Military strike on Iran

[ithatheekret]

By West are we including Israel ?

 

[So_Cynical]

Some things in the world are maybes...others are certainty's

However it happens...Iran will not be allowed to have Nukes.

 

[wayneL]

Some things in the world are maybes...others are certainty's

However it happens...Iran will not be allowed to have Nukes.

Prolly, but I wonder about the cost of that.

 

[mayk]

However it happens...Iran will not be allowed to have Nukes.

For how long? 10,20,50 100 years ?

At what cost? 10T,100T,1000T ?


Please study the recent history of Iran, they were among one of the most westernized nations in Muslim world (along with Afghanistan), before Uncle sam (and USSR) tried to play their nasty games in this region, to gain control over oil.

Check out the 1960-1980 history of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq. They were the booming economiese of that era. Pakistan was split in to two in 1971, Iran's Shah was removed in 1979, Afghan was attacked by russia in 1979, and good old' Suddam Hussain retain control of Iraq in 1965 with USA help.

See a pattern? How a stable region was destroyed?

Funny fact is all of them are neighbours, and now all of a sudden all of them are destablised, fanatics. Were they not fanatics before 9/11 when west was eyeing the red army? It is all there to create an illusion of enemy presence so as to justify the means to keep pouring money in to the army of US of A

It is human nature to forget....


Just to quote a rare inseight in to people psychologyby a US presenditial candidate

Obama told wealthy supporters in San Francisco this month that embittered residents of hard-hit Pennsylvania and Midwest towns "cling to guns or religion or anti- pathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This is what people do in financial distress, and who created that financial/economical distress in the first place in those countries...

 

[jman2007]

quoted for absolute truth.

if america attacked iran they would probably get their asses handed to them. the US is stretched very thin manpower wise so their chief force projection would be their gulf fleet. however in wargames the fleet takes heavy losses when confronted by large numbers of small agile craft which is irans strategy. added to this iran has a credible anti-ship defence with its sunburn missile system. the US does have undisputed air power but you can't defeat a country solely from the air.

i'm currently bearish on america

Well yes,

And don't forget to add in the fantatical support that the Mullahs would whip up. At the end of the day, no-one should forget that no matter how unpopular a particular regime may be, people will still gives their lives to defend every square millimeter of their homeland in the name of nationalism. Their airforce is certainly not the worst either.

When I was in Iran, I got a combination Turkish/Iranian massage from none other than an Iranian airforce pilot, he was about the size of a anti-tank barrier. By the time he'd finsihed with me, I felt like I'd been trampled by a pack of furious gorillas, and he was being gentle .

I fail to see what effect bombing Iran would have. Many of their key technologies are spread all over the country, some in very well protected underground bunkers. I think with Iran even hinting of threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, the US would be quaking at their knees .

That's Irans trump card .

jman

 

[Lucky]

Please study the recent history of Iran, they were among one of the most westernized nations in Muslim world (along with Afghanistan), before Uncle sam (and USSR) tried to play their nasty games in this region, to gain control over oil.

Check out the 1960-1980 history of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq. They were the booming economiese of that era. Pakistan was split in to two in 1971, Iran's Shah was removed in 1979, Afghan was attacked by russia in 1979, and good old' Suddam Hussain retain control of Iraq in 1965 with USA help.

See a pattern? How a stable region was destroyed?

Funny fact is all of them are neighbours, and now all of a sudden all of them are destablised, fanatics. Were they not fanatics before 9/11 when west was eyeing the red army? It is all there to create an illusion of enemy presence so as to justify the means to keep pouring money in to the army of US of A

It is human nature to forget....

Just to quote a rare inseight in to people psychologyby a US presenditial candidate

This is what people do in financial distress, and who created that financial/economical distress in the first place in those countries...

As the powers that be once again throw the dice, I wonder how the developments in both Serbia/Kosovo and Georgia/Abkhazia will play out on their version of RISK?

 

[rowes]

I dont think the west would have to strike Iran.

Israel would strike first as they did in 81 at the Osiraq nuclear centre. They have already said that as long as they could do something about it they will by all means neccesary do whatever it takes to ensure Iran does not have nuclear arms. I think its only a matter of time, didnt Iran go public again just in the last week or two about the comission of a heap of new centrifuge's for uranium enrichment?

Anway the whole scenario is really scary,I hope for one they dont become nuclear and I hope they dont get bombed for tryin.

 

[Superfly]

By West are we including Israel ?

Yes...

 

[Superfly]

Anyone remember Bush having to admit (last Dec) that he should have known that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Trust Bush ? - yeah right

Bush : Iran is imminent threat Keith Olbermann MSNBC Part1

Bush : Iran is imminent threat Keith Olbermann MSNBC Part2

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush5dec05,0,6387210.story?coll=la-home-center


etc etc

Yes..take one old intelligence report and play it up... "20/20" your talking 2003... it is now 2008 and Iran has recently stated that it will resume unranium enrichment and never again suspend that process.

Maybe...President Bush does not want to be remembered as the President who let the mad Mullahs get the bomb..

 

[2020hindsight]

By Iran are we including anyone with opinins different from USA?

 

[2020hindsight]

Yes..take one old intelligence report and play it up... "20/20" your talking 2003... it is now 2008 .

that was last december SF
Bush was the one who hadn't heard of it till then ,
despite happily talking up WWIII

as Olbermann says
the man is either a pathological liar
or idiot in chief .

do yourself a favour - stop believing everything that Bush says.

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

I reakon the US will hit Iran because they can not let their control over the oil market be brought into question by countries such as Iran and venezula. If they were left alone they would sell huge amounts of oil in non US dollars and depeg alot of currencies from the USD.

Realistically that would bring on very rapid and far reaching econmic changes that would probably force the US economy into collapse, which is probably a good thing because at the moment they are bleeding to death.

Also I think a big part of it is peak oil, alot of people think we are there or almost there and when that happens control of oil supplies will be the most important thing to most countries. When oil starts declining and prices keep rising we can all kiss strong world growth goodbye (all ready starting?)I think alot of countries will struggle to survive and I dont see lowering inflation is possible for a long time untill we cut dependance of deminishing oil supplies.

Food prices, fertiliser, transport prices, manufacturing prices will all continue to rise as oil rises. The US can not remain a superpower unless it has the worlds cheapest oil hence Iraq, Iran, sauid arabia, quatar etc they basically control most of the gulf oil already.

a bit of topic but has anyone else thought what the world and our standard of living is going to be like in 5-10 years when oil could be 300+ a barrel and millions upon millions of people are starving etc. Im about to have my first kid in Oct and honestly Im affraid to think what the world could be like in 2050. Barring a lot of tech innovation, move to new energy and shift to protecting the environment I think we could be on the path towards a potential civilisation collapse ?

 

[metric]

israel has illegal nukes. we dont see the us even talking about that!!! it must be because of israels great human rights record.....

iran hasnt invaded anyone to my knowledge. their war with iraq was inspired by the us and acted apon by their puppet saddam...

the us will do what israel tells it. either bomb iran or we (israel) will. its really about oil......

 

[Sean K]

I think pre-empive strikes (or 'invasions') are unlikely at this time.

(Even though the CIA are operating in Iran and Pakistan as we speak. Along with MI6, Mossad, and ASIS, and every other intelligence service with a military operations wing)

An open military strike or invasion will probably require some very hard evidence of imminent threat. Not some BS mobile 18 wheeler nuclear labs last presented as hard evidence.

I doubt Israel will first strike, or even retaliate, because that would have more implications than taking a stick to hezbollah. A strike on Iran, or retaliation, will unite Sunni and Shiites and bring all Muslims against Israel and thus the West behind the US. Unacceptable risk. A real WWIII.

So, the odds are against Israel being involved, and the US can only act with some evidence that will convince Russia and China. I highly doubt anycurrent western government will back the US after the current debacle for a start.

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

Question is would you support a war on Iran if the choice was to keep living your current lifestyle or the alternative of putting the western world back into a severe long lasting depression where you have no job can't feed your kids etc.

It was only back in the 30's when sydney siders were joining the hungry mile at the ports where the queue was literraly km's long of people hunting for a days work.

I don't like the idea of plundering another country but in all seriousness the US has no choice now they either take others resources or push a large portion of their pop into poverty.

Oz is somewhat shielded we have huge amounts of indeigenous resources and could prob replace oil with a larger electrical industry. The US has alot of coal but not many other large resources deposits to turn the balance of trade.

If it really came down to the tough decision I doubt any of us wouldn't steal the oil. Fact is world governments aren't going to acknowledge that publically but the tough decisions are happening right now.

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

I think pre-empive strikes (or 'invasions') are unlikely at this time.

(Even though the CIA are operating in Iran and Pakistan as we speak. Along with MI6, Mossad, and ASIS, and every other intelligence service with a military operations wing)

An open military strike or invasion will probably require some very hard evidence of imminent threat. Not some BS mobile 18 wheeler nuclear labs last presented as hard evidence.

I doubt Israel will first strike, or even retaliate, because that would have more implications than taking a stick to hezbollah. A strike on Iran, or retaliation, will unite Sunni and Shiites and bring all Muslims against Israel and thus the West behind the US. Unacceptable risk. A real WWIII.

So, the odds are against Israel being involved, and the US can only act with some evidence that will convince Russia and China. I highly doubt anycurrent western government will back the US after the current debacle for a start.

I dont think they have a choice they either invade and take the risk of putting more economic pressure on the budget but have a fall back of huge oil supplies of they take the cheap option and bomb Iran back to the 19th century and try to covertly put in a US friendly gov. They will do it with or without world wide support. I mean the UN is a farce they didn't need China or russias approval to go into Iraq, I don't think the europeans will really stop them they may make a bit of noise but realistically they are is the same position as the US. No indigenous energy supplies and economies that are teatering. Spain, england and ireland are looking shaky, italy hasn't had good grwoth in over a decade the only countries doing well are the Germans and teh former warsaw pact countries to the east. The EU needs the new eastern members would than they make out.

 

[wayneL]

I don't like the idea of plundering another country but in all seriousness the US has no choice now they either take others resources or push a large portion of their pop into poverty.

Oz is somewhat shielded we have huge amounts of indeigenous resources and could prob replace oil with a larger electrical industry. The US has alot of coal but not many other large resources deposits to turn the balance of trade.

If it really came down to the tough decision I doubt any of us wouldn't steal the oil. Fact is world governments aren't going to acknowledge that publically but the tough decisions are happening right now.

That view means we are no better than the Mongolian hordes of the 13th century.

What about running the economy properly and buying the stuff.

We're going to kill 100's of 1000's of men women and children, so we can live frivolous lives filled by buying cheap Chinese tat? There is something amiss in our value system if that is the case!

FFS!

Prudence <> Poverty

 

[metric]

I think pre-empive strikes (or 'invasions') are unlikely at this time.

(Even though the CIA are operating in Iran and Pakistan as we speak. Along with MI6, Mossad, and ASIS, and every other intelligence service with a military operations wing)

An open military strike or invasion will probably require some very hard evidence of imminent threat. Not some BS mobile 18 wheeler nuclear labs last presented as hard evidence.

I doubt Israel will first strike, or even retaliate, because that would have more implications than taking a stick to hezbollah. A strike on Iran, or retaliation, will unite Sunni and Shiites and bring all Muslims against Israel and thus the West behind the US. Unacceptable risk. A real WWIII.

So, the odds are against Israel being involved, and the US can only act with some evidence that will convince Russia and China. I highly doubt anycurrent western government will back the US after the current debacle for a start.

you make sence kennas. unfortunately, nothing the puppet bush does, ever makes sence. it would surprise me none at all to wake up one morning an watch military video of smart bombs murdering factory workers of irans industrial complexes. of course, these factories will somehow be linked to the manufacture of nukes....

interestingly, 90% of irans oil is within 300km of the iraqi border. whats the chance of the us 'securing' these oil wells in the 'interests' of world stability, and 'potential' iranian 'sabotage' ?

kiwi. if the west (or the coallition of the willing) needs to murder iranian civilians in a bullcrap war, to protect their bottom line, we will not be the goody anymore. how would that effect the national psyce of those involved?

 

[Sean K]

They will do it with or without world wide support. I mean the UN is a farce they didn't need China or russias approval to go into Iraq, I don't think the europeans will really stop them they may

Kiwi, I disagree in this regard. The US needed support for GWII. They had the UK, Australia, and I think Spain initially. This was enough to give the US credibility to move in. I do feel that they might have gone solo, but the risk would have been much greater and potentially unacceptable.

In regard to Russia and China, these two countries are much, much stronger now and weilding a much bigger stick. I'd be very surprised if these two are not a serious military ally in the coming years and make the US their puppy. Give it another 15 years for a total change of leadership. We will see it.

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

That view means we are no better than the Mongolian hordes of the 13th century.

What about running the economy properly and buying the stuff.

We're going to kill 100's of 1000's of men women and children, so we can live frivolous lives filled by buying cheap Chinese tat? There is something amiss in our value system if that is the case!

FFS!

Prudence <> Poverty

hahahaha
Well I would argue we aren't different, and that would be great to trade but what if you have nothing to trade with? We can afford to buy oil because we have so many other resources to drive our economy.

I think your forgetting pretty much every advanced, modern civilisation and country has become great from expoiting others resources.

England had India, the Dutch had the east indies, spain had south america, France once had all of europe. It is a fact that without resources to back up your economy there is very little else by way of economics that could make a country have a high standard of living. With out resources what can you do? become a manufacturing base... then the only way your cometitive is to have cheap labour there for a lower standard of living.

To maintain our lifestyle in the west would be impossible without resources to back it up. The financial industry is only profitable because they invest in off shore resource plays and emerging economies. US banks and investment firms make money from oversea's venture I mean look what happens when they dive into local investments with no productive backing we end up with subprime.