War with Iran

[PussyWellington]

It's easy to imagine going to war with a country and bombing the leaders. Look at the city and the people of Tehran.

Do you want to turn Tehran into Baghdad?

peacetrain

 

[Knockernail]

Many arabs emphasize this. They are not so different as we use to think.

Precious. Thanks.


Off-topic. I got a Cat Stevens´ record. "Another saturday night". Funny see him now.

 

[kamikazee_club]

It's easy to imagine going to war with a country and bombing the leaders. Look at the city and the people of Tehran.

Do you want to turn Tehran into Baghdad?

peacetrain

I'm assuming this is aimed at the US audience?

In the case of Iran most Americans couldn't find it (or almost any almost other country for that matter) on a map never mind make a reasoned judgement about its true viability/value as a military target/risk. Not that such minor details have stopped them taking such action in the past of course. Unilateral military action would almost certainly cause disaster for the US.

I don't see it happening, except, perhaps as a last dying gasp of an society which is increasingly morally (and financially) bankrupt. While the US may not be quite being shown the quickest way off the superpower stage just yet, it's likely to be soon handed its hat.

Almost without exception those who advocate military action are not those that will have to partake in it's ugly reality or suffer it's consequences.

 

[B_big dirigible]

You don't bomb the leaders. That counts as assassination and is considered a no-no, though perhaps not for very cogent reasons.

You don't fight wars because you want to. You fight wars when the costs of not fighting wars exceed the costs of fighting them. (Costs, obviously, are not figured merely in dollars.) Only the militantly unimaginative believe that there are no costs to not fighting wars. But it's not easy; each case must be examined individually - not every war is WW2 on one hand, or the War of the Triple Alliance on the other. (Go ahead, look it up - it depopulated Paraguay a hundred and thirty years ago; a particularly costly and useless war.)

That's pretty general. Specific to this thread is the observation that Iranians are not Arabs, linguistically or historically. One might be forgiven for thinking that anyone who confuses the two hasn't a clue as to what's going on in the region.

And yes, there will probably be a war with Iran. But how, when, where, and why are still imponderables. One is just who will be the belligerants (aside from Iran, of course). It's not obvious - Iran has more than one enemy. Another imponderable is whether it will be an atomic war or a conventional one. That may depend on the schedule - the longer the wait, the more likely it is to be fought at least partially with nukes; a small number on one side and possibly more on the other, depending on just who is doing the fighting.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

The U.S. deserves the right to be the arbiter of power in the middle east and anywhere else it chooses.

 

[ital8]

That's all we need is another war. If Iraq wasn't bad enough, a war with Iran could be just as bad if not worse. First off, our resources for the American military are stretched out enough. The marines did not meet their quota for re-enlistment in 2005 so now they are lowering the standards for admittance. They are excepting high school drop-outs and recruits with higher body fat.

George Bush has dug a hole that appears to be quickly getting deeper and harder to get out of. Now he wants to add another 21,000 troops which is very unpopular amongst the American people. Has anyone seen the protests in Washington D.C?

Getting back on topic though, the Iranian leader is a total nutbag. I believe he said that according to his beliefs the end of the world will come within three years. That is kind of scary especially since he may be developing nuclear warheads aimed at Israel. The question is, is it enough to warrant a war with Iran?

If the Iraq war taught us anything it was to exhaust all means before deploying troops to battle as well as determing whether a war exceeds the consequences that may be at hand.

 

[dags]

That was a nice presentation, thanks for sharing.

 

[PussyWellington]

That was a nice presentation, thanks for sharing.

No, thank you. I cried when I watched it -- maybe I care too much.

 

[kamikazee_club]

The U.S. deserves the right to be the arbiter of power in the middle east and anywhere else it chooses.

You're joking, right.....?

 

[SpeedoGuy]

You're joking, right.....?

Of course.

I was just paraphrasing what so many of my countrymen have been brainwashed into believing. After all, might makes right.

 

[kamikazee_club]

.....Specific to this thread is the observation that Iranians are not Arabs, linguistically or historically. One might be forgiven for thinking that anyone who confuses the two hasn't a clue as to what's going on in the region.

Yes in that as I suspect it may pan out; this thread will revolve around (the undoubted) error in popular misconceptions about Iran in the US (it [not] being an Arab nation as evidenced above being only one) which would thus somehow lead so some moral quasi-justification of unilateral military action along the lines of :

• They are Arabs - (therefore Muslim).
• They are Muslim- (therefore potential terrorists).
• That they want nuclear (power/weapons - take your pick)

That's surely proof of their evil nature, isn't it?

And yes, there will probably be a war with Iran. But how, when, where, and why are still imponderables. One is just who will be the belligerants (aside from Iran, of course). It's not obvious - Iran has more than one enemy. Another imponderable is whether it will be an atomic war or a conventional one. That may depend on the schedule - the longer the wait, the more likely it is to be fought at least partially with nukes; a small number on one side and possibly more on the other, depending on just who is doing the fighting.

You may be right. I would add that unless it happens in the next five to ten years, any major conflict in the Middle East that starts with conventional weapons is unlikely to end that way, irrespective of US involvement.

 

[Lordpendragon]

Of course.

After all, might makes right.

That was Hitler's mantra. Originally proposed by Thrasymachus in the Republic. Sadly though Socrates' reason prevailed in argument, it doesn't seem so powerful in the face of a jackboot.

There would be several consequences of war with Iran.

Israel would be sacrificed to utter destruction.

China would destroy the Dollar.

Taiwan would be invaded.

The US would lose any interest in the East Pacific, Asia, the Middle East and probably Europe and cease to be a superpower.

And what is the perceived benefit?

 

[lokican]

There would be several consequences of war with Iran.

Israel would be sacrificed to utter destruction.

China would destroy the Dollar.

Taiwan would be invaded.

The US would lose any interest in the East Pacific, Asia, the Middle East and probably Europe and cease to be a superpower.

And what is the perceived benefit?

If the US were to go to war with Iran, I don't see why China would invade Taiwan or that Israel were to be destroyed considering they have nukes. To be honest while I don';t like the idea of anyone having nukes religious fantics and people who belive in the end of the world (Which Bush does) is frigtening, Religious people would be more likely to use nukes.

If I was Israel was attacked and knew my country would be destroyed and really wanted to take down Iran I would send a nuke to.... Mecca. That would seriosuly be the ultimate in fuck you from israel

 

[kalipygian]

Before their revolution there many, many Persians attending universities in this country(I think they have the most beautiful eyes).
It is unfortunate the Farsi are suffering under even flakier people running things than W.
I don't think there is the slightest chance congress will vote to allow W. to invade another country. (but I couldn't believe they bought his lies the previous time) I worry that his threatening behavior might provoke something, he just alienates people and escalates things.

 

[kamikazee_club]

If the US were to go to war with Iran, I don't see why China would invade Taiwan or that Israel were to be destroyed considering they have nukes. To be honest while I don';t like the idea of anyone having nukes religious fantics and people who belive in the end of the world (Which Bush does) is frigtening, Religious people would be more likely to use nukes.

I don't like the idea of anyone having nukes, religious or not.

Well, of course China may consider invading Taiwan regardless but with the US (assumed) embroiled in what would be a futile adventure in Iran who would stop them, Russia, NATO (UK/France)? Iran would almost certainly be destroyed so would seek to take Israel with them.

If I was Israel was attacked and knew my country would be destroyed and really wanted to take down Iran I would send a nuke to.... Mecca. That would seriosuly be the ultimate in fuck you from israel

If Israel felt threatened (and how could they not?) I would expect them to consider a pre-emptive strike leaving them defenseless or at best compromised and vulnerable. The very fact that this will be known to everyone involved means Israel would surely be a prime target for pre-emptive strike, possibly even by the US to ensure it (Israel) did not destroy the entire regions oil production capabilities in the process, after all that's in US interests over and above the Israel's existence, right?

Either way Israel would be destroyed because they had nukes not saved by them. It's a can of worms for sure, as I said before it may start with conventional weapons it would be highly improbable it would end there, or indeed in theatre. Of course that's a worst case scenario but it's the Middle East where the worst case scenario seems the most likely.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

That was a really neat presentation, thanks for sharing.

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

Militarily Iran is barely a state, I have no doubt that the USA or Britain alone could crush the country in a matter of days, the thing is that I don't think either of the world's self appointed hall moniters can afford to hold down another shift in yet another state which has warlord mentality and entirely too many guns per head of population.

We just can't afford it in money or manpower - we already have enough problems in Iraq and Afghanistan to go about "stabalising" another place.

I think the hawks in our government are finally coming to terms with the fact that their Jingoistic attitudes are really not helping anyone.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Militarily Iran is barely a state, I have no doubt that the USA or Britain alone could crush the country in a matter of days, the thing is that I don't think either of the world's self appointed hall moniters can afford to hold down another shift in yet another state which has warlord mentality and entirely too many guns per head of population.

We just can't afford it in money or manpower - we already have enough problems in Iraq and Afghanistan to go about "stabalising" another place.

I think the hawks in our government are finally coming to terms with the fact that their Jingoistic attitudes are really not helping anyone.

Britain is being stretched so far that our troops are millimetres away from open defection in some aspects...I don't think being deployed in 3 countries where the total land mass and population is greater than that of Britain is going to make them happier. If America has to make up for a 2 inch penis issue, then by all means, but my country (and the other parts of her maj's kingdom) are going to pot just because a bunch of fucktards have a war fetish and can't win a war on their own..pussies.

 

[B_spiker067]

You guys are really silly thinkers. DD's vid could have been made using the German population pre- (and during) WWII to the same effect of - 'they are just like us, don't bomb them' whine. It is propoganda peace-nik thinking. Before you go off half cocked calling me a war monger shut up and read first.

Iran has habitually displayed its animus for the U.S. since the Shah of Iran was deposed (and rightly so) when President Jimmy Carter told the man it was time to go. This expression of hate towards the U.S. has been unjustified much like the German hatred of the Jews back in the day; it is an analogous ethno-centric and values hatred those in power have for us.

A significant proportion of Islam actively teaches irrational hate towards the West (Wahhabism), as many Western societies once actively taught anti-semitism (Jewish). The Saudi state taught that Jews kill and eat children in their textbooks among many other bizarre claims through the 90's. The Palestinian state also taught this irrational hate in their classroom textbooks at the height of Arafat's power in the 90's when peace seemed to be the likeliest ever in history. If these children hadn't been brain washed maybe there would be peace today.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the same kind of incompetent that President George Bush is except that there are in fact checks and balances built into our government that simply do not exist in Iran's theocracy. If Iran was a reasonable state (i.e. as secularized at least to the degree that the U.S. government is) then Iran could have its nuclear weapons (maybe).

The real question is why does Iran need to import petroleum products and yet needs to have nuclear power. Silly people don't know that Iran should built an oil refinery first. THEY HAVE NOT BUILT REFINERIES TO MEET THEIR OWN FUCKING NEEDS!!! Gas is expensive in Iran!

If Iran is not contested with regards to nuclear power/weapons then Saudi Arabia will need it as will Kuwait, Qatar, and, yes, in time, even Iraq. They have the money to buy them. Something Pakistan and India don't have and yet they have nuclear weapons.

P.S. FWIW DD's vid made me kind of cry too and I don't advocate war with Iran. :-(

P.P.S Just because our execution sucks does not mean that our reasoning behind our wanting to reign in Iran doesn't make eminent sense.

Fuck the neocons and fuck the liberals they have very little to say of real life worth. It's alway pie in the sky, simple simon, dumb fuck ideas because they are uninformed and/or lazy.

Informal poll: Is this post a troll?

 

[Adrian69702006]

Personally I hope Bush will think better of it. Going into Iraq caused has major problems and with the benefit of hindsight, I think we can safely say that it was a seriously bad idea for both Britain and America, although in saying that I'd also say that we're duty bound to maintain a presence there until the mess that's been created has been sorted out. Taking military action against Iran, unless there were really compelling reasons for doing so, would be no less of a mistake and probably an even greater one.