War with Iran is a sure thing now

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
The difference between Iran and Israel is, Israel is ready for a chemical or biological attack. There's a mask for every person.

How silly- modern cw agents are lethal when absorbed thru the skin, and bw agents are often very persistent in the environment, with no real protection available other than immunization, which isn't always possible. Having a mask for every person is a nifty PR routine, based on the placebo effect...

I'll always support Israel, no matter what they do. It's a Texas thing.

Yeh, the Israelis can just round up all the Pals and gas 'em, along with anybody else who gets in the way of their vision of Lebensraum for the Jewish State...
 

Termagant

Senior member
Mar 10, 2006
765
0
0
I think everyone forgets that Iran has many ballistic missiles which could strike targets within Iraq, and the other Persian Gulf states relatively easy. The US can't defend everywhere with a battery of Patriot missiles. Potentially bringing other Middle East states into the conflict would destroy stability and raise oil prices through the roof.

And we could kiss any progress in Iraq goodbye.

All of you blood thirsty goons calling for chemical attacks on Iranian civilians, and the "removal of Islam from our nation" sound like little children who play to many video games. Your morality is in the toilet and you're poor excuses for Americans, Israelis, or whatever nation you come from.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
"I'll always support Israel, no matter what they do."

Funny... the people of Israel didn't even support Israel on their conflict with Lebanon and the Prime Minister was hanging on barely.

To support Israel always is to say the U.S is always right. Therefore, you must be 100% for the invasion of Iraq. Brilliant.

Unless.. you are more pro-Israelis than pro-U.S.
 

sjwaste

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
8,757
12
81
Originally posted by: Aimster
Yeah everything you said sounds exactly like what Israel did to the South of Lebanon.

Hezbollah continued to fire missiles until the last day. Numbers were still 100-200+ missiles until the end of the ceasefire.

Israel did everything they could and were unable to stop the missiles.

What the hell is the U.S going to do to Iran that is MASSIVE in size compared to Lebanon that Israel is incapable of doing?

Are you insane? The only reason any of that went on is because Israel at least tried to mitigate civilian casualties. Hezbollah was launching missiles specifically INTO civilian areas.

If Israel did everything they could, they would've carpet bombed the entire country. Even with conventional weapons, that would've quieted things down significantly. The problem arises when you depend on what the rest of the civilized world thinks of you (and middle east extremists don't fall into that category).

If Iran does anything in the future to warrant such a response, I hope you come back and re-read your posts. The only reason they still exist is because they haven't done anything to warrant a massive response, and they're not ignorant of that fact.

To say that the problems start after the conventional war is over implies that an occupation is necessary. A few massive attacks on American soil conclusively linked to Iran, for instance, would ensure that no such occupation is necessary as you only occupy populated areas. I'm against a pre-emptive strike on Iran, but moreso, I really hope we never have a reason for a retaliatory strike. There's something to be said about live and let live, but the extremism in that part of the world tends to disagree.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: sjwaste
Originally posted by: Aimster
Yeah everything you said sounds exactly like what Israel did to the South of Lebanon.

Hezbollah continued to fire missiles until the last day. Numbers were still 100-200+ missiles until the end of the ceasefire.

Israel did everything they could and were unable to stop the missiles.

What the hell is the U.S going to do to Iran that is MASSIVE in size compared to Lebanon that Israel is incapable of doing?

Are you insane? The only reason any of that went on is because Israel at least tried to mitigate civilian casualties. Hezbollah was launching missiles specifically INTO civilian areas.

If Israel did everything they could, they would've carpet bombed the entire country. Even with conventional weapons, that would've quieted things down significantly. The problem arises when you depend on what the rest of the civilized world thinks of you (and middle east extremists don't fall into that category).

If Iran does anything in the future to warrant such a response, I hope you come back and re-read your posts. The only reason they still exist is because they haven't done anything to warrant a massive response, and they're not ignorant of that fact.

To say that the problems start after the conventional war is over implies that an occupation is necessary. A few massive attacks on American soil conclusively linked to Iran, for instance, would ensure that no such occupation is necessary as you only occupy populated areas. I'm against a pre-emptive strike on Iran, but moreso, I really hope we never have a reason for a retaliatory strike. There's something to be said about live and let live, but the extremism in that part of the world tends to disagree.

Go educate yourself.
Israel's PM almost got booted out because of his decision to attack Lebanon.

If Israel was on the verge of being destroyed they would launch all their missiles as well. Hezbollah had the missiles and Israel knew it. They never launched them before at Israeli cities and said they would only do it if Israel invaded Lebanon. Israel didn't care and went ahead and did it. The PM acted like he was macho man and didn't care about the lives of Israeli citizens or Lebanese citizens. He acted without thinking.

Israel did carpet bomb the entire country. They dropped cluster bombs all over the South of Lebanon. They used up every bomb in their F-16 inventory and the U.S had to reship an "emergency" shipment. They were firing artillery rounds every hour towards the South. The entire South was bombarded and so was Beirut. Look at before and after satellite images.

The only reason Iran exists is NOT because they haven't done anything. It is because of strategic location and ability to hurt us economically oil-wise.

Go educate yourself on a war with Iran and the the aftermath of the Israel-Lebanon conflict inside Israel.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
I won?t worry about a conflict with Iran until Harry Reid announces that we have already lost said conflict.

Sooner or later we are going to take on Iran in some way shape or form, either us or Israel.
This bit with the Iranian missiles is just the latest provocation by Iran. It almost seems as if Iran wants us to attack them with the way they keep acting.
First it was IEDs to Iraq, then weapons to Afghanistan, then the Australian and British sailors etc etc. Sooner or later we HAVE to respond.
It?s like hockey, if the other team keeps decking your star sooner or later you have to send out your enforce to deck someone back, otherwise you get no respect.

F-117, B2 and some cruise missiles launched at their nuke sites and maybe some of these training camps followed by a declaration that we have no intention of any more attacks and see how they respond.
The equivalent of giving someone a bloody nose and then saying ?You want some more? Or have you had enough??
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,518
592
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I won?t worry about a conflict with Iran until Harry Reid announces that we have already lost said conflict.

Sooner or later we are going to take on Iran in some way shape or form, either us or Israel.
This bit with the Iranian missiles is just the latest provocation by Iran. It almost seems as if Iran wants us to attack them with the way they keep acting.
First it was IEDs to Iraq, then weapons to Afghanistan, then the Australian and British sailors etc etc. Sooner or later we HAVE to respond.
It?s like hockey, if the other team keeps decking your star sooner or later you have to send out your enforce to deck someone back, otherwise you get no respect.

F-117, B2 and some cruise missiles launched at their nuke sites and maybe some of these training camps followed by a declaration that we have no intention of any more attacks and see how they respond.
The equivalent of giving someone a bloody nose and then saying ?You want some more? Or have you had enough??

My guess is, if we do anything is to allow Israel to fly over Iraq.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: Aimster
"I'll always support Israel, no matter what they do."

Funny... the people of Israel didn't even support Israel on their conflict with Lebanon and the Prime Minister was hanging on barely.

To support Israel always is to say the U.S is always right. Therefore, you must be 100% for the invasion of Iraq. Brilliant.

Unless.. you are more pro-Israelis than pro-U.S.

The US is always right. We act in our own self-interest, typically. I was 100% for the invasion of Iraq at the time. Seems like a mistake in retrospect, but I'm all for sticking it out.

The fate of Israel and the US are inexorably linked. We are brothers in arms against the Muslim world. They want to destroy us. The sooner we man up and officially recognize them as our enemy, the better off we'll be.

They want every nation to be governed by an Islamic theocracy, I want them all to dissappear in a bright flash of light. Those of you that would sympathize and compromise with them are lucky you have us watching out for you.

Iran is going down. Either by our hand or Israel's (virtually the same thing.) I gaurantee it. Before the election of 2008, we will have attacked Iran. They've been attacking us for some time. They deserve it.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Instead of a War Europe and probably the USA decided we would just bribe Iran. Why does the West have to give an Oil-rich Country Money??? They will just turn around and spend more money on supporting terrorists like the Hezbolah and Palestinians. Either way there will be a war one way or another. We can have it now or later.

In the meantime Iranian weapons are still used in IED's inside Iraq to kill Americans and Iraqi civilians.

The USA is already at war with Iran.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
The U.S and Iran are not at war.. that is what they want you to believe

that or the Quds force of Iran are the best trained secret force in the history of mankind. None of them has ever been caught.
Only 5 who were there with govt. permission who Condi Rice said recently that they should be let go cause they serve no importance to us.
 

DarkThinker

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2007
2,822
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Aimster
"I'll always support Israel, no matter what they do."

Funny... the people of Israel didn't even support Israel on their conflict with Lebanon and the Prime Minister was hanging on barely.

To support Israel always is to say the U.S is always right. Therefore, you must be 100% for the invasion of Iraq. Brilliant.

Unless.. you are more pro-Israelis than pro-U.S.

The US is always right. We act in our own self-interest, typically. I was 100% for the invasion of Iraq at the time. Seems like a mistake in retrospect, but I'm all for sticking it out.

The fate of Israel and the US are inexorably linked. We are brothers in arms against the Muslim world. They want to destroy us. The sooner we man up and officially recognize them as our enemy, the better off we'll be.

They want every nation to be governed by an Islamic theocracy, I want them all to dissappear in a bright flash of light. Those of you that would sympathize and compromise with them are lucky you have us watching out for you.

Iran is going down. Either by our hand or Israel's (virtually the same thing.) I gaurantee it. Before the election of 2008, we will have attacked Iran. They've been attacking us for some time. They deserve it.

What big fat piece of generalizations and baseless assumptions that post was, why don't you go ahead and show us your true identity and stop hiding behind whatever false cause you have created? So you are at war with the whole "Muslim World"? LOL, man aren't you something, not even Israel is at war with % 4 of the Arabic world let alone the Muslim world in it's entirely, what a stupid post that was buddy.

The likes of you are going to leave the United States with no allies and nothing but enemies, people like you are going to eventually drive this country into the fvking ground with their ignorance and stupidity, and then at the end your kind is going to say something stupid like "Well that seemed like a mistake in retrospect!".
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Aimster
"I'll always support Israel, no matter what they do."

Funny... the people of Israel didn't even support Israel on their conflict with Lebanon and the Prime Minister was hanging on barely.

To support Israel always is to say the U.S is always right. Therefore, you must be 100% for the invasion of Iraq. Brilliant.

Unless.. you are more pro-Israelis than pro-U.S.

The US is always right. We act in our own self-interest, typically. I was 100% for the invasion of Iraq at the time. Seems like a mistake in retrospect, but I'm all for sticking it out.

The fate of Israel and the US are inexorably linked. We are brothers in arms against the Muslim world. They want to destroy us. The sooner we man up and officially recognize them as our enemy, the better off we'll be.

They want every nation to be governed by an Islamic theocracy, I want them all to dissappear in a bright flash of light. Those of you that would sympathize and compromise with them are lucky you have us watching out for you.

Iran is going down. Either by our hand or Israel's (virtually the same thing.) I gaurantee it. Before the election of 2008, we will have attacked Iran. They've been attacking us for some time. They deserve it.

Israel is 20% Muslim.

and Iranian leadership in Israel is very-high.

Your dreams of Iran and the Muslim world being nuked are not going to happen. Sorry.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,732
10,037
136
Originally posted by: Aimster
The U.S and Iran are not at war.. that is what they want you to believe

They are killing our people in Iraq AND Afghanistan. Yeah, we're at war.

Perhaps we'll be too busy here at home, fighting a war to determine reality.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Aimster
The U.S and Iran are not at war.. that is what they want you to believe

They are killing our people in Iraq AND Afghanistan. Yeah, we're at war.

Perhaps we'll be too busy here at home, fighting a war to determine reality.

Prove it.
you cannot.

Because the Bush administration always put it out in the media it doesn't mean it.

Prove that the weapons are not coming from Syria. It is a shame the media always leaves the part out. Leaves out the fact that Syria has stockpiles of such weapons and the number one insurgency groups coming from outside of Iraq are from Syria. Yet for some reason unexplained they decide to never mention it!!

How come none of the Qud forces have been caught? It is always "they are doing this and that". They must be the best special forces in the world. U.S better be scared. They can enter Iraq and not get CAUGHT!!

U.S intelligence officials have come out and said "we have no solid proof". Amazing how you can make up your own version of solid proof to go against theirs.
 

Termagant

Senior member
Mar 10, 2006
765
0
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Aimster
The U.S and Iran are not at war.. that is what they want you to believe

They are killing our people in Iraq AND Afghanistan. Yeah, we're at war.

Perhaps we'll be too busy here at home, fighting a war to determine reality.

Prove it.
you cannot.

Because the Bush administration always put it out in the media it doesn't mean it.

Prove that the weapons are not coming from Syria. It is a shame the media always leaves the part out. Leaves out the fact that Syria has stockpiles of such weapons and the number one insurgency groups coming from outside of Iraq are from Syria. Yet for some reason unexplained they decide to never mention it!!

How come none of the Qud forces have been caught? It is always "they are doing this and that". They must be the best special forces in the world. U.S better be scared. They can enter Iraq and not get CAUGHT!!

U.S intelligence officials have come out and said "we have no solid proof". Amazing how you can make up your own version of solid proof to go against theirs.

What we know is that Neocons always have these GUT FEELINGS about things. It's a faith based initiative that extends to all aspects of policy. Why worry about facts, figures, science, intel, recommendations, when your growling stomach can determine who lives and who dies?
 

DarkThinker

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2007
2,822
0
0
I agree with Termagant, this GUT FEELING has definately proved it's accuracy when it came to Iraq's WMD stock pile, I must say.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
I suppose, that, by the kind of reasoning currently fashionable on the rightwing, the Soviets would have been perfectly justified to have bombed and invaded Pakistan in the 80's, even to have attacked the US, because we were training and supplying the mujahedin against them in Afghanistan... on what was acknowledged to be a much larger scale than any supposed Iranian involvement in Iraq...

But that was different somehow, right?
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
Dates I want dates! We have been hearing about this for years with no results.

Well who know? Bush is definitely crazy enough to pull the trigger. But will he? That is the WWIII question:

Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran


· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'


Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Julian Borger
Monday July 16, 2007
The Guardian


The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."


The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.

No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.

Sporadic talks are under way between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the possibility of a freeze in Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has so far refused to contemplate a freeze, but has provisionally agreed to another round of talks at the end of the month.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue.

At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.

We have had this basic version for some time now with Cheney frothing to have a go and the marginally saner people trying to keep him locked in the VP office. My guess is Cheney went ballistic at the Yen move Iran pulled and burst out through the VP office door. Also if the Israeli tail wags the dog Bushpoodle will go woof woof!