Iran labelled "weak"

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...eres_Yale.html

Are they an even weaker advesary then Afghanistan and Iraq? If yes,
then let's invade tomorrow. If Iran is even weaker than the other two
countries, then the Iran war should be fairly comfortable.

On 30 Nov 2006 13:51:52 -0800, "Gazza" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>Are they an even weaker advesary then Afghanistan and Iraq? If yes,
>then let's invade tomorrow. If Iran is even weaker than the other two
>countries, then the Iran war should be fairly comfortable.

Iran is not weaker for several reasons.

1. geography favours them. A huge percentage of the world's oil
traffic passes through Iran. See the map showing the Straits of
Hormuz.
http://mindprod.com/images/hormuz.jpg

They can easily block the Straits of Hormuz and strangle the world's
oil supply.

2. Iran has all manner of military hardware including fighter jets,
missiles and submarines. Recall that Afghanistan and Iraq had none.
Most important are the Sunburn missiles that travel at mach 1.9 and
can sink an aircraft carrier. Any aircraft carrier is a sitting duck
travelling through the Straits of Hormuz.

3. Iraq has 25 million people. Iran has 68 million.

4. Iraq and Afghanistan were impoverished. Iran is wealthy from oil,
natural gas and uranium sales.

5. Iraq and Afghanistan had no allies. Iran has Russia and China.

6. Bush threatened to annihilate Iran in 2001. Iran has had 5 years to
prepare, building deep bunkers, stockpiling weapons etc.

see http://mindprod.com/politics/iran.html
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
Priorities: Prevent global climate destabilisation. End both wars. Prepare for oil shortages.

Roedy Green wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2006 13:51:52 -0800, "Gazza" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote,
> quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> Are they an even weaker advesary then Afghanistan and Iraq? If yes,
>> then let's invade tomorrow. If Iran is even weaker than the other two
>> countries, then the Iran war should be fairly comfortable.
>
> Iran is not weaker for several reasons.
>
> 1. geography favours them. A huge percentage of the world's oil
> traffic passes through Iran. See the map showing the Straits of
> Hormuz.
> http://mindprod.com/images/hormuz.jpg
>
> They can easily block the Straits of Hormuz and strangle the world's
> oil supply.
>
> 2. Iran has all manner of military hardware including fighter jets,
> missiles and submarines. Recall that Afghanistan and Iraq had none.
> Most important are the Sunburn missiles that travel at mach 1.9 and
> can sink an aircraft carrier. Any aircraft carrier is a sitting duck
> travelling through the Straits of Hormuz.
>
> 3. Iraq has 25 million people. Iran has 68 million.
>
> 4. Iraq and Afghanistan were impoverished. Iran is wealthy from oil,
> natural gas and uranium sales.
>
> 5. Iraq and Afghanistan had no allies. Iran has Russia and China.
>
> 6. Bush threatened to annihilate Iran in 2001. Iran has had 5 years to
> prepare, building deep bunkers, stockpiling weapons etc.
>
> see http://mindprod.com/politics/iran.html

Maybe the gays of Hormuz could help. Those straits are always causing
trouble.

AJ wrote:
||| see http://mindprod.com/politics/iran.html
||
|| Maybe the gays of Hormuz could help. Those straits are always causing
|| trouble.

Fuck off you fucking yankee cunts.

This is the NG for the Arsenal Football Club of London.

Take your horeshit elswhere as we have problems of our own. You are getting
on our nerves.

I hope the Iranians and the Koreans and Al Queda nuke you fucking cunts so
we can have some peace.

We have got more important things to discuss, now FUCK OFF.

--
"A horse a horse my kingdom for a horse, I haven't had a winner in six
months".

MD

:-((

Mad Dog anti EU wrote:
> AJ wrote:
>>>> see http://mindprod.com/politics/iran.html
>>>
>>> Maybe the gays of Hormuz could help. Those straits are always
>>> causing trouble.
>
> Fuck off you fucking yankee cunts.
>
> This is the NG for the Arsenal Football Club of London.
>
> Take your horeshit elswhere as we have problems of our own. You are
> getting on our nerves.
>
> I hope the Iranians and the Koreans and Al Queda nuke you fucking
> cunts so we can have some peace.
>
> We have got more important things to discuss, now FUCK OFF.

I can fix that now. I will kill file you. LOL

AJ wrote:
> I can fix that now. I will kill file you. LOL
Killfile whoever you want to, you bleeding fairy, just fuck off. We
have problems with our team and don´t want to be distracted by some
Yankee simpletons. a

aaa wrote:
> AJ wrote:
>> I can fix that now. I will kill file you. LOL
> Killfile whoever you want to, you bleeding fairy, just fuck off. We
> have problems with our team and don´t want to be distracted by some
> Yankee simpletons. a

The hint was that maybe you should killfile stop continuing the post. I
actually will back off if you will not respond to me. I did not start this
thread and missed the fact there were non political groups posted to. For
that I am sorry. Maybe you know the OP and can take it up with him.

Bye.

Roedy Green wrote:

>On 30 Nov 2006 13:51:52 -0800, "Gazza" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote,
>quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

[...]

I thought you guys were talking about soccer :-)

Last time we played Iran they beat us 2-1, with our consolation goal
scored in the 89th minute.

--
ciao,
Bruce

drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/

Mad Dog anti EU wrote:

> AJ wrote:
> ||| see http://mindprod.com/politics/iran.html
> ||
> || Maybe the gays of Hormuz could help. Those straits are always causing
> || trouble.
>
> Fuck off you fucking yankee cunts.
>
> This is the NG for the Arsenal Football Club of London.
>
> Take your horeshit elswhere as we have problems of our own. You are
> getting on our nerves.
>
> I hope the Iranians and the Koreans and Al Queda nuke you fucking cunts so
> we can have some peace.
>
> We have got more important things to discuss, now FUCK OFF.
>
You are one sick dude,

Blame it all on the USA, whineage! Each country, and people are responsible
for the lion's share of their status. It's not the USA's fault that much of
the world is impoverished, while the ruling classes of these impoverished
nations are living like the despots they are.

John

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:42:24 GMT, Roedy Green
<see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:

>On 30 Nov 2006 13:51:52 -0800, "Gazza" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote,
>quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>Are they an even weaker advesary then Afghanistan and Iraq? If yes,
>>then let's invade tomorrow. If Iran is even weaker than the other two
>>countries, then the Iran war should be fairly comfortable.
>
>Iran is not weaker for several reasons.

So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would remain
after you do so--what then.

--
Is this thing on?

"Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:krg0n2l13q6bbeuabtv4jhsfoueq8mi3p2@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:42:24 GMT, Roedy Green
> <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 30 Nov 2006 13:51:52 -0800, "Gazza" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote,
>>quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>
>>>Are they an even weaker advesary then Afghanistan and Iraq? If yes,
>>>then let's invade tomorrow. If Iran is even weaker than the other two
>>>countries, then the Iran war should be fairly comfortable.
>>
>>Iran is not weaker for several reasons.
>
> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would remain
> after you do so--what then.
>
> --

You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with their
Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits of Hormuz? How
about before or after they shot down a bunch of our planes with their top
notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran has a LOT of money to spend on
weaponry, and has been doing so for a long time. Expect a lot of dead
American servicemen if we are stupid enough to attack Iran. You seem to
forget these are people whose soldiers willingly ran into minefields to
clear way for their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an easy opponent.

"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
> "Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote
>> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
>> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would remain
>> after you do so--what then.
>
> You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with their
> Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits of Hormuz?
> How about before or after they shot down a bunch of our planes with their
> top notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran has a LOT of money to spend
> on weaponry, and has been doing so for a long time. Expect a lot of dead
> American servicemen if we are stupid enough to attack Iran. You seem to
> forget these are people whose soldiers willingly ran into minefields to
> clear way for their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an easy opponent.

Sure they are. Unlike "Islamic radical terrorists" or whatever, Iran is a
country, with borders, cities, citizens, a military, industry,
infrastructure.

IOW, stuff to get all blowed up.

David

David Cohen wrote:
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
> > "Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote
> >> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
> >> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would remain
> >> after you do so--what then.
> >
> > You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with their
> > Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits of Hormuz?
> > How about before or after they shot down a bunch of our planes with their
> > top notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran has a LOT of money to spend
> > on weaponry, and has been doing so for a long time. Expect a lot of dead
> > American servicemen if we are stupid enough to attack Iran. You seem to
> > forget these are people whose soldiers willingly ran into minefields to
> > clear way for their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an easy opponent.
>
> Sure they are. Unlike "Islamic radical terrorists" or whatever, Iran is a
> country, with borders, cities, citizens, a military, industry,
> infrastructure.
>
> IOW, stuff to get all blowed up.

Idiot. By your logic, China and Russia would be easy opponents -
they've got stuff to blow up haven't they? They've got "borders,
cities, citizens, a military, industry, infrastructure" haven't they?

"Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
>David Cohen wrote:
>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>> > "Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote
>> >> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
>> >> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would remain
>> >> after you do so--what then.
>> >
>> > You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with their
>> > Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits of Hormuz?
>> > How about before or after they shot down a bunch of our planes with their
>> > top notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran has a LOT of money to spend
>> > on weaponry, and has been doing so for a long time. Expect a lot of dead
>> > American servicemen if we are stupid enough to attack Iran. You seem to
>> > forget these are people whose soldiers willingly ran into minefields to
>> > clear way for their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an easy opponent.
>>
>> Sure they are. Unlike "Islamic radical terrorists" or whatever, Iran is a
>> country, with borders, cities, citizens, a military, industry,
>> infrastructure.
>>
>> IOW, stuff to get all blowed up.
>
>Idiot. By your logic, China and Russia would be easy opponents -
>they've got stuff to blow up haven't they? They've got "borders,
>cities, citizens, a military, industry, infrastructure" haven't they?

They also have ICBMs. Iranians don't.

JMW wrote:
> "Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >David Cohen wrote:
> >> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
> >> > "Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote
> >> >> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
> >> >> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would remain
> >> >> after you do so--what then.
> >> >
> >> > You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with their
> >> > Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits of Hormuz?
> >> > How about before or after they shot down a bunch of our planes with their
> >> > top notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran has a LOT of money to spend
> >> > on weaponry, and has been doing so for a long time. Expect a lot of dead
> >> > American servicemen if we are stupid enough to attack Iran. You seem to
> >> > forget these are people whose soldiers willingly ran into minefields to
> >> > clear way for their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an easy opponent.
> >>
> >> Sure they are. Unlike "Islamic radical terrorists" or whatever, Iran is a
> >> country, with borders, cities, citizens, a military, industry,
> >> infrastructure.
> >>
> >> IOW, stuff to get all blowed up.
> >
> >Idiot. By your logic, China and Russia would be easy opponents -
> >they've got stuff to blow up haven't they? They've got "borders,
> >cities, citizens, a military, industry, infrastructure" haven't they?
>
> They also have ICBMs. Iranians don't.

And your point? Mr Idiot didn't mention anything about ICBMs, he said
that Iran should be easier to defeat than "Islamic radical terrorists"
because Iran is an actual country, and they have identifiable things
that can actually be blown up. So my point to Mr Idiot was that, if
Iran is an easy opponent because it's an actual country and has
infrastructure and an identifiable military for the U.S to target, then
Russia and China must be easy opponents too, as they share the same
charatersitics that he mentioned. Mr Idiot didn't mention anything
about ICBMs in his original point, in which he made the brain power of
a goldfish look enviable.

"Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
>JMW wrote:
>> "Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >David Cohen wrote:
>> >> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>> >> > "Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote
>> >> >> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
>> >> >> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would remain
>> >> >> after you do so--what then.
>> >> >
>> >> > You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with their
>> >> > Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits of Hormuz?
>> >> > How about before or after they shot down a bunch of our planes with their
>> >> > top notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran has a LOT of money to spend
>> >> > on weaponry, and has been doing so for a long time. Expect a lot of dead
>> >> > American servicemen if we are stupid enough to attack Iran. You seem to
>> >> > forget these are people whose soldiers willingly ran into minefields to
>> >> > clear way for their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an easy opponent.
>> >>
>> >> Sure they are. Unlike "Islamic radical terrorists" or whatever, Iran is a
>> >> country, with borders, cities, citizens, a military, industry,
>> >> infrastructure.
>> >>
>> >> IOW, stuff to get all blowed up.
>> >
>> >Idiot. By your logic, China and Russia would be easy opponents -
>> >they've got stuff to blow up haven't they? They've got "borders,
>> >cities, citizens, a military, industry, infrastructure" haven't they?
>>
>> They also have ICBMs. Iranians don't.
>
>And your point? Mr Idiot didn't mention anything about ICBMs, he said
>that Iran should be easier to defeat than "Islamic radical terrorists"
>because Iran is an actual country, and they have identifiable things
>that can actually be blown up. So my point to Mr Idiot was that, if
>Iran is an easy opponent because it's an actual country and has
>infrastructure and an identifiable military for the U.S to target, then
>Russia and China must be easy opponents too, as they share the same
>charatersitics that he mentioned. Mr Idiot didn't mention anything
>about ICBMs in his original point, in which he made the brain power of
>a goldfish look enviable.

He wasn't the one who inserted Russia and China into the equation.

JMW wrote:
> "Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >JMW wrote:
> >> "Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >David Cohen wrote:
> >> >> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
> >> >> > "Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote
> >> >> >> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
> >> >> >> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would remain
> >> >> >> after you do so--what then.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with their
> >> >> > Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits of Hormuz?
> >> >> > How about before or after they shot down a bunch of our planes with their
> >> >> > top notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran has a LOT of money to spend
> >> >> > on weaponry, and has been doing so for a long time. Expect a lot of dead
> >> >> > American servicemen if we are stupid enough to attack Iran. You seem to
> >> >> > forget these are people whose soldiers willingly ran into minefields to
> >> >> > clear way for their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an easy opponent.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure they are. Unlike "Islamic radical terrorists" or whatever, Iran is a
> >> >> country, with borders, cities, citizens, a military, industry,
> >> >> infrastructure.
> >> >>
> >> >> IOW, stuff to get all blowed up.
> >> >
> >> >Idiot. By your logic, China and Russia would be easy opponents -
> >> >they've got stuff to blow up haven't they? They've got "borders,
> >> >cities, citizens, a military, industry, infrastructure" haven't they?
> >>
> >> They also have ICBMs. Iranians don't.
> >
> >And your point? Mr Idiot didn't mention anything about ICBMs, he said
> >that Iran should be easier to defeat than "Islamic radical terrorists"
> >because Iran is an actual country, and they have identifiable things
> >that can actually be blown up. So my point to Mr Idiot was that, if
> >Iran is an easy opponent because it's an actual country and has
> >infrastructure and an identifiable military for the U.S to target, then
> >Russia and China must be easy opponents too, as they share the same
> >charatersitics that he mentioned. Mr Idiot didn't mention anything
> >about ICBMs in his original point, in which he made the brain power of
> >a goldfish look enviable.
>
> He wasn't the one who inserted Russia and China into the equation.

And? So are you agreeing with him? His point is clearly absurd because
the fact that a country has "borders, cities, citizens, a military,
industry, infrastructure" doesn't mean that they would be an easy
military opponent for the U.S, as he claimed. In fact, Iran has a much
more developed military and infrastructure than Iraq did, and in case
you haven't noticed, things didn't exactly go according to plan in
Iraq. The notion that a war with Iran would be as "easy" or even easier
than Iraq is plan silly........

"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote
> "Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>JMW wrote:
>>> "Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >David Cohen wrote:
>>> >> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>>> >> > "Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote
>>> >> >> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
>>> >> >> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would
>>> >> >> remain
>>> >> >> after you do so--what then.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with
>>> >> > their
>>> >> > Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits of
>>> >> > Hormuz?
>>> >> > How about before or after they shot down a bunch of our planes with
>>> >> > their
>>> >> > top notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran has a LOT of money to
>>> >> > spend
>>> >> > on weaponry, and has been doing so for a long time. Expect a lot of
>>> >> > dead
>>> >> > American servicemen if we are stupid enough to attack Iran. You
>>> >> > seem to
>>> >> > forget these are people whose soldiers willingly ran into
>>> >> > minefields to
>>> >> > clear way for their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an easy
>>> >> > opponent.
>>> >>
>>> >> Sure they are. Unlike "Islamic radical terrorists" or whatever, Iran
>>> >> is a
>>> >> country, with borders, cities, citizens, a military, industry,
>>> >> infrastructure.
>>> >>
>>> >> IOW, stuff to get all blowed up.
>>> >
>>> >Idiot. By your logic, China and Russia would be easy opponents -
>>> >they've got stuff to blow up haven't they? They've got "borders,
>>> >cities, citizens, a military, industry, infrastructure" haven't they?
>>>
>>> They also have ICBMs. Iranians don't.
>>
>>And your point? Mr Idiot didn't mention anything about ICBMs, he said
>>that Iran should be easier to defeat than "Islamic radical terrorists"
>>because Iran is an actual country, and they have identifiable things
>>that can actually be blown up. So my point to Mr Idiot was that, if
>>Iran is an easy opponent because it's an actual country and has
>>infrastructure and an identifiable military for the U.S to target, then
>>Russia and China must be easy opponents too, as they share the same
>>charatersitics that he mentioned. Mr Idiot didn't mention anything
>>about ICBMs in his original point, in which he made the brain power of
>>a goldfish look enviable.
>
> He wasn't the one who inserted Russia and China into the equation.

I appreciate you dealing with numbnuts in a serious fashion, John, but,
how'd you get past his screen name without laughing? "Darn Good
Intelligence"?! Oh, that's priceless. The Irony Gods must be active today.

David

David Cohen wrote:
> "JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote
> > "Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>JMW wrote:
> >>> "Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> >David Cohen wrote:
> >>> >> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
> >>> >> > "Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote
> >>> >> >> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
> >>> >> >> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would
> >>> >> >> remain
> >>> >> >> after you do so--what then.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with
> >>> >> > their
> >>> >> > Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits of
> >>> >> > Hormuz?
> >>> >> > How about before or after they shot down a bunch of our planes with
> >>> >> > their
> >>> >> > top notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran has a LOT of money to
> >>> >> > spend
> >>> >> > on weaponry, and has been doing so for a long time. Expect a lot of
> >>> >> > dead
> >>> >> > American servicemen if we are stupid enough to attack Iran. You
> >>> >> > seem to
> >>> >> > forget these are people whose soldiers willingly ran into
> >>> >> > minefields to
> >>> >> > clear way for their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an easy
> >>> >> > opponent.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Sure they are. Unlike "Islamic radical terrorists" or whatever, Iran
> >>> >> is a
> >>> >> country, with borders, cities, citizens, a military, industry,
> >>> >> infrastructure.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> IOW, stuff to get all blowed up.
> >>> >
> >>> >Idiot. By your logic, China and Russia would be easy opponents -
> >>> >they've got stuff to blow up haven't they? They've got "borders,
> >>> >cities, citizens, a military, industry, infrastructure" haven't they?
> >>>
> >>> They also have ICBMs. Iranians don't.
> >>
> >>And your point? Mr Idiot didn't mention anything about ICBMs, he said
> >>that Iran should be easier to defeat than "Islamic radical terrorists"
> >>because Iran is an actual country, and they have identifiable things
> >>that can actually be blown up. So my point to Mr Idiot was that, if
> >>Iran is an easy opponent because it's an actual country and has
> >>infrastructure and an identifiable military for the U.S to target, then
> >>Russia and China must be easy opponents too, as they share the same
> >>charatersitics that he mentioned. Mr Idiot didn't mention anything
> >>about ICBMs in his original point, in which he made the brain power of
> >>a goldfish look enviable.
> >
> > He wasn't the one who inserted Russia and China into the equation.
>
> I appreciate you dealing with numbnuts in a serious fashion, John, but,
> how'd you get past his screen name without laughing? "Darn Good
> Intelligence"?! Oh, that's priceless. The Irony Gods must be active today.
>
> David

and you still haven't explained why Iran would be an easy opponent.
guess you're not capable.........

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4kich.6461$1s6.6430@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>> "Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote
>>> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
>>> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would remain
>>> after you do so--what then.
>>
>> You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with their
>> Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits of Hormuz?
>> How about before or after they shot down a bunch of our planes with their
>> top notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran has a LOT of money to spend
>> on weaponry, and has been doing so for a long time. Expect a lot of dead
>> American servicemen if we are stupid enough to attack Iran. You seem to
>> forget these are people whose soldiers willingly ran into minefields to
>> clear way for their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an easy opponent.
>
> Sure they are. Unlike "Islamic radical terrorists" or whatever, Iran is a
> country, with borders, cities, citizens, a military, industry,
> infrastructure.
>
> IOW, stuff to get all blowed up.
>
> David

And that doesn't deter them one bit from doing everything I wrote. The
Iranians are fully capable of sinking both military and commercial vessels
in the Persian Gulf. They are also capable of resisting our aerial attacks,
since they've been investing in high quality anti aircraft weapons. We were
able to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan at will because they had limited or no
anti aircraft weapons. Iran has lots. Not an easy opponent, and if we are
stupid enough to pick a fight with them we will suffer lots of casualties.

Gooserider wrote:
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:4kich.6461$1s6.6430@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> >
> > "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
> >> "Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote
> >>> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
> >>> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would remain
> >>> after you do so--what then.
> >>
> >> You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with their
> >> Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits of Hormuz?
> >> How about before or after they shot down a bunch of our planes with their
> >> top notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran has a LOT of money to spend
> >> on weaponry, and has been doing so for a long time. Expect a lot of dead
> >> American servicemen if we are stupid enough to attack Iran. You seem to
> >> forget these are people whose soldiers willingly ran into minefields to
> >> clear way for their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an easy opponent.
> >
> > Sure they are. Unlike "Islamic radical terrorists" or whatever, Iran is a
> > country, with borders, cities, citizens, a military, industry,
> > infrastructure.
> >
> > IOW, stuff to get all blowed up.
> >
> > David
>
> And that doesn't deter them one bit from doing everything I wrote. The
> Iranians are fully capable of sinking both military and commercial vessels
> in the Persian Gulf. They are also capable of resisting our aerial attacks,
> since they've been investing in high quality anti aircraft weapons. We were
> able to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan at will because they had limited or no
> anti aircraft weapons. Iran has lots. Not an easy opponent, and if we are
> stupid enough to pick a fight with them we will suffer lots of casualties.

There's no point in debating with "David Cohen", who has already proved
in this thread that he has a very limited understanding of the topic in
question. According to geo-political genius "David Cohen", the fact
that a country has " borders, cities, citizens, a military, industry,
infrastructure" means it's an "easy opponent" for the U.S. Basically,
"David Cohen" doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Addressing
your points, of course the U.S could otherthrow the Mullahs eventually
- but the price would be too high for the U.S public to stomach. Osama
Bin Laden once said that one of America's biggest weaknesses is a total
unwillingness to incur high casualties in war, even when it is a
necessary evil to win a war. We've seen in Iraq, that Amerca's fear of
a high number of troop deaths meant it didn't confront the likes of
Moqtada Al-Sadr and his militias. Consequently, Al-Sadr's Mehdi army
has substantially grown in numbers (now 15,000) and the U.S wouldn't
dare touch them because they know it would be suicidal. Bin Laden's
point is correct, and it will be America's downfall in the forthcoming
war against Iran. The U.S will attempt a huge air bombing campaign
against Iran, targeting both military, government and nuclear
installations; at the same time, they will hope that the Iranian people
seize the moment and rise up against the Islamic government. BUT this
WON'T work and the next stage would be for the U.S to send some ground
troops in - but they will be reluctant to send a sizeable number in,
and a lot of those that are sent will meet their deaths on Iranian
soil. The bottom line is that Bush couldn't finish the job in
Afghanistan (the opposition had sticks and stones to fight with), or
Iraq (civil war), so there's no way that he could win a war against a
conventionally much stronger opponent like Iran without causing a
massive shitstorm, and that's not even taking into account Iran's
influence over global oil supply, and links with neighbouring countries
like Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. Of course, this is all news to a
primitive ignoramus like "David Cohen" who expects the Iran war to be a
cakewalk.

"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote >>
>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>>> "Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
>>>> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would remain
>>>> after you do so--what then.
>>>
>>> You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with their
>>> Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits of Hormuz?
>>> How about before or after they shot down a bunch of our planes with
>>> their top notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran has a LOT of money
>>> to spend on weaponry, and has been doing so for a long time. Expect a
>>> lot of dead American servicemen if we are stupid enough to attack Iran.
>>> You seem to forget these are people whose soldiers willingly ran into
>>> minefields to clear way for their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an
>>> easy opponent.
>>
>> Sure they are. Unlike "Islamic radical terrorists" or whatever, Iran is a
>> country, with borders, cities, citizens, a military, industry,
>> infrastructure.
>>
>> IOW, stuff to get all blowed up.

> And that doesn't deter them one bit from doing everything I wrote. The
> Iranians are fully capable of sinking both military and commercial vessels
> in the Persian Gulf. They are also capable of resisting our aerial
> attacks, since they've been investing in high quality anti aircraft
> weapons. We were able to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan at will because they
> had limited or no anti aircraft weapons. Iran has lots. Not an easy
> opponent, and if we are stupid enough to pick a fight with them we will
> suffer lots of casualties.

You are missing my not-so-clear point. I am advocating utilizing nuclear
weapons to eliminate the Iranian threat, now and forever.

No, I am not joking.

David

David Cohen wrote:
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote >>
>>> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
>>>> "Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>>> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
>>>>> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would
>>>>> remain after you do so--what then.
>>>>
>>>> You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with
>>>> their Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits
>>>> of Hormuz? How about before or after they shot down a bunch of our
>>>> planes with their top notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran
>>>> has a LOT of money to spend on weaponry, and has been doing so for
>>>> a long time. Expect a lot of dead American servicemen if we are
>>>> stupid enough to attack Iran. You seem to forget these are people
>>>> whose soldiers willingly ran into minefields to clear way for
>>>> their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an easy opponent.
>>>
>>> Sure they are. Unlike "Islamic radical terrorists" or whatever,
>>> Iran is a country, with borders, cities, citizens, a military,
>>> industry, infrastructure.
>>>
>>> IOW, stuff to get all blowed up.
>
>> And that doesn't deter them one bit from doing everything I wrote.
>> The Iranians are fully capable of sinking both military and
>> commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf. They are also capable of
>> resisting our aerial attacks, since they've been investing in high
>> quality anti aircraft weapons. We were able to bomb Iraq and
>> Afghanistan at will because they had limited or no anti aircraft
>> weapons. Iran has lots. Not an easy opponent, and if we are stupid
>> enough to pick a fight with them we will suffer lots of casualties.
>
> You are missing my not-so-clear point. I am advocating utilizing
> nuclear weapons to eliminate the Iranian threat, now and forever.
>
> No, I am not joking.
>
> David

Nuke The Bastards!!!

Is that what you mean?

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

David Cohen wrote:
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
> > "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote >>
> >> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote
> >>> "Joe Humble" <joehumble@earthlink.net> wrote
> >>>> So they'd last 200 hours instead of 100? The government would
> >>>> probably be easy enough to topple but the same problem would remain
> >>>> after you do so--what then.
> >>>
> >>> You mean before or after they sank a whole bunch of our ships with their
> >>> Sunburn missiles? Before or after they shut down the Straits of Hormuz?
> >>> How about before or after they shot down a bunch of our planes with
> >>> their top notch Russian anti aircraft systems? Iran has a LOT of money
> >>> to spend on weaponry, and has been doing so for a long time. Expect a
> >>> lot of dead American servicemen if we are stupid enough to attack Iran.
> >>> You seem to forget these are people whose soldiers willingly ran into
> >>> minefields to clear way for their tanks in the Iran/Iraq war. Not an
> >>> easy opponent.
> >>
> >> Sure they are. Unlike "Islamic radical terrorists" or whatever, Iran is a
> >> country, with borders, cities, citizens, a military, industry,
> >> infrastructure.
> >>
> >> IOW, stuff to get all blowed up.
>
> > And that doesn't deter them one bit from doing everything I wrote. The
> > Iranians are fully capable of sinking both military and commercial vessels
> > in the Persian Gulf. They are also capable of resisting our aerial
> > attacks, since they've been investing in high quality anti aircraft
> > weapons. We were able to bomb Iraq and Afghanistan at will because they
> > had limited or no anti aircraft weapons. Iran has lots. Not an easy
> > opponent, and if we are stupid enough to pick a fight with them we will
> > suffer lots of casualties.
>
> You are missing my not-so-clear point. I am advocating utilizing nuclear
> weapons to eliminate the Iranian threat, now and forever.

Not a surprising comment from someone with the surname "Cohen".

Bully wrote:

> Nuke The Bastards!!!
>
> Is that what you mean?

I'm guessing that by "Cohen" logic, the only way to demonstrate to Iran
that nukes are wrong is to nuke Iran. But what he doesn't realize is
that the consequences of such an action would be very grave for the
state of Israel. The M East is already a pretty volatile region - why
not soothe this troublesome part of the world by using a nuclear weapon
on one of the most powerful players in the region. Sounds like a great
idea!

On 3 Dec 2006 14:19:41 -0800, "Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Bully wrote:
>
>> Nuke The Bastards!!!
>>
>> Is that what you mean?
>
>I'm guessing that by "Cohen" logic, the only way to demonstrate to Iran
>that nukes are wrong is to nuke Iran.

The best time to nuke Iran was after they committed an act of war against the
US in 1979, but unfortunately we had a gelding in the White House at the time.

>But what he doesn't realize is
>that the consequences of such an action would be very grave for the
>state of Israel.

Yeah, they are shaking in their boots.

Lucas Buck wrote:

> >But what he doesn't realize is
> >that the consequences of such an action would be very grave for the
> >state of Israel.
>
> Yeah, they are shaking in their boots.

well actually they are pretty scared of Iran, if they weren't they
wouldn't be encouraging the U.S to attack Iran. Your understanding of M
East politics is obviously pretty limited if you think there wouldn't
be a severe backlash against Israel if either they are the U.S nuked
Iran. And as we saw in the war in Lebanon, Israel is far from
invulnerable. A nuclear first strike on Iran would have som pretty
serious consequences y'know - it would simply encourage other countries
to pursue nukes because they'd feel that posessing them is the only way
to prevent being nuked by the U.S. I'm thinking of countires like S
Arabia for example - they'd think "we have to have nukes, because Iran
didn't have nukes but still got nuked by the U.S". Plus, it would
create Islamic terrorists who wouldn't rest until a U.S city is nuked
in retribution. I think this is a pretty dangerous road to go down, and
you're only exposing your own naive grasp of the issue if you resort to
glib comments like "let's nuke Iran". That's cowboy talk, dude.

On 4 Dec 2006 14:13:01 -0800, "Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Lucas Buck wrote:
>
>> >But what he doesn't realize is
>> >that the consequences of such an action would be very grave for the
>> >state of Israel.
>>
>> Yeah, they are shaking in their boots.
>
>well actually they are pretty scared of Iran, if they weren't they
>wouldn't be encouraging the U.S to attack Iran. Your understanding of M
>East politics is obviously pretty limited if you think there wouldn't
>be a severe backlash against Israel if either they are the U.S nuked
>Iran.

As opposed to the "severe backlash" they suffer merely by EXISTING???

You ARE aware (being so well-informed in "Middle East" politics) that in
the past WEEK alone, Rafsanjani has called for the destruction of Israel FOUR TIMES, right?


>And as we saw in the war in Lebanon, Israel is far from
>invulnerable.

Israel lost? Gee, I missed that.

>A nuclear first strike on Iran would have som pretty
>serious consequences y'know

like glowing ayatollahs

>- it would simply encourage other countries
>to pursue nukes because they'd feel that posessing (sic) them is the only way
>to prevent being nuked by the U.S. I'm thinking of countires like S
>Arabia for example - they'd think "we have to have nukes, because Iran
>didn't have nukes but still got nuked by the U.S".

It wouldn't take a nuke to destroy the Saudis - a well-placed match would do
it, or the right inflammatory diversion between the Wahabbi rulers and the other Sunnis.

>Plus, it would
>create Islamic terrorists who wouldn't rest until a U.S city is nuked
>in retribution.

Islamic terrorists aren't particularly "restful" NOW, dude

>I think this is a pretty dangerous road to go down, and
>you're only exposing your own naive grasp of the issue if you resort to
>glib comments like "let's nuke Iran". That's cowboy talk, dude.

You could learn a lot from cowboys, DUDE.
Strong fences make good neighbors.

"Lucas Buck" <sbcpark@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote
> "Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > (irrelevant nonsense)
>
> like glowing ayatollahs

I have rethought my position. A sudden nuking of Iran would put too much
stress on the virgin production system.

We need to either increase virgin production first, or reduce the reward for
martyrs.

Maybe four virgins, a camel, and two sheep?

David

Lucas Buck wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2006 14:13:01 -0800, "Darn Good Intelligence" <waynetv50@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Lucas Buck wrote:
> >
> >> >But what he doesn't realize is
> >> >that the consequences of such an action would be very grave for the
> >> >state of Israel.
> >>
> >> Yeah, they are shaking in their boots.
> >
> >well actually they are pretty scared of Iran, if they weren't they
> >wouldn't be encouraging the U.S to attack Iran. Your understanding of M
> >East politics is obviously pretty limited if you think there wouldn't
> >be a severe backlash against Israel if either they are the U.S nuked
> >Iran.
>
> As opposed to the "severe backlash" they suffer merely by EXISTING???

Irrelevant to my point - I didn't mention anything about Israel's
existence, whether right or wrong. My point is that the backlash the
Israelis would suffer if Iran is nuked would be much worse than
anything they've suffered so far.

> You ARE aware (being so well-informed in "Middle East" politics) that in
> the past WEEK alone, Rafsanjani has called for the destruction of Israel FOUR TIMES, right?


I didn't boast that I'm " so well-informed" about M East politics, but
I'm surely better informed than someone who thinks the answer to such
problems is an unprovoked nuclear first strike on Iran. People like
yourself aren't actually aware of the full gravity of what you're
advocating - you can't actually nuke Iran and then expect us (and
Israel) to all live happily ever after . Wouldn't happen.

As for Rafsanjani, he doesn't actually hold that much power in Iran.
Neither does Ahamdinejad. The real power lies with the supreme leader
Khameniei - he holds the keys to all the big decisions. You shouldn't
confuse empty threats with real intent, or or a real ability to carry
out such threats.

> >And as we saw in the war in Lebanon, Israel is far from
> >invulnerable.
>
> Israel lost? Gee, I missed that.

Did I claim Israel lost? Once again you dodge my point and attempt to
answer a point that you imagined I made. I said that the war in Lebanon
this summer showed that Israel is far from invulnerable - I didn't
make any claims about who won or lost. Why don't you attempt to refute
the actual point I made? And in the event that Iran is nuked, a few
gatusha rockets hitting Haifa is going to be the least of Israel's
worries - and they weren't able to comabt that threat anywhere near as
effectively as they would've liked.

> >A nuclear first strike on Iran would have som pretty
> >serious consequences y'know
>
> like glowing ayatollahs
>
> >- it would simply encourage other countries
> >to pursue nukes because they'd feel that posessing (sic) them is the only way
> >to prevent being nuked by the U.S. I'm thinking of countires like S
> >Arabia for example - they'd think "we have to have