Are we going to WAR with Iran now too?

[Iron Greasel]

I think this war is going to happen whether or not it needs to happen. And terrorism will increase. And then you'll attack the next nation. And get even more enemies. Bush doesn't really have an incentive to not start wars.

At times like these it's really nice to live at a nation with so little military significance that no even Russia bothered to assimilate it.

[PurpleXVI]

Also, as Iran is a signee of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, this is relevant: However, the treaty gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and as the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station designs use enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be allowed to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market.

And here's an interesting continuation. Declaring war on Iran would, technically, free it from the NNPT and allow it to legally produce nuclear weapons:

"Article X allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months' notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice.

NATO states argue that when there is a state of "general war" the treaty no longer applies, effectively allowing the states involved to leave the treaty with no notice."

[robertthebard]

So, what was the state of emergency when Iran thumbed their nose at the UN? Oh, I know, they want to do it, so they are going to. The rest of the world be damned. That wasn't the US they thumbed their nose at, it was the UN. Of course, the UN can be bought off any position, even the ones they apply themselves, Oil for Food?

I really don't think that it matters how well trained Iran's army is. The whole country could be turned into a parking lot with no troops on the ground, and no use of any nukes. How likely is it that they will maintain their state of morale when their president is shouting, "Die defeating the infidels" from hiding?

The comparison to Viet Nam is accurate. We have been in Iraq entirely too long, for much the same reason that we got beat up in Viet Nam. Instead of going in, and doing what needs to be done in a war, we are ■■■■■-footing around playing police. Why? Public Opinion. Well, I don't know what's going to happen for sure, but if we go to war in Iran, I hope we go to war. I think it's time that people the world over come to realize what it means to piss off one of the major world powers, because whether or not the EU, or the UN wants to acknowledge it, the US is one.

I suppose detonating one little nuke on the ground wouldn't be such a bad thing, if it didn't happen on US soil. Of course, I think this opinion is relative. Relative to what plane they put the bomb on, and where they crash the plane this time.

Let me explain this another way, and use a much more conventional example. A claymore mine is a nasty little device, pointed in one direction. However, a "bouncing Betty" is a whole other ball game. A claymore is placed, and directional. A "bouncing Betty" is a bit less powerful, but more effective since it blows up a couple of meters in the air, instead of on the ground. It has a kill diameter, as opposed to covering a relatively small cone of force.

The same applies to any bomb. If you detonate it in the air, instead of on the ground, it's kill ratio is increased dramatically. In any event, it's a really messed up thing to say that killing a few more US civilians is acceptable, as Purple implied:

Additionally, one thing I'd like to add is that people are exaggerating the nuclear threat of Iran. A man-smuggled and carried nuclear weapon may just level a single city block or two, a horrific amount of damage and loss of human life, to be sure, but hardly the end of the world. Iran does not have ICBM's and no country that has them is going to aim them at the US unless it's a final retaliation before they go down. Terrorists will not get something the power of the weapons used against Hiroshima/Nagasaki within the US, and even those failed to completely obliterate their targets. I suggest we keep a bit of perspective before we declare Armageddon to be on our doorstep. More people die from cancer and AIDS every day than one terrorist nuclear attack on the US would kill.

Acceptable losses, so long as it's not you, or your family? "levelling a block or two", or "more people die of AIDS and cancer" is not an acceptable justification for allowing them technology they will use. I guess if they decided to target your home, it would be a different song and dance. However, with what's posted here, I know what my response would be to calls for help: "better a few civilians in your country than a negative world opinion". After all, as far as you're concerned, so long as you can still hope that brown nosing a terrorist sponsoring regime will spare you, it's all good. I wonder how many people thought the same way you did when the Soviet Union was building up territory? I wonder how many people dismissed Hitler as easily as you're dismissing Iran, or Japan, for that matter.

One little point about Japan as well. Saying that the nukes failed to achieve their objective, as horrifying as the use was, is totally incorrect. After all, Japan surrendered. As with any war, that was the objective. War isn't a pretty thing, it's downright ugly, as I've said before. The objective is to kill so many people on the other side that they surrender. If the UN is unhappy about what we do, or how we handle the situation, they can move to Iran, and see if they get the preferential treatment there they get here, and as for the EU, please...Which EU nations would send troops for this blockade?

Edit: One more thought that occurred to me. Use of a nuclear device on US soil by a hostile force would equal Armageddon. It doesn't matter if it killed 10, or 10,000, world opinion be damned, it's time to make some parking lots.

[ 02-11-2007, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: robertthebard ]

[Felix The Assassin]

@Man, My battle drills are the same and exact doctrinal drills I teach to my seasoned NCOs here at the school house.
Along with long range gunnery, short range marksmanship, and training management. Again, I served as an AC/RC (Active component to Reserve component) advisor my last watch. This plan does not compute any units that are not active duty. The media plays a big part in a lot of things. Especially to your unit, and the KY MP unit where the first Silver Star was awarded to a female soldier. And when I step on toes I do it for a reason. There will be NO National Guard units in this fight. They will remain in Iraq, and other locations where they are much more needed.

The Kursk you ask? I say to you, recall the date, and search for US Navy submarines that made an emergency repair in a friendly foreign port within three days of the event. Calculate that this sub can traverse several hundred kilometers of ocean per shift watch, and you might find your wow factor.

Well spoken Johnny. Those 'enforcers of policy' do exactly that! The guys in the control room surely do not need any pissing off!

[ 02-11-2007, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Felix The Assassin ]

[PurpleXVI]

Originally posted by robertthebard: So, what was the state of emergency when Iran thumbed their nose at the UN? Oh, I know, they want to do it, so they are going to. The rest of the world be damned. That wasn't the US they thumbed their nose at, it was the UN. Of course, the UN can be bought off any position, even the ones they apply themselves, Oil for Food?

No state of emergency is required for nuclear power, only to be "freed" from the treaty, and so far there is NO PROOF that Iran has nuclear weapons. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Originally posted by robertthebard: I really don't think that it matters how well trained Iran's army is. The whole country could be turned into a parking lot with no troops on the ground, and no use of any nukes. How likely is it that they will maintain their state of morale when their president is shouting, "Die defeating the infidels" from hiding?

No troops on the ground AND no nukes? You seem to forget the fact that Iran has, y'know, anti-air defenses AND an air force, unlike Iraq. And any sort of long-range shelling/bombardment campaign would result in massive civilian casualties which definitely WOULD make Iran share whatever nuclear knowledge and materials it had with anyone who has a grudge against the US and it's allies.

Which isn't even getting started on the giant propaganda catastrophy it would be, or the thousands of people that would be joining Al Qaeda and similar organizations.

Originally posted by robertthebard: The comparison to Viet Nam is accurate. We have been in Iraq entirely too long, for much the same reason that we got beat up in Viet Nam. Instead of going in, and doing what needs to be done in a war, we are ■■■■■-footing around playing police. Why? Public Opinion. Well, I don't know what's going to happen for sure, but if we go to war in Iran, I hope we go to war. I think it's time that people the world over come to realize what it means to piss off one of the major world powers, because whether or not the EU, or the UN wants to acknowledge it, the US is one.

Public Opinion? Not quite, last I checked, pretty much EVERYONE wants the US out of Iraq and almost no one has any support for the war. US troops are still there because the Bush government doesn't want to lose face.

Originally posted by robertthebard: In any event, it's a really messed up thing to say that killing a few more US civilians is acceptable, as Purple implied:

You know what's messed up? Accusing someone of calling civilian deaths "acceptable." When did I ever use that word? Never, please choose your words with more care in the future rather than accusing me of condoning the deaths of American civilians. It WOULD be horrific, terrible, an atrocity. But at the same time it is NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.

If a nuclear attack was slated to kill every man, woman, child, dog, cat and camel named Bob in the US, then yes, I could understand a pre-emptive strike that would utterly level the possible attacker, doing the same level of damage in return. However, I cannot condone the use of nuclear weapons when the possible level of damage is so low AND there is still no proof that it's either planned or that the supposed attacker is capable of it!

It may sound unfeeling, but we need to keep perspective, sometimes the only way to make a just judgement is to be cold, to cut your emotional ties and accept the fact that X dead people is better than >X dead people. No matter whether those dead people are Iranians, Americans, Pygmies, Chinese, Israelis, Hindus, Buddhists or people who worship a camel called Bob. The moment we call one nationality or religious direction's lives worth more than another, we're on the way to utter catastrophy, especially when you involve nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by robertthebard: Acceptable losses, so long as it's not you, or your family? "levelling a block or two", or "more people die of AIDS and cancer" is not an acceptable justification for allowing them technology they will use. I guess if they decided to target your home, it would be a different song and dance. However, with what's posted here, I know what my response would be to calls for help: "better a few civilians in your country than a negative world opinion". After all, as far as you're concerned, so long as you can still hope that brown nosing a terrorist sponsoring regime will spare you, it's all good. I wonder how many people thought the same way you did when the Soviet Union was building up territory? I wonder how many people dismissed Hitler as easily as you're dismissing Iran, or Japan, for that matter.

I would not think differently if they were planning to attack Europe, or even Denmark specifically(Let's not forget, however, that there is no proof of any plans yet, for all we know they could be planning to blow up the moon. If they're even planning to blow up anything.). Of course, if they were planning to attack Europe or Denmark I might get the hell out of the way. But I wouldn't consider it any more acceptable to launch a pre-emptive strike based on rumours and paranoia.

Plus, I think it's a bit exaggerating to compare Iran to Nazi Germany and it's leaders to Hitler. They're not engaged in genocide, nor have they ever declared that they want to be. As I said, note that the supposed quote about wanting to destroy Israel is a mistranslation. There is no support of this.

Furthermore, I find it extremely insulting that you are calling me a terrorist supporter. I do not support any terrorists or their actions, I just support that we at least know what's going on before we act. Remember Iraq? That was born of not having proper intelligence before attacking. If there is proof that Iran has a bunch of hidden ICBM's cleverly disguised as mosques or a MacGuyver-ish plan to smuggle a gigantic nuclear warhead right under the Pentagon by use of a rubber chicken, five donuts and a hermaphrodite prostitute named Bob, then I would support something to stop them. Until that point, no. Not even if there is proof that they just have nuclear weapons and can mount them on short-range missiles. Otherwise we'd have to bomb them just for having ordinary weapons, because hey, isn't Israel, one of our allies, startlingly close? Or all those US soldiers in Iraq?

Originally posted by robertthebard: One little point about Japan as well. Saying that the nukes failed to achieve their objective, as horrifying as the use was, is totally incorrect. After all, Japan surrendered. As with any war, that was the objective. War isn't a pretty thing, it's downright ugly, as I've said before. The objective is to kill so many people on the other side that they surrender. If the UN is unhappy about what we do, or how we handle the situation, they can move to Iran, and see if they get the preferential treatment there they get here, and as for the EU, please...Which EU nations would send troops for this blockade?

You also seem to misread my posts with some frequency. I am not saying that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes failed to work. I'm not saying that the EU would help defend Iran, I'm saying that I'd LIKE to see it.

What I'm saying is that the actual DESTRUCTION caused by the two only serious military uses of nuclear weaponry in the history of Earth didn't even utterly destroy their targets. They caused horrific destruction, yes, but there were still survivors and assuming Iran wants to attack the US, there is no reason to suspect they could even reach that level of destruction. Or are you suggesting that the US would surrender?

Originally posted by robertthebard: Edit: One more thought that occurred to me. Use of a nuclear device on US soil by a hostile force would equal Armageddon. It doesn't matter if it killed 10, or 10,000, world opinion be damned, it's time to make some parking lots.

Only if the US wanted to be destroyed. The US knows that even if there is no nuclear retaliation for using nuclear weaponry to level Iran, it would reduce the US to a third-world country. Utter economic block-off, terrorism rising to unheard-of levels and ecological destruction on a frightening scale. Let's not forget the complete loss of Mid-East oil for the US. As many supplies as the US might have at the moment, prices would rise to the point where the current US lifestyle is no longer possible.

I wonder if the US citizens would rather have revenge or their SUV's? I know what my guess is, but I'll leave you to consider it.

[ 02-11-2007, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: PurpleXVI ]

[robertthebard]

No troops on the ground AND no nukes? You seem to forget the fact that Iran has, y'know, anti-air defenses AND an air force, unlike Iraq. And any sort of long-range shelling/bombardment campaign would result in massive civilian casualties which definitely WOULD make Iran share whatever nuclear knowledge and materials it had with anyone who has a grudge against the US and it's allies. Which isn't even getting started on the giant propaganda catastrophy it would be, or the thousands of people that would be joining Al Qaeda and similar organizations.

Yeah, I'm sure, with their superior air power, and superior anti-air technologies they'd snoop out and destroy all of the stealth bombers we could put in the air. Jeez, dude, when are you moving to Iran? I don't know what kind of stuff you're smoking, but I want some.

Public Opinion? Not quite, last I checked, pretty much EVERYONE wants the US out of Iraq and almost no one has any support for the war. US troops are still there because the Bush government doesn't want to lose face.

Study some history, then come back and talk to me about the comparison between Iraq and Viet Nam. We are making the same mistake in Iraq as we made in 'Nam. Instead of fighting a war, we are policing the population. Hey, it's a war, and people are going to die, sometimes innocent ones, but the idea is to make your enemy give up. We aren't doing that, because of public opinion. So and so would be outraged, so and so would too. Screw all the so and so's. Either fight the damn war, or bring the troops home. Let's not let insurgents in Iraq, wonder where some of those come from, hmmm, use our troops for target practice.

You know what's messed up? Accusing someone of calling civilian deaths "acceptable." When did I ever use that word? Never, please choose your words with more care in the future rather than accusing me of condoning the deaths of American civilians. It WOULD be horrific, terrible, an atrocity. But at the same time it is NOT THE END OF THE WORLD. If a nuclear attack was slated to kill every man, woman, child, dog, cat and camel named Bob in the US, then yes, I could understand a pre-emptive strike that would utterly level the possible attacker, doing the same level of damage in return. However, I cannot condone the use of nuclear weapons when the possible level of damage is so low AND there is still no proof that it's either planned or that the supposed attacker is capable of it! It may sound unfeeling, but we need to keep perspective, sometimes the only way to make a just judgement is to be cold, to cut your emotional ties and accept the fact that X dead people is better than >X dead people. No matter whether those dead people are Iranians, Americans, Pygmies, Chinese, Israelis, Hindus, Buddhists or people who worship a camel called Bob. The moment we call one nationality or religious direction's lives worth more than another, we're on the way to utter catastrophy, especially when you involve nuclear weapons.

I'll just let that last paragraph speak for itself, along with this:

Additionally, one thing I'd like to add is that people are exaggerating the nuclear threat of Iran. A man-smuggled and carried nuclear weapon may just level a single city block or two, a horrific amount of damage and loss of human life, to be sure, but hardly the end of the world. Iran does not have ICBM's and no country that has them is going to aim them at the US unless it's a final retaliation before they go down. Terrorists will not get something the power of the weapons used against Hiroshima/Nagasaki within the US, and even those failed to completely obliterate their targets. I suggest we keep a bit of perspective before we declare Armageddon to be on our doorstep. More people die from cancer and AIDS every day than one terrorist nuclear attack on the US would kill.

Ok, no I won't. A nuclear attack on the US, you said, and that xdeaths is better than >x deaths. Seems to me, you're saying that what should have happened after 9/11 was that the US should have laid down and licked it's nuts while the rest of the world laughed. We didn't, and now Pacifists R Us is having a major cow, because people are dying, in a war. So what. That is the nature of war.

[PurpleXVI]

You seem immensely cavalier about the deaths of people in other countries who aren't Americans.

The first US retaliation(Versus the Taliban and Al Qaeda) was perfectly permissible because it was retaliation, it destroyed an enemy and it ousted a hostile regime with a minimal loss of civilian life. However, paving/nuking Iran would be an attack on an entire country and it's civilian populace rather than against the regime and/or military. Lying down and taking it would have resulted in more civilian deaths on US soil and around the world. Nuking/bombing Iran will only exacerbate the violence and dying, rather than causing a temporary spike in deaths for the purpose of lowering long-term fatalities.

After 9/11, almost the entire world was crying with you. We were your allies because you were fighting a just, careful, honourable and(As far as it is applicable when killing other people.) humane, war. Right now, the world would laugh if you get knocked down because you're posturing, flexing muscles you don't have and trying to bully around lesser countries. THERE IS NO PROOF OF NUCLEAR WEAPONRY. There is proof of nuclear power, and Iran is, according to international agreements, entitled to that.

Additionally, the moment you start attacking enemy civilan populations/targets on purpose, for demoralizing reasons, for total annihilation or because you say they're to blame for what their government did, then you are, if you're going to be consistent, permitting terrorist attacks against your own civilian targets.

Dead Iranian civilians do not make dead US civilians magically return to life.

Finally, regarding the "war" in Iraq, it's not indistinguishable from a police action. There is no clearly marked enemy to strike, no definite enemy positions devoid of civilians to annihilate, only a faceless enemy intermingled with the civilian populace. An enemy that needs to be ferretted out with care and investigation, rather than force of arms.

PS: I hate to say it again, but READING COMPREHENSION. I never made the Iraq/Vietnam comparison.

EDIT: Additionally, it may be worth noting that if it was proven that Iranian nukes DID destroy something in the US, I would completely support whacking their regime and razing their nuclear enrichment facilities and power plants, but I would not support slaughtering their innocent civilians.

[ 02-11-2007, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: PurpleXVI ]

[Man Who Fights Like Woman]

You seem to take issue with countries thumbing their noses as the UN. No, wait, it seems you just have a problem with it coming from a country that isn't the US. I remember a particular incident, almost four years ago now, where they disregarded the UN's ruling completely.

I agree with Purple. Making their country into a cratered wasteland without nukes would not only benefit nobody, but be quite impossible. It would only be a travesty, not the smallest part of which would be the insane loss of civilian life.

So, how could we make a more effective "war" against Iraq? We already did make war against them. It was over in a couple of weeks, and now we're doing a police action to help them stand on their own, which to me is like punching a man out of the blue, breaking his nose, and helping him home. Do you expect him to forgive you for your uncalled-for attack?

Your nationalism is just a little worrying. You think they should learn just what it means to piss off the US? That already happened too. I think they called it "Shock and Awe." What you have in mind, with the absolute bombing of civilian infrastructure and destruction of populations, would be called a "war crime."

Is it such a bad thing to allow the Iranians nuclear power stations? And while we're at it, please remember that there is another country that practices a more extreme version of Islam which also has nuclear weapons. That country is called Pakistan, and boy was it a hellstorm when they developed it! They totally incinerated their old rival India, and then... oh wait, that didn't happen.

Felix: I'm not exactly sure how most of what you posted relates to what I did, since it seems you rambled off some military jargon in an attempt to confuse me, so I'll let that stuff lie. However a couple of things come to mind.
1) Okay, granted, there won't be any National Guard units in this theoretical war. If that's so, then it raises a few more questions. Such as, who will be providing the manpower to occupy Iraq, unless we pour every single NG unit in, and where will the manpower for this strike on Iran come from? There isn't enough strength there to make war on an entirely new country, so are you suggesting we should bring in troops from elsewhere?

Also, I find your implication that the US Navy destroyed a Russian nuclear submarine in a time of peace insulting, both to my intelligence and to the Russian military.

Edit: This article was just brought to my attention. It's relevant both concerning the US Navy and Iran.

[ 02-11-2007, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Man Who Fights Like Woman ]

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: Public Opinion? Not quite, last I checked, pretty much EVERYONE wants the US out of Iraq and almost no one has any support for the war. US troops are still there because the Bush government doesn't want to lose face.

Where do you gather your information from, CNN? The last press conference, many nations tell us, this is not the time to pull troops out of Iraq. Our most politically aligned allies in the region have made it quite clear of recent, if we withdraw now, not only will Iraq turn to turmoil, but the organized terror camps will no longer have an immediate target, and will seek one elsewhere.

Also, think and study military strategy, and strategic planning. Without conducting the crayola draw, I will give you some food for thought.

1. After WWII the US remained in Germany. Why?
2. The Berlin wall came down the Fall of 1989, yet the US is still in Germany!
3. YOU and OTHERS like minded of YOU, might want us out of Iraq, and would say whatever it takes to make President Bush look bad. But, refer to what a strategically placed US controlled "GREEN ZONE" does for a force that could mount a complete heavy offensive attack from said location into a target that is only the next piece of sand up the road!
4. The President called for a few extra units to patrol the border, while the current guys intensify their training of the Iraqis. Congress, NOT President Bush, told the CoS (Chief of Staff) to alert 5 Active Duty Heavy Combat Brigades to step up their deployment time line, and be on the ground NLT!!!!. I do not know any other way to say this, but these 5 Units are not going to be riding in wheeled vehicles looking for an IED, these guys are bringing their "Heavy" equipment with them. They are not activated guardsmen like others here have pointed towards, these are soldiers that are going to be mad, separated from their families again, and will be ready to unload a can of whoop-ass in a matter of moments.

Crayola draw segment:
A. There are two ways to make an Army mad. 1. Deploy them for months on end into a foreign land and train the hell out of them, then unleash them (1991).
2. Send them into a hostile environment for 12 month rotations, place the third rotation on the ground and redeploy the strike force early, as in less than 6 months after last rotation, then unleash them (Spring 2007 that criteria will be met)!

I am not a politician, I am a soldier, a leader, a trigger puller, a trained and skilled killer, a trainer that enhances and hones the skills of others to be "Technicians of Violence". Like it or not, come this Spring, there will be enough maddened soldiers, equipment, and logistics to assault any objective within 600KMs of Baghdad, and enough trained rear guard to protect the force! All approved by the current United States Congress!

I find it ironic that President Jimmy Carter who has done so much since he left office, (2002 Nobel Peace Prize) that the USS Jimmy Carter, A "Seawolf" class submarine is currently out of home port! This is what makes my wow factor thump!

[johnny]

Also, I find your implication that the US Navy destroyed a Russian nuclear submarine in a time of peace insulting, both to my intelligence and to the Russian military.

Is that so ? There is next to nothing known about what happened underneath the surface of the oceans, but you can be sure that the cold war wasn't just cold in the world of submarines. We'll never know the truth about it, because the Russians would never admit losing a sub in an assault, especially not when the sub was poking around in places he shouldn't be. Same goes for the Americans and everyone else. Every time you hear about an accident with a submarine, i have a gutfeeling they don't tell us the whole truth. The deep blue see is the only place where you can sneak up on a target unseen and unheard, assuming that this never happened in times of peace would be slightly naive.