NationStates Jolt Archive

Post stories and discussions of events that are leading up to the war in Iran.

Take this, for example.

Iran just cut off a huge amount of natural gas to Turkey - warning Turkey to stay out of any conflict between Iran and the West.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA24Ak02.html

Well, the Turks don't really need to worry about the cold, because it's about to get a whole lot warmer in the Middle East.

By about 1 Million degrees.

Perhaps it's time to "carpool for freedom" or something. I sure as hell won't let Iran blackmail the world with threats of an oil shock...plus, every time the price spikes, more and more interest is given to alternative energy. Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise, one that'll finally wean us off of those terrorists' oil.

"When you drive alone, you drive with Ahmadinejad"

I don't know...I'm more concerned with what Russia's playing at lately than I am about Iran.

Wait that is not possible.
Afghanistan was a piece of cake : there was already war there, the international support and everything. Just had to give some weapons to the Northern alliance and they do the rest.
Iraq is hell : The country was isolated and there was no fly zones and daily UN inspection (spying) and an embargo making Iraq defenseless, but there was nobody to fight the war for the US and few allies.
Iran is not possible : all the military forces are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, nobody know what they have and where and they are supported by the whole rab community.

Arn't Iranians not Arab? I thought they were Persian.

Its likely that this time next year is the earlier that we will attack iran.

The spike in gas prices which would accompany it would bode poorly for the republicans in november, and could severely hurt the economy if it wrecked the christmas retail season.

Arn't Iranians not Arab? I thought they were Persian.
Well I think they are both, but anyway they are supported by the whole arab communities.

Arn't Iranians not Arab? I thought they were Persian.
Yes they are, they are persian, they aslo consider them selfs aryan, and they would get pissed if you toled them that they are semites, a dude i know, said that there were a lot of racism in Iran against poeple who were Arab, or Kurd.
He fled from The ayatholla people who had their minds of killing him couse he was not into religion...

About one third to a half of Iranians look like europeans, and once you took the tents of their women, and long beards of their men. you would not guess they were from the middle east.....

Man if it gets too hot in the ME, the US may have to pull it's troop out of there and say the hell with it.

Yes they are, they are persian, they aslo consider them selfs aryan, and they would get pissed if you toled them that they are semites, a dude i know, said that there were a lot of racism in Iran against poeple who were Arab, or Kurd.
He fled from The ayatholla people who had their minds of killing him couse he was not into religion...

About one third to a half of Iranians look like europeans, and once you took the tents of their women, and long beards of their men. you would not guess they were from the middle east.....

According to The CIA World Factbook (http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html), the ethnic groups are as follows:


Persians (51%),
Azeris (24%),
Gilaki and Mazandarani (8%),
Kurds (7%),
Arabs (3%),
Baluchi (2%),
Lurs (2%),
Turkmen people (2%),
Qashqai, Armenians, Georgians, Persian Jews, Assyrians and others (1 %)


EDIT: Athough it is stated that no "official" statistics are availible.

Man if it gets too hot in the ME, the US may have to pull it's troop out of there and say the hell with it.


Its more likely we'll have something long, embarassing, and bloody like vietnam.

According to The CIA World Factbook (http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html), the ethnic groups are as follows:



EDIT: Athough it is stated that no "official" statistics are availible.
MOre or less what I said, half look european, that is the Persians, Iran means land of Aryans in Farsi........
Quite strange thing to call a nation, think it would lift a few eyebrows if a european country named it self land of aryans:p

Its more likely we'll have something long, embarassing, and bloody like vietnam.

I thought we already have that.

Its more likely we'll have something long, embarassing, and bloody like vietnam.
That sounds like my Schlong.

:eek:

They have arab support for many reasons : their stance against Israel, their islamism, and their past stance against Saddam Hussein.

BUt would this be an iraq/vietnam against the NFL cind of war, or would iran be able to fight as a amry in the field without beeing wiped out by airpower

BUt would this be an iraq/vietnam against the NFL cind of war, or would iran be able to fight as a amry in the field without beeing wiped out by airpower
It would be a very big useless loss of lives on both sides, whatever tactic the US would choose to attack and the end result would be that the US would be driven back home and they would loose any credibility left and all oil contracts in the region.

It would be a very big useless loss of lives on both sides, whatever tactic the US would choose to attack and the end result would be that the US would be driven back home and they would loose any credibility left and all oil contracts in the region.
Nuclear?

BUt would this be an iraq/vietnam against the NFL cind of war, or would iran be able to fight as a amry in the field without beeing wiped out by airpowerLOL the NFL ???

.. Well the NFL is more like corporate Cheerleaders for Army recruiting.. and do a lot of Propaganda to help the army image.. and all that shiite.. but the NFL should not be a terrorism Target... or am I wrong?

LOL the NFL???

.. Well the NFL is more like corporate Cheerleaders for Army recruiting.. and do a lot of Propaganda to help the army image.. and all that shiite.. but the NFL should not be a terrorism Target... or am I wrong?
NLF:eek:

Nuclear?
mmm... What do you mean?

An invasion of Iran would be possible if only there were more soldiers. The US is well positioned to invade from both the east and the west. The only alternative is to find some way of drumming up international support for an invasion.

The whole thing is very concerning.

Iraq was run buy a ruthless, border line insane dictator. He was greedy for money and power. Worried about his own self preservation.

Iran-looks to be more a religious motivated group. Probably going to be a lot tougher.

Listen, everyone thinks we are overstreached in Iraq, in reality its not as bad as they say, I'm speaking from the Inside of the Army.


There is roughly 150,000 troops deployed in Iraq, And if you activate some more national Guard and Reserve(I'm actually an Activated NG soldier, different story though)

You could have a pool of roughly 200-250,000 additional soldiers ready for deployment, if all units were at maximum readiness. So actually if we draw down to 100,000 by the end of 2006 in Iraq like whats promised(whether or not that will happen, who knows) So figure halfway decent readiness and new laws about National Guard/Reserve deployment(a lot of soldiers have reached their 24 month max, I haven't yet but i've hit 12 and have 4 and a half months of deployment time left for my current mission) you could still potentionally have 200,000 soldiers to conduct an operation against Iran. It wouldn't be as fast of an invasion as Iraq was, but, you can pull off a succesful operation with those sort of numbers. Especially with Aerial Superiority and Overwhelming Firepower.

i'm not saying that I WANT it to happen, but it is possible.

Can we have a big digital clock upon the Eiffel tower?:p

Listen, everyone thinks we are overstreached in Iraq, in reality its not as bad as they say, I'm speaking from the Inside of the Army.


There is roughly 150,000 troops deployed in Iraq, And if you activate some more national Guard and Reserve(I'm actually an Activated NG soldier, different story though)

You could have a pool of roughly 200-250,000 additional soldiers ready for deployment, if all units were at maximum readiness. So actually if we draw down to 100,000 by the end of 2006 in Iraq like whats promised(whether or not that will happen, who knows) So figure halfway decent readiness and new laws about National Guard/Reserve deployment(a lot of soldiers have reached their 24 month max, I haven't yet but i've hit 12 and have 4 and a half months of deployment time left for my current mission) you could still potentionally have 200,000 soldiers to conduct an operation against Iran. It wouldn't be as fast of an invasion as Iraq was, but, you can pull off a succesful operation with those sort of numbers. Especially with Aerial Superiority and Overwhelming Firepower.
Like in Iraq, it is not the destruction of the current order that is a problem, it is maintaining law and order afterwards. Consider the following figure:

Population of Iraq: 26,074,906
Population of Iran: 68,017,860

Now explain to me how 200,000 soldiers are going to secure a country of ~70 million when 135,000 soldiers are stretched to secure a population of ~25 million.

i didn't say secure the country, or even do it fast. What I meant was Win on the Battlefield and Shatter the Iranian Military.


I don't think 135,000 was enough to secure Iraq and I know 200,000 won't be enough to secure Iran. But we can Beat them in the sense of Conventional Military. Quality and Maintence of Equipment is better in the US Army and so is quality of training.


And also, with the way Iran is talking about nukes, I think we'll have a tad more International Support.

Ahhh war in Iran? Only the US would wage such war, and in order to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, one out of two actions would have to be undertaken:
- Land invasion to topple the Iranian goverment: Kinda like Iraq, but Iran is three times more populated than Iraq, and it is (mostly) ethnically homogeneous. You take your own conclusions of that.

- Massive airstrikes: The fun part of this, is that most of Iranian research is made on bunkers that are impervious to conventional weapon strikes. So to prevent Iran from having nukes.. we would have to nuke them.

Get your shit togheter. Make a goddamn embargo (hey, oil prices will go higher, but its life), and make Israel useful for a change, let them bomb Iran. No use for the west to get itself in another mess.

Like in Iraq, it is not the destruction of the current order that is a problem, it is maintaining law and order afterwards. Consider the following figure:

Population of Iraq: 26,074,906
Population of Iran: 68,017,860

Now explain to me how 200,000 soldiers are going to secure a country of ~70 million when 135,000 soldiers are stretched to secure a population of ~25 million.


You mean "when 135,000 soldiers are insufficient to secure ~25mil."

Its not that our troops there are 'stretched,' its that their mission has been made impossible by the refusal to reinforce them adequately.

You mean "when 135,000 soldiers are insufficient to secure ~25mil."

Its not that our troops there are 'stretched,' its that their mission has been made impossible by the refusal to reinforce them adequately.

Oh, so that more can be assualted, bombed and shot at. Utterly illogical not wasting more lives no?

If we declared war on Iran, the goal would not be to take it over, but completly and utterly annhiliate it.

i didn't say secure the country, or even do it fast. What I meant was Win on the Battlefield and Shatter the Iranian Military.


I don't think 135,000 was enough to secure Iraq and I know 200,000 won't be enough to secure Iran. But we can Beat them in the sense of Conventional Military. Quality and Maintence of Equipment is better in the US Army and so is quality of training.


And also, with the way Iran is talking about nukes, I think we'll have a tad more International Support.
Great, so you'll destroy a country and leave its 70 million inhabitants to their own devices, thus guaranteeing a new Somalia in the Middle East? Awesome plan.

If we declared war on Iran, the goal would not be to take it over, but completly and utterly annhiliate it.
You're being awfully cavalier about the mass murder of millions of people.

Oh, so that more can be assualted, bombed and shot at. Utterly illogical not wasting more lives no?


Depends whether or not cleaning up the mess you make is a "waste."

Great, so you'll destroy a country and leave its 70 million inhabitants to their own devices, thus guaranteeing a new Somalia in the Middle East? Awesome plan.


again misreading what I meant. I guess I wasn't clear.


I said it was Possible to Defeat them, I'm not saying that I want us to even try. But also if we don't dissolve the Iranian army but just topple the government, its possible. We can Use the Iranian army to hold down the populace. But then that would depend on how the people react to the invasion and whether or not the Army wants to fight.

i'm feeling that war is pretty much inevitable at this point.

economic sanctions won't work. russia and china already ahve trade deals going for them. grass roots movements... perhaps, but the coutner culture movement over there seems to lack steam, enless the press is being censored of it.

hopefully we'll learn form our mistakes and get some buddies before we go in (maybe iraqi's?). preferably not israel.

It's conceivable that china and russia (china has an especially enormous need for oil and gas) will strike a special deal with iran and veto any UNSC resolutions against Tehran.

Its even possible that russia and china would claim that they hold Iran in the same esteem that the US holds Israel.

You're being awfully cavalier about the mass murder of millions of people.
such is war

I hope they will get their nuclear weapons before the war start so that the war doesn't start at all and lives aren't wasted again. Some kind of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) plan is needed in that region I think. The same as Pakistan/India.

I hope they will get their nuclear weapons before the war start so that the war doesn't start at all and lives aren't wasted again. Some kind of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) plan is needed in that region I think. The same as Pakistan/India.


Exactly, atomic weapons in tehran's hands do not spell "american nuclear holocaust."

They spell "stability in the middle east."

Giving nukes to Ahmadinejad is like giving grenades to a 2-year-old. He's a madman. All he'll succeed in doing is causing the destruction of his own country and wasting the lives of thousands ina senseless war. We have to hope that this just blows over somehow, or that a diplomatic soloution is found.

such is war
Yet, since Iran is so militarily and technologically undeveloped compared to the US, there would be absolutely no need to annihilate the population. Choosing that option (not that any sane person would, thankfully) would be unjustifiable overkill.

Steel Rain!!!

Giving nukes to Ahmadinejad is like giving grenades to a 2-year-old. He's a madman. All he'll succeed in doing is causing the destruction of his own country and wasting the lives of thousands ina senseless war. We have to hope that this just blows over somehow, or that a diplomatic soloution is found.


They used to think the same thing about the soviet union.

I dont belive that ahmadinejad or his bosses are insane.

again misreading what I meant. I guess I wasn't clear.


I said it was Possible to Defeat them, I'm not saying that I want us to even try. But also if we don't dissolve the Iranian army but just topple the government, its possible. We can Use the Iranian army to hold down the populace. But then that would depend on how the people react to the invasion and whether or not the Army wants to fight.
The Iranian army is not likely to fight against its democratically elected government alongside the country whose proxy dictatorship in Iran was overthrown only a couple decades ago.

Yet, since Iran is so militarily and technologically undeveloped compared to the US, there would be absolutely no need to annihilate the population. Choosing that option (not that any sane person would, thankfully) would be unjustifiable overkill.
I'm not really worried about Iran here. The worry is nations like N. Korea or Russia.

They used to think the same thing about the soviet union.

I dont belive that ahmadinejad or his bosses are insane.
Insane, maybe not, but irresponsible definetly. Who else would go around denying the Holocaust?

Exactly, atomic weapons in tehran's hands do not spell "american nuclear holocaust."

They spell "stability in the middle east."

perhaps protection from nuclear war, but not conventional war. iran as of now can't do anythin because they have no nuclear threat, and the US and Israel do. however, if they obtain them, and more importantly a means of delivering them, their foriegn policy could be emboldened.

what's scarier though is the fact that they are a terror sponsoring state, and having them nuclear cabable is a scary thought.

Exactly, atomic weapons in tehran's hands do not spell "american nuclear holocaust."

They spell "stability in the middle east."
I think the truth lies somewhere in between. If I were Israel or America I wouldn't be any more happy than America was when the USSR managed to get nukes, but such is life. Unless there are serious indications that he intends to actually use them instead of going "nyah nyah" at Israel with them, I don't see how any war against Iran could be justified. Let us not forget that Israel contains land that is sacred to Islam as well as to Judaism and Christianity; they're in no big hurry to blow it up.

Insane, maybe not, but irresponsible definetly. Who else would go around denying the Holocaust?


I dont believe in honest politicians.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between. If I were Israel or America I wouldn't be any more happy than America was when the USSR managed to get nukes, but such is life. Unless there are serious indications that he intends to actually use them instead of going "nyah nyah" at Israel with them, I don't see how any war against Iran could be justified. Let us not forget that Israel contains land that is sacred to Islam as well as to Judaism and Christianity; they're in no big hurry to blow it up.


Exactly, nuking the dome of the rock is second only to blowing up mecca, which israel would probably do in retialiation. And the iranians know this.

Mutually assured destruction is the ultimate peace-keeper.

perhaps protection from nuclear war, but not conventional war. iran as of now can't do anythin because they have no nuclear threat, and the US and Israel do. however, if they obtain them, and more importantly a means of delivering them, their foriegn policy could be emboldened.

what's scarier though is the fact that they are a terror sponsoring state, and having them nuclear cabable is a scary thought.
Just because they have nukes doesn't mean they're going to start giving them off to terrorist groups. First of all, they need them for themseleves, and secondly, they don't want a war any more then we do.

perhaps protection from nuclear war, but not conventional war. iran as of now can't do anythin because they have no nuclear threat, and the US and Israel do. however, if they obtain them, and more importantly a means of delivering them, their foriegn policy could be emboldened.

what's scarier though is the fact that they are a terror sponsoring state, and having them nuclear cabable is a scary thought.



It isnt any scarier that the USSR having nuclear bombs and the desire to destroy the west.

The argument that iran giving its bombs to a third party is a substantial threat is ridiculous.

There is no difference, in terms of western retaliation, between having someone sneak an atomic bomb into new york and set it off as a suicide mission and shooting an ICBM.

I'm not really worried about Iran here. The worry is nations like N. Korea or Russia.
Then why are you talking about annihilating Iran? North Korea is another issue entirely. That government should be deposed on the basis of human rights violations alone, but unfortunately the western world does not have limitless resources and it's pretty busy in the Middle East right now. Kim will have to wait in line behind Afghanistan and Iraq (at the least) unless China decides to clean up its own damn neighborhood.

EDIT: And Russia? Russia? Are there seriously people in the world who are worried about Russia starting a nuclear war? None of the people running that "democracy" are dumb enough. Hell, Stalin wasn't dumb enough.

Then why are you talking about annihilating Iran? North Korea is another issue entirely. That government should be deposed on the basis of human rights violations alone, but unfortunately the western world does not have limitless resources and it's pretty busy in the Middle East right now. Kim will have to wait in line behind Afghanistan and Iraq (at the least) unless China decides to clean up its own damn neighborhood.
I think I made myself unclear. What I meant was that in the event of a war such as this, the US, Israel, and other countries on its side will be more concerned about annhiliating the enemy than the long-term effects their actions will have on that country whether it be Iran, N. Korea, whatever
vs. the occupation of Iraq in which we planned from the beginning to quickly eliminate Saddam and build a democratic government.

I think I made myself unclear. What I meant was that in the event of a war such as this, the US, Israel, and other countries on its side will be more concerned about annhiliating the enemy than the long-term effects their actions will have on that country whether it be Iran, N. Korea, whatever
vs. the occupation of Iraq in which we planned from the beginning to quickly eliminate Saddam and build a democratic government.
And I think you're completely and utterly wrong; if anything, you have it backward. Far more emphasis would be put on post-asskicking strategies than there was in Iraq. Lessons learned, etc.

A ground invasion of Iran will be a nightmare.

The Iranians are very nationalistic...to the point that they will put up with crazy mullahs with anachronistic views just so that they can think they are independant and free of western interference.

Plus they have this martyr complex of the shia faith.

Anybody remember the Basij operations during Iran-Iraq war when 14 year olds were sent across mine fields in a human mine clearing operations ?

I'm not really worried about Iran here. The worry is nations like N. Korea or Russia.

Don't underestimate Iran. North Korea especially is EXTREMELY oppressed. Iran on the other hand follows their leader as if he can do no wrong. In their mind he can't. He's there by devine right, Kim Jong Il is there because he keeps himself their. Iranians will fight if their told to, North Koreans will fight, but because their forced to. I don't care who's fighting, national pride plays a part in the victor.

And I think you're completely and utterly wrong; if anything, you have it backward. Far more emphasis would be put on post-asskicking strategies than there was in Iraq. Lessons learned, etc.
Lessons learned? ahahahaha. the USA will never learn.

Exactly, atomic weapons in tehran's hands do not spell "american nuclear holocaust."

They spell "stability in the middle east."
You are wise indeed.

A ground invasion of Iran will be a nightmare.

The Iranians are very nationalistic...to the point that they will put up with crazy mullahs with anachronistic views just so that they can think they are independant and free of western interference.

Plus they have this martyr complex of the shia faith.

Anybody remember the Basij operations during Iran-Iraq war when 14 year olds were sent across mine fields in a human mine clearing operations ?

Word.

Don't underestimate Iran. North Korea especially is EXTREMELY oppressed. Iran on the other hand follows their leader as if he can do no wrong. In their mind he can't. He's there by devine right, Kim Jong Il is there because he keeps himself their. Iranians will fight if their told to, North Koreans will fight, but because their forced to. I don't care who's fighting, national pride plays a part in the victor.
So does raw power

So does raw power

You say that as if Iran didn't have any. As thin as the US is spread, it would arrogant to think so.

Lessons learned? ahahahaha. the USA will never learn.
I disagree. I think the US has learned that setting up a government takes longer than knocking one down. Surely they won't forget the lesson for at least a couple decades.

You say that as if Iran didn't have any. As thin as the US is spread, it would arrogant to think so.
N. Korea is immensely more powerful then Iran overall.

I disagree. I think the US has learned that setting up a government takes longer than knocking one down. Surely they won't forget the lesson for at least a couple decades.
Well, I can't argue with you because theres really no proof either way. We'll have to wait and see.

I disagree. I think the US has learned that setting up a government takes longer than knocking one down. Surely they won't forget the lesson for at least a couple decades.

Like we learned from splitting Germany up... right before we did the same thing to Korea... OH! and then Vietnam; that worked out well in all cases didn't it...

N. Korea is immensely more powerful then Iran overall.

No doubt, but are they more of a threat? I don't think so.

N. Korea is immensely more powerful then Iran overall.


As someone has mentioned, the US doesnt have enough troops to secure both iran and iraq.

A full-scale invasion of iran would probably be North Korea's cue to overrun the DMZ and invade south korea.

This is probably contingent on what advantage china could gain though.

It isnt any scarier that the USSR having nuclear bombs and the desire to destroy the west.

The argument that iran giving its bombs to a third party is a substantial threat is ridiculous.

There is no difference, in terms of western retaliation, between having someone sneak an atomic bomb into new york and set it off as a suicide mission and shooting an ICBM.

yes, not much scarier, but not exactly stable either. mutual threats assure that nuclear warheads won't be used, but conventional warfare will continue.

i suppose the outcome owuld be the same if they gave a third party a nuke, but there's always that doubt that isn't present when you get hit with an ICBM.

Its more likely we'll have something long, embarassing, and bloody like vietnam.

It's already been long, embarrassing, and bloody. :(

The sooner we get out the better.

Well, I can't argue with you because theres really no proof either way. We'll have to wait and see.
I think the facts that a) Iran's president hasn't been assassinated by the CIA and b) there is no serious talk of invading Iran shows that even the thickest of foreign policy skulls (i.e. America's) can be breached.

Just because they have nukes doesn't mean they're going to start giving them off to terrorist groups. First of all, they need them for themseleves, and secondly, they don't want a war any more then we do.

there current policies would say other wise. they've threatened pre-emptive strikes of our fleets and gournd forces in iraq inorder to protect their arms build up.

Like in Iraq, it is not the destruction of the current order that is a problem, it is maintaining law and order afterwards. Consider the following figure:

Population of Iraq: 26,074,906
Population of Iran: 68,017,860

Now explain to me how 200,000 soldiers are going to secure a country of ~70 million when 135,000 soldiers are stretched to secure a population of ~25 million.
They keep trying to entice my 'rambo' son with the army...a west point and such. So, you never know..there may be enough. Plus there is an active campaign to entice hispanics not citizens to join with the reward of citizenship.

I think the facts that a) Iran's president hasn't been assassinated by the CIA and b) there is no serious talk of invading Iran shows that even the thickest of foreign policy skulls (i.e. America's) can be breached.
Once they get a nuke, that all changes

there current policies would say other wise. they've threatened pre-emptive strikes of our fleets and gournd forces in iraq inorder to protect their arms build up.
That doesnt mean giving nukes to terrorists

Exactly, atomic weapons in tehran's hands do not spell "american nuclear holocaust."

They spell "stability in the middle east."

i have always thought that mad was an effective tool in the cold war to prevent a complete nuke war between us and the soviets.

and now i think back to pak/india...they got close to trading bombs.

big difference between mad with the us and the soviets...and mad in the middle east is....they are frickin mad(especially the nut job running the show in iran...you know,"the total destruction of israel")

also,another major difference between the analogy you make is.....the us and the russsians had hundreds upon hundreds of nukes,with sophisticated failsafes and auto trigger orders.that way BOTH sides knew,if 1 or the other side launched,it would trigger an automatic response destroying themselves in the process.more importantly,each side knew about the rigorous failsafes in place the other side had...pretty much excluding an accidental or random launch.

that said,i dont think the israilies would feel all that confident in the current government in iran not nuking them,nor would many other states in the region...even though they are supposedly brethren..iran/iraq was pretty solid evidence about that.

iran with nukes,control of the straits of hormoz(sp.)and a professed hatred and desire for the total destruction of israel,along with the ability to choke off the worlds oil supply makes the whole idea of iran with nukes quite unacceptable to the whole world imho.

it also raises the question about iran's long term intentions,perhaps hegemony over the entire middle east?
the destruction of israel at the least?

everyone can villafie america,israel and even russia or china.at least the world knows our motivation...money.

i am not sure of irans intentions,one can be reasonably assured that money and power is part of it...but them getting it by nuke blackmail is also unacceptable,as is the more troubling rhetoric about destroying israel.

why the retard in charge of iran sputtered out that nonsense is equally baffling,if he shut his trap,most people would not be having the this discussion and he could have continued on his plan...please..the holocost never happened...what a fucktard!and any sane person would trust this idiot with nukes...i dont think so.

the bitch is,i know quite a few iranians,closely...and it seems to me from convo's that the majority of iranians do not agree with those in charge.and that alot of them yearn for freedom,but it is pretty soundly squashed by the religous fanatics(not unlike iraq under saddam)just he was an amoral power monger,and they have god on their side..lol

it would suck to see more completely innocent people hurt in a war with them,but unless they change coarse,i see it as inevitable:(

the repercussions of not acting could be disasterous.

it would be great if the iranians took care of this problem in house,but i dont see that happening...the gov. is every bit as nasty as saddam with dissenters,unlike in america or europe.the great evils of the last century!

Once they get a nuke, that all changes
You are aware that the CIA reckons they'll need another ten years?

That doesnt mean giving nukes to terrorists

perhaps, but it doesn't mean they're not walking down the path to war. i'd frankly rather not take the risk.

perhaps, but it doesn't mean they're not walking down the path to war. i'd frankly rather not take the risk.
Me either, I was just trying to make that point.

You are aware that the CIA reckons they'll need another ten years?
Yes, but that doesn't mean we wont attack between now and then.

An invasion of Iran would be possible if only there were more soldiers. The US is well positioned to invade from both the east and the west. The only alternative is to find some way of drumming up international support for an invasion.
We have apprx 155k troops in Iraq at the moment. Why? Because that's what the commanders have asked for. Anybody who doubts that we control the country is braindead. The reason why there are still terrorists blowing people up is because we're being to damn nice. If we started pulling people out of their homes at 3am, shoving bamboo under their nails, and cutting somethroats, we'd be fine.

But that's not what we are about. It isn't who we are as a nation. So what we have now is the best possible situation given our restraint. Now imagine we go to war with more support from our "oh so patriotic" Democratic brethren. More support = more power to our troops to do what they do best. WIN wARS!

If you add up our NG, our Reserves, and our active duty troops, we have apprx 2.4 million. So 5-700k isn't out of the question if we needed them. All we need are more Congressman who are more worried about our safety than whether Ahmed in California can call his cousin Muhahmed in Bahrain, about the next building they want to blow up, in privacy.

You are aware that the CIA reckons they'll need another ten years?
Yeah, great idea! Let's wait till the last minute! Worked great for Social Security and Medicare. :rolleyes:

We have apprx 155k troops in Iraq at the moment. Why? Because that's what the commanders have asked for. Anybody who doubts that we control the country is braindead. The reason why there are still terrorists blowing people up is because we're being to damn nice. If we started pulling people out of their homes at 3am, shoving bamboo under their nails, and cutting somethroats, we'd be fine.


Do you really believe that random acts of cruelty are going to ruin popular support for insurgents?

If that's what you think, then I do believe that you are the braindead one.

Do you really believe that random acts of cruelty are going to ruin popular support for insurgents?

If that's what you think, then I do believe that you are the braindead one.
Not to speak for anyone, but I believe that statement was intended to mean that if the US really began intense interrogation/punishment of known insurgents and insurgent sympathisers, we could somewhat slow them down, at the least.

And that would just piss more people off and turn them against us....

Yet, since Iran is so militarily and technologically undeveloped compared to the US, there would be absolutely no need to annihilate the population. Choosing that option (not that any sane person would, thankfully) would be unjustifiable overkill.
Thats the thing about the U.S. :p

And that would just piss more people off and turn them against us....
I didn't say I agreed, I was just trying to elucidate on what was said

And that was my response to him to what you said that he said.
;)

And that was my response to him to what you said that he said.
;)
haha works for me

Yeah, great idea! Let's wait till the last minute! Worked great for Social Security and Medicare. :rolleyes:
No, that's not the point.
The point is that there is no need to rush.
It's not like they're sitting there with the doomsday device on a ten second countdown.

The CIA says that at this point they don't have enough centrifuges to enrich Uranium in any meaningful way, not large-scale industrial, and especially not weapons-grade.
All they can do is keep doing research into how an industrial-sized program might work.

It's not so much an issue of nukes as it is an issue of a country not following the rules, and for the time being at least, that's by no means a reason for war. I'd rather we have a good look at North Korea.

No, that's not the point.
The point is that there is no need to rush.
It's not like they're sitting there with the doomsday device on a ten second countdown.

The CIA says that at this point they don't have enough centrifuges to enrich Uranium in any meaningful way, not large-scale industrial, and especially not weapons-grade.
All they can do is keep doing research into how an industrial-sized program might work.

It's not so much an issue of nukes as it is an issue of a country not following the rules, and for the time being at least, that's by no means a reason for war. I'd rather we have a good look at North Korea.
If we get into a big enough fight over Iran, we may end up doing just that.
If North Korea thinks they can get away with crossing the DMZ, they damn well will.

I don't think Iran is heading for war. They are developing nukes because they want to have a bigger voice in international talks. Also, the region grows in fear of them and their new toy. Nearby nations won't want to mess with Iran after that. Besides, both sides have more to benefit by trading rather than a econimy-draining war.
There is something i am worried about, however:
TERRORISTS!!!!!!!
Iran might :gundge: some of its nukes or secerts on to terrorists, or Osama might :mp5: the facilities and THEN we are in trouble.

I don't think Iran is heading for war. They are developing nukes because they want to have a bigger voice in international talks. Also, the region grows in fear of them and their new toy. Nearby nations won't want to mess with Iran after that. Besides, both sides have more to benefit by trading rather than a econimy-draining war.
There is something i am waooried about, however:
TERRORISTS!!!!!!!
Iran might http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/globwhore.gif some of its nukes or secerts on to terrorists, or Osama might http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/mp5.gif the facilities and THEN we are in trouble.
I would like to think you are right, but Ahmadinejad is a very irresponsible leader. If he puts his money where his mouth is, theres likely to be a war.

I would like to think you are right, but Ahmadinejad is a very irresponsible leader. If he puts his money where his mouth is, theres likely to be a war.
I guess, but if asdjfhkdshf whatever is so bad the people would rebell against him if he went too far.

Also, the region grows in fear of them and their new toy. Nearby nations won't want to mess with Iran after that.
I'm thinking nearby nations would want their own nukes after that. Saudi Arabia, Egypt...maybe even Syria eventually will all build their own.

I don't think the Middle East is the sorta place where you want everyone to carry nukes.

Iran might http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/globwhore.gif some of its nukes or secerts on to terrorists, or Osama might http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/mp5.gif the facilities and THEN we are in trouble.
Osama: Radical Sunni.
Zarqawi: Ex-friend and trainee of AQ, Sunni, bombs Shi'ites.
Iran: Shi'ites.

Don't count on it.

Its likely that this time next year is the earlier that we will attack iran.

The spike in gas prices which would accompany it would bode poorly for the republicans in november, and could severely hurt the economy if it wrecked the christmas retail season.

We don't need to put boots on the ground in Iran. The better alternative is to foment another revolution in that benighted nation. Regime change is cheaper and more effective. Word is that the large majority of young Iranians HATE the moolah-cracy and would love to see Khamanei, Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Islamofascist regime up against the same walls they themselves put the Shah's generals. A responsible new government in Tehran could then comply with international demands to scrap the nukes.

Let Ahmadinejad and the moolahs go the way of Mossadegh. :)

I guess, but if asdjfhkdshf whatever is so bad the people would rebell against him if he went too far.
Unfortunately, he holds a lot of sway over them via religion. They follow him voluntarily vs. a country such as N. Korea where Kim forces them to follow.

We don't need to put boots on the ground in Iran. The better alternative is to foment another revolution in that benighted nation. Regime change is cheaper and more effective. Word is that the large majority of young Iranians HATE the moolah-cracy and would love to see Khamanei, Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Islamofascist regime up against the same walls they themselves put the Shah's generals. A responsible new government in Tehran could then comply with international demands to scrap the nukes.

Let Ahmadinejad and the moolahs go the way of Mossadegh. :)
I really don't think that's possible.

I doubt there will be a war with Iran, Iran is just bluffing right now.

Word is that the large majority of young Iranians HATE the [Ayatollahs]...
The title is "Ayatollah". "Mullah" (they're not cows) is not a specific title - it can mean many different things.

But guess what the large majority of Iranians also hate? Nosy foreigners poking their nose into Iranian affairs.

Let Ahmadinejad and the moolahs go the way of Mossadegh. :)
Get replaced by a violent dictator, who then pisses off so many people that he is overthrown in a popular revolution by the people themselves?

Unfortunately, he holds a lot of sway over them via religion.
Don't forget patriotism.

I doubt there will be a war with Iran, Iran is just bluffing right now.
Prove it.

We don't need to put boots on the ground in Iran. The better alternative is to foment another revolution in that benighted nation. Regime change is cheaper and more effective. Word is that the large majority of young Iranians HATE the moolah-cracy and would love to see Khamanei, Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Islamofascist regime up against the same walls they themselves put the Shah's generals. A responsible new government in Tehran could then comply with international demands to scrap the nukes.

Let Ahmadinejad and the moolahs go the way of Mossadegh. :)


They will greet us as liberators!


Surely it must work, it worked in cuba and in iraq!

I think that most of you are forgetting to take Israel into account. America and Israel are the only ones who currently realize the danger in Iran. Europe is being jerks and waiting until it becomes an enormous problem instead of crushing it as a small problem. That being said, America is currently the boy who cried wolf. This leaves our torture-happy friends at Musad to deal with the Iranians. Just wait. in a few months, Iranian research centers are gonna get hit by Israeli bombs.

I think that most of you are forgetting to take Israel into account. America and Israel are the only ones who currently realize the danger in Iran. Europe is being jerks and waiting until it becomes an enormous problem instead of crushing it as a small problem. That being said, America is currently the boy who cried wolf. This leaves our torture-happy friends at Musad to deal with the Iranians. Just wait. in a few months, Iranian research centers are gonna get hit by Israeli bombs.
I sure hope not. We have to go into this united to begin with, or its just going to be one huge mess.

I think that most of you are forgetting to take Israel into account. America and Israel are the only ones who currently realize the danger in Iran. Europe is being jerks and waiting until it becomes an enormous problem instead of crushing it as a small problem. That being said, America is currently the boy who cried wolf. This leaves our torture-happy friends at Musad to deal with the Iranians. Just wait. in a few months, Iranian research centers are gonna get hit by Israeli bombs.

Yeah the russians are probably gonna be overjoyed about israelis killing their scientist. And china is also going to be overjoyed for having their oilsupplies cut... Oh and most of the planet is rather fed up with Israel bulldozing the desert (so to speak) and putting up walls everywhere... America has ALWAYS stood up heavly for israel (in spite of all this). However america seems to have it's own popularity problems....

The problem with "going in to this united" is that it is a bad idea, like the iraq invasion.

If europe insists on being reasonable or pragmatic about iran, it will be another laughingstock "coalition of the willing."

Yeah the russians are probably gonna be overjoyed about israelis killing their scientist. And china is also going to be overjoyed for having their oilsupplies cut... Oh and most of the planet is rather fed up with Israel bulldozing the desert (so to speak) and putting up walls everywhere... America has ALWAYS stood up heavly for israel (in spite of all this). However america seems to have it's own popularity problems....
China doesn't have much of a choice. If it doesn't want to lose favor with the US, its not gonna involve itself in any sort of war. Everyone will stand up for Israel because, well, its not run by fanatical madmen.

The problem with "going in to this united" is that it is a bad idea, like the iraq invasion.

If europe insists on being reasonable or pragmatic about iran, it will be another laughingstock "coalition of the willing."
I'm not suggesting we even go ino this, but if we do, we may as well do it the right way.

We have apprx 155k troops in Iraq at the moment. Why? Because that's what the commanders have asked for. Anybody who doubts that we control the country is braindead. The reason why there are still terrorists blowing people up is because we're being to damn nice. If we started pulling people out of their homes at 3am, shoving bamboo under their nails, and cutting somethroats, we'd be fine.

But that's not what we are about. It isn't who we are as a nation. So what we have now is the best possible situation given our restraint. Now imagine we go to war with more support from our "oh so patriotic" Democratic brethren. More support = more power to our troops to do what they do best. WIN wARS!

If you add up our NG, our Reserves, and our active duty troops, we have apprx 2.4 million. So 5-700k isn't out of the question if we needed them. All we need are more Congressman who are more worried about our safety than whether Ahmed in California can call his cousin Muhahmed in Bahrain, about the next building they want to blow up, in privacy.


according to the Army times.


550,000 Regular Army(Active Duty)
350,000 National Guard
220,000 Army Reserve


Not sure about the size of the Marine Corps but its under 100,000 i think

Navy has 300,000ish(not sure if that is counting marines)
and the Air Force is Under 120,000 I think.

according to the Army times.


550,000 Regular Army(Active Duty)
350,000 National Guard
220,000 Army Reserve


Not sure about the size of the Marine Corps but its under 100,000 i think

Navy has 300,000ish(not sure if that is counting marines)
and the Air Force is Under 120,000 I think.

Who needs troops, if all we're going to do is lay waste to Iran's infrastructure and military with smart bombs?

Inside of two weeks, they'll be wishing we had used nuclear weapons.

Who needs troops, if all we're going to do is lay waste to Iran's infrastructure and military with smart bombs?

Inside of two weeks, they'll be wishing we had used nuclear weapons.
Unless of course they've been planning for that sort of thing with a lot of asymmetric warfare, creative communication methods and so on. Iran is a big place, there's bound to be a few bright heads somewhere.

Unless of course they've been planning for that sort of thing with a lot of asymmetric warfare, creative communication methods and so on. Iran is a big place, there's bound to be a few bright heads somewhere.

The problem in modern warfare is that if the US plans on occupying, the US has a problem.

If the US is only interested in laying waste to your country, you have a problem that no amount of creativity will solve.

One salvo from a single Trident nuclear missile submarine, and there wouldn't be anyone left alive in Iran.

The whole thing is overblown.
Iran offered Europe to can it's whole fuel processing chain if there could be negotiations over a steady processed fuel supply. As a matter of showing it wasn't acting in bad faith Iran sealed the equipment even before the offer was received by Europe.
Europe made it clear that it isn't interested in these negotiations. As a result Iran broke the seals on the equipment. Something that is completely legal under the NPT with safeguards protocol it signed.
The only reason that this shit storm is kicked up is propaganda, insinuating that Iran has broken the NPT. If Iran would have done that (breaking the NPT) it would merit a reference to the UNSC. But now all it has done is conclude that a possible negotiation partner is not willing to negotiate and went home with the gift it was offering to Europe to get them to the table.

As to the Iranian president. That guy is very smart, there are somethings that do merit attention of the world press that are going on in Iran. By deliberately pressing such an inflammatory subject as the holocaust he created a very effective smokescreen around what should be looked at.

What might be the real issue?
Iran is going to open a gas & oil exchange in march but instead of using dollars it will use euros for prices.
Why is this the real issue?
It's an attempt at economic warfare. I doubt for a variety of reasons it will work. But the possibility that it might work has a bunch of people worried.
If it works, think about seeing the dollar halve (if not go lower) in value when compared to all non euro currencies, the rent & inflation (in the US) going up to double digit values and a government that has to cut a lot since it can't get the money to keep running as it currently does. And this time there is no manufacturing industrial base as with the earlier staflation period to get the US out of this quagmire.