NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/international/middleeast/20iran.html
An Iranian admiral told al-Jazeera that his country could launch a pre-emptive attack on the US or Israel for launching attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. Does this mean war is less than a year away, if not imminent?

only if bush gets re elected

well ok

just no

we dont have the troop strength to take on iran and iran isnt nutz enough to pick a war with us.

although oil at $100/barrel would be very good for texas oilmen....

FYI, can't read the article unless you register...

I doubt Iran will do anything, just alot of big talk and bluffing.

As far as adopting Bush's brilliant idea *sarcasm* of pre-emptive strikes, I get worried thinking of Pakistan and India. Two nuclear powers that have a history of tension between them, terrorism, and outright conflict in the Kashmir region.

Here's a related article.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1078&dept_id=151021&newsid=12739819&PAG=461&rfi=9

I am honestly surprised that Israel has not destroyed the nuclear plant in Iran yet. Now as far as Iran threatening pre-emptive strikes against the US, well, I think at this point the US ought to just level the plant with cruise missiles. Tehran supports terrorist organizations. I know we haven't reacted so far in fear the any such attack would hurt to pro-democracy movement that has been building in the country, but I can't forsee us letting Iran turn into another North Korea. It's unfortunate, but letting such a nation have nukes isn't going to happen.

I pray it doesn't! Attacking Iran will blow the whole thing out of the water!

only if bush gets re elected

well ok

just no

we dont have the troop strength to take on iran and iran isnt nutz enough to pick a war with us.

although oil at $100/barrel would be very good for texas oilmen....
If oil got that high, oil execs would be cheering. It'd mean more operating capital for them, and therefore, they can expand their operations.

bump

Because this Topic has sadly little hard info, We need to aproach it through the use of logic and common sense.

Do the Iranians have nukes? Possible.

Will the threat be brought to the international stage before the Israelis fine themselves in a position were they feel they have to play Lone Ranger? Yes. Undoubtably.

So the Israelis and the Iranians may Bitch and moan about eachother, but its irrelivant because either the UN or the US, or perhaps some other international body will take issue with those weapons. It is the intention of the US administration to make Iran an issue shortly(whats Kerrys position?)

But even if that doesnt happen can the Israelis or the Iranians even strike at eachother?

Did the Israelis destroy the Iraqi Reactor? Yes. But dont forget that Iran is even farther than Iraq from Israel, so such an attack becomes that much more difficult(The attack on Iraq involved some very risky fuel-conservation stategies because of the lack of re-feuling stops over Jordan.)

The Iranians would have to develop a fairly accurate delivery system for a nuke in order to deliver it to Jerusalem. >10 miles to the sea on on side and >5 on the other to Jordan.(would the Iranians risk hitting their allies?) and would the missile even get past the Arrow missle launchers the Israelis are deploying?

and dont forget the fact that right between the 2 countries is Iraq, a land in which the US is hanging out, and will be for some time(that is not a political comment) and it throws an international factor into any planning for an attack that either country might do. A nuke or jets flying over US bases? I can see the headlines-"Thousands Die As US Forces Sit In Front Row, Silently"

Because this Topic has sadly little hard info, We need to aproach it through the use of logic and common sense.

Do the Iranians have nukes? Possible.

Will the threat be brought to the international stage before the Israelis fine themselves in a position were they feel they have to play Lone Ranger? Yes. Undoubtably.

So the Israelis and the Iranians may Bitch and moan about eachother, but its irrelivant because either the UN or the US, or perhaps some other international body will take issue with those weapons. It is the intention of the US administration to make Iran an issue shortly(whats Kerrys position?)

But even if that doesnt happen can the Israelis or the Iranians even strike at eachother?

Did the Israelis destroy the Iraqi Reactor? Yes. But dont forget that Iran is even farther than Iraq from Israel, so such an attack becomes that much more difficult(The attack on Iraq involved some very risky fuel-conservation stategies because of the lack of re-feuling stops over Jordan.)

The Iranians would have to develop a fairly accurate delivery system for a nuke in order to deliver it to Jerusalem. >10 miles to the sea on on side and >5 on the other to Jordan.(would the Iranians risk hitting their allies?) and would the missile even get past the Arrow missle launchers the Israelis are deploying?

and dont forget the fact that right between the 2 countries is Iraq, a land in which the US is hanging out, and will be for some time(that is not a political comment) and it throws an international factor into any planning for an attack that either country might do. A nuke or jets flying over US bases? I can see the headlines-"Thousands Die As US Forces Sit In Front Row, Silently"
The Israelis have a small navy, including 6 diesel powered Dolphin subs, purchased from former West Germany. It's possible that they may use them to sail up to the Arabian sea, then target Iran.

But even if that doesnt happen can the Israelis or the Iranians even strike at eachother?

Yes, they can. If Israel wants to bomb the reactor, I'm guessing they won't have many problems getting permission to fly over Iraq. iran also has Ballistic Missiles capable of reaching Israel, which is probably why they haven't bombed them yet, but it is coming. It isn't coincidence that the Arrow anti-Missile system was just in the news for being successfully tested.

Yes, they can. If Israel wants to bomb the reactor, I'm guessing they won't have many problems getting permission to fly over Iraq. iran also has Ballistic Missiles capable of reaching Israel, which is probably why they haven't bombed them yet, but it is coming. It isn't coincidence that the Arrow anti-Missile system was just in the news for being successfully tested.


the us will not give permition to Israel, and the israelis wont ask.

Arrow missiles were designed primarialy to defend against Scuds.

but are those balistics u refer to capable of delivering nukes?

and those subs mentioned by Mr Euclid, arent they torpedo subs, not missile subs?

the us will not give permition to Israel, and the israelis wont ask.

Sure they will...maybe not openly, but they want Iran to have those nuclear facilities about as much as Israel does.

but are those balistics u refer to capable of delivering nukes?

Shahab-3 ballistic missile....probably, but it can still do plenty of damage to Israeli cities without being nuclear.

Arrow missiles were designed primarialy to defend against Scuds.

They were designed to shoot down Balistic Missiles.

the us will not give permition to Israel, and the israelis wont ask.

Arrow missiles were designed primarialy to defend against Scuds.

but are those balistics u refer to capable of delivering nukes?

and those subs mentioned by Mr Euclid, arent they torpedo subs, not missile subs?

Why won't the US give permission to Israel? We're as scared as anybody if Iran uses nuclear weapons. If Israel wants to do our dirty work, I say go for it.

I think iran is just looking big for the other muslim countries

with egypt and iraq out of the way they stand to take the title of the most powerful muslim country

if they did try anything, with the help of Isreal, we'd steam roll them inside three months, but we might have to call out a draft for the occupation

the us will not give permition to Israel, and the israelis wont ask.

exactly
they will just do it
they have plenty of bombs, jets, and pilots to get the job done

its not like they havent done it before

if they did try anything, with the help of Isreal, we'd steam roll them inside three months, but we might have to call out a draft for the occupation

I am thinking sustained air campaign against Iran....knock their industry back a couple decades if they fail to cooperate with the IAEC.

I am thinking sustained air campaign against Iran....knock their industry back a couple decades if they fail to cooperate with the IAEC.

psshhh

back a few centeries

but then again, these days we end up re-building everything we knock down, so I gusse we should be sparing

Why won't the US give permission to Israel? We're as scared as anybody if Iran uses nuclear weapons. If Israel wants to do our dirty work, I say go for it.If we help Israel in any way...to attack Iran...What would be all the consequenses...not only from Iran...But from the ME,Europe and Russia?

exactly
they will just do it
they have plenty of bombs, jets, and pilots to get the job done

its not like they havent done it before

The diference is that this time they would have to fly through US military-controlled airspace to do it. And nobody would buy a "they just slipped through...." argument. The only planes in Israel's inventory with the range to get to Iran and back are their F-15s which are not terribly stealthy.

we help Israel in any way...to attack Iran...What would be all the consequenses...not only from Iran...But from the ME,Europe and Russia?

Well, what were the consequences for Israel when they knocked out Iraq's reactor? Well, the Iraqis and the French (who were building the reactor) took offense, but they both hated Israel anyway. The Middle East hates us already, and the Europeans and Russians would probably be indifferent to our destruction, so this says nothing.

Iran, if it had nukes, would have them for the exclusive purpose of using them, either by missile, or more likely, by hand-delivery, against the US and Israel. Why, then, should we even take into consideration the opinions of those countries who wish for or are indifferent towards our destruction? Better to deprive those who wish for our destruction the means to achieve it than to attempt to change their minds, which I believe are rigidly set in stone.

The Israelis are determined to knock out the Iranian reactor, and therefore the U.S. will probably do nothing about it. I find it quite unlikely that the U.S. would ever shoot down Israeli planes (which we sold to them), and probably the U.S. will publicly question or even condemn the Israeli move as "an illegal violation of Iraqi and Jordanian airspace", but tacitly give it support. In this way, the U.S. can portray Israel as being at least partly more wild or renegade than America, while still achieving its objective of keeping Iran from getting nukes.

They don't need to fly over Iraq. They can fly over the ocean to the Persian Gulf, refueling in mid-air if they absolutely have to.

Well, what were the consequences for Israel when they knocked out Iraq's reactor? Well, the Iraqis and the French (who were building the reactor) took offense...Iran is not Iraq...
The attack would Provoke an Iran-Israel War.
A war that will envolve Iraqui Territory...and ultimately engage the American Army...

We will win on the military front...and lose on the World stage....

This could trigger a cold war between The US and the rest of the World...

A little education for you people on what Iran actually said.

And I would like to point out, Iran threatened only an attack of retaliation, and the Acting Commander of the Islamic Revolution's Gaurd Core Brigadier General Mohammed Baqer Zolqadr said nothing of attacking with nuclear weapons. The Iranian press continually points out that it wants the nuclear powerstation for peaceful nculear purposes, and the AEA will not rule on Iran's nuclear situation, so there is proof of nothing.

Here are some useful links:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=8/19/2004&Cat=2&Num=3

and for Mohammed Baqer Zolqadr's statement click on
http://www.iran-daily.com and go enough days back until you reach the 18th of August. (keep in mind the site wasn't updated on Friday.) So today being friday, that's only one day back.

The Iranian press continually points out that it wants the nuclear powerstation for peaceful nculear purposes, and the AEA will not rule on Iran's nuclear situation, so there is proof of nothing.

I don't think I'm being too nationalistic when I support the journalistic integrity of the NY Times over the Iranian press.

The Iranian press continually points out that it wants the nuclear powerstation for peaceful nculear purposes, and the AEA will not rule on Iran's nuclear situation, so there is proof of nothing.

Um, and we should believe them because? Why does an oil-rich nation need nuclear power? Nuclear fuel is one of the few things in smaller supply than oil is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/international/middleeast/20iran.html
An Iranian admiral told al-Jazeera that his country could launch a pre-emptive attack on the US or Israel for launching attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. Does this mean war is less than a year away, if not imminent?

Nope. Brinksmanship. Same thing as Saddam playing up that he had WMDs ready to go when, in fact, he didn't.

This could trigger a cold war between The US and the rest of the World...

All it takes is one nuclear blast and it could trigger a damn hot war between everyone.

All it takes is one nuclear blast and it could trigger a damn hot war between everyone.

I think MAD would keep it restricted....i.e. the US and Russia wouldn't start lobing them back and forth, but I could see states like Iran or NK if they were aggressors being turned into parking lots.

FYI, can't read the article unless you register...

username: crimethinc
password: crimethinc

just thank your local neighborhood info-anarchist

Well as far as information on Iran goes, I wouldn't say that the NY times would have too much. How much could they possibly know? Did they actually see the nuclear weapons?

Either way, I'm not saying that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. I am just saying that as of now there is absolutely no proof, and that there has been made no threats by Iran about using nuclear missiles.

Besides, if Iran had nuclear weapons you would think that it would be loud and open about it.

The diference is that this time they would have to fly through US military-controlled airspace to do it. And nobody would buy a "they just slipped through...." argument. The only planes in Israel's inventory with the range to get to Iran and back are their F-15s which are not terribly stealthy.
no one would buy it but that would be our story. who is going to say we are lying and what are they willing to do about it?

Well as far as information on Iran goes, I wouldn't say that the NY times would have too much. How much could they possibly know? Did they actually see the nuclear weapons?

Either way, I'm not saying that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. I am just saying that as of now there is absolutely no proof, and that there has been made no threats by Iran about using nuclear missiles.

Besides, if Iran had nuclear weapons you would think that it would be loud and open about it.
Yes, I do. It would prevent Israel from striking them, as Iran has a suitable detterance. It's MAD on a smaller scale.
On top of that, it gives Iran greater freedom to covertly operate against Israel.

I think iran is just looking big for the other muslim countries

with egypt and iraq out of the way they stand to take the title of the most powerful muslim country

if they did try anything, with the help of Isreal, we'd steam roll them inside three months, but we might have to call out a draft for the occupation
I'm thinking that a lengthy occupation of Iran wouldn't be necessary. The Iranian people have made pro-democracy noises, and have a very liberal midnset. US forces would only need to stay in large numbers for a few weeks, just to make sure a new government can organize. It'd be like the invasion of Panama: have US forces there for a few weeks, then leave. Just don't disband the Irani army, like we did in Iraq.

The diference is that this time they would have to fly through US military-controlled airspace to do it. And nobody would buy a "they just slipped through...." argument. The only planes in Israel's inventory with the range to get to Iran and back are their F-15s which are not terribly stealthy.
That's not necessarily true. Iran is a huge country. The Israelis can fly over Saudi airspace to get to Iran, and the Saudis have virtually no airforce to speak of. They barely even have a military.

...It'd be like the invasion of Panama... :headbang:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/international/middleeast/20iran.html
An Iranian admiral told al-Jazeera that his country could launch a pre-emptive attack on the US or Israel for launching attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. Does this mean war is less than a year away, if not imminent?
No, it's just posturing. Iran knows it can get away with becoming a nuclear power if it stalls for enough time and plays its cards right. It's not going to commit suicide, the country runs its foreign policy very intelligently, I feel. The US or Israel launching a pre-emptive attack, similarly, would be committing suicide, and they know it. They're not going to do it either.

No, it's just posturing. Iran knows it can get away with becoming a nuclear power if it stalls for enough time and plays its cards right. It's not going to commit suicide, the country runs its foreign policy very intelligently, I feel. The US or Israel launching a pre-emptive attack, similarly, would be committing suicide, and they know it. They're not going to do it either.
It wouldn't be suicide for Israel, however. Should Iran build its nukes, then security for Israel is at a serious disadvantage. They cannot act against Iran, or their allies, Syria and Lebanon, without risking nuclear retaliation.
Of course, once Iran gets nukes, Israel won't risk another Arab-Israeli war unless attacked. However, this could mean that extra-military forces of Iran and Israel could start trying to get at one another. I'm afraid of what it may do to the region. It'd be best for Israel if they were to strike before Iran developes a bomb.
And I haven't seen you in a while. Where have you been hiding?

I pray it doesn't! Attacking Iran will blow the whole thing out of the water!

Indirectly, you are correct. Such a move could possibly antagonize North Korea and China into thinking that we might plan on attacking them next. And then the world would be destroyed, blah blah blah, you know the rest. So, yea, lets not pre-empt THEM before they can pre-empt us.

Indirectly, you are correct. Such a move could possibly antagonize North Korea and China into thinking that we might plan on attacking them next. And then the world would be destroyed, blah blah blah, you know the rest. So, yea, lets not pre-empt THEM before they can pre-empt us.
As I've been saying, however, it'd be in Israel's best interests, if no one else, to strike first. By extension, the US would have to get involved, and we won't be siding with Iran.

psshhh

back a few centeries

but then again, these days we end up re-building everything we knock down, so I gusse we should be sparing

ahahahaha, he's right.

As I've been saying, however, it'd be in Israel's best interests, if no one else, to strike first. By extension, the US would have to get involved, and we won't be siding with Iran.

Of course, but I'm saying The US should not attack. I actually think Israel is more than capable of doing the job. Also, the Iranians would probably be dumb enough to attack American forces in Iraq, and give us a reason to help Israel openly.

Of course, but I'm saying The US should not attack. I actually think Israel is more than capable of doing the job. Also, the Iranians would probably be dumb enough to attack American forces in Iraq, and give us a reason to help Israel openly.
No matter what Iran does, an Iran-Israeli war would cause far more unrest in Afghanistan, Iraq, and possibly our allies in the Gulf. Especially Bahrain, with a Shi'ite majority, and also home to the US Fifth Fleet. The US would be forced to act. We got away with direct military conflict in the previous Arab-Israeli wars because no US troops were there. Now we have a large presence, and we can't avoid being apart of regional security matters, even if we wanted to.

bump

C'mon, guys. This could be a major security issue.

bump. Please, I'm bored.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_21-8-2004_pg4_15
The war of rhetoric has heated up. And now, Iran says it can and may attack Israeli nuclear facilities. Do they have the capability to reach Israel, though?

Bump

I think Israel will eventually take it out, it may or may not be with planes. Before the Iraq war, a plane attack would be impossible due to range, but with the US in Iraq, we can now supply KC-135s for the Israeli F-16s, or we may use our own stealth bombers.

I think Israel would go with special forces, they are the best trained and would be able to do it and make it look like an accident.

Iran needs to be put in place and as long as they don't get nukes, they won't attack Israel because doing so means incurring the wrath of Jericho IRBMs.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_21-8-2004_pg4_15
The war of rhetoric has heated up. And now, Iran says it can and may attack Israeli nuclear facilities. Do they have the capability to reach Israel, though?

Doubtful, their planes would need tanker support and can't do it unless they stage out of Damascus, and if that attack occurs, Israel nukes Tehran and Damascus. Israel needs her nukes for a deterent force

Indirectly, you are correct. Such a move could possibly antagonize North Korea and China into thinking that we might plan on attacking them next. And then the world would be destroyed, blah blah blah, you know the rest. So, yea, lets not pre-empt THEM before they can pre-empt us.
If Israel does it, then we avoid the China NKorea mix.

Man I'm feeling worried abuot my country's future... Yes I'm a Pakistani :(
WArs wars wars everywhere and only Muslim countries being attacked! Why??!!

If Israel does it, then we avoid the China NKorea mix.
However, should Israel get involved, it pulls the US in. There's no way we can avoid an Iranian-Israeli war, especially as it may mean revolts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's possible that North Korea and China would then be threatened. But I doubt China actually expects a US attack, no matter what we do in the world. The US has too much money invested in China.

Man I'm feeling worried abuot my country's future... Yes I'm a Pakistani :(
WArs wars wars everywhere and only Muslim countries being attacked! Why??!!
I think the US was attacked also.

Iran deserves it if they go forward with this, they cannot be allowed to get nukes. Israel's nukes are what stabalize the Mid-East and stop the Arabs from invading and have kept peace for 31 years because if Israel is on the verge of defeat, the Middle East becomes a parking lot.

In Iran there are mostly Shia Muslims. And America recently attacked some holy places in Iraq which are of great belief to Shias ... I mean they are of some Muslim legends in whome Shias greatly believe and attacking their holy places is making Iran angry. I'm angry too! What if someone attacks ur church or temple etc? Won't u feel angry? :mp5: :mad:

However, should Israel get involved, it pulls the US in. There's no way we can avoid an Iranian-Israeli war, especially as it may mean revolts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's possible that North Korea and China would then be threatened. But I doubt China actually expects a US attack, no matter what we do in the world. The US has too much money invested in China.
Iran can't easily fight Israel, their fighters are too short range with no tanker support. THe IAF would rule the skies and use heavy tanker support and be able to stop the IRanians from moving anywhere. THe Iranian Navy (particularly their 3 Kilo SSKs) will have to be put on the bottom and that should be easy. THe Army would not be able to even move to Israel.

In Iran there are mostly Shia Muslims. And America recently attacked some holy places in Iraq which are of great belief to Shias ... I mean they are of some Muslim legends in whome Shias greatly believe and attacking their holy places is making Iran angry. I'm angry too! What if someone attacks ur church or temple etc? Won't u feel angry? :mp5: :mad:

Well here's an idea, DON'T USE HOLY PLACES FOR COVER AFTER KILLING PEOPLE!!!!! I wouldn't use my temple for cover after a bank robbery and if I did I bet it would be damaged by the SWAT teams

In Iran there are mostly Shia Muslims. And America recently attacked some holy places in Iraq which are of great belief to Shias ... I mean they are of some Muslim legends in whome Shias greatly believe and attacking their holy places is making Iran angry. I'm angry too! What if someone attacks ur church or temple etc? Won't u feel angry? :mp5: :mad:
It wasn't entirely our fault. Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army used the Iman Ali Shrine as a base, and has the thing booby trapped. There are reports he's withdrawn, but their are other reports that he is staying put.

In Iran there are mostly Shia Muslims. And America recently attacked some holy places in Iraq which are of great belief to Shias ... I mean they are of some Muslim legends in whome Shias greatly believe and attacking their holy places is making Iran angry. I'm angry too! What if someone attacks ur church or temple etc? Won't u feel angry? :mp5: :mad:

Funny, no one seemed to much care when the Taliban defaced those religious monuments because they were from a different religion.

Feeling angry is one thing. Flying planes into buildings and trying to get nukes when the rest of the world says no are entirely something else.

I think the US was attacked also.

Iran deserves it if they go forward with this, they cannot be allowed to get nukes. Israel's nukes are what stabalize the Mid-East and stop the Arabs from invading and have kept peace for 31 years because if Israel is on the verge of defeat, the Middle East becomes a parking lot.

Before the WTC of USA was attacked the Muslims were suffering in the world. Take an example of Kashmir and Palestine. Israel has occupied Palestine for so many years and America is supporting them!! And like this America keeps on saying that we are against terrorist but they themselves are supporting terrorists! :gundge:

Iran can't easily fight Israel, their fighters are too short range with no tanker support. THe IAF would rule the skies and use heavy tanker support and be able to stop the IRanians from moving anywhere. THe Iranian Navy (particularly their 3 Kilo SSKs) will have to be put on the bottom and that should be easy. THe Army would not be able to even move to Israel.
What about the Israeli military? Can they get a decent-size force inside Iran?

Before the WTC of USA was attacked the Muslims were suffering in the world. Take an example of Kashmir and Palestine. Israel has occupied Palestine for so many years and America is supporting them!! And like this America keeps on saying that we are against terrorist but they themselves are supporting terrorists! :gundge:

Welcome to the world. Bad shit happens. Now, you have a choice, are you gonna perpetuate that bad shit and get your hands just as dirty as everyone's or are you going to channel that anger in another way and try to do something else?

Before the WTC of USA was attacked the Muslims were suffering in the world. Take an example of Kashmir and Palestine. Israel has occupied Palestine for so many years and America is supporting them!! And like this America keeps on saying that we are against terrorist but they themselves are supporting terrorists! :gundge:

It wasn't suffering, the hijackers all came from wealthy families who owned car dealerships. It has nothing to do with the US and everything to do with religion. It is because they believe in their religion that they must kill all non-Muslims, not too far off of Hitler wanting to kill all non-Aryans.

I see Muslims killing Buddhist in Afghanistan, Hindus in Kashmir, Jews in Israel, and Christians in America and the Mideast and Europe.

It isn't all Muslims, but the radicals. The Buddhist never did anything to the Muslims but were victimized. It is about religion, not politics

If Isreal hit Iran that would be horrible for the region. America would have to get involved which would lead to Iranian destabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan. A war on Iran wouldn't be a walkover like Iraq. Their weapons and training are of higher quality and the shear size is another thing in itself. Were would we get the troops to conquer it while we held down Shi'te rebellions in Iraq and Afghanistan? And then you have to factor in the response of terror groups like Hezbollah which has thousands of rockest on the Isreali border. When Hezbollah starts shelling and rocketing Northern Isreal whats Isreal gonna do? Hit Syria and Lebanon back and Syria has said next time Isreal attacks its war. Then you have to factoer in other Muslim and Arab nations reactions. And finally what would the world do? Isreal bombing Iran is a rel bad idea.

Funny, no one seemed to much care when the Taliban defaced those religious monuments because they were from a different religion.

Feeling angry is one thing. Flying planes into buildings and trying to get nukes when the rest of the world says no are entirely something else.

Tell ur big crime-fighting hero, America to free Palestine and Kashmir and then no Muslims will attack them aswell. Enough is enough and patience has its limits. Muslims are treated like slaves. If this continues along I do fear that they Crusdes are gonna take place again very soon :( Everyone wants peace...
I think that it was America who somehow tried and destroyed WTC so that they could get a reason to do war with other countries on the name of terrorsim and get the natural resources out of those countries and become rich. Americans are really good but that Bush!! He's destroying the name of America

What about the Israeli military? Can they get a decent-size force inside Iran?
the IDF trains for that and would be able to do so. they could fly into Iraq if necessary, but if a war came, it would be mainly an air war and I doubt it would even be a ground war due to the distance and poor logistics

Tell ur big crime-fighting hero, America to free Palestine and Kashmir and then no Muslims will attack them aswell. Enough is enough and patience has its limits. Muslims are treated like slaves. If this continues along I do fear that they Crusdes are gonna take place again very soon :( Everyone wants peace...
I think that it was America who somehow tried and destroyed WTC so that they could get a reason to do war with other countries on the name of terrorsim and get the natural resources out of those countries and become rich. Americans are really good but that Bush!! He's destroying the name of America
ROFLMAO!!!

It wasn't suffering, the hijackers all came from wealthy families who owned car dealerships. It has nothing to do with the US and everything to do with religion. It is because they believe in their religion that they must kill all non-Muslims, not too far off of Hitler wanting to kill all non-Aryans.

I see Muslims killing Buddhist in Afghanistan, Hindus in Kashmir, Jews in Israel, and Christians in America and the Mideast and Europe.

It isn't all Muslims, but the radicals. The Buddhist never did anything to the Muslims but were victimized. It is about religion, not politics

wrong very wrong! These are all the rumours the media is showing to disgrace Islam and Muslims. The real truth is kept behind. So many innocents are being killed in Iraq, Afghanistan www.islamonline.net visit this site and clear ur mind about Islam

the IDF trains for that and would be able to do so. they could fly into Iraq if necessary, but if a war came, it would be mainly an air war and I doubt it would even be a ground war due to the distance and poor logistics
So, there's no chance in hell of regime change in Tehran, should war happen?

wrong very wrong! These are all the rumours the media is showing to disgrace Islam and Muslims. The real truth is kept behind. So many innocents are being killed in Iraq, Afghanistan www.islamonline.net visit this site and clear ur mind about Islam

I'm not saying it's the majority of muslims, but the fact is the 10-15% minority are killing all non-Muslims and they will do so whether the USA supports Israel or not.

So, there's no chance in hell of regime change in Tehran, should war happen?
THere will be one in 5-10 years without war, the opposition to the Ayatollahs is growing very well and they are losing control.

If you are Israel, what is your attack plan, I just want to see your plans from various members posting here, I will make 2 of my own.

I'm not saying it's the majority of muslims, but the fact is the 10-15% minority are killing all non-Muslims and they will do so whether the USA supports Israel or not.

It is used to happen but now it has changed. More educated Muslim scholars are telling those illiterate Muslims that Quran does not say to kill Non-Muslims. The meaning of Islam is peace.
I
S shall
L love
A all
M mankind

this is Islam

wrong very wrong! These are all the rumours the media is showing to disgrace Islam and Muslims. The real truth is kept behind. So many innocents are being killed in Iraq, Afghanistan www.islamonline.net visit this site and clear ur mind about Islam

Funny, Pakistan didn't seem too worried about the innocents dying in Afghanistan in the 80s. In fact, they were down right eager to take US dollars to help organize the "freedom fighters" slaughtering thousands while trying to strike at the U.S.S.R.

Fact is, Islam has yet to take a unified stance to denounce the murder of innocents, except when it involves a swipe at the US. Lip service, sure, but no action.

THere will be one in 5-10 years without war, the opposition to the Ayatollahs is growing very well and they are losing control.
Hopefully. But the sooner the aylotollahs fall, the better. I'm inclined to believe, however, that should a war happen, and should the US get involved, there'd be little if any occupation. The Iranians wouldn't love us, but we wouldn't need them to. We just need them to form a liberal republic, and at this current point in time, I believe Iran can pursue it with minimal outside assistance. It would be unlike Iraq, which needs serious rehab and assistance, almost to the point of handholding.

THere will be one in 5-10 years without war, the opposition to the Ayatollahs is growing very well and they are losing control.

Exactly. Bush and Israel are pressure-cooking Iran and letting it implode from within. They won't have time to develop nukes before the country melts down internally. No war is needed and no war will happen.

I would 1st try an air attack

I would use about a dozen F-16C.s. the IAF is the best trained in the world. The main issue here is fuel, they can go over Iraq with no problem and same with Saudi Arabia as they would never know until afterwards and maybe complain at the UN, but that is it.

You have to use either IAF or US (US would be easier) KC-135s or KC-10s to refuel the planes over Iraq and that would be no problem.

the planes can then move with radar in standbye to avoid detection and drop Mk-84 or JDAM 2,000 lb bombs on the reactor building and damage the facility beyond repair.

The flaw is that this is a long mission for the F-16s.

My 2nd plan would be special Ops. easy to do with paratroopers being dropped in and sneaking in with stealth to disable the nuclear stations. They can even make it look like an accident where every one knows who did it, but there is no real proof.

It is used to happen but now it has changed. More educated Muslim scholars are telling those illiterate Muslims that Quran does not say to kill Non-Muslims. The meaning of Islam is peace.
I
S shall
L love
A all
M mankind

this is Islam
Not that it will fly with Osama bin Laden, or Mullah Omar.

Exactly. Bush and Israel are pressure-cooking Iran and letting it implode from within. They won't have time to develop nukes before the country melts down internally. No war is needed and no war will happen.
Odds are that will happen, but Israel and the US must also prepare for the worst even though it is unlikely. You never want to be the deer in the headlights here

Funny, Pakistan didn't seem too worried about the innocents dying in Afghanistan in the 80s. In fact, they were down right eager to take US dollars to help organize the "freedom fighters" slaughtering thousands while trying to strike at the U.S.S.R.

Fact is, Islam has yet to take a unified stance to denounce the murder of innocents, except when it involves a swipe at the US. Lip service, sure, but no action.

hah.. If Pakistan would have taken action against the innocents dying in Islam then Mr.Bush would have attacked Pakistan too. Cos... Bush just needs an excuse

hah.. If Pakistan would have taken action against the innocents dying in Islam then Mr.Bush would have attacked Pakistan too. Cos... Bush just needs an excuse
source please

hah.. If Pakistan would have taken action against the innocents dying in Islam then Mr.Bush would have attacked Pakistan too. Cos... Bush just needs an excuse

Nice way to abdicate personal responsibility for your own actions. Look, if you don't like war and you don't like violence, do something about it. Otherwise, you're just part of the problem.

http://www.nonviolence.org/

Exactly. Bush and Israel are pressure-cooking Iran and letting it implode from within. They won't have time to develop nukes before the country melts down internally. No war is needed and no war will happen.
You think that? I see a different scenario. Iran is a bomb waiting to explode. In fact, a restless population may spur it to act. Should they manage to pull off a nuclear strike on anything, they have a chance of surviving any war. It should make the Iranian public opinion turn towards them. I see Iran as a country getting more dangerous every day as, ironically, it moves closer to a revolt.

Nice way to abdicate personal responsibility for your own actions. Look, if you don't like war and you don't like violence, do something about it. Otherwise, you're just part of the problem.

http://www.nonviolence.org/

like do wht? If Amerca frees Palestine and Kashmir then I'm sure everything will be solved.

You think that? I see a different scenario. Iran is a bomb waiting to explode. In fact, a restless population may spur it to act. Should they manage to pull off a nuclear strike on anything, they have a chance of surviving any war. It should make the Iranian public opinion turn towards them. I see Iran as a country getting more dangerous every day as, ironically, it moves closer to a revolt.

But not externally dangerous. They don't have nukes and, even if they were able to produce warheads, they have no delivery. Also, if Iran starts actually throwing nukes around, that's the end of Iran. They know this. All this is just more brinksmanship like the game Saddam tried to play and lost.

like do wht? If Amerca frees Palestine and Kashmir then I'm sure everything will be solved.

Figure something out. Become an activist. Stand up for what you believe in. If you do it violently then you beget only violence and are just as guilty as those you condemn.

As for Palestine, talk to Arafat. As for Kashmir, talk to India.

Figure something out. Become an activist. Stand up for what you believe in. If you do it violently then you beget only violence and are just as guilty as those you condemn.

As for Palestine, talk to Arafat. As for Kashmir, talk to India.

rite now I'm only 13 yrs old so can't do that much except for convincing people through internet. But when i grow up Insha Allah i'll do something :) Hey n u'll have to be my partner :)

But not externally dangerous. They don't have nukes and, even if they were able to produce warheads, they have no delivery. Also, if Iran starts actually throwing nukes around, that's the end of Iran. They know this. All this is just more brinksmanship like the game Saddam tried to play and lost.
And Hussein lost bigtime. He'll probably loose his head, now.
Anyhow, as you probably know, I'm a bit overly hawkish. I desire that Iran's regime topple, and topple soon. War isn't necessary (and hopefully Israel doesn't decide that), but the international community can get the job over with a few easy steps.
1. Reccomend Iran to the Security Concil.
2. Impose international sanctions similar to Iraq's. Specifically state in the resolution that this is a measure to support the Iranain people in their impending revolt. This should mobilize more Iranians against the regime in Tehran. I expect Russia to threaten to veto, but I think they're easier to work with than France.
3. Let simmer. Stir occaisonally.
4. Viva la revoluzione!

somthing nobody here seems to understand is that there cannot and will not be a war with Iran in the near future. The USA does not have the capacity and the will. after all, even if we acted the same way towards iran as we did with iraq we woudnt go to war for another twelve years or so.

rite now I'm only 13 yrs old so can't do that much except for convincing people through internet. But when i grow up Insha Allah i'll do something :) Hey n u'll have to be my partner :)

Fair enough. I'll be glad to partner with you in peace. 13 is not too young to start considering non-violence. There are always things you can do if you want to. There is power in pacifism, but it's a different kind of power than most people are used to. Go to that link I provided. Read. Take steps in your own life, even if they are small, to get people thinking about other ways and demanding better actions from our leaders, all of them, both religious and otherwise. Don't blame others because they don't do what you want them to. You can't control other people, only your own actions. Make sure your own actions further the sort of world you want to live in and then demand others catch up to you.

I'll pray for you. We live in a dangerous world, but it's always been a dangerous world and now is not any more particularly dangerous than any other time in history. We can change that, though. It's hard work and it's not popular, but we can do it if we want it bad enough. Peacefully, without violence, without war.

And Hussein lost bigtime. He'll probably loose his head, now.
Anyhow, as you probably know, I'm a bit overly hawkish. I desire that Iran's regime topple, and topple soon. War isn't necessary (and hopefully Israel doesn't decide that), but the international community can get the job over with a few easy steps.
1. Reccomend Iran to the Security Concil.
2. Impose international sanctions similar to Iraq's. Specifically state in the resolution that this is a measure to support the Iranain people in their impending revolt. This should mobilize more Iranians against the regime in Tehran. I expect Russia to threaten to veto, but I think they're easier to work with than France.
3. Let simmer. Stir occaisonally.
4. Viva la revoluzione!

Bingo. I agree (well, with everything but the "hawkish" part, :) ). I think that's exactly what we're moving towards. If Iran continues to grandstand, I doubt anyone on the Security Council will actually veto sanctions (abstain is another matter).

The Iranian regime is toppling. However, provocative military action on our part or on Israel's part would be the worst thing at this point because people will rally around their flag and any eventual regime change will be stalled while they support the lesser of two evils.

somthing nobody here seems to understand is that there cannot and will not be a war with Iran in the near future. The USA does not have the capacity and the will. after all, even if we acted the same way towards iran as we did with iraq we woudnt go to war for another twelve years or so.
I believe that this is not so, primarily because a lenghty occupation wouldn't be required. Iranians, I believe, can set up an interim government very quickly, and an adequate security force should be left behind. That'll actually be the main problem of a war: winning it, but making sure that the Iranian military retains at least a defensive capability afterwards. Anyhow, in a war, the most that'd be required, I'd think, would be troops in Iraq moving on some locations in Western Iran, troops in Afghanistan into Western Iran, and maybe a Marine contingent to destroy some nuclear facilities, and to clear those Silkworm missile batteries on the Strait of Hormuz. Otherwise, I expect that the Iranian people will take the oppritunity to revolt.

I think Israel can destroy the plant without war, Iran would not want war as they would be defensless, it would end with the reactor being destroyed, just like Iraq and they had more means to attack Israel.

Bingo. I agree (well, with everything but the "hawkish" part, :) ). I think that's exactly what we're moving towards. If Iran continues to grandstand, I doubt anyone on the Security Council will actually veto sanctions (abstain is another matter).

The Iranian regime is toppling. However, provocative military action on our part or on Israel's part would be the worst thing at this point because people will rally around their flag and any eventual regime change will be stalled while they support the lesser of two evils.
I know, but I'm very worried if Iran does develope nukes. If it uses them, Tehran will be a crater, but the mere though of having it used scares me. It could land on an oil field, or perhaps Tel Aviv, or maybe, God forbid, Jerusalem. If the world nukes Iran, life will go on. If Iran nukes one of those sites, it'll personally affect us.

I believe that this is not so, primarily because a lenghty occupation wouldn't be required. Iranians, I believe, can set up an interim government very quickly, and an adequate security force should be left behind. That'll actually be the main problem of a war: winning it, but making sure that the Iranian military retains at least a defensive capability afterwards. Anyhow, in a war, the most that'd be required, I'd think, would be troops in Iraq moving on some locations in Western Iran, troops in Afghanistan into Western Iran, and maybe a Marine contingent to destroy some nuclear facilities, and to clear those Silkworm missile batteries on the Strait of Hormuz. Otherwise, I expect that the Iranian people will take the oppritunity to revolt.

No offense, but when I read this I got a distinct sense of deja vu. This was the same thing that was said leading into Iraq and now there's such a boondoggle going on over there that who knows when it'll be sorted out. The best thing that can happen is for Iraq to actually get back on it's feet, start taking a firm controlling hand in it's own affairs, remove US presence and serve as a postive example to Iranians. The sooner that happens, the sooner Iranians will become thoroughly disgusted with their government and demand something else.

I believe that this is not so, primarily because a lenghty occupation wouldn't be required. Iranians, I believe, can set up an interim government very quickly, and an adequate security force should be left behind. That'll actually be the main problem of a war: winning it, but making sure that the Iranian military retains at least a defensive capability afterwards. Anyhow, in a war, the most that'd be required, I'd think, would be troops in Iraq moving on some locations in Western Iran, troops in Afghanistan into Western Iran, and maybe a Marine contingent to destroy some nuclear facilities, and to clear those Silkworm missile batteries on the Strait of Hormuz. Otherwise, I expect that the Iranian people will take the oppritunity to revolt.

so we can either remove weapons that the iranian government created and expect to fight on that level with them staying in power to build more or we can remove the regime and expect minimum troop requirements. have you gone mad. that is a muslim theological regime. minimum troops? look at iraq! iran would be easier? good lord.

I think Israel can destroy the plant without war, Iran would not want war as they would be defensless, it would end with the reactor being destroyed, just like Iraq and they had more means to attack Israel.
I like that accident idea better. An explosion at one of the plants would make the world community suspicious that this isn't for "peaceful" purposes, and compel them to act. It's sort of like the scrutiny the Soviets got for their nuke program after Chernobyl. That reactor was pretty much to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

I know, but I'm very worried if Iran does develope nukes. If it uses them, Tehran will be a crater, but the mere though of having it used scares me. It could land on an oil field, or perhaps Tel Aviv, or maybe, God forbid, Jerusalem. If the world nukes Iran, life will go on. If Iran nukes one of those sites, it'll personally affect us.

That's an infinitely huge "if", though. Getting a reactor up and running is no small feat. Using that reactor to make weapons-grade plutonium is even harder. Developing a delivery system is even harder than that. That's a good 10 to 20 years of R&D work Iran needs to put in (assuming they get everything right in the first go) just to have something to show for their efforts. Now, compound all of this with the international sanctions that Iran seems to be hell bent on getting, and it becomes a nigh unto impossible goal to reach.

so we can either remove weapons that the iranian government created and expect to fight on that level with them staying in power to build more or we can remove the regime and expect minimum troop requirements. have you gone mad. that is a muslim theological regime. minimum troops? look at iraq! iran would be easier? good lord.
Actually, yes. The Iranians are more likely to revolt, because the Tehran regime hasn't a track record in using weapons against its own people.

its simply not happening in the near future. hate to burst your bubble of thought. But it simply is not possible or even wanted at least for the next 10 years.

Actually, yes. The Iranians are more likely to revolt, because the Tehran regime hasn't a track record in using weapons against its own people.

Not yet they're not. Not with anti-US sentiment running so high in the Muslim world. Any action on our part now will push Iranians away from revolt and towards support of the government they're already moving away from. We're an infintely bigger (and cleaner) target.

and by the way I am speaking of terrorism. If only 1 in one hundred of iranians decides to fight us we will be in way over are heads worse than iraq. It is impossible to do.

That's an infinitely huge "if", though. Getting a reactor up and running is no small feat. Using that reactor to make weapons-grade plutonium is even harder. Developing a delivery system is even harder than that. That's a good 10 to 20 years of R&D work Iran needs to put in (assuming they get everything right in the first go) just to have something to show for their efforts. Now, compound all of this with the international sanctions that Iran seems to be hell bent on getting, and it becomes a nigh unto impossible goal to reach.
I think they have deliverance systems. Already, their ballistic missiles have a range that can hit Central Europe. Besides, the Iranians seem to be hell-bent on hitting Israel, and that's easier. If they were so determined, they could sneak one of their destroyers into the Red Sea, and fire a cruise missile into Israel. But I do hope your right in telling me that Iran can't do that at the moment.

This issue does of course raise two further concerns.

Firstly, why is it so bad for Iran to have nuclear weapons, when it is seemingly O.K. for israel, India, Pakistan, the US, etc etc. Are there 'good" amd "bad" nuclear weapons? If so, who decides, and on what basis?

Secondly, the lessons learned by the rest of the world re the US policy of "pre-emptive" strikes, particularly if based on such poor "intelligence" would appear to be that if you wish to avoid being invaded by the US, then you should
develop a suitable nuclear deterent. This would particularly be the case if you have already been identified as part of the so-called 'axis of evil".

Unfortunately, it seems that both Iran and North Korea have taken this lesson to heart.

What we have is yet another disasterous effect of Bush's pre-emptive strike policy.

Not yet they're not. Not with anti-US sentiment running so high in the Muslim world. Any action on our part now will push Iranians away from revolt and towards support of the government they're already moving away from. We're an infintely bigger (and cleaner) target.
I would think, however, that a few well written leaflets dropped on Iranian cities would be enough to encourage at least some Iranians to revolt. Besides, while anti-US sentiment runs high, the Iranian people themselves actually favor warm relations with the US. I've even heard that reporters who go there say that people whisper to them if the US is coming to liberate Iran. At worse, it'll cause civil war, but I feel that there are enough young, liberal minded Iranians to try and revolt.

Can you name one true preemptive stike by president bush? that is a strike on a nation that has not done anything to us, broken any cease fires.....?

and yes, rogue nations with radical ideologies do not deserve nuclear weapons. the idea is containment of them all together but it is slightly less bad if they are in the hands of trustable and stable democratic governments as opposed to the countries which arent yet ready for such a huge responsibility. and the united states is the only country in the world to have used these weapons and we used them in a responsible manner to save lives when we did.

This issue does of course raise two further concerns.

Firstly, why is it so bad for Iran to have nuclear weapons, when it is seemingly O.K. for israel, India, Pakistan, the US, etc etc. Are there 'good" amd "bad" nuclear weapons? If so, who decides, and on what basis?

Should Iran develope nuclear weapons capable of striking Israel, the whole region would be destabilized. Israel would loose its ability to defend itself, and a series of proxy wars will develope, much like during the Cold War.
BTW, North Korea was developing nukes back in 1994. If you remember, Pres. Clinton was about to order troops on the DMZ north, as Clinton was hellbent on making sure that North Korea didn't acquire nuclear weapons.

This issue does of course raise two further concerns.

Firstly, why is it so bad for Iran to have nuclear weapons, when it is seemingly O.K. for israel, India, Pakistan, the US, etc etc. Are there 'good" amd "bad" nuclear weapons? If so, who decides, and on what basis?

Interesting examples you chose. Fact is, it's not good that ANYONE has them. However, some countries do. The goal now is to prevent more countries, particularly unstable countries, from getting them. World opinion is firmly against Iran having nukes. Therefore, in this case, world opinion gets to decide. Is it right? Probably not. Is it pragmatic? Certainly.


Secondly, the lessons learned by the rest of the world re the US policy of "pre-emptive" strikes, particularly if based on such poor "intelligence" would appear to be that if you wish to avoid being invaded by the US, then you should
develop a suitable nuclear deterent. This would particularly be the case if you have already been identified as part of the so-called 'axis of evil".

Unfortunately, it seems that both Iran and North Korea have taken this lesson to heart.

What we have is yet another disasterous effect of Bush's pre-emptive strike policy.

I agree. Bush's pre-emptive strike policy nonsense is probably the biggest political blunder we're likely to see in our lives (I sincerely hope to God). However, the ship has sailed on Iran developing them and North Korea will be contained, whether it likes it or not, by China. Right now, they're a nice wedge for China against the US in regards to Taiwan (you've got your pet attack dog and we've got ours). However, if NK decides to actually start getting trigger happy, China will slap them down and hard.

Can you name one true preemptive stike by president bush? that is a strike on a nation that has not done anything to us, broken any cease fires.....?

and yes, rogue nations with radical ideologies do not deserve nuclear weapons. the idea is containment of them all together but it is slightly less bad if they are in the hands of trustable and stable democratic governments as opposed to the countries which arent yet ready for such a huge responsibility. and the united states is the only country in the world to have used these weapons and we used them in a responsible manner to save lives when we did.

Sigh, I know you're not going to accept this, but Iraq. Take away all the political posturing and rhetoric and what you have is, at base, a pre-emptive strike.

I agree. Bush's pre-emptive strike policy nonsense is probably the biggest political blunder we're likely to see in our lives (I sincerely hope to God). However, the ship has sailed on Iran developing them and North Korea will be contained, whether it likes it or not, by China. Right now, they're a nice wedge for China against the US in regards to Taiwan (you've got your pet attack dog and we've got ours). However, if NK decides to actually start getting trigger happy, China will slap them down and hard.
The only problem, of course, is that China might establish a puppet government, and keep the peninsula devided. Does anyone know, actually, if China has said that it wants a unified Korea?

I would think, however, that a few well written leaflets dropped on Iranian cities would be enough to encourage at least some Iranians to revolt. Besides, while anti-US sentiment runs high, the Iranian people themselves actually favor warm relations with the US. I've even heard that reporters who go there say that people whisper to them if the US is coming to liberate Iran. At worse, it'll cause civil war, but I feel that there are enough young, liberal minded Iranians to try and revolt.

History is littered with the bodies of "young, liberal minded" folk who tried to revolt and failed. I completely agree with you that, eventually (and sooner rather than later), Iranians will revolt internally. It has to come from them, though, to be valid and accepted by the rest of the Middle-East and, indeed, the world. Iran isn't there yet. It will be. Soon, particularly with sanctions, but not yet.

Sigh, I know you're not going to accept this, but Iraq. Take away all the political posturing and rhetoric and what you have is, at base, a pre-emptive strike.

a broken cease fire takes away it being defined as preemptive at all. and even if you do choose to look at it that way it would be a true one with iran. I dont see it happening. the likelyhood of an american war on iran is almost nonexistant in the near future.

Secondly, the lessons learned by the rest of the world re the US policy of "pre-emptive" strikes, particularly if based on such poor "intelligence" would appear to be that if you wish to avoid being invaded by the US, then you should
develop a suitable nuclear deterent. This would particularly be the case if you have already been identified as part of the so-called 'axis of evil".

Unfortunately, it seems that both Iran and North Korea have taken this lesson to heart.

What we have is yet another disasterous effect of Bush's pre-emptive strike policy.
Exactly. Iran and North Korea were clearly not persuing nuclear weapons before Bush came to office. Nice to try to pin the blame on Bush, but it dosen't really make sense. North Korea was playing the nuclear card back in '94, and Iran has been after Nuclear Weapons since the 80's.

a broken cease fire takes away it being defined as preemptive at all. and even if you do choose to look at it that way it would be a true one with iran. I dont see it happening. the likelyhood of an american war on iran is almsot nonexistant in the near future.

Well, I agree with you on the bolded bit so, in the interest of finding a unity and commonality between different viewpoints that all too rarely share that, let's just leave it at that. :)

you people seriously think that a country will ever use a nuke in war ever again? thats called scuicide. not gonna happen. deterence is a false premise. If a country were to use such a weapon ever its governmetn would basicly cease to exist within a period of weeks.

The only problem, of course, is that China might establish a puppet government, and keep the peninsula devided. Does anyone know, actually, if China has said that it wants a unified Korea?

Fine. Let China have North Korea. Putting that mess right will throw a wrench in any potential plans they have for world domination.

I don't think China has any sincere desire one way or another for a unified Korea. What they don't want, however, is an idiot forcing a conflict timetable on them that they have no control over.

History is littered with the bodies of "young, liberal minded" folk who tried to revolt and failed. I completely agree with you that, eventually (and sooner rather than later), Iranians will revolt internally. It has to come from them, though, to be valid and accepted by the rest of the Middle-East and, indeed, the world. Iran isn't there yet. It will be. Soon, particularly with sanctions, but not yet.
Well, when Iranians do decide to revolt, how will we make sure that a revolt isn't surpressed? Does the US send a few divisions to try and stand between the cities and the army? I think, actually, that it may happen. When Panama revolted against Colombia, Teddy Roosevelt sent a gunship to Panama to prevent the Colombian army from defeating the revolt.

Fine. Let China have North Korea. Putting that mess right will throw a wrench in any potential plans they have for world domination.

I don't think China has any sincere desire one way or another for a unified Korea. What they don't want, however, is an idiot forcing a conflict timetable on them that they have no control over.
Still, the though disturbs me that China may install a dictator just like Kim Jong-Il.

Still, the though disturbs me that China may install a dictator just like Kim Jong-Il.

Heh, I don't think anything just like Kim Jong-Il exists and, if it does, I highly doubt China will want to employ it. Way too hard to control.

Well, when Iranians do decide to revolt, how will we make sure that a revolt isn't surpressed? Does the US send a few divisions to try and stand between the cities and the army? I think, actually, that it may happen. When Panama revolted against Colombia, Teddy Roosevelt sent a gunship to Panama to prevent the Colombian army from defeating the revolt.

Hopefully, we won't have to. If we play our cards right then the Iranians can and will do it themselves. Also, by the time they're ready, it is to be hoped that Iraq will be back on it's feet and in a position to send it's troops to support them.

you people seriously think that a country will ever use a nuke in war ever again? thats called scuicide. not gonna happen. deterence is a false premise. If a country were to use such a weapon ever its governmetn would basicly cease to exist within a period of weeks.

You're right in that no country today would risk the political and physical suicide of their country. And you're half right with deterence being a false premise. The US does have a large army stationed around the world for deterence and fast-action responses, however not all countries have our kind of intentions with their forces. Iran is basically the beating heart of world terror and developing nuclear weapons and other WMDs is the next logical step for the Iran to strengthen it's terrorists. Iran has no problem with developing and selling weapons to terrorists, so long as they are assured the weapons will be used against the US or Israel or some other enemy of theirs.
This is why keeping nukes out of countries like North Korea and Iran is so important, it's who they'd sell them to if they don't use the nukes themselves....

Hopefully, we won't have to. If we play our cards right then the Iranians can and will do it themselves. Also, by the time they're ready, it is to be hoped that Iraq will be back on it's feet and in a position to send it's troops to support them.

I hope you're right, except I doubt that Iraq could or would send a good amount of its troops to Iran, most likely is that Iraq would be able to support itself militarily by then, which would free the US to shift to taking out Iran and installing another pro-American democracy. (Which would be a very good thing to have not 1 or 2, but THREE pro-American democracies in the Middle East)

I believe that this is not so, primarily because a lenghty occupation wouldn't be required. Iranians, I believe, can set up an interim government very quickly, and an adequate security force should be left behind. That'll actually be the main problem of a war: winning it, but making sure that the Iranian military retains at least a defensive capability afterwards. Anyhow, in a war, the most that'd be required, I'd think, would be troops in Iraq moving on some locations in Western Iran, troops in Afghanistan into Western Iran, and maybe a Marine contingent to destroy some nuclear facilities, and to clear those Silkworm missile batteries on the Strait of Hormuz. Otherwise, I expect that the Iranian people will take the oppritunity to revolt.

Hey isnt that what we thought about iraq?
I think an internal change needs to happen, anything else would be considered invasion and muslims hate when you occupy their land ( kashmir, palestine, iraq)
I do agree though if a war does take place we need to keep the army intact, we couldv avoided alot of problems in iraq if we had done that.

Can you name one true preemptive stike by president bush? that is a strike on a nation that has not done anything to us, broken any cease fires.....?

and yes, rogue nations with radical ideologies do not deserve nuclear weapons. the idea is containment of them all together but it is slightly less bad if they are in the hands of trustable and stable democratic governments as opposed to the countries which arent yet ready for such a huge responsibility. and the united states is the only country in the world to have used these weapons and we used them in a responsible manner to save lives when we did.

Bush continually quoted the need to attack Iraq based on what he claimed they could do. You remember, the masses of weapons of mass destruction he had hoarded. That is a pre-emptive strike, if poorly devised and directed.

"Rogue nations" - presumably those that operate outside the usual forum for the resolution of international disputes - i.e. the U.N.

"Radical ideologies" - like invading other nations on suspicion, perhaps.

Again, it comes down to who decides, and on what basis.

You may well care to define "rogue nations" and "radical ideologies" how you wish, but the question remains as to who should decide, and on what basis.

And yes, we all know that the US has got "form" for past use of weapons of mass destruction. If the US can have them and use them, it does seem a mite hypocritical to deny them to others, no?

3 Pro-American democracies huh? I wonder if you are familiar with America's past successes at military intervention.

Will Iraq be a democracy? Certainly not with America's help. Allawi is a former Ba'athist hardliner, chances are he will declare a police state and search for enemies of Iraq.

As for invading Iran, that would be foolish. In fact, any American troops in Iran will polarize the politics in that nation in a very detrimental way. No if America screws with Iran it will screw all chances of Iranian democracy. I mean come on, these people voted in the reform-friendly Khatami, they want changes. Protests happen in Tehran on a regular basis, revolution will come.

As for even dropping pamphlets, dropped pamphlets will never lead to a revolution, don't be foolish, this has to be done by the Iranian working class and the peasants and the students.

Besides, America's crimes in Iran are directly responsible for the Ayatollah's rise to power. Overthrowing the democratically elected Mosadegh for that fool the Shah, way to show your class interests.

And yes, we all know that the US has got "form" for past use of weapons of mass destruction. If the US can have them and use them, it does seem a mite hypocritical to deny them to others, no?
Hypocritical? Yes. Good thing being hypocritical does not mean that your wrong.

Hopefully, we won't have to. If we play our cards right then the Iranians can and will do it themselves. Also, by the time they're ready, it is to be hoped that Iraq will be back on it's feet and in a position to send it's troops to support them.
Well, we assumed that the Shi'ites and Kurds in Iraq didn't need our help back in the Gulf War. Boy, were we wrong. I think a small force will need to be sent in to not destroy the Iranian army, but stall them before they reach their objectives in the cities. It'll more likely be in the form of war planes and some special ops, however.

Hey isnt that what we thought about iraq?
Akmed Chalabi said "dancing in the streets". I expect non of that, but unlike Iraq, the Iranians know how to govern themselves. In fact, if it weren't for the aylotollahs, they otherwise have a multiparty, fully functioning republic.
I do agree though if a war does take place we need to keep the army intact, we couldv avoided alot of problems in iraq if we had done that.
The army in Iraq was a disaster to destroy. Even though the Iraqi army sustained light casualties, they melted away, as they had no equipment to protect them. Disbanding the army only made it so that grumpy soldiers could complain about no pay, and some of them probably joined the resistance against America. We can't allow that, this time. However, the Iranian army is significantly larger than what it requires for its own defense. This allows the US some room to destroy certain units that may threaten the 2nd Iranian revolution.

The Israelis have a small navy, including 6 diesel powered Dolphin subs, purchased from former West Germany. It's possible that they may use them to sail up to the Arabian sea, then target Iran.

This is doubtful. Diesel subs need to run on the surface or at snorkel depth to charge their batteries for submerged propulsion. Thus, they have a very short range. Assuming (and it is an assumption) that Israel's subs are currently deployed in the Mediterranean Sea or ports there, it is highly doubtful that Israel would attempt to transit the Suez Canal into the Arabian Sea. They may have one or more based at Elat, in the Gulf of Aqaba, but even then Iran is a long way away.

Also, what would they attack with? These are older, smaller submarines; they don't have cruise missles.

This is doubtful. Diesel subs need to run on the surface or at snorkel depth to charge their batteries for submerged propulsion. Thus, they have a very short range. Assuming (and it is an assumption) that Israel's subs are currently deployed in the Mediterranean Sea or ports there, it is highly doubtful that Israel would attempt to transit the Suez Canal into the Arabian Sea. They may have one or more based at Elat, in the Gulf of Aqaba, but even then Iran is a long way away.

Also, what would they attack with? These are older, smaller submarines; they don't have cruise missles.
Forgot about that. However, would Israeli missiles be in range of Iran? It's possible that they could strike at Iran that way.

bump

[QUOTE=New Anthrus]...unlike Iraq, the Iranians know how to govern themselves. [QUOTE]

Who says the Iraqis are incapable of governing themselves?

[QUOTE=New Anthrus]...unlike Iraq, the Iranians know how to govern themselves. [QUOTE]

Who says the Iraqis are incapable of governing themselves?
They do. With the current discord in the country, and the decayed infrastructure, the Iraqis need a little help. This isn't to say that they can't form a good government. Baghdad was a thriving marketplace 50 years ago, and if Iraqis can recapture that spirit, their work is pretty much done. However, they've been without it for so long, that they need some help in establishing a truely liberal democracy.
Iran, in many aspects, already has one. They have an active market economy. Their GDP is actually fairly good by international standards. They even have a multiparty republic. The only thing that prevents Iran from being a full-fledged liberal democracy is the Aylotollah and his army. A good analogy for the situation is if the aylotollah is a foreigin emperor who conquered Iran. They remain autonomous in many issues, but the emperor has the final say. It's almost that way now, except the aylotollah is home grown.

Forgot about that. However, would Israeli missiles be in range of Iran? It's possible that they could strike at Iran that way.

I don't know much about Israel's ballistic missle program, if any, but I'm sure that if they have them, they can reach Iran.

For Iraq to govern itself, it would probably require a lot less US intervention. (as per the Emperor analogy.)

I mean thank you Paul Bremer for making it possible for 50% of Iraq banks to be owned by Foreign Banks, and 100% of Iraqi business owned by Foreign Corporations.

I mean this minimal state economics is over 200 years old. Let's face it, the invisible hand will not take care of the Iraqi's. When Iraqi's get into power (and I certainly don't count Allawi has an Iraqi government since he was appointed by the US.)

As for interfering with the Iranian revolution, interfering would be ridiculously stupid. Iranians want independence, that's clear, but their media has never shown America in a good light. In fact the only one's who'd want America to interfere would be a very small minority.

For Iraq to govern itself, it would probably require a lot less US intervention. (as per the Emperor analogy.)

I mean thank you Paul Bremer for making it possible for 50% of Iraq banks to be owned by Foreign Banks, and 100% of Iraqi business owned by Foreign Corporations.
That's actually a good thing, as it means more foreign capital flowing into the country, and it'll spur local competition. After all, if Iraq is like most developing nations, an informal sector of drifters and street vendors exists. Besides, the US isn't out to surpress Iraqi liberties, social and economic. We want them, but as in most liberal democracies, they are to be in an orderly and peaceful fashion.


As for interfering with the Iranian revolution, interfering would be ridiculously stupid. Iranians want independence, that's clear, but their media has never shown America in a good light. In fact the only one's who'd want America to interfere would be a very small minority.
Their media is controlled by the state, and therefore the aylotollahs. The average Iranian actually has a more favorable opinion than the official position of Tehran. Five years after the next revolution, when a free and developed press should take root, the Iranian media will shine us in a better light, because many Iranians want closer ties to the US.

I don't know much about Israel's ballistic missle program, if any, but I'm sure that if they have them, they can reach Iran.
I'm guessing they have one. How could they work with the US for so long, have nuclear weapons, but yet have no way to deliver them?

Mind if I throw out a new question? Thanks. Suppose that Iranians can effectively build a democracy themselves. And it's a liberal one, not just the elected autocrats of Venezuela and Turkmenistan. Anyhow, what affect would it have on the Middle East? Would it even help the situation in Central Asia?

bump

That's actually a good thing, as it means more foreign capital flowing into the country, and it'll spur local competition. After all, if Iraq is like most developing nations, an informal sector of drifters and street vendors exists. Besides, the US isn't out to surpress Iraqi liberties, social and economic. We want them, but as in most liberal democracies, they are to be in an orderly and peaceful fashion.



Their media is controlled by the state, and therefore the aylotollahs. The average Iranian actually has a more favorable opinion than the official position of Tehran. Five years after the next revolution, when a free and developed press should take root, the Iranian media will shine us in a better light, because many Iranians want closer ties to the US.

You are obviously presuming that Iranians will have forgotten how the US propped up the regime of the Shah then?

One hates to disillusion you, but the US is not widely regarded as the bringer of peace, freedom and light, or of being on the side of goodness and niceness. They have supported too many corrupt and repressive regimes for it to go unnoticed. And, yes, that does include previous support of Saddam Hussein during the period that he was at war with Iran. Do you seriously think that the Iranians would forget that as well?

Elected Autocrat of Venezuela? Sounds like someone doesn't like losing. I would say that Chavez is the best thing to happen to Venezuela in a long time. Nationalizing industry to pay for healthcare and education. Sounds like something for the Venezuelan people is finally happening. Instead of American exploitation of their resources.

When talking about the selling of Industry, you should realize this will not improve the Iraqi economy in much of any way, bringing foreign capital. It will make perhaps 5% of the Iraqi (likely former Ba'athists) obscenely rich, but otherwise keep the status quo. Nicarauqua is a good example of this being a failed policy.

As far as Americans bringing liberties to Iraq, that's a blatant lie. America has rarely brought liberties to anyone but the people who are willing to exploit others to get themselves obscenely rich. Especially in the middle East (are you perhaps forgetting the CIA's influence in 1953 Iran?) Every Iranian knows what the US did to Mosadegh. Do you think they could ever love you for taking away their democracy and reinstating that tyrant the Shah?

As far as a revolution in Iran, it will happen, and I'm hoping it will be more like the Gilan incident of 1918.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/international/middleeast/20iran.html
An Iranian admiral told al-Jazeera that his country could launch a pre-emptive attack on the US or Israel for launching attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. Does this mean war is less than a year away, if not imminent?

Naaah. USA's got Iraq on their minds, and Israel won't do something as severe as bombing Iran's nuclear facilities with no reliable back-up such as the USA.
But who knows?
If Israel will sometime be convinced the Iranian nukes were made to bomb it, it will surely attack.
And then...
Boom?

I am honestly surprised that Israel has not destroyed the nuclear plant in Iran yet.

Surprised?
SURPRISED?!
Hell!
First of all we've got the destance factor. To reach Iran, Israel ought to fly it's planes above Jordan and Iraq. Jordan and Iraq(Well the US has Iraq, so it matters less) will probably want to know why the hell Israeli army planes move above them.
But I guess we can go through Russia to north Iran, right? Heh. *laughter*
And then, look where Israel is. If it bombs Iran's nuclear plant, Iran and Syria would attack Israel, and that wouldn't be so great since we've got the palestinians on our necks.
And THEN, what if the whole action would fail?
Israel would not risk its soldiers, resources, citizens and existance, perhaps, for an unclear threat, such as those Iran makes.

I doubt Iran will do anything, just alot of big talk and bluffing.

I, do, too. I doubt they even have the capacity or weapons to actually launch a pre-emptive strike.

Also, they don't even know how to use the term properly; pre-emptive strike means to launch a strike before we launch a strike against their nuclear sites... see, they don't even know what they're talking about now! ;)

This rhetoric of a low ranking official is irrelevant. They were officials in the US administration who spoke about preventive strikes against Syria, Iran and North Korea. And North Korea responded with simular statements. To what would that led? To the end of the North Korean regime or in the case of Iran to the end of the Iranian regime. I don´t believe they do that because it would mean their end.

You are obviously presuming that Iranians will have forgotten how the US propped up the regime of the Shah then?

One hates to disillusion you, but the US is not widely regarded as the bringer of peace, freedom and light, or of being on the side of goodness and niceness. They have supported too many corrupt and repressive regimes for it to go unnoticed. And, yes, that does include previous support of Saddam Hussein during the period that he was at war with Iran. Do you seriously think that the Iranians would forget that as well?
No. But that does not mean that the Iranian people want to seek a better relationship with us. After all, supporting the shah didn't mean that we never bought Iranian oil :).

Elected Autocrat of Venezuela? Sounds like someone doesn't like losing. I would say that Chavez is the best thing to happen to Venezuela in a long time. Nationalizing industry to pay for healthcare and education. Sounds like something for the Venezuelan people is finally happening. Instead of American exploitation of their resources.
What he's doing for Venezuela, however, does not negate the fact that he is an elected autocrat. He has taken powers from the legislature, judiciary, and provincial governments. This is the same pattern followed by de Gaulles, Niyazov, Kharimov, and to a lesser extent, Putin and Nestor Kirchner. I like some of the people on that list, but it doesn't negate the fact that they are elected autocrats.[/quote]

When talking about the selling of Industry, you should realize this will not improve the Iraqi economy in much of any way, bringing foreign capital. It will make perhaps 5% of the Iraqi (likely former Ba'athists) obscenely rich, but otherwise keep the status quo. Nicarauqua is a good example of this being a failed policy.
Nicaragua didn't have this policy. The Sadanistas lasted well into the nineties. Today, Nicaragua is still filled with their lingering influence.
Such a policy is what was tried by the British Empire in India. That had mixed results, primarily because the British bureaocracy had a natural tendency to favor British citizens. However, it worked wonders on India economically. It brought railroads to the country, developed their coal industry, and built factories. I can even argue that this helped India's "Green Revolution". India is certainly not an economic oasis today, but we have to give them some credit. In the last decade, 100 million people, or ten percent of the population, were lifted out of abject poverty. That's better than even we can do in the US. And it's because, in part, a little British capital gave their financial infrastructure a boost. With the oil Iraq has, however, the economy there is more likely to bang. It may even grow too fast. But we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

As far as Americans bringing liberties to Iraq, that's a blatant lie. America has rarely brought liberties to anyone but the people who are willing to exploit others to get themselves obscenely rich. Especially in the middle East (are you perhaps forgetting the CIA's influence in 1953 Iran?) Every Iranian knows what the US did to Mosadegh. Do you think they could ever love you for taking away their democracy and reinstating that tyrant the Shah?
The classic linear thinker, who thinks that a nation is an unchanging entity. The Cold War has ended. It is not in the US's best interests anymore to foster shady alliances with dictators. On the contrary, they are a pillar of terrorism, and we don't need them that. A hastily organized democracy, however, may lead to a surge in extremism. That is why any democracy in Iraq must be preceded by liberty and, most importantly, a well written constitution that gurantees the rights of life, liberty, and property for all (not just a majority, like in an elected autocracy) and proper checks and balances on everyone.
That is not to say that a full functioning democracy can't work ahead of time. The US was always considered a democracy, but in 1830, only about 12% of the population could vote. It was, however, one of the most socially and economically free nations of its time. Our only true contemporary in this experiment was Britain. It took it a little longer to become a full-fledged liberal democracy, but it did it, and didn't sacrifice liberty along the way. That's what I'm hoping for in Iraq: a country that can follow the Anglo-American model. It may be democratic, it may be more limited, but it is nevertheless free. And as in the case of Singapore, it is a given that liberty will lead to democracy, even if it does take a generation or two.

I would say that Chavez is the best thing to happen to Venezuela in a long time.
No, he's seen Venezuela slowly grind into the dirt. GDP is going down, inflation is skyrocketing - over 30% in one year - unemployment is going up while labor costs are going down, public debt is going up, and real wages are at their level from 50 years ago. I'm not saying that the leaders before Chavez were exceptional, however, he's anything but.

one country's nuked then the whole worlds nuked

I could really care less for your bourgeois definition of democracy. As far as I see it, he works in the interests of the people. And 8 times in the past 5 years the people have supported him against his opposition. That's really all the confirmation of the democratic process that you need isn't it?

Are you defending colonialism? Almost sounds like it.

As for the increase in welfare of the Indian people, this was done largely by the Congress Party, however corrupt it is, and thankfully once again the Hindu Nationalist Party has been supressed. Either way, the economic policy will fail, it supports a trickle down theory, while, despite the fact that I am a marxist, it's more than likely that if they applied a more Keynsian idea to increasing Iraqi expendable income, you wouldn't just succeed in building up the bourgeois, but laying a foundation for the lower class as well. But this way, when the "economy bangs" it will be solely in the hands of the foreign and national bourgeois oligarchy.

Ah but has the cold war ended? The bourgeois in America needs an enemy. Terrorism is a convenient one, not only have we declared war on terrorism, but we are also feeding it at the same time, doesn't this make our war unstoppable? We will continue making pathetic shadows of democracy and half assed liberations (why does the Taliban still control 30% of Afghanistan?).

Ah but has the cold war ended? The bourgeois in America needs an enemy. Terrorism is a convenient one, not only have we declared war on terrorism, but we are also feeding it at the same time, doesn't this make our war unstoppable? We will continue making pathetic shadows of democracy and half assed liberations (why does the Taliban still control 30% of Afghanistan?).
What's so wrong about the bourgeois?

You know, I'm starting to think that there may be a way to cause the revolt in Iran to happen soon, but at the same time, not to jeopardize international politics. That would be if Syria was attacked by Israel. Syria is, of course, a staunch ally of Iran. It is possible that Iran may even send a few forces to help defend Syria.
Anyhow, Syria is currently occupying Lebannon, and I think it is shameful what the Syrians are doing. What the Israelis can do is launch an attack on Syria. The other Arab countries will grumble, but won't dare get involved, for fear of antagonizing the US. Anyhow, should the IDF march on Damascus and liberate Lebanon, then Iran will loose a key ally. This may cause more resentment to grow among the Iranian people, especially if they did somehow slip forces in there, and they lost.
As for the two countries, I don't know how Syria will cope. But the good news is the Lebannon has an extremely strong liberal tradition. Even today, it has a free press rivaling only that of Baghdad's in the Middle East.