Iranian Nuclear Threat - Real or Not?

[GostHacked]

Which is what we did with Germany, as well.

Germany did it twice in 20 years. Iran has not invaded anyone in the last 200. I'll say that Germany has a better track record than Iran, so I suspect Germany will invade other countries before Iran does.

[Signals.Cpl]

Let me know when Iran starts taking over it's neighbors.

Well Hitler said he will conquer his nighbours and he did that.

Iran said they will destroy Israel, I think for everyone's sake we stop them before that happens. The smoking gun in this case will not be good for anyone

[GostHacked]

Well Hitler said he will conquer his nighbours and he did that.

Iran said they will destroy Israel, I think for everyone's sake we stop them before that happens. The smoking gun in this case will not be good for anyone

No worries, Israel will take care of Iran to prevent the mushroom cloud. Ask Iraq and Syria. And the mushroom cloud thing is just a joke now.

Iran is all rhetoric. Israel takes action. Not worried about Iran at all.

[DogOnPorch]

Germany did it twice in 20 years. Iran has not invaded anyone in the last 200. I'll say that Germany has a better track record than Iran, so I suspect Germany will invade other countries before Iran does.

FYI: Germany did not start WW1. But, it is cute that you think Germany did.

Yup, if this was 1938, you'd be telling me what a wonderful person Hitler was for ending the Depression in Germany and pulling the country up by its jackboot straps. You'd be BS-ing me about how France was the real bad guy and what-not.

[Wilber]

US was years late in joining both world wars

sup with that?

In hindsight, it would have been better if the US had stayed out of WWI. Churchill said as much in 1936. He maintained that both the Allies and Germany were sick of war by 1917 and left alone could have made a peace acceptable to both parties. US involvement resulted in an unconditional surrender and a punitive peace that made another war almost inevitable.

WWII was different. The future of civilization was very much in question. The US was involved in helping the Allies for some time before Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt's problem was domestic politics that prevented him from declaring war. Right after Pearl Harbor, Hitler solved his problem for him by declaring war on the US.

[kactus]

No worries, Israel will take care of Iran to prevent the mushroom cloud. Ask Iraq and Syria. And the mushroom cloud thing is just a joke now.

Iran is all rhetoric. Israel takes action. Not worried about Iran at all.

Beats the logic. The 'usual suspects' here on this forum have this twisted fantasy that Iran in the old Germany under Hitler. As if this couldn't be getting more ridiculous you will never see these staunch supporters of Israel showing any remorse for all those Iranians who lost lives during Iran/Iraq war and when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds. Neither do they show any sympathy for poor indigenous population of iran who have to bear the burden of these tough sanctions. Its mind blowing when they remain silent on all these atrocities yet repeat the same regurgitated crap spewed all over this forum and elsewhere. That is the real depression!!! Yet they are always crying about the existence of Jews when so many other lives are being sacrificed and endangered by this crazy view of the whole situation. And all because someone thinks iran is going to "wipe Israel off the map"....

[DogOnPorch]

Meh. The Dinnerjacket in Tehran said he wanted to do it. Wipe out Israel. Should we not believe him on your word? What weight does your opinion of the situation carry?

retro-kactus 1938: Hitler never hurt anyone.

BTW: You have zero clue as to how anyone here feels about the Iran-Iraq War or Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

[bush_cheney2004]

In hindsight, it would have been better if the US had stayed out of WWI. Churchill said as much in 1936. He maintained that both the Allies and Germany were sick of war by 1917 and left alone could have made a peace acceptable to both parties. US involvement resulted in an unconditional surrender and a punitive peace that made another war almost inevitable.

All true, but the Americans had to make sure that somebody survived to pay back the debt. The US was perfectly happy to let Europe and it's far flung imperial empire(s) that included Canada beat the stuffing out of each other for God and Throne, but now real money was at stake! Hell, the Americans could have just as easily sided with Germany!

WWII was different. The future of civilization was very much in question. The US was involved in helping the Allies for some time before Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt's problem was domestic politics that prevented him from declaring war. Right after Pearl Harbor, Hitler solved his problem for him by declaring war on the US.

If not already "obvious", WW2 demonstrated that Great Britain and its minions didn't have the chops anymore, at least not by itself. The sun may not have ever set on her empire, but some very big bills were coming due. Guess who had the deepest pockets to help pay them?

[Wilber]

All true, but the Americans had to make sure that somebody survived to pay back the debt. The US was perfectly happy to let Europe and it's far flung imperial empire(s) that included Canada beat the stuffing out of each other for God and Throne, but now real money was at stake! Hell, the Americans could have just as easily sided with Germany!

Not likely Zimmerman Telegram

If not already "obvious", WW2 demonstrated that Great Britain and its minions didn't have the chops anymore, at least not by itself. The sun may not have ever set on her empire, but some very big bills were coming due. Guess who had the deepest pockets to help pay them?

Britain never did have the ability to engage in large Continental wars without allies. It's standing army was always quite small, only around 250,000 at the height of Empire. Even Marlborough's and Wellington's armies were made up of several nations, British troops regularly in a minority. Most of its military spending went into its Navy, the size of which was limited by the Washington Naval treaty after WWI and put them in a real bind in WWII.

They did have some big bills though and they paid them off with no Marshall Plan to help them rebuild.

[kactus]

Meh. The Dinnerjacket in Tehran said he wanted to do it. Wipe out Israel. Should we not believe him on your word? What weight does your opinion of the situation carry?

BS...but then again that's the kind of regurgitated crap I was talking about. I have no love for the guy but the truth is he never said Israel must be wiped off the map no matter how much you want to twist this.

BTW: You have zero clue as to how anyone here feels about the Iran-Iraq War or Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

Oreally? Then how come I see the usual crowd always paint the same brush when describing those evil eyeranians? Pull the other one...

[olp1fan]

BS...but then again that's the kind of regurgitated crap I was talking about. I have no love for the guy but the truth is he never said Israel must be wiped off the map no matter how much you want to twist this.

Oreally? Then how come I see the usual crowd always paint the same brush when describing those evil eyeranians? Pull the other one...

Yeah he said wipe the regime off the face of the earth or something like that

Don't expect the brainless war mongers to believe you though...they already have their mind made up

[Wild Bill]

If not already "obvious", WW2 demonstrated that Great Britain and its minions didn't have the chops anymore, at least not by itself. The sun may not have ever set on her empire, but some very big bills were coming due. Guess who had the deepest pockets to help pay them?

Perhaps you should cut Britain a little slack, BC. She was the ONLY Allied nation to pay off her war debt!

Helluva lot more than the French did!

[dre]

Perhaps you should cut Britain a little slack, BC. She was the ONLY Allied nation to pay off her war debt!

Helluva lot more than the French did!

Didnt they just get done paying for that a couple of weeks ago? I remember reading something about it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps you should cut Britain a little slack, BC. She was the ONLY Allied nation to pay off her war debt!

Not a problem, as Great Britain really doesn't exist anymore. What the US and the UK have now is a completely different (and closer) relationship. Some Canadians were surprised to learn that the UK was/is America's "closest" ally.

[Signals.Cpl]

Beats the logic. The 'usual suspects' here on this forum have this twisted fantasy that Iran in the old Germany under Hitler. As if this couldn't be getting more ridiculous you will never see these staunch supporters of Israel showing any remorse for all those Iranians who lost lives during Iran/Iraq war and when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds. Neither do they show any sympathy for poor indigenous population of iran who have to bear the burden of these tough sanctions. Its mind blowing when they remain silent on all these atrocities yet repeat the same regurgitated crap spewed all over this forum and elsewhere. That is the real depression!!! Yet they are always crying about the existence of Jews when so many other lives are being sacrificed and endangered by this crazy view of the whole situation. And all because someone thinks iran is going to "wipe Israel off the map"....

I am really sorry, I have seen the light:

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-world

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CSCOAL,,IRN,,498805f02d,0.html

http://www.globalpolitician.com/22494-iran

Proof that Iran is a gentle peace loving nation, and this is just the once I had the chance to read.

[Wild Bill]

Not a problem, as Great Britain really doesn't exist anymore. What the US and the UK have now is a completely different (and closer) relationship. Some Canadians were surprised to learn that the UK was/is America's "closest" ally.

Well, if the context is military that's certainly true. The UK actually has one! At least, one that dwarfs our few frigates and an old canteen supply ship.

No doubt some will leap to attack my joking criticism but the fact remains, Britain has aircraft carriers, submarines, Harriers and nukes.

Between the UK and Canada as far as a military goes, there is just no comparison. If the balloon goes up, your 'closest' ally is the one who can bring the most to the fight.

[Signals.Cpl]

If not already "obvious", WW2 demonstrated that Great Britain and its minions didn't have the chops anymore, at least not by itself. The sun may not have ever set on her empire, but some very big bills were coming due. Guess who had the deepest pockets to help pay them?

The Soviet Union and their 26,000,000 dead? You know the same country that kept between 57%-75% of all German Forces from 1941-1944 tied down? One of the main reasons D-Day succeded. Also the Nation that is responsible for 4,800,000 Axis Casualties in the Eastern Front.

If we play this game we can be here a long time, as the US did not win the war for anyone, if the Soviet Union had made separate peace or lost the war the outcome would be different no matter American Involvement. If Greece had been defeated by Italy in the first place, Germany might have launched their Invasion on schedual thus the war gets different outcome. Many Nations played a role in the defeat of the Axis in WW2, if you claim that the US was the main reason for the Allied victory, I would like to ask you, what would have happened to the Western Allies if they had had to face 150 German Division on the beaches of Normandy? If those divisions were avaiable for reinforcement? I would guess that the Invasion would have been short lived to say the least.

[Signals.Cpl]

Well, if the context is military that's certainly true. The UK actually has one! At least, one that dwarfs our few frigates and an old canteen supply ship.

No doubt some will leap to attack my joking criticism but the fact remains, Britain has aircraft carriers, submarines, Harriers and nukes.

Between the UK and Canada as far as a military goes, there is just no comparison. If the balloon goes up, your 'closest' ally is the one who can bring the most to the fight.

Britain has 1 Carrier and one assault carrier, no Harriers, and Im pretty sure the US needs little help in the Nuke department. And ultimately, the Canadian Forces have proven that no matter what kind of shortfalls they may face, the CF can play with the big boys, and punch above its weight class.

[wyly]

Germany did it twice in 20 years. Iran has not invaded anyone in the last 200. I'll say that Germany has a better track record than Iran, so I suspect Germany will invade other countries before Iran does.

let's get some historical accuracy in this, the allied forces were as guilty as germany for the 1st WW, the 2nd was a result of a horrific Versailles treaty...

so to be accurate on countries with long track records for invading other countries britain, france and the US rate ahead of germany...iran doesn't even rate as aggressive in comparison...

[wyly]

No worries, Israel will take care of Iran to prevent the mushroom cloud. Ask Iraq and Syria. And the mushroom cloud thing is just a joke now.

Iran is all rhetoric. Israel takes action. Not worried about Iran at all.

american military intelligence if it can be trusted has estimated only a full scale invasion can eliminate Iran's nuclear program, it's too spread out, and buried for israel to eliminate it...for israel to do so and fail will virtually guarantee Iran will retaliate...

[bush_cheney2004]

The Soviet Union and their 26,000,000 dead? You know the same country that kept between 57%-75% of all German Forces from 1941-1944 tied down? One of the main reasons D-Day succeded. Also the Nation that is responsible for 4,800,000 Axis Casualties in the Eastern Front.

Uhh..OK...but I hope you don't mind if I take General Zhukov's word over your opinion:

from "The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military

Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR

was all but done for without Lend Lease.

Quoting Zhukov:

"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and

economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from

the Allies.

First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that

respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the

war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a

serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the

quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],

we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable

degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary

for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of

American deliveries."

Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a

backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's

truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and

1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of

eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny

that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have

formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no

explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans

actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet

steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our

production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it

seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance

if you claim that the US was the main reason for the Allied victory, I would like to ask you, what would have happened to the Western Allies if they had had to face 150 German Division on the beaches of Normandy? If those divisions were avaiable for reinforcement? I would guess that the Invasion would have been short lived to say the least.

I have made no such claim, only relating the US financial arrangement that yet again brings Europe back from the abyss. If it is an argument you seek, that is the stuff of another thread.

[Signals.Cpl]

let's get some historical accuracy in this, the allied forces were as guilty as germany for the 1st WW, the 2nd was a result of a horrific Versailles treaty...

so to be accurate on countries with long track records for invading other countries britain, france and the US rate ahead of germany...iran doesn't even rate as aggressive in comparison...

Yes, England, France, and the US do rate way ahead of Germany in Invasions and wars started, but Germany takes the cake when it comes to Genocides.

And Also I do agree that the allies were just as guilty if not more so in starting World War one, but the reason why World War Two started was because everyone felt guilty about the treatment England and France dished out after the war so they let things slide for Germany until it was too late.

[Signals.Cpl]

Uhh..OK...but I hope you don't mind if I take General Zhukov's word over your opinion:

from "The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military

Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR

was all but done for without Lend Lease.

Quoting Zhukov:

"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and

economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from

the Allies.

First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that

respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the

war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a

serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the

quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],

we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable

degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary

for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of

American deliveries."

Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a

backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's

truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and

1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of

eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny

that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have

formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no

explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans

actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet

steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our

production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it

seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance

I have made no such claim, only relating the US financial arrangement that yet again brings Europe back from the abyss. If it is an argument you seek, that is the stuff of another thread.

The Soviet Union managed to survive the crucial year of 1941 with minimal assistance from the west.

And I realise that the US supplied the allies with alot of war materials, but my experiance is generaly it is viewed by Americans as the US saving the world. The Soviet Union did recieve alot of help but ultimately that help made the war easier and faster, but the war in the East would have turned out the same result. World War two was a combined effort and every nation deserves equal credit, because in some cases the smaller nations gave disproportionate commitment to the war effort.

[Jack Weber]

The Soviet Union and their 26,000,000 dead? You know the same country that kept between 57%-75% of all German Forces from 1941-1944 tied down? One of the main reasons D-Day succeded. Also the Nation that is responsible for 4,800,000 Axis Casualties in the Eastern Front.

If we play this game we can be here a long time, as the US did not win the war for anyone, if the Soviet Union had made separate peace or lost the war the outcome would be different no matter American Involvement. If Greece had been defeated by Italy in the first place, Germany might have launched their Invasion on schedual thus the war gets different outcome. Many Nations played a role in the defeat of the Axis in WW2, if you claim that the US was the main reason for the Allied victory, I would like to ask you, what would have happened to the Western Allies if they had had to face 150 German Division on the beaches of Normandy? If those divisions were avaiable for reinforcement? I would guess that the Invasion would have been short lived to say the least.

Actually,it was the invasion of Yugoslavia that held up Operation Barbarossa for 6 weeks.It was those 6 weeks the Wehrmacht needed to get to Moscow before winter...Hitler's Balkan diversion worked out for all of us.

And to answer your question cogently,minus the chest thumping buffoon you asked it of...

It would have ended up as a massive Dieppe failure and would have spelled a certain invasion of the British Isles...And it would have been game over...

[Wilber]

let's get some historical accuracy in this, the allied forces were as guilty as germany for the 1st WW, the 2nd was a result of a horrific Versailles treaty...

so to be accurate on countries with long track records for invading other countries britain, france and the US rate ahead of germany...iran doesn't even rate as aggressive in comparison...

Since Germany didn't become a country until 1871, they had a pretty busy first 75 years. Also, see Holy

Roman Empire, Prussia and Teutonic Knights for a start.