Iran?

[CptSternn]

Camb -

I feel the same way. I'd happily repeat what I said to anyones face without flinching.

Bink -

The Iraqi army is a joke, much like the Vietnameese army the US proper up there before retreating. And, like that army, it will collapse the minute the US pulls out, and the people will rise up and take action against those who helped the 'infidels'. Once again, much like Vietnam.

[Cambodian Breakfast]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Camb -

I feel the same way. I'd happily repeat what I said to anyones face without flinching.

Bink -

The Iraqi army is a joke, much like the Vietnameese army the US proper up there before retreating. And, like that army, it will collapse the minute the US pulls out, and the people will rise up and take action against those who helped the 'infidels'. Once again, much like Vietnam.

I dare you. I no a few right here in England.

The Iraq Army is hard. They might look like oushovers. But there not. Get some good information next time.

[CptSternn]

Time will tell. I'm betting your wrong. As are the bookies. Check the lines lately?

Yer in england - and as you know you can bet on anything. Check the lines on how long it is before the americans retreat.

Or should I say 'advance to the rear' or whatever the bushism is today for surrender.

[Cambodian Breakfast]

Surrender! Are you huffing gas? They can't lose face like that.

[Binkie]

Heh... seems even funnier now, looking at the quote in Cambondian's post of Sternn claiming the Iraqi army are "a joke." Well, now that the US command released the unedited footage they picked up from Zarqawi's hide-out that shows his idiot assistants grabbing the hot barrel of an M249 and burning himself.

Zarqawi, Mr. top terrorist himself, couldn't even operate the gun. Had to call an associate over to clear the weapon. I'd say that's a clear demonstration of what constitutes as, "a joke."

[Cambodian Breakfast]

That is pretty funny. I have a friend that just got back fo a foward location. A little kid came up to there Hummer and opend fire. Then he droped the gun and ran away. They coulden't shot him. One of the guys has shot three times. Shit like that makes me sad.

[nuksaa]

The Shehab-3 is a version of the incredibly accurate SCUD missile and the fact that the UN estimates are Iran is 8-12 years from being able to produce a nuclear warhead. Then again that depends on how much aid the receive in that effort from other countries.

The F-4 is one of my favorite jets, much like the A-10, but they just purchased the airframes. They are equipt with Mavericks and other older direct line of fire missile. Technology from the 70's which are current weapon systems are designed to destroy with 85-90% hard kill.

The F-14s. Sell them more. They are expensive to maintain with the amount of hydraulic systems on board not to mention the nasty little marking they have painted on the aft part of the fuselage. It is commonly reffered to as the 'line of death'. The engine they were designed has a nasty habit of the turbine blades coming loose.

And their 200+nm/hr torpedo, also known as a SUBROC, is 1970s technology. We already have these and don't use them. Fast yes, accurate no.

Especially with Iran, I mean, they control a large chunk of those oil imports. They could literally bankrupt america overnight if they felt the urge. Tis why the US is using 'kid gloves' in this matter.

Not really. The large difference between Iraq and Iran is the US doesn't wish to lose an entire Carrier Strike Group or Expeditionary Strike Group. Iran is a more militarily competent and a more miliarily viable opponent. Should Iran decide to strike first, we will lose an entire battle group. They have hundreds of small boat, much like dads fishing boat or speed boat, located in several bases along the Straits of Hormus. They will attack in a swarm armed with RPGs, machine guns, and the suicide attack. And they are trying, and may already have, the SS-N-27 cruise missle. A nasty little weapon developed by the Russians being sold. After they shoot their load, the US will launch retaliation to remove any further reaching threat and be mired into a long term rebuilding process in lesser hospitable terrain conditions than Iraq. At least that's my synopsis.

The Iraqi army is a joke

Sure they are. After all they have no history of fighting skills. This has been a region of tranquility for so many years. <sarcasm dripping here> They are a lot harder than you and, from what I have read, so is a kindergarten class. The Iraqi people have a proud history and they know how to fight for their land, beliefs, and families.

[angel_dark_demon_bright]

Alright, the iraqi army is not a joke, they are new. As soon as they get organized they will be able to work effectivly and efficienntly as a fighting force. Give them a little time. Most of these soldiers have been out of work since 03. As i recall there was a country trying to fight for its freedom in like 1940..something. Heres a synopsis because i know you wouldnt take the time to check any real sources. Little weak nation in angle-land is being attacked by evil evil men in planes. As this country is fighting for it life and starting to draw its last breath a few yanks come in and save the day. Now that little country is once again one of the stongest on earth, thanks to the yanks that saved your ass. Nice of you to show your trust and appreciation to the country of whom you owe you life.

[Elder]

Makes me wonder, if bush gets his way, will this newly recruited iraq army be used as an allie in Bush's Co-alition. Iran and Iraq are old enemies.

Just train the Iraqi army, spin up an old enemy as a new threat, and send the Iraqi army in.
More free cannon fodder (it won't be the US paying for Iraqi army vets who return). Surpirsed nobody has publicly even mentioned this. And yes, I can see Blair sending more Brits in. I have always supported the troops doign their duty. What I don't support is the regimes that put them there in that position.

[Elder]

Oh, and another thing, a war is good for the economy when things are stale.
Arms manufacturers make profits.
Medical companies make profits.
Supporting industries make profits.
Even employment companies make profits, but more temp workers are needed, as reserves get called up, and their jobs need filling temporarily.

[angel_dark_demon_bright]

Originally Posted by Elder

Makes me wonder, if bush gets his way, will this newly recruited iraq army be used as an allie in Bush's Co-alition. Iran and Iraq are old enemies.

Just train the Iraqi army, spin up an old enemy as a new threat, and send the Iraqi army in.
More free cannon fodder (it won't be the US paying for Iraqi army vets who return). Surpirsed nobody has publicly even mentioned this. And yes, I can see Blair sending more Brits in. I have always supported the troops doign their duty. What I don't support is the regimes that put them there in that position.

Since this is a new Iraqi government I doubt that iraqi troops will be used as 'cannon fodder' as you put it. If there is ever a war between the U.S. and Iran (which i also doubt) the iraqi army probebly would be asked to fight, but no more than we would ask from anyother country like britain, or australia.

Oh, and another thing, a war is good for the economy when things are stale.
Arms manufacturers make profits.
Medical companies make profits.
Supporting industries make profits.
Even employment companies make profits, but more temp workers are needed, as reserves get called up, and their jobs need filling temporarily.

Yes it is good for the economy temporaily, but that is only if the nation is into it full force like it was back in WWII, WWI, or the civil war. This one is only being fought for by our militatry, and so is not going to do much the way some might have thought it would. And what happens when those soldiers return home? In the end it doesnt return more than has been put into it. Im actully curious as to if you support the war or not?

And p.s., this thread had been dead for quite some time.

[Elder]

Sorry, didn't think that two weeks gap in posts made a thread dead.
As it happens, I do not support forced regime change of another sovereign state based on lies and deception.

As I said, I support the troops doign their duty, not the governments that sent them there.
And as for Iraqi cannon fodder. Very easy, how much, even after the US/UK companies have ***** the lands, do you think will be left to pay the "liberators" for the debt owed in international loans to fund the government rebuilding of Iraqi. Billions will be owed, mainly to the "liberators". Liberators who need a new fighting force. The Iran/Iraq war isn't that long ago. Remember, America equiped both sides in that ones.

Also, a war is decent for kickstarting a waning economy, just like it is for helping to drain a bloated one.
Plus you get a little population control of your poorest most needy citizens.

[angel_dark_demon_bright]

Originally Posted by Elder

Sorry, didn't think that two weeks gap in posts made a thread dead.
As it happens, I do not support forced regime change of another sovereign state based on lies and deception.
As I said, I support the troops doign their duty, not the governments that sent them there.
And as for Iraqi cannon fodder. Very easy, how much, even after the US/UK companies have ***** the lands, do you think will be left to pay the "liberators" for the debt owed in international loans to fund the government rebuilding of Iraqi. Billions will be owed, mainly to the "liberators". Liberators who need a new fighting force. The Iran/Iraq war isn't that long ago. Remember, America equiped both sides in that ones.

Also, a war is decent for kickstarting a waning economy, just like it is for helping to drain a bloated one.
Plus you get a little population control of your poorest most needy citizens.

I wasnt sure. it was difficult to tell from your previous post. Actually I doubt that the U.S. will make them repay us. Especially for all the blood we shed. If there is a war with iran, iraq will be asked to help, but they will not be forced to take all the casualties. They may receive more casualties, but through no deliberate stratagy of ours.

And yes, a war can help your economy, it can make it grow much in a time of need but people still die. And there are better ways to improve the economy. So, what? Are you saying the world would be a better place if we just sent all the poor men off to fight in war? You know, this sort of 'rich mans war, poor mans fight' thing happened in the civil war. Hmm. maybe your right. and you know while we're at it we can take all the crippled, insane and sick people and send them to this new camp idea. Where they will spend the rest of their lives making the world a better place. No one ever said the words neo holocaust.

[Elder]

I'm not saying that all the poor people "should" be sent off at all.
It's just with nearly 40 years of life experience, I've become very cynical of the motives of Politicians.

The only time you can be certain what they say is the truth, is when the lips aren't moving.

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by Elder

Remember, America equiped both sides in that ones.

And France, Russia and any other country willing to sell munitions.

Originally Posted by angeldarkdemonbright

And p.s., this thread had been dead for quite some time.

I would agree with Elder. Better to post in this thread than to create a new one on the same topic. It's not like Elder said some short little 'I agree' phrase but provide a geniune new response to be discussed.

[DeadBeauty]

As Plato said
"Only the dead has seen the end of the war."
And hes a wicked philosipher.

[CptSternn]

From the front page today, what I was arguing earlier...

Iran's Mideast influence boosted by "war on terror"

http://news.**********/s/nm/20060823...ideast_iran_dc

LONDON (Reuters) - Iran's standing in the Middle East has been bolstered by President George W Bush's "war on terror" and its power will continue to grow unless stability is restored to its neighbors, a top think tank said on Tuesday.

London's Royal Institute for International Affairs said wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's conflict with the Palestinians and with Lebanon's Hizbollah had put Iran "in a position of considerable strength."

"There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East," the RIIA said in a report on the region.

"The United States, with coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran's regional rival governments -- the Taliban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in April 2003 -- but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures."

Seeing a regional political void opening, Iran had moved swiftly to fill it, the report said, and now has a level of influence which cannot be ignored.

The report said Tehran sees Iraq as its "own backyard" and had now superseded the U.S. as the most influential power there, affording it a "key role in Iraq's future."

"Iran is also a prominent presence in its other war-torn neighbor with close social ties -- Afghanistan," it added.

The RIIA warned the U.S. that Iran's new-found influence would make it far more difficult to confront Tehran. The West needed to understand better Iran's links with its neighbors to see "why Iran feels able to resist Western pressure," it added.

Western countries, led by the United States, are locked in a bitter dispute with Iran over its nuclear program.

Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, says it will not give up what it says is its right to peaceful nuclear technology. The West suspects Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons.

The RIIA report said Iran would continue to "prevaricate" in the nuclear dispute, confident in its position.

"Iran is simply too important -- for political, economic, cultural, religions and military reasons -- to be treated lightly," the report said.

"The U.S.-driven agenda for confronting Iran is severely compromised by the confident ease with which Iran sits in its region."

Another big issue they didn't touch on is Iran's oil wealth. The more bush uses the terror alert system to keep the people scared, it directly effects the price of oil. Companies like halliburton make billions off of this tactic as well, but lets remember, where the oil they get originates - and that the producers make just as much as the distributors.

So, all these high oil prices, accompanied with all those record profits for oil companies also means Iran has a record amount of wealth it didn't have before.

The irony being - everything the bush admin has so far done to 'protect' america, has had the exact opposite effect.

[Delkaetre]

On the subject of Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan... Russia tried to invade and control this region when Russia was the world's biggest and scariest power. They were closer, more able to get troops in, and had more allies nearby. They failed.
This ought to have given some hint to America, don't you think?
And on the subject of protection, one of America's Founding Fathers said that he who would take away freedom for the sake of safety deserves to have neither.
Again- perhaps a hint to the current administration?

[Binkie]

Russia was the world's biggest and scariest power? First off, it was the Soviet Union that was a rival to the Americans in the cold war. While alot of strength was centered in Moscow, Russia, alone, did not even match up to the US. They didn't have the most nukes in the world at the time and their military strength wasn't necessarily on par with American troops (as evident by their neverending quest to copy our military technology, which they were always behind on). Russia only made up part of the Soviet Union, which still wasn't on par with the US in the 1980s. Again, this is evident in the fact they were slowly in the process of collapsing, hence the fall of East Germany, etc.

At any rate, it wasn't Russia, the country, that invaded, it was a collection of Soviet Socialist Republics known as the Soviet Union. Prior to the invasion, the Soviets had control of the Afghan government, as it was communist government. This is why they poured much military hardware and financial aid into that country. However, they didn't approve of how the president was handling the resistance, and thusly the invasion paved way for them to fight it and "crush it" and install a more "compitent" president.

And what are we heeding in Afghanistan based on the old Soviet War? There wasa culimnation of factors that lead to the resistance, which I'd like to remind you was going on prior to the Soviets ever setting for in that country. It was a process of escalation, not to mention, and pay attention to this because this is key, most of the world's richest countries were funding the resistance.

But at any rate, there aren't hundreds of thousands of Muslims from all over the Arab region heading into Afghanistan. In fact, the only groups who did come in from the outside were primarily those who benefited from al-Qaeda training, such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which has since quieted down since the Northern Alliance and our green berets dealt several heavy blows to them.

Why don't you just errornously throw out the example of Russia's stranglehold of Chechnya while we're at it? That war actually attracted more Arab and Muslim radicals than the modern war in Afghanistan, yet the Russians are still there and have toned fighting to a stable level. This is evident by the fact that security forces no longer have to abduct, kill, and bury truckloads of people as was the case for a long time after the second Chechen War.

What's more is that people who want to equate Afghanistan to somewhere like, say, Iraq, don't seem to understand that the entire situation is inverted. Whereas with Vietnam, the capital and a few isolated towns were under control, the rest of the country was chaotic. In the case of Iraq, it's just Baghdad that's chaotic, if you can even call it that (you don't have alot of open fighting anymore - just suicide bombers and IEDs).

And yeah, the "hint to the current administration" bit is nice, considering military planners that were responsible for our operations in Afghanistan were some of the same folks that helped drive the Soviets out. They know the tatics, networks, and activities the Soviets used that did and didn't work. No, I think they took these things into consideration, which is why the only real topic people can find to really complain about in Afghanistan is opium production.

[CptSternn]

One would think after taking such a beating at the polls bush would stop trying to defy the world, and his own people, by starting unjust wars, but...

White House brushes off CIA report on Iran: report

http://news.**********/s/nm/20061120..._usa_report_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House dismissed a classified
CIA draft assessment that found no conclusive evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program, the New Yorker reported.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said the CIA's analysis was based on technical intelligence collected by overhead satellites and on other evidence like measurements of the radioactivity of water samples.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that
Iran has declared to the
International Atomic Energy Agency," according to the article.

"A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it," it said.

The United States has accused Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy program.

The article, in the current issue of the magazine, discussed how Vice President
Dick Cheney believed the Bush administration would deal with Iran if the Republicans lost control of Congress as they did in the November 7 election.

"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing an unidentified source familiar with the discussion.

On a good note, the pentagon said yesterday they couldn't 'go big' in Iraq because they don't have the troops. That also means the US military can't go attacking anywhere, especially since all available resources are tied up in the Iraq quagmire.

[LostAndCrazy]

I do not think that Iran has WMD's but they certainly are hell bent on developing them. They have a nuclear programme that is probably covertly researching nuclear technology for use in war time although they claim it is for peaceful purposes. Technology they bought in all likelihood from Pakistan. America is making threats yet I dont see them saying as much about North Korea who recently actually successfully tested a nuclear device.

This whole situation reeks of hypocrisy.

[TSW|Abaddon]

Not to be rude but pay more attention to the news then. There has been plenty of talk about NK. IMO the only hypocrisy I see is people allowing one regime or two regime changes based on WMD's but not Iraq.

[LostAndCrazy]

Plenty but not enough. Nowhere near the kind of coverage thrown Iran's way.

[Binkie]

Like TSW said, the recent testing of long range missiles and the underground nuke test recieved LOTS of attention all around the world. Prior to those events and long after them, there's alot of political dialogue and action that will go on that you'll never hear about concerning the DRPK in the papers. Most folks don't even know why the six party talks collapsed last time around, but that's because the media outlets are far more concerned over conflict in the Middle East as opposed to cooperation in Eastern Asia.

One of the reasons the picturesque tabloid rhetoric coming from political leaders isn't kicked into the same high gear with the DPRK as with the Islamic Republic is because the approaches are different. We're working on disarming the DRPK through cooperation and detering Iran through intimidation (since incentives recieved nothing but stonewalling). When the DPRK walks away from cooperation and conducts nuclear tests, as was done so recently, that's when you get quotes such as, "North Korea can have a nuclear bomb or a future, but it can't have both," coming from politicians.

I doubt in the future the new UN Secretary General, who is South Korean, is going to bring the North Korean issue back to the front pages despite a strong desire to shine the spotlight on it. Unless North Korea does something extremely provocative, it just isn't news the Associated Press is interested in putting in it's headlines. Annan tried to do this to the crisis in Darfur hundreds of times in the past to no real avail. Recently that is slowly begining to change, but it's an unchanging situation and thusly not priority numero uno for foreign coorespondants.

[BloodOfBaby]

Hey Cap'n
Seen as you're getting piled on my americans i thought i'd jump in.

Americans you need to face the facts your country is in shit there are so many people that could completely destroy your entire government.
Bush is infcat a tosser who if he had braincells wouldn't know that rubbing them makes brain go whizz whizz

but anyway you, in this argument, are defending an undefendable country
Your gov is pussy footing around Iraq because of the many reasons that Sternn noted in his first post

Amerca= large ammounts of BS

and i havn't met many americans and i'm sure you're not all as thick as pig shit but many of you are

but no hard feelings eh?

-- just as a little foot note

how the fuck can developing big fuck-off exploding nuclear things be for peace. that is pure crap