War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence? - Page 7

This is a blueprint for how Big Oil is likely to be increasingly treated around the world. Somewhere between 80% and 90% of the world's oil and natural gas is controlled by countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Russia, not Exxon, Shell or BP. And, over the next two or so decades, those countries are going to turn the big oil companies into employees.

"Why worsen the situation and bring it to a dead end by threatening sanctions or military action?" Putin asked. "Running around like a madman with a razor blade, waving it around, is not the best way to resolve the situation."

Originally Posted by Northgate

Of course they will. They have too much invested in Iran.

Oh, don't be silly. We didn't think they were too fanatical when we accepted their help to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan, did we?

Funny how selective we are with these nations when it comes to "friend" or "foe", isn't it. Iraq friend. Iraq enemy. Iran friend. Iran enemy.

They only seem to become "enemies" when they don't capitulate 100% to our demands.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Ah, the broken record of The Big Bad Bully USA line. It's so tiresome. We're "demanding" with Iran because they sponsor terrorism, defy the UN openly, won't open their nuclear program, threaten Israel and are exceptionally hostile.
Oh, and have I mentioned the mentality of their leadership? Here's a little light reading for you. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/#2

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Good points in that link, I'm not going to dispute these findings (as you would the ACLU) that Iran has acted aggressively. As far as acted upon them, I'd need more evidence. But Russia has changed everything. It is a stand off now. Can't wait for Bush's response...

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Problem is, it won't be MAD, because the Iranian side is not rational due to their fanatical beliefs.

The Russians wanted to avoid war as much as we did during the Cold War.

The Iranians might just pull the trigger to satisfy the aforementioned desires of Mr. Tom & Co. Or, they may have no trouble passing off such a nuke to Al-Queda or another terrorist group.

Originally Posted by Mystic

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

I support the United States right to self-defence First.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Oh, I understand, don't get me wrong. But wishing for your nation to be "humbled" (i.e. "defeated") is over the top in my opinion, and yes, I think it's unpatriotic. I don't doubt what you say...that you wish this for good reasons. But one can't route against his own country in a war. He just can't. Again,I understand lobbying against a war, trying to end it, believing it's not in our interests, not being conducted properly, etc. That's different in my view. But hoping we lose in some way? Hoping the other side does a good job defending itself? That's routing for the death of American soldiers, then only blaming the person that sent them there.

Originally Posted by segovius

It's not that simple though is it?

One cannot really believe a word the current US administration says, they are certainly capable of claiming such an attack has happened and you have a lapdog media that will support them to spread the propaganda.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Monday: US attacks with massive air assault and 6,000 targets. The US fires 1,000 tomahawk missiles from 3 carrier battle groups, bunker buster bombs, etc. We target nuke facilities, communications, command and control and duel use facilities. We decide against targeting infrastructure such as bridges.

Tuesday: US assault continues. In 48 hours Iran has lost 80% of its military, its nuclear program, and 100,000 troops.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

TThis is just one of those moments where you disconnect yourself from reality in order to make a ancillary point. Iran is run by an oppressive, theocratic regime with fanatical elements. And you're saying it's the same as having MAD with the Russians? No.

Originally Posted by Northgate

Where and when did we come off the rails?

For sure; and they also couldn't afford to keep up the arms race momentum. They were broke from the 1970s onward. They even refused to intervene in Afghanistan on 3 separate occasions when the failing socialist government in Kabul requested military help in order to quell the Islamist warlords. On the 4th occasion the Soviets responded, and we all know what happened.

Now that is plain ridiculous... where do you pick up stuff like that? (Ann Coulter? Bill O'?) Thats a parallel to Saddam Hussein being liable to "passing nukes to terrorists" (if he had had them, which obviously ot the case). Saddam, for starters hated the Islamists.. he called OBL and his ilk a bunch of crackpots (OBL in turn hated Saddam Hussein and called him a godless infidel). Saddam Hussein's ego was far too great to allow the Islamists any power base in Iraq... and Ahmadinejad (another egomaniac hooked on power) would never lose face by allowing the real loose cannons within the Islamic world a foothold, let alone getting hold of a nuke. He might have uttered some controversial and unsavory statements.., but he's not that stupid.

Originally Posted by tonton

Wait, so if the US bombs Iran and Iran retaliates to the point that the US stops bombing, then the US has been "defeated"?

There's a difference between losing a battle and losing a war. There's a difference between losing a war, even, and being defeated. We lost Vietnam, but we're still here, right? In the end I'd say we won in Vietnam. But not through war. Through progress. That's exactly the way we should win in the Middle East.

I'm of the honest belief that if we attack Iran and get burned in the process, hopefully learning the lesson we honestly should have learned with Vietnam, then our grandchildren's lives will benefit, as more peaceful progress in the area will present itself.

Originally Posted by Gon

Wait, what? This is ridiculous. Are you familiar with how long the Serbs were bombed and with what results?

Originally Posted by segovius

I guess we didn't need to ask about Iran's self-defense. This searing and penetrating analysis is obviously from the 'cakewalk and strewn roses' think-tank and assumes Iran will just sit back and let the US do whatever they like.

It's verging on the insane now.

Originally Posted by Northgate

And what I still don't understand is why you, and folks who think like you, NEVER seem to make the connection that these "oppressive and theocratic" asses running Iran took power BECAUSE of our invasion in Iraq. Before Iraq there were some pretty level-headed, reasonable Reformists in charge of Iran (supported primarily by women and the youth). Shit, they even helped us out with the Taliban!

They even sent us some pretty reasonable negotiations on how the U.S. and Iran could build on its relationship together. But Washington was drunk with power after the initial bombing of Iraq and pretty much said, "fuck you."

And then Ahmadinejad and the hard liners took over power.

And here we are.

Cause and effect.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

So it's not just about our actions, Northgate. It's about their beleifs.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

That would make it not completely the fault of the US, and well...

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Surely you are not comparing the two.

It would take us a matter of days to destroy Iran's military and it's infrastructure. We're not talking about forcing a political objective through military force. We're talking about ending a nuclear program and taking out military assets to prevent retaliation.

Originally Posted by Gon

Yep. Serb armor and troops survived nearly intact through a 78-day long NATO bombing. Whereas in your opinion...Ending a nuclear program, sure. Taking out 80% of military assets and 100,000 troops in two days from the air? Even if there was a full-scale ground force coming in from every direction to flush the enemy out so that they can be bombed, those numbers are pure fantasy. If Iran has any kind of capability to retaliate in the first place, they can retain it far into the conflict.

Anything close to applicable knowledge in military operational research is not public, but just reading up on the Kosovo conflict would give you a much better idea of what can actually be done.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Thanks for that reply, but let's not compare my source with ACLU. The CFR describes itself as non-partisan.

I still disagree about Russia. I know they made this super secret double probation pact or whatever, but I cannot imagine Russia engaging the United States. Seriously...I don;'t mean to keep pounding here...but you really think they would do that? Imagine the timeline:

Monday: US attacks with massive air assault and 6,000 targets. The US fires 1,000 tomahawk missiles from 3 carrier battle groups, bunker buster bombs, etc. We target nuke facilities, communications, command and control and duel use facilities. We decide against targeting infrastructure such as bridges.

Tuesday: US assault continues. In 48 hours Iran has lost 80% of its military, its nuclear program, and 100,000 troops.

Wednesday: Russia makes good on its promise and launches a massive counter-attack. Russia launches waves of advanced fighter aircraft and missiles, attacking US positions in the Gulf, in Iran and Iraq. One US carrier is badly damaged and 3 destroyers are lost. We lose 5,000 US troops.

Thursday: WWIII begins. US, British, German and French carriers and subs strike Russian forces in Iran and on deployed Russian naval and air assets. Russia loses 7 submarines, their lone functional carrier, several naval vessels, and 200-300 combat aircraft. The US and NATO demand Russian withdrawal and Iranian surrender.

Friday: Putin, realizing he has overestimated his abilities and feeling desperate, launches tactical nuclear weapons in theater at US troops in Iran and Iraq, and counter-attacks with his remaining conventional air and naval forces. 50,000 US troops die, a carrier and two subs sink, and we lose another destroyer.

Friday, 7 minutes later: The US responds with tactical nukes of its own and destroys several hundred more Russian aircraft, multiple submarines, and hundreds more aircraft. NATO attacks Russian air and naval bases in Russia proper. Neither Russia nor Iran have many military assets left other than conventional ground forces/artillery.

Saturday: NATO demands Russian surrender. If Russia uses further nukes, NATO will respond will full scale ICBM assault. Iran and Iraq are already in ruins, now it's up to Putin.

Sunday: Putin decides NATO is serious and withdraws. Russia lies in ruins as most of its military has been destroyed. Iraq and Iran are uninhabitable. The US/NATO have lost 100,000 troops, 3 carriers, several destroyers, a few subs, 3 B-2s, 250 combat aircraft.


So no...I don't see it happening. Putin has to know the risk of escalation. The most I could see is him supplying weapons.

Originally Posted by 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.



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.

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.

Originally Posted by mojo2

If they were really innocent they would not say what they say and do what they do to threaten the peace of the Middle East. By continuing to develop a nuclear weapons capability they will force the West to make a "damned if you do & damned if you don't" decision such as we faced before invading Iraq.

Originally Posted by mojo2

If they were really innocent they would not say what they say and do what they do to threaten the peace of the Middle East.

Today no other country on earth is arguably more dangerous than Pakistan. It has everything Osama bin Laden could ask for: political instability, a trusted network of radical Islamists, an abundance of angry young anti-Western recruits, secluded training areas, access to state-of-the-art electronic technology, regular air service to the West and security services that don't always do what they're supposed to do. (Unlike in Iraq or Afghanistan, there also aren't thousands of American troops hunting down would-be terrorists.) Then there's the country's large and growing nuclear program. "If you were to look around the world for where Al Qaeda is going to find its bomb, it's right in their backyard," says Bruce Riedel, the former senior director for South Asia on the National Security Council.

The conventional story about Pakistan has been that it is an unstable nuclear power, with distant tribal areas in terrorist hands. What is new, and more frightening, is the extent to which Taliban and Qaeda elements have now turned much of the country, including some cities, into a base that gives jihadists more room to maneuver, both in Pakistan and beyond.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's delusional and totally unsupported. In fact, you just saw two events an literally made up a connection.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

"Wait, so if the US bombs Iran and Iran retaliates to the point that the US stops bombing, then the US has been "defeated"?"

I don't know where you got that from.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That a man's government can threaten our allies

...sponsor terror, kill our soldiers...

...repress his population...

...and publicly call for our destruction...

Originally Posted by segovius

Iranians are Shi''tes. They don't accept the Caliphate.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Wahabis who are US allies, work together with the US against Iran and are kept in power by the US in Saudi and Pakistan?

In early April, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hosted a pep rally...He has openly boasted...Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani—a man considered "moderate" by the standards of the Iranian regime—boasted...Muqtada al-Sadr, has publicly pledged...Ahmadinejad met...Iran has been cultivating...

Iran's global ambitions are as grandiose as anything put forward by Osama bin Laden—but they are backed by control of a country of 70 million people with an army, navy, and air force, a vast network of terrorist organizations across the Middle East, and, very soon, nuclear weapons.

If America's failure to act against the comparatively minor threat from Bin Laden in the 1990s resulted in the horrors of September 11, we can expect far worse if we fail to act against Iran.

A war with Iran must begin with the destruction of its nuclear facilities, but it must not end there. Iran is likely to respond to any American attack by escalating, inciting an uprising in Southern Iraq, unleashing a wave of terrorist attacks, launching missiles against US targets in the Middle East, attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. And even if we neutralize all of these threats, Iran's theocrats will not drop their global ambitions. They will merely wait for our attention to wander and attempt to strike us again. The goal of a war against Iran must be to topple the Iranian regime—and to support the rise of a new government formed by the secularist dissidents who now languish in Iran's prisons.

The wars we have fought so far, against the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathist regime in Iraq—were necessary, but they left the largest, most dangerous Islamist regime untouched. The Iranians know it. Sensing American weakness, they are moving against us on all fronts—and any further delay in pushing them back will only make the task more difficult. We have to act—and we have to act now.

There can be no victory in the War on Terrorism until we confront—and defeat—the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is the real war, and it's time we started fighting it.

Originally Posted by tonton

Remember when Khadaffi was the big bad? Where is Libya now? Sedated, and cooperative. Where's Cuba? Attack anyone lately?

That's the strategy we should have taken with Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.

The only reason we didn't go to war against Libya was because they didn't have enough resources for us to think it worth the effort to steal.

When we lay off... like Libya, progress can be made.

When we attack, like Iraq, clusterfuck ensues.

Originally Posted by tonton

You really weren't paying attention when all this was happening, were you? Do you deny that Khamenei was pro-US? Do you deny that right after the invasion of the US, he lost his influence? You'd have to be unbelievably dense (or intellectually dishonest) NOT to see that connection...

Originally Posted by tonton

Who did that? Not Iran.Who did that? Not Iran.Now you're just blatantly lying with an assertion that has never ever been made.Really? Oh... I must have missed that one.

Rovian tool. Keep drinking that Kool-aid (Now enhanced with Fear-K!)

Lie. Rinse. Repeat.

Originally Posted by tonton

Who did that? Not Iran.Who did that? Not Iran.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Iranians are building IEDs in Iraq. Get a grip.