War with Iran is it imminent

[Phoenix]

I dont think the USA wont risk any troops on the ground. More likely to bomb the crap out of Iran with cruise missiles and jets.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

One man's terrorist is another man's separatist group that wants to secede from a violently oppressive theocracy, I suppose.

 

This is the sort of thing I was talking about, Stronts. The United States funds Israel, which violently oppresses an entire people, regardless of whether they're civilians or not.

 

Other than Israel, the US has been funding and partaking in terrorism for much longer than since the cold war. From the Taliban to Jundullah - which even the United States classes as a terrorist group - they are well known to use terrorist funding as a tactic.

 

Taking one side or the other is up to you, but you can't then paint yourself as some sort of objective, fact based critic.

[Strontium]

Are you talking about countries that carpet bomb cities knowing that the vast majority underneath are innocent civilians?

 

 

Nobody has carpet bombed anyone since 1945. Presumably you meant to write something else.

 

This is the sort of thing I was talking about, Stronts. The United States funds Israel, which violently oppresses an entire people, regardless of whether they're civilians or not.

 

 

I don't think it's helpful to use the term "terrorists" when talking about state actors, I would reserve that for non-state actors personally. Rogue state would be more appropriate in the case of Israel.

 

Other than Israel, the US has been funding and partaking in terrorism for much longer than since the cold war. From the Taliban to Jundullah - which even the United States classes as a terrorist group - they are well known to use terrorist funding as a tactic.

 

 

The Iranians claim that the US is funding Jundallah, the US claims it isn't. I suppose it depends on whether or not you trust people who say that the Holocaust is a myth and that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a legitimate document.

 

Taking one side or the other is up to you, but you can't then paint yourself as some sort of objective, fact based critic.

 

 

Likewise, don't pretend that I don't criticise the likes of Israel or the UK, when I patently do.

[VladimirIlyich]

Nobody has carpet bombed anyone since 1945. Presumably you meant to write something else.

 

 

 

I don't think it's helpful to use the term "terrorists" when talking about state actors, I would reserve that for non-state actors personally. Rogue state would be more appropriate in the case of Israel.

 

 

 

 

The Iranians claim that the US is funding Jundallah, the US claims it isn't. I suppose it depends on whether or not you trust people who say that the Holocaust is a myth and that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a legitimate document.

 

 

 

 

Likewise, don't pretend that I don't criticise the likes of Israel or the UK, when I patently do.

 

So how would you describe dropping cluster bombs or automatic missiles from aeroplanes onto cities full of civilians?

[Strontium]

Do you have a specific bombing event in mind?

[VladimirIlyich]

How do you think those cities in Iraq and Afghanistan fell apart? You dont think the residents blew their own homes up do you?

[Whelan]

Shock and Awe!

 

It was called that for a reason, and that reason was because they bombed the shit outta the place!

[Section_31]

 

This could be Rotterdam

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

 

I don't think it's helpful to use the term "terrorists" when talking about state actors, I would reserve that for non-state actors personally. Rogue state would be more appropriate in the case of Israel.

 

It's absolutely a terrorist state, though.

 

The Iranians claim that the US is funding Jundallah, the US claims it isn't. I suppose it depends on whether or not you trust people who say that the Holocaust is a myth and that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a legitimate document.

 

Or, rather than any of that, just judge on the history of what the CIA has done time and time again and decide which is most likely. I think it's pretty clear they have done this sort of thing many times.

 

Likewise, don't pretend that I don't criticise the likes of Israel or the UK, when I patently do.

 

You do nothing but defend Israel, as far as I've seen. You rarely ever post something full and balanced on the subject. It's almost always 'Islamic terrorists this' or 'theocratic oppression that' or 'Zionism is just...'.

 

You're hardly their biggest critic, be honest.

[zigackly]

The difference between Iraq and Iran would be utterly massive. Seriously, it's an entirely different thing and Iran's tactic would have a massive impact all around the world.

 

It's a massive misconception that Iran would be anything like Iraq. For a start, Iran isn't a downtrodden country; it has a very strong army, strong airforce and strong navy, but most importantly it knows exactly how to strike parts of the world to stop the supply of oil.

 

Iraq couldn't strike back, but Iran will strike Israel, and even the US and UK. It'll also strike bases in the Middle East. Iran will unleash holy hell if attacked, of that there's no doubt.

 

Can they be beaten? Of course. Will it take much, much, much more and cost much, much more in terms of lives and money than Iraq? Absolutely. Just think at the problems it'll cause with the straights of Hormuz. Oil fields around the Middle East. Just think about Russia's reaction. About Chinas reaction. It's not even close to the situation in Iraq, Zig.

 

Again, you are begging the question of how Iran did so very badly then, in an eight year war against Iraq. As far as I am aware, material and human losses against Iraq were greatly more for Iran, and yet the west essentially went through Saddam Hussein's forces like a hot knife through butter at the end of that war. He had a million men including 150,000 Republican Guard as well by the way Stronts.

 

As SD notes above, "the US reckoned 5 years ago it could essentially eradicate Iran's conventional and nuclear facilities with airstrikes in 48 hours". Iran's military technology and material has not increased significantly in that time.

 

Yes, that would leave them with a lot of ground troops, but without air cover they would be sitting ducks.

 

China and Russia would stay out of it and moan a lot, as they did with Iraq and Libya. They know they can't afford a war with the US because of their nuclear arsenal.

 

It's a bit of a stupid debate anyway, because I'm sure neither of us would want a war and there is no way to "prove" what would happen, but I think you are vastly underestimating the difference in resources and technology between a country like Iran and the massed forces of America and her allies.

Edited November 9, 2011 by zigackly

[Jose Jones]

Again, you are begging the question of how Iran did so very badly then, in an eight year war against Iraq. As far as I am aware, material and human losses against Iraq were greatly more for Iran, and yet the west essentially went through Saddam Hussein's forces like a hot knife through butter at the end of that war. He had a million men including 150,000 Republican Guard as well by the way Stronts.

 

As SD notes above, "the US reckoned 5 years ago it could essentially eradicate Iran's conventional and nuclear facilities with airstrikes in 48 hours". Iran's military technology and material has not increased significantly in that time.

 

Yes, that would leave them with a lot of ground troops, but without air cover they would be sitting ducks.

 

China and Russia would stay out of it and moan a lot, as they did with Iraq and Libya. They know they can't afford a war with the US because of their nuclear arsenal.

 

It's a bit of a stupid debate anyway, because I'm sure neither of us would want a war and there is no way to "prove" what would happen, but I think you are vastly underestimating the difference in resources and technology between a country like Iran and the massed forces of America and her allies.

 

Depends what the "goals" are really.

 

Israel wants to prevent Iran having any major long range weapon capabilities, particularly nuclear weapons. Partly to maintain their position as the most powerful military in the region and thus position of strength, and partly because they know from example that an attack by the US on Iran would lead to Iran bombing Israel (as Iraq did in the first gulf war).

 

The US would want

 

a) Oil

b) A client state

c) A democratically elected secular-ish government

 

Probably in that order.

 

I would say any attack on Iran would be predicated on whether their long range weapons could be taken out quickly (that 48 hours thing from SD for example), combined with either a popular uprising as per Libya that could be "supported" by the US and allies. I doubt we would see a ground force invasion of Iran.

[dennis tooth]

Nobody has carpet bombed anyone since 1945. Presumably you meant to write something else.

 

 

Er Cambodia, Vietnam. You thick dullard. Here, can you count and stare at a picture and nod for me?

 

 

6,727,084 tons of bombs dropped on Indo China by the US during the Vietnam War.

from Vietnam Veterans Supporting Veterans

 

2,700,000 tons dropped by Allies in European theather

656,400 tons dropped by Allies in Pacific war

US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1945

 

2,756,941 tons of bombs dropped on Cambodia.

 

 

I don't think it's helpful to use the term "terrorists" when talking about state actors, I would reserve that for non-state actors personally. Rogue state would be more appropriate in the case of Israel.

 

But Hamas is a state actor, it was elected as a political entity of the Palestinian state. Mong

 

The Iranians claim that the US is funding Jundallah, the US claims it isn't. I suppose it depends on whether or not you trust people who say that the Holocaust is a myth and that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a legitimate document.

 

No, wrong again you bad simpleton:

"

Several other sources such as the ABC News, Daily Telegraph, and journalist Seymour Hersh have also reported that Jundullah has received support from the United States against the government of Iran"

Jundallah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I was not aware Dan Rather was big on the protocols of Zion but er, well done for pointing it out you stupid cunt.

 

Bush sanctions 'black ops' against Iran - Telegraph

 

Even if Iranian leader beleived that shit its still infinitely more intelligent than Bush and his mind's eye.

 

So despite all the shit in this thread basically theres still no evidence whatsoever of the Iranian 'nuclear bomb' programme but plenty of evidence of powerful people trying to frame them for supposedly having one knowing full well they dont as everyone in the world but SD knows.

Just to sum up for people who want to save themselves some time wading through a load of bullshit.

Edited November 9, 2011 by dennis tooth

[Chairman Meow]

Nobody has carpet bombed anyone since 1945. Presumably you meant to write something else.

 

The Americans spent around a year and a half of the Vietnam war pretty comprehensively carpet bombing huge areas of the country.

[dennis tooth]

I'll carpet bomb his ass.

 

However, the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan.

Go on SD write to the Telegraph, get them to amend what they have written there cos it doesnt fucking match up with what you wrote on the GF.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Again, you are begging the question of how Iran did so very badly then, in an eight year war against Iraq. As far as I am aware, material and human losses against Iraq were greatly more for Iran, and yet the west essentially went through Saddam Hussein's forces like a hot knife through butter at the end of that war.

 

If you stop and think for a moment, you'll see that the question and the implications it makes is badly flawed.

 

Firstly, the Iran/Iraq war started over three decades ago. The relevancy of it is, at best, questionable. Iraq had the support of the United States, and various other countries and it was a very long time ago.

 

Secondly, is it any shock that the west didn't have much trouble in the first Gulf war when they'd just come out of nearly a decade of fighting a brutal and bloody war just a short while before?

 

Thirdly, Iraq in 2003, which was also just supposed to be a few airstrikes, lasted the best slice of a decade. They had virtually no defences, no money, no air force. Iran has all of those things and hasn't been ravaged by war the way Iraq has been in the last 20 years.

 

As SD notes above, "the US reckoned 5 years ago it could essentially eradicate Iran's conventional and nuclear facilities with airstrikes in 48 hours". Iran's military technology and material has not increased significantly in that time.

 

Well, that's just nonsense by the US. It's exactly, and I do mean exactly the same sort of lies we heard before we attacked Iraq in 2003. How it was going to be days not months. We were there for years and years and we fucked it up.

 

Now times the size of the country by four, give it an air force, a mighty army, a fully stocked navy, money, troops, allies and a will to do everything it can to defend itself. 48 hours my arse! If anybody thinks that the hundreds upon hundreds of sites, guarded by Russian and Chinese fighter planes and air defence systems is going to be a 48 hour task, they're fucking mental.

 

Yes, that would leave them with a lot of ground troops, but without air cover they would be sitting ducks.

 

China and Russia would stay out of it and moan a lot, as they did with Iraq and Libya They know they can't afford a war with the US because of their nuclear arsenal.

 

Oh, so that's it is it? You just wave your hand in dismissal and it makes it so? This is the problem I have, people often don't actually have a clue what they're talking about and make daft guesses based on a few snippets of news they've caught.

 

Fucking hell, Putin said any attack on Iran would be utterly unacceptable. The likely first attack would be via Israel and Russia would go fucking mental. It's the reason Russia sells so many high-tech air defence weapons. The exports from Russia to Iran are massive. Both in terms of weapons and other things.

 

It's a bit of a stupid debate anyway, because I'm sure neither of us would want a war and there is no way to "prove" what would happen, but I think you are vastly underestimating the difference in resources and technology between a country like Iran and the massed forces of America and her allies.

 

I know full well the difference between the technology of the two countries. However, you seem to completely underestimate the difference between Iraq and Iran and overestimate the importance of technology in this scenario.

 

What does the difference between a F-15E/F22/Eurofighter and F14/MiG-29 actually matter when the oil fields in Qatar (where and the Gulf are ablaze or the straight of Hormuz is blocked and attacked. What does it matter when the fighters are, like they were in Iraq, using entirely different tactics. What does it matter when, as Putin said of any attack, the inevitable 'explosion of terrorism' brings itself to our shores?

 

Military technology is important, and I'll reiterate what I said earlier: a war against Iran can be won. However, it'll be far more costly than a war against Iraq. They are not a country on its knees, it's so far from being comparable to Iraq that any suggestion that it's going to be more or less the same proposition is pretty naive.

[Phoenix]

[YOUTUBE]iWnk1RZ8-rw[/YOUTUBE]

[Strontium]

Er Cambodia, Vietnam. You thick dullard. Here, can you count and stare at a picture and nod for me?

 

 

You stupid cunt.

 

Strategic bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Carpet bombing, often confused with strategic bombing, is the use of strategic air assets for operational objectives in support of ground forces

 

Knowing what you are talking about is a distinct advantage in a discussion. But then, you're not much interested in discussions, only throwing abuse. Clown.

 

But Hamas is a state actor, it was elected as a political entity of the Palestinian state. Mong

 

 

There is no Palestinian state you cock.

 

No, wrong again you bad simpleton:

"

Several other sources such as the ABC News, Daily Telegraph, and journalist Seymour Hersh have also reported that Jundullah has received support from the United States against the government of Iran"

Jundallah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I was not aware Dan Rather was big on the protocols of Zion but er, well done for pointing it out you stupid cunt.

 

 

Once again, the only stupid cunt is you. Find me some EVIDENCE that goes beyond "it said on TV!!!11"

 

Lots of news outlets reported that Iraq had WMDs too. So well done on holing your own arguments, you cretinous little prick.

[General Dryness]

The US reckoned 5 years ago it could essentially eradicate Iran's conventional and nuclear facilities with airstrikes in 48 hours. But after that you would still have a major effort displacing what is a fairly solid regime that could readily mobilise a million-strong militia on top of an elite Revolutionary Guard of 150,000.

 

That reminded of Bills take on Iraqs "Elite Republican Guard" during the Gulf War.

 

[YOUTUBE]u4CQ_1GWn4w[/YOUTUBE]

[Jose Jones]

I like to imagine that negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis are something along the lines of those between Stronts and Dennis. NV can be Hillary Clinton.

[moof]

War. HURGGH. Yeah. What is it good for? Not too much like,

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Not necessarily, I draw a distinction between groups that target civilians and those that don't.

 

Oh, so it's all about the right sort of terrorism then, the good kind.

 

Gotcha.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

During the Vietnam war, Operation Menu clearly used carpet-bombing to attack Laos and Cambodia. In other parts and operations in Vietnam, too.

 

Then there's Afghanistan, which use the use of carpet-bombing was confirmed by 'Rear Admiral John Stufflebeem' (deputy director of operations for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff). As talked about by The Guardian and on the BBC at the time.

 

Lots of bluster, but I agree with Stronts that it does help if you know what you're talking about.

[silverlining]

It's weird watching dennis, strontium dogfondler and numero all arguing.

 

It's a bit like watching three cunts fighting, and hoping they all die.

[stringvest]

Laos and Cambodia were carpet bombed. There is no doubt about it. You can call it what you want, but discriminate it was not. I've seen the devastation it has caused - and causes to this day.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

It's weird watching dennis, strontium dogfondler and numero all arguing.

 

It's a bit like watching three cunts fighting, and hoping they all die.

 

Sil', meet Magic Sponge. Magic Spong, meet Sil'. You two should get along well.