Iran scoffs at US strike talk

[herrmag]

Bolded statements are direct quotes from the article, and the italicized are mine.

Iran scoffs at US strike talk

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060420/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc

Click the link for the full article

"The United States has been threatening Iran for 27 years and this is not new for us. Therefore we are never afraid of U.S. threats," Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar told reporters during a visit to neighboring Azerbaijan.

"If you take into account the fact that they are not doing anything, this shows it is just talk," he said.

Wow. Pretty "ballsy". Pretty true as well. At least so far.

Russia, however, rejected a call from the United States, which has long maintained its own trade embargo on Iran, to halt work on the Islamic Republic's Bushehr nuclear power station.

Russia's state atomic energy agency is contracted to help Iran build the $1 billion reactor. A senior U.S. official said on Wednesday that a Russian withdrawal would help persuade Iran to abandon its separate uranium enrichment program.

"Every country has the right to decide for itself with whom and in what way it cooperates with other states," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said, adding that only the U.N. Security Council could override this principle.

Seriously, is the Cold War part deux about to begin? I no longer have any doubt about Russia. They are NOT allies.

Speaking in Moscow, UnderSecretary of State Nicholas Burns had also repeated Washington's view that Moscow should cancel the planned sale to Iran of Tor tactical surface-to-air missiles. Moscow and Tehran say they are for defensive purposes.

Can you believe this? UN "brothers" selling arms to a country for which we are about to impose sanctions.

"We reached an agreement with Russia to ... jointly push for a resolution through negotiation," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang, urging all parties to show restraint and flexibility.

Wow, how proud he must be. Don't strain yorself and get anything actually accomplished Qin. So he essentially got Russia to agree that they should attempt to come to some sort of agreement, right? The author of Dilbert really needs to expand his comic strip to include world politics.

[Taylor 36]

Boom-boom time is coming. Sad, but true and very long overdue.

[akorn22]

Boom-boom time is coming. Sad, but true and very long overdue.

I think he's right. Too much tension has been building up between countries. I am a proud Republican and I started out a Bush supporter. But like many other Republicans these days, I realize that Bush has gone overboard in his term as president and now can be putting the country in danger.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

"The United States has been threatening Iran for 27 years and this is not new for us. Therefore we are never afraid of U.S. threats," Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar told reporters during a visit to neighboring Azerbaijan.

"If you take into account the fact that they are not doing anything, this shows it is just talk," he said.

Yep. Right there in black and white folks. This is why threats that are not backed up with bullets are completely worthless. We've been "talking tough" to Iran for pretty much my entire lifetime and DOING absolutely nothing to back that "tough" talk up. We're the bully who talks tough but never actually throws a punch.

Well, I say it's time to start throwing punches. At Iran, Syria, North Korea, and a whole bunch of other places. Either that, or we need to withdraw inside our borders and become isolationists. Carrying a gun is no good if you're not willing to use it when it's needed. That's where we are as a country right now.

[bird_1972]

Yep. Right there in black and white folks. This is why threats that are not backed up with bullets are completely worthless. We've been "talking tough" to Iran for pretty much my entire lifetime and DOING absolutely nothing to back that "tough" talk up. We're the bully who talks tough but never actually throws a punch.

Well, I say it's time to start throwing punches. At Iran, Syria, North Korea, and a whole bunch of other places. Either that, or we need to withdraw inside our borders and become isolationists. Carrying a gun is no good if you're not willing to use it when it's needed. That's where we are as a country right now.

How do you propose to undertake such a large-scale military effort when our forces are bogged down in Iraq?

Even under ideal circumstances, do you really think we have to size to pursue effective missions in all of the countries you mentioned simultaneously?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

How do you propose to undertake such a large-scale military effort when our forces are bogged down in Iraq?

Even under ideal circumstances, do you really think we have to size to pursue effective missions in all of the countries you mentioned simultaneously?

To paraphrase a former Executive of the United States....

"Speak Softly and Carry a Thermo-Nuclear Device."

[bird_1972]

To paraphrase a former Executive of the United States....

"Speak Softly and Carry a Thermo-Nuclear Device."

So, you advocate simultaneously dropping nuclear weapons on Syria, Iran, and North Korea? Somehow seems a bit extreme and unrealistic, don't you think?

[Thanos]

To paraphrase a former Executive of the United States....

"Speak Softly and Carry a Thermo-Nuclear Device."

:mad: :doh: :laugh:

[Redskins Diehard]

How do you propose to undertake such a large-scale military effort when our forces are bogged down in Iraq?

Even under ideal circumstances, do you really think we have to size to pursue effective missions in all of the countries you mentioned simultaneously?

The only place our military is bogged down is in the evening news. Realize that the logistical trains are what consumes so much of our forces and quite frankly, those trains are almost perfectly aligned to support action in Iran, In fact we have our very own logistical bases in neighboring countries on both sides.

I'm not advocating a land based assault, but if we wanted to it certainly is an option.

[Leonard Washington]

So, you advocate simultaneously dropping nuclear weapons on Syria, Iran, and North Korea? Somehow seems a bit extreme and unrealistic, don't you think?

i agree.

i wish we could revert to some sort of a happy medium between minding our own business and meddling in everything that could indirectly effect us.

[twenty-eight]

BOMB those A rabs!

[Thanos]

The only place our military is bogged down is in the evening news. Realize that the logistical trains are what consumes so much of our forces and quite frankly, those trains are almost perfectly aligned to support action in Iran, In fact we have our very own logistical bases in neighboring countries on both sides.

I'm not advocating a land based assault, but if we wanted to it certainly is an option.

Please check your facts cuz that ain't entirely true.

[fight_on_til_you_have_won]

How do you propose to undertake such a large-scale military effort when our forces are bogged down in Iraq?

Even under ideal circumstances, do you really think we have to size to pursue effective missions in all of the countries you mentioned simultaneously?

:applause: I said essentially the same thing in another thread. Of course, when I said it, out comes Sarge hurling insults. :doh:

[twenty-eight]

So basically this is going to turn into world war III

[bird_1972]

The only place our military is bogged down is in the evening news. Realize that the logistical trains are what consumes so much of our forces and quite frankly, those trains are almost perfectly aligned to support action in Iran, In fact we have our very own logistical bases in neighboring countries on both sides.

I'm not advocating a land based assault, but if we wanted to it certainly is an option.

I'm not a military expert, so I won't pretend to be one.

BUT, if you are saying what we've been shown via. the media is untrue and that our forces in Iraq are adequate and things are going well, why is it we continually hear about scores of terrorists/resistance fighters committing acts weekly? Why is it that we dont have that country on lock-down?

Furthermore, are you also telling me it is realistic to assume we have the forces to:

1) keep peace in Iraq (which I would submit we are barely doing now if at all)

2) invade and stabilize neighboring Iran

3) conduct meaningful military operations simultaneously against Syria and N.Korea

[Redskins Diehard]

Please check your facts cuz that ain't entirely true.

What is false about it? What forces do we have committed? Which ones do we have available? What percentage of our combat power is "bogged down" in iraq? And how easily could we "unbog" our forces that are in a perfect strategic location?

Are you saying that our military could not handle it? I never said it would be easy, but it is certainly doable.

[bird_1972]

Are you saying that our military could not handle it? I never said it would be easy, but it is certainly doable.

That doesn't mean it will be effective IF DONE.

We should optimize every military situation before sending our country's sons and daughters to die for thier country. By sending weary soldiers that are already on extended tours away from home in a seemingly enless, festering conflict in Iraq does not seem to define "optimal".

[Mass_SkinsFan]

So, you advocate simultaneously dropping nuclear weapons on Syria, Iran, and North Korea? Somehow seems a bit extreme and unrealistic, don't you think?

Yes. What I would have REALLY advocated was dropping nukes in North Korea in the 1950's, Iran in 1979, and Syria during the Lebanon debacle. Unfortunately the POTUS in each case didn't have the balls/guts to do what was necessary.

[Redskins Diehard]

That doesn't mean it will be effective IF DONE.

We should optimize every military situation before sending our country's sons and daughters to die for thier country. By sending weary soldiers that are already on extended tours away from home in a seemingly enless, festering conflict in Iraq does not seem to define "optimal".

Is this thread about the US striking Iran, or Iraq? This is not a referendum on Iraq...if the National Command Authority decided that a land based option was the desired course of action, then the military would be more than capable of delivering. And if anything, has learned lessaons from that "festering" conflict.

[vinva]

Are you saying that our military could not handle it? I never said it would be easy, but it is certainly doable.

I'm saying that. The optempo is too high as it is across the board. Could we do it if necessary (i.e. we were being attacked)...yes. Should we do it if not necessary...absolutely not. Unilateral action by the US in Iran is the last thing the world needs right now and is probably the worst thing that could happen to this country from an international relations stand point.

[herrmag]

I'm saying that. The optempo is too high as it is across the board. Could we do it if necessary (i.e. we were being attacked)...yes. Should we do it if not necessary...absolutely not. Unilateral action by the US in Iran is the last thing the world needs right now and is probably the worst thing that could happen to this country from an international relations stand point.

Very true, and can't disagree with you...But do we just sit idly by while Russia assists them in their quest of nuclear technology? My fear is that in 10 years we'll look back at this day and think "Damn, I wish we had done something 10 years ago".

[Larry]

In defense of the debate between "we can't secure Iraq" and "we can attack Iran":

If your objective is to turn Iran into a desirable place to build a new Disneyland, then no, we don't have the available troops.

But if your objective is to defeat the Iranian military enough so that we can drop some bombs on the nuke facilities, than land some troops, kick in the door, "de-militirize" the place, and leave; then well, that's a mission that doesn't require the same force composition.

(Just please, Mr. W, keep in mind that an operation like that will have "costs" that will last far beyond the FY '08 budget.)

[vinva]

Very true, and can't disagree with you...But do we just sit idly by while Russia assists them in their quest of nuclear technology? My fear is that in 10 years we'll look back at this day and think "Damn, I wish we had done something 10 years ago".

I agree...but we've dug ourselves a hole here. We have used up whatever good will capital we have at this point...any military action has to through the UN (and this really pains me to say because I will be the first one to call the UN ineffective). We don't have a choice though.

[Redskins Diehard]

I'm saying that. The optempo is too high as it is across the board. Could we do it if necessary (i.e. we were being attacked)...yes. Should we do it if not necessary...absolutely not. Unilateral action by the US in Iran is the last thing the world needs right now and is probably the worst thing that could happen to this country from an international relations stand point.

Optempo should not be a deciding factor. We should NEVER do it if not necessary. The pitfalls of unilateral action is a completely different subject...

If we can do it when being attacked, we can do it now.

For someone with such a high optempo, you sure do spend a lot of time on here;) (just joking)

[vinva]

Optempo should not be a deciding factor. We should NEVER do it if not necessary. The pitfalls of unilateral action is a completely different subject...for someone with such a high optempo, you sure do spend a lot of time on here;) (just joking)

Coming to the end of a 2 year shore duty after doing 4 years at sea...thanks for noticing though.

And optempo is part of the decision...let's take the navy for example. Right now we are aging our ships at a ridiculous pace because we just don't have the time to do all the work that is really needed during scheduled availabilities...more and more of which are becoming pier-side vice in a shipyard. Cruiser modernization has been pushed back 5 or 6 times now because they can not be spared from the fleet for long enough to get it done. Not to mention that much of the money from the development programs designing the next generation of ships is being diverted to the war effort, further exacerbating the problem.

Add another front to this war and this just gets worse, especially when I think we all can agree that a miltary effort in Iran will be larger than Iraq and Afghanistan put together.

As for your pitfalls of unilateral action comment...do you really forsee the UN taking any action? I am reading these threads assuming that those advocating action are advocation unilateral action.