War with Iran is Inevitable

[Darth Rotor]

I'm sure you're aware of this DR but I would like to add a caveat:

Typically, the international sale of advanced weapons systems include disabling some of the more advanced features that could be easily reversed engineered. I know this for a fact in the case of the F-15K and the M-1 Abrams sold to Iraq.

Make no mistake, there's already secret squirrel type ops against Iran (and a couple dozens other nations) underway and have been for years.

I am aware, FHA, but as the issue was range, and weapons payload on a "air superiority fighter" and I happened to work extensively with F-15E's for a while in getting ordnance on target in Iraq, I figured I'd point out that we finally (after much political hemming and hawing) sold Strike Eagle versions (doubtless kitted out as you describe) to a variety of partners.

Also, your secret squirrel point is agreed, though I am a few years out of touch on most of that stuff.

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

Thank you, bigjelmapro.

I'm not sure why, but this dual acknowledgement does give me a warm fuzzy feeling. Why, perhaps in the fullness of time opposing parties as divergent as - as - hmmm - Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley - will sit down together!

Less frothily, I have always suspected that any Israeli aerial attack on Natanz et al will be with nuclear weapons, rather than conventional ones. Done via proxy agencies, one method would be to arrange, via K

 

[Tricky]

Good article about Iran and the Republicans who are clueless about it. When Ron Paul has the most reasonable foriegn policy, you know the GOP is in trouble.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver Kamm slaps down a stupid PressTV shill.

16 U.S. intelligence agencies slap down stupid war mongering shills ... and you:

U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb

The latest U.S. intelligence report indicates Iran is pursuing research that could enable it to build a nuclear weapon, but that it has not sought to do so... more

 

[Oliver]

Good article about Iran and the Republicans who are clueless about it. When Ron Paul has the most reasonable foriegn policy, you know the GOP is in trouble.

Now that the US intelligence does not believe that Iran is about to build a nuke, I'm pretty sure Ron Paul's foreign policy is wayyy better than the Bush strategy you seem to prefer: "Make up a threat, lie here and there and after marching in, laugh about the dead".

I'm sure you laughed about that as much the rest of the world did, didn't you?

 

[Oliver]

Spiegel also has a story about the CIA's estimate that Iran is not about to build the bomb. But how is that English phrase again?

"If you poke a beehive long enough, you're going to get stung."

 

[Virus]

Spiegel also has a story about the CIA's estimate that Iran is not about to build the bomb. But how is that English phrase again?

"If you poke a beehive long enough, you're going to get stung."

Iran should stop poking.

 

[leftysergeant]

Iran should stop poking.

Bush the Lesser started poking back in 2001, when the people of Iran whole-heartedly, expressed their sympathy with us over the 9/11 attacks.

Would somebody tell those morons who think that the Shrub was such a great military leader that you do not piss off an enemy who is trying to scale back the hostilities...

 

[Bill Thompson]

Avoiding war with Iran is easy. Well, maybe easy is the wrong word. But it is doable. Here is how. Just tell them, "look, we do not trust you. So here is our offer. We build you some nuclear power plants ourselves and so you can stop nuclear enrichment". Then add this. "If you agree to this, cool. You will not have anything to worry about. If you do not agree to this, your people will blame you (as in the government of Iran) for the sanctions and the international isolation and banishment of trade and the world economies turning their back on you and your own people will rise up and overtake you just as it has been done in the Arab world." Now, I know that the Persians are not like the Arabs and there is somewhat a questionable aspect to this, but I doubt the government of Iran will take their chances and oppose this offer.

5 Star Post

 

[leftysergeant]

Oy! Bill almost got one right.

Problem is that it won't work all that well after Bush the Lesser spent so much time grabbing his package and talking smack about Iran and the "Axis of Evil."

 

[Tricky]

Avoiding war with Iran is easy. Well, maybe easy is the wrong word. But it is doable. Here is how. Just tell them, "look, we do not trust you. So here is our offer. We build you some nuclear power plants ourselves and so you can stop nuclear enrichment". Then add this. "If you agree to this, cool. You will not have anything to worry about. If you do not agree to this, your people will blame you (as in the government of Iran) for the sanctions and the international isolation and banishment of trade and the world economies turning their back on you and your own people will rise up and overtake you just as it has been done in the Arab world." Now, I know that the Persians are not like the Arabs and there is somewhat a questionable aspect to this, but I doubt the government of Iran will take their chances and oppose this offer.

"We'll do everything for you so you don't have to learn to be self sufficient. That way you get energy and we get to hold your leash." What country wouldn't agree to a sweetheart deal like that?

 

[Toontown]

Avoiding war with Iran is easy. Well, maybe easy is the wrong word. But it is doable. Here is how. Just tell them, "look, we do not trust you. So here is our offer. We build you some nuclear power plants ourselves and so you can stop nuclear enrichment". Then add this. "If you agree to this, cool. You will not have anything to worry about. If you do not agree to this, your people will blame you (as in the government of Iran) for the sanctions and the international isolation and banishment of trade and the world economies turning their back on you and your own people will rise up and overtake you just as it has been done in the Arab world." Now, I know that the Persians are not like the Arabs and there is somewhat a questionable aspect to this, but I doubt the government of Iran will take their chances and oppose this offer.

5 Star Post
[qimg]http://www.forumpakistan.com/images/ranks/stars_limegreen.gif[/qimg]

That offer was made and rejected by the Iranian regime.

 

[Toontown]

Oy! Bill almost got one right.

Problem is that it won't work all that well after Bush the Lesser spent so much time grabbing his package and talking smack about Iran and the "Axis of Evil."

How stable is a regime that becomes irrational and impossible to negotiate with just because one president made one little remark about them being part of an "Axis of Evil"? The hypocrisy is all gooey and drippy after they themselves have been calling the U.S. "The Great Satan" for decades.

How stable is anyone who cannot let that one little remark go, after many years have passed, and the guy who made the little remark has long since faded into history?

 

[Toontown]

16 U.S. intelligence agencies slap down stupid war mongering shills ... and you:

The headline is both misleading, old news, and serves only to rock the babies to sleep.

The new round of sanctions (is not) about having hard evidence that Iran is actively building a bomb at this moment, and never have been about that.

The concern and sanctions (are) about Iran's refusal to stop enrichment and allow full IAEA inspections while continuing to harden it's nuclear facilities towards a point where they will be extremely difficult or impossible to take out with conventional weapons.

Same as always, the CIA said it has no hard evidence Iran is actively trying to build a bomb.

So what? Japan had no hard evidence the U.S. was trying to build a bomb until one took out Hiroshima.

Nor did the CIA have any hard evidence that the 9/11 attacks were about to happen. But they happened anyway. That's because that which can happen, does happen - to a limited but disturbingly consistent extent - even in the absence of "hard evidence" that it is about to happen. Very often in the absence of hard evidence. Disturbingly often in the absence of hard evidence. Which explains why several countries are repeatedly saying they will not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon, even though they have no "hard evidence" that Iran is, at the moment, building one.

Albright also said that Iran could have a nuke within a year, and have it atop a missile within three years, from the moment it chooses to do so. But no one knows, hard-evidentially, if or when Iran has or has not chosen to do so. Which explains why the IAEA wants Iran to stop enrichment and allow full inspections. Which Iran refuses to do and allow. Which is against Iran's NPT obligations, and is also irrational if Iran indeed has no intentions to build a bomb.

 

[ladmo]

The headline is both misleading, old news, and serves only to rock the babies to sleep.

The new round of sanctions (is not) about having hard evidence that Iran is actively building a bomb at this moment, and never have been about that.

The concern and sanctions (are) about Iran's refusal to stop enrichment and allow full IAEA inspections while continuing to harden it's nuclear facilities towards a point where they will be extremely difficult or impossible to take out with conventional weapons.

Same as always, the CIA said it has no hard evidence Iran is actively trying to build a bomb.

So what? Japan had no hard evidence the U.S. was trying to build a bomb until one took out Hiroshima.

Nor did the CIA have any hard evidence that the 9/11 attacks were about to happen. But they happened anyway. That's because that which can happen, does happen - to a limited but disturbingly consistent extent - even in the absence of "hard evidence" that it is about to happen. Very often in the absence of hard evidence. Disturbingly often in the absence of hard evidence. Which explains why several countries are repeatedly saying they will not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon, even though they have no "hard evidence" that Iran is, at the moment, building one.

Albright also said that Iran could have a nuke within a year, and have it atop a missile within three years, from the moment it chooses to do so. But no one knows, hard-evidentially, if or when Iran has or has not chosen to do so. Which explains why the IAEA wants Iran to stop enrichment and allow full inspections. Which Iran refuses to do and allow. Which is against Iran's NPT obligations, and is also irrational if Iran indeed has no intentions to build a bomb.

One of the issues with the IAEA and compliance is that we apply different rules to Iran (in this case) than we do for ourselves. A single example being: The United States has the sole authority to determine which sites will be inspected within the borders of the United States... not the IAEA. I am sure Iran would like the same option.

 

[Toontown]

One of the issues with the IAEA and compliance is that we apply different rules to Iran (in this case) than we do for ourselves. A single example being: The United States has the sole authority to determine which sites will be inspected within the borders of the United States... not the IAEA. I am sure Iran would like the same option.

I'm sure they would. I'm sure people in hell would like a cold beer too.

They should have thought of that before they began a clandestine nuclear weapon program in the late '90's which they only shut down when it was discovered.

They should have thought of that before they decided to become a terrorist state, strait-choker, holocaust denier, and threatener of a second holocaust.

Edited to add: I almost forgot to point out that the U.S. was already a nuclear power when the NPT was conceived, and has long since begun the process of reducing it's nuclear arsenal from it's high point during the cold war. Thus, it would be plain stupid and meaningless to waste time inspecting the U.S. facilities. What would the IAEA learn that it didn't already know before it even existed? Yes the U.S. continues to have the most advanced nuclear weapons capability on the planet. Surprise!

OTOH, any non-nuclear country which seeks to add more nuclear weapons to the planet is, by definition, a nuclear proliferator, and an illegal one if it is a signatory to the NPT.

 

[ladmo]

I'm sure they would. I'm sure people in hell would like a cold beer too.

They should have thought of that before they began a clandestine nuclear weapon program in the late '90's which they only shut down when it was discovered.

They should have thought of that before they decided to become a terrorist state, strait-choker, holocaust denier, and threatener of a second holocaust.

Edited to add: I almost forgot to point out that the U.S. was already a nuclear power when the NPT was conceived, and has long since begun the process of reducing it's nuclear arsenal from it's high point during the cold war. Thus, it would be plain stupid and meaningless to waste time inspecting the U.S. facilities. What would the IAEA learn that it didn't already know before it even existed? Yes the U.S. continues to have the most advanced nuclear weapons capability on the planet. Surprise!

OTOH, any non-nuclear country which seeks to add more nuclear weapons to the planet is, by definition, a nuclear proliferator.

Don't get me wrong; Iran is a threat and needs to be put in place. What troubles me more are the countries that are not signers of the NPT: Israel, India and Pakistan. Those last two are more apt to have an atomic event than Iran and "fill in the blank".

 

[Toontown]

Don't get me wrong; Iran is a threat and needs to be put in place. What troubles me more are the countries that are not signers of the NPT: Israel, India and Pakistan. Those last two are more apt to have an atomic event than Iran and "fill in the blank".

If Iran goes nuclear, you will have yet another nuclear country to add to your proliferating list of troubles.

 

[Oliver]

If Iran goes nuclear, you will have yet another nuclear country to add to your proliferating list of troubles.

Says the guy whose country is the sole one that actually used nukes. Funny enough, for the sole reason of terrorizing Japan into surrender.

Not to mention all those thug states that are about to get a single one. Oh, what a drama that is.

Maybe I should mention that if Iran would've intended to get a nuke, they would have as many as Israel by now.

Sorry to spoil the party, but according to history, the US turns out to be the dangerous nation here when it comes to starting wars and throwing nukes, not the other way around, Skeptics.

Anyway, all the whining is about keeping Israel ahead of those Muslim suckers who do not obey. Nothing else.

 

[IDB87]

Says the guy whose country is the sole one that actually used nukes. Funny enough, for the sole reason of terrorizing Japan into surrender.

Surrendering in a war that Japan started, and otherwise would have to end through conventional military tactics that would result in millions of casualties. If you think that's a better outcome, please say so.

Not to mention all those thug states that are about to get a single one. Oh, what a drama that is.

Anything nuclear related needs to be thought of as a serious issue and cannot be discussed lightly.

Maybe I should mention that if Iran would've intended to get a nuke, they would have as many as Israel by now.

If it were the other way around, I'd be against Israel acquiring nukes simply because Iran has them.

Sorry to spoil the party, but according to history, the US turns out to be the dangerous nation here when it comes to starting wars and throwing nukes, not the other way around, Skeptics.

The United States did not start WWII, and all things considered, dropping the a-bombs was the more humane way of ending the war.