Russia Confirms Sale of Missiles to Iran

[kumquatq3]

The US and Israel can protest all they want, but hey if I was the Iranian leader I would do the same thing considering the circumstances in the region and beyond.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yea, but they don't get them tomarrow morning, if I'm Isreal....bombing the **** out of stuff is looking like a really good idea now

[kumquatq3]

huh

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051206/ap_on_...ran_plane_crash

[Lucius]

I can't see what that has to do with anything unless they shot it down themselves, with the weapons that haven't been delivered yet no less.

 

Oh and Israel wouldn't dare to attack Iran.

[kumquatq3]

I can't see what that has to do with anything unless they shot it down themselves, with the weapons that haven't been delivered yet no less.

 

Doesn't really, just thought it was news worthy

 

 

Oh and Israel wouldn't dare to attack Iran.

 

Really?

 

They bombed Iraqi Nuclear reactors.

 

and it's not like Israel attacking is going to turn public opinion in the middle east against them! :D

 

Say what you will, but Israel has balls, big brass ones.

[Child of Flame]

That and their Airforce is one of their key edges in any combat over there.

 

Some real kickass pilots.

[kumquatq3]

I just saw on CNN that the Israel defense minister said that diplomacy has until March, they see that as the closest they are willing to go to the estimated date that Iran will get Nukes.

 

When asked how far they are willing to go to elimininate the threat from Iran, he answered: "2000 kilometers", the distance between Iran and Israel.

 

Yep, no way they attack Iran

[Laozi]

It's ok let it all out.

 

I hate the world myself. May it feel the flames of the great Apocalypse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

You say that now, but when its your feet to the fire I'm sure you'll change your tune. "Oh I really like Monet paintings, have you seen my Vermont Teddybear collection? Mel Gibson is really starting to make alot of sense to me."

[Lucius]

I can't see what that has to do with anything unless they shot it down themselves, with the weapons that haven't been delivered yet no less.

 

Doesn't really, just thought it was news worthy

 

 

Oh and Israel wouldn't dare to attack Iran.

 

Really?

 

They bombed Iraqi Nuclear reactors.

 

and it's not like Israel attacking is going to turn public opinion in the middle east against them! :D

 

Say what you will, but Israel has balls, big brass ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They can hardly be bigger than yours. (the US that is, you pervert)

 

As for the middle east... naw I don't think the jews will attack, doing so would be very stupid. They'd have to do it before these new anti-aircraft thingies arrives too.

[Judge Hades]

When the enemy has anti aircraft weaponry you just don't use aircraft. Israel will probably use the same tactics that their enemies use. Well placed car bombs and attack on key civilian centers. They have done so before in Syria.

Edited December 6, 2005 by Hades_One

[kumquatq3]

As for the middle east... naw I don't think the jews will attack, doing so would be very stupid. They'd have to do it before these new anti-aircraft thingies arrives too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Iran has the right to buy 30 over the next 2 years. So, who knows how many and when.

 

 

As for Israel, during the 6 day war, they took on Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.

 

They not only won, they crushed them in a matter of days. If the international community (See: The US/Russia) didn't keep them at bay, the middle east would largely be known as Israel.

 

So, I don't see the downside of bombing Iran if I'm Israel, a country going for nuclear technology and who's leader called for Israels destruction way back in OCTOBER. What? The UN will condem them again? Or terrorists will continue to bomb them? Or the middle east would continue to hate them?

 

What makes it "stupid"

Edited December 6, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Lucius]

As for the middle east... naw I don't think the jews will attack, doing so would be very stupid. They'd have to do it before these new anti-aircraft thingies arrives too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Iran has the right to buy 30 over the next 2 years. So, who knows how many and when.

 

 

As for Israel, during the 6 day war, they took on Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.

 

They not only won, they crushed them in a matter of days. If the international community (See: The US/Russia) didn't keep them at bay, the middle east would largely be known as Israel.

 

So, I don't see the downside of bombing Iran if I'm Israel, a country going for nuclear technology and who's leader called for Israels destruction way back in OCTOBER. What? The UN will condem them again? Or terrorists will continue to bomb them? Or the middle east would continue to hate them?

 

What makes it "stupid"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know the story, there's no need for the history lesson.

 

You seem to think that the entire world is poised against Israel atm, I don't think that's true. Trust me, they're not going to attack. I don't think Kaiser Bush will allow it.

 

Oh and the "Whole middle east would largely be known as Israel" is a gross overstatement, just look at the trouble they have in Gaza ffs.

[kumquatq3]

You seem to think that the entire world is poised against Israel atm, I don't think that's true. Trust me, they're not going to attack. I don't think Kaiser Bush will allow it.

 

The world isn't against Israel, for instance, the US. The majority of the UN is generally against most things Israel does.

 

As for listening to the US, it's my feeling that Bush would be happy to see Israel bomb Iran, as long as they keep the US out of it.

 

Oh and the "Whole middle east would largely be known as Israel" is a gross overstatement, just look at the trouble they have in Gaza ffs. 

 

Thats because of politics. Not because of lack of ability.

 

Even now, leaders of Hamas tend not to live very long. They have a tendence to blow up.

[Kinslayer]

But what would they achieve if they launched a preemptive strike? Iran learned the lesson with the Iraqi nuclear facilities being bombed by putting all their key facilities deep under ground aside from some industrial used in their nuclear program. By destroying those sites in the open you would just postpone for a while their development of nuclear weapons, if they're developing them in the first place? And if you do bomb them and they weren't developing them, then they would most certainly do so which leaves diplomacy as the only way of preventing a 'nuclear Iran'...but many wouldn't agree with that point like Israel of course, they view this situation like this (from a military standpoint):

 

The Israeli Air Force received the first two of 25 F-15I Ra

Edited December 6, 2005 by Kinslayer

[Lucius]

You seem to think that the entire world is poised against Israel atm, I don't think that's true. Trust me, they're not going to attack. I don't think Kaiser Bush will allow it.

 

The world isn't against Israel, for instance, the US. The majority of the UN is generally against most things Israel does.

 

As for listening to the US, it's my feeling that Bush would be happy to see Israel bomb Iran, as long as they keep the US out of it.

 

Oh and the "Whole middle east would largely be known as Israel" is a gross overstatement, just look at the trouble they have in Gaza ffs. 

 

Thats because of politics. Not because of lack of ability.

 

Even now, leaders of Hamas tend not to live very long. They have a tendence to blow up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They also have a very bad habit of showing up with new leaders the following day, just as fanatical as the previous one. (or even more)

 

As for Bush, I don't think he wants more wars which is sponsered by his administration, low opinion polls makes him cry.

[kumquatq3]

@kin:By your own facts you admit that, if Iran does obtain nukes, that there is essentially no stopping them from delivering them to their target if they wanted to (Israels successful missile defense system withstanding). Or worse, them giving the tech to other groups/countries.

 

You will essentially have to create a nuclear stand off in the middle, as the US can't, and shouldn't, allow Israel to have to face a hostile middle east that have nukes without "mutual assured destruction".

 

Diplomacy has completely failed at this point, and by all accounts, Iran isn't far from getting nukes.

 

So you would prefer the slim chance of diplomacy without the threat of force pulling through before Iran gets the bomb over making sure tomorrow you don't wake up tomorrow in a world where the volatile Middle East is capable of practically ending life on much of this Earth?

Edited December 6, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Child of Flame]

I prefer blowing stuff up and figuring out if it was the right thing to do later.

 

It's the American way!

[kumquatq3]

They also have a very bad habit of showing up with new leaders the following day, just as fanatical as the previous one. (or even more)

 

Fanatical? Yes. Less capable? Yes.

 

As for Bush, I don't think he wants more wars which is sponsered by his administration, low opinion polls makes him cry. 

 

Wars? No. Israel taking care of buisness? As I said, that might fly

[Child of Flame]

Seriously there should be less talking and more essplosions.

 

Diplomacy has failed.

[kumquatq3]

I prefer blowing stuff up and figuring out if it was the right thing to do later. 

 

It's the American way!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So, if all the modern world thinks these guys are going for nukes, we should sit back because we don't know with perfect certainty?

[Child of Flame]

Dude, I am saying we should blow stuff up.

 

I am on your side!

[Kinslayer]

As for Bush, I don't think he wants more wars which is sponsered by his administration, low opinion polls makes him cry. 

 

Wars? No. Israel taking care of buisness? As I said, that might fly

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

If you read my ever-long post you'll understand how it just isn't possible for any future Israely strike to be fully independent from the US.

[kumquatq3]

As for Bush, I don't think he wants more wars which is sponsered by his administration, low opinion polls makes him cry. 

 

Wars? No. Israel taking care of buisness? As I said, that might fly

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

If you read my ever-long post you'll understand how it just isn't possible for any future Israely strike to be fully independent from the US.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I read every word in it.

 

and I'm saying it doesn't have to be fully independent.

 

 

Whats the "good" solution here? In a perfect world, from our view, Iran agrees to give up the good for more food for it's people or something.

 

NOT GONNA HAPPEN

 

So now what?

 

1. Nuclear Middle East, with a risk of many dying

 

2. Non-Nuclear Middle East, with a risk of many dying

 

EDIT: 3. Battleship diplomacy that, if fails, leads to #1 or #2

 

pick

Edited December 6, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Child of Flame]

It should be noted that pretty much anything Bush decides to do in favor of Israel will make his opinion polls go up not down, as there are not only more Jews in America than in Israel, but also, Christians tend to think, due to their holy book, that anything good done to Israel God will reward you for. So by helping Israel out, our country would be earing brownie points with God.

 

I was never one to decide foreign policy by religion, but I actually had a Teacher tell me this before at school, it was kind of scary, but this means people actually do believe such things.

[Child of Flame]

Also, it was a US History teaacher.

[Child of Flame]

Can I spam this now? I'm kind of trying to level up.