NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't mean to go heavy on the Iran threads, but I'd just like to find out what people here reckon the eventual outcome will be. If it does happen, how long do you think it'll last? What would both sides do? If not, how will the situation be diffused?

Poll coming.

If we leave them alone, then no, and nothing will come of it. If we attack them, then we're royally buggered.

I really hope that there will not be another war!

If we leave them alone, then no, and nothing will come of it. If we attack them, then we're royally buggered.

Unless of course, they are the ones to attack first - possibly Israel "which should be wiped off the map".

I sincerely doubt Isreal would be in any danger from Iran. More likely Isreal would just annex Iran if they did something foolish.

We went and armed them Jews to the teeth!

Unless of course, they are the ones to attack first - possibly Israel "which should be wiped off the map".

That map wiping comment is always taken out of context! It was actually just referring to revisions in Iranian education system in which geographical maps would not show a separate state of Israel. You have to admit, you can't even fit the word "Israel" into the territory, so this makes perfect sense. This would make it easier for the children to improve in academic pursuits as part of their "No Child Left Behind" program.

This whole problem would go away if we "accidently" allowed a Mossad agent to get ahold of some spy satellite images pinpointing any appropriate nuclear facilities in Iran. Israel preemptively strikes said targets. In public we say "that's a bad Israel, a bad, bad Israel!" Then we give Israel a discount on more military hardware. Just in case those Iranian theocrats try anything. Meanwhile, we offer to go in and build cool hydroelectric plants, and neat-o solar/wind energy facilities to help them combat their power shortages, as long as they don't try any more nuclear business. Oh, and allow people some freedoms and stuff. It worked in North Korea didn't it? Oh, wait a minute...um, nevermind.

I don't mean to go heavy on the Iran threads, but I'd just like to find out what people here reckon the eventual outcome will be. If it does happen, how long do you think it'll last? What would both sides do? If not, how will the situation be diffused?

Poll coming.
I think will happen and it will last awhile. Not only would it be a good discission, but it would make for good t.v. Watching us kick ass and all. You remember shock and awe? That was good stuff, this time it will be like that but with nukes, thats great stuff.

That map wiping comment is always taken out of context! It was actually just referring to revisions in Iranian education system in which geographical maps would not show a separate state of Israel. You have to admit, you can't even fit the word "Israel" into the territory, so this makes perfect sense. This would make it easier for the children to improve in academic pursuits as part of their "No Child Left Behind" program.

There IS no state of Israel to show on a map. Israel never bothered to officially declare its borders.

I think will happen and it will last awhile. Not only would it be a good discission, but it would make for good t.v. Watching us kick ass and all. You remember shock and awe? That was good stuff, this time it will be like that but with nukes, thats great stuff.

You are a fucking legend.

I really, really hope that it doesn't happen, but it's sadly quite likely.

"Do you think there will be war with Iran?"

Between the US and Iran? Nope. The downside risk is far too high.

Between Israel and Iran? Much more likely.

I think will happen and it will last awhile. Not only would it be a good discission, but it would make for good t.v. Watching us kick ass and all. You remember shock and awe? That was good stuff, this time it will be like that but with nukes, thats great stuff.You're probably one of the few people, other than angsty teenagers posting on forums and civilian staff in the Pentagon to describe 'nukes' as 'great stuff'.

I don't believe the US army will kick Iranian ass. They have military technology that is decent. Their army is more loyal to the country than Saddam's forces were. They have actually received a modicum of training, as opposed to the non-existant iraqi trainning. The US air, again, wouldn't be the only planes in the sky. But this time, instead of the other planes belonging to their British allies, they would be Iranian fighter jets. The US military would be stretched in providing 3 huge supply lines into the Middle East and Central Asia, whereas Iran would have virtually no supply lines to operate at all. Any Naval supply lines would be extremely vunerable to the Iranian underwater missle, creating supply line problems not only in Iran, but Iraq too. Nuclear weapons might result in a military victory, but would be political suicide. Don't expect any countries to be friendly to you afterwards. The US would be the only country to have used nuclear weapons after the dangers of fallout were discovered.

And is anyone else blind to the irony of using nuclear weapon to stop a country from gaining nuclear weapons? - 'Hey kids, this is why you don't let people get nukes, because when you get a bunch of crazies at the top they do fucked up shit like nuking other countries'

"Do you think there will be war with Iran?"

Between the US and Iran? Nope. The downside risk is far too high.

Between Israel and Iran? Much more likely.

Sadly, one almost finds oneself parroting Herbert Hoover from WWII....."Let's let them bleed for a while...." Both do nasty ass stuff.....so, I really can't find someone to root for.

There IS no state of Israel to show on a map. Israel never bothered to officially declare its borders.That's because it makes it easier to keep changing them, even if they are only unofficial. Syria giving you gip? Just invade and let them pretend that they still own the Golan Heights.

And is anyone else blind to the irony of using nuclear weapon to stop a country from gaining nuclear weapons? - 'Hey kids, this is why you don't let people get nukes, because when you get a bunch of crazies at the top they do fucked up shit like nuking other countries'

A bunch of crazies that have been pleading for the total dismantling of all nukes for about 40 years now even - despite a rather massive change in governmnt in the meantime.

Any Naval supply lines would be extremely vunerable to the Iranian underwater missle, creating supply line problems not only in Iran, but Iraq too.


http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,93859,00.html

A bunch of crazies that have been pleading for the total dismantling of all nukes for about 40 years now even - despite a rather massive change in governmnt in the meantime.
Are we talking about the US or Iran here? :confused:

Are we talking about the US or Iran here? :confused:He said "All nukes".. so I assume he is talking about the world.

http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,93859,00.html
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1752172,00.html

I think will happen and it will last awhile. Not only would it be a good discission, but it would make for good t.v. Watching us kick ass and all. You remember shock and awe? That was good stuff, this time it will be like that but with nukes, thats great stuff.


Who says there needs to be a real war? They could just broadcast bombs going off and gun-fights (all acted out), and say it's war with Iran - no money or lives lost and the sadists get their entertainment! They'd probably earn money with the T.V. ratings.

Are we talking about the US or Iran here? :confused:

Those crazy bearded Iranians that keep pleading for all countries to dismantle their nukes.
Of course, what they mean is that their neighbouring countries, especially Israel, should get rid of them - but still.

Those crazy bearded Iranians that keep pleading for all countries to dismantle their nukes.
Of course, what they mean is that their neighbouring countries, especially Israel, should get rid of them - but still.

Or possibly they actually mean it and plan to use enriched uranium for power...

Those crazy bearded Iranians that keep pleading for all countries to dismantle their nukes.
Of course, what they mean is that their neighbouring countries, especially Israel, should get rid of them - but still.Supposedly all the signatories to NPT are committed to total nuclear disarmament... supposedly. As of yet only 3 ex-soviet states and South Africa have disarmed. Hardly the big players in international politics.

Or possibly they actually mean it and plan to use enriched uranium for power...

Quite possibly. As said: Iran HAS been speaking up against nukes for decades. As far as we can prove, Iran has been obeying the NPT, and even made some extra effort. And Irans claims that the IAEA has tended to respond to these efforts by imposing more restrictions every time and is in many ways no more than a US puppet do have a grain of truth in them...

Possibly...I'm not sure.

Seriously...enriched uranium in that nation is not a good thing with all the conflicts its had.

Attacking Iran would be one of the stupidest things that America could do. It defies all common sense and rationality. So it is fairly likely.

Iran's claims of developing/ posessing nuclear weapons are as yet, unsubstantiated. So don't be surprised when exaggerated/ made up partisan reports state Iran posesses WMD to justify a pointless war.

Using Nuclear Weapons on Iran would be basically political death by hypocracy, so don't count it out.

Once the military might of Iran has been conquered, but before the Insurgents come out in force, and no WMD's have been found, try to look surprised when they reveal that Iran never had nukes, that they were still 5-10 years away, but the government was despotic so its all okay.

Who says there needs to be a real war? They could just broadcast bombs going off and gun-fights (all acted out), and say it's war with Iran - no money or lives lost and the sadists get their entertainment! They'd probably earn money with the T.V. ratings.

yeah, but then we wouldnt being stopping Iran from nuking the world, would we?

You're probably one of the few people, other than angsty teenagers posting on forums and civilian staff in the Pentagon to describe 'nukes' as 'great stuff'.

I don't believe the US army will kick Iranian ass. They have military technology that is decent. Their army is more loyal to the country than Saddam's forces were. They have actually received a modicum of training, as opposed to the non-existant iraqi trainning. The US air, again, wouldn't be the only planes in the sky. But this time, instead of the other planes belonging to their British allies, they would be Iranian fighter jets. The US military would be stretched in providing 3 huge supply lines into the Middle East and Central Asia, whereas Iran would have virtually no supply lines to operate at all. Any Naval supply lines would be extremely vunerable to the Iranian underwater missle, creating supply line problems not only in Iran, but Iraq too. Nuclear weapons might result in a military victory, but would be political suicide. Don't expect any countries to be friendly to you afterwards. The US would be the only country to have used nuclear weapons after the dangers of fallout were discovered.

And is anyone else blind to the irony of using nuclear weapon to stop a country from gaining nuclear weapons? - 'Hey kids, this is why you don't let people get nukes, because when you get a bunch of crazies at the top they do fucked up shit like nuking other countries'
Yeah, but we are responsible with our nukes, unlike Iran. Besides, whats the point of having them if you arent going to use some of small ones?

Not unless the EU has balls enough to start it. :eek:

I think will happen and it will last awhile. Not only would it be a good discission, but it would make for good t.v. Watching us kick ass and all. You remember shock and awe? That was good stuff, this time it will be like that but with nukes, thats great stuff.

Just what we need, another f****** "reality" war show." :(

Yeah, but we are responsible with our nukes, unlike Iran. Besides, whats the point of having them if you arent going to use some of small ones?

Nukes dropped: America = 2, Iran = 0

I would say history dictates Iran is more responsible for their nukes than the States is. And if you are going to say there is no point in having nukes without using them, then the earth is fucked.

Not if the US imposes an intelligent strategy to combat Iran's support of terrorism and its attempts to aquire nuclear weapons (unlike Sadam Hussein, these guys are doing both).

We used it in the Cold War and we can use it to great effect now:

Containment.

We arm Iran's neighbors, place it under embargo, arm it's rebels, gain a non-oil power source, and if that fails, let Isreal have their way with the crater that Iran becomes.

Iran isn't North Korea, it actually fears MAD.

From this:

- Fewer Lives are lost
- Global economy prospers
- China goes down too (it can't afford to lose Iran's oil)
- Iran's pro-democracy youth take over its government

You're probably one of the few people, other than angsty teenagers posting on forums and civilian staff in the Pentagon to describe 'nukes' as 'great stuff'.

I don't believe the US army will kick Iranian ass. They have military technology that is decent. Their army is more loyal to the country than Saddam's forces were. They have actually received a modicum of training, as opposed to the non-existant iraqi trainning. The US air, again, wouldn't be the only planes in the sky. But this time, instead of the other planes belonging to their British allies, they would be Iranian fighter jets. The US military would be stretched in providing 3 huge supply lines into the Middle East and Central Asia, whereas Iran would have virtually no supply lines to operate at all. Any Naval supply lines would be extremely vunerable to the Iranian underwater missle, creating supply line problems not only in Iran, but Iraq too. Nuclear weapons might result in a military victory, but would be political suicide. Don't expect any countries to be friendly to you afterwards. The US would be the only country to have used nuclear weapons after the dangers of fallout were discovered.

And is anyone else blind to the irony of using nuclear weapon to stop a country from gaining nuclear weapons? - 'Hey kids, this is why you don't let people get nukes, because when you get a bunch of crazies at the top they do fucked up shit like nuking other countries'

WTF :confused:

Seriously...enriched uranium in that nation is not a good thing with all the conflicts its had.

From a historical point of view the entire middle east has been FAR more peaceful than Europe. Just an observation.

Well?

The new Iraqi President is rumored to be telling the US and the Brits to get the hell out so I guess they need to go somewhere?

Isreal will take out the reactors. Just like they did to Sadam back in the 90's.

I highly doubt, at this point, that the United States would go to war with Iran. We just do not have the man power without a draft. However, I am not ruling out the possibility of airstrikes by the United States/Israel. The only problem with this is, that after we bombed Iraq in 1998 the Iranians got smart and decided to split up their programs into multiple sites.

Also, I would not be worried about what the president says too much, as he is virtually powerless, and is more or less just a figure head that gives off the notion that it is a democracy(when in reality most everything is decided by the religious council that his been in control since the shah was overthrown).

I think the next logical step that will be taken is sanctions against Iran.

Well?

The new Iraqi President is rumored to be telling the US and the Brits to get the hell out so I guess they need to go somewhere?

That actually makes a lot of sense to me. Probably why they won't set a timetable on withdraw from Iraq...they have to wait until the UN exhausts all options with Iran before they can go in.

yeah, but then we wouldnt being stopping Iran from nuking the world, would we?

There's only one country that could nuke the world... and it's not Iran.

I think will happen and it will last awhile. Not only would it be a good discission, but it would make for good t.v. Watching us kick ass and all. You remember shock and awe? That was good stuff, this time it will be like that but with nukes, thats great stuff.

Read:

http://mrbehi.blogs.com/i/iran_vs_west/index.html

It's a blog by an Iranian. Read the blog entry entitled 'Iran In Dead End' in relation to your post.

Unless of course, they are the ones to attack first - possibly Israel "which should be wiped off the map".

Iran won't attack Israel first, if they did, not only would they be bombing Israelis, but Palestinians too, and Israel and America would bomb/nuke Iran back.

If Iran gets Nuclear weapons, it will be used as a deterrent and safeguard from attack.

This whole problem would go away if we "accidently" allowed a Mossad agent to get ahold of some spy satellite images pinpointing any appropriate nuclear facilities in Iran. Israel preemptively strikes said targets. In public we say "that's a bad Israel, a bad, bad Israel!"

And Iran would suspect the US had involvement. Iran would not believe the "That's a bad Israel" charade for one minute.

The new Iraqi President is rumored to be telling the US and the Brits to get the hell out so I guess they need to go somewhere?
I don't think that's quite what this guy has in mind...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_al-Jaafari
Jaafari was educated at Mosul university as a medical doctor. He joined the Islamic Dawa Party in 1968. Upon graduation from school in 1974 he worked actively for the party in Iraq which was trying to overthrow the Ba'athist secular government. He left for Iran in 1980 and became involved in the movement against Saddam Hussein there. He adopted the name al-Jaafari in exile to protect his family in Iraq from retribution by Saddam. He moved to London in 1989 where he became the al-Dawa spokesman in the UK and an important participant in the wider anti-Saddam movement. While in the UK he attended many Iraqi Events giving religious sermons.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html
Dec. 12, 1983 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait

The American embassy in Kuwait was bombed in a series of attacks whose targets also included the French embassy, the control tower at the airport, the country's main oil refinery, and a residential area for employees of the American corporation Raytheon. Six people were killed, including a suicide truck bomber, and more than 80 others were injured. The suspects were thought to be members of Al Dawa, or "The Call," an Iranian-backed group and one of the principal Shiite groups operating against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The U.S. military took no action in retaliation. In Kuwait, 17 people were arrested and convicted for participating in the attacks. One of those convicted was Mustafa Youssef Badreddin, a cousin and brother-in-law of one of Hezbollah's senior officers, Imad Mughniyah. After a six-week trial in Kuwait, Badreddin was sentenced to death for his role in the bombings.

Over the following years, the arrest and imprisonment of the "Kuwait 17" (also known as the "Al Dawa 17"), became one of the most consistent demands of the kidnappers of Western hostages in Lebanon and plane hijackers.

Ironically, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Iraqis unwittingly released the imprisoned Badreddin and the remaining members of the Kuwait 17. Press reports vary about Badreddin's current whereabouts.

http://www.hatefreeamerica.com/102203.htm
6.
o The Kuwaiti government allegedly provides substantial funding to charities controlled by the Kuwait Muslim Brotherhood, such as Lajnat al-Dawa. The U.S. Department of Treasury and the United Nations Security Council designated Lajnat al-Dawa on January 9, 2003 as a supporter of al Qida. Lajnat al-Dawa and its affiliates had offices in the U.S. in Michigan , Colorado and Northern Virginia.

Yeah, but we are responsible with our nukes, unlike Iran. Besides, whats the point of having them if you arent going to use some of small ones?To act as a nuclear deterent? So that no one randomly decides to attack you because their army just happens to be larger than your own. Like Britain and France in during the Cold War.

I don't consider threatening the use of nuclear weapons an act of responsibility. And how can you claim Iran will be irresponsible if they attain nuclear weapons?

Has used biological weapons - Iran: No, USA: Possibly in the Korean War and supplied Saddam with biological samples in the Iran-Iraq war.

Has used chemical weapons - Iran: No, USA: Has used both Agent Orange and Napalm in Vietnam. Along with France, Germany and the USA helped Iraq to develop its chemical stockpile which they knew would be used in the Iran-Iraq war.

Has used nuclear weapons - The USA is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons and indeed to be threatening to use them again.

I think it can be safely considered that Iran, if they developed WMD, would not use them and be very responsible with them. If there's one country that could be considered irresponsible it would be the USA.

WTF :confused:
Eh? What didn't you get?

Paragraph 1: Jibe at the poster's mentality

Paragraph 2: Iran is a different country to Iraq, and will not just roll over like Iraq did.

Paragraph 3: Statement about the irony of stoping someone from possibly using nuclear weapons by using nuclear weapons yourself.

and indeed to be threatening to use them again.
Depends on how explicit one needs to be to be said to threaten anyone.

Most nuclear powers explicitly reserve the right to a first strike, which includes France, Russia and Britain, and likely Israel although not publicly (interestingly China doesn't have a first strike policy at all, although there was an angry general mentioning the possibility a while back).

Depends on how explicit one needs to be to be said to threaten anyone.

Most nuclear powers explicitly reserve the right to a first strike, which includes France, Russia and Britain, and likely Israel although not publicly (interestingly China doesn't have a first strike policy at all, although there was an angry general mentioning the possibility a while back).I was more refering to the leak that civilian Pentagon planner were advocating the use of nuclear weapons. Not really a threat as such, but it can't have done anything for already frosty US-Iranian relations.

That map wiping comment is always taken out of context! It was actually just referring to revisions in Iranian education system in which geographical maps would not show a separate state of Israel. You have to admit, you can't even fit the word "Israel" into the territory, so this makes perfect sense. This would make it easier for the children to improve in academic pursuits as part of their "No Child Left Behind" program.
You can sure stretch the truth quite a ways in being an Iran apologist.
When he said wipe Israel off the map, he meant the elimination of the Israeli people. You can't deny this when faced with the fact that he continues to claim the holocaust was a fraud and that the world would be better off if the jews WERE eliminated.

I think you are only supporting Iran because you hate Bush so much.

Depends on how explicit one needs to be to be said to threaten anyone.

Most nuclear powers explicitly reserve the right to a first strike, which includes France, Russia and Britain, and likely Israel although not publicly (interestingly China doesn't have a first strike policy at all, although there was an angry general mentioning the possibility a while back).Yes.. But.

Is this Preemptive first strike?? There is a World of Difference..

A while back I studied the official French nuclear Policy (du plus faible au plus fort.. or something like that)

..and it was clear the French nukes are defensive deterrent.. More specifically they were designed to strike back against a Soviet or US invasion..

In another words they acknowledge that they do not stand a chance -in a conventional War- against either the Soviets or the US.. So they would fire their nukes first >> IF WE ATTACK THEM (even without nukes).

Well I don't think there will be a real war, the US simply don't have enough soldiers for that, most of them are already in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I Do think some missiles will be launched to destroy the powerplants etc.

Well I don't think there will be a real war, the US simply don't have enough soldiers for that, most of them are already in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I Do think some missiles will be launched to destroy the powerplants etc.

1. What is your definition of a "real" war

2. We have about 145,000-155,000 troops deployed in iraq and afghanistan. We have 1.3-1.4 million in our armed forces. Last time i checked 150,000 is not most of 1.3 million. We are capable of a ground invasion but that wouldn't be smart and would give us nothing so we wouldn't

2. We have about 145,000-155,000 troops deployed in iraq and afghanistan. We have 1.3-1.4 million in our armed forces. Last time i checked 150,000 is not most of 1.3 million. We are capable of a ground invasion but that wouldn't be smart and would give us nothing so we wouldn't

The U.S. military may have that number od soldiers, but the amount they can deploy can be very different.

U.S. forces overstretched (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4649066.stm)

The U.S. military may have that number od soldiers, but the amount they can deploy can be very different.

U.S. forces overstretched (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4649066.stm)

However, if we were to engage iran, it would be primarily an air campaign with SOF aiding rebel forces to overthrow the gov't. I've seen estimates that the entire operation would last from 36-60 hours. You don't need many ground assets for that. We have way more than enough air and sea assets to carry out an operation against iran. The Marine Corps and Army have plenty of units on standby that could be used for operational security.

However, if we were to engage iran, it would be primarily an air campaign with SOF aiding rebel forces to overthrow the gov't. I've seen estimates that the entire operation would last from 36-60 hours. You don't need many ground assets for that. We have way more than enough air and sea assets to carry out an operation against iran. The Marine Corps and Army have plenty of units on standby that could be used for operational security.

Estimates of very short wars are often massively exaggerated, it's what caused the Schlieffen plan to go tits up, and the invasion of Iraq recently showed the estimates of minimal resistance to be too optimistic. Aside from the actual invasion, the occupation for security of the country can be very strenuous on the forces, in Iraq agian - the post invasion period was much more violent than estimated, and still is. Deployment would still be an issue with naval and air forces.
I think an "all out"(ground, navy, and air forces on a complete assualt) war on Iran would be very difficult to wage, so just the air strikes you mentioned would probably be best.

Estimates of very short wars are often massively exaggerated, it's what caused the Schlieffen plan to go tits up, and the invasion of Iraq recently showed the estimates of minimal resistance to be too optimistic. Aside from the actual invasion, the occupation for security of the country can be very strenuous on the forces, in Iraq agian - the post invasion period was much more violent than estimated, and still is. Deployment would still be an issue with naval and air forces.
I think an "all out"(ground, navy, and air forces on a complete assualt) war on Iran would be very difficult to wage, so just the air strikes you mentioned would probably be best.

A campaign against iran wouldn't resemble the one carried out against iraq in the least. We wouldn't have conventional ground forces in the country. We would most likely just have air stikes against their airforce, nuclear plants, command and control assets, and most likely their armoured units. Combined with SOF units aiding rebel forces, and you have a very effective operation with minimal effort required. No occupation needed and hopefully no counter-attack by iran due to the decimation of their assets and removal of their ability to command and have a sense of control over their forces.

There's only one country that could nuke the world... and it's not Iran.
Russia?

Russia?

:D Almost there, just go southeast from the Kamchatka peninsula...

A campaign against iran wouldn't resemble the one carried out against iraq in the least. We wouldn't have conventional ground forces in the country. We would most likely just have air stikes against their airforce, nuclear plants, command and control assets, and most likely their armoured units. Combined with SOF units aiding rebel forces, and you have a very effective operation with minimal effort required. No occupation needed and hopefully no counter-attack by iran due to the decimation of their assets and removal of their ability to command and have a sense of control over their forces.

I should hope so. The problem will be how they'll retaliate...

I was more refering to the leak that civilian Pentagon planner were advocating the use of nuclear weapons. Not really a threat as such, but it can't have done anything for already frosty US-Iranian relations.
Not true. Not at all. The military is strongly recommending NO military action against Iran whatsoever.

:D Almost there, just go southeast from the Kamchatka peninsula...
And make certain you know how to swim! :D

The U.S. military may have that number od soldiers, but the amount they can deploy can be very different.

U.S. forces overstretched (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4649066.stm)
Utterly false. Whomever wrote that article has seriously "misunderestimated" the capabilities of American military forces. You should learn to get your "news" from more than one source, Grasshopper. :)

... SOF units aiding rebel forces ...
I know how to do that! Take me! Take me! :D

I know how to do that! Take me! Take me! :D

We prefer those under the age of 8 million.:p

We prefer those under the age of 8 million.:p
B*****d! :D

Utterly false. Whomever wrote that article has seriously "misunderestimated" the capabilities of American military forces. You should learn to get your "news" from more than one source, Grasshopper. :)

Googled it for more information, I also found:
this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/)

but on the other hand I found this (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/military.studies/)

Which leaves me one confused Caeliferan...

i think a war with iran is unlikely. i would say no, but i'm not absolutely sure the bush administration has the restraint to not go to war again.

You can sure stretch the truth quite a ways in being an Iran apologist.
When he said wipe Israel off the map, he meant the elimination of the Israeli people. You can't deny this when faced with the fact that he continues to claim the holocaust was a fraud and that the world would be better off if the jews WERE eliminated.

I think you are only supporting Iran because you hate Bush so much.

Well, David Irving denies the holocaust but he doesn't want to wipe Israel off the map.

And since nuking Israel would only kill the Israelis, not the worlds jews, its obvious he doesn't plan on using the former to achieve the eradication of the latter.

Therefore he was only making hypotheticals which nonetheless appealed in a rhetorical way to his constituency.

Kind of like Bush putting North Korea in an "Axis of Evil" to appeal to his constituency. We won't *do* anything about them, it's just rhetoric to increase political power. So they have a slightly less PC rhetoric in Iran, so what? It's still just rhetoric.

If Bush's approval goes to 55% or if he thinks (is that possible) his approval would go to 55% he's blood thirsty enough to do it. But I doubt if even Blair has strings long enough to play the puppet again.