Iran Super Thread- Merged

[TCBF]

First of all what kind of response is this? Your grammar and spelling is disgusting. This is not MSN talk this is army.ca forums.  ...

- They let them write papers like that in university nowadays.  Insisting on the proper use of the English language is considered an act of colonial elitism (or elite colonialism, depending on the wind...) and getting a doctorate using MSN speak is worth points for sticking it to The Man.

8)

 

[George Wallace]

how could anyone besides that war criminal bush HATE ppeopke from iran enough ti kill them.
I mean clearly it doesnt magtter to bush, he just wants people to die, but NORMAL people wont just be down for killing people frpom iran.

PS bush hates queers.

A prime example of: "Why people should post NOT on the internet when they are hammered."




[Edit:  Left out the most important word.......Sorry]

 

[TCBF]

A prime example of: "Why people should post on the internet when they are hammered."

- I got the impression that a bottle of Jameson might do the lad some good.

 

[1feral1]

how could anyone besides that war criminal bush HATE ppeopke from iran enough ti kill them.
I mean clearly it doesnt magtter to bush, he just wants people to die, but NORMAL people wont just be down for killing people frpom iran.

PS bush hates queers.

The stupid post award for the month. Seething with anti US and anti Bush crap.

I would like to suggest this is 'tongue in cheek' (but there is nothing to base that on), or are you serious, on drugs or pissed with a bottle of JD (now empty of almost empty) in your hand?

Maybe someone got your log on, and password?

On the other hand, if you want to sit back and live by the way the above posts tells us you suggest you are, then you favour Iran obtaining nukes, the regime, and support whatever they do with them, including attacking the west. If they don't do that directly, they will be providing a faction, the tools to do so.

Your post is pure unadulterated silliness at its finest.

Its your integerity, not ours at stake.

Iran must be prevented for developing such power and weapons, and by force if necessary. if you cannot realise this, then you are part of the problem, and not the solution.

EDITed for spelling and clarity

 

[Fusaki]

He must have been drunk.  Check out the last posts of his profile. Between 0354 and 0401 on May 3rd he has 7 posts, none of which are very coherent. My guess is that he was at the bars untill close on Friday night, then came home and figured he had something to say on army.ca.  A classic case of black-out drive.

It's elementry, Watson. :

 

[CougarKing]

Drunk posters aside,  ;D, I am surprised that no one has posted this article from a week ago, which discusses the sending of a 2nd USN carrier to the Gulf:

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,166814,00.html (here's the link at the other source I got the article from, but it seems to have been changed/moved)

Gates: 2nd Gulf Carrier a 'Reminder' to Iran

Associated Press | April 30, 2008

MEXICO CITY - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that sending a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf could serve as a "reminder" to Iran, but he said it's not an escalation of force.

Speaking to reporters after meeting with Mexican leaders, Gates said heightening U.S. criticism of Iran and its support for terror groups is not a signal that the administration is laying the groundwork for a strike against Tehran.

Still, he said Iran continues to back the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"I do not have a sense at this point of a significant increase in Iranian support for the Taliban and others opposing the government in Afghanistan," Gates said. "There is, as best I can tell, a continuing flow, but I would still characterize it as relatively modest."

His comments contrasted with those from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said last week that he had not seen any new signs of Iranian support for the Taliban.

Gates played down the addition of a second carrier to the Gulf, saying that the number of ships there rises and falls continuously. He said he doesn't expect there to two carriers there for a long time.

Asked if the carrier move went hand in hand with the rising U.S. rhetoric against Iran, Gates said, "I don't see it as an escalation. I think it could be seen, though, as a reminder."

In the past, military officials have said that beefing up the Navy's presence in the Gulf was a way to show that that the U.S. remains committed to the region. And they have acknowledged it also serves as a show of force for other countries there, such as Iran.

In recent weeks, U.S. officials have ratcheted up their complaints that Iran is increasing its efforts to supply weapons and training to militants in Iraq.

Military commanders in Baghdad are expected to roll out evidence of that support soon - including date stamps on newly found weapons caches showing that recently made Iranian weapons are flowing into Iraq at a steadily increasing rate.

Another senior military official said the evidence will include mortars, rockets, small arms, roadside bombs and armor-piercing explosives - known as explosively formed penetrators or EFPs - that troops have discovered in caches in recent months. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the evidence has not yet been made public, said that dates on some of the weapons were well after Tehran signaled late last year that it was scaling back aid to insurgents.

 

[KevinB]

I for one am all for wiping a Iranian city off the map, nice and neat as an example of why you should not conduct warfare against us.

If the people of Iran are so peace loving, then they should stop their gov't and elements of it from arming, training insurgents in Iraq, and sometimes conducting raids themselves.  Now that by anyone but a drunken idiot is an act of war, and I for one am all for massive responce.

 

 

[TCBF]

I for one am all for wiping a Iranian city off the map, nice and neat as an example of why you should not conduct warfare against us.

If the people of Iran are so peace loving, then they should stop their gov't and elements of it from arming, training insurgents in Iraq, and sometimes conducting raids themselves.  Now that by anyone but a drunken idiot is an act of war, and I for one am all for massive responce. 

- Peace loving Germans never stopped Hitler, peace loving Russians never stopped Stalin, peace loving Chinese never stopped Mao, peace loving Khmers never stopped Pol Pot, peace loving Zimbabweans haven't stopped Bobby Mugabe (yet)...

- The only country capable of unifying Iran in a war against the west is the USA.

 

[tomahawk6]

The only country capable of unifying Iran in a war against the west is the USA.

The Iranian people will get one shot at freedom and that will come after the US air strikes degrade Iran's security forces and the IRG. They are what keeps the regime in power. There has to be a response to Hizbollah's coup in Lebanon and putting direct pressure on Iran may be whats needed to get Hizbollah to pull back.

 

[TCBF]

- Bound to work ... worked in Iraq, right?

 

[tomahawk6]

- Bound to work ... worked in Iraq, right?

Actually it has.The Iraqi people have a shot at freedom and they are bleeding so they can stay that way. If it werent for the help of France the US would never had gotten our independence. We gave the Koreans an opportunity for freedom and they rose to the challenge,the Vietnamese didnt.We helped to save the people of Europe from the Nazi's and then the Russians.If they want to stay free they have to be ready to fight and die.

 

[TCBF]

- I agree with that part.  You can't buy freedom, you can only rent it, and the only acceptable currency is the blood of patriots.

- What dismays me is the modern equivalent of a "Two Front War" becoming a three front war with Iran.  Then a four front war when another regional thug siezes the initiative.  There is such a thing as biting off more than we can chew. 

- One tyrant at a time.

 

[TCBF]

... they rose to the challenge,the Vietnamese didnt.

- From a historical stanpoint, I disagree.  They needed another five years.  They didn't get it. 

 

[tomahawk6]

We gave them 10 years and +58000 of our sons and daughters.I dont think another 5 years would have made a difference. An invasion of North Korea would have been the only way IMO and that wasnt practical from a political standpoint.

 

[TCBF]

We gave them 10 years and +58000 of our sons and daughters.I dont think another 5 years would have made a difference. An invasion of North Korea would have been the only way IMO and that wasnt practical from a political standpoint.

- You bombed them to the peace table.  Victory.  Then Congress starved SVN of armaments, ammunition and air cover.  The ARVN fought well in the last two years.  They did not not fold as quick as 'puppets',  like the North thought they would.  My apologies for the (another...) hi-jack.

 

[a_majoor]

This seems to becoming a cyclical thing, see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34696/post-374177.html#msg374177

So far, the US has played its hand well; Iran blusters and postures, but the United States retains all its options, while allowing internal friction and economic pressure to grind the gears in Iran. The political changes happening in Iraq and Afghanistan also apply a great lever against the regime, who is expending resources in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine as well as on military posturing with little return on investment. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Iran is slowing down its attempts to develop a nuclear weapon, so this is still a wash.

 

[KevinB]

RVN is a terrible analogy - as the US was effectively propping up a corrupt and archaic system, that was out of touch religiously, and politically ideology with its people.  The ARVN did crumble in waves when not supported by US Air power, and advisors.  While Tet may have destroyed the Viet Cong, it broke American politcal will.

The recent focus of Iranian bombs and rockets onto the green zone in Iraq is a example of the attempts of Iran via its proxies to wage their own Tet in Iraq, I feel it is a mistake not to move against Iran.  As well keep in mind Iranians are masters of rhetoric, they teach it in schools.  They are also shrewd and calculating -- and will give illusions of some popular democratic movement - they know that they can play a shell gave that will fool the majority of the western public.

 

[a_majoor]

The al Qaeda networks own assessment of Iraq. It is getting hardeer and harder to declare America's invasion and COIN operations a failure when the enemy is declaring it a sucess:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011334.html

"Involuntary Martyrs"

StrategyPage says Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been a victim of its own success (in killing other Muslims, that is):

Al Qaeda web sites are making a lot of noise about "why we lost in Iraq." Western intelligence agencies are fascinated by the statistics being posted in several of these Arab language sites. Not the kind of stuff you read about in the Western media. According to al Qaeda, their collapse in Iraq was steep and catastrophic. According to their stats, in late 2006, al Qaeda was responsible for 60 percent of the terrorist attacks, and nearly all the ones that involved killing a lot of civilians. The rest of the violence was carried out by Iraqi Sunni Arab groups, who were trying in vain to scare the Americans out of the country.

Today, al Qaeda has been shattered, with most of its leadership and foot soldiers dead, captured or moved from Iraq. As a result, al Qaeda attacks have declined more than 90 percent. Worse, most of their Iraqi Sunni Arab allies have turned on them, or simply quit. This "betrayal" is handled carefully on the terrorist web sites, for it is seen as both shameful, and perhaps recoverable.

This defeat was not as sudden as it appeared to be, and some Islamic terrorist web sites have been discussing the problem for several years. The primary cause has been Moslems killed as a side effect of attacks on infidel troops, Iraqi security forces and non-Sunnis. Al Qaeda plays down the impact of this, calling the Moslem victims "involuntary martyrs." But that's a minority opinion. Most Moslems, and many other Islamic terrorists, see this as a surefire way to turn the Moslem population against the Islamic radicals. That's what happened earlier in Algeria, Afghanistan, Egypt and many other places. It's really got nothing to do with religion. The phenomenon hits non-Islamic terrorists as well (like the Irish IRA and the Basque ETA).

The senior al Qaeda leadership saw the problem, and tried to convince the "Al Qaeda In Iraq" leadership to cool it. That didn't work. As early as 2004, some Sunni Arabs were turning on al Qaeda because of the "involuntary martyrs" problem. The many dead Shia Arab civilians led to a major terror campaign by the Shia majority. They controlled the government, had the Americans covering their backs, and soon half the Sunni Arab population were refugees.

Meanwhile, the "Al Qaeda In Iraq" leadership was out of control. Most of these guys are really out there, at least in terms of fanaticism and extremism. This led to another fatal error. They declared the establishment of the "Islamic State of Iraq" in late 2006. ...When al Qaeda could not, in 2007, exercise any real control over the parts of Iraq they claimed as part of the new Islamic State, it was the last straw. (via Hot Air)

Islamic fascism is kind of like Communism - it gets a lot of sympathy and support in some parts of the world, until it's actually implemented.

 

[Trauma22]

Ive been browsing these forums for a long time, never feeling the need to post since you all do such a fine job of it.  In this case however I will step out of the shadows to voice my confusion over the lack of interest in this topic. 
In my view, the Iran issue could spark the tensions that have been building around the world since 9/11, and could lead to a scenario far scarier than Iraq/Astan x10.  Why has noone posted on this in almost a month?  Is it not important that a high level Israeli cabinet minister has said an attack is now inevitable (even if it wasnt a official statement).    ???

 

[DBA]

In my view, the Iran issue could spark the tensions that have been building around the world since 9/11, and could lead to a scenario far scarier than Iraq/Astan x10.   Why has noone posted on this in almost a month?  Is it not important that a high level Israeli cabinet minister has said an attack is now inevitable (even if it wasnt a official statement).     ???

Iran has been calling for the destruction of Israel. That Israel will attack a hostile nation to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons isn't news. They did it against Iraq's Osirak reactor and also very likely against a Syrian reactor more recently.