Thread: Iran president wants Israel "wiped off the map"

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Disagree. They have been improving on the North Korean design, and the Shahab series is very likely to give them a theater capability BEFORE they have a warhead. Once the technical problem of mating the two is solved, it is an unstoppable weapon, dependent only upon its own reliability, as we can do NOTHING to prevent impact once its fired.

It's been my impression that the technical problem of mating the two is a rather significant and time consuming problem to solve. During that time we should certainly not be sitting around discussing how long it will take them to figure it out. We should be acting to eliminate the threat.

Originally Posted by Leader

How? Are they going to walk it up to the door?

Yes, actually. A man named Sahib rings the doorbell, leaves the bomb on the doorstep, and then runs away laughing. It like thermo-nuclear 'ding-dong ditch.'

Originally Posted by Leader

It's been my impression that the technical problem of mating the two is a rather significant and time consuming problem to solve. During that time we should certainly not be sitting around discussing how long it will take them to figure it out. We should be acting to eliminate the threat.

Absolutely correct. And by 'acting', it should be US that is making the decisions, and not relying on the good will of an enemy.

Negotiate? To secure WHAT? Their PROMISE?

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Absolutely correct. And by 'acting', it should be US that is making the decisions, and not relying on the good will of an enemy.

Negotiate? To secure WHAT? Their PROMISE?

Don't ask me. I think we should be there now if we have the will to complete the mission and except the consequences. It's that later part that I'm concerned with. I don't think some half assed, half supported, half funded, "painless" war is going to cut it with Iran. We need a realistic assessment of what the consequences are doing to be and that information needs to be relayed to the American people so they know what to expect. The American people aren’t weak. They have made great sacrifices in the past and are willing to make such sacrifices now in pursuit of a just cause. What they don’t like is a war that stretches on for years while they’re cut out of the loop as to what’s going on. If we go to Iran it needs to be with the intent to win. That is the first and only thing that matters. The war needs to be forceful and deceive. When we declare that the mission is accomplished, the enemy needs to know that his cause is hopeless.

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

Yes, actually. A man named Sahib rings the doorbell, leaves the bomb on the doorstep, and then runs away laughing. It like thermo-nuclear 'ding-dong ditch.'

Nuclear weapons are big. If they were going to use one it would most likely be placed on a boat of some sort and sent to a US city. I don't know why they'd waste one taking out a military base after all if your going to go down in a nuclear fire ball take as many of the infidels with you as possible.

Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar

Uh...for the past several hundred years Russia has been doing its best to simultanously exploit and wipe out its Jewish population (since these goals contradict eachother, the Jews were not wiped out). For example, Jewish men were forced to join the Russian army but then Russia passed a law saying you could take a Jewish person's land if the man wasn't around to claim it (since they were in the army they weren't around) and that the man's women and children could be expelled from Russia. Under the Soviet Union Jews were slightly better off, but Stalin hated Jews and did not trust them. Jews were not allowed to leave the Soviet Union and were constantly being watched by the KGB and arrested for practicing their religion or for "Zionist activities". This became a big deal in the 80s when a huge campaign was launched to convince the Soviet government to let the Jews go. This finally worked in the final days of the Soviet Union, and 1 million Soviet Jews moved to Israel over the next few years. But modern Russia is no friend to the Jews, what with the half of Russia's parliament trying to get a bill passed banning the Jewish religion. Also, there are more Muslims than Jews living in Russia now, so the ethnic thing wouldn't really work in the Jews favour even if it were true.

I just cannot pass by of this totally wrong and biased opinion. You got your facts wrong.

This is true that in Tsarist Russia jews were the opressed minority. But after the revolution they have been enjoyed everything as the full citizens of the union.
Many of the soviet leaders were jews, for example Trotsky. Stalin was one of the founders of the Israel as a state, and many of the jewish officers and soldiers were sent to Israel to help to build it's army.
After several years relationship between the two countries had gone bad, and USSR started to help enemies of the Israel.
All those stories about how bad jews were living in the USSR were made for one single purpose, - to squeeze more money, get refugee status and immigrate. Purely economical reasons.
A big portion of the richest Russia people now is jews (leaded by Abramovich and Berezovsky), many of them enjoying double Russian and Israeli citizenship.

Many of the soviet leaders were jews, for example Trotsky.

Yes, and we know what happened to him (I know it wasn't cause he was Jewish but still, using him as an example doesn't make a lot of sense).

Stalin was one of the founders of the Israel as a state

Please show some evidence. The Soviet Union was the second country to recognize Israel, but they broke off all diplomatic relations after the Six Day War, armed Israel's enemies to the teeth and threatened to nuke Israel when the Arabs failed (can't remember if it the threat was in 67 or 73).

and many of the jewish officers and soldiers were sent to Israel to help to build it's army.

The original IDF was structured entirely by the pre-state Jewish underground and by the British trained Jewish militias who fought in WWII. If there were Soviet officers and soldiers sent by the Soviet government, please elaborate with sources. I would be interested in learning about this.

All those stories about how bad jews were living in the USSR were made for one single purpose, - to squeeze more money, get refugee status and immigrate. Purely economical reasons.

Uh, wrong. My aunt and uncle went to the Soviet Union to secretly drop off banned prayer books and other religious objects so that the Jews there could practice in secret. I also know Soviet Jews who left, both before and after the fall. Jews were not massacred by the Soviet government for most of the existance of the Soviet Union (although my grandmother's family was killed in front of her by the Communists during the revolution for being Jewish), I am not saying they were. But they were forbidden to practice and many were arrested for "Zionist activities" and the secret police kept an extra close watch. Were there worse persecutions of Jews in history? Of course. But we are not talking about those persecutions right now.

A big portion of the richest Russia people now is jews (leaded by Abramovich and Berezovsky), many of them enjoying double Russian and Israeli citizenship.

Many of them using that Israeli citizenship to get the hell out of Russia when Putin decides he doesn't like companies making campaign donations that are not to him. And also, that bill in the Duma I mentioned was certainly real. It didn't pass, but it wasn't some lone nut campaigning for it.

Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar

Yes, and we know what happened to him (I know it wasn't cause he was Jewish but still, using him as an example doesn't make a lot of sense).

Many of them using that Israeli citizenship to get the hell out of Russia when Putin decides he doesn't like companies making campaign donations that are not to him. And also, that bill in the Duma I mentioned was certainly real. It didn't pass, but it wasn't some lone nut campaigning for it.

The example was just to show that in Soviet Union you you were able to be "a second in the state", and in the later Russia you were able to be "the richest in the country", even if you are a jew.

You got to put a lot of years and effort to do that. And those examples prove that you can reach those hights.

I got to dig trough my books to get the facts about Stalin's involvment in Israel. I will post it.

Nuclear weapons are big.

How about Suitcase weapons ?

Originally Posted by Samudra

How about Suitcase weapons ?

Iran is decades from such a device. Nuclear weapons are complicated things. Making them small enough to carry around is very difficult. Even making them small enough to put on a warhead is difficult.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

That is perhaps the most unsupportable post you've made to date, and that's going pretty far.

You have no dam' idea what the hell you're talking about.

There is no sort of a doubt whatsoever what brought him 'to the table', and he has said as much himself.

Are we to believe you know more about his motives than he himself did?

It is PRECISELY US military power that achieved Libya's disarmament. HE SAID SO HIMSELF.

Good GOD, believe whatever wild notions you like, but a lie that is so easy to refute posted up in here with the seeming voice of certitude is really insulting.

Go peddle your wares on whatever campus will have you. On your bike, pal.

Since you seem claim such a good grasp of the situation, could you please explain to the Forum the nature and impetus of the transformation of Libya starting from the mid 1990s?

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I have noticed a good amount of debate about the specifics of missile warfare, I can't comment well on this note because I am not an expert.

I would not call myself a missle expert just a reasonably knowledgable individual. I was presented an opporunity for fiscal gain involving munitions but I had to study the subject for a couple of years to take advantage of that opportunity. It is really an interesting subject.

Swift Sword, you are essentially recommending negotiations with Iran. If I am incorrect in this distillation of you argument, please correct me.

What I am recommending that the United States try and gain some influence over the situation of Iranian proliferation.

This Republican feels that continued Bush Administration foot dragging or trying to scare the Iranians with the threat of a thrice failed strategy is not going to get that influence.

Full blown negotians with the Iranians are certainly not indicated at this point but feeling them out with a little chit chat could pay off handsomely. By letting Iran strengthen its position by negotiating with other powers is certainly not helping the US cause and the best counter to those negotians at this point might just be to talk to Tehran; the US cannot lose anymore than it already has, why not try it?

Giving up the initative to Moscow and Beijing did not strike me as particularly wise.

Moshe Dayan said it best: "if you want peace, you have to talk to your enemies, not your friends".

Besides, if we are to believe that American military might is all that it is cracked up to be, we can always bomb them later.

However, I want to reinforce my point the Iran is not amenable to negotiations.

People used to say the same thing about Libya. Besides, your premise appears to be flawed; the facts show that Iran is already negotiating with other parties.

Libya acceded to U.S. demands finally for several reason, but one of them is certainly that Libya is a much weaker country than Iran. Most of the country is worthless desert. They have less population and resources than Iran, and therefore feel more threatened by the West. Therefore, because of the differences between Libya and Iran, I don't think the two systems are comparable in any helpful way.

Libya and Iran do not appear to be that different. Here are a few paralells:

1. historically active in pursuit of WMD;
2. desire to secure itself in the face of hostile neighbors;
3. desire for economic liberalization;
4. keen interest in monetizing petroleum assets;
5. willingness to negotiate with foreign powers;
6. historically poor relations with the US.

There are no doubt more but that is a start

Iran, unlike North Korea, has not offered any criteria upon which it would disarm. North Korea has repeatedly said that it fears U.S. attack. The U.S. therefore has something to deal with in that scenario, we know what action (a non-aggression pact) we need to take.

The Iranians are under no obligation to offer any criteria. First, they are being allowed to hold all of the cards. Secondly, nobody has offered them any incentive to change their behavoir. One thing is for sure: continued US inaction is not going to change the situation.

Iran has shown itself to be unhinged. Its leaders and considerable parts of its population are openly hostile to U.S. interests. Their fundamental interpretation of Islam also makes them hard to deal with. Statements like "Israel should be wiped off the map," indicate a dangerous mentality guiding the Iranian state. I can list ever more reasons that Iran is not negotiable.

There is some combination of rallys, demonstrations, protests, sermons, editorials, etc., etc. all across the Arab world every day stressing anti-Americansim and anti-Zionism that are openly hostile to US interests, even amongst US allies. Just as the Bush Administration has its "war on terror", "Axis of Evil", "you are with us or against us" and all sorts of other nationalisitic, flag waving and jingoistic pap, so do the Iranians and other governments propagandize their own masses.

As far as Iran's leadership is concerned, they seem demonstrate the behavoir of rational actors, more so than the North Koreans, at any rate. As to their interpretation of Islam, that is their business under the principle of self determination but I think you will find that it would not interfere with the US doing business with them just as other powers have found.

It could probably be argued that the Iranian Revolution was a progressive Islamic revolution that has been subverted by fundamentalist reactionaries but you will have to defer to someone who knows something about it for a good answer.

Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar

They won't have the means of delivering to North America, but they can hit US bases in pretty much the entire Middle East, and they can hit Israel, and they can hit Europe. There is always the chance the PAC III and Arrow II will stop them, but we can't say for sure.

The Iranians already have a proven capability to strike US interests in the Middle East and Europe without resorting to WMD or BM assets and being rational actors, I suspect that they would recognzie this fact and refrain from using WMD.

The following have been advocated as reasons for why the Iranians have refrained from using their existing CBW capability to date:

1. Fear of overwhelming reataliation by Israel and the US;
2. The tarnish to revolutionary legitmacy that massive and indiscriminate casualties tends to bring on;
3. Geostrategic impact such as turning World opinion against them at a time when they are seeking to monetize assets for export;
4. Waning regime popularity at home;
5. Technological constraints on weaponization.

I submit that the same points probably govern their nuclear ambitions as well but only time will tell.

As for the PACIII and Arrow II, they have a fundamental flaw that might render them ineffective: they are a counter to a threat of unknown dimensions.

The way I got the story: one of the reasons the Patriot had problems in Operation Desert Storm was that the software was written using data gained from tracking Eastern European SCUD launches (Polish if memory serves correctly).

Problem was, the Al-Husayn modification of the SCUD did not have the same trajectory, had a higher re-entry speed and a peculiar yawing due to air frame modification. This all lead to the Patriot having a tendancy to shoot behind the incoming threat.

This again stands to the lack of intelligence on Iranian programs. It is going to be hard to develop robust missle defenses without knowing what a hostile launch looks like or how it flies.

The US had an opportunity to place a radar trailer from the THADD program in Japan to track a North Korean extended range missle launch in 1998 which would have yielded some really useful data with which to counter the Iranian BM threat but nobody wanted to spend the $14M on something so extraordinarily useful.

Originally Posted by Swift Sword

Since you seem claim such a good grasp of the situation, could you please explain to the Forum the nature and impetus of the transformation of Libya starting from the mid 1990s?

Do NOT condescend to ME, you arrogant ass. You've got no room to do it.

I'm not some schoolboy that you can call to the front of the class for the purpose of humiliating me, and if there is ANYbody that needs taking down a peg, Hoss, it's YOU.

But as far as 'the nature and impetus of the transformation of Libya starting from the mid 1990s', I don't happen to be an expert of the narrow and completely esoteric and irrelevant topic you've dragged out of your butt, so NO, I think I will NOT explain any such thing.

And THAT does NOT refute or devalue my point one iota. YOUR point remains poorly-made and provably false.