Attacking Iran: Realism and Details

[David2012]

You're saying that Israel will First Use nukes and I'm saying you're full of it.

But keep on beating those war drums.

And I say you are 'Full of it" if you think Israel wouldn't do a first strike using Nuclear weapons if they thought their survival depended on it...so we will have to agree to disagree. So keep hiding your head in the sand.

Edit: In a previous thread, another postor wrote that during the Iraq war, President Bush had to repeatedly convince the Israeli Prime Minister not to respond with a nuclear weapon on Bagdad should a chemical or biological tipped missile hit Israel. They were willing to go nuclear first over a single chemical & biological weapon attack back 20 yrs ago... you can bet Israel will be much more willing to go nuclear first to prevent one from being used on them now.

 

[wylekyote]

Yeah I have a really hard time seeing Israel use nukes in a preemptive strike. Their whole argument is based around the general consensus that trigger-happy extremists shouldn't have nukes, because then the whole "mutually assured destruction" nuclear defense strategy means absolutely jack and the dominos could much too easily start to fall.

 

[Hobbes]

And I say you are 'Full of it" if you think Israel wouldn't do a first strike using Nuclear weapons if they thought their survival depended on it...so we will have to agree to disagree. So keep hiding your head in the sand.

Well good.

No need for the US to get involved then, is there?

 

[Lurker66]

The reports & discussions I've read are that little Israel going it alone might use a initial massive EMP attack to blind Iran's radar and disable most all of their missile / military offensive cabilities.. such as trucks / computers / communications.. sending the Mullahs back to the early 1800's... followed by small tactical nuclear strikes at key nuclear production storage facilities making them so radioactive that salvaging any useable materials from the area [even trying to get items from underground bunkers] would be nye impossible.

Without electical power and most all of their trucks & automobile computers having being fried by a EMP attack, the Iranians would be back to riding camels & donkeys. Their already fragile water, sewer & electrical system would immediately collapse. Then within days, the government would be over taken by the population rioting & killing for food & water. Without sewage disposal capabilities.. disease would spread like wild fire.

Side Note: As a Christian, I know that in the Bible it predicts that in the last days there will be a battle where the blood of the dead will run to the "HORSES" necks. I've wondered for years why they would be riding horses? Is it because all their vehicles were disabled due to EMP attacks? I don't know if anyone else has noticed.. but it seems horse ranches have been on the increase in the last 20 yrs. There are 1/2 dozen in my area alone and they are all over the state. I sometimes wonder if this increase in the numbers of horses being raised is a precursor pointing to the end times predictions.

theres not enough blood on the planet to make it to a horses neck, lol. So i doubt thats why theres an increase in horse farms.

In case you havent noticed one of the reasons we and Soviets have so much trouble in the area is because the mullas and people have no problems riding donkeys or camels or horses. They also have no problems with water, sewer or even getting bombed back to the 1800's. The real problem they have is other countries imposing or dictating what should be done with their resorces(oil).

 

[wylekyote]

theres not enough blood on the planet to make it to a horses neck, lol. So i doubt thats why theres an increase in horse farms.

In case you havent noticed one of the reasons we and Soviets have so much trouble in the area is because the mullas and people have no problems riding donkeys or camels or horses. They also have no problems with water, sewer or even getting bombed back to the 1800's. The real problem they have is other countries imposing or dictating what should be done with their resorces(oil).

They also seem to have a really hard time playing playing well with others.

 

[uncle money bags]

Well good.

No need for the US to get involved then, is there?

Yeah, gonna call b.s. on that map. Not only is it outdated, but it really stretches the definition of what is a "U.S. base" is.

While it is an effective graphic, further scrutiny proves its uselessness. Getting your info from Democratic Underground, or antiwar.blog is risky.

 

[Hobbes]

Iran is such a threat that we spent thousands of lives and a trillion dollars to knock off their worst enemy, Saddam Hussein and his Sunni followers.
And now Iraq is delivered into the power sphere of the Iranian Shia.

An absolutely brilliant move orchestrated by the same neocons who now pound the war drums to attack Iran because they "threaten their neighbors".

 

[uncle money bags]

Iran is such a threat that we spent thousands of lives and a trillion dollars to knock off their worst enemy, Saddam Hussein and his Sunni followers.
And now Iraq is delivered into the power sphere of the Iranian Shia.

An absolutely brilliant move orchestrated by the same neocons who now pound the war drums to attack Iran because they "threaten their neighbors".

I would submit Israel and the western nations are their worst enemy. While the sunnis may not be "muslim enough" for the shia im pretty sure they are still regarded above the infidel.

As to the rest of the post; then why are we still there when we were promised that our troops would come home by the current CinC?

This isnt a neocon vs. Liberal, Repub vs. Demo issue. And it aint about Iran threatening their nieghbors; at least not to me.

 

[David2012]

theres not enough blood on the planet to make it to a horses neck, lol. So i doubt thats why theres an increase in horse farms.

You may not be aware of it.. but China alone has a active & reserve army right now of 200+ Million men.. and that does not include the armies of Muslim countries in the 10-40 window... India and Asia or Europe & the United States. Were a massive army in the hundreds of millions to be involved in a all out battle in a restricted area [like the one predicted in the bible].. blood could run very deep.

35 yrs ago, I worked at IBP in Amarillo. At the time it was reported to be the largest slaughter house for cattle in the world. It is a huge facility with hundreds of drains in the floor to let the blood drain. We were killing a little over 2,800 head of cattle in a 8 hour shift. And even with all the floor drains and men constantly running high pressure hot water hoses to help flush the blood, I sometmes had blood up to my mid- calves in the massive pit where the throats were first cut. Multiply that amount of blood times 200+ million [instead of just 2,800 steers] in a narrow gourge or valley. It is indeed possible for blood to run very deep. The bible prediction wasn't that the world or a country would be covered... just that in certain places it would.

But bible prophesy is a matter of faith and interpretation. Things people have to decide on for themselves. A forum thread isn't gonna sway someone one way or the other.

 

[wylekyote]

Iran is such a threat that we spent thousands of lives and a trillion dollars to knock off their worst enemy, Saddam Hussein and his Sunni followers.
And now Iraq is delivered into the power sphere of the Iranian Shia.

An absolutely brilliant move orchestrated by the same neocons who now pound the war drums to attack Iran because they "threaten their neighbors".

I think it's become clear that our "WMD" excuse was BS in the first place, and even before that I didn't think a horrendously expensive war (and inevitable occupation) was the correct way to make us safer from the extremists. Many have undoubtedly been killed, but at what cost? We've just made more of them hate us.

I really hope that somehow things in Iran come to a peaceful end, but I know that, realistically, some blood will have to be shed before the world can again be "safe" for a time. With that in mind, I'm only an advocate for the US getting involved if there is international support and I don't think our contributions should be so disproportionally large compared to everyone else.

*edit* Just thought I should add that, while I may not have agreed with America going to war, I still have an enormous amount of respect for those in the armed forces and am very thankful for what they are doing for their country.