The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported on Sunday
------------------------------
"The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."
------------------------------
"This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign."
------------------------------
The former intelligence official told Hersh that an American commando task force in South Asia is working closely with a group of Pakistani scientists who had dealt with their Iranian counterparts.
--------------------------
In exchange for this cooperation, the official told Hersh, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has received assurances that his government will not have to turn over Abdul Qadeer Khan,
-------------------------------
Hersh reported that Bush has already "signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia."
----------------------------
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/527861.html

Yes the US is probably going to start yet another Middle Eastern war that she will probably lose. The innate idiocy of this administration is mind-boggling, and I don’t blame the Supreme Court, I blame 59 million Americans for possibly bringing the Middle East, and possibly the world into a quagmire of unseen proportions. Does anyone actually think that Iran would just let the US attack her? Iran unlike Iraq has the capability to accurately attack American military facilities in the Persian Gulf, and in Turkey. The US administration according to Mr.Hersh on Wolf Blitzer stated that this attack was really a softening up of the ground for a possible ground assault on Iran. Unlike Iraq Iran has nationalism, no matter how much the youth of the country don’t like the central government they will fight to kill every single American they see. Honestly now this is getting pathetic, how is the US going to pay for this? Where are there phantom American soldiers going to come from? Does the US really believe the Iranians will not react? I can just imagine an Iranian general; he would let the US occupy Tehran, then blast the living shit out them when they get settled in. Americans don’t seem to get that she cannot win against a populist insurgency she never has and never will, no nation has. 60 million Iranians, 25 million Iraqi’s, and what? 300,000 American soldiers possibly= massacre on both sides. Oh well…American hegemony was fun while it lasted…

Calm down man. No one is attacking Iran atleast right now. I don't know what is that news site you have mentioned above. Sounds like some middle eastern web site. Well, then it is half propanganda and half truth just like any other media site.

Now, as for what Iran can do? NOTHING!. If USA wants to attack Iran, they will do it and without using a single ground troop. They will send that country back to stone age with their un touchable air force, and it is a fact/ For example, the longest AsHm in Iranian inventory is Barhomas, range: 300km. US navy can use toma hawks, range : 900 plus miles. They don't even have to be in range of Iranian navy to attack the iranians. Every one knows that that Iranian air force is nothing compare to usa or even with regional air forces, so the chance of iranians would try that and even think about it is not possible. So, in other words, Iran is like Iraq. Only thing they can do is attack other arab countries where the us bases are located and that is it. But if usa would neutralize their air force in 24-48 hrs or even in 3 days and finish their navy ...then there is not much they can do.


But I don't think that usa would attack iran. Atleast nor right now. Too much at stake. So, this will not happen till the end of the current adminstration's term. So relax for next 3.5 years.

Calm down man. No one is attacking Iran atleast right now.

That’s the thing…at least not now…chances are that they will.

I don't know what is that news site you have mentioned above. Sounds like some middle eastern web site.

It’s a well respected Israeli web site, who got its story from the New Yorker magazine, which in turn got the story from one of the most respected American investigative journalists Seymour Hersh.

Now, as for what Iran can do? NOTHING!.

Well obviously you know little to nothing of Iran’s missile capabilities, the Iranians missiles are mobile and can be transported across a country the size of Iran would be very difficult to destroy in time. Granted the US would destroy much of Iran’s capabilities, the Iranians can do a lot of damage once US troops enter…which doesn’t seem to far fetched. Also we cannot forget that Iran does have the S-300 missile system which is better then the Patriot missile batteries and are designed to destroy those tomahawks...something Iraq did not have.

So, in other words, Iran is like Iraq. Only thing they can do is attack other arab countries where the us bases are located and that is it. But if usa would neutralize their air force in 24-48 hrs or even in 3 days and finish their navy ...then there is not much they can do.

That is assuming Iran doesn’t start the war…

But I don't think that usa would attack iran. Atleast nor right now. Too much at stake. So, this will not happen till the end of the current adminstration's term. So relax for next 3.5 years.

According to Seymour Hersh…this summer…no time to relax. The Iranians can invade Iraq and completely destabilize the region, and start a massive war in the region, if you think missiles is all Iran has you are sadly mistaken…

And the US would lose immediately all their european allies for this farfetched war. Could it even be that for the first time the EU will take a stance against the US. I guess the existence of Nato will forbid this. But what will Turkey do? Can it be bribed again?

No sane nation would support the US...the US and Israel...against Iran.

It’s a well respected Israeli web site, who got its story from the New Yorker magazine, which in turn got the story from one of the most respected American investigative journalists Seymour Hersh.

It might have filtered out a bit, but still it could be valid.



Well obviously you know little to nothing of Iran’s missile capabilities, the Iranians missiles are mobile and can be transported across a country the size of Iran would be very difficult to destroy in time. Granted the US would destroy much of Iran’s capabilities, the Iranians can do a lot of damage once US troops enter…which doesn’t seem to far fetched. Also we cannot forget that Iran does have the S-300 missile system which is better then the Patriot missile batteries and are designed to destroy those tomahawks...something Iraq did not have.

Well, only if you say so. But the S-300 system is not battle tested, it is also designed for shooting down biger IRBMs or ICBMs or even a missile of a size of scud. It will be highly difficult to shot down small missile like tomahawk. Then, they are not the only option they have. They can do alot more from stealth bombers to long range HAARM missiles. In a war a against iran, s300 or barhamos won't be able to decide the future of it. They will be just destroyed batteries after couple of days. Steath and B1 bombers and Aegis system can deploy worlds most power full ECM which can blind the enemy and confuse their every single radar station. Combine it with deadly air force and Imagine Iran attacked from 3 directions, Iraq/Sea/Air, very little chances for their survival, if it happens.


However, you are right. Ground attack would become a horrible mistake, and that is why I am saying this war will not happen. Atleast not now or in next 2-3 years. There isn't enough man power. Things are bitter at home anyways. Also, EU would get pretty pissy about it. I think over all it will look realy really bad on usa part.

And I am sure Iran will not start a war. They are not that dumb. They will let it cool down and work in the background/behind the scenes. Also, I assume EU got a lot to lose if it were to happen.



According to Seymour Hersh…this summer…no time to relax. The Iranians can invade Iraq and completely destabilize the region, and start a massive war in the region, if you think missiles is all Iran has you are sadly mistaken…

No, I think missiles is one of the scarry things iran has. Probably the only thing. They might have some odd 100 plus russian planes like mig29s and other migs and F7ps and some old F4's and F14s ( very few). But that is about it. Only problem for usa would be, if iran got a nuke or more. Then this will get messy, since they won't hesitate to use it in desprate times.


Oh and I just read the same new on yahoo as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050116/ts_nm/iran_usa_newyorker_dc

Interesting, looks like hersh added some facts with some fictions. I will eloborate more later on that.

It might have filtered out a bit, but still it could be valid.

He was the guy who exposed the Abu Gharib scandal…

Well, only if you say so. But the S-300 system is not battle tested, it is also designed for shooting down biger IRBMs or ICBMs or even a missile of a size of scud. It will be highly difficult to shot down small missile like tomahawk.

No it wouldn’t firstly the S-300 is not designed to shoot down a ICBM, because a ICBM doesn’t come down as a ICBM but rather usually as a MIRV, or a super fast warhead that would easily defeat the S-300. The S-300 is designed from the outset to destroy American cruise missiles, the tomahawk was shot down by Iraqi’s in the 1991 Gulf War with the SA-8 system, a S-300 could surely do the job.

They can do alot more from stealth bombers to long range HAARM missiles.

Surely…but the missile range of the HARM is less then that of the S-300 which has a range of 150km-200km. If I were Iran I would get those F-14’s armed with the Phoenix missiles with a range of 150 km to destroy American AWACS, and the S-300’s as well J-Stars etc.

In a war a against iran, s300 or barhamos won't be able to decide the future of it. They will be just destroyed batteries after couple of days.

Yes true, but they would give Iran some valuable days of counter-strike action.

Steath and B1 bombers and Aegis system can deploy worlds most power full ECM which can blind the enemy and confuse their every single radar station. Combine it with deadly air force and Imagine Iran attacked from 3 directions, Iraq/Sea/Air, very little chances for their survival, if it happens.

Of course…but that’s only stage one…stage two is where the fun really starts…a ground war.

However, you are right. Ground attack would become a horrible mistake, and that is why I am saying this war will not happen. Atleast not now or in next 2-3 years. There isn't enough man power. Things are bitter at home anyways. Also, EU would get pretty pissy about it. I think over all it will look realy really bad on usa part.

Who said the US has to initiate the ground war? If the Americans are stupid enough to attack Iran, I think Iran would invade Southern Iraq and start a Shi’a war against the US. It’s a gamble if the government of Iran does nothing it will topple, it a winner take all scenario. The US is in bad shape in Iraq, with 200,000 insurgents according to the Iraqi gov’t plus hundreds of thousands of Iranian troops (most likely commandos) coming in like rats…not a good situation.

This sort of info could be released in doses just to have an effect on Iran's present behaviour?

If we go to war with Iran, I feel a huge Middle Eastern Alliance is going to happen and all our soldiers stationed there will be wiped out as they're just sitting ducks. I can't understand this administration thinking that they can just hop from country to country trying to take everything over without anyone doing anything about it. So foolish.

And if that were to happen, there'd definitly be a draft and oh goodie, this would somehow be a "national emergency" which has nothing to do with the people of America or our nation so we'll be forced to have to fight for some stupid war that had no business being started. I hope the American people would rise up and cause the collapase of our country and that we face many hardships because we only seem to learn things the hard way. I hope a lot of sense gets slapped into us.

- N

Please note that, if Iran can be provoked into making any sort of first move, the rest or the region and the world will be on our side. Iran scares the crap out of a lot of countries, even Arab ones. As long as America is not percieved as the one firing the opening shots, we could do anything short of carpetbombing Tehran and walk away smelling like roses.

First of all, we would just sit back in a safe spot and lob wave after wave of assorted long range missles at them. We have both quality and quantity on our side. Once the radar stations are blind, the Iranians would only hit anything through sheer luck. Any infantry trying to cross into Iraq will simply be mowed down by heavy air support.

Nonetheless, America will not be hitting them anytime soon unless they move first. If we were planning on striking them, the public would be getting escalating reports in every paper of the Iranian threat. As it is, they have basically been forgotten by the public.

The s300 AA system actually kicks quite some ass:

In 1993, Iran procured an unidentified number of S-300PMU-1 missiles from Russia. Kuwait expressed its own interest shortly afterward.(12)

what can it do?

At the 1992 Moscow Air Show, the Russians displayed the latest version in the S-300P lineage, the S-300PMU-1 (SA-10D). This upgraded system, armed with new single-stage, solid-fuel propelled 48N6 missiles, has the capability to shoot down tactical ballistic missiles in addition to cruise missiles and aircraft, at ranges of 5-150 kilometers and altitudes between 10-27,000 meters. The 1,900 kilogram missile carries a 143 kilogram high-explosive fragmentation warhead. A typical S-300PMU-1 battery contains 48 missiles on 12 mobile launchers. Each battery is capable of launching one 48N6 missile every three seconds. The missiles are guided by the 36N85 vehicle-mounted engagement radar, which is capable of detecting incoming ballistic missiles at 40 kilometers, and aircraft between 3 and 150 kilometers. The 36N85 can guide up to twelve 48N6 missiles, while simultaneously tracking up to six targets.(6)

ref:
http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/s-300p.html


And some more good news for countries that don't want to be the helpless victims of aggressive american policy (or read terror here if you don't like euphenisms), Russia is working on the new generation of AA systems the S400.

Most of the excitement surrounding the S-400 announcement centered on its new long-range missile, which the Fakel Machine Building Design Bureau was still in the final stages of developing. According to the Russians, the new missile featured an advanced seeker head capable of tracking targets well beyond the horizon line. It had a range of up to 400 kilometers, giving it approximately 2.5 times the range of the S-300P and twice the range of the U.S. Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) system, thus making it the superior missile. Once operational, the Russians claimed, the new S-400 missile would be able to home in on short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, as well as reconnaissance aircraft, stealth bombers, and other high-flying, fast-moving targets.(8)

The SF teams have been in Iran since last summer verifying and getting GPS info on the ten or twelve nuclear in the western mountain sites. No real surprise there. Any strikes would be similar to Israel's strike against Saddam's nuke facility some years ago. BTW, Pakistan is assisting in this venture.

Another non-surprise is the UN and the IAEA being too busy counting it's thirty shekels to live up to its purpose of promoting world peace. Somebody's gotta do the heavy lifting and there's nobody left with the guts to do it except the UK and US.

The s300 AA system actually kicks quite some ass:



what can it do?



ref:
http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/s-300p.html


And some more good news for countries that don't want to be the helpless victims of aggressive american policy (or read terror here if you don't like euphenisms), Russia is working on the new generation of AA systems the S400.


Every thing is theory only. It is not a battle tested system. It does sound impressvie but when they will face a wave of 1000 cruise missiles coming towards them, this missile system won't do much good. It is a good AA system. Cruise missile can be tackle by a jet fighter as well, however it all depend in the nature of attack, if usa were to attack Iran, there is nothing in their inventory which would save them. Ground troops don't even have to be there for months.

Undecided:

Those missiles really does not posses any significant threat to AWACS, specially US awacs. they don't have to fly within it's range. They can fly 300km away from targets and still can provide deadly coverage. There are so many awacs in US inventory (33 E3s ) then pleny of E2s ( naval version ) and then many more like E737 AEW/767 AEW/EC series, they are so many that if they lose 10-20 ( which is really Impossible to lose ) it won't matter but till today not a single awac or AEW has been lost in combat. So, the chances are slim in the future as well.

Bottom line, Iran cannot stand a US attack. If there will be no ground troops, Iranians are doom, even if they are ground troops they are still doom. Iranians are not stupid enough to attack first. Then they will meet the fate of Iraq. As for Hersh's article goes, he got lots of loop holes. For example, it is pathetic and stupid to think that US freely conducting secret missions in IRAN. Sounds more likely Fiction, like Iranians wouldn't know about it. Then hsi theory about Pakistnai scientist not handed over to usa, another lie. It wasn't due to stupid iran it was due to political in stablility in pakistan itself. Also hersh is the same person who said after 9/11 that usa and israel are going to attack pakistan and take out the nukes. This guy has a creative imagination, nothing mroe. He mixes facts with fiction and make up spicy stories. Good bed time stories. Now, by saying all of the above doesn't mean that usa doesn't have any wish or intentions to attack iran in near future. It is just a fact that us special forces acting freely in iran and conducting exercises is little too far fetch.

So, again, I do not see any wars in horizon for next 3-4 years.

Heh, don't let the trouble in Iraq lead you to believe that the US has any trouble winning wars. The US fucking annihilated Iraq in the "war" just as it would do Iran. It is the 'staying to bring democracy' that is the trouble. In Iraq we actually only lost one person during the war. What followed the war could have been handled better, to say the least. Couple others in that region need to be slapped around a bit as well, but actual war is a bit much. They don't stand a chance.

Undecided, if the US did go to war with Iran/Syria, do you really think it'd be a total ground war? Come on man. The US is too anal about losing troops. Look at casualties in WW1 and 2, compared to Vietnam, compared to Desert Storm and now the Iraq War. Deaths are part of war, military strategies are planned around how many people we'll lose and now folks get anal of every single death. In the grand scheme of things, we really haven't lost many people at all. It is our new mentality, deaths are becomming nearly unnacceptable. It definitely won't be a ground war. The tanks and troops will only roll in to clean up like they did in Iraq, but we can be pretty damned sure they wouldn't be staying there this time around.

Bottom line, Iran cannot stand a US attack.

This would be valid for every country excepy the nuclear powers. Does that mean that it is ok for the US to invade the Netherlands? There are muslims there too you know...and one of the 9-11 terrorist even got flight training in holland. Maybe the US should bomb us back into the stone age!

There is a difference between having the "Islamic Bomb", and being able to deliver it effectively. Even if Iran had a tested weapon and a tested delivery system (of which they have neither), they've never demonstrated that they could deliver it on target. For example, launch sites would be detectable via satelite. And when they look up, they should smile.

How do you think the US knows so much about their program anyway? The SF teams were necessary only after the Iranians realized they would have to move their development sites underground because they'd been spotted from space.

Oh, the Netherlands. Who are they? :D

Does that mean that it is ok for the US to invade the Netherlands? There are muslims there too you know...and one of the 9-11 terrorist even got flight training in holland.

I assume you wre trying to make a point, but it's not about Muslims. The Middle East is a shithole. Too much trouble has come out of that region. Some of those people are fucking crazy. They may not be clinically insane, but their religious beliefs are so extreme compared to what is now "normal" that they can be regarded as crazy. They haven't moved with the times. If they will strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up, you know they're going to use whatever they have. If they have nukes, they will use nukes. The people in this region are not what we would call "educated" so don't expect them to reason this out. We're in a situation now, and we're going to deal with it. They can curse the "infidels" of the West as much as they want, but Western culture is spreading, it is inevitable. The world is getting smaller. The dominant culture always spreads. And in this inevitable spreading, there will be clashes, and in those clashes someone has to lose. That the way it is. You can bitch and debate about whether it is right or wrong, but that's just the way it is. If it goes our way, the whole world will end up "westernized". Some people talk as if this whole concept is new, as if it's never happened before. I tell ya, we could be a hell of a lot more heavy handed.

Please note that, if Iran can be provoked into making any sort of first move, the rest or the region and the world will be on our side.

Logically that would be true, but this administration is not known for caring about the rest of the world as shown in Iraq. Now even if Iran were to do the "first move" whatever that may entail, no nation would want to fight against Iran because they don't see it as worth it. Iran is not some two bit little country here, its massive and the US would not be able to effective take over the whole country...and the funny thing is that it can't. The US' military position is VERY weak at this moment and this gives Iran a upper hand in Iraq.

First of all, we would just sit back in a safe spot and lob wave after wave of assorted long range missles at them. We have both quality and quantity on our side.

But not endurace, or elan. They do, they have both, yes the US has shown rather impressively her ability to win wars...woopie. It's always been easy to win wars, but its significantly harder to keep the ground you've conquered and to win the peace. The US cannot do either effectively as shown in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Yes the US can win the war...but can it win the peace? But empirical observations the obvious answer is a decidedly no.

Nonetheless, America will not be hitting them anytime soon unless they move first.

Iraq 2003 disproved that theory...

There is a difference between having the "Islamic Bomb", and being able to deliver it effectively. Even if Iran had a tested weapon and a tested delivery system (of which they have neither), they've never demonstrated that they could deliver it on target. For example, launch sites would be detectable via satelite. And when they look up, they should smile.

How do you think the US knows so much about their program anyway? The SF teams were necessary only after the Iranians realized they would have to move their development sites underground because they'd been spotted from space.

Oh, the Netherlands. Who are they? :D

Marv, you sounded like a jew from 80s. 'Islamic bomb' was a notion created by some jewish writer to create a havoc in Israel. Plese don't act like one. Iran Doesn't have a nuke and they shouldn't.

How do you think the US knows so much about their program anyway?

Not because some sattelite pictures but because IAEA busted the whole big network of nuclear black market.

Those missiles really does not posses any significant threat to AWACS, specially US awacs. they don't have to fly within it's range. They can fly 300km away from targets and still can provide deadly coverage.

But you forget the geograpghy, and geo-political reality of the region, with the E-2C's I suspect that they will not go far off out of the Persian Gulf which in theory would put it in the range of the SAMS. So I wouldn't say it is impossible but it is relatively unlikely yes. But the SAM's have a more important role, to destroy cruise missiles being lobbed at Iran which the S-300 can surely do with great effectiveness.

Bottom line, Iran cannot stand a US attack.

I never asserted she could, what I assert is that Iran can be given a couple days of effective cover so she can be able to launch her missiles. Iran knows that when it comes to a US air attack she stands little chance...but she knows that. I would imagine the Iranians have more then a idea of how to operate with a American attack...I know the Russian's are keen to sell to Iran, and I think they even signed a arms trade agreement recently. Also I wouldn't be surprised if Russian specialists are in Iran helping out.

Then they will meet the fate of Iraq.

Which is bad? I don't see why this is seen in a bad light in terms of the Iranians. If anything that's what the Iranians should be betting on, they better hope its a Iraq x10. I think all of you are thinking in the old paradigm of warfare, airplanes, tanks, etc. That's for the generals and toy enthusiasts. The real war starts when the US percieves herself to be a victor, and has settled in nicely in a nation. That's when you pounce on the American forces and kill them like bee's. The American imo will never be able to successfully occupy Iran, let alone invade.

For example, it is pathetic and stupid to think that US freely conducting secret missions in IRAN. Sounds more likely Fiction, like Iranians wouldn't know about it.

I don't see why...

Also hersh is the same person who said after 9/11 that usa and israel are going to attack pakistan and take out the nukes.

A source for that would be nice...

Now, by saying all of the above doesn't mean that usa doesn't have any wish or intentions to attack iran in near future. It is just a fact that us special forces acting freely in iran and conducting exercises is little too far fetch.

The sad thing is that the truth usually is more strange then fiction, its unbelieveable until it happens.

I assume you wre trying to make a point, but it's not about Muslims. The Middle East is a shithole. Too much trouble has come out of that region. Some of those people are fucking crazy. They may not be clinically insane, but their religious beliefs are so extreme compared to what is now "normal" that they can be regarded as crazy. They haven't moved with the times. If they will strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up, you know they're going to use whatever they have. If they have nukes, they will use nukes. The people in this region are not what we would call "educated" so don't expect them to reason this out. We're in a situation now, and we're going to deal with it. They can curse the "infidels" of the West as much as they want, but Western culture is spreading, it is inevitable. The world is getting smaller. The dominant culture always spreads. And in this inevitable spreading, there will be clashes, and in those clashes someone has to lose. That the way it is. You can bitch and debate about whether it is right or wrong, but that's just the way it is. If it goes our way, the whole world will end up "westernized". Some people talk as if this whole concept is new, as if it's never happened before. I tell ya, we could be a hell of a lot more heavy handed.


Monkey, I haven't seen an iranian straping a bomb to himself and blowing. Can you pleae back up your claim?

Thank you.

The US fucking annihilated Iraq in the "war" just as it would do Iran.

Thanks for the Yawn...who cares?

In Iraq we actually only lost one person during the war.

Why lie?

Undecided, if the US did go to war with Iran/Syria, do you really think it'd be a total ground war? Come on man.

I don't see how else the US can effectively deal with the situation. Attacking from the air is fun and all, but it doesn't produce the results one would expect.

In the grand scheme of things, we really haven't lost many people at all. It is our new mentality, deaths are becomming nearly unnacceptable. It definitely won't be a ground war. The tanks and troops will only roll in to clean up like they did in Iraq, but we can be pretty damned sure they wouldn't be staying there this time around.

I agree with those statements, but let's not forget what happens when you leave a lying dog lie...Germany post WWI. It was left to its own devices as well...defeated in war but the scar was left to fester on for two decades until she came back with a vengence. Same situation here, yay American won another battle but it seems like its losing the war. If I were an American, I wouldn't be so jingoistic but Iran and Iraq are merely large battles in a larger and invisible war.

There is a difference between having the "Islamic Bomb", and being able to deliver it effectively. Even if Iran had a tested weapon and a tested delivery system (of which they have neither), they've never demonstrated that they could deliver it on target.

I assume you haven't heard of the Shahab III? :rolleyes: They seem to have the capability with GPS guidance. ;)

[QUOTE=Undecided
The sad thing is that the truth usually is more strange then fiction, its unbelieveable until it happens.[/QUOTE]

Well, we'll wait and see, and hope the adminstration will not start another insane war. But what if the invasion is not their main goal, then it would be scarry, because then all they have to do is just attack with whatever they got. Since, usa had a taste of iranians back in 80s when their ships were attacked constantly and in return they got so pissed that USA attacked their Airbus and killed 200 plus civilians. Desprate measures i guess.

Monkey, I haven't seen an iranian straping a bomb to himself and blowing.

Who, then, have you seen strapping a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up? Probably heard on the news about some random insurgant. Well, they're not all Iraqis. That mentality is shared throughout that region. It's not like they're ever able to identify who those people were. I mean shit, it's not like Iraq and Iran are completely different worlds. As if Iraqis have the only extremists in the Middle East and Iran is full of docile gentlemen who cringe at the thought of having to fire a weapon, let alone strap a bomb to their chests.

I agree with those statements, but let's not forget what happens when you leave a lying dog lie...Germany post WWI. It was left to its own devices as well...defeated in war but the scar was left to fester on for two decades until she came back with a vengence.

If the US launched a "preemtpive" war in Iraq to find WMDs that didn't exist, do you really think that the US would let that happen?



In Iraq we actually only lost one person during the war.

Why lie?


It's actually true. The whole situation was talked about on 60 minutes last night. People didn't start dying until after the "war" was over and the charity began.

---

I think it'd be kind of funny if they came out with another WMD claim again.

Seriously though. If the US wanted to annihilate the whole Middle East and take the oil, would anyone be able to stop us? We'd pummel them first thing from a thousand miles away and tens of thousands of feet up. We wouldn't care about civilian casualties, so we'd have a lot more freedom. The cost of it wouldn't matter at all since we'd be taking all of the oil. Who would stop us though? The thing is that we wouldn't do that.

The Middle East is a shithole.

So is Nebraska...but we tolerate them... :D

Some of those people are fucking crazy. They may not be clinically insane, but their religious beliefs are so extreme compared to what is now "normal" that they can be regarded as crazy.

From a bias western perspective yes, remember we were that crazy too back in the Crusader days. The Japanese as well were considered crazy back in WWII with their kamikaze missions. But you must understand that it is their "fanatical" devotion to their cause that is their greatest weapon. Americans have no such devotion, yes they are wiling to die for their country, but are they wiling to kill themselves for it? I doubt it...are dead American sons and daughters seen as martyrs or dead in a meaningless war?

If they will strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up, you know they're going to use whatever they have.

Exactly...that's exactly why these people are a new enemy. They have no compulsion to save innocent life it means a greater goal. Americans are seen as infidels and murders, and the death of their children will be avenged. That is why America's little war games in the region make no sense.

If it goes our way, the whole world will end up "westernized".

As you even said yourself...if. That's what this battle is about to get rid of that "if".

If the US launched a "preemtpive" war in Iraq to find WMDs that didn't exist, do you really think that the US would let that happen?

Yes using your argument it has no other option. If the US isn't there for the long haul, and just attacks and belittles the Iranian conception of themselves, then Iran will seek revenge, and 9.11 showed you don't need missiles or an army to do it.

It's actually true. The whole situation was talked about on 60 minutes last night. People didn't start dying until after the "war" was over and the charity began.

Link would be nice...because that seem unbelievable.

Seriously though. If the US wanted to annihilate the whole Middle East and take the oil, would anyone be able to stop us?

Yes the American public...I don't think the American people have the stomach for another war, and if this administration starts doing that I think for the first time in American history you could have a serious threat of civil strife that may lead to an overthrow of the government. I've always maintained that the only army that can defeat the jingoistic American government is the American people.

We'd pummel them first thing from a thousand miles away and tens of thousands of feet up.

Pummel as much as you can...it doesn't change a thing, frankly it makes the US into a isolated, shithole of country, abusing its power, and will surely pay the consequences of her actions.

Who would stop us though? The thing is that we wouldn't do that.

Don't be too cocky...I remember that in the book of revelations "New Babylon" which is surely the US is destined to be destroyed in one hour...

Who, then, have you seen strapping a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up? Probably heard on the news about some random insurgant. Well, they're not all Iraqis. That mentality is shared throughout that region. It's not like they're ever able to identify who those people were. I mean shit, it's not like Iraq and Iran are completely different worlds. As if Iraqis have the only extremists in the Middle East and Iran is full of docile gentlemen who cringe at the thought of having to fire a weapon, let alone strap a bomb to their chests.




Doesn't mean they are iranians. There is small group of people who enjoys straping bombs to them self but as far as i know, no one ever accused of iranians of that. You talk about insurgents, heck, no one knows who they are, first we said that there were only 6000, then 20000 and now upto 200,000, and you are telling me that we now know their nationalities? I don't think we will ever know for sure.

I have seen no signs that the U.S. is interested in invading Iran, and Iran has shown no signs that it believes it will be inevitably invaded. Iran's cooperation with the U.N. on its nuclear program would be nonexistent if it felt an attack was just around the horizon. They would be desperate to create a nuclear arnsenal in order to protect themselves.

Secondly, I see no signs from Bush that an attack of Iran is in their sites. While Bush has strengthened his cabinet with "loyalists", it is more because of the future fight with the GOP and Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). Bush's moves as of late indicate that he is moving more towards a cooperative position with the rest of the world, rather than unilateral. Here is an article by Aljazeera (hardly a lover of Bush) stating as much.

http://english.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_id=6318

"During the first term, Bush’s neoconservative-driven foreign policy generally meshed with DeLay’s beliefs. But given the realities of the international scene and domestic budgetary pressure, Bush’s recent moves indicate the president is returning to a traditional foreign policy, based on international cooperation"

Some believe the fact that Bush is in his second term will allow him to continue his unilateral stance without fear of political repercussions. The opposite, however, may be true since he no longer has to count on the support of the far right (like Delay) too help him get reelected.

Bush is more interested now in stengthening what he believes is his legacy. That includes bringing peace to Iraq and a restructuring of social security. While Iraq is and always was an impossible cause, social security may be easier to fix. Despite some dire predictions for the future, social security if left untouched, will remain solvent until 2042.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/13/opinion/meyer/main666840.shtml

"Is there a Social Security crisis? Mr. Bush says yes, the Democrats say no. They say the system as is can deliver the promised benefits until at least 2042. And they say minor revenue increases and benefits made soon can safeguard Social Security for much longer. They say the "crisis" is made up so the administration can start experimenting with private Social Security accounts. "

While the Bush plan is not that bad, it may cause problems if the stock market lowers in the future. Considering the foreign investment problem in the nations budget debt, why not put some of that money into U.S. treasury bonds to allow americans to own the liability?

Bush will be more concerned about fixing domestic problems than starting another war with Iran. Sorry to dissapoint the american-haters, but a future attack is extremely unlikely.

You talk about insurgents, heck, no one knows who they are, first we said that there were only 6000, then 20000 and now upto 200,000, and you are telling me that we now know their nationalities? I don't think we will ever know for sure.

It's not like they're ever able to identify who those people were.

I'll count that as us agreeing, I've got some yard work to do.

The Iranian mullahs are already despised by the Iranian people. They remain in power only because they carefully control the government and military. In fact, most common citizens in most ME Islamic countries would love to get rid of their repressive regimes.

I also suspect that there is already a lot of work being done behind the scene getting those common Iranian citizens ready for a "regime change".

I have just run a "find" on this page, and there is a word barely mentioned: OIL.
Iran is the world's fourth or fifth largest producer.
Please factor that into your assessments!
Including the need to sustain a stable and friendly Saudi Arabia - the loss of whose oil supplies to terrorism is probably the biggest economic threat facing the world at present.

You're right. Oil is barely mentioned. That's because Iran's oil barely needed! Especially by the US. As to Saudi Arabia, it's Europe that would suffer. That also explains Europe's position in this whole ME thing. European nations, even the EU as a whole, is hardly in a position to confront the Saudi royal family.

The Iranian mullahs are already despised by the Iranian people.

Yes and they would get quite a boost if the US invades.

In fact, most common citizens in most ME Islamic countries would love to get rid of their repressive regimes.

True, but most of those states save Syria is propped up the US.

I also suspect that there is already a lot of work being done behind the scene getting those common Iranian citizens ready for a "regime change".

Better they do it then you...

You're right. Oil is barely mentioned. That's because Iran's oil barely needed! Especially by the US. As to Saudi Arabia, it's Europe that would suffer. That also explains Europe's position in this whole ME thing. European nations, even the EU as a whole, is hardly in a position to confront the Saudi royal family.

IF Europe and Japan suffer as does the US, also we forget something more important then oil...Natural Gas, Iran has anout 20% of the world's reserves, by far the world's second largest. If you want to know more about the potential power of Iran you can read this thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=43235

You're right. Oil is barely mentioned. That's because Iran's oil barely needed! Especially by the US. As to Saudi Arabia, it's Europe that would suffer. That also explains Europe's position in this whole ME thing. European nations, even the EU as a whole, is hardly in a position to confront the Saudi royal family.
Those are very fair points, Marv. But the oil market is global. No country is going to supply the US indefinitely at $45 per barrel if European and Far Eastern demand for a diminished supply has driven the market price up to $75.

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

Where does such hubris come from? Simple the stunning election of this administration, yes sadly the administration has taken it that the election of GWB is an affirmation of his blighted, and pointless strategy in the Middle East. 59 million Americans have pretty much said to Bush and his administration “go ahead do your worst”…at least in their minds. Afghanistan and Iraq are only part of the war, and they are right it is only part of a war that the US is losing. Let’s continue:

The war on terrorism would be expanded, and effectively placed under the Pentagon’s control. The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia…The President’s decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books—free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and House intelligence committees.

What happened to the notion that America was a nation of laws? Well that seems laughable now, like America the nation of the free (Patriot Acts). This president is a proto-fascist for a reason ladies and gents, he is consolidating power more and more into his hands, starving the once extensive myriad of decentralized controls which secured there was little abuse of executive powers. But not anymore, the country is descending into some rich third world state.

The Europeans have been urging the Bush Administration to join in these negotiations. The Administration has refused to do so. The civilian leadership in the Pentagon has argued that no diplomatic progress on the Iranian nuclear threat will take place unless there is a credible threat of military action. “The neocons say negotiations are a bad deal,” a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) told me. “And the only thing the Iranians understand is pressure. And that they also need to be whacked.”

This administration by not negotiating weakens the hand of the EU, and thus the Iranians will have less momentum to get to an agreement, the US instead of waving a big stick should be waving its carrot, which would probably accomplish much more. Once Iran reaches a certain threshold like NK has, the chances of getting rid of her military programmes are pretty much dead because too much time and investment has been poured in. Unlike NK, you won’t see sanctions placed on Iran from Japan, the EU, or China. Frankly China is destined to become Iran’s protector like the US is with Saudi Arabia.

One Western diplomat told me that the Europeans believed they were in what he called a “lose-lose position” as long as the United States refuses to get involved. “France, Germany, and the U.K. cannot succeed alone, and everybody knows it,” the diplomat said. “If the U.S. stays outside, we don’t have enough leverage, and our effort will collapse.” The alternative would be to go to the Security Council, but any resolution imposing sanctions would likely be vetoed by China or Russia, and then “the United Nations will be blamed and the Americans will say, ‘The only solution is to bomb.’”

Indeed since any UN resolution would be vetoed by Russia and China who both have a vested interest in keeping the Iranian government in place, and their relative open access to the underexploited Iranian energy industry. Without the US behind the three European powers its not strong enough to make any real headway because it’s not the EU which is threatening Iran, it’s the US.

He added that the argument that the European negotiations hinged on Washington looked like “a preëmptive excuse for the likely breakdown of the E.U.-Iranian talks.” In a subsequent conversation with me, Clawson suggested that, if some kind of military action was inevitable, “it would be much more in Israel’s interest—and Washington’s—to take covert action. The style of this Administration is to use overwhelming force—‘shock and awe.’ But we get only one bite of the apple.”

Covert or “Shock and awe?” The Israel factor is also fairly obvious, Israel is directly under the Iranian threat envelope and will surely support is not even assist in attacking Iran. If that occurs the possibility for a even greater Middle Eastern war is very real, with the US and Israel overtly supporting each other in a strike would only prove Osama right, that the Israeli state is there to patrol the region for the US, and making the Arab world weaker.

There are many military and diplomatic experts who dispute the notion that military action, on whatever scale, is the right approach…It’s a fantasy to think that there’s a good American or Israeli military option in Iran.” He went on, “The Israeli view is that this is an international problem. ‘You do it,’ they say to the West. ‘Otherwise, our Air Force will take care of it.’”… But the situation now is both more complex and more dangerous, Chubin said. The Osirak bombing “drove the Iranian nuclear-weapons program underground, to hardened, dispersed sites,” he said. “You can’t be sure after an attack that you’ll get away with it. The U.S. and Israel would not be certain whether all the sites had been hit, or how quickly they’d be rebuilt. Meanwhile, they’d be waiting for an Iranian counter-attack that could be military or terrorist or diplomatic. Iran has long-range missiles and ties to Hezbollah, which has drones—you can’t begin to think of what they’d do in response.”

Exactly, the Iranian x factors are very great, we cannot forget that the Israeli and American forces albeit powerful will most likely not get all the possible targets, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran attacked Israel’s Diamona nuclear facility, something the Iranians have promised to do if they were attacked. Iran has the Shahab III missiles, and now the Shahab III-B which has a accuracy of about 50 m, coming very close to superpower CEP, so Israeli nuclear facilities are truly under great threat. Also the Hezbollah factor, we know that drones have been flying over Israeli air space, that have been given enough time to drop bombs on Israeli cities. Also the drones are believed to have come from submarines off the coast, which is probably a Iranian super quiet Kilo class sub. If the US and Israel think they will have no response to their bellicose actions they are totally wrong.

The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer. Much of the focus is on the accumulation of intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical, and missile sites, both declared and suspected…The American task force, aided by the information from Pakistan, has been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan in a hunt for underground installations. The task-force members, or their locally recruited agents, secreted remote detection devices—known as sniffers—capable of sampling the atmosphere for radioactive emissions and other evidence of nuclear-enrichment programs.

So there are three things going on:

 US is getting support from Pakistan to determine the locations of Iran’s facilities.
 US special ops are in the region
 US is recruiting local agents to do the work for them

Afghanistan is the base for these operations, which only goes to show how the US works.

“They believe that about three-quarters of the potential targets can be destroyed from the air, and a quarter are too close to population centers, or buried too deep, to be targeted,” the consultant said. Inevitably, he added, some suspicious sites need to be checked out by American or Israeli commando teams—in on-the-ground surveillance—before being targeted.

But this is of particular interest:

The Pentagon’s contingency plans for a broader invasion of Iran are also being updated. Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. Updating the plan makes sense, whether or not the Administration intends to act, because the geopolitics of the region have changed dramatically in the last three years. Previously, an American invasion force would have had to enter Iran by sea, by way of the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman; now troops could move in on the ground, from Afghanistan or Iraq. Commando units and other assets could be introduced through new bases in the Central Asian republics.

Although its only a contingency plan thus far, it is ominous none the less that invasion isn’t that far off. It’s not like the US would actually be able to win a full fledged Iranian invasion, but you got to give the Americans credit for their tenacity. But now here comes the most idiotic of all the logics presented in this essay, one that sent my eyes rolling for some minutes:

The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran’s ability to go nuclear. But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work….they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership. “Within the soul of Iran there is a struggle between secular nationalists and reformers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the fundamentalist Islamic movement,” the consultant told me. “The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West, the Iranian regime will collapse”—like the former Communist regimes in Romania, East Germany, and the Soviet Union. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz share that belief, he said.

Are these people on crack? If so, I know some ppl who would love to get their hands on it. The hallucinogenic thoughts pervading through these idiots minds are truly mind-boggling. Attacking Iran would do the exact opposite of what these people think. The Iranians have problems with their government to be sure, but attacking Iran will only prove to the people that the US is indeed the devil, and is out to destroy their nation, and no matter who is in power in Tehran nationalism will abound. If the Mullah’s are able to attack Israel and the US back then if anything it would strengthen the hand of the Mullah’s, if you against the Mullah’s you are for the enemy mentality which exists in the US today. What these idiots seem to forget is that East Germany did not collapse by a US attack, but by her own struggles, if the US had attacked her do you think East Germany would want to join the west? It’s absolutely amazing…as this commentator said about this:
“The idea that an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would produce a popular uprising is extremely illinformed,” said Flynt Leverett… You have to understand that the nuclear ambition in Iran is supported across the political spectrum, and Iranians will perceive attacks on these sites as attacks on their ambitions to be a major regional player and a modern nation that’s technologically sophisticated.”… “will produce an Iranian backlash against the United States and a rallying around the regime.”

Indeed…there is no question a American attack will be completely counterproductive.

Here’s the rest of the article…

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
I dare America to attack Iran…should be fun to watch.

That is why America's little war games in the region make no sense. Sure it makes sense - if you want FREEDOM. You have to get in there and somehow get at that FREEDOM. Like tricking Iraq into invading Kuwait and then charging Saudi Arabia and Kuwait a bunch of money to get that FREEDOM out of the ground OR putting a dictator in charge of Iraq to get that sweet-crude-freedom AND if he should turn away then install one that doesn’t.

So it does make sense.

That oil isn’t just going to jump out of the ground and freely fall into your lap. You HAVE to get in there and emancipate it from it’s Muslim oppressors and let the sweet trick of liberty be heard at gas-pumps around the world :D THAT only occurs when you have a little something called LIBERATION.

So see, it does make sense.

AND as to Iran, when that Iraqi oil is fully freed, then it will be time to set free Iran’s oppressed oil/NG. And anything short of a powerful ally like China and/or Russia is not going to stop the American-Liberators from helping those subjugated oil-gobbets from their desert shackles.

Yes Freedom is oppression, love is war, and liberation is serfdom. The double world of the two faced.

Why are Europeans such wimps? Why do Europeans roll over at the first gun shot or aircraft hijacking?

Ah! The spirit of Chamberlin is alive and well.

Why are Europeans such wimps? Why do Europeans roll over at the first gun shot or aircraft hijacking?

Well apart from your hubris, the Europeans have been much more successful thus far on WMD then the US. Europe is gaining in power while the US' power is shrinking...I think Europe would use its military once it became expedient, not while it was negotiable. If the Europeans are a bunch of pussies then the US is a bunch of brain-dead dicks…overgeneralizations don’t help anyone.

Ah! The spirit of Chamberlin is alive and well.

Actually why did the US settle for Libya WMD being dismantled? Isn’t American policy “democracy?” sounds ball-less to me.

Why are Europeans such wimps? Why do Europeans roll over at the first gun shot or aircraft hijacking?

Ah! The spirit of Chamberlin is alive and well.
We are just as wimpy. We do exactly as Israel tells us, which is why we are in the fix we are in.
Bush is a puppet and will do whatever Israel tells him. Here are his latest orders:

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

Sharon Wants Iran, Libya,
And Syria Disarmed Next
Ha-aretz Daily
2-18-3

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.

Sharon told the congressmen that Israel was not involved in the war with Iraq "but the American action is of vital importance."

In a meeting with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton yesterday, Sharon said that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq.

Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials that he had no doubt America would attack Iraq, and that it would be necessary thereafter to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Bolton said Syria would get a chance to prove it was behaving in a way worthy of the international community and that dealing with North Korea had not been pushed aside, but postponed.

Bolton said the United States was striving to get a new UN Security Council resolution regarding Iraq and that the result of the vote would affect the U.S.'s relations with Western Europe and Russia, after the war in Iraq.

Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and Construction Minister Natan Sharansky.

Sharansky warned Bolton that the Quartet's (U.S., UN, European Union and Russia) plan for the Israelis and Palestinians deviated from President Bush's vision.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...l?itemNo=263941

Bush is a puppet and will do whatever Israel tells him. Here are his latest orders:

Sharon Wants Iran, Libya,
And Syria Disarmed Next
Ha-aretz Daily
2-18-3

Umm...I hate to point out the obvious, but those latest orders are two years old!

Iran is in a rather difficult position with the USA in both Iraq and Afganistan. The forces are already deployed in her sphere; the logistics are in place it is only a matter of the timing. It is important to remember that the USA loss of life total is still less than the total for 9-11.
I do not expect any major diplomatic push for disarmament until after the Iraqi elecctions and the conclusion of the tsunami relief efforts but then there will be a confrontation.

May I remind you that US troops are also nicely deployed all around Europe. Does that mean that they should invade a European country? Why not go for Russia? They have WMD for sure.

Why are Europeans such wimps? Why do Europeans roll over at the first gun shot or aircraft hijacking?

The French in Indo-China and countless 'little wars' in Africa since then.
The Brits: well our wimps defeated our S.E.Asian communist insurgency. Then there's Kenya, Aden, Korea, The Falklands, the list goes on. Didn't I see something in the papers about UK troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. :rolleyes:
And are you name calling on the strength of the 14-18 and 39-45 conflicts? Sorry, that's 17-18 and 41-45 wars to you. :rolleyes:
And do you recall a little affair at the Iranian embassy in London?

My favorite movie "zinger" from "We Were Soldiers":(Colonel to General) "...and don't forget the NVA defeated the French army."
(General to Colonel) "The French army? What's that?"Never forget that De Gaul asked Eisenhower for US military support in Indochine in 1953. Eisenhower refused but agreed to logistical support. The first Americans to die in Vietnam were two USAF pilots flying re-supply missions in 1953. In '55, the French thought they were still in Europe fighting on a fixed field of battle and got their asses chewed (hell, they can't even defend Paris, let alone France). Many never came back from captivity.

In '48, Truman and Acheson announced the "domino" theory. I was in Laos with the USAF in '59 when the seventh American died in a helicopter crash. Between '58 and '62, we defeated a communist coup in Laos. In effect, the "domino" theory was vindicated and the battle won. But I'll concede that the Vietnam War was the result of the arrogance of a Democrat American President named Lyndon Johnson.

The Falklands? Argentina and England were both treaty partners with the US, so we were obliged to "stay out" of the fight. But, of course, there were always satelite and spy plane surveilance photos and intel intercepts that "somehow" managed to get to the British.

In Korea, Afganistan and Iraq and elsewhere around the world, The Brits have always been our greatest ally from the other side of the lake. So when I say European, I refer to the continent! I can't even think of the Brits as "Euro-pee-ons"!

BTW, my heritage is German-French. Or is that Kraut-Frog?

Well to be fair Marv...one must consider European history. If you back on the 50 years prior to 1945 it was the deadliest place on Earth. I wouldn't call European pussies after the massacres of WWI, or the holocaust of WWII. They had more balls then the US could handle, and they couldn't handle it either. Europe unlike the United States has learned its lessons the hard way, fighting wars in the end serve no purpose but to destroy ur nation, and its morale. No one won after WWI, Europe really lost after WWII, soon the US will learn her lessons with her WWI which is what she calls "war on terror". You must remember that the Europeans thought you were pussies as well especially the Brits.

In '55, the French thought they were still in Europe fighting on a fixed field of battle and got their asses chewed (hell, they can't even defend Paris, let alone France). Many never came back from captivity.

Except for the paras, the bulk of the French forces at Dien Bien Phu were the Foreign Legion, made up of Germans who had joined the Legion after the war and eastern Europeans, and there were some Moroccans and Algerians, about 14,000 troops in all. In fairness to the French, they under-estimated the capabilities of the Viet Minh, much as US leadership would continually underestimate the NVA. And I don't know if I would say they got their asses chewed. Since Giap had about 70,000 men, they were outnumbered 5-1 and held out for almost 2 months, even though VietMinh anti-air artillery made it virtually impossible to resupply. The French artillery officer who believed the base was indefensible committed suicide early into the seige, but the general leadership from the officers was quite good. And I can't think of anything braver than the two French para battalions parachuting into the camp about 6 weeks into the seige, at night and during an enemy artillery barrage. I sort of 'ran into' two French paras in a bar in Saigon in 1970, and I will testify personally that they were two of the toughest SOBs I've ever met.

Calm down man. No one is attacking Iran atleast right now. I don't know what is that news site you have mentioned above. Sounds like some middle eastern web site. Well, then it is half propanganda and half truth just like any other media site.

Now, as for what Iran can do? NOTHING!. If USA wants to attack Iran, they will do it and without using a single ground troop. They will send that country back to stone age with their un touchable air force, and it is a fact/ For example, the longest AsHm in Iranian inventory is Barhomas, range: 300km. US navy can use toma hawks, range : 900 plus miles. They don't even have to be in range of Iranian navy to attack the iranians. Every one knows that that Iranian air force is nothing compare to usa or even with regional air forces, so the chance of iranians would try that and even think about it is not possible. So, in other words, Iran is like Iraq. Only thing they can do is attack other arab countries where the us bases are located and that is it. But if usa would neutralize their air force in 24-48 hrs or even in 3 days and finish their navy ...then there is not much they can do.


But I don't think that usa would attack iran. Atleast nor right now. Too much at stake. So, this will not happen till the end of the current adminstration's term. So relax for next 3.5 years.

Wake up young man..it's time to wake up.... You are in a dream world and still think that US can send a country like Iran back to the stone age. Thats the problem of most of the Americans. US couldnt win a war against Iraq which doesnt have half the military force what Iran has right now. And i can assure you that Iran won't be alone in a possible war. The brothers are watching and are eager to join these war games of the US

US couldnt win a war against Iraq which doesnt have half the military force what Iran has right now.

The US can win the 'war' at any time it chooses. Attempting to 'nation-build' is another thing entirely.

And the US would lose immediately all their european allies for this farfetched war. Could it even be that for the first time the EU will take a stance against the US. I guess the existence of Nato will forbid this. But what will Turkey do? Can it be bribed again?

When was Turkey bribed?
Turkey will not give permission to any US forces to use the Incirlik base in a Iran/US war. US thouht that they could easily use the Incirlik base and have a northern front in the Iraq war but the parliamnt voted against it and US couldnt use the base for attacking purposes.
Turkey cares much more about what Europe wants since its so close to join the EU and would do what the EU countries would do. Staying out of a war!

The US can win the 'war' at any time it chooses. Attempting to 'nation-build' is another thing entirely.

So, you think US actually won the Iraq war?!?!

This is a Guerilla war and US is loosing it again like it lost in Vietnam.

The Neo-cons are looking to invade Iran, and are scouting for reasons to do so. The Axis of Evil speech should have told us that. They will invade Iran, count on it, especially since Bush is a lame duck (with a capitol L). Someone leaked this info to the press because they were concerned, perhaps scared they would actually do it. It would be a huge mistake, and serve to radicalize the significant numbers of moderate Iranians under a banner of nationalism. The most we could do is blow stuff up. The military is already overextended. Bush is a delusional warmonger.

The people in this region are not what we would call "educated" so don't expect them to reason this out.
Not true, Iran is a modern society, not a third world backwater. The 'cons, however, don't even believe in science.

The US can win the 'war' at any time it chooses. Attempting to 'nation-build' is another thing entirely.
So, would it be a good thing or a bad thing in the war on terrorism to leave a relatively advanced muslim nation in chaos and anarchy?

Wake up young man..it's time to wake up.... You are in a dream world and still think that US can send a country like Iran back to the stone age.

Yes, we could knock Iran back to the stone age. We could break its economy, wipe all life from its major population and infrastructure centers, and truely break the country's back. It wouldn't be too hard at all.

Our problem comes when we try to use a light handed method, as opposed to shoot everything that moves. We can destroy a city along with everything in it in a few minutes plus travel time. The problem comes when we try to kill combatants and only combatants without so much as scratching someone's paint job. That is when we have difficulties.

Oh, and most of Iran and the Middle east in general isn't that far from the Stone Age right now. Masy still seem to be living life just as they did in 13th century, if not even more backwards. The only difference seems to be the AK-47. Some of the cities have modern conveniences, but once you leave them.... its another matter entirely.

Every citizen of Iran would become a combatant if we invaded, wouldn't you? Hasn't anyone seen Red Dawn? The war on terrorism isn't the traditional style of war, which is mostly obsolete (see- The Transformation of War by Martin van Creveld ). But this fact doesn't sit well with the military industrial complex's need for war, so they plow on like the dinosaurs they are. Don't we want to win the hearts and minds of these people? I don't care how many weapons you have, unless all you are after is a barren wasteland, you can't win if the people are against you.

So, you think US actually won the Iraq war?!?!

This is a Guerilla war and US is loosing it again like it lost in Vietnam.

Read it again, a little closer this time...

The US can win the 'war' at any time it chooses. Attempting to 'nation-build' is another thing entirely.

I said if the US wanted to fight this as a real war, and unleash its firepower, they could take virtual control of the country. If that was the intention. As it is, they are trying to nation-build, meaning they are fighting a small percentage of the population as delicately as they can to avoid inflicting as much as possible damage on a civilian population. They are using a fraction of their firepower. Do I think they will be successful in nation-building in Iraq. I highly doubt it. Do I think they could win this war if they actually chose to fight it as a war instead of a police action. Yes.

Wake up young man..it's time to wake up.... You are in a dream world and still think that US can send a country like Iran back to the stone age. Thats the problem of most of the Americans. US couldnt win a war against Iraq which doesnt have half the military force what Iran has right now. And i can assure you that Iran won't be alone in a possible war. The brothers are watching and are eager to join these war games of the US


Thanks for calling me an American. I take it as a compliment. But, it is you who need to wake up. Not me. No one needs to win the war. Just bombed the hell out of them. Simple isn't it? And the so called Brothers eager to join? can join the fate of rest of this so called Ummah. Stupidity has no bounderies. If those stupid brothers of yours TRY to get some Decent education and literate themselves and their Families, it would be better than anything they would have ever done.

If you are from middle east, I have an advice for you, educate your self and your nations. If you want to win a war, you need to start from your own home. You can't win a war from borrowed weapons.

When was Turkey bribed?


Can't remember exactly, but turkey was first extremely reluctant to let the US use it bases, because of the kurdish problem they are having. And suddenly a large deal of this reluctance disappeared. I can't remember what they got in return for this, but they got something.

And about the confusion surrounding winning a war:

The US is good at winning battles, pitched battles, but that is not the same as winning a war.

it was assurances that the US wouldnt let the kurds in iraq form there own state

The US can win the 'war' at any time it chooses. Attempting to 'nation-build' is another thing entirely.

So, would it be a good thing or a bad thing in the war on terrorism to leave a relatively advanced muslim nation in chaos and anarchy?

It would be a bad thing. Now tell me what the question has to do with what I said.

I think Americans are too busy shooting civilians in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/middle_east_shooting_in_tal_afar/html/1.stm) now to aim for Iran.

Thanks for calling me an American. I take it as a compliment. But, it is you who need to wake up. Not me. No one needs to win the war. Just bombed the hell out of them. Simple isn't it? And the so called Brothers eager to join? can join the fate of rest of this so called Ummah. Stupidity has no bounderies. If those stupid brothers of yours TRY to get some Decent education and literate themselves and their Families, it would be better than anything they would have ever done.

If you are from middle east, I have an advice for you, educate your self and your nations. If you want to win a war, you need to start from your own home. You can't win a war from borrowed weapons.

Watch your words...
I meant Russia by big brother and not the other Arab Countries. There is no way that Arabs can unite together. That is their biggest weakness. nd i am not from the Middle East
You can NOT bomb the hell out of a country anymore. Those days are gone.
Epecially after the unfair Iraq war no other country will let you do something like this again. People will have a hard time believing you from now on.

Can't remember exactly, but turkey was first extremely reluctant to let the US use it bases, because of the kurdish problem they are having. And suddenly a large deal of this reluctance disappeared. I can't remember what they got in return for this, but they got something.


Turkey did not get anything. Parliament voted if Turkey should join the war and let the US use the bases and the outcome was "No"
US thought that they can push the Turkish military to change this result but since Turkey is close to join the European Union the military did nit do anything and will not do anything in politics in the future.
So, Turkey did not gain anything from this but lost a lot of money like in the first gulf war.

Watch your words...
I meant Russia by big brother and not the other Arab Countries. There is no way that Arabs can unite together. That is their biggest weakness. nd i am not from the Middle East
You can NOT bomb the hell out of a country anymore. Those days are gone.
Epecially after the unfair Iraq war no other country will let you do something like this again. People will have a hard time believing you from now on.

watch my words for WHAT?

Russians are Phucked as they have ever been. Afhgans thought the same about their BIG Brothers and got raped by them, you won't be any different.No one is coming to save Iran. NO ONE.

YES! you can still bomb the country back to stone age, we just did that to Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran could be next in line, but not just right now. Maybe in 2 or 3 years. Yes it will be.

Of course, you are big anc cool because you can kill many. What an achievement!!
Who are the primitive ones? Stupid rednecks.

Skywalker can be a tough guy on the internet. A lot easier than serving on the front lines in Iraq.

Of course, you are big anc cool because you can kill many. What an achievement!!
Who are the primitive ones? Stupid rednecks.

I am merely making a point, I do not advocate any kind or form of killing. I amsimply trying to tell people who think that iran can fight back, they can't stand more than a week or two. That is what I am trying to say, not that I am favoring any sort of war. Sorry, I have been sorta sarcastic, through out this thread.

Jagger: Sorry, I do not think that I am communicating my point well.

Skywalker can be a tough guy on the internet. A lot easier than serving on the front lines in Iraq.

I hope you have read the whole thread before making statments about me.

:o

I am arguing a point that USA can destroy Iran in months or weeks without putting any ground troops and Iranian won't be able to do much.

What the usofa can do on paper doesn't mean much in the real world.

2nd I thought the us was fighting a war against terrorism, not conducting terror and mass genocide, am i wrong?

there sure is alot of ANTI-USA people around here lately, personally I served in the first gulf war I am a american and proud to be a american, would I fight again if my country ask yes I would, would you?

as far as some of the things I read in here like people on the ground getting gps positions of site why the hell for they got sats that can do that in minutes and if you doubt it your still living in a wet dream.

As far as us attacking Iran sorry I just don't see that one happening any time soon, maybe after we are out of Iraq but I think Seria might come before them, ohh wait some of you might say no North Korea will be before them no I doubt that to we are pulling our troops out of there little at a time when our troops are gone sure North and South Korea might start fight and then we have cause to go back and bomb them or what ever, the USA is not as dumb as the media or you all think.

Do I agree with some of the things the USA does no not at all but I live there and such I trust that they will make the right decisions, but I can say this too I don't agree with alot of dicisions that some other countrys make too, every country makes the wrong moves, I don't see anyone flaming France for invading the ivory coast hmm...

also Kunax you think the USA is committing mass genocide better look up the term!!!

also look at the history of our world around the beginning of western civ, when the world was run by kings, how did they get power, from wars by invading wining wars, the usa's government is kinda modeled from that era, but we have a un-crowned president and not a king, I do have to say times change but they don't.

oopss almost forgot skywalker is right the USA can destroy Iran, but what you are all forgetting is it can destroy any country in days if it wanted you all forget about the nuclear arsnal's but I don't see that ever happening. maybe if North Korea Nuked south korea or japan then we would us nukes.

I did not say they where commiting mass genecide, it was a reply to skywalker(and your self now), who boast that usa can destroy Iran(you,any country) with in days/months.
Dont you see what you saying. To destroy a country means kill all or most of its cityces(sp!), mass genecide, even if they die from 2nd hand effects like no water,food or healthcare the destroyer is to blame.

Few habors true hate for usa, hate requirs a form of respect, that has been lost alongth with trust for most people, disliking and distrust for use as a hole, yes. For the individule, well all doors are open its up to him or her:).

there sure is alot of ANTI-USA people around here lately, personally I served in the first gulf war I am a american and proud to be a american, would I fight again if my country ask yes I would, would you?

Would I fight a war if my country asked? Hell no. You see, "being an American" is a lot different than being a soldier in the Army. When in the Army, you're told to do something without question. Being an American isn't about doing something without question but usually with question. There is nothing unpatriotic about not agreeing with something your country says or wants. That's what patriotism is!

This whole war "to defend freedom" is pure bunk. That's an abused claim to get people into thinking it's a patriotic thing to do. The whole freedom wording is exactly the same as others do using God. Use wording that’s the most important thing to someone, and they’ll do anything for it out of fear. These countries aren't jealous of our freedom as Dubya and the Republicans say, lol. Nobody is at war with us, we're at war with other people. Go to war against countries before they develop better weapons? That's bunk too. Countries have the right to arm themselves with the best technology they can get even if they're Anti-American. That doesn't mean they're going to attack us, even if they may do so a hundred years from now. Because China, Russia, France, UK, or any other country in the world continues to develop better weaponry, does that mean they're going to use it against us too? Any country very well may, but until they do and wage war, there is nothing wrong with them doing what they're doing.

The only time I would fight for my country is when I'm doing exactly what the words say, fighting for my country. Once an enemy comes on my homeland, I will defend myself and everyone around me. But I will never ever go to another country that we declared war on as opposed to them declaring war against us. Afghan war, sure. Iraq or Iran war? Hell no. So question the war and if it's legitimate, then go ahead and join in if ya want, but don't be a brainwashed soldier that does anything those above you say. For the whole "fighting for freedom" bit, you don't seem to have much of it as a soldier. Ironic, no? ;)

- N

Nobody is at war with us, we're at war with other people. Go to war against countries before they develop better weapons? That's bunk too. Countries have the right to arm themselves with the best technology they can get even if they're Anti-American.




Thats the key right there.......Well said N :m:

Being an American isn't about doing something without question but usually with question. There is nothing unpatriotic about not agreeing with something your country says or wants. That's what patriotism is!Exactly!

Countries have the right to arm themselves with the best technology they can get I’m not sure if right is the right word.

I’d say they can try to take the opportunity to do so. But is that an inalienable-right? What are these State Rights? Is there a list? Does the USA have the right to take Iraq’s oil? Does might make right?

I don’t know if there are any universal Rights regarding States?

Should Kurds have the right to a State?
Should the Ainu have the right to get their land back?
Should the Tibetans?
Should the native Islander-Taiwanese (aboriginals) have the right to get their land back and all the Chinese return to the mainland?

It seems the only “rights” States or the People that comprise States have are those they can guarantee for themselves. And so maybe Iran has the right to make as many nuclear bombs as they can.

But I'd say its more - IF they can.

Back to weapons:

Do you think that Taiwan has the right to arm itself with hundreds of nukes and point them at all the major cities of China? Or visa versa? If so do you think that it is, by natural extension, the USA’s right to sell such weapons to Taiwan (or China)? Is it NKs right to make Biological Weapons?

If I knew for a fact that NK was going to revamp and modify a biological pest similar to the black-plague and that it would result in a similar pandemic - then I’d be in favor of stopping them.

However, do I think NKs are?
No.
Do I think Iraq was enough of a threat to go to war against –
No.

But that doesn’t mean that I support the notion that it’s State X’s right to make technologically advanced race-tailored biological weapons because they are the best Weapons available. I do not think THAT is a right of States.

Just out of curiosity?

Is it the USAs right to stop all trade with any nation they deem they do not want to trade with?

OR must the USA trade with any and all countries?

Is it the USAs right to say to other countries: "If you trade with nation X then we will not trade with you"?

Was it the USAs right to put sanctions on Iraq?

Are sanctions the next technological weapon in war? Is it then the USAs right to develop it?

These are just some questions I thought of . . . . . .

I am merely making a point, I do not advocate any kind or form of killing. I amsimply trying to tell people who think that iran can fight back, they can't stand more than a week or two.

That's what some were saying about Iraq.

America's military forces are stretched pretty thin at the moment, and I seriously doubt they could handle an invasion in Iran.

Quite simply, the military force is inexperienced. The troops have had no experience in a real war of attrition for decades. Remember that the first Gulf War was a skirmish, not a war.

We are observing America's incompetence in Iraq. The Arabs in that area will never greet Westerners with open arms. The sooner the American admin realizes this, the better.

Countries have the right to arm themselves with the best technology they can get – N

I’m not sure if right is the right word.

But I'd say its more - IF they can.

Well I’d say it’s a combination of “right” and “if”. Everyone has the right to defend themselves with the best weaponry they can get, it’s just a matter of making it happen. People may not trade certain arms to another country for obvious reasons, everyone wants to have the best weaponry possible whereas their enemy’s, or possible enemy’s, isn’t as good. There are many various ways to gain weaponry anywhere from espionage, to trading, to researching it themselves. Most ways can be prevented by others to not have someone get better weaponry, but everyone has the right to with those that wish to trade with them.

The only way to not stop someone from getting better weaponry is having them research it themselves. Others can slow down the process by not trading other goods with them to cause financial troubles which would “in theory” work, but doesn’t really as that nation will just continue with it’s weapon research and where the other countries assumed they would take money out of research and put it towards the hurting areas such as lack of food for civilians, they don’t do so. So basically that idea goes down the drain and the only people that hurt are the innocents. Now who’s to blame? The one who decides defending themselves for/against future conflicts is worth more than the lives of some of it’s citizens, or the ones who tried to deny another country the right to defend themselves by putting embargoes on them? Both sides are free to do as they wish so this then basically just becomes a question of opinionated morals which basically means nothing as morals are created and changed by the most powerful.

But is that an inalienable-right? What are these State Rights? Is there a list? Does the USA have the right to take Iraq’s oil? Does might make right?

Well when I say “right”, it all comes down to being even with everyone. If one country is allowed to do something, the same should apply to everyone else. If we deny Iran or North Korea to arm itself with the best weaponry possible, then why do we not deny the same of China, America, or anyone else? Because we’re the big guys and we get to tell others what to do since there is nobody around to stop us. Here we’re going to war against other countries all because they’re anti-American so they somehow pose a threat to us. Being anti-American doesn’t mean they’re going to wage war with us yet that’s how we’re treating it. But that’s not the real reason we’re going to war with them.

In these days, it’s pretty hard to go to war with someone as we’re all trying to be loving peaceful people staying in our own land while trading with everyone. So basically no country is going to be able to gain any land or resources anymore except in the Capitalistic nature of buying out someone. Everyone is stuck being where they are now with no old-school ways of future expansion. So how does one make it possible to have their dream of true of taking over the world? Create propoganda that goes against people being loving and/or wanting to keep to themselves so you get the self-proclaimed right to have a pre-emptive strike and declare war in a so-called “justified” reason during the days where war is looked down upon.

Should Kurds have the right to a State?
Should the Ainu have the right to get their land back?
Should the Tibetans?
Should the native Islander-Taiwanese (aboriginals) have the right to get their land back and all the Chinese return to the mainland?

Not freely, no. In these days, everyone is now stuck with having everyting as it is now. Our countries can no longer expand without being looked at as a brutal and aggressive country. This is why people think of crafty and sneaky ways of making it happen without realizing the true reason of them doing so. Any reason for anyone doing anything for any other country is the pure and simple reason of increasing their power and influence in the world in hopes of being able to rule it without having to do so using the aggressive way of waging war which then puts them in a bad light and ruins their ability to do so.

Now the Kurds, Ainu, Tibetans, and any other minority group can go ahead and TRY to claim their own state. They can either play victim as the Jews did or they can secretly overthrow their current government to take control. Those people can even try to wage war in their country to take it over and create their own state too. However, until they wage war, nothing should be able to be done against them as there is nothing wrong with arming oneself. We do not know their intentions even if we play the “well this is what I’d do if I were them” scenario. Prevent them from doing so is being discriminate because there is no country in this world that tries to arm itself with the best weaponry available.

Do you think that Taiwan has the right to arm itself with hundreds of nukes and point them at all the major cities of China? Or visa versa? If so do you think that it is, by natural extension, the USA’s right to sell such weapons to Taiwan (or China)? Is it NKs right to make Biological Weapons?

Yup, they all have the right to do so. Every country in the world continues to update it’s weaponry but does that mean that every single country has put it to an offensive use? China and Russia have nukes pointed at us as we do of them. Why should we and they be able to do so but not Taiwan? We’re all looking out for ourselves so why should Taiwan be denied that right especially when China wants Taiwan so badly? Just because Taiwan has nukes pointed at China, it doesn’t mean they’ll all of a sudden use them. Name one country that has nukes pointed at another that has actually launched it at those countries?

North Korea and biological weapons? What’s wrong with that? Biological weapons is just another way of killing. Are they fighting anyone right now with their other weaponry? Until they do declare war on someone, we shouldn’t be able to go to war against them all because they “might” someday use them. That’s pretty scary if anything on our part. Nobody is going to war with others yet WE are the ones actually going out and waging war with other countries to prevent them from doing so, lol. Does that make ANY sense? That’s just a reason used by us to be able to do what we can’t.. expand our power and influence in times when waging war is looked down upon. So all ya gotta do is say we’re going to war against someone because they’re going to do it with us some day. Somehow that makes sense to everyone. :confused: France may some day declare war with us too so I guess we outta just invade them tomorrow too!

And since you seem to be so scared of biological weapons and wanting to stop anyone trying to develop them. Shall we invade Mother Russia? They have loads of it. Should we invade ourselves because we have loads of em too? This is the silly part that makes no sense in that reasoning. We use these reasons on smaller countries yet the reasons we use apply to a huge number of other countries. :confused:

Basically what we’re doing is trying to consolodate power so that there are less people that disagree with the way we run things. The more countries that agree with one another, the easier it is to create a one world government so that someone will actually make that dream come true of being able to rule the world. Live and let live? I think not. More like live and let live under one rule. Democracy is being used as a tool to make all of that happen. Things can’t be done on a massive scale unless there is some kind of a perk into converting to someone’s system. Even with democracy and freedom, there can only be one outcome when voted upon. How is that freedom? It only means there are two opposing peoples (higher vote vs lower vote) compared to a whole number of them when it comes to various types of governments and ways of life, and we all know how easily it is to sway votes or just flat out cheat which in turns makes freedom and democracy worthless. We still wind up living under other people’s rules.

Giving us voting perks only blinds us in thinking we’re making our own rules when we’re not. When was the last time you’ve gotten to make your own rule? You only get to vote between rules created by other people telling you how to live. And exactly how is this any different compared to other forms of government in which we hate and is somehow a threat to “our freedom”? It’s all political propoganda bunk! Look how the Bush Administration is able to do what they want just by the mention of the blinded words of “freedom and democracy”. This is no different than the Church doing what they want by mentioning the word “God”. By continuously saying how great something is and creating up this fake threat against what we love, the people making those claims are able to do anything they want. Love and fear is the greatest manipulator.

Whoa, sorry for the rant in that part, heh.

Is it the USAs right to stop all trade with any nation they deem they do not want to trade with?

OR must the USA trade with any and all countries?

Is it the USAs right to say to other countries: "If you trade with nation X then we will not trade with you"?

Was it the USAs right to put sanctions on Iraq?

Are sanctions the next technological weapon in war? Is it then the USAs right to develop it?

Yep, every country is free to do as they wish. All of those things you mention isn’t a country doing something AGAINST a country, it’s rather them NOT doing anything to them in the form of not trading with them. However, when it comes to waging war against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or anyone else, that’s a country actually DOING something against a country. Doing something to another is an act of war and that’s just wrong. We shouldn’t be able to do anything to them unless they do something to us. We can’t make up these scaredy cat reasons of them possibly doing something to us in the future as that can apply to anyone.

Unless a country flat out says we’re going to attack you, then a pre-emptive strike is justified. And the funny thing? Only America has made those claims. So basically if Iran, Syria, North Korea, or any other Axis of Evil ever attacks us, it’s fully justified as self defense. But hey, somehow they’re the bad guys and we’re the good. Funny how we get to always twist things around to suit our cause, eh? We’re using propoganda to create ways to expand our influence and power aside from just the continental United States in a time where expansion outside one’s country is frowned upon, and we’re getting away with it!

- N

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4190279.stm

The prime minister [Tony Blair] said Mr Bush had learned military force was not the only way to fight terrorism.

Maybe we will see a softer, more sensitive Bush in the second term then? Mr Blair is good freinds with Bush and he of all people would know if Bush was thinking of invading Iran.

As Blair was seen to go along with Bush's idea to invade Iraq without question and loyalty with huge consequences to his trust among the public, on the run up to the general election, it would be a foolish thing for Blair to admit to if he knew of otherwise. He didnt actually deny that Bush will invade either so if he does it wont look as if he was lying. Teflon Tony strikes again, that lawyer degree was handy wasnt it?

I think its entirely possible that Bush will invade Iran, to forcefully spread democracy and human rights as well as western values. Maybe even Tony Blair will give his blessing.

Considering that anti-Iran news is coming from the Bush administration, it's not so much a matter of if but when the US will attack and how. Can't happen without a draft in place, so watch for that. The ball has been rolling on that for some time; should become public knowledge in the next couple months. When should be the end of the year or early 2006, first with an intensive air campaign, to help ensure that Bush's administration has time to get a firm grip on the oil, since 2008 has some risk (increasingly small as Bush's dictatorship grows stronger) of the presidency falling into less corrupt hands. The alternative is that Iran agrees to pay off Bush Oil to stave off an attack. This has nothing to do with nukes or liberation, just as Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs or liberation.

Rice is aligning the other countries and giving threats to Iran today. Very interesting and i am sure american public will buy this one as well, like the last one. :D Get ready for gulf war three and a military Draft.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/09/rice/index.html

# "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed."
# "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

by Joseph Goebbels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels)

They will never get a draft so soon after the losses in iraq. neither will they get anymore support.. their on a knife edge just now.

There is a saying in Latvia adopted from Vinni Puh-> "It is the same with Russia as it is with bees, you can never be sure about it", I think the same goes to the ability to brainwash american public by its' government.

In a poll given in my local paper some six months ago, 32% favored a draft, and I live in a liberal area. Only about 40% support nationwide is needed; Republicans in congress can survive their affirmative vote then, especially so soon after the election (far from the next election). They'll have a big incentive to vote yes because they'll get gobs of money for re-election from the industries that profit from war.

A draft is the last gasp of empire...because that's when you know its stressing the country so much that it needs to force people against their will to fight, and also the economic costs are horrendous.

http://www.bartcop.com/nukular-billboard.jpg

Rice is aligning the other countries and giving threats to Iran today. Very interesting and i am sure american public will buy this one as well, like the last one. :D Get ready for gulf war three and a military Draft.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/09/rice/index.html
there won't be a draft :rolleyes:

Never say never, especially in politics. At least that is what I get from my experience.
Of course I'm not the USA citizen and don't know the local situation, but that is a general principle that has applied to many situations no matter what political experts had been telling a week ago.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/04.09.28.ScareTactics-X.gif

It's just not likely, troop strength is a bit tight, but mostly because there have been too many cut backs. We're reversing that trend. Furthermore, if there were a draft, the public would freak out... so no politician would do it unless we were in a really really serious war. The war we're in isn't that big of a deal... at least not for us... we can fight the war without making any real sacrifics in the US... we can keep this up forever.

Wait until another crisis comes, we'll see how "puppet" like the situation will become...live in your abode of ignorance.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_nuclear


all the evidence is there, they even admit it today...............attack iran now. hahahahahhahha

The war we're in isn't that big of a deal... at least not for us... we can fight the war without making any real sacrifics in the US... we can keep this up forever.

Tell that to the soldiers who are "forever" enlisted in the back-door draft.

peoples sons and daughters will keep dieing... Karmashock. I take it you have never lost a loved one to war, when that happens it can change someones political orientation in life forever...and with time the people will rebel to these mass losses.

the backdoor 'draft' is in the contract and is nothing new. Such people are and will not be kept forever. At worst our needs for such things will continue for another 2 to 3 years.

======================================
As to whether I risk anything in this conflict, I HAVE LOTS OF FAMILY IN THE MILITARY! They all WANT to be there and often tell me about how grateful the iraqis are for their work.

So try a-fucking-nother.

I asked you if you lost anyone LEARN TO READ not if you have any participating in the war. AND AS FAR AS GREATFULL GOES they serve in the secure regions , I'm sure if they had a talk with the insergents it would be another matter. Personally I think thats a load of bullshit since 70% of iraqis who voted wanted removal of foreign troops from iraq.
And as far as wanting to be there: when it turns into another samalia i'm sure they WONT want to be there.

hold on ill put myself in an iraqis stand point:

"thank you mr white man for causing a majour cultural split in my country and bombing our holy city into the ground.. and killing all my country men."http://mishappa.image.pbase.com/u47/wendyo/upload/30281452.iraq2copy.jpg

the backdoor 'draft' is in the contract and is nothing new.

It's not in the contract. The soldiers are being retained longer than stipulated in the contract.

While people are talking about the US losses, the reality is that the number is still only about half of the death toll on 9-11 which could be why there is not a ground swell against the government's position.
The deaths from the tsunami so dwarf the military losses that is not the time for US puplic opinion to change.

Oh its only half of 9/11 lets keep it up... oh wait three thousand dead is quite alot for a war against the invisable terrorists. Quote by GW:
"We dont know who they are.. but we'r sure that they'r there."
the deaths in the tsunami were caused by nature, they cannot be controled,
the deaths due to war can be avoided.

And you forget that for many americans asia is waaaaaaaaay over there ...
"nothing to do with me..."
And the deaths in the war affect americans at home which contributes alot more to public opinion.

the backdoor 'draft' is in the contract and is nothing new.
Don't bother. This has been explained to zanket many times in the past. He's not interested in the facts. He's just interested in quoting the DNC talking points chapter and verse.
It's not in the contract. The soldiers are being retained longer than stipulated in the contract.This is incorrect.

This is incorrect.

I don't recall discussing the contract before for this topic. Everything I see on Google says it's an illegal breach of the contract. Show me the fine print if you can.

I asked you if you lost anyone
Statistically we've lost less then 2 percent of our total forces... prehaps less then 1 percent... so this statement doesn't make much sense.

My family has participated in every war this country has ever fought in from the revolution to the second Iraq war. In all those wars, my family only took losses in Vietnam. I lost an uncle who was flying recon for the CIA.

We've been very lucky in respect to our losses.

I bet relatives of the dead dont think that way. When the death toll rises which it will beleive me.. your there for atleast another 3 years.
Once it rises there will be much less support to any military action bush decides to take.

And again .. you probably never knew your uncle who was in vietnam, If it was a close relative your opinion would be totally differen