Fafhrd on 20/4/2006 at 05:23
Quote Posted by Taffer_Boy_Elvis
I was thanked by Iraqis when I was there for freeing them from tryanny.
Quote Posted by Taffer_Boy_Elvis
We got mortar and rocket attacked like every other day.
Were there "thank you" notes on these mortars and rockets or something?
Gestalt on 20/4/2006 at 07:39
Quote Posted by shadows
But the US is the world's most powerful military, surely they can handle one country with no problem? :wot: (not saying the US should attack Iran, just giving an analysis ;) )
One country? Attacking Iran wouldn't require the ability to handle one country, it would require the ability to control
three. Does fighting in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan at the same time seem doable or worthwhile? The American military is already overextended, and I can't imagine how declaring war on another country right now could possibly be viewed as a sane move, tactical or otherwise.
Rogue Keeper on 20/4/2006 at 14:52
Who is Hu?
2003, Oval Office, The White House...
George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great. Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That's what I want to know.
Condi: That's what I'm telling you.
George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new Leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow's name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The Chinaman!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya' asking me for?
Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That's the man's name.
George: That's who's name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.
Condi: That's correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China.
Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don't want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi?
George: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condi: And call who?
George: Who is the guy at the U.N
Condi: Hu is the guy in China.
George: Will you stay out of China?!
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi.
George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.
Condi calls the U.N.
Condi: Rice, here.
Kofi: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to Hu in China.
And to Yassir in the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East?
D'Juhn Keep on 20/4/2006 at 16:27
get out
JKeats on 20/4/2006 at 17:16
BR123456789's post has made reading this thread worthwhile.
Fafhrd on 20/4/2006 at 18:05
five years ago
Fafhrd on 23/4/2006 at 01:43
In order to resuscitate the topic, and just because this as been bugging me for the past week or so, but why exactly doesn't Mutually Assured Destruction apply to anyone anymore?
I mean this whole "ohno Iran w/nukes" thing seems to be because everyone thinks that the Iranian government will start giving nuclear warheads away with fruit baskets to every terrorist that drives through the country, but given how public Iran is being about the state of their nuclear development, I should think that a dirty bomb or backpack nuke going off in an American or European city would be blamed on Iran regardless of it's origin, and nuclear hellfire raining down across the country wouldn't be far behind. It wouldn't even qualify as mutually assured destruction, since there's no way that Iran would be able to make a return strike after that, since their weapon delivery system is smuggling a guy with a bomb across our borders, and ours is intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Any answers of "M.A.D doesn't apply because we're dealing with fundamentalist religious crazies" is an automatic fail.
Microwave Oven on 23/4/2006 at 03:49
If you weren't concerned with your own survival, merely making the other guy go boom, M.A.D. really isn't much of a deterrent. Kinda like those suicide bombers, but on a national scale.
liquidfear on 23/4/2006 at 04:04
In other words, M.A.D doesn't apply because we're dealing with fundamentalist religious crazies.
Quote:
I mean this whole "ohno Iran w/nukes" thing seems to be because everyone thinks that the Iranian government will start giving nuclear warheads away with fruit baskets to every terrorist that drives through the country
I find the impression is more on the scale of "Iran themselves will use the nukes." But, either way....
Quote:
I should think that a dirty bomb or backpack nuke going off in an American or European city would be blamed on Iran regardless of it's origin, and nuclear hellfire raining down across the country wouldn't be far behind
I don't see this as likely. Sup, I hear that N. Korea stirred up the pot with nuclear talk a little while ago, confirm/deny?
I mean, I don't know what the situation is with North Korea as of late, but it wasn't that long ago that there was talk of nuclear development and testing. If a backpack nuke does go off, there are quite a few countries that could have supplied it.
mopgoblin on 23/4/2006 at 05:47
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
I mean this whole "ohno Iran w/nukes" thing seems to be because everyone thinks that the Iranian government will start giving nuclear warheads away with fruit baskets to every terrorist that drives through the country, but given how public Iran is being about the state of their nuclear development, I should think that a dirty bomb or backpack nuke going off in an American or European city would be blamed on Iran regardless of it's origin, and nuclear hellfire raining down across the country wouldn't be far behind.
The idea of MAD is roughly that no sane person would attack an enemy that will retaliate with nuclear weapons (unless the attacker is already going to die), so nations with nuclear weapons can't make serious attacks against each other, and no one will launch that first nuclear attack. This <em>might</em> work for a while when both sides have many reliable nuclear weapons that can be launched quickly. It doesn't really work when only one side has them. If the US or whoever launched nuclear attacks against Iran, millions of people would die, and a huge area of land would be contaminated (not just in Iran). It'd be much worse than any of the bombings in the second world war, most of which were made in more desperate circumstances. But the most significant aspect is that the attacker and the people involved would still be around to face the consequences. Most of the world would hate the attacker, and most of their people probably wouldn't be too happy with the government either. Even if the attack was a retaliation to a dirty bomb or nuclear attack, that doesn't justify war crimes bordering on genocide.
Ultimately, if you use nuclear weapons when you don't have to then you're not the good guys any more, and everyone will recognise that. They're not much good as a deterrent against anything other than full-scale wars.
