http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280073,00.html
Lyion I'm curious what are your thoughts specifically are on this?
On one hand I want to dismiss Ahmadinejad as a lot of hot air with little real influence, on the other hand I'd think if his message was that contrary to Shas, then he would be reigned in. I also wonder how much of Putin's messages last week were based somewhat in a support for Iranian interests.
Military Action in Iran?
Moderator: Dictators in Training
Military Action in Iran?
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
I'm completely against an overt military strike against Iran. This situation is exactly why we have covert special forces groups. I expect our covert forces already to be in action there.
Right now we're in the middle of a propaganda and misinformation campaign, much being fueled by the vast misinformation provided by our own media sources, many of whom care more about ratings or political points than simple facts. This campaign also includes many Middle Eastern news sources which are painting us in an unfriendly light.
There is no doubt that Iran is providing military and financial aid to the Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq, and sparking sectarian violence. This is also true in Afghanistan, and has been verified.
What we need is covert ops designed to take the fight to the enemy. Unfortunately, the CIA and other agencies are also political entities with no regard for classified information, and the Bush DOJ does not have the fortitude to investigate these breaches and send these people to jail for long terms as they deserve.
We had a great plan recently to flood the Iraq black market with faulty trigger devices for IEDs which would blow up, and probably kill most of the few people with the training and knowledge to build these devices, but it was overruled. We need more plans like this, and more covert operations run outside of the realm of the very political CIA ranks, and from the military and pentagon.
Right now we're in the middle of a propaganda and misinformation campaign, much being fueled by the vast misinformation provided by our own media sources, many of whom care more about ratings or political points than simple facts. This campaign also includes many Middle Eastern news sources which are painting us in an unfriendly light.
There is no doubt that Iran is providing military and financial aid to the Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq, and sparking sectarian violence. This is also true in Afghanistan, and has been verified.
What we need is covert ops designed to take the fight to the enemy. Unfortunately, the CIA and other agencies are also political entities with no regard for classified information, and the Bush DOJ does not have the fortitude to investigate these breaches and send these people to jail for long terms as they deserve.
We had a great plan recently to flood the Iraq black market with faulty trigger devices for IEDs which would blow up, and probably kill most of the few people with the training and knowledge to build these devices, but it was overruled. We need more plans like this, and more covert operations run outside of the realm of the very political CIA ranks, and from the military and pentagon.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
– C. S. Lewis
– C. S. Lewis
Hell, I'd put money that we already have special forces in Iran, mainly recon forces.
I know a guy from high school that was some kind of covert paratrooper recon something or other in the AF before he blew his knees to hell on a jump in the Middle East that went bad. He can tell some bad ass stories. Apparently there are covert military operations in countries you wouldnt dream of.
I know a guy from high school that was some kind of covert paratrooper recon something or other in the AF before he blew his knees to hell on a jump in the Middle East that went bad. He can tell some bad ass stories. Apparently there are covert military operations in countries you wouldnt dream of.
Any military strikes or operations on Iran (covert OR overt) is about THE worst thing we could possibly do in foreign policy.
It's probably true they are aiding insurgents in Iraq and probably Afghanistan. They in all likelihood had something to do with 9/11 as well. But first off, lets consider why Iran has such massive hostility towards the US:
1) In the 1950's, the CIA assassinated their democratically elected (socialist) leader, and replaced him with a US-friendly brutal dictator that had a fondness for the secret police, secret prisons, political imprisonment, and torture that most facist regimes do.
(If I'm remembering correctly), When Iran finally managed to get rid of him decades later and he fled, the US took him in to give him medical treatment due to an illness. The US refused to turn him over to the Iranians.
Try to imagine something like that happening in the US, (say, the soviets or chinese assassinated a president and replaced him with a communist puppet.) It's a fucking huge deal there.
2) When Saddam Hussein launched a war against Iran that resulted in 500,000 dead Iranians, the US gave rather overt funding, support, intelligence aid, and weapons (including CHEMICAL WEAPONS) to Saddam Hussein.
Again, our rage at the death of 3300 people is massive. Imagine FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND.
3) There are hundreds of thousands of US troops right in their own backyard (Iraq *and* Afghanistan are border-countries with Iran).
So here they have a country that has assassinated their elected leaders, installed puppet governments, and aided their enemy in an extremely bloody war that killed 500,000 of their people. With over 100,000 soldiers stationed in border countries. AND these soldiers have used military force to over-turn and demolish those neighbors' governments - in Iraq's case, PRE-EMPTIVELY.
And now our politicians are starting to vocally consider military strikes against Iran on the news.
Again, visualize this: imagine that the the USSR or Communist China had hundreds of thousands of troops posted right at the border between Mexico and the US - AND between Canada and the US. AND they have used their armies to remove the governments of Canada and Mexico. And then imagine these USSR or Chinese politicians saying on the news: "If you refuse to comply with our demands, we will bomb you!"
That would be considered a major, major threat.
They would likely not be pushing for nuclear weapons so strongly if the enormous threat of the US were not looming over them so severely.
Frankly speaking (and I'm sure I'll be called a traitor or something), it's not unreasonable for them to be aiding Iraqi insurgents - from their perspective at least.
After all, the US gave much aid to Osama Bin Laden (and his insurgents) to aid them in dealing with our major enemy, the soviets. In fact, we give aid to insurgents fighting regimes we don't like all the time - which is a big part of the problem to begin with. Why nothing is said - why when we do it it holds no moral weight, but when others do it, it's evil, is beyond me.
-
Then we have the internal politics of Iran itself. It, maybe more than any other country in the middle east, has the potential to become a thriving secular western-style democracy over time. They already *are* a democracy in some forms.
1) The majority of the country is under the age of 30 - and these people are sick of their retarded Islamic leaders and retarded Islamic laws.
2) Many people there are college educated, including women.
3) There are womens' rights groups. There are political parties.
4) They have more access to the internet than almost any other region/culture in the middle east. This includes political blogs, activist groups, ect.
5) They have shopping malls, playstations, skateboards, sneakers, microwaves, and all the other spiffy toys of modern civilizations in pretty good supply.
Given several decades, it's very possible that their religious government will be gradually phased or voted out as dissent increases, and Iran will become more secularized with time. The internet, activism, and college education almost guarantee it.
BUT, if we were to do a military strike on them, it would destroy all of this progress - because everyone would abandon their internal struggles to consoldate against a common enemy (that's us).
-
What happens if we bomb them?
1) WIDELY increased risk of domestic terrorist attacks. Iran likely has access to biological weapons, and they'd probably use them in a war situation.
2) We will have a large, organized, well equiped military and intelligence operatives as a new threat to deal with in both Iraq *AND* Afghanistan - they're right next to Iran. Our troops are already stretched to the limit. We've already spent endless piles on money on this. We can't spare any more. More US troops will die. MUCH more. Really - fucking - stupid.
-
What is the right thing to do then? Get our troops, military bases, operatives, and interests out of the goddam middle-east.
In the worst case, it would be best deligated to Israel to deal with this militarily (but with NO financial, intelligence, weapons, or diplomatic support. At all.) - as they are at the most extreme risk of Iran having nuclear weapons. They would actually have at least feasible reasons to do so, as Iranian officials have overtly said they wish to wipe Israel off the map - and their geographic location makes nuclear strikes by air an intensely real possibility.
At the very least we should open up diplomatic communication in some form with them - it's ridiculous not to considering the gravity of the situation.
This isn't right-versus-wrong as everyone seems to paint it. It's Wrong-Versus-Wrong.
So uh, in conclusion, bombing Iran is really fucking stupid. Shame on the media for saying *nothing* about this.
It's probably true they are aiding insurgents in Iraq and probably Afghanistan. They in all likelihood had something to do with 9/11 as well. But first off, lets consider why Iran has such massive hostility towards the US:
1) In the 1950's, the CIA assassinated their democratically elected (socialist) leader, and replaced him with a US-friendly brutal dictator that had a fondness for the secret police, secret prisons, political imprisonment, and torture that most facist regimes do.
(If I'm remembering correctly), When Iran finally managed to get rid of him decades later and he fled, the US took him in to give him medical treatment due to an illness. The US refused to turn him over to the Iranians.
Try to imagine something like that happening in the US, (say, the soviets or chinese assassinated a president and replaced him with a communist puppet.) It's a fucking huge deal there.
2) When Saddam Hussein launched a war against Iran that resulted in 500,000 dead Iranians, the US gave rather overt funding, support, intelligence aid, and weapons (including CHEMICAL WEAPONS) to Saddam Hussein.
Again, our rage at the death of 3300 people is massive. Imagine FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND.
3) There are hundreds of thousands of US troops right in their own backyard (Iraq *and* Afghanistan are border-countries with Iran).
So here they have a country that has assassinated their elected leaders, installed puppet governments, and aided their enemy in an extremely bloody war that killed 500,000 of their people. With over 100,000 soldiers stationed in border countries. AND these soldiers have used military force to over-turn and demolish those neighbors' governments - in Iraq's case, PRE-EMPTIVELY.
And now our politicians are starting to vocally consider military strikes against Iran on the news.
Again, visualize this: imagine that the the USSR or Communist China had hundreds of thousands of troops posted right at the border between Mexico and the US - AND between Canada and the US. AND they have used their armies to remove the governments of Canada and Mexico. And then imagine these USSR or Chinese politicians saying on the news: "If you refuse to comply with our demands, we will bomb you!"
That would be considered a major, major threat.
They would likely not be pushing for nuclear weapons so strongly if the enormous threat of the US were not looming over them so severely.
Frankly speaking (and I'm sure I'll be called a traitor or something), it's not unreasonable for them to be aiding Iraqi insurgents - from their perspective at least.
After all, the US gave much aid to Osama Bin Laden (and his insurgents) to aid them in dealing with our major enemy, the soviets. In fact, we give aid to insurgents fighting regimes we don't like all the time - which is a big part of the problem to begin with. Why nothing is said - why when we do it it holds no moral weight, but when others do it, it's evil, is beyond me.
-
Then we have the internal politics of Iran itself. It, maybe more than any other country in the middle east, has the potential to become a thriving secular western-style democracy over time. They already *are* a democracy in some forms.
1) The majority of the country is under the age of 30 - and these people are sick of their retarded Islamic leaders and retarded Islamic laws.
2) Many people there are college educated, including women.
3) There are womens' rights groups. There are political parties.
4) They have more access to the internet than almost any other region/culture in the middle east. This includes political blogs, activist groups, ect.
5) They have shopping malls, playstations, skateboards, sneakers, microwaves, and all the other spiffy toys of modern civilizations in pretty good supply.
Given several decades, it's very possible that their religious government will be gradually phased or voted out as dissent increases, and Iran will become more secularized with time. The internet, activism, and college education almost guarantee it.
BUT, if we were to do a military strike on them, it would destroy all of this progress - because everyone would abandon their internal struggles to consoldate against a common enemy (that's us).
-
What happens if we bomb them?
1) WIDELY increased risk of domestic terrorist attacks. Iran likely has access to biological weapons, and they'd probably use them in a war situation.
2) We will have a large, organized, well equiped military and intelligence operatives as a new threat to deal with in both Iraq *AND* Afghanistan - they're right next to Iran. Our troops are already stretched to the limit. We've already spent endless piles on money on this. We can't spare any more. More US troops will die. MUCH more. Really - fucking - stupid.
-
What is the right thing to do then? Get our troops, military bases, operatives, and interests out of the goddam middle-east.
In the worst case, it would be best deligated to Israel to deal with this militarily (but with NO financial, intelligence, weapons, or diplomatic support. At all.) - as they are at the most extreme risk of Iran having nuclear weapons. They would actually have at least feasible reasons to do so, as Iranian officials have overtly said they wish to wipe Israel off the map - and their geographic location makes nuclear strikes by air an intensely real possibility.
At the very least we should open up diplomatic communication in some form with them - it's ridiculous not to considering the gravity of the situation.
This isn't right-versus-wrong as everyone seems to paint it. It's Wrong-Versus-Wrong.
So uh, in conclusion, bombing Iran is really fucking stupid. Shame on the media for saying *nothing* about this.
-Yamori
AKA ~~Baron Boshie of the Nameless~~
AKA ~~Baron Boshie of the Nameless~~
Many of your points are inaccurate, Yamori. Your analogy of the Shah's history is woeful. I suggest you look at the simple facts, especially in regards to the history of Iran, which you are wildly mischaracterizing, and take the time to evaluate the region pre and post World War 2, and the reasonings why things were done, which were not in the manner you presented.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
– C. S. Lewis
– C. S. Lewis
I have heard a great deal of the same information regarding the Shah. Face it, the man was on par with Pinochet, Amin, Duvalier, etc, and was only in power because the US put him there at the behest of the oil companies.
Also, I know FROM an Iranian living here in the US that the average person there doesn't hate Americans. Dislike the American government, sure, but the average ameican citizen they like just fine.
-Arlos
Also, I know FROM an Iranian living here in the US that the average person there doesn't hate Americans. Dislike the American government, sure, but the average ameican citizen they like just fine.
-Arlos
Eziekial wrote:Really Lyion? That sounds about right to me and I was just as much there as you were. I've read a few reports on our "justification" of our actions but taken on face value from an outside viewpoint, Yam is pretty much on target.
Hmm, I think we're divergent on our thoughts here.
The premier in 51 who was assassinated, was killed by radical muslims. Not America. Where do you get that? He was actually someone the West liked, since he wasn't for oil nationalization, as were many other nationalist figures in Iran in that day a la Hugo Chavez, and was more of a populist.
Anyways, going back a bit...
In 1941 Russia invaded Iran and removed Reza, Irans leader, who was in power. This was done because he was pro Germany. He was replaced by his son. Who started to reform the Iranian government.
In 42, Russia, under pressure from the allies signed a treaty guaranteeing Iranian autonomy. They ignored this and supported seperatist movements within Iran in an attempt to move the country to a communist nation, and also did not withdraw their troops in Iran.
Russia continued to meddle in Iranian politics and try and move Iran into a communist nation.
The Shah continued to be the Iranian leader into the 50s and ultimately through the 70s. He was the monarch, which is being ignored here, and also helped drive more freedoms and government changes. He had issues, and made mistakes, but he also did what he felt was right.
Yes, he made some mistakes, but a lot of what is represented about him is utter and complete bullshit, such as the mischaracterization of the Savak, the assassination of the premier, which Yamori wrongly attributes to us somehow.
The Iranian people lived a first world standard, had freedoms, and had a constitutional monarchy in place. Iran did not get rid of the Shah, religious extremists took hold of the countries military and removed him. When this occured a large percentage of the skilled Iranian people moved to America. It's why San Jose could be renamed Tehran, since if you met a Doctor, Lawyer, or engineer there, there's a good chance they'd be from Iran.
Also, Yamori ignores the baseline for the Iran/Iraq War which is the Shatt Al Arab waterway fiasco, and the fact Khoemeini, who was given sanctuary in Iraq, had issues with Saddam, and when he came into power began sending troops into Iraq and trying to topple their government.
Iraq did not want to capture Iran. They wanted their territory back, and their sovereignty respected. The reason there were so many casualties wasn't due to Iraq's chemical weapons, which was obscene and wrong, or their aggressiveness, it was due to Khoemeini's insanity and sending wave after wave of young kids into battle with simple rifles, little training, in an attempt to win by sheer human volume. It was a travesty, and that travesty can be attributed directly to Khoemeini.
Anyways, my covert points remain. This is a covert fight and we should be doing everything in that arsenel to suppress Iran's support for terror groups and take the fight to them. I disagree with bombing Iran. I wholeheartedly support black ops to wipe out IED plants, smuggling stations, and anything providing support that is killing our troops in Iraq today.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
– C. S. Lewis
– C. S. Lewis
Narrock wrote:Zanchief wrote:Lueyen and Lyion's middle-east propaganda thread just got a little more serious.
What propaganda?
Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I'm not advocating military incursion into Iran at this point. At the same time I don't want to tie the hands of US troops in Iraq by allowing Iran to be a safe haven for opposition groups to run away too or launch attacks from.
I asked Lyion's opinion because I know he's spent a fair amount of time there, I didn't realize Eziekial had been also or I would have asked specifically for his opinion also as I do value real world experience over theory, even if I don't agree it carries more weight when I'm trying to get a better picture of the situation.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Lueyen wrote:Narrock wrote:Zanchief wrote:Lueyen and Lyion's middle-east propaganda thread just got a little more serious.
What propaganda?
Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I'm not advocating military incursion into Iran at this point. At the same time I don't want to tie the hands of US troops in Iraq by allowing Iran to be a safe haven for opposition groups to run away too or launch attacks from.
I asked Lyion's opinion because I know he's spent a fair amount of time there, I didn't realize Eziekial had been also or I would have asked specifically for his opinion also as I do value real world experience over theory, even if I don't agree it carries more weight when I'm trying to get a better picture of the situation.
If we (or Israel) attack Iran... Russia will get involved and it will be WWIII.
“The more I study science the more I believe in God.” -- Albert Einstein
Yamori seriously your recount of the history of Iran is riddled with errors, and seems to be confusing multiple individuals in some cases with one person... I really hope you got most of your "facts" from memory, but if not I'd suggest you find another source or sources.. I suspect it's from memory because I don't think even radical elements who want to rewrite history without the holocaust spin the facts that far out of control.
I wanted to address a few things in particular though. The suggestion that Iran had any hard connections to the 9/11 attacks. Even with support for Hamas it is unlikely there is any solid links at all, not because it would be well hidden but because it doesn't exist. Both Al Qaedea and Hamas may see the US as an enemy, but it's for different reasons, and both groups are in competition with each other for power in the region. After 9/11 Bin Laden did try to reach out to Islamic fundamentalists who are hell bent on the destruction of Israel sighting US support of Israel as part of the reasons for the 9/11 attacks. Arafat berated Bin Laden for this basically saying quit trying to make our fight your own.
As far as Israel is concerned, what you are talking about is abandoning one of our allies in what would amount to nothing more then a sacrifice for what would likely be short term pacification. Even if you don't realize and aren't thankful for the hardships that Israel endures which distract various radical Islamic fundamentalist groups and in many ways provide a buffer between them and the rest of the world, realize that abandoning Israel as you suggest would almost certainly result in nuclear proliferation, started by Israel, not because it wants to but because it would be faced with the decision to employ nuclear weapons or suffer complete annihilation.
I wanted to address a few things in particular though. The suggestion that Iran had any hard connections to the 9/11 attacks. Even with support for Hamas it is unlikely there is any solid links at all, not because it would be well hidden but because it doesn't exist. Both Al Qaedea and Hamas may see the US as an enemy, but it's for different reasons, and both groups are in competition with each other for power in the region. After 9/11 Bin Laden did try to reach out to Islamic fundamentalists who are hell bent on the destruction of Israel sighting US support of Israel as part of the reasons for the 9/11 attacks. Arafat berated Bin Laden for this basically saying quit trying to make our fight your own.
As far as Israel is concerned, what you are talking about is abandoning one of our allies in what would amount to nothing more then a sacrifice for what would likely be short term pacification. Even if you don't realize and aren't thankful for the hardships that Israel endures which distract various radical Islamic fundamentalist groups and in many ways provide a buffer between them and the rest of the world, realize that abandoning Israel as you suggest would almost certainly result in nuclear proliferation, started by Israel, not because it wants to but because it would be faced with the decision to employ nuclear weapons or suffer complete annihilation.
Raymond S. Kraft wrote:The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Right now i would say we prolly need to stay in Iraq for the simple fact we fucked up and took out a leader who yes was bad but had good control over his people weather it was the wrong way to have it or not. Now i do beleave in the idea of keeping them fighting over here or would you guys like and EFP attack on the streets of the US. if i was the terrorists and really did hate the US that is what i would do because no one is looking for them in the US. Its already hard enough to see them here and we look for them every day. Oh Iran is helping iraq since iraq has no copper in it and the main thing in a EFP is copper.
On a side note anyone know what EFP means? I have seen what they do i saw our 3rd vehicle get hit with one and well its devistation. I would love to pull out of iraq i hate working long days and getting payed jack shit to go out and die.
On a side note anyone know what EFP means? I have seen what they do i saw our 3rd vehicle get hit with one and well its devistation. I would love to pull out of iraq i hate working long days and getting payed jack shit to go out and die.
Sentro 65monk
Begum 62sham
Euphoria
Begum 62sham
Euphoria
-
kinghooter00
- Captain Google
- Posts: 1316
- Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:02 pm
- Location: Venice, Florida
- Contact: