GostHacked Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Yes, and Iran has given plenty of reasons to think poorly of them, and no reasons to think well of them.Do you think well of Paul Bernardo too? Does this mean all Canadians are bad and Canada needs to be invaded to stop this kind of thing from happening again?? Blueblood Oh it's fair, just keep in mind that you are endorsing the people who keep that nutbar in office. Only half of the US is insane for voting GWB into office. I am sure many around the world would think that all Americans are nutbars for voting the idiot in a SECOND TIME. But it is all relative I guess.. M Dancer I'm not sure how destroying an entity will somehow not harm the citizens. You make a great point .... Destroy Hamas, you destroy Palestine,,, or whatever is left of them. Indeed, Iran exports terror that in themselves makes them worthy of a strike. The same stupid rhetoric for Iran is the same bullshit used on Iraq. It is crazy to notice how some people do NOT notice that, and the irony that it entails. Iraq was on the brink .. like I mean superb eminent OMFG THEY ARE GONNA KILL US brink. And we know now (and many of us knew it before hand) that Iraq was not making any nukes or WMDs because of the situation Iraq was in , One war, 10 years of sanctions and no fly zones, and no ability to revive it's nuclear project after ... ISRAEL bombed the reactor. Just like Israel bombed the Syrian site in 2008. Your real threat here is not Iran. Israel has exported more terror than anyone else in the Middle East for the last 5 to 10 years. And Israel wants to bomb the Iran nuclear sites. There is a pattern here, but most have failed to see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 M DancerYou make a great point .... Destroy Hamas, you destroy Palestine,,, or whatever is left of them. As usual you are confused. Palestine is an entity, Israel an entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 As usual you are confused. Palestine is an entity, Israel an entity. Hamas is temporal - it is a name - Palistine are a people - as are Israel...bit disconnect I see - just go beat up the bad guy and all is well...You can not destroy the bad guy in such a confined space as Gaza and not kill the good guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 As usual you are confused. Palestine is an entity, Israel an entity. All a matter of what perception you want to look to look at the world through. Canada is just an entity then, the US is just an entity. Not to get off topic or anything (hahaha that never happens here) North Korea HAS nukes, and HAS the ability to strike US 'interests'. I'd be more worried about North Korea because they are isolationists and no one knows what the hell is up in North Korea. We can't even confirm if Dear Leader is still alive... On the other hand, we know much of what is going on in Iran. And yet they are conceived as the more immediate threat. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 On the other hand, we know much of what is going on in Iran. And yet they are conceived as the more immediate threat. Why? If Korea decided to commit suicide they would affect their little piece of God's own acre. If Iran tries to commit suicide the repercussions arfe felt around the world. That's why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 If Korea decided to commit suicide they would affect their little piece of God's own acre. If Iran tries to commit suicide the repercussions arfe felt around the world. That's why. Persia is Iran - and they have been around since Darius the great...you are dreaming if this breed of people are about to destroy themselves at this point - Israel is more likely to take a flying leap --- a nation inhabited by ten thousand clones of Woody Allen....with one shrink provided per person....The Jews are more likely to snap before the Persians... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 If Korea decided to commit suicide they would affect their little piece of God's own acre. If Iran tries to commit suicide the repercussions are felt around the world. That's why. Wait wait wait ... you want to prevent Iran from having a nuke so they won't let the nuke fly and then get hit back... suicide?? So this is the reason you won't allow Iran to have nukes?? If North Korea took out a US city, you would say that is alright, just because they would be committing suicide? And that is alright? Remember, there are enemies that want to KILL YOU..... If either Iran or North Korea fires a nuke at the US a city will become ash. If North Korea, does it, no problem, waste them all, no biggie. If Iran fires a nuke, big problem, waste them all, then run for cover. I guess what someone perceives as the immediate threat. Because we are always told there is a threat, and it is real. It's not Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 On the other hand, we know much of what is going on in Iran. And yet they are conceived as the more immediate threat. Why? Religious crazies are unpredictable, and that is a part of the world prone to suicidal attacks in God's name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 If North Korea took out a US city, you would say that is alright, just because they would be committing suicide? And that is alright? It is doubtful still whether NK has one and an even bigger doubt whether they could target a US city. They could target Seoul or Tokyo.... On the otherhand Iran targetting Isreal would send the world into total war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Religious crazies are unpredictable, and that is a part of the world prone to suicidal attacks in God's name. The average Iranian or anyone from any other group are logical and not religious crazies. It is easy to write off a whole nation and carpet bomb the place killing good civilians and justify it that they were ALL fanatics and a probable threat and danger. This is not the case - in each nation there are the vulnerable of mind - and there are corrupt relgious leader who really don't believe in God but are highly skilled at using the god ruse to manipulate and create attack robots..but there are minimal in number compared to the general populace - the solution would be to target the corrupt clerics sanctioned by secularist leaders to do the dirty work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 It is doubtful still whether NK has one and an even bigger doubt whether they could target a US city. They could target Seoul or Tokyo....On the otherhand Iran targetting Isreal would send the world into total war. In my scenario, in either scenario a US city is nuked ... If Iran fires one off, a US city gets nuked. If North Korea fires off a missles a US city gets nuked. The real threat is the same .. a US city is nuked. What you are talking about is a perceived threat that your government gives to you. Your government says Iran is more of a threat. They have the missile capacity and now working towards nuclear capability. North Korea has stated they have nuclear weapons, and are working on missile capability. As both countries go, both of them can hit Israel with ease. If both countries have the same capability to cause you harm, would you not treat them equally? Both Iran and North Korea are on this same Axis of Evil, right? Israel is treated like a US state for the most part. Because a hit on them is a hit on the US. It seems to be more of a threat if Israel was nuked as opposed to a few cities in the US. Which does not make sense to me. But anyways, both situations gives you a nuked US city. (forget about Israel for this case) And your reaction to each country is different eventhough you have taken the same amount of damage in both scenarios. If North Korea launches a nuke at the US tomorrow.... what do you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dub Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Religious crazies are unpredictable, and that is a part of the world prone to suicidal attacks in God's name. sounds like they've succeeded in shoving down their narratives down your throat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 In my scenario, in either scenario a US city is nuked ... Scenarios must be possible or they are fiction. Niether NK or Iran have any intercontinental capability . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Scenarios must be possible or they are fiction. Niether NK or Iran have any intercontinental capability . So there is no threat then. There is only a threat to Israel in terms of Iran, if there actually is one to begin with. And by your statement both Iran and North Korea are not threats to the USA And all scenarios that the US government gives to us, are fictional as well as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 And by your statement both Iran and North Korea are not threats to the USA If you read my statement and were able to comprehend it, I said a nuclear attack on Israel would precipitate a world war. An attack by NK on Seoul or Tokyo might not precipitate a world war, but it would precipitate a war...both are threats but that doesn't mean they can or should be dealt with the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 If you read my statement and were able to comprehend it, I said a nuclear attack on Israel would precipitate a world war. An attack by NK on Seoul or Tokyo might not precipitate a world war, but it would precipitate a war...both are threats but that doesn't mean they can or should be dealt with the same way. So it is all about a perceived threat then. Kind of like interpreting a statement to fit your world view of where threats are coming from. I am wondering why Israel is considered a flashpoint for this argument. If Iran or NK hit anything else but Israel, it is not that much of a threat? If it is not much of a threat then, why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 ....I am wondering why Israel is considered a flashpoint for this argument. If Iran or NK hit anything else but Israel, it is not that much of a threat? If it is not much of a threat then, why? Depends on what the DPRK or Iran would "hit". Israel is considered a flashpoint because of her allies, resulting support action, and other alignments/actions that would be triggered. Your question is like asking why nuking Canada is considered a flashpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Depends on what the DPRK or Iran would "hit". Israel is considered a flashpoint because of her allies, resulting support action, and other alignments/actions that would be triggered. Your question is like asking why nuking Canada is considered a flashpoint. Dumb comparison at the most. As far as I know, no one is deliberately trying to cause Canada harm. As far as I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Dumb comparison at the most. As far as I know, no one is deliberately trying to cause Canada harm. As far as I know. I don't think it was a comparison as such ...I would say BC is just illustrating why your question is stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 sounds like they've succeeded in shoving down their narratives down your throat. Crazy people should not have nuclear weapons. It's my rule and I'm sticking to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 (edited) Dumb comparison at the most. As far as I know, no one is deliberately trying to cause Canada harm. As far as I know. You know what....and Dancer's excellent explanation notwithstanding, I truly believe you think and feel that way. That even as your own military forces travel across oceans to wage war...there is no animosity for Canada. Nope....not even for the closest alignments with the evil Satan....no disdain whatsoever. Just think of nuking Canada as repatriating all that uranium oxide. Edited February 24, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 I don't think it was a comparison as such ...I would say BC is just illustrating why your question is stupid. Nah, just his way of getting the thread more off topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Scenarios must be possible or they are fiction. Niether NK or Iran have any intercontinental capability . Actually, once you are capable of putting a payload into orbit, you can hit anywhere on the planet (de-orbit/re-enter). It all depends if the country in question is going to 'break the rules' about keeping weapons in orbit. ------------------------------------------------------------ It's a Daisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Actually, once you are capable of putting a payload into orbit, you can hit anywhere on the planet (de-orbit/re-enter). It all depends if the country in question is going to 'break the rules' about keeping weapons in orbit. ------------------------------------------------------------ It's a Daisy. Hitting anywhere, and targetting are two different/related things. One does lead to the other. NK tried to put a satelite a loittel while ago...no luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 It's just a matter of time for NK...and as mentioned, once capable of putting something into orbit, a simple plane shift here and there followed by a deorbital burn...voila. Kablooey. Iran, of course, can already launch satellites of a fair weight. ------------------------------------ Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front? Reg: F**k off! We're the People's Front of Judea! ---Life of Brian 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.