30 replies to this topic

[PrejudiceSucks]

I thought Mossad were Mossad...

[Juni Ori]

Nope, it's only one word of the full name...

[Sebatianos]

Stroggy, on Apr 14 2006, 09:28 AM, said:

What I find most confusing is Iran's reaction...

Nah, that's simple to understand.

It's a matter of political bluf.

If they downplay it, that means they feel weak (don't have the nukes).
If they are though it seems they can back it up (either they have nukes, or much stronger support from Russia then anyone would like them to have).

[Juni Ori]

True in a sense. But playing tough and so always attracts more attention, which may lead to use of force, so I wouldn't necessarily say that's the reason. Of course it can be, but that is just way too simple, IMO. There has to lie something more in it. But that's true, nobody surely knows what card Russia is playing. They still have major influence in the region and wide resources to do what they want.

[Havell]

Juni Ori, on Apr 14 2006, 10:33 AM, said:

But playing tough and so always attracts more attention, which may lead to use of force

I disagree with that, Iraq and Afganistan weren't attack becuase they were strong, but because they were weak and the US (and UK) government could be reasonably confident of a military victory.

Iran was already on the US "Axis of Evil" before this whole nuclear thing and, since Iraq was attacked after neighbouring Afganistan, Iran must have felt pretty vunerable.

If Iran managed to arm themselves with nuclear weapons then they would establish themselves as even more of a power within the Middle East and, they hope, become too strong for the US to be confident of a victory.

However, I think that as the US has responded to Iran with threats of force and Iran has set themselves firmly, neither side can back down and this affair cna only end with military action, outside intervention, or regime change on either side.

[Juni Ori]

R Havell, on Apr 14 2006, 10:58 AM, said:

However, I think that as the US has responded to Iran with threats of force and Iran has set themselves firmly, neither side can back down and this affair cna only end with military action, outside intervention, or regime change on either side.

Of course Iran can be thinking too much of itself, but I don't think they are that stupid or fanatical. If wishing to build nuke I'd try to be silent or play big bluff, trying to prove myself to be almost harmless, but annoying leader. And then, in strategically right point, push for compromise and settle things down; secretly, very carefully, continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

But as we don't know what the heck is going on, we can only speculate. Maybe you're right too, perhaps they are in stalemate situation in chess and soon either one punches! At least you're very right there that 'nistan and Iraq weren't strong, I kind of proved it earlier. Objectives for "liberating" Iraq are quite obvious, but 'nistan we can still debate and speculate. Of course Al-Qaeda is good excuse...

[Stebbi]

Well if the U.S Invade  iran i hope the Icelandic Goverment will not support it. Because Iceland should not support any war.

But hey victory for the people of iceland the the american forces have left iceland.
But the Americans still want the comunication Tower of somesort that allows the Military forces of America to communicate and the CIA. I hope we wont let them  

[Sebatianos]

Juni Ori, on Apr 14 2006, 11:26 AM, said:

If wishing to build nuke I'd try to be silent or play big bluff, trying to prove myself to be almost harmless, but annoying leader. And then, in strategically right point, push for compromise and settle things down; secretly, very carefully, continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

Remember Dr. Strangelove?

It's from the scene when they discove that an attack on the Soviet Union will trigger the doomsday device (not a direct quote though) "The whole point of such a weapon is to tell the world you have it, so they wouldn't dream of attacking you!"

[Stroggy]

Juni Ori, on Apr 14 2006, 10:50 AM, said:

Umm... I think it might be possible, if Iraq ever had nuclear program, which I can't recall... Hard to say, after all, because none of intelligence agencies usually gives any information about their grey ops, not to mention black ops.

Edit: Btw, does somebody remember what was Mossad's full name?

Quote

Btw, does somebody remember what was Mossad's full name?

Ha-Mossad le-Modiin ule-Tafkidim Meyuhadim, meaning: Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations.
Mossad simply means Institute.

Israel did cripple the Iraqi light water nuclear materials testing reactor Osirak in 1981 (it was destroyed completely during the 1991 Gulf War)

Quote

Cooperation, no. Common enemy, yes.

But who is the common enemy?  Quite a few states in the middle east see Iran as a danger and as an enemy, so will they side with iran against the US/the west, or will they side with the US against Iran?

Quote

It's from the scene when they discove that an attack on the Soviet Union will trigger the doomsday device (not a direct quote though) "The whole point of such a weapon is to tell the world you have it, so they wouldn't dream of attacking you!"

Yes but they don't have it yet, do they? They are reporting their progress towards attaining the weapon (or their "peaceful energy" as they say it)

"Mein Führer! I can walk!"

[Juni Ori]

Stroggy, on Apr 14 2006, 12:55 PM, said:

Quote

Cooperation, no. Common enemy, yes.

But who is the common enemy?  Quite a few states in the middle east see Iran as a danger and as an enemy, so will they side with iran against the US/the west, or will they side with the US against Iran?

First, thanks. Then: Only reliable alliance US has in Middle-East is Israel, only non-islamistic country there. Rest aren't necessarily aggressive - yet - but some of them seriously dislike US and would love to cripple their economy. So, yes, I believe there might be allies to Iran. Remember I'm only speculating, because I don't have enough reliable information. I wonder does anyone have?

One surely neutral country - I believe - would be Turkey. They are one of the only Islamistic countries seriously wishing to be part of Europe (or Western World in general), but I don't believe they would directly join offencive to Iran.

Anyways Iran is the only serious threat, but if the whole Middle-East begins to cause trouble, we will have troubles. Even if Iranian armed forces are neutralized, there certainly will be guerrilla warfare, at least equal, more likely stronger, than in Iraq. Again, my speculations. The problem is there are quite some - and certainly would be many more, if Iran was conquered - armed groups ready to cause havoc to Western Devils. And if US forces attacked Iran, most likely they would have to defend themselves alone, but terrorist activity and guerrilla warfare would certainly increase.

Btw, now as I thought of it, yes, it seems that Osirak was crippled already in '81, I just didn't think before that far behind.

[PrejudiceSucks]

Juni Ori, on Apr 14 2006, 02:57 PM, said:

Stroggy, on Apr 14 2006, 12:55 PM, said:

Quote

Cooperation, no. Common enemy, yes.

But who is the common enemy?  Quite a few states in the middle east see Iran as a danger and as an enemy, so will they side with iran against the US/the west, or will they side with the US against Iran?

First, thanks. Then: Only reliable alliance US has in Middle-East is Israel, only non-islamistic country there. Rest aren't necessarily aggressive - yet - but some of them seriously dislike US and would love to cripple their economy. So, yes, I believe there might be allies to Iran. Remember I'm only speculating, because I don't have enough reliable information. I wonder does anyone have?

One surely neutral country - I believe - would be Turkey. They are one of the only Islamistic countries seriously wishing to be part of Europe (or Western World in general), but I don't believe they would directly join offencive to Iran.

Anyways Iran is the only serious threat, but if the whole Middle-East begins to cause trouble, we will have troubles. Even if Iranian armed forces are neutralized, there certainly will be guerrilla warfare, at least equal, more likely stronger, than in Iraq. Again, my speculations. The problem is there are quite some - and certainly would be many more, if Iran was conquered - armed groups ready to cause havoc to Western Devils. And if US forces attacked Iran, most likely they would have to defend themselves alone, but terrorist activity and guerrilla warfare would certainly increase.

Btw, now as I thought of it, yes, it seems that Osirak was crippled already in '81, I just didn't think before that far behind.

Syria is a bit of a danger too, they're re-arming. But on the other hand, there wouldn't be any reason why the USA would want to go there. I hope.

[Juni Ori]

Heh, Syria was first in my mind who might join fighting US forces with Iran... Looks like I just didn't mention it!

[PrejudiceSucks]

Hmmm... I think that they might start off by helping the USA and then stab 'em in the back.

[Juni Ori]

Umm... I don't see that likely, as yankees would be fools to trusting Syria in any case at the moment. Their relationship has been very troubled for years already, so I don't believe Syria would ever get chance to stab them back. More likely I see them officially standing back and supporting underground movements to hinder in all possible ways US efforts. They don't actually seem to trust too much Turkey either, how much NATO member ever. But that's different story and irrelevant, or so I see it, as I said before.

[PrejudiceSucks]

Aye, you're probably right.