Say What?

[SeaCat]

I just read this and almost dropped my beer.
Iran Poll

Where did they conduct this poll? Washington D.C.? The White House?

Ah well, here we go again.

Cat

 

[TheEarl]

I just read this and almost dropped my beer.
Iran Poll

Where did they conduct this poll? Washington D.C.? The White House?

Ah well, here we go again.

Cat

There are actually WMD making facilities being built. Rather than WMD/terrorist sympathies/actually we were going in there to oust Saddam as we had over Iraq.

I can kinda understand this poll.

The Earl

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I just read this and almost dropped my beer.
Iran Poll

Where did they conduct this poll? Washington D.C.? The White House?

Ah well, here we go again.

Cat

Define military action. I don't have the least bit of trouble with lobbing a few dozen tomahawks in there to blast apart their reactors and production/r&d centers. If anyone does not need nukes, it's Iran. Nobody needs to cook up their links to terror organizations, they sponsor Hezbollah. If hezbolla were a sports team their shirts would read Sponsored by IRAN. So yeah, if you're talking about military action as in disabeling their nuclear capacity, I'm all for it.

If you are talking abou tan invasion, I would have to say anyone who supports it needs their head throughly examined. Short of tac nukes, you can't inflict enough casualties on them to make a diference, ask the Iraqis. And if you think occupation in Iraq is deadly, just the thought of trying to occupy Iran gives me the shivers. I could outline the military problems, but I won't bore you.

Suffic to say, like any poll, the results are largely dependant on what questions you ask.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

deja-vu!!

 

[TheEarl]

If you are talking abou tan invasion, I would have to say anyone who supports it needs their head throughly examined. Short of tac nukes, you can't inflict enough casualties on them to make a diference, ask the Iraqis. And if you think occupation in Iraq is deadly, just the thought of trying to occupy Iran gives me the shivers. I could outline the military problems, but I won't bore you.

We could always use Iraq's army. I hear that's gonna be ready any day now.

The Earl

 

[Liar]

Sad to say, I'm out of the loop. Is it official that Iran is making nukes?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Define military action. I don't have the least bit of trouble with lobbing a few dozen tomahawks in there to blast apart their reactors and production/r&d centers. If anyone does not need nukes, it's Iran. Nobody needs to cook up their links to terror organizations, they sponsor Hezbollah. If hezbolla were a sports team their shirts would read Sponsored by IRAN. So yeah, if you're talking about military action as in disabeling their nuclear capacity, I'm all for it.

If you are talking abou tan invasion, I would have to say anyone who supports it needs their head throughly examined. Short of tac nukes, you can't inflict enough casualties on them to make a diference, ask the Iraqis. And if you think occupation in Iraq is deadly, just the thought of trying to occupy Iran gives me the shivers. I could outline the military problems, but I won't bore you.

Suffic to say, like any poll, the results are largely dependant on what questions you ask.

That and I was wondering what army we'd be using, given that our recruitment has plummeted and we're fighting in two countries already.

 

[TheEarl]

Sad to say, I'm out of the loop. Is it official that Iran is making nukes?

Iran is making enriched nuclear material. They are saying it's just for power stations and they wouldn't ever dream of giving any to Hezbollah and friends and definitely have no plans to develop a nuclear bomb.

The rest of the world is saying, "My arse!" and I have to say I'm tempted to agree. Especially since Iran have actually broken several UN resolutions in order to start enriching uranium.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

That and I was wondering what army we'd be using, given that our recruitment has plummeted and we're fighting in two countries already.

Iraq's, I told you! It's the perfect solution!

The Earl

 

[Liar]

Iran is making enriched nuclear material. They are saying it's just for power stations and they wouldn't ever dream of giving any to Hezbollah and friends and definitely have no plans to develop a nuclear bomb.

The rest of the world is saying, "My arse!" and I have to say I'm tempted to agree. Especially since Iran have actually broken several UN resolutions in order to start enriching uranium.

The Earl

I'm temted to think alot of things. But I'm not ready to act without solid proof.

 

[TheEarl]

I'm temted to think alot of things. But I'm not ready to act without solid proof.

Well, to be honest, the UN has said "No, don't do that." And Iran has stuck two fingers up and said "What are you going to do about it?"

Not grounds for a full-scale invasion, but certainly grounds for doing something.

The Earl

 

[Liar]

Well, to be honest, the UN has said "No, don't do that." And Iran has stuck two fingers up and said "What are you going to do about it?"

Not grounds for a full-scale invasion, but certainly grounds for doing something.

The Earl

Have they provided a plausible option, like "Hey listen, fuckwits. We're trying to solve a massive energy crisis here, so get off our backs. (or start selling us reeeally cheap juice)"?

I'm trying to figure out exactly what a country like Iran would do with nukes. Except setting themselves up for being erased by the rest of the world.

 

[rgraham666]

Any country that gave a nuke to a terrorist organisation that was then used would be reduced to radioactive glass.

And everyone would help; Russia, China, India and Pakistan would all contribute in addition to the Western countries.

It's just too dangerous a thing to have happen. The perps would get their nuts kicked between their ears. And I for one, would object very little.

That's very unlikely to happen though. Even Iran will keep their nukes, if they succeed in producing them, under tight control. As all nations with nukes do. A nuclear weapon given to a non-governmental organisation is too likely to boomerang.

 

[Guest]

almost totally out of the loop on this one.
however, i've heard that the troops are already on the boarder of iran...and the rumor through gov. agencies here is to make sure we all have two weeks of food in the larders...in case gas is cut off to us, making it nearly impossible for truckers to deliver goods.
watching gas prices soar again. *sigh*
this is just a rumor. but i have to wonder how much is true. what are we getting ourselves into again?

 

[zeb1094]

Any country that gave a nuke to a terrorist organisation that was then used would be reduced to radioactive glass.

And everyone would help; Russia, China, India and Pakistan would all contribute in addition to the Western countries.

It's just too dangerous a thing to have happen. The perps would get their nuts kicked between their ears. And I for one, would object very little.

That's very unlikely to happen though. Even Iran will keep their nukes, if they succeed in producing them, under tight control. As all nations with nukes do. A nuclear weapon given to a non-governmental organisation is too likely to boomerang.

Until the nuclear winter sets in and the ice caps creep down the from the north and inundate the northern half of the northern hemisphere.

So when you planing to move to Mexico?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Yes, I'm with Zeb on this one. The threat of nuking a country into oblivion is not a real one unless we're planning on dealing the clouds of radiation drifting across the globe and similar ugly results. You can't confine the damage sufficiently to make it a viable option on a large scale.

There are substantial moral issues involved as well. Suppose someone in the Iranian government did supply a nuclear warhead to a terrorist group that detonated it in Tel Aviv. Who supplied it, the government as a whole or one or two rogue elements? Whom do we hold responsible? Surely not the Iranian people, whose elections only allow them to choose between candidates already vetted by their mullahs, who kick out anyone who isn't going to agree with their stringent criteria. What would bombing Tehran back into the stone age accomplish other than killing tens of thousands of men, women, and children who had no ability to stop what happened?

 

[R. Richard]

Have they provided a plausible option, like "Hey listen, fuckwits. We're trying to solve a massive energy crisis here, so get off our backs. (or start selling us reeeally cheap juice)"?

I'm trying to figure out exactly what a country like Iran would do with nukes. Except setting themselves up for being erased by the rest of the world.

Iran is one of the world's largest exporters of oil. They have no need to buy energy from anyone else, they are an energy source.

Iran is a country where the head of state does not think that there was a Holocaust. However, it there was a Holocaust he wants Germany to take back all the Israelis.

Iran's President Mahmood Ahmadinejad denies the right of Israel to exist. Israel [and for the matter Iran] is a member of the United Nations. The United Nations does nothing.

President Mahmood Ahmadinejad has told the Western nations that he will continue to enrich uranium. Iran does not need to enrioch uranium to produce power. They need to enrich uranium to make atomic weapons. President Mahmood Ahmadinejad has told the West that he will soon have missiles capable of striking Israel and Europe.

War with Iran is not necessary. All that is required is to use Western government engravers to produce plates to print Iranian Rial [currency] notes, print them and drop them over SELECTED Iranian population centers by the airplane load. Once the opposition to the current government start to spend their newly acquired wealth, the government of Iran would collapse. Hyperinflation would run wild and Iranian currency would quickly become totally worthless. Quick, simple and nobody dies.

 

[rgraham666]

Sorry folks. Early in the morning and my brain wasn't entirely functioning. I apologise.

But I would not disagree with action against anyone who allowed a non-governmental organisation to obtain and use a nuke. Or any form of CBW.

Just as I do not object to the U.S. et al. invading Afghanistan. The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to train there and the training resulted in 9/11. A pretty clear violation of international law. So I did not and do not object to that invasion.

I consider a terrorist nuclear strike a very unlikely scenario anyway. As I said, too easy to boomerang. Iran would feel really stupid if they gave a nuke to Hezbollah, the Kurds hijacked it and set it off in Teheran.

 

[R. Richard]

I consider a terrorist nuclear strike a very unlikely scenario anyway. As I said, too easy to boomerang. Iran would feel really stupid if they gave a nuke to Hezbollah, the Kurds hijacked it and set it off in Teheran.

I would politely disagree here. I feel that a government, even the government of Iran, WILLINGLY giving a nuclear bomb to a non-governmental terrorist group is very unlikely. HOWEVER, the idea of a government giving the makings of a "dirty bomb" to a terrorist group is another matter. A suitcase full of partially enriched uranium and a few sticks of dynamite can kill a lot of people. However, since the carrier would die of radiation poisoning, radicals can claim that it is a matter of personal conscience on the part of a true believer, not a terrorist attack.

JMHO.

 

[gauchecritic]

going back the original question...

Colly is probably right (about the method of collection).

Alien abduction: According to those that care one way or the other, a common occurence with the majority of self claimed alien abductions is a feeling or actual inability to voluntarily move muscles.

When waking from sleep whilst dreaming it has been clinically observed that although conscious, subjects for brief periods have no voluntary control of muscles.

Two seperate occurences. But take the reason for abscence of involuntary control and invest it only in alien abduction scenarios and it turns out that more than 50% of Americans have been abducted by aliens.

Depends entirely on the question asked and how much information is applied to the answer.

Q. Would you personally suport a war against a nuclear power that threatened your sovereignty?

Now you can publish your result with the extra information that Iran could be a nuclear power in the foggy future and that the majority of Americans would support invasion of another sovereign nation who may jeopardize that future.

 

[oggbashan]

There has been a poll in the UK with a similar result.

However, the UK's options are very limited. We have just committed a substantial part of our armed forces to Southern Afghanistan. With so much of our military resources in place around the world we have very little left to do anything.

Any withdrawal from Iraq is likely to be used to provide more troops in Afghanistan. There is considerable reluctance by other NATO countries to send their troops into danger. They seem to believe that they can have expensive armed forces but do not have the political will to send them into situations which might result in deaths and injury. Whether they should get involved in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran is another matter.

What democratic government could now survive the daily death toll common on the Western Front in the First World War? Or the successful taking of beaches on D-Day 1944?

Og

 

[Purple Sage]

Define military action. I don't have the least bit of trouble with lobbing a few dozen tomahawks in there to blast apart their reactors and production/r&d centers. If anyone does not need nukes, it's Iran. Nobody needs to cook up their links to terror organizations, they sponsor Hezbollah. If hezbolla were a sports team their shirts would read Sponsored by IRAN. So yeah, if you're talking about military action as in disabeling their nuclear capacity, I'm all for it.

Not a bad idea, but probably ineffective unless we use tactical nukes. We think we know everything, but in fact it may not be that easy to destroy their program at a distance. I wonder how you feel about the Iranian civilians who would die in such an attack? Is it alright because they are supporting a program that you feel threatens the U.S.? Oddly enough, that's the justification that's been put forward for the attack on the World Trade Center- the place housed the multinational business and financial entities that promote and fund the cultural, economic and military conflict against Islam.

I do agree that the Iranians are low on my list of folks that ought to have nukes. It's scary when religious zealots have that kind of power, especially when they have a history of indifference to human life. Of course, by that standard, the U.S. ought to be last on the list- we're the only nation on earth that has demonstrated a willingness to use nukes on civilian centers. Letting Iran have them too certainly won't make the world any safer, but I think Americans can forget about the moral high ground here.

 

[TheEarl]

War with Iran is not necessary. All that is required is to use Western government engravers to produce plates to print Iranian Rial [currency] notes, print them and drop them over SELECTED Iranian population centers by the airplane load. Once the opposition to the current government start to spend their newly acquired wealth, the government of Iran would collapse. Hyperinflation would run wild and Iranian currency would quickly become totally worthless. Quick, simple and nobody dies.

Just on a tangent - that is the most devious and machiavellian thing I've ever heard. Nicely done. It would cause a huge civil war though and widespread poverty though, as well as sending the entire country into famine and civil unrest.

The Earl