Are we on the path to war with Iran? - Page 3 - Jets Insider.com Forums

02-01-2007, 04:07 PM

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]The whole point is to do it before they have them. NK is negotiating getting rid of them while Iran is actively seeking them. When was the last time NK killed or attacked US soldiers or civilians?

[/QUOTE]

Outside of the seizure of the USS Pueblo, and the
tree-trimming incident, theres been many-wasnt aware
of how many nork clashes theres been since the late
60s:

[url="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/dmz-list.htm"]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/dmz-list.htm[/url]

Winstonbiggs · 02-01-2007, 04:36 PM

[QUOTE=flushingjet]Outside of the seizure of the USS Pueblo, and the
tree-trimming incident, theres been many-wasnt aware
of how many nork clashes theres been since the late
60s:

[url="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/dmz-list.htm"]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/dmz-list.htm[/url][/QUOTE]

Amazing. I remeber the Pueblo as a very tense incident at the time.

Jetdawgg · 02-02-2007, 11:00 AM

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Amazing. I remeber the Pueblo as a very tense incident at the time.[/QUOTE]

If you ever get a chance to go to Korea (I did in 2001 for business) you can go to the 38th Parallel.

You are allowed to go into the tunnels dug by the NK's. The one I went into goes about a mile or so deep.

The issue is that there are "x" amount of tunnels dug by the NK's. I looked at that list and there are some incidents not listed. The ROK Marines told me that a few weeks back (April 2001) they had just killed a few NK's.

The USA should be looking to stop NK before Iran. NK is a real threat as things have never been settled since 1953. It was just stopped. The chance for peace though is real as the SK people told me that there are some of their relatives that they have not seen in 50 years.

Winny I remember the Pueblo also. Asd it was tense, at least for me as a kid.
There are Marines off the coast of Iran right now. Think about the tension they feel. We are going to war with Iran. It is unavoidable at this point.

MnJetFan · 02-02-2007, 11:07 AM

[QUOTE=Jetdawgg]If you ever get a chance to go to Korea (I did in 2001 for business) you can go to the 38th Parallel.

You are allowed to go into the tunnels dug by the NK's. The one I went into goes about a mile or so deep.

The issue is that there are "x" amount of tunnels dug by the NK's. I looked at that list and there are some incidents not listed. The ROK Marines told me that a few weeks back (April 2001) they had just killed a few NK's.

The USA should be looking to stop NK before Iran. NK is a real threat as things have never been settled since 1953. It was just stopped. The chance for peace though is real as the SK people told me that there are some of their relatives that they have not seen in 50 years.

Winny I remember the Pueblo also. Asd it was tense, at least for me as a kid.
There are Marines off the coast of Iran right now. Think about the tension they feel. We are going to war with Iran. It is unavoidable at this point.[/QUOTE]

As one fellow serviceman to anotherI hope to God we dont!

Jetdawgg · 02-02-2007, 11:20 AM

[QUOTE=MnJetFan]As one fellow serviceman to anotherI hope to God we dont![/QUOTE]

I don't really see the need to either. I hope to god we don't also. I don't see any eminent threat to the USA.

We need to bring the troops out of Iraq now. we look as though we are fighting the wrong war(s). We won't find Bin-Laden or can't stop A-Q from reforming.

We did not find any WMD's in Iraq but we sent almost 200,000 troops there.

Now we want to further strain our military with this Iranian BS. Believe me, no country wants to attack the US. That is why 911 happened like it did. There individual groups of people, but not a particular country.

Look at Iraq. Do you really think that any country wants to look like that when the US is done with it? And there is clatter that we "lost" or are "losing" that war.

The USA damn near outspends the rest of the world on defense. And the other countries probably use our aid to buy the defense weapons that they get. What would be the gain for the US to invade Iran?

Would it stop terrorists from forming? Or reforming? Would it create more haters? This sabre rattling policy is not working at all and it is expensive. In both lives and dollars.

Jetdawgg · 02-02-2007, 11:59 AM

[QUOTE]The US was drawing up plans to attack sites where Iran is believed to be enriching uranium before President George W. Bush's candidacy comes to an end, the UK-based Times reported on Wednesday.

According to the Times, the Bush government has been inviting defense consultants and Middle East experts to the White House and Pentagon for tactical advice.

The Pentagon was reported to be considering ways for the US to destroy nuclear facilities such as Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, despite the fact that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney hoped that diplomatic efforts to restrain Iran would succeed.

Senior Pentagon planners recently advised the White House, however, that they did not yet have accurate intelligence as to the whereabouts of all Iran's nuclear enrichment sites.

Iran's nuclear program has been generating world-wide tension in recent months, despite claims by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the research is for peaceful means. The UN has threatened to put sanctions on Iran if they do not abandon the program.

According to analyst Shmuel Bar of the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center in Israel, an American strike would only trigger the Iranian regime's primordial survival impulse. This would almost certainly result in a full-scale Iranian assault on Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields, in an attempt to exact a price that would dissuade the West from carrying its assault to the point of regime change, he told The Jerusalem Post.

In addition, there is a 'real danger' that the Iranian regime could instigate labor strikes among the Shi'ites of southern Iraq, said Dr. Ian Bremer, president of the risk consultancy firm, Eurasia Group. This could drop oil production from over a million barrels per day, 'even to zero for short periods of time,' he warned.

Furthermore, as several analysts pointed out, any strike that was not dramatic enough to bring down the regime and discredit Ahmadinejad outright would trigger a surge of popular support for Ahmadinejad's faction in the regime, giving him a decisive advantage in the complex power struggles that characterize Iranian politics.

According to the Times report, despite speculations and divided opinions, the favored US scenario is to attack the Iranian nuclear plant with a small number of ground attack aircraft flying out of the British dependency of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

The British would however have to approve the use of the American base there for an attack and would be asked to play a supporting role by providing air-to-air re-fuelling or sending out surveillance aircraft, ships and submarines.

The British Foreign Office has insisted that a diplomatic solution is still possible.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467856230&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter[/url]

MnJetFan · 02-02-2007, 04:14 PM

[QUOTE=Jetdawgg][url]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467856230&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter[/url][/QUOTE]
JD here is a very good article from a somewhat right of center sight!

[url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/2/112302.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2CD5-1[/url]

parafly · 02-02-2007, 04:16 PM

[QUOTE=Jetdawgg][url]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467856230&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter[/url][/QUOTE]

In all fairness, I do believe that our government has an obligation to analyze and prepare for ALL possibilities.

Winstonbiggs · 02-02-2007, 04:20 PM

[QUOTE=Jetdawgg]
Winny I remember the Pueblo also. Asd it was tense, at least for me as a kid.
There are Marines off the coast of Iran right now. Think about the tension they feel. We are going to war with Iran. It is unavoidable at this point.[/QUOTE]

I actually think our sabre rattling is going to keep us from war with Iran. Iran's economy is in shambles and the Iranian people are not happy at all with the current economy or the prospects for war with the US. The fact is negiotations with Europe and the UN are ungoing and sanctions are in place. A little sabre rattling may just help move things along. Iran can't afford a war any more then we can and they certainly can't be allowed to have Nukes. The combination of diplomatic pressure, economic pressure and a little fear may be the right approach?

parafly · 02-02-2007, 04:23 PM

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]I actually think our sabre rattling is going to keep us from war with Iran.[/QUOTE]

That is a very interesting take on the matter. I hope you are correct, but given the administration's actions in past situations, I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt.

02-02-2007, 11:59 AM	#46
Jetdawgg All Pro Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 6,693	US plans strike against Iran [QUOTE]The US was drawing up plans to attack sites where Iran is believed to be enriching uranium before President George W. Bush's candidacy comes to an end, the UK-based Times reported on Wednesday. According to the Times, the Bush government has been inviting defense consultants and Middle East experts to the White House and Pentagon for tactical advice. The Pentagon was reported to be considering ways for the US to destroy nuclear facilities such as Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, despite the fact that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney hoped that diplomatic efforts to restrain Iran would succeed. Senior Pentagon planners recently advised the White House, however, that they did not yet have accurate intelligence as to the whereabouts of all Iran's nuclear enrichment sites. Iran's nuclear program has been generating world-wide tension in recent months, despite claims by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the research is for peaceful means. The UN has threatened to put sanctions on Iran if they do not abandon the program. According to analyst Shmuel Bar of the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center in Israel, an American strike would only trigger the Iranian regime's primordial survival impulse. This would almost certainly result in a full-scale Iranian assault on Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields, in an attempt to exact a price that would dissuade the West from carrying its assault to the point of regime change, he told The Jerusalem Post. In addition, there is a 'real danger' that the Iranian regime could instigate labor strikes among the Shi'ites of southern Iraq, said Dr. Ian Bremer, president of the risk consultancy firm, Eurasia Group. This could drop oil production from over a million barrels per day, 'even to zero for short periods of time,' he warned. Furthermore, as several analysts pointed out, any strike that was not dramatic enough to bring down the regime and discredit Ahmadinejad outright would trigger a surge of popular support for Ahmadinejad's faction in the regime, giving him a decisive advantage in the complex power struggles that characterize Iranian politics. According to the Times report, despite speculations and divided opinions, the favored US scenario is to attack the Iranian nuclear plant with a small number of ground attack aircraft flying out of the British dependency of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The British would however have to approve the use of the American base there for an attack and would be asked to play a supporting role by providing air-to-air re-fuelling or sending out surveillance aircraft, ships and submarines. The British Foreign Office has insisted that a diplomatic solution is still possible.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467856230&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter[/url]

02-01-2007, 04:07 PM	#41
flushingjet Edit Status Guest Posts: n/a	[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]The whole point is to do it before they have them. NK is negotiating getting rid of them while Iran is actively seeking them. When was the last time NK killed or attacked US soldiers or civilians? [/QUOTE] Outside of the seizure of the USS Pueblo, and the tree-trimming incident, theres been many-wasnt aware of how many nork clashes theres been since the late 60s: [url="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/dmz-list.htm"]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/dmz-list.htm[/url]

02-01-2007, 04:36 PM	#42
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,939	[QUOTE=flushingjet]Outside of the seizure of the USS Pueblo, and the tree-trimming incident, theres been many-wasnt aware of how many nork clashes theres been since the late 60s: [url="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/dmz-list.htm"]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/dmz-list.htm[/url][/QUOTE] Amazing. I remeber the Pueblo as a very tense incident at the time.

02-02-2007, 11:00 AM	#43
Jetdawgg All Pro Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 6,693	[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]Amazing. I remeber the Pueblo as a very tense incident at the time.[/QUOTE] If you ever get a chance to go to Korea (I did in 2001 for business) you can go to the 38th Parallel. You are allowed to go into the tunnels dug by the NK's. The one I went into goes about a mile or so deep. The issue is that there are "x" amount of tunnels dug by the NK's. I looked at that list and there are some incidents not listed. The ROK Marines told me that a few weeks back (April 2001) they had just killed a few NK's. The USA should be looking to stop NK before Iran. NK is a real threat as things have never been settled since 1953. It was just stopped. The chance for peace though is real as the SK people told me that there are some of their relatives that they have not seen in 50 years. Winny I remember the Pueblo also. Asd it was tense, at least for me as a kid. There are Marines off the coast of Iran right now. Think about the tension they feel. We are going to war with Iran. It is unavoidable at this point.

02-02-2007, 11:07 AM	#44
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,302	[QUOTE=Jetdawgg]If you ever get a chance to go to Korea (I did in 2001 for business) you can go to the 38th Parallel. You are allowed to go into the tunnels dug by the NK's. The one I went into goes about a mile or so deep. The issue is that there are "x" amount of tunnels dug by the NK's. I looked at that list and there are some incidents not listed. The ROK Marines told me that a few weeks back (April 2001) they had just killed a few NK's. The USA should be looking to stop NK before Iran. NK is a real threat as things have never been settled since 1953. It was just stopped. The chance for peace though is real as the SK people told me that there are some of their relatives that they have not seen in 50 years. Winny I remember the Pueblo also. Asd it was tense, at least for me as a kid. There are Marines off the coast of Iran right now. Think about the tension they feel. We are going to war with Iran. It is unavoidable at this point.[/QUOTE] As one fellow serviceman to anotherI hope to God we dont!

02-02-2007, 11:20 AM	#45
Jetdawgg All Pro Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 6,693	[QUOTE=MnJetFan]As one fellow serviceman to anotherI hope to God we dont![/QUOTE] I don't really see the need to either. I hope to god we don't also. I don't see any eminent threat to the USA. We need to bring the troops out of Iraq now. we look as though we are fighting the wrong war(s). We won't find Bin-Laden or can't stop A-Q from reforming. We did not find any WMD's in Iraq but we sent almost 200,000 troops there. Now we want to further strain our military with this Iranian BS. Believe me, no country wants to attack the US. That is why 911 happened like it did. There individual groups of people, but not a particular country. Look at Iraq. Do you really think that any country wants to look like that when the US is done with it? And there is clatter that we "lost" or are "losing" that war. The USA damn near outspends the rest of the world on defense. And the other countries probably use our aid to buy the defense weapons that they get. What would be the gain for the US to invade Iran? Would it stop terrorists from forming? Or reforming? Would it create more haters? This sabre rattling policy is not working at all and it is expensive. In both lives and dollars.

02-02-2007, 04:14 PM	#47
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,302	[QUOTE=Jetdawgg][url]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467856230&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter[/url][/QUOTE] JD here is a very good article from a somewhat right of center sight! [url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/2/112302.shtml?s=al&promo_code=2CD5-1[/url]

02-02-2007, 04:16 PM	#48
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,301	[QUOTE=Jetdawgg][url]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467856230&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter[/url][/QUOTE] In all fairness, I do believe that our government has an obligation to analyze and prepare for ALL possibilities.

02-02-2007, 04:20 PM	#49
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,939	[QUOTE=Jetdawgg] Winny I remember the Pueblo also. Asd it was tense, at least for me as a kid. There are Marines off the coast of Iran right now. Think about the tension they feel. We are going to war with Iran. It is unavoidable at this point.[/QUOTE] I actually think our sabre rattling is going to keep us from war with Iran. Iran's economy is in shambles and the Iranian people are not happy at all with the current economy or the prospects for war with the US. The fact is negiotations with Europe and the UN are ungoing and sanctions are in place. A little sabre rattling may just help move things along. Iran can't afford a war any more then we can and they certainly can't be allowed to have Nukes. The combination of diplomatic pressure, economic pressure and a little fear may be the right approach?

02-02-2007, 04:23 PM	#50
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,301	[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]I actually think our sabre rattling is going to keep us from war with Iran.[/QUOTE] That is a very interesting take on the matter. I hope you are correct, but given the administration's actions in past situations, I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt.