Jump to content

Just One More Reason A Nuclear Winter Is Imminent...


Recommended Posts

... and for the record AJ... you can actually 'Wikipedia' FTW... if you ever get stumped in the future.
So I can be more confused by the fact that there are 3 definitions of the term listed?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Slang DictionaryThis is actually a much better one.... as it also gives forum slang... of course I found it through Wikipedia... so Wikipedia gets the credit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Iran is very scary but at this point - it just seems like maybe their leader is purposefully trying to act like the most insane evil guy in the world just for kicks
Sorry, but you never cease to amaze me Keith. You're so quick to condemn everything your own governement does....yet when confronted with a truly frightening and evil regime.....your interpretation is that he's just kidding around? That is just incredibly amazing and scary.
And I'm sure many people in Europe were saying similar things about Hitler in the late 30's...
Exactly.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And I'm sure many people in Europe were saying similar things about Hitler in the late 30's...
Okay, so the link is broken now ( at least for me) but I assume it's about Iran/Isreal hate, and the desire to nuke them.Here are a couple points:One; The old " That's what they proably said about Hitler" card is one of the most tired cards in the deckThere is almost nothing comparable about millenial iran, and pre ww2 germany, other than jew hate.PEople pull out the "stopping hilter" card to juststy all kinds of pre-emptive interventions, IE invasions. If you want to see a more appropriate comparison to Germany's expansionist, invasionist 30's actions, you don't need to look far.2: The leadership of Iran would have to be suicidial to nuke isreal. Literally. Isreal has nukes, we have nukes, Iran would be pounded into the ground in minutes if they did that.3. The only reason any middling power country, like Iran, or Korea, or any other country would want to develop nuclear weapons would be to prevent invasion. Nuclear weapons are not practical offensive weapons for any small country. There are too many other countries that have way more nukes than they do, who would then use them on that country. It wouldn't be "Mutually assured destruction" so much as "singularlly assured distruction" of that country. What they are effective in is preventing invasion. This is why isreal developed them, and no foreign army has invaded them since they did. Getting nukes means a country is now too much trouble for a country like, say, the US, Russia, or China to invade. People worried about the "threat" of Iran are just buying into the Neo Con expansionist propaganda.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, so the link is broken now ( at least for me) but I assume it's about Iran/Isreal hate, and the desire to nuke them.Here are a couple points:One; The old " That's what they proably said about Hitler" card is one of the most tired cards in the deckThere is almost nothing comparable about millenial iran, and pre ww2 germany, other than jew hate.
Agreed, it is a tired old card but that doesn't stop people from playing it of course.
2: The leadership of Iran would have to be suicidial to nuke isreal. Literally. Isreal has nukes, we have nukes, Iran would be pounded into the ground in minutes if they did that.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you there. The reason the Iran leadership isn't scared of nuclear devistation is because the current president wants a jihad. He believes it is his destiny to wipe Isreal from the face of the earth consequences be damned! You can't negotiate with someone like that. The only comprimise he's talked about is relocating the entire state of Isreal somewhere else. That's the only way his Armegeddon won't take place. The other problem is that this current administration has used up all it's political goodwill to invade another country. There is absolutely nothing left in the American people and Congress, to back up our barking right now in the Middle East. As an aside Historically, the Middle East has been nothing but a hotbed of trouble - That's what happens when you push together three opposing religious ideas all together. As it stands, I doubt we will see peace in the Middle East in our lifetimes. As a through and through Republican, even I'm tired of the croneyism and Bush's inability to kick *** like he should be doing. He should be threatening Energy Interests to get their act together to bring down the price of gasoline, unfortunately, all of Daddy's friends who used to take him hunting are in control of all that money and are too busy counting their record profits to listen to some kid they probably bounced on their knee at one point. I was reading back on past presidents, men like FDR, Kennedy, George Washington, guys who ran the country because they believed in it, not because it gave them absolute power, but because of a civic drive. I am disgusted when I compare the White House of today to past administrations. I honestly miss Clinton in office...that guy knew how to get stuff done. But I digress...
3. The only reason any middling power country, like Iran, or Korea, or any other country would want to develop nuclear weapons would be to prevent invasion. Nuclear weapons are not practical offensive weapons for any small country. There are too many other countries that have way more nukes than they do, who would then use them on that country. It wouldn't be "Mutually assured destruction" so much as "singularlly assured distruction" of that country. What they are effective in is preventing invasion. This is why isreal developed them, and no foreign army has invaded them since they did. Getting nukes means a country is now too much trouble for a country like, say, the US, Russia, or China to invade. People worried about the "threat" of Iran are just buying into the Neo Con expansionist propaganda.
Neo Con expansionist propaganda? Iran is a threat! This country is run by a man who has openly stated that he doesn't beleive the Holocaust occured, that he wants Isreal wiped from the face of the planet, is actively developing Nukes in that country. The fallacy of your argument about Iran being destroyed, is that MAD doesn't apply here. Not because Iran couldn't strike the US, but because Iran's current leadership doesn't care if they're wiped off the planet as long as they get Isreal. Hitler wanted a 1000 year reign of the Nazi people and have Germany take it's rightful place as the sole superpower of the world (his words, not mine obv). Iran doesn't want to conquer the world by itself. Sure they want to see Islam dominate the world, but Iran's more pressing concern is Isreal. If they get taken out while taking out Isreal...then they don't care. They've struck a great blow for Islam. It's sad when real world logic gets applied to liberal doctrine. But playing the nice guy and turning a blind eye to a country like Iran shouldn't...sorry, can't be done.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed, it is a tired old card but that doesn't stop people from playing it of course.Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you there. The reason the Iran leadership isn't scared of nuclear devistation is because the current president wants a jihad. He believes it is his destiny to wipe Isreal from the face of the earth consequences be damned! You can't negotiate with someone like that. The only comprimise he's talked about is relocating the entire state of Isreal somewhere else. That's the only way his Armegeddon won't take place. The other problem is that this current administration has used up all it's political goodwill to invade another country. There is absolutely nothing left in the American people and Congress, to back up our barking right now in the Middle East. As an aside Historically, the Middle East has been nothing but a hotbed of trouble - That's what happens when you push together three opposing religious ideas all together. As it stands, I doubt we will see peace in the Middle East in our lifetimes. As a through and through Republican, even I'm tired of the croneyism and Bush's inability to kick *** like he should be doing. He should be threatening Energy Interests to get their act together to bring down the price of gasoline, unfortunately, all of Daddy's friends who used to take him hunting are in control of all that money and are too busy counting their record profits to listen to some kid they probably bounced on their knee at one point. I was reading back on past presidents, men like FDR, Kennedy, George Washington, guys who ran the country because they believed in it, not because it gave them absolute power, but because of a civic drive. I am disgusted when I compare the White House of today to past administrations. I honestly miss Clinton in office...that guy knew how to get stuff done. But I digress...Neo Con expansionist propaganda? Iran is a threat! This country is run by a man who has openly stated that he doesn't beleive the Holocaust occured, that he wants Isreal wiped from the face of the planet, is actively developing Nukes in that country. The fallacy of your argument about Iran being destroyed, is that MAD doesn't apply here. Not because Iran couldn't strike the US, but because Iran's current leadership doesn't care if they're wiped off the planet as long as they get Isreal. Hitler wanted a 1000 year reign of the Nazi people and have Germany take it's rightful place as the sole superpower of the world (his words, not mine obv). Iran doesn't want to conquer the world by itself. Sure they want to see Islam dominate the world, but Iran's more pressing concern is Isreal. If they get taken out while taking out Isreal...then they don't care. They've struck a great blow for Islam. It's sad when real world logic gets applied to liberal doctrine. But playing the nice guy and turning a blind eye to a country like Iran shouldn't...sorry, can't be done.
Sorry, I don't by that Iran is suicidal. Wanting Isreal wipped off the map, and willing to do it are two very different things. I'm sure if you asked many isreali's if they wanted Iran wipped off the map, or Iraq.. and yet some how isreal has managed to hold off on this genocide ( treatment of palestine aside). The number one thing that petty dictators are concerned about is maintaining their power. No matter how much Iran hates isreal, nuking them would destroy their power. I could be grossly wrong about this, I admit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I don't by that Iran is suicidal.
I agree with you, and your point about how dictators watn to remain in power is a good one. Now consider if the leader actually is suicidal, he would also have to convince the people of his country (or at least the higher ups) to go along with him with full knowledge that they would be destroyed in retaliation. Not gonna happen. Self-preservation is the most powerful instinct people have.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I don't by that Iran is suicidal. Wanting Isreal wipped off the map, and willing to do it are two very different things. I'm sure if you asked many isreali's if they wanted Iran wipped off the map, or Iraq.. and yet some how isreal has managed to hold off on this genocide ( treatment of palestine aside).
The problem is, the average Iranian ISN'T in power right now. From what I've seen through the whole history of Isreal is a country who has a population that nearly avoided extinction 60 years ago and decided to set up shop in the Holy Land. They want their little corner of sand and that's it. They don't want to bother anyone, they don't want anyone to bother them.
The number one thing that petty dictators are concerned about is maintaining their power. No matter how much Iran hates isreal, nuking them would destroy their power. I could be grossly wrong about this, I admit.
Believe me, I hope I'm wrong. I hope all this is posturing by a third world dictator..but from what I've seen, it goes against that wish :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, so the link is broken now ( at least for me) but I assume it's about Iran/Isreal hate, and the desire to nuke them.Here are a couple points:One; The old " That's what they proably said about Hitler" card is one of the most tired cards in the deckThere is almost nothing comparable about millenial iran, and pre ww2 germany, other than jew hate.PEople pull out the "stopping hilter" card to juststy all kinds of pre-emptive interventions, IE invasions. If you want to see a more appropriate comparison to Germany's expansionist, invasionist 30's actions, you don't need to look far.2: The leadership of Iran would have to be suicidial to nuke isreal. Literally. Isreal has nukes, we have nukes, Iran would be pounded into the ground in minutes if they did that.3. The only reason any middling power country, like Iran, or Korea, or any other country would want to develop nuclear weapons would be to prevent invasion. Nuclear weapons are not practical offensive weapons for any small country. There are too many other countries that have way more nukes than they do, who would then use them on that country. It wouldn't be "Mutually assured destruction" so much as "singularlly assured distruction" of that country. What they are effective in is preventing invasion. This is why isreal developed them, and no foreign army has invaded them since they did. Getting nukes means a country is now too much trouble for a country like, say, the US, Russia, or China to invade. People worried about the "threat" of Iran are just buying into the Neo Con expansionist propaganda.
Sorry, I don't by that Iran is suicidal. Wanting Isreal wipped off the map, and willing to do it are two very different things. I'm sure if you asked many isreali's if they wanted Iran wipped off the map, or Iraq.. and yet some how isreal has managed to hold off on this genocide ( treatment of palestine aside). The number one thing that petty dictators are concerned about is maintaining their power. No matter how much Iran hates isreal, nuking them would destroy their power. I could be grossly wrong about this, I admit.
You're making the mistake of assuming you dealing with rational people here. People who think like we do. You assume they view death like we do. As ricker pointed out - dying for the glory of Allah...advancing the Jihad....it's honourable...glorious....all worth dying for to them. Desirable to die for it. "Neo-con propaganda"? Ummm yeah ok. Talk about a tired old card being played. The Hitler card? How easily you dismiss history and what we can/should learn from it. "Yawn"....yeah that's old and tired....let's ignore it. How could it possibly have relevance?
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're making the mistake of assuming you dealing with rational people here. People who think like we do. You assume they view death like we do. As ricker pointed out - dying for the glory of Allah...advancing the Jihad....it's honourable...glorious....all worth dying for to them. Desirable to die for it. "Neo-con propaganda"? Ummm yeah ok. Talk about a tired old card being played. The Hitler card? How easily you dismiss history and what we can/should learn from it. "Yawn"....yeah that's old and tired....let's ignore it. How could it possibly have relevance?
The leadership of Iran aren't terrorists, they are dictators. You're making the mistake of equating the fanatism of the terrorist frindge, painting all Muslims with the same "dying for the glory of allah" paintbrush. I promise you, anyone who attains and maintains the leadership and dictatorship of a country has more than a little self interest.Good God, I'm not saying ignore the lessions of history, I'm saying comparing Hitler's Germany and Iran is simplistic and moronic.If Iran had the power to wipe Isreal off the map with no repercussions, I'm certain they would do so. But they don't have that power.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're making the mistake of assuming you dealing with rational people here. People who think like we do. You assume they view death like we do. As ricker pointed out - dying for the glory of Allah...advancing the Jihad....it's honourable...glorious....all worth dying for to them. Desirable to die for it. "Neo-con propaganda"? Ummm yeah ok. Talk about a tired old card being played. The Hitler card? How easily you dismiss history and what we can/should learn from it. "Yawn"....yeah that's old and tired....let's ignore it. How could it possibly have relevance?
QFT
The leadership of Iran aren't terrorists, they are dictators. You're making the mistake of equating the fanatism of the terrorist frindge, painting all Muslims with the same "dying for the glory of allah" paintbrush. I promise you, anyone who attains and maintains the leadership and dictatorship of a country has more than a little self interest.Good God, I'm not saying ignore the lessions of history, I'm saying comparing Hitler's Germany and Iran is simplistic and moronic.If Iran had the power to wipe Isreal off the map with no repercussions, I'm certain they would do so. But they don't have that power.
First off, I'm not applying the terrorists=all muslims paintbrush. If that's so you can just call me Rush Limbaugh just because I'm a republican. Obv. that's not the case here. Second a few definitions for you: Dictator:An absolute ruler. A tyrant; a despot.Terrorist: characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.Dictators care about their power and use that power to dominate the people they rule. Which is certaintly the case with Iran's current leadership. However with the multitude of threats leveled against Isreal we move onto definition #2: Threatening to "wipe Isreal off the map" I'd say is a pretty obvious terrorist tendency. As in, if it looks like shit, smells like shit, it's probably shit. Iran's current president may not have the capability to launch a premptive strike against Isreal, but if he did he most certaintly would. A terrorist doesn't care about MAD or repercussions. I've read the Koran and read what the Islam faith is really about. People interpet that holy text to forward their agenda, which is why you see so many suicide bombers that are students of Islam. The idea of sacrificing yourself to strike a blow for Allah will give you the greatest reward in the afterlife. That's a pretty attractive idea for someone that believes in that so feverently. To be honored as a hero in your heaven for your deeds on earth? Of course they would strike at Isreal and smile as the nukes headed their way.The thing is you're trying to apply rational thought to people who in their essence are IRRATIONAL. You're saying that Fanatics/terrorists don't become dictators. That's the most naive thing I've ever heard you say on this board, and frankly I'm surprised at it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
QFTFirst off, I'm not applying the terrorists=all muslims paintbrush. If that's so you can just call me Rush Limbaugh just because I'm a republican. Obv. that's not the case here.
Kay, first off, I wasn't quoting you, and I didn't say you were painting with that brush. I don't care about politics particularlly, one way or another. I think Dem/Rep's are coke v pepsi, with superficial differences to keep the peoples eyes on the monkey.Second off, I'd love to see your evidence that the government of Iran Organizes terrorist cells. People tend to have large misconceptions about the muslim world, not surprisingly really, since we don't get quality information about it. People Assumed Hussien was allies with Al 'Quada, 'cause they both hated the US. But Iraq was a secular government that Al Quada found decandant and blastemous. WHile Iran certainly isn't secular, they are however Shi'ite, which puts them pretty much at odds with the entire Islamic world. The west reallyl underestimates how much Sunni's and Shi'ites hate each other, Shi'ite being considered pretty much blastphemy to the fundementalist sunni. This isn't the kind of gulf that gets bridged by things like hate of the west. If Iran and Isreal went to war, I'd be shocked if any of the muslim ( IE Sunni) world went to Iran's aid.Third: " Iran's current president may not have the capability to launch a premptive strike against Isreal, but if he did he most certaintly would. " I don't think this is certain in the slightest.3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kay, first off, I wasn't quoting you, and I didn't say you were painting with that brush. I don't care about politics particularlly, one way or another. I think Dem/Rep's are coke v pepsi, with superficial differences to keep the peoples eyes on the monkey.
You're right, I was just responding to that and I don't even know why. It's late and I didn't see that.
Second off, I'd love to see your evidence that the government of Iran Organizes terrorist cells. People tend to have large misconceptions about the muslim world, not surprisingly really, since we don't get quality information about it. People Assumed Hussien was allies with Al 'Quada, 'cause they both hated the US. But Iraq was a secular government that Al Quada found decandant and blastemous. WHile Iran certainly isn't secular, they are however Shi'ite, which puts them pretty much at odds with the entire Islamic world. The west reallyl underestimates how much Sunni's and Shi'ites hate each other, Shi'ite being considered pretty much blastphemy to the fundementalist sunni. This isn't the kind of gulf that gets bridged by things like hate of the west. If Iran and Isreal went to war, I'd be shocked if any of the muslim ( IE Sunni) world went to Iran's aid.
I don't recall ever bringing up the travesty that's currently going on in Iraq. Conflicts between the Sunni's and Shi'ites are irrellvant to what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about Iraq...I'm talking about the terrorist/dictator currently in control of Iran.Second, as for evidence:http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/200...FTOKEN=32540836http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2441.htmhttp://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_97/sponsored.htmlI can go on if you like...Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world currently.
Third: " Iran's current president may not have the capability to launch a premptive strike against Isreal, but if he did he most certaintly would. " I don't think this is certain in the slightest.
Fair enough. No one knows what's coming, and I'm hopng for the best, but Irans' current political climate isn't one that inspires confidence
Link to post
Share on other sites
The leadership of Iran aren't terrorists, they are dictators. You're making the mistake of equating the fanatism of the terrorist frindge, painting all Muslims with the same "dying for the glory of allah" paintbrush. I promise you, anyone who attains and maintains the leadership and dictatorship of a country has more than a little self interest.Good God, I'm not saying ignore the lessions of history, I'm saying comparing Hitler's Germany and Iran is simplistic and moronic.If Iran had the power to wipe Isreal off the map with no repercussions, I'm certain they would do so. But they don't have that power.
QFTFirst off, I'm not applying the terrorists=all muslims paintbrush. If that's so you can just call me Rush Limbaugh just because I'm a republican. Obv. that's not the case here. Second a few definitions for you: Dictator:An absolute ruler. A tyrant; a despot.Terrorist: characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.Dictators care about their power and use that power to dominate the people they rule. Which is certaintly the case with Iran's current leadership. However with the multitude of threats leveled against Isreal we move onto definition #2: Threatening to "wipe Isreal off the map" I'd say is a pretty obvious terrorist tendency. As in, if it looks like shit, smells like shit, it's probably shit. Iran's current president may not have the capability to launch a premptive strike against Isreal, but if he did he most certaintly would. A terrorist doesn't care about MAD or repercussions. I've read the Koran and read what the Islam faith is really about. People interpet that holy text to forward their agenda, which is why you see so many suicide bombers that are students of Islam. The idea of sacrificing yourself to strike a blow for Allah will give you the greatest reward in the afterlife. That's a pretty attractive idea for someone that believes in that so feverently. To be honored as a hero in your heaven for your deeds on earth? Of course they would strike at Isreal and smile as the nukes headed their way.The thing is you're trying to apply rational thought to people who in their essence are IRRATIONAL. You're saying that Fanatics/terrorists don't become dictators. That's the most naive thing I've ever heard you say on this board, and frankly I'm surprised at it.
What he said. LOL. The notion that a man attaining power....becoming leader/dictator of his country....is somehow contrary to also having terrorist ideololgy....the two are not mutually exclusive. To assume so is so very dangerous.Keith said earlier in the thread that maybe the guy is just "acting" like he's crazy and evil for kicks. Wtf??We've got an evil psycho guy, coming out and saying evil psycho things...."hey, I'm evil and crazy and I want to kill a bunch of people". And the responses are that he's either just sayin it for laughs....or that because he is in a position of power....well gee he couldn't have gotten there while thinking like a terrorist.Scary. Terrifying really. Boggles my mind.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry the link died... I posted a different one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I'm sure many people in Europe were saying similar things about Hitler in the late 30's...
and how. scary business. that david bowey nuke is just as frightening. I'd hate to see what comes of this. After the "peices of flair" inititive in Nazi Germany it only took about 9 years before the world was caught in a maelstrom of which there was no denying or escaping. I only wonder how far it will go before neutrality and "hand sitting" is not an option.
Link to post
Share on other sites
and how. scary business. that david bowey nuke is just as frightening. I'd hate to see what comes of this. After the "peices of flair" inititive in Nazi Germany it only took about 9 years before the world was caught in a maelstrom of which there was no denying or escaping. I only wonder how far it will go before neutrality and "hand sitting" is not an option.
Yeah.. I'm REALLY sure IRan is going to suddenly turn into the mosst powerful military/industrial power in the world, and the rest of the world is REALLY going to sit back, and watch IRAN take over neighbors, letting them get stronger and stronger and stronger. This Iran/hitler thing is so silly. Pre WW 2 Germany was the most powerful country in europe, and in the top three ( depending on how you'd decide "powerful") in the world. It was a major world power, bent on expansion and domination of other countrys.Iran has the military power of Kansas.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Iran has the military power of Kansas.
i laughed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry the link died... I posted a different one.
Hey, thanks for the new link... at least now I know why people were jumping to the Hilter/Iran parallel.Man, I love religion.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah.. I'm REALLY sure IRan is going to suddenly turn into the mosst powerful military/industrial power in the world, and the rest of the world is REALLY going to sit back, and watch IRAN take over neighbors, letting them get stronger and stronger and stronger. This Iran/hitler thing is so silly. Pre WW 2 Germany was the most powerful country in europe, and in the top three ( depending on how you'd decide "powerful") in the world. It was a major world power, bent on expansion and domination of other countrys.Iran has the military power of Kansas.
A-hem...The Weimar Republic of Deutschland was easily one of the most impotent, decentralized and unstable European states of the 20th century. It was that environment that allowed kooks like Hitler to take power. Iran = crap economy = disenchanted youth = muslim fanatics = no chance at a new "Reich" in the Middle East? None at all?
Link to post
Share on other sites
A-hem...The Weimar Republic of Deutschland was easily one of the most impotent, decentralized and unstable European states of the 20th century. It was that environment that allowed kooks like Hitler to take power. Iran = crap economy = disenchanted youth = muslim fanatics = no chance at a new "Reich" in the Middle East? None at all?
So you think that Iran has the industrial base to turn into a post weimar germany, do you? Would you like to place a wager on this?
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you think that Iran has the industrial base to turn into a post weimar germany, do you? Would you like to place a wager on this?
You're implying that to "be like Hitler" one must make a lot of tanks and airplanes and take over some Frenchies by plowing through a forest.I'm implying that to "be like Hitler" one only needs a disenchanted base, an ethnic supermajority (some 90+% of Iranians have a common Persian ethnicity, although I think they would base it more on Islam than speaking Farsi), and slowly get expansionist ideals on their mind. I would say that nuclear capability could make up for quite a few tanks. Israel is to Iran what Poland was to Germany back in the day...an illegitimate state in the way of their own prowess.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're implying that to "be like Hitler" one must make a lot of tanks and airplanes and take over some Frenchies by plowing through a forest.I'm implying that to "be like Hitler" one only needs a disenchanted base, an ethnic supermajority (some 90+% of Iranians have a common Persian ethnicity, although I think they would base it more on Islam than speaking Farsi), and slowly get expansionist ideals on their mind. I would say that nuclear capability could make up for quite a few tanks. Israel is to Iran what Poland was to Germany back in the day...an illegitimate state in the way of their own prowess.
A) Iran isn't expansionist. There's only one power in the world that is expanding into the middle east.B) poland still had calvary on horseback during WW2, while isreal has the best army and air force ( including nukes) in the region, and has maybe the best pound for pound armed forces in the world, per capitia ( with maybe North Korea only giving them a run, but I'd still take isreal pound for pound.)Other than that, your analogy is spot on.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...