Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
634 online now:
dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, ramoss, Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (9 members, 625 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,161 Year: 4,273/6,534 Month: 487/900 Week: 11/182 Day: 11/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Iran Attack
starman
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 9 (469868)
06-08-2008 5:18 AM


Opinions? Is Israel / US right to proceed with this? The spike in oil prices seems to indicate that many worry it will happen, and there is a lot of talk.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2008 2:33 PM starman has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 2 of 9 (469910)
06-08-2008 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by starman
06-08-2008 5:18 AM


Opinions? Is Israel / US right to proceed with this? The spike in oil prices seems to indicate that many worry it will happen, and there is a lot of talk.

Hi,

What do you mean by "Attack"? If you mean invade, I would say no.

A similar scenario occurred in 1981 -- "Operation Babylon." In the late 70's, Iraq was working on the construction of an Osirak reactor with parts and material supplied by France. They pledged to use the reactor for civilian purposes only but after a while Intelligence indicated they were starting to create processes to extract plutonium and refine it to weapons-grade material. The West pressed for information and demanded Iraq provide evidence that would allow one to conclude whether they were in fact doing just that.

The West asked for permission to interview members of the scientific team that headed up the project. Iraq refused and shortly later three Iraqi physicists involved with the reactor program suddenly disappeared and were later reported dead by the Iraqi government. Their death remains a mystery. Satellite and intelligence indicated a flurry of activity at the facility with vehicles moving in and out of the compound at a rapid pace. The next day, Israel sent in a squadron of F-16's to disable the reactor in the middle of the night. That was the end of the Iraqi program.

Nobody is trying to refuse any country the right to build reactors for civilian energy needs. Nobody has a problem with Iran's reactor program in this regards. What the UN requires is that they continue to allow inspections to ensure they are not going about the business of manufacturing weapons-grade material for use in WMD. They are not complying and this is not a good sign. The UN will not allow Iran to develop a weapons program. Whether you agree or disagree, it's just not going to happen.

I suspect this situation will be similar to the one with Iraq in 1981. Israel will take the first shot and go in with a pre-emptive strike against the reactor complex. They have been more vocal of late with the Israeli PM recently saying they will do just that. I tend to believe them. I do not think the US will be involved initially. Once Iran's facility is attacked, I believe Iran will respond by attacking Israel in the hopes other Arab nations join in the fray. This is when things get dicey and when the US will intervene. How far we get involved remains to be seen but I think it is a given at this point that this type of scenario is inevitable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by starman, posted 06-08-2008 5:18 AM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by starman, posted 06-09-2008 1:58 AM Grizz has taken no action

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 9 (470034)
06-09-2008 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Grizz
06-08-2008 2:33 PM


The US doesn't have much it can do if Iran retaliates by hitting the troops over in Iraq. Possibly a small limited nuclear response would be all they could do.

That might open up a brave new world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Grizz, posted 06-08-2008 2:33 PM Grizz has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 7:30 PM starman has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 9 (470172)
06-09-2008 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by starman
06-09-2008 1:58 AM


Iran bombing Iraq?
The US doesn't have much it can do if Iran retaliates by hitting the troops over in Iraq. Possibly a small limited nuclear response would be all they could do.

That might open up a brave new world.

That would be suicide for Iran. Iran would not be so bold as to bomb the hell out of Iraq just to get to a few Americans. It would outrage the Muslim world that Iran would be so daft. Iran's best way to fight the US and Israel is the way they've been doing -- by fighting a proxy war -- supplying the insurgency with an unending supply of arms, just like the Russians did to the US in Vietnam, just like the US did to Russia in Afghanistan.

Secondly, even if the entire US force in Iraq was disintegrated, it would not be catastrophic to the US military. It would be of grave concern, of course, but the shift of power would not be so utterly imminent, as you seem to be tacitly suggesting.

The US has the foresight to not place all of its troops in one location. To do so would be one of the biggest military blunders I can think of. There are still massive forces not in Iraq, particularly Trident subs, which could destroy the world 7 times over even if the rest of the United States lay in ruins. Trust me when I say that the US has thought of all these scenarios in advance. Hell, NORAD actually drew up a scenario where commercial planes hit skyscrapers long before it actually happened. (Too bad their scenario in this instance didn't seem to teach them anything constructive)

Supposing Iran really were that idiotic, their entire civilization would be incinerated in a flash retribution via intercontinental ballistic missiles. Since their entire military is centrally located, it would be to their folly to ever try something like that.

Remember what the US did to Japan for Pearl Harbor? It would be infinitely worse for Iran.

Unless of course a democrat is in office during that time, in which case the US would promptly surrender and the government would issue out Qur'ans and keffiyeh.

That was joke, because as we all know Hillary would rain down fire from heaven. ;)


“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by starman, posted 06-09-2008 1:58 AM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by starman, posted 06-09-2008 10:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 06-10-2008 6:46 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 9 (470198)
06-09-2008 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2008 7:30 PM


Re: Iran bombing Iraq?
quote:
Supposing Iran really were that idiotic, their entire civilization would be incinerated in a flash retribution via intercontinental ballistic missiles. Since their entire military is centrally located, it would be to their folly to ever try something like that.

Remember what the US did to Japan for Pearl Harbor? It would be infinitely worse for Iran.


That is all well and good, in theory. In reality, some people may not take kindly to the US nuking on a big scale. Nothing would unite the rest of the world seriously against the US faster than that. The contaminations and fallout would affect more than Iran. You kidding??

Edited by starman, : No reason given.

Edited by starman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 7:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-11-2008 11:27 AM starman has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3145 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 6 of 9 (470350)
06-10-2008 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2008 7:30 PM


Re: Iran bombing Iraq?
Nothing short of an actual Iranian nuclear attack on US soil would ever result in the kind of outcome you describe and they are nowhere near having that capability.

If whoever is in office would be stupid enough to call for such a thing the backlash against the US would be massive and not just from the Moslem world. Our economy would be in shambles after that due to a catastrophic energy crisis. Our own citizenry would be rioting both for the action itself and the subsequent decline of our social system.

Your improbable scenario is would you would do if you want the children of previously middle income parents to literally starve on the streets of our suburbs.

Luckily like you said, that would never happen. Iran will never invade Iraq because as buddy buddy as they are now with Sadr he would turn on them almost instantly. Iraq is actually much more nationalistic then people give them credit for and there still are very deep wounds from the previous war.

If anything, Iran attacking the US in Iraq would only strengthen what is turning out to be a very delicate alliance between Malaki and the US. Right now Iraq is balking at Bush wanting to install a couple dozen military bases inside Iraq and the very second an Iranian tank crossed the border there would be no more objections to the US proposal. They would also rally the rest of our allies back into the fight.

That is not to mention the fact that our conventional forces in Iraq alone would be enough to utterly decimate any kind of standard Iranian advance.

Iran's strong position right now is to simply play on our absolute unilateral ineptitude in Iraq. Right now the world is on their side because the world realizes that currently they pose no global threat. Emphasis on currently. Even our own intelligence points to that fact. So Iran will very much be content to score geopolitical points and continue to hand bullets to insurgents under the table to keep the US paying for its folly.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 7:30 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by starman, posted 06-11-2008 1:33 AM Jazzns has taken no action

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 9 (470394)
06-11-2008 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jazzns
06-10-2008 6:46 PM


Re: Iran bombing Iraq?
quote:
Nothing short of an actual Iranian nuclear attack on US soil would ever result in the kind of outcome you describe and they are nowhere near having that capability.

Is not the bases, and etc over Babylon way considered that? How about the soldiers? I hope that sort of thing never happens, of course. Maybe I read too much news.

quote:
If whoever is in office would be stupid enough to call for such a thing the backlash against the US would be massive and not just from the Moslem world. Our economy would be in shambles after that due to a catastrophic energy crisis. Our own citizenry would be rioting both for the action itself and the subsequent decline of our social system.

Sounds frightful. But it is hard to really guess how it would turn out. I suspect that both the EU, and the UN would be strengthened.

quote:
Your improbable scenario is would you would do if you want the children of previously middle income parents to literally starve on the streets of our suburbs.

Well, no, I simply look at the threats from Israel, to Iran, and the likely weapons that will be used for the job. The repercussions seem likely. Not my idea. I think I remember a US veiled warning to Iran, from last time things looked like a possible attack there. Something like, 'You touch our boys, or bases over there, we do the wild thing on ya'

quote:
Luckily like you said, that would never happen. Iran will never invade Iraq because as buddy buddy as they are now with Sadr he would turn on them almost instantly. Iraq is actually much more nationalistic then people give them credit for and there still are very deep wounds from the previous war.

I never said that. My concerns were that they would attack it, I meant by missiles, maybe chemicals, etc, or whatever they had. I guess the term is surgical strike. In this case, it might be with a blunt scalpel.

Then there is the matter of Iran's friends, and quiet handshakes. I notice some concerns with Syria as well, maybe they would both get a little hot under the collar, if Israel stirred it up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 06-10-2008 6:46 PM Jazzns has taken no action

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 9 (470577)
06-11-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by starman
06-09-2008 10:30 PM


Re: Iran bombing Iraq?
some people may not take kindly to the US nuking on a big scale.

But the world would be approving of Iran nuking Iraq, thus taking out two of its enemies -- Iraqis and American soldiers?

Nothing would unite the rest of the world seriously against the US faster than that. The contaminations and fallout would affect more than Iran. You kidding??

This was your bizarre scenario where Iran bombed the hell out of its own neighbor. The fallout comes from your own scenario, yet someone America could not retaliate when I answer said scenario.

Then you tell me what America would or should do in the event that Iran firebombed Iraq, killing all of its troops stationed there.


“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by starman, posted 06-09-2008 10:30 PM starman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by starman, posted 06-11-2008 6:58 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 9 (470660)
06-11-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Hyroglyphx
06-11-2008 11:27 AM


Re: Iran bombing Iraq?
quote:
But the world would be approving of Iran nuking Iraq, thus taking out two of its enemies -- Iraqis and American soldiers?
I would think most of it would not. But how much? If limited nuclear war was waged on Iran, and or Syria, any pity from a dastardly revenge act might be washed away as insignificant.

The brunt of a revenge attack by Iran, in Iraq territory, one assumes, would be directed at the US forces, and interests, no? Not at Iraqis.

The world would be horrified, but, really, if it was a reaction to a nuclear tipped bunker buster assault by Israel, most would simply shake their heads, and feel that they almost had it coming?

Seems to me that the best way to defend against that sort of thing is to address the nukes in Israel, that might be used. Oh, wasn't Kennedy about to do that? Hmm, maybe it is easier said than done. If that is the case, I guess, their bed is made, and they will need to lie down in it.

I will have no sympathy for anyone using nukes. Period. None, only contempt.

Edited by starman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-11-2008 11:27 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022