|
| Thread: Attack Iran? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted August 19, 2005 02:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
We'll know in no less than 30 days if Iran is reported to the security counsel an then how long before any resolutions are accepted is anybody's guess. Thus the question of attack will be asked for a long time to come.
Who mentioned anything about UN? And how the hell can that be connected with attacking Iran?
Quote:
Remember always that Tehran has repeatedly declared it a religous/moral obligation to have nukes!
BS. Where did u get this from?!
In the light of Bush recent statement, that all options are in play, including use of force against Iran, I cant stop admiring to my predictionary abillities from over half a year ago. 
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 19, 2005 07:19 AM |
|
|
It is my opinion that the U.S. isn't going to attack Iran now or ever.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 21, 2007 04:08 AM |
|
|
Thread Bump
I noticed another thread was made about U.S. versus Iran. I remembered Svarog made this one.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 21, 2007 05:31 AM |
|
|
I read an interesting article in Newsweek maybe a month ago about this. It roughly said that the most likely way for the U.S. to get caught up in Iran was if Israel does something stupid like try to take out Iran's nuclear program themselves and provokes Iran into attacking us. Iran would target U.S. targets because of our continued support of Israel.
I'll try to find the article and report back...
____________
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted October 21, 2007 08:44 AM |
|
|
 ? with our prime minister. Hes not much better then bush and a lot more scared.
Besides that though. I dont seriously care about iran as much as iraq and i doubt most isrealis do. Let them nuke the hell out of you but they wont fire it on us.Its entirely your problem really.
Besides that i doubt they would attack you for that. They learned the lsson iraq did.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 21, 2007 05:19 PM |
|
|
Turkey Is A Factor
When ever I go through and read this thread, I am continually drawn toward hamsi's comments. Turkey is skrimishing with the Kurds this very instant. I once believed that Saudi Arabia was the key to the Iraq equasion. When exploring Iran I am convinced that Turkey is the key to the Iran equasion. Hamsi said, 'don't send hamsi to Tehran' which I found to be keen insight on the possibility for Turkish involvment. It was very telling indeed.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
ZanJerusalem
Disgraceful
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 28, 2007 12:14 PM |
|
|
Saudi Arabia is much more opressive than Iran.
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 28, 2007 12:27 PM |
|
|
We need to get our own stuff in order, not worry about everybody elses. That million + dollars a day can be better spent on helping employment and the economy. As somebody said, we and the UN should not be the police of the world. Lets take our ball and go home (let me know if you don't get the reference). We don't need another war we can't win (I won't say why we can't but we can't). Personally I think our government is so broken that it doesn't matter who is elected to what office. Special interests, the mob, and money already have the government in their back pocket and a few new people are not going to change that.
So, they will go to war. It distracts us from the troubles at home, gives them reason to mess with the rights they havn't already taken, and makes them boatloads of more money. Then even if we 'win' (which we can't) we rebuild everything we destroyed. If another country attacked us, you think they would do the same? Ok enough ranting, no sleep for too long. *waves*
____________
Message received.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted October 29, 2007 11:24 PM |
|
|
Attack Iran? Perhaps.
Invade Iran? Not in the next fifteen years, at least.
Unless, of course, the Iranians does something stupid. But why would they do that? Their leaders are merely religious, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. No matter how the Americans fare in Iraq, i.e. on land, they still have a most formidable airforce as well as some of the world's best special forces, so levelling Iran with the ground wouldn't cost them much. A ****load of money, sure, but not much else.
Additionally, from what I've been able to glean from the news the last month or so, Amadinejad's popularity is dropping like a rock (hey, perhaps he and Bush should start a club? I bet they could make a buck from member fees, if they allowed other world leaders to join, as well  ). He's not been able to improve the Iranian economy, while his confronting manner of behaviour vis-a-vis the Americans is starting the make the people nervous. So with luck, the Guardian Council will wisen up and give Iran a less extreme, less anti-semittic government at the next election.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted October 30, 2007 05:18 PM |
|
|
terje_the_mad_wizard,
I agree with you and would add one thing: One of the reasons his popularity is dropping is because of his indifference to the Iran's spiritual leader. Whenever people call him the "president of Iran" I am not convinced he has half as much power as a president as we know. I would equate his political and economic power to some kind of popularity contest among a very specific segment of idealist elites in his country; sort of like a rich golfer's club where they all have their own special I-Am-Cool-Jackets that are supposed to somehow signify their rank and status over other Iranians.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 30, 2007 05:30 PM |
|
|
I like how you just reduced Iranian politics to professional golfers.
____________
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted October 30, 2007 06:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I would equate his political and economic power to some kind of popularity contest among a very specific segment of idealist elites in his country
I wouldn't necessarily agree with this estimation. As far as I've read, Amadinejad is a populist who is supported mainly by Iran's majority of relatively uneducated agricultural workers, as well as other kinds of workers. It's basically the same people whose backing allowed Ayatollah Khomeini to "hijack" the Revolution in 1979, oust the urban liberals (i.e. those who looked to the West, so they're primarily liberals in an Iranian context; the group spanned what we'd call conservatives, liberals and a lot of social democrats, socialists and communists), and turn Iran into a fundamentalist theocracy.
As in most countries, the elites are more liberal than the rest of the population, and as powerful as the Council of Experts might be, Iran still has a somewhat democratic/republican form of government. In the Polity IV data set, just to back this up with some reliable data, Iran has a polity score of +4*, compared to Suadi Arabia's -10, and Norway's +10. (From these examples, I assume clever people like you will be able to figure out what's good and what's not.  ) So, the power of the Council of Experts might be great, especially over the legislative process, but it is ultimately the people who elect the President (and through him the geovernment). Granted, the power of the Council of Experts is also symbolic, so that their views on any given government will affect the people, and thus also the results of elections. But by and large, I've got the impression they prefer to stay in the proverbian shadows... 
*Note: The polity score is from 2003, when Khatami was still President, but even though Amadinejad is less liberal, to say the least, the system remains the same.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted October 30, 2007 06:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No matter how the Americans fare in Iraq, i.e. on land, they still have a most formidable airforce as well as some of the world's best special forces, so levelling Iran with the ground wouldn't cost them much. A ****load of money, sure, but not much else.
It takes money to make money! If the U.S. attacks Iran (with the election of Guiliani I could see this happening), it won't be there for Freedom of Democracy or some national defense. Of course it will be portrayed as a necessary because Iran could have nuclear weapons. But just like Iraq, Iran has oil and lots of it. Iran is connected to the Caspian Sea, which is suspected to have a third of the world's oil reserves. If the U.S. had control over Iran, its only real opposition over that resource would be Russia. We'll see how that turns out.
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 01, 2007 02:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I seriously do not think Bush has the balls to attack Iran. He has no excuse this time.
The way i see it is we have 3 more years of this bullsnow to put up with, then hopefully we can get someone who won't attempt to war with every country that looks at him wrong.
Oh yea and in 2008, I will be legal to vote! and I can assure you I will
Take note Bush had no excuse either to attack Iraq, rather an excuse he made up. "Oh noes, he has weapons of mazzz deztruction! So we attack Iraq instead of Afghanistan where apparently the guy who caused 9/11 is hiding!"
Logic? Yah, oil.
Don't think voting will help. Gore would have won if the elections hadn't been rigged. It doesn't matter what you vote, they'll get away with whatever they want anyway.
Oh yeah, did you know Mr. Bush and his friends are actually making a snowload of money over the war?
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted November 02, 2007 03:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Take note Bush had no excuse either to attack Iraq, rather an excuse he made up. "Oh noes, he has weapons of mazzz deztruction! So we attack Iraq instead of Afghanistan where apparently the guy who caused 9/11 is hiding!"
If they actually do, youll be quite thankful. Or maybe not
Quote:
Logic? Yah, oil.
Don't think voting will help. Gore would have won if the elections hadn't been rigged. It doesn't matter what you vote, they'll get away with whatever they want anyway.
Unlikely that theyre rigged, Though theres a lot of people there whod vote for any idiot
Quote:
Oh yeah, did you know Mr. Bush and his friends are actually making a snowload of money over the war?
Remains unproved, and he would have made more money anyway. Oil prices would go up even more if hed have avoided iraq.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 02, 2007 04:16 AM |
|
|
LoL, Well .....
I really think that an educated/informed observer can't ignore the comparison between Sadam and Ahmadinejad. 1. Think of how truly solid Sadam was in his militaristic Stalin-like approach to almost everything. He was intensly organized and almost classic rank & file true to form much like Stalin was. In some ways he was like a mob boss relying solely on fear and intimidation. But he was far more organized than any mafia leader could ever dream. Sadam also allowed a good deal of religious incorporation, much more so than Stalin. 2. The neighbor Ahmadinejad is much more like a shrewd head games master with very little militaristic gumption. I really don't see him as a threat. He is very unlikely to use military force. He is much more likely to send aid and support to terrorist groups that hate the U.S. and its allies. He is much more likely to rely on information obtained from torturing spies and prisoners. His strength lies in what he makes his people believe he can do for them, not in what he can do with his military. The guy is a total headcase who is downright xenophobic toward his own twisted idea of what constitutes a westerner.
Methinks he won't stay in power long. He is the president in a theocracy? Um LoL? Isn't that a contradiction?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 02, 2007 04:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Oh yeah, did you know Mr. Bush and his friends are actually making a snowload of money over the war?
Remains unproved, and he would have made more money anyway. Oil prices would go up even more if hed have avoided iraq.
Man, the US spends hundreds of billions of dollars on the military, and the Russians gain some money so they increase their military spending by a fraction of the US and everyone goes into a hype. Not to mention the fact that the whole US economy is built around oil.
Yeah, it pays to keep the war machine going. More than that; it's imperative.
Same hypocrisy as when USA invades a country which supposedly has WMD's ignoring the fact that the Americans have them, the English have them, the Indians have them, the French have them, Pakistan, Russia, etc etc.
Not to mention merely nuclear power..
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted November 02, 2007 09:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Same hypocrisy as when USA invades a country which supposedly has WMD's ignoring the fact that the Americans have them, the English have them, the Indians have them, the French have them, Pakistan, Russia, etc etc.
Not to mention merely nuclear power..
Well yes, But think about it. Who would you have rather give a gun to? a excited 9 year old or a mature adult.
Sure they may not use it. They may be responsible. But is it worth the risk when they can utterly destroy you without a second thought?
Ok bad comparison. But i mean basically that its all relative to the relationship with the countries. most countries want to avoid a nuclear war at all costs. Iran? Who knows?
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 09, 2007 12:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Same hypocrisy as when USA invades a country which supposedly has WMD's ignoring the fact that the Americans have them, the English have them, the Indians have them, the French have them, Pakistan, Russia, etc etc.
Not to mention merely nuclear power..
Well yes, But think about it. Who would you have rather give a gun to? a excited 9 year old or a mature adult.
Sure they may not use it. They may be responsible. But is it worth the risk when they can utterly destroy you without a second thought?
Ok bad comparison. But i mean basically that its all relative to the relationship with the countries. most countries want to avoid a nuclear war at all costs. Iran? Who knows?
I don't know about YOU but I wouldn't give a gun to ANYBODY other than those who are to keep order and can use it responsibly.
Last time I checked, that was NATO, not just USA (a random 'adult')
The atomic bomb on Heroshima by current standards is to be considered a terroristic attack. Isn't that the exact reason they are giving that Iran isn't allowed to have such a weapon? Because they would use it for terroristic attacks? Talking about hypocrism...
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 09, 2007 01:55 AM |
|
|
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not terrorist attacks because they were used to end the war. Civilians died, sure, but how many hundreds of thousands were saved (American and Japanese) from an invasion of Japan?
Truman authorized the use of the Atomic bomb and it killed a lot of people, but much more people died in the war before it and many more would have died after it had he decided not to drop the bomb. Don't say that civilians were targeted in these attacks either. If you look back and read this thread (good luck with that) you'll see that this was argued about years ago. Nagasaki for instance was a naval docking station and battleships were built there, that was the main target.
____________
|
| |
|
|
