It seems there is a lot of saber rattleling in the US right now, and the president has stepped up his retorics against Iran. I read this interesting text (http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007981.php), which agitates that an invasion is possible. Personally, I think an invasion of Iran is close to insane. What do you think, should the US attack Iran, either as an invasion or as air strikes?

http://www.writingshop.ws/assets/images/iran-next.jpg

Send in JImmy Carter to undo what he has done.

Or bomb their nuclear facilities. When they have the bomb they car blackmail a whole lot of countries into doing their bidding.

Ha ha ha! That was a great link!

For the most part those guys are self-important bloggers who think their opinions matter. Unfortunately, some folks in high levels of government are prone to think the same way. Any invasion of Iran would be a disaster of enormous consequence, somewhere around Iraq x10. Airstrikes against their nuclear facilities or small-scale Special Ops incursions are really the only viable military options at this point.

Originally posted by sedan
Airstrikes against their nuclear facilities or small-scale Special Ops incursions are really the only viable military options at this point.
Agreed.

Elp,

A reporter asked an Israeli defense agent just how far Israel was willing to go to stop Iran from getting nukes, he stated 2000 kilometers. The distance from Israel to the Iranian nuclear installations.


Invade Iran? The Israelis may do the job for us. Keep in mind that once Iran gets The Bomb, the first target WILL be Israel.

Also, I'm hoping that the U.S. can somehow finagle an overthrow of the current Iranian regime seeing as how the current regime is way less than popular.

What's not going to work is another round of negotiations with Iran, or U.N. sanctions against Iran. They'll just cut off the oil and send the world economy into a nose dive, dammit.

We are definately in a sticky situation.

Did I mention the bit about Syria vowing to help Iran in any way possible?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Invade Iran? The Israelis may do the job for us. Keep in mind that once Iran gets The Bomb, the first target WILL be Israel.

And just when is doomsday Darth?


Also, I'm hoping that the U.S. can somehow finagle an overthrow of the current Iranian regime seeing as how the current regime is way less than popular.

What measures are included in your hypothetical "finagle"?


What's not going to work is another round of negotiations with Iran, or U.N. sanctions against Iran. They'll just cut off the oil and send the world economy into a nose dive, dammit.

We are definately in a sticky situation.

Did I mention the bit about Syria vowing to help Iran in any way possible?

Yes, you forgot to mention how evil Syria is as well...shame on you Darth, you're slipping. :D

And just when is doomsday Darth?

Well gee, Vile, first they've got to build the bomb, then they have to deliver it. How the hell should I know when that'll happen? I'm just predicting that it WILL happen. What are you trying to say? That Iran is just making nuclear bombs for peaceful purposes? You've heard the rhetoric from the Iranian President, just put two and two together, dammit.


What measures are included in your hypothetical "finagle"?

I've read an article in the New York Post today on just that subject, I've forgotten the particulars aside from the fact that the current Iranian government is way less then popular amongst the under 30 crowd as well as that there is a segment of the Iranians that like the U.S. more then the current Iranian government, dammit.


Yes, you forgot to mention how evil Syria is as well...shame on you Darth, you're slipping.

Do I honestly need to mention just how evil the Syrian government really is?

I really need to make more posts for you Vile, as you seem to just love trying to trip me up, dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Well gee, Vile, first they've got to build the bomb, then they have to deliver it. How the hell should I know when that'll happen? I'm just predicting that it WILL happen.

Ok.


What are you trying to say? That Iran is just making nuclear bombs for peaceful purposes?

Funny. :)

No, I'm trying to say that Iran likely wants nukes for the same reason we want nukes. Respect.


You've heard the rhetoric from the Iranian President, just put two and two together, dammit.

You hit the nail on the head Darth...the key word is rhetoric.

One definition of the word, and the one I think is most accurate, is:
Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous


I've read an article in the New York Post today on just that subject, I've forgotten the particulars aside from the fact that the current Iranian government is way less then popular amongst the under 30 crowd as well as that there is a segment of the Iranians that like the U.S. more then the current Iranian government, dammit.




Do I honestly need to mention just how evil the Syrian government really is?

I really need to make more posts for you Vile, as you seem to just love trying to trip me up, dammit.

The truth is Darth, that I don't think you're completely wrong, just mostly.

I think it's possible the west will fight a war against Islam, but you seem to think it's imminent and inevitable. I disagree on both points.

I fail to see how Islam, or Iran in particular, would benefit greatly from ruining the economies of western nations.

Vile's quotes........


No, I'm trying to say that Iran likely wants nukes for the same reason we want nukes. Respect...You hit the nail on the head Darth...the key word is rhetoric.

One definition of the word, and the one I think is most accurate, is:
Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous


Well God Damn, Vile. Apparently the Iranian President one Mr Ahmadinejad has wrote out this program, this manisfesto declaring that Westen style democracy is completely and totally incompatible with Islam, that he intends to purge the entire Middle East of ANY Western influence, is going to do his damndest to get the Islamic religion to be the world's ONLY religion. He has signed an alliance with Syria, both promising to defend the other in the event of punitive sanctions or invasion, oh and another minor agreement, both have agreed that Israel must go. There are also billion dollar oil deals to Russi and China, two countries that would love to see the U.S. knocked down a peg or six or eight or become another euroweenie declining power. NOW, do you really wish to have a country being ran by a man like Ahmadinejad to acquire nuclear weopons, no matter how insincere or vacuous his rhetoric?


I think it's possible the west will fight a war against Islam, but you seem to think it's imminent and inevitable. I disagree on both points.

Yes, Vile, the Euroweenies agree with you on that one, in spite of Jihad being preached in European Mosques, 9/11, the fiasco over Danish cartoons and the riots in France. Oh and the rhetoric spun out by Syria and Iran. Either the Middle East falls into the sphere of Western ideas and thought or, at the very least, Europe and the Middle East falls into the sphere of 14th century Islam, dammit.

I fail to see how Islam, or Iran in particular, would benefit greatly from ruining the economies of western nations.

Iran can still make zillions selling oil to China, Russia and India. Ahmadinejad has flat out stated that ANY kind of sanctions placed with against will be met with an oil embargo against the West. He's also stated that he wishes for the West to decline. It seems that his "rhetoric" is going to be tested soon because the Euroweenies have tossed this hot potato at the U.N. security council and now it's up to the U.S. to actually do something about it.

Iran doesn't need to be invaded. The locations of their facilities are well known. Using cruise missles launched from offshore, either from subs or aircraft should take care of the problem at hand. Troops don't need to be sent in, just eliminate the known plants with smart bomb technology. Israel can take them out at almost any time, and the entire planet has to pretty much know that. There'll be no warning, but we'll all wake up to the news one day, that seems to be rather certain, should Iran keep up their current stance.

One of the big problems is that the plants are located fairly deep underground. They have hardened them well against airstrikes or missile attacks. A more likely approach is a special forces raid backed with lots of airpower. They would have to go in and take the facility. This would also insure that proof of what is going on would be forthcoming. I think it is likely, however, that Israel will be the force to do it.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Apparently the Iranian President one Mr Ahmadinejad has wrote out this program, this manisfesto declaring that Westen style democracy is completely and totally incompatible with Islam, that he intends to purge the entire Middle East of ANY Western influence, is going to do his damndest to get the Islamic religion to be the world's ONLY religion. He has signed an alliance with Syria, both promising to defend the other in the event of punitive sanctions or invasion, oh and another minor agreement, both have agreed that Israel must go. There are also billion dollar oil deals to Russi and China, two countries that would love to see the U.S. knocked down a peg or six or eight or become another euroweenie declining power. NOW, do you really wish to have a country being ran by a man like Ahmadinejad to acquire nuclear weopons, no matter how insincere or vacuous his rhetoric?

Yes, Vile, the Euroweenies agree with you on that one, in spite of Jihad being preached in European Mosques, 9/11, the fiasco over Danish cartoons and the riots in France. Oh and the rhetoric spun out by Syria and Iran. Either the Middle East falls into the sphere of Western ideas and thought or, at the very least, Europe and the Middle East falls into the sphere of 14th century Islam, dammit.

Iran can still make zillions selling oil to China, Russia and India. Ahmadinejad has flat out stated that ANY kind of sanctions placed with against will be met with an oil embargo against the West. He's also stated that he wishes for the West to decline. It seems that his "rhetoric" is going to be tested soon because the Euroweenies have tossed this hot potato at the U.N. security council and now it's up to the U.S. to actually do something about it.
Excellent rebuttal, Darth.

First things first ...

Before we (or Israel) start lobbing cruise missles into Iran, we have to clear it with Russia who has hundreds of workers, including their top notch scientists, working at those sites everyone wants to bomb.

It's bad enough we would be destroying sites that are partly owned by Russia (and probably China) but outright killing Russian citizens will be a major mistake.

America never ceases to amaze me,just how far can these guys stretch US Defence forces,there has to be a limit,I think Sedans right,Iran is a whole different cattle of fish to Iraq,and dont forget those pysco North Koreans,they must be on the 'invasion' list surley.

war i n Iran would be worldwar 3.Russia an d Iran are allies.

Iran hates Russia nearly as much as it hates America,and Ruskies just dont like anybody,their only keeping a bit of influence in the region,KGB Col.Putin is still haveing illusions of some Russian Empire,nothing to worry about there,dont forget,the biggest threat to Russia is its Southern Regions,that are ALL Muslim,so that comes into play also.

there are allies. Russia le t Iran use facilité to test th e uranium.

You've heard the rhetoric from the Iranian President, just put two and two together, dammit.


No I haven't heard the rhetoric from the Iranian president and neither have you. All we hear is what FOX news tells us and that is the same old crap they told us about saddam and Iraq ... all BS.

No I haven't heard the rhetoric from the Iranian president and neither have you. All we hear is what FOX news tells us and that is the same old crap they told us about saddam and Iraq ... all BS


So you know where I get my news at? For your information, I don't listen to Fox news very often. Not that you'll care, but I have an Al-Jazeera news piece that states Iranian President Ahmdinejad wishes to wipe out Israel.

Just because you can't rebut my points, and you clearly can't, don't go and try and attack where I get my sources. The FACT is that Ahmandinejad is out to do harm and you wish to live in a pre-9/11 world that no longer exists, dammit.

For those of you interested in what's going on in the Middle East and in Iran, gogle Amir Taheri and read his articles, they are very, very eye opening.


http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11064

So you know where I get my news at? For your information, I don't listen to Fox news very often. Not that you'll care, but I have an Al-Jazeera news piece that states Iranian President Ahmdinejad wishes to wipe out Israel.

Just because you can't rebut my points, and you clearly can't, don't go and try and attack where I get my sources. The FACT is that Ahmandinejad is out to do harm and you wish to live in a pre-9/11 world that no longer exists, dammit.

For those of you interested in what's going on in the Middle East and in Iran, gogle Amir Taheri and read his articles, they are very, very eye opening.


http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11064

I repeat ... you did not hear him say it and just because someone claims he said it ... does not make it true.

I repeat ... you did not hear him say it and just because someone claims he said it ... does not make it true.

Much like the Bush "God told me to invade Iraq" comment some people like to bring up so much.

I repeat ... you did not hear him say it and just because someone claims he said it ... does not make it true.

Ahmadinejad: "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," (referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.)

Although I find it curious that they translated his speech into the English idiom "wiped off the map", it is seen here, on al-Jazeera's website that he agreed with the elimination of Israel.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm

Ahmadinejad: "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," (referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.)

Although I find it curious that they translated his speech into the English idiom "wiped off the map", it is seen here, on al-Jazeera's website that he agreed with the elimination of Israel.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm

They translate everything he says to suit the Bush agenda. They know they can get away with it because the bush followers are easily fooled, easily led and basically scared sh*tless.

We saw the same in the lead up to the Iraq genocide. Yellowcake, nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles, thousands of pounds of biological and chemical weapons ... on and on ... all lies ... every last statement.

The IAEA has said there is no proof whatsofever that Iran is developing nuclear weapons so until someone shows me the proof ...

The IAEA has said there is no proof whatsofever that Iran is developing nuclear weapons so until someone shows me the proof ...
=============================================
Would a mushroom cloud over Israel be sufficient......:lolhit:

They translate everything he says to suit the Bush agenda.Yeah, that al-Jazeera is a major puppet of the Bush Administration, good call Dop. So many of their viewers are Bush supporters it's astonishing. The IAEA has said there is no proof whatsofever that Iran is developing nuclear weapons so until someone shows me the proof ... They are enrichening uranium, have said so many times, the UN is addressing the issue, it is from numerous news sources several times a week. If you're not up on the subject, enrichening uranium is a step towards what could become the makings of a nuclear arsenal.

Yeah, that al-Jazeera is a major puppet of the Bush Administration, good call Dop. So many of their viewers are Bush supporters it's astonishing. They are enrichening uranium, have said so many times, the UN is addressing the issue, it is from numerous news sources several times a week. If you're not up on the subject, enrichening uranium is a step towards what could become the makings of a nuclear arsenal.

could become isn't cutting it when we're talking about nuking a country and killing thousands of people. I'd like a little more than opinion and conjecture.

Just this morning Iran agreed to snap inspections and guess what? Bush turned them down. Now, tell me who's right and wrong.

could become isn't cutting it when we're talking about nuking a country and killing thousands of people. I'd like a little more than opinion and conjecture. If you can cite the spot where I mentioned that, go right ahead and show me. And thanks for ignoring that complete BS statement you made about al-Jazeera's standings.

What are the options available to users of enriched uranium,isnt it for fueling power stations.

Jesus, you really are an asshole, Dop.

What did Irans leader say?
http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=18166
++++++++++++++++++++

U.S. rejects Iran inspection offer
Wants involvement of U.N. watchdog -- not Security Council

(CNN) -- Iran will allow snap inspections of its nuclear facilities if the U.N. Security Council does not get involved in the country's nuclear program, a senior Iranian official has said.

But Washington was quick to reject the offer.
...
Iran wants to deal solely with the U.N. nuclear inspection group -- the International Atomic Energy Agency --according to Muhammad Saeedi, deputy head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/30/iran.nuclear/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A reminder that Iran's activities are building nuclear power stations and making fuel rods for the same, activities which Iran are legally allowed to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which both the US and Iran (but not Israel) have signed.

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States states clearly, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

In demanding that Iran stop making fuel for their power reactors, George Bush has broken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in so doing, once again stands guilty or breaking the laws of the United States of America, and defying the Constitution of the United States, which his oath of office compels him to uphold.

Why isn't Congress impeaching Bush for violating the Constitution?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And speaking of the constitution and impeachment...

Attack Iran, Ignore the Constitution

When pressed by Senator Paul Sarbanes about whether the Administration can exercise a military option without an authorization from Congress, Rice replied, "The President never takes any option off the table, and he shouldn't."

The founders of the American Republic were deeply concerned that the President's power to make war might become the vehicle for tyranny. So they crafted a Constitution that included checks and balances on presidential power, among them an independent Congress and judiciary, an executive power subject to laws written by Congress and interpreted by the courts, and an executive power to repel attacks but not to declare or finance war.

But the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, as laid out in the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States and reiterated in 2006, claims for the President the power to attack other countries--like Iran--simply because he asserts they pose a threat. It thereby removes the decision of war and peace from Congress and gives it the President. It is, as Senator Robert Byrd put it, "unconstitutional on its face."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/attack_iran

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The US can't evem bribe Turkey with a nuclear reactor for this one. I might also point out that Turkey has broken many UN resolutions and yet we would freely give them a nuclear power plant for allowing us to stop Iran from getting one. How fucked is that? Just more proof that stopping "nukes in the Middle East" are not the concern at all.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961254015&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BTW even if Iran did go for Nukes isn't the whole point of MAD that no one will use them? I don't see anyone complaing about the unstable, undemocratic, armed with undeclared nukes and "threatening to it neighbors" country of Israel being talked about?

BTW even if Iran did go for Nukes isn't the whole point of MAD that no one will use them? I don't see anyone complaing about the unstable, undemocratic, armed with undeclared nukes and "threatening to it neighbors" country of Israel being talked about?

It's not about nukes. It's about regime change and stealing their oil.

Witness H.R. 282 (Iran Freedom Support Act) passed in the house just a couple of days ago. Read the bill. There is language that authorizes Bush to install a democracy in Iran ... which we have already seen by our actions in Iraq means, invading, killing, maiming, raping, toturing and stealing oil.

HR 282 EH
109TH CONGRESS H. R. 282
2D SESSION AN ACT
To hold the current regime in Iran accountable for
its threatening behavior and to support a transi-
tion to democracy in Iran.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-282

If you can cite the spot where I mentioned that, go right ahead and show me. And thanks for ignoring that complete BS statement you made about al-Jazeera's standings.

Are you denying you said "could become in your post???

Here's the sentence ...

They are enrichening uranium, have said so many times, the UN is addressing the issue, it is from numerous news sources several times a week. If you're not up on the subject, enrichening uranium is a step towards what could become the makings of a nuclear arsenal.

Are you denying you said "could become in your post???

No.

Here's the sentence: could become isn't cutting it when we're talking about nuking a country and killing thousands of people.

I didn't say anything about "nuking a country."

No.

Here's the sentence: could become isn't cutting it when we're talking about nuking a country and killing thousands of people.

I didn't say anything about "nuking a country."

I never said you did ... I simply pointed out the most likely consequences which is ... nuking Iran.

If a nuclear bomb was detonated on Iran,two points jump up at me,is there a possability it would ignite their entire oil fields,Two.If it didnt ignite the oil,how long would you have to wait,before it was safe to extract it..

For those of you interested in what's going on in the Middle East and in Iran, gogle Amir Taheri and read his articles, they are very, very eye opening.I'll say.

Newspaper apologizes for Iran article
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published May 25, 2006

TORONTO - A Canadian newspaper apologized Wednesday for publishing an erroneous story last week claiming that an Iranian law would require Jews and Christians to wear badges identifying them as religious minorities.

The National Post article Friday caused an international uproar. Tehran on Wednesday summoned Canada's ambassador to its Foreign Ministry.

Iran's conservative Parliament last week debated a draft law that would discourage women from wearing Western clothing and encourage citizens to wear Islamic-style garments.

The Post erroneously said the bill included provisions requiring Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims to wear a patch of colored cloth on the front of their garments.

The United States, which is locked in a standoff with Iran over its nuclear program, criticized the bill. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, a Jewish human rights group, had sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan asking him to investigate, according to the Post.

Douglas Kelly, editor-in-chief of the newspaper, ran a lengthy column Wednesday explaining that the story was based on a column by Amir Taheri, an Iranian author and journalist, and two expatriate Iranians.

"We acknowledge that on this story, we did not exercise sufficient caution and skepticism, and we did not check with enough sources," Kelly wrote.

Taheri, on his Web site, wrote that the newspaper misinterpreted his original column.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/05/25/Worldandnation/Newspaper_apologizes_.shtml

Sedan,how can you expect the administration to build up a war lobby,to invade Iran,if you post this sort of truth...

No need to worry about invading iran. it won't happen anytime soon. Much of what is being said is just rhetoric.
The US would be foolish to invade. iran and its leadership have numerous economic and financial problems. As much as we have issues in the US they pale in comparison to iran's. Best to let the regime crumble from within.

It's not about nukes. It's about regime change and stealing their oil.



Stealing their oil? Doesn't that line get a bit tired after a while? It's a joke.

If we are going to steal their oil then maybe we should steal Iraq's oil first.

Stealing their oil? Doesn't that line get a bit tired after a while? It's a joke.

If we are going to steal their oil then maybe we should steal Iraq's oil first.

Good point


On another note - Isn't North Korea more of a threat? If we are concerned with people not having nuclear arms, isn't it a bad precident to let those who have gotten nukes already completely off the hook? That completely validates the idea that if a country gets nukes then they'll be respected.

You know, there would probably be a lot fewer problems in the world if the US just nuked all the areas where we're having problems.

Wip - perfect point. I suspect it's because we may be digging our own grave when dealing with N Korea...that guy is a TRUE madman. JMO.

Good point


On another note - Isn't North Korea more of a threat? If we are concerned with people not having nuclear arms, isn't it a bad precident to let those who have gotten nukes already completely off the hook? That completely validates the idea that if a country gets nukes then they'll be respected.

You know, there would probably be a lot fewer problems in the world if the US just nuked all the areas where we're having problems.
Goodman,were you wanna start,Tel Aviv or Islamabad..