Author Topic: Military Force against Iran (Read 1937 times)

DoctorYO · « **Reply #60 on:** September 24, 2004, 12:42:16 PM »

we hit their nuke capability they invade iraq and afgan at same time...(minimal western boarder of afgan and pump up the warlords) That would be tactically sound repsonse.. and force a all out invasion knowing we are stretched thin.. Then pump money into Iraq (shia) to start a Civil War.. We would be Fubar.. Short term they would quagmire us.. Long term we would work them over and in doing so would spread more hatred that the USA is attacking islam..

Then the escalation would happen..

Iran would lob some death israels way either chemical or nuke and then ww3

Iran's holding the cards.. we hit their facilites i got 3 to 1 they conterattack especially with our forces in the region within arms reach.. read your history on the persians they are not knumbskulls.. and this nuke crapola is a power play for the region..

My opinion is contain Iran until our forces have withdrawn from iraq.

Then if they still are lying, (about peaceful nuclear energy) go coalition on them...

DoctorYo

Seeker · « **Reply #61 on:** September 24, 2004, 01:46:30 PM »

I think any more countries getting nukes is both sad and wrong; and I'd hope diplomacy could halt it.

I also think an American strike would be both successfull; and very wrong, both moraly and pragmaticaly.

Moraly; because if being peacefull means anything; it means an end to first strikes.

Pragmaticaly; because the current fight is against international terrorism; not national state regimes (though of course they can be interwined); American is not at present under a clear and present danger from _the_state_ of Iran (we're not talking crazy rich *******s with a miny private army; we're talking a "proper" full state project) and the aftermath would not advance American aims in the region.

It's accepted that any percieved threat against the _purported_ Iranian arsenal is Isreali? Has Iran ever made first strike threats against Isreal (honest question; I really don't know).

What treaties has Isreal signed as a nuclear power? Sholtz? Bueller?

Squire · « **Reply #62 on:** September 24, 2004, 08:10:36 PM »

Making a lot out of a single F-117 being lost dont you think? I mean, use them long enough one is going to be lost, even due to mechanical failure...they aren't magical planes.

How many went down in the last 2 Gulf Wars?

As for the Iranian Air Defence they have no experience at all dealing with a western air force using tried and true tactics against them, the Iraqi's were hardly much of a test in their latest war, 2 decades ago. Their new equipment is fine and dandy, they have no experience using it, and they would be up against some of the best a/c and crews in the world. Its the same old same old, you cant just "buy" a country a bunch of Migs, MBTs, and SAMs, and expect them to put up a decent fight. We saw that in the 1st Gulf War, didn't we?

NUKE · « **Reply #63 on:** September 24, 2004, 10:48:48 PM »

GScholz KNOWS personally how the F-117 went down.

NUKE · « **Reply #64 on:** September 24, 2004, 10:56:16 PM »

"They are also not "officially" a nuclear power, but everyone knows they've got them since they've set off a few in tests. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, the French are responsible for giving them all they needed for nukes by 1958

The French also helped Iraq build it's reactor.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #65 on:** September 24, 2004, 10:57:46 PM »

I think any more countries getting nukes is both sad and wrong; and I'd hope diplomacy could halt it.

I also think an American strike would be both successfull; and very wrong, both moraly and pragmaticaly.

Moraly; because if being peacefull means anything; it means an end to first strikes.

Pragmaticaly; because the current fight is against international terrorism; not national state regimes (though of course they can be interwined); American is not at present under a clear and present danger from _the_state_ of Iran (we're not talking crazy rich *******s with a miny private army; we're talking a "proper" full state project) and the aftermath would not advance American aims in the region.

It's accepted that any percieved threat against the _purported_ Iranian arsenal is Isreali? Has Iran ever made first strike threats against Isreal (honest question; I really don't know).

What treaties has Isreal signed as a nuclear power? Sholtz? Bueller?
-------------------------------------------------------------

seeker I think the majority of the concern w/ Iran and nukes is not so much that they'll use them but that they cannot control them.

It is an unstable region and whos to say that they (nukes) end up in the wrong party's hands. I do beleive that is the biggest concern.

Besides us what's stopping them from nuking Baghdad and controling a huge chunk of the ME.

What's stopping them from handing a few nukes over to well trained cell with the garuntee they'll go off in washington.

Nash · « **Reply #66 on:** September 24, 2004, 11:02:01 PM »

Y'all have a pretty weird take on Iran.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #67 on:** September 24, 2004, 11:10:15 PM »

Y'all have a pretty weird take on Iran.
------------------------------------------------------

why so? Do you want them to have nukes?

Nash · « **Reply #68 on:** September 24, 2004, 11:15:01 PM »

Like I said before, no... I don't want them to have Nukes.

One more country having them is one more too many.

But like, these people in Iran are not your enemy.

NUKE · « **Reply #69 on:** September 24, 2004, 11:20:52 PM »

"Originally posted by Nash
Like I said before, no... I don't want them to have Nukes.

One more country having them is one more too many.

But like, these people in Iran are not your enemy. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nash, the people of any nation are never the enemy, it's always the government that runs the country.

The people of Iran are not our enemy, but the rulers definatley are a threat and we need to make sure they do not get their hands on nukes.

Nash · « **Reply #70 on:** September 24, 2004, 11:31:25 PM »

Yeah... real big threat...

You gotta understand...

These Iranians have been at war with Iraq for ages.

Do you think, that perhaps, they saw in Iraq what you did?

The only reason you were on Iraq's side during the war against Iran is that you had flipper floppered the whole relationship so many times that by the time the arrow landed on Iraq, the war was afoot.

NUKE · « **Reply #71 on:** September 24, 2004, 11:34:41 PM »

If Iran had nukes, they would be a huge threat. Iraq tried their best to invade them and failed.

Now Iraq is weak.

Nash · « **Reply #72 on:** September 24, 2004, 11:36:36 PM »

More than Pakistan or India or North Korea.

Explain the sudden urgency to get medieval.

Nash · « **Reply #73 on:** September 24, 2004, 11:38:21 PM »

sigh... we're at the rapid-fire portion of tonight's episode.

Please edit your posts for spelling only.

Thank you.

NUKE · « **Reply #74 on:** September 24, 2004, 11:39:30 PM »

what Nash?