What if Iran strikes first? (enemy, ethical, March, politician)

[djacques]

Originally Posted by RPON

Nope. The US has goaded Iran into attacking just liked the did to Japan in the late 30's early 40's.The US gets what it deserves IMO.

Exactly. +1

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

Will you support a war with Iran if Iran attacks the United States first? What if it attacks one of our ships?

What if Napoleon had B-52 bombers at the Battle of Waterloo?

Curiously....

Mircea

Originally Posted by RCCCB

It has been for years, including at Israel. They've been supplying money and weapons to fund resistance for years.

Funny, but you were buying weapons from Iran and shipping them to Pakistan to give to give to the Mujhadeen to arm and "fund resistance for years" (your words).

What do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassins?

Then you were buying weapons from Iran and giving them to the Contras to "fund resistance for years" (your words again).

What do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassins?

And then you were buying weapons from Iran and giving them to al-Qaida (specifically to one of the "lieutenants" ---- al-Zawahiri) in Albania to smuggle into Kosovo-Metohija and Bosnia to "fund resistance for years" (your words once again).

So what do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassins?

What I'm hearing from your hypocritical mindset is, "Do as I say, not as I do."

Originally Posted by RCCCB

They have been moving arms and their own people into Iraq, Afghanistan, and with Hamas against Israel.
IMO they have beens striking since the Shah of Iran was removed and Carter let them hold hostages forever.

Yeah, so what? Who freaking elected USA God of Earth?

You're allowed to arm terrorists, but Iran isn't?

The Shah of Iran was not "removed." The Shah had pancreatic cancer and intended to abdicate. He and Bill Smith (US Ambassador to Iran) both agreed that Khomeini would run Iran. Accordingly, Smith began engaging in back-door negotiations with Khomeini's people and was just weeks away from a face-to-face meeting with Khomeini when the French DGSE discovered what the US (and Britain) were doing.

The French wanted their ayatollah in power, so they leaked word of the Shah's pending abdication at a mosque in Tabriz, and that is what started the "revolution" which then spiraled out of control, because Carter, Brzezinski and Gary Sick (two of the Social Democrats-turned-Neo-Cons on Carter's staff) mucked it up.

Carter sent General Hugyens to get the Iranian military to take over in a coup.

What right under international law, US public law, moral law or ethics did you have to interfere in the sovereign internal affairs of another country?

You had no right.

Your actions, in and of themselves, were an act of war, and Iran was justified in capturing prisoners at the US Embassy Mission.
The embassy employees were not non-combatants; they were spies and agents provocateur and they are not covered under the law of land warfare.
One of the great things about the US Embassy take-over was that Iran found classified documents proving that the US attempted to murder Prime Minister Massadeq.

Even though the US denied it for years, the US was forced to admit that it attempted to murder an head-of-State in cold blood, which in and of itself is an act of war, and since there is no statute of limitation on murder, Iran was justified in their actions of detaining spies and agents provocateur.

Don't let any facts or laws get in the way of your blinding ideology; you might actually open your eyes and see the Truth one day.

Historically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by thecoalman

They have submarines and long range missiles to attack ships. How effective such an attack would be is questionable. We all know what the Army and Air Force is capable of but the abilities of the navy are somewhat unknown and untested in real battle.

Great, another armchair analyst. Yes, Iran has submarines, specifically diesel submarines. Didn't a Chinese diesel submarine surface in the middle of a US carrier group and shock the hell out of everyone?

Yes, indeed. Diesel submarines are very quiet and difficult to detect.

And long range missiles?

Please, it's surface-to-surface anti-ship missiles. They are a non-ballistic missile, but they are not terrain guided (like US cruise missiles).

Allow me to remind all of you of Reality 101:

1] The US had satellites looking for mobile SCUD missile launchers in Iraq;

2] The US had aerial recon platforms looking for SCUD missiles launchers in Iraq;

3] The US had ECM/EWS aerial platforms looking for SCUD missile launchers in Iraq;

4] The US had special ops on the ground looking for SCUD missile launchers in Iraq.

Question: With all of the technology, the SIGINT, HUMINT and aerial imagery available, how many SCUD missiles launchers did the US find and destroy?

Answer: 10%.

If you can only manage to find and destroy 10% of Iran's mobile SSM anti-ship missile launchers, then you had best start building ships with glass bottoms...so that you can see your navy.

I guess none of you Big Brains ever considered the shallowness and narrowness of the Persian Gulf, and that when missiles start flying, the possibility of US and allied ships colliding with each other (and sinking) in an attempt to evade missiles is extremely high.

And no, ships neither stop on a dime, nor do the turn on a dime.

Effectively...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

a stalemate between 2 lackluster armies is hardly impressive.

Yet another arm-chair general who doesn't understand the situation.

Because Jimmy Carter violated international laws, US laws, moral law and ethics by sending General Hugyens to Iran to get the Iranian military to take over the country in a coup, one of the very first things Khomeini did was summarily execute the US trained head of SAVAK and 7 general officers.

Khomeini then demanded the resignation or reassignment of other military officers.

That left Iran in a position of having a very well trained army (trained by the US in fact) but not having any leadership. The US knew that when it convinced Saddam to invade Iran.

The war went terribly for Iran, but in spite of their handicap, they managed to hold their own, and as the replacement officers climbed the proverbial Learning Curve, Iran turned the tide and drove Iraq out of Iran.

As Iranian units were moving along the coast through Khuzestan to cross the border into Iraq, the US committed another heinous act by sinking all of Iran's destroyers.

The destroyers were providing support and cover for Iran's advancing army. How? They could troll along 1 mile off of the coast and their RGM 66Es and 127 mm guns could take out Iraqi aircraft attempting to attack Iranian troops and also Iraqi armor units.

If you have to ask what an RGM 66E is then you might want to refrain from discussing things military, especially since you're providing false information.

Not impressed...

Mircea

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

Israel is pretty well screwed. If Iran does develop a nuke, one modest size one should pretty much make a tiny area like Israel uninhabitable.

Says who? You? Prove it. Show your work. I bet you can't, so you're just spewing HATE WEEK nonsense.

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

Yet if Israel takes out Iran's nuke sites, they are labeled the agressor

Yeah? Well, that's how international law and US public laws work.

If your neighbor buys a shot gun and you burn down his house, you're the one who goes to jail, not your neighbor. I would explain that to you in greater detail but I just don't have the time for such moronic lunacy.

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

and every idiot in the neighborhood with a homemade rocket or Symtex vest will be out for blood.

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

I'm not convinced that they would use nukes against Israel. However, you have to realize that you are dealing with people with the mentality of strapping on suicide vests and blowing yourself up in a public market as a way of entering heaven and getting your 72 virgins.

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

Which Iranian strapped on a suicide vest? I can't remember one.

He ain't exactly a Big Brain when it comes to Islam. These idiots are way too ignorant, prejudiced and bigoted, plus blinded by ideological and religious zeal to take the time to learn anything.

Islam is a lot like christianity. Let's compare (and we can compare because they are so much alike).

Islam has two main divisions -- Sunni and Shi'a; christianity has two main divisions -- Protestantism and catholicism/Orthodoxy.

The Sunnis and Protestants both have numerous sects which range from passive to very violent. You might think of it as secular to evangelical where you have secular Sunnis and secular Protestants to evangelical Sunnis and evangelical Protestants. You have Sunnis like Protestants who "Speak in Tongues" and you have Sunnis like Protestants who do the snake thing and dance with snakes and lick snakes or whatever they do. You have McSunni in the Big City just like you have McProtestant in the Big City.

Sunnis, like Protestants, reject relics, shrines and saints, and they don't believe that suicide is a sin.

The Shi'a are just like catholics/Eastern Orthodox, right down to the attitudes. Shi'a "Twelvers" are like catholics and normal Shi'a are like Eastern Orthodox. All of them are big into shrines and relics and saints and feast days and so many other things. If you would be catholic or Romanian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, etc etc, you wouldn't really know the difference from Shi'a.

Like catholics and the Orthodox, the Shi'a believe that suicide is a sin and you go straight to Hell.

That's why (as I've said before) that "Shi'a Suicide Bomber" is an oxymoron.

But those who are wrapped up in HATE WEEK will never understand that.

Ideologically...

Mircea

Originally Posted by banjomike

Iran is not going to attack US naval vessels. Iran has not attacked another country for over 50 years, and will not do so now unless some other country attacks them first.

I'm sure the US can successfully arrange another "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" when it is convenient for the US to do so.

Realistically...

Mircea

[TXboomerang]

What if Paraguay strikes us? Should we go to war with them?

The odds are pretty close to the same of Iran striking us....

Most likely, a terrorist threat on our soil will be ignored until something happens, then they will pin it on Iraq and start launching the war as fast as they can.

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

So you think they would use nukes against Israel? If they did, they would sign their own death warrant and they know it. The caveman conservatives would finally get their wish. We'd use nukes to turn a country into a parking lot -- and the world community would thank us for it. We can't have nations wiping other nations off the map with nuclear weapons. If Iran did that to Israel, Iran would have to wiped out too. I think Iranian leaders are savvy enough to figure that out -- even with their strange, superstitious beliefs.

Iran has a lot of reasons for wanting nuclear power. They need a lot of electricity for their oil production and water de-salinization stations, have a young, educated and sophisticated population that is under-employed, and want to build national infrastructure, which also requires a lot of electricity.

It is a large country, and is bounded by nations that are unfriendly to their religion, their resources, their burgeoning power in the Middle East. The Israelis do not want them to develop their reactors, and make no bones about it. The Israelis destroyed Iraq's nuclear development 30 years ago, and wants no other Muslim power to have the ability to develop weaponry.

For Iran, developing nuclear weapons puts them on parity with the Israelis, gives them the ability to sell weaponry to other nations in the Middle East and Africa, and more importantly, gives Iran the expertise to export their own nuclear power generators to other developing countries.

The Turks are competing strongly with Iran in all these areas, and other strong nations like Egypt are also competing with Iran. The Middle East is no longer an area of backward people who ride camels to get around. Many of it's countries are flexing their muscles, and want to become world players, with similar global influence as Europe and the U.S. now enjoys.

We can't stop all that, any more than we could stop China or the other Far East nations. There was once a time when we vowed Russia would never have nukes. We vowed China and India and Pakistan would never have nukes, too.
But they all have them now. The consequences of a nuclear attack to prevent development of nuclear weapons is simply too high a price to pay for any country that possesses them.

Nukes are as much a nightmare for a country that has them as an advantage. North Korea has had them for a long time, and rattle their sabers at the rest of the world constantly, in a pathetic attempt to blackmail the rest of the world into feeding their starving population, but the attempts always fail. Even North Korea understands the losses are greater than the gains.

Iran is strictly defensive. It does not want other territory, and has never started a war for over a century, but it does not want to be threatened, either. We have had no diplomacy with them for almost 40 years now, and that's what we need most. Going to arms against Iran is much more dangerous and damaging to us than Iraq was, many times more, and we are all still paying the bill for our Iraq escapade.

We will certainly protect our sea presence in the Gulf, and Iran knows this full well. They aren't going to try the same belligerent moves North Korea makes, as they Iranians do not want to become an isolated outlaw nation like N. Korea.

Patience, perseverance, and firmness on our part will eventually lead to re-establishing our relations with Iran. They want to come to the table, but they want to come as equals. We got it done with China, so we can do it with Iran.

[WestCobb]

Originally Posted by Jermaine88

Iran is not that stupid, But if they are, yes I will support a war..
I think a attack on Israel is more realistic, and that will get us involved.

I wonder how many would support a war with Iran if Iran directly attacked Israel.

[WestCobb]

Originally Posted by modeerf

How can Iran strike first, when the International globalists have already struck?

Iran can't sell anything in the open market.

Banning them from using SWIFT (first time ever a nation has been banned). The only international currency exchange mechanism for the WORLD commodities and bank transfers, is an act of war.

So if Iran strikes back. Which they most likely will, by blowing up more Saudi Oil fields and mining the Straits.

We will be in WWIII with Russia and China in a few short years.

This is not a war we want.

It is a war that the politicians and population controllista's want.

I have a feeling we are going to have to get out in front of our politicians on this issue if we want to avoid war. The anti-Iran war crowd should start organizing and mobilizing now. They shouldn't wait until the inevitable war drums start sounding. We should decide what we will go to war for and we will not go to war for now -- otherwise, the monied interests that stand to gain from another imperial war will make the decision for us.

[desertdetroiter]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

I wonder how many would support a war with Iran if Iran directly attacked Israel.

A majority of Americans would. I really believe that.

[munna21977]

Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone remembers this incident.

[WestCobb]

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

A majority of Americans would. I really believe that.

It's crazy... I have nothing against the Israelis, but who decided that we do Israel's bidding? That an attack on Israel is an attack on us?

[texdav]

Originally Posted by WestCobb

I wonder how many would support a war with Iran if Iran directly attacked Israel.

I thnik that would turn out mouch like the others when in fact most of the arab world attacked israel.But I thnik us plus great britai ahs made it clear that iran having nuclear weapons even meanig war isn't a option. Its seem most of the region agrees.