Somethin's Happenin' Here

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

what leads you to believe that our military can go toe to toe in a war with iran on irans terms, in irans territory, at length?

We'd kick the **** out of Iran in any conventional war (and they know that). Occupying Iran for any length of time would prove very difficult, but why would we want to do that?

We can bomb the **** out of various targets, drive the price of oil past the $150 per barrel mark, trigger a global recession, and piss off even our lap dog Blair, let alone everyone else. Then have zero cooperation on any other foreign policy goal, and let Comrade Kim play as much as his Chinese buddies unilaterally want him to.

Physically going into Iran? What a ****ing joke. We would never be able to force a decisive engagement, and have our supply lines harassed and interdicted to the point where we would lose all mass and density. Iranian leadership could disperse and disappear and wait us out.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Who's going to thumb their noses at us if we go in and kill or capture as much of their leadership as possible before leaving again?

The real difficulty with Iran is that our presence and goals in Iraq make it much more difficult for us to wage a war on Iran. Sure, we could use Iraq as a convenient staging point for attacking Iran. And we'd kick their asses. But while our troops are busy in Iran, Iraq would be going to hell in a handbasket behind them, which is a cost America isn't going to be willing to pay except in the direst of circumstances. Our involvement in Iraq gives the Iranians a significant advantage in playing hardball with us.

I dont believe that just killing or capturing Irani Leadership would change a whole hell of a lot. They are still going to work towards the goals they have, nerdy president or not.

Second point, I totally agree with, which is why this talk of being in the catbird seat for pressuring iran is ridic.

[Drake Tungsten]

We can bomb the **** out of various targets, drive the price of oil past the $150 per barrel mark, trigger a global recession, and piss off even our lap dog Blair, let alone everyone else. Then have zero cooperation on any other foreign policy goal, and let Comrade Kim play as much as his Chinese buddies unilaterally want him to.

I agree that attacking Iran under the current circumstances is a really bad idea.

We would never be able to force a decisive engagement, and have our supply lines harassed and interdicted to the point where we would lose all mass and density.

Of course they aren't going to stand and fight us; they know we would kick their asses if they did.

I dont believe that just killing or capturing Irani Leadership would change a whole hell of a lot. They are still going to work towards the goals they have, nerdy president or not.

I'm not sure it would change much, either. Just saying that it would be a little ridiculous for the remaining Iranian leadership to thumb their nose at us after we just finished blowing their country to **** and killing/capturing a bunch of their comrades...

Second point, I totally agree with, which is why this talk of being in the catbird seat for pressuring iran is ridic.

I agree. Iraq is nothing but a stone around our neck until it gets stabilized (if that ever even happens).

[Deity Dude]

Well it's a non-issue now after the election. If the Rep's had won the election, which they didn't, it could have been considered a mandate for a continuation of the proactive war on Islamic facism, just as the defeat is considered a mandate against such a thing.

Combine that with a Republican Congress due to a reaffirmation by the American people, American foreign policy would be different than what it is going to be.

Think about a country that states its policy is to wipe Israel off the earth, that it would be willing to lose 1/2 its country to accomplish that goal, that is currently funding terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere, and that would by no means mind seeing "death to America" Add nuclear weapons and a delivery system to that country and it could be considered a "dire situation" to a different American public and Republican Congress.

It's a moot point now. America spoke and will get what it asks for. Apparently a war that can't be finished in 4 years isn't worth finishing. And under the current mood, pretty much no threat is worth confronting.

As for the what ifs, if American decided that a nuclear Iran was worth stopping, they could. It wouldn't be easy, just as Iraq isn't easy, but it could be done.

[Ramo]

Iran would be willing to lose half of its country to wipe out Israel? How do you come up with this nonsense?

Indefinitely keep massive numbers of troops in the middle of a civil war that no one has a clue how to stop? No thanks... As for invading Iran, that would be such a colossal cluster**** that such an action would indeed fulfill Bush's prophecy of turning our invasion and occupation of Iraq into a comma in the history books.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Ramo
Iran would be willing to lose half of its country to wipe out Israel? How do you come up with this nonsense?

Their president said it at a speech he gave. Many took it to mean he was willing to have a nuclear exchange with Israel believeing that 1/2 his country would survive while Israel would be totally eliminated.

[Ramo]

First off, source? Secondly, what the President says doesn't really matter since he doesn't control the military; Khamenei does.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Ramo
First off, source?

Rafsanjani said it, and he was a relative moderate.

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-world

In December 2001, then Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani broached this question. He explained that “the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything”. On the other hand, even in the case of a nuclear response on the part of Israel, it “will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”[35] Rafsanjani thus spelled out the terms of a macabre cost-benefit analysis. It will not be possible to destroy Israel without suffering damage in turn. But for Islam the level of damage that Israel’s nuclear response could inflict is, nonetheless, bearable. Some hundred thousand or so additional martyrs for Islam – the price is not to high to pay.

Rafsanjani’s counting on a hundred thousand deaths might seem on first glance like a worst-case scenario. But it is not. For Rafsanjani is a representative of the “pragmatic” wing of the Iranian Revolution. In contrast to the apocalyptic wing of the Revolutionary Guard, who in 1988 wanted to pursue the war against Iraq no matter the costs, the “pragmatists” are concerned that any war should have a “worthwhile” outcome. What atomic weapons could mean in the hands of the “apocalyptic” faction is virtually unimaginable.

Ahmadinejad, however, is clearly predisposed toward apocalyptic thinking. The linchpin of his politics is the myth of the Hidden Imam. In September 2005, he concluded his first speech before the United Nations by imploring God to bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam. He finances a research institute in Tehran whose sole purpose is to study and, if possible, accelerate the coming of the Imam. “The most important task of our Revolution is to prepare the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam,” he stressed at a theology conference in November 2005.[36]

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Ramo
First off, source? Secondly, what the President says doesn't really matter since he doesn't control the military; Khamenei does.

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if he ever became the supreme decision maker in his country, would "sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel," Giora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525940677&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

It goes on to say that the 69yr old Khamenei is more moderate but he is getting old and Ahmadinejad is his likely successor.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You cite Isreal's former national security adviser said what she thought Ahmedinejad would do?

That's just funny.. if it wasn't such a pathetic attempt.

And Ahmadinejad, Khamenei's successor?!

Ahmadinejad isn't even a cleric! I'd imagine to be the Supreme Ruler of the theocracy that is Iran you'd have to have some formal training in the religion.

[Drake Tungsten]

I agree. Saying a non-cleric could become leader of the theocracy of Iran is like saying a capitalist could become the leader of communist China...

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You cite Isreal's former national security adviser said what she thought Ahmedinejad would do?

That's just funny.. if it wasn't such a pathetic attempt.

First off, did you notice those little things called quotation marks. That indicates that she repeated what HE SAID he would do, not what SHE THOUGHT he would do. I cited this source because it was the first one that came up on google.

Second, I personally saw a translation of the speech with video on either CNN or MSNBC (with al-jazeera stamped in the corner). If you look hard enough you can probably find it on YouTube. Do your own research if you want.

The point is that is the mentality of the elected leadership of Iran.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And Ahmadinejad, Khamenei's successor?!

Ahmadinejad isn't even a cleric! I'd imagine to be the Supreme Ruler of the theocracy that is Iran you'd have to have some formal training in the religion.

Well, he does have formal training. He also believes himself to be the igniting force of "the end times" His former Vice-President, was one of the hostage takers. She introduced a motion into the assembly, that was approved, that stated the official position of Iran towards the US was its destruction and conversion to Islam.

I don't think that it is too extremely far-fetched that one of the following 3 possibilities couldn't be realized

a) the elected government is granted actual power to rule on government issues and the "supreme cleric" acts more as a spiritual advisor/figurehead

b) a "supreme cleric" comes along with similiar views to the elected government

c) a situation where the elected goverment assumes power and uses the "supreme cleric" as a puppet.

Not to mention Iran develops the technology and gives it to some other group.

You're probably right though. We shouldn't worry about any of this. We should probably disregard their actions and their statements. Afterall, it's only the elected President, Vice-President and Assembly. They would be way too stupid to force the world into a World War they couldn't win.

Maybe if we are lucky we can send someone to sign a piece of paper with them and have "Peace in our time"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
First off, did you notice those little things called quotation marks. That indicates that she repeated what HE SAID he would do, not what SHE THOUGHT he would do. I cited this source because it was the first one that came up on google.

Quotation marks for what SHE said. Nothing indicates that is what Ahmadinejad said.

Second, I personally saw a translation of the speech with video on either CNN or MSNBC (with al-jazeera stamped in the corner). If you look hard enough you can probably find it on YouTube. Do your own research if you want.

I'm at YouTube. They don't have it.

Well, he does have formal training.

No he doesn't. He's an engineer, not a cleric. And Iran's Constitution requires a cleric of a high level for the Supreme Leader role.

a) the elected government is granted actual power to rule on government issues and the "supreme cleric" acts more as a spiritual advisor/figurehead

Not going to happen. They want the ultimate power, just not wanting to deal with the day to day crap.

b) a "supreme cleric" comes along with similiar views to the elected government

Errr... and this'll make Ahmedinejad Supreme Leader how?

c) a situation where the elected goverment assumes power and uses the "supreme cleric" as a puppet.

What, a revolution? Because that's really going to be the only way. Because if this could happen Khatami would have done it looooong ago.

Have you been drinking tonight?

You're probably right though. We shouldn't worry about any of this. We should probably disregard their actions and their statements. Afterall, it's only the elected President, Vice-President and Assembly. They would be way too stupid to force the world into a World War they couldn't win.

Iran has shown themselves to be a very, very pragmatic country. They agitate on the edges, use proxies instead of doing it themselves, and do not go so far as to incite a full blown war against them. They've been doing this for years. Hell, they worked with the United States in the whole 'arms for hostages' thing. If that doesn't scream pragmatism, nothing does.

I know fearmongering may work for some, but you'll have to try harder. Iran ain't going to start throwing around nukes. Their pragmatic history points away from that. The guy with the fiery rhetoric doesn't have his finger on the button. And the guy who does cares more for keeping his own position rather than some ideological crusade.

Though on an interesting side note (or perhaps related to the pragmatism), Ayatollah Khamenei has allowed stem cell research and therapeutic cloning for progress in science and technology in Iran.

[Drake Tungsten]

Iran is doing it? ****, we better get on that...

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Quotation marks for what SHE said. Nothing indicates that is what Ahmadinejad said.

First quotation mark indicates that I quoted this from another source

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if he ever became the supreme decision maker in his country, would

Second embedded quote indicates this is the beginning of Ahmadinejad's quote along with an end quote indicating the nd of HIS statement.

"sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel,"

Final end quote indicates the end of the source I quoted.

Giora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday."

This portion:

"sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel,"

is what HE SAID.

When this came out it was pretty big news, at least to me. I am sure others here, if not you, remember this.

Aside from all this nonsense about quotation marks, it's pretty obvious how the elected government feels about Israel, the US and the west in general.

If you wanna bet that all Religous Islamic Fundamentalist Leaders of Iran will always maintain total control of the military and that none of them will ever see a religous reason to engage Israel and/or the United States go ahead.

Like I said, send them a piece of paper, and lets have "Peace in our time."