Quote :

"On Tuesday, state-run television also said the elite Revolutionary Guards had tested what it called a “super-modern flying boat” capable of detecting radar. TV showed a brief clip of the boat’s launch. “Due to its advanced design, no radar at sea or in the air can detect it. It can lift out of the water,” the television said. It said the boat was “all Iranian-made and can launch missiles with precise targeting while moving.” Iran said the torpedo tests were conducted on Sunday and Monday. The torpedo — called a “Hoot,” or “whale” — is able to move at up to 223 mph, too fast for any enemy ship to elude."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12138861/

Quote :

""Iran would respond within 15 minutes to any attack by the United States or any other country," an Iranian official close to the conservative clerics who run the country's security and military apparatus said on condition of anonymity"

Quote :

"The Pentagon recently revealed that, as a matter of routine preparedness, it had upgraded its Iranian war plans, and the Washington Post has reported that unmanned U.S. drones have been flying over suspected nuclear sites in Iran. Iranian authorities, too, say they have been getting ready for a possible attack. Newspapers have announced efforts to increase the number of the country's 7 million-strong "Basiji" volunteer militia, which was deployed in human-wave attacks during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Iranian military authorities have paraded long-range North Korean-designed Shahab missiles before television cameras. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/21/MNGHUBERIV1.DTL


Some how I get the feeling that these guys arn't bluffing (psychological warfare my ass). I honestly
don't think that we are remotely close to even contemplating an invasion. That country is massive,
we are over engaged. They clearly have military advancements that eclipse Iraq's. Could somebody
tell me why we are fucking with these guys again?!?!?!
we might have a better chance sacking N. Korea. These guys are tellin us to bring it!

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 10:03 AM. Reason : x]

4/4/2006 10:00:57 AM

the difference this time is that the security council is getting tired of their shit.

if we go in, we ALL go in.

4/4/2006 10:16:39 AM

^ exactly. this will not be a US-British led invasion but a UN led invasion. big big difference.

4/4/2006 10:28:57 AM

The nice thing about Iran is that we don't need to occupy the country, just smash it.

4/4/2006 10:41:23 AM

Quote :

"Some how I get the feeling that these guys arn't bluffing (psychological warfare my ass). I honestly don't think that we are remotely close to even contemplating an invasion. That country is massive, we are over engaged. They clearly have military advancements that eclipse Iraq's. Could somebody tell me why we are fucking with these guys again?!?!?!"

I would say they are the ones fucking with US/The World. You didnt say this, but.. do you think it would be better to throw our hands up and let them get nukes with that mad-man in charge?

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 10:47 AM. Reason : f]

4/4/2006 10:46:58 AM

It'd be funny if all the "rogue" states and "terrorist" groups around the world realized how over-engaged our military is right now, and all decide to simultaneously attack the US and it's allies. That'd teach us.

4/4/2006 11:01:33 AM

i hope you're first against the wall hippie

4/4/2006 11:11:56 AM

What's a "hippie"?

4/4/2006 11:26:40 AM

Quote :

"the difference this time is that the security council is getting tired of their shit. if we go in, we ALL go in. "

oh good, well then i feel better, knowing it'll be ww3

4/4/2006 11:35:42 AM

right

everybody vs. iran will be ww3

4/4/2006 11:45:40 AM

Quote :

"The nice thing about Iran is that we don't need to occupy the country, just smash it."

Probably won't even have to send in ground troops, just set the country on fire from the air.

4/4/2006 11:58:37 AM

Quote :

"right everybody vs. iran will be ww3"

i guess in that case it would be ww4 since the 1991 gulf war (everybody vs. iraq) would've been ww3

4/4/2006 12:00:34 PM

Quote :

"the difference this time is that the security council is getting tired of their shit. if we go in, we ALL go in."

yes. its one thing if you make just the US nervous. But, when you start making LOTS of countries nervous... then lots of countries show up on your door.

If the US shows up alone.. we will get embarassed. If the UN decides to grow a pair... look for Iran to get wtfpwnt with a swiftness.

4/4/2006 12:37:49 PM

One thing to remember about Iran is that 90% of that 7 million strong millitia doesn't even have guns. Iran bought a quantity of F14s in the late 70's which it very shortly had to ground becuase they couldn't afford the parts to keep them going. Those planes are still grounded. Still though dealing with a bunch of radical fundamentalists is not fun.

4/4/2006 12:45:59 PM

dont forget about poland

4/4/2006 12:51:49 PM

Quote :

"It'd be funny if all the "rogue" states and "terrorist" groups around the world realized how over-engaged our military is right now, and all decide to simultaneously attack the US and it's allies. That'd teach us"

No it wouldn't. It would piss us off in a huge way, and we'd have every right to bring the pain in a huge way after being directly attacked. We would be backed into a corner just enough that they would all get seriously fucked up.

Our military budgeting is greater than that of the next 11-12 biggest militaries COMBINED...

and we haven't even taken off the gloves since 1945.

4/4/2006 12:54:50 PM

I though it was bigger than the next 20 biggest militaries....of course, that was in the 90's...

Quote :

"and we haven't even taken off the gloves since 1945"

ahahahah

right

ahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaaha
hahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahaha
haahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahaha
haahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahaha
haahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahahahaa
hahahaha

sure

BWAHAHAAAAHAAAA
BWAHAHAAAAHAAAA
BWAHAHAAAAHAAAA
BWAHAHAAAAHAAAA
BWAHAHAAAAHAAAA
BWAHAHAAAAHAAAA
BWAHAHAAAAHAAAA
BWAHAHAAAAHAAAA
BWAHAHAAAAHAAAA
BWAHAHAAAAHAAAA
BWAHAHAAAAHAAAA
BWAHAHAAAAHAAAA

omg


stfu

you are too funny


[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 1:00 PM. Reason :

4/4/2006 12:58:09 PM

maybe it is the next 20, but I think it's 11-12. Either way, doesn't make a lot of difference.


and I would like for you to tell me when we've really taken the gloves off since WWII. We haven't--Korea and Vietnam, maybe one glove off, but we were still fighting with restraint (and by that, I don't just mean that we didn't take it nuclear)

Every conflict since Vietnam has been conducted with a significant amount of restraint.

4/4/2006 1:15:26 PM

I say we pull out and nuke the site from orbit.

Its the only way to be sure.

4/4/2006 1:18:07 PM

Why exactly do we hate Iran?

Just because they're developing nuclear technology?

4/4/2006 1:32:34 PM

they helped with 9/11

they tried to kill the presidents daddy

they have the capability to attack our soil

uh

you're either with us or against us






remember when this world had greys

4/4/2006 1:43:11 PM

state supporter of terrorism - check
have actively been involved in terrorism - check
striving to aqcuire weapons of mass distruction - check
have stated their willingness to use them - check

i could continue, but that's enough

4/4/2006 1:47:04 PM

^What's that, the US?

4/4/2006 1:49:25 PM

4/4/2006 1:50:09 PM

terrorism that has affected us?

does striving equal having, or even working towards?

does willingness equal ability?

4/4/2006 1:59:01 PM

hezbollah has affected us on multiple occasions

the largest of note is the beirut bombings.

4/4/2006 2:06:26 PM

I think that allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons is a pretty tough case to argue.

4/4/2006 2:17:30 PM

nuclear proliferation sucks balls

btw, that's a technical argument

4/4/2006 2:19:32 PM

Because we all know George Bush needs another war to get them ratings up.




God I feel sorry for this country

4/4/2006 3:16:51 PM

whos gonna fight w/ Iran?

4/4/2006 3:18:57 PM

a military that is commanded by a commander and chief

4/4/2006 3:19:38 PM

In all this, I think Iran would get a much better message from us if we were to finish what we started in Iraq and prove to them we're not in the game just to start shit in the middle east. They want their jihad and I say lets not give it to them. Are we liberators or aggressors, it's not like the Iranian people are crying that they're oppressed either. You wanna fight that war?? Not me, Hell no.



[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2006 3:23:22 PM

Needless to say, if we were ever do get in a war with them we would trounce them. But it's counterproductive on many levels, so why do it?

Stroking that American ego I quess

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 3:42 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2006 3:39:09 PM

Quote :

"Because we all know George Bush needs another war to get them ratings up."

Right, a 2nd term president that really gives a fuck about his ratings?

Don't be ridiculous. Next election, the Repubs are running a moderate that no middle-of-the-road Americans will confuse with Bush. There won't be any reason to have good ratings for W, and whether you believe it or not, he's not going to risk American/UN lives for the sake of ratings. Besides, look how well the last war helped his ratings.

Quit being a douche, you bastard.

4/4/2006 4:55:18 PM

dont condesend me, you asshole. He still can be impeached.

4/4/2006 5:00:45 PM

So, lemme get this straight. You guys actually think that the U.N is going to back us on this one??
I don't see why they would, this is so because:

Quote :

"state supporter of terrorism - check have actively been involved in terrorism - check striving to aqcuire weapons of mass distruction - check have stated their willingness to use them - check"

^ pretty much describes the Iraq pre-war situation. And the U.N is basically ghost. I mean, correct me if im wrong but I just don't see a big difference b/t Iraq and Iran.

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 5:23 PM. Reason : x]

4/4/2006 5:21:51 PM

oh man

that's the biggest troll post I've ever seen

4/4/2006 5:25:09 PM

troll post?!?! how so?? maybe you're the one trolling.

I just see this ending up U.S vs Iran like any other situation. That's how it's always been.

4/4/2006 5:52:15 PM

Even if Its a UN invasion it will still be like 80% US military, wheres the real difference other than that we dont get a bunch of negative cred from the international community?
We are best off lobbing some cruise missiles into Iran and taking their nuclear sites out, and leave it at that.

4/4/2006 5:59:31 PM

they've "vowed to respond within 15 minutes to any US attack" and to unleash "terrorism around the world" following a US attack

4/4/2006 6:17:18 PM

Quote :

"It'd be funny if all the "rogue" states and "terrorist" groups around the world realized how over-engaged our military is right now, and all decide to simultaneously attack the US and it's allies."

man that shit would be cool, id take to the hills with all my crazy gun buddies and fight a red dawn guerilla war.

Quote :

"terrorism that has affected us?"

um 1979, among others

4/4/2006 6:18:22 PM

Who gives a rats ass about the UN, it is primarily US and UK troops anyways. I don't think we need to invade Iran, we should just blow up their nuclear sites. It would be nice though to dethrone another facist but I think maybe in time and with a little green his people will get rid of him. Plus with the pressure from a new democracy next door I think his days are numbered.

4/4/2006 6:22:17 PM

Quote :

"Even if Its a UN invasion it will still be like 80% US military, wheres the real difference other than that we dont get a bunch of negative cred from the international community?"

Not true.

During the war, yes, 80% of the fighting force will be American because our technology kicks ass on the battlefield.

But once the battle is over, technology becomes somewhat useless beyond a cell-phone and machine-gun. The Europeans may have crappy fighting forces, but they have numbers. Europe can send in and feed a half million soldiers, enough to put a soldier on every street corner if needed.

If we had this quantity of soldiers after the latest Iraq war then the insurgency would have been crushed within a few months. With enough road-blocks and pavement pounding an insergency must flee the cities and setup shop in the hills, where they can often do very little harm without incurring the rath of aerial bombardment.

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 6:32 PM. Reason : ^]

4/4/2006 6:29:20 PM

^Yeah, we only had: Poland, UK, Japan, Spain (for a little while), Italy and us. Too bad we didn't have the whopping forces of Germany and France to help us out.

-no, my friend, the insurgency is remnants of the last regime and islamic fundamentalists. More troops are not going to help. It is sad that their democracy is being paid for with American blood but eventually they will stand on their two feet and they will prosper as the free people of Iraq. They will learn what it is like to be able to voice their opinions and practice their own beliefs without the fear of being butchered by a ruthless dictator.

4/4/2006 6:36:20 PM

I disagree, more troops would help in Iraq. The american sentiment over there would get a positive boost if they saw multiple banners from other countries joining in the fight. This would comfort them in knowing that the rest of the world agrees in stablizing Iraq and that the U.S. is doing something right. More troops equal more security, and as long as we stick to the plan it can only help matters. Also, if we are serious about training the Iraqi security forces we need to get to it and by this way they can be trained faster. I have faith in the U.S. military but I highly doubt the conflict can be resolved any time within the next 5-6 years without the aid of U.N. forces.

I believe Bush is gonna have to bite his tongue on this one, and put his foot in his mouth.

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 6:46 PM. Reason : ^]

4/4/2006 6:45:40 PM

Quote :

"One thing to remember about Iran is that 90% of that 7 million strong millitia doesn't even have guns. Iran bought a quantity of F14s in the late 70's which it very shortly had to ground becuase they couldn't afford the parts to keep them going. Those planes are still grounded. Still though dealing with a bunch of radical fundamentalists is not fun."

Their military has been stockpiling for the past 15 or so years. So I think they've solved that problem. Truth is, due to their exclusivenes, we really don't know what they have and the extent of their capabilities. All we know is what they show us through media.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_249.shtml

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 8:23 PM. Reason : xxx]

4/4/2006 8:22:45 PM

Man, when will this psy-OPs stop and it has these guys posting news stories all the time.
What propagation machines and 'sheeple' ordure.

4/4/2006 8:51:53 PM

"super-modern flying boat"


Is anyone really buying this?

It's a propaganda act. I think that the the current leaders are really reaching here to make the west look like an evil power preparing to attack to its own people in order to cover up the fact that despite their campaign of economic equality in the country, things are only getting worse. We aren't going to attack Iran alone right now, in fact, I would wager that if anything, we unleash Israel. They can take care of Iran pretty quickly with no ocupation. Bomb them back into the stone age, which really shouldn't take long, as long as the Russians don't get involved that is.

4/4/2006 9:27:49 PM

Who the fuck needs flying boats. We have subs and jets.

4/4/2006 9:38:39 PM

Ya'll know that a good percentage of the Basiji is infact children.
And they will basically march in a line to their death.

What happens when they get bombed???

No protests from the US public? HA!
We can't even fight a war anymore.

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 9:39 PM. Reason : sp]

4/4/2006 9:38:55 PM