why the deal with Iran

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
Diogenes wrote:M.A.D. worked on Atheist Russians because they didn't want to die. M.A.D. will *NOT* work on religious kookbags who believe it is their moral duty to trigger the return of the 12th Imam.

I suppose the question is just how much the mullahs and ayatollahs including the "Supreme Leader" are actually in total control of Iran especially the military. Seems to me if they just wanted a few nuclear weapons they could probably just buy them under the table from impoverished North Korea; but I digress from my main point. If Iran gets functioning nukes in the next few years and if the mullahs order the military to just "fire them off" at Israel/Western Europe/US the assumption is that the generals will just do it, even knowing they will face nuclear annihilation/death themselves. That the senior Iranian civilian (and especially) military leadership are overwhelmingly of the lets make this nuclear holocaust thing happen or are more frightened of the mullahs than they are of thermonuclear war. That if said "supreme leader" ordered such (nuclear holocaust) they (the generals) wouldn't just immediately take power in a military coup and depose him and arrest/jail him and the senior nut-bag mullahs supporting him. Such a bring on the holocaust plan would likely be planned months/years ahead of time with the likely knowledge of senior military officials; plenty of time for a coup (or maybe even an arranged accident(s)/assassination(s) blamed on a convenient fall guy).

Addendum: Perhaps I am underestimating the deviousness of those mullahs and ayatollahs; maybe the plan is to act in such a way as to provoke Israel into nuking them first. A few 10's (or 100's) of thousands of dead Iranians as a result of a deliberately Iranian goaded Israeli nuclear preemptive strike would give them the excuse they needed to order a massive all out counter-strike (& not even just against Israel). No general could refuse the order of retaliation from the supreme leader if Israel could somehow be made to strike first.


I have little doubt that when the Supreme Kooks tell them to push the button, the button will be pushed. I expect their target to be Tel Aviv, because even those loons would not dare attack Jerusalem. That would get a lot of other Muslims mad at them.


It is insane that we even consider the option of letting the crazies have such a weapon. As I have said many times, Curtis LeMay had exactly the right idea, and we should have done as he suggested. This is even more apparent in the case of Religious Nut Iran.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by Diogenes »

hanelyp wrote:My presumption is the mullahs routinely purge the upper ranks of their military of officers who show "weak faith".

Earlier today I read a terrifying suggestion, that Barrycade struck the deal to provoke a world war in order to stimulate the economy, similar to how the US recovered from the Great Depression during WWII. Terrifying because I see no evidence he isn't that stupid when it comes to economics.


I do not regard him as having sufficient intelligence to conceive of such a plan. More like he just has an automatic knee jerk inclination to do wrong things. He is the perfect reverse barometer for what ought to be done. He is in way over his head, and always has been, but has always been too arrogant and stupid to realize he's in way over his head.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by Diogenes »

palladin9479 wrote:Anyone who thinks a religious leader is actually religious doesn't know geopolitics. They use religion to control the mass's and maintain their own power, they don't actually drink the koolaid. This is also why they always someone else to do their dirty work, you'll never see one of them go and blow themselves up.

Remember, all political leaders are actors first and foremost.



It would appear that there is no help for you. How you get these ideas is a mystery, and why you feel the need to express them is even more of a mystery.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:I have little doubt that when the Supreme Kooks tell them to push the button, the button will be pushed.

Then the question would be how developed is our SDI in actuality (and assuming it is deployed in Israel); Sufficient to knock down destroy the incoming Nuke(s)? Whatever missile capacity Iran has or will have in the next few years is likely to be crude; not as sophisticated as what Russia or even China has. Of course that would give Israel a pretext to "Curtis Lemay" Iran; after said nuke is knocked down (by said SDI) they would have a excuse then to nuke Iran. Failing that the US might find itself forced to agree to invade occupy Iran to stop Israel from nuking them. Which is why I would favor the mullah/crazies just being clever enough to engineer somehow to provoke Israel into attacking them first.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
Diogenes wrote:I have little doubt that when the Supreme Kooks tell them to push the button, the button will be pushed.

Then the question would be how developed is our SDI in actuality (and assuming it is deployed in Israel); Sufficient to knock down destroy the incoming Nuke(s)? Whatever missile capacity Iran has or will have in the next few years is likely to be crude; not as sophisticated as what Russia or even China has. Of course that would give Israel a pretext to "Curtis Lemay" Iran; after said nuke is knocked down (by said SDI) they would have a excuse then to nuke Iran. Failing that the US might find itself forced to agree to invade occupy Iran to stop Israel from nuking them.


That is an interesting scenario and one which I hadn't considered. SDI stuff has gone on the back burner as far as the public is aware, but I should not be surprised if it is sufficiently developed to stop an Iranian ICBM from dropping down on Israel. I should hope that it is, but I certainly would not be wanting to play this game of chicken with the religious nuts in Iran.


Iran can already lob payloads into space. If they've got a nuke, they've got a delivery system. GPS will get them close enough for whatever target they want to hit.


williatw wrote: Which is why I would favor the mullah/crazies just being clever enough to engineer somehow to provoke Israel into attacking them first.


I don't think so. In it's History, Israel has been caught napping once, but about this, I very much doubt they will make a blunder. They have all their eyes focused on this, and they have intelligence assets in Iran.


At least I hope they won't.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by Diogenes »


Thomas Sowell
A Historic Catastrophe


Distinguished scientist Freeman Dyson has called the 1433 decision of the emperor of China to discontinue his country's exploration of the outside world the "worst political blunder in the history of civilization."

The United States seems at this moment about to break the record for the worst political blunder of all time, with its Obama administration deal that will make a nuclear Iran virtually inevitable.


http://www.creators.com/print/conservat ... rophe.html
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by choff »

I think in China's case they looked at what the outside world had to offer and said, "we've got everything we need right here, better than what the outside has for sale," and decided on a cost basis to scrap the exploration fleet. In the west the reverse happened, the outside world had everything we didn't have, it made exploration and expansion worthwhile.
CHoff

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by hanelyp »

In the Chinese example they didn't just zero the exploration budget, they sealed the ports to keep out the rest of the world.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:
Skipjack wrote:
Diogenes wrote: Do you have the slightest idea what sort of Religious nutbags are the Shite Muslims of Iran? Does Mr. Atheist have a F***ing Clue?

World Nuclear Destruction would be a wet dream for that group of fanatics.
And the fanatics in Saudi Arabia are any better?!
Uh, Yeah. Sunni Muslims do not share the Apocalyptic world destruction motivation of the Shias.
Maybe not "Sunni" per see but Skipjack said "Saudi Arabia" and so:



How Saudi Wahhabism Is the Fountainhead of Islamist Terrorism



Image


Dr. Yousaf Butt is a senior advisor to the British American Security Information Council and director at the Cultural Intelligence Institute. The views expressed here are his own.
LONDON -- The horrific terrorist attacks on the Charlie Hebdo weekly in Paris have led to speculation as to whether the killers -- the brothers Chérif and Saïd Kouachi -- were lone wolves or tied to masterminds in ISIS or its rival, Al-Qaeda. Although Al-Qaeda in Yemen has taken credit for the attack, it is unclear how closely the affiliate actually directed the operation. No matter which organizational connections (if any) ultimately prove to be real, one thing is clear: the fountainhead of Islamic extremism that promotes and legitimizes such violence lies with the fanatical "Wahhabi" strain of Islam centered in Saudi Arabia. And if the world wants to tamp down and eliminate such violent extremism, it must confront this primary host and facilitator.

Perversely, while the Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Awad Asiri took part in a "Je suis Charlie" solidarity rally in Beirut following the Paris attacks, back home the Saudi blogger Raif Badawi received the first 50 of 1,000 lashes he is due each Friday over the next 20 weeks. His crime? Running a liberal website promoting the freedom of speech. (Thankfully, in recent days it seems the Saudi authorities have buckled to international pressure and suspended the sentence.)


It would be troublesome but perhaps acceptable for the House of Saud to promote the intolerant and extremist Wahhabi creed just domestically. But, unfortunately, for decades the Saudis have also lavishly financed its propagation abroad. Exact numbers are not known, but it is thought that more than $100 billion have been spent on exporting fanatical Wahhabism to various much poorer Muslim nations worldwide over the past three decades. It might well be twice that number. By comparison, the Soviets spent about $7 billion spreading communism worldwide in the 70 years from 1921 and 1991.

"The fight against ISIS and Al-Qaeda is deeply ironic since these organizations were created and are sustained, in part, by funds we hand over to the Saudis and Gulf Arab nations to purchase their oil."

Think this is what Skipjack was referring to...don't know if you would call Wahhabism "apocalyptic" per see, but it is more than bad enough; Osama Bin Laden and most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi (not Iranian or Shia), presumably Wahhabist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf ... 01916.html

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by Diogenes »

Funding world wide Wahhabism is not the same as deliberately trying to start a Nuclear war with everyone in the World.




The kookbag adherents of certain sects of Shia Islam are very much interested in doing just that.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:Funding world wide Wahhabism is not the same as deliberately trying to start a Nuclear war with everyone in the World.
Dio...the only practical difference between Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and the Shia running Iran is that the "Wahhabis" aren't actually in charge in Saudi Arabia. They Wahhabis would probably like to do the same thing Jihad (including nuclear war) with the west, but the difference is that the ruling House of Saud keeps some reign on them (at least domestically). Until recently they could rant and rave as they pleased at home and abroad as long as they didn't try to unseat the House of Saud. Your position is that Obama supports this deal because he is an incompetent empty-suited fool who is in over his head; okay, what about the Russians and the Chinese? Why didn't they veto the deal? Do they want nuclear war? There not controlled by Obama, yet they don't seem to behave as if they think Iran is the apocalyptic threat to humanity (including Russian & China) that you do. Any theories as to why that would be?

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Funding world wide Wahhabism is not the same as deliberately trying to start a Nuclear war with everyone in the World.
Your position is that Obama supports this deal because he is an incompetent empty-suited fool who is in over his head; okay, what about the Russians and the Chinese? Why didn't they veto the deal?

For China, free flowing Iranian oil looks very good. For Russia, giving Us something to keep us occupied while they piece back together the Soviet Union also looks very good.


What do they care what happens to Israel?


williatw wrote: Do they want nuclear war? There not controlled by Obama, yet they don't seem to behave as if they think Iran is the apocalyptic threat to humanity (including Russian & China) that you do. Any theories as to why that would be?

Sure. Because they don't think it will escalate to that. Because they are making money on the deal. Lots of Money. Enough to blind them to the danger of arming Religious fanatics. Wasn't it Russia that was building their Reactors?


When the Guy in America is agreeing with the Russians and the Chinese about giving Nuclear Weapons to Iran, something is seriously wrong. I vote for incredibly stupid on the part of the US Guy, and very short sighted on the part of the Russians.


Of course, *WE* will be one of their primary targets, not the Russians or Chinese.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:For China, free flowing Iranian oil looks very good. For Russia, giving Us something to keep us occupied while they piece back together the Soviet Union also looks very good. What do they care what happens to Israel?


Neither cares what happens to Israel no more than Europe in general does. Russia would like us "occupied", but sure bet they don't want all that Iranian oil flooding the market further depressing prices and hurting Russia even more. Though of course China wouldn't mind one bit.


williatw wrote: Do they want nuclear war? There not controlled by Obama, yet they don't seem to behave as if they think Iran is the apocalyptic threat to humanity (including Russian & China) that you do. Any theories as to why that would be?
Diogenes wrote:Sure. Because they don't think it will escalate to that. Because they are making money on the deal. Lots of Money. Enough to blind them to the danger of arming Religious fanatics. Wasn't it Russia that was building their Reactors?
When the Guy in America is agreeing with the Russians and the Chinese about giving Nuclear Weapons to Iran, something is seriously wrong. I vote for incredibly stupid on the part of the US Guy, and very short sighted on the part of the Russians.


I would likely vote that Russia and China don't really think Iran has the nutsacks to nuke nuclear armed Israel in spite of their frequent apocalyptic rhetoric ; as far as I am concerned I think Iran already has nukes and has had them for years. They either bought them from impoverished North Korea, Pakistan, or possibly Russia. Russian and likely China know as much that's why the nuclear deal doesn't bother them so much; if they know Iran already has nukes (& has had them for years) they may not perceive their having the capacity to make their own if they wish to be that big a sea change.
Diogenes wrote:Of course, *WE* will be one of their primary targets, not the Russians or Chinese.
Thus my earlier statements about the importance of how developed our SDI really is; and I still think that if the nuclear war comes it will be the result of Iran succeeding in provoking Israel to strike first. Just because Iran mullah's believe in "prophecies" that predict such a cataclysm as a good thing doesn't mean they don't retain enough political craft to appreciate the genius of getting the "evil infidel dogs" (Israel or America) to attack them first. The evil "Great Satan" bringing about the end by attacking "God's chosen people"; the entire Muslim world would rally behind Iran if Israel/US nuked them first based on deliberately acquired false intel about a "imminent" nuclear attack from Iran. Wouldn't put it past them that perhaps that is the hidden purpose of their rhetoric.

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by williatw »

williatw wrote: as far as I am concerned I think Iran already has nukes and has had them for years. They either bought them from impoverished North Korea, Pakistan, or possibly Russia. Russian and likely China know as much that's why the nuclear deal doesn't bother them so much; if they know Iran already has nukes (& has had them for years) they may not perceive their having the capacity to make their own if they wish to be that big a sea change..
Which might explain the willingness of the US (Obama administration) & our allies to sign off on the Iran nuclear deal as well. If Russian China knows Iran has nukes already than the US (Obama) must know (or at least strongly suspect) as well. We can't admit it publically because to do so would be an admission that our nuclear containment policy with respect to Iran has been a miserable failure. We couldn't even keep impoverished North Korea from developing nukes; let alone oil rich Iran. Wonder how much Iran would have offered Russia during their economic meltdown following the collapse of communism during the late '80's early 90's for a few dozen old nukes dating back to say the '60's and/or '70's? Many billions of dollars of hard currency in exchange for some old nukes during Russia's worst economic disaster in a generation.

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by paperburn1 »

the cost to build some basic nukes? about $26 billion
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Post Reply