• A reminder that Forum Moderator applications are currently still open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Can we PLEASE bomb Iran now? :(

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mozz

Golden Wang of Justice
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
24
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its disputed nuclear program.

"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," Iran said a statement meant for delivery at the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board meeting in Vienna on Iran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.

"But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll."

In statements for the same meeting, the United States and its European allies said Iran's intransigence over its nuclear program has left the world no choice but to ask for the U.N. Security Council to take action against the Islamic regime.
 
North Korea used the same rhetoric against us, and it just got them a better deal at the negotiation table. Iraq tried to back down and they got attacked. Therefore, Iran will get MORE nuclear material for saying this.
 
The question isn't wether you can bomb Iran or not at this point. The question is, what would it effectively achieve?

If it's a prelude to an invasion, said invasion is going to make Iraq looks like a walk in the park.

If it's a "putting pressure on them" move, the most likely outcome is that Iran will balk up even more, and accelerate their nuke research even more.

If it'S a "destroy their nuke infrastructure", sorry to say but the Iran nuke research infrastructure is much more developed than the one the Israeli took done in Iraq - and with much more uncertainties attached to it.
 
Isn't it funny though the stages which you have to go through to initiate actions I mean a country thretens another and the thretened country has to consort the U.N of the best action to take. I would have thought they would already have sorted some sort of general action if something like this were to arise because the other country won't wait for you to regroup.
 
Eh, within the next 50 years the US will control most of the Islamic area over there... why not just get it over and done with?

We do seem to like "taking care of them"...

[/sarcasm]
 
What I don't understand is why are we allowed to have nukes, but we won't allow anyone else to have nukes?
 
Koroku said:
Eh, within the next 50 years the US will control most of the Islamic area over there... why not just get it over and done with?

We do seem to like "taking care of them"...

[/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

Yeah I know this 'taking care of them' thing is getting really suspicious though, well more than it's been before and ain't it coincidental that they happen to be some of the largest oil suppliers...:ching: . It's like when a really rich family member dies and people who you've never seen before in your life turn up claiming to have known and been really good friends with them.
 
ChaosRocket said:
What I don't understand is why are we allowed to have nukes, but we won't allow anyone else to have nukes?
Click to expand...

Now, hold on, we allow other countries to have them. Just no Middle Eastern countries (Pakistan's not the Middle East, it's just close). Well...other than Israel. But...that's the stuff of conspiracy theories and Neo-Nazi sites.
 
GrnMarvl13 said:
Now, hold on, we allow other countries to have them. Just no Middle Eastern countries (Pakistan's not the Middle East, it's just close). Well...other than Israel. But...that's the stuff of conspiracy theories and Neo-Nazi sites.
Click to expand...

90% of the countries 'allowed' to have Nuclear Weapons by the almighty US World Police have them all on US soil anyway and ultimately, under US control. (Eg: Britain)

Generally it can seem simply like a case of "We're having them, you're not - 'cause we're bigger, nyaa-nyaa."

Although definitely in this case, considering the comments coming from Iran's own state officials they aren't a country anyone would want having the power to do an Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
 
Hey, I just said we allowed them. I figured it was implied that we only allowed the countries sucked up to us to have them.

Doctor Oak said:
Although definitely in this case, considering the comments coming from Iran's own state officials they aren't a country anyone would want having the power to do an Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Click to expand...

Iran's been pissy since 1980. Or 1979. I can't remember when Khomeini took over. They're getting better, but that whole "the Holocaust didn't happen" was just a bad move (to say the least).
 
I can't help but feel that this "only we can have them" attitude is what drives this crap. Why would any terrorist countries that are boasting about weapons programs bother unless they could get a reaction out of us? These trigger-happy freaks shouldn't have them, but there has to be a way of achieving that without daring them to continue.

I say we shouldn't bother trying to conquer the Middle East. It's managed to resist major empires for centuries if not millennia now so we need to come up with better solutions.
 
Huh? It's resisted empires? I assume you're not referring to the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI? Or...the rise of Ottoman Empire centuries prior. Or the Persian Empire's rise and fall. Not to mention the numerous Soviet invasions. And the fact that I can't think of Hitler entering the region bothers me. British and French held control over for much of the 20th century after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. ALL of the countries you see now (aside from Pakistan) are the direct result of European involvement. That's...kinda why there are so many internal problems.
 
As much as I'd like to bomb Iran, there are a few facts that you we may want to consider. If we A-bomb Iran, there will be clouds of radioactive dust that could drift over to other parts of the world and kill more people. Plus, their soil and climate would be changed forever. Nobody could live there. A nuclear war could also start. It would also wipe out Israel ( I think), which is totally innocent.
 
Israel is about as far from an innocent country as you can get without being one of the arab countries around Israel.

As for local history, Grn, I would simply like to point out that while it's true the Euros occupied the Mid-East for a while, Iran itself is another story. Matter of fact, Iran was only conquered a handful of time in its lengthy existence as Persia-Iran (when you get right down to it, one of China's few rivals for longest-lived nation).

In the last 2300 years, the region was conquered four times.

The first person - and the last westerner - to do so was known as "megabasilicos", or Great King. Sloppy translators accidentaly separated the two terms, resuling in "Great" being applied to the person's name rather than to his title as king. A guy named Alexander - you may have heard of him.

The second time - a millenia later - involved one of the mightiest and strongest cultural explosion in history : the birth of the Arab caliphate. They managed to take Iran, too.

The third and fourth time both showed up in the 600 years after that. The first were the Seljuk turks when they bowled over all of Arab-ville. The second, involved probably the people on the record as having had the most success fighting land wars in Asia : people whose leader was one Temujin - you may have heard of THAT one, too.

Since the 1300s, tho, no one has ever succesfully invaded Iran.
 
Last edited:
My cousin lives in Israel!

The only bad thing in Israel are those Palestineans. And Yassar Arafat is dead.
 
LoL

(To be more specific)

Yes, the palestinians are a BIG part of the problem in Israel (and electing Hamas...geez). But many Israeli are part of the problem too.

After all, nobody forced the Israeli to keep the occupied territories - they decided to do that on their own. Nobody forced them to send colonists in the occupied territories - that's something else the Israeli decided to do for themselves. And trying to act like these two decisions are not big parts of Israel's problems is ludicrously moronic.
 
A Figment said:
Matter of fact, Iran was only conquered a handful of time in its lengthy existence as Persia-Iran (when you get right down to it, one of China's few rivals for longest-lived nation).
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I kinda steered clear of focusing on the Persian Empire. Couldn't recall enough of it to make any sort of specific claim...so I went with the generalization and focused on the Ottomans.

As for the rest, I was merely referring to invasion, not conquering. Conquering was something else entirely, and as you pointed out, it's only been conquered a few times (although there HAVE been countless invasions with varying levels of success).

ridley-x4 said:
The only bad thing in Israel are those Palestineans. And Yassar Arafat is dead.
Click to expand...

...SO MUCH you need to learn about the area and its history. I'm going to hold my tongue and not get into it...A Figment's handling it well enough.
 
Really, if it looks like Iran may actually develop nuclear weapons, then Israel may very well be the first ones to intervene. For all the bluster about aid it recieves and the inconvenience that Palestinian militants cause it, Israel has an extremely capable military, and since their infrastructure is already in that region, they'd be in a pretty good position to attack Iran.
The U.S. would likely have a very hard time from the international community given the level of interests Russia and China have tied up in Iran...and even the U.S. can't afford the kind of fallout it could get if the arab world, AND China decided to really pressure them.
 
Actually, the US could probably get most of the Int. community behind them. Sure, the security council would still likely veto it, but there's a huge difference in western perception between a *french* veto and a russian or chinesse veto (essentialy : France is a western democracy. Russia and China...western, they ain't, and even Russia's democratic-ness can be debated).

As for ISrael...sorry to say, but while they have a good military, they have nowhere near what it'd take to wipe out the Iran nuclear program. They'd be dealing with a country much too large for them to handle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom