blackascoal
-
Posts
235 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackascoal
-
-
If the soldiers are going to be out fighting trying to change the minds of mindless barbarians (pardon my french) who want to live like that, what's the use. Having a standing army ready to go against a world war II style threat is IMO the way to go.
I'd say if Iran is such a problem in everyone's eyes, then cut them off from our money. Naturally China and Russia don't view them as a problem hence why they do business with them. The palestinians are cut off from foreign money and now they are busy fighting each other, i haven't heard of too much violence towards israel at this point. Is this method of attrition cruel? Absolutely. Is it working to some degree? I think so. IMO we shouldn't be doing business with this area if it's going to be this hostile. If they can get their ducks in a row then fine do business with them.
Again, BIG difference between Iran and Palestine.
They don't need our money .. in fact, the Iranians have converted to the euro .. but WE need their oil.
Additionally, try convincing ANYONE that we should leave the middle east, where the oil is, alone.
The Chinese and Russians would absolutely love your idea.
-
If the US attacks Iran it will be through the air and sea only. There will be little to no ground forces. The mission will not be intended to do anything but create a face-saving illusion. America doesn't have the forces or intelligence capability to do anything else. Additionally, this would only be a quick strike because the Congress and the American people aren't buying war at this time.
The US will blow some shit up, claim victory, and go home.
Yes, I pretty much agree with this synopsis, of how it will play out. Along with attempting to blow up some nuclear facilities. All they will be doing is ensuring the youth of Iran will turn against the west and stop pushing for democratization.
Wasting soldier's lives on trash like that isn't worth it. Just cut them off like the palestinians. That strategy is working too well, they're killing each other.
The Iranians don't need US dollars, and, NOT leaving them alone is the entire argument .. and there is a vast difference between the Iranians, who have oil, and the Palestinians, who have nothing.
-
Left and right is a false paradigm. The political differences lie among those who believe what they see on TV and those of us who do not.
I am a right winger myself, but a real conservative not one of these fake neoliberal conservatives. Harper and Bush are liberals. If you can't see that you shouldn't post and you should go top a library instead.
I disagree.
There is a quite discernable difference between left and right perspectives in America. The left has never supported this war and we are perpetyally anti-war except in defense. The right, on the other hand, has pretty much always supported this war until the the preponderance of evidence and failure changed their minds. I agree that there has been a melding of perspectives within the main political parties, but the political differences among American people remain intact .. which is why Hillary Clinton is booed by the left. She may have, out of political conveinence, decided that war is a good thing, but the left didn't.
The Republicn Party was taken over by neocons .. who have nothing whatsoever to do with "liberalism" .. who led the party to disaster, but with the support and capitulation of mainstream conservatives. You guys should have fought against them long ago. By the same design, the Democratic Party was taken over by the DLC, which discounted the perspectives of liberals and the left .. which led to the rise of the idiot king.
The political differences lie in outcomes, not TV.
-
And the MVP is ... Prince.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a1AegGKjY0...related&search=
-
If the US attacks Iran it will be through the air and sea only. There will be little to no ground forces. The mission will not be intended to do anything but create a face-saving illusion. America doesn't have the forces or intelligence capability to do anything else. Additionally, this would only be a quick strike because the Congress and the American people aren't buying war at this time.
The US will blow some shit up, claim victory, and go home.
Yes, I pretty much agree with this synopsis, of how it will play out. Along with attempting to blow up some nuclear facilities. All they will be doing is ensuring the youth of Iran will turn against the west and stop pushing for democratization.
It would an absolutely mind-blowing ridiculous thing to do .. which is why I'm pretty sure the Bush Administration wants to do it.
-
Chavez has received sweeping new powers for the next 18 months. He plans to seize control of the oil industry, and is warning Chevron, Shell, and the rest to get ready for it. He would like them to remain minority partners of their own investments! And he will do it and close down tv stations he doesn't like. Any comments to that, or would you rather just bushbash.
Chavez and the people of Venezula can do whatever they want with THEIR resources .. no differently than America or Canada does whatevr they want with theirs. The people of Venezula can bestow whatever powers they want to THEIR leader.
The oil corporations have made more money than God has since the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps Chavez has been reading Thomas Jefferson who declared that freedom from corporations was a basic human right.
It is hypocritical of you to find nothing wrong with the people of Venezuela bestowing whatever powers they want to THEIR leader and out the other side of your mouth proclaim how evil the U.S. is when they have only done the exact same thing.
Not that I'm surprised, but you can't tell up from down.
Too bad the American people and those who understand things like "signing statements don't agree with you.
Not that I'm surprised.
Perhaps you can point out where Chavez or Venezula has EVER attempted to control ANY American resource .. but then again, you aren't too good at pointing shit out. Noticed that you didn't/couldn't actually debate anything I posted.
Bluster seems to be your best debating assest.
-
Most of late last week and into this weekend, the news media has taken aim at Obama.
They are saying that as a smoker, he will be brought down in his pursuit of the Presidency.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...tional/America/
Keep in mind that George Bush is the president.
If an ex-drunk, ex-cocaine using-average-student-wartime-deserter-death-sentence-loving-failed-businessman can get elected president, I'm sure a few cigarettes and whatever else they can throw at him won't stop him.
Hillary is getting boos .. he's getting standing ovations .. even at the same events.
-
If the US attacks Iran it will be through the air and sea only. There will be little to no ground forces. The mission will not be intended to do anything but create a face-saving illusion. America doesn't have the forces or intelligence capability to do anything else. Additionally, this would only be a quick strike because the Congress and the American people aren't buying war at this time.
The US will blow some shit up, claim victory, and go home.
-
I don't think anyone has answered the question "Which country would you choose to live in, USA, Iran, or Venezuela" in regards to some members "Being happy that these countries are standing up to the USA".
I am interested to hear some of the pendants of the US answers. What will it be...and I want honest answers from people...would you really like to live in Iran.....
I'll answer your question by it's a strawman argument that completely misses the point. I'm an American and I'd rather live in America than Iran or Venezula, but I'd also rather live here than live in Canada. What's the point? I don't believe that where I happen to live gives me any more authority than what the color of my skin is .. and your question is dependent on what time it is. If asked that question 50 years ago, my answer would have been different. If the US continues its downward spiral as it is currently doing, 20 years from now your answer might be different .. and that is the point.
The problem with your question, in my opinion, is that it's an escape from the mirror. Instead of looking at our own (America) reflection in the mirror, you seem to suggest that we look out the window at somebody else that might be uglier. I started this thread to discuss AMERICA and its faltering place in the world, which has only gotten worse since I first posted it. What Iran and Venezula have in common regarding US imperialim is that they've both been victims of it. ..
Discussing whether one would rather live here or in one of the countries we've intervened in their political affairs to the detriment of their people and society is hardly germaine to the issue .. and it's a long ass way from honest discussion, in my opinion. Why not ask if one would rather live in New York or Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
What is germaine is the blowback from our actions such as in Iran and Venezula .. and Hiroshima and Nagaski .. and Iraq .. and throughout the middle east .. and all of Latin America.
But that takes the ability to look in the mirror, not out the window.
-
From the polls I've seen, Canadians view China with about as much favorability as they view Bush, so Chavez may have better numbers than Bush even in Canada. At least he leads a democracy.
Didn't Chavez attempt a coup d'etat.
If Canadian's view China as favorably as they view America then they need a serious kick in the ass. Their probably just ignorant about the world outside of Canada and the US.
I didn't say America, I said Bush .. and that makes it completely understandable.
And, it's the other way around. A coup was attempted on the Chavez government.
Venezuela coup linked to Bush team
Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez
Sunday April 21, 2002
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...,688071,00.html
The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.
It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.
One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair. The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.
The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich.
On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office. He said the removal of Chavez was not a rupture of democra tic rule, as he had resigned and was 'responsible for his fate'. He said the US would support the Carmona government.
But the crucial figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates in the White House as senior director of the National Security Council for 'democracy, human rights and international opera tions'. He was a leading theoretician of the school known as 'Hemispherism', which put a priority on combating Marxism in the Americas.
It led to the coup in Chile in 1973, and the sponsorship of regimes and death squads that followed it in Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and elsewhere. During the Contras' rampage in Nicaragua, he worked directly to North.
Congressional investigations found Abrams had harvested illegal funding for the rebellion. Convicted for withholding information from the inquiry, he was pardoned by George Bush senior.
Any wonder why the name "Bush" is hated all over Latin America or why Chavez call Bush the devil?
-
Dude, you are truly a one trick pony. Your loathing for your own country is remarkable. I sincerely hope your attitudes are not an accurate representation of those of your culture and generation.
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. "
"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson
If Jefferson lived today, people like you would think he was "unpatriotic", "unamerican", and hated his own country. That's because you don't understand the difference between a citizen and a subject. A citizen has a right and a duty to question his government .. and because American citizens understand that, the truth of the fraud of electronic voting has been exposed. Neither political party led this challenge, in fact, both stood in the way. American citizens, activists, and technology professionals, did the researcg, documentation, and exposure. Politicians were forced to follow along behind. I post this because I'm proud to have been one of those citizens. Subjects played no part in this effort. They simply did what they were told and thought what they were told to think .. as you seem to be implying is the "American" thing to do.
"My culture and generation" would be that of the 60's and my rebellion and resistance to FEAR is quite indicative of that time .. a resistance that brought about great social and political changes in America. If you look closely, you'll see a lot of the same elements desire for change in the American people today.
Keeping America true to it's values, principles, and greatness are the responsibility of citizens, not politicians nor corporations, nor scary people. Too bad you don't understand that.
My advice is that you could spend your time better sticking to issues, which I'll gladly debate you on, rather than trying to define me because I simply don't care. I appear to understand democracy a lot better than you do. Dissent against bad government is a critical component of any successful democracy, and democracy, like life, is dynamic, not static.
Now if you'd like to debate the merits of electronic voting and try to demonstrate that nothing is wrong with it, I can tell you up front that you will lose that argument .. badly. I'm a DBA, I know software, and I've worked on this issue for at least 6 years. Start with "software negative votes Leon County Florida" .. search on that.
get back to me.
-
If I had to choose between Bush or Chavez, I'd choose Bush, much more democratic.
I'm not sure, for some reason Chavez remind's me of Idi Amin. I have a distrust for any leader who want's to build a utopia, since usually a utopia only leads to genocide.
Then again, you aren't Venezulan. Bet they wouldn't choose Bush, and in their country, theirs is the only opinion that really counts.
In Venezula, 63% have an unfavorable view of Bush .. and in America, 64% have an unfavorable view of Bush.
Damn, they seem to hate him almost as much as we do.
From the polls I've seen, Canadians view China with about as much favorability as they view Bush, so Chavez may have better numbers than Bush even in Canada. At least he leads a democracy.
-
If congress and the senate don't want it to happen, it won't happen. In Iraq the president had the support of congress and the senate, he wouldn't have the same support to attack Iran.
The president has the power to respond to provocation and attack, which is the case they are trying to build with "seized Iranian weapons" and "seized Iranian agents". He can respond to a created "provocation" which is what Zbigniew Brzezinski is warning the US Congress of right now. He almost came right out and said that we did 9/11 and are capable of doing it again.
Then the Bush Administration can claim "defense" as their rationale.
However, nobody is buying it this time and Brzezinski's warning may have complicated their plans even further.
-
Chavez has received sweeping new powers for the next 18 months. He plans to seize control of the oil industry, and is warning Chevron, Shell, and the rest to get ready for it. He would like them to remain minority partners of their own investments! And he will do it and close down tv stations he doesn't like. Any comments to that, or would you rather just bushbash.
Chavez and the people of Venezula can do whatever they want with THEIR resources .. no differently than America or Canada does whatevr they want with theirs. The people of Venezula can bestow whatever powers they want to THEIR leader.
The oil corporations have made more money than God has since the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps Chavez has been reading Thomas Jefferson who declared that freedom from corporations was a basic human right.
Perhaps Chavez, as is the rest of the world, aware of the Oil Law that the Bush Administration is pushing on the Iraqis which gives extrodinary control of Iraq's oil resources to western corporations for an exagerrated price and for an exagerrated period.
Perhaps Chavez is aware of the hand that US and British oil corporations played when Iran nationalized their oil resources .. and the US and British governments overthrew Iran's democratically elected government to install a brutal dictator that immediately gave the oil back to the oil corporations .. especially given that the CIA has already tried to topple his democratically elected government but failed.
Perhaps Chavez is aware that there ain't shit the US can do about what he has to say or do in HIS country.
What are you suggesting, that we now attack Venezula .. while we're attacking Iran .. and attacking Iraq .. and attacking Afghanistan .. and making plans to attack Syria .. all by ourselevs?
NATO wants out of Afghanistan .. and just about everybody has already left Iraq. The British and Japanese will be leaving any minute now.
All by ourselves
See, didn't mention the idiot once.
-
It appears that there is another voice that knows the ins and out of US foreign policy, military and intelligence operations, and deceptions and coverups, who believes the Bush Administration is capable not only of the deceit of 9/11 .. but should be watched so they don't do it again.
A political bombshell from Zbigniew Brzezinski
Ex-national security adviser warns that Bush is seeking a pretext to attack Iran
2 February 2007
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02_prn.shtml
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the Bush administration’s policy was leading inevitably to a war with Iran, with incalculable consequences for US imperialism in the Middle East and internationally.Most stunning and disturbing was his description of a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran.” It would, he suggested, involve “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.” [Emphasis added].
This was an unmistakable warning to the US Congress, replete with quotation marks to discount the “defensive” nature of such military action, that the Bush administration is seeking a pretext for an attack on Iran. Although he did not explicitly say so, Brzezinski came close to suggesting that the White House was capable of manufacturing a provocation—including a possible terrorist attack within the US—to provide the casus belli for war.
That a man such as Brzezinski, with decades of experience in the top echelons of the US foreign policy establishment, a man who has the closest links to the military and to intelligence agencies, should issue such a warning at an open hearing of the US Senate has immense and grave significance.
Brzezinski knows whereof he speaks, having authored provocations of his own while serving as Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. In that capacity, as he has since acknowledged in published writings, he drew up the covert plan at the end of the 1970s to mobilize Islamic fundamentalist mujaheddin to topple the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan and draw the Soviet Union into a ruinous war in that country.
Following his opening remarks, in response to questions from the senators, Brzezinski reiterated his warning of a provocation.
He called the senators’ attention to a March 27, 2006 report in the New York Times on “a private meeting between the president and Prime Minister Blair, two months before the war, based on a memorandum prepared by the British official present at this meeting.” In the article, Brzezinski said, “the president is cited as saying he is concerned that there may not be weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, and that there must be some consideration given to finding a different basis for undertaking the action.”
He continued: “I’ll just read you what this memo allegedly says, according to the New York Times: ‘The memo states that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation.’
“He described the several ways in which this could be done. I won’t go into that... the ways were quite sensational, at least one of them.
None of the senators in attendance addressed themselves to the stark warning from Brzezinski. The Democrats in particular, flaccid, complacent and complicit in the war conspiracies of the Bush administration, said nothing about the danger of a provocation spelled out by the witness.
Following the hearing, this reporter asked Brzezinski directly if he was suggesting that the source of a possible provocation might be the US government itself. The former national security adviser was evasive.
The following exchange took place:
Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?
A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.
Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?
A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.
You can dismiss a man with Brzezinski's knowledge and experience if you choose .. but the fraud of 9/11 is unraveling. Soon, lots of people will be talking as the Bush Administration's power continues to wane.
Just like the fraud of Iraq and all the other frauds and deceptions by this administration that are now known. Many of the frauds were revealed by those who were inside the administration, like Colin Powell and Richard Perle. So, shall the 9/11 fraud be revealed, and there will be nowhere to hide, and all the volumes and pages of excuses and ignorance and fear of reality, will be added to the pages of denial about the truth of the US attack on Iraq.
There's no need to argue about obvious truth to those who refuse to see .. many of whom were the same people who couldn't see the truth of Iraq until they were overwhelmed by it.
The truth is already known and ye shall be overwhelmed by it.
-
Yeah..blame the jews...no suprises there.....They are the only people on earth afraid of an atomic iran...silly jews.....I mean, when the Irranians say they are going to wipe Israel off the map, we know they're only kidding.....
Perhaps you can list all the other nations in the world that are saying that Iran should be attacked .. or you can continue to hide behind the "blame it on the jews" escape clause.
The world, including all Arab/Islamic, nations don't want it to happen .. the American people don't want it to happen .. democrat AND republican politicians don't want it to happen .. military planners in and out of the Pentagon don't want it to happen .. YOU claim you don't want it to happen .. tell me just who is it, outside of Isreal, that is calling for an attack on Iran?
Of course, your escape clause or calling me a name would be much easier than answering the question.
-
Few people within the US are dumb enough to believe that ANY attack on Iran would be in our best interest. Even the warhawks like McCain and Hillary Clinton are now backing down as they recognize there is no support for it.
The ONLY nation on earth pushing for an attack is Israel and if they want to attack Iran, then THEY and ONLY THEY should try it. Israel has its own military and only they should do the dying and pay the consequences for such a foolish misadventure.
-
A political bombshell from Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02_prn.shtml
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the Bush administration’s policy was leading inevitably to a war with Iran, with incalculable consequences for US imperialism in the Middle East and internationally.Brzezinski, who opposed the March 2003 invasion and has publicly denounced the war as a colossal foreign policy blunder, began his remarks on what he called the “war of choice” in Iraq by characterizing it as “a historic, strategic and moral calamity.”
“Undertaken under false assumptions,” he continued, “it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean principles and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.”
Brzezinski derided Bush’s talk of a “decisive ideological struggle” against radical Islam as “simplistic and demagogic,” and called it a “mythical historical narrative” employed to justify a “protracted and potentially expanding war.”
“To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy,” he said.
Most stunning and disturbing was his description of a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran.” It would, he suggested, involve “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.” [Emphasis added].
This was an unmistakable warning to the US Congress, replete with quotation marks to discount the “defensive” nature of such military action, that the Bush administration is seeking a pretext for an attack on Iran. Although he did not explicitly say so, Brzezinski came close to suggesting that the White House was capable of manufacturing a provocation—including a possible terrorist attack within the US—to provide the casus belli for war.
That a man such as Brzezinski, with decades of experience in the top echelons of the US foreign policy establishment, a man who has the closest links to the military and to intelligence agencies, should issue such a warning at an open hearing of the US Senate has immense and grave significance.
9/11 anyone?
-
I was wondering what Iran's military upgrades are......
genies.....
No doubt that you were wondering the same thing about Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.
While you're "wondering" .. the American people have decided.
-
Any attack on Iran would unleash genies out of the bottle that America has no plans to deal with .. no different that what has happened in Iraq. The focus solely on military power is misguided, and in the face of what is before us today, quite non-sensical. Focusing solely on military power is the exact same snake oil that led the US to believe that Iraq would be a "cakewalk" .. and why I titled this thread as I did.
Even the US military is not convinced that it would make any sense .. nor the politicians .. nor the American people.
LAST STAND: The military’s problem with the President’s Iran policy.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060710fa_fact
The U.S. Strategic Command, supported by the Air Force, has been drawing up plans, at the President’s direction, for a major bombing campaign in Iran.Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged the President’s plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and officials. The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear program. They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States.
A crucial issue in the military’s dissent, the officers said, is the fact that American and European intelligence agencies have not found specific evidence of clandestine activities or hidden facilities; the war planners are not sure what to hit. “The target array in Iran is huge, but it’s amorphous,” a high-ranking general told me. “The question we face is, When does innocent infrastructure evolve into something nefarious?” The high-ranking general added that the military’s experience in Iraq, where intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was deeply flawed, has affected its approach to Iran. “We built this big monster with Iraq, and there was nothing there. This is son of Iraq,” he said.
-
Most stuff I've found confrims Iran's military to be something of a joke. For example, they only have enough armour for one to three divisions and most of that equipment is old and crumbling. The airforce is puny with a mere handful of modern attack/fighter aircraft and no airborne comand and control capability. What they have going for them is a large population base, which is what enabled them to beat back the materially superior Iraqis in the '80s. But the lack of any decent material, air or armour means they are not much of an offensive threat. AGain: the real danger lies in their ability to mount asymetrical operations and god knows there's plenty of targets for that sort of thing.
Iran's Point Defense Upgraded
Wednesday, 10 May 2006
http://www.iranmilitaryforum.com/index.php...id=58&Itemid=54
excerpt ...
Russia has signed a deal with Iran to sell 29 of its TOR M-1 Anti-Aircraft/Anti-Missile systems, (already delivered) a development that will complicate any planned pre-emptive attack on the rogue nation's nuclear facilities. Russian officials claim the Tor system is "a weapon of defense" and does not represent a danger to the U.S. as long as Washington does not attack Iran. The 9K331 Tor [sA-15 GAUNTLET land-based, SA-N-9 naval version] low-to-medium altitude SAM system is capable of engaging not only aircraft and helicopters but also RPVs, precision-guided weapons and low flying cruise missiles. The sophisticated Tor system could ensure reliable protection for government, industrial and military sites.When deployed in an integrated network, an array of S-300 and TOR-M1 systems could pose a highly potent defensive network against any aggressor, with the long range S-300 neutralizing aggressors and support planes at the high altitude, long range domain while the TORs engaging UAVs, precision guided weapons, cruise missiles and anti-radiation missiles, launched at the the SAMs, radars and protected sites.
Not suggesting that Iran is the most formidable military power, only that it is better than during the Iraq/Iran conflict and attacking Iran would not be the cakewalk sugested by others.
There is no military solution for Iran that will not hurt US interests as much or even more. Diplomacy is the only option that makes any sense.
-
You made the claim that the Iranian military isn't any better than it was in the 80's .. so
Bet you can't back that up either.....
Not going to play this silly game with you.
You're such a bullshitting chickenshitClear signal that I've won this argument.
-
Secondly, the Iranian military is far superior today than it was during the Iraq/Iran conflict .. .
Sure it is.....do you have a reputabel source for that airclaim?
I have plenty and so does anyone who knows how to get them .. which does not matter to you so I won't burden you with it. You made the claim that the Iranian military isn't any better than it was in the 80's .. so how about you backing that up.
-
The Iranian military is a non starter. Even with the Russian additions which haven't scored a hit on a US plane in decades despite countless sorties by American, NATO and Israeli flyers.
But more importantly than the lack of modern equipment is the lack of modern leadership. During the Iran Iraq war and despite being armed at the time with modern armour and aircraft (which have since rusted) they couldn't think strategically or tactically past First World War trench warfare. But as Alaric said to the Romans who bragged on their elaborate defenses, "The thicker the hay, the easier the mow"
The biggest threat that Iran has to offer is to the safe navigation of the straits of Hormuz by civilian craft and by terrorist rerisals on saft targets like daycares, bakeries and falafal stands.
During the Iran and Iraq war, a phase of the war known as the TAnker war saw Iranian revolutionary Guard mining the straits and attacking neutral shipping. Their prefered tactic was to set upon a tanker witha few fast swedish jet boats and fire RPGs at the super tankers and leave before an escort could arrive.
And as well Iran has shown no hesitation to sponsor and fund terrorists to attack civilan targets.
All in all eliminating the Iranian leadership would improve the world by a fair degree.
First, the US has no ability to "eliminate the Iranian leadership" PERIOD, especially from the air. Any attack would only solidify the current leadership. Most of the world, including the American people, believe that getting rid of the current AMERICAN leadership would make the world safer.
Secondly, the Iranian military is far superior today than it was during the Iraq/Iran conflict .. and it has far more allies. In fact, they would have more allies than the US would or does. Even moderate Arab states don't want Iran attacked.
Additionally, the US has troops stationed in Iraq and throughout the region who would immediately be facing a far worse challenge than what they face today in an already lost cause .. AND the US economy would suffer tremendously with such an attack.
The US could not meet all the challenges it would face without a military draft and there is no question whatsoever that the American people aren't going to buy into such a mindless course.
Finally, what would be the point of attacking Iran? ..
The US cannot eliminate the Iranian leadership by such an attack and we cannot ensure that any hardened nuclear facility would be destroyed.
Iran, at some point, will acquire nuclear weapons and there is nothing the US can do to prevent that.
If you thought Iraq was a "cakewalk", try attacking Iran
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Blueblood,