Author Topic: I laugh at Iran.  (Read 20178 times)

Offline Pugnate

  • What? You no like?
  • Global Moderator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 12,244
    • OW
I laugh at Iran.
« on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 02:38:45 PM »
So they grabbed some British sailors saying they had trespassed on Iranian waters, and said they were holding them on suspicion of spying. Next they released the coordinates where they had captured them, and it turned out the coordinates were in Iraqi waters.

Then they issued a correction and this time the coordinates were in Iranian waters.

If that wasn't odd enough, they said they'd release one of the female sailors today only to change their mind and say they were keeping her because the UK had decided to suspend trade till the sailors were returned.

Well no shit, the UK wants to hold trade. It doesn't make sense that they would change their mind because the UK won't trade with them. Doesn't make sense.

Now the most outrageous of things. They released a second letter from the female sailor and here is the news item:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6508039.stm

Quote
The letter, released by the Iranian embassy in London and addressed to British MPs, states: "Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?"

It also says that "even through our wrongdoing" the Iranians have "treated us well and humanely".

On Wednesday Iranian TV showed footage of LS Turney giving an interview in which she said the British crew had "trespassed" in Iranian waters - something the UK denies.

It was accompanied by another letter "written" by the 26-year-old sailor to her family.

On Thursday, Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, said the release of LS Turney, which had been widely expected, had been delayed.

Seriously what the fuck are they thinking? Why would she say that? What makes them think this is helping them?

By the way, every Iranian I've met in Canada hates the Iranian government.
« Last Edit: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 03:09:36 PM by Pugnate »

Offline NatchDan

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 476
  • I object.
    • NatchDan Music
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #1 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 03:04:40 PM »
It's really like being back at school, and I mean grade/primary school.
"They were doing a bad thing!"
"Give me my things back!"
"No you're a liar!"
"No I'm not I want my things!"
"What's the magic word?"
"TRESPASSING GIMME GIMME"
|

Offline Pugnate

  • What? You no like?
  • Global Moderator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 12,244
    • OW
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #2 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 03:33:02 PM »



I don't know why this is so disturbing. And like NatchDan says... it is so childish that you can't believe these people are members of a government.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #3 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 04:22:46 PM »
Fuck Iran. Seriously, all they do is start shit. The only way they get in line is if other Muslim countries start to put some pressure on them. I've been following this thing about the prisoners and Tony Blair has been taking some criticism because he hasn't been aggressive enough. The suspension of trade was a response to that criticism, but I think they need to be more aggressive. Supposedly Britain is talking with the UN but we all know where that will lead: nowhere.

Offline shock

  • Poster Child
  • ***
  • Posts: 994
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #4 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 04:38:43 PM »
I can't believe that those are the letters they came up with.  Those are ridiculous.  I started laughing halfway through the first one.  Laughing out loud.  It looks like it is written by a 5 year old.
Suck it, Pugnate.

Offline NatchDan

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 476
  • I object.
    • NatchDan Music
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #5 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 04:52:07 PM »
And they use the word "Boat". SHE'S A NAVY MARINE.
|

Offline angrykeebler

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,717
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #6 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 04:55:25 PM »
What the fuck is this?? Amatuer hour?? Is the head of Iran's "Illegal kidnapping and prisoner PR" division a complete moron? Jesus...
Suck it, Pugnate.

Offline sirean_syan

  • Global Moderator
  • Post-aholic
  • *
  • Posts: 2,544
  • ...
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #7 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 06:09:27 PM »
I want to laugh, but I worry they're going use any excuse they can to start a war.

Offline angrykeebler

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,717
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #8 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 06:30:45 PM »
I want to laugh, but I worry they're going use any excuse they can to start a war.

The UK should go to war with Iran. It would only take 300 british soldiers in speedos to defeat all the Persians
Suck it, Pugnate.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #9 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 07:54:22 PM »
I want to laugh, but I worry they're going use any excuse they can to start a war.

And how's that a bad thing?  Since we have to take them out eventually, we may as well let them provoke it.

Offline scottws

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6,602
    • Facebook Me
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #10 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 09:09:19 PM »
By the way, every Iranian I've met in Canada hates the Iranian government.
It's not just in Canada.  One of my IT professors is Iranian and all he does every class is bitch about Iran and talk about how awesome the US is.

Offline Jedi

  • Poster Child
  • ***
  • Posts: 664
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #11 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 09:18:18 PM »
I don't think this'll lead to a war it feels more like a cold war situation.
While I don’t think there’d be enough support for a war I don’t think they’d go for another Iraq. I’ve read a few articles that tend to believe a war with Iran would be more air strikes (and missiles from naval ships) than soldiers on the ground. Hell I read one article, some time ago, on how the US could in theory kick Iran's nuclear capabilities (in all forms) back a few years without putting one foot on the ground. But then what’s the point in that, they’ll be right back to where they are now in 3-5 years.
But like I said I don’t think this will lead to war, could lead to a few “incidents” but not war. I don’t see Britain going it alone and the US (judging from the media) is keen to get out of Iraq so would they want to get into Iran? Would the current political powerbase (who just voted to leave Iraq in 12 months) say yes to another war? Granted Bush could just veto the nah sayers and go for it anyway.

But those are just my thoughts anyway, this whole think stinks of posturing.

Offline Quemaqua

  • 古い塩
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 16,498
  • パンダは触るな。
    • Bookruptcy
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #12 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 09:23:07 PM »
Fuck Iran. Seriously, all they do is start shit. The only way they get in line is if other Muslim countries start to put some pressure on them. I've been following this thing about the prisoners and Tony Blair has been taking some criticism because he hasn't been aggressive enough. The suspension of trade was a response to that criticism, but I think they need to be more aggressive. Supposedly Britain is talking with the UN but we all know where that will lead: nowhere.

You said everything I wanted to say, so I'll just say "ditto".

天才的な閃きと平均以下のテクニックやな。 課長有野

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #13 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 10:49:47 PM »
And how's that a bad thing?  Since we have to take them out eventually, we may as well let them provoke it.

Do you really think we could handle a war with Iran right now? It may not affect you, but it will definitely affect me because we will have a draft if we go to war with Iran. I'm not saying I will oppose it- we will need it. But it will be a reality.

And Jedi, don't believe everything you read. I know I base a lot of my evidence on the media- I'm susceptible to the same criticism that you are. But the idea of a "cold war" with  Iran is ludicrous. First of all, they don't have a nuclear weapon right now. What would make more sense- a cold war standoff scenario or attacking them NOW when the DON'T have a nuclear weapon? I'm all for the latter option. The only bad thing about this scenario with Iran is that we attacked Iraq to being with. If Bush wasn't such a dumb ass he could have his legacy that he so desperately craves by waiting for a legitimate threat- Iran- and starting a war that actually mattered. In any case, unless Iran backs down from their current policies (what are the chances?) a real war seems imminent.

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,182
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #14 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 11:22:43 PM »
The US military is spread pretty thin.  Chances are war in Iran means either pulling out of Afghanistan or Iraq in some way or another, which really isn't good for anyone.  That's not to say that there shouldn't be military action against Iran, but rather that there probably won't be.  With the way things are going at the moment Iran is looking a little bit more like League of Nations era Japan. 

Lets not be academic about it, the second a country gets close to having nukes something should be done about it.  Yes it's unfair, but no matter what they tell you in a 100 level poli sci class, foreign policy and affairs isn't about equality or fairness.  The fact of the matter is that every new nation that aquires nuclear capabilities increases the chance of a full scale nuclear war in the future.  We can't close Pandora's Box, but as unethical as it may seem, we should certainly use all the measures we can to deter anyone else from getting what's inside it.

That should be one of the primary functions of the U.N., but the problem is that it's too democratic.  A large scale democratic organization that doesn't function as a single unit or even have a single end goal is nothing but inefficeint, useless, and somewhat pointless.  The U.N. does two things of value; it provides a forum  where parties and mediators can negotiate and try to avoid conflict (modern telecomunications has, however, cut down the importance of this role), and it has Unicef.  Apart from that it's almost useless.  The Human Rights aspect has degraded into what is now a complete fucking joke.  I'd say the U.N. should be put out to pasture, but that wouldn't accomplish anything.  It just needs to evolve, change focus, or split off into seperate bodies.

Offline Pugnate

  • What? You no like?
  • Global Moderator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 12,244
    • OW
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #15 on: Thursday, March 29, 2007, 11:56:59 PM »
The UK should go to war with Iran. It would only take 300 british soldiers in speedos to defeat all the Persians

hahahahahaha... that's hilarious.


It's not just in Canada.  One of my IT professors is Iranian and all he does every class is bitch about Iran and talk about how awesome the US is.

Yup. Lots of Iranians in the US have blogs on their hatred for Iran's government. I honestly think that a war against Iran would render a lot of support from the people within Iran. The people there hate this shit and students have held countless rallies.

Fuck Iran. Seriously, all they do is start shit. The only way they get in line is if other Muslim countries start to put some pressure on them. I've been following this thing about the prisoners and Tony Blair has been taking some criticism because he hasn't been aggressive enough. The suspension of trade was a response to that criticism, but I think they need to be more aggressive. Supposedly Britain is talking with the UN but we all know where that will lead: nowhere.

Pervaz Musharraf of Pakistan visited Iran two weeks ago to deliver a message from the US. The middle eastern countries are all weary of Iran. And it isn't really about Muslim countries since Iran follows a different sect of Islam. They are predominantly Shiites, while the rest of the middle east is Sunni.

And how's that a bad thing?  Since we have to take them out eventually, we may as well let them provoke it.

If the war in Iraq had ended well this would have been far easier. Speaking of which I haven't read of any violence in Iraq in ages.




Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #16 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 12:16:01 AM »
The US military is spread pretty thin.  Chances are war in Iran means either pulling out of Afghanistan or Iraq in some way or another, which really isn't good for anyone.  That's not to say that there shouldn't be military action against Iran, but rather that there probably won't be.  With the way things are going at the moment Iran is looking a little bit more like League of Nations era Japan. 

Lets not be academic about it, the second a country gets close to having nukes something should be done about it.  Yes it's unfair, but no matter what they tell you in a 100 level poli sci class, foreign policy and affairs isn't about equality or fairness.  The fact of the matter is that every new nation that aquires nuclear capabilities increases the chance of a full scale nuclear war in the future.  We can't close Pandora's Box, but as unethical as it may seem, we should certainly use all the measures we can to deter anyone else from getting what's inside it.

That should be one of the primary functions of the U.N., but the problem is that it's too democratic.  A large scale democratic organization that doesn't function as a single unit or even have a single end goal is nothing but inefficeint, useless, and somewhat pointless.  The U.N. does two things of value; it provides a forum  where parties and mediators can negotiate and try to avoid conflict (modern telecomunications has, however, cut down the importance of this role), and it has Unicef.  Apart from that it's almost useless.  The Human Rights aspect has degraded into what is now a complete fucking joke.  I'd say the U.N. should be put out to pasture, but that wouldn't accomplish anything.  It just needs to evolve, change focus, or split off into seperate bodies.


We will be out of Iraq regardless of whether or not we go to war with Iran because of two reasons: 1: We will have a Preisdent other than Bush by the time we are at war with Iran. Bush didn't understand that we either needed to pull out long ago or have a massive troop surge to WIN the war. What he went with was a minuscule (21,500 troop) surge. Why? This is much less than we need, and too much for the american media. If you are going to commit, COMMIT. He lost the war long ago. So, regardless, we are going to pull out and blame it on Bush. I had a second reason but forgot it.

The only disagreement that I had with what you said, gpw, was that the UN was too democratic. I actually laughed at this. Everyone knows a select number of nations are in control of the U.N.- the five nations of the security council. This is a major factor in why the U.N has failed thus far overall (yes it has achieved some good things).

Pervaz Musharraf of Pakistan visited Iran two weeks ago to deliver a message from the US. The middle eastern countries are all weary of Iran. And it isn't really about Muslim countries since Iran follows a different sect of Islam. They are predominantly Shiites, while the rest of the middle east is Sunni.

But, tell me, what is being done? The very fact that Musharraf delivered a message from the US told me about it's reception: it was most likely ignored by Iran. Saudi Arabia recently denounced the war in Iraq, and we all know the stance of Syria. Pakistan has no say in Iran. They are too tied down with Israeli problems / US interests. Who else is there?

Offline Pugnate

  • What? You no like?
  • Global Moderator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 12,244
    • OW
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #17 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 12:19:25 AM »
I wonder if a new American president would have the guts to go to war with Iran? The Iraqi war is so unpopular right now that anyone who is really anti war will get in the white house.

Also Ghandi none of the Muslim nations have any military power to influence Iran into anything.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #18 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 12:28:21 AM »
Well, I wasn't insinuating the use of military power. Of course these countries aren't going to go to war with each other. I was just saying that because Pakistan is now pro US (to a degree) and Saudi Arabia turning anti US and Syria always as such who will stop them? Not Pakistan because they are bogged down and just recovering from war.

Interesting comment on the president, but I don't think that it will be as big an issue as people think that it will for one reason: We have many allies against Iran. We are alone in Iraq. That's why I think that this whole situation with the sailors is idiotic for Iran. Why provoke other nations? If they captured US soldiers we would undoubtedly have these questions of whether US was doctoring evidence to provoke war against Iran (even though these people saying this are fucking retarded, the media and citizens would still buy it).

Offline WindAndConfusion

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,336
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #19 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 01:18:27 AM »
I suggest reading about the Pueblo Incident (and especially the "Hawaiian good luck sign").

Yup. Lots of Iranians in the US have blogs on their hatred for Iran's government. I honestly think that a war against Iran would render a lot of support from the people within Iran. The people there hate this shit and students have held countless rallies.
Um, I think we already blew our chance to capture the "hearts and minds" of a Middle Eastern country by invading them.

And they use the word "Boat". SHE'S A NAVY MARINE.
I think that's just military slang. Quoth the (US Navy slang) wiki,
Quote
Boat: Water craft small enough to be carried on a ship, unless a submarine, which is always called "a boat" or "the boat" when referring to the actual vessel (as opposed to the "ship's company" when referring to a sub's command or crew)

    * A ship may be called a boat but ONLY by members of its crew, and only those who have actually completed a deployment.
    * The Boat: (1) The Submarine; (2) Airdale term for the ship their airwing is attached to. "We're going to The Boat for a few weeks."
And here's something I found on ARRSEpedia about the Type 45 destroyer:
Quote
Big, scary boat (yes, I use boat deliberately - a "ship" or "shipping" is a RLC excuse for losing something, as in: "Its on the ship..." or "Its on the shipping list....")

This collosal (see RN website) vessel is supposed to be able to shoot down something the size of a cricket ball, moving at 3 times the speed of sound....don't play cricket/football/rugby nearby.

First vessel named HMS Daring. Seeing as the Royal Navy have a thing of naming the first of a new class after the current First Sea Lord, it should have been "HMS Darling". This rather dangerous effort must have been spotted by someone in the Army because the Navy would have loved it.

Offline Pugnate

  • What? You no like?
  • Global Moderator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 12,244
    • OW
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #20 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 01:52:48 AM »
"Not Pakistan because they are bogged down and just recovering from war. "

Huh? Pakistan hasn't been at war in 50 years.

Also what I meant by military power is that Iran would only understand language backed up by power.

Offline NatchDan

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 476
  • I object.
    • NatchDan Music
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #21 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 05:12:41 AM »
Huh. MAybe I'm wrong on the terminology, then, but I know someone Navy-bound who flips if you call it a boat.
|

Offline scottws

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6,602
    • Facebook Me
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #22 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 05:21:51 AM »
If the war in Iraq had ended well this would have been far easier. Speaking of which I haven't read of any violence in Iraq in ages.
Well, there is still violence there.  I guess it's just stopped being interesting saying, "another 10-100 people died today in Iraq."

I saw some information on the anniversary of our invasion.  Over 3,000 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, over 60,000 Iraqis dead.  That second number I had no idea about.  It was sobering.

I wonder if a new American president would have the guts to go to war with Iran? The Iraqi war is so unpopular right now that anyone who is really anti war will get in the white house.
I don't think its that people are anti-war necessarily.  They just want resolution.  No one wants to see something like Korea, where 50 years later we are still there.  We want to quell the insurgency and get out.  Some people just want us to get out of Iraq period.

I think a lot of people just wish that we had democratic and military leaders who knew what they were doing and could "just fix it."  But if that were possible it would have already happened.

Yeah, Bush made a huge mistake invading Iraq.  We overthrew the dictator, but did we free the people?  And here we are now with a legitimate threat that needs to be dealt with and we can't do anything about it.

I almost feel like we're abandoning our British allies.

Offline Pugnate

  • What? You no like?
  • Global Moderator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 12,244
    • OW
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #23 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 06:49:44 AM »
Quote
I saw some information on the anniversary of our invasion.  Over 3,000 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, over 60,000 Iraqis dead.  That second number I had no idea about.  It was sobering.

Unfortunately that's where the anger stems from in the Muslim world. I get leading Arab, Indian and Pakistani newspapers among others and most of the reports from Iraq in those newspapers involves innocents being killed. Like you said, the Iraqi casualties are twenty times that the number of American casualties.

However the anger in the Muslim world regarding Iraq isn't nearly as massive as you'd think. What I find most interesting is the letters section in those newspapers, and it is a good way to gauge the public opinion. The fact is that of those 60,000 dead most haven't died at the hands of Americans, but rather each other. There is a civil war in Iraq and most people are dying as a result of in fighting.

I am very sure that the infighting and the casualties will continue regardless of American presence, except it will get far worse. Iraq is a country with a lot of natural resources, and Iran desperately wants of Iraq. Much of the civil war has been instigated by Iran, and it uses Muslim sentiment as a catalyst. They are taking advantage.

I think most Muslims realize that what America wants from Iraq isn't a bad thing. They want a stable democratic government and they essentially want Iraq to prosper. How is that a  bad thing? Yes they will take full advantage of Iraq's resources, but in the process Iraq will become an asset to the rest of the world.

I remember when Saddam was initially toppled. The French, the Germans as well as other European countries were falling over their feet to invest in Iraq. Iraq has a lot of oil and these European countries that were opposed to the invasion were suddenly very eager to get a piece of the pie.

It was the quiet before the storm unfortunately.

In my opinion the Iraq issue can't be solved without solving the Iran issue, since most of the resistance is coming through Iran.

Also just to let you know, the Shiites and the Sunnis don't get along at all. Iran is predominantly shia while most of the rest of the Muslim world is sunni. It is like the protestants and the catholics having so much animosity in older times. I have a feeling that this sentiment can be taken advantage of.

Quote
Yeah, Bush made a huge mistake invading Iraq.  We overthrew the dictator, but did we free the people?  And here we are now with a legitimate threat that needs to be dealt with and we can't do anything about it.

I almost feel like we're abandoning our British allies.

I don't think Iran is doing itself any favors with this. Countries in the middle east were already weary of Iran and filing massive defense contracts in case Iran attacks them for some reason. So far the opinion of Iran is negative because of this, and the markets are fluctuating. Oil is at $66 a barrel, and could go up to 80 within a week. On a side note, it will mean the Canadian dollar climbing back up.

While the democrats' congress has started contesting Bush on all issues Iraq, I am sure they would agree to any action in a heart beat if Iran does something stupid.

Offline Pugnate

  • What? You no like?
  • Global Moderator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 12,244
    • OW
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #24 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 07:43:56 AM »
Iran TV shows captured Briton saying sorry

What the hell is wrong with these nuts?

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #25 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 11:28:31 AM »
"Huh? Pakistan hasn't been at war in 50 years. "

D'oh :) Meant Lebanon. Anyways, I wasn't aware that the entire rest of the middle east was Sunni. I knew that Saddam's regime was, and we were doing Iran a favor by ousting him, but I thought there were other Shiite nations.

And Scott- "I almost feel like we're abandoning our British allies."

They are abandoning us by summer 2008 (Maybe fall, I forget). They are already pulling out as we speak.

Offline Pugnate

  • What? You no like?
  • Global Moderator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 12,244
    • OW
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #26 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 11:49:51 AM »
Yea Pakistan is the country that borders India and Afghanistan, governed by Musharaf.

Most of Iraq is Sunni as well, except for the parts where Saddam lead tortures.

As for the Brits., they are pulling out because of the overwhelming opposition in their population.

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,182
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #27 on: Friday, March 30, 2007, 05:44:14 PM »
"e only disagreement that I had with what you said, gpw, was that the UN was too democratic. I actually laughed at this. Everyone knows a select number of nations are in control of the U.N.- the five nations of the security council. This is a major factor in why the U.N has failed thus far overall (yes it has achieved some good things)."

It's not that I don't understand how the UN is structured or how it operates, I'm well aware of the role of the UNSC and the criticism the veto system receives (and arguably deserves).  I believe it to be inconsequential.  It'd be rather idealistic to believe that the body of the UN responsible for passing resolutions could operate any more democratically then they already do.  China, England, France, Russia, and America hold the vast bulk of the world's power.  Have whatever you want on paper, but it's not quite as simplistic as them just having veto power in the UN - it's a representation of the real world power they wield - that's the reason they alone really determine any of the 'legally' binding resolutions.  Take away their veto power and nothing changes....the veto power still remains in the form of the fact that they are the backbone of the military power of the UN and hold what, for the most part still is, the real world atomic veto.  If anything the elimination of the veto provision could possibly weaken the UN as it may cause some of the nations to be less co-operative, in turn causing other nations to do the same.

I don't say the UN is too democratic because it's a beacon of democracy, but rather because the more democratic it is the more useless it is as long as the balance of military and economic power lies in the hands of a few 'super powers'.

The only way that the UN could be any more efficient in the role we speak of would be if it were an independent hegemony which wielded a power that no other nation (or few combined nations) could match.  Obviously, that's just as unrealistic, and against the purpose of the organization itself, but you get the point. 

Some might argue that the GA is too democratic (or not enough due to the one state, one vote system), but I don't think it matters.  It's all more or less symbolic in regards to any major international issue (but holds purpose for diplomacy for smaller, less developed nations).  ECOSOC doesn't need reform as far as I'm concerned, and the UNHRC is pretty much just fucked all around.

Those are just my thoughts on the subject.


Offline WindAndConfusion

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,336
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #28 on: Sunday, April 01, 2007, 11:07:48 PM »
Quote
Year Four: Simply the worst
Summary
On every available indicator the year just ended (March 2006 – March 2007) has been by far the worst year for violence against civilians in Iraq since the invasion:

  • almost half (44%) of all violent civilian deaths after the initial invasion phase occurred in the just-ended fourth year of the conflict
  • mortar attacks that kill civilians have quadrupled in the last year (from 73 to 289)
  • massive bomb blasts that kill more than 50 people have nearly doubled in the last year (from 9 to 17)
  • fatal suicide bombs, car bombs, and roadside bombing attacks have doubled in the last year (from 712 to 1476)
  • one in 160 of Baghdad’s 6.5 million population has been violently killed since the beginning of the war, representing 64% of deaths recorded so far
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr15.php

Last October was more violent than any month in Iraq from March 2003 to September, with 3700 civilian deaths. There were only about 2000 deaths this last month, but I think that indicates a seasonal variation rather than a legitimate decrease in violence. I'd love to test that hypothesis, but I'm having trouble finding a month-on-month comparison of violence in Iraq and I'm too lazily to compile one from the (readily available) data. (My prediction is that almost every month has been bloodier than that same month was a year ago, and that this rule holds all the way back until the start of the invasion.)

Rest assured: If you've been hearing less about violence in Iraq, it's because the media isn't giving you "the big picture."

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #29 on: Monday, April 02, 2007, 09:15:25 AM »
People are numb to it.  Personally, I avoid all news on Iraq.  I want to hear only one of these stories about it in the future:  (1)  The US military pulls out of Iraq for good.  (2) The US and its allies have mobilized massive war assets and moved against all insurgency within Iraq and its belligerent neighbors.  Other than that, I'm not listening.

Yes, I do think that eventually we need to take Iran out.  Whether that happens before or after we lose a city or two to suitcase nukes depends on the intestinal fortitude of whoever we elect to power.  I hope for everyone's sake, especially Iran's and its downwind neighbors, that it's before.  There's that word "eventually" again.  I know this is not going to happen anytime soon.

Offline WindAndConfusion

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,336
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #30 on: Monday, April 02, 2007, 09:38:37 PM »
Whether that happens before or after we lose a city or two to suitcase nukes depends on the intestinal fortitude of whoever we elect to power. 
... "Suitcase nukes"?

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #31 on: Tuesday, April 03, 2007, 10:22:47 AM »
Suitcase, private boat, whatever.  Pretty sure they're not going to be delivered by ICBM.  Not in my lifetime anyway.

Offline Jedi

  • Poster Child
  • ***
  • Posts: 664
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #32 on: Tuesday, April 03, 2007, 01:33:25 PM »
... "Suitcase nukes"?

Ever watch The Peacemaker Clooney and Kidman? The guy had a back pack and I agree any attack like that wont be on the tip of an ICBM.

Offline WindAndConfusion

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,336
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #33 on: Tuesday, April 03, 2007, 01:48:36 PM »
"Crockett bomb" in a backpack assembly:


Note that it weighs more than 50 pounds (just for the warhead) and is more than half the size of a 55-gallon drum. Also note that actually building one of these things takes some seriously l337 Manhattan Project skillz.

Offline Ghandi

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4,804
  • HAMS
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #34 on: Tuesday, April 03, 2007, 02:33:36 PM »
Yeah, looks a little big for carry-on luggage. Probably have to check that one at the gate.

Offline Jedi

  • Poster Child
  • ***
  • Posts: 664
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #35 on: Tuesday, April 03, 2007, 03:18:10 PM »
Oh correction the guy in the movie had something more like a dirty bomb, so that's what I meant.
But the day will come when these a nuke will fit in a back pack.

Offline Pugnate

  • What? You no like?
  • Global Moderator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 12,244
    • OW
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #36 on: Wednesday, April 04, 2007, 11:16:05 AM »
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6525905.stm

haha they were released. I wonder what their statements will be once they hit the UK.

Offline scottws

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6,602
    • Facebook Me
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #37 on: Wednesday, April 04, 2007, 05:11:10 PM »
Well that's good news.  Apparently Iran's leaders aren't completely retarded.

Offline WindAndConfusion

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,336
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #38 on: Wednesday, April 04, 2007, 08:18:32 PM »
Oh correction the guy in the movie had something more like a dirty bomb, so that's what I meant.
Dirty bombs are even more of a myth than suitcase bombs. You'd be lucky to kill a dozen people with the radiation. The only real use of a dirty bomb is that radiation scares people, a lot, regardless of whether or not there is an actual danger.

(A dozen deaths due to radiation exposure is about as many as Chernobyl. (Yes, that means Greenpeace is full of shit.))
Quote
But the day will come when these a nuke will fit in a back pack.
Uh, a few posts back, I posted a picture of a backpack nuclear weapon. My point was that these devices are difficult to design.

Offline Pugnate

  • What? You no like?
  • Global Moderator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 12,244
    • OW
Re: I laugh at Iran.
« Reply #39 on: Thursday, April 05, 2007, 01:23:40 AM »
Well that's good news.  Apparently Iran's leaders aren't completely retarded.

This was all a battle for PR. I am sure they planned to release them all along.