T will rush long A next round plant quick and camp in the pit with an AWP?
sorry....
sorry....
The United States does not have the capacity to do anything more than sorties. If there was a unilateral invasion expect a revolution of inconceivable proportions in the Untied States..lol. Btw the Russians are now putting more pressure on Iran. I'd be concerned now if I were in an Iranian position.
Questions: Didn't we just engage in diplomatic talks with Iran? When was the last time that happened? 1979ish?
Questions: Didn't we just engage in diplomatic talks with Iran? When was the last time that happened? 1979ish?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The Case for Bombing Iran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well written and sadly accurate.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federa.../?id=110010139
Long, but thought provoking.
A snippet ...
The Case for Bombing Iran
I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.
What follows from this way of looking at the last five years is that the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a protracted global struggle. The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department's latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism's weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.
See link above for entire article ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well written and sadly accurate.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federa.../?id=110010139
Long, but thought provoking.
A snippet ...
The Case for Bombing Iran
I hope and pray that President Bush will do it.
BY NORMAN PODHORETZ
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe that what Sept 11, 2001, did was to plunge us headlong into nothing less than another world war. I call this new war World War IV, because I also believe that what is generally known as the Cold War was actually World War III, and that this one bears a closer resemblance to that great conflict than it does to World War II. Like the Cold War, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.
What follows from this way of looking at the last five years is that the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a protracted global struggle. The same thing is true of Iran. As the currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State Department's latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of the terrorism that is Islamofascism's weapon of choice, Iran too is a front in World War IV. Moreover, its effort to build a nuclear arsenal makes it the potentially most dangerous one of all.
See link above for entire article ...
We must also look at a more global perspective of this. Tensions with Russia are high already, a large scale invasion of Iran would be harshly opposed by Russia, and if it happened it could start a new era of the cold war. China and Russia are not going to let the US keep mounting force and influence in their backyard. And Iran has been is a traditional Russian backyard.
On the other hand, the US might just use air-strikes or a limited invasion justo to destroy Iran nuclear capability. There isn't much Russia or China can do in that case, they don't have the power to stop that.
On the other hand, the US might just use air-strikes or a limited invasion justo to destroy Iran nuclear capability. There isn't much Russia or China can do in that case, they don't have the power to stop that.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Huh? That is completely irrelevant.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Like Iraq?Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
There wouldn't need to be an invasion or occupation. Just a week of bombing to take out their nuclear facilities and any mechanized military or airforce they have left. It would probably be over before we realized it started.
For example,
You could say: "The US wont use nukes in Iraq"
Then I could say: "Like in World War 2?"
...and it would be just as idiotic and irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant. People were saying exactly the same about Iraq and how it'd be a piece of piss to just go in there and take control. Now they look stupid, and if you think Iran is going to be a walkover you're frankly stupid too.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Huh? That is completely irrelevant.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Like Iraq?Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
There wouldn't need to be an invasion or occupation. Just a week of bombing to take out their nuclear facilities and any mechanized military or airforce they have left. It would probably be over before we realized it started.
For example,
You could say: "The US wont use nukes in Iraq"
Then I could say: "Like in World War 2?"
...and it would be just as idiotic and irrelevant.
Berster, why do you think this is so different to Iraq? The common root of the problem is the insurgency and even if the US did overcome the Iranian army and Rev. Guard (which I'll admit is quite likely) the insurgents would wreak the same havoc as the do in Iraq.
The point of any attack would be to eliminate their nuclear capability. I just see the result as either a seriously pissed off country who's just had most of their infrastructure tactically removed or an occupied one with insurgents running riot. Either way this is going to end in tears.
ok, im going to talk as if this were to happen in the next year
price of oil would obviously go up
the US Military would be stretched too thin if we're still in Iraq
possible draft may occur, *see last point*
Russia and china would possibly side with iran...bad thing for the US.
basically...if we *US* does it...we're screwed...and so am i...
i took the ASVAB...*US military test* got like...a 93 a few years back*....draft starts...im sure they'll call me..
price of oil would obviously go up
the US Military would be stretched too thin if we're still in Iraq
possible draft may occur, *see last point*
Russia and china would possibly side with iran...bad thing for the US.
basically...if we *US* does it...we're screwed...and so am i...
i took the ASVAB...*US military test* got like...a 93 a few years back*....draft starts...im sure they'll call me..
Last edited by Schwarzelungen (2007-06-02 02:19:17)
We defeated Iraq's military in record time. What is going on now is an occupation and nation building. Neither of which would be applicable to Iran.RicardoBlanco wrote:
It's not irrelevant. People were saying exactly the same about Iraq and how it'd be a piece of piss to just go in there and take control. Now they look stupid, and if you think Iran is going to be a walkover you're frankly stupid too.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Huh? That is completely irrelevant.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Like Iraq?
For example,
You could say: "The US wont use nukes in Iraq"
Then I could say: "Like in World War 2?"
...and it would be just as idiotic and irrelevant.
Berster, why do you think this is so different to Iraq? The common root of the problem is the insurgency and even if the US did overcome the Iranian army and Rev. Guard (which I'll admit is quite likely) the insurgents would wreak the same havoc as the do in Iraq.
The point of any attack would be to eliminate their nuclear capability. I just see the result as either a seriously pissed off country who's just had most of their infrastructure tactically removed or an occupied one with insurgents running riot. Either way this is going to end in tears.
Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-06-02 06:41:04)
Exactly. Iran's military could be crushed and their nuclear facilities destoyed. It is the hanging around in Iraq that has made it such a military failiure, the assault was very successful. The occupation isn't. In Iran there would be no occupation, so no military failiure. It's really obvious and simple and the situation is obviously incomparable to Iraq.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
We defeated Iraq's military in record time. What is going on now is an occupation and nation building. Neither of which would be applicable to Iran.RicardoBlanco wrote:
It's not irrelevant. People were saying exactly the same about Iraq and how it'd be a piece of piss to just go in there and take control. Now they look stupid, and if you think Iran is going to be a walkover you're frankly stupid too.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Huh? That is completely irrelevant.
For example,
You could say: "The US wont use nukes in Iraq"
Then I could say: "Like in World War 2?"
...and it would be just as idiotic and irrelevant.
Berster, why do you think this is so different to Iraq? The common root of the problem is the insurgency and even if the US did overcome the Iranian army and Rev. Guard (which I'll admit is quite likely) the insurgents would wreak the same havoc as the do in Iraq.
The point of any attack would be to eliminate their nuclear capability. I just see the result as either a seriously pissed off country who's just had most of their infrastructure tactically removed or an occupied one with insurgents running riot. Either way this is going to end in tears.
Of course any attack on Iran would be expensive, expense the US taxpayer (or far more likely, the national debt) can ill afford at the moment. Political backlash, rising oil prices and increased instability in the middle east would be some of the negative reprecussions of a US attack on Iran. I really don't think it would be worthwhile, nor do I think the US can afford to do it right now.
Don't believe everything you read in this propaganda ramp up to military action shite. The women of Iran are not as oppressed as you would be led to beleive. They can wear what they like, be doctors or whatever and have plenty of rights. Did you that know allot of Jewish ppl live normal lives there too?rawls2 wrote:
How is that any different then what is happening now or what has been happening for the all the previous years?JahManRed wrote:
Years of bloodshed will ensue and a hardliner/s will take power and set the development of Iran back 100 years. Women will be oppressed and Sharia(sp) and all the brutality that goes with it, will rule the country.
Maybe your confusing Iran with Afghanistan? After the brave intervention on the women of Afghanistan's behalf, made by our exalted leaders, are being treated the same way as before the invasion. Just like the WMD justification, protecting the woman of Afghanistan was just a pretext for invasion. The coalition en stowed a puppet government made up of warlords and North Alliance fighters who are equally as brutal to woman. Only this time it continues with the west overseeing it all.
http://www.rawa.org/events/dec10-06_e.htmRevolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan wrote:
Northern Alliance criminals backed by the US have their own local and barbaric governments. Just the increasing amount of women who commit suicides by burning themselves can be the best example of a human rights violation in Afghanistan. According to UNICEF, 65% of 50,000 widows in Kabul think that committing suicide is the only option they have.
Northern Alliance crooks raped an 11 year old girl, Sanuber, and traded her with a dog.
In Badakhshan a young woman was gang-raped by 13 Jehadies in front of her children, and one of the rapists urinated in the mouth of her children who were continuously crying.
In Paghman, a suburb of Kabul, a criminal leader Rasol Sayyaf, who was the mentor and godfather of Khalid Shikh Mohammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, plunders our peoples' territory and tortures his opposition at his private prison. Despite many protest rallies of unfortunate people of Paghman in front of the Parliament House no one heard their painful voices, and the so-called police forces headed by infamous criminal warlords like Zahir Aghbar and Amanullah Guzar attacked the protesters and killed two of them. These are all just some examples of thousands of crimes that are being carried out by fundamentalists of the Northern Alliance, evil men who have high positions in executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of the US-imposed government, and some unprincipled intellectuals are dancing to their tune.
Ralph Peters said it spot on. "The terrorists have done a better job. We sent them reeling in Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq stunned them, but when we reached Baghdad we turned out to be the dog that caught the fire truck. Civilian ideologues insisted our troops wouldn't be needed long, if at all, and forbade our military from running a no-nonsense occupation with sufficient resources to impose and maintain order.
We gave the terrorists and insurgents time to regain their balance. And they did.
Oh, they went through trial-and-error phases, including ill-judged mass confrontations with U.S. firepower. But they ultimately proved more adaptable than we've been: We restrict ourselves to supposedly humane theories of counterinsurgency warfare that have failed us for 60 years; our enemies simply do whatever works.
The terrorists' immediate goal is to get us out of Iraq. Their actions against us at every level of warfare contribute to that purpose:
* At the tactical level, they concentrate on killing and wounding our soldiers and on restricting our movements. Their weapons, such as roadside bombs, contribute to both objectives, while suicide bombings against civilians make the streets we can't drive ungovernable.
* At the operational level - the hinge between tactics and strategy - they exploit the media's appetite for sensational images and anti-Americanism to get out a message that amplifies their power. Their tactics directly support this operational effort.
* At the strategic level, they leap over our forces to influence our population and, through them, our government. The operational-level focus on the media directly supports the strategy.
The terrorists know where they want to go and they have a plan to get there. We don't. No one in Washington offers a detailed, persuasive answer to the Iraq question.
Bring the troops home! OK, then what? No one will tell you. Give the surge time! All for it. But what is the specific end-state we hope to reach, and are our means sufficient?
We're stuck in a terrible marriage in Iraq - and if we leave, mom's going to kill the kids. So we crack open another bottle of sound bites to comfort ourselves. ".
Meanwhile, it's disheartening to see a sound tactical approach to security in Baghdad at last and Sunni tribes turning against al Qaeda in Anbar province - but an enduring strategic vacuum in Washington
We gave the terrorists and insurgents time to regain their balance. And they did.
Oh, they went through trial-and-error phases, including ill-judged mass confrontations with U.S. firepower. But they ultimately proved more adaptable than we've been: We restrict ourselves to supposedly humane theories of counterinsurgency warfare that have failed us for 60 years; our enemies simply do whatever works.
The terrorists' immediate goal is to get us out of Iraq. Their actions against us at every level of warfare contribute to that purpose:
* At the tactical level, they concentrate on killing and wounding our soldiers and on restricting our movements. Their weapons, such as roadside bombs, contribute to both objectives, while suicide bombings against civilians make the streets we can't drive ungovernable.
* At the operational level - the hinge between tactics and strategy - they exploit the media's appetite for sensational images and anti-Americanism to get out a message that amplifies their power. Their tactics directly support this operational effort.
* At the strategic level, they leap over our forces to influence our population and, through them, our government. The operational-level focus on the media directly supports the strategy.
The terrorists know where they want to go and they have a plan to get there. We don't. No one in Washington offers a detailed, persuasive answer to the Iraq question.
Bring the troops home! OK, then what? No one will tell you. Give the surge time! All for it. But what is the specific end-state we hope to reach, and are our means sufficient?
We're stuck in a terrible marriage in Iraq - and if we leave, mom's going to kill the kids. So we crack open another bottle of sound bites to comfort ourselves. ".
Meanwhile, it's disheartening to see a sound tactical approach to security in Baghdad at last and Sunni tribes turning against al Qaeda in Anbar province - but an enduring strategic vacuum in Washington
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Draft. Bloody war.
Even though some may find this remark completely wrong but I couldn't help laughing at it but I don't want another war to happen we already live in a dictatorship like democracy anyway.JahManRed wrote:
China & Russia form an alliance effectively kick starting the cold war again with East Vs West with the middle east in middle and as the prize.
It was bad enough with Blair and bush thank god they don't have long left in office because then hopefully the next in line will see sense withdraw all troops and just leave them to get on with it since the the middle east doesn't belong to either apart from the commonwealth.
Democracy definition one of them anyways
the control of an organization by its members, who have a right to participate in decision-making processes
Where in that come the people who have elected the party that's right they get no say in anything.
some of those definitions are bent to suite the party which has being elected and people often don't have a part in passing a new law, tax let alone whether the country should go to war, so i think the government should revise all of there policies before we start invading another country for some petty reason. (Such as the imaginary WMD's which never existed in the first place well apart from Scuds but they can be dealt with.)
I highly doubt the war in Iraq was against terrorism if anything (well this is what I think) It was a war or maybe just a quest or conspiracy (for you conspiracy lovers out there) for oil for the US no offence Americans its the government and not people who decided to go to war and if there where looking for the osama why haven't they found him yet they should have done since they have being there for over 4 years.
Last edited by wensleydale8 (2007-06-02 13:58:09)
Dear God please let my karma one day reach 100, whether it be tomorrow or 1000 years in the future i want it to happen.
Agreed....ghettoperson wrote:
Well, I would say in short:
- Price of oil would go up.
- ME would get even more pissed off = more terrorists
- Iraq would go even further down the shitter
- Attacks on US troops would increase, most likely with more success due to them being stretched too thin. (assuming the US defeats the Iranians)
- Both Russia and China would be pretty pissed, seeing as they both do business with Iran
- Defence contractors would get richer
- Average US taxpayer gets poorer
- US gets further in debt
I may add to this later.
Oil will skyrocket
Terrorist activity will increase ten-fold
Sound and blitzkreig like conventional victory for the US
MAJOR occupational plan (fucking stupid imho but it will happen)
Russia will be even more pissed
China wont give a fuck as long as we are a good trading partner"
Pakistan will get super pissed
Draft in US
Draft riots in US
more relations with mexico for oil(1 of 3 options)
Invade venezuala for oil (2 of 3 options)
Realse the hydrogen fuel for all the good money GWB put into the resarch (3 of 3 options)
Britian or any of NATO wont help
War with Syria
Nukes actually found
Terrorist activity will increase ten-fold
Sound and blitzkreig like conventional victory for the US
MAJOR occupational plan (fucking stupid imho but it will happen)
Russia will be even more pissed
China wont give a fuck as long as we are a good trading partner"
Pakistan will get super pissed
Draft in US
Draft riots in US
more relations with mexico for oil(1 of 3 options)
Invade venezuala for oil (2 of 3 options)
Realse the hydrogen fuel for all the good money GWB put into the resarch (3 of 3 options)
Britian or any of NATO wont help
War with Syria
Nukes actually found