If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message .. . (Al Dykes) wrote: Iran has been very docile about what we are doing in Afghanistan. That could change and Iran could make lots of trouble for us. Not to mention a general Shiite uprising in Iraq, which would make life even worse for the US troops there. The problem with that argument is that Pakistan is primarily Sunni, not Shiite. They don't like the Shiites any more than the Shiites like them. There are ongoing conflicts between the two sects in Pakistan. Pakistan would never rise up in support of Iran. George |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
George wrote:
"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message . .. "George" wrote: The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move back into the world community. Once they have no economy left because their infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When money talks, people walk. It's a fact. Explain Afghanistan, then... Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential election in the last 100 years. NEXT. Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars that can peer over the horizon, let us all know. Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a map THIS TIME, will you? Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide. Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't. You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though. Who said anything about conquering Iran? You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given. Look at Iraq or Afghanistan... Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining and useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes, there is nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed. Because, 1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which they are a signatory. Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no law against nations having nuclear weapons. I suggest you read the NNPT. 2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S. economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered. But they wouldn't agree with a war either. If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads will change, and heads will roll. Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment, equipment which is only five years old. No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the 80s. I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present. Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called Gulf War I. Not my fault Urpeans are stupid. And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons. Your point being? Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff. I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I could order said cultures). Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well as British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S. labs sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and France. The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we don't control the end product of the raw material. There was a guy a few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab. And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons. You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then, Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and actually sold and had it built it for him. George Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such materials with any efficiency. Dean |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
"Al Dykes" wrote in message ... In article pIT%f.895375$x96.409847@attbi_s72, George wrote: "Al Dykes" wrote in message ... In article , Juergen Nieveler wrote: "George" wrote: This scenario breaks down rather rapidly because during combat operations, the Navy would blow any boat out of the water that got anywhere near close enough to launch a torpedo with a 10 km range. And just because the weapon has a 10 km ranger doesn't mean that it can hit the broad side of a barn. And even if Iran was successful in gettin through our defenses and striking one of our ships, it wouold be the worst mistake they could ever make, because all the stops would be pulled out, and you'd find Iran in ruin from one end to the other. Iran is a large, mountainous country - destroying it completely would take a few hundred warheads AT LEAST. As for ground invasion - think Afghanistan multiplied by 10... Worse. Iran is twice the size and population of Iraq. The iranians are *very* proud of Persion culture and patriotic to Iran, as a country. Airpower, by itself, has never made a civilian population turn against it's leaders. The Iranian air defense hasn't been a victim of 10 years of embargo and attack as the Iraq ADF was. Iraq's auir defense wasn't under embargo until right before the first Gulf war. ANd if you will note, only a handful of American planes were shot down during that war. Iran has had a front row seat to watch how American airpower has attacked Iraq and probably knows lots about the capability of our bunker busters, as used in Iraq. The Iranians have been shown to be very agressive in the Iran-iraq war. But then, the Shiites and Sunnis hate each other more than they hate us. 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? 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. it's the Islamists that are primarily Sunni, and the Wahabi out of Saudi Arabia that will go out of their way to kill Shia. That is interesting, since people like Al-Zaqawi is Jordanian, and many of the Sunnis sitting in GITMO are Pakistanis. George |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
George wrote: "Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message Yes, but that was Gulf War II. In Gulf War I, they used AMX-tanks and AMX tanks are French, nobody ever said they didn't sell to Iraq. Hughes-helos against Iran. A dual use bird sold under a civil use export license. That's not to say there are not reports that some of them found their way to military use. Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The History channel showed an exposed on the A-10 just two days ago. The A-10 destroyed over 900 Iraqi Russian-made tanks, and 1,200 tanks and artillery pieces in total: Russian design I guess, but perhaps we should say "Warsaw Pack built tanks". I think the bulk came from other than USSR factories; not to say they weren't approved for shipment. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
Juergen Nieveler wrote in message .. . As a matter of fact, the bulk of Saddam Hussein's hardware was Russian. In 1991, during Gulf War II. And after.....he didn't replace his hardware with Western items. And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons. You don't need "recipes" for that. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
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. 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. The Grampa Saud cut a deal with an obscure sect, the Wahabi, to create and control what we now know as Saudi Arabia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi#...d_of_Wahhabism it's the Islamists that are primarily Sunni, and the Wahabi out of Saudi Arabia that will go out of their way to kill Shia. 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. 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. For people with an interest about the (mostly) innocent people of Western Pakistan and Eastern Afghanistan I highly recommend a recent book about Mortenson. He's built, as of the writing of the book, more than 50 village schools, frequently where the construcion material had to be carried in by porters. He's had two fatwas issued against him and local Imams refered them to their vatican (Qum, Iran) and in both cases they were annulled. He writes about the Wahabi Taliban schools that are being built in competition. Three Cups of Tea - Mortenson & Relin -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
"Dean A. Markley" wrote in message ... George wrote: "Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message . .. "George" wrote: The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move back into the world community. Once they have no economy left because their infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When money talks, people walk. It's a fact. Explain Afghanistan, then... Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential election in the last 100 years. NEXT. Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars that can peer over the horizon, let us all know. Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a map THIS TIME, will you? Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide. Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't. You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though. Who said anything about conquering Iran? You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given. Look at Iraq or Afghanistan... Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining and useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes, there is nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed. Because, 1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which they are a signatory. Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no law against nations having nuclear weapons. I suggest you read the NNPT. 2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S. economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered. But they wouldn't agree with a war either. If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads will change, and heads will roll. Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment, equipment which is only five years old. No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the 80s. I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present. Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called Gulf War I. Not my fault Urpeans are stupid. And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons. Your point being? Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff. I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I could order said cultures). Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well as British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S. labs sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and France. The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we don't control the end product of the raw material. There was a guy a few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab. And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons. You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then, Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and actually sold and had it built it for him. George Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such materials with any efficiency. Dean Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway. George |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
"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? 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. 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. 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. George |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message . .. "James H. Hood" wrote: And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons. You don't need "recipes" for that. If you want weaponised chemicals instead of just "stuff that kills people", it's not all that easy. You'd have to spend a lot of time researching most basic stuff, for example how long you could store a chemical bomb, which sealants to use to prevent it from leaking, which type of explosive to use to disperse anthrax spores without killing them, etc... not to mention advanced technologies like binary weapons. All of which can be done by technicians in a laboratory. Aand Saddam had plenty of them. But you know, when one of your conspiray theories is shot down, you can always move the goal post and make up another. George |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Iranian Missiles And Torpedos
George wrote:
"Dean A. Markley" wrote in message ... George wrote: "Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message rg... "George" wrote: The problem is getting Iran to stop their nazi tendencies and move back into the world community. Once they have no economy left because their infrastructure is no more, they will have no incentive to follow the Ayatollahs who got them in that position in ther first place. When money talks, people walk. It's a fact. Explain Afghanistan, then... Ok. Some 90% of voting Afganistanis voted in the last election - a larger percentage than has ever voted in an American presidential election in the last 100 years. NEXT. Is that a fact? Ever hear of the horizon? When you design binoculars that can peer over the horizon, let us all know. Again, we're talking about the straits of Hormuz - care to look at a map THIS TIME, will you? Yes. The strait of hormuz at it's narrowest is 21 miles wide. Who said anything about a ground war with Iran? I didn't. You can't win unless you send in ground troops, though. Who said anything about conquering Iran? You can't win without conquering - and even then it's not a given. Look at Iraq or Afghanistan... Umm, define "win". If the objective is to prevent Iran from gaining and useing nuclear technology that would allow them to build nukes, there is nothing to conquer, only equipment to be destroyed. Because, 1) this is not about conquering Iran. It is about getting them to comply with UNSC resolutions and complying with the NNPT, of which they are a signatory. Which is beside the point if they draw out of the NNPT. There is no law against nations having nuclear weapons. I suggest you read the NNPT. 2) Anything Iran would do to severely disrupt world commerce would have an immediate effect on the world economy, not simply the U.S. economy. The world would allow such disruption to go unanswered. But they wouldn't agree with a war either. If 75% of the world's oil supply gets cut off, you can bet that heads will change, and heads will roll. Wrong. The Russians were selling arms and hi tech equipment to Iraq up to the day of OIF. Iraq even had Russian GPS jamming equipment, equipment which is only five years old. No doubt about that - but I was talking about Gulf War I, back in the 80s. I'm talking about Saddam Hussein's arsenal, the vast bulk of which was composed of Russian and Shinese weaponry in the 1980s, the 1990s, and was still composed primarily of these same weapons up to the present. Wrong. First of all, Gulf war I was not the Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War I was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. That's what the USians call it. In Europe, the Iran-Iraq-war is called Gulf War I. Not my fault Urpeans are stupid. And the USA sold him recipes for chemical and biological weapons. Your point being? Bull****. The U.S. Britain, Canada, Germany, Russia, France, and many other nations sold Iraq industrial chemicals (they are, after all, a petroleum-exporting country that needs industrial chemicals like all other petroeum-exporting countries). We could no more control what Saddam Hussein does with a bottle of sulphuric acid that you can control what I would do with a bottle of it. Are you so naive as to think that Iraq's chemists didn't know how to make mustard gas or nerve gas? Any college chemistry student could make this stuff. I'm not. However, it is a proven fact that Iraq received biological weapon cultures from the USA (OK, not THAT difficult - even you and I could order said cultures). Apparently, you are not only naive, but stupid as well. Iraq received biological cultures from U.S. private corporate laboratories, as well as British, French German and laboratories. Not only that, but U.S. labs sell the same cultures to many countries, including Britain and France. The cultures were sold for medical research. Like sulphuric acid, we don't control the end product of the raw material. There was a guy a few years ago here in the states who was arrested for illegally culturing anthrax. The anthrax came from a british lab. And under Reagan, Rumsfeld was sent over to Iraq as a special envoy to sell Iraq the necessary technology to make the college chemistry stuff into proper weapons. You can make chemical weapons in any standard laboratory. But then, Chirac met with Saddam in order to sell him a nuclear reactor, and actually sold and had it built it for him. George Making toxic chemicals and weaponizing them are two vastly different things. I doubt the student chemists would be able to disperse such materials with any efficiency. Dean Umm, you apparently weren't born when just a few years ago, a radical religious group in Japan made and used Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway. George True the Aum Shinrikyo cult did produce sarin for the attack in their lab. However even though timed for the peak of rush hour in the crowded enclosed environment of the Tokyo subway they were only able to kill twelve people. Though an additional six thousand people were injured in the attack as well. That shows that leaking plastic bags isn't the most effective means of delivering chemical weapons. ALV |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|