Iran Nuclear Situation (Recent SCARY Developments NSR)

The only reason why countries try to get the Bomb is for legitimacy. Nobody took N.Korea seriously until they had a bomb. Same thing happened with Pakistan. The one truism we learned in the 20th Century is that there is no way to "win" a nuclear war. If a bomb goes off in Des Moines then Teheran will cease to exist. They know this. Don't group these people in with the Al Qaeda nutjobs. The Mullahs and secular leaders in Iran, and even Kim Jong Il and his cronies in NK, are anything BUT suicidal.

Yeah, really are just bad and worse options—the problem with preemptism is:

1) You undermine the reform element in Iran and strengthen the mullahs ("you see, the U.S. really is out to get us")

2) In a more global/regional context, you dig a deeper PR strategic hole RE: the War on Terror (across the entire Muslim world this time: "you see, the U.S. is really out to get us")

3) Insuring the destruction of Iranian nuclear development facilities in a preemptive strike is by no means a sure thing (we were completely wrong about Iraq's WMD systems/development, etc. and our intelligence on Iran pales compared to what we had in Iraq)

No doubt, the prospect of Iran with a nuke is a bad, bad thing. I don't know pretend to know what the answer is… I tend towards multi-literalism/strong international regime building—really the best answer to non-proliferation in the long term; but building such norms is a long term project and has been severly undermined by the Bush administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by likwid

Tin: I'm not saying their weapons program is our fault, their attitude towards us is.

They want nukes they can have em, everyone else has em but when its someone that Israel or India or anyone else who's feeding off the fat (US) dosen't like them, its suddenly our place to go and tell them they can't do that.

Fuck Israel, they can deal with their own problems.

Please, PLEASE go ahead and "do something" about Iran.

And watch how fast China pulls the plug.

---

sorry, but your wrong. We have had almost no contact with them since the iran Hostage crisis, and that was 25 yrs ago. There is a whole new generation of people in that country since then, and any anti american attitude has been spoon feed to them by their Mullahs since birth. We have not done shit to them in 25yrs, and in hindsight that has obviously been a mistake. Meanwhile they have risen to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Iran has also employed one of its most respected professors to teach at a suicide bomber training academy in the heart of Tehran. There is a list floating around from the DOD of the top 20 things that Iran has done that Iraq would have been instanly invaded for doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Russia announced that their Tu-160 strategic bombers (nuclear) penetrated US airspace without detection.

---

Nothing new here. They bump the Arctic ADIZ on a regular basis...at least least 15 times in 2005.

Besides, they didn't penetrate "US Airspace" proper. Big differance.

-Astro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PassTheDutchie

Let's not confuse the "routing" of moderates in recent elections with the "routing" of moderate sentiment in the Iranian populace.

---

Wasn't someone trying to sell a router recently on the forum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

The only reason why countries try to get the Bomb is for legitimacy. Nobody took N.Korea seriously until they had a bomb. Same thing happened with Pakistan. The one truism we learned in the 20th Century is that there is no way to "win" a nuclear war. If a bomb goes off in Des Moines then Teheran will cease to exist. They know this. Don't group these people in with the Al Qaeda nutjobs. The Mullahs and secular leaders in Iran, and even Kim Jong Il and his cronies in NK, are anything BUT suicidal.

---

Valid point re: using nuclear capability as political leverage, but what's to stop some rogue in the Iranian military or spy agency from lighting one off without the knowledge of his superiors?

Not to mention, there are plenty of terrorist groups that receive support from Iran.

Even so, I still think Ahmadinejad is full of shit and the U.S. should keep the 6 shooters holstered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

Thank you, that's the point I was trying to make. This is something that needs to be dealt with, but not overtly. Patience and diplomatic poise are what's called for. Unfortunately, this administration is so utterly lacking in these skills that I really do fear that they will do something exceedingly stupid.

---

i agree, i think this admin. could do something stupid. And the iraq war has only aided iran in its conquest for the bomb. I hate Bush for that right now, but we have all heard how much you and others hate the man, lets move on. He will be gone in a couple of years, and this problem will only be worse.

I disagree with you about patience though. that is all we have shown thus far, for 15 yrs. Their intentions should be clear to all of us by now.

I am hoping for sanctions, i will pay 5 bucks a gallon to get rid of them.

Sanctions require patience to work. That's what I am talking about, there is no military solution to the problem, to do so plays directly into the hands of our competitors.

The problem with defeating Iran isn't in whether we can effect a devastating strike against their nuclear capability. we can. can we defeat them on the ground. if you look at the map Summit has on page one. we have them effectively surrounded. this is an army that fought to a stand off after eight years with an army(Iraq) we routed in a matter of days, twice. we are spread thin, but if the true shock and awe doctrine were utilized Iran, or what we used to think of as Iran Iran would be an afterthought. the problem, which I would hope we're congnizant of this time around, is the vacuum that would be created by defeating Iran in such a way.

If the french and russians don't want to help this time around. then fuck them. let it be their problem. North Korea can't even accurately say where their own ballistic missiles will end up. I'm not worried about Iran hitting us. If I was a country in that region, I'd be really worried. The only countries I'm particularly concerned about are Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan. the rest of those ungrateful shit bags can suck on a warhead. period. not only that, but it would play nicely into the hands of Mr_G's Parking Lot Doctrine.

I'm enjoying the exchange right now.

-----------------------------------

Anyone who knows anything about deterence theory is afraid of Iran having nukes because Mutually Assured Destruction only works against those afraid of being destroyed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PassTheDutchie

I'll pose this: Iran, by most estimates, is still 10 years away from developing a nuclear device despite their recent sabre rattling. Is this "crisis" really a crisis given the time we have to resolve the issue?

---

That's pretty optomistic there, Bob. I'll see if I can regoogle the articles. The Iranians enrichment capability if they were to put all of their centrifuges online is enough to manufacture fissile material for >10 weapons in a year. (I would add that depends on their on their weapon design).

Trust me when I say basic nuclear fission weapon design is not all that complex to begin with, especialyl when compared to the processes required to enrich the uranium. It isn't until one gets into the thermonuclear weapons and warhead minaturization that complexity goes up.

Iran now has the the BM-25s IRBMs from NK (Soviet design R-27/SS-N-6 IRBMs), which were originally produced in the 1960s as an SLBM capable of carrying 1 1.2Megaton hydrogen bomb 2400-3200km (also MIRV capable up to 3 thermonuclear warheads). This means they no longer need a fancy schmancy minaturized weapon due to delivery system limitations. They'll probably be able to put their first or second production weapon on top of one of these (after they remove the biological or chemical warhead that sits on ti in the meantime). With the range to hit Rome, Paris, and if their weapon is light enough, London, this is a scary prospect.

There are other ways of delivering a weapon even to CONUS:
open southern boarder + truck
cargo container + ship sails into harbor
SRBM mounted on a ship off the Eastern Seaboard
etc

--------------------------------------------

Maybe the bird flu will get us before the SHFT in Iran.

Speaking of which, while our government isn't an extremely oppressive theocracy like Iran, our president does seem to be one of those "End-of-Times-in-our-lifetime" believers... bird flu, immigrant invasion, Iran with nukes... "Maybe I can trigger armageddeon... Hey Rummy! Let's nuke Iran! Jesus is a'comin'!" </semi-sarcasm>

If we start pre-emptive military operations in Iran, then we will truly be in WW3. Conventional or nuclear regardless, do you really think that China and Russia will sit idly by while we bomb their largest suppliers of cheap energy back to the stone age? True, nobody wants war with the United States, but when those countries feel the economic pinch from one of their allies being attacked, they'll have no choice but to respond in full.

The United States is a stranger in a strange land. We do not have the power nor population to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Hell, we can't even maintain peace in Iraq...which was a fairly westernized, secular culture before we released all the radical nutjobs out from under Saddam's control.

Personally, I fear the current White House Administration is ballsy, gutsy, and ignorantly arrogant enough to believe that we can get away with an attack on Iran. And that's an attack which most likely would be pre-emptively launched on what basically amounts to what Washington sees in its crystal ball. That is what's downright terrifying to me.

^^
what he said. he's from the think tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cono Este

sorry, but your wrong. We have had almost no contact with them since the iran Hostage crisis, and that was 25 yrs ago. There is a whole new generation of people in that country since then, and any anti american attitude has been spoon feed to them by their Mullahs since birth. We have not done shit to them in 25yrs, and in hindsight that has obviously been a mistake. Meanwhile they have risen to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

---

No, infact I'm right, they've been watching us pretty keenly the past 25 years how we handle our relations in the Middle East, esp. pumping money into the wrong people constantly. And they don't like us for it.

They DON'T hate Americans.
They hate American Foreign Policy.

But so does everyone else.

MAD won't work?

You can say what you want about the regime in Iran, But they are not going to use a nuclear weapon unless provoked to do so. They have no desire to be completely annihilated in a nuclear holocaust. They know that if they supplied nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization (and it wouldn't be OBL based on the tumultuous history between the two) they would be wiped off the face of the earth.

Their goal is to solidify their power in the face of souring sentiment among the populace. Control oil supplies in both Iraq and Iran and therefore be a major player on the world stage, guaranteeing the revolutions power. By recklessly useing nukes, they lose everything.

Additional links:
Link 1

^ Error 404

Link 2

^ Russian news site.

Link 3

^ Russian news site.

How am I supposed to trust any of those? I mean, I can find you 100 sites that say we never landed on the moon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ski_adk

If we start pre-emptive military operations in Iran, then we will truly be in WW3. Conventional or nuclear regardless, do you really think that China and Russia will sit idly by while we bomb their largest suppliers of cheap energy back to the stone age? True, nobody wants war with the United States, but when those countries feel the economic pinch from one of their allies being attacked, they'll have no choice but to respond in full.

---

1. Russia is an oil exporter. They don't need Iran.
2. Neither Russia nor China can or would engage the US in conventional or nuclear warfare. They would lose or everyone would lose. (It's the same as the lack of Soviet intervention in the Yom Kippur War when it's allies' capitol were poised to be captured by the Israelis).
3. China and Russia stand to benefit in terms of US involvment in Iran in that it would further weaken the US and entangle the West in the perceived/real West-Islam conflict. This gives them a free hand to expand/reexpand their spheres of influence while their competitors kill each other off.

In world conflicts, those that come out ahead are those that keep the fighting off their turf while still selling weapons to everyone else and building their own power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

Sanctions require patience to work. That's what I am talking about, there is no military solution to the problem, to do so plays directly into the hands of our competitors.

---

This is not a case of:
USA: "You have WMDs!"
Iraq: "No we don't! Leave us alone!"
France/Germany/China/Russia: "Leave them alone!" *worry about debts owed*

It is a case of:
US/UK/France/Germany/UN/IAEA/etc: "Stop building nuclear weapons!"
Iran: "Hell no! Fuck off! Allah Akbar!"
China/Russia/NK: *snicker* *counts their profit*

Our competitors have outsmarted us. We waited. Waiting at this point means a nuclear Iran most likely SOON (less than 2 years). We can't have that which is what our competitors were banking on (literally and figuratively).

The Russians read Macheavelli. The Chinese read Sun Tzu. W says "Say Who???"

a direct strike on paris would be particularly delicous. Imagine, one of their client states razing their capitol city. heh. maybe then they'd take responsibility for a century of bankrupt foreign policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

The Russians read Macheavelli. The Chinese read Sun Tzu. W says "Say Who???"

---

Thats awesome!

Because China and Russia are making huge profits off of Iran??:confused:

Their share in the profits comes if we invade, or perform a military strike of any kind. W is trying to save his legacy, and what worries me is that he is going to focus his attention on solving this "problem"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

a direct strike on paris would be particularly delicous. Imagine, one of their client states razing their capitol city. heh. maybe then they'd take responsibility for a century of bankrupt foreign policy.

---

Yeah, because millions of innocent people dying is hilarious.:nonono2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

a direct strike on paris would be particularly delicous. Imagine, one of their client states razing their capitol city. heh. maybe then they'd take responsibility for a century of bankrupt foreign policy.

---

That irony isn't funny... or are you just being a moron?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

Yeah, because millions of innocent people dying is hilarious.:nonono2:

---

not people, the French. I'm only half kidding. but maybe Jack Straw and de Villepin would like to continue stroking Iran?

the bullshit part of this whole dance is that Israel will end it. Not that it's their personal responsibility, but because they understand the stakes like no one else does. It should be the French, Spanish, Italian, Polish, and Russian military sitting on the Iranian borders champing at the bit. will they? doubtful, just like the cold war it is up to the US to provide the muscle. which is fine when a person with neocon's advising him is in office, but if detente/realist douche was in office Israel would have struck already. Fuck, even Reagan scolded Israel for Osirak. :nonono2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by likwid

You mean by threatening to wipe the Taliban off the face of the earth when they were in control of Afghanistan for the first time?

Yeah, huge supporter of terrorism.

I'm glad to see plenty of people are spewing their brains out with heresay and bullshit pulled off Fox etc. while backing nothing up with fact.

And I'm pretty sure if you do the math, the US is the largest supporter of "terrorism"

Put Hussein in power.
Left Afghanistan ripe for the Taliban to take over.
Pumped billions into Afghanistan in weapons, vehicles, and training.
For fucks sake go take a history course or something.

---

Hey Dude,
Maybe it's time to reconsider upping your hourly dosage,do the walls seem to be closing in on you again?!

I don't usually bite for such weak trolls,but it's a slow day today.MAYBE you should do some research as well.1st off ,I'm not a republican,I don't watch Fox,I don't like Nixon,Reagan,or the Bush family.I think the war in Iraq is a GIANT CLuster-F*CK.I must say that the Nixon admin's idea of opening relations with China to spread mistrust between them & the USSR was brilliant.

We didn't put Saddam in power, His uncle "did" because he was prez after the Bathist take over & Saddam had the real power as he ran the secret police. The US simply gave Saddam billions in money , weapons,& intelligence because he fought our arch enemy the Iranians, while at the same time using cocaine money from the Contras to funnel weapons to the Iranians.But that's academic.

Lets get to the point. Iran has become the worlds most masterful at being the faceless power behind terrorism.Assasinations in Britain & around the world of dissidents,the Iranians,The Beruit truck bombing , the Iranians.Attacks in Saudi Arabia (Khobar)have been linked to the Iranians.Virtually every attack on Israelis around the world in the last 25 years was an Iranian plotted or assisted act.I'm no fan of the Israelis ,but that doesn't mean that terrorist attacks against them aren't terrorist attacks just because I'm not a fan.

We left Afganistan ripe for a Taliban take over? There were many years of infighting between warlords before the Taliban came to power.Talk about hypocrisy,We mind our own business & we let it happen,we get involved & were taking over,Well, which is it?

Big deal,so Shia Iran hated the Sunni Taliban.Sunnis & the Shia have been killing each other for control of Islam for 1,400 years,What makes you think that this will ever stop?It is only posponed while there are "infidels" to kill.Muslims & particularly Afganis are renowed for switching alliances as it suits their immediate needs ,hence former sworn enemies,Taliban & Warlords,are now together in Afganistan,& Islamic fundamentalists & secular Bathists in Iraq.

You forgot to mention that we (the US)made Osama by putting him in charge of the money & weapons we sent to Afganistan.

Don't believe me about Iran,there is a plethora of info about Iranian sponsored terrorism that goes all the way back to the Islamic Revolution read this Gov paper :

1996 Global Terrorism: Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_96/overview.html

Or this http://www.ict.org.il/articles/artic...?articleid=429

Or this http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/t...5.php?CID=1483

Or this http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2441.htm

I'm sorry to overstate the blatantly over-obvious,but I'm not the one that didn't do their homework.PLease do yours before wasting anyone elses time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

the bullshit part of this whole dance is that Israel will end it. Not that it's their personal responsibility, but because they understand the stakes like no one else does. ... [the neocons'll git'r done!] if detente/realist douche was in office Israel would have struck already. Fuck, even Reagan scolded Israel for Osirak. :nonono2:

---

Remember, Iran tried to bomb the Iraqi Osirik Nuclear Reactor before the Israelis did. The Iranians screwed it up so the Israelis went and finished it.

However, this isn't a dozen F-15s striking a single unfueled reactor just outside of Bagdahd. We are talking many hardened targets spread across Iran. The Israelis will have to violate Jordanian and US controlled Iraqi airspace to do this (our E-3s will see them from takeoff to strike). The IAF can strike the Western edge of Iran with most of their F-16s and F-15s (maybe A-4s). As you go into central Iran only their F-15s and some F-16s can still operate. The options are even smaller for targets in Eastern Iran. In order to use more planes than that, the Israelis would have to use their tankers over Iraqi airspace.

A first strike intended to disable or disarm Iran must take place over a short period of time to deny the Iranians the ability to move critical materials. The US has the ability to perform such strikes because we have cruise missiles, bombers like the B1B and B2, and large numbers of strike aircraft in our carrier battle groups and based in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I dont' know how many targets they'd have to hit or where they are, but I don't know if Israel could pull it off.

PS. Some experts predict a US airstrike on Iran would almost ensure an Iranian incursion across the Iran-Iraq border.

You people are kidding yourselves if you think anyone is gonna bomb Iran. You're also kidding yourselves if you think we can easily beat them in a conventional war. Iraq - a flat open desert, easy to move through. Look at the topography of Iran, then remember the problems we've had with finding Osama in similar terrain along the Afghani/Pakistani border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freshie247

You forgot to mention that we (the US)made Osama by putting him in charge of the money & weapons we sent to Afganistan.

---

Really? We did?

Maybe you should read Charlie Wilson's War and Taliban by Ahmed Rashid
Because he didn't show up until the end of the game.

Btw, did you even bother reading those articles you posted completely?
They don't do much in a way of supporting your claims considering they're all opinion with no real evidence saying "Iran backed terrorists".
Mostly just "well so and so was smuggled through Iran"
or
"Well Iran gave money to this person then that person gave money to this terrorist group."

But you know, its pretty obvious that we support terrorists here considering we've all bought plane tickets which support airlines which support aircraft builders which built the planes that crashed into the world trade center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freshie247

We left Afganistan ripe for a Taliban take over? There were many years of infighting between warlords before the Taliban came to power.Talk about hypocrisy,We mind our own business & we let it happen,we get involved & were taking over,Well, which is it?

Big deal,so Shia Iran hated the Sunni Taliban.Sunnis & the Shia have been killing each other for control of Islam for 1,400 years,What makes you think that this will ever stop?It is only posponed while there are "infidels" to kill.Muslims & particularly Afganis are renowed for switching alliances as it suits their immediate needs ,hence former sworn enemies,Taliban & Warlords,are now together in Afganistan,& Islamic fundamentalists & secular Bathists in Iraq.

You forgot to mention that we (the US)made Osama by putting him in charge of the money & weapons we sent to Afganistan.

Don't believe me about Iran,there is a plethora of info about Iranian sponsored terrorism that goes all the way back to the Islamic Revolution read this Gov paper :

1996 Global Terrorism: Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_96/overview.html

Or this http://www.ict.org.il/articles/artic...?articleid=429

Or this http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/t...5.php?CID=1483

Or this http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2441.htm

I'm sorry to overstate the blatantly over-obvious,but I'm not the one that didn't do their homework.PLease do yours before wasting anyone elses time.

---

We "made" OBL? Dude, we hardly even knew who OBL was until the mid-90's. Almost all of the weapons smuggled into Afganistan during the cold war went through Pakistans ISI. Let me repeat that. Pakistani Intelligence agents were in charge of most of the weapons, training camps and money flowing to Afganistan rebels during the cold war. The CIA bought weapons and shipped them to Pakistan where the ISI took control of them and decided who got what. In effect, Pakistan chose who got the goods and who came out ahead in the end. We didn't care who got what because our goal was to get the Soviets out.

When the Soviets withdrew Pakistan latched onto the Taliban as a way to induce some sort of stability in Afganistan. The Soviets were out of Afganistan, so the US didn't give a shit, in effect, Pakistani policy on Afganistan became US policy on Afganistan. Certain elements of the US intelligence community attempted mulitiple times to convince the leadership (Clinton) to snatch OBL, which never happened.

Furthermore, the Saudi's and United Arab Emirates pumped way more cash into Afganistan than we ever did. And they supported the Taliban.

[end hijack]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

You people are kidding yourselves if you think anyone is gonna bomb Iran. You're also kidding yourselves if you think we can easily beat them in a conventional war. Iraq - a flat open desert, easy to move through. Look at the topography of Iran, then remember the problems we've had with finding Osama in similar terrain along the Afghani/Pakistani border.

---

What worries me is that recent events with Iran seem to mirror the runup to invading Iraq.

Accuse Iran of having or developing a WMD program, take it to the UN, the UN Security Council passes a resolution which they won't enforce and then the US has cause to sidestep the UN again.

Bombing? Maybe. Invasion? No.

Let me see if I understand likwid's style of debate...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by likwid

The Glorious Islamic Republic of Iran is a wonderful peacefull place where perfect little children live golden lollypop dreams. They love everybody and everyone loves them! They don't fund Hezbollah! That is a Zionist American Lie! They thought they were dontating to the Lollypop Fund for Lebanon!

Did I mention that everything is The Great Satan America's fault?

---

It's all so clear to me now.

And thank you char for the short version of Charlie Wilson's War. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

I'm a jew and im afraid the motherland is gonna get blown up! Even though its not really the motherland and we're really direct relatives to everyone else in the middle east *posts 12 page dissertation on how Arabs and Jews are one in the same which was banned from Israel*. Oh yeah and im a fucking retard in the middle of bumfuck nowhere with a dirtbag job but im still a republican even though they're raping me twelve ways to tuesday! hooray!

---

Glad we're on even terms there chief.

Edit: Forgot to edit in that part about jews = arabs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Let me see if I understand likwid's style of debate...



It's all so clear to me now.

---

Making unfunny shit up to support your argument -> So hot right now.

edg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Remember, Iran tried to bomb the Iraqi Osirik Nuclear Reactor before the Israelis did. The Iranians screwed it up so the Israelis went and finished it.

However, this isn't a dozen F-15s striking a single unfueled reactor just outside of Bagdahd. We are talking many hardened targets spread across Iran. The Israelis will have to violate Jordanian and US controlled Iraqi airspace to do this (our E-3s will see them from takeoff to strike). The IAF can strike the Western edge of Iran with most of their F-16s and F-15s (maybe A-4s). As you go into central Iran only their F-15s and some F-16s can still operate. The options are even smaller for targets in Eastern Iran. In order to use more planes than that, the Israelis would have to use their tankers over Iraqi airspace.

A first strike intended to disable or disarm Iran must take place over a short period of time to deny the Iranians the ability to move critical materials. The US has the ability to perform such strikes because we have cruise missiles, bombers like the B1B and B2, and large numbers of strike aircraft in our carrier battle groups and based in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I dont' know how many targets they'd have to hit or where they are, but I don't know if Israel could pull it off.

PS. Some experts predict a US airstrike on Iran would almost ensure an Iranian incursion across the Iran-Iraq border.

---

I think Summit had a lot of model airplanes hanging from his ceiling when he was a kid - perhaps he still does? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edge

Making unfunny shit up to support your argument...

---

hmm I thought it was way funnier shit than:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by likwid

SUMMIT IS A JEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Nice creative insult there, your 88 is showing through...

ps. I'm still not a Republican or a W supporter no matter how much that would turn you on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edg

Making unfunny shit up to support your argument -> So hot right now.

edg

---

Quote:

---

I'm a jew and im afraid the motherland is gonna get blown up! Even though its not really the motherland and we're really direct relatives to everyone else in the middle east *posts 12 page dissertation on how Arabs and Jews are one in the same which was banned from Israel*. Oh yeah and im a fucking retard in the middle of bumfuck nowhere with a dirtbag job but im still a republican even though they're raping me twelve ways to tuesday! hooray!

---

Indeed it is.

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by likwid
SUMMIT IS A JEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

WTF is up with that shit? Talk about weak sauce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman

WTF is up with that shit?

---

The opening line of his post?

I did make the mistake of stooping to his standard level of engagement. He has more experience... 90% of the threads I start are about skiing... 90% of likwid threads are NSR political or sailing threads (and the rest are gearswap threads)

Page 5 before the trhead devolved is pretty darn good for here though.

-----------------------------

Never had any airplanes on my ceiling as a kid... but being an airforce brat I learned everything I could about how we were gonna shoot down them ruskies...

-----------------------

I can see it in the backroom now:

France: "So... sanctions anybody?"
US: "Israel we think you should blow them up since we are nice to you all the time."
Israel: "So we can get suicide bombed all day long? Your planes are closer and you haev more of em. You blow em up."
US: "But we are already in deep doodoo with the Muslims and Iraq! You do it!"
Israel: "No you do it!"
US: "No you!
Israel: "You!"
Iran: "Guess what I just built while you guys were arguing?"

CNN: "2 of the 3 axis of evil nations are now nuclear powers!"
W: "Poopykins, is it possible to have an approval rating less than zero?"
Rumsfield: "You wouldn't think so but..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Never had any airplanes on my ceiling as a kid... but being an airforce brat I learned everything I could about how we were gonna shoot down them ruskies..."

---

When you start quoting all that f-37TypeZLightninghawkstealthcruisinghyperspacemille niumfalconstuff I imagine you making all the sound effects -"woosh, bang, dadadadada, zing, pow, boom, take that Ali Al Muslim dude"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

You people are kidding yourselves if you think anyone is gonna bomb Iran. You're also kidding yourselves if you think we can easily beat them in a conventional war. Iraq - a flat open desert, easy to move through. Look at the topography of Iran, then remember the problems we've had with finding Osama in similar terrain along the Afghani/Pakistani border.

---

Iran isn't Switzerland. They're stupidly playing fast and loose with Iraq's northern border as we speak. playing right into Bush's hands. hopefully bush and Rummy are "dumb/crazy" enough to do something about it. sadly, no one else will do anything. shrug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

However, this isn't a dozen F-15s striking a single unfueled reactor just outside of Bagdahd.

---

Actually, it was eight F-16's that acually dropped the bombs. The F-15's provided escort.

Israel didn't even have the air-to ground variant of the F-15, the F-15I (aka Israeli Strike Eagle) until 1997.

Just thought I would clear that up. :)

-Astro