War with Iran is it imminent

[aws]

I don't know why Iran is bothering with nukes. If they could put their army on a few boats and invade the UK then (judging by the poppy thread) they'd have a walkover. Now where's my prayer-mat?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Let's just start with this thread, I wouldn't want to set you too wearisome a task.

 

I've already pointed it out, Stronts. In this thread.

 

To mention Iran's funding of terrorist and/or resistance movements without mentioning the same and, frankly much worse, crimes by Israel, America and Britain isn't just hypocritical but it's indicative of your bias.

 

It's just rank hypocrisy to answer the original question in the way you did. The question is clear and has been asked many different times from people on the left and the right: why is it acceptable for America, Britain, Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran? The only acceptable answer that I can see is that it isn't.

 

You're throwing up every cliché in the book about Iran to show why they shouldn't have nuclear weapons - dictatorship, trigger happy, terrorist funding - but you're not talking about America's funding of terrorists, Israel's terrorism, and much graver crimes.

[silverlining]

Iran are more likely to use it than America.

 

America is an ally. Iran is idealogically and religiously diametrically opposed to any Western civilisation, and so for that reason, I'd prefer if they didn't have nuclear weapons.

 

Do feel free to carry on quacking, but that's the facts.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Iran are more likely to use it than America.

 

America is an ally. Iran is idealogically and religiously diametrically opposed to any Western civilisation, and so for that reason, I'd prefer if they didn't have nuclear weapons.

 

Do feel free to carry on quacking, but that's the facts.

 

Interesting 'facts'. I think your initial 'fact' was best. America has already used a nuclear weapon and Iran doesn't even have it. America is carrying out military operations in various countries on various different continents as we speak. Iran hasn't initiated an attack for hundreds of years.

 

America doesn't have to use nuclear weapons, it makes for the building of new Starbucks really tricky.

[Mr. Beast]

Everything points to them going into Iran,but I cant see them doing it soon.Simply because he has said he is bringing the troops home,and 2012 is a election year.

 

I dont think it would go down to good in the states if he pulls them out from Afghanistan to only send them into Iran.

 

not necessarily troops on the ground. planes in the air, explosions on Fox News, death from above. people don't get emotive about cities being levelled from the sky anymore. prep the public enough and a well timed bombing campiagn is a guaranteed vote winner.

 

my only hope is, there's a lot of people on the streets in America protesting the 1%, protesting the environment, do they want to widen this, do they want to give people a very easy opportunity to connect the dots between the corporate elites and the military industrial complex.

 

they're playing a long game here anyway, slowly biting away at the public consciousness. destabilising Syria is probably target number one.

[Mr. Beast]

 

Breathless predictions that the Islamic Republic will soon be at the brink of nuclear capability, or – worse – acquire an actual nuclear bomb, are not new.

 

For more than quarter of a century Western officials have claimed repeatedly that Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result is always declared "unacceptable" and a possible reason for military action, with "all options on the table" to prevent upsetting the Mideast strategic balance dominated by the US and Israel.

 

And yet, those predictions have time and again come and gone. This chronicle of past predictions lends historical perspective to today’s rhetoric about Iran.

 

Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979. - Earliest warnings: 1979-84 - CSMonitor.com

[zigackly]

What does it matter, anyway? All of this shit, what does it even matter? It's not like them acquiring nukes is going to be any worse then the holy shit storm that will unfold if Israel/US/UK attacks Iran. Iran isn't Iraq, where the consequences for us amount to 179 dead. Iran is an entirely different proposition altogether and lives will be lost all over the place, including here.

 

Surely that's begging the question somewhat, given that they were at war with Iraq for eight years with huge loss of life on both sides. Not that I would espouse a war with Iran, but it would be like shooting fish in a barrel for the west if it happened.

 

On the subject of nuclear weapons, my position is that the fewer countries that have them the better.

[Lee909]

That was a Iraq that had there office mets trained at Sanhurst and equipment from us and the Yanks though.

Yes the British and Americans would win a war with Iran but they would be bogged down in a shithole for years afterwards,it would also stir up a huge hornets nest with the other countries especially as it would likely involve Israel.

[Bloke]

Interesting 'facts'. I think your initial 'fact' was best. America has already used a nuclear weapon and Iran doesn't even have it. America is carrying out military operations in various countries on various different continents as we speak. Iran hasn't initiated an attack for hundreds of years.

 

America doesn't have to use nuclear weapons, it makes for the building of new Starbucks really tricky.

 

Fucks sake man be quiet, that doesnt fit the agenda at all.

[Mr. Beast]

Surely that's begging the question somewhat, given that they were at war with Iraq for eight years with huge loss of life on both sides.

 

the numbers are huge on both sides but they don't sit so well in the same sentence - the uneccesary death is a little skewed

 

about 5 thousand dead Coalition troops

about 50 thousand dead Iraqi soldiers

over 1 milllion dead Iraqi civilians

 

people should think about these numbers a bit more when they assess why or wether we go to war.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Surely that's begging the question somewhat, given that they were at war with Iraq for eight years with huge loss of life on both sides. Not that I would espouse a war with Iran, but it would be like shooting fish in a barrel for the west if it happened.

 

 

 

Can I just clarify what you're suggesting here, Zig? Are you saying that because they had a war with Iraq, and the west killed loads of Iraqis recently, war with Iran would be easy?

 

Genuine question, just need some clarification.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

the numbers are huge on both sides but they don't sit so well in the same sentence - the uneccesary death is a little skewed

 

about 5 thousand dead Coalition troops

about 50 thousand dead Iraqi soldiers

over 1 milllion dead Iraqi civilians

 

people should think about these numbers a bit more when they assess why or wether we go to war.

 

I think he was meaning in the Iran-Iraq war.

[Mr. Beast]

I think he was meaning in the Iran-Iraq war.

 

Ah, sorry Zig. jumped in without reading the whole conversation.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

 

No, Iran doesn't attack other countries directly, it just funds and arms terrorists who do.

 

 

And the US and Britain doesn't?

 

who is the only country to have ever actually used a nuclear weapon again? I forget...

 

Would that be the good 'ol USofA Tom by any chance?

[zigackly]

Can I just clarify what you're suggesting here, Zig? Are you saying that because they had a war with Iraq, and the west killed loads of Iraqis recently, war with Iran would be easy?

 

Genuine question, just need some clarification.

 

No war is easy, and I'd much rather not have one, just like I would much rather we had not invaded Iraq, but I don't think the proposition would be very different personally. The difference in technology and resources between the western world and Iran is huge.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

No war is easy, and I'd much rather not have one, just like I would much rather we had not invaded Iraq, but I don't think the proposition would be very different personally. The difference in technology and resources between the western world and Iran is huge.

 

The difference between Iraq and Iran would be utterly massive. Seriously, it's an entirely different thing and Iran's tactic would have a massive impact all around the world.

 

It's a massive misconception that Iran would be anything like Iraq. For a start, Iran isn't a downtrodden country; it has a very strong army, strong airforce and strong navy, but most importantly it knows exactly how to strike parts of the world to stop the supply of oil.

 

Iraq couldn't strike back, but Iran will strike Israel, and even the US and UK. It'll also strike bases in the Middle East. Iran will unleash holy hell if attacked, of that there's no doubt.

 

Can they be beaten? Of course. Will it take much, much, much more and cost much, much more in terms of lives and money than Iraq? Absolutely. Just think at the problems it'll cause with the straights of Hormuz. Oil fields around the Middle East. Just think about Russia's reaction. About Chinas reaction. It's not even close to the situation in Iraq, Zig.

[Kevin D]

[YOUTUBE]aj5OT3z1VGA[/YOUTUBE]

[Strontium]

And the US and Britain doesn't?

 

 

Well, I'd be quite interested in seeing a list of terrorist groups that the UK and US have armed and funded since the end of the Cold War.

 

No war is easy, and I'd much rather not have one, just like I would much rather we had not invaded Iraq, but I don't think the proposition would be very different personally. The difference in technology and resources between the western world and Iran is huge.

 

 

The US reckoned 5 years ago it could essentially eradicate Iran's conventional and nuclear facilities with airstrikes in 48 hours. But after that you would still have a major effort displacing what is a fairly solid regime that could readily mobilise a million-strong militia on top of an elite Revolutionary Guard of 150,000.

[Mr. Beast]

Well, I'd be quite interested in seeing a list of terrorist groups that the UK and US have armed and funded since the end of the Cold War.

 

for a start... they fund several in Iran

US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran - Telegraph

 

if we widen this to include paramilitary groups which serve essentially the same function, many more in Mexico, Guatemala, Cuba, Columbia, Nicuragua. the rest of the graduates from the School of the Americas.

 

and even in, Mainland Europe - look up Gladio - as textbook a terrorist operation as you could imagine.

 

The Kosovo Liberation Army.

 

Bin Laden/Al Quaeda.

[Strontium]

One man's terrorist is another man's separatist group that wants to secede from a violently oppressive theocracy, I suppose.

[stringvest]

One man's terrorist is another man's separatist group that wants to secede from a violently oppressive theocracy, I suppose.

 

hoist by one's own petard, I think....

[Strontium]

Not necessarily, I draw a distinction between groups that target civilians and those that don't.

[VladimirIlyich]

Not necessarily, I draw a distinction between groups that target civilians and those that don't.

 

Are you talking about countries that carpet bomb cities knowing that the vast majority underneath are innocent civilians?

[Liquid football]

Oh God... the thread title says imminent... it must be true.

 

Capitalism is ace... only weak people who cant adapt and make money don't like it.

 

Yeah like Africa. Darkies are just jealous!

[stringvest]

Not necessarily, I draw a distinction between groups that target civilians and those that don't.

 

I'm not sure you believe that. Not really.