Iran

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.

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

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.

Has anyone ever figured out where he ran to?

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*

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.

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

You talking about Osama?

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

👆

:

then

up

then

:

👆

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?

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.

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.

edited sorry

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.

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

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*

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 [zero] 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.

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
[B
I'm glad you've voiced your opinion. I'm glad its not founded in fact. [/B]

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
[B
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. [/B]

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
[B
*rolls eyes* [/B]

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

Maybe they could use the Iraqi army, or what´s left of it and Iraq´s to invade Iran. After all they are used to it they were at war with each other for a while.

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.