Print Page | Close Window

america has to invade 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=3243
Printed Date: 29-Mar-2024 at 10:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: america has to invade Iran
Posted By: magavan
Subject: america has to invade Iran
Date Posted: 04-May-2005 at 23:59

I m iranian and i think america has to invade Iran as soon as possible. If Iran gets the nuclear weapons, never our nation will be free. I believe in an Iran Israel alliance in the futur.

your thought?




Replies:
Posted By: Vamun Tianshu
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 00:29
We're still in Iraq,and casualties are being brought up Everyday.I wish Iran the best,because US is still occupied by Afghan and Iraqi War,wanna know Iran should be a free nation?Because we have members here in AE from Iran,even our own Cyrus,the Founder,is Iranian.I don't know if the US should invade Iran,if it means liberating then I don't know,but more lives will be lost,but I can see your point,Iran might use those weapons against other countries,although I'm not entirely sure,because US propaganda is surely getting to my head.Agh!

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

In Honor


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 00:38
go to recent shows and hear the facts. The show was on the Roth show Tuesday eve.

http://www.therothshow.com/archives.htm

http://www.therothshow.com/archives.htm - http://www.therothshow.com/archives.htm


Posted By: iskenderani
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 01:51

Sorry to all , but i am against ANY invasion....or interference.

Remember the Iraq .... and probably Bin Laden too....They were both allies to USA and the "free" world , but turned "bad" when different interests , dictated a different policy.

It is rather naive to baptize Iran's nukes as "bad" , and Pakistani's nukes as "good"....Nukes are either bad , wich includes USA in the "bad" countries , or are good , which means Iran is entitled of them....

Or should we think again , that oil is the issue here too ??

Isk.



Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 02:20

At the moment America has neither the will nor the capacity, but in 3 years or so when the Iraqi security forces are fully trained America's going to attack somebody. It got a president that doesn't have to face reelection, got elected on a war card and will want to leave one of those famous two term president parting gestures, especially if the democrats look like winning the next election. Bush snr left Clinton Somalia and must have been laughing for months.

At the moment Iraq and N Korea are the favourites, but both problematic. To invade North Korea, america will need Japanese, Chinese and South Korean permission which seems unlikely. To invade Iraq it will need Russia permission.

However diplomancy can change in a few years and maybe a new target will emerge.



-------------
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: Tobodai
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 03:58
I see no will or ability to invade Iran, nor do I see any reason too.  Irans leadership cannot last long, they will fall from within and the reaction to them will be very secular and Iran will cease to be a security concern.

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


Posted By: aknc
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 05:42

No.I am against it.Your country can be free if they have a nuclear bomb or not.

What Ameriica is doing is a provocation,it is considering a whole country as a terrorist



-------------
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
              


Posted By: Perseas
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 07:25
I cant see an invasion but i assume Iran will kinda follow Libya's example in the near future and will come to some sort of "arrangement" with US about its nuclear program. International politics and diplomacy were and are always dirty games.


Posted By: aknc
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 07:27
risky too

-------------
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
              


Posted By: Perseas
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 07:38
Originally posted by magavan

I m iranian and i think america has to invade Iran as soon as possible. If Iran gets the nuclear weapons, never our nation will be free. I believe in an Iran Israel alliance in the futur.

your thought?

Any kind of US interference wouldnt it give a good excuse to the current Iranian leaders to squash its opposition as US serviles? If US would back off maybe the Iranian opposition would still have a chance.



Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 08:55
The U.S. will not invade, but over here in Washington the rumors are the the Bush administration is dying to bomb the country.

Maybe intelligence is telling them that if the U.S. bombs, then the rebellious factions in Iran will raise and take down the government, just like it happened in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs attack in the 1960s...aw, never mind.

The even more unlikely scenario is that an "accidental" terrorist attack occurs in the U.S., the attack is linked to Iran, and in a patriotic fever U.S. Congress passes a bill reinstating the draft. I wonder what the odds for that would be?



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


Posted By: magavan
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 11:45
actually there is an indirect colonization from French government in Iran, The french control the mullah satanist in Iran to obtain the oil, I prefer sell the oil to american and see my nation free from these barbarisms


Posted By: ramin
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 11:45
Originally posted by magavan

I m iranian and i think america has to invade Iran as soon as possible. If Iran gets the nuclear weapons, never our nation will be free. I believe in an Iran Israel alliance in the futur.

your thought?

My thought is that I'm certain you've never been to Iran, you've never heard Mullas speaking, and you are wanting Vedism and Zoroastrism and what existed in books about Persian Empire, and you want aaall those back to create the "best" Iran.

Why do you think Israel is trying to destroy Mullas? do you think it's because they want Mullas out to bring Prince Reza on the crown? because they're loyal to the Iranian kingdom and want to return M.Reza Shah's favors? u gotta be kidding

Originally posted by Tobodai

I see no will or ability to invade Iran, nor do I see any reason too. Irans leadership cannot last long, they will fall from within and the reaction to them will be very secular and Iran will cease to be a security concern.
hoping Mullas collapsing from the inside -- without any opposed interference -- is pretty much out of reach, for me of course. Iran's situation is not similar to Afghanistan nor Iraq. there are tens of Saddams and Ghazafis controling the country, and if you kill one of them another one will rise and takes the lost place.

However, if opposed organizations had the power and the money to grow, then your theory is practical, and That, would be my own best way of dismissing the regime.

Originally posted by Aeolus

I cant see an invasion but i assume Iran will kinda follow Libya's example in the near future and will come to some sort of "arrangement" with US about its nuclear program. International politics and diplomacy were and are always dirty games.
They have arrangements right now, remember how serious it was last year and suddenly they dopped it? They've had arrangements eversince the beginning. recall the embassy's hostages in 1979.


Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu

....but I can see your point,Iran might use those weapons against other countries,although I'm not entirely sure,because US propaganda is surely getting to my head.Agh!
Mullas have no interest in attacking other countries. They don't care about land spreading, ethnical differences or Islam. They want to have a country to run without any sort of interference. They make you rich if you protect them. If they want to have nukes it's only because US is provoking them. They see their survival in having the nukes.



Anyway, my point is US won't do anyone any good. they attacked Iraq because they hoped to get something, if attacking Iran will get them what they want they will, they don't care about liberating the country, people nor their own casualties.

at the end I want to give my own solution; if US wants to destroy Mullas for any reason, they should spend their money on opposed Iranian political groups in and out side of Iran, not on silly wars or media propaganda (They show Iran as the evil axis ).


-------------
"I won't laugh if a philosophy halves the moon"


Posted By: magavan
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 11:51
The iranians population cannot fight on the street cuz they are scared, they have no money. An intra revolution in Iran is simply IMPOSSIBLE. Iran ppl needs Bush


Posted By: magavan
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 11:56
Originally posted by ramin

Originally posted by magavan

I m iranian and i think america has to invade Iran as soon as possible. If Iran gets the nuclear weapons, never our nation will be free. I believe in an Iran Israel alliance in the futur.

your thought?

My thought is that I'm certain you've never been to Iran, you've never heard Mullas speaking, and you are wanting Vedism and Zoroastrism and what existed in books about Persian Empire, and you want aaall those back to create the "best" Iran.

 

Trust me I'm not a child I have been in Iran last year for 3 months, The iranian opposition is completly divide, America is the unic solution.



Posted By: ramin
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 11:57
nobody said anything about revolution. Iranians have seen the result of a revolution they don't have the potential to go for it again.

Iranian people need Bush's power of speak, not his bombs.


-------------
"I won't laugh if a philosophy halves the moon"


Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 12:51

What would a "liberation" from Bush look like? Another random bombing with smart-weapons to destroy the residences of the Mullahs and in the process they would destroy a dozen hospitals, schools, civilian living areas and get 0 mullah casualties and then report a successful invasion and of cheering Iranians on the streets while the people would be confused at who is the enemy, both maybe as both kill or opress their kin?

 

 



-------------
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...


Posted By: magavan
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 13:55
Originally posted by Kalevipoeg

What would a "liberation" from Bush look like? Another random bombing with smart-weapons to destroy the residences of the Mullahs and in the process they would destroy a dozen hospitals, schools, civilian living areas and get 0 mullah casualties and then report a successful invasion and of cheering Iranians on the streets while the people would be confused at who is the enemy, both maybe as both kill or opress their kin?

A sacrifice is necessary to clear 1500 years of arabic occupation in Iran. Iran is not an Islamic country. If Bush change the regime, Iran will regain its pre-islamic ideology.



Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 14:12
Out of what dark hole of history? Islam is so widespread in the area, and i have yet not seen people ready to give it up for Zoroastrianism. Not a bad idea to return to your true roots, but it is extremely unlikely and aren't the mullahs Iranian?

-------------
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 15:52
Originally posted by ramin

Iranian people need Bush's power of speak, not his bombs.


Exactly. Ramin has just summed up the best solution in one sentence.

The U.S. has no business invading other countries to give them "independence". This is not the way the world should work, because these are straight-up warcrimes. We had no business in Iraq, and we definitely have no business in Iran. However, we need to encourage change in Iran, and we need to do it with our allies. The U.S. should never step foot in Iran. We can put plenty of political pressure on the Mullahs if we need to, but theres no need to cause the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians just because we are unhappy with their government. If the Iranian majority want to overthrow their government, we should be inclined to help them. But NOT with soldiers or an occupation of their nation.

And i dont know if you can get rid of Islam and institutionalize Zoroastrianism. Islam has been in Iran for over a millenia, its pretty hard to wipe a thousand-year-old ideology in a nation of 80 million. If states didnt encourage one religion over the other and just gave religious freedom, anyone who wants to become a Zoroastrian can do so. But dont expect it to make any sort of run against Islam.


-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 16:35
I read an article a few years back from an American journalist who predicted the US getting involved in wars in the Middle East. It came out after the war in Afghanistan. Basically, it talks about oil. Since Iraq and Iran are doing business with European countries and Russia, not America, the US felt that an American share of the oil pie would be out of reach. So we needed to fabricate reasons to stick our noses into the mix. Iran, which shares Caspian sea reserves and is a land route through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean, was a necessary endevour to make. Since Iraq is already rapped up, this plan for oil looks sensible but evil altogether. The ever growing need to supply the Indian and Chinese markets is one of the major reasons for this drive.

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


Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 17:24

Both true ArmenianSurvival and Seko, carry on the straight thinking.

And also, off the topic, System Of  A Down... Aaaaarrgggghhhh, "boom, boom, boom, boom every time you drop the bomb you kill the. Children die of starvation while billions are spent on bombs, creating deathshowers..."



-------------
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...


Posted By: magavan
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 17:28
If Iran gets the nuclear weapons, NEVER NEVER NEVER Iran will be free from this barbaric government. Now a sacrifice is necessary for this war, Iran is not Iraq, Iranians will creat a referundom and they will sell their oil to the american. After i hope Iran will  nationalise it oil


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 17:48

As long as those groups are not MEK or Royalist fascists.

Originally posted by ramin

Originally posted by magavan

I m iranian and i think america has to invade Iran as soon as possible. If Iran gets the nuclear weapons, never our nation will be free. I believe in an Iran Israel alliance in the futur.

your thought?

My thought is that I'm certain you've never been to Iran, you've never heard Mullas speaking, and you are wanting Vedism and Zoroastrism and what existed in books about Persian Empire, and you want aaall those back to create the "best" Iran.

Why do you think Israel is trying to destroy Mullas? do you think it's because they want Mullas out to bring Prince Reza on the crown? because they're loyal to the Iranian kingdom and want to return M.Reza Shah's favors? u gotta be kidding

Originally posted by Tobodai

I see no will or ability to invade Iran, nor do I see any reason too. Irans leadership cannot last long, they will fall from within and the reaction to them will be very secular and Iran will cease to be a security concern.
hoping Mullas collapsing from the inside -- without any opposed interference -- is pretty much out of reach, for me of course. Iran's situation is not similar to Afghanistan nor Iraq. there are tens of Saddams and Ghazafis controling the country, and if you kill one of them another one will rise and takes the lost place.

However, if opposed organizations had the power and the money to grow, then your theory is practical, and That, would be my own best way of dismissing the regime.

Originally posted by Aeolus

I cant see an invasion but i assume Iran will kinda follow Libya's example in the near future and will come to some sort of "arrangement" with US about its nuclear program. International politics and diplomacy were and are always dirty games.
They have arrangements right now, remember how serious it was last year and suddenly they dopped it? They've had arrangements eversince the beginning. recall the embassy's hostages in 1979.


Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu

....but I can see your point,Iran might use those weapons against other countries,although I'm not entirely sure,because US propaganda is surely getting to my head.Agh!
Mullas have no interest in attacking other countries. They don't care about land spreading, ethnical differences or Islam. They want to have a country to run without any sort of interference. They make you rich if you protect them. If they want to have nukes it's only because US is provoking them. They see their survival in having the nukes.



Anyway, my point is US won't do anyone any good. they attacked Iraq because they hoped to get something, if attacking Iran will get them what they want they will, they don't care about liberating the country, people nor their own casualties.

at the end I want to give my own solution; if US wants to destroy Mullas for any reason, they should spend their money on opposed Iranian political groups in and out side of Iran, not on silly wars or media propaganda (They show Iran as the evil axis ).


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


Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 17:51
No matter what weaponry (most of the times) a nation or a civilization has or has had, it won't make him invincible. Iran can still be overthrown from the inside, as most nations have done dozens of times in thr past, and i don't think nuclear weapons will stop that. A countrys current society is an extremely fragile thing, it is not made of iron. Not even the US will exist forever, and we are talking about Iran here, a country standing under a terror regime. How many terror regimes have lasted more than the USSR, not many and most of them collapse far before that time period.

-------------
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...


Posted By: Emile Boutros
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 18:16

What is MEK?

i think that America should help Iranians get rid of their government but they should not invade. IT would destroy the country. Look what those savages did to Iraq! No respect for civilization at all. Iran has more treasurs than Iraq did also and these would be lost in an invasion and many Iranians would probably be killed. They shouldn't do it for them. I want America to help destroy Algerian government but I don't want them to destroy Algeria. Why would you want those soldiers in your coutnry? I have seen them in Kuwait and Qatr, they walk around like they own the place thinking they are hot sh*t. They disprrespectful and rude and mean and this not even real occupation like they invaded. Imagine how they are when they have conquered you trough means of war. I want Algerians to destroy the French government here (all the goverment wants to be French I want them to move there) but Americans should help. They should help in Iran also I believe, it is more noble than invading and destroying a country.

Also,Islam is not Arab. Islam is as far as I am concerned Christianity with warrior code and no pork. If you want to blame any one for the way IRan is blame Iranian loonies that want it be the way it is. Arab did not make it that way and they don't control your country.



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 18:39
I agree with Emile. MEK is People Mujahadin a fanatic and triatorous Islamo Marxist (strange combination, but that's what it is) organisation based in Iraq and tolerated by America even though America lists them as a terrorist organisation, its hierarchy would sell their mothers for power.

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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 19:26

America did a pathetic job in beating up two dead snakes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is a snake that is alive and well, let see how it will come about and I am highly favouring a Russian, Chinese and Indian intervention in the form of outright military intervention or in the form of weapons.  USofA will not make a stupid strategic mistake like this, not even the Neo-Cons are stupid enough to do this.



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 19:49

I agree but to what extent it is unclear. There is a new Axis forming behind the scenes which has been largely ignored by the Western media probable so as not to disturb the sense of security existent, this axis consists of India-Iran-China and Russia, one only has to look at the ever increasing economic and even military co-operation between these countries to see that they have mutual strategic interests.



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


Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 23:29

Originally posted by magavan

The iranians population cannot fight on the street cuz they are scared, they have no money. An intra revolution in Iran is simply IMPOSSIBLE. Iran ppl needs Bush

 Funny, you want America to come, have thousands of its troops killed, billions of US tax dollars wasted. and then after the collapse of the Iranian governement you and your people would demand them to leave, and when they would not leave right away more "Jihads/Islamic Terrorists" would pop up, causing more unstibility in the region.  You would like a free government, but the world would see this as another US interfering with other foreign nations, and the world does not need anymore radical Muslims bent on destroying the US and all of Western Society.

However, if rebellions could be widspread and well organized against the government, I would support US/ EU/ Russian Support or whoever to help them, if they would establish a democratic and Not pro islamic based governement.

Cheers



-------------
http://theforgotten.org/intro.html


Posted By: strategos
Date Posted: 05-May-2005 at 23:33
Originally posted by Emile Boutros

 They shouldn't do it for them. I want America to help destroy Algerian government but I don't want them to destroy Algeria. Why would you want those soldiers in your coutnry? I have seen them in Kuwait and Qatr, they walk around like they own the place thinking they are hot sh*t. They disprrespectful and rude and mean and this not even real occupation like they invaded. Imagine how they are when they have conquered you trough means of war. I want Algerians to destroy the French government here (all the goverment wants to be French I want them to move there) but Americans should help. They should help in Iran also I believe, it is more noble than invading and destroying a country.

 

I love how you would ask for US help to help your own country overthrow the government, yet totally rip and make them seem like barbarians. If you so critically judge the american troops, then do not ask for them to help you in your country... I believe if countrys are going to so critize the US, it should not be asking for help from it then, because if I was US i would not. greece neither asks nor really wants help from the Us, because the people are not big fans of the Us.



-------------
http://theforgotten.org/intro.html


Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 02:36
He can ask for help, but with that help, he doesn't wish the Americans bringing back the Dark Ages with their arrogance. Logical and rightseous

-------------
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 09:45
Originally posted by magavan

If Iran gets the nuclear weapons, NEVER NEVER NEVER Iran will be free from this barbaric government. Now a sacrifice is necessary for this war, Iran is not Iraq, Iranians will creat a referundom and they will sell their oil to the american. After i hope Iran will nationalise it oil


I sympathize with Iranians, and I understand their opposition to the regime. I grew up in Mexico, and it took close to 80 years to vote out the single-party system. But the system was there for a reason. It pacified and gave stability to Mexico, which had been in a state of civil war for close to 20 years when the single party government was created. A U.S. intervention to accelerate the process would have created a vacuum of power and brought back the country to civil war.

As it has been said before, all what the U.S. government is capable of doing right now is to bomb the country in the hopes of helping a revolt to rise. This means that change is still on the hand of Iranians. If the bombings fails to bring down the government, the current Iranian government will point at these attacks as a reason why they should be entitled to openly pursue an atomic weapons program.

But who knows. I recently heard in the local Washington news that the U.S. is bringing back thousands of troops from foreign countries. It is also calling middle-age reservists to active duty. Maybe they are preparing an Iranian surprise. If they do so, Bush and Rumsfeld should go down in history as one of the worse political and military strategists of the United States. Another ground invasion would create strong vulnerabilities in the U.S. defenses.


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


Posted By: magavan
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 11:45
OF COURSE this is better if Iranians make the revolution by themselves, But Bush will never let Iran  gets the nuclear weapons. Can you imagine if this  this fanatic government obtains this kind of weapon?  This is the same case if Hitler had the nuclear weapons.


Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 14:46

Hardly the same case. The mullahs have no desire to conquer the world, kill every, i don't know, European on the planet or do anything radical. Just keeping their power is a goal. Not much like Hitler at all as i see it. The nuclear weapons would probably just rut away by time, more likely then ever being used.



-------------
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 14:53
Originally posted by magavan

OF COURSE this is better if Iranians make the revolution by themselves, But Bush will never let Iran gets the nuclear weapons. Can you imagine if this this fanatic government obtains this kind of weapon? This is the same case if Hitler had the nuclear weapons.


You mean, just as he prevented the North Koreans?

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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 15:01

magavan, why are u comparing Hitler's Germany with Iran?  When was the last time Iran invaded a country? hmmmm you need to have your brain examined.  And what wrong with Iran having nukes?



Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 15:14
Originally posted by Jina

t="on">America did a pathetic job in beating up two dead snakes in t="on">Iraq and t="on">Afghanistan, t="on">chemas-microsoft-comfficemarttags" />lace wt="on">Iranlace> is a snake that is alive and well, let see how it will come about and I am highly favouring a Russian, Chinese and Indian intervention in the form of outright military intervention or in the form of weapons.  USofA will not make a stupid strategic mistake like this, not even the Neo-Cons are stupid enough to do this.

Why would China and India intervene when they themselves have problems with Jihadist groups?

However, I could see Russia trying to stop us, but I don't think we'll see them sending soldiers to fight in Iran.



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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 15:20
India and China have strong economic interests in Iran for example majority of India's oil comes from Iran and same goes for China.  India had a strong friendly relationship with Iran since the revolution, RELIGION is not the problem here.  I don't know why you even brought it up.


Posted By: magavan
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 15:22
North KOrean are not dansgerous because they defend their country and havent got a fanatic action. Iran will use the Nukes for invade Iraq and afghanistan ,Iran desire to creat an Islamic shia block in Iraq/Iran/afghanistan. The mullahs want to grow grow. They want to creat a new persian empire made in Shia Islamic. Because shiisme took his influence on zoroastrism.


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 15:28
Originally posted by hugoestr

You mean, just as he prevented the North Koreans?


Bush can do something if he puts his mind to it. He invaded Iraq with NO support whatsoever. He took the basic freedoms away from Americans when he passed the Patriot Act. Dont be fooled, when this guy wants to do something, he can do it. Instead of going after the guy that stands up and yells "i can bomb you at any time" he invades the guy that says "i dont have the means to attack anyone". Great move, George . And what about the Genocide going on in Sudan? Instead of going in and stopping innocent people from dying, theyre still debating if its a genocide. When it comes to Iraq, they shoot first and ask questions later. When it comes to a real humanitarian emergency, they turn a cold shoulder.

If Bush wants to he can put Iran on check. The key point is if he wants to, and how he would want to do it.

-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 15:41
Originally posted by magavan

North KOrean are not dansgerous because they defend their country and havent got a fanatic action. Iran will use the Nukes for invade Iraq and afghanistan ,Iran desire to creat an Islamic shia block in Iraq/Iran/afghanistan. The mullahs want to grow grow. They want to creat a new persian empire made in Shia Islamic. Because shiisme took his influence on zoroastrism.

Iran never took any fanatic actions toward any of its neighbours also.  It never threatened any nations also, but DPRK did threaten countries like Japan, ROK and USofA so stop pulling things from your ass and put forth a solid argument rather then your paranoid, idiotic none-sense.  DPRK did say it will use nukes if anyone tries to invade it and Iran keeps on saying its nuclear ambitions are for civil purpose only so what the f**k are you talking about?



Posted By: magavan
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 15:56
Ah you are so Dumb Jina, Iran is an islamic satanist country. They kill women and men everyday. They don't care about the population, This is a huge egoist mafia. If they get the nukes this mafia will stay in Iran for an eternity and will destroy Iranian poplutation. Everuday they try to arabiz our aryan state. Iranians are not muslim and will  never be muslim. Iran is the country of cyrus the great a country of tolerence ans not that sh!!!!t. Death to Islam in IRAN.


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 16:12
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

Originally posted by hugoestr

You mean, just as he prevented the North Koreans?




Bush can do something if he puts his mind to it. He invaded Iraq with
NO support whatsoever. He took the basic freedoms away from Americans
when he passed the Patriot Act. Dont be fooled, when this guy wants to
do something, he can do it. Instead of going after the guy that stands
up and yells "i can bomb you at any time" he invades the guy that says
"i dont have the means to attack anyone". Great move, George .
And what about the Genocide going on in Sudan? Instead of going in and
stopping innocent people from dying, theyre still debating if its a
genocide. When it comes to Iraq, they shoot first and ask questions
later. When it comes to a real humanitarian emergency, they turn a cold
shoulder.



If Bush wants to he can put Iran on check. The key point is if he wants to, and how he would want to do it.


You are right when you say that Bush has gotten what he wants. But he works hard to do so. Remember how he spent about a year drumming up support for going into Iraq. He would have gone right away, but the needed to build up the conditions to invade, and it took him that long.

The same rumors that I heard about going into Iraq are circulating about going into Iran. This time, however, there really isn't the logistical capabilities that we had for the Iraq war.

For one thing, Iraq has taken a lot longer and used a lot more resources than Bush or Rumsfeld ever planned for.

But again, you are right. You will know that it is time to build bomb shelters in Iran after Bush has spent three months talking about nothing else.


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


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 07-May-2005 at 11:37

Pre Iran etiqutte.

Will the sh*t hit the fan? American politics at large.

 

Eighty-eight members of Congress call on Bush for answers on secret Iraq plan

http://rawstory.com/ - RAW STORY http://www.rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502 - http://www.rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502

Eighty-eight members of Congress have signed a letter authored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) calling on President Bush to answer questions about a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq.

In a letter, Conyers and other members say they are disappointed the mainstream media has not touched the revelations.

"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers," Conyers writes. "The http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1592904-523,00.html - London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."

"The http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1592904-523,00.html - Times reports , based on a newly discovered document, that in 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting in which he expressed his support for "regime change" through the use of force in Iraq and was warned by the nation's top lawyer that such an action would be illegal," he adds. "Blair also discussed the need for America to "create" conditions to justify the war."

The members say they are seeking an inquiry.

"This should not be allowed to fall down the memory hole during wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson trial and a runaway bride," he remarks. "To prevent that from occuring, I am circulating the following letter among my House colleagues and asking them to sign on to it."

The letter follows.

###

May 5, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

* A British official "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

Congressmans names are in the link above.



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


Posted By: Emile Boutros
Date Posted: 07-May-2005 at 12:52

"I love how you would ask for US help to help your own country overthrow the government, yet totally rip and make them seem like barbarians. If you so critically judge the american troops, then do not ask for them to help you in your country... I believe if countrys are going to so critize the US, it should not be asking for help from it then, because if I was US i would not. greece neither asks nor really wants help from the Us, because the people are not big fans of the Us."

 

I don't want American troops. I would not ask for them to be in my country even temporarily. They don't belong. They behave like savages toward the countries they invade. Americans give help in other ways with out invading, defiling and destroying countries you know? They overthrew Iranian government once, why not do this again eh? It would be more difficult but they can make effort to agitage popular Iranian revolt if they want to. They could do this in Algeria as well with out destroying these countries like they did in IRaq or trampling all over the place like heathens like they do in the Gulf.



Posted By: Vamun Tianshu
Date Posted: 08-May-2005 at 02:58

Well,don't blame the troops,they're only doing their job,they have the right to be "barbaric" as you call it when they fight in war!You don't be a good guy to your enemy,you don't think of it as killing another person,you think of it as defending you and your people's lives as America was bombed many times by Fanatics,so they deserve to take their vengeance on those fools who killed thousand of innocent people living their lives.I changed my opinion on this whole war,and I'm for it,except for some certainses,but I'm not for the Iran invasion or any other invasion.Although,I'm not certain how an Iraq War and Afgan war would solve problems,for innocent people on those countries are being killed.

I believe America does not have the right to be the saviour when it comes to liberation,security,and freedom,but she does.Under the Bush Administration,however,this country is being more unfree in some cases,and I say this,the fight is back home.Bush should be spending the government's money on his own people first!

However,there are some things I do not agree with.The weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,if there ever was any,which there were,were actually given to Iraq by the US,and Saddam used those to bomb Iran and northern Iraq.And is Oil really a justification for war by some countries?



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

In Honor


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-May-2005 at 04:24

I'm doubtful that megavan is irani



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


Posted By: aknc
Date Posted: 08-May-2005 at 07:54
I belive it is Iran's right to have weapons of mass destruction,and it is the right of america for not to interfere

-------------
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
              


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-May-2005 at 09:50

But unfortunately, being rightful is not enough to do what the hell you want within your own borders. Power is needd and Iran has the power. Politically, economically and militarily.

I don't understand the pressure on Iran about the NUKES, while little Israel is the BIG-BANG point of the entire world of nukes. Noone would have the slightest idea of what Israel were doing if VANUNU didn't revelate.

Where is that international community of common goodness while Israel, France, England and USA produces all kinds of WMD???



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


Posted By: aknc
Date Posted: 08-May-2005 at 11:45
don't worry,we'll all die some day,who cares if we die a slow death because of raadiation?

-------------
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
              


Posted By: Thegeneral
Date Posted: 08-May-2005 at 12:14

^^I do!

America, Israel, and England are allowed to have WMD because we won't use them.  And even if we do it would be in self defense.  France is allowed to have them because they would be to scared to even fire them so no one really cares if they have them.  But other countries that are very hostile and have a history of conquering other nations just for more land are what we are afraid of.  N. Korea just fired missles into the Sea of Japan.  If that isn't a warning of what is to come I don't know what is!

Iran does not have the right to go and build nuke any time they wish.  Thus the reason international communities have people who go out and find people who have  them.  It is Irans righ to not make them and it is the America's and really everyones job to make sure they don't create them.



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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-May-2005 at 15:18
Originally posted by Thegeneral

America, Israel, and England are allowed to have WMD because we won't use them.  And even if we do it would be in self defense.....................

Here's the uniqe and the ultimate "Instant American Logic".

Blow blow blow.... Same mechanism of lying, which we remember from the days of "the war to end all the wars".

What?=> The World War=> Ok, here you are sir.

What?=> Nazism=> Ok, here you are sir.

What?=> Communism=> Ok, here you are sir.

What?=> Terrorism=> Ok, here you are sir.



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


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 08-May-2005 at 15:28
[QUOTE=Thegeneral]

^^I do!

America, Israel, and England are allowed to have WMD because we won't use them.  And even if we do it would be in self defense.  France is allowed to have them because they would be to scared to even fire them so no one really cares if they have them.  But other countries that are very hostile and have a history of conquering other nations just for more land are what we are afraid of.  N. Korea just fired missles into the Sea of Japan.  If that isn't a warning of what is to come I don't know what is!

Iran does not have the right to go and build nuke any time they wish.  Thus the reason international communities have people who go out and find people who have  them.  It is Irans righ to not make them and it is the America's and really everyones job to make sure they don't create them.

 

_________________________________________________________

Then tell me what is the only country that had used nuclear weapons in the history of war?

Why doesn't the US directly debate with North Korea and chose to seek a dialogue with them? Why do we seek to emphasize Iran's potential more than others?



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


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 08-May-2005 at 21:22
Originally posted by Vamun Tianshu

Well,don't blame the troops,they're only doing their job,they have the right to be "barbaric" as you call it when they fight in war!You don't be a good guy to your enemy,you don't think of it as killing another person,you think of it as defending you and your people's lives as America was bombed many times by Fanatics,so they deserve to take their vengeance on those fools who killed thousand of innocent people living their lives.I changed my opinion on this whole war,and I'm for it,except for some certainses,but I'm not for the Iran invasion or any other invasion.Although,I'm not certain how an Iraq War and Afgan war would solve problems,for innocent people on those countries are being killed.


I believe America does not have the right to be the saviour when it comes to liberation,security,and freedom,but she does.Under the Bush Administration,however,this country is being more unfree in some cases,and I say this,the fight is back home.Bush should be spending the government's money on his own people first!


However,there are some things I do not agree with.The weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,if there ever was any,which there were,were actually given to Iraq by the US,and Saddam used those to bomb Iran and northern Iraq.And is Oil really a justification for war by some countries?



I don't think that Petagon would agree with the highlighted statements. The U.S. armed forces are actually a great historical anomally because they are not allowed to be barbaric, pillage, and rape.

I will not deny that their adrenaline pumps us during battle. However, they have specific rules of engagement on what action they can do under what circumstances.

I do agree with your not blaming the troops. They are doing their job. And in most cases, they do it in a civil and disciplined manner.

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


Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 09-May-2005 at 02:46
Originally posted by YAFES


I don't understand the pressure on Iran about the NUKES, while little Israel is the BIG-BANG point of the entire world of nukes. Noone would have the slightest idea of what Israel were doing if VANUNU didn't revelate.


Where is that international community of common goodness while Israel, France, England and USA produces all kinds of WMD???



The reason that Israel is not pressured about nukes is because with India & Pakistan it is not obligated to the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty signed and made up of the five nuclear nations(USA,UK,Russia,France,China) and a 188 countries including Iran not to produce or aquire nuclear weaponry.

Since 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency reports say Iran to be in violation of the treaty. Along with the development of Highly Enriched Uranium,
the discovery of blueprints for an advanced centrifuge design that were withheld from nuclear inspectors have been found.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/iaea1103.pdf - Report
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/iaea-0204.pdf - Report
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/iaea1104.pdf - Report
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2004/04/iran042104.html - Arrests

Is it clarity to wish for world peace and yet not be prepared to pay the cost to enforce the measurement taken in our time to eventually achieve this goal?

There is no doubt that the U.S. is more than capable of defeating Iran militarily.
It could leave Iraq now if it really has to, it is a civil war there now after all.
I hope a dangerous nuclear Iran is stopped with diplomacy
which has alot to do with Europe and the link between Bushehr and Russia.



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


Posted By: esadbodur
Date Posted: 09-May-2005 at 06:04
f was ran would shoot srael when america attacks because ran cant hit america. it is far away


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-May-2005 at 09:19

Hahahahahah

Catt don't make me laugh with these paper fabric stuff.

Did America care about the international convention about Iraqi soldiers?

And what about the Guantanamo hell?

Who cares those international(!) stuff when you crash them???



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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-May-2005 at 09:22

And what about those napalm deaths in Vietnam, what about those 4 million Asian deads of the 20 century?

What about American natives who were genocided by in under stars, between stripes?( Aha, there were no int. laws and contracts those times, huh?



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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-May-2005 at 09:26

NUKE, NUKE, NUKE........ SO WHAT?

Who died of nukes so far?

Let me tell you, Catt; Nukes are not to detonate, they're to threaten, ok?

You wanna kill someone innocent, just invade Iraq, that's all. You know, pen is not stronger than sword evertime. Look at Iraq: Your international contracts gave way to your immoral army. And kept going on with the new Iraqi(!) government.



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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-May-2005 at 10:50
Originally posted by YAFES

NUKE, NUKE, NUKE........ SO WHAT?

Who died of nukes so far?

Let me tell you, Catt; Nukes are not to detonate, they're to threaten, ok?

You wanna kill someone innocent, just invade Iraq, that's all. You know, pen is not stronger than sword evertime. Look at Iraq: Your international contracts gave way to your immoral army. And kept going on with the new Iraqi(!) government.

Yeah, and look at Israel, having a huge wall seperating Palestinian lands, and civilians from their houses. There have been debated millions of resolutions about it, but sometimes, the pen is unable to deal with the sword. Or maybe the pen serves the sword, who knows??



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


Posted By: white dragon
Date Posted: 09-May-2005 at 13:25
i say, if somebody wants to invade iran, let th EU do it. most people seem to think they are almost as strong if not stronger than america. let them invade iran. they are plenty strong enough and im sick of america being the world's police

-------------
Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man.
-Francis Cardinal Spellman


Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 09-May-2005 at 13:29
Originally posted by Oguzoglu

Originally posted by YAFES


NUKE, NUKE, NUKE........ SO WHAT?


Who died of nukes so far?


Let me tell you, Catt; Nukes are not to detonate, they're to threaten, ok?


You wanna kill someone innocent, just invade Iraq, that's all. You know, pen is not stronger than sword evertime. Look at Iraq: Your international contracts gave way to your immoral army. And kept going on with the new Iraqi(!) government.



Yeah, and look at Israel, having a huge wall seperating Palestinian lands, and civilians from their houses. Therehavebeen debatedmillions of resolutions about it, but sometimes, the pen is unable to deal with the sword. Or maybe the pen serves the sword, who knows??



YAFES, you can ramble like the Cookie Monster with back to back posts but I was just giving you reason.

Oguzoglu, the difference with those resolutions is that they are 'Chapter 6' resolutions and not 7 which are enforceble.

Agree white dragon but dont hold your breath.



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


Posted By: white dragon
Date Posted: 09-May-2005 at 13:37
dont worry im not

-------------
Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man.
-Francis Cardinal Spellman


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-May-2005 at 14:20

Originally posted by white dragon

i say, if somebody wants to invade iran, let th EU do it. most people seem to think they are almost as strong if not stronger than america. let them invade iran. they are plenty strong enough and im sick of america being the world's police

I dont think to invade Iran is such easy. Iraq was in a totally different situation, but Iran is a much more bigger, stronger and powerful country. To invade Iran by army isnt so possible for even US, because it is too mountainous, doesnt have available conditions for any invasions and Iran produces its own weaponary, armes and warmachines, so the army is very powerful.

So the EU can do nothing but use sanctions, ambargos and maybe airforces against Iran, but invading it, is a wet dream...



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


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 09:49
For those who want/believe that the U.S. will attack Iran, here is a glimmer of hope.

This story is about how now the U.S. has evidence that the recent suicide bombing in Iraq has been executed by non-Iraqi terrorists.

Iran does not appear at all in the story, but if this leads further develops, the "culprit" nation may end up bombed or invaded. It all depends on who does the White House wants to put the blame on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7784090/

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


Posted By: white dragon
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 09:55
Originally posted by Oguzoglu

Originally posted by white dragon

i say, if somebody wants to invade iran, let th EU do it. most people seem to think they are almost as strong if not stronger than america. let them invade iran. they are plenty strong enough and im sick of america being the world's police


I dont think to invade Iran is such easy. Iraq was ina totally different situation, but Iran is a much more bigger, stronger and powerful country. To invade Iran by army isnt so possible for even US, because it is too mountainous, doesnt have available conditions for any invasions and Iran produces its own weaponary, armesand warmachines, so the armyisvery powerful.


So the EU can do nothing but use sanctions, ambargos and maybe airforces against Iran, but invading it, is a wet dream...



im not saying it wouldn't be difficult, but the EU could do it. one middle eastern nation against the EU, with some 25 countries, several of which are fairly powerful. id go with the EU winning that war.

-------------
Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man.
-Francis Cardinal Spellman


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 11:47

Originally posted by white dragon


im not saying it wouldn't be difficult, but the EU could do it. one middle eastern nation against the EU, with some 25 countries, several of which are fairly powerful. id go with the EU winning that war.

It doesnt matter how much powerful can EU be against Iran, because any technology to move an EU army into the mountainous central Iran and Tehran doesnt exist. The defending nation is always more adventageous than the invaders.

Because Turkey wouldnt let the American or any other armies to use any military bases in Turkey for any attack to Iran, USA would need Iraq for that and Germany, France wouldnt accept this.

And I think Iran wouldnt be left alone in such a war against EU or USA, because it would change the power balances and some countries like Russia or China wouldt be just watching all these conflicts in Iran, which would affect their national benefits heavily.



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


Posted By: Justice
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 17:15

America threatens the world with democracy.


-------------
THEY WILL NOT PASS


Posted By: Vamun Tianshu
Date Posted: 10-May-2005 at 22:22

"America threatens the world with democracy."

Oh please,give me a break,and get a Kit-Kat Bar along with it.



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

In Honor


Posted By: Le Renard
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 14:03


-------------
"History repeats itself because nobody listened the first time."


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 16:25

Originally posted by white dragon

i say, if somebody wants to invade iran, let th EU do it. most people seem to think they are almost as strong if not stronger than america. let them invade iran. they are plenty strong enough and im sick of america being the world's police

EU?  Strong as US?  Did I read that correctly?  They can't even agree on whether they want to support America invading Iraq, and their average GDP per capita and GDP growth rates across the board are much less than the United States. 

But if you want them to invade, then go for it.



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


Posted By: Thegeneral
Date Posted: 11-May-2005 at 17:02
The EU is not a military force that can do much of anything.  There are just too many different countries in the EU that have different ideas, militarys, governments, and people.

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


Posted By: ramin
Date Posted: 14-May-2005 at 13:27
Originally posted by Zagros Purya

As long as those groups are not MEK or Royalist fascists.
MEK?? Never in my life! I rather live with Mullas than with MEKs!!
__________________________________________________________
Originally posted by strategos

Funny, you want America to come, have thousands of its troops killed, billions of US tax dollars wasted. and then after the collapse of the Iranian governement you and your people would demand them to leave, and when they would not leave right away more "Jihads/Islamic Terrorists" would pop up, causing more unstibility in the region.
Unofrtunately, you haven't met any Iranian (yet). Iranians don't do Jihad/suicide bombing.

And Yes, Of course people want Americans out after this regime is collapsed. America "brought up" the solution, some people like it, many don't, but NOBODY wants to experience a foreign power controling the country and deciding for them. This is an obvious behavior and we could even say an Instinct, it's not about only Iranians or Muslims, but about everyone in the world. nobody wants to have a "foreigner" deciding for them. It's called National Pride.
________________________________________________________

Originally posted by magavan

OF COURSE this is better if Iranians make the revolution by themselves, But Bush will never let Iran  gets the nuclear weapons. Can you imagine if this  this fanatic government obtains this kind of weapon?  This is the same case if Hitler had the nuclear weapons.
Magavan, dear Hitler was invading the world, Mullas are invading no one. And who knows, maybe they already have it.



-------------
"I won't laugh if a philosophy halves the moon"


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-May-2005 at 16:07

Originally posted by ramin

Magavan, dear Hitler was invading the world, Mullas are invading no one. And who knows, maybe they already have it.

Hahaha; see ramin, nowadays everyone uses Hitler's name to accuse.

 



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


Posted By: baracuda
Date Posted: 14-May-2005 at 19:09
Neither the US nor the EU, can not invade Iran even if they wish it. (not that EU can do anything at all apart from toss around questions.. on who and what and when)

simple reasons;

1. They all saw what happened to Irak. Iran has much more a significant military power than Irak even without nuke's, the Iranians will fight.
2. Iran although seems isolated it has allies that will make it impossible, in the event of an attack the US will completely loose any hold on the region. Why, well because after the 2nd irak'i war iran and syria wanted to sign a treaty with the turks, of course being good NATO people the turks didn't sign anything, but they did leave an open door which later led to talks with iran on a level that hasnt been done before..so in an event of an attack on Iran god knows who will end up on which side..
The american strategy will be not to enter Iran at all and to bomb the country to bits ( of course. oh sorry was that a civilian building? ) to do this it will use bases of Romania.. Ukraine maybe.. (of course russia will be so glad to let them.. as they have no choice..)
Actually I don't know but I think the old generation of good strategists just died or some monkey revolt/take over in the pentagon or something took over the strategic planning departments. Its a dangerous game, and the end is WWIII.


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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-May-2005 at 05:19

Whatever happens-but Iran invasion impossible-WWIII or anything, but the trend is going with the multi-pole balance. Even, a one-pole(usa) system never existed. But if you take 10-15 years of partial leadership as an era......

There are China, India, Japan, Russia, Iran...while EU and USA are silently fighting against on N.Africa, Middle East, Eastern Europe and Eurasia and slowly now in Western Turkistan.

Even if these countries wont work out to erase the Cold Wars' remains in against-attitudes, IT IS GOING TO BE A MULTI-POLE BALANCED SYSTEM. NO WAY, VICE VERSA.



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



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