[Lerkfish]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...iraq_us_israel

War of words heats up as Iran warns of preemptive strike on US forces

TEHRAN (AFP) - In a marked escalation of a war of words between Iran and its arch-enemies Israel and the US, Tehran has for the first time threatened a preemptive strike against US troops in the region.


"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us," Iran's defence minister, Rear-Admiral Ali Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV on Wednesday when asked if Iran would respond to a US attack on its nuclear facilities.

"Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly,

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq (news - web sites)," said Shamkhani.

An exchange of threats between Israel and Iran in recent weeks has led to speculation of a repeat of Israel's strike against Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.

But analysts say such an attack is unlikely because of sensitivity to the US position in Iraq and the fact that Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered around the country.

so, whose genius strategic plan was it to get out troops in Iraq, and THEN taunt Iran, making our troops caught between the insurgents on one and Iran on the other?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Nothing important to say again, eh? No solutions other than to whine about something?

Let's chalk up three more thread of whining today for Feesh.

[MacGorilla]

Its only a matter of time before Iran tests a nuclear weapon. Iran, which supports terrorists; I shudder to think. So let me tally up rogue nations with WMDs we've ignored: Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. Yep.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Is it surprising that the world doesn't really care?

Either it's the problem of the U.S. or the problem of the world.

But since everyone complains when the U.S. acts in its interests then perhaps the world shoulds step up to the plate instead?

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Is it surprising that the world doesn't really care?

Either it's the problem of the U.S. or the problem of the world.

But since everyone complains when the U.S. acts in its interests then perhaps the world shoulds step up to the plate instead?

Like the Europeans? They have so far coddled Iran.

[Dr.HermanG.]

That seems to be the only thing Europeans are capable of doing.

[Wiskedjak]

It's unfortunate that the preemptive cat has been let out of the bag.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
It's unfortunate that the preemptive cat has been let out of the bag.

Now who was it who was telling us what a brilliant concept the Bush Doctrine is?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
It's unfortunate that the preemptive cat has been let out of the bag.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

So let's see, if Iran thinks the US is going to attack than they're saying they'll preemptively attack rather than wait for an upcoming imminent attack? Sounds something like the Bush Doctrine, doesn't it?

Either way it has to be chest pounding. Iran wouldn't be foolish enough to attack the US. It's the same reason Saddam wouldn't admit to the world that he didn't have WMD's. Makes them look tough in that region and that they're not backing down to the foreign aggressors.

[Dr.HermanG.]

If we force Iran to give up nukes then we should expect Israel to do the same.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
If we force Iran to give up nukes then we should expect Israel to do the same.

NOPE! Israel having nuclear weapons or at least the ideal of them having nuclear weapons is the best peacekeeper in the ME.

[Troll]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Iran wouldn't be foolish enough to attack the US.

I don't know about that. How many US soldiers are there in Iraq at the moment? Iran has WMD. Wouldn't be that hard to kill 20 or 30 thousand US soldiers and deal a major blow to the US. I think they may just be stupid enough to do that if they think they're about to be taken out.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
NOPE! Israel having nuclear weapons or at least the ideal of them having nuclear weapons is the best peacekeeper in the ME.

And the best incentive for other nations in the ME to develop their own. And that is just what we want in that area of the world don't we?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
It's unfortunate that the preemptive cat has been let out of the bag.

Isn't this what most of us warned the Bushies about?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
NOPE! Israel having nuclear weapons or at least the ideal of them having nuclear weapons is the best peacekeeper in the ME.

nuclear weapons only works as a deterrent if the oppositions are roughly equal and MAD (mutually assured destruction) is in play. Unfortunately, if only one side has nukes, then you insure war because those who don't have them will chafe under the implicit threat, and those that have them will behave as they will with impugnity, and tensions will increase.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
And the best incentive for other nations in the ME to develop their own. And that is just what we want in that area of the world don't we?

Arab nations have been aggressive towards Israel one too many times to trust them with nuclear weapons. They have already proven that there is a faction that does not value life...so IMO, arab nations woujld use nukes as an offensive weapon rathe than a defesove deterrent

nuclear weapons only works as a deterrent if the oppositions are roughly equal and MAD (mutually assured destruction) is in play. Unfortunately, if only one side has nukes, then you insure war because those who don't have them will chafe under the implicit threat, and those that have them will behave as they will with impugnity, and tensions will increase.

I believe Israel has been responsible with their nukes...I wouldn't trust an muslim zealot with a weapon of this nature. The saddams of the world have already proven that they have no probnlem using wmd's

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Arab nations have been aggressive towards Israel one too many times to trust them with nuclear weapons. They have already proven that there is a faction that does not value life...so IMO, arab nations woujld use nukes as an offensive weapon rathe than a defesove deterrent

The same could be said about Israel.................

Why is it that you don't want a WMD free ME?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Arab nations have been aggressive towards Israel one too many times to trust them with nuclear weapons. They have already proven that there is a faction that does not value life...so IMO, arab nations woujld use nukes as an offensive weapon rathe than a defesove deterrent



I believe Israel has been responsible with their nukes...I wouldn't trust an muslim zealot with a weapon of this nature. The saddams of the world have already proven that they have no probnlem using wmd's

your post is irrelevant to my point.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

So let's see, if Iran thinks the US is going to attack than they're saying they'll preemptively attack rather than wait for an upcoming imminent attack? Sounds something like the Bush Doctrine, doesn't it?

Either way it has to be chest pounding. Iran wouldn't be foolish enough to attack the US. It's the same reason Saddam wouldn't admit to the world that he didn't have WMD's. Makes them look tough in that region and that they're not backing down to the foreign aggressors.

Link:

Here, Arthur and Mordred hold a peace conference, but, mistrustful of each other, they warn their respective armies to attack if any sign of treachery is seen. It is now that the unfortunate incident where an adder stings the foot of a knight, who draws his sword to kill the snake. This drawing of a sword is interpreted as an act of treachery and battle is commenced.

It was a great policy then, too, wasn't it?

BG

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
The same could be said about Israel.................

Why is it that you don't want a WMD free ME?

The same couldn't be said about Israel. They have proven they don't abbuse their WMD's

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Troll:
I don't know about that. How many US soldiers are there in Iraq at the moment? Iran has WMD. Wouldn't be that hard to kill 20 or 30 thousand US soldiers and deal a major blow to the US. I think they may just be stupid enough to do that if they think they're about to be taken out.

Maybe, maybe not. It would be a major hit but they'd also take a a large amount of their fellow Shi'ite (or is it Sunni? i always forget) brothers in a large attack. More than likely they'd go after some naval targets and take down some big ships.

Either way they would be assured of some major retaliation since they couldn't disable the entire US military. The interesting thing would be to see what kind of support we'd get after such an attack. What would our allies do?

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
The same couldn't be said about Israel. They have proven they don't abbuse their WMD's

I know, they only abuse non-Jews by other means..........

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
What would our allies do?

I hope they'd say, remember the Bush doctrine and who said that was a bad idea? You didn't listen to us then so you'll have to learn the hard way. Sorry.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
I know, they only abuse non-Jews by other means..........

I know, arabs are quite innocent.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by dcolton:
NOPE! Israel having nuclear weapons or at least the ideal of them having nuclear weapons is the best peacekeeper in the ME.

I simply don't trust a religious state to ensure that it's arsenal isn't used improperly.

It would be better if they had our protection under our nuclear deterrent much as Europe did during the Cold War (i.e. we stationed weapons abroad but they were under our control).

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I know, arabs are quite innocent.

I know, they haven't been stealing other people's land.

[PacHead]

Iran is nothing to worry about. If the maniac mullahs, imams and terrorist leaders-supporters in that country get too uppity, the US will give them a beating they will not soon forget. It would also be quite convenient if Iran was foolish enough to strike at US forces first. Nobody would be able to whine when we flatten them afterwards. Pretty much a win-win situation for us. They know they are on the radar screen and we are watching their every move. It is only a matter of time, IMO.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Iran is nothing to worry about. If the maniac mullahs, imams and terrorist leaders-supporters in that country get too uppity, the US will give them a beating they will not soon forget. It would also be quite convenient if Iran was foolish enough to strike at US forces first. Nobody would be able to whine when we flatten them afterwards. Pretty much a win-win situation for us. They know they are on the radar screen and we are watching their every move. It is only a matter of time, IMO.

Good luck. But if you do I hope you are willing to see ship loads of young Americans coming home in body-bags.....

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Logic:
I hope they'd say, remember the Bush doctrine and who said that was a bad idea? You didn't listen to us then so you'll have to learn the hard way. Sorry.

They might FEEL like saying that but there are treaties in place that might require them to act in conjunction with us. NATO and all...

I still don't think it would happen. Either way, I'm sure our military is ready for any eventuality. This Administration may be inept but our military leaders are not. I'm sure they're tracking every movement in Iran now. Especially after they start threatening the US with a bullhorn.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
They might FEEL like saying that but there are treaties in place that might require them to act in conjunction with us. NATO and all...

I still don't think it would happen. Either way, I'm sure our military is ready for any eventuality. This Administration may be inept but our military leaders are not. I'm sure they're tracking every movement in Iran now. Especially after they start threatening the US with a bullhorn.

True.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
Good luck. But if you do I hope you are willing to see ship loads of young Americans coming home in body-bags.....

This is war, whatever it takes. This aint no game.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
This is war, whatever it takes. This aint no game.

What is war? And when are you going to ship out to fight for your country?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
What is war? And when are you going to ship out to fight for your country?

There is no draft in the USA. Those who have signed up have done so on their own free will. For what it is worth, I believe my age exceeds the maximum military age limit by one year.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
There is no draft in the USA. Those who have signed up have done so on their own free will. For what it is worth, I believe my age exceeds the maximum military age limit by one year.

So you could have joined before the Iraq war? Why didn't you?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
So you could have joined before the Iraq war? Why didn't you?

That is a silly question. I have no intention of being in the military, nor have I ever had any intention of being in the military. The same could be asked of you. Why haven't you joined your islamic terrorist buddies and martyr yourself ?

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
That is a silly question. I have no intention of being in the military, nor have I ever had any intention of being in the military. The same could be asked of you. Why haven't you joined your islamic terrorist buddies and martyr yourself ?

You have no intention of helping your country but you desperately ask for war against several nations that would result in the death of probably thousands of your fellow citizens? Weird.

And why should I join terrorists? Have I ever said I like them or was that just a personal attack that will go unnoticed by the new moderator?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
You have no intention of helping your country but you desperately ask for war against several nations that would result in the death of probably thousands of your fellow citizens? Weird.

And why should I join terrorists? Have I ever said I like them or was that just a personal attack that will go unnoticed by the new moderator?

You have many times stated your support for terrorists on this board. And no, I don't care to back that up, as you have done it countless times, and your "care to back that up" game is getting tired, and is a waste of time.And I don't ask for any wars. War has been declared upon us, and I support ending the war.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
You have many times stated your support for terrorists on this board. And no, I don't care to back that up, as you have done it countless times, and your "care to back that up" game is getting tired, and is a waste of time.And I don't ask for any wars. War has been declared upon us, and I support ending the war.

Of course you won't back it up because you can't. I'm done with you and it will be interesting to see the response from the moderators to your nice little personal attack.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
Of course you won't back it up because you can't. I'm done with you and it will be interesting to see the response from the moderators to your nice little personal attack.

Stating the facts is not a personal attack. If I were to say you are "dumb & stupid", that would be a personal attack, however I am not claiming that. Stating that you support terrorists and refer to them as freedom fighters or whatever (something you have indeed written in quite a few threads) is not a personal attack.

[PacHead]

Here's one pro-terrorist statement from Logic: There's far too many, and I don't intend to waste my time digging through all the pro-terrorist posts he has made......

And yes, traitors working and applying for jobs for the oppressor and aggressor are legit targets.

(In reference to Iraq.)


And a true example of a personal attack by Logic on this forum would be this one: Did you blow a blood vessel in your brain trying to think? Poor thing.

(In response to logancharles on the al sadr thread.)

What will the moderators do about all these personal attacks ?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Stating that you support terrorists and refer to them as freedom fighters or whatever (something you have indeed written in quite a few threads) is not a personal attack.

It is if he doesn't support terrorists. Unfortunately, some people seem to use the term "terrorist supporter" in the same way that others use the term "neocon".

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Here's one pro-terrorist statement from Logic: There's far too many, and I don't intend to waste my time digging through all the pro-terrorist posts he has made......

And yes, traitors working and applying for jobs for the oppressor and aggressor are legit targets.

(In reference to Iraq.)

What has that got to do with terrorism?

And a true example of a personal attack by Logic on this forum would be this one: Did you blow a blood vessel in your brain trying to think? Poor thing.

(In response to logancharles on the al sadr thread.)

What will the moderators do about all these personal attacks ?

I don't know what they teach you in America but a question is almost never a statement, hence it cannot be a personal attack.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Logic:
What has that got to do with terrorism?

People blowing up Iraqi civilians in Iraq are indeed terrorists. Terrorists are coming from many countries, including Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc., and flocking into Iraq inorder to kill civilians. These people are terrorists. People beheading other people are terrorists.

[Demonhood]

please take your little bickering match elsewhere. maybe you two can exchange phone numbers and do it that way. sure, the long distance charges would be horrific, but it'd be so much more entertaining than reading all the text above.

[Logic]

Originally posted by PacHead:
People blowing up Iraqi civilians in Iraq are indeed terrorists. Terrorists are coming from many countries, including Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc., and flocking into Iraq inorder to kill civilians. These people are terrorists. People beheading other people are terrorists.

You aren't a civilian the moment you decide to work for the occupier. And I've never supported the beheadings.

Originally posted by Demonhood:lease take your little bickering match elsewhere. maybe you two can exchange phone numbers and do it that way. sure, the long distance charges would be horrific, but it'd be so much more entertaining than reading all the text above.

Sure. I'll just shut up while people call me a terrorist sympathiser. No problem. I'll put him on ignore now.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
please take your little bickering match elsewhere. maybe you two can exchange phone numbers and do it that way. sure, the long distance charges would be horrific, but it'd be so much more entertaining than reading all the text above.

I agree that it is a silly bickering match, but I suppose the matter is resolved now, since he now has me on ignore.

BTW - the long distance charges for Iceland would only be 3 cents a minute from the US, if using a cheap carrier, but I doubt we'll be calling each other anytime soon.

[ThinkInsane]

Debate your topic, and get over the "what is or isn't a personal attack" ********. I swear, we must have the thinnest-skinned people on the entire Internet. Get over it, discuss your topics like rational adults, or go somewhere else. How hard is this to understand? Are you people or are you not adults?