Slashdot Mirror


Iran Reverse Engineers Cobra Attack Helicopter

Hugh Pickens writes "Continuing its tradition of reverse engineering and fabricating its stockpile of 40-year old American weaponry, Iran announced that it is about to unveil its first ever domestically produced Cobra attack choppers. Nearly 50 years after the U.S. introduced the legendary Bell AH-1 Cobra, once the backbone of the U.S. Army's attack helicopter fleet, Iran's locally-grown Cobras will be armed with 'different types of home-made caliber guns, rockets and missiles,' according to Iran's semi-official Fars news agency. 'All the phases of designing and manufacturing of the chopper have been done inside the country and the helicopter enjoys some capabilities which make it preferable to Apache Choppers,' says Brigadier General Kioumars Heidari. Iranian officials stress that Iran's military and arms programs serve defensive purposes and should not be perceived as a threat to any other country, reports the FARS news release. More photos available here."

532 comments

  1. ..came on.. by martiniturbide · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...came on... make it open source. !!!

    1. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did anyone even bother to check the date of this so called news? The photo thread shows May 2010 as the posting date.

      Some of the photos in that thread are even 7-8 years old. The one about Pilot Helmet (post #21) show the defense minister of Iran in 10 years ago!!!

    2. Re:..came on.. by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Informative

      considering they have 70 or so million people, which is about on par with France or the UK (actually slightly larger) you would expect them to be able to quite a diverse range of equipment.

      Given sanctions and their GDP you expect it to not necessarily be as good as comparable western productions, but it can still be in quantity and respectable quality.

    3. Re:..came on.. by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Did anyone even bother to check the date of this so called news? The photo thread shows May 2010 as the posting date.

      Some of the photos in that thread are even 7-8 years old. The one about Pilot Helmet (post #21) show the defense minister of Iran in 10 years ago!!!

      Considering this news is 2-10 yrs old, and instead of actually creating a superior product they ripped off a very old but already well-known product, probably means these helicopters aren't that great.

      I mean while the US was making the Cobra Russia was making the Mil Mi-24 (aka Hind... or "the helicopter from Rambo") and later the Mil Mi-28. Very different designs from the US Cobra, with their own strengths and weaknesses.

      These Iran Cobras are like having a Lamborghini replica: looks good in photos, but in action it's obviously not the real thing.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Except:
      - these are copied part by part and upgraded electronics and guns
      - USA armed forces still use Cobra extensively. So no, they are not too old and they are usable.

    5. Re:..came on.. by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And how much of the current US arsenal is from the 70s and 80s? that would be the majority. Just because its an older design doesn't mean it can't royally fuck you up, Israel still uses them as does the USMC and with missiles and its ability to use terrain to conceal and then pop up and fire the Cobra can still be VERY deadly. The problem with the Hind is they tried to build a craft with the troop carrying capacity of the Huey with the attack capability of the Cobra and ended up with a VERY large target. Not saying it isn't deadly but its huge size made it a pretty inviting target in Afghanistan and unlike the Cobra nimble it wasn't.

      so I can see why they wanted to copy 70s US tech because sadly IMHO all we have produced since is overpriced tech turkeys like the F22 that are insanely priced and spend more time being worked on than flying. The Cobra is proven tech and is nimble while giving them plenty of firepower at an affordable price. if the pics in TFA are correct they also have a Huey knockoff which means they probably don't need the troop carrying ability of the Hind, just pair it with the Cobras as we did.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:..came on.. by cavreader · · Score: 0

      Even with these weapons the US could still take out the entire countries infrastructure in about 3 - 5 days.
       
      There are also certain people in the world who claim everything the US says are lies but these same people gladly accept Iranian or any other countries statements as unimpeachable facts without a second thought. Also when the US participates in talks or negotiations with other countries it is called "interference" while similar actions from other countries are declared "diplomacy".

    7. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except:
      - these are copied part by part and upgraded electronics and guns
      - USA armed forces still use Cobra extensively. So no, they are not too old and they are usable.

      Do you even read the summary?
      "Iran's locally-grown Cobras will be armed with 'different types of home-made caliber guns, rockets and missiles,' according to Iran's semi-official Fars news agency.

    8. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it will cost another 3 trillion dollars.

      Last time US wanted to take a country which was a flat desert (i.e. Iraq) it took a whole decade. And more interestingly a more hardliner government will be soon in power in that same country.

      BTW, have you prepared your share of $10,000 (multiplied by # of family members) for the next war? You may also need to donate one of your family members to it.

    9. Re:..came on.. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Even with these weapons the US could still take out the entire countries infrastructure in about 3 - 5 days.

      The trick that Iran will pull is the typical Muslim strategy of "attack us and we attack Israel/Civilian populations/Foreign nationals". These weapons are not designed to attack the USA but to make the USA think of what they could do to other countries.

    10. Re:..came on.. by wisty · · Score: 1

      > The problem with the Hind is they tried to build a craft with the troop carrying capacity of the Huey with the attack capability of the Cobra and ended up with a VERY large target

      Kind of like the stealthy, ground attack capable, STOL, air superiority F-35?

    11. Re:..came on.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Even with these weapons the US could still take out the entire countries infrastructure in about 3 - 5 days.

      Sure, but don't expect the casualties to be light, unless it's down to tactical nukes.

    12. Re:..came on.. by wmac1 · · Score: 1
    13. Re:..came on.. by craigminah · · Score: 1

      Iran promised they only plan to use these helicopters for defensive purposes. Why does the movie Mars Attacks come to mind? "We come in peace, we mean you no harm. Pew! Pew! Pew!"

    14. Re:..came on.. by r1348 · · Score: 1

      Oh come on now!
      They have to prepare the public opinion for the next war somehow!

    15. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Considering this news is 2-10 yrs old, and instead of actually creating a superior product they ripped off a very old but already well-known product, probably means these helicopters aren't that great."

      You flew to the moon with reverse engineered Nazi rockets, so don't be so quick to devaluate these.

    16. Re:..came on.. by toriver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, looking at which countries do what, the United States need to change a department name to "Department of Attack" soon...

    17. Re:..came on.. by Patch86 · · Score: 2

      Even with these weapons the US could still take out the entire countries infrastructure in about 3 - 5 days.

      Because we enjoyed Afghanistan and Iraq just so darned much over the last decade, we can't wait for another?

      3-5 days is about enough time to rough the place up and make some pretty craters. You'd be lucky if the full war were less than 3-5 years.

    18. Re:..came on.. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Did you even watch the same movie as I did? The martians came in peace, and then they were viciously attacked by that dove. How were they supposed to respond?

    19. Re:..came on.. by ShadowEFX · · Score: 2

      Reverse engineered hell - we had some of the actual Germans who worked on the originals! I'm not certain it counts as reverse engineering when you're just continuing your own work.

    20. Re:..came on.. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      you do realize just about all of the current US military was designed in the 60's and 70's right?

      sure we have gone through upgraded electronics but hardware wise it is the same stuff. The F-15, F16, F18, majority of Tanks, are all 1970's military designs.

      if you aren't pushing for future bold technologies you won't grow. The problem is doing that is expensive.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    21. Re:..came on.. by forand · · Score: 1

      Did you actually read the article? The press release referred to in the summary and in the actual news articles (not the forum post you refer to) give current dates. The press release is for May 23, 2012. So, unsurprisingly, the reverse engineering for 40 year old tech has taken some time and has been continuously documented for at least the past few years but, CURRENTLY, Iran is claiming to be releasing it. That is news.

    22. Re:..came on.. by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ugh, don't even get me starting on that piece of shit. We've already blown a shitpile of money and it looks like it'll be over the trillion dollar mark to fix all the damned bugs and that isn't counting having the STOL F35b, that's just for the F35a. Did you know we have yet to use the F22 ANYWHERE? Why? too damned expensive to risk, and I'm betting the same will be said of the F35.

      What is sad is if there is another major conflict we are gonna be the Germans in WWII, with VERY expensive and fussy as hell aircraft in very few numbers whereas anybody we go against will probably have Russian tech, which means the MiG 29 at something like 30 million a pop or the SU27 at 60. Compare this to a minimum of 250 million a pop for the F35 and you can see any enemy will just be able to spam us right out of the sky.

      If we were smart and actually cared about defense, instead of making sure the MIC has tons of money for hookers and blow, we'd take a page from Iran and go back to using proven tech. Toss the F35, if you want stealth buy the F15 Stealth Eagle, load up on F15s and F16s, both of which have incredible kill ratios and are damned nice planes,give the navy more F18s and personally I'd bring back the warthog as every conflict we have been in since the cold war ended showed how valuable having that much firepower in a package that can loiter is and we have too damned few of 'em.

      But if we don't watch it we could end up like Japan in the latter half of WWII, with all these carriers and no planes to put on them. last I checked the wiki we had less than 4000 planes and 11 aircraft carriers and most of the planes we have are old. that's not good and the military has been basically betting the entire farm on the F35 and if it turns out to be another F22 we are screwed as there is nothing else in the pipe. the ONLY thing in our favor right now is that the F15, F16, and F18 production lines are still open. if anybody at the DoD has ANY sense they'll be putting in some orders. Even if the F35 works frankly its gonna be short ranged and expensive as hell, certainly not the "one plane to replace them all" that the military had planned. Personally i bet its gonna be another F22 clusterfuck, too damned expensive to really use in combat.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    23. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, the Apache Longbow is a vastly superior platform to that of the Cobra, save only for operational costs.

      Not likely this is even on par with actual Cobras, and even if they are, they are still easily out classed by the Apache, let alone the Apache Longbow.

      Its also worth understanding that part of what makes the Apache such an awesome platform is the weapons platforms; which includes the combination of all sensor data, including radar, target acquisition, fire and forget, indirect fire and over the horrizon of the 30mm, and even automated threat acquisiion, identification, and classification.

      Hell, the only reason pilots have air conditioning in the Apache Longbow is because there are dozens of computer systems which require significant cooling to operate in all environments. The pilots just happen to get whatever surplus cool is available.

    24. Re:..came on.. by craigminah · · Score: 1

      Yeah totally forgot about that evil dove..."I hate doves" (said using the voice from that bulldog that got shot down in the movie "Up").

    25. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he is talking about the last 3-5 days within those 3-5 years.

    26. Re:..came on.. by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      Don't know if I'm miss reading your implication; but Iran is far far from flat.

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    27. Re:..came on.. by mpe · · Score: 1

      Considering this news is 2-10 yrs old, and instead of actually creating a superior product they ripped off a very old but already well-known product, probably means these helicopters aren't that great.

      Plenty of militaries (including the US) operate very old aircraft. The "newest" B52 is nearly 50 years old.

    28. Re:..came on.. by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Don't know if I'm miss reading your implication; but Iran is far far from flat.

      I think the reply to your remark would be "EXACTLY".

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    29. Re:..came on.. by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      The difference between the US and Iranian arsenals is to be found inside the helicoper - we've upgraded the hell out of the avionics and weapons systems. It's like the B-52; yeah, it's an old design, but that's really just the airframe. Almost everything inside has changed.

    30. Re:..came on.. by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      Plenty of militaries (including the US) operate very old aircraft. The "newest" B52 is nearly 50 years old.

      To be fair, the B-52 fleet has been upgraded repeatedly over its lifetime. New avionics, upgraded engines for better range and carrying capacity, better onboard radar... pretty much only the airframe is original, and even that I think they've done some upgrades to the skin in order to give it better survivability and "stealth" (in so far as it's possible to stealth something that size).

      That being said, I'd be surprised if the Iranian-built attack helicopters aren't also sporting some new technology that didn't exist in the 1960's when the original design came out.

    31. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any minute now air combat is going to change forever. Imagine 5000 small cheap kamikaze drones that can loiter, lock on, and turn into "missles" with sustained flight capability. We currently have smart missles and unmanned flight; and tech everywhere is getting very small indeed. There will be humans in the sky, but nobody will be able to keep spamming us with pilots.

    32. Re:..came on.. by jfengel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The way forward is forward, with remote piloted drones. The human being is one of the most finicky parts of the plane, and the whole contraption has to be bigger, slower, and more expensive to accommodate it.

      They're spending untold billions on trying to get a piloted plane to match the performance of a drone, and failing. We don't need to go back; we just need to stop being attached to an old idea. Air power changes, as do all military tactics.

      Human beings are actually more important than ever, doing things that pilots can't do even in the most expensive planes: talk to people. That is incredibly hazardous, but the combination of the two is as effective a tool as we currently have.

    33. Re:..came on.. by regularstranger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you know we have yet to use the F22 ANYWHERE? Why? too damned expensive to risk, and I'm betting the same will be said of the F35.

      The more likely reason the F-22 hasn't seen combat use is that the United States hasn't been involved in a conflict that has required it. The B-2 is quite a bit more expensive and they have seen use, so this calls into question your reasoning. I'd trust the people in charge of planning missions on deciding the equipment used to execute the mission before I'd trust your hunches about their motivations.

      The German WWII anology is silly. If the United States decides to attack all of Europe and Russia, I'd expect early successes as the Germans experienced, followed by a war of attrition that would eventually be hopeless (not counting nuclear, of course). This attrition would happen whether F-15s or F-22s are used. You think the Germans would have been more successful with inferior equipment? I don't. Their problem was that they attacked everybody, not their advanced equipment. They were fighting pretty much all of Europe, Russia, and the United States. That is a lost cause no matter what equipment is used.

      Frustration with the cost overruns with the F-22 and F-35 are understandable. I agree it's a mess. I think everybody does. I don't know what to do about it, but the answer is certainly not stocking up on old designs. The F-15Es, F-16s, F-18Es, and Warthogs will still be in service for a long time after introduction of the newer planes. If a conflict arises where the capabilities of the F-22 and F-35 are needed, those planes will be there. Until then, I guess you can continue to post your comments about how the reason they haven't been used is that they are too expensive, even though that's not the reason at all.

      I don't think that taking a page from Iran is an idea worth even the slightest bit of respect. You really think that the chance of the United States gaining air superiority during an Iranian conflict would be better using Iranian hardware? You think chances are hurt by having the F-22?

    34. Re:..came on.. by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      Your comment reminds me of "The Feeling of Power" by Isaac Asimov. Except there it was the computers what were too large and, once sufficiently capable, people that were installed to effect gains in miniaturization and computing efficiency!

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    35. Re:..came on.. by jfengel · · Score: 2

      Asimov's ideas for computers seemed to revolve around the idea that they'd be too big to move around, and so they'd be placed out of the way but accessed from anywhere... what goes around comes around, apparently.

      I seem to recall one story in which they megacomputer was placed in hyperspace because there just wasn't room for it anywhere else. We haven't hit that yet, but one a' these days...

    36. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3-5 days is about enough time to rough the place up and make some pretty craters. You'd be lucky if the full war were less than 3-5 years.

      You are completely out of touch with reality. 3-5 days is an extremely fair assessment of capability. And it could all be done from the air.

    37. Re:..came on.. by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Human beings are actually more important than ever,

      Yeah. At least, those behind the controls.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    38. Re:..came on.. by Creepy · · Score: 1

      yeah - when they said "enjoys some capabilities which make it preferable to Apache Choppers" I imagined a * after it...

      * seats 7

    39. Re:..came on.. by afidel · · Score: 1

      There's not enough satellite bandwidth for more than a handful of drones, not to mention latency is too high for air to air combat and that any enemy with better than stone age tech will be able to jam your control signal. No, remote piloted drones are NOT the future, perhaps non-piloted drones will be, but they're unlikely to be 100% of the force anytime soon.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    40. Re:..came on.. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Why would it have to be by sat? Why not an AWAC in the back with the pilots controlling from there? While i agree with you the tech simply isn't there yet I'd argue that frankly we have gone as far as we can with manned planes and there is really no point in the F35. We could do just as well with the F15 Stealth, the F16 and the F18 because in all three of those designs we already have to put limiters on the planes because they will take more gs than the human behind the controls can.

      In the end the F35 is simply a giant waste of money, its a plane designed to fight a cold war opponent while ignoring the fact that every. single. country. with tech advanced enough to really need stealth already has nukes so to attack them would be frankly insane. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, you MIGHT be able to argue that you could sneak in on NK but if you were to try that you'd need enough bombs to take out their silos in one shot so you'd be better off with the B-2.

      The F35 has already failed in its goal, which was to be "one plane to replace them all" because the foreign buyers have already for the most part backed out or have limited their orders to such a low amount you'll never get the prices down enough to make them a truly replacement fighter. The best we can hope for now is for it to be another F22, a very limited system that will most likely simply not be used hardly any for fear of pissing away a quarter billion if it crashes. We should instead cut our losses and buy more teen series fighters which can be bought in much higher numbers and whose production lines are still up and running. The F35 is just a giant money pit, that's all.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    41. Re:..came on.. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You realize that in Red vs Blue combat exercises, F-22s are so dominant against F-15e aircraft (and everything else) that they don't allow the F-22s to engage BVR anymore and actually start a lot of the sorties with multiple "red" aircraft behind each F-22 to give them a chance? Most Gen4 aircraft have a very hard time locking an F-22 even if it's sitting right in front of them.

      During Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska in June 2006, 12 F-22s of the 94th FS downed 108 adversaries with no losses in simulated combat exercises. In two weeks of exercises, the Raptor-led Blue Force amassed 241 kills against two losses in air-to-air combat; neither Blue Force loss was an F-22. Shortly after was Red Flag 07-1 in February 2007. Fourteen F-22s of the 94th FS supported Blue Force strikes and undertook close air support sorties themselves. Against superior numbers of Red Force Aggressor F-15s and F-16s, 6-8 F-22s maintained air dominance throughout. No sorties were missed because of maintenance or other failures, and only one Raptor was judged lost against the opposing force's defeat. F-22s also provided airborne electronic surveillance.

      According to Lt. Col. Larry Bruce, 65th AS commander, aggressor pilots turned up the heat on the F-22 using tactics they believe to be modern threats. For security purposes these tactics weren't released; nonetheless, they said their efforts against the Raptors were fruitless.

      "We [even] tried to overload them with numbers and failed," said Colonel Bruce. "It's humbling to fly against the F-22." This is a remarkable testimony because the Red Flag aggressor pilots are renowned for their skill and experience. Lt. Col. Dirk Smith, 94th Fighter Squadron commander, said the aggressor forces represent the most lethal threat friendly forces would ever face. http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041725

      The F-22 is an air dominance aircraft. You don't fly F-22s against Iraq (where there's no air force) or Afghanistan (where there's no air force). You fly them against countries fielding Gen4 aircraft that could actually give F-15s some trouble. You do that because the F-22 will shoot down everything in the sky that isn't friendly before the unfriendlies know there's an enemy in the area. The F-22 is the hedge against a country using Russian, Chinese, or French built aircraft.

      If you want to talk about costs, you need to look at the costs of an AIM-120D ($700,000) vs the cost of one of those Russian/Chinese/French aircraft ($40 Million - $60 Million). Add to that the cost of training a modern fighter pilot ($2.5 Million) and I'd say we're stupid to not have these things in play. The F-22 dominates anything on any drawing board anywhere in the world. With the time and expense of designing and building modern aircraft, that means we could sit by without doing any upgrades on the F-22s for the next 15 years and still dominate any airspace on the globe. The simple fact is, there isn't a nation on Earth with aircraft that can do anything but die horribly against the F-22. So let's throw our $700,000 missiles at their $50 Million planes and bring our pilots home to their families. Or we can try it your way: mass produce slightly cheaper aircraft and lose tons of them the next time we face someone with an actual air force.

      The F-35 tries to do too many things. I'd be happy to see that thing scrapped in favor of more specialized (and functional) replacements, but we can't because it'd piss off everyone who put money into the program (which is just about all our allies). Typical stupid political crap. The same is said for the scrapping of the F-22. First they cut production to a fraction of what it was supposed to be, then they rolled up all the R&D costs and complained about how much each plane cost the country. That'd be like a major pharmaceutical company spending $30 Billion on R&D for a drug that cures cancer, then deciding to only make 10 pills and bitch that each pill cos

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    42. Re:..came on.. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Drones will eventually be the future of air combat, but they certainly aren't the be-all end-all answer for 2012 or even 2020. Find me the drone that can shoot down an F-22 and I'll happily support shelving every other plane in the arsenal in favor of them. Until then, they need a lot more R&D to get to a point where they can actually replace F-22s, F-16s, and F/A-18s.

      All this talk about how much more drones can do is all theoretical. Theoretically, drones can reach speeds and performance characteristics no human pilot ever could. In practice, we don't have any yet that match up against Gen5 aircraft (or even many Gen4/Gen4.5 aircraft). Hoping against that reality doesn't clear skies of enemy aircraft.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    43. Re:..came on.. by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Why would it have to be by sat? Why not an AWAC in the back with the pilots controlling from there?

      Guess what the F-22 can do when it's blown up everything it can with the missiles it has. Oh yes, it can act as an AWACS stand-in for other friendly aircraft.

      Only difference is, when it's no longer needed as a stealth AWACS, it can go get more missiles and blow up more stuff.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    44. Re:..came on.. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Why bother with drones. Face it playing war is pretty much down to who can spend the most effectively for the longest. Long range smart cruise missiles at a few million dollars a pop, with very large warheads that only need to come in the general vicinity of a modern fragile very expensive combat aircraft, or given a big enough warhead a whole flight of very expensive aircraft (even drones) and you readily win the dollar battle with a handy lead. Stealth supersonic cruise missiles win against pretty much anything, except of course against other stealth supersonic cruise missiles, no wonder they created the please do not make superior long range stealth supersonic cruise missiles treaties.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    45. Re:..came on.. by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Which is a bit of a stupid tactic given that the first strike in any war with Iran will come from Israel which doesn't care about civilian population or foreign nationals when it comes to this sort of thing. The US(and most of the rest of the world) will end up involved partially due to treaties, but mostly in a potentially vain effort to try and mitigate the damage. No one will win a war with Iran, not Israel, not Iran, not the US, everyone will lose. In all likelihood the folks in the Middle East will lose in a more direct way than countries a bit further away, but it won't be good for anyone.

      It seems likely that there won't be enough hawkish lunatics in congress to push this through from the US end(and neither Romney nor Obama appear insane enough), so it'll most likely be an Israeli strike that starts the whole thing off.

    46. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent :)

    47. Re:..came on.. by elbonia · · Score: 1

      You are off base with this. The budget estimate of 1 trillion is for the entire life cycle with fuel, weapons, maintenance, and crew for the next half century. The F22 is a fifth generation fighter and not comparable at all with the Mig-29 or the Su-27. Those are 4th generation aircraft comparable to the F-18 super-hornet. The competitor for the F-22 and F-35 is Russia's Sukhoi PAK FA which is not even in production yet. Not only does it look like its American counterpart; the cost of development & production is similar. Plus they are further behind and still in the design phase with only 4 produced. Cost can only go up from there.

      There is no shortage of planes to use for combat, there is an entire stock yard of planes kept by the military. There are 4000+ planes kept in Sonora Desert where they can just drain the fuel and oil and have the planes sit there forever either for future use or parts. Factor with the 4000+ planes currently in use plus production capacity and we have plenty.

      You are also forgetting that now cruise missiles and drones preform the majority of attacks that were once only done by planes in the past (ie WWII). America has no shortage of missiles. One Tomahawk missile is around $600K and the US has thousands of them. This is just 1 type of missile among the dozens the US has.

    48. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean cum on.

    49. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ,give the navy more F18s

      Terrible idea. The only reason the Navy has the F-18 is that they were too wrapped up in inter-service parochialism to accept a navalized version of the F-16. The ex post facto justification of "two engines over water" flies in the face of such notable naval single engine jet aircraft as the F-8, A-4, A-7, and now the F-35. They spent millions on developing the E/F model Super Hornet, and after stretching the body and enlarging the wing they now have a plane that can carry as large a bombload or fly the same range as the F-16 could from day 1, but not both because getting that range means putting drop tanks on two of the weapons pylons. The F-18 is a piece of shit. It was a piece of shit when the Air Force rejected it as the F-17. It's a prime example of how interservice rivalry trumps common sense.

    50. Re:..came on.. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Leaving Iraq in shambles wouldnt have taken 10 years, if that were ever the goal. We might have just stopped after year 1 if that were the goal.

      If I recall, it was actually shorter than that.

    51. Re:..came on.. by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Yes it would be expensive
      but if the US military used the "WW2" model it would drastically reduce US casualties and costs. But under no circumstance should the US give a shit about re-building what they destroy. No occupation, no Marshall like plan, no Peace treaty nonsense, and above all no financial assistance. Since there is not a single middle eastern country who even attempts to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants the US should return the favor.

      The US should also start leaving Afghanistan immediately and on the way out napalm every single poppy field in the country and also cease all relations with the duplicitous Pakistanis. It's way past the time for the US to stop giving a damn about the international "community" opinions because they already vilify any US actions no matter what they do so why bother trying to appease them?

    52. Re:..came on.. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Stop it with the hate already. You are making yet more generalisations, all of which don't help the discussion one iota. Grow the fuck up.

    53. Re:..came on.. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Uhhh...how EXACTLY are you gonna get a dozen pilots into an F22? I suppose you could use it as a relay but its an awful damned expensive relay with lousy loitering time.

      Look the F22 is a turkey friend, its a way too damned expensive techno turkey that was built to fight adversaries that have nukes so would be suicidal to fight. We would be better off with the F15 Stealth as we can actually afford to buy those in number whereas the F22 will never get any cheaper, in fact will get more expensive as we go down the line because so few were made, its just not a great program. put one of our pilots in the F15 VS the F22 and long after the F22 has shot its wad and has hit bingo fuel the F15 will still be out there with plenty of shots left and enough fuel to prosecute.

      I'm sorry friend but any way you slice it the F22 is a turkey, unless you are planning on starting WWIII, which even then I doubt its electronics would survive very long in that kind of conflict. Lets face it friend, there are really only two kinds of conflicts anymore, those with nukes and those without. The countries where this tech could be useful? Have nukes so it would be suicidal to attack them. the countries without nukes? Frankly their tech is 70s era at best and our modern jammers make those old SA/2 Guidelines pretty much just telephone pole obstacle courses. The kinds of countries were are liable to come into military conflict that don't have nukes frankly wouldn't stand up to the F16 any better than they would stand up to the F22, look at Iraq, every air to air battle was a turkey shoot and the closest our pilots got to getting blasting by enemy aircraft was when we sent those old Ravens in with no weapons to defend themselves which frankly was dumb as shit, we could have at least given them a gun and maybe a pair of sidewinders.

      There just isn't any real way to sell the F22 as anything but a dick waving exercise. if the numbers are correct the Russians will have their own version for less than 100 mil flyaway and the Chinese will have their own stealth aircraft (built in no small part from our own stealth like the drone captured in Iran and the F117 they dug up in Kosovo) and it'll cost less than 60 mil flyaway. the only thing our MIC seems to be good at anymore is padding expense accounts, they sure as hell can't build a modern aircraft for a flyaway cost that simply makes them affordable to buy. Hell you could have gave every person in America whose homes were ready to be foreclosed on the deed to their home for less than we've sunk in the f35 and the damned thing still isn't off the ground and at last report has over 17 show stopping bugs, that's nothing to brag about friend, and the F22 has pilots refusing to fly it because its more likely to kill the pilot than the enemy. some awesome aircraft that is.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    54. Re:..came on.. by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      What is sad is if there is another major conflict we are gonna be the Germans in WWII, with VERY expensive and fussy as hell aircraft in very few numbers whereas anybody we go against will probably have Russian tech, which means the MiG 29 at something like 30 million a pop or the SU27 at 60. Compare this to a minimum of 250 million a pop for the F35 and you can see any enemy will just be able to spam us right out of the sky.

      You might be right, but the problem is that the US way is based more on not loosing pilots rather than aircraft.

      Firstly pilots take millions of dollars to train so the value of them is actually more aligned with the value of the aircraft than you think. Secondly the people of the US have been reluctant to see high casualty figures since the vietnam war went sideways. This was one of the problems the US faced in Vietnam, US casualty figures were constantly declared to the people whereas the veitcong could lose millions and nobody knew apart from the US.

      The currently policy is to move further and further away from manned missions when ever possible so that you can keep quiet when you are losing an engagement and not tell the folks back home.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    55. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They burned cities to get their proxies a few extra votes in Iraq and Afghanistan. They drove children, tied together, into machine gun nests to sop up machine gun fire and set off mines.

      Hardly a regime a sane person would entrust with nuclear weapons.

    56. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obliterating every factory, machine-shop, every smelter, foundry, every national bureaucratic entity... child's play for a nation with the resources of the US: complete domination of air, land, and sea combined with an utterly overwhelming industry? Iran wouldn't stand a chance in a conventional war. and if the US really wanted to level their infrastructure via conventional forces, it could do so with almost contemptuous ease. There is, however, a distinct difference between levelling their infrastructure and trying to turn an overtly hostile nation into an ally through invading them. Denial of materiel assets is relatively simple considering the disparity in this match-up, but winning hearts and minds is something most governments can't even accomplish within their own borders.

    57. Re:..came on.. by jakoye · · Score: 0

      I would agree with the gist of this: the F-22 is a true air superiority fighter and is worth every dollar it costs. The F-35, however, is one of those planes that tries to be everything for everybody. This has been tried before (F-111, F-4 Phantom) and has ALWAYS failed. It would be better, as some have said on here, to keep producing new F-15's and F-18's. These would be much cheaper and would be able to handle almost all threats. Those that are beyond their capabilities could be taken care of by the F-22's. The F-35 is too expensive for the quality edge it has over our current planes. Better to stick with our current planes and plan the next fighter/attack aircraft as a pure drone.

      --
      Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven
    58. Re:..came on.. by Vastad · · Score: 1

      Sounds similar to a concept in Iain M. Bank's "Culture" novels where the gigantic AIs have portions of their hardware or "brains" in hyperspace to overcome the limitations of physics. Apparently they were way past the point where an electron travelling at close to the speed of light in a near-perfect conducting medium going from one end of a circuit to another in meatspace was causing a bottleneck!

    59. Re:..came on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and the anti-iran propaganda goes continues ...

    60. Re:..came on.. by cavreader · · Score: 1

      3 - 5 days is a good estimate because there would be no differentiation between combatants and non-compantants. That's the rules of the game the middle eastern countries use so why not adopt thier policies? If a country enters a war they should be willing to pound their enemies into the ground until there is no enemy left or the enemy surrenders unconditionally. Maybe that type of warfare would remind people of what a war really is and help them to do anything to prevent one in the future. The goal of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan was not to take over the country. It was to remove Saddam and the Taliban and provide the average citizens with a chance to build a new government and society without fear. The military succeeded in both missions but the civilians wasted the opportunity. There is no way the US will ever bother with these or any other middle eastern countries unless provoked by them doing something stupid like hijacking airplanes or disrupting the world's oil supply. It is politically impossible that the US public would ever support any military actions such as those performed over the past 10 years. There was resistance against becoming involved in Libya. Syria is a good example of the US indifference to what is happening there. All they need to do is keep their actions within their own borders and the US and pretty much any other country would not give a shit. In the distant past the culture in the middle east and south Asia civilizations where advanced and outclassed any European civilizations by a large margin. Today they are too wrapped up in their petty religious BS to improve there societies.

    61. Re:..came on.. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      But even in that case the f15 simply makes more sense. Israel has been using the hell out of the F15 and between them and us not a SINGLE F15 has been lost in combat, not one. It frankly can still spank pretty much any non US fighter out there and it isn't like we are gonna go to war with Russia or China because they have nukes.

      The countries will WILL be likely to go to war with, like say Iran, are using mostly late 60s tech that they bought from us so we know all the weaknesses. Know what the most popular aircraft is in the Iranian military and which has the largest numbers? Their knockoff of the F5 Tiger which was a tech limited fighter we sold to allies so as not to give them state of the art tech. those planes weren't state of the art when we sold them in 1974 and even with the upgrades they've made to the design they wouldn't even qualify as a fourth generation fighter. their other big aircraft? the F14 Tomcat. again BADLY out of date and would be slaughtered by the F15 or F16 with ease.

      In the end the F35 simply makes no sense, we have the F22 if we need stealth and can buy the F15 Stealth Eagle if we need stealth in bulk. The F35 was supposed to fill all roles and instead its a shitty fighter, can't carry enough ordinance to be a bomber, and the stealth design gives it shitty flight time because you can't give it drop tanks, and its stealth design means it also can't dogfight worth a shit. its just a trillion dollar turkey any way you slice it and when we are trillions in debt blowing that kind of money on a plane that only seems good at blowing cash is just a stupid waste.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    62. Re:..came on.. by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Frankly their tech is 70s era at best and our modern jammers make those old SA/2 Guidelines pretty much just telephone pole obstacle courses.

      Ummmmm, SA2's have had a passive guidance mode since the 70's that simply locks onto the jammer. The North Vietnamese used it quite effectively to sweep aircraft with jammers from the sky. They only got a limited number with passive guidance though, mainly so the Soviets could see how well they worked, the Soviet's sending the North Vietnamese mainly their old stock without passive guidance.

      The Iraqi SA2's were "monkey models", also without passive guidance, thus why they were so ineffective against US aircraft.

  2. Really? You came on this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Some people have the weirdest fetishes.

    1. Re:Really? You came on this article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  3. Stargate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No! Haven't they watched Stargate SG-1?

    It's all going to end in tears.

    1. Re:Stargate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      not really.. it was the deathglider rebadge that ended in tears.. the X302 worked except for the hyperdrive.

  4. Mass Production? by dark12222000 · · Score: 2

    I'm curious what their ability is as far as mass production. I'm also curious why they are producing a 40 year old variant instead of targeting a newer one - I suppose it's a lower barrier to entry and probably a lot easier to get pieces for...

    I find it interesting that they didn't release any specific armament specs. This may suggest they don't have any arms plants with sufficient production.

    1. Re:Mass Production? by ThePeices · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm also curious why they are producing a 40 year old variant instead of targeting a newer one -

      Its a wee bit difficult to reverse engineer a helicopter that you dont own.

    2. Re:Mass Production? by dark12222000 · · Score: 0

      I'm sure there's at least a few helicopter bodies out there that are more modern then a cobra. They may not be as complete, and they may be harder to put together, but I am almost positive they exist.

      Also realize that a lot of helicopter models tend to be "descended" from earlier ones. You don't need an entire new copter if you have most of one of it's predecessors.

    3. Re:Mass Production? by couchslug · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are great helicopters, and their size and simplicity are reasons the US Marine Corps still use both UH-1 and AH-1 variants.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_AH-1_Cobra

      SuperCobra are up to a Z variant.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:Mass Production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably part of it, but the USMC often times uses old equipment because that's what they can afford. Hence why there was so much WWII equipment in use during Vietnam.

    5. Re:Mass Production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone even bothered to check the date on the Photos page? Those copters are upgraded/built 2 years ago and the photo thread is posted at May 2010!!

    6. Re:Mass Production? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      There was hardly any WWII equipment used in Nam. The only such aircraft were old Douglas Invaders used briefly in the early years before being grounded for corrosion. The Skyraiders, while definite throwbacks, entered service after Japan surrendered.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    7. Re:Mass Production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This all reminds me of good old Civ II. Feeling brutally outgunned in an arms race with several technically superior empires? Steal some tech! Then spend the next 40 years breaking rocks into smaller rocks to build it.

    8. Re:Mass Production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And C-47's reworked as AC-47 gunships. Did pretty good work before the AC-130's arrived.

    9. Re:Mass Production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even then though, it'd be like a caveman trying to reverse engineer one of Intel's new processors.

    10. Re:Mass Production? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not using all old stuff. For example, it will have the very latest beaded seat cushion technology.

    11. Re:Mass Production? by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 1

      I'm also curious why they are producing a 40 year old variant instead of targeting a newer one

      What, like the 36-year old airframe design that is the AH-64 Apache?

      Although admittedly the Apache has only been in service for 28 years...

    12. Re:Mass Production? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      IIRC they still used sniper variant of Garand there.

    13. Re:Mass Production? by fnj · · Score: 2

      Well, the WW-II C-47 Skytrain was used in Vietnam in both electronic warfare and gunship configurations. Other WW-II military equipment which saw use in the Vietnam war (by the US) included the M-3 submachine gun, the M2A1 105 mm howitzer, the M1 Garand rifle, the M1911A1 pistol, the Thompson submachine gun, WW II era ships. Peripheral to the Vietnam war, lots of old planes were used by Air America in and around Vietnam.

    14. Re:Mass Production? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The USMC versions aren't all "old". They retain them because, for one thing, you can fit more on a ship.

      A lot of USMC choices were driven by funding, but they also know "what works". Once you have a basic helicopter, you can upgrade it by adding sensor suites and avionics.

      Aircraft have been HIGHLY REFINED platforms for a very long time. That's why C-130s and B-52s fly active missions every day.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    15. Re:Mass Production? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      M1 Carbines were carried by some Marine officers in the early years.

  5. this is why it is stupid to spend on military R&am by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    everyone will just copy whatever is developed.

  6. lulz by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    , Iran's locally-grown Cobras will be armed with 'different types of home-made caliber guns, rockets and missiles,' according to Iran's semi-official Fars news agency. 'All the phases of designing and manufacturing of the chopper have been done inside the country and the helicopter enjoys some capabilities which make it preferable to Apache Choppers,' says Brigadier General Kioumars Heidari. Iranian officials stress that Iran's military and arms programs serve defensive purposes and should not be perceived as a threat to any other country,

    So, basically, you're copying 40 year old tech from your enemies, but because you can't buy the bullets or missiles to shoot, you're going to arm them with whatever you can cobble together. It's like Junkyard Wars, only with dictators instead of teams. Yeah... I can see why they say we shouldn't perceive it as a threat... but it's not because they're dangerous or anything. They'll probably kill more of their pilots in training flights than we would with a bombing run or twenty.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:lulz by aurispector · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They aren't really a military threat to anyone, at least not as a conventional military. It's doubtful they could produce reliable engines for this helicopter - even the chinese seem to have trouble with this.

      Who knows what they'll do when they finally make a nuke, but that's another issue.

      The main threat is their export of radical islamic revolution. This is a sideshow. Heck it might just be a dog and pony show and all they did was refurb an existing one.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    2. Re:lulz by moogied · · Score: 0

      Actually a general was ordered to try and attack a us navy force as part of a war game. The general was suppose to be 'iran'. He blew up almost all of the navy force before they even knew what was up. He was later discharged for it. He utilized speed boats and a shit ton of home made explosives.

      --
      So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
    3. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but because you can't buy the bullets or missiles to shoot, you're going to arm them with whatever you can cobble together. It's like Junkyard Wars ...

      Doubtful. They can't by guns and ammo from the people they originally bought the Cobra from but there is no shortage of other nations who are perfectly happy to sell them guns and ammo. The homemade stuff has probably gotten exaggerated as translated from one language to another. I'd wager standard Soviet designs for guns and ammo. The guns are probably imported but local manufacture of such a design is feasible. Or maybe they just tossed home-made in there to make the threat of sanctions seem less effective.

    4. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knows what they'll do when they finally make a nuke

      Probably use some variant of the delivery system the US planned on in 1941. A barge floated into an enemy harbor.

    5. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The main threat is their export of radical islamic revolution.

      Yes, it's very important the current dictators in the Gulf states aren't replaced by one's who will nationalize the oil production.

    6. Re:lulz by gman003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So, basically, you're copying 40 year old tech from your enemies, but because you can't buy the bullets or missiles to shoot, you're going to arm them with whatever you can cobble together.

      You say that like they'll be building guns out of steel pipe and ball bearings. But the truth is, making guns in a new caliber and making ammunition to match is easy enough that some hobbyists do it in their garage.

      There are, apparently (I Am Not A Military Expert), valid military reasons to make your guns and ammunition incompatible with the enemy's. America and the rest of NATO were the first to use 5mm-caliber small arms - the M16, FAMAS, L86, etc. are all chambered for a standard 5.56mm round, and I believe most even have compatible magazines.

      The USSR and the rest of the Warsaw Pact could have used the same, but that would mean that, in a war, any ammunition supplies the enemy captured would be usable to them. While that would also mean that any ammunition supplies they captured could be used by them, they decided not to take that risk, and instead created an essentially-the-same-but-incompatible 5.45mm round. The Chinese, likewise, eventually created their own version, this one in 5.8mm. While none of their ammunition can be used in anothers' weapons, they have essentially the same performance characteristics.

      Iran is simply doing the same thing. Instead of using NATO-standard 7.62mm miniguns, 20mm autocannons, 40mm grenade launchers or 2.75" rockets, they'll use ones that are just slightly incompatible, but nearly identical in performance.

      From a theoretical standpoint, there's two reasons for doing so. One reason is economics - trying to stimulate their own arms industry, rather than import from others. If you mandate the use of incompatible ammunition and weapons, foreign production becomes useless, while the domestic industry gets nearly-guaranteed profitability.

      Another could be that they are more concerned about being invaded, rather than invading others. You are, after all, more likely to be the one capturing supplies, rather than having your supplies captured, when you are on the attack. History would seem to bear this view out - during the Cold War, neither side used intercompatible ammunition, and as it turns out, neither side much wanted to invade the other. The most notable case of cross-compatible weaponry was in WW2, when the British designed the Sten gun to use the same ammunition as the German MP40. And guess what (spoiler alert)? Britain later invaded Germany!

      OK, that's probably a massive simplification of things (remember, IANAME), but still, look at things from Iran's view for a second. The US, a country they have *very* poor relations with, just invaded two countries next to them and occupied them for years. And now it almost seems like they are, once again, manufacturing evidence of WMDs and putting out agitprop to get the citizens ready, once again, to invade some Middle-Eastern country. Even if they actually *are* guilty of trying to build nukes (honestly, I wouldn't be that surprised if they were), can you blame them for worrying that the 1st Armored is going to be driving towards Tehran sometime soon, and planning to defend themselves?

    7. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Training games are meant to train forces. The officer in question basically went off-script in order to prove a point, which wasn't the concern of the exercise.

      Basically, he was an ass, and he continued being an ass until he was shown the door.

      But, enjoy that particular net-legend all you wish.

    8. Re:lulz by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      If you don't think the military is prepared for Iran utilizing speed boats and home made explosives, you're wrong. That's all any public article talks about when comparing the US and Iranian militaries.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:lulz by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      In all honesty defeating nato is like defeating the french when they're not even trying.

    10. Re:lulz by inhuman_4 · · Score: 1

      Iraq or Afghanistan both of which just defeated NATO

      You cannot honestly think this is true.

      In Iraq NATO got the regime changed, put in place a democracy, built up the military to defend the fledgeling regime from terrorists (sponsored from neighboring countries) and then left. There new regime is still shaky, but not really in danger of falling a part despite the Americans leaving Baghdad almost a year ago.

      In Afghanistan the Taliban have been pushed into Pakistan, hence all the drone strikes in Pakistan. So while they have not given up, that is mainly because they are hiding out in another country. Almost all of their "fighting" is roadside and truck bombs. They have not fielded a major force in years.

      The only hope any of these places had of "winning" is if the Americans decide to go home before the new government was in place. This didn't happen in Iraq, and unless the drone strikes in Pakistan stop working, it probably won't happen in Afghanistan.

    11. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when whose not trying? The Iranians or the French?

    12. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Training games are meant to train forces ...

      Which seems quite incompatible with the heavily scripted based stuff in your very next sentence.

      The officer in question basically went off-script in order to prove a point, which wasn't the concern of the exercise. Basically, he was an ass, and he continued being an ass until he was shown the door. But, enjoy that particular net-legend all you wish.

      No, he went off script because he was a Marine and believed in hard, realistic and practical training. He was averse to seeing young troops die because someone at the pentagon wanted a paper exercise. You want a heavily scripted exercise run a computer simulation. You want to actually train troops you let them have the freedom to act, get things wrong and learn from it.

      There is a reason the Marine Corp has a capability exceeding what one would normally expect for a force their size. Hard, realistic and practical training has a lot to do with it.

    13. Re:lulz by guttentag · · Score: 3

      should not be perceived as a threat to any other country,

      They're not a threat to other countries. They're a threat to their own people. Currently the regime discourages dissent and protests through beatings and jailings, but people still stand up against them. How many will still do so when threatened with a helicopter gunship... Whether it works as advertised or not?

    14. Re:lulz by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      You're essentially arguing that USSR won its Afghan war.

    15. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do use common magazines - STANAG mags, to be exact.

    16. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In war there is no script and the other guy is going to be an ass.

    17. Re:lulz by demachina · · Score: 4, Informative

      "In Afghanistan the Taliban have been pushed into Pakistan"

      In case you haven't heard the U.S. and NATO are going to cut and run on Afghanistan in 2014, France is leaving sooner than that according to Hollande. The current Afghan government, which is completely corrupt and despised by the Afghan people, is unlikely to last a week on its own. When it collapses the Taliban will inevitably return to power and they will have won a war that cost NATO over 12 years, over a trillion dollars, and 3,000 dead so far.

      I'm pretty sure NATO knows the Taliban will return to power, they apparently consider that to be a lesser evil than continuing to squander blood and treasure to prop up Karzai and the warlords that always take power when the Taliban is out of power. When faced with a similar situation in Vietnam the U.S. assassinated Diám to try to install a government that wasn't completely hopeless, it didn't work either.

      The Taliban's predecessor, the Mujahideen, was "pushed" in to Pakistan too, when the USSR occupied Afghanistan, or actually they used the tribal areas of Pakistan as a base for a very successful insurgency that ended when the Soviet Union fled and the loss contributed to the Soviet Union's collapse soon after.

      Iraq didn't exactly "defeat" NATO. The Sunni insurgency did heavily bleed the U.S. for a number of years. The U.S. and NATO lost in Iraq because the whole invasion was deeply flawed from the get go. As soon as the U.S. and NATO let the Shia majority vote they inevitably voted in a Shia government which promptly aligned with Iran and told the U.S. and NATO to get out. By invading Iraq, NATO eliminated the dominant counterforce to Iran in the region which was Saddam, and replaced him with a pro Iranian regime. They lost another 10 year trillion dollar war, not on the battlefield, but by following the Bush administrations wildly misguided plan. Bush's dad actually had enough brains to realize toppling Sadam was a horrible idea if you were trying to contain Iran's theocracy which is why he didn't do it when he had the chance in the first gulf war.

      All in all you don't seem to have a firm grasp on history or the current state of war and politics in the world.

      --
      @de_machina
    18. Re:lulz by nbauman · · Score: 1, Troll

      In Iraq NATO got the regime changed, put in place a democracy, built up the military to defend the fledgeling regime from terrorists (sponsored from neighboring countries) and then left. There new regime is still shaky, but not really in danger of falling a part despite the Americans leaving Baghdad almost a year ago.

      You have a pretty low bar for democracy. In Iraq we killed somewhere between 150,000 and 600,000 people, most of them civilians, and drove millions out of their homes and outside the country. There were entire neighborhoods in which Shiites massacred Sunni or vice versa, leaving segregated neighborhoods like the (Christian) Northern Ireland. The entire professional class left. Doctors were regularly being kidnapped for ransom and killed anyway. (Iraq had the best health care systems in the Arab mideast, and it was basically destroyed.) Political opponents are regularly assassinated. A lot of Iraqis are now saying that they wanted Saddam to leave, but things are now so bad that they wish he was back.

      They don't have democratic votes as the founders of our country defined the term. People just vote for candidates of their religion or tribe (which is why the Sunnis are doing so badly). Millionaires and warlords run the country (OK, I admit millionaires run the US too).

      George W. Bush was basically the dictator of Iraq. He could set up any kind of government he wanted. He thought he would be an FDR or Truman. He failed spectacularly.

      GWB thought that it was easy. All you have to do is unleash the free market. “Think of Iraq as being like a computer. And think of Saddam as like a processor. We just take out the old processor, and put in a new one–Chalabi.” http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/3-month-record-for-us-troops-killed.html

      You better hope the Republicans never get a chance to install their free-market solutions here.

    19. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like it was a point that needed to be made, and he embarrassed someone important. War is messy, there is no script.

    20. Re:lulz by nbauman · · Score: 0

      look at things from Iran's view for a second.

      Something we don't do too much in our national discussion.

    21. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think Iran is going to use boats and explosives, you are wrong.

      Check the Anti-ships missile section :

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

    22. Re:lulz by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      can you blame them for worrying that the 1st Armored is going to be driving towards Tehran sometime soon, and planning to defend themselves?

      Sort of, because they will not be able to defend themselves. If the 1st Armored is driving towards Tehran, it's game-over for Khamenei. So from a strategic standpoint, they'd best be attempting to avoid that scenario. Starting a military buildup and having a 'Hate America' day is bad strategy, whether you want nukes or not.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    23. Re:lulz by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If you think they aren't going to use boats and explosives, you are probably wrong (for example). I have no doubt they will try to use anti-ship missiles as well, but speedboats are too attractive as a weapon. Of course they will use them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't thinking. If a country is being threatened they must show they can at least hurt the enemy (hopefully bad enough to make the war not worth the costs for the enemy nation), if they don't take up arms they're as good as dead. The USA has been making anti-Iran propaganda for years now. Ignoring the threat would be careless of their government.

    25. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, that is, for the Germans and Spaniards (who use the G36), and Swiss and Austrians who use the 5.56 but not the STANAG magazine (but of course they're also not NATO members).

    26. Re:lulz by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If a country is being threatened they must show they can at least hurt the enemy

      They can't. At best they can kill some soldiers.

      The USA has been making anti-Iran propaganda for years now. Ignoring the threat would be careless of their government.

      It is convenient for some factions of the US government to find an external enemy to distract from themselves. Iran does a good job making itself a convenient target. They would be wise to stop that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq defeated USA as they got what they really wanted: the oil from Iraq and the opium from Afghanistan. Democracy, female equality and all that stuff are just smoke screens to cover the real purpose of this war. An added benefit is the opportunity to kill well over a million Iraqis and plenty of afghans so they will not consume precious resources needed by occident.

    28. Re:lulz by girlintraining · · Score: 0

      But the truth is, making guns in a new caliber and making ammunition to match is easy enough that some hobbyists do it in their garage.

      Yup. And a lot of times, those self-packed loads fail. Gunpowder mixture is the wrong type, wasn't packed tight enough, moisture, grease, etc. I've seen these hobbyists you speak of; All of them have at least one story of how they ruined their gun because their custom ammo was shit. You do it amateur, you get amateur results. But hey, don't let me stop you from taking your custom-built guns and ammo into a combat situation...

      There are, apparently (I Am Not A Military Expert), valid military reasons to make your guns and ammunition incompatible with the enemy's. America and the rest of NATO were the first to use 5mm-caliber small arms - the M16, FAMAS, L86, etc. are all chambered for a standard 5.56mm round, and I believe most even have compatible magazines.

      The "valid military reason" is called "economy of scale". We don't want to blow their budget on ammo, and by happy coincidence, our allies don't either.

      Iran is simply doing the same thing. Instead of using NATO-standard 7.62mm miniguns, 20mm autocannons, 40mm grenade launchers or 2.75" rockets, they'll use ones that are just slightly incompatible, but nearly identical in performance.

      That would be stupid. Iran doesn't have much of a defense industry; they rely on importing arms. It makes no sense to outfit some of your military with Mark I whatchamagigies and some of them with the incompatible Mark II whatchamagigies. There are few things more damning than sitting next to three full ammo boxes, and not one round that'll fit the only gun you have.

      One reason is economics - trying to stimulate their own arms industry,

      Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. You don't have to reinvent the wheel to stimulate your industry: That's a purely American thing. In the rest of the world, you steal tech, duplicate it, and save yourself the R&D costs. See also: North Korea, China, India, Egypt, Iraq...

      Another could be that they are more concerned about being invaded, rather than invading others. You are, after all, more likely to be the one capturing supplies, rather than having your supplies captured, when you are on the attack.

      The traditional response to this is to decentralize your weapons depots, caches, and supply lines, and to be as covert as possible. Every ground war we've fought against similarily sized and equipped militaries has been massively asymetrical, and the enemy wears us down by hit and run tactics (which we invented), and urban guerilla warfare. They don't give two shits how much you capture, as long as they've got just enough left to keep costing us economically. They know if we invade, we're out a few more trillion dollars -- and our economy just can't handle that right now (it couldn't before!). Stop thinking like this is conventional warfare: It isn't. It hasn't been since the 70s.

      History would seem to bear this view out - during the Cold War, neither side used intercompatible ammunition, and as it turns out, neither side much wanted to invade the other.

      History remembers that it doesn't really matter what ammo you use, as long as you've got a fuckton of it. And by ammo, I mean nukes.

      The most notable case of cross-compatible weaponry was in WW2, when the British designed the Sten gun to use the same ammunition as the German MP40. And guess what (spoiler alert)? Britain later invaded Germany!

      Yeah, why would a country who's factories were burning, a third of its population dead or injured, and entire cities leveled want to put their limited resources towards making sure they could use whatever ammo was available. The mind boggles.

      OK, that's probably a massive simplification of things (remember, IANAME), but still, look at things

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    29. Re:lulz by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You say that like they'll be building guns out of steel pipe and ball bearings. But the truth is, making guns in a new caliber and making ammunition to match is easy enough that some hobbyists do it in their garage.

      That's making one, or at best a small handful of weapons that will babied on the range. It's cool and all... But it's not building weapons by the gross lot capable of withstanding field conditions, being maintained by the lowest common denominator, etc... That's a very different problem.
       

      I Am Not A Military Expert

      Yet, that doesn't stop you from pontificating at length.

    30. Re:lulz by jovius · · Score: 1

      It's funny how their engineering skills are being ridiculed while they are being accused of building nuclear weapons.

    31. Re:lulz by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

      "Currently the regime discourages dissent and protests through beatings and jailings"

      FYI: So does canada.. just sayin...

      --
      -
    32. Re:lulz by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Iran is larger than Iraq, and has roughly three times Iraq's population. Also, Iran doesn't seem to have the internal divisions of Iraq. The Iranians might eventually lose to the US, but they could inflict some damage.

    33. Re:lulz by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They aren't really a military threat to anyone, at least not as a conventional military.

      Well, if by "anyone" you mean US or NATO, then you're correct, but otherwise... Iran is certainly a major regional power, and that extends to military matters, as well. They have pretty strong industry and decent R&D, and plenty of manpower. They can certainly stand up to any other country in the region, and would have the upper hand against anyone except Israel and, possibly Pakistan.

    34. Re:lulz by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      What it really means is probably they will be used against the Kurdish in the north of the country, AKA business as usual.

    35. Re:lulz by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      The Russians produce the AK-101 which uses NATO ammo rounds for export. IIRC some NATO countries also have specialized weapons which can use ex-Warsow pact ammo. In the end you can just pick up the enemy weapons and use the rounds. It is probably not likely that you will capture the rounds and fail to capture at least some weapons during an invasion.

      The reasons for the different calibers existing are varied. The 7.62mm NATO weapons use that spec because it was similar enough to the 0.303 inch rounds favored by the US at the time the weapons were designed. This way you could use the same tools to manufacture the ammo. The Russians AFAIK developed the AK-47 as an answer to the German Kurz rifle. Like in the Kurz designed the Russians used an intermediate cartridge with the same bullet as their current rifle rounds but a reduced propellant charge to reduce recoil and make the cartridge lighter. The weapons also reflect different doctrines. In the NATO case it is mostly about designing the weapon to be an accurate long range rifle at the expense of making it less practical for more close quarters or urban combat. In the AK-47's case the weapon was developed by someone who was concerned about developing a weapon which would be optimized for urban combat.

      The new 5.56 mm rounds were developed afterwards. There is currently a trend to move to an intermediate round (larger than 5.56 mm) because of experiences fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The next weapons to be developed will probably have larger bullets and the propellants will be encased in plastic or be caseless.

    36. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Iranian, I think that's quite offensive/racist to say. If the Iranian government has engineers clever enough to replicate the heli, then they will also have the military capabilities and rockets, missiles etc. How many countries of 70 million population do you know that under embargo from the west have developed their own weaponry ? Are you on the impression that we are using the same weaponry as depicted in the film 300 ? As for killing people in a bombing run or twenty, I agree, Americans are TOP in the world for killing people with bombing runs. You win a medal.

    37. Re:lulz by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      All they have to do is sink a few tankers and drop a few mines. That could create enough of a panic to start another recession. Let the US try to keep Iran occupied then.

    38. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Appeasing a military aggressor is not a choice easily made in some circles.

    39. Re:lulz by mpe · · Score: 1

      Training games are meant to train forces. The officer in question basically went off-script in order to prove a point, which wasn't the concern of the exercise.

      Wars don't tend to follow "scripts". Any really enemy won't follow your script...

    40. Re:lulz by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yes, because Americans will be terrified of going to war if there's another recession.

      No, what you will have on TV is supporters saying that a war is the best way to end a recession, so we should attack. Then someone will quote Krugman saying that a war is a great way to end a recession. And he will come on saying that is not what he meant. And it will all be hilarious, except for the war and dying part.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    41. Re:lulz by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Those are of course fascinating questions.

      Iran would quickly lose the conventional war, there is little doubt of that, so the damage you are talking about must come from the resistance.

      If the Iranian people rose up in unison against the US occupation, then you are probably right. In Iraq, the major source of violence against US soldiers, as far as I can tell, was Al Qaeda in Iraq. In the beginning, the average Iraqi did support the US, and at the end they also supported the US (partially because they knew we were leaving eventually). Furthermore, the Iraqi occupation was horribly botched by that administration. So consider also that the administration that invades Iran will be more competent than the one that invaded Iraq (honestly, it would be hard to be worse).

      Overall you might be right, but I could see it going the other way as well, with the Iranians mainly just waiting it out until we leave. Consider also that the US might not occupy, but destroy the army and leave the rest to pick up the pieces.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    42. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, military build up is quite good way to avoid the scenario, by raising the price for attack they are forcing US to think twice before launching fullscale war with Iran even if Pentagon would win that war in the end.

    43. Re:lulz by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Convincing people to go to war may be easy. Convincing them to pay trillions to keep the country occupied will be hard. So we'll have a destroyed government, no foreign army to keep control and stockpiles of enriched uranium. I wonder where the first dirty bomb will go off?

    44. Re:lulz by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You don't have to destroy the uranium. You just have to confiscate it.

      Anyway, it doesn't seem to have been too hard to convince people to pay trillions to keep Iraq and Afghanistan occupied.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    45. Re:lulz by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping the voters have learned something from those occupations. If no American voters then at least those of other NATO members. So if the US goes in, it would probably have to go in alone. So what you'd have is: oil price panic, even faster rising debt and 3 countries in the region that need US support to even exist. My guess is that Europe would spiral into a complete collapse due to just the oil prices, dragging down US banks with it. So the US government would have to bail them out again. With so much needed cast and shrinking demand for luxuries, I'm guessing even China would start having problems supplying so much credit.

      So the Iranian government 'wins'. They cripple their opponent just by being defeated.

    46. Re:lulz by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's a strange definition of win.

      If we didn't spiral into a collapse during the 70s oil shock, it won't happen now when Saudi Arabia tries to offset the lost production of oil from Iran.

      Countries go bankrupt from time to time. It will happen again, to the US and to many European countries. It won't cause an economic collapse.

      I also hope the voters have learned something from those occupations.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    47. Re:lulz by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Those are of course fascinating questions.

      And how many people will have to die to answer them?

    48. Re:lulz by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Short term oil production won't matter. What will be the limiting factor will be oil transport. Prices will spike because of the danger of tankers being sunk while under way out of Saudi Arabia. As for the economic collapse, the problem will be that one country going down will probably drag others with it. Just look at Europe. If Greece goes bankrupt it will probably cause the collapse of banks that gave them loans. That will in turn cause an even worse recession in the rest of Europe. With GDP down, Spain and other countries like it might follow Greece. With so many countries defaulting, my guess is that US banks will also be in pretty bad shape.

      Can the US keep another war going if it has to bail out it's banks AGAIN?

      As for the definition of win, taking it's enemies with it seems the best result that Iran can hope for in case of a war. Sure it's probably not something they hope will happen, but the result is still better then just lying down to die.

    49. Re:lulz by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Can the US keep another war going if it has to bail out it's banks AGAIN?

      Yes. It only takes a few percent of GDP to fight the wars. The effect on the economy is likely negligible. Although it is possibly a reason for the stagnant growth during the Bush era.

      If Greece goes bankrupt it will probably cause the collapse of banks that gave them loans.

      I don't think this will be a problem. European countries have been injecting cash in their banks for the last year or so. It's rather disgusting, actually, but should alleviate any problems from Greece defaulting.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    50. Re:lulz by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If we're lucky they'll never be answered.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    51. Re:lulz by perpenso · · Score: 1

      You're essentially arguing that USSR won its Afghan war.

      Not really. The Afghan fighters of the Soviet-era were not reduced to roadside bombs. The had an offensive ground presence. This was possible only because of western assistance. In particular the US Stinger missile that kept Soviet air, in particular attack helicopters, at a distance. Without this western assistance the Soviets probably would have gotten things to the roadside bomb level, but that is not how things went. The two wars are not really comparable due to this western assistance in the Soviet case, the Soviets had to face Afghans actively backed by a superpower.

    52. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they will not be able to defend themselves.... Starting a military buildup and having a 'Hate America' day is bad strategy, whether you want nukes or not.

      remember Vietnam...

    53. Re:lulz by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You may have missed the fact that while roadside bombs are in news a lot, Karzai and NATO control pretty much Karzai's palace and their bases. And embassy region in Kabul, well most of the time as recent assault on it has shown. If mojahedeen, or taliban as we call them now want to blast the shit out of a small military outpost, they will shell it with mortars in addition to machinegun fire and such. They have a massive presence on the ground, far more powerful then that of NATO because of its transient nature, just like they had during Red Army period.

      Which is in fact 1:1 scenario to that which Red Army encountered in its campaign. Weapons were slightly different back then, but realities of war were essentially the same. Everyone hated the invaders and wanted to stab them in the back whenever that was possible. War was not so much in the trenches as in the "secure" areas, as soon as local informants told resistance that bulk of forces is not here. Just like it is now.

    54. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      n case you haven't heard the U.S. and NATO are going to cut and run on Afghanistan in 2014,

      Obama has promised to cut and run.

    55. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >4500 American deaths in Iraq
      >US population: 300 million
      >heavily bleed the U.S.
      >trulz

    56. Re:lulz by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Your characterization is not accurate for US forces. NATO forces may be less aggressive but US Army and US Marine forces set up bases/outposts in Taliban heartland or Taliban controlled territory. The US forces then conduct aggressive ground patrols. The Taliban has learned to relocate or limit their activities to largely remote/distant attacks. This is very different from the Soviet era where the Afghans conducted more aggressive toe-to-toe operations. If the Soviets had only received this level of resistance they may not have left, the Kremlin may have spun it in the press as only harassment. The two wars are vastly different in nature.

    57. Re:lulz by perpenso · · Score: 1

      The two wars are vastly different in nature.

      To put some numbers behind this statement I did a quick check of wikipedia.

      Soviet
      Time: 9 years
      Troops: 115K
      Killed: 14K
      Wounded: 54K
      Civilians Killed: 600K–2,000K

      US/NATO
      Time: 11 years
      Troops: 129K
      Killed: 3K
      Wounded: 23K
      Civilians Killed: 15K

      US/NATO is experiencing far more success, the tempo of attacks against troops and the gov't is far less, and suffering far fewer casualties than the Soviets.

    58. Re:lulz by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      If you even for a second believe the civilian death number, you are beyond naive. Afghanistan is a hell of a land, and solid rule is about the only thing that keeps people alive.

      NATO broke the rule and installed local warlords, who in turns basically started to do what they did before soviets and taleban - rape their own people. I would be quite surprised if end result of civilian deaths is not going to be quite close in terms of deaths even though NATO likes to make a show of avoiding hitting civilians (but if they get caught in a crossfire, or killed by NATO stooge warlords, no need to count).

      Then there's of course the hidden deaths of soldiers, due to oursourcing. If you didn't know, NATO nowadays likes to hide casualties by outsourcing many critical and dangerous jobs to civilian contractors. People who bring in fuel for example, and those who guard them are civilians. They're not in ANY of your statistics because they're not local civilians killed by NATO (which is what wikipedia counts). I know several people who work in that business, and they are pretty truthful about it when under influence - you retire if you survive about 7-10 years. Survival rate is around 70-80%. It's a high pay, high risk job and it's where the real casualty numbers lie.

    59. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like Junkyard Wars, only with dictators instead of teams

      It's quite telling that Iran still to this day goes to extreme lengths to maintain their precious handful of airworthy 30+ year old F-14 Tomcats they got from the Shah's air force. The AWG-9 radar in the F-14 is so much better than anything they can produce that they use them as expedient AWACS platforms. A friend of my father's in US Navy intelligence says they still regularly spot the unmistakable signature of the old AWG-9 in ELINT captures in the gulf.

    60. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soviets creating the 5.45x39mm round had less to do with keeping it incompatible with the NATO 5.56x45mm than it did with repurposing the machine tools that had been making 7.62x39mm AK-47 and it ammunition. There is a degree of intentional incompatibility, but it has less to do with keeping the other guy from using your ammo than it has to do with not being able to ensure that the other guys' ammo stays within specs your weapons can handle. Unintentional mixing of similar but incompatible ammunition is a Bad Thing (see loading .380ACP rounds into a 9mm).

    61. Re:lulz by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Actually the wikipedia articles do cite contractors, about 1K killed. So US/NATO plus contractors is 4K compared to the Soviets 14K. The two wars are vastly different.

      Contractor wounded are cited as "wounded and injured" so inclusion in this category is broader than the Soviet, US and NATO numbers. Still the contractor number ads 12K to the US/NATO numbers, far below that of the Soviet era. 35K US/NATO plus contractor wounded *and injured* vs 54K wounded for Soviet forces.

    62. Re:lulz by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget to adjust for advancements in medical technology. Else you could argue that WW1 commanders were better at commanding then those in Napolenic times (they were not). Or you could simply notice the invention of antibiotics.

      You also blatantly ignore that your comparison is for a war finished vs a war that is ongoing with no end in sight in spite of many claims of contrary.

    63. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, you could always offset what he says instead of making snide remarks that make readers (at least myself) feel that you have nothing useful to add to the conversation.

    64. Re:lulz by jakoye · · Score: 0

      You have a pretty low bar for facts. No way we killed anything close to 150,000 to 600,000 Iraq civilians. That number is just pure fantasy. As for driving people out of their homes, that was done by the Iraqis themselves, Sunni, Kurd and Shia. We tried our best to get them to work together and to stop the civil war, but our success was partial at best. Despite the chaos and killing that resulted in Iraq, it is ALWAYS a good thing to remove a dictator. Dictators are NEVER a good thing for a country or a people. Your support for them and your absurd lies regarding civilian casualties caused by US forces disqualifies you from being taken seriously.

      --
      Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven
    65. Re:lulz by jakoye · · Score: 0

      "might eventually lose"? Um, no. Iran would be toast in a matter of months. Naturally they would turn to an insurgency, but I think the US would learn its lesson regarding that and just be happy with taking out the current government without an occupation. A new government would form organically as the Iranians fight it out for power. It would likely not be the super-democracy we would support, but at least one that would keep its place and be too busy rebuilding infrastructure to waste money (and another possible invasion) on building nuclear weapons.

      --
      Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven
    66. Re:lulz by seantide · · Score: 1

      Hardly... the USSR got its ass kicked flat out. The US has not.

      World of difference.

    67. Re:lulz by jakoye · · Score: 0

      Because, oh I don't know, the US created a nuclear weapon in 1945? So the Iranians are 67 years behind (and they're not there just yet)? Yeah, I think we're safe in ridiculing them when they beat their chests over their technical prowress. Or maybe we should just pat them on the head and give them a gold star. A Muslim society, as the religion is currently practiced, will NEVER outproduce a Western-style economy when it comes to technology. The Muslim world will have to go through its own Renaissance before something like that could happen.

      --
      Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven
    68. Re:lulz by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      USSR pulled out after it became clear it cannot win the war. NATO is currently in the process of pulling out because it's clear it cannot win the war either.

    69. Re:lulz by perpenso · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget to adjust for advancements in medical technology. Else you could argue that WW1 commanders were better at commanding then those in Napolenic times (they were not). Or you could simply notice the invention of antibiotics.

      You also blatantly ignore that your comparison is for a war finished vs a war that is ongoing with no end in sight in spite of many claims of contrary.

      The Soviets fought in the 1980s. Survival rates reached 99% decades earlier for those who got medical treatment.

      The fact that the current US/NATO war is longer and ongoing, and has greater success and fewer casualties, actually strengthens my claim. Thank you.

    70. Re:lulz by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      but I think the US would learn its lesson regarding that and just be happy with taking out the current government without an occupation.

      I believe that you are crediting US officials with way more wisdom than they possess.

    71. Re:lulz by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Having actual army (FDF) field medical training, I call you utterly clueless. The biggest problem in field medicine is the speed of retrieval of victims and path to the hospital as well as equipment and know how of the medic in the field. Satellite navigation and centralized command was waaaay behind back in 70s and 80s, meaning that patients took far longer to get to the hospital. Field medicine kit has undergone significant improvement as well, with far more usable (and importantly, easy to use) gear. Finally we now know a whole lot more about emergency care then what we did 30 years ago (and it's still evolving, even for basic CPR rules).

      Then there's the issue of having far better medicine now then we had in 70s and 80s. Invention of antibiotics did not freeze develpment of field medicine, it jumpstarted it, and many of the wounds that would have been fatal in 70s and 80s are treatable with good prognosis now.

      Please don't post about stuff you simply have no clue about.

    72. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how you randomly make up shit and expect people to believe it.

    73. Re:lulz by jakoye · · Score: 0

      No doubt no one has lost any money overestimating the wisdom of any government official... but we can always hope.

      --
      Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven
    74. Re:lulz by perpenso · · Score: 1

      The problem of getting the wounded to hospitals made its most significant advance during Vietnam with large helicopters that could carry the wounded internally where specially trained medics were available. The wounded had a 98% survival rate.

      "During World War II a wounded soldier had an 85% chance of surviving if he was treated by a medic within the first hour. This figure was three times higher than World War I survival statistics ... In Vietnam, the medic's job was to treat and evacuate. Medevac helicopters now could bring medics on board to continue treating the wounded while transporting them back to the Field Hospitals. There was a 98% survival rate for soldiers who were evacuated within the first hour."
      http://www.1stcavmedic.com/medic_history.htm

      You seem to overstate GPS navigation. Sure its helpful but between ground radar stations, VOR and other technologies available in Vietnam navigation was not a major problem. A friend's father flew "dust off" in Vietnam. Off all the problems he mentioned navigation was not one of them.

      Of course we have better helicopter's today, better training, better processes (tourniquets in personal kits, clotting agents, fresh whole blood rather than plasma, etc) ... however when you are starting at 98% survival the improvements are going to be incremental advances. Not the huge advances we saw from WW1 to WW2 to Vietnam.

    75. Re:lulz by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      1. I recommend you talk to a helicopter pilot with experience about Afghanistan. Then try your comparison to Vietnam. He'll laugh you out of the room.
      2. Please stop talking about medicine. You are extremely clueless, and your claims are on the level of "well we invented transistor, which pretty much topped off computer sciences" and "nowadays our programming languages are efficient because everything is done in assembler".

      You are so out of element, you manage to actually do mistakes of that proportion. For example, "fresh blood" is something we started doing transfusions with long ago. It hasn't been done with it in ages because "fresh blood" is extremely problematic for transfusions for a large number of reasons.

      Finally, the 98% survival FOR THOSE ON THE HELICOPTER is likely because of in combat triage. People who were marked to die (black) would simply not be allowed on the helicopter. I've been trained in this, and triaging people into "black" group is one of the harshest things they try to train you for.
      Also, with advance of modern medicine, MUCH less need to be triaged "black", because many of what used to be a fatal injury and ended left "out of the helicopter" will most certainly be put on the helicopter today. Yet another thing you simply do not understand as a layman.

    76. Re:lulz by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Again, no one is claiming that helicopters, equipment, training and processes have not improved. No one is claiming that even incremental improvements are unimportant, they save lives that would have been otherwise lost. All that is being questioned is whether the changes since the 1980s (the timeframe of the Soviet war) have been as dramatic as the introduction of the medevac/casevac helicopter with onboard medics/corpsman.

      Your transistor analogy is quite the straw man.

      Your appraisal of "fresh blood" seems off, or perhaps so brief it is misunderstood. It is not transfusions per se, its that doctors in Afghanistan have reported better results when the wounded initially receives fresh (collected within weeks not months) whole blood rather than plasma. I believe logistics have been updated accordingly. My understanding is that the controversy is whether to use it for the less seriously wounded (risks of disease transmission, etc), not whether it is a useful practice for the seriously wounded.

      Combat triage is an excellent point, however it would seem to only come into play when there are mass casualties. My understanding is that the "fatally wounded" would be medevac'ed immediately if the capacity of the helicopter permitted. That triage prioritizes the order of evacuation and treatment received, it would not disallow evacuation. Its not clear to what degree evacuations were postponed and what effect that had on the 98% Vietnam era stat.

  7. Unleash the lawyers by oldhack · · Score: 5, Funny

    Blast them with patent infringement suits. The mullas are screwed now.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  8. Scrap Yard Blowout - This spring only!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This smells of a scapyard buy to me, they bought a ton of boneyard cobra chasis and engines and re-armed them. Big deal, Move along...

  9. Next they'll off-shore them by porsche911 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can see them off-shoring production to China and getting 100's a month. Their big problem is going to be training pilots fast enough.

    As far as the "age" - it was a good design then and is still a good design. Upgrade the weapons to something more modern and they are going to be very dangerous on a battlefield.

    1. Re:Next they'll off-shore them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100's? Yeah right. Maybe as toys. As someone else mentioned, where are they going to get reliable engines?

    2. Re:Next they'll off-shore them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helicopters are worthless without proper air support; they don't have the offensive capabilities to deal with advanced fighter aircraft. The Iranians will have much of a use for these other than in the oppression of their own population.

  10. A Turkey Shoot Approaches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait until they get a taste of our theatre-wide laser weapons. We could blind and crash their entire fleet in a few seconds from across the Gulf.

    1. Re:A Turkey Shoot Approaches by ThePeices · · Score: 1

      Wait until they get a taste of our theatre-wide laser weapons. We could blind and crash their entire fleet in a few seconds from across the Gulf.

      yeah! sock it to 'em! hit them with weapons that dont exist yet!

      Also, why stick to theatre-wide laser weapons ( that dont exist), we could also use antimatter weapons (that dont exist yet) on them too.

      Hooray for the USA!

    2. Re:A Turkey Shoot Approaches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets not forget some photon torpedoes (definitely don't exist) if we are going to imagine shit up.

  11. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ah-mad-dinner-jacket is a buffoon!

  12. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We could debate the situation between Israel, palestina, and Iran all we want, but we have no idea what the facts are here. Journalism isn't what it used to be, and every single story about those three are biased beyond all reconing. Not in outright lies, but in leaving out "details" and drawing lots of attention to others.

    How can we give judgement if we have no idea of the conditions these people live in?

    Give me facts, and I will give you arguments.

    One thing we can say for sure is that Nuclear bombs (fission or fusion), will always be beyond a last resort. The backlash of using one is so tremendous, that countries rather go to war in the traditional means (tanks, generals, the occasional trumpeteer) than anything involving massive genocide.

    It's the reason people are terrified of terrorists getting nuclear arms. Because they simply don't care about the backlash.

  13. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "but AFAIK he is no Hitler" ?? WHAT this guy is soooo much like Hitler, where the hell you been living the past 10 years!

  14. English writing? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    On the red plate in this http://www.jamejamonline.ir/Media/images/1389/02/11/X00873991516.jpg picture is that writing in English?

    1. Re:English writing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the last word is "flight".

    2. Re:English writing? by jonnythan · · Score: 2

      Yeah, and so is the "Rescue" label and some other printing on the side of the cockpit. The plate says something like " TOP IMPORTANT REMOVE BEFORE OPERATIONAL FLIGHT."

      Why would they do that?

    3. Re:English writing? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe they got those parts as surplus and just used them :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:English writing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iranian air-force uses English language for technical communication and documents.

    5. Re:English writing? by xs650 · · Score: 1

      They figure that when their sorry asses get shot down by the US Navy that the US Navy will be the ones to fish them out of the water, so "Rescue" is in English.

    6. Re:English writing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because all aviation/military warnings/signs etc are in standard English. Just because it's Iran it doesn't mean control tower talks farsi with the pilots and so on

    7. Re:English writing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HOO-AH!

    8. Re:English writing? by jonnythan · · Score: 1

      Really? That's astonishing.

  15. Scrap Yard Blowout!! Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!! by CaptnCrud · · Score: 0

    Meh, I think they bought some boneyard cobra chasis and engines, then re-armed them. Move along, Move along...Why build new when you can buy cheap!

    1. Re:Scrap Yard Blowout!! Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Someone's taken a liking to your commenting. Smells like you got a copycat stalker.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  16. It's just a glorified Huey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, the AH-1 Cobra was based on the UH-1 Huey. It's a fifty year old airframe and one of the most common helicopters in the world and has been so for decades. It's a good bird but seriously, it's like they figured out turn an old ford cargo van into an APC.

  17. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    Ahmadinejad is a buffoon, and he's not the person running Iran.Ayatollah Khamenei is the one that could actually order a nuclear attack. Unlike Ahmadinejad, Khamenei doesn't make threats against Israel, and has publicly stated that the use of nuclear weapons is immoral. He will also still be in power long after Ahmadinejad is gone.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  18. What advances have we made? by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    Have we made any advances in helicopter technology that is beyond Iran's reach? I understand the purpose of this article is to mock Iran, but what if they start copying nuclear weapons from that era? And how long will it take them to build equivalents to our modern helicopters?

    1. Re:What advances have we made? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering we poses stealth helicopters, yes... yes we have. Also attack helicopters are only useful against certain kinds of targets, and drones are not one of those targets. So Iran having this type of hardware is not really a concern, unless we invade them with a land army before we establish total air superiority... which is unlikely.

    2. Re:What advances have we made? by CaptnCrud · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project About 23 billion dollars I would say is what keeps them from developing there own tactical nuke.

    3. Re:What advances have we made? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, nothing, nothing at all. No helicopter technology. No nuclear improvements either.

      In fact, we can barely put a nail in a board.

    4. Re:What advances have we made? by CaptnCrud · · Score: 0

      Thats right you dont, you typically use mud bricks.and mortor. : p

    5. Re:What advances have we made? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand the US Marine Corp still uses the Cobra. Heavily upgraded from the older models but its still not at the Apache or Comanche level. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, less maintenance per flight hour. Greater reliability.

      That said, the new Iranian birds will be nothing like the current Marine birds.

    6. Re:What advances have we made? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mud bricks in a mortor? Ok...

    7. Re:What advances have we made? by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      The Cobra is a widely used and available helicopter. The US uses the chassis for forest fighting: they aren't exactly difficult to find or examine closely. They probably could have bought one on the open market (maybe even indirectly from the US itself). Nuclear weapons are slightly harder to find.

      However, with that said, the problem with building a nuclear weapon has never been (not for 40-50 years or so) the design. That is actually quite easy, most physics graduates could probably design you one. The basic design of basic nuclear weapons* is pretty simple, once you know what you are doing. You can find sketch-ups on Wikipedia. The problem is getting refined nuclear material that actually works in a nuclear weapon, and more importantly, actually testing the weapon. Easy to do for a helicopter: very difficult for a nuclear weapon.

      *NB: thermonuclear weapons are a considerably different, and considerably more difficult, story. But they don't really need those.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    8. Re:What advances have we made? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One does not simply...

    9. Re:What advances have we made? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Also, machining it without poisoning your whole team and/or the surrounding town is fairly involved.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    10. Re:What advances have we made? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1971, Iran purchased 202 improved AH-1J Cobras, with the name "AH-IJ International", from the United States.[13] This improved Cobra, known as the AH-1J International, resulted from this contract featured an uprated P&WC T400-WV-402 engine and stronger drive train. Recoil damping gear was fitted to the 20mm gun turret, and the gunner was given a stabilized sight and even a stabilized chair. 62 of the International AH-1Js delivered to the Shah's forces were TOW-capable, while the rest were not.[14]

    11. Re:What advances have we made? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      A lot of advances have been made including helicopters without a tail rotor. But the helicopters in the current US (and other) arsenals do not have any of these changes. Helicopter development has mostly stalled since probably the 1980s (except for the weapons systems). Proof of that is that the US Army had to unmothball Chinooks because their Blackhawks kept dropping like stones in the high altitudes of Afghanistan.

    12. Re:What advances have we made? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      IIRC in the Iraqi War they eventually removed Apaches from service while they kept the Cobras and Warthogs on service. Something about it being a large and slow target for AA fire. I remember seeing an Apache which looked like swiss cheese on TV around that time.

    13. Re:What advances have we made? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Centrifuge technology has made it much easier to get the fuel. Most nation states could manufacture nuclear weapons if they felt like it at this point. There are a couple of nations with centrifuge programs at this time. The question then is how to deliver them. There is more to it than just designing the bomb itself.

  19. The additional photos are from 2010(!) by datorum · · Score: 4, Informative

    I just figured out that the "more photos" link actually points to a forum thread from 2010.

    1. Re:The additional photos are from 2010(!) by Lancer · · Score: 2

      Not only are the "more photos" two years old, they're pictures of upgraded American Cobras that were sold to Iran before the 1979 coup.

      --
      Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
    2. Re:The additional photos are from 2010(!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ay, mate, and man thee swashplate before ye pull collective in me ayatolla assahola.

  20. Turnaround Time by SniperJoe · · Score: 0

    Given Iran's apparent 40 year turnaround time between gaining possession of a piece of military technology and producing reverse-engineered copies, I suppose I should start preparing for Iran's version of the RQ-170 Sentinel drone around 2041.

    1. Re:Turnaround Time by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it wasn't Photoshop that got reverse engineered?

    2. Re:Turnaround Time by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      If you think that is bad, check out the time between the Chinese J-8 first flight and entry into service on Wikipedia. Something about a "Cultural Revolution" or whatever...

  21. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know of any studies/argumentations about the likelihood of
    Iran using atom bombs against Israel?

    You mean besides their stated intention to?

  22. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

    Would Iran really kill countless innocent Muslim civilians, including women and children?

    Yes. You may not be aware of the brutal suppression of the Green Movement.

    Any regime that suppresses free speech is an oppressive government.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  23. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There are 1,573,000 Israeli Arabs and 1,240,000 Israeli Muslims (many, but not all, of the Arabs are Muslims) "

    I think I remember the answer to this one - the winner is 71077345

  24. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    Do you know of any studies/argumentations about the likelihood of Iran using atom bombs against Israel?

    About as likely as Britain launching a first strike against the USSR during the Cold War?

  25. the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure the muslims have a secret society, We have our own controlling everything. They want peace, but ours want control. They want defense, we like offense. Wars will continue to rage until everyone reaches and grasps democracy and capitalism. Irans next on the hit list, and it will make the NWO, terrorism and things that intrude our lives much more prominent over the coming years. Without these secret societys we could have peace on earth. With them there will never be peace, and our ability to govern our world through real democracy will cease to exist.

    Cispa, and all the other laws aren't making it so its available to federal law enforcement agencys; they already have the technology. Simply its bringing it down to the local level, where your neighbor hood cop can look up and see that you purchased a fleshlight two years earlier. It's a scary situation and terrorism and the threat of terrorism will just further their cause. Secret societys like evil in the world because it helps their goals of furthering survillencing of every living soul on this planet.

    Terrorism is helping the secret societys, and they are the one portraying it as a daily occurance, they are most likely funding both sides of the conflict.

    Call me a conspirator, but if you look over everything thats been going on in the government, whether 9/11 was done by terrorists or the government, you'll notice that a police state is arriving, secretly its already here, but openly its not.

    1. Re:the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Call me a conspirator, but if you look over everything thats been going on in the government, whether 9/11 was done by terrorists or the government, you'll notice that a police state is arriving, secretly its already here, but openly its not.

      A conspirator is someone involved in a conspiracy. You, my friend, are either a troll or clinically paranoid.

    2. Re:the future by Quila · · Score: 1

      They want peace, but ours want control.

      The problem is in how they want peace. The world will supposedly be at peace when it is entirely run by Muslims, all others killed or subjugated.

    3. Re:the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even then, there will still be the pissing contest between Shia and Sunni Muslims. This makes the rivalry between Catholics and Protestants look tame in comparison.

  26. Actually this isn't a joke by Grayhand · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you want to bring them to their knees accidentally loose some F-22s over Iran. If they tried to reverse engineer then deploy them it'd bankrupt the country. Even better yet would be a 30 year old Osprey prototype. The point is we're the only country that spends enough on their military to maintain such cutting edge aircraft. They can mimic 40 year old aircraft but the modern ones are too expensive to build and are drastically more expensive to maintain. It's not just that all they have access to is 40 year old aircraft it's that they were far more practical than modern aircraft. Look at the A-10s they are phasing out. They were wildly successful and the basic technology wasn't all that different than was used in the 50s. The joke is the technology has both gotten so good and so delicate as in the breakdown rate that far more planes are lost due to mechanical failure than enemy gunfire.

    1. Re:Actually this isn't a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they actually phasing out the A-10s? I've heard this a few times since the early 90s, but so far they haven't been able to find anything that is as robust that can fill its combat role.

    2. Re:Actually this isn't a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May be the F35 could do a better job of screwing with their budget. Now if the insurance company would pay for the missing planes...

    3. Re:Actually this isn't a joke by Nimey · · Score: 1

      IIRC the plan is to retire the A-10 beginning in 2028.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    4. Re:Actually this isn't a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've read, the F-22 has 1 critical failure for every 1.7hours of flight, and every hour of flight requires 30 hours of maintenance. It's a white elephant that has sucked the U.S. military dry. The F-35 was designed to do the same thing, suck the budgets dry for the military-industrial complex.

    5. Re:Actually this isn't a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure that kind of Cold War tactic works against a state that isn't jockeying for total military dominance.

    6. Re:Actually this isn't a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Air Force wants to phase out the A-10. There's no glory in supporting the ground pounders.

    7. Re:Actually this isn't a joke by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      If you want to bring them to their knees accidentally loose some F-22s over Iran.

      Yea, that would probably do the job. That said, it would also irritate the neighborhood a bit, as well.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:Actually this isn't a joke by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      In the year 2054, the entire defence budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3½ days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.- Norman Augustine

    9. Re:Actually this isn't a joke by vakuona · · Score: 1

      If you lost some F-22s in Iran, they would get China to help them build it. Or Russia.

      If I was Iran, I would focus on two things. Figure out a way to take out the carriers, or hold a US friendly country hostage. The first is hard, the second is a bit easier. Which is why the US goes ape shit at the thought of a nuclear Iran. The calculus would change immediately.

  27. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you were moderated down because YOU are the asshole.

  28. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Would Iran really kill countless innocent Muslim civilians, including women and children?

    Of course they would (and they have on a smaller scale). If a Muslim dies as part of an attack on Israel they are martyred and get guaranteed entry into paradise. So there is little downside from a theocratical perspective. Plus the Palestinians are probably Sunni, the Iranians are Shiite. There is no shortage of sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites, apparently each has little problem with killing the other. Each side believes the other to be heretics to some degree.

  29. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by jvillain · · Score: 1, Informative

    This article over at Foreign Policy is a good read to see how much of a threat Iran really is. And why every one if focused on the wrong threat.Story

  30. Trust no one by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

    In related news, Adobe announced that the Iranian government has purchased several licenses of Photoshop CS6.

  31. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by blackpaw · · Score: 2

    You mean despite the fact they have *never* said that, in fact quite the reverse - that the use of nuclear weapons is immoral and against the tenets of Isal?

    But don't let mere facts get in the way of your knee jerk predjudices.

  32. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all, Ahmadinejad comes from a Jewish background (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6256173/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-revealed-to-have-Jewish-past.html), and his anti-Israel rhetoric may have to do with Iranian politics more so than any real desire to destroy Israel.

    Second of all, there are about 25,000 Jewish people in Iran, so Israel would need to be really careful in how they strike if they really do attack Iran.

  33. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would like to see this debated.

    No, I don't really believe you would.

    I think you'd like to see everyone agree with you that Iran would not kill "countless innocent Muslim civilians" and that we should somehow take comfort in the fact that Ahmadinejad "is no Hitler and no Stalin". I'm sure that late neighboring buffoon, Saddam Hussein, was "no Hitler and no Stalin" but he had no compunctions about killing "countless innocent Muslim civilians". In fact, just about every time I look at the news I see muslims killing "countless innocent Muslim civilians", and more often than not, it's thanks to some "buffoon" who's "no Hitler and no Stalin". So pardon me if your assurances about Ahmadinejad do not really convince.

    I have seen news that Israel is about to perform a preemptive strike against Iran, and this is horrible.

    We have seen this news since about 2002. Every six months or so, a parade of neoconservatives who have failed at foreign policy (Ledeen, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Podhoretz, etc) shows up at the right-wing talk shows with breaking news that Israel is going to launch a strike against Iran "within 60 days". No joke, this is as regular as Autumn follows Summer. If you tune into any of the Salem Radio talkers, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, you will hear these predictions at least once a week. The funny thing is that not one of them has ever mentioned their own long string of failed predictions.

    I don't know if Israel is going to launch a strike on Iran, and I don't know if Israel wants to launch a strike on Iran, but I know for sure that Israel doesn't want to launch a strike anywhere near as badly as this string of former foreign policy advisers to Republican administrations. And this act has been going on since at least the 1970s.

    Oh, and the good news? Mitt Romney has already stated that he's going to hire all these same psychopaths to advise his administration on foreign policy. He's putting the pro-war band back together, and this time with an extra helping of St John's Revelations, LDS-style.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  34. Where's Ahmadinejad flying? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    They often seem to portray President Ahmadenijad as one of the world's greatest geniuses. I expect to see a patriotic picture of him flying one of these.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Where's Ahmadinejad flying? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Nah the fighter pilot was W.

  35. Re:this is why it is stupid to spend on military R by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Decades later....doh....

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  36. Iran is a tossup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    One thing we can say for sure is that Nuclear bombs (fission or fusion), will always be beyond a last resort. The backlash of using one is so tremendous, that countries rather go to war in the traditional means (tanks, generals, the occasional trumpeteer) than anything involving massive genocide.

    The arabs (well, muslim arabs) are famous for having far more genocides in their history than anyone else, and if you discount the latter part of the 20th century, they're in a completely unchallenged first position (no, the number 2 position has absolutely nothing to do with Germany). And yes, they generally used knives, not atomic bombs.

    Their last 3 wars on israel were all attacks as muslims, all started by these muslims (involving multiple countries simultaneously, only really common factor is the paedophile prophet's faith), not as Egyptions or Syrians, and the goal was to start another genocide in all cases.

    If these people get access to nuclear bombs, a nuclear war will start in a matter of months, how can you possibly interpret their history in any other way ? Iran is a tossup. It's muslim, has a history of aggression, but not nearly as bad as that of the arabs. But frankly, do we really want tossups here ? Besides, Israel is not going to risk it, if Iran goes nuclear Israel has shown in the past that they'll make the first strike.

    1. Re:Iran is a tossup by Luckyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're going to have to tell us what happened to all the christian massacres that easily trumped arabs both numerically and in terms of quality (as in being quite sophisticated about the ways used to kill people). No one was as good at brutally slaughtering people in the name of the God (and his installed representative on earth, the blessed king/tsar/pope/etc) as fellow christians. Hell, the colonialist period and its massacres alone probably killed more people then arabs during entire history of islam. That's not even touching dark ages, which were full of both internal as well as external savagery. Ever wondered why we use arabic numbers? Because when islam was the progressive religion driving greatest scientific minds of its time, christian Europe was hell bent on killing and enslaving as many muslims as possible. Crusading was a great way to earn money, fame and reputation. Read about that stuff sometime.

      Islam has a reeeeeeeeeeally long way to go if it actually wants to even compete for #1. Even discounting WW1 and WW2, christians have long held the trophy, and they're not going to be relinquishing it any time soon.

    2. Re:Iran is a tossup by Savantissimo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agree with most of that, but the Mongols had the biggest and most genocides. And while the crusaders and the Spanish were big on killing Arabs, virtually all the enslaving was done by the Moslems.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    3. Re:Iran is a tossup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If these people get access to nuclear bombs, a nuclear war will start in a matter of months, how can you possibly interpret their history in any other way ? Iran is a tossup. It's muslim, has a history of aggression, but not nearly as bad as that of the arabs. But frankly, do we really want tossups here ? Besides, Israel is not going to risk it, if Iran goes nuclear Israel has shown in the past that they'll make the first strike.

      Luckyo has already commented on your inaccurate assertion that Arabs and/or Arabic Muslims have far more genocide than others. Let me comment on your wildly and provably incorrect assertion that (paraphrasing) "history tells us that nuclear war will start in a matter of months if these people get nuclear weapons".

      Now, if I interpret "these people" as Arabic Muslims, then Iranians are generally Persian Muslims (yeah, yeah, there are non-Persian and non-Muslims minorities in Iran, but "Persian" is way more accurate than "Arabic"). So unless (with all due respect) you're a inbred moronic racist who has commented before knowing the facts at hand, then surely that's not what you mean.

      Therefore, you surely meant "Muslims" by your phrase "these people". In which case, then Pakistan (also a country with Islam as its state religion and majority Muslims) has had nuclear weapons as well as the means to launch them for about 14 years. Which -- because you probably can't count beyond your fingers/toes -- is 168 months, a tad more what is considered "a few" months in adult English in the civilised world.

      I'd also like you to cite evidence that Iran has a history of aggression (Iraq attacked Iran first and Iran merely kicked out a non-democratic puppet dictator in 1979), but given the rest of your post, I reckon it's a tossup whether you're a 7 year old posting on his dad's computer or just a mental patient trying to pass the time away.

    4. Re:Iran is a tossup by Luckyo · · Score: 1, Troll

      I think your history teachers have really glossed over the whole slave trade part during colonisation era. It made muslim-done enslaving look like employing unionised people.

    5. Re:Iran is a tossup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry, Muslim genocides - starting from the time of Mohammed and going on to this day, far dwarfed anything done by the Mongols, the Crusaders, the Conquestadoras, the Nazis and the Communists - all of them put together. In India alone, some 100 million non-Muslims died at the hands of Muslim conquerors over 700 years (1000AD to 1761AD). The GP AC is correct - overall, some 270 million people people died in the Muslim jihads - and that was before 9/11.

      Luckyo is also full of shit regarding 'Arabic numbers'. They were called Hindu numerals, and originated in India. In fact, almost everything the Muslims claim to have invented was already invented elsewhere, like China, India, (pre-Islamic) Persia and Egypt, and so on. The Arab 'contribution' to this was taking some of it and spreading it around. This meme about a golden age of Islamic civilization is a complete myth, and what's more, it flies in the face of the logic of apologists who claim these as being Muslim/Islamic achievements, while claiming that Islam is not a monolyth when it comes to exhibits of their savagery. Never mind that that savagery is common to Arabs, Turks, Farsis and Afghans, and driven by exhortations to jihad in both the Qur'an and Sun'nah.

    6. Re:Iran is a tossup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with most of that, but the Mongols had the biggest and most genocides. And while the crusaders and the Spanish were big on killing Arabs, virtually all the enslaving was done by the Moslems.

      Sweden, or rather a part of the Hansa League based in Stockholm and Visby, had a ginormous trade of slaves from non-Christian parts of (what is today) Finland and the Baltics states, during roughly the same time as the Crusades in the Middle East. Small nations was depopulated to fill the need for slaves in pre-feodal and early feodal Europe. All the Christian crusades in the Baltics and Finland was poorly wielded slave hunts; I have hard to belive that the same was not true for at least some of the Crusades in the Middle East, albeit, the Crusading around the Baltic Sea was made by professional soldiers motivated by profits, not by a mix of amateurs with a plethora of motivations like in the Crusades in the Middle East. It was taboo for European Christians to hold other Christians as slaves, hence the huge demand for heathen slaves. Of course, once the slaves discovered that they would be released if they where to be baptised, they promptly converted to Christianity. Then people discoverd loop holes in the Churchs ban on Christians as slaves and the feudal systems was invented (Sweden is the only part of Europe, except for some really small, isolated areas, that haven't had a feudal system), that made almost all people in Europe de-facto slaves.

      Ironically, slavery was made illegal in Sweden during heathen times, centuries before the profitable slave trade was initiated. So Sweden, despite being the largest exporter of slaves to continental Europe for a couple of centuries, never had any slave workers, neither heathen nor Christian, within the country borders, while the slave trade made Stockholm grow rich and influential, it would eventually become the capital of Sweden as well as Sweden propers largest and most populated city; that never would have happened without the slave trade.

    7. Re:Iran is a tossup by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because when islam was the progressive religion driving greatest scientific minds of its time, christian Europe was hell bent on killing and enslaving as many muslims as possible. Crusading was a great way to earn money, fame and reputation. Read about that stuff sometime.

      Let's see what some other sources say:

      'Tyranny of Clichés' Excerpt: The Truth About the Crusades

      . . . Until fairly recently, historically speaking, Muslims used to brag about being the winners of the Crusades, not the victims of it. That is if they talked about them at all. “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineff ectual response to the jihad—a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living historian of Islam in the English language (and perhaps any language).5 Historian Thomas Madden puts it more directly, “Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”6

      At first the larger Muslim world didn’t much care about the Christian reclamation of Jerusalem and the Holy Land. The jihad to repel the crusaders didn’t start in earnest until the European forces pressed on into the Muslim Holy Lands approaching Mecca and Medina. Even then the Muslim world considered the fight to reclaim Jerusalem a sideshow. The real fight was in the East, where caliphs were rolling up victory after victory in the old Byzantine Empire. In 1291, the Muslims expelled the last of the crusaders, and all remaining Christians and Jews in the Islamic world lived as second-class citizens (though often better than Muslims or Jews might have in many parts of Christendom). By the sixteenth century, Islam’s empire covered all of North Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, and much of southern Europe. Had Islamic forces not been turned back outside the Gates of Vienna, Christianity itself may not have survived. (The battle ended in victory for the Christians on September 12, but it was the day before, marking the apex of Muslim rule, that would stick in the minds of many Muslims for the next 318 years.)
         

      The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism

      The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule

      The Golden Age of Islam is a Myth

      Islam has a reeeeeeeeeeally long way to go if it actually wants to even compete for #1. Even discounting WW1 and WW2, christians have long held the trophy, and they're not going to be relinquishing it any time soon.

      a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.

      The atheist Communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last 100 years.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re:Iran is a tossup by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think your history teachers have really glossed over the whole slave trade part during colonisation era. It made muslim-done enslaving look like employing unionised people.

      Tears of Jihad

      These figures are a rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad.

      Africa

      Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.

      120 million Africans

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:Iran is a tossup by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Quite often the Muslims caught Animistic people from Africa as slaves and sold them to European merchants who then sold them to work in the Americas or whatever colony.

    10. Re:Iran is a tossup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay attention -
      The "Arabic" numerals was invented in India by Hindus. The Persians then learned of it and used it, then the Arabs, then the Christian West.
      All religions vacillate between tolerance and intolerance, and many people use religion as a means of manipulating other people.
      As for the Crusades, get over it. For the West, it's just another example of stupid people running around causing trouble. For Muslims, it's a big whoop-de-do that they think happened a few years ago so they can feel like "enraged victims".
      If you want something to cry about, think about Iraq. That wasn't a crusade, but the dead don't care. If Saddam had any decency, he would have shut the fuck up, let the UN Inspectors do their job, and continue to collect billions in oil revenues. Of course, he couldn't do that; he just had to piss off the leader of the most powerful nation in the world by attempting to assassinate him (George Bush Senior). So when George Bush Junior took office, he had a personal vendetta against Saddam.

    11. Re:Iran is a tossup by r1348 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look! My anti-Muslim views are completely supported by all there anti-Muslim blogs! I MUST be right!

    12. Re:Iran is a tossup by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      [...] the slave trade made Stockholm grow rich and influential, it would eventually become the capital of Sweden as well as Sweden propers largest and most populated city; that never would have happened without the slave trade.

      Citation, please? Never mind censorship and conspiracies to suppress The Truth; if this wasn't a complete fabrication I think I would have heard about it at least *once*.

    13. Re:Iran is a tossup by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This meme about a golden age of Islamic civilization is a complete myth

      The Romans of antiquity were similar borrowers. And yet they had a golden age as well. Creating a common culture and political system and a huge trade network has vast value in itself. Among other things, it permits borrowing of technologies and ideas between otherwise disparate groups and creates a mixing pot of such things.

      So the very borrowing of stuff which you decry is a huge part of the Muslim contribution to human development in that time.

      What really has changed isn't that Muslim society has gotten worse, but that the rest of the world has found something better.

    14. Re:Iran is a tossup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you support that 270 million claim (or even 100 millions of it) by referring to decent references? I'll accept even wikipedia from you.

    15. Re:Iran is a tossup by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Intriguing how the slaves shipped to Europe are completely ignored. Also intriguing how the fact that much of Africa was in fact forcibly converted to Christianity at that point and the fact that you're trying to pretend that current population split on religion and one that existed before the major islamic push in the last two centuries are actually the same.

    16. Re:Iran is a tossup by Nethead · · Score: 1

      And when Romans took slaves, the often taught them a trade and, after a time, freed them to become Roman Citizens. Mary Beard (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01gknyq) takes an interesting look at daily life in Rome. Worth watching. I'm watching a 12 hour documentary on New York City and the day-to-day stories of Roman slaves don't seem that much different than those of the immigrants in NYC in the 1800s. Life was shitty and hard, but there was a path up. Some of those large memorials you see in Rome are from freed slaves that went on to become quite successful citizens, who then had their own slaves. There was a lot of death by disease in Rome. Their solution was to steal people and make them Romans.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    17. Re:Iran is a tossup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And how many hundred of millions of lives were erased due to horrors and inequities of the Hindu caste system? We'll never know because estimating historical death tolls is a fools game, unless of course you've got an agenda which overrides any pretense to accuracy. You obviously do.

      The idea of both an Islamic golden age being incompatible with Islamic conquests is ridiculous and trivially falsifiable - glory, achievement and war have often coexisted for many civilizations.

      In regards to Muslim achievements, you seek to reduce them to keeping alive the legacy of others. A simple Wikipedia search would disabuse you of that notion. I would point you to many aspects of trigonometry, algebra, optics, sociology and medicine.

      The savagery that you assign to Muslims *is* and was common to many historical groups.The Arabs,Turks and Afghans you cite were violent nomads both before and after Islam.

      If you going to be an Islamaphobe you're going to have to do better than these sophomoric arguments. They might fly on Yahoo News or Youtube but this is Slashdot.

    18. Re:Iran is a tossup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your first paragraph is a form of tu quoque, the the kind of reflexive, predictable shielding of islam from any criticism seen in these discussions. You dilute responsibility for horrendous behaviour exactly as your parent poster described: positive points are attributable to islam, negative points are not. The islamophobe slur indicates that you are about as unbiased as you think the poster you respond to is.

    19. Re:Iran is a tossup by ergean · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Citation needed? Where the fuck did you got that numbers?

    20. Re:Iran is a tossup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Like the other AC above mentioned, tu quoque statements don't refute what I said above about Muslims. The Muslim 'achievements' you refer to are all work done by others, and I refuse to let Muslims pretend that they are the ones who brought this to the world - be it the number system (including zero), or trigonometry, algebra, optics, sociology and medicine. Also, the statement about the Arabs, Turks and Afghans being violent nomads before Islam is crap. Turks and Afghans were a part of the Persian empire, which was very civilized, while the eastern Afghans of Gandhara were Buddhists and Hindus. Yeah, the Arabs were nomads, but even they were far more civilized than they became after Mohammed (great example being Mohammed's first wife Khadijah, who was an independent merchant, whereas under Islam, women pretty much lost all their rights), which is a part of why he had few problems taking over. Had he lived today, he'd have been in jail, hunted down as a cult leader.

      The Hindu caste system never claimed any lives. What it did was in an era where vocational training was absent, it prescribed that a son follow the trade and practices of his father, and over time, the number of castes - initially 4 - multiplied. Yeah the problem of untouchability was evil, as were restrictions on inter-caste marriages - neither of which is practiced today, and nor are Hindu fundamentalists demanding it back. Another point - the caste laws, bad as it was, was restricted only to Hindus - there were no attempts to put the rest of the world under Manu's smritis.

      This is different with shariah, which intends to bring all people - Muslim and non Muslim alike, under Islamic law, where Muslims would be privileged people, and all others would either have to be dhimmis, or second class citizens, and if they refuse both, be killed.

      I don't have an agenda. Islam (i.e. the Qur'an and Sun'nah) does, and it has an indeterminate number of Muslims who are committed to carrying it out, no matter what the costs. If its agenda didn't include covering non-Muslims, or trying to convert them so that they can become a supremacist majority, I certainly wouldn't bother.

    21. Re:Iran is a tossup by psiclops · · Score: 1

      Can you support that 270 million claim (or even 100 millions of it) by referring to decent references? I'll accept even wikipedia from you.

      plenty of highly reputable sources, such as Here

      overall, some 270 million people people died in the Muslim jihads - and that was before9/11.
      and that source isn't even including 9/11, add that in and you'd be looking at 270.003 Million

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    22. Re:Iran is a tossup by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      ...except no one pretends that the Romans weren't some of the biggest plagarists of all time. When you are presented with something Roman that is a copy, you are told that it is a copy. No one tries to pretend that the Romans were something they weren't.

      There is no nonsensical notion of political correctness that causes people to try and sugar coat them.

      If the Islamic nations had a golden age, it was likely DESPITE of Islam in a manner very much like our own experience in the West.

      If the Iranians have anything going for them at all, anything that leaves open the possibility they will become a civilized modern nation, it's the fact that they actually have a well establshed national identity separate from their religion.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    23. Re:Iran is a tossup by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You forget that the Muslims conquered most of the Roman empire and also tried to conquer Europe as well. The Crusades were a little more than just convenient adventuring. There was a genuine struggle between civilizations going on at that time.

      This stuff tends to get glossed over. Perhaps history professors just can't get over being forced to go to sunday school as children.

      The Islamic empires were a very real menace to the West for most of the history of Islam. They have been in decline for awhile but clearly some of them want to relive the old glory.

      Dracula wasn't just a bastard because he was an evil sadist. He was on the front lines of this conflict.

      There is a lot of historical context here that people choose to be unaware of.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    24. Re:Iran is a tossup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have got to be trolling. None of what you said is historically factual at all, and sounds like it came from the Fox News history channel.

      I'm saddened when I read things on /. like this comment (which are uprated as +5 Informative). It just furthers the stereotype that techies are clueless and can't separate politically-motivated propaganda from facts...

    25. Re:Iran is a tossup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same AC - everything I said is historically factual. Not all historical facts are online, though, but reading through a whole bunch of pre-revisionist history makes it obvious as to what happened. Yeah, it takes some work putting the numbers together, as some organizations have done. Also, News corp is something like 5% owned by that Saudi prince Alaweed bin Talal, so claiming that they'd put out anti-Islamic history out there, when in fact, they bend over backwards to deny any connection between Islam and Jihad, just shows how clueless you are. No wonder you're about as ignorant of Muslim history as well.

  37. Cobra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many aircraft in the US Fleet that are decades old in core design I think most of you are missing the point, Iran has a good relationship with Russia and can fit any new aircraft with modern surveillance and weapons

    Saudi Arabia are more active much more then Iran on a Global scale supporting Islamic Jihad, Iran operates more on its back door, the US most impotent friend and Partner in the Middle East is the Islamic funding Terrorist Monarchy called the Saudi Loyal Family whos next emphasis is in the Balkans remember the Balkans and Clintons support of Islamic scum and their establishment in that region

    Everything comes full circle it always does

  38. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's something many people don't know about. The one place where Nazism, and it's blend of socialism and ethnic genocide is popular, is the middle east. The entire middle east, that is, including Turkey. It is very popular in Iran.

  39. the big problem is going to be getting new pilots by swschrad · · Score: 1

    because all the trained ones go down thud. God/Allah/yo'momma forbid they ever try and fire any of that backyard armament. gas pipe ain't good gun barrels. and I'm not going to say why ;)

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  40. Awesomness by bryan1945 · · Score: 0

    "We have used the finest bubblegum, paper maiche, and Legos to build a custom attack helicopter that has abilities that the Apache could never achieve. It's mostly how fast it shakes apart, but that is a mere engineering problem to be solved when our latest shipment of Bazooka Joe gum arrives! Halla malla hoobooey!"
    Next they'll strap some jets to a camel and call it a stealth fighter.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    1. Re:Awesomness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say that to US defense ministry.

      US is also using Cobra extensively.

  41. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True, just like there's plenty of palestinian law against terrorism ...

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/14/iranian-defectors-khamenei-said-anti-nuke-fatwa-wont-matter/

    If you want to know whether or not muslims would really do this, why not read a story from the quran :

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/jews.htm

  42. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Veritatis_splendor · · Score: 1

    Ahmadinejad is a buffoon, and he's not the person running Iran.Ayatollah Khamenei is the one that could actually order a nuclear attack. Unlike Ahmadinejad, Khamenei doesn't make threats against Israel, and has publicly stated that the use of nuclear weapons is immoral. He will also still be in power long after Ahmadinejad is gone.

    Um, that eases me.
    The prospect of another war in the Middle East scares the shit out of me. As the GP said, this fosters hatred, which makes Jews/Christians/Americans be murdered all over the world.

    In fact, those assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists (which many people assume to be carried by the Mossad) may be a bad idea.

    --
    I am JOrgePeixoto. I created tis accounted to overcome the 50-comment limit (yes, I'm an addict)
  43. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't recall there being any backlash when the U.S. used nukes on Japan, they became one of Americas closest allies soon after.

    The devestation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't really much different than the firebombings of Tokyo by the U.S. or Dresden by the British, excepting for radiation sickness and long term cancers, but fire bombing led to burns that were pretty much as bad. The nukes just required fewer air planes to do the damage, but they were still massively expensive to make.

    Needless to say a fusion bomb on a large city would be horrific but very few nations have those. A fission bomb would certainly be worse than 9/11 if an Al Qaeda like group managed to set one off in a Western city so its obviously something to be avoided.

    But the U.S., Britain and Russia have been killing large numbers of civilians since World War II with little repercussion so I think your statement "will always be beyond a last resort" is a little overly breathless.

    --
    @de_machina
  44. Iran is muslim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Iran sent their own children into minefields, walking slowly through them to clear a path by getting hit by mines, until the mines were exhausted. But no worries ! They gave them small little plastic keys, that the government claimed would take them to heaven "if" they died. They sent all the orphans they had. Why ? Because that's what muslim law says, orphans become slaves of the caliph, which Iran takes to mean they owe their lives to the government.

    The keys called attention to the fact that, according to the highest authority of shi'a islam "to kill and be killed for allah is the purest part of islam".

    http://www.themodernreligion.com/ugly/unholy.html

    Islam is a barbaric, monstrous religion, and it's the real threat.

    1. Re:Iran is muslim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's see.

      World war I and II (tens of millions killed) were not started or done by Muslims. Wars in Vietnam , Laos and those in south east Asia were by US, France etc.

      Wars in Africa have mostly been by non-Muslims. 1.2 million people killed in Rwanda were Christian, killed by Christian.

      Great Britain killed hundreds of thousands in India, south east Asia and other parts of the world.

      Millions killed in Cambodia were not Muslims either.

      Indians killed in America and Canada were not killed by Muslims also.

      So, you see who is the violent , blood thirsty and warmonger?

    2. Re:Iran is muslim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you see who is the violent , blood thirsty and warmonger?

      Tears of Jihad

    3. Re:Iran is muslim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you nailed it. Mudslimes have just been biding their time waiting to strike

    4. Re:Iran is muslim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fantastic tu quoque rebuttal by you. Brilliant!

  45. Iran is the new China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    80% of the benefit is achieved at 20% of the effort. That ratio is improved by stealing IP in manufacturing, historical operational experience, and hindsight.

    In the unlikely event they are ever in a military conflict they will be disposed of quickly so Iran can move on to the next one. Maybe they will export to Russia, North Korea and Cuba. :D

    JJ

  46. Did you examine the cockpit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow! Those instruments are increadibly old mechanical indicators. I think the only special advantage they will have is in posing as a sitting duck!

    1. Re:Did you examine the cockpit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the photos post (which incidentally belongs to 2 years ago) the last post shows the upgraded HUD and MFD. They are all digital equipments and use LCD displays.

      http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?178754-Iranian-Cobra-upgrade-Toufan-(Storm)&p=4924255&viewfull=1#post4924255

  47. Re:this is why it is stupid to spend on military R by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

    Yes, but they'll only do so 40 years later ... at which point, what's the problem exactly ?

  48. Those aircraft have one flaw by axlr8or · · Score: 3, Funny

    To fire the weapons, you must think in American

  49. Why Iran REALLY wants a nuke : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Having a nuke is the ONLY way to make sure your country is
    not taken over by the US.

    That's why N. Korea, Iran, and any other country which doesn't want to
    end up being a puppet of the US wants nukes.

    The US acts like it is waging a war on terror, but the sad truth is that much of the
    terrorism has been done in response to things the US has done. This is something
    that is well known within the Pentagon and in the White House. All that "war on terror"
    propaganda is put out for the consumption of the idiots in the US who will provide
    their bodies or the bodies of their children for use by the US military.

    If you do not believe what I have written, you need to educate yourself.

    1. Re:Why Iran REALLY wants a nuke : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn, You don't get laid much, do you?

    2. Re:Why Iran REALLY wants a nuke : by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yep. Because you'd be glassed, instead of taken over.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  50. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by RodBee · · Score: 2

    Ever read about this guy on the bible named Samson?

    Based on him, I can assume every Christian country is a super strong whoremonger terrorist.

    Yeah, Troll, generalizations are bad for everyone.

  51. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by RodBee · · Score: 0

    Mr. Limbaugh, is that you?

  52. Please mod parent UP to offst moderator abuse by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The moderators apparently know no honour.
    The post above is a bit inane, but it is not Flamebait,
    nor does it deserves to be moderated down twice into
    -1.
    Please mod it up to recover the guy's Karma.
    Shame on you, moderator.

  53. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A better question: Israel has hundreds of Nukes. Would Iran want a single nuke on Tehran? They would loose 15 million Iranian.

    Obviously not.

    During Iran-Iraq war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian army and civilian. Iran never retaliated with chemical weapons stating that chemical weapons are inhumane. Iran still has thousands of people suffering from the effects of those weapons (incidentally provided by western countries).

  54. It must be so embarassing... by msobkow · · Score: 0

    It must be so embarrassing for the Iranian government to be in a dick-waving contest with the US and the world when the best they can show is a tiny example of 50 year old technology. The fact that they'd even think to brag about it shows how much their internal media must be censored, or how stupid they think their people are for them to be impressed by this "accomplishment."

    What happened to their threats to reverse engineer the drone that crashed^H^H^H^H^H^H^H they captured. Can we expect to see that in 2061?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:It must be so embarassing... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Well they seem to manufacture composites just fine. The problem is everything else but the airframe...

  55. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by bmo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh, and the good news? Mitt Romney has already stated that he's going to hire all these same psychopaths to advise his administration on foreign policy. He's putting the pro-war band back together, and this time with an extra helping of St John's Revelations, LDS-style.

    He's already started it. The entire board of the Foreign Policy Initiative all except for William Kristol himself are part of his foreign policy team.

    And the only reason why WK isn't on the team is that it would be too obvious.

    There is *nobody* in the Press talking about it. The silence and tacit approval from the Fourth Estate is fucking disgusting.

    You know what I see? I see rampant electoral fraud this November geared to get Romney elected and we're all just fucked. The fix is in. The fix was in two years ago. The loony-tunes unelectable candidates were picked by the GOP leadership to ensure that Romney, their patsy, would get the nomination. There is no other logical explanation for the disgusting crew of unlikeable and shit-for-brains candidates like Crazy Bitch, Mr. Hairpiece, Pizza Guy, etc.

    Yeah, I know, tighten the tinfoil, bmo, but the more you watch what's going on, the more it seems like tinfoil is required.

    And so we head toward Permanent War.

    --
    BMO

  56. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Israel would never nuke Iran. Those 2 countries are close enough that the radiation could possibly spread back to Israel.

  57. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 1

    So maybe you could share with us the dire consequences the U.S. suffered for nuking Japan.

    You can't can you, loser AC.

    --
    @de_machina
  58. Re:this is why it is stupid to spend on military R by RodBee · · Score: 1

    This blatant stealing is killing the industry! Right?

  59. MC 2002 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was this guy:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_K._Van_Riper

    Caused quite a bit of embarrassment to Rummy and his friends. He was retired at the time.

  60. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by budgenator · · Score: 3

    I find it amusing that you think that the Persians living in Iran have any kind of ethnic kinship with Arabs; they are more likely to feel that the very presence of Jews in the Holy Land is an affront to Islam, resent the Arabs for losing Palestine, and see the Palestinians as the physical embodiment of the Arabs dereliction of their religious duty to wipe the Israel off the face of the Earth. I easily see Iran as capable of sending every Palestinian on the earth to paradise as Martyrs in order to destroy Israel.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  61. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would Iran really kill countless innocent Muslim civilians, including women and children?

    Is that a joke? Iran executes children, as young as nine years old. It happens all the time. Usually for "crimes against chastity" meaning the child was molested by a relative.

    People are routinely executed in Iran for things that are not even crimes in the civilized world: apostasy, blasphemy, homosexuality, even witchcraft.

    And the punishments are done in the most gruesome, and painful, ways possible: suspension hanging, instead of drop hanging, because suspension hanging takes much longer, and is much more painful. Also, amputation, beheading, even stoning.

    Yes Iran would kill innocent Muslims, they do it all the time.

  62. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A dupe, for one. And you're so obviously a sock-puppet account it's hardly even funny...

  63. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

    What about radical Islamist conduct to date has convinced you that the certainty of more muslim than infidel deaths as a result of a given course of action will deter them from that course of action?

    --
    "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
  64. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by nbauman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was alive when US nuked Japan. Parent statement sounds right to me.

    I just happened to be reading the U.S. military's strategic bombing report of the atomic bombing of Japan. I also read a recent hospital report on a severe burn victim.

    I don't see any difference between being burned to death (or killed when a building collapses) in a nuclear blast or in a conventional firebombing. It's a long painful process in either case. The best you could hope for would be enough morphine to put you out, and they didn't have much morphine after those attacks.

    The AC's comment is part of a bad Internet practice of calling everything that you disagree with "inane drivel", as a substitute for thinking about it and making an intelligent comment.

  65. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The use of nuclear weapons against Israel presumably has to potentially include Jerusalem as a target. Nuking 'just' one location, such as Tel Aviv, means starting a war of total distruction with the surviving elements of the Israeli military, so it makes no more sense than, say, nukeing just New York and expecting the US to say "Oh, if it's only NY, we won't use nukes back." Ergo, use nukes at all and it's necessary to hit the Jerusalem area to kill Israeli military assets that will otherwise be nukeing you back. That means one of your hypothetical Iranian bombs takes out one of the most major Muslim holy sites (The Dome of the Rock). It also opens the door to retaliation against Islamic sites in general, presumably including even Mecca itself, as a risk. The question becomes, how far would Israel go with a 50% population loss? The real answer is, there's a reasonable likelyhood of a nuclear power using its weapons in response to just fallout from being downwind of a target nation, or similar possible triggers, let alone being faced with genocide and the possible total distruction of their nation. Asking what people would rationally do in such cases is starting from a false assumption that people in such cases remain rational if they started out that way .
            So yes, you are drawing a reasonable inference when you question how much Ahmadinejad is like Hitler or Stalin, as one of the major questions is "Is he crazier than either of those two?". Probably not, but he does what the Grand Ayatollahs direct, maybe with some other influences, but just who those might be is terribly unsure from outside Iran. The real question may be how crazy a bunch of mostly 70 yeal old + spiritual leaders are.
            However, you should keep in mind that most Iranians are not Arabs, although most are Muslims. Actual Arabs are only about 2% of the Iranian population according to the CIA world factbook. People who even speak fluent Arabic in the region total only about 3%, from the same source. Add to this that the version of Islam endorsed in Iran is Shia, while the majority of Palestinian Islamic practitioners are Sunni, and there are not as many ties between these peoples as most assume. There may well be Iranian hardliners who regard the Sunni as damnable heretics anyway, or, more secularly, strongly resent the occasional Sunni tendency (as seen particularly in Wahhabism, which is a Sunni/Saudi based half religion/half nationalism splinter), to treat all non-arab Muslims as second class Muslims.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  66. Help Me Out Here by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    The photos show the "Cobras" sporting Royal Air Force roundels. Are these also used by the Iranian Air Force out of some love for the British occupation or is it just some sort of Photoshop fail?

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:Help Me Out Here by Colin+Douglas+Howell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They're Iranian Air Force roundels: the outer ring is green instead of the blue used by the Royal Air Force. Although the Iranian Air Force's officer corps was purged after the Islamic revolution, its markings are only slightly modified from those of the old Imperial Iranian Air Force, which dates back to 1920, two decades before the occupation by the British during World War II. So it's not surprising that they were modeled after the British ones--or perhaps the French ones, since the French were actually the first to use the roundel. The French one is almost identical to the British, except that it has red on the outside and blue in the center. Anyway, the three-ring roundel is a very popular insignia for military aircraft, and lots of countries use it.

    2. Re:Help Me Out Here by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Cheap monitor didn't resolve the green well, and it looked blue to me. Interesting history.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    3. Re:Help Me Out Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A circular roundel has no corners, which of course are useful things for image processors (including the Mk.I eyeball) to see and track.

  67. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't mod you down, but I can guess you were modded down for needlessly bringing politics into a tech thread. And not only politics, but ME politics that results in flamewars every time. Mods probably did the right thing by putting out the firestarter before it could catch and ruin a discussion about technology and engineering. We'll talk about Iran, Israel, nukes, and ME politics when the topic is about Iran, Israel, nukes, and ME politics -- its not as if we don't get plenty of that around here.

  68. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by wpi97 · · Score: 1

    During the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian leadership used a tactic called the "human wave". They sent huge numbers of unarmed men to attack Iraqi troops. The Iranians kept coming (and dying) until the Iraqis ran out of ammo. After that the Iranians would overrun the Iraqi positions. This is just to illustrate how much the Iranian leaders care about not getting their own people killed. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of Israeli and Palestinian Arabs are Sunnis, whereas the Iranians are Shiites. There is a lot of bad blood between the Sunnis and the Shiites, and each does not really consider the other to be true Muslims. As far as your last point, it appears that anything Israel does, short of committing a collective suicide, fosters anti-semitism.

  69. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How exactly has the GP infringed Slashdot's guidelines?

    GP didn't; moderator(s) not following guidelines. On the other hand, GP maintains a lengthy shitlist for all to see.

  70. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    The biggest single group of victims of Islamic terrorism and militantism is, by a long shot, Muslims. Even Palestinian suicide bombers are/were very indiscriminate and would often kills as many Arabs as Jews in the attacks.

  71. Please don't be cynical/pessimist by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No, I don't really believe you would.

    I think you'd like to see everyone agree with you that Iran would not kill "countless innocent Muslim civilians" and that we should somehow take comfort in the fact that Ahmadinejad "is no Hitler and no Stalin". I'm sure that late neighboring buffoon, Saddam Hussein, was "no Hitler and no Stalin" but he had no compunctions about killing "countless innocent Muslim civilians". In fact, just about every time I look at the news I see muslims killing "countless innocent Muslim civilians", and more often than not, it's thanks to some "buffoon" who's "no Hitler and no Stalin". So pardon me if your assurances about Ahmadinejad do not really convince.

    I did want the debate, I'm honestly curious. I have no strong opinion here. How could I? Middle Eastern politics is insanely complex.
    People provided me with tons of new information, including links, and after reading them I will be much better informed.

    Regards

    1. Re:Please don't be cynical/pessimist by detritus. · · Score: 1

      If you want to know a thing or two about our wonderful foreign policy, take 10-minutes and get you up to speed on Iran and ask yourself just who is the real evil.

  72. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, they are thousands of kilometers apart (two countries are between them).

  73. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize Iran used to march children into minefields nearly naked as a war strategy, right ?

    Google "plastic keys to heaven".

  74. Re:the big problem is going to be getting new pilo by gman003 · · Score: 1

    gas pipe ain't good gun barrels. and I'm not going to say why ;)

    Just an FYI, your ignorance is showing.

    Iran isn't Zimbabwe or even Afghanistan. Iran's essentially a modern country. They have Internet - Twitter was a major part of the protests a while back. They have a space program that's successfully launched satellites. They're actually considered a leading country in stem-cell research and nanotechnology. They helped build the Large Hadron Collider. They export automobiles. They're considered a creative player, a rising star, in cinema. Their GDP sits between Turkey and Australia. On the UN Human Development Index, they are listed as High - the same category as Russia, Brazil, Mexico and Saudi Arabia, and above China, India, and South Africa.

    They produce, legally and under license, H&K MP5 sub-machineguns and G3 rifles and Rheinmetal MG3 machine guns. They have designed and built their own helicopters, UAVs, flight simulators, ballistic missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, smart bombs, you name it. Their standard infantry rifle is arguably an improvement over ours - literally, as it's a bullpup-modified variant of a Chinese copy of the M16.

    If we ever go to war with Iran, it will not be like Afghanistan. It will not be like Iraq. It would be like invading, say, Norway - we would win, eventually, if only through sheer bloody-mindedness, but it would be a nasty, brutal fight, bloody on both sides. It would be months, even years before we even get to the "barely-armed guerrilla insurgency" phase.

  75. How could this discussion possibly avoid politics? by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    I didn't mod you down, but I can guess you were modded down for needlessly bringing politics into a tech thread. And not only politics, but ME politics that results in flamewars every time. Mods probably did the right thing by putting out the firestarter before it could catch and ruin a discussion about technology and engineering. We'll talk about Iran, Israel, nukes, and ME politics when the topic is about Iran, Israel, nukes, and ME politics -- its not as if we don't get plenty of that around here.

    Thank you for replying.

    But honestly, how could a story about Iran reverse engineering American military helicopters possibly not generate
    politics-related comments?

    And no one had to moderate me down twice and hurt my Karma. They could simply have ignored me and moded up
    something else, so my post would be smothered.

    Fortunately, I have plenty of Karma to burn, and the dishonest moderators are just wasting their mod points
    and taking the risk of being caught by metamoderation.

    Regards

  76. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's both...definitely a puppet and quite possibly with serious mental stability issues. That said many of our leaders exhibit the same qualities so I'm pretty sure we're all F$%Ked

  77. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by QQBoss · · Score: 2

    While I see no indication that Nazism is popular in China, at almost every book sale I pass on college campuses, I see Chinese translations of Mein Kampf for sale. I have never seen one sold, nor even seen anyone pick one up, but I don't hang around the sales for a long time, either. One of these days I am going to have to ask what's up with that.

    As for the original topic, if you can't reverse engineer 50 year old technology that you have in your physical possession at least to the point of understanding the basic physics well enough to make a reasonable imitation, what a backwards place you have to be. What are they going to copy next, the B-52? Copying an airframe isn't very challenging, particularly when they already own plenty to disassemble, but without modern electronics and modern doctrine training, they might as well be clay pigeons to anyone but their own people.

    Looking at the original article (mod me up, I RTFM'd!), though, I am wondering how many of those Cobras were photoshopped in (and why none of them seem to have more than half the rotor with the sky a strange color in the space where the missing blade should be), and why can't I find Jar-Jar Binks... he has to be in there somewhere!

  78. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 1

    So by your standard you would agree that the U.S. has an oppressive government because it crushed every Occupy movement in every city in the U.S. last year, with mass arrests, tear gas and blackjacks, protests that were for the most part peaceful and just exercising their right to free speech.

    Israel's done pretty much the same thing, in fact substantially worse to suppress free speech by Palestinians in the occupied territories and in Israel.

    Saudi Arabia has one of the most repressive regimes in the world, heavy censorship, travel bans on dissidents in violation of international law.

    Lovable Canada recently passed laws to suppress student protests in Quebec over massive tuition increases, including 10 year sentences for protestors for simply wearing masks.

    So if you wanna be all holier than though about Iran you might wanna look around and notice that every government suppresses free speech the second they start feeling threatened by it.

    --
    @de_machina
  79. This would be useless on the battlefield... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least against western countries. The only way you can effectively operate these aircraft is if you have air superiority on the region, as they are extremely vulnerable to any fighter aircraft. They could build hundreds, but they will all get shot out of the sky by western air power before they can get near our tanks...

  80. Must resist urge... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to make a GI Joe joke here.

  81. Attack Helicopters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attack helicopters are only useful if the military has air supremacy. The only people Iran is ever going to have air supremacy over are its own people.

    Figures . . .

  82. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    Ahmahdinajad has only titular power.

    He's much like the elected mayor of London.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  83. No not really by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    They are a fine design, presuming Iran has all the parts working right (there's more to making a perfect copy than making it look similar). However they've got nothing on modern choppers. It isn't even so much the actual bits that have to do with flying, but the electronics for communications and attack.

    What makes the AH-64D so fearsome is the whole "longbow system". So one helicopter with longbow radar, could even by a Cobra with it, sneaks forward and peaks its radar dome up over the trees or buildings. This gets an accurate map of all the enemy forces, and cross decks it to all the Apaches lying back in waiting. The scout makes itself scarce, and the other pop up and fire off a volley of hellfires from around 5 miles away. These all go for their designated targets, there aren't any unintentional overlaps, and hit.

    The system lets a mass targeting like that take place. One platform finds them, the rest blow them up and you don't have any problems of multiple designations where like 4 choppers shoot the same tank or something.

    So if Iran has a longbow system ready to go, ok then maybe they have something. Notice the article says nothing about that and they'd probably be bragging on it if they did.

    1. Re:No not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't seem like it would be hard though. Stick a radome on top of the blade assembly, and get the secret sauce with the software.

      Iran is actually pretty talented at software, and the longbow system at it's heart is software
      (know a little about the AH64D from playing way too much Jane's Longbow Gold)

  84. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by QQBoss · · Score: 1

    Never is a mighty long time, and religious tenets frequently get left behind (or reinterpreted, or taqiyya'd) in a desire to achieve a goal.

              “The Iranian nation is standing for its cause and that is the full annihilation of Israel,” Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi said in a speech to a defense
                gathering Sunday in Tehran.

              His remarks came on the day International Atomic Energy Agency director Yukiya Amano flew to Tehran to negotiate for inspections
              of Iran’s nuclear program. They were reported by the Fars News Agency, the media outlet of the Revolutionary Guards Corps.

    While he could expect everyone else to do the dirty work and hope for a better outcome then the 6 day war, the only meaningful way the Iranian military could achieve his stated cause is with nukes (or chemical/biological weapons).

  85. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During Iran-Iraq war, Iran was attacked by Iraqi chemical weapons (provided by western countries). Iran never retaliated by chemical weapons and they mentioned in several occasions that Chemical weapons are inhumane and they will not use it.

    Even their leader of that time (Khomeini) issued a Fatwa that using chemical weapons is not allowed.

  86. I didn't say that by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    I find it amusing that you think that the Persians living in Iran have any kind of ethnic kinship with Arabs

    I never said that Iranians are Arabs. I merely theorise that Iran may fear the Arab backslash if they killed a million Arabs.

    1. Re:I didn't say that by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't really think so. Iran is always on the brink of conflict with neighboring Arab states - heck, they've already clashed with Iraq in the past. There's a long history of enmity between those, and I don't think they can do much to make it even worse.

  87. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that's relevant how?

  88. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Chinese don't exactly subscribe to Nazism but there was a counter revolution when Mao died and they did swing hard to state Capitalism and something closely resembling Fascism. Its comical for the Chinese to still claim they're Communists when their leadership are increasingly very wealthy and very successful capitalists.

    The two regimes in the Middle East that were closely aligned to Fascism recently were the Ba'ath regimes, Saddam's Iraq and Assad's Syria. It is a real stretch to claim Turkey is anywhere close to being in the same class.

    If you want to name another regime in the Middle East with issues with ethnic cleansing and far right leaning its probably Israel. Its ironic how similar they've become to their bitterest nemesis.

    --
    @de_machina
  89. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have looked into these allegations and found them to be misrepresentations. There are unjust rulings, but they tend to be political. The remainder are no worse than you might find in Malaysia or even the US. Perhaps you were instead thinking of our good friends Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

  90. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A description of a US President from the Illuminatus! Trilogy:

    He was harassed, but still he spoke with authority. He was, in fact, characteristic of the best type of dominant male in the world at this time. He was fifty-five years old, tough, shrewd, unburdened by the complicated ethical ambiguities which puzzle intellectuals, and had long ago decided that the world was a mean son-of-a-bitch in which only the most cunning and ruthless can survive. He was also as kind as was possible for one holding that ultra-Darwinian philosophy; and he genuinely loved children and dogs, unless they were on the site of something that had to be bombed in the National Interest. He still retained some sense of humor, despite the burdens of his almost godly office, and, although he had been impotent with his wife for nearly ten years now, he generally achieved orgasm in the mouth of a skilled prostitute within 1.5 minutes. He took amphetamine pep pills to keep going on his grueling twenty-hour day, with the result that his vision of the world was somewhat skewed in a paranoid direction, and he took tranquilizers to keep from worrying too much, with the result that his detachment sometimes bordered on the schizophrenic; but most of the time his innate shrewdness gave him a fingernail grip on reality. In short, he was much like the rulers of Russia and China.

    This could easily apply to Ahmadinejad and Netanyahu.

  91. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    So by your standard you would agree that the U.S. has an oppressive government because it crushed every Occupy movement in every city in the U.S. last year, with mass arrests, tear gas and blackjacks, protests that were for the most part peaceful and just exercising their right to free speech.

    Free speech doesn't mean you are able to say anything you want in any way you want. It means you are able to criticize the government, and people who want to hear you can find a way to hear you. This is an important distinction, figure it out.

    Saudi Arabia has one of the most repressive regimes in the world, heavy censorship, travel bans on dissidents in violation of international law.

    Yes, Saudi Arabia is an oppressive regime.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  92. Precisely by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    In terms of what the US has, well have a look at the AH-64D. That's the current unclassified nifty toy, though it has been around for a bit. Particularly look at the longbow package, the thing that makes a D variant what it is. It is a rather big upgrade. Remember that with things like tanks n' choppers n' so on the fundamental design may be kept for many years with various upgrades made to it. The US still uses B-52s but they are far more advanced today, despite being the same airframe.

    You could look at it sort of like a computer: Maybe you keep the same case and powersupply, that doesn't mean you don't upgrade the components.

    Then of course there's whatever the US has that it wont' tell people about. The Bin Laden raid inadvertently revealed that there is something. The tail of the helicopter that didn't get destroyed was from no known design out there. So the US has a classified helicopter. Big surprise there. Who knows what precisely it is capable of (hence why it would be classified)?

    Also don't confuse propaganda with results. Iran says they have a bunch of helicopters. Ok, how well do they work? Where they proof? We know the AH-64Ds the US have work, not only are there plenty of videos of the playing around in training simulations, but they've been used in actual combat. There's no question they do what they say. Iran says they have a domestically produced Cobra. Ok, does it even fly? If it does, is it any good at combat maneuvers? How are its weapons?

    If there's no answer to that it could be because they want to keep it secret, but that would be a little silly given the US already knows what the Cobras do. It also could be because the thing doesn't work near as well as it should.

    Think about the cheap Chinese knockoff market for devices: You find these things that look nearly or completely the same, but don't work at all as well as the device they copied. One that readily comes to mind are EOTech holographic weapon sights. Real EOTechs cost $400 and up and are combat sights, as in the military actually DOES use them in combat. Very rugged and reliable, they don't lose their zero, are waterproof, and have great optics (the best anti-glare coating I've ever seen).

    The Chinese knockoffs? They cost maybe $50-100 in the US, probalby less there. They look like EOTechs, they try to copy as much of the markings as they can and they are physically similar, though built out of different plastic and plastic in some places the EOTechs are metal. However that's where it ends. The optics are garbage, they aren't waterproof, the "nightvision" button doesn't make them work with NV just changes the colour, they lose zero with the recoil from fired shots, and they break down easily.

    That they make a copy doesn't mean they make a good copy.

    1. Re:Precisely by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Ok, how well do they work?"

      Mission-capable rate are THE key military aircraft readiness indicator, which is why the US Air Force tracks every fighter in detail and reviews maintenance and other status DAILY.

      Aircraft exist to produce effective sorties.

      That said, the Iranians could probably do a decent job if they CHOOSE quality.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  93. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by LavouraArcaica · · Score: 1

    AFAIK, the brutal supression of oposition are made both by Iran and Israel. After all, 'democracy' is not democracy when you chose who can and who can't vote.

  94. Cobra = English Longbow by stimpleton · · Score: 1

    Production of battlefield equipment is often not the bottleneck. Training a suitable number of troops is.

    Just as in the 1300's and 1400's the English Longbow was a devastating weapon. However, they just couldn't keep up the skilled men to operate the 6 ft, upto 200lb draw strength required.

    These helicopters are largely for moral.

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
  95. uuuu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of you brainwashed dangerous psychopaths religious ignorants you think killing in the name of GOD is good! YOU ARE THE BASTARDS.
    You can kill me I don't care, you will NEVER HAVE MY LOVE NOR MY SOUL!!!!

  96. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A dupe, for one.

    Meaning that I posted similar words in more than one story? I wasn't aware that was forbidden.

    And you're so obviously a sock-puppet account it's hardly even funny...

    Yes genius, and Fidel Castro is a Marxist.

    I created the other account to overcome the 50-comment limit for users with Karma.
    I made only 3 comments with that account, in the same discussion as the other account,
    and using the same arguments and the same wording. I wasn't hiding.

    I didn't think it was necessary, but now I updated both accounts to disclose this fact.

  97. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by MisterSquid · · Score: 0

    I'll take a stab (re: your challenge to AC) at what's wrong with your thinking.

    Killing 50,000 people is a tragedy any way you cut it. Killing 50K people inside of a week is horrible. Killing that many people in less than 5 seconds exceeds our human capacities for moral understanding. I think any human being whose sense of empathy is intact instinctively recoils from the idea of instantaneously annihilating, say, 2,000,000 people.

    I believe the US has suffered great psycho-social repercussions for detonating nuclear weapons over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Have you ever watched the opening of Gojira or Akira and not felt pain knowing the historical source of these holocaust scenarios?

    I think the collective guilt Americans feel about how the US treated some Japanese during WW II (internment, nuclear detonations) is one of the reasons Japanese and Japanese culture are so well-loved by people many Americans. Not only are Japanese people as various and beautiful as we imagine them to be--which imagining makes the instantaneous loss of so many people painful to contemplate--but many of us are deeply regretful our country chose to use nuclear weapons on fellow human beings, however despicable the actions of its government. I personally hope neither we nor anyone else ever does such a thing again.

    But given there are people who actually believe as you do, I'd lay better than even odds my hopes will one day be crushed by the news that the US has deployed a nuclear warhead over a Middle Eastern peoples.

    --
    blog
  98. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by INeededALogin · · Score: 1

    The devestation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't really much different than the firebombings of Tokyo by the U.S. or Dresden by the British, excepting for radiation sickness and long term cancers, but fire bombing led to burns that were pretty much as bad. The nukes just required fewer air planes to do the damage, but they were still massively expensive to make.

    They are totally different.
    The rivers don't boil with firebombing.
    The moisture isn't sucked out of people that they are so thirsty that they jump into the boiling rivers.
    Firebombs don't irradiate people.
    Firebombs don't kill people weeks, months, years, decades later.

    Visit Hiroshima and be humbled. They have a memorial that is a huge mound of human ashes.

  99. sounds like we're by nimbius · · Score: 1

    using a military website whos advisory board includes two former members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to downplay the fact that
    iran so far, just as russia had in the cold war, has outstriped our laughably conservative estimates of its military capability. After all, we've been banging this war drum for far too long to see its support base dwindle in the sight of things like the ability to capture, disable, and reverse engineer americas newest drone.
    http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-building-copy-captured-us-drone-083944692.html
    investors like lockheed and boeing need politicians, and the american public to maintain the hardline opinion that iran could and should be easily crushed by the US military. The boogeyman must remain frightening enough to win the hearts and minds of constituents, but not so frightening as to make them reconsider the cause and effect of another real war without drones that sends kids home with missing limbs or a full scale IQ of 85.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  100. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by QQBoss · · Score: 5, Funny

    The proper way to get yourself in bad with the head of the communist party at a university is to ask if he owns the Audi he drove up in, but the 30 seconds or so of blank stare as he goes through all the possible reasons why you might be asking that question is freaking hilarious.

  101. Who else thought of this? by Culture20 · · Score: 1
  102. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    No doubt Palestinians are just looking for the right to vote, and speak freely in the country of Israel.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  103. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

    What on earth was Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi doing addressing a Tehran crowd in English?

    Of course he wasn't, which means that there are now at the mercy of those who translated it, even assuming the reported it accurately. And your link points to a US media site (so already hardly neutral or unbiased in these things) but not just that, one that has right-wing leanings and indeed was founded by a former adviser to Dick Cheney.

    It is worth re-iterating that Iran has not started a war before. Can you say the same about Israel or the US. In fact the latter seems to start one every couple of years. Much as I loathe religious nut jobs, the balance of evidence is that the Israeli and US religious nut jobs have more to account for thus far than the Iranian ones.

  104. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by wpi97 · · Score: 1

    First, I am not justifying Iraqi atrocities by any way. However, I am amazed how people who send unarmed men into battle and who send boys to clear mine fields have the chutzpah to pontificate on what is humane and what isn't. I also think that the only reason Iran did not use chemical weapons in that war is because it didn't have them.

  105. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by MisterSquid · · Score: 2

    Free speech doesn't mean you are able to say anything you want in any way you want

    Actually, it does.

    However, in practice there are limitations on free speech which most reasonable (and some unreasonable) people would agree are necessary to a functioning civil society, limitations that prevail even in countries that claim to be committed to freedom of expression.

    It's the limitations most people feel are unacceptable that cause the problem. Right here, right now, right in what many of us consider to be "the free world", such unacceptable limitations exist, and many of us are pretty pissed about it.

    I don't have any more to add right now.

    --
    blog
  106. Re:Please moderate parent UP to offst moderator ab by INeededALogin · · Score: 1

    Some moderator keeps moderating down as "Troll" everything I post

    Slashdot could fix this. I'm guilty of being pissed off with modpoints (years ago) and it is too easy for a moderator to target an individual. Simply gauging moderator behaviors and applying some limits(max 1 mod per individual) would take care of this problem.

  107. Re:Please moderate parent UP to offst moderator ab by detritus. · · Score: 1

    I think we can rightfully call this the "reddit effect".

  108. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "It means you are able to criticize the government, and people who want to hear you can find a way to hear you."

    Apologies, I'm not following your point. Are you saying Occupy somehow had no right to say the things they were saying?

    The occupy movement was criticizing the U.S. government and just trying to be heard. As soon as they started being heard, and they started to cause discomfort to Wall Street and the government, they were systematically crushed in every place they had critical mess, New York, Oakland, UC Davis, Denver, Boston, LA etc.

    The Federal government was actively aiding and coordinating the cities as they used riot police to break up the entire movement. How often have you heard anything about it since the last encampments were broken up by riot police.

    Iran's supression was somewhat more brutal, but in terms of intent, goals and effect what the U.S. government did to the Occupy movement was exactly the same kind of oppression Iran's government did to the Green movement. The Green movement was actually trying to topple the regime in Iran. Occupy was just saying the current regime in the U.S. sucks (i.e. Wall Street seizing control of our government and using that control to loot America).

    --
    @de_machina
  109. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course he wasn't, which means that there are now at the mercy of those who translated it, even assuming the reported it accurately. And your link points to a US media site (so already hardly neutral or unbiased in these things) but not just that, one that has right-wing leanings and indeed was founded by a former adviser to Dick Cheney.

    Do you have a site that countermands or disagrees with this translation? A non-biased site?
    Didn't think so.

  110. Or just buy one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://barnstormers.com/classified_525683_BELL+AH-1G.html

  111. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    You need freedom of speech to get the message out that a government is bad, and get your ideas out for how to improve it. As long as you can do so, your country has freedom of speech, because then you will be able to (attempt) to convince your neighbors that the other speech limitations should change.

    That is the necessary bar for 'freedom of speech' from a political perspective. If you are above it, you have freedom of speech. If you are below it, you do not.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  112. Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry for being slightly off topic, but this is important:

    Do you know of any studies/argumentations about the likelihood of Iran using atom bombs against Israel? There are 1,573,000 Israeli Arabs and 1,240,000 Israeli Muslims (many, but not all, of the Arabs are Muslims) - not counting the people in the Palestinian territories that are not Israel citizens. Would Iran really kill countless innocent Muslim civilians, including women and children? I mean, Ahmadinejad may be a buffoon, but AFAIK he is no Hitler and no Stalin. I would like to see this debated.

    I have seen news that Israel is about to perform a preemptive strike against Iran, and this is horrible. Not only because of the direct loss of life, but because it fosters anti-semitism, anti-Christianism and anti-Americanism among the Muslim population, and countless people are being killed because of this hatred.

    Iran is very much an enemy of Arabs - Sunni Arabs in particular, which is what virtually all the Muslims within Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza are. Besides, as per the Sunnah, colateral damage of Muslims is fine if it's done in the process of killing Infidels, which in this case it would be. Also, despite Iran's support to Shias in Iraq, Bahrein, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, all is not hunky dory between Iran and Shia Arabs - the Arabs who live in the South Western area of Iran bordering Basra are among the groups persecuted by the Farsis, despite them being Shia.

    The argument about Ahmadinejad not being a Stalin or Hitler is not all there is. First of all, he's #2 in the Iranian regime, if that - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the head honcho, and it's he who'd get to decide whether to wipe out Israel or not, once Iran gets nukes. Aside from that, Ahmadinejad came to power on a platform to bring in the Mahdi, or the 12th imam, who is said to reside in a well in Qum, and would return along with Jesus Christ to assist in the hastening of the acopalypse. (Christ's role, in this Islamic version, would be to either covert all Christians to Islam or kill them.) That is the reason that Iran wants the bomb - so that they can fulfil those eschatological fantasies.

    About Israel doing a pre-emptive strike against Iran, if their reading of the situation is that Iran is working on a nuke with which to threaten them, it sounds only logical that they'd consider such a possibility. However, unlike Iraq in 1981 or Syria more recently, Iran has several, not one uranium enrichment facility, and they are scattered throughout the country. Therefore, in the absense of the US doing it, Israel's only hope has been to do it behind the scenes - w/ Stuxnet, and other such adventures.

    Israel is said to have had a nuclear arsenal since the 70s, although they maintain a policy of being deliberately ambiguous about it, to keep both their erstwhile allies, as well as their enemies guessing. But if Israel had the same genocidal ambitions that Muslims and their supporters project onto it, Israel could have nuked Iran in the 80s (when it would have been popular, given the Iran-Iraq war, and Iran was universally hated). After all, Iran had that hatred of Israel since 1979, so had Israel gone into this with the very attitude that Israel detractors accuse it of going with, they could have allied with Saddam and nuked Iran, and enabled Iraq to completely occupy Iran.

  113. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's already started it. The entire board of the Foreign Policy Initiative all except for William Kristol himself are part of his foreign policy team.
    Here's hoping Ron Paul hijacks the candidacy or runs third party and splits the GOP right down the middle. Thank god that "crazy old conservative" is the only guy who knows enough about our history than to get into another illegal and expensive war.

  114. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by INeededALogin · · Score: 2, Informative

    If they ever try anything like Pearl Harbor again they should be summarily eliminated from existence.

    ... So they poorly attack a military outpost and that gives us a reason to kill women, children, and old people. You are shit excuse of a human being.

    Say the warcrimes in China and Korea that the Japanese committed, but Pearl Harbor...

  115. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 1

    The image you just painted IS hilarious.

    --
    @de_machina
  116. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by bmo · · Score: 1

    >Here's hoping Ron Paul hijacks the candidacy or runs third party and splits the GOP right down the middle

    And the GOP will have learned the easy lesson from watching Nader fuck the DNC. All it will take is to find Dr. Paul's price. It's probably not money, but I guarantee that they will definitely wheel and deal to keep him out.

    Yes, I am that cynical. Possibly not cynical enough.

    --
    BMO

  117. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by QQBoss · · Score: 1

    So you are saying the Fars News Agency, an Iranian web site, is actually a US media site and was founded by a former adviser to Dick Cheney? Because the very first link in the Yahoo web page I originally included points to it. Perhaps I should have used that link originally, but I thought the Yahoo web site did a better job of fleshing out the story.

    But you are welcome to begin believing that even native Farsi speakers are unable to translate correctly, because the following is obviously a mistranslated peace overture: "The Zionist regime is a real cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut, God Willing," Ayatollah Khamenei underscored.

  118. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    Apologies, I'm not following your point. Are you saying Occupy somehow had no right to say the things they were saying?

    They do have the right to speak. They don't have the right to say it in any way they want, or to become squatters.

    Iran's supression was somewhat more brutal,

    No, it was significantly more brutal.

    The point of free speech (from a government perspective) is that You need freedom of speech to get the message out that a government is bad, and get your ideas out for how to improve it. If people aren't interested in your message, you can't force them to listen to you by blocking bridges and yelling in their faces. The Iranians weren't trying to topple the regime, they were trying to get their votes counted.

    And let's face it, the message of OWS was trite. The current US government sucks and banks got a sweet deal they didn't deserve? Everyone knows that. Is it any wonder people get bored of listening to them?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  119. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The entire board of the Foreign Policy Initiative all except for William Kristol himself are part of his foreign policy team.

    And the only reason why WK isn't on the team is that it would be too obvious.

    There is *nobody* in the Press talking about it.

    Colin Powell isn't "nobody"...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/colin-powell-mitt-romney-foreign-policy_n_1538945.html

  120. Wait, what? by denzacar · · Score: 0

    I don't recall there being any backlash when the U.S. used nukes on Japan...

    Are you really, REALLY comparing the USA's and Japan's positions in the WWII and the state of the world back in 1945 with anything current?
    Besides Japan being an island country and an aggressor in the region (meaning that most their neighbors were at best not celebrating in the streets when they got nuked), and a huge military machine, and allies with fucking Nazi Germany in their world conquest...
    There's this tiny little thing about there being a single-digit number of atomic bombs back then - all of them belonging to the U.S. of A.

    So not only was the USA "the victorious good guys who've just defeated not one but TWO evil empires" - they also had the nukes. ALL of them.
    And I'm not even going to go into Marshal plan and all the other aid programs USA did back then.
    Seriously, what kind of global or local "backlash" would you expect in such a case?

    No country in the world today is in either USA's or Japan's position from back then, nor is the world of today ANYTHING like the world of 1945.
    There are thousands of nukes laying around, and there are almost 3 times more people now, making the world a much smaller place.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Wait, what? by demachina · · Score: 1

      So you are basically in the camp that there are good and righteous nukes and the ones the U.S. dropped are them?

      I'm not sure you are actually disagreeing with my original point, which in case you missed it is that I think its quite plausible that someone could use nukes today and not be nuked in to the stone age in turn or end in eternal damnation.

      Israel was danger close to using nukes in 1973. They were actively threatening it to get more aid from the U.S. and if the convenentional war hadn't suddenly turned in their favor they would almost certainly have rolled them on to the tarmac . Are you saying someone would have incinerated Israel if they had nuked Egypt or Syria, or would Israel using nukes be another one of your righteous and justified cases?

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:Wait, what? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      First of all, there is no such thing as "good and righteous" murder of civilians.
      And with nukes, you are ALWAYS murdering civilians. Along with everything else down the wind.

      I think its quite plausible that someone could use nukes today and not be nuked in to the stone age in turn or end in eternal damnation.

      Sorry, but you are wrong there.

      There are quite a few countries and individuals out there who are not under direct control of one nuclear superpower but are an ally of another nuclear superpower.
      Use of nuclear weapons today would end in retaliation. If not against the primary aggressor, then against his allies.
      It would probably not lead to an all out nuclear war, but the first nuke WOULD be retaliated against, with equal or harsher response.
      And you don't need nukes to commit genocide. Poisons and diseases would do just fine.

      Are you saying someone would have incinerated Israel if they had nuked Egypt or Syria, or would Israel using nukes be another one of your righteous and justified cases?

      HAD Israel used the nukes, that would have meant that the USA had used them. Against the USSR.
      Yom Kippur War was just another tiny war where USA and USSR used other nations to fight for them.

      Following that, the USSR would be handing nukes out like candies to every single enemy of the Israel who would come knocking.
      Draw your own conclusions from there.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  121. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    Israel would not nuke Iran unless Israel's existence was threatened. Even if Iran used a chemical WMD Israel would likely respond with (a lot of) conventional munitions. Really the Israelis have nukes so that they won't have to use them (crazy, eh? but it is the same with most of the other nuke armed powers).

  122. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to know whether or not muslims would really do this, why not read a story from the quran : http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/jews.htm [answering-islam.org]

    That's not a story from the Quran, that is an opinion piece make a biased argument. At least link to the Quran.

  123. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Informative

    IIRC, there was a great deal of debate on whether to drop the bomb. It was decided to because of the way the Japanese fought throughout the Pacific, ceding island by island fighting to the last man. So instead of risking 100s of thousand of US troops, they asked Japan to surrender. They refused and it was decided to drop 1 bomb. The US then requested Japan to surrender again. Japan still refused. They dropped #2 and promised more unless there was a surrender. A bit of a bluff since there were only 3 in existence at the time. Japan surrendered. The net effect - probably less Japanese dead, and a whole lot less US dead, and Japan surrendered instead of being wholly defeated and possibly wiped from history. Conventional war was not pretty with the Japanese fight to the last man ethics, it makes for great movies but horrible wars, as all sorts of atrocities start being carried out by the ever more desperate losing side. And Japan was losing, and would lose. There was little doubt as at that time civilians were just considered collateral damage - unfortunate that they were caught between two warring parties even though both sides would claim they tried to avoid hitting civilians but, weapons just weren't that accurate.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  124. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 0, Troll

    I forgot one thing: Pearl Harbor being a sneak attack violated all aspect of diplomacy and civilized international law. So yes, wiping them off the map was warranted.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  125. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

    No, they are thousands of kilometers apart (two countries are between them).

    "How far would you go?" Question to Israeli general.
    "2000 kilometers."

  126. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by bmo · · Score: 1

    I really wish he had said that on Meet The Press or something.

    Huffpo, popular as it is with liberals, isn't going to reach the same amount of people as MTP does, which would probably get repeated on the network news and even Fox if only for Fox personalities to get all offended.

    --
    BMO

  127. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All it will take is to find Dr. Paul's price. It's probably not money, but I guarantee that they will definitely wheel and deal to keep him out.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Ron Paul has an "accident", or a "tragic heart attack". He's fairly old, no one will be too surprised.

  128. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So you are seriously trying to grade how people die with nukes versus a fire storm and you think somehow dying in either one doesn't completely suck? If anything the nuke tends to be somewhat more merciful, at least for all the people near ground zero since the death is instantaneous, slow roasting or searing suffocation in a fire storm has to be one of the more brutal ways to kill someone.

    Their are monuments in Tokyo and Dresden too. The Tokyo monument is a statue of a group of children.

    The Dresden monument reads,

      ""How many died? Who knows the number? In your wounds one sees the agony of the nameless ones who burned here in the hellfire made by human hands.""

    Once you start killing large numbers of civilians the details of how you go about it don't actually matter.

    --
    @de_machina
  129. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by LongearedBat · · Score: 2

    CIA world factbook

    Also known as Facebook? ;)

  130. US, nukes and Japan by unixisc · · Score: 0

    Ok, so US nuked Japan, and some 50 years later, a tsunami damages a Japanese built nuclear power plant, and that's a dire consequence of the US nuking Japan? Talk about the butterfly effect, moron!

  131. Consequences of Hiroshima by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Demachina's claim about there being no repercussions on the US for using nukes is historically borne out. Far from US being subjected to attacks - conventional or nuclear, Japan surrendered, and the war ended. Maybe you can fill in whether people within the US condemned the US for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the first time it was condemned was when the Soviets started using it during the Cold War as propaganda against the US. Never mind that 2 days after Hiroshima, the Soviets declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria and Korea.

    You are right - for the victims, there's not a difference between being bombed by a nuke vs being at the receiving end of, say, a JDAM. Difference is more strategic - a nuclear attack is guaranteed to completely destroy everything within a certain radius, whereas conventional weapons only work on their precise targets.

    1. Re:Consequences of Hiroshima by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      We're not comparing nuclear and precision weapons, but nuclear weapons and strategic bombing. Strategic bombing involves destroying large parts of cities, rather then specific buildings.

  132. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by bmo · · Score: 1

    Excuse me while I think about this. If this actually happens, we will have become communist-era Bulgaria.

    --
    BMO

  133. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it? You mean Iran did not have the tech of first world war? Iran has one of the most advanced chemical industries in region. Chemistry is the number 1 (in terms of peer reviewed papers) science in Iran. It has always been this way. The university in which I did my undergraduate 15 years ago had 15 full professores in Chemistry (and another 30-40 PhD lecturers and researchers).

    Those Boys!!! were all volunteers and no one forced them to go. Unarmed? You like to make stories of yourself? Besides the minimum allowed age for volunteering was 15 yo. When a country is attacked by another country everyone will take a weapon to defend.

    I am 100% against current regime in Iran (and bringing religion into politics) but when my city was almost invaded by Iraqis I become volunteer to fight (and I was exactly 15).

  134. Is Israel really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's ironic how a huge portion of ISRAEL's population is Muslim, as well as how the 'Pali' population in Gaza and West Bank have been growing. If Israel was a state that practiced ethnic cleansing, the overwhelming majority of people in not only Israel, but also Judea, Samaria and Gaza would have been JEWS, not Muslim.

    NAZI was a German acronym for 'National SOCIALIST German WORKER's Party'. It beats me why they are refered to as Right Wing, when their economic philosophy is not much different from Marxism. Only difference between Nazism and Communism is that the former assumes that they (the people who constitute their members) are a master race, while the latter has goals of a worldwide fraternity of the proletariat. But both are only too happy to employ genocidal means in order to achieve these utopian goals.

    1. Re:Is Israel really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 1

      Israel practices ethnic cleansing because they are putting Palestinians in the West bank and Gaza in what are basically open air prisons. Apartheid in South Africa used the term Bantustan's or homelands when they did the same thing to blacks. In Europe when the practice was applied to Jews they were called ghetto's the most famous being the one in Warsaw which under German occupation has striking similarities to Gaza.

        Israel is actively engaged in a long range plan to preserve a Jewish "democracy" by disenfranchising Palastinians which due to the demographics of a much higher birth rate will eventually hold the majority in Israel counting the occupied territories. When that occurs Israel will, for all practical purposes, be an apartheid state with a minority holding power through elections that are democratic in name only.

      The fact that Israel is aggressively putting settlements in to occupied territories, which is a violation of international law, and are aggressively displacing Palastinian in the process is the icing on the ethnic cleansing cake.

      As for why Nazi's were called right wing its because they practiced state capitalism and were radically anti union which placed them on the opposite side of the spectrum from leftists and communists which are in theory at least entirely for workers and unions. Right wing state capitalists make no pretense of being a workers paradise, workers work to serve the state and the party, and the well connected party members tend to be rich and powerful. In practice Nazi Germany and Stalinst Russia weren't really very different, but that's mostly because Stalin staged a counter revolution, hijacked the Russian revolution and when he did it became a Communist state in name only. China did the same transition from Communism to counter revolution and state capitalism when Mao died and the "Gang of Four" including Mao's widow were deposed. The party started "special economic zones" and slowly embracing state capitalism from 1978 on, so today it is for all practical purposed a Fascist state and Communist in name only.

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:Is Israel really such a threat? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 0

      NAZI was a German acronym for 'National SOCIALIST German WORKER's Party'. It beats me why they are refered to as Right Wing, when their economic philosophy is not much different from Marxism.

      Educate yourself.

    3. Re:Is Israel really such a threat? by wesharris6 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Unfortunately this would require that there be death on the part of the Palestinians in a systematic way. There isn't. I'm sorry, you fail. NEXT

    4. Re:Is Israel really such a threat? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Death doesn't have to be part of ethnic cleaning, example is Canada where ethnic cleaning consisted of destroying the native ethnicity by doing things like removing their children and if lucky like my wife, being raised as a different ethnicity or if unlucky, being heavily sexually assaulted in the name of religion after being removed from their family and raised in an institutionalized setting where their ethnicity was totally repressed.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:Is Israel really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither death nor exile is the case for Arab Muslims in either Israel, or West Bank/Gaza. In 1948, when Israel was formed, many Muslims chose to stay within Israel's boundaries, while many chose to leave, incited by the leaders of Jordan, Syria and Egypt, so that using a refugee status, they could claim the right to get back Israel, and abolish the Jewish state. Unfortunately for them, Israel's victories in the various wars ensured that that wet dream never panned out.

      The Arab populations in both Israel, as well as the West Bank grew at the same rate of growth as the population. While Israel accepted the Arab Muslims who accepted Israeli citizenship to start with, it refused to do that for those who had willingly refused to accept Israeli citizenship, and left. Today, some 60 years afther the events of that time, 2 generations have passed, so while the people who lived in Israel in 1948 may have deserved Israeli citizenship, their descendants, who were born elsewhere and lived elsewhere do not. They deserve the citizenship of whichever country they live in - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Syria, Iraq or wherever else they moved.

      Part of the problem is an Arab League policy of requiring its members not to give citizenship to Palestinians. This is nothing more than a cynical ploy to keep the problem festering, so that they can be used as a political football against Israel. Putting them in refugee camps is a part of the problem. After all, Gaza is now Judenrein, and yet, Palis still live in refugee camps there, and elsewhere in the West Bank. Most of the areas, particularly populated cities like Bethlehem, Hebron, Nablus and Jericho are now completely Pali - no Jews there. So who's stopping Hamas, who was democratically elected, to build up a civil society there? But that's not what this is about - it's about wiping out the Jews, as per dictats from the quran.

      After all, what are refugees? They are people who are driven out of their homelands, and don't have a country to live in. But the Palestinians have been living in all these Arab countries for years, as refugees, even though the first generation of refugees is gone, and the next 2 generations are locally born, and belong more to the countries that they live in, rather than to 'Palestine'. Throughout human history, people have moved out of their native countries, very often involuntarily, and settled down in other countries and made that their permanent home. What makes these Arab countries so special that they can't give citizenship to these Palestinians even after 50 years, and 2 generations of people, who were born there, and belong to those countries?

      If Israel was smart, they WOULD have expelled all Arabs out of Israel proper, and if they kept being threatened, expel them further from West Bank and Gaza. Create a real refugee problem for countries like Egypt and Syria (the former of which is now itching to terminate the Camp David Agreements) and rid themselves of this thorn in their side. No country would tolerate a seditious population in its midst that wanted to destroy it and everything it stood for - does anyone think Iran would tolerate a population that wanted to end the Islamic republic and replace it with a secular, democratic one? Muslim countries have happily indulged in ethnic cleansing for far less than what Israel has had to tolerate.

    6. Re:Is Israel really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither of those articles explained why NAZI was a right wing, as opposed to a Left wing ideology. Yeah, the anti-Semitic content was there, but the Soviets too were anti-Semitic and persecuted Jews during Stalin's regime and beyond. Being anti-Semitic doesn't make a Left wing philosophy magically Right wing. Try again!

    7. Re:Is Israel really such a threat? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Right wing is an arbitrary label that doesn't really correlate directly with any single ideology, but is most closely associated with conservatism (to remind, the term itself comes from the French Revolution, where "right wing" were the members of parliament who were sitting on the right side, who were mostly proponents of monarchy, tradition and clericalism).

      Nazism is an ideology that blends revolutionary ideas with ultra-conservative ones. However, because the latter was the source of most grief - e.g. anti-semitism in Europe was a long-standing tradition )in contrast, Soviets were initially very anti-anti-semitic, and indeed disproportionally many original Bolsheviks were themselves Jews), and so was homophobia. Other notable right wing points were state support for religion and ethnic nationalism.

  135. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually the speed with which you kill people doesn't matter at all. Slow death in Hitler's concentration camps or Stalin's gulags are, if anything much worse, because they caused massive and prolonged suffering. At least nukes are quick except for the people who get high doses of radiation and burns and aren't killed instantly.

    As for the collective guilt of Americans, I am relatively sure its non existent. All the interviews I've seen with the crews who dropped the bombs they were of the opinion the Japanese deserved it, and it was better than the carnage, and mass casualties that would have resulted from an invasion of the main Japanese islands. They'd also been pretty well propagandized in to hating the Japanese at that point. Obviously some American's were torn up over it, Oppenheimer included, but people were torn up by concentration camps, the Bataan death march, Dresden and Tokyo too.

    You seem pretty confused about the position I'm advocating. I am not in the least advocating the use of nuclear weapons anywhere. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who somehow think they are exceptional. I'm mostly pointing out it doesn't matter how you do it, once you start killing civilians, and rationalizing it, you are pretty seriously fucked up and you don't deserve a free pass no matter who you are or how righteous you think you are.

    --
    @de_machina
  136. And its preferable capabilities are... by instert_name_here · · Score: 1

    ...it will fire female ninjas at the enemy.

  137. Re:the big problem is going to be getting new pilo by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    I know someone who knows someone who did training for the Iraq.

    Basically if anything broke or happened, it was "hands of the controls and start praying" - no corrective measures, no evasion, no ejection.

    They had to pound that out of them, and did so with only limited success. Seems to be a cultural thing.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  138. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pearl Habor was no rationale at all for doing anything to Japan. The U.S., Britain and the Dutch had embargoed Japan's oil supplies in July 1941. Japan made it quite clear then that they considered that an act of war since it was going to completely strangle Japan militarily and economically. War was inevitable from that point and FDR and the U.S. military knew it. Japan had no choice but to seize the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) to restore their oil supply, and to do that they had to neutralize the U.S. Pacific fleet.

    The specifics of when and where the Japanese would attack might have been a bit of a surprise but the U.S. knew full well it was coming. Its up to the conspiracy theorists to make the claim the U.S. intentionally let the Japanese maul Pearl Harbor because FDR needed a day of "infamy" to goad the American people in to entering World War II, something the very isolationist American people had been loathe to do up to that point. It did a great job of whipping Americans in to a war frenzy, and producing a gusher of volunteers for the military, something that simply wouldn't have happened if FDR had just declared war on Germany and Japan without a provocation.

    --
    @de_machina
  139. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    A dupe, for one.

    Meaning that I posted similar words in more than one story? I wasn't aware that was forbidden.

    It's not. We just don't like it, hence your getting modded down.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  140. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is the assassination of Iranian nuke scientists - assuming that they were working on a nuclear missile program - a bad idea from the POV of the Israelis, assuming that the idea was theirs? (Incidentally, I don't believe that it was - the Saudis, the Qataris, and other Gulf sheikhs dread the idea of Iranian nukes just as much as Israel does, since it would give Iran the wherewithal to overthrow their regimes and replace them with puppet Shia regimes, like in Iraq, and may have been just as capable of hiring assassins from Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood or even al Qaeda to hunt down the Iranians. In fact, in the last few weeks, a number of members of the Basij have been dropping like flies, making one wonder whose work it is.)

  141. Totally would love to see 'open source' ones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you know what'd be even more awesome? Airwolf blowing up an every expanding supply of Cayuse and Cobra attack helicopters, provided courtesy of Iran!

    Middle eastern diplomacy here we come! :)

  142. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that you are a liar? Volunteers were at least 15 yo.

    When your city is invaded you will take a weapon to defend. I was 15 yo and when Iraqis reached 20km of my city I became volunteer to fight. I will do the same if my family and home is threatened again.

  143. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Dr+Herbert+West · · Score: 1

    Go fuck yourself, troll. Way to hijack a thread, you must be proud!
    "Offtopic" is "While we're talking about monitor resolution for brand X, I noticed that the audio quality has problems as well", not "Iran has a new helicopter, hur durr Iran nukes?" Iran also has a lot of gay hookers, but you don't see me bringing that up.

    Whichever moderater gave this dickhead a +1 insightful, go eat a bag of dicks, you lazy fuckwit. The only stories that get more offtopic troll threadjacking than stories about Israel/Iran are the ones about Google/Apple.

  144. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    I found it "interesting" that the article says that Iran's acquiring nukes will lower the nuclear annihilation vulnerability rankings of every other state except Israel (and Iran itself).

  145. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes Saudi Arabia is repressive. The other examples you gave don't drag people out of their homes in the middle of the night to torture them, and for them never to be seen again. Good thing Islam is not a cruel cult.

  146. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 1

    Nope its not a stereotype, its well established that the Audi A6 is the semi official car of choice of the Chinese Communist party official.

    The mistresses and princelings apparently favor Ferrari's.

    If you aren't familiar with the term princeling they are the children and grandchildren of the giants of the Communist party, the comrades of Mao back in the day, the marchers of the Long March, champions of the worker, who have now suddenly all become staggeringly rich, are driving around in Italian sports cars, and have lost touch with the prolateriat.

    --
    @de_machina
  147. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 2

    "They don't have the right to say it in any way they want"

    Well yes actually they do. I don't totally disagree that they may not have had the right to "squat" but they were trying very hard to camp in public spaces, and limit traffic disruptions, and I think that is different than intentionally "squatting" on private property.

    You might not like it but if you are going to demonstrate and express your displeasure with your government it almost inevitably results in large numbers of people needing to be in the streets or parks near the seats of power which would be New York and Washington. If they have to get "permits" to do that from the very government they are criticizing, then the government just cuts off the permits and the message the government doesn't want anyone to hear disappears. Or you get things like the "free speech zones" of the Bush era, chain link cages that are conveniently placed so no one will see or hear any protestor foolish enough to get shoved in to one.

    "the message of OWS was trite. The current US government sucks and banks got a sweet deal they didn't deserve? "

    You probably should have listened more instead of being "bored", because the message is quite a bit more sophisticated than that. The message is Wall Street in particular, and also big defense, pharna and fossil fuel companies among others have, for all practical purposes, seized control of the U.S. government, to the detriment of the American people.

    They did it by buying Congressmen with chump change in campain contributions, with lobbiest bribes, with big PAC donations for campaign ads and more importantly with revolving doors through which Congressmen, their staffs, generals and bureaucrats get lucrative jobs when they leave public service for favors, and in the other direction where people from Goldman Sachs join government to take over places like the Department of the Treasury and the White House. From there they steer trillions of dollars to bail out their former employers and hand out trillions in gifts to corporate interests off the backs of working Americans who still pay their taxes while most big corporations no longer do thanks to the loopholes they've bought.

    You ever wonder why the SEC never prosecutes anyone important on Wall Street, because everyone who works at the SEC wants to work at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley and get a huge pay increase so they will NEVER do anything but slap their future employers on the wrist. The SEC spent 4 years investigating Lehman Brothers whose malefesance resulted in economic catastrophe, and last week announced no charges would be filed. The investigators will, no doubt, soon get lucrative new jobs on Wall Street.

    Some more examples, a 90 billion a year windfall for pharma from Medicare D which was barred from negotiate drug prices. Billy Tauzin rammed through Medicare D and then took a job as a drug company lobbyist. There are massive tax breaks for an oil industry which is making staggering profits. There are hundreds of billions in pork laden contracts to defense and homeland security contractors.

    Its called crony capitalism, its a trade mark of banana republics, thats what America has now, and the American people are being royally screwed by it. They have every right, in fact its their duty, to be in the streets of New York and Washington D.C. every week until its stopped and we get our Constitution back.

    --
    @de_machina
  148. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by tokul · · Score: 1

    I mean, Ahmadinejad may be a buffoon, but AFAIK he is no Hitler and no Stalin.

    Hitler was not Otto von Bismarck either. He was just some Austrian buffoon in Reichstag. Yet final result was the same. Wars were waged against other countries.

  149. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    lol well you're starting to get an understanding of how government is. Keep learning and you might get to the point where you can actually change something.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  150. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

    Most casualties in WWII were Chinese civilians killed by the Japanese which employed all sorts of means to "control" the Chinese population including chemical warfare. They also attacked an US base with a military strike prior to the US declaration of war on Japan. It is not like the Japanese were some sort of warm and fuzzy character from tinseltown.

  151. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give us a SINGLE decent reference to your claim (the first line).

    You are a so huge Liar!

  152. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One can deeply regret a necessary action and still take it. I've lived in Japan; I admire the Japanese, they have the finest society of all. The use of the atomic bomb was necessary; hell, they didn't surrender until after the second one was used.

  153. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The head of the communist party at USC when I went was an until-recently homeless black man. He bought clothes from a goodwill type place every few days and then donated them back (I always assumed it was to keep from doing laundry) and claimed his only true property was a pen a teacher gave him on the first day.

    He drowned himself in a public pool the summer after his freshman year since the Communist party was being pushed off campus and out of functions.

  154. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

    I'd like to point out that Iran's proxy in Lebanon did bomb Israeli Arab children and promptly declared them martyrs for the cause, extrapolate that as you will.
    I've also wondered if a religious leader might stretch the concept of martyrdom to a place, i.e. Jerusalem.

    Personally, being an Israeli, I'd be willing to bet my life on Iran not wanting to actually nuke anyone and just being interested in acquiring nuclear capability to be taken seriously, by the US and their neighbors.
    And I don't think Netanyahu is irrational enough to think he can get away with an Operation Opera type strike without pulling Iran into an all out war and maybe some of their friends and is just bluffing to have the Americans do the work for him.

  155. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes it was the Israelis idea to assassinate him, however they did not carry it out. Mossad helped train Iranian dissidents, and one of the dissidents slapped the bomb on the car:

    http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news?lite

  156. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Let me just quote the original post to which GP responded:

    If they ever try anything like Pearl Harbor again they should be summarily eliminated from existence. Full stop.

    In other words, he was talking about complete genocide as a justifiable reprisal. Everything that you say may be true, but there's a difference between nuking two cities, and wiping the country out.

  157. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by wisty · · Score: 1

    The reason Audi's are popular is they are the closest thing to a luxury car which is not actually considered a luxury car. If they drove BMWs or Mercedes, it would really look ostentatious.

  158. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by wisty · · Score: 1

    > Its comical for the Chinese to still claim they're Communists when their leadership are increasingly very wealthy and very successful capitalists.

    It's comical for the Democrats to claim they are Democrats (remember the grey uniforms, pro slavery, pro state rights "Solid South"?) when they have a black federalist guy as President.

  159. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    Indeed. Pakistan is far more of a threat than Iran - they already have nukes, and they have an Islamic insurgency that permeates their army and intelligence service to an extent where they half run the state... and those are the same people who fund Taliban, which is already engaged in direct warfare vs NATO troops.

    But, hey, so long as their premier keeps saying that we're friends, that's no big deal, right?

  160. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously they want their land back. The country of Israel didn't exist before 1948. Palestine was invaded by people not of that land and original occupants were kicked out by force. It is their right to claim it back.

  161. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

    That link is very heavy on irony. Colin Powell, the man who made the case to invade the Iraq with lies and spin has repented! He should be in Hague among others being prosecuted for war crimes.

  162. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by dontmakemethink · · Score: 0

    It's the reason people are terrified of terrorists getting nuclear arms. Because they simply don't care about the backlash.

    So the primary qualification of a terrorist is the willingness to use weapons of mass destruction upon a civilian population with impunity?

    Depleted uranium munitions (aka dirty bombs) fired by US forces into civilian areas in Iraq: 340 TONS - Casualties: immeasurable and counting, 7 digits for sure - Backlash: zero

    The good news is that using depleted uranium munitions is actually a great cost saver for US taxpayers. It's a cheap way to dispose of nuclear waste while irradiating a foreign civilian population looking for WMD's you know don't exist. Oh wait, just kidding... I'm sure they billed US taxpayers a shitload for the privilege of disposing of their nuclear waste and making sure the "real terrorists" keep trying to attack America. How else can the US justify a "defense" budget that vastly exceeds all other countries combined?

    --

    War as we knew it was obsolete
    Nothing could beat complete denial
    - Emily Haines
  163. Re:the big problem is going to be getting new pilo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the US had a valid casus belli for a war againt Iran you would be foolish to assume that the US would try to fight a nation building war where they would keep population centers intact. Iran has an outdated air force and would be completely dependent upon SAM coverage to prevent US air superiority from leveling every building between their landing site and Tehran. I would bet that within 3 months Iran would have a completely obliterated C&C structure and be unable to put up an effective resistance short of using guerillas, which only works if you give a fuck about protecting civilians and giving them a place to hide.

  164. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... terrified of terrorists getting nuclear arms ...

    No, people were afraid of mutually-assured destruction (MAD). That is why the cold-war occurred. The USA used nuclear weapons on Japan without backlash, so they wanted to use the same playbook on North Korea, even though Russia also had nuclear weapons by then. (The president refused to authorise it).

    The cost of transporting enriched uranium was (and probably still is) beyond the capability of any terrorist group. The fear was Russia smuggling a nuclear weapon into Virginia, USA. See British movie "The fourth protocol", 1987.

    Effective terrorism depends on the target country spending more and more effort on civil defense, not on terrorists using Weapons of Mass destruction. That means attacking up, close and personal, just like the twin towers 'plane-bombing'. This is why claiming that S Hussein or Al qaeda had biological or nuclear weapons is fanciful scare-mongering.

    It also puts G W Bush equal at war-mongering evilness to A Hitler. That's why a t-shirt claimed "G W Bush: World's No. 1 terrorist".

  165. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the US dropped the bomb(s) on Japan there was a total of one nuclear armed nation on the planet. Now there are several, both friendly and un-friendly to any given nation. The warning of dire consequences for anyone launching a nuclear attack now is highly appropriate given than there are several other nations who could have similar armaments on route before the first weapon even detonated. In effect the world could, at any given moment, already be dead and just not know it because the first in a series of weapons that have already been launched just haven't detonated yet.
    Is Iran really such a threat? Personally I think Iran as a nation has a stronger sense of self preservation than North Korea, for example. Being stupid (or insane) enough to launch an atomic first-strike NOW would be tantamount to executing every single citizen of your own nation since even a conventional response to such an incident would result in something close to genocide. The entire nation being reduced to the stone age could be considered a mercy by comparison to what would be brought down on anyone who did that.

  166. Re:the big problem is going to be getting new pilo by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    Nah. Their Iran-Iraq war performance was pretty horrible in the beginning because in Iran theology trumped military experience and know-how. Only later on when they got regular military in their forces were they able to start turning the tide around (yet they still had to resort to human-wave tactics to win). The main problem with invading Iran is that it is a mountainous earthquake prone shithole similar to Afghanistan but only larger. The country has a much larger population than Iraq and is close to developing nuclear weapons. Norway in comparison has better weapons but next to no population in comparison.

  167. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I think the collective guilt Americans feel about how the US treated some Japanese during WW II (internment, nuclear detonations)..."

    You have a vastly exaggerated impression of the US school system.
    They don't know shit!

  168. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

    Why is the assassination of Iranian nuke scientists - assuming that they were working on a nuclear missile program - a bad idea from the POV of the Israelis, assuming that the idea was theirs?

    Even under that POV, it is a bad idea if you want Iran to open their nuclear production sites. If you first ask for access for the IAEA, get documents and visits to sites, then the names on the papers get leaked from the UN to Isreal to Mossad and people get murdered -- how should Iran proceed under this threat? Should they just continue providing access indefinitely? Until they prove their innocence (something that is understood to be impossible in any western legal system)?

    Assassinations destroy trust. Only in a very short-sighted view can they be seen as a good thing. (Same applies for torture)

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  169. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    Nuclear bombs also mostly aren't slow deaths of suffocation. With firebombing, people had time to go into the bomb shelters. Then the fires sucked all of the oxygen out of the air, causing the people to slowly suffocate, knowing they are about to die but being unable to do anything about it (Well they could have run out into the streets for a faster end I guess.)

  170. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by cryptolemur · · Score: 1

    Then there was this Soviet entry on the Pacific theatre* that had a lot to do with both Japanese surrender and the haste to drop the bombs.

    *Matchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, which destroyed the Japanese Kwantung Army of over 1.2 million in a week (capturing +600k POWs).

  171. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And let's face it, the message of OWS was trite. The current US government sucks and banks got a sweet deal they didn't deserve? Everyone knows that. Is it any wonder people get bored of listening to them?

    If people got bored listening to them, then why bother to crush the movement?

  172. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by QQBoss · · Score: 1

    Actually, no. Party officials in China are broken up into four ranks when it comes to cars stipends: 1) they get so much they can afford a Mercedes or BMW (means they are one of the top 5% or so officials in a province, more in a big city like Beijing, Shanghai, or Chongqing, and these guys have absolutely no problems being ostentatious, thus their princeling children started learning their lessons early) 2) they get enough so they can afford an Audi A6L (if they want to use their own cash to move up to an A8L they can, but there generally isn't enough money to afford a nice Mercedes or BMW if you include maintenance/repairs beyond the ordinary) 3) they get enough to afford an A4L 4) they get nothing. The luxury car companies all fight it out for these stipends, with Audi probably doing the best at matching features to appropriate price bands.

    Notice that all versions have an L after them. A party official would generally prefer die than own a non-L version, since the L versions are considered cars they COULD have a driver with, if a situation ever called for it. Few people short of class 1 ever get a driver on a regular basis, though. In general, the cost of moving up from an A4L to a Mercedes or BMW is much too great, and they would rather save their money for a "nice" flat. Same goes for the A6L- take the car, save money for as many houses as they can afford (that attitude is beginning to change with property prices dropping from their historic highs). The guy I was dealing with has a flat provided by the university, so he used his money to buy a nice car, instead, since he doesn't qualify for a stipend. The money the school pays him isn't enough to actually afford the car, he raised the extra money via entrepreneurial spirit and getting commissions for signing kids up for IELTS and TOEFL cram schools.

    This is far enough away from the Iran subject that I will drop it now. Besides, I have another dinner to be at shortly.

  173. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what I see? I see rampant electoral fraud this November geared to get Romney elected and we're all just fucked. The fix is in. The fix was in two years ago. The loony-tunes unelectable candidates were picked by the GOP leadership to ensure that Romney, their patsy, would get the nomination. There is no other logical explanation for the disgusting crew of unlikeable and shit-for-brains candidates like Crazy Bitch, Mr. Hairpiece, Pizza Guy, etc.Yeah, I know, tighte n the tinfoil, bmo, but the more you watch what's going on, the more it seems like tinfoil is required. And so we head toward Permanent War.

    Replace Romney with Obama and it's still the same. Obama is the another patsy, didn't you know?

  174. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The devestation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't really much different than the firebombings of Tokyo by the U.S. or Dresden by the British, excepting for radiation sickness and long term cancers, but fire bombing led to burns that were pretty much as bad. The nukes just required fewer air planes to do the damage, but they were still massively expensive to make.

    ... and the fire-bombing of Dresden would be considered an atrocious warcrime by today's standards

    so what's your point again? firebombing civilian areas is not "business as usual" and is certainly not accepted by society

  175. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your link is large on speculation and short on fact. And your use of the pseudonym "dirty bomb" is just inflammatory. You do realize that alpha radiation - which, as stated in the article, is the primary type observed from DU rounds - is basically harmless, right? I remember working in the physics lab and running tests using sources of alpha radiation. We handled them. With our hands. And this was 4 years ago. You need to eat alpha radiation for it to be harmful. No one has ever produced any solid evidence for long term effects of DU munitions use. I especially like that the article cited soldiers claiming it must have been the DU rounds that caused Gulf War Syndrome.

  176. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Informative

    Which numbnuts modded this drivel up?

    using depleted uranium munitions is actually a great cost saver for US taxpayers. It's a cheap way to dispose of nuclear waste while irradiating a foreign civilian population

    Um. No. DU has all the nice and very slightly radioactive U235 removed. It isn't nuclear waste.

    U-238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years. If you ate it, the problems from heavy metal poisioning would be much worse than the radioactivity.

    It's not like they're firing shells filled with Cs-137 which is what the parent is blatantly trying to imply.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  177. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by khallow · · Score: 0

    You probably should have listened more instead of being "bored", because the message is quite a bit more sophisticated than that. The message is Wall Street in particular, and also big defense, pharna and fossil fuel companies among others have, for all practical purposes, seized control of the U.S. government, to the detriment of the American people.

    And what is the OWS movement doing other than helping to hammer nails in the coffin? As I see it, the OWS movement is the establishment response to the Tea Party movement. You want to defeat crony capitalism? Then you need to cut off the stream of public funds that makes it happen.

    The Tea Party is precisely about doing that. OWS is about complaining about the results without changing the system, including the entitlement bribes such as pension and health care benefits, that created those results. For example, the Tea Party movement has booted several formerly entrenched Republican congresspeople from office in 2010 (and at least one in the 2012 primaries). What politicians will leave as the result of the OWS movement?

  178. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an Iranian, I agree with most of the points you make. However, I would like to clarify certain aspects.

    EVEN IF Iran IS developing nuclear bumbs, they will not use it, they would just like to have it so that they are on the same level as the other higher powers in the region. Why is it OK for Pakistan to have atomic bombs but not OK for Iran ? How is Iran any more threat than the Pakistanis who hid Bin Laden for 8 years ?

    The Dome of the Rock is a holy place for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, no one will bomb Israel, they are just blowing things out of proportion to get their agenda. Think of it this way: Iran has interests in Lebanon and Palestine. Bombing Israel = bombing those countries too because an atomic bomb WILL affect a large area around it.

    Most Iranians who are also muslims dislike Arabs and regret the fact that they were forced to convert to Islam from Zoroastrianism a few hundred years back. Iran's majority Shia population are considered as heretics by Arabs with majority Sunni population. Iranians are mistreated in Saudi Arabia during Hajj, in Dubai and most of the Gulf countries. UK and US

  179. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If UK and US had supported the green movement by Iranian people back in 2009, there would be no need for their measures now. But these governments seem more interested in pushing their immediate agenda than helping a nation free itself from a dictator.

  180. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be surprised if Ron Paul has an "accident", or a "tragic heart attack". He's fairly old, no one will be too surprised.

    Why would they have to kill him, since his price has obviously already been met.

    I feel pretty bad for all the young people who really thought Ron Paul was something special, something different. He turned out to have his hand out like every other politician. Mitt Romney bought him off with the political equivalent of a little flattery and a promise to look out for his developmentally-disabled son, Aqua Buddha.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  181. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only that, but as I was reading up on: The Treaty of London drafted out in the 30s after WW1 had japan limited in tonnage and numbers to 11(?) battleships, while the US got either 14 or 15, and Britain similiar. Given that little tidbit a pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbor made TOTAL sense for the japanese, since we were already economically sanctioning them, but due to previous agreements with us they were at a military disadvantage. I'm pretty sure 'evening up the score' is in everybody's playbook, and given our similiar handling of the british and mexicans in years past, it just sounds like they'd taken one from our playbook.

  182. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Xest · · Score: 5, Informative

    Erm, talk about half the story?

    "Pearl Habor was no rationale at all for doing anything to Japan. The U.S., Britain and the Dutch had embargoed Japan's oil supplies in July 1941. Japan made it quite clear then that they considered that an act of war since it was going to completely strangle Japan militarily and economically."

    Have you never heard of the rape of nanking? Japan was war mongering well before even the war in Europe had gotten underway, it was an imperialist nation no different to the Western nations you criticise for provoking them, it's whole purpose for war against China starting primarily in 1937 was because it wanted to take it over.

    That's why Japan was under embargo - because it had rolled into China, before Hitler had even rolled into Poland.

    Christ, I'm probably one of the least pro-American people you'll meet but Pearl Harbour WAS rational for doing something to Japan, because it was a further extension of Japan's military aggression in the Pacific.

    They weren't some innocent country who we just embargoed because we thought it'd be a bit of a laugh, we did so because they were a major destabilising force in the region, we attempted political pressure through embargos and it didn't work. From that point on the only option was full out war against Japan - they started the war in the Pacific long before the west really got involved. The West gave them 4 years to give up their imperialist ambitions and during that time they committed countless massacres, mass-rapes, and general destruction of Chinese cities and infrastructure, when they finally hit Pearl Harbour it was no fucking wonder the West decided enough was enough. No rationale? seriously? You think Japan should've just been allowed to go on destroying, raping, and pillaging the whole Pacific, extending it's war it started in 1937?

  183. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by wisty · · Score: 1

    > Besides, I have another dinner to be at shortly.

    If this is a Chinese dinner, then gan bei. See you in 48 hours, when the hangover is gone.

  184. A debate? by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

    "I would like to see this debated."

    I don't think it will happen, but it may. Your turn.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  185. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh please...spare us the historical revisionism.

    Japan was a formal member of the trio of fascism (including Germany and Italy). Japan made war against several countries in East Asia (including China, Korea, the Phillipines, and Russia). Japan destabilized the region for what will be 100 years.

    Please go back and read your grade school history books. Stop with the conspiracy theory crap as an excuse for your ignorance.

  186. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you completely stupid?

    Do you not understand the difference between state defensive armies and rogue lone-agent psychopathic terrorists?

    Hundreds of thousands of Jews were saved in the end by the Allied armies stopping Hitler. That will not happen with a guy carrying a nuke in his backpack.

    Ignorant people like you are scare the hell out of me.

  187. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by bmo · · Score: 1

    Oh here we go.

    "They're both the same, so vote Republican" nonsense.

    Even if Obama is a patsy, he's a patsy for a different group of people entirely. He's not a patsy for the PNAC II aka FPI and assorted neocons.

    --
    BMO

  188. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Crushed every occupy movement..."

    Seriously? "crushed" (lol)

    Those people were allowed to stay in Philadelphia for over 9 months. During that time the Philly Police were paid several hundred thousands of dollars of overtime to keep these losers from being chased off by the residents of Philly that really just wanted them to leave. And when they weren't protecting them from the public, they were protecting these snot-nosed derelicts from being raped by unstable and drug-impaired homeless people.

    Please stop your mindless drivel.

  189. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are totally different.

    The rivers don't boil with firebombing.

    The moisture isn't sucked out of people that they are so thirsty that they jump into the boiling rivers.

    Firebombs don't irradiate people.

    Firebombs don't kill people weeks, months, years, decades later.

    Visit Hiroshima and be humbled. They have a memorial that is a huge mound of human ashes.

    Actually Dresden is directly comparable with Hiroshima - in both cases the initial bombing was only the start, the resulting firestorm carried on to cause more destruction and death.

    From your post it is clear that you don't understand the effects of a firestorm - when a large amount of incendiary devices are dropped in one area the fire is intense enough to create its own sustained wind system. The breath was literally sucked out of the Dresden citizens, before coming back with enough heat to cremate them on the spot.

    Hiroshima had more victims - primarily due to downtown Hiroshima being a densely packed population centre and the area of Dresden attacked was mostly (not all) industrial infrastructure. However the area of devastation from the Nuke was 4 square miles - for Dresdens firestorm it was 16 square miles. If Hiroshima had received the same treatment as Dresden the initial deaths would be undeniably greater than they were - although you are right that the long-term loss from the Nuke is far greater still.

    My point is that they were both horrific events, and to downplay the effects of the Dresden firestorm is to fool ourselves that such destruction can't be caused as long as we keep our Nukes in their hangers. To remember it all is the least of our duties.

    To my left I suddenly see a woman. I can see her to this day and shall never forget it. She carries a bundle in her arms. It is a baby. She runs, she falls, and the child flies in an arc into the fire.

    Suddenly, I saw people again, right in front of me. They scream and gesticulate with their hands, and then — to my utter horror and amazement — I see how one after the other they simply seem to let themselves drop to the ground. (Today I know that these unfortunate people were the victims of lack of oxygen). They fainted and then burnt to cinders.

  190. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 1

    I was never making any suggestion that Japan didn't deserve to be embargoed. The point was that when the U.S. embargoed Japan it was an act of war as far as Japan was concerned so the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was anything but a surprise. As a result its disingenuous American to pretend like it was out of the blue or any kind of justification for nuking Japan later.

    The rape of Nanking and the Bataan death march on the other hand were pretty good reasons for retaliation.

    --
    @de_machina
  191. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 0

    It takes talent to pack that much smuggness and condescension in that short a post. You work on Wall Street? If not you probably should consider it because you sound like you would be a perfect fit.

    --
    @de_machina
  192. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is particularly appalling that most Americans think that the nukes were the reason Japan surrendered. They don't take into account the U.S.S.R. finally declared war on them and that we would have needed months to make more new bombs. Sure, it might have been possible to bomb them into eventually bomb them into oblivion if our sub attack didn't starve them first, but what really tipped things over was that Russia would have killed their troops in Manchuria.

  193. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like they're firing shells filled with Cs-137

    But videogames are art, and life imitates art, so it must be true!

  194. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 2

    Excepting for the obvious fact that so far the Tea Party hasn't actually slowed spending or reduced corruption at all. They mostly seem to have just made Congress even more bitterly partisan, disfunctional and deadlocked than it already was and that was a real feat considering it was completely dysfunctional before they got there.

    But I am actually as much a fan of the original Tea Party message, and their attempts to cut spending. as I am the OWS's. I think the two movements should acutally unite since they were attacking the same problem from opposite directions, unfortunately the two movements completely hate each other.

    The big problem wi the tea party is their movement was co opted by a bunch of horrible, whacked out, politicians like Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint, and by a bunch of people who are obsessed with right wing social issues like abortion and gay marriage instead of the economic issues that matter.

    At this point I am willing to wager they are or will be totally co opted in to the standard Republican causes of cutting taxes, especially on the wealthy, gutting social programs and busting unions, while they let the military squader unlimited amounts of money, shield tax subsidies and pork for big corporations, and generally let the deficit spiral out of control. I am actually all for cutting taxes, gutting social programs and busting unions but I want all the pet Republican pork beneficiaries to be gutted too and I doubt the Tea party will actually do it.

    --
    @de_machina
  195. Yeah, right by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Iranian officials stress that Iran's military and arms programs serve defensive purposes

    Ha-ha. We say the same thing about ours in the U.S.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  196. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 1

    So you are in the camp that its OK to massacre civilians as long as they "deserve" it and you are righteous about it. You do seem to have completely missed the point I've been trying to make.

    Suppose Iran does get nukes and uses one on Israel. I'm assuming you would be in the camp it would be A-OK if the U.S. or Israel in turn nukes all of Irans major cities. Do you think it should be factored in that perhaps a large majority of the people in those cities hate their regime, would have thrown them out if they could and were completely opposed to their use of nukes.

    Being all righteous when you go down the road where you justify killinb civilians is pretty messed up. Its why the Bible, the Koran, history of our species in general, is one long string of eye for an eye massacring of civilians, with each party doing the massacring claiming they deserved it and were righteous when they did it. This was borne out elsewhere here when there zre scores of posts claiming the other guys religion has massacred more people than the other guys religion has.

    --
    @de_machina
  197. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    lol, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be smug. I'm a programmer, and programmers are more arrogant than even bankers, just about different things. I'll try to be nicer.

    1) You have an idealized view of OWS. Some were trying to 'limit traffic disruptions,' but a large group of them successfully managed to block the Brooklyn bridge. It's as if you're only looking at the good and ignoring the bad.

    2) Government is corrupt. That's a boring message. Do you know how to fix it? That might be an interesting message, if you have good ideas. Hint: campaign finance reform won't fix it.

    3) You didn't explicitly say this, but it's something that concerns me anyway; the government is NOT some big power that we need to complain to, or protest, in order to change things. The government is our servant, and we tell it what to do. Protesting at best is a publicity technique to get people to see your view, but it won't change anything by itself. If you want to change things, it's important to understand how power works.

    If you want to make the world a better place, I wish you the best of luck. If you have good ideas, I might even try to help you.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  198. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

    Khamenei just recently said Israel was a "Cancer" that would be "cut out". He's worse than Ahmadinejad if you've been paying attention. He's the one that actually *believes* all the suicidal religious insanity. Ahmadinejad is just a politician.

  199. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

    I am not in the least advocating the use of nuclear weapons anywhere. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who somehow think they are exceptional. I'm mostly pointing out it doesn't matter how you do it, once you start killing civilians, and rationalizing it, you are pretty seriously fucked up and you don't deserve a free pass no matter who you are or how righteous you think you are.

    I'm pretty down with what you've stated here. Thanks for putting it so directly and succinctly.

    I do still think that you underestimate how much collective regret Americans have about Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it's not like I have concrete data either.

    --
    blog
  200. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by wpi97 · · Score: 1
    I don't make up any stories. I am basing what I say on what I have read.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij#Origins
    http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/the-sacred-defence/using-children-to-run-across-a-minefield-to-clear-the-way-for-the-ground-troops/
    http://www.worldology.com/Iraq/iran_iraq_war.htm

    If what I have read is not true, it would be fascinating to hear what you have seen, since you were there.

    In any case, at 15 you were a boy. Maybe a boy with a gun, but still a boy. There is a reason why 15-year-olds are not considered adults in most of the countries in the world. They lack maturity to make informed decisions, and can be easily manipulated. Would you send your own child to fight at 15 if there was any way to avoid it? When an enemy approaches your city you do everything you can to evacuate women and children to safety. You don't send them on a suicide mission to clear mine fields.

    As far as the chemical weapons, Iraq got theirs from the West. Just because you have Chemistry professors and a chemical industry, doesn't mean you have the capability to produce enough chemical weapons quickly enough. I am guessing being an oil-producing country Iraq had a chemical industry too. Yet it got its chemical weapons from the outside.

    Conversely, if your country is invaded and you can make chemical weapons, then why in the world would you choose to not use them and send thousands of your own people to die instead? What is more humane: killing the invaders or sacrificing your own people?

    This brings me back to my original point: Iranian leaders will have no qualms sacrificing thousands or even millions of Muslims, especially Sunnis.

  201. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    You think Japan should've just been allowed to go on destroying, raping, and pillaging the whole Pacific, extending it's war it started in 1937?

    Believe it or not, I remember reading a book from before WWII (something by Will Durant) where the author seemed very excited about the rise of the Japanese empire.

    I'm not disagreeing with you, I think you have a good post, but it doesn't seem that it was at all morally obvious at the time.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  202. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Good you mentioned that, I hadn't caught on to that. I'm going to be watching Romney's foreign policy very closely now.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  203. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    total destruction of Israel? and, again, why that is bad? the jews bankers are the ones that are pounding on our asses all the time, give them hell

  204. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by dryeo · · Score: 1

    From what I understand, the problem with DU is not radiation but heavy metal poisoning. The way the shells disintegrate leaves lots of Uranium in the environment in an easily ingested from.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  205. We've been doing this all wrong... by Genda · · Score: 1

    We just need to have a mole high in Iranian government smuggle plans for the Ford Pinto into their industrial complex. Within 5 years, Iran will be a smoldering cinder! Of course the plan must never get out or the U.N. will be all over us for human rights violations... Doh!

  206. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

    > Ergo, use nukes at all and it's necessary to hit the Jerusalem area to kill Israeli military assets that will otherwise be nukeing you back.

    This probably isn't worth commenting on, but there's a rather odd assumption that nuking Jerusalem would somehow prevent a retaliatory attack against Iran.

    Let me assure you, if Iran uses nuclear weapons in any fashion, on any scale, against Israel, Iran's cities and military facilities simply will not exist within 5 minutes. There's nothing more to the situation than that.

  207. Iranian reverse engineered F5's by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    So all those 80's fighter movies were prophetic. All of those "migs" that were really F5's are actually Iranian.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  208. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Xest · · Score: 1

    I'm not really sure you can call embargos against hostile action an act of war. This seems to imply, from your point of view, that if North Korea or Iran were to nuke a US city because the US imposes sanctions and embargoes on them, then any counter-strike against that country would not be justified?

    Political pressure and actions really cannot be deemed to be an act of war. War is a very much more serious step on from that, war is when you start rolling tanks, planes, or ships over the other guy's border, and that's exactly what Japan did.

  209. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Xest · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of books out there showing excitement for Hitler's rise to power too, even a number of British politicians were pro-Hitler for quite some time for example.

    But that was by no means an overwhelming view. I'm not sure you can really judge from just the odd opinion that it wasn't morally obvious. Certainly the fact that Britain and it's Commonwealth allies, as well as Russia, and the US were able to justify supporting the Chinese financially and militarily against Japan implies there must've been some fairly strong global public support for precisely that.

    Still, it's all so far away now anyway isn't it? China, Russia, the UK and the US fighting as allies against Japan? Given todays global political tension between those nations people could be forgiven for thinking the whole thing was a work of fiction.

  210. Genius! by zmollusc · · Score: 1

    The west should totally start reverse-engineering chinese products and learn how to make steel, computer chips etc

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  211. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Still, it's all so far away now anyway isn't it? China, Russia, the UK and the US fighting as allies against Japan? Given todays global political tension between those nations people could be forgiven for thinking the whole thing was a work of fiction.

    Well said. Understanding public opinion and views even half a century ago is surprisingly hard.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  212. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 1

    "but a large group of them successfully managed to block the Brooklyn bridge"

    Uh, I dont live in NY so I wasnt there but the only OWS incident I remember on Brooklyn bridge the NYPD intentionally lead a protest on to the bridge so they could make a mass arrest, 700 as I recall. They herded them on the bridge so they could charge them and so no one could get away since they had both ends of the bridge blocked. Surest way to break the back of marginally committed protestors is to arrest them, give them a night in jail, court appearances, fines and a criminal record for life.

    "Government is corrupt⦠Do you know how to fix it?"

    Aleksei Navalny has taken an interesting approach in Russia where corruption is suffocating the country and speaking against it is a good way to get killed.

    Iceland appears to be the one recent success story where people actually threw out their corrupt government and gave the finger to the bankers that crashed their economy. They suffered for a few years but they are rapidly recovering compared to places like Ireland which did what the bankers told them to do, paid off the corrupt bankers that crashed their country, and are unlikely to recover any time soon as a result. Iceland is a small place though, and the powers that be weren't entrenched to nearly the level they are in the U.S.

    Americans are still largely complacent and as long as they have a job, a place to live, food to eat, a car, iPad, smartphone and/or TV I doubt they really care enough to change anything and sure aren't going to risk their well being, as tattered as it is, to stand up against a completely broken government. The one thing OWS did achieve last year was it did get the subject in to daily conversation. Now there is nothing again except a stupid horse race between two equally bad Presidential candidates.

    Only way anything is likely to change in the U.S. is for another crash to occur and it for it to be so severe that it puts people out of work en masse and in to breadlines. With the nearly inevitable crash of Europe on the horizon it may not be that far off.

    "The government is our servant"

    Now who is being naive. Our government serves the people with the money and the power. Our founding fathers tried hard to give us a system that wouldn't go that way but they failed. Our two party system is totally broken and its only putting forward a choice between candidates who are all bad. Once you cast your meaningless vote every two years you are totally out of the loop. People vote for the person with the most money and the best attack ads, whomever the TV tells them to vote for. Any voter that bothers to become informed and vote for change is going to be disappeared by party line voters.

    Me personally I would have loved to see Ron Paul win the President. He probably would have been a train wreck, but he would have caused a fire storm of change. The main stream media and his own party managed to destrot him with racism charges to make him largely disappear.

    Getting rid of the Fed would be step 1 for fixing our totally corrupted economy and Paul is the only one like to attempt it.

    --
    @de_machina
  213. Re:the big problem is going to be getting new pilo by Threni · · Score: 1

    Eh? They were at war with Iraq for years, and the US reduced that country to "barely-armed guerrilla insurgency" in days. It will be exactly like attacking Iraq, only the US probably won't bother invading Iran because there would be no point.

    You knock out the rader, military bases, airforce, power, bridges etc in the first few hours and they're fucked - absolutely no way Iran is going to be able to do the same to the US forces in the neighbouring countries, ships, drones controlled from the US etc.

  214. Re:Disclaimers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In any event, thank you.

    Regarding pro-life: I have the impression that the intolerance against pro-lifers
    has eased a bit, while the intolerance against pro-traditional-marriage people
    has increased enormously. People have actually lost their jobs for voting
    yes on California's Prop 8.
    I pray that people have the necessary courage.

  215. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    lol ok, I tried. Go get an education in real power, you'll thank yourself later. If you're lazy, try this one or this. Johnson knew how to get things done.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  216. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    I was alive when US nuked Japan.

    I'm getting off your lawn now, sir!

  217. All Those Helo's Look Pretty by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    But can they fight?

  218. Pretty pictures by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

    Those look like they'll be great targets for us to practice on the next time we get frisky. Hopefully they make a lot of them so we don't run out too quickly.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  219. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's certainly a valid point on the consequences of DU, but dontmakemethink referred to its use as "a cheap way to dispose of nuclear waste while irradiating a foreign civilian population", which is simply false. The problem is, many people (even some here) don't understand the radiation characteristics of U238, but instead read "Uranium" and assume lots of radiation and maybe even glowing giant spiders...

    - T

  220. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by demachina · · Score: 1

    And snap, back to the smug condescension.

    The way Johnson played power is exactly everything that is wrong with our government. It isn't any kind of a solution to anything. As soon as anyone starts playing that game you will end up just as corrupted as he did.

    He is the person that used his power to lead the country in to its disasterous misadventure in Vietnam which started America's decline and lead us in to the inflationary spiral of the 1970's that wiped out the savings of ordinary Americans.

    --
    @de_machina
  221. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    And snap, back to the smug condescension.

    Yah, I can't help it, that's my natural reaction around ignoramuses. Especially the ones like you who refuse to learn. :)

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  222. Very biased by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    Crusading was a great way to earn money, fame and reputation. Read about that stuff sometime.

    This is very biased. Something that people forget is that the North of Africa and Asia Minor were originally Christian, before they were invaded by Muslims.
    After some time, Christians finally stroke back, recovering a small part of the territory that was originally theirs. In the end, the whole affair was a big victory
    for Muslims.

    And some people manage to construe the whole story as a Christian aggression against Muslims, which is absurd.

    1. Re:Very biased by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      To constitute crusades as something other then aggression against all locals (muslim, jew, several other local small time religions) is absurd. It's fairly well documented that crusades were, by large "raze, rape and pillage". And if you want to pretend that christians had "the right to do that because these were orignally their lands", can I ask what gave them the right to do the exact same conquering approximately three quarters of century before that, when christianity was exiting the dying Roman empire and spreading across the region?

      Hint: "God said so" is not a valid answer, especially since it can be argued that all three religions worship the same God - they just can't agree on who was the most important prophet.

    2. Re:Very biased by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      Give current, objective sources for your allegations.

    3. Re:Very biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason the crusades were started was as a delayed response to the practices of Muslims in Palestine of attacking, looting and massacreing Christian pilgrims to places like Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Nazareth, et al. People very conveniently gloss over that detail when arguing the crusades - or worse, are completely ignorant about it.

    4. Re:Very biased by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Bad news. Highway robbery was extremely common in those days, and pilgrims suffered just as much if not more risk travelling through Europe. Essentially risk was a function of distance they had to travel.

      It did make for a wonderful excuse however.

    5. Re:Very biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that comparitively, few such incidents happened to Muslim pilgrims going to Mecca, Medina, et al - and all of them were under the same caliphates/sultanates (whichever applied during the relevant times)

    6. Re:Very biased by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Locals get robbed less then foreigners. Completely unexpected.

      Coming up next: Jews were robbed more then Christians in Europe. You'd never believe it if you didn't hear it here.

      Also, Europe remained more dangerous still. Mainly because Europe back then was forests, an forests make a great place for bandits to hide and ambush from. Forest also sustains bandits well with food and water necessary for basic survival. Comparatively, deserts surrounding Mecca and Medina are far, far worse places to make a bandit camp at. Desert, can't really live off it in nearly the same numbers, much less hiding places and so on.

  223. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    Yep, made total sense to decimate your secret but soon to be out of the closet enemy's forces without officially declaring war first. I do seem to recall Congress declaring war not soon after the attack.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  224. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by QQBoss · · Score: 1

    While you make a good point, you also fail on the other. Japan was on the receiving end of 2 atomic bombs targeted at military/industrial complex cities. They had no idea that the USA had only two bombs to use, and that there was no 3rd ready for a coup de grace on Tokyo or perhaps Osaka or Yokohama.

    Yet your point about Russia is well made. Reading the historical accounts of surviving leaders of Japan, what I gleaned is that they WOULD have been willing to bombed to total annihilation or starved to death by the Americans rather than be captured in fighting with the Russians. The majority of military leaders weren't so much afraid of being killed by the Russians as having Tokyo captured by them, and with two bombs having destroyed so much manufacturing infrastructure they knew this to be an inevitability if they didn't surrender sooner to the Allied forces.

  225. Re:Disclaimers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (This is JOrgePeixoto; posting anonymously to avoid hitting the 25-comment limit).

    My Karma was Excellent, then it dropped to Good and then to Positive.

    So I would appreciate if, next time you get mod points, you visit my comment
    history and moderate up those who are unfairly moderated.

    Regards

  226. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    The rape of Nanking and the Bataan death march on the other hand were pretty good reasons for retaliation.

    Nanking was a a good reason for China to retaliate beyond reasonable measure. Bataan was post Pearl Harbor and merely an additional checkbox in a long list of issues for the US. It's kind of hard to top 2000+ dead and and utter devastation of a fleet while not officially at war. Your reasoning is about as illogical as it can get. So, Biff goes around his high school, busts a few chops, extorts money and lunches, and has his way with a girl here or there. He gets sent to the principal's office and punished. So now Biff considers this an act of war, and can go kill the principal's family? You're slightly off from mainstream thought, logic, reality, hell, even reality TV.

    Next you'll be telling us that N Korea or Iran are perfectly justified in nuking the rest of the world.( Hint: both are under sanctions)

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  227. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    It is called delivering a proportional response. Sort of the military equivalent of for every action there is a reaction. There is a reason why the military still train hand to hand combat, knife fights, etc in an age where there are hand-held machineguns and strategic nuclear weapons.

  228. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, take a NINETEEN SEVENTIES design & technology, build it, mount somewhat newer missiles, and see how long it
    would last against USA or Israel weapons. What a joke! They are about 40 years behind in most weapons technology, only
    the Russians & Chinese have supplied them with somewhat modern technology. They still fly F-4 Phantoms as a "front line"
    fighter, have a few F-14's that the weapons systems don't work.
    Good luck with that Iran....you'll get your butt kicked but good if you try to take on anything other than a Kurdish or Taliban type
    "army".

  229. Keep the F-15 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, in a 4 v 1 situation, the F-22 can out perform the F-15, but at what cost?
    Stories show that an F-15 pilot, with just basic skills on the F-22, can "out gun" an
    F-22 pilot flying the F-15, but, for the price of the F-22 you can have how many F-15's?
    And, the F-15 STILL has not been lost to air to air combat. The F-15 was built at a time
    when the USA & USSR were in an arms race to one up each other. The Mig-25 was built
    to counter the B-70 because the B-70 was built to counter soviet missiles (after the U2 was
    brought down). The Mig-25 was "over built" to counter the B-70, and when the Mig-25 "walked
    away" from an Israel F-4 Phantom, the USA "got scared" so to speak, and built the F-15 to
    counter the Mig-25. When the pilot of a Mig-25 dropped into Japan and said here's the key
    to the Mig-25, can I stay, the USA got its first up close look and found it to be a primitive
    design with TWO HUGE ENGINES. So the F-15 became an air SUPERIORITY fighter who's
    design is still top notch, and with the ones they played around with that had leading nose slats
    it has even more potential. Stealth is ok, but I would take a hundred F-15's over 25 F-22's since
    I think you would be better off with shear numbers of those, versus the "advanced" F-22's.
    It appears the main problem with the 22's has to do with the environmental systems, which
    "should" be an easy fix, and, by easy fix, that means a multibillion dollar "upgrade".

  230. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    ok, I apologize, I really am trying to be nicer.

    It would help if you'd follow Feynman's rule of scientific reasoning. He says you need to find ways to attack your own ideas as much as possible. It would be much easier to have a conversation with you, if you did that.And your ideas and points would be much stronger.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  231. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They hate Jews so much that their constitution recognizes them as a protected religious minority and gives the 30,000 or so Jews living in Iran their own representative in parliament.

    The Iranians have hated the Arabs since the latter conquered their empire in the 7th century and attempted (but failed) to Arabize them.

  232. Nukes and Japan's surrender by unixisc · · Score: 1

    It's arguable whether the Soviets declaring war on Japan and invading Manchuria and Korea was a cause of Japan's surrender, as opposed to the 2 nukes, as the GP suggests. The Japanese ruling establishment was more panicky about 2 of their military/industrial complex cities getting obliterated, as opposed to one of their overseas colonies getting invaded.

    Actually, the Japanese would have been willing to surrender before the second bomb - maybe even before the first - had guarantees been provided about the safety of their emperor, who at the time was considered divine. So had that been understood by the US government, they'd have gotten the surrender, w/o the Nagasaki bomb being needed. Or alternatively, had the Japanese known in advance that after the war, the US would establish a new state around the emperor, but with a different regime, they'd have given the US the surrender they wanted.

    1. Re:Nukes and Japan's surrender by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      and what really makes this surreal was that the US demanded unconditional surrender of the Japanese, without guaranteeing the emperor anything, then promptly turned around and used him in the same role he had played previously.

  233. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Penetrating Iranian defenses sounds like something way beyond the capabilities of Iranian dissidents, unless one is referring to the Mujahideen Khalq. It is more possible for Sunni Jihadis from al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas to have pulled that off. Their goals may have been different from Israel's - to produce a dirty bomb or nukes of their own in secret locations in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia - probably the former.

    I also don't buy the superspy perception that people have of Mossad. KGB, yes, FSB, yes, Mossad, no.

  234. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when has Rush Limbaugh been anti-Muslim at all? He was one of the lone public figures supporting the Dubai ports deal, and is among those who's in bed with Grover Norquest, one of the leading enablers of Muslim advocates to gain access to various levels of government where 'Conservatives' run things. While he may arguably be brilliant on Liberalism and Socialism (depending on where one is coming from), he's completely clueless when it comes to Islam.

    Back to the point, the GP is completely right on this one.

  235. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Small nitpick, Japan actually offered two surrenders before the bomb was dropped, they just weren't unconditional surrenders like the US wanted.

    I can't remember the exact details, but they included stuff like the upper reaches of the government remaining in place.

  236. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

    Actually I was referring to The Daily Caller.

    You are right though, the English language site of Fars is the source - although being a native speaker of farsi doesn't guarantee good translation into English.

    As for the quote, it really isn't that different from the US and Israeli threats against Iran. And both of those countries have a history of carrying though with their threats.

  237. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, for this, he'd need not the Quran, but the Sira (and Hadeeth), which describe the history of Mohammed. Reading the Quran itself will reveal squat, since it's really a collection of things said by allah to Mohammed about a whole lot of incidents in his life, and it is explained by Tafseers, or commentaries on the Quran done with the help of complementary literature, such as the Sira and Hadeeth. The answering-islam opinion piece is based on readings of the Sunnah (Hadeeth + Sira) and Tafseer, and is consistent with what Muslims know about their history vis a vis the Jews and pagans.

  238. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Iran's military budget is smaller than Brazil's.

  239. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    I see rampant electoral fraud this November geared to get Romney elected and we're all just fucked.

    Bush lost in both 2000 and 2004, but nobody cared then, why would you think anyone would care now? I moved the hell out of the US because of that crap. It's only going to get worse. Have fun with 8 years of Romney. I'll come back after the revolution.

  240. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

    systematically crushed in every place they had critical mess

    Ironic typo of the month. ;-)

  241. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Minor problem - the Jews lived there throughout, and those who moved there bought the land from the Arabs at above market rates. So Israel was made up of people who both lived there, and those who immigrated there, just like about all other countries. Only Muslim countries have that dysfunctional system whereby nobody from outside can become a citizen, no matter how long one lives there. Try pushing that as the standard in any Western country, and see how far that goes.

  242. You should stand against the madmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see rampant electoral fraud this November geared to get Romney elected and we're all just fucked.

    Bush lost in both 2000 and 2004, but nobody cared then, why would you think anyone would care now? I moved the hell out of the US because of that crap. It's only going to get worse. Have fun with 8 years of Romney. I'll come back after the revolution.

    I moved out of the US as well, and the break from American neoconservative and religious madness was beyond refreshing. However, I've moved back. I've decided to make my stand here, and defend what this country was founded to be, not the neoconservative, undemocratic theocratic fascism the Republicans and Tea Partiers want to make it. If we leave, we cede the ground to madmen, and eventually they'll cross the Atlantic (or Pacific) and hunt everyone down who doesn't share their hate filled madness.

  243. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imprisoning or executing people for apostasy or blasphemy are not political rulings, they are Islamic. Same goes for homosexuality and witchcraft. Actually, Islamic attitudes against homosexuality are more venal than, say Judeo-Christian attitudes against homosexuality. In the West, the opposition to homosexuality had traditionally been primarily against sexual acts such as sodomy, but had nothing against homosexual people simply enjoying non-sexual emotional bonds. In Islam, the situation is flipped - men are allowed to sleep with other men, have sex with little boys and do anything as long as they don't get emotionally attached to the relationship. But if the latter happens, be prepared to get dropped from tall towers, or precipices, or things of that sort.

    The gratuitious reference to the US is nothing but the moral equivalence that pro-Islamic Leftists love in their tu quoque exercises. As far as Malaysia goes, while it doesn't execute people for apostasy, it 'works around' it by a bureaucratic way. Malaysian ID cards have to include a person's religious denomination on the card, and Malaysia's government makes it illegal for that to change from Islam to anything else. The opposite, however, is allowed. On top of that, all Malays are compulsorily recognized as Muslims, regardless of whether they want to or not (there have been cases like Lina Joy who've struggled to get their conversions to Christianity recognized without success), and there have been posthumous conversions, where dead Hindus or Christians or others had been suddenly 'discovered' to have made a deathbed conversion to Islam. Most of this is thought to be aimed at putting pressure on surviving relatives to convert. So Malaysia is not far from Iran or Saudi Arabia when it comes to barbarity. Incidentally, it was Malaysia who extradited a Saudi man who had apparently blasphemed Mohammed on FaceBook or Twitter, and that person managed to save himself from death by recanting.

    Saudi Arabia is barbaric - no questions there, but it's by no means alone. In Pakistan, Islamic vigilantes can do things like abduct Christian and Hindu women to rape them, forcibly convert them to Islam and marry them, and the government looks the other way. I actually agree with people in this thread who've argued that Pakistan is as big as, if not a bigger threat than Iran. That's not a justification for acquiescing in Iran's desires to obtain nukes, instead, it's a reason that the US should stop looking at Pakistan as an ally, and start looking at it as the enemy it really is. Pakistan is not only an enemy of India - with their prosecuting the doctor who led the CIA to Osama's hideout in Abbottabad, they've proven themselves an enemy of the US as well, and should be treated as such.

  244. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Nukes are big and sexy.

    They are a single small thing that's easy to fixate on if you grew up white and too right. They are a great vehicle for white liberal guilt but less satisfying if you didn't grow up terribly priveleged.

    Unfortunately, it's a very superficial approach to concentrate on 2 bombs rather than the many others that got dropped onto civilians either intentionally or as a means to some other end. Trying to be more enlightened by feeling guilty about Hiroshima just means you are demeaning the people that died in Tokyo, or Okinawa, or Dresden.

    When I see some old Japanese guy that's been working his forge for 36 hours straight, I don't see someone that needs to be cut any slack. I see someone that you treat with respect when you meet them in battle. You have to, or else.

    You throw everything and anything you have at them because that is war.

    Any attempt to claim that we should have done otherwise is simply doing great disrespect to a mighty nation.

    These people on these "liberal guilt trip" really disrespect the Japense on a very fundemental level. It's simply masked racism.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  245. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    Small nitpick, Japan actually offered two surrenders before the bomb was dropped, they just weren't unconditional surrenders like the US wanted.

    I can't remember the exact details, but they included stuff like the upper reaches of the government remaining in place.

    That's like offering to "lose" at poker while keeping all your winnings. Not much of a surrender considering what had been happening the previous 8 or so years.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  246. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure that was the Japanese view on war - win and it's all yours, the people that used to live in country 'x' were just chattel. It's how they fought, and in defending Japan, who knows how far they'd have gone?

    as for the GGP, if they tried it again, it'd be pretty freaking foolish, don't you think? Perhaps signs of a rabid society?

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  247. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    You get insightful for a revisionist historical post, and I get a troll for stating two facts and a one line opinion? The mods are unkind.

    As has already been pointed out, Japan was engaged in crimes against humanity under the guise of war prior to PH, hence the sanctions. It's irrelevant what Japan considered the embargo - they could have ended the embargo by stopping their inhumane treatment of the Chinese. So because they were poking the world in the eye to get a response so they could claim "war" is just a bit self-serving, don't you think?

    As for what the US knew when, please provide some citations. The only conspiracy theorist here is you.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  248. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes: Khomeini (and the Iranian government after him) heavily suppressed the Sunni minority in Iran.

  249. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's nuclear waste in that it is a byproduct of uranium enrichment. U-235 is fissile material, U-238 is the waste product which is used for ammunition.

    An unspent DU round is not a health hazard. It only gives off alpha radiation which won't even penetrate a sheet of paper, let alone the steel casing around the DU. You can safely hold it in your hand.
    However, when a DU round hits a target, it burns up into uranium dioxide dust which ends up in people's lungs. It's still only an alpha emitter but it will damage cells when there's nothing shielding the cells from the uranium. And because it is in microscopic particles, there is a lot of contact surface which means a lot of lung tissue will be exposed to the radiation.

    There is a documentary named Deadly Dust which shows how in cities like Basra, where some of the most intense fighting took place during the last Iraq war, one in four children are born with deformities similar to those found in Tchernobyl. One Iraqi doctor said parents would ask whether it was a boy or a girl, now they ask whether the child is normal.

  250. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    I second this. Hell, I lived in Hiroshima, and as a result did a lot of soul searching on the subject. End result was, it sucked but was the right call ( I'd argue over Nagasaki, however).

  251. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Actually, they wanted an assurance on the safety of the emperor - something that they got after the war. Had this been clear to the US, those surrender offers were perfectly acceptable.

  252. Re:Is Iran really such a threat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a pretty schizophrenic hatred in that case. For one, Iranians still follow Islam, and Shia Islam is about as Arab as Sunni Islam is. Similarlly, Farsi (including the Zoroastrian Dari) is written in the Arabic script, and not in any non-Arabic one. If Iranians truly hated Arabs, they'd cast off Islam, which is really a vehicle for Arab supremacy (allah knows only Arabic, the Qur'an is only valid when read and memorized in Arabic, all Islamic prayers must be in Arabic, the Arabs are the best of peoples - all of this is there in the Sun'nah).

    If the Iranians were genuinely proud of, and loyal to their Persian roots, they'd cast off Islam - be it Shia or Sunni, en masse - embrace Zoroastrianism, replace the Arabic script in their language with something else, and stop being hostile to Israel. After all, it was Cyrus I the Great who liberated Jerusalem from the Babylonians and allowed Jews to worship there, and he's also the ruler under whom Persia embraced the new religion of Zoroaster. If the Iranians were to do these 2 things, nukes in their hands would be as benign as nukes in Israel's, or India's hands.