Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, this is big news. This could all be the beginning of WWIII. Going to be interesting to see how we respond to this talk. Isreal could take out Iran I think. I've always felt Iran was more of an enemy then Iraq.
dunno.gif
I'm glad we are moving troops out of Europe.
 
Iran would be a lot tougher nut to crack than Iraq and we havn't got that little deal under control yet. If they decide to lob a missile at Dimona Nuclear Centre theres not much that can be done to prevent it.
 
Of recent time the entire world has been taught the lesson that pre-emptive strikes are legal, legitimate and necessary.

At the time I asked whether a pre-pre-emptive strike was also legitimate.

No answers.

So I'd guess if they feel threatened, then they've a right to pre-empt.

Not pretty at all.
 
quote:

Originally posted by like a rock:
That fellow must be smoking some Afgan weed or something
mad.gif
If they launch a first strike against any of our forces in the gulf region he will be hunting his 72 virgins in his heaven
cheers.gif


And especially ticked off if it's 72 grapes and not virgins waiting (Koran):
The verb “join as in marriage” or “pair as in animals for copulation” is a classic misreading of zāy for rā and jīm for hā' ... The major conclusion of section fifteen is that the expression hūr cīn means “white (grapes), jewels (of crystal)” and not “dark, wide-eyed (maidens)” (suras 44:54 and 52:20).
 
I know this sounds bad, but I say bring it on. Let's stop ***** footing around what we all know is inevetible. Someones is going to use nuclear weapons. We have to do all we can to make sure it ain't them! Not saying we use them, but if we or Isreal have to take out their nuke sites, and N Korea's for that matter then so be it. Otherwise kiss your *** goodbye, because they WILL use them if they think they can defeat us.

Sorry.
 
Shannow, pre-emptive strikes are only effective when one can ultimately defeat that enemy. Otherwise they're foolish.

If Iraq is not ultimately in the anti-terror column of the world's nations, it will have been foolish. If Iran loses tens of thousands of its people, it will have been foolish.
 
rg144, if you are correct that could be very important information! If in fact according to the Koran the martyr receives only grapes and crystals, we need to get that information to these people who are blowing themselves up!
 
Israel took a brave step in blowing up Iraqs nuclear reactor in 1981. We punished them and put in economic sanctions and really slapped their hands.

In retrospect Im so glad that Israel was brave enough to deal with a problem before it became a huge problem.

Imagine Saddam with nuclear weapons and how different the world would be today.

History always seems to repeat.

http://pub97.ezboard.com/fspursdominionfrm2.showMessage?topicID=321.topic

Happy Motoring All,

cool.gif


Bugshu
 
If Iran get attack by either by Isreali or US. I am sure IRAN is going use nuke attack us. However if Iran is intend use nuke and Iran will be gone instant with US's arsenal with all nukes stuff.
 
quote:

Originally posted by fasty:
If Iran get attack by either by Isreali or US. I am sure IRAN is going use nuke attack us. However if Iran is intend use nuke and Iran will be gone instant with US's arsenal with all nukes stuff.

Uhhh...O.K. But they have no nukes.

Anyway the Defense Minister (of Iran) is a big bag of wind.
smile.gif
 
The Iranian government is a joke. The Iranian people (the educated ones) know it.

This is probably a play like Kim's for some type of economic aid.

I do believe it would be proper to engage in some aggressive posturing, though. Let's see the sphincters pucker a little.
grin.gif


The Third world isn't mature enough to handle nukes. They're far too savage in thier apparent behavior. They are following the template for success, however. Weapons bring you respect as they measure it.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
Weapons bring you respect as they measure it.

Right, just ask Saddam. We respected him all the way into a mud hole and killed his sons
smile.gif


Some of the other goons are gonna wise up, or get the same "respect". Iran appears to WANT to get whacked. It would be a shame to disappoint.
 
quote:

Shannow, pre-emptive strikes are only effective when one can ultimately defeat that enemy. Otherwise they're foolish.

I believe Pearl Harbour is a good example of this. Japan got nuked twice in response to their pre-emptive attack.

I also believe any conflict with Iran will interrupt oil supplies beyond what the World economy can tolerate. On the lighter side, no ground intervention will be needed, just a sustained air campaign and naval bombardment. imo, any site developing nuclear weapons tech is subject to a low-yield missle attack, fair is fair.
grin.gif
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by fasty:
If Iran get attack by either by Isreali or US. I am sure IRAN is going use nuke attack us. However if Iran is intend use nuke and Iran will be gone instant with US's arsenal with all nukes stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhhh...O.K. But they have no nukes.

Anyway the Defense Minister (of Iran) is a big bag of wind.


Even if they did have them, they wouldn't have the delivery system to get them to the US. They had to hit our troops site within the region...
 
quote:

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Shannow, pre-emptive strikes are only effective when one can ultimately defeat that enemy. Otherwise they're foolish.

If Iraq is not ultimately in the anti-terror column of the world's nations, it will have been foolish. If Iran loses tens of thousands of its people, it will have been foolish.


Groucho,
you're pretty right here, but my concern is that if an unstable country feels (or in fact knows) that they are next on the list as axis of evil, and as soon as we fix this mess, we are coming after you, what are they going to do ?

Sit back and take it in the neck ?

Or at least try to take a few out with you ?
 
quote:

Gary Allen said "The Third world isn't mature enough to handle nukes. They're far too savage in thier apparent behavior. They are following the template for success, however. Weapons bring you respect as they measure it."

and the rest of your post.


We're the only ones that have ever used nuclear weapons. We almost came to the destruction of all civilazation as we know it. This is not a technology to be "spread around". So far, we've either only shared it with our allies ...or paid others NOT to develop them. So far ..we've kept a lid on the world not boiling over into its own massive destruction.

Third world nations are on the a$$ end of the life that the rest of the devoloped world lives. They have lots of problems. We don't give a hoot about them since they don't pose a threat to us. Nukes in the ME DOES pose a threat to us. They don't need sophisticated delivery systems to strike Israel or to disrupt our free world's energy supply.

It's about the power that having such weapons brings you. The unfortunate liability is that you can't rely on third world nations to have the wisdom and the restraint where so much is held in the balance. We have too much to lose ...they may not see it that way.

We KNOW ..we've been there and have far too much at stake for too many peaceful and productive populations of the world to allow one lunitic fringe to spoil the delicately balanced world.

Fair ..right ..or wrong. If they push forth with nuke development ...I don't care what happens to them.

I could, btw, just as effectively argue for Iran to have nukes.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
LeMay lobbied to send the navy and SAC to surround the island and if need be, "fry it." If the Russians attempted to fight back, he was confident SAC could protect the country. When the crisis ended peacefully, LeMay called it "the greatest defeat in our history."

I was an active duty AF weapons tech on a SAC base during the Cuban crisis. Had things gone nuclear, Russia would have suffered unimaginable destruction, but SAC was not a defensive force and had no way to defend the US. Even the US forces who actually had responsibility for defending US air space would have been severly overtaxed and only marginally effective. Then there were balistic missiles against which neither the US or Russia had any defense.

MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, is what kept the US and Russia from going nuclear.
 
Gary Allen said "The Third world isn't mature enough to handle nukes. They're far too savage in thier apparent behavior. They are following the template for success, however. Weapons bring you respect as they measure it."

The characters for Dr Stangelove didn't came from a third world country :^) See below for a some history on the Cuban Missile Crisis. I was an Air Force brat in Japan during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and although I didn't know what was actually going on at the time I do recall that my dad, a cook and baker, was issued some field gear which we had to carry in the car, there was an incredible amount of military traffic and flights, MPs all over, and my parents were visibly distraught as my mom would just start crying sometimes.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/sorenson.htm

Senator Richard Russell, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, believed a war on which our very destiny hinged was "coming someday, Mr. President," and added, "Will it ever be under more auspicious circumstances?" Like both Senator Fulbright and Senator Russell, Representative Carl Vinson, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, wanted to "strike with all the force and power [we possessed] and try to get it over with as quickly as possible."

That had also been the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff three days earlier. "This blockade and political action . . . will lead right into war," Gen. Curtis LeMay of the Air Force warned. "This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich."

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Air_Power/LeMay/AP36.htm

While politicians and diplomats were careful of appearing too threatening to the Soviets, LeMay was openly belligerent and rarely edited himself. Both as commander of SAC and later as air force vice-chief and chief of staff (1961-1965), he made frequent pronouncements about the need to bomb first. He spoke often of a "Sunday Punch," an all-out atomic attack that would bring victory before the Soviets knew the war had begun. He felt that the United States backed away from conflict too much, weakening its position and reputation. This was especially true during the Cuban Missile Crisis. LeMay lobbied to send the navy and SAC to surround the island and if need be, "fry it." If the Russians attempted to fight back, he was confident SAC could protect the country. When the crisis ended peacefully, LeMay called it "the greatest defeat in our history."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top