[quote]vroom wrote:
… At this point, I expect most countries have fanatics of one stripe or another.
…[/quote]
Well, even the US has it’s share of fanatics. With some of them in charge.
Anyway, the question is, how much of the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons is inspired by Bush? They know they’re on his short list. They know they’ll be safe once they have the bomb.
N-Korea is rushing for the bomb, and now so is Iran.
ONE HELL OF A JOB BUSHIE ! ! !
Would we even invade, though? What’d be the point? Bomb the hell out of their military, and every facility that used to have UN Seals on it. Let the French pay to clean it up.
BTW, you left out Iranian submarines. You also have mucho faith in the decrepit Air Force of Iran. Pilots were OK in the late 80s, but who knows now.
It took alot to overload a single cruiser with AEGIS, CIWS and VLS 20 years ago. Now that we’ve updated the software, linked the AEGIS nets, and tweaked the missles, with what those fellas can muster (as in right now, before a strike) would be hard pressed to make a fast run and sink more than a picket ship.
All in all, interesting, but too heavy in the “US wins quick victory but doesn’t realize how tough it would actually be” cliche.
An invasion is out of the question. With what are you going to invade? The US military is tied down in Iraq, overextended as it is.
So a swift strike would be an option.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Anyway, the question is, how much of the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons is inspired by Bush? They know they’re on his short list. They know they’ll be safe once they have the bomb.
N-Korea is rushing for the bomb, and now so is Iran.
ONE HELL OF A JOB BUSHIE ! ! ![/quote]
I was timing with my stopwatch how long it took someone to suggest that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was the reaction to Bush. Wow, I think that may be a new record.
Anyway, Iran’s nuclear ambitions have a lengthy history. More specifically, in 1996, China and Iran were in kahoots to develop a nuclear framework and thumbing their collective nose at the IAEA generally.
Iran would be pursuing nukes even if Ralph Nader were President.
Wreckless, you bulb is dimming.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
vroom wrote:
… At this point, I expect most countries have fanatics of one stripe or another.
…
Well, even the US has it’s share of fanatics. With some of them in charge.
Anyway, the question is, how much of the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons is inspired by Bush? They know they’re on his short list. They know they’ll be safe once they have the bomb.
N-Korea is rushing for the bomb, and now so is Iran.
ONE HELL OF A JOB BUSHIE ! ! ![/quote]
You think that Bush was the catalyst for terrorist nations to develop more weapons of terror? I think your hatred of Bush is overwhelming your reasoning skills.
Could it be that maybe because Clinton was weak on terror that they were inspired to ‘push the envelope’ a little further? Hmmm…
Irans population mostly follows a minority version of Islam. Different from what the other Islamic states like Saudia(who pose no threat to USA) and Pakistan(who at least from a military point of view pose the biggest threat of any muslim country)practice. In fact i heard the old sunnis dont even consider shiites to be muslims.
Point being would would this really turn into a religious war on a worldwide scale, when the country under attack is pretty much the only one that practices a certain type of islam?
surely these people just want to make relatively cheap electricity. Nuclear is the future of energy production. Why do you assume that they will make weapons first?
Legend,
If they just wanted to make electricity they would be able to choose nuclear facilites that were not able to be used to generate weapons.
Surely you jest?
Headhunter,
Just because Clinton didn’t invade nations, I don’t think it is really fair to claim he was weak on terror.
Things were different before 9/11, just about everyone realizes that.
Try to be a little reasonable.
I strongly suggest to anyone here interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the background of terrorism in the Middle East as it relates to current events: pick up a copy of Robert Baer’s SEE NO EVIL.
It provides context for all of this, as well as some very specific information on Iranian terrorism…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter,
Just because Clinton didn’t invade nations, I don’t think it is really fair to claim he was weak on terror.
Things were different before 9/11, just about everyone realizes that.
Try to be a little reasonable.[/quote]
Nope. When it comes to defending my country, the most noble country in the history of this sorry-ass world, I am unreasonable.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The point is that a war on Iran would ignite a cultural war between America and Israel and many, many Islamic countries (possibly all of them). This would be a war that would be disastrous for America in nearly every way, shape and form. You still don’t seem to understand that these wars are not conventional wars like WWII, they will be guerilla wars like Vietnam. And the home team normally wins those games.
[/quote]
Great point. Do some of you still not understand this, after Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq? Not to say we couldn’t win the first two, and aren’t (slowly) winning the last one, but do you realize the enormous commitment in both manpower, and, more importantly, national willpower, required?
For those of you who advocate a military strike on Iran, do you have any firm reason for thinking that it would derail Iran’s nuclear program? Iran’s nuclear facilities are surely scattered at many locations throughout the country, many deep underground. If you’re going to use Iraq and and the Israeli strike on Osirak as an example, that was twenty years ago, Iran has undoubtedly learned the lessons of that attack, and there is even debate on how effective that airstrike was anyway (The Atlantic had an article on it a few months back).
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Vroom and Irish,
Jack Straw is in the news, suggesting that the situation in Iran will most likely be referred to the UNSC.
Iran has become a major purchaser of Russian technology, including ‘defensive weaponry’ to the tune of $1 billion. China is emerging as one of Iran’s biggest trading partners, particularly in oil.
A likely veto on action against Iran - sanctions or force down the line - will come from Russia or China.
What is your position if the UNSC does not have a resolution to contain Iran because of the vetoes?[/quote]
Well, on one hand, there are alot of countries that I don’t exactly feel comfortable with having nuclear weapons (see India and Pakistan). On the other, they are free to develop what they want, and you can be assured that they are going to try.
Thunder, it depends on what the true meaning of UNSC resolution means. If it means invade, or surgical strikes, than, as of now, I cannot support that. If it means frozen assets and embargos, then I am for it.
However, this whole shindig is, once again, over Israel, which makes everything that much more complex. I don’t support Israel…at all…ever. Though being as they are there, they cannot be left to be bombed by a nuclear Iran. Very touchy issue.
Being as I support a foreign policy change away from supporting Israel, this puts me in a conundrum. The rational side of me believes that Iran just cannot be trusted with nukes, even though I think they know we would still end their country if they ever were even linked to using them against ours
So I would have to say containment over invasion, being as I honestly don’t trust the government enough to vote for anyone who would start another war. There are better ways to sow seeds of revolution than invading…I think it can be done in Iran with pens instead swords.
Vietnam isn’t a very good comparison, and you’re aware of that below the surface. Hell, Grenada is probably better when you’re talking about intent and disposition of forces.
Vietnam was essentially a war between convential forces, with a few twists (air assault troops, enemy country being off limits to offensive action, etc). The romantic version has everyone being a closet Viet Cong, when most of the action was centered around NVA regulars.
Those of you that haven’t lived in the arab or muslim world don’t understand what is going on. Gulf arabs are different than African arabs, Saudi Muslims are different than Indonesian Muslims, etc.
Post Gulf War 1991 (think real hard about that date) a Kuwaiti expressed his anger to me about *why Americans were always sticking their noses in everyone else’s business…" (in re: Kosovo or something or other.) A KUWAITI. WHEN THE WELLS WERE STILL BURNING.
The people that hate us and western culture will always hate us, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Those aren’t the people to worry about (other than target solutions). The people who only want to get married and watch their kids play soccer unhindered are the backbone of everyone’s hope. Just like we never run out of drug dealers, we will never run out of idiots blowing themselves and a few good (US/Iraqi/Persian/Australian, etc) men up. We were worried about car bombs in Japan in 1985, for chrissakes.
Neither utopia wished for by Dems or Repubs is going to happen. Was Rumsfeld aware of what was probably going to happen? Well, yeah, and so was every non-zoomie on the way down. Why didn’t anyone “tell us?” Because we’re all a bunch of pussies.
Sorry, rambling a bit. Should I say something “conservative” like, “Bomb their ass and take their gas” to make it easier?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And there’s nothing more dangerous than wars over religion.[/quote]
Sure there are. Wars over FREEDOM.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[…]
When it comes to defending my country, the most noble country in the history of this sorry-ass world
[…]
[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…
gasp
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha… hahahahahahaha… hahaha… heeeeeee. Phew.
Thanks, I needed that.
-Glee
PS. Before you feel the urge to mouth off; I’m from Canada.
[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
[…]
When it comes to defending my country, the most noble country in the history of this sorry-ass world
[…]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…
gasp
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha… hahahahahahaha… hahaha… heeeeeee. Phew.
Thanks, I needed that.
-Glee
PS. Before you feel the urge to mouth off; I’m from Canada.[/quote]
Where you looking at porn and then decided to write your experience here? Must you be so descriptive?!! Tsk, tsk…
[quote]vroom wrote:
It may be possible to cut the head off of the snake in Iran.
If ever there was a case for attempted surgical strikes to throw the government into disarray, so that alternate factions could organize and compete for control, Iran is the textbook for it.
They won’t get any more fanatical, and a civil war is better than an apocalyptic war between Middle East and West.
Iran is the fanatic country that Iraq never was… George should have kept his powder dry. Now he has no credibility and a real problem on his hands.
Short sighted fool.[/quote]
I don’t know about that. I think one of the major reasons for moving in to Iraq was to have an outpost from which to monitor Iran and be able to more effectively watch, manage, and act if necessary. That and oil. Liberation of the Iraqi people was just a nice bonus if indeed they end up a lot better off than under Saddam.
You people must be fucking kidding.
You talk about war and invading another sovereign country like it was a bowel movement.
Pray to God that not one you fuckers who think that “bombing a country” is OK lose one of your children or close family members in a bomb attack by “democratic allies”.
Do you really think you can win the war on terror by occupation of yet another Muslim country? Think again. They will take this war to your communities and although your government will protect you from these terrorists you will lose all that you hold dear…your freedom.
I understand that ignorance breeds arrogance but this is too fucking much.
Your bugle and drum now are playing the death march and it’s starting to read like a Rob Zombie screenplay.
“Wipe em out” includes somebodies child…mother…sister…brother…
When war comes knocking on your door and you start losing not only soldiers but also innocent children and loved ones is when you will start to repent your long distance arrogance.
I do hope you never have to see the real face of war.
Lift some weights…drink a protein shake and try to lose some bodyfat.
That’s what the average joe here needs to think about.
Bombing another country? How fucking arrogant.