[Roosh]

It sure seems like it. I've always been anti-US aggression but I don't know how I'd feel if my country invades my father's homeland where I have many relatives.

[Menace]

That would be even stupider than the war with Iraq, so I hope not.

[Cincinnatus]

Much as the U.S. would like to war with Iran, I think the good ole red, white, and blue is standing on its last leg economically, politically, and socially. It can't be risked.

Iran is also more than twice as populous as Iraq... More fighters, probably more resources. Bad, bad news if USA vs. Iran goes down.

If Israel gets involved, it'll probably be a wrap on the planet as we know it.

[thegmanifesto]

There are a lot of powerful forces that have been pushing this one for a while.

[speakeasy]

(01-30-2012 03:27 PM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

Much as the U.S. would like to war with Iran, I think the good ole red, white, and blue is standing on its last leg economically, politically, and socially.

Can we stop this "U.S. is on it's last leg talk"? How many decades have people been saying this now? People said the same about England 150 years ago, yet they are still a strong and thriving nation.

Quote:

Iran is also more than twice as populous as Iraq... More fighters, probably more resources. Bad, bad news if USA vs. Iran goes down.

If Israel gets involved, it'll probably be a wrap on the planet as we know it.

There's no way in hell we're going to invade Iran the way we did Iraq. It would make Iraq look like the invasion of Granada. At most you might see a couple surgical strikes on nuclear lab targets from drones or a few tomahawk missiles flying, but we aren't launching a full scale Iraq-style war in Iran.

I have the feeling something is going to go down this year involving either Israel vs Iran or Israel + US vs Iran. I heard that Boeing just received an order for a bunch of bunker busting missiles. You can take a wild guess as to who they will be used against. In this case the objective would be much more simple: Reset the clock another decade on Iran's nuclear bomb, not regime change and democracy.

[thegmanifesto]

(01-30-2012 03:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Can we stop this "U.S. is on it's last leg talk"? How many decades have people been saying this now?

I think people have only been saying it since about 2001.

With heavy talk ramping up in about 2008.

I certainly don't remember anyone saying it in '98-'99 during the internet boom.

[Farmageddon]

I'm for any policy that removes the mullahs from power and allows the people of Iran to elect their leadership.

I always liked what the Hitch had to say about Iran:

"A government so corrupt they had to overturn the results of an already fraudulent election. If you want a regime like that to have nuclear weapons then at least say that's what you want." - Christopher Hitchens on Iran

Either way, we are about see what happens when religious fundamentalists get a hold of apocalyptic weaponry. I'm not looking forward to that scenario.

[raliv]

11 days ago, American armor was spotted being transported from somewhere to somewhere. Mobilization is not a good sign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS-PmhhxP...embedded#!

[Hencredible Casanova]

I was just talking with a pro-Israeli Jewish chick I smashed yesterday about this.

It's hard to say...

A lot will depend on what happens in Syria.

If any country would step to Iran, it would probably be Israel either dolo or in concert with the US, and it would most likely involve air strikes on alleged nuclear facilities, not an all out war. An all out war would seriously jeopardize the entire region.

Israel has already sent Mossad operatives to assassinate some Iranian scientists in Tehran (remember the motorcycle attack very recently).

Iran is a very powerful influence in the Middle East. It is very close to having a nuclear capability, if it doesn't have one already.

Also, one huge strategic blunder wrt the planners of the Iraq war was not seeing how it would end up benefiting Iran. Today, Iraq is practically an arm of the Iranian government. The countries share a huge border and loads of Iranians pour into Iraq everyday. The Iranian economy has benefited hugely by from this war. Countless Iranian products (from toilets to furniture) are found all over Iraq.

Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a Sunni-led government. Now, it's a Shia dominated government. In fact, Iraq's President spent years in exile living in Iran. He's very close to the Iranian government, much to the chagrin of the Saudi Arabian ruling family. It's gotten so bad between Saudi Arabia and Iraq that the King of SA refuses to speak or meet with Iraq's President.

There's also the Assad family in Syria (which also follows the Shia sect of Islam), and has historically received its support from the Iranian regime. Should that government collapse, it will serve to weaken Iran even further, possibly opening up a bigger opportunity to attack them.

There's no telling what will happen, but an all out war would be a big mistake IMO. I don't think it will come to that. There won't be boots on the ground in Iran.

[Vicious]

We can't let Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons. Hence the embargo is in place, just about all western nations agree that this is the right course of action. this isn't Iraq, there is massive unit on the embargo.

Iran in turn threatens to shut down the Strait of Homz which is by itself an act of war. In the end I think that both sides will have a talk and back of just a bit, only to have us revisit the conflict in a couple of years.

[Roosh]

Quote:

We can't let Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons.

Why not?

[Amour Fou]

(01-30-2012 04:56 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

We can't let Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons.

Why not?

No one should get hold of nuclear weapons.

War breeds war breeds war.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-30-2012 04:56 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

We can't let Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons.

Why not?

Exactly. Think about it from the standpoint of IRAN. It shares borders with Iraq and Afghanistan, which have both seen the presence of US troops. In the case of Iraq, its leader was removed from power by force.

Then you have the US Fifth Fleet just chillin' in the Persian Gulf. All the neighboring Arab states are in concert with the US and have historically rivaled the Persian state. Unlike Iran, they are dominated by Sunni Islam (its rival sect).

Wouldn't YOU want nukes to protect YOUR nation?

[Menace]

It is perfectly rational for Iran to want to have nuclear weapons. I'm sure most American politicians have forgotten 1952, but I bet no one in Iran ever has. Sad really. I have seen pictures, and it looks like a beautiful country.

[Vicious]

(01-30-2012 04:56 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

We can't let Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons.

Why not?

The stories I've heard from US security officer that has operated in Pakistan and of said nations 'aw shucks' relation to mutually assured destruction is enough to keep me up at night. Keeping nuclear arms from another fundamental theocracy could spell life or death for hundreds of thousands of people.

Let's keep in mind that the regime in Iran isn't above proclaiming death sentences on authors, sending kids into minefields or violently suppressing their own populace.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-30-2012 05:25 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 04:56 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

We can't let Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons.

Why not?

The stories I've heard from US security officer that has operated in Pakistan and of said nations 'aw shucks' relation to mutually assured destruction is enough to keep me up at night. Keeping nuclear arms from another fundamental theocracy could spell life or death for hundreds of thousands of people.

Let's keep in mind that the regime in Iran isn't above proclaiming death sentences on authors, sending kids into minefields or violently suppressing their own populace.

Plenty of reasons for Iran to want to go nuclear.

Lets not also forget the instrumental role of the United States in the Iraq-Iran war during the 1980s (remember the infamous video of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

There's also the overthrow of their democratically elected leader by the CIA back in the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

[Roosh]

A lot of people fail to see the irony of the only country who used nuclear weapons on civilians trying to call the shots on who else can have them. Not to mention our use of uranium depleted bombs that are suspected for causing birth defects and other health ailments.

[speakeasy]

(01-30-2012 05:18 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 04:56 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

We can't let Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons.

Why not?

Exactly. Think about it from the standpoint of IRAN. It shares borders with Iraq and Afghanistan, which have both seen the presence of US troops. In the case of Iraq, its leader was removed from power by force.

But Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons long predates the Iraq and Afghan wars. In fact the US actually helped Iran in nuclear technology in the 50s under the condition that it was used for civilian purposes and that Iran adhered to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. When the Iranian Revolution took over, the West stopped supporting nuclear technology in Iran, and Iran also became more fiercely anti-Israel and anti-West.

Quote:

Wouldn't YOU want nukes to protect YOUR nation?

As realists, we have to understand that there are serious geo-political implications of Iran having nukes. While their nukes in the immediate future wouldn't have the range to strike the United States, who's to say they won't built suitcase bombs and have them smuggled here or into Israel in order to blackmail us into concessions?

[TudoBem]

No, it will not.

There are some powerful Zionist forces like AIPAC and Sheldon Anderson who would like nothing better. There are also numerous elements of the military industrial complex who enjoy trumpeting any potential security threats as a way to continue stealing 1 trillion dollars a year from American taxpayers.

However the military realities make such a move untenable. Iranian sites are hardened and dispersed, and Israeli jets would be flying a very long distance.

At best a massive strike would set back Iran's program a couple years, involve a short closure of the Straight of Hormuz, a modest Iranian retaliation consisting of non WMD missle strikes on Israel and some proxy fighting via Hizbollah, cost less than a thousand lives, and involve economic losses of 100 billion or less.

That would be the best case scenario, the others are considerably worse.

[speakeasy]

(01-30-2012 05:35 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

A lot of people fail to see the irony of the only country who used nuclear weapons on civilians trying to call the shots on who else can have them. Not to mention our use of uranium depleted bombs that are suspected for causing birth defects and other health ailments.

We may be the only country that used them, but we were attacked by Japan first on our own soil, completely unprovoked. So they were used in self-defense.

[Wizard]

(01-30-2012 05:35 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

A lot of people fail to see the irony of the only country who used nuclear weapons on civilians trying to call the shots on who else can have them. Not to mention our use of uranium depleted bombs that are suspected for causing birth defects and other health ailments.

There is no irony, and the situation itself isn't really comparable. Japan was the one who started WW2, and the estimated casualty figures for launching an invasion would have been in the high six-figure range. The nuclear attack was a calculated response to preserve the lives of Allied soldiers.

As for uranium depleted bombs, mere suspicion is not evidence.

Furthermore, people have been predicting an attack on Iran for years now, and it hasn't happened. The idea seems even more absurd these days because the Iranian economy is beginning to suffer badly under the new embargoes placed on them by President Obama.

The Iranians also know that if they blockade the Strait of Hormuz, the entire world would turn against them, including their main allies China and Russia.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(01-30-2012 05:58 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 05:18 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 04:56 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

We can't let Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons.

Why not?

Exactly. Think about it from the standpoint of IRAN. It shares borders with Iraq and Afghanistan, which have both seen the presence of US troops. In the case of Iraq, its leader was removed from power by force.

But Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons long predates the Iraq and Afghan wars. In fact the US actually helped Iran in nuclear technology in the 50s under the condition that it was used for civilian purposes and that Iran adhered to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. When the Iranian Revolution took over, the West stopped supporting nuclear technology in Iran, and Iran also became more fiercely anti-Israel and anti-West.

Quote:

Wouldn't YOU want nukes to protect YOUR nation?

As realists, we have to understand that there are serious geo-political implications of Iran having nukes. While their nukes in the immediate future wouldn't have the range to strike the United States, who's to say they won't built suitcase bombs and have them smuggled here or into Israel in order to blackmail us into concessions?

I'm talking about Iran's considerations, not the US or Israel. Iran has every reason to want a nuclear program.

[Farmageddon]

Quote:

A lot of people fail to see the irony of the only country who used nuclear weapons on civilians trying to call the shots on who else can have them.

Probably because there is nothing ironic about that situation. It's not only the United States that doesn't want the Islamic Republic of Iran to achieve nuclear capability but pretty much the entire international community in the form of the EU, UN and IAEA.

The United States released millions of leaflets warning the Japanese citizens to leave their cities before the US dropped the A-bombs, but that historical fact is never mentioned. The leaflets read:

Quote:

TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.

We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.

You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperien...-leaflets/

The Atomic bombs were horrible but the only other option was a land invasion that would have killed at a minimum, millions of people, both Allied and Japanese. (Remember, the US lost 30,000 taking Iwo Jima alone). And Russia, under Stalin, would have invaded from the North, most likely ending up in some sort of a situation like we still have in Korea today.

Quote:

Not to mention our use of uranium depleted bombs that are suspected for causing birth defects and other health ailments.

You might want to check out this study by the World Health Organization that found "depleted uranium does not represent a significant radiation hazard".

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

[Pilgrim37]

Who knows what goes on behind the scenes ,but I think it's going to be hard to get the public behind it again ,when they're already up to their necks in Afghanistan....but when did that stop them,not last time!

The US military budget and outlay is just staggering,it's absurd ,it's mindblowing considering the shape of some US cities,schools ,internal infrastructure.
Imagine the public transport systems that could be implemented in all US cities with half the annual US military budget.

Maybe someone does want to bankrupt the USA...maybe a cabal has got a Big Short on the whole USA!

[Brian]

Israel will attack Iran before we do. Considering Iran's self proclaimed desire to wipe Israel off the map I wouldnt blame Israel for striking first.