In a nondescript room, two blocks from the American Capitol building, a group of Bush administration staffers is gathered to consider the gravest threat their government has faced this century: the testing of a nuclear weapon by Iran.

The United States, no longer prepared to tolerate the risk that Iranian nuclear weapons will be used against Israel, or passed to terrorists, has already launched a bombing campaign to destroy known Iranian nuclear sites, air bases and air defence sites. Iran has retaliated by cutting off oil to America and its allies, blockading the Straits of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf bottleneck, and sanctioned an uprising by Shia militias in southern Iraq that has shut down 60 per cent of Iraq's oil exports.

The job of the officials from the Pentagon, the State Department, and the Departments of Homeland Security and Energy, who have gathered in an office just off Massachusetts Avenue, behind the rail terminus, Union Station, is to prevent a spike in oil prices that will pitch the world's economy into a catastrophic spin.....The above was a wargame, run by the Heritage foundation and top US officials. It took four months.

It's long been said that Bush would not leave office without "resolving" the Iranian Nuclear problem. Many have theorized that Bush was bent on war with Iraq because of Saddamn's attempt on his father's life and because he felt the continuation of the Hussain regime was a black mark on his father's record.

Well, a similiar motivation may be at work with respect to Iran:

British and American military officials believe that Mr Bush's ideal scenario is to bring about regime change in Iran, whose mullahs humiliated the US government during the hostage crisis, 28 years ago. "Unless you live here, it is difficult to understand how much the hostage crisis - is burnt into the psyche of Washington," said a Western diplomat in Washington. "They were made to look weak and the people who did it are still in power."
Regardless of the motivation, plans seem to be in an advanced stage with US special forces already in place getting intel on potential targets.


There are credible reports that the US has stepped up clandestine activities in Iran over the past 18 months, using special forces to gather intelligence about military targets - nuclear infrastructure and air bases, and Revolutionary Guard command centres from which Iran could coordinate attacks in Iraq.
Why special forces and not the CIA?

By using military special forces, rather than the CIA, the administration does not have to sign a Presidential Finding, required for covert intelligence activity, or report to oversight committees in Congress.I'd also expect that special forces would be much better in terms of security as CIA seems to leak like a sieve.

They have even lined up some allies:

The Pentagon has made contact with a Kurdish group called the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, which has been conducting cross-border operations in Iran, and with Azeri and Baluchi tribesmen in northern and south-eastern Iran, who oppose the theocratic regime. Still, this is not a sure thing. The costs of war with Iran would be huge:

In the meantime, administration officials are studying the lessons of the recent war game, which was set up to devise a way of weathering an economic storm created by war with Iran. Computer modelling found that if Iran closed the Straits of Hormuz, it would nearly double the world price of oil, knock $161 billion off American GDP in a single quarter, cost one million jobs and slash disposable income by $260 billion a quarter.On the other hand, the administration thinks they have a solution:

The war gamers advocated deploying American oil reserves - good for 60 days - using military force to break the blockade (two US aircraft carrier groups and half of America's 277 warships are already stationed close to Iran), opening up oil development in Alaska, and ending import tariffs on ethanol fuel. If the government also subsidised fuel for poorer Americans, the war-gamers concluded, it would mitigate the financial consequences of a conflict.

The Heritage report concludes: "The results were impressive. The policy recommendations eliminated virtually all of the negative outcomes from the blockade."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/02/wiran102.xml&page=3
So I'd say it's a matter of waiting for an appropriate casus belli, or definite proof of Iran giving up its nuclear ambitions (not likely, I'd guess).

Why should Iran, a signatory of the NPT who has not invaded any country in the last 1500 years, not be allowed to develop a nuclear program, when the US which has attacked over 25 countries and has a constant history of 200 years of overt and covert invasions, and has dropped 2 atom bombs on civilian populations is allowed tens of thousands of nuclear weapons?

In fact, even now, after the mess they have made of Iraq over imaginary WMDs, it is the US that wants to bomb Iran for possible nuclear weapons 10 years later.

Should the US be boycotted by the world for its insanity?

Why should Iran, a signatory of the NPT who has not invaded any country in the last 1500 years, not be allowed to develop a nuclear program?

Well, it's the nuclear weapons we're worried about. The fact that they've signed the NPT means they've basically promised to not develope them.

So how can you use their signing it as justification for them to develope nuclear weapons?

Well, it's the nuclear weapons we're worried about. The fact that they've signed the NPT means they've basically promised to not develope them.

So how can you use their signing it as justification for them to develope nuclear weapons?

You'd have to show they were developing them first. Or do you think the Americans should just go around bombing people over imaginary weapons?

You'd have to show they were developing them first. Or do you think the Americans should just go around bombing people over imaginary weapons?
Oh, I'm sure they'll have good reason to go to war this time. A nuke test, pictures of the nukes, or maybe a US ship sunk by the Iranians. That crap Iran pulled with the British sailors would have probably been sufficient.

Shouldn't the USA bomb Israel instead? They have nukes.

Oh, I'm sure they'll have good reason to go to war this time. A nuke test, pictures of the nukes, or maybe a US ship sunk by the Iranians. That crap Iran pulled with the British sailors would have probably been sufficient.

Why? The British ships were in their waters or close to them. The Americans are over there, not in their own country.

What makes American and British economy so wonderful that Iraqis and Iranis should have to pay for it with their blood?

Why don't they develop an independent economy, using their superior know how and technology, instead of constantly turning the people of the Middle East and Africa into corpses?

Would you accept a system where your country's resources led to mass deaths and suffering in your own country while minting money for another country elsewhere?

I don't think Bush will bomb Iran. I have nothing to support my opinion.

Dear all,

unfortunately it appears that the imbercile bush will bomb Iran

he is going for a two pronged approach on the propaganda front:

1) Keep going on about the nuclear weapons which are always 3-10 years away friom being devleoped (regardless of whjeterh the iranians are actually devloping them or nto)
2) keep going on about Iranaian weapns and "interference in Iraq"

One thing i do know is that he is not going to invade iran to make the world a safer place.

~~~~~~~~
take it e
zak

I think Iran is a important country for pumping and transporting oil, Bush might get a sed back from India and China who would not want to see their supply's get in danger hell even putin is not agreeing with the US, I don't think it will ever get to a war but the US are proberly going to turn up the heath a little bid more and pray that Iran will make a snap so they can exploit it to yustify a war

I don't think Bush will bomb Iran. I have nothing to support my opinion.

I like your opinion
but I fear it will be misfounded.

Once the numbskull gets a nugget of thought into his tiny brain
nothing will deter him.
Have you ever tried to drag a dog away from sniffing a lamp-post?

If he does get his way
it will be a war that makes Iraq look benign.

I still prefer your opinion.

Yup, USA will bomb, possibly nuke Iran. USA needs chaos in the world, it's the only way it can survive through impending crisis with minimum loses. Survive to impose neocolonial world #2 on the rest. Starving potential competitors of the energy sources is a good way to bring chaos, death and decline of the potential competitors. Neocolonial World #1 is crumbling, colonial rent is about to dry up, global leech can't exist without colonial rent, it needs chaos and decline to reign in survivors.

Why? The British ships were in their waters or close to them. The Americans are over there, not in their own country.

What makes American and British economy so wonderful that Iraqis and Iranis should have to pay for it with their blood?

Why don't they develop an independent economy, using their superior know how and technology, instead of constantly turning the people of the Middle East and Africa into corpses?

Would you accept a system where your country's resources led to mass deaths and suffering in your own country while minting money for another country elsewhere?

Beating female reporters to death while they are held in prison is something Ahmedinejad might want to clean up if he wishes to mingle in polite company, SAM.

:shrug:

Beating female reporters to death while they are held in prison is something Ahmedinejad might want to clean up if he wishes to mingle in polite company, SAM.

:shrug:

I'm no fan of Maddenedjedi. But that's no excuse for distorting and misrepresenting what he says.


Yup, USA will bomb, possibly nuke Iran. USA needs chaos in the world, it's the only way it can survive through impending crisis with minimum loses. Survive to impose neocolonial world #2 on the rest. Starving potential competitors of the energy sources is a good way to bring chaos, death and decline of the potential competitors. Neocolonial World #1 is crumbling, colonial rent is about to dry up, global leech can't exist without colonial rent, it needs chaos and decline to reign in survivors.

Unfortunately, this is the reality. A crash of the dollar will be a death knell for the civilised world, permanently under the threat of the maniacs with their fingers on the red button.

Shouldn't the USA bomb Israel instead? They have nukes.

Why not bomb itself, it has WMD's all over America!

Not that US policy on Iran makes any sense:


It is not at all clear why a defeat of the Sunni-dominated insurgency in Iraq would be bad for Shiite Iran. Indeed, one could make a better case that further weakening the Sunnis would actually strengthen Tehran's hand. The big loser would more likely be Saudi Arabia, which has provided funding and military hardware for various Sunni factions in Iraq.

Iran's principal avenue of influence in Iraq is the forces backing the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whom Washington strongly supported when the Iraqi parliament chose him. These forces include the militias affiliated with the Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. Tehran's ties with those factions are far stronger than they are with the more notorious Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

The brutal truth is that it was almost certain from the day U.S. forces overthrew Saddam Hussein that Iran would be the main beneficiary of that action. Saddam had been the nemesis of the clerical regime in Tehran for nearly a quarter century. The two countries had waged an extremely bloody war throughout the 1980s, and Iraq's Sunni political elite remained Iran's mortal adversary. Iraq under Sunni rule was the principal strategic counterweight to an assertive Iran.

The United States did Tehran a huge favor by removing that political elite and paving the way for the Shiite-Kurdish alliance that now dominates Iraq's political affairs. Having taken that step, it does little good now for President Bush to whine about Tehran's expanded influence. It was predictable, and predicted by critics of the war, that Iraqi Shiites would embark on a close working relationship with their co-religionists across the border. That was a danger that administration officials should have considered far more seriously than they did before launching the invasion of Iraq.

The other problem Iran poses -- its pursuit of a nuclear capability -- is also not likely to be affected by the outcome of the insurgency in Iraq. Iran's nuclear program long predates the onset of the current struggle to its west. Indeed, Iran's nuclear ambitions date back the late 1960s, when the Shah, Washington's close ally, was in power.

Tehran's quest for nuclear weapons is an extremely thorny issue, and there are no easy solutions. But one thing is clear: A defeat of the insurgency in Iraq will not have a meaningful impact on it.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=618796&category=OPINION&newsdate=9/2/2007

The US wants to either force Iran to do business (oil) with it or take it by force. I think bush is just trying to get another war in order to get his party re elected again.

I sincerely hope the world will not stand by as another sovereign country is invaded because of its resources, with people being nothing but statistics.

the Arab Oil exporting nations need to UNITE and Punch the oil export prices so high, that the US will have to declare war on every one of them.. then, it'd be a fair fight.. i just hope its not like 1967 again .

The US wants to either force Iran to do business (oil) with it or take it by force. I think bush is just trying to get another war in order to get his party re elected again.

I sincerely hope the world will not stand by as another sovereign country is invaded because of its resources, with people being nothing but statistics.

the Arab Oil exporting nations need to UNITE and Punch the oil export prices so high, that the US will have to declare war on every one of them.. then, it'd be a fair fight.. i just hope its not like 1967 again .

Its more than the oil now, Iran is transferring all its revenues to euro, other OPEC members are also bailing out or planning to. Its the very heart of the paper based economy the US runs on. A joint movement where all the oil producers get together and decide against the dollar as the petro currency, would essentially, under the present economic conditions of the US, make the dollar completely worthless.

Hence this:


President George W. Bush's speech Tuesday lays out the Bush/Cheney plan to attack Iran and how the intelligence is being "fixed around the policy," as was the case before the attack on Iraq.

It's not about putative Iranian "weapons of mass destruction," not even ostensibly. It is about the requirement for a scapegoat for U.S. reverses in Iraq and the White House's felt need to create a casus belli by provoking Iran in such a way as to "justify" armed retaliation, eventually including air strikes on its nuclear-related facilities.


http://www.alternet.org/audits/61328/

Also, no Democrat in power will think or do any different.

Putin has been waiting on it too, since 1998


President Vladimir Putin said Thursday Russia could switch its trade in oil from dollars to euros, a move that could have far-reaching repercussions for the global balance of power -- potentially hurting the U.S. dollar and economy and providing a massive boost to the euro zone. "We do not rule out that it is possible. That would be interesting for our European partners," Putin said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in the Urals town of Yekaterinburg, where the two leaders conducted two-day talks. "But this does not depend solely on us. We do not want to hurt prices on the market," he said. "Putin's putting a big card on the table," said Youssef Ibrahim, managing director of the Strategic Energy Investment Group in Dubai and a member of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, an influential body of leading world thinkers thought to help set the United States' foreign policy agenda. "In the context of what is happening worldwide, this statement is very important," he said.

Putin's words come in the wake of a protracted drive by the EU to attract more countries' trade and currency reserves into euros, in a bid to chip away at U.S. hegemony over the global economy and money supply. A move by Russia, as the world's second largest oil exporter, to trade oil in euros, could provoke a chain reaction among other oil producers currently mulling a switch and would further boost the euro's gradually growing share of global currency reserves. That would be a huge boon to the euro zone economy and potentially catastrophic for the United States. Dollar-based global oil trade now gives the United States carte blanche to print dollars without sparking inflation -- to fund huge expenses on wars, military build-ups, and consumer spending, as well as cut taxes and run up huge trade deficits.



http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/2003/1010oilpriceeuro.htm

And Iran would have implemented it last year, if not for the battleships in the gulf
http://www.energybulletin.net/12463.html

The US wants to either force Iran to do business (oil) with it or take it by force. I think bush is just trying to get another war in order to get his party re elected again.

I sincerely hope the world will not stand by as another sovereign country is invaded because of its resources, with people being nothing but statistics.

the Arab Oil exporting nations need to UNITE and Punch the oil export prices so high, that the US will have to declare war on every one of them.. then, it'd be a fair fight.. i just hope its not like 1967 again .

By raising the oil base prices not only will America be adversely be affected but third world countries that have to import their oil will be devastated. Japan, Australia, England, Sweden, and others are also going to be adversely affected and the entire worlds economic infrastructure will degenerate into chaos. If this is what the OPEC members want to do, then the world is at their mercy but I don't think the world will standby and allow that to happen and there will be a MAJOR war erupt in the Mideast with millions of deaths there. So it is up to OPEC to consider their options at this time and ease up their increasing prices or face wars that will decimate them.

By raising the oil base prices not only will America be adversely be affected but third world countries that have to import their oil will be devastated. Japan, Australia, England, Sweden, and others are also going to be adversely affected and the entire worlds economic infrastructure will degenerate into chaos. If this is what the OPEC members want to do, then the world is at their mercy but I don't think the world will standby and allow that to happen and there will be a MAJOR war erupt in the Mideast with millions of deaths there. So it is up to OPEC to consider their options at this time and ease up their increasing prices or face wars that will decimate them.

Yeah, but they are still raising prices to help prop up the dollar.


Opec’s production cuts have boosted prices, ‘but at a cost’
Published: Sunday, 2 September, 2007, 01:41 AM Doha Time
NEW YORK: Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ crude oil output cuts have succeeded in stabilising prices, but likely haven’t cut deeply enough into global stockpiles to sanction a production increase at the group’s September 11 meeting.

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=170233&version=1&template_id=48&parent_id=28

Yeah, but they are still raising prices to help prop up the dollar.

Propping up one currency only destabilizes another somewhere else. This is not a very good way to help the worlds third worlds countries for it really destabilizes them even more leading to more economic problems and unrest within those affected areas. To just look at one countries health isn't a very smart way to run an empire for every country contributes to OPEC not just one.

The US wants to either force Iran to do business (oil) with it or take it by force. I think bush is just trying to get another war in order to get his party re elected again.

I sincerely hope the world will not stand by as another sovereign country is invaded because of its resources, with people being nothing but statistics.

the Arab Oil exporting nations need to UNITE and Punch the oil export prices so high, that the US will have to declare war on every one of them.. then, it'd be a fair fight.. i just hope its not like 1967 again .

hey challenger

Thats a good plan, but the Arabs are a bunch of greedy arseholes they onyl know wahst good for themselves and will soon start squabbling. Also militarily the US will still wipe the floor with them, i doubt the combined military of the arabs will be abel to sink one Aircraft carrier.
So sort of nice in theory apart from the fact it will hurt me here in the UK and
the reaons as stated above.

the fuckin Arab leadership is not to be fucking trusted.

they are a bunch of arse wiping turds.

~~~~~~~~~

cheers zak

Propping up one currency only destabilizes another somewhere else. This is not a very good way to help the worlds third worlds countries for it really destabilizes them even more leading to more economic problems and unrest within those affected areas. To just look at one countries health isn't a very smart way to run an empire for every country contributes to OPEC not just one.

I disagree, right now, it is the OPEC and other countries (China, Japan, etc) with major dollar holdings that are preventing an economic crash with worldwide implications. It remains to be seen, however, how long they are willing to take the losses, on behalf of the US.

Why should Iran, a signatory of the NPT who has not invaded any country in the last 1500 years, not be allowed to develop a nuclear program, when the US which has attacked over 25 countries and has a constant history of 200 years of overt and covert invasions, and has dropped 2 atom bombs on civilian populations is allowed tens of thousands of nuclear weapons?

In fact, even now, after the mess they have made of Iraq over imaginary WMDs, it is the US that wants to bomb Iran for possible nuclear weapons 10 years later.

Should the US be boycotted by the world for its insanity?


Kidnapping civilians, the war with Iraq, offering men and weapons to terrorists in Iraq to murder Coalition troops.

Does this make for a reliable nation with a trustworthy leadership?

Was the United States was the aggressor in WWI, WWII and the Cold War?

I'm no fan of Maddenedjedi. But that's no excuse for distorting and misrepresenting what he says.




No need to..just read the media.

Iranian regime killed 19-year-old female journalist



BOSTON, MA – On Thursday, February 16, 2006, Women's Forum Against Fundamentalism in Iran (WFAFI) released a statement regarding threats against the life of imprisoned Elham Afrootan, in Bandar Abbas city, Hormozgan province. Elham was charged for publishing a satirical article in a local weekly called "Tamadoun Hormozgan". While a religious judge in Bandar Abbass city issued an execution decree for Elham, WFAFI has just learned that Elham was brutally murdered in prison.

Kidnapping civilians, the war with Iraq, offering men and weapons to terrorists in Iraq to murder Coalition troops.

Does this make for a reliable nation with a trustworthy leadership?

Was the United States was the aggressor in WWI, WWII and the Cold War?

War with Iraq was in self defence, Saddam (supported by the US) invaded Iran. The Iraqis support Palestinians in the war against the aggressor Israel (note: they support the victims, they do not bomb or invade the aggressor), same for the Hezbollah in their defence against Israel; coalition troops in Iraq are aggressors, they invaded and destroyed a country for no reason. If the Iranians invaded Canada, would US aid to Canada be considered aiding terrorism?

Iran remains within its borders, it helps its neighbors, although I disagree with its autocratic leadership, post-Mussadegh post-Shah Iran has shown nothing but a desire to protect itself from Western interventions -inspite of continuous unrelenting sanctions since 1970, the Iranians have done nothing in retaliation; their only retaliation so far is the kidnapping of Americans when they finally, finally, managed to get rid of the deposed Shah and discovered the extent of CIA involvement in the 25 years of torture by the Savaks in their country; in fact, the students are still releasing the embassy documents as they are put together (they were shredded by the CIA), though very few people in the West are paying any attention to them.

I'd say the Iranians have shown more responsible leadership, than the Americans who have dragged their country through shame and are heading to bankruptcy.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/iran/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB21/

Not that US policy on Iran makes any sense:



http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=618796&category=OPINION&newsdate=9/2/2007

It makes sense if you're an idealogue focused on perpetuating a mythos that garners votes and plays of the fears of pansies like madant. I, for one, welcome terrorist attacks.

Bring it on, Iran!

No need to..just read the media.

Iranian regime killed 19-year-old female journalist



BOSTON, MA – On Thursday, February 16, 2006, Women's Forum Against Fundamentalism in Iran (WFAFI) released a statement regarding threats against the life of imprisoned Elham Afrootan, in Bandar Abbas city, Hormozgan province. Elham was charged for publishing a satirical article in a local weekly called "Tamadoun Hormozgan". While a religious judge in Bandar Abbass city issued an execution decree for Elham, WFAFI has just learned that Elham was brutally murdered in prison.
You should know that the President has very little jurisdiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Iran) over the justice system in Iran. Plus, its the clergy and their refurbished Savak (now known as Savama) that now control the justice system. Unfortunately, the selective and systematic torture of the liberal dissidents over 25 years by the Shah's police completely suppressed that base in Iran. However, it did not extinguish it, so all is not lost.

Pending further Western intervention, that is.

According to rumors on the blogs, which have yet to be discredited by the initial checks (there appears to be something to them), W&Co have given "instructions" (that was the word used) to the major think tanks to begin issuing papers, essays, etc, suppporting an attack on Iran, starting after Labor Day, with the goal of getting US public support up to about 35 - 40% before the attack is launched.

Just thought I'd pass along some actual iresponsible rumors and crap, rather than boring old mainstream news.

The word "instructions" struck me - it was in the anonymous quote by some intelligence agency official who allegedly leaked the story.

The US wants to either force Iran to do business (oil) with it or take it by force. I think bush is just trying to get another war in order to get his party re elected again.

I sincerely hope the world will not stand by as another sovereign country is invaded because of its resources, with people being nothing but statistics.

the Arab Oil exporting nations need to UNITE and Punch the oil export prices so high, that the US will have to declare war on every one of them.. then, it'd be a fair fight.. i just hope its not like 1967 again .

If US Citizens don't want a war with Iran, they need to be vocal and protest against it. It's coming closer all the time. And it will be a bloodbath.

If you understand the nature of the Iranian people, their culture is rooted in self sacrifice for the sake of principle. They will fight against all odds, and welcome death.

Perhaps Bush thinks that here is another country which will accept "freedom" with open arms. Surely more needless bloodshed and chaos wouldn't get people rallying behind him. I'd not even thought of that.
It couldn't be true. Could it?

We've got rid our grinning poodle, isn't it time you ditched the numbskull?

If US Citizens don't want a war with Iran, they need to be vocal and protest against it. It's coming closer all the time. And it will be a bloodbath.

If you understand the nature of the Iranian people, their culture is rooted in self sacrifice for the sake of principle. They will fight against all odds, and welcome death.

Perhaps Bush thinks that here is another country which will accept "freedom" with open arms. Surely more needless bloodshed and chaos wouldn't get people rallying behind him. I'd not even thought of that.
It couldn't be true. Could it?

We've got rid our grinning poodle, isn't it time you ditched the numbskull?

The "beauty" of the situation is that USA probably doesn't need to occupy Iran, bombing is more than enough to make a mess of Iran and destabilize oil/gas markets thus reminding potential evildoers who is who.

The "beauty" of the situation is that USA probably doesn't need to occupy Iran, bombing is more than enough to make a mess of Iran and destabilize oil/gas markets thus reminding potential evildoers who is who.

Yes, I do believe the bombing will disrupt not only the oil revenue of Iran, but will also conveniently lead to collateral damages that will cost a lot (like infrastructure, hospitals, bridges, electric stations, etc) May be some cluster bombs to keep the Iranians busy. Same ole same ole. The Iranians are not supposed to retaliate of course, notwithstanding that the biggest ME ethnic population in the US is comprised of Iranians.

notwithstanding that the biggest ME ethnic population in the US is comprised of Iranians

I bet they'll be the first to support the course and volunteer. 90 years ago, government and free citizens scared shit out of Germans living in the USA, they were among the first to sign up for the draft. A decade later after WWI, Germans dissolved themselves in the American sea even though they remained Germans (language, culture and stuff) for decades prior WWI.
.

People have been saying the US is going to attack Iran (and North Korea) ever since the Axis of Evil speech. Five years later, we're growing farther from direct action against either of them. It just isn't going to happen, with the current situation and president.

Bush doesn't have the clout to launch any aggressive action against Iran. He barely has the political capital to continue the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Also, the US military has plans for almost any scenario, but that by no means indicates the likelihood of them being carried out.

Attacking Iran is an emergency measure, just in case of a threat of the financial meltdown. Obviously, the time is not ripe yet. Nobody knows when the time will come, but the war has begun 6 years ago and it meant to be decades long. New world order, with unchallange dominant position of USA is a goal. Objective is not reached yet. Au contre, competitors just starting very mild sable rattling (China, Russia, even Europe). All the fun is ahead. The world is going to be divided again. Hopefully, after division some "juice" will remain. Otherwise, all in vain. It's hell in S. California right now, 50 degrees centrigrades, TV said temperature beating the records :)

Attacking Iran is an emergency measure, just in case of a threat of the financial meltdown. Obviously, the time is not ripe yet. Nobody knows when the time will come, but the war has begun 6 years ago and it meant to be decades long. New world order, with unchallange dominant position of USA is a goal. Objective is not reached yet. Au contre, competitors just starting very mild sable rattling (China, Russia, even Europe). All the fun is ahead. The world is going to be divided again. Hopefully, after division some "juice" will remain. Otherwise, all in vain. It's hell in S. California right now, 50 degrees centrigrades, TV said temperature beating the records :)

Comon up to Canada and cool off a bit.

Frankly, from a very selfish perspective(Canadian), i'm hoping the U.S gets even more entangled in a foreign mess. Anything to keep that jack boot military busy, and OUT of north america...

Howevere, we will be happy to help you guys pick up the pieces, after all the frat boys are done fucking things up.

Why should Iran, a signatory of the NPT who has not invaded any country in the last 1500 years, not be allowed to develop a nuclear program, when the US which has attacked over 25 countries and has a constant history of 200 years of overt and covert invasions, and has dropped 2 atom bombs on civilian populations is allowed tens of thousands of nuclear weapons?
The U.S. may have "dropped 2 atom bombs on civilian populations", but it was a Democrat President who made the decision to nuke all those people.

No Republican president has nuked anyone.

It would seem that the world would be better off without a Democrat U.S. President.

The U.S. may have "dropped 2 atom bombs on civilian populations", but it was a Democrat President who made the decision to nuke all those people.

No Republican president has nuked anyone.

It would seem that the world would be better off without a Democrat U.S. President.



The world would be better off without governments altogether.

The U.S. may have "dropped 2 atom bombs on civilian populations", but it was a Democrat President who made the decision to nuke all those people.

No Republican president has nuked anyone.

It would seem that the world would be better off without a Democrat U.S. President.

Different asshole same crap.

lets hope so

lets hope so

hope what?

in all honesty i think bush is crazy and/or dumb enough to bomb iran

Why is China keeping so quiet on this?
they are massive importers of Iranian oil.

in all honesty i think bush is crazy and/or dumb enough to bomb iran

And it will be for "Freedom" and "Democracy"
And against "Tyranny" and "Evil"
I could write the speech myself.

Frankly, from a very selfish perspective(Canadian), i'm hoping the U.S gets even more entangled in a foreign mess. Anything to keep that jack boot military busy, and OUT of north america...
I can't wait to pull out of Iraq so I can deploy to Vancouver and get back to oppressing uppity Canadians.


Wait, what? :confused:

People have been saying the US is going to attack Iran (and North Korea) ever since the Axis of Evil speech. Five years later, we're growing farther from direct action against either of them. It just isn't going to happen, with the current situation and president.

Bush doesn't have the clout to launch any aggressive action against Iran. He barely has the political capital to continue the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Also, the US military has plans for almost any scenario, but that by no means indicates the likelihood of them being carried out.

I agree, there's no way in hell we are attacking Iran. But wait, what was that? The Heritage Foundation is running wargames now? Planning to use another war as an excuse to implement all their wet dreams: opening up the arctic for short term exploitation and long term damage and ending import tariffs.

The Neo-cons are freaking INSANE.

I agree, there's no way in hell we are attacking Iran.
Of course we are. And for some time.

It's only your <~33&#37; of the US electorate that prefers the Carter-approach to Iran.

The rest of us see Iran's mullah class lashing out at us in Iraq as whatever payback they can muster for our "meddling" in their little "island of bliss"--for the last, what, 6.5 years?

There's a whole world out here, in progress, and you progressive folks are missing it all from inside your misty bubble.

At least you're contained, unlike Saddam. ;)

Mr. Garrison why dont you go and fight in the front line?

peace.

Remember when the US began it's invasion of Afghanistan? Iran really tried to make themselves our ally. In response the US doesn't even talk to them, and Bush makes the axis of evil speech.

Ah, how different things could have been now :/ Not only would we not be worrying about going to war with them, they could of been a quite valuable ally in Iraq.

Bush's attitude for Iran is basically responsible for their extremism, and if they are making nuclear weapons, blame Bush.

Another reason to vote for Obama, who would meet with Iran in his first year.

Anyway, doesn't Bush require Congress to authorize the war? There is no way he can get it. And if he looks like he is going to start ANYTHING he needs to be impeached (with Cheney immediately after).

Mr. Garrison why dont you go and fight in the front line?

peace.
Because our back-sides need protection, too?

:D

Remember when the US began it's invasion of Afghanistan? Iran really tried to make themselves our ally.
Remember when I wasn't laughing hysterically? http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Another reason to vote for Obama, who would meet with Iran in his first year.

Obama. He'll talk to our enemies and bomb our allies!

Typical Mr. G post. Makes you have to decipher something that is off topic and you don't care about anyway.

I can try and guess what your point is since you were unspecific, as usual, but none of my guesses add up to something that is worthwhile or logical... So one of my guesses was probably right.

Anyway, doesn't Bush require Congress to authorize the war? No. The authorization he used to invade Iraq has not been repealed - he can attack Iran whenever he wants to, according to his interpretation of that authorization.
And if he looks like he is going to start ANYTHING he needs to be impeached (with Cheney immediately after). He's been looking like he was trying to start things with Iran - sending in terrorists, making pugnacious speeches, rigging intelligence and exaggerating threat, demonizing AJ, accumulating strike groups in the Persian Gulf, setting up anti-missile agreements in neighboring countries, etc - for a couple of years now. For a while, it looked like an airstrike early this summer - but unfortunate events apparently prevented the necessary political support from assembling. Now we seem to be seeing another propaganda campaign in the early stages of launch.

Obama. He'll talk to our enemies and bomb our allies!

Al Qaeda isn't our ally last I checked.

It never stops being funny that conservatives think trying to resolve issues diplomatically is immoral/traitorous... Well, actually it isn't funny when the bombs start to drop.

No. The authorization he used to invade Iraq has not been repealed - he can attack Iran whenever he wants to, according to his interpretation of that authorization. He's been looking like he was trying to start things with Iran - sending in terrorists, making pugnacious speeches, rigging intelligence and exaggerating threat, demonizing AJ, accumulating strike groups in the Persian Gulf, setting up anti-missile agreements in neighboring countries, etc - for a couple of years now. For a while, it looked like an airstrike early this summer - but unfortunate events apparently prevented the necessary political support from assembling. Now we seem to be seeing another propaganda campaign in the early stages of launch.

I doubt he can get support, even if he had more time in office. However I don't doubt his ability to do something stupid, like start a war without anyone else agreeing.

What do you mean by sending in terrorists? I never heard of that. Good points though. The democratic leadership is cowardly for vowing not to impeach him.

What do you mean by sending in terrorists? The MEK (the same ones Saddam was supporting, on the Iranian border), and the Baluchistanis (who turned out to be almost instant blowback), probably the main ones.

And the various special ops - like the one the Brits got caught at, practicing landings on the Iranian coast - would be called "terrorist" incursions, if the shoe were on the other foot.


I doubt he can get support, even if he had more time in office. The apparent, or rumored, media strategy is to launch another propaganda campaign, enough to get US public support up around 35&#37; or more. Considering the recent gullibility of that core 30% that still thinks W is fighting the good fight, and an Israeli lobby strongly in favor of stomping on Iran, this is not beyond possibility. My first guess would be some exaggeration or invention concerning Iranian killing of US soldiers - even mercenaries or contractors - in Iraq, couple with some more demonization of AJ (selected misquotes, etc). If a border incident can be provoked, so much the better - so far, Iran has simply ignored the abuse of its citizens in Iraq, the terrorists on its borders, the financing and support oif insurrection within its territory, etc, and refuses to be provoked.

All these threats against Iran will come to pass. There will be war. Regrettably, very regrettably. Kids will die, mothers and fathers will grieve ... and then also die ... politicians will dance like dervishes on the wings of power. The human condition is self perpetuating. History has taught us nothing.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/02/3559/

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18285.htm

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Pentagon_draws_Threeday_blitz_plan_for_0901.html

etc...

The democratic leadership is cowardly for vowing not to impeach him.
And you're impotent because you cannot compel your leadrship to impeach Bu$hHitler on your command.

Symmetry.

If you know a way I could compel them let me know.

I don't see how he can, American public opinion being what it is, and Bush having only another year in office. Perhaps I overestimate us, but I can't see Bush justifying Iran the same way he did Iraq and people buying it.

We sincerely hope not ... but just one major terror attack against the US, real or imagined, can swing the tide.

We sincerely hope not ... but just one major terror attack against the US, real or imagined, can swing the tide.
We'll attack after an overt act of war, or at the behest of Iranians who invite us to help them do what they can not do alone.

Either way, most of you will be simple spectators not part of any real-world equation.

They will not only lose, but lose alot of support and have a backup of extra insurgents if they do try to bomb iran

and if usa bomb iran, israel will suffer.

I agree, there's no way in hell we are attacking Iran. But wait, what was that? The Heritage Foundation is running wargames now? Planning to use another war as an excuse to implement all their wet dreams: opening up the arctic for short term exploitation and long term damage and ending import tariffs.

The Neo-cons are freaking INSANE.
All that granted, how is Bush going to get approval for military action from Congress? Because that is what he would need, and that is something that has yet to be explained.

All that granted, how is Bush going to get approval for military action from Congress? Because that is what he would need, and that is something that has yet to be explained. He already has all the approval he needs, from the Military Authorization that allowed him (in his view) to launch the Iraq invasion. That has not been repealed.

He already has all the approval he needs, from the Military Authorization that allowed him (in his view) to launch the Iraq invasion. That has not been repealed.

That is, he doesn't declare war but claims it as a police action? Again, he's got a year to go and I don't think he could get great public support in the absence of a clear aggressive action on Iran's part. Perhaps this is overoptimistic.

He already has all the approval he needs, from the Military Authorization that allowed him (in his view) to launch the Iraq invasion. That has not been repealed.



(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

How is this applicable to Iran?

Why should Iran, a signatory of the NPT who has not invaded any country in the last 1500 years, not be allowed to develop a nuclear program, when the US which has attacked over 25 countries and has a constant history of 200 years of overt and covert invasions, and has dropped 2 atom bombs on civilian populations is allowed tens of thousands of nuclear weapons?


Uh because the strongest rule? Iran probably isn't even developing nuclear weapons, the US is just trying to scare its citizens into supporting its warmongering in persuit of $$

Oh, I'm sure they'll have good reason to go to war this time. A nuke test, pictures of the nukes, or maybe a US ship sunk by the Iranians. That crap Iran pulled with the British sailors would have probably been sufficient.

Like at WW2 when they sent a passenger ship to the Germans... I wonder why they're even bothering with all that nuke crap. Just sacrifice a few americans and boom you got 10.000's of men volunteering and willing to join the war against Iran.

That is, he doesn't declare war but claims it as a police action? Again, he's got a year to go and I don't think he could get great public support in the absence of a clear aggressive action on Iran's part. Perhaps this is overoptimistic.
The president can do anything he wants with the military for, I think, sixty days. Beyond that he needs congressional approval.

That is, he doesn't declare war but claims it as a police action? Again, he's got a year to go and I don't think he could get great public support in the absence of a clear aggressive action on Iran's part. He already has the majority of Americans thinking that Iran is the major foreign supporter of terrorism in Iraq, the major source of terrorist support wolrdwide, is about to develop nuclear weapons, and is run by a crazy man with a jihadist mentality who would sacrifice his country to kill the infidels or nuke Israel.

W won't try invasion - his generals would, finally, rebel, I think. He will bomb. Half his intellectual supporters think bombing would win them the war anyway.

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. ”

How is this applicable to Iran? Same way it is applicable to Iraq - after four years now, no threat from Iraq, and no UN Resolutions visible.

Same way it is applicable to Iraq - after four years now, no threat from Iraq, and no UN Resolutions visible.
Except the stubborn fact that the resolution says Iraq and not Iran. (And a thousand other reasons.)


W won't try invasion - his generals would, finally, rebel, I think. He will bomb. Half his intellectual supporters think bombing would win them the war anyway.
The officer corps isn't going anywhere no matter what Bush does. Policy is irrelevant. We're here to obey the Constitution, not assert our own political agenda like some crappy junta.

I agree that the most military action we would see against Iran would be airstrikes against the major nuclear facilities, primarily because that would be all that is necessary to set the Iranian nuclear program back by a decade or more. I don't consider this a likely contingency, however.

Except the stubborn fact that the resolution says Iraq and not Iran. (And a thousand other reasons.) That's easily handled - blame for the insurgency in Iraq is already laid on Iran, so bombing Iran would be part of the same war.

And an incident with Iran itself should be easy to set up - then: protecting the US forces in Iraq, see ?

We already have a list of targets - the nukes, of course, but they are hardened and difficult. We might destroy the civilian power plant, but the military program would be more difficult if there is one (we apparently don't know where it is).

But also the power plants, sewer and water, port and trade facilities, oil company infrastructure not owned or managed by Halliburton or other allied companies, etc.

That's easily handled - blame for the insurgency in Iraq is already laid on Iran, so bombing Iran would be part of the same war.

And an incident with Iran itself should be easy to set up - then: protecting the US forces in Iraq, see ?

We already have a list of targets - the nukes, of course, but they are hardened and difficult. We might destroy the civilian power plant, but the military program would be more difficult if there is one (we apparently don't know where it is).

But also the power plants, sewer and water, port and trade facilities, oil company infrastructure not owned or managed by Halliburton or other allied companies, etc.

Then rush in to "free" the people and rebuild their poor battered country using construction companys run by Bush's pals. Where have we seen that before?

He already has the majority of Americans thinking that Iran is the major foreign supporter of terrorism in Iraq, the major source of terrorist support wolrdwide, is about to develop nuclear weapons, and is run by a crazy man with a jihadist mentality who would sacrifice his country to kill the infidels or nuke Israel.

I haven't seen the polls on that. But public support for the war in Iraq is fairly low, most people realize that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and Americans seem to realize how stretched thin we are.


W won't try invasion - his generals would, finally, rebel, I think. He will bomb. Half his intellectual supporters think bombing would win them the war anyway.

He'd get support for that., sure. Especially if it's "taking out Iran's capacity to make nuclear weapons."


That's easily handled - blame for the insurgency in Iraq is already laid on Iran, so bombing Iran would be part of the same war

Somehow I don't think it works that way. Iran is still a seperate nation. But he does have the ability to pass it off as a small scale matter, a "police action" as was done in the Cold War, and I believe that as Commander in Chief he has the authority to use the military that way for a limited amount of time.

Anyone know the details on this?

I haven't seen the polls on that. But public support for the war in Iraq is fairly low, most people realize that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and Americans seem to realize how stretched thin we are.
You mean, of course, that the majority of public opinion is currently that there were no WMD's because the west did not find any by the time they were on the ground in Iraq.
This does not mean there were any, nor does it mean there were not. It means only that the public is generally convinced that there were not, without having any of the advantage of intelligence and satellite information that the US government had at the time, and at the same time being utterly convinced of the ability and willingness of the west to deliberately mislead its own public. Amongst those latter believers, many have never considered why the US government might have found it necessary to embark on such a course of action.

The type of cynicism openly displayed on forums such as this one is oft mistaken for rational and informed thought, whereas it is in fact only another socially-acceptable bias.

A more correct philosophical cynicism would be to believe in neither the existence or non-existence of WMD without proof either way. That there were none found by the time they were actively searched for without hindrance is proof for neither belief. The only rational belief it possible for a man not in an informed position to have is that he does not know, but suspects one way or the other, dependant entirely on his political inclination and ideological sympathies.

Public support for the war in Iraq is low simply because many westerners think little beyond the here and now, and their own comfort and security.
To begin a war in Iraq, with the danger of that war becoming something far more in time, is perhaps matched only in potential danger in doing nothing at all. The majority of westerners are against any war with the middle east simply because they cannot see the danger in doing nothing, and because doing nothing now will in all probability have no adverse result during their own lifetimes. It may well be that in the future the middle east will become something far more dangerous than it is now and logistically uncontrollable. If that transpires, any question of ideology or philosophy on whether or not the west should seek to tame it will become moot, in the face of a complete inability to do so.

The war in Iraq is a result of fear in the face of potential danger. WMD, religion and oil are some of the faces that fear has been given, in order to make it more acceptable to the public from any individual standpoint.

If the USA was free to act, unhindered by politics or by its own espoused ideals, both Iraq and Iran could be reduced to smoking ruins in a very short space of time. Make no mistake on that point. That this conflict has been handly ineptly is more a result of public opinion and the fear of being seen as a hypocrite than any inability of the US military to conquer.

If the USA was free to act, unhindered by politics or by its own espoused ideals, both Iraq and Iran could be reduced to smoking ruins in a very short space of time. Make no mistake on that point. That this conflict has been handly ineptly is more a result of public opinion and the fear of being seen as a hypocrite than any inability of the US military to conquer. Wait a minute: are you claiming that nuking Iran and Iraq over fear of WMDs that may or may not have even existed (according to you) would have been competent ?

Wait a minute: are you claiming that nuking Iran and Iraq over fear of WMDs that may or may not have even existed (according to you) would have been competent ?
I'm sure you'd point out where I advocated the use of nukes if I asked.

No, the US has other options. MOABs, carpet bombing, whatever. It simply doesn't gel with you that they have been very retrospect in their handling of this war, has it? That the opinion of the public and the world in general has prevented them from unleashing hell on Iraq?

Now let me see. Are you saying that you, with complete faith and knowledge, without any reserve or doubt whatsoever, are convinced that the US lied about WMD from the very beginning?

The ability for the US military to conquer? Ha

If we weren't hindered by petty politics and religion, we could reduce the USA to a bunch of smoking rubble within, oh, a year.

The one thing we have that you don't, is willpower and determination. Whether one of us dies or one hundred million, we will win.

The ability for the US military to conquer? Ha

If we weren't hindered by petty politics and religion, we could reduce the USA to a bunch of smoking rubble within, oh, a year.

The one thing we have that you don't, is willpower and determination. Whether one of us dies or one hundred million, we will win.
Actually, I agree with you in one respect - the willpower and determination. I did just post something to that effect, didn't I?

Other than that, you're a blithering idiot.

Question: if it were guaranteed that an attack on Iran would cost the republicans any chance of winning in 08, would he still do it? Does he care at all about the republican party at this point?

No, the US has other options. MOABs, carpet bombing, whatever. It simply doesn't gel with you that they have been very retrospect in their handling of this war, has it? That the opinion of the public and the world in general has prevented them from unleashing hell on Iraq?
OK, then are you actually claiming that unleashing "hell on earth", by some convenient means, would have been a competent strategy in Iraq?

I thought it was more on the lines of wanting to win something, rather than just prove we could kill people.

Originally, and pardon me if this has changed, the war wasn't against Iraq and all its people anyway. Are we supposed to be patting ourselves on the back for not deliberately killing a whole bunch of people we were trying to rescue ? That's a pretty low bar, for competence.


Now let me see. Are you saying that you, with complete faith and knowledge, without any reserve or doubt whatsoever, are convinced that the US lied about WMD from the very beginning? Nah,there's some doubt. Sasquatches might exist, too - you can't be sure about these things.

I would be willing to make a reasonable wager about finding them anytime in the next five years, though. I would go further - I would bet against any serious physical evidence of their existence turning up - any actual satellite photos, say, or empty storage facilities recently full, or production facilities lately shut down - in the next five years. I not only don't think there were WMDs as described by W&Co, I don't think there was any serious evidence of them.

As far as the WMDs, W&Co never made any sense in their claims - they were not believeable, jsut on common sense grounds. And they didn't jsut claim these huge quantities and big time production facilities all over the landscape, they also claimed to know where they were. So not finding them was in itself proof of at least some lying - they didn't know where they were.

If we weren't hindered by petty politics and religion, You'd be penguins, or something. You sure wouldn't be anything like you.
The one thing we have that you don't, is willpower and determination. Whether one of us dies or one hundred million, we will win. Win what?

Actually, I agree with you in one respect - the willpower and determination. I did just post something to that effect, didn't I?

Other than that, you're a blithering idiot.

As are you ;)

icaeura, penguins as in us specifically, or mankind altogether?

Anything, I use the term "win" as in any challenge that may arise for us

The ability for the US military to conquer? Ha
We conquered Baghdad in 21 days using two light divisions...from the other side of the planet.

We are good at smashing things with the mailed fist. It is picking up the pieces with the velvet glove that we were ill-prepared for.


No, the US has other options. MOABs, carpet bombing, whatever. It simply doesn't gel with you that they have been very retrospect in their handling of this war, has it? That the opinion of the public and the world in general has prevented them from unleashing hell on Iraq?
Tell me, if the best way to defeat an insurgency is to win the hearts and minds of the populace (and thus deprive the insurgency of a support base) how does a scorched earth policy accomplish anything congruent with these objectives?

As are you ;)
Please don't use smilies when you're trying to insult someone. It makes you look stupid. So does the "so are you" approach.

Now... tell me exactly how the Islamic world, even if united, could overcome the US in a year.
Do it. Write it out, here and now, bring your vast military knowledge to play in this forum and lay it all out for everyone. Show us how even a single ship could survive the ocean crossing.


Anything, I use the term "win" as in any challenge that may arise for us
Pretty words.
So far, though, you've completely failed to overcome just about every obstacle thrown at you.

Ironic, really. This one here dreaming of a "united Muslim front" to take over the world when even one country can't stop fighting each other long enough to fight the American invaders.
Talking monkeys.

Tell me, if the best way to defeat an insurgency is to win the hearts and minds of the populace (and thus deprive the insurgency of a support base) how does a scorched earth policy accomplish anything congruent with these objectives?
You're working from the assumption that the best way to defeat an insurgency is to win the hearts and minds of the populace. Sure, doing so will reduce the numbers of insurgents through depriving them of a support base. But it will never completely eradicate them.

Now... why is it necessary for the US to defeat the insurgency, or even try to fight it?
Why is the US in Iraq?

Ironic, really. This one here dreaming of a "united Muslim front" to take over the world when even one country can't stop fighting each other long enough to fight the American invaders.
Talking monkeys.

No civil war has only one side, there is always a side that thinks foreign intervention/occupation is a good idea. If you know any different please let me know.

OK, then are you actually claiming that unleashing "hell on earth", by some convenient means, would have been a competent strategy in Iraq?
Yes, it would have been. Wars are not won by being nice to people. The US has been trying that since the end of WW2, with a spectacular lack of success.

Unless you have some strange personal definition of the word "competent" I'm not aware of.


I thought it was more on the lines of wanting to win something, rather than just prove we could kill people.
The US has done both, actually.
The view that the war in Iraq is being lost is a viewpoint made by those who have forced the conduct of that war themselves.

It's a little like putting an Indie 500 driver in a mini and telling him he's incompetent becuase he didn't win.


Originally, and pardon me if this has changed, the war wasn't against Iraq and all its people anyway. Are we supposed to be patting ourselves on the back for not deliberately killing a whole bunch of people we were trying to rescue ? That's a pretty low bar, for competence.
No. That "patting ourselves on the back" for not killing the people we were "trying to rescue" is a primary reason the conflict is proceeding ineptly.

Again, all you are doing is judging the US performance in Iraq by your own standards. You're one of these fat guys in the sidelines wearing a sweatshirt and holding a box of popcorn, swearing at a professional sportsman and telling him how he should play the game.

I have previously explained why it was necessary to win over the support of the US public to the conflict itself. If you are incapable of seeing for yourself why all the propaganda and hoo ha was necessary prior to the conflict, then by all means, feel free to continue.


Nah,there's some doubt. Sasquatches might exist, too - you can't be sure about these things.
I am sure about one thing.
The Americans have access to vast information networks and satellite imagery, and whole organisations of staff to interpret information. There is no doubt about that - only about their interpretation of the information gathered.

You have... well... nothing. A few websites perhaps, a left-wing chatroom in which conspiracy theories are bounced around among those craving justification for them, and a prejudiced viewpoint from which you have arrived at a decision.
Now tell me again why your viewpoint is the more believable one?

I am not saying that the US had proof of WMD. I am saying I don't know. And neither do you. Now you can either grow a brain and admit your viewpoint is prejudiced and has no factual basis, or not. The choice is yours.


I would be willing to make a reasonable wager about finding them anytime in the next five years, though. I would go further - I would bet against any serious physical evidence of their existence turning up - any actual satellite photos, say, or empty storage facilities recently full, or production facilities lately shut down - in the next five years. I not only don't think there were WMDs as described by W&Co, I don't think there was any serious evidence of them.
You mean, of course, that you don't want to think there were any, and you'll search for information and proof to that end. You'll argue your opinion in the same way those who believe there were WMD in Iraq will argue theirs, and with roughly the same amount of evidence. Which is to say, none.


As far as the WMDs, W&Co never made any sense in their claims - they were not believeable, jsut on common sense grounds.
Not to you, perhaps.
Others believed them, if for no other reason than that not only did the Americans know that WMD were being developed in Iraq, they could produce the reciepts for the components shipped from America.


y didn't jsut claim these huge quantities and big time production facilities all over the landscape, they also claimed to know where they were. So not finding them was in itself proof of at least some lying - they didn't know where they were.
They did know where they were. They did search them. They found nothing.
This, of course, was after the UN teams were turned away and barred from many of them to begin with. Or have you forgotten that part?
No, I'm sure you haven't forgotten. It's simply more convenient for you to ignore it.

You also completely ignore the fact that in the amount of time it took for both the UN and the US to search Iraq for WMD, Iraq could probably have managed to spirit away and hide a small city behind an SEP field.
The US and UN would probably have had more success had they searched for opened cans of pink paint rather than the WMD themselves.

What is interesting is that you're trying to say that the US didn't know where the facilities were, when even the UN did, which is why they knew where to search prior to the conflict.
Now there's some head in the sand trick. Do tell me how you manage to fool yourself so completely that you're not even aware you've done it.

No civil war has only one side, there is always a side that thinks foreign intervention/occupation is a good idea. If you know any different please let me know.
Oh, I completely agree. I was just laughing at Norsefire, is all.

Now please stop showing off your own prejudices by coming to the defence of someone who was being a complete twit, simply because he bangs his head on the ground to the same god you do.

You're working from the assumption that the best way to defeat an insurgency is to win the hearts and minds of the populace. Sure, doing so will reduce the numbers of insurgents through depriving them of a support base. But it will never completely eradicate them.
Not eradicate, but neutralize. The only way to defeat an insurgency is to make them not want to fight us anymore, and the closest thing to a victory condition in cointerinsurgency warfare is when the insurgents put down their weapons and go home (or join the government they formerly opposed). An insurgency is a symptom of social, political, and cultural conflicts and it will only disappear once those underlying motivating conflicts are resolved. The notion you are espousing that we need to start cracking some heads in Iraq and victory will soon follow is the polar opposite of the correct thing to do. Not only would it endanger the ones we're trying to protect, but it will exacerbate the causes of the insurgency and create more insurgents than it eliminates.

This is all fairly basic COIN doctrine, which you can read about in the USMC Small Wars Manual or USA FM 3-24 (the new COIN manual) if you want to learn more. I have a fair amount of professional experience with implementation as well (albeit at a local level) that I could add here, but the publications should provide a good starting point.

Not eradicate, but neutralize. The only way to defeat an insurgency is to make them not want to fight us anymore, and the closest thing to a victory condition in cointerinsurgency warfare is when the insurgents put down their weapons and go home (or join the government they formerly opposed).
Precisely.


An insurgency is a symptom of social, political, and cultural conflicts and it will only disappear once those underlying motivating conflicts are resolved.
Yes. What is the motivating conflict, though? Is it really US occupation, or is there more here which has always been simmering and simply unable to erupt while Saddam had full control of the country?
There is something there, isn't there. Saddam ran Iraq with an iron hand, and had control. You're trying to tread lightly with a local population who, even amongst those who agree Saddam had to go, barely tolerate your presence as a necessity for their own agenda.
You're never going to win hearts and minds - the cultural divide is too great, and mutual understanding does not exist. You do not understand the religious and political divisions within the country itself. It is unlikely that you ever will completely understand them while this conflict continues.
Your options, in reality, are to control and do what you came to do, or get out.

The only real question is what you ever hoped to achieve to begin with.


The notion you are espousing that we need to start cracking some heads in Iraq and victory will soon follow is the polar opposite of the correct thing to do.
Yes. The "correct thing to do", though, isn't working. It never has. It didn't work for you in Vietnam, it didn't in Africa, and it won't here. No country has ever mounted a successful occupation with one hand tied politically behind its back.


Not only would it endanger the ones we're trying to protect, but it will exacerbate the causes of the insurgency and create more insurgents than it eliminates.
Seems to me they're already endangered. Being killed by the thousands, in fact, and not by occupying Americans. What will change, precisely?


This is all fairly basic COIN doctrine, which you can read about in the USMC Small Wars Manual or USA FM 3-24 (the new COIN manual) if you want to learn more. I have a fair amount of professional experience with implementation as well (albeit at a local level) that I could add here, but the publications should provide a good starting point.
Would those publications be based on your experiences in handling insurgency around the world in recent decades, by any chance?

Yes. What is the motivating conflict, though? Is it really US occupation, or is there more here which has always been simmering and simply unable to erupt while Saddam had full control of the country?
There is something there, isn't there. Saddam ran Iraq with an iron hand, and had control. You're trying to tread lightly with a local population who, even amongst those who agree Saddam had to go, barely tolerate your presence as a necessity for their own agenda.
You're never going to win hearts and minds - the cultural divide is too great, and mutual understanding does not exist. You do not understand the religious and political divisions within the country itself. It is unlikely that you ever will completely understand them while this conflict continues.
Your options, in reality, are to control and do what you came to do, or get out.

The only real question is what you ever hoped to achieve to begin with.


Yes. The "correct thing to do", though, isn't working. It never has. It didn't work for you in Vietnam, it didn't in Africa, and it won't here. No country has ever mounted a successful occupation with one hand tied politically behind its back.


Seems to me they're already endangered. Being killed by the thousands, in fact, and not by occupying Americans. What will change, precisely?


Would those publications be based on your experiences in handling insurgency around the world in recent decades, by any chance?


??? Where do you guys get these stories???:confused:

Please don't use smilies when you're trying to insult someone. It makes you look stupid. So does the "so are you" approach.

Now... tell me exactly how the Islamic world, even if united, could overcome the US in a year.
Do it. Write it out, here and now, bring your vast military knowledge to play in this forum and lay it all out for everyone. Show us how even a single ship could survive the ocean crossing.


Pretty words.
So far, though, you've completely failed to overcome just about every obstacle thrown at you.

Ironic, really. This one here dreaming of a "united Muslim front" to take over the world when even one country can't stop fighting each other long enough to fight the American invaders.
Talking monkeys.

Well, I was trying to be friendly, but if you don't desire friendliness, then so be it.

Easy. Bombings, chaos on the street, civil war, etc. Do you think we've fought our hardest? Bah....

Pfft, and you Americans are getting killed by men in rags with rusty Kalashnikovs......pretty damn strong you are <sarcasm>


@Echo: No, you didn't conquer Baghdad. The US army has zero ability to conquer shit, you defeated the Iraqis, whoopee....

But as for conquest, you can't. If you conquered Iraq, why isn't it under control? That is not conquest

Us, however, HAVE conquered plenty. Europe, Africa, Asia.....all at one time, at some parts, under Arab control.

Oh, I completely agree. I was just laughing at Norsefire, is all.

Now please stop showing off your own prejudices by coming to the defence of someone who was being a complete twit, simply because he bangs his head on the ground to the same god you do.

Perhaps I prefer to choose how I laugh at twits, especially the ones who misrepresent themselves to make a nonexistent point.

Perhaps I prefer to choose how I laugh at twits, especially the ones who misrepresent themselves to make a nonexistent point.

I am not a twit

Instead, it's OutBack here that makes up completely ridiculous, false facts for his arguments that is the twit

??? Where do you guys get these stories???:confused:
What stories would those be? The ones concerning Iraqi dissension prior to western invasion?


Perhaps I prefer to choose how I laugh at twits, especially the ones who misrepresent themselves to make a nonexistent point.
Fine. So do I.
Was it the "banging your head" comment? Sorry, but I do find it amusing to watch :P

I am not a twit

Instead, it's OutBack here that makes up completely ridiculous, false facts for his arguments that is the twit
You are a twit. Shut up now, and go tend to your goats.

P.S. - I'm not American. Given a choice between them and you, though, I'll wear a stetson and sing "the Star Spangled Banner" until my throat bleeds.

You are a twit. Shut up now, and go tend to your goats.

P.S. - I'm not American. Given a choice between them and you, though, I'll wear a stetson and sing "the Star Spangled Banner" until my throat bleeds.

Lol, you're the goat herder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ha, you're a slave....lol, are you like Blair, just a slave to the americans?

Yes. My chains are gold, though, and yours are iron. Iron is a much stronger material, 'tis true, but then gold is so much softer and more comfortable.

Precisely.
It seems as though I've been misreading you, and assuming that you were suggesting that we should be flattening entire towns to get a few insurgents that are hiding in them, like the talk radio yobs* here often do. In light of the rest of this post, I went back and re-read what you were saying and agree with much of it. There is no shortage of historical examples of nations with arbitrarily drawn borders irrespective of cultural fault lines being unable to stabilize under anything but the most draconian internal security. Iraq itself has seen this before while under the post-WWI British mandate.

As it stands now, and just as a general FYI, the focus of the COIN campaign in Iraq is to enfranchise the people to the point where political reconciliation can happen at a municipal and national level. The hope is that if the patchwork of Iraqis can work out their grievances through the political process rather than through street violence, a system can be hammered out that is tenable to the wide majority of Iraqis. While the idea has been floated here and there of dividing Iraq along its cultural fault lines, there is no way to do while avoiding sectarian exclusion from the oil, phosphorous, and fresh water sources. Also, Iraqis are quite nationalist, and overwhelmingly reject the idea of a partitioned Iraq.

The US Army COIN manual I refer to was finalized late last year after composition by some of the best and brightest historians of the Army/Marine Corps officer corps (Gen. Petraeus, Gen. Mattis, Col. McMaster, et al.) It is based on our experiences in Vietnam...as well as the British in Northern Ireland, the French in Algiers and Vietnam, even the Nazis in Croatia, etc. It was written in response to the unpreparedness of our military to wage a proper COIN campaign upon the completion of the invasion in 2003, and also incorporates much of what we've learned in Iraq since then. In any case, don't be quick to summarily dismiss it without giving it a read, because it is widely acknowledged by experts - military and civilian alike - as a paradigm-shattering revolution in traditional military strategy. The PDF is available for download here (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/Repository/Materials/COIN-FM3-24.pdf).


@Echo: No, you didn't conquer Baghdad. The US army has zero ability to conquer shit, you defeated the Iraqis, whoopee....
If you know of a better metric to gauge the efficacy of a fighting force than its ability to obliterate opposing forces and take/hold terrain, please share.

Also, if you're going to seriously try to argue the history of Arab militaries against those of the west as anything but spectacular failures, I'm putting down my beer before I blow it all over my monitor with laughter.

Downloading...

or perhaps not. I'm at work right now, and the privilege of working a nightshift and being able to surf whilst theoretically doing something of importance might be lost should someone bother to check my activities.
It will have to wait until a later time, but I will read it.

If you know of a better metric to gauge the efficacy of a fighting force than its ability to obliterate opposing forces and take/hold terrain, please share.

Also, if you're going to seriously try to argue the history of Arab militaries against those of the west as anything but spectacular failures, I'm putting down my beer before I blow it all over my monitor with laughter.

There is no better than that, but that right there is an ability the US military does not have.

Against the West? I'm not talking about the West, I'm talking about America in specific

And in case you don't know, Arab militaries in the past, such as the Golden Age of Islam, DID have much success against the "West" (Europe)

And as if Iraq wasn't a spectacular failure...:rolleyes:

It seems as though I've been misreading you, and assuming that you were suggesting that we should be flattening entire towns to get a few insurgents that are hiding in them, like the talk radio yobs* here often do.
Not precisely.
I am rather tired of hearing that the Americans are incapable of winning such a conflict with forces such as those arrayed against them in Iraq, though, and sometimes resort to the extreme out of pure annoyance.

It is extremely frustrating to realise that these think that the force displayed in Iraq, hobnailed as it was by logistics, politics, and social concerns (perhaps even a desire to conceal the full extent of American capability), was all that the US is capable of unleashing - should it choose to do so.

I have been privately censured by a moderator recently for calling those such as this one above a twit, so I shall not do so again. I shall, instead, merely think it, as opposed to writing it out here for public viewing.


...There is no shortage of historical examples of nations with arbitrarily drawn borders irrespective of cultural fault lines being unable to stabilize under anything but the most draconian internal security. Iraq itself has seen this before while under the post-WWI British mandate.

....Also, Iraqis are quite nationalist, and overwhelmingly reject the idea of a partitioned Iraq.
Now don't those two things add up to something curious?

Not precisely.
I am rather tired of hearing that the Americans are incapable of winning such a conflict with forces such as those arrayed against them in Iraq, though, and sometimes resort to the extreme out of pure annoyance.

It is extremely frustrating to realise that these think that the force displayed in Iraq, hobnailed as it was by logistics, politics, and social concerns (perhaps even a desire to conceal the full extent of American capability), was all that the US is capable of unleashing - should it choose to do so.


Now don't those two things add up to something curious?

Why are you tired of it? You aren't even American, nor should you be siding with the Americans that want nothing but total influence over whatever nation you come from.

Are you happy as a slave? Is your master feeding you enough lies?

Also, I would say likewise. The US army could unleash more, but it can't because of society. The Iraqis could unleash more, but they can't because of society

Do you think they've fought their hardest? Nah, if it completely, all came down to it, America would be flattened in no time. And no one will help them.

[QUOTE=Norsefire;1535118]There is no better than that, but that right there is an ability the US military does not have.

Against the West? I'm not talking about the West, I'm talking about America in specific

And in case you don't know, Arab militaries in the past, such as the Golden Age of Islam, DID have much success against the "West" (Europe)
[QUOTE]

And in the end they were driven out of Europe, and subjugated in the Middle East, that is the lesson that we fail to recognize, that the war brought to us by the Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad, is a long war, and as in all wars there are ups and downs, but in the end someone is backed down, the war to back down the Islamic Fundamentalist is the Long War, and we need to take a look at the way it was fought and won in Europe and the Middle East the last time.

[QUOTE=Norsefire;1535118]And as if Iraq wasn't a spectacular failure...:rolleyes:[QUOTE]

It is becoming a spectacular failure for the Terrorist of Islam all right, even the Moslems of Iraq are recognizing that the Foreign Terrorist fighters are killing more Iraqi innocents than they ever are going to kill of Americans.

[QUOTE=Norsefire;1535118]There is no better than that, but that right there is an ability the US military does not have.

Against the West? I'm not talking about the West, I'm talking about America in specific

And in case you don't know, Arab militaries in the past, such as the Golden Age of Islam, DID have much success against the "West" (Europe)
[QUOTE]

And in the end they were driven out of Europe, and subjugated in the Middle East, that is the lesson that we fail to recognize, that the war brought to us by the Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad, is a long war, and as in all wars there are ups and downs, but in the end someone is backed down, the war to back down the Islamic Fundamentalist is the Long War, and we need to take a look at the way it was fought and won in Europe and the Middle East the last time.

[QUOTE=Norsefire;1535118]And as if Iraq wasn't a spectacular failure...:rolleyes:[QUOTE]

It is becoming a spectacular failure for the Terrorist of Islam all right, even the Moslems of Iraq are recognizing that the Foreign Terrorist fighters are killing more Iraqi innocents than they ever are going to kill of Americans.

Yes, in the end they were driven out. That's how it is, power shifts
Also, please keep all of this "Islamic" bullshit out. Everything with you is "islamic"

If power shifts in the future to us, how will it be? Just like it shifted to the Europeans, that's just the way it is.

the terrorists, yes it is a failure for them. that's what they get for targeting innocence
but the usa it is a spectucular failure

Syria? Oh yes... that relatively large country with the relatively large military which had the crap kicked out of it by Israel some time ago. You know, that little flyspeck of a nation you don't like very much and tried to wipe off the face of the map, you peace loving nation you.

Feel free to reminisce fondly on "golden ages" centuries gone, t....

Am I permitted to call him an unwashed toad, then, Mr Moderator? Or must I limit myself to merely thinking that as well?

Syria? Oh yes... that relatively large country with the relatively large military which had the crap kicked out of it by Israel some time ago. You know, that little flyspeck of a nation you don't like very much and tried to wipe off the face of the map, you peace loving nation you.

Feel free to reminisce fondly on "golden ages" centuries gone, t....

Am I permitted to call him an unwashed toad, then, Mr Moderator? Or must I limit myself to merely thinking that as well?

Quite, under the Umayyads Syria was alot larger than your nation could dream of.

Crap kicked out? Hardly.......defeat? Yes.

Pfft, alot more peaceloving than the Americans, thanks alot!

Centuries gone, but teach a valuable lesson. Power shifts, 6 centuries from now, do you think the USA will even exist?

Amusing, isn't it. Couldn't even manage to attack Israel successfully, right next door as it was, and then he raves about conquering America in a year.

Is that a little bit of drool there I see there, Mr Syria, at the thought of America's demise?
What does your little user title say? Syria will Prevail? Over what?
I thought you were all about peace... and yet here you are advertising your long term victory.

What a facade you are.

Amusing, isn't it. Couldn't even manage to attack Israel successfully, right next door as it was, and then he raves about conquering America in a year.

Is that a little bit of drool there I see there, Mr Syria, at the thought of America's demise?
What does your little user title say? Syria will Prevail? Over what?
I thought you were all about peace... and yet here you are advertising your long term victory.

What a facade you are.

Attack and win are different words. Oh, and of course "we" can conquer America. We, as in the entire free world, including your nation if you choose to go against your master.

You can see over the internet? Amazing, but you saw wrong.

Syria will prevail over anything that is thrown against her.

Here you are, supporting the USA, yet supporting Peace at the same time. If you are about peace, how can you possibly support the USA

What a facade you are.

There is no better than that, but that right there is an ability the US military does not have.
I'd be curious to see you try to logically support this assertion.

I'd be curious to see you try to logically support this assertion.

Support your claim (if you are implying one) that they can

OK, then are you actually claiming that unleashing "hell on earth", by some convenient means, would have been a competent strategy in Iraq? ”
Yes, it would have been. Wars are not won by being nice to people. The US has been trying that since the end of WW2, with a spectacular lack of success. But this is an occupation - occupations are very often made successful by being nice to people - as the US has, in the now distant past, demonstrated.
The war was won in a few weeks, without serious difficulty - remember "Mission Accomplished" ?



Nah,there's some doubt. Sasquatches might exist, too - you can't be sure about these things. ”
I am sure about one thing.
The Americans have access to vast information networks and satellite imagery, and whole organisations of staff to interpret information. There is no doubt about that - only about their interpretation of the information gathered. Which is why deliberate lying is the standard, reasonable presumption. Because none of that stuff showed WMDs as described by W&Co.



As far as the WMDs, W&Co never made any sense in their claims - they were not believeable, jsut on common sense grounds. ”
Not to you, perhaps.
Others believed them, if for no other reason than that not only did the Americans know that WMD were being developed in Iraq, they could produce the reciepts for the components shipped from America. Destroyed by the UN inspection program. The claims by W&Co were of current, ongoing production of massive quantities of specified kinds of WMDs in 2002. For that, no one had any evidence.

What is interesting is that you're trying to say that the US didn't know where the facilities were, when even the UN did, which is why they knew where to search prior to the conflict. Anything the UN knew about was destroyed before 2001. We are talking about the fall of the year 2002, when W&Co started the preliminary bombing (while claiming to the US citizenry that no decision had been made).

Now we ask whether W will bomb Iran. And the obvious answer is - of course, if he can muster the domestic backing. He does need some minimal popular and political support, though. So we anticipate an anti-Iranian propaganda effort, similar to the one curtailed in spring of this year, when developments in Iraq shorted it.

Amusing, isn't it. Couldn't even manage to attack Israel successfully, right next door as it was, and then he raves about conquering America in a year.

Is that a little bit of drool there I see there, Mr Syria, at the thought of America's demise?
What does your little user title say? Syria will Prevail? Over what?
I thought you were all about peace... and yet here you are advertising your long term victory.

What a facade you are.

Yes, Arabs war with Israel was a total shame. Of course Israel enjoyed the total backing of the biggest powers of the time and their latest technologies along with a powerful espionage system which had already disintegrated the Arabic armies as well as the Nuke tech. it had got from France, but all these should not constitute a pretext to lose your land to your enemy and not be able to get it back after more than 30 years. I think Syria has to prove it if it has the capacity and not just brag like Saddam did. Actions speaks louder than words and peace can be achieved only when you are ready to war...

By the way Norsefire, one friend who had visited Siyra told me that your president goes out freely in the streets and to the restaurants and shopping etc. with his family without much security just to keep in touch with his own people and that people really like him. I wondered whether it was correct news?

It's very safe, and people do like him, but I have yet in the time I've been there to see him anywhere. I've only been to Latakia and Damascus, however, so maybe that has something to do with it.

Outback for some reason supports the USA, but the odd thing is, he's not even American! He's the classic US slave, lol

This does not mean there were any, nor does it mean there were not. It means only that the public is generally convinced that there were not, without having any of the advantage of intelligence and satellite information that the US government had at the time, and at the same time being utterly convinced of the ability and willingness of the west to deliberately mislead its own public. Amongst those latter believers, many have never considered why the US government might have found it necessary to embark on such a course of action.

What do you mean by all these groupings of words? When something is not there it reasonably means it doesn't exist. Wake up it is 2007 not 2002.


A more correct philosophical cynicism would be to believe in neither the existence or non-existence of WMD without proof either way. That there were none found by the time they were actively searched for without hindrance is proof for neither belief. The only rational belief it possible for a man not in an informed position to have is that he does not know, but suspects one way or the other, dependant entirely on his political inclination and ideological sympathies.

I have always though that philosophical thinking equals illogical thinking. Here comes another proof. :bugeye:


The majority of westerners are against any war with the middle east simply because they cannot see the danger in doing nothing, and because doing nothing now will in all probability have no adverse result during their own lifetimes. It may well be that in the future the middle east will become something far more dangerous than it is now and logistically uncontrollable.
The majority of westerners are not daring to do any action to stop the bullying U.S. simply because they cannot see the danger in doing nothing...
How do you support your thesis of potential danger? By showing fake documents in the U.N security council!?!


If the USA was free to act, unhindered by politics or by its own espoused ideals, both Iraq and Iran could be reduced to smoking ruins in a very short space of time. Make no mistake on that point. That this conflict has been handly ineptly is more a result of public opinion and the fear of being seen as a hypocrite than any inability of the US military to conquer.
I think this is what they call democracy. If public opinion was not to check the military and the politics, it would be just like Deutschland under the Führer.

I am amazed at how Outback strongly supports the USA. He must be the only European (if indeed he is) that does. It's ridiculous

And like I've said before, the USA has zero ability to conquer.

Yes, Arabs war with Israel was a total shame. Of course Israel enjoyed the total backing of the biggest powers of the time and their latest technologies along with a powerful espionage system which had already disintegrated the Arabic armies as well as the Nuke tech. it had got from France, but all these should not constitute a pretext to lose your land to your enemy and not be able to get it back after more than 30 years. I think Syria has to prove it if it has the capacity and not just brag like Saddam did. Actions speaks louder than words and peace can be achieved only when you are ready to war...QUOTE]


Yes, the Israelis started with worn-out WWII equipment in 1947, and whipped the shit out of the Arabs who were well supplied with equipment and out numbered the Israeli defenders 30 to 1, and it was after the war was won that the U.S. became involved in re-supplying the Israelis, in every war the Arabs have had at a minimum of 10 to 1 odds in their favor, How many tens of thousands of tanks did the Soviets supply to Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Jordanians had U.S. Tanks, M-48, the equivalent of or superior to Israeli Vehicles. How many thousands of Russia Fighters and Bombers did the Arab Forces have to expend against Israel in the wars? and the Israelis still whipped their ass, after 1967 we supplied the Israelis, but we never flew the missions for them, and we never provided combat troops or advisors to them, in fact they provided Advisors to our Armored troops to help us develop new tactical doctrine in dealing with the Soviet Armor threat.

[QUOTE]On the whole the Suez operation, launched on 29 October was a disaster. Although Israel's part of the operation was a stunning success, allowing it to occupy the entire Sinai peninsula by 4 November, the French and British invasion on 6 November was a failure. The attempt to advance along the Suez canal bogged down and then collapsed under fierce US and Soviet pressure. Both European nations pulled out, leaving Israel to face the pressure from the two superpowers alone. Soviet premier Bulganin issued an implicit threat of nuclear attack if Israel did not withdraw from the Sinai.


On 7 November 1956, a secret meeting was held between foreign minister Golda Meir, Peres, and French foreign and defense ministers Mssrs. Christian Pineau and Maurice Bourges-Manoury. The French officials were deeply chagrined by France's failure to support its ally in the operation, and the Israelis were very concerned about the Soviet threat. In this meeting the initial understanding about a research reactor may have been substantially modified, and Peres seems to have secured an agreement to assist Israel in developing a nuclear deterrent.

Not the U.S., the Russians Threat, is what sent Israel down the Nuclear road, and it was the French who provided the and received help from Israel to developed its own and Israeli nuclear weapons.

So tell me, what would've happened without the help?

I am amazed at how Outback strongly supports the USA. He must be the only European (if indeed he is) that does. It's ridiculous

And like I've said before, the USA has zero ability to conquer.

The U.S. has the ability to win any war it sets its mind to, it is some (Liberals) in our country that don't have the will, and they have political power, and interfere at every turn with the Military doing its job.

There are still people who have the will to win, now what we need is the majority of the American public to make up its mind as to who will have the power to decide the future direction of the U.S. in the world.

So tell me, what would've happened without the help?

A broad question could you narrow it down a bit?

So tell me, what would've happened without the help?

Short answer, the Israelis would still have kicked Arab ass.

A broad question could you narrow it down a bit?

Just to let you know, I believe that the reason we lost the '48 war is because we either underestimated the Israelis, or had bad leadership (most likely)

But, my question was simple. Without any of the help Israel ever got, what would it be?

The US military is pathetic, they can't even conquer Baghdad let alone the World.

Short answer, the Israelis would still have kicked Arab ass.

Really? Without any of the aid, Israel would still be a nation of goat herders, let alone a superpower!

Not the U.S., the Russians Threat, is what sent Israel down the Nuclear road, and it was the French who provided the and received help from Israel to developed its own and Israeli nuclear weapons.
So you mean it was the Soviet threat that made Israel develop nukes? does this mean that in case of a Soviet nuclear attack, Israel was able to hit back with its short to middle range missiles. Should it then mean that Israel should destroy its nuclear arsenal now that soviet threat is over? If not, then can we reason that Israel is posing a threat towards Iran and its other neighbors? Does this justify the necessity for the countries around to develop their own deterrent force! Or Israel is allowed to because its a predictable peace-loving entity sorrounded by warmonger chunkheads. That seems a logical belief given the constant violation of the Israeli aerial space by the Syrian and Lebanese fighters.

BTW, this latest news about the violation seems to be quite valid. Syrians had claimed that Israeli planes had dropped their fule tanks while escaping. Turkish authorities confirmed fuel tanks found near their border with Syria belong to Israeli army and asked the Israeli foreign department for explanation.

So you mean it was the Soviet threat that made Israel develop nukes? does this mean that in case of a Soviet nuclear attack, Israel was able to hit back with its short to middle range missiles. Should it then mean that Israel should destroy its nuclear arsenal now that soviet threat is over? If not, then can we reason that Israel is posing a threat towards Iran and its other neighbors? Does this justify the necessity for the countries around to develop their own deterrent force! Or Israel is allowed to because its a predictable peace-loving entity sorrounded by warmonger chunkheads.

The Russian threat is over? Then what do you call the Bomber Missions against the North American Air Defense Zone, and just because the name is changed does that mean the purpose changes?

Really? Without any of the aid, Israel would still be a nation of goat herders, let alone a superpower!

They (the Israelis) never were a Nation of goat herders, that honor goes to the Arabs, and the Palestinians, they were from the leading nations of Europe, and they had some of the finest minds available in the world of Science, Engineering, Arts, Medicine, and of the necessary arts to make a country, and make it prosper.

The Israelis made the desert bloom, they put in irrigation, they built cities in the Deserts, they made their Military one of the finest in the world, they turned the Palestine into a garden, they are one of the leaders in the world of science, and the Arabs tried to take their works from them, to make it their own, and the Israelis said never again, why don't you visit Massada, and tell me about the Israelis, visit Birkenau, Awschuitze, Ravens Brook, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek, Belzec Chelmwo, Janowsla, and then maybe you will understand the Israeli and NEVER AGAIN!

They (the Israelis) never were a Nation of goat herders, that honor goes to the Arabs, and the Palestinians, they were from the leading nations of Europe, and they had some of the finest minds available in the world of Science, Engineering, Arts, Medicine, and of the necessary arts to make a country, and make it prosper.

The Israelis made the desert bloom, they put in irrigation, they built cities in the Deserts, they made their Military one of the finest in the world, they turned the Palestine into a garden, they are one of the leaders in the world of science, and the Arabs tried to take their works from them, to make it their own, and the Israelis said never again, why don't you visit Massada, and tell me about the Israelis, visit Birkenau, Awschuitze, Ravens Brook, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek, Belzec Chelmwo, Janowsla, and then maybe you will understand the Israeli and NEVER AGAIN!

lol, of course Buffalo
Israel is still a nation of goat herders!:rolleyes:

Some of the finest minds? Nah, that honor goes to the USA which Israel claims as its own

The Israelis made only death and destruction. World leaders in science? Nah, thats the USA, with Israel claiming that they "discovered" something, but I guarantee you 99% was US aid.

Whats wrong with goat herders?

The ones I saw live in the open, get fresh meat, sing songs and compose poetry.

They also lead simple uncomplicated lives that do not involve stress or preemptive attacks.

Nothing, nothing at all. I'm just saying that without US aid, Israel would be nothing but what it was in the ancient days, a nation of ignorant goat herders.

Without US technology, Israeli would have to increase the size of it's standing army, and probably attack it's enemies. The only reason they can afford to do nothing is they know their defensive capability is strong.


The US military is pathetic, they can't even conquer Baghdad let alone the World.
In the classic sense of the word, we conquered Baghdad in two weeks. We just can't make the Iraqis create a new nation.

But this is an occupation - occupations are very often made successful by being nice to people - as the US has, in the now distant past, demonstrated.
I'm afraid you're going to have to cite an example. They haven't managed it since the end of World War II, or at least I cannot think of one offhand.
Coincidentally (or not), that was also the last time they were able to "unleash hell" on targets without a huge backlash from the civilian population at home.

Treat the enemy nicely, distinguish between the civilian and the military, limit civilian casualties and all you have in the end is an uncowed populace who believe that because the US did not display a firm hand, it is proof that they could not. One does not incite love by such actions, but earns contempt.
The inconsequential Syrian gnat posting here is an example of this - and he is not alone.

Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared.
-Niccolo Machiavelli


Which is why deliberate lying is the standard, reasonable presumption. Because none of that stuff showed WMDs as described by W&Co.
Tell me something. Why on earth do you make the mistake of believing that if they had evidence, if they had seen something which frightened them - why would they show it to you? Do you think the other members of the coalition, and the UN, were incited to take action against Iraq without evidence of any kind, but solely via the persuasive powers of GW Bush?

The main problem with your argument is that you overestimate your own importance in the scheme of things. As if the intelligence gathering operations and governments of the world have any desire to prove anything at all to you, when up until recent years propaganda aimed at underlying prejudice has been so much more effective.

"Deliberate lying" is practised by every government, all over the world.
Including yours, including mine. Only a fool believes that his own government isn't lying to him. And the unreasoning man does not know that sometimes a goverment is also lying to itself. A primary motivation in any war is fear. You must ask yourself where that fear originates.

Without US technology, Israeli would have to increase the size of it's standing army, and probably attack it's enemies. The only reason they can afford to do nothing is they know their defensive capability is strong.


In the classic sense of the word, we conquered Baghdad in two weeks. We just can't make the Iraqis create a new nation.

And the capability is strong solely because of the aid it recieved.

Besides, we are stronger.

No, there is a difference between conquest and victory.

You never conquered Baghdad. To conquer it, you would've brought it under control and under US rule

Therefore, my claim stands. The US military cannot conquer ANY nation on Earth.

MOAB.
BOOM!

Maps of Iraq suddenly require revision.

Is that how you like it, Mr. Beeblebrox?

MOAB.
BOOM!

Maps of Iraq suddenly require revision.

Is that how you like it, Mr. Beeblebrox?

Nah

I am just amazed at your like of the USA, what a fucking traitor you are. Let me guess, you'd choose the US over your own nation?

*chuckles*

woops, best not let your government hear you!

They already have. I'm posting from Guantanamo Bay.
It's not so bad really. Blaring rock music from my cell speakers, 3 square a day and the occasional exercise hour... but these uniforms! Orange is so out of fashion.

They already have. I'm posting from Guantanamo Bay.
It's not so bad really. Blaring rock music from my cell speakers, 3 square a day and the occasional exercise hour... but these uniforms! Orange is so out of fashion.

Ha, well at least over there you can suck as much US cock as you want, right?

Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared.
-Niccolo Machiavelli

There is more than one way to destroy a man.

herpes?

Of course, but that is more a matter of philosophy than politics.

The man who holds too tightly to his beliefs is more susceptible to being destroyed than any other.

In that sense, destroying those beliefs is possibly the most destructive thing that can be done to him. Death is not a defeat. It is merely the end of resistance. Destroying the beliefs which make a man what he is, and leaving him full knowledge of his own destruction if he has the acumen to accept it, leaves him nothing with which he might comfort himself.

Most men simply do not permit themselves to accept the reality of their own defeat. Any argument proving those beliefs to be false is simply dismissed or ignored. They will react with hostility, rely on outside support, grasp at any straw in order to preserve a sense of self.

Death is an easy way out, as is any physical defeat. Suicide is the martyrdom of the self.

Of course, but that is more a matter of philosophy than politics.

The man who holds too tightly to his beliefs is more susceptible to being destroyed than any other.

In that sense, destroying those beliefs is possibly the most destructive thing that can be done to him. Death is not a defeat. It is merely the end of resistance. Destroying the beliefs which make a man what he is, and leaving him full knowledge of his own destruction if he has the acumen to accept it, leaves him nothing with which he might comfort himself.

Most men simply do not permit themselves to accept the reality of their own defeat. Any argument proving those beliefs to be false is simply dismissed or ignored. They will react with hostility, rely on outside support, grasp at any straw in order to preserve a sense of self.

Death is an easy way out, as is any physical defeat. Suicide is the martyrdom of the self.

Perhaps, but it depends on the belief, I think; I'll write more on this when I have some time to think about it.:)

And the capability is strong solely because of the aid it recieved.

Besides, we are stronger.

No, there is a difference between conquest and victory.

You never conquered Baghdad. To conquer it, you would've brought it under control and under US rule

Therefore, my claim stands. The US military cannot conquer ANY nation on Earth.

By that standard Ghengis Khan never conquered anything.

By that standard Ghengis Khan never conquered anything.

Didn't he? He controlled the areas he conquered

The US Military may have defeated that of Iraq, but unless they can control Baghdad they haven't conquered anything.

I think that's because he killed everyone.

I think that's because he killed everyone.

Well, it's control:shrug:

Well? Post#136? The US could have conquered Bhagdad even faster had we not cared about preserving the residents.

Is it that they care about preserving the residents or that there would be too heavy of consequences if they went on some holocaust like extermination.

The fact is this boasting of who's country is stronger is beside the point. "The Transformation of War" by Creveld, a highly respected military strategist, reveals that military might is not everything when it comes to modern warfare. The US may have the most powerful military force in the world, but that didn't allow us to defeat the communist insurgents of Vietnam.

I just read we're building a spiffy new firebase (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6987306.stm) base 4-6 miles from the Iranian border. Maybe we can help the Pentagon name it.

Let's see: "Camp Tripwire". "Camp Bringemon". "Camp Grenada"

Come on, folks, let's help our intrepid leadership come up with something with sizzle.

Edit: oops. Got mixed up there with a previously-built base near Iran's border with Afghanistan (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-11-2004_pg1_7)

Another link about the planned base in Iraq (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BC6747CC-8401-4151-9E94-749E6FC0D147.htm)

Camp Tonkin



...Camp Rapture
...Jesus Camp
...Camp Ahmadinejad is a Wuss

Perfect!

Tell me something. Why on earth do you make the mistake of believing that if they had evidence, if they had seen something which frightened them - why would they show it to you? Do you think the other members of the coalition, and the UN, were incited to take action against Iraq without evidence of any kind, but solely via the persuasive powers of GW Bush? I already have evidence for how the British got on board - Blair was promised rigged intelligence on the WMDs (W promised to lie officially and publically) - to justify what he already wanted to do, which was join the conquering of Iraq where Britain has long had interests. See the Downing Street Memos.

A couple of higher ranking Brits resigned from the government, rather than do that. America has no tradition of resignation over principle, but we lost a couple as well.

As far as showing the evidence to me, that's beside the point - they haven't shown it to anyone. None of it. In fact, there is no indication that any such evidence exists.

On the one hand, you seem to recognise that governments lie. On the other hand, you turn cartwheels trying to avoid facing the fact that you have been lied to by the US government.

The justification for bombing Iran will be lies, as well.

edit in: Camp Ripley ? Believe it or not.

...Camp Bush is a dumbass

Support your claim (if you are implying one) that they can
Goddamn, dude. Have you been reading any of our posts? I mean really. The burden of proof is on you here.

As basically everyone in this thread (excepting yourself) has already understood or pointed out, the US military's invasion of Iraq was nothing short of brilliant. Never before in the history of warfare has such a bold and decisive campaign been waged, so quickly, and with so few friendly casualties. Taking down a regime from the other side of the planet with only two light divisions (one of which was an amphibious division of which I was part) is going to be an operation exemplified in military history classes for many, many years to come. It was the first campaign where the joint services were truly unified in effort, sharing assets and coordinating movements on a digitial battlefield, exploiting technological force multipliers for all they are worth. Every paradigm of so-called "modern" warfare that existed pre-2003 was shattered in the first three weeks of OIF.

Oh, but the streets are filled with violence, people are still dying, the government is broken, and infrastructure is not where it should be, you say? Well, all of that is true, but the dozens of insurgent factions in-country are only capable of harrassment. They can pick at our security forces here and there, but not in any grievous or life-threatening manner. They can only hope that over time their annoyance will wear down support of the reconstruction in the American public, granting them a political victory in the form of withrawal of US forces. They are not going to array against the 20+ brigade combat teams and beat us back down Highway 80 to Kuwait. They are not going to force our capitulation with attrition. They are going to exploit the fact that the American public is not satisfied with the way the operation has been handled, leading to the election of political leaders whose agendas are consistent with a removal of (most) US elements from Iraq and a cessation of support for the parliamentary government we have been trying to get off the ground for the past four years. Think of a dog sitting on a carpet infested with fleas. The fleas will never kill the dog. But if they are enough of an annoyance, the dog will go sit somewhere where the fleas cannot bother him anymore.

The violence and chaos subsequent to the invasion were largely a result of cultural fault lines that predated any western involvement widening again with the removal of the Ba'athist regime there. Exacerbating this was the fact that the reconstruction was planned in an opposite manner of the invasion: very poorly or not at all, with insufficient funding and manpower to establish basic security and allow a government to take root. This was not a shortcoming on part of the US military. The decisions that led to that condition were made by people wearing business suits, not uniforms. Thus, your hamfisted, half-witted attempts to blame it on the US military are advertisements of your own ignorance of the way the US government and military function, and the way the reconstruction has been hamstrung by events outside the scope of military responsibility.

I will leave you with something else to chew on, and be curious to see if you return to us with the same insipid pan-Arabist slag you have been spouting in this thread all along:

Why Arabs Lose Wars - Norvell B. De Atkine (http://www.meforum.org/article/441)


They already have. I'm posting from Guantanamo Bay.
It's not so bad really. Blaring rock music from my cell speakers, 3 square a day and the occasional exercise hour... but these uniforms! Orange is so out of fashion.
I take my showers strapped to a waterboard.

As basically everyone in this thread (excepting yourself) has already understood or pointed out, the US military's invasion of Iraq was nothing short of brilliant. Never before in the history of warfare has such a bold and decisive campaign been waged, so quickly, and with so few friendly casualties. Taking down a regime from the other side of the planet with only two light divisions (one of which was an amphibious division of which I was part) is going to be an operation exemplified in military history classes for many, many years to come..

Until people remember that it followed extreme sanctions in which 500,000 children died of starvation and was based entirely on lies. That it resulted in the complete destruction of a state, the death of countless innocents (we don't do body counts) and was the forerunner of the death of democracy in America (with Patriot Act, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc) and quite possibly the worst economic fallout of the century.

Oh, but the streets are filled with violence, people are still dying, the government is broken, and infrastructure is not where it should be, you say? Well, all of that is true, but the dozens of insurgent factions in-country are only capable of harrassment. They can pick at our security forces here and there, but not in any grievous or life-threatening manner. They can only hope that over time their annoyance will wear down support of the reconstruction in the American public, granting them a political victory in the form of withrawal of US forces. I think it was Ho Chi Minh - or one of his generals - who said that a soldier in a colonial war would be better off without weapons than without political training.

Von Clauswitz's maxim - "War is politics by other means" - cuts both ways.

The invasion is over. The US succeeded, dramatically - taking Baghdad in a few weeks. Now is the occupation, or the withdrawal. Either or both could be political victories, either or both could be political defeats.

Political defeat is looking more likely - in fact, already accomplished. The military of the US was completely unprepared for either occupation or withdrawal.

Military victory only gets you so much of certain things.

Echo, that is not proof that they can conquer the world

Like I've said before, what is the proof that they can conquer the world? If they even tried, they'd get slapped in the face so hard that it isn't even funny


And also, Iraq's military was not only handicapped before the invasion, but it wasn't anywhere near the US's quality. Iran would be a MUCH harder target imo.

And also, Iraq's military was not only handicapped before the invasion, but it wasn't anywhere near the US's quality. Iran would be a MUCH harder target imo.

Why is this even a debate? The USA is tearing itself apart over Iraq as it is. We can barely staff the Army right now and Iraq has half the population of Iran. The only surefire way to conquer Iran easily is through nuclear annihilation and, no matter what people on either side of this argument say, THAT is not going to happen anytime soon. The US is posturing, hoping that Iran will come to the table. There is no war planned for Iran.

However, if Iran attacks the USA, then American opinion may shift and THAT would spell disaster for Iran. Iran, however, knows this fact. They may not be "western" but they are hardly uninformed idiots.

So, barring any huge attacks on Iran's part, there won't be a war, which war, the US can ill afford right now.

~String

Echo, that is not proof that they can conquer the world

Like I've said before, what is the proof that they can conquer the world? If they even tried, they'd get slapped in the face so hard that it isn't even funny


And also, Iraq's military was not only handicapped before the invasion, but it wasn't anywhere near the US's quality. Iran would be a MUCH harder target imo.

Iran's army is in the same level as Saddams was in 1990, and they got their ass's kicked so far up their spines they used there assholes for a hat band, Iran would suffer the same fate.

Echo, that is not proof that they can conquer the world

Like I've said before, what is the proof that they can conquer the world? If they even tried, they'd get slapped in the face so hard that it isn't even funny


And also, Iraq's military was not only handicapped before the invasion, but it wasn't anywhere near the US's quality. Iran would be a MUCH harder target imo.

False premise, were has the U.S. ever made the wish to conquer the world.

The US may have the most powerful military force in the world, but that didn't allow us to defeat the communist insurgents of Vietnam.

What didn't allow the U.S. to defeat the communist is Vietnam was the political will of the Democrat Liberals, we had defeated the Communist on the battle field, the politicians sold us out at the Peace Table, and if you check your history, the N.Vietnams waited until all the major combat forces of the U.S. had with drawn under the terms of the Paris Peace Treaty, and then broke the treaty, and the Democrats screwed the South Vietnamese, and failed to honor the defense commitment that we had signed to come to the aid of the South Vietnamese should the North start the war again.

The V.C. was never a factor after Tet of 68, so the Idea of insurgents winning the war is a crock of bull shit, after we signed the Peace Accords in Paris, and with drew the North invaded the south in a classic war of fire and maneuver, it used regular army divisions, and tank, infantry, and artillery, in a combined arms attack, at the time there were less than 4000 U.S. advisors in Vietnam and no combat troops, and the democratic congress abandoned the South to the North.

Why was the US in Vietnam? For what reason was it killing people there? I always hear so much rhetoric about winning the war, but no reason for why they begin it. Is it justified to invade someone's country for following a different way of life? For making profit? Its sick, that is what it is.Local people become insurgents and terrorists, and Americans are liberators. :rolleyes:

Why is this even a debate? The USA is tearing itself apart over Iraq as it is. We can barely staff the Army right now and Iraq has half the population of Iran. The only surefire way to conquer Iran easily is through nuclear annihilation and, no matter what people on either side of this argument say, THAT is not going to happen anytime soon. The US is posturing, hoping that Iran will come to the table. There is no war planned for Iran.

However, if Iran attacks the USA, then American opinion may shift and THAT would spell disaster for Iran. Iran, however, knows this fact. They may not be "western" but they are hardly uninformed idiots.

So, barring any huge attacks on Iran's part, there won't be a war, which war, the US can ill afford right now.

~String

True. Except an attack would not be a disaster for Iran. Nothing would unite Iran more and nothing would turn the world even more against the USA. America has no real friends left except for Israel. Allies grit their teeth when smiling and shaking hands. Even our Conservative PM in Canada walks a fine line between nodding politely at the President and looking over his shoulder at public opinion. He knows that any support for American policy is an election death nail. I'd think that leaders in Europe are in an equally precarious position and any attack on Iran would be loudly condemned. Iran becomes the David in the David and Goliath saga and would receive economic and moral support not only from China, Russia and Muslim nations but also from Western nations other than the USA.

As Pat Buchanan wisely said....Every night the Iranian leader gets down on his knees and prays for an attack by the USA. George the Moron Bush may be even more stupid than he has been to date and take the bait.

Foxnews today:

"Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.'

The German chancellor is a conservative. Like our PM, however, she will distance herself from American aggression and bullying. This has given further strength to the Russians and Chinese to stand firm against the taunts from American jingoists. It's a bit sad that the USA has reached such a moral low in the 21st century after being such as beacon of light during much of the 20th. The American bully is chomping at the bit to beat up his next victim but it's a plus to see countries such as Germany no longer willing to cave to American arm twisting.

The V.C. was never a factor after Tet of 68, so the Idea of insurgents winning the war is a crock of bull shit, My Lai was two months after Tet - it was an attack on VC hamlets.

The VC were not harmed much by the My Lai offensive. They continued to be a factor for several more years.

All an insurgent has to do to win is hang on.

Just as all Iran has to do to "win" is survive the US bombing, if it comes. The main worry here is that there is still a group of advisors in the the upper levels of the US government who may believe that a war with Iran can be won by bombing alone.

False premise, were has the U.S. ever made the wish to conquer the world.

Never (or so they say), I'm just saying they can't.


I think Iran would be a formidable opponent to the US. It's alot more sophisticated than Iraq's cavemen army, and it even probably challenges Israel's military.

Plus, we will win in the end:)

Even our Conservative PM in Canada walks a fine line between nodding politely at the President and looking over his shoulder at public opinion. He knows that any support for American policy is an election death nail.

As well he should! For starters a conservative in Canada/Europe is something quite different than a conservative in the USA. Second off, they are still elected officials who have to look out for their jobs. Who can blame them. Bush's forte isn't exactly global politics.


The German chancellor is a conservative. Like our PM, however, she will distance herself from American aggression and bullying.

America's stance against Iran is one of the few SMART things about US foreign policy right now. The whole Iraq blunder has so tarnished the US reputation that even when this nation is right on the money with regards to Iran, everybody looks on with suspicion. It's a shame. And, well, it is what it is.

There is no way the USA could or should get away with attacking Iran, but the sanctions are the best way to deal with that regime. Moreover, just because Germany has said that they won't agree with any increase in sanctions, that doesn't mean they won't support the current ones.

~String

In response to Spidergoats many infraction warnings to me:

If calling someone a "twit" is a personal attack, and a tongue in cheek comment in response to a fucking pinheaded little dweeb is a flame, then go shove your forum up your weed-infested ass.

And while you're at it - look up "Bias". You're not fit to be a moderator. Whoever placed you in a position where you have power enough to exercise your own prejudices without being reigned in needs their head examined.

It's a sad state of affairs when idiocy is not only tolerated but condoned, but the word "twit" is grounds for infraction. On that point alone, maintaining that your forum is one of "intelligent debate" becomes a source of much amusement.

Now watch him delete this the same way he deleted the last post I made telling him to go fuck himself.

I think it was Ho Chi Minh - or one of his generals - who said that a soldier in a colonial war would be better off without weapons than without political training.

Von Clauswitz's maxim - "War is politics by other means" - cuts both ways.

The invasion is over. The US succeeded, dramatically - taking Baghdad in a few weeks. Now is the occupation, or the withdrawal. Either or both could be political victories, either or both could be political defeats.

Political defeat is looking more likely - in fact, already accomplished. The military of the US was completely unprepared for either occupation or withdrawal.

Military victory only gets you so much of certain things.
Well, exactly. Thus my "mailed fist versus velvet glove" post earlier in this thread. All I am saying is that the US military has performed admirably in all accounts given the way it has been managed by the political establishment to which it answers.


Echo, that is not proof that they can conquer the world
Thank you for providing us with this textbook example of a strawman argument.


And also, Iraq's military was not only handicapped before the invasion, but it wasn't anywhere near the US's quality. Iran would be a MUCH harder target imo.
Of course. Which is one of the many other reasons why you will never see a landed invasion of Iran in the same manner as Iraq, and it is ridiculous to even suggest that it is possible in the current situation.

At the very most, direct military action would consist of US airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, which is a realistic objective that could be accomplished by air and naval power alone. I still consider such actions unlikely, however, given Bush's lame duck political status in Washington as an unpopular president in the latter half of his last term in office.

Also, it is interesting to see you including Iranians (who are Persian) as part of the Arab world. ("We will win in the end") Why is this?

My Lai was two months after Tet - it was an attack on VC hamlets.

The VC were not harmed much by the My Lai offensive. They continued to be a factor for several more years.

All an insurgent has to do to win is hang on.

Just as all Iran has to do to "win" is survive the US bombing, if it comes. The main worry here is that there is still a group of advisors in the the upper levels of the US government who may believe that a war with Iran can be won by bombing alone.

Dam, you need a history lesson,

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000354.html


Left wing opinion, widely reflected today in History courses and the media, is that the US lost a war in Vietnam against a local, popular guerilla movement (the Viet Cong). Furthermore, it is asserted that the people in South Vietnam wanted to re-unite with the North under communism. Some have argued that the US had nefarious motives (profit, oil, etc) in its war in Vietnam. It is assumed that the US was defeated in the field of battle by this movement.


By 1968, the US had large numbers of troops in Vietnam. During the traditional truce at the annual Tet holiday, the VC launched a massive offensive. They were trying to win the war with a single surprise attack, and believed their own propaganda that the people would rise up and join them. The military result was that the VC were effectively destroyed, and never recovered. The failure of the people to join the VC, and the VC's execution of thousands of civilians in Hue (the only major city they captured) gave lie to the contention that the war in the south was a popular revolution. This fact was lost on US press commentators and of course on the anti-war protest movement. Subsequent to Tet, 1968, almost all communist forces in the South were NVA invaders from the North, who traveled through “neutral” Laos and Cambodia on the “Ho Chi Minh Trail.”


The subsequent election was won by Richard Nixon on the theme of “Peace with Honor”. Nixon’s plan was to strengthen the South, seriously damage the communist position, negotiate an enforceable peace agreement, and withdraw all American troops except a few advisors and black operators. The peace agreement would be enforced by American air power if the North launched major attacks. Nixon kept his word, and was able to defeat a major Communist offensive (the Easter Offensive of 1972) with almost no US ground participation – leaving the ground fighting to the much maligned Army of South Vietnam (ARVN). After finally removing most of Johnson’s restrictions on US bombing of the North, the US mined Haiphong Harbor, the North’s only cargo port, and attacked Hanoi with B-52’s in the Christmas Bombings on 1972. After negotiating without substance for years, the Communists, confronted with a demonstrated willingness by the US to truly damage them, signed a peace agreement within a month.


However, the Communists continued to fight, utterly ignoring their agreement to cease infiltrating into the South. After Watergate, Nixon lost his political power at home, and ultimately his office. The administration was no longer able to enforce the peace agreement against a rabidly anti-war congress. US military intervention (via air power) to counter overt communist invasions was banned by Congress, as was almost all military aid.


Given this abject betrayal of South Vietnam, the Communists invaded with a massive force
(22 divisions with integrated armor and anti-air artillery including missile units), and fairly rapidly defeated a now betrayed and demoralized South Vietnamese army. After the conquest, many Vietnamese were sent to forced labor camps, where they died out of sight of the media, often while clearing mine fields with inadequate tools, while sick and malnourished. As was typical with communist conquests using indigenous anti-regime personnel, many of the remaining NLF and VC were themselves imprisoned in these camps, because the North’s rulers did not want people trained in subversion who might fight the new dictatorship. Thus, ironically, many former NLF and VC became “boat people.”

Also, Tet was a spectacular failure for the Vietcong and left their forces in ruins. Due to the way they botched Tet, the VC ceased to be a cohesive fighting force for the remainder of the conflict.

As well he should! For starters a conservative in Canada/Europe is something quite different than a conservative in the USA. Second off, they are still elected officials who have to look out for their jobs. Who can blame them. Bush's forte isn't exactly global politics.



America's stance against Iran is one of the few SMART things about US foreign policy right now. The whole Iraq blunder has so tarnished the US reputation that even when this nation is right on the money with regards to Iran, everybody looks on with suspicion. It's a shame. And, well, it is what it is.

There is no way the USA could or should get away with attacking Iran, but the sanctions are the best way to deal with that regime. Moreover, just because Germany has said that they won't agree with any increase in sanctions, that doesn't mean they won't support the current ones.

~String

Right policy? What threat is Iran to the USA? What friggin business is it of the USA. Iran is a potential threat to pro USA thug dictorships...the thugs that the Americans call 'our good friends' (women-abusing Saudis, etc,). As for Israel, they can take care of themselves and will if necessary. Yankees should 'f' off and go home.

Also, Tet was a spectacular failure for the Vietcong and left their forces in ruins. Due to the way they botched Tet, the VC ceased to be a cohesive fighting force for the remainder of the conflict.

American ignorance is astounding. It certainly does, however, help explain Americans today. Pretend Americans didn't leave Vietnam with their tails between the legs and still pretend it isn't going to happen in Iraq.

The US military was defeated by Third world guerillas in Vietnam and in Iraq they can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport after 4 and a half years. Rumsfeld's 'handfull of criminals and malcontents' have defeated the U.S. mission.

American ignorance is astounding. It certainly does, however, help explain Americans today. Pretend Americans didn't leave Vietnam with their tails between the legs and still pretend it isn't going to happen in Iraq.

The US military was defeated by Third world guerillas in Vietnam and in Iraq they can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport after 4 and a half years. Rumsfeld's 'handfull of criminals and malcontents' have defeated the U.S. mission.
Is there a reason why you felt the need to type this in response to my post? Or did you simply mash the Reply button without bothering to read what you were responding to?

Also, Tet was a spectacular failure for the Vietcong and left their forces in ruins. Due to the way they botched Tet, the VC ceased to be a cohesive fighting force for the remainder of the conflict. So? You keep insisting you can distinguish between military success and political victory , and then you overlook the Vietnamese victory of Tet.

Recall the context: the US government had repeatedly, for months, claimed that the Vietnam war was soon to be over, and the North Vietnamese were exhausted. The US government had been denying, all along, that the forces they were fighting in the South were South Vietnamese, and had popular support. The US government claimed to be fighting in support of the South Vietnamese against their enemy, the North, and in favor of popular government, against unwanted oppression.

The Tet offensive, a military defeat for the VC, proved at least three things that gutted the US justification for involvement: that the Vietnamese War was not going to be over soon, and was not close to being "won". That the people fighting the US were and had been large numbers of South Vietnamese. That these South Vietnamese had a great deal of (almost universal, even among allegedly allied armed forces) hometown popular support (the attacks were launched from months of preparation in locations all over South Vietnam, some quite close to US bases).

The subsequent commission and exposure of various atrocities and slaughters by US soldiers, mostly committed against South Vietnamese, just nailed down the coffin lid on US political defeat.


Dam, you need a history lesson, That "history" lesson I've received many times, usually at a VFW club bar. To point out just the obvious: the South Vietnamese army was large, far better equipped and supported (throughout the war and even after the US left), than the North, and it was (supposedly, in your little "history"), fighting a defensive war - an easier task - in a secure area with a friendly population. Yet it did not fight well, or often, either before or after the US left. Why was that, do you suppose?

So? You keep insisting you can distinguish between military success and political victory , and then you overlook the Vietnamese victory of Tet.
It was a somewhat pedantic correction directed at your assertion that "[the VC] continued to be a factor for several more years". After Tet they were basically a non-factor.

Tet was the Viet Cong's last hurrah, in which they immolated themselves against a superior enemy in a display that shook American public confidence in its leadership. That was a good explanation on your part.

Something similar happened in Iraq in the summer of 2004 when we were about to roll into Falluja and fighting broke out in Ramadi at the same time. Media were covering both events, and while the insurgent gangs who perpetrated the violence in both cities were summarily obliterated, the bang they went out with echoed across American television sets, invalidating claims that were being made at the time by political leaders. In other words, the American public's perception was shaped by the media into something that was the polar opposite of the overall reality in-theater, yet it didn't matter one iota because that was (or should have been) what the more organized elements of the insurgency were trying to do all along.

It was a somewhat pedantic correction directed at your assertion that "[the VC] continued to be a factor for several more years". After Tet they were basically a non-factor. The US was still fighting them months - even years - later. The Song My campaign was against a "VC stronghold" two months after Tet, and other campaigns agaisnt "VC strongholds" were launched in the ensuing months and years.

They weren't capable of winning in open battles, true - but they had never been capable of winning in open battles. They were a political factor - they weren't supposed to exist, and once undeniably in existence they never went away.

Something similar happened in Iraq in the summer of 2004 when we were about to roll into Falluja and fighting broke out in Ramadi at the same time. Media were covering both events, and while the insurgent gangs who perpetrated the violence in both cities were summarily obliterated, the bang they went out with echoed across American television sets, invalidating claims that were being made at the time by political leaders. Another similarity is that they weren't eliminated, summarily or otherwise, and their persistance afterwards was visible from then on - in direct refutation of some of the justifications of the war,and the claims of its progress since as well as prior.

And what the US did to Fallujah, then and since, has also partly refuted the US claims of moral integrity and sound motive - the My Lai role that Abu Ghraib also took on.

And what the US did to Fallujah, then and since, has also partly refuted the US claims of moral integrity and sound motive - the My Lai role that Abu Ghraib also took on.

Comparing My Lai and Abu Ghraib is ridiculous.

Well, exactly. Thus my "mailed fist versus velvet glove" post earlier in this thread. All I am saying is that the US military has performed admirably in all accounts given the way it has been managed by the political establishment to which it answers.


Thank you for providing us with this textbook example of a strawman argument.


Of course. Which is one of the many other reasons why you will never see a landed invasion of Iran in the same manner as Iraq, and it is ridiculous to even suggest that it is possible in the current situation.

At the very most, direct military action would consist of US airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, which is a realistic objective that could be accomplished by air and naval power alone. I still consider such actions unlikely, however, given Bush's lame duck political status in Washington as an unpopular president in the latter half of his last term in office.

Also, it is interesting to see you including Iranians (who are Persian) as part of the Arab world. ("We will win in the end") Why is this?

Regardless, I see a confrontation between Iran and Israel as far more likely than against the US, and in that case, it is a war even Israel cannot win.

"We", the Middle East. "We", the Arabs. "We", the Persians. "We", the Israelites.

I want all of us (including Israel) to unite into a Semitic sort of alliance, rather than kill each other.

Regardless, I see a confrontation between Iran and Israel as far more likely than against the US, and in that case, it is a war even Israel cannot win.

Israel would wallop the Iranians, presuming the Israelis fight the way they can and don't fight the way they did in the Lebanese conflict a few summers back. Most of Iran's military is outdated, Soviet-era crap.

The US was still fighting them months - even years - later. The Song My campaign was against a "VC stronghold" two months after Tet, and other campaigns agaisnt "VC strongholds" were launched in the ensuing months and years.
By this point the VC were in full retreat. The operation in question was in Quang Ngai province, which was one of the centers where the VC were suspected of trying to regroup. After Tet, the US/RVN had the initiative over the VC and had them battened down and on the run. They were no longer a cohesive force and what followed was mopping them up.


And what the US did to Fallujah, then and since, has also partly refuted the US claims of moral integrity and sound motive - the My Lai role that Abu Ghraib also took on.
There wasn't really any other solution to the violence Falluja was exporting in 2004 other than clearing the city like we (finally) did. Back then it was a bastion of former regime loyalists, foreign jihadists, and old Iraqi Army officers hostile to the coalition. Noncombatants were displacing from the city daily as the violence grew. Vacillation at the political level by the coalition postponed the inevitable for half a year, but when we finally went in and cleaned up the streets it stayed that way. Today it is relatively peaceful.

Also, the abuses at Abu Ghraib weren't really connected to Falluja in the same way that My Lai was related to Tet. One was a village being swept for VC suspected of regrouping there after Tet, which is an indirect result. The other was a prison where some bad stuff happened that also happened to be in the same country. The timing was incidental.

Israel would wallop the Iranians, presuming the Israelis fight the way they can and don't fight the way they did in the Lebanese conflict a few summers back. Most of Iran's military is outdated, Soviet-era crap.

Sure about that? Iran develops its own equipment, and not to mention it would also recieve aid from other sources

And, they are not only larger, but they have a superior land force and a formidable air force.

lol
what formidable air force?
hahaha

decades old planes which with luck and lots of maintenance run well, but with limited, decades-old capabilities.
even the most advanced Russian planes (the only ones who would sell them anything) wouldn't stop the Israeli air force -- the best in the world by most accounts.

as for the ground forces ... it won't come to that. the countries are too far.

matchups aside, i don't think it's time yet to bomb Iran. here's a column by Victor Davis Hanson - a very hawkish and very well respected writer arguing against bombing the mullahs:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson090107.html

quote:

So we should continue with the present path — and not bomb or have surrogates bomb Iran. That option is still down the road. For as long as it is possible, the best-case scenario is not a smoking Iran, but a humiliated theocracy that slowly implodes before the world, displaying in their disgrace what the mullahs did to themselves — and perhaps a small reminder of those helpful shoves from us.

Guess you haven't heard about Daddy; I wouldn't even be surprised if the Americans went hand in glove, it would give them the green light to look out for number One.

And what the US did to Fallujah, then and since, has also partly refuted the US claims of moral integrity and sound motive - the My Lai role that Abu Ghraib also took on.

True. It's astounding that an occupation is about trust and image and then the American soldiers turn around and torture and murder Iraqi civilians. How can a military be so poorly trained and such atrocities happen in the 21st century? The damage to the occupier's mission is as if the military are given weapons and told to shoot themselves. Fortunately the photos of American torture at Abu Graib will be forever in the history books for future generations around the world to witness.

lol
what formidable air force?
hahaha

decades old planes which with luck and lots of maintenance run well, but with limited, decades-old capabilities.
even the most advanced Russian planes (the only ones who would sell them anything) wouldn't stop the Israeli air force -- the best in the world by most accounts.

as for the ground forces ... it won't come to that. the countries are too far.

matchups aside, i don't think it's time yet to bomb Iran. here's a column by Victor Davis Hanson - a very hawkish and very well respected writer arguing against bombing the mullahs:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson090107.html

quote:

The Iranian Air Force. It has an arsenal of fine Russian aircraft, AND to boot it also develops the Shafaq fighter jet, a very fine jet.

Israel's air force is the US Air Force. Israelis wouldn't have an Air Force if it weren't for the US in the first place.

Really? Isn't Iraq very far from the US?

Sure about that? Iran develops its own equipment


We've had this fight before. You think Iran has good equipment, I think it's junk. Most of it is outdated Soviet crap. Whatever Iran is developing is probably crap, too. A country that can't get its own resources out of the ground can't make jet fighters and tanks capable of overpowering US arms. Tell you what? I'll even go one step further. There isn't any Arab nation that could beat Israel in a war. Not one. See the above reason about resources and arms...


and not to mention it would also recieve aid from other sources.


Really? From who? Syria? Syria doesn't have anything of value, either. The rest of the Arab world is pretty wary of Iran, and I doubt they would help them...


And, they are not only larger, but they have a superior land force and a formidable air force.

Air force is a joke. The army is larger, numbers-wise, but every land war in the region in the past 50 years has shown numbers are useless. The only thing Arab nations can do is fight insurgent campaigns in which they "bleed" their opponents. They can't fight for and hold territory and have never been able to do so.

Iran's military is only marginally better than it was in the 1980s. They are still plagued with aging equipment, poor logistic support, and systemic mismanagement. About the only thing they have going in their favor is the IRGC; a decent harassing force at best. The IRGC, however, doesn't answer to the political establishment in Iran the same way other militaries do; they're there mostly to enforce Islamic law and ensure that the Islamic regime isn't toppled (again). The regular military has some rather impressive numbers, but that is about all. Engaged in a symmetrical conflict with a modern western military following the NATO model, the Iranians would be playing to their enemy's greatest strength.

Recall the last time the Iranians took an aggressive posture in the Persian Gulf waters: Operation Praying Mantis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis), in which all involved Iranian forces afloat were annihilated by the US Navy while two (count them: TWO) USN F-14s held off the entireity of the Iranian Air Force.

It wasn't the first time a military built on the Soviet model was obliterated by one that followed the NATO model, nor was it the last. Iran has learned its lesson, I would think, and their leadership is not stupid enough to confront the US, Israel, or any other western power directly unless absolutely necessary. Their conventional military is a joke. What isn't a joke, and what any western power challenging Iranian influence in the ME should be keenly aware of, is their ability to exert pressure through non-state actors (read: guerillas) and make a protracted presence in the region untenable for the outsider.

E3R: "Iran's military is only marginally better than it was in the 1980s. They are still plagued with aging equipment, poor logistic support, and systemic mismanagement"

You need to catch up. Russia and China have made multiple millions arming up Iran with front-line gadgets like Skval (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002291.html), Sunburn (http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1687&catid=263), and Onyx (http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Ship-Missiles/Yakhont_a001021001.aspx).

"Their conventional military is a joke."

I'm not laughing.

Comparing My Lai and Abu Ghraib is ridiculous. 1) That's one reason I threw Fallujah in, and 2) comparing the role of My Lai to the role of Abu Ghraib in the political victory of the bad guys is not at all ridiculous.

Vacillation at the political level by the coalition postponed the inevitable for half a year, but when we finally went in and cleaned up the streets it stayed that way. Today it is relatively peaceful. You "went in" more than once, made refugees of the whole city, and wrecked the place. You used WP against people, shelled and rocketed inhabited parts of town, and killed so many civilians they were buried in mass graves - and that was just the first time, which wasn't enough. You did not "clean up" anything - it's rubble, and hostile, to this day.

Today it is "relatively peaceful", in its way. Some of the refugees have returned. But it is not forgotten, by Iraqis. At least one major, and several minor, terrorist incidents (the hotel suicide bombing in Jordan) trace directly to Fallujah, and it is mentioned often by Sunnis in the area. Fallujah was originally, in the first phase of the invasion, one of the few non-Kurdish Iraqi cities that actually welcomed US forces. It turned against them based on, apparently, experience - and in particular, it became violent first and most obviously toward mercenaries. The final incident that touched off the US sacking of the town was against four mercenaries (Blackwater, IIRC). The US military backing mercenaries, taking revenge for violence directed against mercenaries, was an interesting new angle in this war compared with past US wars.

By this point the VC were in full retreat. The operation in question was in Quang Ngai province, which was one of the centers where the VC were suspected of trying to regroup. After Tet, the US/RVN had the initiative over the VC and had them battened down and on the run. They were no longer a cohesive force and what followed was mopping them up. Retreat to where? The US was in the process of "mopping up" all of South Vietnam? That would help explain the endemic levels of crime and atrocity among the US forces, of which My Lai was just a big one that got caught.

The problem was that Tet revealed something that undercut the whole war - very few in Vietnam were on the US side, and most of them for suspect reasons. ARVN had the best training and equipment available - they did not fight hard. But when they deserted to the other side, with much poorer logistical support, they fought hard.

We are seeing a culturally much different (there is no Iraqi Ho Chi Minh) but in general form related pattern in Iraq: the enemy fights harder than the ally - even when they are the same people. It's not a matter of innate courage or ability.

Nor is it with the Iranians. The Israeli army would have a very difficult time in Iran - the Iranians do fight hard, in defense ("heroic" is not too strong a word, for some of their battles against Iraq's superior equipment and support) and they have some interesting capabilities - such as night flying and in-air refueling.

If you recall, a US commander called out of retirement to manage the Iranian side in some war games a couple of years ago took on [edited for bad memory] a full invasion foce in the Persian Gulf, sunk 16 ships including the aircraft carrier, killed thousands of sailors and soldiers, and threw the invasion back into the Gulf. The Iranians have been found to have better equipment, since. Let's hope they have no commanders as skilled.

We've had this fight before. You think Iran has good equipment, I think it's junk. Most of it is outdated Soviet crap. Whatever Iran is developing is probably crap, too. A country that can't get its own resources out of the ground can't make jet fighters and tanks capable of overpowering US arms. Tell you what? I'll even go one step further. There isn't any Arab nation that could beat Israel in a war. Not one. See the above reason about resources and arms...




Really? From who? Syria? Syria doesn't have anything of value, either. The rest of the Arab world is pretty wary of Iran, and I doubt they would help them...



Air force is a joke. The army is larger, numbers-wise, but every land war in the region in the past 50 years has shown numbers are useless. The only thing Arab nations can do is fight insurgent campaigns in which they "bleed" their opponents. They can't fight for and hold territory and have never been able to do so.

Well I'm afraid what you think doesn't change fact. And that is that Iran has formidable equipment.

A country that is richer than Israel and can has the most powerful military of the Middle East can most defintely overpower Israeli military forces.

Yes, there is. Syria.


But, Syria isn't fighting Israel in the wars. It's fighting America.
Face it, without America Israel would be throwing stones.


Their Army is not only larger, but better than Israel's. Not only are they MUCH larger, they are also very organized and have close air-to-ground support, coupled with the Iranians' superb tracking systems and I see an easy victory.

Quote: otheadp

"lol
what formidable air force?
hahaha

decades old planes which with luck and lots of maintenance run well, but with limited, decades-old capabilities.
even the most advanced Russian planes (the only ones who would sell them anything) wouldn't stop the Israeli air force -- the best in the world by most accounts.

as for the ground forces ... it won't come to that. the countries are too far.

matchups aside, i don't think it's time yet to bomb Iran. here's a column by Victor Davis Hanson - a very hawkish and very well respected writer arguing against bombing the mullahs:"

What are the grounds for bombing Iraq in the first place? let alone YET????

WTF?

Well I'm afraid what you think doesn't change fact. And that is that Iran has formidable equipment.

A country that is richer than Israel and can has the most powerful military of the Middle East can most defintely overpower Israeli military forces.

Yes, there is. Syria.


But, Syria isn't fighting Israel in the wars. It's fighting America.
Face it, without America Israel would be throwing stones.


Their Army is not only larger, but better than Israel's. Not only are they MUCH larger, they are also very organized and have close air-to-ground support, coupled with the Iranians' superb tracking systems and I see an easy victory.

i think you've been fed a steady diet of military parades and victory speeches a-la 1973 and 2006.

you better pray you don't get another one of them victories :rolleyes:

As the same with you, I suppose.

If it weren't for the US aid, Israel would've gotten (if not it did) it's ass kicked in '73. The UN saved her ass.


You know who I want to win? Unity. Peace. An Alliance. Unfortunately, BOTH sides are not willing to do that.

I view (seriously) the Israelis as Brothers. They are Brothers of the Book, and they are Semites like us. I want to see an Arab-Jew-Persian alliance. Fantasy? Yes, but wouldn't you want to see that?

You need to catch up. Russia and China have made multiple millions arming up Iran with front-line gadgets like Skval (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002291.html), Sunburn (http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1687&catid=263), and Onyx (http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Ship-Missiles/Yakhont_a001021001.aspx).

Russian planes with Arab / Iranian fighter pilots vs. American made and Israeli modified planes with Israeli fighter pilots ... who do you think has the better chance? even if Russia would sell Syria or Iran its most advanced planes, which they won't, of course.

also, remember the Russian advanced anti aircraft systems they sold to Syria and Iran recently? guess who flew into Syria unharmed and almost undetected, other than Santa? furthermore, there were reports from Lebanon that at the time of the Israeli overflights in Syria a whole bunch of electronic equipment stopped working -- which probably means some massive sophisticated jamming going on.

Iran and Syria have assymetrical warfare going for them. thats the only thing they've got. but Israel won't go in to occupy Syria. they know better than that. instead, they'll just bomb the shit out of Syria, destroy the big missile launchers, destroy the air force, and go back to the base. and if Syria immitates Hizballah tactics by launching 1000s of rockets into Tel Aviv, then this time you'll see a more cruel Israeli army - they'll carpet bomb west Syria into oblivion so no launchers remain behind any bushes (and no bushes remain either).

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=146543&ESRC=recruiting.nl

The above link shows what happens when there is a crack, hole, or any form of structural inpairment on a Mortar Launcher and it is STILL used. It is also and example of what happens to people who aren't trained properly. And the link below shows why the insurgents don't want to go head to head. Also really bad planning.... I mean, attacking two elavated bunkers with that? http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=122252

I view (seriously) the Israelis as Brothers. They are Brothers of the Book, and they are Semites like us. I want to see an Arab-Jew-Persian alliance. Fantasy? Yes, but wouldn't you want to see that?

that would be nice...
if Assad drops Ahmadishiteater (and Kim) and aligns Syria's interests with the interests of the rest of the Arab nations, that would be the move that will bring Syria back into the community of civilized nations, to regain the friendship of the US and EU (which brings with it huge economic growth, by the way), and build trust with Israel. that is the only way that Syria has a chance of getting the Golan...

Israelis feel mostly the same as you just said. the youth is itching to visit Syria and make friends with Syrians and experience their culture, music, etc. -- my favourite Arab singer is Asala Nasri. if there is a war, the IDF will fight it grudgingly, meaning that they only try to defend their nation. not because they like bullying their hostile neighbours.

EDIT:
same goes for Iran. i have plenty of Persian friends. and they hate the current Iranian regime even more than the Israelis. as soon as the mullahs are gone, relations between Israel and Iran will be restored immediately. Iran and Israel alliance is natural... just as it has been in the time before 1979.

Russian planes with Arab / Iranian fighter pilots vs. American made and Israeli modified planes with Israeli fighter pilots ... who do you think has the better chance? even if Russia would sell Syria or Iran its most advanced planes, which they won't, of course.

also, remember the Russian advanced anti aircraft systems they sold to Syria and Iran recently? guess who flew into Syria unharmed and almost undetected, other than Santa? furthermore, there were reports from Lebanon that at the time of the Israeli overflights in Syria a whole bunch of electronic equipment stopped working -- which probably means some massive sophisticated jamming going on.

Iran and Syria have assymetrical warfare going for them. thats the only thing they've got. but Israel won't go in to occupy Syria. they know better than that. instead, they'll just bomb the shit out of Syria, destroy the big missile launchers, destroy the air force, and go back to the base. and if Syria immitates Hizballah tactics by launching 1000s of rockets into Tel Aviv, then this time you'll see a more cruel Israeli army - they'll carpet bomb west Syria into oblivion so no launchers remain behind any bushes (and no bushes remain either).

Pfft, Israeli fighter jets? How many times do I have to say this, Israel is nothing. They thrive off of the US. They recieve funding and support because in reality, they are just a pathetic little country

More like "Israel will try to bomb the shit out of Syria"

And, the equipment from Russia probably wasn't in use at the time.


Again, they'll try. But, like I said, we have a weapon that destroys the Israelis by the very nature.


Oh, and expect to see alot of insurgency seeing as alot of Arabs live in Israel.

that would be nice...
if Assad drops Ahmadishiteater (and Kim) and aligns Syria's interests with the interests of the rest of the Arab nations, that would be the move that will bring Syria back into the community of civilized nations, to regain the friendship of the US and EU (which brings with it huge economic growth, by the way), and build trust with Israel. that is the only way that Syria has a chance of getting the Golan...

Israelis feel mostly the same as you just said. the youth is itching to visit Syria and make friends with Syrians and experience their culture, music, etc. -- my favourite Arab singer is Asala Nasri. if there is a war, the IDF will fight it grudgingly, meaning that they only try to defend their nation. not because they like bullying their hostile neighbours.

But, like I said, BOTH sides' governments are to blame. You can't see this fantasy come to life with Olmert, and you can't with Assad.


Now, if only I were President of Syria:D

what would you do?

what would you do?

Easy.



I would, first of all, stop all military funding and support for Hamas and Hesbollah, although I would still politically support them.


Secondly, I would try to not only set up Peace with Israel, but Unity as well.


I would encourage free enterprise, and help with better relations with the EU.


I would encourage Iran to do the same


I would help the Lebanese, under Syrian rule of course.



And, one of my first agendas would be to call forth a coalition to invade, and liberate, North Korea because I feel sad for the Koreans.

sounds good (for starters :))

check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_Syria

anyway, im off to bed. ttyl

sounds good (for starters :))

check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_Syria

anyway, im off to bed. ttyl

This reform party is good, but then again it is based in the US and the only problem with that is that they would develop into sock puppets for the US government, like Blair for instance


No, I would want an independent party. But good find, nonetheless

I would help the Lebanese, under Syrian rule of course.


And, one of my first agendas would be to call forth a coalition to invade, and liberate, North Korea because I feel sad for the Koreans. No wonder you dislike W- he stole all your best ideas.

No wonder you dislike W- he stole all your best ideas.

W? Who is W?

You need to catch up. Russia and China have made multiple millions arming up Iran with front-line gadgets like Skval (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002291.html), Sunburn (http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1687&catid=263), and Onyx (http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Ship-Missiles/Yakhont_a001021001.aspx).
Again, marginally better than the 1980s, and a decent coastal harrassing force. Which is all those weapons are going to be good for considering no naval air power, no AWACS, no satellite communications, no information sharing, etc. etc. (I could go on listing combat multipliers for a long time) Let's not delude ourselves into thinking a few discrete weapon systems dating from the early-1990s are going to give the Iranian Navy or IRGC a force-wide fighting chance against a couple supercarrier strike groups with bad intentions. The disparity in combat power that existed around the time of Praying Mantis has only grown in the two decades since the Tanker War, and the US Navy is far better equipped to deal with a brown water threat now than it was then.


You "went in" more than once, made refugees of the whole city, and wrecked the place. You used WP against people, shelled and rocketed inhabited parts of town, and killed so many civilians they were buried in mass graves - and that was just the first time, which wasn't enough. You did not "clean up" anything - it's rubble, and hostile, to this day.

Today it is "relatively peaceful", in its way. Some of the refugees have returned. But it is not forgotten, by Iraqis. At least one major, and several minor, terrorist incidents (the hotel suicide bombing in Jordan) trace directly to Fallujah, and it is mentioned often by Sunnis in the area. Fallujah was originally, in the first phase of the invasion, one of the few non-Kurdish Iraqi cities that actually welcomed US forces. It turned against them based on, apparently, experience - and in particular, it became violent first and most obviously toward mercenaries. The final incident that touched off the US sacking of the town was against four mercenaries (Blackwater, IIRC). The US military backing mercenaries, taking revenge for violence directed against mercenaries, was an interesting new angle in this war compared with past US wars.
Where are you getting this stuff? Falluja was never receptive to the coalition presence. When the 82nd Airborne first took the city in April of 2003 they were greeted with hostile stares, only the very poor from the industrial sector giving them anything resembling a smile. Falluja is a city that is almost entirely Sunni. Most of the senior brass in the Iraqi Army, as well as other prominent and wealthy Baathists, had opulent homes on the eastern bank of the Euphrates and south of Highway 10. The city emerged as the focal point of the insurgency from very early on, primarily because its more prominent residents had the wealth and connections to support resistance operations.

The first notable act of rebellion against the coalition was on Saddam's birthday (Apr. 28 2003) when a mob of angry Sunnis pushed their way into the mayor's compound and accused the 82nd ABN paratroopers who secured the city of spying on their women. The paratroopers sent them back out into the street, where they moved a few blocks down to a schoolhouse being held by more paratroopers. Firing their weapons into the air, the mob spooked the paratroopers into thinking they were being fired upon, and the return fire killed and wounded many of them. As far as the desecration of the contractors at the Brooklyn Bridge, it was a more or less random incident that wasn't in response to anything in particular. The contractors ignored warnings not to take Highway 10 through the city, presented themselves as an easy target, and paid the price for it.

Falluja has had a long history of being a rough, violent place since the early-20th century. It is the last chance stop before the gigantic desert of the southwest, and traders traveling to and from there were often warned to avoid the city if they didn't want to have to pay a toll. After the Baathists came to power in 1963, Saddam drew a prepondrance of his enforcers from the population of the city due to its friendly alignment with his party, as well as the generally thuggish nature for which they were known. Called "the city of 100 mosques", Falluja has 47 mosques in its limits and more than 50 in its surrounding neighborhoods. Most of them were preaching the more extreme Wahhabi and Salafi traditions from south of the border in Saudi.

From the very beginning, Falluja was a very hostile place for the coalition in part because of the general makeup and character of the city, and in part because of the high profile Baathists and Iraqi Army officers who lived there and held sway over much of the population.

Why should Iran, a signatory of the NPT who has not invaded any country in the last 1500 years, not be allowed to develop a nuclear program, when the US which has attacked over 25 countries and has a constant history of 200 years of overt and covert invasions, and has dropped 2 atom bombs on civilian populations is allowed tens of thousands of nuclear weapons?

In fact, even now, after the mess they have made of Iraq over imaginary WMDs, it is the US that wants to bomb Iran for possible nuclear weapons 10 years later.

Should the US be boycotted by the world for its insanity?

Iran shouldn't be allowed Nuclear Weapons because, time and time and again they have expressed there opinion on what should be done to N. America and our ally Israel ("death to America, Death to Israel"). It is unacceptable to allow this threat to have access to that kind of destruction. No doubt there would be suicide bombers or some other form of delivery sent by Iran or like mind foes trying to use them on us or Israel. Remember, Iran does not have control of there Weapons, or so they say. Continually we are being attacked with Iranian made technology in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Before we dropped the Nukes, we made it very clear that if they did not stop there hostile actions against us and give up at the War they started against us (Pearl Harbor), we were going to cause severe destruction. We even went as far to drop leaflets warning the people to evacuate. But they did not do either and they paid for the choice. The result of the dropping of the bombs resulted in the end to the war which saved many lives that would have been lost in the long run; the war would have lasted for quite some time. Yes, it would have been nice to see that not happen but if we did not do it, the war would have continued and Hitler could have had the opportunity to use Nuclear Weapons. They were developing them too. Einstein wasn't the only one who knew how to develop them.

You might fall in to the category of acceptable people to be removed of there Fifth Amendment (If you are even American), at least on you’re opinions of this matter any way.

Why special forces and not the CIA?...Along with the Presidential Findings, the CIA, at least to my knowledge, is not technically supposed to be in another country with out there consent. Even though they are known to be so, it is never admitted without the act of war being more than just a possibility. I don't have a problem with it; The CIA does its best to make sure the U.S. Gov. is aware of a coming attack, locate & identify possible threats, etc.


I'd also expect that special forces would be much better in terms of security as CIA seems to leak like a sieve.... You can say that again, jeez….



The costs of war with Iran would be huge... Yes, in all probability; Iran is just a bit more of a match for us than Iraq was. Considering there technology, terrain, and allies, along with the fact that Iranian soldiers are better trained and are less likely to run from battle. But the cost of not acting may even be more...

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking a few discrete weapon systems dating from the early-1990s are going to give the Iranian Navy or IRGC a force-wide fighting chance against a couple supercarrier strike groups with bad intentions. The disparity in combat power that existed around the time of Praying Mantis has only grown in the two decades since the Tanker War, and the US Navy is far better equipped to deal with a brown water threat now than it was then. Paul Van Riper made short work of a supercarrier strike group, using only the Iranian arms known at the time (before the improvements of their air force and anti-aircraft and anti-ship capabilites had been discovered, for example) in the Blue vs Red war games of 2002.

The Iranians may not have anyone of his talents. Then again they may.

And there are other sources of helpful info on US capabilities. If they have been communicating with the Serbs and others similar, they know how to shoot down stealth aircraft, and have better missiles, for example.

The first notable act of rebellion against the coalition was on Saddam's birthday (Apr. 28 2003) when a mob of angry Sunnis pushed their way into the mayor's compound and accused the 82nd ABN paratroopers who secured the city of spying on their women. The paratroopers sent them back out into the street, where they moved a few blocks down to a schoolhouse being held by more paratroopers. Firing their weapons into the air, the mob spooked the paratroopers into thinking they were being fired upon, and the return fire killed and wounded many of them. As far as the desecration of the contractors at the Brooklyn Bridge, it was a more or less random incident that wasn't in response to anything in particular. The contractors ignored warnings not to take Highway 10 through the city, presented themselves as an easy target, and paid the price for it. Does that account seem a bit odd to you - missing something?

I don't know about you, but I think Iran has gained quite a good experience in wasfare in the past 20 years of wars and sanctions. Actually sanctions make them go for their own innovations and quite a lot of news are out there about them developing middle-range missiles, guided bombs, special tanks, and such queer weapons which seem to be quite effective, and they also have arsenals of the most advanced Russian weapons, not FOAB yet though:D..
One shouldn't also forget that they have proved they are good strategists during the recent Israeli-Hezbollah war. No doubt the Hezbollah freedom fighters used the tactics given to them by the Iranians.

Iran shouldn't be allowed Nuclear Weapons because, time and time and again they have expressed there opinion on what should be done to N. America and our ally Israel ("death to America, Death to Israel"). It is unacceptable to allow this threat to have access to that kind of destruction. No doubt there would be suicide bombers or some other form of delivery sent by Iran or like mind foes trying to use them on us or Israel. Remember, Iran does not have control of there Weapons, or so they say. Continually we are being attacked with Iranian made technology in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Before we dropped the Nukes, we made it very clear that if they did not stop there hostile actions against us and give up at the War they started against us (Pearl Harbor), we were going to cause severe destruction. We even went as far to drop leaflets warning the people to evacuate. But they did not do either and they paid for the choice. The result of the dropping of the bombs resulted in the end to the war which saved many lives that would have been lost in the long run; the war would have lasted for quite some time. Yes, it would have been nice to see that not happen but if we did not do it, the war would have continued and Hitler could have had the opportunity to use Nuclear Weapons. They were developing them too. Einstein wasn't the only one who knew how to develop them.

You might fall in to the category of acceptable people to be removed of there Fifth Amendment (If you are even American), at least on you’re opinions of this matter any way.

What do you think of the US policy of attacking small defenceless nations on trumped up reasons?
And no, don't worry, I'm from the Third World, its obvious from my excellent command over English.
And you're American, which is obvious from your brainwashed view of the world (http://www.demonbaby.com/pics/americanworld.gif). .:D

Iran shouldn't be allowed Nuclear Weapons because, time and time and again they have expressed there opinion on what should be done to N. America and our ally Israel ("death to America, Death to Israel"). It is unacceptable to allow this threat to have access to that kind of destruction. No doubt there would be suicide bombers or some other form of delivery sent by Iran or like mind foes trying to use them on us or Israel. Remember, Iran does not have control of there Weapons, or so they say. Continually we are being attacked with Iranian made technology in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Before we dropped the Nukes, we made it very clear that if they did not stop there hostile actions against us and give up at the War they started against us (Pearl Harbor), we were going to cause severe destruction. We even went as far to drop leaflets warning the people to evacuate. But they did not do either and they paid for the choice. The result of the dropping of the bombs resulted in the end to the war which saved many lives that would have been lost in the long run; the war would have lasted for quite some time. Yes, it would have been nice to see that not happen but if we did not do it, the war would have continued and Hitler could have had the opportunity to use Nuclear Weapons. They were developing them too. Einstein wasn't the only one who knew how to develop them.

You might fall in to the category of acceptable people to be removed of there Fifth Amendment (If you are even American), at least on you’re opinions of this matter any way.

Come on! Please do not try to justify the killing of millions of civilians by nukes with childish arguments. That really sucks! Down there deep in your conscience you feel guilty for what your nation did and no excuse can vindicate such barbarism. And history says Japan was on the verge of surrendering even before the bobmings. That was just a show of power which cost numberless innocent lives. The U.S. terrorists (I couldn't find a better-fitting description!!) used a new plaything just to show to the world they could beat Hitler in brutality if they wanted to. Denying that barbarity is similar to denying holocaust if you want a comparison.

E3R: "Iran's military is only marginally better than it was in the 1980s. They are still plagued with aging equipment, poor logistic support, and systemic mismanagement"

You need to catch up. Russia and China have made multiple millions arming up Iran with front-line gadgets like Skval (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002291.html), Sunburn (http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1687&catid=263), and Onyx (http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Ship-Missiles/Yakhont_a001021001.aspx).

E3R: "Again, marginally better than the 1980s, and a decent coastal harrassing force."

Coastal "harassment", (cutting ships in two) and suspending petroleum shipping denies the US the prospect of neat punitive strikes. Iran's array of seabed and coastal batteries put everything that squeezes through the Strait of Hormuz -tankers, carriers, escorts- through a killzone. The implications of that situation are very serious. US forces in Iraq are similarly under the gun, and vastly outnumbered, should Iran decide to pull out all the stops.

"Which is all those weapons are going to be good for considering no naval air power, no AWACS, no satellite communications, no information sharing, etc. etc. (I could go on listing combat multipliers for a long time)"

Right across the Iraqi border, and all down the opposite shore of the Persian Gulf, lie vulnerable fat targets for Iranian retaliation against the USA. Saddam's crappy scuds were not stopped in most cases, and Iran's Sunburns are much deadlier. Saddam's forces weren't fanatical, but Iran's are, and could concievably mobilize millions of Shi'ite fighters in Iraq also. Iran is a much larger nation than Iraq, and well able to absorb punishment and keep fighting, and fighting dirty.

"Let's not delude ourselves into thinking a few discrete weapon systems dating from the early-1990s are going to give the Iranian Navy or IRGC a force-wide fighting chance against a couple supercarrier strike groups with bad intentions."

Let's not delude ourselves with illusions of invulnerability. Our navy hasn't taken a modern-weapons hit since the USS Stark. Now it's even uglier. In constricted waters, very bad things can happen very, very fast to tankers and carrier groups.

"The disparity in combat power that existed around the time of Praying Mantis has only grown in the two decades since the Tanker War, and the US Navy is far better equipped to deal with a brown water threat now than it was then."

There can be no certainty of that. War with Iran would not an outcome solely determined by superiority of military force. The US nuclear arsenal, and the entire history of conflict since WWII reveal the silliness of such an assumption. The deciding factor is how much economic and political blowback either side can absorb. Iran can absorb considerable military punishment, while the economic and strategic vulnerabilities of the United States could be assailed. The USA is already overextended, and is in no rational position to pick on a country that (unlike Saddam's Iraq) can and will hit us back.

otheadp: "Russian planes with Arab / Iranian fighter pilots vs. American made and Israeli modified planes with Israeli fighter pilots ... who do you think has the better chance?"

That's not the kind of contest attacks on Iran would provoke. Iran can severely disrupt gulf oil and the Iraq occupation without bothering with any Hollywood dogfights.

"...even if Russia would sell Syria or Iran its most advanced planes, which they won't, of course."

They just signed a deal for SU-30s.

"also, remember the Russian advanced anti aircraft systems they sold to Syria and Iran recently? guess who flew into Syria unharmed and almost undetected, other than Santa?"

Do you seriously think there will not be blowback?

"furthermore, there were reports from Lebanon that at the time of the Israeli overflights in Syria a whole bunch of electronic equipment stopped working -- which probably means some massive sophisticated jamming going on."

Do you seriously think this prevents blowback?

"Iran and Syria have assymetrical warfare going for them."

Obviously.

"thats the only thing they've got."

Iran's capabilities should not be trivialized.

"but Israel won't go in to occupy Syria. they know better than that. instead, they'll just bomb the shit out of Syria, destroy the big missile launchers, destroy the air force, and go back to the base."

And you seriously expect no response?

"and if Syria immitates Hizballah tactics by launching 1000s of rockets into Tel Aviv, then this time you'll see a more cruel Israeli army - they'll carpet bomb west Syria into oblivion so no launchers remain behind any bushes (and no bushes remain either)."

Total War is the only war that Israel and the USA can definitively prevail in militarily. Of course Israel and the USA can lay waste to the region. There can be no rational disputing of that. However, initiating Total War would utterly destroy the legitimacy of both states as players in the Mideast.

If we are having a serious discussion here (and not just engaging in ghoulish daydreaming about the effect of superior Israeli and US weapons) then we must consider the implications of provocation and escalation. Israel and the USA are conjoined, and would be even more so if they escalate in ways similar to your fantasies. Israel and the USA are vulnerable, not to a threat of superior weapons and military personnel, but to threats that involve the rest of reality beyond military power.

This all comes down to either recognizing (or not) that superior military force can't fix everything. There are situations where superior forces do not guarantee a beneficial outcome for the aggressor. If the USA attacks Iran, that provocation will compound and create a multiplicity of serious problems for the USA and her client Israel- some of which could become existential for Israel, and some of which could definitively end "the American Century". Economic and political realities cannot be beneficially denied in blind worship of militarism. Bluster over superior military power cannot remove this aspect of reality: Even if the USA and Israel were to unleash holocausts upon all who resist them, the sun would rise the next day, along with horrific implications all around.

It's a shame to have to bring a discussion over US threatening of Iran to such an extreme, but this is why the bluster about superior firepower in this standoff is childish. The USA has a fragile economy, entirely vulnerable to disruption in the Persian Gulf. Israel is utterly dependent on huge military handouts and strategic backup from the USA. This is a clear example of a predicament that does not have a military solution, however superior the forces of the USA and Israel may be. This reality remains, despite the titillation and self-assuredness military lust inspires in boy-soldier minds.

[b]Even if the USA and Israel were to unleash holocausts upon all who resist them, the sun would rise the next day, along with horrific implications all around.


This is a reality beyond the comprehension of the militarists.

This is a reality beyond the comprehension of the militarists.

Nope, Sam, you're wrong. Read history about the Americans against the Native Americans ....they just kept resisting, kept killing whites, kept up their terrorism against the whites, .....until the Americans wiped them out or put them onto fenced, guarded reservations. And if we have to do that to the modern terrorists/Muslims, we'll have to do it. We won't continue to put up with that terrorism. At some point, we'll lose patience with those backward, violent savages!

Baron Max

We won't continue to put up with that terrorism. At some point, we'll lose patience with those backward, violent savages!

Baron Max

Strange thats exactly what the ME people say about Americans.

Well I'm afraid what you think doesn't change fact.


Then present some facts. All I see here are our opinions.


And that is that Iran has formidable equipment.


Right. That's your opinion. Present some facts.


A country that is richer than Israel and can has the most powerful military of the Middle East can most defintely overpower Israeli military forces.


More opinion. But since we're engaging in them, here's mine: The "most powerful" military in the ME is obviously Israel's, based on their equipment and past performance.


Face it, without America Israel would be throwing stones.


Maybe. But why deal in hypotheticals? Israel has American equipment and American training. Iran and Syria do not.


Their Army is not only larger, but better than Israel's. Not only are they MUCH larger, they are also very organized and have close air-to-ground support, coupled with the Iranians' superb tracking systems and I see an easy victory.

Then you're a fool. Iran basically lost against Iraq, remember? And Iran hasn't done much to upgrade its military since then. A large, well-trained army in the middle of the desert is useless without armor and air support. In both arenas Israel outpaces Iran. For example, you keep talking about the Iranian air force. That air force is a joke compared to the aircraft in Israel's arsenal...

"sophisticated jamming going on."

Do you seriously think this prevents blowback?
no. but it renders any anti-air systems useless.


That's not the kind of contest attacks on Iran would provoke. Iran can severely disrupt gulf oil and the Iraq occupation without bothering with any Hollywood dogfights.
...
Do you seriously think there will not be blowback?


This is what I think Iran would do:

bombard US bases in the neighbourhood with missiles
increase their support for the insurgency in Iraq (some say they're already doing all they can in that department)
mine the gulf (especially the straits of Hormuz) and bombard any ships there from the coast
have Hizballah and Syria increase their assault on Israel (what likely happened in Syria with the IAF overflight was that Iran was making preparations for a US attack by placing its weapons in Syria to make it easier to target Israel from there, and Israel took that shiz out)
sending Iranian suicide bombers into the US, or activate sleeper cells which are already in the US
try to sabotage US assets on US soil and abroad including embassies
have guerilla style forces in Iran to harass any incoming US land forces


as for Dogfights, i agree. that most likely won't be happening. in fact, the US and IAF (if it comes to their participation) will enjoy full freedom in the air, except helicopters, which would be targeted by RPGs from the ground.

these are pretty much all the assymetrical options available to Iran. but they won't do all of them. because that would mean total war. and if total war is what happens, then like you said, the US will unleash hell. we already know what human beings are capable of, and if the situation gets really desparate you know that even civilized and enlightened America will repeat these things -- and worse


The USA has a fragile economy, entirely vulnerable to disruption in the Persian Gulf.
Given that that scenario (disruption of oil supplies) is so critical, and the high likelihood of it happening, i think US planners have the most plans to secure oil shipments

further, Iran disrupting oil supplies will affect the entire world and will increase the US coalition against Iran - both PR wise and military aid wise.


Israel and the USA are vulnerable, not to a threat of superior weapons and military personnel, but to threats that involve the rest of reality beyond military power.
other than lives, machinery and $, the economy and US prestige will be wounded. but that happens in every war. and after every war it recovers.

man, it scares me that i sound like such a war monger... but i believe that everything and anything should be done to prevent Iran from gaining a nuke. Iran is run by the most disgusting regime in the world, IMO. at least from my perspective. while NK is run by a nut, he does not pose [much] threat to the rest of the world. Hugo Chavez is a trash talking clown who's got a big mouth on him, but that's only for domestic consumption. he won't attack the US.

Iran is making so much trouble for the entire world, and the potential is even bigger. so stopping the mullahs is the #1 priority. no matter the cost.

i just hope that there is a velvet revolution in Iran soon because so all that horrible war stuff is not necessary

but i believe that everything and anything should be done to prevent Iran from gaining a nuke.

If Iran really wants or needs nukes, they'll just get em from Pakistan.

- N

Werd!

mine the gulf (especially the straits of Hormuz) and bombard any ships there from the coast

Do you really think they could achieve either? I tend to think the US and British would have their fleets in position to prevent this from happening. The Iranian Navy couldn't stand up to either of them...

Paul Van Riper made short work of a supercarrier strike group, using only the Iranian arms known at the time (before the improvements of their air force and anti-aircraft and anti-ship capabilites had been discovered, for example) in the Blue vs Red war games of 2002.
Stuff like that happens quite regularly during exercises, actually. I'll see if I can find some after action reviews from the last couple of RIMPACs for you to read if they aren't still classified. Consistently, the Blue team is always the lavishly equipped NATO force whose job it is to implement existing doctrine by operating to the letter of the current warfighting manuals, while Orange (or Red as in MC02) gets the usually way more fun job of using every less-elaborate resource at their disposal to find the chinks in Blue's armor. (Personally I think playing OPFOR is a riot because you are basically ordered to be as much of an asshole as possible.)

In other words, Blue is supposed to take a beating. Then afterward, we all go back to our conference rooms and spend hours watching uberboring Powerpoint presentations that show us what our possible weaknesses are and how we can fill them in. If Blue is decisively victorious then we don't learn what our weaknesses are, and as the saying goes, it is better to sweat in training than bleed in combat. This is why I caution people about interpreting the results of military exercises in the absence of professional training and direct experience with AAR boards. While MC02 did reveal a lot of weaknesses, that was its purpose (it also managed to piss off some of our civilian leadership, which was entertaining). The lessons learned thereafter were immediately applied to the rest of the fleet. Either way, it has very little bearing on what might happen in the real world because an exercise cannot possibly simulate the zillions of variables in the calculus of armed conflict, so they are usually scripted to peg on a few at a time.


Coastal "harassment", (cutting ships in two) and suspending petroleum shipping denies the US the prospect of neat punitive strikes. Iran's array of seabed and coastal batteries put everything that squeezes through the Strait of Hormuz -tankers, carriers, escorts- through a killzone. The implications of that situation are very serious. US forces in Iraq are similarly under the gun, and vastly outnumbered, should Iran decide to pull out all the stops.
Go read up on Operations Earnest Will, Prime Chance, and Nimble Archer. The Iranians tried your very cunning plan already and suffered catastrophic repercussions. Notice they've not tried a lot since. If Iran were to take action against the local waters or the SoH, including firing C-802s from Qeshm island, the Gulf Corporation States (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain) stand to lose a lot more than Iran is probably worth (pronounced: Jebel Ali) - a lot more than they did in the 1980s with Operation Earnest Will. If shipping were interdicted like that, the repercussions for Iran might not be swift the way we think of it, but it would be nonetheless decisive, and not only from the Western powers.

By any measure, maritime interdiction is a losing strategy for Iran. Even if they did get that stupid, it would be an unpredictable act of desperation before a rout. With as many oil platforms and the volume of shipping in and out of Iranian ports, Iran is as hostage to a navigable Gulf as everyone else. They have to have already lost everything before they can try a blockade. Any plan for Iran to aggresively distrupt shipping, either in the Gulf as a whole or the SoH in particular, will fail to do the one thing it desperately needs to: allow Iran to survive. And Iran is all about survival for the Islamic government. Interdiction would be the same failing as the Von Schlieffen Plan, minus the operational successes. Iran knows this better than we do.


Right across the Iraqi border, and all down the opposite shore of the Persian Gulf, lie vulnerable fat targets for Iranian retaliation against the USA. Saddam's crappy scuds were not stopped in most cases, and Iran's Sunburns are much deadlier. Saddam's forces weren't fanatical, but Iran's are, and could concievably mobilize millions of Shi'ite fighters in Iraq also. Iran is a much larger nation than Iraq, and well able to absorb punishment and keep fighting, and fighting dirty.
Your analysis is very poor. While it is true that a bigass volley of TBMs would be the absolute extent of a conventional attack by Iran, it would be an abject failure of a counterforce strike. All critical US installations in Iraq are under a Patriot and C-RAM umbrella, and any TBM or cruise missile that comes its way won't make it to earth in one piece. Anything that lands outside of the ADA hemispheres (read: on civilians) is going to harm Iran's agenda more than it helps it by further nationalizing Iraqis away from Iranian interests. TBM and cruise missile proliferation has been identified as one of the larger threats facing the US military since 1993 and it continues to be addressed accordingly. And Sunburn can target shipping only.

Also, the Iranian Shiite alliances with SCIRI, the Mahdi Army, etc. are mostly ones of convenience (for the Iraqis). Many Iraqi Shiites remember Iran shelling the shit out of Basra during the Iran-Iraq war. After the first Gulf War, Saddam was afraid that Iran would support the Shiite uprisings south of Basra (after we abandoned them) but it didn't happen. The Iraqis were too nationalist for that. Iran could certainly step up their support of various sectarian elements in Iraq (indeed, that is their best way to exert pressure on the US) but the Shiites won't simply take marching orders. Iraqi Shiites have their own agenda.


There can be no certainty of that. War with Iran would not an outcome solely determined by superiority of military force. The US nuclear arsenal, and the entire history of conflict since WWII reveal the silliness of such an assumption. The deciding factor is how much economic and political blowback either side can absorb. Iran can absorb considerable military punishment, while the economic and strategic vulnerabilities of the United States could be assailed. The USA is already overextended, and is in no rational position to pick on a country that (unlike Saddam's Iraq) can and will hit us back.
You're getting way above what I was talking about. I was discussing a hypothetical naval engagement between IRGC/IN and USN elements at the tactical level. While I agree with a lot of what you say in this paragraph, it isn't really relevant to what I am discussing, nor does it address any of it.

Come on! Please do not try to justify the killing of millions of civilians by nukes with childish arguments. That really sucks! Down there deep in your conscience you feel guilty for what your nation did and no excuse can vindicate such barbarism. And history says Japan was on the verge of surrendering even before the bobmings. That was just a show of power which cost numberless innocent lives. The U.S. terrorists (I couldn't find a better-fitting description!!) used a new plaything just to show to the world they could beat Hitler in brutality if they wanted to. .

Whose to say that we even knew what Japan was on the verge of at the time. And no I don't feel guilty for something I had no hand in. History also shows that the Bomb ended the war that would have led to more deaths in the long run than what the two Bombs created.


Denying that barbarity is similar to denying holocaust if you want a comparison.

No it wouldn't be similar to denying the holocaust. Hitler/Germany wanted to "purify" the world of all people who didn't fit into there idea of what the superior race was.

And I'm not denying that it was horrible to have that many people die, just as it is horrible to have people die in any war; your putting words into my mouth. But what I am saying is someone was going to use them. If we didn't, Germany might have. Germany wouldn't have stopped "purifying" the earth of what they thought as not worthy (from what Hitler led them to believe) until they in fact "purified" the earth.

What do you think of the US policy of attacking small defenceless nations on trumped up reasons?
And no, don't worry, I'm from the Third World, its obvious from my excellent command over English.
And you're American, which is obvious from your brainwashed view of the world (http://www.demonbaby.com/pics/americanworld.gif). .:D

Be a little more specific than "nations on trumped up reasons" and I might tell you what I think.

Why would I worry where you’re from?

Brain washed point of view on the world?… I could say the same for you.

Then present some facts. All I see here are our opinions.




Right. That's your opinion. Present some facts.




More opinion. But since we're engaging in them, here's mine: The "most powerful" military in the ME is obviously Israel's, based on their equipment and past performance.




Maybe. But why deal in hypotheticals? Israel has American equipment and American training. Iran and Syria do not.



Then you're a fool. Iran basically lost against Iraq, remember? And Iran hasn't done much to upgrade its military since then. A large, well-trained army in the middle of the desert is useless without armor and air support. In both arenas Israel outpaces Iran. For example, you keep talking about the Iranian air force. That air force is a joke compared to the aircraft in Israel's arsenal...

No, the most "powerful" military in the ME is Iran, since Israel has no Military, it's basically the US military.


That still means Israel deserves no glory for any of its actions, like some people suggest.

Nope, not in the Armor division. Iran has the huge advantage.

Iran uses F-14 “Tomcat” fighter jets sold to them by the US in the 70's.

Iran uses F-14 “Tomcat” fighter jets sold to them by the US in the 70's.

And the Shafaq

Besides, I've already stated two important things:

1) Iran has the superior land force easily

2) We have a weapon that guarantees victory. Can you guess what it is?

Iran uses F-14 “Tomcat” fighter jets sold to them by the US in the 70's.

They also use F-16's, and we are, if not already, starting to sell them F-22 raptors.

2) We have a weapon that guarantees victory. Can you guess what it is?

The vengeful hand of Allah?
Human sheilds?
Suicide goat-bombs?

The vengeful hand of Allah?
Human sheilds?
Suicide goat-bombs?

No, that honor goes to the Israelis under Yaveh. As well as lies, of course



Will, It's as simple as that. We have the will to win, Israel does not. We have the will to die if necessary. We will fight and fight and fight, until we win or die. Surrender is not an option. That will alone guarantees us the long-term victory.


As well as simple history. Empires, superpowers, do not last forever. The ME used to be the mightiest region, and one day she will be again.



Just look at George Washington. He fought the at that time mightiest nation of the World, Britain, and won. Why? Because of the will for freedom. The will to fight.

"We"? I thought you were Syrian.

I do agree, though. Attacking Iraq would be a huge mistake. Iranians would be fighting on their own soil, for their own lives, and would win in the end. Their army and weaponry is powerful, and the damage they could inflict on our allies is tremendous.

"We"? I thought you were Syrian.

I do agree, though. Attacking Iraq would be a huge mistake. Iranians would be fighting on their own soil, for their own lives, and would win in the end. Their army and weaponry is powerful, and the damage they could inflict on our allies is tremendous.

I am, but I'm talking about Arabs in general, except the suck-ups *ahem* Saudi:rolleyes:


Now, imagine a combined Israeli-Arab-Persian Coalition. That would be unstoppable.

Don't Iranians consider themselves Persians?

I believe they do...

Don't Iranians consider themselves Persians?

Actually, we call it Iran because they asked the western countries to do so, but a few years later they said that both Persia and Iran are acceptable names.

This is all counting angels on the head of a pin.

US military success is irrelevent against Iran. the Iranian people will unite behind their leader and the Muslim man on the street across the globe will unite behind the Iranians. Islamic whackos will gain control of the governments from Pakistan to Iraq...within a decade the American-backed thugs in Saudi Arabia may be gone and possiby those in Egypt. Even the most western of muslim states, Morocco and Algeria will have ramped up militancy. An American will not be able to safely leave the United States without waiting for a knife in the back.

One wonders if even George the moron Bush is so stupid as to not understand the consequences of an attack on Iran. And 'no' the British will not participate. No way. Any attack will make the USA even more despised than it already is. Our Canadian government would be tossed out of power in a nano-second if it supported an American attack. Brits would vomit first before praising any cowboy action by Bush.

An attack plays into the hands of Islamic extremists. The more destruction the Amercans do, the better for the extremists.

... Iranians would be fighting on their own soil, for their own lives, and would win in the end. Their army and weaponry is powerful, and the damage they could inflict on our allies is tremendous.

Ain't it a good thing that we didn't feel that way about Germany and Japan during World War II?

Baron Max

We felt pretty much the same way, but the way of life of our allies was threatened. I don't think the equation is the same if we invade a country that wasn't blitzkrieging across a continent.

I do agree, though. Attacking Iraq would be a huge mistake. Iranians would be fighting on their own soil, for their own lives, and would win in the end. Their army and weaponry is powerful, and the damage they could inflict on our allies is tremendous.

I think I understand what you mean by: "Iranians would be fighting on their own soil, for their own lives, and would win in the end." Let me see if I do...Iranians would be fighting on there own soil and for there own lives and would win in the end because they are essentially the same?; I hope you mean by the fact they are both Muslim, because Iran and Iraq came from totally different pasts and are not of the same origin. Iraq use to be Babylon and Iran use to be Persia, so they are Persians and Iraqis are essentially Babylonian.

But I don’t know if you meant through the fact they are both Muslim or through the false fact they are of the same heritage. So if you could explain to me so that way I know what you meant and I don’t end up assuming you are wrong?

We felt pretty much the same way, but the way of life of our allies was threatened. I don't think the equation is the same if we invade a country that wasn't blitzkrieging across a continent.

"I don't think the equation is the same if we invade a country that wasn't blitzkrieg across a continent."-

If you’re referring to Iraq you still can't, logically anyway, deny the fact that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant to his own people. He would constantly shell Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq where the large majority of Sunnis lived. Not only did he fire conventional shells upon his own people but he also shelled and released from modified attack helicopters chemical substances on to the population.

I agree with removing Hussein from power but whether we should have stayed and tried to install a democratically run Gov. that’s another story. But if we didn't stay to do that we couldn't just leave totally because the Sunnis would have been in threat for lives. Also, once we removed Saddam Hussein from power, were we just to leave a Country in despair with the destruction that was left from us having to go in and remove him our selves; seeing how Saddam Hussein wouldn’t remove him self from power even when we ask him to leave Iraq or else.

But if you’re talking about Iran that’s another story and before I give my opinion on that, I’d like to make sure you’re not talking Iran first; which you might be, seeing how this topic has Iran in it and you used the possibility of invading ("...if we invade...") in you post.

You know the old favourite... "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"

lol, I don't think that is what the lyrics say, but if your joking it's pretty funny. It's hard to portay sacrasim, even in a joke.

We felt pretty much the same way, but the way of life of our allies was threatened. I don't think the equation is the same if we invade a country that wasn't blitzkrieging across a continent.

We didn't enter WWII until Japan bombed us, and then we declared war on Japan, the Blitzkrieg in Europe was already over and Germany controlled the Continent, and was invading Russia, and we still didn't get involved Militarily, we supplied cash and carry weapons to the British, and they had to come and get them, we actually didn't go to war with Germany and Italy until after they declared war on the U.S. and our allies way of life was in threat from July, 1937, when Japan invaded China, and we didn't declare war, to Sep.1939, when Germany invaded Poland, and we didn't go to war, to 1940, Germany captured Denmark and Norway in the spring, and then in the early summer France and the Low Countries. The United Kingdom was then targeted; the Germans attempted to cut the island off from vitally needed supplies and obtain air superiority in order to make a seaborne invasion possible, and we didn't go to war, to June 1941, when the war expanded dramatically and Germany invaded the Soviet Union, bringing the Soviet Union into alliance with the United Kingdom. The German attack started strong, overrunning great tracts of Soviet territory, and we still didn't go to war, to December 1941, when the war expanded again as Japan, already into its fifth year of war with China, and we still hadn't gone to war to defend our allies, launched near simultaneous attacks against the United States and British assets in Southeast Asia; four days later, Germany and Italy, declared war on the United States, and we finally declared a State of War existed between us and Germany and Italy on, Dec. 11, 1941, followed by
Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania on June 5, 1942.

So tell me were you learned your history? and why you didn't do, as you so often have failed to do, and check the history, and sequence, of what really took place.

E3R: ""The disparity in combat power that existed around the time of Praying Mantis has only grown in the two decades since the Tanker War, and the US Navy is far better equipped to deal with a brown water threat now than it was then."

There can be no certainty of that. War with Iran would not heave an outcome solely determined by superiority of military force. The US nuclear arsenal, and the entire history of conflict since WWII reveal the silliness of such an assumption. The deciding factor is how much economic and political blowback either side can absorb. Iran can absorb considerable military punishment, while the economic and strategic vulnerabilities of the United States could be assailed. The USA is already overextended, and is in no rational position to pick on a country that (unlike Saddam's Iraq) can and will hit us back.

"You're getting way above what I was talking about."

You're not considering the big picture.

"I was discussing a hypothetical naval engagement between IRGC/IN and USN elements at the tactical level. While I agree with a lot of what you say in this paragraph, it isn't really relevant to what I am discussing, nor does it address any of it."

Tactics can't ignore strategics and be expected to achieve a desired outcome. If provoking Iran presently presents more problems for the USA than can be resolved militarily, then there very simply is no effective confrontational military tactic for the USA to apply in the present situation.

Iran will not make the first military move. But if provoked, Iran is strategically poised to severely disrupt the US economy, disrupt the occupation of Iraq, and foment a Shi'a-majority rebellion all along the Sunni-dominated, petroleum-prize, Western shores of the Gulf. Any tactics that ignore this reality are seriously flawed.

But that's precisely what I mean by winning. Perhaps not the "official" war, but in truth, we are stronger. In the end, we the Semites win.

You know the old favourite... "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"

Pathetic.