• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Iranian problem

Hutch said:
So do we (the US) let a purportive Israeli airstrike pass over Iraq (perhaps refuel over it also)? And where does that leave us with the Iraqi Shi'ite population? Could be they might be a bit upset about that--national soverignity and things like that. Which would make our job in Iraq that much more complicated.
Click to expand...

So do you think Iraqi Shi'ites have a special affinity for Iranian Shi'ites?
 
Kerberos said:
I wasn't talking about you contribution to Iraq, but your contribution to a hypothetical invasion of Iran. US troops are significantly superior to those of any other nation in actual combat, if nothing else due to their technological edge, though I'm told their combat training is superior too. The latter fact was from a political science text, rather than one focused on military so it might be incorrect. Stabilizing Iraq is not a combat operation per see, though of course it does involve combat and I wouldn't automatically assume that US troops are superior to those of other countries in that regard.

Kerebos, three year ago I would have dismissed out of hand any sugestion that US troops were superior to UK troops. But due to compounded budget cuts I have to conceed that if US troops are not already better trained than UK troops they damned well will be soon. Nonetheless, its my belief- based on knowledge and experience- that a brigade of US/UK troops is worth a Corps of Arab troops from whatever nation in any context

Well again it comes down to my belief that the Iranians are more rational than most other on this thread believes, bur I doubt that the Iranian would chose to escalate the conflict in such a manner, considering that it would mean the destruction of most of their army. Aid (or perhaps that would be increased aid) to Iraqi insurgent groups and perhaps a few raids across the border, but I doubt they’d try to invade.

Of course, the worst case scenario is that the Iranian Pres. is completely nuts. More likely he is "playing to the gallery" or emmiting a stream of anti-western/anti-isreali vitriol to distract his people from the fact that they are iving in a flea-ridden sh!t-hole. But even if the latter is true, there will become a time (as Saddat and Nasser found out), that you MUST act militarily, even if you KNOW its going to be a disaster, just because you have built the mob up to expect it.

Again, the Iranians dont have to launch a successful invasion to make things impossible for us in Iraq
Click to expand...

...
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
I'm not talking about anti-Semitism, I'm talking about the suggestion that there is a difference between a consistency of wording and a consistency of thought, and that either might be seen as evidence of lying. It just seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to go through to come to the conclusion that their intentions are something other than what they say they are.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, its much easier to rattle one's saber than to actually face one's enemy on the field of battle.
 
Mycroft said:
I'm not talking about anti-Semitism, I'm talking about the suggestion that there is a difference between a consistency of wording and a consistency of thought, and that either might be seen as evidence of lying. It just seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to go through to come to the conclusion that their intentions are something other than what they say they are.
Click to expand...
This is getting bizarre, are you really incapable of appreciating that there can be a difference between what you say and what you think and/or will do if a situation actually occurs? Do you believe that every word out of Bush or Kerry's mouth is true? What has the Iranian government done to earn this unquestioning trust, since questioning their honesty is apparently quite inconceivable to you?
 
Kerberos said:
What has the Iranian government done to earn this unquestioning trust, since questioning their honesty is apparently quite inconceivable to you?
Click to expand...
It's not actually about Iran for Mycroft. Taking their rhetoric at anything other than face value would make it harder for him to use their diatribes to fuel his own rhetoric; therefore, he accepts it. Evidence, common sense, and reason simply aren't relevant.
 
CFLarsen said:
"Spin"?





He's an equal-timer. But refuses to say out loud what he himselfs thinks. He's a politician.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life so I have no idea what the hell the Times is talking about.
 
Ed said:
I think that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life so I have no idea what the hell the Times is talking about.
Click to expand...
Where does he say anything about the origin of life?
 
Ed said:
Or attack with conventional weapons.
Click to expand...

I think this is most likely to happen. The Israelis - possibly the US - will bomb their noo-cu-lar bases.

Not with nukes, though. Nukes are unusable.
 
CFLarsen said:
I think this is most likely to happen. The Israelis - possibly the US - will bomb their noo-cu-lar bases.

Not with nukes, though. Nukes are unusable.
Click to expand...

It is really important that the Europeans be part of this.
 
Kerberos said:
This is getting bizarre, are you really incapable of appreciating that there can be a difference between what you say and what you think and/or will do if a situation actually occurs?
Click to expand...

Sure. There is often a huge difference between what someone says they will do and what they actually do.

However, in the case of Iran, we have multiple leaders giving shockingly similar accounts of what they want to do. This supports that they mean what they say.

They are also pursuing the means to accomplish what they say they want. This also supports that they mean what they say.

Do you have any evidence that they don't mean what they say? Other than wistful thinking?

Kerberos said:
Do you believe that every word out of Bush or Kerry's mouth is true? What has the Iranian government done to earn this unquestioning trust, since questioning their honesty is apparently quite inconceivable to you?
Click to expand...

When Bush talks about putting a base on the moon, but does nothing to advance the space program, then I don't give very much credence to what he says about wanting a base on the moon. He may be telling the truth that he wants it, but if he's not willing to do anything for it then it doesn’t matter.

When the president of Iran says it would be perfectly acceptable to have a nuclear exchange with Israel, and then flouts the world in pursuing technology who's only purpose is building bombs, their actions match their words and should be taken seriously.
 
Melendwyr said:
It's not actually about Iran for Mycroft. Taking their rhetoric at anything other than face value would make it harder for him to use their diatribes to fuel his own rhetoric; therefore, he accepts it. Evidence, common sense, and reason simply aren't relevant.
Click to expand...

You should keep your ad hominems out of this.
 
Those are insults, not ad hominems. You don't care, though, because they can be used as fuel for your rhetoric as long as you misidentify them.
 
Mycroft said:
However, in the case of Iran, we have multiple leaders giving shockingly similar accounts of what they want to do. This supports that they mean what they say.
Click to expand...
No, it supports the idea that all feel they have sufficient reason to make such pronouncements. Appearing tough to the masses seems adequate reason for them to make such threats.

We've tried without success to stop other countries from getting nuclear weapons, even when they'd never threatened Israel. They had other reasons for acquiring them, too (sociopolitical, most likely).

It's an interesting point, actually. Why don't these loathsome theocrats have the right to produce nuclear weapons? We haven't prevented India or Pakistan from producing them, and in my personal opinion, they're far more likely to have a nuclear exchange than Israel and Iran. Obviously it's in our interests to prevent nuclear proliferation, and we would logically engage in various forms of political pressure to discourage it - but what makes these particular fruitcakes worse than, say, the North Korean fruitcakes?
 
Hutch, Kerberos -- mission specifics

On a similar note I seem to remember something about Israel being in the process of buying some new planes that would be well-suited for such a mission, something about your existing ones not having sufficient range. Have you heard about that?"
Click to expand...

No. The current fighter-bomber configurations (F15 and F16) are sufficient.

  • Israeli AF May Attack Iran Without 3rd-Country Overflight Problems
    Israeli jets can attack Iran without overflying any third country. Look at a map of the region. This explains how it may happen: IAF F-15 and F-16 fighter-bombers fly south from bases near Eilat in Southern-most Israel out the Gulf of Aqaba and straight down the middle of the Red Sea (1100 nm.) The Red Sea exits at the Gulf of Aden into the Arabian Sea where, over international waters, these planes are refueled by IAF tanker aircraft (yes, they have them, both KC135 and KC130's as well as AWACS), and then proceed northeast another 900 nm until they turn 90 degrees left, flying into Iran near the entrance to the Persian Gulf at the Straights of Hormuz. From there, it's a straight line northwest up the Iranian coast and onwards to other targets in Iran. Approached from the Arabian Sea, IAF F-15s can strike anywhere within Iran, while the shorter-range F-16s can hit targets in the southern half of the country before they have to turn around and fly back out to meet circling Israeli Air Force air tankers, fill up again, before returning to bases in Israel. Not an easy mission, but not outside the technical abilities of the Israelis. Everyone will feign surprise, particularly in Washington. Aside from Iran, no one can complain about encroachment into their airspace. This makes it almost too tempting for Sharon to resist.
    Copyright, 2005 - Mark G. Levey
 
webfusion said:
Israeli jets can attack Iran without overflying any third country. Look at a map of the region. This explains how it may happen: IAF F-15 and F-16 fighter-bombers fly south from bases near Eilat in Southern-most Israel out the Gulf of Aqaba and straight down the middle of the Red Sea (1100 nm.) The Red Sea exits at the Gulf of Aden into the Arabian Sea where, over international waters, these planes are refueled by IAF tanker aircraft (yes, they have them, both KC135 and KC130's as well as AWACS), and then proceed northeast another 900 nm until they turn 90 degrees left, flying into Iran near the entrance to the Persian Gulf at the Straights of Hormuz. From there, it's a straight line northwest up the Iranian coast and onwards to other targets in Iran. Approached from the Arabian Sea, IAF F-15s can strike anywhere within Iran, while the shorter-range F-16s can hit targets in the southern half of the country before they have to turn around and fly back out to meet circling Israeli Air Force air tankers, fill up again, before returning to bases in Israel. Not an easy mission, but not outside the technical abilities of the Israelis. Everyone will feign surprise, particularly in Washington. Aside from Iran, no one can complain about encroachment into their airspace. This makes it almost too tempting for Sharon to resist.
Copyright, 2005 - Mark G. Levey[/list]
Click to expand...

Now that is most interesting, webfusion, and thanks--I must admit I hadn't thought of that angle. Only risk I see is that begin a much longer flight the risk of detection is higher (Saudi does have AWACS-type aircraft, recently upgraded by Boeing in 2002) and the chance an aircraft will have difficulty and be forced to land somewhere unfriendly is increased.

Still, the Israeli military has made a habit out of doing things folks believed not possible, so I wouldn't put it past them to pull it off.

We shall see.
 
Hutch said:
If Israel takes the shortest route, guess who's airspace it has to cross over? And guess who's patrolling that airspace right now?
Click to expand...
A pertinent post. If Israel could launch an air-attack across Iraq and back without the US detecting and responding it would (a) not be regarded as credible by the non-US world, nor much of the US population, and (b) scare the Pentagon witless. If the US detected and did not respond, as they might claim, that would have to be because (a) Israel is special in some way (reinforcing the Elders of Zion thesis) or (b) Israel is indeed, as has often been argued, a cat's-paw of Western Imperialist Christendom.

None of this would appear as good for most of the Israeli electorate. So, short of a military coup, it won't happen before March.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom