How Iran would retaliate if it comes to war

[HAL 9000 96]

Well I guess you should be the one to push the button to nuke 'em all to high noon since that is apparently the only way to get rid of them all. May I remind you that plenty of innocents would die, right? I'd prefer to use diplomacy.

That brings me to a previous question... if we did that we could steak their oil but would have to decontaminate it... who's interested?

What common ground do with have with Iran that would be the basis for diplomacy, considering Ahmadinejad's stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, and his looking to a future without the existence of the U.S.?

I think, given our diplomatic power, something like telling the squirt to "STFU with all that nonsense or your Presidency will reach an untimely end."

I mean, that is diplomatic, is it not?

Doesn't that involve the threat of military action and the willingness to follow through with it, the very thing instead of which you prefer to use diplomacy?

It can also involve severe economic sanctions that tend to push for sociopolitical changes. Somewhat different from being belligerent.

Sure beats invading on one claim and then changing the story to another.

[mawilson 2,133]

I think, given our diplomatic power, something like telling the squirt to "STFU with all that nonsense or your Presidency will reach an untimely end."

I mean, that is diplomatic, is it not?

It is. Let's say we do that and he says

"Fukc off Obama, no-one threatens the mighty nation of Iran! We will destroy the Zionist regime

and you, the Great Satan, are next!"

What do you suggest we do next?

[GaryC 7]

Like I said, assuming. I guess (to put it in realistic context) you'd need actual proof and their use would be intentionally hostile, none of which have materialized to this date...

Again we remind ourselves of the country next door...

There is very little doubt of what they are doing. When you consider the public statements of their leader their intent also leaves little room for doubt.

And that is not proof. Wars to destroy first strike capabilities are waged when the intended target has them.

Back in 1992 OBL declared war on us. We didn't take him seriously. We got 9/11 for our mistake. In 2003 Saddam did his best to make us think he had WMD's. This time we took him seriously and he got what he deserved. Lybia got that memo and gave up it's ambitions for WMD's, came clean and now can live without any threat from us. Iran apparently didn't get that memo. If the nut jobs that run that country continue to make us believe that he is working on a bomb then we will deliver that memo strapped to the nose of our weapons.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think, given our diplomatic power, something like telling the squirt to "STFU with all that nonsense or your Presidency will reach an untimely end."

I mean, that is diplomatic, is it not?

It is. Let's say we do that and he says

"Fukc off Obama, no-one threatens the mighty nation of Iran! We will destroy the Zionist regime

and you, the Great Satan, are next!"

What do you suggest we do next?

Great question. Would we be petty enough to play that game?

Like I suggested to Scott... its not all bullets and bombs, is it?

Of course, if the nutjob decides to try something silly like attacking us... well. Too bad for him. I'd still think that, putting it into a present-day context, he'd be taken out using actual intelligence data instead of in a blitzkrieg attack from us.

Like I said, assuming. I guess (to put it in realistic context) you'd need actual proof and their use would be intentionally hostile, none of which have materialized to this date...

Again we remind ourselves of the country next door...

There is very little doubt of what they are doing. When you consider the public statements of their leader their intent also leaves little room for doubt.

And that is not proof. Wars to destroy first strike capabilities are waged when the intended target has them.

Back in 1992 OBL declared war on us. We didn't take him seriously. We got 9/11 for our mistake. In 2003 Saddam did his best to make us think he had WMD's. This time we took him seriously and he got what he deserved. Lybia got that memo and gave up it's ambitions for WMD's, came clean and now can live without any threat from us. Iran apparently didn't get that memo. If the nut jobs that run that country continue to make us believe that he is working on a bomb then we will deliver that memo strapped to the nose of our weapons.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.

We knew Saddam did not have WMDs.

We also know that of Iran. The rest is partisan politics, Gary.

[GaryC 7]

I think, given our diplomatic power, something like telling the squirt to "STFU with all that nonsense or your Presidency will reach an untimely end."

I mean, that is diplomatic, is it not?

It is. Let's say we do that and he says

"Fukc off Obama, no-one threatens the mighty nation of Iran! We will destroy the Zionist regime

and you, the Great Satan, are next!"

What do you suggest we do next?

Great question. Would we be petty enough to play that game?

Like I suggested to Scott... its not all bullets and bombs, is it?

Of course, if the nutjob decides to try something silly like attacking us... well. Too bad for him. I'd still think that, putting it into a present-day context, he'd be taken out using actual intelligence data instead of in a blitzkrieg attack from us.

Like I said, assuming. I guess (to put it in realistic context) you'd need actual proof and their use would be intentionally hostile, none of which have materialized to this date...

Again we remind ourselves of the country next door...

There is very little doubt of what they are doing. When you consider the public statements of their leader their intent also leaves little room for doubt.

And that is not proof. Wars to destroy first strike capabilities are waged when the intended target has them.

Back in 1992 OBL declared war on us. We didn't take him seriously. We got 9/11 for our mistake. In 2003 Saddam did his best to make us think he had WMD's. This time we took him seriously and he got what he deserved. Lybia got that memo and gave up it's ambitions for WMD's, came clean and now can live without any threat from us. Iran apparently didn't get that memo. If the nut jobs that run that country continue to make us believe that he is working on a bomb then we will deliver that memo strapped to the nose of our weapons.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.

We knew Saddam did not have WMDs.

We also know that of Iran. The rest is partisan politics, Gary.

We know Iran doesn't? Pray tell, how do we know that?

[HAL 9000 96]

I think, given our diplomatic power, something like telling the squirt to "STFU with all that nonsense or your Presidency will reach an untimely end."

I mean, that is diplomatic, is it not?

It is. Let's say we do that and he says

"Fukc off Obama, no-one threatens the mighty nation of Iran! We will destroy the Zionist regime

and you, the Great Satan, are next!"

What do you suggest we do next?

Great question. Would we be petty enough to play that game?

Like I suggested to Scott... its not all bullets and bombs, is it?

Of course, if the nutjob decides to try something silly like attacking us... well. Too bad for him. I'd still think that, putting it into a present-day context, he'd be taken out using actual intelligence data instead of in a blitzkrieg attack from us.

Like I said, assuming. I guess (to put it in realistic context) you'd need actual proof and their use would be intentionally hostile, none of which have materialized to this date...

Again we remind ourselves of the country next door...

There is very little doubt of what they are doing. When you consider the public statements of their leader their intent also leaves little room for doubt.

And that is not proof. Wars to destroy first strike capabilities are waged when the intended target has them.

Back in 1992 OBL declared war on us. We didn't take him seriously. We got 9/11 for our mistake. In 2003 Saddam did his best to make us think he had WMD's. This time we took him seriously and he got what he deserved. Lybia got that memo and gave up it's ambitions for WMD's, came clean and now can live without any threat from us. Iran apparently didn't get that memo. If the nut jobs that run that country continue to make us believe that he is working on a bomb then we will deliver that memo strapped to the nose of our weapons.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.

We knew Saddam did not have WMDs.

We also know that of Iran. The rest is partisan politics, Gary.

We know Iran doesn't? Pray tell, how do we know that?

Because our intelligence agencies are not as flawed as some would love to have us think. If Iran was anywhere near putting together an ICBM or even a short-range missile with a nuclear payload, we'd be able to detect it fairly easily.

[GaryC 7]

I think, given our diplomatic power, something like telling the squirt to "STFU with all that nonsense or your Presidency will reach an untimely end."

I mean, that is diplomatic, is it not?

It is. Let's say we do that and he says

"Fukc off Obama, no-one threatens the mighty nation of Iran! We will destroy the Zionist regime

and you, the Great Satan, are next!"

What do you suggest we do next?

Great question. Would we be petty enough to play that game?

Like I suggested to Scott... its not all bullets and bombs, is it?

Of course, if the nutjob decides to try something silly like attacking us... well. Too bad for him. I'd still think that, putting it into a present-day context, he'd be taken out using actual intelligence data instead of in a blitzkrieg attack from us.

Like I said, assuming. I guess (to put it in realistic context) you'd need actual proof and their use would be intentionally hostile, none of which have materialized to this date...

Again we remind ourselves of the country next door...

There is very little doubt of what they are doing. When you consider the public statements of their leader their intent also leaves little room for doubt.

And that is not proof. Wars to destroy first strike capabilities are waged when the intended target has them.

Back in 1992 OBL declared war on us. We didn't take him seriously. We got 9/11 for our mistake. In 2003 Saddam did his best to make us think he had WMD's. This time we took him seriously and he got what he deserved. Lybia got that memo and gave up it's ambitions for WMD's, came clean and now can live without any threat from us. Iran apparently didn't get that memo. If the nut jobs that run that country continue to make us believe that he is working on a bomb then we will deliver that memo strapped to the nose of our weapons.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.

We knew Saddam did not have WMDs.

We also know that of Iran. The rest is partisan politics, Gary.

We know Iran doesn't? Pray tell, how do we know that?

Because our intelligence agencies are not as flawed as some would love to have us think. If Iran was anywhere near putting together an ICBM or even a short-range missile with a nuclear payload, we'd be able to detect it fairly easily.

Your changing the definitions. Iran is working towards a nuclear weapon. That much is very clear. They are also test firing long range missles. Now, I am no scientist but I can put 2 and 2 together. Or are you suggesting that we wait until they fire one at us before you have the necessary "proof" to act? The idea is to prevent an attack, not retaliate after the fact.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think, given our diplomatic power, something like telling the squirt to "STFU with all that nonsense or your Presidency will reach an untimely end."

I mean, that is diplomatic, is it not?

It is. Let's say we do that and he says

"Fukc off Obama, no-one threatens the mighty nation of Iran! We will destroy the Zionist regime

and you, the Great Satan, are next!"

What do you suggest we do next?

Great question. Would we be petty enough to play that game?

Like I suggested to Scott... its not all bullets and bombs, is it?

Of course, if the nutjob decides to try something silly like attacking us... well. Too bad for him. I'd still think that, putting it into a present-day context, he'd be taken out using actual intelligence data instead of in a blitzkrieg attack from us.

Like I said, assuming. I guess (to put it in realistic context) you'd need actual proof and their use would be intentionally hostile, none of which have materialized to this date...

Again we remind ourselves of the country next door...

There is very little doubt of what they are doing. When you consider the public statements of their leader their intent also leaves little room for doubt.

And that is not proof. Wars to destroy first strike capabilities are waged when the intended target has them.

Back in 1992 OBL declared war on us. We didn't take him seriously. We got 9/11 for our mistake. In 2003 Saddam did his best to make us think he had WMD's. This time we took him seriously and he got what he deserved. Lybia got that memo and gave up it's ambitions for WMD's, came clean and now can live without any threat from us. Iran apparently didn't get that memo. If the nut jobs that run that country continue to make us believe that he is working on a bomb then we will deliver that memo strapped to the nose of our weapons.

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.

We knew Saddam did not have WMDs.

We also know that of Iran. The rest is partisan politics, Gary.

We know Iran doesn't? Pray tell, how do we know that?

Because our intelligence agencies are not as flawed as some would love to have us think. If Iran was anywhere near putting together an ICBM or even a short-range missile with a nuclear payload, we'd be able to detect it fairly easily.

Your changing the definitions. Iran is working towards a nuclear weapon. That much is very clear. They are also test firing long range missles. Now, I am no scientist but I can put 2 and 2 together. Or are you suggesting that we wait until they fire one at us before you have the necessary "proof" to act? The idea is to prevent an attack, not retaliate after the fact.

What definitions, Gary, the thread's? Sure, I guess that could be the case. Sorry for basing the discussion, in that case, in a little reality. After looking at the OP, nowhere is there any mention that is the case.

Partisan politics says Iran is working towards a nuclear weapon, as do you. Reality says otherwise.

But in the case they decided to be stupid enough to fire a missile, rest assured that it would be detected upon launch and handled with appropriately.

The only evidence thus far is that they are enriching uranium, and that can mean more than military applications.

I really would wish they would use other means of obtaining high-throughput power... but hey... its not a perfect world.

Again, to prevent first strike capability you need to ensure your intended target has it. At this point, your line of thinking is kind of stuck on the "intended target" part.

[GaryC 7]

What definitions, Gary, the thread's? Sure, I guess that could be the case. Sorry for basing the discussion, in that case, in a little reality. After looking at the OP, nowhere is there any mention that is the case.

Partisan politics says Iran is working towards a nuclear weapon, as do you. Reality says otherwise.

But in the case they decided to be stupid enough to fire a missile, rest assured that it would be detected upon launch and handled with appropriately.

The only evidence thus far is that they are enriching uranium, and that can mean more than military applications.

I really would wish they would use other means of obtaining high-throughput power... but hey... its not a perfect world.

Again, to prevent first strike capability you need to ensure your intended target has it. At this point, your line of thinking is kind of stuck on the "intended target" part.

Sorry Mav, I am sitting here trying my best to understand your logic. It escapes me. You are in effect saying that until we are attacked then you are willing to take Iran at its word and assume they are not trying for WMD's. Despite the rest of the world, including the UN disagreeing with you. In effect, you are saying you are willing to risk an attack to satisfy your pacifist ideas. Wow! God help us if your the next generation to take power in this country.

[HAL 9000 96]

What definitions, Gary, the thread's? Sure, I guess that could be the case. Sorry for basing the discussion, in that case, in a little reality. After looking at the OP, nowhere is there any mention that is the case.

Partisan politics says Iran is working towards a nuclear weapon, as do you. Reality says otherwise.

But in the case they decided to be stupid enough to fire a missile, rest assured that it would be detected upon launch and handled with appropriately.

The only evidence thus far is that they are enriching uranium, and that can mean more than military applications.

I really would wish they would use other means of obtaining high-throughput power... but hey... its not a perfect world.

Again, to prevent first strike capability you need to ensure your intended target has it. At this point, your line of thinking is kind of stuck on the "intended target" part.

Sorry Mav, I am sitting here trying my best to understand your logic. It escapes me. You are in effect saying that until we are attacked then you are willing to take Iran at its word and assume they are not trying for WMD's. Despite the rest of the world, including the UN disagreeing with you. In effect, you are saying you are willing to risk an attack to satisfy your pacifist ideas. Wow! God help us if your the next generation to take power in this country.

Maybe this will help:

What is an intelligence agency?

DIA, CIA, etc.

An attack is altogether a different thing and implies they are good enough to elude OUR intelligence gathering as well as our allies' intelligence capabilities. Frankly so, if we were aware of actual intentions by Al Qaeda before they ocurred, then we'd certainly be aware of any military first strike capabilities by a nation like Iran.

There is no need to strike panic nor to label someone in ignorance, is there? I could easily state how it is a miracle we did not obliterate ourselves to Kingdom Come thanks to your generation's antics... but lucky all of us reason won over insanity.

Plus as I mentioned. Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

[Dan J 277]

If military action is inevitable, its very very important that Iran attacks first.

Iran is playing a game of taunting the US and or Israel into attacking it. If either the US or Israel plays into this, the attacking country would be perceived as the aggressor. They would also be forced into a protracted war, with little if any support from the international community.

If the US were to attack first. Iran would begin openly interfering in Iraq. Destabilizing any progress and costing us billions and many more lives.

If Israel were to attack first. Not only would you have a conventional war, you would have Iran supplying guerrilla groups in and near Israel.

If Iran were to attack first. The case could be made for an international response. Iran would have less support of other Arab countries.

We no longer have the resources to keep attacking everyone we don't agree with. We have billions of debt from Iraq that has significant economic consequences. Our military is already stretched thin in our current commitments. The morale of many in the military has been depleted by our protracted engagement in Iraq. Public support for polices of open imperialism is waning.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Plus as I mentioned. Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

Maybe for our country, given the distance, but what about Israel? Or should our attitude be, "** them, sucks to be them."?

[Dan J 277]

Plus as I mentioned. Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

Maybe for our country, given the distance, but what about Israel? Or should our attitude be, "** them, sucks to be them."?

Is Israel a US state? No.

They are an ally though, and should be given the defense the treaties call for. But if they want to first strike Iran, then they are on their own, and should deal with the consequences of their own actions.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Dan + Gemvita

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well I guess you should be the one to push the button to nuke 'em all to high noon since that is apparently the only way to get rid of them all. May I remind you that plenty of innocents would die, right? I'd prefer to use diplomacy.

That brings me to a previous question... if we did that we could steak their oil but would have to decontaminate it... who's interested?

What common ground do with have with Iran that would be the basis for diplomacy, considering Ahmadinejad's stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, and his looking to a future without the existence of the U.S.?

Well I know we like to portray Iran as a nation of kill-crazy maniacs and while that may be true of the hardline elements of the government, there are educated, liberal-minded people living there who aren't like that and who do want change. The conceit is the assumption that we must always be the agent of "change" in these situations and that the people of these countries actually appreciate our intervention. It isn't quite so simple - as we have discovered in Iraq.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

do you really believe that?