hmmm, maybe I should buy my plane ticket now instead of waiting til closer to summer...

Paintbox: Maybe because they are a sovereign country and have every right to refuse anyone on their soil.

They're also a member of the UN, though, and there are obligations that come with it.

RanDomino: Marine1
Spies for what? I doubt that the Iranians have some breakthrough weapon-building technology that the West wants.

An inventory of equipment, facilities, personnel, defenses, maybe? Seems useful.

We've let Russian weapons inspectors take a look at our stuff before. Why shouldn't Iran allow UN inspectors in?

Why should Iran allow IAEA inspectors into a weapons development facility when Iran maintains that there is no military nuclear program?


But they did allow IAEA inspectors in. IAEA has been there before. While some 'construction' was going on. Nothing official could be reported at that time because nothing was completed.

But it sure was interesting to inspectors. And they wanted to go back and see what that 'construction' turned out to be.

Now, the facility is off limits.

But no, for sure, we should not think Iran is progressing along any path to a weapon.



/giggle snort...

Gabrielmot: This is almost verbatim what happened in Iraq several years ago. Let's start taking bets on when the first military action will start...
I'm going with 2-3 months tops.

You mean when Iraq issued a massive report detailing its nuclear program to the UN, and the USA marched in and seized the documents before they could be examined, and Hans Blix said there was no evidence of an active nuclear program at all, and then the USA chose to invade a sovereign nation anyway, and in the end there was no nuclear program, just like the Iraqi government said in the first place?



Because that's what I remember. If I was Iran I'd be pushing as hard as I could to get a few nukes by this point as well.

Marine1: frak21: callmebob: The US can't go after Iran militarily because we will be perceived as the bully of Islam. Instead we'll send in our little "crazy" brother (aka Israel) and they will go KABOOM!!!


Don't count on it. The fabled IDF is apparently just a little overrated.

Hezbollah gave them quite a thumping. So much so that the Israelis had to resort to dropping cluster bombs (read that as effectively being mines) in their retreat out of sheer spite.

Sure the Israeli air force could do a lot of damage, but Israel is in absolutely no position to win a war with Iran, short of using their nuclear warheads in a terror campaign (or simply killing everyone outright).

Fighting a dispersed, quickly-disappearing militia firing blind upon Israeli cities from a bunch of hills around Lebanon != fighting organized military forces around nuclear installations and mass offensives. Israel has an undefeated record in those situations.


Of course, you have to get ground troops in there... and then hold that ground. Doing that in the home country and neighboring countries is one thing. Iran is quite another.

Israel is in absolutely no position to win a war against Iran, short of nuclear terrorism. Period.

RanDomino: Marine1
Spies for what? I doubt that the Iranians have some breakthrough weapon-building technology that the West wants.

An inventory of equipment, facilities, personnel, defenses, maybe? Seems useful.

We've let Russian weapons inspectors take a look at our stuff before. Why shouldn't Iran allow UN inspectors in?

Why should Iran allow IAEA inspectors into a weapons development facility when Iran maintains that there is no military nuclear program?

Let me get this straight:

You think the Iranians are being 100% up-front about their nuclear program. You believe that their unwillingness to let UN inspectors (members of the international community, not just Western allies) into select facilities is purely coincidence, and that their reasoning for this is that the weapons inspectors are saboteurs.

Let's see what this ignores:

1) the Iranian regime has a long history of aggressive statements made against other nations, often without any pretext of international law.
2) the Iranian regime controls the media outlets of the country and has a history of lying to cover up government activities.
3) those who have sabotaged the Iranian nuclear program thus far (via Stuxnet and others) did so successfully without needing the rather thin cover story of being weapons inspectors.
4) Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is thus bound to prove their compliance through multiple measures, including - but not limited to - weapons inspections.

I don't want war, but there's no reason that Iran should NOT give weapons inspectors full access.

I have no idea what this is about, but here you go.

Time for everyone to pull up the movie Threads on YouTube.

RanDomino: Marine1
Fighting a dispersed, quickly-disappearing militia firing blind upon Israeli cities from a bunch of hills around Lebanon != fighting organized military forces around nuclear installations and mass offensives. Israel has an undefeated record in those situations.

If it turns hot, no oil tanker will pass through the Strait of Hormuuz for at least two months, during which time the world economy will implode.

The Iranians were already rattling sabers about doing that anyways. The US, UK, and France sent a convoy headed by the USS Abraham Lincoln through the straight. Not one shot was fired. Iran's bluff was called.

Raharu: saying it again.

I think Iran should be free to develop a nuclear program, for weapons and power. (I think Thorium power plants are the real future btw, and you can't weaponize them). However Iran needs to understand, that should it ever use a nuclear weapon on its neighbors, specifically a neighbor who happens to be a friend of ours, even a friend of convenience, would mean that its sh*t is about to be blasted back in to the stone age, and I mean more then just its religious practices.

Realistically it is impossible to keep 50+ year old technology out of a nations hands that really wants it.

Meh....nobody would care if Norway or Sweden wanted to develope a weapon.
But Iran is a little different. And there are quite a few developed nations who see it... even if you don't.

Iran may get a weapon. As you said, it's hard to stop.

But if they get it, they should pay a very very steep price for it......

/free?
//no, it comes with a price

bhcompy: frak21: Sure the Israeli air force could do a lot of damage, but Israel is in absolutely no position to win a war with Iran, short of using their nuclear warheads in a terror campaign (or simply killing everyone outright).

Well, I'd say they're in a perfectly good situation to win an all out war(and I don't think they'd have any qualms about doing it if it came to war). There are only a small handful of militaries that are capable of winning today's politically correct wars, and even then it's still a losing proposition.


Okay, lets imagine that Israel uses tactical nukes and manages to get troops on the ground in Iran.

What happens when one of the adults (like Russia) gets involved while Israel is in someone else's yard waving dad's gun around and carrying out ill considered threats?

Not sure you thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Israel is in absolutely no position to win a war against Iran. Deal with it.

Hey, look, we're going to start another war over some specious bullshiat again. Just like I've been saying we were trying to do for the last year.

Now, I'm just a simple guy in the midwest, but instead of just officially starting a war because they're diplomatically being dicks and not cooperating, couldn't we just forcibly let the UN inspect? Have the UN security council 'authorize multilateral coalition forces no action but supporting inspection unless fired upon, then it's on'. Sort of a pre-war action, calling the bluff- putting the onus on Iran. If Iran resists, well war would've happened anyway.

I guess it's just adding a big optimistic step, before guaranteed shooting starts anyway. A potentially non offensive insertion. It gives the UN teeth, though it does potentially lessen power of diplomats, and it puts lots of lives at risk.

It just seems stupid to me that because official channels aren't cooperating = people have to die. Official channels are tools too, so if it gets to the point of talks breaking down in a situation like this where war seems inevitable and in nobody's best interest, a very special UN signed and approved pre war action seems like the ticket, or another option anyways to me.

Gabrielmot: This is almost verbatim what happened in Iraq several years ago. Let's start taking bets on when the first military action will start...

I'm going with 2-3 months tops.

If we are at war with Iran by October of this year, the Mayans were right.

frak21: bhcompy: frak21: Sure the Israeli air force could do a lot of damage, but Israel is in absolutely no position to win a war with Iran, short of using their nuclear warheads in a terror campaign (or simply killing everyone outright).

Well, I'd say they're in a perfectly good situation to win an all out war(and I don't think they'd have any qualms about doing it if it came to war). There are only a small handful of militaries that are capable of winning today's politically correct wars, and even then it's still a losing proposition.


Okay, lets imagine that Israel uses tactical nukes and manages to get troops on the ground in Iran.

What happens when one of the adults (like Russia) gets involved while Israel is in someone else's yard waving dad's gun around and carrying out ill considered threats?

Not sure you thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Israel is in absolutely no position to win a war against Iran. Deal with it.

If you introduce a world war scenario, then sure, but then it's a world war. We all lose. Israel v Iran isn't Israel v Iran + Russia which then becomes Israel + US v Iran + Russia which then expands and expands etc etc

Kit Fister: meanmutton: DarnoKonrad: In other words, there still is no evidence they're building nuclear weapons, but like Saddam's mythical WMD, disagreements about what inspectors are privileged to see will be used an excuse for war.

It's funny that people have bought the lies that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq. shiat, there were even cases (such as this one (new window)) where they were used against US troops.

Shh. You'll scare the libtards that blame bush and want to believe the BS.

One sarin shell is all you got? There were supposed to be mobile WMD factories and huge stockpiles of WMD undestroyed from the first Gulf War (all of which the UN inspections said didn't exist), and you point to one sarin-laced IED used by insurgents as vindication that maybe one of the multitude of false reasons given to invade Iraq was actually true. Pathetic.

Gabrielmot: This is almost verbatim what happened in Iraq several years ago. Let's start taking bets on when the first military action will start...

I'm going with 2-3 months tops.

Er, no. Iraq cooperated with inspections and the US decided it was going to attack before the inspectors could publish a clean bill of health since no violation of any kind had been found up to that point. Inspectors were instructed by their superiors to leave the country and the bombing began.

RanDomino: Marine1
Fighting a dispersed, quickly-disappearing militia firing blind upon Israeli cities from a bunch of hills around Lebanon != fighting organized military forces around nuclear installations and mass offensives. Israel has an undefeated record in those situations.

If it turns hot, no oil tanker will pass through the Strait of Hormuuz for at least two months days, during which time the world economy will implode.

FTFY.

Did you forget that Iran fought nearly a decade-long war against Iraq only to have it end in a stale-mate, or were you just not paying attention?

The US military would go through Iranian forces like shiat through a goose; just like they did against the Iraqis, and that strait would be open for business in short order.

In before Amos

RanDomino: Paintbox
Maybe because they are a sovereign country and have every right to refuse anyone on their soil.

Woah woah woah, everyone knows only the US is a sovereign country, comrade.

My bad. I tend to forget that personal freedoms are only allowed to those in the west.
I find it funny that a lot folks who believe in the second amendment, are so strongly against the premise of that right when it applies to other countries.

/Gun owner
//first slashies

mbillips: BTW, you people who think Iran and Israel are going to get in a ground war know that they don't border one another, right? And that Iran has 10 times the population of Israel? Israel is more likely to send ground troops to the moon than Iran.


Freaking THIS!

I see some of these people thrusting Israel's defensive forces into a country almost a thousand miles away and saying: Now KISS!

The only thing more ludicrous than an American chickenhawk is an Israeli one.

4NTLRZ: Did you forget that Iran fought nearly a decade-long war against Iraq only to have it end in a stale-mate, or were you just not paying attention?

The US military would go through Iranian forces like shiat through a goose; just like they did against the Iraqis, and that strait would be open for business in short order.

Iran hasn't been subject to a decade of economy-destroying sanctions and the backstabbing of the first Gulf War. The militaries of Iran and Iraq are simply not comparable.

bhcompy: Well, I'd say they're in a perfectly good situation to win an all out war(and I don't think they'd have any qualms about doing it if it came to war). There are only a small handful of militaries that are capable of winning today's politically correct wars, and even then it's still a losing proposition.

By "politically correct" wars do you mean "wars where we try to keep civilian casualities to a minimum instead of bulldozing into another country and raping and slaughtering everyone we see"? If so, this is one case where it's good to be 'politically correct'.

Badmonkey82009: Gabrielmot: This is almost verbatim what happened in Iraq several years ago. Let's start taking bets on when the first military action will start...

I'm going with 2-3 months tops.

I would like to cast my vote for the good 'ol October Surprise.

/Kinda like a dirty sanchez but costs more and takes longer.


Start an invasion at the beginning of winter? Did you advise Napoleon on invading Russia?

Spring is the time of year when an old man's heart turns to war.

LordStarscream: bhcompy: Well, I'd say they're in a perfectly good situation to win an all out war(and I don't think they'd have any qualms about doing it if it came to war). There are only a small handful of militaries that are capable of winning today's politically correct wars, and even then it's still a losing proposition.

By "politically correct" wars do you mean "wars where we try to keep civilian casualities to a minimum instead of bulldozing into another country and raping and slaughtering everyone we see"? If so, this is one case where it's good to be 'politically correct'.

Today's politically correct wars really are police actions rather than total war, like World War 2. While it is more humanitarian, it leads to the quagmires we see in every war today. It's very funny that wars need to be humanitarian.

Is Obama really likely to start a ground war with Iran? I would say it is extremely unlikely, so let's not fixate on that. However, if there is an uprising in Iran, would we like international leadership to help protect civilians? That's a different question, and one to which the only people who respond negatively would be the kind of people who post under the login Angry_White_Goy on neo-nazi sites like theforbiddentruth.net - where is amos, anyway?

So let's focus on the real questions - how likely is another attempt at revolution in iran, how likely is it the regime will attempt to crack down on the revolution, what should we do, etc

"official channels aren't cooperating = people have to die"

Not trying to discount what you were saying, nor to disagree (ok, yeah I disagree and think you are really off base)

But anyways, I was trying to be nice just the same.

Nobody is going to die, unless it comes from the Iran side. If they were to do something foolish.
The West, nor Israel will attack them militarily.

They are working on a bomb.

We are working on economic sanctions, political isolation, show of force stuff .....
We are trying to disuade Iran, to influence their decisions. To slow their development of a weapon.

But they will get one eventually. A crude one.

It's just that if they want to develop the bomb, there are several countries who want to make sure they pay a high price for it. Economically.

Sanctions are doing their part. Look at the Rial compared to the dollar. Watch inflation in Iran and the struggles they will have monetarily.

They could have chosen a different road. And they would not have paid as high a price.

bhcompy: frak21: bhcompy: frak21: Sure the Israeli air force could do a lot of damage, but Israel is in absolutely no position to win a war with Iran, short of using their nuclear warheads in a terror campaign (or simply killing everyone outright).

Well, I'd say they're in a perfectly good situation to win an all out war(and I don't think they'd have any qualms about doing it if it came to war). There are only a small handful of militaries that are capable of winning today's politically correct wars, and even then it's still a losing proposition.


Okay, lets imagine that Israel uses tactical nukes and manages to get troops on the ground in Iran.

What happens when one of the adults (like Russia) gets involved while Israel is in someone else's yard waving dad's gun around and carrying out ill considered threats?

Not sure you thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Israel is in absolutely no position to win a war against Iran. Deal with it.

If you introduce a world war scenario, then sure, but then it's a world war. We all lose. Israel v Iran isn't Israel v Iran + Russia which then becomes Israel + US v Iran + Russia which then expands and expands etc etc


Not really... If Israel uses nuclear weapons to unilaterally occupy another nation (and to what end one might wonder), then they aren't going to get a lot of backing from anyone else.

It's a pipe dream dude. The IDF (and Israel in general) simply do not posess the capability. They were never intended to. I hate to mess up your fantasies, but that's the reality.

Israel knows this as well. That's why they need us to take care of their dirty work.

But they blew their wad too early on Iraq. It's not going to happen again. Americans just don't see the point in going to war for Israel's interests.

Marine1: I think this war would be quite different. A sizable plurality of the Iranian public has problems with the current government there, and more moderate leaders with public backing

and that would evaporate when the first shell flies.

LewDux: In before Amos

Which is surprising, really. Normally all it takes is someone to start typing Israel to get him in here with his Usrael stuff.

Anyone buying into the notion that a nuclear Iran would start nuking people is being very, very gullible. That's a death sentence on their nation - we know it, they know it, everyone knows it. You don't use the things, they simply give you a seat at the grownup table.

What this is actually about is the effect that a nuclear counterbalance in the middle east would have on Israel's strategic dominance. That's the scenario that terrifies the Israeli hawks, and the forces they manage in the USA.

They may well attack Iran to prevent this scenario, but in the mean time you shouldn't insult your own intelligence by buying in to the doomsday nonsense.

ronaprhys: LewDux: In before Amos

Which is surprising, really. Normally all it takes is someone to start typing Israel to get him in here with his Usrael stuff.


I might point out that there are several regular posters (from both sides) in the Israel threads.

For example: He who must Not Be Named

On the plus side, we seem to have shaken out Joe Blowme for the time being.

Foreground My Ass: (where as Pakistan is opposite,...govt is kinda OK,...but the people hate us)

LOLWUT

You mean the same Government of Pakistan that has terrorists on the payroll of its intelligence agency and routinely sponsors terrorist acts inside Afghanistan against the US?

The Government of Iran is just as bad...worse, actually, as they've killed far more innocents in Israel via Lebanese Hizbollah.

frak21: bhcompy: frak21: bhcompy: frak21: Sure the Israeli air force could do a lot of damage, but Israel is in absolutely no position to win a war with Iran, short of using their nuclear warheads in a terror campaign (or simply killing everyone outright).

Well, I'd say they're in a perfectly good situation to win an all out war(and I don't think they'd have any qualms about doing it if it came to war). There are only a small handful of militaries that are capable of winning today's politically correct wars, and even then it's still a losing proposition.


Okay, lets imagine that Israel uses tactical nukes and manages to get troops on the ground in Iran.

What happens when one of the adults (like Russia) gets involved while Israel is in someone else's yard waving dad's gun around and carrying out ill considered threats?

Not sure you thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Israel is in absolutely no position to win a war against Iran. Deal with it.

If you introduce a world war scenario, then sure, but then it's a world war. We all lose. Israel v Iran isn't Israel v Iran + Russia which then becomes Israel + US v Iran + Russia which then expands and expands etc etc


Not really... If Israel uses nuclear weapons to unilaterally occupy another nation (and to what end one might wonder), then they aren't going to get a lot of backing from anyone else.

It's a pipe dream dude. The IDF (and Israel in general) simply do not posess the capability. They were never intended to. I hate to mess up your fantasies, but that's the reality.

Israel knows this as well. That's why they need us to take care of their dirty work.

But they blew their wad too early on Iraq. It's not going to happen again. Americans just don't see the point in going to war for Israel's interests.

I'd honestly like to know how we're trying to work with Israel's interests in mind.

We've been working towards a two-state solution in Palestine, Panetta has been investigating the likelihood of Israeli action against Iran, and have been trying to make Iran open up to the world in a way that would prevent Israeli aggression. I don't think Israel would be acting this way if Iran was full and open in how this nuclear program was being run. I know I'm just some Gentile with a Jewish girlfriend up here in the cheap seats, but Israel should be concerned about Iran's actions, and so should we.

frak21: Not really... If Israel uses nuclear weapons to unilaterally occupy another nation (and to what end one might wonder), then they aren't going to get a lot of backing from anyone else.

With a huge amount of evidence that it was the proper tactic, they might get support. That being said, it would likely take Iran launching a nuclear weapon at Israel for that to happen. If they did, I think the rest of the international community would be right there. Similar to Gulf1 - we'd persuade Israel to not retaliate while the rest of the world took care of it for them. In fact, I'd assume that our battle plan would be very similar to Gulf1. Go in, destroy their ability to wage war, throw down massive sanctions, no fly zones, etc. Probably wouldn't remove the government as it stands.

It's a pipe dream dude. The IDF (and Israel in general) simply do not posess the capability. They were never intended to. I hate to mess up your fantasies, but that's the reality.

Agreed that they wouldn't make a quality invading force (well, they likely would - but they simply aren't large enough to occupy a nation AND defend their own borders). They could, however, launch limited strikes against strategic objectives, take those objectives, gather what intel they could, and then retreat. They could, as proven, also destroy specific objectives at will.

Israel knows this as well. That's why they need us to take care of their dirty work.

But they blew their wad too early on Iraq. It's not going to happen again. Americans just don't see the point in going to war for Israel's interests.

No - but Americans and the international community can see the point in going to war for our own interests. If those coincide with Israel, that's fine. If they don't, that's also fine. Iran attacking Israel would likely do that.

frak21: ronaprhys: LewDux: In before Amos

Which is surprising, really. Normally all it takes is someone to start typing Israel to get him in here with his Usrael stuff.


I might point out that there are several regular posters (from both sides) in the Israel threads.

For example: He who must Not Be Named

On the plus side, we seem to have shaken out Joe Blowme for the time being.

You mean Czar?

So here is the solution to this entire mess...
1. Move everyone from Florida to Texas. They could then share the Florida Tag and make it easier for Fark to track.
2. Move all of the Israelis to Florida in exchange for their nukes and some type of long term payment plan. Plenty of space to settle and they won't be surrounded by people who want to blow them up.
3. Give the current landmass of Israel to Palestine.
4. Pack up all of our crap and come home.
5. Recognize the sovereignty of countries over there and let the remaining Christians, Jews, Sunni, Shia, Alawites, Druze (not Jews), Ibadis, Ismalis, Shafis and Sufi people duke it out as they see fit.

Marshall Banana: Anyone buying into the notion that a nuclear Iran would start nuking people is being very, very gullible. That's a death sentence on their nation - we know it, they know it, everyone knows it. You don't use the things, they simply give you a seat at the grownup table.

Anyone who gives it no credibility is being very, very ignorant of what Khamenei believes and says.

Anyone who thinks it is a death sentence on their nation grossly overestimates the abilities of Israe, or thinks the Us president will nuke a country back tot he stone age.

Marshall Banana: What this is actually about is the effect that a nuclear counterbalance in the middle east would have on Israel's strategic dominance. That's the scenario that terrifies the Israeli hawks, and the forces they manage in the USA.

Strategic dominance? They have a sliver of land, and are under continual attack.

21-7-b: Is Obama really likely to start a ground war with Iran? I would say it is extremely unlikely, so let's not fixate on that. However, if there is an uprising in Iran, would we like international leadership to help protect civilians?

All the threats and tension flying around makes an uprising very unlikely. Nothing unites a population like an outside threat, and the Iranians can see that this threat isn't the usual Dinnerjacket hyperbole.

Count me as one of those that sees war (probably just an air campaign) as quite likely within a year. The media is already getting all excited about it. Did you know Iran has missiles that can hit America, and they're just a few months away from getting a nuke? CNN knows.

It's exactly the same narrative that led into the Iraq war.

generallyso: 4NTLRZ: Did you forget that Iran fought nearly a decade-long war against Iraq only to have it end in a stale-mate, or were you just not paying attention?

The US military would go through Iranian forces like shiat through a goose; just like they did against the Iraqis, and that strait would be open for business in short order.

---

Iran hasn't been subject to a decade of economy-destroying sanctions and the backstabbing of the first Gulf War. The militaries of Iran and Iraq are simply not comparable.

I would also guess that Iran has spent the last decade watching what's been going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wouldn't be surprised if they've already scattered small arms and munitions caches all over the country. They've also probably instructed their troops in all sorts of IED building and insurgency tactics. And anyone who thinks the populous there would welcome US invaders with open arms is seriously delusional. The Iraqis for the most part hated Saddam, but even they weren't all that happy to have us there. Younger Iranians might have some anger with the government right now, but they still have WAY more national pride than the Iraqis did. The Iranians have also surely seen from what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the Arab spring contries, that regime change doesn't lead to prosperity. At best it leads to a decade or longer of rebuilding, with potentially an entire generation having their lives or future wiped out.