Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Glorified Ape]

The biggest problem I'd see with gathering up that much "new blood" for Iraq is the home reaction. If you think people are hating the war in Iraq now, try and send in a crapload of "part-time soldiers" who mostly just want to look cool in uniform and get school money.

More cowardness (desertion) and protests are forecasted...

True enough. I think the casualty situation would be higher with Iran too - not something the US is very good at tolerating. While actual invasion casualties probably wouldn't (just guessing here) be that high, I would imagine that Iran's version of insurgency would be alot larger and more costly. Iran's people are alot more cohesive than Iraq's, something that would probably aid insurgents.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Only if the US could not whip that population into a frenzy against the current government. 


" But the administration is skeptical that Iran is bargaining in good faith. For its part, Iran says its nuclear program is aimed at producing energy, not weapons.

Rice said U.S. differences with Iran go well beyond its nuclear program.

"It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," she told senators. "It's difficult to find common ground with a government that is supporting Hezbollah and terrorist organizations that are determined to undermine the Middle East peace that we seek."

Khatami, travelling Thursday in Africa, seemed unconcerned about the consequences of a possible U.S. attack.

"We have prepared ourselves," he said, adding that he did not anticipate any "lunatic" military move by the United States because Washington has too many problems in Iraq. "  taken from canoe.ca  You think they don't know they are next?

Remember where there is a will there is a way.  It might not be easy but it is possible.  If they start with the paranoya at home and then let it spread world wide.

 

[Cliff]

I guess it is time for Condi to step up to the plate and present some new 'solid evidence' that will give the US an excuse to complete its hat trick in the middle east/asia.   Maybe it will be some more aluminum tubes, or some more mobile chemical warfare units, or that Iran might make nukes, sometime, maybe, if let them, cause we only give them to our buddies.   Wonder who will be in the coalition this time, Israel of course, and ten or so countries that no one has ever heard of, oh and the UK, cant forget bush's lapdog Tony Blair.  

Seriously though, with their forces stretched so thin, and little international support, with US forces creeping ever so closer to Russia, China and India, I dont think they can pull it off, some airstrikes maybe (preemptive precision strikes).   Any thoughts?

I have no doubt that the Iranians would try to nuke Israel.   Evidence or not..some strategical air strikes, small scale raids and cross-border ops might just be what the doctor ordered ;D

 

[dutchie]

I have no doubt that the Iranians would try to nuke Israel.   Evidence or not..some strategical air strikes, small scale raids and cross-border ops might just be what the doctor ordered ;D

Well that's all the proof I need! While were at it, I have always suspected that Papua New Guinea has plans to throw spears at Australia, so let's nuke 'em. I have no proof of course, but seeing as you 'have no doubt' and don't need 'evidence' to wage war on another nation, I figure we can take care of those little buggers too.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Only if the US could not whip that population into a frenzy against the current government.  


" But the administration is skeptical that Iran is bargaining in good faith. For its part, Iran says its nuclear program is aimed at producing energy, not weapons.

Rice said U.S. differences with Iran go well beyond its nuclear program.

"It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," she told senators. "It's difficult to find common ground with a government that is supporting Hezbollah and terrorist organizations that are determined to undermine the Middle East peace that we seek."

Khatami, travelling Thursday in Africa, seemed unconcerned about the consequences of a possible U.S. attack.

"We have prepared ourselves," he said, adding that he did not anticipate any "lunatic" military move by the United States because Washington has too many problems in Iraq. "  taken from canoe.ca  You think they don't know they are next?

Remember where there is a will there is a way.  It might not be easy but it is possible.  If they start with the paranoya at home and then let it spread world wide.

I don't think it's unlikely that the US is going to manage to turn the Iranian people against their government when even the Kurds in Iran don't bother rebelling. The ayatollah's coup back in the 70's wasn't exactly unpopular and the memories of US meddling in their internal affairs and during the Iran-Iraq war probably aren't gone.

I have no doubt that the Iranians would try to nuke Israel.  

I do. Iran's not stupid - I don't think they'd just up and nuke Israel because they don't like them. North Korea says it's going to nuke someone every other day but there's a big difference between what countries SAY they can or want to do and what they actually do. I think Iran knows it'll get nuked by Israel and the US if they so much as fart in Israel's direction on a windy day after it gets nukes.

 

[tomahawk6]

Why not just allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons ?
What will they do with their new capability ?
How will that affect the world oil market ?
Could Iran blackmail the other oil producing countries in the region essentially controlling a big chunk of the world oil market ?
With nuclear weapons Iran would have the ability to destroy Israel - would they do it ?
With nuclear weapons would Iran give nuclear devices to terrorists to be used against the uS or other perceived enemies ?

US pre-emptive strike against Iran thus stopping/delaying its program and none of the above possibilities become reality. Given the pro's and con's I think a pre-emptive strike using air power would be the best option.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
I do. Iran's not stupid - I don't think they'd just up and nuke Israel because they don't like them. North Korea says it's going to nuke someone every other day but there's a big difference between what countries SAY they can or want to do and what they actually do. I think Iran knows it'll get nuked by Israel and the US if they so much as fart in Israel's direction on a windy day after it gets nukes.

Sweet mother of God,.......Ape and I agree on something, any country who would use a nuclear weapon in this day and age would have to be 100% willing to be destroyed themselves.  The govt. of Iran are smarter than this, my concern would be the "passing off" of nuclear "suitcase" bombs to the people who would not care if they destroyed themselves as long as it was on American soil.
Except for that one demented guy in North Korea, I can't see anyone using a nuke anymore unless it was in a "all hope  gone scenario.

 

[Cliff]

Well that's all the proof I need! While were at it, I have always suspected that Papua New Guinea has plans to throw spears at Australia, so let's nuke 'em. I have no proof of course, but seeing as you 'have no doubt' and don't need 'evidence' to wage war on another nation, I figure we can take care of those little buggers too.

I realize my position isn't exactly on strong moral footing, but I still think war should be waged.   At least, on a limited scale.  

 

[1feral1]

What worries me is the fact that if any nuke no matter how small or crude is ever given to a third party or stolen for that matter, and falls into the hands of the extremists who are willing to use it against the west (and they want to believe me) which includes not only North America, but the UK, continental Europe and Australia, plus places in their own region. Given the chance, it can and will happen. Its just a matter of time.

I suggest a surgical airstrike on any plant capable of manufacturing such weapons in Iran. If allowed such a plant there will be a power struggle for other nations nearby to do the same, and that ole fear of 21st century technology with 13th century mentality comes up again, and thats what scares me.

Don't think Canada is immune either.

Don't give these godless hethan fundamentalists the chance to even think of having such weapons. If an airstrike happened tomorrow morning, I would feel more safe.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Cliff]

What worries me is the fact that if any nuke no matter how small or crude is ever given to a third party or stolen for that matter, and falls into the hands of the extremists who are willing to use it against the west (and they want to believe me) which includes not only North America, but the UK, continental Europe and Australia, plus places in their own region. Given the chance, it can and will happen. Its just a matter of time.

I suggest a surgical airstrike on any plant capable of manufacturing such weapons in Iran. If allowed such a plant there will be a power struggle for other nations nearby to do the same, and that ole fear of 21st century technology with 13th century mentality comes up again, and thats what scares me.

Don't think Canada is immune either.

Don't give these godless hethan fundamentalists the chance to even think of having such weapons. If an airstrike happened tomorrow morning, I would feel more safe.

Cheers,

Wes

I agree with you on surgical air strikes.   It's not the Iranian government that is likely to go nuclear, but rather some of the radical factions that could take control of these potential wpns. It took me awhile to accept the Bush administration's preemptive military policy, but I think it's the way to go. As far as I'm concerned, Iran is already indirectly waging war against America with terrorism. All the more reason to nip them in the bud, before it's too late..

 

[jmacleod]

Israel knows quite a bit about the present State of Iran. I doubt that Iran will be attacked by
any country, and the Iranian Mullahs are well aware of the lack of any real intent. Removal
of the Mullah led government is the answer, defined in some detail in recent articles in several
British periodicals and newspapers. The U.S. government is in all probability working out a
withdrawal plan for leaving Iraq at the present time - the ultimate fate of Iraq is in the hands
of Iraqi citizens in any event, and not the U.S. Army, who essentially have completed what they
set out to do and know that there is considerable political pressure in the U.S. to bring the
troops "back home". The region will be more or less unstable for some time, but forces in
Iraq, Iran and Syria will eventually dominate the future of these countries - not as democracies
perhaps, but focused on a better life for all, long overdue in the region. MacLeod

 

[Cliff]

The U.S. government is in all probability working out a
withdrawal plan for leaving Iraq at the present time - the ultimate fate of Iraq is in the hands of Iraqi citizens in any event, and not the U.S. Army, who essentially have completed what they set out to do and know that there is considerable political pressure in the U.S. to bring the troops "back home".

I haven't heard the Bush administration say anything about withdrawing.   What makes you think they will? If it came down to it, a tactical withdrawal to the Kurdish North might make more sence since it wouldn't require the troop density of Iraq to sustain long term mil operations.    

 

[tomahawk6]

Given the poor cooperation we are getting from Turkey by moving into the Kurdish area we would find ourselves stranded. Long term there will be some form of US presence in Iraq for a long time ,it may be in the form of an air base and a forward deployed division but a presence none the less. Kuwait and the Gulf States will continue to be the logistical base for US operations in the region. Iran is surrounded by US airbases and is well within range of sea based TLAM [conventional and 200kt W-80 nuclear warhead]. Iran would be hard pressed to stop an attack by B-2 bombers. The real problem is the dispersal of the Iranian nuclear program. But for my money take out the reactor and you setback their program many years. Of course Iran would try to launch terrorist attacks which might escalate into a wider bombing campaign against key targets in Iran.

 

[Gunnerlove]

godless hethan fundamentalists

Last I heard they did believe in god. Only they call him by a different name.  

If the US feels they can take on the entire middle east without further destabilizing the region they are insane. Gradual change is the key to stability. When religious people are threatened they turn to their religion and become increasingly conservative (If you don't believe me look at the last US election). Increasing the number of extremely conservative fundamentalist Muslims in the world is not in any westernized nations best interest.
A rational educated population worldwide should be one of the key building blocks for international security. Instead we seem to be creating far more fanatics (on both sides of the Bible/Koran fence) who are convinced that their religion is the best and that God is on their side.    

But hey maybe I am wrong and a decade of random bombings and sanctions, followed by invasion and occupation might stabilize Iran and improve world opinion of the US.   :

 

[tomahawk6]

Actually the regime in Tehran is increasingly isolated from its own people. The regime has blocked the moderates by preventing them from even getting on the ballot. Until the people are willing to take to the streets they will remain under the heel of the ayatollah's. Of course a precise air campaign might be able to knock out the props that hold the regime up.

 

[Bert]

I don't think it is in the US's best interest to see "any regime change" occur in Iran.   The
enemy you know is better than the enemy you don't.

The theocracy in Iran is knowing of the rules of detente.   If Iran uses a nuclear response
in return they will receive one and it is definitely lop-sided in favor of the US.   Even if the
nuclear facilities in Iran are destroyed it does not necessarily mitigate further nuclear
research, development, acquisition, or manufacture.

Iran is clearly concerned about changes in Iraq's society, methods of government,
limitations to its areas of interest, having the US next door as it may put pressures on its
own internal problems. The US understands and uses it to control and influence Iran in
the region.   This is a quiet controllable simmering of conflict understood by both parties
despite the usual rhetoric.

An pre-emptive attack on Iran could put the situation out of control.   One doesn't
know what the Iranian response could be, the escalation of Iranian supported
groups around Israel, the response of countries in the region, the consequences of
world reaction.   It is in the US's best interest to manage the situation in a way
that is controllable, won't over-stretch the assets in the region given a military response
by Iran, and balance gains and cost of any pre-emptive action.

 

[Marauder]

Another tack would be to locate and erase the scientists willing to work on giving any whack-job fundamentalists The Bomb. If you keep taking out the wetware, all the hardware in the world does you no good. A bullet in the head or knife in the throat in the middle of the night is far more quite and less likely to give the media a hardon than a mushroom cloud over the known location of a nuclear reactor. Eventually the mullahs will get wise, but hopefully by then any scientist with a shred of self-preservation insitinct will get a case of amnesia when it comes to reading tech diagrams (given by the French or Russians no doubt).

 

[Bert]

That assumes the Iranians have everything nicely centralized, gathered intelligence is 100% correct,
and everthing works like clockwork.    The US may have assets in the region to make the attack as
you suggest but not to deal with the possible consequences.   Noticable movement of militaries
will take place. The escalation will be noticed by the Iranians and their well aware of the possibility.  
I'm sure the US and Iran have carefully considered the scenario from various angles.

 

[Cliff]

I don't think it is in the US's best interest to see "any regime change" occur in Iran.   The
enemy you know is better than the enemy you don't.

The theocracy in Iran is knowing of the rules of detente.   If Iran uses a nuclear response
in return they will receive one and it is definitely lop-sided in favor of the US.   Even if the
nuclear facilities in Iran are destroyed it does not necessarily mitigate further nuclear
research, development, acquisition, or manufacture.

Iran is clearly concerned about changes in Iraq's society, methods of government,
limitations to its areas of interest, having the US next door as it may put pressures on its
own internal problems. The US understands and uses it to control and influence Iran in
the region.   This is a quiet controllable simmering of conflict understood by both parties
despite the usual rhetoric.

An pre-emptive attack on Iran could put the situation out of control.   One doesn't
know what the Iranian response could be, the escalation of Iranian supported
groups around Israel, the response of countries in the region, the consequences of
world reaction.   It is in the US's best interest to manage the situation in a way
that is controllable, won't over-stretch the assets in the region given a military response
by Iran, and balance gains and cost of any pre-emptive action.

You raise some interesting points. Another interesting point is that the US preemptive policy has proved very effective in curtailing terrorism on the US home front,, while most of the world sits back and watches. I think the US needs to let it all hang out and clean out the hornet's nest once and for all. If it extends to limited warfare in Iran..so be it.   Doing nothing while Iran builds its nuclear capability doesn't seem like much of an option.

 

[1feral1]

Last I heard they did believe in god. Only they call him by a different name.  

Extremists are using their religion as a front and excuse to promote terrorism and murder (look how many muslims are dying at the hands of their own kind) and are a disgrace to mainstream Islam, hence why I call these cowards godless murderers. I am in no way implying that muslims are godless, the majority like us just want the same things we do.

So, Mr Love, try seeing things outside the square.

Wes