Clonex
Well-Known Member
you keep telling yourself that , you will be fine (y)
Iran's ruler calls for slaughter.
- Thread starter fenderburn84
- Start date
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
[video]http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/iran-yesterday-and-today/[/video]
Here is a view of Iran less likely to inspire fear.
Beware of any opinion which requires fear.
Stop the war mongering, we can't handle another war and it isn't our business if Mossad wages a covert war, that has nothing to do with America, even if American media supports Israeli foreign policy, there is nothing to fear in America.
Here is a view of Iran less likely to inspire fear.
Beware of any opinion which requires fear.
Stop the war mongering, we can't handle another war and it isn't our business if Mossad wages a covert war, that has nothing to do with America, even if American media supports Israeli foreign policy, there is nothing to fear in America.
The USA killed their leaders, stole their oil, gave weapons to invading countries and they are just supposed to forget all that? We have been trying to starve them out for 40 years now, total trade sanctions on medicine and food. You don't think they see the USA as invaders taking over all the lands in the middle east? It would be obvious to you who the enemy was if you were Iranian.
PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1
Well-Known Member
I love it,,,Everyone that support's "Conservative Republicans"",,,Now don't like war?,,,Than what's the problem with cutting the Defense department
Why do people have to cloud things with BS.
Israel is trying to defend itself against all aggressors - Fair
Iran is trying to be a big boy in the middle east by getting nukes- have to be stopped
Israel continues to oppress the Palestinian people - Unfair
US supports Israel - Unfair
People hate Israel and the US -Fair
Israel is trying to defend itself against all aggressors - Fair
Iran is trying to be a big boy in the middle east by getting nukes- have to be stopped
Israel continues to oppress the Palestinian people - Unfair
US supports Israel - Unfair
People hate Israel and the US -Fair
Blaze Master
Well-Known Member
iran is trying to defend itself against aggressors - Fair
Kush70
Well-Known Member
to this day i am unsure why anyone would call iran the good guy
Blaze Master
Well-Known Member
the US and Britain overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran in the '50s. The US sold weapons to Iraq during thr Iran/iraq war. Iran has every reason to fear the US.
Yep, Iran is really behind all the terrorism in the world. They just told us Iraq and Afghanistan were the big terrorist hot spots for shits and giggles right? I don't see why they just don't blame the bad economy on Iran and also the reason all those birds fell out of the sky in Arkansas, would make it a whole lot more justifiable to continue with our muslim cleansing of the world.
Instead of the South Park "blame Canada" song, we should just change it to "blame Iran"
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
I agree with that.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
That's the spirit. Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out.
Brick Top
New Member
Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That means that as long as a member of the treaty Iran agrees to NOT create nuclear weapons.
If Iran is willing to come out of the nuclear closet and withdraw from the treaty and admit they are seeking nuclear weapons, like North Korea did, than yes, Iran would have every right to create nuclear weapons.
But as long as they remain a signatory of the treaty Iran DOES NOT have the right to create nuclear weapons.
Brick Top
New Member
Preemptive Military Attacks Under Customary International Law
Until recent decades customary international law deemed the right to use force and even to go to war to be an essential attribute of every state. As one scholar summarized:
It always lies within the power of a State to endeavor to obtain redress for wrongs, or to gain political or other advantages over another, not merely by the employment of force, but also by direct recourse to war.
Within that framework customary international law also consistently recognized self-defense as a legitimate basis for the use of force:
An act of self-defense is that form of self-protection which is directed against an aggressor or contemplated aggressor. No act can be so described which is not occasioned by attack or fear of attack. When acts of self-preservation on the part of a State are strictly acts of self-defense, they are permitted by the law of nations, and are justified on principle, even though they may conflict with the ... rights of other states.
Moreover, the recognized right of a state to use force for purposes of self-defense traditionally included the preemptive use of force, i.e., the use of force in anticipation of an attack. Hugo Grotius, the father of international law, stated in the seventeenth century that “t be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill.”
Emmerich de Vattel a century later similarly asserted:
The safest plan is to prevent evil, where that is possible. A Nation has the right to resist the injury another seeks to inflict upon it, and to use force ... against the aggressor. It may even anticipate the others design, being careful, however, not to act upon vague and doubtful suspicions, lest it should run the risk of becoming itself the aggressor.
The classic formulation of the right of preemptive attack was given by Secretary of State Daniel Webster in connection with the famous Caroline incident. In 1837 British troops under the cover of night attacked and sank an American ship, the Caroline, in U.S. waters because the ship was being used to provide supplies to insurrectionists against British rule in Canada headquartered on an island on the Canadian side of the Niagara River. The U.S. immediately protested this “extraordinary outrage” and demanded an
apology and reparations. The dispute dragged on for several years before the British conceded that they ought to have immediately offered “some explanation and apology.”
But in the course of the diplomatic exchanges Secretary of State Daniel Webster articulated the two conditions essential to the legitimacy of the preemptive use of force under customary international law. In one note he asserted that an intrusion into the territory of another state can be justified as an act of self-defense only in those “cases in which the necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.” In another note he asserted that the force
used in such circumstances has to be proportional to the threat:
It will be for [Her Majesty’s Government] to show, also, that the local authorities of Canada, even supposing the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the territories of the United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or excessive; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it.
I am not really sold on there being a God, but I do believe Israel will bomb Iran very soon.
Blaze Master
Well-Known Member
yeah well america signed the geneva convention yet they still torture people. whats the difference?
Brick Top
New Member
What would Israel target? Most, if not all, Iranian nuclear facilities are known, or believed, to be deeper and more heavily fortified than current conventional bunker-buster bombs could destroy or even damage.
Last September Obama OK'd the sale of 55 GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrators, something President Bush refused to do. Israel has been attempting to purchase them since 2005.
The Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-2
is a special weapon developed for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The GBU-28 is a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munition that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead. The bombs are modified Army artillery tubes, weigh 4,637 pounds, and contain 630 pounds of high explosives. They are fitted with GBU-27 LGB kits, 14.5 inches in diameter and almost 19 feet long. The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and then the munition guides to a spot of laser energy reflected from the target. The GBU-28 ""Bunker Buster"" was developed specifically to destroy Iraqi underground hardened command bunkers during the Gulf War. Scratch built from a section of surplus 8" howitzer barrel filled with 600 pounds of explosives, the 5,000 pound GBU-28 is capable of penetrating more than 20 feet of reinforced concrete and deeper than 100 feet underground.
The weapons are believed to be incapable of doing significant damage to Iran's super-deep hardened nuclear sites. Attacking anything other than the nuclear sites Israel would find it impossible to maintain the position, and defense, that it was a legal preemptive attack.
So what would Israel target?
To fly from Israel to Iran Israeli aircraft would need to fly through the airspace of no less than two Middle Eastern nations, as up to as many as four depending on the best flight path to take to each various target, that is unless the Israeli aircraft would take the LONG way around the barn and begin southeast down the Red Sea to the Arabian Sea and then east and then north into Iran. The distance of doing that and the almost sure loss of any element of surprise makes that impractical. So Israel would need the OK of at least two Middle Eastern nations to fly through their airspace, that or just violate it, and considering the reaction to any attack Iran would be bound to have, what Middle Eastern nations will want Iran to know, or just believe, that they gave Israel the OK to attack Iran via their airspace?
I thought it possible that shortly before Dubya left office that he would order an air attack against Iranian nuclear sites. Attacks could have been launched from aircraft carriers in international waters, thus not drawing any Middle Eastern nations into the Iranian response, and with large numbers of ground forces, at the time, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, with Iran stuck right between them, the U.S. would be better situated if Iran made a ground force response. The U.S. could have contained it and then pushed into Iran, from either or both the East and the West if it wanted to or felt it was needed, and that doesn't even factor in a possible landing on Southern Iran by Marines.
With the situation in Iraq still more in a state of flux then than it now is it would not have made for optimal conditions, but still the conditions would have been vastly better than they would be today for any such air attack made by Israel, the U.S. or a joint effort of some type.
If a much better overall situation was passed up I rather doubt that Israel will be doing anything until/unless there is absolute indisputable totally verifiable proof that Iran is producing nuclear weapons and a preemptive attack cannot be put off any longer without facing unacceptable risks when it comes to Iranian retaliation.
So I wouldn't expect anything to happen anytime in the short term or half distant future.