[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
There would be no reason for the U.S. to condemn the strikes, everyone knows what Iran is doing.
[/QUOTE]
What is it doing UTD? Why is it that US and Israel has the right to Nuclear weapons and no one else? Get over yourself, I for one hope that if Israel tries any thing funny they get their assess whacked. \
You Israeli apologists are pathetic, this is a clear threat and will be a terrorist action if carried out.
Semi-mole do u know why the hostages were taken? Do you know history? Maybe you want to learn how US and British helped overthrow an elected govt (Musadiq–elected Prime Minister) to put their puppet Shah. Hostage taking was a direct backlash of that action…of course a lot of years went by …you can read upon what happened in those years and learn some history.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
If Iran chooses to directly confront Israel, they will end up a Glorious pile of sand.
[/QUOTE]
Semi-mole how come you are not against terroristic threats by Israel to a soverign nation? Where is your humanity and civilized soceity speech that you guys (OG, myvoice and UTD) talk about?
If I remeber clearly, US attacked Iraq in 1991 because it invaded Kuwait a soverign nation and US was there to help. Do you think that we will do the same for Iranians? If your answer is no... then you reek of hypocricy and racisim.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
Semi-mole how come you are not against terroristic threats by Israel to a soverign nation? Where is your humanity and civilized soceity speech that you guys (OG, myvoice and UTD) talk about?
If I remeber clearly, US attacked Iraq in 1991 because it invaded Kuwait a soverign nation and US was there to help. Do you think that we will do the same for Iranians? If your answer is no... then you reek of hypocricy and racisim.
[/QUOTE]
Ka-dream, what lengths will you go to accuse others of reeking, hypocrisy and racism? How can Iraq's army invading Kuwait begin to compare to the destruction of a nuclear weapon facility of a self-avowed enemy? Does the destruction of said plant have anything to do with humanity and civilized society? We're talking about preventing a fundamentalist and radical regime from obtaining nuclear weapons. Israel does not want to occupy, rule and control Iran's resources.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole: *
Ka-dream, what lengths will you go to accuse others of reeking, hypocrisy and racism? How can Iraq's army invading Kuwait begin to compare to the destruction of a nuclear weapon facility of a self-avowed enemy? Does the destruction of said plant have *anything to do with humanity and civilized society? We're talking about preventing a fundamentalist and radical regime from obtaining nuclear weapons. Israel does not want to occupy, rule and control Iran's resources.
[/QUOTE]
Hold on there Semi-mole. Isarel did the same thing to Iraq back in 1983, they destroyed Iraq's nuclear plant. It has to do with attackinga soverign nation. Iran's Govt is an elected Govt. Humanitarian and civilized soceities do not attack other nations on a hunch. Besdes, Iran has every right to acquire/build nuclear weapons. Dont bring in the UN resolutions, becasue we(US) do not follow them. Wake up, and get your head out of the sand and look at the world without the blinders of Zionisim and captilisim and you will see the truth. Iran has every right to build a nuclear plant/weapon, after all Isareal has it (thanks to US). They have the right to defend themselves or deter an enemy like Isarel. If Isarael engages in a pre-emptive strike, it will be following in the footsteps of United States. Just like we attacked Iraq on the basis that it can be a security threat to US. We will not talk about the merit of this issue, becasue this is a whole other story.
Sorry, I don't buy into the argument that all countries have a 'sovereign' right to posess nukes. I'm actually in favor of de-nuking the whole world, so I don't think any new country should obtain them and we should work to eliminate them from the countries that do.
Where do you think the proliferation of nukes should stop? Iran shouldn't have them. Neither should, NK, Cuba or any other irresponsible and/or unstable country. I'd extend that to theological type of government like Iran. Maybe Israel should be in that group too, although the chances of a disciplined government like Israel allowing their weaponry to fall into the hands of individual terrorist groups (one of the biggest problems of the proliferation of nukes) is pretty slim.
All citizens in a given society do not have a right to bear arms. That right is taken away from those deemed to be a threat to society.
^ Yeah in Israels case when it seemed like the Arabs were gonna break through Israeli lines, they pretty much told the US they'd use Nukes. what followed was I believe one of the largest Military Air lifts in recent history.
Nuclear proliferation is ok as long as the people the US gov doesn't like don't do it.
There is no doubt in my mind that Glorious Iran must have a nuclear deterrent, especially when you look at what the United States has done to Iran and the Iranian people over the last 50 years. The United States CIA was most definitely behind the coup which overthrew the elected government of Prime Minister Mossadeq in the 1950’s - CIA:Overthrow of Mossadeq of Iran](http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/ciairan.htm), which led to the re-imposition of dictatorial rule of the Shah of Iran. From the 1950’s all the way to the end the US supported with all means possible the brutal regime of the Shah, who used SAVAK ** formed under the guidance of United States and Israeli intelligence officers in 1957**](AllRefer.com - Iran - SAVAK in Iran | Iranian Information Resource) to carry out a campaign of terror against the Iranian people.
After that US-sponsored monster was overthrown by the popular will of the Iranian people in the Glorious Revolution of 1979, the United States then decided to unleash another monster i.e. Saddam Hussein of Iraq on the Iranian nation, by supporting his illegal invasion and brutal war against Iran for eight years. We must never forget that at the time Donald Rumsfeld was supping tea with Saddam in Baghdad in 1983 and 1984, he knew full well that the Iraqi’s were using chemical weapons against the Iranian people. In March of 1984… Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad…On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded…](http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm). If those crimes were not enough the United States then decided to shoot down an Iranian airliner and killing 290 people - US Navy Missile Downs Iranian Jetliner on 4th of July Killing 290 people](Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos)
Now the American’s are openly speculating about a “regime change” in Iran and no doubt destabilising Iran in this regard. Iran has very right to be prepared and defend itself from the aggressive designs of the United States and Israel.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Where do you think the proliferation of nukes should stop? Iran shouldn't have them. Neither should, NK, Cuba or any other irresponsible and/or unstable country. I'd extend that to theological type of government like Iran. Maybe Israel should be in that group too, although the chances of a disciplined government like Israel allowing their weaponry to fall into the hands of individual terrorist groups (one of the biggest problems of the proliferation of nukes) is pretty slim.
[/QUOTE]
Your drowning yourself in your own faulty logic.
If you say that any other "irresponsible" or "unstable" should not have nukes, then I am assuming your going to include the US in this category?
What could be more irresponsible than actually using nukes? What is more unstable than having a country that won the war in the Western theatre, use those nukes when the going got tough in the east?
See, I have this problem...I hate hypocrites preaching non-proliferation espiucially when your country has used them to kill civilians in the past. I think Malik has highlighted some pertinent issues regarding Iran. You can not arbitrarily decide which country is fit to have nukes and what country isn't. It is amazing to see the US government turn a meek corner when dealing with the literally starving North Koreans while they bellow like the world's policeman in the ME. Heck, your just plain encouraging others like Syria and Libya to follow the same route.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
Anyone know what the success rate on those is? I know they're better than Patriots... but does Israel really have the guts to risk facing a breached reactor if the Arrows aren't as effective as thought under combat conditions?
[/QUOTE]
While the Arrow would certainly be more effective than Patriot, there are some points to bear in mind. Uptil now it has only been tested against relativly unsophisticated, short range, low trajectory missiles like Scuds. Against the longer range and more sophisticated Iranian missiles, which have a much higher trajectory, it (and Patriot) "might" not be as successfull. I stress might, because until its actually used in anger theres really no way of finding out for sure. However, if an Arab nation develops a missile with MIRVs, then both the Arrow and Patriots effectiveness drop substantially. Even adding decoys or jammers to a missile with a single warhead would substantially increase its chances of getting through any defences.
BBC Documentary on Israeli Nuclear Program
Info about the documentary here
it is a 150ish meg download.
For those who don’t know what Bittorrent is, go here
hmm..how can i browse other files on the torrent network ?