3 more days lead to UNSC for Iran?

Originally posted by USAF6933
I think in order for us to truly win the war on terror we will to make a strategic alliance with Iran

Impossible. That is like making a strategic alliance with the taliban and getting them to turn over Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar.

Edit: Why I type it in the grey box it looks like two lines but when i hit submit it's only one. Don't slap me on the wrist

[edit on 21-11-2005 by Rickey Gerard Perez]

Originally posted by USAF6933
I think in order for us to truly win the war on terror we will to make a strategic alliance with Iran similar to how we had a strategic alliance with China during the cold war. ...............
.......... I have even read recent articles from good sources saying that the Bush administration is thinking about possibly forming an alliance Iran in the future. That would be a win/win scenario for the US and Iran. I know many of you would think that crazy but I think it makes all the sense in the world.

Goodluck USAF6933..............
Lets hope US+EU+Israel politicians get there mind bulbs on!

Dialogue....diaogue........agreeeeee..............alliance............!
Too big a job for a powerful US with short-sighted president, harnessed like a horse by its rider Israel!
Lets hope no WWIII, Israel emerge as super power for salvation of USA, as USA emerged out of WWII.









chaudri

Originally posted by chaudri
Lets hope US+EU+Israel politicians get there mind bulbs on!

I am sure that the US and the EU will get there mind bulbs on about the time that Iran does?

Too big a job for a powerful US with short-sighted president...

Can't be no more "short-sighted" then the Iranian president that spews out one line comedy mentions, such as erasing Israel from the annuals of History or removing Israel from the face of the map, eh? Talk about "short-sighted"........?!

Lets hope no WWIII, Israel emerge as super power for salvation of USA, as USA emerged out of WWII.

Jealous?







seekerof

"My original goal for this letter was to scrutinize Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks point by point. Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad's focus wanders so wildly that he never actually finishes any of his points. I think you will notice this in the ensuing discussion. First things first: Ahmadinejad conducts himself in a superciliously pompous manner. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that the purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how vindictive and daft Ahmadinejad has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how if I didn't sincerely believe that he is an enemy to his friends and a friend to his enemies, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. We need to educate others about the insinuations and canards of insensitive deviants. That, in itself, will condemn us to live with what I call illiterate turncoats by the next full moon. We are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which cantankerous recidivists like Ahmadinejad are absolutely absent. The other road leads into the darkness of Jacobinism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? Whatever the answer, there is something grievously wrong with those salacious ivory-tower academics who withhold information and disseminate half truths and whole lies. Shame on the lot of them!

Message edited to the first paragraph. This extremely long letter was generated by an automatic letter generating software. Shame on YOU!

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Byrd]

seekerof!
Not Jealous?


Simply sympathetic to USA, the owner of the 'liberty'.
My sympathies to USA, wish USA not replaced by Israel.

Originally posted by ludaChris
The thing with China is we have trade talks coming up at the end of the month. And if enough countries in the UN are concerned with it the US could(and I do mean hypothetically) use these trade talks to convince China to change their position. And that well could bring Russia along as well.

News Flash: Niether China nor Russia want to trade with US.
Not as extensively as you make them out to anyway.

Infact it's the US which are trying to get China to trade with them, not the other way around

Originally posted by ludaChrisAnd as far as no NATO aircraft being able to get within 100 kilometers withough getting 10 missiles shot at it. There is more to an airstrike than just sending in your planes, first you take out those radars with strike aircraft with radar homing missiles and jaming pods. After that way is clear then send in your attack aircraft to take out the targets you so desire. What I'm saying if NATO wanted it destroyed it would be.

How can you destroy the radars with strike aircraft, if they won't get anywhere near them without getting shot down? You logic defies sense.

Originally posted by ludaChrisAnd Russia wont go to war with the US or any other country for that matter over this, granted they have money involved but if they were to attack a NATO country, they would be commiting political and military suicide, I mean, a declaration of war on NATO was scary during the cold war, and they are nowhere near the power they used to be.

Nobody is suggesting Russia or China is going to go to war with NATO.
Merely a proxy war in Iran.

As for money, both Russia and China have a very substancial amount of money in Iran, and they cannot and will not let NATO forces attack Iran.

As for NATO countries, I doubt Russia would be very scared of any of them except USA.

And USA aren't going to go to war with Russia and vice versa.

Originally posted by ludaChrisAnd which allies does Iran have between them? Why try and go through Syria when I'm sure that the U.S. would gladly grant them an nice air lane to fly right through in Iraq? And I dont think the Jordanian Airforce would try to stop it at all. But then agian I will doubt an Israeli airstike just because of the political ramifications and besides that the US has much better access, but the Syrian of Jordanian airforce could not stop the Israeli airforce if they wanted to, Israel has proven that before.

Jordan is Israel's ally that is true, but I'm not sure if the US decides whether or not to let Israel use Iraqie airspace...wouldn't the UN have to make that decision?

Syria is a hostile country, and will attempt to shoot down any Israeli planes, and will probably succeed.

If Israel uses f16s, well they aren't no fa22s.

Originally posted by Rickey Gerard Perez
If the issue is sent to the UN Security Council Iran should comply with everything demanded of them.

Nothing will be demanded off Iran because niether China nor Russia will vote for such a decision. End of Story.

Originally posted by Rickey Gerard Perez
If Iran kicks out inspectors, they can almost certainly expect airstrikes against their strategic military buildings and nuclear plants.

So either Iran complies, or they get a number of airstrikes. Iran won't be invaded by troops, but they will be bombed.

In your hypothetical "American Perfect" world everything just "works" without explanation.

What you do not realise it is not so in the real world, where there are these things called Surface to Air missiles, which are DESIGNED to SHOOT DOWN ENEMY PLANES.

Do you understand that?

And do you know that Iran's military is FAR more powerful than Iraqs?

Originally posted by American Mad Man

B-2's could invade their airspace at will. Beyond that, AIRCRAFT ARE NOT NEEDED.

Cruise missles have both the range and the accuracy to take out a nuclear powerplant.

A cruise missile attack from Israel (it would have to be) would be followed by a cruise missile attack from Iran back at Israel, and I doubt they want that.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Yeah, thats just what Russia wants to do - start WWIII over Irans nuclear reactors.

Nobody is going to start anything.

First of all, it's only one reactor. And second of all it's a Russian nuclear reactor in case you don't know (and it appears so).

Russia is getting money for building it, fueling it and giving Iran info.
Not to mention they have military ties with Iran.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Yeah, cause the US with troops and aircraft nearly completely surrounding Iran with the greatest military technology in the world can do nothing to Iran, but Isreal - a US military leach which shares no boarder with Iran - can.

Do you not understand how anything works?

Do you not realise that the American public would not tolorate yet ANOTHER war?
And why would bush even do that, his popularity level is already incredibly low, and i don't recall him wanting to be kicked out of presidency, or worse this may start a civil war.

Not to mention a very large portion of America's military is bound by other projects, and there is a limited amount of troops and equipment the US can deliver to Iran.

Plus they would have to spend a hell of a lot of money in paying private companies in suppling the troops with Food, Water, Housing, ect like they are doing in Iraq.

At a time when USA is in huge debt, and the pentagon is cutting as many costs as possible, what you are suggesting seems impossible.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
First of all, just because you say an airstrike wouldn't work doesn't make it true. Both the US and Isreal could invade Iranian airspace at will and complete such a mission.

No, the fact that the nuclear reactor in Iran is heavily defended against an air strike makes it so.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Secondly, Irans allies?

Last I checked, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were allies of the US, not Iran. Not that Isreal would automatically be allowed to enter their airspace, but they are in no way shape or form Irans Allies.

I never said they were Iranian allies.

I doubt that Saudi Arabia would allow either side to use their airspace, Jordan probably will, but it's pretty small.

It's like trying to squeeze planes in a choke point, at the end of which they can easily be shot.

That is, there is less distance to cover by mobile SAMs or whatnot.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I believe Bush has proven that he is anything but just a talker.

Yop, not just ANY talker, but the dumbest talker that ever lived.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Please tell me exactly what detection systems Iran has that could detect and track a US B-2 Spirit strategic bomber. Please tell me how Iran would stop a Tomahawk missle attack.

I don't believe US will attack Iran full stop.
The US civilians and congress can only tolorate so many wars and losses.

They can't stop Tomahawk missiles, nor can whoever strikes Iran be able to stop all of theirs.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
They will only get it if it is under supervision the US deems adequate, otherwise every power plant will be destroyed. Bank on it.

And what would the US deem adequate?

Sending a million inspectors to be in all Iranian military and government facilities 24/7?

That's a joke.


[edit on 22-11-2005 by Manincloak]

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Manincloak]

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Manincloak]

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Manincloak]

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Manincloak]

China needs the US for its dollars to purchase things on the international market. The oil market uses dollars if I am not mistaken. So why would they not want to trade with the US. Why would any country not want the financial benefits of trading with the US.
en.wikipedia.org...

If NATO decided to strike at the Reactor sites. They would have to first defeat the air defenses which can be done with conventional aircraft. If you noticed I said in my previous statement with jamming support, meaning those search radars wont be able to see through the jamming until the aircraft ar close enough to have already launched ALARM missiles. If you dont know what they are, then go here:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
We dont need stealth to break an air defense system. You saying they couldnt do it makes me wonder if you understand the ability of the modern airforces of NATO to defeat such a defense system.

As for the comment about Russian going to war with NATO, I was merely responding to this statement:
"And don't forget, Russia has an AF base with Mig 29OTVs fairly close to Iran. I'm sure they would love nothing more than to prove their newly upgraded birds in combat."
You were the one pointing that Russia would come to war over a strike on the reactor, not me.

Did you pay attention when Syria and Egypt declared war on Israel. Time and Time again the Israeli airforce prooved superior to both. I'm not saying that Syria could not shoot them down with a SAM, that is entirely possible, but to think that if they do not invade Syrian Airspace that they would send fighters up to shoot them down, there is an outside chance they would succeed against Israel in air-to-air combat.

I dont know why everyone thinks that because an air defense system is labeled as 'sophisticated', that NATO could not break through and destroy what needs to be destroyed, weve done it twice in the past 15 years, not counting the second Iraq war, simply because its air defenses werent what they used to be. And with all due respect, you obviously have no knowledge of the capabilities of NATO's airforces. Damn, that was a great breakfast.




[edit on 11/22/2005 by ludaChris]

[edit on 11/22/2005 by ludaChris]

Originally posted by Manincloak

Originally posted by ludaChris
The thing with China is we have trade talks coming up at the end of the month. And if enough countries in the UN are concerned with it the US could(and I do mean hypothetically) use these trade talks to convince China to change their position. And that well could bring Russia along as well.

News Flash: Niether China nor Russia want to trade with US.
Not as extensively as you make them out to anyway.

Infact it's the US which are trying to get China to trade with them, not the other way around

No.

The U.S. wants China to free it's currency from it's artificical rate. China can't just up an do this; it's a slow process.

Believe me, many business here in the U.S.A would be happy if we didn't trade with China. We can provide for ourselfs.

Don't believe me? Look at WWII and how it pulled us out of the depression. America is a sleeping giant only awakened at the darkest of hours.

Didnt know that Crisko, you know where I can find official info on the trades status between the US and China, Id like to see exactly what goes down, and what else we trade.

Originally posted by ludaChris
China needs the US for its dollars to purchase things on the international market. The oil market uses dollars if I am not mistaken. So why would they not want to trade with the US. Why would any country not want the financial benefits of trading with the US.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's a two way street, US wants to trade with China too.

And also, China has a very capable partner - the EU.
Not to mention countries within the BRICS allience.

Originally posted by ludaChrisIf NATO decided to strike at the Reactor sites. They would have to first defeat the air defenses which can be done with conventional aircraft. If you noticed I said in my previous statement with jamming support, meaning those search radars wont be able to see through the jamming until the aircraft ar close enough to have already launched ALARM missiles. If you dont know what they are, then go here:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I think I can think up of an easy solution.....turn off the radars. Confuse the missiles.

Anyway, if we're aware of this, than I'm sure Iran is. And I'm sure there are ways to counter this.

For example, have your anti-aircraft equipment spread around the reactor. Have 1/10 of it turned on. When they are sure an enemy strike force is approaching, turn them all (or half? as many as needed maybe) on, and send the missiles.

Anyway, I'm not even a military commander, I'm sure they can think of much better ways to deal with this.

Originally posted by ludaChris
As for the comment about Russian going to war with NATO, I was merely responding to this statement:

You were the one pointing that Russia would come to war over a strike on the reactor, not me.

Not come into the war, just defend iran against a strike, that's all. I'm sure they wouldn't directly attack any NATO forces, just defend Iran.

Originally posted by ludaChrisDid you pay attention when Syria and Egypt declared war on Israel. Time and Time again the Israeli airforce prooved superior to both. I'm not saying that Syria could not shoot them down with a SAM, that is entirely possible, but to think that if they do not invade Syrian Airspace that they would send fighters up to shoot them down, there is an outside chance they would succeed against Israel in air-to-air combat.

I'd say that's a fairly weak case. First of all, that was a fair time ago, and second of all, it's easier to shoot down an aircraft with a SAM rather than with another aircraft.

Syria may send out aircraft to counter Israeli aircraft, I'm not sure they will, but if they do, I'm sure they must think they can at least achieve something.

Originally posted by ludaChris
I dont know why everyone thinks that because an air defense system is labeled as 'sophisticated', that NATO could not break through and destroy what needs to be destroyed, weve done it twice in the past 15 years, not counting the second Iraq war, simply because its air defenses werent what they used to be.

Iraq cannot be compared to Iran in terms of air defence or....really any aspect of military.

Originally posted by ludaChrisAnd with all due respect, you obviously have no knowledge of the capabilities of NATO's airforces.

I do.

I admit, that if the US launches a B2 strike on Iran, that it will be pretty much unable to do anything (unless Russia provides them with S-400 weapons systems, which will merily shoot down b2s, but I doubt Russia would sell these....unless Iran offers a very high price) but I also believe that the US won't take such an action.

Not yet anyway, I mean...they will if Iran comes out and says something like "Yeh, we're developing nukes, and when we get 'em you better watchout!"

But as if anything like that will happen....

I'm betting that if any action will be taken it will be taken by Israel, and their capabilities are not as good as those of the USA.

Originally posted by crisko
No.

The U.S. wants China to free it's currency from it's artificical rate. China can't just up an do this; it's a slow process.

Believe me, many business here in the U.S.A would be happy if we didn't trade with China. We can provide for ourselfs.

I see I see.

And even though US based companies would like that, Americans will have to pay more for goods, and THEY won't like that.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by NR
Seems like people on my ignore list can't seem to be getting enough, you can post whatever you want but i won't even be seeing a dam thing. Goes for others on the list...

redmage
skippytjc
American Mad Man
Murcielago

I guess thats why you know we are posting... Because you can't see our posts.

Lighten up buddy. Ignoring people that present contrary views to your own will only keep you close minded and uneducated.

I think American Mad Man just called you closed minded and uneducated, skippy.

Ok, to start, yes it is a two way street, but China needs our money more than we need to give it. We do export grain to China that I know for sure, but do you know what else we send to China, I'm not aware of anything we trade with them other than grain and our currency of course. Maybe someone can help me out there.

They can turn the radars off but to what purpose does it serve them if there is no guidance for their missiles. The typical reaction to anti-radar missiles is flipping the radar on and off to confuse the missiles, but this action is a coin toss, may work, may not. Which can work for or against either side.

Not necessarily so with SAM's, depending on the model. Heres a link to their current SAM armament.
www.globalsecurity.org...
You have to scroll down to the bottom to see their air defenses. And what makes you so sure their airforce would acheive something, in the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Syria, who joined the conflict lost 80 planes, and Isreal lost none. Israel has the best airforce in the middle east, not because they want to, but because they have to. And once again it was the same story in 85.
www.globalsecurity.org...

Here is a link to Irans surface to air missile armament:
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
Surely they will have these more sophisticated air defense systems in place over the nuclear sites, the shahab is a weapon that was copied from a chinese SAM system. It is reported to be superior to some western SAM systems, and it is most definately formidable. Most likely routing this defense will call for stealth aircraft, which is something that the US does have.

I cant say I doubt the US will take such action, but I do hope we do. And it is true, that the Israeli airforce is not as capable technologically as the US, They could probably pull off an attack on the nuclear sites with strategic surprise. Another factor is the amount of these shahabs the Iranians have produced. Even if there are only few, they will surely be around these sites. But lets hope this gets solved diplomatically.

And the thing about if US companies stop trading with China is not necessarily true. Countries like Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, or Taiwan would gladly pick up that slack at comparable rates. But it would be much easier to stick with China seing as it is working perfectly fine as it is. But politics are politics, what can you do?

[edit on 11/23/2005 by ludaChris]

[edit on 11/23/2005 by ludaChris]

Originally posted by ludaChris
Ok, to start, yes it is a two way street, but China needs our money more than we need to give it. We do export grain to China that I know for sure, but do you know what else we send to China, I'm not aware of anything we trade with them other than grain and our currency of course. Maybe someone can help me out there.

Looking for some info I found this, I think it's just what you're looking for.
www.uschina.org...

And these:
www.ustr.gov...
www.census.gov...

I won't pretend I know much about trade, but I will agree with you that US has the upper hand on US-China trade.

However I do not believe this is enough to deter China from interfering with a possible US/NATO attack in Iran.

Originally posted by ludaChrisThey can turn the radars off but to what purpose does it serve them if there is no guidance for their missiles. The typical reaction to anti-radar missiles is flipping the radar on and off to confuse the missiles, but this action is a coin toss, may work, may not. Which can work for or against either side.

I'm saying they can turn some off.

For example, say they have 50 SAMs in an area, which 10 enemy aircraft are coming to destroy them.

Why use all 50, when only half or less is enough?

Originally posted by ludaChris
And what makes you so sure their airforce would acheive something, in the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Syria, who joined the conflict lost 80 planes, and Isreal lost none. Israel has the best airforce in the middle east, not because they want to, but because they have to. And once again it was the same story in 85.
www.globalsecurity.org...

Thats 25 and 20 years ago.

I also do not have an opinion on whether Syria would be successful in intercepting and destroying Israeli planes with theirs.

All I'm saying is, I doubt they wouldn't launch their planes, unless they were confident enough that they can achieve something.

Originally posted by ludaChris Most likely routing this defense will call for stealth aircraft, which is something that the US does have.

And that's where I believe the US won't do much.
If they will decide to attack Iran's nuclear reactor, the only thing which can stop stealth aircraft are the russian anti-aircraft s-400 system.

I'm not even sure they (russians) have radars for planes which can detect stealth yet, but it would make sense. Question is, have any planes been outfitted with new radars.

Anyway, if the US does decide to take the reactor out they probably can, but would they do that....I believe not.

Originally posted by ludaChrisAnd the thing about if US companies stop trading with China is not necessarily true. Countries like Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, or Taiwan would gladly pick up that slack at comparable rates. But it would be much easier to stick with China seing as it is working perfectly fine as it is. But politics are politics, what can you do?

Perhaps, however China is a growing economy, and developing strong trading relationships with them now, is definately a good long-term investment for USA.

Originally posted by ludaChrisBut lets hope this gets solved diplomatically.

Indeed lets hope it will.

There's no need to fight with another country in the middle east, there's no need for more US and other soldiers to die.

I am still hoping that Iran has peaceful intentions

[edit on 23-11-2005 by Manincloak]