Re: CHALLENGE: Iran
Flint?
The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → CHALLENGE: Iran
Flint?
Last bump and then I give up, since you're online right now. ![]()
Trump card from me:
Obama wont start a war with Iran, because his own speeches about how this would increase 'Islamic Radicalism'.
I will post later, I want to get a lot of shit off my chest. I promise I want to get back to this in full.
Skoe, sorry... this is a direct answer to Flint's "Challenges" that he had. A third party interfering would mess with the challenge.
And yes, we needed the full thread. ![]()
You can always make another thread if you like, or wait until one of us leaves crying... ![]()
I am gone again, sorry Zarf, just needed to mass post things I saved up, got about 1/3 done ![]()
I will be back later... promise
Ok now I have a little time, so time to post. IC was freaking out on me earlier today or I would have posted already.
Obama is on a 'please sir, we are sorry for everything, stop hunting us now, we give up' of a tour.
The evidence is in zounds. Releasing pic's a day before he goes to the Middle East again is leading to an easy and predictable apology tour.
Iran is buffered by this, and gains the upper hand in debates from here on. They will stall and use the world collapse and the really truly coming bad collapse of the United States as proof that he is not flooding his nation with cash but it is just 'the times'.
So they will print their way until they can scare their way into pure financial success, as they see it.
These are EXTREMISTS. When a leftist in this forum looks at me, they think 'extremist of the right' and 'crazy'.
This is because they have never seen true extremism. A true extremist not of their viewpoint would shake them to their core if they met in real life.
You cannot debate with them at all, they see everything from their agenda and all roadblocks as needing bypassed for their agenda. Failure to them means 'find another way'. How many arab lives did it take for them to decide that fighting Israel directly was a bad thing?
They now try to use Politics as we have seen, with Bollywood type styles, control of various UN agencies, and the likes to get a political win. Only Israel is frustrating them by not playing the game. But since they feel they are gaining power they are letting it go with that and focusing on the final win.
If you played multiplayer starcraft, you know what a Zerg Rush is. They failed since the terrans had all their defenses up.
So now they are playing the terrans against the protoss... They think they can win with nukes. Israel still outguns them, since Israel is a fully built protoss, and this is unstoppable. All minerals are mined out, and Israel holds the edge, but the Iranians think they have the large enough savings to build all the nukes they need to just walk step by step into the Protoss base.
When the cloaked survey ship detects their efforts they will be shocked, and dismayed as the only units able to launch are destroyed.
That is in game terms.
In real life Iran has everything they want except the destruction of Israel and the United States, and the cash necessary to do that action with nukes.
Iran has battalions, yes battalions in the full sense of the word, of Suicide bombers. A battalion usually has a command element plus 4-6 companies. A typical company is made up of a command section, three main platoons and a specialist platoon. Each main platoon is of 4 squads. In short a battalion is roughly 1000 personnel.
In total Iran revealed in 2006 they had 40,000 trained and ready suicide bombers. Further in actions where Israel attacked Lebanon and even the Gaza strip there was in excess of 10,000 volunteers in each case from civilian sources to become suicide bombers.
Now add the known crackdowns on students, activists from opposition parties, and on media sources which do not report favorably upon the government, and you have no known responses other than those who have opposed the fundamentalists from the start... from inside Iran that is... that have had even a weeks success on changing their government... and you get a nation which cracks down willingly on those inside who oppose it, and successfully.
These are the proving points. Iran is still mostly fundamentalist in nature, with a commercial group that has some power, but not the power it needs. The military, and the religious portion of their nation is in joint control. They control the schools mostly, but not entirely, the media entirely, the mosques entirely, the industry mostly, but not entirely, and they lack control over most small business types.
They are also masters of propaganda... though some notable fails do exist, like the extra missile that was edited onto a photograph to make it look like they launched more missiles than they really did... most of their propaganda is selectively placed upon their people, and in that respect they control the masses more thoroughly than US leftist media controls the left in the United States. WAY MORE THOROUGHLY!
I do not know how to further say it, they are fanatics who push for fanaticalism in their own nation, and all willingly seem to buy into the entire plan. They even use their religion as a basis for this radicalism, and cannot back down or they think they will burn in hell.
Um... Flint, you missed my argument.
I am NOT saying that Iran will agree to the deal, as I stated in my previous post. ![]()
Rather, I am saying that if they say no (which you argue they will), France and Israel would take the lead in an assault. At that point, the job is done, and Obama could easily end up joining in because it is seen in a light similar to the first Gulf War, a globally sanctioned war against a truly bad guy.
The whole negotiation is a giant ploy. Right now, if they were rational people, they would agree to a deal, considering their financial crisis. However, they are not. If they say no, it proves they are irrational in the eyes of the world, and especially to France and Israel, the most hard-right nations against Iran. In other words, negotiation IS an endorsement of an attack against Iran. ![]()
Umm, Iran will use 'negotiation' like N. Korea, their ally, has used it, to stall, to get what they want/need, and then use terrorism to get their true goals.
Very simple:
1: North Korea isn't as imminent a threat to certain nuclear powers as Iran is. Unlike North Korea, Israel and France will be pushing, day after day, for large scale strikes. That means negotiation won't be delayed as much, not because Iran won't manipulate negotiation, but because if they do, France and Israel will say, "Screw it, this is useless," and go unilateral.
2: Delay means they lose a foothold in their economy, due to their printing. Give me an example of one nation that has managed to retain political stability during hyperinflation. And even if you can do that, it would assume a nation that can obtain international assistance, either through investment or aid. Iran is an island.
It seems to me your arguing for a direct strike now, which is my argument...
Hehe... nope!
Here's the trick:
1: I am not 100% advocating an attack. My advocacy is very simple:
The US should give Iran an offer. They say yes, we take it, no harm, no foul. They say no, it will piss off Israel and France, they'll strike.
That means I could be advocating either an attack or a peaceful negotiation, depending on the result of negotiations.
2: You advocate the United States as the agent of the strike. My argument is in favor of a strike created internationally as a result of the diplomatic screw-job Iran tries to create. Think Gulf War.
In other words, I am not debating on whether to attack Iran. I am debating "how" to attack Iran: Whether it be by abandoning diplomacy (your method), or by utilizing diplomacy as a tool to gain international support.
Plus I don't 100% advocate a strike anyway. ![]()
Ahhh, but France is under conservative control, but alone they cannot win, and Israel will only fight for destroying, not occupying, not rebuilding, not anything else.
France will use nukes, as I expect Israel, England, and India will if Iran even uses one nuke on even a small village of 100 persons... and wipe that nation so off the map as to be funny, a big hole in the ground made of glass... but at what cost? A few thousand soldiers or millions of misbeguided persons? I see it as a necessity to give as many people a chance as can be. To me, killing Hitler, Saddam, Mao, Stalin, and everyone else who wants to be a dictator, a fascist, a genocide creator, a democide creator, a human rights violator, in advance of their gaining control is best, but if not before, then before they can carry out their deeds is important.
How can one judge many lives versus a few? What values do we use? I prefer to judge the few, not the many.
Imperial Forum → Politics → CHALLENGE: Iran
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.