Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Iran gets the S-300
Shirrush    12/26/2007 2:16:12 PM
Now it's confirmed.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
Darth Squirrel       12/28/2007 8:53:27 PM

















 






It is pointless to comment on how this impacts any potential American strike on Iran - THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE ONE and I said that a long time ago.  BUSH IS A MAN OF VERY LITTLE RESOLVE.










You do not have any idea what you are talking about. NONE.






-DA









  Sorry, the bald facts don't lie.  You can choose to ignore them or deny them but that is your affair.



 



   Syria:              getting away clean with sponsorship of terrorism and now at least proxy nuclear work



   Iran:                getting away clean with sponsorship of terrorism, including Taliban and Al Qaida and their nukes



   North Korea:  getting away clean with their nuclear program, involvement in nuclear and missile proliferation, and they are already out of compliance with what I call the Agreed Framework II, even by our own State Department's acknowledgement.  The blackmail payments of fuel, food, and money are going through on schedule, however.  Note that their involvement in Syria was disclosed well after AF II was inked.



 



   Your so-called "security president" is a joke.  Ahmadenijad is a more effective leader.  He repeatedly said that the US was bluffing and would not attack.  He repeatedly waved a finger and said that "the West cannot do a damned thing" about Iran's nuclear program.  He has been proven correct.



 



I offer you the NIE.  You must apply your own geopolitical acumen to interpret the impact of it.  If you have some kind of real evidence that "no idea" what I'm talking about, offer it up.  Refute the above facts, please.  Otherwise, stop denouncing me.




http://www.watercoloursfair.com/images_2006/bowlby.jpg">

Try that, then read the thread again.

-DA

Whatever.    I'm used to your oddball optimism in the face of cold reality, but it really has gotten too magnanimous lately, even for you.  You've made some ghastly mistaken comments, let's review:
    Russia wants nothing more than to derail US/Iranian progress....
 
   You call recent events with US and Iran progress?  Only you and Ahmadinejad think so.
 
 
   That they leaked the news rather than announced it is a signal to Washington that they want to negotiate and would delay or cancel this altogether for the right price.
 
   Uh, that game is over and has already been played out.  Now that the US has publicly signaled that they will not be attacking Iran we certainly aren't going to grant any more concessions to the Russians for keeping the S-300 out of Iranian hands.  We pretty much don't give a damn.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Wicked Chinchilla    Darth Squirrel   12/28/2007 9:18:04 PM
Squirrel, You are tossing around quite a bit of accusation and assumption based off of singular reports of possible sales of weapon systems.  These reports have also just been denied by the Russians.

You denigrate DA's blind optimism while at the same time preaching with dire doom-saying.  

The vast majority of us here on Strategypage have no idea as to what is going on behind the scenes and the headlines.  If anything I would say DA, being on the ground in that region, has the much greater chance of having the correct perspective on this matter.

Do you have any proof to say the U.S. has not made progress with Iran?  There is no proof either way that is available to most of us.

Also, Bush is not the "ruler" of the United States, he is the president.  There is much more to declaring war and taking action than the resolve of the president.  Declaring that he has weak resolve when the U.S. does not take overt or loud action on those countries speaks volumes of your ignorance concerning the United States political/military system.  

Likewise Ahmedinijad is not the only ruler of Iran.  There is the Islamic council for one, and whatever political infighting that occurs in such governmental systems around the globe.  

My own view echoes others here: patience is the key.  This is a waiting game.  Unlike Nazi Germany the Iranian "war machine" is hopelessly outclassed in technology, training,  and raw power.  Attacking them prematurely out of irrational fear further delays their inevitable fall.  The Persian culture is quite Western in some respects, it simply needs force itself out from under the feet of the ayatollahs.
 
Quote    Reply

Darth Squirrel    WC   12/29/2007 12:35:55 AM
   I wouldn't characterize what I said as "doom saying."  It is just bald reality.  Little things going on "behind the scenes" as you say don't mean squat if the end result is the same.  For the United States to accept a nuclear-armed Iran is a defeat.  Ever since 9/11 the gilded fools of Foreign Affairs ilk have been assuring us that Iran was on a more moderate course and that their liberalization and democratization was "inevitable" as you said.  Let me point out that you don't hear that being said about China anymore, that economic liberalization will bring political liberalization.  It was nonsense.
 
   The same is true about moderation is Iran.  After Iran banned all moderates from their elections, Western fools were still claiming that liberalization was only a matter of time.  After they elected Ahmadinejad they were still saying it.  After Ahmadinejad openly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" most commentators thought he was simply being theatrical.  Do you think he means it, really believes it?
 
   I do.  Did he not say about this nuclear standoff that Iran should just stand firm, that the US was bluffing and was not willing to risk the consequences of a conflict?  He said as much and more.  "The West cannot do a damned thing."  Tell me something, do you think after the NIE was released Mr. Ahmadinejad's prestige and influence within the Iranian power structure increased or decreased?  Did Bush not publicly vow that he would prevent countries like Iran and Syria from obtaining nuclear weapons?  Ahmadinejad is proving that he is a man of his word.  Bush is proving that he is not. 
 
   But sorry to be overreacting.  You do realize that you have stumbled across the new party line?  And it is:   Look, an Iranian nuclear bomb is no big deal.  We'll manage it like we do other hostile nuclear powers.    Fools, all of them.  And so are you if you believe that.  They'll still be saying there's no need to worry when our families are ashes.  How's that for doomsaying?  By the way, they don't really believe their new party line is a great plan, they just don't know what to do since they don't have the guts to do what should be done.  They're waiting for it to work itself out.  Note to bubbleheads in Washington:  the Soviets, Russians, and Chinese are/were not messianic Shiites.
 
Quote    Reply

Darth Squirrel    WC   12/29/2007 12:58:01 AM


Squirrel, You are tossing around quite a bit of accusation and assumption based off of singular reports of possible sales of weapon systems.  These reports have also just been denied by the Russians.
 
 
 I didn't want to fail to address that comment.  None of my central point is based on the S-300 sales.  What I said was that commenting on how such a sale, if true, would affect any potential American strike was irrelevant.  The NIE was the signal that the US is backing off of military confrontation.  And people are so in denial about that they are willing to say 'oh we are just outsmarting them and readying a sneak attack after we put them off guard.'  NONSENSE MAN!  Since when has Bush shown himself to be that cunning?  I may not be the most diplomatic poster in this thread, but I'm the most correct. 
 
Quote    Reply

jessmo_24       12/29/2007 1:12:25 AM

   I wouldn't characterize what I said as "doom saying."  It is just bald reality.  Little things going on "behind the scenes" as you say don't mean squat if the end result is the same.  For the United States to accept a nuclear-armed Iran is a defeat.  Ever since 9/11 the gilded fools of Foreign Affairs ilk have been assuring us that Iran was on a more moderate course and that their liberalization and democratization was "inevitable" as you said.  Let me point out that you don't hear that being said about China anymore, that economic liberalization will bring political liberalization.  It was nonsense.

 

   The same is true about moderation is Iran.  After Iran banned all moderates from their elections, Western fools were still claiming that liberalization was only a matter of time.  After they elected Ahmadinejad they were still saying it.  After Ahmadinejad openly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" most commentators thought he was simply being theatrical.  Do you think he means it, really believes it?

 

   I do.  Did he not say about this nuclear standoff that Iran should just stand firm, that the US was bluffing and was not willing to risk the consequences of a conflict?  He said as much and more.  "The West cannot do a damned thing."  Tell me something, do you think after the NIE was released Mr. Ahmadinejad's prestige and influence within the Iranian power structure increased or decreased?  Did Bush not publicly vow that he would prevent countries like Iran and Syria from obtaining nuclear weapons?  Ahmadinejad is proving that he is a man of his word.  Bush is proving that he is not. 

 

   But sorry to be overreacting.  You do realize that you have stumbled across the new party line?  And it is:   Look, an Iranian nuclear bomb is no big deal.  We'll manage it like we do other hostile nuclear powers.    Fools, all of them.  And so are you if you believe that.  They'll still be saying there's no need to worry when our families are ashes.  How's that for doomsaying?  By the way, they don't really believe their new party line is a great plan, they just don't know what to do since they don't have the guts to do what should be done.  They're waiting for it to work itself out.  Note to bubbleheads in Washington:  the Soviets, Russians, and Chinese are/were not messianic Shiites.



If i was incharge id put F-22s in the region maybe fly them up and down the border or over the gulf.
 
id make iranian air defense operators an fighter piolets poop themselves
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Having a Herk the Jerk moment.   12/29/2007 1:14:47 AM



Squirrel, You are tossing around quite a bit of accusation and assumption based off of singular reports of possible sales of weapon systems.  These reports have also just been denied by the Russians.

 

 

 I didn't want to fail to address that comment.  None of my central point is based on the S-300 sales.  What I said was that commenting on how such a sale, if true, would affect any potential American strike was irrelevant.  The NIE was the signal that the US is backing off of military confrontation.  And people are so in denial about that they are willing to say 'oh we are just outsmarting them and readying a sneak attack after we put them off guard.'  NONSENSE MAN!  Since when has Bush shown himself to be that cunning? 

I may not be the most diplomatic poster in this thread, but I'm the most correct. 



I usually ignore you since you are such small fry, but such arrogance does attract my attention. It is only justified if you can back it up.

Care to prove that you are the most correct? In what past examples were you correct?

State by examples please.

From one arrogant personage to another: if you cannot, I will point it out to you in spades, that you fail..

At least I understand that HONESTY in knowing when one doesn't know and says so, admits it when one makes mistakes, and a sense of humor must go with the arrogance..That plus a healthy skepticism in one's own infallibility gives a good bias check and justifies that sense of arrogant confidence.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       12/29/2007 1:28:47 AM

   I wouldn't characterize what I said as "doom saying."  It is just bald reality. 

Perception is reality. You have no perception of what is happening here other than media which offers biased(both ways) views into the situation. That is why what you say has no value. Now, if you take the TIME to scrutinize the data that is available, then you could percieve the reality as others have. I would think that after you come on this thread frothing at the mouth about S-300s that don't exist, you would be humble enough to realize that perhaps there is a little bit more to this than you think. Especially after I told you prior to the actual denial which of course was "leaked" and not officially announced. The initial S-300 leak was a double edged sword from Russia designed to warn the USA about Kosovo/Ukraine/Baltics and to give Russia a seat at the table in future US/Iranian negotiations.
 
Again, if you study whats going on, you will realize this is classic US-Russia diplomatic tit for tat and Iran is in reality caught between to former rivals playing her for their own interest. Iran knows this and is simply attempting to get as much out of both sides as they can before negotiating away their leverage.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Darth Squirrel       12/29/2007 7:51:48 PM






Squirrel, You are tossing around quite a bit of accusation and assumption based off of singular reports of possible sales of weapon systems.  These reports have also just been denied by the Russians.



 



 



 I didn't want to fail to address that comment.  None of my central point is based on the S-300 sales.  What I said was that commenting on how such a sale, if true, would affect any potential American strike was irrelevant.  The NIE was the signal that the US is backing off of military confrontation.  And people are so in denial about that they are willing to say 'oh we are just outsmarting them and readying a sneak attack after we put them off guard.'  NONSENSE MAN!  Since when has Bush shown himself to be that cunning? 

I may not be the most diplomatic poster in this thread, but I'm the most correct. 







I usually ignore you since you are such small fry, but such arrogance does attract my attention. It is only justified if you can back it up.

Care to prove that you are the most correct? In what past examples were you correct?

State by examples please.

From one arrogant personage to another: if you cannot, I will point it out to you in spades, that you fail..

At least I understand that HONESTY in knowing when one doesn't know and says so, admits it when one makes mistakes, and a sense of humor must go with the arrogance..That plus a healthy skepticism in one's own infallibility gives a good bias check and justifies that sense of arrogant confidence.

Herald
Ok for the last time, I am going to give the examples.  Try not to miss them.  I didn't think I'd have to point them out and qualify every last remark, but I will.
  DA said:
 
   Russia wants nothing more than to derail US/Iranian progress and has bolstered Iran with nuclear fuel promises ect.
 
and
 
This is a sign of how successful we have been with Iran lately.
 
   Now, here's what I said about that:
 
   Did he not say about this nuclear standoff that Iran should just stand firm, that the US was bluffing and was not willing to risk the consequences of a conflict?  He said as much and more.  "The West cannot do a damned thing."  Tell me something, do you think after the NIE was released Mr. Ahmadinejad's prestige and influence within the Iranian power structure increased or decreased?  Did Bush not publicly vow that he would prevent countries like Iran and Syria from obtaining nuclear weapons?  Ahmadinejad is proving that he is a man of his word.  Bush is proving that he is not.
 
   So, you do understand that the release of the NIE means the US military option is completely off the table, right?  You understand how Iran has gained international prestige, and the US has lost signficant face, after this great commotion about the dangers of Iran's nuclear program was raised, things came to a crescendo, and then the US releases its definitive assessment that Iran stopped its nuclear work in 2003?  If you understand that then congratulations, you just passed remedial geopolitics.  If aynone refuses to acknowledge this because of their own arrogance, who can convince them otherwise?  They are still wrong.
 
Since I am too arrogant to understand, Herald, please point out which of the following statements I made are incorrect:
 
Syria:              getting away clean with sponsorship of terrorism and now at least proxy nuclear work
 
Iran:                getting away clean with sponsorship of terrorism, including Taliban and Al Qaida and their nukes

North Korea:  getting away clean with their nuclear program, involvement in nuclear and missile proliferation, and they are already out of compliance with what I call the Agreed Framework II, even by our own State Department's acknowledgement.  The blackmail payments of fuel, food, and money are going through on schedule, however.  Note that their involvement in Syria was disclosed well after AF II was inked.
 
  And these statement
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    Many options on the table   12/29/2007 8:50:41 PM

Jeff_F_F, the problem is that there is no time, and the jitstorm is already upon us.
Pakistan is due to steal the show for quite some time now, since the risks that real nuclear warheads might fall into the hands of Global Jihad, Inc., are quite high. It's time to do something, but what?


The problemis, they all take guts.
Option 1:  The John Wayne Option
Use commandos and airstrikes to strip Pakistan of their nukes.  Split it into severl weaker states, kill AQ Khan and everybody else who knows how to make a nuke.
Take out Iran's nuke capability, leadership, IRGC and armed forces. 
Take out Syria's WMD, leadership, and armed forces.
What next?
 
Option 2:  The cross our fingers option
We muddle through one crisis after another until the oil runs out and the SOBs start to starve.  We wait for the inevitable terrorist attack and we nationalize all enemy (and you know what I mean by enemy) assets like Dubai's SIF and the Saudi Royal family's investments.  We make the minimum food shipments and cut them 50% every time there is a terrorist attack.  Let the SOBs rot.  They will return to riding camels and slitting each other's throats over nothing.
 
I like option 2 as long as nobody pops a nuke.  The thing is, it takes 50 years of successful muddling to get there.  Nobody in the 21st century is willing to go Roman or Genghis on the enemy (we have to respect the human rights of people who either don't understand the concept or do and renounce it.). 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    The difference between assertion and evidence is    12/29/2007 10:03:14 PM
.......................that evidence is sourced,  peer reviewed or backed up by concrete verifiable fact that can be independently checked .The  evidence  presenter  presents the evidence in a package and  awaits critique and review [a process called negation] to support and defend his conclusions.

Darth Squirrel, you made a lot of statements and assertions. In  reviewing the evidence to back up those assertions you rely on a loudmouth psychotic's pronouncements and  some vague mumblings about the DPRK reneging on the latest agreements.

Concrete evidence? Zip.

Proof? Zero.

When I say you have nothing, I MEAN you have nothing.

If you want to see how its done, look at how I do it, and imitate me.

I told you I am arrogant. But when I argue I back it up with EVIDENCE not conjecture.

Now get stuffed.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics