Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on January 17, 2005, 05:34:02 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4180087.stm
US commandos are operating inside Iran selecting sites for future air strikes, says the American investigative reporter Seymour Hersh.
In the New Yorker magazine, Hersh says intelligence officials have revealed that Iran is the Bush administration's "next strategic target".
Hersh says that American special forces have conducted reconnaissance missions inside Iran for six months.
But the White House has described his article as "riddled with inaccuracies".
Potential targets include nuclear sites and missile installations, he says.
The New Yorker journalist adds that President Bush has authorised the operations, defining them as military to avoid legal restrictions on CIA covert intelligence activities overseas.
Think it's true? False? Thoughts?
-
Probably true, and this "leak" is probably an excuse for Bush to start publicly sabre rattling. He is however, in no position to invade Iran any time soon.
It is however a dangerous road to go down since he's classified them as military operations - and thus acts of war against Iran.
-
Incidentally, I remember hearing reports that US special forces were operating in Africa - Ethiopa or Sudan, I think - against terrorist camps there. I think it was in a documentary on the beeb.
-
I will only say this:
The moment an american bomb lands on Iran, i´m volunteering to fight them.
And trust me, i am NOT joking.
-
I don't know about this. Could just be Hersh looking for his next big story and being a bit overzealous. But then again, its could be true.
We'll soon see I guess.
-
It could have been from the nuclear scare, or I should say continue nuclear scare just in case Iran decides to build a nuclear weapon.
-
Its their right to do so, since they are a soverign nation and the US has absolutey no authority over them. And if you want to get technicaly and start talking about breaching the Nonproliferation Treaty, better look inside your own borders first.
-
Although the 'he did it, so can I' defense isn't exactly the soundest.........
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Its their right to do so, since they are a soverign nation and the US has absolutey no authority over them. And if you want to get technicaly and start talking about breaching the Nonproliferation Treaty, better look inside your own borders first.
Exactly.
And if this is true, it would mean that war would have to start soon because this kind of dta ages very quickly and would be useless in the long run. Especially if the Iranians know about this article :p And if they do go through with this within the next 5 years, America will be reduced to a third-rate power because they just can't handle another war with someone like Iran.
Iran != Irak
The names may be similar (and maybe Bush is working in an alphabetical order starting with the 'I', which would mean Korea would be next after Iran :p) but the two nations are nothing alike.
In a way I actually want them to start a war and feel the devastating consequences themselves, but since America is pretty much linked to the rest of the Western world it wouldn't be good for the rest of the world either. nevertheless, America needs some serious ass-slapping to bring them down to Earth instead of dragging us all down into a big pile of doodoo.
But seriously, I don't think that even Bush is stupid enough to start another war in his term unless he wants to pit the rest of the world against America and create a true Eurasian front. :p
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Although the 'he did it, so can I' defense isn't exactly the soundest.........
Well, not as such, but it works both ways. Iran should demand that the US and Israel disarm as a prerequisite for stopping any plans they may or may not have to produce nukes. What do you think would be the response to that? Not even outrage, just blank disbelief.
I have no problem with forcing nations to live up to the NPT, so long as it applies to everyone.
-
Sy Hersh does have a pretty good track record... and if it is true, I'm not surprised at all.
-
We all know it's coming, it's just a matter of when. I for one would like to get this Iraq thing tied up before we take the War on Terror further, but a lot of the Terrorists that are organizing and carrying out Terrorist acts are apparently Iranian and their government is being less than helpful in controling there movements.
Iran doesn't want a free and democratic Iraq, it's a threat that they cannot abide for long because their own people will begin to see what they can have.
-
Dude, America doesn't want a free and democratic Iraq either. They may want a Westernised Iraq..
Eirther way the Iraqi people get ass ****ed.
-
Lib, I told you beofre, I'll tell you again : eitheir stop smoking or start sharing :p
All joke asides, given the numerous regime around there, Iran is far from being the worse. They do have election, even if the media are often biased and propaganda abonds... Hmmm, remind me of another election no too long ago....
But at least, they're making effort. And frankly, if America start another war soon, I won't share a ter when they get their butt handed to them by a Coalition of the Willing Musulman. Cause right now, that's where they're headed, head first and without any protection.
-
Umm, Iran is a democracy, in theory anyways. And a democratically elected government in Iraq is probably going to turn out the exact same as the Iranian system, the Ayatollahs there have every bit if not more influence as their Iranian counterparts.
Hersh does have a good track record on this sort of stuff, if it is true is probably the stupidest thing bush has done so far. Unbelievably stupid.
Btw I wouldnt like to be one of the special forces in Iran at the minute.
-
The moral is, if you're gonna **** someone - use protection. :D
-
:blah:
Here we go again...
-
It sounds possible. If it is true then that is a major security leak, and that ain't cool. Special Forces are always working everywhere almost constantly. I wouldn't doubt them being in Iran or Africa at all.
-
The US will not attack Iran. I refuse to believe that congress will allow that to pass.
-
Bush can't really do the math...
Unless he sends levies the US Army already reached his maximum extension (2 major engagements represented by Iraq and Afghanistan plus the south-east asia humanitary ops) so that unless they can bring real foreign support Iran is pretty much safe...
-
If Blair kowtows again I'm going to personally kick him in the bollocks...
EDIT: And UT, all he has to do is to scream "traitors!!!!111one" and bash the flag a bit, and congress will roll over very quickly (after all, it's already happened at least once). Given that there's a Republican majority anyway, I think it's perfectly possible.... :(
-
You know what i love...i love the way we base all of our opinions on what intel is avaliable to us. I think that in the end, there is more going on than we know of. I think that the people who make these decisions are much more informed than we are. Either way, I am sick of the let's ***** about the united states threads. How many do we need before you feel that your point is across? yes you hate america. good for you. if you don't hate it, why is it that all i ever see is *****ing about it as if it were an exwife?
I don't mind a thread asking for thoughts on a subject, but everytime there is one it degenerates into a "let's ***** about america" thread.
Your collective opinion about america is noted. Maybe we should make an entire Politard forum so that you people can go in and *****. You made your opinions known within 6 months of your arrival. Do we need to keep hearing it?
The fact is, you people ***** about america out of spite and jealousy. Do i agree with alot of what happens, no i don't, but don't even think about lumping me in as a mindless drone. I am just friggin sick of all the *****ing.
If you want to say something constructive and add thoughts then go for it....but everytime i see one of these threads degenerate into yet another ***** about america thread then i feel personally attacked. Yeah I am an american. yeah I fought for this country, and yeah i have a purple heart for being wounded in combat.
Some of the thoughts here are valid, and thought out, to you people i apologize for this, but for the let's ***** crowd....get informed, and get a life.
in conclusion, if you have taken offense at this post, perhaps it is because you probably think i am talking to you. Maybe there is a reason you think that.
-
Shut up ya bollox, its a thread about the US's actions, if you cant stand to seem them criticised, **** off to freerepublic or somewhere.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
-
There is absolutely no ****ing way the US is mounting a viable military strike on Iran.
For starters, I truly do think the French and Germans would rally the EU to block all EU trade with the US.
Secondly, the only thing stopping the US from being over-run and cut to ****ing ribbons in Iraq is the British troops backing them up. Without them, they'd be vastly outnumbered.
Thirdly, Britain won't be fighting any more wars in the next 20 years (barring incidents of mass-genocide). Blair's credibility was destroyed by the war in Iraq and it'll probably cost him the next election. The majority of Britain didn't want to go to war with Iraq. A significant percentage of the population despise Bush.
And most importantly - neither the US nor the UK has any troops left to fight Iran, and no-one else is going to help the US out. All 'our' troops are engaged in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
-
The fact is, you people ***** about america out of spite and jealousy.
Bwuahahahahaha..... Good one.
Compared to the US, the UK is a ****ing paradise.
-
They're talking about airstrikes anon not invasions. As for france and germany blockading it, unlikely, EU trade with US > EU trade with Iran.
And I think you're kinda overplaying British troops role in Iraq, seeing how the spot they're in is the quietest in the country.
-
ShadowWolf: I don't know if you're directing it at me or not, but: I don't bash your gvt. (note: not the people) for the hell of it. The fact is, your country is being run by greedy bastards. Mine's going the same way. I'm not about to sit around while everything goes to ****. Are you?
Back on-topic: Yes, many countries have special forces operating all over the world (mine being one of them, also France and the US), and it's a fact of life. Everybody's always up to something, and that's not going to change any time soon. Putting Yank special forces into Iran is really not a good idea though, and calling them "military operations" is an even more stupid.
-
Originally posted by Gank
They're talking about airstrikes anon not invasions. As for france and germany blockading it, unlikely, EU trade with US > EU trade with Iran.
The EU doesn't need the US economically speaking. While the EU does take a hit when they block the US, they can easily sustain themselves.
Though i think this is kind of doomsday thinking here.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Secondly, the only thing stopping the US from being over-run and cut to ****ing ribbons in Iraq is the British troops backing them up. Without them, they'd be vastly outnumbered.
The UK has, what, at most 2,000 troops in the region. The US has 30,000. That's not what's stopping them.
And anyway, I seriously doubt that congress would be dumb enough to do this. On top of that, do you really think the American people would just ignore another war? I doubt that as well.
And on the topic of America-bashing. Yes, we have our flaws. But name a country that is as powerful as ours, as big as ours, and still has as many freedoms as we do. Sure, they're being cut back, but we still have most of them. People who bash America are usually hypocrits, saying "Oh, America doesn't do this, America doesn't help with that." Guess what? We don't because as soon as we poke our heads into a foreign affair, half the free world screams "IMPERIALIST! IMPERIALIST!"
Now, I'm not including Iraq in that statement, that was a wrong and unjust war that I do not support nor agree with. But the simple fact of the matter is, everyone expects America to do something, and if they don't, they get bashed, if they do, they get bashed. So what're we to do?
NOTE: Once again, I do not support Iraq or any future wars that the US may enter.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
You know what i love...i love the way we base all of our opinions on what intel is avaliable to us. I think that in the end, there is more going on than we know of. I think that the people who make these decisions are much more informed than we are. Either way, I am sick of the let's ***** about the united states threads. How many do we need before you feel that your point is across? yes you hate america. good for you. if you don't hate it, why is it that all i ever see is *****ing about it as if it were an exwife?
I don't mind a thread asking for thoughts on a subject, but everytime there is one it degenerates into a "let's ***** about america" thread.
Your collective opinion about america is noted. Maybe we should make an entire Politard forum so that you people can go in and *****. You made your opinions known within 6 months of your arrival. Do we need to keep hearing it?
The fact is, you people ***** about america out of spite and jealousy. Do i agree with alot of what happens, no i don't, but don't even think about lumping me in as a mindless drone. I am just friggin sick of all the *****ing.
If you want to say something constructive and add thoughts then go for it....but everytime i see one of these threads degenerate into yet another ***** about america thread then i feel personally attacked. Yeah I am an american. yeah I fought for this country, and yeah i have a purple heart for being wounded in combat.
Some of the thoughts here are valid, and thought out, to you people i apologize for this, but for the let's ***** crowd....get informed, and get a life.
in conclusion, if you have taken offense at this post, perhaps it is because you probably think i am talking to you. Maybe there is a reason you think that.
I ***** when I see your government making mistakes that even I could have predicted, which act to destabilise the entire world. I don't have anything against Americans, or you country, or even your army. My concern is that when your leaders get it wrong, or simply when they act out of their own self interest, it affects all of us. And given that the shape of international politics is so heavily dependent on the US government, I think we should feel free to moan about it - because at the end of the day it's the only power we have. If the UK government had that influence, and was doing as much damage, I'd expect the same in response.
But...this thread isn't about Iraq or whatnot. This is about a) whether US troops are operating in Iran and b) could it be a precursor to yet another war.
And arguably c) how incredibly ****ing stupid and divisive would that war be?
-
Calm down people, or there's lockage ahead (and this is a legit topic which ought to be discussed).
Shadowolf: I think you're forgetting who is the victim and who is the agreesor. No one is jealous of America (or rather I'm not, and I don't imagine that many of the people here are either). What we are talking about it a nation that consistantly violates the territorial integrity of sovereign nations in naked acts of agression. I have every right to be pissed at such a nation, and so does everyone else.
-
Guess what? We don't because as soon as we poke our heads into a foreign affair, half the free world screams "IMPERIALIST! IMPERIALIST!"
incase you were too young to notice, this sort of thing only became widespread after you put Bush in charge, before that you got away with tons of ****, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada etc
Tiara, maybe doesnt need, but they're not going to take that sort of a hit to support the ayatollahs.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Tiara, maybe doesnt need, but they're not going to take that sort of a hit to support the ayatollahs.
They won't support them rather then protecting the rest of the world. If nobody stops the US from giving them a get out of jail free-card every time they decide to do something like this, things will get exponentially worse.
-
Politicians aren't that principled. And the EU isn't in any danger (assuming that they are idealogically much different than the US to begin with, which is quite an assumption).
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
The UK has, what, at most 2,000 troops in the region. The US has 30,000. That's not what's stopping them.
I'm not sure what you mean by region; over all Iraq the US has something like 100,000-130,000(?) and the Uk has about 12,000 ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm ). I know that UK troops were important in their move to Camp Dogwood during the besieging of Fallujah, and also that the Uk provided a large number of tanks for the war itself.
But it would be unrealistic to say the UK was the difference between failure and, er, slightly less failure in Iraq. Especially as the UK sensibly bagged the more peaceful areas.
-
The situation will calm down within 10 years.
As soon as another superpower will emerge (china, EU, maybe russia later) the US will have to act more carefully if not reasonably...
-
(http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/inferno/freak.jpg)
It will come. It is merely biding its time...
-
Originally posted by Tiara
They won't support them rather then protecting the rest of the world. If nobody stops the US from giving them a get out of jail free-card every time they decide to do something like this, things will get exponentially worse.
Thats what they should do. Not what they will.
-
:lol::wtf: @ corsair
UT: The problem is, America tends to intervene in places where intervention isn't wanted, by invading/bombing the **** out of a country, killing lots of people, and generally making a rather nasty mess of it.
Zarax: Ideally it shouldn't take that long - American people should sort it out for themselves, when they realise how badly they're getting screwed....
Sapphire: Shouldn't be happening? Something that you think shouldn't be happening. If Iran is indeed developing MCWs and/or nuclear weapns, then it's in response to the percieved threat from aggressive Western states. Wonder who they could be....?
-
Originally posted by Zarax
The situation will calm down within 10 years.
As soon as another superpower will emerge (china, EU, maybe russia later) the US will have to act more carefully if not reasonably...
How so? Each superpower will only opress and conquer within their own sphere of influence. Even now, the superpowers (EU, US and China) realize that its better to support each other than to figh each other. Becuase the central agression of the State is not against foreigner nations, but against their own citizens. They conquer foreign countries in order to bring those citizens "into the fold", so that the mass of people under their control is increased.
US keeps quiet about Chechnya, Russia keep criticism over Iraq to a minimum. China gets to go in with their little police state, the US needs them too much to make a fuss. Ditto the Saudis and Egypt. The EU talks but does nothing cause they're pretty much a marginally less agressive, European version of the US. They don't care for some Iraqis half a world away, they care about their own economies and power, which is dependent on the US.
"They prop each other up, like 3 sheaves of wheat"
(or something like that, describing the 3 superstates in 1984)
I'm hoping that this won't become the case, but its a possibility.
-
ok i am going to make a final statement in this thread. everyone knows that these governemtns support terrorism, either directly or indirectly. and when we were attacked on 9-11, it was stated that we would go after the terrorists and after the governments that harbor them. Don't ask me where the proof is that they harbor them, because i couldn't begin to give an intelligent answer to that question.
But we all know that iran and iraq, among others do give harbor to these terrorists. That is where this stems from. everything else is bar room crap. I can't offer proof that they harbor terrorists, but we all know it to be true. They were warned after we were attacked by terrorists that we were coming for them if they harbor them, they do, and we are. To hell with the rest of it.
You think about this one from the position of our current president. We have been at war since 9 months into his first term. We were attacked, and we are hitting back, if we are violating the borders and sovereignty of countries who harbor people who would murder thousands....then so be it. The difference isn't black and white, it's right and wrong. I fully believe that we are right to go after them, and on september 12th, so did you. I guess the big difference in this is, unlike most of the world, including the american public in general, i haven't forgotten how it felt to see those people die.
So do i support this war and a war on any nation that harbors terrorists? You're damned right i do.
-
Originally posted by an0n
And most importantly - neither the US nor the UK has any troops left to fight Iran, and no-one else is going to help the US out. All 'our' troops are engaged in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Um, ok then why are the majority of the Reservist and National Guard, and Marine Reserve soldiers still sitting at home? I'm not complaining, too much about the rotations in and out because I know they could be a hell of alot worse. People keep complaining that the army is stretched too far mainly because they have never really used the amount of Reservists and National Guard as much as they are now, and many of them are college students like me, however, unlike me they many joined for just the money for school, and didn't plan on going anywhere. Many people think that since they are using the reservist then they are stretched too far. Well hell! Don't quote me on the number, but something like 40% of the US Army is Reservist and National Guard members. Of course they are going to use them. I'm not saying we should attack Iran or anybody else. I am firmly against it. However, please check your sources before you make a statement like this.
-
Did Nicaragua start bombing American cities when they were attacked by terrorists supported by the US? Did they invade? You lost 3000 people, they lost hundred of thousands, as did Iraq.
You're may believe that you are "going after terrorists", but for every 1 terrorist you kill, a thousands innocents die. "They" hit you with 1 WTC attack. You hit back with 50. Innocents are dying, and we all know who is responsible.
-
9-11 can only go so far.
In fact US has pretty much consumed all popular support it gained with it.
By putting war after war you are only fueling the damned terrorism, it's a losing game for both sides.
Do you think you were hit alone?
We had our 3-11 in EU (Spain), but that never gave us the right to play the militaristic rush like the US is doing.
Guess what happened?
The EU refused to go to their very own level of wrongness and instead we reinforced our internal security without stomping our civil rights.
Everyone supported your "retaliation" against afghanistan, but now it's enough.
The US failed to bring credible evidence for the iraqui conflict, and now it purely plays aggressive against Iran?
This is only a mere revenge for a puppet regime being thrown out and nothing more.
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
Not our problem till it reaches our shores, right? In fact, had we minded our own biz ya'll could conceivably be goosestepping and eating weiner schnitzel...
Hooooo, lookie, the good ol' argument : "You would be nazi if it weren't for us !!" :lol:
That being said, the US didn't move en masse until thay were hit anyway. Pearl harbour anyone ?
As for the other part of the argument, my opinion is that the nazi would have crumbled against the USSR, due to a few to many freedom fighter ([sarcasm]or is that terrorist[/sarcasm]) in their midst. The point is: everything is only a matter of opinion. Unfortunately, right now, it's more and more the US pov versus the rest of the world pov.
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
However, please check your sources before you make a statement like this.
The US Army declared many times that they are ready to keep with 2 major regional conflicts and one humanitarian emergency.
You already have these, of course the national guard and other reserve levies can be sent but you're going to see a big slaughter then.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
*snip*
I fully believe that we are right to go after them, and on september 12th, so did you.
*snip*
Did I? Did I really? And how would you know what I thought? Don't think you know how everyone feels about that event.
How many people died that day? Less than 3,000. How many civilians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past 3 years? I can guarantee that it's ten times that many, and more. How many civilians have been killed by US actions in the past 15 years? 3,000 doesn't seem like that many any more, does it?
The day that America starts showing some respect for the rest of the world is the day that the hatred will stop.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
ok i am going to make a final statement in this thread. everyone knows that these governemtns support terrorism, either directly or indirectly. and when we were attacked on 9-11, it was stated that we would go after the terrorists and after the governments that harbor them. Don't ask me where the proof is that they harbor them, because i couldn't begin to give an intelligent answer to that question.
But we all know that iran and iraq, among others do give harbor to these terrorists.
Do you really want me to give you all the proof there weren't a terrorist in Irak UNTIL AFTER the US made such a mess of the country ? Iran, yes. Saudi Arabia, yes. Afghanistan, yes. Irak had nothing to ****ing do with 9/11, ffs !!
-
Originally posted by Zarax
The US Army declared many times that they are ready to keep with 2 major regional conflicts and one humanitarian emergency.
You already have these, of course the national guard and other reserve levies can be sent but you're going to see a big slaughter then.
And you under estimate our training and mobilization training.
-
I don't think that Iran is such a threat. They'll have nukes. So what? America was warned all through the election that sooner or later an American city will be nuked and that it'll be because the rogue nations in the Axis of Evil were allowed to gain nukes.
Nobody's quite that stupid. If Iran were to give Al-Queda a nuke and Osama managed to smuggle the nuke into the US and detonate it, do you think for one second that we'd question who did it? Hell no. The US would find some quick evidence that some nationstate had built the weapon and there would be an ICBM with Tehran's name on it before you could even say "launch."
The Iranians may not like us, but they're not dumb. The Ayatollahs may support terrorism, but they don't actual commit those acts themselves because they like being alive too much. They just play on the faith of others. They're not willing to sacrifice their comfortable lives and their power for a few million dead Americans. It's not even MAD. It's like them shooting off one of our arms and us hitting them square in the head with a round from a howitzer.
-
Originally posted by Genryu
Hooooo, lookie, the good ol' argument : "You would be nazi if it weren't for us !!" :lol:
That being said, the US didn't move en masse until thay were hit anyway. Pearl harbour anyone ?
Thank you for making my point... we should have just looked the other way--and should not have supported the European conflict ...at least by the principle of today's world opinion. Some of us would have had our elder relatives home safe today if they had not died on foreign soil...
-
And if Nazi germany had been powerful enough to defeat France, Britain and Russia, how long do you think it would have been before they came knocking on your door? 5 years? 10 years? And what about imperial japan?
-
Originally posted by Sapphire
Originally posted by Genryu
Hooooo, lookie, the good ol' argument : "You would be nazi if it weren't for us !!" :lol:
That being said, the US didn't move en masse until thay were hit anyway. Pearl harbour anyone ?
Thank you for making my point... we should have just looked the other way--and should not have supported the European conflict ...at least by the principle of today's world opinion. Some of us would have had our elder relatives home safe today if they had not died on foreign soil... [/B]
And then get owned by the german ballistic missiles and more advanced tech.
Don't be too proud of the european front, you basically fought 20% of the german army.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And if Nazi germany had been powerful enough to defeat France, Britain and Russia, how long do you think it would have been before they came knocking on your door? 5 years? 10 years? And what about imperial japan?
Japan's strategy was never to invade the US, merely to weaken it enough so that it wouldn't be able to protest when Japan created an empire in the Pacific.
Germany, on the other hand, wanted world domination.
-
Think about that a min....;7
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Do you think you were hit alone?
We had our 3-11 in EU (Spain), but that never gave us the right to play the militaristic rush like the US is doing.
Guess what happened?
The EU refused to go to their very own level of wrongness and instead we reinforced our internal security without stomping our civil rights.
No. Instead of playing the militaristic card, you backed out on the US and played the coward card and rolled in the red carpet for the Socialists. :rolleyes:
And, instead of stepping to a new level of wrongness, the EU instead transformed itself into a world roadblock, putting itself directly in the middle of the way of the US's actions in the Middle East. Want to go on Iraq? It's not just Iraq.
It's Israel. Europe despises the little country; the US supports it. France and Russia provide countries like Syria and Iraq with weapons to hit Israel, and so they step in to support their clients once the US steps in to put an end to the actions of the terrorist rulers of the worst countries.
No, they don't want Saddam out of office. Why? Because Saddam gave them money. He bribed nations of, above anything, the Security Council to keep his actions against his own people a secret from the world. So, instead of playing the militaristic card, the EU instead played the deaf-ear card. They instead accepted bribes, and stepped in the way of the US when we stepped in to stop Saddam.
And it wasn't all just for WMDs. I don't know what the hell Europe's problem is with freedom and civil rights, but for God's sake, don't screw with us when we try to do what's right. If we followed a typical EU policy here in the US back during WWII, we sure as hell wouldn't have gotten involved in such things as liberating France or destroying Italy's power.
But, hell, I don't know why I try anymore. I'm just gonna get blown off like Liberator anyway.
-
"OMG COMMIES!!!11one" :rolleyes: This isn't the 1950s any more...
The thing is, you're not doing what's right. You're grabbing resources so that your super-rich can get richer. Bush and co. couldn't give a **** about freedom and civil rights. They just wrap everything up in the stars 'n' stripes and label anyone speaking out as a traitor. That gives them the freedom to do pretty much whatever they want to secure their own wealth and power. Hence Iraq, hence USA PATRIOT, hence Guantanamo Bay, hence Abu Grahib, hence most of South America, etc etc etc. Open your eyes...
-
It's so funny to watch people talk about the second WW without having even the slightest bit of knowledge about it besides this image of America saving the day :lol:
And Nuclear, please get your head out of that pile of doodoo.
the Security Council to keep his actions against his own people a secret from the world.
Most of the more damaging vetoes came from the US :p People keep forgetting that the US also has a permanent seat on the SC. They like to block out the fact that the US has been the biggest member of the UN and has blocked some of the better ideas by slapping vetoes all around if it doesn't serve their interest..
-
nuclear, do you honestly, truly believe that Iraq is about establishing a free and democratic nation? Do you?
-
Dont know why you try either, because you're talking bollox. EU is blocking the US from doing things for a very good reason, because you've proven yourselfs unable to do anything other than make things worse with your interventions. Vietnam, Kosovo, Somalia, Nicaragua, Iran, Lebanon, it goes on and on.
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
No. Instead of playing the militaristic card, you backed out on the US and played the coward card and rolled in the red carpet for the Socialists. :rolleyes:
And, instead of stepping to a new level of wrongness, the EU instead transformed itself into a world roadblock, putting itself directly in the middle of the way of the US's actions in the Middle East. Want to go on Iraq? It's not just Iraq.
It's Israel. Europe despises the little country; the US supports it. France and Russia provide countries like Syria and Iraq with weapons to hit Israel, and so they step in to support their clients once the US steps in to put an end to the actions of the terrorist rulers of the worst countries.
No, they don't want Saddam out of office. Why? Because Saddam gave them money. He bribed nations of, above anything, the Security Council to keep his actions against his own people a secret from the world. So, instead of playing the militaristic card, the EU instead played the deaf-ear card. They instead accepted bribes, and stepped in the way of the US when we stepped in to stop Saddam.
And it wasn't all just for WMDs. I don't know what the hell Europe's problem is with freedom and civil rights, but for God's sake, don't screw with us when we try to do what's right. If we followed a typical EU policy here in the US back during WWII, we sure as hell wouldn't have gotten involved in such things as liberating France or destroying Italy's power.
But, hell, I don't know why I try anymore. I'm just gonna get blown off like Liberator anyway.
1)The "OMG you're all commies!" garbage doesn't win you any point, you might not like the European way but i'm thankful of our welfare state every day.
We backed the US?
The US "bribed" a few countries for military support in Iraq (trade agreements and the like, anyone?), and those got some healthy criticism (including our local bush-style PM, berlusconi).
2)If we were such a roadblock it seems it's not a big one since the US keeps doing whetever it pleases, stamping out every international organization.
Modern gunboat diplomacy, what a thing to be proud of... :rolleyes:
3) Israel? gimme a break please. Get something to backup your sentences, otherwise i will assume you read too much propaganda.
4)Saddam gave EU money? Actually, may i remember you that saddam has been widely supported by the US in the past because they needed someone to fight against Iran who threw up their puppet Shah?
Again, you need to stop reading propaganda, son.
The EU did not play the deaf-ear card, we just followe the UN resolutions that even the US approved.
Iraq was embargoed and any potential facility inspected for suspect WMD, that before someone decided to invade the place because some UN inspector may had a chance to find the US receipt for the gasses saddam used against the kurds.
5)Screwing with you when you're doing what's right?
Who gave the US the monopoly of deciding what is right or wrong?
Also, the US acted as much to defends its commercial interests in WWII (those military exports and reconstruction loans surely gave good cash) as to defeat the nazi threath before it arrived to your shores...
Not that the world is not grateful for what you've done here but we repayed you by playing vassals for the whole cold war and doing deaf ears on your decades of puppet dictatoship installements all over the world.
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
It's Israel. Europe despises the little country; the US supports it. France and Russia provide countries like Syria and Iraq with weapons to hit Israel, and so they step in to support their clients once the US steps in to put an end to the actions of the terrorist rulers of the worst countries.
Don't forget that we eat babie too :D
-
Just face it. Everyone's playing a big game of realpolitik, better known in the real world as "**** your buddy."
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
No. Instead of playing the militaristic card, you backed out on the US and played the coward card and rolled in the red carpet for the Socialists. :rolleyes:
And, instead of stepping to a new level of wrongness, the EU instead transformed itself into a world roadblock, putting itself directly in the middle of the way of the US's actions in the Middle East. Want to go on Iraq? It's not just Iraq.
It's Israel. Europe despises the little country; the US supports it. France and Russia provide countries like Syria and Iraq with weapons to hit Israel, and so they step in to support their clients once the US steps in to put an end to the actions of the terrorist rulers of the worst countries.
No, they don't want Saddam out of office. Why? Because Saddam gave them money. He bribed nations of, above anything, the Security Council to keep his actions against his own people a secret from the world. So, instead of playing the militaristic card, the EU instead played the deaf-ear card. They instead accepted bribes, and stepped in the way of the US when we stepped in to stop Saddam.
And it wasn't all just for WMDs. I don't know what the hell Europe's problem is with freedom and civil rights, but for God's sake, don't screw with us when we try to do what's right. If we followed a typical EU policy here in the US back during WWII, we sure as hell wouldn't have gotten involved in such things as liberating France or destroying Italy's power.
But, hell, I don't know why I try anymore. I'm just gonna get blown off like Liberator anyway.
No matter how much I get bashed, I Salute You Nuclear and Lib.:nod: :yes:
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
But we all know that iran and iraq, among others do give harbor to these terrorists. That is where this stems from. everything else is bar room crap. I can't offer proof that they harbor terrorists, but we all know it to be true. They were warned after we were attacked by terrorists that we were coming for them if they harbor them, they do, and we are. To hell with the rest of it.
To hell with the rest of it? The rest of what? The world? I thought this was suppossed to be the globes war on terror... 'it's us or them', good vs evil, all that rubbish.
Maybe we 'know' that Iran and Iraq harbour terrorists (despite the complete lack of evidence for the latter, and when the US signed a ceasefire with terrorists operating inside Iraq to attack Iran)... but if you don't have proof, then it's nothing. You can't get away with murder because you assume someone is going to hurt you - why get away with war over the same arguement?
Originally posted by nuclear1
No. Instead of playing the militaristic card, you backed out on the US and played the coward card and rolled in the red carpet for the Socialists. :rolleyes:
Because war is always best? Does wanting to avoid needless conflict = commie?
Originally posted by nuclear1
And, instead of stepping to a new level of wrongness, the EU instead transformed itself into a world roadblock, putting itself directly in the middle of the way of the US's actions in the Middle East. Want to go on Iraq? It's not just Iraq.
So the Us has sole jurisdiction over the Middle East now, does it? Is that your dominion?
Originally posted by nuclear1
It's Israel. Europe despises the little country; the US supports it. France and Russia provide countries like Syria and Iraq with weapons to hit Israel, and so they step in to support their clients once the US steps in to put an end to the actions of the terrorist rulers of the worst countries.
Well, maybe you should attack terrorists next time, eh? Or at least convince people that you are. As I remember, there wasn't a great deal of opposition over Afghanistan... maybe because there was some proof there?
Originally posted by nuclear1
No, they don't want Saddam out of office. Why? Because Saddam gave them money. He bribed nations of, above anything, the Security Council to keep his actions against his own people a secret from the world. So, instead of playing the militaristic card, the EU instead played the deaf-ear card. They instead accepted bribes, and stepped in the way of the US when we stepped in to stop Saddam.
Aha... the old unproven bribe accusation. Remind me, who asked the Clinton government to allow his company to trade with Iraq.... Rumsfeld, I believe it was. I love the 'stepped in the way' argument - how dare a nation disagree! It's odd that the majority of the Security Council was against the war... Saddam must have far deeper pockets than mighty old America to achieve that. After all, the Us couldn't get support for war despite the offers of aid & trade to the minor (temporary) SC nations like Bulgaria and a particular little African dictatorship (Gabon, I believe).
Originally posted by nuclear1
And it wasn't all just for WMDs. I don't know what the hell Europe's problem is with freedom and civil rights, but for God's sake, don't screw with us when we try to do what's right. If we followed a typical EU policy here in the US back during WWII, we sure as hell wouldn't have gotten involved in such things as liberating France or destroying Italy's power.
'Freedom and civil rights'; like Guantanamo bay, the exportation of prisoners to countries which allow torture, or the propping up of oppressive-yet-friendly governments? Or how about the civil right of free speech. The right to say "we think you're wrong".
Sometimes your best friend is the one who tells you when you make a mistake.
-
From earlier: During World War II, the US military had a mandate to be able to fight two major wars at once (a major war is like US Vs. Germany). Iraq is a big war, but technically, it's not a major war.
Now the US is able to fight one major war and two smaller conflicts. Afghanistan and Iraq are two smaller conflicts. If we attack Iran, we will be stretched to our breaking point, because it won't just be Iran we'll be fighting: We'll be fighting the entire Middle East, once everyone gets really pissed off at us because of it.
Then you can say hello to the draft board.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, not as such, but it works both ways. Iran should demand that the US and Israel disarm as a prerequisite for stopping any plans they may or may not have to produce nukes. What do you think would be the response to that? Not even outrage, just blank disbelief.
I have no problem with forcing nations to live up to the NPT, so long as it applies to everyone.
" however, it (Israel) has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)."
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Israel/index.html
Therefore technically we are not in illegal possession of Nuclear weapons ;7 :ha:
-
I don't think that's the point :lol: And really just proves how more "rogue" your country could be considered! :p
-
Alright, so the point still stands for the US.
(and what do you think it says about Israel if 90% of the world signed the NPT but not you?)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Alright, so the point still stands for the US.
(and what do you think it says about Israel if 90% of the world signed the NPT but not you?)
that proves that we are probably the only country in the world that NEEDS nukes for survival...
otherwise I garuntee you the all-out-wars wouldn't have stopped after 1973. :doubt:
vyper: rouge country? I can live with that... it's keeping us alive for the time being. *shrug*
-
That Israel wants nukes?
On the other hand, Israel is completely surrounded by hostile countries, many of whom won't even recognise it.... don't get me wrong, I'm against all nuclear weapons, but I guess if anyone has an arguement for needing them as a deterrent, it's Israel.
-
:lol: You need nukes for survival? Exactly what would you do to use them? You can't nuke **** without killing yourselves in the process mate.
-
Well, israel fared pretty well on the military side even without nukes...
In fact it would really need them only if the US stopped the financial aid, which is quite unlikely imho.
-
Eh, US had draft during ww2, thats why they were able to fight on two fronts. Anything larger than Iraq which requires large troop deployments over long periods of time and you have no choice but to institute the draft. Vietnam for example, hardly classes as a major war.
That said neither Iran or US will want this to turn into a large scale war, US will just do airstrikes and Iran will send revolutionary guards into Iraq covertly to hit the US and hit Israel through Hez'bollah. Because the Iranians arent stupid, they'll fight their war on someone elses turf if they can, and they know opposition to their nuclear plans has nothing to do with al-quada and everything to do with tel-aviv. Unlikely anything actually will happen now though, given the whistles been blown.
-
Iran is bordered on the East by occupied Afghanistan and on the West by occupied Iraq. There is at least 1 US carrier task force within stiking distance, and Washington is openly making threats about invasion. To top it all off, Israel is training Kurdish peshmergas to go into Iran and conduct a guerilla war.
Tell me again which nation needs nukes for survival?
-
Originally posted by vyper
:lol: You need nukes for survival? Exactly what would you do to use them? You can't nuke **** without killing yourselves in the process mate.
Its not the actual weapon that has any impact (one would really hope not) but the threat of its use. Nuclear weapons are so terrible that most recognize that using them is suididal in every respect. Even if the nation you did fire the weapons at was destroyed, if the escalation of the weapon useage was high then the fallout would cause worldwide devastation even if only a small percentage of it actually was physically destroyed by the weapons themselves.
If India and Pakistan went to war for instance...the problem would be felt over there immediately but then everywhere else.
-
Nukes against people who believe dying fighting for islam will get them to paradise...
-
Originally posted by vyper
:lol: You need nukes for survival? Exactly what would you do to use them? You can't nuke **** without killing yourselves in the process mate.
That's why I said deterrent.
Technically they could nuke the primary cities of the enemy anyway, but that's beside the point; it's the classic case of "you **** us, we'll **** you back". (and given that Israel won't disclose what or how many weapons they have, they can use that factor too)
@Rictor: yep, maybe so. Although I wouldn't say Iran was under a current threat due to the instability in Iraq in particualr and also the political effects of a US war on Iran. And I don't think nukes are much use against guerillas anyway, but I guess that's beside the point.
My opinion would be that Israel face a greater potential military threat at present due to the fact they border hostile nations militarily able to invade them; if / once the Us gets a hold upon Iraq and frees up its troops, then the threat to Iran would be pretty severe.
-
Umm, I think those hostile nations have pretty much showed their inability to invade Israel Aldo, whereas Israel currently occupies territory which belonged to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. The poor little Israel argument kinda falls flat on its face there. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That Israel wants nukes?
On the other hand, Israel is completely surrounded by hostile countries, many of whom won't even recognise it.... don't get me wrong, I'm against all nuclear weapons, but I guess if anyone has an arguement for needing them as a deterrent, it's Israel.
Israel wants nukes? HAS my friend... plenty A-bombs and thermo-nuclear bombs and hydrogen bombs and neutron bombs and cobalt bombs... at the rate they have been developed thus far its anybody guess between 300-500+ nuclear weapons under our control.
According to retired US Army Colonel Warner D. Farr, M.D., Israel is the fifth largest nuclear superpower in the world. By 1967, Israel already had 15 atomic bombs in its arsenal. In 1976, their nuclear arsenal grew to 15 to 20 nukes, and by 1980 jumped to 200. According to Farr, in 1997, Israel now has over 400 nuclear and hydrogen weapons.
Israel has also developed, with U.S. financial assistance, the Arrow theater defense missile, which has become one of the only functioning missile defense systems in the world.
We have our bases covered.
Originally posted by vyper
:lol: You need nukes for survival? Exactly what would you do to use them? You can't nuke **** without killing yourselves in the process mate.
What are you talking about?
1. It’s not like we need to nuke the Pallis it would be a hit on Damascus or something not in our own territory
2. The wind mostly blows from the west the fallout would go towards Iraq
Originally posted by Zarax
Well, israel fared pretty well on the military side even without nukes...
In fact it would really need them only if the US stopped the financial aid, which is quite unlikely imho.
We may have "fared well" in the past but the reality is it was more we fared miraculously well. I wouldn’t want to put it to the try again especially with the current governments I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran joined in and they have no small army. I guarantee you the nukes are what have stopped further wars and they still may not prevent one in the future but they have thus far.
Originally posted by Rictor
Iran is bordered on the East by occupied Afghanistan and on the West by occupied Iraq. There is at least 1 US carrier task force within stiking distance, and Washington is openly making threats about invasion. To top it all off, Israel is training Kurdish peshmergas to go into Iran and conduct a guerilla war.
Tell me again which nation needs nukes for survival?
Not Iran... no one is threatening its survival only its acquisition of WMDs.
And also do you have a link from a viable news source about "Israel is training Kurdish peshmergas to go into Iran and conduct a guerilla war."? Sounds interesting.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
(and given that Israel won't disclose what or how many weapons they have, they can use that factor too)
Its pretty much common knowledge at any rate just do a quickie google search for "how many nuclear weapons does Israel have" or something like that.
-
Pardon my ignorance, but wasn't the last conflict fought by Israel the 7 days war?
After having owned all your major military adversiaries in the area in so little time it makes a bit difficult to say you won miracolously...
-
It's true. The Israili military is practically a mini-US. It even uses most of our tech.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Umm, I think those hostile nations have pretty much showed their inability to invade Israel Aldo, whereas Israel currently occupies territory which belonged to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. The poor little Israel argument kinda falls flat on its face there. :rolleyes:
Unless said nations employ biological / chemical weapons. In which case all bets are off the table. Also I don't believe there has been a united Arab attack upon Israel since 1967(?). And Israel would only need to fail once in order to render your argument invalid; so having some form of ultimate deterrent is presumably useful in that scope.
As I said, I'm not in favour of anyone having nuclear weapons. But how many other nations in the world are there surrounded by multiple hostile nations who refuse to even recognise that nations existance, and who have attacked said nation in coalition with each other?
-
Question though. Why should Iran be denied nukes if you can have them?
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Pardon my ignorance, but wasn't the last conflict fought by Israel the 7 days war?
After having owned all your major military adversiaries in the area in so little time it makes a bit difficult to say you won miracolously...
Well Lebanon, then Yom Kippur, then the 6 days war, counting backwards, first one was a disasterous failure for Israel, went in to sort out the PLO and ended up creating Hez'bollah, along with cedeing lebanon to syrian control, Yom kippur was a victory for Israel, although it cost them an awful lot. So really they've been going downhill since 67.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Question though. Why should Iran be denied nukes if you can have them?
Valid question.... the crux of the argument would seem to be that Irans government are just generally not very nice blokes, and you wouldn't trust them much to behave responsibly (i.e. not go nuts and use them, or accidentally lose them or pass them to terrorists, etc)
Of course, the side of that is, if they did so, it would surely mean their own destruction from reprisals. So the only practical use they have for nukes, is to scare people with; i.e. deterrent.
It's a thorny issue - if we can't stop everyone from having nukes, what right have we to stop individual cases?
-
Originally posted by vyper
Question though. Why should Iran be denied nukes if you can have them?
I've been thinking about this myself, and I think it has to do with the fact that we don't want anyone else getting nukes. We had to get them first, but we were going against another super power. Once they left, then we had no more need for our nukes. We just keep them as a "detterant" for a war that will never come.
Unfortunately, if small, volatile nations such as India, Pakistan, and Iran get nukes, then that war might actually become a reality. Be honest: Who in their right mind would launch an attack against the United States? No one. But an attack against India? A definate possibility. It's also a possiblity that India would be overrun, thus, India as a last-gasp effort, would launch it's nukes. That won't happen to the US, we're much too big and powerful.
My mind is wandering, so it's hard for me to formulate a thought, basically what I mean is:
They might actually use them. We won't have to. The only enemy we would've used them against dissappeared years ago.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Valid question.... the crux of the argument would seem to be that Irans government are just generally not very nice blokes, and you wouldn't trust them much to behave responsibly (i.e. not go nuts and use them, or accidentally lose them or pass them to terrorists, etc)
Of course, the side of that is, if they did so, it would surely mean their own destruction from reprisals. So the only practical use they have for nukes, is to scare people with; i.e. deterrent.
It's a thorny issue - if we can't stop everyone from having nukes, what right have we to stop individual cases?
NPT
Besides it's just not realistic, right or sensible to hold all countries to same standards. It's pretty sensitive to think of, say, Belgium as more "moral" country than for example theocracies or DPRK.
Is it morally right to allow both the nice guy and the retarded dwarf mongoloid with history of aggression access to big pointy sticks? Strawman, yeah I know.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I've been thinking about this myself, and I think it has to do with the fact that we don't want anyone else getting nukes. We had to get them first, but we were going against another super power. Once they left, then we had no more need for our nukes. We just keep them as a "detterant" for a war that will never come.
Unfortunately, if small, volatile nations such as India, Pakistan, and Iran get nukes, then that war might actually become a reality. Be honest: Who in their right mind would launch an attack against the United States? No one. But an attack against India? A definate possibility. It's also a possiblity that India would be overrun, thus, India as a last-gasp effort, would launch it's nukes. That won't happen to the US, we're much too big and powerful.
My mind is wandering, so it's hard for me to formulate a thought, basically what I mean is:
They might actually use them. We won't have to. The only enemy we would've used them against dissappeared years ago.
But in all cases, the effect of starting a fully-nuclear confrontation is worse that defeat........incidentally, I wouldn't exactly describe India as small and volatile - it's the worlds largest democracy by a country mile (1bn).
-
India has 3.5 times as many people as the US. And they are by no means small. The actual chances of India being invaded and taken over are miniscule. Same deal with Pakistan.
The most dangerous nuclear power, in my mind, is Russia. They can't control their nukes, the infrastructure is old and unreliable.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Unless said nations employ biological / chemical weapons. In which case all bets are off the table. Also I don't believe there has been a united Arab attack upon Israel since 1967(?). And Israel would only need to fail once in order to render your argument invalid; so having some form of ultimate deterrent is presumably useful in that scope.
The point would be Israel has never been in danger of being overrun by the arabs. The only war the arabs have started if you leave out 48 was the 73 war, which was launched to retake territory the Israelis captured in 67, a war they started. Afaik theres never been a war between Israelis and arabs fought on actual Israeli ground. So its nice to say in principla they need a deterrent, but the reality is they dont.
Israel has also developed, with U.S. financial assistance, the Arrow theater defense missile, which has become one of the only functioning missile defense systems in the world.
Umm, SA-10, predates the arrow by 20 odd years.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Pardon my ignorance, but wasn't the last conflict fought by Israel the 7 days war?
After having owned all your major military adversiaries in the area in so little time it makes a bit difficult to say you won miracolously...
The 6-day war... that was in 1967 I think... the Yom Kippur war which we barley survived (beginning of the movie sum of all fears) was in 1973
The 6-day war was the only war that we started out with the upper hand.
Originally posted by Unknown Target
It's true. The Israili military is practically a mini-US. It even uses most of our tech.
A mini US? Well as a nation we have a very different culture. And while the US sits with a comfortable 1.675 million man army (approx) not including NG and a population of close to 300mil, we have a population of 6.5 mil and a standing army of a about 3 million.
There is not much about Israel that is similar to the US... except that its a democracy but even THAT is debated :lol:
We do however use allot of your tech. I wouldn’t agree on "most" because Israel develops allot of its own technology from scratch or upgrades on what we get from other countries (mostly the US) we buy our own tech when we can to support the local establishments and because its cheaper then importing it.
-
Originally posted by Splinter
The 6-day war... that was in 1967 I think... the Yom Kippur war which we barley survived (beginning of the movie sum of all fears) was in 1973
Umm, I think you'd better read up on that war, because while you took loses, the arabs didnt even get near the pre 67 borders. Hardly qualifies as barely surviving.
Originally posted by Splinter
The 6-day war was the only war that we started out with the upper hand.
Um, those british and french forces attacking egypt with you in 56 might say different, and I dont think you were really the underdog in lebanon either.
Originally posted by Splinter
There is not much about Israel that is similar to the US... except that its a democracy but even THAT is debated :lol:
In the US or Israel?
Originally posted by Splinter
We do however use allot of your tech. I wouldn’t agree on "most" because Israel develops allot of its own technology from scratch or upgrades on what we get from other countries (mostly the US) we buy our own tech when we can to support the local establishments and because its cheaper then importing it.
Its also a major source of income with sales to China, Idia and the like.
-
Originally posted by Gank
The point would be Israel has never been in danger of being overrun by the arabs. The only war the arabs have started if you leave out 48 was the 73 war, which was launched to retake territory the Israelis captured in 67, a war they started. Afaik theres never been a war between Israelis and arabs fought on actual Israeli ground. So its nice to say in principla they need a deterrent, but the reality is they dont.
Umm, SA-10, predates the arrow by 20 odd years.
Just quoting the site. Also it said "One of the only" not "the only"
I'm sure you'll find out why it said that if you research both missiles and look at their differences and similarities personally I cant be bothered it works its had a 95% rate of success and that’s good enough for me.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Umm, I think you'd better read up on that war, because while you took loses, the arabs didnt even get near the pre 67 borders. Hardly qualifies as barely surviving.
Well of all of them it was one of the most difficult... we were really caught on our back foot and for a while there it was a serious thing. If you read some of the stories... the Syrian tank general who brushed past our defenses and was standing in the upper Galilee with a clear road to central Israel decided suddenly that it was "to easy" and it had to be a trap and he didn’t continue when in fact we hardly had a single tank in the area let alone an ambush.
Originally posted by Gank
Um, those british and french forces attacking egypt with you in 56 might say different, and I dont think you were really the underdog in lebanon either.
Was there a war in 56? Meh all these wars are adding up in my head I get them mixed up. Whatever dude your probably right. But Lebanon wasn’t a war it was an "operation" or so they call it. So I didn’t really count it.
Originally posted by Gank
In the US or Israel?
Heh probably both but I meant Israel.
Originally posted by Gank
Its also a major source of income with sales to China, Idia and the like.
Indeed... I assume you meant India? :p
-
war Audio pronunciation of "war" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.
1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.
I believe the Lebanon invasion would fall under this definition.
95% success? Thats impressive. What exactly has it shot down? Because missiles seem to hit Israel quite regularly from Lebanon and Gaza.
And yeah i did mean india.
-
Originally posted by Gank
war Audio pronunciation of "war" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.
1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.
I believe the Lebanon invasion would fall under this definition.
95% success? Thats impressive. What exactly has it shot down? Because missiles seem to hit Israel quite regularly from Lebanon and Gaza.
And yeah i did mean india.
scuds mostly and the most accurate simulations avaliable of the shabib 3(sp?) missles Iran has, the ones that can reach Israel.
The Arrow 2 missile approaches the target at a maximum speed of Mach 9, or 2.5km/s, at a maximum altitude of 50,000km.
The system is designed to intercept as many as 14 incoming missiles. The first test of its ability to launch multiple missiles at different targets was conducted in January 2003.
The Arrow missile is launched before the threat missile's trajectory and intercept point are accurately known. As more trajectory data becomes available, the optimum intercept point is more precisely defined and the missile is guided towards the optimum intercept point.
The intercept altitudes are from a minimum of 10km up to a maximum of 50km. The maximum intercept range is approx. 90km
The kill vehicle section of the missile, containing the warhead, fusing and the terminal seeker, is equipped with four aerodynamically controlled moving fins to give low altitude interception capability. The warhead is a high explosive directed blast fragmentation warhead developed by Rafael, which is capable of destroying a target within a 50m radius.
The Arrow 2 system can detect and track incoming missiles as far way as 500 km and can intercept missiles 50-90 km away. The Arrow 2 uses a terminally-guided interceptor warhead to destroy an incoming missile from its launch at an altitude of 10 to 40km at nine times the speed of sound. Since the missile does not need to directly hit the target--detonation within 40-50 meters is sufficient to disable an incoming warhead. The command and control system is designed to respond to as many as 14 simultaneous intercepts.
Arrow 2 tests:
Test 1 (July 30th, 1995): Designed to test the steering, control and cruising systems of the Arrow. The test was conducted without a target missile.
Test 2 (February 20th, 1996): Another successful experiment. This time a target missile had not been launched as well.
Test 3 (August 20th, 1996): Successful interception. The Arrow successfully destroyed the target missile.
Test 4: (March 11th, 1997): Another successful interception. The Arrow destroyed the target missile this time as well.
Test 5 (August 20th, 1997): The missile was destroyed by ground orders due to malfunction in the missile's steering system.
Test 6 (September 14th, 1998): The missile was launched towards a virtual target created by a simulator. The test was successful.
Test 7 (November 1st, 1999): Full systems test. The missile was launched towards a virtual Scud target and successfully managed to hit and destroy it.
Test 8 (September 14th, 2000): The Arrow was launched towards the target missile Black Sparrow launched from an F-15 fighter jet simulating a Scud. The Arrow hit and destroyed the target.
Test 9 (August 28th, 2001): Full systems test wherein the Arrow was launched towards a Black Sparrow target missile, simulating a ballistic missile flight. The interception was conducted at a range larger than 100 kilometers at higher altitudes than before. The Arrow hit its target and destroyed it.
Test 10 (January 5th, 2003): Full systems test that did not include interception. Four missiles were launched towards four simulation targets in order to examine the interceptor's performance on special flight conditions and the system's ability at a sequence of launches.
Test 11 (December 16th, 2003): An test that examined the improved systems added as a result of a contract with the US, enabling the Arrow to intercept at a high ceiling.
http://israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/surface_missiles/arrow/Arrow.html
Anyway as I was saying the missiles launched from Gaza are usually Quassam missiles very short ranged up and down really no time to intercept them and a waste of money considering their very low lethality and accuracy
The ones from Lebanon again are mostly smaller shorter ranged missiles and allot are anti vehicular missiles... non ballistic.
(as far as I know/think... disclaimer: some of this I just cant be bothered to look up ATM I have some more debates on other forums to get to ;))
-
Well if they bomp only military targets then it's good thing, but I hope they don't send invasion forces. There or it will be another big mess.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
India has 3.5 times as many people as the US. And they are by no means small. The actual chances of India being invaded and taken over are miniscule. Same deal with Pakistan.
India's situation is volatile. All of those nations are in a volatile state, because they have enemies on all sides, and they're all ready to kill each other.
-
I think the missiles you speak of are nothing more than glorified rocket artillery. The advantage is that the actual weapon is so small that tracking it with a weapon like the Arrow or Patriot is probably insanity of the first degree.
You can shoot down big missiles but the homemade ones probably not.
Nobody has come up with a solid defense system against small arms fire, rockets, RPGs, and motar launchers. There just isn't the sensitivity of sensors, quickness of computer calculation, and the speed of firing that would be required.
-
Originally posted by Splinter
Not Iran... no one is threatening its survival only its acquisition of WMDs.
And also do you have a link from a viable news source about "Israel is training Kurdish peshmergas to go into Iran and conduct a guerilla war."? Sounds interesting.
The US is threatening to invade, overthrow the government, occupy the country and presumably turn Iran into a client state. Thats enough. Not to mention that for several hundred thousands people (if Iraqi figures are anything to go by) it will be a matter of survival, or lack thereof.
Israel has probably the most advanced army in the region, has the political (and military) backing of the United States, and several of the surrounding countries are buddying up to it (Egypt, Jordan etc). Iran on the other hand has...what? Surrounded on all sides (except on the North, and even there you have Uzbekistan), facing perhaps the world's most powerful military, and pretty much without allies (militarilly speaking). They have far more reason to be afraid that Israel. Hence, at present, they have a more legitimate need to possess a nuclear deterant than Israel does.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
India's situation is volatile. All of those nations are in a volatile state, because they have enemies on all sides, and they're all ready to kill each other.
Don't buy into the "the world is one big warzone, except the West" strory. India has 1 main enemy, and that is Pakistan. Both are nuclear powers and both have large standing armies. No one is going to be attacking anyone. and they're working on peace talks.
Don't give me any BS about "volatile". There are two wars going on in the "the region" right now, excluding internal rebellions and border skirmishes, and we both know who is to blame. Talking about how so-and-so is a "destabilizing force" can't help but strike me as very ironic.
-
The Middle East has always been a hot spot. India and Pakistan are big enemies, and the reason no one's attacking is cause it's pracically a mini-cold war in there right now. If you look at the situation and compare it to the US vs. Russia cold war, it's very similar. Too similar for comfort.
-
Yes, but if you notice, the US and USSR didn't attack each other directly. And since India and Pakistan don't have the influence to start a proxy war off somwehere, that pretty much leaved us with a state of peacful mistrust. Armed, but peaceful. Neither is going to attack the other, and no one else will either.
-
Originally posted by Splinter
Anyway as I was saying the missiles launched from Gaza are usually Quassam missiles very short ranged up and down really no time to intercept them and a waste of money considering their very low lethality and accuracy
The ones from Lebanon again are mostly smaller shorter ranged missiles and allot are anti vehicular missiles... non ballistic.
So it hasnt actually shot down any real targets? Patriot was claimed to have something similar when it first entered service and I shouldnt need to remind you what happened there.
Btw all missiles are ballistic, least artillery ones, and I believe the Hezzys use grads, 220mm artillery rockets. Probably not worth wasting an arrow on though in salvos they're probably more dangerous than a scud or shabib.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Yes, but if you notice, the US and USSR didn't attack each other directly. And since India and Pakistan don't have the influence to start a proxy war off somwehere, that pretty much leaved us with a state of peacful mistrust. Armed, but peaceful. Neither is going to attack the other, and no one else will either.
I've never trusted standoffs. They always seem to come out bad.
-
Originally posted by Gank
So it hasnt actually shot down any real targets? Patriot was claimed to have something similar when it first entered service and I shouldnt need to remind you what happened there.
Btw all missiles are ballistic, least artillery ones, and I believe the Hezzys use grads, 220mm artillery rockets. Probably not worth wasting an arrow on though in salvos they're probably more dangerous than a scud or shabib.
sure it has... check the quoted part of my last message.
all missles are ballistic? what about like RPGs? and like TOW missles... or do they just have less of a visible arc or something? (not being sarcastic I just dont know.) :p
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The US is threatening to invade, overthrow the government, occupy the country and presumably turn Iran into a client state. Thats enough. Not to mention that for several hundred thousands people (if Iraqi figures are anything to go by) it will be a matter of survival, or lack thereof.
As far as I have been able to see all that has been threatened are surgical air strikes on its nuclear facilities not invasion... granted it’s a possibility. But the losses and the sheer manpower required... Iran has a standing army of 12.5 million people! That’s more then 6 times what the US has. So yeah it would have to be a draft in the US.
Originally posted by Rictor
Israel has probably the most advanced army in the region, has the political (and military) backing of the United States, and several of the surrounding countries are buddying up to it (Egypt, Jordan etc). Iran on the other hand has...what? Surrounded on all sides (except on the North, and even there you have Uzbekistan), facing perhaps the world's most powerful military, and pretty much without allies (militarilly speaking). They have far more reason to be afraid that Israel. Hence, at present, they have a more legitimate need to possess a nuclear deterant than Israel does.
Egypt and Jordan will never be allies to Israel... peaceful neighbors at best. But believe me they would have outright civil war if they ever helped us. Israel currently has no reason to be afraid of massive invasion because of the nukes... the peace agreements and the cease-fires and lack of all out wars in the recent past have been because of our nuclear deterrent. Iran isn’t being threatened causing it to need nuclear weapons! It’s seeking nuclear weapons causing the US to threaten her. The chicken came first in this scenario.
-
Real as in live, not drones.
And rpgs are ballistic, Tows are wire guided. Basically if its fired without any means of redirecting its flight its ballistic. Like throwing a stone.
Btw Pakistan and India clash regularly on the border, its far from a peaceful standoff although it may look that way to the uninformed. The most recent was the Kargil war, in 99.
-
Originally posted by Splinter
the peace agreements and the cease-fires and lack of all out wars in the recent past have been because of our nuclear deterrent.
Actually the US bought the ceasefires with 2 billion dollars of aid to egypt a year. Jordan has always been the most inclined to talk to Israel, although it recieves substantial US aid too.
-
Last time I checked Israel had the 4th most powerful army in the world, what has happened since then? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Gank
Real as in live, not drones.
test results 3, 4, 8, & 9
3 and 4 were real missles 8 & 9 were real missles simulating other missles
Originally posted by Gank
And rpgs are ballistic, Tows are wire guided. Basically if its fired without any means of redirecting its flight its ballistic. Like throwing a stone.
OOOOOOOH for some reason I always though ballistic was a missile that is launched up and then comes down... not the straight firing kind. Yeah... I'm dumb. :nervous:
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Last time I checked Israel had the 4th most powerful army in the world, what has happened since then? :confused:
per capita or as is? :doubt:
-
Gank: I said excluding border skirmishes. I meant that it is unlikely to come to total war between the two nations, the type of war which would result in either side resorting to nuclear weapons. The kind of war thats being fought can go on for a long time without either side making substantial territorial gains (if any).
-
as is... or else the US wouldn't be the most powerful (China has the largest army in the world)
-
Originally posted by Splinter
3 and 4 were real missles 8 & 9 were real missles simulating other missles
Fired under test conditions not actual battlefield. What I mean is its unproven in actual combat.
Originally posted by Splinter
for some reason I always though ballistic was a missile that is launched up and then comes down... not the straight firing kind. Yeah... I'm dumb. :nervous:
Well, none are really fired straight, gravity acts on all of them just on short ranged stuff like rpgs its not as noticable. Guns are ballistic weapons for example. Basically anything thats unguided is ballistic.
Originally posted by Rictor
Gank: I said excluding border skirmishes. I meant that it is unlikely to come to total war between the two nations, the type of war which would result in either side resorting to nuclear weapons. The kind of war thats being fought can go on for a long time without either side making substantial territorial gains (if any).
Ah well see your use of the word peaceful threw me off, cos Kashmirs far from that. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
as is... or else the US wouldn't be the most powerful (China has the largest army in the world)
I meant per capita like soldiers to civilians ratio and amount of technology for size and for the national income and blah blah blah.
If you basically took everyone’s population cut it all down to a specified number then divided all their weapons and fighting man power into that number by... yeah anyway its complicated useless figures.
Anyway it would be to difficult to tell. As I was saying before the US has a current standing army of 1.675mil without the national gaurd. Israel has 3mil so technically since we are on the same levels in most technology areas some the US has higher others we do and experience in certain kinds of fighting and wars we both have our expertise areas... I would say technically China could beat the US... I dont think they have as an advanced military technology program but in sheer numbers....
Its really difficult if not impossible to say.
Why do you ask anyway?
-
Originally posted by Gank
Fired under test conditions not actual battlefield. What I mean is its unproven in actual combat.
Right. But how much diffrent can a real life missle launched at a real life target act then a real life missle launched at a real life target thats not going to kill people when it lands if its not destroyed. :confused:
Originally posted by Gank
Well, none are really fired straight, gravity acts on all of them just on short ranged stuff like rpgs its not as noticable. Guns are ballistic weapons for example. Basically anything thats unguided is ballistic.
Right. gotcha.
-
I guess we'll have to see how this all turns out.
Bush invades Iran, I buy you all a beer. Bosche beer, of course.
-
Originally posted by Splinter
Right. But how much diffrent can a real life missle launched at a real life target act then a real life missle launched at a real life target thats not going to kill people when it lands if its not destroyed. :confused:
Ask the guys manning the patriots during the gulf war. Its success rate in testing was 96% iirc, while in combat it was 70-40%
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Gank: I said excluding border skirmishes. I meant that it is unlikely to come to total war between the two nations, the type of war which would result in either side resorting to nuclear weapons. The kind of war thats being fought can go on for a long time without either side making substantial territorial gains (if any).
Small things can start large wars. Witness WW1. Any little mistake that results in substantial loss in equipment or lives, could result in a giant war.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Ask the guys manning the patriots during the gulf war. Its success rate in testing was 96% iirc, while in combat it was 70-40%
Even less, was it not?
....I'll check
EDITed;
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~ee162/notes/postol.pdf
Evidence suggesting less than 10% accuracy against Scuds during the 91 Gulf War.
There's also other stuff suggesting it has serious problems in identifying friend from foe, arising from the downing of an RAF tornado in the last Gulf War; http://cbs11tv.com/localnews/local_story_182193557.html / http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/06/patriot_plot_thickens/
/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20/patriot_missile/
-
It had really piss poor performance here in Israel... it didn’t intercept even 1 of the 40 or so scuds launched at us.
At any rate the testing methods I would hope have been refined over the years and I would hope that things have been corrected and remedied especially since its main development drive was because of the incredible failings of the patriot system in 1991
-
The Patriot, IIRC, was never designed to intercept ballistic missiles. I'm pretty sure it was a SAM system that was meant to defend against airplanes and airplane-launched missiles. During the Gulf War, the US military tried to adapt it to function as an anti-Scud platform, but we all know how well that worked out.
-
Originally posted by Splinter
Why do you ask anyway?
Just wondering how you need nukes if you have a 3 million manpowered army which has technological advantage over anyone except the US and maybe some european powers (UK, Germany, etc...) and still say you fear invasion.
Why such a large military if you have nuclear deterrents? :confused:
-
Maybe? I'd put the SAS up against them any day.
*gets out cock and starts waving length* :p
-
It was designed to engage all three.
Splinter: Aye well thats the whole point I'm trying to make, you can test it till the cows come home, but theres no actual guarantee it'll perform as well as it does in tests. You could come up against something unexpected, like the Iraqi scuds unintentional mirv effect.
Aldo: I knew that, i just quoted the official figures to avoid disputes. And to be fair some of the scuds fell apart when they were incoming making it harder for the patriot to hit them.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Just wondering how you need nukes if you have a 3 million manpowered army which has technological advantage over anyone except the US and maybe some european powers (UK, Germany, etc...) and still say you fear invasion.
Why such a large military if you have nuclear deterrents? :confused:
Yes 3 million if you put the entire country on hold... standing we have a nice 600k or so the rest are reservists going about their lives... practically any Israeli you ever meet if he’s over 21 he has military training he knows some hand to hand combat depending what he was in and he knows how to handle a weapon.
Within 24 you could probably have most of the 3 million mobilized and ready to go since the reservists go in once a year anyway they never really get "rusty".
However when you are facing countries with combined armies of over 18mil a 3 million man army doesn’t seem so big anymore... and that’s just with Syria Egypt and Jordan not to mention next time which might involve Iraq (well maybe not now that the US "took care" of them) and Iran...
Originally posted by vyper
Maybe? I'd put the SAS up against them any day.
*gets out cock and starts waving length* :p
As I learned and observed in my many visits to SF forums and discussion boards there is no way to compare one SF against another.
The SAS are trained for their areas and the "likely" areas they will be required to go to as with ours...
When the SAS and Seals and Delta were going into Iraq they all came here to get desert combat training with our S13 and Matkal forces. I know this because my friends’ brother was one of the S'13 officers training them. If Israel was to go on a campaign in a foreign climate in Europe I'm sure they would go to the SAS or something for training in those areas.
However because of the SAS track record I would not consider you foolish at all to admire them in the least. If I weren’t so dang patriotic they would probably be my favorites to. ;7
oh yeah a nifty unofficial sight on all the diffrent special forces units of Israel... I warn you though... theres alot of them ;)
38 to be exact :p
http://www.isayeret.com its not complete or 100% up to date but give you a nice picture.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
It could have been from the nuclear scare, or I should say continue nuclear scare just in case Iran decides to build a nuclear weapon.
Rictor, I was only giving a possible explanation, not a political opinion, nothing more.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
I think the missiles you speak of are nothing more than glorified rocket artillery. The advantage is that the actual weapon is so small that tracking it with a weapon like the Arrow or Patriot is probably insanity of the first degree.
You can shoot down big missiles but the homemade ones probably not.
Nobody has come up with a solid defense system against small arms fire, rockets, RPGs, and motar launchers. There just isn't the sensitivity of sensors, quickness of computer calculation, and the speed of firing that would be required.
Oh icy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2407807.stm
I can't find the link about UK's electromagentic shielding program, which essentially shields the APCs and tanks from RPG hits.
-
OW! A dick-waving contest!
:doubt:
Surprisingly small, they are.
-
You're just jealous you can't participate
;) ;)
Looks like the Pentagon is denying it. And when they out of their way, and to such length, to deny allegations made by journalists, which they rarely do at all, that tells me something may be up.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/671eed44-6864-11d9-9183-00000e2511c8.html
-
Originally posted by Rictor
You're just jealous you can't participate
;) ;)
I can hardly see it, let alone be jealous of it. ;)
-
Looks like we have reached a new low.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
You're just jealous you can't participate
;) ;)
Looks like the Pentagon is denying it. And when they out of their way, and to such length, to deny allegations made by journalists, which they rarely do at all, that tells me something may be up.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/671eed44-6864-11d9-9183-00000e2511c8.html
Although, if they refused to comment you'd say something was up as well.
-
I always think something is up. Thats why I'll be sitting pretty when the invasion comes, while your're toiling in the underground mines of our alien overlords.
Though seriously, when an establishment for whom "no comment" is a way of life stands up and denounces the story so explicitly, its hard not to take notice.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I always think something is up. Thats why I'll be sitting pretty when the invasion comes, while your're toiling in the underground mines of our alien overlords.
Though seriously, when an establishment for whom "no comment" is a way of life stands up and denounces the story so explicitly, its hard not to take notice.
It doesn't really matter what they say, it's whether you'd trust them to be honest. And, in all honesty, I wouldn't.
Anyways, when the invasion comes you'll be first against the wall, sonny-jim.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
OW! A dick-waving contest!
:doubt:
Surprisingly small, they are.
THANK YOU FOR CONTRIBUTING
Btw, here's the Hersh article in it's entirety if someone hasn't read it already.
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/050124fa_fact
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I can hardly see it, let alone be jealous of it. ;)
That's cause it's already behind you.
-
Originally posted by vyper
That's cause it's already behind you.
You mean in the ChopMachine™ Mk.II? :p
-
Is that a pet name?
-
Tight. :lol:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
You're just jealous you can't participate
;) ;)
Looks like the Pentagon is denying it. And when they out of their way, and to such length, to deny allegations made by journalists, which they rarely do at all, that tells me something may be up.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/671eed44-6864-11d9-9183-00000e2511c8.html
There's always "something up". If they didn't say anything, there'd be "something up". The reason they're going out of their way to disprove the theories is that this is very serious, and it's not like they can just wave it off. They have to actively say that nothing's going on.
And Ghostavo: The reason they have such a big army is to defend themselves. If all you have is one giant bomb that'll blow both you and them up, wouldn't you want that as a last resort? The first resort is always to fight it out, and if that doesn't work, then maybe you'd use nukes. We are getting to a point where this situation might actually happen, but thus far, no one knows what would happen if a nuclear-wielding country was actually invaded.
EDIT: And Tiara, that argument you're starting is pretty dumb and unessesary.. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
EDIT: And Tiara, that argument you're starting is pretty dumb and unessesary.. :doubt:
It's just to reflect how equally dumb and unessecary that dickwaving contest is that was on about half a page back. :rolleyes:
-
Doesn't mean you have to comment on it :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
It's just to reflect how equally dumb and unessecary that dickwaving contest is that was on about half a page back. :rolleyes:
Praytell, what dickwaving contest? And if you found it so insultingly bad, why would you then proceed to derail the thread?
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Doesn't mean you have to comment on it :p
Errm, it's me we're talking about. :D
Anyway, let us not drag this topic off course any further.
-
Yes, anyway.
The US will not attak Iran. It'd be suicidal, and they know it.
-
I wish I could share your optimism.... :blah:
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Yes, anyway.
The US will not attak Iran. It'd be suicidal, and they know it.
US Military could propably demolish the Iranian army pretty fast and seize their objectives with little difficulties - but nowhere near the Iraq war, Iran is much bigger and by no means level. Also, it is unlikely that US attack - be it airstrikes, small infiltration ops or full-scale invasion - would give Iran opposition the much-needed momentum to start a revolution by their own. Usually people rally against the invading parties.
The problem is not the military campaign itself, but rather what comes after that - that should be pretty clear to everyone by now. Tinfoil "ZOMG DRAFT" aside, US would have pretty ****ing immense problems if they really tried to invade and occupy Iran. Someone in another forum said roughly that by now every ME country knows how to defend against US - just open your arms and let the insurgency do it's work.
OK, why not just steamroll into Teheran, topple the government, retreat and declare "mission accomplished"? Well, even I believe that even though the neocons are apparently utterly ****ty in foreign politics, they have some idea of cause and effect.
Leaving a power vacuum in area like Iran is a Bad Idea. Chances are that after the collapse of government and following US retreat, those with most power (usually loyalists to former government, seeing as they often have the Army on the leash, make their grab for power. Theoretically removing the government COULD be the window of opportunity for the opposition, but realistically speaking it is unlikely. The result would be a nice mix of current Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan mixed - a nice new breeding ground for different fundamentalist forces, much like Iraq is now.
BTW, Iran declared that they could "repel an US attack" (source (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/18/iran.attack.reut/index.html)), but what that really means is open for debate. Some people think it's barely panic-filled boosting of national ego (THE AMERICAN DOGS ARE COMMITING SUICIDE BY HUNDREDS), some people think it as semiopen threat to use nuclear weapons if needed, some people don't think at all! Intriguing! Needless to say, using even tactical-level nuclear weapons would cause rather grave consequences to your average Iranian, as propable result would most likely be answering on the same scale.
-
It's not because of Iran, Iran, while it has a sizable military, would be simply squashed from the air by the US tech superiority, and the massive mechanized army would roll in afterwards.
You were right on one point, though: What would happen afterward would be suicide. The US would lose everything, sactions would be imposed by the Western powers. The entire Middle East (barring probably Israel) would in some way or another declare war or fight against the US. China, North Korea, and other such areas would probably capitalize on the frenzy and launch their own attacks on the US and possibly her allies.
I'm tending to agree with my history teacher: It would basically be World War III.
-
Originally posted by Janos
US Military could propably demolish the Iranian army pretty fast and seize their objectives with little difficulties
I wouldnt bet on it... in fact I'd be tempted to wager against it. I wouldnt. but I'd be tempted.
I have no doubt they would win eventually but I highly doubt it will be a "demolishing"
-
The US is having enough problems in Iraq even with the compliance of 80% of its 25 million people, it is NOT going to invade a country of near 70 million, the majority of whom hate the US, draft or no draft.It cant, plain and simple.
And those of you who think aerial bombardment is the **** need to read up a little bit on how effective it actually was in kosovo and Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
You mean in the ChopMachine™ Mk.II? :p
OUCH! :D
Other than that, I have nothing to contribute.
Probably better that way.
-
Originally posted by Gank
The US is having enough problems in Iraq even with the compliance of 80% of its 25 million people, it is NOT going to invade a country of near 70 million, the majority of whom hate the US, draft or no draft.It cant, plain and simple.
And those of you who think aerial bombardment is the **** need to read up a little bit on how effective it actually was in kosovo and Iraq.
What he said. I think you're being overly dramatic UT. Western powers imposing sanctions? China launching an attack? Get real.
The US is having trouble fighting against an insurgency in a country of 25 million, which has spent 13 years under sanctions. What do you think it would be like to fight a much larger population, better armed (since the obvious tactic would be for the government to distrubte the arms prior to an invasion) and with more support internationally (both greater opposition to the war and greater support for Iran from the likes of China, not probably not militarilly.)
-
China wouldn't launch an all-out attack, they would slowly start to subvert the US's power structures.
And the EU already imposed sanctions, which were just recently lifted (and they're threatening to put them back on). It's nowhere near inconcievable.
-
I really, really doubt that EU, China, India, Russia or any bigger country would impose anything bigger than a slap-on-the-wrist sanctions, simply due to economics. US is pretty vital - at least for now - to all of them, and removing a player that large would have rather grave consequences for them. Iran might be important, at least to EU who wish to have at least SOME stability in the ME area, but it's not an EU member and a country we all love. People generally agree that Iran's government is a piece of **** that world should get rid of rather quickly, but usually the appreciated strategy is long-term change via peaceful coexistence and negotiations, with stick.
On the long run it's better to stay quiet than to sprout something stupid that I might be embarrased of in the future. US could beat Iran in TRADITIONAL SENSE (see: war), but the real problem would be the likely insurgence and PR hit that would occur afterwards. Sure, let's initiate the draft again! Although no one would support it - not the opposition, not those Reps who aim for the next elections, and definately not the population. Neither the military - the efficiency of US's military lies within it's experienced staff and soldiers. Just pushing more rifle grunts into the frontlines propably had no positive effect.
-
That's not actually true, the real effeciency of the US military is it's experience in modern warfare. Coming late into the whole century, and both world wars (relatively speaking), the US never had it's cities devastated, and has the biggest production capability of any nation on the planet.
No, I say the real strength of the United States lies in her technology, numbers, and training.
It's not like when a US soldier is trained he's just "pushed into the field". That may be so in times of war, when soldiers are scarce and citizen soldiers are numerous, but since that's not the fact now, all our soldiers have gone through lots of training, and any future soldiers would have that same opportunity.
-
Umm, hate to burst peoples bubbles but the US military hasnt exactly got a great track record since ww2. The ability to bring more firepower than the other guy doesnt always win the war.
-
Actually since WW2 their only clearly won conflict is the gulf war...
-
Or Vietnam... but then again the other guy won. :p
Or Korea.
-
Korea was more of a stall, while Vietnam fell short from a total disaster.
-
Korea we lost the north, Vietnam you lot managed to lose completely.
-
(Strolls into thread, thinks about attempting to make a evolutionist point to change the thread, but it isn't ready...yet)
-
World War II -won
Korea - Won (we never had the North, the North invaded the South. We tried to take over the North, but China said no, under threat of a new World War).
Vietnam - A total disaster.
Operation Desert Storm - A clear-cut victory.
Operation Desert Fox - A small one or so week conflict that no one really remembers. Ended in victory, although it was basically just police work.
Operation Iraqi Freedom - Technically a victory, but nowhere near so.
And don't derail the thread with some pointless, stupid and unessesary argument, Fergus.
-
US Military could propably demolish the Iranian army pretty fast and seize their objectives with little difficulties - but nowhere near the Iraq war, Iran is much bigger and by no means level. Also, it is unlikely that US attack - be it airstrikes, small infiltration ops or full-scale invasion - would give Iran opposition the much-needed momentum to start a revolution by their own. Usually people rally against the invading parties.
Actually USA don't have enough forces to do full scale invasion to Iran in few years so I think heavy military target bombing is only way or they can just wait until problems in Iraq and Afganistan are solved
-
You don't need a massive army to invade a country, you need one to keep it. You blow the hell out of it from the air, then send in tanks to take out whatever armor's left. You don't use troops as a front line force, you use them to take and hold small points, leaving the big fighting to the mechanized divisions.
-
not for nothing, I was reading wesley clarks book, how to win modern wars, and he states that a high ranking general in the pentagon, mind you he mentions no names, stated and listed targets the bush administration was aiming at over the course of 8 years (granted he wins, which he did, his second term).
It began with:
Afganistan
Libya (was next but they willingfully complied with us)
Iraq
Iran
North Korea
mind you, everything that has happened, happened after the book was released, and further more, in this same order. if they are tryin to mount anything against Iran, it will be all strategic. sure they can enmass troops to hit us in iraq or afganistan, but they wouldnt have access to there higher end stuff theyre developing now. kinda makes u think, "all the forces u need are right here, besides US troops u got Iraqs new police/army guys whom hate iran even more lol, and then u got in afganistan those guys who dont like Iran either".
iran is basically in the middle on both ends. sorta a combo of containment and everything in between. if this does happen, i garentee you, NK will be next.
-
But here's the question, if that's true---why?
He has the oil from Iraq---why does he need to go after Iran? And after Iran, North Korea? Granted, maybe he should've hit them when they first talked about their nukes, and never gone after Iraq--now that would've been a war that probably more people would've supported.
But why would he go after two countries, right next to each other? Doesn't Iraq have even more oil than Iran?
If that's true, there's gotta be something else, and it's not imperialism, before anyone says it.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
You don't need a massive army to invade a country, you need one to keep it. You blow the hell out of it from the air, then send in tanks to take out whatever armor's left. You don't use troops as a front line force, you use them to take and hold small points, leaving the big fighting to the mechanized divisions.
And if the US do that, it will have to deal with the entire ME against them, and I doubt there will be a country to help them defend themselves. I'm just stating facts here. After the ****-up job they've done in Iraq, trying to attack another country would be just stupid until they've managed to get back a little credibility with their reasons.
-
Israel.
Btw, your history is a bit dodgy, US did capture North Korea, and the Chinese didnt threaten war, they attacked and routed the US army back to the 38th parallel. Best you can claim that one as is a draw, which isnt very good against peasant armys.
And desert fox wasnt really "police work", unless you count dropping bombs from 30,000 feet policing. And theres been a good few other interventions bigger than that since ww2.
-
I was referring to the "police work" bit, in reference to the relative amount of forces, and length of the campaign, all which were pretty small.
And you're right about China pushing us back, but the reason we didn't actually push into China was because of the war threat. My bad :)
-
Umm, the reason you didnt actually push into China was because the Chinese attacked and pushed you back when you got near the border. You were never in a position to push into China.
-
MacArthur was about to disobey direct orders and do just that. The Chinese did push him back, but he was arguing with the brass about attacking. If he had, I'm sure the outcome would've been much different.
EDIT: I'm not saying we should've, though, I'm just saying that I really do believe that the US, maybe more so today than in past times, would be more than a match for China.
-
Eh, no, the outcome wouldnt have been any different, MacArthur was never in a position to attack China for a start, and even if he had have been he had no more forces at his disposal than those the Chinese routed when they attacked. It was the longest retreat in the history of the US and they suffered 2/3 casualties. The US attacking first would have had little or no effect on the outcome. Might have resulted in more Chinese dead, but the Chinese have got plenty of people.
-
I bet George Bush could learn a lot by playing a few games of Civilization.
What profound thoughts I have :cool:
-
Not really. He'd learn that if he had enough guys or enough technology, he'd be able to win any war he wanted and it wouldn't really have much of an impact on how the rest of the world views him.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
But here's the question, if that's true---why?
He has the oil from Iraq---why does he need to go after Iran? And after Iran, North Korea? Granted, maybe he should've hit them when they first talked about their nukes, and never gone after Iraq--now that would've been a war that probably more people would've supported.
But why would he go after two countries, right next to each other? Doesn't Iraq have even more oil than Iran?
If that's true, there's gotta be something else, and it's not imperialism, before anyone says it.
emass and destroy the dogs of war before they have a chance to attempt to come at us thus restarting a Endless Waltz of one ideology/culture/political system vs another.
every other century all types of religions and cultures war'd with each other in the past such as the crusades and so forth, but nowadays, its more than just Oil, its the fact that, NK and Iran alone would be a handful. imo i believe that if things were left alone like the former European nations did prior to WW2 for exaple, these countries would eventually target every nation around them, and could possibly do a great deal of damage abroad, sophisticated or not.
another reason is, its possible, the US now has a dedicated and more profound force in the region. if you think about it, u got US troops "protecting" US assets (ie oil, blah blah), as well as have a force ready to make an example of the enemies (or made up ones) of this country just to prove a point.
Wether or not the US has backup now and in the future is irelevant, its not going to stop this man for the next 4 years from achieveing whatever goals hes setting out to achieve. and personally i think its one of those LONG TERM things where as the middle class bites the dust, the country is gonna make millions and billions of the OIL as well as new energy sources that are only decades away, and controlling a greater portion of the worlds energy. i dunnowhere this is goin its scaery now.:eek2:
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
But here's the question, if that's true---why?
He has the oil from Iraq---why does he need to go after Iran? And after Iran, North Korea? Granted, maybe he should've hit them when they first talked about their nukes, and never gone after Iraq--now that would've been a war that probably more people would've supported.
But why would he go after two countries, right next to each other? Doesn't Iraq have even more oil than Iran?
If that's true, there's gotta be something else, and it's not imperialism, before anyone says it.
Hegemony is its own end. Every empire has sought to expand and if possible, control the entire world (note that there are different ways of control, but military seems to be the oldest and surest way).
It is the nature of an empire to conquer. Any other reasons for doing so (resources for example) are secondary. Thats what they do. Even if NK and Iran were conquered, there would always be a new enemy to fight and conquer.
----
or to actually answer the question, Iran is I think the world's 2nd biggest oil exporter (after Saudi). I think. It certainly has more than Iraq.
And the name of the game is getting control of as much oil as possible, even if its not needed, just to keep it away from China. They're hoping to starve the Chinese push forward, because as China industrialized its going to need vast amount of oil. They don't have that within their own borders, so they have to look elsewhere. Which is why they signed a mutlibillion dollar oil deal with Iran. Keeping it out out of Chinese hands is I think a priority at this point.
-
Its the second biggest in opec, not sure about the world, plus it has 10% of the worlds proven reserves.
-
TEHRAN, Jan. 18 - A number of Iranian officials declared Tuesday that Iran would not be intimidated by threats, a day after President Bush refused to rule out military action against Iran if it continued to pursue nuclear weapons.
"We are not afraid of foreign enemies' threats and sanctions, since they know well that throughout its Islamic and ancient history, Iran has been no place for adventurism," Iran's former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, told the state news agency, IRNA.
Advertisement
Iran's defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, made some vague threats of his own, saying, "We have developed a might that no country can attack us because they do not have accurate information about our military capabilities," according to the Mehr news agency. "We have produced equipment at a rapid pace with the minimum investment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent force."
Mr. Rafsanjani announced in October that Iran had successfully increased the range of its missile, Shahab-3, to 1,200 miles, putting Israel, American bases in the Persian Gulf and even parts of Europe in range.
Mehr news agency, which reportedly has close ties to the office of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, boasted in non-specific terms about Iran's ability to retaliate against any attacks. "Today, the Islamic Republic has acquired massive military might, the dimensions of which still remain unknown, and is prepared to attack any intruder with a fearsome rain of fire and death," it said, according to Reuters.
Iranian officials also had more to say about an article in The New Yorker that said United States commandos have been operating inside the country since mid-2004, selecting sites for future airstrikes. The chief spokesman at Iran's national security council scoffed at the report, dismissing it as a "ridiculous bluff" and "psychological warfare against Iran."
"The entry of American commandos is not that easy, and believing this story would be naïve," state radio quoted the spokesman, Ali Aghamohammadi, as saying.
Iran's judiciary retreated on Tuesday from its threat to arrest Shirin Ebadi, the human rights lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize winner, for defying a summons to appear before a security court and said the summons was an error, a rare acknowledgment.
A judiciary spokesman, Kamal Karimirad, said Tuesday that the clerk who wrote the summons "was not experienced enough" and had failed to state the reason for the summons. The clerk also mistakenly called Ms. Ebadi to the hard-line Revolutionary Court, the branch that deals with national security, Mr. Karimirad said at a weekly news conference, ISNA, a news agency, reported.
Ms. Ebadi had described the summons as illegal.
On Monday, Ms. Ebadi boldly called on the Iranian Judiciary authorities to abolish solitary confinement. Mr. Karimirad answered that Iran no longer had solitary confinement cells.
Ms. Ebadi, 57, has had conflicts with the authorities in the past for defending political dissidents. In this case she was representing the family of an Iranian-Canadian journalist, Zahra Kazemi, who died during detention by the Iranian judiciary in 2002.
In another matter where Iran apparently shifted, the chief of the judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi, met last week with more than a dozen journalists and bloggers recently released from long solitary confinements. He promised to follow their cases and end their harassment.
From the NY times. Rather interesting seeing as how things are developing.
-
The man that has the oil rules the world..........at least they will in a few decades time when the oil supplies really begin to run dry.
-
Urrrgh
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/529430.html
-
I see they've made it through the list already. Back up to the top we go.
-
Happy days...