Iran issues stark military warning to United States
- Thread starter model 25
- Start date
- Status
Consider this:
1. You may need troops on the ground to occupy a country, but not to destroy its weapon-making or command and control capability.
2. Israel has its own nukes, lots of airplanes and really good, motivated pilots. Something tells me Iran won't make it to the finish line without interference of a cataclysmic nature.
On this basis I conclude that Armageddon can't be far away.
1. You may need troops on the ground to occupy a country, but not to destroy its weapon-making or command and control capability.
2. Israel has its own nukes, lots of airplanes and really good, motivated pilots. Something tells me Iran won't make it to the finish line without interference of a cataclysmic nature.
On this basis I conclude that Armageddon can't be far away.
The IISS report is no longer available online but here's the gist of it:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,642825,00.html
You could also check out the Army War College report
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=207
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,642825,00.html
You could also check out the Army War College report
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=207
Thanks for the link!
I personally would expect more recruits to al qaeda to be inspired when we went to war with Iraq.
I still have serious doubts as to the actual number of them.
I read the Time article and then visited the International Institute for Strategic Studies site, I didn't have any luck linking to the document quoted as you stated it was unavailable now, but I did find links there to press coverage that was still available
What I found is a bit off topic on this thread, but Iraq was mentioned as was a link to the source (IISS) and the source had more to offer. !
I picked a foreign news coverage at random and was surprised to find that the Pakistani Daily Times has less of a slant than the Time article had. The Time article missed some important items that the Pakistani's didn?t because the Time article was pre-election LOL
http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-...ay-2005/iraq-remains-an-inspiration-for-qaeda
"The Middle East is more secure than a year ago because of positive developments both in Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict, one of the world?s top think tanks said on Tuesday in its annual survey of global security."
"But the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said Iraq remained an inspiration for Islamic militants, helping Al Qaeda to recruit and continue to pose a threat to countries around the world."
From the same story :
"US policies: Washington's policies of promoting democracy in Iraq and elsewhere look "increasingly effective", and even the threat from terrorism abated slightly during 2004, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said in its report."
Also stated by the International Institute for Strategic Studies:
"Even though the Bush policy was bold, controversial and sometimes divisive, his aggressive global agenda of promoting freedom, and democracy appeared increasingly effective, the IISS said in its 384-page "Strategic Survey 2004-05". Counter-terrorism efforts over the period had also seen an overall net gain, the report argued, despite the seemingly "counterproductive" aspects of some of the United States self-declared war on terror.
This report is a couple of years old but so is the Time article you linked to !
While the report noted an improvement in the region they did indeed note that the US was an inspiration for new recruits to al Qaeda. Actually,Like I said I would expect this to happen no matter where or in any country in the world the United States decides to kill them.
None of the stories actually mentioned the methodology used to get an exact number of new al qaeda fighters. But like I said it could be expected.
I would like to find a reliable source on the number of insurgents and foreign terrorists being killed in Iraq.
I seriously doubt that all that is being shown on the evening news and being reported in Time magazine is all that is going on in Iraq on a daily basis. I hope to get a chance to visit with my great-nephew that is in Iraq now on his 2nd time there with the 4th ID.
The war in Iraq is a legitimate one in my book. The congress virtually gave GW Bush a hunting license when they issued the document that stated that a "state of war exists".
The 9-11 report stated that Hussein offered sanctuary to bin laden and Iraqi intelligence had contact with al qaeda after bin ladin declared war on the U.S..
Thanks for the link again !
ez45
I personally would expect more recruits to al qaeda to be inspired when we went to war with Iraq.
I still have serious doubts as to the actual number of them.
I read the Time article and then visited the International Institute for Strategic Studies site, I didn't have any luck linking to the document quoted as you stated it was unavailable now, but I did find links there to press coverage that was still available
What I found is a bit off topic on this thread, but Iraq was mentioned as was a link to the source (IISS) and the source had more to offer. !
I picked a foreign news coverage at random and was surprised to find that the Pakistani Daily Times has less of a slant than the Time article had. The Time article missed some important items that the Pakistani's didn?t because the Time article was pre-election LOL
http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-...ay-2005/iraq-remains-an-inspiration-for-qaeda
"The Middle East is more secure than a year ago because of positive developments both in Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict, one of the world?s top think tanks said on Tuesday in its annual survey of global security."
"But the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said Iraq remained an inspiration for Islamic militants, helping Al Qaeda to recruit and continue to pose a threat to countries around the world."
From the same story :
"US policies: Washington's policies of promoting democracy in Iraq and elsewhere look "increasingly effective", and even the threat from terrorism abated slightly during 2004, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said in its report."
Also stated by the International Institute for Strategic Studies:
"Even though the Bush policy was bold, controversial and sometimes divisive, his aggressive global agenda of promoting freedom, and democracy appeared increasingly effective, the IISS said in its 384-page "Strategic Survey 2004-05". Counter-terrorism efforts over the period had also seen an overall net gain, the report argued, despite the seemingly "counterproductive" aspects of some of the United States self-declared war on terror.
This report is a couple of years old but so is the Time article you linked to !
While the report noted an improvement in the region they did indeed note that the US was an inspiration for new recruits to al Qaeda. Actually,Like I said I would expect this to happen no matter where or in any country in the world the United States decides to kill them.
None of the stories actually mentioned the methodology used to get an exact number of new al qaeda fighters. But like I said it could be expected.
I would like to find a reliable source on the number of insurgents and foreign terrorists being killed in Iraq.
I seriously doubt that all that is being shown on the evening news and being reported in Time magazine is all that is going on in Iraq on a daily basis. I hope to get a chance to visit with my great-nephew that is in Iraq now on his 2nd time there with the 4th ID.
The war in Iraq is a legitimate one in my book. The congress virtually gave GW Bush a hunting license when they issued the document that stated that a "state of war exists".
The 9-11 report stated that Hussein offered sanctuary to bin laden and Iraqi intelligence had contact with al qaeda after bin ladin declared war on the U.S..
Thanks for the link again !
ez45
NedreckSavant
New member
After reading that christian science article, that backs up my previous hypothesis: They don't want us dead so much as wanting us GONE. They would accept dead, but they just want their backyard back. Too bad we're never leaving...boy, they'd be pissed if they knew we were never leaving.
we can drill through glass, right?
i mean do these guys think we are gonna let a missle fly accross the ocean and over CONUS w/o shooting back?
please. sabre rattlers and nomadic bandits, camel herders w/ gunpowder. they have neither the ability nor intent to bring the might of my US Miltary power to bear on them. im more worries about natural disasters than Iran launching a missle at us.
i mean do these guys think we are gonna let a missle fly accross the ocean and over CONUS w/o shooting back?
please. sabre rattlers and nomadic bandits, camel herders w/ gunpowder. they have neither the ability nor intent to bring the might of my US Miltary power to bear on them. im more worries about natural disasters than Iran launching a missle at us.
Benonymous
New member
No oil = economic disaster
If the US is crazy enough to attack Iran the Iranians will cease selling oil to the US. This will spike oil prices up to $????? per barrel and the world will be plunged into a recession the like of which we have never seen. That's just for starters. The "might" of the US military will not be a factor, all us average joes will be scratching around for a dollar/meal. Maybe we'll be less impressed with the current administration and their policies. The way I see it, Bush's "base" will stroll through any kind of financial disater without a bump and buy up a lot of undervalued property and businesses along the way. Sweet deal for them, s#itty end of the stick for the "middle class" Have a look at what US "military might" has achieved in Iraq. Mission accomplished or Nothing accomplished?
If the US is crazy enough to attack Iran the Iranians will cease selling oil to the US. This will spike oil prices up to $????? per barrel and the world will be plunged into a recession the like of which we have never seen. That's just for starters. The "might" of the US military will not be a factor, all us average joes will be scratching around for a dollar/meal. Maybe we'll be less impressed with the current administration and their policies. The way I see it, Bush's "base" will stroll through any kind of financial disater without a bump and buy up a lot of undervalued property and businesses along the way. Sweet deal for them, s#itty end of the stick for the "middle class" Have a look at what US "military might" has achieved in Iraq. Mission accomplished or Nothing accomplished?
geronimo13
New member
Why buy in to the Neocon agenda. One world government. Bush and Clinton both are gutting the constitution and turning the U.S. into a more fascist regime than Nazi germany. The gun control laws were taken verbatim from Nazi gun control laws. This imperialism is to bring fear to everyone in the world. With fear and guilt you achieve control. It's time to be fearless and see the leaders for the treasonous cowards that they are. Christ said it best "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Everyone wants to be treated right. IF you look into the media manipulation and mind control we are to believe there is a need for more civil liberties to be confiscated. Jfk's assasination was a cover up, Waco, Ruby ridge, Oaklahoma City, 9/11- in all cases the investigations were hampered by FBI and government but immediately following the event, ledgislation that would have taken years to write was pushed through following cries of "terrorism". The golden rule should be the law of the land. There has never been a finer political document than the constitution but who knows what it says? You watch in 2008 it will be Guilliani and Hillary-both groomed-both the same.
If the US is crazy enough to attack Iran the Iranians will cease selling oil to the US.
sorry. that doesnt fly w/ me. see, im an imperialist. we are there. we take. period. if the oil stops flowing we take it. If it is inherant to the national security if our country then we will take it.
sorry. that doesnt fly w/ me. see, im an imperialist. we are there. we take. period. if the oil stops flowing we take it. If it is inherant to the national security if our country then we will take it.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
It's all about Israel - they're the country in peril from an Irani missile
I see an analogy between Israel and the history of racial prejudice in the United States. Since slavery, jim crow, and the civil rights movement of the 50s & 60s, we've come a long way toward restoring rights to racial minorities, and remediating the greivances. It's now time for them to stand on their own two feet, without any special treatment, handouts, or affirmative action. At some point you have to draw the line. Ditto for Israel. They were a young vulnerable new country 30 or 40 years ago. But now they have plenty o' technology, know-how, firepower, etc., thanks to us (after all, they've kicked everyone's arses they've tangled with so far in the region). So now it's time for us to step back, cut the ties that bind, and let Israel stand on their own two feet (i.e. no monetary or .mil technology support), and defend themselves, for better or worse - I believe they'll continue to do so quite capably. But doing this will greatly decrease the piss-off-the-raghead-jihad factor, and thus make our lives easier - less terrorist attacks on us. It's not that complicated.
I see an analogy between Israel and the history of racial prejudice in the United States. Since slavery, jim crow, and the civil rights movement of the 50s & 60s, we've come a long way toward restoring rights to racial minorities, and remediating the greivances. It's now time for them to stand on their own two feet, without any special treatment, handouts, or affirmative action. At some point you have to draw the line. Ditto for Israel. They were a young vulnerable new country 30 or 40 years ago. But now they have plenty o' technology, know-how, firepower, etc., thanks to us (after all, they've kicked everyone's arses they've tangled with so far in the region). So now it's time for us to step back, cut the ties that bind, and let Israel stand on their own two feet (i.e. no monetary or .mil technology support), and defend themselves, for better or worse - I believe they'll continue to do so quite capably. But doing this will greatly decrease the piss-off-the-raghead-jihad factor, and thus make our lives easier - less terrorist attacks on us. It's not that complicated.
But doing this will greatly decrease the piss-off-the-raghead-jihad factor, and thus make our lives easier - less terrorist attacks on us. It's not that complicated.
im sorry... you are serious? ill take a terrorist attack a week to be on Isreals side. there a book on it you should pick up... The Bible. I'm not going to leave them hanging out there.
im sorry... you are serious? ill take a terrorist attack a week to be on Isreals side. there a book on it you should pick up... The Bible. I'm not going to leave them hanging out there.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
of course I'm serious
Why? What's in it for you?
Since I'm an atheist, do you think the bible is going to have sway over my or anyone else's thinking who is actual rational on the subject? And where in the bible does it say we're supposed to support Israel? You see, your statements demonstrate as much irrationality as the fundamentalist towelheads do with thier jihads on us.
Funny how the supposed "christian" here is also the imperialist, who would run roughshod over a nation and its people to steal their natural resources, presumably murdering many of them in the process, correct - some incidental homocides would be ok if you need the oil, right, PSE? And people wonder why I'm so cynical about so-called "christians", who as I recall are supposed to follow the golden rule. :barf:
Furthermore, your imperialist beliefs are ones that are clearly concerned most with self-interested behavior, that is to say, focused on "what's best for US, the Unites States of America?" So if it's in OUR best interest to dump support for Israel, then why wouldn't we? Not doing so is inconsistent with your philosophy & belief. Not to mention that it goes against everything in our historic principles back to the birth of our nation, as anti-imperialists. Not say that an imperialist view is inherently wrong - it's not - just that's it's inconsistent with supporting Israel and our history and historic values and principles, IMO.
Why? What's in it for you?
Since I'm an atheist, do you think the bible is going to have sway over my or anyone else's thinking who is actual rational on the subject? And where in the bible does it say we're supposed to support Israel? You see, your statements demonstrate as much irrationality as the fundamentalist towelheads do with thier jihads on us.
Funny how the supposed "christian" here is also the imperialist, who would run roughshod over a nation and its people to steal their natural resources, presumably murdering many of them in the process, correct - some incidental homocides would be ok if you need the oil, right, PSE? And people wonder why I'm so cynical about so-called "christians", who as I recall are supposed to follow the golden rule. :barf:
Furthermore, your imperialist beliefs are ones that are clearly concerned most with self-interested behavior, that is to say, focused on "what's best for US, the Unites States of America?" So if it's in OUR best interest to dump support for Israel, then why wouldn't we? Not doing so is inconsistent with your philosophy & belief. Not to mention that it goes against everything in our historic principles back to the birth of our nation, as anti-imperialists. Not say that an imperialist view is inherently wrong - it's not - just that's it's inconsistent with supporting Israel and our history and historic values and principles, IMO.
- Status