Iran Accuses US and Israel

[Captain]

So thousands more civilians will be slaughtered[...]?

 

No, my estimate for casualties would be higher than that.

 

If we discount coalition campaigns then wasnt the US last individual campaign Vietnam? Or are you including the Invasion of the Sandals resort in Grenada?

 

I am including the last nation to launch a first strike attack on the US Navy. If I recall correctly, that was done by Japan on December 7th, 1941.

[Anubis]

Where did I say that.

 

I was just checking.

[VladimirIlyich]

No, my estimate for casualties would be higher than that.

 

And you are proud of that?

 

I am including the last nation to launch a first strike attack on the US Navy. If I recall correctly, that was done by Japan on December 7th, 1941.

 

And it took an Atom bomb to end that after the war in Europe had already finished.

 

And now 80 years later the US and its allies rely heavily on that same nation to prop up their economies.

 

Doesnt sound like much of a victory to me.

[lfcwonderboy1]

If war looms.. maybe the mayens were on to something, as Russia china, would get involved.

China gets its oil from iran.

[VladimirIlyich]

If war looms.. maybe the mayens were on to something, as Russia china, would get involved.

China gets its oil from iran.

 

China are the real superpower in todays economy.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

If war looms.. maybe the mayens were on to something, as Russia china, would get involved.

China gets its oil from iran.

 

Iran gets its arms from China as well.

 

The main oil supplier to China is Saudi Arabia but for crude oil its Iran.

[Beantown Red]

America doesn't have the troop numbers needed to invade Iran and if they used air strikes alone why would the Chinese or Russians become involved after the fact? They probably wouldn't or couldn't become directly involved even if the Americans attempted an invasion which is never going to happen anyway.

[Section_31]

Tomahawks, right up the ass.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

America doesn't have the troop numbers needed to invade Iran and if they used air strikes alone why would the Chinese or Russians become involved after the fact? They probably wouldn't or couldn't become directly involved even if the Americans attempted an invasion which is never going to happen anyway.

 

I would of thought by the way there doing all this,America is hoping for Iran to kickstart something and thus bringing NATO and Israel into any planned action.

 

The thing that concerns me is the fact,that I would of thought Iran would of been well taken care of by now.

 

When you consider it has been the major anti American player for years.

 

Add on it is suppose to be one of the top terrorist places on earth then why havent they gone in yet.

 

Back in 91 when the collapse of Russia happend and America and them agreed on a cutdown of new weapons,and to cutback there stockpiles.

 

I can remember something back around 93 or 94 and Russia calling in there nuclear weapon stockpiles from the likes of Belarus, Kazakhstan

and Ukraine who had broken away to become independent.

 

Ukraine at that time had the worlds third largest nuclear arsenal,and I can remember that during there handing back to Russia,some managed to get lost cough cough.

 

There was a massive inquiry and it was reported by alot of sauces that at least four had been sold to Iran.

 

Funny thing is you can find little or practically nothing about all this even on the net,but it was a major thing at the time.

 

What is known for sure is Iran have five or six different types of ballistic missiles at its disposal and very little information it seems to the type of warhead on these,apart from the fact around three of them could be armed with nuclear warheads.

 

They have there own factories churning out submarines and gunships and these have been running for a number of years now.

[Beantown Red]

The Army and Marines troop numbers including active and reserve is around 1.5m and they can probably deploy only a fraction of that at one time. Israel fighting alongside the US in the Middle East would probably be only something of a last resort. In Europe they got the UK and some smaller countries to rely on and then they also have Canada and Austrailia, etc, but really still not talking large numbers. If Iraq which is nearly 1/4th the size of Iran and with less than half the population of Iran really probably needed 500,000 troops to occupy the country, Iran with a military that is not going to be a pushover and mountains instead of desert you are talking massive numbers of troops needed. During the Cold War they could have probably invaded Iran but probably feared the Soviet Union getting involved and after the end of the Cold War they started massive cuts in troops numbers. Then after the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan I don't think they would even consider an Iranian land invasion.

 

For all the talk of American irrationality, I actually think the Iranian regime is very irrational. In the past decade the US has taken out anti-Iranian regime in Iraq and it has been replaced with pro-Iranian government. At the same time the troubles that the US faced with the Iraqi insurrection is a pretty good indicator that they are probably not going to be looking to start another land war in the Middle East backed up with statements from former defense secretary Gates. The Vietnamese after the Americans basically killed hundreds of thousands of people and dropped millions of tons of bombs on their country soon after the end of the war realized that it was in their best interest to seek normalized relations with the US. I really don't understand why the Iranians don't try to seek normalized relations with the US especially with a President like Obama who has at least attempted to seek compromise.

[Jose Jones]

What does "normalized" relations mean then Beantown?

[Beantown Red]

What does "normalized" relations mean then Beantown?

 

It means having diplomatic relations with embassies in each country and having a framework to working with each other. The Chinese and US were able to normalize relations even thought the Americans had backed Taiwan and fought against the Chinese in Korea and Vietnam. Vietnam started trying to normalize relations with the US within a few years of the end of US involvement in the country and by 1995 they had formal relations. If the US restarted diplomatic relations with Cuba and ended the embargo it would be another example of normalization of relations.

[Tyler Durden]

Can't we all just get along?

[dennis tooth]

The Army and Marines troop numbers including active and reserve is around 1.5m and they can probably deploy only a fraction of that at one time. Israel fighting alongside the US in the Middle East would probably be only something of a last resort. In Europe they got the UK and some smaller countries to rely on and then they also have Canada and Austrailia, etc, but really still not talking large numbers. If Iraq which is nearly 1/4th the size of Iran and with less than half the population of Iran really probably needed 500,000 troops to occupy the country, Iran with a military that is not going to be a pushover and mountains instead of desert you are talking massive numbers of troops needed. During the Cold War they could have probably invaded Iran but probably feared the Soviet Union getting involved and after the end of the Cold War they started massive cuts in troops numbers. Then after the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan I don't think they would even consider an Iranian land invasion.

 

For all the talk of American irrationality, I actually think the Iranian regime is very irrational. In the past decade the US has taken out anti-Iranian regime in Iraq and it has been replaced with pro-Iranian government. At the same time the troubles that the US faced with the Iraqi insurrection is a pretty good indicator that they are probably not going to be looking to start another land war in the Middle East backed up with statements from former defense secretary Gates. The Vietnamese after the Americans basically killed hundreds of thousands of people and dropped millions of tons of bombs on their country soon after the end of the war realized that it was in their best interest to seek normalized relations with the US. I really don't understand why the Iranians don't try to seek normalized relations with the US especially with a President like Obama who has at least attempted to seek compromise.

 

Er they did, they extended their hand when Obama got elected, they have bended over backwards to this end. Obama rejected it.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Bad timing with the Presidents. Khatami had to deal with the utterly dickish Bush and now Obama has to deal with the similarly dickish Ahmadinejad.

[dennis tooth]

Bad timing with the Presidents. Khatami had to deal with the utterly dickish Bush and now Obama has to deal with the similarly dickish Ahmadinejad.

 

Whats dickish about him?

[VladimirIlyich]

Beantown,if it was really obama they were dealing with then i think some common ground would have been found but its really right wing nutters sponsored by arms and military hardware companies and lobbyists that pull the strings behind the scenes.

[stringvest]

in summary..

[Beantown Red]

Er they did, they extended their hand when Obama got elected, they have bended over backwards to this end. Obama rejected it.

 

 

[YOUTUBE]HY_utC-hrjI[/YOUTUBE]

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I quite like Obama, but that's little more than empty rhetoric.

[Beantown Red]

I quite like Obama, but that's little more than empty rhetoric.

 

So Obama decided to take shit for his first two years as being weak on Iran just for empty rhetoric? American President using Iran's full title, publicly seeking compromise and speaking Farsi while it was well known Iran was arming groups that were killing American soldiers at the same time.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Of course it's rhetoric, BR. Firstly, he was saying it on video rather than personally to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. But most importantly, his actions say that he hasn't done much in this regard.

 

I'm not saying Obama would do nothing if Iran came to the table, but it's a clear ploy for any new leader to say things like that in public to show that they're not the same ol' guy and that they have a different view of foreign policy. In reality, though, he hasn't done much different. More sanctions towards Iran, rhetoric from his administration that Iran is the devil... it's all a bit hollow.

[Beantown Red]

It is well known he sent personal direct message to the Supreme Leader when he came to office, you had Hillary Clinton sitting across from Iranian nuclear negotiators, you had Iran agree to send nuclear material out of the country for enrichment before backing out. The first sanctions from the Obama administration is after Iran had already rejected a nuclear deal. Obama single handed cannot bring the US government along if Iran is not showing something in return.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Whats dickish about him?

The way he treats the Iranian people - not least, the trade unionists. And his beard.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

It is well known he sent personal direct message to the Supreme Leader when he came to office, you had Hillary Clinton sitting across from Iranian nuclear negotiators

 

So? Clinton has fucking slammed Iran, time and time again.

 

Obama single handed cannot bring the US government along if Iran is not showing something in return.

 

I didn't say he could, mate. I'm commenting on the video you posted. It's rhetoric. It's actually pretty much the definition of rhetoric, regardless of who it's aimed it.