Iraqi embassy in Berlin occupied by german-iraqis, hostages taken

[Darth Viscera]

Shots have been fired, explosions heard, Berlin mobilizing civil defense units including armored personnel carriers.

[ReaperFett]

Apparently, this is a peaceful protest saying they want Saddam out.



Wooooo, bet he's scared

[Darth Viscera]

I agree with you, Fett. I think that Saddam is likely pissing his pants right now. All his anti-war supporters are from Europe and the Middle East, and right now Europeans are seeing Middle Easterners so adamant about the removal of that murderer from power that they're willing to break the law and charge into a consulate. This means that no one in their right mind can henceforth view the USA's ambitions towards liberating Iraq as "U.S. Imperialism", because even the Iraqis want to liberate Iraq.

So yes, I agree with you. This is a public relations nightmare for Saddam, and a massively destabilizing event. The Berliners just tore down a similar wall of oppression 13 years ago, this may just make them see the light about putting a true government in Iraq, by force if Saddam won't step down.

Which he won't.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Europe still won't go along with heck, I wouldn't be surprise if the Germans police stormed the embasy killing half the people inside, I know the French police have done that kind of thing, I still think if the US invades they will have no allies, and I still don't know where we will invade from so far 5 Arab nations have come out against it, Turkey is really reluctant and haven't said what they will do, and if they come out against it I can guarentee that Jordan, Egypt, and Kuwait will too, and there is no way then the US can invade, it would be impossible.

[Khan Surak]

It's over. German special operations police force infiltrated and took all five into custody. No one hurt. Apparently they were called the Democratic Iraqi Opposition in Germany, I believe. No one has ever heard of them. Oh, well.

Bahrain and Yemen have also withdrew their support of the US in it's endeavor. Chancellor Schroeder has been extremely critical of Bush, calling the Iraqi situation an "adventure" and stressing that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict should be resolved first.

[Darth Viscera]

Took all 5 into custody?!?! Oh, I would very much like to see the trial. If it goes international and they hold it at the UN building in New York, I'll drive up there and bring a sign to the effect that they should be released. They didn't kill anyone, and they were courageous enough to try and speak out against a murderous tyrant. Those 5 men are heros in my book.

[ReaperFett]

They wont get too long a sentence, just kidnapping and possibly illegal firearms I'd bet

[Darth Viscera]

But that's even worse. These Iraqis want everyone to know what a murderous fiend Saddam is, and that he should be overthrown. They deserve constant media coverage and a huge, public, international trial. It would be like bringing Jefferson Davis to trial.

[ReaperFett]

If you walked into my house and pulled a gun on me, I'd want you to pay some sort of consequence

[Admiral Lebron]

Me too.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I doubt it would go interenational, just stay in Germany they will probably get 5 years or something depending on how strict the laws are in Germany.

[ReaperFett]

Well, its an international situation due to an embassy being involved, but theyre not UN, so Id suspect German law

[Jedi Master Carr]

They might have a choice to face German law or Iraqi law, I am sure if that is the case they would choice German Law. Also if the trial was held in the international court it would be in the Hague in the Netherlands, but they are not war criminals so I don't see that happening.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
If you walked into my house and pulled a gun on me, I'd want you to pay some sort of consequence

Don't try to say that Saddam or his lackeys deserve human rights, or any rights for that matter. Ever seen poisoned milk delivered to villages which don't vote for Tony Blair? In the desert, where there's no water?

Saddam deserves whatever he gets. Kudos to those 5 Iraqis for fighting for liberty, and I hope they're rewarded for it as the patriots they are.

[ReaperFett]

LOL!


Sorry, the image of someone thinking which of those laws to choose :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

They would have to be pretty dumb to want to go back to Iraq where they would find a punisment of torture and death while in Germany they might serve a couple of years in prison cell.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Viscera I'm sure we all agree that Sadaam is evil and horrible and should be stopped.

However, these people who were protesting him went into an embassy, and drew guns on the people inside, none of whom, incidentally were Sadaam Hussein. So yes, they broke some laws, and they'll probably have to pay for it in some fashion.

[Jedieb]

You know, I'm really dissapointed by the fact that my elected leader is opposing the invasion of a nation led by a murderous scumbag. So to protest it, I think I'll charge into an embassy with some buddies of mine and hold a bunch of people there hostage at gunpoint. After all, how DARE they take a stance that I oppose. What the hell were thinking! Yeah, some shots are going to fired, people may die. The family members of the embassy workers are going to go through hell wondering whether or not I'm going to kill their loved ones. But hey, these people didn't THINK the same way I do. They deserve whatever I put them through. I know what you're thinking, why didn't I go to my country and take on the evil scumbag himself? Why didn't I try to make my point there? Or why didn't I stage a protest outside the embassy? Why didn't I try to imitate a Buddist monk and set myself on fire outside the embassy? I thought about those options for a second, but I was really stoked about taking hostages so I went with that option.

Luckily, I'm a HERO! Not only should I avoid prision time, I'll probably get a medal!
:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

[Jedieb]

You know, as much as I think these guys should see some prison time, I really don't hope the sentence is too severe. They were seeking asylum, so there's a possibility they could be sent back to Iraq. I certainly don't want to see that happen. They'd be dead within a week of their arrival. Here's some of the crap from Baghdad;

"Armed terrorists from the mercenaries of the American and Zionist intelligence services attacked our embassy in Berlin,"

How badly would the area have been destabalized if we'd just gone on to Baghdad and finished the job in 91? I thought that Bush Sr. and his advisors made the right decision at the time, but who knew it would have these consequences?

[Darth Viscera]

Uh, whatever. If those 5 Iraqis had wanted dead consulate members, we would be seeing dead consulate members on the news.

Any action against Saddam is a courageous one, and I'm certain that there are 20 million Iraqis at home (and some here in Maryland) who are glad that someone finally stepped up against Saddam.

By default, the charge d'affaires of any Iraqi consulate deserves to die a horrible, horrible death. Remember, Saddam long ago lined up all his opposition against the wall and shot them, transplanting the government with his own supporters.

It would have been nice had they actually killed the Iraqi consular staff (not the German staff workers they employ, mind you, but the Iraqi politicians), for that would have sent out a stronger message to the world that the Iraqis want Saddam dead.

In other news, Saddam is saying that his embassy was taken hostage by American Jewish Mercenary Terrorists. Funny, I thought it was taken hostage by the gallant arms of the Iraqi people.

[Jedieb]

By default, the charge d'affaires of any Iraqi consulate deserves to die a horrible, horrible death.

It would have been nice had they actually killed the Iraqi consular staff (not the German staff workers they employ, mind you, but the Iraqi politicians),
Wow, DV has the uncanny ability to know who deserves to live and who deserves to die! Um, whatever.

And here's a news flash about those 20 million Iraqis; Many of them HATE your living guts. They're being terroized by a maniacal despot, but the U.S. isn't their favorite place on the planet either, even in the best of times. They're are plenty of Kurds who would have liked to have taken a few U.S. ambassadors hostage after we left them hanging dry in 91. I guess you would have applauded them too? Or are hostage takers only heroes if they take hostages in foreign embassies?

[Jedi Master Carr]

Now that is harsh, if they killed people they would have been nothing better than Terrorists, in fact they are terrorists literally speaking, I do find it interesting that these possible terrorists are paraded as heroes because what they did was wrong. Killing people or taking people hostage doesn't resolve the problem, the ends don't justify the means. I think they will be punished hopefully only for 5 years or so in German jail.

[Admiral Lebron]

Yay American Jewish Mercenary Terrorists! ;)

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL, actually though there were Jewish Terrorist kind of though I would really call them partisans during WW 2, they blew up tanks some buildings and killed a high ranking Nazi, Reinhard Heinrich, the Nazis called the terrorist, but they were in a way but what they did was different, because they were trying to fight back considering there people were being exterminated.

[Admiral Lebron]

'xcactly. Plus there was some other few inncidents they caused plus the Jewish Brigade in the under Briagder Ernest Benjamin(or vice-versa can't remember) who broke threw the Nazi lines out there.

[Jedieb]

Canada announced today that it will oppose U.S. military action against Iraq. Hey, now some of DV’s hostage taking heroes can go storm some embassies in the Great White North! Who cares how many Canadian civilian or security forces are put in danger? As long as plenty of Iraqi bad guys are threatened or killed then it’s all good. I mean, they ALL deserve to die anyway! LET THE FUN BEGIN!!! If you don’t support us, we’re coming to an embassy near you! That’ll teach a sovereign nation like Canada that it can’t have a mind of its own unless it checks with us first!

BTW, the U.S. administration said the actions of the those Iraqis UNDERMINE the legitimate attempts of Iraqis to overthrow Saddam. What a stupid administration, can’t they see these guys are HEROES!
:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

[Jedi Master Carr]

The movie Uprising chronicles some of there actions mainly the Warsaw revolts.

[Darth23]

"Legitimate attempts to overthrow..."

George Orwell would have a field day.


So would George Carlin for that matter.

:p

[Jedi Master Carr]

LOL Jedieb that is great, yeah this group was pretty stupid, it was obvious that it chose Germany because they were against Iraq invasion, I honestly don't think these actions will change there minds, it might actually make things worse for them.

[Jedieb]

Hey, the administration used the word "legitimate", not me. :D
The Kurds control territoty in Northern Iraq and have had numerous attrocities commited against them over the last 10 years. The administration should have just said that's who they support, but I think someone let W get up to the mike on his own.:p

[Khan Surak]

Damn, guys calm down.

I agree with Vis that those guys had guts to stand up to Saddam. However, I also agree with Jedieb that they went about it the wrong way. I don't know what they could've done better, and whoa.. a bird just hit my window. >_<

[Jedieb]

Must have been a dove. The bird of peace...

If only there were concrete evidence linking Saddam to terroist groups and acts, then some of our reluctant allies could be swayed. But the sentiment and support from 91 just aren't there. We'll be hopping over borders and international protests just to get the job done. I just don't see how Saddam's removal is going to be accomplished without great cost both politcal and economic.

[ReaperFett]

Even some of the big supporters are bothered about action.




Side note, I heard today that apparently the US killed more British soldiers in the Gulf War than Iraq. That's just wierd

[Jedieb]

Where did you hear that? I didn't hear of too many friendly fire deaths during the time. The allied casualties were so low one errant missile could have easily accounted for the numbers.

[ReaperFett]

it's come up in the news recently. Basically, they're trying to develop ways of avoiding this happening.

[ReaperFett]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/020821/80/d7wfi.html

[Jedieb]

9 friendly fire casualties?! The British should consider themselves lucky. In terms of casualties, we got spoiled. I remember sitting on a briefing in which U.S. casualties were estimated to run in the low thousands or possibly high hundreds. No one could have dreamed the air strikes were going to be as effective as they were.

[ReaperFett]

9 in one instance. ANd bare in mind, they can consider themselves lucky, but they also can threaten to stop aiding the US. Theres the big problem in the case. With the UK, it isnt too much of a problem, Blair is too much of a lapdog. But any of the others could just pack up and leave.

[Admiral Lebron]

We killed 11 in friendly fire. Oh well. -DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR--DO-NOT-SWEAR- happens.

[ReaperFett]

And theres the problem. Then they do ti again and again, and allies step away. Bare in mind, this IS one of the points that those over here opposing attacking Iraq are using. Was one of them in power, "only 11" would have lost an apparently important ally

[Jedieb]

Friendly fire is INEVITABLE. Unfortunately, it's a part of war. It NEVER has been a reason for Britain or the U.S. to withdraw support from one another and it NEVER will. There are plently of reasons for U.S. allies to withhold their support of an Iraqi invasion, but friendly fire casualties isn't one of them. When one side has casualties numbering in the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, and the winning force has casualties numbering only in the HUNDREDS, single digit losses are rather miraculous if you consider what's at stake. More soldiers died in auto accidents than from friendly fire. These numbers are very small.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I know the British public doesn't support an invasion into Iraq, I heard on CNN that only 28% agreed about using British Troops, if Blair goes along with us he will probably lose his next election. I am also feeling that Bush could be out two because it will greatly effect our economy pushing us deeper into a recession and the next democratic nominee (most likely I think the governor of Califorinia, Davis) will use that to win.

[ReaperFett]

The British public generally is supportive of going, it's more the methods that are disagreed upon

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
And theres the problem. Then they do ti again and again, and allies step away. Bare in mind, this IS one of the points that those over here opposing attacking Iraq are using. Was one of them in power, "only 11" would have lost an apparently important ally

Interesting story, when London was blacked out at night during the blitz, an average of 40 pedestrians/day were killed by cars which had to drive without their headlights on. Tens of thousands of people in London killed senselessly by cars in a period of a few years, and the British war machine keeps chugging. 11 friendly fire casualties in Iraq, and the political machine grinds to a halt. Whatever spin the British politicians are putting on the ratepayers to try and sway them, it's sure working.

Anyways, I doubt Saddam will wait forever. As soon as he has the ability to deploy further WMDs, the Shiite region in the southeast of Iraq, the Kurdish region in the North of Iraq, Tehran, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem will find themselves targets of whatever weapon of choice of Saddam wishes to use. This has already been done by Saddam, remember. In 1980-89 Tehran was blasted to bits almost as thoroughly as London during WW2, but by Scud missiles (little more than enhanced V-2 rockets made by the Soviets in the 1960s) from Baghdad. Israel found themselves the target of the same thing in the Gulf War, and the Kurds were gassed.

Saddam has directly caused the deaths of more than 3 million people in the last 30 years. The sooner we take out him and all his SS-like political stooges who've been warped and cowed into submission, the better. Expecting him to abide by diplomacy and peace is like expecting Hitler to do the same.

Maybe, instead of paying attention to the 11 soldiers who died of friendly fire during the Gulf War, the ratepayers should pay attention to the British ambassador and his family who were taken hostage instead of being handed their passports at the onset of hostilities. Maybe the ratepayers should watch that video, see how Saddam issued a thinly veiled threat to kill the 7 year old boy and his parents, at the same time as he asked if the boy was taking his milk.

The world needs to get itself into gear, and quick. What are you waiting for? Saddam isn't going to kick his own ass!

[ReaperFett]

the Shiite region in the southeast of Iraq
Is that the proper spelling, or did you guess?

[Darth Viscera]

That is the proper spelling. It's pronounced 'shE-"It by westerners, but my mom pronounces it shE-aY.

[Khan Surak]

I think I'd like to see John Ritter argue with Vis.

[Darth Viscera]

The guy who played a homosexual in Three's Company? What would we argue about?

[Khan Surak]

:lol My bad..er, Scott Ritter. The former UN Weapons Inspector.

[Darth Viscera]

Reading an interview with him on CNN now...

He seems ignorant. He is either unaware of what Saddam has done, or is choosing to disregard his actions.


SWEENEY: Scott Ritter, you are against any strike attack on Iraq for the reasons currently being given. Can you explain why?

RITTER: No one has substantiated the allegations that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction or is attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. And of course that is the reason we have been given for going to war against Iraq -- because of the threat posed by these weapons. It has been nothing but rhetorically laced speculation, not hard facts, that have been presented by either the United States or Great Britain to back this up, and until they provide hard facts, there is no case for war.

The hard facts are 3 million corpses.

In the 1980-89 war between Iran and Iraq, more than 1 million people died on each side. It was a stupid war fought because each side wanted to control more plots of dirt than the other. Luckily, Ayatollah RuhullAh Al-Musavi Al-Khomeini, the man in charge of Iran during the war and thus most immediately responsible for those 1 million+ deaths (of which, many were pubescent youths under the age of 15 sent to walk over enemy mine fields to clear the way for the troops), died in 1989 at the age of 87. He's dead. I would have hoped his death would be more painful, but death is adequate.

In Saddam's struggle to take power, murder those who disagree with his political views, his willingness to continue (along with Khomeini's) the senseless slaughter of the war, and his pogroms (yes, I said pogroms, because Saddam=Hitler) against the Kurds and the Shiite, his attempted war with Israel and his invasion of Kuwait, the death toll escalates to approximately 3 million and rising.

Hard facts. Go to the house of an Iraqi or Iranian person who is living in the U.S., ask them what they think of Saddam. The answer (as proven by the desperation of those 5 poor political prisoners in Germany) is that Saddam is absolutely, positively nuts. He's a mass murderer. Even my mom, who abhors watching CNN, dislikes keeping track of politics completely, and generally keeps herself in the dark with regards to any current event that isn't positive, refers to Saddam as a "madman". Considering that she only dislikes 2 people in the world-her boss and my dad-"madman" is a pretty darn strong comment. The majority of Arabs don't like Saddam Hussein. The minority, that is the ultra-militant wackjobs who do like him, are also wackjobs.

Once again, 3 million corpses. Try to imagine that, if you will. 1.5 million fathers who will not get a chance to raise their (abundant) kids. 1 million 15 year olds, very similar to the readers at this very forum, who won't get a chance to read books or watch TV or eat their favorite meal. Ever again. They had to walk on mines. 1.5 million Kuwaitis looted. Thousands of Iraqis who dared to stand up to Saddam stood up against a wall and shot, their families likewise eradicated.

Where does it end?

Well if Scott Ritter has his druthers, it won't end. Saddam will bide his time until he feels that he can invade Kuwait again. Notice how RIGHT AT THIS VERY MINUTE, Iraq's 3rd Army Corps is deployed towards the Kuwaiti border. It'll begin again, only Saddam will this time start a bigger war, one where Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Tehran are nuked.

There is a perfect case for war. We must remove Saddam from power, sterilize Iraq of the presence of his evil stooges, and stabilize the country. If we don't, millions more corpses will rack up.

How many more times will I have to say this, I wonder.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am sorry I don't see Saddam as a threat to the world he is no Hitler, heck he is no Mussolini, he is a third rate dictator, and I think it will be a bad thing to invade, first off we will have no allies, I believe Britain will not even go along at least as far as sending troops, no body in Europe will help, and we can count out the Middle East and if we don't watch out none of the Arab states might even allow an invasion. Right now Saudi Arabia has said no, Turkey is incredibly reluctant, no word yet from Kuwait, Syria and Iran are against it, Egypt and Jorday has said they aren't for it (though they haven't come out against it completely). That leaves barely any support how can we launch an invasion if none of the countries allows us to use their land?

Second problem is who will take Saddam's place? I am not for Democracy in the Middle East, I am sorry if you allow democracy in the Middle East every Arab state will be controled by the Islamic fundalmists, Algeria speaks that, if it wasn't for a military cou we would have a Talbian-like state there. So what do we do pick a dicator we like? That hasn't really worked in the past.

Third we could distable the entire region, the Palestian-Israel situation is still going on, Pakistan-India are still staring at each other across the border, why create a third mess that could turn the Middle East into war? Also we could create more zealots out there who could try to destroy Americans here, especially if we keep giving the impression that we know what is best for everybody that kind of arrogant attitude doesn't help us.

Fourth, there is the economic impact, we will be forced to pay the entire thing this time around which will probably criple our economy and put us into a deep recession, and ironically would push Bush out of the White House in 2004 (certain people might not see this as negative though).

I think there are too many negatives for doing this invasion especially since Saddam is not a threat to the security of the World he is not Hitler he can't take the world over or anything or has no chance at succeeding, heck he can't even conquer another country, IMO at this point, plus he is old he is in 60's I bet he might keel over one day. Sure I support other means of outsing him out of power, maybe suppling people with weapons to get him out of power or use diplomacy, or if you want just assissnate him, those to me are all better options.

[ReaperFett]

Bahrain has said they wont help as well. I think thats more because they would be an easy target for anyone.

[Khan Surak]

Yemen has denounced it as well.

Would the US be able to wage war succesfully against Iraq without the land of any foreign country? Most likely, yes. Would it be a low-casualty, swift, and efficient war? No.

[Darth Viscera]

Remember, though, the south and north of Iraq are controlled by Shiites and Kurds, respectively. Theoretically we could land a small force on the beaches south of Al Basrah unopposed by the 3rd Corps (provided that the Iranian-backed Shiites stage a little something to force them to deploy elsewhere) and mass at Basrah via the beach landings and troops delivered by C-130.

Huh. In the future it would be good sense if we had larger aircraft carriers, ones which could hold C-130s and lots of troops. Maybe 1800 feet long, much wider carrier deck. Like the Iwo Jima, only on a much larger scale in terms of rapid force deployment.

[Khan Surak]

The standard overall length of a Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier is 1,092 feet at 4.5 billion dollars. It is the largest warship on Earth.

Perhaps sometime in the future when we have less economic woes, we can afford to create a behemoth that would boast the kinds of operational capabilities that you speak of, Vis. Until that time, we'll have to have some kind of dependability on our allies.

[Jedieb]

Today's situation is much different than the one we faced in 1990. It's a sad irony that many of the weapons Saddam used in the Iran/Iraq war came from the U.S. The Reagan and later the Bush administration saw to it that weapons made it to Iraq. The U.S. had a bone to pick with Iran over the hostage situation in the Carter administration and those issues carried over into the 80's. Remember, one of the things that spurred Saddam to invade Kuwait was U.S. ambivalence. I don't believe in any grand conspiracy, but there were SERIOUS mistakes made by U.S. ambassadors in the region prior to the war. Kuwaitis were guaranteed protection, but the Iraqis were made to think the U.S. would treat the situation as only a regional problem.

There are plenty of instances in U.S. history in which today's scumbag dictator was yesterday's ally. Unfortunately, Saddam is one of those. He isn't the only ruler in the world today that's responsible for millions of deaths. We can't take them ALL out. The cold hard facts are that you go in when your interests are at stake and the situation is right. There's not enough evidence to prove to the international community that an invasion is warranted. Without that support going in and removing Saddam is going to be extremely difficult. What some of us might think is IRRELEVANT. If the international community can't be convinced, then the invasion becomes too costly. I'd love nothing better than to see a smoking gun that would changed everyone's mind and allow an invasion to take place, but it isn't there.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree Jedieb, and that is my problem with it really. Also where would it stop? Bush has talked about regime change so does that mean we will invade Iran or North Korea next because we don't agree with them? Or what about China they have killed 20x times of their people that Saddam has so should we invade them (of course we would lose that invasion we would need half of the population of the Us to do that and then there is the threat of WW III). Sure at the moment none of these nations seem like a huge threat, but in my opinion neither does Iraq, and that is my thing I just don't see a reason to do it, right now, if they could prove that Iraq was going to do something to threaten our interests sure, I would agree with it but right now that doesn't seem the case.

[Khan Surak]

Now remember, Carr, that Bush only has two years left. I doubt he will be re-elected. Now I agree that Saddam needs to be put away, but I think Bush has brought it up now to either distract from the real issues or to get his kicks in before he leaves, OR he genuinely wants to see Saddam out.

Probably a mix. But, as that one defected Iraqi scientist said, Iraq will have the the capability to build a nuclear WMD in four years or so.

China wasn't on Bush's list of evil nations. They're definetly not as bad as the USSR was, and they don't really pose much of a threat. They're a peaceful national internationally, but internally they have many domestic problems that need to be solved on their own.

North Korea, I think, poses a larger threat than Iran. I'm not going to ramble now, but if we start talking about that, I'll give my reasons.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Yeah but Iran has the ability to construct a nuke (there are some people that think they already have one but just can't launch it) so really Iraq is no more a threat than Iran, IMO. North Korea I admit is a different situation and is more dangerous, but an invasion there is out because they would launch their nukes and probably take out South Korea and parts of Mainland China in the process. As far as China, well they are improving but they do a lot of things interenally that we looks the other way on, probably for good reason, they have nukes like we do and we sure don't want to start a nuclear war over Human Rights.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Yeah but Iran has the ability to construct a nuke (there are some people that think they already have one but just can't launch it) so really Iraq is no more a threat than Iran, IMO.


BS. If Tehran had a nuke, they would either launch it at Baghdad, or hold it over Saddam's head and tell him to allow Shiite Iraq to be annexed by Iran or they would pull the trigger. Iranians are shiites, remember. Sudetanland.

Iran's paramount regional threat is Iraq. The Iranians hate the Iraqi Arabs FAR more than the rest of the world, except for the fanatical minority Iranian Sunnis who try to ship weapons to Palestine.

EDIT~60 million killed internally by the Communist Chinese? You want to back that up with facts?

@Khan-Multiple Iwo Jimo class carriers would also do. Or a very large transfer of jolly green giants to a nimitz-class that was refitted for troop carrying duty.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well there are some people who think Iran has a nuke but can't launch it, (I think they believe they are trying to come up with the launching systems) having a nuke doesn't really do any good if you can't shoot it, half the ex Soviet republics have nukes and they can't shoot them for that reason. Besides if they had one why would they be stupid enough to threaten to use it? Who knows if they used it they would hurt there own people. Also the Iranian government is not as bad as it was under Khomman.

[Darth Viscera]

in any event, i believe that if Tehran comes up with a usable nuke, they'll use it again Baghdad, the guys who killed 1 million Iranians through chemical weapons and conventional warfare.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I still don't see why they would do something so foolish, because the whole world would come down on them hard.

[ReaperFett]

Wish someone would do something about Zimbabwe before some of these major conflicts

[Jedieb]

EDIT~60 million killed internally by the Communist Chinese? You want to back that up with facts?
Yeah JMC, how can you say Communist China has raked up more kills than the modern day Hitler known as Sadamm? Ol' Sadamm is the most evil man on the planet and any country that dares to think different is going to get theirs. Let's see what some of China's numbers have been like...
-1959-1961: Government farm policies cause anywhere from 15 - 55million deaths
-Cultural Revolution from 66-76
It's hard to find numbers on the number of deaths that occured during those purges, but many historians figure the death toll was around 1 million.
-Lovely reproductive policies that forced countless families to drown pesky daughters, because the government really prefers sons.
-Tiemnamen Square That student is holding a notebook, send in the tanks!!!

In 1997 R.J. Rommel published Death by Government. In an interview on the paper he summarized Communist China's killings with this;
"Chinese Communists were next, murdering about 35 million of their people. More than a million died during Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution alone. In addition to all these killed, 27 million died from the famine resulting from Chairman Mao's insane economic policies."
So 35 plus, 27, 1 from the Cultural Revolution and you get a conservative estimate of 63 milllion. So you see Carr.... hey wait a minute, you WERE right!
:rolleyes

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Jedieb

Yeah JMC, how can you say Communist China has raked up more kills than the modern day Hitler known as Sadamm? Ol' Sadamm is the most evil man on the planet and any country that dares to think different is going to get theirs. Let's see what some of China's numbers have been like...
-1959-1961: Government farm policies cause anywhere from 15 - 55million deaths
-Cultural Revolution from 66-76
It's hard to find numbers on the number of deaths that occured during those purges, but many historians figure the death toll was around 1 million.
-Lovely reproductive policies that forced countless families to drown pesky daughters, because the government really prefers sons.
-Tiemnamen Square That student is holding a notebook, send in the tanks!!!

In 1997 R.J. Rommel published Death by Government. In an interview on the paper he summarized Communist China's killings with this;
"Chinese Communists were next, murdering about 35 million of their people. More than a million died during Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution alone. In addition to all these killed, 27 million died from the famine resulting from Chairman Mao's insane economic policies."
So 35 plus, 27, 1 from the Cultural Revolution and you get a conservative estimate of 63 milllion. So you see Carr.... hey wait a minute, you WERE right!
:rolleyes

ah, my bad.

@Carr
I believe that if Iran had a nuclear device, they would announce it to the world in order to deter an attack, especially another round of fighting with Baghdad. IMO, a nuclear device has a much stronger defensive value (as a deterrent) than an offensive value. And I quote from a highly prestigous source (Dr. Strangelove):




STRANGELOVE
Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?

DESADESKI
It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.



By my thinking, since we've seen no test detonations from Iran as we see with other emerging nuclear powers (China, India, etc), and they haven't made any press releases about it, the probability must be that they have no nuclear device. We won't (easily) attack a nuclear power for fear of retaliation, and they know that. Basic MAD theory. A nuclear device only has power if you can use to prevent your enemies from trying to kill you.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well, I don't know if they have nukes or not, all I read about the situation is what I read in a magazine while I was back at school (I think it was Newsweek or Time, not sure which) one guy though Iran had a nuke and the reason why they hadn't annouced anything was because they couldn't launch it, he thought that they had bought one from one of the ex soviet republic states. I think its possible they have one, but even if they don't I am almost certain they are working on one, as we speak.

[Jedieb]

I honestly believe that by 2050 the number of nations with nuclear capabilities could very well double. The odds that some of those nations will have unstable or fundamentalist governments are high. I'm particularlly worried about the Russian stockpile. I don't think they have the resources to safeguard their weapons or the stockpiles of nuclear material. Visions of cardboard missiles in May Day parades make me shudder...

[Marcus Telcontar]

If Iran had a nuke, Israel would be first to do something about it. I very much doubt anyone around Israel is nuclear capable

[ReaperFett]

True, and the Isreali SF are said to be up there with the SAS and the Norwegian ones

[Admiral Lebron]

I heard somewhere they were like second in the world. Or maybe third.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am sure China is second, you would think Russia would be third but who knows where half of those nukes are, they are scattered in so many different republics, it is really surprising that some other nation doesn't have one by now. Finally I think by 2050 we will see our first nuclear cataphostrphe, either some city will be a victim of a nuclear holocaust (Isreal would be a likely target) or one of these nuclear standoffs (India/Pakistan or North Korea) will flare up into a Nuclear War.

[Darth Viscera]

Probably the North Koreans. They've repeatedly tried to gain the upper hand and resume the war in an effort to take South Korea, digging tunnels and whatnot into Seoul (4 of which were discovered by the South Koreans).

[Jedi Master Carr]

North Korea is worrisome, though I am not sure what we can do about, diplomacy I think is the best option now, if we tried invading there they would defitnely send a nuke towards South Korea.

[Khan Surak]

Kim Jong Il isn't as insane as his predecessor, Kim Il Sung. He does, however, command the fifth largest army on Earth, is very reclusive, has a mysterious air about him, and is a... "Damn dirty commie".

There is a small shred of hope, and let's hope that they build upon that.


if we tried invading there they would definitely send a nuke towards South Korea.

The U.S. would never cross the 38th unless North Korea made the first move. Again, I think that Kim Jong Il isn't that crazy.