Iran may be developing missiles that can threaten the US

[Sea Skimmer]

Both newer missiles would be capable of carrying nuclear warheads as well as chemical and biological weapons, he said.

No one has ever put a biological weapon onto a missile. It's just not practical nor particularly achievable. Biological ICBMs ... morons.

Actually its been done by both the US and USSR, at least for trials and both of course deployed other biological strategic weapons. Though the main target in both cases was China and its shear population before everyone had sufficient nuclear stockpiles to deal with them all in the normal manner. A nation like Iran they certainly wouldn't want to use bio missiles against the US though.

[Coyote]

Actually, at this point, the best thing that can be done for a change in Iranian government is do exactly what we are doing: being there. US troops flank Iran on both sides and I am sure they are aware of it-- even though we do not have enough force to project in the region to truly threaten an invasion, it still must make them nervous.

US troop sit astride the Iran-Syria supply line to Hezbollah. The Iranian Ayatollah regime is hated by their own people. Their once-worst nightmare, the Taliban, has been replaced by an even worse nightmare, a moderately Western-friendly Afghanistan with elections and US troops in it.

The Iraqi Army is being rebuilt by the US, using Western training and materials and standards. The Iraqi Army scared the hell out of the Iranians before when they were poorly equipped and fought like the kids in Special Class.

As the Iraqi Army and nation slowly rebuilds (despite the best efforts of the Mullahs to sabotage it) the Iranians realize that soon they will face their ages-old enemy that will have superior fighting capability and Western backing. Every day that slips by without the Iraqi nation totally collapsing is another lost day for the Iranians.

They will either have to strike while they still retain some vague parity (a suicidal notion, but then, they're not afraid of that) or watch while their neighbors gets deper and deeper in the Western pocket and outclass them.

The thing is, they really know that their people, the soldiers, will not support trying to launch an aggressive war against Iraq or the West right now. So the Ayatollah regime is backing more and more into a corner, and probably feels their days are numbered.

Sounds good on the surface, but all this thunder and bluster from them is probably the growlings of acornered, fearful animal about to be caged... they may try to pull some surprises in the next year or two. Be wary.

[irishmick79]

Having the ability to strike European capitals would be a nice insurance policy in case Europe ever decides to take a more hawkish line on Iran. Also, I imagine that Iranian possession of long range missiles would make it more difficult for a sanctions package to be approved, due to the threat. With improved missile technology, the Iranians could very easily threaten to sell their stock to the highest bidder in order to keep Europe and the US from taking stronger action against them.

The Iranian government is very well entrenched - while the American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq does make them sweat a bit, it does not directly challenge their ability to govern. In fact, I believe that our presence across their borders is what pushes them to develop nukes and missiles at a much faster pace. They need that insurance package in order to secure their position against any possibility of aggression.

Honestly, short of ordering an invasion of Iran, I don't see what the US and Europe can really do to prevent Iran from getting nuclear arms. A robust sanctions and inspections regime might have a chance, but there is no way the Iranian government would accept such a mandate from the Security Council.

[Coyote]

The thing is, they entrenched but for how long. You are right in saying that a lot of this is in reaction to the Allied prescence on their borders, it is what I am theorizing as well. External pressure is mounting on them.

But more immediate pressure is mounting on them from inside. Change in Iran will much more likely be from the people, not from what the US or EU does.

The people will see the government of the Ayatollahs panic, and fear that the same Ayatollahs will do something irreversably stupid-- and they may decide to act before that comes ot pas.

But it depends on how credible people think the Allied threat is. The US cannot extend force in sufficient quantity there right now. It will take awhile before the Iraqis are able to mount an attack and even then there is no guarantree that hey will do so. It isn't in their best wishes, actually.

And I hate to be Politically Incorrect, but Europe's usual way of dealing with threats from the Muslim world is: "Stop! Or we'll say stop again!...Okay, how much money do you want not to hurt us?"

[CJvR]

Air pollution! brilliant!

The problem in using SAC to liberate someone:

"Teheran crater liberated, four survivors jubilant!"

[Big Phil]

How is it stupid? We could have kicked Iraq's ass with a troop of girl scouts - their army is and was pathetic. The reason we're getting hurt in Iraq is because we're trying to police the country and fight a guerrilla war.

If we wanted to hold Iran, we'd need a lot more troops, but to move in, kill off their army, destroy the missiles and all related technology and leave, wouldn't be that hard.

Hey, dumbass. You do realize that bring those troops over to invade Iran is going to mean Iraq is going to explode and when we get done smashing Iran then we've got two countries that have exploded into the hardest of hardcore Islamic States. Sorry, but it will turn into an unacceptable mess should we try that.

Yeah, we can smash up the place. But it takes a deluded fool like you to believe that it's a good idea to do that.

Wow... seems like a lot of you have some serious sperm retention headaches going on here. Especially since you go off into rageaholic tirades over a couple of smartass posts.

I'll have to remember this approach to boosting my self confidence.

Step 1. Take comments written on a web board way too seriously.
Step 2. Fly off the handle on an anonymous web board over said comments.
Step 3. Insert insults and vulgarities to convince myself that my penis is actually visible.
Step 4. Walk away thinking that I've actually accomplished something.

Step 5. Repeat steps 1-4 over and over and over again.

[Aaron]

Honestly, short of ordering an invasion of Iran, I don't see what the US and Europe can really do to prevent Iran from getting nuclear arms. A robust sanctions and inspections regime might have a chance, but there is no way the Iranian government would accept such a mandate from the Security Council.

The facilities could be bombed by a Carrier Group in the Persian Gulf or a strike force based in Iraq. With the facilities gone the Iranians would be shit out of luck. Although the attacking aircraft may suffer some losses by Iraninan air defenses, depending on their state of readiness. It's probably worth paying the cost in lives no versus later, when they actually have Nukes.

[Stuart Mackey]

Wow... seems like a lot of you have some serious sperm retention headaches going on here. Especially since you go off into rageaholic tirades over a couple of smartass posts.

I'll have to remember this approach to boosting my self confidence.

Step 1. Take comments written on a web board way too seriously.
Step 2. Fly off the handle on an anonymous web board over said comments.
Step 3. Insert insults and vulgarities to convince myself that my penis is actually visible.
Step 4. Walk away thinking that I've actually accomplished something.

Step 5. Repeat steps 1-4 over and over and over again.

In other words, you dont have an argument do you? you cannot prove your point so you trot out this 'wah! dey mean to me!" BS. And whats more, because you must know that you dont have an argument because you try to write of your own comments as 'smartass posts'.

[Big Phil]

Wow... seems like a lot of you have some serious sperm retention headaches going on here. Especially since you go off into rageaholic tirades over a couple of smartass posts.

I'll have to remember this approach to boosting my self confidence.

Step 1. Take comments written on a web board way too seriously.
Step 2. Fly off the handle on an anonymous web board over said comments.
Step 3. Insert insults and vulgarities to convince myself that my penis is actually visible.
Step 4. Walk away thinking that I've actually accomplished something.

Step 5. Repeat steps 1-4 over and over and over again.

In other words, you dont have an argument do you? you cannot prove your point so you trot out this 'wah! dey mean to me!" BS. And whats more, because you must know that you dont have an argument because you try to write of your own comments as 'smartass posts'.

What argument would be sufficiently convincing, Stewie? The fact that the US annihilated the Iraqi army in 96 hours back in 1991, or that they took Baghdad in three weeks with FOUR divisions? How many years did the Iranians fight the Iraqis with no movement of the border? Eight, ten?

You claim that I don't have an argument - I haven't seen anyone refute why the US military COULDN't conquer Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, or whatever other country it wanted to.

Stormbringer said Iraq would turn into a mess, but I notice he didn't say shit about my analysis of the Iraqi, Iranian, Israeli, or US militaries (or the Girl Scouts). I also noticed that you didn't say shit about it either, Stewie... I wonder if that ommission is on purpose or if you just didn't have anything better to say.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

The girl scouts cannot take out the Iran army. They can barely get their minivans through my street without breaking down.

The United States cannot go off attacking every country. There are't enough troops, and it would cost too much. Do you want to pay for it? I don't. Wait to see if the information is true first, then take care of the Iraq problem, them see if it's worth anything to move onward to something else.

[SirNitram]

You claim that I don't have an argument - I haven't seen anyone refute why the US military COULDN't conquer Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, or whatever other country it wanted to.

Ignorant child. You don't realize what 'Conquer' means, or you'd realize why the situation in Iraq means you're having trouble conquering one backwater desert shithole.

[tharkûn]

The facilities could be bombed by a Carrier Group in the Persian Gulf or a strike force based in Iraq. With the facilities gone the Iranians would be shit out of luck. Although the attacking aircraft may suffer some losses by Iraninan air defenses, depending on their state of readiness. It's probably worth paying the cost in lives no versus later, when they actually have Nukes.

I highly doubt the suffering losses part. I was under the impression that the USAF had more than enough stealth bombers and fighter/bombers to level the Iranian nuclear program. Further it was my understanding that outside of Russia and the EU, it is snowball's chance in hell that air defenses will detect, target, and engage stealth planes successfully.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You claim that I don't have an argument - I haven't seen anyone refute why the US military COULDN't conquer Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, or whatever other country it wanted to.

Ignorant child. You don't realize what 'Conquer' means, or you'd realize why the situation in Iraq means you're having trouble conquering one backwater desert shithole.

The presence of resistance does not equal a failure to conquer a nation-state. By that definition, Nazi Germany did not actually conquer most of Europe, while it is quite evident by most standards they actually - obviously - did. They destroyed that nation's military and defense complex, and replaced its government bureaucracy with their own administrative apparatus. It is precisely the act of conquest which gives a rebellion its targets for resistance.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ignorant child. You don't realize what 'Conquer' means, or you'd realize why the situation in Iraq means you're having trouble conquering one backwater desert shithole.

The British were able to hold Iraq historically with seven battalions of native troops who had British officers, and maintain that occupation for more than a decade and a half without a revolt, the period being between two successfully suppressed revolts, one which the British handled while fighting Germany. The only reason we cannot conquer Iraq is because we are unwilling to use the methods of the old Imperialist powers.

[VT-16]

Wow... seems like a lot of you have some serious sperm retention headaches going on here. Especially since you go off into rageaholic tirades over a couple of smartass posts.

You are a fucking moron who doesn´t understand anything about military resources or strategy.
I´m surprised you didn´t call for the magical space pixies to come down from the sky, piloting a giant robot.

I'll have to remember this approach to boosting my self confidence.

Step 1. Take comments written on a web board way too seriously.
Step 2. Fly off the handle on an anonymous web board over said comments.
Step 3. Insert insults and vulgarities to convince myself that my penis is actually visible.
Step 4. Walk away thinking that I've actually accomplished something.

Step 5. Repeat steps 1-4 over and over and over again.

Stop acting like a goddamn martyr and go back to playing with your G.I. Joe figures, asshat.

[Coyote]

Sanchez, you have a few points and can postulate them fairly well when you try, but you have to be able to back up things you say with either facts or express your opinions AS opinions and say why you feel they are valid.

But this is not the playground at school. This is debate Thunderdome. If someone comes in and makes an asinine comment, they will probably be dogpiled by a lot of people who are very well-prepared to dissect an argument and mercilesly exploit any weakness in a defense.

In other words, have your fecal matter congolmerated and you'll do well. Toss out statements and random complaints about foul language or not being "fair" and you will be mocked.

[Big Phil]

Sanchez, you have a few points and can postulate them fairly well when you try, but you have to be able to back up things you say with either facts or express your opinions AS opinions and say why you feel they are valid.

But this is not the playground at school. This is debate Thunderdome. If someone comes in and makes an asinine comment, they will probably be dogpiled by a lot of people who are very well-prepared to dissect an argument and mercilesly exploit any weakness in a defense.

In other words, have your fecal matter congolmerated and you'll do well. Toss out statements and random complaints about foul language or not being "fair" and you will be mocked.

Fair point - It wasn't my intent to complain about fairness or meanness; I was simply surprised by the inability of certain responders to contradict my points. For example, while people accuse me of being an ignorant child or an armchair general, nobody suggested that I was incorrect about the abilities of the US Military. Seems like a pretty obvious omission to me.

It's also more than a little annoying to have numerous posts all saying the same thing about ripping my posts apart, but not one of these posts has actually done so. They've all simply been vitriolic expressions of pent up sexual frustration.

Is calling people a child common tactic on this board? It seems kind of ridiculous to take this approach when the average board member seems to be a 32-year old virginal single-male still living in his parent's basement who spends 12 hours a day either RPGing or on this board.

I've made a statement - the US could annihilate the Iranian army and destroy any nuclear technology they may have in a matter of weeks with TWO divisions of soldiers. Muslims seem to culturally respond better to a stick than to a carrot. Did any of you notice how quiet the Muslim-nation government were when the US launched the invasion of Iraq and conquered Baghdad in three weeks? Nobody has threatened a war, nobody launched missiles at Israel, or attacked American warships. Libya even came meekly back to the bargaining table and gave up all efforts at developing missiles or nuclear weapons. Since everybody here is much more concerned with factual proof, let's see you contradict this argument.

And try to be a little more intelligent than "You're an idiot, go play with your toys." That may be a successful argument when campaigning for public office, but it's not here. Actually, maybe it is a successful argument here, since that's all I've seen so far...

[Aaron]

I've made a statement - the US could annihilate the Iranian army and destroy any nuclear technology they may have in a matter of weeks with TWO divisions of soldiers.

They couldn't do it as things stand now. The US Army and Marines are stretched to thin between Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Bosnia and dozens of other commitments. They might be able to invade, destroy the facilities and then leave, but that would be a very tricky operation.

The USA's best option is simply to bomb the faccilities.

Muslims seem to culturally respond better to a stick than to a carrot. Did any of you notice how quiet the Muslim-nation government were when the US launched the invasion of Iraq and conquered Baghdad in three weeks? Nobody has threatened a war, nobody launched missiles at Israel, or attacked American warships. Libya even came meekly back to the bargaining table and gave up all efforts at developing missiles or nuclear weapons. Since everybody here is much more concerned with factual proof, let's see you contradict this argument.

These countries all know that the US is stretched too thin to invade them. However they also know that the US Navy and USAF are basically doing nothing right now and are available for retalitory strikes against them.

[SirNitram]

Ignorant child. You don't realize what 'Conquer' means, or you'd realize why the situation in Iraq means you're having trouble conquering one backwater desert shithole.

The British were able to hold Iraq historically with seven battalions of native troops who had British officers, and maintain that occupation for more than a decade and a half without a revolt, the period being between two successfully suppressed revolts, one which the British handled while fighting Germany. The only reason we cannot conquer Iraq is because we are unwilling to use the methods of the old Imperialist powers.

Because the American people are unwilling to become an Empire(See the long-held bias and recurrence of 'Evil Empires' in your fiction). I know, I've examined the idea before. It's a shitfit and no one's pulling up their briches and doing what must be done. But if this is the situation to work with, you can't magically say everyone will change for a hypothetical.

[irishmick79]

The facilities could be bombed by a Carrier Group in the Persian Gulf or a strike force based in Iraq. With the facilities gone the Iranians would be shit out of luck. Although the attacking aircraft may suffer some losses by Iraninan air defenses, depending on their state of readiness. It's probably worth paying the cost in lives no versus later, when they actually have Nukes.

I highly doubt the suffering losses part. I was under the impression that the USAF had more than enough stealth bombers and fighter/bombers to level the Iranian nuclear program. Further it was my understanding that outside of Russia and the EU, it is snowball's chance in hell that air defenses will detect, target, and engage stealth planes successfully.

I think the big problem with air strikes is that intelligence on where the iranian nuclear sites actually are is sketchy. We don't know what the Iranians are doing, and where. The Iranian nuclear program is expansive and diversified enough that we would have to initiate a massive string of air strikes to hit every site throughout the country. Even then, because our intelligence is doubtful, we wouldn't know if we got everything.

If we were hitting Biological and Chemical weapons sites with air strikes, how can we be sure to avoid spills and leaks? How do we insure that we don't acidentally release toxic agents into the atmosphere and possibly kill a bunch of civilians?

There are a lot of reasons why air strikes would be considered the first step towards a massive military action in Iran. The Iranian government has made it clear that it would retaliate if a foreign power struck its nuclear facilities. If the US or Europe did initiate air strikes against Iran, such an act would almost certainly bring about an end to diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue.

[Coyote]

... I was simply surprised by the inability of certain responders to contradict my points. For example, while people accuse me of being an ignorant child or an armchair general, nobody suggested that I was incorrect about the abilities of the US Military.

Sanchez, suffice to say that calling someone an "armchair general" is pretty much the same thing as saying that you know nothing of military strategy. For some people on this board they feel that if you are this far gone into a realm of fantasy, then there is no use formulating a coherent argument, for it would be a waste of time. That is why there is rebuke without rebuttal.

It's also more than a little annoying to have numerous posts all saying the same thing about ripping my posts apart, but not one of these posts has actually done so. They've all simply been vitriolic expressions of pent up sexual frustration.

See above re: rebuke w/out rebuttal. They are vitriolic because they see no reason to be otherwise. You have to present an argument worth a fight. If you challenge a foreign nation to a batle, and then show up with just a wind-up toy tank to match their battalions, they leave in disgust because they fel their time has been wasted-- it does not mean you "won".

As for pent-up sexual attitudes and 30-year-pld parent-whipped virgins, I don't know. Are you a qualified psychologist to make that diagnosis? Can you base that on behavior from posts you've read in the short time you've been here? And if you're here, what does that make you?

I'd recommend a trip to the membership profiles section before making broad statements here-- many outgoing, married familiy guys, women, and folks who probably outrank you by a considerable cache of IQ points may beg to differ. As it stands you are already inching towards developing a rather trollish reputation.

I've made a statement - the US could annihilate the Iranian army and destroy any nuclear technology they may have in a matter of weeks with TWO divisions of soldiers.

No. This does not adequately reflect the way things stand on the ground even on a good day, with no other commitments. The terrain in much of Iran is ill-suited and two divisions would be inadequate. The people who would normally be pro-Western would have a visceral reaction against foreign invaders on their soil.

Muslims seem to culturally respond better to a stick than to a carrot.

This statement alone shows some awareness of the way things work over here.

Did any of you notice how quiet the Muslim-nation government were when the US launched the invasion of Iraq and conquered Baghdad in three weeks? Nobody has threatened a war, nobody launched missiles at Israel, or attacked American warships. Libya even came meekly back to the bargaining table and gave up all efforts at developing missiles or nuclear weapons.

The Arab governments are afraid of the Jihadist movement as much as we are. We are doing the dirty work they cannot or dare not do since it would blow the lid off their boiling-teapot kingdoms. The "Arab Street" has been shown many times to be a paper tiger the farther you get from the actual zone of flying steel.

Since everybody here is much more concerned with factual proof, let's see you contradict this argument.

I'm not picking a fight with you, so don't get technical with me. But as far as Libya is concerned, I remember from early articles of The Economist and from Ha'aretz (an Israeli daily newspaper) that Libya had been reaching out to its former colonial master Italy since the lkate '90's in an attempt to reconcile its image.

This came on the heels of a surprise deal wrapping up declarations of peace and recognition of Israel's right to exist from Mali, Mauritania, and Morocco. British diplomats stepped in and much of the heavy lifting was done by these EU partners. Khadafy balked at the admission of guilt for Pan Am 103 and reparation payments but seeing Saddam pulled out of a hole on CNN was the straw that broke the camel's back so he finally committed.

Arab governments have been fighting Jihadists while at the same time trying to harness their anger and direct it towards their enemies. This schitzophrenic policy has grown up to bite them in the ass. We are exploiting this.

And try to be a little more intelligent than "You're an idiot, go play with your toys." That may be a successful argument when campaigning for public office, but it's not here. Actually, maybe it is a successful argument here, since that's all I've seen so far...

You need to build better arguments. Let's face it, the argument you presented was basically "Amerika iz t3h uber! We can pawns Iran's @$$! Aw3some!" We can get that at the Young Republicans site. Explain why you think this is a reality and a necessaity in realistic terms and folks will give more credence to your argument, rather than seeing it as a sand castle. Be prepared for dissent and handle it like a man.

This will probably be your only, and last, friendly advice.

[MKSheppard]

And more shit from Iran..

Linka

Watchdog 'bowed to pressure from Iran' on bomb materials
By Damien McElroy, Foreign Correspondent
(Filed: 05/12/2004)

The world nuclear watchdog dropped a claim that Iran bought large quantities of a metal used to trigger explosions in atomic weapons after bowing to objections from Teheran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency at first accepted Western intelligence reports that the Islamic republic had bought "huge amounts" of beryllium from "a number of nations", but removed the claim from its final report on Iranian compliance with nuclear non-proliferation rules, published 10 days ago.

An earlier draft of the IAEA report, seen by The Telegraph, said that Iran had manufactured material to use with the beryllium that it had purchased as a "nuclear initiator in some designs of nuclear weapons".

A spokesman for the IAEA conceded that the agency had removed any mention of beryllium from its report, but said that the change was insignificant. She said: "There are all kinds of technical details in first drafts which are later removed. That's part of the drafting process."

Jacky Sanders, the American ambassador to the IAEA, however, said that Iran's assertions that it has never acquired or used beryllium were no longer reliable.

The climbdown by the IAEA reflected Teheran's insistence that it had never acquired or used beryllium, and helped Iran escape immediate referral to the UN Security Council over its nuclear ambitions. Instead, the IAEA board passed a resolution demanding that the country suspend uranium enrichment while the agency inspects declared nuclear sites.

The compromise agreement has been heavily criticised by American officials and others for failing to compel Iran to open all suspected sites to nuclear inspectors on demand. The IAEA last week revealed that Iran had refused access to two military bases where it is said to be developing nuclear material and missiles capable of carrying an atom bomb. The deal permitted inspections of Iran's existing civilian nuclear energy production sites only.

Western intelligence agencies have intercepted documents suggesting that Iran purchased equipment for delivery to the Parchin military base and a second facility at Lavisan. Satellite photographs suggested that weapons are being tested at the sites. The head of the IAEA, Mohammad ElBaradei said that Iran had repeatedly rejected requests to visit the sites. "We are following every credible piece of information," he said. "It takes time."

Iranian officials claim that they are not obliged to open up the facilities to weapons inspectors. "There is nothing required for us to do," said one Vienna-based official. "They should have evidence that there are nuclear activities, not just, 'We heard from someone that there is dual-use equipment that we want to see'."

The IAEA head, Mohammad ElBaradei, yesterday denied that he had collaborated with the Iranians to expunge the beryllium charge. He said: "We don't negotiate our report. At the end of the day not a single paragraph is shown to any single country until the report is out."

*************************

Why do I get the feeling that the Mullahs are going to get the bomb unless
we stop them?

[tharkûn]

I think the big problem with air strikes is that intelligence on where the iranian nuclear sites actually are is sketchy. We don't know what the Iranians are doing, and where. The Iranian nuclear program is expansive and diversified enough that we would have to initiate a massive string of air strikes to hit every site throughout the country. Even then, because our intelligence is doubtful, we wouldn't know if we got everything.

If we were hitting Biological and Chemical weapons sites with air strikes, how can we be sure to avoid spills and leaks? How do we insure that we don't acidentally release toxic agents into the atmosphere and possibly kill a bunch of civilians?

There are a lot of reasons why air strikes would be considered the first step towards a massive military action in Iran. The Iranian government has made it clear that it would retaliate if a foreign power struck its nuclear facilities. If the US or Europe did initiate air strikes against Iran, such an act would almost certainly bring about an end to diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue.

You don't have to bat 1.000 to derail a nuclear program with airstrikes. Even if the program survives there would be nothing to preclude the USAF for going for a second run later. The only reason not bomb Iran are international reaction and the nationalistic backlash that might occur within Iran.

CBW sites should be bombed with gratuitious amounts of explosives. If you get things hot enough you will oxidize most CBW stock.

If an airstrike brings the end to diplomatic negotiations, well call me a cynic but I don't think they are all that valuable. The last negotiated settlement was used as the Ayatollah's personal toilet paper. I have yet to see a nuclear program scrapped via bribery, I don't think I'll be seing it here. Besides there is always the chance that the Ayatollah will come back to the negotiating table, possibly even in good faith, rather than risk a more general bombing.

[Big Phil]

Sanchez, suffice to say that calling someone an "armchair general" is pretty much the same thing as saying that you know nothing of military strategy. For some people on this board they feel that if you are this far gone into a realm of fantasy, then there is no use formulating a coherent argument, for it would be a waste of time. That is why there is rebuke without rebuttal.

This will probably be your only, and last, friendly advice.

Coyote, the friendly advice is much appreciated. And for the record, I agree with Kendall that the best way to deal with Iran is to simply bomb their facilities and not risk any ground troops.