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       12/30/2007 6:36:38 PM
Lol - I'd like you to please present evidence that Syria, Iran, and North Korea are being held accountable as terrorist sponsors and for their nuclear weapons programs.  You can present no more evidence than anyone else on these boards about anything - it's all just electrons in cyberspace.  It relies on what should, these days, be called 'uncommon sense.'  I guess I could post the links directly to the president's various declarations about how he's not going to tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorist sponsors, and that enemies using terrorism as a weapon against US interests will be called to account, but you ought to be able to type "whitehouse.gov" yourself.
 
Oh, I get it, you're going to give us the NIE as proof that Iran is not operating a clandestine nuclear weapons program?  By your superlative standards you can no more prove that Israel actually has a nuclear weapons program than I can prove Iran has one.  This whole process relies on, like I said, common sense and what is common knowledge in specialized fields of intelligence and analysis.  The only proof you can produce of an Israeli bomb is you've read it in the paper alot, and by your own analysis of other factors you believe it to be true.  THAT'S IT. 
 
Here's an example:  Since American military officers have repeatedly publicly complained about Iranian EFPs, it is safe for Joe Blow to think that there may be some truth to it.  For a military, analytical, or intelligence professional, whose mind is more attuned to such things, they might look for more specific information that may still be publicly available.  If they also know something about what's going on in Iraq from sources there or even first-hand experience, they may even further solidify their case.  But how in the hell are they going to convince you, Herald, on these boards by your standards? 
 
I'll go further still, and say that only in my own analysis that Iran has been directly responsible for scores of American deaths in Iraq just from EFPs.  I will then state that for the United States not to have responded militarily, and publicly, to Iranian activities in Iraq has emboldened US enemies globally, made the United States look weak, and has a counter-deterrent effect on other nations who might seek to oppose America in other theaters.  It is also a disservice to those Americans killed, and to the American people, particularly how the signifigance of it has been brushed aside by the US government of which Bush is the preimminent figure.
 
Now anyone can disagree with that analysis if they want, but it doesn't mean that they're right, it just means that the thoughtless jackasses that make many US national security policies agree with them.  Those same morons have been leading us into this for many, many years.  In that sense, Iraq (and the GWOT) is very much a Vietnam.  Putting aside arguments of whether or not we should have been involved there, once we were there we should not have allowed enemies to establish safe havens in neighboring countries, allowed those nations to act directly to cause American casualties with relative security, restricted the retaliatory actions we DID take, and hid the scale of the involvement of third-party actors. 
 
That's an analysis.  How can I prove it if you won't believe it?  You have a different opinion, fine.  If the NSC wants to say "well, moving against Iran for killing our soldiers would mean death for many multiples of the ones they've killed" as a rationale for doing nothing, fine.  If you want to apply the same logic to allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, that acting against it militarily will do more damage than just letting Iran have the bomb, fine.  But by the president's own statements about the aims of the United States in the GWOT, about not letting them acquire nuclear weapons, that goal he himself set is A FAILURE.
 
If I can't prove it neither can you prove otherwise.  So before you act all "big fry" as I guess you'd say, and spout psychotic platitudes about evidence, consider what you yourself are able to bone up.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You die by the numbers.   12/30/2007 8:37:48 PM

Lol - I'd like you to please present evidence that Syria, Iran, and North Korea are being held accountable as terrorist sponsors and for their nuclear weapons programs.  You can present no more evidence than anyone else on these boards about anything - it's all just electrons in cyberspace.  It relies on what should, these days, be called 'uncommon sense.'  I guess I could post the links directly to the president's various declarations about how he's not going to tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorist sponsors, and that enemies using terrorism as a weapon against US interests will be called to account, but you ought to be able to type "whitehouse.gov" yourself.

 

Oh, I get it, you're going to give us the NIE as proof that Iran is not operating a clandestine nuclear weapons program?  By your superlative standards you can no more prove that Israel actually has a nuclear weapons program than I can prove Iran has one.  This whole process relies on, like I said, common sense and what is common knowledge in specialized fields of intelligence and analysis.  The only proof you can produce of an Israeli bomb is you've read it in the paper alot, and by your own analysis of other factors you believe it to be true.  THAT'S IT. 

 

Here's an example:  Since American military officers have repeatedly publicly complained about Iranian EFPs, it is safe for Joe Blow to think that there may be some truth to it.  For a military, analytical, or intelligence professional, whose mind is more attuned to such things, they might look for more specific information that may still be publicly available.  If they also know something about what's going on in Iraq from sources there or even first-hand experience, they may even further solidify their case.  But how in the hell are they going to convince you, Herald, on these boards by your standards? 

 

I'll go further still, and say that only in my own analysis that Iran has been directly responsible for scores of American deaths in Iraq just from EFPs.  I will then state that for the United States not to have responded militarily, and publicly, to Iranian activities in Iraq has emboldened US enemies globally, made the United States look weak, and has a counter-deterrent effect on other nations who might seek to oppose America in other theaters.  It is also a disservice to those Americans killed, and to the American people, particularly how the signifigance of it has been brushed aside by the US government of which Bush is the preimminent figure.

 

Now anyone can disagree with that analysis if they want, but it doesn't mean that they're right, it just means that the thoughtless jackasses that make many US national security policies agree with them.  Those same morons have been leading us into this for many, many years.  In that sense, Iraq (and the GWOT) is very much a Vietnam.  Putting aside arguments of whether or not we should have been involved there, once we were there we should not have allowed enemies to establish safe havens in neighboring countries, allowed those nations to act directly to cause American casualties with relative security, restricted the retaliatory actions we DID take, and hid the scale of the involvement of third-party actors. 

 

That's an analysis.  How can I prove it if you won't believe it?  You have a different opinion, fine.  If the NSC wants to say "well, moving against Iran for killing our soldiers would mean death for many multiples of the ones they've killed" as a rationale for doing nothing, fine.  If you want to apply the same logic to allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, that acting against it militarily will do more damage than just letting Iran have the bomb, fine.  But by the president's own statements about the aims of the United States in the GWOT, about not letting them acquire nuclear weapons, that goal he himself set is A FAILURE.

 

If I can't prove it neither can you prove otherwise.  So before you act all "big fry" as I guess you'd say, and spout psychotic platitudes about evidence, consider what you yourself are able to bone up.

Read what I've written buffoon.

Everywhere. Numbers and sources.

Once again you've given nothing but generalized BS.

 Iran's military base.

Have a nice read, learn something, and then understand this. You blab about the EFPs, a
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       12/31/2007 7:42:52 AM
I am in complete agreement with what Darth Squirrel is saying .
His analysis is correct , well presented and the evidences shown irrefutable . Iran has shown the finger to the USA since day one and they still do in total inpunity . Only fools denies the fact ...

I could add to what DS is saying the is it why the Europeans lead the way in the talks with the Iranians , because we know that the USA is glued somewhere else and most importantly , we know that Iran will never sign any deal with the USA simply because they are Iranians and Iranians don 't deal with the USA at all .
For now , we Europeans have failed to archive our goal but we have made some advance around the table .
Iran getting or not the S-300 is at that point irrelevant to the West . It can only annoy Israel .
Neither Europe or the USA ~or both together~ will attack Iran anytime soon , that I am sure of . We all might have a bigger problem in our hands soon with Pakistan ...
Herald , it is laughable how a bad looser you can be lol . To counter DS , all you found was an emptyt bla-bla only backed up by arrogance and insults , as usual when you loose the argument ...

Cheers .







 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    BW reply   12/31/2007 8:22:08 AM
.Like most everything  you write, when you let your prejudice interfere with your rationalism, you let a certain type of wishful thinking bias cloud what at times is your good judgment. That you agree with a fool should warn you, BW.

Reassess revealed bias, toss out the emotional garbage, stick to factual evidence, and try again.

as short as three weeks ago, I thought we were headed to war. I was wrong. I now have better facts to recalculate the OTG truth. No war, but there will be a siege. And we will win it.

America isn't going anywhere from the ME, now. That alone should warn you that DS is full of BS.

Herald 
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       12/31/2007 9:18:20 AM


   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.
 

Most analysts are saying his prestige decreased, because it shows that he was bluffing about the nuclear program. It shows that he was just playing games and that the Iranian people have been paying the price because of the sanctions that were the result of that game. It shows how little power he actually has within Iran because it shows that the Ayatollas who actually run the show had already signed off on his predecessor shutting down the nuclear weapons program, and were not willing to let him start it back up.
 
It is interesting to note that both of the antagonistic middle eastern powers with active WMD programs shut those programs down after the US invaded Iraq. Iran shut their nuclear program down in October of 2003. Quadaffi not only shut down his chemical weapons program but turned over his stockpile and signed onto the CWC in December. Sounds like our ME strategy is proving pretty successful in general. I'd suggest that this is also evidence that the Iranian leadership is behaving rationally rather than like the fantically suicidal jihadists that alarmists suggest they are.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       12/31/2007 9:48:25 AM



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.). 


 


 
Option 3: You are already at war with one nation in the Middle East--Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The cease-fire that has been in effect since the last time you kicked his @$$ was contingent upon him cooperating with the UN's WMD inspectors. He hasn't been, so you make a very public example out of him. The Iranians and Quadafi $h!t their pants and either shut down their WMD program (Iran) or totally cave and prostrate themselves turning over their WMD stockpiles and signing onto the CWC (Quadafi). Then you hammer Iran with sanctions because their President is an idiot who wants to stir up trouble, until Iranians get thuroughly sick of them but are willing to deal with the situation because enhancing Iran's international prestige by building a nuclear weapon is worth it right? Then you cut him off at the knees by calling his bluff and showing there never was a nuke program and he was just an idiot.
 
Meanwhile you stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, working toward the day that Persian controlled democracies bracket Iran on both sides. Eventually the Persians in Iran are going to wonder why they can't have true democracy too, espcially when Iraq's economy starts growing.
 
This isn't a passive process, it is an active one. It isn't either extreme option, but rather a middle road.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       12/31/2007 10:02:12 AM




This sounds a lot like the comments by so many when Iran was holding the British sailors. Diplomacy has a place, and the willingness to negotiate is neither a sign of weakness nor a sure sign of impending failure. Also, consider that the there are long range geopolitical goals in the region that would be severely hurt by premature aggression against Iran. We'd like to do a Warsaw Pact on them, but that takes time--and PATIENCE.




Better to do an Imperial Japan on them. They have that potential and if realized we all stand to gain. Thing is we can catch this one early BEFORE it turns into a catastrophic war. If we are serious about a non-violent solution, then people need to learn not to hyperventilate over every little headline about Iran.

Iran is not going to magically be able to thwart a US attack with a single platform procurement. Also, use reliable, verifiable sources prior to jumping into the frenzy. I mentioned this several weeks ago and warned that we should not take it for granted.

-DA

Would that we had the resources and political will to Imperial Japan everybody that is causing problems around the world.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F    To BW: Just checking my understanding   12/31/2007 10:35:51 AM

 

I am in complete agreement with what Darth Squirrel is saying .

His analysis is correct , well presented and the evidences shown
irrefutable . 
 
 
I had no idea that your analysis of the world situation was so dire. So, BW if the following situation is correct do you also support France and the rest of the EU either looking the other way, or actively aiding the following developments:
  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.


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.

Or are you actually hoping that the Iranians will nuke Israel off the map. We know how much you hate them...
 
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush       12/31/2007 2:44:59 PM
Now it's the Iranians claiming they're not getting the super-SAMs!
Go figure!

Never mind. We have managed to whip up a nice little tsunami in a glass of water here, and it's been a pleasure.
I'm confident Jastayme3, or any other of our honorable thread archaeologists/necromancers, will dig up this thread as soon as the Mullahs do get the S-300, or its Chicom clone.

Happy New Year to you all. May 2008 bring all of us Victory, Peace, and Wisdom.

 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    Oh, and by the way...   12/31/2007 3:39:23 PM
...I fully agree with Darth Squirrel, and I somehow resent the way he is treated on this board.
There is no way the US will be able to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into democracies surrounding Iran from both sides, not in a million years, and even if they do, that still won't help the Iranian people get rid of a fascist police state with a large armed, illiterate and fanaticized militia. If there's anything DA and Herald don't understand, or refuse to face, it is how fascism works.
Now, their strategy of containment will give the Mullahs enough time, not only to develop nuclear weapons, but to acquire a nuclear arsenal such as what India and Durka-durkaPakistan now have. Which makes sure that when the Mullahs finally go to war in order to speed up the advent of the 12th Imam, the war will be all-out nuclear.
Waiting for that to happen is a greater crime against humanity than an "aggression" against Iran's regime and military capabilities. Fact: the US and the West have the capability to prevent a nuclear holocaust in the Middle-East and to return Iran to its rightful place in the family of civilized nations, but would rather have all the Iranians (and their neighbors) incinerated in three years time than help them now.
But hey, what do I know about such things, I'm just an Israeli!
 

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics