I just heard on the news this AM that bombers have just been refitted with MOABs, in light of President Bush’s new sanctions against Iran. President Bush told the Europeans that they can trade with the USA or Iran, but not both.
It won’t be long now.
Yeah, and Ron Paul is pushing against it, claiming that it’s being done in preparation for war with Iran. The bastard is doing everything he can to try to make me not vote for him.
mike
I think the MOAB is to big for a bomber to carry internally and drop.
It is normally dropped with a parachute from a cargo plane.
Maybe they meant bombs designed to penetrate into the earth. More useful for this mission then a giant air burst munition I would think.
Attack Iran and you attack Russia
By Pepe Escobar
[i]The barely reported highlight of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Tehran for the Caspian Sea summit last week was a key face-to-face meeting with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
A high-level diplomatic source in Tehran tells Asia Times Online that essentially Putin and the Supreme Leader have agreed on a plan to nullify the George W Bush administration’s relentless drive towards launching a preemptive attack, perhaps a tactical nuclear strike, against Iran. An American attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as an attack on Russia. [/i]
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ26Ak06.html?=retrieve_rss
That is an interesting read. It starts with the implication that Russia has formed an alliance with Iran, but appears to end with the population turning against current leadership, and the Ayatola not very supportive of the current leadership.
Interestingly enough, there are no actual quotes that can be attributed to Iranian officials, just reports from “Hawkish” sources.
I’d say that the last thing international relationships need are implications and reports from hawkish sources that amount to political gossip. Especialy when the subject is nuclear war.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Attack Iran and you attack Russia
…[/quote]
Sure it will. Give me a break.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Yeah, and Ron Paul is pushing against it, claiming that it’s being done in preparation for war with Iran. The bastard is doing everything he can to try to make me not vote for him.
mike[/quote]
Mikey,
Does Iran have the right to defend itself? You know, Second Amendment and all? Why do other nations think they have the right to tell other nations what kind of weapons they can or cannot have? Where does this right come from? Do you not think that Israel, Pakistan, India, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, et al, can keep an eye on Iran themselves? It is “more” their concern than it is ours.
What is interesting is that Pakistan, on Iran’s border, has the bomb, and it has done nothing to stabilize the region.
Maybe it has stopped a conventional war between India and Pakistan, but India (which has it’s own bomb) and the Kashmir region is constantly being attacked from terrorists living in Pakistan.
The bomb has done nothing to stop terrorists from attacking inside Paksitan and in Afghanistan.
So the idea that Iran having the bomb would stabilize the Middle East is ludicrous. It would give Iran a bigger hand to export the shia revolution and spark an arms race.
But what about rights? Does Iran have the right to build and develop nuclear weapons? If not, why?
I don’t think weapons will stabilized anything. I am not sure I even understand what stabilization means in this regard.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So the idea that Iran having the bomb would stabilize the Middle East is ludicrous. [/quote]
Bollocks!
The US does not attack nuclear powers. If Iran had the bomb, the country would therefore not be invaded by American troops and turned into the-other-Iraq. In case you didn’t notice, war is not stability. What did invading Iraq bring besides hanging Saddam? Terrorist cells in the country, Saudi backed death squads, Al-Mahmudiyah massacre, oppressed women, etc. Heck, Turkey is on the verge of declaring war on Kurdistan. These are all direct consequences of your invasion.
Stability doesn’t mean what you think it does. Your example is just moronic.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Yeah, and Ron Paul is pushing against it, claiming that it’s being done in preparation for war with Iran. The bastard is doing everything he can to try to make me not vote for him.
mike
Mikey,
Does Iran have the right to defend itself? You know, Second Amendment and all?
[/quote]
They absolutely do, buutttt…[quote]
Why do other nations think they have the right to tell other nations what kind of weapons they can or cannot have? Where does this right come from?
[/quote]
We have the “right” to tell them that they cannot have a nuke because they have openly said that they will use it when they get it. I’m hard core pro 2A, but if I were to go to a gun store and tell the guy at the desk that as soon as he gives me that gun I’m going home to kill someone I would expect to be refused service. [quote]
Do you not think that Israel, Pakistan, India, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, et al, can keep an eye on Iran themselves? It is “more” their concern than it is ours.[/quote]
I agree. I don’t think we should attack Iran because they are threatening to attack Israel. We don’t need to fight their fights for them. Frankly, the Israeli’s have made every Arab state there their bitch since '47 so I am supremely confident in Israel’s ability to kick ass. There is a difference in fighting alongside allies when attacked, which I absolutely believe in and starting a war to protect Israel, which is certainly not okay.
My beef with Paul on this (and remember I’m still voting for him, though that vote is hanging on a thread these days) is that he’s talking about not allowing us the capability to wage war to our fullest. This B2 retrofit isn’t about Iran to me, it’s about our ability to maintain military superiority.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
We have the “right” to tell them that they cannot have a nuke because they have openly said that they will use it when they get it. [/quote]
I must have missed this important development. I mean, last I checked, Iranians weren’t even after nuclear bombs. Would you mind filling me in? Thanks.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
So the idea that Iran having the bomb would stabilize the Middle East is ludicrous.
Bollocks!
The US does not attack nuclear powers. If Iran had the bomb, the country would therefore not be invaded by American troops and turned into the-other-Iraq. In case you didn’t notice, war is not stability. What did invading Iraq bring besides hanging Saddam? Terrorist cells in the country, Saudi backed death squads, Al-Mahmudiyah massacre, oppressed women, etc. Heck, Turkey is on the verge of declaring war on Kurdistan. These are all direct consequences of your invasion.
Stability doesn’t mean what you think it does. Your example is just moronic.[/quote]
Just because we haven’t doesn’t mean we won’t.
And I never heard of Saudi backed death squads. Car bombers maybe, death squads, no.
The Shia have death squads, and slaughtered the Sunni, and these are clearly backed by Iran. And you think these people having the bomb would be a good thing?
Iran having the bomb may dissuade the US from invading, but that may be the sole advantage. How will it stop the terrorist problem? An arms race in the Middle East would also be a good thing?
Oh yeah, I thought Iran only wanted the nuclear power for energy. Yeah, right.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
We have the “right” to tell them that they cannot have a nuke because they have openly said that they will use it when they get it.
I must have missed this important development. I mean, last I checked, Iranians weren’t even after nuclear bombs. Would you mind filling me in? Thanks.[/quote]
Yeah, it’s called propaganda. You think if they had nuclear energy they would stop and not create a bomb? Why not, when it could stop “Great Satan” from attacking as you claim.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Attack Iran and you attack Russia
…
Sure it will. Give me a break. [/quote]
Don’t be so sure. They’re itching to flex their muscles.
Maybe another cold war?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Iranians weren’t even after nuclear bombs.[/quote]
Tell me, have you taken a poll?
Don’t give me this bullshit lixy, you little nutmuncher.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
We have the “right” to tell them that they cannot have a nuke because they have openly said that they will use it when they get it.
I must have missed this important development. I mean, last I checked, Iranians weren’t even after nuclear bombs. Would you mind filling me in? Thanks.[/quote]
And there are no gays in Iran.
[quote]unbending wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Attack Iran and you attack Russia
…
Sure it will. Give me a break.
Don’t be so sure. They’re itching to flex their muscles.
Maybe another cold war?[/quote]
That is coming regardless of Iran.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I just heard on the news this AM that bombers have just been refitted with MOABs, in light of President Bush’s new sanctions against Iran. President Bush told the Europeans that they can trade with the USA or Iran, but not both.
It won’t be long now.[/quote]
And that gives you a raging hard-on doesn’t it, you chickenhawk douchebag?
“WHOO-HOO, let’s go attack them eeranyan fuckers boys! Y’all go on ahead now, I gotch 'er back. I’d go too, but you know …cough…cough, I got the wheez, and well golly, I wish I could go, but…cough…”
Got a new crop of younguns to sign up this year? Got em all rarin’ to go yet? And you get to sit home and spank to the bomb-sight videos again. Life’s good for you.
[quote]unbending wrote:
Tell me, have you taken a poll?
Don’t give me this bullshit lixy, you little nutmuncher.[/quote]
No, but that’s the official position of Tehran. So unless you have proof that they are lying, I’ll consider an attack on Iran gratuitous aggression. Interestingly, the findings of the IAEA itself seem to corroborate the Iranian position. Take a peek at their report from the 30th of August.