Right, that's Iraq sorted. So....
Discussion
www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050126-045615-4690r
What the
is wrong with these people? Obviously not content with raping Iraq, now they're pulling Iran's tail. I mean we kind of know the agenda, but it seems they can just dispense with the usual cloak and dagger subtleties too now...
"You see that? Iran bit my hand. I did nothing to provoke it. They are obviously a threat to global safety. I say we bomb the shit out of them....."
What the
is wrong with these people? Obviously not content with raping Iraq, now they're pulling Iran's tail. I mean we kind of know the agenda, but it seems they can just dispense with the usual cloak and dagger subtleties too now... "You see that? Iran bit my hand. I did nothing to provoke it. They are obviously a threat to global safety. I say we bomb the shit out of them....."
neil.b said:
www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050126-045615-4690r
What the
"You see that? Iran bit my hand. I did nothing to provoke it. They are obviously a threat to global safety. I say we bomb the shit out of them....."
The thing is though Iran aint gonna take shit off the US.
Iran will shoot down an american aircraft which will lead to limited strikes to knock out boarder defences and so on until there are 120,000 US soldiers in Tehran! With Bush et al stating they the Iranians are an unstable hostile force in the middle east (with downed aircraft to prove it), they harbour terrorists and hate freedom. Where this will end is anyones guess!
To waltz into Iraq is one thing, it was devistated from one full on assault 10 years ago and decades of mistreatment at the hands of the UN - and not forgetting that Saddam and his cohorts managed to nose-dive the country into almost oblivion.
Iran on the other hand has been through the Islamic revolution (what 25 or 30 years ago?) and been progressing ever since. To see how far they have come, just look at the Iranian film industry for example!!! Anyway, they have a full army, navy and airforce which can and will defend itself with the full force that they can muster.
If the US thinks that Iran would be a walk over, they are misguided and delusional. An instant grave for thousands of US soldiers awaits.....
But then again - what else can we expect from the Bush administration?
Iran on the other hand has been through the Islamic revolution (what 25 or 30 years ago?) and been progressing ever since. To see how far they have come, just look at the Iranian film industry for example!!! Anyway, they have a full army, navy and airforce which can and will defend itself with the full force that they can muster.
If the US thinks that Iran would be a walk over, they are misguided and delusional. An instant grave for thousands of US soldiers awaits.....
But then again - what else can we expect from the Bush administration?
May I ask you the following question;
Why is it that Iran havn't approached the west for assistance the development of their nuclear programme?
If they did, it would be possible for us to assist them in developing their own nuclear power generation capability that would not provide an easy path to the development of a Hydrogen bomb.
They'd get a peaceful nuclear capability, and we'd not be worried to death.
Why is it that Iran havn't approached the west for assistance the development of their nuclear programme?
If they did, it would be possible for us to assist them in developing their own nuclear power generation capability that would not provide an easy path to the development of a Hydrogen bomb.
They'd get a peaceful nuclear capability, and we'd not be worried to death.
That link is to a story which is a good example of how to manufacture scare-mongering news which sounds credible and is completely undeniable.
1) It sounds like it might be true, afterall Bush is a moron who wants to invade Iran isnt he? 2) The source is anonymous but 'kosher'; 3) the publication wants it to be true because that helps to enrage their readership and boost revenue. 4) They get qualified individuals to comment on it and make it sound real.. 5) They add enough technical background to make it sound completely clever and plausible.
The message is... dont let urban myth define your politics.
1) It sounds like it might be true, afterall Bush is a moron who wants to invade Iran isnt he? 2) The source is anonymous but 'kosher'; 3) the publication wants it to be true because that helps to enrage their readership and boost revenue. 4) They get qualified individuals to comment on it and make it sound real.. 5) They add enough technical background to make it sound completely clever and plausible.
The message is... dont let urban myth define your politics.
dilbert said:
May I ask you the following question;
Why is it that Iran havn't approached the west for assistance the development of their nuclear programme?
If they did, it would be possible for us to assist them in developing their own nuclear power generation capability that would not provide an easy path to the development of a Hydrogen bomb.
They'd get a peaceful nuclear capability, and we'd not be worried to death.
Doubt anyone in the West would want to give such assistance to the Iranians. Weapon capability would be a small step away once they possess the basic technology and active help would mean the technology proliferates to numerous sites. Would have thought it'd be damn near impossible to ensure no military location springs up quietly.
dilbert said:
May I ask you the following question;
Why is it that Iran havn't approached the west for assistance the development of their nuclear programme?
If they did, it would be possible for us to assist them in developing their own nuclear power generation capability that would not provide an easy path to the development of a Hydrogen bomb.
They'd get a peaceful nuclear capability, and we'd not be worried to death.
If you examine the history of Iran with the west, in particular with America, you'll realise why they don't want to have any dealings with them.
Given that their embryonic democracy was overthrown and subverted by the US, and a dictator was placed in situ, it's no wonder they are limiting their contacts.
Dave D said:
May I ask you the following question;
Why is it that Iran havn't approached the west for assistance the development of their nuclear programme?
If they did, it would be possible for us to assist them in developing their own nuclear power generation capability that would not provide an easy path to the development of a Hydrogen bomb.
They'd get a peaceful nuclear capability, and we'd not be worried to death.
Doubt anyone in the West would want to give such assistance to the Iranians. Weapon capability would be a small step away once they possess the basic technology and active help would mean the technology proliferates to numerous sites. Would have thought it'd be damn near impossible to ensure no military location springs up quietly.
We'll I think, by the sound of people's responses here, we'd all be happy to accept a 2kT release somewhere in the middle east then.
I do have a degree of difficulty imagining a secret program to develop a 50-100MT "clean burn" capability, especially in an open and co-operative environment. I might get myself out there to see the wonder of it all, for myself........
off_again said:
Anyway, they have a full army, navy and airforce which can and will defend itself with the full force that they can muster.
If the US thinks that Iran would be a walk over, they are misguided and delusional. An instant grave for thousands of US soldiers awaits.....
I hope to God/Allah/Buddha/etc (delete as applicable)
that they don't do anything but I'm afraid that you're kidding yourself. In a straight fight, it would be a walk over; the Iranians are similarly equipped to the Iraqis with old Soviet Bloc technology that wouldn't give them a snowball in hells chance. The only route of resistance to the US is what is happening in Iraq now; low level guerilla attacks once the main war is over.AlexH said:
I hope to God/Allah/Buddha/etc (delete as applicable)
Ultimately, I think you are right, however, the same things were said about Iraq, and it has been an unmitigated disaster. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a well fed, well educated population, who haven't been subjected to 12 years of sanctions and constant bombing, and have a population who would be most resistant to external interventions.
Yes, the US would ultimately triumph, but the civilian casualties would be horrendous and should ground troops be deployed, many more US troops would be killed, than have been in Iraq.
I really cant see any action being taken in Iran, if the US go in, they will go in alone, Blair wont be helping. As for the nuclear threat, I dont doubt for one moment that the 1st Arab nation to develop the technology will fire a shot at the nation of Squatters, but I reckon Europe will leave that to the Squatters to sort out themselves 1st when the time comes.
AlexH said:
Anyway, they have a full army, navy and airforce which can and will defend itself with the full force that they can muster.
If the US thinks that Iran would be a walk over, they are misguided and delusional. An instant grave for thousands of US soldiers awaits.....
I hope to God/Allah/Buddha/etc (delete as applicable)
You are joking of course? Obviously the US would probably crush them eventually but it would be on an entirely different scale to the Iraq situation.
Like the man says, Iraq was pounded 12 years previously and then hammered at regular intervals and denied international trade to make sure they couldn't muster a water pistol. Iran has had free reign to do pretty much whatever it liked since it saw off Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's. Yes, America would probably win but with the supplies and infrastructure they've built up over the last 20 years it'd be a complete bloodbath next to the Iraq training exercise.
Wouldn't give much weight to the misguided view that they are 'outdated Soviet weapons' either. The kind of kit they were handed out in the Cold War probably puts most terrorist's inventory to shame.
Why is it some countries are not allowed to own Nuclear bombs? I believe its because they might use them in war as these countries are potentially likely to invade others...
Hang on a minute.
America are allowed them.
In the history of atomic warfare, only America have used them in battle.
In the last few years America has invaded more countries than any other and is publicly promoting a campaign to invade any it feels as a threat.
Am I the only one who spots the flaw in this?
Hang on a minute.
America are allowed them.
In the history of atomic warfare, only America have used them in battle.
In the last few years America has invaded more countries than any other and is publicly promoting a campaign to invade any it feels as a threat.
Am I the only one who spots the flaw in this?
The Iraqi military was rotten. All of the competent senior officers had been executed by Saddam to limit any threat to his leadership. Most of the General officer ranks were family members or friends, and were chosen for their political reliability. When danger threatened they took all their hard currency and pissed off, leaving the Iraqi army to fall apart. Iran isn't a military dictatorship, its a theocracy and I suspect that the control over the military, while tight, will be in the hands of more competent individuals who could make the yeehaws job a little more of a challenge. If Iran is attacked expect to see lots of flag draped coffins coming home (both here and the US) 
jimothy, we live in a hierarchical world with the richest nation maintaining their position off the resources of the poorest. If the poorest nations had the means to alter the hierarchical status quo it would cause a disaster to the way our societies operate.
>> Edited by MilnerR on Monday 31st January 19:57
jimothy, we live in a hierarchical world with the richest nation maintaining their position off the resources of the poorest. If the poorest nations had the means to alter the hierarchical status quo it would cause a disaster to the way our societies operate.
>> Edited by MilnerR on Monday 31st January 19:57
Dave D said:
off_again said:
Anyway, they have a full army, navy and airforce which can and will defend itself with the full force that they can muster.
If the US thinks that Iran would be a walk over, they are misguided and delusional. An instant grave for thousands of US soldiers awaits.....
I hope to God/Allah/Buddha/etc (delete as applicable)
You are joking of course? Obviously the US would probably crush them eventually but it would be on an entirely different scale to the Iraq situation.
Like the man says, Iraq was pounded 12 years previously and then hammered at regular intervals and denied international trade to make sure they couldn't muster a water pistol. Iran has had free reign to do pretty much whatever it liked since it saw off Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's. Yes, America would probably win but with the supplies and infrastructure they've built up over the last 20 years it'd be a complete bloodbath next to the Iraq training exercise.
Wouldn't give much weight to the misguided view that they are 'outdated Soviet weapons' either. The kind of kit they were handed out in the Cold War probably puts most terrorist's inventory to shame.
Not joking at all. I don't deny that there would be (far) more US (and civilian) casualties than in Iraq, but the US would obviously commit far more "combat power" (as they like to call it) than in Iraq to what would be a much harder job. If you doubt the disparity in weapons technology, just have a look through some of Janes publications.
There was a very good spoof on The Onion just after 9/11 about Dubya offering OBL about $100m to build a base so that the Americans would have somewhere to knock the crap out of, but it hit upon a very valid point; if they know where the enemy is, he's toast.
Really hope this is all hypothetical though.
MilnerR said:
Alex, if the americans increased their combat power by a considerable margin there'd be as many casualties from blue on blue as there has from hostile action in Iraq 
As you say hopefully this is all hypothetical.
>> Edited by MilnerR on Monday 31st January 20:00
Well they do say USAF stands for Usually Shooting At Friends...
AlexH said:
Alex, if the americans increased their combat power by a considerable margin there'd be as many casualties from blue on blue as there has from hostile action in Iraq
As you say hopefully this is all hypothetical.
>> Edited by MilnerR on Monday 31st January 20:00
Well they do say USAF stands for Usually Shooting At Friends...
ClassicGassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff