http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/03/irans-khamenei -threatens-to-annihilate-tel-aviv/

So Iran may nuke Israeli cities such as Tel'Aviv Is they interfere with their nuclear program. If this happens, the US would have heavy involvement and could pretty much destroy all of Iran.

We wouldn't get a chance to do anything because by the time we were ready, Israel would have already nuked Iran themselves.

At 3/21/13 06:21 PM, MrPercie wrote: Well, anyone with nukes can nuke israel (that is if their missiles are within range).

Only in iran's case is it problematic because they detest the israeli nation.

true and if Iran had Nuclear materials and the missiles to load the payment.

and if they did nuke israel with blast radius would destroy every important holy site to Irans little sand religion.

1. He's talking in the context of an Israeli first-strike.

2. Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

How many nations have built nuclear weapons with the intent to use them? At this point 1. It probably wouldn't even be that big of a deal even if you gave Iran nuclear weapons because they don't want nuclear weapons for offensive purposes, Iran has long been a nation that's been bullied by the West and having nuclear weapons could deter a serious invasion threat. The only nations which would've actually used nuclear weapons would be Pakistan, India and maybe even Burma/Myanmar (considering how smart the regime was and how little control they have over parts of the country it's not out of the question).

First, Iran has regular nonnuclear rockets which it can use to attack us. Secondly, Iron Dome will intercept some of the rockets that will land on populated areas. Thirdly, Iran will defeated quite fast.

At 3/22/13 07:11 AM, satanbrain wrote: First, Iran has regular nonnuclear rockets which it can use to attack us. Secondly, Iron Dome will intercept some of the rockets that will land on populated areas. Thirdly, Iran will defeated quite fast.

Oh no, it will intercept some of the rockets? How about the ones the land?

At 3/22/13 02:24 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

Oh no, it will intercept some of the rockets? How about the ones the land?

Tolerable. They would not annihilate whole cities.

At 3/22/13 06:22 PM, supergandhi64 wrote: something people tend to forget is that iran aka persia is under the protection of ohrmazd & his divine host of daeva. persia is literally untouchable & not thanks to whatever bombs they have, but because of the undying spirit of azzandara watches over the just. the forces of evil & ahriman will eventually face divine judgment not at the receiving end of nukes, but the sacred light of ohrmazd in the restoration of the universe; or frasokereti

yeah no no amount of "spirits" will save iran it didn't work for Afgahnistan and Iraq when we bombed the shit out of them. would you quit trolling.

At 3/22/13 04:16 PM, satanbrain wrote: Tolerable. They would not annihilate whole cities.

Neither do Qassam rockets, and the last time I checked Israel cares a whole lot about those things.

At 3/23/13 04:16 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: what do afghanistan & iraq have to do with iran? persia is the oldest sovereign state on earth with the closest contender being egypt & considering the enemies of persia which have historically contested their sovereignty any combined forces of the modern world looks like small fry. iran is protected by divine order & only divine intervention could feasibly threaten iran

China and india by far could be one of the oldest. Alexander the Great, he took Persia by the balls and took it over and he was european. the Persian empire WAS once great but after the 600s its become nothing but a JOKE with its Lands being divided into new countries by Arabs under the conquests of Islam. even Iran today its a third world shithole with a horrible economy and inflated currency worth less than the paper its on. and there is no such thing divine power and it would only take three bombing campaigns to take out Iran like we did Iraq and afgahnistan

in the end Iran is no better than the rest of those shitholes in that litter box you call a region.

At 3/23/13 09:42 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: shows how much you know. china & india are both thousands of years younger than the persian & egyptian states.

but Persia was a predeccessor of Babylon kingdom The Achaemenid Empire, also known as the First Persian Empire, was a Persian empire in Western Asia, founded in the 6th century BC by Cyrus the Great who overthrew the Median confederation

he Xia Dynasty (c. 2070 - c. 1600 BCE) is the first dynasty in China to be described in ancient historical chronicles such as Bamboo Annals, Classic of History and Records of the Grand Historian. The dynasty was established by the legendary Yu the Great after Shun, the last of the Five Emperors gave his throne to him. The Xia was later succeeded by the Shang Dynasty (1600-1046 BCE).

there are no alexander the greats or genghis khans in the modern world & while persia has been subordinated from time to time like just about every other nation which exists today their continued existence as a state hasn't been threatened

but Iran is being threatened a different way Economically.

and again, what do iraq & afghanistan have to do with iran? i haven't even mentioned the region, so don't come here with your "you call" and the likes. if being geographically remote makes them anything alike i guess the usa is no different from mexico, cuba, guatemala & honduras? they're all north american entities, aren't they

I was using Iraq and Afgahnistan as a example of a peoples who throughout history never been conquested or taken over but the Soviets and US have proven that wrong what makes you think Iran is any different? some dumbshit deities from a practically dead religion protecting them? your delusional.

--supergandhi64

At 3/23/13 06:25 PM, supergandhi64 wrote: feudal china wasn't a sovereign nation . . . are you copying & pasting from wikipedia

as was persia.

are you kidding? iran's economy is one of the most robust in the world & considered to have high potential to become one of the world's largest economies in the 21st century by investment banks like goldman sachs. sanctions haven't changed that iran has a purchasing power to be reckoned with

not with Economic Sanctions and Oil Sales the main export of Iran falling in half in the last 5 years. the regular person in Iran makes 15,000 a year and thats the middle class. the yearly GDP is 900 billion that makes it rank 23rd in the world.

I call bullshit.

i didn't realize iraq & afghanistan were no longer sovereign states. it's funny you'd bring up the soviet union considering afghanistan has outlived the soviet union & that's a pretty surefire way to end up as the winner of a conflict . . . occupations & puppet governments aren't conquests, sorry. i'm also pretty sure zoroastrianism is still at large & that spenta mainyu is watching over his domain

no I was using Sovereign nations that have repelled intruders from their Sovereign land (Afgahnistan and Iraq) for centuries then get invaded and occupied within a week. and Occupations are conquests believe it or not.

i'm also pretty sure zoroastrianism is still at large & that spenta mainyu is watching over his domain

The total world population is about 200,000 to 400,000

--superfaggot69

At 3/21/13 06:17 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: We wouldn't get a chance to do anything because by the time we were ready, Israel would have already nuked Iran themselves.

as they should have done many years ago, but they took the high moral ground way further than they should have

At 3/21/13 06:21 PM, MrPercie wrote: Well, anyone with nukes can nuke israel (that is if their missiles are within range).

Only in iran's case is it problematic because they detest the israeli nation.

and states that israel should be wiped out

true and if Iran had Nuclear materials and the missiles to load the payment.

At 3/21/13 06:56 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

and if they did nuke israel with blast radius would destroy every important holy site to Irans little sand religion.

they have already bombarded jerusalem, so nothing new there

At 3/21/13 07:15 PM, Feoric wrote: 1. He's talking in the context of an Israeli first-strike.

2. Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

im sure you are very well educated on the matter, as in every topic you have posted

At 3/21/13 08:25 PM, Warforger wrote: It probably wouldn't even be that big of a deal even if you gave Iran nuclear weapons because they don't want nuclear weapons for offensive purposes

wow, its not like iran publicly says they should wipe out israel and all the infidels, no. im sure they will use their nukes to build a theme park

Iran has long been a nation that's been bullied by the West

strike 2

The only nations which would've actually used nuclear weapons would be Pakistan, India and maybe even Burma/Myanmar (considering how smart the regime was and how little control they have over parts of the country it's not out of the question).

india has nukes, and as far as im concerned, it didnt use them

At 3/22/13 04:16 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 3/22/13 02:24 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

Oh no, it will intercept some of the rockets? How about the ones the land?

Tolerable. They would not annihilate whole cities.

what if they have warheads?

@ Tony-DarkGrave and superfaggot64: there's no point arguing which kingdom, dynasty or whatever is older, first because older doesnt mean better, and after all this time, they changed all but their name

At 3/26/13 04:28 PM, kakalxlax wrote:

At 3/22/13 04:16 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 3/22/13 02:24 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

Oh no, it will intercept some of the rockets? How about the ones the land?

Tolerable. They would not annihilate whole cities.

what if they have warheads?

What difference is there if they have regular warheads?

At 3/26/13 11:42 PM, satanbrain wrote: What difference is there if they have regular warheads?

The mere existence of a warhead means nothing. A military missile is not a fucntion weapon of war without a warhead, from a sparrow, to a tomohawk, to a scud, to an ICBM.

The real question is: What is the payload of the warhead?

At 3/27/13 11:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/26/13 11:42 PM, satanbrain wrote: What difference is there if they have regular warheads?

The mere existence of a warhead means nothing. A military missile is not a fucntion weapon of war without a warhead, from a sparrow, to a tomohawk, to a scud, to an ICBM.

The real question is: What is the payload of the warhead?

i meant nuclear

At 3/27/13 01:33 PM, kakalxlax wrote:

At 3/27/13 11:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote: The real question is: What is the payload of the warhead?

i meant nuclear

As long as they do not have nuclear we have no reason to worry. A war is likely to result because of the (temporal) neutralization of their nuclear arms race. Meaning, they yet have nuclear warheads.

I am quite annoyed that the senate, is about to approve a resolution stating we will go to war with Iran should Israel ever be attacked.

I am not willing to sacrifice our young men for a country that is going well out of its way to make the situation in the region even more tense. Putting our military behind Israel's endless beligerence (not unprovoked beligerence, but beligerence nonetheless) will embolden Israel to be even more beligerent.

If Israel was making actual good faith efforts (SCOFF) to tone down the tension, then I would be in full support. I am just very worried that Israel is going to do something stupid in their Harry Potter-esque inability to handle relatively minor pokes, and drag us into a mess that would make Iraq look like a school yard scuffle.

At the very least, if we're putting our lives behind Israel's words, we might as well get a HIGH degree of control over what they say and do.

At 3/27/13 06:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I am quite annoyed that the senate, is about to approve a resolution stating we will go to war with Iran should Israel ever be attacked.

I am not willing to sacrifice our young men for a country that is going well out of its way to make the situation in the region even more tense. Putting our military behind Israel's endless beligerence (not unprovoked beligerence, but beligerence nonetheless) will embolden Israel to be even more beligerent.

If Israel was making actual good faith efforts (SCOFF) to tone down the tension, then I would be in full support. I am just very worried that Israel is going to do something stupid in their Harry Potter-esque inability to handle relatively minor pokes, and drag us into a mess that would make Iraq look like a school yard scuffle.

At the very least, if we're putting our lives behind Israel's words, we might as well get a HIGH degree of control over what they say and do.

well, there are people who criticize israel of not being belligerent enough, and of making a ridiculous amount of good faith efforts, repaid only with a knife in the back

and sorry mate, but the US holds a very central place of power, its their duty to interfere. + im sure there are more than enough alliance treats

+ as far as i know, recruitment in the US is voluntary

Iran's made more empty threats than North Korea.

What makes you think this one will be true?

At 3/27/13 09:37 PM, T3XT wrote: Iran's made more empty threats than North Korea.

What makes you think this one will be true?

better safe than sorry

At 3/27/13 06:44 PM, kakalxlax wrote: well, there are people who criticize israel of not being belligerent enough, and of making a ridiculous amount of good faith efforts, repaid only with a knife in the back

Those people have no clue.

and sorry mate, but the US holds a very central place of power, its their duty to interfere. + im sure there are more than enough alliance treats

I don't mind that role, and I accept it. The one thing I do not like is risking our soldiers and money on the whim of a small country that seems more willing to make the situation worse than to even try to fix it.

+ as far as i know, recruitment in the US is voluntary

So? A volunteer dies just as easily as a conscript.

At 3/28/13 12:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/27/13 06:44 PM, kakalxlax wrote: well, there are people who criticize israel of not being belligerent enough, and of making a ridiculous amount of good faith efforts, repaid only with a knife in the back

Those people have no clue.

or those who say those people have no clue have no clue

and sorry mate, but the US holds a very central place of power, its their duty to interfere. + im sure there are more than enough alliance treats

I don't mind that role, and I accept it. The one thing I do not like is risking our soldiers and money on the whim of a small country that seems more willing to make the situation worse than to even try to fix it.

ye so giving free land to their attackers is being a warmonger, who knew. the truth is, israel should have made their attackers draw back to their capital and made a kilometer tall "fuck you" statue in their now new land. to make those sand people fanatics think twice before going ballistic

+ as far as i know, recruitment in the US is voluntary

So? A volunteer dies just as easily as a conscript.

a volunteer wants to take that risk

At 3/28/13 10:08 AM, kakalxlax wrote: better safe than sorry

I'm pretty sure I saw Putin give Obama the stink eye the last time he was there...now why is that? What is Putin up to? Could he be having desires to throw us back into the cold war? Just asking questions, better safe than sorry. We should do something about this now while we have the chance.

At 3/28/13 01:22 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 3/28/13 10:08 AM, kakalxlax wrote: better safe than sorry

I'm pretty sure I saw Putin give Obama the stink eye the last time he was there...now why is that? What is Putin up to? Could he be having desires to throw us back into the cold war? Just asking questions, better safe than sorry. We should do something about this now while we have the chance.

yes its exactly the same, i bet that supposed glance said they intent to wipe out all infidels, and shit

seriously, go back to the kindergarten you came from, they clearly still have lots of things to teach you.
you'll be ignored (at least by me) unless you start making sense and stop behaving life you still have to reach puberty

So, about Iran and bombing them for those nonexistent nukes...

At 3/28/13 01:10 PM, kakalxlax wrote: or those who say those people have no clue have no clue

So you talking a big talk and incessantly renegging on promises, as well as responding to things that do not warrants responses is making the situation better? Again, who has no clue here?

ye so giving free land to their attackers is being a warmonger, who knew. the truth is, israel should have made their attackers draw back to their capital and made a kilometer tall "fuck you" statue in their now new land. to make those sand people fanatics think twice before going ballistic

I'm not asking Israel to bend over and take it in the butt. I'm asking them to shut the hell up. Talking big talk in response to nothing jabs is not making the situation better. Going back on promises is WORSE than not making the promises in the first place. If Israel had ANY sense of maturity, I wouldn't mind, but instead, they respond to every little insult like it's a call to war. I'm not willing to put our soldiers at risk because Israel doesn't have enough self confidence to rebuff those attacks LIKE A MAN would. (by standing proud and not responding)

a volunteer wants to take that risk

A volunteer takes on the risk of protecting the United States, not fighting a crusade for a people who have no clue how to stop fanning flames.

I'm pretty sure I saw Putin give Obama the stink eye the last time he was there...now why is that? What is Putin up to? Could he be having desires to throw us back into the cold war? Just asking questions, better safe than sorry. We should do something about this now while we have the chance.

Russia has been rather backwards in their foreign policy lately..