Sabre rattling at Iran [Merged]

county

peaceful,saddam was so peaceful,give him a noble peace prize and give one to bin ladan as well,if bush an blair dont stand up to these bastards who will

frootfancy

I'd respect that viewpoint if we were taking out Mugabe, Kim Jong II, Castro et al. However the west isn't doing anything to help the people of Zimbabwe, North Korea or Cuba.

Saddam for the main was harmless compared with what is happening in North Korea. On a wave of terror threats and WMDs we swept in. When nothing was found it was because it was the right thing to do. Funny how sincere people can be when there's no other excuse.

As for Bin Laden it sums it up when Bush admits he neither knows or cares where he is. The only reason Iraq was invaded was Bush's need for oil and his continued resistance to stop using it. Possibly the reason why Venezuala is sweating because from some whispers i've heard they're next on the 'terror' list. And just happen to be one of the largest oil producing nations on Earth.

In an ideal world Saddam would have been removed for his attrocities. In reality we may as well have given him the Nobel peace prize. If there wasn't a desert full of black gold under him he'd still be in power.

Tar.Aldarion

county wrote:

if bush an blair dont stand up to these bastards who will

shocking...just shocking.i just find the way thousands of innocents die in their method a little bad no?

it was for black gold and nothing more...best friends with the saudis and look at their country...

county

its war people die!

Tar.Aldarion

what a valid war *pictures the dozens of times bush lied on tv saying there are definitely wmds in iraq and also that pic of bush senior shaking hands with bush*
if this was such a heroic war why does he not go for saudi arabia...what if 19 iranians had been in a plane that hit the two towers instead of saudis im sure he would be nice to iran then and invite their leaders over for some tea....

getting rid of saddam is obviously right but ends do not justify means,bush had no right....oils well that ends well eh?

AmenToThat

It wont be an issue as I dont think the American people would buy into an attack on Iran. Bush got away with murder (literally) by using 9/11 as an excuse in Iraq but times have changed since then and the American people are starting to finally come out of their time of mourning and so there will be no attack on Iran.
They are having a hard enough time against 5million Sunni's back by some foreign fighters I dont think to many Americans would be willing to take on 60million Persians which would only drag the Shia south of Iraq into play and thus stop whatever chance there is (slim to none) of a resolution in Iraq.

Hobbes

county wrote:

its war people die!

So you going to sign up and help them? Remember a place in the army guarantees citizenship. Would you like know more?

athena 2000

User45701 wrote:

Read there that the New iranian presdiant took hostages back in 1979 they held hostages at the us embasy for 444 days aprarently he was one of the 3 main guys. <snip>
Source for news : International Herald Tribune

Iran's new president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not involved in the hostage taking though he was a member of the hard-line Islamic student group that took over the U.S. Embassy in 1979. He opposed the takeover according to other members of the group and wanted to focus efforts in another direction.

I think it's interesting to note that the Iranians that were part of the hostage takeover in '79 were proud of what they did and are still proud of it. Their names have been no secret in Iran for over 25 years.

I'm curious to see how this story will develop in the next week or so.

news link source

frootfancy

"if this was such a heroic war why does he not go for saudi arabia"

This always amused me about the 'War on Terrot ' TM. They rocked up in the Middle East. posted troops in the country that funded 9/11 then shelled the crap out its nextdoor neighbour. :eek:

frootfancy

"Read there that the New iranian presdiant took hostages back in 1979 they held hostages at the us embasy for 444 days aprarently he was one of the 3 main guys. <snip>"

Hang on, this guy was a terrorist a few years back? Sound like any former South African presidents we know? Still i don't suppose its as bad when Special AKA release a song calling for you to be set free.

Lemming

The US is not going to start getting jiggy with Iran for a couple of reasons:

1. The US miliatary is already stretched to breaking point with N.Korea, Afghanistan & Iraq (which is sucking more and more man power and funds into it - just like Vietnam did under Johnson's administration in 1965 and again in 1968)

2. Funding is already running up a massive deficit for Iraq

3. Iran is significantly geographically larger than Iraq

4. The Iranians have an army that hasn't been crippled by roughly ten years of sanctions.

5. They will, as pointed out, not only be dealing with the Iranians, but the Shia population within Iraq.

Hobbes

Looks like someone thinks they will hit them before Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4635187.stm

county

Hobbes wrote:

So you going to sign up and help them? Remember a place in the army guarantees citizenship. Would you like know more?

i dont get you?

frootfancy

Spooky that, to think i only mentioned it the other day...

Sleipnir

Hobbes wrote:

Looks like someone thinks they will hit them before Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4635187.stm

There's a hell of a lot of oil there.
Not so much in Zimbabwe, Congo, Burma, Chechnya...........

Kare Bear

Is this "Just cause" i dont see the US going for iran over it because they dont have the man power or any backing or support from ne1 would create so much treouble but if they waanted to go for iran would this be a good enough excuse?

If they really wanted too they could raise a lot more.

county

The US won't invade Iran for a number of reasons.

But mostly it comes down to money. Iran has deals with both China & N.Korea for the sale of Oil. Do you really think China will allow their Oil supply to be stopped by US imperialism? Hardly, especially now that they're focused so much on the modernisation of their Industry. They need that Oil more than ever.

The other aspect is that Iran has a modern military thats well equipped and well trained. There would be no way that a US invasion force could take the country without massive casualties. Which few Americans will support.

nop. No invasion. But, I wouldn't be suprised to see research centres being attacked by Israeli Bombers, or US backed "terrorists".

county wrote:

i dont get you?

Watch Starship Troopers. You'll understand what he meant then.

gandalf

Dammit I thought this thread covered this already. Do you people even check the other topics before posting.

Now should I bother to merge these threads !!!

Nuttzz

Deleted User wrote:

The other aspect is that Iran has a modern military thats well equipped and well trained. There would be no way that a US invasion force could take the country without massive casualties. Which few Americans will support.

People said the same thing about Saddams Army back in 1990, 250k body bags were flown out, emergency provisions for mass desert graves etc.

If they US were to attack Iran (which it wont) it would take the format of Iraq, Kosovo etc with massive air attacks and using "stand off" systems such as cruise missiles etc. the troops would go in after. The US operated aircraft carriers off their coast for years in the late 80's early 90's, their navy isnt up to much neither is their air force.

However for reasons stated here and in the other thread, it is unlikely the Iran would be attacked while Iraq is in the state its in.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote:

Watch Starship Troopers. You'll understand what he meant then.

While it seemed to go over the heads of a lot of the people who originally saw it, Paul Verhoeven actually meant this movie to be largely a satire of American patriotic media and how it is used to manipulate the masses. Given it came out in 1997, I the newscast following the attack on Buenos Aries in the movie, was disturbingly prophetic.

danniemcq

Sleipnir wrote:

There's a hell of a lot of oil there.
Not so much in Zimbabwe, Congo, Burma, Chechnya...........

have you seen the TG4 documentary that was made few years back where they ended up filming an actual coup attempt and showed how the media showed a manipulated view of events??? it really opened my eyes esp colon powell's speech at the end!

mike65

gandalf wrote:

Dammit I thought this thread covered this already. Do you people even check the other topics before posting.

Now should I bother to merge these threads !!!

Indeed. Nothing to see here, move along...

Mike.

Devious

Hobbes wrote:

Looks like someone thinks they will hit them before Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4635187.stm

I had a good chuckle at this line:

"What in the world [is the threat] that Venezuela sees that makes them want to have all those weapons?" US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told the Miami Herald recently.

Why Rummy, my dear fellow, I believe that would be the United States of America.

Tar.Aldarion

The Corinthian wrote:

While it seemed to go over the heads of a lot of the people who originally saw it, Paul Verhoeven actually meant this movie to be largely a satire of American patriotic media and how it is used to manipulate the masses. Given it came out in 1997, I the newscast following the attack on Buenos Aries in the movie, was disturbingly prophetic.

it's amazing how many people thought that was a serious film...

Sand

Looks like someone thinks they will hit them before Iran.

Ah Chavez, hero of arts students everywhere, packing the institutions of government with his supporters, undermining democratic government, and now arming and training paramiliatary groups to defend the revolution, from attacks from even *within* Venezeula.

Wow hes great, and his actions arent in the slightest concerning. Its the evil Mr Bush we need to watch out for.

I'd respect that viewpoint if we were taking out Mugabe, Kim Jong II, Castro et al. However the west isn't doing anything to help the people of Zimbabwe, North Korea or Cuba.

North Korea's got nukes and a real maniac in charge, Cuba is some socialist paradise apparently and so cant be touched, and as for Zimbabwe - call the "international community", they claim theyre the only ones with the right to intervene in other countries. I think that was the gist of this big argument 2 years back. So lets see them in action - oh right, we are. Srebinica, Rwanda Darfur, Zimbabwe. A long story of a lot of words and no action.

And when someone actually does go in and depose a dictator like Saddam theyre criticised for daring to violate sovereignty and not going along with the "international community" who had a real plan for dealing with the situation. Something they dusted off from Srebinica no doubt. Pffft.

Devious

Sand wrote:

Wow hes great, and his actions arent in the slightest concerning. Its the evil Mr Bush we need to watch out for.

Certainly is. Last time i checked the U.S had the largest stockpile of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons on the planet. Are you aware that the U.S now reserves the right to launch a first strike with nuclear weapons if it deems necessary? There goes the notion that these are merely weapons of deterrence. I'd be a little more queasy about this than some (democratically elected) South American small-fry bolstering his army with a few extra guns

The Corinthian

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

it's amazing how many people thought that was a serious film...

And it's amazing how many people's heads it went over...

gandalf

Decided to Merge the threads!

User45701

Lemming wrote:

The US is not going to start getting jiggy with Iran for a couple of reasons:

1. The US miliatary is already stretched to breaking point with N.Korea, Afghanistan & Iraq (which is sucking more and more man power and funds into it - just like Vietnam did under Johnson's administration in 1965 and again in 1968)

2. Funding is already running up a massive deficit for Iraq

3. Iran is significantly geographically larger than Iraq

4. The Iranians have an army that hasn't been crippled by roughly ten years of sanctions.

5. They will, as pointed out, not only be dealing with the Iranians, but the Shia population within Iraq.

it costs 5 billion a month and i thnk theres 130,000 troops there ?

anyway according to the irish times the iranian prediant is under investagation by austrtian prosecutirs into weather irans prediant was involved in the 1989 assanation of a kurdish leader in vienna

bonkey

User45701 wrote:

it costs 5 billion a month and i thnk theres 130,000 troops there ?

I've no references handy, but the figures I recall seeing/hearing at some point put it closer to a billion a day.