Iran's solution for the mideast war?

[Gregory Pratt]

One interesting side note, the pact between the 3 nations actually did not require Germany to declare war on the U.S. The pact only said that the 3 nations had to join together if any of them were actually attacked; this is how Japan got out of having to declare war on Russia in July of 41. Hitler declared war on the U.S. after the Japanese attack anyway, and went around saying that the U.S. couldn't fight, it only knew how to make Razor blades and refrigerators or something like that, etc. In fact, the isolationists in Congress would have put up a huge stink if Roosevelt had gone to them with a declaration of war against Germany had Germany not declared war on us first.

 

I'm aware of the situation with Congress. The American public would've put up a fight, too.

[southsideirish71]

By most estimates, Iran is a few years off of getting nukes.

I very much doubt that Mahmoud is President for that long, or that the situation remains as it is until that time comes.

 

We'll see what happens, Badger.

 

 

The North Koreans were a few years away from getting Nukes, then this pakistani scientist who needed some extra cash came by.

 

Now we have these same North Koreans who have nukes, and what do they need. Maybe some Oil. Oil sure is getting expensive especially for a communist isolated state. But what could they barter for oil, maybe some technology transfer with a like minded country. The Iranians and the North Koreans are already working on missles together, why not a helping hand with some of the difficult technology issues of building a nuclear weapon.

 

And you realize that Iran isnt going to fly a plane over to Israel to drop a single bomb like at Hiroshima. They arent going to also fire a missle. The same way that the rockets that Hezbollah is getting came over, a crate will come over, and maybe a van will park somewhere in downtown Tel Aviv and just boom. Mushroom cloud, and no trace and plausible deniability.

Edited August 3, 2006 by southsideirish71

[Gregory Pratt]

The North Koreans were a few years away from getting Nukes, then this pakistani scientist who needed some extra cash came by.

 

Now we have these same North Koreans who have nukes, and what do they need. Maybe some Oil. Oil sure is getting expensive especially for a communist isolated state. But what could they barter for oil, maybe some technology transfer with a like minded country. The Iranians and the North Koreans are already working on missles together, why not a helping hand with some of the difficult technology issues of building a nuclear weapon.

 

And you realize that Iran isnt going to fly a plane over to Israel to drop a single bomb like at Hiroshima. They arent going to also fire a missle. The same way that the rockets that Hezbollah is getting came over, a crate will come over, and maybe a van will park somewhere in downtown Tel Aviv and just boom. Mushroom cloud, and no trace and plausible deniability.

 

That is the worst-case scenario, indeed.

 

But no, you're a bit wrong about the Pakistani scientist and North Korea.

[southsideirish71]

That is the worst-case scenario, indeed.

 

But no, you're a bit wrong about the Pakistani scientist and North Korea.

 

 

Pakistan admits scientist gave North Korea nuclear tools

[Gregory Pratt]

Pakistan admits scientist gave North Korea nuclear tools

 

Oh, I have no doubt about that, but the North Koreans weren't in dire need of assistance, either. They had everything they needed.

[Cknolls]

My feeling is this is going to come to a really ugly head one of these days and when it does its gonna produce lots and lots of death and destruction.

 

And a lot fewer Muslims

[WCSox]

Here's my problem with your line of reasoning. The Soviet Union could be deterred. Despite their flawed ideology, they were a rational and intelligent people. They understood the consequenses of war with the Western powers and didn't want anymore than we did.

 

Iran, on the other hand, may not be able to be deterred. They are a fanatical, nazi-style regime that is hell bent on wiping out Isreal and if they get wiped out themselves they will chalk it up to being a martyr for Allah.

 

I agree completely. The Soviet Union, Cuba, China... even North Korea can be reasoned with. Iran is a different beast.

 

When Iran fires a shot at Israel, I'll be all for a War.

 

By arming Hezbollah, they already have.

[Gregory Pratt]

By arming Hezbollah, they already have.

 

Sorry, I don't buy that.

[WCSox]

Sorry, I don't buy that.

 

Well, that's convenient because I'm not selling it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Sorry, I don't buy that.

Do you actually not believe that Iran is funding Hezbollah? 'Cause I'd bet the farm they are.

[WCSox]

Do you actually not believe that Iran is funding Hezbollah? 'Cause I'd bet the farm they are.

 

Not only that, but they supply so much of their funding and arms that Hezbollah is essentially a proxy of Iran.

[Balta1701]

Not only that, but they supply so much of their funding and arms that Hezbollah is essentially a proxy of Iran.

So on that basis, the U.S. is actually at war with Lebanon?

[mr_genius]

So on that basis, the U.S. is actually at war with Lebanon?

 

good point.

[Soxbadger]

Pratt,

 

Nice job of avoiding the question, again.

 

How is it a false comparison?

 

Prior to Pearl Harbor, Japan and Germany had not "fired a shot" (to use your terminology) against the US. (Although they had sunk some ships, but lets just say that Iran has probably done about the same.)

 

So would you or would you have not declared on Germany, had they never fired on America nor declared on America?

 

Why is that so hard to answer, is it because you know the answer is:

 

Yes, there becomes a point in time when a country is such a menace to the world, that even if your own nation is not directly threatend, that for the good of mankind the nation must step in.

 

(Edit)

 

As to the supply at war thing.

 

It depends, does the US exert the same amount of control over Israel as Iran does over Hezbollah?

 

Can the US determine Israeli policy and objectives?

 

Or is the US merely selling weapons through a bi-lateral contract, in which Israel agrees to pay money for the goods?

Edited August 3, 2006 by Soxbadger

[WCSox]

So on that basis, the U.S. is actually at war with Lebanon?

 

Israel PURCHASES weapons from the U.S. It's a financial transaction. Hezbollah, on the other hand, doesn't purchase anything. Iran GIVES them the weapons and, in return, Hezbollah does their bidding.

 

Hezbollah isn't a self-sustaining entity. They're not a sovereign state. They have no economy or natural resources. They rely on Iran for the vast majority of their funding and weapons. Israel, on the other hand, is a powerful democracy with a strong economy and cutting-edge technology. They're financially-independent of the U.S. and have their own interests.

[Balta1701]

Israel PURCHASES weapons from the U.S. It's a financial transaction. Hezbollah, on the other hand, doesn't purchase anything. Iran GIVES them the weapons and, in return, Hezbollah does their bidding.

 

Hezbollah isn't a self-sustaining entity. They're not a sovereign state. They have no economy or natural resources. They rely on Iran for the vast majority of their funding and weapons. Israel, on the other hand, is a powerful democracy with a strong economy and cutting-edge technology. They're financially-independent of the U.S. and have their own interests.

The U.S. also offers Israel about $1.5 billion in aid per year, most of it military, combined with about $2 billion in loans each year which are understood to be turned into grants at some later date. That's roughly 1/3 of the U.S.'s entire foreign aid budget.

[mr_genius]

Israel PURCHASES weapons from the U.S. It's a financial transaction. Hezbollah, on the other hand, doesn't purchase anything. Iran GIVES them the weapons and, in return, Hezbollah does their bidding.

 

 

we give isreael tons of money and free weapons. from what i understand the united states pretty much is the main funding source for the isreali army

[Soxbadger]

I cant believe people are actually trying to compare the trade and aid agreement between 2 sovereign nations, and the agreement between a sovereign nation and a terrorist organization.

 

Im sorry but if Israel was a terrorist organization, I would not accept the US giving them any aid.

Edited August 3, 2006 by Soxbadger

[WCSox]

The U.S. also offers Israel about $1.5 billion in aid per year, most of it military, combined with about $2 billion in loans each year which are understood to be turned into grants at some later date. That's roughly 1/3 of the U.S.'s entire foreign aid budget.

 

The U.S. donates a crapload of money to other sources around the world, not to mention loans (with interest). What's your point?

 

Israel is like South Korea. They get a lot of help from the U.S. because their neighbor to the north wants to kill them, but they're a self-sustaining entity with their own interests. Hezbollah cannot sustain itself and, therefore, must do the bidding of the nations that supply and finance them.

[mr_genius]

Im sorry but if Israel was a terrorist organization, I would not accept the US giving them any aid.

 

 

why should we be giving israel THAT much aid. it's ridiculous.

 

oh, and if you lived in Lebanon you would probably consider israel a terrorist nation.

Edited August 3, 2006 by mr_genius

[Gregory Pratt]

Do you actually not believe that Iran is funding Hezbollah? 'Cause I'd bet the farm they are.

 

That's not what I said. I'm not buying the notion that by funding Hezbollah Iran is at War with Israel or that it justifies us going to war with Iran or any of the stretch conclusions that can come from that.

 

Sure they fund it, but everyone in the Middle East funds a terrorist group.

 

Pratt,

 

Nice job of avoiding the question, again.

 

How is it a false comparison?

 

Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger

Mushroom Mushroom!

 

Prior to Pearl Harbor, Japan and Germany had not "fired a shot" (to use your terminology) against the US. (Although they had sunk some ships, but lets just say that Iran has probably done about the same.)

 

So would you or would you have not declared on Germany, had they never fired on America nor declared on America?

 

You're still drawing a false comparison, son.

When Iran begins attacking other countries the comparison will be real. As it stands, it isn't, and I won't take the, "THEY'RE DOING IT BY PROXY!" answer, either, because stretching it to its natural conclusion puts us at War with every country in the Middle East that funds terror groups.

 

That's why it's a false comparison. Even when Hitler wasn't attacking us, he was clearly a nation taking violent steps. As soon as Israel is attacked by Iran, or another country is, I don't believe it's time to go to War, and I certainly don't believe it's an inevitability, Curtis.

[WCSox]

You're still drawing a false comparison, son.

When Iran begins attacking other countries the comparison will be real. As it stands, it isn't, and I won't take the, "THEY'RE DOING IT BY PROXY!" answer, either, because stretching it to its natural conclusion puts us at War with every country in the Middle East that funds terror groups.

 

I find it amusing that a 17-year-old is calling somebody else "son."

 

Your argument doesn't account for the fact that the U.S. gives foreign aid to pretty much everybody. I'm not sure if they're still doing it, but that list has historically included the Palestinians.

[Balta1701]

I find it amusing that a 17-year-old is calling somebody else "son."

 

Your argument doesn't account for the fact that the U.S. gives foreign aid to pretty much everybody. I'm not sure if they're still doing it, but that list has historically included the Palestinians.

So there's no difference between say, sending in food and medical supplies after a tsunami and selling Israel a bunch of F-16's that they pay for with money we gave them, or rushing up orders of guided munitions to ship to Israel as soon as this campaign started?

[WCSox]

So there's no difference between say, sending in food and medical supplies after a tsunami and selling Israel a bunch of F-16's that they pay for with money we gave them, or rushing up orders of guided munitions to ship to Israel as soon as this campaign started?

 

Given that Israel has fallen under attack from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc. over the years, I think that our support is more than justified. How many nations have instigated attacks against those Arab states, or Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Hamas, or the Islamic Jihad for that matter?

 

Again, Israel has its own economy and its own interests. They're not a tool of America. If they didn't get the weapons from the U.S., they could've easily purchased them from Russia or China. Or, hell, they could've manufactured them themselves. Israel is no slouch when it comes to technology. They've been rumored to have manufactured a nuclear weapon for quite some time.

[Balta1701]

Israel is no slouch when it comes to technology. They've been rumored to have manufactured a nuclear weapon for quite some time.

Which, interestingly enough, they might not have gotten during the 60's without the active support of Britain and France (france helped build the Dimona reactor, the rest is covered in that page).

 

Given that Israel has fallen under attack from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc. over the years, I think that our support is more than justified. How many nations have instigated attacks against those Arab states, or Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Hamas, or the Islamic Jihad for that matter?

So, given that Israel has launched surprise attacks on Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt in the past, would your argument then grant that those countries are allowed to ship weapons to organizations fighting Israel? (I sure don't believe this, but I'm just trying to show you the hole in your argument here).