Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Topic: Would US attack Iran?!! Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 22:17 |
OK, then you and every other American should be punished because you guys elected Bush and a number of other ruthless murdering idiots before him. More Americans by far (% wise) support Bush than Iranians support Ahamdinezhad. everyone in America should be subjected to an indiscriminate nuclear holocaust because of the complicity of the american public in allowing the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over the last 16 years.
Sound logic.
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 22:02 |
Originally posted by Zagros
Iran is disabling Iraq's potential to be an aggressor in the future, that is all. Yes, it is a shame there will be no bloody war because none of Iran's neighbours are in position to attack... Yes, such a terrible shame...
Why would they want to attack Iran? Iran is not a politically or militarily aggressive power...
I see how it is, one girl is to be unjustly hanged in Iran, and now suddenly the deaths of potential millions and the destruction of many millions more livlihoods are all of a sudden justified?
Joke.
|
No Iran is a theocracy, and any theocracy should be turned into a radioactive wasteland. No matter if its Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever. It would be different if there were rebelions or anything against Iran but there are not, so the people must be punished for allowing theocracy to thrive there. I would hope other countries would do the same to mine if it ever became a theocracy.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
TeldeIndus
Earl
Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
|
Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 19:17 |
Originally posted by Zagros
I see how it is, one girl is to be unjustly hanged in Iran, and now suddenly the deaths of potential millions and the destruction of many millions more livlihoods are all of a sudden justified?
Joke.
|
Indeed. This is something I agree with you on. Some people are just after political mileage. And cynical is my middle name.
|
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 18:31 |
Iran is disabling Iraq's potential to be an aggressor in the future, that is all. Yes, it is a shame there will be no bloody war because none of Iran's neighbours are in position to attack... Yes, such a terrible shame...
Why would they want to attack Iran? Iran is not a politically or militarily aggressive power...
I see how it is, one girl is to be unjustly hanged in Iran, and now suddenly the deaths of potential millions and the destruction of many millions more livlihoods are all of a sudden justified?
Joke.
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 17:32 |
Thaks the massive idiotic blunder that is Iraq, no one will be attacking Iran anytime soon. The US is dumping money and ever more scarce manpower into the hopeless cesspool of Iraq with no long term benefit likeley to come of it. None of Irans neighbors are now in a situation to attack Iran either, what a shame.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 11:35 |
Originally posted by Mila
The amount of public support for resistence would make the insurgency in Iraq look like a boot camp.
|
I will quote an Iraqi resistance fighter in that "there is no greater shame than to see your country occupied".
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 11:28 |
Pay no attention to these leaked BS things about possible attacks, they are tricks by enemy intelligence to scare Iran into shifting and relocating air defences and sensitive sites so that they can pick them up with sattelite.
Iran is so bold and brazen with its words and internal actions because it knows the truth of the matter, it has calculated the hike in oil prices should the USA and the coalition of the willing UK and Panama, Poland (?) decide to launch military action be it aerial or surface and it is just not worth it.
Some even speculate that Iranian intelligence manipulated the Americans into invading Iraq so as to allow Iran to go public and develop its nuclear capabilities without any real fear of aggression. At the same time Most of Iraq is now friendly with Iran and Iran with its Iraqi friends has been systematically assassinating former Baath members who have detailed knowledge of Iran.
The latter is the probable reason for the random bomb attacks in Khuzistan the perpetrators of which were dormant baath cells... Iran blamed Britain for them after Britain blamed the deaths of two soldiers in a road side bomb on Iran without a shred of evidence.
Edited by Zagros
|
|
Mila
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
|
Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 11:13 |
Israel was apparently planning a significant, targetted attack this
coming March. It's been leaked but not confirmed, so perhaps it might
still be on the table. Although Iran did purchase billions worth of
very sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft technology, which should be
set up across the country relatively soon.
I think the Bush administration wants to attack Iran, it's probably the
main policy objective driving their push to bring more soldiers home in
2006. But such an attack will not gain support with the American people
anymore than a possible attack in North Korea would. The nuclear factor
is enough for some but not enough for a majority. And the WMD claims in
relation to Iraq will ensure a large sector of the population doesn't
believe Iran even has sling-shots, much less nuclear weapons.
An attack on Iran would be devastating for any ground forces sent to do
the job. We're not talking about a country with a vast majority who are
not in favor of the leader, Iranians elected their government - largely
as a backlash against American influence in their politics. "Vote for
X!", "F--k you, we'll elect Y just because you asked!"
The amount of public support for resistence would make the insurgency in Iraq look like a boot camp.
|
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
|
|
TeldeIndus
Earl
Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
|
Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 07:56 |
Not possible to attack Iran. Not the same as Iraq at all.
|
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 07:52 |
Iraq is precisely what keeps the USA tied of hands when dealing with
Iran: now Iraq is democratically ruled by a fundamentalist Shia
majority, the same as in Iran (though in this case the democracy behind
is much more questionable) and its armed militias which have
infiltrated the army and the police. Attacking Iran in any way would
mean to face a well organized resistence in Iraq and not that of a
minority (Sunnis) or of an ousted tyrnanny (Baath) but that of the
massive majority of the population. Iraq doesn't just keep the US
forces tied due to instability but specially because the Iraquis are
now with Iran.
A lose-lose situation what demonstrates the Murphy law of some hyper-twisted people being able to kick their own asses.
Said that, I truly can't say if the USA and the UK will attack Iran or
not. But I know it is one of those damned if you do, damned if you
don't situations. I still think it was a lot wiser to have kept Saddam
in the Iraqui throne and friendly.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Yiannis
Sultan
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
|
Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 06:26 |
It's possible but not plausible.
There will be no international support, especially after the Iraq blunder, and there're no more troops available. They're busy being dug-in in Iraq, where they control the Green Zone of Baghdad and a couple of oilfields to the north (thanks to the Kurds).
But perhaps they'll try to make the Iranians submit using air-raids and naval blockade.
In any case only one thing is certain: It's going to be a huge mess if they try it.
|
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
|
|
Qin Dynasty
Shogun
Joined: 08-Jan-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
|
Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 06:12 |
i was a little surprised when i heard that some analysts said it would possiblely occur in 2006. I m looking foward your opinions.
What is the possibilty? and HOW? with ground force? or just air and naval force?
What would be the result of militant actions led by US? And what did Us want? To overthrow the government of Iran? or pull it back to the negotiation of Nuclear issue?
|
|