US Debates Military Strikes on 'Nuclear Iran'

We're busy right now. Let Israel do it.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
We're busy right now. Let Israel do it.

I have been hearing alot of conflicting information about the timeing of such a strike but am convinced beyond doubt that it is not far off.
Consider this interesting media report...
news.independent.co.uk...
It explains how the U.S. is selling Israel "Bunker Buster" Bombs Aprox. 500 of them.
This media report could only have been released for one purpose to strengthen in the mind of society that this strike is being prepared.
such a sale could have been done clandestinely otherwise.
the fact that this military sale is indeed happening is not as signifacant as news reports would have you believe.
Israel already has "bunker Buster" bombs that the U.S. sold them with Israel's last order of F-15's and Israel has already begun production on there own domestically built "Bunker Busters".
So one must consider the propaganda campaign of this as well.
God Help U.S. All!

I wonder how the Bush administration will proposition their case to the UN/World after the huge mess that's going on in Iraq.

I mean the US are on the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, so really the only mistake they made was confusing a "N" with a "Q" and "liberated' the wrong country.

Iraq was suppose to be a walk in the park, could you imagine the reprcautions bombing/invading Iran would be?

WWIII

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- I'd have thougt the point of such an IRBM obvious, they're cheap, mobile, they'd be used if Israel attacked and Israel hates and fears them.

Erm, no they aren't they are actually very expensive, they aren't being developed for conventional warheads, that would be absolutely pointless.
Look at what the Saudis paid for 24 Chinese CSS-2 IRBM's $3 billion US dollars - cheap eh ?

The Shahab 6 is supposed to have a range of 5500km. Seriously you would have to be extremely naive to think that this missile would be equipped with a conventional warhead.

From the Bulletin of Atomic scientists :

In 1992, for example, Iranians visited the Ulba Metallurgical Plant in Kazakhstan, a plant that produces reactor fuel and manufactures specialized metal components for the aerospace, electronics, and other defense industries. The plant also had a surplus inventory of more than 600 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU), which the Iranians may have tried to buy.

Upon learning of the Iranian interest in Ulba, the U.S. government asked the Kazakh government to block any possible transactions with Iran. After deciding that physical security at Ulba was too weak to prevent diversion, the United States bought Ulba's HEU inventory in a secret, complex deal that was not revealed until it was completed in late 1994.


www.bullatomsci.org...

"Bombing Iran (or Syria) back to a pre-industrial state is not going to make the ME safer for anyone nor the world safer for any of us....just as doing so in Iraq has not made things better IMO. "

I at no time advocated that. I advocated that if Iran continues down the road of producing a viable nuclear reactor we would be foolish to allow them to do that. A couple of well placed 2000# precision guided muntitions should be capable of setting their programs back a number of years. (hopefully accomplished on a very early holiday morning to minimize the loss of life)

Let me pose a couple of questions Sminkey. As the world stands now-and at most times in the past-one country is/was the pre-emminet military power on the planet. The Romans, Spanish, and UK to name a few, have held this position in the past. At this moment in time, the US, arguably, holds this position.

1. Why is it in the best interest of the US to voluntarily seede this position to others?

2. Assuming that this is the natuaral order of things-and I think it is for the forseeable future-If not the US then who would you want in this position?

(Please, Please, Please Sminkey, Do not say the American hating Kofi led UN-I will lose all the respect you have earned with me here!)

Originally posted by Corinthas
Is there ANY place that the US havn't considered bombing?!?!

The civilized, non-terrorist supporting places?

stumason
I don't know why America can't just let other countries be

Because iran will use them to nuke american cities? And the US didn't get invovled in pakistan and india developing nukes, so obviously the US does let other countries be.

xpert11
Has it occured to anyone that if the USA attacks Irans Nuclear sites in response Iran would supply the insurgents in Iraq with WMDS

What wmds? If the US detroys WMD production sites, how will they do this? What makes you think Iran won't supply them even if the US doesn't attack?

If you destroy Irans Nuke sites they will rebuilt them underground then how is the USA going monitor Irans nuke proagram?

Since its not being monitored now anyway....
[qu0ote]ufo3
one could realistically argue that every country will eventually become nuclear powers.
Probably.

pfunkrocka
think it would be more likely that Isreal

israel would have to pass over Iraq's airspace to do so. The Iraqis will undoubtedly not allow this.

gazrock
There are other ways to resolve these issues, and this administration's rush to military action

I must note that all that is being done now is planning for the possibility. Meanwhile Congress has been calling for the members of hte Non proliferation treaty to follow up on this, and for the UN and IAEA to take action. I suspect that if they won't, however, that an attack (and hence, war) will start before the lenghty sanctions period that iraq went thru tho.

arnold-vosloo
err are you saying that afganistan armed and trained al queda??

They provided them with shelter and a base of operations and military protection.

smokenmirrors
the Iranian mullahocracy will fall, they simply will not be permitted to obtain nukes, end of story.

This is undeniable. North Korea's Jon Il probably doesn't want to die in a war with the US. The Iranian governement probably wouldn't be concerned with that consequence. In fact, they've stated that they have an expendable population of citizens and can afford to have entire cities obliterated.

sminkeypinkey
Nuclear power production is nothing like the same as nuclear weapons production

Correct, and incorrect. Nuclear power plants are how one gets nuclear weapons material. Iran doesn't need a nuclear powerplant. Look at the North Korean Plant. Its not connected to any outiside tranmission lines. These are weapons programs. It is, of course, possible for the plants to be used in a verifiable way for only energy production. However, the only international nuke inspection group, the IAEA, headed by baradi (an ethnic iranian no?) isn't being allowed to verify this.

If the USA attacks Iran on this basis it will do so alone and it will create far more trouble than it thinks it will solve

Trouble is preferable to nukes in manhattan.

no evidence of an Iranian bomb at all

Agreed. The iranians don't have nukes yet. And these plants aren't quite functional yet tho no? However, a nuke weapon program at this early stage would on the surface look like a nuclear power production program. THe only logical conclusion is to allow the IAEA to do its job. If they can't, then Russia and Iran should be sanctioned and embargoed by UN, which, since russian is on the security council, would have to happen in the General Assembly. But thats not going to happen. And Iran isn't going to allow inspectors in, becuase then they would'nt be able to use the plant to produce weapons. SO the US is going to go to war with iran. There really isn't anything that can prevent it at this point.

xphiles
why not just bomb everybody who has Nuclear technology.

Allowing Pakistan and India to have nukes actually is thought by some to mean that they will be dettered from going to all out war agian. Think about what might've happened if Mutually Assured Destruction wasn't a possibility in a non nuclear armed 'cold war' between the US and the Soviet Union? The nukes allowed each to fight thru proxy, but I don't think india or pakistan are capable of that at this time. If there were no nukes, there'd've been nothing to prevent the Soviets from fighting alongside Kim jong Ils father in the Korean war (since they trained and support him in the first place). IOW, nukes made the cold war cold. However, that was only because the Soviets were interested in retaining power, not being martyred, and controlling their cities. Iran probably isn't. The ancient Romans used thier legions in the same way, as a detterent force. Any problematic kingdom wouldn't threaten them directly, because legions can sack cities and loot your treasury. Barbarians, however, didn't have cities to be sacked or treasuries to be looted. The threat didn't work agianst them. I don't think that the threat of nuclear annhiliation will work against the iranian government.

sargon of agade
I am not for "bombing" Iran. I would advocate the smallest surgical strike possible to destroy reactors and potential production facilities.

I do feel it necessary to state that Iran, if attacked, will probably consider it an act of war and go to war with the US, attacking the troops already too close in iraq. The iraqi governement won't stand by and allow attacks on its soil, and the iranians will probably have to attack US and allied positions in afghanistan too. This will force warlords on the border region to choose a side, which will probably depend on who can supply them, which means some will go over to the iranian side. In waziristan in the border region with pakistan, the tribespeople there, being predominantly fundamentalist antigovernment pashtuns (I think ethnically allied with the iranians too) will almost certainly go over to their side, and begin attacking musharaf's positions, forcing him to respond internally and possibly externally too. Back on the mesopotamian front, an iraqi government will certainly call for the other members of the arab league to make some sort of a statement, possibly forcing jordan and by implication of a wider internicine muslim war, turkeys, hand also. Kurdish sentiment in such an event is completely unpredicatble. They are an iranian people (or rather, speak an iranian language), but aren't fundamentalists but do have compatriots in turkey and are interested in an independant kurdistan. With that much instability on the southern side of the caucus, the chechnyans certainly will ramp up attacks inside russian, and thus the other planetary superpower will become invovled, interestingy on the same side as the US.

So there you have the makings of another world war. I have no idea what china's role in all this woudl be. I expect North Korean to use the troop shortage on the Southern side of the DMZ to bluster, but not attack. The saudis will go where the money is, ie the US side. The syrians are another question mark. Strategically, it makes sense for them to attack (with their chemical weapons nonetheless too) and try to force two fronts for the troops in iraq. That would definitly require some response from turkey and definitely prevent jordan from remaining neutral (if its been able to remain neutral that long anyway). The Egyptians and Israelis are another wild card.

sminkey pinkey
Maybe because the oil won't last forever?

Absolutely ludicrous. Iran does not need a nuclear power plant to supply its people with electricity, the suggestion is baseless.

How about because it appears that no matter what cooperation Iran gives they are always being accused by those apparantly bent on creating hostilities?

Plausible, but, again, allowing the inspectors to inspect would be a comparatively small price to pay.

er, you have got to be kidding? Who in their right mind would go to the Russians for their nuclear tech if western tech is available?

The Russians and Iranians are holding discussions to sell nuclear plant tech.

BTW the Iranian reactors do not produce enriched weapons grade plutonium.

I am unaware of any nuclear power plant the produces enriched plutonium. They do however produce plutonium, which has to be processed by another type of facility to produce 'weapons grade' material. The US only does this with plants specifically designated as DOD (or somesuch) plants, whereas the French do this with all their nuke waste.

Maybe a completely disarmed Iran is what you think reasonable?

I think a democratic iran would be the best solution. The US made a terrible mistake in supporting non democratic movements there.

kollapse
one more step towards the end for the US.

How?

mokuhadzushi
Israel would be forced to begin peace negotiations with the arabs

Israel offered an emminently sensible peace offer to arafat under Barak. They rejected it. Now Sharon has decided to remove some settlements and build a security wall. If the palestinians still choose not to accept peace, then the Israelis will be able to prevent attacks while still occupying parts of what could've been an independant palestine, at the price of a few settlments. For the palestinians it will mean perpetual occupation with Israeli attacks on terrorist groups (ie the palestianians stop a bomber at the wall, or a bomber attacks the wall, the israelis respond by attacking the palestinians, but don't have to suffer attacks on their own civilians) with effectively peaceful domestic concerns for the israelis. The palestians are in a loose-loose situation now.

samiralfey
Now, which one of these two is more dangerous?

Iran. Iran is definitly more dangerous to the US. Why should the US care who is more dangerous to the international community? First things first an all.

sminkey pinkey
Exactly when did Iran become an actual enemy?

During their Revolution.

Actually my point was that the US would appear to prefer a puppet regime

Possible. If the US does end up supporting a 'puppet regime' then that'd definitly be a mistake.

From the vast well of sympathy following 9/11 to standing on the verge of becoming a pariah

You mean like those palestinians who were so symphathetic that they danced in the streets? Or like the sympathetic arab league that did not aide in the war against the taliban? What did the US get for that supposed 'sympathy' anyway?

What is this, an article of faith?

You are certianly correct on that. Iran's nuke program is in a very early, extremely indeterminate stage. They are not 'on the verge' of anything.

which you lot are in the process of blowing

How so? If the iranians aren't going to use the plants as part of a weapons program, why is there any issue with the IAEA?

Then the USA turned round with a load more aggressive rhetoric and demands which in turn provoked Iran to say get lost.

If the iranians don't want a war, they'll have to deal with the inspectors. I'd personally prefer that they did, beucase another world war would cramp my style, to say the least.

I hope you're ready for drafting

Not so sure about whether or not there will be a draft. I think the US can win the main battle phase of the war without a draft, but as far as the occupation phase, thats adifferent story. However, if jordan, turkey, israel, and others side with the US, then their troops could be part of the occupation, or better yet, an actual expansion. Pakistan could extend to include parts of iran, or afghanistan could also, or, alternatively, there could be real reorganization of iran pakistan and afghanistan, in parts or in whole. Lets pretend the Turks don't aide the US side, then iraq and iran could be combined back into persia, and the kurds could be given an independant state. The Israelis could occupy lebanon and syria, or, alternatively, the phalangists in lebanon could occupy syria.

namehere
never being in this situation

Germany was successfully occupied, as was japan. True, the insurgency is much more powerful than in either of those cases, of course, the wars to get to that point was extremely different too.

sargon of agade
Maybe a completely disarmed Iran is what you think reasonable?

Iran is not armed, yet.

We found remnants of Chem/Bio programs and a few weapons-capable of killing 250K or so

When? All I am aware of are decommisioned shells, empty since the iran-iraq war, a camouflaged chemical factory, a mobile weapons lab, and missles that had a greater than permited range?

sminkeypinkey
so you think the resource is just infinite then?

You think saudi arabia will stop selling?

The Iranian reactors you are so upset about are AMERICAN.

Hows that?

Whew, long topic. better stop for this post.

Iraq and Iran being put back as persia! Are you nuts. If you really want to make an unstable country you have just found a way, take 2 countrys who aboslutly hate each other and make them one country. For one, Iraqis will hate being called persians, cause they are not, they are arabs. And Persians will hate being part of iraq, mainly due to the war that happend not to long ago. Shiite And Sonni muslims would have huge wars in that country (iran is what like 90% Shiite).

The other part is just as stupid, who give ths U.S the right to invade a country and then let other country expand in to them? Making some of iran pakistan? You know what that will do, that will guarentee a nukelar strike against iran, and with its smaller boarders and U.S only hitting "Military" targets you may end up hitting pakistan and now you have 2 pissed off nuclear countrys.

You really need to take a good hard look at what your saying, and to think that U.S wont need to re instate a draft, please. Invading iran will surly need a draft, your fighting a country with 79 million people (also a country that will easily take 1 million casualties, a country who will make weamon to have more kids becouse they want a war to be dragged on). A war with iran would smoke the economy of U.S, it will costs 10 times more than iraq (just cause of the sheer size and numbers of the country) and taking 10 billion dollar hurricane damages every summer does not help. If you want the best for the world do us a favour and dont get in to politics, that would help us alot. Stop trying to be "america the hero" cause truth is no one want you to be. You can only piss off so manym country before they turn around and smack you in the face. And for every one who says "lets just nuke this country, and this country" grow up and use your brain, how many countrys and water supply do you think you can posion before it comes back to you?

Wheee! Having fun on the foreign diplomacy funland ride Bush has provided us with? I don't think we've seen anything yet.

Originally posted by Sargon of Agade
I advocated that if Iran continues down the road of producing a viable nuclear reactor we would be foolish to allow them to do that.

- I can see no legal reason why they cannot have nuclear power.

In any case America started all this, America thought it was a geat idea to sell Iran nuclear reactors. Well done. Whatever your gov thinks of them having them you guys obviously did one hell of a job 'selling' them to them cos they seem to think they really really need them now. Thanks. Great job.

Thanks to the US they already have 2 (American) reactors.....good job the other 30 or so you lot planned to sell them didn't get built before the Shah was deposed, huh?

A couple of well placed 2000# precision guided muntitions should be capable of setting their programs back a number of years. (hopefully accomplished on a very early holiday morning to minimize the loss of life)

- I don't agree. All that kind of talk does is further the influence of their hard-liners and ideas of placing their tech underground and away from inspection.

....and precision guided 'bunker buster' bombs are only as good as the intel saying where they should "be well placed", which, if Iraq is anything to go by, isn't going to do much 'good' at setting anything back 5 minutes never mind years.

Let me pose a couple of questions Sminkey. As the world stands now-and at most times in the past-one country is/was the pre-emminet military power on the planet. The Romans, Spanish, and UK to name a few, have held this position in the past. At this moment in time, the US, arguably, holds this position.

1. Why is it in the best interest of the US to voluntarily seede this position to others?

- I'm sorry but I think your proposition is far from reality. As things stand right now IMO the US is decades away from being in a position to seede their pre-emminent position even if they wanted to.

I had thought that in a league table of military spending the US outspent the next 25 countries combined....someone here has informed me it's actually 35.

Notions of US 'vulnerability' are ludicrously unrealistic and frankly absurd IMO.

Like anyone else you may sustain terrorist attack(s) but they will not defeat your nation, or any nation for that matter, and despite the most lurid and exaggerated speculation the most likely kinds of attack are not going to be 'spectacular events' (as the UK gov used to grimly refer to big IRA attacks).

However I would say that your point here is based on a history of - by definition - previously failed 'pre-emminent' or dominate countries/nations. It is true that at various times it now appears, looking back on those times, that one country was pre-eminent or dominant (whether that was so at the time or not is IMO very debateable). Why would anyone wish to use a system of ultimate failure to base or judge anything upon?

Surely the enlightened approach would be to attempt a durable system? Surely avoiding the proven failures would be better? Domination is a proven failure no matter how complete the domination so why persue it? It can be proven only failure lies down that path as by definition not one nation that has persued that path previously has succeeded in their aim.

I suggest as we inter-depend and relate that a system of genuine cooperation, law, equality and mutual benefit will be the most likely to allow the necessary steps to be taken in relation to the environment and ecologyand thereby stand a chance of a sustainable future for all.

2. Assuming that this is the natuaral order of things-and I think it is for the forseeable future-If not the US then who would you want in this position?

- I don't accept this pseudo-darwinian idea for countries is either inevitable or necessary.

We have never been here before, the relationships across the globe are unique in our history and I fail to see why 18th, 19th or 20th century 'models' of behaviour should be so rigidly adhered to.....particularly given their proven record of disasterous failure.

(Please, Please, Please Sminkey, Do not say the American hating Kofi led UN-I will lose all the respect you have earned with me here!)

- Sorry but I don't recognise your description of the UN at all. I of course recognise it has it's faults but it is all there is.

The more we learn about ourselves and our planet the more our seemingly instinctive 'I can do pretty much whatever I like' version of 'freedom' seems inappropriate to the point of self-harm IMO.

The world is already coalescing into large blocks, the ultimate step will be when they gel further to a single government of sorts.

IMO we simply can't afford this waste that our petty conflicts generate.

Originally posted by stumason
Not surprised in the slightest......

I don't know why America can't just let other countries be, I really don't think they can make nukes, but even if they can, they're not that stupid that they would actually use them!

Ohh really? Why not?

My fear of a nuclear Iran is not that the state it's self would use them - that would be suicide. If they wanted to use them all they need to do is give them to some radical muslims, say "take this and blow it up in Isreal, the US, England ect.

They themselves have not done it - terrorists have. Thus, most hippy liberals would say "ohhh, we can't attack them - they didn't attack us".

The fact is "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Just look at WWII for a prime example.

Lets look at the reasons why we should go ahead and take Iran out with nukes! With compliments to Sargon of Agade. Everyone needs to read his postings very closely! I'll just transfer 5 quotes. You can read the rest.

Reason #1)

originally posted by Sargon of Adade
If you were sitting on top of a huge oil field with all of the more or less free energy you could ever need, why would you spend billions developing a nuclear energy program?

Hmmm. Lets think now.Answer Something to kill the Western infidels with? Yeah, I know I answered with a question, so what?

Reason #2)

Why would you throw a snit and disallow IAEA members access to inspect your sites if you had nothing to hide?

Hmmm. Let's use our brains again.Answer Because they're developing something to kill Western infidels with? Hey, so what if I'm answering these questions with questions.

Reason #3)

That being said, I think it would be really stupid to let a sworn ememy state develop nuclear weapons during a time of war. The Mullahs in Iran would happily spread jihad over the face of the planet given the chance. They are known terrorist supporters.

And everyone knows what they are about, to kill all Western infidels.

Reason#4)

And for my countrymen who think we should just leave this to the UN or some "World Organization" (collectively known as the anybody but Bush crowd) I say to you that you never learned anything on the schoolyard. There are bad people out there unlike anything your wealth and privilaged upbringing allow you to even consider. They would rape, murder, behead, steal, pillage, and torture you just for the sheer sport of it. They shoot children, blow up old ladies on trains and busses, any crash airliners out of a sick sense of duty and a personal sense of hopelessness.

That's exactly what they do with Western infidels.

Reason#5)

Had it not been for the evil, warmongering US, we would not be having this conversation. You'd be speaking German. We were right in what we did then. Appeasement and negotiations would not/did not stop Hitler. The biggest mistake we made was waiting until 1941 to join our allies. Our enemies declared war on us on September 11th-and we didn't ask for it.

Iraq and Iran openly support terrorists-I hope we can agree on that. Therefore, the regimes are legitamite military targets-IMHO.

See, we need to stop them before they have a chance to kill us "Western infidels".

I say lets give them no warnings and just go ahead and strike them. Look at what Saddam did with all his warnings! He got rid of all the WMD's that we and he knew he had. Just thank God that he didn't have the chance to use any of them.



[edit on 22/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by Intelearthling
I say lets give them no warnings and just go ahead and strike them. Look at what Saddam did with all his warnings! He got rid of all the WMD's that we and he knew he had.

No you didn't know. I'm totally amazed by the wonders the Zionist propaganda does in this country. Brainwashing otherwise reasonable people. Sheesh.

Bring the boys home, stop fighting for Israel.

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by Intelearthling
I say lets give them no warnings and just go ahead and strike them. Look at what Saddam did with all his warnings! He got rid of all the WMD's that we and he knew he had.

No you didn't know. I'm totally amazed by the wonders the Zionist propaganda does in this country. Brainwashing otherwise reasonable people. Sheesh.

Bring the boys home, stop fighting for Israel.

I'm totally amazed that people don't believe they were there! New reports have it that Iraq sent what WMD's they did have into Syria! Why do you think that Syria is finally talking to Washington now? They've done got rid of or hid these weapons! It's my guess that what the pre-war reports stated was just mock-ups of WMD's so the Iraqi people could have a false sense of security.

And long live Israel

[edit on 22/9/04 by Intelearthling]

Originally posted by Intelearthling
New reports have it that Iraq sent what WMD's he did have into Syria!

hahahahah lies

And long live Israel

Yes, and down with the American "military aid" to that country.
My kids need pencils in school.

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by Intelearthling
New reports have it that Iraq sent what WMD's he did have into Syria!

hahahahah lies

And long live Israel

Yes, and down with the American "military aid" to that country.
My kids need pencils in school.

The reports aren't released yet and I'm not making this up. I have no idea when these reports will be made public but the new findings was less than a week ago.

And all kids needs pencils. How will they write? Anyhow pencils are a dime a dozen! Come on now!

Originally posted by Intelearthling
And all kids needs pencils. How will they write? Anyhow pencils are a dime a dozen! Come on now!

Figure of speech. Duh.

We need more and better teachers! Now, these aren't dime a dosen.

Stop financing Israel at our expense!

Long live America! To hell with Zionism!

Originally posted by zi2525
Iraq and Iran being put back as persia! Are you nuts. If you really want to make an unstable country you have just found a way, take 2 countrys who aboslutly hate each other and make them one country.

They only hated each other because of the iran iraq war, and that war only happened because of terrirtorial ambition on the part of hussein. As a people they share a common history, ethnicity (to a degree) and culture.

For one, Iraqis will hate being called persians, cause they are not, they are arabs. And Persians will hate being part of iraq, mainly due to the war that happend not to long ago. Shiite And Sonni muslims would have huge wars in that country (iran is what like 90% Shiite).
ah but iraq also has a large shiite population

who give ths U.S the right to invade a country and then let other country expand in to them?

Didn't say that. I said that in a war involving turkey invading syria, the Turks will probably not want to release control of it.

Making some of iran pakistan? You know what that will do, that will guarentee a nukelar strike against iran,

I'm talking about a reorganization of the region after this upcomming war. The people in waziristan will probably prefer to be part of a greater iran than pakistan anyway, or a reorganized afghanistan. The borders of the region were invented after the previous world wars, there is nothing especially sensible about the current arrangement.


You really need to take a good hard look at what your saying, and to think that U.S wont need to re instate a draft, please. Invading iran will surly need a draft,
Iraq was defeated with a smaller force than currently occupies it. There are still units in germany and japan and other parts of europe and the rest of the world. Many people thought Iraq couldn't be defeated with a smaller force than that which defeated it in the Gulf War, but they too were wrong. A draft would be politically 'dangerous', and I think that they won't reinstate one, at least not to fight the war.
your fighting a country with 79 million people
Irrelevant. They are not trained nor armed. The revolutionary guard and regular army are the concern, and, since they couldn't defeat iraq, and the US easily defeated the iraqis, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think a draft is required, but, again, I was only talking about the actual war, not the occupation. (also a country that will easily take 1 million casualties, a country who will make weamon to have more kids becouse they want a war to be dragged on).
Right, well, in 13 years they can get back to it then.

A war with iran would smoke the economy of U.S, it will costs 10 times more than iraq

An iran war will not be like the iraq war. It will not occur without global repercussions, unless europe wants to remain neutral like india did during the second world war. This iran war will not be a single war, i think, between the US and some allies and iran. It I think, and, of course, I may be wrong, but I think that the 'fence sitters' will get involved now, because the region will be too altered to not participate, and the pressure on syria and possibly some other gulf states will be too great.

(just cause of the sheer size and numbers of the country) and taking 10 billion dollar hurricane damages every summer does not help. If you want the best for the world do us a favour and dont get in to politics, that would help us alot. Stop trying to be "america the hero" cause truth is no one want you to be.
What the world wants is irrelevant. The US obviously will act according to its own security needs, or at least the perception of them. This war can only be avoided by two things, I think, either actual cooperation with the IAEA or a kerry win in november, and I think a kerry win means that it won't happen until iran acts first.

You can only piss off so manym country before they turn around and smack you in the face.

I'm not trying to be rude, but the idea is laughable. What is the world going to do? Russia, china, and some of the european countries (pretending australia is european for the moment) are the only nations that can seriously mount an offense at the US, and they don't seem ready to do that, certainly not over American Hegemony in the Middle East, certainly not when europe and russia are also being attacked by islamic fundamentalist terrorists, and certainly not in the defense of an islamic fundamtentalist state. China, well, if china isn't willing ot go to war over taiwan, why would they do it over iran? And even they have some problems with muslim insurgents on their borders.

how many countrys and water supply do you think you can posion before it comes back to you?

Probably the majority of them.

taibunsuu
I don't think we've seen anything yet.

Agreed. People don't seem to be recognizing the implications of an Iran-America war. I don't think talking about wwiii is hysteria

sminkey pinkey
I can see no legal reason why they cannot have nuclear power.

I'm not so sure about that, I don't know if they are party to the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty, I think that they aren't, else congress would demand that they comply with the treaty, rather than other treaty members comply and intervene. So you are probably right about that. I do think that a UN resolution would fix that issue tho. But what difference does it make if what they are doing is 'illegal' or not? International Politics, depsite some good efforts on the part of the UN and at least historical efforts by the US, are Power Politics, not legalistic, certainly not when it comes to allowing enemy states to become nuclear powers.

didn't get built before the Shah was deposed,

Ah, so criticism of the russian sale is not hypocritical, i think that you were alluding to it being so before? Perhaps that was someone else tho.

placing their tech underground and away from inspection.

But if there are no inspectors there now, what is the difference? What exactly is iran asking be done?

I had thought that in a league table of military spending the US outspent the next 25 countries combined....someone here has informed me it's actually 35.

Something like that. The US spends approximately 3.5% of its GDP on the military. This was a few points higher in the recent past. Durign WWII, at peak, it reached c.f 33%, and was significantly lower than that WWII figure for vietnam.

Notions of US 'vulnerability' are ludicrously unrealistic and frankly absurd IMO.

The US simply isn't safe if iran has the capability to produce nuclear bombs. Does iran feel safe with the US and Israel having bombs? Would the feel even safer if Pat Buchannon was president (to name someone more to the right of bush)? Or what if there had been a militant revolution in the US, and Timothy Mcveigh was still alive, lead the revolution, and became president? Or Jimmy Swaggart?

the most likely kinds of attack are not going to be 'spectacular events'

Having a bomb explode in your face I would imagine is pretty spectacular when its your own face.

Domination is a proven failure

When was this proven?

by definition not one nation that has persued that path previously has succeeded in their aim.

Worked for the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Persians, Alexander, the Romans, the Chinese, the Huns, the arabs, the Khanate, the Moscuvites, the ethnic Turks, the Ottomans, the WWII Allies, not to mention the americans and australians in relation to the natives of their respective countries.

I suggest as we inter-depend and relate that a system of genuine cooperation, law, equality and mutual benefit will be the most likely to allow the necessary steps to be taken in relation to the environment and ecologyand thereby stand a chance of a sustainable future for all.

How can this be accomplished if the US cannot confirm that Iran has no intention of building a nuclear bomb to sell or attack the US with?

the relationships across the globe are unique in our history

Very interstesting take, how do you see it? I'd like to here more.

american mad man
is not that the state it's self would use them - that would be suicide

Wouldn't dying in an attack on 'the great satan' itself not be enough to prevent one from attacking it?

intelearthling
The reports aren't released yet and I'm not making this up

How do you know this?

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by Intelearthling
New reports have it that Iraq sent what WMD's he did have into Syria!

hahahahah lies

And long live Israel

Yes, and down with the American "military aid" to that country.
My kids need pencils in school.

The fact that WMD's were smuggled from Iraq into Syria is a common view held amongst those in the intelligence community. Many believe that these where buried somewhere in the bekaa valley in Syria/Lebanon under the supervision of Syrian Military units. it is my opinion by your comments that you see this as a "lie" propugated by Israel to have the U.S. "deal" with Syria on Israels behalf. Believe me Israel has the means to accomplish any Military goal with Syria without U.S. intervention. The Second point i would like to make is your comment about ceasing military aid to Israel. Israel is a long time Ally of America and an icreasingly srategic partner in geopolitics.
Maybe the U.S. should stop giving military aid to countries like Egypt and Russia. the aid given to Russia to decomission old nuclear weapons allows them to free up financial resources to research and procure new nuclear weapons.
Best Wishes
StormShadowTRU

[edit on 23-9-2004 by StormShadowTRU]