or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence? - Page 2

post #41 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by peve View Post

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)




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.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #42 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

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.
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
post #43 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by peve View Post

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.
post #44 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by peve View Post

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.
post #45 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by peve View Post

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)




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....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #46 of 309
So....When are you moving to Iran?
post #47 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

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.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #48 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

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.
post #49 of 309
i love this thread.

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

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
post #50 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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...
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
post #51 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #52 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

They are either suicidal, or idiots.

Or you are not being told the truth...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #53 of 309
good post!

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View 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
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
post #54 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by peve View Post

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...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #55 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

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.../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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #56 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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).
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
post #57 of 309
Heh, you two make a great couple.
post #58 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Heh, you two make a great couple.

If you had any good arguments, or evidence, then you could sway me.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #59 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.
post #60 of 309
how mature

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

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

um... yeah...
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
post #61 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by peve View Post

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.
post #62 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Haven't done much so far.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

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

capitalization is overrated
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
peve

and by the way...
no. english is not my native language.
Reply
post #63 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by peve View Post

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
capitalization is overrated

Then you fail.
post #64 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by peve View Post

capitalization is overrated

And those who don't use it are simply lazy, and don't care how stupid it makes them look.
post #65 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

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

Meh.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
post #66 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #67 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
post #68 of 309
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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #69 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

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]
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #70 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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".
Quote:
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.
post #71 of 309
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.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #72 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #73 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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 ... \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #74 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #75 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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?
post #76 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

e1618978, do you work for these guys?

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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #77 of 309
post #78 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


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?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #79 of 309
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.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #80 of 309
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.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?