the whole immigration thing will pass and this will take over soon enought. The collective american media's attention span doesn't go past 2 months. After we stop talking about Immigration and Iran something else will take its place for a few weeks. Who knows, maybe the Bird Flu scare will come back! Or Sars! Havn't heard about Sars in like a year!
[ QUOTE ]
Never been toast? Vietnam? They roasted our asses, and handed them back on a silver trimmed platter. We're not invulnerable. We can lose just as easily as anyone else.
If the enemy waged digital warfare on us, turning off GPS, data networks, etc - we'd be in the stone age. The United States Military is nothing without their smart weapons and gps. Without those, we're on a level playing field.
[/ QUOTE ]
You have GOT to be kidding me. Do not tell me that you believe the NVA actually waged a better military campaign, that's just not right at all. Vietnam was lost for political reasons and political reasons only. If Johnson had wanted to, he could have burned the whole damned country into the ground. Instead, ridiculous rules of engagement, political turmoil and the like kept America from fighting a war anywhere near it's actual capability.
The numbers of deaths are hard to calculate from Vietnam, as so much conflict happened "off the books". Nonetheless, Vietnam estimates the count of North Vietnamese fighters killed between 1954-75 is about 1.1 million. America lost 58,226 soldiers. When you outkill your enemy nearly 20-to-1, you did not get your ass handed to you. You may have lost the war, but not for military reasons.
I'm not going to quibble over scenarios in which opponents might somehow counter whatever mojo the US military is using today. It's never happened and I'm thinking no one who reads Polycount is knowledgable as to how vulnerable US electronic warfare is. But I do know that Iran doesn't have anything in its arsenal to defend against B-52s dropping a million tons of munitions on her cities, and those bombers were in service before the first satellite was ever put in orbit.
Of course Verm is right. In an all-out conventional war we would kick the crap out of everyone. We don't even know what the US government can do, because we don't know what weapons we have available. The Stealth fighter was first flown in 1977! Darpa is working on things like robot exo armor, and automatated transport vehicles, that we know of.
Verm: The Gulf of Tonkin incident that provoked involvement in Vietnam was a lie and a deliberate cover-up.
The war was not officially declared.
We withdrew from the area before the end and it's considered a loss. Your view of "we killed more of them and quickly" scares me. Some wars will not be won with force. There's the long term effects to consider.
It's great that you think Iraq was a quick and smooth success. Mission Accomplished eh?
I'm really not looking to sit here and argue with you, Ely. I've repeatedly differentiated between conquering a nation militarily as opposed to occupying that nation, and I've clarified that political circumstances for victory in a conflict aren't necessarily related to the military ones. I don't know what words I should have used to make the distinctions more compelling. I'm not going to tangle with you and the "I think it's great" sarcastic hyperbole; I gather you see things differently and that's fine by me.
Yeah, I done. Not attacking you, just your standpoint. I see no purpose in questioning our military's capabilities. It's best we never have to reach that point.
This is damn good. Before anyone starts complaining its conspiracy/liberal spin or what not. This was shown on BBC. Watch it and make your own informed decisions.
War sucks, and thats about the gist of it.
No ones ever going to win, and it'll never stop. Unfortunately, I'll have to bear with it and hope that we don't end up blowing up earth. (Or any other body in the solar system, for that matter)
At full strength in a conventional war we could kick Irans ass,but we are not at full strength and we are over extended.
The problem with Iran is that we need a stable base to attack from at a short distance,but Iraq isnt stable and Afghanistan is getting more violent as the months pass, personally if i was Iran i would seek to distablize Iraq and Afghanistan,you make life for the US military hell in both of those countries mounting an offensive which will be effective will be tough.
[ QUOTE ]
Last i checked it's a general discussion forum. I'm sure it was posted to get opinions from a specific demographic of like-minded or like-industied people. If you dont like it, dont post or troll?
[/ QUOTE ]
I could take that as a valid answer, if you hadn't followed up with:
[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, Frank. People like you are the reason why nothing is ever done about extreme political failures. And odly enough, if you want this to stop, get involved with stopping the source.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly my point. What will be accomplished by you and people who agree with you bitching about political issues on an art site? Talking does nothing. You say I'm the reason nothing gets done; well, talk is cheap is my point, the one that went over your head. Don't just bitch about it, do something about it. That's what I prefer to do.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually Frank, my thread was about educating people who may have uncritically accepted lies as truth. People who base their actions on falsehoods make bad decisions for themselves, and that leads to personal unhappiness and failure.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you were trying to get people to accept the idea of granting citizenship to those that illegally reside in the US because you have illegals in your family. That's what I got out of it, anyway.
[ QUOTE ]
Frank what type of American are you?? You cant do anything so shut up?
[/ QUOTE ]
You also completely missed the point. Try 'shut up and do something about it for a change' and you'll be closer to the truth. Or maybe 'quit your endless, useless internet ranting, get up off your ass and make a change if it's that important to you.' You're like the type of people that start internet petitions, for christ's sake.
[ QUOTE ]
But yeah its much easier for you to piss on people who dont agree with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or people that don't jump up to agree with your pointless political commentary on a message board, maybe?
[ QUOTE ]
But thankfully we live in a democracy where douchebags like you can speak freely no matter how idiotic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, the irony, she is thick. You don't even know what I was talking about and you're calling me unamerican, an idiot, and implying I enjoy seeing american soldiers die. Wow, why are you at an art site and not in a polysci program somewhere? You've obviously got it all figured out.
Well Frank, if that's all you got our of it, fine.
You can take a retard to see Fantasia, and maybe what they'll get out of it is that there were some loud noises and bright colors. It doesn't reflect badly on the movie. It reflects badly on that retard's ability to appreciate it.
wow, frank, talk about trolling the thread, i dont see why you are getting worked up over this thread, do yourself a simple favour and dont post...
On topic, I think comparing iran and iraq is like apples and oranges, Iran has a much more capable military force than say, Iraq had, so a physical invasion would not be peachy. The country is much less in the state of ruin that Iraq, it is much more industralized and that means they have a lot of resources at their disposal... Iraq was very much in a state of decay and suddam's political control was weakening, the US strike was no doubt well planned at the right exact time. The issue is much different with Iran.
Realistically though, i dont see the "nuclear threat" being enough to warrant an invasion, or a successful one at that. We can see how US is having troubles keeping things in order in Iraq, and it seems that Afganistan has been left almost entirely to be secured by other nations...
At the same time though, i know a few iranian immigrants who dont speak warmly of their president, who appears to be a much more irrational and religious fanatic than say George Bush is considered to be. So when he starts raising the issue of nuclear strength, there are firm reasons for US to be concerned. I mean i'd have a hard time believing Iraq even has any acess to technology to develop nuclear weapons and i would have an even harder time believing they even had the infrastructure and the means to actually launch and guide those weapons anywhere far. Iran, on the other hand would be MUCH more capable to launching a strike at their dearest old friend Israel, and who in US wants that?
I think what people need to realize that invading and occupying territory is quite within the abilities of US military, however maintaing peace and policing the outbreaks of guerilla warfare and terrorism in such a religious hotspot of the world is very very difficult. On paper, Iraq, was conquered in months, at least territorially, but it's proving very difficult to stabilize the country itself and provide security to the actual citizens you are trying to protect.
[ QUOTE ]
Iran has a much more capable military force than say, Iraq had, so a physical invasion would not be peachy.
[/ QUOTE ]
That isn't so. The Iraqi military, prior to 2003, was considered by many to be the superior arab force - equal or better than every other nation in the region. Iran can boast significant artillery capabilities and more active troops than any nation in the Middle East, but they have no air force to speak of and they're still fielding Russian T-72s as their primary heavy battle tank, a 35-year old piece of armor. Basically, it's the Iraqi military all over again.
Invading Iran would be as easy as invading Iraq, and possibly easier since US sommand could operate and deploy directly out of Baghdad.
[ QUOTE ]
The country is much less in the state of ruin that Iraq, it is much more industralized and that means they have a lot of resources at their disposal... Iraq was very much in a state of decay and suddam's political control was weakening, the US strike was no doubt well planned at the right exact time. The issue is much different with Iran.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think much of this is debatable. Iran has a more stable and productive industrial infrastructure, but I don't know that the government is particularly more effective than Saddam's iron grip was in Iraq. What is probably most beneficial is that there isn't as much national division in Iran, the way the Shiite/Sunni conflict keeps Iraq in a general state of disorder. If everyone is gung ho about repelling an invader, that sort of partisan support definitely helps.
That said, while Iran does have some noteworthy industrial capability, that isn't going to mean a hell of a lot when bombs start dropping out of the sky. A US invasion would happen so quickly that there would be little benefit anyway. The German blitzkreig of WWII altered warfare strategy in that regard - France had some of Europe's finest industrial capabilities in 1939, but they hardly had a chance to put that into effect with Panzers rolling through Paris. Same situation here, except the US army is an order of magnitude faster and more powerful than what the Nazis had to work with.
I think this will be my last post on the matter as I am definitely chasing my tail here. Suffice it to say, anyone can browse through the various wikipedia entries for these nations and compare. I think a tired, depressed and thinly-deployed US military would hand Iran its ass every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The tricky bit is maintaining order over a couple thousand miles of desert afterwards.
Im surprised no one has brought up the cost. Sure as Verm states we can take them out. But in the long run who is spending the greater amount to "win"?
We may win wars on the battlefield. We sure don't seem to with the bottom line.
[ QUOTE ]
I think this will be my last post on the matter as I am definitely chasing my tail here. Suffice it to say, anyone can browse through the various wikipedia entries for these nations and compare. I think a tired, depressed and thinly-deployed US military would hand Iran its ass every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The tricky bit is maintaining order over a couple thousand miles of desert afterwards.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, see, i never questioned the ability of the us military to invade and occupy iranian territory, but it's a totally different question when it comes to maintaining the peace itself over a few years. Afganistain and Iraq are prime examples. There is also the humongous cost of the military operation like previously mentioned ..
I don't think any military action would involve "invading" Iran. More likely it would be swift military strikes to take out their nuclear development areas.
If it did come down to a "war", anyone thinking that Iran would "kick our asses" is living in some kind of dreamworld. Vermillion has pretty much outlined the reasons why.
The same things some of you are saying about Iran's military are the exact same things said about the Republican Guard in 1990. The US could decimate Iran's military without even setting a human foot in the country.
I don't think any military action would involve "invading" Iran. More likely it would be swift military strikes to take out their nuclear development areas.
Only taking out the threat will not give the US control of the oil. The oil is the primary target, if nuclear weapons were the concern you'd see much more focus on North Korea.
Only taking out the threat will not give the US control of the oil. The oil is the primary target, if nuclear weapons were the concern you'd see much more focus on North Korea.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's ridiculous. But it's the average european opinion after Michael Moores work, so you're in good company.
There are plenty of differences between North Korea and Iran, many of them could be the reason for the different behavior of the US. For example, NK is not a real threat for Israel because they don't have any arab ideology behind them. And I don't even have to mention that the security of Israel is of interest for the US.
Yes but NK is a direct threat to the US mainland and much further ahead in the nuclear arms race than Iran. Defense of the homeland should take precedence over aiding allies, shoudn't it?
[ QUOTE ]
Yes but NK is a direct threat to the US mainland and much further ahead in the nuclear arms race than Iran. Defense of the homeland should take precedence over aiding allies, shoudn't it?
[/ QUOTE ]
NK is not a threat to the homeland because they know full well that if they managed to get one of their rickety missiles to even make it to Cali, without getting picked off in flight no less, that it would result in the complete anihiliation of their country. Kim Jong Il is a madman, yes, but he isn't *that* stupid.
The real threat to the U.S. mainland is someone sneaking a smaller nuclear device into the country and detonating it in one of our cities to make a "statement" ala, 911. Iran, being a country full of Muslim extremists, who have a history of hatred towards the US, is not a good place for these weapons to be made.
I do think that the entire thing is a slippery slope. Who are we to really say, they can't have nuclear weapons? Half of their neighboring countries have them. The problem is, if they do get them, it is probably only a matter of time before one is detonated on US soil, and of course the Iranian government would soundly denounce any involvement, making an all-out retaliation difficult to justify.
I honestly don't know the answer to this problem. Can anyone honestly say the world will be as safe a place as it was prior to them having nuclear weapons?
I thought NK is considered to be nuclear armed already, aren't they? Military actions could have severe consequences there. Another thing they might consider is the balance of fear that takes place if your opponent is somewhat reasonable. A situation similar to the one during cold war is achieved. Once NK is launching a missile, their contry will be destroyed.
The way Iran behaves, I'm not sure they would react in a way I hope North Korea is going to. I'm not sure if a huge loss of population in Iran is an obstavle for Ahmadinejad as I would compare his Ideology with the one of Saddam except for less west influence. And Menachem Begin didn't trust the balance of fear either in 1981 as he faced the possibility of the Iraq bomb.
Other muslim countries have nuclear capabilities and no warheads have been handed over to terrorist groups. Those things aren't very low profile, require a lengthy transport (as opposed to being made in someone's basement a few miles away from the target) and I don't think any govt wants one of those things unaccounted for. Smuggling a warhead into a country is almost impossible, especially without the intelligence agencies noticing. After all, they did know about 9/11 beforehand but they considered that noise. A nuclear device would warrant much higher priority treatment. The likelyness of such a weapon being smuggled into the country unnoticed AND delivered to the target successfully is roughly nada.
Overall I don't believe that Iran poses any direct threat to any western country. Even a conventional attack would trigger a response bigger than what Iran can handle, I'd wager that Denmark alone could crush that country (of course such a response would be open warfare rather than "liberation" and collateral damage would be more permittable). If the US wanted those nuke facilities taken out they'd pump a few cruise missiles into them and let it be but they wouldn't have gone through all the trouble of securing Iraq and Afghanistan if they weren't going to mount a land attack on Iran.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's ridiculous. But it's the average european opinion after Michael Moores work, so you're in good company.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whats more ridiculous is that statement.
[/ QUOTE ]
You should read magazines from over here, it's exaggerated but not too far away from reality. Many journalists deal with his movies as if they were documentary movies and they have huge popularity among the youth. Together with plenty of articles in newspapers and magazines, the climate became very anti american over here and they are considered as an oil robbing world police especially among young people without much knowledge about history.
The thing about North Korea is that every time we adopt a stronger stance with them we get objections from the south (stupid sunshine policy) who are our allies and are also hostages as North Korea has made it clear that they'll attack the south if we invade (they can shell the capital from across the border). We'll have to be very quick on this one if we move.
The United States doesn't oppose Iranian nuclear armament because it's a threat to the United States. The United States opposes it because Iran is a threat to Israel. As to the how and why America has become the official 'big brother' to the nation of Israel is a whole other thread, but that's a more realistic fear than Iranian authorized suitcase bombs going off in D.C. Listen to Ahmadinejad talk about how the holocaust didn't happen and all that, he's not exactly playing his cards close to his vest in terms of letting us know whom he'd like to nuke.
Only two nations are truly a threat to the United States. Neither of them can hope to win in an armed conflict, just force a draw by virtue of global nuclear catastrophe. Iran and the DPRK are not amongst them.
As an aside, I don't believe there's any threat from North Korea anyway. There hasn't been a significant conflict on the peninsula in fifty years and Kim Jong-Il's psychofascist government is far more concerned with maintaining his current position than instigating war. Their economy is in part propped up by American food aid and energy donations, and the juvenile saber-rattling we all heard a few years ago was just the DPKR's way of lobbying for more handouts. Remember all that North Korean talk of war and provocation and all that stuff? Absolutely nothing came of it and absolutely nothing will come of it as long as The Great Leader is still able to live like a king. Dude is nutty as a goddamn fruitcake, but he has to know if he calls down the thunder in the form of American invasion, he's not going to be sleeping in presidental palaces and eating filet mignon ever again.
I view Iran as a more plausible threat to America than any nation in Asia, and I view the Bush Administration's thoroughly pigheaded foreign policy decisions to be a greater threat than Iran.
[ QUOTE ]
The thing about North Korea is that every time we adopt a stronger stance with them we get objections from the south (stupid sunshine policy) who are our allies and are also hostages as North Korea has made it clear that they'll attack the south if we invade (they can shell the capital from across the border). We'll have to be very quick on this one if we move.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not like complaints from allies stopped the Iraq invasion.
What happens when Kimmy dies I wonder? I've never heard of him having any kids. Could be chaos.
We have no allies we swore to protect in the line of fire telling us to stop (though that may not have stopped us since the administration was just making up crap to fight about like a drunk on Saturday night (what are you looking at?)). Kuwait was all for it if I remember correctly, I'm guessing now but Ill bet Israel didn't have a problem with it either.
I read the first few posts and then started feverishly scrolling for Scott Ruggles expected reply because I know he can't resist these threads.
And although I think the current ideology of the regime in the US is unacceptable - I kind of agree that something will need to be done. I don't know if the solution is violence or diplomacy.
I don't teach my kids to punch another kid they don't get along with or can't reason with. But I also think there are some situations where violence, at least in this stage of humanity, is the only realistic solution or better yet outcome.
Here is the situation I think scares the current administration:
Imagine a world where all the major oil producing countries are equipped with nuclear weapons(if I was Iran, I would sell some nukes to my buddies as soon as I was able). They now possess arguably the two biggest chips in global politics, oil and nuclear weapons. We either bargain at incredibly high prices or attempt an invasion that could cost many lives.
Or even worse in the eyes of the industrilists - the permanent destruction of the oil source itself.
Leech: You're forgetting the market forces. It doesn't matter whether we could attack them, if they started asking ridiculous prices we'd stop buying (or buy significantly less) and stuff more money into finding alternatives for oil. It makes no sense to demand outrageous prices, that won't give you the maximum profit.
What is Iran, or any middle eastern country, going to do with thei oil reserves besides sell them? I mean, if they didn't get constant shipments of food, their populations would starve to death. They live in the desert, so it isn't really that great of a bargaining chip after all.
So I wonder how the rest of the world will react when Bush is directly responsible for the death of 3 Million people when he uses just ONE mini nuke
Please watch this animation and understand what a "bunker buster" will actually do.
The entire world should be outraged at Bushes statement. I feel like people have all fallen asleep.
Oh, and another thing. If we attack Iran in any way our economy will grind to a hault. Gas at $10 a gallon will distroy our shipping industry.
..sorry one more thing to think about. Bush is going to be testing a 700 TON Bomb The name of this test "Divine Strake" Bush has lost it. He has a messianic complex.
I think there's a difference between "planning to use" and "not ruling out". The latter doesn't imply that it's the first option they'll take. M.A.D. requires a nuclear strike if Iran was to actually use nuclear weaponry, saying "we won't nuke them" would go against M.A.D..
Though I've read claims that a nuclear bunker buster would be both pointless and unhealthy, to contain the radiation it would have to go at least 25m underground before detonating but currently it's not possible to get a warhead deeper than 10m and keep it operational.
That 700 tons isn't a bomb, it's a pile of explosives (with lower yield than even the smallest nukes). It's not deliverable to any target, it's not a continuation of the MOAB weapon. It's a large scale physics experiment.
We've had claims that Bush would use mininukes in Iraq. Obviously the publicity that would create would prevent him from doing that, if he dares he's out of office two days later.
Replies
Never been toast? Vietnam? They roasted our asses, and handed them back on a silver trimmed platter. We're not invulnerable. We can lose just as easily as anyone else.
If the enemy waged digital warfare on us, turning off GPS, data networks, etc - we'd be in the stone age. The United States Military is nothing without their smart weapons and gps. Without those, we're on a level playing field.
[/ QUOTE ]
You have GOT to be kidding me. Do not tell me that you believe the NVA actually waged a better military campaign, that's just not right at all. Vietnam was lost for political reasons and political reasons only. If Johnson had wanted to, he could have burned the whole damned country into the ground. Instead, ridiculous rules of engagement, political turmoil and the like kept America from fighting a war anywhere near it's actual capability.
The numbers of deaths are hard to calculate from Vietnam, as so much conflict happened "off the books". Nonetheless, Vietnam estimates the count of North Vietnamese fighters killed between 1954-75 is about 1.1 million. America lost 58,226 soldiers. When you outkill your enemy nearly 20-to-1, you did not get your ass handed to you. You may have lost the war, but not for military reasons.
I'm not going to quibble over scenarios in which opponents might somehow counter whatever mojo the US military is using today. It's never happened and I'm thinking no one who reads Polycount is knowledgable as to how vulnerable US electronic warfare is. But I do know that Iran doesn't have anything in its arsenal to defend against B-52s dropping a million tons of munitions on her cities, and those bombers were in service before the first satellite was ever put in orbit.
Of course Verm is right.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your check is in the mail
The war was not officially declared.
We withdrew from the area before the end and it's considered a loss. Your view of "we killed more of them and quickly" scares me. Some wars will not be won with force. There's the long term effects to consider.
It's great that you think Iraq was a quick and smooth success. Mission Accomplished eh?
And the documentary itself here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1422779427989588955
[/ QUOTE ]
This is damn good. Before anyone starts complaining its conspiracy/liberal spin or what not. This was shown on BBC. Watch it and make your own informed decisions.
No ones ever going to win, and it'll never stop. Unfortunately, I'll have to bear with it and hope that we don't end up blowing up earth. (Or any other body in the solar system, for that matter)
The problem with Iran is that we need a stable base to attack from at a short distance,but Iraq isnt stable and Afghanistan is getting more violent as the months pass, personally if i was Iran i would seek to distablize Iraq and Afghanistan,you make life for the US military hell in both of those countries mounting an offensive which will be effective will be tough.
Last i checked it's a general discussion forum. I'm sure it was posted to get opinions from a specific demographic of like-minded or like-industied people. If you dont like it, dont post or troll?
[/ QUOTE ]
I could take that as a valid answer, if you hadn't followed up with:
[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, Frank. People like you are the reason why nothing is ever done about extreme political failures. And odly enough, if you want this to stop, get involved with stopping the source.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly my point. What will be accomplished by you and people who agree with you bitching about political issues on an art site? Talking does nothing. You say I'm the reason nothing gets done; well, talk is cheap is my point, the one that went over your head. Don't just bitch about it, do something about it. That's what I prefer to do.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually Frank, my thread was about educating people who may have uncritically accepted lies as truth. People who base their actions on falsehoods make bad decisions for themselves, and that leads to personal unhappiness and failure.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you were trying to get people to accept the idea of granting citizenship to those that illegally reside in the US because you have illegals in your family. That's what I got out of it, anyway.
[ QUOTE ]
Frank what type of American are you?? You cant do anything so shut up?
[/ QUOTE ]
You also completely missed the point. Try 'shut up and do something about it for a change' and you'll be closer to the truth. Or maybe 'quit your endless, useless internet ranting, get up off your ass and make a change if it's that important to you.' You're like the type of people that start internet petitions, for christ's sake.
[ QUOTE ]
But yeah its much easier for you to piss on people who dont agree with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or people that don't jump up to agree with your pointless political commentary on a message board, maybe?
[ QUOTE ]
But thankfully we live in a democracy where douchebags like you can speak freely no matter how idiotic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, the irony, she is thick. You don't even know what I was talking about and you're calling me unamerican, an idiot, and implying I enjoy seeing american soldiers die. Wow, why are you at an art site and not in a polysci program somewhere? You've obviously got it all figured out.
Frank the Avenger
You can take a retard to see Fantasia, and maybe what they'll get out of it is that there were some loud noises and bright colors. It doesn't reflect badly on the movie. It reflects badly on that retard's ability to appreciate it.
On topic, I think comparing iran and iraq is like apples and oranges, Iran has a much more capable military force than say, Iraq had, so a physical invasion would not be peachy. The country is much less in the state of ruin that Iraq, it is much more industralized and that means they have a lot of resources at their disposal... Iraq was very much in a state of decay and suddam's political control was weakening, the US strike was no doubt well planned at the right exact time. The issue is much different with Iran.
Realistically though, i dont see the "nuclear threat" being enough to warrant an invasion, or a successful one at that. We can see how US is having troubles keeping things in order in Iraq, and it seems that Afganistan has been left almost entirely to be secured by other nations...
At the same time though, i know a few iranian immigrants who dont speak warmly of their president, who appears to be a much more irrational and religious fanatic than say George Bush is considered to be. So when he starts raising the issue of nuclear strength, there are firm reasons for US to be concerned. I mean i'd have a hard time believing Iraq even has any acess to technology to develop nuclear weapons and i would have an even harder time believing they even had the infrastructure and the means to actually launch and guide those weapons anywhere far. Iran, on the other hand would be MUCH more capable to launching a strike at their dearest old friend Israel, and who in US wants that?
I think what people need to realize that invading and occupying territory is quite within the abilities of US military, however maintaing peace and policing the outbreaks of guerilla warfare and terrorism in such a religious hotspot of the world is very very difficult. On paper, Iraq, was conquered in months, at least territorially, but it's proving very difficult to stabilize the country itself and provide security to the actual citizens you are trying to protect.
my $ 0.02
Iran has a much more capable military force than say, Iraq had, so a physical invasion would not be peachy.
[/ QUOTE ]
That isn't so. The Iraqi military, prior to 2003, was considered by many to be the superior arab force - equal or better than every other nation in the region. Iran can boast significant artillery capabilities and more active troops than any nation in the Middle East, but they have no air force to speak of and they're still fielding Russian T-72s as their primary heavy battle tank, a 35-year old piece of armor. Basically, it's the Iraqi military all over again.
Invading Iran would be as easy as invading Iraq, and possibly easier since US sommand could operate and deploy directly out of Baghdad.
[ QUOTE ]
The country is much less in the state of ruin that Iraq, it is much more industralized and that means they have a lot of resources at their disposal... Iraq was very much in a state of decay and suddam's political control was weakening, the US strike was no doubt well planned at the right exact time. The issue is much different with Iran.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think much of this is debatable. Iran has a more stable and productive industrial infrastructure, but I don't know that the government is particularly more effective than Saddam's iron grip was in Iraq. What is probably most beneficial is that there isn't as much national division in Iran, the way the Shiite/Sunni conflict keeps Iraq in a general state of disorder. If everyone is gung ho about repelling an invader, that sort of partisan support definitely helps.
That said, while Iran does have some noteworthy industrial capability, that isn't going to mean a hell of a lot when bombs start dropping out of the sky. A US invasion would happen so quickly that there would be little benefit anyway. The German blitzkreig of WWII altered warfare strategy in that regard - France had some of Europe's finest industrial capabilities in 1939, but they hardly had a chance to put that into effect with Panzers rolling through Paris. Same situation here, except the US army is an order of magnitude faster and more powerful than what the Nazis had to work with.
I think this will be my last post on the matter as I am definitely chasing my tail here. Suffice it to say, anyone can browse through the various wikipedia entries for these nations and compare. I think a tired, depressed and thinly-deployed US military would hand Iran its ass every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The tricky bit is maintaining order over a couple thousand miles of desert afterwards.
We may win wars on the battlefield. We sure don't seem to with the bottom line.
I think this will be my last post on the matter as I am definitely chasing my tail here. Suffice it to say, anyone can browse through the various wikipedia entries for these nations and compare. I think a tired, depressed and thinly-deployed US military would hand Iran its ass every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The tricky bit is maintaining order over a couple thousand miles of desert afterwards.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, see, i never questioned the ability of the us military to invade and occupy iranian territory, but it's a totally different question when it comes to maintaining the peace itself over a few years. Afganistain and Iraq are prime examples. There is also the humongous cost of the military operation like previously mentioned ..
nitpick: Iranians are persian not arab.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, well this changes everything.
If it did come down to a "war", anyone thinking that Iran would "kick our asses" is living in some kind of dreamworld. Vermillion has pretty much outlined the reasons why.
The same things some of you are saying about Iran's military are the exact same things said about the Republican Guard in 1990. The US could decimate Iran's military without even setting a human foot in the country.
Only taking out the threat will not give the US control of the oil. The oil is the primary target, if nuclear weapons were the concern you'd see much more focus on North Korea.
Only taking out the threat will not give the US control of the oil. The oil is the primary target, if nuclear weapons were the concern you'd see much more focus on North Korea.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's ridiculous. But it's the average european opinion after Michael Moores work, so you're in good company.
There are plenty of differences between North Korea and Iran, many of them could be the reason for the different behavior of the US. For example, NK is not a real threat for Israel because they don't have any arab ideology behind them. And I don't even have to mention that the security of Israel is of interest for the US.
Yes but NK is a direct threat to the US mainland and much further ahead in the nuclear arms race than Iran. Defense of the homeland should take precedence over aiding allies, shoudn't it?
[/ QUOTE ]
NK is not a threat to the homeland because they know full well that if they managed to get one of their rickety missiles to even make it to Cali, without getting picked off in flight no less, that it would result in the complete anihiliation of their country. Kim Jong Il is a madman, yes, but he isn't *that* stupid.
The real threat to the U.S. mainland is someone sneaking a smaller nuclear device into the country and detonating it in one of our cities to make a "statement" ala, 911. Iran, being a country full of Muslim extremists, who have a history of hatred towards the US, is not a good place for these weapons to be made.
I do think that the entire thing is a slippery slope. Who are we to really say, they can't have nuclear weapons? Half of their neighboring countries have them. The problem is, if they do get them, it is probably only a matter of time before one is detonated on US soil, and of course the Iranian government would soundly denounce any involvement, making an all-out retaliation difficult to justify.
I honestly don't know the answer to this problem. Can anyone honestly say the world will be as safe a place as it was prior to them having nuclear weapons?
The way Iran behaves, I'm not sure they would react in a way I hope North Korea is going to. I'm not sure if a huge loss of population in Iran is an obstavle for Ahmadinejad as I would compare his Ideology with the one of Saddam except for less west influence. And Menachem Begin didn't trust the balance of fear either in 1981 as he faced the possibility of the Iraq bomb.
Overall I don't believe that Iran poses any direct threat to any western country. Even a conventional attack would trigger a response bigger than what Iran can handle, I'd wager that Denmark alone could crush that country (of course such a response would be open warfare rather than "liberation" and collateral damage would be more permittable). If the US wanted those nuke facilities taken out they'd pump a few cruise missiles into them and let it be but they wouldn't have gone through all the trouble of securing Iraq and Afghanistan if they weren't going to mount a land attack on Iran.
That's ridiculous. But it's the average european opinion after Michael Moores work, so you're in good company.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whats more ridiculous is that statement.
[ QUOTE ]
That's ridiculous. But it's the average european opinion after Michael Moores work, so you're in good company.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whats more ridiculous is that statement.
[/ QUOTE ]
You should read magazines from over here, it's exaggerated but not too far away from reality. Many journalists deal with his movies as if they were documentary movies and they have huge popularity among the youth. Together with plenty of articles in newspapers and magazines, the climate became very anti american over here and they are considered as an oil robbing world police especially among young people without much knowledge about history.
Only two nations are truly a threat to the United States. Neither of them can hope to win in an armed conflict, just force a draw by virtue of global nuclear catastrophe. Iran and the DPRK are not amongst them.
As an aside, I don't believe there's any threat from North Korea anyway. There hasn't been a significant conflict on the peninsula in fifty years and Kim Jong-Il's psychofascist government is far more concerned with maintaining his current position than instigating war. Their economy is in part propped up by American food aid and energy donations, and the juvenile saber-rattling we all heard a few years ago was just the DPKR's way of lobbying for more handouts. Remember all that North Korean talk of war and provocation and all that stuff? Absolutely nothing came of it and absolutely nothing will come of it as long as The Great Leader is still able to live like a king. Dude is nutty as a goddamn fruitcake, but he has to know if he calls down the thunder in the form of American invasion, he's not going to be sleeping in presidental palaces and eating filet mignon ever again.
I view Iran as a more plausible threat to America than any nation in Asia, and I view the Bush Administration's thoroughly pigheaded foreign policy decisions to be a greater threat than Iran.
The thing about North Korea is that every time we adopt a stronger stance with them we get objections from the south (stupid sunshine policy) who are our allies and are also hostages as North Korea has made it clear that they'll attack the south if we invade (they can shell the capital from across the border). We'll have to be very quick on this one if we move.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not like complaints from allies stopped the Iraq invasion.
We have no allies we swore to protect in the line of fire telling us to stop (though that may not have stopped us since the administration was just making up crap to fight about like a drunk on Saturday night (what are you looking at?)). Kuwait was all for it if I remember correctly, I'm guessing now but Ill bet Israel didn't have a problem with it either.
You mean like his son using a faked ID to sneak into Disneyland Japan?
And although I think the current ideology of the regime in the US is unacceptable - I kind of agree that something will need to be done. I don't know if the solution is violence or diplomacy.
I don't teach my kids to punch another kid they don't get along with or can't reason with. But I also think there are some situations where violence, at least in this stage of humanity, is the only realistic solution or better yet outcome.
Here is the situation I think scares the current administration:
Imagine a world where all the major oil producing countries are equipped with nuclear weapons(if I was Iran, I would sell some nukes to my buddies as soon as I was able). They now possess arguably the two biggest chips in global politics, oil and nuclear weapons. We either bargain at incredibly high prices or attempt an invasion that could cost many lives.
Or even worse in the eyes of the industrilists - the permanent destruction of the oil source itself.
They use technology: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4814988.stm
As for Iran, about 20% of it's GNP is agriculture based. Due to sanctions they have become an inventive and industrialised nation.
Why Iran wants to move to the Euro, how it will benefit them and not benefit the US economy: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9.htm
So I wonder how the rest of the world will react when Bush is directly responsible for the death of 3 Million people when he uses just ONE mini nuke
Please watch this animation and understand what a "bunker buster" will actually do.
The entire world should be outraged at Bushes statement. I feel like people have all fallen asleep.
Oh, and another thing. If we attack Iran in any way our economy will grind to a hault. Gas at $10 a gallon will distroy our shipping industry.
..sorry one more thing to think about. Bush is going to be testing a 700 TON Bomb The name of this test "Divine Strake" Bush has lost it. He has a messianic complex.
You can go here to try and help stop this.
(edited for spelling and to add the last link)
Though I've read claims that a nuclear bunker buster would be both pointless and unhealthy, to contain the radiation it would have to go at least 25m underground before detonating but currently it's not possible to get a warhead deeper than 10m and keep it operational.
That 700 tons isn't a bomb, it's a pile of explosives (with lower yield than even the smallest nukes). It's not deliverable to any target, it's not a continuation of the MOAB weapon. It's a large scale physics experiment.
As for the planning or "not ruling out" it depends on if you belive the Hersh story that brought this all up.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
If you're not familiar.