PDA

View Full Version : Is war with Iran inevitable?



BigBadBrian
04-11-2006, 10:19 AM
Is war with Iran inevitable?
Apr 11, 2006
by Pat Buchanan


In the last six months, Americans have been treated to quite a spectacle: famous pundits and politicians hitting the sawdust trail to the mourner's bench to confess, "Had I only known then what I know now, I would never have supported this war in Iraq."

Lots of folks are calling for Donald Rumsfeld's head, but thus far, none of the pundits or politicians has forfeited his roost or declared himself unworthy of further public trust. They have all "moved on."

But it appears today President Bush is considering yet another "preventive war." Weekend reports by Sy Hersh in The New Yorker claim the Pentagon is planning air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities with bunker-buster bombs, possibly tipped with nuclear warheads.


The White House is dismissing it all, and this may be just the rattling of B-2s to concentrate minds in Tehran on the need to negotiate on their nuclear program.

But the Bushites have also painted us into a corner. Vice President Cheney has said Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Sen. John McCain says, "The military option is on the table." And Israel is demanding that the United States stop dithering.

Writes Yaakov Katz in the March 10 Jerusalem Post, "The United States has until now not done enough to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, a senior Defense Ministry official has told the Jerusalem Post ..."

Katz quotes the senior man: "America needs to get its act together. Until now, the (Bush) administration has just been talking tough, but the time has come for the Americans to begin to take some tough action."

Only one person is quoted by name in Katz's piece, hawkish Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz.

Moreover, we are drifting into confrontation. Russia and China will not support sanctions in the Security Council, and France and Germany are not going to support a preventive war. Nor is Tony Blair likely to play wingman to F-102 pilot George W. Bush again.

Thus, if Iran's nuclear program is to be restricted to peaceful power, America may have to negotiate directly with Tehran. And if Iran's program is so menacing it must be destroyed, the United States will have to go it virtually alone.

Reportedly, U.S. carrier-based aircraft in the Persian Gulf are already simulating bombing runs on Iran. And President Bush has restated his doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and preventive war in the new National Security Strategy released recently.

But this begs a question: As Congress alone has the power to declare war, and has not authorized war on Iran, where does Bush get the authority to threaten war on a nation that has not attacked us?

Instead of whining about how Bush "deceived" them and "lied" us into war with Iraq, why is Congress not debating whether Bush has, or does not have, the authority to take us into a new war?

By the way, where is Congress? Off on another vacation, for two weeks, after its exhausting labors in a session that is apparently going to set modern records for brevity.

A war with the United States would be disastrous for Iran. With an air force of antiquated F-4s from the Shah's era and a navy of a handful of destroyers, submarines, and torpedo and missile boats, Iran would quickly be laid open to U.S. air and missile strikes. And with only half of Iran's population of Persian extraction, Arabs, Kurds and Baluchis could exploit a war crisis in Tehran to break the country apart.

But if, in retaliation, Iran ignited the Shia against U.S. forces in Iraq and backed terrorist attacks across the Middle East, the entire U.S. position in the region could be in peril.

As for the price of oil, bet on $200 a barrel. Iranian mines and missile boats may be no match for U.S. fleets, but they could certainly threaten 200,000-ton tankers.

If Bush were bold enough, there are the makings of a strategic deal.

The U.S. goals are exactly what Bush got from Libya's Khadafi: an end to terror and abandonment of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and programs. What Iran wants is a guarantee of its rights under the non-proliferation treaty to develop peaceful atomic power -- from yellowcake to enriched uranium -- an end to their isolation by the United States and U.S. guarantees against attack.

Both nations have an interest in not seeing Iraq disintegrate in a sectarian war that would separate Shia Iran from the Sunni majority in the Arab world.

If President Bush is truly confident that time is on the side of democracy and freedom, what does he have to lose by negotiating a cold peace with the mullahs' Iran, a failed regime that does not dispose of 5 percent of the military or economic power of United States? We outlasted the British Empire, Stalin and Mao. Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a bigger problem?

Perhaps, in Churchill's words, it is time for jaw-jaw, not war-war.

Link (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/patbuchanan/2006/04/11/193222.html)

kennyboy
04-11-2006, 09:21 PM
http://image.blog.livedoor.jp/gutti/imgs/9/a/9ac93d74.jpg http://www.suavalicious.com/files/perry_assface.jpg

BigBadBrian
04-15-2006, 05:55 PM
Happy Easter!!!!! :)

Mr Grimsdale
04-17-2006, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
A war with the United States would be disastrous for Iran. With an air force of antiquated F-4s from the Shah's era and a navy of a handful of destroyers, submarines, and torpedo and missile boats, Iran would quickly be laid open to U.S. air and missile strikes. And with only half of Iran's population of Persian extraction, Arabs, Kurds and Baluchis could exploit a war crisis in Tehran to break the country apart.

Firstly, Iran has apparently been reverse engineering all sorts of kit, including it's F-14s and their AIM-54s, apparently bringing the latter up to approximately AIM-54C standard and returning the aircraft to zero hour status. So they potentially have an interceptior/missile combo of greater range than anything the US fields, although without AEW capability the effect is minimal. During the past 2-3 years Allied planes have encountered many different Iranian types flying along the Iraq/Iran border, including apparently a formation of 9 F-14s and Su24s with fancy chinese anti-ship missiles. Then there's the rest of the their air force, sure it probably wouldn't present too much of a problem but the article is a bit flippant.

As for different ethnic groups tearing Iran apart, does the article suggest something like the current Iraqi situation is a good idea and the preferred option for another country in the region?

bobgnote
04-17-2006, 04:52 PM
. . . SALADIN was a KURD, douche without enough bag! Swear to god, when one of you mods with the paste gets ALL the facts, then we can think together, faster, etc. Are you ready for the ISLAM, I mean are YOU ready for the Pan-Islamic phenmomenon of 2008? Lots of holidays for celebration, earth-wind-fire reunions, all SORTS of ******-fun coming! And when it happens, it is an INTIFADA, not Jihad, which is the understatement both Hadj AND the idiots use, to refer to COWBOY UPPP, retahds who will not get it so the RedSox still spin!!

Kiss your pastimes GOODBYE, when the time comes, fagfarm runoff.


Originally posted by Mr Grimsdale
Firstly, Iran has apparently been reverse engineering all sorts of kit, including it's F-14s and their AIM-54s, apparently bringing the latter up to approximately AIM-54C standard and returning the aircraft to zero hour status. So they potentially have an interceptior/missile combo of greater range than anything the US fields, although without AEW capability the effect is minimal. During the past 2-3 years Allied planes have encountered many different Iranian types flying along the Iraq/Iran border, including apparently a formation of 9 F-14s and Su24s with fancy chinese anti-ship missiles. Then there's the rest of the their air force, sure it probably wouldn't present too much of a problem but the article is a bit flippant.

As for different ethnic groups tearing Iran apart, does the article suggest something like the current Iraqi situation is a good idea and the preferred option for another country in the region?

And now that you have gotten all smart, notice that in MY JOURNAL, like in many of my writings, I refer to 'flying forms,' that I knew about circa 1986 but have been illegally delayed, NOW TO BE CONFIGURED, out of all of MY control!

******S. That is SSDD, like Van Halen. But since most or all of YOU DLRs AND the other forums are ******S trying to pretend you are more SUPER than the next ******, and most of you are white punks who can't shoot dope correctly, you will neither
1. play good ROCK, nor
2. anticipate the cruise missiles, which can blow you away, NOW!!

You are dead already, re cruise missiles, Mr. G and whoever gives a bit of brown for discussion. DEAD ALREADY, but still walking! Want a FAIR WARNING, ******s? There it is, AGAIN! revelations sez, 7-year wait, but when THAT is up, be ready to lose Christianity, in detail.

OR ELSE, shit-******s! That happens by 2008. AD. You know, right-fucking-away, without much hope of you-all getting Maxwell or even luckier, but also kind of SMART.

Yeah, you monkeys have some BROWN SOUND coming in. Like a night-train delayed, it will get here! ******s, bet you can't wait . . .

But in 2008, YOU WILL SEE, things won't be great, and most of you will be ******S, finally with a clue as to what you are, no matter the color.

Redballjets88
04-17-2006, 04:59 PM
but the thing is even if they do have some updated weaponry i doubt they would get to use it because the U.S. has way better tactitions and we would probably destroy everything they have before they could even respond

Mr Grimsdale
04-18-2006, 12:47 PM
...and breath

Nickdfresh
04-18-2006, 09:57 PM
I read something on JANES that stated that the Iranian missile programs are very overrated Grimmy...

Also, those F-14s have lacked spare parts and have early 1970's avionics...

What actually worries me regarding an attack is that the Iranians virtually have the USAF's SOP regarding tactics... We trained them!! The proof in the figgy pudding is that when the US sent drones into Iranian airspace, the purpose was to get the Iranians to turn on their radars so we could zero-them in...

They didn't. They left them off and cold. They know how we do things, their senior officers attended US schools in the 70's as pilots, and they've paid attention to Iraq/Yugoslavia...

Warham
04-18-2006, 10:14 PM
Let Israel nuke 'em.

FORD
04-18-2006, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Let Israel nuke 'em.

But.... but... Israel doesn't HAVE nukes!

Because if they did, they would be in violation of UN resolutions, and the BCE would have demanded they disarm, right?

Warham
04-18-2006, 10:17 PM
Israel is our ally. No need to disarm.

FORD
04-18-2006, 10:20 PM
Israel might be our ally, but Likud and Mossad are the treasonous murderous bastards whose branch offices PNAC and AIPAC are destroying this country.

Warham
04-18-2006, 10:23 PM
I have nothing but love for the Hebrew people.

FORD
04-18-2006, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I have nothing but love for the Hebrew people.

There are good and bad people of every race and religion. Germany had the Nazis, America has the BCE, and Israel has Likud/Mossad, who would easily do the same to their own people as Hitler did if it aided their sickening objectives.

BITEYOASS
04-19-2006, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Mr Grimsdale
Firstly, Iran has apparently been reverse engineering all sorts of kit, including it's F-14s and their AIM-54s, apparently bringing the latter up to approximately AIM-54C standard and returning the aircraft to zero hour status. So they potentially have an interceptior/missile combo of greater range than anything the US fields, although without AEW capability the effect is minimal. During the past 2-3 years Allied planes have encountered many different Iranian types flying along the Iraq/Iran border, including apparently a formation of 9 F-14s and Su24s with fancy chinese anti-ship missiles. Then there's the rest of the their air force, sure it probably wouldn't present too much of a problem but the article is a bit flippant.

As for different ethnic groups tearing Iran apart, does the article suggest something like the current Iraqi situation is a good idea and the preferred option for another country in the region?

Well if the AIM-54C that Iran possesses has greater range than they either: gutted the technology that was in there and added more room for solid rocket fuel, slowed the rate of the solid fuel burn or are just plain bullshiting us. Because I know for a fact that all weapons have expiration dates and since they've been modifying US weapons with russian parts, than more than likely the electronics contain vacuum tubes. Which is good for a nuclear blast, but they are delicate. So if an explosion from a nearby air-to-air missle or a hit from some 20mm ammo hits the aircraft. Than those tubes with shatter.

Mr Grimsdale
04-19-2006, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I read something on JANES that stated that the Iranian missile programs are very overrated Grimmy...

That's what I always thought, but they've apparently done a pretty good job upgrading the Phoenix missiles and all sorts of other stuff too. They were all basically mothballed until a few years ago as they had no spare parts so they just decided to figure out what made them tick and made the stuff themselves.

During the Iran Iraq war the Iranians apparently received spares from Israel of all places, the old enemy of my enemy is my friend principle.

That story comes from a 1985 book by Osprey Publishing.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Also, those F-14s have lacked spare parts and have early 1970's avionics...

That's what I used to think.

Apparently they've completely overhauled the airframes, and reverse engineered a lot of stuff themselves. It was in an article published in some UK aerospace magazine last month. They've been doing some very clever stuff if the article is even half accurate.

The Iranian Air Force used to be a bit of a second class citizen in the eyes of the Iranian government but it has undergone a bit of a rennaisance recently, with a big increase in pilot training and equipment upgrades.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh

What actually worries me regarding an attack is that the Iranians virtually have the USAF's SOP regarding tactics... We trained them!! The proof in the figgy pudding is that when the US sent drones into Iranian airspace, the purpose was to get the Iranians to turn on their radars so we could zero-them in...

They didn't. They left them off and cold. They know how we do things, their senior officers attended US schools in the 70's as pilots, and they've paid attention to Iraq/Yugoslavia...

Exactly exactly.

According to the same magazine article their senior officers did a pretty good job training the younger generation, sort of like NFWS.

Mr Grimsdale
04-19-2006, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by BITEYOASS
Well if the AIM-54C that Iran possesses has greater range than they either: gutted the technology that was in there and added more room for solid rocket fuel, slowed the rate of the solid fuel burn or are just plain bullshiting us. Because I know for a fact that all weapons have expiration dates and since they've been modifying US weapons with russian parts, than more than likely the electronics contain vacuum tubes. Which is good for a nuclear blast, but they are delicate. So if an explosion from a nearby air-to-air missle or a hit from some 20mm ammo hits the aircraft. Than those tubes with shatter.

I guessed you'd respond to this one!

I wasn't saying it had greater range than the standard model, I was just saying that the US doesn't operate them anymore so the Iranians technically have an advantage there. What the Iranians have allegedly done is upgrade the electronics.

Are the Russians still using vacuum tubes for stuff? Jaysus!

BITEYOASS
04-21-2006, 02:50 PM
They were on the MIG-25