All the Kings horses....

Originally posted by Regensturm
The question is also, "will the US risk it."

I'd say yes, the administration would. Assets in place on the ground and at sea. Air assets in those places plus long range planes in other parts of the globe that can strike at will. The Us military occupies bases to the west, east, and north east. So yeah, if it comes down to it, I think a strike could be considered viable by this administration.

Originally posted by Regensturm
Ahmadinejad has the Ayatollah as his temper diffuser, but who is Bush's and his cohorts? I dare say that The Bush Administration's rantings and rhetoric have also put them into a corner where they either leave Iran alone, or wage another war.

With all due respect, we all feel however we feel about Bush, but that doesn't enter into it. Not a factor here.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
I'd say yes, the administration would. Assets in place on the ground and at sea. Air assets in those places plus long range planes in other parts of the globe that can strike at will. The Us military occupies bases to the west, east, and north east. So yeah, if it comes down to it, I think a strike could be considered viable by this administration.

And that is what should worry us all.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
With all due respect, we all feel however we feel about Bush, but that doesn't enter into it. Not a factor here.

With all due respect in return, this is not about how we feel about Bush, but about who would tell him "I think you should calm down, Mr President." rather than "YES, MR PRESIDENT! YES!!! BOMB 'EM BACK TO STONE AGE!!!!"

Although all this may well be beyond his governing and orders.

Puppet masters at play.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Regensturm]

This is alarming news were going to war with Iran. But whats far more disturbing is the probable lack of television crews on the ground, its going to upset the TV coverage i hope Ahemejajblah lets in CNN and FOX just before it kicks off as were going to need a media orgy to record the destruction properly MUHAHAHAHA ahh......... happy days.

Originally posted by Regensturm
With all due respect in return, this is not about how we feel about Bush, but about who would tell him "I think you should calm down, Mr President." rather than "YES, MR PRESIDENT! YES!!! BOMB 'EM BACK TO STONE AGE!!!!"

You can yell all you want, but I doubt he would listen, and its not for the reason you think.

As citizens, we "hire" a chief executive to (in theory) act in our best interests. He is privy to information not available to the general public, and often even Congress, and his job is to make decisions based on that information.

His job, as I'm postulating that he sees it in regards to this issue we're discussing, is to insure the best interests of the US. In this case, that would be a non-nuclear Iran. To do that, he is posturing and pressuring. No amount of yelling will get his attention, and for good reason, hes just doing his job (as he sees it).

Besides, what are you going to yell about? Really. Think about it. Can you get tens of thousands to march on Washington chanting "Get that carrier group farther away from Iran"? Or "Train further out at sea"? US forces are observing international convention and staying in international waters.


[I think you spoke in general about Bush, and I was more specific in my reply here, but I was trying to keep this on topic ]


[edit on 22-1-2007 by Reality Hurts]

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

You can yell all you want, but I doubt he would listen, and its not for the reason you think.

As citizens, we "hire" a chief executive to (in theory) act in our best interests. He is privy to information not available to the general public, and often even Congress, and his job is to make decisions based on that information.

His job, as I'm postulating that he sees it in regards to this issue we're discussing, is to insure the best interests of the US. In this case, that would be a non-nuclear Iran. To do that, he is posturing and pressuring. No amount of yelling will get his attention, and for good reason, hes just doing his job (as he sees it).

But who is the sage? Who is the wise old head who will whisper sound pieces of advice? Hold him in check? Be the counter?

From what I've heard, he sacks anybody who disagrees with him.

The two US military chiefs who disagreed on his policy in Iraq for example.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Besides, what are you going to yell about? Really. Think about it. Can you get tens of thousands to march on Washington chanting "Get that carrier group farther away from Iran"? Or "Train further out at sea"? US forces are observing international convention and staying in international waters.

There are probably tens of thousands who would march, mobilising them is another matter, perhaps they are still hoping this is just normal, or shadow boxing in The Persian Gulf, and Bush would be stupid to launch another war.....perhaps they are thinking "He would'nt....he can't. He won't." Hoping....hoping.

There's alot to yell about, but yeah, he probably won't listen.

Depressing thought, isn't it. You can either laugh or cry.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
[I think you spoke in general about Bush, and I was more specific in my reply here, but I was trying to keep this on topic

]

Ah I see. I was just trying to see who can make Bush think twice in his circle.

Could the US risk to start a conflict with Iran, and lose support from the UK and EU in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result?

The impact of war with Iran would also make racial/cultural perceptions even more polarised and hostile in the UK, France, Denmark etc


[edit on 23-1-2007 by timski]

Hey guys, I have a few questions here.

You say Israel will destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and possibly leadership safehouses. But in the same thread, you talk about Iran's powerful AA technology and how much better it is than Iraqs. Wouldnt Israel's fighter bombers be detected on Radar? Wouldnt Israel use F-16s? Almost seems the USA would have to "loan" them a B2 bomber or two, to get the job done. Feasible?

It seems some of you posters are acting like United States will INVADE Iran. Highly unlikely, we are desperately tied down in two theaters of warfare. I think the realistic worst case scenario here is that Iran WILL strike back at US forces in Iraq. Although this situation is probably preferable to US commanders. If Iran mobolizes forces and tries to push forward, they WILL be completely annihilated. We have mastered conventional desert warfare quite well, and being on the defensive and KNOWING where the enemy attack is going to be is quite unfortunate for Iran.

Call me cocky of our forces, but beating back an Iranian attack would be a cakewalk.

Edit: Perhaps this "surge" of troops in Iraq is supposed to tell Iran, "Hey buddy, if you step one foot in our direction after your reactors are burnt down, your conventional forces will be severely severed."

[edit on 23-1-2007 by ShooterSix]

Originally posted by ShooterSix
Hey guys, I have a few questions here.

You say Israel will destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and possibly leadership safehouses. But in the same thread, you talk about Iran's powerful AA technology and how much better it is than Iraqs. Wouldnt Israel's fighter bombers be detected on Radar? Wouldnt Israel use F-16s? Almost seems the USA would have to "loan" them a B2 bomber or two, to get the job done. Feasible?

It honestly would not surprise me. Of course, in the event of an Israel attack on Iran, it would have the US's fingerprints all over it, but the US administration perhaps don't care about even a pretense they were not involved.

Originally posted by ShooterSix
It seems some of you posters are acting like United States will INVADE Iran. Highly unlikely, we are desperately tied down in two theaters of warfare.

I agree that if there is an attack on Iran, an air strike is more likely.

Originally posted by ShooterSix
I think the realistic worst case scenario here is that Iran WILL strike back at US forces in Iraq.

I can't see it. Iran would only do anything of that kind (striking with missiles and giving extra support to Iraqi Shia Militias) if attacked. They would keep their troops on their soil to stop from sticking a neck out and having it hacked off.

Originally posted by ShooterSix
Call me cocky of our forces, but beating back an Iranian attack would be a cakewalk.

Overconfidence in any event of war is akin to sticking your head above a trench. You risk having it blown away.

Originally posted by ShooterSix
Edit: Perhaps this "surge" of troops in Iraq is supposed to tell Iran, "Hey buddy, if you step one foot in our direction after your reactors are burnt down, your conventional forces will be severely severed."

It's very probable. Which means we should all be concerned futher.

www.jpost.com.../JPArticle/ShowFull

Palestinian security forces arrested seven Iranian citizens during a raid Thursday night at the Islamic University, a Hamas stronghold in Gaza City, a security official said.

According to reports, another Iranian citizen committed suicide during the raid.

looky, we now have iranians popping up in Israeli incidents, and israeli news.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
www.jpost.com.../JPArticle/ShowFull

Palestinian security forces arrested seven Iranian citizens during a raid Thursday night at the Islamic University, a Hamas stronghold in Gaza City, a security official said.

According to reports, another Iranian citizen committed suicide during the raid.

looky, we now have iranians popping up in Israeli incidents, and israeli news.

Yep. Fatah are playing along, to make themselves look good to Israel, and the US, who have been arming them against Hamas.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Regensturm]

I Personally, am getting sick of these threads that have been predicting an attack on Iran for almost 2 years. You're never right, and I don't personally think it will happen. All I have ever seen in these such predictions is that a new carrier is being deployed and everyone thinks its gonna happen, when it never does. Do most people making these predictions realize that Carriers are deployed in cycles, I think its 6 at sea, and 6 in dry docks for maintainance(correct me if I'm wrong). And with all the leaks in this administration, it would have gotten out by now in my opinion. The sky isn't falling on Iran, and I don't believe that the US will attack them.