here people think it would happen within the next few DAYS! people on here are not the same as government of iran they like americans just wante to say
AlbertaghostCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
Not a chance.
Too many other ways to handle them ranging from blockades, aggression against proxies, diplomatic pressure, backroom deals with countries that trade or ally themselves with Iran, beef up Iraqi forces to parity, support of anti government forces both popular and subversive and then of course, more extreme measures such as support for anti regime terrorist/nationalist guerrilla groups, increased support of Saudi Arabia's military and nuclear program and, the ACE of Spades - just let Israel off the leash.
Iran, a country who cannot project their military beyond their own borders is at a great disadvantage. That said, the people should not be alienated so, all efforts to not support them or harm them must be avoided.
AlbertaghostCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
Not a chance part II.
Sides, what military action against Iran could possibly accomplish anything? You invade, what ground are you intending to hold and for what purpose? You certainly don't have the situation where a regime change from outside forces is possible as Iran is not a centralized dictatorship with a single head but rather run by councils and representatives who are pressured by those councils. Lobbing missiles won't take out the hardened facilities which are the actual targets and, as Iran poses no conventional threat by either land sea or air forces, there is no need to attack them.
In all, Iran, completely surrounded by countries friendly, or, at the very least, certainly not antagonistic and anxious to be helpful to the US, is not in a friendly neighborhood. With any and all fronts able to host a US base for any contingency, I would say that Iran will stay contained for the foreseeable future with only it's aspired nuclear capability as a remote threat. And even that, with the ability to take out missiles as they are fueled is hardly the nut of all nuts to crack militarily.
Embargo's are simple and easy to maintain and, as mentioned earlier, pressure can be placed at will under the table with groups from any of those surrounding countries who have no love for Tehran. So, Iran can be choked to death and destroyed from within without a shot being fired hence, there will be no need for military action.
watchmantom: I would like to know what people are thinking regarding this important subject.
I dont think the US will and has the capacity to take on Iran. Iran would have already enriched the uranium and ready with its war heads . The war will be long drawn and will see the US bankrupt . Exit from the war will be very humiliating and without achieving any objectives as it happend in Iran and going to happen in Afghanistan. an attack on Iran will have the entire muslim world united and carefully crafted shia -sunni devide will dissaper and that will be too much to handle. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a storng ecomony and a elected leadership . so there is no dictator here.sanction cannot have much effect on Iran as well . The best way is to stop bullying Iran and engage them constructivly .Iran has the soverign rights to develop nukes as a deterrent since its sourrunded by all nuclear capable countires. and a looming threat of attack from the US always . But war looks a very distant reality and US cannot afford it .
AlbertaghostCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
bollywood: I dont think the US will and has the capacity to take on Iran.
Sure they do. With 84 fighter aircraft air superiority would be within a few minutes.
bollywood: Iran would have already enriched the uranium and ready with its war heads .
And when they open doors or roll them out to fuel them they are obliterated withing moments.
bollywood: The war will be long drawn and will see the US bankrupt . Exit from the war will be very humiliating and without achieving any objectives as it happend in Iran and going to happen in Afghanistan.
All the objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan were accomplished though.
Iraq;
In response to: to get Iraq to comply with ceasefire terms - to stop Iraq’s Inadvertence to UNSC resolutions - to force Iraq to cease it’s violation of human rights - to stop Iraq’s material breaches of UNSC resolutions - to end Iraq’s WMD capability and aspirations - to end repression of Iraq’s civilian population - to force Iraq to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals - to force Iraq to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, - to end Iraqi Support for terrorism - to show America has the will to help allies and destroy foes - to depose a regional threat take in Saddam that would have to be dealt with sooner or later - to force action from SA to take care of it's radicals - to pressure other regimes in the area not to provide passive or active support to Jihadists - to position US troops in the region in force to enable that pressure - to aid their global and NATO mission by placing a Strategic Air Support base - to support and help create an Arab democracy as an example to others
Afghanistan;[quoteThe demands of the US to the Taliban were; * deliver al-Qaeda leaders located in Afghanistan to the United States authorities * release all imprisoned foreign nationals, including American citizens * protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in Afghanistan * close terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and "hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities" * give the United States full access to terrorist training camps to verify their closure
Wondering, to fit your scenario of military action, what would the goals be in Iran?
bollywood: an attack on Iran will have the entire muslim world united and carefully crafted shia -sunni devide will dissaper and that will be too much to handle.
That depends on the reasons, the offers, the diplomacy and threat involved. For example, Saudi Arabia is unlikely to protest vigorously as they consider Iran a threat now.
bollywood: Unlike Iraq, Iran has a storng ecomony and a elected leadership . so there is no dictator here.
Elected leadership? You musty have missed the riots and crackdowns over the recent rigged election.
bollywood: sanction cannot have much effect on Iran as well
Of course not. At least in the beginning as Iran is no democracy but rather run by a regime of theocratic councils who bully the people.
bollywood: The best way is to stop bullying Iran and engage them constructivly .
Let's see, the UN says not to build nukes and provides punitive measures as leverage and this is bullying?
bollywood: Iran has the soverign rights to develop nukes as a deterrent since its sourrunded by all nuclear capable countires. and a looming threat of attack from the US always .
Threats? Where and when?
bollywood: But war looks a very distant reality and US cannot afford it .
The US could carry out all sorts of low cost actions against Iran. In fact, they could, if necessary, save themselves billions by invading and occupying one or all of the Hormuz ports and tethering their fleet there for a few years.
Albertaghost: A large letter affirmative 'YES.' You obviously have much knowledge of this subject so will make this a simple question;
In what form will this war be? Invasion, regime change, a simple quick air attack, an occupation .... what?
Or is this going to be a war as in the abstract sense - like a campaign against the idea of Iran
They will do something arrogant like a limited attack on Israel, and we'll come Israel's aid with strategic lazer guided nite attacks on their nuclear facilities ........ That's my best guess ..
AlbertaghostCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
jvaski: They will do something arrogant like a limited attack on Israel, and we'll come Israel's aid with strategic lazer guided nite attacks on their nuclear facilities ........ That's my best guess ..
Then you don't mean a war but rather an attack. And in the scenario you describe, why would a Democrat government do anything different?
Albertaghost: Then you don't mean a war but rather an attack. And in the scenario you describe, why would a Democrat government do anything different?
Way more likely with a Rebublican Gov Admin.......and it would instantly become a "War" ..... Unfortunately even the Obama administration with a Rebub Senate and Congress might be enough to initiate it...
Doubt it, America is not too found of it's current wars and Iran has a very youthful population coming up with very different ideals than the current leadership. I see a revolution in Iran in the next 10 years.
AlbertaghostCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
jvaski: Way more likely with a Rebublican Gov Admin.......and it would instantly become a "War" .....
Historically it is far more likely with a Democratic Government and still wondering, why does an attack equal a war? Clinton attacked Afghanistan yet did not go to war with them.
jvaski: Unfortunately even the Obama administration with a Rebub Senate and Congress might be enough to initiate it...
Initiate an air attack on Iran if they attack Israel? This is what Obama ran on as a political presidential candidate so why should this surprise anybody? He would if there was a Republican or Democrat majority for crying out loud'
"As president, I will do everything that I can to help (Israel) protect itself ... We will make sure that it can defend itself from any attack, whether it comes from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran,"
Albertaghost: Historically it is far more likely with a Democratic Government and still wondering, why does an attack equal a war? Clinton attacked Afghanistan yet did not go to war with them. Initiate an air attack on Iran if they attack Israel? This is what Obama ran on as a political presidential candidate so why should this surprise anybody? He would if there was a Republican or Democrat majority for crying out loud'
"As president, I will do everything that I can to help (Israel) protect itself ... We will make sure that it can defend itself from any attack, whether it comes from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran,"
"Historically it is far more likely with a Democratic Government and still wondering, why does an attack equal a war? Clinton attacked Afghanistan yet did not go to war with them."
Are you saying Bush wasn't overly eager to satisfy his daddy's wish to finalize things with Sadam ? Was that initiated by Democrats ?
AlbertaghostCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
jvaski: "Historically it is far more likely with a Democratic Government and still wondering, why does an attack equal a war? Clinton attacked Afghanistan yet did not go to war with them."Are you saying Bush wasn't overly eager to satisfy his daddy's wish to finalize things with Sadam ? Was that initiated by Democrats ?
Saying that historically democrats start wars. WWI & II, Korean, Viet Nam, Kosevo, and now, you go back a whole eight years to re write history and say Republicans are predisposed to sartt wars huh.
jvaski: Had we been unfortunate enough to have had McCain and Palin in now - an air strike on their Nuke facilities would have already taken place
Based on what history or position exactly? How did Obama's policies difer?
Jihadmeathello: Doubt it, America is not too found of it's current wars and Iran has a very youthful population coming up with very different ideals than the current leadership. I see a revolution in Iran in the next 10 years.
A revolution can be possible , I can say it would be a revolt propelled by the west. I travel and live sometimes in Iraq and found people are generally happy .Most of what you see in CNN and other channels are just propoganda. The unrest you saw during the election is mostly manipulated . in any case there can be demomstrations in any democratic country during and after elections,which need not be considered as people are against the goverment .The demonstrators are just a visible minority. Iran is soverign and lets respect that . Draining fuel sources cannot be a reason for invading other countires on the pretext of "freedom,liberty" crap
sincerely I hope not, Iran has the same right the other nuclear countries have to own nuclear facilities/weapons, so I don't want those invadors, rapers and killers (not all fall in these 2 last cathegories, just in the first) in Iran as they did in Iraq based on a total hoax.
AlbertaghostCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
bollywood: A revolution can be possible , I can say it would be a revolt propelled by the west. I travel and live sometimes in Iraq and found people are generally happy .Most of what you see in CNN and other channels are just propoganda.
Iran is the subject. You meant Iran not Iraq right?
bollywood: The unrest you saw during the election is mostly manipulated .
Oh ya. Seventy people killed and thousands in prison. Just a regular day at the polls huh?
bollywood: Manipulated by whom? in any case there can be demomstrations in any democratic country during and after elections,which need not be considered as people are against the goverment .The demonstrators are just a visible minority. Iran is soverign and lets respect that .
By the incumbent maybe? And in 'any democratic country' seventy people don't get killed for protesting. be they a 'visible minority or not.'
And certainly, let's respect Iran being a sovereign nation and all - until they begin a weapons program designed to extend their propaganda into the destruction of another nation. Then they forfit the respect due to a sovereign nation and open themselves up to preemptive attack by whomever they threaten.
bollywood: Draining fuel sources cannot be a reason for invading other countires on the pretext of "freedom,liberty" crap
hate to break this to you but the world got more oil from Saddam than from the current Iraqi government hence, the oil argument you just espoused is idiocy that you pulled from nowhere other than a left wing fantasy.
and well in addition to some comments about the iraq war , either in favor of it or against it and if it was for oil or not, well what was it for ? I don't think it was because of americans goodwill and with no interest hidden... we all know the big bucks companies get in contracts for reconstruction,etc and that there's a need to fuel and give a push to the militiary and weapons industry, call it money or oil it's the same.. no fantasy
AlbertaghostCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
nitro2345: and well in addition to some comments about the iraq war , either in favor of it or against it and if it was for oil or not, well what was it for ? I don't think it was because of americans goodwill and with no interest hidden... we all know the big bucks companies get in contracts for reconstruction,etc and that there's a need to fuel and give a push to the militiary and weapons industry, call it money or oil it's the same.. no fantasy
Read the detailed post I made on the first page which addresses your concern. If you wish we can discuss more after.
Albertaghost: Iran is the subject. You meant Iran not Iraq right? Oh ya. Seventy people killed and thousands in prison. Just a regular day at the polls huh? By the incumbent maybe? And in 'any democratic country' seventy people don't get killed for protesting. be they a 'visible minority or not.'
And certainly, let's respect Iran being a sovereign nation and all - until they begin a weapons program designed to extend their propaganda into the destruction of another nation. Then they forfit the respect due to a sovereign nation and open themselves up to preemptive attack by whomever they threaten. hate to break this to you but the world got more oil from Saddam than from the current Iraqi government hence, the oil argument you just espoused is idiocy that you pulled from nowhere other than a left wing fantasy.
I really dont know from where people pick these figures of dead and jailed. Its impossible to collate these data by any news agencies . I dismiss these figures as just propaganda .Even in CS we have seen propoganda going on during the election . The blame should go to people who funded this agitation from outside to execute their agenda .making them scapgoat Iran is now very peaceful and business as usual .
The Oil is the real issue . The goverment in Iraq is very weak and could be overthrown in a matter of years .The Americans have left iraq in middle of nowhere . Iran is a prominet player in the Mideast and its important that the US need a puppet goverment there
Albertaghost: Read the detailed post I made on the first page which addresses your concern. If you wish we can discuss more after.
yes, I haven't read it but I seriously doubt a personal post from you can modify what is known as a fact. No article in this world will make me think that invasion because that's what it was, was an action of good samaritan not wanting something in return for such big action
AlbertaghostCultural Wasteland, Alberta Canada5,914 posts
nitro2345: yes, I haven't read it but I seriously doubt a personal post from you can modify what is known as a fact.
A personal post from me which details UN resolutions and historical fact. If there is anything nconsistant then I should like to know.
nitro2345: No article in this world will make me think that invasion because that's what it was, was an action of good samaritan not wanting something in return for such big action
And I agree. It was certainly not to do a good Samaritan deed. Nobody ever pretended it was.
Now, I stated the world got more oil from Saddam than it does now, I also stated the reasons for both wars, all of which I can provide documentation for and, you have yet to provide even a semblance of counter proof as you didn't even go back one page to read it yet, say you are right.
strict: here people think it would happen within the next few DAYS! people on here are not the same as government of iran they like americans just wante to say
Obama, in one of his first speeches as president said... he wanted to get the troops out of Iraq, and into Iran, where they belong.
Albertaghost: A personal post from me which details UN resolutions and historical fact. If there is anything nconsistant then I should like to know. And I agree. It was certainly not to do a good Samaritan deed. Nobody ever pretended it was.
Now, I stated the world got more oil from Saddam than it does now, I also stated the reasons for both wars, all of which I can provide documentation for and, you have yet to provide even a semblance of counter proof as you didn't even go back one page to read it yet, say you are right.
You appear the fool so far.
u meant the very first page of this thread sir? well looking very quicly I just saw a well known actions goverment takes to pressure otehr countries, and alternatives to war, and why you think the war won't happen, nothing new.
About the UN resolutions or objectives or whatever (Suddendly you rely on the UN to defend the US atrocities when the US didn't care what the UN said before the war, ironic..) sure those are the "official" goals/objectives. The thing here is that I wanted to point out the real reasons behind it... do you really think u were going to see in a UN inform " and to take iraq oil" or " to establish a puppet state" or " to fulfill Bush's personal vengance"? so to me that meant nothing, sorry sir.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Will The United States be at war with Iran within the next few years?(Vote Below)