Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWould US attack Iran?!!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 17>
Author
Qin Dynasty View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 08-Jan-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Would US attack Iran?!!
    Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 06:12

i was a little surprised when i heard that some analysts said it would possiblely occur in 2006. I m looking foward  your opinions.

What is the possibilty? and HOW? with ground force? or just air and naval force?

What would be the result of militant actions led by US? And what did Us want?  To overthrow the government of Iran? or pull it back to the negotiation of Nuclear issue? 

Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 06:26

It's possible but not plausible.

There will be no international support, especially after the Iraq blunder, and there're no more troops available. They're busy being dug-in in Iraq, where they control the Green Zone of Baghdad and a couple of oilfields to the north (thanks to the Kurds).

But perhaps they'll try to make the Iranians submit using air-raids and naval blockade.

In any case only one thing is certain: It's going to be a huge mess if they try it.

The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 07:52
Iraq is precisely what keeps the USA tied of hands when dealing with Iran: now Iraq is democratically ruled by a fundamentalist Shia majority, the same as in Iran (though in this case the democracy behind is much more questionable) and its armed militias which have infiltrated the army and the police. Attacking Iran in any way would mean to face a well organized resistence in Iraq and not that of a minority (Sunnis) or of an ousted tyrnanny (Baath) but that of the massive majority of the population. Iraq doesn't just keep the US forces tied due to instability but specially because the Iraquis are now with Iran.

A lose-lose situation what demonstrates the Murphy law of some hyper-twisted people being able to kick their own asses.  

Said that, I truly can't say if the USA and the UK will attack Iran or not. But I know it is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations. I still think it was a lot wiser to have kept Saddam in the Iraqui throne and friendly.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 07:56
Not possible to attack Iran. Not the same as Iraq at all.
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 11:13
Israel was apparently planning a significant, targetted attack this coming March. It's been leaked but not confirmed, so perhaps it might still be on the table. Although Iran did purchase billions worth of very sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft technology, which should be set up across the country relatively soon.

I think the Bush administration wants to attack Iran, it's probably the main policy objective driving their push to bring more soldiers home in 2006. But such an attack will not gain support with the American people anymore than a possible attack in North Korea would. The nuclear factor is enough for some but not enough for a majority. And the WMD claims in relation to Iraq will ensure a large sector of the population doesn't believe Iran even has sling-shots, much less nuclear weapons.

An attack on Iran would be devastating for any ground forces sent to do the job. We're not talking about a country with a vast majority who are not in favor of the leader, Iranians elected their government - largely as a backlash against American influence in their politics. "Vote for X!", "F--k you, we'll elect Y just because you asked!"

The amount of public support for resistence would make the insurgency in Iraq look like a boot camp.
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 11:28

Pay no attention to these leaked BS things about possible attacks, they are tricks by enemy intelligence to scare Iran into shifting and relocating air defences and sensitive sites so that they can pick them up with sattelite.

Iran is so bold and brazen with its words and internal actions because it knows the truth of the matter, it has calculated the hike in oil prices should the USA and the coalition of the willing UK and Panama, Poland (?) decide to launch military action be it aerial or surface and it is just not worth it.

Some even speculate that Iranian intelligence manipulated the Americans into invading Iraq so as to allow Iran to go public and develop its nuclear capabilities without any real fear of aggression.  At the same time Most of Iraq is now friendly with Iran and Iran with its Iraqi friends has been systematically assassinating former Baath members who have detailed knowledge of Iran.

The latter is the probable reason for the random bomb attacks in Khuzistan the perpetrators of which were dormant baath cells... Iran blamed Britain for them after Britain blamed the deaths of two soldiers in a road side bomb on Iran without a shred of evidence.



Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 11:35

Originally posted by Mila



The amount of public support for resistence would make the insurgency in Iraq look like a boot camp.

I will quote an Iraqi resistance fighter in that  "there is no greater shame than to see your country occupied".

Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 17:32

Thaks the massive idiotic blunder that is Iraq, no one will be attacking Iran anytime soon.  The US is dumping money and ever more scarce manpower into the hopeless cesspool of Iraq with no long term benefit likeley to come of it.  None of Irans neighbors are now in a situation to attack Iran either, what a shame.

 

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 18:31

Iran is disabling Iraq's potential to be an aggressor in the future, that is all.  Yes, it is a shame there will be no bloody war because none of Iran's neighbours are in position to attack...  Yes, such a terrible shame... 

Why would they want to attack Iran? Iran is not a politically or militarily aggressive power...

I see how it is, one girl is to be unjustly hanged in Iran, and now suddenly the deaths of potential millions and the destruction of many millions more livlihoods are all of a sudden justified?

Joke.

Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 19:17
Originally posted by Zagros

I see how it is, one girl is to be unjustly hanged in Iran, and now suddenly the deaths of potential millions and the destruction of many millions more livlihoods are all of a sudden justified?

Joke.

 

Indeed. This is something I agree with you on. Some people are just after political mileage. And cynical is my middle name.

We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 22:02
Originally posted by Zagros

Iran is disabling Iraq's potential to be an aggressor in the future, that is all.  Yes, it is a shame there will be no bloody war because none of Iran's neighbours are in position to attack...  Yes, such a terrible shame... 

Why would they want to attack Iran? Iran is not a politically or militarily aggressive power...

I see how it is, one girl is to be unjustly hanged in Iran, and now suddenly the deaths of potential millions and the destruction of many millions more livlihoods are all of a sudden justified?

Joke.

 

No Iran is a theocracy, and any theocracy should be turned into a radioactive wasteland.  No matter if its Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever.  It would be different if there were rebelions or anything against Iran but there are not, so the people must be punished for allowing theocracy to thrive there.  I would hope other countries would do the same to mine if it ever became a theocracy.

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 22:17

OK, then you and every other American should be punished because you guys elected Bush and a number of other ruthless murdering idiots before him. More Americans by far (% wise) support Bush than Iranians support Ahamdinezhad. everyone in America should be subjected to an indiscriminate nuclear holocaust because of the complicity of the american public in allowing the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over the last 16 years.

Sound logic.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 22:19

What is the possibilty? and HOW? with ground force? or just air and naval force?

 

This time Turkey(Turkish people) will never let non of them.

Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 22:30

Its perfectly sound, think about it.  Such a tactic would scare the crap out of any contemplating a theocracy.  In the end fear is the only thing you can use on the masses.  The masses will fall to any stupid cult that takes away the thought from them.  Usually this is religion but it can be a political ideology as well, like Stalinism or facism, or whatever. 

The thing is I used to think that theocracy could always be defeated by reason, that crazy governments would eventually fall.  They dont, they grow until they destroy themselves and everyone they touch.  You cant combat that with reason or patience anymore than you could a disease.  It must be exercized ASAP.  Now Im not really saying kill everyone in said country, so much as I am saying do something big and scary enough to make them doubt their gods and leaders.  Pull a Dresden, a Tokyo, or a Shermans March and the fear generated will save more lives in the long run than allowing such things a repreive.  Think of partially beaten Germany after WW1 and compare it to totally beaten Germany in WW2.  The totally beaten one hasnt hgad a major war since.

Your example of Iraq is a good point actually.  America harmed a country that should have been its ally, the US has made horrendous ideological decisions based on some vague uneducated hatred of some random country invented at the treaty of versailles.  Americans can even be told explicitly that they made a huge blunder but they will continue to shrug it off and be complicit because they are lazy or irresponsible.  What would emphasize the point and make them realize this mistake would not be logic, but brute force.  If there were some say EU attack on the US because of this evne if it really pOD Americans it would make them have to recongnize th eissue, and if they were defeated they would then have to acknowledge it. 

Dont you see? My advocacy for making everyone feel the pain is consistent, to any country.  And Im not even getting into right and wrong because each country no matter what they are has its own self intrest and that is what they must strive for.  Obviously its in none of any countries interests to launch a nuclear war, but Im not the head of a country, so I can advocate different positions. 

"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 14:12

The US hasn't the military capacity to attack Iran, but even when it has had the miltary capacity to attack a country it's been timid to do it in the past and preffered more distant strategies, of building up neighbouring enemies militarily. Why should this time be different?

It's these distant blunders that have messed up the middle east so much already, we're now in the privilaged position of seeing another Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq being created before our eyes.

Look at the arms that have been going to Pakistan over the last few years, even though it's was behind the Taliban and just declared nuclear. Pakistan a traditionally unstable country could easily become another Iraq or Afghanistan itself in the near future.

 

Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 14:59
Originally posted by Paul

The US hasn't the military capacity to attack Iran, but even when it has had the miltary capacity to attack a country it's been timid to do it in the past and preffered more distant strategies, of building up neighbouring enemies militarily. Why should this time be different?

It's these distant blunders that have messed up the middle east so much already, we're now in the privilaged position of seeing another Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq being created before our eyes.

Look at the arms that have been going to Pakistan over the last few years, even though it's was behind the Taliban and just declared nuclear. Pakistan a traditionally unstable country could easily become another Iraq or Afghanistan itself in the near future.

 

We thank Paul's Institute for Strategic Theory and Policy for the profound insight.

No buildup of military forces against Iran is in progress, so why do people think we would further complicate an already complex situation in the Gulf?  In fact, if push came to shove, Iran could be eliminated in the course of an afternoon by nuclear weapons.  Do you challenge this statement?

As far as "building up neighbouring enemies militarily," that sort of strategic diplomacy has been going on for centuries.  Subsidy diplomacy for armaments is as least as old as Richlieu's France.  It is sound policy; after all, why do they have enemies in the first place, and why would advantage not be taken?

As far as Pakistan, so what?  Pakistan has never been that solid a friend of the U.S. (after all, Al Quaida squats in the Pakistani mountains which the government obviously cannot control...some sovereign power.)  Pakistan is already legally an "Islamic" state.

Pakistan is weak militarily, is far too primitive and has too many unsolved and most likely unsolvable problems to be concerned about it.

Strategically, Pakistan has already been marginalized by the U.S.- Indian defense agreements of 2005.

 



Edited by pikeshot1600
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 15:11
Originally posted by Paul

The US hasn't the military capacity to attack Iran, but even when it has had the miltary capacity to attack a country it's been timid to do it in the past and preffered more distant strategies, of building up neighbouring enemies militarily. Why should this time be different?

It's these distant blunders that have messed up the middle east so much already, we're now in the privilaged position of seeing another Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq being created before our eyes.

Look at the arms that have been going to Pakistan over the last few years, even though it's was behind the Taliban and just declared nuclear. Pakistan a traditionally unstable country could easily become another Iraq or Afghanistan itself in the near future.

US arms havent done much for Pakistan. Aside from aircraft which are now basically outdated everything militarily has been got from Ukraine (parts for indigenously manufactured tanks), or China (tech support, and help in development of initial missiles) or North Korea, or just been developed and manufactured indigenously (cruise missile/nukes). 

You're also wrong in saying Pakistan gave rise to the Taliban. The Taliban were formed from the remnants of the Mujahideen guerillas that defeated the Soviet Union in the eighties. These Mujahideen were funded by the USA, and strategic help was given by Pakistan.

And you're simply way out of your league on Pakistan knowledge, like most Westerners. Pakistan is not going to fall apart anytime soon. It's not unstable in the slightest, in fact now is the stablest time in the whole of Pakistan's history having seen off the Indian threat, and stabilized the region. Internally, there's a very small uprising in Balochistan, but it's SMALL. There's not enough Balochis to do anything and most Balochis are smart and loyal people who know it's better to stay with Pakistan that be independent.



Edited by TeldeIndus
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 15:36
Originally posted by Tobodai

Its perfectly sound, think about it.  Such a tactic would scare the crap out of any contemplating a theocracy.  In the end fear is the only thing you can use on the masses.  The masses will fall to any stupid cult that takes away the thought from them.  Usually this is religion but it can be a political ideology as well, like Stalinism or facism, or whatever. 

The thing is I used to think that theocracy could always be defeated by reason, that crazy governments would eventually fall.  They dont, they grow until they destroy themselves and everyone they touch.  You cant combat that with reason or patience anymore than you could a disease.  It must be exercized ASAP.  Now Im not really saying kill everyone in said country, so much as I am saying do something big and scary enough to make them doubt their gods and leaders.  Pull a Dresden, a Tokyo, or a Shermans March and the fear generated will save more lives in the long run than allowing such things a repreive.  Think of partially beaten Germany after WW1 and compare it to totally beaten Germany in WW2.  The totally beaten one hasnt hgad a major war since.

Your example of Iraq is a good point actually.  America harmed a country that should have been its ally, the US has made horrendous ideological decisions based on some vague uneducated hatred of some random country invented at the treaty of versailles.  Americans can even be told explicitly that they made a huge blunder but they will continue to shrug it off and be complicit because they are lazy or irresponsible.  What would emphasize the point and make them realize this mistake would not be logic, but brute force.  If there were some say EU attack on the US because of this evne if it really pOD Americans it would make them have to recongnize th eissue, and if they were defeated they would then have to acknowledge it. 

Dont you see? My advocacy for making everyone feel the pain is consistent, to any country.  And Im not even getting into right and wrong because each country no matter what they are has its own self intrest and that is what they must strive for.  Obviously its in none of any countries interests to launch a nuclear war, but Im not the head of a country, so I can advocate different positions. 

Tobodai, one of the reasons their theocracy has survived so long is because of Saddam's attack on Iran in 1980.  The mullahs have always been able to use foreign aggression as a war to legitimize their rule.  Pinpricking them with cruise missiles and air strikes will only make them stronger.  If we want to get rid of the mullahs we must either invade and overthrow them, or contain and covertly subvert them until they collapse under the weight of their sheer unpopularity.  Containing them would also offer the benefit of making other Gulf States fear Iran and come to use for protection.

Member of IAEA
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 15:38
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Originally posted by Paul

The US hasn't the military capacity to attack Iran, but even when it has had the miltary capacity to attack a country it's been timid to do it in the past and preffered more distant strategies, of building up neighbouring enemies militarily. Why should this time be different?

It's these distant blunders that have messed up the middle east so much already, we're now in the privilaged position of seeing another Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq being created before our eyes.

Look at the arms that have been going to Pakistan over the last few years, even though it's was behind the Taliban and just declared nuclear. Pakistan a traditionally unstable country could easily become another Iraq or Afghanistan itself in the near future.

 

We thank Paul's Institute for Strategic Theory and Policy for the profound insight.

No buildup of military forces against Iran is in progress, so why do people think we would further complicate an already complex situation in the Gulf?  In fact, if push came to shove, Iran could be eliminated in the course of an afternoon by nuclear weapons.  Do you challenge this statement?

As far as "building up neighbouring enemies militarily," that sort of strategic diplomacy has been going on for centuries.  Subsidy diplomacy for armaments is as least as old as Richlieu's France.  It is sound policy; after all, why do they have enemies in the first place, and why would advantage not be taken?

As far as Pakistan, so what?  Pakistan has never been that solid a friend of the U.S. (after all, Al Quaida squats in the Pakistani mountains which the government obviously cannot control...some sovereign power.)  Pakistan is already legally an "Islamic" state.

You too are not acting much brighter than Paul by the looks of things. Do you have any idea how long the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is, or any inkling of a clue just how rugged the terrain is in the North-west where the mountains are? Do you think Pakistan's armed forces dont have other things to do than to guard the border for you or go round chasing Al-Qaeda all day? You might try and ridicule Paul's knowledge of the region, but yours is smaller than a pocket dictionary compared to his.

Pakistan is legally an Islamic state. Your point? This isnt a war on Islam is it? Make your mind up.

Pakistan is weak militarily, is far too primitive and has too many unsolved and most likely unsolvable problems to be concerned about it.

Yes, you're right, Pakistan is very primitive. We all live in mudhuts, and ride camels to work. The nukes, missiles, fighter jets, cruise missiles, and space launch vehicle (SLV) under development is all an illusion. I'm being fed lies. Can you name one unresolvable issue Pakistan has (besides Kashmir,  which there is no problem on the Pakistani side)? You know everything there is to know about Pakistan, because you have infinite wisdom.

Strategically, Pakistan has already been marginalized by the U.S.- Indian defense agreements of 2005.

LOL. The Indian-US agreement hasnt marginalized anything. The USA never provided Pakistan with advanced technologies. It's just a trading partner. Pakistan has a superb ally in China (see links below), whose only threat is from India. Pakistan has recently discovered natural resources that should provide it with its own energy needs for long after those of other countries have run out.

http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/bulletin/96apr-may/si96050 6.html 

http://www.dawn.com/2004/12/17/top2.htm



Edited by TeldeIndus
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 16:41

TeleIndus:

Sorry that you took offense.  I am afraid I don't agree, but I'll let you and Paul fight it out.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 17>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.076 seconds.