Ramius Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Just a word of warning....Vegas doesn't accept rolls of coins. Well then i suppose its good i sold all my possessions to buy silver, a bible, and a facemask. I'm holding your vikings quote, so when they bow out in the wildcard round, you can try to explain to everyone how you were right again about your predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 No, it is not thinking in Western terms. Show me which top dogs led suicide missions of their own. It's a pretty short list. They may have little regard for OTHER human life and "their own people", but they do seem to have regard for themselves. Yes, it most certainly is thinking in western terms. I never said that "top dogs" led suicide missions. As is almost always the case throughout history, they get others to do it. They are chess players, not the pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Yes, it most certainly is thinking in western terms. I never said that "top dogs" led suicide missions. As is almost always the case throughout history, they get others to do it. They are chess players, not the pieces. If Ahmadinejad directly attacks Israel w/ a nuke, he might as well be a suicide bomber, because he personally is dead along w/ most of the rest of the citizens of Tehran. No doubt he wants the Grand Caliphate. But he wants to be there to see it / run it. Upon further review of your earlier discussion, I see you weren't the person stating that Iran would go nuclear in a 1st strike. That Ahmadinejad wants a war to destroy Israel is no secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 If Ahmadinejad directly attacks Israel w/ a nuke, he might as well be a suicide bomber, because he personally is dead along w/ most of the rest of the citizens of Tehran. No doubt he wants the Grand Caliphate. But he wants to be there to see it / run it. Upon further review of your earlier discussion, I see you weren't the person stating that Iran would go nuclear in a 1st strike. That Ahmadinejad wants a war to destroy Israel is no secret. Ahmadinejad would be nowhere close to Tehran, or any other spot that would be a military target, if Iran were to strike Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Ahmadinejad would be nowhere close to Tehran, or any other spot that would be a military target, if Iran were to strike Israel. That is true. I also expect the Israelis would find and kill the B word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight Drane Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Well then i suppose its good i sold all my possessions to buy silver, a bible, and a facemask. I'm holding your vikings quote, so when they bow out in the wildcard round, you can try to explain to everyone how you were right again about your predictions. That's fair. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I already admitted to being wrong on the timing of Inflation. The government is actually quite merciful in all of this. I think by falling apart in slow motion, they are allowing for Darwinism to unfold. If by the end of this thing you weren't prepared and couldn't see what was coming, you don't deserve to be around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 *I* wouldn't go to war thinking that. But I think Ahmedinijad would. You miss the point: *the west* would never go to war with that calculation. Ergo, a limited deterence (a handfull of nukes) is an effective deterence against it. That is the logic I am suggesting NK and Iran are using. That was also the logic Saddam Hussein used - he thought that if he could trick us into believing that he had some measure of a biological WMD capability and the means to deliver it, we would back down from a military confrontation. His bluff didn't fail - rather, the possibility of a biological attack launched by SCUDs didn't sufficiently unnerve us based on our calculations of the likely impact. A Nuke on a modern missile is a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 You miss the point: *the west* would never go to war with that calculation. Ergo, a limited deterence (a handfull of nukes) is an effective deterence against it. That is the logic I am suggesting NK and Iran are using. That was also the logic Saddam Hussein used - he thought that if he could trick us into believing that he had some measure of a biological WMD capability and the means to deliver it, we would back down from a military confrontation. His bluff didn't fail - rather, the possibility of a biological attack launched by SCUDs didn't sufficiently unnerve us based on our calculations of the likely impact. A Nuke on a modern missile is a different story. Very much so. Just my opinion - Saddam's bugs, dirty radiation things, and chemicals were moved to southern Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 That is true. I also expect the Israelis would find and kill the B word. I would expect the Mossad to try, and they are very, very good. I would also expect Ahmadinejad to try equally hard not to be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon in Pasadena Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Since Ahmadinejad has espoused the complete eradication of Israel to the entire world, something that no world leader has done since Hitler's timeit is possible that in his mind, launching a nuclear tipped missile or two into Israel will galvanize the middle eastern countries that are governed by Islamic extremists. If Ahmadinejad nuked Israel and happened to end up vaporizing East Jerusalem including the Dome of the Rock Mosque (3rd holiest site in Islam) he'd for sure galvanize the Arabs. Galvanize them right up his Shiite ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 “To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians — between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat.” -our fearless leader to Benjamin Netanyahu after the Israeli PM insisted Iran was the single biggest threat to their security. Seems the idiot in the oval office thinks he knows what the Isreelis need more than they do. And people accused the last president of hubris? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 “To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians — between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with thepotential Iranian threat.” -our fearless leader to Benjamin Netanyahu after the Israeli PM insisted Iran was the single biggest threat to their security. Seems the idiot in the oval office thinks he knows what the Isreelis need more than they do. And people accused the last president of hubris? Obama is the president of the U.S., not Israel. Therefore he wants to do what is in the best interest of the U.S., which in this case would also benefit Israel in the long run. Middle East leaders, including moderate pro-U.S. leaders like Hussian in Jordan and Mubarek in Egypt, all agree that a resolution to the Palestinian issue would do the most to insure a lasting peace with Israel, and would give them more moral justification for speaking up against Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Obama is the president of the U.S., not Israel. Therefore he wants to do what is in the best interest of the U.S., which in this case would also benefit Israel in the long run. Middle East leaders, including moderate pro-U.S. leaders like Hussian in Jordan and Mubarek in Egypt, all agree that a resolution to the Palestinian issue would do the most to insure a lasting peace with Israel, and would give them more moral justification for speaking up against Iran. Yes and a pill to cure cancer would do wonders for health care costs. Confine yourself to the facts as they exist today,not some future pie in the sky Palestinian-Israel lets shake hands and let bygones be bygones event that 3 generations have been waiting for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Yes and a pill to cure cancer would do wonders for health care costs. Confine yourself to the facts as they exist today,not some future pie in the sky Palestinian-Israel lets shake hands and let bygones be bygones event that 3 generations have been waiting for. So you only think an agreement is possible when people like each other? We lived for half a decade with an uneasy agreement with the Soviet Union, always working to reduce tensions and agree to arms control, while not liking each other and not completely trusting. Your black and white view of the world is an impediment to progress, not a step forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 If Ahmadinejad nuked Israel and happened to end up vaporizing East Jerusalem including the Dome of the Rock Mosque (3rd holiest site in Islam) he'd for sure galvanize the Arabs. Galvanize them right up his Shiite ass. Islamic extremists would be more ecstatic about the damage to Israel than damage to a Mosque. They have purposely sacrificed thousands of their own men, women and children as well as buildings, apartments, utilities, schools and Mosques. To them, destruction of Israel far outweighs destruction of a Mosque, no matter how holy. That would be acceptable collateral damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 So you only think an agreement is possible when people like each other? We lived for half a decade with an uneasy agreement with the Soviet Union, always working to reduce tensions and agree to arms control, while not liking each other and not completely trusting. Your black and white view of the world is an impediment to progress, not a step forward. Bad example The US and USSR did not like each other but had something in common to work with. Both sides knew that starting a war with the other would result in the destruction of themself as well as the other What does Israel and the Arabs have in common, other than a mutual hatred of each other and belief that God is on their side and wants the other side smote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Bad example The US and USSR did not like each other but had something in common to work with. Both sides knew that starting a war with the other would result in the destruction of themself as well as the other What does Israel and the Arabs have in common, other than a mutual hatred of each other and belief that God is on their side and wants the other side smote I would argue that they have the same in common; a war at this point would end in destruction of both sides. And I think it's stereotyping to think that most Israelis and most Arabs hate each other. The majority would be happy to just go on with their own lives without anyone else bothering them. It's the few extremists on both sides that stir the pot, just like the political discourse in our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 I would argue that they have the same in common; a war at this point would end in destruction of both sides. You think people raised in a culture that encourages them to strap a bomb to their chest really care if their side gets destroyed? And I think it's stereotyping to think that most Israelis and most Arabs hate each other. I never said they did. I don't know any Israeli's or Arabs to form an opinion. But the American Jews I know are not to fond of Arabs The majority would be happy to just go on with their own lives without anyone else bothering them. I agree. The Israelis would like to go about their daily lives without having somebody talk about wiping them off the face of the Earth, meanwhile somebody just strapped a bomb to their chest The Arabs would also like to just go about their daily lives...without the Israeli's in Palestine It's the few extremists on both sides that stir the pot, just like the political discourse in our country. I agree, Mr Kettle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 So you only think an agreement is possible when people like each other? We lived for half a decade with an uneasy agreement with the Soviet Union, always working to reduce tensions and agree to arms control, while not liking each other and not completely trusting. Your black and white view of the world is an impediment to progress, not a step forward. Irrelevant example. The USSR and America did not have a common border,or actively engage in killing each others citizens,or claim territory the other had. It was more a PR war to win over uncommitted countries than a active ,hate fueled, you killed my son,blew up my house Israeli/Palestinian conflict that probably will go on for many more generation's. To link Iran's nuclear program to a solution of that issue is to walk away from the table with a don't worry about that problem-we'll wait till someone else fixes their's and then it will go away by it's self mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Israeli/Palestinian conflict that probably will go on for many more generation's. And has been going on in some form or another the last couple thousand years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts