Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Goodbye Iran (Page 1 of 2)

Previous Page
/ 2
Next Page
10/7/2005 1:03:39 PM EDT
www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Try=No&Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200510\FOR20051007a.html


Bush, Blair Warn Iran on Terrorism
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
October 07, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have both signaled a new level of impatience with Iran, accusing the Islamic regime of supporting terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere.

The hardening stance comes at a time of growing tension over Tehran's nuclear activities, as Iran and Western nations lobby for support ahead of an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in November that could refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council.

In the American president's case, the warning came in a speech Thursday, in which Bush also focused strongly, for the first time, on the ideology of Islamism and its drive to establish a "radical Islamic empire."

In a speech delivered at the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush lashed out at Iran and Syria, calling them allies of terrorists "that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments."

Accusing Iran and Syria of a long history of collaboration with terrorists, he warned that the U.S. "makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder.

"Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization," Bush said. "And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account."

Earlier Thursday, Blair said in London that sophisticated new explosive devices being used in attacks against British troops and elsewhere in Iraq may have originated from Iran or from the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group, Hizballah.

"What we know is that the devices are of a similar nature to those used by Hizballah and there are certain pieces of information that lead us back to Iran," he told a press joint conference with visiting Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

Blair warned Iran against interference in Iraq. He also hinted at suspicions of a link between the alleged Iranian activity and the nuclear dispute between Iran and the West.

"There is no justification for Iran or any other country interfering in Iraq," he said.

"Neither will we be subject to any intimidation in raising the necessary and right issues to do with the nuclear weapons obligations of Iran under the [International] Atomic Energy Agency treaty."

Britain has 8,000 military personnel in Iraq, mostly in the south, as part of the U.S.-led coalition.

Blair spoke a day after an unidentified senior British official briefed media on suspicions that Iran's Revolutionary Guard corps - the military organization created in 1979 to "defend" the Islamic revolution - was providing weapons to terrorists in Iraq to attack British troops.

The attacks were being carried out with armor-penetrating explosives controlled by infrared mechanisms, similar to devices used by Hizballah, he was quoted as saying.

"Iran's interference [in Iraq] might be a warning issues by Tehran in response to London's stand towards Iran's nuclear program," the official said.

The Iranian ambassador in London, Seyed Mohammed Hossein Adeli, issued a statement denying the accusation, while Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said in Tehran the claim was a "lie."

\s4 Return of the Revolutionary Guard

Iran has come under increasing pressure over its nuclear program, since the IAEA board of governors two weeks ago passed a critical resolution laying the groundwork for possible referral of Iran's case to the Security Council at the board's next meeting in November.

On Monday Ali Larijani, Iran's top security official and head of the nuclear negotiating team, was quoted by Iran's Sisayat-e Rouz newspaper as saying that if his country was pressured by the U.S., "Iran will use its full might to endanger America's interests."

The latest allegations of Iranian links to terror in Iraq come amid mounting concerns about the growing influence enjoyed by the Revolutionary Guard - also known as the Pasdaran, or by the acronym IRGC - since the rise to power of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The new president is himself a former senior officer in the IRGC, and in its Quds (Jerusalem) Force, a unit Iranian dissidents say oversees terrorist activities abroad.

Iran Focus, an anti-regime Iranian news service, lists 13 of Ahmadinejad's 21 cabinet members - including the ministers of foreign affairs, defense - as having backgrounds in the IRGC or affiliated units.

According to the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an exiled opposition group, key posts in Iran's supreme national security council are now also held by former Revolutionary Guards, including Larijani, who heads the powerful body.

On Sunday, a former commander-in-chief of the IRGC's Quds Force was named deputy defense minister.

"The newly appointed officials all have long records in the suppression of the Iranian people, involvement in the regime's nuclear and missile programs and export of terrorism," the Paris-based opposition group said.

Amid the increased focus on Syrian and Iranian links to violence in Iraq, Larijani held talks Wednesday with President Bashir Assad in Damascus, where a presidential statement said they had discussed Western pressure being applied on Syria and Iran.

The two spoke about the need for closer and broader cooperation between the two countries "and possible coordination on issues."

Hizballah, the group referred to by Blair and earlier by the unnamed British official, is a Lebanon-based Shiite group created by Iran.

In 1982, three years after fundamentalists deposed the Shah in Tehran, a 1,500-strong IGRC force was sent to Lebanon. There it oversaw the establishment of Hizballah, designed as a proxy force to fight against Israel and to spread the Islamic revolution in Lebanon.

It was and has been armed and sponsored by Iran, and backed by Syria.

Hizballah was the principal suspect in deadly bombings against the U.S Embassy and U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut, and an attack against French troops there.

At the time of the 1983 bombings, Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar, the man recently appointed as Ahmadinejad's new defense minister, headed the IGRC force in Lebanon.

Today Hizballah portrays itself as a legitimate political party, and it is widely viewed as such in the Islamic world.



Shok
10/7/2005 1:06:26 PM EDT
[#1]
Yup, it's pretty clear that Iran and the US/UK are gonna lock horns sooner or later...probably sooner.
10/7/2005 1:08:01 PM EDT
[#2]

Quoted:
Yup, it's pretty clear that Iran and the US/UK are gonna lock horns sooner or later...probably sooner.



I don't think so.  I don't think any U.S. President will go to war with Iran - we'll just stand by and let Israel take care of the situation.
10/7/2005 1:11:36 PM EDT
[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yup, it's pretty clear that Iran and the US/UK are gonna lock horns sooner or later...probably sooner.



I don't think so.  I don't think any U.S. President will go to war with Iran - we'll just stand by and let Israel take care of the situation.

Israel has it's own problems. And unlike the US, doesn't try on purpose to bite off more than it can chew.  Going to war with Iran would be bad JuJu.
10/7/2005 1:11:42 PM EDT
[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yup, it's pretty clear that Iran and the US/UK are gonna lock horns sooner or later...probably sooner.



I don't think so.  I don't think any U.S. President will go to war with Iran - we'll just stand by and let Israel take care of the situation.



How will Israel take care of it?  Their long range F-16's still dont have the range to get to Iran and back on 1 tank of gas.
10/7/2005 1:12:55 PM EDT
[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yup, it's pretty clear that Iran and the US/UK are gonna lock horns sooner or later...probably sooner.



I don't think so.  I don't think any U.S. President will go to war with Iran - we'll just stand by and let Israel take care of the situation.



IMO i think Israel would do a pretty good job at kickin irans ass.
10/7/2005 1:21:36 PM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yup, it's pretty clear that Iran and the US/UK are gonna lock horns sooner or later...probably sooner.



I don't think so.  I don't think any U.S. President will go to war with Iran - we'll just stand by and let Israel take care of the situation.



I think Israel's preemptive strike days are over except if there is an imminent, provable threat.  They can't afford to lose any more friends and they probably see that Bush will sell them out, too, if he has to.  They will never "take care" of Iran either.  They will do only what they must to be safe.
10/7/2005 1:23:20 PM EDT
[#7]
Folks, I am no big fan of israel at all, but to even think that iran is any more than a light snack for israel is ridiculous. The israeli war machine is first class, I know, we paid for the whole thing

Let israel police its own backyard by crushing those iranian swine and their nuclear ambitions.

Thats my opinion anyways.

Dram out

10/7/2005 1:24:09 PM EDT
[#8]

Quoted:
- we'll just stand by and let Israel take care of the situation.





Riiiiigghht!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Same way they took care of that guy offerring $25,000 per to the families of homicide bombers?

Wait - the US took care of him.



10/7/2005 1:25:10 PM EDT
[#9]

Quoted:
Folks, I am no big fan of israel at all, but to even think that iran is any more than a light snack for israel is ridiculous. The israeli war machine is first class, I know, we paid for the whole thing

Let israel police its own backyard by crushing those iranian swine and their nuclear ambitions.





Israel can't (or won't)

They can't even control within their own borders.



10/7/2005 1:28:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Unfortunately I don't think the President can muster the political support necessary to attack Iran, which is too bad.
10/7/2005 1:38:08 PM EDT
[#11]

Quoted:
www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Try=No&Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200510\FOR20051007a.html


Bush, Blair Warn Iran on Terrorism
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
October 07, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have both signaled a new level of impatience with Iran, accusing the Islamic regime of supporting terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere.

The hardening stance comes at a time of growing tension over Tehran's nuclear activities, as Iran and Western nations lobby for support ahead of an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in November that could refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council.

In the American president's case, the warning came in a speech Thursday, in which Bush also focused strongly, for the first time, on the ideology of Islamism and its drive to establish a "radical Islamic empire."

In a speech delivered at the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush lashed out at Iran and Syria, calling them allies of terrorists "that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments."

Accusing Iran and Syria of a long history of collaboration with terrorists, he warned that the U.S. "makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder.

"Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization," Bush said. "And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account."

Earlier Thursday, Blair said in London that sophisticated new explosive devices being used in attacks against British troops and elsewhere in Iraq may have originated from Iran or from the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group, Hizballah.

"What we know is that the devices are of a similar nature to those used by Hizballah and there are certain pieces of information that lead us back to Iran," he told a press joint conference with visiting Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

Blair warned Iran against interference in Iraq. He also hinted at suspicions of a link between the alleged Iranian activity and the nuclear dispute between Iran and the West.

"There is no justification for Iran or any other country interfering in Iraq," he said.

"Neither will we be subject to any intimidation in raising the necessary and right issues to do with the nuclear weapons obligations of Iran under the [International] Atomic Energy Agency treaty."

Britain has 8,000 military personnel in Iraq, mostly in the south, as part of the U.S.-led coalition.

Blair spoke a day after an unidentified senior British official briefed media on suspicions that Iran's Revolutionary Guard corps - the military organization created in 1979 to "defend" the Islamic revolution - was providing weapons to terrorists in Iraq to attack British troops.

The attacks were being carried out with armor-penetrating explosives controlled by infrared mechanisms, similar to devices used by Hizballah, he was quoted as saying.

"Iran's interference [in Iraq] might be a warning issues by Tehran in response to London's stand towards Iran's nuclear program," the official said.

The Iranian ambassador in London, Seyed Mohammed Hossein Adeli, issued a statement denying the accusation, while Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said in Tehran the claim was a "lie."

\s4 Return of the Revolutionary Guard

Iran has come under increasing pressure over its nuclear program, since the IAEA board of governors two weeks ago passed a critical resolution laying the groundwork for possible referral of Iran's case to the Security Council at the board's next meeting in November.

On Monday Ali Larijani, Iran's top security official and head of the nuclear negotiating team, was quoted by Iran's Sisayat-e Rouz newspaper as saying that if his country was pressured by the U.S., "Iran will use its full might to endanger America's interests."

The latest allegations of Iranian links to terror in Iraq come amid mounting concerns about the growing influence enjoyed by the Revolutionary Guard - also known as the Pasdaran, or by the acronym IRGC - since the rise to power of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The new president is himself a former senior officer in the IRGC, and in its Quds (Jerusalem) Force, a unit Iranian dissidents say oversees terrorist activities abroad.

Iran Focus, an anti-regime Iranian news service, lists 13 of Ahmadinejad's 21 cabinet members - including the ministers of foreign affairs, defense - as having backgrounds in the IRGC or affiliated units.

According to the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an exiled opposition group, key posts in Iran's supreme national security council are now also held by former Revolutionary Guards, including Larijani, who heads the powerful body.

On Sunday, a former commander-in-chief of the IRGC's Quds Force was named deputy defense minister.

"The newly appointed officials all have long records in the suppression of the Iranian people, involvement in the regime's nuclear and missile programs and export of terrorism," the Paris-based opposition group said.

Amid the increased focus on Syrian and Iranian links to violence in Iraq, Larijani held talks Wednesday with President Bashir Assad in Damascus, where a presidential statement said they had discussed Western pressure being applied on Syria and Iran.

The two spoke about the need for closer and broader cooperation between the two countries "and possible coordination on issues."

Hizballah, the group referred to by Blair and earlier by the unnamed British official, is a Lebanon-based Shiite group created by Iran.

In 1982, three years after fundamentalists deposed the Shah in Tehran, a 1,500-strong IGRC force was sent to Lebanon. There it oversaw the establishment of Hizballah, designed as a proxy force to fight against Israel and to spread the Islamic revolution in Lebanon.

It was and has been armed and sponsored by Iran, and backed by Syria.

Hizballah was the principal suspect in deadly bombings against the U.S Embassy and U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut, and an attack against French troops there.

At the time of the 1983 bombings, Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar, the man recently appointed as Ahmadinejad's new defense minister, headed the IGRC force in Lebanon.

Today Hizballah portrays itself as a legitimate political party, and it is widely viewed as such in the Islamic world.



Shok




Really?  No fucking shit to bad GWB will not do anything about it.  The Israelis hopefully have come to their senses and put a stop to this shit.  
10/7/2005 1:42:01 PM EDT
[#12]
You have to remember that the majority of Iranians are neutral to pro West in their beliefs, it's the ruling minority that is screwing it up.

Almost all analysts agree, attacking Iran will push those moderates over to the Anti-US camp, and then we have a mess on our hands.

Keep pushing for internal change thru official and unofficial channels for now, and finish Iraq/Afganistan in the meantime.....
10/7/2005 1:52:55 PM EDT
[#13]
It's a hard problem, obviously. I don't think the Israelis can generate a large enough and sustained enough air campaign to knock out the Iranian nuke program. Flying from Israel they'd probably have to tank twice, and I don't think they can protect their tankers in a sustained campaign.

If the Israelis attacked the Iranians would probably just go after the US anyway.

the Iranian response would probably be to use their allies in Iraq to destabilze that, plus a terrorism campaign.

We do not want to invade an occupy Iran, which would be much worse than Iraq. If forced to military action the best bet would probably be to try to decapitate the most loyal and capable Iranian forces, then encourage the population to overthrow the government.
10/7/2005 2:03:26 PM EDT
[#14]

Quoted:
You have to remember that the majority of Iranians are neutral to pro West in their beliefs, it's the ruling minority that is screwing it up.

Almost all analysts agree, attacking Iran will push those moderates over to the Anti-US camp, and then we have a mess on our hands.

Keep pushing for internal change thru official and unofficial channels for now, and finish Iraq/Afganistan in the meantime.....



If they are Muslims, I don't count them as neutral or pro-West. I don't think pandering to fence-sitters is the way to go when it comes to Iran gaining nuclear weapons.

It starts with tough rhetoric. This is a step towards resolution. We don't know now how it will be resolved. I'm confident that Bush will use force if necessary to prevent Iranian nukes regarless of his political capital. Better to shoot first and ask for permission later, rather than hand the Iranians the bomb and a peacenik.

A war doesn't have to go full scale. Isreal could knock out some military hardware and labs. Iraq sits between Iran and Isreal. That means we are blocking for Isreal. That would leave Iran to go on the offensive. Easy to get approval for defense.
10/7/2005 2:03:34 PM EDT
[#15]
We won't overtly attack Iran.  However, a significant "mishap" at one of their nuclear facilities may just happen.
10/7/2005 2:04:41 PM EDT
[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Folks, I am no big fan of israel at all, but to even think that iran is any more than a light snack for israel is ridiculous. The israeli war machine is first class, I know, we paid for the whole thing

Let israel police its own backyard by crushing those iranian swine and their nuclear ambitions.





Israel can't (or won't)

They can't even control within their own borders.






Si'



10/7/2005 2:38:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Please spare me the "Iran is invincible" shit. If Iran were handled properly, unlike we're doing in Iraq, it is doable. This means an adequate number of troops (500,000+) and a rules of engagement that actually represents the fact that you're at WAR! Fuck political correctness, fuck being nicey-nicey with the population (if and until they come around to our way of seeing things). Revive the Phoenix program. Be MUCH more hard-nosed than we are currently being. Be prepared to administer swift retribution, like at the end of WWII, for acts of insurgency. If a certain town is a haven for bad guys, level it. Do not ask the installed government's permission for shit. And, just as importantly, quite giving a damn what the rest of the world thinks.

Oh, where to get all those troops? "Hey you, standing there on the street corner scratching your nuts---I gotta haircut for you boy and a nice new suit. Put your feet on the yellow line, shut the fuck up, and dress right dress. Tell your mommy you're moving out for the next four years."

Of course with Democrat-Lite Bush, we'll never have the balls to do any of the above. Sad, 'cause even a "conservative" ain't conservative anymore. (Yes, I voted for him and would again---just that he needs to be a good deal tougher on our enemies)      
10/7/2005 2:41:03 PM EDT
[#18]
Amen.


Quoted:
Please spare me the "Iran is invincible" shit. If Iran were handled properly, unlike we're doing in Iraq, it is doable. This means an adequate number of troops (500,000+) and a rules of engagement that actually represents the fact that you're at WAR! Fuck political correctness, fuck being nicey-nicey with the population (if and until they come around to our way of seeing things). Revive the Phoenix program. Be MUCH more hard-nosed than we are currently being. Be prepared to administer swift retribution, like at the end of WWII, for acts of insurgency. If a certain town is a haven for bad guys, level it. Do not ask the installed government's permission for shit. And, just as importantly, quite giving a damn what the rest of the world thinks.

Oh, where to get all those troops? "Hey you, standing there on the street corner scratching your nuts---I gotta haircut for you boy and a nice new suit. Put your feet on the yellow line, shut the fuck up, and dress right dress. Tell your mommy you're moving out for the next four years."

Of course with Democrat-Lite Bush, we'll never have the balls to do any of the above. Sad, 'cause even a "conservative" ain't conservative anymore. (Yes, I voted for him and would again---just that he needs to be a good deal tougher on our enemies)      

10/7/2005 2:47:21 PM EDT
[#19]
[golf clap]   [/golf clap]
10/7/2005 2:48:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Not a lot of deep strategic or tactical thinking going on here.

Move along...nothing to see.......

10/7/2005 2:48:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Some of you scare me. Iran isn't a fucking joke. Iran is a modern war machine with crazy jihads running rampant. In no way could Israel just knock Iran down. Israel would find it's self in deep shit. As well as us the way we are stretched out.

Iran is the china of the middle east. They copy every thing and than mass produce it. Plus they have plenty of men to throw at any one.



Military     Iran  
Military branches:
Definition Field Listing
Islamic Republic of Iran Regular Forces (Artesh): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force (includes Air Defense)
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enqelab-e Eslami, IRGC): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force, Qods Force (special operations), and Basij Force (Popular Mobilization Army)
Law Enforcement Forces: (2004)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
Definition Field Listing
18 years of age for compulsory military service; 16 years of age for volunteers; soldiers as young as 9 were recruited extensively during the Iran-Iraq War; conscript service obligation - 18 months (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
Definition Field Listing
males age 18-49: 18,319,545 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
Definition Field Listing
males age 18-49: 15,665,725 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
Definition Field Listing
males: 862,056 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$4.3 billion (2003 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
3.3% (2003 est.)




Military     Israel  
Military branches:
Definition Field Listing
Israel Defense Forces (IDF): Ground Corps, Navy, Air and Space Force (includes Air Defense Forces); historically there have been no separate Israeli military services
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
Definition Field Listing
17 years of age for compulsory (Jews, Druzes) and voluntary (Christians, Muslims, Circassians) military service; both sexes are eligible for military service; conscript service obligation - 36 months for men, 21 months for women (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
Definition Field Listing
males age 17-49: 1,492,125
females age 17-49: 1,443,916 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
Definition Field Listing
males age 17-49: 1,255,902
females age 17-49: 1,212,394 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
Definition Field Listing
males: 53,760
females: 51,293 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$9.11 billion (FY03)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
8.7% (FY02)

10/7/2005 2:49:41 PM EDT
[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
- we'll just stand by and let Israel take care of the situation.





Riiiiigghht!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Same way they took care of that guy offerring $25,000 per to the families of homicide bombers?

Wait - the US took care of him.





Last time they tried to take care of things in Iraq, the United States came down pretty hard on them.
Beat a dog, they learn.
10/7/2005 2:51:26 PM EDT
[#23]
not to worry, the IAEA and el-baredi just got the nobel peace prize for handling the Iran and N. Korea nuke situation.  SO OBVIOUSLY the issue is taken care of and there is nothing to worry about.


10/7/2005 3:02:56 PM EDT
[#24]

Quoted:
Unfortunately I don't think the President can muster the political support necessary to attack Iran, which is too bad.



BINGO!
10/7/2005 3:03:18 PM EDT
[#25]

Quoted:
Some of you scare me. Iran isn't a fucking joke. Iran is a modern war machine with crazy jihads running rampant. In no way could Israel just knock Iran down. Israel would find it's self in deep shit. As well as us the way we are stretched out.

Iran is the china of the middle east. They copy every thing and than mass produce it. Plus they have plenty of men to throw at any one.



        Military           Iran        
Military branches:
       Definition Field Listing
Islamic Republic of Iran Regular Forces (Artesh): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force (includes Air Defense)
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enqelab-e Eslami, IRGC): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force, Qods Force (special operations), and Basij Force (Popular Mobilization Army)
Law Enforcement Forces: (2004)
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
       Definition Field Listing
18 years of age for compulsory military service; 16 years of age for volunteers; soldiers as young as 9 were recruited extensively during the Iran-Iraq War; conscript service obligation - 18 months (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
       Definition Field Listing
males age 18-49: 18,319,545 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
       Definition Field Listing
males age 18-49: 15,665,725 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
       Definition Field Listing
males: 862,056 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
       Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$4.3 billion (2003 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
       Definition Field Listing Rank Order
3.3% (2003 est.)




        Military           Israel      
Military branches:
       Definition Field Listing
Israel Defense Forces (IDF): Ground Corps, Navy, Air and Space Force (includes Air Defense Forces); historically there have been no separate Israeli military services
Military manpower - military age and obligation:
       Definition Field Listing
17 years of age for compulsory (Jews, Druzes) and voluntary (Christians, Muslims, Circassians) military service; both sexes are eligible for military service; conscript service obligation - 36 months for men, 21 months for women (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
       Definition Field Listing
males age 17-49: 1,492,125
females age 17-49: 1,443,916 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
       Definition Field Listing
males age 17-49: 1,255,902
females age 17-49: 1,212,394 (2005 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
       Definition Field Listing
males: 53,760
females: 51,293 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
       Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$9.11 billion (FY03)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
       Definition Field Listing Rank Order
8.7% (FY02)





I never said Iran was a joke. Far from it. But they certainly are NOT invincible if we DO IT PROPERLY. Be prepared for the wholesale slaughter of those "masses" that mean to do you harm if necessary. Of course we need many more boots than we currently have available.

The actual "taking down" of Iran would not be too much more difficult than Iraq, just larger in scale. The devil is in the occupation portion, as we are finding out in our politically correct venture in Iraq. We must learn from our mistakes. All out ass-kicking like our grandfathers did in the "Big One" and the subsequent we'll-tell-you-when-to-get-up occupation of HOSTILE countries. Period.  
10/7/2005 3:05:48 PM EDT
[#26]


Ahem.
10/7/2005 3:10:41 PM EDT
[#27]
... It needs to be done.

... Or your children will be forced to deal with their nuclear weapons.

... Man up, git'r done
10/7/2005 3:16:32 PM EDT
[#28]

Quoted:
Please spare me the "Iran is invincible" shit. If Iran were handled properly, unlike we're doing in Iraq, it is doable. This means an adequate number of troops (500,000+) and a rules of engagement that actually represents the fact that you're at WAR! Fuck political correctness, fuck being nicey-nicey with the population (if and until they come around to our way of seeing things). Revive the Phoenix program. Be MUCH more hard-nosed than we are currently being. Be prepared to administer swift retribution, like at the end of WWII, for acts of insurgency. If a certain town is a haven for bad guys, level it. Do not ask the installed government's permission for shit. And, just as importantly, quite giving a damn what the rest of the world thinks.

Oh, where to get all those troops? "Hey you, standing there on the street corner scratching your nuts---I gotta haircut for you boy and a nice new suit. Put your feet on the yellow line, shut the fuck up, and dress right dress. Tell your mommy you're moving out for the next four years."

Of course with Democrat-Lite Bush, we'll never have the balls to do any of the above. Sad, 'cause even a "conservative" ain't conservative anymore. (Yes, I voted for him and would again---just that he needs to be a good deal tougher on our enemies)      

Nice simple minded claptrap.

Your ignorance of logistics is nearly equal to your understanding of what's going on in the world.  In other words, you are a true armchair commando.

Go ask anyone in the military if they think bringing backa conscripted Army is a good idea.  Then come back and post what they said.
10/7/2005 3:17:05 PM EDT
[#29]

Quoted:
You have to remember that the majority of Iranians are neutral to pro West in their beliefs, it's the ruling minority that is screwing it up.

Almost all analysts agree, attacking Iran will push those moderates over to the Anti-US camp, and then we have a mess on our hands.

Keep pushing for internal change thru official and unofficial channels for now, and finish Iraq/Afganistan in the meantime.....



w00t!
+1
10/7/2005 3:25:25 PM EDT
[#30]

Quoted:
Yup, it's pretty clear that Iran and the US/UK are gonna lock horns sooner or later...probably sooner.



We are fighting Iran now, by proxy.
10/7/2005 3:30:17 PM EDT
[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Please spare me the "Iran is invincible" shit. If Iran were handled properly, unlike we're doing in Iraq, it is doable. This means an adequate number of troops (500,000+) and a rules of engagement that actually represents the fact that you're at WAR! Fuck political correctness, fuck being nicey-nicey with the population (if and until they come around to our way of seeing things). Revive the Phoenix program. Be MUCH more hard-nosed than we are currently being. Be prepared to administer swift retribution, like at the end of WWII, for acts of insurgency. If a certain town is a haven for bad guys, level it. Do not ask the installed government's permission for shit. And, just as importantly, quite giving a damn what the rest of the world thinks.

Oh, where to get all those troops? "Hey you, standing there on the street corner scratching your nuts---I gotta haircut for you boy and a nice new suit. Put your feet on the yellow line, shut the fuck up, and dress right dress. Tell your mommy you're moving out for the next four years."

Of course with Democrat-Lite Bush, we'll never have the balls to do any of the above. Sad, 'cause even a "conservative" ain't conservative anymore. (Yes, I voted for him and would again---just that he needs to be a good deal tougher on our enemies)      

Nice simple minded claptrap.

Your ignorance of logistics is nearly equal to your understanding of what's going on in the world.  In other words, you are a true armchair commando.

Go ask anyone in the military if they think bringing backa conscripted Army is a good idea.  Then come back and post what they said.



Okay you arrogant asswipe, how would YOU do it? Oh, that's right, you probably wouldn't---too many worldly considerations huh? Somebody might actually get killed.

While I haven't been in Iraq I HAVE been in the military. Uncle Sugar and I had a 7 year relationship. And you??? The arm of my chair is sticking out of your ass.

As far as logistics, your thick head may need to be reminded that we once fought a war on 2 different fronts spread across the globe---not just concentrated in the Middle East. And that was 60 YEARS AGO with a population just over half of what we have now. Certainly we could muster that monumental effort again if we had to, and then some.

Draft? Wouldn't be popular but that same monumental effort 60 years ago had one as the basis for it's "staffing" levels.    
10/7/2005 3:33:14 PM EDT
[#32]
We should do what we need to do to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities and let that be that. Invading Iran would be more trouble than it's worth.
10/7/2005 3:38:36 PM EDT
[#33]

Quoted:

I never said Iran was a joke. Far from it. But they certainly are NOT invincible if we DO IT PROPERLY. Be prepared for the wholesale slaughter of those "masses" that mean to do you harm if necessary. Of course we need many more boots than we currently have available.

The actual "taking down" of Iran would not be too much more difficult than Iraq, just larger in scale. The devil is in the occupation portion, as we are finding out in our politically correct venture in Iraq. We must learn from our mistakes. All out ass-kicking like our grandfathers did in the "Big One" and the subsequent we'll-tell-you-when-to-get-up occupation of HOSTILE countries. Period.  



No American President would authorize the slaughter of anyone, and if by some twist of fate one did he would never get away with it. Look at all the bleeding hearts that were so broken up over the way we have been treating terrorists in Guantanamo Bay and "Grab-an-Arab" prison. Well, they crowed for about a year and a half, and now they've gotten their way. The Senate just passed a law outlining what techniques can and can't be used on murderous terrorist scum. And you think someone would actually authorize brutal slaughters? You're nuts.
10/7/2005 3:41:06 PM EDT
[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Folks, I am no big fan of israel at all, but to even think that iran is any more than a light snack for israel is ridiculous. The israeli war machine is first class, I know, we paid for the whole thing

Let israel police its own backyard by crushing those iranian swine and their nuclear ambitions.





Israel can't (or won't)

They can't even control within their own borders.








Neither can we.
10/7/2005 3:46:01 PM EDT
[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I never said Iran was a joke. Far from it. But they certainly are NOT invincible if we DO IT PROPERLY. Be prepared for the wholesale slaughter of those "masses" that mean to do you harm if necessary. Of course we need many more boots than we currently have available.

The actual "taking down" of Iran would not be too much more difficult than Iraq, just larger in scale. The devil is in the occupation portion, as we are finding out in our politically correct venture in Iraq. We must learn from our mistakes. All out ass-kicking like our grandfathers did in the "Big One" and the subsequent we'll-tell-you-when-to-get-up occupation of HOSTILE countries. Period.  



No American President would authorize the slaughter of anyone, and if by some twist of fate one did he would never get away with it. Look at all the bleeding hearts that were so broken up over the way we have been treating terrorists in Guantanamo Bay and "Grab-an-Arab" prison. Well, they crowed for about a year and a half, and now they've gotten their way. The Senate just passed a law outlining what techniques can and can't be used on murderous terrorist scum. And you think someone would actually authorize brutal slaughters? You're nuts.




You misunderstood me. I wasn't advocating genocide or the wholesale slaughter of civilians. It was mentioned that Iran had fanatical masses to use against us. Yes, slaughter those fanatical masses. At that point I think they would technically be considered the ENEMY, right? I agree that it is unlikely to happen, as I mentioned in my first post on this subject. We have become too weak to stomach a WWII (and right after) mentality. But you can't deny that if we had to go into Iran that is exactly the mental steeling that would be required.
10/7/2005 3:53:42 PM EDT
[#36]
We are fighting Iran now, by proxy.

Agreed.  We are at war with Iran and Syria.  The battleground is in Iraq.
10/7/2005 4:08:24 PM EDT
[#37]

Quoted:
Some of you scare me. Iran isn't a fucking joke. Iran is a modern war machine with crazy jihads running rampant. In no way could Israel just knock Iran down. Israel would find it's self in deep shit. As well as us the way we are stretched out.

Iran is the china of the middle east. They copy every thing and than mass produce it. Plus they have plenty of men to throw at any one.


Iran is far from a "modern war machine". Their air force is no better than Iraq's was during the Gulf War, their tank force is far below par than anything in the region and their infantry spends more time praying than training. The only thing they have is what they've had since 1979: hundreds of thousands of Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guards) willing to throw themselves in human wave and terrorist attacks. Iraq would have crushed them solidly had it not been for the latter.

Their ballistic missiles are a concern but their accuracy is in question being that they are based on North Korean designs.
10/7/2005 4:14:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Iran is killing American soldiers on a field of battle.  We should declare war on them and CRUSH them.  We should not attack Iran without declaring war, real war, as in act of congress.

P.S. - Syria, you are next.
10/7/2005 4:21:58 PM EDT
[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yup, it's pretty clear that Iran and the US/UK are gonna lock horns sooner or later...probably sooner.



I don't think so.  I don't think any U.S. President will go to war with Iran - we'll just stand by and let Israel take care of the situation.



How will Israel take care of it?  Their long range F-16's still dont have the range to get to Iran and back on 1 tank of gas.



10/7/2005 4:22:59 PM EDT
[#40]

Quoted:
Please spare me the "Iran is invincible" shit. If Iran were handled properly, unlike we're doing in Iraq, it is doable. This means an adequate number of troops (500,000+) and a rules of engagement that actually represents the fact that you're at WAR! Fuck political correctness, fuck being nicey-nicey with the population (if and until they come around to our way of seeing things). Revive the Phoenix program. Be MUCH more hard-nosed than we are currently being. Be prepared to administer swift retribution, like at the end of WWII, for acts of insurgency. If a certain town is a haven for bad guys, level it. Do not ask the installed government's permission for shit. And, just as importantly, quite giving a damn what the rest of the world thinks.

   



500K would be roughly equivalent to what we have in Iraq now.  Iran is much larger, much more populated, and has terrain much less hospitable to US tactics and weapons systems.  Iran has not been hobbled by 12 years of damaging sanctions, is a far more cohesive nation than Iraq, and that doesn't begin to account for other nations coming in on their behalf.  

BTW - how long will it take to train and equip another million plus troops since keeping 200K in CENTCOM's AOR severely stressing the force.  Clue in fella, we are already embarked in one Sicilian campaign, a second is just not in the cards.
10/7/2005 4:31:19 PM EDT
[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Folks, I am no big fan of israel at all, but to even think that iran is any more than a light snack for israel is ridiculous. The israeli war machine is first class, I know, we paid for the whole thing

Let israel police its own backyard by crushing those iranian swine and their nuclear ambitions.





Israel can't (or won't)

They can't even control within their own borders.






haven't noticed if this has already been addressed, but....


NEITHER CAN WE!!!
10/7/2005 4:35:37 PM EDT
[#42]
If anyone could tell me the last time Israel fought a war with even half the logistical considerations that fighting Iran would have I'd be all ears.
10/7/2005 4:43:08 PM EDT
[#43]

Quoted:
If anyone could tell me the last time Israel fought a war with even half the logistical considerations that fighting Iran would have I'd be all ears.



Good point, they don't even share a common border.  IIRC, the parties would have to travel across two nations to engage each other.  For example, you'd have to cross either Jordan and Iraq or Syria and Turkey or Syria and Iraq.

Notice that pesky ole Iraq keeps popping up as a strategic place relative to fighting either or both Iran and Syria.  Hmm,....
10/7/2005 4:46:59 PM EDT
[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If anyone could tell me the last time Israel fought a war with even half the logistical considerations that fighting Iran would have I'd be all ears.



Good point, they don't even share a common border.  IIRC, the parties would have to travel across two nations to engage each other.  



The two countries are not capable of engaging each other in conventional combat.  Israel can launch air raids, but not a sustained campaign and perhaps small-scale special ops.  Iran is capable of attacking Israel only by proxy using terror attacks ETA - and possibly IRBMs, but that would be a sure invitation for something very nasty from the Israeli desert.
10/7/2005 4:48:30 PM EDT
[#45]
For example, you'd have to cross either Jordan and Iraq or Syria and Turkey or Syria and Iraq.

Notice that pesky ole Iraq keeps popping up as a strategic place relative to fighting either or both Iran and Syria. Hmm,....
10/7/2005 5:18:05 PM EDT
[#46]
The U.S. needs to take off the gloves, screw P.C., and do some black ops. Assination of the key leaders/ influence to people who already want freedom to help destroy Iran from the inside.
10/7/2005 5:45:39 PM EDT
[#47]
Israeli F-16's sure as hell do have the range. Here's one with external tanks and conformal tanks. It could make it easily.

10/7/2005 5:55:45 PM EDT
[#48]
.
10/7/2005 6:10:13 PM EDT
[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Folks, I am no big fan of israel at all, but to even think that iran is any more than a light snack for israel is ridiculous. The israeli war machine is first class, I know, we paid for the whole thing

Let israel police its own backyard by crushing those iranian swine and their nuclear ambitions.





Israel can't (or won't)

They can't even control within their own borders.








Neither can we.



We can. Our pols just don't have the spine. The citizenry does, if they'd let us. We could solve our problem within a single day.


10/7/2005 6:13:38 PM EDT
[#50]

Quoted:
Israeli F-16's sure as hell do have the range. Here's one with external tanks and conformal tanks. It could make it easily.

www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-16i/f-16I_c2.jpg

Thats also a trainer.  Not something you'd really want to take into combat.
Previous Page
/ 2
Next Page

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Goodbye Iran (Page 1 of 2)