So Israel is ready to attack Iran Justified or not? and How will this end? [Archive]

View Full Version : So Israel is ready to attack Iran Justified or not? and How will this end?

Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Dorfdad

June 6th, 2008, 05:08 PM

Israeli Minister Says 'We Will Attack Iran' if Nuke Program Continues.

Iran has previously countered with we will not stop our nuclear ambitions.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363606,00.html

The Yediot Ahronot newspaper quotes Mofaz as saying "If Iran (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363606,00.html#) will continue with its plan to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it."

Mofaz's office did not return a call requesting comment on Friday's report. The daily says that Mofaz has warned that the economic sanctions against Iran are not effective. Yediot reports that Mofaz has said that the United States would back any Israeli attack.

Reuters quotes Mofaz as saying "Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable."

Mofaz is a former defense minister and army chief. He would like to replace Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as head of the Kadima Party in light of a corruption scandal that threatens to bring Olmert down.
Mofaz, who was born in Iran, responded to calls from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Israel (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363606,00.html#) to be wiped off the map, by saying Iran "would disappear before Israel does," according to a Reuters report.

Somethings going to happen, with the Political landscape about to possible change pretty radically over the next few months in the US Israel is in a now or never mode.

Not knowing what a McCain or Obama presidency will mean as for support of Isreal they must act now as they know President Bush is behind them firmly and will give them the go-ahead to do this this summer.

Im torn on what should happen. I honestly do believe that Israel has to defend themselves. Israel is not pushing into other regions trying to spread anything. They are simply trying to live in peace around radical muslims who want them to die.. If Israel was to attack IRAN this would enrage the entire area and increase the attacks in both IRAQ and on Israel from multiple sources.

With IRAN probably having some scurmishes with US force possible drawing us into a conflict as well. Thus bringing other Syria and more into the frey..

This could get real ugly fast...

Without getting into the whole I hate America or the Destroy Iran flame wars can we just stick on topics and discuss if you feel its right for Israel to attack IRAN without physical proof of IRAN's nuclear ambitions?

And if you believe this will ever happen and what will be the outcome.

SymphonyX

June 6th, 2008, 05:11 PM

Holy Wars

A country that's divided
Surely will not stand
My past erased, no more disgrace
No foolish naive stand

The end is near, it's crystal clear
Part of the master plan
Don't look now to Israel
It might be your homeland, Holy wars

Dorfdad

June 6th, 2008, 07:15 PM

to expand on my point I should also say I feel it would also be a political move on the part of the current administration to envolve us in a heated war right before the Presidential voting..

This would force the US to be enganged in a war with IRAN and give Mccain another replublican a boost in appeal as he is a war hero and would LOVE to run on a war time agend instead of focusing on economy and other stuff.

I would not put it past our current regime I voted for them but so many things have been coming to light about the lies, and misguided information released to benefit them, to the inflated cost of everything based on Oil which they are ALL part of has way to many coincidence.

GhostFox61

June 6th, 2008, 08:09 PM

Somethings going to happen, with the Political landscape about to possible change pretty radically over the next few months in the US Israel is in a now or never mode.

I'm not sure your assumption that this will evolve into a full scale conflict is correct.

Israel isn't going to invade Iran. They are just going to flyover it and destroy the reactors.

Now of course that could be provocation for a full scale war, but Israel has done this twice in the past, Iraq in '81, and Syria in 2007. The ramifications from those attacks were primarily limited to complaints in the UN and some fist shaking.

It would place Iran in a very precarious position to attempt to launch an assault on Israel.

The assault force would first have to move through Turkey, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia by force. Any of which will bring the entire UN against Iran.

The more likely outcome from such a raid will be 13 new UN resolutions against Israel with a wink and a nod. Not WWIII.

Dorfdad

June 6th, 2008, 08:16 PM

grcswoosh

June 6th, 2008, 08:23 PM

GhostFox61

June 6th, 2008, 08:26 PM

I agree they would BOMB Iran, but does Iran not have an Airforce that can counter?

Iran would than supply Hezzbalah even more with missile to attack with and this would be a proxy war situation and would rally IRANiANS behind aquiring nuclear weapons to actually destroy Israel with..

Iran does have an air force. However, Israel probably has more F-16's then the total number of airplanes in Iran.

The Israeli Air Force is one of the best in the world. In a raid Iran would probably try and keep all of their fighters on the ground and under cover to prevent their destruction.

Right now for any of the middle eastern powers to achieve the destruction of Israel, it would rely on 1 of 2 things.

1) Israel runs out of bullets.
2) They acquire nukes.

Israel isn't worried about running out of bullets. So they make sure that no one in the region gets their hands on nukes.

DayWalker

June 6th, 2008, 08:28 PM

How will it end?
1. Isreal will pound the crap out of Iran. There armed military is vastly superior to Irans.

2. The generations of angry grudgeholding a-holes will die off and level headed people will finally take control of the 2 powers and make peace :lol:

I am betting (not rooting) on 1. Just hope Iran does not have their hands on a legit nuke by then.

um... actually...

Israel- without US support_ will have its hands full with iran.

The Iranian military is no joke.

And when you throw in Syria, Lebanaon, Hezbolla, Hamas etc....

It's gonna be a mess. A lot of lives will be lost...

Dorfdad

June 6th, 2008, 08:33 PM

Well Attacking Iran's nuclear ambitions is going to be harder than in the past in IRAQ as it is persumed to be very far under ground and possible in multiple locations to prevent an attack from ever destroying it.

Also by destorying the bunkers what would this actually do to the ability of Iran getting nuclear power? would they not immediately rebuild? They already have the technology to do this, at some point you can not just keep bombing them trying to push the technically back 20 years..

grcswoosh

June 6th, 2008, 08:34 PM

um... actually...

Israel- without US support_ will have its hands full with iran.

The Iranian military is no joke.

And when you throw in Syria, Lebanaon, Hezbolla, Hamas etc....

It's gonna be a mess. A lot of lives will be lost...
Right, but Isreal would beat them 1 on 1, especially considering they would just attack without warning hitting several strategic points. They probably would not destroy Iran as their defenses have become much more strong recently but they would likely take out any offensive capabilities.

If the other dudes got involved then US would surely also. And as you said, this would be quite bad for everyone.

GhostFox61

June 6th, 2008, 08:35 PM

um... actually...

Israel- without US support_ will have its hands full with iran.

The Iranian military is no joke.

While a valid point, how do you expect them to get from Iran to Israel?

They don't have the planes or the air support to move troops through the air. The transports they have would be demolished in a heart beat by the IAF.

Even if they did, Syria would have to agree to function as a staging ground for the assault. Which isn't an automatic.

So they was have to form a ground assault, attack Iraq, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, fight their way through against the combined UN armies, and they hope that either Syria or Jordan will allow them to operate from their territory.

Well Attacking Iran's nuclear ambitions is going to be harder than in the past in IRAQ as it is persumed to be very far under ground and possible in multiple locations to prevent an attack from ever destroying it.

Also by destorying the bunkers what would this actually do to the ability of Iran getting nuclear power? would they not immediately rebuild? They already have the technology to do this, at some point you can not just keep bombing them trying to push the technically back 20 years..

Bunker Busters. Every site would be destroyed. That isn't a question.

They might, but it will take them years, and Israel can just bomb it again when they finish.

Do you understand the commitment it takes to develop a nuclear program? The resources involved? It would be a hard decision for Iran to rebuild.

It's like building a sandcastle below the tide line. Even if you have an infinite about of sand to work with, eventually you get sick of rebuilding it every day only to see it washed away in the end.

Dorfdad

June 6th, 2008, 08:36 PM

found a pretty decent article (PDF) on Israel vs Iran military Might...

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/isec.2007.31.4.7

have to finsih reading it before I say anything stupid :)

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 08:39 PM

If it comes down to another war between Israel and other middle eastern countries you can bet they will kick the living crap out of them all.

Six Day War ring any bells? History tends to repeat itself.

This time- let's allow Israel to hold the area.

DayWalker

June 6th, 2008, 08:41 PM

While a valid point, how do you expect them to get from Iran to Israel?

They don't have the planes or the air support to move troops through the air. The transports they have would be demolished in a heart beat by the IAF.

Even if they did, Syria would have to agree to function as a staging ground for the assault. Which isn't an automatic.

So they was have to form a ground assault, attack Iraq, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, fight their way through against the combined UN armies, and they hope that either Syria or Jordan will allow them to operate from their territory.

Another question is how is the international community going to respond to a unilateral Israeli attack on iran...

We know the US will back them... but I wonder how the rest of the region will respond.
I remember it took awhile for Saudi and Turkey to get on board when we invaded Iran...

I dunno- I think it's kinda ****ed on on Israel's part.
They know the US is going to do the majority of the grunt work...

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 08:42 PM

GhostFox61

June 6th, 2008, 08:47 PM

Another question is how is the international community going to respond to a unilateral Israeli attack on iran...

We know the US will back them... but I wonder how the rest of the region will respond.

They will respond the same way they have every other time. The UN (including the US) will say "Hey, you guys shouldn't have done that. Bad Israel.....Hey, do you guys want to go get some beer?"

Let's face it. No one wants Iran to get their hands on nukes. Not even countries like Syria. So everyone will raise a public stink about it, they will all jockey to try and use the event to their advantage, but at the end of the day Iran will have a smoking hole in the ground instead of a reactor.

Dorfdad

June 6th, 2008, 08:47 PM

If Isreal is going to take the risk and do this, I think they are going to do more than simply attack Iran. They are going to have to set a Presidence in the region and showcase that they are not going to be threatend once and for all.

Also if they attack the places where uranium is being produces they run a major risk of releasing chemicals into the air. Iran is rumored to have put these in Heavly populated regions of the country where they can use people as deterents from attacks as well..

This would bring alot of BAD pr Isreal's way..

DayWalker

June 6th, 2008, 08:47 PM

GhostFox61

June 6th, 2008, 08:51 PM

I'm not so sure it's as bad as you think Daywalker. Recall the Six Day War. I'm also fairly certain now that we're pretty much at odds with Iran we'll be offering Israel tons of support- under the table or not.

The greatest danger that existed in terms of an all out war was the Iran, Iraq, Syria link.

It was never likely, but the fear was that if those 3 countries could someone come to an agreement, Iran could march an army onto Israel's doorstep before the world could respond.

That's no longer possible. Iran is now cut off from Israel by 3 US allies.

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 08:53 PM

GhostFox61

June 6th, 2008, 08:56 PM

If Isreal is going to take the risk and do this, I think they are going to do more than simply attack Iran.

No they won't. They will get away with actions which are necessitated for the survival of their country.

If they decided to give the whole middle east a big FU, it is a whole different story.

It will be a targeted strike on the nuclear facilities only. If the IRIAF intervenes, then they only do what is necessary to secure the withdrawal from Iranian air space.

They've been at this game a long time. They know how it is played.

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 08:58 PM

They're quite good at it too. They're army and special forces are incredible- more than a match for their lousy neighbors.

grcswoosh

June 6th, 2008, 08:59 PM

...
This would bring alot of BAD pr Isreal's way..

You mean most of the world would be unhappy with Jews :lol:
Has there ever been a time when this wasn't true :lol:
They are probably the most consistently disliked culture in the history of humanity.

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 09:00 PM

Which ironically is......

Prophecised... For those that believe in religion (like myself).

Edit:

Will Iran keep up these threats and this program is the real question here.

DayWalker

June 6th, 2008, 09:05 PM

Which ironically is......

Prophecised...

For those that believe in religion (like myself).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally- I'd like to see more happen on the diplomacy end of things before Israel drags the US into another war...

Dorfdad

June 6th, 2008, 09:08 PM

great conversation so far guys, we have not even been off topic! Keep it up

I agree something has to be done there and quickly. I do not see Iran being able to invade Israel through Iraq and Syria there is no way with the US there they are going to allow these ground units to roll. I can see the US having some knowledge and having some kind of tactical strike team setup just in case Iran gets frisky and rolls out.. they wouldnt make it to Syria without being bombed into submission.

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 09:10 PM

@ Daywalker:

It's there. I'm not going to lie lol. But not mocking me would be a nice start.

So do you think Iran will keep this up? Aside from pressure from the States they now have a very real and tangible threat from Israel.

They also no longer have Iraq to back them up in case of a war. The other regional super power...

Dorfdad

June 6th, 2008, 09:11 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally- I'd like to see more happen on the diplomacy end of things before Israel drags the US into another war...

They do not have the time for Diplomacy honestly it never seems that these things are important as they drag on from months and years litterly anymore and we all know how much can change in a few months ie... Iraq having time to move out weapons etc...

I think they are going to act pretty fast within the next 3 months at least as they are not going to wait and not have the US possibly not backing them... BUSH is all for this, and they must act now or run the risk of them getting Nuclear Weapons..

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 09:13 PM

If a war started I don't know if Saudi Arabia would join in on the fray. As much as they probably dislike Israel- They're Sunni. And they hate Iran and dislike Shiites.

DayWalker

June 6th, 2008, 09:13 PM

@ Daywalker:

It's there. I'm not going to lie lol. But not mocking me would be a nice start.

So do you think Iran will keep this up? Aside from pressure from the States they now have a very real and tangible thread from Israel.

no mocking... I just don't subscribe to "prophecies"

I say they will back down...
1) they don't yet have a nuke
2) they know pushing things further has only one outcome
3) they should be able to gain something through negotiation

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 09:15 PM

DayWalker

June 6th, 2008, 09:19 PM

They do not have the time for Diplomacy honestly it never seems that these things are important as they drag on from months and years litterly anymore and we all know how much can change in a few months ie... Iraq having time to move out weapons etc...

I think they are going to act pretty fast within the next 3 months at least as they are not going to wait and not have the US possibly not backing them... BUSH is all for this, and they must act now or run the risk of them getting Nuclear Weapons..

ridiculous.

Do you really think in the lead up to war that we didn't have a thousand satellites pointed at Iraq? If they really had WMDs and tried to move them we would have intercepted them before they made it 50 miles.

People act like transporting stockpiles of WMDs is something that you can do in a heart beat...

My understanding is that Iran is still quite a ways away from actually developing a nuke. (CIA 2003 reports)
They may be starting it back up- and that's a bad thing.
But aggressive talks need to start happening now.

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 09:20 PM

Er. Daywalker we did learn* about an Iraqi convoy leaving Iraq and heading into Syria. Individuals within Iraq claim that they moved their WMDs to Syria.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/014835.php
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1671897/posts
http://palmettopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/iraq-wmd-moved-to-syria.html

grcswoosh

June 6th, 2008, 09:20 PM

Let's just hope some wise people get into power relatively soon or we are all in trouble.

I am not religious but I have nothing against those who are. I think we all know this is the root cause of the issues here and with the 2 sides not likely to change religions how can there ever be peace?

The answer is for them to follow their true religious practices and be tolerant and peaceful.

Can we truly expect this out of humans? No, but there is always a chance. I mean the Red Sox won the world series twice in the last 4 years LOL

DayWalker

June 6th, 2008, 09:22 PM

That's true Daywalker...

Although here is the wildcard: Russia.

For whatever strange reason, Russia and Iran are very friendly with one another. The ex-Red nation is still a threat to contend with- and everyone is fairly sure they're the ones selling countries uranium and other nuclear materials.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7046258.stm

China as well right?

Aren't they both big Iran Oil buyers?

They also need to get more involved.
It is in their interest that Iran is not attacked.

They should be offering economical incentives if Iran plays nice...

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 09:23 PM

No. China will not and cannot be pressured into engaging the United States. China is no wild card.

They go against us, it'd be mutually detrimental to both. They'll play ball.

DayWalker

June 6th, 2008, 09:26 PM

Er. Daywalker we did learn* an Iraqi convoy leaving Iraq and heading into Syria.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1671897/posts
http://palmettopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/iraq-wmd-moved-to-syria.html

soooooooo.... is it your assertion that:

1) the US, convinced that Iraq has stockpiles of WMDs that could be used to attack the continental USA, saw a large convoy leaving Iraq and did not intercept it?

and

2) the US is apparently ok with Syria having stockpiles of WMDs... just not Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc?

I just don't buy it. It doesn't add up to me.
Als- I was under the impression that Syra and Iraq aren't the best of friends... am i mistaken???

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 09:28 PM

Ok so don't believe the reports and Iraqi witness accounts (from within the military). I really don't care lol. It's not like I'm going to get offended or anything.

But the fact is the intelligence says it's there- but people like yourself who don't buy into it, just dismiss it. So the military is probably going to ignore the whole thing until it becomes evident they're going to use it\etc.

They don't want another "Iraq" issue hitting the media. Right now I think the military is concentrating on solidifying progress made.

DayWalker

June 6th, 2008, 09:29 PM

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 09:30 PM

About what? About WMD's being in Iraq at the present time? Or the WMD's existing at all.

I'm positive Iraq had them. If not for developing on their own, then we (or our allies) gave it to them in the Iran-Iraq war. They definitely had the opportunity there.

BingBing

June 6th, 2008, 09:31 PM

DayWalker

June 6th, 2008, 09:33 PM

Ok so don't believe the reports and Iraqi witness accounts (from within the military). I really don't care lol. It's not like I'm going to get offended or anything.

But the fact is the intelligence says it's there- but people like yourself who don't buy into it, just dismiss it. So the military is probably going to ignore the whole thing until it becomes evident they're going to use itetc.

They don't want another "Iraq" issue hitting the media. Right now I think the military is concentrating on solidifying progress made.

i mean... i don't mena to be rude...
but it seems like you just posted blogs...

got anything more official?

Dorfdad

June 6th, 2008, 09:36 PM

soooooooo.... is it your assertion that:

1) the US, convinced that Iraq has stockpiles of WMDs that could be used to attack the continental USA, saw a large convoy leaving Iraq and did not intercept it?

and

2) the US is apparently ok with Syria having stockpiles of WMDs... just not Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc?

I just don't buy it. It doesn't add up to me.
Als- I was under the impression that Syra and Iraq aren't the best of friends... am i mistaken???

This was all done before we were "THERE" so there was no way to intercept these. Also we have no idea what DEALS were made between Syria and Iraq prior to our invasion so something could have been arranged.

Regarldess of this the fact remains that an unchecked Iran is something the entire WORLD will have to deal with.

The Smart move is backing off today instead of pushing it to the brink of war trying to get something else out of the deal. Bush believes this needs to be done and he will look for any reason to green light this attack..

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 09:39 PM

lintama

June 6th, 2008, 09:40 PM

The Iranian military is NO JOKE, if Isreal + US do to war it would be catastrophic.

1) Russians sells Su Type Migs to Iran, often. These are some of the most advanced fighter jets in the world.

YouTube - Su-37 extreme manuevrability demo

2) Russia also sell SS-N-22 Sunburn/Black Onyx type cruise missles to Iran as well. These are the most dangerous cruise missle in the world FACT: these missles are untargetable and able to take out an aircraft carrier without a nuclear war head.
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/moskit.htm
www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
http://www.softwar.net/3m82.html

3) The only reason for the U.S to go to war right now is so Pres Bush doesn't give up the presidency by declaration of martial law.

4) Russia has multitudes of intersts in Iran, most being of the natural gas for nuclear technology type.

5) Iran would shut the strait of Hormuz DOWN. Cutting off a ton of crude oil shipments.

6) The biggest unknown is Venezuela. Big time allies of Iran, enemy of the U.S, they could be used by Iran to start proxy wars in central/south america, just for the headache.

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 09:41 PM

HA! What did I tell you guys?? RUSSIANS!

They're the wildcard.

DayWalker

June 6th, 2008, 09:51 PM

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddams-wmd-moved-to-syria-an-israeli-says/24480/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1673944/posts
http://www.globalpolitician.com/21610-iraq-syria-wmd
http://noisyroom.net/blog/2006/03/02/more-wmds-to-syria-evidence/

Knock yourself out. Now unless everybody is lying, lol, it would appear to me something fishy happened with that huge convoy heading into Syria.

So in the above we have:

Israeli military official saying it's in Syria
Iraqi General saying it's in Syria
DOD saying that a 50 truck convoy left to Syria before we ever landed in Iraq

Now let's be real Daywalker. I'm never going to convince you. Ever. That's just how it's going to go down, we each have our opinions. Besides I myself am not 100% convinced they're in Syria-

But the point is we have evidence and reports of it being there, or something bad that Iraq sent to Syria, being there. Enough evidence to warrant questioning.

I am reading them now...

Any chance you something from US intelligence?

I see that you're convinced.

But ask yourself: does it make sense???

we went to war to get WMDs (allegedly)
you're saying they got moved from Iraq (part of the axis of evil) and moved to syria (also part of the axis of evil).
And yet- where's the rush to get these weapons out of Syria's hands before they can use them against the US and its allies???

It doesn't even appear that Israel is concerned that their neighbor just acquired stockpiles of WMDs...

it just doesn't hold water with me...

The Iranian military is NO JOKE, if Isreal + US do to war it would be catastrophic.

1) Russians sells Su Type Migs to Iran, often. These are some of the most advanced fighter jets in the world.

YouTube - Su-37 extreme manuevrability demo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GdfnTLKcvM)

2) Russia also sell SS-N-22 Sunburn/Black Onyx type cruise missles to Iran as well. These are the most dangerous cruise missle in the world FACT: these missles are untargetable and able to take out an aircraft carrier without a nuclear war head.
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/moskit.htm
www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
http://www.softwar.net/3m82.html

3) The only reason for the U.S to go to war right now is so Pres Bush doesn't give up the presidency by declaration of martial law.

4) Russia has multitudes of intersts in Iran, most being of the natural gas for nuclear technology type.

5) Iran would shut the strait of Hormuz DOWN. Cutting off a ton of crude oil shipments.

6) The biggest unknown is Venezuela. Big time allies of Iran, enemy of the U.S, they could be used by Iran to start proxy wars in central/south america, just for the headache.

actually martial law does not allow a president to exceed the two term limit...

Dorfdad

June 6th, 2008, 09:51 PM

Yes god dam russia...Man that would change things alot it would involve U.S getting in for sure. Then possibly china some magical way, thats when u got a problem. Cause to kick china's army u need ALOT OF MEN/Women.....ALOTTTTT!!!!!!

wow was reading through the thread and made this post kinda late. :-|

While China does have a Major ground force they have a mobility problem. China is vunerable from the Air.. Not that this would happen but China is a nation like Russia that ground war just is not the right approach for. Missiles and Cluster Bombs were made to take out large areas.

But I would worry if China and Russia back Iran... The New Russia is slowly becoming the old Russia right before our eyes.. Do not count on them rooting for the US.

GhostFox61

June 6th, 2008, 09:52 PM

i mean... i don't mena to be rude...
but it seems like you just posted blogs...

got anything more official?

The whole issue is surrounded by question marks. It is known that Saddam possessed WMD's after the end of the Gulf War. It is also known that under UN supervision they destroyed large portions of their stockpiles.

The extent of the WMD stockpile escaping destruction, as well the viability of the weapons is almost impossible to ascertain.

In terms of theories about transferring them out of the country, there are many accounts that support this supposition, but no damning smoking gun.

Stockpiles transported to another country

Rumors have abounded of possible transportation of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to foreign countries, namely Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria), Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon) and Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran), in the weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Freedom) began. John Bolton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bolton) told the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Foreign_Affairs) that these reports give "cause for concern."[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War #cite_note-10)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War #cite_note-10)
Alleged Russian involvement
Romanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania) intelligence defector Ion Mihai Pacepa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Mihai_Pacepa) alleged that an operation for the removal of chemical weapons was prepared by the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) for Libya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya), and that he was told over thirty years ago by Romanian President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Romania) Nicolae Ceauşescu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C5%9Fescu), KGB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB) chairman Yury Andropov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yury_Andropov), and later, Yevgeny Primakov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Primakov), about the existence of a similar plan for Iraq. It is "perfectly obvious", wrote Pacepa, that the Russian GRU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRU) agency helped Saddam Hussein to destroy, hide, or transfer his chemical weapons prior to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. "After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place."[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War #cite_note-11)
John Loftus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Loftus), director of The Intelligence Summit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intelligence_Summit), said in the November 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_16), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) issue of FrontPage Magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FrontPage_Magazine) that many documents from Iraq point to WMD being transferred to other countries such as Syria: "As stated in more detail in my full report, the British, Ukrainian and American secret services all believed that the Russians had organized a last minute evacuation of CW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare) and BW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare) stockpiles from Baghdad to Syria." His researchers allegedly found a document ordering the concealment of nuclear weapons equipment in storage facilities under the Euphrates River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrates_River) a few weeks before the invasion.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War #cite_note-Loftus-12)

Former Iraqi general Georges Sada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada) claimed that in late summer 2002, Saddam had ordered all of his stockpiles to be moved to Syria. He appeared on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannity_%26_Colmes) in January 2006 to discuss his book, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein. Anticipating the arrival of weapon inspectors on November 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1), Sada said Saddam took advantage of the June 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_4) Zeyzoun Dam disaster in Syria by forming an "air bridge", loading them onto cargo aircraft and piloting them out of the country. They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War #cite_note-13)
In January 2004, Nizar Nayuf, a Syrian journalist who moved to Western Europe, said in a letter to the Dutch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) newspaper De Telegraaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Telegraaf) that he knows the three sites where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are kept inside Syria. According to Nayuf's witness, described as a senior source inside Syrian military intelligence he had known for two years,[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War #cite_note-14) Iraq's WMD are in tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama) in northern Syria, in the village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Air_Force) camp, and in the city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon), south of Homs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homs) city. Nayouf also wrote that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Republican Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Republican_Guard), including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat, Bashar Assad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_Assad)'s cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War #cite_note-15) U.S. Secretary of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Secretary_of_State) Condoleezza Rice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice) responded to this accusation by saying "I don't think we are at the point that we can make a judgment on this issue. There hasn't been any hard evidence that such a thing happened. But obviously we're going to follow up every lead, and it would be a serious problem if that, in fact, did happen."[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War #cite_note-16)
A similar claim was made by Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Ya%27alon), a former Israeli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli) officer who served as chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces) from July 2002 to June 2005. In April 2004, he was quoted as saying that "perhaps they transferred them to another country, such as Syria."[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War #cite_note-17) General Ya'alon told the New York Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Sun) more firmly in December 2005 that "He [Saddam] transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War #cite_note-18) The Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Quarterly) also reported Israeli Prime Minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Prime_Minister) Ariel Sharon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon) as having said in a December, 2002 appearance on Israel's Channel 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_2_%28Israel%29), "...chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria."[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War #cite_note-19)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War

StoneyPS3

June 6th, 2008, 09:52 PM

GhostFox61

June 6th, 2008, 09:55 PM

3) The only reason for the U.S to go to war right now is so Pres Bush doesn't give up the presidency by declaration of martial law.

Can we all agree to check the crazy at the door and attempt to continue a rational discussion?

DayWalker

June 6th, 2008, 09:58 PM

Can we all agree to check the crazy at the door and attempt to continue a rational discussion?

i think he believes that starting a 3rd war will allow Bush to extend his 2 terms...

which he can't. That's a movie fantasy.

SymphonyX

June 6th, 2008, 09:59 PM

Wars will not end and all we want is peace and that will never happen.

I hope I don't get banned like before but to me it's true and I blaim religion and politics but what can we do? Us normal innocent people just have to live with it and let the world get torn apart in front of us.

Wont you have to sing.....................another song of freedom.

That's why I want to be friends with Vulgotha but he won't let me.

lintama

June 6th, 2008, 09:59 PM

And to the real question "How would it end?" Like this:

There will be a "powder keg event" and Isreal/US strikes at Iran. Note: this will NOT happen until the Olympics are over, so we haev to wait till end of August. Anyway, as soon as we pop off, China wipes Taiwan off the map, using us going to war with Iran as their excuse(Rouge State). China stays out of it for the most part but levies heavy tarrifs on goods exported to U.S. They secretly suppli weapons to Iran through N. Korea via Russian territory. N. Korea begins to attack S. Korea, furthering the chaos. WWIII ensues, Bush won't leave office, declares Martial Law orders detainment of all Muslim citizens, Mexicans, and Black American Muslims. Civil War erupts in America, mostly citizens vs. The Law.

The Dollar finally collapses, giving the US the excuse it needs to declare bankruptcy, and introduces the Amero see: http://www.spp.gov , needing a fast end to the debacale nuclear weapons are used against Iran, Syria, Lebanon, possibly Russia, but, probably not. Why? Because the Russians and the US are actually the two biggest allies in the world, planning to rule the East/West hemisphere, but, thats a different story.

lintama

June 6th, 2008, 10:06 PM

i think he believes that starting a 3rd war will allow Bush to extend his 2 terms...

which he can't. That's a movie fantasy.

I don't mean to double post(if it happens) but yes he can. There are multiple provisions written into the Patriot Act that allow it. Also, if the country is in a state of Martial Law PRIOR to the November elections, those election can be suspended by presidential authority, and can stay in effect until lifted by the President.

BingBing

June 6th, 2008, 10:09 PM

God dam man. Asia is also making its own bling bling.

so we got euro, amero, Asian dollar?

DayWalker

June 6th, 2008, 10:09 PM

I don't mean to double post(if it happens) but yes he can. There are multiple provisions written into the Patriot Act that allow it. Also, if the country is in a state of Martial Law PRIOR to the November elections, those election can be suspended by presidential authority, and can stay in effect until lifted by the President.

mmmmmmmmmm...... I am pretty sure you can't...

isn't there a constitutional amendment after FDR that specifically forbids that...

I am 99% certain....

GhostFox61

June 6th, 2008, 10:15 PM

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 10:31 PM

That's why I want to be friends with Vulgotha but he won't let me.

Whoa what? We're friends! Did I say something that implied we're not?

@ Daywalker: You're absolutely correct. So far as I know it is disallowed.

SymphonyX

June 6th, 2008, 10:32 PM

Whoa what? Lol? We're friends! Did I say something that implied we're not?

No but you never confirmed it:mrgreen: Now I know that we are! :heart:

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 10:33 PM

Pfff I've always been cool with you.

Dorfdad

June 6th, 2008, 10:34 PM

Wars will not end and all we want is peace and that will never happen.

I hope I don't get banned like before but to me it's true and I blaim religion and politics but what can we do? Us normal innocent people just have to live with it and let the world get torn apart in front of us.

Wont you have to sing.....................another song of freedom.

Stony thats pretty sad to say that, we the people have a collective voice and while in the US we can vote out policy's and vote in others..

Problem is most people do not focus on these things and never vote but sit back and ***** and complain.

lintama

June 6th, 2008, 10:53 PM

Heres a link that explains it, sorry if I'm the first to break this to you, its actually very sad. I wish I could continue but, I gotta go to work making Ice Cream!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/230507martiallaw.htm

Im sure there is more info, but, I don't have time to look into it. I'll do it when I get home.

Sventax

June 6th, 2008, 11:21 PM

People. Egypt and Syria are USA allies like Turkey(on a certain level).
Because I think at sometime they will turn their back to the USA. This will take at least 15 years before they decide what to do with the USA (until they get a green light form the EU to join the EU). Their army is not to be trivialed with, as they also have a 1 million head counted ground defence force willing to kill like Atta Turk.

The Iranian army has over 1 million foot soldiers.
Their fleet of aircrafts is very large http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm

I am afraid that the Iranian army is very strong.
They make no empty threats as his stance is very clearly. He is buying time to build his arsenal. If he is finished, Iran will be a force to recon with. The only leverage they need are the nukes.

Obama is out to seek peace.

"Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking," Obama said. "But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing, if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States. That is my position. I want it to be absolutely clear."

NO you can't attack a country!!
Attacking a country with no prove is even more ridiculous.
Attacking a country that has done you no direct harm is stupid. As I am sure that Iran will go full tilt

Vulgotha

June 6th, 2008, 11:22 PM

..And the alternative is:

Wait until they become a true thread and therefore risking a nuclear assault on Israel. The cost of thousands of lives.

..

Well to me personally Iran has already reached the "Hey I'm a big threat" level.

Sventax

June 6th, 2008, 11:41 PM

Vulgotha I don't believe Iran will nuke Israel.
They will use this as leverage to free palestina grounds and to secure peace between Israel and Lebanon. Iran has no interest in Israel. They are not even neighbours.

So you would take the risk of taking out bunkers and let it escalate to a full scale war that may take several months or leave it at a stance and let the small problems be worked out so the big problems can be rendered useless because two equal forces mean nothing if the chance of both being obliterated is very possible.
Iran will take other countries with them until they have no prove of them having a fighting chance.

Iraq will help? the Koerdish people might get a piece of land in Iran if they help Ahmadijin fight against the USA in Iraq. It can only go the terrible way and not the right way.

StoneyPS3

June 6th, 2008, 11:49 PM

Stony thats pretty sad to say that, we the people have a collective voice and while in the US we can vote out policy's and vote in others..

Problem is most people do not focus on these things and never vote but sit back and ***** and complain.

I hear ya man, I hear ya. I voted on the last election but it got nowhere off course and everybody voted labour which now most regret and the next election I can pretty much say that labour will not win it.

All we want it freedom no redemption and world peace, we are people we all have the right to live it so let people live it and be happy and make the world a greater place.

GhostFox61

June 7th, 2008, 12:05 AM

Vulgotha I don't believe Iran will nuke Israel.
They will use this as leverage to free palestina grounds and to secure peace between Israel and Lebanon.

Why would they be interested in that?

One-Shot

June 7th, 2008, 07:47 AM

3) The only reason for the U.S to go to war right now is so Pres Bush doesn't give up the presidency by declaration of martial law.

Heres a link that explains it, sorry if I'm the first to break this to you, its actually very sad. I wish I could continue but, I gotta go to work making Ice Cream!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...martiallaw.htm (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/230507martiallaw.htm)

Im sure there is more info, but, I don't have time to look into it. I'll do it when I get home.

http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/15894000/ngbbs47ed89a0e5238.jpg

Thanks for providing a link to ihavenocredibility.com

Right now I thing Israel is just having strong stance to show they won't take anything from Iran, but if proof does come of Iran in full development of a nuke they would definitely attack.

Vulgotha

June 7th, 2008, 07:52 AM

SymphonyX

June 7th, 2008, 07:54 AM

C'mon Iran can't be thhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaat bad.

Vulgotha

June 7th, 2008, 07:55 AM

http://lekowicz.com/wren_forum/wp-content/imageposts/2007/11/mushroom-cloud.jpg

Mr. Mushroom Cloud begs to differ with your assertion.

SymphonyX

June 7th, 2008, 07:56 AM

I hope I get to play MGS4 before they detonate those nukes. :shock:

Sventax

June 7th, 2008, 10:18 AM

The problem I have with "Dismissing" Nuclear weapon usage regarding Iran is this:

They're radical Islamic extremists. The most powerful person in all of Iran (and the Shia Muslim religion) is called the "Supreme Leader" who is supposed to be the Pope of Islam.

Whether or not the middlemerchant class dislikes their government- it doesn't matter.

They continually threaten to annihilate Israel, deny the holocaust, and in all probability they're funding terrorist cells.

"Reason" flies out the window with these guys.

I take it you have a strong point.

But this anti-Israel thing looks like ego because they have noting else.
What will happen if their is a balance? Will they keep threatening each other?
Mind you they have no leverage now, so the situation will be different when they do have it. They will continue trying until they have what they want. What if they have it will this please the whole country? People are flocking out of Iran because they are afraid of a coming war.
Very intelligent people, a lot of them are christians. War divides people in a country if they have different cultural values. This will cause a bigger wave of hate and more cells willing to sacrifice their life for freedom.

I say the leverage is needed to offset the current balance.
And ties with this country should be made to encourage a cultural revolution. hate will be answered with hate

lintama

June 7th, 2008, 10:11 PM

http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/15894000/ngbbs47ed89a0e5238.jpg

Thanks for providing a link to ihavenocredibility.com

Right now I thing Israel is just having strong stance to show they won't take anything from Iran, but if proof does come of Iran in full development of a nuke they would definitely attack.

Too bad you couldn't read far enough to get to this link.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Which is actually closer to www.nocredibility.com. Than any Alex Jones stuff. But, I see you are voting for McCain so, I'm guessing you have low critical thinking skills and are highly susceptible to brainwashing.

"Those who follow Washington blindly as sheep, will surely find themselves devoured by wolves."~Benjamin Franklin

"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."~Thomas Jefferson

"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."
~Thomas Jefferson

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe — I believe what I believe is right." —Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001
~George Bush

We've come along way.

lintama

June 7th, 2008, 10:26 PM

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

http://www.whitehouse.gov/imgs/release_tools_icons_rss.gif White House News (http://www.whitehouse.gov/rss/news.xml)

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20
Subject: National Continuity Policy
Purpose
(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.
Definitions
(2) In this directive:
(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;
(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;
(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;
(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;
(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;
(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and
(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.
Policy
(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.
Implementation Actions
(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.
(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:
(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;
(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;
(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;
(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;
(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;
(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and
(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.
(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.
(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.
(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.
(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.
(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.
(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:
(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;
(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;
(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;
(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;
(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;
(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and
(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.
(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.
(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:
(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;
(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and
(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.
(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:
(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;
(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and
(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.
(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:
(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and
(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.
(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;
(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;
(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;
(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;
(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;
(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and
(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.
(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.
(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.
(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:
(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;
(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;
(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;
(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and
(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities
General Provisions
(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.
(21) This directive:
(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;
(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and
(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.
(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.
(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.
GEORGE W. BUSH
# # #

coolguy

June 8th, 2008, 01:28 AM

america should just let Israel wipe iran off the map once and for all...
iran wants to destory Israel and other countys

Carsonal

June 8th, 2008, 11:31 AM

Don't worry about any kind of nuclear attacks.

Nuclear weaponry is obsolete.
Its being blocked and not permitted for use.

roadkill

June 8th, 2008, 02:13 PM

How will this end?

Let me play it out for you:

1) Israel will carry out the initial strike, hitting Irans nuclear facilities, which number around 80. Given that their facilities are buried up to 80ft under Earth and reenforced concrete, only tactical nuclear weapons will open them.

2) In turn, Israel creates not just another Chernobyl, but several. Let me just take a break, by adding some trivia:

- For one plant at Chernobyl, it took 6 Months to build a Sarcophagus and perform a cleanup, during peacetime.

- Here, we're talking about many nuclear intallations, that won't be freak accidents, but will be hit with extreme ordinance. Additionally, nobody will be able to fix them with a war worse than Vietnam raging.

3) The nuclear fallout that Israel created, by weapons paid for by the U.S. Taxpayer, without their consent, will spread wherever the weather takes it. Wind moving West today? 160,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq are screwed. East? They're screwed in Afghanistan. It could move as far as Europe. The effects of DU in 2003 reached Western Europe. Small in comparison.

4) Tehran is evacuated, it cannot be populated again for, oh, 1 Billion years? American Conservatives (such as you guys in this thread) and Israel stand in applaud. Not for long, mind.

5) Since Bush has sworn allegience to Israel, stating that he'll defend Israel even if they are the aggressor, America is now at war with Iran.

6) America strikes hundreds, thousands of targets in Iran.

7) Plans for a draft are discussed at the Pentagon. No, scratch that, they're already being discussed right now in June.

8) Arab Countries in panic at the fallout menace.

9) 160,000 Shia in Southern Iraq assault the American fuel line coming out of Kuwait.

10) 200,000 Militia in Southern Iraq, the Mahdi army, the Badr Brigade, charge forward to assault the American army in Baghdad. An army which has had extreme difficulty in dealing with 30,000 Sunnis. By dusk, they'll be facing a quarter of a million insurgents, with no logistics from Kuwait.

11) As the American army in Northern Iraq is surrounded, horrific pictures from the Atomic atrocitis in Iran reach Iraqi militants. Enraged, they show no mercy. None. They slaughter American GI's by the truckload.

12) Iranian Sunburn, exocet missiles, Chinese EM-52 mines, sunken tankers - all block the strait of Hormuz. The World loses 40% of its oil.

13) Iran shuts down its own oil output.

14) Iranian MRBM's pound the Greenzone in Iraq.

15) Iranian MRBM's pound coalition bases in Afghanistan.

16) Iranian MRBM's pound Israel.

17) Less than 24 hours in, the Americans fight to open the straits of Hormuz.

18) Iranian leaders argue over two issues:

a) Why the Dimona nuclear reactor in Israel, beneath which lies several hundred atomic weapons, has yet to be hit with guided MRBM's.

b) Whether or not to move several armoured Divisions, and over 1 million men into Iraq. The lack of air support decides against.

19) Iranian MRBM's assault oil wells and refineries all over the Middle East.

20) Western-trained Iranian special ops target oil wells that are immunde to MRBM's.

21) Hezbullah Sleeper cells in the USA activate themselves. A suicide bomber blows himself and 20 people to pieces in downtown Manhattan.

22) Said sleeper cells target U.S. Refiniries. Those they don't target, they call bombscares to.

23) Anthrax scares accross the U.S. grind blocks to a halt.

24) A suicide bomber detonates a bomb on London bridge.

25) Russia and China sabre rattle Israel/USA over what they have created. Russian forces are mobilised.

26) Within 71 hours, an estimated 10,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed. Untold numbers of Iranians are dead.

27) A sandstorm erupts along the Iranian border with Iraq.

28) It is decided to move two full armoured divisions, with 700,000 soldiers into Northern Iraq, under benefit of the sandstorm. The USAF is helpless against the move.

29) As the sandstorm clears, the Iranian army is already too close for USAF bombardment. Attack now, they'll hit their own forces.

30) With 200,000 insurgents, over half a million soldiers, several thousand tanks, the American army in Northern Iraq is finished. Washington panics.

31) Oil at $400 a barrell. Riots at gas stations.

32) A freighter off the West-Coast of the USA opens its hanger. On it, a Shahab III MRBM. It launches. It hits an American city directly. Its payload? Find out what nerve agents are like, at a city near you, Winter 2008.

This is just for starters. Just a taste of what we're about to get. Glad you all support this. Hope the Americans on the board are ready to fly out. Other items you must consider: Pakistan revolution, Russia, China taking advantage of America being busy...

Yeah, nice going.

lintama

June 8th, 2008, 09:57 PM

^^^What he said. Don't forget Bush's Government Continuation Act. Alot of people have a hard time wrapping their minds around the hypocrisy in the middle east. Sure, Iran has said they want to wipe out the state of Israel. But, its not because their Jews, its because of the silent holocoust they have been commiting for over 60 years, with our help of course. Most people don't even know that their are more Christians and Jews that live in Iran than in Israel. The whole situation is screwed up. Its okay for the Israelis to kill and displace over 2 Million Palistinian Christians and Muslims, because their Muslims or Christians and they don't deserve to live on the same dirt as they live on.

DayWalker

June 8th, 2008, 10:02 PM

Let me play it out for you:

1) Israel will carry out the initial strike, hitting Irans nuclear facilities, which number around 80. Given that their facilities are buried up to 80ft under Earth and reenforced concrete, only tactical nuclear weapons will open them.

2) In turn, Israel creates not just another Chernobyl, but several. Let me just take a break, by adding some trivia:

- For one plant at Chernobyl, it took 6 Months to build a Sarcophagus and perform a cleanup, during peacetime.

- Here, we're talking about many nuclear intallations, that won't be freak accidents, but will be hit with extreme ordinance. Additionally, nobody will be able to fix them with a war worse than Vietnam raging.

3) The nuclear fallout that Israel created, by weapons paid for by the U.S. Taxpayer, without their consent, will spread wherever the weather takes it. Wind moving West today? 160,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq are screwed. East? They're screwed in Afghanistan. It could move as far as Europe. The effects of DU in 2003 reached Western Europe. Small in comparison.

4) Tehran is evacuated, it cannot be populated again for, oh, 1 Billion years? American Conservatives (such as you guys in this thread) and Israel stand in applaud. Not for long, mind.

5) Since Bush has sworn allegience to Israel, stating that he'll defend Israel even if they are the aggressor, America is now at war with Iran.

6) America strikes hundreds, thousands of targets in Iran.

7) Plans for a draft are discussed at the Pentagon. No, scratch that, they're already being discussed right now in June.

8) Arab Countries in panic at the fallout menace.

9) 160,000 Shia in Southern Iraq assault the American fuel line coming out of Kuwait.

10) 200,000 Militia in Southern Iraq, the Mahdi army, the Badr Brigade, charge forward to assault the American army in Baghdad. An army which has had extreme difficulty in dealing with 30,000 Sunnis. By dusk, they'll be facing a quarter of a million insurgents, with no logistics from Kuwait.

11) As the American army in Northern Iraq is surrounded, horrific pictures from the Atomic atrocitis in Iran reach Iraqi militants. Enraged, they show no mercy. None. They slaughter American GI's by the truckload.

12) Iranian Sunburn, exocet missiles, Chinese EM-52 mines, sunken tankers - all block the strait of Hormuz. The World loses 40% of its oil.

13) Iran shuts down its own oil output.

14) Iranian MRBM's pound the Greenzone in Iraq.

15) Iranian MRBM's pound coalition bases in Afghanistan.

16) Iranian MRBM's pound Israel.

17) Less than 24 hours in, the Americans fight to open the straits of Hormuz.

18) Iranian leaders argue over two issues:

a) Why the Dimona nuclear reactor in Israel, beneath which lies several hundred atomic weapons, has yet to be hit with guided MRBM's.

b) Whether or not to move several armoured Divisions, and over 1 million men into Iraq. The lack of air support decides against.

19) Iranian MRBM's assault oil wells and refineries all over the Middle East.

20) Western-trained Iranian special ops target oil wells that are immunde to MRBM's.

21) Hezbullah Sleeper cells in the USA activate themselves. A suicide bomber blows himself and 20 people to pieces in downtown Manhattan.

22) Said sleeper cells target U.S. Refiniries. Those they don't target, they call bombscares to.

23) Anthrax scares accross the U.S. grind blocks to a halt.

24) A suicide bomber detonates a bomb on London bridge.

25) Russia and China sabre rattle Israel/USA over what they have created. Russian forces are mobilised.

26) Within 71 hours, an estimated 10,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed. Untold numbers of Iranians are dead.

27) A sandstorm erupts along the Iranian border with Iraq.

28) It is decided to move two full armoured divisions, with 700,000 soldiers into Northern Iraq, under benefit of the sandstorm. The USAF is helpless against the move.

29) As the sandstorm clears, the Iranian army is already too close for USAF bombardment. Attack now, they'll hit their own forces.

30) With 200,000 insurgents, over half a million soldiers, several thousand tanks, the American army in Northern Iraq is finished. Washington panics.

31) Oil at $400 a barrell. Riots at gas stations.

32) A freighter off the West-Coast of the USA opens its hanger. On it, a Shahab III MRBM. It launches. It hits an American city directly. Its payload? Find out what nerve agents are like, at a city near you, Winter 2008.

This is just for starters. Just a taste of what we're about to get. Glad you all support this. Hope the Americans on the board are ready to fly out. Other items you must consider: Pakistan revolution, Russia, China taking advantage of America being busy...

Yeah, nice going.

this would make a pretty good movie...

fiction of course ;)

ex nihilo7

June 8th, 2008, 11:55 PM

Let me play it out for you:

10) 200,000 Militia in Southern Iraq, the Mahdi army, the Badr Brigade, charge forward to assault the American army in Baghdad. An army which has had extreme difficulty in dealing with 30,000 Sunnis. By dusk, they'll be facing a quarter of a million insurgents, with no logistics from Kuwait.

11) As the American army in Northern Iraq is surrounded, horrific pictures from the Atomic atrocitis in Iran reach Iraqi militants. Enraged, they show no mercy. None. They slaughter American GI's by the truckload.

Wouldn't the airforce have something to say before 10 became 11?

DayWalker

June 9th, 2008, 12:50 AM

:lol:

roadkill... there is no force of conceivable coalition of forces in the middle east that can go toe to toe with the US military.

Period

lintama

June 9th, 2008, 01:14 PM

:lol:

roadkill... there is no force of conceivable coalition of forces in the middle east that can go toe to toe with the US military.

Period

An ss n 22 sunburn missile is capable of destroying an aircraft carrier without a nulear warhead. ONE of these can do it in a direct hit, three at not so good hits. The air force in the mid east would be reduced to rubble with out aircraft carriers. And with a Navy tied up in the Strait, I dont see how they get fuel to the ones on the ground in Iraq. Unless we have some F 16's that run on Pixie dust and broken dreams. I spent four years in the air force, so before you start any "im anti american" BS I thought I'd let you know. I have a military mind, and so do alot of the Generals who have retiered lately at the mere mention of war with Iran, maybe they know something you don't, imagine that.

Iran has HUNDREDS of these missiles, not to mention Thousands of javalin class cruise missiles they could throw at us for the hell of it. Israel does not care about you our your Goyum family. USS Liberty was proof of that.

roadkill

June 9th, 2008, 01:47 PM

:lol:

roadkill... there is no force of conceivable coalition of forces in the middle east that can go toe to toe with the US military.

Period

Is that why the American army is resorting to paying Sunni insurgents not to fight? Come back down to Earth. This isn't 1992. 5 years in Iraq has exhausted the U.S. Military. Even the National Guard is required to deal with the Sunni minority.

Wouldn't the airforce have something to say before 10 became 11?

Maybe I'll let your Airforce Vet field this one, but heres my take: You just can't annihilate the Southern half of Iraq. In order to get these guys, you'd have to kill every citizen in sight. You need to remember, this will be an asymmetrical war. Go around cutting up dozens of thousands of civilians - hours after you created a nuclear catastrophe, and you're going to get an unwanted response internationally.

Additionally, Shia insurgents will be armed with Misagh 1 and 2's, probably Mk III's as well. These will do to American choppers what Stingers did to Soviet Hinds. But nevermind these mere inconveniences - according to Daywalker this will probably be fiction too! :lol:

Actually, here it is, Misagh I...

YouTube - Iran Test fires Misagh-2 and Kowsar Missiles

Sunnis don't have this kind of hardware. They're working with iron-age equipment. They're relying on prayers, RPG's and Dushkas to hit U.S. choppers.

An ss n 22 sunburn missile is capable of destroying an aircraft carrier without a nulear warhead. ONE of these can do it in a direct hit, three at not so good hits. The air force in the mid east would be reduced to rubble with out aircraft carriers. And with a Navy tied up in the Strait, I dont see how they get fuel to the ones on the ground in Iraq. Unless we have some F 16's that run on Pixie dust and broken dreams. I spent four years in the air force, so before you start any "im anti american" BS I thought I'd let you know. I have a military mind, and so do alot of the Generals who have retiered lately at the mere mention of war with Iran, maybe they know something you don't, imagine that.

Iran has HUNDREDS of these missiles, not to mention Thousands of javalin class cruise missiles they could throw at us for the hell of it. Israel does not care about you our your Goyum family. USS Liberty was proof of that.

Thank God - an American in touch with reality. Maybe you can enlighten these keyboard warriors, who know everything about the Middle East, and know more about the military situation over there. You know these guys are going to call you a 'liberal' next, right? Thats also the scope of their political outlook.

DayWalker

June 9th, 2008, 04:24 PM

I remind you that war with iran is not going to be about building a democracy.
it will be about destroying Iran's ability to make war.

Missiles? great- they still have to be able to hit and aircraft carrier- somehow I think the US military is prepared to deal with Russia's old toys... but thats just me.

"Additionally, Shia insurgents will be armed with Misagh 1 and 2's, probably Mk III's as well."
yeah- those aren't going to touch any modern airforce- now it's my turn to remind you that it is no longer the 1980s.

Sorry y'all- while Iran's military is imposing- the only peeps that need to be worried is Israel.
While I doubt Iran's missiles are going to do much to US armed forces- that doesn't stop Iran from just casually tossing them up at Israel's civilian population.

I'm no sure but I would speculate that Patriot Missile turrets could take care of some of the problem... but I am not an expert there...

Sventax

June 9th, 2008, 05:07 PM

Iran could do Israel some damage. Until a coalition force is erected.
This is were the problems begin. Iranians are not the bad guys (except for the Ultra religious fanatics just like the ultra fanatics in ISrael)

Don't forget if Turkey join the Iranian coalition that they will have a state of the art army ready to do some real damage, but I am counting them out as they have much at stake, like being a member of the EU.

OldlandRed

June 9th, 2008, 05:11 PM

What coalition would be raised though? Israel has no strong allies in a Europe dominated by socialist governments

roadkill

June 9th, 2008, 07:27 PM

I remind you that war with iran is not going to be about building a democracy.
it will be about destroying Iran's ability to make war.

In my 32 points above, which you ignored, where did I say an invasion would take place? Those points were the direct result of an aerial assault.

Missiles? great- they still have to be able to hit and aircraft carrier- somehow I think the US military is prepared to deal with Russia's old toys... but thats just me.

1) There is no ship in existence with the defence capabilities required to stop Yakhonts Missiles.

2) Irans anti ship missiles can be launched from land, sea and air. Including fighter jets, trucks, civilian freighters etc etc.

Sorry y'all- while Iran's military is imposing- the only peeps that need to be worried is Israel.

I have already outlined the devastation it will create for America. Of course, you choose to dismiss it all as 'fiction'.

While I doubt Iran's missiles are going to do much to US armed forces

1) Iran has anti ship missiles for which U.S. Ships have no defence.

2) Iran has AA Missiles for which U.S. aircraft have no defence.

3) Iran has ATGM's, which the M1A2's armour is incapable of withstanding from the front.

that doesn't stop Iran from just casually tossing them up at Israel's civilian population.

Given that the U.S./Israel will first target Iran civilian population, you can dismiss this. Its called a reprisal rate.

I'm no sure but I would speculate that Patriot Missile turrets could take care of some of the problem... but I am not an expert there...

Patriot Missiles are overated. They were useless against even older more primitive SCUDs, which are nowhere near comparable to the Shahab III. Ever hear of SCUD hunting? In 1991, the Patriot battery was inneffective, forcing the Coalition to search for the actual launchers.

Iran could do Israel some damage. Until a coalition force is erected.
This is were the problems begin. Iranians are not the bad guys (except for the Ultra religious fanatics just like the ultra fanatics in ISrael)

Don't forget if Turkey join the Iranian coalition that they will have a state of the art army ready to do some real damage, but I am counting them out as they have much at stake, like being a member of the EU.

No Coalition force will assist America or Israel. The UK will offer token assistance. The French Government will attempt to get involved, but the art of French striking will put a stop to that. As for Turkey, they'd never help Iran. Although I'm sure they'll take advantage and move into Northern Iraq under the guise of assaulting Kurdish rebels.

DayWalker

June 9th, 2008, 08:05 PM

In my 32 points above, which you ignored, where did I say an invasion would take place? Those points were the direct result of an aerial assault.

1) There is no ship in existence with the defence capabilities required to stop Yakhonts Missiles.

2) Irans anti ship missiles can be launched from land, sea and air. Including fighter jets, trucks, civilian freighters etc etc.

I have already outlined the devastation it will create for America. Of course, you choose to dismiss it all as 'fiction'.

1) Iran has anti ship missiles for which U.S. Ships have no defence.

2) Iran has AA Missiles for which U.S. aircraft have no defence.

3) Iran has ATGM's, which the M1A2's armour is incapable of withstanding from the front.

Given that the U.S./Israel will first target Iran civilian population, you can dismiss this. Its called a reprisal rate.

Patriot Missiles are overated. They were useless against even older more primitive SCUDs, which are nowhere near comparable to the Shahab III. Ever hear of SCUD hunting? In 1991, the Patriot battery was inneffective, forcing the Coalition to search for the actual launchers.

No Coalition force will assist America or Israel. The UK will offer token assistance. The French Government will attempt to get involved, but the art of French striking will put a stop to that. As for Turkey, they'd never help Iran. Although I'm sure they'll take advantage and move into Northern Iraq under the guise of assaulting Kurdish rebels.

wow... I never realized the US military was so impotent... :roll:

you act like we have choice but to drive/fly right into Iran's strengths...

our airforce would decimate Iran's ability to make war in 10 days flat...
I don't know what AA weaponry you're referring to... but I'd really like to see them take down the USAF stealth fighters, B2 Bombers, f-22s... etc.

The US would have air superiority in a matter of weeks...

And then its pretty much over...

your 32 pt wet dream has so many holes in it... i can't even bother to address it.

:lol:
I almost wish we would attack iran just to prove you wrong!!!

Anyways... enough of these hypotheticals...

Vulgotha

June 9th, 2008, 08:24 PM

DayWalker

June 9th, 2008, 08:27 PM

^ Daywalker is entirely correct.

Roadkill, you actually think Iran's military would stand agaisnt us for more then..2 weeks? If we decided to do this all out, both biceps flexed Iran would be obliterated.

in two weeks the entire Iranian army would be blind, deaf, and dumb due to American and Israeli air power.

then is just a matter of locating them... and dropping something on them.

And then like I said before- Iran would respond by hurling their missiles at civilian populations (just like Saddam did) which of course we have prepared for well in advance...

Vulgotha

June 9th, 2008, 08:30 PM

They'd be hit so hard and fast they'd be in total pandemonium before they realize what's going on.

As if fighting us wouldn't be bad enough, they also have to answer to Israel at the same time.

Those guys don't play games.

roadkill

June 9th, 2008, 08:40 PM

Come on you two, quit dodging the points I'm making...

our airforce would decimate Iran's ability to make war in 10 days flat...

1) How can it eliminate what it can't see?

2) How can it attack with no carriers?

3) How can it distinguish between regular and irregular?

I don't know what AA weaponry you're referring to... but I'd really like to see them take down the USAF stealth fighters, B2 Bombers, f-22s... etc.

A stealth fighter, B-2 bomber and F-22 are all useless in the situation America will face. You don't even know what the term assymetrical warfare means, do you?

The US would have air superiority in a matter of weeks...

Air superiority against what? This won't be a conventional war. Ever hear of the 2006 war in Lebanon? What exactly did $48,000,000 Israeli jets (Paid for by you) do to stop Israels defeat? Nothing.

your 32 pt wet dream has so many holes in it... i can't even bother to address it.

In other words, you can't address it.

Anyways... enough of these hypotheticals...

Bailing, are you? Thats probably a good idea. You're in over your head. This isn't Marvel Comics.

^ Daywalker is entirely correct.

Roadkill, you actually think Iran's military would stand agaisnt us for more then..2 weeks? If we decided to do this all out, both biceps flexed Iran would be obliterated.

Oh really? Then tell me how it will happen. I also notice you too ignore the points you simply don't like. Such as, how does the U.S. army in Iraq deal with 200,000 well equipped insurgents after starting the war, when it can't even deal with 30,000 ill-equipped insurgents?

But anyway, go ahead - outline how this 'obliteration' will go down.

in two weeks the entire Iranian army would be blind, deaf, and dumb due to American and Israeli air power.

then is just a matter of locating them... and dropping something on them.

In five years, nevermind two weeks, this hasn't subdued Iraq. How will it work in Iran, a Country three times as big/stong, in two weeks? Airpower has never, ever won a war.

Vulgotha

June 9th, 2008, 08:52 PM

We conquered Iraq's formal military Roadkill. What we're dealing with is insurgency. Believe it or not, there is a difference.

What is happening now is Guerrilla warfare with Islamic extremists. Not Iraqi military remnants.

DayWalker

June 9th, 2008, 09:02 PM

Come on you two, quit dodging the points I'm making...

1) How can it eliminate what it can't see?

2) How can it attack with no carriers?

3) How can it distinguish between regular and irregular?

A stealth fighter, B-2 bomber and F-22 are all useless in the situation America will face. You don't even know what the term assymetrical warfare means, do you?

Air superiority against what? This won't be a conventional war. Ever hear of the 2006 war in Lebanon? What exactly did $48,000,000 Israeli jets (Paid for by you) do to stop Israels defeat? Nothing.

In other words, you can't address it.

Bailing, are you? Thats probably a good idea. You're in over your head. This isn't Marvel Comics.

Oh really? Then tell me how it will happen. I also notice you too ignore the points you simply don't like. Such as, how does the U.S. army in Iraq deal with 200,000 well equipped insurgents after starting the war, when it can't even deal with 30,000 ill-equipped insurgents?

But anyway, go ahead - outline how this 'obliteration' will go down.

In five years, nevermind two weeks, this hasn't subdued Iraq. How will it work in Iran, a Country three times as big/stong, in two weeks? Airpower has never, ever won a war.

this isn't an Iraq 2000 war... its and iraq 1990 war.

No occupation. just an *** whoopin and a bunch of no-fly zones imposed all over the country- and the occasional bombing when I ran forgets the rules of the surrender/cease fire.

Iran can have the country- just like Saddam got to keep Iraq after the Gulf War.
No insurgency, no nation building, no setting up a governement and rebuilding the military. Just wham bam thank you come again.

1) the US will attack with carriers- I'd love to see Iran stop them
2) we also have air-strips in Turkey, Germany, Saudi Arabia, kuwait, Iraq.... oh and Missouri (B2's base) . :roll:
3) regular/irregular- does it matter? it's not like we have a shortage of bombs...

Last I checked- Israel got scolded for kicking *** a little too hard in 2006... I missed the "defeat"

Roadkill if you really wanna see how the air superiority will go down- I suggest you review the first gulf war...

roadkill

June 9th, 2008, 09:25 PM

We conquered Iraq's formal military Roadkill. What we're dealing with is insurgency. Believe it or not, there is a difference.

Yet you still can't answer my question, let me ask it again:

- If the U.S. army is having great difficulty with 30,000 poorly trained, poorly equipped insurgents, how will it deal with 200,000+? The war with Iran will be comparable to Vietnam - i.e. an assymetrical mixture of conventional and attritional warfare.

What is happening now is Guerrilla warfare with Islamic extremists. Not Iraqi military remnants.

1) Where did I say they were Iraqi remnants?

2) They aren't extremists. They're for the most part Iraqis, a lot of them former soldiers.

this isn't an Iraq 2000 war... its and iraq 1990 war.

I'm sorry, but what?

No occupation. just an *** whoopin and a bunch of no-fly zones imposed all over the country- and the occasional bombing when I ran forgets the rules of the surrender/cease fire.

Sorry, but in english...

Iran can have the country- just like Saddam got to keep Iraq after the Gulf War.

What do you mean by this? Are you finally admitting Iran can and will overun Iraq if you launch aerial strikes against them?

1) the US will attack with carriers- I'd love to see Iran stop them

Simple, with Yakhonts missiles, for which U.S. Carriers have no defence. Did you know that in 2002, wargames were conducted by the U.S. miltiary, where OPFOR was Iran, using unconventional techniques? Did you know that OPFOR won, and that the U.S. lost several carriers?

2) we also have air-strips in Turkey, Germany, Saudi Arabia, kuwait, Iraq.... oh and Missouri (B2's base)

Indeed. Now, how many have agreed to permit the U.S. to launch such a strike from their Country? Bush did a tour of the Middle East recently, he was basically shown the door. And how do you fly sorties all the way from Germany?

3) regular/irregular- does it matter? it's not like we have a shortage of bombs...

Well lets analyse your preposterous scenario. The American army will be facing 200,000 insurgents, at least, not counting the 30,000 Sunnis. Let us say that for every insurgent, there are 10 civilians around him. In order to neutralise the threat, you must kill 2,000,000 people. Within a week. Do that, and America will be hit with so many sanctions, it'll be driven back to the stone age.

Not to mention, said insurgents will be carrying lethal anti aircraft missiles.

Last I checked- Israel got scolded for kicking *** a little too hard in 2006... I missed the "defeat"

LOL, Israel wasn't defeated? Even the most hopelessly clueless American Conservative doesn't maintain this. I'm surprised you even know which war I'm talking about. Israel was chewed up and spat out. The Kornet made mincemeat out of dozens of Merkava IV tanks. Which incidentally, is the best tank on Earth.

By the way, how will the Abrams fair in Northern Iraq against the Kornet, after you attack Iran? Up untill now, its been facing iron-age RPG's only....

Roadkill if you really wanna see how the air superiority will go down- I suggest you review the first gulf war...

Let me point out the obvious, and not so obvious:

1) Saddams airforce didn't even attempt to fight

2) The only ground forces the Americans actually fought were conscripts. By the time the American army arrived to confront Saddams army, all of his regular forces, and 90% of his Republican Guard had fled accross the border. The conscripts were told to hold the American army off untill Saddams main army made a break, or face the consequences.

The end result was masses of conscripts surrendering to even TV reporters.

Sventax

June 9th, 2008, 09:33 PM

almost a million of these conscripts were lured into this war. They were forced into this war even if they had no training. At one point you had the Americans waiting on the other end were Saddam's army....the choice was difficult.

I met a few of these conscripts and their life was a hell, they hate(d) Saddam, but the Americans even more.

DayWalker

June 9th, 2008, 09:53 PM

Yet you still can't answer my question, let me ask it again:

- If the U.S. army is having great difficulty with 30,000 poorly trained, poorly equipped insurgents, how will it deal with 200,000+? The war with Iran will be comparable to Vietnam - i.e. an assymetrical mixture of conventional and attritional warfare.

1) Where did I say they were Iraqi remnants?

2) They aren't extremists. They're for the most part Iraqis, a lot of them former soldiers.

I'm sorry, but what?

Sorry, but in english...

Iran will not be a repeat of the 2003 Iraq war. it will be more similar to the Gulf War of the 90s.
Hence "No oc