Would you support war against Iran (if diplomacy does not work)

[Devastatin Dave]

Would any of you support war against Iran if diplomacy fails, which seems to be occuring now?

[Don Corleone]

Uhm, Dave, this is thread # 4 on the topic. #1 got closed. #2 & #3 got merged.

[Devastatin Dave]

the 4 options are posted so that those that feel that you have to be hit first before you hit back have a choice. I guess I should have worded it better, I would still like to see the votes and more importantly, the reasoning behind everyone's opinion. I would also like a good and solid debate without using Iraq as an arguement piece unless one's arguement has significance to the Iranian issue.

[Devastatin Dave]

Uhm, Dave, this is thread # 4 on the topic. #1 got closed. #2 & #3 got merged.
But has there been a poll yet Don?

[Don Corleone]

And in that, you have a point. Although you forgot Poll rule number 1, also known as the Ichi rule. Where is the 'Gah' option.

I have to vote none of the above. I would say no, unless they start showing agression, but you haven't defined what aggression is. I would consider sponsoring terrorists with a dirty bomb or a small nuclear device an inherently aggressive act that if proven, would justify a war. Strictly speaking, aggression would be the state itself engaging in aggressive acts, but given their track record, I don't think it's a far-fectched scenario.

[Watchman]

Heck no. I tend to have serious trouble accepting military action even against culprits of flat out genocides and ethnic cleansings; good luck persuading me how Iran (which engages in neither) would make a "legit" target. And no, merely having nukes doesn't count - Pakistan, India and (almost certainly) Israel have them too. You don't arrest gun owners just because they *might* rob a bank with their toys either, now do you ?

[Viking]

Heck no. I tend to have serious trouble accepting military action even against culprits of flat out genocides and ethnic cleansings; good luck persuading me how Iran (which engages in neither) would make a "legit" target. And no, merely having nukes doesn't count - Pakistan, India and (almost certainly) Israel have them too. You don't arrest gun owners just because they *might* rob a bank with their toys either, now do you ?

They have not said that Israel(Israel haven`t mentioned any country worthy of such a fate, AFAIK) deserves to be wiped of the map and that holocaust is myth, however. I`m thinking that their [Irans] national security is worse(i.e. easier for terrorists to get hold of something radioactive).

[Watchman]

Hot air doesn't cost too much, you know. Having several of your major cities obliterated in a retaliatory strike does.

And as far as poor security goes, you can't beat Russia. Even their, whatwasit, "Strategic Rocket Corps" or whatever often has the wages of its personnel in arrears, and if how they look after the "boomers" and nuke-powered warships in Murmansk is anything to judge by...

For that matter, pesky peacenik activists have proven quite capable of pretty much climbing over a fence, traipsing over half a base and curiously looking around the insides of high-security military installations in the West too; if I recall correctly one bunch eventually got bored and went to turn themselves in to the security...

[Divinus Arma]

The lesson of 9/11 was:
He who does not strike first will be the first struck.

Sound familiar?

But Israel will initiate, not the U.S. Then Iran will either (a) retaliate or (b) whine.

I expect them to whine. Just like the last time those badass Israelis kicked 'em in the balls.

[Watchman]

Then again, the last time around Israel was the only one with nukes...


The lesson of 9/11 was:
He who does not strike first will be the first struck.Personally I think it was more along the lines of "he whose watchdogs aren't up to snuff gets caught pants down", but anyway...

[Redleg]

Welcome them with open arms into the community of nuclear powers, by informing them that since they now have nuclear weapons their actions will be monitored even more so, and show them the pictures of the 100 odd missles that will be pointed in their direction. With the sutle warning that the first sign of nuclear aggression by them or any proxity of thiers - the missles will be launched.

Welcome them into the community of MAD. Or in this case - if you use the weapon your nation will be destoryed. (Since I doubt they will have the capablity to harm most nations.)

[Watchman]

Pretty much my point exactly. Having nukes and a belligerent stance is a really good way to get your assorted coordinates input to those funny long metal cigars that spend a whole lot of time under water under various flags...

[Don Corleone]

I agree. There's no stopping Iran getting the bomb, only controlling what they do with it. That being said, I will continue to fear, perhaps irrationally to some, that Iran will conclude that nobody will be able to trace a dirty bomb back to them and their intelligence services will leak it to their friends in the shadow world. It would be a mistake on their part, but tell that to the 50,000 people that die from radiation poisoning in Tel Aviv. Bombing Tehran won't bring them back.

[Divinus Arma]

Welcome them with open arms into the community of nuclear powers, by informing them that since they now have nuclear weapons their actions will be monitored even more so, and show them the pictures of the 100 odd missles that will be pointed in their direction. With the sutle warning that the first sign of nuclear aggression by them or any proxity of thiers - the missles will be launched.

Welcome them into the community of MAD. Or in this case - if you use the weapon your nation will be destoryed. (Since I doubt they will have the capablity to harm most nations.)

Great idea except for a couple of problems:

(1) Discreet distribution of nuclear materials to "extra-national" elements

(2) Development of additional nuclear capabilities complimented by advances in rocket technology allowing them to strike further away

(3) The institutionalized martyr mentality coupled with the nuclear capability


All make Iran a unique problem.

[Watchman]

*shrug* And how to you propose to keep the apparently fairly competent and well-connected Irani spooks from leaking the gunk if they seriously want to ? Heck, they don't even need a mature nuke to do it; they could just give the leftovers from their program if they scuttle it...

Although how they would keep the pesky inspectors from noticing the amounts don't add up is a bit beyond me.

[Divinus Arma]

*shrug* And how to you propose to keep the apparently fairly competent and well-connected Irani spooks from leaking the gunk if they seriously want to ? Heck, they don't even need a mature nuke to do it; they could just give the leftovers from their program if they scuttle it...

Although how they would keep the pesky inspectors from noticing the amounts don't add up is a bit beyond me.

Which is why we should blow 'em up.

[Don Corleone]

*shrug* And how to you propose to keep the apparently fairly competent and well-connected Irani spooks from leaking the gunk if they seriously want to ? Heck, they don't even need a mature nuke to do it; they could just give the leftovers from their program if they scuttle it...

Although how they would keep the pesky inspectors from noticing the amounts don't add up is a bit beyond me.

How would I? If we have documentation that prooves that the Iranians WERE doing this, I think it would require whatever military action necessary to dismantle Iran's nuclear program and set them back far enough that it wouldn't be a concern again for decades to come.

Leaking fissable material to known terrorists is a crime against humanity. You discuss it like you think it would be a neat parlor trick. Are you secretly hoping that they do or something?

[Watchman]

Great idea except for a couple of problems:

(1) Discreet distribution of nuclear materials to "extra-national" elements

(2) Development of additional nuclear capabilities complimented by advances in rocket technology allowing them to strike further away

(3) The institutionalized martyr mentality coupled with the nuclear capability


All make Iran a unique problem.And playing hardball has proven such a practical and effective way of dealing with them in the past too, hasn't it ? :dizzy2:

Whatever else the mullahs may be, one thing you can count on is they don't really fancy their glorious Islamic Republic (presumably supposed to be the seed of a new Caliphate or something similarly lofty) getting nuked, invaded and/or generally manhandled by seriously PO'd Western powers after they get "careless" with their little toys. The Western powers built their nuclear deterrents against the USSR (or in the case of Israel, against *everyone else* in the Middle East...), and still retain a fair bit of those systems. A poor upstart like Iran can't even hope to compete, and no doubt knows it.

No, their nuke is like everyone else's - a deterrent and a status symbol. It's a trump card you can fall back on under pressure, not something you start playing fast and loose with which result in everyone kicking down the poker table and skinning their smokewagons, most likely at the first offender.

[Tribesman]

But Israel will initiate, not the U.S. Then Iran will either (a) retaliate or (b) whine.

I expect them to whine. Just like the last time those badass Israelis kicked 'em in the balls.

??????
Divinus , Could you enlighten me as to when badass Israel kicked Iran ?

[Reenk Roink]

One, Iran's loud hardliner has said that nuclear weapons are "against their religion" and "out of the way."

Still, say America goes and attacks Iran (note: It doesn't matter whether one thinks it is good or bad, as these are just opinions, but America is the most powerful nation in the world, and it follows the principle of "lookout for #1") This would be an interesting development as even though the US has military prowess like no other, a group of militia and another group of terrorists have been giving them a fight not seen since the rice farmers of Vietnam...How would they fare against Iran along with this? Also, you gotta remember that after the US invaded Iraq, some of the same muslim clerics who condemned 9-11, called for a jihad, as a foreign invader had set foot into the land of Islam...Then again, Iran is Shiite, so the Sunni majority might not be so willing to help...

I shall sit back and watch, plotting my upcoming takeover of the world... :laugh4:

[Watchman]

How would I? If we have documentation that prooves that the Iranians WERE doing this, I think it would require whatever military action necessary to dismantle Iran's nuclear program and set them back far enough that it wouldn't be a concern again for decades to come.You do realize that if you find in a document proof that Iran unloaded enough radioactives to irradiate two major cities say, oh, two years ago, it's kinda pointless to splatter Iran for it by then ? That doesn't exactly miraculously return the nasty stuff to their old vaults now does it ? It would leave you with a serious problem in your hands in a geopolitically problematic region at a time when you very urgently need to focus all your attention elsewhere, tho'.


Leaking fissable material to known terrorists is a crime against humanity. You discuss it like you think it would be a neat parlor trick. Are you secretly hoping that they do or something?Why would I ? Mushroom clouds were never my thing. But I do fail to see what good getting all jumped up and emotional over a thus far wholly hypotethic issue - that to boot requires very detached and icy analysis to handle - does to anyone ?

Mind you, I may also have learned too much of the looming radioactive Sword of Damocles that hung over the whole world for the five decades of the Cold War to be overly impressed by the idea of ugly radiation fallout in some city. Yes, a lot of people would die quite horribly - but then again, that's what happens all the time in several godforsaken "low-intensity conflicts" of the world too.

Perspective.

[Redleg]

Great idea except for a couple of problems:

(1) Discreet distribution of nuclear materials to "extra-national" elements

That is why you inform them of the use of the weapon by any proxity will result in their destruction. Its not all that hard to track down who gave who what when it involves nuclear weapons. Look at the Russian nuclear weapon's program as an examble - there is more danger of thier weapons being sold to questionable characters.



(2) Development of additional nuclear capabilities complimented by advances in rocket technology allowing them to strike further away


So let them. MAD does not prevent development of the weapons - what it does is promise the country who uses the weapon first what will happen also. There is no way Iran can afford to developed the number of weapons they would need to survive an arms race - since they are starting 60 years behind the power they believe to be their number one enemy after Israel.



(3) The institutionalized martyr mentality coupled with the nuclear capability


Institutionalized martyr mentality when facing the sure destruction of thier home does not bode well for that mentality. Take a look at North Korea, they have been promising for decades to re-unite the two countries since the end of the war before the old man's death. What happened when he died, absolutely nothing. And it was suspected that they had a nuclear weapon in 1994 - a crude one but one nevertheless.



All make Iran a unique problem.

Let the people of the country understand that they have entered into the community of MAD because of thier leader's desire to have a nuclear weapon. I do not for a second believe that the majority of the Iran population wants to see their country destoryed just to destroy Israel or the United States. If the population knows what is at risk - they tend to vote in leaders who will not assure their destruction. Iran on the surface has a democratically elected government, lets see if they can fulfill their obligations before going to war over the nuclear issue.

Having said that - if the knuckleheads in charge of Iran make an aggressive move or spout such rhetroic - then give them a taste of what could happen. Limited strikes do not make a declared war, nor does it require massive ground forces to accomplish such an action.

Someday the United States might have to fight Iran because of thier idealogue statements and stance. The time is not now, the United States must complete the two already committed to conflicts before entering a third. Of course we can accomplish an invasion and destruction of the Iran government - but it will take a full scale mobilization of all our resources to include every National Guard Division, Seperate Brigade, and unit. The population of the United States will not support such an aggresive action under the condition that they might have a nuclear weapon, or that they are developing nuclear weapons.

Maintain the current sanction, the current rhetoric, and even impose harsher economic sanctions on Iran. But military action in this case should be after the current conflicts are resolved.

[Reenk Roink]

Here's a funny fact about the Cold War :book: ...

The Soviet Union called their policy with nukes "Peaceful Coexistance"

The US called theirs "Massive Retaliation"

[Kagemusha]

I agree with Redleg since we cant stop Iran having them we should make them know in what kind of threat they are living becouse they wanted to get in the big boys game.

[Watchman]

Added up to about the same thing, though. Rhetoric again, in this case of the very Orwellian sort the Soviets were famous for.

[Ice]

I'd be willing to go war if they continued their nuclear program. Even if that means I might be conscripted if we lacked manpower.

[bmolsson]

The only way to beat Iran is to passivize them with prosperity. The Iranian people still remember how it is to have money. Theocracy will in the end fail, just like communism. A arms race can only go one way for Iran, failure.
In the case of Israel, I believe it would be a big mistake to attack Iran. Israel need to work on the image and get the world opinion with them. Even Sharon seems to have realized that, a pity we won't see him finish what he started.

[solypsist]

In about eight months, a few large objects will 'fall off' a stealth bomber making an overflight and incidentally wipe out Iran's nuclear sites.

Iran will blame the Americans, who will deny it. Israel will step up, claim responsibility, and threaten the same treatment to any other Middle Eastern country which seeks to develop nukes - just as they took out Osirak 1 and Osirak 2 in Iraq some years back. Ahmadinejad, who has recently been wandering further and further off the reservation to the embarrassment of his countrymen, will suddenly have a new groundswell of support from people calling him a 'seer', and yet again the Middle East is off to the races.

They make nuclear material in the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and can't account for all of it. We want to let them make more in Sandy Crack, Tehran, and account for basically none of it? There's no way they'll approve oversight.

I accept that they should have the right to harness nuclear energy, but we should also be able to trust them. We can't do **** about North Korea right now - despite the nutter in charge - because they have nukes and will hit Tokyo. I'm not sure we want a situation in which we can't do anything about Iran because they have nukes and will hit Tel Aviv

[Sartaq]

make love not war:hippie:

I would only support it if there is pretty much worldwide support & contributions for it. There has to be other ways to solve this. Ways less costly and lazier than a full invasion.

[Lentonius]

if they show military hostility we have a reason to go to war.

unfortunately, mr.bush has built himself a reputation of being rather 'trigger friendly' towards the middle east. if they dont obviously show they are aggresive then bush would make himself more enemies by invading...

[Tribesman]

I'm not sure we want a situation in which we can't do anything about Iran because they have nukes and will hit Tel Aviv
Unfortunately we are already in a situaion where we cannot really do anything about it .

[Watchman]

Uh, when exactly were you able to do something about them, nukes or not ?

[Tachikaze]

This just demonstrates that the US, or those many, many Americans who have excessive levels of testosterone (maybe it's all that red meat they eat), are eager for wars to fight. They're like the elementary school boys who puff their chests out and try to bully others, and put a chip on their shoulder or draw a line on the ground.

Or, perhaps it's like a young boy who takes karate and looks for fights so he doesn't feel it's wasted.

The US has been far more belligerent than Iran. I think the world better be more worried about the US's nukes than Iran's.

[Ice]

This just demonstrates that the US, or those many, many Americans who have excessive levels of testosterone (maybe it's all that red meat they eat), are eager for wars to fight. They're like the elementary school boys who puff their chests out and try to bully others, and put a chip on their shoulder or draw a line on the ground.

Or, perhaps it's like a young boy who takes karate and looks for fights so he doesn't feel it's wasted.


Or perhaps it's the fact that we need to look out for this country's safety, because we know people like you won't.


The US has been far more belligerent than Iran. I think the world better be more worried about the US's nukes than Iran's.


:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: .

[Duke Malcolm]

I said yes, because although I would prefer there to be a reason such as them showing aggression, I would not oppose a war without such it.

[rory_20_uk]

So...

In the 1950's AMERICA built Iran a nuclear power station and gave them some high grade uranium. I imagine that this might lead to nuclear weapons was not even though of... Now we wee a compete volte face saying that they shouldn't have some as they are Undeserving (as opposed to Israel who the CIA gave a nuke and have about 200 more - and the world does nothing)

Other countries that are Deserving are:

India (too big to invade, good trade)
Pakistan (suddenly an ally - the Taliban our previous ally are now Enemy Number 1 and so we like Pakistan)
North Korea (difficult to invade, would upset China)
Russia, France, the UK, America, China...

There's simply no good reason why some can and others can't unless one accepts the murky world or Realpolitik. In the 1970's South Korea was trying to make a bomb and the USA stopped them, now they are deploring the North doing the same thing.

I think that there is no logical reason why Iran shouldn't have the bomb except that the less countries that do have them the better. Of course once they have them and are pointing them at you, there's nothing one can do to close Pandora's box so we all smile sweetly and after a bit we pretend that we've forgotten all about it.

American security is not an issue IMO. There are soooooo many other weapons that are much easier to make - chemical and biological ones can be built in a week with standard equipment and would in the long term do sa much if not more damage.


~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Oh, and I voted no for war as I'm sure that a "yes if they show aggression" will be the usual "aha - but what they said was very aggressive so we had to kill them all before they were aggressive - else [insert country]'s people would be in danger!!!"

Aggression against who? Iraq? Afghansitan? Pakistan? None of these make any sense! And to blitz a country to the bedrock because a bomb gets thrown at a military base is IMO NOT due cause.

~:smoking:

[Divinus Arma]

But Israel will initiate, not the U.S. Then Iran will either (a) retaliate or (b) whine.

I expect them to whine. Just like the last time those badass Israelis kicked 'em in the balls.

??????
Divinus , Could you enlighten me as to when badass Israel kicked Iran ?

Whoops Sorry. It was Iraq that Israel bombed, not Iran. My mistake. But I am sure the same situation will exist regardless.

[Watchman]

Well, Iran is a bit further away that Iraq though. And in-flight refueling along the way just might get somewhat problematic...

Wait, scratch that. Israel and Turkey are on pretty good terms, aren't they ? The Israelis could probably negotiate passage and noninterference for refueling if need be, depending on if it's in the Turks' interests (laïcité enthusiasts, I suspect they and Iran don't get along too well)...

[Viking]

And as far as poor security goes, you can't beat Russia. Even their, whatwasit, "Strategic Rocket Corps" or whatever often has the wages of its personnel in arrears, and if how they look after the "boomers" and nuke-powered warships in Murmansk is anything to judge by...

The border controls to Russia though, could be a problem for terrorists.

Iran can develop nukes if they want, rather I prefer not. Iran is an unstable country, and if a revolution happens, we better pull in with some military might to prevent anything radioactive from getting into the wrong hands. This is of course true for any country with a-bombs.

[Watchman]

Yeah, right. As opposed to byword for corruption and neglicence ? I hear the guys at Beslan were able to drive their van full of weapons and suspicious people through several checkpoints by the simple expedient of outright bribery... Russia's borders leak like the proverbial sieve in many places, except unlike sieves borders obviously aren't supposed to.

[Viking]

Beslan is within the Russian main borders.

Sure it`s a lot of corruption, but I don`t think it is that easy only because of that.

[71-hour Ahmed]

A war with Iran is insanity, because the USA will lose.

Seriously, imagine the problem in Iraq if fighting an Iranian air and ground offensive supported by Iraqi insurgents and Iranian infiltrators. The USA can destroy infrastructure better than Godzilla, but it sucks at occupation as it needs to be nice, but isn't popular enough (or sufficiently trained) to do this effectively in the middle east. Plus the forces in Iraq won't be equiped for such a battle (I doubt there is much currently US air force cover for the coalition in an environment where they add nothing to the occupational forces, for example, but that will be essential in such a situation to protect against Iranian MIGs). The end result will be an smashed in Iran with no improvement in government attitudes, a smashed in Iraq that is uncontrollable due to the damage to Coalition forces in the area as well as rampant insurgency on a previously unseen scale.

The result is a US defeat, as it leaves the world less stable than before and economically damaged from the oil industry collapse in Iran and Iraq.

The Iranians will be a stable and West-friendly democracy sooner than Iraq is, the trend is well noted and there at the ground level. What we are seeing is the last militancy of the old guard in the leadership, before their generation ceases to have control of the country.

[Slyspy]

Great idea except for a couple of problems:

(1) Discreet distribution of nuclear materials to "extra-national" elements

(2) Development of additional nuclear capabilities complimented by advances in rocket technology allowing them to strike further away

(3) The institutionalized martyr mentality coupled with the nuclear capability


All make Iran a unique problem.

Whereas Pakistan, our friendly ally in the war on terror, has none of these? The danger is already out there.

[Watchman]

Pakistan also has a tendency to rattle sabers with its big neighbor India, which also has nukes and its own share of hardline wonks in the governement. And China is right next door - been occupying one corner of the Jammu-Kashmir region in the wake of one of those wars Pakistan and India fought decades ago, if I recall correctly.

[Samurai Waki]

I hope Iran ceases, it won't of course, but I actually see the Nuclear Threat as becoming less and less of a problem, especially the missile programs...if we don't blow ourselves up in the next 10-20 years, I don't foresee ICBMS being very effective against Missile Defense Systems (which are really starting to make major breakthroughs).

There are whispers in Iran currently, and I think the Fundamentalist government is on the out, and the people are ready to rejoin the world again.

[Watchman]

It certainly wouldn't be very odd if they went the way of Cromwell's Puritan regime. People tend to start... chafing after a while, even if it looked like a brilliant idea initially.

[Fragony]

I would support it. But war isn't really required, just bombing their nuclair instalations should do the trick.

[Tribesman]

But war isn't really required, just bombing their nuclair instalations should do the trick.
errrrrr ..... thats an act of war isn't it ?

[Major Robert Dump]

Sorry in advance my shift key is giving me problems

Iran doesn't and couldn'T get the capability to strike at the mainland US, so those of you who think This is a matter of defending America are flat out wrong. IT's a matter of defending Isreal and stabilizing The middle east, and even if they had the weapons They wouldnT have The balls to hiT Isreal because Isreal would wipe them off the map.

Also, The ignorance in this forum of nuclear power, leaking it to bad guys, and suiTcase/dirty bombs here is just staggering. Read up on, suitcase nukes are practically impossible, and the ones that would fiT in a suiTcase would kill only a few people and the fallout would be nonexistanT. Advocating war over some misplaced fear thaT a guy with a suitcase is gonna blow up an entire ciTy is freaking absured.

Iran will go To the maT and make the nuclear power. Germany and France certainly arent gonna invade, and unless we can prove thye are gonna use iT for weapons Theres simply no solid justification to strike without looking like asshats (of course that doesn'T always stop us either) Too many countries in that region have nuke weapons To deny Iran to use nuclear power for its people, although I'm not gullible enough to believe that is its sole intention.

One thing that wasn't defined in the poll is who will be going to war? I prefeR my cOuntry only fighT two wars at once, not three, even if it means standing back and letting other countries Take a shot at it or letting Iran develop the power.

[nokhor]

from my understanding of nuclear war theory, just having a couple of nuclear bombs, makes a state less safe not more. a state gets vulnerable as it begins to pursue a nuclear program and is extremely vulnerable right as it begins churning out the weapons because that is rationally the best time for their enemies to attack them. even having a lot of nukes doesn't guarantee security because a lot of those nukes can be wiped out in a first strike by an enemy. i think it is the second strike capability that helped ensure that the cold war never got hot. second strike capability is, assuming the enemy manages to get intelligence on every nuke silo you have, and attack you first, you could still retaliate because you have so many nukes in motion [submarines, bombers, trains etc] that it is very likely that some of them will survive and you will be able to counterattack. and none of the newer nuclear wannabes are even going to be close to second strike capability for years to come. so these states are wasting money and goodwill on a security program where the true payoff is still many years down the road, and instead are making themselves much more vulnerable besides.

[Don Corleone]

I'm not sure we want a situation in which we can't do anything about Iran because they have nukes and will hit Tel Aviv
Unfortunately we are already in a situaion where we cannot really do anything about it .

I disagree with this assessment. They haven't developed the weapons yet, and you COULD impose sanctions on them to get them to open their weapons development programs to scrutiny, but what you really mean isn't that we cannot do anything about it, you mean you don't want to.

I also disagree with your statements that 1) Iran is afraid of Israel and won't act aggressively and 2) they won't disseminate to their terrorist allies. That crackpot president of theirs has already said that the nuclear enabled countries use nuclear weapons as a political bargaining chip and that it's time for everyone to be able to enter the game. When asked what he meant, he just smiled. You really don't get it, do you Tribesman. The guy wants you, me and every other non-muslim dead. This is one step towards that end. Yes, the Jews first, but trust me, he ain't gonna stop there.

We should begin now establishing the most thorough covert monitoring system the world has ever seen. And when, not if, the Iranians arm some terrorists with fissable material, we should all join together and solve the problem once and for all.

[Rodion Romanovich]

It's impossible to intervene with all who might in the future could get weapons or become enemies to you, unless you conquer the entire world. And if you conquer the enitre world you must attack many innocents who have no quarrel whatsoever with you, and cause your own destruction. The unrealistic and irrational strategy of going after innocents or neutrals from fear of maybe being struck first sometime in the future can only in the end develop into a conquer the world madness, because all neutrals and allies are alike - they have the potential of maybe, some time in the future, becoming enemies.

The only sensible way to handle this is to try peaceful coexistence. Try to improve diplomatic relations with Iran, but at the same time make clear what happens if they abuse their nuclear weapons. While that is to consider a threat or ultimatum, such things don't destroy diplomatic relations if you in return promise your own nation won't hurt Iran at all if Iran complies with the terms, and that any citizen of the own country which provokes and/or acts in a hostile manner towards Iran will be punished by the authorities. Finally, the exact ultimatum rules must be made absolutely clear beyond any doubt, and also not demand anything unrealistic like "give us Osama bin Laden or we kill you" - just look at how successful the USA has been at finding OBL in Afghanistan after the war there.

If Iran doesn't get nukes some other semi-hostile nation which you overlooked will get them in the meantime while you bother about Iran. It's inevitable that most nations will eventually get themselves nukes, until mankind runs out of uranium and the environment problems are so huge that only extreme energy amounts can save us, so that the uranium from the nukes will have to be taken from the nukes and used in nuclear power plants to produce the energy that can save the world (temporarily, until we run out of resources to handle the nuclear waste).

[Adrian II]

from my understanding of nuclear war theory, just having a couple of nuclear bombs, makes a state less safe not more.I believe you are making two mistakes.

A nuclear weapon provides the owner with a superior means of retaliation against both nuclear and non-nuclear rivals. It may not pay off in a confrontation with a nuclear rival, but in a confrontation with non-nuclears it sure can, and it offers a first-strike capability against nuclear rivals as well. Some countries consider this a strategic necessity, and not without reason. Pakistan for instance has no strategic 'depth'. If it were to lose only one big border battle against India, it would be without any room to maneuver or regroup. Islamabad has sponsored various Afghan regimes over the years in the hope that it could use Afghan territorial depth for the purpose of regrouping.
Nuclear upstarts, too, can make their nuclear weapons carriers mobile or even untraceable for the opposition. This would give them a second strike capability, albeit a limited one. They may not be able to hit the territory of the opposition, but they may hit the territory of its allies.You may be right that life is more challenging for the upstarts. Then again, they usually decide to become upstarts because life has been challenging for them for some time.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Watchman:
the Israelis are very active in northern Iraq at the moment.
This would somewhat negate the issues of inflight refuelling en route from Israel.

Whoever said that the U.S. had minimal air power in the gulf:
No, I reckon they have substantial air power there.

[Tribesman]

but what you really mean isn't that we cannot do anything about it, you mean you don't want to.

What I mean Don is that only a complete idiot would choose to go to war with Iran at the moment . It would be a complete disaster .
And if you think that is some crazy leftist position then I suggest you read some of the current studies by Conservative think tanks and policy groups on the subject , they paint a far bleaker picture than I ever could .
There was a really nice one last month forcasting that it would lead to conflict across 3 continents and the collapse/overthrow of 14 governments , over 2/3 of which are governments you call allies !!!!!
Too bloody right I don't want to .

and you COULD impose sanctions on them to get them to open their weapons development programs to scrutiny,
Yeah Ireland could impose sanctions , on what exactly ?????
If you are talking about UN sanctions forget it , China has the veto .
If you are talking about EU sanctions , hey thats already being threatened om Iran:book:
Anyhow whatever happened to all the crap about Iraq and sanctions don't work eh?
Oh , in case you hadn't noticed there have been lots of scrutiny and inspections , they always get stopped everytime some dickhead from the White House makes some sabre rattling statement so they can show their population how tough they really are despite the fact that the know they are impotent in the current situation

edit to add .the Israelis are very active in northern Iraq at the moment.
This would somewhat negate the issues of inflight refuelling en route from Israel.

Taffy the Isrealis are very active with the Israeli backed Kurdish groups in Northern Iraq , those groups are on ceasefire at the moment with the Iranian backed Kurdish groups . What do you think would be the status of that ceasefire after an Isreali strike against Iran?:inquisitive:

[Quietus]

Would any of you support war against Iran if diplomacy fails, which seems to be occuring now? The question is not clear. Who's going to War? Israel, the US or the World (a coalition)?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Tribesman:
considering a bunch of top ranking Iranian Revolutionary Guards were killed in an accident in the area I'd suggest that the Iranians are concerned at happenings there. If they weren't concerned then why send so many leading military people there?

I don't have a clue what the ceasefire situation would be like but I think the Israelis and Iranians both have a good idea that this area could be the source of Israeli incursions.

[Tribesman]

considering a bunch of top ranking Iranian Revolutionary Guards were killed in an accident in the area I'd suggest that the Iranians are concerned at happenings there.
Yep , a massive troop deployment (their biggest since they deployed to threaten the Taliban), thousands of arrests , virtual martial law and an almost complete newsblackout on it . The Iranian Kurds are certainly not having a nice time up there .

Still that'll teach the silly buggers not to send up their top soldiers in a dodgy airgraft during a snow storm .

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

dear Mr. Cryptic,

Are you agreeing with me?
or
Are you suggesting that I'm wrong that the Iranians are concerned about the Israeli presence and that it's only about the Kurds?

[Tribesman]

dear Mr. Cryptic,
:laugh4: :laugh4:
Irans main concern at the moment is other Iranians .

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

fair enough.
Iranian Sunnis are causing trouble elsewhere too so I can see that.

Still, if I were Mr nutjob at top I'd be a little bothered about the very people I'd been threatening for the last few months. Especially if they were lurking on my borders and speculation was rife that they may destroy my prize project. Or cripple the economy so that I'd be in deep doo-doo.

But that's just my opinion and I have no experience of power.

[Watchman]

...is the aforementioned Mr. Nutjob much more than a mouthpiece and figurehead, anyway ? I thought it was the mullahs who had the final say-so over just about everything ?

I wouldn't be half surprised if the old guys in beards and robes were letting the prez run his mouth solely for the purposes of gauging the reactions of the world. You know, a sort of reagent to see how different chemicals react.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Mr. Nutjob is whoever is stirring this all up.

[Devastatin Dave]

The question is not clear. Who's going to War? Israel, the US or the World (a coalition)?
Good point. I would hope a coalition, but I doubt that could ever happen considering the cowardness and lack of action of most United Nation members. Its much easier for them to pass resolution after resolution and recieve kick backs from oil revenues than to actually do anything. So lets pretend like the UN had a pair and say that a global coalition would go to war. Would you then support it?

[Tribesman]

doubt that could ever happen considering the cowardness
You mistake cowardness for Brains , the coilition has shown in Iraq that it has balls but no brains . When members of that coilition have shown that they actually have brains that work then some people call them cowards .

Its much easier for them to pass resolution after resolution and recieve kick backs from oil revenues than to actually do anything.
Thats funny since the CPA fraud over the remaining oil for food revenues managed to swindle more money from that fund in one year than all the others put together during the entire time the fund was set up .

[Tribesman]

A question for those who voted that they would support the war .

I assume that you are in agreemnet with the American , European and Israeli militaries that air strikes alone will not achieve the aims due to the dispersed nature of the facilities and thier levels of protection from air attack . So that means you support a land invasion .
Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?

[Watchman]

Isn't Turkey - a NATO member, and prospective EU entree too - right across the border ? 'Course, if they would be capable or willing (in the face of quite possible domestic outcry) of such a committement is a whole another question...

[Ser Clegane]

Isn't Turkey - a NATO member, and prospective EU entree too - right across the border ? 'Course, if they would be capable or willing (in the face of quite possible domestic outcry) of such a committement is a whole another question...

They didn't allow it for the war against Iraq, and they won't do it for an invasion of Iran (not sure if it would even be feasible to invade Iran with ground troops from Turkey, considering the topography)

[Templar Knight]

I remember posting an article some time back about the Israelis plans for an attack which involved destroying underground facilities using Special Forces accompanied by attack dogs covered in high explosives, which would be sent down into the heart of a nuclear facility where they would be detonated, I wondered if it was a bit far fetched.

Also I believe Mossad has said that it has identified secret facilities in civilian areas of Iran, possibly put there to avoid attack.

There are also uncertainties with an Air Strike: globalsecuity.org


One major uncertainty concerning the probability of disarming preventive strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure is the question of American and Israeli assessments of their confidence in their assessments of the completeness of their understanding of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. It will be recalled that when the US contemplated striking China's nuclear infrastructure in mid-1964, prior to China's first nuclear test, their were doubts about the completeness of US intelligence.

In fact, the US was surprised when China detonated a uranium bomb, since the US had overestimated the progress of China's plutonium program, and seriously underestimated the progress of China's uranium enrichment program.

A September 2004 analysis by the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre concluded that, "As for eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities militarily, the U.S. and Israel lack sufficient targeting intelligence to do this. In fact, Iran has long had considerable success in concealing its nuclear activities from U.S. intelligence analysts and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors (the latter recently warned against assuming the agency could find all of Iran’s illicit uranium enrichment activities).

As it is, Iran could have already hidden all it needs to reconstitute a bomb program assuming its known declared nuclear plants are hit."

But the preponderance of evidence and reasoning leads to the assumption that there is no underground nuclear infrastructure, and that the above ground infrastructure constitutes Iran's nuclear weapons program.


Although it is possible that the Iranians completely miscalculated the detective powers of the US and Israel, this does not seem plausible. Thus one must assume that Iran foresaw the crisis that would arise when their plans became clear, and planned accordingly.

1. Iran may have assumed that the US and Israel would lack the political resolve to strike at even a highly visible program, and that some combination of diplomatic pressure from Europe and the fear of Iranian retaliation would stay the hands of the Americans and Israelis. Iran may have assumed that other countries would be prepared to live with a "nearly nuclear" Iran, with a fissile material production complex under international supervision, though one which could be quickly converted to weapons production if the need arose.

As of late 2004 Iran's leaders appeared to believe the gap between the US and Europe created a "security margin" for Tehran that would prevent any serious action against the Islamic Republic, whether in the form of Security Council sanctions or direct military action.

2. Iran may have believed from the outset that some combination of the United States and Israel would almost certainly develop and implement a high confidence disarming strike. In this case, there would have been compelling reasons to "dig tunnels deep", and bury their program from prying eyes. Under these circumstances, however, it is difficult to understand why Iran would have gone to the trouble of building the above ground facilities, knowing that they would create a host of problems.

3. Iran may have been unable to resolve this matter, and may have elected to build parallel above ground and underground programs. In the best case, this would augment their ultimate capabilities, and in the worst case it would provide them with a nuclear weapons capability even in the face of attempts at disarming military strikes. The above ground program would provide convincing evidence of Iran's ability to undertake the industrial scale production needed to develop a credible stockpile of dozens of weapons. Even if the overt infrastructure were destroyed, the fact of the existence of the residual underground facilities at an undisclosed location could be credibly communicated to the outside world.

[Tribesman]

(not sure if it would even be feasible to invade Iran with ground troops from Turkey, considering the topography)
Ah , someone who is looking beyond the purely political complications :2thumbsup:

[King Henry V]

I think a war against Iran would be basically impossible. Iraq is enough of a problem at the moment, and as someone here pointed out a few months ago, Iran is twice the size of Iraq and the topography is more inhospitable (plenty of mountains). Seeing the state of Iraq at the moment, I don't think even the great American armed forces would be able to form any kind of lasting peace in Iran.
I don't think that Iran having nuclear technology would really save the present regime. It would certainly prevent attempts to forceably remove the regime by foreign powers, but whether these attemprts would be succesful in the first place is very unlikely. As we all know, the only way lasting stability can be achieved is if a regime change is made by its own country not and outsider.

[Templar Knight]

The last time it was sucessfully invaded was the seventh century.

[Tribesman]

The last time it was sucessfully invaded was the seventh century.
Try 1941 instead TK . Succesfully invaded on 3 land fronts plus naval landings . None of which are viable this time .
Plus there isn't a pro-western son with popular support who is ready to step into the shoes of the existing ruler .

[Redleg]

Tribesman

All one needs to do is look at a topographic map and political/ethnic maps and one can figure out how Iran needs to be invaded by a collation force.

I have only looked at shaded and topographic maps available on the net, which can lead one to wrong conclusions. To be absolutely sure about how the topographic aspects of any ground combat - I would have to look at actual map sheets in military scale 1:250,000 to determine how correct I am with the following:


Turkey is very limited in scope. The only avenue of approach is very narrow, and is primarily a walking infantry and air mobile type operation. However the airmobile will be limited because of the mountains and the ability for helicopters to fly in that area.

Iraq - Iran has faced invasion from this direction both recently and in the far past. Again limited avenues of approach through the mountains for armor forces - so its primarily a walking infantry fight into the hills. However there is main avenue of approach from Iraq into Iran for mech forces - one that I am sure the Iranian military is more then aware of. The key here would be to get the Kurds involved in the Tabriz to Bakhtaran, but in doing so - Turkey would be alienated maybe to the point of assisting Iran. Since a kurdish state would have to be the promise made to get such assistance. (Getting the Kurds involved brings a whole new political aspect to any possible war with Iran, but one that must be considered if an invasion of Iran is to have a chance of success.)

Pakistan - looking at a map shows that an invasion from Pakistan actually has the most avenues of approach, but even there you have problems with higher hills along the border. However the amount of mountain/hill fighting to be done is significantly less then attacking from Iraq.

Afganistan - Because its a land locked nation - the ability to get mechnized forces in sufficient strength is limited. However it is a possible staging area with avenues of approach very similiar to that of Pakistan. Those avenues will be narrow and of limited use.

Turkmenistan - has what looks like a great mech avenue of approach into Mashhad and on to Tehran.

Then there is the coast line - but one that would be hard to support an invasion from unless it was done close enough to Pakistan (a political issue becomes involved here) or to Iraq (which gives you the same problem as attacking from Iraq.)


A ground invasion into Iran to have a chance of success (in my opinion) would require a large mech force of 5 divisions attacking out of Turkmenistan, this would be my main effort, another large mech force attacking out of Pakistan of 5 divisions as a supporting effort. The Kurds would have to become involved with 2 or 3 divisions of Light Infantry supporting them, these divisions of light infantry most logical starting point is the Kurdish area of Iraq. And then a force of consistenting of 2 Corps 6 to 8 divisions of armor and mech infantry would have to but heads in the traditional avenue of approach out of Iraq to tie up Iranian forces to the west. Depending how much risk the collation would like to take - landing the marines on the coast on the avenue of approach out of Pakistan would create futher havoc for the Iranian defense.

In all it will take about 21 Divsions plus 2 Marine Divisions if a sea landing was deemed necessary. The collation would also have to plan a reserve force for each avenue consisting of 20% of the attacking force. So add another 5 divisions to the ground forces, 4 mech and one light.

Political aspects will also have to be considered. What would it take to get Russia and Turkmenistan to allow such a force to attack into Iran from that area. What must be given to the Pakistan government to do such an attack? Would this bring about the collaspe of the current Pakistan government? How will Turkey react to the Kurds being used? How will the Iraqi citizens react if the Kurds are given promises for a state? Lots of political issues that are as troublesome or more so then the mountains of Iran to an invasion.

Now one could attempt with smaller levels of forces if using the multiple avenues as I laid out - but I believe in making sure you have overwelming ground forces for each avenue. One can make up for the lack of ground forces by using attack aircraft - but that opens up other problems about where the aircraft will be flying from.

The first map on this web site - shows the movement avenue of approaches the clearest that I could find on the net.

http://www.stopthewarnow.net/iran/maps.html

https://img76.imageshack.us/img76/6679/graphicsiran1vj.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[Templar Knight]

Try 1941 instead TK . Succesfully invaded on 3 land fronts plus naval landings . None of which are viable this time . Plus there isn't a pro-western son with popular support who is ready to step into the shoes of the existing ruler .

Gabriel Milland of the Daily Express is wrong then

[Sheep]

Gabriel Milland of the Daily Express is wrong then

Shocker.

[Tribesman]

Gabriel Milland of the Daily Express is wrong then
What do you expect from the express :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Intreresting Red , a good analysis ,a few problems with your approach there though .
To amass the forces or to gather the support for the coilition gives Iran ample notice of what is coming and from where . So the first thing you will get is the Straights of Homuz closed to you which will severely restrict your deployments and logistics .

You need a secure staging area , so that rules out Kurdish Iraq (the border area is under the Iranian backed militias control) . Central Iraq , yeah well bit of a problem there . Southern Iraq , damn thats under the Iranian backed shite militias .
Turkey , no chance same problem as last time in Iraq , you will be backing the Kurdish Iranian groups on their borders , for some reason or other they have a problem with Kurdish groups , plus on top of (as you noted) the restrictions placed on mechanised forces the PKK is very active in the border region and they are still nasty terrorists and not friendly to your government .

Pakistan , best approach , but even if in the unlikely event you could get Musharraf to play ball , and he was able to survive the domestic backlash there is the small problem with the rapidly blossoming civil war in the border province , the army is failing badly at restoring order and the job is being handed to fundamentalist to try and keep the locals in check , neither the fundamentalist nutters or the locals would be very welcoming .

Afghanistan , the Iranian border areas are secure to neither the Afghan government or the existing coilition .

Turkmenistan , good , but assembling the neccasary forces within the constraints of the existing infrastructure will take a long time and you are still faced with the restrictions of advancing though valley systems . Plus as with the others there are fundamentalst and Iranian sympathtic groups present .

You wisely skip the two As west of the Caspian , and the Caspian itself which would be of limited use .

So that leaves Airbourne assault and Amphibious assault( the amphibious assault could of course not occur within the Persian gulf ).
With the the inherant restrictions and risks that come with those types of operation (though of course no operation is without risk), and the fact that Iran has upgraded its anti shipping and anti aircraft capabilities .
Would anyone be willing to risk the level of casualties that those operations would entail ?

Political aspects will also have to be considered.
Extend those polical aspects you mention and consider the prospect of conflict all the way to the Med and down the Arabian peninsula .

Hence my opinion , only a complete idiot would choose to attack Iran at the moment .
So perhaps a better question for people to answer rather than
"would you support war if diplomacy fails ?"
might be
"how do you determine when diplomacy will not get you any further and has no chance of making any progress at all ?"

I would have to look at actual map sheets in military scale 1:250,000 to determine how correct I am with the following:
You can get very good close up satellite maps , but they will not show important things like bridge ratings , water depths or ground conditions

[Templar Knight]

Shocker.


What do you expect from the express

:embarassed: I was only flicking through, it was near my desk

[Redleg]

Gabriel Milland of the Daily Express is wrong then
What do you expect from the express :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Intreresting Red , a good analysis ,a few problems with your approach there though .

Your assuming that it is a detail analysis - which it is not, its a briefly thought out and use of minimumial information to develop, a more detailed analysis requires more resources and more time then I am willing to commit to at this time. Its a bare surface look only at the terrian and part of the more obvious political necessities. Being overly critical of the analysis looking for details that it does not contain is sharpshooting. .




To amass the forces or to gather the support for the coilition gives Iran ample notice of what is coming and from where . So the first thing you will get is the Straights of Homuz closed to you which will severely restrict your deployments and logistics .

To close the Straights of Homuz - would cause problems to any attack plan out of Iraq - but it generates more problems for Iran. Is Iran willing to close the Straights and risk the higher road of political rhetoric.

To close the Straights places Iran on the offensive (which is good for them) but should gather more support for a collation of forces against them. It also leaves them open for a substained air operations while the ground forces are being assembled, in other areas. It also means that Iran will be extending money, men, and material to maintain the closure of the straights. Its not hard to defeat hard or even soft launch sites for anti-ship missiles. Iran has a decent ability to close the Straights for a short time - but maintaining the closure against the resources of the United States is questionable. Now using a super tanker to block the Straights also presents a major problem, but unless Iran maintains security on the area - its only an obstacle that can be overcome.

The political cost of such a move by Iran might just be their undoing - which gives more weight to a detailed and time consuming buildup of forces.





You need a secure staging area , so that rules out Kurdish Iraq (the border area is under the Iranian backed militias control) . Central Iraq , yeah well bit of a problem there . Southern Iraq , damn thats under the Iranian backed shite militias .

The number of divisions would cause much of the security to be established in spite of such opposition. Its not hard to defend a TAA in the desert from militia forces. Which leaves them only able to disrupt convoys - again not an unsurmountable problem - just one that must be considered in the planning and execution process.

The Kurdish area would be solely dependent upon getting the backing of the Kurdish and thier own state. So the Iranian controled militia problem can be circumvented by proper political negotations with the Kurds. If the Kurds do not come on board to such a plan then that effectively closes the northern approach to invasion since not only will a collation force have to fight Iranian forces - but the kurds could also fight for Iranians depending upon what promises are made.

The militia's can cause problems for the attack by harrasing the rear areas after an invasion is launched - but again with proper planning and the necessary force structure not an impossible task.



Turkey , no chance same problem as last time in Iraq , you will be backing the Kurdish Iranian groups on their borders , for some reason or other they have a problem with Kurdish groups , plus on top of (as you noted) the restrictions placed on mechanised forces the PKK is very active in the border region and they are still nasty terrorists and not friendly to your government .


Good thing I mentioned that now isn't?




Pakistan , best approach , but even if in the unlikely event you could get Musharraf to play ball , and he was able to survive the domestic backlash there is the small problem with the rapidly blossoming civil war in the border province , the army is failing badly at restoring order and the job is being handed to fundamentalist to try and keep the locals in check , neither the fundamentalist nutters or the locals would be very welcoming .

Hmm I wonder why I mentioned just that myself? Again a blossoming civil war between Pakistan forces and pakistan rebels creates problems but not ones that are unsurmountable given a proper plan and adequate forces to minimize the risk to an acceptable level.



Afghanistan , the Iranian border areas are secure to neither the Afghan government or the existing coilition .


Security would be established by the forces that would be staging there - again not a major issue - just one that military planners would have to take into consideration.



Turkmenistan , good , but assembling the neccasary forces within the constraints of the existing infrastructure will take a long time and you are still faced with the restrictions of advancing though valley systems . Plus as with the others there are fundamentalst and Iranian sympathtic groups present .


Security would have to be maintained at a greater cost because of the distance involved. But to build up such a force - notice that I stated that it takes cooperation of both Turkmenistan and Russia. With the number of divisions needed to guarntee success - the United States would need the backing of Russia to accomplish any successful invasion, I am will to state without support from this area - any ground operation into Iran is doomed.

The best avenues of approace come from Turkmenistan and Afganstan. The ability to build the forces necessary in Afganstan are even more limited then in Turkmenistan for the United States. But not overwelming for the Russians.



You wisely skip the two As west of the Caspian , and the Caspian itself which would be of limited use .


They are unsupportable to US Forces. If the Russian's decided to become part of a collation against Iran - then the Caspian Sea and those avenues might have some value - but its extremely unlikely except to use as a diversion and supporting attack to tie up additional Iranian forces.



So that leaves Airbourne assault and Amphibious assault( the amphibious assault could of course not occur within the Persian gulf ).

Only if one wants to have an operation go in the immediate future. I have no problem planning a systemic approach to defeat an enemy. So no your incorrect on this - unless your wanting an operation to begin quickly and without the required forces gathered. If an amphibious assault becomes the only course of action that is viable for an immediate attack - the time it would require to build such an amphibious force becomes even more problemaic (SP). Amphibious operations and the subsequeant attack into Iran would take more forces then the United States can muster without going into a draft. Because the attack would be channelized for until it got past the coastal mountains and hills near the most likely landing spot near Pakistan.





With the the inherant restrictions and risks that come with those types of operation (though of course no operation is without risk), and the fact that Iran has upgraded its anti shipping and anti aircraft capabilities .
Would anyone be willing to risk the level of casualties that those operations would entail ?

That is why I espoused the land approach. Security would tie up additional troops, however given an appriotate level of security the effects of harrassment and attacks by militia forces can be reduced and taken into account for the necessity of the operation.



Political aspects will also have to be considered.
Extend those polical aspects you mention and consider the prospect of conflict all the way to the Med and down the Arabian peninsula .


Done - the Med would not be an issue if there is a collation of nations involved.



Hence my opinion , only a complete idiot would choose to attack Iran at the moment .

Not at all - if enough support is gathered the operation is possible. However if only the United States chose to attack Iran that would be a foolish move. Not enough troops, not enough bases, not enought secure areas. The United States upon a general mobilization of all available forces can field in total manpower and unit structure about 20 ground divisions. To be successful against Iran the United States needs an additional 10 divisions from any collation nations. That is why in the analysis I stated Russia is actually key to a possiblity of success in Iran.



So perhaps a better question for people to answer rather than
"would you support war if diplomacy fails ?"
might be
"how do you determine when diplomacy will not get you any further and has no chance of making any progress at all ?"


Time is your answer. When the Iranian government fails to comply with the United Nations resolutions, fails to honor the committments they have made, fails to allow the Inspectors back in to do their assigned tasks. However given the current state of political rhetoric that point is fast coming upon the Iranian government as stated by their own leaders. The best course of action is for the European Nations to take a firm stand one way or the other about the issue. (And this means Russia also) and force either Iran to back down from its rhetoric postion and comply with the agreements that they committed to, or for the European Union and Russia to pony up to a collation to force Iran to comply.

The real question, "is Europe willing to go to war to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb." or "is Europe willing to go to war if Iran threatens to use a nuclear weapon?"



I would have to look at actual map sheets in military scale 1:250,000 to determine how correct I am with the following:
You can get very good close up satellite maps , but they will not show important things like bridge ratings , water depths or ground conditions

Topographic maps give the detail you need for planning - satellite maps give you details about the current situation on the terrian. It helps the planning process but to do a Army level or higher plan, I have to use the topographic military scale map stated appove to see the avenue's of approach first.

I had access to military satellite pictures many years ago - it gives you details that will surprise you. Civilian satellite access comes close if you know how to use the image and to access the satellite.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

the United States would need the backing of Russia to accomplish any successful invasion

Excuse me but isnt Russia the real culprit behind all this? Arent they the ones supporting Iran . Dont they use Iran to keep us busy? If we need Russia to do this you can kiss any idea of invasion goodbye.

[Redleg]

Excuse me but isnt Russia the real culprit behind all this? Arent they the ones supporting Iran . Dont they use Iran to keep us busy? If we need Russia to do this you can kiss any idea of invasion goodbye.

Only if we want to use Turkmenistan. The additional forces provided by Russia would also tie down more Iranian forces to the North because of the avenues of approach available to the Russians that are not available without them.

Now what I laid out is a short view look at how to invade Iran and overthrow the current government and provide enough forces for a short term occupation until order is restored.

One can always use this map to decide a different course of action to only destroy possible nuclear material and research sites.


http://www.stopthewarnow.net/iran/maps.html

Its the third map on the site. Most of those sites are in the Northern areas of Iran. The Kurds can be used to help destroy some - if the support can be gained - most would take an invasion from the Northern border area's of Iran and with Iraq. A quick airmobile raid in the east out of Afganstan could destroy that one site. Airmobile raids out of Iraq might work also for many of the sites, but the sites in the North require the use of Turkmenistan airspace to be successful. Last I knew about the political situation of Turkmenistan, it takes some support from Russia to maintain any troops and get airspace clearance.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The additional forces provided by Russia would also tie down more Iranian forces to the North because of the avenues of approach available to the Russians that are not available without them.


My point is any thought of Russia helping us in anyway is a pipe dream. Their clearly on Irans side and in fact are the ones putting them up to this.

[Redleg]

My point is any thought of Russia helping us in anyway is a pipe dream. Their clearly on Irans side and in fact are the ones putting them up to this.

Which validates why a military opition is not feasible at this time. Until Russia sides with the rest of the world community about Iran having Nuclear Weapons - there is no way to prevent Iran from gaining them.

[Tribesman]

Your assuming that it is a detail analysis - which it is not
Errrrr ... you are assuming that I am assuming something ?

A few points from that post .

Done - the Med would not be an issue if there is a collation of nations involved.

Are you forgetting the Leb , or did you assume that I meant the whole mediterranean coastline ?

The Kurdish area would be solely dependent upon getting the backing of the Kurdish and thier own state. So the Iranian controled militia problem can be circumvented by proper political negotations with the Kurds.
Of the two main parties it is the Iranian backed one that has the bigger stockpile of weapons and the most fighters still active or integrated into the security services .
So in effect you would be negotiating with Iranian agents to attack Iran . Not impossible , but not vey plausible .

The militia's can cause problems for the attack by harrasing the rear areas after an invasion is launched - but again with proper planning and the necessary force structure not an impossible task.

Red you are basically talking (no matter which deployment it is) about having to launch an invasion and sustaining an occupation before they can get started on the Iranian invasion .
BTW the "militia" causing problems in Iraq would probably consist of a very large portion of the army that the coilition has been recruiting , training and arming for the past couple of years .

[Redleg]

Your assuming that it is a detail analysis - which it is not
Errrrr ... you are assuming that I am assuming something ?


An attempt to sharpshoot a post based on basic information means someone is assuming something (details) not in evidence. Your comments were the attempt at sharpshooting the post - not mine.




A few points from that post .

Done - the Med would not be an issue if there is a collation of nations involved.

Are you forgetting the Leb , or did you assume that I meant the whole mediterranean coastline ?


Lebanon is a country in the Med - it is not the Med., which contains many other countries along that coastline. If you wanted to point to the situation in Lebanon you should of only mentioned Lebanon.



The Kurdish area would be solely dependent upon getting the backing of the Kurdish and thier own state. So the Iranian controled militia problem can be circumvented by proper political negotations with the Kurds.
Of the two main parties it is the Iranian backed one that has the bigger stockpile of weapons and the most fighters still active or integrated into the security services .
So in effect you would be negotiating with Iranian agents to attack Iran . Not impossible , but not vey plausible .


That is why the promise of a Kurdish state comes into play. To be successful in such an operation of getting the Kurds to fight in Iran - one must give them something that they want. A Kurdish State seems to be the main agenda for all of the Kurdish militia's, regardless of thier location.



The militia's can cause problems for the attack by harrasing the rear areas after an invasion is launched - but again with proper planning and the necessary force structure not an impossible task.

Red you are basically talking (no matter which deployment it is) about having to launch an invasion and sustaining an occupation before they can get started on the Iranian invasion .

You have missed the point of the post, which was in response to your query of


I assume that you are in agreemnet with the American , European and Israeli militaries that air strikes alone will not achieve the aims due to the dispersed nature of the facilities and thier levels of protection from air attack . So that means you support a land invasion .
Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?


Iraq is already occupied by the United States, along with parts of Afganstan. Pakistan is an ally and Turkmenistan alreadly has granted some airspace and bases for operations into Afganstan. Where does any of that required an invasion of United States forces or another collation force to start an invasion into Iran.

Also notice how many divisions that the brief and basic outline of an invasion contains - 28 Divisions. If Pakistan does not want to particapate it throws that theather out of the window - it does not require an invasion of Pakistan. Nor does it require an invasion of Turkmenistan - the basic outline of a plan that I wrote requires the support and corporation of the countries that border Iran, and requires international committment. But if your assuming the plan was based upon the United States going it alone - then you failed to correctly read the key portion about any invasion having a chance of success.

Depending how much risk the collation would like to take - landing the marines on the coast on the avenue of approach out of Pakistan would create futher havoc for the Iranian defense.

In all it will take about 21 Divsions plus 2 Marine Divisions if a sea landing was deemed necessary. The collation would also have to plan a reserve force for each avenue consisting of 20% of the attacking force. So add another 5 divisions to the ground forces, 4 mech and one light.

A collation of forces does not imply that the United States is going alone in any possible operation.

Plus it seems you disregarded portions of this paragraph also.

Political aspects will also have to be considered. What would it take to get Russia and Turkmenistan to allow such a force to attack into Iran from that area. What must be given to the Pakistan government to do such an attack? Would this bring about the collaspe of the current Pakistan government? How will Turkey react to the Kurds being used? How will the Iraqi citizens react if the Kurds are given promises for a state? Lots of political issues that are as troublesome or more so then the mountains of Iran to an invasion.

But then I did not say it would be a cake walk to do such an operation now did I? You want more detail of an analysis fork over the money for the research material and the cost of my time to provide such details and I will gladly provide it for you. This simple analysis was in response to your question - but it seems you really didn't want an answer to.

Every suggestion given in the analysis are possible viable jump off points for a land action given that given the scenerio you painted in your question that a collation of nations is against Iran having nuclear weapons and international pressure to cooperate will be present.

Can you present a logical arguement that a these area's are not viable for a land invasion? Militia forces and their effects against collation forces can be taken into consideration - by both arguements for and against. The for arguement must take into consideration that the militia will have an impact on the force, and must demonstrate viable ways in which to counter that risk; the against arguement must show that the risk to the force by the militia is beyond an acceptable level of risk and that the force can do nothing to prevent this distrubtion.

If you want to get into the spefic counters to unorganized militia's and how to best counter them from a conventional military standpoint - then that is a different scenerio then you have painted with your initial query.



BTW the "militia" causing problems in Iraq would probably consist of a very large portion of the army that the coilition has been recruiting , training and arming for the past couple of years .

That militia can be effectively contained away from the area of operations necessary for a successful collation attack into Iran. There is some risk to the operation based upon the activities of such militias and other insurgent type attacks - but nothing that can not be taken into account, risk analysis and risk acceptance taken, and aggressive security precautions can mininize their impact on military operations.

Now unless you understand military tactics and terms beyond the level of the average citizen - there is not much more to this discussion.

[Watchman]

Just out of curiosity, what happens to the equation of a full-scale invasion if you add in the possibility of the Iranians deciding they like foreign invasions a whole lot less than the annoying buggers in Tehran and going into full La Resistance mode ? The regime may not be excessively popular, but I don't think it's actively resented either (the way for example Saddam was) at least in a large scale and nationalism can be a powerful motivator.

[KukriKhan]

Very interesting preliminary analysis Redleg and Tribesman, despite the bickering.

I originally 'liked' the airborne/air assault/amphib opening salvo startegy myself, but with a better look at the maps, I see the difficulty - we (whoever that is} can 'take' many targets that way, but not 'hold' many of them. And "restoring order" after regime deposition would be a much more immediate requirement than airborne,etc units can handle. (I hope Iraq has taught us that, if little else).

The sheer logisitcs required for land attack cost much (maybe too much) in the way of time.

Which seems to lead to an Air Forces "shock-n-awe" show, with politically-unacceptable collateral dead bodies touted on international news and the www.

Beyond pinpoint special ops actions based on incredibly-accurate intel (no, I'm not smoking crack -I know the track record), what else is on the table for military strategy?

[Redleg]

Just out of curiosity, what happens to the equation of a full-scale invasion if you add in the possibility of the Iranians deciding they like foreign invasions a whole lot less than the annoying buggers in Tehran and going into full La Resistance mode ? The regime may not be excessively popular, but I don't think it's actively resented either (the way for example Saddam was) at least in a large scale and nationalism can be a powerful motivator.

Depending upon if the desire of the invasion was to overthrow the current regime to remove the threat of nuclear weapons - or is the invasion a strike to destroy the facialities.

In an overthrow of the government scenerio - full blown resistance of the population becomes a major problem.

If its a hit and destroy operation the major portion of the military operation can be completed before such a scenerio becomes a problem. The invasion forces will focus on those sites that they can reach - using aircraft and airmobile raids to destroy those that the ground forces can not reach in a set time based upon H hour. H being the start of the ground attack.

However it does take more planning, greater detail and risk assesments and potentially less force will be required then pictured with the above scenerio of a full scale invasion to destroy the government and the nuclear infrastructure.

If I have time after work and tomorrow morning - I will look at a map of the possible sites, where the current organized Iranian Army units are located, and how I would attack into Iran to destroy only the nuclear infrastructure.

[Watchman]

Hmm. Is it possible that public outrage among Joe Iranians after a succesful hit-and-run site-busting operation would cause future problems ? I can't really think of how - unless there was a whole bunch of Iranians full of righteous patriotic fury sneaking into Iraq to play urban guerilla or something - but I may have missed something too.

[Redleg]

Very interesting preliminary analysis Redleg and Tribesman, despite the bickering.

I originally 'liked' the airborne/air assault/amphib opening salvo startegy myself, but with a better look at the maps, I see the difficulty - we (whoever that is} can 'take' many targets that way, but not 'hold' many of them. And "restoring order" after regime deposition would be a much more immediate requirement than airborne,etc units can handle. (I hope Iraq has taught us that, if little else).

The sheer logisitcs required for land attack cost much (maybe too much) in the way of time.

Which seems to lead to an Air Forces "shock-n-awe" show, with politically-unacceptable collateral dead bodies touted on international news and the www.

Beyond pinpoint special ops actions based on incredibly-accurate intel (no, I'm not smoking crack -I know the track record), what else is on the table for military strategy?

That is why if it comes down to having to use military force - the forces involved will actually be hit and run destruction forces of known sites, my best guess. Rangers, Special Forces, and the 101st Air Assualt Division. Some sites will not be touched because the risk to forces will be to great, and bombing will be done only on those.

The amount of forces needed will be significantly less, and the forces needed in the East will be greatly reduced. Since most of the known sites that I have seen on maps exist in the western half of Iran.

However the problem still remains the forces will need Russia consent if not active particpation and Turkmenistan airspace along with a Air Assualt staging area is a must.

[Tribesman]

Iraq is already occupied by the United States, along with parts of Afganstan. Pakistan is an ally and Turkmenistan alreadly has granted some airspace and bases for operations into Afganstan. Where does any of that required an invasion of United States forces or another collation force to start an invasion into Iran.

Iraq is occupied but not secure . The Province of Balluchi is occupied by the Pakistani authorities but is not secure . While Herat is partly occupied it is not secure , Farah and Nimruz are neither occupied or secure .
If you are not happy with the word invasion can you suggest a more appropriate one to describe moving large military forces into a hostile area to secure it ?

Lebanon is a country in the Med - it is not the Med., which contains many other countries along that coastline. If you wanted to point to the situation in Lebanon you should of only mentioned Lebanon.

I said as far as the Med , Lebanon is not the only location on that coast with an Iranian backed militia present , but I would have thought it was the most obvious .

[Redleg]

Iraq is already occupied by the United States, along with parts of Afganstan. Pakistan is an ally and Turkmenistan alreadly has granted some airspace and bases for operations into Afganstan. Where does any of that required an invasion of United States forces or another collation force to start an invasion into Iran.

Iraq is occupied but not secure . The Province of Balluchi is occupied by the Pakistani authorities but is not secure . While Herat is partly occupied it is not secure , Farah and Nimruz are neither occupied or secure .
If you are not happy with the word invasion can you suggest a more appropriate one to describe moving large military forces into a hostile area to secure it ?



One does not invade an alreadly occupied country or a nation that allows the forces to establish forward assembly areas in which to launch a ground attack into another nation from. One secures ground within the nation state that is alreadly occupied, for a forward assembly area or a tactical assembly area. One secures an assembly area within the host nation. Bringing forces into the area - especially the size that is necessary to conduct either type of combat operations against Iran - will require the areas to be secured for the military operation. Currently there might be a need to secure those areas for civilian control also, but that makes for a different level of security then what is needed for a military operation to begin and for an assembly area for military personal.

Again you have a base lack of knowledge about terms, tactics and stragety. If your going to sharpshoot - at least have the coursity to understand the terms and use them correctly. If not, then your attempt here is exactly what I pointed out already. Which is asking a question but not really wanting to know the possible answers to such a question. I suspect its because you will disagree with the use of force to insure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons. Your entitled to that opinion, and I don't have a problem with it at all. I prefer to allow the Iranians to develop the weapons and then invite them into the club of mutual destruction. Given that they can not even begin to play catch up with the system that are availabe to the United States currently. Just give them the friendly warning that any nuclear explosion anywhere in the world will subject them to possible nuclear strikes if its tracked to them in any shape or form.

However that does not mean that your question does not have a viable military solution, there are several from a full scale invasion to remove the regime and its nuclear capablity, to just limited hit and destroy strikes on the nuclear development and research sites.

The scenerio I painted for an invasion of Iran uses locations that would be viable for such an operation. Remember Tribesman I am not talking a battalion or brigade size elements to secure a large area - I am speaking of placing a large combat force into an area to conduct combat operations against enemy elements. That force will bring a level of security for its operations inherient in the planning and execution process of the mission.

The scope of the mission brings some security into the zone that one has to plan, even though its not in the area at the present. To claim an area must be secured before a military operation can begin into that zone - means one does not understand the military planning process. Securing the area is always part of the plan. During Desert Storm - the Forward Assembly areas in the deserts of Saudia Arabia were first secured by a significant military force which established checkpoints, roadblocks, desert patrols, and laid out the areas for the following units to occupy. Care to guess how many times I emplaced a defensive zone and conducted patrols in areas that were suppose to be secured for personel, both in combat and in training?

The lack of an area in the host country being secure for civilian control can be and must be planned for in any operation, even in a nation that has no conflict. Military operations and zones will be secured as part of the occupation of the Assembly areas, this is basic military doctrine.



Lebanon is a country in the Med - it is not the Med., which contains many other countries along that coastline. If you wanted to point to the situation in Lebanon you should of only mentioned Lebanon.

I said as far as the Med , Lebanon is not the only location on that coast with an Iranian backed militia present , but I would have thought it was the most obvious .

Oh there are several areas along the Med that are adjacent to the area. Israel, Turkey, Greece, Eygpt, and all the other areas that could be used as air heads for air support operations into the combat zone. When you are attempting to point out only one country within the coastline has being of concern - its best to mention that country - not the geographic area. The Med covers a lot of terrority from Turkey to the straights.

[Tribesman]

If not, then your attempt here is exactly what I pointed out already. Which is asking a question but not really wanting to know the possible answers to such a question. I suspect its because you will disagree with the use of force to insure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.

Poor Red you misunderstand entirely , your answer was far more than I was hoping for . And I thank you for it .
And Gawain as well for his two bits , a bit heavy on the blame Russia bit , but just the answer that I wanted . Try blaming China aswell , or take your pick from a multitude of countries .
Now it isn't an answer that I like or am happy about , but it is the only answer .
And the answer is , yes it could be done if lots of conditions were met , but there is absolutely no chance of those conditions being met .
Oh and the sharpshooting as you describe it was just to elicit a fuller answer from you on certain aspects ~;)
Though clearly that didn't work as you start going on about countries as air-heads and such when what I wanted was about eruption of conflict across the wider area . The ISS study on it even recons the Hashemite Kingdom will fall to the pro Iranian groups , thus closing your western land access into Iraq , but since Iraq will be an even bigger bloodbath than you would care to imagine that wouldn't really matter .

Oh and finally Red , all that about securing the area , sucuring an operating area in a hostile situation means more troops , more time , more expense , more risks and more bloodshed . Just another complicaton in an already complex situation .


Now then what happened to all those others who voted YES ?

[Templar Knight]

Does Syria and Iran have a defensive alliance?

[Tribesman]

Does Syria and Iran have a defensive alliance?
Yes , as of February last year , it just happens that they are having a meeting today .
An unusual alliance , a Sunni domoinated arab republic and a Shi'te dominated Persian theocracy .

[Redleg]

If not, then your attempt here is exactly what I pointed out already. Which is asking a question but not really wanting to know the possible answers to such a question. I suspect its because you will disagree with the use of force to insure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.

Poor Red you misunderstand entirely , your answer was far more than I was hoping for . And I thank you for it .

Caustic response from you lead to misunderstand from the recieving end. Maybe you should think about that if your wanting answers to questions that you pose.



And Gawain as well for his two bits , a bit heavy on the blame Russia bit , but just the answer that I wanted . Try blaming China aswell , or take your pick from a multitude of countries .

Russia and China are playing their political gambit. No blame can be placed on them for Iran's desire to not comply with the agreement. They are only enablers.



Now it isn't an answer that I like or am happy about , but it is the only answer .
And the answer is , yes it could be done if lots of conditions were met , but there is absolutely no chance of those conditions being met .

Again your making leaps to conclusions based upon lack of evidence. Not all conditions must be met to insure a successful negotation or a successful military strike to reduce the Iranian gambit to nuclear weapon status. Some critical conditions must be meet but not all for either course of action to be successful.

Time will tell if the conditions for successful negotations will be meet, if not a risk analysis concerning the military opitions will have to occur, and decisions reached based upon that assessment. If you want a course of action in detail based upon all available intelligence, troop strengths of the Iranian forces, what each course of action's impact on the political arenea of the area will be - your going to have to fork over a lot of cash to pay for that intelligence and the time necessary to lie out a comprensive plan that would meet all the conditions that you seem to want met.

Like I stated before - let Iran join the nuclear club - and give them the same warning as most nations have to face - if the use of a nuclear weapon is tracked to your nation - you get to recieve the payback in spades. You asked a question about viable military option into Iran - one has been given, in brief. A detail plan will cost - since it requires the resources and time to develope in full.



Oh and the sharpshooting as you describe it was just to elicit a fuller answer from you on certain aspects ~;)
Though clearly that didn't work as you start going on about countries as air-heads and such when what I wanted was about eruption of conflict across the wider area .

If your going to sharpshoot understand the terms and how military operations work. Calling securing an area for operations an invasion when its in a host country - equates to something besides just sharpshooting. Eruption of conflict into a wider area was not the question posed. The question posed was "Is their a viable military solution?" If you wanted a more detailed response about political impact in the area - well it will cost you some cash for the resources and time needed.




The ISS study on it even recons the Hashemite Kingdom will fall to the pro Iranian groups , thus closing your western land access into Iraq , but since Iraq will be an even bigger bloodbath than you would care to imagine that wouldn't really matter .

I can image quit a bit of bloodshed - the amount of troop strength that I used - was taking into a consideration a 35% casuality rate among the attacking divisions - that is why the 20% figure for reinforcing divisions was included. However thier is one major error in the sketch of the plan - I do not know the available troop strengthes of the Iranian Military in all its forms. To provide any more spefic information would have to take into consideration of combat force ratios of these forces. 5 Mech Divsions along each axis of advance into Iraq should be enough - but a more detailed planning process would answer that question.



Oh and finally Red , all that about securing the area , sucuring an operating area in a hostile situation means more troops , more time , more expense , more risks and more bloodshed . Just another complicaton in an already complex situation .


A understanding that was placed into the brief plan - that is what makes it a viable plan - do not confuse a brief plan placed onto the internet means that I do not understand the complexity of military operations. Did I mention only one division attacking into Iran from any of the locations? Did I mention only division size area of operations in the attack - not at all. Did I say it would not cost much in time, material, cash, and men?

That would be a non-viable plan. Five Mech/Armor divisions attacking from Southern Iraq into Iran - can provide the necessary forces to maintain security for thier operations - its inherient in all military operations.

What do you suspect would be the role of one of the five divisions that would be in the attack.

How many military operations have you been on? How many have you planned? You can mention any size level that you want. Willing to bet I got a lot more experience in developing operational plans then you do. Security is always a paramount part of any military planning.



Now then what happened to all those others who voted YES ?

How many have the experience to discuss viable military operations?

Even you don't have the knowledge or the ability to discuss viable military operations in this area of the world. You don't understand the terms or the tactics of miltiary operations - and I don't have the time nor the inclination to provide that training to you. You have a seemling well informed understanding of the political aspects of the area, but little else, which has lead you into being caustic and astray in your responses because you did not like the answer to your question.

What is politically and militarily viable are not always one and the same. Some actions are militarily viable but not politically sound.

as a side note - again

I am also willing to bet this type of analysis has already been done by several military staffs to include Great Britian's, and the option that has most likely come forward as the best course of action to consider by the military commander is one where limited attack to destroy as many of the sites as possible, given a failure of negotations and United Nations support.

[Tribesman]

Calling securing an area for operations an invasion when its in a host country - equates to something besides just sharpshooting.
Not at all , since in this case in two regions mentioned the host countries does not have control of the area , and in a third while the situation is not good at the moment any move on Iran would make the situation very very bad .
Caustic response from you lead to misunderstand from the recieving end.
Nah , thats just the way you respond to my posts :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Redleg]

Calling securing an area for operations an invasion when its in a host country - equates to something besides just sharpshooting.
Not at all , since in this case in two regions mentioned the host countries does not have control of the area , and in a third while the situation is not good at the moment any move on Iran would make the situation very very bad .

And as before you are still incorrect and equating securing an area for operations in a host country to an invasion shows two things - a lack of knowledge in military terms and tactics. Denying that lack of knowledge shows something else also - care to quess what it is?



Caustic response from you lead to misunderstand from the recieving end.
Nah , thats just the way you respond to my posts :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Not at all - caustic responses are caustic responsed. Just like I thought when I responded to the query - you did not want an answer and you would be unable to understand such an answer. :dizzy2: :book:

[Tribesman]

Not at all - caustic responses are caustic responsed. Just like I thought when I responded to the query - you did not want an answer and you would be unable to understand such an answer.
Poor redleg your amazing mind reading abilities have truly deserted you .

Does it really choke you up that much that you gave an even better reply than I had hoped for ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

And as before you are still incorrect and equating securing an area for operations in a host country to an invasion shows two things - a lack of knowledge in military terms and tactics.
So according to you the allied landings in north Africa wasn't an invasion then , since you had a friendly french government with you and you were just securing their territory for your invasion of Axis held territory .
Ah I see , the word you want is Liberation isn't it , you are going to liberate Baluchistan for Mussharraf .

[Redleg]

Not at all - caustic responses are caustic responsed. Just like I thought when I responded to the query - you did not want an answer and you would be unable to understand such an answer.
Poor redleg your amazing mind reading abilities have truly deserted you .

Does it really choke you up that much that you gave an even better reply than I had hoped for ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Caustic replys are just that caustic replys.



And as before you are still incorrect and equating securing an area for operations in a host country to an invasion shows two things - a lack of knowledge in military terms and tactics.
So according to you the allied landings in north Africa wasn't an invasion then , since you had a friendly french government with you and you were just securing their territory for your invasion of Axis held territory .
Ah I see , the word you want is Liberation isn't it , you are going to liberate Baluchistan for Mussharraf .


Strawman rebuttals do not make for sound logic, in fact you are beginning to not only show your lack of knowledge about military terms, but you are now beginning to show a worse trait, one of history revision.

The Vichy French Government was not a declared ally of the Allied Forces that landed in North Africa, it was a puppet state of Nazi Germany. Technically it was nuetral - so when attacking a neutral terrority one is invading that area. The forces under the command of Vichy Fance initially attempt to repel the invasion, a quick study of history will demonstrate how incorrect you are..

Again if you don't understand the terms, and refuse to understand the terms - then the discussion is mote, because you have alreadly degenerated into strawman arguement concerning the question that you asked. And it seems a case of history revision has developed also.

[Tribesman]

Strawman rebuttals do not make for sound logic, in fact you are beginning to not only show your lack of knowledge about military terms, but you are now beginning to show a worse trait, one of history revision.

What strawman and what revision ? Your friendly government offered you a territory from which to launch an invasion ,the friendly government did not control that territory . Just as Pakistan and Afghanistan do not have control over the territory concerned .

Caustic replys are just that caustic replys.

and your mindreading skills are still woefully inadequate .
Learn to live with it Red , you gave just about the exact response that I was looking for , does that hurt too much for you ? .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Redleg]

Strawman rebuttals do not make for sound logic, in fact you are beginning to not only show your lack of knowledge about military terms, but you are now beginning to show a worse trait, one of history revision.

What strawman and what revision ? Your friendly government offered you a territory from which to launch an invasion ,the friendly government did not control that territory . Just as Pakistan and Afghanistan do not have control over the territory concerned .


Again a strawman and a revision - study the history of World War 2 a little bit more. The Free French did not control North Africa, the Vichy French government controled it. The Vichy French were a nuetral nation and a puppet state of Nazi Germany. Care to quess why initially the VIchy French government initially ordered the troops to repel the invasion?

The terrority in Afganstan and Pakistan are part of those nations. There is no other government controling the terrority in those nations.

Your arguement here is nothing but a strawman, the situations are not similiar in the way you are attempting, worst yet its an attempt to support your arguement by committing a revision of history, and finally its an attempt because you do not understand military terms or tactics.

Pretty much if this is all you can come up with - the discussion is mote.



Caustic replys are just that caustic replys.

and your mindreading skills are still woefully inadequate .
Learn to live with it Red , you gave just about the exact response that I was looking for , does that hurt too much for you ? .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Caustic replys are just that caustic replys. You are attempting to troll once again because you argument is inconsise, incomplete, and shows a lack of knowledge on your part. Resulting to ad hominem comments demonstrates that very well.

[Tribesman]

The Free French did not control North Africa,
Just as the Pakistani and Afghani governments do not control those provinces .
It is just you being you by argueing over word usage .
finally its an attempt because you do not understand military terms or tactics.

You do not need to be a military genius to know that none of the military options are viable , or not viable in political reality .
Your posts have demonstrated that .
That is exactly the answer that I wanted from the question so that those who voted Yes could examine the reality of the situation .
Now you can go off and argue that Special Forces can carry out limited missions , but that ignores the fact that this will lead to full scale war , and full scale war is not viable , so that is a dead end .
Face it Red , you just cannot handle the fact that you have proved the point that I wanted to illustrate .

[Redleg]

The Free French did not control North Africa,
Just as the Pakistani and Afghani governments do not control those provinces .
It is just you being you by argueing over word usage .

Again you are incorrect - the terms I used are very specific in how the military would apply the tactics for the missions assigned. If you do not understand the terms or what it requires - then you should ask for clarification, not develop strawman arguements concerning invasions, or revisionary history. One secures terrority for occupation of an Assembly area in the host or allied nation. If that nation maintains civil authority on that terrority does not change the terms or the military mission.

Invasion would be what happens to Iran if a collation of nations decided that the only recourse was to remove the threat posed by Iran and its desire to accquite nuclear weapons.



finally its an attempt because you do not understand military terms or tactics.

You do not need to be a military genius to know that none of the military options are viable , or not viable in political reality .

That is your opinion, of what the posts state. However you have not paid attention to the fact that I stated that for it to be vaible that it must be a collation of nations, and that Europe must be on board. Selective reading can be added to the list of your arguement flaws in this discussion.



Your posts have demonstrated that .

My posts demonstrate that there is a way to conduct such an operation, based upon your question. What has been demonstrated is that the United States can not do it by itself because of the troop levels required to conduct a full scale invasion of Iran.



That is exactly the answer that I wanted from the question so that those who voted Yes could examine the reality of the situation .

The reality is that it will take many divisions of troops to accomplish the task, that does not make it non-viable. You have failed to read the posts for the content.



Now you can go off and argue that Special Forces can carry out limited missions , but that ignores the fact that this will lead to full scale war , and full scale war is not viable , so that is a dead end .

Again you have failed to read the posts, Limited missions included more then just Special Forces. And the rest is just your opinion. You have constructed a strawman arguement from my statements that does not exist.

Limited operations is a way to conduct such an operation with less risk and less troops. Political solutions would have to be done before such an operation commences. Again it goes to your initial question. Full scale war is not viable in your opinion - that was not the question asked nor was it the question answered.



Face it Red , you just cannot handle the fact that you have proved the point that I wanted to illustrate .

The point was is there a viable solution to the question you asked, that was demonstrated. You have again reached for a strawman arguement regarding the subject.

Caustic responses are just that caustic responses. Ad hominem and Strawman arguements demonstrate that you did not want an honest answer to your question, nor did you want to particapate in a honest discussion. You wanted someone to analysis and show that it would take a lot of effort to conduct any operation of warfare against Iran. That I have demonstrated, but that effort does not make an operation non-viable given the nature of your question. Again your question was



I assume that you are in agreemnet with the American , European and Israeli militaries that air strikes alone will not achieve the aims due to the dispersed nature of the facilities and thier levels of protection from air attack . So that means you support a land invasion .
Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?

[Slyspy]

To be fair Red none of your ideas, despite being in some cases the best options, are actually workable without some heavy political fallout somewhere along the line. Because of this various parties will not take part in any military assault on Iran. Unless I have misread, you have already said as much yourself. So please, the pair of you, stop it with the pointless argueing. The derisive use of the terms "strawman" and "sharpshooting" or the use of poorly chosen historical situations to attack or defend mean nothing.

[Redleg]

To be fair Red none of your ideas, despite being in some cases the best options, are actually workable without some heavy political fallout somewhere along the line.

What do you think war is? Its a result of heavy political fallout. Tribesman established the question which is seemly based upon the assumption that Europe as a body was willing to do something about forcing Iran to comply. If Europe is unwilling to do something about forcing Iran to comply there is no viable option but to allow Iran to build their nuclear weapons.




Because of this various parties will not take part in any military assault on Iran. Unless I have misread, you have already said as much yourself. So please, the pair of you, stop it with the pointless argueing. The derisive use of the terms "strawman" and "sharpshooting" or the use of poorly chosen historical situations to attack or defend mean nothing.

Oh I like playing this game with Tribesman especially when behaves in the manner in which he is in this thread. Its rather amusing to me to see someone attempt to use revisionary history to make a point. It shows a fundmental weakness in the postion of that individual.

[Dâriûsh]

Ha, Iran is a pushover! Let's Roll!

It seems that there are a few Alexanders here. But before we saddle up and charge in, did anyone take Iranian patriotism into account? A land war would be very costly in lives, for both attacker and defender. And I am afraid it would be a major setback for the reform movement.

[Samurai Waki]

I say we show patience (as it is a virtue), if Iran wants a War, they'll make it painfully clear, this little Show the Iranian President has been putting on is nothing more than tough talk, I think it would be in the US's best interest, and Iran's, to let the idiot say what he wants to say. I doubt that if the Iranian president declared war on the US, he would get little backing from his Army, and even less from the Ayatollahs, I say we (The US) play the good guys and not give them a reason to attack us, or we attack them other than malice, and that will give the world a clear goal in what needs to be done. I hate sounding like a coward, but sometimes taking the High Road is a more profiteable, and honorable course than vengeance.

[Geoffrey S]

If there were a conflict I can hardly imagine the US getting many allies to the cause, nor can I imagine the US having enough troops to occupy; if anything, the war would be a small-scale hit and run affair aimed at key targets.

[Tribesman]

Its rather amusing to me to see someone attempt to use revisionary history to make a point. It shows a fundmental weakness in the postion of that individual.

What revisionary history and what fundamental weakness ?
The areas you put forward are not viable , the forming of an able coilition is not viable , UN backing is not going to happen and the US cannot go it alone .
Air power alone is not going to work and will lead to war which is not viable , SpecOps alone is not going to work and will lead to war , which is not viable
A combination of the two will not work , and as above will lead to war . which guess what , is not viable .
So Red what is the weakness of that position ?

Tribesman established the question which is seemly based upon the assumption that Europe as a body was willing to do something about forcing Iran to comply
Once again your mind reading skills are letting you down , perhaps you should leave that crap to Uri Geller . Then again you are just as good at him at it , so keep it up eh:dizzy2:

[Redleg]

Its rather amusing to me to see someone attempt to use revisionary history to make a point. It shows a fundmental weakness in the postion of that individual.

What revisionary history and what fundamental weakness ?

Hm - Revisionary history now being denied by the one that made it. That is even more amusing.




The areas you put forward are not viable , the forming of an able coilition is not viable , UN backing is not going to happen and the US cannot go it alone

You placed something in your question, and now your attempting to state something else.


.
Air power alone is not going to work and will lead to war which is not viable
I did not mention air power alone - so your committing a strawman arguement



, SpecOps alone is not going to work and will lead to war , which is not viable

I did not say Special Operations by itself either, so again a strawman arguement



A combination of the two will not work , and as above will lead to war . which guess what , is not viable .

What do you think an attack of any sort into Iran is - it is war. Again a strawman arguement. Nor did I say a combination of Special Operations and Air. I clearly stated limited military operations.



So Red what is the weakness of that position ?


Your failure to read what conditions were stated in the discussion.



Tribesman established the question which is seemly based upon the assumption that Europe as a body was willing to do something about forcing Iran to comply
Once again your mind reading skills are letting you down , perhaps you should leave that crap to Uri Geller . Then again you are just as good at him at it , so keep it up eh:dizzy2:

So you didn't mention Europe in your question? Hmm that directily contradicts the question that you asked.


I assume that you are in agreemnet with the American , European and Israeli militaries that air strikes alone will not achieve the aims due to the dispersed nature of the facilities and thier levels of protection from air attack . So that means you support a land invasion .
Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?


Typical arguement from Tribesman ah hominem comments, strawman arguements, and attempts to sharpshoot others postions. Its been fun - but its obvious you haven't a clue about military operations, and you have decided that every course of action regarding Iran is not viable. Maybe you should not ask questions that you don't really want an answer to since you have alreadly reached the conclusion that you wish.

[Tribesman]

Hm - Revisionary history now being denied by the one that made it. That is even more amusing.

What revisionary history ? are you imagining things ?

You placed something in your question, and now your attempting to state something else.

The question is there plain enough Red
Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?

There are several possibilities , each is dependant on several conditions being met , those conditions cannot be met so therefore none of the possibilities is viable .

I did not mention air power alone - so your committing a strawman arguement


Look at my initial statement , your military has come to that conclusion as have others , so no strawman there Red , just a restating of the basics .

I did not say Special Operations by itself either, so again a strawman arguement
What are limited hit and destroy missions if they are not special ops Red ?


What do you think an attack of any sort into Iran is - it is war. Again a strawman arguement.
No strawman there either Red , a restating of the basics , war is not viable so acts of war are not viable .

Your failure to read what conditions were stated in the discussion.

What conditions ? all of the conditions put forward cannot be met .

So you didn't mention Europe in your question? Hmm that directily contradicts the question that you asked.

Learn to read Red , the preamble was not a question . The absence of one of these ? is generally a bit of a giveaway

[solypsist]

There's a pretty straighforward comparison between the 2nd Amendment and Iran being permitted to have nuclear weapons. Thinking about it, the similarities are quite striking...and I think that people who might generally argue on one side of one issue might well argue the other side of the other one.

[Strike For The South]

There's a pretty straighforward comparison between the 2nd Amendment and Iran being permitted to have nuclear weapons. Thinking about it, the similarities are quite striking...and I think that people who might generally argue on one side of one issue might well argue the other side of the other one.

I fail to see how not letting an unstable therocracy have nukes can be compared to a law abiding citzen owning a gun. Nukes and hunting rifles are two way diffrent things. I cant destroy Isreal with a rifle.

[Redleg]

Hm - Revisionary history now being denied by the one that made it. That is even more amusing.

What revisionary history ? are you imagining things ?

Hmm something about North Africa. Your attempt was one of revising history and in doing so you failed miresably, you demonstrated not only your lack of knowledge about military operations and terms, but your willingness to change history to meet your stance in an arguement.

The rest of your post I find amusing as well. But I will just leave it alone. Failure to ackownledge your attempt at revising history to suit your political opinion on this manner shows all I need to know about your position.

[Major Robert Dump]

Iran ustable? Untrustworthy maybe, unpredictable maybe, but not unstable.

[Tribesman]

Hmm something about North Africa. Your attempt was one of revising history and in doing so you failed miresably,
Nope , no revisionism there at all . It must be your imagination .

Iran ustable? Untrustworthy maybe, unpredictable maybe, but not unstable.
It is unstable , hence the military deployment and mass detentions in the North West, and the clampdown on the reformers .
Iran has been unstable since before the revolution . The revolution was carried through by a multitude of different groups , most of those groups , though happy to get rid of the regime were not happy with the new one . They have for the past quarter century been trying to get what they expected from their revolution , without much luck . The one thing that does bring these groups together with the regime and stabilises it is foriegn intervention , for some reason or other that seems to unite most of them as Iranians . There are some groups who do side with the foriegners , but they tend to be the crazy extremists with very little domestic support .

[Quietus]

Good point. I would hope a coalition, but I doubt that could ever happen considering the cowardness and lack of action of most United Nation members. Its much easier for them to pass resolution after resolution and recieve kick backs from oil revenues than to actually do anything. So lets pretend like the UN had a pair and say that a global coalition would go to war. Would you then support it?

The world should gang up on Iran. Absolutely, yes. A nuclear Iran is not acceptable. Who else can Iran share these technology? (WWWIII, anyone?)

The coalition needs more than the US and Israel. But Iran shouldn't have access to nuclear weapons.

Also, I don't believe in the MAD argument really. I mean, if the people who control these devices have no fear of death and going to heaven is a reward, what's to hold them back from using it?

[Ice]

I say we show patience (as it is a virtue), if Iran wants a War, they'll make it painfully clear, this little Show the Iranian President has been putting on is nothing more than tough talk, I think it would be in the US's best interest, and Iran's, to let the idiot say what he wants to say. I doubt that if the Iranian president declared war on the US, he would get little backing from his Army, and even less from the Ayatollahs, I say we (The US) play the good guys and not give them a reason to attack us, or we attack them other than malice, and that will give the world a clear goal in what needs to be done. I hate sounding like a coward, but sometimes taking the High Road is a more profiteable, and honorable course than vengeance.

The more that I think about it, the more I tend to agree. I'm changing my vote to : Yes, if they show military agreesion.

[Geoffrey S]

Anyway, it's not so much a matter of Iran getting nuclear weapons, but who'll end up getting such things from Iran. That's the worrying part.

[Redleg]

Hmm something about North Africa. Your attempt was one of revising history and in doing so you failed miresably,
Nope , no revisionism there at all . It must be your imagination .


Lets review shall we.


So according to you the allied landings in north Africa wasn't an invasion then , since you had a friendly french government with you and you were just securing their territory for your invasion of Axis held territory .

Not only a strawman arguement about my statement but yes indeed one of an attempt at revision of history.

Friendly French Government was the Free French which was a government in exile..

North Africa was under the under control of the Vichy French government which was a nuetral state and a puppet regime of Nazi Germany.

Nope not my imagination at all.

Like I stated before.


Failure to ackownledge your attempt at revising history to suit your political opinion on this manner shows all I need to know about your position.

[Kralizec]

Why do we let 3 other countries in the same general area (Israel, India and Pakistan) have nuclear weapons and not Iran? (Pakistan is an authoritarian state as well)

Why do we stand on soapboxes proclaiming "preemptive strikes" for "the protection of neighbouring states" when the world has consistently failed to protect Iran from the use of WMD in the Iraq-Iran war?

Why should Iran be content with receiving uranium shipments from Russia for their reactors? After the Ukranian debacle I'd be even more paranoid about being dependent on the Russians for my energy supply.

Why?

[Redleg]

Why do we let 3 other countries in the same general area (Israel, India and Pakistan) have nuclear weapons and not Iran? (Pakistan is an authoritarian state as well)

Why do we stand on soapboxes proclaiming "preemptive strikes" for "the protection of neighbouring states" when the world has consistently failed to protect Iran from the use of WMD in the Iraq-Iran war?

Why should Iran be content with receiving uranium shipments from Russia for their reactors? After the Ukranian debacle I'd be even more paranoid about being dependent on the Russians for my energy supply.

Why?

Read the treaties and agreements that Iran signed to get western aid in developing and building their nuclear power plants.

[Tribesman]

Not only a strawman arguement about my statement but yes indeed one of an attempt at revision of history.


What revision of history Red ? there is no revision of history there at all .
Failure to ackownledge your attempt at revising history to suit your political opinion on this manner shows all I need to know about your position.
Since there is no revision , then what is there to acknowledge ?
Stick with the mind reading Red , it appear you may be better at that than at knowing what you need to know :no:

[Azi Tohak]

I do not support war on Iran. For one thing, it is lousy tank-country. For another, it has lots of people. For a third... why bother? They will have or do have nukes. ...is that it? As has been pointed out before, lots of insane countries have them (top of THAT list is North Korea). So their new President doesn't like Israel. Whoopee, he is now a member of the "We Hate Jews Club". Along with most every other person in that area. Is he blowing smoke? I don't know, but I really don't think it matters. He's just yapping to gain air-time. If he wants to try something, he's a bigger fool than any man on earth.

Azi

[Redleg]

Not only a strawman arguement about my statement but yes indeed one of an attempt at revision of history.


What revision of history Red ? there is no revision of history there at all .

So Vichy France was an allied power during WW2? Sorry Tribesman that doesn't face the reality check.





Failure to ackownledge your attempt at revising history to suit your political opinion on this manner shows all I need to know about your position.
Since there is no revision , then what is there to acknowledge ?
Stick with the mind reading Red , it appear you may be better at that than at knowing what you need to know :no:

Poor Tribesman resorting to calling something mind reading when the statement itself shows an attempt to revise history to make your political point. Tsk Tsk. So once again I guess Vichy France was an allied power - and not a puppet state of the Nazi Regime in Germany.

Your statement was a strawman and an attempt at revising actual history.

However once again it does show all I need to know about your postion. :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

However once again it does show all I need to know about your postion.
So Vichy France was an allied power during WW2?
Really Red , then you should have no trouble at all finding a statement where I called the vichy regime an allied power .:book:
Oh but then again you might have difficulty there , as it is only in your imagination .
Are you once again going through another Donkey Oaty phase in your life ?

[Redleg]

However once again it does show all I need to know about your postion.
So Vichy France was an allied power during WW2?
Really Red , then you should have no trouble at all finding a statement where I called the vichy regime an allied power .:book:
Oh but then again you might have difficulty there , as it is only in your imagination .
Are you once again going through another Donkey Oaty phase in your life ?

Oh it wasn't hard to find. Here it is in your own words.


So according to you the allied landings in north Africa wasn't an invasion then , since you had a friendly french government with you and you were just securing their territory for your invasion of Axis held territory .


Oh look more ad hominem comments coming from you because you were called on the history revision attempt. :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Oh it wasn't hard to find. Here it is in your own words.

Where ?
Nothing in there calling the vichy allies is there .
So where is this revisionism and where do I refer to Vichy France as allies ?

Oh look more ad hominem comments coming from you because you were called on the history revision attempt.
Called on what attempt ?
I see no Knights Red , so that means you are definately tilting at Windmills again Donkey , tone down your imagination , it seems to be running wild with you at the moment.~:rolleyes:
It must be that all those futile attempts at mindreading have overloaded your neural functions .:no:

[Redleg]

Oh it wasn't hard to find. Here it is in your own words.

Where ?
Nothing in there calling the vichy allies is there .
So where is this revisionism and where do I refer to Vichy France as allies ?

If you wish not to see it, then there is nothing else to discuss. You attempted to revise history to make a point. And now your attempting to backtrack out of it by saying you did not directly say Vichy France.




Oh look more ad hominem comments coming from you because you were called on the history revision attempt.
Called on what attempt ?
I see no Knights Red , so that means you are definately tilting at Windmills again Donkey , tone down your imagination , it seems to be running wild with you at the moment.~:rolleyes:
It must be that all those futile attempts at mindreading have overloaded your neural functions .:no:

Oh look more ad hominem comments. :laugh4:

Tribesman is now attempting to troll me into doing the same. What a hoot. Very amusing.

Strawman arguement followed by another strawman arguement with an attempt at revision of history, followed by ad hominem comments. You lose Tribesman.

[Tribesman]

If you wish not to see it, then there is nothing else to discuss.
See what ? it is all in your imagination .

You attempted to revise history to make a point.
There was no revisionism . There were two groups , both claiming the territory involved , the group the allies were dealing with did not control the territory . Just as the groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan you are dealing with do not control the territory involved in this case .

And now your attempting to backtrack out of it by saying you did not directly say Vichy France.

How can someone backtrack out of something they didn't say , thats a new one Red, are you sure you are feeling OK ?:nurse:

You lose Tribesman.
Really ? In what way ? It appears Red that you have lost it entirely .
First you give the answer that I wanted , then through your amazing mind reading abilities you claim that the answer I wanted was not the answer that I wanted and certainly wasn't the answer you gave .
Then you go into a silly word play game , followed up by amazing claims of revisionism and my giving statements that I had not given .

So....back to topic ....
While military action against Iran is an option , it is not a viable option .

[Redleg]

If you wish not to see it, then there is nothing else to discuss.
See what ? it is all in your imagination .

If its my imagination then why are you attempting to defend your revision of history?




You attempted to revise history to make a point.
There was no revisionism . There were two groups , both claiming the territory involved , the group the allies were dealing with did not control the territory . Just as the groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan you are dealing with do not control the territory involved in this case .

Two groups claiming North Africa with the Vichy French in control does not equate to the same scenerio. Again your strawman was an attempt to use revision of history.

What nation was in control of North Africa when Operation Torch happened?



And now your attempting to backtrack out of it by saying you did not directly say Vichy France.

How can someone backtrack out of something they didn't say , thats a new one Red, are you sure you are feeling OK ?:nurse:

Oh look at your arguement in attempting to state you did not use history revision to attempt to make a point.




You lose Tribesman.
Really ? In what way ? It appears Red that you have lost it entirely .
First you give the answer that I wanted , then through your amazing mind reading abilities you claim that the answer I wanted was not the answer that I wanted and certainly wasn't the answer you gave .
Then you go into a silly word play game , followed up by amazing claims of revisionism and my giving statements that I had not given .

Hmm - another adhominem arguement, coupled with strawman postions once again. Hell your not even responding to what the You Lose meet. Which was the use of ad hominem arguements directed at the man verus the arguement. Again you lose Tribesman



So....back to topic ....
While military action against Iran is an option , it is not a viable option .

Again you are incorrect - A viable military option can be developed, which has been shown. The question is wether it is political viable or not? Or to be more precise is the world community willing to go to war to prevent Iran from having Nuclear Weapons.

You have distracted yourself from your own point. Like I said this arguement has been amusing to me. Its been tons of fun to watch you attempt to spin revision into history,:juggle2: use strawman arguements to counter my position, :dizzy2: and finally your typical resorting to ad hominem arguements because someone has a different take or opinion on a subject.:oops:

:laugh4:

[Tribesman]

its my imagination then why are you attempting to defend your revision of history?

Thats a hard one ....errr.... lets see ...oh yeah , baseless allegations shall be challenged as baseless allegations .
Strange that isn't it ~:rolleyes:

Two groups claiming North Africa with the Vichy French in control does not equate to the same scenerio. Again your strawman was an attempt to use revision of history.

What revision of history Red ?


Oh look at your arguement in attempting to state you did not use history revision to attempt to make a point.

What revision of history Red ?

Again you are incorrect - A viable military option can be developed, which has been shown. The question is wether it is political viable or not? Or to be more precise is the world community willing to go to war to prevent Iran from having Nuclear Weapons.

Rubbish as a viable miltary option is solely dependant on the politics involved Red .
Its been tons of fun to watch you attempt to spin revision into history,
Once again Red, what revision of history ?

You have definately lost the plot old boy .
Oh yeah , in case you missed it .
What revision of history ?

[Papewaio]

I agree. There's no stopping Iran getting the bomb, only controlling what they do with it. That being said, I will continue to fear, perhaps irrationally to some, that Iran will conclude that nobody will be able to trace a dirty bomb back to them and their intelligence services will leak it to their friends in the shadow world. It would be a mistake on their part, but tell that to the 50,000 people that die from radiation poisoning in Tel Aviv. Bombing Tehran won't bring them back.

The isotopic ratio of the elements is based on the source and processing. Hence whatever radioactive materials are used will have an isotopic fingerprint.

By the way we are discussing an unlikely event killing a small portion of the worlds population. Our perceptions are skewed, compare it with the death rates that are definitly occuring now from something far more prosaic:


Poor water quality continues to pose a major threat to human health. Diarrhoeal disease alone amounts to an estimated 4.1 % of the total DALY global burden of disease and is responsible for the deaths of 1.8 million people every year (WHO, 2004). It was estimated that 88% of that burden is attributable to unsafe water supply, sanitation and hygiene and is mostly concentrated on children in developing countries.

So in comparison with the hypothetical chance that Iran supplies a dirty bomb to terrorists that result in 50,000 dead... we have the very real occurrence of every (EDIT, maths wrong 10 not 36 days) 10 days 50,000 people are dying of unsafe water supply, sanitation and hygiene.

Are we getting our priorities right with Iran?

Wouldn't it make more sense to employ more engineers to drill wells to save people? It would definitely save more people and be far more cost effective. If just doesn't have that visceral action movie tension to it.

[Redleg]

its my imagination then why are you attempting to defend your revision of history?

Thats a hard one ....errr.... lets see ...oh yeah , baseless allegations shall be challenged as baseless allegations .
Strange that isn't it ~:rolleyes:

So you see my point now do you. Your baseless allegations were meet with baseless allegations.

It seems you like to use such arguement styles, but don't like them used against you.

Interesting. :idea2:




Two groups claiming North Africa with the Vichy French in control does not equate to the same scenerio. Again your strawman was an attempt to use revision of history.

What revision of history Red ?


So the Vichy French were not in control of North Africa?

Interesting :laugh4:





Oh look at your arguement in attempting to state you did not use history revision to attempt to make a point.

What revision of history Red ?


:laugh4:



Again you are incorrect - A viable military option can be developed, which has been shown. The question is wether it is political viable or not? Or to be more precise is the world community willing to go to war to prevent Iran from having Nuclear Weapons.

Rubbish as a viable miltary option is solely dependant on the politics involved Red .

LOL - your still not getting it. Once again the question asked was.


A question for those who voted that they would support the war .

I assume that you are in agreemnet with the American , European and Israeli militaries that air strikes alone will not achieve the aims due to the dispersed nature of the facilities and thier levels of protection from air attack . So that means you support a land invasion .
Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?


To bad you didn't understand your own question.



Its been tons of fun to watch you attempt to spin revision into history,
Once again Red, what revision of history ?


:laugh4:



You have definately lost the plot old boy .
Oh yeah , in case you missed it .
What revision of history ?

So now your going to direct insults now are we? It seems you can't control yourself.

:laugh4:

[Papewaio]

Redleg and Tribesman... are you sure you aren't inlaws? brothers separated at birth? old school chums?

[Redleg]

Redleg and Tribesman... are you sure you aren't inlaws? brothers separated at birth? old school chums?

If we were brothers - the rifles would alreadly have been used. Well BB guns anyway. :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

So the Vichy French were not in control of North Africa?

So once again you address something that only exists in your imagination .
What revision of history Red ?
Windmills yet again is it ?

Your baseless allegations were meet with baseless allegations.

What baseless allegations did I make , or are they only in your mind ?

To bad you didn't understand your own question.

Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?

For somewhere to be viable it has to be a location that can actually be used , since there are numerous overiding reasons why the locations cannot be used then they are not viable .
If you cannot understand a simple question and instead have to rely on your woefully inadequate mind reading skills to try and descipher the meaning of a question then perhaps you need some proffesional help .

So now your going to direct insults now are we?
Yes , directly insulting the recent content of your posts and the warped thought process that has led to you making those posts .


If we were brothers - the rifles would alreadly have been used. Well BB guns anyway.
You had better run then Red as BB guns are illegal over here and I only use legally licensed firearms .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Kralizec]

Read the treaties and agreements that Iran signed to get western aid in developing and building their nuclear power plants.

Not sure what you're talking about here? I know of an agreement in 2003 they signed to temporarily stop uranium enrichment, but not of any permanent agreements signed where western countries promise any aid. I thought that the European aim was to let Iran import its enriched uranium from Russia.

[Redleg]

So the Vichy French were not in control of North Africa?

So once again you address something that only exists in your imagination .
What revision of history Red ?
Windmills yet again is it ?


Oh I feel so smited by you - not.



Your baseless allegations were meet with baseless allegations.

What baseless allegations did I make , or are they only in your mind ?


Oh I feel so smited by you - not.




To bad you didn't understand your own question.

Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?

For somewhere to be viable it has to be a location that can actually be used , since there are numerous overiding reasons why the locations cannot be used then they are not viable .


Oh I feel so smited by you - not.



If you cannot understand a simple question and instead have to rely on your woefully inadequate mind reading skills to try and descipher the meaning of a question then perhaps you need some proffesional help .


Oh more personal insults - how typical. You can't counter the premise or the position so you resort to personal attacks. :laugh4:



So now your going to direct insults now are we?
Yes , directly insulting the recent content of your posts and the warped thought process that has led to you making those posts .


Tsk, Tsk a direct acknowledgment of breaking the forum rules.



If we were brothers - the rifles would alreadly have been used. Well BB guns anyway.
You had better run then Red as BB guns are illegal over here and I only use legally licensed firearms .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Given the nature of your attempt at strawman arguement and revising history in stating because the Free French were allied with the United States that the invasion of North Africa was then not an invasion according to my logic. I am sure your a rather poor shot, so I should be safe enough.

Well the discussion is over, since the only points you have is to make personal attacks directed at another. Interesting, isn't?

[Redleg]

Not sure what you're talking about here? I know of an agreement in 2003 they signed to temporarily stop uranium enrichment, but not of any permanent agreements signed where western countries promise any aid. I thought that the European aim was to let Iran import its enriched uranium from Russia.

The IAEA site might be helpful.

http://www.iaea.org/

The two main documents come to mind

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf153.shtml

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

Signatorary nations

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/docs/nptstatus.htm

[Tribesman]

You can't counter the premise or the position so you resort to personal attacks.
There is no position to counter Red , it is baseless and exists only in your imagination . You are just throwing out repeated meaningless statements , which calls into question your state of mind .

Given the nature of your attempt at strawman arguement and revising history in stating because the Free French were allied with the United States that the invasion of North Africa was then not an invasion according to my logic.
No revision in there at all Red .
According to you a military deployment into territory that is claimed by your friends is not an invasion even if the territory is not controlled by your friends , Operation Torch is a perfect example of the flaw in your logic .

[Redleg]

You can't counter the premise or the position so you resort to personal attacks.
There is no position to counter Red , it is baseless and exists only in your imagination . You are just throwing out repeated meaningless statements , which calls into question your state of mind .

LOL - my mind is just fine, but it seems that you continue to resort to personal attack.



Given the nature of your attempt at strawman arguement and revising history in stating because the Free French were allied with the United States that the invasion of North Africa was then not an invasion according to my logic.
No revision in there at all Red .
According to you a military deployment into territory that is claimed by your friends is not an invasion even if the territory is not controlled by your friends , Operation Torch is a perfect example of the flaw in your logic .


Continuing with the Strawman and Revision History postions I see. :juggle2:

[Tribesman]

Continuing with the Strawman and Revision History postions I see.
More baseless posts Red , are you trying for a record or something ?

[Redleg]

Continuing with the Strawman and Revision History postions I see.
More baseless posts Red , are you trying for a record or something ?

Not at all. You by all means hold the record for making baseless posts.

:laugh4:

[Soulforged]

Not related directly with the post (and maybe with a pun in it) but I've to dispell my doubts about this: Did this same thread appeared when there was "issues" with Irak?

[Tribesman]

Not related directly with the post (and maybe with a pun in it) but I've to dispell my doubts about this: Did this same thread appeared when there was "issues" with Irak?
I don't know , I wasn't on this forum back then , though several issues are the same .
They had planned to invade from Turkey but they couldn't due to political reasons . So they launched an airbourne invasion into Kurdish areas , but those areas were not under the control of Saddams regime , so that couldn't have been an invasion :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

On the forum I was on the main issues were .
What evidence , that isn't evidence . and . What is going to happen after .

It turned out that the evidence wasn't evidence and that they hadn't thought about what would happen after .:shrug:

[Redleg]

Not related directly with the post (and maybe with a pun in it) but I've to dispell my doubts about this: Did this same thread appeared when there was "issues" with Irak?
I don't know , I wasn't on this forum back then , though several issues are the same .
They had planned to invade from Turkey but they couldn't due to political reasons . So they launched an airbourne invasion into Kurdish areas , but those areas were not under the control of Saddams regime , so that couldn't have been an invasion :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Still committing a strawman and history revision. Interesting. :inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

No history revision there Red .

[Samurai Waki]

I really don't see where this is going. Maybe they should rename the thread Redleg and Tribesman Debate about Iran, and Children Who Can't Read Good but Want to do Other Stuff Too

[Redleg]

No history revision there Red .

You might want to check out what a strawman arguement is. :inquisitive:

Especially the way you have been using it in this thread. :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

After much extensive searching I have finally found the problem here .
A publisher recalled once seeing the "ultimate dictionary of word definition" by Redleg .
They didn't bother to publish as they thought the content ......
"words that I use mean what I say they mean"
"words what you use mean what I say they mean" ....
was slightly sparse for a dictionary .
In an attempt to humour the author while waiting for security to arrive they asked.....
" as this is a dictionary when can we expect a revised edition ? "
...and were rather astounded to be shown a blank page by the author with many utterences of ...
"its all there can't you see it , this is the revision of the edition".
He was finally removed by security while muttering something about publishers not knowing anything as they had not served in the military .

There have been follow up reports of someone fitting the authors description making attacks on windmills while on horseback and armed with a lance , a practice that has been almost unheard of since the 16th century fictional episode .

[Redleg]

After much extensive searching I have finally found the problem here .
A publisher recalled once seeing the "ultimate dictionary of word definition" by Redleg .
They didn't bother to publish as they thought the content ......
"words that I use mean what I say they mean"
"words what you use mean what I say they mean" ....
was slightly sparse for a dictionary .
In an attempt to humour the author while waiting for security to arrive they asked.....
" as this is a dictionary when can we expect a revised edition ? "
...and were rather astounded to be shown a blank page by the author with many utterences of ...
"its all there can't you see it , this is the revision of the edition".
He was finally removed by security while muttering something about publishers not knowing anything as they had not served in the military .

There have been follow up reports of someone fitting the authors description making attacks on windmills while on horseback and armed with a lance , a practice that has been almost unheard of since the 16th century fictional episode .

Very amusing - but still doesn't detract from your use of strawman arguements and revision of history,its also a gross violation of the rules of the forum.

Maybe you should take a look at your own dictionary and use of words. :laugh4:

[Soulforged]

Still committing a strawman and history revision. Interesting.Wait, wait , wait... What's of historical revisionism in that post wich purpose was to answer my question not in response to you? Come on Red, even if Tribesman was really doing what you say he's doing do you think it's necessary to keep arguing in circles and doing ad hominem attacks?

[Redleg]

Wait, wait , wait... What's of historical revisionism in that post wich purpose was to answer my question not in response to you? Come on Red, even if Tribesman was really doing what you say he's doing do you think it's necessary to keep arguing in circles and doing ad hominem attacks?
Sure - since I am only matching his style of arguement. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

[solypsist]

if you don't find the discussion interesting then feel free to visit a different thread. there's no point in complaining.


I really don't see where this is going. Maybe they should rename the thread Redleg and Tribesman Debate about Iran, and Children Who Can't Read Good but Want to do Other Stuff Too

[Tribesman]

Wait, wait , wait... What's of historical revisionism in that post wich purpose was to answer my question not in response to you?
Don't you understand Soul , there is historical revision because .... well because Red says there is , see it is that simple .
Now if you were to ask what historical revision the reply would be ....its there because Red has said its there and if you cannot see it well ...thats because you are not living in Redlegs world .

[Redleg]

Wait, wait , wait... What's of historical revisionism in that post wich purpose was to answer my question not in response to you?
Don't you understand Soul , there is historical revision because .... well because Red says there is , see it is that simple .
Now if you were to ask what historical revision the reply would be ....its there because Red has said its there and if you cannot see it well ...thats because you are not living in Redlegs world .

Or the actual converse which is we don't live in Tribesman's world. :laugh4:

[Vladimir]

Let's see...Do I want the birthplace of modern terrorism to have nuclear weapons? That's a tough one.

[rory_20_uk]

I thought that a good argument could be made for the British and Americans instigting terorism by their method of fighting in WW2 - lots of black ops all over Europe.

And there's the usual terrorist / freedom fighter aspect to things: does Iran like the USA having nukes? Probably not, but there's nothing they can do about it. Why can't the reverse be true?

~:smoking:

[Ice]

And there's the usual terrorist / freedom fighter aspect to things: does Iran like the USA having nukes? Probably not, but there's nothing they can do about it. Why can't the reverse be true?

~:smoking:

Because there is something we can do about it...