Iran: US attack equals world war III

Originally posted by malganis
If the US or Israel got so paranoid about Iran's nuclear program that they decided to attack Iran (I can't see UK making a pre-emptive attack), but they didn't want it to end up like Iraq... couldn't they just attack the nuclear facilities and let that be it?

Then they wouldn't have the trouble of invading and occupying. And it's Iran's choice if it then wants to retaliate against Israels defences.

I don't know much about where Iran's facilities are situated though...

Yes malganis.If an attack was launched imho it would target the military facilities by airstrikes.I think an occupation by ground forces isnt even considered.Too much land,soldiers and U.S.forces stretched way too thin now.

[edit on 25-5-2007 by Xfile]

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
[
You are not seeing the forest for the trees. Red China no longer has any threats to their sovereignty. It is their policy of imperialism and their oppressive, communistic government - not friendly economic interests - which has resulted in the Chinese pouring money into aggressively building up their army, air force, navy, and long-range missiles that could hit the US.

All for an eventual war in the Pacific. A war which they intend to start and win

If they had no need for a war, then they would not be so active in building up their war machine.

North Korea, ally of Red China, will also take part in their thrust of communistic imperialism.

Which is why your own government in Japan has already installed a missile defense system to counter the build-up of missiles aimed at you by North Korea.

[edit on 25-5-2007 by Paul_Richard]

Interesting thought, although what evidence is there for China planning a Pacific war? China is very different from people believe it to be, although the Chinese Communist Party is a powerful force in domestic life it is not all powerful, the middle classes in China are growing in number, and also in influence, as they did in the West in the 20th Century, and would not blindly support their leadership in an all out war of aggression.

Still not convinced that we will attack Iran in the near future; the probabilities and possibilities arising from an invasion are too numerous and too complex to calculate to within any degree of certainty. Airstrikes could occur sometime this year, potentially triggering a full-scale invasion in 2008. While this could serve to augment a number of US agendas (restructuring of global currency; spread of democracy; Isreali security etc) it could also backfire horribly with all kinds of third parties becoming involved. Most of Europe will disinvolve themselves as per Iraq, and the UK won't be suckered into supporting an illegal war this time round; millions upon millions would take to the streets in protest. America can't handle WW3 by themselves.

At the moment it's just posturing and heresay without any real punches... either it will stay like that and fizzle out or we're in for a chaotic few years... either way it's important to carry on living in the 'now' and enjoying life as we know it today.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by infinite

if your country was to be the number one target of a nuclear weapon, would you try and stop it from being built?

Hmm. Obviously the cold war passed you by then, because I could have sworn that the Soviet Bloc had up to 40000 warheads lined up and ready to go at western powers at one stage and oddly no one went in an bombed their nuclear facilites - and - even more oddly - no one from the US, UK or other western powers went and bombed theres.

But anyway - to carry the point a bit further - I'd put money on it that there is a nuclear tipped Jericho III missile (probably more than one) with Tehrans name on it, so you are suggesting that Iran would be perfectly justified in bombing Israeli nuclear facilities to prevent such a thing from being fired?

Ummm Russia no way in hell has over 10 000 nukes. In '05 they had
5000. I'm pretty sure it takes much longer then 2 years to make
over 10, 000 nukes.
USA has the most at about 10 000 up to date, then Russia.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Ah, mais non. Russia currently has the biggest stockpile in the world, at around 11,000 warheads.

www.nrdc.org...

Despite this, it probably would only take a tenth of that to wipe out any country, including itself. Thats why the US has agreed to lower its stockpile from 10,000 down to less than 3,000 in 2012, because it knows that 3,000 warheads are more than enough.

As for saying "oh we have nukes why cant they" that is very very simple. Because we dont have a president who sais things like "we will wipe israel off the face of the earth, die infidel dogs" or somesuch. No one wants them to have nukes, because there is evidence that they will use them.

Russia and China backing Iran? Just one question: Why? They know the risks. If they enter a war so will the insanely powerful UK along with half of NATO. WWIII would definately start if another world power enters the war, and thats exactly why it wont happen IMHO. MAD. thats it. MAD. Even without nuclear weapons, it would be so devastating to the unpopular US right now and more devastating to the slower russian economy. China could face a war on two fronts, between the US and the technologically cutting edge Japan.

Russia wont enter because they know that they would have to pull ever dime from every beggars torn up starbucks cup to support a war for a short time, much less sustain it. That and MAD.

China could be a bit more of a problem however. Despite having a war on two fronts, china has enough troops to deal with it. The only real way to kill china is with a vast naval campaign, as well as gaining complete air superiority.

Everyone seems to think that the US will be completely unsupported in this war. First of all, its not going to be the US that attacks, its going to be Israel, and the US is most likely going to use the Iranian counterattack across the border into Iraq or its BM attacks on Israel as an excuse to hit back. And Iran knows that when the US hits back, it hits back hard, and completely. It would meant the total destruction of their navy, air force, and tanks. Russia and China would have no excuse for entering, unless they wanted to use the half-arsed excuse of us getting too near their borders. BS. The UN would never buy that. True, the US wont be supported if the war stays restricted to US and Israel vs Iran, but the minute Russia and/or China has a threatening look in their eyes, NATO will cock its gun. And by god, NATO is pretty darn powerful.

[edit on 25-5-2007 by BlackWidow23]

Any new war, like a possible Iranian war, will be a disaster for humanity. We fail as a civilization each time we start a war. One day this will kill us all.

USA should fight for peace! Did it ever do that? How many countries on this globe ever fought for peace? Do we really need WW3 to see that war is bad?

Wake up people, all wars are a crime. USA is a serial killer.

Originally posted by Eddie999
Interesting thought, although what evidence is there for China planning a Pacific war? China is very different from people believe it to be, although the Chinese Communist Party is a powerful force in domestic life it is not all powerful, the middle classes in China are growing in number, and also in influence, as they did in the West in the 20th Century, and would not blindly support their leadership in an all out war of aggression.

I like some aspects of the Chinese culture but I strongly disagree with the oppressive communist government. Even with many liberties taken away from us in the US, we are still better off comparatively. For now anyway.

For example:

Tibetans Recount Being Shot At By China Guards

What evidence is there that China is planning a war in the Pacific?

You mean in addition to the Chinese general bragging that their missile capability extends to every American city?

Or that the Taiwanese government itself says that China is a threat to the region?

Nothing comes to mind.

Experts Warn China Capable of Attacking Taiwan

[edit on 25-5-2007 by Paul_Richard]

I read ths post and see... Iran, China, Iran China, Iran China...

China has alot to lose economically, no more Walmart money for them.
I think Iran knows the stand little chance against the USA in an armed conflict.
Certainly the populations of China, Iran, and the Us will suffer..

Given these three points, who would stand to gain in another conflict?
What would the gain?
Most importantly, Why would they gain?

I have not the answers to these points, perhaps this board could flesh them out?

Iranian Ambassador to Mexico has warned that any possible military action against the Islamic Republic could spark World War III.

The ambassador sure has an exaggerated opinion of his country's global impact....

In an interview with Mexican TV news network Televisa on Wednesday, Mohammad-Hassan Qadiri-Abyaneh cautioned that the result of a possible US attack against Iran would certainly be far from victory.

A US attack on Iran would be a swift victory (and remarkably similar to the first weeks of the Iraq war). The only wildcard is the possibility of nuclear weapons, but you can bet that any such facilities would be smoldering ruins before they even prepped. A US occupation of Iran however, would be just as disastrous as the occupation of Iraq and for the same reason.

History has taught the lesson time and time again (US in Vietnam, Russians in Afghanistan, etc.), yet Bush and Co seem to be plugging their ears and going "la la la la la".... You CANNOT be victorious in an occupational war without the support of the people. That's simply the way it is folks. It is an exercise in futility.

The Iraq war should have been done like past such actions (i.e. decapitation strike to oust the leaders, install a more US-friendly dictator). This pipedream of trying to spread democracy in the middle east is like trying to sell ice to Eskimos. You can't sell something the buyer doesn't want. It's a fool's errand, being led by a fool. Thank goodness he's only got a little bit of time left to continue this folly...

The only real threat posed by Iran (and it is a viable one) is the idea of supplying extremists with nuclear devices. Indeed, it is that threat which is really the basis for the sabre rattling in the first place....

World war III? Hah! Someone should tell these guys we're way ahead of them. James Woolsey at least says WWIII is over and WWIV's been going on since 9/11. And of course Iran is and will be one of the bad guys in the new Axis along with Baathists and Sunni radicals.
www.cnn.com...
www.globalsecurity.org... tm

Originally posted by DJMessiah
If US attacks Iran, the world will no longer have any ounce of respect for the US. I don't think US allies are ready to send their soldiers into another war, with no end date, nor real purpose.

Bush wants us to go there to keep Iran from having any nuclear technology. If Iran were to do the same to the US, who would be the bad guy?

[edit on 24-5-2007 by DJMessiah]

Try nuclear arms as a purpose. I don't consider myself a hawk but knowing what I know I would push the war button. If I was an American President I would make this very clear, it was a mistake to let Pakisten have nuclear weapons AKA. They cannot handle the responsability without selling them to highest bidder. NOBODY ELSE GETS THEM PERIOD. Yes I would start WWIII over it too.

Originally posted by divine chronic
people who think attackin Iran will be the same as Iraq... better think again.



Iran Has a huge military. and they're technology is just as advanced as ours.

Iran isnt a little country in the sand. its massive. and they can f*** the US up big time.

And your proof is? Oh I see you are pounding your chest, good rouse. I love such statements. The people of Iran would detest such a conflict, rightfully so because they would suffer the most. While the real criminals (clerics) would be safe.

Originally posted by bartholomeo

That's funny and true.

Anyway I don't really think Iran has the backing of any country like (Russia or China) if they did, we would've already seen some sort mobilization from the troops of those countries over to Iran.

Why would they want to move troops to Iran? Iran has plenty of men under arms and if anything they will aid Iran with sales of weaponry or by using their political clout or strategic weapons.

MOSCOW 2 Oct. (IPS) Iranian Defence Minister Admiral Ali Shamkhani and his Russian counterpart Sergei Ivanov signed a joint defence and military co-operation pact and immediately assured that the agreement is not a threat to other nations.

www.iran-press-service.com...

In fact, as had been revealed recently, Russia, Iran and Syria have already entered a defence pact aiming at Moscow's ambitions to the process of altering the balance of power in the entire Middle East. Russia’s own part in this pact has been kept relatively secret for a long time.

Syria has clinched a deal with Moscow early last year, in which Russia agreed to write off more than 70 percent of a multi-billion dollar debt owed from the Cold War era, when Damascus was a stounch ally and arms customer of the Soviet Union. Bi-lateral relations between Moscow and Damascus have considerably warmed since early 2006. A Russian military delegation has been touring military bases and headquarters in Syria as part of an effort to increase cooperation with the regime of President Bashar Assad. The delegation, led by Chief of Staff Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, has met his counterpart, Gen. Ali Habib, as well as senior Syrian commanders and defence officials. Western intelligence experts estimate that up to 2,000 Russian military advisors, under the command of Lieutenant General Vassily Jakushev, 60, the former commander-in-chief of the country's Far East military district, are currently serving in the Syrian military. Russian officers hold teaching positions at Syria's military officer training academy.

www.defense-update.com...

So Syria, Iran and Russia are in fact allied for mutual defense and while i am not sure if Russian will actively aid them with fighting men i am quite certain that they will take action and that it wont be good for American citizens.

As far as I'm concerned there's no other armies in iran besides their own. But I hate to be wrong.

And they do not require Chinese or Russian soldiers..

Stellar

I sure Russia and China are making a lot of promises and egging Iran on; but if the US goes in, expect the dragon and bear to back away from Iran instantly, possibly even render aid to the US. It's always about who you'll be doing business with tomorrow.

The bonds that china owns are not really a consideration for international politics. If they dump them on a single day on the market AND manage to depress the value of US T-bills, it will mean that they are "giving wealth away" to the world, because they will get only a fraction of their pre-dump value.

And within a week, US T-bills will be valuated right where they are now, maybe a little higher. The US, the biggest economy, has never defaulted on a bond payment, and that is the underlying strength of the US govt.

Even if China DID dump them; well, the Yuan is pegged to the dollar, so even if they un-pegged the Yuan on the same day, they'd still be affected by the dollar until markets could settle. And a lot of Chinese savers would dump THEIR yuan to get real greenbacks. Third, what will china do with the loss of trade that such an action would cause?

No, I'm convinced that China has absolutely no intentions of getting troops on the ground in the Middle East while the US still exists. They are much more likely to invade Vietnam again, thant risk economic purgatory.

No China backs Iran for the same reasons it was mildly supportive of Iraq: to nettle the US, and destabilize the EU, by driving up EU petroleum costs.

Likewise, Russia is in no shape to wage war on foreign soil, particularly against US troops. Most of the former soviet block is already biased against Russia, and such a move would surely alienate every one of Russia's neighbors. And angry as the EU would be about US war on Iran, they'd be even more upset about Russia occupying oilfields--especially the source fields for western Europe!.


Remember, it is politics that wins wars, not firepower. Otherwise the Nazis and Imperial Japanese would have prevailed. The fact that politics wins wars is why the US is still having trouble in Iraq . . .

the US will NOT invade or bomb Iran this year, unless something changes drastically. Which it wont.

The only reasons this Iranian "diplomat" made a threat is because he knows it won't come to that--He knows America has no plans to attack!

Think about it from the US point of view:

Why invade/bomb Iran? IF you do, you'll rally their civilians behind Achmedinejad and his coterie of right-wingers. And Iran will start building bombs all overgain. The US would have to do it all over again, in another 10 years. So, NO; america won't attack Iran.

Why not WAIT until Iran is on the verge of assembling a warhead. Then you can take out the factories, after they have sunk many more trillions of oil-money into their nuke program.

If you take out Iran too early, you just give them a chance to rebuild sooner. Better to wait till the last minute.

Also, taking out Iran will take oil off the world market. Right now, Iran is pumping more and more oil, to finance their bomb-making project. Better to let them continue, and fend off higher oil prices till later.

The ONLY good that might come from bombing Iran would be to ease up pressure on coalition troops in Iraq.



Personally, I think it's obvious the US is following a policy of isolating Iran even more, and drawing them into regional conflicts like Iraq and Lebanon. Think about it--they can't build up an arsenal and ship out materiel to insurgents in the region

And every petrodollar they spend supporting Hezbo'llah and Shia Iraqis is another petrodollar they don't have for refining a-bomb material.


From what I read on Iranian websites, the Iranian economy and polity are already under serious strain. Achmedinejad may not get re-elected, and be forced to choose between stepping down and launching a coup. Either way, problem solved for the US, without shots fired.

The trick is, isolate Achmedinejad and his people within Iran. Hold manuveurs to scare the Iranian voters; help Israel defeat Iran's proxy-armies on Israel's borders, and cut off the inflow of goods (especially refined gasoline) into Iran.

Achmedinejad can see all this, and so he can make insane pronouncements, knowing that mere words cost him nothing, and impress his supporters.

.

might as well shoot myself in the foot now and prepare for the inviatiable (sp). the war drums are drumming and so is WW3.. im a going to canada now ta ta!

What's always on my mind is this: I just can't see Bush, Cheney & Co vanishing quietly into the night when their term is up with things as they are. It just doesn't make sense. They've worked their way into this position since 9/11 (some would argue they were responsible for 9/11 of course) and have all the pieces setup in the Middle East - it's like the whole thing is racing towards some ugly conclusion. You don't have to be a master strategist to look a map of US armed forces in the M.E. and realize what's going on. Honestly, anybody who thinks Iran isn't going to get attacked (in some way) in the near future is kidding themselves. It just needs a trigger now. My money is on some "incident" in the waters of the gulf, although maybe that's too obvious.

Originally posted by Curio

You don't have to be a master strategist to look a map of US armed forces in the M.E. and realize what's going on. Honestly, anybody who thinks Iran isn't going to get attacked (in some way) in the near future is kidding themselves.

I dissagree.

Not that the US isn't surrounding Iran, or that they aren't being beligerant about it. My argument is that they plan to use intimidation and brinksmanship to force Achmedinejad out of power.

US and the SU did that for 45 years of the cold war, and manipulated the rest of the planet. From the Berlin airlift to the fall of Saigon to US support for Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, it's been a steady parade of double-dare and brinksmanship.

No bombs fell in either homeland, but a lot of us grew up with "duck and cover" drills at school.

What I'm saying is this: dangerous as it is, brinksmanship is how nations do business.

To quote von Clausewitz: Politics is war by other means.




All the best.

.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
...........................
Bush wants us to go there to keep Iran from having any nuclear technology. If Iran were to do the same to the US, who would be the bad guy?

With the exceptiong that the U.S. has not claimed it will destroy the U.S. and Israel.

Iran having nuclear weapons means the destruction for Israel, and a possible attack on the U.S.

[edit on 25-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Just to ad my personal experiences of the HCinese poeple. i hvae ben living in China for the past year, not in a city but in a giant shoes factory housing around 12 000 people in Dongguan about 3 hours north of Hong Kong. Many people here have expressed to me their frindship with America and how they would like to visit one day ( I'm Australian not American ). The people here feel much more kinship towards America ( although no so much to GWB - alhtough that's probably more so from the State controlled press ) than they will ever feel for Iran.
It's interesting as well that the police have a bias against muslims and actively supress them in the outer provinences such as Xinjiang where there is an active Muslim insurgency with bombings being common place.
So basically the realtionship with Iran is not a natural one for the Chinese. As previous posters have alluded to, it's about oil and to a greater extent weakening American power. China would never enter into a shooting war with the US over Iran.

PS. It's interesting to read that many people think that Russia and China would go to war over Iran, risking trillions of dollars in trade and the lives of their people, over some piddly country which shares no values with either of them. Come on use some logic.