Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
Nickel wrote:
HKFarmboy wrote:
TEHRAN, Iran - "Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles Wednesday in war games officials say are in response to U.S. and Israeli threats, state television reported.Gen. Hossein Salami
This is something I think people are tending to forget. Iran isn't Iraq. Not by a long shot. Iraq was essentially defenseless, but Iran isn't. Faced with nuclear-armed invaders, they really can't prevail. But that's not to say they can't put a beating on their assailants the likes of which the US hasn't endured since the Pacific campaigns of the Second World War. I don't think Iran could hold off a truly determined United States. But I do believe they have the capacity to inflict loses on the US military that will be shocking and horrifying to the people of the United States, and reveal the feet of clay upon which even the greatest powers stand... we're all mortal, after all. To me, the single most concerning fact is that the Russians have sold Iran a group of land-based anti-ship cruise missiles that they designed specifically to counter the advantage the US had in carrier fleets. The SS-N-22 Sunburn was intended specifically to be used to defend the coast from an amphibious assault, and it makes the Exorcet look like a toy by comparison. They fly at twice the speed of sound and present an attack profile width only slightly wider than 30 inches. A single one could cripple, and potentially even sink, an aircraft carrier. I don't think anyone knows for sure just how many the Russians sold Iran, aside from Russia and Iran. So while I agree that Iran can't ultimately prevail, at least not alone, in defending its sovereignty, I think people need to keep in mind that an earnest attack on Iran presents potential losses the likes of which no Western country has seen since our grandparents' day.
How would it be different?
With the 'shock and awe' campaign bombing for weeks or months on end, Wouldn't Iran be in the same condition as Iraq?
It is hard to get the truth about such issues. Some say Iran's need nukes for energy is legitimate. Others say no it is not. We can't go by past performance of the gov, as we were told nothing but lies about Iraq.
Too bad the US didn't plant at least one or two weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, We may have had more faith in our gov if they kept us in the dark about their lies.
I will say all this 'attacking' will come back to haunt us. We use the euphemism shock and awe as a catch phrase to not say we are killing masses of people before the process of invading their country
Humans operate via the 'monkey see monkey do' mentality. So we should not complain when the bill comes due for us to pay...but of course we will as we (Americans) think we are exempt.
Joined: Jun 26, 2007 Posts: 1094 Location: The Canada of America
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:17 am Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
allenwrench wrote:
How would it be different?
Well, most importantly, when Iraq was attacked in 2003, it was still on the ropes from the war in 1991. The US and Britain never got off its neck, it never rebuilt its forces substantially or bought new weapons systems, or had real independence to act. Remember, Iraq didn't jump up and attack the US; the US just kicked it around for a decade and then went for the throat, like a cat toying with a mouse. And even then, that mouse is hardly what you'd call dead, is it?
Iran is not in that position. Its last war was with Iraq, and ended 20 years ago. It's been rebuilding its forces since then, and as been buying weapons systems from Russia. I'm not saying it's a match for the US. But I'm saying it's no pushover. If the US attacks Iran, you can, quite honestly, expect it to hurt the US as well. It won't be a bloodless video game. It WILL cost lives. If Iran attacks the carriers, and it probably can, then thousands, maybe tens of thousands of US lives. It's not something to take lightly.
allenwrench wrote:
It is hard to get the truth about such issues. Some say Iran's need nukes for energy is legitimate. Others say no it is not. We can't go by past performance of the gov, as we were told nothing but lies about Iraq.
With Israel having something like 200 of them, and the US constantly stroking its beard in public about whether or not to fly in and kill millions of Iranians, I honestly could not blame them if they really were out to get the bomb. But I'm not convinced they are. There's no question they want to go nuclear so they can sell (rather than just burn) more oil. You'd consider growing cheap soy to eat, too, if your only export was caviar. _________________ I can has cheezburger?
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 3646 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:31 am Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
allenwrench wrote:
Too bad the US didn't plant at least one or two weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, We may have had more faith in our gov if they kept us in the dark about their lies.
That's a good point you've brought up. If the US is so quick to conspire, if it brought down the twin towers with planted explosives and all, then why DIDN'T it plant WMDs in Iraq? This is where the conspiracy theories start to break down.
If there is anything the Bush administration has to show for itself it is INCOMPETENCE. I think the administration actually believed the WMDs were there. There is no way they would want to set themselves up for the shame of not finding them afterwards. Not that it really changes things that much. _________________ Peak oil is sort of like a mental Everlasting Gobstopper, except it tastes like ass and you can't get it out of your mouth.
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:33 pm Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
mos6507 wrote:
allenwrench wrote:
Too bad the US didn't plant at least one or two weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, We may have had more faith in our gov if they kept us in the dark about their lies.
That's a good point you've brought up. If the US is so quick to conspire, if it brought down the twin towers with planted explosives and all, then why DIDN'T it plant WMDs in Iraq? This is where the conspiracy theories start to break down.
If there is anything the Bush administration has to show for itself it is INCOMPETENCE. I think the administration actually believed the WMDs were there. There is no way they would want to set themselves up for the shame of not finding them afterwards. Not that it really changes things that much.
Because if WMD were found, then there would have to also exist abundant evidence of a sophisticated, highly organized program to produce them.
There would have to also exist many, many scientists, technicians and support personnel; there would have to exist facilities infrastructure; materials acquisitions links, etc.
If you just planted a few fully functioning and complete WMD's without there being any supporting infrastructure and 1000's of supporting personnel, the weapons would look exactly as they were -- planted evidence. It would stick out obviously to everyone who bothered to look at the details.
Joined: Jun 26, 2007 Posts: 1094 Location: The Canada of America
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
Carlhole wrote:
It was much simpler and sneakier to say, "Oops, we fu*ked up".
Exactly. "We did it for all the right reasons... we did it for YOU! WE LOVE YOOOOUUUUU!!! ...And all the money we're making." _________________ I can has cheezburger?
Joined: Dec 07, 2005 Posts: 1828 Location: Australia
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
I actually think they were betting on finding something....anything.
So accusing Iraq of having WMD was probably seen as a safe bet even if they didn't have any evidence at the time.
Secondly I also think we give Bush administration too much credit for planning these things.
First of all the big decisions are made elsewhere. Planning is then outsourced to the appropriate teams. In case of falseflags etc you have teams working independently of eachother with different agendas. For example one team gets to work on drawing away attention using trainings etc and another team works on carrying out the operation. Whitehouse then announces the official bits and gets credit/blame. Whitehouse and house of reps. is the ultimate patsy. Criminal non-the-less as they have through corruption and mismanagement and by caving into to pressure given up authority they should have. _________________ Lets take a ride, and run with the dogs tonight
In suburbia
You cant hide, run with the dogs tonight
In suburbia
- Pet Shop Boys
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
Iran certainly has the capabilities to disrupt the oil flow from the Middle East to the US. And if they don't yet have that capability, they will soon, because even a retarded hyena on LSD would realize that it's the achilles' heel of the US in this region.
That will obviously cause oil prices to skyrocket and nobody would enjoy that. The US would probably also be blamed for this and further alienate itself from the rest of the world.
China and other creditor nations can also easily threaten to drop some of it's $1.7 trillion in US bonds and other assets, which will make it much harder for the US to conduct any meaningful military strikes on Iran when their wallets are empty.
Israel could however organize an air strike on Irans nuclear facilities, but they would have to face the consequences.
It's all rather pointless in the end. All these people making the decisions have too big egos.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
Carlhole wrote:
mos6507 wrote:
allenwrench wrote:
Too bad the US didn't plant at least one or two weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, We may have had more faith in our gov if they kept us in the dark about their lies.
That's a good point you've brought up. If the US is so quick to conspire, if it brought down the twin towers with planted explosives and all, then why DIDN'T it plant WMDs in Iraq? This is where the conspiracy theories start to break down.
If there is anything the Bush administration has to show for itself it is INCOMPETENCE. I think the administration actually believed the WMDs were there. There is no way they would want to set themselves up for the shame of not finding them afterwards. Not that it really changes things that much.
Because if WMD were found, then there would have to also exist abundant evidence of a sophisticated, highly organized program to produce them.
There would have to also exist many, many scientists, technicians and support personnel; there would have to exist facilities infrastructure; materials acquisitions links, etc.
If you just planted a few fully functioning and complete WMD's without there being any supporting infrastructure and 1000's of supporting personnel, the weapons would look exactly as they were -- planted evidence. It would stick out obviously to everyone who bothered to look at the details.
It was much simpler and sneakier to say, "Oops, we fu*ked up".
Makes sense...the gov would of if they could of, but just could not figure out a way.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: Re: Iran- Latest News
mos6507 wrote:
allenwrench wrote:
Too bad the US didn't plant at least one or two weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, We may have had more faith in our gov if they kept us in the dark about their lies.
That's a good point you've brought up. If the US is so quick to conspire, if it brought down the twin towers with planted explosives and all, then why DIDN'T it plant WMDs in Iraq? This is where the conspiracy theories start to break down.
If there is anything the Bush administration has to show for itself it is INCOMPETENCE. I think the administration actually believed the WMDs were there. There is no way they would want to set themselves up for the shame of not finding them afterwards. Not that it really changes things that much.
I don't know if the twin towers was a conspiracy or not.
Maybe the idea with Iraq was more of 'wishful thinking' They may have figured there must be something there we can blame it on.
But just like twin towers...I do not know what the gov thinks or does behind the scenes.
The last thing we need is the EU giving the US any nod to attack Iran. The EU may not be pushing the US, but they certainly are now standing behind Bush on his accusation Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and what timing for this latent support, right before a presidential election and at the cusp of "world financial meltdown."
Quote:
VIENNA, Austria - Iran is nearing the ability to arm a nuclear warhead even if it insists its atomic activities are peaceful, the European Union warned Wednesday.
In comments prepared for delivery to the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35 board members, the EU also asserted that Iran appeared to have had a past nuclear arms program despite its denials.
The statement was made available to reporters as the meeting turned its attention on Iran's nuclear defiance on its third day. The main international concerns focus on the country's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment despite three U.N. Security Council sanctions and its blocking of IAEA attempts to follow up on intelligence suggesting it was developing a nuclear arms program until several years ago.
Iran insists its nuclear activities are geared only toward generating power. But Israel says the Islamic Republic could have enough nuclear material to make its first bomb within a year. The U.S. estimates Iran is at least two years away from that stage, and some experts say the country could reach that stage in as little as 6 months through uranium enrichment.
An IAEA report drawn up for Wednesday's meeting says Iran has increased the number of centrifuges used to process uranium to nearly 4,000 from 3,000 just a few months ago.
But David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security closely tracks suspect secret proliferators, has also been able to extrapolate other information from the report that is less obvious but of at least equal concern.
Iran, he says, has managed to iron out most of the bugs in the intensely complicated process of enrichment that often saw the centrifuges breaking down. The machines, he says "now appear to be running at approximately 85 percent of their stated target capacity, a significant increase over previous rates."
That, he says means, they can produce more enriched uranium faster. And while the IAEA says the machines have spewed out only low-enriched material suitable solely for nuclear fuel, producing enough of that can make it easy to "break out" quickly by reprocessing it to weapons-grade uranium.
To date, Iran has produced nearly 1,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium, said the report — close to what Albright says is the 1,500-pound minimum needed to produce the 45-60 pounds needed for a simple nuclear bomb under optimal conditions.
And with Iran's centrifuges running ever more smoothly, it "is progressing toward this capability and can be expected to reach it in six months to two years," says Albright.
Touching on such fears, the statement by the 27-nation EU said that Iran's defiance of Security Council demands on enrichment is troubling "because it brings us closer to the moment where Iran will have fissile materials for a weapon, if it chose to increase their degree of enrichment."
It also cast serious doubt on Iranian assertions that it never embarked on studies geared toward making nuclear weapons.
While the evidence "remains to be verified, the IAEA's exhaustive and detailed" information, "leads one to think that the Iran has methodically pursued a program aimed at acquiring the nuclear bomb," the statement said.
In a statement, Iran's mission to the IAEA again denied wrongdoing and suggested the pressure was part of a U.S. witchhunt.
The Islamic Republic "has repeatedly declared that there is not and has not been any undeclared nuclear activities and material in Iran," it said, denouncing the "fabricated and baseless allegations ... produced by the United States."
An IAEA report circulated to the board members Monday that faulted Iran for blocking efforts to further investigate the alleged weapons program.
Part of the report touched on what appeared to be drawings and calculations by Iranian engineers on reconfiguring its Shahab-3 missile to be able to carry a nuclear payload. Iranian officials say the missile has a range of 1,250 miles — enabling a strike on Israel and most of the Middle East.
Gregory L. Schulte, Washington's chief IAEA delegate, noted that — beyond dismissing the allegations — Iran "refuses to provide credible explanations to support its claims that all of this information ... is pure forgery and fabrication."
And his German counterpart, Ruediger Luedeking, said that "if Iran is not pursuing a military nuclear program it should have no difficulty in cooperating with the agency.
"Iran needs to explain why its military is so deeply involved in its nuclear program," he said.
The last thing we need is the EU giving the US any nod to attack Iran. The EU may not be pushing the US, but they certainly are now standing behind Bush on his accusation Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and what timing for this latent support, right before a presidential election and at the cusp of "world financial meltdown."
Let's say the EU is right. Does that change your opinion on the issue? What if the UN passed a security council resolution allowing the use of force? I'm just wondering whether any degree of international solidarity against Iran would change your opinion or that you'd want them to just get a free pass regardless of what they do? _________________ Peak oil is sort of like a mental Everlasting Gobstopper, except it tastes like ass and you can't get it out of your mouth.
Honestly, it might make me reevaluate the situation. I don't know if I'd agree with any kind of military action - it would depend on the info available to me. As it stands, US intel has come out and said basically, that to the best of their knowledge, this isn't an immediate problem. When the administration keeps harping on it, all I hear is "Iraq Iraq Iraq" again. No third party without some kind of obvious ulterior motive or prior axe to grind has produced anything substantial, so I'm left with judging the situation based on the character of the people's statements, and their past honesty.
If you look through the intel reports that have surfaced from the 90s and early 2000s, you get a pretty clear picture. US intel warned about terror attacks. Admin ignored it. Intel warned about airplanes used in terror attacks. Admin ignored it. Intel said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Admin said Iraq helped with 9/11. Intel says Iraq doesn't have any WMDs. Admin says they do. Admin invades Iraq. Iraq doesn't have any WMDs.
So far, US intel has been batting almost 1000, and Admin is batting about 0.0, so when I read an intel report jointly prepared by 17 US intel agencies that says they don't believe Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, I'm far more inclined to believe it over the Admin. Especially since my knowledge of PO tells me that oil producing nations know they have to find another energy source asap or face severe internal social unrest.
mos6507 wrote:
seahorse2 wrote:
The last thing we need is the EU giving the US any nod to attack Iran. The EU may not be pushing the US, but they certainly are now standing behind Bush on his accusation Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and what timing for this latent support, right before a presidential election and at the cusp of "world financial meltdown."
Let's say the EU is right. Does that change your opinion on the issue? What if the UN passed a security council resolution allowing the use of force? I'm just wondering whether any degree of international solidarity against Iran would change your opinion or that you'd want them to just get a free pass regardless of what they do?
The last thing we need is the EU giving the US any nod to attack Iran. The EU may not be pushing the US, but they certainly are now standing behind Bush on his accusation Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and what timing for this latent support, right before a presidential election and at the cusp of "world financial meltdown."
Let's say the EU is right. Does that change your opinion on the issue? What if the UN passed a security council resolution allowing the use of force? I'm just wondering whether any degree of international solidarity against Iran would change your opinion or that you'd want them to just get a free pass regardless of what they do?
And what it is really that Iran has done to warrant use of nuclear force against them? Have they bombed their neighbors? Have they stolen lands from their neighbors? Have they made an entire nation homeless? No, Israel has done all of those.
Idiots like you should realize that any use of force would cause enormous misery to countless innocent individuals- on both sides that is. Its real and not some disney biblical animation that we are talking about.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
