Is The US Heading For War With Iran?

TheCommodore · Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:09 pm

This appeared in the Australian press today.

I can't believe that America would risk getting involved in another war, especially considering its current obligations.Is there some other agenda that America wants to follow re this ?

I understand that the US elections are only 13 months away, so this would be a nightmare for Obama, but aren't wars popular during election times ?

This may well help him in the race for President ??

But at the same time, if Israel wants to fight with Iran then let them, but the rest of us should keep out of it. Its a regional thing, lets keep it that way.

Interesting that in the article, it states that rumors indicate that Israel and I quote...

"The issue of a possible military attack was reignited in Israel by influential columnist Nahum Barnea last week. "Rumours are increasing about an Israeli offensive that would change the face of the Middle East and perhaps seal the fate of the Jewish state for the coming generations," he wrote."

If this is true, then maybe the Palestinians wont have to bother with wanting the UN to recognize there quest for statehood, if there is a war then that changes everything. and that's is probably what Israel wants.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/is-the-u...-war-with-iran-20111103-1mxks.html

einsteinboricua · Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:29 pm

If Obama goes to war with Iran it would be the definite end of Democrats in Capitol Hill. In a time when the US is weary of two wars, to start a third one (I'm assuming it would be an Iraq/Afghanistan war with troops on the ground) would be political suicide.

Besides, though Iran and the US have many disagreements, I still don't see one big enough to spark a war, and if it did, I would assume that the US would try to do as less as possible with it, where I would think Gulf countries would also be in the war against Iran. I know Saudi Arabia is just itching for a US strike on Iran...and again we bring back the topic of Arab countries also allowing Israel to partake in the offensive against Iran.

At this moment, no. In the future, it's possible.

DeltaMD90 · Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:41 pm

I think there is more of a chance of Ralph Nader winning the election than this happening. I have no evidence to back this up, but I bet if you polled America, only 10% would want to attack Iran. Now only a few years ago I would see this happening (and I am actually surprised we didn't) but NOW (which is all that really matters) the American people don't want a war, the American military is tired (but IMO would be able to take over if it came down to war), the American economy is broken, and the elected leaders aren't gonna go for it. If war did occur, I think we'd lose financially but not militarily. Our military is tired and spread out somewhat, but we still have a huge and capable fighting force. It all comes down to

, something we don't have right now

Tupolev160 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:09 am

That would be a huge mistake requiring several years of engagement. It could spark a new world war even. I'm even not sure if US could successfully occupy Iran. Only with nuclear bombs - against which the supposed war would actually be taking place... Very unlikely.

Aesma · Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:27 am

Oil ? check

Baddies in power ? check

"Good enough" reason to go ? check

Arms manufacturers in need of new sales ? check

Could definitely happen, but probably not with Obama. Such a complete reversal on what got him his Nobel would really destroy his legacy. And probably wouldn't get him reelected anyway.

Now, with a former governor from Texas or another nutjob of the kind, on the other hand, could definitely see it happen.

alsberg · Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:57 am

I don't think it'll happen (I sure hope not), but I think had John McCain been elected president that there is a good chance we would have.

Cadet985 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:58 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter):
I can't believe that America would risk getting involved in another war, especially considering its current obligations.

It's not often that you and I agree on something...in fact, I'm not sure that has ever happened, but there is a first time for everything.

While I don't think that the US would do anything unilateral, I do think that if Israel or other countries in the area were either in danger of an attack or actually were attacked, the US would go in at that point.

Marc

ltbewr · Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:15 am

The tipping points to go to war will be if Iran gets to a critical point of creating a missile deliverable nuclear warhead, even just a 'dirty' one, that could reach Israel and if Israel considers hitting first with or without a USA blessing.

Even then, I suspect there would be a huge uproar from millions of Americans who know a war with Iran would be a worldwide economic disaster, maybe a massive Depression, caused by a massive increase in oil prices for years as key targets by both sides would be to destroy the oil infrastructure in Iran. There is good reason that much of the rest of the world, most particularly PRC China and Russia, would turn completely against the USA, assure Israel to be destroyed and support Iran.

TheCommodore · Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:56 am

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 1):
Besides, though Iran and the US have many disagreements, I still don't see one big enough to spark a war, and if it did, I would assume that the US would try to do as less as possible with it, where I would think Gulf countries would also be in the war against Iran.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 7):
While I don't think that the US would do anything unilateral, I do think that if Israel or other countries in the area were either in danger of an attack or actually were attacked, the US would go in at that point.

Here is another updated article from the SMH, looks like a distinct possibility that Israel would strike Iran first.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-t...ng-to-iranians-20111103-1mxxg.html

The Israelis also tested a new missile, known as Jerricho 3, yesterday at an IDF base, directly to show Israels capabilities to the Iranians.

Don't know where the US and its allies would stand then, involved or not involved ?

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 7):
It's not often that you and I agree on something...in fact, I'm not sure that has ever happened, but there is a first time for everything.

Well there you go !

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 7):
While I don't think that the US would do anything unilateral, I do think that if Israel or other countries in the area were either in danger of an attack or actually were attacked, the US would go in at that point.

As I said above though, if Israel hits Iran, then will the US follow ?
The US may well find itself dragged into this kicking and screaming, but because of its "relationship" with Israel, it may have little choice but to join the war ????

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 8):
There is good reason that much of the rest of the world, most particularly PRC China and Russia, would turn completely against the USA, assure Israel to be destroyed and support Iran.

Yes I suspect you might have something there.

Wouldn't that change the axis of world politics.

[Edited 2011-11-03 19:57:57]

runner13 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:25 am

If Ron Paul is elected president defianetly won't happen. If Israel attacks first they will be on their own. If he doesn't get the nomination I will be writing him in for my vote.

DeltaMD90 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:39 am

I'm pretty smart when it comes to military tactics, but don't you think it would be kinda impossible for Israel to effectively attack Iran? They can launch missiles, but any other strike would be very hard. Aircraft would have to fly over Syria/Jordan/Iraq/Saudi Arabia (some combination of them) which probably wouldn't be too happy having Israelis fly over them, maybe not joining Iran but at least denying over fly rights. Flying over water around Saudi Arabia is possible, but very inconvenient. Air strikes can only accomplish so much... boots on the ground would be needed. I highly doubt they could march across the above mentioned countries, so they'd have to be lifted in or transported via the Navy. Israel is strong, but are they stronger than Iran? Even if they are, could they get to them while retaining their military superiority? Supplying the forces in Iran would be hard.

I just don't see it, not without the US's complete and utter full support. And as I already said, the US is tired of wars. By some of these posts, it seems like it's just me. Look at it from the simplest perspective: Congress has the authority to impose action (maybe even the president if he/she jumps through some loopholes.) What do politicians generally care about? Votes! Afghanistan was popular, and Iraq was pretty popular, but any war today just seems like an extremely unpopular decision. But apparently many disagree, I don't see their logic. We have been Israel's ally, but everything has a breaking point and them dragging us into Iran would be that breaking point IMO...

Cadet985 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:24 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 9):
As I said above though, if Israel hits Iran, then will the US follow ?
The US may well find itself dragged into this kicking and screaming, but because of its "relationship" with Israel, it may have little choice but to join the war ????

When and if Israel strikes Iran, any US response would have to be dependent on an Iranian response. Israel is an ally, so common sense says that we'd assist them, at least in terms of sending them weapons, etc...not necessairily troops on the ground. Now...if Iran were to use chemical/nuclear weapons, I think you'd see a much stronger response from the international community as a whole. Personally, I don't see Iran using nukes on Israel. Reason being...Israel at its widest (including Gaza and the West Bank) is a little over 73 miles wide (give or take since I just did a very quick measurement on google earth). With that, there is almost no way they could launch a missile at Israel without at least a small chance of killing Palestinians, who I believe the Iranians support.

I do believe that if there is intelligence that Iran is close to developing something that could endanger Israel, then a first strike would be in order. I realize that I could be putting my foot in my mouth, so to speak since that's why the US went into Iraq.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):
Israel is strong, but are they stronger than Iran?

Well, I don't have figures right now for either military...I believe that Israel has ~750-800 combat aircraft, and I could not find data for what they have in terms of tanks, etc. Iran has about 500 aircraft, but I don't know how many are airworthy or combat worthy. Nor do I know how well trained their aviators are. Keep in mind that Israeli pilots train regularly, and often attend the USAF's Red Flag. Now Iran does have some old F-14's. Don't know how airworthy they are, or what weapons they have for them...perhaps someone could help me research this?

baroque · Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:05 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):
And as I already said, the US is tired of wars.

Let us hope that is all that needs to be said!

Very strange ideas about what Israel might achieve and what an infuriated Iran would be willing to suffer. And oh dear, would an attack by either Isr or US infuriate Iran.

Wonder if the US still thinks it can keep the Straits of Hormuz open? Probably the insurance rates would mean it would barely matter even if they could.

Lets face it, if the west cannot cope with Somali pirates, how are they going to go against an angry Iran?

DeltaMD90 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:13 am

You know, I'll take it one step further. I am very confident, even if others aren't, that the US now wants to avoid wars at all costs (I don't even consider the Libyan airstrikes a war as that was much less costly and boots weren't on the ground.) BUT, what if Iran rather than Israel strikes first? I can see Iran harassing either Iraq or Israel to see what kind of response it will gets similar to what Hitler did in WWII (and no, I'm not comparing Iran to Hitler, that's for another thread

). If the Iranians see the US giving a, well, half ass response, I could see them moving in. Would the US respond to that? Would the world respond? A lot of oil is at stake (let's face it, this factor makes or breaks involvement.) An interesting yet scary thought. Hopefully our forces in Afghanistan will act as a deterrent to Iran just as our troops in S Korea keep N Korea at bay.

64947 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:43 am

Problem is that any war with Iran is not like one against Iraq or Afghanistan. Expect high casualties and kiss Israel goodbye because they are going to get it handed to them.
Iran is not a pushover.
Yes, the will go down, but they will go down fighting.

PanHAM · Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:13 am

The question is, can today's world afford to have an irrational, religion driven country to have a nuclear bomb? The real problem is that the rational balance of powers does not apply here. It works with Pakistan and India, but the current Iranian leadership, both clerical and political are driven by the mission to eliminate Israel from the map, even at the expense of their own existance. Whoever believes in that 72 virgins BS also believes that the new Mahdi comes down on earth on D-day and leads them into a new and wonderful life after death.

It is up to the sane part of the Iranian people to keep their leaders from executing the nuclear holocaust. The Israeli and allies will do theirs to prevent this happening. Whichever way that will be.

Aesma · Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:33 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 15):
The question is, can today's world afford to have an irrational, religion driven country to have a nuclear bomb?

You're talking about Israel, right ?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 15):
the current Iranian leadership, both clerical and political are driven by the mission to eliminate Israel from the map

I disagree. It's just for political show, and muscle flexing in the region. They don't care about Israel (or Palestinians).

PanHAM · Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:55 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 16):

You're talking about Israel, right ?

No, clearly Iran. Israel is rational, unlike Iran. Israel a democracy, Iran is not. Israel is religious based, alright, but with a large secular part of the society which can voice their opinion without fearing suppression. That difference should be clear to any European.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 16):
I disagree. It's just for political show, and muscle flexing in the region. They don't care about Israel (or Palestinians).

Yes, that's what they said before 1933 as well.

baroque · Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:19 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 16):
You're talking about Israel, right ?

Then again, which is another country where would it not be possible to be the leader without strong and overtly expressed religiosity and that has recently gone to war on a bit of a whim plus a few lies? And oh yes, it does have a few nukes to go with the nut jobs.

Tupolev160 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:51 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
Hopefully our forces in Afghanistan will act as a deterrent to Iran just as our troops in S Korea keep N Korea at bay.

You mean the forces that are not capable of handling a bunch of under-equipped religious fundamentalist scrawling through the mountains? How could they act as a deterrent to Iran, a 70+ million people state, with definitely some serious military hardware and organization? At least McChrystal understood something at the end: US has nothing to do in that region, same as in Korea.

DeltaMD90 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:45 pm

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 19):
You mean the forces that are not capable of handling a bunch of under-equipped religious fundamentalist scrawling through the mountains? How could they act as a deterrent to Iran, a 70+ million people state, with definitely some serious military hardware and organization?

lol, do I really need to explain the difference between guerrilla warfare and occupying a country vs a conventional battle meant to wipe out an army? Or are you just trying to incite something out of me?
.
.
.
Kinda brings up another topic for another thread, why did we occupy these countries? Nothing good came out of it.

[Edited 2011-11-04 09:02:02]

luckyone · Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:50 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 8):
The US may well find itself dragged into this kicking and screaming, but because of its "relationship" with Israel, it may have little choice but to join the war ????

Israel needs the US a lot more than the other way around. The primary US interest in Israel is having a lapdog in the region that keeps a destabilizing foot in the door. The Israeli government is delusional if they think anything differently, but they benefit from it so they chew on it. I have a very hard time believing they think the United States--especially in this political climate--would follow them into a war that is logistically as unrealistic as possible, not to mention politically suicidal. Iran is most definitely not Iraq. The Iranians are much better populated, equipped, organized, and funded than Iraq under Saddam Hussein could have ever dreamed, and geography favors the Iranians much more so than the Iraqis. It is also just as complicated for Iran to attack Israel. It's highly unlikely Saudis or Jordanians would care too much for missiles flying back and forth over their heads, so a war between the two would probably turn the whole region into one giant clusterf*ck, which would completely destabilize the world oil market. None of them wants that.
In addition to all of that, I would not be surprised in the least--though obviously I cannot prove it--that there is a great deal of back door/unofficial/off-the-record communication between the various governments of the region and the Israelis letting each other know just what they will and won't tolerate, and tenuous lines are drawn.

eaa3 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:15 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
They can launch missiles, but any other strike would be very hard. Aircraft would have to fly over Syria/Jordan/Iraq/Saudi Arabia

The thing is that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and so forth are not friends of Iran. They would probably support in any action against Iran and would probably host the US. I don't think that they would like to cooperate with Israel but this assumes that any action against Iran would be on Israels behalf. Saudis are Sunni and Iranians are Shiite. Saudi Arabia does not like Iran having nuclear weapons any more than Israel does because they also feel threatened by them.

I have to admit that although I am opposed to troops on the ground I think that the international community needs to be much more strict with Iran. It is simply unacceptable for the crazy leaders in Tehran to have nuclear weapons which they seem to be developing. I think the UN security council should impose harsher terms on Iran in this regard. I think that the Security council should authorize the bombing of any facility that the Iranians are not willing to allow weapons inspectors full access to. Furthermore I think that if the United States and other western countries are confident that Iran is developing nukes then I would support an extensive bombing campaign to destroy military facilities that are believed to be involved in this. Perhaps even destroy the entire air force and offensive capability of the Iranians and impose a no fly zone over Iran.

When it comes to non-proliferation of nukes it is quite unfair that only a handful of countries are allowed to have nukes. But I certainly feel a lot better knowing that only countries that I know to be reasonably stable have nukes. The power to destroy the earth should ideally be in no ones hands but if anyone is going to have it I am at least happy it's not the Iranians.

bhill · Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:44 pm

I don't think any IDF missles have to cross over Arab airspace. The IDF DOES have submarines you know....

eaa3 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:57 pm

Quoting bhill (Reply 23):
I don't think any IDF missles have to cross over Arab airspace. The IDF DOES have submarines you know....

But then again Saudi Arabia would have no interest in stopping them as Saudis are in no way allies with Iran and would very much like to see a weaker Iran as well as an Iran without nukes. They might not like IDF missiles over their airspace but they might make an exception if they are heading for Iran. After all: Your enemies enemy is your friend. Friend might however be an overstatement in this case.

For Israel the biggest problem in my mind would be Syria and perhaps Lebanon (Hamas) as they are allies of Iran. Syria has great influence on Lebanon.

Saudi Arabia itself urged the U.S. to attack Iran according to Wikileaks documents.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...ikileaks-usa-idUSTRE6AP06Z20101129

scarebus03 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:46 pm

The Saudis and Qataris will tow the line if asked and as stated are no friend of Iran. Syria has little influence and the potential for conflict would probably topple the regime by allowing the current movement to gather momentum, so they're out as well.

Besides America has not been technically at war since WWII. An attack on Iran which is perceived as the ultimate bad guy could be just what the Obama administration needs. But realistically the financial stress of another campaign is not what the world needs at this point in time.

Brgds

Ken777 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:30 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 4):
Oil ? check

Baddies in power ? check

"Good enough" reason to go ? check

That worked for Republicans.

It didn't, however, work for Obama and he's the President now.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 7):

The tipping points to go to war will be if Iran gets to a critical point of creating a missile deliverable nuclear warhead, even just a 'dirty' one, that could reach Israel and if Israel considers hitting first with or without a USA blessing.

Unfortunately the Iraq Invasion because of " a critical point of creating a missile deliverable nuclear warhead, even just a 'dirty' one" has made that line a Crying Wolf line. How can the public believe politicians after being burned so badly the last time?

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 8):
As I said above though, if Israel hits Iran, then will the US follow ?

I don't think so. If Israel believes they are in immediate risk they may well act, but I believe it would take an opening attack by Iran to move the US. Even then I can see limited responses.

What might happen if things heat up more is the stationing of a crier group in the area - but not too close.

(BTW, this increase in intensity is just another reason for maintaining a strong military - per the discussions on cutting a carrier.)

eaa3 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:59 pm

Quoting eaa3 (Reply 24):
Lebanon (Hamas)

Meant to write Hezbollah

[Edited 2011-11-04 16:00:13]

Powerslide · Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:16 pm

Quoting tu204 (Reply 14):
Expect high casualties and kiss Israel goodbye because they are going to get it handed to them.
Iran is not a pushover.

Israel will have air superiority after the first day, what is Iran going to do, send 2 of their flyable F14's toward Israel? They'll crash somewhere in the Iraqi desert. Also, the Iranian Army isn't just going to walk to Israel without getting noticed........ In a 1vs1 fight, Iran doesn't stand a chance, man power won't help them in this scenario.

DeltaMD90 · Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:23 pm

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 28):
In a 1vs1 fight, Iran doesn't stand a chance, man power won't help them in this scenario.

Good point. I think the defender will win (if you take the US out of the equation.) Iran coming to Israel would get whooped, as would Israel going to Iran IMO.

Another factor to consider is Israel's technology. The US supplies them with top notch military equipment. Many people when thinking of battles only count numbers. The technology we (and Israel) possess is terrifying... in both the 1990s and 2000s we destroyed basically all of Iraq's army (one of the largest in the world) before our troops even got near them. Not trying sound jingoistic, I'm just trying to convey the importance of technology.

PS: I said Iraq's army, not the insurgency, two totally different things. Obviously some posters on here don't know the difference so I have to clarify it again

Edit: totally forgot to mention nukes, that obviously changes a lot!

[Edited 2011-11-04 16:24:28]

Cadet985 · Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:37 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 29):
Another factor to consider is Israel's technology.

Technology doesn't always matter. Look at Vietnam.

Marc

DeltaMD90 · Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:33 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 31):
Technology doesn't always matter. Look at Vietnam.

Again, conventional war vs unconventional war. BIG difference. Unconventional is what got us our independence and the reason we had trouble in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. We decimated the Vietnamese in a conventional fight but their asymmetrical warfare gave us trouble. I don't know why we don't learn from the past. But as far as a one on one confrontation (conventional warfare) it's a blood bath. Destroying the Iranian military would be easy... look at Iraq's MILITARY, they got womped in like 2 days, but occupying Iran would be a disaster

baroque · Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:39 am

Just trying to fight Iran would be a disaster. The Mullahs may be strange but they are not stupid. Does anyone suppose they have not noticed that the US, and indeed Israel is unable to cope with asymmetric warfare.

Maybe the CIA does, but most of us have no idea - aside from the Gulf of Hormuz - where Iran would chose to make things extremely painful.

Folk get worried about Al Q and Russian sleepers, stir up Iran and you will find all sorts of unpleasant surprises.

The Iran armed forces you see are just for show. Who knows what they would really intend to fight with.

What has A Q Khan sold them, anyone know - for certain that is?

Madness, straight madness. Must have finished bulldozing Bedouin in the Negev, what to do now?

777way · Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:52 am

David and Goliath comes to mind with all the techno superiorty talk, then as Cadet pointed out there is the example of Vietnam and Afghanistan too is giving the Goliaths a tough time.

DeltaMD90 · Sat Nov 05, 2011 9:00 am

Quoting 777way (Reply 33):

David and Goliath comes to mind with all the techno superiorty talk, then as Cadet pointed out there is the example of Vietnam and Afghanistan too is giving the Goliaths a tough time.

So are you saying the US loses battles with its technology in a one on one conventional war? I am not denying the asymmetric warfare exhibited in Afghanistan and Iraq is very effective against the US military, and if Iran had half a brain they'd use that in case they got occupied. My point is a bunch of Iranians that somehow make it to the borders of Israel would probably get their *** handed to them. Why don't you fully read my posts before replying. Here are some helpful links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_warfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_warfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

An invading force would be conventional warfare (I cannot even imagine an unconventional warfare invasion.) Research how well Iraq's military did in the beginning of the war. NOT THE STUFF AFTER IT, completely different and irrelevant to my original point.

simonriat · Sat Nov 05, 2011 9:35 am

I thought Nukes were supposed to be the ultimate deterrent?

If this is the case and Iran has or is in the process of having nuclear weapons, ( also I don't have a clue how long it takes to build a single nuclear missile, but I am guessing its not an hours job), and then decides to launch said nuclear weapon, there wouldn't be one country in the world that could defend Iran, in its actions, and therefore, imho can you imagine the amount of firepower that would rain down on them. Iran would be a nuclear waste ground.

We should leave Iran to its own irrational devices, alienating them further throughout the region, through sanctions and other means and concentrate on more important things, like fighting poverty and inequality throughout the world.

I also find it amazing that everyone seems to be concentrating on Iran, and not the other countries, like North Korea (nobody seems to know what they have) or Pakistan (with one of the most corrupt governments in the world, bar the States and UK.

flyingturtle · Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:03 am

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17):
No, clearly Iran. Israel is rational, unlike Iran. Israel a democracy, Iran is not. Israel is religious based, alright, but with a large secular part of the society which can voice their opinion without fearing suppression. That difference should be clear to any European.

I strongly disagree.

I'm not sure if Iran or Israel have the better democracy. Israel is a democracy, but a barely working one. It has a one-chamber parliament, and the whole of Israel is the single voting constituency. They have a election threshold of 2%, which means that a voter group just needs to drum up 2% of the votes, and voilà they have their member of Knesset.

When the two strongest parties control 45.8% of the Knesset, you will have serious problems. When forming a cabinet, the leading parties need to win the votes of the various splinter parties, which leads to a radicalization of the cabinet's stance. "We'll accept your program, but you need to accept building some settlements more. And absolutely NO reconciliation with those Arabs, please."

Then, the cabinet has been abolished and newly elected countless times. It's impossible to implement a coherent policy, something which is of extreme importance in such a volatile region.

And I am not really sure about the "without fearing suppression" part. The mindset of the Israeli is a one of having to constantly defend the homeland, no matter how serious the threat is. Try to support Palestinian's rights in Israel. It is something you'd do with much wariness.

I know Jews who agree that the country of Israel should be demolished and freshly started elsewhere. Too much has gone wrong in the past.

PanHAM · Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:31 am

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 36):
I know Jews who agree that the country of Israel should be demolished and freshly started elsewhere. Too much has gone wrong in the past.

...and you can voice that openly on the streets of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv or any other city wihout getting beaten up or shot death.

Try it in Teheran or Meshed. Or try to found a party that advocates a secular state in Iran...

Which answers your question

petertenthije · Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:47 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 34):
So are you saying the US loses battles with its technology in a one on one conventional war?

No one is saying that. But what I think most people are saying is that the conventional one on one war is only going to be a tiny part of the fighting. Yes, the Iranian armed forces will be destroyed in a few days, weeks at most. And once that has happened, the attacker will have a large problem cause the fighting will go unconventional. Not might go unconventional, it will go unconventional. No standing army can defend against that. It's not just the allies that learned lessons from Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and similar conflicts. Actually, I wonder if the allies learned the lessons, the military certainly has, but they don't decide on wars.

Another wildcard is the fact that Iran's leadership are religious leaders. How do you think the world´s, not just Iran's, hardline Moslims are gonna react if you start to take out their religious leaders? If a cartoon is enough to get newspapers firebombed, how do you think murdering a Mullah will be responded to? Sure, most Moslims will realise the ruling clergy in Iran are not particularly sane, but with billions of Moslims you don't need to offend a large percentage to have a large problem. You think you've got a terrorist problem now...?

777way · Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:06 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 37):
Or try to found a party that advocates a secular state in Iran...

Secularism is not not allowed in Islam, but for people to freak out at this suggestion is an Islamic country is also pathetic.

MadameConcorde · Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:21 pm

I would advise that they go get things clear with Pakistan first, before they even think of attacking Iran.

Pakistan has far more nuclear power damage than Iran. The US/Israel/NATO should go and deal with that first before they think of anything else. Pakistan's leader are far from being exemplary ones and they could make use of their nuclear weaponry and missiles should they feel it's necessary - especially in regard of their neighbour India which is equally equipped with nuclear weapons.

Then number two on the list -- North Korea. Go get the Kims too. They are extremely dangerous, more than Iran, and we know they do have the nukes along with the missiles.

Israel should shut up. They have no word to say as they never agreed to signing the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty for one.
T
ime to over throw / take down Bibi Netanyahu (I prefer calling him Satanyahu) and his ultra-conservative zio friends - and have him replaced by a more moderate such as Tzipi Livni or the like.

PanHAM · Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:37 pm

Quoting 777way (Reply 39):
Secularism is not not allowed in Islam, but for people to freak out at this suggestion is an Islamic country is also pathetic.

which in conclusion means islam and democracy don't match. You should think about that.

BTW, many muslims living in Europe think different and that is very encouraging. Your religion will go through the phase of enlightenment same as christianity did and that will be positive. It is an individual choice to worship a religion or not.

something · Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:33 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 41):
Your religion will go through the phase of enlightenment same as christianity did

What's interesting to note is that Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity and that the similarities between Islam today and Christianity 600 years are uncanny. Because of the internet and globalization Islam will lose its significance much faster than that [600 years], and I look forward to the day that will have happened.

About the war in Iran question. I alluded to this possibility in the QR-in-Iran thread. I heard a few comments from high ranking politicians being made in that direction and what would the USA be without war? Now that Libya and Iraq are over, these troops will have to go somewhere. Which I wish I meant facetiously, but am dead serious about.

The USA has disgruntled Israel lately, they need to make up with them, they're best friends with Saudi Arabia, they've never liked Iran, Iran has a lot of oil and gas reserves, thousands of troops have become available lately and Iran's nuclear program would serve as an expedient explanation to go in there, or at least send a few drones and long range missiles over.

For some reason, I trust Iran and would be quite happy if the West didn't intervene there. Iran is not a country I'd enjoy living in, but they aren't terrorists and keep their problems within the borders of their own country (apart from the bounty hunters they dispatch to off unpleasant regime critics of course). I expect them to keep it that way and would hope that Iran is being left alone.

DeltaMD90 · Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:06 pm

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 38):
No one is saying that. But what I think most people are saying is that the conventional one on one war is only going to be a tiny part of the fighting. Yes, the Iranian armed forces will be destroyed in a few days, weeks at most. And once that has happened, the attacker will have a large problem cause the fighting will go unconventional. Not might go unconventional, it will go unconventional. No standing army can defend against that. It's not just the allies that learned lessons from Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and similar conflicts. Actually, I wonder if the allies learned the lessons, the military certainly has, but they don't decide on wars.

Uh huh, that exactly what I was saying if anyone bothered to read my posts. Which is partly why I think Israel would not be able to defeat Iran as a whole, just repel their military if Iran invaded. So basically, it's a stalemate for the time being. And Iran, even as unstable as they are, if they had just one nuke, I believe they'd hold onto it dearly--they'd threaten everyone under the sun, but at the end of the day if they used it, they'd be toast without one. It would be really bad if they had two...

directorguy · Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:30 am

I wonder how popular a war would be in Iran--most Iranians aren't backward rural peasants anymore, but probably have the same middle-class outlook many recently urbanized populations in the region do. Do they see that Israel isn't their quarrel or would they actually support a war against Israel?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 41):
which in conclusion means islam and democracy don't match. You should think about that.

BTW, many muslims living in Europe think different and that is very encouraging. Your religion will go through the phase of enlightenment same as christianity did and that will be positive. It is an individual choice to worship a religion or not.

No disrespect to the other poster, but there are a lot of Muslims who DO think that not only are Islam and secularism compatible, but Islam by definition is secular, i.e. a separation of civil society and religion. Same with democracy. And it's not just a tiny minority of far-right liberal agnostics who think that either. Plenty of people living outside the West are calling for this.

Quoting something (Reply 42):
What's interesting to note is that Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity and that the similarities between Islam today and Christianity 600 years are uncanny. Because of the internet and globalization Islam will lose its significance much faster than that [600 years], and I look forward to the day that will have happened.

Just because Islam is 600 years 'younger' than Christianity doesn't mean it operates on the same trajectory that Christinaity did. I don't get where your implication that Islam is 'stuck' in the year 1400 comes from, because the gap in socio-economic/political development between the Muslim and Christian world simply didn't exist until the 18th/19th century.

777way · Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:42 am

Quoting directorguy (Reply 44):
but there are a lot of Muslims who DO think that not only are Islam and secularism compatible, but Islam by definition is secular, i.e. a separation of civil society and religion.

Then why does Islam allow govt. to enforce five times prayers like in Saudi Arabia, this came from the most liberal of all religious scholars in Pakistan, while debating issues with orthodox ones on dress code, beards etc. and wether these can be enforced on public by as Islamic government.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net