Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on September 18, 2004, 02:27:43 PM
-
U.N. Orders Iran to Suspend Nuke Program
It's serious now, the UN is involved. I'll bet the UN is capable of writing hundreds of more demands too, just in case Iran doesn't comply.
Of course, force would never be an option if the UN's demands are not met, so Iran has no reason to agree to any UN demand.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next twelve years.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040918/D8568FG00.html
-
Oh ya the U.N. is really gonna shake a mad finger at um now. I am sure they are just cowering in fear.
-
Prolly just as scared as if the US was "shaking a mad finger at um" ;)
nice bate btw NUKE... ill give it a 7,5 on the Nuke-o-meter :D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Prolly just as scared as if the US was "shaking a mad finger at um" ;)
nice bate btw NUKE... ill give it a 7,5 on the Nuke-o-meter :D
I'm making a valid point. The point being the the UN holds no power and demands no respect because they refuse to enforce their demands with force when required.
This has led to a situation in which NOBODY cares what the UN demands.
Here is my future vision, as I gaze into my crystal ball:
1. Iran will ignore the UN or simply lie to them
2. Iran will continue to work on Nukes
3. When it's apparent that Iran is close to a nuke, Israel, the US or both will be the only nations that will act to prevent it.
The UN knows Iran is building nukes, so you'd think they would back up their demands with force. Maybe they will this time, but as of now I wouldn't count on the UN to do anything other than author more documents in their publishing house.
-
mhm...
i bet this thread will get long :)
-
Nilsen, if you look at the UN in the past 10-15 years, you KNOW Nuke is correct on this one.
No brainer, its as simple as knowing your history. Though, I think the US should stay out of this one. This way, Europe may decide to vote for minimizing the threat rather than just leaving the US holding the bag.
Reverse psychology you could say...
-
Wouldn't it be cool to have a war with UN support?:)
-
mhm...
enjoy.. i stopped taking part in this kind of debates almost a year ago. They only end up the same way and nobody changes their view anyways so..enjoy :)
-
Hard to imagine how a country like Iran which had a democracy and parliment back in the 50's could be in such dire straits today.
Oil, it's the worst enemy of democracy.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Hard to imagine how a country like Iran which had a democracy and parliment back in the 50's could be in such dire straits today.
Oil, it's the worst enemy of democracy.
Fundamentalist Muslims is how it happened...not Oil
UN making demands..:rofl
How can anybody take the UN seriously? What power do they really have?
-
Originally posted by Torque
Hard to imagine how a country like Iran which had a democracy and parliment back in the 50's could be in such dire straits today.
Oil, it's the worst enemy of democracy.
It still has one of the most progressed democracies of muslim countries.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Fundamentalist Muslims is how it happened...not Oil
UN making demands..:rofl
How can anybody take the UN seriously? What power do they really have?
Fundamentalists are behind the mess the world is in.
-
Originally posted by mora
Fundamentalists are behind the mess the world is in.
The question was who cause Iran to be the way it is...not the world.
Of course if you want to get into that..which group has caused the heinous acts in recent history in the name of their religon?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next twelve years.
12 years? i say 1 year.
i'm sure Iran unlike Iraq have WMD ready.
The west was watching Iraq the last decade, and Iran
had all the time to build what they want.
Iran is a different caliber, this can go really dirty.
-
Can someone explain to me why North Korea, who admits having Nukes, and is part of the Axis of Evil hasn't been invaded yet?
-
My fingers are itching to type something :D
-
Originally posted by Chortle
Can someone explain to me why North Korea, who admits having Nukes, and is part of the Axis of Evil hasn't been invaded yet?
umm, you first. Go ahead and invade a country with nuclear weapons and long range missles.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
The question was who cause Iran to be the way it is...not the world.
Of course if you want to get into that..which group has caused the heinous acts in recent history in the name of their religon?
I admit I was slightly off topic there, although a discussion that stays strictly on topic is usually pretty dull.
What time frame are we talking about? I can think of heinous acts comitted by almost all the major religions.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
Can someone explain to me why North Korea, who admits having Nukes, and is part of the Axis of Evil hasn't been invaded yet?
Maybe the million-plus casualties that would ensue?
-
well one things for sure. since the shocking news that intelligence gathering isnt 100% accurate wed better not dare lift a finger against iran until either un see a nuclear weapon with own eyes or iran test detonate a nuke. im sure all the america haters agree that its best to give iran benefit of doubt. theyd never develop a nuke weapon without un permission.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
Can someone explain to me why North Korea, who admits having Nukes, and is part of the Axis of Evil hasn't been invaded yet?
do a teensy bit of reading on strat situation of n korea and balance of military forces. info available all over web. it will keep you from spouting party line in the face of common wisdom and knolwedge.
-
lol.. great stuff folks.. keep it up :)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Maybe the million-plus casualties that would ensue?
they dont give a flying screw about a million dead s korea civvies funked1. attack the decision to go into iraq no matter the cost and no matter how stupid the comparisons and questions seem to those who have even moderate grasp on world situation. you know the drill.
-
I say, let the french be the ones to send troops into iran.
yeah.. thats it. hehehe.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
lol.. great stuff folks.. keep it up :)
nilsen what do you see happening over next five years if or when iran announces they have nuclear weapons and long range missile to deliver those weapons. also do you trust current govt of iran to prevent iranian nuclear weapon from "falling into wrong hands"? really interested in your answers to these questions take your time.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
mhm...
enjoy.. i stopped taking part in this kind of debates almost a year ago. They only end up the same way and nobody changes their view anyways so..enjoy :)
just in here for the show :)
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Fundamentalist Muslims is how it happened...not Oil
Ah, that's right it had nothing to do with the CIA coup in '53 which took away democracy from the Iranians and install a vicious dictator the Shah, who then went on a killing spree for some thirty years.
Silly Mosaddeq, thinking he could nationalize his country's oil reserves and have a democracy.
Christians In Action... what was that about religions?
-
Now ya done gone and messed up a good thing Torque. There was never any room in this topic for facts and I for one cannot fathom your illogical introduction of them.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Ah, that's right it had nothing to do with the CIA coup in '53...
Don't forget British intellegence... It was a joint operation.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Don't forget British intellegence... It was a joint operation.
last time i did something under the influence of a joint i made some mistakes :)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
It's serious now, the UN is involved. I'll bet the UN is capable of writing hundreds of more demands too, just in case Iran doesn't comply.
So much for Bush putting the fear of god into the region eh?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
So much for Bush putting the fear of god into the region eh?
Please stop calling him Bush! Its an insult to all shrubs everywhere :D
-
Here is my future vision, as I gaze into my crystal ball:
1. Iran will ignore the UN or simply lie to them
Yes.
2. Iran will continue to work on Nukes
Probably.
3. When it's apparent that Iran is close to a nuke, Israel, the US or both will be the only nations that will act to prevent it.
Israel probably hasn't got the capability, and America is too embroiled in Iraq to tackle Iran.
The only option that's likely to succeed would be sanctions, but that means stopping Iran (one of the top 5 oild producers) exporting oil, and that's out of the question with the current oil supply situation.
Iran has pretty much got a free hand for the next year or two, and by then they'll probably have nukes.
Iran knows it, too. Before and just after the Iraq invasion, Iran talked of opening their nuclear program to outide inspection, and sounded much more moderate. Since it became clear the Americans were fully occupied in Iraq, Iran has sounded much more hardline.
-
Originally posted by Westy
Now ya done gone and messed up a good thing Torque. There was never any room in this topic for facts and I for one cannot fathom your illogical introduction of them.
Westy,
What are we going to do about this problem? Logic and facts are really making it hard on some of our friends in here:)
:D
-
If you think the UN is going to do anything but pass resolutions think again.
You want proof....just look at Sudan. Widespread genocide has been going on there for quite some time now and all that the UN is doing is telling them to stop and forming a committee to decide what inaction they should take next.
-
The UN's only power lies in cooperation amongsnt all Nations...It's a useless gesture....personally I think the US should withdrawl alltogether..who need a bunch of foreigners trying to tell us what is legal or what is right and wrong..International law is a farce who's gonna inforce it?.
-
lol
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
lol
whats so funny? It's true
-
Any guess as to the year we see a mushroom cloud over some city somewhere.
Maybe the Chechens and O.B.L get them at the same time so what, N.Y.C and Moscow go poof.
I think about 2 years or so if we let them keep at it, what do you think?
Kind sad, we survived the cold war due to evolution and for what to be popped by some guy for his God.... crap!
-
Originally posted by anonymous
do a teensy bit of reading on strat situation of n korea and balance of military forces. info available all over web. it will keep you from spouting party line in the face of common wisdom and knolwedge.
I have taken your advice but have yet to find which party I belong to.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Israel probably hasn't got the capability, and America is too embroiled in Iraq to tackle Iran.
Wasnt it Israel who attacked an Iraqi Nuke Plant/Factory back in 1983? or was it 1985? before it came online.
Israel does have the capability, well, at least the capability to send a couple LGB's down the stacks at some Iranian Nuke Plant.
If Israel is worried about the situation in Iran, and I bet they are, they will act, and they will succeed.
-
The problem with Iran is that they do not have "one" location that can be attacked...they have it spread all over the country.
Israel has many nukes and may soon have subs able to launch nukes. Israel will not take a chance on letting Iran obtain nuclear weapons. The situation is not good.
If Iran has to be forced to give uo it's programs, it's going to be an all out war, not just a strike.
-
Wasnt it Israel who attacked an Iraqi Nuke Plant/Factory back in 1983? or was it 1985? before it came online.
It was Israel...and Iran.
Iran co-operated on those strikes with Israel, and bombed some other Iraqi facilities as well.
The Iranians seem to have learnt something from that. Thieir most important facility, the enrichment plant, is located partly underground.
Probably the most important parts, the bits they want to hide, are wholly underground.
That makes bombing difficult, as does the range. The Iraqi facilities were much closer to Israel, the Iranian facilities are about 1,0000 km as the crow flies.
Any Israeli attack on Iran also has to overfly Iraq, which means the US has to agree to it, which is unlikely with US troops on the ground in Iraq.
Israel has many nukes and may soon have subs able to launch nukes. Israel will not take a chance on letting Iran obtain nuclear weapons. The situation is not good.
Israel will not use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike on a wide scale, and I doubt they'd use them in a strike against a single target.
If Israel uses nukes first, it becomes a pariah and endagers it's own future far more than Iranian nukes would.
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
Wasnt it Israel who attacked an Iraqi Nuke Plant/Factory back in 1983? or was it 1985? before it came online.
Israel does have the capability, well, at least the capability to send a couple LGB's down the stacks at some Iranian Nuke Plant.
If Israel is worried about the situation in Iran, and I bet they are, they will act, and they will succeed.
I'm not sure if just airstrikes would work against Iran since it's nuclear programe is spread out all over the place and much more advanced then Iraq's was. Plus some of those targets are in/near major population areas. So strikes at the stage they are would risk mass radiation etc.
But some strikes to cripple key instilations would be better then just waiting for the UN to decide what to do on the matter while Iran puts the finishing touches to it's new missiles.
Agree with Nuke, whole UN and waiting for what ever to be decided is just wasting time. Unfortunetly they have probably gone to far in their programe as it is. Plus anyone who believes their nuclear programe is just for nuclear power must be from mars.
Will be interesting to see how Russia would react as well, epecially since Beslan and their change of tact on terroism. Whether they would condem strikes against Iran or not.
Whoever and whatever is decided about Iran can't come soon enough imho.
...-Gixer
-
Hey ya Torque, got a question,
You said oil was an evil thing for us.Well what is your alternative? No oil and you and us will be in the worst depreesion ever. I think most of us would starve in no less than 60 days . Oil isnt evil people are.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
mhm...
i bet this thread will get long :)
Gee, ya THINK!? :p
-
The United States of America created Iran. You reap what you sow.
we did? How many other countries did we create? We have only been around just over 200 years. What about the British? Didn't they create the colonies? I guess it's really all the Brits fault. :lol
GScholz, you are too smart to believe that.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The USA destroyed a democratic Iran and inserted a dictator in its place. The people turned to the religious fanatics who finally dethroned him, replacing him with a theocracy. Whiteout your meddling Iran would have been a thriving democracy.
However I recant my previous statement. You do not reap what you sow. The Iranians did.
So, since 1953 the US has had an active presence in Iran which has controlled it, resulting in chaos ever since? I don't recall any US troops controlling Iran.
How come Germany and Japan seemed to survive okay? They acually were occupied.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You didn't place dictators in power in Germany and Japan Nuke. You did in Iran. Why are you so dumb Nuke? Seriously?
We never had control over Iran. Why are you so dumb? You think we influenced Iran 1953 ?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You staged a coup and deposed a democratic government and inserted a dictator in it place. Yeah I'd call that "influence".
So, if it's that easy, why can't we do that in Iraq?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Because Iraq already had a dictator. Dictators are a lot more difficult to overthrow.
The facts are indisputable. You instigated and funded the deliberate overthrow of a democratic government and created a dictatorship in Iran, and a brutal one at that.
The democracy that was overthrown was not any better and close to collapse...given the choice of the shah and the fundamentalists poised to take power , we chose the lesser of two evils.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Because Iraq already had a dictator. Dictators are a lot more difficult to overthrow.
The facts are indisputable. You instigated and funded the deliberate overthrow of a democratic government and created a dictatorship in Iran, and a brutal one at that.
Hey, doesn't the logic of people like you suggest that dictators are in power simply because the people wont rise against them?
GSholz, the Iranian Shaw has not been in power since the 1970's. How does the US matter now? The people of Iran have spoken....correct? They have what they want now, correct?
-
Nuke: We never had control over Iran. Why are you so dumb? You think we influenced Iran 1953 ?
GScholz: The facts are indisputable. You instigated and funded the deliberate overthrow of a democratic government and created a dictatorship in Iran, and a brutal one at that.
Nuke: GSholz, the Iranian Shaw has not been in power since the 1970's. How does the US matter now? The people of Iran have spoken....correct?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by GScholz
*lol* Nice story. Too bad it is just a story and not history.
The people of Iran got rid of the evil Shaw in the late seventies. The People of Iran have made their choice...correct? Who are we to say the made a bad choice?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So, if it's that easy, why can't we do that in Iraq?
You did twice once in '63 and also in '68, which installed the Baath party and ultimately Saddam. At that time they had only a mere 850 members. Not only that but you gave the Baathists a list of some 5000 civillians who were to be tortured and killed right after the coup.
-
okay I got my history wrong..I must have been thinking of something similar but elsewhere..
US & CIA in Iran 1953 (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Iran_CIAHits.html)
Regardless...The people that have control now are nutjobs and need to be stopped...maybe not by force..Iran is not Iraq and would prove much harder to topple..Iran just needs to realize that they don't need a nuclear weapons program..who is their threat? US?..not really.....US relations with Iran were actually warming quite a bit before 9/11, but have cooled since they are known to harbor and support terrorism...The Navy doesn't even get nervous going through the straits of Hormuz anymore passing under their coastal defenses. Their ships are polite and friendly on the seas also..quite a change from the late 70's and early 80's..and they don't use aircraft in a provoking manner anymore..
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nuke: We never had control over Iran. Why are you so dumb? You think we influenced Iran 1953 ?
GScholz: The facts are indisputable. You instigated and funded the deliberate overthrow of a democratic government and created a dictatorship in Iran, and a brutal one at that.
Nuke: GSholz, the Iranian Shaw has not been in power since the 1970's. How does the US matter now? The people of Iran have spoken....correct?
:rofl
I dont get it?
When has the US controled Iran? The Shaw was taken out in the late seventies by the people of Iran. The people of Iran now have the government they wished for.
-
okay I got my history wrong..I must have been thinking of something similar but elsewhere..
US & CIA in Iran 1953 (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Iran_CIAHits.html)
Regardless...The people that have control now are nutjobs and need to be stopped...maybe not by force..Iran is not Iraq and would prove much harder to topple..Iran just needs to realize that they don't need a nuclear weapons program..who is their threat? US?..not really.....US relations with Iran were actually warming quite a bit before 9/11, but have cooled since they are known to harbor and support terrorism...The Navy doesn't even get nervous going through the straits of Hormuz anymore passing under their coastal defenses. Their ships are polite and friendly on the seas also..quite a change from the late 70's and early 80's..and they don't use aircraft in a provoking manner anymore..
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes Nuke. Who are you to say anything about Iran ... you know like you do in this thread?
lol, you think I'm "dumb" ?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why doesn't Iran need nuclear weapons? Why does anyone need nuclear weapons?
Your beloved UN says they shouldn't have them, isnt that a good enough reason?
-
Update:
Nuke: We never had control over Iran. Why are you so dumb? You think we influenced Iran 1953 ?
GScholz: You staged a coup and deposed a democratic government and inserted a dictator in it place. Yeah I'd call that "influence".
Nuke: GSholz, the Iranian Shaw has not been in power since the 1970's. How does the US matter now? The people of Iran have spoken....correct?
GScholz:The facts are indisputable. You instigated and funded the deliberate overthrow of a democratic government and created a dictatorship in Iran, and a brutal one at that.
Nuke: So, if it's that easy, why can't we do that in Iraq?
Torque: You did twice once in '63 and also in '68, which installed the Baath party and ultimately Saddam. At that time they had only a mere 850 members. Not only that but you gave the Baathists a list of some 5000 civillians who were to be tortured and killed right after the coup.
-
No one should need nukes anymore...the problem is that the two major nuke powers were responsible enough to know that a nuke war was useless. Iran is not.. one country with one nuke is just a loose cannon..especially when that country is known for causing trouble...it is not used as a deterrent like ours was...it's for being offensive.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Update:
Nuke: We never had control over Iran. Why are you so dumb? You think we influenced Iran 1953 ?
GScholz: You staged a coup and deposed a democratic government and inserted a dictator in it place. Yeah I'd call that "influence".
Nuke: GSholz, the Iranian Shaw has not been in power since the 1970's. How does the US matter now? The people of Iran have spoken....correct?
GScholz:The facts are indisputable. You instigated and funded the deliberate overthrow of a democratic government and created a dictatorship in Iran, and a brutal one at that.
Nuke: So, if it's that easy, why can't we do that in Iraq?
Torque: You did twice once in '63 and also in '68, which installed the Baath party and ultimately Saddam. At that time they had only a mere 850 members. Not only that but you gave the Baathists a list of some 5000 civillians who were to be tortured and killed right after the coup.
I replied to Gsholz after he asked why "I was so dumb"
Nash, how does the US have control of Iran? The people of Iran have chosen their government.
There is no US dictator in Iran.
-
And lets pretend cause and effect don't exist.
-
If it came to the point that Israel would have to Strike Iran, I beleive the US would allow an Israeli flyover possibly even support it with KC-135's to get them there, If not they would go NOE and do it anyway.Imagine how many American lives would be in danger in Iraq if the Iranians have these weapons.
Also, Underground facilities are no longer free from being targeted, just look what we did in the Gulf War and Enduring Freedom.
The Israelis are there own country, and if there National Security was in danger, by missiles that could lob warheads on them, then they wouldnt care what we said. Off topic but Just look at what was going on in Yom Kippur, We support the Israelis by delivering A-4 Skyhawks, the situation in the Middle East is seconds away from World War 3, with Soviet and American Ships clogging the Med, and the Israeli's are doing Mock attacks on the US battle fleet.
They do what they want, when they want.
-
Originally posted by Nash
And lets pretend cause and effect don't exist.
Well then, lets examine the time frame.
Since 1978 The Iranians have lived under their choice.
that makes 26 years since the last US influence. Iran is free, no US influence.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well then, lets examine the time frame.
Since 1978 The Iranians have lived under their choice.
that makes 26 years since the last US influence. Iran is free, no US influence.
You said in a different post, and I agree, that "nations are like people."
If you b1tch slap them for a few decades, how on earth can you be suprised when they wind up nuts?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nuke, please just accept it.
"Undaunted, the CIA paid for pro-Shah street demonstrators, who seized a radio station and announced that the Shah was on his way back and that Mossadegh had been deposed. In reality, it took a nine-hour tank battle in the streets of Tehran, killing hundreds, to remove Mossadegh.
Compared to the bloodshed to follow, however, that was just a drop in the bucket. In 1976, Amnesty International concluded that the Shah's CIA-trained security force, SAVAK, had the worst human rights record on the planet, and that the number and variety of torture techniques the CIA had taught SAVAK were "beyond belief."
Inevitably, in 1979, the Iranian people overthrew the bloodstained Shah, with great bitterness and hatred toward the US for installing him and backing him all those years. The radical fundamentalist regime that rules Iran today could never have found popular support without the CIA's 1953 coup and the repression that followed."
I accept that. Will you accept that the Shaw was overthrown in the 1979 by Iranians and that Iran has been controled by the people of Iran ever since?
-
Apparently you dont know much about the IAF's history with
new defences of Russian theatre defence SAMs
Look Im not saying their untouchable, but the strike would definatley be successful, albiet, there would surely be losses. And it might take a few strikes, but it would be successful.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
We're talking about S-200 and S-300 theatre defence systems here with Russian trained crews and Russian "military advisors". The Israelis would suffer heavy casualties in any strike, and only an overwhelming strike force would be likely to reach the target.
yeah, but what about the FACT that Iranians rule themselves?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No. Iran has been controlled by the religious nutcases that took power mostly on their anti-US sentiments and because the Shaw tried to outlaw their religion. You reap what you sow ... what does that sentence mean to you? Obviously you do not reap the seed you planted ... you reap the wheat that grows from the seed. Cause and effect.
You created Islamic fundamentalist Iran.
LOL
Iranians that overthrew the Shaw are "nutcases" ?
So, who do YOU think should run Iran? The people that control Iran now are what the Iranians like, right? Why interfere?
-
http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=67447
The AGM-88, would put those S-300's out of action, and it doesnt matter if there are military advisors operating them, I'm sure the Israelis would not hesitate to pop any SAM site that even attempted to turn on.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nuke, you're being incredibly stupid. For your sake I hope it is intentional. I guess in your mind the USA can do no wrong.
Tell me when I refered to the US?
I am not going away.
God, it's freaking hard to have a high IQ....sometimes it hurts :)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The people that control Iran now are what the Iranians like, right? Why interfere?
Wrong... way wrong.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Wrong... way wrong.
well tell us... who should control Iran? :lol
-
http://www.wonderland.org.nz/nw/clamshell_radar.htm
Did a little researching,
To date Western manufacturers have not disclosed whether currently deployed anti-radiation missiles such as the AGM-88 HARM and Matra-BAe ALARM have the capability to detect and engage CW emitters such as the "Clam Shell". Should this capability be absent in current inventory rounds, effective suppression of SA-10 site acquisition components will be significantly complicated. Because a "Clam Shell" supported S-300 battery has an effective capability against low flying cruise missiles, the alternative of suppression using cruise weapons, as was performed in Bosnia and Southern Iraq, may not be viable.
The Words "have not disclosed", does not mean it is not capable to destroy them.
We still use the Harm, If they are innefective against the S-300, then I'm sure Texas Instruments would be churning out new versions of the Harm, or a new missile even to counter them.
-
Okay thars the people... like regular folks and all.
All living in a happy democracy in Iran.
Leader of said democracy isn't to the US's liking. Oil issues. So US overthrows government and installs Shaw guy.
Shaw a belly belly bad man!
Religious nuts overthrow shaw.
Poof - life as they knew it in '52 is dinner.
-
goin to bed
-
Great Link,
So while the Iranians operate the S300/400 in limited numbers, from what I've been reading,numerous other modern SAM systems make up the majority of its Air Defense Network.
Can a handful of S300/400 sytems hold back the Israeli Air Force?
What about a Israeli/US/British offensive to destroy the Iranians Nuclear capability? What about just a US/British offensive?
What about the change in Russian Foreign policy? would they put there "Military Advisors" at risk of American/Israeli/British warplanes? To much is riding on the line. All the money in the world is not worth all the lives at risk.
Its to many questions for us to ponder, I'm glad i'm not the one who gets paid to brief our Nations leaders about this situation.
-
who would be more willing to throw nukes at us troops? Iran or NK?
-
Originally posted by demaw1
No oil and you and us will be in the worst depreesion ever. I think most of us would starve in no less than 60 days .
Too funny. There was life before oil, and there will be life long after it is gone. Go biodiesel, support your local farmer, not the terrorists
-
When I said,
Can a handful of S300/400 sytems hold back the Israeli Air Force?
What about a Israeli/US/British offensive to destroy the Iranians Nuclear capability? What about just a US/British offensive?
What about the change in Russian Foreign policy? would they put there "Military Advisors" at risk of American/Israeli/British warplanes?
I did not mean,
an invasion of Iran.
Please dont take what I said as an Invasion, I ment a Sustained Air Offensive, Not Paratroopers landing in Tehran. I'm sorry if you interpeted it that way.
When I say Offensive I was referring to an operation like Linebacker I/II, Not Operation Overlord. Even though you are correct, we were talking about an Israeli premptive strike, not a joint operation.
I'll leave you with one question, before I sign off, Do you think it would be impossible for the Israeli's to destroy any Iranian Nuke Plant/Facility in one quick "suprise" Strike?
Nice conversation GScholz, I'll be sure to check in on this thread later, after I get some Zzzzz....
-
Anyone is interested in what Iran has militarily this is a great site. Plus information on the current Iran Nuclear programe.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/
...-Gixer
-
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm
Interesting read.
Thanks Gix.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
Can someone explain to me why North Korea, who admits having Nukes, and is part of the Axis of Evil hasn't been invaded yet?
Yes I can. In one word
China
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Fundamentalist Muslims is how it happened...not Oil
UN making demands..:rofl
How can anybody take the UN seriously? What power do they really have?
That's not my understanding of how democracy was derailed in Iran in the latter half of the last centuary.
Got a link?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Because Iraq already had a dictator. Dictators are a lot more difficult to overthrow.
The facts are indisputable. You instigated and funded the deliberate overthrow of a democratic government and created a dictatorship in Iran, and a brutal one at that.
If ya think that was something. Wait till ya see what we have planned for Norway:D
Relax.. Im JOKING
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'm making a valid point. The point being the the UN holds no power and demands no respect because they refuse to enforce their demands with force when required.
This has led to a situation in which NOBODY cares what the UN demands.
Well.. all this fuzz about UN not wanting to attack Iraq due to insufficient evidence of Saddam not following the UN resolution.
Now that US is swarming all around Iraq, where is the WMD, which why UN was supposed to attack Iraq?
So far it looks like UN did do correctly.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Well.. all this fuzz about UN not wanting to attack Iraq due to insufficient evidence of Saddam not following the UN resolution.
Now that US is swarming all around Iraq, where is the WMD, which why UN was supposed to attack Iraq?
So far it looks like UN did do correctly.
:aok
-
Its evident that the Americans in this thread are bitter because we in Europe was right the entire time.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
That's not my understanding of how democracy was derailed in Iran in the latter half of the last centuary.
Got a link?
Yeah..if you read the entire thread before posting you'd see I corrected myself.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Its evident that the Americans in this thread are bitter because we in Europe was right the entire time.
right about what?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Well.. all this fuzz about UN not wanting to attack Iraq due to insufficient evidence of Saddam not following the UN resolution.
Now that US is swarming all around Iraq, where is the WMD, which why UN was supposed to attack Iraq?
So far it looks like UN did do correctly.
actually the UN said Iraq probably had WMD. Why do you think the UN had resolutions against Iraq?
Iraq was not complying with UN resolutions and the UN never backed up their words with the threat of force, so now NOBODY care what the UN demands. The UN made itself a paper tiger.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
right about what?
Take one guess.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Take one guess.
Well, the UN was wrong when they said Iraq probably had WMD. Europe said the same thing.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well, the UN was wrong when they said Iraq probably had WMD. Europe said the same thing.
Not if you asked the ones who were there inspecting. Wasnt that what we all waited for? for the inspections to end?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Not if you asked the ones who were there inspecting. Wasnt that what we all waited for? for the inspections to end?
The inspections have ended and Iraq is now in compliance with the UN resolutions. What's the problem again?
Can you guess why UN inspecters were allowed into Iraq to begin with? It has something to do with the US and the threat of force, not warnings from the UN.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The inspections have ended and Iraq is now in compliance with the UN resolutions. What's the problem again?
Can you guess why UN inspecters were allowed into Iraq to begin with? It has something to do with the US and the threat of force, not warnings from the UN.
So you are saying you invaded Iraq to do a weapons inspection?
Keep on rewriting history guys. I know its hard to swallow when you have been lied too.
:lol
-
Originally posted by Maniac
So you are saying you invaded Iraq to do a weapons inspection?
:lol
when did I say that?
You can't face the fact that only the threat and use of force made Saddam and Iraq comply with the UN .
Did Saddam allow the UN ispections becaue he was a nice guy? Maybe he was afraid of the UN.
No, he was FORCED to allow inspections because the US made him do it.
-
So?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
So?
Iraq is now in compliance . What exactly are you upset about? Really, why are you upset about Iraq?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Iraq is now in compliance . What exactly are you upset about? Really, why are you upset about Iraq?
Ive stated this several times. The way the war was sold.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Ive stated this several times. The way the war was sold.
The US told everyone that because the UN would not back it's resolutions with even the threat of force and Iraq was still not complying, we would go in alone if need be. That's how it was "sold"
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The US told everyone that because the UN would not back it's resolutions with even the threat of force and Iraq was still not complying, we would go in alone if need be. That's how it was "sold"
What did they not comply with? after all they didnt have any WMD... And the inspectors were let to inspect everything they wanted...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The point being the the UN holds no power and demands no respect because they refuse to enforce their demands with force when required.
ya...like the world respects america? LOL
[SIZE=24]NOT[/SIZE]
:lol
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Its evident that the Americans in this thread are bitter because we in Europe was right the entire time.
Right about what? Don't let facts get in the way of a good anti-Amerrikan rant, Maniac:
"Why are we having such difficulty in finding weapons or in reaching a confident conclusion that they do not exist or that they once existed but have been removed? Our search efforts are being hindered by six principal factors:
From birth all of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized within a regime that ruled and kept its secrets through fear and terror and with deception and denial built into each program;
Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict;
Post-OIF looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectable material and forensic evidence concerning Iraq's WMD program. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-OIF activities of Saddam's regime;
Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them;
Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage;
The environment in Iraq remains far from permissive for our activities, with many Iraqis that we talk to reporting threats and overt acts of intimidation and our own personnel being the subject of threats and attacks. In September alone we have had three attacks on ISG facilities or teams: The ISG base in Irbil was bombed and four staff injured, two very seriously; a two person team had their vehicle blocked by gunmen and only escaped by firing back through their own windshield; and on Wednesday, 24 September, the ISG Headquarters in Baghdad again was subject to mortar attack.
Supporting Images
Click Image to Enlarge
Vials: A total of 97 vials-including those with labels consistent with the al Hakam cover stories of single-cell protein and biopesticides, as well as strains that could be used to produce BW agents-were recovered from a scientist's residence.
Click Image to Enlarge
Lab Equipment From Mosque.
Click Image to Enlarge
Burned Documents Found at SAAD Center: An exploitation team on a recent mission to the SAAD Center, part of the Baghdad New Nuclear Design Center, found massive looting and the remnants of deliberately destroyed documents. Other documents were left untouched, however, and recovered by the team
Click Image to Enlarge
Storage room in basement of Revolutionary Command Council Headquarters. Burned frames of PC workstations visible on shelves. All rooms sharing walls with this storage room were untouched from fire or battle damage.
Click Image to Enlarge
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The basement historical files were systematically selected and destroyed.
What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
ya...like the world respects america? LOL
[SIZE=24]NOT[/SIZE]
:lol
Who cares if you respect us or not?
-
Heh for a country that is a lil over 200 years old...
We have alotta BALLS!!!
:aok
Name another country that has the Freedoms that Americans have....
:D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Right about what? Don't let facts get in the way of a good anti-Amerrikan rant, Maniac:
What facts? i dont see any facts that show that Iraq has or had stockpiles of WMD´s or any WMD´s ready to use in 45 minutes against USA.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
ya...like the world respects america? LOL
[SIZE=24]NOT[/SIZE]
:lol
I think the majority of the world respects the US's ability to return their country to the Stone Age ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well, the UN was wrong when they said Iraq probably had WMD. Europe said the same thing.
And Bush said Iraq had WMD. See the difference?
The US told everyone that because the UN would not back it's resolutions with even the threat of force and Iraq was still not complying, we would go in alone if need be. That's how it was "sold"
In the US proposed and accepted resolution 1441, it was determined that it would be up to the entire SC to determine if Iraq was complying, not the US alone.
Bush made the rules, got the SC to adopt them, then said they didn't count.
And it wasn't primarily sold and an invasion for non-compliance but because Iraq was an imminent threat. Hence the use of term of "pre-emptive attack". Pre-empting the imminent attack by Iraq.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yeah Nash. I know with some certainty that statistically there are no more dumb people in the US per capita than in other western countries. However every time I drop by the O' Club those beliefs are challenged.
Seeing some real brain surgeons coming out of Europe too...
not that they would ever admit it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
actually the UN said Iraq probably had WMD. Why do you think the UN had resolutions against Iraq?
Iraq was not complying with UN resolutions and the UN never backed up their words with the threat of force, so now NOBODY care what the UN demands. The UN made itself a paper tiger.
"Probably had WMD" -> thats why the inspectors were sent there, to see whether there was traces of WMD or not.
"Probability" is a probability.. not a definite thing.
Iraq did have some minor incompliances.. but so does many other countries. Does that mean UN should be starting the third world war? :rolleyes:
Somehow every breach of resolution by Iraq was put under a microscope and rest of the world ignored.
Maybe had something to do with the fact that americans were little more than slightly pissed off after 9/11 and Bush was succesful at directing the anger towards Saddam, with his simple propaganda.
Americans failed in their war against terror when they fell in the Bush's words.
Now better make sure Iraq will come out well, thats the only chance for you americans.
Otherwise the war against terrorism in Iraq was only a large scale recruitment campaign for the terrorists.
...and those who thinks it doesn't matter what the world thinks about america, are quite wrong... well.. if they want to keep their economy on the track.. that is. :D
-
Plenty of pointless argument here. Iran may have sanctions applied against them by the UN probably instigated by the USA. As ever.
The fact is that as it stands right now, Iran does not present a threat unlike Iraq. You might say they'll attack Israel but that amounts to suicide because Israel has nukes too and have the protection of America who can obliterate Iran in an afternoon.
If Iran has nukes they are largely defensive because of course their biggest fear is invasion by America which now has troops in countries on either side. Countries with nukes don't get invaded for obvious reasons.
But of course the USA won't invade Iran for all sorts of reasons. No Arab or Muslim country would allow a troop build up on their soil and no other country would support an invasion of Iran not even Britain.
The Iranians are not Arabs. They don't live under a cruel dictator but a government they elected. They will fight hard. US casualities would be horrendous. There can be no pretence of liberation.
If the US learned one thing from the occupation of Iraq then there will be resistance. Imagine what it would be like in Iran. America would have to stay forever. Any government elected by Iranians will be exactly the same as the current government.
They may have nukes, have no doubt they would use them to stop an invasion.
Finally there is practically no benefit for a US president to invade Iran. Iraq was an obvious threat but what threat is Iran?
No the arguments are futile. There will be no more invasions by the US in the near future. A lesson has been learned.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Name another country that has the Freedoms that Americans have....
:D
:)
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Iraq was an obvious threat but what threat is Iran?
I'm still rather doubtful about the part of Iraq being a threat :D
-
I hope that IF the U.N. ever decides to use troops to take out Irans Nuclear plants that the U.S. volunteers as many troops to the force as Norway or Canada does.
-
Originally posted by straffo
:)
ADD: us and the kiwis; our canadian cousins (lol is the UK in the EU?)...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Name another country that has the Freedoms that Americans have....
:D
I am more free than any of you will ever be.
-
Originally posted by straffo
:)
sorry straffo, but the usa is the best place to live in the world, imo. Besides patriotism and nostalgia of croissants and quatre-quarts and nice white butt cheeks which you get plenty of over there too.
Culture is the only thing I'd regret from over here and it's not so distant once you make enough to spend vacations every now and then and can buy yourself litterature and music and movies etc.
Same ****, different country. Only in the US, everyone gets more **** more easily:D
edit: the only thing without alternative, imo, is K12 education.
-
Easy to say when you most likely haven't lived elsewhere for a good part of your life
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Easy to say when you most likely haven't lived elsewhere for a good part of your life
It's irony Fishu :) if I recall correctly Moot is French or at least Francophone :)
-
France 12 years, Canada 3 years, USA 5 years, Spain 1 year, Reunion Island 1 year, Germany 6 months, and then vacations in England, Venezuela, Mauritius, Hawaii, most of the US, some of Canada.
Really want to see Japan, Russia, northern and eastern Europe and Africa, but that one a bit less.
Greece and the middle east when they calm down a bit.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No Nefarious, this is not an ICBM launcher, but the theatre defence SAM system we were talking about. ;)
http://www.rusarm.ru/video/s300v.wmv
http://www.rusarm.ru/video/s300pmu.wmv
Kinda scary ... the missile is bigger than most of its potential targets.
I know Gscholz, I knew we were not talking about an ICBM, but a SAM system as you noted. Check my posts, I never said it was an ICBM.
-
very opinionated rambling, sorry I interrupted the armchair stuff.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No Nefarious, this is not an ICBM launcher, but the theatre defence SAM system we were talking about. ;)
http://www.rusarm.ru/video/s300v.wmv
http://www.rusarm.ru/video/s300pmu.wmv
Kinda scary ... the missile is bigger than most of its potential targets.
What kind of marketing firm would only show the launch of a weapon and not of it making a kill? neat phased antenna system though. Oh and the launch platforms look real tough :D :rolleyes:
Just remember NO system is without counter measures, my guess is this system is less precise then the Patriot system but perhaps with a longer range.
How do these big honkers kill a subsonic low flying cruise missile are they nuke tipped?
thanks for the films
-
Exactly Scootter,
From what Ive been reading the System iteslf fired other types of Missiles like the SA-10 during testing.
Just remember NO system is without counter measures, my guess is this system is less precise then the Patriot system but perhaps with a longer range.
I share the same thoughts.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Scootter, the Patriot isn't even in the same league as the S-400, no other SAM system is. The S-400 has a 250-mile range and can intercept ballistic missiles, aircraft and cruise missiles.
It's method of target destruction is in the form of a 320 lbs high-explosive fragmentation warhead. It is guided semi-actively at first, and until it goes beyond the horizon where it switches over to active search mode and homes in on the target independently.
The BUK-M1 is more of a Russian equivalent of the Patriot.
http://www.rusarm.ru/video/bukm1.wmv
And as you can see in this video, they're used to defend the S-300/S-400 sites.
Edit: Oh, and both systems has a "home-on-jam" mode to take out jamming aircraft.
AHH I see thanks
one quick question
Why would the worlds most advanced SAM site, one with 250 mile range and all the bells and whistles it has, the most badazz and perfect SAM system need a SAM to protect it? hmmmmm?
COUSE ITS NOT PERFECT (nothing is) AND STUFF WILL GET PAST
IT DUHH
Are you in sales??
You sound like a brain washed kid pumped up on OO7 music.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
So much for Bush putting the fear of god into the region eh?
They have satellite news.....the US divided.....they won't act....the US people will not support any prolonged action in Iran and Iraq.
Famous last words imo....Bush wins in November and they all will behave themselves.
If I'm mistaken, it will not be the first time....just a gut hunch that Bush will move deliberately without the concerns of being re-elected.
-
It's easy to understand why I sound like a salesman to you. You don't know much.
Edit:
Btw. the music in those clips is from Mission Impossible, not James Bond. Like I said: you don't know much. [/B]
yawn... "I don't know much" is that the best you can do?
GS
You have no idea what I know, who I am, or what my background is, you are however very transparent.
Your love of everything not American and outright hate of everything that is takes away from your creatibility and makes you very one diemensional.
I could not care less about this weapon system you seem to love so much, I will say if bombs need to fall on an certain spot in Iran, they will, period, end of story.
At least the music is approreate for the weapon system.
-
Jumping in here kinda late but I found it interesting to see people accusing the US for putting the Shah in power in Iran. So I Googled for Iran, 1953 and found out that we did in fact support the ousting of the current regime in favor of the Shah or, more accurately a government that had no National Frontists. (Which I assume is or was a political party in Iran.)
It's also interesting that British Intelligence approached the US regarding this matter first.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/1-Orig.pdf
If the British were involved also, why do people on this board accuse ONLY the US for the coup that destroyed the democratic government in Iran in 1953?
-
ooops was also going to provide a link to all the documents in my other post, I forgot but here it is now.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/#documents
Seems the British were every bit a part of this operation as the US was.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
If the British were involved also, why do people on this board accuse ONLY the US for the coup that destroyed the democratic government in Iran in 1953?
You must know a little bit more of iranian history to understand some of the historical development in Iran.
In WW1 Iran declared itself neutral and this neutrality was ignored by the Ottoman Empire, England and Russia who used northern Iran for their battles.
In WW2 Iran again declared its neutrality - and this time it was not only used as an battlefield for foreign nations.
This time - because Iran was cooperating with the German Reich and refusing to join the allies - it was occupied by the UK and USSR. The Shah - a man highly respected by the iranians - was deposed and sent to exile in South Africa where he died.
His son - a weak person - was installed as a puppet and Iran became a member of the Allies.
The hate against the involved countries was growing.
After WW2 Iran had a new friend - the USA. The USA helped Iran by forcing the USSR and the UK to leave Iran. Even the soviet puppet state of the Kurds - the so called "Kurdish Republic of Mahabad" which was on iranian territory in the soviet occupation zone - could be recaptured by the imperial iranian army only because the USA put political pressure on the USSR not to intervene anmd help the kurds.
The USA was something new for the iranians. Unlike the foreign nations which have been in the region for so long - like the UK and others - the USA was considered as a friend.
And when in the 50ties prime minister Mossadegh managed to depose the Shah in an unbloody revolution and sent him to exile to Italy Iran had a great chance to become a democracy.
Just try to imagine what the region could look like today - if the major non-arab power there beside Israel and Turkey would today be a stable democracy.
But the CIA with its command centre in the US-embassy in Teheran - coordinated the reinstallation of the Shah.
The reaon was simply: Oil.
Mossadegh made the mistake to cancel the oil contracts with the foreign companies.
And so Mossadegh - a man loved and highly respected by the iranian people - was sentenced to death and put into house arrest for the rest of his life after the "counter revolution" of General Zahedi.
But that was not the worst thing what happened.
To ensure that the puppet Shah couldnt be deposed again the CIA supported the imperial iranian secret police in training and so on. The SAVAK - the name of this organisation which acted like the Nazi GeStaPo - tortured and killed thousands of iranians year by year.
Many iranians - most of them those who were favorising Iran to become a democracy - simply dissappeared. The name EVIN was causing fear in every iranian. Its the name of a huge prison-complex which still exists today and where prisoners are tortured to death because of political reasons.
The years of the Shah after the 50ties were not like shown in western media. Not a nice and modern Iran with happy people but pure terror where your relatives could dissappear when they said something against the Shah.
And the people blamed the USA for this. Not that they were right by doing so - but for them the Shah was only a puppet of the USA.
And so history went on and despite all his army despite all his secret police and despite all his terror the Shah wasnt able to avoid that the people threw him out of Iran in a very bloody revolution with so many losses.
Ans so Iran got the next terror regime - after the Shah the mullahs came. After all these years of terror most of the liberal democrats have been killed and only the radicals - like the communist Tudeh-party or the shiite mullahs have remained.
The SAVAK was renamed in SAVAMA and the terror continued.
Saddam and his Iraq attacked Iran and they fought a bloody 8 years war.
But there was still hope in the future.
In the last decades Iran managed to reduce the power of the mullahs and make some small steps toward democracy.
But then after 9/11 and the definition of Iran being a member of the "Axis of Evil" the radicals were getting again more power.
Thats the situation of Iran today. If the iranians are allowed to handle with their problems alone - I am sure that the mullah regime will be overthrown within the next 5 years and Iran becomes a democracy and a stable one, because it will be a devolopment from within. Done by iranians.
You cant create democracy by ordering people to do so or by occupying a country.
Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples how such plans are failing.
And these are - compared to Iran and its population - small countries.
The 60million people of Iran still have a chance to become a democracy - but not by war. Only if they make their development within Iran, they will succeed and finish what Mossadegh started in the 50ties.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Page one.
Funny how you choose to label the democratic leadership as a "regime" while calling the dictatorship of the Shah a "government". Language always gives you away I guess.
I only used *regime* to describe an existing government and used the word government to describe the next government because it was not yet known what the Shah would be like. The Shah certainly did turn out to be a dictator. That was probably not forseen by the CIA or British Intelligence.
Babek, very interesting read. I am also continuing to read more links that I found during my Google search. Your post, though informative and well written does not answer the question of why people on this board attribute the 1953 coup in Iran entirely to the Americans and place absolutely no blame on the British.
You state that the coup in Iran was all about oil. It wasn't about American oil, it was about British oil.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Iran_KH.html
The original initiative to oust Mossadegh had come from the British, for the elderly Iranian leader had spearheaded the parliamentary movement to nationalize the British owned Anglo-lranian Oil Company (AIOC), the sole oil company operating in Iran. In March 1951, the bill for nationalization was passed, and at the end of April Mossadegh was elected prime minister by a large majority of Parliament. On 1 May, nationalization went into effect. The Iranian people, Mossadegh declared, "were opening a hidden treasure upon which lies a dragon".
Possibly more to come as I read more links.
One other thing, someone posted that there was a 9 hour tank battle in Tehran, I have yet to find anything about a tank battle in Tehran. Anyone have links to information about that?
-
Seeing a half-dozen tanks parked in front of Tehran's radio station, he said, "I told the tank commanders that a lot of people were getting killed trying to storm Dr. Mosaddeq's house and that they would be of some use instead of sitting idle at the radio station." He added, "They took their machines in a body to Kakh Avenue and put the three tanks at Dr. Mosaddeq's house out of action."
Ahhh, a tank battle, although I doubt this one lasted 9 hours :)
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p3.php
Link to the article that came from.
-
Ah, there in lies the answer to the preverbal question as to why when it comes to the Christian Crusude for Oil in the middle-east regardless of the circumstances the British PM of the time becomes an American Foreign Ambassador.
It wasn't my fault your honor, Johnny asked me to do it!
Elfie, is that the best you can do?
-
Torque, not saying the CIA didnt plan the operation, not saying we weren't involved. Just wondering why people on this board ignore the British involvement. The British were the ones after oil is this case, not the US :)
Why we helped I have no idea yet. I haven't found reasons for that yet.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
[B
You Sir are a lousy judge of character, [/B]
And I'm on his ignore list.
Funny that people put others on ignore. Even more funny is when they announce it in thier sig, as if that makes a bold statement or something. I guess the statement would be: "look at me, I'm ignoring NUKE!"
hahaha :) You go!
Anyway, sorry if that derails my thread, which has been "off-topic" for awhile anyway.
-
For the next 25 years, the Shah of Iran stood fast as the United States' closest ally in the Third World, to a degree that would have shocked the independent and neutral Mossadegh. The Shah literally placed his country at the disposal of US military and intelligence organizations to be used as a cold-war weapon, a window and a door to the Soviet Union-electronic listening and radar posts were set up near the Soviet border; American aircraft used Iran as a base to launch surveillance flights over the Soviet Union; espionage agents were infiltrated across the border; various American military installations dotted the Iranian landscape. Iran was viewed as a vital link in the chain being forged by the United States to "contain" the Soviet Union. In a telegram to the British Acting Foreign Secretary in September, Dulles said: "I think if we can in coordination move quickly and effectively in Iran we would close the most dangerous gap in the line from Europe to South Asia.'' In February 1955, Iran became a member of the Baghdad Pact, set up by the United States, in Dulles's words, "to create a solid band of resistance against the Soviet Union".
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Iran_KH.html
That's what was in it for the US. (Just had to read farther in that article) :)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Torque, not saying the CIA didnt plan the operation, not saying we weren't involved. Just wondering why people on this board ignore the British involvement. The British were the ones after oil is this case, not the US :)
Why we helped I have no idea yet. I haven't found reasons for that yet.
"One year after the coup, the Iranian government completed a contract with an international consortium of oil companies. Amongst Iran's new foreign partners, the British lost the exclusive rights they had enjoyed previously, being reduced now to 40 percent. Another 40 percent now went to American oil firms,"
Hey, ya think the muscle car era of the 60's would of been the same if not for cheap Iranian and Iraqi Oil?
Odd how history works ,eh?
And i would have the same response to a Brit if he posted " why do they hate us" or "look how fekup Iran is, we should invade"
But you see they don't, cuz they know da facts.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
For the next 25 years, the Shah of Iran stood fast as the United States' closest ally in the Third World, to a degree that would have shocked the independent and neutral Mossadegh. The Shah literally placed his country at the disposal of US military and intelligence organizations to be used as a cold-war weapon, a window and a door to the Soviet Union-electronic listening and radar posts were set up near the Soviet border; American aircraft used Iran as a base to launch surveillance flights over the Soviet Union; espionage agents were infiltrated across the border; various American military installations dotted the Iranian landscape. Iran was viewed as a vital link in the chain being forged by the United States to "contain" the Soviet Union. In a telegram to the British Acting Foreign Secretary in September, Dulles said: "I think if we can in coordination move quickly and effectively in Iran we would close the most dangerous gap in the line from Europe to South Asia.'' In February 1955, Iran became a member of the Baghdad Pact, set up by the United States, in Dulles's words, "to create a solid band of resistance against the Soviet Union".
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Iran_KH.html
That's what was in it for the US. (Just had to read farther in that article) :)
Oh i get now, you over throw a democracy to stop communism!
-
Originally posted by Torque
Oh i get now, you over throw a democracy to stop communism!
Good thing the Iranians took matters into their own hands and overthrew the US backed government. Now Iran is run by it's own people and everyone should respect that, right?
-
The Patriot Missile wasn't as effective as the rest of the world was led to believe. This "SAM missle theatre system" is gonna be in the same category. I guarantee you a field mouse could get into Iran without triggering an alarm. Personally, to hell with the whole region.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'm making a valid point. The point being the the UN holds no power and demands no respect because they refuse to enforce their demands with force when required.
This has led to a situation in which NOBODY cares what the UN demands.
Yeah? Tell it to the Serbs, Nuke.
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Yeah? Tell it to the Serbs, Nuke.
curly
What did the UN do to the Serbs?
You probably mean NATO.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What did the UN do to the Serbs?
You probably mean NATO.
Wasn't Nato mandanted by the UN ?
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Yeah? Tell it to the Serbs, Nuke.
curly
Whoops.
Karaya
-
And i would have the same response to a Brit if he posted " why do they hate us" or "look how fekup Iran is, we should invade"
Not sure why you said that Torque, never posted anything like that nor did I imply it.
Oh i get now, you over throw a democracy to stop communism!
I didnt overthrow any democracy, I wasn't even born yet :P
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The CIA knew exactly what kind of man they put in power, and they knew exactly how his secret police would be used; they trained them.
The Shah hadn't been in power yet so no one could have known what kind of ruler he would be. Even though the CIA trained his secret police no one could have known for sure how he would use them.
The Iranians have their own government know, a government they put in power. What the CIA did was done at the request of an ally and was done over 60 years ago. Some of you people act like us Americans on this board are directly resposnible.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Yeah? Tell it to the Serbs, Nuke.
curly
Iirc all military action against the Serbs was done by NATO and not the UN. Heck a Dutch unit that was in Serbia under the UN flag refused to stop a massacre that happened right in front of them.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nope. Not in the invasion of Serbia.
eh? what invasion?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Kosovo.
I recall bombs being dropped on Kosovo by NATO aircraft, but I dont believe I heard about an invasion......
-
I dont watch the news simply because it is to depressing, I read news articles online sometimes but thats about it. Bias in the news media is another reason I find it difficult to force myself to keep up with the news.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
The Shah hadn't been in power yet so no one could have known what kind of ruler he would be. Even though the CIA trained his secret police no one could have known for sure how he would use them.
The Iranians have their own government know, a government they put in power. What the CIA did was done at the request of an ally and was done over 60 years ago. Some of you people act like us Americans on this board are directly resposnible.
Wrong - the Shah was in power since he was installed as a puppet of the allies after the invasion of Iran in 1941.
He replced his father - Shah Reza Khan, who refused to join the allies and who refused to allow that Iran became a support route for allied supplies for the USSR.
The CIA operation to overthrow the democratic premier Mossadegh was in the 50ties - so they really knew what kind of ruler the Shah was.
Also the secret police was trained by th CIA especially to avoid any further revolution against the Shah.
The SAVAK became an organisation like the Nazi Gestapo and the terror of the Shah which lasted for decades and killed and tortured tenthousands of iranians led to the bloody revolution in 1979 and made the terrorregime of the Mullahs possible.
Because all normal democratic people and leaders have been eliminated by the SAVAK and only the radical opposition elements had survived.
Its a sad part of history that Mossadegh was deposed - especially for Iran and the iranians.
So decades of terror passed - first by the Shah then by the mullahs.
-
GS you try to read between the lines to much ;)
Babek, my mistake on which Shah was in power before before Mossadegh. Went back and re-read an article and you are absolutely correct :)
Also GS, I know you didnt say anything about it being for oil, babek did and my quote was from his post :)
-
Wtg Babek, one down 299 million to go!:aok
Hehehe, as if....:rolleyes: