Iran War - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-09-2006, 07:55 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:03 AM
The Iranians know the lesson of Osirak, they have a distributed program so without having really good intelligence or really powerful bombs it would be hard to get it all. It's probably too late - any course of action seems to end in large scale death.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-09-2006, 05:07 PM   #17
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Yes because Iraq is already such an obvious vote-winner

The average American voter are drones, and they equal war with Republicans. If we weren't at war during the last election Bush wouldn't be here. I'm not sure the pseudo "moral" vote would have been enough.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-10-2006, 06:36 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Some good Iran pictures, http://conflictiran.blogspot.com/200...city-life.html

The situation is entirely different than that of Iraq, namely in the military strength of the regime and the fact that at the moment there are not crippling sanctions or a mass murdering government in power - any action (just like in North Korea but unlike Baathist Iraq) would kill a lot more people than inaction.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 04:40 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Some good Iran pictures, http://conflictiran.blogspot.com/200...city-life.html

The situation is entirely different than that of Iraq, namely in the military strength of the regime and the fact that at the moment there are not crippling sanctions or a mass murdering government in power - any action (just like in North Korea but unlike Baathist Iraq) would kill a lot more people than inaction.
I think you are right on this
there are 80 million Iranians

and many / maybe most of them
are not anti-American

The Mullahs are not that popular.

I do not believe Iran having this program is nearly as bad as some half-baked action against it.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-14-2006, 01:59 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 11:03 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060414/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Wow I think the president comes in second for being stupidest president after Bush!!!

Now that he has his nuclear enrichment he said the middle east will soon be free of the zionists. He also questioned the Holocaust Again.
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 04-14-2006, 02:26 PM   #21
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


They could indeed win decisively, the question is, is it necessary to do so in that way given the cost. Despite what many people allege, the bulk of US military power is currently not deployed overseas.
Iraq's population is 25 million. Iran's is 80 million. US can not stabilize Iraq with 147.000 troops (its not enough, clearly), there is NO WAY it can hold Iran with a similar number. It is pretty simple, Iran is a couple of times larger than Iraq, and 3 times larger in terms of population. Also, the Iranian population at large is not hostile towards its rulers the way Iraqis were against saddam. US can bomb Iran to stone age, but they cant invade it, certainly not by themselves.
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 04-14-2006, 04:35 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,062
Local Time: 01:03 PM
On the surface, I wouldn't feel so concerned about Iran having this program, but when you defend your right to nuclear power one day and then say an entire country should be obliterated the next, well, I'm sorry but you're not making many friends that way.

__________________
phanan is online now  
Old 04-14-2006, 04:50 PM   #23
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,846
Local Time: 06:03 PM
I can't believe this day , what was supposed to be a holy day , and the world is talking about war , Holy Jesus , and the U.S. population , at least the majority of it seems to support a new war Where are we heading ......
__________________
J_NP is offline  
Old 04-14-2006, 04:53 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:03 PM
I think their President is a bona fide nutcase, what with his Holocaust denials and such. My president is a klutz. The current world leadership has a real problem! I'm glad that Berlusconi is out but that's about the only decent news this week.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-14-2006, 04:55 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by all_i_want


Iraq's population is 25 million. Iran's is 80 million. US can not stabilize Iraq with 147.000 troops (its not enough, clearly), there is NO WAY it can hold Iran with a similar number. It is pretty simple, Iran is a couple of times larger than Iraq, and 3 times larger in terms of population. Also, the Iranian population at large is not hostile towards its rulers the way Iraqis were against saddam. US can bomb Iran to stone age, but they cant invade it, certainly not by themselves.
Most of Iraq is stable. The only true measure of instability is in the 4 majority Sunni province and this has never stopped the United States forces from moving through the area or conducting major elections. Yes, the Sunni insurgents can bomb any place, but so could the IRA anywhere in the United Kingdom during the 1970s.

The United States has 88 combat Brigades. Only 17 of them are deployed in Iraq at any one time. Another 10 are deployed to other important regions. This leaves 61 combat brigades available for different missions. If the United States needed to, it could cancel the annual rotations of combat brigades into and out of Iraq keeping the 17 Brigades currently in Iraq indefinitely. The same could be done with the other 10 Brigades deployed in other vital regions.

A total of 61 Brigades, nearly 4 times the combat strength of the Iraq force could be deployed to Iran. Of course, this would only be considered under extreme circumstances because there would be no combat reserves left anywhere to replace units. Then again, during World War II, units that were deployed overseas, stayed overseas until the end of the war.

Iran's military forces are weaker in many ways than Saddam's forces were prior to the 2003 invasion. Iran only has 1,400 tanks compared to 2,700 tanks that Saddam had. It has half the armored Personal Carries, half the number of artillery pieces, and only a similar number of combat aircraft. In addition, much of its equipment is from the 1950s and 1960s and is inoperable because of the lack of spare parts. This was American and British equipment supplied to the Shah of Iran back in the 1960s. Iran has received some limited quantities of newer Russian military equipment, but it is to small a number to be significant factor.

Another thing that Saddam's Iraq had was vast stores of artillery shells and other ammo used for various weapons. In fact the total tonnage of all this ammo is only surpassed by quantities in the United States and Russia. Most IED's, the weapon that kills most coalition troops in Iraq as well as being apart of the mix in the bombs used to kill civilians comes from this vast stockpile that Saddam had scattered around the country.

Iran has no similar stockpile of such quantity nor does it have as many guns per person as Iraq has, just as far as civilians go. While Iran's population is much larger, once its military forces are destroyed, its means of conducting an insurgency are smaller in many respects because of the smaller availability of materials used to make IED's as well guns, mortors, and RPG's.

Look at Afghanistan! Afghanistan is a country of 25 million people. The Soviets lost 12,900 troops in combat from their 9 year occupation of Afghanistan. In the United States nearly 5 year occupation of Afghanistan, it has lost only 137 troops in combat. The level of the insurgency in Afghanistan is tiny compared to Iraq. The number of US and coalition forces in Afganistan is only 34,000! Once again, Afghanistan has a population of 25 million!


There is actually a "middle option" between airstrikes and a full scale military invasion to overthrow the regime. But its unlikely the United States would ever do it because of the length of time it would take bring about concessions from the powers that be in Iran.

Much of Iran's wealth comes from the oil reserves in the Southeastern Province of Khuzistan. By simply taking the southern half of the province, the United States would be in possession of much of the vital energy and wealth generating power for the country. It would take a fraction of the troops that would be needed for a full scale invasion of Iran, and the Iranian economy would ground to a halt. The United States forces could insure that the oil from Khuzistan was still available on the world market, or if need be repair damage done to facilities sabotoged before an invasion.

I doubt this option would be consider though, because its difficult to determine how long the Iranian leadership would attempt to hold out under such circumstance. There is actually a strong opposition movement to Iran's conservative leadership although it has been silenced to a large degree in recent years. Still, the Iranian leadership is more vulnerable to an overthrow than Saddam ever was. The Iranian leadership has never had the vast number of security organizations and tightly held grip on the country that Saddam had on Iraq. The culture of fear that existed in Saddam's Iraq is no where near the same in Iran. Its often difficult to know who is in control of Iran which is the opposite of Iraq. The only way Saddam could have been removed was through foreign invasion. It is still possible that the Iranian leaders could be removed by the population, just as they removed the Shah given the weaker level of control that they have.


To sum up, only 20% of the United States total combat forces are currently deployed in Iraq. Afghanistan is a country of 25 million people like Iraq, and has only a fraction of the insurgency that Iraq has. Up to 70% of the United States ground forces are currently available, if needed, to deploy anywhere in the world, including Iran. There is a middle option short of full scale invasion or simply full scale airstrikes that could be attempted. Iran's total mechanized military ground force strength is only half of what Saddam had back in 2003. Iran does not have the vast stocks of war materials that Iraq had, which has provided the insurgency in Iraq with most of its weapons and materials for IEDs. The Iranian's leaderships hold on the people is weaker than the control Saddam was able to exert over the Iraqi population.

This does not mean a war would not be costly in lives and money, it would be. But that does not change the fact that the United States does have the capability to invade and overthrow the Iranian regime.

Still, it is questionable whether such an invasion is necessary. Iran is not Iraq in so many different ways. Unlike Saddam, Iran has not launched an unprovoked invasion of another country since 1856, something Saddam did multiple times over the past couple of decades. The Iranians currently do not have vast stocks of WMD nor have they used WMD to any significant extent, like Saddam did. Iran is not currently in violation of any UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations although this could change soon.

But there is still a potentially serious threat down the road from this. It is first dependent on the Iranian leadership, their goals and their behavior and second their capabilities. On the first issue, Iran has generally remained the same, despite the fiery outburst by the current president. On the second issue, their capabilities are currently not a problem, but could become one 5 years down the road.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-30-2006, 04:43 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Is Iran the real problem in the region?



Quote:
Killing of hostage - Pakistan sponsoring Taliban
By Financial Times Reporters
Published: April 30 2006 19:00 | Last updated: April 30 2006 19:00

The decapitation of an Indian engineer taken hostage in Afghanistan has fuelled concerns that Pakistan may be sponsoring Taliban attacks on its nationals.

Deploying language typically used to refer to Pakistan, Shyam Saran, India’s foreign secretary, on Sunday said he was “appalled by this inhuman act of terror by the Taliban and its sponsors”.

New Delhi has been concerned that Islamabad may be covertly backing the Taliban in attacks on Indian nationals in an attempt to prevent India from increasing its influence in Afghanistan, where it is engaged in numerous aid and reconstruction projects.

The developments come against a backdrop of slow- moving progress in the 2½-year peace process between the nuclear rivals.

Quote:
Pakistan Missile Test Successful On Saturday

April 30, 2006 11:29 a.m. EST

Shaveta Bansal - All Headline News Contributor

Islamabad, Pakistan (AHN) - Pakistan on Saturday successfully tested and fired a long-range nuclear-capable surface-to-surface missile.

The ballistic Missile Hatf VI (Shaheen II), with a range of 2,500 kilometers (1,555 miles), can carry conventional and non-conventional weapons, says The Associated Press.

The test was conducted to validate additional technical parameters beyond those that were verified in the last test fire in March 2005.

Distance between Islamabad and Tel Aviv ?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-30-2006, 04:59 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Two charities placed on US terror list


ISLAMABAD, April 28: The United States put two Pakistani charities on its terrorist list on Friday, saying they were fronts for Lashkar-i-Taiba (LeT), one of the most feared groups fighting Indian rule in occupied Kashmir.

The State Department announced that it was freezing assets in the United States belonging to Jamaat ud-Dawa and one of its affiliates, Idara Khidmat-i-Khalq.

Jamaat ud-Dawa has been prominent in providing relief after the Oct 8 earthquake in Pakistan.

Lashkar was put on the US terrorist list in 2001. It has been blamed for several violent attacks.

It was also sanctioned by a UN. committee on terrorism for its association with Al Qaeda, though security analysts say that Lashkar has maintained less strong linkages with Osama bin Laden’s network than several other Pakistani groups.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-30-2006, 07:20 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Is Iran the real problem in the region?









Distance between Islamabad and Tel Aviv ?

Pakistan's military and nuclear forces are designed for a potential war with India. War came close to occuring 6 years ago. Pakistan is outnumbered in both conventional forces as well as Nuclear Forces vs. India. Pakistan has had Nuclear weapons for 8 years now and the missiles to deliver them for an even longer time. Pakistan had no choice but to go nuclear when India did, given the unequal military balance.

By the way, the distance from Islamabad to Tel Aviv as the crow flies is 2214 miles (3563 km), well out of range of the new missile.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 10:55 AM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 11:03 AM
Well if a war is coming, I guess The Government of Iran is following the third reich. They passed a law requiring Jews and christians and other non-muslims to wear colored arm bands so people know who are non-muslims.

http://www.canada.com/components/pri...b1240f&k=32073

"Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

This is really looking like WW3 is on the horizon. The middle east, Russia and China V The US and Europe.
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 09:54 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Wow. That news report drew an unusually quiet response.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com