Thread: The Septics are (again) looking to bomb Iran

I don't quite get why the US is so beholden to Israel that they entertain bombing Iran's nuclear facilities:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-Petraeus.html

I'd like to see Iran with a few nukes, since it would bring a bit more balance into the Middle East situation and (hopefully) provide some impetus for Israel to come up with a workable and humane solution to the intractable problem they've created by their stubborn intransigence. They must realise by now that there's never going to be a Greater Israel, so why not try to fashion some sort of peaceful co-existence plan with the Palestinians? That would also get a few of the surrounding countries off their backs.

MsG

Originally Posted by Bugsy

I'd like to see Iran with a few nukes

You are starking ravers...

Originally Posted by TopBadger

Originally Posted by Bugsy

I'd like to see Iran with a few nukes

You are starking ravers...

Why? The Israelis have taken no notice of anybody since they founded their illegal state. They've banjoed anybody who disagreed with them, even trying to sink a US ship. So why shouldn't Iran start the ball rolling with nukes? I don't believe for a second that the Iranians are nutty enough to actually use them preemptively, as a lot of folks appear to. I'm sure that other Middle East countries will then tool up and force the Israelis to wind their necks in and agree to a two-state solution. It's a win-win situation for world peace, I reckon.

MsG

When Petraeus says they have considered the what if's does that mean all of them ?

Is it just a simple flow chart - Iran fires back/Iran does not

Armoured dinnerjacket needs taking out and replacing with a more moderate leader also the nuclear facilities need disabling.

To launch a mass airstrike would only unite the people and turn them against the west. The civil unrest option should be exploited until he is overthrown and new democracy installed

Yep, TB is right. Israel is, like it or not, under public threat of annihilation from Iran. This isn't a balance of power issue- this is a simple case of a wannabe genocidal maniac trying to get nuclear weapons.

For an interesting view on the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, have a look at former CINC-CENTCOM USMC Gen Tony Zinni's attempts to broker peace between them around the year 2000. Basically, it can be summed up as the senior Palestinian leadership don't give a monkey's about their people, so long as they get to kill the odd Israeli.

I'm still not sure how Iran intends to deliver its' nukes, should it succeed in acquiring them. IIRC, doesn't Israel have one of the best ABM defenses in the world?

Originally Posted by Taffnp

When Petraeus says they have considered the what if's does that mean all of them ?

Is it just a simple flow chart - Iran fires back/Iran does not

Armoured dinnerjacket needs taking out and replacing with a more moderate leader also the nuclear facilities need disabling.

To launch a mass airstrike would only unite the people and turn them against the west. The civil unrest option should be exploited until he is overthrown and new democracy installed

I believe it's highly doubtful that the Iranian nuclear facilities could be disabled that easily. There are almost 300 separate targets and nobody knows how many of those are decoys. In addition, there could be any number of secret installations buried deep inside mountains and unreachable by "bunker-busters" the latest versions of which have a maximum penetration depth of around 200 feet.

MsG

nukes are pretty much obselete now. you cant use one without the risk of killing someone from your own country. take 9/11 as an example, a load of saudi arabians and egyptians funded by pakistan or iran, or something along the lines, flew planes into the towers to kill americans, they killed a total of 18 egyptians and saudis. even a couple of yanks were killed in hiroshima and nagasaki. who would support a war that kills more civillians than soldiers?

Originally Posted by TartanTrooper

nukes are pretty much obselete now. you cant use one without the risk of killing someone from your own country. take 9/11 as an example, a load of saudi arabians and egyptians funded by pakistan or iran, or something along the lines, flew planes into the towers to kill americans, they killed a total of 18 egyptians and saudis. even a couple of yanks were killed in hiroshima and nagasaki. who would support a war that kills more civillians than soldiers?

I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as to say obsolete, but you do have a good point there.

The thing about nukes is that there are some people (to be kind- animals may be a better word) in the world who don't care about dying so long as they kill the enemy, be it man, woman or child- preferably lots of each.

Originally Posted by TartanTrooper

nukes are pretty much obselete now. you cant use one without the risk of killing someone from your own country. take 9/11 as an example, a load of saudi arabians and egyptians funded by pakistan or iran, or something along the lines, flew planes into the towers to kill americans, they killed a total of 18 egyptians and saudis. even a couple of yanks were killed in hiroshima and nagasaki. who would support a war that kills more civillians than soldiers?

In the eyes of the radical muslim, everybody is a combatant, and to die or kill others in the name of Islam, is to some deluded people, a sacred duty.

Those Muslims not fighting jihad, or/and working for non-muslims, would be considered 'Apostate', which means that they would be sentenced to death anyway.

If they could nuke KAF they would, as the collateral damage to themselves and the local population, would be seen as Allah's will.

Just fookin murdering lunatics if you ask me.

A military command has done some contingencey planning ..... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

C_C

Originally Posted by TopBadger

Originally Posted by Bugsy

I'd like to see Iran with a few nukes

You are starking ravers...

Nope…

The problem in the ME is that Israel courtesy of it's nukes can act and do what it wants safe behind it's nuclear umbrella.

Now, if some of the other side had nukes, they'd have to start acting like grown ups and abiding by other peoples national sovereignity and respecting UN Security Council Resolutions.

Originally Posted by TopBadger

Originally Posted by Bugsy

I'd like to see Iran with a few nukes

You are starking ravers...

I'm afraid he might be

I'd like to see Iran with a few nukes as well.


Well the incoming kind anyway.

I cannot believe I am reading that people actually want the 'Rags' to have Nukes, really? I hope to God this is a WAH on their part

Originally Posted by TartanTrooper

nukes are pretty much obselete now. you cant use one without the risk of killing someone from your own country. take 9/11 as an example, a load of saudi arabians and egyptians funded by pakistan or iran, or something along the lines, flew planes into the towers to kill americans, they killed a total of 18 egyptians and saudis. even a couple of yanks were killed in hiroshima and nagasaki. who would support a war that kills more civillians than soldiers?

Israel is about the size of a postage stamp. Even a small nuke would make a horribel mess, kill as many Palestinian Arabs as Jews, and the fallout would spread over the rest of the Middle East giving the good news to lots of devout Sunni Muslim Arabs, Turks and Egyptians.

However, since the wannabe missile mongers are Shia Persians, any loss to the Sunni and Arabs can been seen as all to the good.