Iran Update...

P

PadawanBater

Guest
Invisible enemy you are a puss i took down 23 of these towlhead motherfuckers! have pic. of one with my boots in a hole in his chest fucked his tali ass up beeeitch !!!!!!!!!!!!

oh yeah dumb ass there is no getting off the boat its land locked you pussy
Click to expand...
Yeah Jim, did you forget your not fighting against a conventional army?

You've already killed 23 people... I can't even understand how you can be proud of that. Think about it for a second... you took 23 lives, those people had families, some may have had kids... You think what you did was justified? In any other context you would be locked away and forgotten about by the exact same government who sent you to do their dirty work in the first fuckin' place. You owned yourself, nice job. Go be proud and keep telling yourself your an American hero if it'll help you sleep at night.

... I really hope you're thinking of Afghanistan man, otherwise you're going to look really stupid. I was not speaking literal, your a military man, I'm almost positive you've seen war movies, you should realize it's a pretty common thing to say in a battle context, first to fight, last to leave... You're superiors have probably even said it, and I know you're not that stupid... Second, there actually is water, you've heard of the Persian Gulf right? That huge body of water that's in between Saudi Arabia and Iran...yeah, I'm pretty sure you could use a boat through there... (you've been to the fuckin' area and you don't even know the geography of the region, wow!) --- you're not going to win this one man, stop while you're ahead...


You misinterpret strength of conviction for advocacy of war. This is incorrect. Only by seeing the realities of your enemies intentions and responding with STRENGTH can war be averted. Diplomacy is always an option and should be the FIRST option. Only if there is a probability of success however.
Diplomacy has had ZERO effect with IRAN. Bush let the EU negotiate with IRAN for the last 5 years, and they came away with nothing. Iran came away with confidence and the time needed to carry out their awful plans of prophecy fulfillment.

After all of their lies and subtefuge you still wish to give them the benefit of the doubt? You should put a picture of Neville Chamberlain in your room as to remind you of the folly of that path.

I need no one to tell me of Irans intent other than the leaders of that country's own words. Or can you spin their words as well? They really don't mean it folks....right? lawdy...


It is Padawan and his ilk which produce wars. Go ahead, pull back, scale down, get passive...... heck wet ur pants while you're at it. See what that gets you......war.

You cannot control the oppositions intent. You can only prepare. We have stopped preparing.

I'm still waiting for Obama to visit the troops overseas. Someone needs to tell him he is Commander In Chief.
Click to expand...
Strength of conviction...? You've been saying this entire thread we should send special operations units INTO Iran to destroy their uranium enriching facilities, an act that would without question lead to all out war. If you cant put one and one together then nothing is going to make sense even in your own head. Destroy facilities = war with Iran = ADVOCATING WAR if you're ADVOCATING destroying their facilities! See how that works...

You think there's absolutely no possibility of negotiating with Iran. Alright, no diplomacy there, so why don't you just come out and say what you really think. I want a step by step guide to how ol' CrackerJax would tackle this situation. I keep giving you clear paths to take with PEACE written all over them that seem pretty realistic in perspective, the only thing you come back with is "it wont work because peace is involved, Iran doesn't want peace, they just want to destroy everyone who doesn't agree with them and Islam"... basically all you're doing is saying I'm wrong every time without actually stating your own opinion or explaining WHY I'm wrong.

Give me sources of these negotiations you're talking about between Iran and the UN. This is important, so don't dodge this. I want to look over exactly what the terms were...

I will give any country the benefit of the doubt if the alternative means an unjustified preemptive strike. We've had two huge wars to show us exactly how well the preemptive strike option works, and look where we are. Do you think the state of our union is stronger? Do you think the wars made the world a better, safer place?

Again, you believe Iran's leaders when one of their quotes agrees with your fucked up world view, but what about those other quotes I posted a few pages back? The ones where the president of Iran was saying how important actual negotiations are, and how the countries involved should feel safe to negotiate... ya miss those ones? Actions speak louder than words, someone said it earlier I believe, but how bout when McCain said "bomb Iran"? Is it realistic to think the entire world believed that the US military was going to bomb Iran after McCain said that? PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS MAN! Elected officials say stupid shit ALL THE TIME! Your selective quote mining ability might make you feel safer and more secure, but it's not the truth, and if you believe everything an elected official says, I genuinely feel sorry for you.

(after this post, I don't give a fuck what anyone else says, I'm not posting anything personal against anyone, after reading through I realize we're not getting anywhere, that should not be the objective of any discussion. We need to talk realistically and sensibly about all this, it's a tough subject to tackle with a million different variables and perspectives. I'm stating this right now, instead of butting heads every time we enter the thread [CJ], how bout from this point on, we talk about it like two people would talk about it in person, no personal attacks, no condescending tones, only facts, if it's not a fact backed up by a trusted source, there's no point in posting it. It's frustrating and we're getting nowhere, anyone else is welcome to add in anything else, but like I said, it's very important that it's a FACT if you post it, post it with sources, and lets move forward with this discussion.)
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
I've never said I have the end all solution. I have also never posted that we should invade Iran. You need to keep it real.

As for preemptive strikes in two countries, what are you talking about? There was no preemptive strike in Iraq or Afghanistan. Both were telegraphed LOUD and CLEAR ahead of time. You need to clean up your generalizations.

here is a source of Iran and EU...read for yourself....the fact that you are completely UNAWARE that this has been going on for 5+years tells me you just like tom argue with or WITHOUT facts.

here you go.... the article parallels my thread quite nicely... guess I must be paying attention....READ ON:



What is the status of Europe's nuclear negotiations with Iran?

They are in trouble. Since October 2003, Iran and three members of the European Union (EU)--Britain, France, and Germany--have engaged in negotiations to ensure that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons. The Europeans have asked Iran to relinquish its uranium-enrichment program because the technology can easily be adapted for military uses. Iranians, however, say they will not give up what they see as their sovereign right to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear program. In recent weeks, the stances of both sides have toughened. A last-ditch attempt at reviving the talks will take place in Geneva May 25.
What are the latest developments in the crisis?

Iran has repeatedly indicated it intends to break the terms of a November 2004 Iran-EU agreement in which Iran agreed to temporarily suspend all uranium-enrichment activities during negotiations over the long-term fate of its nuclear program. Iranian diplomats say that Europe has failed to offer incentives that would encourage them to modify their nuclear goals. Recent examples of Iranian threats include:

* On May 8, Iran threatened to resume reprocessing uranium at its Isfahan reactor, which was stopped last year as part of the November agreement.
* On May 9, Iran admitted for the first time it had converted 37 tons of naturally occurring uranium ore concentrate, or yellowcake, into the gas uranium tetrafluoride (UF-4) before freezing its nuclear-related activity as part of the agreement. UF-4 can rapidly be converted into uranium hexafluoride (UF-6), a gas used in centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium.
* On May 15, Iran's conservative-dominated parliament passed a resolution backing the government's right to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear program and calling for a resumption of enrichment.

How has Europe reacted to Iran's moves?

European negotiators sent a letter on May 11 to Iran's chief nuclear official, Hassan Rowhani, warning Tehran that if it restarted nuclear activities, negotiations would end and "the consequences could only be negative for Iran." Some European officials called for an emergency session of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Vienna-based organization that monitors proliferation. If the IAEA found substantial evidence that Iran is in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)--the 1968 international agreement that regulates the spread of nuclear weapons technology--or other agreements, it would be obliged to refer Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
Is this a departure from Europe's past dealings with Iran?

Yes. In the past, Europe has generally taken a softer stance on Iran, experts say. In June 2004, for example, Iran reneged on an October 2003 agreement to halt enrichment activities. At that time, however, the United States, not the Europeans, threatened U.N. Security Council action. Europe has preferred to negotiate with Tehran directly, offer generous incentive packages, and block efforts by the United States and Israel to refer Iran to the Security Council for its nuclear activities. "Traditionally, the United States has always been waving the stick while the Europeans have offered carrots," says Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate and nuclear expert at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. "Now, Europe is beginning to think in terms of some sticks too."
Will the Europeans and Iran meet to discuss the latest impasse?

Most likely. After receiving the European letter, Iranian diplomats agreed to meet with French, German, and British negotiators and said they would postpone their decision to resume nuclear activities. But experts don't expect any major breakthroughs in the talks. Iran is headed into its June 17 presidential election, experts say, and polls show that nuclear power is popular among Iranians. "No candidate wants to be seen as giving away Iran's [nuclear] rights," Bunn says.
What are the ground rules of the EU-Iran negotiations?

The November 14, 2004, agreement called for an immediate freeze of Iran's enrichment activities, increased inspections under an Additional Protocol of the NPT, and the tagging and sealing Iranian centrifuges and other nuclear components to guarantee they could not be used. The freeze was not intended to be a final arrangement but rather a "confidence-building measure" to be upheld before further negotiations could take place.
What was wrong with the November agreement?

It was too vaguely worded, some experts argue. The wording of the resolution, which called the ban "voluntary" and "non-legally binding," left room for Tehran to assert a different interpretation of the agreement, these experts say. Iran, for example, argues that converting uranium into UF-4 does not qualify as enrichment and is therefore allowed under the agreement. The Europeans disagree.
What does Iran hope to get out of negotiations?

Publicly, at least, the Iranians have said they want "their sovereign right to enrich uranium," says Charles D. Ferguson II, science and technology fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. The Iranians argue that right includes, among other things, the ability to build multiple commercial-use nuclear reactors, enrich their own nuclear fuel versus having to acquire it from Europe or Russia, and add 3,000 or more centrifuges to their current arsenal of around 100. Some experts say Iran is practicing brinksmanship in order to bargain for better concessions from Europe. "Iran is saying, 'Where are the sweeteners? We want something to show for our efforts,'" Ferguson says. Iran has called for major investments in its economy from Europe, particularly in its oil industry, specific security guarantees, and support for its bid to join the World Trade Organization.
What is Europe's objective?

"A quasi-permanent halt to enrichment-related activities," Bunn says. "No one is talking about Iran completely abandoning its civilian nuclear program." Rather, the Europeans want Iran to forgo the "sensitive" aspects of its nuclear program. The reason is not because enriching uranium is illegal--it is not, under international treaty rules--but because the technology for making low-enriched uranium for civilian reactors is nearly identical to that for making highly enriched uranium for atomic bombs. "[The Iranians] already have some capacity for enrichment," says Ray Takeyh, senior fellow of Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. "The question becomes the scope and scale of the program."
What leverage does Europe have over Iran's nuclear objectives?

It has some, experts say. The European Union is Iran's largest supplier of goods, comprising some 37 percent of its total imports. "Together, these states must raise the economic stakes of Iran's nuclear aspirations," wrote Takeyh and Kenneth Pollack, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, in a recent Foreign Affairs article. "They must force Tehran to confront a painful choice: either nuclear weapons or economic health."
What is the likelihood negotiations with Iran will succeed?

Not very good, experts say. "The negotiations have not been satisfactory in terms of giving [the Iranians] what they want," says Lawrence Scheinman, a nonproliferation expert at the Monterrey Institute of International Studies. "I think we're just treading water."

If Tehran follows up on threats to resume its enrichment activities in the near future, the Europeans would likely push the IAEA to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council.
What happens then?

If the Security Council finds "irrefutable evidence" Iran is developing a nuclear-weapons program, it will have to take decisive action, Scheinman says. "It could make life difficult for [the Iranians]," he says, either by lodging economic sanctions or placing other trade restrictions on Iran. Most experts, however, say sanctions are unlikely because several Security Council members--namely China and Russia--have strong interests in Iran's oil industry. If brought before the United Nations, a senior Iranian diplomat told the Financial Times May 10 that Iran would retaliate by resuming enrichment activities at its Natanz plant, a nuclear-research facility that suspended its enrichment-related activities in 2003.
What is the U.S. role in negotiations?

Its current role is largely consultative. The United States refuses to deal with the Iranians directly and says it continues to support talks between Europe and Iran.


Nuff said....


out. :blsmoke:
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
I've never said I have the end all solution. I have also never posted that we should invade Iran. You need to keep it real.

As for preemptive strikes in two countries, what are you talking about? There was no preemptive strike in Iraq or Afghanistan. Both were telegraphed LOUD and CLEAR ahead of time. You need to clean up your generalizations.

here is a source of Iran and EU...read for yourself....the fact that you are completely UNAWARE that this has been going on for 5+years tells me you just like tom argue with or WITHOUT facts.

here you go.... the article parallels my thread quite nicely... guess I must be paying attention....READ ON:



What is the status of Europe's nuclear negotiations with Iran?

They are in trouble. Since October 2003, Iran and three members of the European Union (EU)--Britain, France, and Germany--have engaged in negotiations to ensure that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons. The Europeans have asked Iran to relinquish its uranium-enrichment program because the technology can easily be adapted for military uses. Iranians, however, say they will not give up what they see as their sovereign right to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear program. In recent weeks, the stances of both sides have toughened. A last-ditch attempt at reviving the talks will take place in Geneva May 25.
What are the latest developments in the crisis?

Iran has repeatedly indicated it intends to break the terms of a November 2004 Iran-EU agreement in which Iran agreed to temporarily suspend all uranium-enrichment activities during negotiations over the long-term fate of its nuclear program. Iranian diplomats say that Europe has failed to offer incentives that would encourage them to modify their nuclear goals. Recent examples of Iranian threats include:

* On May 8, Iran threatened to resume reprocessing uranium at its Isfahan reactor, which was stopped last year as part of the November agreement.
* On May 9, Iran admitted for the first time it had converted 37 tons of naturally occurring uranium ore concentrate, or yellowcake, into the gas uranium tetrafluoride (UF-4) before freezing its nuclear-related activity as part of the agreement. UF-4 can rapidly be converted into uranium hexafluoride (UF-6), a gas used in centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium.
* On May 15, Iran's conservative-dominated parliament passed a resolution backing the government's right to enrich uranium as part of a peaceful nuclear program and calling for a resumption of enrichment.

How has Europe reacted to Iran's moves?

European negotiators sent a letter on May 11 to Iran's chief nuclear official, Hassan Rowhani, warning Tehran that if it restarted nuclear activities, negotiations would end and "the consequences could only be negative for Iran." Some European officials called for an emergency session of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Vienna-based organization that monitors proliferation. If the IAEA found substantial evidence that Iran is in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)--the 1968 international agreement that regulates the spread of nuclear weapons technology--or other agreements, it would be obliged to refer Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
Is this a departure from Europe's past dealings with Iran?

Yes. In the past, Europe has generally taken a softer stance on Iran, experts say. In June 2004, for example, Iran reneged on an October 2003 agreement to halt enrichment activities. At that time, however, the United States, not the Europeans, threatened U.N. Security Council action. Europe has preferred to negotiate with Tehran directly, offer generous incentive packages, and block efforts by the United States and Israel to refer Iran to the Security Council for its nuclear activities. "Traditionally, the United States has always been waving the stick while the Europeans have offered carrots," says Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate and nuclear expert at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. "Now, Europe is beginning to think in terms of some sticks too."
Will the Europeans and Iran meet to discuss the latest impasse?

Most likely. After receiving the European letter, Iranian diplomats agreed to meet with French, German, and British negotiators and said they would postpone their decision to resume nuclear activities. But experts don't expect any major breakthroughs in the talks. Iran is headed into its June 17 presidential election, experts say, and polls show that nuclear power is popular among Iranians. "No candidate wants to be seen as giving away Iran's [nuclear] rights," Bunn says.
What are the ground rules of the EU-Iran negotiations?

The November 14, 2004, agreement called for an immediate freeze of Iran's enrichment activities, increased inspections under an Additional Protocol of the NPT, and the tagging and sealing Iranian centrifuges and other nuclear components to guarantee they could not be used. The freeze was not intended to be a final arrangement but rather a "confidence-building measure" to be upheld before further negotiations could take place.
What was wrong with the November agreement?

It was too vaguely worded, some experts argue. The wording of the resolution, which called the ban "voluntary" and "non-legally binding," left room for Tehran to assert a different interpretation of the agreement, these experts say. Iran, for example, argues that converting uranium into UF-4 does not qualify as enrichment and is therefore allowed under the agreement. The Europeans disagree.
What does Iran hope to get out of negotiations?

Publicly, at least, the Iranians have said they want "their sovereign right to enrich uranium," says Charles D. Ferguson II, science and technology fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. The Iranians argue that right includes, among other things, the ability to build multiple commercial-use nuclear reactors, enrich their own nuclear fuel versus having to acquire it from Europe or Russia, and add 3,000 or more centrifuges to their current arsenal of around 100. Some experts say Iran is practicing brinksmanship in order to bargain for better concessions from Europe. "Iran is saying, 'Where are the sweeteners? We want something to show for our efforts,'" Ferguson says. Iran has called for major investments in its economy from Europe, particularly in its oil industry, specific security guarantees, and support for its bid to join the World Trade Organization.
What is Europe's objective?

"A quasi-permanent halt to enrichment-related activities," Bunn says. "No one is talking about Iran completely abandoning its civilian nuclear program." Rather, the Europeans want Iran to forgo the "sensitive" aspects of its nuclear program. The reason is not because enriching uranium is illegal--it is not, under international treaty rules--but because the technology for making low-enriched uranium for civilian reactors is nearly identical to that for making highly enriched uranium for atomic bombs. "[The Iranians] already have some capacity for enrichment," says Ray Takeyh, senior fellow of Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. "The question becomes the scope and scale of the program."
What leverage does Europe have over Iran's nuclear objectives?

It has some, experts say. The European Union is Iran's largest supplier of goods, comprising some 37 percent of its total imports. "Together, these states must raise the economic stakes of Iran's nuclear aspirations," wrote Takeyh and Kenneth Pollack, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, in a recent Foreign Affairs article. "They must force Tehran to confront a painful choice: either nuclear weapons or economic health."
What is the likelihood negotiations with Iran will succeed?

Not very good, experts say. "The negotiations have not been satisfactory in terms of giving [the Iranians] what they want," says Lawrence Scheinman, a nonproliferation expert at the Monterrey Institute of International Studies. "I think we're just treading water."

If Tehran follows up on threats to resume its enrichment activities in the near future, the Europeans would likely push the IAEA to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council.
What happens then?

If the Security Council finds "irrefutable evidence" Iran is developing a nuclear-weapons program, it will have to take decisive action, Scheinman says. "It could make life difficult for [the Iranians]," he says, either by lodging economic sanctions or placing other trade restrictions on Iran. Most experts, however, say sanctions are unlikely because several Security Council members--namely China and Russia--have strong interests in Iran's oil industry. If brought before the United Nations, a senior Iranian diplomat told the Financial Times May 10 that Iran would retaliate by resuming enrichment activities at its Natanz plant, a nuclear-research facility that suspended its enrichment-related activities in 2003.
What is the U.S. role in negotiations?

Its current role is largely consultative. The United States refuses to deal with the Iranians directly and says it continues to support talks between Europe and Iran.


Nuff said....


out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
Not really, the question, the only logical question, is why is Iran seeking Nuclear Energy?

And do we have proof that they are going to develop Nuclear Weapons?

Just because the Uranium can be used in weapons, if it is enriched further, does not mean Iran is going to do that.

Iran is probably more interested in providing nuclear power to its citizens for the simple expedient of being able to sell more oil. It's economics.

As the recent crash in oil prices indicates Iran is incredibly vulnerable to drops in oil prices, but even at the peak they were not capable of selling as much as they produce, because they consume some of their own production.

Any rational business person would of course desire to avoid using their own product.

What's that old phrase, "Poor is the bar owner that drinks his own vintage", and its true.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
The reason they have energy problems is not for lack of oil...it is for lack of other industries.

They have ALREADY enriched uranium to weapons grade. You're a bit behind there TBT. I wouldn't have even started this thread if they were that far off.

Couple the enrichment with their words and their new ballistic missile technology and what am I supposed to think? :lol:

They have used the last five years to absorb carrots from the diplomats while at every instance move forward in their desire to produce a nuclear weapon.

I think their intent is quite clear.

Padawan evidently iwas not aware that the UN and the EU have been trying to stop Iran.....with predictable results..... ineptness and an unwillingness to mean what they say....as always.




out. :blsmoke:
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
Is a nuclear Iran the end of the world? I think before Iran gets to that stage, Israel will smoke them, which may start WWIII as Pakistan may become involved, Russia and China as well, which would of course make our "Jewish" influenced government jump right in. Does anyone realize that only a few miles off of either US shore there are about 150 Nuclear tipped missles targeted to all major US cities? The Chinese and the Russians have nuclear powered and weaponized subs patrolling our shores. I'm pretty sure Nellis AFB is one of the prime targets, it's about 7 miles from me, which really won't matter if they hit on the nuclear depository where 75% of all our nuclear weapons are stored, can you say BoooooM.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Only Iran is the dangerous one with the exception of N.Korea which has now developed a long range ballistic missile which is now pointed and capable of reaching the western United States.

Russia and China are mature nuclear powers who will not risk nuclear war.

Of course only one of the rogue nations, IRAN, have a prophecy to fulfill. This is their intent...to fulfill the prophecy. Only a regime change can alter that course.


out. :blsmoke:
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
Only Iran is the dangerous one with the exception of N.Korea which has now developed a long range ballistic missile which is now pointed and capable of reaching the western United States.

Russia and China are mature nuclear powers who will not risk nuclear war.

Of course only one of the rogue nations, IRAN, have a prophecy to fulfill. This is their intent...to fulfill the prophecy. Only a regime change can alter that course.


out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
If Tehran follows up on threats to resume its enrichment activities in the near future, the Europeans would likely push the IAEA to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council.
What happens then?

If the Security Council finds "irrefutable evidence" Iran is developing a nuclear-weapons program, it will have to take decisive action, Scheinman says. "It could make life difficult for [the Iranians]," he says, either by lodging economic sanctions or placing other trade restrictions on Iran. Most experts, however, say sanctions are unlikely because several Security Council members--namely China and Russia--have strong interests in Iran's oil industry. If brought before the United Nations, a senior Iranian diplomat told the Financial Times May 10 that Iran would retaliate by resuming enrichment activities at its Natanz plant, a nuclear-research facility that suspended its enrichment-related activities in 2003.
Click to expand...
If the UN steps in then we can expect that the US will be forced to fight another war for the UN.

Like I said, we should withdraw from the UN.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
I agree about withdrawing from the UN.


Resume? They have never stopped. Our very own state dept. (Obama's by the way) now says they have enough enrichment for one bomb. the next bomb should be ready sometime this summer. The IAEA has already proven inept at dealing with them.

Was it a mistake for bush to let the UN negotiate....it sure was...but since the Iraq war caused such whining here in the US, he was hamstrung to do what needed to be done years ago.

out. :blsmoke:
 
NorthwestBuds

NorthwestBuds

Well-Known Member
Guys, be honest. If any other country except for Russia or China had the stupidity to chuck a nuke at us, what would happen? We would flatten that country with conventional or nuclear weapons with the blessings of the world. The whole idea is ludicrous. And it's absurd to think possessing nukes is anything but an ego and a power trip for those countries. Why would anyone in their right mind wish for self annihilation at the hands of the greatest military power in the world?

You might say they don’t care but I beg to disagree. If Arab countries that demand the destruction of Israel really wanted it they could do it with a war of attrition. But they don’t have the balls nor are they willing to sacrifice their entire population to do so. To me it’s all a bunch of cowardly bullshit rhetoric.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
You cannot wage a war of attrition against a nation that does not trade with you... :lol: Hence terrorism is employed as a last alternative.


As for a nuke detonation from iran....I don't think they will sign they're name to it. It will be done by an anonymous cell with plausible deniability. I'm still betting on an EMP bomb, which will take no human lives. This makes it doubly hard to retaliate.....

Given the weakness signals sent out by the Obama administration, Iran is being encouraged to act out their desires.

out. :blsmoke:
 
NorthwestBuds

NorthwestBuds

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
You cannot wage a war of attrition against a nation that does not trade with you... :lol: Hence terrorism is employed as a last alternative.


As for a nuke detonation from iran....I don't think they will sign they're name to it. It will be done by an anonymous cell with plausible deniability. I'm still betting on an EMP bomb, which will take no human lives. This makes it doubly hard to retaliate.....

Given the weakness signals sent out by the Obama administration, Iran is being encouraged to act out their desires.

out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
A true war of attrition is a protracted conflict in which one side attempts to wear down its enemy by continuously engaging in battle until the last man, woman, and child is dead. They DON'T have the true belief in their "cause" nor the hutspa to do it. It's all about being on CNN spewing bullshit propaganda now. Any country in this day and age that cannot or will not allow peace and acceptance of other races or religions and get along with their neighbors is a danger to the world. Where is the U.N.'s stand on these intollerant, hateful countries?
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
I agree that terrorism is the weapon of choice against Israel, although it will never achieve the desired result.

Now here's a thought....wrap your heads around this one. :lol:

Scenario:

Israel capitulates!!! They have had enough. They can't take it anymore, and they realize it was a HUGE mistake. They wish to get the heck out of Israel....ALL OF THEM, every last Jew. They have purchased an undisclosed location suitable to their needs completely isolated from any neighbors.

What would the world's reaction be???? I think I know...but let me hear from you guys.... don't try to think a way around the equation, just accept the parameters and tell me what would be the world opinion/reaction???? :lol:


out. :blsmoke:
 
NorthwestBuds

NorthwestBuds

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
I agree that terrorism is the weapon of choice against Israel, although it will never achieve the desired result.

Now here's a thought....wrap your heads around this one. :lol:

Scenario:

Israel capitulates!!! They have had enough. They can't take it anymore, and they realize it was a HUGE mistake. They wish to get the heck out of Israel....ALL OF THEM, every last Jew. They have purchased an undisclosed location suitable to their needs completely isolated from any neighbors.

What would the world's reaction be???? I think I know...but let me hear from you guys.... don't try to think a way around the equation, just accept the parameters and tell me what would be the world opinion/reaction???? :lol:


out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
As likely as we would give America back to the U.K. bongsmilie
 
NewGrowth

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
I agree that terrorism is the weapon of choice against Israel, although it will never achieve the desired result.

Now here's a thought....wrap your heads around this one. :lol:

Scenario:

Israel capitulates!!! They have had enough. They can't take it anymore, and they realize it was a HUGE mistake. They wish to get the heck out of Israel....ALL OF THEM, every last Jew. They have purchased an undisclosed location suitable to their needs completely isolated from any neighbors.

What would the world's reaction be???? I think I know...but let me hear from you guys.... don't try to think a way around the equation, just accept the parameters and tell me what would be the world opinion/reaction???? :lol:


out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
Come on Jax these people think Isreal is the "holy land" the only way they are leaving is a large nuclear explosion. The violence will continue just because of a stupid myth.:wall:
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
CrackerJax said:
I agree that terrorism is the weapon of choice against Israel, although it will never achieve the desired result.

Now here's a thought....wrap your heads around this one. :lol:

Scenario:

Israel capitulates!!! They have had enough. They can't take it anymore, and they realize it was a HUGE mistake. They wish to get the heck out of Israel....ALL OF THEM, every last Jew. They have purchased an undisclosed location suitable to their needs completely isolated from any neighbors.

What would the world's reaction be???? I think I know...but let me hear from you guys.... don't try to think a way around the equation, just accept the parameters and tell me what would be the world opinion/reaction???? :lol:


out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
It depends on quite a few variables, be more specific. Where's this land, how did they purchase it, were there people already living there or was it completely uninhabited...etc?
 
Jointsmith

Jointsmith

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
I agree that terrorism is the weapon of choice against Israel, although it will never achieve the desired result.

Now here's a thought....wrap your heads around this one. :lol:

Scenario:

Israel capitulates!!! They have had enough. They can't take it anymore, and they realize it was a HUGE mistake. They wish to get the heck out of Israel....ALL OF THEM, every last Jew. They have purchased an undisclosed location suitable to their needs completely isolated from any neighbors.

What would the world's reaction be???? I think I know...but let me hear from you guys.... don't try to think a way around the equation, just accept the parameters and tell me what would be the world opinion/reaction???? :lol:


out. :blsmoke:
Click to expand...
You seem to misunderstand the whole situation.

When Iran talks about "Wiping Isreal off the map" what do you think they mean?

I believe they are refering to the fact that "Isreal" should not be recognised as a Country, not that every Jew should be killed or removed.

No one is talking about REMOVAL of the Jew's in Isreal, there are Jews, christians and Muslims in EVERY ARAB COUNTRY...... they are talking about a rebalancing of power in that Country, so that it is representative of the peoples who live there (which at the moment it DEFINATELY is not in view of the practical aparthied imposed on Muslims in that country).

Stop projecting your hatred and fear.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Holy mackerel, you guys are the shizzle me dizzle. Just use the scenario...it doesnt matter where they go ok? Just OUT OF THE WAY..... NO MUSLIMS OR CHRISTIANS WITHIN 500 MILES....

Israel is emptied of Jews... wherever they go, they do just fine so it's not about the new place being a problem.

World reaction? your reaction?


out. :blsmoke:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top