NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just watching the Colbert report. And it seems according to elsenburg The Bush has plans to invade Iran. Elsenburg asked that some one blow the whistle on these plans before they are put into effect. This wasn't the first time I have heard rumors of a planned invasion of Iran and god I hope its BS.

Probably already a thread about this I seem to do that quite often.

An earth invansion in Iran wolud be the beginning of the end of the american hegemony on the world 'cause it would be a trap where the US army would surely blood without any important result. Now US is already in big trouble, so I don't want to imagine another guerrillas war, not limited within the iranian borders. Lebanon, Irak, East Arabia (shii population and most of oil reserves) and the persian gulf would be a hell for US troops and allies. And no other islamic country could openly support the attack, just Israel and UK. Three countries united against the will of most of the world, it fits quite well in the Evil Axis definition, isn't it?

I hope US military staff will keep politicians mind under control.

I was just watching the Colbert report. And it seems according to elsenburg The Bush has plans to invade Iran. Elsenburg asked that some one blow the whistle on these plans before they are put into effect. This wasn't the first time I have heard rumors of a planned invasion of Iran and god I hope its BS.

Probably already a thread about this I seem to do that quite often.

Yes, there are plans for the invasion of Iran. There are also plans for the invasion of North Korean, China, Pakistan, Russia, the Balkans, Syria, Lebanon, and even Mexico, and for all I know now, frakking Mauritania! The military draws them up and then updates them on a regular basis, since "Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance." So what else is new?

Yes, there are plans for the invasion of Iran. There are also plans for the invasion of North Korean, China, Pakistan, Russia, the Balkans, Syria, Lebanon, and even Mexico, and for all I know now, frakking Mauritania! The military draws them up and then updates them on a regular basis, since "Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance." So what else is new?
Uncle Sam says: Always be prepared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red)!

Yes, there are plans for the invasion of Iran. There are also plans for the invasion of North Korean, China, Pakistan, Russia, the Balkans, Syria, Lebanon, and even Mexico, and for all I know now, frakking Mauritania! The military draws them up and then updates them on a regular basis, since "Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance." So what else is new?

Actually I more meant the Bush adminastration actually considering invading Iran. That is what Elsenburg meant. Altough I find it hard to believe.

Uncle Sam says: Always be prepared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red)!

Exactly.

An earth invansion in Iran wolud be the beginning of the end of the american hegemony on the world 'cause it would be a trap where the US army would surely blood without any important result. Now US is already in big trouble, so I don't want to imagine another guerrillas war, not limited within the iranian borders. Lebanon, Irak, East Arabia (shii population and most of oil reserves) and the persian gulf would be a hell for US troops and allies. And no other islamic country could openly support the attack, just Israel and UK. Three countries united against the will of most of the world, it fits quite well in the Evil Axis definition, isn't it?

I hope US military staff will keep politicians mind under control.
oh yes, A military invasion of Iran will be the end of American interventionalism becasue it is a hole out of which nothing good can come...
just Like Vietnam!
Just Like Afgahnistan!
Just Like Iraq!

heh, Iran will probably become the next Iraq just becasue Ahmedwhatsisface is so bloody set on it.
We'll probably do a Gulf War style total air-superiority/ownage lightning attack only to be held back by the politicos and then go back in to finish the job ten years later only to find "oops, nobody trusts us anymore becasue we totally abandoned them ten years earlier. Our Bad!"

I think Bush and co are waiting for Ahmadinejad to provide the US with a nice excuse to start some shit there. And Ahmadinejad does not come across as somebody who understands this. Or maybe he understands this and thinks he is calling the bluff by upping the ante. I am somewhat :confused:

But Israel does have a stated policy of denying nuke weapons capability to anybody (than itself, of course) in the region.

If Iran is bold enough / stupid enough (depends on ur POV) to test a nuke, Israel is sure to take some action. And Iran might retaliate against the US forces in Iraq and voila, you have the excuse to start bombing Iran.

Actually I more meant the Bush adminastration actually considering invading Iran. That is what Elsenburg meant. Altough I find it hard to believe.

Any land invasion of Iran would be almost impossible, given the size of the nation. Any significant sea/air attack would focus on Iran's infrastructure and nuclear development sites. And even that would be at best, extremely difficult, not to mention extremely agitating to other Islamist states.

As I've said before, the most likely scenario in this case is for the Israelis to launch an air attack on Iran's nuclear development sites. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that Isreal hasn't done so already, al la their attack on Baghdad's nuclear facilities back in the 80s ( I think ). I suspect there's been considerable arm-twisting of Israel by the US to prevent that from happening, but Israel has never been known to long restrain itself from doing what's in its own best interests.

As I've said before, the most likely scenario in this case is for the Israelis to launch an air attack on Iran's nuclear development sites. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that Isreal hasn't done so already, al la their attack on Baghdad's nuclear facilities back in the 80s ( I think ). I suspect there's been considerable arm-twisting of Israel by the US to prevent that from happening, but Israel has never been known to long restrain itself from doing what's in its own best interests.

You are? They won't do anything of the sort until we let them, considering their only option is to fly over Iraq...and they'd never make it to Iran if we didn't want them to.

Of course, we probably wouldn't stop them if they bothered...but they aren't dumb enough to risk pissing off their most important supporter.

<snip> .

I heard cia's best estimate for Iran being able to test a nuclear weapon 5-10 years so I highly doubt that any one is going to be using that excuse to invade while Bush is in office. And as for Iran attacking US troops in Iraq not going to happen I think. Ahmadinejadwatever probably thinks Iraq and Sadaam got what was comming to him. Though that wont make him like Americans any more.

You are? They won't do anything of the sort until we let them, considering their only option is to fly over Iraq...and they'd never make it to Iran if we didn't want them to.

Of course, we probably wouldn't stop them if they bothered...but they aren't dumb enough to risk pissing off their most important supporter.

Heh! You obviously don't know the Israeli mindset. They wouldn't even blink at us if they saw a threat to themselves.

An earth invansion in Iran wolud blah blah blah blah.

Dude, land invasion. LAND invasion. I spent about a minute trying to figure out why the planet Earth was invading Iran.

Invading Iran would accomplish one thing: surpassing the Iraq debacle as the greatest military blunder in the nation's history.

I was just watching the Colbert report. And it seems according to elsenburg The Bush has plans to invade Iran. Elsenburg asked that some one blow the whistle on these plans before they are put into effect. This wasn't the first time I have heard rumors of a planned invasion of Iran and god I hope its BS.

Probably already a thread about this I seem to do that quite often.

dude,dudette
we have plans to invade or attack everyone!
i'd be pissed at my gov if we didnt..shit,i pay taxes...earn the money.

I think Bush and co are waiting for Ahmadinejad to provide the US with a nice excuse to start some shit there. And Ahmadinejad does not come across as somebody who understands this. Or maybe he understands this and thinks he is calling the bluff by upping the ante. I am somewhat :confused: <snip>


exactly, The guy doesn't know shit about America and keeps trying to scare us off with these 'new' weapon systems while trying to save face with all this y'know NOT letting the U.N. in to make sure there isn't a nuke program going on.
He probably thinks he's scaring America off while saving face. (even worse, he could be thinking that he's actually allowing US to save face by showing off all these new weapons, thinking that it will allow America to say that Iran is 2hot2handle) either way though, all he's doing is making rope and one day soon the U.S. military is going to knock the door down and say "Ahmadinejad, you know that rope you've been making? Well, we're here to hang you with it."

Heh! You obviously don't know the Israeli mindset. They wouldn't even blink at us if they saw a threat to themselves.

Thats interesting because I think they know without us they are screwed as much as they might hate to admit it.

You are? They won't do anything of the sort until we let them, considering their only option is to fly over Iraq...and they'd never make it to Iran if we didn't want them to.

Of course, we probably wouldn't stop them if they bothered...but they aren't dumb enough to risk pissing off their most important supporter.

Nonsense.

Israel atacked Baghdad's nuclear facilities in the eighties, like Eut mentioned.
At the time Iraq's leader was none other than Saddam, the very same guy WE put into power.
He remained a thorn in Iran's side becuase we told him to.

Isreal didnt bother to "ask nicely" if they could do it...they just decided they didnt want Saddam enriching any plutonium.

Have no illusions about who needs whom in the middle east.
Israel is our ally, becuase we need THEM, as much as they need us.

Nonsense.

Israel atacked Baghdad's nuclear facilities in the eighties, like Eut mentioned.
At the time Iraq's leader was none other than Saddam, the very same guy WE put into power.
He remained a thorn in Iran's side becuase we told him to.

Isreal didnt bother to "ask nicely" if they could do it...they just decided they didnt want Saddam enriching any plutonium.

Have no illusions about who needs whom in the middle east.
Israel is our ally, becuase we need THEM, as much as they need us.

Exactly. As I recall, the US military got exactly five minutes advance notice before the Israeli attack was in full swing.

Invading Iran would accomplish one thing: surpassing the Iraq debacle as the greatest military blunder in the nation's history.

I still think Vietnam takes the cake over Iraq by a longshot.

Thats interesting because I think they know without us they are screwed as much as they might hate to admit it.

Not really.

Isreal is pretty damn capable all on thier own.

Think about it.

They are the only country full of Jews, in the middle of a bunch of militant Muslim nations.

Do you think they know anything about protecting themselves?

It just so happens that we are sympathetic to them, becuase they, remain loyal to us.

Lets say Iran and Syrria attack Isreal.

The Middle East errupts in a full scale war

The US has a lot of interest over there, and would absolutely need a stable place to launch military operations to seize and control oil reserves.

Not gonna happen anywhere except maybe Iraq, and Iraq isnt very stable these days.

Isreal and the US work together, becuase we need each other, not one more than the other.

Exactly. As I recall, the US military got exactly five minutes advance notice before the Israeli attack was in full swing.

Pretty much the way I heard it.

Course, by that time, it was clear that Saddam had no intention of remaining a US Lackey on a leash, and it was decided that knocking his nuclear facilities back a few years was probably for the best.

Just Like Afgahnistan!

Had Afgahanistan not taken a Back seat to Iraq I think things could have been much better there.

And as for Iran attacking US troops in Iraq not going to happen I think. Ahmadinejadwatever probably thinks Iraq and Sadaam got what was comming to him. Though that wont make him like Americans any more.

There is another dynamic here. Ever since Khomeini's revolution, Iran has been constantly looking for opportunities to assert its Shi'ite identity and project itself as the bulwark against US/Israel as opposed to US/Israel lackeys ruling Arab countries.

Iran will look for such an opportunity and Iran has many options in this. They can use Hezbollah. They can use the Shi'ite militia in Iraq. They can use sympathetic Shias in Pakistan and Afghanistan too (farfetched but still is a possibility). They can give a "dirty bomb" and explode it in Tel Aviv, near US bases in Iraq, Pak and Afg.

Most people don't realise that the American intervention and subsequent removal of the two most hostile and dangerous regimes in Iran neighborhood (Saddam from Iraq and taliban from Afg) has been the greatest thing that Iranians could have hoped for.

Had Afgahanistan not taken a Back seat to Iraq I think things could have been much better there.

Maybe, maybe not.

Remember the guy called Kharzai?

Hes the President of Afghanistan. (Former Enron Employee)

The countryside is not controlled by Kharzai.
Its controlled by local warlords, who fund themselves by growing opium poppies.

This is allowed to take place by the Bush administration in return for not attacking the central government, and attepmting to overthrow Kharzai.

The benefit is a leader in Afghanistan that can more or less be relied upon to give the US free reign within its borders.

The downside is that millions of tons of heroin are once again shipped all over the world from Afghanistan.

So if Bush had given the full attention to Afghanistan, it may not have turned out for the best, armed conflict with several of these warlords could be problematic, moreso than any opposition received by Saddams troops.

Iraq should probably have been left alone.

Bush Found Guilty Of War Crimes
Geneva- Former President of the United States George Bush was convicted by an international tribunal Monday morning of crimes against humanity and mass genocide. He is to be sentenced later this year for his crimes in Iraq and recently discovered role in the 9-11 attacks. “Even though we have not seen one in years, the possibility of a firing squad has not yet been ruled out…”

Internet Neutrality Laws Passed
Washington- A new amendment was passed in a majority vote by Congress early this morning guaranteeing the neutrality of the World Wide Web. Investigations were also announced into the dealings of certain large internet service providers, including AOL and MSN. In addition to net neutrality, the amendment also states the distribution of spyware is to be considered a serious offense that allows for the offenders to spend prison time getting ass raped…

File Sharing Deemed Legal By Supreme Court
Washington- In a unanimous vote last week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of internet users everywhere in their class action lawsuit against the MPAA and the RIAA. An unprecedented $200 billion fine was levied upon the entertainment industry for violating invasion of privacy laws. Despite the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, cocaine use amongst rock stars this weekend was not affected…

Bill O’Reilly Arrested On Crack, Child Pornography Charges
Colorado- According to his lawyers, the police roughed up the popular right wing television personality when he was arrested on charges of child pornography and possession of crack near downtown Denver Friday night. “There was an unwarranted full body cavity search and my client was repeatedly tasered,” said the high profile attorney outside of the courtroom Monday morning. According to the police, O’Reilly was hyped up on crack and threatening them while masturbating in the middle of a busy street…

Rare Plant Found In Rainforest That Cures Everything
Brazil- A team of scientists have confirmed that a rare psychedelic herb found growing wild in the rainforests of southern Brazil is indeed the miracle drug it has been called in the press as of late. The herb creates a LSD-like high when smoked and causes human cells to regenerate and repair themselves. The first batch of cancer patients began their trips early this morning…

Marijuana Legalized Worldwide
Geneva- In a stunning move Friday at a special session called by the United Nations, governments all over the world agreed unanimously to legalize the cultivation and sale of the hemp plant. Over the weekend sales brought in more money than all other industries combined and single-handedly repaired the world’s economy. In related news, everyone is stoned…

Science Finds True Origin Of The Universe
Rome- The group of scientists hired by the Vatican to prove the existence of God without a doubt did just the opposite last Thursday when they unveiled irrefutable evidence that the universe was actually created by a rogue group of garden gnomes. “Apparently, everyone was wrong.” One of the scientists was quoted as saying. The Pope was bathing in his Naziness, so he could not be reached for comment…

Superman Thwarts Terror Attack: Cheney Arrested
New York- A plane set to collide with the new World Trade Center was intercepted by the Man of Steel last Wednesday morning. Former disgruntled Vice President Dick Cheney was found to be controlling it remotely from a nearby public restroom. He was led away in handcuffs by FBI agents after getting slapped like a bitch in front of everyone by Superman…

First Contact Made: Aliens Bring Better Gaming Technology
Florida- NASA has announced early this morning that three astronauts made contact with an alien species last Tuesday while doing routine repairs on the international space station. “Their handheld technology was awesome,” reported one of the astronauts, “They had a gaming network running through the entire galaxy. When you get shot in the game, it actually hurts!” The purpose of the contact was apparently to announce a release date for their own gaming system to compete with Microsoft and Sony just before Christmas…

http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/29549/The_Best_Headlines_You_Will_Ever_Read

<snip>.

Certainly Israel knows how to defend itsel. But think how small a nation it is population wise to all the countries that want to destroy Israel. Do you think Israel could keep all those wolves from their door. With Nuclear weapons they could which is part of the reasons these countries want them. Iran, Iraq wanted to pursue Nuclear weapons so the Israelis wouldn't have it dangling over their heads all the time. You really think the notion that Israel is at least in some part protected by the US has nothing to do with Israels saftey over the years I would say that is a pretty big thing. Maybe they wouldn't be screwed but they certainly would be in a hell of a lot worse position without us.

If Israel tried stopping all the nations trying to develop nuclear weapons to destroy them they would undoubtly fail eventually some one would accquire them they simply dont have the resources to keep it all in check short of using nuclear weapons themselves. And once countries like Iran or Iraq had accquired nuclear weapons Israels position would be a hell of a lot worse.
granted they do a lot for us as well.

<snip>

It wasn't sadaam's forces that gave us the most trouble. Those were conventinal forces that were still in shambles from the last time the US went in. It was radical fundemantilist using urban guerrila warfare that is causing all the trouble which really sadaam never had any control over if anything he prevented or at least discouraged them from entering but with him out of power they have free riegn of the country the only oposition being american troops who cant really stop them from flooding the country. And really invading them gave the radicals a reason to flood the country

And as for turning afgahnistan into a democracy maybe that might not have worked, but at least i think we would have gotten Osama had we used American troops instead of Afgani warlord troops to suround his suspected hideouts. Instead of holding back for the planned invasion of Iraq. And without Osama to lead them their resistance probably wouldn't be as nearly well planned organized and cooperated. Not to mention how many other Al-Quead members we could have nailed right then and there.

Certainly Israel knows how to defend itsel. But think how small a nation it is population wise to all the countries that want to destroy Israel. Do you think Israel could keep all those wolves from their door. With Nuclear weapons they could which is part of the reasons these countries want them. Iran, Iraq wanted to pursue Nuclear weapons so the Israelis wouldn't have it dangling over their heads all the time. You really think the notion that Israel is at least in some part protected by the US has nothing to do with Israels saftey over the years I would say that is a pretty big thing. Maybe they wouldn't be screwed but they certainly would be in a hell of a lot worse position without us.

If Israel tried stopping all the nations trying to develop nuclear weapons to destroy them they would undoubtly fail eventually some one would accquire them they simply dont have the resources to keep it all in check short of using nuclear weapons themselves. And once countries like Iran or Iraq had accquired nuclear weapons Israels position would be a hell of a lot worse.
granted they do a lot for us as well.

Maybe....maybe not.

M.A.D.

Mutually assured destruction.

You fire a nuke at me..and I blast you back into the stone age.
This will cause our neighbor Bob to get nervous and fire one at me, becuase I borrowed his toaster, and never gave it back.
My Aunt Ester, over there next to the Joneses, who hates all living things...will scream bloody murder and fire one at all of us.

The threat of nuclear weapons is better than actually using one.

Remember that Iran has yet to refuse UN Inspectors, apparently, they say they have nothing to hide, and wish only to use thier programs for energy.
(its cheap, and they sorely need it)
Iran has a sizeable armed forces, and all the capability they need to defend themselves, at this moment, they dont really need a nuke.

The U.S cant afford to invade, and even if it could, our troops are stretched pretty thin in other places.
Isreal doesnt have the numbers to pull of a land invasion of Iran.

What does Iran need to worry about at this very minute?

And as for turning afgahnistan into a democracy maybe that might not have worked, but at least i think we would have gotten Osama had we used American troops instead of Afgani warlord troops to suround his suspected hideouts. Instead of holding back for the planned invasion of Iraq. And without Osama to lead them their resistance probably wouldn't be as nearly well planned organized and cooperated. Not to mention how many other Al-Quead members we could have nailed right then and there.

Osama is a diabetic.
He needs (needed) regular dialysis to keep him alive, becuase the diabetes had shut down nearly both of his kidneys.

That was five years ago.

Unless, immediately after 9/11, he was taken to a very modern, and very good hostpital, and given a kidney transplant, and a pancreas transplant, he has been dead for about three years, maybe more.

Its highly fucking doubtful that hes in some cave with a dialysis machine, plotting his next move.

We didnt get Osama, becuase we sent in about 11,000 troops.
Thats less than the number of police in NY, to find one guy.
Not to mention, that within three days, he could be in Pakistan, or elsewhere.

Had Afgahanistan not taken a Back seat to Iraq I think things could have been much better there.

a big ass +1 to that my friend!

Unless, immediately after 9/11, he was taken to a very modern, and very good hostpital, and given a kidney transplant, and a pancreas transplant, he has been dead for about three years, maybe more.

There are reports that he was treated at a hospital in Karachi. IIRC, Arnaud de Borchgrave made one such claim.

There is another dynamic here. Ever since Khomeini's revolution, Iran has been constantly looking for opportunities to assert its Shi'ite identity and project itself as the bulwark against US/Israel as opposed to US/Israel lackeys ruling Arab countries.

Iran will look for such an opportunity and Iran has many options in this. They can use Hezbollah. They can use the Shi'ite militia in Iraq. They can use sympathetic Shias in Pakistan and Afghanistan too (farfetched but still is a possibility). They can give a "dirty bomb" and explode it in Tel Aviv, near US bases in Iraq, Pak and Afg.

Most people don't realise that the American intervention and subsequent removal of the two most hostile and dangerous regimes in Iran neighborhood (Saddam from Iraq and taliban from Afg) has been the greatest thing that Iranians could have hoped for.

Achmeninijihad there probably has a concept of this. It is all about religious association.

Iran is Shi'a and Iraq was Sunni (and blocking Shi'a advancement at the time.)

Now that the Sunnis are out of power in Iraq, it could easily become Shi'a. Then the Shi'a would be that much closer to completing the Shi'a Cresent (having Shi'a rule from (near) Israel all the way to Iran), which is the Shi'a's goal.

But Achmenijanowwhatyoudidlastsummerijad won't stop there. He'll probably scheme to return the Ottoman Empire Area (Spain to Iran, Turkey to Saudi Arabia) to Muslim hands. Or something like that...

Yes, there are plans for the invasion of Iran. There are also plans for the invasion of North Korean, China, Pakistan, Russia, the Balkans, Syria, Lebanon, and even Mexico, and for all I know now, frakking Mauritania! The military draws them up and then updates them on a regular basis, since "Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance." So what else is new?
yeah. bush wants to rule the world. he probably even wants a war with canada.

Osama is a diabetic.
He needs (needed) regular dialysis to keep him alive, becuase the diabetes had shut down nearly both of his kidneys.

Black market insulin?

You are? They won't do anything of the sort until we let them, considering their only option is to fly over Iraq...and they'd never make it to Iran if we didn't want them to.

Of course, we probably wouldn't stop them if they bothered...but they aren't dumb enough to risk pissing off their most important supporter.
The US would never shoot down an Israeli plane. Israel can piss off America all it likes though, because they know that the US will always support them, even when against US interests.

yeah. bush wants to rule the world. he probably even wants a war with canada.
The Hague invasion act (http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/othr/misc/23425.htm)..... *sigh*

Invade the Netherlands?!! (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm)

:eek:

yeah. bush wants to rule the world. he probably even wants a war with canada.

*ahem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red)*

This may come as surprise to some of you, but there's an OPLAN for invading or annihilating virtually every country in the world, and has been one since the late 1950s.

They keep these OPLANs around, just in case they're needed. I would imagine there's even an OPLAN for Lichtenstein.

And that's regardless of who the President is.

These plans are written and conceived by the Defense Department, without Presidential input. Same as the SIOP plans intended for nuclear war. In the event of either kind of war, the President merely authorizes the action - regardless of who he or she may be, they have essentially NO input into the plan - they just sign off on it.

This may come as surprise to some of you, but there's an OPLAN for invading or annihilating virtually every country in the world, and has been one since the late 1950s.

They keep these OPLANs around, just in case they're needed. I would imagine there's even an OPLAN for Lichtenstein.

And that's regardless of who the President is.

These plans are written and conceived by the Defense Department, without Presidential input. Same as the SIOP plans intended for nuclear war. In the event of either kind of war, the President merely authorizes the action - regardless of who he or she may be, they have essentially NO input into the plan - they just sign off on it.

no surprise there, that's why I took a political example
:D

This may come as surprise to some of you, but there's an OPLAN for invading or annihilating virtually every country in the world, and has been one since the late 1950s.

They keep these OPLANs around, just in case they're needed. I would imagine there's even an OPLAN for Lichtenstein.

And that's regardless of who the President is.

These plans are written and conceived by the Defense Department, without Presidential input. Same as the SIOP plans intended for nuclear war. In the event of either kind of war, the President merely authorizes the action - regardless of who he or she may be, they have essentially NO input into the plan - they just sign off on it.

I'm certainly not surprised. It sounds like good excersise anyway. Pretending to invade Britain and the like... get a little amusement out of it anyway. ;)

I was just watching the Colbert report. And it seems according to elsenburg The Bush has plans to invade Iran. Elsenburg asked that some one blow the whistle on these plans before they are put into effect. This wasn't the first time I have heard rumors of a planned invasion of Iran and god I hope its BS.

Probably already a thread about this I seem to do that quite often.I certainly hope that the Bush administration has plans to invade Iran. I hope they don't use them, but to think there's no plans just in case is ludicrous.

I'm certainly not surprised. It sounds like good excersise anyway. Pretending to invade Britain and the like... get a little amusement out of it anyway. ;)War Plan Red, isn't it? :D

Heh! You obviously don't know the Israeli mindset. They wouldn't even blink at us if they saw a threat to themselves.
No one doubts they would want to...but Osirak was an easy target. Finding it was easy, and taking it out (even if it required some skill by the pilots to do it cleanly) was too.

The Iranian nuclear facilities are better protected and, even more importantly, spread out over huge distances. Not to mention those that would be secret additional research labs and so on, and that several of them would be outside or at least at the very limit of the normal range of Israeli jets, so refuelling operations or less payload would be needed.

Israel couldn't destroy the Iranian nuclear program, at least not in a clean and easy operation. It's been said that even if the US tried, it would require a bombing campaign taking weeks. And despite all the almost mythical admiration people have for the IDF, the US military would still have one or two over them in this sort of area.

No one doubts they would want to...but Osirak was an easy target. Finding it was easy, and taking it out (even if it required some skill by the pilots to do it cleanly) was too.

The Iranian nuclear facilities are better protected and, even more importantly, spread out over huge distances. Not to mention those that would be secret additional research labs and so on, and that several of them would be outside or at least at the very limit of the normal range of Israeli jets, so refuelling operations or less payload would be needed.

Israel couldn't destroy the Iranian nuclear program, at least not in a clean and easy operation. It's been said that even if the US tried, it would require a bombing campaign taking weeks. And despite all the almost mythical admiration people have for the IDF, the US military would still have one or two over them in this sort of area.

The US has long range stealth bombers, and long range high altitude drones for better reconaissance. Rumor has it that we have already had special forces in Iran at select locations over the past few years, merely to take air samples.

Probably an order of magnitude easier for the US to do the attacks - but there's no guarantee they won't rebuild.

Additionally, it's probably not worth doing until Iran actually threatens or uses a nuke offensively.

Once they make a threat, and carry out an actual nuclear attack, no one will begrudge the US in any attempt to root out and destroy an Iranian nuclear program. Prior to that, it would be bad PR.

I was just watching the Colbert report. And it seems according to elsenburg The Bush has plans to invade Iran.

As Eut points out, we'd have plans. (And they'd better be something more than that 1980 POS Rice Bowl/Eagle Claw/Evening Light.)

A fewe of the OPPLANS for Iran:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/arabian-gauntlet.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-1002.htm

Elsenburg asked that some one blow the whistle on these plans before they are put into effect. This wasn't the first time I have heard rumors of a planned invasion of Iran and god I hope its BS.

Lots of rumors, yes. Likelyhood - no.

Probably already a thread about this I seem to do that quite often.

Yep. Several.

Yes, there are plans for the invasion of Iran. There are also plans for the invasion of North Korean, China, Pakistan, Russia, the Balkans, Syria, Lebanon, and even Mexico, and for all I know now, frakking Mauritania! The military draws them up and then updates them on a regular basis, since "Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance." So what else is new?

One would hope all those G-3s and J-3s are earing their keep.


Any land invasion of Iran would be almost impossible, given the size of the nation. Any significant sea/air attack would focus on Iran's infrastructure and nuclear development sites. And even that would be at best, extremely difficult, not to mention extremely agitating to other Islamist states.

Not to mention extensive current commintments.

As I've said before, the most likely scenario in this case is for the Israelis to launch an air attack on Iran's nuclear development sites. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that Isreal hasn't done so already, al la their attack on Baghdad's nuclear facilities back in the 80s ( I think ). I suspect there's been considerable arm-twisting of Israel by the US to prevent that from happening, but Israel has never been known to long restrain itself from doing what's in its own best interests.

I'm sceptical the Israelis could pull off another Opera (June 7, 1981, BTW). That took a full squadron of F-16s and another of F-15s, to take out a single reactor site at a known location that wasn't particularly well defended. The Iranian program is much further advanced, spead out, hidden, and defended. [1 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm)]

Plus there's the question of the projection range of Israel...

No one doubts they would want to...but Osirak was an easy target. Finding it was easy, and taking it out (even if it required some skill by the pilots to do it cleanly) was too.

The Iranian nuclear facilities are better protected and, even more importantly, spread out over huge distances. Not to mention those that would be secret additional research labs and so on, and that several of them would be outside or at least at the very limit of the normal range of Israeli jets, so refuelling operations or less payload would be needed.

Israel couldn't destroy the Iranian nuclear program, at least not in a clean and easy operation. It's been said that even if the US tried, it would require a bombing campaign taking weeks. And despite all the almost mythical admiration people have for the IDF, the US military would still have one or two over them in this sort of area.

Bingo.

The US has long range stealth bombers, and long range high altitude drones for better reconaissance. Rumor has it that we have already had special forces in Iran at select locations over the past few years, merely to take air samples.

Probably an order of magnitude easier for the US to do the attacks - but there's no guarantee they won't rebuild.

Additionally, it's probably not worth doing until Iran actually threatens or uses a nuke offensively.

Once they make a threat, and carry out an actual nuclear attack, no one will begrudge the US in any attempt to root out and destroy an Iranian nuclear program. Prior to that, it would be bad PR.

And pretty much spot on there too.

Had Afgahanistan not taken a Back seat to Iraq I think things could have been much better there.

probably true, but it did and now its just another sink-hole.

Any land invasion of Iran would be almost impossible, given the size of the nation.

I don't think it would be nearly that hard. A very large part of our army is mechanized. A typical army tank is able to go 30 miles per hour in off-road terrain. Assuming that our army is able to move forward 4 hours each day, that means that we'll be able to go 120 miles/day. We'd get to Tehran by the end of the week. Controlling that vast amount of land would be a problem, true, but that would not be necessary. We simply have to remove Iran's offensive capability. If the country ends up in turmoil, it's their own fault.

I don't think it would be nearly that hard. A very large part of our army is mechanized. A typical army tank is able to go 30 miles per hour in off-road terrain. Assuming that our army is able to move forward 4 hours each day, that means that we'll be able to go 120 miles/day. We'd get to Tehran by the end of the week. Controlling that vast amount of land would be a problem, true, but that would not be necessary. We simply have to remove Iran's offensive capability. If the country ends up in turmoil, it's their own fault.
Is that you, Corneliu? It sounds like you, telling what the troops can do, yet never joining them...

I don't think it would be nearly that hard. A very large part of our army is mechanized. A typical army tank is able to go 30 miles per hour in off-road terrain. Assuming that our army is able to move forward 4 hours each day, that means that we'll be able to go 120 miles/day. We'd get to Tehran by the end of the week. Controlling that vast amount of land would be a problem, true, but that would not be necessary. We simply have to remove Iran's offensive capability. If the country ends up in turmoil, it's their own fault.sounds like blitzkrieg tactics, awesome!! won't work, supply lines would be streched to breaking....and that's assuming Iranians sit back and do nothing, Iran isn't Iraq they are untited in their dislike for the USA(and 80% of Iraqi's see americans as occupiers not liberators)...Iran has literally thousands of suicide bombers ready to give up their lives to kill americans...you are delusional and watch too many Rambo movies

Controlling that vast amount of land would be a problem, true, but that would not be necessary. We simply have to remove Iran's offensive capability. If the country ends up in turmoil, it's their own fault.

With no one to target in their own lands, and no tacit encouragement to grow 95% of the world's poppy, substantial numbers of people who were pissed that the US drove tanks over their baby sisters (or equivalents) could simply travel over to the US (it's not like the border patrols could stop them), buy guns (legally/illegally) or make bombs and just start killing people. How many terrorist rampages...that can't be stopped...is the US from anarchy and collapse?

Yes, there are plans for the invasion of Iran. There are also plans for the invasion of North Korean, China, Pakistan, Russia, the Balkans, Syria, Lebanon, and even Mexico, and for all I know now, frakking Mauritania! drawn by the same "experts".. who designed the plans for the Iraq War.

sounds like blitzkrieg tactics, awesome!! won't work, supply lines would be streched to breaking....

Supply lines are more of a flexible concept in modern warfare. Back in the old days, supplies were transported via truck or rail to the front line, and thus prone to getting ambushed by partisans along the way. However, since Vietnam, we have increasingly relied on helicopters and planes to transport our supplies, making them no longer prone to enemy assault. Supplies lines would not be a problem.

and that's assuming Iranians sit back and do nothing, Iran isn't Iraq they are untited in their dislike for the USA(and 80% of Iraqi's see americans as occupiers not liberators)...Iran has literally thousands of suicide bombers ready to give up their lives to kill americans...you are delusional and watch too many Rambo movies

So what? They cannot compare to the US military. Sure, they can try suicide bombing us, but it would just be like a gnat trying to destroy a car by flying into the windshield -- no damage gets done. They do not have the capability to get within range of US soldiers as long as our offensive in concentrated (ie, soldiers do not wander off alone, or split up like in all those horror movies). We can effectively set up a defensive perimeter, guarded by snipers, that cannot be crossed by the bombers. We can also use more indiscriminate tactics to ensure the safety of our troops -- we're not liberating Iran, and we don't give a shit if we have to demolish the country, to raze it to the ground, if it allows us to achieve our objective.

We can also use more indiscriminate tactics to ensure the safety of our troops -- we're not liberating Iran, and we don't give a shit if we have to demolish the country, to raze it to the ground, if it allows us to achieve our objective.

Then the way to go is simply launching a hundred of Minutemen.

ww3 is comming wether we like it or not. Get ready to live like the road warrior. We might as well get it over with now and just start kicking the shit out of eachother.

Supply lines are more of a flexible concept in modern warfare. Back in the old days, supplies were transported via truck or rail to the front line, and thus prone to getting ambushed by partisans along the way. However, since Vietnam, we have increasingly relied on helicopters and planes to transport our supplies, making them no longer prone to enemy assault. Supplies lines would not be a problem.



So what? They cannot compare to the US military. Sure, they can try suicide bombing us, but it would just be like a gnat trying to destroy a car by flying into the windshield -- no damage gets done. They do not have the capability to get within range of US soldiers as long as our offensive in concentrated (ie, soldiers do not wander off alone, or split up like in all those horror movies). We can effectively set up a defensive perimeter, guarded by snipers, that cannot be crossed by the bombers. We can also use more indiscriminate tactics to ensure the safety of our troops -- we're not liberating Iran, and we don't give a shit if we have to demolish the country, to raze it to the ground, if it allows us to achieve our objective.


WOW, you have no-idea what real war is like in any way shape or form. DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR?!!??!?! no, if you did you would realize what you just said is complete arrogant bullshit....god, Its people like you that get us in these unwinnable wars. If we invaded Iran we would lose every battle. By that I mean literally. No matter how many battle we "won" we would still lose. You just so dont understand.

The US actually has plans to invade Canada, France, Germany, Spain, and Portugal. Mostly Canada, the document was found, we wanted to annex our neighbors to the north:eek:


OOC: Prooooof!!!!!http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901412_pf.html

Then the way to go is simply launching a hundred of Minutemen.

Unfortunately, the blowout would be too great if we did that, although I agree that it would be the way to go, objectively speaking.

DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR?!!??!?!

To what are you referring, in particular? Are you advocating the gassing of the Iranian people as a military strategy? I think nuclear weapons would be preferable to chemical weapons in that cirumstance. The US military is far more advanced than either the Iraqi or Iranian militaries, so there really cannot be any comparison.

If we invaded Iran we would lose every battle.

On the contrary. The US military is unbeatable -- we have the best weapons, the best technology, and the best people. The Iranians don't stand a liberal's chance in Texas if they attempt to resist. Look at how few casualites we've had in Iraq -- 3000. That 0.003% of the casualties the Russians suffered during WWII, for example. We would wipe the floor with Iran -- even more so if we didn't care so much about international law and civilian casualites.

On the contrary. The US military is unbeatable -- we have the best weapons, the best technology, and the best people. The Iranians don't stand a liberal's chance in Texas if they attempt to resist. Look at how few casualites we've had in Iraq -- 3000. That 0.003% of the casualties the Russians suffered during WWII, for example. We would wipe the floor with Iran -- even more so if we didn't care so much about international law and civilian casualites.

Now with Iran we would wipe the floor with them, they have one advantage, the landscape, they know it better, BUT!!! The Iran people and its government are far over confident I mean FAR, (so are many US citizens. But not as bad as the Iran people), also as you said the US militray is much more advanced and stronger, the US has more soilders then Iran's entire population. Supply lines would I think still be a problem....but ya, although it would be tough, I think we would win..

the US has more soilders then Iran's entire population. Supply lines would I think still be a problem....but ya, although it would be tough, I think we would win..
Don't be silly. Iran has ~1,000,000-sized regular army, including about 500,000 of extremely loyal elite IRGC forces, and over 10,000,000 Basij, volunteer combat-trained and armed civilians undergoing regular training and prepared to be the major force of guerilla warfare. It's the local dominator, which has advanced far since the Iran-Iraq war. They are preparing to meet invasion.

Defeating Iran would mean exterminating it, and would either require WMD or resemble the WWII. Yes, in all-out war US would win. US can't possibly lose, because Iran can't reach America. But it would be a dirty and bloody victory, and zero-profit one.

But that is not the problem. The problem is that after a large scale aggression non-proliferation agreements have a chance to fall the next day, and the day after that nuclear weapons would be sold like AKs to any enemy of the United States. Even if that does not happen, we are very likely to face rejection, and without the support of international community US will end up like similar entities before in fifteen, top twenty years. EU, China and India constitute a strong force which has potential to unite if facing a danger. Today US acts as the worldwide gangster, extorting and enforcing, but not razing and pillaging. If that role changes to plain worldwide burglar and vandal, other nations are likely to choose a different center.

It's a lose-lose situation.

the US has more soilders then Iran's entire population

Really? When did this occur? Someone please inform the DoD that their recruiting goals (roughly 22,000) have been met 3000 times over! (Iran's population is roughly 68,000,000.)

Don't be silly. Iran has ~1,000,000-sized regular army, about 500,000 of extremely loyal elite IRGC forces, and over 10,000,000 Basij, volunteer combat-trained and armed civilians undergoing regular training and prepared to be the major force of guerilla warfare. It's the local dominator, which has advanced far since the Iran-Iraq war. They are preparing to meet invasion.

Err... best estimate I can find is 350,000 for the regular army. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/army.htm

I find these Rambo types really tiresome.

Lost in Vietnam, can't subdue Iraq or Afganistan, US soldiers are only safe in their fortified bases coming out only for patrols. And the deluded GI armchair Rambo's in this forum think they can take on Iran, fuckwits! This may be a generalization but from my experience all these Rambos have never been to a war and live an military fantasy world. It's easy to talk about your countries military prowress while sitting in the comfort of your home masterbating all over your gun magazines; quite another living everyday in an occupied country wondering if your going to get home alive.

The Nazi's in 6yrs of brutal occupation never completely subdued any nations of occupied europe. You can win a battle but you'll never a win a war.

Rumor has it that we have already had special forces in Iran at select locations over the past few years, merely to take air samples.

Remember the U2 which crashed in a country whose identity was not disclosed. I bet it was returning from one such operation. The Pakistani airbases also are very handy to snoop on Iran.

Err... best estimate I can find is 350,000 for the regular army. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/army.htm
They don't count here the Revolution Guards and other branches (not conv. land-based); also, Iran expands its army constantly. Totally it would probably be slightly less than million, so that's a round-up. However, over a million of Basij are considered meeting requirements for joining the army of forming a new one.

Iran can put up impressive numbers. It is having a youth bulge after all. But how many of them will be battle-worthy and battle-ready interms of arms, training, and leadership remains to be seen.

The revolutionary faction purged a lot of well trained officer cadre as Shah loyalists. Part of the reason why they had shitty campaigs during the Iran-Iraq war and they had to resort to send teenagers in Basij as human mine clearers.

I'm not sure it matters how big Iran's army is. Iraq's army had an effective size of almost zero (in that a lot of them deserted before they could face US troops). However, 3 years on we still seem to be fighting someone. The real question is how many potential recruits for the anti-US resistance/insurgency there are, and I think the answer is lots. In Iraq, there were, and still are, mixed feelings about the invasion; the Iranian people will have a 'we'll fight them on the beaches' attitude right from the get-go. The US can't fight that.

To what are you referring, in particular? Are you advocating the gassing of the Iranian people as a military strategy? I think nuclear weapons would be preferable to chemical weapons in that cirumstance. The US military is far more advanced than either the Iraqi or Iranian militaries, so there really cannot be any comparison.

No, I think he means the million man human wall that Iran fielded in front of its regulars. Iran is not a military power to be trifled with.


On the contrary. The US military is unbeatable -- we have the best weapons, the best technology, and the best people. The Iranians don't stand a liberal's chance in Texas if they attempt to resist. Look at how few casualites we've had in Iraq -- 3000. That 0.003% of the casualties the Russians suffered during WWII, for example. We would wipe the floor with Iran -- even more so if we didn't care so much about international law and civilian casualites.

Hehe, unbeatable... sure.
and that comparison of deaths, becasue y'know, comparing fighting a 3 year insurgency is comparable at all to fighting the single most technologically advanced military at the time with what amounts ot a human wall, thats only the second most uninformed comparison I've ever read. The most uninformed is the one that immediately follows 'a liberals chance in Texas'
by which I take to mean that you've actually ever been to Texas and seen our 'great wall of keeping liberals out' (which BTW doesn't exist, nor do the anti-liberal lynch mobs). If you ever had Actually been to the Great State, you might have visited a little town called Austin, which just happens to be the capital, and just happens to be predominantly liberal. Or maybe you've heard of this fellow named Kinky Friedman, who happens to be running for State Governor and has a pretty good chance of winning, mybe you should refresh yourself on his politics before attempting to claim that liberals can't survive in Texas.

About invading Iran. I have heard that we (the US) have an aerial bombing strategy already developed that would knock out any nuclear facilities and major military bases but As far as a ground invasion I haven't heard any info regarding that.
As far as other Muslim nations go, many of them view Iran as a threat to their own security. Iranians as a rule are not pure Arab. Many are not Arab at all therefore, while there is religious connections, there are no ethnic connections. The only Arab nation that I know of that supports Iran is Syria, Unless you count the Palestinians as a separate nation.:sniper:

You know, a war in Iran could actually be won.

We'd only need to promise the Iranians democracy and NOT BOMB CIVILIAN SITES!

People don't seem to be realising that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an unpopular dictator. The people of Iran don't hate America and her Allies, and if they were to go to Iran as fair Liberators, that wouldn't change at all.

I think we can learn from the mistakes made in Iraq and use our new knowledge to STOP people feeling like they need to use Guerrilla tactics against our armies.

People don't seem to be realising that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an unpopular dictator.
The problem is that these are Iranian people who don't know that he is an unpopular dictator. Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005 with a very strong support, almost twice over the second candidate, and that other candidate is as well a supporter of the nuclear program.


Iran can put up impressive numbers. It is having a youth bulge after all. But how many of them will be battle-worthy and battle-ready interms of arms, training, and leadership remains to be seen.

Most probably the regular army, navy and air force will put up some resistance against the first stage of attack - providing air defense, intercepting bombers, attacking ships (they have a number of modern subs and hundreds of ships and boats, mostly small missile-armed), making shootouts with marines, striking at the bases (ballistic and cruise missiles). In the meantime IRGC will work on mobilizing and organizing the Basij. After a full-scale invasion the official army will pretty much be retreating and occasionally winning time like in Iraq, navy will be reduced to submarines and stealth boats operation.

The leadership role will be passed over to IRGC, about 200,000-300,000 of which will probably be left by that moment. IRGC are Iranian elite forces prepared specially as leaders for guerilla war, and are fanatic enough to keep on until the end. IRGC holds the best armament of what can be concealed - helicopters (the third largest military helicopter fleet in the world), unmanned aircraft, light armored and unarmored vehicles, a variety of SAM, anti-ship missiles, rocket launchers, heavy missiles and other transportable armament.
By the time regular army falls, IRGC will probably mobilize to active service about 700,000-1,000,000 of Basij, network of trained volunteer militants, while leaving the rest 9-10 millions as a supply network and reserve. This high number of Basij is due to compulsory military service, religious/revolutionary fanaticism and active training. IRGC has light armament - AK, M1, SVD, RPG, portable SAM and ATGM, sufficient for well arming about half of Basij.

The Basij are likely to become the bulk of guerilla forces, while the IRGC is to serve as the command system and elite forces. One of the features of Basij network is that it includes about each sixth Iranian, mostly living a civilian life, therefore Basij can not be attacked or arrested until they enter the active service, which effectively means they can be attacked only in response, never preemptively. It also allows the IRGC to stay completely in shadow (they are quite secretive about their members) without forming regular Basij units, and simply coordinating temporary independent strike units, forming where needed and going back undercover after attacks.

The fully-mobilized Basij units will probably serve to protect and cover IRGC, carry out major heavy-armed strikes and attacks on smaller garrisons, while the rest of the network will carry out covert operations inside the cities, like bombings, sabotage, cutting supply lines, destroying stationed equipment, arsons, and so on, preventing US from setting bases in cities.

The time this network can function is hard to predict, probably about eight-ten years will pass before it starts to fall apart into smaller independent resistance organizations, and ten to twenty before the resistance loses ubiquitous support and becomes limited to active militant groups like Taliban in Afghanistan. The equipment and armament is sufficient for active full-scale operations for about a year, if not supported from outside, and about five for less active resistance or with some supply from neighbouring countries. These estimates are very rough, however, but it's plausible, basing on Iraq war figures, that Iran can be brought to anarchy in half a year, and occupational government may gain some degree of control over the country in eight years if actively funded and supplied.


Links and references:
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=90895 - Iranian domestic-made armament, weapon industry, forces. Picture heavy (mostly an image repository), very interesting to look.
http://www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=939 - Overview
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue1/jv5n1a3.html - Russian weapon trading in the Middle East (scholarly article)
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=23&showentry=226 - Overview of Iranian forces (summarized, blog-type source)
http://www.meib.org/articles/0202_me2.htm - Factionality in Iran military

You know, a war in Iran could actually be won.

We'd only need to promise the Iranians democracy and NOT BOMB CIVILIAN SITES!

A promise of a better democracy, yes.

And generally speaking, civilian sites are not targeted. Sometimes they are hit accidentally. Sometimes they do get targeted. Destroying Iran's nuclear program by bombing without "collateral" damage will be impossible.

For one thing, onsider the large number of sites that are in close proximity to large citie (3 or 4 right close to Tehran). There's a damn good chance of at least one serious reactor could have a serious containment breach.

That would be utterly disasterous, for both the Iranina civilian population, the populations of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates. Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Japan, and other downwind countries in Asia and the Pacific Rim would also be at serious risk. (BTW, that'd include where I live - you can maybe understand that I don't want to be down wind of several equivilants of Chernobyl...)

People don't seem to be realising that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an unpopular dictator.

You have the wrong person labeled as an unpopular dictator. Supreme Leader Ali Khameni is the unpopular dictator. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected. His popularity is up for debate depending on your source.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1802280,00.html
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.331140892&par=0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14640273/site/newsweek/

The people of Iran don't hate America and her Allies, and if they were to go to Iran as fair Liberators, that wouldn't change at all.

An attack on Iran, even airstrikes, would wash away what positive feelings the Iranian people hold.

I think we can learn from the mistakes made in Iraq and use our new knowledge to STOP people feeling like they need to use Guerrilla tactics against our armies.

Not likely to happen in this case.

I think we can learn from the mistakes made in Iraq and use our new knowledge to STOP people feeling like they need to use Guerrilla tactics against our armies.???

you want to stop them from feeling like they need to use Guerrilla tactics ???

Osama is a diabetic.
He needs (needed) regular dialysis to keep him alive, becuase the diabetes had shut down nearly both of his kidneys.

That was five years ago.

Unless, immediately after 9/11, he was taken to a very modern, and very good hostpital, and given a kidney transplant, and a pancreas transplant, he has been dead for about three years, maybe more.

Its highly fucking doubtful that hes in some cave with a dialysis machine, plotting his next move.

We didnt get Osama, becuase we sent in about 11,000 troops.
Thats less than the number of police in NY, to find one guy.
Not to mention, that within three days, he could be in Pakistan, or elsewhere.

Just a note about kidney dialysis as a result of diabetes. My brother has been on it for more than 5 years. Still has not recieved a transplant but is 2nd on the list. You can live for a long time with dialysis. Although one thing I would point out is that he would most likely not die from the fact that he has not recieved a transplant. He would die because of a weakened immune system. Another illness that most of us could survive would kill him fairly easily. Living in the countryside he is very likely to get a illness fairly easily. The reports of him dying in august of typhoid could be real.

About invading Iran. I have heard that we (the US) have an aerial bombing strategy already developed that would knock out any nuclear facilities and major military bases but As far as a ground invasion I haven't heard any info regarding that.
As far as other Muslim nations go, many of them view Iran as a threat to their own security. Iranians as a rule are not pure Arab. Many are not Arab at all therefore, while there is religious connections, there are no ethnic connections. The only Arab nation that I know of that supports Iran is Syria, Unless you count the Palestinians as a separate nation.:sniper:

This is very true. I know that sunni do not consider shia as true muslims. They say they are muslims but that they do not practice the faith correctly thus making them not true muslims. I have heard this said in many nations. Morocco, Egypt, and even heard it while in Saudi Arabia.

For one thing, onsider the large number of sites that are in close proximity to large citie (3 or 4 right close to Tehran). There's a damn good chance of at least one serious reactor could have a serious containment breach.
Actually, the reactors are not the only dangerous part - they at least have some safety measures, though these don't prevent a fallout. The fuel processing industry and anything connected to waste fuel tend to be even more dangerous; they are not designed for extreme conditions and work with wide variety of radioactives.


All of these make a good target for terrorism in other countries as well. I would expect a retaliation strike on fuel processing/reprocessing and waste disposal facilities, or with stolen waste, rather than attack on power plants. A reactor containment is hard to destroy externally, but the rest of industry has much less security and safety. Just a container with radioactive materials (they aren't transported in tank convoys) blown up in a good place, or spread in the air, can make a lot of mess, close to 9/11, this times on base of radiophobia, since a part of the city will become contaminated and non-habitable, with all surroundings too terrified to stay as well. Imagine a deserted and closed contaminated zone in the center of a city like New York, Washington or Los Angeles. And it takes less effort than to hijack some planes.

Actually, the reactors are not the only dangerous part - they at least have some safety measures, though these don't prevent a fallout. The fuel processing industry and anything connected to waste fuel tend to be even more dangerous; they are not designed for extreme conditions and work with wide variety of radioactives.


All of these make a good target for terrorism in other countries as well. I would expect a retaliation strike on fuel processing/reprocessing and waste disposal facilities, or with stolen waste, rather than attack on power plants. A reactor containment is hard to destroy externally, but the rest of industry has much less security and safety. Just a container with radioactive materials (they aren't transported in tank convoys) blown up in a good place, or spread in the air, can make a lot of mess, close to 9/11, this times on base of radiophobia, since a part of the city will become contaminated and non-habitable, with all surroundings too terrified to stay as well. Imagine a deserted and closed contaminated zone in the center of a city like New York, Washington or Los Angeles. And it takes less effort than to hijack some planes.

Exactly so.