Iran President: "Holocaust A Myth"

[Kandahar]

Someone in the Israeli government leaked a story to a British newspaper that says Ariel Sharon is calling on the Israeli military to be prepared for air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities by March.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html

Let's just hope this is true, because this spring is the absolute latest that air strikes are likely to work. In the meantime, we should be doing everything we can to destabilize the Iranian government. Nukes in the hands of a democratic Iran aren't nearly as scary as nukes in the hands of an insane Iran.

 

[Kandahar]

I agree Iran is a $hit hole...... but...
What we need to do right now is finish the two conflicts that already have our military stressed out to deployments every 9 months for our troops. (at least it was for me)

We don't have time to wait to finish the two conflicts we're in. Iran is an imminent threat to the world and they need to be dealt with now.

 

[Caine]

We don't have time to wait to finish the two conflicts we're in. Iran is an imminent threat to the world and they need to be dealt with now.

Where are you going to get the troops from?????

Or maybe you would have us send more troops so that 80% of our military is overseas somewhere and the US would be a much easier target then.

 

[Kandahar]

Where are you going to get the troops from?????

Some of them from Iraq. Some of them from reserves. An air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities won't require that many troops.

Or maybe you would have us send more troops so that 80% of our military is overseas somewhere and the US would be a much easier target then.

1) Only about 20% of our military is currently overseas.
2) Are you suggesting someone would try to invade us if more troops were abroad?
3) How many troops do you think tactical air strikes would require? I'm guessing not more than 20,000.

 

[Caine]

Some of them from Iraq. Some of them from reserves. An air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities won't require that many troops.



1) Only about 20% of our military is currently overseas.
2) Are you suggesting someone would try to invade us if more troops were abroad?
3) How many troops do you think tactical air strikes would require? I'm guessing not more than 20,000.

Ahem... let me repost something I already said...........

I would assume that if the decision IS made to go after Iran... we would have to make do with Airstrikes similar to what Clinton did to Iraq in the late 90's.

Its right there above your comment.

 

[Kandahar]

Ahem... let me repost something I already said...........


Its right there above your comment.

Should I interpret that as an endorsement of air strikes? If so, what are you arguing about?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ahem... let me repost something I already said...........


Its right there above your comment.

You can't win wars by airstrikes alone, as was proven by the war in Kosovo, there are plenty of ways to fool satelites, they used camoflauge, and placed already destroyed targets in other places, we hit the same target more than once, you need troops on the ground.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Dude seriously the lesson of WW2 and Adolf Hitler is that politicians sometimes mean and do exactly what they say they're going to do.

You've got it wrong. WW2 developed because Hitler invaded countries and people just let it happen. This guy is just talking. Until he actually does something, I don't consider it a serious threat. Especially when we're at his back door.

 

[The Real McCoy]

This guy is just talking. Until he actually does something, I don't consider it a serious threat. Especially when we're at his back door.

I agree 100%

For whatever reason, the guy wants attention. None of what he says should be taken too seriously, and it isn't. With all the outrageous statements he's made during his short career as president, the world hasn't made all that big a deal out of it.

 

[SixStringHero]

Once Iran goes nuclear the option for military action is too late.

We sat idly by and let N. Korea progress with their nuclear programs and while I don't consider Kim Jong Il nearly as crazy as the Iranian president, the fact remains that the option for any type of military action has passed.

 

[oldreliable67]

Why would someone build a weapon unless they wanted to use it? THat goes for all nations. No one should be allowed to have a nuke. We need to work with the UN and our allies to reduce our nuclear weapons and we also need to do something about ours also.

All too true. The NPT has helped, but it just doesn't do the whole job. Weak or no enforcement, too much after-the-fact discovery, etc. Extremely difficult proposition, but desperately in need of addressing before something really, really nasty happens.

Until he actually does something, I don't consider it a serious threat.

But that something really, really nasty will happen sooner rather than later with a waiting "until he actually does something" attitude. This is the one case in which pre-emptive strikes are clearly, unequivocally called for - but if and only if all other efforts fail.

 

[Caine]

Should I interpret that as an endorsement of air strikes? If so, what are you arguing about?

LOL........ You must seriously be looking for someone to argue with, and creating an argument out of nothing.

Yes, im endorsing air strikes, I mentioned it before you so that is obvious.
Im saying that being someone who recently got out of the military, troops are getting sick of spending more time away from home, than home. Just about all of our actual fighting troops (combat units) have been deployed at least once for a period of a year.. some twice... some are on thier third deployment in this war. I was deployed for a year, came back for 9 months to deploy again...
This is what the media talks about when they say we have an "overstrained military" or "overstressed military" and its only going to get worse because less and less people are joining, most likely due to the fact that we have a controversial war, and they will be deployed every time they turn around.

Defending the country is thier job.. yes.... but even THEY deserve a break. For, what good is a soldier who has given up home and just waiting for his ETS date for life to continue for him?

 

[The Real McCoy]

Once Iran goes nuclear the option for military action is too late.

We sat idly by and let N. Korea progress with their nuclear programs and while I don't consider Kim Jong Il nearly as crazy as the Iranian president, the fact remains that the option for any type of military action has passed.

Not necessarily. Just because a country has nukes doesn't mean they'll use them if attacked.

 

[Tashah]

Any US preemptive strike against Iran is going to be a very dicey and complicated affair...

Firstly, every Iranian Shahab-4/5 missile site will have to be totally destroyed to negate any Iranian revenge missile (C&B) attacks upon Israel.

A good portion of Iran's critical nuclear-weapons facilities are either deep underground or located within mountains. I don't think bunker-buster missiles will be very effective here. These sites may require a combination of BLU and tactical (small yield) nuclear weapons to ensure total destruction.

Iran's target-rich nuclear program (300+ sites) would require around a week of heavy air-strikes and cruise-missile strikes by the US. The Persian Gulf shipping lanes would have to be protected... ergo significant US attacks on Iranian naval facilities and assets. Any successful Iranian attacks on Saudi offshore oil-tanker transfer platforms could spell economic disaster.

I assume the IDF would knock out numerous Syrian radar stations and heavily attack Iranian Pasdaran positions in Lebanon's Bekkah Valley to nullify short-range missile attacks on northern Israel.

Don't forget the other side of the coin. Thousands of Iranian's would be ordered across the Iraq border to assist the insurgency and engage with US ground forces. Iran may attempt terrorism in the US heartland. Hamas and Hizb'allah would certainly attempt heavy suicide-bombings in Israel.

Some of you say that Iran would never push the nuclear button. Others say we must wait before acting until they do so. Preemption is a dark scenario. Doing nothing however, is an even darker scenario. Let's not fool ourselves. The president of Iran does not control Iran. The ruling Iranian clerics pull his strings and maintain total control. These current ruling clerics are the direct disciples of Ayatollah Khomeini. They care not a whit for western morality or the sanctity of life. They sent hundreds of thousands of unarmed Iranian teenagers to their death in human-wave assauts during the Iran-Iraq War. They used Iranian children to clear lanes through Iraqi minefields. I am utterly speechless that some of you trust them with nuclear weapons. God help us.

 

[Chris]

BTW I'm not dismissing the potential of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. I'm just saying his Holocaust rants are probably just an attempt to get more attention.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Hamas and Hizb'allah would certainly attempt heavy suicide-bombings in Israel.

It's already started...

1239 GMT -- IRAN -- Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal says his group will increase attacks against Israel if the Jewish state takes military action against Iran, Agence France-Presse reported Dec. 15. Meshaal, who is visiting Iran from his base in Syria, said that both Hamas and Iran are part of a united front against the enemies of Islam, each carrying the battle in their own region. He also praised Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent statements dismissing the Holocaust as a myth and calling for the relocation of Israel to Europe or North America.

 

[The Real McCoy]

BTW I'm not dismissing the potential of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. I'm just saying his Holocaust rants are probably just an attempt to get more attention.

Exactly. The guy wants attention.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Why would you bomb Iran to get rid of nuclear stockpiles? If you want to get rid of them, Israel should coordinate an invasion with the United States. Bombing them will cause unnecessary civillian casualties.

 

[FinnMacCool]

But that something really, really nasty will happen sooner rather than later with a waiting "until he actually does something" attitude. This is the one case in which pre-emptive strikes are clearly, unequivocally called for - but if and only if all other efforts fail.

Whats he gonna do when he has no nuclear weapons. Okay, so he's trying to produce them. Big deal. How long does it take to produce them? By the time he gets even close to finishing making them, we will already know whether he is a big enough threat to have him taken out.

It's not like Iran is a big military power. They know they cannot fight Israel Iraq (that is if Iraq can get itself together, which I dobut). and the United States Air Force combined. And this time the United Nations will back us.

 

[oldreliable67]

Whats he gonna do when he has no nuclear weapons.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. If we wait until he actually does something, he will be doing something with nuclear weapons. Hence, the something nasty will be really, reallly nasty. One can only hope that the rest of the world has sufficiently good intel to know when they are so close that something will absolutely, positively have to be done.

 

[Caine]

Why would you bomb Iran to get rid of nuclear stockpiles? If you want to get rid of them, Israel should coordinate an invasion with the United States. Bombing them will cause unnecessary civillian casualties.

Because sending a large amount of already stressed out soldiers isn't going to cause unnecessary civilian casualties????

You must have no Idea what our troops do over there when they are having a bad day in the 11th month of thier deployment.....

Or when they've only been home for 3 months before being deployed for another year.......

 

[Kandahar]

You can't win wars by airstrikes alone, as was proven by the war in Kosovo, there are plenty of ways to fool satelites, they used camoflauge, and placed already destroyed targets in other places, we hit the same target more than once, you need troops on the ground.

I disagree. Air strikes will eliminate most of Iran's nuclear capabilities and set them back at least a few years. If the ayatollahs are still in power when Iran restores its nuclear program to its present-day state, we can do the same thing again.

The ayatollahs are under intense pressure to keep the military happy, and Ahmadinejad is nothing less than a national embarassment. The Iranian people openly despise their government. Air strikes alone won't eliminate the ayatollahs if it comes to that, but the THREAT of air strikes might incite a coup or a revolution.

Besides, air strikes are much cheaper and less risky than a ground invasion.

 

[Tashah]

Okay, so he's trying to produce them. Big deal. How long does it take to produce them? By the time he gets even close to finishing making them, we will already know whether he is a big enough threat to have him taken out.

Iran is currently manufacturing what is known in weapons technology as C3 centrifuges. This technology is strictly used to obtain highly enrichred uranium (HEU) from uranium-hexaflourine which is a byproduct of the nuclear fuel cycle. A 1000 unit centrifuge-cascade will yield enough HEU for approx 1 to 5 nuclear weapons per year. At the very most, Iran is less than two years away from mass-producing nuclear weapons.

The Iranian Shahab-6 missile which is in proto-production, has the range to target Europe. The Shahab-7 which is in R&D, will be able to target the eastern seaboard United States.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Because sending a large amount of already stressed out soldiers isn't going to cause unnecessary civilian casualties????

You must have no Idea what our troops do over there when they are having a bad day in the 11th month of thier deployment.....

Or when they've only been home for 3 months before being deployed for another year.......

We could do a lot worse, in my opinion. I am not a big fan of bombing. We killed a lot of innocent Afghani civillians during our bombing of Afghanistan.

 

[akyron]

Both Iran and Israel have made their intentions quite clear -- Iran would like to see Israel wiped off the map, and Israel is just as ready to press the red button to take care of Iran's nuclear sites. On Tuesday israel claimed Iran could start enriching uranium by 2006 and might be capable of producing nuclear bombs within three years. The significance of this statement about Iran's uranium enrichment issue points to the fact that a "red line" has been drawn-I think Israel, in the near future, will be prompted to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran's atomic facilities, for the sake of its own security.
scary.....

I disagree. I think Israel has shown remarkable restraint up to this point.