War with Iran

MadMarchHare · April 17, 2006, 09:58:09 AM

Whether they do something or not, we need a mandate before we invade or mess with Iran. Having the UN completely against the Iraq war has made that much more difficult. Besides, we probably would have to wait for the UN or NATO do anything in Iran. We're spread too thin as it is.

phillymic2000 · April 17, 2006, 10:05:17 AM

I agree we are spread out pretty thin, and the un/nato should be involved. My concern is that they will play around and then it will be too late to do anything but a full fledge assualt.

MadMarchHare · April 17, 2006, 11:28:44 AM

Agreed. Clearly a flat out war is what Ahmadinejad wants. He's pushing the envelope very differently than, say, N Korea. They clearly want diplomacy, and use threats to try and force it. Ahmadinejad is getting diplomacy and concessions, and is still issuing threats. It's a dangerous game, and I hope someone in the gov't understands what he wants.

Geowhizzer · April 17, 2006, 11:55:04 AM

Nuke it.

Pave it.

Build a

.

(Yes, I am just kidding. Mostly.)

PoopyfaceMcGee · April 17, 2006, 12:03:39 PM

I don't see how this world will survive another 30 years. I'm inclined to re-dedicate my life to the Big Guy upstairs and prepare for the rapture. And sadly, I'm really only half-kidding. Actually less than half kidding.

Stupid world leaders. All of them are idiots. ALL.

Seabiscuit36 · April 17, 2006, 12:52:55 PM

Maybe Daulton wasnt so wrong. 2012 sounds about right

PhillyPhanInDC · April 17, 2006, 01:27:15 PM

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on April 17, 2006, 12:52:55 PM
Maybe Daulton wasnt so wrong. 2012 sounds about right

I was about to say the say damn thing.

Phanatic · April 17, 2006, 01:41:32 PM

So if this is a poker game.... Iran has gone all in and we're looking around the table....

MURP · April 28, 2006, 09:37:10 AM

Iranian president: We don't 'give a damn' about UN resolution

Diomedes · April 28, 2006, 09:45:55 AM

QuoteIran's UN ambassador said it was "absolutely ridiculous" that Israel was elected to be a vice-chair of the UN Disarmament Commission...

Can't say I disagree.

PhillyPhanInDC · April 28, 2006, 10:49:04 AM

Quote
Russia and China warn UN not to antagonise Iran
By Daniel Dombey in Sofia
Published: April 27 2006 17:45 | Last updated: April 27 2006 17:45

Russia and China on Thursday warned against escalating the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme. The call came on the eve of an eagerly awaited report on whether the country has met United Nations demands.

The US and the European Union believe Friday's report by Mohamed El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, will set the stage for a UN Security Council resolution, since there is little chance that Tehran will meet the council's demand for "full and sustained suspension" of uranium enrichment, which can produce weapons-grade material.

But on Thursday Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, warned against too great an intervention by the Security Council – a path Moscow feels could lead to confrontation.

"We think that the IAEA must continue to play a key role and it must not shrug off its responsibilities to resolve such questions and shift them on to the UN Security Council," he said at a summit with Angela Merkel, German chancellor.

European officials argue that, far from sidelining the IAEA, any action by the council would seek to bolster its authority.

The Chinese government also called for restraint. Moscow and Beijing, which have growing energy and economic links with Iran, fear that a UN resolution might be used to justify military action at a later stage.

The US has stepped up efforts to assuage such concerns. "Forcible change of the Iranian regime is not the objective of American policy," Philip Zelikow, a top adviser to US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, told the Financial Times.

"Right now, we haven't completed implementing a diplomatic strategy. That diplomatic strategy involves underscoring to the Iranian regime the costs of its behaviour."

US and EU diplomats hope to win Security Council backing for a resolution on Iran by mid-June. Such a resolution would not involve sanctions but would probably set out a new deadline for Iran to halt nuclear enrichment.

Mr ElBaradei has been pushing Iran for a "technical break" in uranium enrichment to allow negotiations over the nuclear programme to resume.

Father Demon · April 28, 2006, 12:08:59 PM

Add this one in with the Iran uranium enrichment program

How far can Iranian missiles travel?

Quote
(Jerusalem-AP, April 27, 2006) - An Israeli military official says Iran has missiles that can reach Europe.
Israel's military intelligence chief says they are surface-to-surface missiles made in North Korea.

A report in the Haaretz daily says the BM-25 missiles have a range of 1,550 miles and can carry nuclear warheads.

The paper says Iran has taken delivery on its first batch of the new missile.

The report came as UN members consider slapping sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment.

The United States, Israel and other Western countries say Iran is trying to get nuclear arms, but the Islamic regime says its atomic program is for civilian purposes only.

Hopefully, the worst this gets is Bay of Pigs bad. But my uneducated opinion says if we don't take 'em out, they'll attack Israel and Europe. And that's the beginning of the end.

MadMarchHare · April 28, 2006, 12:32:10 PM

Bah, it's only France........

Father Demon · April 28, 2006, 12:39:58 PM

Quote from: MadMarchHare on April 28, 2006, 12:32:10 PM
Bah, it's only France........

If they can reach the Netherlands, we MUST STOP THEM NOW!!!

Rome · April 28, 2006, 01:24:48 PM

Nightmare scenario:

Iran attacks Israel & Western Europe. We immediately launch an all-out assault on Iran. Russia, China, & NK see this and launch against us in retaliation (use 'em or lose 'em). We empty our ICBM silo's and ballistic missile submarines in retaliation.

Game over.