U.S., Israel to attack Iran

[ironmonk]

[quote name='zwergel88' date='Jan 25 2006, 05:59 PM']It wouldn't surprise me.  i keep wondering when we're going to invade our next country....
[right][snapback]865877[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You've got a lot ot learn kid.

Saddam, had to go.

This psycho in Iran, has to go.

He IS going to attack Isreal when he has nuclear weapons. He has basically said it. He believes that a muslim prophet "messiah" type is coming and needs to prepare the world for him. Part of this preparing is destroying Isreal.

This IS the same reason why we needed the crusades, because Islam is the religion of forcing submission on all non-islamics and even some islamics.

IT would be a just war IF Iran does not back down from nuclear weapons. Allowing Iran to achieve nukes will be like letting a wolf in your hen house.

[ironmonk]

And of course by doing this Iran is starting WWIII...

[url="http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060323/2006-03-23T092025Z_01_PEK127666_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-NUCLEAR-IRAN-CHINA-DC.html"]http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060323/...N-CHINA-DC.html[/url]

Iran is forcing our hand if they do not back down from nukes.

[jezic]

do you realize that if ANYONE attacks Israel it is NATO and the UN who will respond? (with things like sanctions and military action.) Then many arabic states would probably call it an attack on the Islamic religion and create their own alliance. If Pakistan joins them they have nuclear weapons and most of the world's oil.

The way our treaties work today, any war against a big nation will result in a massive world wide collapse of the economy (due to sanctions). It is expected that if just the US and china would stop trading the entire economy of the world would not support itself.

Who cares how many people bombs kill (i mean i do, but it will PALE in comparison to the damage done because the economy crumbles and countries don't supply each other with food)?

The world population could be cut in half or more.

Pray that it does not come to war. If it does, the world will never be the same.

[Didacus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Mar 23 2006, 07:18 AM']And of course by doing this Iran is starting WWIII...

[url="http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060323/2006-03-23T092025Z_01_PEK127666_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-NUCLEAR-IRAN-CHINA-DC.html"]http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060323/...N-CHINA-DC.html[/url]

Iran is forcing our hand if they do not back down from nukes.
[right][snapback]918848[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree.

Iran's postiion seems to be precisely in provoking the US and allies into WWIII. When you have a losing hand, knowing your adversary has a much stronger hand than you, it is very temptive to pick up all the cards and reshuffle them to start the game on 'even grounds'. WWIII, nuclear war, would in a sense do just that.
(however, who really knows what is behind their intent and strategy, you must remember that what you get in the news is just a portion of the story, maybe not even 30% of the total picture)

Hey IronMonk, remember "the principal of mutually assured destruction"?

That what they use to teach us at my highschool as being the modern mechanism of 'keeping the peace'. now it just makes me chuckle.

[Lil Red]

moving!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Mar 23 2006, 10:46 AM']I agree.

Iran's postiion seems to be precisely in provoking the US and allies into WWIII.  When you have a losing hand, knowing your adversary has a much stronger hand than you, it is very temptive to pick up all the cards and reshuffle them to start the game on 'even grounds'.  WWIII, nuclear war, would in a sense do just that.
(however, who really knows what is behind their intent and strategy, you must remember that what you get in the news is just a portion of the story, maybe not even 30% of the total picture)


[right][snapback]918911[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes... I think it also ties into during the Muslim prophet's time a great world war, and that is when he'll come, like the Stay Puff marshmellow man from Ghostbusters, to devistate all the Jews and Christians... WWIII will prepare his way...


[quote]Hey IronMonk, remember "the principal of mutually assured destruction"?

That what they use to teach us at my highschool as being the modern mechanism of 'keeping the peace'.  now it just makes me chuckle.[/quote]

Yes... that was before Star Wars was in place... notice how it was a big thing all over the news, and nothing else was ever heard of it...

"Yeah, China and Russia have enough nukes to do a lot of damage to us... we've known about this for many years.... and we've been preparing for it."

I do not think that if we are attacked by China and Russia that they will be able to land as many missles as some people think. I believe that they will be extremely surprised at what we can do to them. We have a laser that can shoot a beam which is 5000 times hotter than the sun... it can be mounted on a jet and it's already in orbit... specifically to smoke missles launched at us. If Russia and China start launching from their homelands and the missles start going off before they get a mile up, they'll stop fireing them... at least from land... they do have an unknown number of nuke subs.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote]...then you support a only country that:

1. refuses to disclose their nuclear capability to the UN.[/quote]

First, I don't know what "a only" means. "A" is an indirect article, signifying more than one, "only" signifies one. Are you saying that Israel is the only country in the world that refuses to disclose their nuclear capability to the UN or one among many?

[quote]2. which has sold US weapon secrets to China (most notably the secrets of ICBM technology, allowing for the first time Chinese Silkworm missles to be able to reach US soil & more recently sales of Unmanned recon aircraft).[/quote]

So did a former sitting American president, one William Jefferson Clinton.

[quote]3. Only country to still openly pratice segregation and known to openly abduct and torture anyone in their state who disagrees with them. (I think its also worth to mention the booming slave trade)[/quote]

I'd love to see evidence of this. Further, if you're going to call the fact that Israel is officially a Jewish state "segregation," are you also going to label Saudi Arabia as such? Yemen? Clearly not, since you seem to think that Israel is the "only country" to still segregate.

The list goes on...however that does not mean all jews are zionists...there are numerous jews who reject Zionism and the current state of Isreal and they're paying for it dearly.

[url="http://www.nkusa.org/"]http://www.nkusa.org/[/url]

[url="http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/"]http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/[/url]

I sopke to a local rabbi I know from University who belongs to the first mentioned group and he told me that jews in Isreal who reject the Zionist stance of the Isreali goverement are tirelessly victimized...some imprisoned because they rejust to join the IDF, their books banned and not to mention being deprived of citizenship.

[quote]However back to the issue at hand...I do not think at this point the state of Iran is a threat to the western world...in contrast to rogue states like North Korea..[/quote]

Believe me friend, Iran is a HUGE threat. Take the blinders off.

[quote]I'd also be more concerned over a Pakistan-India conflict as both are nuclear capable. (The Russian sales of enriched uranuim should also be off concern..)
[right][snapback]918778[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

These do concern me, without doubt and also need to be dealt with.

[toledo_jesus]

oh blast. Iran? I hope not. I think that would be slightly disastrous.

They've been behaving themselves while their old enemy Iraq is in a state of turmoil. They could very well have moved in.

This troublesome nuclear situation...I suppose we'll have to wait for diplomacy to fail.

[Peccator]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Mar 23 2006, 09:24 PM']So did a former sitting  American president, one William Jefferson Clinton.[/quote]...and I bet he had the Senates support on this.

[quote]I'd love to see evidence of this.  Further, if you're going to call the fact that Israel is officially a Jewish state "segregation," are you also going to label Saudi Arabia as such?  Yemen?  Clearly not, since you seem to think that Israel is the "only country" to still segregate.[/quote]
No, I'm not refering to it being considered a jewish state.

[url="http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150252006?open&of=ENG-ISR"]http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-ISR[/url]

[quote]Believe me friend, Iran is a HUGE threat.  Take the blinders off.
[/quote]Then I'd like to see some proof on that...not even Blair is falling for the "threat to world peace" excuse again.
[quote]These do concern me, without doubt and also need to be dealt with.[/quote]
If its a nuclear war, it should be....

[Didacus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Mar 23 2006, 07:22 PM']Yes... I think it also ties into during the Muslim prophet's time a great world war, and that is when he'll come, like the Stay Puff marshmellow man from Ghostbusters, to devistate all the Jews and Christians... WWIII will prepare his way...
[/quote]


Ah yes, the good old days of constant fear.

Wait a minute... same thing today except instead of 'nuclear' they call it something like 'terrorism'.


[quote name='ironmonk' date='Mar 23 2006, 07:22 PM'][snip]


I do not think that if we are attacked by China and Russia that they will be able to land as many missles as some people think. I believe that they will be extremely surprised at what we can do to them. We have a laser that can shoot a beam which is 5000 times hotter than the sun... it can be mounted on a jet and it's already in orbit... specifically to smoke missles launched at us. If Russia and China start launching from their homelands and the missles start going off before they get a mile up, they'll stop fireing them... at least from land... they do have an unknown number of nuke subs.
[right][snapback]919729[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Overconfidence has been the undoing of countless armies since the days of the ancient; I would way in the strength of the US very carefully before speaking so loud.

Look at all the trouble you guys are having in Iraq? You still have 22 000 troops in Afghan(we, Canada, have about 1700 ourselves). Winning a war is one thing, settling the aftermath in your favor is another.
[quote]Taking over the world is one thing, getting someone to run it for you, there's the killer! - Ivan Ooze, PowerRangers Movie.[/quote]


I can believe the US can do more damage than China and the USSR combined, but the piont is that in nuclear attacks China and the USSR can and will do damage and we're not talking about a couple of byplanes hitting a building or two. Care to take a chance? I sense the 'mutual destruction' syndrome at work already.

It is categorically impossible to attain a temperature 5000 time greater than the sun; you would require something similar to 20-50 trillion degrees and would evaporate all of earth (and the moon) five times over again with a single second blast. Overconfident perhaps?

[Peccator]

Taking my faith and past experience of war aside...

I'd really have to ask why the US would want to start another war when they still haven't finished the last one?

[img]http://www.middleeastfacts.com/images/map_middle_east.gif[/img]

Now as far as I can tell one can see that Iran would be surrounded on both side by Coalition forces (which makes me think Iran was the target from the beginning…but that’s just me  ).

The US would also be able to launch air strikes out of the Arabian Sea from their Carrier craft or from their bases in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

This off course means that this alone greatly enhances the Coalition's chance of successfully winning the initial stages of the war. (I also doubt China and Russia would intervene..at least not keeping current world power in mind.)

Now here comes the problem...United States troops are not trained to deal with the people they "liberate"(or to deal with terror attacks for that matter)...I read in a piece written by an American soldier back from duty.

He writes how US troops burned the bodies of insurgents (for obvious health reasons probably..) NOW what surprised me was that if they'd done some more research they'd have known that burning someone's corpse is one of the worst insults you can give one in Islam. This off course had the results that terror attacks increased in their district. (..not to mention soldiers lewd comments to veiled Muslim women.)

The more the territory, the bigger the manpower requirement and the longer the supply lines…making them much more vulnerable to insurgent attack. At the moment Coalition forces are barely able to protect their lines in Iraq, and to some measure in Afghanistan. I do not think at this time they’d be able to keep the lines going in an attack on Iran without risking substantial loses.

Iran is about 90% Shiite Muslim, and as far as I know the only Shiite Muslim country. This makes them rather isolated, as other Middle Eastern countries and resistance movements are of the Sunni persuasion. Attacking them might result in these splinter groups uniting as it might be considered an attack on the entire Islam.

…Ok, but this is all my opinion.

Edited March 24, 2006 by Peccator

[Didacus]

Pec,

I think your assessment is every bit as good as that of all the 'experts' I hear on TV who are simply trained to say whatever they are told.

Interesting that you comment that Iran might have been the target since the beginning; I had not thought of it this way before but there is a sense to it.

"The more the territory, the bigger the manpower" is the guiding principal to Canada's defense. The Us could conquer Canada on a dime if it wanted, but could never hold it permanently; the nation is much too vast to control by force alone.

I do not believe anyone, including al muslims, could predict how the mulsim world will react as a whole to the US invading Iran. Sadly, I have to admit to just sit back and wait because we'll probably find out soon enough.


The big question however remains: what will the USSR and China do?

[Peccator]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:23 AM']Interesting that you comment that Iran might have been the target since the beginning; I had not thought of it this way before but there is a sense to it.[/quote]Thinking as a godless tactician it makes perfect Machiavellian sense.
[quote]I do not believe anyone, including al Muslims, could predict how the Muslim world will react as a whole to the US invading Iran.  Sadly, I have to admit to just sit back and wait because we'll probably find out soon enough.[/quote] I know, I’m no Muslim nor have I ever been one so its merely my wild guess at a worst case senario

[quote]The big question however remains:  what will the USSR and China do?[/quote]At this point they'd gain nothing by sticking their neck too far.

I'm sure they'll definitely condemn the attack and maybe take it up with the UN...though only time will tell. I only really know how a military mind thinks, not a politicians

Edited March 24, 2006 by Peccator

[Didacus]

[quote name='Peccator' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:34 AM']
[snip]

I'm sure they'll definitely condemn the attack and maybe take it up with the UN...though only time will tell. I only really know how a military mind thinks, not a politicians
[right][snapback]920284[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The stakes are very high in this game. Basically, if you control the ressources, you control the world. The US is acting 'pre-emptively' by taking by force the Iraq oil reserves (which are the largest remaining in the owrld by the way). Russia is the biggest oil producer in the world, so they might not have too much interest. China on the other hand a starving for ressources and Iran is a provider of oil (undisputably the most important natural ressource today).

I think that if the US attacks Iran, it will be pushing their luck with the bigger kids on the block. The US is strong, but in itself you cannot hope to attack the USSR or China for that matter.

If you where the president and had the final say; would you take the gamble and invade Iran?

[RandomProddy]

Ugh...

[Peccator]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Mar 24 2006, 10:50 AM']The stakes are very high in this game.  Basically, if you control the ressources, you control the world.  The US is acting 'pre-emptively' by taking by force the Iraq oil reserves (which are the largest remaining in the owrld by the way).  Russia is the biggest oil producer in the world, so they might not have too much interest.  China on the other hand a starving for ressources and Iran is a provider of oil (undisputably the most important natural ressource today).[/quote]
You bring up a very important card in the game of world power. Indeed, control of the world's oil supply is perhaps the biggest playing card on can wield today...not even nuclear weapons come close.

I've not heard anything from the Chinese the last few months, not have I studied them in detail… but I agree that control of oil would be of vital importance to them...especially if they wish to acquire the status of World Power (which they obviously do) and to rival the US.

[quote]I think that if the US attacks Iran, it will be pushing their luck with the bigger kids on the block.  The US is strong, but in itself you cannot hope to attack the USSR or China for that matter.  [/quote]Indeed. Its really difficult to really say, China does have the biggest army as far as I know in the world.

I read in Newsweek a year or so ago that the Chinese has such a vast population that by the time the United States destroyed their army...the Chinese would have trained and equipped another to take its place. Its off course one thing to train an army, its quite another to feed and equip them...especially when they number in the millions.

Russia, at the moment I do not think will intervene militarily as they can barely handle the Chechnian terrorists in their own country at the moment, and their army equipment is seriously out of date and not designed for desert combat (or their troops trained for it..)
[quote]If you where the president and had the final say; would you take the gamble and invade Iran?[/quote]Hard call, they obviously have access to much more detailed information we don't concerning Iran. Keeping in mind what we do know...not a chance. Iran wants the US to attack...the insurgency would be exponentially worse in Iran.

This is not a country where the majority hates their leader. Thee people are behind him and are prepared to fight it out…and they do want the US to attack. Once again, it’s only my opinion.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Mar 24 2006, 08:13 AM']Look at all the trouble you guys are having in Iraq?  You still have 22 000 troops in Afghan(we, Canada, have about 1700 ourselves).  Winning a war is one thing, settling the aftermath in your favor is another.
[right][snapback]920050[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

We are not having trouble in Iraq. Liberal Media has totally overblown what has gone on over there. We destroyed an entire country, and are rebuilding it, and we have lost only 2,000 soldiers. People say it is another Vietnam. In one sense it is. In vietnam we didn't lose a [i]single[/i] battle, but since the media was against the war, we lost. However, that is the only similarity. Vietnam we lost what, 20,000? 10 times as many. dont make me laugh

[quote name='Peccator' date='Mar 24 2006, 11:02 AM']I'd really have to ask why the US would want to start another war when they still haven't finished the last one?.
[right][snapback]920224[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Iraqi war is over. We won. What we have now is people blowing themselves up and along with themselves 20-30 innocent civilians. They are [i]terrorists[/i] trying to incite civil war amongst arabs, their own kind

[quote name='Didacus' date='Mar 24 2006, 11:50 AM']If you where the president and had the final say; would you take the gamble and invade Iran?
[right][snapback]920314[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

An all out invasion is not necessary. Destroying nuclear facilites and capabilities would be comparatively easy. However, I don't believe this to be necessary yet, as there are still other options available to pursue.

EDIT: apparently my math skills aren't very sharp today

Edited March 24, 2006 by notardillacid

[Peccator]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='Mar 24 2006, 11:44 AM']We are not having trouble in Iraq. Liberal Media has totally overblown what has gone on over there. We destroyed an entire country, and are rebuilding it, and we have lost only 2,000 soldiers. [/quote]I do not rely on the liberal media to tell me the situation in Iraq anymore than I do with regards to the situation in the Catholic Church.

I do however rely on people who do work there...and from what I've heard its not so optimistic as Pres. Bush seems to be:

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/21/bush.newsconference/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/21/bus...ence/index.html[/url]

Victory and pulling down a few statues do not mean the same thing.

[quote]People say it is another Vietnam. In one sense it is. In vietnam we didn't lose a [i]single[/i] battle, but since the media was against the war, we lost. However, that is the only similarity. Vietnam we lost what, 20,000? 10 times as many. dont make me laugh[/quote]Vietnam was lost due to alot of other reason as well...its not as simple as that unfortunely. (Iraqi insurgents for instance are not supported by the likes of China or Russia)

The biggest tragedy of Vietnam(for me) was the way the soldiers returning home were treated and how alot were left behind
[quote]The Iraqi war is over. We won. What we have now is people blowing themselves up and along with themselves 20-30 innocent civilians[/quote]Well thats debateble...I must however tell you that my experience with the armed forces has been that they always spin the numbers...I'm pretty sure the numbers are much higher.

[url="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm"]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._casualties.htm[/url]

Those are the official number I've come accross. Do not get me wrong, I'm no liberal...I am though against soldiers dying for nothing.

[musturde]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Jan 25 2006, 05:26 PM']wow...  i didn't expect this kinda reaction on this thread 
[right][snapback]865948[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

LOL me neither...

[musturde]

EENS I agree that Zionism isn't such a hot deal but Judiasm isn't bad. They still are the descendants of Abraham (like the Muslims).