[Centrixo]

1. US starts on Iran, the religous factions unite and a war starts, USA are mostly religous Christian's vs Middle East's Islam. Other religons see this as a chance to exterminate the Islamists and join in, then turns into holy war with the USA, the UK is shortly forced to join making it very difficult for Europe indeed.

2. You got a war, USA vs Iran. then stupid or not Iran attacks US supplied Isreal with a nuke, the Jordanese, the Palistinian's, the Eygptian's, the Turk's and the Greek's all respond with a mass ground attack on Iran. The Pakistani's join in because they could be next in the nuking process. The Russian's launch a massive air strike against Iran. That then prompts the Koreans to launch a nuke over China to the USA while the USA is down, the Chinese and the Japanese immediatly respond by begining a mass force invasion of Korea because of ignorging what the Chinese and Japanese said about nukes.

3. You get propaganda wars on Iran and in the end, Iran starts on the USA with 5 nukes and wipes the USA out completly. then you got every other country that has nukes and wipes the Iranian's off the face of the earth with over 40 nukes.

Its a possiblity no matter how stupid. I hope the USA is fully prepared for what could happen, as an example of 3 possiblities above.

as a pointer on iraq, the USA could'nt of kept iraq anyway, the insurgents have made it clear since day one that the USA is not welcome, so far thousands of dead Americans and hundreds of dead innocent iraqi's, do you think that will stop?.
Besides that the fact remains is the USA wants a ally in the Middle East, aside Isreal, to help them point out what goes on that continent, witch means the USA have a problem. They either; stop investing in Iraq and bomb it sky high or continue the safeguard process...

[Janos]

100 posts on Failure to care imminent.

Let 'em come, why the hell would anyone post if they didn't care.

If the US bombs Iran, then what's to stop the Iranian army from rolling into Iraq and crushing the coalition forces?

Maybe the large military force that's two generations ahead of Iran?

Three Carrier groups worth of air power, and massive numbers of troops, and God knows how much armor and artillery... they'd have a fight on their hands.

And I'm not saying this is a good thing, I hate war, but the idea of Iran launching an attack on Iraq  and the massive military buildup there is kind of... preposterous.

EDIT: Black Wolf beat me.

Given that the US Army as-is can't stabilise Iraq, I doubt the arrival of a few hundred thousand Iranian troops - probably using relatively modern technology but using guerilla tactics ala the current insurgency and civil war - would be anywhere near as easy to handle as you're presuming.

Drop two or three zeroes out of that number. You simply cannot move numbers that large unless you have a lot of time or really, really incompetent opponents.
Hundreds or thousands Iranian fighters could be dangerous to coalition but for them Iraq would propably be a deadly place. You have to realize that even in Iran-Iraq war ****es frequently volunteered to fight Iranians - the threat of an external enemy always unites otherwise heterogenic country, Iraq has went through this. Also, such an act would pretty much form a legitimate casus belli for both Iraq and USA, unless Iran denies all ties with the insurgents. At that point supporting more than several thousand Iranian guerillas becomes hard, if not even impossible - and that is ignoring the local powerplay.

However, as it stands Iraq is lined up to fall straight into Iranian 'hands' anyways; the dominant political party is an offshoot of a Tehran-based anti-Saddam insurgent group (reputedly still funded and armed by the Iranians).  In the even of a war, though, I doubt the US could handle two full-scale insurgencies at once.

US does not want to occupy Iran - pretty much every single leader says it's a dumb ****ing idea, including the administration. Bombing campaign is the only option right now, with very limited SF use and absolutely no standing there.

Also, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580375,00.html

say what you want about the source, but you know the drill

[NGTM-1R]

Centrixo...what the hell are you smoking? Seriously, where do you get this kind of ****? This goes beyond merely idiotic to full-on bat**** "you're not out of your mind, you're not even out of your head, you're out of your whole friggin' body" insane.

Iran has no nukes yet. That is the point. Even if they did, Iran would never manage to successfully deliever a nuke to the US. (And five nukes is not enough to wipe the US out, much less stop the response. SSBN. Look it up.) Israel is a remote possiblity, but most Iranian methods for delievering such a weapon would be easily stopped in their tracks by the IDF.

[Centrixo]

Iran has no nukes yet. That is the point. Even if they did, Iran would never manage to successfully deliever a nuke to the US. (And five nukes is not enough to wipe the US out, much less stop the response. SSBN. Look it up.) Israel is a remote possiblity, but most Iranian methods for delievering such a weapon would be easily stopped in their tracks by the IDF.

well according to your US itellegence you thought Iraq had nukes, so il push the limits on crap like this.

[Janos]

Centrixo...what the hell are you smoking? Seriously, where do you get this kind of ****? This goes beyond merely idiotic to full-on bat**** "you're not out of your mind, you're not even out of your head, you're out of your whole friggin' body" insane.

Iran has no nukes yet. That is the point. Even if they did, Iran would never manage to successfully deliever a nuke to the US. (And five nukes is not enough to wipe the US out, much less stop the response. SSBN. Look it up.) Israel is a remote possiblity, but most Iranian methods for delievering such a weapon would be easily stopped in their tracks by the IDF.

They could always go for nonconventional ways. Smuggle a nuke somewhere etc.

However, that act would propably be self-defeating since Iran is, right now, the prime suspect if something like that happened and doing something this colossally stupid would propably lead to annihilation of their entire society and state. Nukes are a weird weapon - they are used offensively but more often they are defensive in nature. A nuke is too good bargaining chip to just waste in some prank, even the suspicion of a country possessing nukes immediately gives them more leverage in politics and makes them far less juicy target.

And oh, the conspiracy theories! They would be magnificent!

[Janos]

Iran has no nukes yet. That is the point. Even if they did, Iran would never manage to successfully deliever a nuke to the US. (And five nukes is not enough to wipe the US out, much less stop the response. SSBN. Look it up.) Israel is a remote possiblity, but most Iranian methods for delievering such a weapon would be easily stopped in their tracks by the IDF.

well according to your US itellegence you thought Iraq had nukes, so il push the limits on crap like this.

What the hell does this mean? Because someone cherry-picked unreliable intel years ago means that in completely different situation they must be wrong again? What?
You didn't even address his main point - how, where and why would Iran deliver and detonate a nuclear bomb, if they had them?

[Centrixo]

well even the most stupid point could turn out to be right, i dont see why you dont want to see this, its a very real possibility!. ok you tell me a better way then, your turn

[Janos]

well even the most stupid point could turn out to be right, i dont see why you dont want to see this, its a very real possibility!. ok you tell me a better way then, your turn

Just because something has been wrong before does not mean that in other case they will be automatically wrong. Right now, not a single credible agency says that Iran has nukes and you have said that they do. When questioned about this, you are trying to handwave your way out. We [those who think that as long as there isn't any solid or even indirect evidence of Iran aquiring nukes] cannot prove a negative and we don't have to - the burden of proof is on you to prove that Iran actually does have nukes.

Just because something MIGHT be right does not mean one should give it equal weight when discussing options and possibilities. There is a very slight possibility that we are all just a biological experiment condutcted by huge self-aware computer system we know as Jupiter. Your logic is incredible faulty and that's why we are questioning you - if you can come up with evidence about Iran's nuclear weapon program please do.

[Centrixo]

lol and you say my logic is faulty... and this supposed super computer is'nt?!
Now as it seems we are on the same lines Janos, im glad you agree with me .

[Mobius]

I want to start that betting pool. I bet 2 Euros.

[Centrixo]

yeah i bet 5 euros

[Ford Prefect]

lol and you say my logic is faulty... and this supposed super computer is'nt?!
Now as it seems we are on the same lines Janos, im glad you agree with me .

Ohhhhhhh Janos just got owned.

[Janos]

lol and you say my logic is faulty... and this supposed super computer is'nt?!
Now as it seems we are on the same lines Janos, im glad you agree with me .

Your logic is faulty. I was pointing out the fact that you said that because something is possible it should be taken seriously. Pretty much everything which is logically consistent is possible, but if your assumptions fly against the face of currently established consensus (about Iran possessing a nuclear weapon in this particular case), then no, we don't have to give equal footing to your assumptions and consider them a valid critique unless you back it up somehow.

If you are unaware of grasping this metaphor:

well even the most stupid point could turn out to be right, i dont see why you dont want to see this, its a very real possibility!. ok you tell me a better way then, your turn

There is a very slight possibility that we are all just a biological experiment condutcted by huge self-aware computer system we know as Jupiter.

,
then I don't really know what to say.

lol and you say my logic is faulty... and this supposed super computer is'nt?!
Now as it seems we are on the same lines Janos, im glad you agree with me .

Ohhhhhhh Janos just got owned.

yeah this pain makes me slit my wrists and listen to the monkees


Also I bet 2e for limited aerial campaign.

[Centrixo]

Well Janos if Iran has nukes and you didnt listen, what would you say then?
I would like to hear and see your reaction one of these days the same with ngtmgr.

if not then i have been owned, and as nothing has been found yet you and i can only speculate... so putting like that you would need to hear every single bit of talk incase it might/could be true.

[Harbinger of DOOM]

I'm hoping Bush goes for a record here. Cause I don't think there's been a single US Prez who's managed to start three wars during his term. Someone call Guiness.

Yeah, and every terrorist nuke in the world is aimed at my country just because some incompitent asshole is president.

[DeepSpace9er]

Yeah, and every terrorist nuke in the world is aimed at my country just because some incompitent asshole is president.

I believe the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole and other terrorist attacks like that occured BEFORE bush was president. Even so, it really doesnt matter why the terrorists hate us, and on that same point nothing we do will make them like us, and that worries me why people want the terrorists, who blow up members of their religious sect for PR purposes, to like us.

Amazing though how Bush the "incompetent asshole" 'tricked' the Democrats and the rest of the country into going to war.

[Mefustae]

I believe the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole and other terrorist attacks like that occured BEFORE bush was president. Even so, it really doesnt matter why the terrorists hate us, and on that same point nothing we do will make them like us, and that worries me why people want the terrorists, who blow up members of their religious sect for PR purposes, to like us.

The US has always been high on the list of targets for the simple reason that it stands as the most powerful nation in the world socially, economically and militarily. When folks from all round the world feel their calls aren't being heard, they believe blowing themselves up in public spaces of a nation like the US is the best avenue of approach to bring attention to themselves and their cause. This threat is everpresent as long as the world is subject to poverty, bloodshed, and all that bad stuff we don't like to trouble ourselves with, that much is obvious.

Now, contrary to what you have expressed, the point Harbinger was making is not that Bush is to blame for all the deluded fools who strap C4 to their chests and target the innocent, the mere idea of it is laughable. Instead, I believe he was merely highlighting the fact that the acts of the current administration has served to exacerbate the threat to his country, create what has quickly turned into both a breeding-ground for terrorists and a shining reinforcement for their beliefs/cause, and all-up made the world that much less safe for the rest of us. Granted, it is plainly false to attribute the current world-climate in this regard to Bush and his cronies alone, but it is equally false to purport he is without blame.

Amazing though how Bush the "incompetent asshole" 'tricked' the Democrats and the rest of the country into going to war.

Please. You and I both know there was a lot more to that than you make it seem.

[Centrixo]

suicide bombers & terrorists, found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” a product of internal logic, devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government's legitimacy, while increasing the legitimacy of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[6] The September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon are examples of this. Attacking the World Trade Center symbolizes that the terrorists can threaten the economic foundation of America and its capitalist ideals, and attacking the Pentagon symbolizes that America's great and prided military strength is yet vulnerable at its very core to the terrorists power.

[DeepSpace9er]

Saying that hunting down and killing these people where they live is exacerbating the problem is like saying that attacking the Japanese after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor is only going to make them more angry at us and make them want to kill us even more. Granted that the terrorists arent a nation/state but they reside in dictatorships and totalitarian nations that sponsor them. You are still implying that by hunting these people down makes us less safe.. im sorry but i just dont understand how wiping them out by the truck load makes us less safe.

[Centrixo]

You just answered you own query. By sponsors and because of that many more will rise an contine where previous terrorists failed. So yes i'm implying that.