Iran's foreign minister: "U.S. can't afford another war"

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan

---

I love the way these right (or should I say wrong, since there is nothing right about them) wingers discount other's arguments by saying oh thats your opinion and so there is no need to engage in a discussion or to consider other's "opinions".

You are a total fool if you think that dropping a nuclear bomb on a nuclear power plant is not going to cause a huge radioactive escape from the power plant and subsequent fallout over a large region.

To contemplate such an act is insane and a crime against humanity since the fallout would not be contained and would spread over a wide area affecting a huge number of innocent people.

If its so safe... go move to the area around Chernobyl or next to a waste storage facility and bask in the glow of your safety.


[edit on 4-10-2007 by grover]

reply to post by FredT

---

I am afraid that Iran is telling the truth, regardless what any American pro war patriot may say, Iran have tight links with China and China is after all the country right now that is financing our debt and wars . . . they pretty much know where US stands financially right now.

This is the reason trigger happy Cheney can not get his wish fulfilled in attacking Iran. . . we can not finance another war without some war tax been added to the tax payer hard working American people.

Perhaps the war happy patriots may want to pay that tax, but me I don't think so.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by marg6043]

4thdoctorwhofan,

you say that the other person dodged your questions, but you are doing the same.

What do you think would happen if a low yield nuclear "downwardly directed bomb" was to be used to blow up a nuclear facility?

My answer/opinion is that the two would potentiate each other like pouring gasoline on a fire cept more poisonous.

A little off topic but with the nuclear waste from the energy plants, what about all of that, its a very real and serious problem, lets see your reaction when some piece of garbage heists a barrels worth and uses dynamite or ammonium nitrate to explode it in a city. It is a problem that is only getting worse as the days go by.


One last question doctor, why are you so bent on attacking Iran I mean you have even said that we can wipe them off the earth make persians an endangered people (since the only remaining ones would be ex-pats). Do you think that Iran is a threat to us. They say Irans weapons are being used to attack US troops but what about all the US weapons being used to attack US troops, there are many reports of thousands of US weapons gone missing.

Besides Iran is Iraqs neighbor and there are elements in Iran that hate the US like everywhere else especially since the US toppled a democratically elected president in the 50's and supplied Iraq with chemical weapons during the Iran Iraq war. So your solution is to bomb them more what do you think that will do? IMO it will cause more hatred towards the US and give further ammunition for the real terrorists not the so called institutional ones like republican guards to attack the US.

One thing you need to remember is that people are people the republican guards for all their rhetoric and shady funding are still businessmen and care more about the empires of wealth and business they have built so they would never act in a way that would threaten their existence.

Dont get me wrong I would like to see Irans current theocracy removed from power and replaced with a more modern system but that needs to happen on its own. Attacking Iran will only strengthen them and right now their is a lot of discontent in the country because of poor economic progress. There will be an internal revolution in Iran I assure you if they are left to their own, but that will never happen if we decide to strategically bomb them or if israel does.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by Desolate Cancer]

Cheney just wants another war because with his (rumored) heart, violence and the threat of violence is the only way he can get it up anymore. I bet he couldn't control himself when he shot that guy in the face and had to change his undies.

reply to post by grover

---

Well rumors tells that Cheney is so mad about Bush not fulfilling the agenda set for the middle east that he may start the war himself with the help of his corporate partners and behind Bush.

Well it is your opinion.
Please show me the fallout data for the nuclear bunker buster bomb to prove your point. You must also take into consideration the actual yield of the bomb, wind and other atmospheric conditions along with the penatrating depth of the bomb.

You are giving your opinion and I am giving mine and presto, you have a discussion.


First of all, you have no idea how far along Iran's reactors are to being completed. Secondly, even a conventional bomb will not necessarily release radiation from a reactor. Thirdly, if a small nuclear bunker buster bomb is used, there will not be a massive radioactive release like you believe.


Well, I guess that will teach Iran not to play with the big dogs.
They shouldn't have provoked us if they cannot handle the consequences.


Calling people names is always the last resort of a losing argument.
Oh, and BTW, I do live near a reactor so again you have no idea what you are talking about.

The only thing you have proved is your belligerence.

Fur sure! Dropping a nuclear bomb in crystal clear water creates a radioactive fallout. They could however do as Israel did to Iraq's nuclear reactor. If you nip it in the bud before the reactor is fueled and up and running you're quite safe....unless you use a nuclear bomb. Then it doesn't matter what you bomb.

Thanks for your intelligent and informative post......NOT!

Starting a war in Iran is imbecilic, considering we have tens of thousands of troops next door in a country that is now far more friendly with Iran than it is with us. If you think we're taking casualties now in Iraq, wait until we attack Iran. US troops can expect a VBIED at every corner and a sniper on every rooftop.

Those stroking themselves at the thought of the US's conventional military superiority to Iran are missing the point: whether or not we launch a land invasion of Iran, we have troops close by that are perfect targets for Iranian retaliation. And Iran almost certainly will retaliate - especially if we're attacking nuclear plants in their cities, & releasing radioactive material into populated areas.

Anyone who thinks that such a conflict can be restricted to a one-sided air campaign is a total fool.

Unfortunately, our leaders have already proven that they are, in fact, total fools - so who knows what will happen.

Um howdy everybody.

I think we can all agree that this is a very passionate subject and that everyone here is simply looking to express their own opinion.

But let's all remember that we're all here to discuss and attack the issues, not our fellow members even if we disagree with them on a particular subject...or every subject.

So let's keep this thread going I think everyone is bringing up good points, but let's not attack each other.

Okie doke have fun,

Spiderj

I find it amusing that some here seem to think that Irans (rather large and in some sense, sophisticated) military would be "wiped out" using Air power alone.

I assume these persons are too young to remember 1999 and Kosovo, when after several weeks of repeated strikes by scores of Allied aircraft, the Serbian suffered less than 1000 dead (mostly from one barracks being hit, I might add), most of the targets we hit were dummies set up by the Serbs or just plain wrong and 95% of the Serbian military that was in Kosovo emerged unscathed after the bombing.

Real impressive Air power.....

I appreciate your gung-ho and proud of your "huge"military wang you guys have, but Air power alone has never achieved the defeat of an enemy. All your going to do is stir up a hornets nest, and you don't even know where the hornets are.

Ahem...

There will be an immediate cessation to hostilities... Lest I start dropping bombs, and we all know what they are made of.

on a more serious note, this is a "Breaking News" thread is held to a higher standard, so if we can all work together to raise it out of the gutter of personal insults and name calling to the pristine intellectual causeway of civility and decorum it would be much appreciated.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Posting Conduct… Play The Ball – Please Review This Link.

Thanks.

reply to post by stumason

---

Look, I'm no war monger, but I disagree. I think the US air power is only as effective as the US wants it to be. For what reason they decide to pull back the reins at a certain time, I don't know. There's a ton of underlying, secretive reasons for war that the public is not privy to.

Peace

I have already placed the fellow I was arguing with in ignore.

For the longest time I refused to do that. But as time goes on it becomes easier and easier.

It could be what you stated but it also might be political correctness. The military is growing with lawyers and they are being given more power to control every little aspect of an engagement. Why? I don't know. Just look at some of the stupid rules of engagement being put upon our soldiers in Iraq. The last thing we need is the military to become totally PC.

So, in Kosovo for example, the limited effectiveness of the strikes and the repeated targetting of Serbian decoy's where a concious choice made by the Allies?

I understand what your saying to a point, but the Air Force can only be as effective as the intelligence guiding the targetting. Effectiveness isn't a matter solely for the USAF (or any AF for that matter) to decide.

reply to post by stumason

---

Let's just say that the dissemination of "good" intelligence can be politically motivated, and I believe it was in that case. Bill Clinton and our armed forces, how should I say, didn't necessarily see eye to eye if you know what I mean. Certain factions within the government wanted to show the inadequacy of Bill Clinton as a leader. They only succeeded partially in tearing him down as history shows. The failure to "get" bin Laden rests squarely on his shoulders in the eyes of many today. Once again, "getting" bin Laden was only as good as the intelligence that was disseminated at the time. Clinton was fighting a war on two fronts, an almost impossible situation to be victorious in. BTW, I'm no Clinton fan other than of the man's incredible charisma, I just call 'em like I see 'em.

All that being said, I still think Wesley Clark did a hell of a job considering his hands were tied. A great, and mostly underrated General IMO.

Peace



[edit on 4-10-2007 by Dr Love]