Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iran Willing To Attack On US Soil  
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 4332 times:

Seems Iran is stepping up the rhetoric, and the US is responding with sending another (3rd) aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. President Obama said in the State of the Union address that he would not take any option, including a military option, to make sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/...l/UPI-92161328085000/?spt=hts&or=4

Iran just bluffing and flexing muscle? It's a shame though. That country could be such a great nation.

UAL

102 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 4316 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
Iran Willing To Attack On US Soil

So they say. I have my doubts.

The people who run that country aren't stupid, and they have to know that the US, but also the world in general, is just itching for a reason to remove them from power. Attacking anyone is going to be that reason. Especially if it's a NATO country. It wouldn't be like Iraq, where there was serious debate over the validity of the war, and only a few countries went in. It would be like Afghanistan, where the entire world was in support, and helped out.

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
That country could be such a great nation.

It really could.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3637 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 4301 times:

Unless by US soil you mean an embassy or something, I am not sure how they would even come close to doing that before being blown back to the 10th century.

User currently offlinevarigb707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 4292 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
just bluffing and flexing muscle

That's all Iran is doing it. What's his name, president or Iran? The bearded dude? He's just the "weasel" behind the bully.
Not that there's any bully on this case. But there's always a little guy, behind any bullies and those - the little guys - are always barking stuff. But never do anything.

Y'all have a great night.

Curly Howard is laughing at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad :


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4254 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 2):
Unless by US soil you mean an embassy or something, I am not sure how they would even come close to doing that before being blown back to the 10th century.

I would guess terrorism.

Come on Iran, you are only feeding into the war propaganda machine, it's really not helping your case at all



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2800 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4221 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Well good luck with that. That third carrier group is a go ahead, we dare you type of deal IMO. I don't think Obama is at all provoking them, but it does send a clear message. I understand they have a large military but how strong is their capability to actually hit the US mainland? I'm going to guess pretty small.
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4174 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 5):
I don't think Obama is at all provoking them, but it does send a clear message.

What message is that? How is it not provoking them? Why don't we quit pissing them off so we don't have to call their bluff. Sure we could wipe them off the face of the Earth, but what good would that do, and at what cost? I don't want another (preventable) 9/11

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 5):
I understand they have a large military but how strong is their capability to actually hit the US mainland? I'm going to guess pretty small.

Conventionally, basically 0. But all it took was 19 guys to kill 3000 of our civilians.

And I'm not being a biatch or anything. We as a country need to stand up for ourselves and not let others push us around. But this whole Iran thing is completely unnecessary. They don't like us, they have reason not to like us, so why do we have to "assert our power" in the region?

inb4 becuz they're gonna nuke errbody!!!1



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinesteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9217 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
The people who run that country aren't stupid, and they have to know that the US, but also the world in general, is just itching for a reason to remove them from power. Attacking anyone is going to be that reason. Especially if it's a NATO country. It wouldn't be like Iraq, where there was serious debate over the validity of the war, and only a few countries went in. It would be like Afghanistan, where the entire world was in support, and helped out

  

I think I could name quite a few countries that would like to send Iran back to the stone age... That is one scary country run by some very scare fellows...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4152 times:

So for years the US and others have publicly stated that they are prepared to attack and/ or invade Iran, in addition to attempts to economically cripple the country and this is not seen as being threatening or provocative. When Iran, having seen the US and others invade other countries in the region and having been invaded by Iraq with the encouragement of the West, responds by saying that if attacked it will respond in whatever way it can, this is called a threat and a provocation?

Credible evidence? Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes, those weapons of mass destruction that were spirited out of Iraq in the back of a taxi, maybe? I well remember the footage on television after the invasion of Iraq purporting to show the discovery of a potential chemical weapons factory. The "inspector" used the very scientific method of ascertaining the precise nature of the dangerous chemical of sticking his finger into some powder and licking it! I suppose that had he dropped dead on the spot that would have been proof enough. Fortunately this particular "weapon of mass destruction" turned out to be milk powder, despite the "credible evidence" to the contrary.

Have you noticed that when someone else has or may have something it is a weapon of mass destruction, but when the "good guys" have the same thing it is a defensive shield?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4145 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 8):
Have you noticed that when someone else has or may have something it is a weapon of mass destruction, but when the "good guys" have the same thing it is a defensive shield?

But Iran said they want to wipe Israel off the map! (or that was incorrectly translated but none of my friends believe me   )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...22Wiped_off_the_map.22_controversy



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4145 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
Iran just bluffing and flexing muscle? It's a shame though. That country could be such a great nation.

If only they'd kowtow to the US and abase themselves before their imperial masters! Then they would be a great country.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4115 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 9):
But Iran said they want to wipe Israel off the map!

Iran clearly wants the end of the Israeli state as a Zionist construct in pretty much the same way as the West wanted to see the end of the former USSR. This did not mean exterminating the entire population of the USSR but the desire to see a country that was capitalist based and democratic. In Iran's case it means the recognition of Palestine but not genocide or extermination of the Jewish population.

Iran is unusual in that it doesn't support a two-state solution but many of those who profess support take actions that make one unlikely. However, that's perhaps the theme of another thread.


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4115 times:

I think by attack, they are saying some sort of state funded terrorist attack in the US against transportation, infrastructure, and buildings that hold some sort of US national sentiment or importance. I highly doubt they are going to saddle up as a country and come our direction.

However, even a state funded terrorist plot would render themselves bleeding from the inside with the response. I'm fairly certain it's rhetoric, but it seems the rhetoric is escalating more than it has before.

Of course, this is an election year too for the US, perhaps the Obama administration is flexing it's vocal muscles as well to appease the war-happy people of this country.

Personally, I don't see either side attacking each other, especially the us in anything preemptive. Iran it would equal death for their nations political system, as well as many civilians. For the US, world condemnation and reminiscence of the Bush era.

UAL


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4091 times:

Of course, most of what is going on is a lot of saber rattling on both sides as well as huge questions as to the accuracy and impartiality of info on Iran's nuke program. I suspect much of it is via Israel who may be hyping up the alleged nuke bomb development in Iran to gain support for their often controversial policies.

There is 70+ years of bad history between Iran and the USA. Because of the oil there and the fears of an expanding Soviet Union in the 'cold war' era, we supported a government to be friendly to the West, mainly with the forceful placing of the Shah Pavali family that repressed the conservative Islamic Imams. That in turn caused the rise of the Islamic Republic, the chasing out of the Shah, the USA Embassy Hostage Crises from late 1979 to the day Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 and a largely hard core Islamic state. Since then, they have pushed a message of and have supported hate toward the Western governments (although not most people), especially the USA and Israel They have supported terror against Israel (via Syria and Lebanon) and given moral support to those against the USA. In recent years, there is good reason to consider they getting a nuke weapon, even a 'dirty' one to be used vs. Israel, to gain position in the Islamic world.

Of course too, you have the extreme right wing, pro-military, anti-Islamic powers in the USA who are looking for an enemy and Iran looks to be a good target for their hate.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3124 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4088 times:

Kinda reminds me of back in the 2004 elections where a bit before the elections Osama bin Laden published a video message. I think that may have had an impact on Bush's reelection. Maybe Iran is bluffing and if they aren't it because they are waiting for an excuse to close the Strait of Hormuz (which is even more of a reason to wean off of oil altogether: bluffs like this won't affect us).


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4087 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 11):
Iran clearly wants the end of the Israeli state as a Zionist construct in pretty much the same way as the West wanted to see the end of the former USSR. This did not mean exterminating the entire population of the USSR but the desire to see a country that was capitalist based and democratic. In Iran's case it means the recognition of Palestine but not genocide or extermination of the Jewish population.

Lol I know, I was trying to be sarcastic. But yeah that is a big problem, people think that the Israel government = the Israeli people. Also, the Iranian people are not like the clerics. The do not like the Israel GOVERNMENT, the way it treats Palestine, and the threats the government makes to Iran. That being said, Iran is far from perfect. But the minute both sides can see their wrongs, the sooner we might see peace

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 10):
If only they'd kowtow to the US and abase themselves before their imperial masters! Then they would be a great country.

Yeah I don't see why they don't see this either. We didn't take their oil in the 50s, we didn't overthrow their government and put in a dictator, we didn't supply Iraq with weapons, we didn't accidentally down a civilian jet, we aren't sanctioning the crap out of them, and lastly, we didn't invade the 2 countries next to it! When will those dumb Iranians learn?   (sarcasm just in case anyone didn't pick up on that)

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 8):
So for years the US and others have publicly stated that they are prepared to attack and/ or invade Iran,

Don't forget the drone of ours they shot down, and all those dead scientists (well that could have been Israel, but that is probably the same thing in their eyes)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4027 times:

Here's a good 3 minute video on all this. Makes you take a step back and ask yourself what are facts, assumptions, and outright lies... http://www.fox19.com/story/16656746/...ally-plotting-an-attack-on-us-soil


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9437 posts, RR: 29
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3987 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
Conventionally, basically 0. But all it took was 19 guys to kill 3000 of our civilians.

all it took was 16 different US secret services who did not talk to each other, did not match their knowledge to make that happen. Instead of menacing millions of air travellers daily they should have got their act together by now, having had 10 years time to do that.

If not, you'll get the same surprises again. But compared to what 3 aircraft carriers and a number of bases in the Emirates can do, this is a mouse attacking an elephant.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17):
If not, you'll get the same surprises again. But compared to what 3 aircraft carriers and a number of bases in the Emirates can do, this is a mouse attacking an elephant.

I don't want even a mouse attacking us. I don't want our military to kill any Iranians either. I firmly believe we can get past this mess with a net loss of 0 lives. Even terrorists, it's better if there wasn't a conflict that encourages a son to strap a bomb to him and kill himself (and others.)

That being said, I don't see this ending very well. What do I do this election when I want to vote for a candidate that will quit provoking Iran?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8572 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3972 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

and equally, the US is no doubt willing to attack on Iranian soil... so nothing new on either side really.


Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9437 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3917 times:

I am with you, DeltaMD90, but the problem started when you weren't even born.

If you so want, it was the French' fault , allowing Khomeini to return to THR anfd they even paid for the flight I guess, an AF 742. Not too long after, so called "students" stormed the US Embassy in THR, staying there and keeping 52 US diplomats hostage for 444 days. It was at the end of President Carters term that this was solved, the hostages freed and flown out to Frankfurt and taken from the re to Lindsay Air Station, a hospital in Wiesbaden. Reagan was already President but he allowed Carter to fly to FRA to meet the hostages here and take credit for solving the case. A noble gesture by a noble President.

Iran has ever since provoked the US, Israel and the Western Nations. IMHO, the Iranians don't deserve the political leaders they have, they are fine people, intelligent, but what can you do as a singlke person when a criminal gang takes over, regardless on what type of religion their ideology is based. The average people try to make a living and cope with the situation.

It would be great if that could be solved without violence, my usual optimism is reluctant to make me believe that. Sending aircraft carriers to the region and standing up against a regime that provokes is better than the appeasement politics in the Europe of the 1930s.

It is up to you guys to elect a responsible President.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2093 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3834 times:

Iran willing to attack on US soil, US willing to attack on Iran soil - seems pretty fair to me.  

Seriously, no country in the world, democracy or not, is looking for open conflict with the United States. It's entirely in America's hands to deescalate this situation. The US acts in a way that it would never accept from any other country, and that needs to stop.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):
What do I do this election when I want to vote for a candidate that will quit provoking Iran?

Very good point. For fear of appearing weak, no candidate (except for Ron Paul) would dare to take a stance that a significant part of American voters would no doubt agree with, which is: stop messing with the situation.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3739 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 20):
Sending aircraft carriers to the region and standing up against a regime that provokes is better than the appeasement politics in the Europe of the 1930s.

Don't get me wrong, I'm on neither side. I'm for non-intervention, but if a country is blocking/threatening/provoking us when we are doing something legitimate in our interests that doesn't harm legitimate governments/populations, I say fully use our powerful military that we spend trillions on. I'd hate to see another Hitler (from any country) and hope the US, in addition to others, would prevent that. Iran is not Hitler, it's another Iraq. I wish they wouldn't get a nuke, but really, all you have to do is not blindly believe the western MSM, do a little bit of research, take off the tin foil hat, admit that some actions we have done are wrong, and bam! It doesn't look so grim anymore.

Quoting Rara (Reply 21):
Very good point. For fear of appearing weak, no candidate (except for Ron Paul) would dare to take a stance

And welcome to my dilemma! lol. I know it would be a "throw away vote" but maybe, just maybe, it'll send a message or show support for a 3rd party in the future, or something. At least I can say "I voted, and President ______ doing this to Iran is not my fault!"

(And no, I wouldn't just write in someone like Frank Lorenzo just so I can go up to people and tell them that the country is messed up and it's not my fault because my guy didn't get elected)  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3730 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):
That being said, I don't see this ending very well. What do I do this election when I want to vote for a candidate that will quit provoking Iran?

You vote Ron Paul

It's getting to a point, for me as a conservative, where all this warmongering talk and chest-thumping is getting tiring. The Iranian clerics know if they try another 9/11, swift and relentless vengeance will be brought upon them and upon their country. Quite simply, the puppet and his string pullers will die. And there is something all humans seek: self preservation. Let's stop paying so much attention to the crying baby in the room and perhaps it'll shut up.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3720 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 23):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):
That being said, I don't see this ending very well. What do I do this election when I want to vote for a candidate that will quit provoking Iran?

You vote Ron Paul

Plan on it  (or perhaps Gary Johnson if the Libertarian Party gains a lot of momentum)

And I agree with the rest of your post. I will point out though:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 23):
Let's stop paying so much attention to the crying baby in the room and perhaps it'll shut up.

Some of the "crying" they do, I'll admit, is somewhat legitimate. Before I get flamed, the legitimate complaints are the same thing many Europeans say and many Americans here say, I'm not some strange jihadist anti-American hippy person



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 25, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3731 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 23):
You vote Ron Paul

I can't wait for March to get here so I can vote for Ron Paul in Alabama's Republican primary.


User currently offlinesteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9217 posts, RR: 21
Reply 26, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3728 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 24):
Plan on it (or perhaps Gary Johnson if the Libertarian Party gains a lot of momentum)

Chalk one up for me, too, regarding a third party candidate, particularly someone from the Libertarian Party. I'm not too sure about Ron Paul, tho...

If you ask me, I think that's what this country needs, a President-elect from a third party. Why should voting for a third party candidate be considered a throw away vote?



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 27, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3782 times:

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 26):
If you ask me, I think that's what this country needs, a President-elect from a third party. Why should voting for a third party candidate be considered a throw away vote?

Because they are seen as having "no chance in winning so why bother." Many people are interested in a third party, but the lack of organization scares people away from voting for them.

I believe that Gary Johnson (who is trying to get the Libertarian nomination) is opposed to attacking Iran. I'd gladly vote for Paul or Johnson. If we minded our own business, Iran would have no reason to want to attack us



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 28, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3742 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 5):
Well good luck with that. That third carrier group is a go ahead, we dare you type of deal IMO. I don't think Obama is at all provoking them, but it does send a clear message. I understand they have a large military but how strong is their capability to actually hit the US mainland? I'm going to guess pretty small.

Do you know what a US carrier battle group looks like to an Iranian when it goes through the Strait? It is only 34 miles wide at its narrowest point. The BBC interviewed people in Iran a couple weeks ago and it wasn't like they didn't notice when the second group showed up, you can see the ships from shore.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 12):

Personally, I don't see either side attacking each other, especially the us in anything preemptive. Iran it would equal death for their nations political system, as well as many civilians.

Absolutely true.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15):

Lol I know, I was trying to be sarcastic. But yeah that is a big problem, people think that the Israel government = the Israeli people. Also, the Iranian people are not like the clerics. The do not like the Israel GOVERNMENT, the way it treats Palestine, and the threats the government makes to Iran. That being said, Iran is far from perfect. But the minute both sides can see their wrongs, the sooner we might see peace

Overall, I think the Iranian people are good. During the Arab Spring they rose up against their government and were crushed by the military. But, their government isn't exactly extending an olive branch when they are determined to make nuclear weapons.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):

That being said, I don't see this ending very well. What do I do this election when I want to vote for a candidate that will quit provoking Iran?

I would say that Iran is doing more to provoke the international (not just the US) community then any of us are doing to them. There's a far less chance of them attacking us on US soil then their is Iran sending a nuclear warhead over to Israel. That, would be be far more destabilizing than a one time, terrorist attack on US soil.

Quoting Rara (Reply 21):
It's entirely in America's hands to deescalate this situation. The US acts in a way that it would never accept from any other country, and that needs to stop.

We're not the ones building massive underground nuclear facilities in a very unstable part of the world anymore. Unlike Iraq, there is almost international consensus that Iran is trying to make a nuclear bomb. The NY Times said,

"Knowing that their findings would be compared with the flawed Iraq intelligence that preceded the 2003 invasion — and has complicated American moves on Iran — the inspectors devoted a section of the report to “credibility of information.” The information was from more than 10 countries and from independent sources, they said; some was backed up by interviews with foreigners who had helped Iran.

The report laid out the case that Iran had moved far beyond the blackboard to create computer models of nuclear explosions in 2008 and 2009 and conducted experiments on nuclear triggers. It said the simulations focused on how shock waves from conventional explosives could compress the spherical fuel at the core of a nuclear device, which starts the chain reaction that ends in nuclear explosion. "


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/wo...r-device.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

It's no coincidence that the US has developed a 30,000 lb bunker busting bomb deliverable from a B-2 Stealth Bomber. There can only be two countries this would be used as a deterrent.
Usaf Gets New 30,000lbs Bunker Busting Bomb (by LAXintl Nov 16 2011 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 29, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day ago) and read 3690 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 28):
I would say that Iran is doing more to provoke the international (not just the US) community then any of us are doing to them. There's a far less chance of them attacking us on US soil then their is Iran sending a nuclear warhead over to Israel.

But that is the issue here. I heard that and used to believe that until I looked at the arguments for that, and most don't hold water. Mr A did not say he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map" ("off the map" doesn't even exist in Persian as an idiom) but rather he wanted the Israeli regime to be removed from the pages of time. Looking at a lot of what they say, their big beef is getting the Israeli regime out or at least treating Palestinians less badly.

And look at Iran's history. Few countries would benefit more from a nuke than Iran. Why do they not say they want it for defense? I have often wondered that until I realized that if they admitted to wanting a nuke at all would almost condemn them to more sanctions and/or invasions. They say they want nuclear energy, I agree that that's BS. But again, look at their situation... I'd want a nuke if I were them too. It's the ultimate "do not get invaded card"



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 30, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day ago) and read 3680 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 29):

And look at Iran's history. Few countries would benefit more from a nuke than Iran. Why do they not say they want it for defense? I have often wondered that until I realized that if they admitted to wanting a nuke at all would almost condemn them to more sanctions and/or invasions. They say they want nuclear energy, I agree that that's BS. But again, look at their situation... I'd want a nuke if I were them too. It's the ultimate "do not get invaded card"

Isn't that the same argument that North Korea uses for their nuclear program? Unlike N. Korea Iran has consistently been able to project influence in the region without nuclear weapons since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. They provided EFPs and weapons to Shia militia and when things got too hot for Muqtadā al-Ṣadr in Sadr City he fled to Iran.

Similarly, Iran extended it's energy grid into Afghanistan to Herat (80 miles from the border) and funded highway projects in conjunction with India in Afghanistan. They hold enormous power in the region even without nuclear weapons.

If I was going to be worried about Iran, I wouldn't be worried about their influence in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd be worried about how their currency has devalued and how that has pissed off the Iranian government. The EU is about to start a ban on crude oil imports and unemployment in the country is greater than 15%. One US Dollar in December got you 11,500 rails, now it gets you 18,800. It wasn't all that long ago that government subsidies for gas were adjusted resulting in a 300% increase in the cost of gas for everyday Iranians.

All that might sound like reasons to stop sanctions, but I think that means the sanctions are working and gives us (i.e., the world community) negotiating power. Most people in power in any government want to stay in power, Iran is no exception. Drop the nuke program and most of these problems with their citizenry go away, it also keeps Israel from killing more of their scientists.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 31, posted (2 years 8 months 23 hours ago) and read 3653 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 30):
Isn't that the same argument that North Korea uses for their nuclear program? Unlike N. Korea Iran has consistently been able to project influence in the region without nuclear weapons since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. They provided EFPs and weapons to Shia militia and when things got too hot for Muqtadā al-Ṣadr in Sadr City he fled to Iran.

Well I base it mostly off Iran's history. Also, look at what we (or the UN, I forgot) said to Libya in 2003 or 2004--do not develop nukes, we'll give you aid. He stopped, and now look at him... I am certain we wouldn't have invaded / supported the rebels if they had a nuke.

And I very highly doubt they'd provide a nuke. Tensions are bad enough with how Iran funds terrorists. If Iran got a nuke and a nuke went off in the US, Iran would become the largest mirror in the world faster than you could say "are you sure it was Iran?" Iran knows that and they know they can't hide behind a technicality in that situation.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 30):
All that might sound like reasons to stop sanctions, but I think that means the sanctions are working and gives us (i.e., the world community) negotiating power

True. The watered down sanctions were completely ineffective, but these new ones actually have a shot of working, I think. In the context of the whole situation, I'd still leave them alone, but who knows, they may drop their program (I hope they would.)

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 30):
Drop the nuke program and most of these problems with their citizenry go away,

I don't know... there is a compelling argument that the sanctions piss off the Iranian citizens more than their government does. Add in propaganda to the mix and you got some good anti-American sentiment...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 32, posted (2 years 8 months 23 hours ago) and read 3636 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
True. The watered down sanctions were completely ineffective, but these new ones actually have a shot of working, I think. In the context of the whole situation, I'd still leave them alone, but who knows, they may drop their program (I hope they would.)

We'll see China hasn't really followed the sanctions at all. They trade goods for oil and they make up around 20-30% of the Iranian oil exports. The UN inspectors are there now or will be in days, we'll see how cooperative they are.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
I don't know... there is a compelling argument that the sanctions piss off the Iranian citizens more than their government does. Add in propaganda to the mix and you got some good anti-American sentiment...

I don't think you give the Iranian citizens enough credit. During the Arab Spring they did protest against the government, although those protests were brutally repressed, the youth of Iran are savvy enough to use Twitter and YouTube as seen by the numerous videos that came out during the uprising. It's not that they can't find a way to see what the rest of the world is saying or communicate outside of the regime. I think at least some of the citizens know why this is all happening.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13613 posts, RR: 62
Reply 33, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 3540 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I obviously do not want the Iranian government to succeed in building a nuclear weapon, however it appears to me that the easiest manner to ensure the safety and stability of the region - and the U.S. strategic interests there - would be to declare the following policy, which should sound familiar:

"Effective immediately, it will be the policy of the United States government to consider any nuclear, chemical, or biological attack on the nation of Israel, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or any NATO member state as an attack by the nation of Iran on the United States itself."

This way, you no longer have to step up the rhetoric of sanctions for Iran developing nuclear weapons; the U.S. government would accept it as inevitable that they will create them, but establish policy designed to ensure Iran keeps them under lock and key for fear of their own destruction.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10901 posts, RR: 37
Reply 34, posted (2 years 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 3521 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
But all it took was 19 guys to kill 3000 of our civilians.

Iran Willing To Attack On US Soil?

DEBKA Psyop: There is an Iranian hiding in your closet!

DEBKAfile Special Report February 2, 2012, 3:21 PM
Iran has completed the development of a nuclear weapon and awaits nothing more than a sign from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to start assembling its first nuclear bomb, said Israeli Military Intelligence Chief Major General Aviv Kochavi on Thursday, February 2.
....
Therefore, by the end of 2012 or early 2013 Iran may have a single nuclear bomb, but by 2015 the figure would jump to four or five.

http://www.debka.com/article/21700/

"Every tenth residential house in Lebanon," he said, "harbors a missile arsenal or launching position. Their sheer volume has reached a strategic dimension with which Israel will have to deal."

Let the fear mongering begin to grow!


UN atomic team in Iran for nuclear talks
Three-day visit by UN watchdog officials aims to address concerns about Tehran's nuclear ambitions amid rising tensions.

Officials from the United Nations nuclear agency are in Tehran for talks aimed at allaying concerns that Tehran is seeking a nuclear weapon.
...
"In particular we hope that Iran will engage with us on our concerns regarding the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme," said Nackaerts, who is heading the team along with Rafael Grossi, a top adviser to IAEA director Yukiya Amano.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...st/2012/01/201212941556996640.html

Iran has always allowed UN inspectors visiting their nuclear facilities.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 35, posted (2 years 8 months 12 hours ago) and read 3482 times:

What some commenters (as well as I) very much fear is Israel attempting or partially succeeding in an air or terror attack upon nuke facilities in Iran sometime in the spring into early summer. Israel did an attack on nuke facilities in Iraq many years ago so they have the mentality, motivation and ability.

An attack would murder 1000's at the site, perhaps put millions of Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans and others at risk of premature death and major illness from nuclear fallout. Such an attack would probably trigger obscene levels of terrorism backed by Iran and the 'Islamic' world leading to draconian restrictions on travel and human rights everywhere. It could cause oil prices to skyrocket leading to massive economic damage including a world-wide depression perhaps even worse than in the 1930's. Of course, some hyperchristians would want this to happen to trigger the 'end times'.

I beg the world, including Iran to end it's foolish choices, Israel to totally reject an attack and the USA to what it takes to keep it from happening.


User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 8 months 8 hours ago) and read 3430 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 13):
There is 70+ years of bad history between Iran and the USA. Because of the oil there and the fears of an expanding Soviet Union in the 'cold war' era, we supported a government to be friendly to the West, mainly with the forceful placing of the Shah Pavali family that repressed the conservative Islamic Imams.

It goes back even further than that, and it's not just the US, it's much bigger. Just before the US overthrow of the Mossadeq government the Iranians had serious row with the British and the profits they were gaining via the AIOC at Iran's expense. Before that, Iran was basically a puppet controlled half by the British, half by the Russians, under dynastic rule whose elite was educated in the West that was completely disconnected from the majority of Iranians which is what the Revolution was about at the core. The Shah's relationship with the US accelerated things and was the straw that broke the camel's back. Iranians have also been resentful of foreigners since the beginning of time it seems. It's basically in their culture, though it's also in their culture to extract as much from their invaders as they can, so it's an interesting juxtaposition of values. The US is the latest big bad wolf--for valid reasons--but Iranian foreign policy has always been full of drama and bravado. And I dare say...for the last four or five hundred years Iran's vision of itself has been significantly more grandiose and important than it has been in reality.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 37, posted (2 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 3403 times:

I readily admit that I do not know what propaganda the regime in Iran depends upon to maintain itself today on a daily basis. In a way it is immaterial but we do know that for more than a hundred years the region between Turkey, India and Russia has been contested by a number of powers, including those of the countries I have mentioned. In the twentieth century the main rivalry was between the US and the USSR, although minor parties like the UK have played a role. None of those powers have had the best interests of the inhabitants of the region as the paramount consideration. They have always put their own interests first. That is understandable despite any pretensions to the contrary. The first consideration of any state is its own interests, not those of another power or people.

Iran has experienced differing conditions throughout its history. At times it has been an Empire that was expanding and dominating neighbouring societies. At times it was subject to the control of others. Nowhere is this more evident when a government was overthrown and an unpopular dynasty installed. It is too late to cry over spilt milk and say if the West had only supported democratic movements against the dictatorship of the Shah things may have been different.

For whatever reasons (largely access to cheap oil and geo-strategic considerations (i.e. opposition to the USSR)) it was felt better to turn a blind eye to the repressive nature of the Shah's dictatorship that saw moderate opponents imprisoned or exiled. The direct consequence of this narrow approach was that when the Shah was overthrown there was no credible democratic alternative that was sufficiently organised to present an alternative to the Mullahs.

I recall discussing these issues with Iranian exiles in London many years ago and the people that I spoke to at the time warned that the continued repression of moderate criticism of the Shah could only feed the appetite and support for more radical parties. I wish that I could point to Internet links but at the time they were rare or non-existent in the West let alone in countries like Iran. I know that is hard to believe in this always connected age but it is true. At the time almost nobody had access to the Internet, for most people it did simply not exist and the idea that you should post every debate online never occurred to anybody.

Those warnings fell on willingly deaf ears with the result that when the Shah fell there was a power vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum and the void was filled by the only people who had the freedom to organise under the Shah - the clerics. While some choose to blame France for allowing a cleric to return to Iran, in the absence of a credible and organised alternative it is unlikely that a genuine democratic regime would have resulted.

Today it is fashionable to portray Iran as the enemy of all that is decent. That fashion may be mistaken, not because I believe that Iran is some sort of paradise when it clearly isn't, but because the people who run Iran are less concerned with what happens outside Iran and more with what happens within.

The regime in Iran may use the spectre of Israel but they do not seriously want to get rid of Israel, despite a stated support for Palestine. Just like the US constantly warned of the danger of "reds under the beds", this warning is less about opponents overseas and more about opponents at home. If you opposed the incumbent president in the states there was a good chance that you were a cryptic commie in the same way that if you oppose the regime in Tehran you must be a Zionist or US agent. Neither side really cares, or ever has, about the real conditions facing real people in any other country.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 38, posted (2 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 3390 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 33):
"Effective immediately, it will be the policy of the United States government to consider any nuclear, chemical, or biological attack on the nation of Israel, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or any NATO member state as an attack by the nation of Iran on the United States itself."

This way, you no longer have to step up the rhetoric of sanctions for Iran developing nuclear weapons; the U.S. government would accept it as inevitable that they will create them, but establish policy designed to ensure Iran keeps them under lock and key for fear of their own destruction.

Oh boy, well first off, that is kind of obvious--Iran knows if they screw around too much with any of our allies it's basically screwing around with us. We are at the brink of war now over basically nothing. Secondly, like North Korea, they are not kept "under lock," instead they do stupid little stunts to piss us off without going to full blown war. But last, I have a big problem with this proposed "change of foreign policy..." why not do what is in OUR best interests and pull back, saving us lives, money, and headaches... additionally as a bonus, the motivation for terrorism against us will go down significantly!



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (2 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 3375 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):

Were it not for hydrocarbons, my friend, we would have done that long ago. As it is, unfortunately, oil is the world's blood right now. Iran obviously knows this. What they don't know is how long and how tolerant the big boys on the playground will be of an annoying pest intentionally stirring up trouble trying to get attention. The Iranian economy is in the tank, and its government is realistically holding on only by a thread. Much like the Pahlavi dynasty that preceded it, the Ayatollah is propped up by an iron-fisted military. He saw first-hand how quickly that can be rendered useless. They are well aware that Iran could blow itself apart (for the umpteenth time) and are doing their best to play their hand to deflect and redirect internal frustrations with their stagflation. It remains to be seen if it actually works.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 37):

Well said!


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 40, posted (2 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 3372 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):

Oh boy, well first off, that is kind of obvious--Iran knows if they screw around too much with any of our allies it's basically screwing around with us. We are at the brink of war now over basically nothing. Secondly, like North Korea, they are not kept "under lock," instead they do stupid little stunts to piss us off without going to full blown war.

I wouldn't say its "basically nothing". There are some similarities between NK and Iran. Both are run by people who see a neighbor country as a threat to their existence and an attack on by either country on their neighbor would destabilize an entire region.

Iran's nuclear program is likely more to use as a bargaining chip to reduce sanctions similar to what North Korea used them for, although Iran doesn't have the food shortages NK does. As I mentioned above, the Iranian people are not blind to all this they used social networking during the '09 revolt they see what's going on outside their borders. IMO the leadership is looking for a way to start shipping oil again and keep the people of Iran happy by increasing the value of their currency and lowering the price of gas. However, in order to have that power they need a nuclear weapon to bargain with, I'm not sure Israel will let that happen.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12480 posts, RR: 34
Reply 41, posted (2 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 3345 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 40):
Iran's nuclear program is likely more to use as a bargaining chip to reduce sanctions similar to what North Korea used them for,

And the best way to do this is not to go down this road in the first place; Iran could now be a totally different country from the pariah it has now chosen to make itself. It could have nuclear power, too, and not be a pariah, but it has had every opportunity, but has chosen to obfuscate and obstruct, lie and hide the facts at every juncture; this is what has brought them to this point. They could have saved the billions these nuclear facilities have costs, plus the billions the sanctions currently (and ultimately will) cost their economy and not go down this road.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 40):
IMO the leadership is looking for a way to start shipping oil again and keep the people of Iran happy by increasing the value of their currency and lowering the price of gas

Again, they had this chance. I just wonder what will happen when the next Iranian presidential election comes up; Ahmedinejad can't stand again, so they'll have to find a new candidate - and cheat again, but this time, given the economic woes Iran now faces, I wonder if they will be able to stave off a counter revolution.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 40):
However, in order to have that power they need a nuclear weapon to bargain with, I'm not sure Israel will let that happen.

They certainly won't allow this to happen! Especially after what Khamenei said today ...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/ira...-against-cancer-israel-538445.html

Just to summarise the supreme leader's speech;
- Israel a cancer that must be cut
- Iran will support any organisation or country that stands against Israel
- Iran has supported and will continue to support Hezbollah and Hamas
- Any attack by the US will lower its standing in the M/E,

... but still insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful means!


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 42, posted (2 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 3332 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 40):
Both are run by people who see a neighbor country as a threat to their existence and an attack on by either country on their neighbor would destabilize an entire region.

I am not sure how to read your comment, but be assured that I am not attacking you, merely seeking clarification.

Do you see NK attacking SK and Iran attacking ...who?, or the other way round? Either way, it would be destabilising.

At present, whatever evidence may exist that both countries may be actively seeking nuclear weapons, there is limited if any evidence that they wish to actually attack anybody. There is plenty of propaganda, but precious verifiable evidence.

The whole situation is very confusing. If we look at history, in the not too distant past, with Western blessing, Iran has been attacked by Iraq, a country subsequently invaded by those countries that encouraged the attack on Iran in the first place. The irony in this attack was that Iraq used the weapons they were supplied to attack Iran on the Kurds in Iraq instead - you remember those dreadful weapons of mass destruction that Iraq really shouldn't have despite them having been supplied by the US in the first place?

I am reminded of George Orwell's prediction (although based on experience) of how truth becomes untruth, how allies become enemies overnight, how new-speak masks realities. Orwell wanted to call his work 1948 but the publishers wouldn't allow it it so it became 1984. Reality changed by a transposition of numbers!


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 43, posted (2 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 3336 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 41):
And the best way to do this is not to go down this road in the first place; Iran could now be a totally different country from the pariah it has now chosen to make itself. It could have nuclear power, too, and not be a pariah, but it has had every opportunity, but has chosen to obfuscate and obstruct, lie and hide the facts at every juncture; this is what has brought them to this point.

Can't disagree with anything in your post. Well said.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 44, posted (2 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 3324 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 41):
but has chosen to obfuscate and obstruct, lie and hide the facts at every juncture;

Iran is not the first, and will not be the last country to do as you have described. Indeed, some might argue that it is par for the course. Does Israel openly admit to its possession of nuclear weapons? (Note, I do not criticise Israel for possessing them, but merely ask why are the same standards not applied?) Of course they get away with it because they were clever enough not to sign any treaties that required disclosure. If only Iran had done the same. But then again...

A number of resolutions have been drawn up at the UN and other bodies calling for the removal of various types of weapons, including land mines. A number of countries refuse to abide by these resolutions on the grounds that they violate national sovereignty because the resolutions include provisions for inspection. Care to guess which countries head the list without suggesting Iran?

The use of phosphorous is also banned as a weapon used in areas where civilians are normally to be expected, but does this prevent its use by certain countries that initially deny they use it and then claim it was used in accord with international agreements? Who has done that recently and has any country been faced with sanctions?

It seems that we are highly selective when it comes to accusations of obfuscation, hiding the facts and even more so when it comes to failing to abide with UN resolutions.

If we are going to worry about resolutions, obfuscations, lying, deceit, evasion and all the other abuses imaginable, shouldn't we apply them equally to all countries? I am naive enough to believe that we should. If I were a pragmatist I would respond, don't be daft!


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 45, posted (2 years 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 3319 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 44):
Does Israel openly admit to its possession of nuclear weapons? (Note, I do not criticise Israel for possessing them, but merely ask why are the same standards not applied?)

Israel is a country around 22,000 km(2) in area surrounded by hostile nations (or at least hostile in the past). At it's narrowest point it is just 15 km wide. I can see land from my home in WA state that's 9 miles away. Iran is 1,648,000 km(2) in area. Iran has around 75 million people living there, Israel has 8 million people. Who of those two countries seems like they would use a nuclear weapon defensively?

Iraq is no real threat to Iran, neither is Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Armenia or Azerbaijan. Israel's program is rightfully perceived as a defensive weapon. The only real threat to Iran from its neighbors is Pakistan who they have relatively good political relations with or Israel who I'd argue has a reason to keep their eyes on them because of comments from Ahmedinejad .



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 46, posted (2 years 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 3303 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 45):

Iran does not have a direct border with Israel but which country has in the past launched air strikes against nations that it deemed hostile?

Don't get me wrong. I can see why Israel follows the policies that it does. But to date Iran has not, I repeat not attacked Israel and neither did the former US ally Iraq. The justification for the first war against Iraq was that it attacked Kuwait, not Israel. While Israel may fear an attack, it is not a forgone conclusion that Iran actually wishes to.

While you state that Iraq is no longer a threat to Iran. how much of that is due to the fact that the US and its allies have occupied Iraq? Same applies to Afghanistan. These countries are not making hostile overtures to Iran. The US on the other hand has repeatedly stated that it will not rule out an attack and even in the past few hours Israel has indicated that the time for an attack is swiftly passing. Wiki leaks showed that Saudi Arabia urged an attack on Iran.

If you were in the government of Iran, how would you see things? You are faced with a hostile world that is trying to cripple your economy and one that a daily basis will not rule out an attack. What would you do as a member of that government? Capitulate or seek to enhance the ability of the country to defend itself?

Again, I do not for a minute believe that the regime in Iran are anything less than vicious and capricious murderers: but let us be honest. That has never prevented the US and the West from supporting all sorts of corrupt, vicious and hostile opponents of democracy in the past. The US supported military dictatorship against those who wanted freedom in Bangladesh. A coup installed the Shah in Iran. Britain described the dictator Pinochet, who murdered so many opponents, as a champion of the free world (actually it was Thatcher who said it.) So what are the real reasons for opposing Iran?

I seriously doubt that they have anything to do with democracy or concern for the people of Iran. Let's face it, apart from the propaganda value to justify government actions, the condition of people in another country is hardly pressing on governments that show little concern for the condition of the poor and disenfranchised at home.


User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (2 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 3299 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 46):

". A coup installed the Shah in Iran."
I just wanted to point out that Muhammed Reza was Shah before during and after Mossadeq. His power, however, was impotent from 1951 until 1953.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 48, posted (2 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 3295 times:

Quoting luckyone (Reply 47):

Thank you for the clarification. I must be more precise in my postings.  

The salient point remains: the government was overthrown because it did not meet the needs of outside interests.


User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 3293 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 48):

Absolutely  


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 50, posted (2 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 3305 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 46):
But to date Iran has not, I repeat not attacked Israel and neither did the former US ally Iraq.

42 Scud missiles were fired into Israel from Iraq during the First Gulf War. In a direct attempt by Saddam to provoke Israel into an attack and widen the war.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 46):
While you state that Iraq is no longer a threat to Iran. how much of that is due to the fact that the US and its allies have occupied Iraq?

Zero. Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, a war that when it ended cost the two countries combined over a trillion dollars. From 1988 on neither country really has the stomach for outright war again. Both countries know that war again would result in the same thing that happened last time, huge financial lost and decreased oil output.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 46):
Same applies to Afghanistan.

The Afghan army can't handle the Taliban, why do you think they could pose any threat to the Iranians?

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 46):
If you were in the government of Iran, how would you see things?

Like I hadn't taken my Lithium in a week.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 980 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 3293 times:

Rara, WTF? Why is it the US's responsibility to deescalate this? I think you really need to review the recent timeline to see how we are now at this point. It's quite simple, Iran has no business, either financially, technologically or politically screwing around with nuclear technology. There are A LOT of countries that DO have the ability in a sane fashion to implement nuclear technology but don't...I wonder why that is? Let me let you in on something I've discovered in my life, don't threaten your neighbors with destruction, say you are building things for peaceful purposes under 300m of rock, refuse to let inspectors view the peaceful things you are building, launch items into space on platform that could be converted for other uses and try to call yourself a good neighbor. And you say the US needs to deescalate? Medically? RIGHT....they have problems with WASTE-WATER treatment, what on earth are they going to do with NUCLEAR waste!? If Iran continues on the path it is currently on, it's government has only ITSELF to blame.


Carpe Pices
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 52, posted (2 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 3271 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 50):
why do you think they could pose any threat to the Iranians?

I don't but the question of Iran's neighbours was raised and I ruled out an immediate threat from Afghanistan. From the Iranian perspective the threat may come from further afield.

The presence of US and allied forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan in recent times may have been interpreted by Iran as being a potential threat.

Hey, if the US can see Hugo Chávez as a threat, when there is no realistic way that Venezuela could, let alone have any intent, invade the US why wouldn't Iran see the US in the same way, given the US's history?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 53, posted (2 years 8 months 2 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 45):
Who of those two countries seems like they would use a nuclear weapon defensively?

Both, I'd actually say Iran is at greater risk of attack than Israel. Israel has a very powerful military, are allies with the US, and have a bunch of nukes. Iran has no nukes and is being threatened by both Israel and the US. Almost the same reason for going to war with Iraq is being used to rally up everyone against Iran. Sure if they gave up their nuclear program they may be safe for a few years, but what is to say they're not gonna end up like Libya, who gave up their nuclear program in 2003 or 2004 and were bombed by us in 2011? Plus, given the history between the US, Israel, and Iran, there is a lot of bad blood and the last thing they want is to be a pushover and submit to us. Iraq invaded them before, the US invaded both countries next to Iran, Israel and the US are threatening them now, if I was Iran, I'd be scared too.

That being said, I hope they do the right thing and give up their nuclear missile program (in addition to us doing the right thing and backing off.)

Quoting bhill (Reply 51):
I think you really need to review the recent timeline to see how we are now at this point.

That is the biggest problem... reviewing the RECENT timeline does not give you the full picture. You need to take history into context and realize what their complaints are and why they want a nuke

Quoting bhill (Reply 51):
don't threaten your neighbors with destruction

Source? If you are talking about "wiping Israel off the map," I addressed that controversy, and it's very highly debatable. I am not aware of any other neighbors they threatened with destruction

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 52):
Hey, if the US can see Hugo Chávez as a threat,

lol, I think I heard Rick Santorum talking about a Venezuelan Caliphate potentially forming in the near future      



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (2 years 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 3232 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 53):
That is the biggest problem... reviewing the RECENT timeline does not give you the full picture. You need to take history into context and realize what their complaints are and why they want a nuke

I agree with you to a point, and this is this: Historically, Iran has been a patriarchal society, and has a very long history of turning authority over to a series of "charismatic" chuckleheads who can't distinguish toes from tits, but they fit the formula written in the stars to be Shah. Mixed in two thousand years of history was a handful of good leaders that can be counted on one hand. These leaders for centuries acted against the interests of the Iranian people, and seemed to have some divine right from the people to do so. There was, and IMHO still is, a massive disconnect between the people running the show in Iran and the people on the street. Pre 1979 it was a group of secular, Western-educated elites. Post 1979 it was a group of mullahs and Ayatollahs, equally lost in the clouds. Both ruled Iran with the fist and the gun, and the mullahs took it one step further by preying on the lack of education and ignorance of the poorest of the poor in Iran. Khomeini once expressed frustration at protests about the price of food, because the revolution was about another world. Even the most devout person isn't going to give a hoot about the next life when they can't feed their kids. In addition, the Iranian people didn't necessarily want to establish an Islamic Republic in the form we see today. It was the price forced upon them to be rid of the Shah. They were given a choice: Monarchy? Or Islamic Republic? Only they can tell you if they're happy with the results. To me they just traded one form of tyranny for another.

I rambled on about all that to say this: are the complaints that of the Iranian people with respect to the nukes, or the perverts of Islam running the show? Given the history of Iranian government, I would say that recent events can accurately reflect the big picture repeating itself.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 55, posted (2 years 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 3229 times:

Quoting luckyone (Reply 54):
I rambled on about all that to say this: are the complaints that of the Iranian people with respect to the nukes, or the perverts of Islam running the show? Given the history of Iranian government, I would say that recent events can accurately reflect the big picture repeating itself.

I agree, there is a huge difference between the Iranian people and the government/theocracy. I think the government is pretty crazy, and I wish they wouldn't have a nuke. That being said, I highly doubt they're stupid enough and no FACTUAL evidence leads me to believe they'd use a nuke. Even they know they'd be fried and I doubt they'd do this just to piss off "the Great Satan" a little bit.

I said I don't want them with a nuke. IMO, I don't think it's worth fighting a war to stop them, and the sanctions (thus far) are terribly ineffective and I don't think there's enough support of the sanctions for them to work. I can actually see Russia and/or China keeping Iran afloat as a third party to "stick it to the man" (the US)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (2 years 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 3226 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 55):
I can actually see Russia and/or China keeping Iran afloat as a third party to "stick it to the man" (the US)

The Chinese economy has been doing a fabulous job of that all on its own. But hey, hopefully we've learned our own lesson (hope springs eternal, eh?) about propping up loony toons just because they don't like our ideological enemy. I say if the Chinese want to dabble in that then let them deal with the consequences. Russia doesn't have the money to do it anymore, in addition to a lot of chickens coming home to roost because of their own Cold War antics.


User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 699 posts, RR: 14
Reply 57, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3201 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 8):
Have you noticed that when someone else has or may have something it is a weapon of mass destruction, but when the "good guys" have the same thing it is a defensive shield?

These words are the moral equivalence fallacy.

Moral, decent and law-abiding people and nations are correct in having weapons generally or WMDs in particular because they are in fact moral, decent and law-abiding.

Criminals with guns are a threat. Dictators with guns are a threat. The police and the armies of the democracies with guns are no threat - and in fact are throughout history the vanguard of progress that has brought moral, decent and law-abiding democracies to much of the world. They are not perfect, they make mistakes. BUT, Belgium with a F-16 is a good thing that helps us all, Ahmadinejad with a F-16 is a threat to us all and holding back progress for all mankind.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 37):
Just like the US constantly warned of the danger of "reds under the beds", this warning is less about opponents overseas and more about opponents at home.

Ask Poland and the rest of the old Warsaw pact whether the reds were a figment of US domestic political argument. You might also note how they to this day remain thankful and supremely friendly to America for its Cold War leadership, despite the ignorance of some America-haters who now say the USSR was a US-created scare tactic.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 46):
If you were in the government of Iran, how would you see things?

It doesn't matter how Hitler saw things, there is such a thing as right and wrong and men of goodwill everywhere are correct to confront the wrong.

Pu


User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5486 posts, RR: 13
Reply 58, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3158 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):

Iran just bluffing and flexing muscle? It's a shame though. That country could be such a great nation.

As long as Iran has the faschist cretin in charge the people of this nation are lemmings ready to take their one way march.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3152 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 59):
As long as Iran has the faschist cretin in charge the people of this nation are lemmings ready to take their one way march.

I'm not sure that's very fair. I have quite a few Iranian friends, many of whom have been back to Iran for one reason or another. It's quite surprising what they have to say about the mood on the street. In consensus, many Iranians like the American government more than their own (granted that wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if we launched military action against them), and they think the Revolution to be a crock of horsesqueeze. Unlike the blissfully ignorant North Koreans most Iranians are well-connected to the outside world and know full well what is going on. Most Iranians know what their government is about, but to date there has never been anything democratic about Iran. Perhaps that will change, but at the same time, I don't expect many Iranians to board buses or planes with bombs strapped to them.


User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5486 posts, RR: 13
Reply 60, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

Quoting luckyone (Reply 60):
not sure that's very fair. I have quite a few Iranian friends, many of whom have been back to Iran for one reason or another. It's quite surprising what they have to say about the mood on the street.

Then how did this lunatic get "elected" or into power in the first place? Scum like him use violence, fear and intimidation to squelsh the citizenry. He needs to take a one way swim with the fishies!



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13613 posts, RR: 62
Reply 61, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3132 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
Iran knows if they screw around too much with any of our allies it's basically screwing around with us.

And yet, there would be apologists all over the world (and in this forum, I might add) who would strongly argue against U.S. involvement against Tehran if the Iranians attacked British interests. Putting them firmly on notice that messing with our allies WILL be treated the same as messing with us makes it clear what lines are simply not to be crossed.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
Secondly, like North Korea, they are not kept "under lock," instead they do stupid little stunts to piss us off without going to full blown war.

I'm talking about the fact that while the DPRK has worked on attaining nuclear capability, they've not been foolish enough to let the fruits of their labor get into the hands of others. Yes, they still pull stupid stunts, but that's all they are.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
why not do what is in OUR best interests and pull back, saving us lives, money, and headaches... additionally as a bonus, the motivation for terrorism against us will go down significantly!

That's exactly what I'm advocating. The U.S. government would essentially take it as read that Iran has or will soon have nuclear weapons, and doesn't take any action to stop it from occurring. They just make clear the repercussions Iran would face for ever USING them - even against NATO allies or places where the U.S. has strategic interests - and in effect place the burden on the security of those weapons back on the Iranians.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3051 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 60):

Well I believe you answered your own question.   The last Shah was impotent, and a power vacuum developed. In Iranian society it was the religious leaders who held the power and esteem after the monarchy, so it's pretty easy to connect the dots. It's unfortunate, but I think the Iranians were sold a bill of rhetorical goods. Short-sighted? Possibly. Do I think it was the best option? No. They wanted rid of the Shah, the Ayatollah provided the fastest means. It is indeed amazing what desperate people will do, especially is most of them are uneducated. After that it was fairly easy for him to consolidate power. When Khomeini died somebody else took the reigns. Like I said above, they traded one asshole for another, but I don't believe that's what they intended.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10901 posts, RR: 37
Reply 63, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3052 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 61):
The U.S. government would essentially take it as read that Iran has or will soon have nuclear weapons, and doesn't take any action to stop it from occurring. They just make clear the repercussions Iran would face for ever USING them - even against NATO allies or places where the U.S. has strategic interests - and in effect place the burden on the security of those weapons back on the Iranians.

The people now in power in Iran have a history of invading countries around the world and killing people for greed and power.

 



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 64, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2964 times:

Hardly sabre rattling...Ahmadinejad has been working steadfastly on a nuclear program, this is no secret...His disdain for Israel, denial that the Holocaust ever occurred, is clearly indicative of an unstable personality. Not to mention his belief of the coming of the 12th Imam and the hysteria that is involved their.....I would take this clown seriously, to not do so would be a risky mistake. If he is arrogant / stupid enough to sponsor terrorist acts within the US boarders, It will be the last command he will have given. "Seal team 6" needs to stay current!

User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 65, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2965 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
Iran Willing To Attack On US Soil

I would LOVE to see them actually try. LOL!



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinejcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 66, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2829 times:

I'd be willing to bet that it happens.

I think that the second that Israel attacks Iranian nuclear sites, there will be suicide bombings throughout soft targets in the US. I also think that the majority of attackers will be holders of Canadian passports and simply passed through US Customs & Immigration as tourists. Canada will give citizenship to anyone. Canadian immigration makes the United Kingdom look like Guantanamo Bay.



America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10901 posts, RR: 37
Reply 67, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2821 times:

This is making the buzz all over the Internet

WND EXCLUSIVE
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel

Iran lays out legal case for genocidal attack against 'cancerous tumor'
Published: 6 hours ago
By Reza Kahlili

The Iranian government, through a website proxy, has laid out the legal and religious justification for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its people.

The doctrine includes wiping out Israeli assets and Jewish people worldwide.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/

WND?

   Wow!      

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who is a fellow with EMPact America and the author of “A Time to Betray,” about his double life ...

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/0...l-moore-goes-to-iran-reza-khalili/

hmmm...

 Wow!



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 67):

WND EXCLUSIVE
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel

Iran lays out legal case for genocidal attack against 'cancerous tumor'
Published: 6 hours ago
By Reza Kahlili

The Iranian government, through a website proxy, has laid out the legal and religious justification for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its people.

The doctrine includes wiping out Israeli assets and Jewish people worldwide.

Just another bit of hot air from a completely out of touch government. Have they somehow managed to rationalize the killing of 20,000 or so of their own people?


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 67):
This is making the buzz all over the Internet

Hasn't made the news here on the ABC, but the page seems to be plugging a book. Not sure how seriously we should take it. Even if real, the article still talks in terms of "defensive jihad"; in other words, hit us and we hit back.

It is all very scary that silly egos are leading the world to yet another dangerous situation.

It is odd that I don't recall demands for sanctions against Australia when John Howard (then Prime Minister) stated that he was prepared to launch preemptive strikes against Malaysia and Indonesia if he felt threatened. There was a bit of discussion here in Australia at the time and of course the Governments of those countries protested, but nobody ever suggested that Howard was a nut job. Mind you, the media was a bit uncharitable towards Howard when after a visit to Washington, where he met the POTUS, G W Bush went into hospital to remove something from his rear end.


User currently offlineTupolev160 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 70, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2600 times:

Iran is already a great country. Have you been there?

I think the US could have been a great country, had it choosen another path in the history. US is such a pity i think...


User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2538 times:

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 70):

It's so wonderful it has had the highest brain drain on the planet, and is currently number five, ahead of less developed countries due to no jobs for a population bulge encouraged by a small group of men with absolutely zero idea how to run a country and perceived Draconian social restrictions. Simply put--those who can are leaving in droves.

[Edited 2012-02-07 11:45:17]

User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13613 posts, RR: 62
Reply 72, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2461 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 70):
US is such a pity i think...

On the whole, I'd be inclined to believe your opinion isn't shared by many.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineairportugal310 From Tokelau, joined Apr 2004, 3643 posts, RR: 2
Reply 73, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2441 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 72):
On the whole, I'd be inclined to believe your opinion isn't shared by many.

Pretty sure we have a troll on our hands...either from CNN's comment section or Yahoos...take your pick



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlineJetsGo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3085 posts, RR: 5
Reply 74, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2442 times:

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 70):

Eh, I'd be bitter too if I was still in denial over the failure of the Motherland.



Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10901 posts, RR: 37
Reply 75, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2334 times:

Paris warns Israel against attack on Iran

The French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe called on to do everything possible to prevent Israel from attacking Iran.
http://de.rian.ru/politics/20120208/262650558.html

(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas referred in a book he published entitled "Coups et blessures" (Assaults and Injuries), that "The "Israelis" are doing whatever they want in France, and are controlling the French Intelligence with what serves them".

http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&id=255953

Dumas strictly affirmed, "The Iranian atomic bomb is in my view similar to the weapons of mass destruction possessed by former Iraqi President Sadam Hussein, i.e. I don't believe in all of that."



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 76, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 70):
Iran is already a great country. Have you been there?


Think I'll pass...The US is currently a great country. Have you been here?...Our government, as the Iranian government suck, but the people, ...the country...don't knock it till you have tried it.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 70):
I think the US could have been a great country, had it chosen another path in the history


And the path we should have chosen?...please enlighten...Historically if the US had chosen a different path, much of the good in other countries may not have been realized as well.
Europe as your aware of liberated by America in the 40's, the affluence in the middle east as a result of the "Greedy American Culture" and our gas guzzling giants...have made many around the globe wealthy. The fact that your leaders choose to hoard the wealth is another issue. And funny when I travel around the world all I see is American movies, hear American music and am asked about the cities in America that most I meet would give anything to travel too. So what is the problem?...American foreign policy?...well American civilians didn't write the doctrines...our vacuous leaders have as they to believe in self entitlement, leaving the average citizen behind...much like say...Iran,...or Greece...or the Ukraine...


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 77, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 76):

A lot of countries put out a lot of misinformation about the US. I've talked to some foreigners that legitimately think that most the population here carries guns everywhere, and if you silently say "bomb" you'll be sent to Gitmo. I disagree with many policies we have, but some people are wayyyyy out of touch with reality.

It goes both ways. I was surprised to see how nice Iran is (via the internet) and how nice and moderate Iranians are. I thought Iran was a dump filled with theocratic extremists.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5486 posts, RR: 13
Reply 78, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2187 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 75):
Paris warns Israel against attack on Iran

The French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe called on to do

Oh boy the Frence. No offense but they never liked my people. And they pander to the wack a doodles that plunder nations like Iran into a chamber of horrors. Ayatollah the facist Humani took assylum in Gay Pari! Case closed.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 77):
It goes both ways. I was surprised to see how nice Iran is (via the internet) and how nice and moderate Iranians are. I thought Iran was a dump filled with theocratic extremists.

I belive it. I just hope some of their people will rise up and make their so called leadership from hell take a one way dunk in the ocean and swim with the fishies. This may get me flamed but, I bet a lot of people from all over the world of many different faiths would fight to get a chance to take a golden shower on the corpse of some of their so called leaders.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12480 posts, RR: 34
Reply 79, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2153 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 77):
I thought Iran was a dump filled with theocratic extremists.

No, just run by them. This is Iran's big tragedy; it could be so successful in many ways - thriving oil industry, an entrepot between East and West (to rival DXB, IST or anywhere else), a superb tourism location - whether for skiing in the mountains in the north or just catching the sun, well, anywhere; and yet, over a period of 30 years, the Ayatollahs have sacrificed all of this for something they will never be allowed to achieve. Such a tragedy.


User currently offlinepetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3369 posts, RR: 12
Reply 80, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2150 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 78):
No offense but they never liked my people.

Which explains why they were the first to support you guys in the revolutionary war.  



Attamottamotta!
User currently onlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 81, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

I think this photo says it all.



User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7919 posts, RR: 52
Reply 82, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2112 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 78):
I belive it. I just hope some of their people will rise up and make their so called leadership from hell take a one way dunk in the ocean and swim with the fishies. This may get me flamed but, I bet a lot of people from all over the world of many different faiths would fight to get a chance to take a golden shower on the corpse of some of their so called leaders.

I talk with several Iranians sometimes, they all hate their government. Some say they're just waiting for the right opportunity to rise, whatever that means

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 81):
I think this photo says it all.

You forgot the 3 (?) aircraft carriers in the gulf. IIRC, just one of them has more firepower than Iran



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 82):
I talk with several Iranians sometimes, they all hate their government. Some say they're just waiting for the right opportunity to rise, whatever that means

From what I've read and heard from my Iranian friends is that many people hate it so much they've simply given up, and leave at their first opportunity.


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8568 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2065 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
Attacking anyone is going to be that reason. Especially if it's a NATO country.

Of course, Iran should not attack other countries unprovoked. But, if those countries attack Iran first (near equivalent to a Pearl Harbor against Iran), I see no reason why Iran should not respond violently. I thought that was an international norm? This whole debate confuses me greatly. How is it different from Pearl Harbor... Iran is a sovereign country.

[Edited 2012-02-11 13:55:54]

User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5486 posts, RR: 13
Reply 85, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2009 times:

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 80):
Which explains why they were the first to support you guys in the revolutionary war.

Should have clarified: My people, I'm Jewish. There has been and there's still a significant Anti-Semetic climate in France.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 86, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1994 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 84):
I see no reason why Iran should not respond violently.

I fail to see how they would do so, besides activating their "cells" in the US. Iran's power to inflict any sort of damage to western nations is limited. Their large army is useless within its borders, their air force is pathetic and navy non-existent. A battle-group should have no issues with any sort of Iranian temper tantrums.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 87, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1962 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 77):
It goes both ways. I was surprised to see how nice Iran is (via the internet) and how nice and moderate Iranians are. I thought Iran was a dump filled with theocratic extremists.

As I stated above, most populations of most if not all countries are at the mercy of policies established by their governments. unfortunatelly most governments view their mass populations as money machines and choose to abuse this to their own advantage, the US government obviously not excluded here...I too have Iranian friends, (Persian) and are delightful and wish the same for their lives as any other civilized individual would. I'm convinced at this juncture the press in all countries are extensions of their governments and are used to manipulate global opinion as they see fit. (good for business)!...but bad for the average citizen. While travelling abroad I have been confronted with questions regarding Americas insatiable thirst for war....Dang!...What can one say?...we do have bases everywhere, we are always involved in a conflict somewhere...I can't blame non US citizens for that line of thinking however back home in the US, I don't know of one person that wants us to be involved in any war unless we are responding to an act of aggression. And what citizen wouldn't expect that? As far as the concept of guns...seems to me the argument of America being the land of gun toting renegades,...well their must be a lot of John Wayne movies out there...last time I watched the news...pick any place in the middle east... everyone has an AK47 over their shoulder,...even 14 year olds.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 86):
their air force is pathetic and navy non-existent.

What do they have remaining as an airforce, some patchquilt 747/ 200's and a 747 SP for the "Genious"?


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10901 posts, RR: 37
Reply 88, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1956 times:

Iran building a nuclear bomb? How about looking the other way around?

Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon
Iranian intelligence experts also warned of the very real, and very frightening, possibility of the U.S. providing weapons and resources to a rogue third-party state such as Israel.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/ira...e-building-8500th-nuclear-w,27325/

This could very well be true.

 Wow!



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 89, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1952 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 88):
Iran building a nuclear bomb? How about looking the other way around?

Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon
Iranian intelligence experts also warned of the very real, and very frightening, possibility of the U.S. providing weapons and resources to a rogue third-party state such as Israel.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/ira...e-building-8500th-nuclear-w,27325/

This could very well be true

The Onion is a satirical media publication, with totally made up and humorous stories, but with a number of them done in a way to really bring out the truth. Indeed, if Israel, the USA and Europe want to go ballistic with Iran, then we all should demand Israel to open up to inspections their nuclear bomb program as demanded as to Iran.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9437 posts, RR: 29
Reply 90, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1938 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 89):
should demand Israel to open up to inspections their nuclear bomb program as demanded as to Iran.

The difference is that Israel has a democratic government whereas Iran is a theocratic regime. Even though the Rabbinat is very influential, there is no comparison with the Iranian theocratic leadership for whom Ahmandinishev is just a puppet on a string.

The Israeli nuclear bombs are self-defense, what Iran does is offensive, they openly say that they want to take Israel off the world map. Without those rethorics,no one would bother. The Jewish people have some experience with what dictators have on the agenda, who can blame Israel for not taking a chance?



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10901 posts, RR: 37
Reply 91, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 90):
The Jewish people have some experience with what dictators have on the agenda, who can blame Israel for not taking a chance?

We can all see how the Iranians have been bombing Gaza to hell making use of phosphorus bombs on civilians.
They attack and invade everywhere every chance they get.

Iranians are the most evil people on Earth. That country needs to be wiped off the map.

    Wow!

[Edited 2012-02-12 10:54:49]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinemal787 From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1824 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 91):
Iranians are the most evil people on Earth. That country needs to be wiped off the map.

Oh dear yet another pointless post by you. I have met and know a few Iranian people bpth in Australia and on my travels around the world , and they are not all evil people on earth, that is left for people like you who make comments like this. And this is a resident of the country that supported Khomeini who took over from the late Shah , thus forcing the counrty into the revoloution it had. But hey that was all good and in line with the world order as the late Shah was an evil man



Mal787



Flying cant get enough of it
User currently offlineSFBdude From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1793 times:

Taking his/her full post into consideration (not just the part you quoted), I'm almost certain that was sarcasm

[Edited 2012-02-13 07:11:46]

User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 94, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

Quoting mal787 (Reply 92):
Oh dear yet another pointless post by you.

One of the major problems with communication over the Internet is that we lack the signals that are normally available in face to face conversation. Tone of voice, body posture, the look in someone's eyes. You have missed the point, maybe? It wasn't Iran that bombed Gaza. Madame is pointing to the double standards that often apply in world politics: how we ignore evil acts by some while justifying evil acts by others.

Although I don't always agree with her, Madame has often asked people to not simply accept everything they read as being the literal truth. Maybe, like the rest of us, she may sometimes forget that advice and, like the rest of us, post in haste but I would not question her integrity.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9437 posts, RR: 29
Reply 95, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1785 times:

.... well, with all due respect to our cher Madame and her sarcasm, but she misses the point that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the world map and uses little Gaza as a puppet for that purpose. Iranians are of course not bombing Gaza, they use Gaza sending missiles to Israel and are happy about the inevitable reaction.

My bottom line was that Israel is defensive whereas Iran is offensive. Nothing to add to that.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 96, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1775 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 90):
The Israeli nuclear bombs are self-defense, what Iran does is offensive, they openly say that they want to take Israel off the world map.

Of course the Iranians are not the only people who have wanted to eradicate countries from the map. It has happened throughout history and the successful countries boast about how civilised they are. Did not the US want to erase the USSR from the map? Maybe yes. maybe no - that is, of course they did and they openly proclaimed so. Either way the USSR no longer exists but the people who lived there still do. Removing a country is not the same as removing a people, although sometimes it might be. Additionally, leading Israeli statesmen (and women) have openly declared support for Eratz Israel - land beyond the present borders to include "biblical Israel", which includes parts of present day Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. Are the locals supposed to give it up just because a member of the Knesset tells them to?

So how is that different to Israel denying that the Palestinians ever existed? And it isn't just Israel who says that. Gingrich says the same: the Palestinians are an invented people. Many Anet members repeat the same thing. Yet the very creation of Israel was based on not merely removing a definition of an area from the map but also its people from that area. This is fact.

Sure the Zionists had favoured status and the support of the imperial powers that divided the globe post WWI and WWII. The arabs were simply not asked: they were told quite bluntly, "you can haggle over the details but you will give up land." And that is a view that continues to this day to be espoused by people in this forum. All based on the blessing of that illustrious body that was once described as "the League of Imperialist Bandits" and some obscure biblical tracts that no-one has seen the originals of. Dress it up however you will, but Israel could only come into being through the denial of the rights of the people who were already living there.

I know that Europe felt guilty once it became obvious that they were in the habit of killing Jews, but why should people who had nothing to do with with it lose their land and continue to lose their land? And all the while we point to the bogey of Iran.

Don't get me wrong. I despise the regime in Tehran. But let us not for a second pretend that we in the West are any better. Our history proves otherwise. Yes the regime in Iran is bad but much of what is said is for internal consumption. It would be more reassuring if while guaranteeing Israel's right to exist the West would acknowledge the right of Palestine to exist. Guess who opposed Palestine's entreaty for recognition of statehood at the UN. Funnily enough, the reasons for rejection - no agreement with nations with which there was discord - were applied in 1948.

Ideally, I would like to see Israel and Palestine co-exist. Sadly, despite the efforts to paint just one side as bad, there are die-hards on both sides that make such a prospect doubtful. Given that the stronger party has the support of the West, (political, financial and investment) and that they can continue to disinherit the occupants of land under one pretext or another, I am not hopeful. And that is despite the fact that the vast majority of Israelis only wish to live in peace with their neighbours.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9437 posts, RR: 29
Reply 97, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1720 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 96):
Did not the US want to erase the USSR from the map?

Quokka, I just take this sentence, I am too tired to read the rest - I lived through the cold war, born in 1948, with Cuba crisis and all, Kennedy assasination where the 8 pm news was delayed by 15 or 20 minutes and no one knew why until they said what happened, if, at all, America wanted to erase the communist system, not the country.

The system did that by itself, as we all know.

That's a big difference from what Iran is aiming at.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6688 posts, RR: 12
Reply 98, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1645 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 95):
.... well, with all due respect to our cher Madame and her sarcasm, but she misses the point that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the world map and uses little Gaza as a puppet for that purpose. Iranians are of course not bombing Gaza, they use Gaza sending missiles to Israel and are happy about the inevitable reaction.

My bottom line was that Israel is defensive whereas Iran is offensive. Nothing to add to that.

I guess when the US used Saddam to attack Iran, that was alright.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27033 posts, RR: 58
Reply 99, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

Iran stops oil exports to six EU countries-state TV

TEHRAN Feb 15 (Reuters) - Iran has stopped oil exports to six European states in retaliation for European Union sanctions imposed on the Islamic state's key export, its English-language Press TV reported on Wednesday.

"Iran cuts its oil exports to six European countries," Press TV reported.

Press TV said Iran has stopped exporting oil to Netherlands, Greece, France, Portugal, Spain and Italy.

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5E8DF2K820120215

---

Iranian state TV have also just shown live the Iranian Presdient at the nuclear plant loading fuel into the reactor!


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10901 posts, RR: 37
Reply 100, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1503 times:

Quoting SFBdude (Reply 93):
Taking his/her full post into consideration (not just the part you quoted), I'm almost certain that was sarcasm


I never thought anyone would take that post seriously.

I had the chance to visit Iran while the Shah was in power. I went to Shiraz, Isfahan, Tehran and Persepolis. Persia is a timeless civilization. I admired the architecture and crafts. Iranians are kind and hospitable. I wish the best for the people of Iran and their country's future.

[Edited 2012-02-15 20:00:23]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10901 posts, RR: 37
Reply 101, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1474 times:

I am too late to edit my last post. However...

Re. Haaretz
Iran is being blamed after attacks carried against Israeli embassies

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...st-near-new-delhi-embassy-1.412661

Same with the Bangkok explosion
Senior Israeli official says Thai police believe incident was botched terror attack; five wounded in Bangkok after man reportedly tossed grenade into cab after driver refused to take him.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/internat...ed-by-own-bomb-in-bangkok-1.412824

Azerbaijan, Delhi, Bangkok... Seems that Iran related events are heating up.

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (2 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1397 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 100):

I had the chance to visit Iran while the Shah was in power. I went to Shiraz, Isfahan, Tehran and Persepolis. Persia is a timeless civilization. I admired the architecture and crafts.

Sadly the current government is doing its best to obliterate much of that heritage, while the Shah emphasized it. Among many other things, Persian names are currently discouraged in favor of Arabic names, which is rather ironic.

[Edited 2012-02-16 12:34:30]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Yet Another Attack On A US Consulate posted Mon Dec 6 2004 12:16:23 by DIJKKIJK
Attack On Us Base In Japan posted Thu Apr 3 2003 18:44:38 by Bmi330
US To Attack Iran In 2006 - "Der Spiegel" posted Fri Dec 23 2005 19:25:44 by Beaucaire
US Congress To Vote On Mandatory Paid Vacation Act posted Thu May 21 2009 16:59:47 by StasisLAX
Iran Proposes Attack On Isreal posted Wed Oct 22 2008 22:22:40 by PilotNTrng
Attack On Iran Imminent Says Main Dutch Newspaper posted Fri Aug 29 2008 03:55:53 by MadameConcorde
US 'has To Act' On Climate Report posted Tue Apr 3 2007 00:59:20 by OzGlobal
US 'Licence To Snoop' On Flying Britons posted Mon Jan 1 2007 15:58:56 by AeroWesty
Does Bush Still Have Ambitions To Attack Iran? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 15:17:48 by Baroque
Analyst: Massive Air Attack On Iran Likely posted Tue Aug 29 2006 15:56:42 by AerospaceFan
US Congress To Vote On Mandatory Paid Vacation Act posted Thu May 21 2009 16:59:47 by StasisLAX
Iran Proposes Attack On Isreal posted Wed Oct 22 2008 22:22:40 by PilotNTrng
Attack On Iran Imminent Says Main Dutch Newspaper posted Fri Aug 29 2008 03:55:53 by MadameConcorde
US 'has To Act' On Climate Report posted Tue Apr 3 2007 00:59:20 by OzGlobal
US 'Licence To Snoop' On Flying Britons posted Mon Jan 1 2007 15:58:56 by AeroWesty
Does Bush Still Have Ambitions To Attack Iran? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 15:17:48 by Baroque
Analyst: Massive Air Attack On Iran Likely posted Tue Aug 29 2006 15:56:42 by AerospaceFan