Iran may be planning an attack on American soil

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Iran is lead by brilliant men and we are led by fools.

so move there.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: tallest1
Ah, the neocons here are finally letting their invade/do-not-invade colors show:

For small countries we can beat up, they're 'growing threats' and should be invaded at any moment but for larger, more structured countries (with or without WMDs) they reply "oh, they wouldn't dare attack us" or "we would attack but its an inconvenience to us" and ignore them.

I notice the more conservative members of the forum have yet to post in this thread so I'll assume A) They don't want to be quoted in case something DOES happen contrary to predictions or B) They don't want to give their opinion until the administration gives their opinion first.

Either way, expect me to refer to this thread in the future

Ahh, another liberal playing the "all conservatives are war mongers" hooplah again.

A state wont sponsor terrorism against the US, its suicide, thats the whole reason Al-Quada exists, they have no geographical boundaries, If Al-Quada was a country, it would be a smoldering crater by now. Iran knows this. And trash talk coming from the mouth of an Ayatolah is something new? And look at the source, Jerusalem post? pfft, like they aren't going to refine everything they write into Arab-Hate.

Originally posted by: loki8481
but wasn't the war with Iraq supposed to stabalize the Middle East and convert the muslims into America-loving Christians?

nice, who said that? IIRC it was to remove Saddam, and establish a democracy.

I say to you, the American people you will collapse, America will collapse.

I kinda agree with this guy, the US just might collapse some time down the road (10-15 years maybe), but not from an attack from the outside, it will be from weakness and failure within.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: AcidicFury
So why didn't we go after Iran again?

The Dub confused N with Q

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Train

I say to you, the American people you will collapse, America will collapse.

I kinda agree with this guy, the US just might collapse some time down the road (10-15 years maybe), but not from an attack from the outside, it will be from weakness and failure within.

This was in Google's #1 search result to "what caused the collapse of the roman empire"

There is no simple explanation for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, but several interconnected elements provide some answers. The demands of the military and the growing bureaucracy forced the government to seek more income. When the elite avoided taxes, the burden fell on the peasantry, who had barely enough to feed themselves and no surplus to pay taxes. When farmers fled the land, incomes declined still further and manpower shortages forced the military to hire German mercenaries. This cycle led to a weak, impoverished central government that quietly collapsed in 476.

Fascinating!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Iran is lead by brilliant men and we are led by fools.

so move there.

Part of the reason why we are led by fools I guess.

 

[tallest1]

bump for the apathetic folks out there

 

[ReiAyanami]

as Iran hold large oil reserves, imagine if they managed to team up with Saudi Arabia

OPEC could destroy USA overnight without firing a single bullet or missile

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: tallest1
bump for the apathetic folks out there

Not apathetic, just resigned.

 

[tec699]

Hehe...

What if the speech was made by Bush and Co? I'm sure his trigger finger is getting awefully itchy so he probably wants to try out a few new American weapons on another country that can't defend itself. Plus this war will be a good reason to bring back the draft so "average" American men can fight a war for the rich.

interesting. 😀

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Cool 😎 we'll get Iran's Oil then next.

Iraq 51st State

Iran 52nd State

This is why you libs dont get it. This is why your party will fail. We don't want them in the union.

How would you react to these threats? Do nothing?

Iran may try and bring a holy war to this country but all they will get in return is a world of fire.

I dunno, I think it's kind of funny when they state over and over again that we're in Iraq for the oil. Just showing off their ignorance.

Originally posted by: loki8481
but wasn't the war with Iraq supposed to stabalize the Middle East and convert the muslims into America-loving Christians?

Instead, it only stabilized Syria and Libya. Shame on Bush!

Iran military stats

pursuing a biological weapon program. Although Iran acceded to the Geneva Protocol in 1929 and ratified the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) in 1973, the U.S. government believes Iran began biological weapon efforts in the early to mid-1980s, and that it continues to pursue an offensive biological weapon program linked to its civilian biotechnology activities. The United States alleges that Iran may have started to develop small quantities of agent, possibly including mycotoxins, ricin, and the smallpox virus. Iran strongly denies acquiring or producing biological weapons.

There is limited open-source information available concerning Iran's chemical weapons program. Although Iran ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in November 1997, the United States believes that Iran has maintained a chemical weapons program since 1984, including production of sarin, mustard, phosgene, and hydrocyanic acid. According to U.S. government estimates, Iran can produce 1,000 metric tons of agent per year and may have a stockpile of at least several thousand metric tons of weaponized and bulk agent. Iran strongly denies acquiring or producing chemical weapons.

Iran possesses one of the largest missile inventories in the Middle East and has acquired complete missile systems and developed an infrastructure to build missiles indigenously. It has purchased North Korean Scud-Bs, Scud-Cs, and Nodong ballistic missiles. Meanwhile, Iran has also developed short-range artillery rockets and is producing the Scud-B and the Scud-C?called the Shehab-1 and Shehab-2, respectively. Iran recently flight-tested the 1,300km-range Shehab-3, which is based on the North Korean Nodong. The Shehab-3 is capable of reaching Israel. Following this most recent flight-test, the Shehab-3 was placed in service and revolutionary guard units were officially armed with the missiles. There are conflicting reports about the development of even longer-ranged missiles, such as the Shehab-4 and the Kosar intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). U.S. intelligence agencies assess that barring acquisition of a complete system or major subsystem from North Korea, Iran is unlikely to launch an ICBM or satellite launch vehicle (SLV) before mid-decade.

Iran possesses five research reactors and two partially constructed power reactors at Bushehr. It acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1970. In the mid-1970s, Iran initiated a nuclear power program, though there are reports that it also began a small nuclear weapon research program at the same time. The 1979 revolution ended all nuclear efforts until 1984, when Iran revived the nuclear power program and reportedly began covert procurement for a nuclear weapon program.

After reading that page and learning that Iran has 513,000 troops, with another 12,000,000 who are considered capable and of fighting age, that worries me a little.
Iraq military stats
But I guess Iraq had 375,000 troops with another 3.5 mill capable. Iran is another situation where there probably is no good plan, but some will have worse consequences than others.

Originally posted by: tallest1
Ah, the neocons here are finally letting their invade/do-not-invade colors show:

For small countries we can beat up, they're 'growing threats' and should be invaded at any moment but for larger, more structured countries (with or without WMDs) they reply "oh, they wouldn't dare attack us" or "we would attack but its an inconvenience to us" and ignore them.

And notice that you show your persuasion's true colors by not taking a position on the subject.

Originally posted by: tallest1
This was in Google's #1 search result to "what caused the collapse of the roman empire"

The Roman Empire never really collapsed, though. It split into two sections because it became so big that one government couldn't manage it all with slow communications. Each section became a string of different empires (Holy Roman, Ottoman). But, you'll probably argue against that, because the first thing you found fit your agenda to the T.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Cool 😎 we'll get Iran's Oil then next.

Iraq 51st State

Iran 52nd State

This is why you libs dont get it. This is why your party will fail. We don't want them in the union.

How would you react to these threats? Do nothing?

Iran may try and bring a holy war to this country but all they will get in return is a world of fire.

I dunno, I think it's kind of funny when they state over and over again that we're in Iraq for the oil. Just showing off their ignorance.

Originally posted by: loki8481
but wasn't the war with Iraq supposed to stabalize the Middle East and convert the muslims into America-loving Christians?

Instead, it only stabilized Syria and Libya. Shame on Bush!

Iran military stats

pursuing a biological weapon program. Although Iran acceded to the Geneva Protocol in 1929 and ratified the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) in 1973, the U.S. government believes Iran began biological weapon efforts in the early to mid-1980s, and that it continues to pursue an offensive biological weapon program linked to its civilian biotechnology activities. The United States alleges that Iran may have started to develop small quantities of agent, possibly including mycotoxins, ricin, and the smallpox virus. Iran strongly denies acquiring or producing biological weapons.

There is limited open-source information available concerning Iran's chemical weapons program. Although Iran ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in November 1997, the United States believes that Iran has maintained a chemical weapons program since 1984, including production of sarin, mustard, phosgene, and hydrocyanic acid. According to U.S. government estimates, Iran can produce 1,000 metric tons of agent per year and may have a stockpile of at least several thousand metric tons of weaponized and bulk agent. Iran strongly denies acquiring or producing chemical weapons.

Iran possesses one of the largest missile inventories in the Middle East and has acquired complete missile systems and developed an infrastructure to build missiles indigenously. It has purchased North Korean Scud-Bs, Scud-Cs, and Nodong ballistic missiles. Meanwhile, Iran has also developed short-range artillery rockets and is producing the Scud-B and the Scud-C?called the Shehab-1 and Shehab-2, respectively. Iran recently flight-tested the 1,300km-range Shehab-3, which is based on the North Korean Nodong. The Shehab-3 is capable of reaching Israel. Following this most recent flight-test, the Shehab-3 was placed in service and revolutionary guard units were officially armed with the missiles. There are conflicting reports about the development of even longer-ranged missiles, such as the Shehab-4 and the Kosar intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). U.S. intelligence agencies assess that barring acquisition of a complete system or major subsystem from North Korea, Iran is unlikely to launch an ICBM or satellite launch vehicle (SLV) before mid-decade.

Iran possesses five research reactors and two partially constructed power reactors at Bushehr. It acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1970. In the mid-1970s, Iran initiated a nuclear power program, though there are reports that it also began a small nuclear weapon research program at the same time. The 1979 revolution ended all nuclear efforts until 1984, when Iran revived the nuclear power program and reportedly began covert procurement for a nuclear weapon program.

After reading that page and learning that Iran has 513,000 troops, with another 12,000,000 who are considered capable and of fighting age, that worries me a little.
Iraq military stats
But I guess Iraq had 375,000 troops with another 3.5 mill capable. Iran is another situation where there probably is no good plan, but some will have worse consequences than others.

Originally posted by: tallest1
Ah, the neocons here are finally letting their invade/do-not-invade colors show:

For small countries we can beat up, they're 'growing threats' and should be invaded at any moment but for larger, more structured countries (with or without WMDs) they reply "oh, they wouldn't dare attack us" or "we would attack but its an inconvenience to us" and ignore them.

And notice that you show your persuasion's true colors by not taking a position on the subject.

Originally posted by: tallest1
This was in Google's #1 search result to "what caused the collapse of the roman empire"

The Roman Empire never really collapsed, though. It split into two sections because it became so big that one government couldn't manage it all with slow communications. Each section became a string of different empires (Holy Roman, Ottoman). But, you'll probably argue against that, because the first thing you found fit your agenda to the T.

He didn't say that the Roman empire collapsed. He said the western Roman empire collapsed. (one of the sections you mentioned.). And, yes, it did collapse. Actually, all of the sections of rome eventually collapsed.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Well if they attack the US in any form then I'm sure that retaliation will be absolutely brutal and result in their destruction. Iran is basically nothing compared to the US in terms of military capabilities.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tss4
He didn't say that the Roman empire collapsed. He said the western Roman empire collapsed. (one of the sections you mentioned.). And, yes, it did collapse. Actually, all of the sections of rome eventually collapsed.

You state it so definitively that it did, indeed, collapse - are you a historian? I can give you the names of several experts in the area who would disagree with you. Many say that the USSR was the last Roman Empire (you can directly trace the lineage of the Eastern Empire to the USSR). Making it that far is not exactly what I would call a 'collapse.' Even the western became the HRE and other empires before going away (Hitler's regime was the Third Reich - the third incarnation of the Western Roman Empire).

And that concludes this woefully off-topic discussion. :x

 

[dudeguy]

Originally posted by: AcidicFury
So why don't we go after Iran again?

 

[kaizersose]

Originally posted by: tallest1
Ah, the neocons here are finally letting their invade/do-not-invade colors show:

For small countries we can beat up, they're 'growing threats' and should be invaded at any moment but for larger, more structured countries (with or without WMDs) they reply "oh, they wouldn't dare attack us" or "we would attack but its an inconvenience to us" and ignore them.

I notice the more conservative members of the forum have yet to post in this thread so I'll assume A) They don't want to be quoted in case something DOES happen contrary to predictions or B) They don't want to give their opinion until the administration gives their opinion first.

Either way, expect me to refer to this thread in the future

it's called "picking your battles" and it's prudent. marching blindly into every conflict in the exact same manner is idiotic from both a political and military standpoint. every conflict is different and must be treated as such.

that said, whether you like it or not, there is a pecking order to the world and it is a lot easier to get things done when the country is farther below you. simply a fact of life.

 

[jpeyton]

Unlike Iraq, Iran WILL be the next Vietnam if we go to war there.

They lost a million troops in their war against Iraq decades ago. They will lose many more if they fight the US, but they will do so willingly.

If you think losing 5 in a day in Iraq is bad, we'd be losing a few hundred a day against Iran (they'd probably still lose more). A war in Iran would mandate a draft.

The biggest loser in a possible Iran war would be Israel, because their would be bombed heavily by Iran and any of Iran's allies.

And gas would go through the roof. We'll be begging for $5 a gallon when it's said and done.

The world today is not ready for another World War. Unlike the united effort of the Allies in the 30's and 40's, the modern media coverage of any war of that scale would put most American's into shock. War isn't pretty, and it's even less pretty when it has 24/7 coverage on CNN and FOX.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

I question the motivations of that article more than I question the likelihood that Iraq would engage in a first-strike.

Iran is posturing for deterance. We would (and have) do the same thing.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: kaizersose

Originally posted by: tallest1
Ah, the neocons here are finally letting their invade/do-not-invade colors show:

For small countries we can beat up, they're 'growing threats' and should be invaded at any moment but for larger, more structured countries (with or without WMDs) they reply "oh, they wouldn't dare attack us" or "we would attack but its an inconvenience to us" and ignore them.

I notice the more conservative members of the forum have yet to post in this thread so I'll assume A) They don't want to be quoted in case something DOES happen contrary to predictions or B) They don't want to give their opinion until the administration gives their opinion first.

Either way, expect me to refer to this thread in the future

it's called "picking your battles" and it's prudent. marching blindly into every conflict in the exact same manner is idiotic from both a political and military standpoint. every conflict is different and must be treated as such.

that said, whether you like it or not, there is a pecking order to the world and it is a lot easier to get things done when the country is farther below you. simply a fact of life.

Our invasion of Iraq was the very definition of "marching blindly into conflict". Now, it seems Iran is being portrayed in the same light, by the same people, as Iraq was before that war. Doesn't that strike you as being just a little dubious?
Regarding "picking one's battles":. One major difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iraq was a basically secular country - and the fundamentalist world disdained and distrusted them. Invading Iran would be tantamount to declaring war on Islam - a war which would make Vietnam look like an Andy Kaufman wrestling match.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: tss4
Actually, all of the sections of rome eventually collapsed.

if you call accidentally leaving a door open on may 29 1453 a collapse, i guess so.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: tss4
Actually, all of the sections of rome eventually collapsed.

if you call accidentally leaving a door open on may 29 1453 a collapse, i guess so.

Now THAT's research.

🙂

 

[gutharius]

I can't help but ask if "the world will witness the annihilation of this arrogant regime." is really what he said or if it is just the "creative" translation by a rouge translator.... Just an observation...

 

[kaizersose]

Originally posted by: phantom309
Our invasion of Iraq was the very definition of "marching blindly into conflict". Now, it seems Iran is being portrayed in the same light, by the same people, as Iraq was before that war. Doesn't that strike you as being just a little dubious?

we hardly marched into iraq blindly. we did an excellent job with the military work, what we werent ready for was the hoards of foreigners who have come to iraq to create anarchy. people here were discussing the military differences and that's what i was refering to.

iran is not being portrayed in the same light. iran has reached out and turned the spotlight on itself by actively seeking nuclear weapons while making agressive, inflamatory comments twice a week.

Regarding "picking one's battles":. One major difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iraq was a basically secular country - and the fundamentalist world disdained and distrusted them. Invading Iran would be tantamount to declaring war on Islam - a war which would make Vietnam look like an Andy Kaufman wrestling match.

why is that declaring war on islam? the terrorists in iran hide behind the veil of religion both domestically and internationally to maintain and expand their power. anytime we scold them, they claim we are trying declaring war on islam to get people riled up, and never have to deal with the problem. iran is a problem, much like north korea, because they are threatening people with nuclear weapons. if people cant see that, they need to open up their eyes.

 

[CycloWizard]

Iran and North Korea are both major problems that don't have any good solution. One way or the other, they're going to kill a lot of people when the opportunity presents itself. We have a few options:

1) Do nothing and wait for them to nuke someone.
2) Try to coerce them using sactions and such to give in and stop with the nuke building.
3) Take them out militarily.
4) Some covert means of overthrowing their government or stopping the nukes.

The first is obviously not a good idea, I think we can all agree on that. The second has not been successful with any country yet, and therefore I believe it extremely risky to rely on it in cases of such obvious gravity. The third will likely cost tens of thousands of the lives of our soldiers, but I have no doubt that we could indeed do it. The fourth is the best option that I can come up with, but it would take nothing short of James Bond to actually pull it off. I'm not as familiar with our covert ops abilities as with our overt military. Maybe we could just drop Delta Force into Iran and let them have their way with the place. Any other suggestions?

 

[dudeguy]

i went to iran. i dont think it will be. there will be a few peasants who will definitely do an insurgency, but this time we will keep the armed forces and police, inorder to deal with these melitias.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: dudeguy
i went to iran. i dont think it will be. there will be a few peasants who will definitely do an insurgency, but this time we will keep the armed forces and police, inorder to deal with these melitias.

Wont be nothing left after we are through....E=mc^2 time baby!