How do you think a Pre-emptive strike on the reactors play out?

**Parihaka** · 11 Jun 07,, 01:46

Originally Posted by zraver

Your tryign to approach this rationally, where an external threat of nuclear oblivion would kepe people in line. Try approaching the issue from a mindset where internal doemstic control is the only major consoideration.

Exactly. The Sepah-e Pasdaran have only ever shown an ability to deal with local ideological issues on an ad-hoc basis, not any sort of rational play on the international stage, and it's those guys who are in charge.

**zraver** · 11 Jun 07,, 02:32

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Exactly. The Sepah-e Pasdaran have only ever shown an ability to deal with local ideological issues on an ad-hoc basis, not any sort of rational play on the international stage, and it's those guys who are in charge.

Not so much thsat they are in charge, but that they control acess to the ruling clerics. Forgive the Godwins law violation here, but we both know they are like the Waffen SS in tha they are diven by ideology. This acts as rose covered glasses and warps their perception of the world and events. Adding to this reality discnnect is the fact that they bassically act as the "Cheif of Staff" to the clerics.

Thus I bleeive the clerics are getitgn bad information that has already been ideologically altered and then they (clerics) further mentally modify it based on thier own perceptions and desires. Ameirca recently had a similar situation that landed us in Iraq without a clear plan of what to do if the bad guys didnt cry uncle.

**~~glow~~** · 11 Jun 07,, 20:26

Originally Posted by zraver

Your tryign to approach this rationally, where an external threat of nuclear oblivion would kepe people in line. Try approaching the issue from a mindset where internal doemstic control is the only major consoideration.

Like the Bush administration

**zraver** · 11 Jun 07,, 23:30

Originally Posted by glow

Like the Bush administration

No, Bush is alot of things, but would be king is not one of them.

**Galatican** · 03 Oct 08,, 13:02

Originally Posted by entropy

Are the Iranians better fighters than the Arabs?

Although you asked this question sometime ago, allow me to contribute. Arabs have the reputation of being bad fighters, which is quite unfair and very incorrect. One must differentiate "Fighter" from "Soldier". Arabs are generally very good fighters (they have it in their blood....specially if they are tribal), but poor soldiers. To be a good fighter does not necessarilly require discipline; to be a good soldier does! Arab officers are generally bad; poor knowledge of strategy and leadership.

Iranians on the other hand, are a different bunch: they are better soldiers than fighters: They are not True Born fighters like the Arabs and need discipline to fight correctly. Iraninans have better Officers than the Arabs do, meaning better leadership. The Iranian Army is quite disciplined, compared to it´s neighbours - a Heritage from the Shah´s Army where Prussian Style discipline was fact.

Having said that, the most important issue here is motivation: Arabs are generally not very motivated, unless if related to tribal rivalries. Iranians on the other hand are highly motived by a mix of religious/nationalistic fervor, together with years of thorough indoctrination.