Is Bush planning an attack on Iran in March?

[Mark Stapleton]

So you think Iran will launch a nuclear attack on Israel and the US? I assume that means you believe the Iranian leadership is suicidal? Can you show me any evidence?

Quite possible. Pretty much required for the return of the 12th Imam. In any case yes...the leasdership of Iran is quite suicidal. Pretty much standard stuff for extreme hardline Muslims. But the again if you listen to the current bluster from Iran they are not planning on losing

I see. The old 12th Imam stuff. The Shia have a belief in the endtimes similar to the Christian belief in the rapture. Extremist Christian televangelist John Hagee from San Antonio wants America to bring it on fast. He advocates a nuke attack on Iran. Do you agree with him? Does he speak for all Christians? Is he suicidal? Do do you make a distinction between one extremist endtimes belief and the other?

Now you say the Iranian leadership is suicidal yet in your last sentence you state that you believe the Iranians plan to win. This is totally contradictory. Planning to win indicates a desire for self preservation, not suicide. Acquisition of nuclear weapons also indicates a desire for self preservation rather than suicide. If the reverse is the case, then you obviously believe the US, France, Britain, Israel and other nuclear states are suicidal. You should emigrate--quick.

Of course, we know that if Iran had nukes they would be most unlikely to use them. Why? Well, in the 50 odd years they have been in existence, no one has ever used them, except your country when, comfortable in the knowledge that there would be no retaliation, they bombed away. Since the fifties, quite a few states have had the power to launch nuclear war but no-one has--not even Kim Jong-Il. Leaders share a common trait, regardless of whether they lead Iran, China, the US or North Korea, namely their lives are spent attaining power over others--a trait which indicates self preservation, not suicide. They love to send soldiers to fight conventional wars but none of them want nuclear war because the lives of themselves and their families would forfeited. Moreover, the damage Iran could cause its enemies would be dwarfed by the total destruction of Iran which would be caused by the massive retaliatory strike.

Personally, I believe nukes are the ultimate deterrent. It would be better if they didn't exist but since they do it should be accepted that many countries will acquire the technology. If we don't accept this fact, we will be condemned to an endless cycle of pre-emptive preventative wars from which there is a good chance of a slide into global conflict on religious lines, imo. Unfortunately, this appears to be the path that the US and Israel wish to follow.

Except for your unsupported claim, you have yet to show evidence that the Iranian leadership is suicidal. All you've shown is that they have a strong desire for self preservation.

I don't mean physical evidence but any observation you have made that would indicate the Iranians are determined to destroy themselves and their country.

See above, a very good place to start.

I have an open mind and if you can show me any evidence that this is the case I will change my mind. Can't do better than that. I'm offering you a free shot at the goal and if you score, I'll concede right here.

Lets start here.

Ahmadinejad is dangerous as it is, given his apparent disposition, as the president of the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism. But as the president of a nuclear armed nation, the situation could be untenable.

"Considering his aggressive radicalism in context with the potential convergence of nuclear opportunity, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be the most dangerous foreign leader we have faced. He must be seen and analyzed as more than just ‘potentially’ irrational, as his religious beliefs must be clearly and thoroughly understood. His openly stated desires to “wipe Israel off the map” and “pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam” open the possibility that, with the power of nuclear weaponry at hand, he could unthinkably forsake the well-being of his own nation. In order to serve a ‘greater purpose’, he may be capable of creating a situation so cataclysmic that it would usher in the 12th Imam, thereby, potentially in his mind, saving the world and restoring Islam."

http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2005/11/u...ng-ahmadinejad/

and here:

'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader

By Anton La Guardia

Last Updated: 12:33am GMT 15/01/2006

As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?"

Political analysts point to the fact that Iran feels strong because of high oil prices, while America has been weakened by the insurgency in Iraq.

But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad - recently described by President George W Bush as an "odd man" - and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html

btw, 'They hate us for our freedom' is banned. That goes for you too, Norman.

We're grown ups.

[Mark Stapleton]

Lets start here.

Ahmadinejad is dangerous as it is, given his apparent disposition, as the president of the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism. But as the president of a nuclear armed nation, the situation could be untenable.

"Considering his aggressive radicalism in context with the potential convergence of nuclear opportunity, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be the most dangerous foreign leader we have faced. He must be seen and analyzed as more than just ‘potentially’ irrational, as his religious beliefs must be clearly and thoroughly understood. His openly stated desires to “wipe Israel off the map” and “pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam” open the possibility that, with the power of nuclear weaponry at hand, he could unthinkably forsake the well-being of his own nation. In order to serve a ‘greater purpose’, he may be capable of creating a situation so cataclysmic that it would usher in the 12th Imam, thereby, potentially in his mind, saving the world and restoring Islam."

http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2005/11/u...ng-ahmadinejad/

and here:

'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader

By Anton La Guardia

Last Updated: 12:33am GMT 15/01/2006

As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?"

Political analysts point to the fact that Iran feels strong because of high oil prices, while America has been weakened by the insurgency in Iraq.

But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad - recently described by President George W Bush as an "odd man" - and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html

btw, 'They hate us for our freedom' is banned. That goes for you too, Norman.

We're grown ups.

Oh yeah.

Threatwatch is the net publication of an outfit called "Center for Threat Awareness". Apart from the brief bios of some of the Board of Threatwatch, which indicates it's just a shill for the pro-Israeli, war on terror (Islamic only) cheersquad, all I could find about the CTA was this:

http://threatswatch.org/cta/

Shy little fellows, they are. I wonder who funds the CTA.

[Evan Burton]

Craig,

I'd have to agree with Mark. There are shifting strength and weaknesses: ground forces, naval, armour, air, anti-air, C3I, etc and I am sure you are correct that Iran would hold a superiority in some of those areas. Overall, however, I don't think it could be considered to be the most power force in the region. Enough to pose a serious threat to any other force in the region, yes - but not the leader.

I think C&C is an area that greatly lets them down. The division between the regular and 'revolutionary' forces means that friendly forces might be unaware of each other.

[Craig Lamson]

Nice rant, Craig. I see you've even swallowed the Nazi Germany line as well. But it's not really a valid comparison is it. Germany in 1938 was the most powerful nation in Europe. Iran is not even the most powerful country in the Middle East. You've got to stop letting Norman Podhoretz write your posts.

Iran is the most powerful country in the middle east...can you name even one that comes close. How much more powerful will they be with nukes?

For heaven's sake, Craig, you don't have the vaguest idea what you're talking about.

Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East, not Iran.

The Wikipedia page on Israel's air force states that the Israeli Air Force "is considered the strongest air force in the Middle East and one of the best and most sophisticated in the world". It has over 1000 active aircraft including the latest variations of the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. It also boasts the Raphael Python 5 and Apache Longbow missiles, Stinger, Hawk, Patriot and Jericho 1/11/111 missile systems. The best and latest in American and Israeli air defence and missile technology. Moreover, The 2004 Center for Strategic and International Studies Report claims that, by contrast, the Iranian air forces are "well aged and in poor maintenance"

When it comes to ground forces, Israel wins again. The CSIS Report claims Israel has 4300 main battle tanks compared to Iran's 1565 and 9480 Armoured Personnel Carriers compared to Iran's 865. The report adds that Iran's ground forces are mostly older technology, with maybe one to three full divisions of modern equipment:

http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html#in-general

Israel has far superior military forces than Iran. Furthermore, Israel has nukes and Iran does not. Yet you say Iran is the most powerful country in the Middle East. Incredible.

I'll address the rest of your bizarre post shortly--when I stop laughing.

Yea..I knew you would bring up those evil Joo's...let ME stop laughing. Power consists of far more than military might. And right now IRAN has the power. They dominate the world stage RIGHT NOW. And they have the ability to control or disrupt the flow of oil from the Middle east...RIGHT NOW. Most powerful? You bet.

You crack me up Mark.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

I'd have to agree with Mark. There are shifting strength and weaknesses: ground forces, naval, armour, air, anti-air, C3I, etc and I am sure you are correct that Iran would hold a superiority in some of those areas. Overall, however, I don't think it could be considered to be the most power force in the region. Enough to pose a serious threat to any other force in the region, yes - but not the leader.

I think C&C is an area that greatly lets them down. The division between the regular and 'revolutionary' forces means that friendly forces might be unaware of each other.

Evan, you fell intio the same traap as MArk, thinking only of military might. We are talking th emost POWERFUL NATION and right now that power lies with IRAN. See my post to Mark.

[Craig Lamson]

I see. The old 12th Imam stuff. The Shia have a belief in the endtimes similar to the Christian belief in the rapture. Extremist Christian televangelist John Hagee from San Antonio wants America to bring it on fast. He advocates a nuke attack on Iran. Do you agree with him? Does he speak for all Christians? Is he suicidal? Do do you make a distinction between one extremist endtimes belief and the other?

I dont see a difference berween either side wanting to bring the endtimes here now, and the radical christian belief is every bit as dangerous as Irans. The difference is that currently it's Iran who might have the power to do it. As far as I can tell Rev. Hagee has no nukes nor is iin the process of building any. Can you say the same for Iran? I did'nt think so.

Given that Iran is RULED by hardline religious leaders, leaders with a desire to return the world to Muslim power and law, that makes them a pertty potent threat to the rest of the free world. Add in nukes, the backing of Russia and China....well you get the picture, or at least you should.

Now you say the Iranian leadership is suicidal yet in your last sentence you state that you believe the Iranians plan to win. This is totally contradictory. Planning to win indicates a desire for self preservation, not suicide. Acquisition of nuclear weapons also indicates a desire for self preservation rather than suicide. If the reverse is the case, then you obviously believe the US, France, Britain, Israel and other nuclear states are suicidal. You should emigrate--quick.

Of course they are suicidal. They think they can win a war with the United States. And lets add in the fact that suicide is a favored way to die in radical Islam. You are thinking like a westerner.

Now lets take this a step further try and project a bit. If we assume Iran tosses a few nukes around to clean a little house, what happens if they find a United States with a weak horse as a leader? Quite a few suicide bombers have hit their mark in the states and the population is stunned and inactive. No nukes get tossed back towards Iran. Israel is glowing now and can't respond. You think anyone in Europe is going to step in? Iran gets what it wants. Sound far fetched? I don't think so. I'm just hoping we don't sink this low.

This just might however be a perfect ending for you, given your past posts.

Of course, we know that if Iran had nukes they would be most unlikely to use them. Why? Well, in the 50 odd years they have been in existence, no one has ever used them, except your country when, comfortable in the knowledge that there would be no retaliation, they bombed away. Since the fifties, quite a few states have had the power to launch nuclear war but no-one has--not even Kim Jong-Il. Leaders share a common trait, regardless of whether they lead Iran, China, the US or North Korea, namely their lives are spent attaining power over others--a trait which indicates self preservation, not suicide. They love to send soldiers to fight conventional wars but none of them want nuclear war because the lives of themselves and their families would forfeited. Moreover, the damage Iran could cause its enemies would be dwarfed by the total destruction of Iran which would be caused by the massive retaliatory strike.

You are using western values again. We are not talking about a rational thought in Iran, but rather one driven by religious extremists. Extremists with a stated desire for world domination. Not even in your wildest anti American dreams coud you say the same about us or any of the rest of the nuke club. Once again your entire point is driven by ther being a massive counter attack on Iran if they lob a few nukes. That outcome is not the only possibility...see above.

Personally, I believe nukes are the ultimate deterrent. It would be better if they didn't exist but since they do it should be accepted that many countries will acquire the technology. If we don't accept this fact, we will be condemned to an endless cycle of pre-emptive preventative wars from which there is a good chance of a slide into global conflict on religious lines, imo. Unfortunately, this appears to be the path that the US and Israel wish to follow.

In the hands of resonable people I would agree with you. What about in the hands of unreasonable people? Therein lies the problem. And I hate to break it to you Mark, but we already are dealing with global conflict based on religion.......

Except for your unsupported claim, you have yet to show evidence that the Iranian leadership is suicidal. All you've shown is that they have a strong desire for self preservation.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Charles Drago]

We are not talking about a rational thought in Iran, but rather one driven by religious extremists. Extremists with a stated desire for world domination. Not even in your wildest anti American dreams coud you say the same about us or any of the rest of the nuke club.

They're not like us. They're not human. Sub-human, really.

I say we nuke the Godless Commie bas ... What? No more Commies? Sorry. Please insert the names of current bogeymen in appropriate places.

The Christian and Muslim extremists who allegedly "drive" Western and Middle Eastern combatants respectively are necessary diversions. Characters in a drama. An old drama with updated locations and accents. They are controlled. Totally.

We agree, however, that certain nuclear powers, including America, do not desire world domination.

Why yearn for something you already have?

[Guest David Guyatt]

Ze trooth iz zat vee yearn for vorld domination, then galactic domination und then stellar domination. Zere iz no end to our yearning. None. Nitch. Nein!

Heil Georgi!

Now zing you svine:

English Translation (literal)

Flag high, ranks closed,

The S.A. marches with silent solid steps.

Comrades shot by the red front and reaction

march in spirit with us in our ranks.

The street free for the brown battalions,

The street free for the Storm Troopers.

Millions, full of hope, look up at the swastika;

The day breaks for freedom and for bread.

For the last time the call will now be blown;

For the struggle now we all stand ready.

Soon will fly Hitler-flags over every street;

Slavery will last only a short time longer.

Flag high, ranks closed,

The S.A. marches with silent solid steps.

Comrades shot by the red front and reaction

march in spirit with us in our ranks.

The low-life Horst Wessel (b. September 9, 1907, Bielefeld, Germany -- d. February 23, 1930, Berlin, Germany) joined the Nazi party in in 1926. He was killed by political enemies (probably degenerate communists) in a fight in his filthy squalid rooms in Berlin. Glorified as a martyr to the Nazi cause, his song became the official Nazi anthem.

Back to The Escape Route of Martin Bormann

©Copyright 1997 Chuck Anesi all rights reserved

[Mark Stapleton]

Nice rant, Craig. I see you've even swallowed the Nazi Germany line as well. But it's not really a valid comparison is it. Germany in 1938 was the most powerful nation in Europe. Iran is not even the most powerful country in the Middle East. You've got to stop letting Norman Podhoretz write your posts.

Iran is the most powerful country in the middle east...can you name even one that comes close. How much more powerful will they be with nukes?

For heaven's sake, Craig, you don't have the vaguest idea what you're talking about.

Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East, not Iran.

The Wikipedia page on Israel's air force states that the Israeli Air Force "is considered the strongest air force in the Middle East and one of the best and most sophisticated in the world". It has over 1000 active aircraft including the latest variations of the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. It also boasts the Raphael Python 5 and Apache Longbow missiles, Stinger, Hawk, Patriot and Jericho 1/11/111 missile systems. The best and latest in American and Israeli air defence and missile technology. Moreover, The 2004 Center for Strategic and International Studies Report claims that, by contrast, the Iranian air forces are "well aged and in poor maintenance"

When it comes to ground forces, Israel wins again. The CSIS Report claims Israel has 4300 main battle tanks compared to Iran's 1565 and 9480 Armoured Personnel Carriers compared to Iran's 865. The report adds that Iran's ground forces are mostly older technology, with maybe one to three full divisions of modern equipment:

http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html#in-general

Israel has far superior military forces than Iran. Furthermore, Israel has nukes and Iran does not. Yet you say Iran is the most powerful country in the Middle East. Incredible.

I'll address the rest of your bizarre post shortly--when I stop laughing.

Yea..I knew you would bring up those evil Joo's...let ME stop laughing. Power consists of far more than military might. And right now IRAN has the power. They dominate the world stage RIGHT NOW. And they have the ability to control or disrupt the flow of oil from the Middle east...RIGHT NOW. Most powerful? You bet.

You crack me up Mark.

I've seen people try to shift the goalposts after the event, but this is ridiculous. You made the foolish claim that Iran is the most powerful country in the Middle East but now you wish to discount military might as a factor in your claim. I can empathise with your embarrasment--I've made a few wrong claims myself but then I try to correct my errors for the record.

If you wish to claim that Iran occupies a part of the Middle East which is strategically significant, I would agree. The Straits of Hormuz are the critical sea lanes for the transportation of Middle Eastern oil. This is one of the main reasons why attacking Iran would be so stupid and reckless, but the US and Israel don't seem to care about that. They seem determined to control the entire region, regardless of the consequences for the rest of the world. Thanks for reinforcing my argument.

I'm getting a bit tired of your baiting me with this line about 'evil Joos'. This discussion concerns Iran and its Middle Eastern neighbours, Israel included. Israel is the regional superpower, which I pointed out in response to your erroneous claim about Iran. Do I need your permission before I mention Israel by name? I thought you would have had more courage than to hide behind that pathetic little canard, but perhaps I was wrong.

Finally, you are right when you say that Iran dominates the world stage right now.

Who put them there?

[Charles Drago]

Mark,

The world stage ...

The boards upon which players tread, speaking their lines, making their exits and entrances until this strange, eventful history ends in ...

I won't spoil it for those among us who haven't seen the DVD.

Charles

[Craig Lamson]

Nice rant, Craig. I see you've even swallowed the Nazi Germany line as well. But it's not really a valid comparison is it. Germany in 1938 was the most powerful nation in Europe. Iran is not even the most powerful country in the Middle East. You've got to stop letting Norman Podhoretz write your posts.

Iran is the most powerful country in the middle east...can you name even one that comes close. How much more powerful will they be with nukes?

For heaven's sake, Craig, you don't have the vaguest idea what you're talking about.

Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East, not Iran.

The Wikipedia page on Israel's air force states that the Israeli Air Force "is considered the strongest air force in the Middle East and one of the best and most sophisticated in the world". It has over 1000 active aircraft including the latest variations of the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. It also boasts the Raphael Python 5 and Apache Longbow missiles, Stinger, Hawk, Patriot and Jericho 1/11/111 missile systems. The best and latest in American and Israeli air defence and missile technology. Moreover, The 2004 Center for Strategic and International Studies Report claims that, by contrast, the Iranian air forces are "well aged and in poor maintenance"

When it comes to ground forces, Israel wins again. The CSIS Report claims Israel has 4300 main battle tanks compared to Iran's 1565 and 9480 Armoured Personnel Carriers compared to Iran's 865. The report adds that Iran's ground forces are mostly older technology, with maybe one to three full divisions of modern equipment:

http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html#in-general

Israel has far superior military forces than Iran. Furthermore, Israel has nukes and Iran does not. Yet you say Iran is the most powerful country in the Middle East. Incredible.

I'll address the rest of your bizarre post shortly--when I stop laughing.

Yea..I knew you would bring up those evil Joo's...let ME stop laughing. Power consists of far more than military might. And right now IRAN has the power. They dominate the world stage RIGHT NOW. And they have the ability to control or disrupt the flow of oil from the Middle east...RIGHT NOW. Most powerful? You bet.

You crack me up Mark.

I've seen people try to shift the goalposts after the event, but this is ridiculous. You made the foolish claim that Iran is the most powerful country in the Middle East but now you wish to discount military might as a factor in your claim. I can empathise with your embarrasment--I've made a few wrong claims myself but then I try to correct my errors for the record.

I've shifted nothing, and I'm not discounting the military one bit, but I am however including political POSITION into the mix which was totally LACKING in your analysis. I can understand why, given your hatred of Israel, but your analyisi was flawed ..period. In the current political climate in the Middle East the most powerful nation is IRAN.

If you wish to claim that Iran occupies a part of the Middle East which is strategically significant, I would agree. The Straits of Hormuz are the critical sea lanes for the transportation of Middle Eastern oil. This is one of the main reasons why attacking Iran would be so stupid and reckless, but the US and Israel don't seem to care about that. They seem determined to control the entire region, regardless of the consequences for the rest of the world. Thanks for reinforcing my argument.

Talk about argument shifting! Dude, unless the Straits of Hormuz are kept free, the rest of the world is in a world of hurt. Iran controls what happens in the Straits of Hormuz...thanks for reinforcing MY argument about the POWER OF IRAN! LOL!

I'm getting a bit tired of your baiting me with this line about 'evil Joos'. This discussion concerns Iran and its Middle Eastern neighbours, Israel included. Israel is the regional superpower, which I pointed out in response to your erroneous claim about Iran. Do I need your permission before I mention Israel by name? I thought you would have had more courage than to hide behind that pathetic little canard, but perhaps I was wrong.

Mark you get back what to put out and your hatred for the evil Jooos is quite evident. You don't like it?..tough. Post wahtever you like, just don't bitch when you are called on it.

Finally, you are right when you say that Iran dominates the world stage right now.

Who put them there?

THEY DID!

Edited October 29, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Mark Stapleton]

I see. The old 12th Imam stuff. The Shia have a belief in the endtimes similar to the Christian belief in the rapture. Extremist Christian televangelist John Hagee from San Antonio wants America to bring it on fast. He advocates a nuke attack on Iran. Do you agree with him? Does he speak for all Christians? Is he suicidal? Do do you make a distinction between one extremist endtimes belief and the other?

I dont see a difference berween either side wanting to bring the endtimes here now, and the radical christian belief is every bit as dangerous as Irans. The difference is that currently it's Iran who might have the power to do it. As far as I can tell Rev. Hagee has no nukes nor is iin the process of building any. Can you say the same for Iran? I did'nt think so.

George Bush has control of over 10,000 nukes and he's the most radically Christian President I've ever seen. Isn't he a friend of Hagee's? And Pat Robertson, for that matter.

Given that Iran is RULED by hardline religious leaders, leaders with a desire to return the world to Muslim power and law, that makes them a pertty potent threat to the rest of the free world. Add in nukes, the backing of Russia and China....well you get the picture, or at least you should.

And the US is ruled by a radical hardline religious leader. As for the backing of Russia and China, it's not a matter of those countries clamoring for war, it's quite the opposite--they are trying to stop an out of control regime from starting yet another war. You're the one not getting the picture. The rest of the world is.

Now you say the Iranian leadership is suicidal yet in your last sentence you state that you believe the Iranians plan to win. This is totally contradictory. Planning to win indicates a desire for self preservation, not suicide. Acquisition of nuclear weapons also indicates a desire for self preservation rather than suicide. If the reverse is the case, then you obviously believe the US, France, Britain, Israel and other nuclear states are suicidal. You should emigrate--quick.

Of course they are suicidal. They think they can win a war with the United States. And lets add in the fact that suicide is a favored way to die in radical Islam. You are thinking like a westerner.

Iran does not wish to declare war on the United States, as far as I know. If you have special insight into their thinking, rather than just more neocon babble, I'm keen to hear it.

And as I've pointed out before, while suicide bombers have been utilized by radical Islam, the leaders of Islam do not sacrifice themselves, do they? They persuade the disillusioned to blow themselves up for the cause, with promises of eternal heaven. The mullahs themselves do not volunteer for this. They are not suicidal. You're confusing the two issues. The employment of suicide bombers in Iraq is one of the main reasons the corporate takeover of that country failed. Radical Islam has discovered the tactical advantage enjoyed by those who are willing to sacrifice themselves. You have the US and Israel to thank for this.

You're thinking like someone who has been brainwashed by the "Center for Threat Awareness".

Now lets take this a step further try and project a bit. If we assume Iran tosses a few nukes around to clean a little house, what happens if they find a United States with a weak horse as a leader? Quite a few suicide bombers have hit their mark in the states and the population is stunned and inactive. No nukes get tossed back towards Iran. Israel is glowing now and can't respond. You think anyone in Europe is going to step in? Iran gets what it wants. Sound far fetched? I don't think so. I'm just hoping we don't sink this low.

There's no such thing as 'tossing a few nukes around to clean a little house'. It's mass suicide. Regardless of who leads America. there's no way a nuclear attack on the US can be carried out without retaliation on a scale unprecedented. You forget that US missiles can be launched from the ground, the air and the sea (via America's nuclear ships and submarines). The notion that Iran could launch such a war and escape a response is comic book stuff. Your scenario is ridiculous.

This just might however be a perfect ending for you, given your past posts.

Of course, we know that if Iran had nukes they would be most unlikely to use them. Why? Well, in the 50 odd years they have been in existence, no one has ever used them, except your country when, comfortable in the knowledge that there would be no retaliation, they bombed away. Since the fifties, quite a few states have had the power to launch nuclear war but no-one has--not even Kim Jong-Il. Leaders share a common trait, regardless of whether they lead Iran, China, the US or North Korea, namely their lives are spent attaining power over others--a trait which indicates self preservation, not suicide. They love to send soldiers to fight conventional wars but none of them want nuclear war because the lives of themselves and their families would forfeited. Moreover, the damage Iran could cause its enemies would be dwarfed by the total destruction of Iran which would be caused by the massive retaliatory strike.

You are using western values again. We are not talking about a rational thought in Iran, but rather one driven by religious extremists. Extremists with a stated desire for world domination. Not even in your wildest anti American dreams coud you say the same about us or any of the rest of the nuke club. Once again your entire point is driven by ther being a massive counter attack on Iran if they lob a few nukes. That outcome is not the only possibility...see above.

If any country is hellbent on world domination, it is the US. The empirical evidence is clear. The US, via the CIA, sponsored the coup which overthrew Mossadegh and installed the Shah in 1953. Has Iran ever dared do the same to the US? The US is currently fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and spending 3/4 of a trillion dollars annually on defence, despite the fact it faces no immediate and forseeable threat. The US plans to build a missile shield in Eastern Europe, despite Russian protests. The US interferes in the domestic affairs of other nations and often resorts to economic and military threats to achieve its ends. I could go on. How does Iran compare with the US on this? Apart from the inflammatory rhetoric# which Iran sometimes uses, their record of military intervention in other states pales when compared to that of the US.

You're being spoon fed the hawkish neocon agenda and you're too naive to realise it.

# speaking of inflammatory rhetoric, Ahmadinejad's infamous comment about wiping Israel off the map is a misquotation which was brazenly manipulated by those trying to paint him as a warmonger. Sid Walker analysed the issue in post #18 of this thread.

Personally, I believe nukes are the ultimate deterrent. It would be better if they didn't exist but since they do it should be accepted that many countries will acquire the technology. If we don't accept this fact, we will be condemned to an endless cycle of pre-emptive preventative wars from which there is a good chance of a slide into global conflict on religious lines, imo. Unfortunately, this appears to be the path that the US and Israel wish to follow.

In the hands of resonable people I would agree with you. What about in the hands of unreasonable people? Therein lies the problem. And I hate to break it to you Mark, but we already are dealing with global conflict based on religion.......

Except for your unsupported claim, you have yet to show evidence that the Iranian leadership is suicidal. All you've shown is that they have a strong desire for self preservation.

My replies are underlined

Edited October 29, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Charles Drago]

Ladies and gentile men, put your hands together and give a warm Tel Aviv welcome to ...

Aunti Semite!

Let all who peruse these cyberpages take note that the alleged Mr. Lamson is playing the oldest, tiredest, most transparent trick in the book.

To wit: Scream ANTI-SEMITE! whenever truth, logic, common sense, and common decency cannot be found on your side of the playground.

Is this the best that the enemies of justice have to offer?

Folks, we're in better shape than we think.

So in the spirit of fair play I'll ask you to join me in leveling the playing field by singing one of Mel Brook's greatest hits ...

Pick up some rags

and stuff them in your shoes,

it's the anti-Semitic Polka

Carlos the Joker

[Mark Stapleton]

Nice rant, Craig. I see you've even swallowed the Nazi Germany line as well. But it's not really a valid comparison is it. Germany in 1938 was the most powerful nation in Europe. Iran is not even the most powerful country in the Middle East. You've got to stop letting Norman Podhoretz write your posts.

Iran is the most powerful country in the middle east...can you name even one that comes close. How much more powerful will they be with nukes?

For heaven's sake, Craig, you don't have the vaguest idea what you're talking about.

Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East, not Iran.

The Wikipedia page on Israel's air force states that the Israeli Air Force "is considered the strongest air force in the Middle East and one of the best and most sophisticated in the world". It has over 1000 active aircraft including the latest variations of the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. It also boasts the Raphael Python 5 and Apache Longbow missiles, Stinger, Hawk, Patriot and Jericho 1/11/111 missile systems. The best and latest in American and Israeli air defence and missile technology. Moreover, The 2004 Center for Strategic and International Studies Report claims that, by contrast, the Iranian air forces are "well aged and in poor maintenance"

When it comes to ground forces, Israel wins again. The CSIS Report claims Israel has 4300 main battle tanks compared to Iran's 1565 and 9480 Armoured Personnel Carriers compared to Iran's 865. The report adds that Iran's ground forces are mostly older technology, with maybe one to three full divisions of modern equipment:

http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html#in-general

Israel has far superior military forces than Iran. Furthermore, Israel has nukes and Iran does not. Yet you say Iran is the most powerful country in the Middle East. Incredible.

I'll address the rest of your bizarre post shortly--when I stop laughing.

Yea..I knew you would bring up those evil Joo's...let ME stop laughing. Power consists of far more than military might. And right now IRAN has the power. They dominate the world stage RIGHT NOW. And they have the ability to control or disrupt the flow of oil from the Middle east...RIGHT NOW. Most powerful? You bet.

You crack me up Mark.

I've seen people try to shift the goalposts after the event, but this is ridiculous. You made the foolish claim that Iran is the most powerful country in the Middle East but now you wish to discount military might as a factor in your claim. I can empathise with your embarrasment--I've made a few wrong claims myself but then I try to correct my errors for the record.

I've shifted nothing, and I'm not discounting the military one bit, but I am however including political POSITION into the mix which was totally LACKING in your analysis. I can understand why, given your hatred of Israel, but your analyisi was flawed ..period. In the current political climate in the Middle East the most powerful nation is IRAN.

If you wish to claim that Iran occupies a part of the Middle East which is strategically significant, I would agree. The Straits of Hormuz are the critical sea lanes for the transportation of Middle Eastern oil. This is one of the main reasons why attacking Iran would be so stupid and reckless, but the US and Israel don't seem to care about that. They seem determined to control the entire region, regardless of the consequences for the rest of the world. Thanks for reinforcing my argument.

Talk about argument shifting! Dude, unless the Straits of Hormuz are kept free, the rest of the world is in a world of hurt. Iran controls what happens in the Straits of Hormuz...thanks for reinforcing MY argument about the POWER OF IRAN! LOL!

I'm getting a bit tired of your baiting me with this line about 'evil Joos'. This discussion concerns Iran and its Middle Eastern neighbours, Israel included. Israel is the regional superpower, which I pointed out in response to your erroneous claim about Iran. Do I need your permission before I mention Israel by name? I thought you would have had more courage than to hide behind that pathetic little canard, but perhaps I was wrong.

Mark you get back what to put out and your hatred for the evil Jooos is quite evident. You don't like it?..tough. Post wahtever you like, just don't bitch when you are called on it.

Finally, you are right when you say that Iran dominates the world stage right now.

Who put them there?

THEY DID!

Bloody hell, this guy's lost his mind.

Edited October 30, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Charles Drago]

What's next? His virginity?