Oh, goody, they'll go broke like we did. War is stupid, everybody loses, and it can sometimes take centuries to recover from the effects of it.

so...is there military budget 1/100 of the US's yet?

Grace wrote:Oh, goody, they'll go broke like we did. War is stupid, everybody loses, and it can sometimes take centuries to recover from the effects of it.

Iran is under very real threat of attack. It makes complete sense that it would bolster its ability to defend itself. Iran has not waged war outside its national boundaries for 200 years or more, it's not historically an aggressive war-like country. But every country has the right and the duty to defend itself.

Iran might not have sent its army outside its border, but the country tries to be a big player in the region, supporting e.g. Hezbollah. If doubling the defense budget in time of shaky economy will lead to the collapse of the current regime, it will be a classic example of winning the battle but losing the war.

Not surprised considering the following facts.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01 ... more-70120

Exclusive: New U.S. Commando Team Operating Near Iran

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran are at a high point, as the Islamic Republic threatens to close off a vital waterway and two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups sit in the seas off the Iranian coast. But across the Persian Gulf, the U.S. has a previously unacknowledged weapon in reserve: a new special operations team.

Danger Room has confirmed with the U.S. Special Operations Command that a new elite commando team is operating in the region. The primary, day-to-day mission of the team, known as Joint Special Operations Task Force-Gulf Cooperation Council, is to mentor military units belonging to the U.S.’ oil-rich Arab allies, who collectively are known as the Gulf Cooperation Council. Those Arab states consider Iran to be their primary foreign threat.

The task force provides “highly trained personnel that excel in uncertain environments,” Maj. Rob Bockholt, a spokesman for special-operations forces in the Mideast, tells Danger Room, and “seeks to confront irregular threats.” The U.S. military has not previously acknowledged the existence of the team, known as JSOTF-GCC for short.

The unit began its existence in mid-2009 — around the time that the Iranian leadership rejected President Obama’s offer of a new diplomatic dialogue and underwent a serious internal challenge to its legitimacy from Green Movement protesters. But whatever the task force does about Iran — or might do in the future — is a sensitive subject with the military.

“It would be inappropriate to discuss operational plans regarding any particular nation,” Bockholt says about Iran.

continue

Q: Even if Iran were to gain a nuclear capability in weaponry, would it ever be able to immunise itself against the possibility of said weaponry being annihilated in a pre-emptive strike?



Personally, I can't see how it could really, unless it got to the point of having nuclear missiles on submarines, which is of course how most nuclear powers assure any would-be assailant that no pre-emptive strike against them could succeed.


Militarily, there seems to be no need to panic regarding Iran. Furthermore, were I to assess who had the most legitimate argument for possessing a nuclear deterrent, I'd have Iran at the top of the list, way above the likes of the UK, Russia, USA, and just about everyone else barring Cuba.

hoopy frood wrote:Q: Even if Iran were to gain a nuclear capability in weaponry, would it ever be able to immunise itself against the possibility of said weaponry being annihilated in a pre-emptive strike?

Personally, I can't see how it could really, unless it got to the point of having nuclear missiles on submarines, which is of course how most nuclear powers assure any would-be assailant that no pre-emptive strike against them could succeed.

Militarily, there seems to be no need to panic regarding Iran. Furthermore, were I to assess who had the most legitimate argument for possessing a nuclear deterrent, I'd have Iran at the top of the list, way above the likes of the UK, Russia, USA, and just about everyone else barring Cuba.

I agree with your sentiments.

If and when Iran developed some kind of nuclear weapon it'll have to find a way to secure them from attack. Mainly that would be by digging and digging very deep. The Israeli's have 200 nuclear weapons but I'm not sure if anyone knows where they are. Iran could do the same, if indeed it chooses.

But Iran is wide open to attack by foreign forces and has a duty to prepare to defend itself, and it has done and is doing more and will likely even do more as time passes. Sure's hell can't blame 'em for that. The US has certainly never taken war off its table of possible actions, so they can do it and say, "See? We told ya so."

We can hope that saner heads prevail.

So, who they gonna buy from. China and Russia. We could send in the Greeks to deal with that shit.
They got their own arms industry, but thats running mainly on Windows 97.

The question everyone is asking is if the I.D.F. try to make a strike, how do they get there?
Easy . The Saudis refuel them.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

hoopy frood wrote:Q: Even if Iran were to gain a nuclear capability in weaponry, would it ever be able to immunise itself against the possibility of said weaponry being annihilated in a pre-emptive strike?

Personally, I can't see how it could really, unless it got to the point of having nuclear missiles on submarines, which is of course how most nuclear powers assure any would-be assailant that no pre-emptive strike against them could succeed.

Militarily, there seems to be no need to panic regarding Iran. Furthermore, were I to assess who had the most legitimate argument for possessing a nuclear deterrent, I'd have Iran at the top of the list, way above the likes of the UK, Russia, USA, and just about everyone else barring Cuba.

I agree with your sentiments.

If and when Iran developed some kind of nuclear weapon it'll have to find a way to secure them from attack. Mainly that would be by digging and digging very deep. The Israeli's have 200 nuclear weapons but I'm not sure if anyone knows where they are. Iran could do the same, if indeed it chooses.

But Iran is wide open to attack by foreign forces and has a duty to prepare to defend itself, and it has done and is doing more and will likely even do more as time passes. Sure's hell can't blame 'em for that. The US has certainly never taken war off its table of possible actions, so they can do it and say, "See? We told ya so."

We can hope that saner heads prevail.

I appreciate that sentiment.

I'm sure Iran fully realises that if it were ever the aggressor, or should it ever give the slightest pretext of being such, it would soon be a smoking hole in the ground. Which is primarily why I find the idea of Iran ever playing the aggressor to be so absurd.

With the recent "Al Qaeda in Iran" article on Foreign Affairs (replicated on Fox News, LA Times, Wall Street Journal) and the several articles, even in non-conspiracy papers like...NY Times, The Atlantic and elsewhere...that quote Israel's Vice PM/Minister of Strategic Affairs who said that "Iran came close to developing a missile that could hit the United States," the fear-mongering is adding up. Some people who commented on these articles (and I wouldn't doubt if Fox News also made the connection) note that Al Qaeda may potentially get a hold of these missiles that could hit America.

You'd think they were all smoking dope but they're not. We might hear the same stuff we heard about Saddam Hussein, in this case, Iran could hit America with nukes. The propaganda is amazing.

"We have to attack Iran before they nuke us" may be a popular line by Republican politicians in America, as well as by the Israeli lobbyists that may push the buttons on Obama and force him into a corner.

FFS give peace a chance will ya?!

I realize the Iran hostage situation was 33 years ago, and Iran-Contra was 26 years ago, but the country of Iran is not peaceful just because they didn't declare war and start fighting outside their borders. They have been involved in terrorist activity covertly and overtly for many decades. The monetary support for the terrorist group Hezbollah is ongoing. The beefing up of military and going nuclear is no accident. Something is up.

sandinista wrote:so...is there military budget 1/100 of the US's yet?

No, the USA have no need of thousands of small cranes, with which to hang homosexuals....Yet. Small cranes are the ultimate defence, from "them". Its what the mullahs need most. Not nuclear arms, unless...They are nuclear crane arms!

andyx1205 wrote:With the recent "Al Qaeda in Iran" article on Foreign Affairs (replicated on Fox News, LA Times, Wall Street Journal) and the several articles, even in non-conspiracy papers like...NY Times, The Atlantic and elsewhere...that quote Israel's Vice PM/Minister of Strategic Affairs who said that "Iran came close to developing a missile that could hit the United States," the fear-mongering is adding up. Some people who commented on these articles (and I wouldn't doubt if Fox News also made the connection) note that Al Qaeda may potentially get a hold of these missiles that could hit America.

You'd think they were all smoking dope but they're not. We might hear the same stuff we heard about Saddam Hussein, in this case, Iran could hit America with nukes. The propaganda is amazing.

"We have to attack Iran before they nuke us" may be a popular line by Republican politicians in America, as well as by the Israeli lobbyists that may push the buttons on Obama and force him into a corner.

FFS give peace a chance will ya?!

A clear case of panic-mongering as a precursor and prerequisite to action and its justfication.

Hmm, where have I seen this before...

Grace wrote:I realize the Iran hostage situation was 33 years ago, and Iran-Contra was 26 years ago, but the country of Iran is not peaceful just because they didn't declare war and start fighting outside their borders. They have been involved in terrorist activity covertly and overtly for many decades. The monetary support for the terrorist group Hezbollah is ongoing. The beefing up of military and going nuclear is no accident. Something is up.

Hezbollah is not a "terrorist group," America seems to like labeling everything it doesn't like as terrorist. Nelson Mandela and the ANC were terrorists according to America.

Hezbollah, formed as a courageous and brave resistance group against the Israeli invasion in Lebanon, is today a legitimate political organization that has 12 seats in Parliament (being one of two parties that represent the Shias) and 2 members in the cabinet. One can criticize Hezbollah for its domestic political views and anti-democratic tendencies, but it is a legitimate political organization that plays an important role in government.

Iran has not been involved in terrorist activity, it has been involved in proxy wars and funding certain Shia militias in Iraq and Shia political parties in Iraq. Today these Iranian backed or Iranian influenced or Iranian friendly parties have a large hold over Iraq. Just to give an example, the largest party in the current ruling coalition (State of Law) is the Dawa Party (its leader and Iraq's PM is Maliki) which receives funding from Iran, and also fought on side of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war (very significant). Another example is the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which is a political party funded by Iran, and its former militia wing, Badr, split from it and became a political party, also supported by Iran. There's also militias but you get the drift, Iran had insurgent shia militias being funded, some of them actually being trained by Quds and given arms, and Iran also had (and has) status quo parties under its influence or at least Iranian friendly. Iran sent America a message, with its proxy militias killing more Americans in later years of the war than all sunni insurgents combined, talk about "getting your asses handed." Iran used its brains, America used its expensive military, yet Iran still won. The more I think about it the more genius it is. Some shia insurgents killing American troops = Iranian backed and trained and armed. At the same time, major status quo shia parties = Iranian funded or friendly. Recently the largest out of several Iran-backed shia militias gave up its arms (a few weeks ago) and will participate in the political process. Iran has brains, something the country with the most expensive military in the world lacks. The more I think about it, it's not that Iran is very smart, though it is, but rather that America is dumb.

FYI I oppose Maliki's coalition and though Iyad Allawi used to be a professional hitman for Saddam (killing Baathist dissenters in Europe James Bond style, he even once shot six guys in the back of the head and cut another guy's hand off with an axe, btw this is the guy we tried to replace Saddam with in a military coup plot in the 90s, this is also the guy who said that he had a link who told him Saddam could make a WMD in 45 minutes) I'd rather vote for his liberal, secular, non-sectarian coalition (he's a Shia but the party is Sunni-dominated).

Get back to reality mate. It's quite funny how America tosses the word "terrorist" around left and right when the largest terrorist state in the world is America itself. What you call terrorists, other countries call "political parties," or "cabinet ministers," or "elected politicians."

***

I'm not joking about the James Bond stuff. The guy used to be a top-notch hitman for Saddam, and he tried to launch a coup so Saddam tried to kill him, then he met the Americans and tried to launch another coup, then another, lol.

Just thinking of it, I'd say fuck it, vote for a Kurdish party, and go chill in Kurdistan. Mr James Bond and Mr Iranian puppet can go fuck each-other.

***sorry for the off-topic derail but I can't stop myself. I didn't start it though, he did!

Grace wrote:I realize the Iran hostage situation was 33 years ago, and Iran-Contra was 26 years ago, but the country of Iran is not peaceful just because they didn't declare war and start fighting outside their borders. They have been involved in terrorist activity covertly and overtly for many decades. The monetary support for the terrorist group Hezbollah is ongoing. The beefing up of military and going nuclear is no accident. Something is up.

Revolutionary youth in Iran took the Embassy in protest of America's military presence in the country, which lasted 25 years (1953-1978) and was, according to them, badly eroding their faith. They didn't either want nor like America's Coca Cola culture nor the fact that the US had conspired with Britain to depose their democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1952 and replace him with a dictator who was known as the Shah of Iran, who ruled with an iron first for the next 25 years.

The US brought that Embassy occupation upon themselves.

Iran-Contra was an attempt by the Reagan camp to sell spare parts for American weaponry held by the Iranians (who needed those spare parts in the worst of ways). The profits to be earned from these sales would go covertly to support the counter revolutionary "Contras" in Nicaragua. Iranians themselves had little to do with these shenanigans.

Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon, is a Shiite group; Iran is a Shiite country. The support that Iran provides to Hezbollah first has a religious component because of their shared faith; and secondly it's seen by Iranians as aiding the Palestinians in their long and enduring struggle against continued Israeli occupation. One person's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter." You and the US countenance Israel's long-running and quite illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. Iran does not, a view they share with most of the world's countries.

It has yet to be shown that Iran is actively or conclusively engaged in in the development of nuclear weapons, and in fact, most Western Intel agencies say they are not.

But Iran is, as I noted earlier, under threat of attack by foreign forces, and they have a duty to protect their country and its citizens from such attacks, just as any country does.

Something's up alright, American and Israeli war planners scheming out military attacks upon Iran, that's the "something" that's up. Iran is merely seeking to defend itself.

I dare say, you need to do a little rethinking on these matters.

Andy, as an American, I never heard any American or American media call Nelson Mandela a terrorist. Where did you get that idea?

8% economic growth is very impressive. I guess the chinese & indian promised to buy a lot of their oil. It looks like even our government will give these sanctions the middle finger and continue with our normal purchases

Grace wrote:Andy, as an American, I never heard any American or American media call Nelson Mandela a terrorist. Where did you get that idea?

Holy shit that is just priceless, especially since you're an American. That is, a citizen of a country called America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7484517.stm

US President George W Bush has signed a bill removing Nelson Mandela and South African leaders from the US terror watch list, officials say.

Mr Mandela and ANC party members will now be able to visit the US without a waiver from the secretary of state.

The African National Congress (ANC) was designated as a terrorist organisation by South Africa's old apartheid regime.

A US senator said the new legislation was a step towards removing the "shame of dishonouring this great leader".

2008, fucking 2008 mate. It took until 2008 for America to take him off the "terror list."

Btw are you also aware that he was caught and imprisoned in 1962 because of help from the CIA?

Mononoke wrote:8% economic growth is very impressive. I guess the chinese & indian promised to buy a lot of their oil. It looks like even our government will give these sanctions the middle finger and continue with our normal purchases

The Chinese entered into long-term oil supply contracts with Iran several years ago. And yes, it's very good business, it helps drive that 8 per cent economic growth you mention, which beats the hell out of anything happening in the West.