Is IRAN Next For The US Military ???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Iran would be an entirely different nut to crack. Yes, we can hit their facilities with ease, but Iran has a lot more tools at their disposal to hit back. First, it would be very easy for Iran to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, or at least make passage through there difficult and costly. That will cause a spike in oil prices like we have not seen. Iran also has some very capable missile boats equipped with the Chinese C-802 missile. These suckers are bad news, and present a very real threat to US carriers and other ships in the region.

Fortunately, Iran also has something else Iraq did not. A very real and very vocal element of the population that is clamoring for change. Iran may well be looking at another revolution before too long, the only question is whether we want to wait for that to happen, as the nuclear program will most likely see results before the youth of Iran have the power to initiate change.

Firstly, what reason is to be proposed as for why Iran should not have nuclear weapons, especially when China India Pakistan Russia and so on and so on do have them. And how can America, the creator of said bomb, and posessor of thousands of them, declare it immoral to possess them?
Click to expand...

The difference being that the US, Russia and China tend to focus on more of a strategic use of nukes, rather than a tactical use. India and Pakistan do have nukes, but not because the rest of the world was real happy about it. That just comes from countries and individuals being willing to sell out the future for a few bucks. As for Israel's possession of nukes, I would see that as more of a defensive measure than anything else. Israel does not have a stated goal of the destruction on Iran and driving its people into the sea.
 
You do know that those reactors and things do have other uses right?
Israel can have nukes as a "defensive measure" but Iran can't?

Invading Iran would be very impractical since the Iraq war's costing a packet already. Sure you could attack their facilities and destroy all their stuff and generally wreck a democratic country but why bother?

Can anyone fill me on the difference between "strategic" and "tactical" use of nuclear weapons?

God that's a lot of questions.
 
Quote:
Firstly, what reason is to be proposed as for why Iran should not have nuclear weapons, especially when China India Pakistan Russia and so on and so on do have them. And how can America, the creator of said bomb, and posessor of thousands of them, declare it immoral to possess them?

You must be a big time lefty. "It's not fair that we've got _____ and they don't. No WONDER they feel inferior. If we just give _____ to them, they'll be our friends!!!!" OK Mr. Rogers, wake up and go back to your neighborhood.

We've had nukes for over 60 years. Thousands of nukes...little ones, big ones. Only used 2 so far. Anybody think that Iran (or any of their friends) would hesitate using one for a second if they could get away with it? Now that they've got little Palestine back, they're close enough to smoke Israel. Giving away that land was a BAD move. Inviting your worst enemy into your house.

We could turn any country over there into an ashtray in 5 minutes. We choose not to. They would if they had the chance. You gotta quit believing that everyone thinks like us and has our values. That's the biggest problem with the left. "If we'd only REASON with them." Can't reason with unreasonable people. I don't hate them, but they hate us simply because we exist.

As for "lost the war in Iraq"....dude, you're listening to the wrong people. Now I realize it's not paradise, but what do you expect? Heck, we can't even agree on stuff here and we've existed for 200+ years. You want to establish a new county, constitution, and legislative structure in 90 seconds??? If one of the statistics I heard is correct, there's less people in New York than Iraq, but more people are murdered on an average day in New York than we lose in Iraq. Maybe New Yorkers should move to Iraq where it's safe.

As one of the tag lines here says, Rome wasn't the lone ruler of the known world fr 400 years because they were PC, it's because they kicked the crap out of people that opposed them and befriended those that worked with them
 
The problem is that this world problem thing is only escalating. I will not be stopped - no matter who is office as US president. The radical countries of the world, whether we are talking radical religious or redical terrorist (which for the most part the radical terrorist are radical religious), want to defy the world and tear it apart. There are countries in the world that cannot be trusted to have nuclear weapons - NOT EVEN A SINGLE NUKE!! Countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, many countries of Africa, and many other countries where the countries own people are slaughtered by their own leaders cannot be allowed to have nuclear capability. If these countries will slaughter thousands upon thousands of their own people who can they be trusted to respect life elsewhere while possessing the worlds most destructive weapon? It is not too hard to look at the current world situation and match things up with and forcast future happenings to the foretold happenings as told in the Bible and the book of Revelation. I do not see Iran backing down and cancelling their nuclear program. I do not see the US or Israel allowing Iran to continue their nuclear program and develop nuclear weapons. Iran has stated that their purpose for the nuclear program is peaceful, but what will they say if they are allowed to continue and one day annouce they have nuclear weapons? What will the world be able to do then? Will it not be too late? Should the world then live in fear of Iran and the terrorists that it supports? How soon after that will a terrorist bombing strike occur that involves a nuke taking out a city instead of bus or train? What will the world do then? Remember: An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.

We should always work towards peace, but do not be deceived and become another Neville Chamberlain coming home to England with signed peace agreement in hand to find out shortly later that "Hitler" has no intention to living up to the peace that you have claimed.

Personally I don't believe that anything will change the future so that Armageddon is avoided. I believe that we will see things comes to pass as foretold and that it will happen within my lifetime.

Luke
 
What is this hangup we have with the Middle East? North Korea is a bigger threat and is being run by a real nutcase. Yet we don't have too much to say to them. I wonder why? :scrutiny:
I agree with what another poster said. Why should Israel have nukes and Iran not?
 
The problem is that this world problem thing is only escalating. I will not be stopped - no matter who is office as US president. The radical countries of the world, whether we are talking radical religious or redical terrorist (which for the most part the radical terrorist are radical religious), want to defy the world and tear it apart. There are countries in the world that cannot be trusted to have nuclear weapons - NOT EVEN A SINGLE NUKE!!
Click to expand...
You got that right. Unfortunately, I believe you're correct. You've got nutso leaders and followers that would rather die killing their enemy than living. Only thing that hasn't fallen into place yet is China's march on the middle east. If we get into a squawk with Iran and choke off oil, I can see China massing troops on their western border and marching into Iran/Iraq and taking the oil. Once their military matches ours, what are we going to do?
 
stevelyn, there would be a total absence of interest in the middle east beyond tourism except for OIL. That's the lifeblood of the developed world. The rest of the developed world is happy as bugs that once again, Uncle Sugar is carrying the load in attempting to maintain some semblance of long-term stability. No matter what sort of political yammering against us is going on, they're happy that we're carrying the load.

In the 1970s, there was an oil tanker every eight miles between the Persian Gulf and Japan. Now, not only is Japan importing more oil, Chinese imports exceed those of Japan. Call it a "pipeline of gulps". Needless to say, the Japanese and Chinese are happy as all getout that we're working toward stability for their energy futures.

Note that the GDP of all of the mideast oil producers, except for that oil, is about the same as Finland. Add that tidbit to the reality that the governments are thugocracies, and you can readily see the problem that arises with militant Jihadism.

Art
 
No, I don't agree that North Korea is more of a threat. Kim Jong-Il wants attention, and he sees his best way of getting it to be screaming "hey, I've got nukes over here!"

Kim is an insane, deranged little man, but he's not about to give up his Mercedes-Benzs, his 20 year-old single malt whiskys, and his harem of women to send a nuke anyone's direction. The current leadership of Iran and those they are supporting, however, would love to go out in a blaze of glory if they can take several million non-believers with them.
 
Iran a "democracy"?

No. Iran is an Islamic theocracy with a democratic facade applied to calm it's people. Even the recent election of the figurehead president was likely rigged. The real power within the country lies with the mullahs who control the powerful Revolutionary Guard units who dominate the country.

Why should Israel have nukes and Iran not?

Because Israel is a close ally of the US and an actual functioning democracy seeking to defend itself from overwhelming enemy numbers. Iran is a radical Islamic state controlled by hateful mullahs that refer to the US as "the great Satan" and want to see the world dominated by their theology. An Israeli nuke is not going to be fired at the US or used to blackmail the US. An Iranian nuke will likely be used for exactly that.

Is war with Iran likely?

Yes, in some form. The so-called "war on terror" will rage for many years and Iran will be a part of that at some point. Should the Iranians develop a nuclear weapon that they can actually deploy, they become an untouchable base for all Islamic terrorists.

If we're attacking Iran why not North Korea? Isn't that hypocrisy?

Too late. Should have done that a decade ago. North Korea has already built nuclear weapons. See the above point. They are basically untouchable by direct military invasion. Any invasion force would be vulnerable to nuclear attack as would be South Korea. Our best option is to fight a cold war with N. Korea and wear them down over time as with the Soviets.

999
 
I don't think we need to worry about US forces taking on Iran anytime soon. Iran doesn't have ICBMs. I know a country that might be more concerned about Iran having nukes and they have been known to strike nuclear facilities before. If anyone is going to do a surgical strike on Iran, my money goes on Israel.

I enjoyed watching the Israeli consulate guy to the US on NBC this morning. He said straight up something like this. "We are giving peace a chance and the ball is in the Palestinians hands. Make no mistake about it Isreal is the strongest military force in the Middle East and any terror attacks will be met with extreme force." You gotta like the Israelis for their talking the talk and walking the walk.

And I believe in real politik. If Iran develops nukes, then that is their right. If Israel bombs the heck out of the Iranian program to keep it from coming on line, that is their right too. Basically force equals power in the Middle East. If you can back it up with force, you can get away with it. If you can't, you can't. And that is the way the ball bounces.
 
Something I've not seen in this discussion of Iran's nuclear program, and Bush's saber rattling over it, is the fact that by international treaty Iran is doing what it is entitled to do. As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran may...
Article IV 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html
Click to expand...
Iran has statad that they are going to resume enrichment activities, as they are entitled to do under the NPT when used for peaceful purposes. Their stated aims are domestic power generation, pharmaceutical and research purposes. In support of this statement of only peaceful intent, Iran as informed the IAEI that it intends to resume enrichment in this document (PDF file). Iran is saying "No, we are NOT building bombs. Come, inspect! Watch! Monitor!"
 
What ART said.
Should we choose to ... ahem... "liberate" Iran... :scrutiny: It'll probably be said to be a "Nukulur" non-prolif thing for terror-type regimes... but it'd really about protecting Oil interests and keeping them safe... for the children. Now whether they're Chinese children or American children, I haven't got a clue.

And the price of our gasoline will go down... just like it has since we invaded, er, liberated, Iraq. Right?

How close is Afghanistan to Iran again? Who's got troops there? And what country sits to Iran's west? Who's got troops there?

There's a name for that kind of play in chess... I forget what they call it.
 
The US shot it bolt in Iraq. No more military to burn. Doing so would require an increase in boots and that is precisely the opposite of the intentions of the ruling class. It wants to wage war without that blood and flesh thingy.

Iran may appear to be stable but it is anything but. The young generation (something like 1/2 the population) has had it right up to here with the theocratic rulers. Popular dissent is muted but present and growing.

Israel can not and will not tolerate nukes under the control of Iran's mullah's. The rhetoric from Iran is just too hot, too dangerous, and too inflamatory. Israel (and the US for that matter) just assumes as soon as nukes are available they will be used. Neither the US nor Israel can tolerate the idea of a nuclear umbrella held by Iran. The nightmare scenario is a nuclear umbrella held by Iran while various terror groups conduct their mayhem on targets. I believe the US has passed the word to whoever is listening that an WMD attack on the US will be viewed in an unfriendly manner and that our response will be breathtaking, savage, and final. A nuclear umbrella would counter threats of a credible response by the US.

If Bush is rattle the saber, he rattles someone else's. I think he just passed on a word of advice to Iran. We are the good cop and Israel is the bad cop. We will not stand in the way of whatever it is Israel intends to do should it come to that.

Finally, the taxpaying class will not tolerate another military move. Bush has no credibility absent a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem or Manhattan. We just ain't gonna buy his chicken little act again.
 
"Iran a "democracy"?

No. Iran is an Islamic theocracy with a democratic facade applied to calm it's people. Even the recent election of the figurehead president was likely rigged. The real power within the country lies with the mullahs who control the powerful Revolutionary Guard units who dominate the country."

That is so ironic you have to smilie :) Switch Mullahs with Supreme court or Federal Reserve, and Revolutionaru Guard with Federal Bureaucracy (including all agencies) and you described another country. And switch Islamic, too, of course.



"Quote:
Firstly, what reason is to be proposed as for why Iran should not have nuclear weapons, especially when China India Pakistan Russia and so on and so on do have them. And how can America, the creator of said bomb, and posessor of thousands of them, declare it immoral to possess them?

You must be a big time lefty. "It's not fair that we've got _____ and they don't. No WONDER they feel inferior. If we just give _____ to them, they'll be our friends!!!!" OK Mr. Rogers, wake up and go back to your neighborhood.

We've had nukes for over 60 years. Thousands of nukes...little ones, big ones. Only used 2 so far. Anybody think that Iran (or any of their friends) would hesitate using one for a second if they could get away with it? Now that they've got little Palestine back, they're close enough to smoke Israel. Giving away that land was a BAD move. Inviting your worst enemy into your house.

We could turn any country over there into an ashtray in 5 minutes. We choose not to. They would if they had the chance. You gotta quit believing that everyone thinks like us and has our values. That's the biggest problem with the left. "If we'd only REASON with them." Can't reason with unreasonable people. I don't hate them, but they hate us simply because we exist."

Only 2 have been used? You might want to re-count bud, here's a quick hint, what's your favorite style of women's swimwear?

Furthermore how many nuclear devices has America 'lost' over the years? How did Israel get their technology in the first place?

And why do they feel threatened? I don't understand either. Just because everyone wants to invade them or blow up their stuff with airstrikes, why would they feel threatened by that? Just because their neighbors on either side have foreign militaries in them, just because Israel has a habit of *technically illegal* surprise airstrikes against other countries in the region at the drop of a hat, because the President of the US has called them 'Evil' and said 'all options are open'. If you were not bothering anyone else, you were miding your own business, and these things happened to you, you know full well you would not see them as reasonable actions and reasonable requests from the international community.

If We were in Iran's place, by your own admission, we would 'Glass' anyone who got in our way!

And furthermore, war is cool and war is fun to watch, but it's not going to be our lazy keyboard-using asses that get smoked 16,000 feet over Tehran, now is it? You're demonstrating remarkably little regard for human life, theirs or ours. And if you consider that to be 'left' of your position then that puts you pretty far right, just about as far right as Mussolini and his party, if only I could remember their names.


And if you like the realpolitik stuff, then consider the benefits from increasing the strength of a regional player in the development of regional conflicts. If it balances power better then it's good for us.


And BTW if anyone really believes anymore that we're fighting a 'war on terror', then you're sure not showing it. Fk finding Bin Laden, Fk those guys flying planes into buildings from Suadi Arabia, we've got the attention spans of 10-year-olds, now show us more footage from bomb-cameras. We don't care if it will obviously create more terrorists who will make our live more hellish, we just want the hollow vanity of a military victory, no matter what the cost.

If it feels good, right now, then let's do it right now. Forget about the furture, we'll worry about getting our next 'fix' later.
 
The US shot it bolt in Iraq. No more military to burn. Doing so would require an increase in boots and that is precisely the opposite of the intentions of the ruling class. It wants to wage war without that blood and flesh thingy.

Iran may appear to be stable but it is anything but. The young generation (something like 1/2 the population) has had it right up to here with the theocratic rulers. Popular dissent is muted but present and growing.

Israel can not and will not tolerate nukes under the control of Iran's mullah's. The rhetoric from Iran is just too hot, too dangerous, and too inflamatory. Israel (and the US for that matter) just assumes as soon as nukes are available they will be used. Neither the US nor Israel can tolerate the idea of a nuclear umbrella held by Iran. The nightmare scenario is a nuclear umbrella held by Iran while various terror groups conduct their mayhem on targets. I believe the US has passed the word to whoever is listening that an WMD attack on the US will be viewed in an unfriendly manner and that our response will be breathtaking, savage, and final. A nuclear umbrella would counter threats of a credible response by the US.

If Bush is rattle the saber, he rattles someone else's. I think he just passed on a word of advice to Iran. We are the good cop and Israel is the bad cop. We will not stand in the way of whatever it is Israel intends to do should it come to that.

Finally, the taxpaying class will not tolerate another military move. Bush has no credibility absent a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem or Manhattan. We just ain't gonna buy his chicken little act again.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you have an opinion. Everyone is entitled to one. With all fingers in the world pointing at Iraq NBC programs what would you do?
In a post 9-11 world the question should be could the United States afford not to take action in Iraq?

Nothing easy is ever worth anything.
 
Only Congress can declare "war."

...and those traitorous jackasses have not been able to do so since WWII. (Which could be a whole other thread on why that blood-bath occurred.)

Smirk is kicking it in Crawford, while American kids, latino hessians, and over-paid "contractors" are dying daily in Iraq...not to even speak of the all the Iraqii civilians that are being killed, or all the DU posioning that will affect everyone in that "theater."

May God help us all.

We need it, badly, and quickly.
 
"We've already lost in Iraq", you silly Liberals only wish. :rolleyes: Tell that too our troops kicking ass on a daily basis and the Iraqi soldiers and policeman that are dying, so that their country can have a future. Democracy takes time and liberals like two-year olds are very impatient. As for Iran, I think Bush was hoping that the masses of Iranians who want change will be able to overthrow the mullahs before they get nukes. I'll tell you this, Israel will not allow Iran to get nukes. They ain't like us, Russia, China, or even North Korea, those mullahs would gladly commit nation suicide if it meant they were the ones that got to destroy Israel or take out L.A., Miami, etc. Among many reasons we went into Iraq, was strategic, too have a landing point to start a change in a culture that hasn't had it in hundreds of years, a plus was taking out a murdering dictator. Also now that we are surrounding Iran from both sides, that my friends is "checkmate". ;)
 
Well I see that just about everyone but our two local Islamic supporters and terror apologist agree that Iran should not be allowed to possess Nukes.


Oh yea, for energy purposes? Don't they have a 130.8 billion bbl oil reserve and 26.7 trillion cubic meter natural gas reserve? Yea, this is all for the need of nuclear energy. :rolleyes:
 
"[Iran]ain't like us, Russia, China, or even North Korea, those mullahs would gladly commit nation suicide if it meant they were the ones that got to destroy Israel or take out L.A., Miami, etc."

I understand that they are different, quite different, and they're more religious than the average person over here, and their religion is used by suicide bombers and that does taint it more than a bit. But I don't see evidence why they would act as you say.

Did you know that they had an entire airliner shot down, full of passengers, by an American warship?

If an Iranian suicide bomber got on an American airliner full of families and blew it up, we'd think a lot less of Iran - no matter how they explained it. If the bomber was a marginalized outcast with no relation to the actualy way Iran is, we'd still blame Iran. But they didn't respond by attacking the ship, they took it. And you can bet they bitched a lot, and they won't forget it easily, but they did not act in the irrational manner you suggest. It is really evidence that helps explain Why they feel as they do, and also helps show they are not an irrational suicide state.

And combine this with the other grievances, like previously mentioned hundreds of thousands of dead from chemical weapons that America gave Iraq, out of spite, to use against Iran.

And then the supply of Israel with nuclear weapons, and the denial of anyone else to have them, you have to know this is going to really piss them off. But it doesn't make them a suicide state, it makes them a pissed-off state that has been attacked with chemical weapons and is being over-flown by F-16s and has a constitution and follows their constitution, but knows they will be attacked and overthrown if they let their guard down.


If we really want to take out Iran it will keep, they won't be a threat to us - ever, almost. Why not finish the war on drugs and the war on terrorism and the war on the constitution first, and Then worry about Iran? Everyone knows that dirty bombs are the real threat, not terrorists with suitcase nukes, anyway. They're a thousand times more likely to be acquired, they're just as deadly, almost (less people die in the blast, but they die from breathing in fallout so same difference). And well that's that. So the terrorists are the threat, Iran won't be giving them nukes, let's get the terrorists and not Iran. We can always get Iran later, but let's cool off and think cooly first.
 
Just wondering....

if a guy will strap dynamite to himself to blow up 3 Jews, Americans, or just people that disagree with him, I wonder why he wouldn't use a nuke instead??? Could take out 300,000 instead of just 3.

If we really want to take out Iran it will keep, they won't be a threat to us - ever, almost. Why not finish the war on drugs and the war on terrorism and the war on the constitution first, and Then worry about Iran?
Click to expand...

You gotta be kidding. This comes from the same guys that are whining because Bush isn't doing anything about N Korea. Ounce of prevention and all that....

Remember, it was your buddy Clinton that sold nukes to N Korea for under the table campaign contributions at the Buddhist temple
 
Going after Iran is a whole nother animal that what we are doing in Iraq. Iran can throw some things at us that Iraq could only dream about.
 
"Remember, it was your buddy Clinton that sold nukes to N Korea for under the table campaign contributions at the Buddhist temple"

He's not my buddy, and I wasn't aware of this anyway.

And I think I figured it out. Most people are afraid that the stuff we do to other countries is going to happen to us! That's why I see stuff like "They aren't normal, they don't think like us." and "They'll give the weapons to terrorists to use against us." and "They'll use their weapons against anyone within range as soon as they get them."

I think I cracked the case! We're attributing OUR worst traits to others, instead of doing some quite reflection and admitting that what we fear the most is actually ourselves! We gave WMDs to terrorists to use against Iran, We use WMDs as soon as we develop them on Japan or Vietnam, We use unconventional means, which could be called terrorist, to train guerilla armies and to forment political upheavel behind countries borders. It's US you're afraid of!

Back to realpolitik - you don't have to be afraid of us, well ok in a domestic view you do have to, but internationally China and Russia are the only ones on the level to put our teachings to work. And we've maneuvered wisely so that this won't happen against us for a good while. And in all seriousness, the more the government cracks down on our freedom the stronger our country becomes, internationally. The more centralized the control of domestic information is, the more nationalistic and gullible the populace is, the more other countries will fear and respect us. So there's really little to worry about in the short or medium term. And if you worry about terrorism, don't, because the actual odds of being injured are miniscule, and every attack simply makes the country stronger in the international community. It becomes less fun to live in, but if stong is what you like then you have to like what we're getting.
 
Golly, joejojoba111.....

You're spinning so fast that you're getting dizzy! :eek:

In keeping with the binomial of your namesake, Simmondsia chinensis,
you appear to be confused as to your true nativity. :D

*********************************************************
Jojoba has been assigned the name Simmondsia chinensis by the botanical world. The name however comes about by an error. Link, a botanist, traveled around the world collecting seeds and plants to catalog and describe. By mistake he got the seeds of the jojoba plant mixed up with seeds that he had collected in China hence the chinensis. International rules of nomenclature state that a plant once given a name is stuck with it. Jojoba did not occur in China naturally."
http://www.armchair.com/warp/jojoba1.html
*********************************************************

My guess is that "W" is (correctly) utilizing the U.S. 'checkmate' of Iran to push Iran away from developing nuclear weaponry - despite the recent and, I suspect, temporary political success of the hard-liners in Iran. If the U.S. can facilitate the dissent of that large part of Iranian society which is fed-up with hardline Islamic theocracy without actually using military force in the process, all the better.

Israel will certainly be happy to do the deed of closing down Iran's capability if needed.

If Iran's hardliners prove to be obtuse, things will be happening sooner rather than later.

As Art notes, the rest of the world is very glad to have Uncle Sugar footing the bill to provide stability in their energy supply.

We surely do live in interesting times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Israel to Nuke Iran...
Replies
17
Views
845
Jeff White
J
D
  • Locked
nuclear strike against Iran?
2 3 4 5
Replies
120
Views
4K
lbmii
L
R
  • Locked
Putin: Iran could conduct enrichment in Russia
Replies
13
Views
608
tulsamal
T
A
  • Locked
U.N. Agency Still Probing Iran's Enriched Uranium
Replies
2
Views
355
corncob
C
roo_ster
  • Locked
Iran Already Has Nukes?
2 3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
4K
Coronach
C
Back
Top