Iranian Missiles And Torpedos

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"James H. Hood" wrote:

IF it's available on the black market. Before the fall of the Soviet
Union

Which has fallen, by the way, with their personnel being courted.

Yep. If you have to decide between starvation and working for dubious
(at best) governments, what would you choose? ;-)

I often wonder wether the Western governments made any serious attempt
to get as many of those scientists into their own labs, or wether
somebody decided "there's no budget for that"...

Juergen Nieveler
--
If marriage were outlawed, only outlaws would have inlaws

Instead of wondering, why don't you ask them?

George

Juergen Nieveler wrote in message
. ..

I often wonder wether the Western governments made any serious attempt
to get as many of those scientists into their own labs, or wether
somebody decided "there's no budget for that"...

Yes, indeed.....there is a program funded specifically for the purpose of
keeping these people gainfully employed in research and applied medicine,
and out of the clutches of those who are looking for weapons.

In article V%v0g.686871$084.317070@attbi_s22,
George wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article 3W70g.684952$084.128739@attbi_s22,
George wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article DdY%f.896127$x96.411348@attbi_s72,
George wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...




They lived in proximity for about 1300 years without fighting,
mostly.

They're fighting now, aren't they? Yes, I think they are, and have been
for
quite some time now. How many Shiites and Sunnis died during the
Iran-Iraq
war?

yes, IMO becuase each wants to control the Federal governemnt that the
US gov't is forcing in them. As a simplification, both sides would co
to their corners of the country and not fight. Oil revenue makes
thinsg
worse
and more complicated.

Umm, forcing on them? The 66% of Iraqis went to the polls and voted in
the
last election because we forced them to? What druge are you taking that
could make you so delusional?


Yup. Lots of poeple want *their* government, not the other tribes.
The evidence for this is that 4 months after the election they still
don't havea parlimentry government. Kruds, Sunni, and Shia all refule
to share.



Pakistan is primarily Shia but there have always been Sunni tribes
and
they get alond. The Islamist Taliban schools are foreign to Pakistan
and not appreciated.

Umm, correct me when you find a mistake. The Taliban as a group,
originated in Pakistan.

No. Funded by the Wahahi out of Saudi and a very recent thing.
Thousands of taliban mosques built in the poorest parts of the planet
with billion of bucks of Saudi money via your gasoline habit, and
mine.

Omar started the Taliban out of a maddrassas in Pakistan. Fact.

But the school was funded by Saudis on Wagabi principles.



That is interesting, since people like Al-Zaqawi is Jordanian, and many
of
the Sunnis sitting in GITMO are Pakistanis.

NW Pakistan is largely Shia but they live in close proximity.
The Taliban schools in N.W. Pakistan, taught lots of uneducated
Pakistani kids to hate Americans.

Yes they did. And thje Taliban got its sart in Pakistan, and was
supported
by the Pakistan secret service.

True, the ISI controls ****, but most Pakistanis are shia and they
have coexisted with pakistani Sunni for centuries. Afghanistan has
bits of every religion in the world since it's been on the tradinng
route since Genghis Khan and Alexander. For the most part Afghans are
very toilerant of others The Taliban and Shuria law are new to them
and not good. Again, there is peace as long as everyone stayes with
their own tribe on their own turf, etc.


There are many flavors of Islam and of the billion of them on the
planet they are not fighting each other as much as you seem to think.

Fact. There are some 20 wars today, the vast majority of which are bing
fought against Islamic extremists.



Against Islamists, true, more or less, but for the most part these
wars are islamist against a non-islamic foe.

For the most part most Islamic sects live together in some state of
non-war unless one of them tries to take charge, etc.


Umm, "Against Islamists, true, more or less, but for the most part these
wars are islamist against a non-islamic foe."

Is that not what I said? Such are this "There are some 20 wars today, the
vast majority of which are being fought against Islamic extremists"? In

You're right. I typed too fast.

other words, these wars are being fought against Islamicists who are
intolerant of other cultures and other religions. Some "religion of
peace", eh?


Sorry, but I disagree, more or less. When you come up with the list I
think we'll see thay can almost all be described as local
nationalistic revolts bu Muslim minorities.

Got a list of the 20? I'm not arguing but I like to see these things.

Almost all of the movements stay close to home. AQ and it's close
relatives are the exception. these local revolts can give cover and
aid to AQ, but an ignorant Maylasian villager isn't going to pass the
giggle test if he tries live in the US as an undercover terrorist.

All but a couple of the people that did the bombing in the US, England
and Spain were westernized educated middle class muslims. OBL is
western-educated, as is his mentor, teh Egyptian whatsisname.







--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

In article ,
Juergen Nieveler wrote:
"James H. Hood" wrote:

IF it's available on the black market. Before the fall of the Soviet
Union

Which has fallen, by the way, with their personnel being courted.

Yep. If you have to decide between starvation and working for dubious
(at best) governments, what would you choose? ;-)

I often wonder wether the Western governments made any serious attempt
to get as many of those scientists into their own labs, or wether
somebody decided "there's no budget for that"...



yes, until Bush was elected. Nunn Lugar legislation was enacted in
1991 and was well funded for 10 years to buy Russian Bad **** to take
it off the market and to pay the saleries of Russian scientists to to
Good Stuff and not turn to the dark side. Bush ahsbeen cutting back
the funding.

http://nunn-lugar.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn-Lugar

http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/o.../cnwm_home.asp

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article V%v0g.686871$084.317070@attbi_s22,
George wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article 3W70g.684952$084.128739@attbi_s22,
George wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article DdY%f.896127$x96.411348@attbi_s72,
George wrote:

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...




They lived in proximity for about 1300 years without fighting,
mostly.

They're fighting now, aren't they? Yes, I think they are, and have
been
for
quite some time now. How many Shiites and Sunnis died during the
Iran-Iraq
war?

yes, IMO becuase each wants to control the Federal governemnt that
the
US gov't is forcing in them. As a simplification, both sides would co
to their corners of the country and not fight. Oil revenue makes
thinsg
worse
and more complicated.

Umm, forcing on them? The 66% of Iraqis went to the polls and voted in
the
last election because we forced them to? What druge are you taking that
could make you so delusional?


Yup. Lots of poeple want *their* government, not the other tribes.
The evidence for this is that 4 months after the election they still
don't havea parlimentry government. Kruds, Sunni, and Shia all refule
to share.



Pakistan is primarily Shia but there have always been Sunni tribes
and
they get alond. The Islamist Taliban schools are foreign to
Pakistan
and not appreciated.

Umm, correct me when you find a mistake. The Taliban as a group,
originated in Pakistan.

No. Funded by the Wahahi out of Saudi and a very recent thing.
Thousands of taliban mosques built in the poorest parts of the planet
with billion of bucks of Saudi money via your gasoline habit, and
mine.

Omar started the Taliban out of a maddrassas in Pakistan. Fact.

But the school was funded by Saudis on Wagabi principles.



That is interesting, since people like Al-Zaqawi is Jordanian, and
many
of
the Sunnis sitting in GITMO are Pakistanis.

NW Pakistan is largely Shia but they live in close proximity.
The Taliban schools in N.W. Pakistan, taught lots of uneducated
Pakistani kids to hate Americans.

Yes they did. And thje Taliban got its sart in Pakistan, and was
supported
by the Pakistan secret service.

True, the ISI controls ****, but most Pakistanis are shia and they
have coexisted with pakistani Sunni for centuries. Afghanistan has
bits of every religion in the world since it's been on the tradinng
route since Genghis Khan and Alexander. For the most part Afghans are
very toilerant of others The Taliban and Shuria law are new to them
and not good. Again, there is peace as long as everyone stayes with
their own tribe on their own turf, etc.


There are many flavors of Islam and of the billion of them on the
planet they are not fighting each other as much as you seem to think.

Fact. There are some 20 wars today, the vast majority of which are
bing
fought against Islamic extremists.



Against Islamists, true, more or less, but for the most part these
wars are islamist against a non-islamic foe.

For the most part most Islamic sects live together in some state of
non-war unless one of them tries to take charge, etc.


Umm, "Against Islamists, true, more or less, but for the most part these
wars are islamist against a non-islamic foe."

Is that not what I said? Such are this "There are some 20 wars today,
the
vast majority of which are being fought against Islamic extremists"? In

You're right. I typed too fast.

other words, these wars are being fought against Islamicists who are
intolerant of other cultures and other religions. Some "religion of
peace", eh?


Sorry, but I disagree, more or less. When you come up with the list I
think we'll see thay can almost all be described as local
nationalistic revolts bu Muslim minorities.
Got a list of the 20? I'm not arguing but I like to see these things.

That list has been posted all over usenet, put there by myself and others.
I suggest you do a search. Having said that, it is quite easy to come up
with it own your own. Try it.

Almost all of the movements stay close to home. AQ and it's close
relatives are the exception. these local revolts can give cover and
aid to AQ, but an ignorant Maylasian villager isn't going to pass the
giggle test if he tries live in the US as an undercover terrorist.

Umm, non-sequitur, since I've suggested nothing even remotely similar to
this.

All but a couple of the people that did the bombing in the US, England
and Spain were westernized educated middle class muslims. OBL is
western-educated, as is his mentor, teh Egyptian whatsisname.

Muslims, nonetheless. "In other words, these wars are being fought against
Islamicists who are
intolerant of other cultures and other religions".

Juergen Nieveler a écrit :

All in all, an attack against Iran wouldn't achieve anything but a
large escalation in the conflict between Western countries and Islam,
since the US lack the forces necessary to successfully invade and
control Iran.

Unfortunately, the alternative (sitting still and watch Iran develop a
nuclear arsenal) is not too exciting either.

I believe that one of the many negative consequences of the invasion of
Iraq is that it made military intervention against Iran highly
implausible. Not that I would be looking forward to it, but a credible
military threat might have helped achieving a peaceful diplomatic
solution.

Now there is not much that one can do to stop Iran, they know it, and
act accordingly.

Cheers,

Froggy

On 18 Apr 2006 19:51:40 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
wrote:

But how could anybody seriously argue against a nuclear-armed Iran
while maintaining good relations with nuclear-armed Pakistan?

Juergen Nieveler

The argument starts with the differentiation between accomplished fact
and discouraged potential. What is, can't be rolled back. What is on
the horizon can be thwarted.

Further, you recognize that India is the largest democracy in the
world, and a nuclear power. Pakistan, has long been in conflict with
India. When India demonstrated that they possessed nuclear weapons,
Pakistan responded in kind with their demonstration. Result: nuclear
deterrence between two major powers with democratically elected
governments and arguably rationale leadership.

Then, examine Iran. Democracy? No. Rationality? No. Realistically
threatened? No. Requiring nukes for defense? No. Confrontational? Yes.
Demonstrated as an international terrorism supporter? Yes.

Putting the genie back in the bottle is tough. Keeping the bottle
corked is immeasurably easier.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Juergen Nieveler wrote:
"Froggy" wrote:

All in all, an attack against Iran wouldn't achieve anything but a
large escalation in the conflict between Western countries and Islam,
since the US lack the forces necessary to successfully invade and
control Iran.

Unfortunately, the alternative (sitting still and watch Iran develop a
nuclear arsenal) is not too exciting either.

But how could anybody seriously argue against a nuclear-armed Iran
while maintaining good relations with nuclear-armed Pakistan?

Ideally one woud like to see a world free of nuclear weapons, something
even famous peacenicks such as Robert McNamara agree to. Having more
countries building nuclear arsenals does not strike me as a way to
achieve this.

Now I would agree with you that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is a very
significant risk, especially when one considers the tension with India,
and the weight of islamists in Pakistan.

Cheers,

Froggy

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 18 Apr 2006 19:51:40 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
wrote:

But how could anybody seriously argue against a nuclear-armed Iran
while maintaining good relations with nuclear-armed Pakistan?

Juergen Nieveler

The argument starts with the differentiation between accomplished fact
and discouraged potential. What is, can't be rolled back. What is on
the horizon can be thwarted.

Further, you recognize that India is the largest democracy in the
world, and a nuclear power. Pakistan, has long been in conflict with
India. When India demonstrated that they possessed nuclear weapons,
Pakistan responded in kind with their demonstration. Result: nuclear
deterrence between two major powers with democratically elected
governments and arguably rationale leadership.

You seriously believe that Pakistan is a proper democracy?

Then, examine Iran.

Democracy? No.
Well, more than in Saudi Arabia for instance.

Rationality? No.
So far they behave in a rational manner.They saw an opportunity and
seized it.

Realistically threatened? No.
Not even by the US?

Requiring nukes for defense? No.
See above.

Confrontational? Yes.
Demonstrated as an international terrorism supporter? Yes.

Putting the genie back in the bottle is tough. Keeping the bottle
corked is immeasurably easier.

Agreed.

Now the problem is how to achieve this.

Cheers,

Froggy

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On 18 Apr 2006 19:51:40 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
wrote:

But how could anybody seriously argue against a nuclear-armed Iran
while maintaining good relations with nuclear-armed Pakistan?

Juergen Nieveler

The argument starts with the differentiation between accomplished fact
and discouraged potential. What is, can't be rolled back. What is on
the horizon can be thwarted.

Further, you recognize that India is the largest democracy in the
world, and a nuclear power. Pakistan, has long been in conflict with
India. When India demonstrated that they possessed nuclear weapons,
Pakistan responded in kind with their demonstration. Result: nuclear
deterrence between two major powers with democratically elected
governments and arguably rationale leadership.

Musharraf was democratically elected??!!

Then, examine Iran. Democracy? No.

Pakistan ditto, currently and throughout most of its history.

Rationality? No.

Ed, it's possible (I don't say likely, but possible) that Pakistan is one
assassination away from becoming a fundamentalist Islamic state. And even
if they don't, let's remember which country proliferated nuclear weapons
design and components around the muslim world. Oh, but that was done by a
renegade, and the government had absolutely no knowledge of his activities
despite his numerous trips to other countries on PAF a/c, which also
transported much of the material he was selling. But let's get back to
the great deal I can offer you on that bridge in Brooklyn.

Realistically
threatened? No.

Iran certainly consider themselves threatened by us which is all that
matters (and they've got evidence right next door of our turning words
into action against one of the states along the Axis of Evil). Just as we
felt threatened by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and consequently
built up a huge nuclear arsenal, far larger than one needed to deter an
attack. And the FSU did the same, despite both countries being run by
'rational' leaders who knew full well that nuclear war meant mutual
suicide.

Requiring nukes for defense? No.

That's rather a matter of opinion The fact remains that the US hasn't and
isn't about to attack any nuclear-capable state, especially one with any
chance of hitting the US, for any reason short of national survival (or
at least the perception of it). OTOH, we've demonstrated repeatedly that
we will attack non-nuclear states for much less compelling reasons. Let's
face it, having nukes makes everyone treat you with more respect. After
all, the Soviet Union was fairly accurately described as Upper Volta with
missiles, and our attititude towards both China and Russia would be a hell
of a lot different if they didn't have the bomb, now wouldn't it? And I
haven't seen us take out North Korea, either, the third leg of the Axis of
Evil, despite far more provocation than Iran has given us. Could it be
that their nukes (or the threat of them) has affected ourwillingness to
take decisive action?

Confrontational? Yes.

Sure, with us and Israel. It's not as if they have any reason to like us.

Demonstrated as an international terrorism supporter? Yes.

Kind of like the US with the PIRA in the '70s and '80s. Oh, but the
government didn't officially sponsor them, so as long as it wasn't public
money that made it okay. Sort of like the Saudis with Al Qaeda; that
doesn't bother us at all. And our support of the mujahideen in
Afghanistan wasn't supporting terrorism, because as long as they're on our
side they're "freedom fighters"?

Putting the genie back in the bottle is tough. Keeping the bottle
corked is immeasurably easier.

Likely a bit late for that, I think, short of an all-out attack. And our
credibility as a champion of non-proliferation (translation: those of us
what's already got it want to keep it to ourselves) is rather ragged, and
has been ever since Israel got the bomb. The deal with India just makes
our pushing non-proliferation on anyone else even more hypocritical. Iran
has every right to develop nuclear power, and the bomb, if they wish. Do
I want to see head cases like their current president with it? Hell, no.
But then he doesn't control the military, the mullahs do, and it doesn't
appear to me that too many of them are in a hurry to collect their virgins
if it means the destruction of Iran. Of course, it may only take a few in
the right (or wrong) positions.

Guy