The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Wed Nov 27, 2024 12:07 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:05 am
Posts: 1111
Location: Phoenix
When is it not...but this article doesn't paint a pretty picture.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/09/the-point-of-no-return/8186/

Its a long article, so I won't post the whole thing, but I recommend reading it.

Quote:
IT IS POSSIBLE that at some point in the next 12 months, the imposition of devastating economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran will persuade its leaders to cease their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is also possible that Iran’s reform-minded Green Movement will somehow replace the mullah-led regime, or at least discover the means to temper the regime’s ideological extremism. It is possible, as well, that “foiling operations” conducted by the intelligence agencies of Israel, the United States, Great Britain, and other Western powers—programs designed to subvert the Iranian nuclear effort through sabotage and, on occasion, the carefully engineered disappearances of nuclear scientists—will have hindered Iran’s progress in some significant way. It is also possible that President Obama, who has said on more than a few occasions that he finds the prospect of a nuclear Iran “unacceptable,” will order a military strike against the country’s main weapons and uranium-enrichment facilities.

But none of these things—least of all the notion that Barack Obama, for whom initiating new wars in the Middle East is not a foreign-policy goal, will soon order the American military into action against Iran—seems, at this moment, terribly likely. What is more likely, then, is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft. (It’s so crowded, in fact, that the United States Central Command, whose area of responsibility is the greater Middle East, has already asked the Pentagon what to do should Israeli aircraft invade its airspace. According to multiple sources, the answer came back: do not shoot them down.)

In these conversations, which will be fraught, the Israelis will tell their American counterparts that they are taking this drastic step because a nuclear Iran poses the gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people. The Israelis will also state that they believe they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years. They will tell their American colleagues that Israel was left with no choice. They will not be asking for permission, because it will be too late to ask for permission.

When the Israelis begin to bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, the formerly secret enrichment site at Qom, the nuclear-research center at Esfahan, and possibly even the Bushehr reactor, along with the other main sites of the Iranian nuclear program, a short while after they depart en masse from their bases across Israel—regardless of whether they succeed in destroying Iran’s centrifuges and warhead and missile plants, or whether they fail miserably to even make a dent in Iran’s nuclear program—they stand a good chance of changing the Middle East forever; of sparking lethal reprisals, and even a full-blown regional war that could lead to the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Iranians, and possibly Arabs and Americans as well; of creating a crisis for Barack Obama that will dwarf Afghanistan in significance and complexity; of rupturing relations between Jerusalem and Washington, which is Israel’s only meaningful ally; of inadvertently solidifying the somewhat tenuous rule of the mullahs in Tehran; of causing the price of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973; of placing communities across the Jewish diaspora in mortal danger, by making them targets of Iranian-sponsored terror attacks, as they have been in the past, in a limited though already lethal way; and of accelerating Israel’s conversion from a once-admired refuge for a persecuted people into a leper among nations.

If a strike does succeed in crippling the Iranian nuclear program, however, Israel, in addition to possibly generating some combination of the various catastrophes outlined above, will have removed from its list of existential worries the immediate specter of nuclear-weaponized, theologically driven, eliminationist anti-Semitism; it may derive for itself the secret thanks (though the public condemnation) of the Middle East’s moderate Arab regimes, all of which fear an Iranian bomb with an intensity that in some instances matches Israel’s; and it will have succeeded in countering, in militant fashion, the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, which is, not irrelevantly, a prime goal of the enthusiastic counter-proliferator who currently occupies the White House.


He paints a pretty convincing picture.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
Russia is installing the nuclear fuel into one of Iran's nuclear reactors next week, iirc.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:09 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Ladas wrote:
Russia is installing the nuclear fuel into one of Iran's nuclear reactors next week, iirc.

Correct.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:01 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
I'm still not convinced Israel will risk enough of its modern strike aircraft to do that. It's a long way, there's little prospect for ariel refueling, and I don't see how they'll have enough fuel for air-to-air combat if they need to. I suppose some of the planes would be escorts but if they have to go to afterburner it will be a very short fight one way or the other.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:05 am
Posts: 1111
Location: Phoenix
He talks about that in the full article. They can do it with Saudi help. They would refuel in the desert. That's a large part of why it would be a one shot deal. The Saudis could get away with helping them once by denial, but they would be unable to ensure the public pressure if they kept helping.

The Saudis are as freaked out by a nuclear Iran as the Israelis. And you don't think Israel would risk their planes if they thought their very existence was in danger (which they seem to)?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:36 am 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7507
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
That this hasn't happened yet makes me think positive thoughts about Israel. I've expected it for some time.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
The "foiling operations" trouble me most of all, must be nice being a nuclear scientist knowing that the US, Israel, or Europe could decide to kill you just for what you know if your political leanings are wrong, remember Iran's nuclear program hasn't been proven to be producing weapons yet.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:56 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Xeq

How would you feel about someone with a violent history who constantly says they want shoot you in the head gathering up large amounts of lead and saltpeter? Remember there is no proof he's making bullets though.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
Israel has flying tankers that could refuel with fighter craft in route, and potentially on the return journey.

It also wouldn't surprise me if the recent sale of F-15 fighters to the Saudi's was part of an agreement to either let the IAF overfly their space either as the direct route an alternate route to or from Iran.

Saudis get to deny they helped and claim they couldn't respond to the threat fast enough to scramble their own fights.

Israel gets to protest the sale of the F-15s in the media as evidence of the "conflict" between the countries.

I figure the initial flight takes the IAF over Iraq, where the US controls the sky, providing their tanker craft with some cover... not intentially, but if somehow Iran sees the planes, they are lot less likely to send them after the IAF while still in Iragi airspace with US planes flying patrols as well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:36 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Israel has the tankers, but unless SA lets them refuel in their airspace all the tankers can really do is top them off after takeoff. I think that it's going to be pretty damn obvious from their flight patterns whether Saudi Arabia helped them or not; you can't deny away the laws of physics. I can also see the Israelis not trusting the Saudis not to ambush their planes either. Whether the Saudis would do that I have no idea (I would guess not, but I wouldn't say definitely) but the Israelis may still be fearful of it.

As for Iraq... Jordan and Syria are in the way.

There's a matter of how many tankers Israel has and how many planes they can fill up at various distances from the base. The farther the fighers fly before getting topped off, the farther they can then go in total but the more fuel from each tanker it takes to fill them, and therefore the fewer planes a tanker can refuel.

You can, of course, load the fighters up with drop tanks, but drop tanks reduce the number of hardpoints available for ordnance and the total weight that can be carried by each plane. That means you then need more planes to hit the same number of targets.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I do think the risks are very high in terms of aircraft losses as compared to how much damage could be inflicted, and that may not be worth it to the Israelis. Their Air Force is their best armed service and their most formidible defense; if the Iranians got wind of the operation they could inflict serious casualties, which would be a serious blow to Israel.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:38 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
The "foiling operations" trouble me most of all, must be nice being a nuclear scientist knowing that the US, Israel, or Europe could decide to kill you just for what you know if your political leanings are wrong, remember Iran's nuclear program hasn't been proven to be producing weapons yet.


Then don't be a nuclear scientist working for a country like Iran. Whaaa, poor babies. This isn't about trial and punishment and legal proof; it's about national interests.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:45 pm 
Offline
Too lazy for a picture

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:40 pm
Posts: 1352
X, that reminds me of the line from Clerks, where they where speculating on the contractor casualties on the destruction of the second death star, there was no proof the empire was going to use it for war!

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:46 pm 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7507
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
Diamondeye wrote:
Israel has the tankers, but unless SA lets them refuel in their airspace all the tankers can really do is top them off after takeoff. I think that it's going to be pretty damn obvious from their flight patterns whether Saudi Arabia helped them or not; you can't deny away the laws of physics. I can also see the Israelis not trusting the Saudis not to ambush their planes either. Whether the Saudis would do that I have no idea (I would guess not, but I wouldn't say definitely) but the Israelis may still be fearful of it.

As for Iraq... Jordan and Syria are in the way.

There's a matter of how many tankers Israel has and how many planes they can fill up at various distances from the base. The farther the fighers fly before getting topped off, the farther they can then go in total but the more fuel from each tanker it takes to fill them, and therefore the fewer planes a tanker can refuel.

You can, of course, load the fighters up with drop tanks, but drop tanks reduce the number of hardpoints available for ordnance and the total weight that can be carried by each plane. That means you then need more planes to hit the same number of targets.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I do think the risks are very high in terms of aircraft losses as compared to how much damage could be inflicted, and that may not be worth it to the Israelis. Their Air Force is their best armed service and their most formidible defense; if the Iranians got wind of the operation they could inflict serious casualties, which would be a serious blow to Israel.


If SA were to betray that agreement, Israel would hit preselected targets on the retreat and then broadcast the set up and betrayal to the world. Then they would be back time after time to take more vengeance, until we threatened them. The Israeli pilots are some of the world's best, but they only have so many planes and so many people willing to sell to them.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:49 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Uncle Fester wrote:
X, that reminds me of the line from Clerks, where they where speculating on the contractor casualties on the destruction of the second death star, there was no proof the empire was going to use it for war!

Dammit! You beat me to it!

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:54 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Micheal wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Israel has the tankers, but unless SA lets them refuel in their airspace all the tankers can really do is top them off after takeoff. I think that it's going to be pretty damn obvious from their flight patterns whether Saudi Arabia helped them or not; you can't deny away the laws of physics. I can also see the Israelis not trusting the Saudis not to ambush their planes either. Whether the Saudis would do that I have no idea (I would guess not, but I wouldn't say definitely) but the Israelis may still be fearful of it.

As for Iraq... Jordan and Syria are in the way.

There's a matter of how many tankers Israel has and how many planes they can fill up at various distances from the base. The farther the fighers fly before getting topped off, the farther they can then go in total but the more fuel from each tanker it takes to fill them, and therefore the fewer planes a tanker can refuel.

You can, of course, load the fighters up with drop tanks, but drop tanks reduce the number of hardpoints available for ordnance and the total weight that can be carried by each plane. That means you then need more planes to hit the same number of targets.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I do think the risks are very high in terms of aircraft losses as compared to how much damage could be inflicted, and that may not be worth it to the Israelis. Their Air Force is their best armed service and their most formidible defense; if the Iranians got wind of the operation they could inflict serious casualties, which would be a serious blow to Israel.


If SA were to betray that agreement, Israel would hit preselected targets on the retreat and then broadcast the set up and betrayal to the world. Then they would be back time after time to take more vengeance, until we threatened them. The Israeli pilots are some of the world's best, but they only have so many planes and so many people willing to sell to them.


If the Israeli planes got ambushed, they wouldn't be able to hit any preselected targets on the way back because they would either have dropped their bombs on Iran already, or they would have to jettison them in order to engage in air to air combat. The Saudis would have a major advantage as well because they could have AWACS up and ready to control their engagement while Israel would most likely not have a large, vulnerable AWACS along with it. The Saudis would also be a lot closer to their own base and would onyl need to devote weight and hardpoints to air-to-air weapons. Finally, Saudi Arabia is mostly open desert; there might or might not be worthwhile targets to attack anywhere near the flight path.

As to broadcasting it to the world.. the results of that would be endless hilarity as everyone rushed to blame it on their favored enemy.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:01 pm 
Offline
Near Ground
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 6782
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Diamondeye wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
The "foiling operations" trouble me most of all, must be nice being a nuclear scientist knowing that the US, Israel, or Europe could decide to kill you just for what you know if your political leanings are wrong, remember Iran's nuclear program hasn't been proven to be producing weapons yet.


Then don't be a nuclear scientist working for a country like Iran. Whaaa, poor babies. This isn't about trial and punishment and legal proof; it's about national interests.

Wow.

Can we get a list of "Jobs one can hold that contain a reasonable expectation of having a foreign government murder the **** out of you?" I think that would be a handy thing to pass out to high school kids in lieu of the ASVAB.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
Top of that list would be "Mohamed Caricature Cartoonist".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Ladas wrote:
Top of that list would be "Mohamed Caricature Cartoonist".

++rep(Ladas);

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:41 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
FarSky wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
The "foiling operations" trouble me most of all, must be nice being a nuclear scientist knowing that the US, Israel, or Europe could decide to kill you just for what you know if your political leanings are wrong, remember Iran's nuclear program hasn't been proven to be producing weapons yet.


Then don't be a nuclear scientist working for a country like Iran. Whaaa, poor babies. This isn't about trial and punishment and legal proof; it's about national interests.

Wow.

Can we get a list of "Jobs one can hold that contain a reasonable expectation of having a foreign government murder the **** out of you?" I think that would be a handy thing to pass out to high school kids in lieu of the ASVAB.


Sure. We'll start with "Terrorist".

Quit your **** whining. If you choose to work in a field like nuclear power and weapons (which are, you know) related, and you do it for a country that regularly threatens to wipe out other countries just as a matter of basic national policy, you should **** well expect to be a target. We're not talking about even just any kind of weapon here; we're talking about weapons that not only could wipe entire Israeli cities off the map, they could trigger global nuclear exchanges; although I wouldn't expect you to understand how quickly things can get out of control.

But yeah, the idea we might do something about that is somehow shocking.

But yeah, we need to give that to kids instead of the ASVAB on the off chance they decide to go work on Iranian nukes. :roll:

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:36 am
Posts: 3083
Diamondeye wrote:
If you choose to work in a field like nuclear power and weapons (which are, you know) related, and you do it for a country that regularly threatens to wipe out other countries just as a matter of basic national policy, you should **** well expect to be a target.


So, you're saying Americans working in the civilian nuclear industry are fair game?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Quote:
Sure. We'll start with "Terrorist".


So, all Iranians are terrorists? Or all Iranian scientists are terrorists? Which is it? If an Iranian is working on nuclear power so their people can have access to cheap, low waste energy, are they a terrorist? When was the last time Iran invaded anyone? When was the last time we invaded someone? Which country is more stable rhetorically, and which is more stable in reality?

If "supporting terrorism" is a qualifier for countries we consider to be "bad guys", why aren't we sanctioning the **** out of Saudi Arabia? And why didn't we bomb them into the stone age after 9-11, given that many of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian?

Oil. That's why.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:43 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Monty, read what he **** wrote.
Here's a clue:

"What jobs can one hold that contain a reasonable expectation of having a foreign government murder the **** out of you?"

"Terrorist."

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:00 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
RangerDave wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
If you choose to work in a field like nuclear power and weapons (which are, you know) related, and you do it for a country that regularly threatens to wipe out other countries just as a matter of basic national policy, you should **** well expect to be a target.


So, you're saying Americans working in the civilian nuclear industry are fair game?


If someone really wants to go after our nuclear scientists, they're going to do it regardless, although at this point that wouldn't happen short of full-scale nuclear war anyhow. The question is about our policy. Our policy should not be to avoid killing nuclear scientists in countries like Iran and NK just because it's "not nice".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:11 pm 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7507
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
Depends on what leg of the trip they choose to refuel. If they refuel on the way out over SA, these hypothetical fighters will have more fuel and more weapons on board to return home after the fighting over Iraq - puts the bingo point over friendlier air space.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 11:14 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
So, all Iranians are terrorists? Or all Iranian scientists are terrorists? Which is it? If an Iranian is working on nuclear power so their people can have access to cheap, low waste energy, are they a terrorist? When was the last time Iran invaded anyone? When was the last time we invaded someone? Which country is more stable rhetorically, and which is more stable in reality?


1) No one said that Iranians or Iranian nuclear scientists are terrorists. I said we can add terrorist to the list of jobs that mean we're likely to try to kill you
2) Who gives a **** if they're working on it for peaceful purposes? As long as they keep up the rhetoric that indicates they aren't, it's their own damn fault if they get attacked for it.
3) The more stable country is us. "Which country invaded someone last?" is not a measure of stability you **** moron; Rwanada hasn't invaded anyone either but they hacked about a million of their own citizens to death a few years back. You don't even know what "stable" means.

By the way, the last time Iran invaded someone was 13 July 1982 when they invaded Iraq after rejecting a peace settlement in which various states would have paid them $70 billion in reparations for Iraq's attack on them. They wanted $150 billion and... Hussein out of power.

Quote:
If "supporting terrorism" is a qualifier for countries we consider to be "bad guys", why aren't we sanctioning the **** out of Saudi Arabia? And why didn't we bomb them into the stone age after 9-11, given that many of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian?


Because, dumbass, the government of Saudi Arabia isn't hostile to us; sanctioning them would weaken a friendly government that wants to prevent further such attacks.

Quote:
Oil. That's why.


No, oil is not why we are not sanctioning Saudi Arabia. Oil is important but sanctions don't do you any good when employed against a country where the government is friendly.. and really are pretty worthless even when they're hostile.

You're all over the **** map here. First it's "All Iranians Are Terrorists Because DE Said It's OK To Kill Terrorists" then it's somehow on to the same thing for nuclear scientists with the totally unjustified assumption that it's all perfectly peaceful, and then somehow we end up at Saudi Arabian terrorists, and no sanctions because of oil. You have absolutely no grasp of strategy or tactics whatsoever. This is just thinly-disguised whining that we might not allow a country which is exceedingly belligerent in its rhetoric and has the ability to build ICBMs to get nukes because it wouldn't be fair or nice of us. Whaaaaa...

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group