Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News IAEA: No Iranian nuclear arms plans

  1. Sep 2, 2004 #1
    But will it matter? The IAEA said the same about Iraq prior to the USA invasion, and the USA attacked anyway. Will Iran be next on the list? And if so, which nation is next after them? And where/when will it stop?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 2, 2004 #2
    Do you think he will come to France one day :uhh: :surprised :yuck: :bugeye:

    Seriously : what makes you think he would bother about Iran ? I mean : how could Iran have any use to him ?
  4. Sep 2, 2004 #3
    Remember that ridiculous "axis of evil" comedy routine he vomited out? And the warnings to Iran after the Iraq invasion?
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2004
  5. Sep 2, 2004 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Amazing how different sources can interpret the same report in different ways: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-09-01-iran_x.htm
  6. Sep 2, 2004 #5
    So what? Australia is a huge producer of uranium products. Does that mean we're building nukes?
  7. Sep 2, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There's absolutely NO possibility of going to war against Iran - at least as far as the US is concerned. It's ridiculous to make caual predictions about future wars...with little knowledge of what it really takes, and more importantly, if it's really necessary.
  8. Sep 2, 2004 #7
    Yeah, we ex-military types don't know a thing about military stuff...

    Bush went to war with no idea of what it really takes. That's why his troops were starving on the battlefield.

    As for necessity... Irrelevent. The last one wasn't necessary, and Bush did it anyway.

    I'm not the one predicting war between Iran and USA. Bush is. He's already said many things about Iran that he said about Iraq prior to that invasion.
  9. Sep 2, 2004 #8

    I dissagree, look at latest news and comments by our media and administration, you would the same pattern as the one before gulf war2.
    Iran by the way is not a threat to USA absolutelly in any way.Israel fears that Iran with nukes would have much more to say on internnational stage and will be respected more than right now.N.Korea has nukes and USA is powerless.So war with Iran one way or another is coming but only in the interest of Israel.
  10. Sep 3, 2004 #9
  11. Sep 3, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here's my reasons for the US not being able to go to war with Iran (this sounds so ridiculous that it's funny I have to justify it)

    1. There's not enough troops to spare. The US military is greatly overextended. They're calling up 60 year-old (retired) reservists to go to Iraq.

    2. There's no money left. You know about the current state of the National Deficit, and the word of caution (warning ?) from the World Bank.

    3. The Congress would never approve this unless there's UN approval, and a mojority of the military strength provided by others. Politically, this is not viable, even if it is the right thing to do.

    4. Iran is no Iraq. Iraq had no Air Force or Navy, and piddles worth of missile and artillery capability. Iran has a regular army, with over a 1000 medium-battle tanks, and over 300 attack helicopters. They have scuds, SAMs (US made Haws), anti-tank missiles (Israeli TOWs) . I'm not sure about their air and naval capabilities but I know that it's not anything to take lightly.

    None of the above arguments were true before Iraq.

    The only advantages in the case of Iran are the ability to base out of Afghanistan and (to some limited extent ) out of Iraq.

    My complaint is that the war with Iraq has negated the possibility of threatening/projecting the use of force against Iran, were that to become necessary - at least not in the near future. And Iran knows this only too well.
  12. Sep 3, 2004 #11
    The US military consists of around 1.3 million people. The reasons for sending reservists to Iraq have nothing to do with limited manpower.

    The USA has been the world's greatest debtor ever for quite some time. Lack of funds is not an issue. I have no doubt that if there was further profit in it, the current administration would send more troops to more places to secrure investments for certain companies, and leave the next administration with the bill.

    The USA doesn't wait for UN approval, does not abide by international law. They'd go in again, just as with Iraq.

    I agree, Iran's military is in a much healthier condition than Iraq's was. Their tanks aren't so great though, particularly in a battlefield of mostly open terrain, when the USA will have air superiority.
  13. Sep 3, 2004 #12
    Amusing thread.
  14. Sep 4, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    AFAIK, Iran has made no promise to destroy the United States. We generally do not defend ourselves against non-agressors.
  15. Sep 4, 2004 #14
    And you believe that Iraq had plans to destroy the United States?
  16. Sep 4, 2004 #15
    Invading Iran... I do hope when it becomes necessary that it will be done, but quite frankly, only a complete moron blinded by his hatred would be able to convince himself that America is about to invade Iran.
  17. Sep 4, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Would you care to provide a reference for the latter sentence, and the bearing of the latter on the former?
  18. Sep 5, 2004 #17

    Hey Dissident Dan, how is the weather down there? hope you are OK. :smile:
  19. Sep 5, 2004 #18
    1. Syria is called in NPAC's strategy (Feith, Wurmser, etc) the next target. Not Iran. Yes, that Douglas Feith for which presumed Israeli spy Lawrence Franklin works. Also Feith and Wurmser get in the past without authorization national secrets from Pentagon computers when they made up the Iraq case (with Ahmed Chalabi). Feith and Wurmser are interested in first place to rebuild the Biblic Israel (Actual Israel + Iraq, Syria and Libanon), supported by the US New Born Christians.

    2. If US (or Israel) attacks Iran the whole of Iraq goes crazy. Al-Sistani (Iranian) just has to move his finger.
  20. Sep 5, 2004 #19
    During the invasion, the US reporters interviewed US troops here and there. Soldiers were not recieving food rations. They were all pushing forward too fast, as ordered, leaving their supply train behind. Tanks were out of fuel, troops were out of food. One soldier I saw interviewed said he hadn't eaten in three days. I suggest checking through the old threads here, or perhaps ask for someone you know who recorded the early days of the invasion coverage from NBC news if you want to see the interviews.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/111425p-100658c.html [Broken]
    http://slate.msn.com/id/2099408/ [Broken]
    http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=2953 [Broken]
    http://www.channel4.com/news/2004/01/week_2/16_kit.html [Broken] <- Brits.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  21. Sep 5, 2004 #20
    Sometimes, there are things more important than food. The element of surprise for example, far outweighs the temporary hunger of troops which will be fed by their private Mc Donalds the next day.
    I thought you were ex military Adam? Did you give up in hellweek because you didnt have enough time to empty your plate?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook