US vs Iran
- Thread starter Grabbed_by_the_Spetsnaz
- Start date
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16674660
Mmm...
Edit: http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=254771
"If any disruption happens regarding the sale of Iranian oil, the Strait of Hormuz will definitely be closed."
MMM...
Mmm...
Edit: http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=254771
"If any disruption happens regarding the sale of Iranian oil, the Strait of Hormuz will definitely be closed."
MMM...
Last edited:
What we are seeing imo is Iran thinking they are Soviet Russia of the Middle East. They are not insane, they will not throw nukes around like Bobdog throws around parties..
We will propably see, if nothing "extreme" happens, a coldwar between the western block and Iran and its allies.
But from there to WWIII? Its just the usual conspirators and their crap
We will propably see, if nothing "extreme" happens, a coldwar between the western block and Iran and its allies.
But from there to WWIII? Its just the usual conspirators and their crap
Enforcing sanctions on a country rarely ends with any results, it's just a contest who's the biggest dick: US and europe for enforcing sanctions on Iran or Iran for blocking an important waterway. It might end up in Iran attacking first because otherwise their country would fall apart like what happend with japan in WWII. That way it will look like Iran is the big bad guy for attacking first while they were bullied into doing it.
That or nothing will happen, Iran might stop their nuclear things which may or may not be used for weapons. The US won't attack first I imagine, after the wars in afghanistan and Iraq the american people are a bit tired of war for at least a year.
That or nothing will happen, Iran might stop their nuclear things which may or may not be used for weapons. The US won't attack first I imagine, after the wars in afghanistan and Iraq the american people are a bit tired of war for at least a year.
Even though I hate the fundamentalist Iranian government and ideology, I don't actually think they are trying to create nuclear weapons, in fact, I think the Western pressure is just giving them more incentive to do so. Even so, a country with a single atom bomb is not a threat to NATO since using it is basically suicide, as the Iranian government has already said. The matter of the Iranian nuclear program should be left only to the IAEA. The US want the Middle East to be a backyard for Israel, like Austria with the Balkans before WWI, and not all countries accept being ruled by other nations. I'm siding with Iran on this nonsense, though I disapprove of their threat of closing the strait.
There's different ways to create fissionable materials. Some create large amounts suitable for reactors, while at the time making small quantities (as a byproduct) suitable for nuclear weapons. Other methods create large quantities suitable for weapons, while creating (as a byproduct) small quantities more suitable for reactor fuel. The differences in the equipment are fairly substantial. There's little chance that someone with the first type of equipment is attempting to create weapons-grade fissile materials, and there's similarly little chance that someone with the second type of equipment is not attempting to create weapons-grade fissile materials.
Go ahead and guess which set of processes the Iranians are employing.
Here's the problem with this: retaliation is only a threat to a nation whose leader believes that war with Israel may very well help bring about the return of his own particular favorite messianic figure ... who, just coincidentally, might be himself. Also, it's worth noting that even if he didn't think he might just possibly be the Mahdi, then hey, there's still that pesky little detail about martyrdom and dark-eyed houris and such. Mutual assured destruction only really works when both sides share a similar value system.
You can talk all you want about the Iranian people themselves not necessarily sharing their leader's beliefs, etc., but here's the thing: they haven't exactly done much to get him out of power. If they really disagreed with him, he'd be gone, just like Qaddafi.
The US attacking countries for attempts of creating WMD's
Is it just me or does anyone else find that... you know.... extremely hypocritical?
Is it just me or does anyone else find that... you know.... extremely hypocritical?
Yeah, I agree with you, though Ahmadinejad seems to be like the Chavez of the Middle East: an attention whore, but it's the supreme religious leader that calls the shots and I don't know much about him.
Well, by that logic the Syrians would have already deposed their leader, wouldn't they? I've heard from an Iranian exile on TV that promoting anti-government propaganda leads to really severe punishment, even to the families of the protestors (much like Syria). The biggest problem, however, is that it's a religious state and most people view their supreme leader as some kind of pope and think that being against him is disrespecting their religion. Egypt, Lybia and Tunisia didn't indoctrinate their population and that made their government weaker, relying more on the military to control their population. Fundamentalistic governments are much, much harder to overthrow than laic ones.
However, the US don't have the right to assassinate Iranian scientists and break the Iranian sovereignty trying to dictate how they should behave. The matter should be left entirely to the IAEA. My hate for the Iranian goverment would make me side with the US as I'd love to see it deposed and Iran as a true democracy, but my belief for sovereignty as the most important asset of a state makes me view the US as the bad guy if we were to see this conflict in black and white and that's why I condone the American foreign policy post-WWII, though I understand their reasons, but the Cold War is over
The Ayatollahs have far less power today than they did under Khomeini. This is not to say that they are powerless, because they're not, BUT make no mistake: Ahmadinejad is in control of the military.
Iran has not really successfully indoctrinated their population. The median age is ~27, which means that there's a LOT of people there that remember when Iran was far more westernized, and they sort of liked it. What they didn't like was the bit about the Shah being a douchebag.
So guess what? They got rid of him.
If they didn't like Ahmadinejad being a douchebag, they'd get rid of him too.
How many brigades has the IAEA? What're they going to do about it?
The Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, wants to kick Iran's butt too.
Canadian P.M. interviewed by lead CBC Anchorman Peter Mansbridge.
Comments about Iran start at 8:11:
[URL]http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/mansbridge/[/URL]
My Prediction: Some sort of military action will be taken against Iran within a year after the Presidential Election in the fall or a year after the next new President takes office.
Canadian P.M. interviewed by lead CBC Anchorman Peter Mansbridge.
Comments about Iran start at 8:11:
[URL]http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/mansbridge/[/URL]
My Prediction: Some sort of military action will be taken against Iran within a year after the Presidential Election in the fall or a year after the next new President takes office.
Last edited:
And who should be doing something about it and how? The US, assassinating scientists, sabotaging facilities, later invading the country and installing a puppet state?
That's how democracy, freedom and peace usually prevail in the modern world.
sanctions are an act of war. ( Limiting the trade of other countries ).
The way I see it, sad faces in the US O A are
because current wars are coming to a close, gotta go get moar wars!
The way I see it, sad faces in the US O A are
because current wars are coming to a close, gotta go get moar wars!
I don't agree with a lot being said in this thread and it's hard for me to stay out of it.. but I gotta say, Peter, don't ever forget about Neda, and please don't say that the people are happy with the leadership they have there and that they havent tried to change things. You dont remember how brutal all of that was? [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/22/neda-soltani-death-iran"][url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/22/neda-soltani-death-iran[/URL][/URL]
As I grow older I come to understand that some people are just violent, for whatever reason, they just beat the drums of conflict all the time. I dont know why. Everything is an excuse to become violent. I'm not talking about administrations (we know why they do what they do), I'm talking about average human beings. I believe when it comes from an individual it's a manifestation of fear or a bully mentality.. either way it's a shame. (notice this is a general statement not aimed directly at anyone, if it stings a little, then consider the point)
As I grow older I come to understand that some people are just violent, for whatever reason, they just beat the drums of conflict all the time. I dont know why. Everything is an excuse to become violent. I'm not talking about administrations (we know why they do what they do), I'm talking about average human beings. I believe when it comes from an individual it's a manifestation of fear or a bully mentality.. either way it's a shame. (notice this is a general statement not aimed directly at anyone, if it stings a little, then consider the point)
Errrm, you have that wrong, it was the Iranians who made it a stale mate. After the whole Iranian Embassy mess Iran was a prime mark for a younger Saddam, the new US Government wanted Iran to punished for the ****up that was Operation Eagle's Claw so they found a friend in Iraq and here is a pic of a high level US government meber meeting with an official "Citizen of Detroit":
Iraq had one of the best 2nd world nation armed forces, a vast amount of fighters, choppers and tanks for a nation of it size with fairly decent training. Everyone was a expecting a cake walk but once over the border they killed alot of Iranians, then they started to to kill some more and then even more Iranians showed up. The Iranians despite not having an army as advance used MASSIVE human wave attacks, the Iraqis killed many of them but the this sheer wave of people worn down the army and in a pragmatic way were winning the war by cost effectiveness as it cheap to replace a farmer with an AK than a tank. The Iranians used child soldiers (even giving them cheap keys from Taiwan and telling the kids it will "open the gates of heaven"), the Iranian air force beat off the Iraqi air force through sheer will and just over an year the Iraqi army was over the border. Of course Saddam had planned a nice little war but once his army was on the run it was like:
The Professional -- Everyone - YouTube
That nice little chemical weapon project he had running? He was just a fad until the war started going south, he fired scores of missiles at the Iranians who had problems of their own, as much as they hated Saddam many of them took issue with invading Iraq and so when they crossed the border they got slaughtered by the dig in Iraqis. The war last so long as no side could move for years but according to everyone (even the CIA) Iran had won with "Status quo ante bellum" which was the same thing Prussians got during the 7 years war. Despite the huge losses, Iran rebuilt itself and Iraq because of how poor it was then invade its neighbour which made the US declare war on it a few years later however the Iraq-Iran war was one of the most bloody wars outside of WW2, sure the US would win the the war but it would surely lose the occupation...