RE: Iran VS Israel

RE: Iran VS Israel (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 6:52:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ermood I know enough of the matters what i post;) You may and can say wathever you want but besides aircrafts Russia is still no.1 in building military stuff;) The Russians are charitably no. 8 or so in exporting weapons. And the weapons they do export are what is called monkey copies of their own systems i.e. they take out all the high end electronics/night vision and sell nearly useless shells.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 6:55:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ermood Go follow some news please;) those times are over friend.... Let's hope so.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 7:20:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN Notice the advocates of this proposed Isrealite madness are already discussing WW3 as the normal expected outcome. I am certain Chicago would be heavily targeted, but Domken is quite willing to die in furtherance of greater Israel. Of course this madness is condemned much as some drunk would be restrained by his friends if he had a bag of grenades and planned to hold court with the National Police. LOL you and Ermood are just concocting the most idle of doomsday speculations to suit your POV. It is far from a given there will be a serious war, much less WW3. Israel destroyed a reactor in Syria in 2007 and in Iraq in 1981. Nothing major occurred in response. The very most it will provoke is a regional war with Iran involving Hizbullah and perhaps Syria, which would no doubt be very serious but thats hardly a doomsday WWIII scenario. The IAEA has clearly stated there is a non-peaceful aspect to Iran's nuclear development, pointing to evidence including the advanced design of a nuclear warhead and trigger devices http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/world/un-details-case-that-iran-is-at-work-on-nuclear-device.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 which combined with very frequent threats of annihilation (the 2005 comment was just one of many) means that Israel has little choice but take it seriously.

YN -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 7:30:25 PM)
What do you think the results of a unilateral nuclear attack by the Zionists on Iran would be?

Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 7:48:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN What do you think the results of a unilateral nuclear attack by the Zionists on Iran would be? LOL its not going to be a nuclear assault. Israel hasn't threatened another country with annihilation despite having had nuclear power since 1967, and been at the receiving end of a number of inter-state wars. It is seeking high potency bunker busting bombs that the US has to take out Iran's capability for a few years.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 7:49:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN What do you think the results of a unilateral nuclear attack by the Zionists on Iran would be? Iran would cease to exist as a functional political unit.

YN -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 7:52:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: YN What do you think the results of a unilateral nuclear attack by the Zionists on Iran would be? LOL its not going to be a nuclear assault. Israel hasn't threatened another country with annihilation despite having had nuclear power since 1967, and been at the receiving end of a number of inter-state wars. It is seeking high potency bunker busting bombs that the US has to take out Iran's capability for a few years. You are alone in this assessments, most the other posters advocating this event are counting nuclear warheads in their posts,, and readily see the involvement of the US, NATO, the Chinese and so on.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 7:54:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: YN What do you think the results of a unilateral nuclear attack by the Zionists on Iran would be? LOL its not going to be a nuclear assault. Israel hasn't threatened another country with annihilation despite having had nuclear power since 1967, and been at the receiving end of a number of inter-state wars. It is seeking high potency bunker busting bombs that the US has to take out Iran's capability for a few years. You are alone in this assessments, most the other posters advocating this event are counting nuclear warheads in their posts,, and readily see the involvement of the US, NATO, the Chinese and so on. Nope, not even by a long shot, and AFAIK few political commentators would be of that opinion either other than the possible involvement of the US, whose regional bases may be vulnerable to an Iranian assault.

DomKen -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 8:07:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: YN What do you think the results of a unilateral nuclear attack by the Zionists on Iran would be? LOL its not going to be a nuclear assault. Israel hasn't threatened another country with annihilation despite having had nuclear power since 1967, and been at the receiving end of a number of inter-state wars. It is seeking high potency bunker busting bombs that the US has to take out Iran's capability for a few years. You are alone in this assessments, most the other posters advocating this event are counting nuclear warheads in their posts,, and readily see the involvement of the US, NATO, the Chinese and so on. You and ermod salivating over a world war. I've tried to point out why the countries you think will jump in on iran's side won't.

YN -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 8:24:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You and ermod salivating over a world war. I've tried to point out why the countries you think will jump in on iran's side won't. I am the one saying this will not end well. And considering your statements, I doubt you can predict what the leaders and citizens of your state would do or think in such a case, let alone those of Pakistan, Russia, or China to name a few. Predict what Iraq might do, since they just signed a mutual defense pat with Iran for instance. The entire premise of yours is based on every country acting in the manner you claim, if one misstep from your questionable predictions occur many millions will die worldwide.

YN -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 8:30:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: YN What do you think the results of a unilateral nuclear attack by the Zionists on Iran would be? Iran would cease to exist as a functional political unit. Assuming that was the case, anarchy in Iran would likely be worse then the status quo. And what else would occur? If a film could cause widespread unrest in the Muslim world what would the Israelis killing several million Muslims in furtherance of the Great Satan do?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 8:32:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: YN What do you think the results of a unilateral nuclear attack by the Zionists on Iran would be? Iran would cease to exist as a functional political unit. Assuming that was the case, anarchy in Iran would likely be worse then the status quo. And what else would occur? If a film could cause widespread unrest in the Muslim world what would the Israelis killing several million Muslims in furtherance of the Great Satan do? Maybe people will start understanding why we need energy independence and to do it without petroleum. That way, if they want to go about happily slaughtering each other in the Mideast, fuckin let em. They can drink their oil. The mideast will never be a civilized place.

YN -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 8:50:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: YN quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: YN What do you think the results of a unilateral nuclear attack by the Zionists on Iran would be? Iran would cease to exist as a functional political unit. Assuming that was the case, anarchy in Iran would likely be worse then the status quo. And what else would occur? If a film could cause widespread unrest in the Muslim world what would the Israelis killing several million Muslims in furtherance of the Great Satan do? Maybe people will start understanding why we need energy independence and to do it without petroleum. That way, if they want to go about happily slaughtering each other in the Mideast, fuckin let em. They can drink their oil. The mideast will never be a civilized place. Throughout recorded history, and likely before the area was fertilized with blood. They were doing it many centuries before there was such a thing as a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew. Far be it from the peoples of the Americas to interfere with this hobby of theirs. However I can think of no reason to join them in this, time to quit all military alliances with any of them. Let the Europeans go on Crusades to save the place, that will keep the conquistadores in the EU occupied and out of mischief elsewhere for many centuries, the first several hundred years of such efforts merely prevented the Turks from pacifying the lands in the necessary and traditional manner.

ermood -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 9:45:46 PM)
quote: The mideast will never be a civilized place. I've bet you have never been there friend;) The Mid-East is far more civilized then the US or Europe. Just shut your mouth about stuff you don't know shit about... or at least stay at the burgerking;)

tweakabelle -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 10:52:33 PM)
quote: time to quit all military alliances with any of them. Western military adventures in the Middle East have a bad habit of ending up as disasters - look at Iraq for example. Western military interventions are terrorism's best recruiting card - they cause far more terrorism than they cure The West should quit from ALL military alliances in the region, and the region should become a nuclear free zone. Iran has proposed the idea of a nuclear free zone in the ME, so creating one would put an end to fears about Iranian nukes forever. Israel and some elements in the US seem to prefer war to these moves, moves designed to ease tensions on a permanent basis. Why are people listening to the war mongers when a vaible peaceful alternative is readily available?

SternSkipper -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/17/2012 11:55:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: ORIGINAL: ermoodj Well, even your own gouverment is telling it... you're just poor, best thing to do is simply admit it. current account balance 2011: US: $ -473,400,000,000 wich makes it the poorest counrie on earth;) China: $ 201,700,000,000 no.1 Russia: $ 101,300,000,000 no.5 UK: $ -46,470,000,000 no.185 France: $ -65,600,000,000 no.189 Iran: $ 42,000,000,000 no.12 Who's up for surf'n'turf for lunch? The great revelation here is that disco still thrives in Moscow and lead painted children's toys are profitable. As there was no link, just a bunch of numbers, I THINK he was putting up the national debt of various countries. The problem with that theory is that debt does not preclude wealth. Person 1 rents his house, rides a bike to work and is pulling down a bit above minimum wage. He has a TV and a stereo and his clothes and has a thousand or so in the bank but has no debts. Person 2 owns his own home. He also owns commercial rental property. His car is paid for. He has stocks and is the owner of a significant quantity of durable goods. He also has about 200K in debt. Which person is more wealthy? According to ermood, it appears to be person #1. In the real world, it is # Heh... You think I don't know.that? I'm just enjoying the floor show while a foot garment on the loose flunks diplomacy 101.

crazyml -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/18/2012 12:21:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Errm... Gross External Debt per capita is a ridiculous measure of national debt, on account of it being grossly distorted by the presence of a banking sector. I agree the "banking sector" is responsible for much of the external debt, but not that the external debt to gdp is a ridiculous measure. If it were possible to remove the impact of the banking sector from the total then it would be useful, but as it stands it simply does not reflect the actual indebtedness of a nation. For example, it might be possible to deduct net foreign deposits? As it stands, I still think it's a ridiculous measure when applied to countries like the UK. quote: This is not a measure of "national debt" for "national debt" is merely what the government of a country owes. Some countries have their national debt owed in large part to the people in their own countries. This external debt describes how much money is owed by a country to other countries. the comparison scales it to the amount a country's GDP produces in a year. Yes, I see the (important) distinction, and I think you're onto something, I just don't think that the external debt figure is meaningful in the context of economies with a significant banking sector, unless a way can be found to exclude the banking sector impact from the calculation. quote: But since many others including the EU, the UN, the OCED, the ECB and the economic press also consider this computation a valid comparison, just where do you see the flaw besides how various banking organizations being largely responsible for the offshore loans? search for "external debt to ppp" (PPP is GDP per capita in essence) or "external debt to gdp" and you will see millions of results. Even Wiki is obliged to produce a table and add the information as to how this external debt compares to a nations gdp and ppp - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt I think you'll find that it's used with the (big) caveat relating to the banking sector impact, even the wp entry makes this clear. quote: But what do you think is a better measure of how broke a country is then how much it owes outside its borders compared to its yearly production? Grin... I'm afraid I'm utterly unqualified to come up with a better measure - Except that there must surely be a way of figuring out the value of the banking sector effect.

crazyml -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/18/2012 12:32:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen They cannot strike the mainland US because any strike that is not a full on destruction of the country, and China cannot do that, results in their utter annihilation. I'm afraid I'm defeated by your peculiar application of "logic". First you imply that they lack the technology to strike the USA, now you switch to the mutually assured destruction argument. Which, is a little silly, as China doesn't have to be capable of utterly annihilating the USA to present a compelling deterent to the USA. It just needs to assure the USA that, for example, NY, Washington DC, and San Francisco would be turned into glass. quote: The Df-5A's are housed in mountainside caves. We know which ones and where. I'm beyond certain we have eyes on those cave mouths 24/7. I'm beyond certain that the Chinese are plenty capable of figuring out how likely it is that a foreign power knows where their missiles are and I am beyond certain that they wouldn't say "oh drat, that tears it, we can't use those missiles any more" and leave it at that. Out of idle curiosity, what would you do if you knew that your primary defence against nuclear attack had been compromised? I get the impression that a smart chap like you wouldn't do "nothing"?

Moonhead -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/18/2012 2:37:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras LOL its not going to be a nuclear assault. Israel hasn't threatened another country with annihilation despite having had nuclear power since 1967, and been at the receiving end of a number of inter-state wars. It is seeking high potency bunker busting bombs that the US has to take out Iran's capability for a few years. Of course, the main reason for that is until Israel actually uses its nuclear weapons, it can't be sure that they won't cause it serious problems as well as who they nuke. It's not like the area of the middle east that houses Israel and its traditional enemies is big enough that they can go nuking people without worrying about EMP and fallout themselves.

Politesub53 -> RE: Iran VS Israel (10/18/2012 2:37:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail If any superpower gets in a battle with us, their first move would be to knock out our military sattellites with conventional missles, leaving us deaf, dumb, and blind. Do you mean dumb or dumber........[8D] Don't worry, when the Russian's get involved due to the mutual defense treaty they have with China, they will use two of their MIRVed rockets to deploy the requisite 18 warheads needed to reduce the UK to the stone age as well as savaging the US. (it takes about 200 warheads to sufficiently trash the United States and three deployed correctly to wreck Israel.) Notice the advocates of this proposed Isrealite madness are already discussing WW3 as the normal expected outcome. I am certain Chicago would be heavily targeted, but Domken is quite willing to die in furtherance of greater Israel. Of course this madness is condemned much as some drunk would be restrained by his friends if he had a bag of grenades and planned to hold court with the National Police. Do you really think Russia and China will go for mutual destruction, in support of Iran ? It just aint happening.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375