Iran

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Moscow

Symmetric Chaos
Scary stuff.

"We have no evidence that they have the weapons but come on guys..." At least it's a bit more honest than Bush. Write to your congressman!

On the other hand I would love to see a nuke set off somewhere that modern video equipment can capture what happens. That would be sort of cool.

I wonder, though, about the logic behind this. Do they think that Iran will back down if the US and Israel look read to attack?

What exactly would control of Iran gain the US? I can't imagine anyone thinks this would stabilize the region in some way.

Wild Shadow
we get their hot women.. another gain/win for our country.. maybe turn it into an american territory like puerto rico.

KidRock
I doubt it would happen.

Iran probably has thousands of missiles pointed right at Israel and the US military bases around there.

Moscow
Iran is the big ticket item that America wants-- if anyone remembers that godawful Shah they kept as a lapdog from 53 to 79.

Sym, I don't think Iran will back down at all. The majority of the ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad himself have balls of steel. They know perfectly well that the Israelis especially want to start World War f**king 3, and the Americans will finance them every step of the way.

The Green Revolution ended up isolating every bit of plan the US wanted in Iran. They got a little bit of success with the recent Iraqi election of old time goon Alawi, a dumbass Sunni with little to no ties with Iran, but Maliki's party still controls a sizable portion of the House.

Bunker buster bombs are already across the Persian Gulf on Iran's doorstep.

The big question is China's response. My homeland of Russia is a bit sketchy on this, too. The US will have two choices to make: delay the inevitable or drive forward at full steam.

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Scary stuff.

"We have no evidence that they have the weapons but come on guys..." At least it's a bit more honest than Bush. Write to your congressman!

On the other hand I would love to see a nuke set off somewhere that modern video equipment can capture what happens. That would be sort of cool.

I wonder, though, about the logic behind this. Do they think that Iran will back down if the US and Israel look read to attack?

What exactly would control of Iran gain the US? I can't imagine anyone thinks this would stabilize the region in some way.

I don't see how this is exactly "scary." We've heard reports of the US attacking Iran for a while now and nothing has happened. I severely doubt that the Obama Administration would make such a misstep and invade Iran at this point and time.

Moscow
Originally posted by Ultraviolence
I don't see how this is exactly "scary." We've heard reports of the US attacking Iran for a while now and nothing has happened. I severely doubt that the Obama Administration would make such a misstep and invade Iran at this point and time.

Europeans and various American media said the same thing before Bush invaded Iraq

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by Moscow
Europeans and various American media said the same thing before Bush invaded Iraq

That's a single example. Invasions don't exactly happen on a consistent basis. Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. That was the Bush Administration invading Iraq and this is the Obama Administration invading Iran.

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Ultraviolence
That's a single example. Invasions don't exactly happen on a consistent basis. Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. That was the Bush Administration invading Iraq and this is the Obama Administration invading Iran. that statement really didnt comfort me..

Ultraviolence
I'm not saying that an invasion is impossible but, at this point and time, it's quite unlikely and you shouldn't be overly worried about it.

Moscow
Originally posted by Ultraviolence
That's a single example. Invasions don't exactly happen on a consistent basis. Also, you're comparing apples and oranges. That was the Bush Administration invading Iraq and this is the Obama Administration invading Iran.

Yeah, that was a single example. However, as I see it by comparing the two men's administrations, thought patterns and Cabinet choices, Bush and Obama are almost identical. The difference is in their attitudes (what we as Americans perceive them to be).

If Obama invaded Iran, I'd guarantee all my money in the bank, you could not tell the difference in rhetoric between him and Bush

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by Moscow
Bush and Obama are almost identical.

I stopped reading there and decided that it might not be in my best interest to pursue a discussion with you.

Moscow
Haha... glad we had the discussion then

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Scary stuff.

"We have no evidence that they have the weapons but come on guys..." At least it's a bit more honest than Bush. Write to your congressman!

On the other hand I would love to see a nuke set off somewhere that modern video equipment can capture what happens. That would be sort of cool.

I wonder, though, about the logic behind this. Do they think that Iran will back down if the US and Israel look read to attack?

What exactly would control of Iran gain the US? I can't imagine anyone thinks this would stabilize the region in some way. The U.S. won't profit from a stable Middle-East. If, however unlikely, the region formed a coalition or united in some way, the U.S. would consider it's supremacy threatened. An unstable region is exploitable.

KidRock
Originally posted by Ultraviolence
I stopped reading there and decided that it might not be in my best interest to pursue a discussion with you.

Both are warmongers, both raised the deficit, both raised the debt, both signed legislation that pissed on the constitution and civil liberties

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by KidRock
Both are warmongers, both raised the deficit, both raised the debt, both signed legislation that pissed on the constitution and civil liberties

Plenty of Presidents have performed the actions you listed. It doesn't make them "almost identical."

Ms.Marvel
im pretty sure it does... theres a reason why non-partisans always say "in the end theyre both politicians" when asked which candidate they prefer 313

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
im pretty sure it does... theres a reason why non-partisans always say "in the end theyre both politicians" when asked which candidate they prefer 313

Again, it doesn't make them "almost identical." It's pretty simple. They aren't the same simply because they share the same profession or made, let's say, a little under a dozen of the same political decisions when there are hundreds to be made. I'm sure they share similiarties but they're nowhere near identical.

Ms.Marvel
or... are they? 131

Bicnarok
Invading Iran is not an option, the resources are too widly spread. More likely an attack by Isreal on the nuclear installations, they have done this before. The question is/ can will Iran retalliate? I doubt it!.

As for Russia, even though they have business with Iran after the Subway attack they may look the other way. The attack was probably an inside job so they can do just that.

Robtard
There's not going to be an invasion. Missiles will be fired at key Iranian sights, the Iranians will complain, Ahmadinejad will rant and rattle like the Ayatollah puppet he is. Business back to normal, the US still buying their oil.

Just not sure if the US will do it or let Israel on their behalf. I'd imagine the US, so Iran can't use the Jew-angle as much.

Ordo
Originally posted by Moscow
Is a US attack on Iran imminent?

With what army?

When all you get your news from are obscure, hyperbolic websites....

Dumb.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Ordo
With what army?

When all you get your news from are obscure, hyperbolic websites....

Dumb.

With what army? is a great question, but perhaps a better question should be, with who's army?

Wild Shadow
i want a real war none of this cat and mouse crap... if you dont behave we'll drop one bomb on you to teach you manners.

i want a war with actual competent nations...


sadly nowadays ppl rather bomb each other sporadically then to declare full out war on one another

Ordo
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
With what army? is a great question, but perhaps a better question should be, with who's army?

In either case the answer is the same. There is not going to be a war.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
sadly nowadays ppl rather bomb each other sporadically then to declare full out war on one another

Welcome to modern warfare. Why decimate half your population to march at eachother shooting?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Ultraviolence
I don't see how this is exactly "scary." We've heard reports of the US attacking Iran for a while now and nothing has happened. I severely doubt that the Obama Administration would make such a misstep and invade Iran at this point and time.

I'm not a fan of steps that point the world toward a potentially devastating war even if it's unlikely to actually take place.

WickedDynamite

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Ordo




Welcome to modern warfare. Why decimate half your population to march at each other shooting? /c it would have given me something to do then stand around in a hot sun and get harassed and yelled at by incompetent military personnel who only know how to abuse their rank and power toward lower ranking military personnel with so much free time all we past/present military ppl can do is misbehave... idle hands are the devils tools.


a5-BTvCMjAA
Ut-qe_jGGxk

i know modern warfare isnt a line of men who shoot at each other but i can dream to one day fight an actual impressive army rather then just sit in my tin box playing X box and have a mortar round hit shake my tin box get a change of shorts and go right back to playing and trying to reach a high score. while a SNCO does a casualty check opening ur box and saying sound off!! present and accounted for!!

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Ordo
In either case the answer is the same. There is not going to be a war.
...

I wish I was as much as an optimist as you are.

Mindship
Moreover, a war against Iran would have incalculable international repercussions, and would bring the entire world closer to the day of a global nuclear conflagration. facepalm2

Robtard
Originally posted by Mindship
facepalm2

No, it's true. China and Russia care SO much about Iran that they'd launch their nukes at the US and take some in return.

More likely, they'd just insist they continue getting their cut of Iran's oil.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Mindship
facepalm2

Even better is that in the sentence immediately before that he made it clear that he doesn't think Iran has nukes.

Mindship
I wonder if Ahmadinejad has his spider hole picked out yet.

Ordo
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
/c it would have given me something to do then stand around in a hot sun and get harassed and yelled at by incompetent military personnel who only know how to abuse their rank and power toward lower ranking military personnel with so much free time all we past/present military ppl can do is misbehave... idle hands are the devils tools.

Maybe you missed the part where war was ALWAYS like that.

Colossus-Big C
this is why i dont think humanity would last forever.

we have enough nukes(or used to since some countries destroyed them) to nuke the whole planet

Wild Shadow
Originally posted by Ordo
Maybe you missed the part where war was ALWAYS like that. like what?

Ordo
In relevant news, our worst fears have been confirmed. We are on the precipice of global war. See!

Originally posted by The Associated Press

OMG GLOBAL WAHR

I actually think FOX news is easily twice as credible as WSWS.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
like what?

rape, pillage, dumbarsery.

Moscow
Ordo, the WSWS mainly deals with working-class and poor people of all nations around the world. An attack on Iran whether by Israel or the United states would cause severe harm to the Iranian poor and working class no matter if the only things attacked were supposed nuclear facilities.

The website may be hyperbolic, if you can prove to me how it is, but it dabbles into what the MSM deals with. The New York Times has increasingly supported heavy antagonism to the Iranian regime, since it is at the heart thoroughly disappointed with the 1979 Iranian Revolution. It came out in full support of the US-backed Green Revolution, and it constantly plays along with war games concocted with the death and destruction of the Iranian regime.

But... you say a war is not imminent. I think... no matter how high the financial costs are going to be and no matter how desperately poor we as a nation are, we will go to war with Iran and create a very nasty mess indeed.

China and Russia need as much oil as we do. If this whole Middle Eastern thing isn't about oil, fine, but Iran has quite a bit. They are Russia and china's friends (er... business friends, really) but the noose is slowly tightening.

Maybe it is just smoke to blow up people's asses. But when bunker buster bombs have been delivered to Diego Garcia, right off Iran's coast, something foul this way comes.

Bouboumaster
It won't happen:

Look at the numbers:

Iraq:
Population: 31 234 000 or so
GDP: 114 billions

Iran:
Population: 74 196 000 mother****in' dudes
GDP: 830 000 billions.
And they have nuclear weapons.

USA is shitting bricks right now and might loose against Iraq.
What are the chance that they win against a country like that?
2 times more populate and 7 times richier.

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by Ordo
With what army?

When all you get your news from are obscure, hyperbolic websites....

Dumb.

Look, it appears that someone sensible has entered the thread. Thank you.

Ms.Marvel
Originally posted by Bouboumaster
It won't happen:

Look at the numbers:

Iraq:
Population: 31 234 000 or so
GDP: 114 billions

Iran:
Population: 74 196 000 mother****in' dudes
GDP: 830 000 billions.
And they have nuclear weapons.

USA is shitting bricks right now and might loose against Iraq.
What are the chance that they win against a country like that?
2 times more populate and 7 times richier.

huh? we wiped the floor with iraq and afghanistan, took a giant shit on them and sustained completely miminal casualties. we'd knock iran out of the park.

Moscow
Originally posted by Bouboumaster
It won't happen:

Look at the numbers:

Iraq:
Population: 31 234 000 or so
GDP: 114 billions

Iran:
Population: 74 196 000 mother****in' dudes
GDP: 830 000 billions.
And they have nuclear weapons.

USA is shitting bricks right now and might loose against Iraq.
What are the chance that they win against a country like that?
2 times more populate and 7 times richier.

Where are the nukes? It takes 90% enrichment to gain nuclear weapon capacity. The Iranians haven't yet made it to 20%.

The IAEA has said this. The US NIE has said this. Every American and Western European media doesn't want that to be the case (meaning, they want to fudge the data)

Unless you can tell me definitively where the Iranians have these nukes, then I might be able to accept the claim

Robtard
Originally posted by Bouboumaster
It won't happen:

Look at the numbers:

Iraq:
Population: 31 234 000 or so
GDP: 114 billions

Iran:
Population: 74 196 000 mother****in' dudes
GDP: 830 000 billions.
And they have nuclear weapons.

USA is shitting bricks right now and might loose against Iraq.
What are the chance that they win against a country like that?
2 times more populate and 7 times richier.

Hahahaahahaaaahhahahahahaahaaaahahahahahaaaaa. Iran can't compete military-wise with the US. Don't be a tool.

Iranian military would last 2-3 days, in an actual "smash your enemy to death" type of war. Where America would fail, the occupation, not because it couldn't, but because it'd kick itself in the balls, as typical.

jinXed by JaNx
Has anyone ever figured out where he ran to?

Ms.Marvel
Originally posted by Robtard
Hahahaahahaaaahhahahahahaahaaaahahahahahaaaaa. Iran can't compete military-wise with the US. Don't be a tool.

Iranian military would last 2-3 days, in an actual "smash your enemy to death" type of war. Where America would fail, the occupation, not because it couldn't, but because it'd kick itself in the balls, as typical.

*thumbs up smiley that i dont know the code for*

Bouboumaster
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
huh? we wiped the floor with iraq and afghanistan, took a giant shit on them and sustained completely miminal casualties. we'd knock iran out of the park.

Oh yeah? That's why Obama ask Harper to stay in Afghanistan after friggin' 2011?!

USA beat the hell out of both contries's gorvernment, but as far as I know, american army are STILL in both country, am I right?

And they aren't winning and will not win because they're nothing to win there.

Moscow
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Has anyone ever figured out where he ran to?

You talking about Osama?

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
*thumbs up smiley that i dont know the code for*

thumb up

:

then

up

then


:

Ms.Marvel
thumb up

Bouboumaster
Originally posted by Robtard
Hahahaahahaaaahhahahahahaahaaaahahahahahaaaaa. Iran can't compete military-wise with the US. Don't be a tool.

Iranian military would last 2-3 days, in an actual "smash your enemy to death" type of war. Where America would fail, the occupation, not because it couldn't, but because it'd kick itself in the balls, as typical.

Totally agree. In a frontal attack, USA would flat out Iran, Iraq, and probably the middle east altoghether.

But who's the fool who would fight an invader like this?
Iranien would probably do what Iraquien do: suicide bombers, guerilla, etc, etc.

And if USA is still stuck in both Afghanistan and Iraq after more than 5 years in small ass and piss poor organisez country, how would do fare in a much, much more richier, more organized and more fanatic country?

Ms.Marvel
Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Oh yeah? That's why Obama ask Harper to stay in Afghanistan after friggin' 2011?!

USA beat the hell out of both contries's gorvernment, but as far as I know, american army are STILL in both country, am I right?

And they aren't winning and will not win because they're nothing to win there.

you said that we're losing to iraq... we're not. we destroyed iraq and now its a shit hole.

its terrorists who arent technically affiliated with iraq who are the problem.

theres a big difference. as stated already it is only occupation that is difficult. if all we wanted to do was roll in to iran, cripple their economy and infrastructure and take their MWD's or whatever they have, away, it would literally be like taking candy from a child.

Bouboumaster
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
you said that we're losing to iraq... we're not. we destroyed iraq and now its a shit hole.

its terrorists who arent technically affiliated with iraq who are the problem.

theres a big difference.

Playing with the words. USA wanted to secure the country, and as for now, they're task isn't complete.

Ms.Marvel
edited sorry

Bouboumaster
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel

theres a big difference. as stated already it is only occupation that is difficult. if all we wanted to do was roll in to iran, cripple their economy and infrastructure and take their MWD's or whatever they have, away, it would literally be like taking candy from a child.

Well, can't argue with that.


Totally true.



But USA sure as shit wouldn't be able to occupy Iran.

Ms.Marvel
indeed!

its quite a conundrum that... i dont think the US needs to worry about occupying iran though, and i think that the Iranians would prefer to not have us in there trying, so i dont think theyre about ready to act a fool just yet

Ordo
I dont see a charity link on their website. Lengthy opinon articles described as news don't really help the poor.

Originally posted by Moscow
The website may be hyperbolic, if you can prove to me how it is, but it dabbles into what the MSM deals with. The New York Times has increasingly supported heavy antagonism to the Iranian regime, since it is at the heart thoroughly disappointed with the 1979 Iranian Revolution. It came out in full support of the US-backed Green Revolution, and it constantly plays along with war games concocted with the death and destruction of the Iranian regime.

1. I dont care what the NYT covers or what their perspectives are.

1. The article cites a "series of press reports" that are never cited. I, personally, was not aware of such reports, but apprently I need to follow the "press" better.

2. The whole green revolution thing is circustantial. Even if the US was behind the movement in some ways, its a very light touch.

3. "US officials are escalating threats" What threats? Negotiations on sanctions are threats.

4. The last paragraph alone:

A US and/or Israeli attack on Iran would be a monstrous act of imperialist criminality. Countless thousands of Iranians would be killed in the first hours of a war. Moreover, a war against Iran would have incalculable international repercussions, and would bring the entire world closer to the day of a global nuclear conflagration.

This is pure opinion/speculation. ....and contradicts the entire point of the article. I dont think many people regard the US as imperialist anymore, despite our recent beliggerance. Since real press, people who can actually report first hand (regardless of bias) and the administration istelf says they have UNANIMOUS security council support for new sactions...why the hell would they go to war and actually piss off China and Russia? Iran has no nukes, and Russian and China sure as hell arent going to use them to "defend" Iran. No country is dumb enough to be the one who sets off the next nuke.

The US, espeically Obama for whom disarmament has been a life-long issue, is not going to start a 3rd fricking war. We have no more troops, and if WE start a war, no other nation will be there to support us and thus we will have no army to fight and Iran would certainly prevail in even the short term. The entire community would be alienetated, any regime resistance (green revolution) in Iran would evaporate. There is nothing to be gained. Period.

Originally posted by Moscow
But... you say a war is not imminent. I think... no matter how high the financial costs are going to be and no matter how desperately poor we as a nation are, we will go to war with Iran and create a very nasty mess indeed.

I'm glad you've voiced your opinion. I'm glad its not founded in fact.

Originally posted by Moscow
China and Russia need as much oil as we do. If this whole Middle Eastern thing isn't about oil, fine, but Iran has quite a bit. They are Russia and china's friends (er... business friends, really) but the noose is slowly tightening.

I'd like to point out that if we can get China AND Russia to the table, war is not on the table. This is serious business that they've agreed to.

Originally posted by Moscow
Maybe it is just smoke to blow up people's asses. But when bunker buster bombs have been delivered to Diego Garcia, right off Iran's coast, something foul this way comes.

*rolls eyes*

Robtard
Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Totally agree. In a frontal attack, USA would flat out Iran, Iraq, and probably the middle east altoghether.

But who's the fool who would fight an invader like this?
Iranien would probably do what Iraquien do: suicide bombers, guerilla, etc, etc.

And if USA is still stuck in both Afghanistan and Iraq after more than 5 years in small ass and piss poor organisez country, how would do fare in a much, much more richier, more organized and more fanatic country?

You've switched stances, before it was "Iran is too rich and has too many people; the US is scared shit-less".

Using Iraq as an example, even though the goal of "stabilizing the country" is a VERY slim chance, as religious nonsense,shit politics and corruption on all sides is rampant, America's losses to it's time there is negligible. If it's an occupation with no goal except itself, it's working on those grounds, working well.

The US could occupy Iran for many years, if it wanted and if it did what it needed to do. Sure they'd be blood; that's the price.

America is still occupying Japan and Germany, technically, 60+ years and counting.

This is all moot though, the US isn't likely to invade Iran, just missile where it needs to (this almost happened in Bush's 2nd term, with mini-nukes no less), or let the Jews do it on their behalf.

Moscow
Originally posted by Ordo

I dont see a charity link on their website. Lengthy opinon articles described as news don't really help the poor.

Their main purpose is to inform you and maybe, just maybe, entice you to do something other than to shell out money to some shady charity link. Whether or not you believe that is up to your own personal discretion.


Originally posted by Ordo

1. I dont care what the NYT covers or what their perspectives are.

1. The article cites a "series of press reports" that are never cited. I, personally, was not aware of such reports, but apprently I need to follow the "press" better.

2. The whole green revolution thing is circustantial. Even if the US was behind the movement in some ways, its a very light touch.


3. "US officials are escalating threats" What threats? Negotiations on sanctions are threats.

4. The last paragraph alone:

A US and/or Israeli attack on Iran would be a monstrous act of imperialist criminality. Countless thousands of Iranians would be killed in the first hours of a war. Moreover, a war against Iran would have incalculable international repercussions, and would bring the entire world closer to the day of a global nuclear conflagration.

This is pure opinion/speculation. ....and contradicts the entire point of the article. I dont think many people regard the US as imperialist anymore, despite our recent beliggerance. Since real press, people who can actually report first hand (regardless of bias) and the administration istelf says they have UNANIMOUS security council support for new sactions...why the hell would they go to war and actually piss off China and Russia? Iran has no nukes, and Russian and China sure as hell arent going to use them to "defend" Iran. No country is dumb enough to be the one who sets off the next nuke.

The US, espeically Obama for whom disarmament has been a life-long issue, is not going to start a 3rd fricking war. We have no more troops, and if WE start a war, no other nation will be there to support us and thus we will have no army to fight and Iran would certainly prevail in even the short term. The entire community would be alienetated, any regime resistance (green revolution) in Iran would evaporate. There is nothing to be gained. Period.

1.Yeah, the NYT has strayed far away from its liberal basis. However, aside from the Washington Post and the WSJ they are the most influential news piece in the entire world. You probably should care what they spew out.

2.Citing these press reports would take considerable more length than they are allowed to print out. Maybe you should look into it if you're so inclined to. I know I do.

The Green Revolution never went past the wealthy and elitest Iranian class, as well the ayatollahs sympathetic to Washington demands. The poor and working class Iranians never rallied to the cause. By December 2009, the Revolution was widely regarded to be a total and absolute failure, unlike Washington's backed Orange, Rose and Tulip Revolutions in Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Georgia

3. You just answered your question on "US escalating threats".

4. That site's last paragraph is a definitve and well-thought out summary of the travesty that would likely happen. No one is openly telling any public that war with Iran is certain. Everything is speculation right now. Even my two cents is speculation, although with a clear history and background of what these US pricks are doing, it looks clearer by the day that they are just about ready to do it.

BTW, WSWS is real press, whether you like to think it is or not.

Just because Obama is elected, all of a sudden people don't think we're imperalist anymore. The hell did I miss this boat? Obama: the shining face of hope. Jeezum Crow. You must be off your rocker (with all due respect of course). Obama's lifelong committment to disarmament. I feel you and I have had this conversation before. His recent agreement with Medvedev is laughable-- it's contingent on Moscow's capitulation with sanctioning Tehran. After much arm-twisting just yesterday, the US has gotten Beijing onboard this debacle. Just to be clear with you, economic sanctions affecting Iran's banking systems, oil revenues and infrastructure is an act of war. It is exactly what happened to the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor.

BTW, there is a country dumb enough to start a war first: Israel. Its backward-ass ideals seem to trump logic time after time after time.

The only thing to be gained in this region is the recovery of a dwindling and dying American pride that will sadly be lost sometime this decade when the double-dip recession occurs.

Originally posted by Ordo


Do you really need to be explained how desperately poor we are, and how financially indebted we are as a nation?

Originally posted by Ordo
China AND Russia to the table, war is not on the table. This is serious business that they've agreed to.

China is in an act of desperation concerning oil, because they are SOL. They are also concerned about America's influence in Pakistan and its long-term rival India. Russia is also concerned about the United States having great influence in its ex-Iron Curtain countries. Having been born and raised in Russia I know quite well the great feeling of animosity we Russians behold to the Americans. A war may be shelved at the table if the Americans and especially the Israelis are to be appeased.

Originally posted by Ordo


Aww... that's mighty sweet of you, Mr. Ordo. You are such a gentleman.

Bicnarok

jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by Moscow
You talking about Osama?


No, i was talking about the guy who ran. You know, It's the guy who the country was named after. He was runnin somewhere, where did he go? The country needs to finally have a last name. Where, iran where? At the very least, someone could track down the guy and tell him to stop running.

Mindship
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
No, i was talking about the guy who ran. You know, It's the guy who the country was named after. He was runnin somewhere, where did he go? The country needs to finally have a last name. Where, iran where? At the very least, someone could track down the guy and tell him to stop running. For what it's worth, I knew what you meant. Play on words: I like doing that too, posting something to see who's paying attention.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Iran:
GDP: 830 000 billions. 830 000 billion = 830 trillion > 3/4 quadrillion dollars.

Maybe the US should pull a ponzi...I would if iran into financial ruin.

cool

Bouboumaster
Originally posted by Robtard
You've switched stances, before it was "Iran is too rich and has too many people; the US is scared shit-less".


When I said that, I was thinking of the occupation after it.

But if the goal is to only messed up the country, well, no problem with that.

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by Moscow

BTW, WSWS is real press, whether you like to think it is or not.



You tell him! There's no reason to believe that the World Socialist Web Site practices any sort of biased journalism, right?



Right?

Moscow
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
No, i was talking about the guy who ran. You know, It's the guy who the country was named after. He was runnin somewhere, where did he go? The country needs to finally have a last name. Where, iran where? At the very least, someone could track down the guy and tell him to stop running.

laughing out loud

Moscow
Originally posted by Ultraviolence
You tell him! There's no reason to believe that the World Socialist Web Site practices any sort of biased journalism, right?



Right?

Ah, the anti-socialist crap.

Every media has its bias. WSWS's is against the wealthy and the rulers who send their military boys and girls in to invade sovereign countries.

But I guess being a socialist means you're a Commie or a Nazi or something, eh?

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by Moscow
Ah, the anti-socialist crap.

Every media has its bias. WSWS's is against the wealthy and the rulers who send their military boys and girls in to invade sovereign countries.

But I guess being a socialist means you're a Commie or a Nazi or something, eh?

Where did I say I was anti-socialist? Also, a website that caters to one specific political ideology cannot always have the most unbiased and reasonable articles propped up on their website. This happens to be one of them.

Moscow
I know, I know Ultraviolence, but that concerns every news media out there. The New York Times, The American Spectator, the BBC, the Shanghai Times, Fox News, CNN... etc. etc. et al. I don't know if I'll be hanging my own self here, but I prefer the more liberal news sources than the conservative.... just my style.

BTW, you highlighted Socialist in your previous post. It just struck me as an overemphasis on the word and a possible jab at it.

Correct me if I'm wrong

Ultraviolence
Originally posted by Moscow
I know, I know Ultraviolence, but that concerns every news media out there. The New York Times, The American Spectator, the BBC, the Shanghai Times, Fox News, CNN... etc. etc. et al. I don't know if I'll be hanging my own self here, but I prefer the more liberal news sources than the conservative.... just my style.

BTW, you highlighted Socialist in your previous post. It just struck me as an overemphasis on the word and a possible jab at it.

Correct me if I'm wrong

I know it does. The majority of the news outlets are quite biased. You won't be hanging yourself. That's your preference and you're entitled to it.

I highlighted it to show that the article might be slightly biased simply because the news site is a socialist one.

Moscow
Yeah, it's quite recognizable on a first-read. Funny though, most people that I know don't know what it is. They think the title of the site sounds too scary for them to contemplate. You have to go search out smarter people who are better able to understand what the message is these writers are talking about.

Moscow
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/congress-asks-for-sanctions-against-iran/

Juk3n
Yay America, GetSome!!! Take those mussies down, Iran will be step 2, they COULD invade, no other nation will say shit as per iraq. Next stop? Saudi Arabia GET that oil USA, GET. THAT. SHIT. OOHRAH!

I love America for this shit, balls ya hear, US got some MAD balls. Striking the Mussie populus on there home turf, now THAT, is the American way right there.

inimalist
losing two wars to massively technologically inferior opponents?

paying the people who you are fighting to stop just long enough for you to pull out troops?

inimalist
EDIT: woah, totally wrong thread...

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Bicnarok
The question is/ can will Iran retalliate? I doubt it!.
Dude! Iran has long range missiles.

Here is confirmation.

It will launch a barrage of missiles at Israel and US military bases in the middle-east in retaliation.

Originally posted by Robtard There's not going to be an invasion. Missiles will be fired at key Iranian sights, the Iranians will complain, Ahmadinejad will rant and rattle like the Ayatollah puppet he is. Business back to normal, the US still buying their oil.
Expert a barrage of long range Missiles on Israel and US military bases in the middle-east.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just not sure if the US will do it or let Israel on their behalf. I'd imagine the US, so Iran can't use the Jew-angle as much.
At the most, missile strikes on Iranian Nuclear facilities are expected, which can be a joint IAF/USAF operation.

Originally posted by Moscow
The Iranians haven't yet made it to 20%.
Iran 'makes first batch of 20% enriched uranium'

Moscow
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD


Dude! Iran has long range missiles.

Here is confirmation.

It will launch a barrage of missiles at Israel and US military bases in the middle-east in retaliation.


Expert a barrage of long range Missiles on Israel and US military bases in the middle-east.


I don't think they'll be able to successfully get away with that. They're not that desperate, especially with American missiles draped all around them in Baghdad, Bagram and Diego Garcia. Israel has kept an eye on them, too and are sure to retaliate if an Iranian missile came into their backyard.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD


At the most, missile strikes on Iranian Nuclear facilities are expected, which can be a joint IAF/USAF operation.


Iran 'makes first batch of 20% enriched uranium'

Yes. I would expect a massive joint IAF/USAF operation.

FAS seems a tad eccentric in some of their articles:
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/04/twenty-percent-solution-say-yes-to-iran.php

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Moscow
I don't think they'll be able to successfully get away with that. They're not that desperate, especially with American missiles draped all around them in Baghdad, Bagram and Diego Garcia. Israel has kept an eye on them, too and are sure to retaliate if an Iranian missile came into their backyard....

And that, in my opinion, was the real reason for the Iraq war.

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Moscow I don't think they'll be able to successfully get away with that. They're not that desperate, especially with American missiles draped all around them in Baghdad, Bagram and Diego Garcia. Israel has kept an eye on them, too and are sure to retaliate if an Iranian missile came into their backyard.
Ahmedinejad has made it clear that if his nation is attacked, he will order retaliation against Israel and US military stationed in Iraq.

While Iraq was invaded in 1991 and suffered from heavy sanctions prior to 2003 invasion, Iran has remained untouched. It may have the military capability to launch an invasion of Iraq and also cause shia uprising (the shia population of Iraq is believed to be sympathetic to Iran). In short: The situation can get messy.

Attacking Iran means starting a new war. USA may not do it until it is free from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Even Israel is yet to show such balls.

Leader says Iran will retaliate if attacked

Iran warns US it will retaliate if attacked

Iranian War Games: Exercises, Tests, and Drills or Preparation and Mobilization for War?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And that, in my opinion, was the real reason for the Iraq war.
The situation of Iran is different.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
...
The situation of Iran is different.

What are you talking about? I was just saying, what I've always been saying; the Iraq war was not because of wmd's, but was meant for a staging ground agains Iran.

Moscow
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Ahmedinejad has made it clear that if his nation is attacked, he will order retaliation against Israel and US military stationed in Iraq.

While Iraq was invaded in 1991 and suffered from heavy sanctions prior to 2003 invasion, Iran has remained untouched. It may have the military capability to launch an invasion of Iraq and also cause shia uprising (the shia population of Iraq is believed to be sympathetic to Iran). In short: The situation can get messy.

Attacking Iran means starting a new war. USA may not do it until it is free from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Even Israel is yet to show such balls.

Leader says Iran will retaliate if attacked

Iran warns US it will retaliate if attacked

Iranian War Games: Exercises, Tests, and Drills or Preparation and Mobilization for War?


The situation of Iran is different.

What you are saying about Ahmadinejad is something I already know about. I've been harping in previous threads about the US-led Green Revolution that was built up to try to create negative influence against him. It is of top priority in US military circles to fashion Iran into a US client state much like Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States has its limits, and both Iraq and Afghanistan each have between 25 and 30 million people a piece. Iran has 75 million and a better-trained army. It's not beneficial (but has that ever stopped the USA before?) to launch a full-scale assault on Iran, and it isn't beneficial for Iran to retaliate against such a threat (that'll only make their pain more great). It is more "beneficial" to have the US foment anti-Ahmadinejad sentiments within the more educated Iranian citizens and the ayatollahs.

Iran actually hasn't remained untouched, because of the Green Revolution and because of three rounds of sanctions the US has put on it. If you're talking about dead bodies lining the streets like in Baghdad or Kandahar, then you're missing my point. Economic sanctions and revolts are just as costly.

Iran launching an invasion of Iraq? I have to doubt that, even in the face of supposed evidence you might give me, S_W_Legend. It wasn't a good thing for the Iranians back in the 1980s when Hussein did it, and I don't think an "eye for an eye" would help the situation.

USA will not be "free" of Iraq and Afghanistan. They have left a lasting impression on both of those countries. If all the troops left, the stench of American filth would still permeate that region for decades to come. Another militant American footprint is just more sado-mascism for the masses. Israel has shown plenty of verbal balls to attack Ahmadinejad, and Mahmoud has shown a little himself. It's only a matter of time before Zionist Jew and radical Islam meet up in fisticuffs. Fortunately, more level less-religious-minded heads will prevail in the end.

Finally, the situation in Iran is not so different than in Iraq. I've already stated that above.

Robtard
LoL, dude. Your "I hate America and the Evil Jews" bit is funny.

Just curious, why pick America, when even your own nation (Russia, right?) has done similar/worse? Why not make threads about the atrocities going on in S.E. Asia as well, for example.

inimalist
Originally posted by Moscow
Iran actually hasn't remained untouched, because of the Green Revolution

what green revolution are you talking about?

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
what green revolution are you talking about?

Googled, I assume he means this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protests

Moscow
Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, dude. Your "I hate America and the Evil Jews" bit is funny.

Just curious, why pick America, when even your own nation (Russia, right?) has done similar/worse? Why not make threads about the atrocities going on in S.E. Asia as well, for example.

I have a deep-seated hatred for Russia that goes into too many personal issues. But yes, if you want me to talk about some secret Russian transactions between the Iranians, Hezbollah and Hamas I'd work towards that. I became an American citizen about seven years ago, and I pretty much renounced the whole Russian crap along with it.

Of course, when I came here I was immediately surprised by the two-faced nature this country has to offer, and it makes my head hurt just thinking about it now. I have a strong feeling in a few years from now (when I am financially able to) I'll move again somewhere else. And keep moving until I realize finally that countries don't mean anything to an individual. Each country has just as much wrong-headed shit in it as the next.


BTW... that really surprises and somewhat disturbs me that you and inimalist don't know what the Green Revolution is. I'm sure the Canadian press talked about it, and during last summer here in the US I saw a lot of green Iranian banners waving around on Fox, CNN and NBC

Robtard
Don't want you to, just found your choosing of one while ignoring the other to be somewhat funny. As you where.

I know about the Iranian debacle over the elections(was on the news for a stint), as I'm sure Inamalist does to. I wasn't aware of the "green" nickname though.

Spire
Originally posted by Moscow
Very, very bad news:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/pers-m30.shtml

Is a US attack on Iran imminent?

Hope so.

Moscow
Yeah, it's just a nickname. Like the Tulip Revolution in Krgyzstan and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. The anti-Iranian regime wore tons of green, and the name began to stick around late June.

But yeah Russia (especially its Soviet stage) had a lot of crap going on in the Middle East... and they still do unfortunately.

GCG
So now we know the truth....

inimalist
Originally posted by Moscow
Yeah, it's just a nickname. Like the Tulip Revolution in Krgyzstan and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. The anti-Iranian regime wore tons of green, and the name began to stick around late June.

its just strange, as South Asia and Iran already had a "green" revolution.

The introduction of corporate GMO crops into South Asia (esp. India) is also called such.

Green Revolution

Which apparently wasn't major in Iran, because they had their own White Revolution, which was more than simply agricultural, it seems to be a major increase of all national infrastructure.

inimalist
Originally posted by GCG
So now we know the truth....

A strange issue that many don't seem to understand about Iran:

The more we try to do anything, the more power the Iranian government gets. "Westerized" women are the cause of quakes? lol

Robtard
Love how Ahmadinejad "predicted" that a quake would hit. What a ****ing clown-shoe, that guy.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
Love how Ahmadinejad "predicted" that a quake would hit. What a ****ing clown-shoe, that guy.

yup, but so long as the West makes Iran the bad guy, he will be there

****, like those "green revolution" protests could have won, or been unnecessary, if nationalism hadn't been spurred on by Bush & Obama. I guess also Israel..

Robtard
Doubt they could have won, government/religious heads have far too much control of that country.

inimalist
not as much as we are lead to believe in major centers like Tehran.

But even then, internal Iranian politics have been influenced by the West since the Shah, and the whole matter of making veiling the law for women was basically done as a billboard to the Western powers the Ayatolla thought he had beaten, not really about Sharia law. Its the same now, the religious nuts are being supported by people who are convinced that they are the only ones that can save them from Western aggression. If America didn't go out of its way to call Iran the enemy of the free world, far less people would side with the religious authorities, and we might have never seen Ahmadinejad elected (other, more "modest" candidates were predicted to win the first election Ahmadinejad won).

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
yup, but so long as the West makes Iran the bad guy, he will be there

****, like those "green revolution" protests could have won, or been unnecessary, if nationalism hadn't been spurred on by Bush & Obama. I guess also Israel..

Would there have been an attempt at a "green revolution" without western influence? I was under the impression that it was built up mostly as a ploy by the US.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Would there have been an attempt at a "green revolution" without western influence? I was under the impression that it was built up mostly as a ploy by the US.

shit, maybe I'm off here. I thought it represented sort of legitimate frustrations with the powers that be...

... which are there.

Autokrat
I am curious, but what difference would it make if Iran makes a nuke? Who would they attack with it? Israel? (I'd shed so many tears) I understand that while the current regime is conservative, I don't believe they are stupid.

inimalist
are you suggesting it wouldn't be a tradgedy if Israel was nuked?

Autokrat
Originally posted by inimalist
are you suggesting it wouldn't be a tradgedy if Israel was nuked?

I don't think I would actually care. Its so far away that at best I could only oppose it on principle.

Of course I'm not really in a position to make any statements about that. I tend to get filled with rage when I return from a Sabeel conference.

inimalist
wow

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
shit, maybe I'm off here. I thought it represented sort of legitimate frustrations with the powers that be...

... which are there.

Oh, I seem to have confused the Green Revolution with the Iranian Green Revolution. I blame this on Wikipedia which inexplicably compares the first to Iranian White Revolution.

Robtard
Originally posted by Autokrat
I don't think I would actually care. Its so far away that at best I could only oppose it on principle.

Of course I'm not really in a position to make any statements about that. I tend to get filled with rage when I return from a Sabeel conference.

LoL

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh, I seem to have confused the Green Revolution with the Iranian Green Revolution. I blame this on Wikipedia which inexplicably compares the first to Iranian White Revolution.

im confused

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
im confused

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

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_%28Iran%29

inimalist
ha, I made that exact same mistake

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Autokrat
I am curious, but what difference would it make if Iran makes a nuke? Who would they attack with it? Israel? (I'd shed so many tears) I understand that while the current regime is conservative, I don't believe they are stupid.

It all depends on what Iran did with that Nude. However, even if they did nothing with it, Saudi Arabia would work on getting a nuke (most likely from the US). This would cause an arms race, and that is something you should be concerned with.

Autokrat
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what Iran did with that Nude. However, even if they did nothing with it, Saudi Arabia would work on getting a nuke (most likely from the US). This would cause an arms race, and that is something you should be concerned with.

What other option is there? Crippling sanctions will not work without China and Russia's support and a military option would be costly and destabilizing. It seems like a no win situation unless Russia and China get on the board.

Robtard
Originally posted by Autokrat
What other option is there? Crippling sanctions will not work without China and Russia's support and a military option would be costly and destabilizing. It seems like a no win situation unless Russia and China get on the board.

How about attacking their nuclear arms facilities and leveling them?

Autokrat
Originally posted by Robtard
How about attacking their nuclear arms facilities and leveling them?

If this is such a good option, then why is the military so uneasy about it?

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what Iran did with that Nude. However, even if they did nothing with it, Saudi Arabia would work on getting a nuke (most likely from the US). This would cause an arms race, and that is something you should be concerned with.

Worked with India and Pakistan, now all they do is make empty threats at each other while throwing curry.

inimalist
Originally posted by Autokrat
If this is such a good option, then why is the military so uneasy about it?

because Iran will get a weapon if it wants one, and the more we attack them, the more likely they are to use it

I'd imagine the best way for the world to approach them would be as if they already had the bomb, and attempt to get them to either disarm or to prevent proliferation. The more the international community presses, the more the people of Iran are going to see it as an attack, which, to them, means they need to have nuclear arms to defend themselves.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
Worked with India and Pakistan, now all they do is make empty threats at each other while throwing curry.

India and Pakistan's relationship, while still not good by any means, did get better once both sides had the deterant of MAD.

Robtard
Originally posted by Autokrat
If this is such a good option, then why is the military so uneasy about it?

Not sure, could be a combo of several reasons. Iran isn't close enough to actually make weapons grade material, they've managed to keep what they have secret, might start a full-blown war or some unknown.

Bush & Co. did talk about it a few years ago.

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
India and Pakistan's relationship, while still not good by any means, did get better once both sides had the deterant of MAD.

Just proves that brown people need the threat of certain death to get along.

But Iran is different, it's not so much the scare that Iran would launch a nuke at Israel or US targets in the region itself, it's that it would sell or handover such arms to terrorist groups that would certainly use it, because of the "God wants it, durka, durka!" mentality.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
Worked with India and Pakistan, now all they do is make empty threats at each other while throwing curry.

Have you ever had curry in your eye? eek!

Robtard
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Have you ever had curry in your eye? eek!

The red variety; it stings.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
Just proves that brown people need the threat of certain death to get along.

But Iran is different, it's not so much the scare that Iran would launch a nuke at Israel or US targets in the region itself, it's that it would sell or handover such arms to terrorist groups that would certainly use it, because of the "God wants it, durka, durka!" mentality.

maybe, maybe not. It isn't really in Iran's interest to have people using their nuclear material to blow up anything, but I can see it happening.

The head of the Pakistani nuclear program, AQ Kahn, allegedly met with Bin Laden at one point, and his response was akin to "This guy is insane". These people are still seen as problematic in the region, especially by people like the leaders of Iran, and they know that once the groups that oppose America get nuclear material, there is no way to stop it from getting into the hands of kurd or other groups within Iran.

Isolating and attacking them, however, increases the likelihood, imho. And I can't really think of a nation that has been prevented from obtaining nukes if they really wanted to.

Moscow
Originally posted by inimalist
its just strange, as South Asia and Iran already had a "green" revolution.

The introduction of corporate GMO crops into South Asia (esp. India) is also called such.

Green Revolution

Which apparently wasn't major in Iran, because they had their own White Revolution, which was more than simply agricultural, it seems to be a major increase of all national infrastructure.

I know, it is strange. I read both the Wiki pages. This 2009 revolution had nothing to do with agriculture. I think the Iranians probably need another agricultural revolution to help them out. I know Iraq does. Iraq needs a water revolution, too.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.