Now Iran?!?!

[Leaky Eye]

I am guessing the Sunni countries could be convinced...

Also, many types of sorties can be launched from much further out. Including from the United States.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj
I would probably say when we attack. How often do two countries get engaged in what Iran, Israel and the USA are in currently and not get war? I think the simple fact is that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and it doesn't matter which party is in office. Ten of thousands of people will most likely die before Iran is allowed to go nuclear.


[/ QUOTE ]

But a nuclear Pakistan or North Korea are? Why is that?

[j555]

[ QUOTE ]

But a nuclear Pakistan or North Korea are? Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess since Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and North Korea withdrew from it while Iran signed it and is still in it. India and Israel also didn't sign it and have nuclear weapons.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...and the US would struggle mightily to find local bases from which to launch an attack against Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are aware that the US military has bases on both sides of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan? How can you get more local than both of Iran's neighbors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm misreading the situation, but I was working on the assumption that using Iraqi bases against Iran wouldn't be practical. Iraq is after all mostly Shiite, and a lot of its leaders have ties with Iran.

Afghanistan presents fewer political issues, but most of the action in a conflict with Iran would be centered on the Persian Gulf, 500 or so hostile miles from Afghanistan.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if we attack Iran from Qatar, we won't offend Iraqi shiites? How does this make sense -- we are occupying Iraq, no? And if you move the goalposts and talk just the Gulf, not Iran proper, well we ring the Gulf with bases and carriers, so what's your point?

Edit: Here, let me help you with this map. Would you still like to contend that we have no local bases to attack Iran or the Persian Gulf? And these are just the ones with active USAF air bases, I'm not even including the number of carrier air wings which could easily join the fight.



And I'm sure I'm missing some, these are just the ones I know off the top of my head. I believe the US has many more operating locations in Iraq. And if you include Army attack helicopters, the number of air bases in the region grows even more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's reaching out and touching someone!

I have no doubt that if the Iranians piss off Bush on a day when he's on a dry drunk, we'll bomb em.

[mrick]

if the united states choose to the iranians are doomed. this is a fact of life if youre using the right poker software. no two ways about it. but what the fallout will be is a matter for the next part of the plan. surely not how far american plans go they usually stop after the first chapter titled BOMBING INVADING WINNING subtitle MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.......

i now see the wisdome behind the bush response to the IRAQ STUDY GROUP. bush is certain that he is RIGHT and that the wars opponents are WRONG. so he doesnt mind a study group which includes lots of skeptics who will suggest he opens diplomatic dialog with iran and syria etc ect etc and none of HIS GUYS.

HE WANTS THE STUDY GROUP TO RECOMMEND STUFF SO HE CAN DO EXACLY THE OPPOSITE......

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because thats not an argument unless you can prove that its "wrong", which you can't since "wrong" is subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont disagree with the premise, that 'wrong' is a subjective term, and thus any claim that something is wrong is unprovable.

However, the leap in logic you make from this premise to "thats not an argument because you cant prove it" is just silly. If Euclid couldnt get through the basics of lines without a ton of unprovable assumptions, then political discussion would be pointless if "you cant prove it" were a valid reason to conclude "therefore its not an argument." Every political argument since the beginning of the time has rested on unprovable assumptions.


Also, an 'argument' is, by its nature, going to be unprovable. If it werent, we wouldnt call it 'argument', it would be called 'fact'.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY. And to think that I was under the impression that in an argument one side might have the facts wrong. Learn something new every day.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But a nuclear Pakistan or North Korea are? Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess since Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and North Korea withdrew from it while Iran signed it and is still in it. India and Israel also didn't sign it and have nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]
so if Iran were to withdraw from the treaty there would be no problem?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But a nuclear Pakistan or North Korea are? Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess since Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and North Korea withdrew from it while Iran signed it and is still in it. India and Israel also didn't sign it and have nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]
so if Iran were to withdraw from the treaty there would be no problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your guess: would hard-line Shiite Supremacists with nukes, in the center of the world's troubled oil regions, pose any problems?

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But a nuclear Pakistan or North Korea are? Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess since Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and North Korea withdrew from it while Iran signed it and is still in it. India and Israel also didn't sign it and have nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]
so if Iran were to withdraw from the treaty there would be no problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your guess, would hard-line Shiite Supremacists with nukes pose any problems?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your guess are crazy commies who spend half of their GDP in military expenses with nukes pose any problems?
What your guess, would one instable islamic countries who has been a haven for the formation of terrorist for years and would is still at war with a giant neighbor with nukes pose a problem?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But a nuclear Pakistan or North Korea are? Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess since Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and North Korea withdrew from it while Iran signed it and is still in it. India and Israel also didn't sign it and have nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]
so if Iran were to withdraw from the treaty there would be no problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your guess, would hard-line Shiite Supremacists with nukes pose any problems?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your guess are crazy commies who spend half of their GDP in military expenses with nukes pose any problems?
What your guess, would one instable islamic countries who has been a haven for the formation of terrorist for years and would is still at war with a giant neighbor with nukes pose a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guesses are yes and yes. Now what's your guess?