Maths proves US won't attack: Iran leader

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Or one of our F-15s is equal to 20 of their Aircraft

You're talking out of your ass. 1 F-15 is equal to 20 F-14 Tomcats?

The F-14 will dominate in BVR, it was proven to do that shortly before retirment with the Mig-29 in tests.

Xtrozero and deltaboy;
I'm sorry, but you've demonstrated that there is no useful discourse that we can have. You have demonstrated that you have swallowed the propaganda whole heartedly and will only become hostile to anyone who questions the official line. It's sad that you are apparently unwilling to think for yourselves and that you will continue to ensure that the psychological enslavement of western society continues.

Have fun contributing to the eventual destruction of the human species.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
Xtrozero and deltaboy;
I'm sorry, but you've demonstrated that there is no useful discourse that we can have. You have demonstrated that you have swallowed the propaganda whole heartedly and will only become hostile to anyone who questions the official line. It's sad that you are apparently unwilling to think for yourselves and that you will continue to ensure that the psychological enslavement of western society continues.

Have fun contributing to the eventual destruction of the human species.

Instead of a good response, the only thing you can say is I feel sorry for you for not agreeing with me, which is in your view the best course of action.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
It's sad that you are apparently unwilling to think for yourselves and that you will continue to ensure that the psychological enslavement of western society continues.

Have fun contributing to the eventual destruction of the human species.

Lol did you not read the last part of my post? I actually agreed with you so what is your point?

I was trying to show you that military capabilities are something separate in their own right. I’m not sure what propaganda you might be talking about, but if you read all my posts on this subject they say we should not and will not go to war with Iran, and I been in the military 27 years. The fact we have the most capable military in the world does not mean jack for the outcome if we use that power incorrectly. You in a very simplistic way have been trying to say that we lack the ability to dominate with military actions, which is very wrong, and I say simplistic because all your examples had very little to do with US military capabilities.


Maybe instead of saying we are going down like the Romans did please explain what actions do you think would be best towards Iran? And then we can compare note, and I bet they will be close.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Or one of our F-15s is equal to 20 of their Aircraft

You're talking out of your ass. 1 F-15 is equal to 20 F-14 Tomcats?

The F-14 will dominate in BVR, it was proven to do that shortly before retirment with the Mig-29 in tests.

I see they have

Dassault Mirage F1 24
Grumman F-14 Tomcat started with 79 50
McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom II 44
Mikoyan MiG-29 60
Northrop F-5 50
Mikoyan MiG-27 24

total 244

US will loose at most in a war 10

I think my number are good. BTW raw capabilites of an aircraft is only one part of the total picture. The real picture is majority of those aircraft will not make it off the ground.

reply to post by Xtrozero


My apologies.
I read your post wrong, I think.
(could also be the nicotine withdrawal that's got me a bit grumpy )

Firstly, my point about the Romans wasn't at all to do with the downfall of their empire. It was that they were convinced that their military was "perfect" and "invincible". Then they came up against a bunch of Barbarians who fought from horseback (a form of fighting that they had dismissed as being ineffectual) and lost a full Legion in a single battle. DOH!

Each of the examples I presented were meant to illustrate that in war, there are things that might seem obvious after the fact, but are impossible to predict before hand and can lead to the defeat of what seemed to have been a superior force.

I don't believe that military action against Iran would be "simple" on any level. Even tactical bombing would be problematic. As pointed out above, Iran (unlike Iraq) actually has an airforce. Their F-14s could be quite a problem... especially if equipped with Phoenix missiles. That aside, there's the political fall out. A strike against Iran would be illegal (in fact, threats to strike Iran are also illegal) and under the precedent of the Nuremberg Trials, those who ordered the strike should be hung (never mind that the same should be true of the Iraq invasion).

Even beyond that fact, striking Iran would only bolster "the Terrorists" and lead to more anti-US sentiment globally. It would lead to more blowback. As secure as American's are led to believe their boarders are, they really aren't. As someone who's been involved in several forms of security, I can reasonably state that the only form of "perfect security" is 100% isolation. There's always a way in. Making more enemies is not something the US really should be doing right now.

As to what I think should be done about the Iran situation... well, it's fairly simple. LEAVE THEM ALONE! If you don't make 'em mad, they have no reason to blow you up, right?

Contrary to the west's mass-media propaganda, there has been no proof that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. The alleged threats they have made against Israel in recent times have been out of context or mis-quoted sound-bytes. They have committed no crimes... so why are they being treated like criminals?

The answer: To serve the private interests of Corporate power.

If leaving them alone isn't an acceptable answer, then how about helping them? Why not offer to help them with their nuclear power program in exchange for unrestricted access to it? The west could help jumpstart their power program and save them many years of development, thus aiding them towards becoming a first world Nation. Such friendly overtures would disarm them far more effectively (and more cheaply) than the use of military power.

Again, however, this runs counter to the Corporate Agenda.
Western Capitalism simply can't abide the creation of more first world nations who could compete with their interests. The rest of the world must be kept down in order for them to be exploited.

This, by the way, is the real NWO. It has nothing to do with the Illuminati, Space Aliens, or Devil Worship. It's the simple fact that Capitalism requires profit at the expense of humanity.

Finally, the Propaganda I mentioned is just about every major news source we get here. CNN, Fox, MSNBC... these are all media sources that are backed by these same corporate entities. Even smaller outlets can't afford to go counter to the official story for fear of losing their funding (just try making a dollar without corporate support these days).

Jeez. That was a lot of ranting in one post.
If I'm not being clear, here's someone who states all this much better than myself: Distorted Morality - Noam Chomsky




[edit on 5-9-2007 by BitRaiser]

Why does Ahmadinejad keep coming out with these statements? It's almost as if he is saying "I dare you to attack us!". Does he know something we don't, or is he just getting desperate?

Originally posted by zerbot565
its just sad to that most ppl here acturly support some sort of nwo and mindless bloodshed.

so im gonna say my take on it , i hope you U.s guys acturly get to have a new civil war ,

would be kinda funny from my perspective ,

all you guys have achived with your warmongerin is that oil and gold prices have gone sky high and pourd money into your leaders pockets.

and shame on you for not paying your own gas taxes , thats a lack of responsibility.

If you lived here in the US you would see exactly how many of us are completely against everything going on. In the world media we're made to look like war loving rednecks who love Bush. Come visit the US and see exactly how wrong that image of us is. A very large chunk of us hate all this and just want it to end. Look at how many soldiers have come back from Iraq or Afghanistan and don't want to go back. They went and saw exactly why this is going on and they want no part of it, but you RARELY see that in the media. They show the soldiers hugging family, but they don't show you what most of them soldiers had to say about the situation afterwards. Too many people are dying because of the little game Bush and his little buddies have had planned for years and years now. Blame Bush and his pals. Don't blame every single American.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by nightmare_david]

Originally posted by AGENT_T
reply to post by SmokeyJo

 

Well I wouldn't say I was a mathematical genious by any standards but my calculations are..

1 Raving lunatic bent on aquiring nukes
+
1 Gibbering baboon with a fixation for policing the entire world
= A pretty dire situation for the rest of us.

Well I bet he´s got more than the one brain cell Bush has.

Originally posted by BitRaiser


Firstly, my point about the Romans wasn't at all to do with the downfall of their empire. It was that they were convinced that their military was "perfect" and "invincible". Then they came up against a bunch of Barbarians who fought from horseback (a form of fighting that they had dismissed as being ineffectual) and lost a full Legion in a single battle. DOH!

As example let’s say the Chinese created a HAARP type weapon that had the capabilities to wipeout all transistors in the world, and they first built an army with old tech of vacuum tubes and carburetors. This could be an example of what you are talking about. Is it possible, sure, but probable not likely, but you are right no one is invincible.

Each of the examples I presented were meant to illustrate that in war, there are things that might seem obvious after the fact, but are impossible to predict before hand and can lead to the defeat of what seemed to have been a superior force.

This is true too, and in Iran's case we cannot predict the outcome if we militarily wiped them. Which is a great reason not to attack.

I don't believe that military action against Iran would be "simple" on any level. Even tactical bombing would be problematic. As pointed out above, Iran (unlike Iraq) actually has an airforce. Their F-14s could be quite a problem... especially if equipped with Phoenix missiles.

The problem is their F-14s would never make it off the ground. America owns the skies. They have 266 fighter aircraft so how many are in working condition? If we went to war every one of them would be targeted on the ground or in the air and a cruise missile would be launched to destroy each of them along with every AAA that turned on its radar. In the first few days their Air Force, C2, radar, runways would be gone. Then it would open the door for unstoppable bombing runs on anything we wanted to bomb. Add in F-16s, A-10s, and Apaches etc able to go up and down any road destroying all vehicles.

Within a week they would have no power, no military other than troops, no running water, very little food, and no communication or transportation, but as we said before what then?

As to what I think should be done about the Iran situation... well, it's fairly simple. LEAVE THEM ALONE! If you don't make 'em mad, they have no reason to blow you up, right?

You are right and America will do that exact thing...

Contrary to the west's mass-media propaganda, there has been no proof that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. The alleged threats they have made against Israel in recent times have been out of context or mis-quoted sound-bytes. They have committed no crimes... so why are they being treated like criminals?

The answer: To serve the private interests of Corporate power.

If leaving them alone isn't an acceptable answer, then how about helping them? Why not offer to help them with their nuclear power program in exchange for unrestricted access to it? The west could help jumpstart their power program and save them many years of development, thus aiding them towards becoming a first world Nation. Such friendly overtures would disarm them far more effectively (and more cheaply) than the use of military power.

Well they do say no one will stop them from nuclear production and they do have all the data from Pakistan to make them. We have also offered to help them or a country like France to help them build nuclear energy and they turned it down. As I said before their government wants us to invade it is part of their plan to produce generations of extremist.

The other part of all this is they are knee deep in keeping Iraq from becoming a democracy of any kind. They would love to see us leave with Iraq still in total shambles much of what they helped generate and then with their Shia base in Iraq basically take the country over to follow Iran Shia rulings. This would mean about 50% of the population would follow Iran and the other 50% would be basically dead or wish they were dead.



[edit on 5-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

x2 post


[edit on 5-9-2007 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Well they do say no one will stop them from nuclear production and they do have all the data from Pakistan to make them. We have also offered to help them or a country like France to help them build nuclear energy and they turned it down. As I said before their government wants us to invade it is part of their plan to produce generations of extremist.

There's a couple common misconceptions here.
First, Iran has stated over and over that they are NOT producing nuclear weapons. There is, in fact, not a single shred of evidence that proves they have any type of nuclear weapons program. Everything they've done to date is in-line with nuclear power programs. Even the enrichment (enriched uranium allows for much more efficient nuclear power production and research) which they voluntarily suspended!

Second, there was an attempt by the EU3 (France, Britian, and Germany) to set up an exchange program for nuclear power production. This was blocked by the US. Iran was actively seeking this deal. They did NOT turn it down.

Third, what we hear coming out of Iran is often sound bytes that are taken out of context or suspect to mistranslation by the only organization that provides translation to western media (MEMRI, which has strong ties to Israel).
In fact, Iran has long been a proponent for declaring the entire middle east a nuclear free zone. Since 1974, they have been pressing the UN to enact resolutions to ban all nuclear weapons from all Middle Eastern countries. Those resolutions have been put before the UN, but have been repeatedly vetoed by the US (on behalf of Israel).
For an idea of Iran's real nuclear stance, as stated by Hossein Mousavian, a member of Iran's nuclear negotiating team:

It is incorrect to say that Iran's nuclear activities constitute a response to perceived nuclear threats from other states, such as Israel, or to a strategic threat arising from the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is therefore also incorrect to adduce the existence of this threat as evidence that Iran is aiming at a nuclear-weapons programme. Naturally, Iran is concerned by the fact that Israel possesses a substantial nuclear arsenal, but Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would not reduce its fears on this score. Similarly, Iranian concerns regarding the US military presence in the region would in no way be allayed were Iran to possess nuclear weapons. The possession of nuclear weapons would neither conduce to Iran security nor in reality enhance the perception of security enjoyed by the Iranian people.

Global Diolog Winter/Spring 2006
I strongly recommend reading that document. Print it 'n take it with you next to you have to take a sit on the can.

The other part of all this is they are knee deep in keeping Iraq from becoming a democracy of any kind. They would love to see us leave with Iraq still in total shambles much of what they helped generate and then with their Shia base in Iraq basically take the country over to follow Iran Shia rulings. This would mean about 50% of the population would follow Iran and the other 50% would be basically dead or wish they were dead.

Did you know that Iran was a democracy right up until 1953?

In the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the United States and United Kingdom removed the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and his cabinet from power and replaced it with a monarchy. The coup was carried out in a covert operation by Britain and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), codenamed Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX).

Wiki - Iranian 1953 Coup
The reasons for that coup were straight forward. The US and Britain wanted their oil. Very little has changed on that front.

Again, reports of Iranian involvement in destabilizing Iraq must come under suspicion due to the sources through which we've learned of them. Consider whom it benefits more. A continuing destabilized Iraq ensures that the US presence remains there. Iran's interests would be much better served by waiting until after the US leaves, then moving in with either conventional or covert operations. There is little reason to believe that a stabilized Iraq would be able to defend itself without US aid. On the other hand, by claiming that Iran has supported terrorism in Iraq, the US can focus the attention of the public away from the fact that they are still engaged in an illegal occupation and can continue to play the fear card to keep people in line.

Step back for a moment and ask yourself which scenario makes more sense.

Finally, while we agree that leaving Iran alone really is the best option, I don't believe those in power share our view. Check it out: ATS - Cheney Orders Media to Sell Iran War

Originally posted by BitRaiser
[There's a couple common misconceptions here.
First, Iran has stated over and over that they are NOT producing nuclear weapons. There is, in fact, not a single shred of evidence that proves they have any type of nuclear weapons program. Everything they've done to date is in-line with nuclear power programs. Even the enrichment (enriched uranium allows for much more efficient nuclear power production and research) which they voluntarily suspended!

Actually if this is all true then once again the US will not attack. We are not going to say CNN said they have nukes and launch the fleet. I'm sure our govenment knows pretty well what they have or don't have.

After the missing of WMDs in Iraq I do not think we will try that again. BTW with the WMDs in Iraq even Saddam thought he had them for no one was willing to tell him otherwise. Their reports that we used were worked to keep him happy. I also think he did everything he could to get anything he had moved to Syria with the wrong assumption that if none were found he would still keep his power over the country. That is why I think he didn’t leave in the 48 hours that he was given to leave.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Actually if this is all true then once again the US will not attack. We are not going to say CNN said they have nukes and launch the fleet. I'm sure our govenment knows pretty well what they have or don't have.

As pointed out in that other thread, it's not a matter of going in because CNN says they have WMDs. It's a matter of CNN being told to say they have WMDs in order to "sell the war" to the American People.

This is the Propaganda Engine at work and it's very effective.
Did you know that large numbers of Americans still believe that WMDs were found in Iraq?
Poll shows 50% of people believe WMDs were found in Iraq -CNS News

Fifty percent of American adults, when questioned by telephone between July 5 and 11 said they believe weapons of mass destruction (WMD) existed in Iraq before the U.S. invaded and toppled Saddam Hussein's regime.

Further, many people still believe that Saddam worked with Al Qaeda to execute the 9/11 attacks and other global terror operations. The truth is, Saddam was marked for death by Bin Laden. They had directly conflicting ideologies. Saddam was a capitalist. Bin Laden is a fundamentalist Islamic. These two concepts cannot share space. They hated each other even more than they did the west (in fact, Saddam admired the West and wanted to emulate it... thus the death threats from Osama).

Point is that there is a real tragedy in how easy it is to manipulate the western masses. People don't pay attention and even when they do, they're easily distracted and forget quickly.

After the missing of WMDs in Iraq I do not think we will try that again. BTW with the WMDs in Iraq even Saddam thought he had them for no one was willing to tell him otherwise. Their reports that we used were worked to keep him happy. I also think he did everything he could to get anything he had moved to Syria with the wrong assumption that if none were found he would still keep his power over the country. That is why I think he didn’t leave in the 48 hours that he was given to leave.

I haven't seen any proof of this at all. It's speculated and makes some sense, but I haven't seen any proof. The only WMDs that were known to be in Saddam's possession was a largish stockpile of Anthrax that was sold to him by the US.
Anthrax for Export

Most Americans listening to the President did not know that the United States supplied Iraq with much of the raw material for creating a chemical and biological warfare program. Nor did the media report that U.S. companies sold Iraq more than $1 billion worth of the components needed to build nuclear weapons and diverse types of missiles, including the infamous Scud.

Even that, however, was not a threat by the time the US invasion began. Anthrax has a shelf life. By the time the invasion started, Saddam's entire stockpile of Anthrax had decayed to an icky black goop that while still being rather unhealthy to consume, was not even remotely what you could call a WMD.

Personally, I believe he didn't leave because he was a proud (or ego maniacal) man who was willing to die for his beliefs. Further, I believe that the US would conform to International Law and not continue with an attack that was blatantly illegal and should have resulted in the hanging of the Bush Administration.

His gamble was that the US would practice what they preach.
What a sucker, eh?

Originally posted by infinite
He is right, sort of..

The United States will not attack unless it receives international support. This won't be Iraq version II

The only thing we are waiting for is some asurence from Russia and China.Other than that we will just work with the Israelies.We send b2's to take out radar and anti air .

Then Israeli jets come in and finish the bombing.No boots on the ground no tanks.Maybe small amounts of spec op missions for certain things.But we will not go ahead untill we are confident there will be no material or manpower support from Russia and China.

AH HA!

I was just chatting with a friend who happens to be an Israeli immigrant who pointed out something very relevant to this thread.

She Speaks Persian, ie the native language of Iran. She pointed out that some Persian words could be translated as either "Technical" or "Mathematical".

Considering that MEMRI no doubt did the translation on this speech and they have a vested interest in making Iran look foolish/insane, you can now understand how a reasonable statement like:

"My technical understanding of the situation suggests that the US is currently unable to attack Iran".

To the bastardized version that was spammed all over the media.

She also said that this sort of thing would be perfectly in-line with the sorts of things that Israel does all the time. I should mention that She is speculating at this point. She hasn't read or heard the original speech in Persian.

Still, it sounds more plausible to me than believing that the apparent gibberish actually came out of a highly ranked and educated man's mouth.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
AH HA!


Still, it sounds more plausible to me than believing that the apparent gibberish actually came out of a highly ranked and educated man's mouth.

Highly ranked and educated? ya? Look at what comes out of Bush's mouth!

Originally posted by BitRaiser

She Speaks Persian, ie the native language of Iran. She pointed out that some Persian words could be translated as either "Technical" or "Mathematical".

Considering that MEMRI no doubt did the translation on this speech and they have a vested interest in making Iran look foolish/insane, you can now understand how a reasonable statement like:

"My technical understanding of the situation suggests that the US is currently unable to attack Iran".

To the bastardized version that was spammed all over the media.

She also said that this sort of thing would be perfectly in-line with the sorts of things that Israel does all the time. I should mention that She is speculating at this point. She hasn't read or heard the original speech in Persian.

Still, it sounds more plausible to me than believing that the apparent gibberish actually came out of a highly ranked and educated man's mouth.

So Bit Raiser just so I know where you stand on our debates is Iran/Iraq and the other middle eastern countries just innocent countries trying to get by in the world and the US and Israel the evil empire trying to do them in? Or maybe the NWO Thing-A-Ma-Jig is trying to rule the world using the US and Israel as the platform to do it.




"My technical understanding of the situation suggests that the US is currently unable to attack Iran"

Why would we be unable to attack?

This is what spin is all about as you are demonstrating right now with your post and I guess we will just need to wait and see for every side can spin anything in any direction they want. I’m going to sit back and watch and I’ll bet in 2013 the world is still here basically as it is today and Iran is still Iran except the NWO theorists will need a new future date to keep watch on.

Also saying "technical" doesn’t really flow with this statement below unless this statement was totally incorrect too.


"In some discussions I told them 'I am an engineer and I am examining the issue. They do not dare wage war against us and I base this on a double proof'," he said in the speech yesterday, reported by the reformist Etemad Melli and Kargozaran newspapers.
"I tell them: 'I am an engineer and I am a master in calculation and tabulation.

"I draw up tables. For hours, I write out different hypotheses. I reject, I reason. I reason with planning and I make a conclusion. They cannot make problems for Iran."'

There is a reason why Iran feels threatened.



You would too......

For some reason it is becoming clear that the leaders of every country on earth are DOO DOO HEADS. If it is aliens or all some secret society agenda they must have really screwed up the gene pool. World leaders are so stupid these days I would rather we were run by apes. Can you imagine the G8 summit! Must be like a special ed class. As for Iran's Ackmendenajad or whatever who cares. Only thing he runs is his mouth. Fact is Iran is run by Islamic nut jobs with stinky beards and those dress things they wear on their heads. Iran will get hit and 10 years from now we can leave the middle east and start bombing Chavez. Math wont save Iran...common sense and coming into the 21st century will.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by TXMACHINEGUNDLR]