Israel, US bases within the range of Iranian missiles, commander says

[bangkokeddy]

Why do you think there has not been another World War?

2 words : Nuclear Weapons

Countries where wars occurred between 1990 and 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars

[Ulysses G.]

He said WORLD WAR.

[SteeleJoe]

Why do you think there has not been another World War?

2 words : Nuclear Weapons

Countries where wars occurred between 1990 and 2008

http://en.wikipedia....i/Lists_of_wars

And you think those were World Wars?

That figures. (Nobody ever said anything as ridiculous as 'nuclear weapons would or did put an end to all war')

PS: Don't suppose you want try and reply to post #21? Nah, didn't think so.

Edited April 24, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[coma]

Why do you think there has not been another World War?

2 words : Nuclear Weapons

Countries where wars occurred between 1990 and 2008

http://en.wikipedia....i/Lists_of_wars

I see what you are getting at Eddy. And I have often wondered whether or not the world really is in a World War. The world has gone crazy with war, especially after 9/11, that one could not be condemned for thinking so. My remark was in reference to a 3rd world war. A conventional, all balls out war. The likes of which this world has not seen since the Japanese defeat in 1945 complements of A1 and A2 . With the world the way it is now I have the belief that if that Nuclear deterant was not there we well would be in a full World War barny.

[bangkokeddy]

Which country has used nuclear weapons when things didn't go their way?

Which country wants to deny the right of another country to do the same?

When things didn't "go their way?"

First of all, only one country used atomic weapons. None have used nuclear. But that is quibbling.

The US had things "going their way" when the decision was made to use the atomic bombs. The idea was that doing so would cow Japan into surrender thereby saving millions of US and Soviet lives, and not more than a few Japanese as well.

You can argue all you want on whether the choice was a good one or not, but to infer that the US used them only when things were "not going their way" is wrong.

As far as which "country" wants to deny others the right to do the same, I would say that is a host of "countries," not just one. Once again, the righteous of that is open to debate, but let's get the facts straight.

I not want to argue here and now if the choice to use the atomic bombs was good or bad, but i have to make one remark.

That the idea behind was to save millions of lives is just a narrative for the ethical justification of it. One narrative of many and not a undisputed one. What means that it isn't exactly straight facts or definitely true.

In 1945, an overwhelming majority of Americans regarded as a matter of course that the United States had used atomic bombs to end the Pacific war. They further believed that those bombs had actually ended the war and saved countless lives. This set of beliefs is now sometimes labeled by academic historians the "traditionalist" view. One unkindly dubbed it the "patriotic orthodoxy."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp

Others suggest that there were different motivation behind it and came up with arguments like that:

- The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

or

- Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/supplement/procon.html

If you don't wish to argue the point, why do you dispute it with two links?

Here is the entire portion from the Seattle Times, from which you have selectively chosen the ones that would support your anti-US position...

_______________________________________________________

Why the bomb was not needed, or unjustified:

Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.

American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.

A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.

Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki.

The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.

Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapon.

______________________________________________________

Why would they need to justify the cost of the Manhattan Project? Nobody even knew it existed.

Looks like a typical straw man argument. I see you are still being dishonest with your links.

Anti-US position??? because its not the "patriotic orthodox" version?

I suggest to get an update and read the Weekly Standard article:

But in the 1960s, what were previously modest and scattered challenges of the decision to use the bombs began to crystallize into a rival canon. The challengers were branded "revisionists," but this is inapt. Any historian who gains possession of significant new evidence has a duty to revise his appreciation of the relevant events. These challengers are better termed critics.

The critics share three fundamental premises. The first is that Japan's situation in 1945 was catastrophically hopeless. The second is that Japan's leaders recognized that fact and were seeking to surrender in the summer of 1945. The third is that thanks to decoded Japanese diplomatic messages, American leaders knew that Japan was about to surrender when they unleashed needless nuclear devastation. The critics divide over what prompted the decision to drop the bombs in spite of the impending surrender, with the most provocative arguments focusing on Washington's desire to intimidate the Kremlin. Among an important stratum of American society--and still more perhaps abroad--the critics' interpretation displaced the traditionalist view.

...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp

Why i didn't list the other points from the from the Seattle Times? because its a list of Why the bomb was (not) needed, or (un)justified. I don't want start argue about that yes or no question.

I focused on the question: What was the idea behind, the motivation for dropping the bomb. And there is more than only one theory.

• to save millions of US and Soviet lives
  
• yes, we can.
  
• test
  
• punishment
  
• to show the Russians the new toy
  
• the bomb to end all bomb droppings
  
• ...
  

[coma]

countries involved in World War Two

Map with the Participants in World War II:

Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbour

Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

Orange: Axis Powers

Not much grey on this image.

[SteeleJoe]

Why do you think there has not been another World War?

2 words : Nuclear Weapons

Countries where wars occurred between 1990 and 2008

http://en.wikipedia....i/Lists_of_wars

I see what you are getting at Eddy. And I have often wondered whether or not the world really is in a World War. The world has gone crazy with war, especially after 9/11, that one could not be condemned for thinking so. My remark was in reference to a 3rd world war. A conventional, all balls out war. The likes of which this world has not seen since the Japanese defeat in 1945 complements of A1 and A2 . With the world the way it is now I have the belief that if that Nuclear deterant was not there we well would be in a full World War barny.

You. see? (just when you were starting to make some some sense! ) Well, nice of you to throw him that rhetorical lifelline anyway.

So you think that those on the list (presumably taken in total) in any way shape or form equate to a World War? Consider the conflicts, their origins and timespan(s). You think that post was actually a relevant response to yours?

Huh.

[bonobo]

Was wondering if you could class depleted uranium weapons as used in Iraq and other places and now claimed by some to have been dropped on Libya as neuclear or atomic?

Those who us the stuff (guess who) claim it is less harmfull than natural uranium but from what I read the chemistry of the stuff changes when it is involved in an explosion and there may be long term efects of its use.

Of course it hasnt been used long enough to show real long term problems but again, from what I read, there have been reports of an abnormal number of birth defects in countries where it has been used in munitions.

Depleted uranium is not used as a weapon, per se, but as a round. It is not "dropped" on Libya or anywhere else. It is essentially a bullet. Because of the high density of the metal, is has the mass to punch through armor better than other metals. (It is also used in commercial aircraft and in many medical situations). So it cannot really be called a nuclear or atomic weapon.

Depleted uranium has about 1/3 the radiation of natural radiation. The controversy is that some, such as the WHO, state that there is no toxicity to exposure to depleted uranium. Other studies indicate there might be a degree of toxicity. Others state that while the round itself is non-toxic, when it hits armor, small pieces can be broken off ans suspended in the air, and when breathed in, can lodge in the lungs where over time, it can cause medical problems.

Regardless, even is long-term exposure can cause some problems, it would be incorrect to call depleted uranium rounds nuclear or atomic weapons.

Tell that to the boys suffering from Gulf War Syndrome, that science say could be directly relaited to extended exposure to /and or use of Uraniam Depleted Rounds.

You really should read my posts before going into attack mode. I pointed out to a reasonable question that depleted uranium rounds were not "weapons" to be "dropped," I explained why depleted uranium rounds are used, and that calling them nuclear weapons would be incorrect. I then went on to write that some organizations contend that the rounds are harmless but that others do not agree with that assertion.

Except for opining that the rounds should not be considered nuclear weapons, I made no real statements of opinions but merely related facts which can be easily confirmed by an internet search.

Based on what I wrote, I have a very difficult time on how you can move into the attack by writing that I should "tell that to the boys suffering from Gulf War Syndrome."

I would be willing to bet that I know many more men and women in the VA system, some of them with Gulf War Syndrome, so I personally am very aware if the issue.

(By-the-way, they are depleted uranium rounds, not "Uranium Depleted Rounds,." which would be something entirely different.)

[SteeleJoe]

EDIT: Meant as an addendum to my previous post:

You know what? Never mind. Don't want to start something or even appear to be doing so.

Edited April 24, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[kuffki]

Anti-US position??? because its not the "patriotic orthodox" version?

I suggest to get an update and read the Weekly Standard article:

But in the 1960s, what were previously modest and scattered challenges of the decision to use the bombs began to crystallize into a rival canon. The challengers were branded "revisionists," but this is inapt. Any historian who gains possession of significant new evidence has a duty to revise his appreciation of the relevant events. These challengers are better termed critics.

The critics share three fundamental premises. The first is that Japan's situation in 1945 was catastrophically hopeless. The second is that Japan's leaders recognized that fact and were seeking to surrender in the summer of 1945. The third is that thanks to decoded Japanese diplomatic messages, American leaders knew that Japan was about to surrender when they unleashed needless nuclear devastation. The critics divide over what prompted the decision to drop the bombs in spite of the impending surrender, with the most provocative arguments focusing on Washington's desire to intimidate the Kremlin. Among an important stratum of American society--and still more perhaps abroad--the critics' interpretation displaced the traditionalist view.

...

http://www.weeklysta...05/894mnyyl.asp

Why i didn't list the other points from the from the Seattle Times? because its a list of Why the bomb was (not) needed, or (un)justified. I don't want start argue about that yes or no question.

I focused on the question: What was the idea behind, the motivation for dropping the bomb. And there is more than only one theory.

• to save millions of US and Soviet lives
• yes, we can.
• test
• punishment
• to show the Russians the new toy
• the bomb to end all bomb droppings
• ...

You have to excuse me and all other posters involved in this or any other "world" discussions, but your positions ARE ONLY anti-American, Anti-Western and Anti- Israel, no matter what the topic, agenda or achievements are.

While at the same time your position is always pro Iran, pro ALL terrorist organizations where you always justify and excuse their actions.

For you to claim to be neutral or balanced or factual is already proven to be untrue.

Which raises a question, since your positions are so anti all the points raised above, why you do bother to be a member of this forum and/or try to prove your point.

Would it not be more rational and productive for you to be an active member of some extremist or islamist forum where there are people who share your views and opinion.?

This in no way meant to be flaming but a general observation since you became active in the past few months

[SteeleJoe]

That is a bit of an agressive way of putting words into my mouth. Read what I have written and if you still need answers to your ridiculous questions then please go bother somebody else.Serial offender. Once again for the second night in a row for you .

Serial offender? Closed? You're funny!

Just to make it clear: I was posting #69 when you were apparently posting #70. There was nothing ridiculous about my questions given they were in response to your comment and perfectly relevant but I had decided to withdraw them and I stand by that.

[Ulysses G.]

Would it not be more rational and productive for you to be an active member of some extremist or islamist forum where there are people who share your views and opinion.?

That would defeat the whole point of spreading false propaganda like he posted above while purposely leaving out this important bit of information.

The diplomatic intercepts included, for example, those of neutral diplomats or attachés stationed in Japan. Critics highlighted a few nuggets from this trove in the 1978 releases, but with the complete release, we learned that there were only 3 or 4 messages suggesting the possibility of a compromise peace, while no fewer than 13 affirmed that Japan fully intended to fight to the bitter end.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[coma]

Was wondering if you could class depleted uranium weapons as used in Iraq and other places and now claimed by some to have been dropped on Libya as neuclear or atomic? Those who us the stuff (guess who) claim it is less harmfull than natural uranium but from what I read the chemistry of the stuff changes when it is involved in an explosion and there may be long term efects of its use. Of course it hasnt been used long enough to show real long term problems but again, from what I read, there have been reports of an abnormal number of birth defects in countries where it has been used in munitions.

Depleted uranium is not used as a weapon, per se, but as a round. It is not "dropped" on Libya or anywhere else. It is essentially a bullet. Because of the high density of the metal, is has the mass to punch through armor better than other metals. (It is also used in commercial aircraft and in many medical situations). So it cannot really be called a nuclear or atomic weapon. Depleted uranium has about 1/3 the radiation of natural radiation. The controversy is that some, such as the WHO, state that there is no toxicity to exposure to depleted uranium. Other studies indicate there might be a degree of toxicity. Others state that while the round itself is non-toxic, when it hits armor, small pieces can be broken off ans suspended in the air, and when breathed in, can lodge in the lungs where over time, it can cause medical problems. Regardless, even is long-term exposure can cause some problems, it would be incorrect to call depleted uranium rounds nuclear or atomic weapons.

Tell that to the boys suffering from Gulf War Syndrome, that science say could be directly relaited to extended exposure to /and or use of Uraniam Depleted Rounds.

You really should read my posts before going into attack mode. I pointed out that depleted uranium rounds were to "weapons" to be "dropped," I explained why depleted uranium rounds are used, and that calling them nuclear weapons would be incorrect. I then went on to write that some organizations contend that the rounds are harmless but that others do not agree with that assertion. Except for opining that the rounds should not be considered nuclear weapons, I made no real statements of opinions but merely related facts which can be easily confirmed by an internet search. Based on what I wrote, I have a very difficult time on how you can move into the attack by writing that I should "tell that to the boys suffering from Gulf War Syndrome." I would be willing to bet that I know many more men and women in the VA system, some of them with Gulf War Syndrome, so I personally am very aware if the issue. (By-the-way, they are depleted uranium rounds, not "Uranium Depleted Rounds,." which would be something entirely different.)

Sorry if you took i that way. Wasn't my intention. The statement in bold is an interesting thing to say. I had a chuckle. Edited April 24, 2011 by coma

[bonobo]

I would be willing to bet that I know many more men and women in the VA system, some of them with Gulf War Syndrome,

Attack mode ?? Sorry if you took i that way. Wasn't my intention. The statement in bold is an interesting thing to say. I had a chuckle.

I am glad you find that so funny.

[bangkokeddy]

I see what you are getting at Eddy. And I have often wondered whether or not the world really is in a World War. The world has gone crazy with war, especially after 9/11, that one could not be condemned for thinking so. My remark was in reference to a 3rd world war. A conventional, all balls out war. The likes of which this world has not seen since the Japanese defeat in 1945 complements of A1 and A2 . With the world the way it is now I have the belief that if that Nuclear deterant was not there we well would be in a full World War barny.

I know that are not World Wars and if there were a world War III i would probably not sit here and post maps.

Nonetheless the world is at war. You may not noticed it because it happens abroad. If you colour not only the countries were wars occurred but also the countries that participate in these wars the map will look different.

You can look also at the statistics, the death toll, the destruction these wars brought.

Look up the civilian death in WWII in the USA, Australia, Canada, UK and compare that with the figures from conflicts in Africa (i don't even know all of them because i am an ignorant white kid), the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam and Korea, to name 2 earlier post-WWII wars.

Look up how many million tons of bombs were dropped. Compare WWII, Vietnam, Laos, Iraq.

A1 & A2 weren't bombs that ended all wars.

Vietnam was not a lesson. the Gulf War led to the illusion a modern conventional war could be a successful way of conflict solving. Can't be said about later campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wars still going on, deadly and irrational as ever.

[SteeleJoe]

Look up the civilian death in WWII in the USA, Australia, Canada, UK and compare that with the figures from conflicts in Africa

Leaving aside what reason there is to make that comparison, what possible reason would one not also include the millions of civilian deaths in contiental Europe and Asia as a result of World War II?

[kuffki]

I see what you are getting at Eddy. And I have often wondered whether or not the world really is in a World War. The world has gone crazy with war, especially after 9/11, that one could not be condemned for thinking so. My remark was in reference to a 3rd world war. A conventional, all balls out war. The likes of which this world has not seen since the Japanese defeat in 1945 complements of A1 and A2 . With the world the way it is now I have the belief that if that Nuclear deterant was not there we well would be in a full World War barny.

I know that are not World Wars and if there were a world War III i would probably not sit here and post maps.

Nonetheless the world is at war. You may not noticed it because it happens abroad. If you colour not only the countries were wars occurred but also the countries that participate in these wars the map will look different.

You can look also at the statistics, the death toll, the destruction these wars brought.

Look up the civilian death in WWII in the USA, Australia, Canada, UK and compare that with the figures from conflicts in Africa (i don't even know all of them because i am an ignorant white kid), the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam and Korea, to name 2 earlier post-WWII wars.

Look up how many million tons of bombs were dropped. Compare WWII, Vietnam, Laos, Iraq.

A1 & A2 weren't bombs that ended all wars.

Vietnam was not a lesson. the Gulf War led to the illusion a modern conventional war could be a successful way of conflict solving. Can't be said about later campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wars still going on, deadly and irrational as ever.

Are you seriously using USA, Canada and Australia as an example for WW II???

Why do not you use Russia, Poland or Germany? Russia alone lost over 20 million people, some estimate total deaths to be over 80 million people(80 000 000).

So please, lets get the facts right even about this

[bangkokeddy]

You have to excuse me and all other posters involved in this or any other "world" discussions, but your positions ARE ONLY anti-American, Anti-Western and Anti- Israel, no matter what the topic, agenda or achievements are.

While at the same time your position is always pro Iran, pro ALL terrorist organizations where you always justify and excuse their actions.

For you to claim to be neutral or balanced or factual is already proven to be untrue.

Which raises a question, since your positions are so anti all the points raised above, why you do bother to be a member of this forum and/or try to prove your point.

Would it not be more rational and productive for you to be an active member of some extremist or islamist forum where there are people who share your views and opinion.?

This in no way meant to be flaming but a general observation since you became active in the past few months

I am ONLY anti-American, Anti-Western and Anti- Israel? Where is my comment about the a-bombs anti-American?

And in general what makes you think that? Is it because i don't post supremacist comments, don't hate Muslims, don't think they are all terrorists. don't bash Arabs or Asians, don't mind if they migrate around the globe like i do and be not afraid of them?

Do i have to be Anti-Iran, Anti-Arab, Anti-Islam to be a proper Westerner? Is Pro-American a must and pro.Israel the only way to go?

Are i am Anti, because my opinion differs from yours and you are American, Western and Israeli? So i must be anti, because your world knows only one valid opinion?

Why i am a member of this forum? I am here the exchange ideas and opinions, to read what others have to say and to explain what my view is.

Is it an American, Western or Israel forum? Or is it the Thaivisa forum, open to all people from allover the world? It is the Thailand forum. A country in Asia, close to China, close to Muslim countries, somewhat close to Iran and pretty far away from America, the West and Israel. So why YOU are here? Specially if you are not interested in other opinions?

Maybe its a generation issue and that i am a few decades younger than you and that I am handsome.

Let me tell you: I am from the "west" too, but not eurocentric. I am freedom loving, an individualist, broad-minded and interested in other cultures, I am philhellenic, persophile, philosemitic and love Bangkok.

[luckizuchinni]

You have to excuse me and all other posters involved in this or any other "world" discussions, but your positions ARE ONLY anti-American, Anti-Western and Anti- Israel, no matter what the topic, agenda or achievements are.

While at the same time your position is always pro Iran, pro ALL terrorist organizations where you always justify and excuse their actions.

For you to claim to be neutral or balanced or factual is already proven to be untrue.

Which raises a question, since your positions are so anti all the points raised above, why you do bother to be a member of this forum and/or try to prove your point.

Would it not be more rational and productive for you to be an active member of some extremist or islamist forum where there are people who share your views and opinion.?

This in no way meant to be flaming but a general observation since you became active in the past few months

I am ONLY anti-American, Anti-Western and Anti- Israel? Where is my comment about the a-bombs anti-American?

And in general what makes you think that? Is it because i don't post supremacist comments, don't hate Muslims, don't think they are all terrorists. don't bash Arabs or Asians, don't mind if they migrate around the globe like i do and be not afraid of them?

Do i have to be Anti-Iran, Anti-Arab, Anti-Islam to be a proper Westerner? Is Pro-American a must and pro.Israel the only way to go?

Are i am Anti, because my opinion differs from yours and you are American, Western and Israeli? So i must be anti, because your world knows only one valid opinion?

Why i am a member of this forum? I am here the exchange ideas and opinions, to read what others have to say and to explain what my view is.

Is it an American, Western or Israel forum? Or is it the Thaivisa forum, open to all people from allover the world? It is the Thailand forum. A country in Asia, close to China, close to Muslim countries, somewhat close to Iran and pretty far away from America, the West and Israel. So why YOU are here? Specially if you are not interested in other opinions?

Maybe its a generation issue and that i am a few decades younger than you and that I am handsome.

Let me tell you: I am from the "west" too, but not eurocentric. I am freedom loving, an individualist, broad-minded and interested in other cultures, I am philhellenic, persophile, philosemitic and love Bangkok.

I don't intend on getting into a personality slugfest, but whatever your national origin, the vast majority of your posts in the World section are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and anti-West while being pro-Arab, pro-Muslim, and pro-whomever are "enemies" of the West. Not all of your posts, but most of them have that slant, at least.

And you know what? That is OK. You don't have to apologize for that. As far as I know, this is a free forum where you can express your ideas, and you certainly are not alone in the world with those ideas.

I happen to disagree with many of your viewpoints (not all of them, to be sure, but maybe a majority of them), and that is OK too. I am entitled to my viewpoints just as you are entitled to yours.

If I think it is appropriate, I might call you out on some facts you state that I believe to be wrong, but I won't call you out personally on opinions you have.

I happen to think that you can be pro-American/Israeli/West and be pro-Arab/Muslim/Asia. And you can also take issue with all of them as well. The world is not black and white.

Just stick with the facts, and then interpret the facts as you see fit and don't apologize for your deductions.

My two cents.

Edited April 24, 2011 by luckizuchinni

[bangkokeddy]

I know that are not World Wars and if there were a world War III i would probably not sit here and post maps.

Nonetheless the world is at war. You may not noticed it because it happens abroad. If you colour not only the countries were wars occurred but also the countries that participate in these wars the map will look different.

You can look also at the statistics, the death toll, the destruction these wars brought.

Look up the civilian death in WWII in the USA, Australia, Canada, UK and compare that with the figures from conflicts in Africa (i don't even know all of them because i am an ignorant white kid), the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam and Korea, to name 2 earlier post-WWII wars.

Look up how many million tons of bombs were dropped. Compare WWII, Vietnam, Laos, Iraq.

A1 & A2 weren't bombs that ended all wars.

Vietnam was not a lesson. the Gulf War led to the illusion a modern conventional war could be a successful way of conflict solving. Can't be said about later campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wars still going on, deadly and irrational as ever.

Are you seriously using USA, Canada and Australia as an example for WW II???

Why do not you use Russia, Poland or Germany? Russia alone lost over 20 million people, some estimate total deaths to be over 80 million people(80 000 000).

So please, lets get the facts right even about this

Leaving aside what reason there is to make that comparison, what possible reason would one not also include the millions of civilian deaths in contiental Europe and Asia as a result of World War II?

Oh, I don't wanted to appear to be Anti-Western and ignore this part of the world.

It are also countries that are grey on 'my' map of Countries where wars occurred between 1990 and 2008. What means there where no wars. 2 words : Nuclear Weapons. They are all allies. The US dropped A1&A2.

Of course there millions of death in China, India (incl. Pakistan and Bangladesh), French Indochina, Dutch East Indies (Indonesia). A1 & A2 didn't brought peace to these regions.

And a high death toll in Poland, Yugoslavia and the highest in Russia. Their part is often forgotten when some claim that they have defeated Hitler.

I still recommend to check the civilian death in USA, Australia, Canada, UK in WWII, that gives you an impression how global this world war was.

[cdnvic]

Get back on topic please. Gulf war syndrome and Hiroshima are way off topic.

[cdnvic]

Further off-topic posts deleted. The subject is Iranian missiles.

[bangkokeddy]

Iran is involved in a proxy war with Israel for years now and in that sense has already attacked Israel.

Not true.

[Steely Dan]

Iran is involved in a proxy war with Israel for years now and in that sense has already attacked Israel.

Not true.

Instead of engaging in your hobby of trying to re-write history try googling 'Iran proxy war'. There are a wealth of links to explore, many of them mainstream. You will find plenty of references for Irans proxy war against Israel and the U.S so take your pick.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3512014.ece

The Hamas commander, however, confirmed for the first time that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been training its men in Tehran for more than two years and is currently honing the skills of 150 fighters

:jap:

Edited April 25, 2011 by Steely Dan

[SteeleJoe]

Iran is involved in a proxy war with Israel for years now and in that sense has already attacked Israel.

Not true.

Brilliant rebuttal!

[geriatrickid]

The Iranian missiles currently present more of a threat to the Gulf States than they do to any other country. By coincidence al-arabuya news is carrying the new comments of the UAE foreign minister which are rather quite insulting to the Iranians;

The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday (April 19) likened Iran's control of three disputed Gulf islands to Israel's occupation of Arab territories.

"The occupation of any Arab land is an occupation," Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan said in a question-and-answer session of the consultative Federal National Council, according to WAM state news agency."There is no difference between Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights, southern Lebanon, the West Bank or Gaza, as occupation remains occupation... No Arab land is more precious than another," he said, referring to the islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Mousa. "

Ouch. The FM wasn't very nice. In the middle East, it is often convenient to trot out the USA or Israel as an excuse for some activity. The reality though, is that such an excuse is often cover for hostile acts intended at another nation.

[bangkokeddy]

Iran is involved in a proxy war with Israel for years now and in that sense has already attacked Israel.

Not true.

Brilliant rebuttal!

Thank you. The trick is to stay On Topic.

[bangkokeddy]

The Iranian missiles currently present more of a threat to the Gulf States than they do to any other country. By coincidence al-arabuya news is carrying the new comments of the UAE foreign minister which are rather quite insulting to the Iranians;

The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday (April 19) likened Iran's control of three disputed Gulf islands to Israel's occupation of Arab territories.

"The occupation of any Arab land is an occupation," Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan said in a question-and-answer session of the consultative Federal National Council, according to WAM state news agency."There is no difference between Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights, southern Lebanon, the West Bank or Gaza, as occupation remains occupation... No Arab land is more precious than another," he said, referring to the islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Mousa. "

Ouch. The FM wasn't very nice. In the middle East, it is often convenient to trot out the USA or Israel as an excuse for some activity. The reality though, is that such an excuse is often cover for hostile acts intended at another nation.

Wow, thats really a coincidence.

That is what the Sheik said on a Tuesday (April 20) last year:

The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday likened Iran's control of three disputed Gulf islands to Israel's occupation of Arab territories

"The occupation of any Arab land is an occupation," Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan said in a question-and-answer session of the consultative Federal National Council, according to WAM state news agency.

"There is no difference between Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights, southern Lebanon, the West Bank or Gaza, as occupation remains occupation... No Arab land is more precious than another," he said, referring to the islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Mousa.

[SteeleJoe]

The Iranian missiles currently present more of a threat to the Gulf States than they do to any other country. By coincidence al-arabuya news is carrying the new comments of the UAE foreign minister which are rather quite insulting to the Iranians;

The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday (April 19) likened Iran's control of three disputed Gulf islands to Israel's occupation of Arab territories.

"The occupation of any Arab land is an occupation," Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan said in a question-and-answer session of the consultative Federal National Council, according to WAM state news agency."There is no difference between Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights, southern Lebanon, the West Bank or Gaza, as occupation remains occupation... No Arab land is more precious than another," he said, referring to the islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Mousa. "

Ouch. The FM wasn't very nice. In the middle East, it is often convenient to trot out the USA or Israel as an excuse for some activity. The reality though, is that such an excuse is often cover for hostile acts intended at another nation.

Wow, thats really a coincidence.

That is what the Sheik said on a Tuesday (April 20) last year:

The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday likened Iran's control of three disputed Gulf islands to Israel's occupation of Arab territories

"The occupation of any Arab land is an occupation," Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan said in a question-and-answer session of the consultative Federal National Council, according to WAM state news agency.

"There is no difference between Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights, southern Lebanon, the West Bank or Gaza, as occupation remains occupation... No Arab land is more precious than another," he said, referring to the islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Mousa.

Doh!

Busted.

[WarpSpeed]

Maybe, but really does it matter when it was said?? It still applies..