Preemptive thoughts - Page 6

rathi · 07-07-08, 08:47 PM

Red_Dave made a good point in brining up the Iranian Syrian defense pact. If Syria joins the fray, it could completely change the entire situation. However, the key factor is if Syria chooses to intervene at all. Recently, Israel did the same kind of precision strike on Syria. Syria did not escalate the war and Iran did not intervene either. Syria has lost all its other attempts to defeat Israel, and there is little indication they would succeed in another attempt. However, political factors would probably push Syrian leadership to honor the pact.

Red_Dave · 07-08-08, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rathi

Red_Dave made a good point in brining up the Iranian Syrian defense pact. If Syria joins the fray, it could completely change the entire situation. However, the key factor is if Syria chooses to intervene at all. Recently, Israel did the same kind of precision strike on Syria. Syria did not escalate the war and Iran did not intervene either. Syria has lost all its other attempts to defeat Israel, and there is little indication they would succeed in another attempt. However, political factors would probably push Syrian leadership to honor the pact.

I wouldnt say Syria is a particually weak or unassertive country though. It seams to manage to throw its weight around alot in lebannon.

Tashah · 07-08-08, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokee

You mean the bloated reverse-engineered F-5?.........

THAT is an Iranian stealth fighter?

Herr Volker, that piece of crap couldn't even sneak up on a 40 year old third world commercial radar.

Tashah · 07-08-08, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

As long as you don't mind being the aggressor in a war, go right ahead.

It's a tough neighborhood. You do what you have to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Howl

Good luck.

Nobody in the ME puts much stock in luck.

Volker · 07-20-08, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokee

Like always you don't have a goddamn clue as to what you're talking about. Those pictures are from YOUR LINK.
Maybe if you took the time to read the BS you posted you would have seen that.
But then again I'm sure thats asking too much...

h*tp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/shafaq-image1.jpg
h*tp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/shafaq-image2.jpg
h*tp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/shafaq-image3.jpg
h*tp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/shafaq-image4.jpg

Hey did you notice the word "SHAFAQ" in each of the links?

By the way pal whats that mark on the side of your face?
Looks like a Jewish boot impression to me.....

You made this comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokee

You mean the bloated reverse-engineered F-5?.........

I made this comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

Maybe you mix the Shafaq with the Sae’eqh-80 here.

It makes more sense to relate the Sae’eqh-80 to the F-5, the Shafaq is very different. This is why I think, you mix the two types, it is not about the photos.

Volker · 07-20-08, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tashah

Herr Volker, that piece of crap couldn't even sneak up on a 40 year old third world commercial radar.

I am not talking about you, maybe you should try a diet then.

What I am talking about was an Iranian air plane.

section eight · 07-20-08, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

So I'm guessing you see no problem with Isreal having the only nukes in the immediate region? I think that is just wrong. If Isreal, the US, Pakistan, and India can have them, and I understand that they do, then I see no reason Iran shouldn't have them.

I don't see problem with the only liberal democracy in the region being the only one with nuclear weapons especially since they are not signatories to the non-proliferation treaty as is Iran. And Iran shouldn't have them because A) they are a totalitarian theocracy headed by a bunch of fanatics, and B) they are the worlds no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism.

section eight · 07-20-08, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Not at all. He is the nominal head of state, and his threats should be taken seriously. Unless perhaps you have some evidence that he is a mere clown, a monkey who has slipped the leash of his masters when he makes those threats...

Well I have to begrudgingly agree with Summer here as the real power behind Ahmadinejad is the Supreme Leader, but that just means that Ahamadinejad is the puppet and the Supreme Leader is the puppet master, Ahmadinejad would not be saying such radical views if they were not shared by the Mullahs.

Summerwind · 07-20-08, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section eight

I don't see problem with the only liberal democracy in the region being the only one with nuclear weapons especially since they are not signatories to the non-proliferation treaty as is Iran. And Iran shouldn't have them because A) they are a totalitarian theocracy headed by a bunch of fanatics, and B) they are the worlds no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism.

Since I disagree with your characterization of Israel and of Iran, we really cannot continue this discussion, you and I.

Vader · 07-20-08, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summerwind

So I'm guessing you see no problem with Isreal having the only nukes in the immediate region? I think that is just wrong. If Isreal, the US, Pakistan, and India can have them, and I understand that they do, then I see no reason Iran shouldn't have them.

Nobody cares what you think is wrong. If Israel has them, which has NEVER been officially proven, they have them to keep the terrorist hordes at bay.

Don't like it? TOO BAD!!

Tell the jihadists you clearly support to cease their activities and shut their pie holes. Then and only then ... will the terrorists have a reason to ask Isreal to disarm.

Until then, they... and you ... can shut it.