Irans sabres are out.

[Accountable]

I said it before & I'll say it again. I don't support any pre-emptive attack. I think it would be a major mistake.

[BabyRider]

"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.


I'm taking bets on that one.

[BabyRider]

As a matter of fact I can and do walk to work. Year-round if neccessary.

Call me biased, call me whatever you want. All the preparation they are capable of is not going to defeat the biggest super-power in the world.

Granted, I don't know as much about warfare and military action as most in here. I just have that much faith in our boys. So, I look at this through rose-colored glasses. Allow me my one brief moment of non-cynicism. (Is that a proper term??) Here's a thing I have faith and belief in. Our military men and women. I don't have faith in a lot, but in them, yeah, I do.

Perhaps it's naive of me, but I don't care. No one is kicking the crap out of the US. Our service men and women will make sure of that.

[spot]

BabyRider wrote: I'm taking bets on that one.This may be a silly question, BR, but if the US did start a war with Iran, whose side would you be on, and why? What threat does Iran pose to the US? Do you not feel that a population defending its own national territory is doing the right thing? Do you feel that Iranians in general are less respectable than Americans? If they are invaded, would it not be praiseworthy of them to defend themselves as best they can? And just as an aside, regardless of the civil nature of their existing atomic program, why on earth shouldn't they develop a nuclear warfare capability if they think it's in their national interest?

[BabyRider]

spot wrote: This may be a silly question, BR, but if the US did start a war with Iran, whose side would you be on, and why? What threat does Iran pose to the US? Do you not feel that a population defending its own national territory is doing the right thing? Do you feel that Iranians in general are less respectable than Americans? If they are invaded, would it not be praiseworthy of them to defend themselves as best they can? And just as an aside, regardless of the civil nature of their existing atomic program, why on earth shouldn't they develop a nuclear warfare capability if they think it's in their national interest?
It is a silly question and you know why. You also know who's side I'd be on. Why? Because I'm American. If it's us or them, I vote for us. The rest is just smoke and mirrors, and political bullsh!t that I don't understand. I don't care what the Iranians think is in their best national interest.

[spot]

BabyRider wrote: It is a silly question and you know why. You also know who's side I'd be on. Why? Because I'm American. If it's us or them, I vote for us. The rest is just smoke and mirrors, and political bullsh!t that I don't understand. I don't care what the Iranians think is in their best national interest.That, BabyRider, is why nationalism is such a dangerous aspect of modern life. I'd hope a patriot would question his government and challenge it, not expect to all sing from the same hymn-sheet on command. Nobody else will bring to an end the futile waste of lives in the Middle East if you don't stand up and complain about the people who planned and designed the policy that took your troops abroad. If soldiers can openly and honestly criticise their Commander in Chief, why can't you?

[BabyRider]

spot wrote: That, BabyRider, is why nationalism is such a dangerous aspect of modern life. I'd hope a patriot would question his government and challenge it, not expect to all sing from the same hymn-sheet on command. Nobody else will bring to an end the futile waste of lives in the Middle East if you don't stand up and complain about the people who planned and designed the policy that took your troops abroad. If soldiers can openly and honestly criticise their Commander in Chief, why can't you?
I have said, many times Spot, that I don't believe our government is infallible. I also have said many times that I love my country, and fear my government. I think what the public gets to hear is a very small portion of what actually goes on. Even the most educated in this topic do not have the priviledge of all the information. There are many things we will never know about.

There are many things I question, and fight about. Things that affect my life directly. My right to bear arms, my right to choose whether or not to wear a helmet, my right not to have my home invaded by the police without due cause. My right not to be stopped at a whim and questioned about anything. Things that matter to me and influence my life directly. As to the waste of life in the Middle East, our boys were there fighting and some of them died. They wiped out a lot more of them than they did us. That's what matters to me. Nuke the whole damn country, as far as I'm concerned.

[spot]

BabyRider wrote: They wiped out a lot more of them than they did us. That's what matters to me. Nuke the whole damn country, as far as I'm concerned.And that's the way to score the fixture? Which side killed more of the other? The US won hands down in Vietnam, then.

Your current administration has the hots for attacking seventy million Iranians at the moment. Is one more US serviceman's life worth whatever benefit you'll get from such an action?

[BabyRider]

spot wrote: And that's the way to score the fixture? Which side killed more of the other? The US won hands down in Vietnam, then.



Your current administration has the hots for attacking seventy million Iranians at the moment. Is one more US serviceman's life worth whatever benefit you'll get from such an action?
I love how people always bring in the service men's lives. That is what the service people are there for. They know full well going into the service that their job is to fight for our country, that they don't get to pick and choose the battles, they don't get a say in what gets fought for where, or how. They know that part of their job could include the ultimate sacrifice.

Do I like that? Do I like the fact that service men and women die in battle? Of course not. But that changes nothing. They do the job that needs doing, and they are proud to do it.

I still like my idea best, and it saves a lot of US service people's lives. Nuke the whole damn place. Hell, we can do it from here, and not one soldier has to even be deployed.

[spot]

BabyRider wrote: I still like my idea best, and it saves a lot of US service people's lives. Nuke the whole damn place. Hell, we can do it from here, and not one soldier has to even be deployed.Why do you think that would benefit the USA? How does mere possession of firepower give a moral right to deploy it at whim?

Just to put this in context, no country since World War II has attacked the USA. No US war in living memory has resulted in more US civilian deaths than US military deaths. No US war since Korea has has resulted in more foreign military deaths than foreign civilian deaths - I hesitate over Korea since I'm not sure of the statistics there.

Do you feel that the US has gained any benefit at all from the wars it's started since then?

[BabyRider]

spot wrote: Why do you think that would benefit the USA? How does mere possession of firepower give a moral right to deploy it at whim?



Just to put this in context, no country since World War II has attacked the USA. No US war in living memory has resulted in more US civilian deaths than US military deaths. No US war since Korea has has resulted in more foreign military deaths than foreign civilian deaths - I hesitate over Korea since I'm not sure of the statistics there.



Do you feel that the US has gained any benefit at all from the wars it's started since then?
See, this is what you're not getting, Spot. I don't CARE about moral rights to deploy anything. The title of the thread alone says it all.



And have you forgotten about 9-11? The US has never been attacked?

Yes, I agree, we put our noses into places where they don't belong. I don't understand a lot, (most) of the warfare/political agenda the US or any other country has. I also don't care. If Iran is building up it's arsenal, concerned that we're coming, then they must have reason to believe we're coming. The why's of it simply don't matter to me. I have my own things that matter to me, that I fight for, and the oil wells or whatever it is we want over there simply aren't something that cause me daily grief.



As to the civilian/military deaths quotient, well, here's a tip: if you know we're coming, get the hell out of the way!!!

I can't debate a topic with you that you know so much more about. I have admitted that I don't know all the why's and wherefore's. Because I have other things that are more important to me.

I stand behind our troops, not my government. They are the ones that matter to me in this mess. They give their lives without question to the fights that they are told to fight.

And I'll reiterate here, that no civilian and probably most military people, don't know the whole story. Our government keeps a lot from us. We hear what they want us to hear.

[Adam Zapple]

spot wrote: This may be a silly question, BR, but if the US did start a war with Iran, whose side would you be on, and why? What threat does Iran pose to the US? Do you not feel that a population defending its own national territory is doing the right thing? Do you feel that Iranians in general are less respectable than Americans? If they are invaded, would it not be praiseworthy of them to defend themselves as best they can? And just as an aside, regardless of the civil nature of their existing atomic program, why on earth shouldn't they develop a nuclear warfare capability if they think it's in their national interest?


What threat does Iran pose to the US?

They are lead by a maniacal fanatic who has repeatedly promoted the annihilation of Israel. Some Iranian leaders have called for preemptive strikes against both the U.S. and Israel. Iranian nukes have nothing to do with a "population" defending itself; it has to do with a crazy nut that wants to destroy Israel with a nuke getting his hands on a nuke.

Do you feel that Iranians in general are less respectable than Americans?

In general, no. But respective to their leadership and Islomfascists terrorists - yes.

why on earth shouldn't they develop a nuclear warfare capability if they think it's in their national interest?

Because they are crazy. Because the export terrorism. Because they want to drop that nuke on Israel. Because they are "rattling their sabres" looking for an excuse to nuke somebody, namely the U.S. and Israel. But as recent events in Madrid and London show, they won't hesitate to use a dirty bomb in Europe either.

[BabyRider]

Adam Zapple wrote: What threat does Iran pose to the US?



They are lead by a maniacal fanatic who has repeatedly promoted the annihilation of Israel. Some Iranian leaders have called for preemptive strikes against both the U.S. and Israel. Iranian nukes have nothing to do with a "population" defending itself; it has to do with a crazy nut that wants to destroy Israel with a nuke getting his hands on a nuke.



Do you feel that Iranians in general are less respectable than Americans?



In general, no. But respective to their leadership and Islomfascists terrorists - yes.



why on earth shouldn't they develop a nuclear warfare capability if they think it's in their national interest?



Because they are crazy. Because the export terrorism. Because they want to drop that nuke on Israel. Because they are "rattling their sabres" looking for an excuse to nuke somebody, namely the U.S. and Israel. But as recent events in Madrid and London show, they won't hesitate to use a dirty bomb in Europe either.
Thankyouverymuch.

[spot]

Adam Zapple wrote: [QUOTE=spot]What threat does Iran pose to the US?They are lead by a maniacal fanatic who has repeatedly promoted the annihilation of Israel.[/QUOTE]Well that says a lot, doesn't it - I ask about the threat Iran poses to the US, and you reply with a comment about a threat posed by Iran to Israel? Since when was Israel the USA?

Adam Zapple wrote: Some Iranian leaders have called for preemptive strikes against both the U.S. and Israel.Preemptive strikes by Iran against both the U.S. and Israel? I think it's sensible for me to ask you for a news article substantiating that - I've never seen anything even close to it. I find it difficult to believe.

Adam Zapple wrote: Iranian nukes have nothing to do with a "population" defending itself; it has to do with a crazy nut that wants to destroy Israel with a nuke getting his hands on a nuke.But Iran doesn't have one. The most extreme estimate is that they might make one in three years, the most likely is something more than ten years, and that gets them one. Israel owns on its own stockpile of - what? call it four hundred deliverable warheads? Where's the parity? Nuclear devices are defensive, they deter attack, it's quite sensible to develop them. Why else did Israel go to the trouble?

Adam Zapple wrote: [QUOTE=spot]why on earth shouldn't they develop a nuclear warfare capability if they think it's in their national interest?Because they are crazy. Because the export terrorism. Because they want to drop that nuke on Israel. Because they are "rattling their sabres" looking for an excuse to nuke somebody, namely the U.S. and Israel. But as recent events in Madrid and London show, they won't hesitate to use a dirty bomb in Europe either.[/QUOTE]Looking for an excuse to nuke somebody? You know, looking at any position from both sides is useful practice, you quite often find that what you accuse the opposition of is actually the position you hold yourself. The Bush administration is making its best efforts this year to reach a military consensus to let rip with its own tactical nuclear arsenal, against considerable internal opposition according to Seymour Hersch. Who's crazy? And "recent events in Madrid and London" have nothing at all to do with the Iranians and nothing to do with dirty bombs either. The rattling sabres you hear from Iran are nothing to do with threats to attack, they're goading the US into making the mistake of attacking. There comes a point where emasculating the US economy is the only honourable policy left open, and the Iranians seem to be offering a step toward that objective.

[Adam Zapple]

Since when was Israel the USA?


Israel is an ally. I'd say the same if Ahmadinejad was promising to wipe out the UK.



Israel owns on its own stockpile of - what? call it four hundred deliverable warheads? Where's the parity?


Israel isn't calling for the annihilation of Iran.



And "recent events in Madrid and London" have nothing at all to do with the Iranians and nothing to do with dirty bombs either.


Keep believing that at your own peril.

[spot]

Adam Zapple wrote: Keep believing that at your own peril.Quite simply, I am in no peril at all. Lightning is more likely to strike me dead sometime in the next thousand years than any "Iranian outrage". This ratcheting of fear is the consequence of intention on the part of those who profit from it, not a consequence of any genuine threat.

I've no desire to see any more wars break out. I'd be delighted to see justice meted to those who have profited from recent ones.

[spot]

Scrat wrote: Spot, all you can do with thick skulls is break them. I learned that long ago.The discussion reaches others, Scrat. It needs saying. Someone will be quoting these ranters in their theses twenty years from now.

[spot]

I had mistakenly thought "thick-skulled" meant hard to persuade but you're quite right, I looked it up and it means dim-witted. Hard to persuade hits the mark.

This notion that the Iranian leadership is keen and anxious to engage the USA in any form of warfare is easily scotched - if they wanted that, they could roll over the border and find a hundred and fifty thousand western soldiers presumably eager and willing to participate. The fact that they haven't in the last three years suggests to me that it isn't true. If people used expressions like "maniacal fanatic" less often, there might be more room for rational discussion - I don't use words like that of Cheney or Rumsfeld or their ideologue backers but if you compare actions instead of rhetoric they fit the bill a lot more closely. I see no reason why they should remain unshackled for the rest of their corrupt and destructive lives.

[Adam Zapple]

spot wrote: Quite simply, I am in no peril at all. Lightning is more likely to strike me dead sometime in the next thousand years than any "Iranian outrage". This ratcheting of fear is the consequence of intention on the part of those who profit from it, not a consequence of any genuine threat.

I've no desire to see any more wars break out. I'd be delighted to see justice meted to those who have profited from recent ones.


I think you are confusing an official declaration of war with behind the scenes arming and funding of suicide bombers and terrorists. I also haven't called for a military strike against Iran of any kind, so please reread my posts and don't make assumptions. I do, however, think the world will be a much more dangerous place with a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists and supporters of terrorists, that includes Iran. It has been reported that Ahmadinejad, as mayor of Tehran, was a principle supporter in the effort to recruit and train suicide bombers. I don't think it would be a good idea to let this man have access to nuclear weapons, I know, call me crazy.

[gmc]

India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and that's a far bigger threat. How long do you reckon before Pakistan gets taken over by a fundamentalist group? The US has done it's usual trick of backing an undemocratic regime because it seems to supports them without giving much thought to the long term consequences.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 30,00.html

Not only do they have them but also the capabilities to use them.

As to Iran having a nuclear weapon. a nuclear terrorist attack with a ballistic missile is the least of your worries. If terrorists want to use nuclear weapons there is nothing stiopping them getting hold of radioactive material-there is enough floating around rubbish dumps to mak e creating a "dirty" bomb quite simple if they want to. You can't stop terrorists with conventional armies and warfare and going in mob handed just gains would be terrorists more legitimacy.

Next time you are behind a petrol tanker in a queue of traffic just wonder about the damage one of those exploding in the middle of a town or in an oil refinery would do.

Most Iranians are probably thinking if they already had a nuclear weapon they wouldn't be getting threatened by the US the way they are. They have also made some long term deals to supply oil and gas to Russia and China both of whom need Iranian oil. The only way you could win against Iran is to use nuclear weapons and I find it inconceiveable that anyone, even in America, can think that a sensible course of action.

If the position was reversed and Iran was threatening to attack the states if they develop nuclear power what would the response of the average American be? Probably two words long.

[spot]

gmc wrote: The only way you could win against Iran is to use nuclear weapons and I find it inconceiveable that anyone, even in America, can think that a sensible course of action.The Pentagon Preps for Iran

By William M. Arkin, The Washington Post

Sunday, April 16, 2006

"The day-to-day planning for dealing with Iran's missile force falls to the U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha. In June 2004, Rumsfeld alerted the command to be prepared to implement CONPLAN 8022, a global strike plan that includes Iran. CONPLAN 8022 calls for bombers and missiles to be able to act within 12 hours of a presidential order. The new task force, sources have told me, mostly worries that if it were called upon to deliver "prompt" global strikes against certain targets in Iran under some emergency circumstances, the president might have to be told that the only option is a nuclear one."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 07_pf.html

[BabyRider]

Scrat wrote: I want to apologize to Baby Rider and Adam. I should not have used the word "thick", it was uncalled for.


No worries, Scrat. And no apology neccessary. If I can't take a bit of what I dish out myself, then I should shut the hell up, right? I may not be "thick" but I am more thick skinned than that.

'Course, you could even be right...my parents have been telling me I've got a thick skull for 35 years! :yh_bigsmi

[Raven]

I dont see it as frustrating. I see it as inevitable.



Just to put this in context, no country since World War II has attacked the USA.




Not just 9/11, but the Cole, U.S. marines in Beirut, U.S. embassys in Kenya, Somalia, Mogadeshu, And the list goes on.



The Arabs have been at war with the U.S. since Israel became a nation and we chose to protect it's right to exist.



We want the oil, and they want Israel to cease to be. Oil and water. They dont mix. And what happens when you throw a match onto it? It burns. As is the whole of the middle east. It will burn. We will see to that.

[spot]

Raven wrote: [QUOTE=spot]Just to put this in context, no country since World War II has attacked the USA.Not just 9/11, but the Cole, U.S. marines in Beirut, U.S. embassys in Kenya, Somalia, Mogadeshu, And the list goes on.[/QUOTE]Purely for the record, Raven, which countries were attacking the USA on those occasions?

[Raven]

spot wrote: Purely for the record, Raven, which countries were attacking the USA on those occasions?
Well several actually. It's all part and parcel of the great 'jihad' declared against the great satan.

The enemies we fight arent as clear cut as they were in the cold war days and before. Our enemies arent defined by boundries anymore. It's a different kind of conflict that we need to learn to fight in a different kind of way.

[Raven]

Scrat wrote: And when that fire starts you will be the first one on the beach right?



I have been studying Iran and its military capabilities ect these last few weeks and I have come to the conclusion that more than likely nothing is going to happen.



Iran has not been beaten to a pulp in one war then put under a decade of sanctions for softening up. Not only that China and Russia are not going to stand by this time as they did in Iraq. Iran will have help. More than likely already has that help.



If you think Iraq is bad (you probably think its going just fine) just wait until we expand the theatre of operations 4 fold. An Army of a million men would have a hard time with that.



Warfare has changed, it is not the squares of the Blackwatch against Napoleons heavy Calvary nor is it hundreds of tanks moving against one another on a desert battlefield. Warfare is about stealth, trickery and trying to do the impossible. Convincing the other side that they are defeated.



Israel has never acoomplished this, even with billions in welfare from the west. She never will.



If we go to war with Iran, the cost will break the backs of the western democracies. Such pathetic performance as we have shown being our best effort ensures that.



Dream on.
You assume too much. I think Iraq is a debacle, myself. I just thank God my two sons made it out alive and in one piece.

But I was painting a far darker picture than even you can fathom. Yes, I think the middle east will burn.

No, Russia wont lift a finger to help them. Iran has already snubbed their efforts. And they have too much to gain from oil supply themselves if Iran falls. Russia already provides most of the gas supply to Europe.

What I see coming is a wholescale slaughter of many people. And the U.S. wont come out unscathed. China will wait, because she knows she will come out on top of the heap. The Chinese have patience.

But hold on to your bootstraps. The U.S. is already talking about pulling out of Iraq. Where do you think Liberty will go next?

[Raven]

Scrat wrote: The Arabs have been at war with the west every since we started telling them how to live their lives. It started about a century ago, not with Israel.
I assume you're talking about the ottoman empire then?

[spot]

Raven wrote: Well several actually. It's all part and parcel of the great 'jihad' declared against the great satan.

The enemies we fight arent as clear cut as they were in the cold war days and before. Our enemies arent defined by boundries anymore. It's a different kind of conflict that we need to learn to fight in a different kind of way.So you're telling me that the events you described were state sponsored? That's more than the US government has ever claimed, and they're as cynically rabid in their paranoia as a sackful of diseased ferrets. I think we'd have heard if they'd any evidence of it, self-deluding or otherwise.

[Raven]

spot wrote: So you're telling me that the events you described were state sponsored? That's more than the US government has ever claimed, and they're as cynically rabid in their paranoia as a sackful of diseased ferrets. I think we'd have heard if they'd any evidence of it, self-deluding or otherwise.
Not officially.