Iran Crisis

Atkingani wrote: Well, the task with Iran must be great... Iran is 4 times bigger than Iraq and has a huge population also 4 times that of Iraq. Iranian people is more educated and concerned and they are basically of the shi'a sect - no religious divisions like in Iraq.  As long as I know, except for minorities, well integrated, of azeris and turcomens the population is homogeneous with the same persian background - no great ethnic divisions like in Iraq.  Iran has also very good Armed Forces and the ayatollahs are not silly guys like Saddam; they have a good industrial park capable of manufacturing light-to-medium weapons and other important items - Iraq had a tiny industrial park (except for the oil sector).  The resistance, in case of an invasion (which I still doubt) will be tremendous! They have certainly the atomic bomb but presently no means (a missile) to pour Israel for instance but they can let several artifacts in the eventual route of American & Allied forces - not counting the philosophy of flattened land, meaning the destruction of refineries, pipeways and oil pits. Honestly, I believe that only a mad, mad, mad man is able to take this enterprise... but since the name Bush is cited I fear he'll take it.

With regard to Irans military capability, it is far greater than Iraqs, but there is no evidence that they have an A bomb at present. They have been customers of the Russians for some time, and the Russians may have sold them 'Sunburn' missiles which are like highly advanced Cruise missiles that fly at just 60 feet, at MK2. They would be armed with conventional warheads, though. In any case they have other conventionally armed missiles capable of striking Israel, and if they are attacked they will not think twice about using them. The only way they could have acquired a nuclear weapon is through the 'black market' perhaps laying their hands on one of the many 'suitcase nukes' that (allegedly) went 'missing' after the USSR collapsed. The Russians would be violation of the NPT if they had openly sold nuclear weapons to Iran. America would not have let that pass un-noticed.

There was a rumour circulating on the web - although mainly on websites that were blatantly anti Semitic - that the Russians had already positioned Sunburn missiles with 200KT nuclear payloads near to Damascus in case of an Israeli assault on either Iran or Syria. But the language on some of those sites is so rabid and terrifying, it's hard to take them seriously.

This is a good example..

http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/sunburn.html

Well, the task with Iran must be great...

• Iran is 4 times bigger than Iraq and has a huge population also 4 times that of Iraq. Iranian people is more educated and concerned and they are basically of the shi'a sect - no religious divisions like in Iraq. 
• As long as I know, except for minorities, well integrated, of azeris and turcomens the population is homogeneous with the same persian background - no great ethnic divisions like in Iraq. 
• Iran has also very good Armed Forces and the ayatollahs are not silly guys like Saddam; they have a good industrial park capable of manufacturing light-to-medium weapons and other important items - Iraq had a tiny industrial park (except for the oil sector). 
• The resistance, in case of an invasion (which I still doubt) will be tremendous! They have certainly the atomic bomb but presently no means (a missile) to pour Israel for instance but they can let several artifacts in the eventual route of American & Allied forces - not counting the philosophy of flattened land, meaning the destruction of refineries, pipeways and oil pits.

Honestly, I believe that only a mad, mad, mad man is able to take this enterprise... but since the name Bush is cited I fear he'll take it.

Well, the task with Iran must be great...  Great analysis of Iran, but:

• Iran is 4 times bigger than Iraq and has a huge population also 4 times that of Iraq. Iranian people is more educated and concerned and they are basically of the shi'a sect - no religious divisions like in Iraq.  This remains to be really seen. The Kurdish monorities as well as the Azeris and Turkmens are Sunnites I think
• As long as I know, except for minorities, well integrated, of azeris and turcomens the population is homogeneous with the same persian background - no great ethnic divisions like in Iraq.  You forgot the Kurds and the Baloutch who regularly dream od Kurdistan and Baloutchistan (close to Pakistan)
• Iran has also very good Armed Forces and the ayatollahs are not silly guys like Saddam I personnaly think of Saddam as anythiing but silly: he kept - through blodshed I agree - peace among all factions , something that is impossible for anyone else in the last 200 years ; they have a good industrial park capable of manufacturing light-to-medium weapons and other important items - Iraq had a tiny industrial park (except for the oil sector).  The armed forces were unable to beat a relatively weak regime of Irak and nothing is to tell us that they have bettered themselves since, but I sure as hell would not want to even check on it or even call a bluff!!
• The resistance, in case of an invasion (which I still doubt) will be tremendous! Agreed They have certainly the atomic bomb but presently no means (a missile) to pour Israel for instance but they can let several artifacts in the eventual route of American & Allied forces - not counting the philosophy of flattened land, meaning the destruction of refineries, pipeways and oil pits. I do not even think that this flattened land strategy has even occured to Iran, they are fanatical enough to die while fighting.

Honestly, I believe that only a mad, mad, mad man is able to take this enterprise... but since the name Bush is cited I fear he'll take it.

Trust Dubya to do something that stupid!!!

NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state.

What, like Maggie Thatcher? That woman was so compassionate.

One thing is for sure, anyone who thinks the 'cold war' is really over, must have slept through the 90's.

NutterAlert wrote: What we need really are more women as head of state. Not sure how much longer George has to go in his term, but sounds like he might be replaced by Hillary or Condalisa. If only Islam was slightly more tolerant of women we could then envisage a Mrs. Iotolah of Iran. (I see a fatwah heading my way ) The girls could then meet up have a chat, swap makeup tips, and stop all this bloody lunancy. Its clear women are the more stabilising influence. Look at the mahem us chaps get up to in this forum. If we had more women on the forum, and maybe Mrs.Tony R moderating, I am sure we would all be more relaxed.

The 'man' factor is something to do with it, I'm sure, but I dont think there is any reason why someone like Condoleeza Rice wopuld be any more compassionate on the world stage than her deranged boss. People who seek power are usually - by default - the wrong people to take power. There's no solution to this problem though. After all, you want a leader who at leasts thinks he/she is up to the job..

The biggest concern for me is that religous fundamentalists in Washington, Tel Aviv and all across the Muslim world are playing 'Apocalypse' games. It may not ultimately matter if God exists or not, but if the MEN with their fingers on the triggers believe he does, and they believe they have been instructed to pull those triggers, then we are all screwed!