Iran isn't a desert wasteland like Iraq.
Look at it on Wikipedia or Google Maps.
Look at it on Wikipedia or Google Maps.
OK, Iran has a lot of numbers, but that doesn't mean they are better than us.IRONCHEF wrote:
IRAN> USA
Iran isn't a wasteland, but that doesn't mean we would get slaughtered.
Casualties might be high, but we would win eventually.
When does the casualty rate sink in to you, as actually people who have died for nothing?thtthht wrote:
OK, Iran has a lot of numbers, but that doesn't mean they are better than us.IRONCHEF wrote:
IRAN> USA
Iran isn't a wasteland, but that doesn't mean we would get slaughtered.
Casualties might be high, but we would win eventually.
What casualties are there to us if we bomb them with stealth planes and hit them with cruise missiles?
Any war with Iran entailing ground occupation is not feasible.
Any war with Iran entailing ground occupation is not feasible.
You can't conquer a nation from the air.nukchebi0 wrote:
What casualties are there to us if we bomb them with stealth planes and hit them with cruise missiles?
Any war with Iran entailing ground occupation is not feasible.
If the goal is just to wreck Iran and leave, that is certainly possible. To conquer and occupy Iran would require men on the ground, and will result in casualties.
Edit: Yes, I just read your second line of text, so this post is largely meaningless. Oops!
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-04-28 21:35:34)
My point was any conflict with Iran would be confined to aerial assault. We can't conquer and occupy Iran.SenorToenails wrote:
You can't conquer a nation from the air.nukchebi0 wrote:
What casualties are there to us if we bomb them with stealth planes and hit them with cruise missiles?
Any war with Iran entailing ground occupation is not feasible.
If the goal is just to wreck Iran and leave, that is certainly possible. To conquer and occupy Iran would require men on the ground, and will result in casualties.
Edit: I see your edit.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-04-28 21:36:08)
@ the topic
Yes I would be worried too in their position
I think that the likelyhood of it happening (war with Iran) is smaller than it's made out to be in certain circles
Or at least, it's not on anyone's immediate agenda, despite many people thinking "Iran is next for Bush and Cheney teh warmongering imperial conquerers"
I wonder what message the Iranians get from their gov't/media ....
Yes I would be worried too in their position
I think that the likelyhood of it happening (war with Iran) is smaller than it's made out to be in certain circles
Or at least, it's not on anyone's immediate agenda, despite many people thinking "Iran is next for Bush and Cheney teh warmongering imperial conquerers"
I wonder what message the Iranians get from their gov't/media ....
Yes, and beyond. Iran now has much more power than usual since they can now directly influence Iraqi politics, as well as step up anti-Israeli rhetoric without any fearKmarion wrote:
Iran has benefited. America now has the world justifying any and everything Iran does. Do you think Iran would be telling the whole world to screw off while they built Nuclear reactors 10 years ago? Do you think the International community would be looking for an excuse to accept British Sailors taken being hostage in international waters? ... No, playing the part of the victim has emboldened them. If they were worried they would be willing to listen to the world, including their long time friends.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
About a week after we went into Iraq, I dug out an atlas and turned to the page showing the whole area and literally said "OH MY GOD!".
Seriously, if you're not hot on middle-eastern geography, and know anything at all about military tactical strategy, go find yourself an atlas and take a look.
Seriously, if you're not hot on middle-eastern geography, and know anything at all about military tactical strategy, go find yourself an atlas and take a look.
thtthht wrote:
OK, Iran has a lot of numbers, but that doesn't mean they are better than us.IRONCHEF wrote:
IRAN> USA
Iran isn't a wasteland, but that doesn't mean we would get slaughtered.
Casualties might be high, but we would win eventually.
Casualties? Women children, Innocent civilians.....................all you people seam to be thinking about is your own. Bomb them from the air? A great way to indiscriminately kill civilians and create a bunch of hate fuelled relatives ready to lay down their lives for vengeance. Every war USA has started since WW2 has went this way. Because in your arrogance you think indigenous peoples are going to welcome your crusading army with open arms as you drop bombs on their neighbours houses.nukchebi0 wrote:
What casualties are there to us if we bomb them with stealth planes and hit them with cruise missiles?
Any war with Iran entailing ground occupation is not feasible.
Eh?JahManRed wrote:
thtthht wrote:
OK, Iran has a lot of numbers, but that doesn't mean they are better than us.IRONCHEF wrote:
IRAN> USA
Iran isn't a wasteland, but that doesn't mean we would get slaughtered.
Casualties might be high, but we would win eventually.Casualties? Women children, Innocent civilians.....................all you people seam to be thinking about is your own. Bomb them from the air? A great way to indiscriminately kill civilians and create a bunch of hate fuelled relatives ready to lay down their lives for vengeance. Every war USA has started since WW2 has went this way. Because in your arrogance you think indigenous peoples are going to welcome your crusading army with open arms as you drop bombs on their neighbours houses.nukchebi0 wrote:
What casualties are there to us if we bomb them with stealth planes and hit them with cruise missiles?
Any war with Iran entailing ground occupation is not feasible.
Are there large concentrations of civilians around their nuke facilities? No.
Are there large concentrations of civilians around their Qods Force facilities? No.
To take out the targets under discussion would result in few, if any, civilian casualties...unless Ahmanutjob pulled a Saddam and put human shields in place at those sites.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
As the nuclear facilities are not military targets, any civillian deaths of the workers there would make such an attack a war crime.FEOS wrote:
Eh?JahManRed wrote:
thtthht wrote:
OK, Iran has a lot of numbers, but that doesn't mean they are better than us.
Iran isn't a wasteland, but that doesn't mean we would get slaughtered.
Casualties might be high, but we would win eventually.Casualties? Women children, Innocent civilians.....................all you people seam to be thinking about is your own. Bomb them from the air? A great way to indiscriminately kill civilians and create a bunch of hate fuelled relatives ready to lay down their lives for vengeance. Every war USA has started since WW2 has went this way. Because in your arrogance you think indigenous peoples are going to welcome your crusading army with open arms as you drop bombs on their neighbours houses.nukchebi0 wrote:
What casualties are there to us if we bomb them with stealth planes and hit them with cruise missiles?
Any war with Iran entailing ground occupation is not feasible.
Are there large concentrations of civilians around their nuke facilities? No.
Are there large concentrations of civilians around their Qods Force facilities? No.
To take out the targets under discussion would result in few, if any, civilian casualties...unless Ahmanutjob pulled a Saddam and put human shields in place at those sites.
Where the hell do you get that? Of course they are valid military targets. At BEST, they are dual-use, and as such, valid targets.PureFodder wrote:
As the nuclear facilities are not military targets, any civillian deaths of the workers there would make such an attack a war crime.FEOS wrote:
Are there large concentrations of civilians around their nuke facilities? No.
Are there large concentrations of civilians around their Qods Force facilities? No.
To take out the targets under discussion would result in few, if any, civilian casualties...unless Ahmanutjob pulled a Saddam and put human shields in place at those sites.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
They assaulted us with with big words like Precision, tactical, etc on the run up, then they hit a hospital or maybe an Airliner when they actually get the go ahead. Its not about the Nukes. If it was why didn't they bomb India or Pakistan(the real loose cannon of the middle east) or perhaps Israeli. Its about regime change and getting a western friendly government in Terran and the only way to do that is boots on ground.
And who are you to encourage the destruction of a countries nuclear programme? The reality is, that we are all going to have to rely on nuclear power in the not too distant future. Who are you to advocate holding a country back from progression and the safeguarding of millions of peoples right to switch on a light bulb in 60 years time?
And who are you to encourage the destruction of a countries nuclear programme? The reality is, that we are all going to have to rely on nuclear power in the not too distant future. Who are you to advocate holding a country back from progression and the safeguarding of millions of peoples right to switch on a light bulb in 60 years time?
What military threat do they pose? As there's no proof that Irans nuclear facilities are anything to do with a nuclear weapons program, then we have to assume they are for civillian power, and hence not a valid military target.FEOS wrote:
Where the hell do you get that? Of course they are valid military targets. At BEST, they are dual-use, and as such, valid targets.PureFodder wrote:
As the nuclear facilities are not military targets, any civillian deaths of the workers there would make such an attack a war crime.FEOS wrote:
Are there large concentrations of civilians around their nuke facilities? No.
Are there large concentrations of civilians around their Qods Force facilities? No.
To take out the targets under discussion would result in few, if any, civilian casualties...unless Ahmanutjob pulled a Saddam and put human shields in place at those sites.
Even if the US had evidence that they were being used to make nukes, that's not justification for an attack. The evidence must be given to the IAEA so they can verify the information and then the UN can decide what to do.
The Geneva convention states that if there is any doubt over whether people are civillian or military then they must be assumed to be civillian. Plus:
So even threatening to blow up Irans nuclear facilities is a crime. Facilities relating to a civillian nuclear power program are not targets. Nuclear power plants are not targets. If the US or Israel thinks they have evidence that the facillities are being used to make nuclear weapons, they need to submit the evidence to the IAEA for them to investigate.Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
Power installations are inherently dual-use if there are military facilities serviced by them. In this case, there aren't any civilian facilities serviced by these, as they are R&D facilities. As such, they are not purely civilian.PureFodder wrote:
What military threat do they pose? As there's no proof that Irans nuclear facilities are anything to do with a nuclear weapons program, then we have to assume they are for civillian power, and hence not a valid military target.FEOS wrote:
Where the hell do you get that? Of course they are valid military targets. At BEST, they are dual-use, and as such, valid targets.PureFodder wrote:
As the nuclear facilities are not military targets, any civillian deaths of the workers there would make such an attack a war crime.
Was there an attack recently on Iranian nuclear facilities? If so, it didn't make the news.PureFodder wrote:
Even if the US had evidence that they were being used to make nukes, that's not justification for an attack. The evidence must be given to the IAEA so they can verify the information and then the UN can decide what to do.
And I believe the IAEA is being given a chance to do their job...if Iran will actually let them.
Where in there does it say attacks against dual-use infrastructure are war crimes? Go ahead...point it out.PureFodder wrote:
The Geneva convention states that if there is any doubt over whether people are civillian or military then they must be assumed to be civillian. Plus:So even threatening to blow up Irans nuclear facilities is a crime. Facilities relating to a civillian nuclear power program are not targets. Nuclear power plants are not targets. If the US or Israel thinks they have evidence that the facillities are being used to make nuclear weapons, they need to submit the evidence to the IAEA for them to investigate.Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
Your assumption is that these are purely civilian in nature. They are R&D facilities run by the government of Iran, therefore they are by definition NOT civilian facilities.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Art 56. Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces
1. Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.
2. The special protection against attack provided by paragraph 1 shall cease:
(a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
(b) for a nuclear electrical generating station only if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
(c) for other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support.
General laws againt targeting dual-use facilities.
Art 57. Precautions in attack
1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.
2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
(i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
(ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;
(iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
Art 54. Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population
1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.
3. The prohibitions in paragraph 2 shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse Party:
(a) as sustenance solely for the members of its armed forces; or
(b) if not as sustenance, then in direct support of military action, provided, however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement.
4. These objects shall not be made the object of reprisals.
You can't trash dual use facilities like power stations if they have an anticipated major adverse effect on the civillain populace (like stopping water pumping and treatment facilities from operating due to lack of power). This is just a general case against attacking power plant, obviously not applicable to the particular Iran case where the reactor isn't a critical service.
And why does a government owned facility automatically make it non civillian. If government owned research facilities are genuine targets, then universities are targets!
1. Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.
2. The special protection against attack provided by paragraph 1 shall cease:
(a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
(b) for a nuclear electrical generating station only if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
(c) for other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support.
General laws againt targeting dual-use facilities.
Art 57. Precautions in attack
1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.
2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
(i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
(ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;
(iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
Art 54. Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population
1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.
2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.
3. The prohibitions in paragraph 2 shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse Party:
(a) as sustenance solely for the members of its armed forces; or
(b) if not as sustenance, then in direct support of military action, provided, however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement.
4. These objects shall not be made the object of reprisals.
You can't trash dual use facilities like power stations if they have an anticipated major adverse effect on the civillain populace (like stopping water pumping and treatment facilities from operating due to lack of power). This is just a general case against attacking power plant, obviously not applicable to the particular Iran case where the reactor isn't a critical service.
And why does a government owned facility automatically make it non civillian. If government owned research facilities are genuine targets, then universities are targets!
So it must be proved that any nuclear facility is military before it can be attacked. Clearly there is doubt about what Iranian facilities are being used for, hence you can't bomb them.3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
It must be proven by someone other than the people who lied and fabricated evidence when it was needed to justify the Iraqi invasion. Their input isn't worth shit.PureFodder wrote:
So it must be proved that any nuclear facility is military before it can be attacked. Clearly there is doubt about what Iranian facilities are being used for, hence you can't bomb them.
Your troops in Iraq would be wiped out for starters. Your supply lines are highly vulnerable, could you get 160,000 out in a week?What casualties are there to us if we bomb them with stealth planes and hit them with cruise missiles?
So R+D facilities are now military targets? How about Universities? How about hospitals? Kindergartens are breeding the next generation of crack troops - Better bomb them just to be safe?Your assumption is that these are purely civilian in nature. They are R&D facilities run by the government of Iran, therefore they are by definition NOT civilian facilities.
The IAEA was doing a good job, its more a question of whether the US will let them, when the inspectors in Iraq kept turning up nothing they were pulled pretty smartly.And I believe the IAEA is being given a chance to do their job...if Iran will actually let them.
If America makes an unprovoked attack on Iran, it will be a war crime just as the Iraq attack was.
Fuck Israel
QFT...JahManRed wrote:
They assaulted us with with big words like Precision, tactical, etc on the run up, then they hit a hospital or maybe an Airliner when they actually get the go ahead. Its not about the Nukes. If it was why didn't they bomb India or Pakistan(the real loose cannon of the middle east) or perhaps Israeli. Its about regime change and getting a western friendly government in Terran and the only way to do that is boots on ground.
And who are you to encourage the destruction of a countries nuclear programme? The reality is, that we are all going to have to rely on nuclear power in the not too distant future. Who are you to advocate holding a country back from progression and the safeguarding of millions of peoples right to switch on a light bulb in 60 years time?
Plus it pushes the oil price up, if Iran needs to keep its oil to fire power stations there is less to sell.And who are you to encourage the destruction of a countries nuclear programme? The reality is, that we are all going to have to rely on nuclear power in the not too distant future. Who are you to advocate holding a country back from progression and the safeguarding of millions of peoples right to switch on a light bulb in 60 years time?
Fuck Israel
FUCKING READDilbert_X wrote:
So R+D facilities are now military targets? How about Universities? How about hospitals? Kindergartens are breeding the next generation of crack troops - Better bomb them just to be safe?Your assumption is that these are purely civilian in nature. They are R&D facilities run by the government of Iran, therefore they are by definition NOT civilian facilities.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That would be the same ones who you praised when the NIE came out saying Iran didn't have an active nuke weapons program, right?JahManRed wrote:
It must be proven by someone other than the people who lied and fabricated evidence when it was needed to justify the Iraqi invasion. Their input isn't worth shit.PureFodder wrote:
So it must be proved that any nuclear facility is military before it can be attacked. Clearly there is doubt about what Iranian facilities are being used for, hence you can't bomb them.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
There are lawyers who specialize in this that disagree with you and your interpretation. I'll go with them, as they have the education and experience to back up their positions in an international court.PureFodder wrote:
You can't trash dual use facilities like power stations if they have an anticipated major adverse effect on the civillain populace (like stopping water pumping and treatment facilities from operating due to lack of power). This is just a general case against attacking power plant, obviously not applicable to the particular Iran case where the reactor isn't a critical service.
And why does a government owned facility automatically make it non civillian. If government owned research facilities are genuine targets, then universities are targets!So it must be proved that any nuclear facility is military before it can be attacked. Clearly there is doubt about what Iranian facilities are being used for, hence you can't bomb them.3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Hindu Kush much? You should know about it, there is a mission in Gens that takes place there.HurricaИe wrote:
what the fuck
