War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?

[segovius]

I have no doubt that the attack on Iran is now inevitable, planned and decided upon. We will have to wait for a month or two of sheep-prepping but I firmly believe it is now inevitable.

And so do many in the Intelligence Community. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox)

Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.

A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.

Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.

Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.

The intelligence source said: "No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen." But he said that within the CIA "many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing" and that "top Pentagon brass believes the same".

He said: "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq."

The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.


Given that an insane and blood-crazed bunch of maniacs are planning yet again to conduct an unprovoked attack - this time using nuclear weapons - on a sovereign state, I was wondering what the Americans on the board actually feel would be an appropriate stance for themselves and for Iran to react with?

I am not interested in hearing from the Stepford-drones who have been panting for this ever since the orgasm of Iraq wore off (you know who you are), I am just wondering what the general opinion would be now it appears to becoming a reality.

In a connected note, I think the French will be in for a shock. They opposed Iraq - and rightly so - and at least had some integrity. with the advent of Sarkozy it seems that they too have been co-opted into the New Order.

France is now being used as the UK was as a mouthpiece (useful idiot?) in the drumbeat lead-up to the slaughter: France warning of war with Iran. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6997935.stm)

Of course part of that deal would be to put troops on the ground - the US will need some cannon fodder - so I wonder how chirpy they'll be when they start dying over there?

As for me, I think we should get on with it. The Bush cabals are sick psychopaths and unless they are stopped they will only cause more death and destruction. I honestly now view it the same as stopping Hitler; a cause worth dying for to make a safer world.

If it has to be Iran that does this then so be it - I think it will be ugly though because the bullies don't like a straight fair fight. Thoughts?

[hardeeharhar]

I don't see how this would be possible without the draft being reintroduced.

A limited air campaign? No ground invasion?

Not that I support such actions, but without a proper air force, Iran doesn't stand a chance against non-ground incursions. That being said, this sort of action would likely bring Russia into the mix and that is something I don't think Cheney and gang are actually willing to do...

[segovius]

I don't see how this would be possible without the draft being reintroduced.

A limited air campaign? No ground invasion?

Not that I support such actions, but without a proper air force, Iran doesn't stand a chance against non-ground incursions. That being said, this sort of action would likely bring Russia into the mix and that is something I don't think Cheney and gang are actually willing to do...

As I understand it, the plan is to launch air attacks on what they will claim are 'nuclear facilities' - in reality though, the operation would be to cripple the majority of military infrastructure.

Perhaps that is as far as the plan goes and no invasion is planned - I can quite imagine that Bush and Co might believe that this will 'show Iran who is boss' and that will be the end of it.

But I do not think they remotely understand the Iranian (or Iraqi or Afghani) mindset. That's normal, why should they? The problem is that with this admin they are so arrogant they actually think they don't need to.

It will escalate - either by intention or mistake - and then the US will have to respond.

I have no doubt now whatsoever that they will kick this off - probably in January or shortly thereafter.

[MarcUK]

must be the reason 'whathisname?' was predicting a rise in Bush's popularity come the end of the year.

[@_@ Artman]

I don't see how this would be possible without the draft being reintroduced.

A limited air campaign? No ground invasion?

Not that I support such actions, but without a proper air force, Iran doesn't stand a chance against non-ground incursions. That being said, this sort of action would likely bring Russia into the mix and that is something I don't think Cheney and gang are actually willing to do...

From one Washington Post war nerd (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091401973.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)..

The next war would begin with an intense air and naval campaign. Let's say you're planning the conflict as part of the staff of the Joint Chiefs. Your list of targets isn't that long -- only a few dozen nuclear sites -- but you can't risk retaliation from Tehran. So you allow 21 days for the bombardment, to be safe; you'd aim to strike every command-and-control facility, radar site, missile site, storage site, airfield, ship and base in Iran. To prevent world oil prices from soaring, you'd have to try to protect every oil and gas rig, and the big ports and load points. You'd need to use B-2s and lots of missiles up front, plus many small amphibious task forces to take out particularly tough targets along the coast, with manned and unmanned air reconnaissance. And don't forget the Special Forces, to penetrate deep inside Iran, call in airstrikes and drag the evidence of Tehran's nuclear ambitions out into the open for a world that's understandably skeptical of U.S. assertions that yet another Gulf rogue is on the brink of getting the bomb.

This is all talk. There will have to be a "Gulf of Tonkin" or "9-11" event for this to happen. Or a complete surprise attack on their northern operating reactors (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm).

[MarcUK]

if you were Iran under threat of attack, wouldn't you just rig all the oil fields with explosives and detonate them when the attack comes. That would surely doubly cripple the west.

One, oil prices will skyrocket because of market nervousness of an attack on Iran, Two, blowing the oil fields will put upwards pressure on the oil price even more.

Bush could actually be the catalyst that brings about the fall of western civilization.

[hardeeharhar]

Non-western civilization would crumble as well -- this would be the end to all modern civilizations...

[rufusswan]

Non-western civilization would crumble as well -- this would be the end to all modern civilizations...

Ain't this just what the Jack Van Impe's of the world have been "prophe-sighing" about for quit some time? Ain't this just 'according to the book'?

Paz

[southside grabowski]

I don't see it. The US has not the will to do the damage required to win such a war.

Of course there are plans. The military leadership would be derelict not to have plans. There are several other plans. Pick a country. There is a plan.

[MarcUK]

Ain't this just what the Jack Van Impe's of the world have been "prophe-sighing" about for quit some time? Ain't this just 'according to the book'?

Paz

cant wait! I'll be rotting in hell with fellows, dmz, cuilla and the like, but I really hope im a fly on the wall when they're told to depart from me, i never knew you. That would bring me endless joy - but that is why i'll be with them.

It wont be the end of civilization at all, the meek inherit the earth remember. These are the people who have nothing today. There are alot of these people out there, we just dont notice them really. You cannot take anything away from people who already have nothing.

Life will go on - and the cycle will begin again.

[hardeeharhar]

Ain't this just what the Jack Van Impe's of the world have been "prophe-sighing" about for quit some time? Ain't this just 'according to the book'?

Paz
well, the book interpreted in such a way is crap. if it appears to be identical, it is only self-fulfilling prophesy of the worst order.

[MarcUK]

well, the book interpreted in such a way is crap. if it appears to be identical, it is only self-fulfilling prophesy of the worst order.

even if it did become self-fullfilling prophecy of the worst order - it would still happen, so the prophecy would become true! - isn't that neat that something written years ago could come to pass, simply because it was written?

[hardeeharhar]

even if it did become self-fullfilling prophecy of the worst order - it would still happen, so the prophecy would become true! - isn't that neat that something written years ago could come to pass, simply because it was written?


neat? no.

a sad statement on the self-destructive drives of humanity? certainly.

[franksargent]

There are approximately ~200K US military forces in the ME, ~170K in (and supporting) the Iraq effort, see Multinational force in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_in_Iraq).

As of September 2007, there were around 168,000 Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel deployed to the western, northern and central regions of Iraq.

An additional 30,000 troops are deployed in the Gulf region.

In addition to regular troops there are 35,000-120,000 private military contractors in Iraq.

So basically, the US has the ground forces and land based airfields to allow the Air Force and Army/Marines to go into western Iran, secure the eastern Iraq border, and take out Iranian forces in that region.

Also don't forget the US Navy, expect several of the carrier battle groups to be stationed offshore to launch attacks and secure oil production facilities in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Also, expect US ground forces to secure the western border of Iraq/Syria.

Out of necessity Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will also secure their borders.

Also add Israel to the mix for some additional punch.

Expect massive, and I do mean massive (much bigger than GW's I and II) air strikes from land and sea bases.

Expect Bunker busters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster), and if necessary, Nuclear bunker busters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster) and small yield tactical nukes.

Some other salient facts are in order;

The War Powers Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act) of 1973 pretty much gives the POTUS free reign to attack anywhere for up to 90 days.

See, for example, the Invasion of Grenada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada) in 1983, the United States invasion of Panama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama) in 1989, and Operation Restore Hope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Restore_Hope) in Somalia in 1992.

Signed,
Dr. Strangelove

[MarcUK]

neat? no.

a sad statement on the self-destructive drives of humanity? certainly.

yes, but sooner or later, you have to be honest and admit that is who and what we are. After all, were all just animals. Nature keeps animals in check because they have limited intelligence to be able to destroy things - they still do, but not with any fundamental intelligence or meaning.

our problem is that we have cheated the simplistic equilibrium rules of nature by having larger brains. If you like, our particular thread of evolution gave us a temporary advantage for survival and reproduction, but ultimately we cannot adapt quickly enough to the environment (of there being an enormous population explosion and limited resources) and so we will die off.

[tonton]

must be the reason 'whathisname?' was predicting a rise in Bush's popularity come the end of the year.

Yeah, because an attack on Iran would be sucked up by the American people right now... :rolleyes:

Even the American sheeple would crucify Bush if he tried it before he started the "WMD" style targeted lying. Believe me, that'll be the next step. If not some "real" terrorist attack that they blame on Iran sometime in the next few months. Dirty bomb anyone?

[Jubelum]

Do you believe in Israel's right to self defence as well?

Thought so. :\

[mydo]

if you were Iran under threat of attack, wouldn't you just rig all the oil fields with explosives and detonate them when the attack comes. That would surely doubly cripple the west.

One, oil prices will skyrocket because of market nervousness of an attack on Iran, Two, blowing the oil fields will put upwards pressure on the oil price even more.

Bush could actually be the catalyst that brings about the fall of western civilization.

Um NO! They are actually more dependent on oil than we are. If you had one main source of income would you blow it up? No you wouldn't.

[@_@ Artman]

There are approximately ~200K US military forces in the ME, ~170K in (and supporting) the Iraq effort, see Multinational force in Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_in_Iraq).
Signed,
Dr. Strangelove

And their opponent (http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran/Military):

Military branches: Islamic Republic of Iran regular forces (includes Ground Forces, Navy, Air and Air Defense Forces), Revolutionary Guards (includes Ground, Air, Navy, Qods, and Basij-mobilization-forces), Law Enforcement Forces

Military manpower - military age: 21 years of age

Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 17,762,030 (2000 est.)

Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 10,545,869 (2000 est.)

Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 801,260 (2000 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $5.787 billion (FY98/99)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.9% (FY98/99)

This I believe includes the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Guardians_of_the_Islamic_Revolution)

and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force)

Taking on Iran's air force (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002554.html)

The stand-off with Iran over its nuclear ambitions was just beginning while I was embedded with Marine All-Weather Fighter Attack Squadron 332 at Al Asad air base in Iraq. More than once the fliers lamented that they'd probably be back in the States by the time the "inevitable" bombing of Iran got underway. One conversation went something like this:

Me: Oh God. We can't afford a war with Iran

Aviator #1: Whatever. We'd kick their asses.

Aviator #2: No, they've got F-14s!

Aviator #3: Yeah, my wife [deployed to northern Iraq] saw one!

Aviator #1: We'd still kick their asses.

Me: Oh God.

If, God help us, the stand-off does turn violent, U.S. air power will play a critical role. For months pundits have predicted a massive bombing campaign to target Iran's nuclear facilities, and perhaps even to attempt regime change.

But don't expect Iran's air force to roll over like Iraq's did in 1991 and again in 2003. Unlike the Iraqi air force, the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) appears to be well-armed, well-trained and eager for a fight.

Wouldn't say "superior" but wouldn't say "puny" either. Expect a military that will fight and fight to the last man (http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html).

[franksargent]

And their opponent (http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran/Military):

Military branches: Islamic Republic of Iran regular forces (includes Ground Forces, Navy, Air and Air Defense Forces), Revolutionary Guards (includes Ground, Air, Navy, Qods, and Basij-mobilization-forces), Law Enforcement Forces

Military manpower - military age: 21 years of age

Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 17,762,030 (2000 est.)

Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 10,545,869 (2000 est.)

Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 801,260 (2000 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $5.787 billion (FY98/99)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.9% (FY98/99)

This I believe includes the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Guardians_of_the_Islamic_Revolution)

and the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force)

Taking on Iran's air force (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002554.html)



Wouldn't say "superior" but wouldn't say "puny" either. Expect a military that will fight and fight to the last man (http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html).

You really do need to stop watching Top Gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gun_%28film%29), that's so 60's, technologically speaking! :D

It's like comparing a 1G iPod to today's iPods! :lol:

Consider;

F-22 Raptor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor)

F/A-18 Hornet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18)

F-16 Fighting Falcon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16)

F-15 Eagle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15)

F-117 Nighthawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117)

B-2 Spirit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B2_Bomber)

B-1 Lancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B1_bomber)

and even the venerable B-52 Stratofortress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52), OMFG a 50 year old plane still seeing service!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the F-14 Tomcat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat) is;

It was retired from the U.S. Navy fleet on 22 September 2006, having been replaced by the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. As of 2007, it remains in service only with the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force.

The first F-14 arrived in January 1976, modified only by the removal of classified avionics components, but fitted with the TF-30-414 engines.

see Iran F-14's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14#Iran) for more enlightenment.

The remaining intact US Navy F-14 aircraft have been stored at the "Boneyard" of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. These F-14s are currently being disabled by being shredded to prevent parts from being acquired by hostile states.

In January 2007, it was announced by the US Department of Defense that sales of spare parts for F-14s would be suspended, due to concerns that they could end up in Iran. It announced that the decision was taken "given the current situation in Iran". On 2 July 2007, the remaining American F-14s were being shredded to ensure that F-14 spare parts would not be acquired by governments considered hostile to the US.

http://www.davemackey.com/animation/wb/titlecards/whatupdc.jpg

http://www.ptcuser.org/rugs/U52/tips&tricks/thatsalllogo.gif

[segovius]

One more word: Shahab 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3)

[@_@ Artman]

You really do need to stop watching Top Gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gun_%28film%29), that's so 60's, technologically speaking! :D

Yeah, yeah yeah... I'm not saying we couldn't wipe them off the face of the Earth. There will be a cost greater than Iraq to accomplish it though. Don't forget the Soviet Union's "successful" campaign against the Mujahadeen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen#Mujahideen_of_Afghanistan) in Afghanistan.

Also, the F-14s will be replaced with 250 advanced long-range Sukhoi-30 fighter jets (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1185379034835&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter) from (wait for it) Russia.

[franksargent]

Yeah, yeah yeah... I'm not saying we couldn't wipe them off the face of the Earth. There will be a cost greater than Iraq to accomplish it though. Don't forget the Soviet Union's "successful" campaign against the Mujahadeen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen#Mujahideen_of_Afghanistan) in Afghanistan.

Also, the F-14s will be replaced with 250 advanced long-range Sukhoi-30 fighter jets (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1185379034835&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter) from (wait for it) Russia.

I've never spoken of this as being an extended GROUND campaign.

Basically, secure the air space (that's an easy one), secure the sea lanes (again very easy), secure the ME oil (ditto, other than Iran), and secure the Iraqi borders on the west (Iran) and east (Syria). That's it, other then bomb Iran back to the stone age, that is!

[jimmac]

Yeah, because an attack on Iran would be sucked up by the American people right now... :rolleyes:

Even the American sheeple would crucify Bush if he tried it before he started the "WMD" style targeted lying. Believe me, that'll be the next step. If not some "real" terrorist attack that they blame on Iran sometime in the next few months. Dirty bomb anyone?


Now here's a reasonable look at things.

Also even events like you suggest to set this in motion would be highly suspect at this time. So I don't think the american people would just openly buy it.

So if he tries this it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I mean they already really don't trust him.

[@_@ Artman]

I've never spoken of this as being an extended GROUND campaign.

Basically, secure the air space (that's an easy one), secure the sea lanes (again very easy), secure the ME oil (ditto, other than Iran), and secure the Iraqi borders on the west (Iran) and east (Syria). That's it, other then bomb Iran back to the stone age, that is!

But Russia won't take this sitting on their pudgy hands. Expect some serious repercussions from Russia and China. This administration was saying Iraq was going to go "swimmingly". Look where that got us...

[franksargent]

But Russia won't take this sitting on their pudgy hands. Expect some serious repercussions from Russia and China. This administration was saying Iraq was going to go "swimmingly". Look where that got us...

I'm just playing devil's advocate.:) I'm just trying to think like those loopy noecon artists, no telling what they all will be up to before "Chimpy has left the building!" :no:

[@_@ Artman]

I'm just playing devil's advocate.:) I'm just trying to think like those loopy noecon artists, no telling what they all will be up to before "Chimpy has left the building!" :no:

I don't know, now that Blackwater has "left the building (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AuRzprX2LKsL4eDwsakvOzGs0NUE)" they'll probably be sent to Iran now. :rolleyes:

[segovius]

I'm just playing devil's advocate.:) I'm just trying to think like those loopy noecon artists, no telling what they all will be up to before "Chimpy has left the building!" :no:

Chimpy might not be leaving the monkey-house just yet...didn't he pass some law that he can continue if something 'really bad' happens?

[Mystic]

Iran has only ONE gasoline refinery. A blockade and destruction of the ONE refinery will bring Iran to a complete shutdown in two weeks.

[sammi jo]

When the mainstream media start to feature the upcoming war against Iran as if it's an inevitability, what position will they take? Will they once again exhibit their usual standards of cowardly administration lapdoggishness, and feature an endless procession of retired generals, White House personnel, military analysts, neoconservative commentators/Islamophobes, Pentagon officials, as if the notion of going to war against Iran is a patriotic, pro-American stance (I know it's ridiculous, but that's how they see it)..... or.... will the MSM, just for once, give equal billing to both sides of the argument?

My guess is no, unfortunately. We will see a media "Iraq" deja vu, with respect to Iran, with the predictable string of pro-administration shills and weasels being softsoaped by the likes of "Wolf" Blitzer. The opposing side will get get a token airing, <1% of the airtime of the pro-war crew, and will feature, for example, a longhaired hippy, on stilts, singing a John Lennon tune, wearing a tied dyed tshirt, or a bunch of FBI-paid stooges disguised as Black Block anti-war activists, lobbing rocks through McDonalds windows on cue for primetime television.

Just wait and see.

[Akumulator]

Chimpy might not be leaving the monkey-house just yet...didn't he pass some law that he can continue if something 'really bad' happens?

Noooo...... is that true? :\

[@_@ Artman]

When the mainstream media start to feature the upcoming war against Iran as if it's an inevitability, what position will they take?
Just wait and see.

BBC news...


"to prepare for the worst... and the worst means war" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6998118.stm)

So, is France taking over where Britain, er Blair left off?



Telegraph.co.uk...


Bush setting America up for war with Iran (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml)

Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

Well Britain's sending the message out...

[@_@ Artman]

Noooo...... is that true? :\

Maybe.

New presidential directive gives Bush dictatorial power (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHI20070521&articleId=5720)

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007 declares that in the event of a “catastrophic event”, George W. Bush can become what is best described as "a dictator":

"The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

This directive, completely unnoticed by the media, and given no scrutiny by Congress, literally gives the White House unprecedented dictatorial power over the government and the country, bypassing the US Congress and obliterating the separation of powers. The directive also placed the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic “security”.

[MarcUK]

Um NO! They are actually more dependent on oil than we are. If you had one main source of income would you blow it up? No you wouldn't.

um no, if you're about to be annihilated, you do whatever is necessary to defend yourself, you cause economic catastrophe in your attacker that makes the attack pointless. You take a small term hit on your own economy.

Afterall, the oil is still going to be there under Iranian soil when the hostilities cease. You make sure you are still in control of your country.

[segovius]

Iran has only ONE gasoline refinery. A blockade and destruction of the ONE refinery will bring Iran to a complete shutdown in two weeks.

So that would be an argument for why they legitimately need nuclear power then.....

[e1618978]

So that would be an argument for why they legitimately need nuclear power then.....

No, it isn't. Iranian power plants run off their incredible excess natural gas capacity.

One gasoline refinery has nothing to do with their need for nuclear power - it just has to do with their low gasoline usage, I suppose.

[@_@ Artman]

Afterall, the oil is still going to be there under Iranian soil when the hostilities cease. You make sure you are still in control of your country.

Yeah, you'll need a diamond drill though to bore through the GLASS PARKING LOT.

http://www.undergroundbombshelter.com/images/nuclear-bomb-test.jpg

[rufusswan]

So that would be an argument for why they legitimately need nuclear power then.....

Yep, fur shure.

As everyone knows, the major byproduct of nuclear fission is 87 octane petrol.

Paz

[Taskiss]

Noooo...... is that true? :\I don't see that as a relevant question on your part. You need to make pompous overblown accusations in this forum, not seek answers.

[peve]

my point:
-war is bad
-but, i don't like the thought of iran having a nuke (and a trigger-happy ahmadinejad at the button)

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/2004Lane/images/Lane-Iran_Nuclear_Po.jpg

http://www.darki.com/Bilder/mohammed_karikaturen/iran_nuke.jpg

[sammi jo]

my point:
-war is bad
-but, i don't like the thought of iran having a nuke (and a trigger-happy ahmadinejad at the button)

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/2004Lane/images/Lane-Iran_Nuclear_Po.jpg

http://www.darki.com/Bilder/mohammed_karikaturen/iran_nuke.jpg

Pakistan already has nukes. And they have a unstable dictator at the helm, who ousted a democratically elected government. And, his is a government that knowingly harbors terrorists, yet they are considered by the Bush Adninistration to be "an ally". (Anyone considered an ally by the Bush Administration should be regarded as an enemy of the United States, in the real world, of course).

There is not a shred of definite proof that Iran intends that *WEAPONS* to be the end result of their nuclear program. The build up to this war will be a parallel that of the Iraq invasion, using another non-existent WMD reasoning. The Pentagon will undoubtedly be a little more careful this time around, before the war starts properly, to pre-lay the rabbit trail a little more effectively than in Iraq... where an attempt to plant chemical weapons after the war started led to a disastrous "friendly" firefight.

[peve]

Pakistan already has nukes. And they have a unstable dictator at the helm, who ousted a democratically elected government...

but at least he doesn't brag around how he would wipe a country off of the map (and with that would break all hell loose in the area)

There is not a shred of definite proof that Iran intends that *WEAPONS* to be the end result of their nuclear program.

there are people who think different (check abdul qadeer khan)

The build up to this war will be a parallel that of the Iraq invasion, using another non-existent WMD reasoning. The Pentagon will undoubtedly be a little more careful this time around, before the war starts properly, to pre-lay the rabbit trail a little more effectively than in Iraq... where an attempt to plant chemical weapons after the war started led to a disastrous "friendly" firefight.

irak did have wmd's. they used them against iran in the iran-irak war and against the kurds. they killed 1000's of people with sarin.

saddam and his friends had 11 years time to destroy and/or hide that stuff, after golfwar 1.

and if the usa had to fake the hole wmd-story, they would have done a better job.

[@_@ Artman]

but at least he doesn't brag around how he would wipe a country off of the map (and with that would break all hell loose in the area)

there are people who think different (check abdul qadeer khan)

irak did have wmd's. they used them against iran in the iran-irak war and against the kurds. they killed 1000's of people with sarin.

saddam and his friends had 11 years time to destroy and/or hide that stuff, after golfwar 1.

and if the usa had to fake the hole wmd-story, they would have done a better job.

Boy, you're seriously a virgin to PO. Good luck, that's all I'll say. :no:

[tonton]

irak did have wmd's. they used them against iran in the iran-irak war and against the kurds. they killed 1000's of people with sarin.

saddam and his friends had 11 years time to destroy and/or hide that stuff, after golfwar 1.

and if the usa had to fake the hole wmd-story, they would have done a better job.

Iraq had a supersecret weapon called the idiot bomb. It's a bomb that destroys all common sense, knowledge of current affairs facts as opposed to conjecture, as well as spelling and grammatical skills. And they dropped it on you, apparently.

[segovius]

my point:
-war is bad
-but, i don't like the thought of iran having a nuke (and a trigger-happy ahmadinejad at the button)

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/2004Lane/images/Lane-Iran_Nuclear_Po.jpg

http://www.darki.com/Bilder/mohammed_karikaturen/iran_nuke.jpg

Seems strange....you have an insane President who actually has instituted torture and invaded sovereign States on made-up pretexts and who reserves the right to use nukes pre-emptively...

And you have a Ahmedinejad who has no nukes, attacked no-one but is hated by the above mentioned President just like Saddam was...in fact the lies of Bush are your only real reason for you view....

[Mystic]

So....When are you moving to Iran?

[segovius]

So....When are you moving to Iran?

Am very familiar with the area as it happens. Was thinking of moving back a few years ago but my other half has an aversion to getting killed when the carpet bombing starts.

I would go in a flash but I guess it's no place for a family when it gets Iraqified.

Beautiful place, beautiful people....more friends dead soon though I guess.

[tonton]

Am very familiar with the area as it happens. Was thinking of moving back a few years ago but my other half has an aversion to getting killed when the carpet bombing starts.

I would go in a flash but I guess it's no place for a family when it gets Iraqified.

Beautiful place, beautiful people....more friends dead soon though I guess.

I imagine it is a beautiful place, with beautiful people, actually.

But Segovius makes the point the knee-jerk warmongers miss...

If you had your beautiful Iranian family in the beautiful country of Iran, and you're facing the threat of being "Iraqified"... wouldn't that start to really piss you off?

Terrorists aren't born. They are created.

[peve]

i love this thread.

looks like i'm really the only political outsider in here.

[peve]

Iraq had a supersecret weapon called the idiot bomb. It's a bomb that destroys all common sense, knowledge of current affairs facts as opposed to conjecture, as well as spelling and grammatical skills. And they dropped it on you, apparently.

aren't we suposed to argue in here?
then why don't you argue - insted of writing kiddie-stuff like that.

and maybe english isn't my native language.

and maybe you where standing to close when the idiot bomb hit me...

[e1618978]

Seems strange....you have an insane President who actually has instituted torture and invaded sovereign States on made-up pretexts and who reserves the right to use nukes pre-emptively...

And you have a Ahmedinejad who has no nukes, attacked no-one but is hated by the above mentioned President just like Saddam was...in fact the lies of Bush are your only real reason for you view....

It would be easy for Iran to not be invaded, all they need to do is drop the nuclear plans. Those plans must be pretty important to them if they are willing to risk the lives of their people.

I have no sympathy for the Iranian government - as far as I can tell they are bringing this on themselves. Even if the nuclear scheme was really for peaceful reasons, which I am sure it is not, wouldn't it be smarter of them to bend over backwards to make the rest of the world comfortable with their plans? Since Iraq is their neighbor, wouldn't it make sense that they would do all that they could to ensure peace there instead of funding rebels? Same with Lebanon?

Suppose you were building a garage at the edge of your property, and your neighbor is concerned. Which is the better path - build what you like and spray paint "fuck you" on the side facing his house, or talk to him to make sure his concerns are heard and defrayed? Iran is taking the first path, and they are leading themselves into a war that they will not survive (we are great at the first part of war, remember, it is just peacekeeping that we struggle with).

They are either suicidal, or idiots.

[segovius]

They are either suicidal, or idiots.

Or you are not being told the truth...

[peve]

good post!

...They are either suicidal, or idiots.

i don't think so - i think it's just a matter of "not loosing face" for them.
if they stand up against "the others" (anybody non-muslim), they become heros to there own people. if they are stubborn enough - they can play that game quite a while.

saddam played over a decade with the united nations with this tactic

[segovius]

good post!



i don't think so - i think it's just a matter of "not loosing face" for them.
if they stand up against "the others" (anybody non-muslim), they become heros to there own people. if they are stubborn enough - they can play that game quite a while.

saddam played over a decade with the united nations with this tactic

And Bush played you for over a year with the WMD tactic.

Of course it was BS and now you are falling for it again.

Or are you? Maybe you don;t really care whether it is true or not as long as ragheads keep dying...

[e1618978]

Or you are not being told the truth...

Well, they speak English, most of them, so they have the opportunity to get their side of the story out. Instead they do all they can to hide their nuclear progress.

Also, how was this guy "mis-quoted"?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/05/wiran05.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/03/05/ixportal.html

I actually think that they already have a bomb - there is plenty of weapons grade material on the market after the collapse of the soviet union.

[peve]

Well, they speak English, most of them, so they have the opportunity to get their side of the story out. Instead they do all they can to hide their nuclear progress.

that's what i was talking about

I actually think that they already have a bomb - there is plenty of weapons grade material on the market after the collapse of the soviet union.

yeah me too.

and everyone is entitled to his own opinion (even if some people get personal about it in here).

[@_@ Artman]

Heh, you two make a great couple. :lol::rolleyes::smokey:

[e1618978]

Heh, you two make a great couple. :lol::rolleyes::smokey:

If you had any good arguments, or evidence, then you could sway me.

[@_@ Artman]

If you had any good arguments, or evidence, then you could sway me.

Citing evidence with ignorant people like you and SDW gives me carpal tunnel syndrome.

[peve]

how mature

... this is why the Political Right just cannot compete in the intellectual arena

um... yeah...

[@_@ Artman]

how mature

um... yeah...

When you start posting something besides this and something with content, maybe we'll listen to you. Haven't done much so far. Also get a spell-checker and get a clue what the shift key does on your keyboard.

[peve]

When you start posting something besides this and something with content, maybe we'll listen to you.

well, looks like you listend - otherwise you wouldn't have answered.

Haven't done much so far.

if you cared to read (before you flame) - you would know different.

Also get a spell-checker

you do know, that there are people on this planet, who don't speak english since birth?
how's your french for example?

and get a clue what the shift key does on your keyboard.

capitalization is overrated

[@_@ Artman]

well, looks like you listend - otherwise you wouldn't have answered.

Being in any thread is analogous to being in a room. Let's just say you need to speak up a little.

if you cared to read (before you flame) - you would know different.

As I've posted before, I need a little more content than, "-war is bad", "i love this thread", "aren't we suposed to argue in here?". Of course we argue. We have to back it up with links and other evidence. I tend to think some who don't are talking out their ass on most occasions.

you do know, that there are people on this planet, who don't speak english since birth? how's your french for example?

Woefully bad. But in more ways than one, this is an English speaking forum. If it was French I wouldn't post here. But you have, as all of us the right to express yourself. Apologies for the oversight on your struggle to grasp English.

capitalization is overrated

Then you fail.

[tonton]

capitalization is overrated

And those who don't use it are simply lazy, and don't care how stupid it makes them look.

[vinea]

So basically, the US has the ground forces and land based airfields to allow the Air Force and Army/Marines to go into western Iran, secure the eastern Iraq border, and take out Iranian forces in that region.


Except the ground forces are occupied in Iraq doing other stuff. Stuff that will have to be left undone to defend against Iran.


Also don't forget the US Navy, expect several of the carrier battle groups to be stationed offshore to launch attacks and secure oil production facilities in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.


The carriers offers fairly little offensive combat strength in comparison to the land air we could have available given the bases we have in the region. They do make really nice targets until the Silkworm and other sites are taken down. Expect these guys to stay pretty far out in the Arabian Sea if something happens and no where near the Iranian coast.


Also, expect US ground forces to secure the western border of Iraq/Syria.


And if they haven't been able to before what makes you think they can secure them now?


Out of necessity Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will also secure their borders.


Meh.


Also add Israel to the mix for some additional punch.


Possibly. They have been aggressive lately but frankly offer little and are better off not instigating something.


Expect massive, and I do mean massive (much bigger than GW's I and II) air strikes from land and sea bases.


Not likely to be that much more massive given we didn't hold much back either time and in GW I we had a few other air forces carrying part of the load.

Vinea

[franksargent]

Except the ground forces are occupied in Iraq doing other stuff. Stuff that will have to be left undone to defend against Iran.



The carriers offers fairly little offensive combat strength in comparison to the land air we could have available given the bases we have in the region. They do make really nice targets until the Silkworm and other sites are taken down. Expect these guys to stay pretty far out in the Arabian Sea if something happens and no where near the Iranian coast.



And if they haven't been able to before what makes you think they can secure them now?



Meh.

I can pretty much guarantee you that Turkey would be at their border because of the Kurds, and that Saudi Arabia would also protect their border



Possibly. They have been aggressive lately but frankly offer little and are better off not instigating something.



Not likely to be that much more massive given we didn't hold much back either time and in GW I we had a few other air forces carrying part of the load.

Vinea

In order of your replies;

It would be a given that the Iraqi's would have to fend for themselves, have their civil war, whatever. And look at where most of the bases are already located, much closer to the Iranian border than any other border, and the terrain to the Iranian border is relatively flat, not like mountainous Afghanistan at all.

A single aircraft carrier has what, 80-90 aircraft/each, and don't forget the support ships, the destroyers and cruisers. And who said anything about being stationed in the Arabian Sea? Obviously, the air strikes would take out pretty much all of the Iranian offensive air capability, that's a necessary given.

Have the ever even tried to secure those borders? After all their running around Iraq's interior chasing after insurgents.

It's a given that Turkey (because of the Kurds), Kuwait and Saudi Arabia because of the desire to protect their oil resources. So that leaves only Jordan as the only possible if.

Israel? Ah, just threw that one in for effect.

Were talking 2008 technologies versus 2003 or 1991 technologies. Better and more precise delivery systems and munitions.

[vinea]

In order of your replies;

It would be a given that the Iraqi's would have to fend for themselves, have their civil war, whatever.


And we want to do that WHY?


And look at where most of the bases are already located, much closer to the Iranian border than any other border, and the terrain to the Iranian border is relatively flat, not like mountainous Afghanistan at all.


What? The Zagros mountains are flat? Iraq has practically no terrain until you get near the Iranian border and the northeast isn't very suitable terrain for invasion either direction. Not for mechanized forces anyway. There a few reasons Saddam attacked in the south. Marshy but flatter.


A single aircraft carrier has what, 80-90 aircraft/each, and don't forget the support ships, the destroyers and cruisers. And who said anything about being stationed in the Arabian Sea? Obviously, the air strikes would take out pretty much all of the Iranian offensive air capability, that's a necessary given.


A carrier air wing has 75-85 aircraft. 4 squadrons of F18s...about 48 aircraft. Yes, its substantial and was required in OIF for sustained strike but the naval threat was also lower. Yes, cruise missiles is also important on day 0. Neither need to be IN the gulf to do their job.

Parking a carrier battlegroup in the persian gulf when you expect to fight Iran would be risky until you eliminate the silkworm and sunburn sites. Localizing the battlegroup wouldn't be that hard in such a confined space. We have them there now. We might even leave one in there in a war but man, that's not a big piece of water. Typically when we have two we leave one in the Arabian sea and one in the Gulf.

The Iranians are certain to park anti-ship missles on Larak island. Between that and mine deployment by their three kilos the straights should be closable by them for at least a limited period. Giving them a chance at a carrier kill. They could lose their entire Navy and Air Force and come out ahead with one or two lucky hits.

Taking out Iranian offensive air capability is likely but possibly costly. It all depends on how many SA15s and SA 10s they bought off the Russians. While too few the Iranians are rumored to have a few Mig 27s and 31s. How many 29s they have are debatable.

We could likely kill all the aircraft, its the missiles that will be hard to find and eliminate.

Were talking 2008 technologies versus 2003 or 1991 technologies. Better and more precise delivery systems and munitions.

No, we're talking about predominantly 1960-1970 technology (F14, F15, F16, A10, B52, B1) and some 1980-1990s technology (F18, B2 and F117) augmented to 2004-2007 levels. There are danged few F22s around.

Not saying that we don't have a technical advantage but the TOR-M1(SA15) S300 (SA10) are reputed to be tough customers. Likewise if they managed to get AA-10 and AA-11 they would have competent Air to Air missiles for the fighters they have.

It all depends on how many and how well integrated these systems are.

All in all, not a certain cake walk. Nor is the outcome worth the price we'd pay. It would be stupid to attack Iran and theres no casus belli to do so anyway. Not that it stopped Bush in 2003 but its still dumb.

Oh, and of course Iran has a right to self defense. All sovereign nations have the right to self defense. So what? The "war with Iran" is not inevitable. Not even Bush is going to start a war with Iran because it would be the political deathknell of the Republican party for the better part of a decade.

V

[SDW2001]

I won't reply quote everyone. Let me just make these points:

1. I'm very wary of an attack on Iran. They could retaliate with possible sleepers cells in the UK and US. They could launch against Israel.

2. Cutting of oil production would [hurt] them more than us. Guaranteed. They simply need it more than we do. They're already having major oil revenue problems.

3. F-14's, Russian "Suks" aside...our air power would completely and utterly overwhelm theirs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding himself. Any attack on Iran would likely involve at least three carrier battle groups with at least 500 aircraft, 750-1000 cruise missiles, B-2 Stealth's, etc. We might lose a few aircraft, but would effectively remove all their military capability in 3 or 4 days. We'd likely soften up their defenses with a massive cruise missile strike on their air bases. We'd launch these from subs and destroyers, of course.

4. I think IF we do attack, we're likely to take out the nuke facilities and military infrastructure to prevent significant retaliation. I think doing less would be risky.

So...we have two issues: Should we attack and what would it look like if we did. I don't know the answer to the first question. While I've very wary of it, I wonder if there is another way, since President Tom's government is making it a habit of actively giving UN the finger every time it passes a resolution. They are also attacking US forces and killing American soldiers both directly and indirectly. What right do they have to do that?

And really Seg...I'll again ask you to stop the preemptive personal attacks. I've literally heard NO ONE openly advocate an attack on Iran on these boards. Not a one. Secondly, Iran does in fact have an illegal nuclear program...that's confirmed. What's in question is whether or not they are developing nukes. No sane person can say for sure [they're] not. In fact, no sane person can say it's less likely than it is likely.

[Splinemodel]

Woefully bad. But in more ways than one, this is an English speaking forum. If it was French I wouldn't post here. But you have, as all of us the right to express yourself. Apologies for the oversight on your struggle to grasp English.

If it were French. were
There's also an error in your second sentence, which should be corrected to: as all of us do,

I think his spelling and grammar are pretty solid. I only noticed a few proper nouns that were misspelled, which is very excusable, especially given the fact that in this respect even English English is different in many ways from US English. However, Plato laughs at the spelling & grammar retort, so I'd say that the retort is less excusable than the [marginal] misspellings themselves. Don't take it personally, but there's no reason to lament grammar unless it really a problem. The first bit of this post is meant as a pie-in-the-face and not as an earnest matter.

Otherwise, I have to say that I most certainly support Iran's "right" to self-defense. That seems like a non-issue. Only a hopeless bureaucrat could expect that resolutions will prevent hostilities or arms build-up. I think everyone learned this lesson from pre-WWII. It's pointless to even consider such resolutions.

[SDW... About those sleeper cells: I think we can pin one down in Barcelona]

[tonton]

1. I'm very wary of an attack on Iran. They could retaliate with possible sleepers cells in the UK and US. They could launch against Israel.
So you're wary of an attack because of the chance they would retaliate? Not because it might not be the right thing to do in the first place? That innocent Iranian families might die? Isn't that something you should consider?
2. Cutting of oil production would [hurt?] them more than us. Guaranteed. They simply need it more than we do. They're already having major oil revenue problems.
Agreed.
3. F-14's, Russian "Suks" aside...our air power would completely and utterly overwhelm theirs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding himself. Any attack on Iran would likely involve at least three carrier battle groups with at least 500 aircraft, 750-1000 cruise missiles, B-2 Stealth's, etc. We might lose a few aircraft, but would effectively remove all their military capability in 3 or 4 days. We'd likely soften up their defenses with a massive cruise missile strike on their air bases. We'd launch these from subs and destroyers, of course.
Agreed. But what do you think about ground forces?
4. I think IF we do attack, we're likely to take out the nuke facilities and military infrastructure to prevent significant retaliation. I think doing less would be risky.
There will be no "retaliation" from "nuke" facilities. :rolleyes:
So...we have two issues: Should we attack and what would it look like if we did.
Hey! We're making progress!!!! You actually care "what it would look like". This tends to indicate you're not happy with what Iraq "looks like". Well done.
I don't know the answer to the first question. While I've very wary of it, I wonder if there is another way, since President Tom's government is making it a habit of actively giving UN the finger every time it passes a resolution. They are also attacking US forces and killing American soldiers both directly and indirectly. What right do they have to do that?
Hey arent you one of those who thinks the UN is "useless" and a "farce" and "corrupt" etc.? If this is how you feel about the UN, then why do you think Iran whould listen to them? After all, Israel definitely "makes a habit of giving them the finger".
And really Seg...I'll again ask you to stop the preemptive personal attacks. I've literally heard NO ONE openly advocate an attack on Iran on these boards. Not a one. Secondly, Iran does in fact have an illegal nuclear program...that's confirmed. What's in question is whether or not they are developing nukes. No sane person can say for sure their[sic] not. In fact, no sane person can say it's less likely than it is likely.
I guess we're all insane. I think it's infinitely unlikely that Iran is developing nuclear technology for purposes of agression.

[Splinemodel]

With hysterical responses that target spelling over substance and others that insert words and ideas -- where they are not -- into what was otherwise an uncommonly objective posting (by SDW), I'd say yes, you're insane. The way you bring up the bit about Iranian families is reminiscent of the way TV cops plant drugs on folks they're interrogating.

Whatever it is, there's something that's driving you mad. That usually precludes sanity, or at least an open mind, which is the kind of mind needed to evaluate Iran's nuclear program.

[segovius]

IAnd really Seg...I'll again ask you to stop the preemptive personal attacks. I've literally heard NO ONE openly advocate an attack on Iran on these boards. Not a one.

I have though....

And no, I'm not spending hours searching for it.

Perhaps someone remembers - there were several occasions.

[franksargent]

And we want to do that WHY?



What? The Zagros mountains are flat? Iraq has practically no terrain until you get near the Iranian border and the northeast isn't very suitable terrain for invasion either direction. Not for mechanized forces anyway. There a few reasons Saddam attacked in the south. Marshy but flatter.



A carrier air wing has 75-85 aircraft. 4 squadrons of F18s...about 48 aircraft. Yes, its substantial and was required in OIF for sustained strike but the naval threat was also lower. Yes, cruise missiles is also important on day 0. Neither need to be IN the gulf to do their job.

Parking a carrier battlegroup in the persian gulf when you expect to fight Iran would be risky until you eliminate the silkworm and sunburn sites. Localizing the battlegroup wouldn't be that hard in such a confined space. We have them there now. We might even leave one in there in a war but man, that's not a big piece of water. Typically when we have two we leave one in the Arabian sea and one in the Gulf.

The Iranians are certain to park anti-ship missles on Larak island. Between that and mine deployment by their three kilos the straights should be closable by them for at least a limited period. Giving them a chance at a carrier kill. They could lose their entire Navy and Air Force and come out ahead with one or two lucky hits.

Taking out Iranian offensive air capability is likely but possibly costly. It all depends on how many SA15s and SA 10s they bought off the Russians. While too few the Iranians are rumored to have a few Mig 27s and 31s. How many 29s they have are debatable.

We could likely kill all the aircraft, its the missiles that will be hard to find and eliminate.



No, we're talking about predominantly 1960-1970 technology (F14, F15, F16, A10, B52, B1) and some 1980-1990s technology (F18, B2 and F117) augmented to 2004-2007 levels. There are danged few F22s around.

Not saying that we don't have a technical advantage but the TOR-M1(SA15) S300 (SA10) are reputed to be tough customers. Likewise if they managed to get AA-10 and AA-11 they would have competent Air to Air missiles for the fighters they have.

It all depends on how many and how well integrated these systems are.

All in all, not a certain cake walk. Nor is the outcome worth the price we'd pay. It would be stupid to attack Iran and theres no casus belli to do so anyway. Not that it stopped Bush in 2003 but its still dumb.

Oh, and of course Iran has a right to self defense. All sovereign nations have the right to self defense. So what? The "war with Iran" is not inevitable. Not even Bush is going to start a war with Iran because it would be the political deathknell of the Republican party for the better part of a decade.

V

Agreed, it would be stupid, but then again with Chimpy running the show ... :\

[e1618978]

II've literally heard NO ONE openly advocate an attack on Iran on these boards. Not a one.

I advocated an attack on Iran just yesterday.

My reasoning is as follows:

- I think that the Iranian leadership seems to not be thinking clearly, there is no way
that a rational leader would deliberately try to piss off the rest of the world, and no
way that a rational leader would actively try to encourage civil war in their neighboring
countires. We need to remove that leadership before they have a nuclear weapon.

- We are already effectively at war with them already, via proxy forces in Iraq, Syria,
and Lebanon.

Now, back in 2003 they were willing to deal and GWB totally screwed things up by ignoring
them - if they were willing to re-iterate that same deal now I think we would take it, but
otherwise bombing them is a good first step.

I also think that we should split up Iraq, take the Kurdish parts of Iran and give them Southern Iraq.
The new Kurdistan we create out of Northern Iraq and Kurdish Iran would be a good ally and a base
for US forces, and Iran would have its hands full bringing order to a place that it helped mess up.
Syria can have central Iraq, with its no oil and tons of problems.

[@_@ Artman]

I advocated an attack on Iran just yesterday.

My reasoning is as follows:

- I think that the Iranian leadership seems to not be thinking clearly, there is no way
that a rational leader would deliberately try to piss off the rest of the world, and no
way that a rational leader would actively try to encourage civil war in their neighboring
countires. We need to remove that leadership before they have a nuclear weapon.

- We are already effectively at war with them already, via proxy forces in Iraq, Syria,
and Lebanon.

Now, back in 2003 they were willing to deal and GWB totally screwed things up by ignoring
them - if they were willing to re-iterate that same deal now I think we would take it, but
otherwise bombing them is a good first step.

I also think that we should split up Iraq, take the Kurdish parts of Iran and give them Southern Iraq.
The new Kurdistan we create out of Northern Iraq and Kurdish Iran would be a good ally and a base
for US forces, and Iran would have its hands full bringing order to a place that it helped mess up.
Syria can have central Iraq, with its no oil and tons of problems.

e1618978, do you work for these guys? (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/10/31/battle.ideas/index.html) ;):err::wow::)

[e1618978]

e1618978, do you work for these guys? (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/10/31/battle.ideas/index.html) ;):err::wow::)

Nope. The only government work I have ever done was for the Research Council of Canada. But I am lazy like a government worker, so maybe that is the right place for me.

[@_@ Artman]

Ann Coulter Wants To Bomb Iran Because It's "Good For Wall Street" (http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/13093-only-on-fox-ann-coulter-wants-to-bomb-iran-because-it-s-good-for-wall-street)

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/oh_no_not_this_shit.jpg

[sammi jo]

Terrorists aren't born. They are created.

Damned right. And it follows, that the way to sustain a "war against terrorism" is by instituting or continuing the policies that have created a large pool of angry and hopeless people in certain parts of the world. The most unbalanced people within that angry pool are those most likely to resort to violence when all hope of a human existence marginally better than "hell-on-earth", remains at zero.

The "war on terror" not only demonizes that ethnic/religious group (with 1.2 billion members worldwide) that is so hated by the most influential and powerful groups/PACs within Washington DC, but also generates a huge and continuous revenue for their friends in big business. Hows that for motivation?

[Harald]

Two things. Three actually.

What you describe is as easy to say as, "We should bomb Iraq until Saddam falls, disolve the army, walk in garlanded with flowers and rebuild Iraq using oil revenue and a very happy native populace."

And, obviously, every bit as totally, utterly, inhumanly, fucking retarded.

Secondly, if 'pissing off the rest of the world' is a reason to bomb a country, George W. Bush -- who has managed to completely fuck the image the US projects worldwide -- provides ample reason to bomb the shit out the US.

Finally, who the shitting FUCK gave 'us' (whoever your 'we' is) the right to partition any country the way we feel like?

And in answer to segovius' question: I support Iran's right to self-defence. And if the US uses tactical nuclear weapons in Iran then it will join the worst of the worst regimes ever to walk the earth. No US asset would be safe -- forget jidahists, we're talking any remotely sane member of stable democracies the world over.

[sammi jo]

Launching an invasion of Iran by taking out its military facilities will result in the fragmentation and collapse of Iran's military, (and the destablization of its government). From an orderly and disciplined army (navy and airforce) with a well-established chain of command will emerge multiple guerilla-styled units, with no shortage of weapons. Civil war is one possible outcome. The generation of terrorist cells (determined to attack the US either anywhere here at home, or US targets overseas), is probably the most likely outcome. This won't be an instantaneous reaction. People in the M.E. have longer attention spans than here in the West... they will be remembering this well after we've forgotten about 9/11... as will be the case with Iraq.

This is more fodder for "justifying" the continuation of the "war on terror", by claiming Iran is supporting terrorists in Iraq, then invading that country for that reason (amongst others, such as the unsubstantiated claims of nuclear weapon building).. and thus creating legions of angry ex-military people, and its inevitable result... more terror. The driving force for all the BS in the last 6 years, is US deference to Israel.

[sammi jo]

NeoCon John Bolton (http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Bolton_US_would_support_preemptive_Israeli_0918.ht ml) announced recently that he "supported a preemptive strike" against Iran by Israel, presumably on an unproven charge that "Iran is developing nuclear weapons". Does it not follow that he would support the right by Iran to launch a preemptive strike against Israel, on the known fact that they are in possession of nuclear weapons, and have a track record of "striking first"?

[southside grabowski]

[QUOTE=@_@ Artman;1145008]Ann Coulter Wants To Bomb Iran Because It's "Good For Wall Street" (http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/13093-only-on-fox-ann-coulter-wants-to-bomb-iran-because-it-s-good-for-wall-street)

What a freak show.

[segovius]

Ok, sheep must be prepped and victims must be demonized (dehumanized) - I understand that - but this is utterly ridiculous. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7003143.stm)

In fact it is something of a masterpiece...first you have a headline:

Iran issues Israel attack warning

Which obviously is crafted to reinforce the implanted views and opinions of those with an existing anti-Iran bias or other conditioned fear.

But when you actually read on you find the case is not so:

Iran has drawn up plans to bomb Israel if it launches an attack on Iranian soil first, military officials say.

The deputy commander of Iran's air force said that in the "unlikely event" of an Israeli attack, Tehran could respond with air and missile raids.

What???!!! An Air Force General has drawn up plans to respond to an attack????

Bastard Scumbags!!!!

Of course one subtext is that this is BAD because someone is threatening Israel No matter that the context was prefixed with an IF Israel were to launch an unprovoked murderous attack.

The other subtext would be to reprogram the winger drone army - a bit like with the 'wiped off the map' meme which was so successful in by passing what passes for the atrophied critical faculties of the average wingnut - to repeat this like a demented parrot on speed at all and every occasion, appropriate or not.

I can hear it now:

Iran threatened Israel with missiles, threatened Israel with missiles, threatened Israel with missiles, we must kill, we must kill.....

In fact, all 'evidence' used to kill anyone at all from Saddam, Iraqis and now Iranians has been drilled into the monstrous winger regiment in just this manner...

It doesn't have to be true - they are incapable of analyzing it to see whether it is or not anyway - it just needs repeating; and repeating, and repeating, and repeating, and repeating.

[@_@ Artman]

Iran threatens missile attacks on US targets (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UNQIZ5VPPTYG3QFIQMGCFFWAVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/18/wiran118.xml)

Iran threatened to fire long-range missiles at American targets in the Middle East yesterday as the war of words between Teheran and the West continued to escalate.

You cheeky Brits...cool map though (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/09/18/wiran118big.jpg).

[segovius]

Iran threatens missile attacks on US targets (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UNQIZ5VPPTYG3QFIQMGCFFWAVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/18/wiran118.xml)

Iran threatened to fire long-range missiles at American targets in the Middle East yesterday as the war of words between Teheran and the West continued to escalate.

You cheeky Brits...cool map though (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/09/18/wiran118big.jpg).

It's all a bit like the build-up to a big sports game isn't it?

Coaches head to head record, who will win the midfield battle, focus on key players....pundits and analysis...

And then when the killing starts it's live on Fox ands all the wingnuts send out for pizza and have war-parties or whatever they do...

[e1618978]

You cheeky Brits...cool map though (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/09/18/wiran118big.jpg).

I just noticed something peculiar looking at that map. The two biggest neighbors of Iraq have opposite views: Saudi Arabia supports the US, while Iran sabotages them - but the big power shift in Iraq due to the invasion is from Sunni->Shia. It seems like Saudi Arabia should be the one upset and Iran be the one dancing in the streets, Iran should be trying to help get things stable (with the Shia on top) in Iraq...

[segovius]

I just noticed something peculiar looking at that map. The two biggest neighbors of Iraq have opposite views: Saudi Arabia supports the US, while Iran sabotages them - but the big power shift in Iraq due to the invasion is from Sunni->Shia. It seems like Saudi Arabia should be the one upset and Iran be the one dancing in the streets, Iran should be trying to help get things stable (with the Shia on top) in Iraq...

Saudi Arabia ARE upset - why do you think the US are trying to bomb Iran?

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_09192007_520.gif

[Nightcrawler]

I think the US will attack Iran no matter what before year's end, because then the IAEA could conclude that Iran was and is not developing nukes and close the Iran-file.
So the war has to be started before Iran gets rehabilitated.

But the US has lost any public or congress-support and has lost the willingness to use groundforces against Iran. What remains is a big airstrike-campaign, prepared by US and/or british special forces, that are probably already in Iran, that have the goal to locate and mark targets.

The airstrike-campaign would be aimed at destroying all nuclear facilities and all of Iran's military capabilities and communication-centers, in order to make a direct military retaliation impossible.

Bush can order that airstrike-campaign without asking the congress, since US-presidents can lead wars for 90 days without asking.

Given that information, if I were Iran, I would attack the US' military in Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and the navy-fleet first, quick, decisively and surprisingly, instead of sitting like a duck there and waiting for the US to bomb Iran back into stone-age.
Iran could even the new bush-israel-terminology and call the strike a preemptive selfdefense-strike.


About a hundred well aimed advanced rockets could do the job. Iran would have then to march in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan with groundforces in order to prevent a replenishing of US-forces and to block the sea routes with its navy-fleet.

Israel would be a problem, which would try to send out its airforce to bomb Iran, but luckily Iran prepared for that and delivered advanced anti-aircraft-rockets to Hezbollah that could serve as a shield or at least as a retaliation-asset that could deter Israel from action.

The US would cry foul and persuade the world-community that Iran has shown now its true evil face and the UN-SC would probably endorse a concerted military action to drive Iran back and the US would make sure that Iran gets bombed back to stone-age, so that really Iran has no real option to win and enjoy the victory, but at least it would have shown a good fight and severely hurt the US' military and its image of being unbeatable on the battlefield.

Nightcrawler

[e1618978]

Given that information, if I were Iran, I would attack the US' military in Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and the navy-fleet first, quick, decisively and surprisingly, instead of sitting like a duck there and waiting for the US to bomb Iran back into stone-age.

Or they could stop hiding being horses asses and kill their bomb program. If they were open and honest, it would not take that long to figure out that things were going well enough that the world could feel safe about them.

I think that the Iranians would do a lot better with me as their leader than you as their leader. I would integrate Iran into the western world, you would lead them to their deaths.

[Nightcrawler]

Or they could stop hiding being horses asses and kill their bomb program. If they were open and honest, it would not take that long to figure out that things were going well enough that the world could feel safe about them.

I think that the Iranians would do a lot better with me as their leader than you as their leader. I would integrate Iran into the western world, you would lead them to their deaths.

You can't kill a bomb-program that isn't there. As to the open and honest-approach, that is what Iran is trying right now: Iran and the IAEA have agreed on a thorough investigation-procedure, and the IAEA has confirmed that at year's end it will be able to say whether Iran's nuclear programme is of civilian or military nature.

Has that calmed the situation? No, it has led the US to beat the drums of war even stronger.

So the only conclusion from that is that the US wants to attack before the IAEA rehabilitates Iran, which means that Iran has no option to prevent it being bombed back to stone-age, but at least it still has the option to strike the US' military and navy in the middle-east first and severely, before it is unable to do anything.

The reason for the invariance of the eventual outcome is that the US can't be satisfied by anything short of selfinflicted regime-change towards a secular government.

Nightcrawler

[franksargent]

I think the US will attack Iran no matter what before year's end, because then the IAEA could conclude that Iran was and is not developing nukes and close the Iran-file.
So the war has to be started before Iran gets rehabilitated.

But the US has lost any public or congress-support and has lost the willingness to use groundforces against Iran. What remains is a big airstrike-campaign, prepared by US and/or british special forces, that are probably already in Iran, that have the goal to locate and mark targets.

The airstrike-campaign would be aimed at destroying all nuclear facilities and all of Iran's military capabilities and communication-centers, in order to make a direct military retaliation impossible.

Bush can order that airstrike-campaign without asking the congress, since US-presidents can lead wars for 90 days without asking.

Given that information, if I were Iran, I would attack the US' military in Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and the navy-fleet first, quick, decisively and surprisingly, instead of sitting like a duck there and waiting for the US to bomb Iran back into stone-age.
Iran could even the new bush-israel-terminology and call the strike a preemptive selfdefense-strike.


About a hundred well aimed advanced rockets could do the job. Iran would have then to march in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan with groundforces in order to prevent a replenishing of US-forces and to block the sea routes with its navy-fleet.

Israel would be a problem, which would try to send out its airforce to bomb Iran, but luckily Iran prepared for that and delivered advanced anti-aircraft-rockets to Hezbollah that could serve as a shield or at least as a retaliation-asset that could deter Israel from action.

The US would cry foul and persuade the world-community that Iran has shown now its true evil face and the UN-SC would probably endorse a concerted military action to drive Iran back and the US would make sure that Iran gets bombed back to stone-age, so that really Iran has no real option to win and enjoy the victory, but at least it would have shown a good fight and severely hurt the US' military and its image of being unbeatable on the battlefield.

Nightcrawler



http://www.yourstandardlife.com/images/team-america-world-police-1.jpg
... ready to RUMBLE! :rolleyes:

[e1618978]

You can't kill a bomb-program that isn't there. As to the open and honest-approach, that is what Iran is trying right now: Iran and the IAEA have agreed on a thorough investigation-procedure, and the IAEA has confirmed that at year's end it will be able to say whether Iran's nuclear programme is of civilian or military nature.

Has that calmed the situation? No, it has led the US to beat the drums of war even stronger.

So the only conclusion from that is that the US wants to attack before the IAEA rehabilitates Iran, which means that Iran has no option to prevent it being bombed back to stone-age, but at least it still has the option to strike the US' military and navy in the middle-east first and severely, before it is unable to do anything.

The reason for the invariance of the eventual outcome is that the US can't be satisfied by anything short of selfinflicted regime-change towards a secular government.

Nightcrawler

You think that the attack will occur before the end of the year? It seems to me that any attack plans that are being made are preparation for a springtime war (i.e. after the stuff you posted either works or does not work).

[iPoster]

About a hundred well aimed advanced rockets could do the job. Iran would have then to march in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan with groundforces in order to prevent a replenishing of US-forces and to block the sea routes with its navy-fleet.

http://www.midwaysailor.com/midwaymemorabilia/cartoon-012b.jpg

And then when the killing starts it's live on Fox ands all the wingnuts send out for pizza and have war-parties or whatever they do...

http://www.midwaysailor.com/midwaymemorabilia/cartoon-014b.jpg

[SDW2001]

So you're wary of an attack because of the chance they would retaliate? Not because it might not be the right thing to do in the first place? That innocent Iranian families might die? Isn't that something you should consider?

Well, it's one of my prime concerns. I of course don't want to see innocent people die...that is always a concern. The biggest reason is whether or not it's the most effective way to deal with this guy and his government. I don't know if the ends will be better than if we use other means.



Agreed.

Agreed. But what do you think about ground forces?

1. Sorry, yes...hurt was left out.
2. I would not want to see ground forces occupy Iran. We don't have the people to do it anyway.



There will be no "retaliation" from "nuke" facilities. :rolleyes:

Not sure why you thought I meant that there would be. We want to take out their nuclear capability AND ability to retaliate. I thought that was clear.



Hey! We're making progress!!!! You actually care "what it would look like". This tends to indicate you're not happy with what Iraq "looks like". Well done.

You're just being silly.



Hey arent you one of those who thinks the UN is "useless" and a "farce" and "corrupt" etc.? If this is how you feel about the UN, then why do you think Iran whould listen to them? After all, Israel definitely "makes a habit of giving them the finger".

I think it's useless because it enforces nothing and doesn't follow through on its threats. I would like to see it actually function. And Israel is another matter. They are not the ones threatening to wipe Iran off the map and saying it "cannot continue to exist."



I guess we're all insane. I think it's infinitely unlikely that Iran is developing nuclear technology for purposes of agression[sic].

My grammar error...your grammar error. Seriously...thanks...I saw that when I re-read. Leaving out a word and using the wrong form of "they're." Must have been dead tired. Anywho....

You mean to tell me that you're SURE or even NEARLY POSITIVE Iran is not developing nuclear weapons? Seriously?

[SDW2001]

I have though....

And no, I'm not spending hours searching for it.

Perhaps someone remembers - there were several occasions.

I've never come out for it. I have said it may come to that. We may have to. It's not that I'm actively for it at all.

I advocated an attack on Iran just yesterday.

My reasoning is as follows:

- I think that the Iranian leadership seems to not be thinking clearly, there is no way
that a rational leader would deliberately try to piss off the rest of the world, and no
way that a rational leader would actively try to encourage civil war in their neighboring
countires. We need to remove that leadership before they have a nuclear weapon.

- We are already effectively at war with them already, via proxy forces in Iraq, Syria,
and Lebanon.

Now, back in 2003 they were willing to deal and GWB totally screwed things up by ignoring
them - if they were willing to re-iterate that same deal now I think we would take it, but
otherwise bombing them is a good first step.

I also think that we should split up Iraq, take the Kurdish parts of Iran and give them Southern Iraq.
The new Kurdistan we create out of Northern Iraq and Kurdish Iran would be a good ally and a base
for US forces, and Iran would have its hands full bringing order to a place that it helped mess up.
Syria can have central Iraq, with its no oil and tons of problems.

Some good points. I just think that we shouldn't do it unless all other options have failed. The problem is by then Iran may have stalled enough to develop the bomb. I have to believe that before we attack them, we'd sit down behind closed doors and say "we don't want to do this, but we're sure as fuck going to if you don't open up your program and start obeying the international community.

In other words, we need to apply leverage. We need to say to them....you have two choices. Change your ways and accept normalized relations with the US and the international community...or keep supporting terror and maintaining a closed door nuke program that might be for weapons and we bomb the fuck out of you next year. Your choice.



Launching an invasion of Iran by taking out its military facilities will result in the fragmentation and collapse of Iran's military, (and the destablization of its government). From an orderly and disciplined army (navy and airforce) with a well-established chain of command will emerge multiple guerilla-styled units, with no shortage of weapons. Civil war is one possible outcome. The generation of terrorist cells (determined to attack the US either anywhere here at home, or US targets overseas), is probably the most likely outcome. This won't be an instantaneous reaction. People in the M.E. have longer attention spans than here in the West... they will be remembering this well after we've forgotten about 9/11... as will be the case with Iraq.



I'd be more concerned about pre-planned terror attacks launched if we bomb them. I doubt these well armed guerillas would make it to the US or Europe, but they could cause havoc in Iraq and Iran...I agree with that.



This is more fodder for "justifying" the continuation of the "war on terror", by claiming Iran is supporting terrorists in Iraq,

Now you're overboard. They are supporting terror and fighters in Iraq.



then invading that country for that reason (amongst others, such as the unsubstantiated claims of nuclear weapon building)..

I haven't heard anyone claim they are building weapons for sure. We've said that we're worried about it and we think they are.



and thus creating legions of angry ex-military people, and its inevitable result... more terror. The driving force for all the BS in the last 6 years, is US deference to Israel.

Do you mean ex-US military or ex-Iranian military? Not sure of your point there.

As for US deference, well your anti-Israeli rants are well known here. That is not the reason we are attacked. We've been getting attacked since at least 1983. And if we really deferred to Israel, wed have set them lose in 1991 and let them nuke Baghdad for launching scuds at them. They defer to us, actually.

[@_@ Artman]

For the first time, Iran directly confronts Israel on nuclear arms (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906132.html)

Iran demanded that United Nations inspectors visit Israel to investigate its nuclear capability while Israel accused Tehran of lying in a bitter debate at an assembly of the UN atomic watchdog in Vienna on Friday.

United Nations officials at a 149-nation meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna said they had no memory of the two rival nations ever engaging each other directly at previous meetings.

The debate was sought by Arab and Islamic states after they shelved a resolution to brand Israel an atomic "threat" in the face of a likely Western maneuver to block a floor vote.
Advertisement
Israel is widely assumed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, though it has never confirmed or denied this. It is also one of just three states to shun the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, along with India and Pakistan.

Ah, but Israel is not subject to the same international law that every other nation is. Obviously the UN would never even consider inspecting Israel. That's like the kitchen maid demanding that she inspect the kings private quarters.

Everyone knows Israel has nuclear capability. It was proven when Mordechai Vanunu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu) showed actual pictures. Guess where Mordecai is now? In Israeli prison. They kidnapped his ass out of Europe, a violation of international law, tried him and locked him up for good. He got out on parole, but it was a sham because the rules for him to remain free were ridiculous. He got sent back to jail within a short period of time.

Israel's Nuclear WMD Part 1/4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWlPF7EpY1w)

[segovius]

For the first time, Iran directly confronts Israel on nuclear arms (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906132.html)



Ah, but Israel is not subject to the same international law that every other nation is. Obviously the UN would never even consider inspecting Israel. That's like the kitchen maid demanding that she inspect the kings private quarters.

Everyone knows Israel has nuclear capability. It was proven when Mordechai Vanunu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu) showed actual pictures. Guess where Mordecai is now? In Israeli prison. They kidnapped his ass out of Europe, a violation of international law, tried him and locked him up for good. He got out on parole, but it was a sham because the rules for him to remain free were ridiculous. He got sent back to jail within a short period of time.

Israel's Nuclear WMD Part 1/4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWlPF7EpY1w)

Anti-semite.










.
;):p

[Nightcrawler]

For the first time, Iran directly confronts Israel on nuclear arms (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906132.html)



Ah, but Israel is not subject to the same international law that every other nation is. Obviously the UN would never even consider inspecting Israel. That's like the kitchen maid demanding that she inspect the kings private quarters.

Everyone knows Israel has nuclear capability. It was proven when Mordechai Vanunu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu) showed actual pictures. Guess where Mordecai is now? In Israeli prison. They kidnapped his ass out of Europe, a violation of international law, tried him and locked him up for good. He got out on parole, but it was a sham because the rules for him to remain free were ridiculous. He got sent back to jail within a short period of time.

Israel's Nuclear WMD Part 1/4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWlPF7EpY1w)

In the early sixties of last century, the US was very worried that Israel might develop nukes. The CIA delivered enough informations that that was the case and so Kennedy who was president back then forced Israel to accept american inspectors. Begrudingly, not wanting to lose the US as ally, Israel allowed the inspectors in but prohibitted them from bringing with them instruments to measure radioactivity, and when they searched the reactors and labors, they were called "this door not!" and numerous other tactics were used to make the inspections worthless, much the same as Saddam Hussein did in the 90's with the UN-inspectors.

The US-inspectors reported back that dishonest activity by Israel, and Kennedy became angry, threatening Israel that if they wouldn't fully cooperate with the inspections (Kennedy then forced Israel to accept inspections every 6 months), that the US would cut down its support for Israel, financially and military.

Shortly thereafter Kennedy got assassinated (hint, hint) and Johnson became president, who conveniently didn't insist on the every-6 months-inspection-tours anymore and of course didn't threaten with any consequences and on his watch Israel achieved to get its nukes.

Nightcrawler

[SDW2001]

In the early sixties of last century, the US was very worried that Israel might develop nukes. The CIA delivered enough informations that that was the case and so Kennedy who was president back then forced Israel to accept american inspectors. Begrudingly, not wanting to lose the US as ally, Israel allowed the inspectors in but prohibitted them from bringing with them instruments to measure radioactivity, and when they searched the reactors and labors, they were called "this door not!" and numerous other tactics were used to make the inspections worthless, much the same as Saddam Hussein did in the 90's with the UN-inspectors.

The US-inspectors reported back that dishonest activity by Israel, and Kennedy became angry, threatening Israel that if they wouldn't fully cooperate with the inspections (Kennedy then forced Israel to accept inspections every 6 months), that the US would cut down its support for Israel, financially and military.

Shortly thereafter Kennedy got assassinated (hint, hint) and Johnson became president, who conveniently didn't insist on the every-6 months-inspection-tours anymore and of course didn't threaten with any consequences and on his watch Israel achieved to get its nukes.

Nightcrawler

DUDE! I think you just invented a new law...the cousin of Godwin's Law. We now have Nightcrawler's Law!

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison or reference to the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory(s) approaches one.

:lol:

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesE/thewink.jpg (http://www.rense.com/general41/jbj.htm)

[sammi jo]

DUDE! I think you just invented a new law...the cousin of Godwin's Law. We now have Nightcrawler's Law!

:lol:

The Kennedy assassination was almost 44 years ago, and people are still talking about it especially in terms of doubting/debating the Warren Commission's report as regards the lone gunman/magic bullet theory. Whether the Warren Commission was a fair investigation depends upon who one talks to, and which books, documents, etc you read. Some people say the Warren Commission was complete and thorough, while others maintain the WC cherrypicked the facts that pointed towards Oswald's guilt, and sidelined those that did not. Of course, we all know that in the US, two or more people never, ever plan or carry out a crime, because when two or more are involved, it means "conspiracy", and conspiracies only happen in fevered minds. :p

[SDW2001]

The Kennedy assassination was almost 44 years ago, and people are still talking about it especially in terms of doubting/debating the Warren Commission's report as regards the lone gunman/magic bullet theory. Whether the Warren Commission was a fair investigation depends upon who one talks to, and which books, documents, etc you read. Some people say the Warren Commission was complete and thorough, while others maintain the WC cherrypicked the facts that pointed towards Oswald's guilt, and sidelined those that did not. Of course, we all know that in the US, two or more people never, ever plan or carry out a crime, because when two or more are involved, it means "conspiracy", and conspiracies only happen in fevered minds. :p


sammi, you are one huge buzzkill. You really are.

[segovius]

I know that there is nothing that 'President Tom' could say that would still the drums (dogs?) of war - and he makes some very good points in his interview about Israel and Iran's nuclear ambitions, all in the face of a rabid right-wing propagandist in the 'journalists' chair - but he is a master of the western media.

He opens himself to any question whatsoever with no restrictions and talks to the US media for hours on any subject with no qualifications, and in English! Hell, even Bush would never do that!

But his thoughts are very interesting and he makes some excellent and intelligent points. I like the handling of the (disgraceful and biased) pro-Bush line which was a masterpiece:

PELLEY: What trait do you admire in President Bush?

AHMADINEJAD: Again, I have a very frank tone. I think that President Bush needs to correct his ways.

PELLEY: What do you admire about him?

AHMADEINEJAD: He should respect the American people.

PELLEY: Is there anything? Any trait?

AHMADINEJAD: As an American citizen, tell me what trait do you admire?

PELLEY: Well, Mr. Bush is, without question, a very religious man, for example, as you are. I wonder if there's anything that you've seen in President Bush that you admire.

AHMADEINEJAD: Well, is Mr. Bush a religious man?

PELLEY: Very much so. As you are.

AHMADEINEJAD: What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people? Please tell me. Does Christianity tell its followers to do that? Judaism, for that matter? Islam, for that matter?

What prophet tells you to send 160,000 troops to another country, kill men, women, and children? You just can't wear your religion on your sleeve or just go to church. You should be truthfully religious. Religion tells us all that you should respect the property, the life of different people. Respect human rights. Love your fellow man. And once you hear that a person has been killed, you should be saddened. You shouldn't sit in a room, a dark room, and hatch plots. And because of your plots, many thousands of people are killed.

Having said that, we respect the American people. And because of our respect for the American people, we respectfully talk with President Bush. We have a respectful tone. But having said that, I don't think that that is a good definition of religion. Religion is love for your fellow man, brotherhood, telling the truth.

PELLEY: I take it you can't think of anything you like about President Bush.

AHMADEINEJAD: Well, I'm not familiar with the gentleman's private life. Maybe in his private life he is very kind or a determined man. I'm not aware of that. I base my judgment on what I see in his public life. Having said that, I think that President Bush can behave much better. There were golden opportunities for President Bush. He should have used them better.

PELLEY: I asked President Bush what he would say to you if he were sitting in this chair. And he told me, quote, speaking to you, that you've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people and made your country the pariah of the world. These are President Bush's words to you. What's your reply to the president?

AHMADINEJAD: Well, President Bush is free to think as he pleases and to say what he pleases. I don't oppose the freedom of speech. I believe in freedom of speech. President Bush is free to say what he pleases. But these would not change the truth. So that President Bush knows the Iranian people are dearly loved today. We can very well put this to the test to find out who has become isolated. Again, maybe one of my friends could go to another country and a friend of President Bush could go to the same country, find out which one of us is isolated. You're free to choose any country you like. I don't think that President Bush has said these things. Rather, I prefer to think that this is your impression of what the president has said.




Link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/21/60minutes/main3286690.shtml)

[franksargent]

I know that there is nothing that 'President Tom' could say that would still the drums (dogs?) of war - and he makes some very good points in his interview about Israel and Iran's nuclear ambitions, all in the face of a rabid right-wing propagandist in the 'journalists' chair - but he is a master of the western media.

He opens himself to any question whatsoever with no restrictions and talks to the US media for hours on any subject with no qualifications, and in English! Hell, even Bush would never do that! :lol:

But his thoughts are very interesting and he makes some excellent and intelligent points. I like the handling of the (disgraceful and biased) pro-Bush line which was a masterpiece:




Link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/21/60minutes/main3286690.shtml)

Care to back up your first statement (bold and underlined above) with some ACTUAL FACTS?

Chimpy and PT both have a very warped view of the world, the truth lies :wow: somewhere in between. :D

[segovius]

Care to back up your first statement (bold and underlined above) with some ACTUAL FACTS?


Sure - watch the interview and read the transcript....

[segovius]

Care to back up your first statement (bold and underlined above) with some ACTUAL FACTS?

Chimpy and PT both have a very warped view of the world, the truth lies :wow: somewhere in between. :D

Btw - could you give a factual statement/quote from each - Chimpy and PT - that is evidence in support of these warped views?

Just one from each will do - and the reasons why they are (iyo) warped?

[franksargent]

Btw - could you give a factual statement/quote from each - Chimpy and PT - that is evidence in support of these warped views?

Just one from each will do - and the reasons why they are (iyo) warped?

You wear your opinion like a "chip on one's shoulder."

Now imagine someone else's POV being different than yours.

Now how could that ever be possible?

Why don't we have the EXACT same opinion, I wonder?

Do you also wonder about that?

There's a word I'm looking for, I'm having trouble finding it though, perhaps you could help me??? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual) :p

[e1618978]

Sure - watch the interview and read the transcript....

The whole interview is the reporter asking the following two questions:

"Do you support terrorist groups"

and

"Are you sending weapons to Iraq"

And he spends the whole time dancing around and not answering those two questions. It is pretty clear from the interview that (1) he is very honest, or else he would just say "no, I'm not doing those things", and (2) Iran is supporting terrorist groups in Iraq and elsewhere, and that Iranian supplied goods are being used to kill American troops.

[segovius]

You wear your opinion like a "chip on one's shoulder."

What is my opinion?

I am merely asking you to justify yours with examples. typically you cannot....

Now imagine someone else's POV being different than yours.

Now how could that ever be possible?

I think it is possible - in your case I am merely trying to find out what yours is based on....nothing apparently.

Why don't we have the EXACT same opinion, I wonder?

Because you are an extreme right-wing nutjob?

Do you also wonder about that?

No, my observations are confirmed daily. Wondering is unnecessary.

There's a word I'm looking for, I'm having trouble finding it though, perhaps you could help me??? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual) :p

Can't help you I'm afraid....evening classes perhaps? Reading more?

[@_@ Artman]

And he spends the whole time dancing around and not answering those two questions.

Hmmm. Where have I seen that before (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6Z1tevub9I)? :rolleyes:

[e1618978]

Hmmm. Where have I seen that before (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6Z1tevub9I)? :rolleyes:

Way to change the subject - you are the king of the non-sequitur. I repeat - the interview shows that Iran is arming insurgents and supporting terrorist groups (both in Iran and Lebanon), which means that we are at war with them already. This is a mini-cold war (us vs Iran) that has been going on for years.

[franksargent]

What is my opinion?

I am merely asking you to justify yours with examples. typically you cannot....



I think it is possible - in your case I am merely trying to find out what yours is based on....nothing apparently.



Because you are an extreme right-wing nutjob?



No, my observations are confirmed daily. Wondering is unnecessary.



Can't help you I'm afraid....evening classes perhaps? Reading more?

Thank you for your BIASED POV! :lol::D:lol::D:lol::D:lol::D:lol:

Next? :smokey:

[segovius]

Thank you for your BIASED POV! :lol::D:lol::D:lol::D:lol::D:lol:

Next? :smokey:

No probs...any chance of you backing up the original statements now?

Thought not....

[@_@ Artman]

Way to change the subject

Two contemptuous liars? Two sock puppets? What's the difference?

[franksargent]

No probs...any chance of you backing up the original statements now?

Thought not....

Have a nice day! :rolleyes:

[segovius]

The whole interview is the reporter asking the following two questions:

"Do you