Iran?

CptSternn · 04-17-2006, 05:58 PM

We all hear the tough talk on Iran, but lets face it, the US is getting is arse handed to them in Iraq. They couldn't start another war if they wanted.

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.

Think about it. The bush regime claimed it invaded Iraq because they were a threat, had WMDs, were developing nukes, and hated america.

Iran HAS WMD's, IS developing nukes (and aknowledges it), are a threat, and HATES america (and says so).

Funny they haven't 'acted' on that. In fact...

US to urge other world powers to act against Iran

http://news.**********/s/nm/nuclear_i...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

The US has made itself impotent. No one believes anything they say, and no one cares. People also feel they pick on small countries they know they can whip, or think they can, and will cut and run once they feel threatened.

Anyone else see the US avoiding Iran because they are nothing but cowards?

angel_dark_demon_bright · 04-17-2006, 06:29 PM

Ok, A) Not a nation of cowardice, more a nation of politics.
B) We dont want Iran to develop wmds because Iran will most likely allow these weapons to fall into the hands religious extremists who will use these against the US.
Russia cant even provide adequete security for their nukes. Do you really think Iran would go to extreme lengths to keep these from falling into the hands of terroists?

Binkie · 04-17-2006, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Iran HAS WMD's, IS developing nukes (and aknowledges it), are a threat, and HATES america (and says so).

Golly! WTF are you doing here, Sternn?!? Get your ass to the UN and show them the inconclusive evidence that Iran has WMDs! I mean, no one has produced any hard evidence to date, and no one knows of Iranian officials having ever stated that they are developing nuclear weapons (minus the erroneous misreporting that got CNN kicked out of Iran).

And just to be clear, the realistic military option that's being waved around is bombing their nuclear facilities. Not a full-scale ground invasion. Israel has that same option on their own table.

Blushing Heliophobe · 04-17-2006, 11:22 PM

God, spare us and shut up already Sternn.

Or at least change the radio station.

CptSternn · 04-18-2006, 03:35 AM

http://news.**********/s/nm/iran_mili...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Iran did not show off its longest range missile, the Shahab-3, which it says can hit targets 2,000 km (1,250 miles) away, putting Israel or U.S. bases in the Gulf in range.

Iran staged war games in the Gulf this month and tested what it said was a radar-evading missile, a high-speed sonar-evading torpedo and other equipment it said the country had developed.

http://news.**********/s/nm/markets_o...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil surged to a record high above $72 on Tuesday on concern that Iran's nuclear stand-off with the West could cut oil exports from the world's fourth-largest crude exporter.

All the sabre rattling in the world from the US won't mean anything. As mentioned in a previous post, the petro-dollar cycling system is why the US can run a deficit government budget. No Iranian oil money flowing in would crush the US economy. That, and the fact Iran could easily attack US forces in Iraq, using US technology, including various war planes and missles, which at that short distance would be so effective they would cripple the US forces in Iraq, and the US military worldwide.

angel_dark_demon_bright · 04-18-2006, 08:34 AM

I think you overestimate their capability.

Cambodian Breakfast · 04-18-2006, 08:57 AM

Lets see, u.s. war planes. NO! The have older Russian Migs. Do you really have any idea what you are talking about? What missles do they have that we gave them? The u.s. military world wide. Come on. Think about it.

Binkie · 04-18-2006, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

http://news.**********/s/nm/iran_mili...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Iran did not show off its longest range missile, the Shahab-3, which it says can hit targets 2,000 km (1,250 miles) away, putting Israel or U.S. bases in the Gulf in range.

Iran staged war games in the Gulf this month and tested what it said was a radar-evading missile, a high-speed sonar-evading torpedo and other equipment it said the country had developed.

Heh... the Shahab-3 is a ballistic missle, not a nuclear warhead. It can be fitted with a nuclear warhead, but also a conventional warhead. So if this is your attempt to show that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, there's nothing "admiting" about this. It's not "evidence" of anything other than they're building medium range missiles.

CptSternn · 04-18-2006, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cambodian Breakfast

Lets see, u.s. war planes. NO! The have older Russian Migs. Do you really have any idea what you are talking about? What missles do they have that we gave them? The u.s. military world wide. Come on. Think about it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...n/airforce.htm

Throughout the 1970s, Iran purchased sophisticated aircraft for the air force. The acquisition of 77 F-14A Tomcat fighters added to 166 F-5 fighters and 190 F-4 Phantom fighter-bombers, gave Iran a strong defensive and a potential offensive capability. Before the end of his reign, the shah placed orders for F-16 fighters and even contemplated the sharing of development costs for the United States Navy's new F-18 fighter.

Cambodian Breakfast · 04-18-2006, 09:31 PM

But not us fighters. The aircraft companines are allowed to sell to anyone. The sell tem really sjitty viersions. They don't have any f-16. And f-14 are pices of shit. We use the f-4's for target pratice as unmanned droans. So There you go noy knowing what you are talking about.

Pathogen. · 04-24-2006, 05:31 PM

There has been talk about the Bush-Cheney regime looking to invade Iran [as well as Syria] 3 years ago. Looks like the Texas Hangman & his Cabinet/P.N.A.C. cronies are following through with their plans to instigate another Middle Eastern-based war. For the same reasons as the ongoing Gulf War 2 in Iraq. Only this time, there's actually evidence of Iran holding nuclear W.M.D.s, but it's only a small number compared to the amount this nation's military has. When the U.$. federal government [especially the Pentagon] starts focusing on another nation's nuclear weapons arsenal & hype it up to sound like that foreign nation is looking to kick off a war, 4 words come to mind:

THIS GOVERNMENT HATES COMPETITION.

It's already the sole superpower & wants to stay that way. Anyone that challeneges that is considered competition, an immediate foe, a "clear & present danger" to national security". But a lot of you already know that.

So ends my rant.

Cambodian Breakfast · 04-25-2006, 10:46 AM

I forgot to say that the u.s. really can't go to war with Iran right now bucase of the downsizing in the military. We don't have enough people. Russia would get pissed as well. We really don't need that.

Pathogen. · 04-25-2006, 02:53 PM

The Bush-Cheney regime can attempt to form an international coalition of allies against Iran, but it would be a tough sell. Consider that many nations around the world already hate the United $tates for myriad reasons [economic globalisation & cultural imperialism--2 interconnected policies/concepts--for instance]. There weren't enough nations supporting the U.$.-led "Coalition of the Willing" at the start of Gulf War 2 [I'm still surprised Afghanistan--a flashpoint for U.$. military occupation--was even included on the list!]. So what makes them think that they'll get international support for this?

Then there's Cambodian Breakfast's point about downsizing in the military. Recruitment for any of the armed forces are at its lowest currently, but personally, I consider that a good thing. Less cannon fodder. Less working-class young men & women of colour to be shot in the battlezone. Less people in uniform to die for this government's war for petrol & "full-spectrum dominance".

End rant here.

CptSternn · 04-26-2006, 04:25 AM

Wow, I couldn't have said it better.

I will add one thing - the Army met its recruiting goal last month, first time since the war started. Of course, they dropped the goal by 30%, raised the enlistment age, and took in people who only failed their ASVAP scores by 4%. But hey, now they can say they 'met their goals'

Cooking the books! Thats the american way! Or should I say lowering the bar!

Blushing Heliophobe · 04-26-2006, 05:35 AM

That's ASVAB, asshat. Do your research. And there's no way to fail one. I know, because I took it and it's not scored that way. It measures your aptitude to learn different skills...not your IQ.

Once again.

Talking out of your ass.

CptSternn · 04-26-2006, 07:50 AM

Really?

Army to Lower Bar for Recruits
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2086091.story

US Army Lowers Recruiting Standards Due To Iraqhttp://www.parapundit.com/archives/003026.html

How low can Army recruiters go?
http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/nav/tap1/

Army lowers recruit standards
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...n/14282888.htm

It is accepting more from a reject pool and granting more waivers for criminal convictions and drug use.

WASHINGTON - The Army is taking increasing numbers of applicants it once judged substandard.

The percentage of recruits once rejected - and now accepted - on account of criminal convictions, drug use or medical conditions rose to 15 percent in fiscal 2005 from 10 percent in 2001, service statistics show.

The Army also is taking more recruits from a pool it judges least-qualified, based on education and scores on a cognitive aptitude test. Army Secretary Francis Harvey said up to 2,873 of these applicants would be taken this year, 16 percent more than the 2,476 in fiscal 2005 and an increase of 131 percent over the 1,245 taken in 2001.

The practice runs counter to the Pentagon's plan to increase its numbers of Special Forces, skilled technicians and linguists - soldiers able not only to defeat an enemy but also to stabilize conquered nations through cultural awareness and street-level diplomacy.

"They're quietly trading quality for quantity in the interest of getting their numbers up," said Cindy Williams, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor specializing in military personnel policy. "It's a very troubling trade-off."

Harvey told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February that the Army in the first four months of fiscal 2006 used up two-thirds of its annual limit of recruits from its pool of those least-qualified - and that limit was doubled last year.

The few, the not-so-proud, the waivered in.

Blushing Heliophobe · 04-26-2006, 07:51 AM

Sternn.

Do you understand what the meaning of the word 'aptitude' is?

*sighs*

CptSternn · 04-27-2006, 03:06 AM

Yes. I also understand the us miltary lowers the bar when pressured for results.

Are you arguing they haven't? Are you not reading the articles there or are you just in denial?

See, the reason the Iraqi's will win, and by Iraqi's I mean insurgents, is because of their drive.

The US military recruits people using million dollar ad campaigns, pay bonuses, false promises, and the threat of jail if you fail to disobey.

The Iraqi's they are fighting are dirt poor, pious, and sign up to fight merely because of their beliefs. Their religion, family, and homeland is what drives them to fight.

You can't win if your fighting those ideals, no matter how much technology you have on your side. Especially if your army doesn't even know who or what it's fighting for, doesn't have support of the public at home, and is held beyond it's promised deployment time and continually lied to about going home (i.e. the old stick and carrot routine).

Blushing Heliophobe · 04-27-2006, 11:30 PM

First off, yes I do watch the news. But see, I have an advantage over you, Sternn - I'm actually in the military so I know more about it than you do from what you may have gleaned from newspapers. Does that bother you? Apparently so.

The military is doing the best it can when it's in 1. too many places, 2. with too few people, 3. with aging equipment, and 4. getting all the blame from fucktards like you for trying to do an impossible mission for people who don't care, being led by someone who doesn't give two shits about us.

So you can kindly shove your sentiments up your ass as far as I'm concerned on how well the military is doing.

Of course they have to use cool ad campaigns. They need to recruit more bodies. It's simple supply and demand. Or is that too harsh for your bleeding heart?

There are no more pay bonuses. Of course, the newspaper didn't tell you that but I know because yet again, I know more about the situation than you do.

Prison isn't a recruitment tactic, idiot. It's a retention tactic. And since I'm the one who has to worry about it and not you, why do you care? Oh, that's right - you don't.

Not that I believe we should even be in Iraq, but your pathetic attempts to sanctify terrorists and insurgents are laughable at best.

CptSternn · 04-28-2006, 06:14 AM

These are people willing to strap explosive on themselves, run into a crowd of enemy troops, and blow themselves up, for what they believe in, not money.

How american troops compete with that? How many american troops are that dedicated?

You might say that they are 'crazy', but if it were just 'crazy' then it wouldn't be happening all the time, unless you believe half the middle east is crazy. And if you believe that, it explains why the US will never win - they can't comprehend the culture and mindset of the people they claim to be 'liberating'.

Blushing Heliophobe · 04-28-2006, 06:31 AM

Hmm, let me review my posts...

Nope. Never called suicide bombers crazy.

Nope. Never called what's going on in Iraq 'Liberation'.

What I would say is...

Anyone who perpetuates an act of voilence in which innocent people are likely to die is a self centered egotist for whom death is an easy alternative to the punishment they deserve.

No, I am not dedicated enough to 'strap a bomb on my back' and run into a group of people. WTF? Are you stupid?

I don't think we should be in Iraq. I don't want to go. I don't want my husband to go.

Cambodian Breakfast · 04-28-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

These are people willing to strap explosive on themselves, run into a crowd of enemy troops, and blow themselves up, for what they believe in, not money.

How american troops compete with that? How many american troops are that dedicated?

You might say that they are 'crazy', but if it were just 'crazy' then it wouldn't be happening all the time, unless you believe half the middle east is crazy. And if you believe that, it explains why the US will never win - they can't comprehend the culture and mindset of the people they claim to be 'liberating'.

You habve know idea how dedicated american troops are. You are not an american and not in the military. Shut the fuck up. I have freinds that have died in combat. You a person that has never been but in a hostil situation, shouldn't talk shit on our troops. I don't care if you talk shit about the goverment. But you should watch you mouth about the troops. They may be fighting for a cause they don't believe in, but they do it becuase their are dedicated.

You don't see the thing that I do. I packed for a deploment to a place I can't say, and I packed 50 pounds of candy. Do you know why? So are troops could give it out to kids.

Sternn you shouldn't say anything about anybody unless you would say it to their face. I know that you wouldn't say anything like you just posted to a marines face. Would you?

angel_dark_demon_bright · 04-28-2006, 09:40 AM

Cambodian Breakfast, good post and points, but before you do post, proofread what you write.

Cambodian Breakfast · 04-28-2006, 09:41 AM

I am sorry I was knid of mad.

Binkie · 04-28-2006, 02:03 PM

Sternn, it's funny that you say Iraqis in general and insurgents are synonymous as though all Iraqis are insurgents. Last assessment made put the total number of insurgents in Iraq at between 12,000 - 20,000 real fighters. Meanwhile the Iraqi security forces consist of 100s of thousands of Iraqis. Hmmmmm... Then let's get into the number of Iraqis in the government and you've got ALOT more. Hmmmm... Then we get into how many people participated in the last election. Hmmmm...