-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UK military steps up contingency planning for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears
- Thread starter Ether_Snake
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
el retorno de los sapos said:Both of you guys have some crazy opinions. The US and/or western powers helping democracy protestors is now bad?
Oh i didnt realize saddam, Iran were deomcracy. Producing fake evidence of WMD. What in the world that has anything to do with democracy.
If we are worried about democracy, how about getting rid of Saudi, UAE monarch that are even worse to Sadam in women treatment and social issues.
el retorno
Member
beast786 said:If that was a reason to go to pre emtive wars. Then we are in for hell of a ride from the rest of the world.
I still don't understand how that makes it an "idiotic reason to go to war".
el retorno
Member
beast786 said:Oh i didnt realize saddam, Iran were deomcracy. Producing fake evidence of WMD. What in the world that has anything to do with democracy.
If we are worried about democracy, how about getting rid of Saudi, UAE monarch that are even worse to Sadam in women treatment and social issues.
I was refering to your claim about the Syrian protestors and the other guys claim about the Green revolution in Iran.
And i'm sick of the "why don't you worry about Saudi and so and so if you care so much about democracy".....
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Sir Fragula said:Just sayin' - I thought that about Tuition Fees and everything else so far. I'm just not at all convinced that Clegg would force an election and suffer early obliteration at the polls, rather than keep in line with Cameron and hope everyone forgets in three years time.
I'd love to be optimistic when it came to the LDs, but fool me once...
Yes because tuition fees increase (something that was in the coalition agreement) is exactly the same as going to war for some fool's agenda. If the Lib Dems brought the government down over not going to war they would not suffer a big defeat in an election because the anti-war sentiment would see them ride a wave of popularity. The Tories would face a massive defeat, unless Labour also support military action in Iran. One reason the Tories couldn't capitalise on anti-war sentiment in 2005 is because IDS and Howard both supported the Iraq war.
el retorno de los sapos said:I was refering to your claim about the Syrian protestors and the other guys claim about the Green revolution in Iran.
And i'm sick of the "why don't you worry about Saudi and so and so if you care so much about democracy".....
Because you getting sick of it will change the facts.
The UK population will not tolerate any war, recent events have made us tired of it and current political and economical situations are forcing a more isolationist outlook.
The only chance of another war any time soon is if Argentina tries to make another play for the Falklands.
The only chance of another war any time soon is if Argentina tries to make another play for the Falklands.
Iran and the Palestinian territories had democracies at one point, or were at least heading in that direction, before the US/UK and friends decided that they knew better than the people of those countries.el retorno de los sapos said:Both of you guys have some crazy opinions. The US and/or western powers helping democracy protestors is now bad?
After giving it a bit more though, you guys are probably right to be worried. The way I see it, the most likely way that countries like Iran and Pakistan could destabilize to the point where WMD's could potentially go missing is if the west interferes and directly puts them in that position. So... Fuck!
Lagspike_exe said:Israel is in a really bad position.
If they don't attack Iran, they will become nuclear capable very soon and Israel will no longer have an option of preemptive attack against it and will face possible annihilation in the future.
If they do attack, Iran will retaliate with a possibly very lethal attacks possibly drawing entire Middle East into the war.
With the recent fall of pro-Israeli Egyptian goverment, the entire country is practically encircled by militant Arabs which want to settle down 60 years of military defeats.
Where are you getting this from? Facts please.
Iran hasn't been involved in an offensive war for over a century, and although their president is a sick nut job, Iran isn't annihilating anyone. Iran has the highest population of Jewish people outside of Israel in the Middle East. Considering that the majority of Jews living in the Arab world immigrated to Israel in the years following the state's creation, why haven't the Iranian Jews packed up and left, and why is Iran the only (that I know of) Muslim country where Jews have protected people status in the eyes of the state, if the Iranians are so gung-ho to eradicate Jews?
As for the militant Arabs itching for revenge, who are they? Jordon has been an ally of Israel for years, and we all know Lebanon isn't capable of invading shit, and the gulf states would have their collective asses handed to them by the IDF if ever they invaded Isreal. So who are you talking about? Syria? With their soviet era weapons and tanks, that's who Israel goes to bed afraid off? Please, come back with a better sounding scare story, cause this one sucks.
theignoramus
Member
If the US/UK/Israel were to attack Iran I would have zero moral objection to Iranian retaliation against Western military assets throughout the Gulf. Not sure how I feel about missiles raining down indiscriminately on Israeli cities, but Iran would be within its rights to retaliate militarily against military assets, especially to an attack with no UN mandate.
My worry is that if an Iranian missile strike kills hundreds of Western troops, there would be a devastating response, followed by Iran withdrawing from the NPT and building nukes.
My worry is that if an Iranian missile strike kills hundreds of Western troops, there would be a devastating response, followed by Iran withdrawing from the NPT and building nukes.
theignoramus
Member
Nobody should have nukes, including (and especially not) Israel.chaostrophy said:Can someone explain exactly why Iran shouldn't have nukes? Given the aggressiveness of the US and Israel in the area, it seems like a perfectly reasonable form of defense- not to be used, but as a deterrent. Preventing an Israeli invasion could save Iranian and Israeli lives.
But look, putting aside Israel and the US for the moment, it's widely speculated that Pakistan will aid Saudi Arabia in WMD development, should the monarchy request it. And the monarchy WILL seek to develop nukes if Iran acquires them. If the House of Saud acquires nuclear weapons, others in the region will likely follow suit and make the region that much more dangerous and volatile.
That said, any military attack on Iran will be catastrophic and it would blow up the region.
theignoramus
Member
The US and Israel have done the equivalent of this and more. There is no morality in the foreign policy of either the US, Israel, or Iran. All seek to expand their influence, quite ruthlessly when they can get away with it.Something Wicked said:Hmmm... how about just Iran:
-arming Hezbollah in Lebanon
-arming Hamas in Gaza
-having strong ties to the Syrian government, which is currently slaughtering its own people
-arming Shia militias in Iraq, supplying them with IEDs that have killed many US/Iraqi/Coalition forces
-arming Taliban forces in Afghanistan- particularly with IEDs
-arming Shia rebels in northern Yemen, who also plotted assassinations of Saudi officials
-attempting to fund and initiate a civil war in Bahrain
-calling for the complete destruction of Israel
-having contacts with North Korean and Pakistani nuclear scientists
-not allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to fully conduct its investigations
-crushing it's own people's call for reform and having thousands and thousands of political prisoners
-the very recent assassination plot of a Saudi minister on US soil
... and that is Iran without a nuclear weapon
Only a fraud would try to designate US and Israeli policy towards the MENA as somehow more benevolent or righteous than Iran's.
theignoramus
Member
It doesnt work like that. "coordinated strikes" are strikes. period. If Iran retaliates and kills 60, 70 or 80 American soldiers, the US would strike back harder and the situation could devolve from there. This isnt Libya. This isnt Serbia. This isnt Saddam and his toothless shell of an army. This is Iran, which can inflict severe damage on US personnel, US allies and US interests.el retorno de los sapos said:This is pretty much what every US officals and probably Euro offical fears. Nobody fears Iran launching a missle at Israel. The Saudis and other gulf states were lobbing hard for this and with Iran actually planing attack I'd imagen that that has gone up.
If Iran gets nukes the Saudis will needed them next and the US and the West wouldn't be able to really stop that... I thinking the military strike is looking more and more likely. I dont think it is going to be an Iraq though if it does happen just coordinated strikes at military targets with Obama yelling at the top of his lungs he doesnt want a wider war.
Something Wicked
Member
theignoramus said:The US and Israel have done the equivalent of this and more. There is no morality in the foreign policy of either the US, Israel, or Iran. All seek to expand their influence, quite ruthlessly when they can get away with it.
Only a fraud would try to designate US and Israeli policy towards the MENA as somehow more benevolent or righteous than Iran's.
Aside from taking out the ruthless regimes of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, the US has not funded terrorism and civil wars/unrest in nearly every Middle Eastern/Central Asian country in the last 10 years like Iran has. There is morality apart of foreign policy; it's just you blindly uphold the moronic ideal of "moral relativism," which has become a major tenet of the global left. Do you seriously believe the current Iranian regime is a positive force in the world? Thousands of Iranians who are in political prisons or the families of such people that have been killed by the Iranian regime would love to hear your opinion...
You are such a tool. Do you seriously believe what TV tells you? Are you dumb? Are you ignorant? Are you affafnhadnbhadbjsasdbhasbd?Something Wicked said:Aside from taking out the ruthless regimes of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, the US has not funded terrorism and civil wars/unrest in nearly every Middle Eastern/Central Asian country in the last 10 years like Iran has. There is morality apart of foreign policy; it's just you blindly uphold the moronic ideal of "moral relativism," which has become a major tenet of the global left. Do you seriously believe the current Iranian regime is a positive force in the world? Thousands of Iranians who are in political prisons or the families of such people that have been killed by the Iranian regime would love to hear your opinion...
yes it is a Charles Manson reference
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Wazzim said:They can not and will not do a military intervention in Iran. There is absolutely NO public support for it. Oh and we got no moneyz too.
Yup, the number one reason why the UK won't invade Iran - We're broke as fuck and wars are fucking expensive business.
Something Wicked
Member
You guys need to be able to differentiate between the terms "invasion" and "airstrikes." The former generally implies ground forces.
Ohgodherewegoagain.jpg.gif.avi
If Cammy & Company try for another US-led foreign excursion, they'll be flayed alive. No, not politically - I mean they'll actually be physically flayed alive by an angry mob. Well, in my dreams, anyway.
No way a war with Iran is happening if Dave wants to keep hislife job.
No, not even that. Fuck Thatcher's legacy, let the Argies have their shitty little rocks back, just let us evacuate the poor sods living there first.dalin80 said:The UK population will not tolerate any war, recent events have made us tired of it and current political and economical situations are forcing a more isolationist outlook.
The only chance of another war any time soon is if Argentina tries to make another play for the Falklands.
If Cammy & Company try for another US-led foreign excursion, they'll be flayed alive. No, not politically - I mean they'll actually be physically flayed alive by an angry mob. Well, in my dreams, anyway.
No way a war with Iran is happening if Dave wants to keep his
theignoramus
Member
we arent talking about Iran's internal dynamics, you raising this issue is a total non sequitur. We were talking about Iran's foreign policy vis a vis the US and Israel.Something Wicked said:Aside from taking out the ruthless regimes of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, the US has not funded terrorism and civil wars/unrest in nearly every Middle Eastern/Central Asian country in the last 10 years like Iran has. There is morality apart of foreign policy; it's just you blindly uphold the moronic ideal of "moral relativism," which has become a major tenet of the global left. Do you seriously believe the current Iranian regime is a positive force in the world? Thousands of Iranians who are in political prisons or the families of such people that have been killed by the Iranian regime would love to hear your opinion...
Your list of Iran's evil doings is merely a template of what Iran has done to expand its influence. It is no more dastardly than anything the US has done in the region the last 20 years. (Unless you're stupid enough to sit here and tell us the US has spent the last 20 years supporting Middle Eastern democrats and advancing the cause of regional peace and prosperity.)
I'm not denying Iran is a cynical actor in regional affairs, I'm rejecting the way you frame this dispute as some sort of struggle between the good (with Saudi Arabia as its number one Arab ally!) and the deviant.
Something Wicked said:Aside from taking out the ruthless regimes of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, the US has not funded terrorism and civil wars/unrest in nearly every Middle Eastern/Central Asian country in the last 10 years like Iran has. There is morality apart of foreign policy; it's just you blindly uphold the moronic ideal of "moral relativism," which has become a major tenet of the global left. Do you seriously believe the current Iranian regime is a positive force in the world? Thousands of Iranians who are in political prisons or the families of such people that have been killed by the Iranian regime would love to hear your opinion...
Sean hannity ?
How about how America toppled the democratically elected government of Iran and installed a puppet dictator?.
Iran has good reason to resist the us's goals in THEIR region of the world.
The us and uk are supporting the Bahraini regime to crack down on their protesters (as well as letting Saudi Arabian troops occupy Bahrain)
Can't you see the hypocracy of demonising Iran whilst supporting Saudi Arabia and Bahrain (who are far worse but not oil buddies).
Do you support Israel having undeclared nuclear weapons and refusing to sign the npt ?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Dambrosi said:Ohgodherewegoagain.jpg.gif.avi
No, not even that. Fuck Thatcher's legacy, let the Argies have their shitty little rocks back, just let us evacuate the poor sods living there first.
If Cammy & Company try for another US-led foreign excursion, they'll be flayed alive. No, not politically - I mean they'll actually be physically flayed alive by an angry mob. Well, in my dreams, anyway.
No way a war with Iran is happening if Dave wants to keep hislifejob.
There's a shitton of oil in the Falklands. Hard to get at, but still an absolute shitton. That is why the Argies want it and that is why Britain would move in and retake the islands. Part of the reason we have worldwide strike capabilities is in case we need to be in that part of the world in less than two days before they can become entrenched.
I was speaking to an oil discovery company researcher last year, they said the US geological survey indicated the presence of around 4bn barrels of oil, they did their own survey and they reckon it could be up to 20bn barrels in the Falklands exclusion zone, obviously they were trying to get some investment, but it's not something they can lie about as a listed company.
If there really is that much oil then Britain becomes a net exporter of oil and gas going into 2013/14 and that is a huge, huge source of income for the government and could close the deficit in a couple of short years and end our short term energy crisis.
Basically it would be worth a very short campaign against the Argies to keep the Falklands.
FreeMufasa
Junior Member
How does Iran compare to Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of strength?
Something Wicked
Member
theignoramus said:we arent talking about Iran's internal dynamics, you raising this issue is a total non sequitur. We were talking about Iran's foreign policy vis a vis the US and Israel.
Your list of Iran's evil doings is merely a template of what Iran has done to expand its influence. It is no more dastardly than anything the US has done in the region the last 20 years. (Unless you're stupid enough to sit here and tell us the US has spent the last 20 years supporting Middle Eastern democrats and advancing the cause of regional peace and prosperity.)
I'm not denying Iran is a cynical actor in regional affairs, I'm rejecting the way you frame this dispute as some sort of struggle between the good (with Saudi Arabia as its number one Arab ally!) and the deviant.
Notice how I specifically said "10 years"- not 20 or 30.
9/11 changed a lot of things, including the US foreign policy in and long-term goals for the Middle East.
FreeMufasa said:How does Iran compare to Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of strength?
With the US & UK airforces, it would take less than a day of airstrikes to completely wipe out the Iranian airforce and navy. However, Iran does have much more powerful and longer range missiles than Saddam's forces. With their current tech, such missiles could hit anywhere in the Middle East, including Israel, and much of Europe as well. Fortunately, the US has been developing advanced missile interception systems, including anti-missile lasers.
Perhaps one of the most critical things would be to get the regular Iranian Army to defect and fight against the Revolutionary Guard. The Iranian campaign could played out much more like Libya than Iraq, but on a significantly larger scale.
put it this way - the US will never launch a ground invasion into Iran.FreeMufasa said:How does Iran compare to Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of strength?
Some drones will probably start hitting targets there and shit spirals out of control. I can't see an invasion happening though, Iran is strong but their allies like Russia are much more powerful. After Iraq and Afghanistan no way the Russians would let the US roll into Iran. Some drone attacks and world policing in Jemen, Pakistan and beyond yeah I could see that happen.
NihonTiger90
Member
I like how "contingency plan" = OMG WAR FOR SURE!!!!!!!
I don't think the U.S. or the UK is really frothing at the mouth to attack Iran. Certain elements (Republicans in Congress), sure, I'll give you that. But after two costly wars that wasted billions which could have been spent at home on any number of projects, with a public that's sick of war and is happy to have our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible? If Iran gets invaded, people will march on Washington with pitchforks, torches, guns, whatever it takes to get our current leadership removed. There is zero appetite for any more invasion bullshit.
And can we knock off the whole self-hating American stuff? It's one thing to be upset at our government and the messes they get us into. I'm quite pissed myself, but I don't run around saying it'd be ok and justifiable for U.S. forces to die just because someone bombed Iran's nuke facilities (namely, Israel in this case, who has done it to Syria and Iraq before).
EDIT: Oh, and China and Russia are Iran's buddies. Any invasion and they will come down on the U.S. itself.
I don't think the U.S. or the UK is really frothing at the mouth to attack Iran. Certain elements (Republicans in Congress), sure, I'll give you that. But after two costly wars that wasted billions which could have been spent at home on any number of projects, with a public that's sick of war and is happy to have our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible? If Iran gets invaded, people will march on Washington with pitchforks, torches, guns, whatever it takes to get our current leadership removed. There is zero appetite for any more invasion bullshit.
And can we knock off the whole self-hating American stuff? It's one thing to be upset at our government and the messes they get us into. I'm quite pissed myself, but I don't run around saying it'd be ok and justifiable for U.S. forces to die just because someone bombed Iran's nuke facilities (namely, Israel in this case, who has done it to Syria and Iraq before).
EDIT: Oh, and China and Russia are Iran's buddies. Any invasion and they will come down on the U.S. itself.
el retorno
Member
theignoramus said:It doesnt work like that. "coordinated strikes" are strikes. period. If Iran retaliates and kills 60, 70 or 80 American soldiers, the US would strike back harder and the situation could devolve from there. This isnt Libya. This isnt Serbia. This isnt Saddam and his toothless shell of an army. This is Iran, which can inflict severe damage on US personnel, US allies and US interests.
I never said it wouldn't have to possiblity of turning into a wider war. I said it would be stated if it came to a strike that is not what would be wanted (a wider war), Obama would frame it not as an attack on the country but on its nuclear program only (like how Bush made it know that the War on Terror was not a war on Islam.). It would then be the Iranians who would bring the wider war.
And launching one strike will not just start a war. If they responded in a conventional way the US would win the war, they know that. I'm not saying it would be easy or simple and not mess a lot of things up but the US and the west (who could be forced into war due to NATO) would tople the regime.
I just don't think a strike against nuclear and military targets would lead to an Iraq level war. I think the Iranians would launch a halfhearted thing they know would not rise to the level of truely provoking the US.
theignoramus
Member
You mention Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah, like that's fundamentally worse than the US selling advanced weapons, tear gas, and "riot control equipment" to the monarchies of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, the primary instigators of Sunni and Shiite tensions in the region.Something Wicked said:Notice how I specifically said "10 years"- not 20 or 30.
9/11 changed a lot things, including the US foreign policy in and long-term goals for the Middle East.
theignoramus
Member
You dont have a clue what you're talking about. Iran's nuclear program is supported by the opposition, by the whole country. An attack on its nuclear facilities would be regarded as an attack on Iran and would unify the country. The idea that Western airstrikes would foment an Iranian civil war is probably the most laughable right wing fantasy out there.Something Wicked said:Notice how I specifically said "10 years"- not 20 or 30.
9/11 changed a lot of things, including the US foreign policy in and long-term goals for the Middle East.
With the US & UK airforces, it would take less than a day of airstrikes to completely wipe out the Iranian airforce and navy. However, Iran does have much more powerful and longer range missiles than Saddam's forces. With their current tech, such missiles could hit anywhere in the Middle East, including Israel, and much of Europe as well. Fortunately, the US has been developing advanced missile interception systems, including anti-missile lasers.
Perhaps one of the most critical things would be to get the regular Iranian Army to defect and fight against the Revolutionary Guard. The Iranian campaign could played out much more like Libya than Iraq, but on a significantly larger scale.
Why do you keep repeating FoxNews/John Bolton style talking points?
Something Wicked
Member
theignoramus said:You mention Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah, like that's fundamentally worse than the US selling advanced weapons, tear gas, and "riot control equipment" to the monarchies of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, the primary instigators of Sunni and Shiite tensions in the region.
It is much worse. Iran gives Hezbollah and Hamas short ranged missiles to fire into Israel and the US gives riot control gear, so Bahrain and Saudi Arabia do not use lethal force in controlling the unrest. At least Bahrain and Saudi Arabia try to distribute the oil wealth to their people, rather than Iran using its oil money to buy tanks and missile launchers and to develop their own nukes and ICBMs. I don't see Saudi Arabia and Bahrain funding Baloch insurgents to bomb civilians in Iran.
theignoramus said:You dont have a clue what you're talking about. Iran's nuclear program is supported by the opposition, by the whole country. An attack on its nuclear facilities would be regarded as an attack on Iran and would unify the country. The idea that Western airstrikes would foment an Iranian civil war is probably the most laughable right wing fantasy out there.
Why do you keep repeating FoxNews/John Bolton style talking points?
You gain the support and the "go ahead" from the Iranian regular army generals before the airstrikes- not after.
el retorno
Member
theignoramus said:You dont have a clue what you're talking about. Iran's nuclear program is supported by the opposition, by the whole country. An attack on its nuclear facilities would be regarded as an attack on Iran and would unify the country. The idea that Western airstrikes would foment an Iranian civil war is probably the most laughable right wing fantasy out there.
Why do you keep repeating FoxNews/John Bolton style talking points?
Not to defend him but I believe its the civilian nuclear program that is supported by the opposition not the nukes. The US just wants supervision to make sure they are not building nukes.
TacticalFox88
Banned
We'd need to prepare about 10-15k body bags of our soldiers, possibly more, if we launched a ground Invasion Iraq style. We'd win, obviously, but it'll make the Afganistan and Iraq war look like a fucking picnic on a Saturday afternoon.FreeMufasa said:How does Iran compare to Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of strength?
Justin Timberlake
Member
FreeMufasa said:How does Iran compare to Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of strength?
It'd be the biggest military engagement the US has made since WW II.
It would cost so much money and lives that we may as well kiss whatever we have left of an economy goodbye.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
TacticalFox88 said:We'd need to prepare about 10-15k body bags of our soldiers, possibly more, if we launched a ground Invasion Iraq style. We'd win, obviously, but it'll make the Afganistan and Iraq war look like a fucking picnic on a Saturday afternoon.
There would never be a need for an invasion like the one of Iraq, unless you refer to the Gulf War.
theignoramus
Member
What the US wants is regime change and has wanted it since 1979. But more to the point, Iran isnt building nukes. If it was, it would have been detected by the IAEA, you cant hide something like that. The issue is whether Iran is acquiring the know how and capability to build a nuke and if it will "break out" when it acquires said capability.el retorno de los sapos said:Not to defend him but I believe its the civilian nuclear program that is supported by the opposition not the nukes. The US just wants supervision to make sure they are not building nukes.
I have no doubt the Iranians want a break out capability, to get to the point where they can assemble a warhead in a few months if they wanted one, but that's not the same thing as strapping a nuclear warhead to a missile.
theignoramus
Member
Something Wicked said:You gain the support and the "go ahead" from the Iranian regular army generals before the airstrikes- not after.
hahahaha.
Find me handful of Iranian regular army general that support airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program and I'll find you a dog that reads Shakespeare
(civilian nuclear facilities would be hit in any airstrike aimed at halting Iran's nuclear program, due to the dual use nature of nuclear power)
Something Wicked
Member
theignoramus said:hahahaha.
Find me handful of Iranian regular army general that support airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program and I'll find you a dog that reads Shakespeare
(civilian nuclear facilities would be hit in any airstrike aimed at halting Iran's nuclear program, due to the dual use nature of nuclear power)
I'm not so much talking about its nuclear facilities, but the IRG's bases and Team Supreme Nacho. I'm talking about a regime change campaign.
Reading this just made me feelgood.gifSomething Wicked said:US & UK airforces, it would take less than a day of airstrikes to completely wipe out the Iranian airforce and navy. However, Iran does have much more powerful and longer range missiles than Saddam's forces. With their current tech, such missiles could hit anywhere in the Middle East, including Israel, and much of Europe as well. Fortunately, the US has been developing advanced missile interception systems, including anti-missile lasers.
theignoramus
Member
Oh man. Im far from being an expert on Bahrain, but your statements and claims here are just laughable, almost beyond belief. The protests in Bahrain were precisely because the Khalifa regime does the opposite of what you claim.Something Wicked said:It is much worse. Iran gives Hezbollah and Hamas short ranged missiles to fire into Israel and the US gives riot control gear,so Bahrain and Saudi Arabia do not use lethal force in controlling the unrest. At least Bahrain and Saudi Arabia try to distribute the oil wealth to their people, rather than Iran using its oil money to buy tanks and missile launchers and to develop their own nukes and ICBMs. I don't see Saudi Arabia and Bahrain funding Baloch insurgents to bomb civilians in Iran.
You gain the support and the "go ahead" from the Iranian regular army generals before the airstrikes- not after.
(incidentally, Bahrain is using its money to buy 53 million dollars worth of American made APCs and missile launchers)
And saudi arabia doesnt need to pay anyone to bomb civilians, it does so itself in yemen, where it has interfered and stoked sectarian conflict for decades.
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats...
"We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the presidents announcement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/w...post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html
First, Iran must stop interfering with our interests in our region.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
I'll just throw this out there for those not very aware of how the current Iranian government came into existence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Shah's_Men
My opinion is that there is absolutely no good (well at least altruistic) reason for any western government to meddle as history has shown us that America and Britain really fuck everything up. There is no reason for anybody to trust our militaries/politicians with being able to improve the situation over there.
The absolute only reason to launch any sort of airstrike is if you have 100% proof that Iran has a nuclear weapon or is about to make one. Definitely more than just speculation that they might have one in 5 years if they are really trying, you can't justify a preemptive strike on Iran of all countries without absolute proof as the western governments have no credibility at all when it comes to handling the middle-east whether you're looking at their actions 5 years ago or 50 years ago.
The only way I'd expect any action against Iran is if there is proof. Even then, I would think that Israel would be kept back as they would damage their reputation even more if they went to war with a Muslim country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Shah's_Men
My opinion is that there is absolutely no good (well at least altruistic) reason for any western government to meddle as history has shown us that America and Britain really fuck everything up. There is no reason for anybody to trust our militaries/politicians with being able to improve the situation over there.
The absolute only reason to launch any sort of airstrike is if you have 100% proof that Iran has a nuclear weapon or is about to make one. Definitely more than just speculation that they might have one in 5 years if they are really trying, you can't justify a preemptive strike on Iran of all countries without absolute proof as the western governments have no credibility at all when it comes to handling the middle-east whether you're looking at their actions 5 years ago or 50 years ago.
The only way I'd expect any action against Iran is if there is proof. Even then, I would think that Israel would be kept back as they would damage their reputation even more if they went to war with a Muslim country.
joseph1594
Member
Something Wicked said:It is much worse. Iran gives Hezbollah and Hamas short ranged missiles to fire into Israel and the US gives riot control gear, so Bahrain and Saudi Arabia do not use lethal force in controlling the unrest. At least Bahrain and Saudi Arabia try to distribute the oil wealth to their people, rather than Iran using its oil money to buy tanks and missile launchers and to develop their own nukes and ICBMs. I don't see Saudi Arabia and Bahrain funding Baloch insurgents to bomb civilians in Iran.
You gain the support and the "go ahead" from the Iranian regular army generals before the airstrikes- not after.
I did not know that killing dozens of protestors in a nation of only one million constitutes as "non-lethal" force. In contrast, a the Iranian crackdown on protests killed 26-72 (still unacceptable), which is a significantly smaller per capita death rate in protests. Also, I think a western military intervention would only kill any voice the opposition has in Iran as the Iranian regime could use the military invasion as a rallying point for the Iranian populace. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have never stoked conflict? Shiites are persecuted in both of these countries and any time the Shiites speak out against it, they are claimed to be foreign conspirators. Apparently, it is only ok to kill your own people rather than kill another countries. Iran also has a rapidly expanding middle class, with internet connections being available to little over half the populace. In the terms of developing countries, Iran would be considered an upper tier country.
speculawyer
Member
No additional nations should acquire nukes. We have too many as is. It sucks that India and Pakistan got them.chaostrophy said:Can someone explain exactly why Iran shouldn't have nukes? Given the aggressiveness of the US and Israel in the area, it seems like a perfectly reasonable form of defense- not to be used, but as a deterrent. Preventing an Israeli invasion could save Iranian and Israeli lives.
ThisWreckage
Banned
The Crimson Blur said:It'd be the biggest military engagement the US has made since WW II.
It would cost so much money and lives that we may as well kiss whatever we have left of an economy goodbye.
Historically, the U.S. has engaged in wars to pull itself out of a economic hole. Well, one of the reasons.
TacticalFox88
Banned
.....That's not how it works.ThisWreckage said:Historically, the U.S. has engaged in wars to pull itself out of a economic hole. Well, one of the reasons.
ThisWreckage
Banned
TacticalFox88 said:.....That's not how it works.
Really? Because I thought that large war efforts created jobs and I also recall reading that post WWII is when the U.S. really took off as far as the economy goes.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.