Is War With Iran Necessary?

[Stealth Hunter]

I think not. We can settle this diplomatically and peacefully, not in the traditional war-mongering manner that we gave Saddam and Iraq.

[nikimcbee]

I'm undecided. I see no reason to invade like Iraq, maybe we can kick them in the balls really hard. That might fix some things.:shifty:

[kurtz]

Yes let's stop mucking about and this ltime let's not muck about with regime change, just dismantle anything they can use to harm us and go. Hey, I've got a better idea let's just take the oil wells and get some nice cheap petrol to recompense us for all the trouble they've caused.

No. I'm not being ironic. Yes I think we should do this everywhere.

[UnderseaLcpl]

If we became non-interventionist and were willing to trade with Iran freely and not back nations that have strained relationships with them then no it would not be neccessary.
If we continue to support Israel and maintain presence and/or support of Iraq I can see trouble ahead.
It's kind of a lose-lose situation; either we stay the hell out of Middle Eastern affairs so as to appease them and place our allies and other nations in jeopardy, or we play policeman and piss off Iran. And I'm certain that either way some extremist or another will be mad at us for either decision.

[Skybird]

Is War With Iran Necessary?

translates into:

Do I accept a nuclear armed Iran yes or no? Do I accept nuclear proliferation benefitting terror organisations?

the latter is my primary concern. I never seriously believed in Iran sacrificng itself by reaching out with nuclear weapons itself.

However, a nuclear armed Iran, if if it does not use them, and just commits itself to proliferation (which I take as a given), will shift balances in the region and in the world, making the present ways of adressing tensions and diplomatic problems as well as resisting the pressure of the Islamic world much more difficult if not impossible. the mere threat of Islamic organisation to use nukes already would potentially be enough to paralyse the West and leave it vulnerable, if not defenseless to their demands.

Without force, Iran simply will not give up its nuclear military ambitions. It will not happen, believe it or not, it will not happen. That simple. Period. I do not believe that report of the program being stopped for a single minute. Not even for a second I believed it. It is illogical from an Iranian perspective to give it up. I do not expect an enemy to act stupid, or illogical.

So this is the question it comes down to indeed: do you accept a nuclear armed Iran? Sounds almost harmless and simple a question, but it is complex and has a lot of hidden intricacies.

I personally think it already was a very huge mistake to not find nout about the Pakistn program in time, and see how Pakistan messes up the whole region, far beyond its own borders. If it were possible to board a time machien, I would be willing to go back in time and destroy the nation before it built nulcear weapons, but that is not possible anymore, obviously. I do not want that bad example to be a story repeating itself. also, nukes in iran will mean nothing else but a nuclear arms race in the gulf region in total. Saudi Arabia alraedy has started first steps with a nuclear program years ago. More slamic nations having nukes. More threat of nulcear proliferation. How much can the world handle of that, before the sh!t happens? How long will the world's luck last, when everything is done to make it run out?

Which brings us to the next question:

Do I accept to deny Iran gaining nukes by using nukes against Iran myself?

Because I take it as a given that with conventional means the program can at best be delayed, but not stopped or prevented.

We should use as little force as possible but as much force as needed to prevent Iran getting nuclear arms. No matter what it costs. Preventing Iranian nukes must be our only top priority, and we shall not accept foul compromise - it will cost us more than what we have saved in the first. And that will necessarily include the need to use small nukes on selected target areas. While their immediate effect in taking out deep hidden research bunkers may be possible to save cities, towns and the civilian population, the lpongterm effect from contamionation of soil, groundwater and air remains, so even if the Pentagon speaks entzhusiastically of mini-nukes as bunker-busters, don't be mislead: it will remain to be an extremely dirty affair in the long range. However, if you are not willing to go all the way, don't start war action: nothing worse than to kill and destroy all for nothing. If you go for it, do what needs to be done, without mercy, and go all the way. There is no in-between.

So make damn sure you are sure about your motives.


With the exception of Israel I do not see any Western nation seriously willing the use of nukes in Iran. And that is the Iranian gamble: they know that western politicians will not accept the use of nukes, and will be afraid of the population at home. That's why they are pressing on: it is their winning strategy, and the strongest move they have: it will win them what they want. Sanctions they can easily aford. conventional strikes they can easily survive, and even strike back in various different means. since I cannot see a military operation like I figured, I do see a nuclear armed Iran in the future. That will be the reality we will have to deal with. there will also be nuclear blackmailing of the West soem time later. This is the most likely scenario in my thinking, and eventually we will realise that the price has been too high. but then it will be too late for us to correct it.

Maybe we should do like that danish ministre once proposed during the cold war: he wanted to set up a telephone answering machine linked with the kremlin, and a tape saying: "Welcome to Denmark, we surrender."

[STEED]

More to the point, what dose the general public think of this one in America & England? Forget the scheming politicians for the moment.

Here in the UK the Army's moral is rock bottom and more and more are leaving once there term is up, so sending them in to Iran will do nothing for them. As for the general public, the feeling seems to be no trust to wards politicians on this one. And with recession now a fact I hardly think we're going any where unless Iran had nuclear weapons in the here and now as of today.

Israel is keeping an eye on them and most likely will act if they need to. It all boils down to who is running Iran and at the moment its a lot of wind bags. And of course the oil situation will play its part in 20 to 30 years from now.

[StdDev]

I'm undecided. I see no reason to invade like Iraq, maybe we can kick them in the balls really hard. That might fix some things.:shifty:

Hmmm ironic that I just read THIS (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/iran-kicks-america-in-the-nuts--200807101084/)this morning.....

[nikimcbee]

I'm undecided. I see no reason to invade like Iraq, maybe we can kick them in the balls really hard. That might fix some things.:shifty:

Hmmm ironic that I just read THIS (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/iran-kicks-america-in-the-nuts--200807101084/)this morning.....

Whoa, that's too funny. Small world:rotfl: .

[UnderseaLcpl]

I rescind my earlier opinion. I change my answer to "no". Partially, this is because of skybird's post but also because I have decided that isolationism is preferable to war until we can take care of our own country. As Jefferson said; "Trade with all nations, alliances with none".

[Sailor Steve]

:rotfl: StdDev! As a friend of mine once said, "America's policy is to leave people alone. If you mess with us, we'll come to your house and kick it into rubble. Then we'll go back home, put our feet up and have a beer."

Would that it were still so.

[Tchocky]

No, war is not necessary. The talk of war and threat of nuclear weapons become a self-realising discourse. I'm sure any nation would engage in a show of force when there is constant talk of attack.
Ideally, no side should make provocative moves, but that's not this world. There is much discontent in Iran with the political leadership and overall economic situation, change may well be in the air.
War, or even air strikes, would bind the nation together. Not a good thing for those looking for progress. I do hope John McCain either modifies his position or fails miserably in November.

[Steel_Tomb]

To be honest, unless Iran stops pissing around and making remarks like "we will set Israel on fire" or "wipe israel off the map" I think we are heading for war anyway, Israel already feels severely threatened by its Arab neighbours, and Iran test firing long range ballistic missiles along with a strengthening nuclear program will surely be ringing some very loud alarm bells in Israel! There will come a time when Israel will have to use force to protect itself. People critisized them for blowing up the nuclear facility in Iraq, but afterwards its been learnt that senior scientists working there have admitted they were working on a nuclear device... At least Israel, unlike the West, is actually takleing this problem instead of allowing it to grow whilst we sit on our arses pondering what to do about it.

Love the or loate them, you simply don't threaten Israel like the way Iran has been doing of late... its asking for trouble. If Germany were to say that they wanted to see the French wiped off the map of Europe there would be absolute uproar, however have some towel wearing extremist say it and we brush him off thinking nothing of it.

Only fools underestimate their enemies, and thats precisely what the West (apart from America) are doing.

[Tchocky]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/09/iran.nuclear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

Remember that in decisions of war, Ahmedinijad has feck-all power.
Regarding the first statement, I think it's not surprising given that the sole remaining superpower devotes a huge chunk of political energy to the possibility of attacking Iran. It's not like such a threat falls right out of the sky.

[Skybird]

No, war is not necessary. The talk of war and threat of nuclear weapons become a self-realising discourse. I'm sure any nation would engage in a show of force when there is constant talk of attack.
Ideally, no side should make provocative moves, but that's not this world. There is much discontent in Iran with the political leadership and overall economic situation, change may well be in the air.
War, or even air strikes, would bind the nation together. Not a good thing for those looking for progress. I do hope John McCain either modifies his position or fails miserably in November.
In case of war, we do not care for "progress" anyway. Removing the nuclear threat would be sufficient. In case of war, Iranian interests would not matter at all. At least not for "us". Their interests must not be our concern.

Do not be foolish to assume that it is Ahmadinejadh alone. He can leave office tomorrow - and they still would press on for nukes. It has not begun with him enetering office, you know. Their intention was restrengthened from the bad example the Americans have set with accusing an unarmed nation (Iraq) of having nukes and then attack it because it had no nukes to keep any attacker away), although it had none; but it also comes from the self-dynamic that has developed that many oriental Muhammeddans look at Iran both in fear and pride, for having the guts to confront the great satan and threatening to get it's hands on nukes. Plus nukes would be a valuable tool to further fuel Islam's inherent dogmatic claim for world power, and enforcing itself onto all that is not already islamic. Ahmadinejadh is not clashing with the clerics about wanting nukes - the clerics want them, too. they are angry at him because he did not play a calm hand and directed unwanted attention at Iran's ambitions, he did not remain a low profile - he did not protect their project, but damaged it that way. seen that way we must be thankful for him being an idiot and making all the noise, else many more people in the West than it still is the case would still be sleeping. Pakistan was much more clever and managed to hide it's ambitions until it was too late and the world was confronted by solid, undeniable facts that could not be reversed without a nuclear exchange. this is the reason why Pakistan can afford to bring the hoole region into trouble and destabilization, since thirty years at least.

Progress and what global Islam thinks of the West is not my priority. Appeasing them will not change a bit the Islamic agenda of chnanging the world. My priority is not to see an Iran engaging in nuclear proliferation, by ruling out the option that it could choose to do that (trust is kind, but control is better). This priority ranks above everything else, without compromise. I know that ironically Iran needs civilian use of nuclear energy, to free more oil it consumes itself at ridiculous low prices for export and winning profits from that to boost it's industrial developement, currently they are wasting money in ridiculous ammounts by wasting too much of their own gas. However, as logical and understandable as that is, due to the factors mentioned above this second interest in civilian nuclear developement ranks below our interest of not allowing them nuclear arms - not today, and not in the forseeable future. They have successfully destroyed any basis for having trust they would handle nuclear capabilities responsibly. The risk that civilian use goes hand in hand with military use - or better: proliferation-wise use - is not acceptable for us. And if that hurts Iran's desires and interests, I'm sorry (well, not really) - and still remain adamant on the issue.

[Tchocky]

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/007691.html

[AntEater]

Skybirds posts are a perfect indication that moral people will always be the ones f....ed by the warmongers.
I simply don't buy the "just war" thing anymore, it has been done to death.

The "nuclear proliferation" is just an assumption, nothing more. Interestingly, Pakistan (directly or indirectly) sponsors pretty much every stupid terrorist there is, without ever giving them nuclear material sofar.
Why can't they simply revert to cold war logic? If somebody has nukes and launches them, he will be wiped out, it is as simple as that.
Regarding military options, there are a few problems:
If there is a limited strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, there is no 100% guarantee that every last facility will be destroyed.
With Israel, I doubt they can even pull this off, but with the US using B-2s and cruise missiles and a concerted air campaign from carriers and Iraqui bases, they could.
What would be the result? Ok, for now the threat is gone, but Iran could now officially announce they have the right to develop such weapons and publically announce that. The result would be some kind of perpetual semi-war against Iran, with airstrikes every now and then against selected targets.
Nobody could stop Iran from offensively expand terrorism in Lebanon and engage in small scale warfare in the straits of Hormuz. Keep in mind that even if the US navy wins control of the Straits of Hormuz, the oil price will still go through the roof, just because every tanker sailing there would be under the potential threat. Even if the US Navy has everything under control, the pressure on the markets would not subside.
Not to mention the costs of convoying them until the end of hostilities. And in such a quasi war, the hostilities might linger on for a decade or so. I wouldnt be suprised if the oil price would double in that chase, and this would simply crash the worldwide economy. Militarily it would be Gaza/West Bank on a scale of thousands of kilometers and quite one sided too, but economically, it could be fatal for the worldwide economy as it exists. Keep in mind our globalized free market is not made for international crises, as it always strives to operate at peak efficiency to keep shareholders happy, there just no leverage anyway to write off losses or cover dry spells. It is a fragile system, and the Iran situation might really make things go south economically.

In fact, the only war against Iran that would make any sense would be a full scale invasion. A land drive to Teheran with serveral divisions. Occupy the country, let the son of the Shah return and keep the Iranians under control again for the US. Such a war would take some time, cost casualties ranging in the thousands on the "coalition of the willing" side and maybe hundreds of thousands on Iranian side.
But I see neither the political will nor the actual capacity to launch such an offensive. Also the problem is that the starting point, Iraq, is not exactly the safest operational base either.
All said, such a war would be over some time, limiting the economic damage.

[PeriscopeDepth]

It just isn't possible to prevent every state we'd prefer not to obtain nuclear weapons from obtaining them. I don't worry so much about the states, I worry about the non state actors.

PD

[Skybird]

It just isn't possible to prevent every state we'd prefer not to obtain nuclear weapons from obtaining them. I don't worry so much about the states, I worry about the non state actors.

PD
Exactly.

BTW, I have not voted. I'll keep all options open, and refuse to limit my possible decisions that early.

Not that my decision, or this poll, do matter anyway.

AntEater,


In fact, the only war against Iran that would make any sense would be a full scale invasion. A land drive to Teheran with serveral divisions. Occupy the country, let the son of the Shah return and keep the Iranians under control again for the US. Such a war would take some time, cost casualties ranging in the thousands on the "coalition of the willing" side and maybe hundreds of thousands on Iranian side.
But I see neither the political will nor the actual capacity to launch such an offensive. Also the problem is that the starting point, Iraq, is not exactly the safest operational base either.
All said, such a war would be over some time, limiting the economic damage.
you have queer images on your mind when calling invasion the only reasonable war - and expecting that one to be a short war and limited in damage. You have not looked close enough at Iraq then. I can tell you that Iran would be a hundred times more difficult then Iraq. It's the worst case scenario, lasting longer, costing more in lives and money - and cannot be won anyway. Your "only way" scenario is my worst case scenario and the reasosn why I would refuse to support such kind of a stupid war. Because it has no reasonable chance to succeed, and would cause killing and destruction all for nothing. I think your problem is that you mix up what you want to achieve with what can be achieved by a given way of going, or in other words: wishful thinking, and making hope a valid strategy. At the same time you shy away from the grim side of war, and trying to talk it nice and tidy. Please put your own life at risk for such goals, if you want. But stay away from putting other's lives at risk for that.

I have no doubt tjhat even the Pentagon does not plan for an invasion of Iran. I gues they have learned a lesson or two from the past two wars Rumsfeld has messed up for them.

[AntEater]

First of all, I don't want to go to war at all. You got me wrong on this one. I voted no.

Yes, but what can a limited bombing campaign accomplish?
- it cannot, by any guarantee, eliminate Iran's nuclear program entirely. Iran had years to prepare for this eventuality
- it cannot remove the existing regime, in fact it will most likely strenghten it
- it will give Iran a casus belli for creating all kinds of havoc like blocking the straits of Hormus, open support for shiites in south Iraq, maybe even a limited cross border guerilla campaign. When the bombs start falling, there is war and there's no reason for Iran to hold back and not do all the damage it can do. And as I said above, the world economy will start hyperventilating as soon as there's the slightest suspicion of any armed conflict around the straits.
- it will basically be open ended, for the fact that if no one can guarantee the total destruction of iranian WMDs, and because of the reasons 2 and 3 it will most likely be expanded to include targets like iranian naval facilities or facilities of the Pasdaran. There could be a "mission creep" where a limited campaign slowly slides into an all out air campain
Basically, you can bomb the crap out of Iran and when the rubble clears, all you have done is postponed the problem for 5-10 years, given the mullah regime a new lease of life and killed hundreds or thousands of Iranians, caused economic destruction that will cause mass unemployment and a ****load of other consequences. Not to mention the fact of turning around public opinion in Iran, which seems strangely pro US from what I heard and read into the government line.
And then after Iran has recovered, or even if it hasn't, who is keeping the mullahs from starting it all over again?
Then what? Another bombing campaign? Bomb Iran once or twice a year for decades whenever the US has suspicions of such activity?
Basically this whole scenario could drag on indefinitely and could close down for business the persian gulf and Kuwait and most of the gulf emirates for the time being.
If Milosevich himself had not given in, NATO could've bombed Serbia until it ran out of bombs, and Milosevich was a european head of government, not a mideastern head of a bunch of religious fanatics.
So if any US administration goes to war over Iran, it is basically in a lose-lose situation. It can wage an air campaign with the described consequences or it can wage a ground assault which will cost countless lives and, as you say might lead to another Iraq.
I don't have a patent solution, I don't like Iran becoming a nuclear power either. I suppose with both current administrations (plus with the current israeli non-administration) there's nothing to do but hope neither of them does anything stupid.
A new iranian president might be behind their nuclear program as well, but the west can better negotiate with someone who does not regularly threaten Israel.
But if the US decides it needs another war, in my opinion an invasion would be the better answer.

[baggygreen]

We keep speaking of the US waging war...

Fact of the matter is the first strike won't be by the US, or by Iran.

It'll be Israel.

Sure, they might be nice and let the US know about it in advance, but what can the US do? they've sworn to protect Israel from attacks, they can't back out of that. they can't shoot down the Israeli jets, no doubt that would be made public in minutes.

The key player here is Israel, don't forget that! they've done it before and will do it again.

[Tchocky]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/military-action-would-destabilise-iraq-860509.html


The Iraqi government's main allies are the US and Iran, whose governments openly detest each other. The Iraqi government may be militarily dependent on the 140,000 US troops in the country, but its Shia and Kurdish leaders have long been allied to Iran. Iraqi leaders have to continually perform a balancing act in which they seek to avoid alienating either country.
The balancing act has become more difficult for Iraq since George Bush successfully requested $400m (£200m) from Congress last year to fund covert operations aimed at destabilising the Iranian leadership. Some of these operations are likely to be launched from Iraqi territory with the help of Iranian militants opposed to Tehran.

Though the MEK is on the State Department's list of terrorist groups, the Pentagon and other US institutions have been periodically friendly to it. The US task force charged by Mr Bush with destabilising the Iranian government is likely to co-operate with it.



An embarrassing aspect of the American pin-***** war against Iran is that many of its instruments were previously on the payroll of Saddam Hussein. The MEK even played a role in 1991 in helping to crush the uprising against the Baathist regime at the end of the Gulf war.

[Iceman]

I think not. We can settle this diplomatically and peacefully, not in the traditional war-mongering manner that we gave Saddam and Iraq.

You act as if they are leaving "anyone" a choice...kinda reminds me of some other guy who kept snubbing UN investigators for years.....hum wonder where he is?

The attack will not come from the U.S. either but Israel if from anyone...the writing is on the wall...

War-mongering?...lol you crack me up....war is all humanity knows....and they/we are good at it.

Mark 13
[28] Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
[29] So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

and Ant-Eater...that cold war "MAD" strategy will only work on a guy who does not want to die...these ****ers....want to die in Jihad...you have serious trouble dealing with people with that mentality...so not to face reality your are setting your self up to get screwed hard.

What amazes me is America really hasn't learned the lessons of War from Sun Tzu and the Romans...by maintaing such drawn out campaigns without replenishing your funds and troops..IE conscripts...IE ...seizing and taking over the oil fields....kaos and despair is the only thing left....the world is seriously screwed...or at least America and anyone in it's path...

I voted yes not because I want it but because Inevitable was not a choice...

[Enigma]

What amazes me is America really hasn't learned the lessons of War from Sun Tzu and the Romans...by maintaing such drawn out campaigns without replenishing your funds and troops..IE conscripts...IE ...seizing and taking over the oil fields....kaos and despair is the only thing left....the world is seriously screwed...or at least America and anyone in it's path...

Clearly didn't learn **** from Vietnam, either. :shifty:

[Skybird]

First of all, I don't want to go to war at all. You got me wrong on this one. I voted no.

Yes, but what can a limited bombing campaign accomplish?
- it cannot, by any guarantee, eliminate Iran's nuclear program entirely. Iran had years to prepare for this eventuality
Agreed. Now you know why I say conventional bombs cannot reach the key installations of their program. 20m and more below the surface, or inside mountains, several meters of steel-conkrete walls and barriers, GPS locations unknown, entrance tunnels partially known (could be fakes). Bring on the MOAB, it does not matter - you do not even know where to aim exactly (intel status 1.5 years ago). If you want to destroy it, you need to obliterate the whole area. Here is where the nasty part begins.

- it cannot remove the existing regime, in fact it will most likely strenghten it
Such war/strike would not be about regime chnage. Wether it will be remain strong in the longer run, when the consequences of the destruction done would start to affect the country, remains to be seen.

- it will give Iran a casus belli for creating all kinds of havoc like blocking the straits of Hormus,
yes, that will be their first reaction in any kind of conlfict with them. It is military fact that needs to be dealt with.
open support for shiites in south Iraq,
already happening.
maybe even a limited cross border guerilla campaign.
What's new? Iranian commandoes can'T do more damage than Hezbollah in Lebanon, the assembled opposition in Iraq, or the Taleban in Afghanistan. A couple of hundred or thousand such fighters more or less - okay. Maybe it is a good idea to prepare for that in advance...?!


When the bombs start falling, there is war and there's no reason for Iran to hold back and not do all the damage it can do. And as I said above, the world economy will start hyperventilating as soon as there's the slightest suspicion of any armed conflict around the straits.

And what will the world economy do once the first terror group with Iranian support starts to blackmail the west by threatening to detonate a nuclear terror gadget?

it will basically be open ended, for the fact that if no one can guarantee the total destruction of iranian WMDs, and because of the reasons 2 and 3 it will most likely be expanded to include targets like iranian naval facilities or facilities of the Pasdaran.
The destruction can be turned into a fact when using nukes, even more so since the radioactive contaoimnation will prevent access to eventually survivng parts of nuked structures for a damn long time to come. I wonder if for that kind of strike any additnal military campaign is needed at all, but however, it probably would be conducted anyhow to cripple Iran'S offensive naval and airborne capacity. However, I see no reason to turn that into an ongoing, lasting military campaign.

There could be a "mission creep" where a limited campaign slowly slides into an all out air campain
Basically, you can bomb the crap out of Iran and when the rubble clears, all you have done is postponed the problem for 5-10 years, given the mullah regime a new lease of life and killed hundreds or thousands of Iranians, caused economic destruction that will cause mass unemployment and a ****load of other consequences.

the main problem that remains, is contamination. f you remeber the so far published satellite pictures, you see that the kea cnetres of the program are not situated inside or close to huge cities. I assume that intel efforts has been increased in the past two yars to get more precise target data, I doubt that they got all what they need, but improved the intel situation. the better your intel data (cordinates) is the fewer and smaller nukes you use. The more unprcise your info is, the bigger and more you need. anyhow, the major detonations must not affect close areas of dense settlement. Granted, even subterranean explosions will do contamination of ground water, soil and air. But hell, I am not talking about a picknick in the meadows. I refuse that this fate eventually will reach us becasue we are expected to save the perpetrator from this fate. I said that I take proliferation by Iran as a given, and I do not accept playing games about this scenario. If you - or them - want to evade the longterm contamination of their country, then come up with a reaosnable option of how to guarantee that they will not develope nuclear weapons, or technology knowledge able to be used by terrorist allies to build their own one.

caused economic destruction that will cause mass unemployment and a ****load of other consequences.

not our concern. At the time a strike is being carried out they would have had time enough to chnage their minds while there was time left.

Not to mention the fact of turning around public opinion in Iran, which seems strangely pro US from what I heard and read into the government line.
Huh? Have I missed something? I was several months in Iran, in 1996, that was during the "youth rebellion", so to speak. There is a fundamental misperception: even the iranian burgeosie and ntheb young at that time did not want an american model installed, and they did not want a democracy according to american example. They wanted a bit more freeedom to move, more options to choose their media from, the clerics being driven back A BIT. but the majority still wanted the Islamic state to stay, basing on Islamic principles, and sharia. and america was seen quite complex, nevertheless in 1996 there was already the feeling that it would let them down if they do not comply with it'S thoughts about how iran should be 100%ly - and that's what turned out to happen indeed. If you see any sign that their politicians or their clerics or the public have great sympathy for present america and it's role, then you are wrong. also, last but not least, only in a few countries I notiuced such strong feeling of national pride and patriotism, like in Iran. It rivals the ammount of american patriotism easily.

And then after Iran has recovered, or even if it hasn't, who is keeping the mullahs from starting it all over again?

After what I line out as a blueprint to do to Iran, there will be nothing like that for a very long time to come.

Then what? Another bombing campaign? Bomb Iran once or twice a year for decades whenever the US has suspicions of such activity?
That's what probably would be needed to do if one laves it to conventional weapons only in order to destroy the hearts of their program. That translates into a useless and tzhus: unneeded wa. And that is exactly what I want to avoid. You cannot succeed without nukes.


Basically this whole scenario could drag on indefinitely and could close down for business the persian gulf and Kuwait and most of the gulf emirates for the time being.

Okay, I accept that to happen, and see it as of secondary importance. We are heading into the post-oil era anyway. Primary impotance has to prevent nukes in the hands of terrorists, and nuclear blackmailing of wstern nations (even more so in the name of Islam). nothing of what you said until here I see as of equal importance. consider this: you meet me and raise a loaded weapon while shouting you now want to kill me. what do you expect me to do? Simply stand still and wait? I admit I am out of training since a very long time now, and so lack routine and practice. depending on chance and situation, I would try to overwhelm you, and since I am rusty and my skill to vary my combat means and adapt to yours has suffered, I would play it safe and would not play games at all. Which means I would immediately try to kill you. Who would dare to morally accuse me for that...???

If Milosevich himself had not given in, NATO could've bombed Serbia until it ran out of bombs, and Milosevich was a european head of government, not a mideastern head of a bunch of religious fanatics.
I was not aware that tactical nukes were used on Yugoslavia.


So if any US administration goes to war over Iran, it is basically in a lose-lose situation. It can wage an air campaign with the described consequences or it can wage a ground assault which will cost countless lives and, as you say might lead to another Iraq.

I agree. Starting to use the military card only makes sense when inclduing nukes. That'S why I would not support any of these two scenarios of yours. Remember the Lebanon war - I first supported it in the wrong belief that they were well-prepared and serious in their intention to do everything needed to destroy Hezbollah and to destroy every kind of infrastructure that would help Hezbullah to respond, and to survive, and to move and hold out. When it became clear that the Israelis were not prepared at all, shied away from doing what would have been needed, and their intel was bad, I immediately made a 180° turnaround and attacked Israel for having launched such a stupid, ill-prepared war. Today, I have not the smallest support for this way they had waged the war, and say it should never have been started. I have absolutely and uncompromisingly attacked the Iraq war from day one on, on the basis of bad preparation, political lies, different intentions then what was told to the public, and underestmating it and being counterproductive. I have bitterly criticised the stupid way in which afghanistan was forgotten and underestmated after the initial battle 2001/2002 - until the mess we deal with now started to rise it'S ugly head in 2004. On the Vietnam war I only say: it was waged for stupid, partly lying reasons, and it was waged in a stupid way, with too many restrictions cuased by political naivety. I fully support the second world war, and defend the need to fight it, and I think Chamberlain was an idiot who was sos cared of what was coming that he fleed into an illusive dream world instead. See what came from it.

I am no warmongering massmurderer-for-fun, AntEater. I do not like the scenario I line out a bit, and it horrifies me, like you. that'S why I refuse to attack Iran right now 8also since I know the place a bit, amongst all muslim countries that I stayed in, iran probably has been the most pleasant experience, despite the obvious two faces of it), although by my argument that they will press on anyway it could be justified to say it makes no difference wether to strike now, or later. I want to be sure that of all time there is they make use of - even if it is irrational. I accept to violate what cold logic is telling me. but different to you, I refuse most wars, but not all wars in principal. I am pacifist in that I do not use war in attack to gain economical or other selfish advantages, but I insist on my right for self defense when being threatened (that's why I do not believe in unarmed pacifism and support the idea of a strong army nevertheless), and I argue that a threat must be countered as long as it is building up. when it is fully established, it is too late. Regarding Iran and proliferation, I am determined not to accept warm-hearted good will and hopes and wishing they mean it well as a valid basis of our actions. It is foolish, and infantile, and potentially suicidal. To acdept that scenraio even the chance to turn out as real, is non-negotiable for me. Becasue on the side of those kinds of terrorists we talk of when mentioning Iran, we talk of religious zealots with a clear, hot.-shing hate on the West. and difefrent to you and me, these kind of people will every mean in order to overthrow what the West stands for, and kill infidels in as high numbers as possible. you may think you can negotiate with them, and trust what they say, and maybe you will to sell away more and more poarts of your own cultural idnetity and what the Wetsern history stands for in psoitives. But you walk alone from that point on - I, and many others, refuse to follow you there. If that means I have to kill, or accept a great war being done, so be it. I did not ask for it. Nobody of us has asked for it - but they keep pressing on. eventually they will only stop when they get what they ask for: the consequences of the West's right for self-defense. To accept a chance to become vulnerable to nuclear blackmails by irrational, hatefilled zealots, is unacceptable.


I don't have a patent solution, I don't like Iran becoming a nuclear power either. I suppose with both current administrations (plus with the current israeli non-administration) there's nothing to do but hope neither of them does anything stupid.
Hope...? Well, i hope in lottery, and I wish all people would turn into peaceful beings, and I pray for food and water and medicine for people on the globe.

Hope is not a strategy. I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist. I try to be realistic. Adressing a world that in the assumed format does not exist, makes no sense for me. the world as we want it to be, and the world as it really is - are to very different things.

A new iranian president might be behind their nuclear program as well, but the west can better negotiate with someone who does not regularly threaten Israel.
But if the US decides it needs another war, in my opinion an invasion would be the better answer.
You cling to irrationals here. The presidents before Ahmadinejadh - knew and willed the nuclear program. the country has not chnaged since then, Iran is not a more and not a less irrational country as before. They will negotiate until the sun falls down and the ocean floods the moon - if that buys them the time to compelte their program. they will tell you every lie youn want to hear in order to give them more time. Well, go on, negotiate. But don't say you had not been warned.

Paper with inks and stamps on it mean nothing here. the EU is not in a position to negotiate. If you think about it, you can negotiate only from a position of power, wether it be absolute power or be it something you have that the other wants desperately. Else you depend on the good willingness and friendliness of the other - and you better don't bet on that being realities. Regarding Iran, the EU is powerless - and Iran knows that.

[AntEater]

Sorry, but the very thought of using nukes for military purposes gives me the creeps.
I think the moment any nation, no matter wether the US, Russia, India or whoever decides that nukes are a weapon of war like Artillery or a Rifle the human race is doomed. Period.
And sorry, I don't think Iran is worth crossing that threshold. You stuff one specter back in the bottle and unleash another, greater one.
Ahmadinejad might be a shiite doomsday cultist, but not all of Iran is, and especially the clergy are people mainly interested in power. So I suppose even a conservative successor to Ahmadinejad will tune down the rhetoric and will try to obtain nukes as a classic deterrent.
You seem to be obsessed with the idea of proliferation. In a worst chase scenario, this could happen, but actually the Pakistanis have connections to a lot more terror groups and did not proliferate anything sofar. Al Quaida has nothing to do with Iran. Iran supports the Hezbollah in Lebanon and diverse Shia militants in souther Iraq. These are territorial groups.
While the Hezbollah might find a nuke useful, I suppose if they really had wanted, they could've allready dropped a dirty bomb on Israel. They have access to radioactive material via Iran and Syria.
The regular use of nuclear precision munition, even though not as "dirty" as the nukes of old, would slowly contaminate the planet. Not to mention the fact that even today some US planners toy with the idea of a disarming first strike on Russia.

And in regards to the EU being powerless, I don't see it that way.
The EU has nukes; the french ones, the british are de facto under US control as they rely on US targeting data. And Sarkozy has allready made clear that a nuclear attack on Europe will trigger a nuclear response from France.
It is very popular to portray the EU as a toothless tiger, but I suppose in a real crisis the US would have to rely on the Europeans (maybe not the germans as our politicians are simply too mentally blocked) in order to get enough boots on the ground and planes in the air.
The US military and the brits are simply too stretched to fight another war all by themselves and in a real shooting war with Iran, all those Estonians and Ukrainians that went into Iraq might not be the coalition the US really need.
The EU militaries represent an untapped reservoir of forces which another US administration might find useful if the need should arise.
I suppose in the constellation of a Pres. Barack Obama asking for german forces after an iranian attack on Israel, even our current politicians could not say no.

[nikimcbee]

Now, by war, do you mean invade or just drop some bombs?

[Skybird]

You seem to be obsessed with the idea of proliferation.
The only way to accurately handle it.

In a worst chase scenario, this could happen, but actually the Pakistanis have connections to a lot more terror groups and did not proliferate anything sofar. Al Quaida has nothing to do with Iran. Iran supports the Hezbollah in Lebanon and diverse Shia militants in souther Iraq. These are territorial groups.
Now that is complete and totally wrong. You nare not aware of the real diemnsion of the confloict between Shia Iran, and sunni arabs, and - of course, I must say - you are completely ignorrant to the inherent drive of Islam to chnage all world and make it a peaveful world - by dedicating it exclsuoiveoly to islam. I am used to westerners playing down the meaning of this, nevertheless that is the bitter trutzh I read from this ideology. It is anti-multi-cultural, and totalitarian, and it claims a right over all mankind and all countries, needing them to0 overcome and turning them islamic. We will not disagree on this, so lets leave out this part of the discussionl. but at leats you mujst5 learn to realise the true diomension of the clash between Iran, and Saudi-dominated Gulf states. Hezbollah in Lebanon is just a minor "stellvertreterkrieg" between Saudim Arabia, and Iran. Israel pratcically plays no role in it, and the Saudis tolerate it acting against Hezbollah, which makes them natural part-time allies in their struggle against Iran. Haven't you noticed how tame Sunni Arab nations reacted to the Lebanon war? does this tell you nothing? the Palestinian questions also gets massivelpy overestimated in imporance, especially in europe. you could solvbe the question completely - and would still face the same tensions and conflicts in the region., becasue the Palestinians are not the problem. Iran is the problem behind it all, and the centuries-old internal Islamic civil war that started over a thousand ysears ago.


While the Hezbollah might find a nuke useful, I suppose if they really had wanted, they could've allready dropped a dirty bomb on Israel. They have access to radioactive material via Iran and Syria.

I find it worrying and bewildering that this is no reason for concern to you - asusming for a monent that you are right.

In the end, Israel also is not my concern, it is a bastion build in a strategically most disadvantegous position, and it shouldn't have been done that waxy, but now it is there, we cannot helpt it, so make the best of it. My concern is europe and america, and being turned into tagets for nuclear terrorism, and blackmailing. and different to you I do not take any peace of mind from the fact that so far nobody has nuked us, concluding fromt hat it will also not happen in the future. your only argument is the principle of blin d hope. In other words: you have no argument at all regarding this.


The regular use of nuclear precision munition, even though not as "dirty" as the nukes of old, would slowly contaminate the planet. Not to mention the fact that even today some US planners toy with the idea of a disarming first strike on Russia.

In no way I currently sympathise with such plans. but lets leave that out of the discussion, it has no place here. The problem is nuclear terrorism in Islam's name, and wether or not simply hoping for the best can be considered a valid motion or not.

And in regards to the EU being powerless, I don't see it that way.
The EU has nukes; the french ones, the british are de facto under US control as they rely on US targeting data. And Sarkozy has allready made clear that a nuclear attack on Europe will trigger a nuclear response from France.
1. Sarko is a hysteric alker, I have stopped listening believing him anything anymore short after he was elcted. and 2.) and even more important, the EU is absoolutely weak in negotiations with Iran, becasue it has no the smallest influence, no valid threat, no unified front, it is in no position nwhatever to project inflkuence over Iran to step away from their program, it cannot do anything, it just can talk on and on and on and allowing the iranians the time to continue and get closer to the bomb that way. that'S how I meant it, and you knew that.

It is very popular to portray the EU as a toothless tiger, but I suppose in a real crisis the US would have to rely on the Europeans (maybe not the germans as our politicians are simply too mentally blocked) in order to get enough boots on the ground and planes in the air.
Don't make me laugh. Just look at Afghanistan. Even Britain would currently not follow the US blindly into another adventure so easily.

The US military and the brits are simply too stretched to fight another war all by themselves and in a real shooting war with Iran, all those Estonians and Ukrainians that went into Iraq might not be the coalition the US really need.
that is true. Action against Iran mst be prepared by getting rid of the archilles heel Irak is. either by masisvely boosting forces, or by öleaving it behind and guve the Iranians no tareget. the greatest mistake of the Us in the past 8 years has been to not finish Afghnaistan, and focus in Iran instead. very very bad strategic mistake, having led to0 two de facto lost and unwinnable wars. that is exactly the kind of suicidal, stupid war I do not wish to see.

The EU militaries represent an untapped reservoir of forces which another US administration might find useful if the need should arise.
I suppose in the constellation of a Pres. Barack Obama asking for german forces after an iranian attack on Israel, even our current politicians could not say no.

Iran will not directly attack Israel by nukes. simply that. They are not stupid. I said it repeatedly now, that is not my concern. they will reach out in the hidden, by supporting terror groups and claiming in public that they do not. RThi sis the problem with Iran, not an open nuclear strike against europe, america or israel. Obama will make germn polcies uncomfortable, yes, I repeatedly said in the other threads that Bush is a good escuse for europe just to stay back, that way the US should be happy to get rid of Bush - bush-bashing as an excuse to reist American wishes does nto work anymore, after the elections. Nevertheless, the Afghanistan operation, as reprted again by "Kontraste" yesterday on German TV (I know it from two BW guys personally, too), is incrtedibly underfunded, badly commanded, and ikl-equipped, whilew polticians still lie to themsleves and to the public about what the BW is facing in Afghanistan. The mission's current status is a total mess, and hopelessly underfunded. but the whole Bw is underfunded, and I do not see where you want to get the resosurces form the existing pool to launch even more intenrational commitments. Beyond that, I think you are hoeplessly over-optimistic wzhen saying that Europe stands ready to provide more boots on the ground when America is calling. Not with this Europe, and this EU. I do not think that eietehr McCain or Obama is stupid enough to seriously count on substantially higher contributions from the europeans. the most clever thing they can do is leave lost battles behind, disenage from wars where they do not have to win anything anymore (that includes afghanistan since I do not see anybody seriposuly considering to attack Pakistan (how to do that, btw.) and it's massive support for the Taleban), and to shorten their frontlines.

[moose1am]

War with Iran may come soon.

It will start out as a conventional war using plastic explosives not nuclear warheads.

But Iran and the world should remember this:

The USA was the first country to develop nuclear weapons and we (so far) have been the only country willing to use them on an enemy!

Iran should think about that long and hard before they attack any of our men in the Persian gulf region.

The western worlds will fight to maintain their standard of living and won't go down without a huge fight.

Many countries obtained the information on how to make a nuclear weapon thanks to many traitors in the US who passed that information onto the USSR back in the late 1940's.

Within 4 to 5 years the USSR had detonated it's first nuclear weapon. Britain has nukes as does France. Now Pakistan and N. Korea have nukes as well.

If Iran gets nukes and sits on them like everyone else then thing won't be much different than before. But Iran's leaders have declared that they want to destroy Israel. Israel is known for it's intelligence and for their first strike actions. The best defense is an aggressive offense perhaps.

Do any of you honestly think that if the USA or Israel used nuclear weapons on Iran that some other country may take exceptions to that action. I mean there is Russia and Pakistan sitting downwind from Iran and they will object to having radioactive dust falling on their county's land. Will they take out Israel with nukes in retaliation for our attack on Iran?

Two things are behind this entire problem. Oil and Israel. Will the US start WWIII over oil in the Persian Gulf and Middle East? Or will Obama sit down with the Iranian leaders and work something out? I think I know where McInsain will go. Imagine being held captive and helpless for years and then finally getting your hands on the button? What would you do after you have been beaten sensless and had your bones broken by an enemy. McCain has shown his temper more than once. Imagine what he will be like when he is President.

Think of Nero and the Roman Empire. Do you want an man that can go insane in the white house at this time in our world?

I think that it's time to build a new fall out shelter. I lived though the cuban missile crisis and I don't want to repeat that type of event ever again.

Perhaps it's time to go live up at the Poles until this all blows over. I would guess that there will be much less radiation fallout at the North and South Poles than in the middle Latitudes. Perhaps mankind can survive the fallout and the years of radiation poisoning if they can live in area with less radiaton falling out of the sky. But without resupply coming to give you more ammo and fuel and cloths you won't have much of a chance. You will have to live like our forefathers did in 10,000 years ago. Perhaps the summers up there will be milder due to the effects of global warming. But after the end of the world there won't be anymore CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere and it will cool down pretty fast at the poles.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[QUOTE=Skybird]Is War With Iran Necessary?

translates into:

Do I accept a nuclear armed Iran yes or no? Do I accept nuclear proliferation benefitting terror organisations?

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,564654,00.html

Als ob die internationalen Atom-Kontrolleure nicht schon genug Sorgen hätten, kommt nun die überall beschworene Renaissance des Atomstroms hinzu. Und die dürfte, sollte sie tatsächlich stattfinden, die Gefahr einer nuklearen Katastrophe noch verschärfen. Denn eine massive Ausweitung der Kernkraft-Nutzung würde bedeuten, dass eine große Zahl neuer Reaktoren nicht nur in demokratisch regierten Industriestaaten, sondern auch in Drittwelt- und Schwellenländern entstünde.

"Das setzt einen enormen Transfer von Material und Know-how voraus", sagt John Large, einer der führenden Atomenergie-Experten Großbritanniens, im Gespräch mit SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Dieses Wissen könnte später auch für ein mögliches Waffenprogramm genutzt werden."
Das Problem sei, dass man unmöglich wissen könne, wie sich die politische Lage in heutigen Schwellenländern entwickelt. "Jedes zivile Nuklearprogramm eignet sich per se dazu, ein Waffenprogramm zu verbergen", erklärt Large. "In vielen Bereichen ist die militärische von der zivilen Nutzung kaum zu unterscheiden." Spätestens seit dem Fall Khan gebe es einen internationalen Schwarzmarkt für Nukleartechnologie. "Zusammen mit der Verbreitung von Know-how ist das eine gefährliche Mischung."

Or in summary: you cannot separate the civilian and the military use of nuclear technology.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I know, I am a whore for this blog. But I think it's very well done.

Things aren't lookin' good :-?:
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/07/fleet-positions-itself-for-war-part-ii.html

PD

[Tchocky]

Question - Would the use of American nuclear bombs of Iranian soil guarantee a nuclear reprisal by a non-state group?

Seems like using nukes to knock out nukes both legitimises the use of nuclear weapons and invites responding attacks.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Question - Would the use of American nuclear bombs of Iranian soil guarantee a nuclear reprisal by a non-state group?

Seems like using nukes to knock out nukes both legitimises the use of nuclear weapons and invites responding attacks.
Would you happen to know of any non state groups that have access to nuclear weapons for sure?

And I don't think we'll be nuking Iran, anywho.

PD

[Tchocky]

Would you happen to know of any non state groups that have access to nuclear weapons for sure?
Not at all, but I think a nuclear strike would act as an incentive to get one.

This is irrespective of the likelihood of nuclear release, the idea just occurred to me.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Would you happen to know of any non state groups that have access to nuclear weapons for sure? Not at all, but I think a nuclear strike would act as an incentive to get one.

This is irrespective of the likelihood of nuclear release, the idea just occurred to me. I dunno. I've always thought if it's something that groups who would actually use them (AQ type groups who've ALWAYS had an incentive to use them) could get, they'd have it by now with all that money and cunning. Perhaps the bombing of Iran would give certain states incentives to get these groups nukes to use as proxies? Is that what you're saying?

PD

[Subnuts]

Persian Gulf naval confrontation?
International sabre-rattling?
Invasion of Iran?
Possible use of nuclear weapons?

Oh poopie pants, I've seen this somewhere before. What is this reminding me of...?

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/

Oh crap. :dead::huh:

[Skybird]

Question - Would the use of American nuclear bombs of Iranian soil guarantee a nuclear reprisal by a non-state group?


Counterquestion: can one safely assume that terrorists - whose declared intention is to terrorise and cause shock and awe - would not use nukes, if they get access to them? Terrorists have no nation they stand for, so they do not care for retaliation against such nations. If they are relgious nutheads, they even accept the martyr death of people of the faith they claim to act for. Trust in such people, counting on their reason, negotiating and having treaties with them? Yes - but only it that helps to kill them. Every trick and every lie is acceptable that helps to kill them and prevent them from committing mass murder.

I do not believe that anyone has the courage and cold unscrupelousness to use nukes selectively to take out key components of the Iranian program, and that is why I think that the West will ultimately fail on Iran. The success of a cinventional strike by the Israelis is hgighly quesitonable, at best, and some of their analysts said that themselves. This is not osiriak - this is mutliple times as difficult, and much bigger in scale. I know that with every state gaining access to nuclear technology, the risk that we see nukes being used in the future, by terrorists, and then by nations, becomes greater. You cannot really separate civilian use from milurtry use of nuclear technology. the more nations use civilian nuclear energy, the smaller the line becomes we walk on. I fear that before the end of ma natural lifetime we will see nukes being used. and then we will curse ourselves that we did not act with determination to prevent the spreading of nuclear technology at all costs. Not only does nuclear technology by far not solve climate issues, and does not do much in lowering energy costs (all that is myths if you only look beyond the aparrently obvious arguments that are not so solid at all, and check the rat-tail of additonal background conditions) - it's spreading and current revival is an invitation for nuclear terror, and later nuclear wars. the more nuke tech there is, the more countries are possessing it or having acces to it, the smaller the basis for our luck becomes. It is only a question of time then before we run out of luck.

Is that what our policies come down to: hoping that we will be lucky...?

I see the threat of nuclear technology today multiple times as dangerous as just some years ago. just two years ago I wrote in one of the first threats we had on Iran that "the use of nukes in any conflict with Iran is totally unacceptable". Yes, in more or less these words that was said by me. You see, the more I thought about the issues, Iran and civilian use nuclear technology as well, the more I saw myself in need to change my mind. The resulting conclusions are not that scenario I want the world to be. But what I want the world to be, and what the world really is - are two totally different things, unfortunately, and wishful thinking or hopes and prayers will not help anybody for better or worse. The world is just what it is, and that is the one world we have to deal with in this life. Another one we will not be given. maybe when we die, but that is worth a discussion in a separate threat.

[peterloo]

The problems revolving around the nukes is that most country feel that the other countries (esp. USA / UK) which has nukes uses different ways to stop them having any, using so called Non proliferation treaties or whatsoever, and this makes them feel unfairly treated.

Even if they have nukes, well, they dare not strike anyway. Even if Iran got a nuke, she dare not strike Israel, nor USA, for fear of a nuclear respiral and international intervention. They don't want to give an excuse to USA to direct all her ballistic missiles to their little country, do they?

Any talks are fruitless unless additional benefit can be offered and this benefit > that offered by having a nuclear weapon. In this way, the problem can be solved at ease, like the case of N. Korea.

[U-84]

should we go to war with Iran, i say no...but it is known that Iran has sent weapons to assist insurgents in iran, you also have to take into account that if any nation were to go to war with iran immediately it would be Israel before the U.S. or U.K. could respond with military might...personally i think iran wants to just show like North Korea, that they "Think" they are big players in this world...remember several months ago they had those gunboats in the straight (the name i can't remember off the top of my head) their goal (or so we believe) was to have the Saudi's block the straight therefore no oil of us aka U.S. so i think Iran just wants the U.S. and Israel to hurt financially and economically...they saw how badly we (americans) mauled the Iraqi army, which is considered a 1st rate army due to they are able to transport their soldiers anywhere in da world so i don't think they would want to go to war wit us.

[Frame57]

Having a few drinks with Ret. Lt. CMD R.H. Boehm we had a discussion about "world peace". I asked him if he thought we would ever see it. His reply to me was, "Are you kidding me? Look at the history of the human race, mankind will go to war over cultural issues, religion, turf, economy, you name it. How about in school wasn't there always a school bully or two? Did the bully quit bothering kids that were peace loving? No! This just inflames the instincts in man to take advantage over the weak as they see it. the only way to get the bully to stop is to punch his lights out. Works every time! No! We will never see world peace...."

I agree with Roy, and the situation in Iran will not be solved through diplomacy. However, I think it should be Israel's decision not America's to take out Iran's nuclear facilties. they did it before and they can do it again. Iran seems to harbor an "armageddon" view of it's role in the world. Which makes me believe that if they get the bomb, they will use the bomb in a most deleterious fashion. So, I do not think war with Iran is necessary, just a nice spanking my do the trick.:dead:

[Ishmael]

So here is my scenario of the possible consequences of an attack on Iran by either Israel or the US.

Once the attack begins, expect the Iranians to repond with an overwhelming anti-ship missle attack on the US Fifth fleet using waves of hundreds or Exocet, Sunburn and Yakhonts missles combined with Shkval torpedos launched from submarines and suicide speedboats. The Navy's own war games predicted a result of Naval casualties in the 20-30,000 range and vessel losses in excess of 75%. At the same time, look for the Iranians to close the Hormuz Straits with similar attacks on any vessel attempting transit, driving oil prices to $3-400/bbl and $20-30/gal for gas. If Iran's ballistic missle arsenal doesn't have the range, expect Hezbollah to launch massive rocket attacks with conventional, chemical and biological warheads on Israel proper. While all this is going on, expect China, Russia, and Iran to dump their dollar holdings en masse triggering both hyperinflation and economic collapse in the US. Other OPEC members will also be forced to dump their dollar holdings as well, accelerating the US economic collapse. The Shi'ite population of Iraq will rise up against US forces there, trapping them in Iraq as the Iranian Army moves across the Shat-al-Arab and taking Basra leaving the only escape route through Kurdistan into Turkey for US forces there. This will leave the Bush administration no choice but to use nuclear weapons against Iran, triggering a general war with the Islamic world, the collapse of the Pakistani government and giving al-qaeda in Pakistan the very access to Nuclear weapons the Iran attack was supposed to forestall.

[Stealth Hunter]

should we go to war with Iran, i say no...but it is known that Iran has sent weapons to assist insurgents in iran,

You mean Iraq?;)

But even then, that couldn't be farther from the truth. General Kevin Bergner in Iraq said himself that there has actually been no evidence acquired to link Bush's accusations of the insurgents receiving weapons to Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM-3pyeG6UI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM-3pyeG6UI)

personally i think iran wants to just show like North Korea, that they "Think" they are big players in this world...

Well, they are actually a major society in the world and they are actually pretty powerful. They've got us by the balls in oil imports, and if they decided to quit giving us the oil and shift their trade focus to Russia, their ally, it would cause oil here in the US to skyrocket to over $250 A BARREL.

they saw how badly we (americans) mauled the Iraqi army, which is considered a 1st rate army due to they are able to transport their soldiers anywhere in da world so i don't think they would want to go to war wit us.

Well, one of the only real reasons why the Iraqi army was "mauled" was due to the fact that Hussein's soldiers really weren't as dedicated to him as he thought. They were not impressed by his strict rule, and they really didn't give a damn what happened to him. In fact, hardly any were killed. Most surrendered.

And President Ahmadinejad himself has stated that the last thing he wants between Iran and the United States is war... what makes me laugh so hard though is how John McCain even claimed that President Ahmadinejad had said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map", which is actually WRONG. He said, and I quote:

"The Imam [Khomeini] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

[August]

President Ahmadinejad had said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map", which is actually WRONG. He said, and I quote:

"The Imam [Khomeini] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Or in other words wipe [the nation of} ISRAEL off the map. Same thing really.

[Foxtrot]

of course, war is necessary to keep our Military Industrial Complex alive.
It is a source of income for many you know.

[Stealth Hunter]

President Ahmadinejad had said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map", which is actually WRONG. He said, and I quote:

"The Imam [Khomeini] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Or in other words wipe [the nation of} ISRAEL off the map. Same thing really.

It's a prophecy from the Quran, which states that Israel's government will break down and the country will be no more, signalling the end of the world. The Bible predicts and says the same thing, actually. It means nothing about anyone wiping Israel off the map. It just means that when this happens to Israel, the world is going to end... soon...:shifty: Then again, I don't believe any of that supernatural hocus pocus.

[August]

Then again, I don't believe any of that supernatural hocus pocus.

I think the point is that he does believe in it, and that's often how belief becomes reality.

[Tchocky]

Well, Ahmedinajad hasn't got a say on foreign policy.
Also, "wiped off the page of time" is quite different from "wiped off the map". One has immediate punch, the other not so. if they were equivalent phrases then why do we hear the incorrect version more often........by people who are proposing military action against Iran......I wonder what may be going on.

[August]

Well, Ahmedinajad hasn't got a say on foreign policy.
Also, "wiped off the page of time" is quite different from "wiped off the map". One has immediate punch, the other not so. if they were equivalent phrases then why do we hear the incorrect version more often........by people who are proposing military action against Iran......I wonder what may be going on.

I don't see those two phrases as being much different at all. How do you wipe a country made up of real people "off the pages of time" without destroying them?

[Platapus]

I don't see those two phrases as being much different at all. How do you wipe a country made up of real people "off the pages of time" without destroying them?


The same way the Soviet Union was "destroyed". It was destroyed from within by the people not by military action from an outside invader.

Farsi is a flowery impressionist language and the words are not always taken literally. Often many words are strung together to emphasize an important, but simple concept. English translations of Farsi often fail to account for the symbolism of the language.

And in some instances the errors in translating Farsi are accidental.

[August]

I don't see those two phrases as being much different at all. How do you wipe a country made up of real people "off the pages of time" without destroying them?

The same way the Soviet Union was "destroyed". It was destroyed from within by the people not by military action from an outside invader.

Farsi is a flowery impressionist language and the words are not always taken literally. Often many words are strung together to emphasize an important, but simple concept. English translations of Farsi often fail to account for the symbolism of the language.

And in some instances the errors in translating Farsi are accidental.

So that whole "death to America" thing doesn't really mean anything?

[Stealth Hunter]

That's a country that's still pissed off that the United States offered and did take Pahlavi into its care for a time. Need I remind you that 100,000 Iranians were sent to political prisons under the rule of Pahlavi, most of which were tortured and mistreated... or worse... killed...?

While I'm not happy with the current government in power, I think a change was needed. Pahlavi became more and more separated from the people and the power slowly poisoned his mind. He needed to be removed, but an Islamic Republic was not the correct substitute for his place.

[August]

That's a country that's still pissed off that the United States offered and did take Pahlavi into its care for a time. Need I remind you that 100,000 Iranians were sent to political prisons under the rule of Pahlavi, most of which were tortured and mistreated... or worse... killed...?

Yeah well some of us are still pissed at Iran for taking our people hostage for 444 days then later electing one of the main conspirators as their president. How does that compare to reluctantly allowing a dying man access to medical treatment?

[Platapus]

So that whole "death to America" thing doesn't really mean anything?


Just an emotional slogan... not national policy

[August]

Just an emotional slogan... not national policy

I don't buy that.

[UnderseaLcpl]

A piece I found entertaining from Onion News that adresses the current concern with whatever nation we are currently pissed at in the Middle East.

MIDDLE EAST—With the Iraq war in its fifth year, the war in Afghanistan in its sixth, and conflict between Israel and the rest of the region continuing unabated for more than half a century, intelligence sources are warning that a new wave of violence in the Middle East may soon blah blah blah, etc. etc., you know the rest.
Enlarge Image http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Middle-East.article.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);) Yet another act of violence in response to something else terrible that occurred in, oh, let's say Basra.

"Tensions in the region are extremely high," said U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, who added the same old same old while answering reporters' questions. "We're disappointed by the events of the last few months, but we're confident that we're about to [yakety yakety yak]."
The U.N. has issued a strongly worded whatever denouncing someone or something presumably having to do with the vicious explosive things that raged across this, or shattered the predawn calm of that, or ripped suddenly through the other, killing umpteen innocent civilians in a Jerusalem bus or Beirut discotheque or Fallujah mosque or whatever it was this time.
Enlarge Image http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Middle-East-jump.article.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);) Either a car bomb killed people or a car hit a roadside bomb, killing people.

In the aftermath of a whole series of incidents, there have also been troubling reports of just fill in the blanks. Middle East experts say the still somehow worsening situation has inflamed age-old sectarian tensions between the Sunnis, Shiites, Semites, Kurds, Turks, Saudis, Persians, Wahhabis, radicals, extremists, Baathists, mullahs, clerics, et al, which is likely to lead to more gurgle-gurgle over the coming weeks and months.
A certain number of U.S. troops were also killed somewhere in some tragic fashion, while a much greater number were wounded. Meanwhile, impoverished or oppressed supporters of whichever faction carried out the attack or ambush probably celebrated, angering an angry U.S. public that is already angry. Locals are calling for an investigation into excessive force or outright corruption by military or political officials on one of the 15 sides of the various conflicts, although the implicated party has categorically denied wrongdoing, just like they always do, without fail, every time this happens, which is daily, it seems.
And in Afghanistan, the Taliban.
In Israel, Palestinians and Israelis escalated tensions and so on and so on ad infinitum, ad eternum, and some say, ad absurdum, and although Hamas released a statement condemning Israeli forces for the resulting civilian deaths, Israeli officials say the teens were armed with rocket launchers, though it doesn't really matter.
Also, Ahmadinejad, Iran's nuclear program, bin Laden at large, Moqtada al-Sadr, Moqtada al-Sadr's militia, Fallujah, renegade mullahs, embedded and/or beheaded journalists, oil revenues, stockpiles of former Soviet armaments, freedom, racism, Halliburton, women's role in Islamic society, the Quran, withdrawing troops, economic disparities, Sikhs, Pakistanis, oil, rebuilding, stories of hope, the Saudi royal family, the Holy Land, insurgents, and the tragedy of Sept. 11th.
In an attempt to increase public support of whatever the **** it is he thinks he's doing, President Bush trotted out the same old whoop-de-do you've heard over and over at a solemn-yet-resolute speech attended by soldiers, or religious leaders, or firemen, or some mix of ethnic-looking people from one of those countries.
"We have to give this plan time to wop bop a loo bop, a wop bam boom, ah ah ting tang walla walla bing bang," President Bush may as well have said. "May God [help/bless/save] the United States of America."

[Stealth Hunter]

Yeah well some of us are still pissed at Iran for taking our people hostage for 444 days then later electing one of the main conspirators as their president.

Then go outside and start yelling "Death to Iran!". Maybe burn a flag or two while you're at it.:up:

How does that compare to reluctantly allowing a dying man access to medical treatment?

Iranian Political Prisoners:

-100,000 incarcerated
-tortured, mistreated, some even killed
-regularly beaten and starved
-most given life sentences

Hostages of the Iran Hostage Crisis:

-52 captured and held for 444 days
-mistreated and threatened
-denied some basic privileges
-13 released before January 1981


I'd sure as hell prefer to be a hostage over a political prisoner.:roll: That "dying man" was a butcher, another Caligula. Yes, he started out as a good leader, but over the years, he became more and more snobbish and distanced from his people. You know he held the twenty-fifth-hundredth anniversary of the Iranian monarchy not but a few miles from several villages that were basically consisting of nothing more than mud hovels? What's worse is that the people there were starving, AND he spent $100,000,000 on the celebration alone...

[August]

What's with the large font size SH? Trying to make up for some other size deficiency? :p

Re Shah comparisons. I'd say he was a saint compared to the thugs in power now in Iran.

I'd sure as hell prefer to be a hostage over a political prisoner.:roll: That "dying man" was a butcher

Maybe he was but that wasn't the fault of the 52 innocent Americans the Iranians kidnapped and tortured for over a year. As far as i'm concerned Iran is the enemy of my country and will continue to be as long as the mullahs are in charge and the perpetrators of the embassy takeover are allowed to walk free.

[Wolfehunter]

I'd have to say no. No need for another war.

[Foxtrot]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=811_1208135702

[Tchocky]

The lesson of 1981 is relevant for another reason: While that attack is seen in Israel as an unqualified success, there is evidence that it convinced Saddam Hussein to redouble his efforts to build nuclear weapons.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=b52693a1-20b9-4b7b-b617-c387eb7b3a6d&p=1

[Skybird]

The lesson of 1981 is relevant for another reason: While that attack is seen in Israel as an unqualified success, there is evidence that it convinced Saddam Hussein to redouble his efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Damned if you go after them - and damned if you don't?

Should that represent a valid option - allowing to get oneself totally paralysed and depending on the good will that the regimes getting nukes just will act mercifully with mankind?

I don't know about you guys, but I feel that this way of allowing oneself getting paralysed by general "Angst" is unacceptable. I believe in taking the initiave and being strong - because only these two increase the number of your options to act. Being weak and feareful and undecided decreases the number of your options. Its better to have options available and not needing them - than to need them and not having them available.

[Stealth Hunter]

What's with the large font size SH? Trying to make up for some other size deficiency? :p

Re Shah comparisons. I'd say he was a saint compared to the thugs in power now in Iran.

I'd sure as hell prefer to be a hostage over a political prisoner.:roll: That "dying man" was a butcher

Maybe he was but that wasn't the fault of the 52 innocent Americans the Iranians kidnapped and tortured for over a year. As far as i'm concerned Iran is the enemy of my country and will continue to be as long as the mullahs are in charge and the perpetrators of the embassy takeover are allowed to walk free.

It's a new thing I'm trying out. Anytime I respond to my own thread, I use size 3 font (serious threads, anyway; not using it on game threads and the like).

Anywho, the Shah. I think he needed to be removed from power because he was getting worse and worse as time went on. With that said (and as I've said before), I don't think the establishment of an Islamic Republic was the correct way to head politically.

As for the rest of your post... well, you're entitled to your own opinion as I am to mine.

[August]

Anywho, the Shah. I think he needed to be removed from power because he was getting worse and worse as time went on.

That would be, of course, the Iranian peoples prerogative. I agree that it's a pity how it went down. The baby got thrown out with the bathwater...

[Jimbuna]

I remember being in Iran around 1973 when it was one of the top 10 richest countries in the world (IIRC) and was totally astonished to see people begging in the streets.

That was a first time experience for me.

[Skybird]

I remember being in Iran around 1973 when it was one of the top 10 richest countries in the world (IIRC) and was totally astonished to see people begging in the streets.

That was a first time experience for me.

And it isn't anymore when you look around in germany or america...?

[Jimbuna]

I remember being in Iran around 1973 when it was one of the top 10 richest countries in the world (IIRC) and was totally astonished to see people begging in the streets.

That was a first time experience for me.

And it isn't anymore when you look around in germany or america...?

Nope....I'd never been to America before and on two previous visits to Germany, I'd never actually witnessed anything like that first hand.

[Stealth Hunter]

I remember being in Iran around 1973 when it was one of the top 10 richest countries in the world (IIRC) and was totally astonished to see people begging in the streets.

That was a first time experience for me.

And it isn't anymore when you look around in germany or america...?

Nope....I'd never been to America before and on two previous visits to Germany, I'd never actually witnessed anything like that first hand.

Every country has it. No matter where you go, you will find the poor and homeless begging. It's nothing new to the world.:yep:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I remember being in Iran around 1973 when it was one of the top 10 richest countries in the world (IIRC) and was totally astonished to see people begging in the streets.

That was a first time experience for me.

And it isn't anymore when you look around in germany or america...?

Nope....I'd never been to America before and on two previous visits to Germany, I'd never actually witnessed anything like that first hand.

Every country has it. No matter where you go, you will find the poor and homeless begging. It's nothing new to the world.:yep:

Sorry to drag this thread further off-topic but..........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4teq7aKTNJ4

Stossel does a good job of explaining homelessness in America from a relatively objective viewpoint.

[Stealth Hunter]

That's also true.

[August]

Sorry to drag this thread further off-topic but..........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4teq7aKTNJ4

Stossel does a good job of explaining homelessness in America from a relatively objective viewpoint.

Very illuminating.

[Sailor Steve]

I love Stossel. A year ago I was doing that same shelter-not working trip myself. At our shelter here in Salt Lake there is 'voluntary' clean-up. I asked once and was told that you used to have to work the clean-up detail to keep your bed, but after someone in New York sued their shelter, they all have stopped making it a requirement.

And it's true that most of the panhandlers really don't want to work. While I was homeless I once had a guy ask me for some money so he could get some food. When I told him there was a free meal a block away and I was on my way there to eat, and invited him along, he said "&#$* that!" So I stopped giving the little I had to panhandlers.

As for Stossel, I just recently read both of his books. I highly recommend them.

[Wolfehunter]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=811_1208135702:rotfl: :lol: Thats soo good.

[Skybird]

Not the kind of action one would expect from a nation preparing for a soon-to-come war against another nation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran

Subterfuge? Resignation? Realism?

A new CIA headquarter in a hotspot of the world - or are the US preparing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran and accept it?

Anyway, it probably does no harm, does not alter the situational facts about that program, and if anyone can be pissed about it, then it must be the Israelis - and they don't get asked :D . So: why not.

I wonder if diplomats have the option to volunteer for that job, or can be commanded to go there.

[Skybird]

Next, consider this:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330995579&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

That damn Mahdi myth is an extremely strong motivational power, and already when the war 2003 started i pointed out repeatedly that if there ever appears a man on stage that is accepted by the masses to be that figure, it certainly would cause tremendous conflict and war in all the middle east, and most likely would lead to WWIII sooner or later. It is stunning how little attention this story gets in the West although it is of essential importance in understanding Shia Islam. the simple minds living in the rural areas of the ME, and many of the educated Iranian burgeousie as well believe in this stuff, I found myself when being there. compare it to the passion of christian fundamentalists playing with snakes and crying and yelling hysterically about that the day when Jesus returns has not already come. In shia islam, this myth is an essential pillar since the beginning of the Islamic civil war. and that is over a thousand years ago!

Also note that the author points at the limited capacity of Israel to strike Iran and hurting it all by itself if limitin gitself to conventional means. The author says that this conventional strike would only work if the USAF lines up with the IAF. But even in that scenario I have my great doubts.

It's also worth to take the immense risks and likely ways of direct Iranian retaliation into account, like the author desribes them. the more "subtle", indirect retaliation against troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and terror against the West he does not even touch upon.

the headline says it all: We only have one strike. And if deciding for it, that one strike must blow Iran away, or all will be lost.

[Airmail]

Im afraid war will become necessary if Iran gets to within even an inch of acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel will launch strikes, if that happens more countries will get involved. The conflict would escalate and the United States and Europe would get drawn in. Current military commenders and politicians are very worries about this here in the UK.

[Skybird]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print


ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.
(...)
The problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites are widely dispersed and underground, and Israel’s inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use of Jordanian and Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the Iranian nuclear project.
(...)
Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards.
Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program. Bar this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s conventional air assault will destroy their nuclear facilities. To be sure, this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation. But the alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland. Some Iranians may believe that this is a worthwhile gamble if the prospect is Israel’s demise. But most Iranians probably don’t.

In this context it gives me goose pimples when reading such essay that unfortunately support my own argument - because the arguments why events probably could and would unfold like described are hard to argue with, if just looking at it with no dreaming but open eyes. I see it coming, but I do not like what I see.

If these scenarios are what we need to face, we better make sure that the first strike kills. Else the scenario will multiply several times in nastiness. The thing seems to run out of control - and nobody having a realistic idea how to regain control of it.

[baggygreen]

My fear is that not that its 4-7 months until Iran is attacked by Israel, but more that in 4-7 months Iran has a nuke.

They will have learnt many lessons from NK, who bought themselves time by stalling at the diplomatic level and then set off their weapon. Its too painfully obvious that the US now treats NK with a new level of.. for want of a better word, respect, because they are nuclear-armed. Blind Freddy can see that. So Iran knows, if it "comes to the table" but continues building, it can repeat the NK feat and stall successfully.

[Konovalov]

My fear is that not that its 4-7 months until Iran is attacked by Israel, but more that in 4-7 months Iran has a nuke.

I bet that neither of the above will eventuate within such a time frame or even occur at all in 2008/2009. With time I will be proven right or wrong I guess. With any luck I will be proven correct. :-?

[baggygreen]

agreed konovalov, with any luck none of it goes on. if we were to make a bet over it, i'd be more than happy to part with my money for losing!

[JHuschke]

They sent two giant planes in a tower. Killed many people, we send our army and airforce, killing theirs but also ours. Should have just nuked them in the first place, we wouldn't waste as many of our lives, money and fuel.



We have been involved in many wars, because of our own actions and we wanted to. No offense, but the U.S. is stupid. U.S. cannot please the whole world, nor do everything for it. There are many wars to come in the future, no doubt it will be the USSR or Japan. A couple of years later after the USSR gets in a war, Germany, Hungary and Italy will do the same.

[joegrundman]

Wait, GOOBER, you're being satirical, right?

[Skybird]

My fear is that not that its 4-7 months until Iran is attacked by Israel, but more that in 4-7 months Iran has a nuke.

I bet that neither of the above will eventuate within such a time frame or even occur at all in 2008/2009. With time I will be proven right or wrong I guess. With any luck I will be proven correct. :-?
I,too, don't hold my breath for that timetable saying 4-7 months, but we also do not talk about an big ammount of coming years. Iran has significantly increased the speed at which it installed new centrifuges and and enriches uranium - much more than anybody admitted would be imaginable just two years ago. Back then the talk was about 10-15 years. Due to the increased attempt by Iran, it'S not like that anymore. I also do not think the Israelis are just bluffing. Any other people, but not the one having faced genocide and holocaust and still having a living memeory of that. So timetables yes or not, the general direction the author points at probably is the future that is likely to come. The man, btw, is a controversial figure, on the other he hand has been a major figure in uncovering the Israeli cheating in house- and settlement-building in violation of agreements with the Palestinians.

[Jimbuna]

I fear the timescales are much shorter than at first predicted.

This is 'do or die' time for the Israelis.....to do nothing, the potential consequences are totally innaceptable for them....a pre-emptive (non nuclear) strike is really the only viable option open to them.

Diplomacy has failed.

Survival is a great motivator.

[Skybird]

I fear the timescales are much shorter than at first predicted.

This is 'do or die' time for the Israelis.....to do nothing, the potential consequences are totally innaceptable for them....a pre-emptive (non nuclear) is really the only viable option to them.

Diplomacy has failed.
What makes you believe a preemptive non-nuclear strike can do the job? That is very questionable, and would be followed by nulcear escalaion soorner or later, may it be the Israelis finishing the job before Iran gets a chance to get the bomb, or may it be the Iranians retaliating once they got the bomb, and the Israel retaliating as well. Both scenarios will set the ME on fire. Only a nuclear first strike has at least a chance to kill the program (you still need to know reasonable target coordinates, and that is where the problem is). Shutting it down in the first attempt still will mean a lot of conventional retaliation, and trouble in the ME, but I don'T see it burning as hot as if you risk a prolongued conflict that goes on and on and with not less people getting killed - maybe even more -, and nevertheless ending in a nuclear exchange the one way or the other. Israel - for very good reasons - will not accept a nuclear Iran, and Iran will not accept to give up the program. A balance of terror like in the cold war between two cold-calculating, reasonably thinking factions, will never work in the ME. Too much hysteria, too much missionizing attitudes, too much relgion involved, too much emotion, too much of everything that is bad and evil and has already lasted since long.

[Schroeder]

Wait, GOOBER, you're being satirical, right?
I really hope so.:roll:

[Jimbuna]

I fear the timescales are much shorter than at first predicted.

This is 'do or die' time for the Israelis.....to do nothing, the potential consequences are totally innaceptable for them....a pre-emptive (non nuclear) is really the only viable option to them.

Diplomacy has failed.
What makes you believe a preemptive non-nuclear strike can do the job? That is very questionable, and would be followed by nulcear escalaion soorner or later, may it be the Israelis finishing the job before Iran gets a chance to get the bomb, or may it be the Iranians retaliating once they got the bomb, and the Israel retaliating as well. Both scenarios will set the ME on fire. Only a nuclear first strike has at least a chance to kill the program (you still need to know reasonable target coordinates, and that is where the problem is). Shutting it down in the first attempt still will mean a lot of conventional retaliation, and trouble in the ME, but I don'T see it burning as hot as if you risk a prolongued conflict that goes on and on and with not less people getting killed - maybe even more -, and nevertheless ending in a nuclear exchange the one way or the other. Israel - for very good reasons - will not accept a nuclear Iran, and Iran will not accept to give up the program. A balance of terror like in the cold war between two cold-calculating, reasonably thinking factions, will never work in the ME. Too much hysteria, too much missionizing attitudes, too much relgion involved, too much emotion, too much of everything that is bad and evil and has already lasted since long.

So, are you advocating Israel make the pre-emptive strike a nuclear one to raise the chances of an effective end to the Iranian nuclear programme :hmm:

[Skybird]

So, are you advocating Israel make the pre-emptive strike a nuclear one to raise the chances of an effective end to the Iranian nuclear programme :hmm:
No , but to make any such chance even a minimally realistic one. because without nuclear strike on certain key facilities i do not see such a chance at all. I said that since over two years - even at a time when I myself also was too scared to even think about nukes, and said (two years ago) that using nukes is unacceptable,, always - like most of you guys. It's just that I saw myself in need to change my mind if I wanted to keep on having a realistic perspective on the issues, and not replacing it with fearing daydreams and wishful thinking in order to avoid thinking about the worst.

We had many threads about the issue, and I think I have made myself clear regarding what I consider to make sense, and what not. I also have repeatedly pointed out the same problems like the author of that essay has described: lacking coordinates, targets too hardened to be destructible by MOABs and bunker busters, etc. Strike Iran or don'T. But if you strike and want to really destroy certain key installations, chances are against you that you will achieve that conventionally. If you launch a war, you want it to be successful, and short, leaving Iran no chance to retaliate nuclear, not today and not in the future.

Stop dreaming about what conventional strikes can acchieve in this mess. This is a million times more complicated and difficult than Osiriak. willing a war, but at the same time not accepting to use nukes on the hardened key installations, is a contradiction in itself, shows a remarkable lack of insight into the difficult nature of this operation, and i would even call it some kind of schizophrenic. read that essay's argument and scenario development again - I agree with the author very much, and said exactly the same things since months.

That does not mean that I like it all. I don'T, but so far everybody has failed to show a REALISTIC alternative scenario that I could put trust into. One thing is crystal clear for me: a purely conventional strike will be in vain and only cause some delay, not more. That way, I would be against it, for it would cause a lot of killing and destruction and future conflict and retaliation. I would accept such a war only if it is designed by the intention to secure the destruction of the Iranian ambition to get nuclear weapons. And nthos goal is not be be achieved in a politically correct manner, or a "war light".

decide what you want, for the time to decide is running out. Stop dreaming, and hoping. For just hopes you get nothing.

Isn't it ironic that after the forum wars we had in past years about Iraq and Afghanistan, and me always attacking both wars, and first accepting and then turning totally against the Lebanon war - now i am again causing irritation by pointing at the only way a war with Iran could make sense?

you guys want the success of such an operation - but you shy away from paying the price for it: and the price is to get dirt on our hands. But only nothing comes at no cost.

Iran with nukes and the ME seeing a nuclear exchange sooner or later, or Iran not having nukes, but having suffered considerable damage. Don't run from making a decision anymore - but chose, and chose wisely.

[Jimbuna]

I take your point and do subscribe to your reasoning.

What concerns me most though, is the fact that man has not resorted to atomic release since those used against Japan.

Since then atomic weapons have been successfully used as a deterrent by opposing nations in keeping a modicum of world stability (certainly in terms of preventing a worldwide conflict).

Nobody knows what level of escalation would result from supporters of both sides if atomic weapons were used....perhaps tactical/low yield would be acceptable.

Who can truthfully say they know for certain. :hmm:

[Skybird]

I take your point and do subscribe to your reasoning.

What concerns me most though, is the fact that man has not resorted to atomic release since those used against Japan.

Since then atomic weapons have been successfully used as a deterrent by opposing nations in keeping a modicum of world stability (certainly in terms of preventing a worldwide conflict).

Nobody knows what level of escalation would result from supporters of both sides if atomic weapons were used....perhaps tactical/low yield would be acceptable.

Who can truthfully say they know for certain. :hmm:
I know one thing for sure, if only one of two opposing sides has nukes, there will be no nuclear exchange, and no need for nuclear threatening the other.

again: i am no nuclear trigger-happy, not at all. I do not like all this a bit. I hate it to propagate to use nuclear bunker-busters in the first strike. but nobody so far is able to outline realistic alternatives, only expressions of wishful hopes, and daydreaming. That is the problem that I have.

[JHuschke]

:yep:

[baggygreen]

I take your point and do subscribe to your reasoning.

What concerns me most though, is the fact that man has not resorted to atomic release since those used against Japan.

Since then atomic weapons have been successfully used as a deterrent by opposing nations in keeping a modicum of world stability (certainly in terms of preventing a worldwide conflict).

Nobody knows what level of escalation would result from supporters of both sides if atomic weapons were used....perhaps tactical/low yield would be acceptable.

Who can truthfully say they know for certain. :hmm:I know what you're getting at jim, to a logical person it even makes sense - problem is though, there are way too many people in the world for whom a nuke is a nuke, be it 1 kiloton or 50 megatons. Once they're used, and their use "justified", we do run the risk of legitimising them.

Its a nasty bloody situation, damned if we (generic we) do nothing, and damned if we follow the most logical course of action... :doh:

[Skybird]

Yes, that is a problem, but who seriously considers to live by just the good will of some terrorist groups anyway.

I would say we act by the rules of living organisms here who use to deal with multiple problems and challenges in the order of decending priorities: "what is more important goes first". Conventional Iranian missile retaliation, terror strikes and Hezbollha and Hamas and Arabs living in Israel damaging Israel, global oil prices, blocking the street of Hormuz, trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan - all that is of inferior priority compared to preventing Iran having nukes. So refusing Iranian nuclear facilities goes first. Everything else comes only at second, third, fourth place. Sorry I can't line out a method to evade all these consequences, but there is none. Let' prepare for them as best as we could, and then go right through it - since it is coming at us anyway, no matter if we like it or not. the more crisscrossing we add to the course, then longer we stay inside the heavy weather.

[JHuschke]

Instead of getting our own men killing being "prepared" why not raid them or nuke them? I mean, absolutely every Iranian, Hizbullah, or whoever has a gun even the children, so every one is at a risk already, what are we NOT risking?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Instead of getting our own men killing being "prepared" why not raid them or nuke them? I mean, absolutely every Iranian, Hizbullah, or whoever has a gun even the children, so every one is at a risk already, what are we NOT risking?

The core of that line of logic has led to worse things than war.

[Jimbuna]

Instead of getting our own men killing being "prepared" why not raid them or nuke them? I mean, absolutely every Iranian, Hizbullah, or whoever has a gun even the children, so every one is at a risk already, what are we NOT risking?

So your prepared to gamble on setting off armageddon.

[nikimcbee]

Instead of getting our own men killing being "prepared" why not raid them or nuke them? I mean, absolutely every Iranian, Hizbullah, or whoever has a gun even the children, so every one is at a risk already, what are we NOT risking?

So your prepared to gamble on setting off armageddon.

Right on Jim! When I had my military history class, there were some hotheads in there that wanted to nuke everybody, and they were serious!:roll: I guess they don't realize all that radiation doesn't stay in one place... Which way is the wind blowing?:dead:

[Subnuts]

Instead of getting our own men killing being "prepared" why not raid them or nuke them? I mean, absolutely every Iranian, Hizbullah, or whoever has a gun even the children, so every one is at a risk already, what are we NOT risking?

Well, George W. Bush is probably too dopy to go down as the worst mass murderer in human history. :roll:

[Skybird]

Nuking around like a lose gun certainly is not what has been on my mind. Nor is there a need for nuking cities, as far as I am aware, or nuking each and ever target that is available for conventional destruction.

Not that it makes any difference for those being dead afterwards.

Thank God you just can'T take any huge, hardened subterranean research compound and move it around at will and place it under Teheran - like Hezbollah use to do with it's facilities in order to provoke civilian casualties.

[cobalt1]

You guys do realize that men you've never even heard of rely on empty shelled morons like yourselfs to propagate their agendas?

A lot of Americans are too dumbed down by our culture to know any better when it comes to our "foreign policy" decisions.

[Skybird]

You guys do realize that men you've never even heard of rely on empty shelled morons like yourselfs to propagate their agendas?

A lot of Americans are too dumbed down by our culture to know any better when it comes to our "foreign policy" decisions.

Does your sensible description include those empty shelled morons who consider themselves to act responsibly and reasonably when allowing themselves to fall to propaganda saying that it all is harmless and we can safely let Iran have its nukes - or that it does not intend them anyway?

And possibly it will not be dumbed down America's decision wether to strike or not anyway - but Israel's.

Irrational sentiments and wishful thinking will not lead anyone anwhere in this. Let's keep it out. I agree that it all is no reason to shout hip-hip-hooray.