US reportedly plans to attack Iran in June.

[Croquemort]

Scott Ritter,former USMC Major and a leading UN Weapons Inspector who played a key role in tearing apart the the arguments about Iraq's supposed WMDs, is behind this revelation. There have also been rumblings about attacking Syria.

Condoleeza Rice says that an attack on Iran is "not on the agenda at this point."

But there's an eerie similarity to the events preceding the Iraq war, when the US administration and the British government repeatedly insisted they had no plans to attack Iraq.

No doubt Tony Blair will be playing this down until the election is over with polling day allegedly being the 5th of May.

[Rapace]

Is it really serious ? I recently heard Condi Rice and/or GWB dismissing this as 'ridiculous'... Or am I too naive to believe in what those folks say ?

[Slivovitz]

We'd better not attack Iran... I don't need to be getting drafted into some shitty military before I get a chance to join the Legion... Damnit.
For the record: We'll lose (especially since Syria and Iran declared a... uhhh... sorry can't think of the word, I'm trashed... like, they declared they were gonna defend each other if one or the other got attacked). Those psycho ****ers (the Iranians) use human wave attacks. Oh well, we all gotta die someday. If this is the way, this is the way. Every man has a destiny; a man does what he can until his destiny descends upon him. All we can do is die with honor... sorry, I'm getting phylosophical (-2 for spelling?) again.
Californiapoo, you say yer involved with military propaganda. You got any information we "draft-eligible" Americans should hear about?
Cheers,
William

"Some people are alive simply because it is against the law to kill them."

*cough cough* I wonder who I'm talking about. *cough cough*

Later guys,
William

[Croquemort]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Beau-Sheep]

Scott Ritter,former USMC Major and a leading UN Weapons Inspector who played a key role in tearing apart the the arguments about Iraq's supposed WMDs, is behind this revelation. There have also been rumblings about attacking Syria.

Condoleeza Rice says that an attack on Iran is "not on the agenda at this point."

But there's an eerie similarity to the events preceding the Iraq war, when the US administration and the British government repeatedly insisted they had no plans to attack Iraq.

No doubt Tony Blair will be playing this down until the election is over with polling day allegedly being the 5th of May.Iran is another kettle of fish. The Iranians are capable of repulsing an intitial attack (or at least they should be). If the order goes out to attack Iran the US knows full well that an Jihad will ensue. Not only in Iran and Iraq but in the entire Arab/Muslim world, no one should spread their troops as thin as the US would then be forced to do, agreed an all out frontal war... only one winner, however in the drawn out insurgent war which will ensue? Should the coalition for freedom and democracy get involved in this shit?

[JAC]

The only problem I see is the streching out the troops, I don't see any serious problems defeating the Iranian military. As to human wave attacks, I believe the US economy can manufacture more bullets then Iranians have men.
Jihad in the Arab world in my opinion is highly unlikely just because the Iranians are not Arabs, and majority of Iranians are Shia as opposed to Sunni Arabs, and how much Shia and Sunni muslims like eachother is pretty evident in Iraq.

[Regular]

Jihad in the Arab world in my opinion is highly unlikely just because the Iranians are not Arabs, and majority of Iranians are Shia as opposed to Sunni Arabs, and how much Shia and Sunni muslims like eachother is pretty evident in Iraq.Jihad = A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.

Its true that most of Iranians are not Arabs but most of them are Muslims and if Jihad is declared then all Muslims are obliged to help in war efforts no matter if they are from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, India, Indonesia or Libya etc. All these countries have millions of Muslims.

Another question is how many Muslim will actually hear the call and make some efforts to participate in the war.

[Eagle eye]

Is it really serious ? I recently heard Condi Rice and/or GWB dismissing this as 'ridiculous'... Or am I too naive to believe in what those folks say ?Yes, he said 'ridiculous' but he quickly added in his subsequent breath 'having said that all options are open (including deep-penetration nuclear bombs to destroy deep underground silos/installations)'....I see this precision bombing in the mid-term when the insurgency in Iraq has been somewhat quelled and hopefully spent itself rather than this June....'Strike (Iran) while the iron (post-Saddam outcome) is hot (hardline policy of US administration)'...so the saying goes.

[Rapace]

Jihad = A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.

Its true that most of Iranians are not Arabs but most of them are Muslims and if Jihad is declared then all Muslims are obliged to help in war efforts no matter if they are from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, India, Indonesia or Libya etc. All these countries have millions of Muslims.

Another question is how many Muslim will actually hear the call and make some efforts to participate in the war.Absolutely. The big question is whether the Sunnis would team up with the Schiites in this 'holy war' against the 'Crusaders' or rejoice at seeing their rivals being pounded by Uncle Sam and his fellows. If the first option prevails, then we would be up for the 'clash of civilisations'. Looks like a Tom Clancy novel. Hopefully this will always remain fictitious.

[Eagle eye]

Iranians are Persians not Arabs and the initial faith of Persians was Zoroastrian: it became Islam by the right of conquest and imposed faith: talk about tolerance of other faiths is not applicable. A good friend of mine and Iranian exile reminded me of this....

Look at how many Christian churches there are in some Arab countries compared to the number of mosques in Western european countries...I ain't provoking division but let's be VERY objective about NUMBERS of places of worship...
Absolutely. The big question is whether the Sunnis would team up with the Schiites in this 'holy war' against the 'Crusaders' or rejoice at seeing their rivals being pounded by Uncle Sam and his fellows. If the first option prevails, then we would be up for the 'clash of civilisations'. Looks like a Tom Clancy novel. Hopefully this will always remain fictitious.It's unlikely the Shiite street will follow on the path of conciliation with Sunnis after decades of mass torture and murder by Saddam and his henchmen; or unless the U.S. antagonises seriously the Shiites by politics of domination and repetition of humiliation, torture and murder at Abu Ghraib jail and such incidents SO insulting to the Arab street....

Bets are on: H.E. (or nuclear-tippped) J-DAMS on queue, on target, and on time on nuclear sites either side short of the the mid-term of the mandate or just short of the start of the next U.S. presidential campaign if diplomacy fails including the WTO entry 'sweetener' is turned down by the mullahs who favour a nuclear weapon instead.....just precision bombing but no invasion: too messy with a far more populous country in Iran...a bit like Israel's destruction of Iraq's nuclear facilities in the late 1970s or was it early 1980s...

[Regular]

Now Iraq has Shiite Party that won the last elections and there is going to be Shiite prime minister and Shiite government that make Iraq much closer to Iran than what it never was under Sunni Saddam Rule.

If you read the news very carefully Iran and Pakistan (and possibly North Korea) are cooperating in development of nuclear weapons. For me it makes sense to cooperate under pressure of USA. Have you ever heard the phrase “enemies of my enemies are my allies”? Iran and North Korea are both in the same boat and are already in Bush axes of evil.

[JAC]

Where did you read about this Pakistani and Iranian nuclear cooperation, the only thing I read was the secret network formed by Pakistani scientist Khan, that helped various countries, including Iran. But that was never an official Pakistan politics, and since 9/11 Pakistan has shown to be one of the more important US allies.

[Rapace]

since 9/11 Pakistan has shown to be one of the more important US allies.Well... Gen Musharaff has shown to be one of the most important US allies, not Pakistan... That makes a difference. Let's remind that he managed to escape a couple of otherwise deadly attacks since 9/11, which would tend to mean that not everybody in Pakistan is happy with his policy... to say the least. I think counting it as a reliable ally would be a political mistake... It's hanging on a string.

[Beau-Sheep]

Well... Gen Musharaff has shown to be one of the most important US allies, not Pakistan... That makes a difference. Let's remind that he managed to escape a couple of otherwise deadly attacks since 9/11, which would tend to mean that not everybody in Pakistan is happy with his policy... to say the least. I think counting it as a reliable ally would be a political mistake... It's hanging on a string. That so called General is only a nice camper because he saw what happened to Afghanistan and wanted to hold onto power. Personally I think him and Gaddaffi are born of the same sepantine whore of a mother and the world would be better rid of both of them. Just my opinion.

[dietrying]

I can't imagine China, Russia etc would ever allow the US to occupy/own/control both Iran and Iraq at the same time. That would destroy OPEC and give the US a HUGE hand in the oil market. *IF* the US brings it, I predict at least covert and perhaps overt help from those countries who stand to loose from the oil share. jm2c.As for Pakistan, they are some kinda help! It is pretty much obvious that many Talibans are hiding in the Pashto tribal areas just within Pakistan, and the paki's seem more than happy to leave them be. It would be political suicide for a Paki leader to crack down too hard on them, and so it will never happen.

[JAC]

They don't need to necessarily occupy Iran, certainly an airstrike would be a much better option with the situation in Iraq.
I just heard on the news that Iran denied UN inspectors permission to enter one of their military bases, where there are suspected nuclear activities. And considering their foreign policy where they call one country "Great Satan" and deny another its right for existence, both having nuclear weapons, it would be insane to allow Iran to have them as well.

[Regular]

There is the possibility that Massive air strikes on military and leadership targets could open the way for "people power" to take over.
Or it could give Iran military and generals pretence to declare martial law and make Iran opposition life even harder than now.


Anyway the short of it...I dont think the US is actively planning an attack on Syria at all, and most likely not planning against IRan...we are too stretched thin, BUT if we did and were careful to make it against a despotic government and not the Iranian people and did airstrikes and maybe commando raids and let the Iranian opposition take over that might work.
If Iran majority is so ready for change in government in Iran why don’t they fight against their government already and if USA helps some groups inside Iran to start fight against Iran government is that exactly supporting of terrorism that USA is accusing other countries to do? Or do USA have moral right to support terrorism in other countries but other countries dont have moral right to support terrorism in USA?

What if Iran supports independent Alaska movement in USA or groups whose goal is independent California and independent Texas away from USA federal govermnt? USA is not even democratic country since Mr. Bush got presidency by getting less votes than Al Gore in the first place.

I just think that many people will not like that superpower start intervene inside smaller countries issues. For example USA and CIA caused unemployment and bankruptcy of one major hi-tech companies in Finland during cold war only because they sold world best submarine technologies to Russians not just USA. That technology was invented here so I thought we were right to sell it anybody we want but CIA thought otherwise.

[JAC]

Well the US are not exactly loved in that part of the world, so it's a dream to think that air strikes could start a revolution. If anything it would tighten the ranks around the conservative clerics. True, 70% of Iranians are younger than 30 but it's wrong to assume that all of them want changes, and by doing the math if even 15% of them support the regime that's still 7.5 million people. And the number would only rise in case of any air strikes as they would not see it as beginning of their freedom but rather as another war for oil.
What would need to be done prior to any action in Iran is the establishment of a Palestine state with major help coming from the US. And second, successfull ending of mission in Iraq and Afganistan. Success of democracy in those countries would certainly change the map of political systems in the region.
If that happens a revolution would be highly expected and would succed with only minimal outside help.

[Eagle eye]

I like your analysis.
Consider the following on precision bombing: there is most likely going to be an attempted WMD attack on US soil during the Bush tenure...the Bush sabre-rattling regarding Iran is a kind of hanging Damaclesian sword in a pre-emptive logic of retaliation in the event such an attack happens....I reckon such an attack can happen if the Iranians don't back off on nuclear weapons...if bombing does take place without a WMD attack on US soil as a pretext then it can be a 'win-win' situation for the Bush bunch: it can trigger an Iranian revolution (unlikely for there is no Islamic equivalent of the universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Koran is the infallible reference is every aspect of life in Iran) and destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities...Remember, it took six centuries and bloody wars to turf the Catholic Church out of politics and to start the secular state in Western Europe...

[Regular]

If Iran would have let say 100 – 200 nuclear warheads USA could not pressure Iran anymore to sell cheap oil to USA and stop cheap oil deliveries to “unwanted” countries like China. USA supremacy on the world is highly based on her ability to pressure smaller countries to do what USA wants.

Most important precondition for USA ability pressure toward smaller countries is that those countries are totally defenceless against military power it can use.

Why USA is giving so much efforts to pressure Iran to give up nuclear program and not pressure Pakistan or Israel? Pakistan is not even democracy. Only one answer Iran has oil and USA is largest oil consumer in the world. USA already have grip to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and wants to also maitaing grip on Iran and oil there.

This is the truth hallelujah. Sorry but we can be smart too. :D :D

[JAC]

This is ridiculous Regular, there is no cheap and expensive oil, the price is set on the open market and everybody pays the same price, which at the moment is about 50$ per gallon. Price may go up and down depending on availability on market and OPEC rates, do they decide to cut production or enhance it.
As to giving 100-200 nuclear warheads to a country where they yell "death to America" in the Parliament, and which has a goal to destroy Israel, well, you think about that again.

[Rapace]

This is ridiculous Regular, there is no cheap and expensive oil, the price is set on the open market and everybody pays the same price, which at the moment is about 50$ per gallon. Ahem... Around 50 $/barrel, not gallon (1 barrel = 42 US gallons). This is the current price for the WTI (West Texas Intermediate) crude, as quoted on the New-York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). 50 $/gallon will be the price after the first strike on Iran !

[JAC]

Yes barrel, sorry, typo mistake, 50 per gallon would be bad.

[Rapace]

Yes barrel, sorry, typo mistake, 50 per gallon would be bad.Oh yes, veeeery bad... But 'big oils' would rub their hands !

[rickyhimalayan]

This is ridiculous Regular, there is no cheap and expensive oil, the price is set on the open market and everybody pays the same price, which at the moment is about 50$ per gallon. Price may go up and down depending on availability on market and OPEC rates, do they decide to cut production or enhance it.
As to giving 100-200 nuclear warheads to a country where they yell "death to America" in the Parliament, and which has a goal to destroy Israel, well, you think about that again.Jac I'm sorry but I don't fully agree with you. Do u know it's not about price. Let's take an example if America & China both are ready to pay same price than why not China get the deal why every time this is America. Iran can sell this to China too as Iran is getting same price.
But according to me just because America has a more powerful Army tha China.. and she strickes more countries specialy those have good crude oil resources or is there anyother reason.

[JAC]

China always has the option to offer a dollar more than the US, which they can then match or not.
And of course any country can choose who to sell to, but of course if the price is the same they will prefer the US, as it is the largest world economy, biggest world influence, and last, but definetly not most important, strongest military.

[Regular]

China always has the option to offer a dollar more than the US, which they can then match or not.
And of course any country can choose who to sell to, but of course if the price is the same they will prefer the US, as it is the largest world economy, biggest world influence, and last, but definetly not most important, strongest military.

That is not possible if USA already have crude oil delivery contracts for next 10 years where price is fixed or have other future / options contract where they have possibility to buy oil from fixed prices before others.

Most of the oil deals are made trough longer delivery contracts not trought open market deals only desperate buy from open market where price is much higher.

As far as I know USA pays average 10 dollars less per barret oil coming from middle-easts than what is open market price and propably best deals have companies who are owned by the George W. Bush / his relatives and personal friends. I think there is couple whole night documentaries made about these Bush schemes.

[Copperhead]

We could always turn Israel loose on them..

But really, going head to head with a conventional force against the U.S. Military is suicide, we would destroy their power structure, air power, armor, any nuke capabilities whatsoever, bridges, electricity...and all of that is merely from the air.
Wave attacks? I once heard it said that "brainless courage is useless in the face of educated bullets" This aint WWII, and this aint the Iraq-Iran war, there will be no trenches to send wave after wave upon, it will be like the starting days of Iraq2 when we pushed so far into the country that the Iraqi leadership thought the reports coming in from the front were American propaganda.
Let Syria step in to..let it go nuclear, I don't care... but I'll be damned if we gonna let some ragheads push us around. Let the Rockin' out begin.

We hit Iraq so precisely in the beginning of the war that they had no clue what was going on, they were helpless...it's easy to say "we would lose" but you're talking about one of the most experienced-in-modern-warefare and tech-advanced militaries in the world. If the American army cannot beat Iran, then no army can, and I assure you piss-pot Iran ain't that strong.

But I still say let's turn Israel loose on em, they kicked pretty much the entire Middle East's ass one time (Royal ass kicking), and I want to see it again, just because I like seeing pissed off Hajjji's

:cool:

[sikter]

Now you can't be more American than that! :D

[Regular]

Just to remember that Vietnam Vietcong won the Japanese, French and USA armies only armed with stick, stones and AK-47 thats all what you need to gain victory if you know what to do and know how to use that what you have. ;)

[Copperhead]

The American military never lost a major battle in Vietnam, and pretty much could have won the war on a military level, but the blows that the Viet Cong struck were at home, it was a very unsettled time in American history with a lot of changes taking place in our country..its a bit more stable now, the military is no comparison in terms of technology, training, and overall quality. And we have not experienced nowhere near the major casualty count so far that we did in Vietnam. Our military has done nothing for the past 35 years but train and reorganize to make sure that there will never..ever...be another Vietnam. Think about the Germans in WW2, putting forth new strategy to make sure trench-warfare would never become the norm again..same thing, different country.
I think, should Iran erupt, that the speed with which we would spread devastation around that country, and the level with which we would do so, will suprise probably even the U.S. Military itself. We're like a 40 year old virgin who has been thinking about sex his entire life, and finally gets a piece of that ass..
I gotta go to chow, well finish this later
:cool:

[Terry]

Copperhead is right, we NEVER lost a battle in which an American BATALLION was inolved. Don't give me the shit we lost the battle of the 68 Tet Offensive. Look at the TOTAL statistics and tell me we lost on the battlefield. Don't try to use the 65 Battle of Ia Drang. Look at the statistics for both phases of the battle and you will conclude it was a total US victory. Look at the two clashes of X-Ray and Albany.

The key is an US BN.

[BobW]

Bonjour Regular,

I am a veteran of the Tet Offensive and Tet Counteroffensive. I've been studying this campaign for 37 years. After Tet, the Viet Cong was no longer a viable military force. They were destroyed.

In the area I was in, Tay Ninh - Trang Bang - Parots Beak, next to Cambodia, the North Vietnamese Army (People's Army of Vietnam[PAVN]) were destroyed.

Hanoi's military did not recover from the Tet defeat until after the US left Vietnam in 1973.

If you follow the specific key political events of this war, you will notice that the US exceeded it's strategic objectives (Nixon administration).

Look at the 1973 Paris Peace Accord where Kissinger and Le Doc Tho signed some documents the world is familiar with.

Now, look closely - and carefully - at what happen in July, 1971. Kissinger's secret trip to China arranged to end the war on favorable terms to both USA and PRC. The USSR was in trouble - along with Vietnam. Kissinger's secret meeting was finalized by Pres Nixon on 27 Feb 72 (Again, BEFORE the Paris Peace Accord) when the Shanghai Communique was publically signed.

I expect Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to eventually get absorbed into PR China. These small states are dysfunctional.

Remember - all this was done without a WWII type mobilization and without nuclear tactical weapons.

I've placed enough material here for you to do some research and figure out why the US armed Pol Pot (had studied in Paris) and why the USSR is now dissolving even more.

Saluations,
BobW

[Regular]

You forget here couple point:

Professional armies like USA have much lower casualties’ tolerance that conscript / guerrilla type of armies.

Even strategically insignificant casualties in professional army could cause that army lose its will to fight and cause serious problems for professional army to meet recruitments quotas. Desertion numbers and other problems about low moral also tend to sky rocket in professional armies as casualties run higher.

Have you seen news already about US army recruitment difficulties because of Iraq war and casualty’s number is only few thousands?

Guerrilla army can take huge casualties and still emerge victorious on the political scale on the long run, if they are able to maintain their ability to keep pressure.

USA based superiors fire power doctrine is not only way how to do the warfare or win the wars.

Even FFL had to pull out from Algeria after 10 years of fighting even when casualty rates was 18 000 for FFL and 500 000 Algerians.

[BobW]

Bonjour Regular,

No, haven't forgotten these matters. The US military can - and has - tolerated high casualty rates. Note that many fighters in US military were not US citizens, eg Hmong in Vietnam. US recruitment is not on the list of American problems.

Yes, I am familiar with US military recruitment re Iraq. This is by US Government design. They are "forcing the issue". The US Government goal is to close down the reserve units and National Guard units. America's reserve system is too expensive and dysfunctional. It is a financial and political burden. The US also seeks to eliminate women from the military along with others who use the military as a "job" or "career" because they are unemployable otherwise. The US Congress offered large additional funding to increase the troop strength. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld continues to reject it. Quality, instead of quantity, is being sought.

Besides following the news, I know people fighting in Iraq. Buried within the war, there are other US strategic objectives. So far, they are being met. A more dangerous enemy than the insurgents in Iraq is the US defense contractors and those using the US military as last resort employment. All this is changing - very fast.

The US fields guerilla forces against enemy guerilla forces. This has always (in modern times) been the case.

The US has superior firepower along with attrition doctrines. It is a case of San Marino attacking Russia.

The Algeria War resembled the US experience in Vietnam. Algeria combat did not relate to Algeria nor US combat to Vietnam. WWII's Potsdam Conference established some principles. One related to nationalism and colonial empires. Another related to the pending confrontation with the USSR and the pending victory of Mao in China. Only 3 terms need be mentioned:
1. Elysée Palace
2. Quai d'Orsay
3. US Senate


Saluations,
BobW

[Regular]

I don’t deny that many USA soldiers did great job on the Vietnam. Still I think that USA lost the war and Vietcong and their supporters won since Vietcong installed communist government in Vietnam in the end.

One of the largest Finnish war heroes died in the Vietnam War as captain of USA Green Berets he was promoted major after he went missing somewhere on the Cambodian side or near the border.

That guy had one of the world greatest military careers he made war under three flags Finnish, Nazi Germany and USA. Yes there is US war hero in US army and Special Forces who have also fought for benefit of Nazi Germany as part of his career if you didn’t knew.

Same guy is war hero from Finnish, US and Nazi Germany that is quite career. His life story could be even Hollywood material. :D :D

[BobW]

Bonjour Regular,

When time permits, try to read up on the Shanghai Communique. A lot of answers can be obtained if understanding it.

Regular, America's space program was successful because so many immigrant scientists wrote using umlatts !!

Once leaving the basic propaganda, it all gets interesting. A key advisor to the US in Vietnam was General Ted Serong, an Australian !

I used to attend an annual memorial service for Orde Wingate, revered by 5 governments. He is buried in Arlington National Cemetery, USA.

Like I said, once past the basic propaganda, it all gets interesting.

Saluations,
BobW

[rcp]

Bonjour.


We could always turn Israel loose on them..

But really, going head to head with a conventional force against the U.S. Military is suicide, we would destroy their power structure, air power, armor, any nuke capabilities whatsoever, bridges, electricity...and all of that is merely from the air.

I'll be damned if we gonna let some ragheads push us around. Let the Rockin' out begin.

:cool:Iraq had no defense systems because they were being bombed and not allowed to produce any defense system after 1st Iraq War. That's why it was perfect country to invade for oil and set up puppet government.

Overconfidence is not good thing and learn to respect your opponent before engaging them. Stop calling ragheads.

If you really want to join FFL then learn to respect other people from different cultures because in FFL they have people of every color and culture around the world.

[Croquemort]

I never thought that the original post would produce such diverse written opinions. With this in mind, I remembered the following quotation from a Military Study Group.

"There is no progress without criticism...Curiosity leads to investigation - which opens discussion - which gives rise to opinion - which breeds criticism - which results in improvement."

Colonel James C. Breckenbridge, USMC, 1929.

[slimness]

it was always thought that China would cause the next world war, over food shortages, but then when you look at what's going on in the world, when you listen to Bush, it makes you wonder, i've heard many say in my country, that looking at it America is trying to control the world, and it makes you wonder in time to come, will we be invaded????? Terrorism is just an excuse to invade another country, to control their oil, it's well known this is fact, like Blair says ID cards will prevent terrorism immigration and fraud, ye ok, it's just a way to find out who's who and control them, and a way to make money. I've even heard Americans say they are better than others at this that and the other, it can't be denide, you read enough about it on this forum, I'm not saying Americans are bad or control freaks, but you have to admit your government is trying to be President of the World. I think it's about time the US government butted out of other countries' affairs and clean the shit up on there own door step. The billions of dollars the US government use creating wars could be better spent giving Americans a better life, it's bad enough that our own Prime Minister is Bush's puppet.

[Regular]

This isnt meant as a personal attack, as i dont know you and you seem like an interesting and intelligent and even tempered person but I find your posts frustrating, much more so than someone like Regular or Copperhead, who spout off about things and who clearly lets some political agenda color his posts (though regular is clearly more level headed and educated about history or cultural issues, though from a rather slanted frame of reference, Copperhead is just full of piss and vinegar and bravado. I know his type, fun, lovable guys, but full of shit when it comes to discussing political or military issues with any intelligence.
If you refer about my political agenda. Let’s start to think a bit. I have lived my whole life in the very small country but still independent (5 million people) that is pressured and oppressed by Soviet Union and Russia about 200 years trough history. This country gained its independence from Russia about 100 years ago but still Russia is getting interfering Finnish everyday politics and keeps giving warnings about Finnish political choices it makes or make. Even today even now.

This county share 1200km long border with Russia and have been in two wars against Russia and never been occupied after it gained independence. 4-5 million people lives here and in Russia 150-200 million people lives there that should give estimate about size differences.

In paper this country army don’t have slightest chance against Russia if it turns to aggressive but I think that fighting against overwhelming odds in numbers, equipment quality, firepower is not able to break backbone of this country national defence if war brakes out some day. In air force Russian Air superiority is about 1000 times.

This country army doesn’t have other chance than to be excellent in small unit tactics, use of terrain and be excellent of using our out dated equipment in the best possible way. This country have no money to make large professional army so this majority of Finnish army is highly based on volunteering and so called gentleman contracts. Government provides chance of training, equipments and weaponry and men provide motivation and yourself.

This country army is very highly based not just conventional warfare but sabotage, guerrilla, and commando type of warfare what is known to be weak point of even largest armies in this world. Half of the army of Finland (hundreds of thousands men) at least in paper ability to do insurgents type of warfare if this country gets occupied.

That’s why I keep interested to follow how insurgents in Iraq can manage fight against USA army if they do well our national defence have a chance to be respectable if not then we are doomed. Of course Finland has better equipment (but majority of weapons are Russian or Chinese based just like Iraq insurgents), preparing and our terrain favours guerrilla warfare more than Iraq terrain.

[Slivovitz]

I think it's about time the US government butted out of other countries' affairs and clean the shit up on there own door step. The billions of dollars the US government use creating wars could be better spent giving Americans a better life, it's bad enough that our own Prime Minister is Bush's puppet.Can I get an amen?! AMEN!!!!! I loved Bush's response to the "are you gonna raise the minimum wage if you get re-elected?" question during the debates: "Boy howdy, ya see, me and some of the best strategists in this here country have strategized a strategy to better edumocate our here citizens. Boy howdy, everybody should go to college and learn them some learning just like I done did. Gee-wilikers, it just ain't right that someone who works in a factory, or a restaurant, should have that there job security or enough of this here money to put food on the table for their family. YEEEEEEHAAA[Only registered and activated users can see links]!!!!! *audience starts chanting four more years and shooting off pistols into the air*" Alright, I didn't quote him word for word, but that's the main gist of it. I mean, WTF? EVERYBODY goes to college? That's his ******* solution? What are we gonna live in, a country of professors? Yeah, that's real plausible when he's dry-******* the public education system in the ass with "No Child Left Behind", and the parents of these kids who are allegedly gonna "get an education" are working three jobs just to pay off the rent on there roach infested ghetto apartments... I have to say, my favorite Bush quote during the debates was when he referred to Silvio Berlusconi, as "SERBIO" Berlusconi... I laughed my ass off, especially since it was in the context that "John Kerry was 'denegrating' our alliance with SERBIO Berlusconi". Dude doesn't even know his name. The saddest part is that lameass Kerry didn't even use it against him... the audience was too dumb to realize he'd slipped up: "duuhhhh, do you believe in God? duuuuhhhh... what me worry?" Yeah, Bush has done a real fine job educating the public, riiiight. Well, that's my blog. Gee-wilikers this country sure makes me mad!!!!!! :mad:
Later,
William

[BobW]

Bonjour Furry,

My statements are not hints. I type enough for any reader to research the opinion I present. The US Government does NOT act with "one mind" on an issue. There are too many political forces present to allow for just a single focus (usually).

I have no secret sources of information. If you have "never heard" of the material I mention, is it not possible (NickFury, I'm writing this in a joking type way-don't mean to be offensive) that you're not attending the right meetings and taking coffee breaks with the right people?! Nick, I notice this is your 7th post. My postings are many more. Plus, I receive PC and emails.

Is it not possible that "oblique, obscured, indirect, round about" really refers to you and not me. (Actually, I have been criticized by my peers as being too blunt and too direct and am aware this is true.) You clearly referenced my opinion re the National Guard. I do not back up my opinions on a web site. They are easy enough to check out if the subject matter is important enough to the reader. Sometimes the subject matter itself is inherently cloudy and requires long discussions.

If you do not have the time to confirm or refute my opinion on something I write, I must ask you not to challenge it. Was not BLUF used when I mentioned my National Guard point?

It could be possible (probably "probably") that you expect my (and other) posts to be self-contained, ie all info in the one post. In my couple of hundred posts, I frequently wrote of US Government financial problems and its relation to the US military-eg the National Guard was not yielding an adequate return on investment. I think I wrote at this site that US veterans medical care for women was draining financial resources for medical care for injured line troops.

I accept your post above-on the condition that you click on my name and go through some of my posts. If then, you still really think I arrive here at this site to "look good", I'll surely want to continue this discussion with you.

This is an entry-level site, but the collective knowledge level equals (and in some categories, exceeds) a couple of advanced sites I work.

It was a pleasure reading the Calvin Coolidge quote you're using. I introduced this quote to CervensdotNet.

Saluations,
BobW

[Copperhead]

Wahh Wahh Wahh, I want my milk and cookies
You know America would spank Iran, so you counter with "We need to butt out of other peoples affairs"
*Cough* Ragheads *Cough*













U.S.A. Hooah!
Can I get an Amen?!?
*AMEN*
:cool:

[Slivovitz]

For someone who's never actually killed anyone, you sure do mouth off a lot about how fun it is. Lemme guess, you voted Bush? Real macho of you, considering that he's a draft dodger who spent the better part of his college career waving pom poms in his cheerleading squad. :D
You're not planning on joining the Legion are you? Cuz I'm sure terms like "raghead" would get you beat up more than once a day. You might as well be spouting off words like "nigger" or "kike". I remember some big white cunt spouting off to some Arabs at Denny's when I was working third shift. A couple of black girls intimidated the **** out of him for it and he shut up. Dude must've weighed 300 pounds (of pure muscle). It was amusing to watch a couple of little girls put a big patriotic machoman in his place.
Cheers,
William

[Slivovitz]

France Hoohah!!!!!! Can I Get An Amen???!!!!!!

[Copperhead]

Aww does a little American patriotism offend you? You stereotype American women as fat and lazy and yet when I call a dune-coon a raghead you hop off your horse?
I never said killing people was fun, but pissaint countries like Iran feel like they want to step up to the plate and play ball with America they better be prepared to pick up the bat...warfare is our ballpark.
Bush backs up what he says, and he doesn't let countries like France or Germany *Even though I like them* sway him, he made America a sovereign country again, not bowing to the whims of the U.N. or the rest of the world. He told Saddam he was gonna **** his shit up, and he did..I don't really care why, that guy thumbed his nose at America and he is going to die for it. Iran is next, and North Korea should they feel like going a few innings..
Bush offends because he is uncontrollable, America offends because it is too powerful, and if I offend you, frankly I gives a ****, you jump at the country I swore allegience to, prepare to get jumped back at.
You're an American so you can sleep safe, Bush made sure of that.
:cool:

[Slivovitz]

"Aww does a little American patriotism offend you?"
No, yer lack there of offends me.

"You stereotype American women as fat and lazy and yet when I call a dune-coon a raghead you hop off your horse?"
I don't stereotype shit. I live in America and I deal, and have been dealing, with fat lazy bitches on a daily basis for 18 years now. I live IN AMERICA, do you live in Iran?

"I never said killing people was fun, but pissaint countries like Iran feel like they want to step up to the plate and play ball with America they better be prepared to pick up the bat...warfare is our ballpark."
Iran hasn't done jack and/or shit. Attacking them now would be asinine. The government and the populus grow more moderate by the day. Do you really wanna invade and allow the jihadists to assume control (as they've done in Iraq)?

"Bush backs up what he says"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, that's ******* hilarious. Since when? We ain't caught Osama yet have we... Oh wait, I forgot, Osama's the "furthest thing from his mind". And oh yeah, didn't he say he was gonna educate our citizens? No child left behind is working like a charm... and how's the formation of that Palestinian state going? And where the **** are the high paying American jobs he was gonna create? Whatever happened to turning Iraq into a functioning Democracy? And pulling our troops out of Iraq by... was it this year or last? And disarming North Korea? And giving veterans decent medical coverage?... oh wait, he cut that from the budget... or did he just cut it's funding? Oh yeah, and of course, where the **** are the WMD's? I'd watch how you talk to people like me, if we invade Iran, like you want, it's gonna be folks like myself covering your ass. One of us may just save yer life one day... then again, maybe one of us won't. :D

"He told Saddam he was gonna **** his shit up, and he did"
I'm gonna have to agree with you there. He really did **** SHIT UP.

"Iran is next, and North Korea should they feel like going a few innings.."
GRRRRR, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA INVADE POLAND!!!! GRRRRR!!!!!!

"Bush offends because he is uncontrollable"
Bush offends becuz he's a condescending little spoiled brat, who needs to be bitchslapped across his makeup covered faggot face. He's uncontrollable becuz he's got billions of dollars, connections coming out of his ass, and a rich daddy. He's a sniveling little draft dodger piece of shit. He's a bitch. If he went to prison he'd be the first little bitch to give head, and I'm willing to bet he'd enjoy it. Cum-swilling little cheerleader cunt.

"you jump at the country I swore allegience to, prepare to get jumped back at."
This is my country just as much as it is yours. And if some rich **** politician wants to **** with my country he can plant his soft sissy lips on my calosed gentile foreskin and ******* vacuum. **** Bush. He ain't an American, he should be tried for treason and castrated... that is if he had any balls to begin with.

"Your an American so you can sleep safe, Bush made sure of that."
Bush invaded a country for oil, and botched the occupation which resulting in a breeding ground for terrorists. He refuses to raise the minimum wage or put a stop to NAFTA. He's cutting everything worthwhile from the budget, and now he's trying to butcher social security. He ain't done shit for me. Some people are alive only because it is against the law to kill them. Bush is one of those people, and so is that fat cuntface Cheney. You swore an allegiance to your country, not to Bush. You wanna be his bitch? Or do you wanna be an American soldier? Make up yer mind.

[Slivovitz]

The following is a message to the NSA:
Yeah, I know you NSA wankers are reading this. Come get me you faggot ****s. Come lick my cock you wanking pieces of shit! Just ******* bring it. I'm fed up with you. Come violate my constitutional rights and I'll be sure to fist**** you all the way to hell!!!!!!!!!****KEWROWEHRWSSS~!!!!!

[Slivovitz]

Alright. I've cooled down a bit. I apologize to the moderators for the tone of last two posts. I've had an opportunity to vent my aggressions physically and I have come to the resolution that Copper is going on my ignore list so that I don't get this pissed off anymore.
Again, sorry to the moderators for losing my temper. No need to lock the thread.
Cheers,
William

[Rapace]

Ouh la la .... Hey Sliv, what are you on ? Anyway, your last posts were for me a very good opportunity to improve my knowledge in American-English nasty words and expressions ! This might be of some help next time an English-speaking colleague of mine pisses me off (but I will soften it a little bit). :D

[slimness]

wellllllllllllll i neverrrrrrrrrrr heard such dirty words on the forum ;) . Oh and by the way Copperhead, i'm not a raghead, a fat bastard yes :D , but it's known fact the one that shoots his mouth off, is alway the first to start crying when the bullets startaflying. But the main thing you have to remember a lot of Anciens still have mates still serving in the Legion, if you go in with a racist atitude, big mistake, and a big mouth, the only way i could put it Copperhead is this way, you drive through Harlem 70 miles an hour through the lights shouting coon, but one day the lights will be red, then the light goes green, and you have a chance to zoom off, in the Legion when the light turns red it stays red, and it won't be a beating once you will be the section punchbag, until another asshole takes your place, but by the time the next asshole turns up, you've already jumped the fence, you can shoot me down, and call me a sheep shagging fat bastard, i am, anyway i wonder how much more American tax payers money Bush is going to spend, sorry i mean burn.

[sikter]

Someone must have missed Kung Fu lesson today. This board is getting better and better every day. It's been a while since I had so much laughs. You guys must be on some heavy medication :D Other boards don't have this much fun.

lights out

[voltigeur]

tsk tsk, you all go wash out your mouth with soap :D :D

[yatez 44]

Freaking politics and religion. Good thing for the Internet, and no wonder we don't discuss these issues in a bar (at least the bars i go to), because 9 out 10 times somebody is gonna get knocked out and someone is going to jail.
On the U.S women & Uro women issue, who gives a shit as long as your getting laid. They all get better looking as the evening comes to a end...

[Regular]

US Army, no matter their technological advantage, will lose their war in Iraq against insurgents if they can't follow several very simple rules and follow those rules every day they are in Iraq and not caring the casualties US troops will take and not trying to revenge those casualties they take against Iraq citizens or those who of Iraq citizens fight in insurgents and US army must use only lowest amount of firepower and force that is possible defend important assets or lives against insurgents strikes. More firepower and force used higher the outsider damage counts rise.

In these issues even one bad egg on the USA basket can cause more harm than thousand good eggs. Even one soldier made wrong do might cause international incident that damage your country international relations.

- Be disciplined soldier you are a soldier at first and nothing else.

- Breaking rules of war will put your home country in foul and disgrace your unit and you personally.

- Breaking the rules of war bring unnecessary suffering always.

- As most important rule I underline it: cruelty doesn’t drop your enemy will to fight, it increases it at all levels.

These rules and ability to follow them are highly based on the average quality of recruits on the army not any technological advantage. These rules have broken in Vietnam on numerous occasions these rules have broken in Iraq in numerous occasions already.

[Regular]

Iraq Insurgents and majority of them fight against USA army because they see USA army as injustice and violent power structure that is ordered to humiliate them as shown of power.

They see USA army as group of rich kids who have come swing their guns and to show their power and ability to humiliate their Iraq nation and their citizens.

They also see USA invasion as war from oil and superpower policy.

They see it as war of religions where Christian based army has come to show their supremacy over Muslims based army. (Crusade)

Iraq insurgent’s ability to wage war is highly based on the injustice that some parts of the Iraq citizens feel toward power structures and living conditions on the Iraq.

All these thing fuels insurgent ability to wage war and will to fight at Iraq against USA troops.

[slimness]

Hey Sliv, i agree with Bob's age and Joe's they are both pension age ;) joe hehe im not far of, but im a old fat sheepshagging fat bastard, :rolleyes: ay joe my boys just got up, the miserable little shit, he's kicking of because his mothers drinking out his cup, another hour and the little shit will be in school, if the weather turns out ok im of on the boat fishing the weekend, im the spair anchor, how are things going in Canada Joe? In Wales it's bloody cold, i heard about the mounties getting shot, my heart goes out to there familys, that's why i always say we need to clean the shit on our own doorsteps, before we stick our noses in other countrys affairs, copperhead we are not putting americans down, my government is exactly the same as yours blair seems to think our taxes are his personnel piggy bank, well our elections are soon, and blair is one of the most hated prime ministers weve ever had, and they say if blair quits, blunkett will be the next labour leader, one way to never get back in power ay, hes hated more than blair, have you ever seen how blair and bush look at eachother? gay they got to be. :rolleyes: :D

[BobW]

Bonjour Nick,

Please excuse my typing. I proofread but still too sloppy.

One illustration re the National Guard Association (ie, the private organization; not the official National Guard Bureau [Nick, I'm writing extra for others, especially non-American readers]) is their recent full-page advertisements in national newspapers discussing the value of the National Guard to America's defense posture. These ads indicate there is a political fight ahead.

A good, if not best, starting off point is the budget - although the most difficult - to "flesh out" cloudy matters. Look at where the money is going to.

My/our slang expression "getting rid of" does not mean like mule drawn artillery or sailing ships. The programs I mentioned, eg National Guard, women in military, are gradual changes adjusted to non-military matters. I've written here before that much of the US military represents "disguised unemployment". The term "disguised unemployment" is now part of the political lexicon meaning a jobs program. US tax receipts are not enough to continue to support this. You are already on the right track knowing about the Rumsfeld streamlining program.

All official policy is not, nor can be, public. Thus, the fatiguing task of research.

Re body armor thread; I too, do this. Check out =socks=, =multitools=, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD")..linked the Department of Veterans Affairs site. Ditto, re oral hygience. believe I linked the Walter Reed Army Medical Center site.

Yes, indeed, for anything big, eg military R&D or military manpower projections, there are proponents, opponents, tons of literature, etc. Agree completely, the "political machinations" are "mind boggling". I receive 75-100 hours of email reading a day. It takes about an hour to delete if trying to save something buried within.

I am retired so I can attend meetings, have daily breakfests and daily lunches with people working all this stuff. Meetings with Congressional staffers does wonders for wheat and chaff separation.

Here, I can write a statement such as "the US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers are being closed down". Although this is easy to prepare, the amplification and tangents are so large, it really does not lend itself as a proper topic unless on a specialty board where everyone has extensive background. Like Socrates said:"Nothing vast enters the human mind without a curse."

Saluations,
BobW

[BobW]

Re Post # 61

Bonjour Regular,

I've got to disagree. The US Army - nor any army - determines who won or lost a war. This is determined by the political echelon. Sometimes the US Army is not concerned about casualties. It depends on what the politicans direct. Iraq, yes, casualties are a sensitive (and manipulated) subject. In Columbia and the Phillippines; no. These areas are not in the US domestic news.

So much has changed since WTC 9-11, it is difficult to discuss. There are major issues whether someone deemed a "terrorist" is a soldier, a criminal or a completely different category.

I've got to disageee re "Cruelty doesn't drop you enemy will to fight...". A study of WWII Dresden firebombings and the atomic attacks on Japan show otherwise. I am hearing that terrorism in Israel has created a "make peace" camp (political bloc) directly tracable to the mass murders.

I do not believe a list can be prepared that "on numerious occassions" the referenced rules were broken in Vietnam. I have never read such a list. Now, there were NON-frequent occassions familiar to all of us, but, again, not frequent. Senator Kerry lied under oath in 1971 when he testified that the US military violated the rules of warfare on a daily basis as a mater of routine.

What's going on in Iraq is actually different because the governing rules are no longer in operation. The international system of rules, eg the Geneva and Hague agreements are ,in substance, in abeyance, that is, no longer governing. It wasn't the Americans who started this. It goes back even further than the PLO destroying civil aircraft at Dawson Field, Jordan, 1970.

Do you remember reading here at the history section about the Viet Ming shooting at C47s with Red Cross markings (air ambulance)at Dien Bien Phu?

Civilization is both new and fragile.

To use an American baseball expression, I "call 'em as I see 'em".

Saluations,
BobW
"Make Love, Not War"

[BobW]

Bonjour Regular,

Re Post # 62

Basically, I agree. Some specific points:

I do not believe the Iraqi insurgents consider US forces a "group of rich kids". The typical Iraqi insurgent, from teenager to the older field commanders, are well traveled. They can see where the Americans fit it. Most are not rich or "brats" (bums) and I'm sure the Iraqis recognize this. (In any large group there will always be the 5% idiot factor.)

The term "Iraq" is misleading. It's really 3 areas assembled by the Brits. The Iraqi insurgents cannnot be identified with the Kurds (north section) or the Shia Muslims (southern section). The "injustices" go to the Baathist Party and secular Sunni Muslims. The Kurds and Shia are progressing in their political aspirations.

Saluations,
BobW

[sikter]

You and your misleading" terms. :D
But what are you saying, that insurgents are composed of sunni only.
What do you mean by "well traveled"?
thank you

[BobW]

Bonjour Sikter,

No, I am saying =mostly= the Sunni/Baathist element. The Shia element (south/Basra area) is winning in the political arena. (I have heard the Shia do have some units with Iraqi insurgents for their own internal political objectives. What the US set up could "backfire" on the US and leave a complete Shia arc from Iran to Gaza Strip, soon to be part of a new Palestine). The Kurds are doing something similiar. I am not dealing in absolutes. The Kurd political element does not support the Iraqi insurgents. The Kurds overall objective is an independent Kurdish Republic, a sovereign nation, not a section of a new Iraq.

Re "well-traveled";

Regular mentioned that the insurgents looked at the American soldiers as "rich kids". I disagreed by saying the Iraqi insurgents have been around various societies and cultures and can distinguish differences. A typical American term is "well traveled", ie "been around". Some Iraqi whose grandfather might have been a Baath party member just might also have visited eg Beirut, the Emirates on the Gulf, etc. They can determine if the American soldiers are "rich kids" or not.

Hopefully, I explained my views.

Saluations,
BobW

[BobW]

Re: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Bonjour Sikter,

The above link is to an article titled "Kurdish - Turkoman Plan...".

It supports my view regarding the above posts.

Saluations,
BobW

[Nickfury]

Finally a day off, thought I would bring this thread back to Iran, just some links for you all, just did a simple search on BBC, there is much much much more out there but this will give you some basics. Those who dont know, a chance to educate yourself a little, nothing in depth but a nice overview.

For those who still want to lump Iran with the rest of the Islamic world and dont belive my post about the vast sea of discontent in Iran by those who are sick of the current government. There are millions of highly educated cosmopolitan young people in Iran who are very forward looking, here are just a few links to back up my assertions.

The Best woman race car driver in Iran (yes they allow women to race cars there)
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Iran's slow move towards democracy:
with information on the role of the youth, including the massive student protests of 99, roles of women, media in Iran, and so forth.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

This gives some basic info on the nuclear issue, more from the issue of talks between the EU, US , UN and Iran:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Country Profile of Iran:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Just some food for thought.

[flash010]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[joette]

Iran says it will resume nuclear activity; France warns of crisis

By News Agencies

Iran announced Tuesday it will resume converting uranium ore to gas at a nuclear plant near the central city of Isfahan within two days, a move France warned could lead to a major international crisis.

"The IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] will finish the installation of surveillance equipment in the next 24 hours and we will restart the plant's activities in the next one or two days," Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told state television.

That decision could spark "a major crisis," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Tuesday.

"I think this Iranian affair is very serious and that it could be the start of a major crisis," Douste-Blazy told reporters after a cabinet meeting.

Iran said its decision to resume activities at a nuclear plant near the central city of Isfahan was irreversible.

The so-called EU3 of Britain, France and Germany have been trying to mediate between the United States, which insists Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons, and the Islamic Republic, which says it has a right to develop peaceful atomic technology. (Peaceful!??)

The same day the Iranian nuclear affair appeared to escalate, the Washington Post published information contained in a new U.S. intelligence review that estimates Iran is about 10 years away from having the ability to build a nuclear bomb - double the previous estimate of five years.

The analysis includes credible indicators that Iran's military is conducting clandestine work but there is no information directly linking the projects to a nuclear weapons program, the Post said, citing government sources familiar with the classified report.

The Post on Tuesday cited three U.S. sources as saying the new analysis, known as the National Intelligence Estimate, expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's ruling clerics have decided to build nuclear weapons.

But a senior intelligence official was quoted as saying, "It is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons."

The White House has warned Iran against restarting uranium conversion work, saying it could lead the United States and its European allies to seek UN action against Tehran.

The United States suspects Iran is using its nuclear energy program as a front to develop weapons. Converting raw uranium into gas is a precursor to producing highly enriched nuclear fuel that could be used to make weapons or used in power stations - as Iran insists it is doing.

The intelligence estimate on Iran, the first since 2001, was ordered by the National Intelligence Council in January.

The findings had not been previously detailed, the Post said.

The newspaper said that U.S. officials have estimated that Iran was about five years away from having the capability to make a nuclear weapon.

source
Haaretz.com

[flash010]

what are the eu3 tninking remember that other brit pm that told us that nice man hitler dose not want war yea we,ll fall for that one again as bou said the insurgent war after a strike would be a long one :eek:

[joette]

For more than a year, France, Germany, Britain, and other countries in the European Union have seen preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon as a race against time—and against the Bush Administration. They have been negotiating with the Iranian leadership to give up its nuclear-weapons ambitions in exchange for economic aid and trade benefits. Iran has agreed to temporarily halt its enrichment programs, which generate fuel for nuclear power plants but also could produce weapons-grade fissile material. (Iran claims that such facilities are legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or N.P.T., to which it is a signator, and that it has no intention of building a bomb.) But the goal of the current round of talks, which began in December in Brussels, is to persuade Tehran to go further, and dismantle its machinery. Iran insists, in return, that it needs to see some concrete benefits from the Europeans—oil-production technology, heavy-industrial equipment, and perhaps even permission to purchase a fleet of Airbuses. (Iran has been denied access to technology and many goods owing to sanctions.)

the entire article can be read on the link below

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[joette]

Another article by newsweek (msnbc)


Newsweek
Oct. 4 issue - Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries. (Syria is regarded as a major route for jihadis entering Iraq, and Iran appears to be actively pursuing nuclear weapons.) Even hard-liners acknowledge that given the U.S. military commitment in Iraq, a U.S. attack on either country would be an unlikely last resort; covert action of some kind is the favored route for Washington hard-liners who want regime change in Damascus and Tehran.

—Mark Hosenball

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

[blahblahblah]

Hmmm...I don't think the US, France or the UK should be telling countries they cannot have nukes when they themselves have them and in one instance actually used them too.. :eek:

[Forgotten]

Hmmm...I don't think the US, France or the UK should be telling countries they cannot have nukes when they themselves have them and in one instance actually used them too.. :eek:

Why not???

[blahblahblah]

It's a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

[Forgotten]

It's a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Yes it is, but so what?

[joette]

Wahh Wahh Wahh, I want my milk and cookies
You know America would spank Iran, so you counter with "We need to butt out of other peoples affairs"
*Cough* Ragheads *Cough*











U.S.A. Hooah!
Can I get an Amen?!?
*AMEN*
:cool:

AMEN!! AMEN! :D

[joette]

Why not???

to Blah blah YEA! Why Not???

[Forgotten]

Here is a short essay from my affairs class that pretty much shows how I stand on the issue. Instead of regurgitating it, I might as well post it. The short of it is . . . it's been a doomed relationship...

Iran and the United States:
A Question of Betrayal

Author Name Removed (my name)
March 11, 2005


Statement of Purpose: This paper will address the historically failed relationship between the United States and Iran.

The affiliation between the United States and Iran is rather unique. Kenneth Pollack, author of The Persian Puzzle, describes the relationship as a once fatal attraction gone horribly off beam leaving a bizarre uncertainty for the future. To address this uncertainty it is essential to decipher where and why it went wrong. In an article published by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers is a list of popular reasons why relationships fail and among that list is “a dramatic change in priorities” (Harhai). Like a suffering relationship, the bond between these two nations suffers from a likewise condition in which Washington commits itself and then redraws its commitment resulting in an isolated and troubled Iranian society.

During the Second World War the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt became deeply involved in Iran mainly because the recently modernized country functioned as a route from the Persian Gulf to the Caucus Mountains for material to cross as a part of the Lend Lease aid to the Soviet Union. This supply line was manned by roughly 30,000 Americans and transferred over 18 billion dollars worth of material calculated at 26 percent of the total Lend Lease aid received by the USSR (Palmer 41). Although Washington had not developed any firm policy regarding Iran prior to the development of the Lend Lease aid route, Iran had been seeking to entice Americans to Persian markets for nearly a centaury before Roosevelt’s administration.

In the nineteenth century Persians became victims of the imperial designs of Russia and Britain. Persians looked to the United States, among other foreigners, to act as a balancing power. As a result, in 1856 Washington and Tehran signed to the Treaty of Friendship and Comers. One Persian draft of the treaty went to the extent of calling for the United States to “protect the Persian seas from bad conduct and evil designs of the enemies of Persia” (Palmer 7). However, the Persians did not receive the desired affect they were seeking. The first diplomatic mission to Tehran was not even established until 1883 (Pollack 19). It became apparent to Persians that Americans had little interest in meddling in Persian affairs at the time.

Continuing into the twentieth century the United States made little effort to establish the strong alliance Iranians called for. During the constitutional revolution in early 1900s Americans did little to nothing to ensure its success as Britain and Russia continued to divide up the country with the signing of the Anglo Russian Agreement in 1907 and the backing of several executions of constitutionalist (Pollack 22). This is important because many Iranians felt that the United States had the ability to support them. However, the United States was largely occupied in Latin American and investing its political strength to protect interests in China. The United States did not have the means or the interest to project itself to the Near East and entangle itself in the affairs of Britain and Russia, although things change when Ahmed replaces his father, Mohammed ‘Ali, as shah. In an effort to reduce Anglo-Russian influence, Ahmed invites William Morgan Shuster, by recommendation of President Taft, to serve as treasurer general to Iran in 1911 (Taheri 10, 11). Shuster challenged Anglo-Russian interest and ran into several roadblocks among Iran’s elite. Frustrated with Shuster, Britain and Russia demanded his dismissal just prior to their invasion to reduce Iran’s independence and scuttle the democratic process. Shuster helped ignite the British and Russians to maintain an even more firm grip on the country with his strict reforms that ultimately removed him from treasurer general while Washington capitulated, consequently thwarting any efforts to influence Iran until Raza Khan made himself shah in the early 1920’s.

The First World War left Iran in ruins and in British rule. The British withdraw in 1921 left a broken country and a vacuum to be filled. Raza Khan, officer of the famed Persian Cossacks Brigade, filled the vacuum of power and quickly immerged as the new shah of Iran when Ahmed left to Europe (“The Era of Raza Shah”). Raza, like his predecessors, also tried to entice the United States. Oil concessions were even offered but stifled by Anglo-Russian dissent (Pollack 29). In 1922 Tehran received an eleven man financial team from President Harding and Dr. Arthur Millspaugh was appointed Iran’s treasurer general. Raza Khan made large efforts in modernizing and reforming the country and succeeded to a large degree, yet Dr. Millspaugh was stumbling over the same rocks Shuster had and found it very difficult to make the changes he wanted and was dismissed by the shah in 1927. The relationship between Washington and Tehran stagnated as American public opinion of the shah withered, deeming the shah a puppet to the British in a number of publications. As a result, in 1935 the insulted Raze Kahn removed his representation in Washington in spite of his efforts to attract the Americans to Persia.

The Second World War brought a new chapter, due to the overhaul in American support for the Allies in Europe, Iran quickly became a priority as it served as a stage to execute Lend Lease aid to the Soviet Union and post war interests. Consequently the abrupt overflow of thousands of Americans deployed to Iran to support the trade route reflected poorly on Washington, for Iranians viewed the Americans as disruptive and disrespectful (Pollack 41). However to their amazement, in January of 1943 the State Department released a statement that the United States should build an independent Iran. In addition, in August of that year Cardell Hull wrote the President, Franklin D Roosevelt, that “it is to the advantage of the United States to exert itself to see that Iran’s integrity and independence are maintained and that she becomes prosperous and stable” (Bill 19). This is a pivotal point in which Washington picked up the stick in an effort to design a strong Iran, something the Iranians had long since anticipated.

Words were put into action at the Tehran Conference when Roosevelt pushed for the “Big Three” to come to an agreement over Iran which included the fallowing text:

Governments of the United States, the U. S. S. R., and the United Kingdom are in accord with the Government of Iran that any economic problems confronting Iran at the close of hostilities should receive full consideration … [and] are at one with the Government of Iran in their desire for the maintenance of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran … (“The Tehran Conference”).

Furthermore, Roosevelt and his predecessor Truman were determined to make sure that the British and Russians stayed in agreement with the Triparty Pact to withdraw their troops from Iran within six months of the end of all combat. The United States also extended Lend Lease aid to the Iran through a number of military missions that helped build the Iranian Army, assist with the movement of material to the USSR with the Iranian government, and assemble the Gendarmerie (“US Military Involvement . . . “). Though mainly military aid, the shah was able to maintain a stable post war Iran with what was being provided.

The United States established itself as the balance of power the Iranians were after, but many Iranians were not impressed with what they were seeing as stated by Kenneth Pollack, “while Iranian officials were trying desperately to keep the United States in, the evidence suggests that many average Iranians would have preferred the Americans get out” (41). Furthermore, Arthur Millspaugh was again sent back to Iran as a financial adviser. Like his pervious attempt he had little luck with formulating the changes he purposed. Iranians objected to his position for they feared foreigners running Iran’s financial affairs. Millspaugh, frustrated with his futile attempts later resigned his position. Iranians then began to question the intentions of the post war American design for Iran, satisfied with the British and Russian thinning influence but grew fearful that America would fill the void.

Things were not as they seemed though, for Moscow was not very eager to release Iran from its sphere of influence. During the course of the Second World War the Russians made an effort to establish political allies among Iran’s minorities in an attempt to divide the country and create Soviet Satellites to reduce any post war threat Iran could have produced. This plan however could not coexist with Washington’s design for a strong and independent Iranian country and at the end of the war the two designs collided when Russian troops failed to withdraw after the six month deadline established in the Triparty Pact. At first the issue went to the United Nations Security Council, but unsurprisingly the issue was tabled because the Soviet Union, a permanent member of the Security Council, had no interest in taking any part in the discussion. The United Nations was a dead alternative, thus leaving the Iranians with few options to remove the Russians. . .

[Forgotten]

. . .The end of the Second World War also gave rise to a much larger conflict. As the United States and the Soviet Union filled the vacuums left from the war, they grew into superpowers polarizing the globe with there own policies and ideals. This development grew into a rivalry referred to as what we now call the Cold War. President Truman, leading the United States at the time, devised and exacted a policy of containing the growing Soviet Spheres of influence. Though most attention after the Second World War was focused in Eastern Europe and Asia, the conflict in Iran is by every means a textbook example of what became known as containment. In an effort of practicing containment Truman stood firm by the Triparty Pact agreement in which Allied troops would have to withdraw by the end of the six months allotted. Truman immediately applied pressure on Moscow. A reluctant Stalin was not easily moved and became determined with hold onto Azerbaijan in Northern Iran. Finally, Truman threatens military intervention and alerted several American divisions stationed in Europe to prepare for war. Recognizing Truman’s determination and out of fear of a war with the United States, Stalin announces withdraw on March 24, 1946 (Acheson 197, 198). Iran was becoming the frontline for America to fight its new war, and though it can be argued that Qavam, Iran’s prime minister, played a large part in Russia’s withdraw there is no doubt that the United States was determined to maintain its new dominance over Iran.

Aside from keeping aggressors out of Iran the United States did little to actually aid Iran after the Second World War. Countries all around the world received millions of dollars in reconstruction aid, but Iranians were left in the cold with roughly twenty-four million dollars in loans with interest. Iran had a strong anti-communist government, therefore Americans such as Acheson saw little purpose in building a strong Iran to deter communism. The policy in Iran had been battle tested and succeeded. There was little rational into dumping funds into the country that was fairly stable without the prosperity Hull once asked Roosevelt for. This left a damaging result on the relationship between the United States and Iran. Many Iranians felt betrayed. Where was the prosperity that they thought they were promised? The British and Russians may have been kicked out, but without the funds necessary to rebuild the country and with a corrupt government many Iranians would argue they were no better off than before.

Due to the change in American priorities during the development of the Cold War Iran took a back seat once the White House felt that it could contain communism without further extending postwar resources to develop the country. This became another critical point in which events like the 1953 coup and the 1979 hostage crisis arose from. Iran was a question of necessity in the 1940’s, but it is also a question of necessity now as the focus becomes more and more about the Middle East in which Iran will plays an essential rule in the road to peace and stability.


Acheson, Dean. Present at the Creation: My Years at the State Department. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1987.

Bill, James A. Eagle and the Lion: The Tragedy of American-Iranian Relations.
Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1990.

Harhai, Stephen J. “Making Marriage Last, a Guide to Preventing Divorce.” American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. 02 March 2005. <[Only registered and activated users can see links]>.

Palmer, Michael A. Guardians of the Gulf : A History of America's Expanding Role in the Persian Gulf, 1883-1992. New York: Touchstone, 1999.

Pollack, Kenneth M. The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict between Iran and America. New York: Random House, 2004.

Taheri, Amir. Nest of Spies: America’s journey to Disaster in Iran. New York: Knopf Publishing Group, 1989.

“The Era of Raza Shah (1921-1941).” Pars Times. 09 March 2005. <[Only registered and activated users can see links]>.

“The Tehran Conference.” Yale University. 09 March 2005. <[Only registered and activated users can see links]>.

“US Military Involvement in Iran.” Iran Virtual Library. 09 March 2005. <[Only registered and activated users can see links]>.

[blahblahblah]

to Blah blah YEA! Why Not???

Well honestly I don't care who has nukes. Sharing is caring, spread the love.

[blahblahblah]

Iran is not America's little brother. And neither is the UK or France or Germany. Iran can handle its own affairs and is more responsible with them than the US from past experience.

[Forgotten]

Iran is not America's little brother. And neither is the UK or France or Germany. Iran can handle its own affairs and is more responsible with them than the US from past experience.

I beg to differ. The United States and now the EU should not turn a blind eye on Iran. Countries link the United States, Britian, and Russia are all culprits' in Iran's position and should all be a part of the solution. We need to meddle in Iran's affairs but to do so in the interests of Iran which is by nature counter governmental. So we need to find a way in which the US, EU, and Russia gain utility from again modernizing Iran.

[Slivovitz]

Iran's nuclear program is intended to deter US aggression. More power to 'em, they're finally becoming a nuclear power. Yay for them. As far as I'm concerned, Iran's nuclear program is being developed to keep the peace... or a stalemate as it were. Case in point: North Korea. We wouldn't have touched Iraq had they been a nuclear power.
As far as Iran's politics are concerned, the government is getting less and less radical by the day. We have nothing to worry about.
Cheers,
William

[blahblahblah]

That's right. Nukes mean you are safe. Iraq no nukes, attacked. North Kora nukes, not attacked. It is clear and the Iraqi war set a very bad precedent in that regard. The US is not stupid enough to go to war with another nuclear power, they never went to war with Russia, or China or any other nuclear foe.

I think what the US sees in Iran is more a fear of Islamic theocracy than any substantial threat.

[Forgotten]

That's right. Nukes mean you are safe. Iraq no nukes, attacked. North Kora nukes, not attacked. It is clear and the Iraqi war set a very bad precedent in that regard. The US is not stupid enough to go to war with another nuclear power, they never went to war with Russia, or China or any other nuclear foe.

I think what the US sees in Iran is more a fear of Islamic theocracy than any substantial threat.

Right but Iran is not a nuclear power. Creating such a nuclear program may very well be counter productive for the Iranians. The United States or EU gain little utility from Iran, unlike China, so as a result of a weapons program Iran will become another North Korea. Sure North Korea has security but at what cost? Starvation? Is that what Iranians really want? Need?

You are right, the US never went to war with Russia but that's because the US never had to due to the fact that we were winning the Cold War through contracts. We dont need checkpoints and tanks in Russia because we have McDonalds and burgers. :rolleyes: