|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
koon_taung_daeng
Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Location: south korea
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| ajgeddes wrote: |
| koon_taung_daeng wrote: |
| well regardless these people are supplying weapons to terrorist, and of course Iran should int have nuclear weapons , nobody should have nukes and since its impossible for that to happen then the next best thing is no one else should have nukes, and whoever called me a 2 bit English teacher go *beep* your self, im also a veteran of the armed forces so if i say "we" i have a right to do so. and dont talk *beep* about people you don't even know. |
That means you are probably even more brainwashed than a normal person into being anti-Iranian. Also, who said they are making nuclear weapons? They are building a plant for nuclear power. You are right that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but who has the most nuclear weapons in the world? Should we all start bombing them? |
They are building a plant for nuclear power? Wow, the OP is not the only one in this thread exhibiting naivete. |
right so was North Korea, then one day they tested a nuke |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
koon_taung_daeng
Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Location: south korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="ajgeddes"][quote="NAVFC"]
| ajgeddes wrote: |
| ing from Bush & Co. So, some of the weapons in Iraq were made in Iran. A lot of the weapons in Iran were made in the USA. |
thats a good point actually what the hell are we doing selling weapons to the "enemy" in the first place |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's a near certainty that Iran is helping the insurgency in Iraq and that they have or will have nuclear weapons. But unless we have the full support of the international community, any sort of military action against Iran would be ineffective. A draft isn't feasible right now because of how disastrous the war in Iraq has been (please NavFc I'm serious- I want to hear the good news you know that I don't).
To get the full support of the international community, nothing short of a picture of Ahmadinejad riding a nuke like Slim Pickens is going to work. Invading Iran is, for the forseeable future, a pipe dream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mack4289 wrote: |
I think it's a near certainty that Iran is helping the insurgency in Iraq and that they have or will have nuclear weapons. But unless we have the full support of the international community, any sort of military action against Iran would be ineffective. A draft isn't feasible right now because of how disastrous the war in Iraq has been (please NavFc I'm serious- I want to hear the good news you know that I don't).
To get the full support of the international community, nothing short of a picture of Ahmadinejad riding a nuke like Slim Pickens is going to work. Invading Iran is, for the forseeable future, a pipe dream. |
OK- last time I was there - several schools in iraq were finished. the sewage and electrical ssytems were upgraded and back up on line. terror attacks in sveral regions have gone down. insurgents are starting to turn aagainst AIQ< infact there is now a unit which uses former insurgents as covert operatives.
Also cosntruction is being done on new neighbor hoods in several iraq cities and the security situation is proving there, in several areas.
one of the formerly most dangerous provinces - the Anbar province - has seen a 36 percent decrease in terror strikes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| The US ought to take Iran out for a dinner and a movie. Afterwards cop a feel. May even get to third base. |
Careful, Leslie: when I saw the thread's title and then saw that you had posted, I guessed this was what you had posted, almost to the letter (except for copping a feel, of course. Nice touch). Getting predictable in your old age, my friend.
In any case, in the spirit of you response, I have to agree: America really ought to take out Iran before our not-so-smooth friend Israel knocks her up first... |
Yeah, yer right. My schtick's getting old. I need some new material.
So, who's up for a gang-bang on Iran? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| koon_taung_daeng wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| ajgeddes wrote: |
| koon_taung_daeng wrote: |
| well regardless these people are supplying weapons to terrorist, and of course Iran should int have nuclear weapons , nobody should have nukes and since its impossible for that to happen then the next best thing is no one else should have nukes, and whoever called me a 2 bit English teacher go *beep* your self, im also a veteran of the armed forces so if i say "we" i have a right to do so. and dont talk *beep* about people you don't even know. |
That means you are probably even more brainwashed than a normal person into being anti-Iranian. Also, who said they are making nuclear weapons? They are building a plant for nuclear power. You are right that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but who has the most nuclear weapons in the world? Should we all start bombing them? |
They are building a plant for nuclear power? Wow, the OP is not the only one in this thread exhibiting naivete. |
right so was North Korea, then one day they tested a nuke |
Well, you don't see Bush threatening to invade North Korea next.
Which is more likely:
1. The Iranians want nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map in the national equivalent of a suicide attack; or
2. They want nuclear weapons so they won't get f**ked over and robbed of their oil by the US and Israel under some made-up pretext?
I think it is the latter, and if it is, more power to them.
As for arming the Iraqis, what's the big deal? Are you outraged because you thought the Iranians were your friends, and it's not the sort of thing friends do? The US is far more hostile the them than they are to the US, to the point of threatening nuclear attack!
Hasn't the US been arming factions inside Iran? Would you be equally outraged if they were? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know Navfc that a lot of what you're saying comes from personal experience but do you have some sources to back you up? Where does that 36% figure come from?
More about why we should let Ahmadinejad continue to dig his own grave:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/02/opinion/ediran.php
"The hard-line regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has been frightening neighbors with its meddling in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza. The regime's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons has also prompted unusual solidarity among the United States, Europe, and Russia; together they have been ratcheting up UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, demanding that it suspend uranium enrichment and comply with its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But the most telling signs of trouble for the regime in Tehran are currently on display in domestic turmoil.
The reaction to gas rationing casts light on public discontent with Ahmadinejad's failure to keep his promises to improve economic conditions. Iranians set fire to gas stations after the announcement of rationing. Amid long lines of cars waiting to fill up in Tehran, men threw stones at police and chanted "Ahmadinejad should be killed!"
The need to ration gas in OPEC's second largest exporter of crude oil reveals a major vulnerability of Iran's theocratic regime.
Government policy is clearly to blame for the rationing. The problem begins with subsidies for consumers, which acts as a powerful stimulant for consumption. Yet Iran suffers from an acute shortage of refining capacity, forcing it to import 40 percent of the gasoline supplied to the public. And Iran's inability to rectify the refinery deficit can be attributed to Ahmadinejad's truculence on the nuclear issue and regional conflicts.
A salient conclusion for policy makers in Washington is that the current reliance on UN sanctions and Treasury warnings against international banking transactions with Tehran is having the desired effect. This is a policy that entails a much lower level of risk than threats to bomb Iran's nuclear installations. And it is much easier to exploit Iran's dependence on imported gasoline than to take out underground nuclear facilities.
Living conditions for most Iranians outside the corrupt clerical elites are deteriorating. Ahmadinejad has been arresting reformists and censoring the press, but his blatant domestic failures are becoming the best antidote to the threat from Tehran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| The US ought to take Iran out for a dinner and a movie. Afterwards cop a feel. May even get to third base. |
I vote we ask them out for pizza. If it goes well, they'll invite us out next time for fessunjun (an incredible sauce made with pomegrates and walnuts, usually served over chicken). We'll come out ahead on this because, honestly, it's MUCH petter than pizza.
The regime in that country has a lot to answer for. The younger generation growing up in the wake of tghe Iran-Iraq war will eventually make them answer. Patience is what we all need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ajgeddes wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Iran, unlike Iraq, Syria, Qatar, and most countries in the Middle East, is a real country i.e. it has a common history and culture binding it together. And it's also more advanced than any of its neighbours in the region, and one of the most resource-rich. That means it has the potential to be a stable, prosperous, functioning country - even democracy - and an example to its neighbours. We should make develop friendly relations with it if possible. |
Another thing that is different from a lot of the middle-east is that there is no unrest within the country and for the large part, the population is generally happy. Minorities aren't repressed and even the majority Persians have admiration for the Azaris in the North. |
You must be kidding.
Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iran_newspaper_cockroach_cartoon_controversy
I've not been to Iran, but I have spent quite a bit of time in Azerbaijan. Common sentiment among Azeris is that "South Azerbaijan" needs to separate from Iran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Invest in this
and this
then keep them focused on Iran. Once deployed Iran won't get much leverage or security from their nuclear program. In fact it will become a hostage. If Iran does anything against the US then Iran will lose it , all of it cause the US will be able to destroy Iran's nuclear program anytime, for any reason and Iran will have no counter measures to the systems above.
Iran can have nuclear weapons but they can't be allowed the strategic benefits of having them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Can you explain how those things will allow the US to have so much power over Iran? How do they work? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
The first one will have the power to destroy any hard target no matter how deep underground it is. What would happen if it were used against a formation of soliders?
The US could use them in combination to destroy Iran's nuke program and Iran's revolutionary guard while killing off their entire government within the first day.
Without any radioactive fall out |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Who's making these claims about the weapons' capabilities? What kind of civilian casulaties should we expect from them? Do you have sources for this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mack4289 wrote: |
| Who's making these claims about the weapons' capabilities? What kind of civilian casulaties should we expect from them? Do you have sources for this? |
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH18Aa01.html
There won't be civilian casulaties if Iran gives up their war.
The weapons won't be read for a while so there is time for a diplomatic solution, and or time for Iran's government to change policy but in the end Iran will have to give up their war.
Anyway Iran is trying to change the balance of power with their nuclear program. This will forces it back the way it ought to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| mack4289 wrote: |
| Who's making these claims about the weapons' capabilities? What kind of civilian casulaties should we expect from them? Do you have sources for this? |
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH18Aa01.html
There won't be civilian casulaties if Iran gives up their war. |
In what way are they conducting a war at the moment, and what do they need to do to "give up their war"?
| Quote: |
| Anyway Iran is trying to change the balance of power with their nuclear program. |
Of course they are. Is that a crime? It's normal for a country to seek to increase it's power, it's the quality of the motivation that varies. Right now the balance of power is skewed pretty strongly away from them.
Given the past and present actions of the US it's not too much of a stretch for them to feel that Israel and the US are conspiring to commit hostile action against them.
To me, they seem to be pursuing a policy of "preemptive defence" with their nuclear efforts. Do you deny them that right? Is that making war? I think they just want a deterrent to stop them ending up like Iraq, with Israel and the US dividing up the spoils.
What do you see as the consequences of a stronger Iran? Resistance to Israeli hegemony in the ME? Total annihilation of the innocent Jews in Israel?
| Quote: |
This will forces it back the way it ought to be. |
I know you feel that Israel should be the supreme power in the middle east and that all other nations should bow down and accept whatever indignities Israel chooses to force on them, but is that a reasonable or realistic goal, especially as a condition for you giving up your war?
Is there any reason you feel that way, apart from you want your "tribe" to survive and the enemy "tribes" to die? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
