Whats Going To Happen With Iran?

[trane]

You would think he would be smart enough to at least keep his mouth shut and try to do what ever it is they are up to without anyone knowing. I just don't understand his thinking on this but can almost guarantee that someone is getting close to taking him out right or wrong.

Maybe the plan is to get oil moving up again, but there has to be something I am missing on this. Is he stupid enough to think Israel is going to do nothing after all the threats that they are going to disappear soon?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080726/D925PJJG0.html

[RoBoTeq]

Many factions of the Islamic faith want a direct worldwide confrontation with all non-Muslims of all nationalities. Iran has been bolstered with wealth due to the situation created by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Ironically, our fighting Islamic terrorism in the Middle East is financially benefitting other Islamic countries that support Islamic domination by terrorism but have not "yet" become openly aggresive.

Islamic nations are fighting a world war in which other nations don't even understand the rules to yet. While the rest of the world binds itself with national borders and State governments, Muslims worldwide have a common bond of their faith much more then any dedication to any government of nation. I believe that President Bush and his administration understands what we are up against but don't know how to get it across to the American people without commiting to an outright war on Islam.

[tunnel_rat]

If they keep it up..............Ashtray.

[Tool-Slinger]

Hoped for internal change has not happened.
Hoped for diplomatic solution has not worked.
Nothing else left but a bombing run, expect it to happen soon.

[tonys]

If they keep it up..............Ashtray.

keep what up?
...specifically.

[tunnel_rat]

keep what up?
...specifically.


Their fanatical call for the anhilation of Israel (lesser Satan) and US (greater Satan). Although we have done nothing to them. 444 days of hostage holding should have tipped us off a long time ago of what was to come. And Jimmah sat there with his thumb up his butt and let it go on. So what happened to Iran? Not a da*m thing. Now a hostage taker is their friggin' president, a puppet, but pres. just the same. Read what their leaders really believe. They are not here to just live in peace with their neighbors.

Continuing to send men and arms into Iraq killing our troops.
This is an act of war in itself as far as I'm concerned.

Continuing to work on aquiring nuclear weapons.


Countries that can't learn to play nice with the rest of the world need to be taught how to, it seems. History teaches this but too many are ignorant of this simple fact.

[Tool-Slinger]

I think we are spiraling into a hell with iran, makes not a dimes' worth of difference if we elect obama or mccain, those islamic end-worlder-jihadis are determined to have nukes and will have them and will launch them unless they are stopped.

Now they got some missles which MIGHT be a suitable delivery system to isreal or parts of europe, but that is a fools' calculation. Iran has the largest linkage to terrorist organizations in the world,.. everything from a camel to a freighter-ship is a potential delivery mechanism. Speed-boat, mini-sub, train, truck, hi-jacked yacht,.. ain't NO place on earth to be safe if iran gets a nuke bomb! Their weapons will be dispersed, our only targets of retaliation will be media fodder for iranian prophaganda and they think they will break us this way. I personally think this is silly, as we would become immediately hardened if the situation really gets ugly, but as the situation stands today that is a reasonable attack plan from an enemy who does not really understand us. They estimate us as weak and predictable, failing to understand our culture unlike theirs which is able to rapidly evolve and change direction in an instant. We are not stuck in the 12th century, and they do not understand that.

Islamic radicals see christians as culture of decay, david hasselhoff barfing heineken into a hamburger and paris hilton screwing the local sherriff to beat a speeding-ticket. This is not chistianity, but fairly enough associated with our culture. We allow this type of behavior. Muslims, on the other hand, cannot even take a simple cartoon publishing without dozens being trampled to death in the protests. Muslims are stuck in the 12th century, the muslim solution to every infraction is lobbing-off body-parts,.. hand, head, just killing at the expense of ones' own life to murder the enemy. AND everyone not muslim is 'the enemy'... republican or democrat, libturd or contard, white or black, even a 'moderate' muslim,.. you deserve death by their standard. It is a moral imperitave that they kill you. They find eternal salvation in your murder. That is islam. Culture of murder. ISLAM = MURDER. Now a good islamic dude would want to have me stoned to death, but I doubt he would argue my points, just the contrary front ones who proclaim 'peace', yea, LOL!

Islam is the best organised movement in the world today, bar none, it is like marxism, capitolism, such in that respect. Multi-tiered, very mobile as they do not respect political borders. Coming soon to a town near you.

Americans are very tolerant of 'freedom of religion' , but when, if ever, will america wake-up and see the culture of death that is the cult of ISLAM?

Snip it in the bud.

[royc]

Their fanatical call for the anhilation of Israel (lesser Satan) and US (greater Satan). Although we have done nothing to them. 444 days of hostage holding should have tipped us off a long time ago of what was to come. And Jimmah sat there with his thumb up his butt and let it go on. So what happened to Iran? Not a da*m thing. Now a hostage taker is their friggin' president, a puppet, but pres. just the same. Read what their leaders really believe. They are not here to just live in peace with their neighbors.

Continuing to send men and arms into Iraq killing our troops.
This is an act of war in itself as far as I'm concerned.

Continuing to work on aquiring nuclear weapons.


Countries that can't learn to play nice with the rest of the world need to be taught how to, it seems. History teaches this but too many are ignorant of this simple fact.

Look, I'm all for getting rid of those who rule Iran, cause the the majority of the population dont like them, but to say we have done nothing to them is absurt.....read some history...

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

Roy

[tonys]

you don't need a war to take-care of Iran.

just starve the islam out of them.

i.e., REAL economic penalties, not just words and threats.

Their economy is on-the-ropes. It shouldn't take much to bring-em down.

Now, if we didn't have to spend over $1.5 billion a week in I-crack...things may/could be different.
...what ever happened to those I-crack-i oil revenues???

[Tool-Slinger]

you don't need a war to take-care of Iran.

just starve the islam out of them.

i.e., REAL economic penalties, not just words and threats.

Their economy is on-the-ropes. It shouldn't take much to bring-em down.

Now, if we didn't have to spend over $1.5 billion a week in I-crack...things may/could be different.
...what ever happened to those I-crack-i oil revenues???
That is exactly what the US is trying to do via the UN, doesn't seem to be working so far but maybe they will ratchet things up some more.

how about a naval and air blockade? Nothing goes in, nothing comes out. No border crossings? Whoops, forgot, we cannot even control our own borders :eek:

[tunnel_rat]

Well if the Shah is what they are still pissed about, it's time they got over that.....I haven't heard pres. Wackajob even mention anything about the Shah......

And the only thing economic penalties will do is hurt the average people, alot who dislike the rulers as much or more than we do. The Big Bosses are not gonna be suffering like the people will. Getting the $$ to the people IS a problem with almost any sanction in any tin horn dictator run country. Send money to "Iran", and guess who's at the mailbox when the check arrives. Cut the cash, and guess who's the first to feel it. The people. We need to get information and aid to the people and have them working from the inside as well.

[k-fridge]

The people of Iran are essentially good and somewhat pro-western. I wonder which is worse, hitting their military targets with a surgical strike or making the people suffer through sanctions.

Seriously, something to think about.

[Tool-Slinger]

The people of Iran are essentially good and somewhat pro-western. I wonder which is worse, hitting their military targets with a surgical strike or making the people suffer through sanctions.

Seriously, something to think about.
That is a very wise point K-fridge...

I would elaborate that we could probably flatten anything that looks military-related over there in a matter of 4-6 weeks, really tough sanctions might last years? I suppose it could last a really long time before the iranian govornment gives-in if they ever even would. The iranian populace would damm sure hate us I bet before it was over.

[k-fridge]

That is a very wise point K-fridge...

I would elaborate that we could probably flatten anything that looks military-related over there in a matter of 4-6 weeks, really tough sanctions might last years? I suppose it could last a really long time before the iranian govornment gives-in if they ever even would. The iranian populace would damm sure hate us I bet before it was over.
Hunger and sickness can definitely foster hate.

We blew the crap out of Japan in WWII, yet they're (kinda) our buddies.

Looking back in history it seems like the countries we beat militarily are now our friends, yet the ones we meddled in hate us.

I don't have all the answers, but things aren't always as simple as they seem.

[Tool-Slinger]

Hunger and sickness can definitely foster hate.

We blew the crap out of Japan in WWII, yet they're (kinda) our buddies.

Looking back in history it seems like the countries we beat militarily are now our friends, yet the ones we meddled in hate us.

I don't have all the answers, but things aren't always as simple as they seem.
'''''Looking back in history it seems like the countries we beat militarily are now our friends, yet the ones we meddled in hate us.''''''''

That there is some deep-thinking, K-fridge, thanks! I am gonna have to think on that one.... I never ever thought about it that way, but that very strangely does tend to be the case. Seems to contradict my expectation, but that is what I love about the message-boards,.. tossing ideas and concepts back and forth between insults and smart-alec remarks I do tend to learn alot of facts from all of you folks and gain ''perspective'' of the facts that is perhaps just as important.

Now then, suppose we stomp iran,.. clobber the nuke facilities. That diffuses the immediate dispute but I am thinking we should wipe-out all military resistance too. Some will be required, but I mean wipe-out all military that can be located. No nukes, no military, but iran still has a belligerant political structure that is un-opposed by any organised resistance movement. Their political structure [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/default.stm ] includes some likeness to senators or a congress of 1-200 members. I say bomb their palaces too and help turn sentiment against the hard-liners, selective targeting for destruction, no expectation for hitting politicians.

If Isreal does it, I am skeptical they will do more than take out the nuke facilities. I tend to think we need a more long-term solution for iran and the USA can do it better if the administrative will is there. No invasion, no revolution, but political change from within with the correct pressure applied.

[k-fridge]

'''''Looking back in history it seems like the countries we beat militarily are now our friends, yet the ones we meddled in hate us.''''''''

That there is some deep-thinking, K-fridge, thanks! I am gonna have to think on that one.... I never ever thought about it that way, but that very strangely does tend to be the case. Seems to contradict my expectation, but that is what I love about the message-boards,.. tossing ideas and concepts back and forth between insults and smart-alec remarks I do tend to learn alot of facts from all of you folks and gain ''perspective'' of the facts that is perhaps just as important.

Now then, suppose we stomp iran,.. clobber the nuke facilities. That diffuses the immediate dispute but I am thinking we should wipe-out all military resistance too. Some will be required, but I mean wipe-out all military that can be located. No nukes, no military, but iran still has a belligerant political structure that is un-opposed by any organised resistance movement. Their political structure [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/default.stm ] includes some likeness to senators or a congress of 1-200 members. I say bomb their palaces too and help turn sentiment against the hard-liners, selective targeting for destruction, no expectation for hitting politicians.

If Isreal does it, I am skeptical they will do more than take out the nuke facilities. I tend to think we need a more long-term solution for iran and the USA can do it better if the administrative will is there. No invasion, no revolution, but political change from within with the correct pressure applied.
The problem with beating Iran militarily would be the same as it was with Iraq; we'd have to conquer and occupy to keep yet more nut-cases from seizing power. And they could be even worse that what they have now. Right or wrong, the American people don't have the belly for another episode of that right now.

Taking out key leaders and encouraging a coup would be great, but I just don't know how feasible it is. The younger generation in Iran is pro-western and hungry for change, but probably not enough power to take control from the hard liners.

And I agree about Israel, they'll just bomb the crap out of strategic military targets and go home. That will possibly knock their nuke program back a few years, but not effect actual change.

What to do?

[Tool-Slinger]

The problem with beating Iran militarily would be the same as it was with Iraq; we'd have to conquer and occupy to keep yet more nut-cases from seizing power. And they could be even worse that what they have now. Right or wrong, the American people don't have the belly for another episode of that right now.

Taking out key leaders and encouraging a coup would be great, but I just don't know how feasible it is. The younger generation in Iran is pro-western and hungry for change, but probably not enough power to take control from the hard liners.

And I agree about Israel, they'll just bomb the crap out of strategic military targets and go home. That will possibly knock their nuke program back a few years, but not effect actual change.

What to do?
It is an important point that I am not advocating any invasion/occupation at all. It might be prudent to send in ground-forces to work as a 'clean-up' crew, but no invasion and certainly no occupation. Knock-out the nuke facilities, AND destroy the military while on the job. Just clobber anything that flies or moves heavier than a half-ton truck. Iran has chemical stuff too, naval unknowns, and I mean knock-out EVERYTHING that looks military. Selectively wipe-out targets that would further enhance political opposition to the hard-liners, but not destroy the political system. [there is some political opposition already] Neuter them, militarily speaking, but leave the political system and economic system in place and hope there is some real reform much of Iran wants anyway.

Occupation is not practical at this time, revolution with-in does not seem possible either at this time, But if we can kick them down hard enough they might politically reform from within and part of that 'plan' involves making them inept militarily anyway.

[k-fridge]

It is an important point that I am not advocating any invasion/occupation at all. It might be prudent to send in ground-forces to work as a 'clean-up' crew, but no invasion and certainly no occupation. Knock-out the nuke facilities, AND destroy the military while on the job. Just clobber anything that flies or moves heavier than a half-ton truck. Iran has chemical stuff too, naval unknowns, and I mean knock-out EVERYTHING that looks military. Selectively wipe-out targets that would further enhance political opposition to the hard-liners, but not destroy the political system. [there is some political opposition already] Neuter them, militarily speaking, but leave the political system and economic system in place and hope there is some real reform much of Iran wants anyway.

Occupation is not practical at this time, revolution with-in does not seem possible either at this time, But if we can kick them down hard enough they might politically reform from within and part of that 'plan' involves making them inept militarily anyway.
But taking out the military and their equipment leaves two dangerous possibilities.

1-That no one internally will have the means to take over and lead, leaving the country in turmoil and disarray. Remember Iran is a major oil producer.

2-A neighboring power would step in and take control.

Trouble either way. An internal revolution would need the tools to pull it off. That means an army of sorts and weapons. Where would that come from? If we don't provide the opposition with help, someone else will.

And here we are meddling again. What will the outcome be this time?

[Tool-Slinger]

''''''But taking out the military and their equipment leaves two dangerous possibilities.
1-That no one internally will have the means to take over and lead, leaving the country in turmoil and disarray. Remember Iran is a major oil producer.'''''''

I said leave the political system intact, and economic system too.. No bridges, no oil-wells, just military stuff.

'''''''2-A neighboring power would step in and take control.'''''

That would be open, but who could do that? I am ignorant of the possibilities of that event.

[k-fridge]

''''''But taking out the military and their equipment leaves two dangerous possibilities.
1-That no one internally will have the means to take over and lead, leaving the country in turmoil and disarray. Remember Iran is a major oil producer.'''''''

But my point is that someone has to lead the country. A country without laws or government is big trouble.

[mrs reb77]

We could go in, kick butt and instill Barack Obama as president? Then, we'd be assured they would no longer be a threat to any one. Matter of fact, we could probably then get all their money given to the U.N. to build up 3rd World countries.
And, Barack would get to be president in a country where he's already accomplished about as much as he has in the U.S.A.

[Tool-Slinger]

had to edit, I pushed a wriong button on that thingy with all the buttons. :o

[k-fridge]

I said leave the political system intact, and economic system too.. No bridges, no oil-wells, just military stuff.

Actually you stated...

AND destroy the military while on the job. Just clobber anything that flies or moves heavier than a half-ton truck. Iran has chemical stuff too, naval unknowns, and I mean knock-out EVERYTHING that looks military.
That leaves no tools for the opposition to seize power. A coup has to have a leader, force to install that leader into power and protect him.

That would be open, but who could do that? I am ignorant of the possibilities of that event.

Just as other countries sent fighters and weapons into Iraq to battle us, they will try and either destabilize or assume control of a government-less Iran. Syria is one concern. And don't rule out Russia.

[mrs reb77]

had to edit, I pushed a wriong button on that thingy with all the buttons. :o

Telephone?
Shirt?
ATM?
:D

[k-fridge]

We could go in, kick butt and instill Barack Obama as president? Then, we'd be assured they would no longer be a threat to any one. Matter of fact, we could probably then get all their money given to the U.N. to build up 3rd World countries.
And, Barack would get to be president in a country where he's already accomplished about as much as he has in the U.S.A.


I like it!

[k-fridge]

Telephone?
Shirt?
ATM?
:D

Remote control. :D

[mrs reb77]

I like it!

We could export Jesse Jackson as his Secretary of State.
Sharpton could be the U.N. delegate (only one getting along with Jesse at present).

[mrs reb77]

Remote control. :D

Ah, wrong channel.

[k-fridge]

We could export Jesse Jackson as his Secretary of State.
Sharpton could be the U.N. delegate (only one getting along with Jesse at present).
OK....I'm getting strangely excited here.

Can we work Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi into this equation?

[Tool-Slinger]

Actually you stated...

That leaves no tools for the opposition to seize power. A coup has to have a leader, force to install that leader into power and protect him.


Just as other countries sent fighters and weapons into Iraq to battle us, they will try and either destabilize or assume control of a government-less Iran. Syria is one concern. And don't rule out Russia.
No, I am thinking a suttle shift politically, something like within a twenty year time-frame even. Leave the current political system in place, just apply pressure with selected targets. No coup, just whack them militarily and nuke-program, no more. And the weak sanctions. If no military threat, then no problem from them, just pump oil. I would not want to be in a position of 'protecting' them from a syrian or russian take-over,... but they can't, USA can't even invade/occupy iran and neither can they. Nueter iran militarily, let them work-out their political issues within their limited democratc system, with pressure.

[mrs reb77]

OK....I'm getting strangely excited here.

Can we work Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi into this equation?

Howard Dean would have to be the secretary of ARRRHHHHH and Nancy could be the Social Programmer.

Actually those two would probably get even less done over there than here--that place is already screwed up so they'd be out of jobs.

[oloenneker]

Their fanatical call for the anhilation of Israel (lesser Satan) and US (greater Satan). Although we have done nothing to them. 444 days of hostage holding should have tipped us off a long time ago of what was to come. And Jimmah sat there with his thumb up his butt and let it go on. So what happened to Iran? Not a da*m thing. Now a hostage taker is their friggin' president, a puppet, but pres. just the same. Read what their leaders really believe. They are not here to just live in peace with their neighbors.

Continuing to send men and arms into Iraq killing our troops.
This is an act of war in itself as far as I'm concerned.

Continuing to work on aquiring nuclear weapons.


Countries that can't learn to play nice with the rest of the world need to be taught how to, it seems. History teaches this but too many are ignorant of this simple fact.



*Edited by ARPC. Oloe, you know better!*

Stop watching FOX news, you might learn something.

[Tool-Slinger]

I thought that was a pretty accurate post. IMHO

[Remodeltdt01]

Rules are rules.

[tonys]

yes - in China.

[mrs reb77]

I believe that tool-slinger was referring to tunnel rat's post, not the subsequent post quoting it.

You have to be quick to keep up...

[Remodeltdt01]

No, I am thinking a suttle shift politically, something like within a twenty year time-frame even. Leave the current political system in place, just apply pressure with selected targets. No coup, just whack them militarily and nuke-program, no more. And the weak sanctions. If no military threat, then no problem from them, just pump oil. I would not want to be in a position of 'protecting' them from a syrian or russian take-over,... but they can't, USA can't even invade/occupy iran and neither can they. Nueter iran militarily, let them work-out their political issues within their limited democratc system, with pressure.

"Limited" attacks would only empower the existing political system. Any time a country comes under attack the populace rallies behind the existing government, at least until it falls which wouldn't happen when the attacks are limited.

[Tool-Slinger]

I believe that tool-slinger was referring to tunnel rat's post, not the subsequent post quoting it.

You have to be quick to keep up...
Thank you Mrs reb77, you are correct. I understand the confusion Remodel, re-reading the whole thing. I was just picking on oloennecker, he seemed to be in an uncharachtaristic grumpy mood. :D

[Tool-Slinger]

"Limited" attacks would only empower the existing political system. Any time a country comes under attack the populace rallies behind the existing government, at least until it falls which wouldn't happen when the attacks are limited.
OH DAMM!!!

The CONUNDRUM!

Point well made.

Iran just sucks!

However it turns-out, I don't expect anything good to come of this. I kinda hope iran is bluffing and will take an 11th-hour 'deal' of some sort, but that is probably as silly as hoping for internal political change ten years ago..... not likely,... :(

[Remodeltdt01]

My hope is that it is true that the religous leadership view nuclear weapons as "illegal" and that they are only working on nuclear power.

Either way we should be really sure (not like last time) before we start another Iraq.