The Iran Question?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Will they or will they not?

Rumour is that the US is planning a bombing campaign on their 'Nuclear' Facilities.

Earlier this week the President of Iran said that their Nuclear ambitions were like a train that had no brakes or reverse gear!

I fear if America declare war on Iran it could be a bloodshed (on both sides)
Compared with Iraq a few years ago, Iran has a competant military, with a well trained Air Force, Navy and long range missiles. Although they are clearly out-gunned by the US, I've heard that they have around 11 million "Basiji" volunteer militia. :s hock:

I think that this could turn into another Vietnam :s

[Eki]

I fear if America declare war on Iran it could be a bloodshed (on both sides)

Since when has the Bush administration cared about people dying?

[J4MIE]

I think Bush has made his mind up already and wants to get on with it while he's still the president.

Quite honestly, I can't see how he could possibly think of making the same mistake over again, except to a bigger country with a bigger population most of whom I'd imagine are dead against the US :s

[race aficionado]

It won't happen.

[Quattroporte]

I fear if America declare war on Iran it could be a bloodshed (on both sides)


Bloodshed in a war?? Surely not! :s

I kinda get the feeling that there is bloodshed in any war Jon...

[J4MIE]

It won't happen.

I hope you're right race, but the way things are looking at the moment nothing would surprise me :s

[Gannex]

There is no way the Bush administration would try to attack Iran. The main reason is that they could not do it; public opinion in the US would not go along with it, Congress wouldn't fund it, and the idea would die within minutes of its being proposed.

Not only is it politically impossible for the US to start a war against Iran, it is also nonsensical at this point in time. President Ahmenidejad is becoming increasingly unpopular in Iran, whose economy is doing rather badly with high rates of both inflation and unemployment. Dissatisfaction with Ahmenidejad's aggressive foreign policy is growing by the day, so that even the nuclear development programme, which used to have widespread support, is now being questioned in many powerful quarters. So the US will surely wait to see how that public mood affects the Iranian government, whether Ahmenidejad survives, and if he does, whether he moderates his positions; all those questions will need answers before an attack on Iran would make any sense at all, and the American government surely knows this.

Israel, on the other hand, may well attack Iranian nuclear installations from the air. They have drawn up plans for bunker-buster bombs to make tunnels toward the deeply buried facilities, and for small nuclear bombs to be sent down the holes to do the final job. But these are only plans; I believe Israel, like the US, will see how Iranian policy develops over the next year or so before taking any action.

[A.F.F.]

Bloodshed in a war?? Surely not! :s

I kinda get the feeling that there is bloodshed in any war Jon...


Yep, is there another kind ?

[Woodeye]

Not only is it politically impossible for the US to start a war against Iran, it is also nonsensical at this point in time.

So wouldn't it be then something that "mr." Bush would easily do?


Israel, on the other hand, may well attack Iranian nuclear installations from the air. They have drawn up plans for bunker-buster bombs to make tunnels toward the deeply buried facilities, and for small nuclear bombs to be sent down the holes to do the final job. But these are only plans; I believe Israel, like the US, will see how Iranian policy develops over the next year or so before taking any action.

If Israel will attack Iran I have no doubts that all the other arab countries will be furious agaist Israel. It would be the most stupid thing they possibly could do. Of course U.S would have no other option than to support Israel, so that would bring U.S to again another war. And the hatred agains U.S would rise to another peak in muslim world.

[Sandfly]

Look dudes - Iran is already at war with us - along with most of the musilm world- even if they do not take up arms but simply submit to the radical will of those carrying the sword of ALLAH. It is not gonna stop because we want it too. If you are not willing to defend yourself you had better learn to submit- as in "Moslem" = ( Submitter ).

[Sandfly]

Just because the UN fabricated a ridiculously narrow and exclusive definition for WMD - one that excluded all dual use weapons - such as organophosphate poison = pesticide - does not mean they were not there.

If you read the Kay or Duelfoue sp reports you will see that they are thick and filled with cataloques of all the dual use products which were clearly weaponozed but EXCLUDED by the NARROW DEFINITION.

BUSH LIED ??? NO, the media did by not telling what is really in the reports. And yes -- the crdeibility of the US and the west has suffered because of it - But since when has the UN done anything but attck the US credibility.

[Eki]

BUSH LIED ??? NO, the media did by not telling what is really in the reports. And yes -- the crdeibility of the US and the west has suffered because of it - But since when has the UN done anything but attck the US credibility.
Well, it has for example attacked the credibility of Iran and North Korea quite a lot recently, and before that the credibility of Iraq. And it has been mostly the US leading those character assassinations.

[Tomi]

Maybe us will do some air bombings, but i dont think they have balls to start a real war, all countries they have attacked lately has practicly no working army, Iran has, better for the us to look some small island countries in caribbean if they want to win some war.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Bloodshed in a war?? Surely not! :s

I kinda get the feeling that there is bloodshed in any war Jon...

A bloodshed is the savage killing of many victims.

If the US attacked Iran there could be extreme heavy casualties on both sides, thousands, maybe millions of soldiers could be killed. :rolleyes:


Even though around 800 died in the Falklands War I would hardly call it a bloodshed.

[harsha]

just because a country has nuclear weapons,does it give any other country the right to attack them.....i personally feel that the Iranians are the most moderate of all the Muslim nations...

[pvtjoker]

.....i personally feel that the Iranians are the most moderate of all the Muslim nations...


The people of Iran are moderate but not its government. They are mainly the people doing the 'saber rattling'.

[pvtjoker]

Look dudes - Iran is already at war with us - along with most of the musilm world- even if they do not take up arms but simply submit to the radical will of those carrying the sword of ALLAH. It is not gonna stop because we want it too. If you are not willing to defend yourself you had better learn to submit- as in "Moslem" = ( Submitter ).

100% in agreement. We're (The US) is already at war with Syria and Iran. When I was there we would routinely capture Syrians on a daily basis - yes daily! Throw in a large number of guys from S.A, Yemen and Chechnya to name a few more. But by in large Syria and Iran send the majority of the aid and volunteers to Iraq.

[pvtjoker]

NO, the media did by not telling what is really in the reports. And yes -- the crdeibility of the US and the west has suffered because of it - But since when has the UN done anything but attck the US credibility.


This is probably the most frustrating thing with the troops these days. At least it was when I was there. Coming home all you see is the negative reports, the doubts in the mission, from the media/politicians. How about a positive story once in a while? Believe me, they exist but just aren't being told.

The way I see it, you can't say you 'support the Troops' and but not the mission just because you don't like the leader (Bush). Put this way, that would be like someone saying they like the New York Yankees but hate the manager so they won't root for the team. Pretty lame excuse. At least those that spit on the troops or burn the flag are consistent. I know I know where they stand.

[pvtjoker]

Whats comical is Iraq is hosting a meeting later this month inviting Syria and Iran to discuss how Iraq can do prevent a civil war.

[Eki]

The people of Iran are moderate but not its government. They are mainly the people doing the 'saber rattling'.
Just like in the good ol' USA.

[Gannex]

The way I see it, you can't say you 'support the Troops' but not the mission.
pvtjoker, I support the troops but not the mission, and I think there's nothing inconsistent about that at all. I support the troops, because they are, for the most part, brave, hard-working, underpaid, and underappreciated. Their intentions are unselfish and the awfulness of conditions in theatre are rarely understood by the civilian population, so the level of the troops' sacrifice is consistently underestimated. No one could support the troops more than I do.

Nor could anyone support the mission less. It is ill-conceived and the mission has been executed by your superiors, both civilian and military, with staggering incompetence. This is not to criticise the troops, but it is to criticise the leadership of the troops. There is no inconsistency in saying the soldiers are deserving of praise and support, but that some of the generals, and especially the Commander-in-Chief are deserving of contempt.

[Gannex]

Whats comical is Iraq is hosting a meeting later this month inviting Syria and Iran to discuss how Iraq can do prevent a civil war.
Iran SHOULD be invited in to prevent civil war in Iraq after the Americans leave. Southern Iraq should be put under Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, with Iranian muscle to back him up. Iran would thereby get what they have so long desired; expansion of their sphere of influence to include Shiite Iraq. The price should be that they must rein in Moqtada al-Sadr and indeed all the radical Shiites in Central Iraq. If they are not willing to stop terrorising their Sunni neighbours they will have to face Iran. That will scare them far more than the Coalition ever did.

Central Iraq, meanwhile, will go entirely under Sunni control in a de facto partition of the country. The Kurds will run their own affairs, protected from the Sunni by a few thousand Coalition troops, under the banner of the UN.

Peace at last, and only because we were willing to put aside our revulsion at dealing with Iran. You know it makes sense, pvtjoker.

[pvtjoker]

Iran SHOULD be invited in to prevent civil war in Iraq after the Americans leave.

This is my opinion, but If/when the US leaves, Iraq will be split in 3 seperate state. Sunnis to the west support by SA, Syria, etc. The Shiite in the east and south supported by Iran. The Kurds will probably be supported by the US/UN as you've pointed out.

My arguement is they(Iran & Syria) are already there, spreading their message, killing not only Americans but other muslims. If these guys (Syria & Iran) stop supplying factions with weapons, tactics and men, chances are pretty good the violence would subside considerably (though not entirely). Sadr wouldn't have the clout he doesn't if Iran wasn't backing him. Anbar province wouldn't be the wild west that it is if Syria was allowing Sunnis insurgents to pore through its borders.

Its no secret the equipment, especially the technology has improved since the beginning of the war. The Iraqis most certainly did not developed this new technology or tactics themselves. Its came in large part from Iran and Syria.

[Gannex]

I agree with you entirely. There is little doubt that the Iranians and Syrians are aiding the enemies of the Coalition. They have American and British blood on their hands, which is what makes it so hard for us to deal with them. But deal with them we must.

[Sandfly]

Just like in the good ol' USA.

Do not make the mistake of thinking it is just the US leaders who are forcing the war. Most of the folks I know are all for it. Better to have a tough away game than play at home - in this deal. Thats the whole point that all the peace - nicks refuse to see.

When our guys get pulled out - the radicaals will follow them back here --- if you do not believe that - just wait.

This whole thing can only end one of three ways.

1) The Radicl Muslims can be controlled and pacified by more moderate elements within Islam - notice I did not say "mainstream" Islam. Thats because mainstream Islam is violet and dedicated to the forced submission of the world.

2) Islam conguers the west and we all are either dead or bowing to Allah.

3) The generous and benevolet people of the uS will get pissed off by the next attack and at some point will drop the full force of the western wrath on Islam. It will not be pretty. This current war on terror is not a war in Irag - it is a war started by radical Islam and it will not end untill the muslim world realizes that the US and its allies are willing to kill every last muslim-women and children included in order to stop this anarchy that is being pushed on the civilized world by Islam. Look at WW-II. Fire bombing Dresden, Tokyo et al, and yes the first use of the H-bomb. Islamic terrorists have bbeen killing our women and children for decades yet when we marched into bagdad, we did not kill every man with a gun on sight. It is hard to get us mad - but when the American people get pissed off - their will be more than sabres rattling.

I obviusly hope the answer is #1 and that all people can live in peace and pactice whatever religion - or non- that they prefer. America did not start this fight.

[Roamy]

right Sandfly they just have to keep ****ing around until we turn them into dust. So goes the world. My new motto "Isolate and don't donate"

[Eki]

Its no secret the equipment, especially the technology has improved since the beginning of the war. The Iraqis most certainly did not developed this new technology or tactics themselves. Its came in large part from Iran and Syria.
But it doesn't necessarily mean the governments of Iran and Syria are involved. It could be arranged by international weapons dealers. Drugs and weapons trafficking are one of the most lucrative businesses in the world.

[bowler]

But it doesn't necessarily mean the governments of Iran and Syria are involved.

Eki!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ArrowsFA1]

If Israel will attack Iran I have no doubts that all the other arab countries will be furious agaist Israel. It would be the most stupid thing they possibly could do. Of course U.S would have no other option than to support Israel, so that would bring U.S to again another war. And the hatred agains U.S would rise to another peak in muslim world.
IF Israel were to attack Iran such action would only be taken with the support and approval of the US in the first place. It would be seen as a US-led attack.

But since when has the UN done anything but attck the US credibility.
The damage to US credibility has laregely been as a result of the current administration's foreign policy, a part of which has included undermining, and circumventing the UN at every opportunity.

[Tomi]

IF Israel were to attack Iran such action would only be taken with the support and approval of the US in the first place. It would be seen as a US-led attack.

The damage to US credibility has laregely been as a result of the current administration's foreign policy, a part of which has included undermining, and circumventing the UN at every opportunity.

Exactly, agree 100%

[Eki]

Do not make the mistake of thinking it is just the US leaders who are forcing the war. Most of the folks I know are all for it.
Could it be that most of the folks you know have got something to do with the military? It's not surprising if the military is mostly saber rattlers, if they weren't, more of them would be like Lt. Ehren Watada. There's a man I respect. He's willing to fight for his country, but only when it's morally justifiable. He's not like those Nazis in Nuremberg who said "I was just following orders". Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror, but it has now made the terror problem even worse.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250549,00.html

[W8&C]

My new motto "Isolate and don't donate"
Good idea! Don´t "donate" your weaponry to the world any more! But at the same time please don´t forget to pay the billions and trillions of liabilities the USA have in the other parts of this planet caused by the immense US trading deficit that has grown in the last 3 or 4 decades! Even the Russians did that in the last couple of years. And be aware, that driving GM and Ford will not be the ultimate pleasure plus you should not care about running out of TV-systems and other Asian electronics. :D

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, why is it you would give Syria and Iran the benefit of the doubt, but you see Americans as the root of all evil? OH I know why, you only like Americans when they bend over and grab their ankles for the rest of the world to abuse....

[Eki]

Eki, why is it you would give Syria and Iran the benefit of the doubt, but you see Americans as the root of all evil?
Because they are the ones who most recently have shown they can't be trusted (Iraq invasion). The Syrians have withdrawn their troops from Lebanon and Iran hasn't invaded anyone since the revolution in 1979.

[Gannex]

Eki. The Syrians, who did indeed withdraw some troops from Lebanon recently, since then assassinated Lebanon's leaders and have constantly agitated to overthrow the Lebanese government and replace it, by intimidation, with their own puppets. Hardly a regime to be trusted, I would say. As for Iran, who you say haven't invaded anyone since 1979; what about that small matter of hundreds of thousands killed in the attempted Iranian takeover of Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war? Friendly lot, those Iranians, especially when worked up into a religious fervour. Just the kind of neighbours I'd like to have equipped with nuclear weapons.

[Eki]

Eki. The Syrians, who did indeed withdraw some troops from Lebanon recently, since then assassinated Lebanon's leaders and have constantly agitated to overthrow the Lebanese government and replace it, by intimidation, with their own puppets. Hardly a regime to be trusted, I would say. As for Iran, who you say haven't invaded anyone since 1979; what about that small matter of hundreds of thousands killed in the attempted Iranian takeover of Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war? Friendly lot, those Iranians, especially when worked up into a religious fervour. Just the kind of neighbours I'd like to have equipped with nuclear weapons.
Has it been proved without a doubt that representatives of the Syrian government have been involved in the murders of Lebanese politicians after the withdrawal and it's not just propagandist allegations by opponents of Syria?

According to this, it was Iraq who invaded Iran in September 1980, not the other way around:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Iraq_war

"The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and demands for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

[Mark in Oshawa]

EKi, you hold Gannex to the standard of unequivocally proving Syria isn't involved in Lebanon when just about anyone in the intelligence agencies of most nations knows damn well who is behind the politcal unrest in Lebanon, and the assassinations. Syria is run by a dictator, but of course, you like those guys Eki, but elected but dumb American presidents are a threat.

AS for Iran, you are right, Iraq invaded them, but you overlooked that a lot when I pointed that out to what Hussein was like in previous threads. You just refused to believe that Hussein could ever be a threat again....

Naivety seems to be your stock in trade I would think.

Iran is a threat because they have called for the extermination of Israel and the large amounts of money they have spent on Hezbollah, who the last time I looked picked a fight with Israel from Lebanese soil, which is about as meddling in the affairs of another nation as any nation could be. If Iran didn't approve of Hezbollah's actions, they would cease funding the Hezbo's the second this proxy war with Israel started last summer, but obviously they didn't care what happened to the people caught in the middle, the Lebanese. Of course...let me guess, that too is Israel's fault too right? Just keep taking rockets in the head because it is better to just be whipped, and abused then to ever fight back. Eki, you really are delusional in how you think nation states should react to any provocation when the nation is one you have a hatred on for, while you seem to always given the benefit of doubt to dictators. I said it before, I will say it again, your steadfast defence of regimes that are among the worst human rights abusers on the planet is just staggeringly naive, and it undermines your credability. It does give me a hobby though, pointing these things out....

[Eki]

EKi, you hold Gannex to the standard of unequivocally proving Syria isn't involved in Lebanon when just about anyone in the intelligence agencies of most nations knows damn well who is behind the politcal unrest in Lebanon, and the assassinations. Syria is run by a dictator, but of course, you like those guys Eki, but elected but dumb American presidents are a threat.

AS for Iran, you are right, Iraq invaded them, but you overlooked that a lot when I pointed that out to what Hussein was like in previous threads. You just refused to believe that Hussein could ever be a threat again....

Naivety seems to be your stock in trade I would think.

Iran is a threat because they have called for the extermination and the large amounts of money they have spent on Hezbollah, who the last time I looked picked a fight with Israel from Lebanese soil, which is about as meddling as any nation could be. If Iran didn't approve of Hezbollah's actions, they would cease funding the Hezbo's the second this proxy war with Israel started last summer, but obviously they didn't care what happened to the people caught in the middle, the Lebanese. Of course...let me guess, that too is Israel's fault too right? Just keep taking rockets in the head because it is better to just be whipped, and abused then to ever fight back. Eki, you really are delusional in how you think nation states should react to any provocation when the nation is one you have a hatred on for, while you seem to always given the benefit of doubt to dictators. I said it before, I will say it again, your steadfast defense of regimes that are among the worst human rights abusers on the planet is just staggeringly naive, and it undermines your credability. It does give me a hobby though, pointing these things out....
And we've seen how accurate the intelligence agencies were before the Iraq invasion. Or are you saying they deliberately lied about the Iraqi WMDs?

The US is allegedly supporting Iranian Sunni militants linked to al-Qaeda who have committed "terrorist" attacks in Iran. Do you think that's all good and better than Iran supporting Hezbollah "terrorists"?

The Iraq invasion showed us in how poor state the Iraq military was. I don't believe they would have had any chance against the Iranians if they had tried to invade Iran again.

[Sandfly]

And we've seen how accurate the intelligence agencies were before the Iraq invasion. Or are you saying they deliberately lied about the Iraqi WMDs?...


Enough with the "Bush Lied"

As I have stated before - any serious person can pull up the Kay and deullfer reports and read the thousands of pages listing all the dual use weapons which ARE WMD's but do not meet the purposely very narrow definition of WMD that the UN required.

The LD50 for organaphospate poison -insecticide is the same as sarin gas - especially if delivered in a canister warhead. We found thousands - right beside the cannisters. Oh yeah - along with the gas masks and atropine pens - thousands Want another one ...Thiouracil - a thryoid drug - in vaste quantities not medically justifiable - happened to be in the facility set up for conversion to a sulfur gas weapon.

That is just some of the stuff they found - not even the stuff thast is known to have been hidden outside Iraq in the three month stall from the UN , France, Germany and Russia -- while they are taking oil for food maney fromthe corrupt UN.

Bush said it right. You are with us or against us. It will take years - decades, and it will not be easy. But we will track down the terrorists wherever they go. True there are many that lack the long term will to follow thru - but there are enough that do to ensure that the US does not give up on it's mission to defend itself and others who want to live in peace, with religious tolerance.

[Eki]

Bush said it right. You are with us or against us.
Bush didn't turn the world against you until he decided to invade Iraq for no good reason.

[555-04Q2]

Bush said it right. You are with us or against us.

Famous quote from the movie Troy:

"The worlds too big, even for you".

Sums up my opinion on Bush's arrogant attitude.

[BrentJackson]

Bush didn't turn the world against you until he decided to invade Iraq for no good reason.

That's correct but that's not the whole story.

Was the US wrong in invading Iraq? Yes - and even the Bush Administration is now seeing just what a screwup this is. That's why they are talking about getting out. But they right now, for better or worse, are in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. They leave and the country goes to hell in a handbasket, they stay and their troops keep dying as a result of increasingly sophisticated Iraqi insurgent firepower. Iran IS backing the insurgents - going so far as to buy gun for them. Over 100 Austrian-made high-powered sniper rifles bought by Iran have turned up in the hands of Iraqi insurgents, who now know how to use these .50 cal rifles - big enough rifles you get shot you could lose a limb from it. (And FYI - the source of that article was the Telegraph newspaper in Britain - so it ain't propaganda.) Is the US the only nation in Iraq? No, they aren't - Great Britain is there. So is Australia. And South Korea and Japan. And a bunch of others.

Is the US gonna get into a war with Iran? Full-blown war no - Iran's population is much bigger than Iraq, and much more willing to get themselves killed to stop the US from advancing. Do a bit of research on how Iran fought their war with Iraq. Iran's body count exceeded Iraq's by a factor of seven to one. (For comparison, the Falklands war saw 635 Argentine fatalities, 255 British and 3 Falkland Islanders - about 2.5 to 1 in favor of the Brits.) The US would take a BIG casualty count in Iran, and then know it. Airstrikes on the other hand would do a substantial job of shutting down Iran's nuclear program. Hence that may be what happens. And good riddens IMO - a country rattling the sabre like Iran seemingly always is should not be nuclear armed, ever. besides, what would be the point? Ahmadinejad is not getting much support anyways, and sanctions are starting to tick off the Iranian people. That isn't good news for Ahmadinejad.

Eki, I have yet to understand why you hate the Americans so much. I just don't get it. Yeah, Bush is an idiot but so is Ahmadinejad, Assad, Nasrallah and all the other maniacs in that craphole called the Middle East. If there ever is another big oil reserve discovered out there that makes the ME irrelevant, we would be outta there within months to let them sort their own ****e out.

Call a spade a spade, dude.