+Dave 2,322 Posted June 21, 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25298744 Kind of a double edged sword. Should the IAF bomb that nuke plant? Or should we just leave Iran alone and you know they will make a bomb anyway. I mean in my humble opinion, Iran isn't bowing to international pressure, so the UN is effectively doing nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viper6 3 Posted June 21, 2008 (edited) Let them continue, then there will be a very good reason to turn that place into a parking lot minus the innocent folks of course! The UN has always been a joke! Edited June 21, 2008 by Viper6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted June 21, 2008 Ok, i'm fine here in another atlantic side, i think here will not catch fire.... j/k btw, i think the major arab countries put Iran against the wall in political way, they have a good chance to stop with that....and now we saw Israel and Hamas negotiating a cease fire...it can turn in to a peace way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted June 21, 2008 Or perhaps "Dont bomb Iran and still face Mid East Ball of Fire" - so whats the answer then msnbc?? Cant say im in the know (like the press i suppose) so lets hope the people in the know make the right choice this time Have the UN sent in Hans Blix yet? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted June 21, 2008 btw, i think the major arab countries put Iran against the wall in political way, they have a good chance to stop with that....and now we saw Israel and Hamas negotiating a cease fire...it can turn in to a peace way. Well theres always room for optimism I guess - my moneys on the Ceasefire being a rearm and reload sort of thing though as someone else put it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted June 21, 2008 All kidding aside from that other thread. It is a very delicate balance. I do not trust Iran. The way to fix this is Iran give the UN unlimited access to all the facilities. That is the only way to defuse this situation. Being forth right and magnanimous would really make this whole thing a lot easier for the rest of the world to swallow. But when you have Adjumbanutjob saying he wants to wipe out Israel one day but then saying the program is for peaceful uses, then how is the rest of the world supposed to take that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Syrinx 13 Posted June 21, 2008 President "I'm-a-dinner-jacket" simply cannot be trusted. Period. I don't know if it's him personally or the Mullah's who are pulling his strings (I suspect the latter) but he's just itching for a confrontation with the West. As usual it's the innocent who'll suffer. The bottom line is, if they get a nuke they'll use it. Either Iran directly or their proxy Islamic Fundamentalists (emphasis on the mentalists). It can't be allowed to happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eraser_tr 29 Posted June 21, 2008 Nobody trusts him or iran, but I wouldn't take them too seriously, its mostly saber rattling and nothing more. Hes trying to make him and Iran appear as a serious player and get the same respect the "big guys" have. I'm-a-dinner-jacket Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 144 Posted June 21, 2008 The Iranians that I've met, wonder how many people here have met more than 50 Iranians ? Are all open minded and extremely westernised (might have something to do with the fact that their parents were like a lot of Iranians suporters of the Shah) so it would be tragic if something other than pinpoint conventional weapons were used. There are fanatics in Iran and yes their mullahs and their "leader" are dumb***** who support hezcrapalot, but an entire nation should NOT have to suffer the consequences because of their leaders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted June 21, 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25300269 More on this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GwynO 16 Posted June 21, 2008 The Iranians that I've met, wonder how many people here have met more than 50 Iranians ? Are all open minded and extremely westernised (might have something to do with the fact that their parents were like a lot of Iranians suporters of the Shah) so it would be tragic if something other than pinpoint conventional weapons were used. There are fanatics in Iran and yes their mullahs and their "leader" are dumb***** who support hezcrapalot, but an entire nation should NOT have to suffer the consequences because of their leaders. I concur, I made many Iranian friends when I was a student and not one of them was a supporter of the Mullah's, a couple in particular really interested me with how they described their own families as what I could only describe as closet Zoroastrian, according to these young Iranians, many Iranians feel a great pride in the "old" religion rather than the status quo. My impression of Islamic Revolutionary Iran based on the translations and selection of rhetoric that finds its way through the media as well as their overt political actions is mixed, on the one hand they present themselves as a shining example of secularised Islam, yes it is possible for a woman to drive a car or wear a short skirt or go dating or go to a nightclub, things that are punishable by God knows what in some close by Arab countries; however on the other hand Amadinajacket for one expressed on the world stage, views of Israel and millenialism (regarding the coming of the medi) that can only raise concern. Overall, at the present time I think its best to spy on them like theres no tomorrow, allow their moderates some more time to gain influence away from the extremists; I feel that the ego trip of joining the nuclear club could do less harm to the collective mental state of Iran's politicians than the results of a strike, but of course I would not like living within range of their weapons. I agree wholeheartedly that if strikes are unavoidable, they should be extremely carefully chosen and executed with precision; in such respect internal sabotage may be a lot better than crossing yet more international boarders (results speak for themselves, crossing boarders in recent times has hardly reduced the overall hatred towards the West if anything it has increased it) Iran is not another Iraq, already on its knees from Gulf War 1 and sanctions, it is certainly not another Afghanistan therefore to use the analogy of insects it is perhaps best to accept that this hornet has a sting but if treated with respect it will not sting even if we are busy "tending to" the wasps nests and bees nests (Afghanistan and Iraq respectively), omg I'm sounding like Eric Cantona, amagunagetaparacetemol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jarhead1 27 Posted June 21, 2008 (edited) The easiest way to get rid of a hornets nest is with gasoline, but the question is who is gonna do the dumping??????? And mind u, I agree, just like in Iraq, not everyone is a nutcase fundamentalist that wants to kill the infidel, but there are ALOT there that want to to harm to anyone and everyone that they can to show how great and powerful they have become since no one treats takes them seriously. Edited June 21, 2008 by Jarhead1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted June 21, 2008 But why even go to those lengths? If Iran is truly serious about using nuclear power for peaceful purposes why don't they comply with UN inspections and the like. I think Iran should take this opportunity to show the world they have nothing to hide. Then that way everyone will not being trying to tell them to abandon their programs. I know if I were in their shoes I would make this out finest hour and show them they are on the up and up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eraser_tr 29 Posted June 21, 2008 Overall, at the present time I think its best to spy on them like theres no tomorrow, allow their moderates some more time to gain influence away from the extremists Yup, no need to rally the populace and moderates to the side of the mullahs with all the demonizing and Iraq-like drift towards invasion. Given a few years the mullahs will still be around, but ultimately powerless. I say improve relations and get our economies friendly with each other. McDonalds is a more powerful weapon than any bomb. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ezlead 42 Posted June 21, 2008 What DUMBA## in the US or the press likened this Israeli operation to an attack on Iran. Who is pulling his chain and why? It's really getting sickening when the press tries to make policy over the politicians. The politicians are bad enough at it. The press just makes it that more LAME!! I say ,Whatever billionaire wants to make government policy or stir up trouble around the world,RUN for office and quit hiding behind YOUR employees(newscasters) . If you research the history of Israel,you will find out that every war or conflict they have been in was for their survival as a nation. Let's see :Suez war(30 days),6-Day War,Yom Kippur(30-60 days,they were caught off guard),all of the other incidents(less than 30 days). AJ-Imadumba## would be crazy to provoke these guys. History has proven that Israel makes strikes when their safety is on the line. They have never been proven wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viper6 3 Posted June 21, 2008 How about the decent civilian population that does not support this craziness start speaking for themselves? The people in Iran that are just trying to live their lives without conflict or war of some type need to make their voices heard. NFG, you are right the innocent will be caught in the middle...again! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted June 21, 2008 You know EZ, I haven't thought of that. This could be the press ratcheting up the rhetoric to get a good story, and lords knows they are famous for that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ezlead 42 Posted June 21, 2008 Dave: I'll bet that it was NOT from a reliable Israeli source. They don't tell anyone what they are about to do until it's all done and over(Smoke in the air and dust settling). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted June 21, 2008 an entire nation should NOT have to suffer the consequences because of their leaders. Can you name a time when the people of a country didn't suffer because of their leaders? Its up to the people of Iran to change their leadership, otherwise they suffer the consequences of their leader's actions. Just as all German's were accountable for Hitler's actions, so are all Iranians accountable for the deeds perpetrated in their name. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PaperArtillery 0 Posted June 22, 2008 I think I can make a valid point by saying this: "If you do not stop what you are doing, we at the UN will send you an angry letter telling you how angry we are." That's pretty much all they do. I mean, it's been established that with the combination of states on the Security Council, what's going to get done? Nothing. US, UK, CIS, France, and China are always going to disagree on everything, and they all have veto power! Stupid organization, for whatever reason you choose. That's my two...cents. Kopeks. Hrvina. Whatever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted June 22, 2008 (edited) I don't agree with this preemptive strike policy. Wtf? do someone in world have those Minority report clones that can see the future? it always end in s**t, a lot of misunderstand informations are simply dropped in air and a lot of them without any veracity , in great part of cases someone dies and some cases, those peoples haven't anything with the case... want an example? last month some Pakistani soldiers die for nothing in a US "preemptive" strike. Ok it's True the Iran isn't a "trustable" country since they have an authoritarian government and constitution and UN is not a real "serious" Organization. about give the UN Inspectors access, i really doubt Iran give 'em the chance to see how the Uranium is prepared and etc, it happens while ago here ,our authorities won't give UN Full-access because it was considered industrial spying, Iran can use the same argue. btw we cant mention the example few years ago in Iraq. Edited June 22, 2008 by Silverbolt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,884 Posted June 22, 2008 I don't agree with this preemptive strike policy. Wtf? do someone in world have those Minority report clones that can see the future? it always end in s**t, a lot of misunderstand informations are simply dropped in air and a lot of them without any veracity , in great part of cases someone dies and some cases, those peoples haven't anything with the case... want an example? last month some Pakistani soldiers die for nothing in a US "preemptive" strike. But that leads us back to the same old question - do you prefer to just sit there and do nothing? In the past we were happy to let countries build up arms without interfering (too much) and that just ended in s**t anyway. Im not sure anyone can really make a preemptive strike on the Afghan/Pakistan border region - its been part of the war the whole time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted June 22, 2008 Here is an interesting analysis by a member at SimHQ. Which i think he is about 90% spot on. Here's what will happen, not if, just a matter of when...(all of the below is just my opinion.) - Israel will launch airstrikes on multiple objectives within Iran. Following attacks on Iranian command and control facilities in advance of the main strike, the IAF will be used to target multiple facilities within Iran. - Special forces units will be infiltrated to penetrate and destroy/damage underground installations - Israel will also (either in advance, or subsequently) use a programme of assassinations against targeted Iranian nuclear engineers and scientists - The UN and USA will immediately condemn the strikes (as they did when Osirak was attacked) but take no punitive action against Israel. - Iran, Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Syria will respond with missile strikes against Israel. Not coincidentally Israel recently rehearsed its civil response to this scenario, in April 2008. - Iran's recent wargames (2006/2007) show it may be planning also respond to the strikes by attacking US/Coalition forces in the Gulf, claiming a need to protect its territorial waters. Iran does not fear a ground war with the US, as it sees this as impossible given current resources and political climate in the US. The purpose of these air and naval attacks would be to shut the Gulf to civilian shipping indefinitely. A secondary purpose would be to damage US military prestige by eg damaging or sinking a US carrier. - The USA may or may not respond with major air and naval bombardment of Iran, depending on the strength of threat to or damage to its military and corporate assets. - Politically the EU is expected to line up behind Israel, and at least Russia, Venezuela, Cuba and Nth Korea behind Iran. China would remain neutral but could also be expected to condemn Israel. This would effectively cripple the UN Security Council and ensure it can take no effective action against either Israel or Iran. - Oil supplies through the Gulf region would be dramatically effected. Sympathetic boycotts of USA and Israel by Venezuela would also impact supplies. The US and EU economies would be crippled by lack of supply. Sympathetic OPEC nations would not be able to increase production sufficiently to compensate. $300 a barrel oil is likely. - The spread of the conflict beyond the region is not likely, though depending on the long term damage to oil infrastructure, may precipitate further tension around access to oil rich territories in the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doghouse 0 Posted June 22, 2008 Dave, that's an awful interesting scenario. Got me to thinking about all these combat flight sims we've been playing over the years, all based off some past conflict. How bout we beat em to the punch this time, and somebody right up a campaign based on this BEFORE it happens. :yes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted June 22, 2008 Dave, i like this article hehe @Coolhand oh, yeah, but i said those preemptive strike policy as the first option , like it was in many countries Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
