US Iran Isreal Hezbollah Circle

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Has Hezbolah made this claim?

I'm not aware if that is their official position, it probably is, but the initial media reports were that the soldiers were captured inside lebanese territory, only later to be altered.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publ...cle_1107.shtml

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Wow, that's quite the scenario. A thousand monkey-Ian Flemings typing on a thousand typewriters couldn't come up with that one in a thousand years.

Whereas sarcasm is something any moron can spew.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Whereas sarcasm is something any moron can spew.

Yeah, I guess.

On the other hand, it takes a pretty clever person to suggest that a nuclear armed Iranian navy will be sailing the seven seas in the near future, nuking American cities from international waters and only getting invaded for their trouble.

[Flames in 07]

6 Years ago if I were to tell you that terrorists were going to crash planes into the towers, the pentagon and possibly the white house, would you have said the same thing?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

6 Years ago if I were to tell you that terrorists were going to crash planes into the towers, the pentagon and possibly the white house, would you have said the same thing?

I wouldn't have, but then, I'd read a book by tom clancy where essentially the same thing happened.

I think you'd have to be somewhat crazy to think that the US wouldn't have a nuclear response to a nuclear attack on their soil. Hell, they wanted to use artillery fired tactical nukes in afghanistan.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I wouldn't have, but then, I'd read a book by tom clancy where essentially the same thing happened.

I think you'd have to be somewhat crazy to think that the US wouldn't have a nuclear response to a nuclear attack on their soil. Hell, they wanted to use artillery fired tactical nukes in afghanistan.

Of course they would respond. Iran would be a smoking pit in the ground if they attacked the US mainland. Doesn't mean this all won't go down.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

Of course they would respond. Iran would be a smoking pit in the ground if they attacked the US mainland. Doesn't mean this all won't go down.

Also true.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Of course they would respond. Iran would be a smoking pit in the ground if they attacked the US mainland. Doesn't mean this all won't go down.

This seems obvious... so why are people afraid Iran will do it? Isn't it automatic suicide?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

This seems obvious... so why are people afraid Iran will do it? Isn't it automatic suicide?

Of course it's obvious. My personal opinion is that yeah, I agree with you. Nutcase leaders are one thing, cautious and self interested bureaucrats are another. Most often what the leader wants is quietly shuffled aside.

However, what I fear from Iran is that the theocratic totalitarianism that has been stewing there since 1979 is as serious as some are saying. I think then it's very possible Iran will go through with an attack on Israel.

Nobody believed Hitler would do it and he did, the same could happen here.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

6 Years ago if I were to tell you that terrorists were going to crash planes into the towers, the pentagon and possibly the white house, would you have said the same thing?

Maybe. But I would have thought it a hell of a lot more likely than a nuclear attack on American cities launched from Iranian boats in international waters. I mean come on, they don't even have nuclear capabilities yet but now the worry is that they are going to get them, develop all the systems to deliver them and whatnot, put them on a boat, go for a cruise and fire away?

It's ridiculous. If they are so antsy to do something like that, why don't they just fire them from the ground? It's gotta be easier and the response will be exactly the same.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

Of course it's obvious. My personal opinion is that yeah, I agree with you. Nutcase leaders are one thing, cautious and self interested bureaucrats are another. Most often what the leader wants is quietly shuffled aside.

However, what I fear from Iran is that the theocratic totalitarianism that has been stewing there since 1979 is as serious as some are saying. I think then it's very possible Iran will go through with an attack on Israel.

Nobody believed Hitler would do it and he did, the same could happen here.

It's a little early in the game for Hitler comparisons. They haven't even finished the trial for the last "next Hitler". Show the man a little respect and at least wait 'til the Iraqis hang him before you go and give his nickname to someone else.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

6 Years ago if I were to tell you that terrorists were going to crash planes into the towers, the pentagon and possibly the white house, would you have said the same thing?

The WTC... yes. It wasn't the first time the WTC was targeted by terrorists, so it really wasn't a shock when it was attacked on Sept. 11th. The method was unconventional, but the idea of flying planes into buildings was not an original one.

I would have been mildly surpised about the Pentagon though.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Maybe you should broaden your sources? Sometimes the things leaders say (especially about WMD's) don't quite reflect reality... we've witnessed it before.

Leaders are the ones who will make the final decision.

You think the President of Iran is talking careless, or even bluffing?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, I guess.

On the other hand, it takes a pretty clever person to suggest that a nuclear armed Iranian navy will be sailing the seven seas in the near future, nuking American cities from international waters and only getting invaded for their trouble.

Who said anything about a navy? How about just some cargo ships with some of their rocket launchers on board?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Who said anything about a navy? How about just some cargo ships with some of their rocket launchers on board?

Rocket launchers on cargo ships? Come on now.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Rocket launchers on cargo ships? Come on now.

Sailed by 10000 monkey typists!

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

6 Years ago if I were to tell you that terrorists were going to crash planes into the towers, the pentagon and possibly the white house, would you have said the same thing?

Don't forget, the Columbine kids wrote that in their diary too...sadly, I remember talking about that 2 months before Sept.11 with some friends over drinks (that if they managed to pull that off, what a disaster it would have been...)...

Sadly, two months later I woke up, turned on CNN and saw it actually happening before my eyes...

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Leaders are the ones who will make the final decision.

You think the President of Iran is talking careless, or even bluffing?

Do you think he's the one really in power? He's not.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Do you think he's the one really in power? He's not.

I realize that.....

Does that mean we ignore what the President is saying? Or does he not represent some form of leadership? My search said he had the most power, 'after' the Supreme leader.

[blankall]

People are mising a much bigger threat Iran poses. Iran also has a tendency to fund militant groups outside of it's own borders. What happens if one of these groups gains nuclear capabilities? How do you fight them?