Ahmadinejad at Columbia University

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You seriously expect Iran to "wipe Israel off the map"? It's all pandering, they would never attempt it, especially violently.

They would never attempt it because Israel would retaliate with 10 times the nuclear power as soon as Iran had a missile in the air.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by badnarik

i realize that, i was responding to locke's post

i dont think iran will have a button for a long time even if they arent attacked

Ha. Fair enough.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Locke

Um yeah, somebody should get this guy's hand away from the big red button.

Its good to see that at the very least he established the fact that Iranian Ambassadors are raving, propaganda slinging lunatics.

Thats a big step to get out of the way.

There is no button.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Azure

They would never attempt it because Israel would retaliate with 10 times the nuclear power as soon as Iran had a missile in the air.

Absolutely. You can have a covert nuclear weapons program, but a flying missile brings it all out in the open. Israel would obliterate Iran with the amount of nukes they have stored, even if Iran lobbed the first nuke.

[Ayrahb]

If any country uses nukes as a first strike, it will be Israel because they know they could get away with it. Although, that could provoke Russia or China, proving that the nutjob Armageddon evangelists were right all along.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Ayrahb

If any country uses nukes as a first strike, it will be Israel because they know they could get away with it. Although, that could provoke Russia or China, proving that the nutjob Armageddon evangelists were right all along.

Has to be a record. Enough conspiracy theorism and anti-Israeli psychosis to fill a book..... in 2 sentences!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ayrahb

If any country uses nukes as a first strike, it will be Israel because they know they could get away with it. Although, that could provoke Russia or China, proving that the nutjob Armageddon evangelists were right all along.

Bad analysis, Isreal has had more then ample reasons to use Nukes before, Its assumed that they had nuclear weapons as far back as 1968, In 1973 in the Yom Kippur war the Israeli armed forces were beaten back by Egyptian and Syrian armor during the first days of the war and the logical course of action would have been the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the combined Arab armored columns, but Israel abstained.

Out of the governments in place in the middle east, Israel's is probably the most rational in terms of the use of weapon's of mass destruction. Out of all the middle east nations, Libya used chemical munitions against Chad in 87, Iran against Iraq, Iraq against Iran, Egypt against Yemon from 1963-1967, Israel has never deployed chemical, nuclear or biological weapons even though it has been in a state of war since its inception.

As far as the statement that they could get away with it, I don't think I understand what your getting at, are you talking from a retaliation standpoint? Because they certainly wouldn't get away with it as most of the Arab nations have vast stocks of advanced chemical weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems. Or are you talking about international law, because the UN certainly hasn't been a friend to Israel over the later half of the 20th century.

Its unlikely that Russia or China would care enough to get involved in a nuclear exchange in the middle east because the U.S. would almost certainly get involved in that conflict and their treaty agreements with Israel is similar to the NATO treaty in that the use of weapons of mass destruction on Israeli soil is like an attack on the U.S. itself, and the Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenal does not even come close to the total yield and accuracy and overkill in the U.S. arsenal.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

the Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenal does not even come close to the total yield and accuracy and overkill in the U.S. arsenal.

Does it really need to? Seems to me after a couple of exchanges, it really doesn't matter...we're all screwed.

[Table 5]

btw, I also tend to agree with the notion that the Bollinger's intro was in poor taste. I think it somewhat goes along with the notion of why people get angry with the US...it's not always what is said, but how and when. When you invite someone over to your house, you dont greet them at the door with a big hearty f you. You can tell them that on the way out.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Bad analysis, Isreal has had more then ample reasons to use Nukes before, Its assumed that they had nuclear weapons as far back as 1968, In 1973 in the Yom Kippur war the Israeli armed forces were beaten back by Egyptian and Syrian armor during the first days of the war and the logical course of action would have been the use of tactical nuclear weapons against the combined Arab armored columns, but Israel abstained.

Have you read the Sum of all Fear by Tom Clancy

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by Table 5

btw, I also tend to agree with the notion that the Bollinger's intro was in poor taste. I think it somewhat goes along with the notion of why people get angry with the US...it's not always what is said, but how and when. When you invite someone over to your house, you dont greet them at the door with a big hearty f you. You can tell them that on the way out.

Did anyone see the 60 Minutes interview with Ahmadinejad?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...jad-plays-coy/

I don't know how much they show in that clip, but it was an awful
interview, if you can even call it that. Throw out some rhetoric and see
if he responds is more like it.

It started off with basically, "Why are you such an evil, evil ?"
and, "Why are you seeking to go to war with us?" Then got worse from
there.

An example pointed out in the article, "What do you admire about Bush?"

It was all tailored to setup war with Iran. The question I have is,
why aren't US leaders (Bush, Cheney, et al.) being asked the same
questions? After all, they are the ones that invaded and began a war.

ers

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by lchoy

Have you read the Sum of all Fear by Tom Clancy

The start of that book is based on theory that Israel's armed forces was in dissarray during the first days of that war and that they considered using a nuclear bomb to disrupt the Syrian and Egyptian advances.

I like Clancey, but I don't use his Jack Ryan books to argue facts.

[ericschand]

If you didn't see the 60 Minutes interview, here you go:
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle18452.htm

It also has a transcript if you can't watch the video.

ers

[LChoy]

Haha I kid about the Tom Clancy thing. It's too bad that the books stop being good after Rainbow 6. But I digress
I wouldn't use Fiction to argue a point either

I agree though on Israel has good restraints on the use of WMDs. However, they have the most technological advances military in the region. They almost don’t need to use them to end most conflicts. The other thing is that even though they won’t start tossing WMDs around; Israel has always been gruelingly respected by Western Intelligence agencies in that they get business done, and often with bloody efficiency. With Jericho teams (specialized Mossad direct action units that operate outside of Israel) and other tools of their military intelligence wing, it wouldn’t surprise me if they felt the world community wasn’t acting fast enough, and they go take care of the issue themselves.

Reminded of a story. In the 80’s when Qaddafi (sp?) was annoying Israel, Israeli special project division came up with a guided missile that could seek out a particular colour. The theory was that Qaddafi always wore a military uniform that was a distinctly different shade of tan than the rest of his officers and the hue of the desert. They assembled an action team to use it on him. Unfortunately, the device malfunctioned and exploded, seriously injuring the team, and the project was scrapped.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by ericschand

Did anyone see the 60 Minutes interview with Ahmadinejad?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...jad-plays-coy/

I don't know how much they show in that clip, but it was an awful
interview, if you can even call it that. Throw out some rhetoric and see
if he responds is more like it.

It started off with basically, "Why are you such an evil, evil ?"
and, "Why are you seeking to go to war with us?" Then got worse from
there.

An example pointed out in the article, "What do you admire about Bush?"

It was all tailored to setup war with Iran. The question I have is,
why aren't US leaders (Bush, Cheney, et al.) being asked the same
questions? After all, they are the ones that invaded and began a war.

ers

Yeah, that was pretty pathetic. That interview reminded me of something they would have put some Iraqi functionary through a few years ago

"Why does Saddam continue to stockpile these weapons of mass destruction and why is he so intent on destroying us..."

They can't be dumb enough to fall for this again though. Can they?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ayrahb

If any country uses nukes as a first strike, it will be Israel because they know they could get away with it. Although, that could provoke Russia or China, proving that the nutjob Armageddon evangelists were right all along.

Right.

How many conflicts has Israel been in where they could have used nukes?

Thought so.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Does it really need to? Seems to me after a couple of exchanges, it really doesn't matter...we're all screwed.

All of us?

How many nuclear explosions have taken place in the Mojave Desert?

How many of us died from them?

Would a direct hit on NYC affect us in Alberta?

Or a direct hit on California affect y'all in NYC?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Azure

Would a direct hit on NYC affect us in Alberta?

You really don't think if NYC and Washington suddenly dissapeared through nuclear strike, you wouldn't feel the consequences in Canada?

9/11, among other things, should have shown you that certain pin-point events can have great ripple events on the entire world. Being "screwed" is not just about dying from radiation.

[octothorp]

Even if Iran had nuclear weapons, (and I don`t think they`re in the process of pursuing such weapons), they`d never use them in a strike against Israel. Their interest in Israel is more about supporting the Palestinian`s claims to the region, and a successful nuclear strike would not only kill a large number of Palestinians living in Israel, it would also make the land unliveable (to say nothing of the decimating counterstrike that Iran would receive). Such an attack would be completely counter-productive to their goals in the region. That said, I don`t think Israel is really a threat to initiate a nuclear strike, either. Nuclear strikes gain them nothing and they are, much like Iran, a pacifist country at heart. They want resolution of the Palestine issue as much as anyone.

[Burninator]

Don't forget about a possible nuclear winter.