The Shrine

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast ... ael.drill/

I don't buy this being "just a drill", I've been reading the comments on various boards and news agencies on the situation, and the Israelis desperately want to go kick the shit out of the Iranians before they get the bomb.

I'm just disgusted with the whole thing. Israel can go to hell as far as I'm concerned, 250+ nukes themselves and they won't declare or own up to them, plus they lobbied for the Iraq War and yet couldn't contribute any soldiers to the Coalition Forces because "how would that look to the Muslims?!??!" (It would look like Israel declaring war on its enemies itself instead of getting the U.S. do to it as a proxy, but that's another matter). I don't have any love for the current Iranian administration either, but I don't see anything good coming out of this war.

If Israel does go to war, welcome back to $4/gallon gas or higher.

Good thing my wife and kids are home, then.....

I'm surprised you would post this Replay. Reason being is it seems like it is always hype. How often does Israel threaten Iran and vice-versa? I think CNN/MSNBC/Al-jazeera/Faux-News are all blowing this out of proportion again to sell ad space.

With Sean Connery in charge of Iran, who knows what they're capable of:

With all of this talk about "getting the bomb", nobody has discussed the most obvious solution: Complete and total nuclear disarmament.

The US, Russia, and many other countries have a huge stockpile of weapons that are old, cannot be used, and are immensely dangerous to world stability. Countries like North Korea and Iran are trying to "join the club", as it were, because there IS A CLUB. There should not be a club at all.

There certainly isn't a "biological/chemical weapons club". If we built biological weapons to use "just in case", Congress, the Pentagon, the White House, and the CIA would be in a massive shitstorm over a backlash from inside and out. Other countries, including the dangerous ones, aren't building biological or chemical weapons, and if they are, they certainly aren't anywhere remotely public about it. Sure, Saddam made and used them, but he was using them to kill people (illegally), not as a deterrent, and it was hugely public.

Disarm them. Disarm them all. The US can start with its 10,000 count stockpile.

You're incredibly naive if you don't think countries with nukes don't also have other types of WMDs. The only reason everyone talks about nukes is because we all used them to compare dick sizes during the Cold War. That and you could claim that nuclear weapons are the least unpopular of the WMDs... you say you have nukes and you gain respect by your peer nations... you say you have mustard gas bombs and you're condemned by the entire world.

disarmament is a lofty goal, but it'll never happen. In the end nobody will ever truly trust everyone so you always need that "in case of emergency" button.

Imakeholesinu wrote:I'm surprised you would post this Replay. Reason being is it seems like it is always hype. How often does Israel threaten Iran and vice-versa? I think CNN/MSNBC/Al-jazeera/Faux-News are all blowing this out of proportion again to sell ad space.

You know, I was wrong about the swine flu, and I could be wrong about this too. But the rhetoric brewing right now is different than it's been for the last few years, it's much, much angrier and more fearful on the Israeli side of the equation. I'm mostly just worried about gas prices, Iran controls its own production through the Straits of Hormuz, and if that gets cut off the world is in for oil price shocks all over again.

Who cares? Honestly... the regions are far enough away and fucked up enough (in my view) that I couldn't possibly care if they wiped each other off the map.

Is that wrong?

They will probably just bomb their nuclear power plant. Israel did this to Iraq, and if it came down to a military engagement, the Israelis (with the indirect military aid of the US) would easily beat the Iranians. Because of this, it will probably not escalate into an armed conflict outside of the Iranians getting their nuclear plant bombed. Obviously this will all be in the name of Israeli self defence because they think Iran would destroy them if they had the technology. Would Iran actually do it? Who's to say, but when Iran's plant is disabled, it will either be a significant event that unifies all of the nations in that area against Isreael (moreso.... and again), or it will be a small shocker that ultimately leads to nothing.

This event will probably come to a very tame conclusion.

Tessian wrote:You're incredibly naive if you don't think countries with nukes don't also have other types of WMDs. The only reason everyone talks about nukes is because we all used them to compare dick sizes during the Cold War. That and you could claim that nuclear weapons are the least unpopular of the WMDs... you say you have nukes and you gain respect by your peer nations... you say you have mustard gas bombs and you're condemned by the entire world.

disarmament is a lofty goal, but it'll never happen. In the end nobody will ever truly trust everyone so you always need that "in case of emergency" button.

In case of emergency, what? Blow up the world five times over? In what reality is that something to do in an emergency?

And you're telling me that countries like France and Israel have chemical/biological weapons on the ready? Really? What proof do you have of that one? Wouldn't somebody have spoken up on that one?

bovine wrote:Who's to say, but when Iran's plant is disabled, it will either be a significant event that unifies all of the nations in that area against Isreael (moreso.... and again), or it will be a small shocker that ultimately leads to nothing.

I'm sure the UN will pass a resolution comdemning the action *rolls eyes* Fucking UN is useless without an army and a backbone.

kali o. wrote:Who cares? Honestly... the regions are far enough away and fucked up enough (in my view) that I couldn't possibly care if they wiped each other off the map.

Is that wrong?

The vast majority of my family lives over there, I have to care

SineSwiper wrote:

bovine wrote:Who's to say, but when Iran's plant is disabled, it will either be a significant event that unifies all of the nations in that area against Isreael (moreso.... and again), or it will be a small shocker that ultimately leads to nothing.

I'm sure the UN will pass a resolution comdemning the action *rolls eyes* Fucking UN is useless without an army and a backbone.

It would just be the general assembly, not the security council. Anything anti-Israel in the security council immediately gets vetoed by the US.

Zeus wrote:

kali o. wrote:Who cares? Honestly... the regions are far enough away and fucked up enough (in my view) that I couldn't possibly care if they wiped each other off the map.

Is that wrong?

The vast majority of my family lives over there, I have to care

Not only that, but inevitably other nations get caught up in the fracas, not to mention which, like I said, some non-trivial percentage of the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz. And bovine, whether or not Israel destroys the nuke plant, Iran is very likely to shut down shipping if they're attacked. That means gas shoots right back up, the world economy (which is just beginning to recover) takes another hit, and lots of screaming angry people get stuff to be screaming and angry at all over again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage

It's always a pleasant pipe-dream to think that a country can just stop selling the largest, most important part of its economy in order to give the finger to people it doesn't like. This cannot happen because then the country will not be making any money. Unless the world's engines of industry decide to start being powered by the mighty rugs and carpets of Iran, I don't think that they can be very picky and choosey about who they sell oil and natural gas to.

Also, I have never been a big fan of John Leguizamo

An attack on Iran by Israel is highly unlikely. I also doubt the current US government would back that; even though Iran was an obvious next target for Bush and co.

As for Nukes; they're terrible weapons used to massacre civilian populations. I am with Sine on this one, there is no need for them. Nuclear waste and destruction could very well be the most enduring and destructive legacy of human civilization; if burning oil enough to poison the atmosphere doesn't kill everything first.

Nukes are purely deterrents that nations will always have around. The testing is all that's ever needed in terms of actually using one. Only one nation in history was cruel enough to ever use them and I seriously doubt they will ever be used again by any nation. They beneift no one in any way but they always need to be around as a dick-measuring device between nations.

Nuclear weapons and mutual deterrence are just about the only thing that's prevented worldwide warfare for the last fifty-four years. Look at the record of military history worldwide. Before we had nukes, most countries were at war for decades out of any given century. The military history of most of Europe before nuclear weapons is absolutely full of horrendous, bloody conflict that decimated economies and populations at least every few decades, and most countries are no different.

Replay wrote:Nuclear weapons and mutual deterrence are just about the only thing that's prevented worldwide warfare for the last fifty-four years. Look at the record of military history worldwide. Before we had nukes, most countries were at war for decades out of any given century. The military history of most of Europe before nuclear weapons is absolutely full of horrendous, bloody conflict that decimated economies and populations at least every few decades, and most countries are no different.

That had to do with the world view of "if a few nations are fighting a war, it's none of my business". Of course, that view was disproven to be dead wrong, TWICE. Now, we know better.

No, nukes have nothing to do with somebody invading because we would never use them. Just look at 9-11. Osama didn't think, "oh, gee, I better not mess with the US or they will use their nukes." Having nukes doesn't suddenly make you untouchable.

We had the illusion that there was WMDs in Iraq, but we invaded anyway. What if they DID have nukes? Would Saddam have launched them? Even he's smart enough to understand that one stray nuke would blow up the entire planet.

Nuclear weapons are not effective deterrants against people who don't have much to lose in the first place. If you're a terrorist organization it's not credible if US goes out and say they'll nuke the cave you're hiding in for bombing US, because you know that just makes no sense. It's credible versus a nation of considerable size/power, like Russia or China, but they're not sure if it's credible against a country like Iran or North Korea who are obviously far behind the nuclear powers miltarily, so they don't got much to lose since they can't win a war anyway.

In the case of Iraq, even if they had nuclear weapons, we know they don't have the technology to put it on a missle and have it go that far. You can't just have a secret ICBM test because the only way you'll know if your ICBM really goes that far is by actually firing one. So in this case the only thing they could use nuclear weapons for is on their own soil, and if they did that, that's even more reason to invade Iraq because if someone is willing to use nuclear weapons on their own nation to defend, they probably won't have much qualms about using it on other people.

There was nothing for the US to bomb after 9/11. It's not like it was a country who did it.........well, they DID blame Saddam and have him killed so I guess that's the main retaliation considering they never found Bin Laden