Print Page | Close Window

Would US attack Iran?!!

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8219
Printed Date: 11-Jul-2020 at 17:22
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Would US attack Iran?!!
Posted By: Qin Dynasty
Subject: Would US attack Iran?!!
Date 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? 




Replies:
Posted By: Yiannis
Date 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


Posted By: Maju
Date 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!


Posted By: TeldeIndus
Date 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


Posted By: Mila
Date 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">


Posted By: Zagros
Date 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.



-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date 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".



-------------


Posted By: Tobodai
Date 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


Posted By: Zagros
Date 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.



-------------


Posted By: TeldeIndus
Date 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


Posted By: Tobodai
Date 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


Posted By: Zagros
Date 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.



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 22:19

What is the possibilty? and HOW? with ground force? or just air and naval force?

 

This time Turkey(Turkish people) will never let non of them.



-------------


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2006 at 22:30

Its perfectly sound, think about it.  Such a tactic would scare the crap out of any contemplating a theocracy.  In the end fear is the only thing you can use on the masses.  The masses will fall to any stupid cult that takes away the thought from them.  Usually this is religion but it can be a political ideology as well, like Stalinism or facism, or whatever. 

The thing is I used to think that theocracy could always be defeated by reason, that crazy governments would eventually fall.  They dont, they grow until they destroy themselves and everyone they touch.  You cant combat that with reason or patience anymore than you could a disease.  It must be exercized ASAP.  Now Im not really saying kill everyone in said country, so much as I am saying do something big and scary enough to make them doubt their gods and leaders.  Pull a Dresden, a Tokyo, or a Shermans March and the fear generated will save more lives in the long run than allowing such things a repreive.  Think of partially beaten Germany after WW1 and compare it to totally beaten Germany in WW2.  The totally beaten one hasnt hgad a major war since.

Your example of Iraq is a good point actually.  America harmed a country that should have been its ally, the US has made horrendous ideological decisions based on some vague uneducated hatred of some random country invented at the treaty of versailles.  Americans can even be told explicitly that they made a huge blunder but they will continue to shrug it off and be complicit because they are lazy or irresponsible.  What would emphasize the point and make them realize this mistake would not be logic, but brute force.  If there were some say EU attack on the US because of this evne if it really pOD Americans it would make them have to recongnize th eissue, and if they were defeated they would then have to acknowledge it. 

Dont you see? My advocacy for making everyone feel the pain is consistent, to any country.  And Im not even getting into right and wrong because each country no matter what they are has its own self intrest and that is what they must strive for.  Obviously its in none of any countries interests to launch a nuclear war, but Im not the head of a country, so I can advocate different positions. 



-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 14:12

The US hasn't the military capacity to attack Iran, but even when it has had the miltary capacity to attack a country it's been timid to do it in the past and preffered more distant strategies, of building up neighbouring enemies militarily. Why should this time be different?

It's these distant blunders that have messed up the middle east so much already, we're now in the privilaged position of seeing another Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq being created before our eyes.

Look at the arms that have been going to Pakistan over the last few years, even though it's was behind the Taliban and just declared nuclear. Pakistan a traditionally unstable country could easily become another Iraq or Afghanistan itself in the near future.

 



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 14:59
Originally posted by Paul

The US hasn't the military capacity to attack Iran, but even when it has had the miltary capacity to attack a country it's been timid to do it in the past and preffered more distant strategies, of building up neighbouring enemies militarily. Why should this time be different?

It's these distant blunders that have messed up the middle east so much already, we're now in the privilaged position of seeing another Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq being created before our eyes.

Look at the arms that have been going to Pakistan over the last few years, even though it's was behind the Taliban and just declared nuclear. Pakistan a traditionally unstable country could easily become another Iraq or Afghanistan itself in the near future.

 

We thank Paul's Institute for Strategic Theory and Policy for the profound insight.

No buildup of military forces against Iran is in progress, so why do people think we would further complicate an already complex situation in the Gulf?  In fact, if push came to shove, Iran could be eliminated in the course of an afternoon by nuclear weapons.  Do you challenge this statement?

As far as "building up neighbouring enemies militarily," that sort of strategic diplomacy has been going on for centuries.  Subsidy diplomacy for armaments is as least as old as Richlieu's France.  It is sound policy; after all, why do they have enemies in the first place, and why would advantage not be taken?

As far as Pakistan, so what?  Pakistan has never been that solid a friend of the U.S. (after all, Al Quaida squats in the Pakistani mountains which the government obviously cannot control...some sovereign power.)  Pakistan is already legally an "Islamic" state.

Pakistan is weak militarily, is far too primitive and has too many unsolved and most likely unsolvable problems to be concerned about it.

Strategically, Pakistan has already been marginalized by the U.S.- Indian defense agreements of 2005.

 



Posted By: TeldeIndus
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 15:11
Originally posted by Paul

The US hasn't the military capacity to attack Iran, but even when it has had the miltary capacity to attack a country it's been timid to do it in the past and preffered more distant strategies, of building up neighbouring enemies militarily. Why should this time be different?

It's these distant blunders that have messed up the middle east so much already, we're now in the privilaged position of seeing another Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq being created before our eyes.

Look at the arms that have been going to Pakistan over the last few years, even though it's was behind the Taliban and just declared nuclear. Pakistan a traditionally unstable country could easily become another Iraq or Afghanistan itself in the near future.

US arms havent done much for Pakistan. Aside from aircraft which are now basically outdated everything militarily has been got from Ukraine (parts for indigenously manufactured tanks), or China (tech support, and help in development of initial missiles) or North Korea, or just been developed and manufactured indigenously (cruise missile/nukes). 

You're also wrong in saying Pakistan gave rise to the Taliban. The Taliban were formed from the remnants of the Mujahideen guerillas that defeated the Soviet Union in the eighties. These Mujahideen were funded by the USA, and strategic help was given by Pakistan.

And you're simply way out of your league on Pakistan knowledge, like most Westerners. Pakistan is not going to fall apart anytime soon. It's not unstable in the slightest, in fact now is the stablest time in the whole of Pakistan's history having seen off the Indian threat, and stabilized the region. Internally, there's a very small uprising in Balochistan, but it's SMALL. There's not enough Balochis to do anything and most Balochis are smart and loyal people who know it's better to stay with Pakistan that be independent.



-------------
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 15:36
Originally posted by Tobodai

Its perfectly sound, think about it.  Such a tactic would scare the crap out of any contemplating a theocracy.  In the end fear is the only thing you can use on the masses.  The masses will fall to any stupid cult that takes away the thought from them.  Usually this is religion but it can be a political ideology as well, like Stalinism or facism, or whatever. 

The thing is I used to think that theocracy could always be defeated by reason, that crazy governments would eventually fall.  They dont, they grow until they destroy themselves and everyone they touch.  You cant combat that with reason or patience anymore than you could a disease.  It must be exercized ASAP.  Now Im not really saying kill everyone in said country, so much as I am saying do something big and scary enough to make them doubt their gods and leaders.  Pull a Dresden, a Tokyo, or a Shermans March and the fear generated will save more lives in the long run than allowing such things a repreive.  Think of partially beaten Germany after WW1 and compare it to totally beaten Germany in WW2.  The totally beaten one hasnt hgad a major war since.

Your example of Iraq is a good point actually.  America harmed a country that should have been its ally, the US has made horrendous ideological decisions based on some vague uneducated hatred of some random country invented at the treaty of versailles.  Americans can even be told explicitly that they made a huge blunder but they will continue to shrug it off and be complicit because they are lazy or irresponsible.  What would emphasize the point and make them realize this mistake would not be logic, but brute force.  If there were some say EU attack on the US because of this evne if it really pOD Americans it would make them have to recongnize th eissue, and if they were defeated they would then have to acknowledge it. 

Dont you see? My advocacy for making everyone feel the pain is consistent, to any country.  And Im not even getting into right and wrong because each country no matter what they are has its own self intrest and that is what they must strive for.  Obviously its in none of any countries interests to launch a nuclear war, but Im not the head of a country, so I can advocate different positions. 

Tobodai, one of the reasons their theocracy has survived so long is because of Saddam's attack on Iran in 1980.  The mullahs have always been able to use foreign aggression as a war to legitimize their rule.  Pinpricking them with cruise missiles and air strikes will only make them stronger.  If we want to get rid of the mullahs we must either invade and overthrow them, or contain and covertly subvert them until they collapse under the weight of their sheer unpopularity.  Containing them would also offer the benefit of making other Gulf States fear Iran and come to use for protection.



-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: TeldeIndus
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 15:38
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Originally posted by Paul

The US hasn't the military capacity to attack Iran, but even when it has had the miltary capacity to attack a country it's been timid to do it in the past and preffered more distant strategies, of building up neighbouring enemies militarily. Why should this time be different?

It's these distant blunders that have messed up the middle east so much already, we're now in the privilaged position of seeing another Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq being created before our eyes.

Look at the arms that have been going to Pakistan over the last few years, even though it's was behind the Taliban and just declared nuclear. Pakistan a traditionally unstable country could easily become another Iraq or Afghanistan itself in the near future.

 

We thank Paul's Institute for Strategic Theory and Policy for the profound insight.

No buildup of military forces against Iran is in progress, so why do people think we would further complicate an already complex situation in the Gulf?  In fact, if push came to shove, Iran could be eliminated in the course of an afternoon by nuclear weapons.  Do you challenge this statement?

As far as "building up neighbouring enemies militarily," that sort of strategic diplomacy has been going on for centuries.  Subsidy diplomacy for armaments is as least as old as Richlieu's France.  It is sound policy; after all, why do they have enemies in the first place, and why would advantage not be taken?

As far as Pakistan, so what?  Pakistan has never been that solid a friend of the U.S. (after all, Al Quaida squats in the Pakistani mountains which the government obviously cannot control...some sovereign power.)  Pakistan is already legally an "Islamic" state.

You too are not acting much brighter than Paul by the looks of things. Do you have any idea how long the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is, or any inkling of a clue just how rugged the terrain is in the North-west where the mountains are? Do you think Pakistan's armed forces dont have other things to do than to guard the border for you or go round chasing Al-Qaeda all day? You might try and ridicule Paul's knowledge of the region, but yours is smaller than a pocket dictionary compared to his.

Pakistan is legally an Islamic state. Your point? This isnt a war on Islam is it? Make your mind up.

Pakistan is weak militarily, is far too primitive and has too many unsolved and most likely unsolvable problems to be concerned about it.

Yes, you're right, Pakistan is very primitive. We all live in mudhuts, and ride camels to work. The nukes, missiles, fighter jets, cruise missiles, and space launch vehicle (SLV) under development is all an illusion. I'm being fed lies. Can you name one unresolvable issue Pakistan has (besides Kashmir,  which there is no problem on the Pakistani side)? You know everything there is to know about Pakistan, because you have infinite wisdom.

Strategically, Pakistan has already been marginalized by the U.S.- Indian defense agreements of 2005.

LOL. The Indian-US agreement hasnt marginalized anything. The USA never provided Pakistan with advanced technologies. It's just a trading partner. Pakistan has a superb ally in China (see links below), whose only threat is from India. Pakistan has recently discovered natural resources that should provide it with its own energy needs for long after those of other countries have run out.

http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/bulletin/96apr-may/si960506.html - http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/bulletin/96apr-may/si96050 6.html  

http://www.dawn.com/2004/12/17/top2.htm - http://www.dawn.com/2004/12/17/top2.htm



-------------
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 16:41

TeleIndus:

Sorry that you took offense.  I am afraid I don't agree, but I'll let you and Paul fight it out.



Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 17:02

In fact, if push came to shove, Iran could be eliminated in the course of an afternoon by nuclear weapons.  Do you challenge this statement?

Even though I agree that the Yankees have the capability to do this and some are morally wretched enough to nuke Iran for little reason, I believe not even the current rulers are stupid enough to do that, so I challenge your statement. This is nothing but an arrogant redneck wanking fantasy.

Iranians are smarter than you. They know what they are doing. Their aim is to develop nuclear deterrent capability. They have no interest in acting aggressively. They'll call your bluff, and you'll just have to watch it.

Everyone knows that as soon as you drop a nuke anywhere near an Iranian city, you will face condemnation from everyone from the Europeans to Russia to China. Not to mention South America and the Islamic world. And then we'll see how long you'll last with your petrol prices up at 1000% and 1000 of your dollars worth 1 euro...



-------------


Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 17:19

Iranians are smarter than you. They know what they are doing. Their aim is to develop nuclear deterrent capability. They have no interest in acting aggressively. They'll call your bluff, and you'll just have to watch it.

The Iranian leadership isn't smarter. It's foolish to think that. You don't call for a country to wiped off of the map, and then expect them to let you develop nukes. Not to metnion Iran is ran by some of the worst religious fanatics in the world. Iran has given israel a valid reason to strike.

Nuclear weapons give a nation the capability of forcing influence over a region. No county that is ran by delusional religious exrremists should ever be allowed to assert itself. Iran's mullahs encourage suicide bombing. They guarantee Martyrdom to those who kill themselves for their country and religion. And we want them to have nukes?!?!?!!?






-------------


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 17:38
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

TeleIndus:

Sorry that you took offense.  I am afraid I don't agree, but I'll let you and Paul fight it out.

The Pakistani Nationalist Militia will be arriving on your doorstep shortly to educate you on the Indian-Jewish global conspiracy theory. 



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 17:38
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

In fact, if push came to shove, Iran could be eliminated in the course of an afternoon by nuclear weapons.  Do you challenge this statement?

Even though I agree that the Yankees have the capability to do this and some are morally wretched enough to nuke Iran for little reason, I believe not even the current rulers are stupid enough to do that, so I challenge your statement. This is nothing but an arrogant redneck wanking fantasy.

Iranians are smarter than you. They know what they are doing. Their aim is to develop nuclear deterrent capability. They have no interest in acting aggressively. They'll call your bluff, and you'll just have to watch it.

Everyone knows that as soon as you drop a nuke anywhere near an Iranian city, you will face condemnation from everyone from the Europeans to Russia to China. Not to mention South America and the Islamic world. And then we'll see how long you'll last with your petrol prices up at 1000% and 1000 of your dollars worth 1 euro...

"...an arrogant redneck wanking fantasy."     I am overcome by such a wealth of meaning.

Bey, it constantly amazes me how you always seem to know exactly what will happen.  Lucky you.

 



Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 17:40
Originally posted by Paul

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

TeleIndus:

Sorry that you took offense.  I am afraid I don't agree, but I'll let you and Paul fight it out.

The Pakistani Nationalist Militia will be arriving on your doorstep shortly to educate you on the Indian-Jewish global conspiracy theory. 

Oh, hell, I read all about that in middle school.    Is there something new???

 



Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 17:44
yes, the jews are also in control of the UN

Hell, I think the most interetsing part of this whole Iranian nuclear issue is that the US and France are on the same side. But thats all apart of the Jewish conspiracy.


-------------


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 17:49

Originally posted by Illuminati

yes, the jews are also in control of the UN

Hell, I think the most interetsing part of this whole Iranian nuclear issue is that the US and France are on the same side. But thats all apart of the Jewish conspiracy.

   I guess the French feel if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

As long as the worldwide Jewish conspiracy includes good corned beef and pastrami, I am a supporter.

 



Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 17:53

Bey, it constantly amazes me how you always seem to know exactly what will happen.  Lucky you.

No, don't believe me. Keep believing your government. Your masters know the best. They were right about Iraq. They are right about Iran...



-------------


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 18:09
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

As long as the worldwide Jewish conspiracy includes good corned beef and pastrami, I am a supporter.

I think it's been a bit of let down so far, I'm still waiting for them to deploy the falafel sellers on street corners.



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 18:10
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

Bey, it constantly amazes me how you always seem to know exactly what will happen.  Lucky you.

No, don't believe me. Keep believing your government. Your masters know the best. They were right about Iraq. They are right about Iran...

I rarely believe much any government has to say.  It is an assessment of strategic imperatives that I am interested in.  I may be entirely wrong about it.  And, in another post on this subject, I did indicate it was not desireable.  I certainly hope the nukes don't fly. 

 



Posted By: TeldeIndus
Date Posted: 11-Jan-2006 at 18:31
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

TeleIndus:

Sorry that you took offense.  I am afraid I don't agree, but I'll let you and Paul fight it out.

It's not that. I'm just blunt with idiot writing.



-------------
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 03:28
Its been a day and i fell like i missed out.

So far Genghis has made sense to me, how to go about handling Iran. Contain, subvert and let them destroy themselves. Directly attacking Iran would be the most irrational option on the table.

On the subject of intelligance, i think alot of westerners completely underestimate their '3rd world' opponets, this colonialist throw back to me, is one of their greatest modern weakness.

 The iranians have thought this out very well, they have China on the security council, the ability to (atleast temporarily) close the striaghts of homuz and have factored in any 'shock and awe' the US will most likely resort to. It will also, be wishful thinking that there wont be a high cost / big pay back to even just airstrikes. Afghanistan, Iraq, lebanon and the whole Gulf would be anywhere between unstable to burnt.

Illuminati wrote:
"The Iranian leadership isn't smarter. It's foolish to think that"
Its foolish to judge a country on one of its leaders, you dont know the personal capabilities of the rank and file that will defend Iran?

I think right now, Iran is more in control of the sitution and has the initiative. I agree with Beylerbeyi, and they will call the bluff.

The real question; is this becuase Iran's leadership is intelligent or the USA leadership just lacks intelligence? Its all relative


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 04:05
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

As far as Pakistan, so what?  Pakistan has never been that solid a friend of the U.S. (after all, Al Quaida squats in the Pakistani mountains which the government obviously cannot control...some sovereign power.)  Pakistan is already legally an "Islamic" state.

Pakistan is weak militarily, is far too primitive and has too many unsolved and most likely unsolvable problems to be concerned about it.

Strategically, Pakistan has already been marginalized by the U.S.- Indian defense agreements of 2005.


Yeah we are real weak. Fought India to a standstill 3 times, defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan, decleared nuclear power, have the longest range cruise missiles (nuclear capabile) in the region, more men under arms than the american army could dream about, the most fiercely independent tribes in the world and a population so large we don't know what it is. Were primitive too, being the only country that can make nukes on 240V power.
Oh, and nobody can control 'the mountains'. NWFP and Balchuistan are always independent. Alexander the Great couldn't conqure them. You should be pleased that they support pakistan.

As for Iran, America really doesn't have any power to threaten Iran at the moment. America cannot beat a country that hated a dictatorial government. What chance do they have against a young democratic government?
Why do you even want to attack Iran? What threat is Iran to america? Have you ever considered that not everyone wants an american democracy, and if you did manage to install one in Iran it wouldn't be supported. Iranis have wanted a theocracy since, at least, Safavid times. Thats before america even existed. Now they've finally got one. So let them have it.

(as conspiracys go, the Indian-Israeli one is a good one)


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2006 at 04:14
Lets just remember one thing about US military power. After nearly 3 years of war, America cannot control the highway between the Baghdad Airport and the Green Zone.


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 00:33
If for some reason Iran is attacked , the whole middle east will explode. How about this? 10,000,000 Iranians, Kurds, and Azeris are going to rush Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. All three governments will collapse, Georgia will collapse, the US will be busy with Iran and Iraq, and Russia will fill one large, large power vacuum.

The only people who can get rid of the mullahs are the Iranians themselves, I believe 


Posted By: The Guardian
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 07:58

Originally posted by mamikon

If for some reason Iran is attacked , the whole middle east will explode. How about this? 10,000,000 Iranians, Kurds, and Azeris are going to rush Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. All three governments will collapse, Georgia will collapse, the US will be busy with Iran and Iraq, and Russia will fill one large, large power vacuum.

 

Sorry but what middle east??Iraq is going nowhere since the U.S. is already there, Afghanistan also.  Iranians will be defending their homelands if U.S. attacks so they won't be invading as well, even if they try to, Turkey will be able to stop them.  That leaves the Arabs, and they are not much of a problem for israel.



-------------
It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.
                             &nb


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 08:16
i believe part of iran's battle strategy if attacked, is to raise hell int he caucasus among US friendly states, should they in any way support aggression against Iran.

-------------


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 08:25
if a war does take place.  Iran will fragment...there are 17 million azeries living there. They will try to suceed....This probably would start a war with Armenia (since most of them will flee to the region occupied by Karabakh, since its closer) Not too mention  thousands of Iranians who might  flee to Armenia(the most Iran-friendly state in the region) .  The kurds would get a chance to join those in Iraq and Turkey.  A possibility of a Kurdish republic will be high...but this is only if the US stages a very fast invasion. Maybe the US does not have the capability to invade all of Iran by ground troops (Well it does, but too many US soldiers will die, and the public will be against that) but it can still take out most of Iran's military camps. No?

And there goes the Iranian-Armenian oil pipeline

Seriously...no one is going to be happy in that region...except maybe Israel. If it joins the attack, there will never an Iranian-Israeli alliance

Russia will get a boost in its influence in the region also...and burst in economy lol no more Iranian oil/weapon trade.


No offense to Turks. But if there if there were a war between Turkey and Iran without foreign intervention, Iran would probably win. Turkey cant contain both, the Kurds and Iran


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 08:59

No offense to Turks. But if there if there were a war between Turkey and Iran without foreign intervention, Iran would probably win. Turkey cant contain both, the Kurds and Iran

Most probably it would be again iran who fight against kurd and turks, like old times.  You are giving to much credit to pkk. (Remember kurdish people would prefer turkey  to iran)

Also kurdish refugees will prefer to flee Iraq, not Turkey. Also Turkey is changing his politic more pro-kurdish.

I dont think Turkey will realy get much harm from USA attack to  iran. (Maybe mullah should think increase trade with Turkey) Infact most probably iran war will increase trade with iran.(Like happened at iraq war)

But agree it would be russia who will enhance it power in short time, but in long time, she will lost his biggest ally  and  ROA will be much worse situation.

Azerbaijan(So Turkey) will increase its effect over iranian azeris. In long run, It wont be much worse for Turkey, of  course, If israel have not an agresive campaign at Iran.

war will benefit Russia(short), Azerbaijan and  Turkey(long), maybe would help kurdish people(maybe not). Iranians and armenians will pay price.

 

 



Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 09:27
hmmm...I am not that much knowledable of a kurdish-Iranian conflict. 

I do not see the basis of Kurds supporting Turks. And actually Kurds are much more friendlier to Armenians than to Turks. The Kurds living in Karabakh voted in favor of joining Karabakh to Armenia, instead of Azerbiajna, where they were persecuted.

Russia doesnt have short term benefits...if its in, its in for the next 50 years

Kurds will not pass the opportunity to make their own country, after all, they have been dying for that for the past 80 years...

I agree that Armenia will price no matter what happens if Iran is attacked. Since as of now Iran is one the most reliable trading partner of Armenia. Plus Armenia gets funding for making Energy windmills...anyway, I hope Iran doesnt get attacked

Unless Russia builds 5 more military bases and donates (ahem) some more of those S300 rockets, lol


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 09:46

Also do not lump Iran's Azaris witht he so called Azaries of the FSR,  Azaeries are as much part of Iran as anything, the only problem Iran has with them are Turkish and FSR greywolves, if Iran's Azeries, like Turkey's Kurds really wanted to break away, they could easily, how could Iran stop all of the azaries breaking away if they wanted to?  They don't want to because they are a part of it and always have been, there were not even any protests about Iran helping Armenia.

FSR Azerbaijan is not een the real Azerbaijan, the real Azerbaijan is in Iran, the Young Turks, Imperial Russians and Bolsheviks propagated the name change of Arran/Albania to Azerbajan in order to take away Iran's Turkish population by creating the myth of North and South Azarbaijan, they failed miserably.

Historically there is only on Azarbaijan, you will not find any records prior to the 1910s of any Caucasian Azarbaijan.



-------------


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 09:51

hmmm...I am not that much knowledable of a kurdish-Iranian conflict. 

It is a historical  conflict, Kurds are religious people(different  sects), also kurds minority under  iran is not  better than kurd than turkey(Infact  kurd at Turkey  position is better, and most probably, their position would be better in  5-10 year.also remember most of kurd  in   Turkey dont live at kurdish lands but turkish land.(酨tanbul, izmir ext)

 do not see the basis of Kurds supporting Turks. And actually Kurds are much more friendlier to Armenians than to Turks. The Kurds living in Karabakh voted in favor of joining Karabakh to Armenia, instead of Azerbiajna, where they were persecuted.

well not much  true, do you mean yezids(cant remember their name much) , Infact some of kurds also exiled with  azeri turks by armenian army.

Kurds will not pass the opportunity to make their own country, after all, they have been dying for that for the past 80 years...

I agree, they will try, but they cannot  do it, without permission of Turkey, or arabic worlds.  They are land locked.If  USA would have control over Iran, they can have a chance, but I dont think USA can control large iranian  lands. Infact Most of kurds aware of this.They know USA will not enough.

I agree that Armenia will price no matter what happens if Iran is attacked. Since as of now Iran is one the most reliable trading partner of Armenia. Plus Armenia gets funding for making Energy windmills...anyway, I hope Iran doesnt get attacked

Unless Russia builds 5 more military bases and donates (ahem) some more of those S300 rockets, lol

well even russia  build these, this time armenia would be more bad situation, dont you think friendship of bear is  high. Infact armenia is  realy  a bad situation, specially after russian gas games.

She have 3 unfriendly neighbor, one bear friend, and Iran.



Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 09:54
Ok so you are saying that Azeris are in reality Iranians. And Azerbaijan is occupied by Turks, and Azeris in Iran feel no connection with Azerbaijan whatsoever?

I was always wodnering why Iranian Azeries never supported Azerbaijan in the war...

But still, when has there been an Iranian-Kurdish conflict?


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 10:00

Also do not lump Iran's Azaris witht he so called Azaries of the FSR,  Azaeries are as much part of Iran as anything, the only problem Iran has with them are Turkish and FSR greywolves, if Iran's Azeries, like Turkey's Kurds really wanted to break away, they could easily, how could Iran stop all of the azaries breaking away if they wanted to? 

 I heard nationalism at azeris(in iran) increasing, also  infact Iran can suppress its minority much more easy than Turkey.(Remember last kurdish rebellion?)

But I agree, with an islamic goverment not much need to afraid from  azeris. If It change, I think you will have  some problems.

They don't want to because they are a part of it and always have been, there were not even any protests about Iran helping Armenia.

sorry  but  this was realy a big mistake, what do you think, they will thinking what iran did.

Infact turkish kurds also dont protest turkey anti-kurdish(at raq) policy, but  this does not mean they like it much. Infact wisely turkey is changing her policy, I advise this for you too.

FSR Azerbaijan is not een the real Azerbaijan, the real Azerbaijan is in Iran, the Young Turks, Imperial Russians and Bolsheviks propagated the name change of Arran/Albania to Azerbajan in order to take away Iran's Turkish population by creating the myth of North and South Azarbaijan, they failed miserably.

Bla bla bla, what happened is  happened.

Historically there is only on Azarbaijan, you will not find any records prior to the 1910s of any Caucasian Azarbaijan.

Yeah  but dont forget, Iran ruled by Turkish safavid before 1900.

 

 



Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 10:16
Yeah  but dont forget, Iran ruled by Turkish safavid before 1900

I think that was a huge mistake...if the safavids were Turkish, why were they at constant war with the Ottomans from 1400-1900?

Bla bla bla, what happened is  happened.

So you are saying that what Zagros said is correct?



Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 10:24

 think that was a huge mistake...if the safavids were Turkish, why were they at constant war with the Ottomans from 1400-1900?

I think, Turkish-Turkish(or maybe said turkic) war is  not  uncommon,  didnt  armenians  fight each other.

So you are saying that what Zagros said is correct?

Infact  I am just saying forget the past, it is  half correct.They were always difference between turks and persians. Remember  nationalist movements dont have much past  at  this land.

And no It didnt failed, If It is failed  attempt why is iran so nervous about azeris? 


 



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 10:27

By your responses Mortaza, you didn't even understand what i said, go bla bla off to yourself and stop trolling for once in your posting life.

Safavids were Azaries? Yes and so what? We are proud to have been ruled by them, they are what defined our modern nation. Also they have nothing to do with this discussion.  I suggest you learn a little bit of history too, Safavids havent ruled since the 1700s, what are you talking about before 1900?  Before and right after 1900 Iran was ruled by Qajars with Turkmen roots.

And your idiot fascist greywolf friends say that Persians and Russians split the Turkish land of Azarbaijan between them into North and south in 1817/12, well the Turkic Qajars ruled Iran when this myth is purported to have taken place, Iran's Azaries are not stupid.

And when was there a Kurdish rebellion in Iran?  You mean the riots on the borders that were instigated by Israelis, Turkey's best friend? Don't worry, Iran at the very least knows how to deal with traitors.

I myself can call myself a Kurd, and people like me want a unified and srtong Iran to represent all of her people's interests, not a little collection of ethnocentric pseudo states - more bitch states for the west.



-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 10:35
Originally posted by Mortaza

And no It didnt failed, If It is failed  attempt why is iran so nervous about azeris?  

Iran is not nervous about Azaries, you only deduce this sense from Iranian posters getting angry by false propaganda.  Like i have said a million times, Iran is ruled by an Azari and Iran's Azaris are itnertwined into every level of society.

There are so many Azaries in non Azari land, like Tehran and other big cities, you think they will ever want to break away? I dont think so, especially to join an incompetent quasi fascist state like FSR Azerbaijan.

And don't forget tats and Talysh of FSR Azer.  they have a party called the "Talysh Independence Party", The Iranian Azari independence party (SANAM) are a joke and funded by Israelis and alien forces like Greywolves, they have no bedrock of support like the movements of Kurds in Turkey or Basques in Spain.



-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 10:44
And mamikon, the Safavids didnt fight ottomans based on race it was based on religion and desire for territory, they were Turcophones when their dynasty started out, they would have been much more powerful if it was not for Shah Abbas's paranoia, he locked up his heirs because he feared they would overthrow him like he had done to his father, so they received no good education and martial training and became stupid.

-------------


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 10:44

Safavids were Azaries? Yes and so what? We are proud to have been ruled by them, they are what defined our modern nation. Also they have nothing to do with this discussion.  I suggest you learn a little bit of history too, Safavids havent ruled since the 1700s, what are you talking about before 1900?  Before and right after 1900 Iran was ruled by Qajars with Turkmen roots.

So there were Caucasian Azarbaijan before 1910s, Infact they were ruling iran with their friends, because they are no more iran, you have no right to refuse  them. What do you call wolf at iran?

And your idiot fascist greywolf friends say that Persians and Russians split the Turkish land of Azarbaijan between them into North and south in 1817/12, well the Turkic Qajars ruled Iran when this myth is purported to have taken place, Iran's Azaries are not stupid.

Infact It is easily can  see, Azeri lands were divided,  like kurdish land, not much important who divided them.

And when was there a Kurdish rebellion in Iran?  You mean the riots on the borders that were instigated by Israelis, Turkey's best friend? Don't worry, Iran at the very least knows how to deal with traitors.

Yes,  I know that they know how to deal with traitors.  did I say something different?

I myself can call myself a Kurd, and people like me want a unified and srtong Iran to represent all of her people's interests, not a little collection of ethnocentric pseudo states - more bitch states for the west.

yes  good idea, when did I said, I prefer divided countries? I am  talking about possible results of USA attack to iran.

 



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 11:06
you are trolling and don't deserve any further answers, you are not even making sense.

-------------


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 11:11

Instead of saying there are Azarbaijan , and azeri lands are divided two by azeri-iranian border. 

 should say this, there were not Azarbaijan , it is a created thing, this place should give back to Iran.

I think now I am making sense.

 

 



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 12:19

No, I dont care about caucasus Azerbaijan except that it is trying to cause trouble in Iran - Iran supported Armenia because of that idiot Aliyev's comments against Iran.

Arran was conquered by teh Russians and they renamed it Azarbaijan so that they could create the myth of a historically uinited Azarbaijan.  Infact even Azarbiajani federalists in Iran hated this move, they tried to change the name of Iranian Azarbaijan to Azadestan to differntiate from the territory to the north of Aras.  There is documented proof of the reason that the caucasus Arran changed name to Azerbaijan in the way of imperial russian telegrams.



-------------


Posted By: Alborz
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 14:58

mortaza,

first of all, Kurds do NOT prefer Turkey over Iran. Maybe you should reread your own countries history. Look at how many very very bloody conflicts you and kurds have gone through. way more than any country in the region. more than even Iraq.

second of all, what makes you think invasion of Iran will be good for Turkey. IRanian azarbaijanis will resist any separation as you like them and there are alot of armenians in Iran who (like war with Iraq) fight for Iran. and FSR Azerbaijan would just turn to hell since Iranian connections in that country is strong.

third of all, there is only one Azarbaijan and that is in Iran. Don't worry the FSR Azerbaijan is going through alot of identity discovery, they will one day for sure discover their real roots

so don't be happy if Iran being invaded because Turkey will NOT benefit in anyway.



-------------
"Who so shall worship Ahura Mazda, divine blessing will be upon him, both while living and when dead" Darius The Great


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 16:45
Zagros I did  not  they fought Safavids because of race.

And what do you mean Safavids were Azeries. I have not seen a single map that shows Azeri unitl early 20th century, which applied to current Azerbaijan (which was called Shirvan before).


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 17:09

The real and historical Azarbaijan (Azarbadegan) province is in Iran, The Safavies were from Ardabil, which along with Azarbaijan is majorly populated by Turcophones.  The Turkic presence there spread to when Shah Abbass resettled Afshar Turkmens in what we call East Azarbiajan in Iran, the population of which previously was a sedentery Kurdish stronghold, they were descended from Parto-Medians.  The Sunni Kurds (who spoke a dialect of Parthian) rebelled against the Safavids were largely massacred and replaced by Afshars in that province.



-------------


Posted By: Iranian41ife
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 17:39

its all about oil.

irans oil bourse is opening and the USA doesnt want that.

 



-------------
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War


Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 17:48

I don't think Mortaza is trolling, or saying that invasion of Iran would be good for Turkey. His English is not perfect, so it may be a good idea to ask for clarifications before getting angry.

FSR Azerbaijan is not een the real Azerbaijan, the real Azerbaijan is in Iran, the Young Turks, Imperial Russians and Bolsheviks propagated the name change of Arran/Albania to Azerbajan in order to take away Iran's Turkish population by creating the myth of North and South Azarbaijan, they failed miserably.

Actually the Turks tried this during the World War, when Turkish army reached Baku. Some of the Young Turks wanted to unify the Turkics in one huge Empire. They wanted to use European tactics to divide Iran. But they lost the war, and during the occupation of Turkey, Turkish nationalist resistance came to an agreement with the Soviets and partitioned the Caucasus. They didn't touch the Iranian part because they both needed to move their troops to other fronts, and didn't want to get into any more trouble with the British in the south.

I've read the history of the Caucasus in detail, and one thing surprised me: Iranian power was virtually non-existent. Everyone had an effect from the Assyrians to Kurdish tribes, Georgians to Azeris to Armenians, and of course Turkish and Russian Red and White armies, but Iranians are nowhere to be seen. Armies moved through Iranian Azerbaijan without being challenged all the time. Where was the government? Is this a correct assessment of Iranian power at the time (1914-1918), or is my source missing something?

Don't get me wrong, though, I am not saying anything bad about Iran. To the contrary. This means that Iran was much weaker than Turkey at the time, but today they are about the same. So Iran must have improved faster in the meanwhile.

  The Sunni Kurds (who spoke a dialect of Parthian) rebelled against the Safavids were largely massacred and replaced by Afshars in that province.

Similarly, the Ottomans massacred the Turkish Shia and replaced them with the Sunni Kurds along the border.



-------------


Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 18:07
Originally posted by Mortaza

Yeah  but dont forget, Iran ruled by Turkish safavid before 1900.

First i am tired of this Azeri flame war crap.

Second Mortaza by your sentence above what do you want to arrive? trying to lighten up a new flame war? Please let my half azeri ethnic alone ( i am azeri from mother's side) the least thing Azeris need is your flame wars, let them for God's sake in peace.

 



-------------


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 18:28
On topic: two reports from a Democrat-lead comitee and from the Pentagon consider that US deployement is placing a great strain to its Military.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4649066.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4649066.stm

That of the Pentagon, yet to be released, reportedly says that the US Army is "stretched to breaking point" due to its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In this situation, I don't think that USA is capable of invading Iran, even with the support of all NATO.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 18:33
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

 

Actually the Turks tried this during the World War, when Turkish army reached Baku. Some of the Young Turks wanted to unify the Turkics in one huge Empire. They wanted to use European tactics to divide Iran. But they lost the war, and during the occupation of Turkey, Turkish nationalist resistance came to an agreement with the Soviets and partitioned the Caucasus. They didn't touch the Iranian part because they both needed to move their troops to other fronts, and didn't want to get into any more trouble with the British in the south.

 Is this a correct assessment of Iranian power at the time (1914-1918), or is my source missing something?

Don't get me wrong, though, I am not saying anything bad about Iran. To the contrary. This means that Iran was much weaker than Turkey at the time, but today they are about the same. So Iran must have improved faster in the meanwhile.

No, Iran was indeed weak - the corrupt Qajars had allowed Iran to be infiltrated and subverted by the British, it was in the early 1900s that the British love affair with the mullahs began, using them to influence consumption of British imports like sugar.  Iran at that time was a playground for foreign powers and went through a constitutional revolution to boot, it did not pull together till Reza Shah done an Atuturk and eventually failed because of Anglo-Russian interferenace.

OK I found this article for you on Pan-Turanism with regards to Iran and its history, I am sure you will find it interesting, it is written by Dr Kaveh Farrokh, himself an Ossetian with Azari ancestry on his mothers side.  It is written academically and cites valid historical sources for all of its points.

http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/aazariINDEX.HTML - http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/aazariINDEX.HTML http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/AINTRODUCTION.HTML -

  The Sunni Kurds (who spoke a dialect of Parthian) rebelled against the Safavids were largely massacred and replaced by Afshars in that province.

Similarly, the Ottomans massacred the Turkish Shia and replaced them with the Sunni Kurds along the border.

Well this just spits int he face of idiots who base historical conflicts on ethnicity like Persian vs Turk etc, it was never like that, it was monarchy v monarchy and religious ideology vrs relgious ideology.  This ethnic nationalism crap is a modern invention.

What really pisses me off about the Greywolves and their propagators are the blatant falsifications of history.

Example: Sattar Khan - They say he was an Azari nationalist fighting for independence fromt eh wicked "Persians" - when in actual fact he was fighting for democracy against Qajar Turkmen led monarchists.

Or the one that annoys me the most is Babak Khoramdin being the first Azeri to fight against Persian oppression, when infact he was a Partho-Median who rebelled against the islamic caliphate in an attenmot to restoer Iran's previous religion.



-------------


Posted By: merced12
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 18:34
Originally posted by Zagros

Also do not lump Iran's Azaris witht he so called Azaries of the FSR,  Azaeries are as much part of Iran as anything, the only problem Iran has with them are Turkish and FSR greywolves, if Iran's Azeries, like Turkey's Kurds really wanted to break away, they could easily, how could Iran stop all of the azaries breaking away if they wanted to?  They don't want to because they are a part of it and always have been, there were not even any protests about Iran helping Armenia.

FSR Azerbaijan is not een the real Azerbaijan, the real Azerbaijan is in Iran, the Young Turks, Imperial Russians and Bolsheviks propagated the name change of Arran/Albania to Azerbajan in order to take away Iran's Turkish population by creating the myth of North and South Azarbaijan, they failed miserably.

Historically there is only on Azarbaijan, you will not find any records prior to the 1910s of any Caucasian Azarbaijan.

yeah iran is very democratic country

 

 



-------------
http://www.turks.org.uk/ - http://www.turks.org.uk/
16th century world;
Ottomans all Roman orients
Safavids in Persia
Babur in india
`azerbaycan bayragini karabagdan asacagim``


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 18:35

No, think about it merced --- 17 million Azaries who are at every level of Iranian society, if they really wanted to, they would break away - BY FORCE. But why would they? Iran is their country too, the Head of State and Armed forces, the guy with final say on everything, Ali Khamene'i is an Azari.

It is the same with Kurds in Turkey, if all of them wanted to break away they could do it easy, but ther eis too much to lose and people just want to get on witht ehir lives, besides their standard of living would dramatically decrease for following the whims of powers alien to the region who just want a rabble of competing ethnocentric states with no real power who can be their economic bitches, that is why Iran and Turkey must form an alliance and brign stability and prosperity, like they almost did with CENTO 40 years ago.



-------------


Posted By: merced12
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 18:42

this is true thinking iran and turkey



-------------
http://www.turks.org.uk/ - http://www.turks.org.uk/
16th century world;
Ottomans all Roman orients
Safavids in Persia
Babur in india
`azerbaycan bayragini karabagdan asacagim``


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 18:56
Originally posted by Zagros

No, think about it merced --- 17 million Azaries who are at every level of Iranian society, if they really wanted to, they would break away - BY FORCE. But why would they? Iran is their country too, the Head of State and Armed forces, the guy with final say on everything, Ali Khamene'i is an Azari.

It is the same with Kurds in Turkey, if all of them wanted to break away they could do it easy, but ther eis too much to lose and people just want to get on witht ehir lives, besides their standard of living would dramatically decrease for following the whims of powers alien to the region who just want a rabble of competing ethnocentric states with no real power who can be their economic bitches, that is why Iran and Turkey must form an alliance and brign stability and prosperity, like they almost did with CENTO 40 years ago.

yea agree with this, we should forget that foolish "shia, sunnie" flames/wars that where made in the past, just move on and form an (first) alliance against those imperialists.

-------------
Bu m覺nt覺ka'n覺n Day覺's覺
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Behi
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 19:03
Or the one that annoys me the most is Babak Khoramdin being the first Azeri to fight against Persian oppression,

Well babak fouht againest Iranian
is it funny joke???



-------------


Posted By: Iranian41ife
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 19:51

Originally posted by Zagros

It is the same with Kurds in Turkey, if all of them wanted to break away they could do it easy, but ther eis too much to lose and people just want to get on witht ehir lives, besides their standard of living would dramatically decrease for following the whims of powers alien to the region who just want a rabble of competing ethnocentric states with no real power who can be their economic bitches, that is why Iran and Turkey must form an alliance and brign stability and prosperity, like they almost did with CENTO 40 years ago.

 

wrong on this point, the turkish kurds want independence, thats why they fought turkey for ten years, and thats why 30,000 kurds died in the fighting.

and the situation of kurds in turky is horrible, their standard of living would acutally increase if they went independent like iraqs kurds.

 

iranian kurds havent fought iran in a ten year civil war, infact, none of the iranian ethnicities have actually put up any strong form of fighting, so that means that iran is doing something right that turkey and iraq werent doing right.



-------------
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War


Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2006 at 20:24
pan-Turanism is a scary thing all right. I wonder how many Turks indulge in it...


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 07:59

wrong on this point, the turkish kurds want independence, thats why they fought turkey for ten years, and thats why 30,000 kurds died in the fighting.

 

So can you tell me why hadep (kurdish ethnic party) only  get 2 million vote, (how many kurd we have, 10.000.000, this kurds have almost 6.000.000 vote, and hadep only get 2.000.000) Remember,  10 million is turkish claim, kurds claim 15-25 million, so how did majority people want independence?)and how come more than one million vote came from turkish majority land?

Hadep  only  get 200.000 vote from istanbul, do you think this 200.000 people want  independence?

I didnt say Iran azeris want independence, infact they dont, but If USA attack iran, azerbeyjan effect over this azeris will increase, also I said azeri nationalism at iran is increased. I dint also say there is an azeri-persian conflict.

by the way, how can USA attack at iran  is harmful for Turkey?

forget the alliance, we have not a peaciful iran, infact iran was  and is playing against  us, she is biggest supporter of russia at Caucasus.

She supported pkk before,(but as you easly can see, our iranian friends dont like grey wolfs) why should we not support azeri nationalist movement?

Our trade with iran is not high.

So I dont know what is bad for Turkey(about this war)? One of  our agressive neighbor will be harmed, and USA(our biggest  ally) will depend on us much, maybe at this turmoil, another one of our ally will enhance her power.(Azerbaijan)

And  most probably,  It would be iran and armenia(an other  anti-turkey country)which pay price in short term, and russia power will decrease at long time.

I dont want USA attack  to iran, but reason is only I wont like iranians (I also call  them as brother) suffer, it have no relation with Turkey interest.

Of course these are only my humble ideas, I may be wrong.

But If turkey wont change her  political stance from Israel-USA center than Russia-Iran center, Iran-USA war wont harm us.

iranian kurds havent fought iran in a ten year civil war, infact, none of the iranian ethnicities have actually put up any strong form of fighting, so that means that iran is doing something right that turkey and iraq werent doing right.

dont you remember killed iranian soldier by PKK? so it looks like iran is also doing same wrong.



Posted By: Aydin
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2006 at 22:36
how about tangestan? and their struggle against the British?

-------------


Posted By: Aydin
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 04:17

Russian MP Says US To Attack Iran Late March

 

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com
February 7 2006


A top Russian parliamentary leader has told Ekho Moskvy radio station that an attack on Iran is inevitable and that it will occur on March 28th. The leader of the Liberal Democrats Vladimir Zhirinovsky also believes that the Muslim riots were orchestrated by the US to garner European backing for the military strike.

Rhetoric has heated significantly in the past week with Donald Rumsfeld yesterday warning that a military option was on the table, echoing the comments of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist who said that the US was prepared to take military action.

Also, Israeli acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated that Iran would pay "a very heavy price" if the Islamic Republic defiantly resumes full-scale uranium enrichment to build nuclear weapons.

Zhirinovsky told the Russian radio station that, "The war is inevitable because the Americans want this war. Any country claiming a leading position in the world will need to wage wars. Otherwise it will simply not be able to retain its leading position."

"The date for the strike is already known it is the election day in Israel (March 28). It is also known how much that war will cost, said Zhirinovsky.



Commenting on the Muslim riots sweeping the Middle East and Europe, Zhirinovsky (pictured above) said that the publication of the offensive cartoons was a planned psyop on the part of the US and aimed to provoke a row between Europe and the Islamic world.

It will all end with European countries thanking the United States and paying, and giving soldiers, said Zhirinovsky.

The possible inorganic manufactured nature of the riots has to be seriously considered. The three most offensive cartoons that caused the outrage were not even printed in the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper but were added in and handed out by Danish imams who circulated the images to brethren in Muslim countries, according to the London Telegraph.

It also appears highly suspicious that Muslims in Gaza City and other places had gained access to a plentiful supply of Danish flags to burn in front of the waiting world media as soon as the controversy broke out.

It now comes to light that Merete Eldrup, managing director of JP/Politikens Hus, the company that published the cartoons, is the wife of Anders Eldrup. Anders Eldrup is a Bilderberg member who has attended the last five Bilderberg meetings. The Bilderberg Group is a shadowy organization that meets once a year to steer global policy. It is now widely acknowledged that Bilderberg set the date for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.



The violent demonstrations, on the back of last November's French riots, are clearly having the effect of hardening European sympathy towards Muslims, even as the governments of major European countries open the floodgates to mass immigration. This greases the skids for an accelerated invasion of Iran who yesterday announced they were cutting trade with Denmark over the offensive cartoons.

Director of the Russian Political Research Institute Sergei Markov previously warned that Israel was likely to conduct air strikes against Iran in the spring.

The window of opportunity seems to be forming for the US and Israel. The White House meeting memo proves that UN consultations and possible sanctions are mere window dressing for a plan of action that has already been decided upon. What remains to be seen is if the US or Israel will attempt to manufacture a staged war provocation to goad the Iranians into signing their own death warrant. The memo, released by QC Philippe Sands, contained details of a discussion between Tony Blair and George Bush where a plan to paint a US spy plane in UN colors and fly it low over Iraq in the hope that Saddam would order it shot down was debated.



-------------


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 05:22
Originally posted by Aydin

even as the governments of major European countries open the floodgates to mass immigration.

Is this new? Europe is opening its gates further?


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 05:30
Originally posted by Mortaza

wrong on this point, the turkish kurds want independence, thats why they fought turkey for ten years, and thats why 30,000 kurds died in the fighting.

 

So can you tell me why hadep (kurdish ethnic party) only  get 2 million vote, (how many kurd we have, 10.000.000, this kurds have almost 6.000.000 vote, and hadep only get 2.000.000) Remember,  10 million is turkish claim, kurds claim 15-25 million, so how did majority people want independence?)and how come more than one million vote came from turkish majority land?

Hadep  only  get 200.000 vote from istanbul, do you think this 200.000 people want  independence?

I didnt say Iran azeris want independence, infact they dont, but If USA attack iran, azerbeyjan effect over this azeris will increase, also I said azeri nationalism at iran is increased. I dint also say there is an azeri-persian conflict.

by the way, how can USA attack at iran  is harmful for Turkey?

forget the alliance, we have not a peaciful iran, infact iran was  and is playing against  us, she is biggest supporter of russia at Caucasus.

She supported pkk before,(but as you easly can see, our iranian friends dont like grey wolfs) why should we not support azeri nationalist movement?

Our trade with iran is not high.

So I dont know what is bad for Turkey(about this war)? One of  our agressive neighbor will be harmed, and USA(our biggest  ally) will depend on us much, maybe at this turmoil, another one of our ally will enhance her power.(Azerbaijan)

And  most probably,  It would be iran and armenia(an other  anti-turkey country)which pay price in short term, and russia power will decrease at long time.

I dont want USA attack  to iran, but reason is only I wont like iranians (I also call  them as brother) suffer, it have no relation with Turkey interest.

Of course these are only my humble ideas, I may be wrong.

But If turkey wont change her  political stance from Israel-USA center than Russia-Iran center, Iran-USA war wont harm us.

iranian kurds havent fought iran in a ten year civil war, infact, none of the iranian ethnicities have actually put up any strong form of fighting, so that means that iran is doing something right that turkey and iraq werent doing right.

dont you remember killed iranian soldier by PKK? so it looks like iran is also doing same wrong.

PKK (Pezhak) attacks Iran too, what are you talking about Mortaza?  Iran has never supporrted PKK.



-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 05:31
Well, we shall see what happens in March.  I have a feeling this is all down to the Euro Boarse exchange that we read about.

-------------


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 05:46

"iranian kurds havent fought iran in a ten year civil war, infact, none of the iranian ethnicities have actually put up any strong form of fighting, so that means that iran is doing something right that turkey and iraq werent doing right."

Kurds have tried to get free from Iran many many times. Last time in the revolution and in 1946 we had the Mahabad republic...

So we have tried many times, and we will in the future too.

You remember last summer? The riots? Kurds will not give up.

Like Zagors said: "History favors the brave"

 



-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: Alborz
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 06:04

hopefully Iran can get its nukes before the vahshi americans can even try invading.

and Cent, "mahabad" was created by USSR. no glory in that. and in reality though, it never became an actual republic. it was crushed before it legally became a republic inside its own territory.

and can you please tell me when kurds "have tried to get free from Iran"? even the so called "separatists" never ever called for separation in 1979 or after.

kurds, as you say, can riot and pick up guns all they want. the only thing they will achieve is their own misery. like how pkk created for Kurds in Turkey. all because of its backward ways. how many wars and deaths do you people have to go through until you realize marxism is no good.

though they (pkk and their cronies) make good tools for the west.



-------------
"Who so shall worship Ahura Mazda, divine blessing will be upon him, both while living and when dead" Darius The Great


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 06:24

"and can you please tell me when kurds "have tried to get free from Iran"?"

Doesn't the Mahabad republic indicate our desire for freedom?

"how many wars and deaths do you people have to go through until you realize marxism is no good."

I don't think your talking about Kurds here.... You just keep talking about Marxism...

I and the majority of the Kurds want self independence. Not to be controled by others... And on our own demands.  Why wouldnt a people of 30 million, not to controll their destinies?



-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 06:25

And why do you smile? Is it funny that we are under occupation?

That we as Kurds must read and learn other languages than our own? How would you feel about that? YOU CAN'T!



-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: Alborz
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 06:49

Cent, aren't you the same guy who said Kurds are different from Iranians without ever proving it?



-------------
"Who so shall worship Ahura Mazda, divine blessing will be upon him, both while living and when dead" Darius The Great


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 07:26

Do you need me too prove that?

Kurds and Persians are related in culture, history and language. But so are Danish and Swedes, still they have their own independent countries. Why can't we have that?



-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 09:16

It's a matter of territory, Persians, Kurds and others can trace back their history in the same areas for millenia (in Iran). I support all Kurdish (and other minority) rights except independence and I am proud to call myself both Persian and Kurd, the oly place for my identity is Iran - it does not represent one ethnicity, but many.

Culturally and linguistically, Kurds (and other Zagros Iranians) are the most Iranian of Iran's people.

As for PKK, I don't like them, they are too extremist, even the Kurdish nationalists I know from Iraq don't like them.



-------------


Posted By: Alborz
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 10:36
Originally posted by Cent

Do you need me too prove that?

Kurds and Persians are related in culture, history and language. But so are Danish and Swedes, still they have their own independent countries. Why can't we have that?

this isn't europe. Iran (and middle east) is not europe. and besides, there has never been a kurdish state. just Iran. 

kurd=iranian. %100. there is no way around that. (unless we are talking about outside of iran).

where are you from anyway?

and the only where kurds can (or not) have a nation of their own is northern Iraq. but that would not come for many many years (after many many peacefull and free of foreign interference negotiations) if it wants to be accepted by its neighbours which is essential.



-------------
"Who so shall worship Ahura Mazda, divine blessing will be upon him, both while living and when dead" Darius The Great


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 14:21

Alborz, so you mean that Kurds should be under Iranian hegemoni? You want us to be with you, while Iran uses us as they want. We are NOT your slaves. We have not lost thousands of peshmerga to be slaves...

Why should Kurds suffer from Iranian regimes? What happends 1000 miles east of Kurdistan is not our problem... If it's a dictarorship in Tehran, let it be, it's the Persians desicion, but don't let us suffer from it.

Don't give me the same story "KURDISTAN = IRAN", you think thats enough reason to stick together? No thanks. Show us some more respect. We don't deserve to be treated less.

We need to speak our own language, use our own culture and be indepedent.

Do you know how it feels when I talk to my family over the phone in Sannandaj, and KNOW that the phone is bugged, and i can't talk normaly because I fear they'll hurt them (Iranian regime)?

 

 



-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 10-Feb-2006 at 14:23
I'm from Sannandaj, Kordestan province in Iran.

-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: Alborz
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2006 at 02:13
Originally posted by Cent

Alborz, so you mean that Kurds should be under Iranian hegemoni? You want us to be with you, while Iran uses us as they want. We are NOT your slaves. We have not lost thousands of peshmerga to be slaves...

look either you  like it or not, we will not give up our land which we have fought to keep for more than 500 years, even since ancient times, with our blood of ancestors. so if you dont want to be part of iran and not be iranian, thats fine. you know w/e makes you happy man. but please get off my land and leave it for those who want to make Iran a better place. as I can see, you already have left Iran. Even for us the Iranian diaspora, returning to Iran to help in some way is a dream.

Why should Kurds suffer from Iranian regimes? What happends 1000 miles east of Kurdistan is not our problem... If it's a dictarorship in Tehran, let it be, it's the Persians desicion, but don't let us suffer from it.

why? you are being selfish here cent (and cowardly; if I may say so). Separatist marxist kurds complain too much, and talk like they are spokesmen of all kurds. as I said, you dont want to suffer from "Iranian regime" and be selfish and not help those in tehran, please get off our land for those who want to make Iran a better place and those who care to look out for their countrymen. specialy tehranis who are the critical ones into bringing change. I can bet you there were more executions of political opposition and activists from Tehran province, alone, than all of the kurdish areas.

Don't give me the same story "KURDISTAN = IRAN", you think thats enough reason to stick together? No thanks. Show us some more respect. We don't deserve to be treated less.

I still await your proof of how we are different. as I said, stop complaining too much. All Iranians should focus on the regime first and stop whinning, because Iranians are in this together. (which by the way, this is exactly what the west hates) 

We need to speak our own language, use our own culture and be indepedent.

I don't know which country you talk about, but in Iran kurds speak their own language, use their own culture (which is %99 Iranian ). but this would not be enough for you right?  we are using kurds as our slaves right? Iranians are like KKK right?

Do you know how it feels when I talk to my family over the phone in Sannandaj, and KNOW that the phone is bugged, and i can't talk normaly because I fear they'll hurt them (Iranian regime)?

your phone is bugged?, wake up cent, all Iranian phones are bugged. what do you think bush's regime (of the great "free world") is doing now spying on their citizens? and you complain that Iranian phones are bugged??? and what have your family done to be hurt? perhaps something, you certainly give me the impression they are not innocent of their actions. or maybe you are the guilty one

I dont mind you sharing your thoughts cent. So dont look at me the wrong way. you dont want to call yourself Iranian Cent, ok, w/e that makes you happy. I dont care.

But leave Iran to Iranians then.



-------------
"Who so shall worship Ahura Mazda, divine blessing will be upon him, both while living and when dead" Darius The Great


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2006 at 02:45

Alborz, I call myself Kurd and then Iranian.

"But leave Iran to Iranians then."

Leave Kurdistan then? It's not your land. It's the Kurdish people's land.

I'm not selfish, I just want to have my own stat, and that's all.

My phone is bugged because of the riots last summer. They bugged all phone.

Hey by the way, Iran is much larger then this, why don't you claim all of Turkey, Iraq and Syria will your at it, because for thousands of years ago that was Iran.



-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: Alborz
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2006 at 04:24

Originally posted by Cent

Alborz, I call myself Kurd and then Iranian.

"But leave Iran to Iranians then."

Leave Kurdistan then? It's not your land. It's the Kurdish people's land.

the Kurdish populated areas of Iran belong not just to kurds but to all Iranians. same with the rest of country.

I'm not selfish, I just want to have my own stat, and that's all.

how about from what I said : "and the only where kurds can (or not) have a nation of their own is northern Iraq. but that would not come for many many years (after many many peacefull and free of foreign interference negotiations) if it wants to be accepted by its neighbours which is essential."

Hey by the way, Iran is much larger then this, why don't you claim all of Turkey, Iraq and Syria will your at it, because for thousands of years ago that was Iran.

no thanx. age of territorial conquests are gone.

kurdish situation in mid-east shall be solved by all of us without foreign interference. that is essential. so wish for peace, not war. unfortunately america's (and the west) neo-colonialist policies are making it pretty hard.



-------------
"Who so shall worship Ahura Mazda, divine blessing will be upon him, both while living and when dead" Darius The Great


Posted By: Behi
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2006 at 04:43
Cent: I don't expect it

ok, Who does take advantage of these new born??
Kurds??
No, UK
It'll be another success for UK.
& I bet if US weren't in Iraq, UK create Kurdestan state to control Oil field in North of Iraq.

"But leave Iran to Iranians then."
Who is Iranian??
Iran is (was) unification of Persian, Kurds, Azaries, Baluches, Lurs, Gilakis,...

Then each of them must have independent state??!!
Republic of Azarbaigan, russia was going to create it ~60 years ago
Republic of Rasht, Again, By Mirza kochak khane Jangali
Now, Republic of Al-Ahvaz by UK
the next is Republic of Balochestan
s

Alborz & Cent please, It's enough, Etehado hefz konin, ma be andaze kafi moshkel darim,


-------------


Posted By: Behi
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2006 at 05:10
I heard it lastnight,
I don't know true or false
any way,
Sudia Arbia declared that they can produce enough Oil to keep price level, If Iran cut Oil production.

& WEEO Declared can regularize it for 1.5 years

IR lost advantage


-------------


Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2006 at 06:17

I guess our neighbours has the same problem, Cent is typical brainwhashed kid of propaganda's in swede. You gave the example of danish and swede country's as being seperated and does have a (almost) same language, but ever heard of european union? Whats does a union mean?

Cent says: "we will not be Iranian slaves anymore"

Ok what are you gonna be if Kurdistan is a country? A SLAVE OF THE IMPERIALISTS! THere should only a country exists with the name kurdistan, but the ruling part of it gonna be a puppet rejime of the imperialists (aka iraq regime right now).

 



-------------
Bu m覺nt覺ka'n覺n Day覺's覺
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2006 at 09:15

DayI, I wont reply you, because the risk of flamewar.

Land of Aryan, I'll stop.



-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: Behi
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2006 at 12:27
Thank you Dear Cent

Alborz I hope you Stop it too


-------------


Posted By: Alborz
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2006 at 05:28

No problem Land of Aryan. I just thought I could get through somebody, but I'm tired of this politics sh*t anyway. I didnt come to this forum to talk politics but learn and discuss history.

so Cent, Sanandaj ey?



-------------
"Who so shall worship Ahura Mazda, divine blessing will be upon him, both while living and when dead" Darius The Great


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2006 at 08:05

Yes, Alborz.

Which town are you from?



-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: Aydin
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2006 at 22:58

Do you guys think its possible for the mullahs in iran to all the sudden shut down all the nuclear plants in the country permanently?

 

How would the U.S feel about this?

 

Would the conflict simply end?



-------------


Posted By: Alborz
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2006 at 00:34

cent,

Tehran

and aydin,

No. not until the mullahs are like, here is our oil.



-------------
"Who so shall worship Ahura Mazda, divine blessing will be upon him, both while living and when dead" Darius The Great


Posted By: Behi
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2006 at 15:59

US prepares military blitz against Iran's nuclear sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/12/ixportaltop.html - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02 /12/wiran12.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/12/ixportaltop.ht ml

By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 12/02/2006)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=J0LJUZ2GLOTLRQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/02/13/wiran13.xml" lang="en.uk - '10,000 would die' in A-plant attack on Iran
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=J0LJUZ2GLOTLRQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=P30&blog=diplomatic&xml=/news/2006/02/02/bldiplomatic02.xml" lang="en.uk - Weblog: A sobering view of Iran

Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.

 
Click to enlarge

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions. Teheran claims that it is developing only a civilian energy programme.

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."

The prospect of military action could put Washington at odds with Britain which fears that an attack would spark violence across the Middle East, reprisals in the West and may not cripple Teheran's nuclear programme. But the steady flow of disclosures about Iran's secret nuclear operations and the virulent anti-Israeli threats of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has prompted the fresh assessment of military options by Washington. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000lb of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices. They would fly from bases in Missouri with mid-air refuelling.

The Bush administration has recently announced plans to add conventional ballistic missiles to the armoury of its nuclear Trident submarines within the next two years. If ready in time, they would also form part of the plan of attack.

Teheran has dispersed its nuclear plants, burying some deep underground, and has recently increased its air defences, but Pentagon planners believe that the raids could seriously set back Iran's nuclear programme.

Iran was last weekend reported to the United Nations Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency for its banned nuclear activities. Teheran reacted by announcing that it http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=J0LJUZ2GLOTLRQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/02/11/wiran11.xml" lang="en.uk - would resume full-scale uranium enrichment - producing material that could arm nuclear devices.

The White House says that it wants a diplomatic solution to the stand-off, but President George W Bush has refused to rule out military action and reaffirmed last weekend that Iran's nuclear ambitions "will not be tolerated".

Sen John McCain, the Republican front-runner to succeed Mr Bush in 2008, has advocated military strikes as a last resort. He said recently: "There is only only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has made the same case and Mr Bush is expected to be faced by the decision within two years.

By then, Iran will be close to acquiring the knowledge to make an atomic bomb, although the construction will take longer. The President will not want to be seen as leaving the White House having allowed Iran's ayatollahs to go atomic.

In Teheran yesterday, crowds celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution chanted "Nuclear technology is our inalienable right" and cheered Mr Ahmadinejad when he said that Iran may reconsider membership of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

He was defiant over possible economic sanctions.



-------------


Posted By: Behi
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2006 at 16:00


-------------


Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2006 at 16:29

This picture is not accurate. Iran only has 12 x-55s, and they did not develop Shahab 4 because they did needed their money and resources for other projects. A more exaggerated version showing Shahab 5 was printed in Newsweek last week they are meant to flame the European public opinion against Iran showing they are within the range of Iranian missiles and are in danger

 



Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2006 at 02:47
Miller wrote: "they did not develop Shahab 4 "
This is kinda a true, they havent gone beyond an advanced Shahab (whatever number), it depends on what is considered a shahab '4'.

Anyhow it is the accuracy (and local technology input) rather than range that they reportably are focusing on. The Logic roughly follows this line;

better the accuracy = smaller the warhead needed = longer the range

Terminolgy on what is a shahab 3 or '4', '5' and ive even heard of a '6'  is as confusing as the ranges quoted. The Shahab 4  range according to this http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/shahab-4_iran.html - - source) : the 'basic' version at around 1,200km and the Shahab 3A at between 1,500 and 1,800km. This all depends on the weight carried on the warhead.

Shahab 4 or 3B?
Now this Shahab 4 is also called (or is confused with ?) a Shahab 3B as far as im concerned. Thats why i say it gets a little confusing, new iranian missiles end up being upgraded missiles. Though the common opinion is this Shahab 3B seems new enough and is way ahead of anything built before it.

Sources:

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw041206_1_n.shtml - could be a shahab 4 but sound like a 3B, unfortunalty this is a partial article and sources are isreali and Iranian opposition groups. Another http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_396.shtml - In late July 2005 Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said the Shihab-3 contained a range of 1,930 kilometers, a major increase from the previous version of the missile, which had a range of 1,300 kilometers. He said the Shihab-3 developed and tested in 2004 significantly increased the range of the missile."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/shahab-3.htm - Source (aswell as pictures)

Iranian tv showing the Shahab 3B










Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com