Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Iran Gen.: Our finger is always on the trigger

ECU-ALUM

By ECU-ALUM
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

MDRedskinsFan

MDRedskinsFan

Posted
Posted
Rush is generally credited with starting the "they hate our freedom" stuff.

I happen to think that the UN is a bad idea. I happen to think that US membership in the UN is against America's best interests. the fact that hussein's weapons couldn't hit us meant that we had no reason to go in there. the only way I could see going to war is if we had incontrevertible, iron-clad evidence that Iraq or one of its subordinates was going to smuggle a nuke into the US and detonate it. no such evidence exsisted. you don't just start wars on a hunch or leaky evidence thats supposed to be watertight. even if they had WMD (and with the developments of the last few days involving those uranium yellow cakes, thats becoming more likely) thats not a legitamate reason for an invasion. and honestly, i don't care if he didn't cooperate with the UN. sometimes I wish WE would cooperate with the UN less. I don't place much stock in an international body that has authority over our congress. anyway, unless sadam huessein had provoked an act of war, there's no reason to attack Iraq. I mean, to say we were threatened by them is ridiculous. the war was a joke, it lasted a grand total of 3 weeks.

sorry, historically, thats not an act of war. simply testing a weapon is not an act. testing it and saying they will use it on a particular country is an act of war. (and I know that their intention for these weapons was Israel, but still, having a hunch is different).

and why is Israel strong? cause we made them so. honestly, I'm not much in favor of rigid alliances either. historical alliances are better than pact alliances. and just because an ally gets into a war doesn;t mean we imidiateely have to jump into the fray.

trust me, I know we haven't anailated Al Qaeda; I was speaking in hindisght. I was saying thats what we should have done.

we have been involved in foreign affairs because it was necessary due to the soviet union. now its time for us to step down and practice what we preach about self determination. and i beg to differ; we CAN and SHOULD pack up our 131 overseas bases and come home. if we just made our national defence better and left the world alone, no one, and I mean NO ONE would want to **** with us. and if they did, they would meet swift and painful retribution like in WWII.

edit: and don't be too affraid of what might happen to the US, we are technically living in the safest times of this country since 1941-1989.

Actually, I agree with many of your points. I'm just concerned that we won't be able to just pull out of world affairs, and not have to worry about what other countries might be doing. I guess where we stand on this issue depends on the level of trust we have of other countries to abide by their word. Obviously, the Bush administration doesn't trust many countries, and they are less trusting than I'd be.

I also agree about the safest time part, although the main disagreement is on why. Some say because we are at war over there, others say it is because we've accomplished our goals and should retreat. I personally think the big mistake is that we entered this war using normal troops, and that doesn't work for unconventional wars. I think the bulk of this war should be fought on the intel front, being that we are fighting an ideology, not troops. We do need to wrap up our involvement in Iraq as soon as we are sure they can handle themselves, and refocus this war on its main purpose, in combating terrorism. The war on terror should be an offensive war on the intel front, with support from troops as needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarge

Sarge

Posted
Posted

No surprise here

U.S. vows to defend against Iran missile threat

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/10/missile.iran/index.html

CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- responding to Iran's latest test-firings of missiles -- has made it clear Thursday her country is determined to prevent Tehran from threatening the interests of itself and allies like Israel.

Rice said the United States has been working with allies to "make certain that they are capable of defending themselves" against any threat from Iran.

"We take very strongly our obligation to help our allies defend themselves and no one should be confused about that," she said. Watch Rice comment on Iranian missiles »

Rice's remarks came after Iranian leaders said they would strike at Israel and close the Straits of Hormuz if Iran was attacked.

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said the missiles involved in Thursday's test were medium and long-range.

The Iranian news agency Fars said the launches, near the Persian Gulf, were a continuation of Wednesday's maneuvers and that the missiles hit their targets successfully.

Iran's Press TV said a "Hoot" torpedo was among those tested. "The maneuvers have also included IRGC scuba divers and marines who conducted practice assaults with speedboats on hypothetical enemy targets," the station added. Watch Iran's latest test-firing of missiles »

Two years ago a report by Jane's Information Group, which provides information on defense issues, described the "Hoot" or Whale as a sonar-evading underwater missile that Iran had said was "one of the fastest in the world" and "able to outpace warships."

World powers, which have long suspected that Iran is intent on building nuclear weapons, have offered economic and other incentives to Iran in exchange for the suspension of its enrichment program.

Iran, which says its nuclear program is strictly to produce energy, defends its right to proceed with enrichment.

Iran accuses Israel of trying to destabilize the republic; Israel has not ruled out military action to halt Iran's nuclear aspirations.

There are fears that Israel, which has long been concerned that Iran wants to attack the Jewish state, is pondering a unilateral strike against the Islamic Republic.

"If Washington and Tel Aviv are foolish enough to even consider attacking Iran, our initial response would be to target Israel and set U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf ablaze," Ali Shirazi, an aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Tuesday.

The Shahab-3 missile has a range of about 2,000 km, putting all of Israel, Turkey, Pakistan and the Arabian peninsula within striking distance. From Iran the missile's reach extends from southern Russia to the Horn of Africa, from south-eastern Europe to Nepal. See where Iran's missiles could strike »

Zelzal and Fateh missiles were also tested Wednesday during a military exercise called The Great Prophet III, described as a "joint maneuver" by guard corps naval and ground forces in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz region.

The Iranian exercises come a month after an Israeli military drill in the eastern Mediterranean involving dozens of warplanes and aerial tanks. It was seen as a message that Israel has the capability to attack Iran's nuclear program.

Israel issued the same reaction Thursday that it did to Wednesday's missile test. "Israel seeks neither conflict nor hostilities with Iran, but the Iranian nuclear program and the Iranian ballistic missile program must be of concern for the entire International community."

Israel was due Thursday to display an advanced aircraft that is capable of spying on Iran. Israel's Army Radio told CNN that the Eitam airplane is a "practical answer" to recent Iranian "threats."

But Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) -- which manufactures aircraft for both military and civilian use -- said the exhibit was not linked to Israel's recent "tensions" with Iran.

Rather, the airplane is being shown near Ben Gurion International Airport, southeast of Tel Aviv, because it will be at Farnborough International Air Show in southern England next week, an IAI spokeswoman said.

The plane, a Gulfstream G550 business jet that has been modified with sophisticated intelligence-gathering systems, is already part of the Israeli Air Force's fleet.

In her speech Thursday, Rice said a missile defense shield the United States hopes to create in Eastern Europe would be another way to head off any threat from Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarge

Sarge

Posted
Posted
What do you have against Iran? Seriously.

I think they have much more reason to hate us than we do to hate them?

You mean other than training terrorists, sending men and supplies into Iraq to kill our troops, watching them supply and train Hezzbo's to blow up school buses?

Why absolutely nothing :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnLockesGhost

JohnLockesGhost

Posted
Posted
:doh:
:doh: yourself.

Hezbollah is a problem for Israel that they'll have to solve. By the way they have been talking to Lebanon trying to defuse the tension that has existed since its founding.

I find Iran's involvement in Iraq understandable. They have just as much reason to be there as we do. Whatever new regime emerges from the current situation will have to deal with Iran long after it has to deal with the U.S.

When the president of Iran, Ahmadinejad, visited Iraq a few months back, how is it that he announced his visit weeks before and was received in a public ceremony and our own president has to sneak in unannounced under the tightest security to meet privately with Iraq's head of state? Who's more welcome in Iraq?

Furthermore, if Iran's presence in Iraq is so strong, what would the cost in soldiers be if we were to bomb Iran? Wouldn't Iran strike back immediately, not just with missiles, but mortars and explosives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hubbs

Hubbs

Posted
Posted

Furthermore, if Iran's presence in Iraq is so strong, what would the cost in soldiers be if we were to bomb Iran? Wouldn't Iran strike back immediately, not just with missiles, but mortars and explosives?

I have yet to see that issue addressed by anyone who supports bombing Iran. Right now, Iran is covertly interfering with Iraq. If we bomb, Iran is going to send twenty times the men and resources in the form of scattered militia to turn Iraq into an absolute ****show, and supplement that with long-range strikes from its conventional forces. We'll be able to destroy most of those conventional forces soon enough with air power, but Iran has a virtually endless supply of men it can send over the border - and if we try an all-out invasion, we're cooked. Iran is twice the geographic size of Iraq with three times the population. There's no way we could control it, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The whole region would erupt into total chaos, with tens of thousands of our men and women in uniform stuck in the middle.

Bombing Iran isn't just bombing Iran. It's erasing the border between Iran and Iraq, creating a problem several times as large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MDRedskinsFan

MDRedskinsFan

Posted
Posted
I have yet to see that issue addressed by anyone who supports bombing Iran. Right now, Iran is covertly interfering with Iraq. If we bomb, Iran is going to send twenty times the men and resources in the form of scattered militia to turn Iraq into an absolute ****show, and supplement that with long-range strikes from its conventional forces. We'll be able to destroy most of those conventional forces soon enough with air power, but Iran has a virtually endless supply of men it can send over the border - and if we try an all-out invasion, we're cooked. Iran is twice the geographic size of Iraq with three times the population. There's no way we could control it, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The whole region would erupt into total chaos, with tens of thousands of our men and women in uniform stuck in the middle.

Bombing Iran isn't just bombing Iran. It's erasing the border between Iran and Iraq, creating a problem several times as large.

You're assuming we do a conventional bombing campaign and invasion. Let me make this clear, we won't be using ground troops in Iran. This won't be like Iraq. It would be almost exclusively air attacks, IMO. And if there's any nukes involved, which I would hope not, then there won't be any reconstruction involved. Let's just hope they resolve this diplomatically, because I don't want to see the effects of plan B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hubbs

Hubbs

Posted
Posted
You're assuming we do a conventional bombing campaign and invasion. Let me make this clear, we won't be using ground troops in Iran. This won't be like Iraq. It would be almost exclusively air attacks, IMO. And if there's any nukes involved, which I would hope not, then there won't be any reconstruction involved. Let's just hope they resolve this diplomatically, because I don't want to see the effects of plan B.

Perhaps you misread my post... it doesn't matter whether we cross the border with land troops or not. They will, as soon as we start bombing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnLockesGhost

JohnLockesGhost

Posted
Posted
You're assuming we do a conventional bombing campaign and invasion. Let me make this clear, we won't be using ground troops in Iran. This won't be like Iraq. It would be almost exclusively air attacks, IMO. And if there's any nukes involved, which I would hope not, then there won't be any reconstruction involved. Let's just hope they resolve this diplomatically, because I don't want to see the effects of plan B.

Let's assume we bomb them with conventional ordinance. What do you think their response will be?

Will they concentrate what they have on our troops in Iraq?

Will they lauch attacks at our naval resources in the Persian Gulf?

Will they fire at Israel mainly?

Will they unleash a terror campaign within the United States?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

Hubbs ,Iran going all out in Iraq is a minor matter compared to the mischief their people here could do for a while.....and there are many here.

Our troops in Iraq could simply pull back to fortified zones and lay waste to any attackers,leaving Iraq forces to deal with the Iranians....They have plenty of practice killing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnLockesGhost

JohnLockesGhost

Posted
Posted
Perhaps you misread my post... it doesn't matter whether we cross the border with land troops or not. They will, as soon as we start bombing.

Well, supposedly, they're already in Iraq in great strength. All they'd have to unleash their operatives who are apparently just laying low right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MDRedskinsFan

MDRedskinsFan

Posted
Posted
Let's assume we bomb them with conventional ordinance. What do you think their response will be?

Will they concentrate what they have on our troops in Iraq?

Will they lauch attacks at our naval resources in the Persian Gulf?

Will they fire at Israel mainly?

Will they unleash a terror campaign within the United States?

Well yes, if we use conventional force, we could see all of these happen. This is why I think this situation is very hot right now, and needs to be our main priority. We can't afford to be really involved with this, so we need to talk both Iran and Israel out of what could result in a nuclear holocaust over there. Because that does none of us any good. This has to be handled diplomatically as much as possible, if not exclusively.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...