Author Topic: War Against IRAN Pending (Read 2007 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #15 on:** February 04, 2006, 05:47:17 PM »

conformal fuel tanks

~Caligula~ · « **Reply #16 on:** February 04, 2006, 09:26:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
conformal fuel tanks

bingo!

these f16 i were put to service 2 years ago. i guess someone had a good idea of things coming.

Octavius · « **Reply #17 on:** February 04, 2006, 09:33:25 PM »

with nearly 2/3 iranian popular under 25, i think military action against iran is retarded. it was relatively close to a decent, more democratic future outside of this recent fascist ****, a favorable outcome will show itself in a matter of time... from an internal solution.

~Caligula~ · « **Reply #18 on:** February 04, 2006, 09:43:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Octavius
with nearly 2/3 iranian popular under 25, i think military action against iran is retarded. it was relatively close to a decent, more democratic future outside of this recent fascist ****, a favorable outcome will show itself in a matter of time... from an internal solution.

i hope u`re right...but i still don`t want chances taken.i live in that digraceful blob that their president`s bent on erasing from the map.

dmf · « **Reply #19 on:** February 04, 2006, 10:02:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by cpxxx
A war isn't likely for some time to come. Most likely there will be sanctions and Iran will end up even more of a pariah state. Somewhat like North Korea.

Unless Iran pops off a nuke, or some sort of chemical weapon in Isreal.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #20 on:** February 04, 2006, 10:33:32 PM »

We're about 8 months short of 5 years into operations in Afghanistan, given where it started, and what kind of shape the country was in, it hardly qualifies as a disaster. Sure, some of the upper echelon of al Queada and the Taliban are still breathing, and that's a shame. No, it isn't even close to totally secure. But a disaster? No, it isn't. We're almost three years into Iraq. Just knocking Saddam off his throne was supposed to take years and tens of thousands of casualties. It didn't. Not even close. And nine months later, he was captured. Perfect? No. Quick, clean and painless? Not hardly. But to hear everyone tell it, this is supposed to be the next "Vietnam" for the U.S. Then again, so was Afghanistan.

Now lets move to the subject at hand. Iran. Currently run by some Holocaust denying sociopath. This is a staredown. Either they blink, or they get wasted. No way the free world allows the next incarnation of Hitler to go nuclear. If the idiot hadn't already been running about screaming that the Holocaust never happened, and it was a myth used by Europe to force the Arabs to let the Jews on "Arab land", not to mention threatening to wipe "the Zionist entity" of the map forever, then maybe they could have pulled it off, maybe. They aren't going to wait till he gets a nuke and launches it on Israel. Because they can't be sure Israel will be his first target. I doubt supporting Hamas is going to get him anywhere either.

I'm not too sure the whole rest of the world isn't going to get real tired of all the crap going on pretty damned soon.

Eagler · « **Reply #21 on:** February 04, 2006, 10:34:19 PM »

imho irans plan is to play the martyr and take a hit to seriously fire up the islamic cheekboness into going the extra mile ... taking this whole thing to the next level ... we ain't talking bus or train bombs or a plane into a building or two ......

hopefully when that happens, the countries that can do something about it will have leaders in power who have the stomach to do what is needed to nip them in the bud .... it will not be pretty...

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 05, 2006, 12:32:52 AM »

Quote

with nearly 2/3 iranian popular under 25, i think military action against iran is retarded. it was relatively close to a decent, more democratic future outside of this recent fascist ****, a favorable outcome will show itself in a matter of time... from an internal solution.

If you would have payed attention to the news over the past few years, there have been countless protests and rallies PRO-DEMOCRACY by STUDENTS. If you take out the military leadership and the religious leadership, Iran would be 95% of the way into a democracy without ever setting foot in it.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #23 on:** February 05, 2006, 02:34:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by babek-
The problem is, that the situation is far more complicated.

If there is no invasion against Iran - and after the desaster in iraq or Afghanistan I doubt that there will be an allied invasion against Iran - the only other military option would be air strikes.

And this would help the mullah regime, because then the iranians will support their government against the foreign attackers.
The same happened when the arabs under Saddam attacked Iran and started the 8year Iran-Iraq War. With this action the Khomeini-regime was stabilzed, because before the attack there were many iranian parties and groups fighting for power. But when foreigner like the arabs attacked Iran all iranian groups stopped the inner-political fighting and fought against the foreigners. The same will happen here.

Also there is the question, if all iranian installations could be destroyed.
What will happen in Iraq, where the Mullahs from Teheran have extreme influence on teh iraqui shi ´ites.

Their political party - the shi´ite Alliance was the winner of the iraqi elections - despite of all attempts of the western nations to push their liberal candidate, Mr Allawi (who failed bitterly).

Actually the sunnite minority causes so much problems in Iraq.

What will happen if the religious leader of the iraqui shi´ites, Grandajatollah Sistani (by the way, he is an iranian and gets much support from Teheran), decides to help the shi ´ites brothers and sisters in Iran.

This could result in a total nightmare.

So - its really not easy.

The only effective solution would be an invasion and installation of a pro-western puppet regime.

But it seems that after Iraq there are not so many people left who would support such a solution.

Military attacks will fail - also embargos from western nations.

An embargo from China and Russia would impress Iran - but how likely is such an embargo?

Or the USA could raise their support for the MEK-terrorists, who already are operating from theire bases in Iraq and perform bomb-attacks in Iran, killing civilians.

But an open war would only help the mullahs in Teheran.

Taliban is on the run in Afghanistan. Disaster, hardly, now crawl back into your cave, I mean hole.

Karaya

lada · « **Reply #24 on:** February 05, 2006, 05:49:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by cpxxx
A war isn't likely for some time to come. Most likely there will be sanctions and Iran will end up even more of a pariah state. Somewhat like North Korea.

you should not forget, that russia and china supported voting during last session only because it doesnt impose any sanctions. Iran is very important market for them as well as for Germany and UK.

anyway i came back from iran 2 days ago... its funny how some of our brainwashed friends already living in war time.

what has babek posted is very accurate.
Even kurdish separatists will support Iranian goverment agains US.

You should not forget, what has cause the revolution.
Cheap tries like US did in Iraq and Afghanistan are not possible in Iran. Even in Iraq people voted out US brought politics.

btw. acording to latest legislation change, it will be more open for foreigners and way easier to invest money over there. I dont think, that they might become something like NK.

lada · « **Reply #25 on:** February 05, 2006, 06:27:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you would have payed attention to the news over the past few years, there have been countless protests and rallies PRO-DEMOCRACY by STUDENTS. If you take out the military leadership and the religious leadership, Iran would be 95% of the way into a democracy without ever setting foot in it.

well yes. If there is no external thread, things will change. Since Iran has been bullied, power of current regime grow up. Their reputation dont go down that fast.

Do you know who&why started "anti-shah" revolution in 79 ?

anyway i dont think, that things will change by revolution. Even contemporary supreme leader said in public, that if current president will be unable to handle coruption, people will not tolerate current "setup" anymore.

btw military leadership and religious leadership are the same. Top comander of the army is supreme leader and not the president. So if they will abandon guardian council and transfer military command to president, you will get clasic democratic model.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #26 on:** February 05, 2006, 06:44:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you would have payed attention to the news over the past few years, there have been countless protests and rallies PRO-DEMOCRACY by STUDENTS. If you take out the military leadership and the religious leadership, Iran would be 95% of the way into a democracy without ever setting foot in it.

You have forgotten or are to young to remember the brutal dictatorship of the US backed shah of Iran. Iranians hate the US. They do not want our army to invade thier country. If you really believe that they do, you are naive, at least.

lada · « **Reply #27 on:** February 05, 2006, 06:50:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Iranians hate the US.

Just to make it more exact. They hate the Goverment, not the people.

Shah was something like SH.

babek- · « **Reply #28 on:** February 05, 2006, 08:37:51 AM »

The iranians dont hate the US.

Many of them dont like the actual government because of what they see in TV from iraq and Afghanistan.

While here in the western nations the pictures of Abu Graib, where people in US-uniforms forced iraqi prisoners in pervert homosexual positions and made fotos of them are forgotten, this was still a discussed when I was in Iran in December 2005.

But they dont blame the US people for this.

And like Iada said: The Shah regime was terroristic.

There was a time when Iran could became a real democracy. That was in the 50ties, when Prime Minister Mossadegh, a noble man, deposed the Shah in a unbloody revolution and forced him to italian exile. He then started to continue to turn Iran to a democratic system.

Could you imagine how this would have stabilized the region? A non-arab nation, which created its own democracy instead of being forced to turn to something which they call democracy but which isnt.

But then the secret services of USA and UK started their Operation Ajax, Mossadegh was deposed and the Shah was reinstalled and started his terror regime.
His secret police, the SAVAK, was like the Gestapo: Tenthousands of iranian democrats were killed and tortured. The Evin-prison in Teheran was for decades the torture centre where liberal prisoners were killed. Or why do you think there was such a hate in the bloody revolution when the Shah was deposed the second time and Khomeini came? The people just wanted him thrown out. They were unlucky that the next terror regime followed and so the Evin is still in action today.

Most of the iranians dont like the actual regime. But if there is any military attack on Iran they will support it. And that would help the Council of the Guardians (if I translated it right) and their puppet Ahmadinedjad.

And most of them surely dont want help from the so called civilized nations after they saw the effect of this "help" in their neighbor countries.
iran canonly becom a real democracy if the iranians in Iran (and not these funny exiles in Los Angeles) finally succed.

And i am sure that they will win one day - without the help of foreigners.

~Caligula~ · « **Reply #29 on:** February 05, 2006, 09:01:14 AM »

the question is: when?
That "council of guardians" is wasting the country`s resorces on projects that are going to be turned into rubble. People have to reallize who`s their real enemy.