http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461588,00.html Israel is drawing up plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and is prepared to launch a strike without backing from the U.S., an Israeli newspaper reported Thursday.
Officials in the Israeli Defence Ministry told The Jerusalem Post that while they prefer to act in consultation with the U.S., they are preparing plans that would allow them to act alone.
"It is always better to coordinate," a senior Defence Ministry official told the newspaper. "But we are also preparing options that do not include coordination."
It would be difficult, but not impossible, to launch a strike against Iran without permission from the U.S., as the American Air Force controls the Iraqi airspace Israel's jets would have to enter on a bombing mission.
"There are a wide range of risks one takes when embarking on such an operation," a senior Israeli official told the Post.
Iran, the world's fourth-largest crude oil producer, maintains that its uranium enrichment activities are aimed at making fuel for a network of planned electricity-generating nuclear power plants and not for developing weapons.
However Israel intelligence sources say Iran has sufficient nuclear material to make an atomic bomb.
Last month, amid mounting fears in Israel that the U.S. was doing nothing to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, Ehud Olmert, Israel's Prime Minister, warned President Bush the last chance of destroying Tehran’s nuclear bomb-making program was passing.
Iran dismisses the possibility of an Israeli strike.
"We think that regional and international developments and the complicated situation faced by Israel itself will not allow it to launch military strikes against other countries," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi said, according to the Press TV Web site.
"Israel makes threats to promote its psychological and media warfare," Qashqavi said.
A report, published in September in Britain's Guardian newspaper, claimed that Isreali Prime Minister Ehud Olmert requested a green light to attack Iran in May but was refused by Bush.
man, one day cartograhy in the middle east is gonna be really easy. It'll just all be flat and blank.
man, one day cartograhy in the middle east is gonna be really easy. It'll just all be flat and blank.
We can only hope.
I could never figure out why Bush didn't just nuke Mecca after 9/11.
Honestly I would have nuked Afghanistan after 9-11. It would send a clear message that attacks on the US soil were not tolerable. The last time we used them was WW2 after Japan attacked us, and we set a pretty good precedent. To allow it to happen again without overwhelming force being returned was a mistake.
ask Libya if they want to fuck with us again?
Nuking Afganistan wouldn't have done much in the long run. Not when the people you're fighting are happy to die for their cause. Would have just been a good recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, some would ahve taken it as proof that Bin Laden and co were right about the West. I thought Bush initially handled Afganistan very well, which is why I was so dissapointed when we went to Iraq and Afganistan suffered.
generic foreign liberal politically correct response.
haven't actually got anything coherent to say response.
G-man, you're a right wing voice that can make a decent case, am i just being a whiney liberal or do i make a fair point?
Nuking Afganistan wouldn't have done much in the long run. Not when the people you're fighting are happy to die for their cause. Would have just been a good recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, some would ahve taken it as proof that Bin Laden and co were right about the West. I thought Bush initially handled Afganistan very well, which is why I was so dissapointed when we went to Iraq and Afganistan suffered.
AlQaeda boomed after Somalia and the Blackhawk Down fiasco. Bin Laden and company viewed the West as a Paper Tiger that when a little blood got spilled they would turn tail and run. This emboldened the terrorists. I can assure you that if a Nuke was used there would be little to no major terror going on right now.
Diplomacy doesn't work with people like this. The power of the sword is all they understand. Praise Allah.
G-man, you're a right wing voice that can make a decent case, am i just being a whiney liberal or do i make a fair point?
You're a great guy Steve but you just don't get it when it comes to people like this.I bet Obama will get tested very early on in his Prtesidency and the liberals are going to be very shocked/upest over his response. My guess is that unless it's to save Israel he will use a very large military response to difuse whatever is happening. We live in a different world now.
I am not against the right use of a military response, I just don't think a nuke would have done much good in the long run. I don't for a second think we can negotiate with Bin Laden. It's why I wanted our focus to have been hunting him down instead of going into Iraq. But the problem we have to address is our widen relationships with the states/peopel who are on the edge, to convince them we aren't the selfish, arseholes cutting up the middle east for oil for our own benefits that they think we are.
Nuking Afganistan wouldn't have done much in the long run. Not when the people you're fighting are happy to die for their cause. Would have just been a good recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, some would ahve taken it as proof that Bin Laden and co were right about the West. I thought Bush initially handled Afganistan very well, which is why I was so dissapointed when we went to Iraq and Afganistan suffered.
You seem likable Steve but you talk in circles. Killing Muslims with guns(as we are doing) or with nukes is used equally well as a recruiting tool. The problem is Taliban allowing Al Qaida to train in Afghanistan and not handing them over after 9-11. If we had responded with overwhelming force others(Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) would have reconsidered giving any support monetarily or physically to these groups.
Remember the guys running the countries whether the Taliban, The Sheiks or whomever aren't the ideological nutcases they are just your typical power guys, the nut jobs are the guys doing the attacks. The reason they allow this stuff to go on is it cements their hold on power, but if their very existence is in question they will change their tune and expel these guys or stop the flow of money.
You seem likable Steve but you talk in circles. Killing Muslims with guns(as we are doing) or with nukes is used equally well as a recruiting tool. The problem is Taliban allowing Al Qaida to train in Afghanistan and not handing them over after 9-11. If we had responded with overwhelming force others(Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) would have reconsidered giving any support monetarily or physically to these groups.
Remember the guys running the countries whether the Taliban, The Sheiks or whomever aren't the ideological nutcases they are just your typical power guys, the nut jobs are the guys doing the attacks. The reason they allow this stuff to go on is it cements their hold on power, but if their very existence is in question they will change their tune and expel these guys or stop the flow of money.
I'd say I've been pretty consistant, I'm not against force, it's just the right use of it. I supported using force to drive the Taliban (who were a strongly ideological group) out of Afganistan. The taking away of resources from this was one of the reasons I was against going into Iraq. Nuking Afganistan however, would have killed innocents above and beyond any reasonable idea of collateral damage.
9-11 was all collateral damage.
Yeah, and it was fucked up. What's your point?
If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person alive.
Yeah, and it was fucked up. What's your point?
Steve obviously this is hard for you to understand as the US pulled your asses out of the fire in WW2. But what made us so powerful and invulnerable was the fact that we didn't allow people to start shit in our back yard. It worked for over 50 years, we should have reminded the world again. As in WW2 we would have saved more innocent life in the long run.
That's a cheap argument and I could go into the debate about how many lives could have been saved if you hadn't dragged your feet and got into the war in 1939 and blah and blah. It would all be bullshit on both sides. That little small minded nationalistic dick waving serves no useful purpose.
And as to the comparison with WW2, I just don't think it holds, the nature of the situation and the opposition is just different.
That's a cheap argument and I could go into the debate about how many lives could have been saved if you hadn't dragged your feet and got into the war in 1939 and blah and blah. It would all be bullshit on both sides. That little small minded nationalistic dick waving serves no useful purpose.
And as to the comparison with WW2, I just don't think it holds, the nature of the situation and the opposition is just different.
you said "small" and "dick" in the same sentence. Are you trying to insult basams?
G-man, you're a right wing voice that can make a decent case, am i just being a whiney liberal or do i make a fair point?
I'd say you're a whiny liberal ...but concede your point is reasonable, albeit one I happen to disagree with.
As PJP points out, no matter what we do, terrorists will try to use it as a recruiting tool.
However, I can understand your fear that the use of a nuke is so...apocolyptic...that it could be viewed as something outside the bounds of normal war.
To be honest, when I say "nuke" the mideast I can't say that I really mean literally use a nuclear weapons.
..we have modern conventional bombs that carry as much explosive power as either Fatman or Little Boy.
I agree with Steve. The difference between Japan and Afghanistan is that Japan was a nation where EVERYBODY had been conditioned to be in a war-like mentality. Some historians have described it as shared temporary insanity. The atom bomb showed them the error of that policy. Has there been anything to suggest that Afghanistan is similar to Japan? From what I am to understand, the area is highly factionalized.
I agree with Steve. The difference between Japan and Afghanistan is that Japan was a nation where EVERYBODY had been conditioned to be in a war-like mentality. Some historians have described it as shared temporary insanity. The atom bomb showed them the error of that policy.
That's the most retardulous load of crap I ever heard.
Grow a fucking brain and then grow some hair.
Has there been anything to suggest that Afghanistan is similar to Japan? From what I am to understand, the area is highly factionalized.
This is almost as ridiculous. Middle Eastern countries tend to have even more of a hive mind than you claim Japan did.
Snarf is officially a dumb ass now. I also bet Steve wishes you hadn't lumped him in with your ridiculous theory that it was okay to nuke Japan civilians because they were more war like.
That's a cheap argument and I could go into the debate about how many lives could have been saved if you hadn't dragged your feet and got into the war in 1939 and blah and blah. It would all be bullshit on both sides. That little small minded nationalistic dick waving serves no useful purpose.
And as to the comparison with WW2, I just don't think it holds, the nature of the situation and the opposition is just different.
We didn't drag our feet, when the war came to us we kicked ass.
The fact is, we were effectively at war with the entire nation of Japan. Citizens were prepared to send out women, children and the elderly to fight us, not to mention dropping radioactive particles on the beaches. As I'm aware of it, the same situation does not exist in Afghanistan. Also, as Afghanistan has several nations bordering it, dropping a nuke could have adverse effects against countries we are not at war with.
Yes Snarf, there are not men women and children in Afghanistan that have attacked us. Youre a dipshit.
Go easy on him BSAMS, we all know that bald virgins have trouble understanding such complicated issues.
What makes Snarf such an idiot is he argues against himself. Steve T and even whomod to an extent have a set of principles that they base their opinions on, even if I disagree with them. Snarf on the other hand has an opinion based on nothing.
Snarf is becoming one of those guys that is against something just to be against it. He probably stays up all night listening to shit like art bell and all the other conspiracy shows.
I think you guys are jumping down Steve's throat without paying attention to what he's saying. I actually agree with him. Sometimes you need to use the sword and hack something to shit, and sometimes you need to just use a scalpel and cut away the small, cancerous piece. Using infantry and air bombings was the best way to go in Afghanistan. Nuking them would have made us look like shit and prevented us from doing any further military work with other countries in the future. As much as we've borne the burden of Iraq, we had help from a handful of allies that would have shied away if we dropped the big bombs. We were on the right path and stopped short. I would have napalmed every mother fucking cave to drive Bin Laden and his goons out. We were having the same success that we're seeing in Iraq because many of the Afghans didn't like the oppressive taliban and remembered that we helped push back the Soviets. A nuke wouldn't have allowed that.
Yes Snarf, there are not men women and children in Afghanistan that have attacked us. Youre a dipshit.
Yes, but I'm sure there are Afghanis who want nothing to do with the war.
As were there millions of Japanese who wanted nothing to do with the war, which makes your point invalid.
I think you guys are jumping down Steve's throat without paying attention to what he's saying. I actually agree with him. Sometimes you need to use the sword and hack something to shit, and sometimes you need to just use a scalpel and cut away the small, cancerous piece. Using infantry and air bombings was the best way to go in Afghanistan. Nuking them would have made us look like shit and prevented us from doing any further military work with other countries in the future. As much as we've borne the burden of Iraq, we had help from a handful of allies that would have shied away if we dropped the big bombs. We were on the right path and stopped short. I would have napalmed every mother fucking cave to drive Bin Laden and his goons out. We were having the same success that we're seeing in Iraq because many of the Afghans didn't like the oppressive taliban and remembered that we helped push back the Soviets. A nuke wouldn't have allowed that.
I'm not sure you paid attention to what I was saying. If we nuked we wouldn't need to work with other countries, state support of terrorist would have ended.
From WW2 till 9-11 no one fucked with our homeland because of the threat of overwhelming response. That's been taken off the table. We blinked.
No. The point being that we dropped the bomb on Japan because if we didn't and went with a land invasion, we'd estimated losing hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in the fight. Japan was, with the exception of the bomb, our equal in weaponry. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan.
You don't fight equal. No one should be able to attack the US period without facing destruction. It would end this stuff fast.
I'm not sure you paid attention to what I was saying. If we nuked we wouldn't need to work with other countries, state support of terrorist would have ended.
The war on terror isn't the only thing we have to worry about. We also have to look at future enemies and possible wars. I also think that we'd probably have been targeted for even more attacks. I think the concept of us sending soldiers to put a boot up your ass for fucking or even thinking about fucking with the USA is a bit more frightening for terrorists than simply dieing in a possible atomic blast.
From WW2 till 9-11 no one fucked with our homeland because of the threat of overwhelming response. That's been taken off the table. We blinked.
It's not because of our lack of the nuclear option being on the table. Don't forget the WTC bombings of the 90's or the Oklahoma City bombing which, though done by an American, is believed to have been funded by Muslim extremists. It was the lack of Clinton having the balls to take Osama down when he had the chance rather than the lack of us deploying nuclear weapons in response. I still say that dragging Osama's corpse out of his hole in Afghanistan would have done more to curtail terrorism than nuking an entire country.
You don't fight equal. No one should be able to attack the US period without facing destruction. It would end this stuff fast.
I didn't say that we'd fight equal. In fact, my point was that you can't say that the Taliban or Al-Quaida are our equals in weaponry, training, manpower, and pure might. The bomb is a last resort weapon.
The fact is, we were effectively at war with the entire nation of Japan. Citizens were prepared to send out women, children and the elderly to fight us, not to mention dropping radioactive particles on the beaches....
...as opposed to Muslim terrorists who condition women, kids and the elderly to be suicide bombers? It seem to me that the two cultures are more alike than not under your description of Japan.
I think the concept of us sending soldiers to put a boot up your ass for fucking or even thinking about fucking with the USA is a bit more frightening for terrorists than simply dieing in a possible atomic blast.
Again your not reading my posts, terrorists aren't frightened of anything. If you think the guys who flew those planes are scared of a butt kicking your as naive as Snarf. I am talking about removing material support for them. Terrorist without safe havens or money aren't anymore dangerous than a racist redneck, he can spout hated all day but he doesn't have the means to carry it out.
It's not because of our lack of the nuclear option being on the table. Don't forget the WTC bombings of the 90's or the Oklahoma City bombing which, though done by an American, is believed to have been funded by Muslim extremists.
Had they been nuked then, we wouldn't have had 9-11, no one would have harbored or financed them. Thank you for making my point.
The bomb is a last resort weapon.
Exactly, attack the homeland, get nuked.
Japan's Navy was depleted and the islands in ruin when we nuked them, so in the case of tit for tat warfare that you prescribe the last resort wasn't needed.
I think the concept of us sending soldiers to put a boot up your ass for fucking or even thinking about fucking with the USA is a bit more frightening for terrorists than simply dieing in a possible atomic blast.
Again your not reading my posts, terrorists aren't frightened of anything. If you think the guys who flew those planes are scared of a butt kicking your as naive as Snarf. I am talking about removing material support for them. Terrorist without safe havens or money aren't anymore dangerous than a racist redneck, he can spout hated all day but he doesn't have the means to carry it out.
Do you really think that Osama Bin Laden would be willing to strap a bomb onto himself to kill a bunch of US soldiers? I think he'd rather brainwash others into doing it than himself, just like all the other Al-Quaida leaders. And since we've been picking them off one by one, they haven't had a chance to come up for air to implement another attack on us.
It's not because of our lack of the nuclear option being on the table. Don't forget the WTC bombings of the 90's or the Oklahoma City bombing which, though done by an American, is believed to have been funded by Muslim extremists.
Had they been nuked then, we wouldn't have had 9-11, no one would have harbored or financed them. Thank you for making my point.
They would have still been financed, probably even more so. Maybe not by governments, but by the Muslims who would be shown that America is truly in a holy war with Islam.
I think the concept of us sending soldiers to put a boot up your ass for fucking or even thinking about fucking with the USA is a bit more frightening for terrorists than simply dieing in a possible atomic blast.
Again your not reading my posts, terrorists aren't frightened of anything. If you think the guys who flew those planes are scared of a butt kicking your as naive as Snarf. I am talking about removing material support for them. Terrorist without safe havens or money aren't anymore dangerous than a racist redneck, he can spout hated all day but he doesn't have the means to carry it out.
Do you really think that Osama Bin Laden would be willing to strap a bomb onto himself to kill a bunch of US soldiers? I think he'd rather brainwash others into doing it than himself, just like all the other Al-Quaida leaders. And since we've been picking them off one by one, they haven't had a chance to come up for air to implement another attack on us.
We must be having two different conversations. Where are you getting I think Bin Laden would strap on a bomb? I've always maintained he is a coward who uses other people, what does that got to do with having States cut off support for Al Qaida?
The bomb is a last resort weapon.
Exactly, attack the homeland, get nuked.
Japan's Navy was depleted and the islands in ruin when we nuked them, so in the case of tit for tat warfare that you prescribe the last resort wasn't needed.
But they were still capable of fending off a ground invasion and willing to do so would have cost millions of lives in the end.
It's not because of our lack of the nuclear option being on the table. Don't forget the WTC bombings of the 90's or the Oklahoma City bombing which, though done by an American, is believed to have been funded by Muslim extremists.
Had they been nuked then, we wouldn't have had 9-11, no one would have harbored or financed them. Thank you for making my point.
They would have still been financed, probably even more so. Maybe not by governments, but by the Muslims who would be shown that America is truly in a holy war with Islam.
The governments can stop the flow of money. If you don't think Saudi Arabia and Iran know who is sending the money then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
I think the concept of us sending soldiers to put a boot up your ass for fucking or even thinking about fucking with the USA is a bit more frightening for terrorists than simply dieing in a possible atomic blast.
Again your not reading my posts, terrorists aren't frightened of anything. If you think the guys who flew those planes are scared of a butt kicking your as naive as Snarf. I am talking about removing material support for them. Terrorist without safe havens or money aren't anymore dangerous than a racist redneck, he can spout hated all day but he doesn't have the means to carry it out.
Do you really think that Osama Bin Laden would be willing to strap a bomb onto himself to kill a bunch of US soldiers? I think he'd rather brainwash others into doing it than himself, just like all the other Al-Quaida leaders. And since we've been picking them off one by one, they haven't had a chance to come up for air to implement another attack on us.
We must be having two different conversations. Where are you getting I think Bin Laden would strap on a bomb? I've always maintained he is a coward who uses other people, what does that got to do with having States cut off support for Al Qaida?
My point is that a terrorist isn't just the guy on the plane or in the subway. As for your question about funding terrorist, see my post about yours.
The bomb is a last resort weapon.
Exactly, attack the homeland, get nuked.
Japan's Navy was depleted and the islands in ruin when we nuked them, so in the case of tit for tat warfare that you prescribe the last resort wasn't needed.
But they were still capable of fending off a ground invasion and willing to do so would have cost millions of lives in the end.
But in your last resort scenario there is no need to invade, the threat had been defeated. They no longer posed a threat. Besides, boots on the ground kicking ass would have made them decide not to ever attack again right?
I think the concept of us sending soldiers to put a boot up your ass for fucking or even thinking about fucking with the USA is a bit more frightening for terrorists than simply dieing in a possible atomic blast.
Again your not reading my posts, terrorists aren't frightened of anything. If you think the guys who flew those planes are scared of a butt kicking your as naive as Snarf. I am talking about removing material support for them. Terrorist without safe havens or money aren't anymore dangerous than a racist redneck, he can spout hated all day but he doesn't have the means to carry it out.
Do you really think that Osama Bin Laden would be willing to strap a bomb onto himself to kill a bunch of US soldiers? I think he'd rather brainwash others into doing it than himself, just like all the other Al-Quaida leaders. And since we've been picking them off one by one, they haven't had a chance to come up for air to implement another attack on us.
We must be having two different conversations. Where are you getting I think Bin Laden would strap on a bomb? I've always maintained he is a coward who uses other people, what does that got to do with having States cut off support for Al Qaida?
My point is that a terrorist isn't just the guy on the plane or in the subway. As for your question about funding terrorist, see my post about yours.
Bin Laden is no good without his money, he can order all the attacks in the world, without the financing he is no different that any racist punk mouthing off.
The governments can stop the flow of money. If you don't think Saudi Arabia and Iran know who is sending the money then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Criminals are going to find a way. Terrorists collected money here in the US and probably still are. And we're closing them down. Not with nukes, but with our intelligence and police agencies.
So are we shutting them down or not. You say not with nukes, which proves my point. If we nuked them this would be over. I respect the fact doc that you wanna believe that nuclear bombs are somehow more evil than crashing a plane into a building unprovoked killing thousands, but I'll never buy it.
The bomb is a last resort weapon.
Exactly, attack the homeland, get nuked.
Japan's Navy was depleted and the islands in ruin when we nuked them, so in the case of tit for tat warfare that you prescribe the last resort wasn't needed.
But they were still capable of fending off a ground invasion and willing to do so would have cost millions of lives in the end.
But in your last resort scenario there is no need to invade, the threat had been defeated. They no longer posed a threat. Besides, boots on the ground kicking ass would have made them decide not to ever attack again right?
What thedoctor is trying to say, I believe, is that in the case of Japan a ground war was simply not feasible from any standpoint without enormous costs in human life, time, and resources on the part of the U.S. I don't believe that is the case in Afghanistan. A ground war can eventually win there without more loss of life than is necessary.
So you're saying it's worth the life, time, and resources to subdue a country that will always regress back to its old habits, effectively making the sacrifices we make a waste.
He doesn;t know what he thinks, he's changed positions 3 times in this thread.
The bomb is a last resort weapon.
Exactly, attack the homeland, get nuked.
Japan's Navy was depleted and the islands in ruin when we nuked them, so in the case of tit for tat warfare that you prescribe the last resort wasn't needed.
But they were still capable of fending off a ground invasion and willing to do so would have cost millions of lives in the end.
But in your last resort scenario there is no need to invade, the threat had been defeated. They no longer posed a threat. Besides, boots on the ground kicking ass would have made them decide not to ever attack again right?
Like I said, a ground war would have cost us dearly in US soldiers' lives. That's why Truman decided to use the bomb. He wanted to end the Japanese agression and take Japan, quite honestly, before the Soviets attempted it.
So are we shutting them down or not. You say not with nukes, which proves my point. If we nuked them this would be over. I respect the fact doc that you wanna believe that nuclear bombs are somehow more evil than crashing a plane into a building unprovoked killing thousands, but I'll never buy it.
I can't honestly tell if you're really not understanding what I'm saying or just arguing for shits and giggles. Let me take your own 9/11 reference and put it into easier to understand terms. What did 9/11 do? It killed about 3,000 Americans, civilians, in a terrifying way that was made a media spectacle around the world. What happened shortly afterwards? When the sheer horror it hit every one of us with finally wore off, we got pissed. We got pissed, and we kicked ass.
So say we dropped the bomb on Afghanistan instead of a ground invasion. Regular ole Muslims like Ahmed the used camel dealer can see that America is truly the Great Satan that Osama and his pals have been saying we were. OPEC decides to reduce production to one barrel a day (an exaggerated figure, I know), and gas prices shoot up to over $50 a gallon. Russia says to itself, "Fuck! These crazy Americans are going to use a bomb for any little thing," and start placing their nuke carrying subs off our coastlines again, ready to push the button if it looks even remotely like we're going to fuck with them. Pakistan and India say, "Well, the US did it," and nuke the shit out of each other. Total chaos. Dogs and cats living together. And Snarf still won't be able to get laid.
The bomb is a last resort weapon.
Exactly, attack the homeland, get nuked.
Japan's Navy was depleted and the islands in ruin when we nuked them, so in the case of tit for tat warfare that you prescribe the last resort wasn't needed.
But they were still capable of fending off a ground invasion and willing to do so would have cost millions of lives in the end.
But in your last resort scenario there is no need to invade, the threat had been defeated. They no longer posed a threat. Besides, boots on the ground kicking ass would have made them decide not to ever attack again right?
Like I said, a ground war would have cost us dearly in US soldiers' lives. That's why Truman decided to use the bomb. He wanted to end the Japanese agression and take Japan, quite honestly, before the Soviets attempted it.
But if you are using force based on need, there was no need to take Japan by troops or bomb, they were defeated economically and militarily. So you point about need is moot.
So are we shutting them down or not. You say not with nukes, which proves my point. If we nuked them this would be over. I respect the fact doc that you wanna believe that nuclear bombs are somehow more evil than crashing a plane into a building unprovoked killing thousands, but I'll never buy it.
I can't honestly tell if you're really not understanding what I'm saying or just arguing for shits and giggles. Let me take your own 9/11 reference and put it into easier to understand terms. What did 9/11 do? It killed about 3,000 Americans, civilians, in a terrifying way that was made a media spectacle around the world. What happened shortly afterwards? When the sheer horror it hit every one of us with finally wore off, we got pissed. We got pissed, and we kicked ass.
So say we dropped the bomb on Afghanistan instead of a ground invasion. Regular ole Muslims like Ahmed the used camel dealer can see that America is truly the Great Satan that Osama and his pals have been saying we were. OPEC decides to reduce production to one barrel a day (an exaggerated figure, I know), and gas prices shoot up to over $50 a gallon. Russia says to itself, "Fuck! These crazy Americans are going to use a bomb for any little thing," and start placing their nuke carrying subs off our coastlines again, ready to push the button if it looks even remotely like we're going to fuck with them. Pakistan and India say, "Well, the US did it," and nuke the shit out of each other. Total chaos. Dogs and cats living together. And Snarf still won't be able to get laid.
First off the OPEC guys couldn't cut off our oil, and won't. You mistaking these guys for idiots, they are in this to make money. Also you obviously dont understand how the oil supply demand works. Hugo Chavez himself and Iran have bragged about trying such but the experts point out that if they quit selling to the US then other countries pick up the slack in that lost market share its very fluid. If they could just cut off supplies they would do so now to prop up the price, but they have $ spent that must be replenished, projects in the works, the machine cant stop.
Also 9-11 wasn't any little thing, it was an unprovoked attack on thousands so Russia wouldn't look at it like that. Also Russia cares about itself not Muslims in Afghanistan(check your history book for reference). If Russia didn't nuke us during the Cuban missile crisis when we blockaded them, they aren't going to nuke us for killing people they were unsuccessful at killing.
Pakistan and India aren't going to kill themselves because we killed our attackers, that is very Snarfian of you to say so.
You missed everything I said.
One, most of our oil doesn't come from the Middle East, so nothing I said has to do with them selling us oil. My point was decreasing the amount of oil they put on the market, which would have increased prices dramatically. They're not going to do it now because the world is consuming less gas than we were five years ago when people were buying up every SUV and Hemi powered vehicle Detroit rolled off its lines.
Two, in case you haven't noticed, over the past few years, Russia has been restructuring itself to duplicate its old Soviet glory. Us attacking Afghanistan with nukes when that country itself hadn't actually attacked us or declared war on us would be all they would need to convince their people of the need to rearm and redeploy to the cold war levels. Our willingness to use a nuke on such a small, easily defeatable country would make them more likely to use nukes as a first round alternative to any other form of combat or even diplomacy.
Your really not making sense, if Russia wants to re-arm they dont have to convince people. Also the way the war in Afghanistan went for the Soviets and now us, makes your easily defeatable comment absurd. Also maybe I left out when the Taliban refused to turn over Al-Qaida we should have nuked them. Please dont reply that they had no power over them, a considerably less powerful Sudanese government kicked them out of their country.
Your point about decreasing oil is null and void as well. The guys who control OPEC arent nuts, they are very smart business people.
And finally, Snarf agrees with you.
If this isn't the January 21st surprise then it has to be economical...
