Will there be war with Iran?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You're right... it's all a figment of my imagination.
Achmidenijad has never said anything about nuking Israel... I am crazy.

Go back and read those. They all say "would attack/destroy X....if Iranian facilities/cities/military installations were attacked first."

 

[civver_764]

You're right... it's all a figment of my imagination.
Achmidenijad has never said anything about nuking Israel... I am crazy.

Yupp..

If you're referring to this then you're just bringing up false information. One mistranslated quote by someone who isn't even the real head of the country and which doesn't mention nukes at all does not win the argument for you.

But if you're referring to something else I'll give you another chance to cite your source, because I unfortunately can't find it.

 

[asbestos]

According to this paper, it would take a month or more of large-scale military operations to reopen the straits of Hormuz.

How might Iran retaliate in the aftermath of a limited Israeli or U.S. strike? The most economically devastating of Iran’s potential responses would be closure of the Strait of Hormuz. According to open-source order of battle data, as well as relevant analogies from military history and GIS maps, Iran does possess significant littoral warfare capabilities, including mines, antiship cruise missiles, and land-based air defense. If Iran were able to properly link these capabilities, it could halt or impede traffic in the Strait of Hormuz for a month or more. U.S. attempts to reopen the waterway likely would escalate rapidly into sustained, large-scale air and naval operations during which Iran could impose significant economic and military costs on the United States—even if Iranian operations were not successful in truly closing the strait. The aftermath of limited strikes on Iran would be complicated and costly, suggesting needed changes in U.S. force posture and energy policy.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18409/closing_time.html

 

[Winner]

So they don't have proof, then.

Aaand you're just being obstinate now, ergo I don't have to read any further. IAEA cites their acquiring of nuclear warhead designs, the production of highly enriched uranium which is never used in production of fuel for standard nuclear reactors, and other very clear evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.

If you want to dismiss that, go shake hands with AIDS denialists (you know, the guys who think there is no ling between HIV and AIDS).

and suspicion is what led us into Iraq in 2003, not proof.

And back then, no UN agency supported the Americans' claims. Now the most qualified of them does.

 

[amadeus]

I for one support bombing Iran. Could you imagine what the world would be like if there was a shaky Muslim country that had nuclear weapons and the capability to strike their most hated enemy within minutes?

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

Britain has been involved in the Falklands War and Sierra Leone, I'd argue they were both justified and one even had support from some NATO members.

Well Sierra Leone war was very brutal... but look at the times before the war. As with any country in africa rich in resources it was exploited and exploited. Supposedly free election got Kabbah the power and then the RUF rebelled. Kabbah was more or less a puppet, having worked and served the socalled international community his whole life(Like his Strasser and Bio).
IMF and other organisations have a long history of exploiting Sierra Leone and Liberia.
So ofcourse the "international community" had to go in and secure their assets and puppets... RUF was supported by other dictators like Taylor and Gaddafi. But ofcourse I dont agree with RUF methods either.
My experience in Sierra Leone, I was there for some months in 2003 shortly after the civil war ended was that ofcourse the people were happy that it had ended even tho their quality had not improved and their belief in their leaders was nonexistant. They know they are just puppets of foreign companies and their own greed.
Another thing that is funny with Sierrra Leone, most of their dictators where educated in Britain and some of them retired to a pleasant life in england.

Falklands was I agree a somewhat defensive war on britains side. But still... how far away are those islands from bristish mainland? Pure imperialism on my mind.

One socalled intervention I might agree to was the intervention in Yugoslavia. But still, NATO has in my mind become a offensive organisation whereas it was supposedly a defence oriented organisation from birth... keeping the germans down, russians out and americans in.

 

[warpus]

I for one support bombing Iran. Could you imagine what the world would be like if there was a shaky Muslim country that had nuclear weapons and the capability to strike their most hated enemy within minutes?

Surely you aren't talking about Pakistan..

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

I for one support bombing Iran. Could you imagine what the world would be like if there was a shaky Muslim country that had nuclear weapons and the capability to strike their most hated enemy within minutes?

I'd say Pakistan is much much more shaky... and they already have them.
Whats with muslims? they are not causing that much grief as christians are around the world are they?

 

[kochman]

I for one support bombing Iran. Could you imagine what the world would be like if there was a shaky Muslim country that had nuclear weapons and the capability to strike their most hated enemy within minutes?

Pakistan definitely fits here! And, they could start selling their stuff, if they aren't already.
In this case, their worst enemy is their own people, just of a different faith.

I'd say Pakistan is much much more shaky... and they already have them.
Whats with muslims? they are not causing that much grief as christians are around the world are they?

Please let me know what grief Christians are causing around the world as compared to Muslims. This should be interesting.
Just being American doesn't make one Christian, by the way... just thought I should through that in, as I assume Christianity was going to be blamed for the actions of secularist governments in your response.

Also, while doing that, let me know about Muslim international missions and humanitarian aid... then compare that to those with Christian roots.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

This thread went to the nutter bin quicker than I thought it would.

Nutter bin... that would be where all the warhorny nutters should be

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

Pakistan definitely fits here! And, they could start selling their stuff, if they aren't already.
In this case, their worst enemy is their own people, just of a different faith.


Please let me know what grief Christians are causing around the world as compared to Muslims. This should be interesting.
Just being American doesn't make one Christian, by the way... just thought I should through that in, as I assume Christianity was going to be blamed for the actions of secularist governments in your response.

Also, while doing that, let me know about Muslim international missions and humanitarian aid... then compare that to those with Christian roots.

Uhmm well... you have a christian president in the US just like there is a muslim president of Iran... You have Iraq(1.5 million casualites so far), you have Afghanistan, dont know how many thousands are dead now.
Denmark has christianity as a state religion and using your(american) terms that would constitude a christian nation and we are alwasy running to help our socalled civilized brethren, the us and most NATO countries in their wars.
All the major companies are run by more or less christian or jeweish people. They might not be that religious but still... As religious as the common muslim I'd say.
The world is not black and white. But everyone here who is prowar is aparently seeing it so, Muslims this mulims that. It is ONLY muslims who would sell their nuclear stuff? Christians would NEVER do it?

Blaming a religion for something people do for their own good is silly.
Gott mit Uns(Not Allah) was on the beltbuckle of most the german soldiers in ww2 while they slaughtered jews and other people...

As for aid orgs there is Islamic Relief, Muslim Aid, Hidaya, ICNA, LIFE... there is many are you claiming charity and help org. is a christian invention? heheh thats as silly as the church claiming to be the origin of human rights.

And yes being american is not being christian, and being danish is not either, but being Iranian is definately being muslim and muslim is baaaaad.... come on...

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

This thread proves that Iran needs nukes. They are constantly threatened with war and even nuclear war. How is Iran going to defend itself? The Afghani/Iraqi way was very effective but still lost.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

This thread proves that Iran needs nukes. They are constantly threatened with war and even nuclear war. How is Iran going to defend itself? The Afghani/Iraqi way was very effective but still lost.

Yes, if this thread displays the common attitude towards Iran, I agree that Iran should have nukes.

 

[Ajidica]

I'm surprised at the lack of concern about Indian nukes. Unlike Pakistani and (eventualy) Iranian nukes, the Indians have solid fuel rockets which means they essentialy don't need any setup time. With Pakistan and Iran they would need setup time which is around 6 hours. Which, if we have been following the situation would give us a large window to lob a couple cruise missiles at the missiles while they are in the open.
Additionaly, while the Iranian leaders might not be the most level-headed people, they aren't stupid. They certiantly wouldn't want to send their prestige weapon to militants who might easily loose control of it (and would involve transporting it in the open). If they tried such a thing, all of the Gulf kingdoms would be clamoring for war with Iran due to fear.

With regard to the dangers of militants stealing the weapon, is the danger any higher then in Russia after the USSR collapsed? Not likely.

While I am opposed to nuclear proliferation, it isn't worth going to war over.

 

[Dachs]

Surely you aren't talking about Pakistan..

I'd say Pakistan is much much more shaky... and they already have them.

Pakistan definitely fits here! And, they could start selling their stuff, if they aren't already.
In this case, their worst enemy is their own people, just of a different faith.

 

[RedRalph]

The Iranians couldn't handle the forces we still have in the area, even given the decline in troop levels as we prepare to exit the country.

The US could not successfully invade and occupy Iran with the troops they have in the area now.

 

[JohnRM]

There is no kind of assault on Iran, short of full-scale invasion or continuous bombing forever, that would dislodge the Iranian interest in acquiring nuclear weapons, if they're determined to do so. It would only be a waste of money, otherwise. At this point, I am not sure that an invasion is justified, given the circumstances. Iran seems far less likely than Pakistan to hand over nuclear weapons to terrorists.

 

[amadeus]

The US could not successfully invade and occupy Iran with the troops they have in the area now.

I'm sure we could easily invade Iran and crush their army, but you're right about occupation. In the Iraq war, how many causalties were there at the hands of the Iraqi army? (While the soldiers were still officially part of their army.)

139 (Americans.)

How many since May of 2003 at the start of the occupation? Over 4,000.

 

[RedRalph]

I'm sure we could easily invade Iran and crush their army, but you're right about occupation. In the Iraq war, how many causalties were there at the hands of the Iraqi army? (While the soldiers were still officially part of their army.)

139 (Americans.)

How many since May of 2003 at the start of the occupation? Over 4,000.

Indeed. I'm not even sure the invasion would be such a walkover, there's hardly anyone left in Iraq, and the forces in Afghanistan are not deisgned to invade. On top of that, Iran would be a pretty hard nut to crack. I would expect the invasion to be very, very difficult, but I would expect the occupation to make Iraq look like an angel's fanny.

 

[timtofly]

Will there be war with Iran?

&

Since muslims are being picked on in this thread.

Only if China gets involved!

It could also involve India, but I think China would like to see it's interest upheld in the region more than it would like to see India's interest upheld.

Having America involved in such a huge block in the middle east, may be more troublesome to China, than it is to India.