarck on preventative war: Bismark didn't have to worry about nukes in the hands of crazy religious wackos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 And why is that? Because they are wackos. They have been wackos since the Shah left, and there is no sign that they are about to abandon their wackiness. Wackos are acceptable. Wackos with nukes are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Bismark didn't have to worry about nukes in the hands of crazy religious wackos. I doubt that he would of have taken in by the portrayal of Iran an a bunch of crazy religious wackos. He probably would think that Iran is merely trying to increase its power like almost every other nation, and to that effect would be unlikely to precipitate its own destruction out of hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 I doubt that he would of have taken in by the portrayal of Iran an a bunch of crazy religious wackos. He probably would think that Iran is merely trying to increase its power like almost every other nation, and to that effect would be unlikely to precipitate its own destruction out of hand. It's news to me that "almost every other nation" is trying to increase its power. To what end does a nation wish to increase its power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 (edited) Oops. Double post? Edited July 11, 2008 by Remiel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Look up " Realism " in the field of International Relations. It is a quite a prominent school of thought, the most prominent, even. As to what end, that is up for debate. Relative gains in strength compared to other nations. The Neo-Realists say that it is a quest for security instead of just power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 The photo of rockets in the link looks like a kind of Katyusha. Even if they are missiles, I doubt their ranges would be more than 150km. Usually a long range missile takes the vertical lift off to go through the thick part of atmosphere as soon as posible for reduceing air-resistance and increasing its range. Only short range rockets take the declining lift off like cannons. The missiles are Zelzal-2s or 3s with a range of about 3-500km. The real threat is the new Shahab-3 to 6 which are guided MRBMs capable of hitting Tel Aviv and beyond. The Shahab with a kicker stage (orbital rocket) will probably launch Iran's satellites in the future rather than being contracted to the Russians. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/index.html Many folks are unaware that Iran has had a vigorous space/missile program for decades. Some seem to think this is a new thing.... ------------------------------------------ Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. ---President/General Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Like anyone cars about the Kurds, Turkey has been making cross border raids for years, but no one says crap about it. . It's been brought up a number of times here. Nice way to paint it though, "cross border raids for years" In fact there have been less that 5 raids mainly in the last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisSelf Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 (edited) Why should I care that Iran is threatening Israel? What am I missing here? Am I supposed to give a damn what happens to Israel? Can somebody tell me why? Israel makes its own problems and then comes running to the West for protection. We have our own problems. Israel's had fifty years and all its managed to do is piss everyone off. Right now oil is at $145 and at least $5 of that is because of Israel's bellicosity. You like that word? I got it from former oil company executive, Condy Rice. Edited July 11, 2008 by HisSelf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.