zraver

Israeli subs are widely believed to have the capability of firing a nuclear tipped pop-eye cruise missile.

JAD_333

[quote=Buu;414974]...I would like to mention the foreign militants who are fighting and killing American soldiers by the day - Saudi Arabians. However, there is no international condemnation or denouncing imposed on the Saudi government because of Saudi militants in Iraq. Why? Easy: the two nations are "buddies", bond together with the fraudulent connection of oil.QUOTE]

Buu:

Even you ought to see the difference between foreign nationals acting on their own and government action.

BTW, Saudis are not the only nationals who are member of AQ in Iraq. Syrian, Jordanian, Egyptian, Moroccan and other nationals are there too. We can hardly condemn their governments when they can't prevent their nationals from slipping into to Iraq.

On the other hand, Iran can be condemned because its military, which it controls, is giving military assistence to insurgents and Shia opposition groups. Of course, Iran is going to deny it, but the evidence is too compelling to call it US lies.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Buu

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps silly little excuses like international law and appropriate conducts of war.

List of countries by number of active troops - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to Wikipedia (check the footnotes for further confirmation), Iran has the eight largest military in the world (and the largest paramilitary).

Again, this is merely tedious indulgence within one side of the story. You cannot expect the news to differentiate substantially when coming from Kurds, considering their relation with the United States. One must balance the figurative scale by hearing Iran's defense, and installing UN troops in the area for further enhance global knowledge on the topic.

How can you be so sure as to claim the government of Saudi Arabia abstains from harboring resistance in Iraq? Just because they don't use their own formal military to prevent being recognized as wagers of unprovoked war, doesn't mean they don't train and fund other personnel.

Now we are back to square one, as I pose the same question to you as I do others parroting the same overused argument. How can you refer to US military accusations as compelling evidence? It is identical to Iran's verbal disharmonizing of such events, showing that both parties are at either end of a controversial spectrum.

S-2

"One must balance the figurative scale by hearing Iran's defense..."

B.S. What neutral nation has risen to Iran's defense in the face of U.S. accusations of Iranian OFFICIALS participating in the trans-shipment of explosives and weapons into Iraq from Iran? Where is the international condemnation of U.S. accusations about the existance of al-Quds training facilities within Iran which are sending Iraqi shia provocateurs across the border daily? My guess is the names of suspected al-Quds officials incarcerated in Iraq have well-known attached profiles throughout the internat'l intel community.

Take a look at a map. See the really big country just east of Iraq. That's Iran. Where do YOU think these weapons come from? Shangri-la?

"...and installing UN troops in the area for further enhance global knowledge on the topic."

Got my laugh fix for the day.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Officer of Engineers

Let me get this straight. Iran violated international law (NPT) and the US has no right to prosecute a war that it sees fit to do? So, instead of just destroying that outright violation, you want the US to invade (which it sees no need to do) just so that they can lose a war on your terms. Bullocks.

It is not the largest which is what you claim and I knew you were going to bring up that numbers game. The Iranian force is almost pure foot infantry. A single Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group got more firepower and manouver capability than an Iranian Division and by military standards (which is what this board is made of), that is a far larger capability than just counting people. Hell, I would pit a Turk Regimental Group against an Iranian corps anyday.

Paramilitary is just another name for thugs. They have no organization nor any infrastruture to make them stand up on any battalion, hell even company level.

__________________
Chimo

S-2

Buu, I can see that you intend to trot out all the old arguments against America's presence in Iraq coupled with Iran's legitimate right to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear power. You're new here. Acquaint yourself with the bountiful threads already available.

Most of us are convinced that Iraq is a better place without the baathists. Nothing short of our invasion would accomplish that. Not a drop of Iraqi oil has gone to the Bush-Cheney cabal. No WMD program is likely to arise in Iraq anytime soon. No invasions of neighbors. A well-documented focus upon bringing pluralistic governance to a former totalitarian dictatorship.

None of these changes threaten Iran. Not one. Iran's security has immeasurably improved and promises to do so even more as Iraq becomes stabilized.

Meanwhile, I DO trust the comments made by Gen. Dave Petraeus last Sunday.

Petraus On Iran

This is a VERY carefully-schooled officer. There's no slip of the tongue here. No phrase "out of turn". Note the details as described by the general. A nice synopsis and refresher of the issue surrounding Iranian "interference".

"Perhaps silly little excuses like international law and appropriate conducts of war."

Laws? Buu, Iranian complicity in these matters are acts of war. American forebearance is what keeps it from being so.

In sum, the nuclear issue revolves simply around Iran's nineteen year history of duplicity, in violation of I.A.E.A. accords and NPT bylaws, before discovery in 2003. Thus a fundamental issue of credibility arises towards Iran's true intent. Rejection of EU-3 proposals, American proposals, and, most of all, Russian proposals that would allow for Iranian generation of peaceful nuclear energy- Iran's stated purpose, in the face of otherwise dubious credibility, makes clear to most (even France ) that Iran can't be trusted.

Iran's done nothing to alleviate that distrust, well-earned on a matter of catastrophic import to the region and, by irrevocably damaging the NPT, the world.

Iran's worst enemy remains itself.

Buu, I do hope that you make yourself at home. We ALL look forward to getting to know you so much better.

Tarek Morgen

Israel has three German made (and paid) dolphin class subs which are able to fire nuclear armed cruise missiles. Last year they have ordered two more of the same class (this time Israel pay 2/3, Germany 1/3). Those ships are not nuclear powered (Germany has never built any subs with it, and doesnt plan to) but have diesel-electric (while Germany starts using fuel-cells subs).

__________________
uh I might be wrong

chankya

Yup. Bush calls Iran one of three countries part of an "axis of evil". Invades one. US troops now in three bordering countries, a NATO state on another and a huge naval presence in the Persian gulf.

No threat to Iran? Are you serious?

__________________
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

S-2

"Are you serious"

How does the absence of Saddam, baathism, religious repression of shias, WMD, and Iraqi expansionist ambitions make Iran LESS safe?

Do you really need a description of N.A.T.O.'s presence in Afghanistan? Do you object to it's intended purpose?

Do you understand WHY the U.S. Navy has been in the Persian gulf since 1988? Does it matter to you that IRAN has tried to close the straits of Hormuz to internat'l shipping before? That means Indian oil, Chankya, along with most everybody else.

Iran is the source of Iran's problems. No need to look elsewhere nor be their apologist. I'm convinced of that.

Is that serious enough?

chankya

Even assuming you're willing to discount Turkey, given it's history of cooperation during the Iraq War and the shared problem with Kurds, they are still faced with US troops on the ground in three neighboring states and a vast fleet just off the coast. Are you saying that this does not constitute a real, credible and immediate threat to Iran(country and regime)?

The validity or otherwise of such a presence is besides the point. The fact remains that today there is a visible and enveloping military presence by an openly hostile state. (A hostile state incidentally with all Sunni allies). That is a threat.

Edit: Let me try and paraphrase what I've said above. I'm not saying that nobody should threaten Iran or place troops all around them. What I'm saying is that having placed said troops, you can't expect them not to feel threatened.

S-2

"Even assuming you're willing to discount Turkey, given it's history of cooperation during the Iraq War..."

I AM willing to discount Turkey as a threat to Iran's vital nat'l interests. Absolutely, yes. What cooperation do you speak of, by chance? Perhaps when they denied entry of the 4th Inf. Div. into Iraq through Turkey at the start of the war? Hmmm...

"...and the shared problem with Kurds,"

Yup. EVERYBODY, it seems, has a problem with the Kurds. Nothing special there. Both issues with Kurds and the presence of a N.A.T.O. Turkey long predate U.S. involvement in Desert Storm, much less OIF. Big deal. So, again, I ask you- How does the removal of Saddam and the baathists (playing soon at a bar near you ); eliminating the threat of Iraqi expansionist ambitions-twice proved in the last twenty-five years; eliminating any Iraq possession, use, and further future development of WMD; and alleviation of baathist persecution of Iraqi shias create a greater security threat to Iran?

"... they are still faced with US troops on the ground in three neighboring states and a vast fleet just off the coast."

Perhaps. However, N.A.T.O. is in Afghanistan because of OEF, not Iran. That's a fact. The U.S. Navy is in the Persian Gulf because the Iranians tried to once close the straits of Hormuz. Very, very bad Persians. That's a SAD fact brought upon themselves by their miscreant behavior.

So too, now, with Iraq. Were it not for Iran's interest in keeping America IN Iraq, on Iran's nefarious terms, we might well have been gone long ago. Chankya, you can't have it both ways.

"Are you saying that this does not constitute a real, credible and immediate threat to Iran(country and regime)?"

American forces constitute a real, credible, and immediate threat to damn near any nation on earth.

"The validity or otherwise of such a presence is besides the point."

The validity of U.S. forces in Iraq is precisely the point. Their presence is valid. As such, other neighbors of Iraq feel no such threat by our presence. Does Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey, and S.A. see our presence in Iraq as a threat to their nat'l interests? If so, where are their calls today for our immediate departure? Does Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and Tajikstan call for the immediate departure of N.A.T.O. from Afghanistan? Has even Iran done so? Those Persians Soooo loved mullah Omar and the fellas.

"The fact remains that today there is a visible and enveloping military presence by an openly hostile state."

Quit shipping VBIEDs, EFPs, sniper rifles, etc to Iraq. Quit training shia death squads. Quit interfering in Iraqi politics. Quit trying to de-stabilize the GCC states. Quit trying, most of all, to build a NUKE.

That explains your "visible and enveloping military presence". Iran is it's own worst enemy.

chankya

I think we're just talking past each other.

I agree with all of what you're saying. However, saying that they brought it on themselves does not lessen their perception of threat. From your posts it seems like you think of them as irrational actors. I'm thinking they aren't.

Let's for a minute assume that you do agree that they feel threatened. Hypothetically?

I'm thinking that US troops will stay on in Iraq, when and if Iraq does stabilize. Given the political climate in the US I think the possibility of conflict with Iran would find a more receptive audience if the US were not actually tied down in Iraq. I'm not saying that the US is not capable of it, just that public opinion would probably not support another conflict.

Given these two it makes logical sense to try and tie down the US Army in Iraq for as long as possible. Further given the disparate treatment of NK and Iraq, the other two members of the Axis of Evil club, it's reasonable to expect them to try and obtain nuclear weapons.

You're angry because they're killing your guys. Fair enough. But if you ever want them to stop bothering you, without going to war, then you need to understand why they do what they do.

Note: I tend to think of the US and NATO as synonymous entities. Perhaps in light of the recalcitrance of your NATO allies to commit troops to combat in Afghanistan that is a mistake.

If the Pakistanis ever get to vote in a real election I'm thinking they'll be pretty vociferous in their objection to US troops in A'stan. And Jordan, Turkey, KSA, and Kuwait are US allies. It's not the same thing at all.

S-2

"From your posts it seems like you think of them as irrational actors."

Not at all. I simply don't subscribe to their risk calculus. It strikes me as oddly naive.

"I'm thinking that US troops will stay on in Iraq, when and if Iraq does stabilize."

Then I believe that you'll be thinking wrong. See SECDEF Gates speech to AUSA yesterday-

Gates Addresses AUSA

"I'm not saying that the US is not capable of it, just that public opinion would probably not support another conflict."

Iranian nuclear weapons are a separate issue from Iraq. America will go to war with Iran over this issue regardless of our posture/vulnerability in Iraq, elsewhere, or otherwise.

"I tend to think of the US and NATO as synonymous entities. Perhaps in light of the recalcitrance of your NATO allies to commit troops to combat in Afghanistan that is a mistake."

Snide. Tell that to the Danes, Canadians, British, Australians, Dutch, and French, who've all had forces actively seek combat with the enemy. Tell that to the Germans, Spanish, and Italians, who've lost troops in Afghanistan.

"If the Pakistanis ever get to vote in a real election I'm thinking they'll be pretty vociferous in their objection to US troops in A'stan."

Speculation about an unscheduled election of unknown purpose in the undetermined future with an unpredictable outcome. Doesn't wash at all.

"And Jordan, Turkey, KSA, and Kuwait are US allies. It's not the same thing at all."

No reason it couldn't include Iran, as they once were. No it's not the same. I pray that their overwhelming sense of cultural and economic isolation creates a deep-seated mood of disaffection among Iranians which can only be assuaged by the removal of this onerous mullocracy. However, I shall not hold my breath. Nor, I hope, my government should Iran close in upon the complete nuclear fuel cycle.

"But if you ever want them to stop bothering you, without going to war, then you need to understand why they do what they do."

I've 28 years living with a mullocracy in Iran. Their behavior is no recent phenomena in my experience. There's nothing particularly nuanced to understand about Iranian behavior. Opportunistic, cloistered by choice, and prone to repeated miscalculations.

chankya

As far as I can see, he was talking about a reduction in the size of the commitment, not a withdrawal.

It wasn't meant to be a snide comment. Are you telling me you didn't see all the news articles about NATO allies quibbling over size of commitment? It was an honest statement of the world as I see it. I wrote about how I saw the US and NATO as one and then remembered the news reports and thought that perhaps I actually was mistaken and added the second comment.

However, if you insist on reading a comment, misinterpreting it in the widest possible way and then getting offended by it, there isn't anything I can do.

The purpose of a clean election would be representative government. And the outcome may be unpredictable but the prevailing mood in Pakistan is anything but.

Feanor

Look at it this way, if Iran is intent on continuing it's current course of action, then it has every reason to be worried about a U.S. presence in the region. Infact every country that is intent on operating in complete defiance of U.S. interests should be worried when the U.S. starts setting up bases near it. Just look at the Russian-Georgian situation.