Iran promises retaliation if Israel attacks

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil


Purely from a practical point of view, Iran would smack you back. They've already been searching for a reason to interfere in south Iraq. What happens if, on June 30th they seize the al-Arab waterways? Or even just decide that US and Israeli 'belligerance' is enough to justify increased funding for insurrections in the north and south.

Or if they stir up Hezbollah again?

Bombing would probably be the worst thing to do in this situation.

then we send weapons and aide to the revolutionaries in Iran. That can be played both ways, over 60% of the populations hates the mullahs.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Kucinich


When did I deny it was an act of war?

Where did you get the idea that I cared?

And yes, we can attack these countries at will. At least, we didn't seem to have any problems attacking Iraq or Afghanistan.

That kind of thinking got us into the problems we are having today. Yes, there are problems. You don't care that thousands of lives have been lost. People are walking around without arms and legs. If you don't think it's a problem tell it to the guy whose head just got chopped off. Never mind he can't he hear you.

[Kuciwalker]

So you'd prefer a fundamentalist Islamic state get nukes + ballistic missiles?

[Pax]

Maybe you can understand it this way. Bees sting. They sting more often when you mess with there hive. Leave them alone and the chance of you getting stung goes down dramatically.

[Kuciwalker]

Ah. You understand.

They try and sting us because we have forces in the Mideast - specifically, Saudi Arabia. Plus Israel.

I'm sure the world would be a better place if we just left the Mideast to its own devices...

[Evil Knevil]

Originally posted by Kucinich
If they can't get past the border, they can't do anything. We may have difficulties fighting insurgents, but do you really think US troops would do anything but completely PWN any conventional forces?

Okay, maybe not invade on June 30th, but after there is a larger withdrawal of US troops. Iran PWNS Iraq's armed forces in any case. Besides, even if they didn't get across the border there would still be a ****storm of unimaginable proportions. Also any limited military action would be preceded by months of funded shia insurgency in the south (especially after June 30th, when the IPC will be as weak as a kitten) which would be destabilising. It might even cause Iraq to strike back again Iran and give them a CB (causus bellum) like in the 70's and 80's

then we send weapons and aid to the revolutionaries in Iran. That can be played both ways, over 60% of the populations hates the mullahs.

Thats a recipe for stability! What happens when those revolutionaries move into Sth Iraq, or Kurdistan? Even just Iran imploding in civil strife is not to the benefit of the region.
Besides when faced with the US or Israel the mullah regime would probably get new life and widespread support.

Happy now?

[Pax]

I think that the world trade center would still be standing. There would be no USS COLE incident. No American loss of life in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's for certain.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Kucinich
So you'd prefer a fundamentalist Islamic state get nukes + ballistic missiles?

I see no difference between a fundamentalist Jewish state having nukes and an Islamic one.

Better to have a balance of terror.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich
You missed my point - we AREN'T installing a new regime! You just send people in, they blow up the stuff you want gone, then they leave. You don't care about "liberating" Iran or anything, just removing certain targets that you may not be capable of destroying from the air.

No you stubborn person!

Sending military personel into the soverign territory of another state uninvited is always an invasion-it does not matter if the mission is a raid or conquest, it is an invasion. period

[Sirotnikov]

Sending military personel into the soverign territory of another state uninvited is always an invasion-it does not matter if the mission is a raid or conquest, it is an invasion. period

So in 1970 palestinian commandos invaded Germany?
In 1989? israeli commandos invaded tunis?
In 195? Israeli commandos invaded argentine?

Better to have a balance of terror.

Hmm...
how about that would allow the arab countries to support terrorism without any fear of toppling or retaliation?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
No you stubborn person!

Sending military personel into the soverign territory of another state uninvited is always an invasion-it does not matter if the mission is a raid or conquest, it is an invasion. period

That wasn't an argument that it wasn't an invasion, it was an argument that it did not have the downsides of most invasions, because we aren't occupying anything.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
I think that the world trade center would still be standing. There would be no USS COLE incident. No American loss of life in Iraq or Afghanistan. That's for certain.

If we just hadn't ever supported Israel, or participated in the first Gulf War...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
Okay, maybe not invade on June 30th, but after there is a larger withdrawal of US troops. Iran PWNS Iraq's armed forces in any case. Besides, even if they didn't get across the border there would still be a ****storm of unimaginable proportions. Also any limited military action would be preceded by months of funded shia insurgency in the south (especially after June 30th, when the IPC will be as weak as a kitten) which would be destabilising. It might even cause Iraq to strike back again Iran and give them a CB (causus bellum) like in the 70's and 80's

Which is why we continue to have some forces stationed in Iraq for a while

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich


That wasn't an argument that it wasn't an invasion, it was an argument that it did not have the downsides of most invasions, because we aren't occupying anything.

to quote Kuchinich from earlier:

Not if we bomb their reactors. Also, deploying troops on the ground != invasion. We could still attack over land, just not actually topple their government (and then have to set up a new one).

Now, what do you mean by {!=} ?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cruddy


I see no difference between a fundamentalist Jewish state having nukes and an Islamic one.

Better to have a balance of terror.

can you tell me where theres a fundamentalist Jewish state? A lot of fundamentalist Israelis would be interested in moving there