Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US, Britain planning to attack Iran

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    I wouldnt trust either and Israel dosnt have much regard for international law. They have the means and motive to have nuclear weapons, $16bn per annum on defense. They either have or have access to nuclear weapons at very short notice, I have no doubt abiut this.


  • Options
    #63
    Wertz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,909 ✭✭✭✭Wertz


    RobitTV wrote: »
    Israel does not have nuclear weapons

    It has ballistic missiles which has a capability to CARRY nuclear bombs inside.

    But israel does not contain actual Nuclear bombs

    I have bullets. Oh and I have a gun. At no time have I ever put the bullets in the gun, although I'm familiar with the procedure, and am therefore no threat to anyone, at the present time.

    In 1994, against the terms of international treaties, Israel finally acquired super computers with the processing power required to design and test optimised plutonium cores that could be housed in long range ballistic missiles. I'm sure they have simply used that processing power to fold at home for the last 15 yrs, eh?
    Vanunu's revelations about their programme in the 80's shows they were more advanced then than even the CIA were aware of and if anything their clandestine methods have become more so in modern times...
    They are however not foolish enough to advertise their capability by announcing it to the world.


  • Options
    #64
    headmaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 687 ✭✭✭headmaster


    alphanine wrote: »
    Best post I've read in a long time



    alphanine,
    it's a shame you don't read more often.


  • Options
    #65
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    Did they announce this to coincide with the release of Battlefield 3?


  • Options
    #66
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    RobitTV wrote: »
    Israel does not have nuclear weapons

    It has ballistic missiles which has a capability to CARRY nuclear bombs inside.

    But israel does not contain actual Nuclear bombs

    Of course they do. It has been confirm by numerous sources that they have nuclear weapons.

    To be honest though, I wouldn't blame them. I mean Israel is a small strip of land surrounded by belligerent Arab states who would gladly like to see it wiped off the face of the map. Given the shear size of opposition that surrounds them, they short of need nuclear weapons to balance things out and give other states a reason not to invade them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    df1985 wrote: »
    as much as i wouldnt want Iran with nuclear weapons, are they not perfectly entitled to have them if they want them?

    who sets the rules that the US,UK etc can have them but Iran cant?

    Wheres this list of countries than can have them and those that cant?

    Personally, I wouldn't trust Iran with nuclear weapons, in the same way I wouldn't trust North Korea with nuclear weapons.

    Having nuclear weapons is a very big deal, they can be used as a political tool and a weapon of mass murder.

    If the UK and US feel that Iran having nuclear weapons jurpardise their interests in the Middle East, they will do everything in their power to prevent them from having nuclear weapons. Of course the US & UK are wrong in this venture and potentially breaking international law, I can still understand their position.

    If the US had the chance to stop the USSR's nuclear weapons programme before 1949, they would have done so.


  • Options
    #68
    Batsy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭Batsy


    Ruire wrote: »
    "We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.bookextracts


    I wouldn't believe everything you read in The Guardian.

    For it to say that Israel is pointing nukes at every European capital is absolutely absurd and only something a simpleton would believe in.

    The Israeli Air Force doesn't even have strategic bombers which can deliver nuclear weapons over long range.


  • Options
    #69
    ItsAWindUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,325 ✭✭✭ItsAWindUp


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    Personally, I wouldn't trust Iran with nuclear weapons, in the same way I wouldn't trust North Korea with nuclear weapons.

    Having nuclear weapons is a very big deal, they can be used as a political tool and a weapon of mass murder.

    If the UK and US feel that Iran having nuclear weapons jurpardise their interests in the Middle East, they will do everything in their power to prevent them from having nuclear weapons. Of course the US & UK are wrong in this venture and potentially breaking international law, I can still understand their position.

    If the US had the chance to stop the USSR's nuclear weapons programme before 1949, they would have done so.

    Very true, but the only nation to ever do so was the USA. Seems a bit strange for them of all people to turn around and tell another nation they can't have them.


  • Options
    #70
    ItsAWindUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,325 ✭✭✭ItsAWindUp


    Batsy wrote: »
    I wouldn't believe everything you read in The Guardian.

    For it to say that Israel is pointing nukes at every European capital is absolutely absurd and only something a simpleton would believe in.

    Only a simpleton could possibly interpret the article as that.


  • Options
    #71
    niallers1
    Registered Users Posts: 799 ✭✭✭niallers1


    Everybody knows that all those oil producing countries are evil..It's for their own good that the USA liberate them from the oil producing axis of evil.

    And anyway, the troops are out in that general direction so makes sence to keep them busy..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Fishooks12 wrote: »
    Never heard of that paper but The Guardian is top quality unlike that rag the Daily Mail

    Don't see how you find it odd that people question it when the paper has a track record of lying

    Both worthless pieces of crap, dedicated to a single angle on nearly every issue, terrified of inttroducing any complexity and challenging their readers with any views that does not fit their political purview. As usual bboth are considered "good" by those that share the same prejudices/ axes to grind as the editors. You people really should start reading grown up news scources. Try The Economist, NYTs and various others. The difference in quality is night and day once you read both.

    Although in fairness to the Guardian they do not "lie" as such, and do some good investigative reporting. Still a rag.


  • Options
    #73
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    ItsAWindUp wrote: »
    Very true, but the only nation to ever do so was the USA. Seems a bit strange for them of all people to turn around and tell another nation they can't have them.

    I don't think it's strange at all. The US & UK are just protecting their own interests in the Middle East. Of course the US & UK have no right to tell others if they should or should not have nuclear weapons, however it doesn't mean that they won't tell them they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. If a country is developing nukes and that country is odds with the likes of the US, fair game, civil discourse and international diplomacy are thrown out the window.

    Also, the West doesn't want another arms race to begin in the Middle East between Israel and Iran, that in itself is bound to end in disaster and put millions of lives at risk. The arms race between NATO and the USSR could have easily ended up in a global disaster. The world, during the Cold War, was relying too much on the MAD doctrine to ensure stability. IMHO, the US & UK should act now while the ball is still in their court, they should jump to it before it's too late.

    Of course, there's always the possibility that Iran isn't actually developing nuclear weapons, and these announcement are just part of some political stunt or they're relying on bad intelligence.


  • Options
    #74
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    It'll be a longer haul than Iraq, because the Iranians haven't been stripped of all of their weapons.

    What? Iraq had the third largest army in the world come the invasion, and was incredibly well equiped with, mostly with Soveit weaponry. It was "stripped of its weapons" the hard way, it was defeated militarily.


  • Options
    #75
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    df1985 wrote: »
    as much as i wouldnt want Iran with nuclear weapons, are they not perfectly entitled to have them if they want them?

    who sets the rules that the US,UK etc can have them but Iran cant?

    Wheres this list of countries than can have them and those that cant?

    The UN. It was one of the first treaties signed. It's the NPT, which Iran signed.

    If anyone thinks it would be a "good thing" for a theocracy to have the most powerful weapons known to man in the most volatile region on earth because its "just not FAIR otherwise" they really got to stop treating international relations like its a game of tip tip the can or something. It is not a good, solid argument in any sense.

    It seems to me alot of peoples arguments in favour of Iran gaining a nuclear weapon (a hideous idea to begin with) boils down to "I dont like the US policies, the US used a nuclear weapon so everyone should be allowed one or two or the West does not go after everyone equally for looking for them, so they should not be allowed to look after their own safety in any circumstance" all very clearly intellectually void, politically childish, historically ignorant and complelty fails to deal with the real issues and real concerns of those involved.

    To the point of the thread, not likely to happen any time soon, since the Green movement in Iran began the US has backed of significantly and has reigned in Saudi Arabia and Israel repeatedly (see wikileaks documents). It knows any problems created will no doubt be its alone to deal with and the best way to rally people around a despotic government is to attack it.


  • Options
    #76
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    I don't think it's strange at all. Thee US & UK are just protecting their own interests in the Middle East. Of course the US & UK have no right to tell others if they should or should not have nuclear weapons, but it doesn't mean that they won't tell them they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. If a country is developing nukes and that country is odds with the likes of the US, fair game and international diplomacy is thrown out the window.

    Also, the West doesn't want another arms race to begin in the Middle East between Israel and Iran, that in itself is bound to end in disaster risk even more lives. IMHO, if the US & UK still has the chance to take the ball out of Iran court, they should jump to it before it's too late.

    Of course, there's always the possibility that Iran isn't actually developing nuclear weapons, and these announcement just all part of some political stunt or they're relying on bad intelligence.



    Not just Israel, but Sadui Arabia, Bahrain and farious other groups relgiously and racially opposed to Iran. It is not coincedence they have both declared they are seeking civilian nuclear energy recently.

    Iran nearly every week claims to have foiled some "zionist plot" or warns of "US aggression", its nothing new. It's why Iran is one of the bells of the Conspiracy theory Ball. Iran is almost certainly seeking at least the cpability to create a nuclear weapon, in the last year that has moved from speculation to near fact from the various findings of NPT insepctors and what has been hidden from them (and later found).


  • Options
    #77
    Lukker-
    Registered Users Posts: 9,405 ✭✭✭Lukker-


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    Of course they do. It has been confirm by numerous sources that they have nuclear weapons.

    To be honest though, I wouldn't blame them. I mean Israel is a small strip of land surrounded by belligerent Arab states who would gladly like to see it wiped off the face of the map. Given the shear size of opposition that surrounds them, they short of need nuclear weapons to balance things out and give other states a reason not to invade them.

    You say you don't blame Israel for having nuclear weapons but if you are aware of Irans situation it is very similiar to that of Israel. Every country surrounding Iran has a very heavy US military presence. America has been planning this for years. Basically if someone who is in power who doesn't bend the knee, they'll be squeezed out.


  • Options
    #78
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 23,999 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    NI isn't a part of Britain. Both Britain and NI are parts of the UK.

    *removes pedantic hat*

    I think you're pedantic hat is too big and has dropped over your eyes, because I didn't say that NI was part of Britain, only that Britain could possibly ditch it.:p


  • Options
    #79
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Lukker- wrote: »
    You say you don't blame Israel for having nuclear weapons but if you are aware of Irans situation it is very similiar to that of Israel. Every country surrounding Iran has a very heavy US military presence. America has been planning this for years. Basically if someone who is in power who doesn't bend the knee, they'll be squeezed out.

    Plenty of countries who dont bend the knee, very few that consider the US "the great Satan" and routinely calls for its destruction. The US does not need troops surrounding Iran to defeat it militarily, it would do so in a matter of weeks. Its the aftermath that would remain a problem. Iran may be in a similiar situation but not in any way as pecarious as Israel, which has had numerous wars with its neighbours and is a fraction the size of the surrounding states, population wise and geographically. That is not a defence of Israels nuclear weapons, merely pointing out their situations are only comparable in the most facile sense.

    It is telling how politically rather than intellectually/morally the arguments of people in favour of Iran having nuclear weapons is in that they are often the most critical of Israel having them. It has so much more to do for these people with who Iran would be targeting them at and who doesnt want them to have it that it does with any real idea of what is going on.


  • Options
    #80
    Joshua Jones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭Joshua Jones


    SamHarris wrote: »
    Plenty of countries who dont bend the knee, very few that consider the US "the great Satan" and routinely calls for its destruction. The US does not need troops surrounding Iran to defeat it militarily, it would do so in a matter of weeks. Its the aftermath that would remain a problem. Iran may be in a similiar situation but not in any way as pecarious as Israel, which has had numerous wars with its neighbours and is a fraction the size of the surrounding states, population wise and geographically. That is not a defence of Israels nuclear weapons, merely pointing out their situations are only comparable in the most facile sense.

    It is telling how politically rather than intellectually/morally the arguments of people in favour of Iran having nuclear weapons is in that they are often the most critical of Israel having them. It has so much more to do for these people with who Iran would be targeting them at and who doesnt want them to have it that it does with any real idea of what is going on.

    Jebus man. It has more to do with the fact that everyone knows that if the US invades it is for one thing and one thing only. Irans natural resoures. Your trying to overly complicate what is a simple excerise in resource grabbing and telling people "we dont understand". There going in, make no mistake and if I lived in Iran I'd be thinking "we're next".

    And for those that say the US are protecting their intrests, they have no intrests in Iran. They just want what they cant have.


  • Options
    #81
    Jaafa
    Registered Users Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    SamHarris wrote: »
    What? Iraq had the third largest army in the world come the invasion, and was incredibly well equiped with, mostly with Soveit weaponry. It was "stripped of its weapons" the hard way, it was defeated militarily.

    Yeah soviet weaponry from the 60's. Get a grip, Iraq's army was incredibly outgunned by the Americans.

    3rd largest army means feck all if you enemy can just sit back and bomb you all day.

    Put it this way before 2003 Iraq spent roughly 10 billion per year on defense.
    America spends 700 billion per year. That's as much as the rest of the world put together.

    They never stood a chance and everyone knows it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    LH Pathe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭LH Pathe


    I am planning to attack US and Britain.

    don't say it hasn't also been in the pipeline..


  • Options
    #83
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Ain't gonna happen.


  • Options
    #84
    ninebeanrows
    Registered Users Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭ninebeanrows


    Nothing like a war to get the world economies rolling.


  • Options
    #85
    losthorizon
    Registered Users Posts: 4,565 ✭✭✭losthorizon


    SamHarris wrote: »
    What? Iraq had the third largest army in the world come the invasion, and was incredibly well equiped with, mostly with Soveit weaponry. It was "stripped of its weapons" the hard way, it was defeated militarily.
    And who also beat the Iraqis in war time recently - Iran. Despite sanctions and despite Iraq getting help from Artab countrys and some western nations.


  • Options
    #86
    LH Pathe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭LH Pathe


    My uncle mohammed recently returned to London, for undisclosed reasons. My goodness he gets very emotional and agitated.. travelled light he said nothing, but that his services are required


  • Options
    #87
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    Jaafa wrote: »
    Yeah soviet weaponry from the 60's. Get a grip, Iraq's army was incredibly outgunned by the Americans.

    3rd largest army means feck all if you enemy can just sit back and bomb you all day.

    Put it this way before 2003 Iraq spent roughly 10 billion per year on defense.
    America spends 700 billion per year. That's as much as the rest of the world put together.

    They never stood a chance and everyone knows it.

    I didnt say they did. You implied that Iraq was somehow weak/ unarmed when attacked and that Iran will somehow do many times better and show them what for. They wont.


  • Options
    #88
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    V_Moth wrote: »
    Troll Post.
    :rolleyes: FFS.


  • Options
    #89
    lcrcboy
    Registered Users Posts: 562 ✭✭✭lcrcboy


    I say the coalition needs to hit these sites if they exist destroy them and send in special force teams with air support, but I think with the vast size of Iran that would be very difficult. They may need to invade remove the threat and leave quickly with few civilian casualties. If they end up occupying it could become very messy very fast, the size and population of the country is just far to vast to do the same as they have done Iraq or Afghanistan.
    Plus the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has financially hurt the US and spread their forces out which would make it difficult to occupy Iran. The US occupying Afghanistan and Iran at the same time seems very unrealistic.


  • Options
    #90
    Jaafa
    Registered Users Posts: 2,621 ✭✭✭Jaafa


    SamHarris wrote: »
    I didnt say they did. You implied that Iraq was somehow weak/ unarmed when attacked and that Iran will somehow do many times better and show them what for. They wont.

    I never implied anything, your mistaking me with someone else.

    I agree in an all out war Iran wouldn't stand a chance. But that's not what Israel would be doing, it would be a few airstrikes, some cruise missiles, and maybe a commando raid or two. It would be all over in 24 hours.

    When the ballistic missiles start raining down on Israel, US aircraft carriers and bases in the area, after that, they might reconsider the logic in attacking.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    cosmicfart wrote: »
    Who is giving them nuclear weapons they are making them themselves.
    :rolleyes:
    cosmicfart wrote: »
    If it were my nation I would fight to the last man, I guess you would not?
    'bubonic plague-infected fleas' lol u watch to much discovery sci-fi

    You're not very good at this History thing - are you?:)

    cosmicfart wrote: »
    So you are approving of Nuclear holocaust then? u do realise dropping nuclear bombs does have an after effect?

    Well I never. You learn something new every day.:D Do you really think itchy fingers Ahmedinejad will be able to resist the urge? Strike first - and hard. If History has taught us anything it is not to believe lying scum like him. And for naive people not to encourage or defend him and his ilk.
    cosmicfart wrote: »
    George W Bush???

    No point in commenting really.....:rolleyes:


Advertisement