• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Iran Update: Failed IEAE inspection, Preemptive Strikes and SL declaring no nukes

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mully

Member
I'm no armchair general, but the only way I see the US or NATO getting involved is through calculated air and cruise missile strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. There will be no ground war scenario from the US and NATO. I really don't see Israel balling up either. I think they'll continue to try and impede through Mousaud operations.

Beyond that, it'd be political suicide to go to war with Iran. Both sides will talk a big game, but when the time comes, no country will want to stop them. Having said that, I feel Obama is going to do his best to stop Iran from going nuclear during his presidency. He seems keen on not letting that be part of his legacy.
 
C

Choke on the Magic

Banned
theignoramus said:
eh, during the Vietnam war, the generals wanted hundreds of thousands more troops to step up the attack on South Vietnam. But they were turned down because the troops were needed at home for use against rampant civil disturbance:the anti war protests.
that's public activism impeding war efforts.
Click to expand...

Yet the war went on.
 
V

Vaporizer

Banned
squidyj said:
You don't think they'd be willing to roll the dice on funneling a nuke or two out through an organization like hezbollah maybe into some other non-state actor less closely associated with Iran and let them do the business?

I seriously doubt it would ever happen, but I don't really know anything about how Iran rolls.




Which works out great for the Saudis, I can totally see why they would want to take part in that. /sarcasm
Click to expand...

you think hezbollah would launch a nuke on israel killing millions of palestinians in the process and watching the dome of the rock turn into rubble?
 
V

Vilix

Unconfirmed Member
Vaporizer said:
you think hezbollah would launch a nuke on israel killing millions of palestinians in the process and watching the dome of the rock turn into rubble?
Click to expand...

al qaeda had no problem smashing planes into buildings.
 
C

Choke on the Magic

Banned
theignoramus said:
it may have gone on even longer if the generals got the extra hundred thousand troops they wanted.
Click to expand...

True, but it in no way stopped the war. Hell who knows they have taken heavy losses still and bailed or crushed the Vietcong. There's no telling what would've happened, but the protests did not stop those in power from continuing which was my point.
 
T

theignoramus

Member
Vilix said:
al qaeda had no problem smashing planes into buildings.
Click to expand...

hezbollah isnt al qaeda and is understood not to be. that's why some western governments declare its military wing a terrorist organization, but accept the legitimacy of its "civilian" extension, the political party.
 
C

Choke on the Magic

Banned
Riddick said:
What's the questionmark for? You think Iraq was a success? We ruined the country, left it divided and war torn, wasted billions, payed the enemies to stop bombing us and humiliated the US to the entire world.
Click to expand...

No Iraq was a debacle and a mistake and I've constantly stated that in threads, however the US can't be rivaled with it's ability to make precision airstrikes.
 
T

theignoramus

Member
Vilix said:
One terrorist organization is nicer than the other, hmmm? My mistake.
Click to expand...

nobody puts it in those terms, you're being deliberately obtuse. al qaeda just wants to kill people, while Hezbollah and Hamas are more restrained in their violence, since they are political actors deeply embedded in their own territories. For example in the 90s, when Israel was illegally occupying Lebanon, through a third party, it made several deals with the Hezbollah to cease bombing and shelling civilian areas if the hezbollah would halt its rocket fire into northern Israel. It's a rationale actor and it's capable of restraining itself, unlike Al qaeda.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
carfo said:
So they say they don't want nukes then what are they hiding in the rooms where they won't let the UN inspectors go? I mean, if there's nothing to hide, then there's nothing to hide. Obviously, they're hiding something which is scarier than them admitting they are going after nukes. Because if they say they aren't, and all indications now point that they are, you have to wonder why they are lying and what they plan on doing once they get a nuke.
Click to expand...

Does the US allow access to international agents to visit whatever they damn well want?
 
H

hukasmokincaterpillar

Member
marrec said:
In the face of mounting international pressure and sanctions, it's reckless for Iran to continue posturing like they are. You're question does not relate at all because in your question America is not sitting on a decade of international pressure.
Click to expand...

Decade? Try 33 years. Its amazing to me anyone can talk about Iran and act as if 1979 doesn't wholly animate every facet of what's currently going on. Every decade is tabula rasa in America...

Iran went against the playbook in '79. Since then, they've been a "destabilizing force in the region". Whereas the West has been a "stabilizing force". Nuclear ambition is the least of it. Iran represents a precedent unto itself.

There will never be diplomacy, real diplomacy, with a regime that "must be changed".

jamesinclair said:
Does the US allow access to international agents to visit whatever they damn well want?
Click to expand...

dmvG8.jpg
 
C

Choke on the Magic

Banned
Riddick said:
Funny, my impression was that you almost ejaculate every time you start talking about military, guns and war. I must be mistaken then.
Click to expand...

Why because I'm in the discussion. Because I openly support my country of origin. Not once have I made a comment expressly jubilee for war, the deaths people etc. While most prance around like there expressed opinion's shit doesn't stink. Don't like what I have to say pop off and place me on the ignore. I don't give shit.

or just stay mad.
 
H

HAL_Laboratory

Member
Yes, Iran defense force -- please tell me how blocking access to a key site helps Iran's case in proving they're not making nukes? And threatening to strike at interfering nations? With what? Firecrackers? Sounds like nukes to me. This whole thing is getting weird.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
HAL_Laboratory said:
Yes, Iran defense force -- please tell me how blocking access to a key site helps Iran's case in proving they're not making nukes? And threatening to strike at interfering nations? With what? Firecrackers? Sounds like nukes to me. This whole thing is getting weird.
Click to expand...

Key site for WHAT? I'm sorry, but a former soviet scientist's son in law is not a credible source for nuclear intelligence. The IAEA doesn't get to look wherever it wants just because they want to look there.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
HAL_Laboratory said:
"...with the regime blocking access to a key site suspected of hosting covert nuclear weapon research"
Click to expand...

Oh, well, because they say it. Like I said, I believe Area 51 is chock full of missile components fit for nuclear war heads, think the IAEA will take my word for it and go in?

Seriously, "suspected" is such a worthless word. By whom? Based on what intelligence? Why should we accept such intel as credible? Sounds like any place can be designated "suspected"
 
A

astroturfing

Member
HAL_Laboratory said:
Yes, Iran defense force -- please tell me how blocking access to a key site helps Iran's case in proving they're not making nukes? And threatening to strike at interfering nations? With what? Firecrackers? Sounds like nukes to me. This whole thing is getting weird.
Click to expand...

what other country is humiliated in this way, demanded to give access to any facilities? Iran is right to be angry about it.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Gaborn said:
Oh, well, because they say it. Like I said, I believe Area 51 is chock full of missile components fit for nuclear war heads, think the IAEA will take my word for it and go in?

Seriously, "suspected" is such a worthless word. By whom? Based on what intelligence? Why should we accept such intel as credible? Sounds like any place can be designated "suspected"
Click to expand...
We´re allowed to have nukes so is Russia, China, France, and the UK. What part of that don´t you understand? Iran has agreed to this. I hate this whole, "what would you do if it happened to you?" when its not even the same thing.

We invented nukes. And btw we let Russians in all the time.
 
H

HAL_Laboratory

Member
Gaborn said:
There has been no indication of nuclear enrichment at that site, even in the IAEA report.
Click to expand...
Well, they weren't able to access the site, so who knows?

Either way, sure, Iran has a right to be upset about it. But why on Earth would nations the world over have a consistent issue with suspect nuclear weapon development from Iran, if nothing at all was going on? It doesn't make sense.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
el retorno de los sapos said:
We´re allowed to have nukes. What part of that don´t you understand? Iran has agreed to this.
Click to expand...

Point being, again, that there is no evidence of nuclear activity at the site and there are many reasons a country may want to restrict access to a particular area, the IAEA doesn't have a blank check to go absolutely anywhere in Iran and Iran not being willing to show them a secret facility is not evidence of illegal activity per se.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
HAL_Laboratory said:
Well, they weren't able to access it, so who knows?

Either way, sure, Iran has a right to be upset about it. But why on Earth would nations the world over have a consistent issue with suspect nuclear weapon development from Iran, if nothing at all was going on? It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

*headdesk* This is so CIRCULAR.
 
C

Choke on the Magic

Banned
Gaborn said:
Point being, again, that there is no evidence of nuclear activity at the site and there are many reasons a country may want to restrict access to a particular area, the IAEA doesn't have a blank check to go absolutely anywhere in Iran and Iran not being willing to show them a secret facility is not evidence of illegal activity per se.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that we have full disclosure of our nuclear facilities to the IAEA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Iran thwarts drone attack on military site, state media report
23
2K
akimbo009 replied
GVMERS: The Rise and Fall of Watch Dogs
Opinion Analysis Trailer
3
629
Arachnid replied
Financial Times: How Brad Smith used Microsoft’s $1bn law and lobbying machine to win Activision battle
News Drama Business 2 3
127
9K
Topher replied
Foiled Iranian bomb plot
23
2K
cryptoadam replied
GOP senators draft Iran bill that may complicate the fate of the Iran nuclear deal
0
840
Tovarisc replied
Top Bottom