Discuss..

No, no, no, no, no, the UN is taking care of things there.  Everything will be fine.

+87

The UN has things totally under control.

I watched a blurb here on the AFN news some high up Pentagon official was commenting that we will for certain be fighting in a new and yet to be revealed theater in the short term.  I saw that John McCain also said military force in Iran will not be ruled out.  Seems .mil and .gov is gearing up for something in a little while..

I heard that they might be  sending Geraldo Rivera to report on this, now all will be fine

Could just be posturing, but......

Quoted: Could just be posturing, but......

I do not think that we or any of our allies can tolerate a nuclear Iran..  It puts us at a strategic disadvantage in the region.  we then are forced to back down as they will be a player in the nuke game.  And we won't light one off first.  The big brass are pretty sure it seems that Iran will threaten war or at the very least supply other terrorist nations with nukes in the name of this great islamic empire they want to create.  That we cannot allow so disarming them is priority before they go nuclear.  We all know as well as the brass know that this diplomacy is a nesseccary dance that has to be played and will not do anything.  Next sanctions.  They take time, which we do not have.  The CIA believes they are very close to a working weapon.  So what happens next?  Waste time talking while they move forward and get a working device and hope they back down?  Seems "illogical"!

If we must go to war, we have the advantage of Iran being located on a coast, making the entire land mass vulnerable to naval aircraft. Russian satellites( and therefore mercenary states) border to the north and to the northwest is Turkey, a US ally. The US can mount land offensives from both east and west.

The problem is the HUGE numbers of young men in Iran. The mean age of an Iranian is around 18. That means there are tens of millions of 14+ year old men who will fight, although whether they would fight for the Islamic Republic or against it is a more difficult question.

Since IRAN's  missles are in range of of BONN, PARIS, and ROME and NOT in range of NORTH AMERICA, Let's let the  FRENCH, GERMANS and ITAILIANs deal with this shit entil we know IRAN has the bomb for sure.  

Quoted: Since IRAN's  missles are in range of of BONN, PARIS, and ROME and NOT in range of NORTH AMERICA, Let's let the  FRENCH, GERMANS and ITAILIANs deal with this shit entil we know IRAN has the bomb for sure.

Ummmmmm. I'm not sure about that. Just what missiles are you talking about?

Quoted: If we must go to war, we have the advantage of Iran being located on a coast, making the entire land mass vulnerable to naval aircraft. Russian satellites( and therefore mercenary states) border to the north and to the northwest is Turkey, a US ally. The US can mount land offensives from both east and west. The problem is the HUGE numbers of young men in Iran. The mean age of an Iranian is around 18. That means there are tens of millions of 14+ year old men who will fight, although whether they would fight for the Islamic Republic or against it is a more difficult question.

I don't have any doubt that they would rally to fight against us.  They may not like their gov't but they hate us more.

The media talks about the Iranians eagerness to embrace western ideas but I think they will resent having it pushed upon them.  They still have decades of brainwashing from the religious fanatics to get over.

Quoted: The problem is the HUGE numbers of young men in Iran. The mean age of an Iranian is around 18. That means there are tens of millions of 14+ year old men who will fight,

That's not bad news. That's an OPPORTUNITY. With so many targets, even the supply clerks and nurses bringing up the rear can get some trigger time and pick some shiny badges. Every cloud has a silver lining.

I think it is inevitable.  I also think it is inevitable that we will use special weapons.  Anyone who was ever in the .nav knows what I'm talking about.

Quoted: Since IRAN's  missles are in range of of BONN, PARIS, and ROME and NOT in range of NORTH AMERICA, Let's let the  FRENCH, GERMANS and ITAILIANs deal with this shit entil we know IRAN has the bomb for sure.

google 'scud in a bucket'

rj

I think its just a matter of who and when

Any guess as to where Russia would stand on this?

Quoted: I hope so. The more we kill today means the less our sons will have to kill some other time.

Fixed it for you.  My son wants to join the Army when he grows up.  If he does, I'd like him to have a boring career, ya know?

I have no doubt it will come, the bad part is that it will expand to everywhere radical islamist's live. That will include all of Europe and the US. That is what Europe is terrified of, and with good reason. Their immigration policies in the 70s and 80s brought in millions who in turn brought in more.

It's time to bite the bullet, cause the fuse is already lit and we don't know the length of it.

Thats another reason we needed to drill Alaska 2 years ago. Damn moronic politicos are to stupid to look ahead and prepare for the inevitable.

And the reason I am so sure that low priced or surplus ammo will not be around for awhile. Countries, at least those who are watching the situation closely and don't absolutely need the money from the sale of it, will be keeping anything that is able to be used in their current weapons.

Quoted: Won't happen. Well not anytime soon, probably someday though and we probably should have tangled with them back during the time of the bombing of the Marine's barracks.

We should have tangled with them in 1979 when they took our people hostage.  If Carter had any balls, we would have.

Iran has chosen its path. They have faith they will die well and get their virgins. The US and Israel  have faith that we can arrange the meeting.

Here's the real reason we need to invade Iran. They've got HOT PERSIAN WOMEN! We need to liberate the women from the tyranny of ugly smelly clerics, bring 'em to the USA as war brides, and put their belly dancing skills to good use.

Lets roll

I think some air attacks are likely but it will be more for show and to set them back some.  It will not end their program and the rest of the world will stand by while they start building nukes.  This country lacks the will IMO.

To do so we would have to land a helluva lot of men and materials before beginning either an air or land assault and I am not at all convinced we currently have the bodies to do so.  Mil is too top heavy, too much bureacracy and desk jobs, not enough fighting men.

And we would have to deal with Syria also.  We could not leave them on our backside pulling their BS while trying to hold Iraq and Afghanistan down, as well as attacking Iran.  

We had also better be ready to fight some right here at home now that we have let millions of infidels into our country.  I would guarantee that even if no attacks occurred within the US that there would be plenty  of them who would attempt to work with our enemies in intel gathering, sabotage, etc.

No, I don't see us attacking Iran.

Getting Ready For A Nuclear Armed Iran...Is Nuclear War Now Unavoidable

This would be so easily rectumfied by dropping hard pornography, hard liquor, viagra, oxycontin, exploding pigs and cans of pork and beans from the sky all over Iran. Just turn them into infidels themselves. Drive the frikkin Mullahs absolutely Effen bezerk. They'll lose their flock. Problem solved.

Quoted: I think some air attacks are likely but it will be more for show and to set them back some.  It will not end their program and the rest of the world will stand by while they start building nukes.  This country lacks the will IMO. To do so we would have to land a helluva lot of men and materials before beginning either an air or land assault and I am not at all convinced we currently have the bodies to do so.  Mil is too top heavy, too much bureacracy and desk jobs, not enough fighting men. And we would have to deal with Syria also.  We could not leave them on our backside pulling their BS while trying to hold Iraq and Afghanistan down, as well as attacking Iran.   We had also better be ready to fight some right here at home now that we have let millions of infidels into our country.  I would guarantee that even if no attacks occurred within the US that there would be plenty  of them who would attempt to work with our enemies in intel gathering, sabotage, etc. No, I don't see us attacking Iran.

No we will attack Iran.  We will use mostly the troops already in Iraq and Afganistan right now as the security forces in both countries are probably already capable of keeping things from going chaotic and certainly will be in a year or so. Syrias military is too incompitent to conduct a conventional military intervention into Iraq.  The probability is very high that large numbers of Iranians will rise against the goverment there IF they see US troops on their soil.  They will not budge otherwise, and I cant blaim them when you remember what happened to the unsupported popular uprisings in Iraq at the end of the first Iraq war..

We had also better be ready to fight some right here at home now that we have let millions of infidels into our country.

I can just see it now, many draw downs on muslims everywhere in the u.s. if they ever start suicide bombings here. With all the people carrying and being supspicious, lots of itchy trigger fingers.....

Quoted: If we must go to war, we have the advantage of Iran being located on a coast, making the entire land mass vulnerable to naval aircraft.

Yeah but that cuts BOTH ways.

Iran has the Sunburn Anti-ship Missile.

The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

Quoted: Since IRAN's  missles are in range of of BONN, PARIS, and ROME and NOT in range of NORTH AMERICA, Let's let the  FRENCH, GERMANS and ITAILIANs deal with this shit entil we know IRAN has the bomb for sure.

What about if Iran gave/sold a nuke to some terrorist, who puts it in a boat and floats right into the New York Harbor (or any US harbor) , and detonates it? There are dozens of other senarios where Iran could provide a nuke that could be used against the USA.

I believe it will not only be war, but it'll include Israel and it'll be within the 1st half of this year.

Watch China very carefully....

HH

Quoted: Quoted: If we must go to war, we have the advantage of Iran being located on a coast, making the entire land mass vulnerable to naval aircraft. Yeah but that cuts BOTH ways. Iran has the Sunburn Anti-ship Missile. The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome nuclear Anti-Ship Missile

Sunburns are not invulnerable.

Even then, F-18 strikes against them will be one of the very first things to come from our carriers.

Quoted: I believe it will not only be war, but it'll include Israel and it'll be within the 1st half of this year. Watch China very carefully.... HH

Add Venezuela in there too.

Quoted: Since IRAN's  missles are in range of of BONN, PARIS, and ROME and NOT in range of NORTH AMERICA, Let's let the  FRENCH, GERMANS and ITAILIANs deal with this shit entil we know IRAN has the bomb for sure.

What makes you think the delivery system they choose will be a missle.
More than likely, it will be hidden in a SeaLand container coming into the Port of:
New York
Philidelphia
Baltimore
Charleston
Savannah
Jacksonville
Tampa
New Orleans
Houston
Los Angeles
Oakland
San Franciso
Portland
Seattle
Bellingham

Quoted: Quoted: Since IRAN's  missles are in range of of BONN, PARIS, and ROME and NOT in range of NORTH AMERICA, Let's let the  FRENCH, GERMANS and ITAILIANs deal with this shit entil we know IRAN has the bomb for sure.   What makes you think the delivery system they choose will be a missle. More than likely, it will be hidden in a SeaLand container coming into the Port of: New York Philidelphia Baltimore Charleston Savannah Jacksonville Tampa New Orleans Houston Los Angeles Oakland San Franciso Portland Seattle Bellingham

Now that would be downright racist of our enemies...

Hell yes let the UN do it this time.

Iran would not be Iraq.  No country building.  No rebuilding period.

1.  Assassinate all leaders; political, military, etc.
2.  Couple days of cruise missiles.
3.  Couple weeks of precision bombing.
4.  Special Ops land at Suspected nuke sites and level.
5.  Repeat as needed (See steps 1-4).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If we must go to war, we have the advantage of Iran being located on a coast, making the entire land mass vulnerable to naval aircraft. Yeah but that cuts BOTH ways. Iran has the Sunburn Anti-ship Missile. The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome nuclear Anti-Ship Missile Sunburns are not invulnerable. Even then, F-18 strikes against them will be one of the very first things to come from our carriers.

The Sunburn is a joke.  Since we have discovered the even Phalanx- which the US Navy publicly considered "aged" and "inadaquate" and which we absolutely had to replace with RAM and ESSM at great expense- is now proven capable of shooting down targets as small as a mortar bomb against a back clutter of city buildings with the installation of two Block 1B mounts in the Green Zone in Bagdad.  How does a missile, even a mach 2 one, trying to cross flat open ocean with NO cover going to escape?

Much less get past the Standard missiles to get within Phalanx range?  And many of our ships do now have RAM instead of Phalanx and a lucky few have BOTH.  Iran would need HUNDREDS of missiles to pose a threat- numbers only Russia and maybe China possess.

I think we need to start making a likeness between this 'great islamic empire' and the 'Aryan nation'.  They are the same.  A group of people who want to rule the world and make everyone in their image... and kill the rest.  

Islamofascism is very apropos nowadays.

Quoted: Quoted: I think some air attacks are likely but it will be more for show and to set them back some.  It will not end their program and the rest of the world will stand by while they start building nukes.  This country lacks the will IMO. To do so we would have to land a helluva lot of men and materials before beginning either an air or land assault and I am not at all convinced we currently have the bodies to do so.  Mil is too top heavy, too much bureacracy and desk jobs, not enough fighting men. And we would have to deal with Syria also.  We could not leave them on our backside pulling their BS while trying to hold Iraq and Afghanistan down, as well as attacking Iran.   We had also better be ready to fight some right here at home now that we have let millions of infidels into our country.  I would guarantee that even if no attacks occurred within the US that there would be plenty  of them who would attempt to work with our enemies in intel gathering, sabotage, etc. No, I don't see us attacking Iran. No we will attack Iran.  We will use mostly the troops already in Iraq and Afganistan right now as the security forces in both countries are probably already capable of keeping things from going chaotic and certainly will be in a year or so. Syrias military is too incompitent to conduct a conventional military intervention into Iraq.  The probability is very high that large numbers of Iranians will rise against the goverment there IF they see US troops on their soil.  They will not budge otherwise, and I cant blaim them when you remember what happened to the unsupported popular uprisings in Iraq at the end of the first Iraq war..

Holy shit, man, WTF are you smoking?
I don't often agree with you but you usually have cogent, intellignet posts. This one is way over the top. Or bottom as it may be.

Never understimate nationalism, the Iranians, even those who are not fans of their own gov't will fight against us to protect their won naiton. They will rally around the flag and the Koran just as most peoples would.
Syria?  Don't understimate them either.  They may not be tough enough to take us on but they can sure cause us some problems in our rear.

AS for Iraq, where were all the people welcoming us in as were expected. Some, but not all that many.  Are we doing a good thing? Yes, but it is a long way from being over even there.  

And anyone who thinks we have the necessary forces to take them on right now....There ain't no way. Drop another 1/2 million troops in just to keep from being overrun.  Air and armor cannot do it all.

Iran would not be Iraq. No country building. No rebuilding period.

which would be a big difference and 1 that's suited to u.s. desert warefare, but I do think they would have to have some armor and infantry.

The Iranian Oil Bourse is the WMD for the US Federal Reserve Note.

Quoted: Air and armor cannot do it all.

Uh, yes they can. We just have to give "authorization".

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think some air attacks are likely but it will be more for show and to set them back some.  It will not end their program and the rest of the world will stand by while they start building nukes.  This country lacks the will IMO. To do so we would have to land a helluva lot of men and materials before beginning either an air or land assault and I am not at all convinced we currently have the bodies to do so.  Mil is too top heavy, too much bureacracy and desk jobs, not enough fighting men. And we would have to deal with Syria also.  We could not leave them on our backside pulling their BS while trying to hold Iraq and Afghanistan down, as well as attacking Iran.   We had also better be ready to fight some right here at home now that we have let millions of infidels into our country.  I would guarantee that even if no attacks occurred within the US that there would be plenty  of them who would attempt to work with our enemies in intel gathering, sabotage, etc. No, I don't see us attacking Iran. No we will attack Iran.  We will use mostly the troops already in Iraq and Afganistan right now as the security forces in both countries are probably already capable of keeping things from going chaotic and certainly will be in a year or so. Syrias military is too incompitent to conduct a conventional military intervention into Iraq.  The probability is very high that large numbers of Iranians will rise against the goverment there IF they see US troops on their soil.  They will not budge otherwise, and I cant blaim them when you remember what happened to the unsupported popular uprisings in Iraq at the end of the first Iraq war.. Holy shit, man, WTF are you smoking? I don't often agree with you but you usually have cogent, intellignet posts. This one is way over the top. Or bottom as it may be. Never understimate nationalism, the Iranians, even those who are not fans of their own gov't will fight against us to protect their won naiton. They will rally around the flag and the Koran just as most peoples would. Syria?  Don't understimate them either.  They may not be tough enough to take us on but they can sure cause us some problems in our rear. AS for Iraq, where were all the people welcoming us in as were expected. Some, but not all that many.  Are we doing a good thing? Yes, but it is a long way from being over even there.   And anyone who thinks we have the necessary forces to take them on right now....There ain't no way. Drop another 1/2 million troops in just to keep from being overrun.  Air and armor cannot do it all.

Sorry but your wrong.  

Just for starters go here www.freerepublic.com/~doctorzin/

The only real threat is that Iran already has the bomb and will use it against the invading forces or their own rebelling population.

If war with Iran was imminant, then we would not be able to fight it without SUBSTANTIAL help from the UN.  The United States does not have enough available troops due ot Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is not as easy as it sounds just to pull large numbers of troops from Iraq.  The US would not do that unless there was some invasion on our soil.  If we pulled back or pull out of Iraq too soon for whatever reason, the Insurgents will not have a problem overwhelming the country.  Though maybe the answer is just to pull out and let that happen.

I am very divided on what we should do with our troops in Iraq.  Damnit I support them as much as anybody here, but how many more should die to rebuild Iraq?  Is there really such a terrorist threat there when there is Iran, N. Korea, etc to concentrate on?  Some say that if we pull out too soon, the deaths of the Soldiers/Marines/Airmen/Sailors were for nothing.  But how many more deaths will there be before it is "worth it"?

from:www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18051903%255E31477,00.html

Iran steps up nuclear action after UN vote

February 06, 2006

IRAN has escalated its nuclear showdown with the West by ending international inspections of its atomic sites and preparing to restart uranium enrichment.

The move came hours after the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, voted overwhelmingly to report Iran to the UN Security Council, expressing doubts that its nuclear program "is exclusively for peaceful purposes".

Iran responded by announcing it would resume "commercial-scale" enrichment of uranium, the fuel for power plants or bombs, suspended since 2004.

Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, described the vote -- carried by 27 to three, with five abstentions -- as a "historic mistake".

In response, German Chancellor Angela Merkel compared Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Adolf Hitler.

Ms Merkel issued a blunt warning to Mr Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

"A president who questions Israel's right to exist, a president who denies the Holocaust, cannot expect to receive any tolerance from Germany," she said.

Israel yesterday applauded the move against Iran.


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


from:news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-02/05/content_4139507.htm

Iran to pay "heavy price" for nuclear weapon ambition: Israel

www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-05 20:10:36

  JERUSALEM, Feb. 5 (Xinhuanet) -- Israeli acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Sunday that Iran would pay "a very heavy price" if the Islamic Republic defiantly resumes full-scale uranium enrichment to build nuclear weapons.

  "At the end of the day, it shows that Iran will pay a very heavy price if it continues with its plans to try and enrich its fuel in order to be able to use it as an option to make non-conventional weapons," said Olmert at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting.

  He also said that Israel had played an important role in what he described as an intensive and stormy diplomatic effort leading to Iran's referral to the UN Security Council.

  Olmert's warning came shortly after Iran announced that it had ended all voluntary cooperative measures with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), including snap checks of its nuclear sites and suspension of uranium enrichment.

  The IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog, decided on Monday to report Iran's nuclear program to the Security Council, which might lead to sanctions.

  Israel, believed to be the only nuclear power in the Mideast region, has accused Iran of secretly developing nuclear weapons under a civilian front, a charge categorically denied by Iran.

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


from:www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/05/AR2006020500345.html

U.S. Official: Iran Seems Intent on Nukes

The Associated Press
Sunday, February 5, 2006; 11:51 AM

WASHINGTON -- A top U.S. intelligence official said Sunday that Iran appears set to continue its nuclear program despite the threat of possible sanctions.

Gen. Michael Hayden, America's principal deputy director of national intelligence, told "Fox News Sunday" that "there may be the potential there to dissuade them, but right now they appear to be very, very determined" _ even after a decision to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for potential sanctions.

Hayden declined to predict how Iran might react to the possibility of sanctions, but, he said, the United States is "watching very carefully and preparing estimates" on Iran's potential reaction.

"Our overall intelligence community estimate is that Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons," he said. "That fact shapes our policy, and it appears to be shaping the policy of other nations as well."

On Sunday, Iran ended all voluntary cooperation with the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency on its nuclear facilities.

Iran repeatedly has stressed it will continue to honor its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but that it has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program.

When asked why he was confident in estimates of Iran's nuclear program in the wake of erroneous intelligence on Iraqi weapons, Hayden said officials are "being very, very clear now in our estimates _ where we have higher and lower confidence, where these are based on estimates, and where they're more based on hard, concrete evidence."

Quoted: If war with Iran was imminant, then we would not be able to fight it without SUBSTANTIAL help from the UN.  The United States does not have enough available troops due ot Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is not as easy as it sounds just to pull large numbers of troops from Iraq.  The US would not do that unless there was some invasion on our soil.  If we pulled back or pull out of Iraq too soon for whatever reason, the Insurgents will not have a problem overwhelming the country.  Though maybe the answer is just to pull out and let that happen. I am very divided on what we should do with our troops in Iraq.  Damnit I support them as much as anybody here, but how many more should die to rebuild Iraq?  Is there really such a terrorist threat there when there is Iran, N. Korea, etc to concentrate on?  Some say that if we pull out too soon, the deaths of the Soldiers/Marines/Airmen/Sailors were for nothing.  But how many more deaths will there be before it is "worth it"?

Yes we do have more than enough troops.  And even if we didn't, Europe is no help as they have been progressively disarming since the begining of the 1990s.  Except for England they dont have a meaningful number of GOOD combat troops and NO means of shipping them off the continent.

Since the US military would have to assume the logistic burden for them, bringing them along isnt worth the trouble.

It has not escaped notice that just two Special Forces Groups shut down 2/3rds or Iraq and then ran it for a month...

Quoted: Iran would need HUNDREDS of missiles to pose a threat- numbers only Russia and maybe China possess.

It gets better! With the fall of the USSR, the Russian arms companies actually sold us several supersonic cruise missiles (without warheads of course). Then we put our own stuff in them to test them out against our systems. Then the Russians found out how we improved them, and put the improvements in their new models to sell to the scumbags. But both sides know that the we've got the capability to nullify supersonic missile effectiveness down to "acceptable" levels even with the "American" improvements. The only hope Iran has is to launch all their missiles en masse. Since Iran doesn't  have a fleet of radar planes, most of their missiles will be launched at decoys that we sent out to fake out their launch crews.  They'll quickly run out of reloads, then we'll just waltz in and punk 'em.

Quoted: Quoted: Won't happen. Well not anytime soon, probably someday though and we probably should have tangled with them back during the time of the bombing of the Marine's barracks. We should have tangled with them in 1979 when they took our people hostage.  If Carter had any balls, we would have.

Carter tried.....Delta Force crashed and burned in the Iranian desert......read your history......as far as the Marine barracks......you can thank Reagan for that, after Hezbollah killed 242 Marines, Reagan invaded Grenada 2 weeks later...within 6 weeks, the US presence in Lebanon was gone.....so Reagan showed the terrorists that when you blow up our Marines, we'll invade Club Med....