Ghost of BiB Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Iran on Israel... Iran on Israel... Israel on Iran... This, and also the relations between the US and Iran seem to have fallen off the radar, due to Iraq. My opinion, Iran IS the clear and present danger, and also the most difficult of the middle eastern problems to solve. This is going to get much worse, before it gets better. A nuclear armed Iran is a much greater destabilizing influence than a nuclear armed North Korea (not that that is a good thing either). Tie this into the actual real definition and interpretation of what Jihad actually really means, and one has a powder keg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Let's cut the Israelis loose. Better to let the people who are forced to fight handle it than us. Let them take the beating rather than us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 Let's cut the Israelis loose. Better to let the people who are forced to fight handle it than us. Let them take the beating rather than us. 530071[/snapback] This isn't a matter of us supporting Israel. We have our own issues with Iran, beyond that. Like it or not, the US is in the position of having to be the world lead on situations detrimental to the majority. We were left holding the bag when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. We are tremendously powerful, but not omnipotent. A conflict between Israel and Iran is not going to be limited to those two - in a nuclear armed world, it becomes a concern to all. Iran is a situation requiring a coalition of support, and a follow through. It is something that the US can not handle alone. Problem is, no one else, especially Europe is willing to put their own security before their economical concerns, figuring that if Iran gets too out of hand, the US will, by default have to handle them anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 This isn't a matter of us supporting Israel. We have our own issues with Iran, beyond that. Like it or not, the US is in the position of having to be the world lead on situations detrimental to the majority. We were left holding the bag when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. We are tremendously powerful, but not omnipotent. A conflict between Israel and Iran is not going to be limited to those two - in a nuclear armed world, it becomes a concern to all. Iran is a situation requiring a coalition of support, and a follow through. It is something that the US can not handle alone. Problem is, no one else, especially Europe is willing to put their own security before their economical concerns, figuring that if Iran gets too out of hand, the US will, by default have to handle them anyway. 530084[/snapback] I don't think you understood me. Why not let Israel deal with them before they go nuclear? You don't think the Mossad has a high level of accurate information on Iran's progress. I can assure you they do. Let's face it, diplomacy is not an option when you're dealing with a nation that will lie, cheat and renege on previous agreements for the sole purpose of building the bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 .Let's face it, diplomacy is not an option when you're dealing with a nation that will lie, cheat and renege on previous agreements for the sole purpose of building the bomb. 530109[/snapback] Let's not bring France, Pakistan and India into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Let's not bring France, Pakistan and India into this. 530121[/snapback] hehe good one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Iran on Israel... Iran on Israel... Israel on Iran... This, and also the relations between the US and Iran seem to have fallen off the radar, due to Iraq. My opinion, Iran IS the clear and present danger, and also the most difficult of the middle eastern problems to solve. This is going to get much worse, before it gets better. A nuclear armed Iran is a much greater destabilizing influence than a nuclear armed North Korea (not that that is a good thing either). Tie this into the actual real definition and interpretation of what Jihad actually really means, and one has a powder keg. 530051[/snapback] What do you think the chances of this ever going hot are? I'm not saying it can't happen, but there is a little sabre rattling that is curiously N.Korea-like when the Iranian Prez talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 This isn't a matter of us supporting Israel. We have our own issues with Iran, beyond that. Like it or not, the US is in the position of having to be the world lead on situations detrimental to the majority. We were left holding the bag when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. We are tremendously powerful, but not omnipotent. A conflict between Israel and Iran is not going to be limited to those two - in a nuclear armed world, it becomes a concern to all. Iran is a situation requiring a coalition of support, and a follow through. It is something that the US can not handle alone. Problem is, no one else, especially Europe is willing to put their own security before their economical concerns, figuring that if Iran gets too out of hand, the US will, by default have to handle them anyway. 530084[/snapback] Your points are known and well-established. Doesn't make it any better. The opposition to Alaskan oil development and California and Florida offshore resources by the Democrats has been effective in keeping prices high for the purpose of hurting the current administration. The citizenry's, and the national ecomomy's expense means nothing compared to the seizure of political power. After all, what other motivation could make one say that the protection of a desolate region is more important than kissing the a** of those who daily vow to kill us? Since Europe, the new-age Russian commies, and the Asians don't give a rat's patoot, tragedy marches on. Buy a fiddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 I don't think you understood me. Why not let Israel deal with them before they go nuclear? You don't think the Mossad has a high level of accurate information on Iran's progress. I can assure you they do. Let's face it, diplomacy is not an option when you're dealing with a nation that will lie, cheat and renege on previous agreements for the sole purpose of building the bomb. 530109[/snapback] Iraq was one thing, when the Israelis took out their reactor. Iran is a different matter. First, Iran is "probably" harboring more than one facility. It is likely that some of these are underground, and hardened. Israels only ballistic missile of any consequence, is their Jericho II, and while it has the range, lacks the payload to do any real damage. The Israelis only have about 25 strike aircraft with the range to make the mission, the F-15I. It would take multiple round trip sorties to make any kind of a noticeable impact, and that would only affect visible targets. I have no idea WTF they are talking about re: a ground assault, I find it highly unlikely that anyone is going to allow them transit. Same for air to air refueling for their F-16's, much more limited range. Couple this with the Iranian's willingness to absorb a lot of punishment in order to make a point, or to further their own dubious agendas. I don't think too many people grasp the ideas that Iran has about the US, or their own self importance in things. In short, if Israel acts, Iran is going to hold the US responsible anyway. They will also get support on this from various quarters. It is likely that that would become the tripwire for an all-out terror campaign against America, and American interests. Nothing here is easy, and what we have is which "bad" or "worse" solution do we want to follow? A lot of the words are rhetoric, but Iranian workings are full of subtleties. A lot of underlying meaning. There is a real agenda going, and the nuclear issues are promoting a lot of, as described, saber rattling. Iran is well aware that no one is really going to do anything about them, and as far as nukes go, feel like they can start bragging about what they are going to buy, before the lottery numbers get called. Iran is probably the only "government" that is any threat, and of any consequence that takes Jihad to heart. Oddly, they don't like Al Qaida, nor did they like the Taliban, but are willing to make pragmatic bedfellows. Equally odd, the US did them a major favor by removing both the Taliban, and SH from power...both necessary acts in the big scheme, but once again an illustration of how complicated this crap gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Iraq was one thing, when the Israelis took out their reactor. Iran is a different matter. First, Iran is "probably" harboring more than one facility. It is likely that some of these are underground, and hardened. Israels only ballistic missile of any consequence, is their Jericho II, and while it has the range, lacks the payload to do any real damage. The Israelis only have about 25 strike aircraft with the range to make the mission, the F-15I. It would take multiple round trip sorties to make any kind of a noticeable impact, and that would only affect visible targets. I have no idea WTF they are talking about re: a ground assault, I find it highly unlikely that anyone is going to allow them transit. Same for air to air refueling for their F-16's, much more limited range. Couple this with the Iranian's willingness to absorb a lot of punishment in order to make a point, or to further their own dubious agendas. I don't think too many people grasp the ideas that Iran has about the US, or their own self importance in things. In short, if Israel acts, Iran is going to hold the US responsible anyway. They will also get support on this from various quarters. It is likely that that would become the tripwire for an all-out terror campaign against America, and American interests. Nothing here is easy, and what we have is which "bad" or "worse" solution do we want to follow? A lot of the words are rhetoric, but Iranian workings are full of subtleties. A lot of underlying meaning. There is a real agenda going, and the nuclear issues are promoting a lot of, as described, saber rattling. Iran is well aware that no one is really going to do anything about them, and as far as nukes go, feel like they can start bragging about what they are going to buy, before the lottery numbers get called. Iran is probably the only "government" that is any threat, and of any consequence that takes Jihad to heart. Oddly, they don't like Al Qaida, nor did they like the Taliban, but are willing to make pragmatic bedfellows. Equally odd, the US did them a major favor by removing both the Taliban, and SH from power...both necessary acts in the big scheme, but once again an illustration of how complicated this crap gets. 530195[/snapback] Israel would have difficulty taking out Iran's nuclear facilities, but Iran's port oil facilities would be comparatively easy - the very definition of soft target. Incuding tankers at sea...their small fleet of subs could likely take care of that, or even gypsy surface ships, and I guess only the US and the Russians have the means to stop them. And that would be an interesting situation.. Regardless, high stakes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 What do you think the chances of this ever going hot are? I'm not saying it can't happen, but there is a little sabre rattling that is curiously N.Korea-like when the Iranian Prez talks. 530136[/snapback] With the extent that they are working together on various programs, it is not a suprise that Iran sounds "North Korea-like" in their rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Incuding tankers at sea...their small fleet of subs could likely take care of that, or even gypsy surface ships, and I guess only the US and the Russians have the means to stop them. And that would be an interesting situation.. 530223[/snapback] I'll take "Things that only happen in Tom Clancy novels" for $200, Alex... Those dinky little diesel-electric Israeli boats...you going to sneak them through the Suez canal and around the Arabian peninsula? Or just sail them into the Atlantic and around South Africa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 With the extent that they are working together on various programs, it is not a suprise that Iran sounds "North Korea-like" in their rhetoric. 530236[/snapback] But they are currently in a much sounder position to capitalize on it. nK is on an island, Iran has a movement behind them. Nobody, though, can build tunnels like the nK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Let's cut the Israelis loose. Better to let the people who are forced to fight handle it than us. Let them take the beating rather than us. 530071[/snapback] fixed Better to let the people who are forced to fight handle it than us. Let them give the beating rather than us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Iran on Israel... Iran on Israel... Israel on Iran... This, and also the relations between the US and Iran seem to have fallen off the radar, due to Iraq. My opinion, Iran IS the clear and present danger, and also the most difficult of the middle eastern problems to solve. This is going to get much worse, before it gets better. A nuclear armed Iran is a much greater destabilizing influence than a nuclear armed North Korea (not that that is a good thing either). Tie this into the actual real definition and interpretation of what Jihad actually really means, and one has a powder keg. 530051[/snapback] This is a serious question...Why not a full-scale invasion? I'm not talking like what we're doing in Iraq. I'm talking full military force (i.e. "f" the innocents). Isn't it better to get them before they get us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted December 13, 2005 Author Share Posted December 13, 2005 This is a serious question...Why not a full-scale invasion? I'm not talking like what we're doing in Iraq. I'm talking full military force (i.e. "f" the innocents). Isn't it better to get them before they get us? 530610[/snapback] The short answer is, that doesn't work in the grand scheme of things, and would be almost impossible to do given the current state of affairs. Look at a map, and the size of Iran. As for bombing the oil infrastructure-one, Iran is willing to absorb that, and two-Europe would have a total meltdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 This is a serious question...Why not a full-scale invasion? I'm not talking like what we're doing in Iraq. I'm talking full military force (i.e. "f" the innocents). Isn't it better to get them before they get us? 530610[/snapback] Are you completely insane? Iran is many times the size of Iraq, both in terms of population and land-area. Where on earth would the US get the manpower for a "full-scale invasion", seeing as it is stretched by the occupation of Iraq as it is? Still, they could always introduce conscription and then you'd get to find out first-hand what it is you so casually advocate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Iran on Israel... Iran on Israel... Israel on Iran... This, and also the relations between the US and Iran seem to have fallen off the radar, due to Iraq. My opinion, Iran IS the clear and present danger, and also the most difficult of the middle eastern problems to solve. This is going to get much worse, before it gets better. A nuclear armed Iran is a much greater destabilizing influence than a nuclear armed North Korea (not that that is a good thing either). Tie this into the actual real definition and interpretation of what Jihad actually really means, and one has a powder keg. 530051[/snapback] How destabilizing would a war between Iran and Israel be? I don't think there is a muslim in the middle east who wouldn't side with Iran in such a conflict. They may have been, to a large degree, content to watch Saddam be overthrown from the sidelines but I can't beleive that the Sunni-Shiite divide is so vast that Sunnis would twiddle their thumbs while Israel and the US went to war with Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 This is a serious question...Why not a full-scale invasion? I'm not talking like what we're doing in Iraq. I'm talking full military force (i.e. "f" the innocents). Isn't it better to get them before they get us? 530610[/snapback] Unless you have discovered a way to run your car on piss, that is not such a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Are you completely insane? Iran is many times the size of Iraq, both in terms of population and land-area. Where on earth would the US get the manpower for a "full-scale invasion", seeing as it is stretched by the occupation of Iraq as it is? Still, they could always introduce conscription and then you'd get to find out first-hand what it is you so casually advocate. 530643[/snapback] Chicot, don't you understand that if you watch enough John Wayne war movies the fact of US invulnerability becomes readily apparent? We can't possibly be defeated except by internal cowardice from liberal pansies. Considering what the rest of the world might do in response let alone the oil rich muslim nations of the middle east is for panty-waist internationalist UN loving "forward thinking" Berkely bra burning fags. World War, shmerld war. Get with the program. Seriously, the idea that we could actually lose a war is just not on the right wing radar screen. It doesn't jibe with their favorite answer to every problem: kick ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts