It Doesnt Seem The Us Will Have To Attack Iran Afterall

[Cognescenti]

Now, now....Sami may be right

1 million soldiers and 10 million volunteer minefield clearing engineers (without shoes)

Here are some more authoritative numbers from the FAS. Turns out Sami was only off by a factor of about 20...but thanks for playing, Sami

http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=161

Total Military Force
Active: 540,000
Reserves: 350,000

Army (350,000)
5 Corps HQ
4 Armored Divisions with 3 Armored 1 Mechinized Brigade, 4-5 Artillery Battalions
6 Infantry Divisions with 4 Infantry Brigades, 4-5 Artillery Battalions
2 Commando Divisions
1 Airborne Division

Navy (18,000)
Bases: Bandar-e Abbas (HQ), Bushehr, Kharg Island, Bandar-e Anzelli, Bandar-e Khomeini, Bandar-e Mahshahr, Chah Bahar

Air Force (52,000)
including 15,000 Air Defense

For a country the size of Iran..it is quite a big force. If I didn't know any better, I might suspect they wer up to something.kay:

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

It seems the US will not need to attack Iran, for there meddling in Iraq at least, since the Sunni insurgency has now made its way into Iran. I do not think the Iranian government was anticipating this when it sent its weapons to Iraq. Isnt it Ironic? ;D

Hardly news since Al Baghdadi said on February 4th, 2007:

Iran ought to thank the Mujahideen in Iraq for giving them (indirectly) the chance of a life time to expand their influence in the region, pursue their nuclear program, and become a power to reckon with. They were able to accomplish this only because the Mujahideen have significantly worn down the American Giant and rendered it incapable of aggressive action against Iran. However, Iranians should not get too comfortable in that position because the Mujahideen are coming after them.

Besides this, I don't know why America is whining about Iranian involvement. They didn't seem to complain about Iran when the Badr brigades (Iranian Shiite militia) helped them to destroy the Sunni people of Tel Afar back in 2005... in fact, they took full advantage of the great sectarian divide!

But it won't work this time.

Ninth Scribe

BTW: The weapons Iran sent into Iraq were intended for the Shiite militias, not the Sunni ones. They have their own toys!

 

[MTAFFI]

Hardly news since Al Baghdadi said on February 4th, 2007:

Iran ought to thank the Mujahideen in Iraq for giving them (indirectly) the chance of a life time to expand their influence in the region, pursue their nuclear program, and become a power to reckon with. They were able to accomplish this only because the Mujahideen have significantly worn down the American Giant and rendered it incapable of aggressive action against Iran. However, Iranians should not get too comfortable in that position because the Mujahideen are coming after them.

Besides this, I don't know why America is whining about Iranian involvement. They didn't seem to complain about Iran when the Badr brigades (Iranian Shiite militia) helped them to destroy the Sunni people of Tel Afar back in 2005... in fact, they took full advantage of the great sectarian divide!

But it won't work this time.

Ninth Scribe

BTW: The weapons Iran sent into Iraq were intended for the Shiite militias, not the Sunni ones. They have their own toys!

To bad they havent worn down the american giant as bad as their own people huh? US is complaining because Iran is placing weapons in the hands of these Shia designed specifically to target the US in this case. If the Sunni insurgents over there werent such morons they would already realize this

 

[Sami Zaatari]

lolll u are so funny, now now smarties let me silence u on irans soldier statistics, u americans should stop being so cocky because it always backfire, u see u two only counted the number active and reserve force, u forgot to count the paramillitary, iran has 11 million of those, which is why iran is counted as the number one country in terms of soldiers, totalling to a total of 12 million. so busted.

and it is funny the only thing u bothered to reply back to was the number of soldiers in the iranian army, ur silliness on attributing this to the iraqi insurgency was soundly debunked by me which is evident from your lack of response to my point on it, which is why in the world would iraqi insurgents travel ACROSS IRAN all the way to the east when they can just pop over the iraqi iran border in the west and easily attack there, hmmmmmmm mtaffi u prove u have no sense of direction or world locations which is typical of most north americans so i dont blame u.

and again go learn abit about iran, since this has been happening even before any war happened, but u are an ignorant american who has never been to iran, i on the other hand am half iranian i have been there and i know what goes on there, so keep your fox news and yahoo stories for yourself since u just make urself look as smart as ur president when he tried to argue that Iraq had WMD'S

 

[Sami Zaatari]

let me further bust u mtaffi for contradicting your own position you first state:

It seems the US will not need to attack Iran, for there meddling in Iraq at least, since the Sunni insurgency has now made its way into Iran. I do not think the Iranian government was anticipating this when it sent its weapons to Iraq. Isnt it Ironic?

so note you claim that the weapons iran sent INTO IRAQ are now being used against them, obviously for those weapons which were SENT INTO Iraq to be used on iranians means that these weapons which WERE SENT INTO Iraq had to then be transfered across iran all the way to the south-east of the country! u later change ur stance and contradict yourself when u say:

Also who says anyone traveled, ever heard of the internet? Email, regular mail, telephone conversations.

ermmmmmm can u email weapons through the computer? can i email an ak-47 to a hotmail account and it will magically appear? lollllll ur so funny u contradict urself because u dont know what ur saying, u first say the weapons iran are SENDING INTO IRAQ are now being used against them, logically this means the weapons were sent back into iran by the insurgents and sent all the way across iran to the south-east which makes no sense! then u contradict urself saying no nooooo i meant they just talk with each other thats all! lollllll ur so funny go make ur mind up.

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

The title of this thread shows massive bias. The US doesn't *HAVE* to attack Iran period. Iran isn't the agressor here, and has shown no signs of being a threat to the US. The only claims I've even heard about Iran involve a threat to Israel. I've yet to even hear pro-war propaganda about Iran attacking the US itself.

The threat to Israel alone would be enough for Bush!

Ninth Scribe

 

[Pygoscelis]

Iran is the aggressor, when has the US said they will attack Iran

I strongly suggest you educate yourself on past US operations in Iran. I suggest you read up on it, but here it is in a nutshell:

1. Iran achieved democracy and elected representatives.

2. The Iranian government decided to nationalize their oil. This angered US oil companies.

3. The US destroyed the elected representatives of Iran and installed a dictator, the Shah.

4. People didn't like the Shah very much. In order to stay in power, he did some pretty horrible things to his people.

5. The Iranian people were really upset, understandably I'd say. They eventually managed to overthrow the Shah (and started having elections again), and an angry mob captured the US embassy.

6. This is when the US populace decided to start paying attention.

7. Iran has been painted the villain ever since, and Iranians have not much liked the US since either.

8. Dislike of the US due to the actions above in large part led to the election of the current Iranian leader everyonein the US is always going on about. Interesting side note is that he is limited in actual power.

9. The US, the nation with the most WMDs in the world, the only country I know of to actually use them (on Japan), the most powerful military, and a country that just invaded Iran's neighbour on false pretexts, is now talking all tough at Iran, making it quite clear that Iran may be its next target.

10. The US, on the other side of the globe from Iraq, having just invaded Iraq and currently occupying Iraq, complains that Iran MAY (this isn't even proven) have forces in Iraq, its neighbour.

11. Meanwhile a country that used to be high on the US's hit list (labelled as part of the Axis of Evil) has been dealt with with a more diplomatic approach.

12. The nation above (North Korea) happens to have nuclear weapons. The Nation invaded i paragraph 9 above didn't. Logically, the US suspects that Iran will try to develop WMDs, to protect itself from the US if nothing else.

13. Meanwhile, another country in the region (Israel), also armed to the teeth, and supplied by the US has some bad blood with the rest of the region.

14. As part of the propaganda war, laying the framework for a possible invasion of Iran, the US and Israel have spun the leader of Iran to be some suicidal (he'd have to be) and genocidal nutter who wants to nuke Israel. One genious spin they did was take a quote from that leader and interpret it to say he wants to "Whipe Israel off the map". This was actually not his words, but him quoting somebody, and it didn't refer to a nucler strike, but a prediction of (not even a call for) the fall of the current Israeli "zionist" regime.

15. More recently, Iran has stated that it would not roll over limp if the US took military action against it. It stated it will strike at US interests around the Globe. I would too.

Iran is not only a threat to the US but the world.

They may well be. It is hard to see through US smokescreen. Its like the boy who cried wolf. There is so much propaganda circulating that its hard to see the genuine concerns.

They have also taken an aggressive stance in a power struggle with the US in Iraq

What exactly have they done to directly oppose the US forces there? I agree that they probably shouldn't be in Iraq, but neither should the US. If both are there they are equally out of place.

 

[Pygoscelis]

iran is counted as the number one country in terms of soldiers

This is news to me. Iran has more soldiers than China?

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

Possibly at this stage it seems pointless blaming the other side, so much injustice has happened. It is unlikely that a solution can be found that will solve the problems of the adult generation in Iraq and Iran. A vision for the future for the children and grandchildren is required.

America does not seem to be in a position to bring about peace because very few people in Iraq and Iran respect Americans for what they have already done. There needs to be a time of prayer, forgiveness and reconciliation, an Islamic solution is required. Attempts at this have been tried but they need more support.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth.

Eric

 

[Sami Zaatari]

yes, iran is number one in terms of soldiers because of its huge paramillitary which numbers at 11 million.

 

[MTAFFI]

let me further bust u mtaffi for contradicting your own position you first state:

It seems the US will not need to attack Iran, for there meddling in Iraq at least, since the Sunni insurgency has now made its way into Iran. I do not think the Iranian government was anticipating this when it sent its weapons to Iraq. Isnt it Ironic?

so note you claim that the weapons iran sent INTO IRAQ are now being used against them, obviously for those weapons which were SENT INTO Iraq to be used on iranians means that these weapons which WERE SENT INTO Iraq had to then be transfered across iran all the way to the south-east of the country! u later change ur stance and contradict yourself when u say:

Also who says anyone traveled, ever heard of the internet? Email, regular mail, telephone conversations.

ermmmmmm can u email weapons through the computer? can i email an ak-47 to a hotmail account and it will magically appear? lollllll ur so funny u contradict urself because u dont know what ur saying, u first say the weapons iran are SENDING INTO IRAQ are now being used against them, logically this means the weapons were sent back into iran by the insurgents and sent all the way across iran to the south-east which makes no sense! then u contradict urself saying no nooooo i meant they just talk with each other thats all! lollllll ur so funny go make ur mind up.

Sami,

Exactly how old are you, I am not sure you can read. I said in my post above

Also who says anyone traveled, ever heard of the internet? Email, regular mail, telephone conversations

I never mentioned the Iranians sending anything into Iraq, I was referring to the attacks by the Sunnis in Iran, that could have been coordinated through, email, telephone, etc. As for my first response, what I thought was ironic was that Iran is trying to help Iraqi Shia fight the US and then Iraqi Sunni attack them, which I find somewhat amusing because the very people they are trying to "help" (speaking in terms of all of Iraq and not just the different religious factions) are now fighting against them. (also please note i never said the Sunni in Iran were using the weapons they gave in Iraq to them)Which was in response to your comment, "Why would they travel all the way across Iraq and Iran" or if you want the exact quote it went like this:

the attacks happened in THE EAST OF IRAN, NOT THE WEST, now why the heck wud insurgents in iraq travel ACROSS IRAN going all the way down to the south-east of iran which would take several days and lots of time when they cud just attack iran from the west!

So once again Sami, as you do in most posts that I notice of yours you have made a complete and utter fool out of yourself. By the way, do you know what the paramilitary is? I dont think you do, if I were Iran I would hope and pray that my countries welfare didnt come down to the paramilitary defending it... lol.. Again you type without thinking first. Irans military is not even close to being even comparable to the US, in fact if you asked anyone who knows what they are talking about they would tell you a military offensive against Iran would last maybe a few months or a year. No occupation, no hiding in holes or caves, utter destruction would be Iran. I would feel bad for the people of Iran.

 

[MTAFFI]

I strongly suggest you educate yourself on past US operations in Iran. I suggest you read up on it, but here it is in a nutshell:

1. Iran achieved democracy and elected representatives.

2. The Iranian government decided to nationalize their oil. This angered US oil companies.

3. The US destroyed the elected representatives of Iran and installed a dictator, the Shah.

4. People didn't like the Shah very much. In order to stay in power, he did some pretty horrible things to his people.

5. The Iranian people were really upset, understandably I'd say. They eventually managed to overthrow the Shah (and started having elections again), and an angry mob captured the US embassy.

6. This is when the US populace decided to start paying attention.

7. Iran has been painted the villain ever since, and Iranians have not much liked the US since either.

8. Dislike of the US due to the actions above in large part led to the election of the current Iranian leader everyonein the US is always going on about. Interesting side note is that he is limited in actual power.

9. The US, the nation with the most WMDs in the world, the only country I know of to actually use them (on Japan), the most powerful military, and a country that just invaded Iran's neighbour on false pretexts, is now talking all tough at Iran, making it quite clear that Iran may be its next target.

10. The US, on the other side of the globe from Iraq, having just invaded Iraq and currently occupying Iraq, complains that Iran MAY (this isn't even proven) have forces in Iraq, its neighbour.

11. Meanwhile a country that used to be high on the US's hit list (labelled as part of the Axis of Evil) has been dealt with with a more diplomatic approach.

12. The nation above (North Korea) happens to have nuclear weapons. The Nation invaded i paragraph 9 above didn't. Logically, the US suspects that Iran will try to develop WMDs, to protect itself from the US if nothing else.

13. Meanwhile, another country in the region (Israel), also armed to the teeth, and supplied by the US has some bad blood with the rest of the region.

14. As part of the propaganda war, laying the framework for a possible invasion of Iran, the US and Israel have spun the leader of Iran to be some suicidal (he'd have to be) and genocidal nutter who wants to nuke Israel. One genious spin they did was take a quote from that leader and interpret it to say he wants to "Whipe Israel off the map". This was actually not his words, but him quoting somebody, and it didn't refer to a nucler strike, but a prediction of (not even a call for) the fall of the current Israeli "zionist" regime.

15. More recently, Iran has stated that it would not roll over limp if the US took military action against it. It stated it will strike at US interests around the Globe. I would too.



They may well be. It is hard to see through US smokescreen. Its like the boy who cried wolf. There is so much propaganda circulating that its hard to see the genuine concerns.



What exactly have they done to directly oppose the US forces there? I agree that they probably shouldn't be in Iraq, but neither should the US. If both are there they are equally out of place.

all of this may be true but when did the US say it would attack Iran? When has the US been the aggressor, we never took over 200 Iranians hostage for 2 years, how would the Iranians look at the US if this were done? It has been a bad relationship on both sides, but as far as relating to current events, Iran has been much more the aggressor, with its leader who makes threats on a monthly basis. These threats may be, supposedly in retaliation, but why make them if no one has threatened you? For attention? It is a serious thing to say you will wipe a country or a people off of a map, and to question and hold conferences about whether or not a genocide truly happened, is this the type of man that should have a nuclear "deterent", especially given his track record of hate speeches. Imagine if Hitler had a nuclear deterent, probably more extreme than Ahmadinejad, but crazy none the less.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all

There has been lots of talk here about who has the biggest army, best weapons, who is in the right.

Any mention of searching for a peaceful solution keeps getting overlooked.

It almost seems we deserve to live in conflict because we seem incapable of searching for justice and peace, maybe we prefer fighting.

Were is our faith in God?

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

 

[Sami Zaatari]

mtaffi ur hopeless, and very cocky, if iran gets touched or destroyed as u say, dont worry dont feel sorry for them but for urself because dont think iran will just let u walk all over them, indeed an arrogant cocky enemy always falls and falls in a very bad way, which is what will happen to you and ur country if u start another war which u cant finnish.

 

[Pygoscelis]

When has the US been the aggressor

Infliltrations, assasinations, forcing a dictator on people, you don't find these things aggressive? The attack on the US embassy was predictable given the US actions that preceeded it.

how would the Iranians look at the US if this were done?

If Iran killed the US president and installed a dictator, and the US then attacked the Iranian embassy you mean? Or does the present situation of the US picking people up and holding them indefinitely without charges qualify?

Iran has been much more the aggressor, with its leader who makes threats on a monthly basis.

Please substantiate this as I have't seen much of it. What little I have seen has been in direct response to the US and Israel. For example the recent statement that Iran will respond to any US attack by attacking US interests worldwide. What else has the leader of Iran had so say on a monthly basis?

These threats may be, supposedly in retaliation, but why make them if no one has threatened you?

The very title of this thread suggests otherwise. THe US has talked repeatedly about a possile attack on Iran. US behaviour in Iraq has further set a precedent.

If you were living in Tehran would you feel safe from the US? I wouldn't. And ifI was the Iranian government, I'd sure be scrambling for some sort of deterrant. Ironically, it may be US agression that turns an Iranian nuke into a self fulfilling prophecy.

It is a serious thing to say you will wipe a country or a people off of a map

Iran has never, to my knowledge, said it will whipe a country or a people off a map. Clearly you caught the soundbite and US propagandized version of what I was refering to in my post above. And clearly you chose to ignore or didn't read what I wrote there about it.

Imagine if Hitler had a nuclear deterent, probably more extreme than Ahmadinejad, but crazy none the less.

There no real comparison. In fact, the comparison between Iran and Hitlers Germany is further apart than the comparison between George Bush's US and Hitler's Germany.

The US, like Germany was, is a world power. The US, like Germany exploited a disaster to galvanize public support for aggressive military action and went on to invade foreign lands. The US, like Germany, created a bogeyman as the root of all evil and set out to eradicate people. But then, unlike Bush, Hitler was elected by popular vote.

The US/Germany comparison has a lot of holes. I'm no making the case here tht they are truly comparable (they are not), but they are certainly more comparable than Iran/Germany, so to invoke Hitler only turns this right back at the US.

 

[MTAFFI]

mtaffi ur hopeless, and very cocky, if iran gets touched or destroyed as u say, dont worry dont feel sorry for them but for urself because dont think iran will just let u walk all over them, indeed an arrogant cocky enemy always falls and falls in a very bad way, which is what will happen to you and ur country if u start another war which u cant finnish.

Sami you are ignorant to the truth of things, Iran wouldnt let the US do anything, it would just happen that way. I am not saying that this is what I want, but I feel Iran wants it (or the leaders of Iran). Personally I wish Iran would just close their mouth and put their nuclear plans on pause for a little bit, to prove to those who are concerned that their ambitions, that they are for energy only. If this were truly the case, then why not pause for a moment? Maybe because they are cocky, overly confident, arrogant (you can pick the word and fill in the blank). Lets hope they dont "fall in a very bad way"... The US has the means to back their talk, does Iran? I notice you had no real response to my post, did you do your paramilitary research? Did you re-read the previous posts and notice your own lack of understanding?

 

[MTAFFI]

Infliltrations, assasinations, forcing a dictator on people, you don't find these things aggressive? The attack on the US embassy was predictable given the US actions that preceeded it.

My problem with this is, it happened 30 years ago, before Ahmadinejad relations with Iran were better

Please substantiate this as I have't seen much of it. What little I have seen has been in direct response to the US and Israel. For example the recent statement that Iran will respond to any US attack by attacking US interests worldwide. What else has the leader of Iran had so say on a monthly basis?

The very title of this thread suggests otherwise. THe US has talked repeatedly about a possile attack on Iran. US behaviour in Iraq has further set a precedent.

I named this thread the way I did because of the discussions that I have been reading on this forum. Many think the US wants to attack Iran, I personally dont think the US wants to or will. The threats I am speaking of are not direct, they are the threats of attacking US interests. The US's initial reaction to the remarks was essentially nothing, but after the 2nd or 3rd time they were made the US had to respond.

If you were living in Tehran would you feel safe from the US? I wouldn't. And ifI was the Iranian government, I'd sure be scrambling for some sort of deterrant. Ironically, it may be US agression that turns an Iranian nuke into a self fulfilling prophecy.

Not with Ahmadinejad as my leader

Iran has never, to my knowledge, said it will whipe a country or a people off a map. Clearly you caught the soundbite and US propagandized version of what I was refering to in my post above. And clearly you chose to ignore or didn't read what I wrote there about it.

I read your previous post, I just dont agree with it, personally I think it is Iran that is twisting its comments. Whether Ahmadinejad meant the Zionist, the Jews, or the name Israel, he said it should not be there. No matter how you cut it, it isnt right.

There no real comparison. In fact, the comparison between Iran and Hitlers Germany is further apart than the comparison between George Bush's US and Hitler's Germany.

This is an interesting point, the similarities at least, however my comment was necessarily directed at the actions taken, it was meant to be directed more at the type of fanatic that Ahmadinejad is, he is a good speaker, he likes to talk of war and power, land under religious law. There are similarities no doubt, but my main point is that guy should not have WMD under any circumstance.

 

[aamirsaab]

...It almost seems we deserve to live in conflict because we seem incapable of searching for justice and peace, maybe we prefer fighting.

Nail on the head there Eric.

Were is our faith in God?

Excellent question.

I would recommend to all members, unless your post is constructive, do not bother replying. Though, if you enjoy high blood pressures and heart attacks, by all means continue.

 

[MTAFFI]

I would recommend to all members, unless your post is constructive, do not bother replying. Though, if you enjoy high blood pressures and heart attacks, by all means continue.

LOL :giggling: ;D :lol:

 

[Keltoi]

Anyway...if we can return to the topic before a mod has a heartattack.

There is no impending war against Iran. period..full stop. The U.S. Congress would never authorize such a move, and furthermore, Bush is more worried about his legacy as far as Iraq goes.