NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7364269.stm

N Korea 'linked to Syria reactor'

North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear reactor, US officials are to tell lawmakers in a closed session.

Unnamed officials told a number of US newspapers that the US had video footage of the Syrian facility with North Koreans inside.

Syria has repeated denials that it has any nuclear weapons programme, or any such agreement with North Korea.

It follows an unexplained air strike by Israel last September on a target inside Syria.

According to the Washington Post, the alleged nuclear facility was the target of the bombing.

'Not operational'

The video footage - said to have been obtained by Israel - also showed striking similarities between the Syrian facility and the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, reports said.
There was no Syria-North Korea co-operation whatsoever in Syria
Bashar Jaafari
Syrian ambassador to UN

However, the facility was not yet operational and there was no fuel for the reactor, officials said.

The White House has not commented on the reports, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates said information on the issue could be made public "soon".

Syria's ambassador to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, denied the links.

"There was no Syria-North Korea co-operation whatsoever in Syria. We deny these rumours," he said.

North Korea has previously denied transferring nuclear technology to Syria.

In a landmark deal reached in February last year, Pyongyang agreed to close its main reactor and divulge the full extent of its nuclear programme by December.

However, it missed the deadline, and while it is taking steps to close its Yongbyon reactor, it has yet to produce a declaration of nuclear activities to the international community's satisfaction.

Personally, I find this rather hard to believe. This smacks of falsehoods.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7364269.stm



Personally, I find this rather hard to believe. This smacks of falsehoods.

or propaganda

I don't buy it.

I wonder, does a Syrian Nuclear reactor look anything like a "mobile chemical weapons lab"?




What did those actually turn out to be again?

Striking similarities they say. How do we know it's not the same one from NK, just doctored? It's not like the Israeli government is a paragon of truth and honesty.

Syria can't have access to nuclear energy now?

course though I guess they could be allies against the American devils I don't really see how they would pull it off nor why Syria would build a huge fuck-off nuclear reactor with a nosy neighbor like Israel next door

Unnamed officials told a number of US newspapers that the US had video footage of the Syrian facility with North Koreans inside.

Following this news, Senator McCarthy has arisen from the grave and requested a Special Commission.

Look the US may be crazy and thier intelligence suspect, but i trust Israeli intelligence and if they say it was a North Korean reactor and they were willing to risk the political and military fallout to destroy it, and they have video supporting thier claims then i have no reason to not believe them.

Look the US may be crazy and thier intelligence suspect, but i trust Israeli intelligence and if they say it was a North Korean reactor and they were willing to risk the political and military fallout to destroy it, and they have video supporting thier claims then i have no reason to not believe them.Because the Mossad has never been wrong in the past :rolleyes:

Perhaps Israel could lend the Syrians Mordechai Vanunu - that way they wouldn't need to rely on North Korean help.

Because the Mossad has never been wrong in the past :rolleyes:

Oddly enough the Mossad were foolish enough to hire humans, which do on occasion make mistakes, but id trust them over anyone else even given this deficiency.

Oddly enough the Mossad were foolish enough to hire humans, which do on occasion make mistakes, but id trust them over anyone else even given this deficiency.They're a bit to willing to kill innocents on faulty evidence.

Look the US may be crazy and thier intelligence suspect, but i trust Israeli intelligence and if they say it was a North Korean reactor and they were willing to risk the political and military fallout to destroy it, and they have video supporting thier claims then i have no reason to not believe them.

i agree; israel put itself in enough of a bad situation by destroying the reactor. by attacking syria and destroying it (even though they ARE still formally at war), they've risked enough backlash

So they went with a nuclear reactor. I suggested a Denny's. Hmph! :mad:

The thing to understand here, is that Israel has a ... shall we call it a "benifit"... of having ALMOST every citizen of it's country feel the day to day risk of attack. THAT fact alone allows them to accomplish things like this.

Here in the US, with all the dirty hippies lounging about, sipping chai in their pot filled dorm rooms, complaining that the US government are all "facists" for interfering with the free rights of terror states, tactical and strategic planners can only shake their heads in envy.

Sadly, the terror attack of 9/11 was not the wakeup call many of us thought it would be. Instead, the US woke up briefly, muttered a few obsenities at the clock, and bashed the top of it... hitting the snooze button.

How long the snooze will last, we'll see. How many snoozes will we get? Some clocks allow three, others only one.

I hope we wake up before the next one and turn the alarm off.

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

I hope we wake up before the next one and turn the alarm off.So that America is late for work the next day?

Syria with a nuclear reactor?


Meh.

Because the Mossad has never been wrong in the past :rolleyes:

Nor has their political wrangling ever produced fake evidence either apparently.

[/sarcasm]

if it benefits Israel it benefits The US. WE better bring our carriers in and do a follow up Air strike.

if it benefits Israel it benefits The US. WE better bring our carriers in and do a follow up Air strike.

Do it yourself if you're so interested.

Do it yourself if you're so interested.

He can go do it in red alert 2.

Do it yourself if you're so interested.

yep called up bush myself air strike begun. Thanks for the idea.

So they went with a nuclear reactor. I suggested a Denny's. Hmph! :mad:

with Koreans working inside!?!

Looking at the pictures displayed, it's plausible, given the size of the facility, and the large access point on the water. Also, the behavior of the Israelis and the Syrians after the strike is slightly evidenciary, given that both sides remained startlingly tight lipped on this matter. I'd imagine a Syria that felt "wronged" would be one that would be prattling on in front of the UN for weeks, rather than one that feels like it was caught with its pants down, and is hiding in the corner, slightly ashamed.

So Israel, a nation that still hasn’t admitted it possesses nuclear weaponry, and the US, a nation that has repeatedly ignored or weaselled out of the NNPT, are getting pissy about a possible nuclear reactor?

How quaint.

israel put itself in enough of a bad situation by destroying the reactor.
Huh?? Not nearly as bad a position as letting the reactor continue to operate.

Problem solved anyway. Look for a handful of US cruise missles to do the same vs Iran a week before Bush leaves office.

Problem solved anyway. Look for a handful of US cruise missles to do the same vs Iran a week before Bush leaves office.

This is the most bizarre meme I've seen across the internet. That there is an inevitable war with Iran in the works, and it's going to occur before Bush leaves office. It's totally baffling.

This is the most bizarre meme I've seen across the internet. That there is an inevitable war with Iran in the works, and it's going to occur before Bush leaves office. It's totally baffling.

I didnt say war, i said a surgical strike against Iranian reactors. It doesnt involve troops on the ground, it can be done quickly, inexpensivly and the action would at least temporarily solve the problem. Whats baffling about it?

I didnt say war, i said a surgical strike against Iranian reactors. It doesnt involve troops on the ground, it can be done quickly, inexpensivly and the action would at least temporarily solve the problem. Whats baffling about it?That you actually think it won't be viewed as an act of war by Iran and that there will be no dire consequences.

That you actually think it won't be viewed as an act of war by Iran and that there will be no dire consequences.

What are they going to do? Supply more bombs to Iraq? Send the Iranian *snicker* navy to go sink some US destroyers?

I didnt say war, i said a surgical strike against Iranian reactors. It doesnt involve troops on the ground, it can be done quickly, inexpensivly and the action would at least temporarily solve the problem. Whats baffling about it?

That Iran would likely move against American troops in Iraq, in a rapidly escalating engagement?

Uh.. all nations have the right to power their homes, regardless of who they're allied or not allied with. Nuclear power happens to be a pretty good way to do that, at the moment.

That Iran would likely move against American troops in Iraq, in a rapidly escalating engagement?

The last thing Iran would do is gather thier forces together so it could be more conveniently obliterated.

I didnt say war...

The last thing Iran would do is gather thier forces together so it could be more conveniently obliterated.
What’s your argument again?

The last thing Iran would do is gather thier forces together so it could be more conveniently obliterated.You are aware that Ahmadinejad can enter Iraq without fear of attacks while Bush has to fly in under cover of secrecy. The battlefield Iraq heavily favors the Iranians, if they choose to move with conventional means against US troops. They could start supporting the shia militias in earnest instead and destablize Iraq if they so choose.

My arguement is simply, the Iranian solution will be to surgically strike Iranian reactors in the exact same way Israel hit the Syrain reactor. And Iran will react in the exact same way as Syria did, make some noise, complain alot and do nothing that they arnt already doing.

You are aware that Ahmadinejad can enter Iraq without fear of attacks while Bush has to fly in under cover of secrecy. The battlefield Iraq heavily favors the Iranians, if they choose to move with conventional means against US troops. They could start supporting the shia militias in earnest instead and destablize Iraq if they so choose.

Conventional means isnt even an option for Iran, they would be annialated from the air alone. And i hardly think they will risk the chance of Teran being carpet bombed over a few nuclear plants when they are sitting on the largest energy reserves on the planet. And since they are already supporting the Shia in earnest in Iraq now, i hardly see how thats all that big of a threat.

My arguement is simply, the Iranian solution will be to surgically strike Iranian reactors in the exact same way Israel hit the Syrain reactor.
And then simply ignore the increased deaths of US/UK/Iraqi/etc troops, while simultaneously convincing an already unstable Ahmadinejad not to declare outright war?

Sounds fun; military intervention in the Middle East has worked so far...

Conventional means isnt even an option for Iran, they would be annialated from the air alone.
So you are talking of open war now?

The last thing Iran would do is gather thier forces together so it could be more conveniently obliterated.

They wouldn't need to gather their forces, all they'd need to do is infiltrate across the already sad and porous border, equipped with small arms. They could double, triple or even quadruple our casualty rate in Iraq, ruin any progress that has been made and make a clusterfuck into a hellhole clusterfuck.

Conventional means isnt even an option for Iran, they would be annialated from the air alone. And since they are already supporting the Shia in earnest in Iraq now, i hardly see how thats all that big of a threat.

No. In both cases.

Conventional means isnt even an option for Iran, they would be annialated from the air alone. And since they are already supporting the Shia in earnest in Iraq now, i hardly see how thats all that big of a threat.

Because trained and equipped Iranian infantry have not been deployed to Iraq, they've merely been providing a supporting role from inside Iran. Once you dump ten or twenty thousand heavily armed infantry into the mix, you've got a situation that you couldn't control with 200,000 American troops, let alone the force that is in country now.

My arguement is simply, the Iranian solution will be to surgically strike Iranian reactors in the exact same way Israel hit the Syrain reactor. And Iran will react in the exact same way as Syria did, make some noise, complain alot and do nothing that they arnt already doing.

You do realise US troops are already extremely stretched in both Afghanistan and Iraq in a war not against a conventional army? If the US hits Iran, war will be declared and honestly I would see the US losing this one. Bringing in an actual army to oppose the US while gaining allies with the militias would seriously be a dangerous situation for any allied troops in Iraq.

In fact the Iranian have already sinked an US destroyer more than a dozen years ago.
And they were at this time engaged in war with Irak, withouth experienced officers and with poor quality arms.

Nowadays they have the best weapons coming from Russia and China.

Shall I count the fact that they can do something like augmenting oil price by half, or worse ? ( combining the Iranian oil with the Irakian exportations that they can cut down very easily )

That Iranian territory is defended by lots of anti-air missiles, in total opposite to Irak who surrendered nearly all of this king of weapons before the US attacks, in hope of not being bombed ?
How US citizens would react to the loss of dozens of aircrafts ?

That doing a carpet bombing on Tehran would be exactly what the Islamist Republic need to get a full popular support ?

In addition to everything who had been already said about the chaos they could do in Irak in one day.

When US invaded Irak, Iran was on his knees, now, thanks to some fools, they are the dominant power in the Arabian Gulf...

Oh, and, finally, one thing they could do is a lots of striking against Israël, in retaliation, using there beloved Hamas terrorists.

Conventional means isnt even an option for Iran, they would be annialated from the air alone. And i hardly think they will risk the chance of Teran being carpet bombed over a few nuclear plants when they are sitting on the largest energy reserves on the planet. You don't think the Iranian government will retaliate and will just bow down without some form of fight? Highly unlikely, though the people telling me this are are my Iranian roommate and his friends.
And since they are already supporting the Shia in earnest in Iraq now, i hardly see how thats all that big of a threat.Haha, no. Iran could be doing quite a bit more than they are doing now. In fact, they're actually restraining the shia at the moment.

Because the Mossad has never been wrong in the past :rolleyes:

Or guilty of flat out lying.

Perhaps Israel could lend the Syrians Mordechai Vanunu - that way they wouldn't need to rely on North Korean help.

Heh, he'd get asylum in Norway before that happened...

It's an interesting situation,
All of the Middle eastern countries near Israel want some kind of nuclear deterrent to counter Israels nuclear weapons. And in order to maintain their nuclear superiority in the region, Israel will always move militarily to prevent this.

It is very likely that North Korea was helping to build Syria a nuclear reactor, after all North Korea has already demonstrated that they have no problems with selling any type of weaponry to the highest bidder.

And as for striking Iran's nuclear program, that would just drive Iranian popular support further behind the government and their Anti-American stance. It could be possible that since Iran is unable to upgrade their existing infrastructure to better utilize their oil fields, that they could be seeking nuclear power for electricity (and getting a bomb I guess they'd consider to be a plus).

Or guilty of flat out lying.

And what sort of benefit would they derive from having a random industrial facility be blasted to bits?

It's an interesting situation,
All of the Middle eastern countries near Israel want some kind of nuclear deterrent to counter Israels nuclear weapons. And in order to maintain their nuclear superiority in the region, Israel will always move militarily to prevent this.

It is very likely that North Korea was helping to build Syria a nuclear reactor, after all North Korea has already demonstrated that they have no problems with selling any type of weaponry to the highest bidder.

And as for striking Iran's nuclear program, that would just drive Iranian popular support further behind the government and their Anti-American stance. It could be possible that since Iran is unable to upgrade their existing infrastructure to better utilize their oil fields, that they could be seeking nuclear power for electricity (and getting a bomb I guess they'd consider to be a plus).
The mid east countries around Israel have show the mindset of they do not care if 90% of their people die in a nuclear exchange with Israel just so long as Israel dies and they the leadership survive.

Cost effective wise Oil is easier to generate electricity from. The only reason to take nuclear over oil is
1 your goverment is environmental (for some reason I have a feeling Iran denies global warming just as fast as the holocaust when it suits their interest. )
2 your country lacks access to affordable oil. (yeah 2nd largest oil reserves so non issue).
This even more so because i don't think Iran has natural Uranium which makes getting a net positive energy less likely from a nuclear reactor.

Its a little to convienent for me that days before Congress votes to relax sanctions on North Korea, something Bush opposes, Israel happens to "find" information showing that Syria got it from NK, and Bush and his lackies on congress started making noise.


I recognize this strange smell....oh yeah, it was the smell eminating from the Bush Administrations case for Iraq...

This is the most bizarre meme I've seen across the internet. That there is an inevitable war with Iran in the works, and it's going to occur before Bush leaves office. It's totally baffling.

Bush strikes me as the kind of guy who breaks toys he has to share. Miring America in another war as he has to leave might be the sort of breaking he is capable of doing.

Whether he'll do it, or at least get away with it, well, that's up in the air.

The thing to understand here, is that Israel has a ... shall we call it a "benifit"... of having ALMOST every citizen of it's country feel the day to day risk of attack. THAT fact alone allows them to accomplish things like this.

Here in the US, with all the dirty hippies lounging about, sipping chai in their pot filled dorm rooms, complaining that the US government are all "facists" for interfering with the free rights of terror states, tactical and strategic planners can only shake their heads in envy.

Sadly, the terror attack of 9/11 was not the wakeup call many of us thought it would be. Instead, the US woke up briefly, muttered a few obsenities at the clock, and bashed the top of it... hitting the snooze button.

How long the snooze will last, we'll see. How many snoozes will we get? Some clocks allow three, others only one.

I hope we wake up before the next one and turn the alarm off.

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
Whoa, extended metaphor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7364269.stm



Personally, I find this rather hard to believe. This smacks of falsehoods.

To quote Patrick Henry, I smell a rat. This reeks of proganda to start another Mid-East War.

To quote Patrick Henry, I smell a rat. This reeks of proganda to start another Mid-East War.

Yeah, it's PROGANDA!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Seriously though, this could just be part of the explanation for the previous strike, and for future strikes. Normal democratic governments try to supply those sorts of things.

Look the US may be crazy and thier intelligence suspect, but i trust Israeli intelligence and if they say it was a North Korean reactor and they were willing to risk the political and military fallout to destroy it, and they have video supporting thier claims then i have no reason to not believe them.

I trust Israeli intelligence too. They're well experienced. I did notice that, following the incident, Syria was far quieter than anyone else would have been had they just been attacked by a different country. Perhaps they did have something to hide.

The government would be far more worried if they knew what I was building in my pants.

I trust Israeli intelligence too. They're well experienced. I did notice that, following the incident, Syria was far quieter than anyone else would have been had they just been attacked by a different country. Perhaps they did have something to hide.

Yes, but the Israelis also have a very powerful incentive to lie. Their existence is pretty much dependent on the US and our willingness to keep supplying them is based off of how much danger they appear to be in. I find it difficult to believe that DPRK would even have the capability of flying technicians over to Syria (given that they would have to fly over a dozen separate airspaces, including China's), let alone even having the technicians.

The government would be far more worried if they knew what I was building in my pants.

:D We shall send UN Qualified inspectors to see if what's going on in your pants measures up to international standards.

:D We shall send UN Qualified inspectors to see if what's going on in your pants measures up to international standards.

They are going to have to invent an entirely new system of measurement.

They are going to have to invent an entirely new system of measurement.

wow, you just opened yourself up to a world of hurt. It's too easy for me, but...wow.

wow, you just opened yourself up to a world of hurt. It's too easy for me, but...wow.
:cool:

Just like in Iraq, they might not be able to find anything.

:cool:

Just like in Iraq, they might not be able to find anything.

wow, touché.

wow, touché.

Does one say touché when one's opponent stabs himself in the groin?

This is the CIA video describing the entire situation. The case seems clear and well proven. This was NOT set up for electricity it was set up as a place to create plutonium for bombs only. Its 11 min long and explains everything in specific detail and is very compeling evidence. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/04/24/VI2008042403257.html

Does one say touché when one's opponent stabs himself in the groin?

um, I wouldn't think they'd have the presence of mind to come up with anything more than a scream. That's just me though.

In fact the Iranian have already sinked an US destroyer more than a dozen years ago.
And they were at this time engaged in war with Irak, withouth experienced officers and with poor quality arms.

Nowadays they have the best weapons coming from Russia and China.

Shall I count the fact that they can do something like augmenting oil price by half, or worse ? ( combining the Iranian oil with the Irakian exportations that they can cut down very easily )

That Iranian territory is defended by lots of anti-air missiles, in total opposite to Irak who surrendered nearly all of this king of weapons before the US attacks, in hope of not being bombed ?
How US citizens would react to the loss of dozens of aircrafts ?

That doing a carpet bombing on Tehran would be exactly what the Islamist Republic need to get a full popular support ?

In addition to everything who had been already said about the chaos they could do in Irak in one day.

When US invaded Irak, Iran was on his knees, now, thanks to some fools, they are the dominant power in the Arabian Gulf...

Oh, and, finally, one thing they could do is a lots of striking against Israël, in retaliation, using there beloved Hamas terrorists.

1. First of all, Iran never "sinked" a US Warship. They mined waters in the Persian Gulf, and then the USS Roberts struck one of said mines and nearly sank. And Iraq almost sunk the USS Stark, which clearly does not indicate their military superiority. And if you'd like to see how nearly sinking an American ship turned out for Iran, Google "Operation Preying Mantis."


2. The "best" weapons? Hardly. They use the F-14, an American plane which the US Military has deemed obsolete and no longer uses. It doesn't even use American parts anymore and they don't have Phoenix missiles, its only strong point anymore, and its radar is easily jammable. And Mig-29s and F4s, only slightly better. And they're all day fighters with no BVR. Their missiles are the only extreme threat, and hopefully AGEIS and CWIS can protect our ships.


3. The US does not import Iranian oil, however, Iran could convince OPEC to jack up prices, but I seriously think 150% is a little bit over the top. I'll admit I don't know very much about OPEC and oil politics and the what not.

4. Iran is defended by lots of AA? They have some TorM1 and S-3000's near critical sites, but other than its a joke. Seriously. And those can't even hit Stealth, just the bombs they drop maybe. The Serbian thing was a lucky shot.

5. And everyone, please stop using Iraq as an example of the United State's military incompetence. We defeated Iraq's army in about a month. We can't occupy it, no one but the Chinese could and they would take MASSIVE casualties (which is exactly why they could). We wouldn't need to occupy Iran, just bomb the hell out of it. We could destroy Iran as a functioning state, as we could Iraq, but we don't want to. We can't occupy, but we can kick any little countries conventional ass, and slug it out with Russia or China if we needed to. Same for Israel and Lebanon, Israel could have demolished Lebanon if they wanted, and massacred its citizens and destroyed it. Last conventional war it took Israel 6 days to defeat all of its neighbors.

As for the topic, good for Israel, I don't think any state that is run by religion should be allowed to have nukes. (And yes, I realize the irony in that statement, and I don't think Israel should have nukes either."

I dont know about any other State but i KNOW i dont want Syria having weaponized plutonium in any way shape or form. At least temporarily, it was indeed Mission Accomplished.

If the site in question were not a nuclear site, then Syria would have certainly raised a shit fit. The fact that they tried to hush the entire thing down last September proves that the site is exactly what everyone is saying it is.

If the site in question were not a nuclear site, then Syria would have certainly raised a shit fit. The fact that they tried to hush the entire thing down last September proves that the site is exactly what everyone is saying it is.

Just watch the video i posted a few posts above. It shows in pretty uncertain terms that this was a reactor that was intentionally hidden and disguised and you can even see the core still standing after the missiles blew the roof off of it.

It's an interesting situation,
All of the Middle eastern countries near Israel want some kind of nuclear deterrent to counter Israels nuclear weapons.

Silly person, Israel doesn't have any nukes. We know this because they say so and they never ever lie.

North Korea can actually afford to build something for another country?

North Korea can actually afford to build something for another country?

You'd be surprised what a burden food for your people is. You can do a lot with that money.

You'd be surprised what a burden food for your people is. You can do a lot with that money.

Good point. Not to mention purchases of Hennessy...

Good point. Not to mention purchases of Hennessy...

Now its all going to Syria! oh noes! :eek: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112900388.html)

My arguement is simply, the Iranian solution will be to surgically strike Iranian reactors in the exact same way Israel hit the Syrain reactor. And Iran will react in the exact same way as Syria did, make some noise, complain alot and do nothing that they arnt already doing.

Don't you realise how heavily Iran has protected (deep in the ground and/or surrounded with Russian made AA systems) their nuclear sites?

Add that to Iran having a significantly more powerful military, especially when it comes to fighting a more powerful group (mainly using missiles) and you'd think twice of attacking with cruise missiles.

EDIT: A first strike by the U.S.A would also inflame other M.E countries and serve to distance the majority of the E.U from the U.S.A and would probably cause strain in Asia and Oceania (not to mention give Russia and China a better high ground in morality, allowing them to further weaken U.S.A interests).

In fact the Iranian have already sinked an US destroyer more than a dozen years ago.
And they were at this time engaged in war with Irak, withouth experienced officers and with poor quality arms.

Nowadays they have the best weapons coming from Russia and China.

Shall I count the fact that they can do something like augmenting oil price by half, or worse ? ( combining the Iranian oil with the Irakian exportations that they can cut down very easily )

That Iranian territory is defended by lots of anti-air missiles, in total opposite to Irak who surrendered nearly all of this king of weapons before the US attacks, in hope of not being bombed ?
How US citizens would react to the loss of dozens of aircrafts ?

That doing a carpet bombing on Tehran would be exactly what the Islamist Republic need to get a full popular support ?

In addition to everything who had been already said about the chaos they could do in Irak in one day.

When US invaded Irak, Iran was on his knees, now, thanks to some fools, they are the dominant power in the Arabian Gulf...

Oh, and, finally, one thing they could do is a lots of striking against Israël, in retaliation, using there beloved Hamas terrorists.

Iran is about the equivalent of Iraq as far as invading. maybe a tad better technology since they were not sanctioned as long ago as Iraq was. but they have a lot more coast line for easier access.
give it 1 month maybe 2 to topple their goverment.
Also Iran never sank a US warship. a mine they placed almost sank a US warship. and we got so mad about it we sank 2 of their most advanced warships at the time in a naval engagement that cost 2 lives on the US side.

Iran is about the equivalent of Iraq. maybe a tad better technology since they were sanctioned as long ago as Iraq was. but they have a lot more coast line for easier access. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

my bad i am drunk and it is late edited to make a little more sense.

1. First of all, Iran never "sinked" a US Warship. They mined waters in the Persian Gulf, and then the USS Roberts struck one of said mines and nearly sank. And Iraq almost sunk the USS Stark, which clearly does not indicate their military superiority. And if you'd like to see how nearly sinking an American ship turned out for Iran, Google "Operation Preying Mantis."

I knew for this operation, I absolutly wasn't saying that Iranian Army is better than US Army...just that in fact they have done such a thing :]


2. The "best" weapons? Hardly. They use the F-14, an American plane which the US Military has deemed obsolete and no longer uses. It doesn't even use American parts anymore and they don't have Phoenix missiles, its only strong point anymore, and its radar is easily jammable. And Mig-29s and F4s, only slightly better. And they're all day fighters with no BVR. Their missiles are the only extreme threat, and hopefully AGEIS and CWIS can protect our ships.

If you re-read me you would see that I haven't spoken about the Iranian Air Forces, I don't count them, they aren't a challenge for a massive assault of US Air Force operating from Irak...but they could make such base totally inefficient by Mahdist guerilla.
If you have only to use carrier-based aircraft, they could put up something like a decent defense with sheer number.

I speak only about their anti air missiles, but this would be extended in the next answer :]

3. The US does not import Iranian oil, however, Iran could convince OPEC to jack up prices, but I seriously think 150% is a little bit over the top. I'll admit I don't know very much about OPEC and oil politics and the what not.

If Iran stop exporting oil ( or just keep solding it to China... ) then a lots of country must rely on the same sources as USA, like...approximatly all of Europe.
So the price would explode.
And in the balance I count the Iranian ability to totally cut off the Irakian oil exportation either, combining the two I think you could forget something like 25% of crude oil exportations in a market already stretched.

4. Iran is defended by lots of AA? They have some TorM1 and S-3000's near critical sites, but other than its a joke. Seriously. And those can't even hit Stealth, just the bombs they drop maybe. The Serbian thing was a lucky shot.

No, this was some years ago, before oil prices explodes.
Now they have the last and best equipment that Russia and China could afford, and they are not bad.
Serbia was using 70's and 80's air defenses on a tiny country, with no friendly borders.
And, about the whole bombings on Serbia, do you remember that months of massive bombings by ( mainly US ) NATO forces destroyed only something like 5% of the Serbian equipment ?

5. And everyone, please stop using Iraq as an example of the United State's military incompetence. We defeated Iraq's army in about a month. We can't occupy it, no one but the Chinese could and they would take MASSIVE casualties (which is exactly why they could). We wouldn't need to occupy Iran, just bomb the hell out of it. We could destroy Iran as a functioning state, as we could Iraq, but we don't want to. We can't occupy, but we can kick any little countries conventional ass, and slug it out with Russia or China if we needed to. Same for Israel and Lebanon, Israel could have demolished Lebanon if they wanted, and massacred its citizens and destroyed it. Last conventional war it took Israel 6 days to defeat all of its neighbors.

I'm not of the ones thinking that the US Army is a joke...it's the greatest military in the world, on the overall.
But there is a lot of things you couldn't do because your country doesn't accept human loss on your side.
You can't attack North Korea, par exemple.
In fact the policies of all the "rogue states" is essentially to have enough anti air modern missiles, in order to be certain that a US air strike would be met with heavy resistance and that a lots of US fighters get down.

The Six Days War was done mainly by Israelians using French equipment ( this was for the little patriotic stance :p ) and using preventive strike.

But their last war was in Lebanon, wich was a defeat.
Even if they have destroyed Lebanon, it wouldn't have crippled at all the Hamas ( it would have reinforced them even more than they have done...)

Their last conventionnal war was the Yom Kipour War in 1973, and it wasn't absolutly as easy as the 1967 War.
Without internal strife between Arab countries, they would have certainly lost, I mainly think about the Jordanian "neutrality", wich engaged in the war very lately, doesn't opened a new front, and half-eartely.
I also remind that the Egyptians choose to stop their advance during 24 or 48 hours, thinking that the Israelians have been taught a lesson in Sinaï and that it was enough ( they were also fearing that the USA nuke Cairo if Tel Aviv fall to Arab invaders )

Thus, to get back to the point, how could you liberate a country by tearing him apart ? :D
I know it was what you were saying when you tell " but we want "

You could destroy Iran as a functionning state but then you just choose to became monsters and us, your allies, couldn't stand it.
Even the UK.

And all this let only the option to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities...who are heavily defended and wouldn't let you only one solution: a tactical nuke.

And this, my friend, would be very very bad for you publicity :D

As for the topic, good for Israel, I don't think any state that is run by religion should be allowed to have nukes. (And yes, I realize the irony in that statement, and I don't think Israel should have nukes either."

I absolutly agree.
And we are the two countries ( France and USA ) who gave them this weapons.
Funny, isn't it ?

Edit: and getting back to what Laerod say, the main strength of the Iranian is that they are absolutly not like Irak, and have much more political cards to play.
To sum up: bombing Iran means installing on the short term an Islamist Republic in Irak, totally opposed to Occident and vassalized to Tehran.
Combining the two you have even greater oil stock than Saoudi Arabia, and then prepare yourself to a new Arab/Persian war.

my bad i am drunk and it is late edited to make a little more sense.Still deserves a rolleyes. Terrain is more rugged, population is more than twice the size, sanctions are nowhere near comparable to what Iraq was subjected to, a government that is made up primarily of the largest ethnic group as opposed to a minority ethnic group as it was in Iraq, religious fervor... Iran isn't comparable to Iraq, especially not if you consider that the US military wasn't occupying any countries to the extent they are now when they invaded Iraq.

Still deserves a rolleyes. Terrain is more rugged, population is more than twice the size, sanctions are nowhere near comparable to what Iraq was subjected to, a government that is made up primarily of the largest ethnic group as opposed to a minority ethnic group as it was in Iraq, religious fervor... Iran isn't comparable to Iraq, especially not if you consider that the US military wasn't occupying any countries to the extent they are now when they invaded Iraq.

Iran also has a smaller middle class, and poorer infrastructure.We can go back and forth all day comparing and contrasting Iran and Iraq and never get anywhere.
I am saying destroy the goverment not the crap we are doing in Iraq where we try and rebuild it.
I say we blow the stuff up and kill a few goverment leaders and leave the Iranians to their own affairs.

It depresses me that there are still people advocating the US attack even more countries.

Iran is about the equivalent of Iraq as far as invading. maybe a tad better technology since they were not sanctioned as long ago as Iraq was. but they have a lot more coast line for easier access.
give it 1 month maybe 2 to topple their goverment.
Also Iran never sank a US warship. a mine they placed almost sank a US warship. and we got so mad about it we sank 2 of their most advanced warships at the time in a naval engagement that cost 2 lives on the US side.

I like you. You're silly. :)

Here in the US, with all the dirty hippies lounging about, sipping chai in their pot filled dorm rooms, complaining that the US government are all "facists" for interfering with the free rights of terror states, tactical and strategic planners can only shake their heads in envy.


Well, the US has got pretty lousy and spineless tactical and strategic planners then, if they can be stopped by "hippies sipping tea in their dorm rooms" alone. If they are such losers, how are they going to confront Iran and Syria? :p :p

(btw it's "fascist").

Iran also has a smaller middle class, and poorer infrastructure.We can go back and forth all day comparing and contrasting Iran and Iraq and never get anywhere.
I am saying destroy the goverment not the crap we are doing in Iraq where we try and rebuild it.
I say we blow the stuff up and kill a few goverment leaders and leave the Iranians to their own affairs.Because that was a good idea last time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax) and it didn't result in anything detrimental to US interests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution)? :rolleyes:

*Hides a mud mine under LG's chair*

2. The "best" weapons? Hardly. They use the F-14, an American plane which the US Military has deemed obsolete and no longer uses. It doesn't even use American parts anymore and they don't have Phoenix missiles, its only strong point anymore, and its radar is easily jammable. And Mig-29s and F4s, only slightly better. And they're all day fighters with no BVR.


Well, actually the Iranian F-14s, kindly supplied by the US to the Shah back in the '70s, were grounded because of lack of spare parts already in Gulf War I (you know, Iraq-Iran).
Anyway the US Navy scrapped the F-14 about two years ago iirc, so I wouldn't call it totally "obsolete". It's never been a great dogfighter, but it overcame its shortcomings with missiles.
Mig-29 and F-4 are all-weather BVR. The Fulcrum carries AA-7, AA-10 and AA-11 in the basical version. The F-4 carries Sparrows. It's BVR both of them.

*Hides a mud mine under LG's chair*

*spots the mud mine. Jumps on it* FOOM!

Well, actually the Iranian F-14s, kindly supplied by the US to the Shah back in the '70s, were grounded because of lack of spare parts already in Gulf War I (you know, Iraq-Iran).
Anyway the US Navy scrapped the F-14 about two years ago iirc, so I wouldn't call it totally "obsolete". It's never been a great dogfighter, but it overcame its shortcomings with missiles.
Mig-29 and F-4 are all-weather BVR. The Fulcrum carries AA-7, AA-10 and AA-11 in the basical version. The F-4 carries Sparrows. It's BVR both of them.
I also wouldn't underestimate the experience and tactical data the Iranian air force now has from the thousands of sorties they flew during the war with Iraq.

We dont need to invade Iran, there is no point and its not practical. We can however surgically strike thier nuclear reactors and Iran will put up a fuss but they will not risk a War. Iran is an economic shithole right now and Iran cant afford a war any more then we can right now. They arnt going to risk losing everything over a reactor or two that they dont even really need. Surgical strikes on Iranian reactors would play out almost the same way the Syrian one did, and simply, this is what really needs to be done.

We dont need to invade Iran, there is no point and its not practical. We can however surgically strike thier nuclear reactors and Iran will put up a fuss but they will not risk a War. Iran is an economic shithole right now and Iran cant afford a war any more then we can right now. They arnt going to risk losing everything over a reactor or two that they dont even really need. Surgical strikes on Iranian reactors would play out almost the same way the Syrian one did, and simply, this is what really needs to be done.

But why would you - do you really believe that it would make the world a safer/better place?

But why would you - do you really believe that it would make the world a safer/better place?

Lets see, would eliminating the source of dangerous radioactive material that has the potential to kill millions of people from a terrorist government be a good idea to control? Hmm. Id have to say yes.

We dont need to invade Iran, there is no point and its not practical. We can however surgically strike thier nuclear reactors and Iran will put up a fuss but they will not risk a War. Iran is an economic shithole right now and Iran cant afford a war any more then we can right now. They arnt going to risk losing everything over a reactor or two that they dont even really need. Surgical strikes on Iranian reactors would play out almost the same way the Syrian one did, and simply, this is what really needs to be done.Highly unlikely.

Lets see, would eliminating the source of dangerous radioactive material that has the potential to kill millions of people from a terrorist government be a good idea to control? Hmm. Id have to say yes.

Since when is Syria a 'terrorist' government? I loath buzzwords thankyou very much.

Lets see, would eliminating the source of dangerous radioactive material that has the potential to kill millions of people from a terrorist government be a good idea to control? Hmm. Id have to say yes.

Well hopefully most people don't share your paranoid delusions.

We dont need to invade Iran, there is no point and its not practical. We can however surgically strike thier nuclear reactors and Iran will put up a fuss but they will not risk a War. Iran is an economic shithole right now and Iran cant afford a war any more then we can right now. They arnt going to risk losing everything over a reactor or two that they dont even really need. Surgical strikes on Iranian reactors would play out almost the same way the Syrian one did, and simply, this is what really needs to be done.
Doubt the Israelis would like half the Iranian missile forces landing in Tel Aviv the next day, which is what would likely happen. Also given that the current government or Iraq is controlled by the Islamic Dawa Party and Supreme Islamic Council - both Iranian Shi'ite fronts - that's hardly a nice prospect.

We dont need to invade Iran, there is no point and its not practical. We can however surgically strike thier nuclear reactors and Iran will put up a fuss but they will not risk a War. Iran is an economic shithole right now and Iran cant afford a war any more then we can right now. They arnt going to risk losing everything over a reactor or two that they dont even really need. Surgical strikes on Iranian reactors would play out almost the same way the Syrian one did, and simply, this is what really needs to be done.

You do realize it would lead to a complete loss of the entire US hold in Iraq? All they have to do is get a large portion of their troops to doff uniforms, keep the weapons, and waltz through Iraq's porous borders. And if the US complains, they can point to the unprovoked bombings.

Lets see, would eliminating the source of dangerous radioactive material that has the potential to kill millions of people from a terrorist government be a good idea to control? Hmm. Id have to say yes.

Ahh, the good old fashioned "they're terrorists!" argument. I wonder in what capacity. Could it be the funding and support of insurgency groups? Hmmm, could be, but what's this? Why, it's a list of insurgency groups, many of them just plain mean, funded and trained by the CIA.

I suppose America should start bombing itself? It might serve as a good lesson to all those people who think they can go to war wherever and whenever they want and not worry about consequences.

Since when is Syria a 'terrorist' government? I loath buzzwords thankyou very much.

You need to study up on Syria. Syria is the poster boy for terrorist nations. Do you think they were building a weaponized plutonium reactor for a fundraising event for boy scouts?

You need to study up on Syria. Syria is the poster boy for terrorist nations.Coming from someone who grossly understimates what Iran is willing and capable of doing, this smacks of hypocrisy. Go study up yourself.

You need to study up on Syria. Syria is the poster boy for terrorist nations.
How so? If you mean Hezbollah sure they did help found them, but that was over 30 years ago, Hezbollah also doesn't need weapons from Iran because their are already enough weapons floating around in Lebanon anyways - you can thank America for M4-toting Hezbollah guerrillas...

Either way, Hezbollah is a banned organization in Syria, and the Syrian government is as a whole a very progressive and leftist administration, in which religious political organizations are banned.

How so?

Syria has been on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism since the list's inception in 1979.

Syria has been on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism since the list's inception in 1979.

Yes well I don't consider any such list valid, because if it were the US would be forced to have put themselves on it. I see such a list as the height of hypocrisy and perfectly shows the arrogance of the American position.

Syria has been on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism since the list's inception in 1979.

I don't suppose the US is honest enough to include itself on that list, not that the list means anything internationally?

I will not depict Syria as a progressive and leftist government...

Edit: but I agree that USA is highly hypocrit about that kind of list.

I will not depict Syria as a progressive and leftist government...
That's because you're not a Stalin fan-boy. :p

I don't suppose the US is honest enough to include itself on that list, not that the list means anything internationally?

Oh please Syria was listed during JIMMY CARTERS administration as a terrorist state. This is the same guy that visited Hamas last week.

Oh please Syria was listed during JIMMY CARTERS administration as a terrorist state. This is the same guy that visited Hamas last week.

...meanwhile at the same time the US was sponsoring the same kind of actions as Syria in Nicaragua, Operation Gladio in Italy etc. etc.

Now I don't defend the actions of Syria, or Iran, but the US simply has no right to carry out surgical strikes against any country they want to, and to do so would be counter productive. A mature approach to foreign policy would produce far more effective results.

Now I don't defend the actions of Syria, or Iran, but the US simply has no right to carry out surgical strikes against any country they want to, and to do so would be counter productive. A mature approach to foreign policy would produce far more effective results.

A mature foreign policy with Iran and Syria? Did you really type that with a straight face? Or did you mean mature like Syria completly denying the reality of their undeclared plutonium nuclear reactor that appears to be purposed specifically for production of weapons grade plutonium? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/04/24/VI2008042403257.html

Or with the mature position of Iran that believes Israel should be erased from the surface of the earth? You mean THAT kind of mature foreign policy?

A mature foreign policy with Iran and Syria? Did you really type that with a straight face? Or did you mean mature like Syria completly denying the reality of their undeclared plutonium nuclear reactor that appears to be purposed specifically for production of weapons grade plutonium? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/04/24/VI2008042403257.html

Or with the mature position of Iran that believes Israel should be erased from the surface of the earth? You mean THAT kind of mature foreign policy?Or the mature position of maintaining that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? =P

Or the mature position of maintaining that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? =P

A perfectly valid point, which is why i keep reposting that video because its actual visual evidence and not bullshit. And thats important.

A mature foreign policy with Iran and Syria? Did you really type that with a straight face? Or did you mean mature like Syria completly denying the reality of their undeclared plutonium nuclear reactor that appears to be purposed specifically for production of weapons grade plutonium? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/04/24/VI2008042403257.html

Or with the mature position of Iran that believes Israel should be erased from the surface of the earth? You mean THAT kind of mature foreign policy?

A mature policy for everyone - the US didn't leap in to bomb Israel when it got nuclear wepaons, nor India nor Pakistan. You have to have a consistent policy judging every county against the same set of rules and standards.

A perfectly valid point, which is why i keep reposting that video because its actual visual evidence and not bullshit. And thats important.Well, the point was that Iran and Syria lacking a mature foreign policy themselves is no valid excuse for engaging in an immature foreign policy against them. In fact, the current Iranian regime is a direct result of an arrogant and self-servicing foreign policy by the US and UK. We're paying for Eisenhower's mistakes today.

A mature policy for everyone - the US didn't leap in to bomb Israel when it got nuclear wepaons, nor India nor Pakistan. You have to have a consistent policy judging every county against the same set of rules and standards.

Israel and India are hardly the equals of Syria, and I would trust the PM's of both of those countries with a nuclear device far more than I would trust Assad and his Stalinist paradise.

A mature policy for everyone - the US didn't leap in to bomb Israel when it got nuclear wepaons, nor India nor Pakistan. You have to have a consistent policy judging every county against the same set of rules and standards.

Thats fine, unless your dealing with the international equivelant of a 250lb 10 year old, throwing a temper tantrum. The goal is to keep sharp pointy objects out of their reach till they calm down. And i throw most of the Middle East into that catagory.

Thats fine, unless your dealing with the international equivelant of a 250lb 10 year old, throwing a temper tantrum. The goal is to keep sharp pointy objects out of their reach till they calm down. And i throw most of the Middle East into that catagory.

I would also throw the US into that category if it behaves in the way you wish it to.

I would also throw the US into that category if it behaves in the way you wish it to.

The US is the adult that throws the occasional shitfit, as we all do, but its not at all the same thing ;)

I would also throw the US into that category if it behaves in the way you wish it to.

The US is more like the Michael Scott/David Brent of the international community, if you understand the analogy.

The US is the adult that throws the occasional shitfit, as we all do, but its not at all the same thing ;)Course not. Iran, Syria, and even Russia have yet to do the kind of damage the US has.

Course not. Iran, Syria, and even Russia have yet to do the kind of damage the US has.

I could argue that point with 3 or 4 books worth of arguement but thats for another thread/minor degree in history.

I also wouldn't underestimate the experience and tactical data the Iranian air force now has from the thousands of sorties they flew during the war with Iraq.
The war ended 20 years ago. Once a fighter pilot reaches age 35, his effectiveness goes down. None of those pilots are going to be flying anymore.

The F-14s are almost all grounded. The estimates on flyable F-14s ranges from 3-6. That is out of an original compliment of nearly 80. Even if more are flyable, they can't operate their AIM-54C Phoenix missile. Without the AIM-54, the F-14 is an interceptor without its long range teeth. It would be meat for AIM-120s.

The F-4s are ancient. These are products of late 1950s technology. The F-4 is at the level of a MiG-21.

The MiG-29 is the best aircraft Iran has. In the end, air battles will be decided by training, experience, and BVR abilities. The US AWACS planes would ensure that MiG-29s would be splashed by American fighters with their own RADARs off. The MiG-29s wouldn't have a chance. US pilots have faced MiG-29s before and the MiG-29 has been bent over backwards in most engagements.

The US is more like the Michael Scott/David Brent of the international community, if you understand the analogy.
Here at Scranton we are all a nice family. Except for Toby because he's divorced.

The war ended 20 years ago. Once a fighter pilot reaches age 35, his effectiveness goes down. None of those pilots are going to be flying anymore.

The F-14s are almost all grounded. The estimates on flyable F-14s ranges from 3-6. That is out of an original compliment of nearly 80. Even if more are flyable, they can't operate their AIM-54C Phoenix missile. Without the AIM-54, the F-14 is an interceptor without its long range teeth. It would be meat for AIM-120s.

The F-4s are ancient. These are products of late 1950s technology. The F-4 is at the level of a MiG-21.

The MiG-29 is the best aircraft Iran has. In the end, air battles will be decided by training, experience, and BVR abilities. The US AWACS planes would ensure that MiG-29s would be splashed by American fighters with their own RADARs off. The MiG-29s wouldn't have a chance. US pilots have faced MiG-29s before and the MiG-29 has been bent over backwards in most engagements.
Yay US! The good thing about our military is that we can kill almost anybody in a traditional war. Damn network warfare insurgents.

Yay US! The good thing about our military is that we can kill almost anybody in a traditional war. Damn network warfare insurgents.

There is a reason people use asymmetrical warfare against the US.;)

There is a reason people use asymmetrical warfare against the US.;)

Yeah. On the plus side, we'll never get invaded (unless those dirty commies start brainwashing people. Like, a lot of people).

For me, the worst part of all of this is that it dawns on me that I really don't trust the US intelligence and their claims, and I don't believe the Israelis either. That's a bit sad, because I'm not prepared to take the word of the Syrians either.

For me, the worst part of all of this is that it dawns on me that I really don't trust the US intelligence and their claims, and I don't believe the Israelis either. That's a bit sad, because I'm not prepared to take the word of the Syrians either.

The really hard part is that the Syrians are saying virtually nothing on the matter. They quietly bulldozed the site, and promptly refrained from making any comment about the incident. They didn't claim the Israelis blasted a baby formula factory, or fruit processing plant or any of the usual plausible suspects: They just went mum, a fact that I find uniquely suspicious, given how much Assad likes to play the victim, in relation to the Israelis, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, the French, the Saudis, the Americans or anyone else, for that matter.

The really hard part is that the Syrians are saying virtually nothing on the matter. They quietly bulldozed the site, and promptly refrained from making any comment about the incident. They didn't claim the Israelis blasted a baby formula factory, or fruit processing plant or any of the usual plausible suspects: They just went mum, a fact that I find uniquely suspicious, given how much Assad likes to play the victim, in relation to the Israelis, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, the French, the Saudis, the Americans or anyone else, for that matter.

I'm with you on that. The Syrians are unusually quiet about all this. Which begs the question, why aren't the Syrians making noise?

Uh.. all nations have the right to power their homes, regardless of who they're allied or not allied with. Nuclear power happens to be a pretty good way to do that, at the moment.

Good point....I wonder who they were sending the power to? I mean I didn't see and power lines, transformers, distribution centers...Oh thats right you don't need any of that stuff to send power to places...I forgot

The really hard part is that the Syrians are saying virtually nothing on the matter. They quietly bulldozed the site, and promptly refrained from making any comment about the incident. They didn't claim the Israelis blasted a baby formula factory, or fruit processing plant or any of the usual plausible suspects: They just went mum, a fact that I find uniquely suspicious, given how much Assad likes to play the victim, in relation to the Israelis, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, the French, the Saudis, the Americans or anyone else, for that matter.

Would you be proud of the fact that a weapons site was destroyed in an Israeli bombing? I have heard speculation that Israel sent a message to Syria right before the bombs fell saying we are going to take this out but we won't announce it so you can save face. I am not sure it was nukes but it was something not great or else they would have doen what they always do. Play the victim. Syria can't take Israel in a war. If they could, I think they would have.
If it was a nuclear facility, Syria should have announced work on a nuclear power plant to power their nation and allowed inspectors in. Then Israel wouldn't ahve bombed it, but keeping it quiet makes it seem suspicious to the Israelis(who lived in a state of paranoia but who can blame them)

Good point....I wonder who they were sending the power to? I mean I didn't see and power lines, transformers, distribution centers...Oh thats right you don't need any of that stuff to send power to places...I forgot
It's possible they were developing a suitable power-generating reactor before hooking up infrastructure, to make sure they had a solid design that wouldn't randomly fail.

The war ended 20 years ago. Once a fighter pilot reaches age 35, his effectiveness goes down. None of those pilots are going to be flying anymore.

The F-14s are almost all grounded. The estimates on flyable F-14s ranges from 3-6. That is out of an original compliment of nearly 80. Even if more are flyable, they can't operate their AIM-54C Phoenix missile. Without the AIM-54, the F-14 is an interceptor without its long range teeth. It would be meat for AIM-120s.

The F-4s are ancient. These are products of late 1950s technology. The F-4 is at the level of a MiG-21.

The MiG-29 is the best aircraft Iran has. In the end, air battles will be decided by training, experience, and BVR abilities. The US AWACS planes would ensure that MiG-29s would be splashed by American fighters with their own RADARs off. The MiG-29s wouldn't have a chance. US pilots have faced MiG-29s before and the MiG-29 has been bent over backwards in most engagements.

Well I am no military expert and I don't intend to participate in your military masturbatory and fetishism for violence, I was simply making an assumption. I find it disturbing how many right-wingers both on NSG and other forums disguise their views behind their military buzzwords and wiki-education.

Well I am no military expert and I don't intend to participate in your military masturbatory and fetishism for violence, I was simply making an assumption. I find it disturbing how many right-wingers both on NSG and other forums disguise their views behind their military buzzwords and wiki-education.Doesn't invalidate the point that flying sorties during the Iran-Iraq war is hardly beneficial to today's Iranian air force...

Doesn't invalidate the point that flying sorties during the Iran-Iraq war is hardly beneficial to today's Iranian air force...
This is NSG, and you can be assured I look past the military talk of such individuals constantly talking about how 'easy' it would be to destroy Iran, Syria or whoever their right-wing heroes don't like today. I see through it, because these people and their military talk always corresponds to these same conclusions.

This is NSG, and you can be assured I look past the military talk of such individuals constantly talking about how 'easy' it would be to destroy Iran, Syria or whoever their right-wing heroes don't like today. I see through it, because these people and their military talk always corresponds to these same conclusions.Just because Iran or Syria won't be easy to destroy doesn't mean their airforce is very effective, especially not for the reasons you listed. I don't like IDF and I vehemently disagree with him a lot, but that doesn't really invalidate that particular argument.

A perfectly valid point, which is why i keep reposting that video because its actual visual evidence and not bullshit. And thats important.

Actual visual evidence and not bullshit. Curious how there were no photographs that allowed anyone to match the reactor components displayed to the facility. Maybe they didn't have it.

Or maybe someone is pointing to white blobs on an aerial map and saying "Mobile WMD labs" hmm? We have evidence they say, but they won't disclose it. Arguably, for fear of compromising agents. I could believe that. But not their claims. CIA credibility under the Bush administration is... lacking.

The US is the adult that throws the occasional shitfit, as we all do, but its not at all the same thing ;)

Compared to Europe and other, older, nations, America is the teenager who has gotten the keys to the car and has so far, run down several other nations for "shits and giggles". No, I lie. For "resources and political bickering" is closer. And "Keeping military industrial lobbyists happy"

This is NSG, and you can be assured I look past the military talk of such individuals constantly talking about how 'easy' it would be to destroy Iran, Syria or whoever their right-wing heroes don't like today. I see through it, because these people and their military talk always corresponds to these same conclusions.

Because if you concentrate your rhetoric enough, you'll be able to break physical laws and leap over tall buildings in a single bound, stop a speeding bullet with dogma, and materialize weapons of war out of thin air.

[/sarcasm]

Actual visual evidence and not bullshit. Curious how there were no photographs that allowed anyone to match the reactor components displayed to the facility. Maybe they didn't have it.
Or maybe someone is pointing to white blobs on an aerial map and saying "Mobile WMD labs" hmm? We have evidence they say, but they won't disclose it. Arguably, for fear of compromising agents. I could believe that. But not their claims. CIA credibility under the Bush administration is... lacking.


You can even see the circular reactor buried in the floor in the middle of the building in the picture where the roof was blown off post attack. Again if you have watched the 11 min video, the evidence seems pretty compelling and goes way farther then white blobs.


Compared to Europe and other, older, nations, America is the teenager who has gotten the keys to the car and has so far, run down several other nations for "shits and giggles". No, I lie. For "resources and political bickering" is closer. And "Keeping military industrial lobbyists happy"

Umm no, America didnt borrow the car, they INVENTED it. There is a perfectly good reason that the planet Earths language of business is English. And its not because Britian and Austrailia are so old world and cool.

NoKo is a known proliferater. I would not be surprised if Syria did get their help to get some sort of bomb program going.

From, Israel's PoV, it is their policy to deny nukes to any other country in their region while maintaining ambiguity about their own status.

The air strikes are pretty much consistent with these. There is no reason why they would risk exposing themselves for bombing some building which they don't see as a threat.

There is a saying that a thief bit by a scorpion keeps quiet. Syrian silence is very much like that.

My god you people make me sick! If north korea wants to build a nuclear program, fine by me. If syria does, fine by me. How do you expect countries to grow if they cant even make thier own damn power!? If they have nuclear energy...they dont have to buy coal. and if they dont have to buy coal, then they can feed thier people. And if they can feed thier people, they will become more nourished and educated. and so on and so forth.

Do you HONESTLY think some little place like north korea is going to launch nuclear weapons at the most powerful country in the world (america) with the whole United Nations behind it? Hell! we INVENTED nuclear weapons!


and the car lol

You can even see the circular reactor buried in the floor in the middle of the building in the picture where the roof was blown off post attack. Again if you have watched the 11 min video, the evidence seems pretty compelling and goes way farther then white blobs.


I saw all 11 minutes and 30 seconds. The images supposedly could be compelling, until you consider the following. The circular object in the building after the roof was destroyed does not provide sufficient detail as to make for any comparison with the example reactors to the demolished one. The supposed reactor vessel post demolition was not shown with any surrounding terrain to match the demolished building.

To put it simply, it could be another fabrication job, just done better.


Umm no, America didnt borrow the car, they INVENTED it.


Strictly speaking, France invented the car. America simply pretends they did. They do that a lot you know? Claim credit for inventions that aren't theirs, patent it, and then sell it as theirs.

And then their industries throw a fit when the favor is returned.


There is a perfectly good reason that the planet Earths language of business is English. And its not because Britian and Austrailia are so old world and cool.

No, it's because until the 1950s, Britain had a huge empire across many nations, wherein English was used as the administrative language, resulting in a large cross section of the global population familiarized with the English language.

But please, do go on waving that "America #1" flag. When the house of cards collapses, and make no mistake, it already is collapsing what with the economic policies of spending money you don't have, I wonder if you will still wave it.

No, it's because until the 1950s, Britain had a huge empire across many nations, wherein English was used as the administrative language, resulting in a large cross section of the global population familiarized with the English language.

But please, do go on waving that "America #1" flag. When the house of cards collapses, and make no mistake, it already is collapsing what with the economic policies of spending money you don't have, I wonder if you will still wave it.

Sssh! Don't spoil the dream. It's the only thing we Americans have left. :(

Well I am no military expert and I don't intend to participate in your military masturbatory and fetishism for violence, I was simply making an assumption. I find it disturbing how many right-wingers both on NSG and other forums disguise their views behind their military buzzwords and wiki-education.

You mean like how saying Nazi Germany was a major military power makes you a fascist?

[/godwin]

The USA spends as much on defence as the entire world combined. Saying that it could defeat most countries in a conventional war is hardly right-wing jingoism.

AS best I can understand, Syria built the reactor secretly, thus increasing suspicion that it was intended for military use rather than civilian benefit. Apparently they didn't inform the International Atomic Energy Agency or otherwise inform the world of their actions.

That said, I don't really care if Syria, Iran, or anyone else has a nuclear reactor. If it's built by the North Koreans, well, :gundge:. North Korean technology doesn't impress me. Even more crappy than Chinese stuff.

AS best I can understand, Syria built the reactor secretly, thus increasing suspicion that it was intended for military use rather than civilian benefit. Apparently they didn't inform the International Atomic Energy Agency or otherwise inform the world of their actions.

That said, I don't really care if Syria, Iran, or anyone else has a nuclear reactor. If it's built by the North Koreans, well, :gundge:. North Korean technology doesn't impress me. Even more crappy than Chinese stuff.

Well, about nuclear power, I think that crappy stuff would be very dangerous, no ?

I still don't know what to think about this Israelian target...I admit that there is a great possibility that it was what CIA say.

I think that the IDF weren't bad ( for this specific operation ).
On the other hand, thinking that Israël has nukes is very frustrating: since they have them, they would be launched only if Israël is loosing a war.
Thus, USA ( mainly ) and EU (if the situation gets worser ) are something like forced to help them, to prevent a nuclear war.

We are already cleaned up their mess in Lebanon.

If I was Israël neighbour, I, too, would stockpile some nuclear bombs, just for the dissuasive power.