March 30,2006:USA invades Iran.

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
JU-87
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 9:16 am
Location: N.E. Ohio

March 30,2006:USA invades Iran.

Post by JU-87 »

Is this in our near future?

>>>(3-30-2006) After a precision B-2 and cruise missle attack on it's air defense network, Iran was invaded today by a massive joint U.S.Army and Marine land assualt taskforce. US Casualties are reported as moderate for a operation of this size.

The President gave this reason for the attack:"Remember 9-11?"

This invasion follows approximatly three months of negotiations urging Iran to stop construction of a nuclear power plant that would have generated electricty.

The nation of Israel had said that they could not tolerate the construction of a nuclear power plant in Iran, even if it was only for electrical power, and that if the USA did'nt do anything about it, they would.

When asked why it was OK for Pakistan & India to have nuclear capabilities, but not Iran, the President stared into the camera for over a minute before they cut to a comercial.<<<


I hope this don't happen,but I think it will.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun... Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson, 1785.

Read "War is a Racket" by MG Smedly Butler,USMC. He was awarded the Medal of Honor twice. http://warisaracket.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Henry Kissinger said, "Military Men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in Foreign Policy" and has not denied this quote to this day.
Wayne
Posts: 1467
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:28 am
Location: Northwest corner of the P.R.O. Ohio

Re: March 30,2006:USA invades Iran.

Post by Wayne »

JU-87 wrote:Is this in our near future?

>>>(3-30-2006) After a precision B-2 and cruise missle attack on it's air defense network, Iran was invaded today by a massive joint U.S.Army and Marine land assualt taskforce. US Casualties are reported as moderate for a operation of this size.

The President gave this reason for the attack:"Remember 9-11?"

This invasion follows approximatly three months of negotiations urging Iran to stop construction of a nuclear power plant that would have generated electricty.

The nation of Israel had said that they could not tolerate the construction of a nuclear power plant in Iran, even if it was only for electrical power, and that if the USA did'nt do anything about it, they would.

When asked why it was OK for Pakistan & India to have nuclear capabilities, but not Iran, the President stared into the camera for over a minute before they cut to a comercial.<<<


I hope this don't happen,but I think it will.
The Bush Crusades. Punish everyone for 9-11 except the country the hi-jackers came from.I think your right.
Never Have So Many Owed So Much To So Few.
Robert E sayre Jr.
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:19 pm

Post by Robert E sayre Jr. »

I don't believe I would sleep better at night with Iran having nukes.

With the statements thier regime makes I believe we should use whatever means are necesary.

Just my 2 cents
Shadow
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:52 pm

Post by Shadow »

An Act of War as postulated in this thread would not be consistant with past actions by President Bush.

We would, if as with Iraq, see a long period of time in which alternatives were explored.

Iraq was not invaded overnight, contrary to popular belief, but after a long period of international sanctions failed. About 2 years of Bush diplomacy following about 8 years of Clinton diplomacy following 2 years of Bush Diplomacy. So much for diplomacy.

Also, as Iran has not attacked any one, and as Iraq did, there is no precedent for such an attack on Iran. For example, we see no daily violations of 'no fly zones' by Iranian planes as there is no 'no fly zone' as Iran has not made war on anybody.

The comparison breaks down completely.

We will not attack Iran unless Iran directly threatens someone else with military action.

Israel? Now that's a different story...

Philip
Ken6PPC
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Cincinnati

Post by Ken6PPC »

Yeah, Israel.... I seriously doubt that Iran's nuclear program will survive much longer. You KNOW that Israel is chompin' at the bit, wanting to take the facility OUT!

Now, what kind of consequences will come from that? God only knows.....
Mark
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Post by Mark »

Ken6PPC wrote:Now, what kind of consequences will come from that? God only knows.....
Nothing, if they could defeat Israel, they would.
IANALY
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:22 pm
Location: Ohio

War with Iran

Post by IANALY »

Well,

If it is necessary to invade Iran to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons and exporting their terrorism-supporting islamist tyranical theocracy to the budding democracy in Iraq and the other free-er states in the middle east then by God I hope our President has the fortitude to do what needs to be done. Far better to attack BEFORE a country has the bomb than after.

Luckily some people in this country have a 5, 10, and 20 year plan for what they're doing, instead of the 4 year tunnel vision that most politicians have. Far better still than those who live with a 3 month pre-plan horizon.

Luckily, if Iran gets close Israel will be first through the door on this one. Their government, and their citizens, do what needs to be done, without compromise, without blissninny-hood, and with extreme prejudice. And best yet, they don't sit back and feel guilty about conducting a war that is thrust upon them. They are my model state - the country closest to that which I would create if given the power to do so.

It's sad, sometimes I honestly believe that if Canada and Mexico were as hostile to us as Israel's neighbors are to them, that this country would just crumble. Again, I thank the heavens that some people leading this country have an outlook that doesn't focus on instant gratification and soundbytes, but is actually based on a sociopolitical analysis and goal-setting over an extended period of years.

I'm off my soapbox now.
NRA Life Patron Member; GOA; NRA Certified Firearm Instructor; NRA RSO; Attorney

Self-Defense/CHL Law, BP, HFS, PPIH Instructor
RKBA, LLC - Founder, Co-President
Shadow
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:52 pm

Post by Shadow »

IANALY says...

"Far better to attack BEFORE a country has the bomb than after"

Unquote.

A very wise course of action.

A problem with this concept is that most Americans don't get it. Things have to get REALLY bad before they will turn off that big screen and devote even one minute to intellectual thought on where we're at and where we're going.

I don't think Bush will act against Iran unless he's got direct knowledge of their intent.

If Iran hits Israel, with a nuke, they'll hit Tel Aviv or maybe Haifa. They won't hit the Holy City of Jersalem.

Israel would go for massive retaliation. Tehran, Masshad, Esfahan, Tabriz, Qom, Shiraz and other large cities will be incinerated. Of Iran's population of about 70 million, estimated casualties would be mostly urban and in the range of 5-10 million persons. Another 3-5 million would die due to radiation exposure and breakdown of the economy and, world wide, deaths from fallout and radiation would go on for a long time. Decades?? Megadeath at any rate.

Israel would lose Tel Aviv or Haifa if the Iranians had only one bomb.

Some feel Iran will strike as soon as they can, counting on holy providence being on thier side.

Time will tell.

Another problem with a first strike to take out Iran's nuclear capability is
that they KNOW we or Israel might try it. They are deeply imbedded, tunneled in deep.

The US has met resistance in developing deep penetrator weapons with nuclear war heads and whether we could actually hit their facilities is in debate.

http://tinyurl.com/8nkqe

[Link edited for length. Please do not post excessively long links -- TR]

The anti-nuclear attitude of the left may backfie and deprive us of the weapon we could use to preemptively de-fuse the situation.

Philip
IANALY
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:22 pm
Location: Ohio

Worse Yet . .

Post by IANALY »

. . . Russia just sold Iran 24 batteries of their absolutely top-of-the-line SAM systems - billed as the Russian equivalent to our enhanced patriot anti-missle batteries. This makes going into Iran even more difficult for Israel - not that they won't.

The unfortunate thing is that Israel will be the one to go in because the rest of the world forces them into that situation by backing the Iranians and Palestinians in their false-claim to Israeli land. Why does this claim exist? Because Israel graciously gave back all of the Sinai and huge portions of Lebanon and Jordan that they took when attacked in the 7 days war.

Lesson: If someone attacks you without provocation and forces you to counter-attack, keep whatever land you take in that war.

Oh well. Maybe things will change now that the Palestinians elected Hamas to represent them. They can no longer claim that terrorists merely live among them. They have now confessed to the world that they not only condone, they support and desire terrorism against Israel. In my mind, that's enough to make the next homicide bombing into something different than a terrorist attack - it makes the next homicide bombing an act of war on behalf of the Palestinian state.

We'll see if Israel takes that path.
NRA Life Patron Member; GOA; NRA Certified Firearm Instructor; NRA RSO; Attorney

Self-Defense/CHL Law, BP, HFS, PPIH Instructor
RKBA, LLC - Founder, Co-President
Post Reply