Iran about to get wiped from the pages of history

[Quiet Sound]

Do you think we're going to invade North Korea as well?

Obviously not. Countries that actually have nuclear weapons don't get invaded by the US.

 

[Chaos_BF1942]

Bush has picked the wrong man for a lot of jobs. Anyway, Fallon was nominated for commander of CENTCOM, not for commander of operations in Iraq, and certainly not Iran.

CENTCOM 'area of jurisdiction' is the whole Middle East, East Africa and Central Asia area, not just Iraq (or Iran). But that does not mean we are going to war. Fallon was the commander of United States Pacific Command, and we have not gone to war with North Korea.

 

[ShannonCT]

Obviously not. Countries that actually have nuclear weapons don't get invaded by the US.

I'm not sure that North Korea has demonstrated that they could nuke anyone outside of their own territory yet.

 

[Xenocrates]

1 Bush has picked the wrong man for a lot of jobs. Anyway, Fallon was nominated for commander of CENTCOM, not for commander of operations in Iraq, and certainly not Iran.

2 Please demonstrate how ludicrous it is. 2 is a really brainless point.

3 It's called the Persian Gulf, and it's where most naval-based forces for the Iraq war are located.

4 Al Qaeda is a burning hulk, with its leadership wiped out and its impotent figurehead dead or dying in some Pakistani cave. Terrorist-sponsoring states are just as important to confront as the clandestine organizations themselves. Confrontation =/= Invasion. (see North Korea.)

5 Crackpot conspiracy theories are not evidence.

6 What is this? I find nothing about this in the article or anywhere on the Web.

7 The Baker Commission's report about IRAQ?

8 Except there were mounds of evidence against Iraq and Afghanistan. Does shining the light on Iran's terrorism-sponsorship or nuclear ambitions = invasion? We're doing the same thing to North Korea. Do you think we're going to invade North Korea as well?

1) Yes he certainly has, but when the heat is on you'd think he might start paying a bit of attention wouldn't you? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070122/klare

If engagement with Iran and Syria was even remotely on the agenda, Abizaid is exactly the man you'd want on the job at Centcom overseeing US forces and strategy in the region. But if that's not on the agenda, if you're thinking instead of using force against Iran and/or Syria, then Admiral Fallon is exactly the man you'd want at Centcom.

Flawed logic in your opinion?

2) Do you think 30,000 men are going to turn around the situation in Iraq? You'd be in the minority if you do.

3) What's the use of carriers against the so-called insurgency?

4) Al Qaeda my eye.

5) When you are going to war, you must do so in a particular order. They couldn't have taken out Iran first because they couldn't manufacture an easy Cassus Beli, because it's too strong and because Hizbollah could have retaliated against Israel. What's crazy about that?

6) I posted a thread about it on here two weeks ago! http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1744506,00.html

The Pentagon is preparing to set off a record-breaking bang, detonating 635 tonnes of high explosives and sending a mushroom cloud into the sky over the Nevada desert. The blast, on June 2, codenamed Divine Strake, is likely to be the biggest controlled conventional explosion in military history, experts said, and is designed to test the impact of bunker-busting bombs aimed at underground targets.

7) Baker recommended cooperation with Iran; that can't be done at the same time as fighting them.

8) http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1973311,00.html
No evidence for WMD's in Iraq. What's your explanation for Afghanistan?

 

[Gilder]

Will we be ripping out the page, or using white out?

On topic, I really don't think the current administration is gearing up for another war in the Middle East.

 

[Godwynn]

I suspect George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleeza Rice would all be dead within one month of going into Iran, and not from Iranians either.

 

[REDY]

Condoleeza has very offensive name in Czech language, its pity that her name is not Cundoleeza

I think that attack on Iran is not possible now, maybe after some months...why?
-Problems in Iraq
-world respect
-Democrats won

 

[Xenocrates]

Will we be ripping out the page, or using white out?

On topic, I really don't think the current administration is gearing up for another war in the Middle East.

Firstly sorry Shannon I meant 'divine strake' not 'desert strake'.

Secondly Gilder, I don't see this as another war but as the same war. remember it's Bushco that set the agenda and when they call something the 'war in Iraq' or the 'war on terror' we all follow suit. But it's time, my friends, to start calling a spade a spade and this war is one, not three. Let's call it 'the fool's crusade'!

 

[ShannonCT]

1) Yes he certainly has, but when the heat is on you'd think he might start paying a bit of attention wouldn't you? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070122/klare

Flawed logic in your opinion?

It is the kind of logic that will fit any new fact into a preconceived dogma, in this case, that Bush is a madman that aims to take over all of central Asia. Your article is heresay from an incredibly slanted source, as always.

2) Do you think 30,000 men are going to turn around the situation in Iraq? You'd be in the minority if you do.

You said it was demonstrably ludicrous. The burden is not on me to prove that the surge will work.

3) What's the use of carriers against the so-called insurgency?

Close air support.

5) When you are going to war, you must do so in a particular order. They couldn't have taken out Iran first because they couldn't manufacture an easy Cassus Beli, because it's too strong and because Hizbollah could have retaliated against Israel. What's crazy about that?

Silly me. I thought the Lebanon conflict was about trying to take away Hizbollah's means to attack Israeli civilians. I guess viewed from the anti-Israel light, it was obviously a precursor to an American invasion of Iran. Oh but wait, what good would it do attack Hizbollah a year or more before the invasion when Hizbollah will just re-arm?

6) I posted a thread about it on here two weeks ago! http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1744506,00.html

Then at least quote the right name so I can look it up. It's Divine Strake. Not Desert Strake. And please tell me why testing bunker busters is about Iran and not Afghanistan.

EDIT: X-posted

8) No evidence for WMD's in Iraq. What's your explanation for Afghanistan?

BS. Proven illegal missle programs. Saddam's stonewalling on weapons inspections every step of the way. Proven knowledge, use, and weapons-making capacity of chemical and biological weapons. This whole no-WMDs in Iraq line is so tiresome.

Do I really need an explanation of the justification for attacking the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

 

[Mulholland]

The current administration has neither the political capital or the military resources to fight another war in the Middle East right now. If the US didn't have international support for the war in Iraq, it will never get support for a war on Iran. Not in the forseeable future anyways. Bush is out like trout and I don't even think most Republicans would support this hypothetical war.

 

[Yuri2356]

Another article in "business week" about the Iran war being a major interest in Davos:

...a major interest in Davos

Davros​

Exterminate! ​

That's about as seriously as I can take any of these whacky conspiracy threads. America may have the intention of attacking Iran, but the current political situation makes it political suicide for whoever gives the order. The World's 'Lone Superpower' just doesn't know how to act like an Empire.

 

[Xenocrates]

A It is the kind of logic that will fit any new fact into a preconceived dogma, in this case, that Bush is a madman that aims to take over all of central Asia. Your article is heresay from an incredibly slanted source, as always.

B You said it was demonstrably ludicrous. The burden is not on me to prove that the surge will work.

C Close air support.

D Silly me. I thought the Lebanon conflict was about trying to take away Hizbollah's means to attack Israeli civilians. I guess viewed from the anti-Israel light, it was obviously a precursor to an American invasion of Iran. Oh but wait, what good would it do attack Hizbollah a year or more before the invasion when Hizbollah will just re-arm?

E Then at least quote the right name so I can look it up. It's Divine Strake. Not Desert Strake. And please tell me why testing bunker busters is about Iran and not Afghanistan.

EDIT: X-posted

F BS. Proven illegal missle programs. Saddam's stonewalling on weapons inspections every step of the way. Proven knowledge, use, and weapons-making capacity of chemical and biological weapons. This whole no-WMDs in Iraq line is so tiresome.

G Do I really need an explanation of the justification for attacking the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

Let's start at the bottom and go up:

G

We never got a white paper produced by the United States government. Zip, zero, nothing.

What did we get instead? The only statement of facts that we got from an official of the United States government was Secretary of State Colin Powell himself. And let me quote from Secretary Powell. This is the October 3 edition of the New Speak Times. "The case will never be able to be described as circumstantial. It's not circumstantial now." Well as a lawyer if a case isn't circumstantial, it's nothing. That's the lowest level of proof you could possibly imagine is a circumstantial case.

Yes, the World Court has ruled that a state can be found guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence provided there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But here we have Secretary of State Colin Powell admitting on behalf of the United States that the case against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is not even circumstantial.

If it's not even circumstantial then what is it? Rumor, allegation, innuendo, insinuation, disinformation, propaganda. Certainly not enough to start a war. In the same issue of the New Speak Times the U.S. Ambassador who went over to brief our NATO allies about the Bush administration's case against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was quoted as follows: "One Western official at NATO said the U.S. briefings which were oral without slides or documentation did not report any direct order from Mr. Bin Laden nor did they indicate that the Taliban knew about the attacks before they happened."

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/boyle.htm

F

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Downing Street memo from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html

Intelligence fixed to fit the policy.

E Are there bunkers in Afghanistan containing hazardous materials that need special munitions to destroy?

D We don't know why Israel fought the war that they did against Lebanon.

C Close air support against what?

B The consensus is that the surge is not going to work. The reason why I asked you for your opinion about it was that if you don't think it's going to achieve Bush's stated aims then why is he doing it? To buy time perhaps?

A It's not heresay. Fallon's records indicate that he's a blitz expert. It's logic not slant that takes us from that fact to asking who Bush wants to blitz.

It all adds up to Iran going in the mincer next.

 

[ShannonCT]

G

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/boyle.htm

Too bad this Professor you're quoting turned out to be completely wrong. Al Qaeda admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks. And he's complaining about not getting a white paper one minute, and then trashing the British white paper the next? This guy has zero credibility. Quoting zealots does nothing for your argument.

F
The Downing Street memo from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html

Intelligence fixed to fit the policy.

It doesn't matter exactly how great Saddam's WMD capability was. It is clear that he had a significant capability. And disallowing weapons inspections not only was a signal of his intentions to produce WMDs, but was a clear violation of the cease-fire from his failed war of aggression against Kuwait. The UN should have re-declared war on Saddam years earlier, but the UN is completely corrupt.

E Are there bunkers in Afghanistan containing hazardous materials that need special munitions to destroy?

It turns out that the United States, as I'm sure you're well aware by the other weapons threads you've started, does not just develop weapons for the threats that are immediately obvious. We, like many high-tech nations, develop weapons to anticipate future threats. Connecting the dots from bunker-buster tests to an invasion of Iran is as imaginative as the fabrication of stellar constellation.

D We don't know why Israel fought the war that they did against Lebanon.

Then why do you purport to know why?

C Close air support against what?

There are still military operations going on in Iraq. It's not just guys in Humvees policing the streets and waiting to get hit by IEDs.

B The consensus is that the surge is not going to work. The reason why I asked you for your opinion about it was that if you don't think it's going to achieve Bush's stated aims then why is he doing it? To buy time perhaps?

I think it has a decent chance of improving the situtation and allowing the Iraqi government to stabilize things. It would also give us a nice card to play against Al-Sadr if it comes to that. It might do very little. Anyway, tying up more troops in Iraq would be a really dumb way of preparing for an invasion of Iran.

A It's not heresay. Fallon's records indicate that he's a blitz expert. It's logic not slant that takes us from that fact to asking who Bush wants to blitz.

First sentence is not heresay. Second is complete heresay, and just shows how far your logic slants to anti-Bush, anti-American ideas.

It all adds up to Iran going in the mincer next.

....in the same way that 1 and 1 adds up to orange butterflies.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What Bush should do -

1. Drop Universal Suffrage and adopt Police State: +25% Military Unit production , -50% War Weariness! Plus, he already had the Mount Rushmore national wonder! WW won't be a problem even if he goes for Syria and Saudi-Arabia as well!

2. Screw Bureaucracy, get Nationhood; +2 happiness in all cities with barracks (which must be just about every important US city), plus he can draft a Mech Infantry division each turn!

3. Labour civics - now this is obvious. The South was great for a reason. Adopt Slavery and rush-build courthouses in Teheran!

4. Once mushroom clouds rise, nobody will want to trade with the US , so he might as well go for Mercantilism. One extra great specialist easily makes up for the lack of foreign trade routes!

5. Finally, stop that Free Religion nonsense - adopt Christianity as State Religion, and select Theocracy. Cities with churches get +1 happiness, it will stop the spreading of the most wicked of all faiths, Islam, and last but not least, it will give new US troops an extra +2XP, ie, a free promotion!

After reading this post, I'm very tempted to reinstall Civ IV and play out said scenario!

 

[Whomp]

The economic damage Iran inflicts on itself is far worse than anything the meaningless UN sanctions could accomplish. Sanctions might actually worsen the position of Iran's adversaries if Tehran were to succeed in portraying them as the cause of its economic woes.

The mullahs are doing a good job of destroying Iran's economy. They should be left alone to complete their work. Attacking Iran would allow the regime to escape responsibility for the economic disaster it created. Worse, an attack could unite Iran behind the clerical terror-sponsors whose grasp on power may be slipping. For these reasons, the best policy towards Iran may be to do nothing at all.

Better yet would be energy policies by importing countries that would wreck the cartel from the inside out. Their monopoly rents would collapse and there's historic precedence here (see Saudis 1981-1985).
Recommended reading...
The Iranian Petroleum Crisis and U.S. National Security

 

[sonorakitch]

Even though I despise Iran, America has not got the chops to take on Iran and Iraq...

That is the sad state of the 'sole superpower' in this day and age.

...

Ohhh...I think we could short of this whole pesky "collateral damage" thing. There is a boneyard in Tucson with some 500 B-52s just waiting for a task like Iran!

~Chris

 

[puglover]

I'm sure we could take on Iran, but I don't think we should. It isn't a threat... yet.

If it decides to invade Israel however, we should certainly rally to its defense.

 

[Xenocrates]

Too bad this Professor you're quoting turned out to be completely wrong. Al Qaeda admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks. And he's complaining about not getting a white paper one minute, and then trashing the British white paper the next? This guy has zero credibility. Quoting zealots does nothing for your argument.

It doesn't matter exactly how great Saddam's WMD capability was. It is clear that he had a significant capability. And disallowing weapons inspections not only was a signal of his intentions to produce WMDs, but was a clear violation of the cease-fire from his failed war of aggression against Kuwait. The UN should have re-declared war on Saddam years earlier, but the UN is completely corrupt.

It turns out that the United States, as I'm sure you're well aware by the other weapons threads you've started, does not just develop weapons for the threats that are immediately obvious. We, like many high-tech nations, develop weapons to anticipate future threats. Connecting the dots from bunker-buster tests to an invasion of Iran is as imaginative as the fabrication of stellar constellation.

Then why do you purport to know why?

There are still military operations going on in Iraq. It's not just guys in Humvees policing the streets and waiting to get hit by IEDs.

I think it has a decent chance of improving the situtation and allowing the Iraqi government to stabilize things. It would also give us a nice card to play against Al-Sadr if it comes to that. It might do very little. Anyway, tying up more troops in Iraq would be a really dumb way of preparing for an invasion of Iran.

First sentence is not heresay. Second is complete heresay, and just shows how far your logic slants to anti-Bush, anti-American ideas.

....in the same way that 1 and 1 adds up to orange butterflies.

Illinois University have taken to employing zealots as professors of law? When I link from a little-known source people brush off the evidence. When I link from a well-respected and authoritative source they resort to slander! Colin Powel said that the evidence against OBL was "less than circumstantial". How could that be if he OBL had admitted it?

Shannon you remember that the US had infiltrated the UN team and that they were spying. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/scomspy3.htm

You don't like the link? Well find another; there's plenty out there. And yes it matters very much how effective Saddam's fantasy WMD's were because the Casus Beli of pre-emptive self defence wouldn't apply if they weren't capable of hurting the US. If his capacity was significant, why haven't they been found?

We know that Iran has placed it's nuclear research facilities underground. Rather deeply underground. We know that the US is testing a weapon specifically designed to smash bunkers. You call the logic over-imaginative!

Israel's war in Lebanon. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/dad76768-a5e1-11db-a4e0-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=ff3cbaf6-3024-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html

Check the last paragraph:

Halutz found himself again in trouble soon after an Aug. 14 truce ended the Lebanon war, when an Israeli newspaper revealed he had sold off his stock portfolio within hours of hostilities erupting. He denied wrongdoing.

The issue about the carrier group is a simple one. You say air support. That's rubbish. Two carrier groups consist of 16,000 sailors and a lot ships including submaries (I can't check the number now sorry). The British are also sending additional ships. I've heard of fiscal irresponsibility but this is beyond a joke. If the planes are needed for air support then send the planes. There's no need to send all of these sailors and steel, unless preparations are being made to hit Iran.

I didn't say Iran would be invaded. And many of the people at Davos didn't say that Iran was to be invaded either. The word that the ex-Assistant Secretary to the Treasury used in the article was 'attack'.

What sentence are you talking about when you refered to hearsay?

Sometimes I think you're just practicing arguing the impossible

 

[skadistic]

D We don't know why Israel fought the war that they did against Lebanon.

They faught the war against hezbola not Lebanon. And it was in retaliation for the kidnapping of two soldiers who haven't been returned and were most likely exacuted with in days of being abducted. Oh and for the unprovoked missle launnches aimed at Israeli civilians at the same time as the IDF were kidnapped and for days after.

I think the hezbula attack was a smokescreen to try and draw attention away from Irans blatent disregard for the IAEA ands its nuclear weapons programme. Those actions now have Iran asking Russia for help in the UN to save it from santions.

 

[CaptainF]

If we go to war with Iran, fine.

Just expect to lose everything in the process. Respect, money, lives, everything.