Yes, and especially since they were offered every kind of solution you could think of that could enable them to have nuclear energy without the possibility of creating nuclear weapons and they refused. I think that most intelligence bodies in the world agree that Iran is on **** way for the bomb.

Every ‘solution’ so far offered involves some vital element of the nuclear programme being supplied by another nation, and so making Iran suseptable to sanctions and embargos. And those same ‘intelligence’ bodies also said Saddam had WMD.

Israel has never threatened to exterminate another country, and I don’t remember many nations in modern history that threatened other nations to wipe them off the map – except for the worst kind of nations.

And when did Iran threaten to exterminate Israel? Did any Iranian offical EVER say that Iran will exterminate Israel?

We were pretty close to that in 1973 – being attacked by a coalition of Arab armies, with the IDf caught completely by surprise. In the worst hours of the war, when everyone was sure that a second holocaust is coming to Israel (that’s how they described it, the destruction of the third Temple) the Israeli government almost used the nuclear option – and yet they didn’t. Why? because they were responsible enough to know that if they’ll use nukes on the Arabs, the USSR will defend them with nukes, and then the US will have to nuke the USSR – meaning the end of the world. Israel has demonstrated its responsiblity to hold nukes.

Ha, and the fact that Israel was able to proveil conventionaly had nothing to do with the decision not to resort to nukes. How gullable do you take everyone for? :rolleyes:

Why would Israel need nukes at all if it will never ever use them? :rolleyes:

Israel is thought to have nuclear weapons for the past 45 years or so

And you have sources to back this up? Because I have never seen anything that suggests Israel have nuclear weapons anywhere near that early.

The only reason Israel has nukes is to balance the Arab and Israeli power – not to get an edge over the Arab side.

Thats a good one. 😀 Balance…haha. So what overwhelming superiority does the ‘Arab side’ have conventionally that require Israeli nuclear weapons to balance?

Interesting. I was asked to supply examples where the Russian military has proven less than successful. I provided two examples that are obvious.

The reply? Oh they are not valid examples for the following reasons/excuses as if stating them means the failures didn’t actually occur in the first place. :confused:

Sauron

Can you not even read? :rolleyes:

When exactly did anyone ask you to “supply examples where the Russian military has proven less than successful”?

Just to refresh your memory, you came up with the ridiculous claim that the Russians ‘lack skill and the weapons mix to do anything effective on their own.’ And then Worthyone asked you to elaborate.

The only person who even meantioned the term ‘Russian military’ is you, when everyone up to that point have been talking exclusively of special forces. Yet, here you are, trying to blame someone else when you are the one who tried to change the subject so you can use your pointless examples to help your Russian bashing crusade. Grow up.

You can’t fight a tsunami with laser guided bombs and you can
fight terrorist with makeshift tents. Every situation calles for
different action.

Nice to see you have managed to miss the point of my previous post entirely. :rolleyes:

You must be a true child of the Nintendo generation if you actually beleive dropping bombs on people is comparible to sending tents and food. If you truely can’t see the difference then there is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Putin was against the Iraqi invasion because
it wasn’t in his intrest. Now it is so he is for sending troops.
You don’t see the hypocrisy here?

America didn’t want to know about WWII till the japanese bombed them, guess them deciding to get involved in the war afterwards is also an example of hypocrisy. :rolleyes:

Also, the Russians are sending a very small force to hunt for the people who murdered their diplomates, they are not going to contribute to the occupation, so its not even like the Russians are going back on their previous position.

Not sure you are aware of it but the terrorist camps were in Afghanistan
and not in Manhaten. NATO the US and others did send troops to get
the terrrosits. They are still there!

So, by your logic, if it can be proven that there are ‘terror camps’ in the US, anyone and everyone else have a legitmate reason to send in troops to take over? Get real mate. :rolleyes:

Exactly. Every nation cares about it’s own intrest and that’s why
Putin decided to send the special troops only after his people were
hurt and not before hand ;cause he had nothing to gain by helping
the average Iraqi.

And you think the US and UK went into Iraq to help the average Iraqi? :rolleyes:

PS, can we please stay on topic guys? If you want to talk about the Kursk, please start another thread, and I would be happy to discuss the subject there, but not here.

First off, we were talking about SF units, not the military in general, as if you could have somehow missed that point. So the shortcomings of a largely conscript army has no baring on the abilities of the SF units.

The Russian military was run out of Afganistan by 19th century tribesmen.

A) The CIA supplied, trained and financed taliban are no 19th century tribesmen.

B) The russian (or rather soviet) military had overwhelming military superiority and the Taliban would not have been able to drive them out in a hundred years militarily. The soviets pulled out because of the cost of the occupation were too high and because they lost interesting in that barren country. Or do you also think that the mighty USA were run out of vietnam by ’10th century’ farmers? :rolleyes:

The Russian military didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory in Chechnya. Grozny for example where it appearently forgot everything it learned in WW11 about street fighting.

I am sure the list could be expanded.

Again, shortcomings of the conventional army and poor leadership. Has no baring on SF performance. And please do ‘expland’ your list, purhaps with some SF related examples this time? :rolleyes:

It would be interesting to see what resources they could bring together in Iraq. It would have to be more than a few guys in black outfits with no InTel, air support, etc and no experience working with the locals not to mention the new Iraq government.

Sauron

You are living in wonderland if you think the Russians don’t have a highly developed and sophisticated intellegence operation in Iraq, with American tactics, technology and weapons performance being one of their primary observation objectives. This same network of operatives, informants and intellengence gathering assets would now be used to ID and track down the people responsible for the kidnapping and murder of the diplomates. The SF contingent would most likely be a killteam and/or some explosive experts/snipers etc.

The spies already established would find the targets, and the SF unit would take them out or take them in for ‘questioning’.

Both.

It’s not why they have done, it’s what they threat to do. And will be able to do, given nukes.

So you don’t believe Iran when they say they don’t want nukes, but you do beleive them when their president says Israel should be ‘wipped off the map’?

As if Israel has never made a bluff and no Israeli polition has ever talked taugh to win support from the hardliners. Plenty of nations have threatened similar things to other nations in far more direct and overt ways before.

As for Iran having the ability to carry out its ‘threats’, well so what? Ever heard of the term MAD and nuclear deterrence?

The fact of the matter is that the only time nuclear weapons has been used in anger was when the victim did not posses nukes. And ask yourself this, with only Israel possessing nukes in the ME, had the Israeli army been crushed in battle by a united arab coalition force and that force was then heading into Israel, would the IDF hesitate before ordering the use of nukes against the advancing enemy?

Introducing nuclear weapons into a hitherto nuclear-free region is a major destablising factor, especially so if the neighbours in that region dislike each other or are on the brink of war. But once nuclear weapons have been introduced into such a region, additional nuclear powers are far more likely to bring stability then nuclear war.

Israel doesn’t like Iran or Egypt or anyone else in the ME having nukes because it has so far benefited enourously from being the only nuclear power on the block, and its generals and politions dispise loosing that proivilage and having to actually thing about the consequences of its actions instead of just doing whatever the hell they like.

Israel doesn’t think that the Iranian people aren’t rational and intelligent, it thinks that the Iranian regime is irrentional and stupid, let alone insane.

So, is that the Israeli people or regime?

Care to give some examples of things the Iran has DONE that is ‘irrational, stupid and insane’?

To what end? So that British soilders can be hated as much by the locals as American troops?

Look at the casaulty figures for the two forces and you will see the benefit of the British ‘hearts and minds’ tactic.

Your reaction is exactly what the terrorists want – for the British army to loose its professionalism and start going out seeking to get retribution. That’ll turn the local people against you, for every insurgent you kill, ten more will rise up to take his place, and if that happens, then your have already lost.