Iranian Missiles And Torpedos

"Andrew Venor" wrote in message
...
George wrote:
"Dean A. Markley" wrote in message
...

George wrote:

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
news:Xns97A58AF5063C4juergennieveler@nieveler. org...


"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

The point is that they were easily able to pull it off. How much more
effective could Saddam Hussein's people have been, with all that money at
their disposal?

George