Well we all know more of our countrymen are going to be in another war, probably by Christmas, this time against the Iranians.
Tactics this time? My guess is a "limited" nuclear attack with several months of carpet bombing.
The propoganda will start in earnest soon...to make us froth at the teeth with desire to quell the heathen Iranian infidels!
Well fellow citizen not quite. I hear it at my poker nights!
"limited" nuclear attacks can also be a euphemism for any things.
Scene 1....we bomb a nuclear installation with conventional bombs and it explodes in nuclear fission (well thats what we'll all be told happened)....when in fact a nuke was really targeted and deployed by our forces.
It will have to be an air and missile war, quick, super high enemy kill rates (like the 1st Iraqi war turkey shoot)....yes we are sick of war, when our combatants are getting slaughtered, but when we are doing the slaughtering...yipppeeee
Originally posted by sasquatch672What do you mean we will be? aren't we now.
We will be the enemy of the world if we use nuclear weapons in a first strike against a country that did not attack us and does not have nuclear weapons.
Look here pup we covered up the mass murdering we committed in the Philippines. We slaughtered 500,000 - 600,000 of them!
we nuked Japan and everyone loved us.
Once we get a newby bunch of PR manipulators we'll be right.
Have faith in our leaders' abilities to manipulate, coerce and subjugate!
Bush and co know that now is the time to strike. Once the Brits are brought off (Blair is easy) and the Chinese and Russians it'll be sweet.
I don't know what America will do, I'm pretty sure they wont invade Iran as this would not be sensible. I think that the most sensible option, and the one which will probably be carried out in the end, is to precision bomb Iran's 12 nuclear processing plants. This will make Iran's mad leaders furious and Iranian youths will cry for death to America, but this is nothing new, if Iran is prevented from building nukes then they will be incapable of revenge. Therefore, this course of action would not result in a war, just more of the same old America-bashing which we see anyway.
Originally posted by scorppionA nuclear power installation can't "blow up". If the core overheats and goes critical, it turns into a super hot molten mass, but it doesn't result in a nuclear explosion.
Well fellow citizen not quite. I hear it at my poker nights!
"limited" nuclear attacks can also be a euphemism for any things.
Scene 1....we bomb a nuclear installation with conventional bombs and it explodes in nuclear fission (well thats what we'll all be told happened)....when in fact a nuke was really targeted and deployed by our forces.
It ...[text shortened]... en our combatants are getting slaughtered, but when we are doing the slaughtering...yipppeeee
Originally posted by sasquatch672I stand corrected. However I do not change my position that the best course of action is to knock out Iran's nuclear progran with conventional weapons, we know Iran are attempting to develop nuclear weapons and I believe they will have them fairly soon, they've already succeeded in enriching their Uranium. I think that the necessity and advantages of destroying Iran's nuclear plants would certainly outweigh the reprecussions and the disadvantages.
Incapable of revenge? They'll launch Hamas operatives all over the world to blow things up. That's when you'll start to see terrorism back in the United States. They can close the Strait of Hormuz and sink any U.S. warship that sails inside of it with a 220-mph torpedo. Oil will go to $300 a barrel and cripple the U.S. economy. Iran is not Iraq. T ...[text shortened]... ngagement and diplomacy is the right path for Iran. I believe the author to be correct.
Originally posted by sasquatch672I guarantee you that the US will attack Iran within the next 6 months. Polls have shown that the American people consider nukes in the hands of those lunatic mullahs more of a threat than Iraq was. I agree with that logic. I never thought we should have gone into Iraq. We destroyed Saddams Army in 91. We should have gone into Iran and leveled the place instead of trying to be policemen in a post-war Iraq. If you think that Israel is gonna just sit idly by and listen to that nut declaring that he will destroy Israel and not do anything then you had better wakeup. What is a bigger nightmare? Iran with a Nuke threatning the US or 40% of the American people pissed because we destroyed Irans nuclear capability?
I'm willing to just about guaran-damn-tee you the US will not engage Iran militarily in the next three years. Why? For several reasons. First, Americans are war-weary. We're tired of Iraq; no number of rah-rah pep rallies by this administration, however well-coordinated, will cause American passions to rise for attacking a second country that did no ...[text shortened]... military attack on Iran is an absolute nightmare scenario. It won't be allowed to happen.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Well what should we do? From your statement I guess we should just stick our heads in the sand and just roll over and crap our pants because of Hamas.
Incapable of revenge? They'll launch Hamas operatives all over the world to blow things up. That's when you'll start to see terrorism back in the United States. They can close the Strait of Hormuz and sink any U.S. warship that sails inside of it with a 220-mph torpedo. Oil will go to $300 a barrel and cripple the U.S. economy. Iran is not Iraq. T ...[text shortened]... ngagement and diplomacy is the right path for Iran. I believe the author to be correct.
