Be a Supporter!

Why Iran should be invaded

  • 9,432 Views
  • 170 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-22 09:12:40 Reply

At 1/21/12 11:40 PM, satanbrain wrote: I was wondering if there is even one official publicily stating this allegation.

Can you think of an official who would have any interest in stating this publically?

At 1/21/12 11:43 PM, adrshepard wrote: No, you "come on." All you're saying now is that our word alone overthrew the Iranian pm, that the US somehow took out Mossadegh through the international equivalent of "peer pressure."

Money combined with promises of money, hence the parentheses.

If promises of money were all that was needed to get our way we would never have fought Vietnam, Korea, or either Iraq campaign.

Single cause fallacy; of course the factions opposed to the US in those countries were much stronger and more organised than in Iran. All you need to accept is that a dictatorship can exist; that a faction that does not represent the majority of the population can hold power through an abundance of military strength, money or strategic positioning. What's possibly just as vital is that the dictatorship is perceived as being in charge; people on the fence might decide to back the dictatorship or not join a rebellion if they expect Mossadegh's faction to lose in the end.

The US had the power to influence all these aspects: they could supply the loyalist faction with weapons, cash and intelligence. By paying for crowds to demonstrate against Mossadegh they may not have been able to permanently improve public opinion about the Shah, but they could create momentum for the coup. Then, after the coup had been completed, the pro-US faction would have a strategic advantage to cling to its new position of power. But they could especially embolden reluctant generals or dissuade potential rebels by (covertly) throwing their weight behind the coup. By doing so, a coup that would normally have barely failed can be emboldened to the point where it can barely succeed.

In Chile and Iran the pro-US and anti-US factions were balanced enough for US pressure to tip the scales in favour of the pro-US faction without direct military involvement, in Afghanistan and Iraq this wasn't the case. While you may say that the Iranians are themselves guilty for letting the pro-US faction get strong enough to be able to be emboldened into pulling off a coup with US support, this doesn't excuse the fact that the US intervened in the politics of a sovereign nation and allowed a dictator to seize power in doing so.

That would be relevant if Hezbollah and Hamas targeted the US and not Israel.

For Iran those are two heads of the same hydra. Seriously, since Israel acts as a proxy for the US in the region, the same way Iraq acted a proxy for the US during the 80s, I don't see the need to split hairs here.

What did Israel ever do to Iran?

The same way Iran maintains good relations with Venezuela because they share opposition to the US, Iran backs faction that are opposed to both the US and Israel. This way, if the US were to invade Iran, they could ask groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to return favours. Iran's only Arab ally during the Iran-Iraq war, Syria, is also hostile to Israel (which holds the Golan Heights that belong to Syria), so you could even see it as a return of favour for when they were still fighting US-backed Iraqis.

Ever ask yourself that?

Did you? If you believe that Iran's foreign policy can solely be explained by them being Muslim fanatcis, then why would they strive for good relations with a kâfir nation like Venezuela? And if they're pragmatic, then why would they not support terrorists against Israel?

That would be pretty impressive considering US support predated Saddam's gas attack on the Kurds.

I was talking about chemical attacks against Iranian troops in border villages in '84 and '85.

Ok. Except I've never said those things, so I don't care.

Did I say you did?

Invaded now?

Sigh, that was a hyperbole. The point is that Iran's interest in nuclear weapons prior to 2002 is irrelevant, other countries such as SA and Brazil were also interested in nuclear weapons up to a similar level. What's relevent is that Iran's nuclear program did not begin in earnest until Ahmadinejad got to power.

Not at all. One option would be to abide by the Additional Protocol to inspections, which is voluntary, but would nonetheless do a hell of a lot to defuse the situation if the Iranian effort is as peaceful as they claim.

Look, I'm not naive up to the point that I believe that if Iran were to give up its nuclear weapons program and stop backing terrorists, that the West would stop being hostile. Not only does Iran still sit on massive oil reserves, but, like Cuba, they represent defiance. The very existence of Iran as an Islamic theocratic state is a threat to the interests of the US in the region. Fundamentalists in Egypt, Palestine and so many other Arab countries may not like Iran being a Shi'ite state, but they still look towards the revolution in Iran for inspiration. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the US government believes that if the regime in Iran were to fall, that this would be a blow to Islamists worldwide. As such, the Iranian government is constantly under threat, and their nuclear weapons program is a response to said threat. Going public about their desire to build a nuke is only to make it harder for powers like Russia and China to keep tacitly supporting Iran, so they don't.

On the other hand, I believe that the best blow that can realistically be struck at the Islamists at this point is to let the Iranian regime collapse in on itself due to sanctions and a popular protest movement that does have lie about not being supported by Western puppet masters.


BBS Signature
satanbrain
satanbrain
  • Member since: Dec. 6, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 41
Melancholy
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-22 09:19:53 Reply

At 1/22/12 09:12 AM, lapis wrote: Can you think of an official who would have any interest in stating this publically?

So your answer is no.

which holds the Golan Heights that belong to Syria

Since when do the golan heights belong to syria? They belonged to aramaics and then to us.


(הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים אָמַר קֹהֶלֶת, הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים הַכֹּל הָבֶל. דּוֹר הֹלֵךְ וְדוֹר בָּא, וְהָאָרֶץ לְעוֹלָם עֹמָדֶת. (קהלת א ג, ה

BBS Signature
lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-22 09:27:58 Reply

At 1/22/12 09:19 AM, satanbrain wrote:
At 1/22/12 09:12 AM, lapis wrote: Can you think of an official who would have any interest in stating this publically?
So your answer is no.

Fuck off, satanbrain. I'm not going to engage in a debat founded on the premise that Western officials are selfless individuals who would spark diplomatic crises without gaining anything other than the knowledge that they helped advance the truth.

Since when do the golan heights belong to syria? They belonged to aramaics and then to us.

Ugh.


BBS Signature
SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-22 11:54:02 Reply

Tell me does anyone actually believe the US Government **wont** invade iran within the next 8 months or so?


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-22 13:26:35 Reply

At 1/21/12 11:43 PM, adrshepard wrote:
Money combined with promises of money, hence the parentheses.

That's not what you wrote, but whatever.

If promises of money were all that was needed to get our way we would never have fought Vietnam, Korea, or either Iraq campaign.
Single cause fallacy;

Not at all. If you're attributing responsibility, the person or group most responsible is the one that did the most work. Just because it may not have happened without US support (who can say for sure either way?) doesn't mean the US caused it. There were probably a thousand of things that the pro-shah faction could have failed to do that all the US money in the world wouldn't have fixed. "For the want of nail," and all that.

this doesn't excuse the fact that the US intervened in the politics of a sovereign nation and allowed a dictator to seize power in doing so.

If Mossadegh hadn't been so quick to confiscate foreign assets and demand more domestic authority, perhaps the west wouldn't have saw the need for him to go.

That would be relevant if Hezbollah and Hamas targeted the US and not Israel.
For Iran those are two heads of the same hydra. Seriously, since Israel acts as a proxy for the US in the region, the same way Iraq acted a proxy for the US during the 80s, I don't see the need to split hairs here.

Israel a US proxy? Hardly. It uses US weapons and money, but it doesn't act at our behest. If anything the US has had to urge Israel to restrain itself.
It still doesn't explain why Iran would support anti-Israel groups in order to "get back" at the US for support Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War.

What did Israel ever do to Iran?
The same way Iran maintains good relations with Venezuela because they share opposition to the US, Iran backs faction that are opposed to both the US and Israel. This way, if the US were to invade Iran, they could ask groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to return favours.

Which would do absolutely nothing to save Iran or discourage the US. Israel is more than capable of handling anything Hamas and Hezbollah can dish out. If it ever came to a US invasion of Iran, Israel would probably welcome a justification to assault these two terrorist groups.

And if they're pragmatic, then why would they not support terrorists against Israel?

Because it doesn't accomplish anything and never could. The Israelis aren't afraid to fight and are willing to live in a security-heavy environment if it means stopping terrorists. Israel is too strong militarily, economically, and politically to be threatened by these two groups of thugs. Iran, on the other hand is not as politically or economically stable, which makes them much more vulnerable to terrorism.
That, and it needlessly antagonizes the US, which is a real military threat to Iran.

That would be pretty impressive considering US support predated Saddam's gas attack on the Kurds.
I was talking about chemical attacks against Iranian troops in border villages in '84 and '85.

Ok, but you said he used it against civilians. Deploying it against Iranian soldiers isn't the same thing.

Sigh, that was a hyperbole. The point is that Iran's interest in nuclear weapons prior to 2002 is irrelevant, other countries such as SA and Brazil were also interested in nuclear weapons up to a similar level.

And if those programs hadn't collapsed or been abandoned, who's to say there wouldn't still be international pressure on those countries today? South Africa was certainly hit by sanctions. Perhaps there wouldn't be as much talk of a military strike, but obviously the Middle East is far more important to US interests than southern Africa or South America.

What's relevent is that Iran's nuclear program did not begin in earnest until Ahmadinejad got to power.

It's accelerating now, but its still the same people behind the scenes as in the past.

Look, I'm not naive up to the point that I believe that if Iran were to give up its nuclear weapons program and stop backing terrorists, that the West would stop being hostile.

It wouldn't. But it would remove the critical justification for a US invasion. Iran supports terrorist groups, but that's not enough of a reason for military conflict. Iran is playing a needlessly risky game, seeming to build a deterrent to invasion that itself could merit invasion. Nuclear weapons don't safeguard against domestic unrest.

On the other hand, I believe that the best blow that can realistically be struck at the Islamists at this point is to let the Iranian regime collapse in on itself due to sanctions and a popular protest movement that does have lie about not being supported by Western puppet masters.

I agree that is the best option.

MultiCanimefan
MultiCanimefan
  • Member since: Dec. 19, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-22 13:28:09 Reply

Gee wouldn't it a much better world if we could just launch preemptive strikes on a MAYBE?

lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-22 16:25:11 Reply

At 1/22/12 01:26 PM, adrshepard wrote: That's not what you wrote, but whatever.

I guess we have different understandings of what those parentheses could possibly have meant in that sentence.

the person or group most responsible

Who's the most responsible is irrelevant. As an analogy: let's say that person A and B want to burn down the house of person C. Person A sets the house on fire while person B distracts the fire department with a prank call. Even if person A is more responsible than person B, then this event will still determine the relationship between person B and C, and give person C legitimate concerns about the extent to which person B is willing to mess with his safety.

The case that I'm trying to make with referring to the '53 coup is that Iran has concerns about its national security that stem from something other than its own support for terrorists since the mid-eighties or its WMD program.

If Mossadegh hadn't been so quick to confiscate foreign assets and demand more domestic authority, perhaps the west wouldn't have saw the need for him to go.

Maybe so, but the response on the part of the US and UK was completely disporportional to the severity of the vice.

Israel a US proxy? Hardly. It uses US weapons and money, but it doesn't act at our behest. If anything the US has had to urge Israel to restrain itself.

Having to urge Israel to restrain itself does not mean it's not a proxy, it means that Israel is an overenthusiastic proxy. Israel is like an enormous spy satellite for the US. But its biggest threat to Iran is that it can carry out dirty work that the US can't (like the way it took out a nuclear reactor in Syria).

Which would do absolutely nothing to save Iran or discourage the US.

The added effect of a wider conflict involving Lebanon, Syria and Palestine always raises the bar for invasion. Even if these countries/movements are struck down a for a few more years, it weakens the position of US-minded governments like the one in Saudi Arabia and (still, since the military is bascially in charge) Egypt who will come under domestic criticism from militants over not getting involved. Refugees could (further) destabilise countries like Iraq and Jordan. It in any case increases the amount of damage done to US interests in the region by an invasion, even if it at the same time increases the threat level and legitimacy of an invasion.

Ok, but you said he used it against civilians. Deploying it against Iranian soldiers isn't the same thing.

Shelling a village with chemical weapons inevitably leads to civilian casualties, even if the primary purpose is to attack troops. Indeed, civilian casulaties were reported by Iran, although the UN inspectors that visited Iran for six days only examined a few shells and wounded soldiers in hosptials and neither denied nor confirmed civilian casulaties due to Iraq's chemical weapon strikes.

And if those programs hadn't collapsed or been abandoned, who's to say there wouldn't still be international pressure on those countries today? South Africa was certainly hit by sanctions.

Yeah, but that didn't happen because of its nuclear weapons program. If Brazil or South Africa were hit by sanctions it would have been a shift in policy compared to the past few decades. The only argument that I can think of in favour of sanctions is that it would seem consistent on part of the US, but since Israel, India or Pakistan have also never been put under significant pressure I doubt it.

Perhaps there wouldn't be as much talk of a military strike, but obviously the Middle East is far more important to US interests than southern Africa or South America.

I don't think that that's an argument that's going to make a big impression on Iranians.

It's accelerating now, but its still the same people behind the scenes as in the past.

The clerics, sure. I'm just arguing that the "Axis of Evil" speech alarmed Iran's leadership, which caused them to speed up development.

It wouldn't. But it would remove the critical justification for a US invasion.

If the US government really wanted, it could provoke a small-scale naval engagement in the Persian Gulf that could serve as a casus belli, like with the Tonkin incident. I don't think that the Obama administration is that eager to start a war, but it could have happened anyway back in 2006-8 if the anti-US insurgency in Iraq had never gotten off the ground or it could happen anyway in the next few years if, say, a Rick Santorum becomes president. Developing nuclear weapons is a long-term endeavour and Iran is willing to play a long-term game. I won't deny that it's risky, but so is relying on US forbearance.

Nuclear weapons don't safeguard against domestic unrest.

True, although an Israeli or US strike on Iranian soil could cause Iranians to rally behind their government. While I think that a lot of Iranians will blame their own government for the sanctions, in case of an actual attack many will resort to patriotism. Anyway, I do think that a lot of Ahmadinejad's antagonism towards other countries in the region is meant to rally people behind his government, but I'm not cynical enough to think that he's actually fishing for a violent response from the West in order to use the emergency situation to clamp down on internal dissenters. I still think they're mostly trying to make themselves as unattractive as possbile for invasion. Whether the increased risks weigh up to the possible benefits remains to be seen, of course, but they're not just crazy.


BBS Signature
BUTANE
BUTANE
  • Member since: May. 9, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 22
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-22 16:47:10 Reply

At 1/22/12 11:54 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Tell me does anyone actually believe the US Government **wont** invade iran within the next 8 months or so?

Obama wouldn't start an unnecessary war during an election year.


BBS Signature
SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-22 17:00:31 Reply

At 1/22/12 04:47 PM, BUTANE wrote:
At 1/22/12 11:54 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Tell me does anyone actually believe the US Government **wont** invade iran within the next 8 months or so?
Obama wouldn't start an unnecessary war during an election year.

my impression is that he would start a war precisely because it is an election year. Me thinks many americans would like to go to war with Iran.


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

ClickToPlay
ClickToPlay
  • Member since: Jan. 23, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-22 17:31:11 Reply

If even one nation, has even just one Nuclear weapon, then the decision of who can and who cannot produce one, imo, is totally invalid.

Either no one acquires a WMD, or everyone.

All that has to be said.

All Eyez On Me.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-22 17:44:49 Reply

At 1/22/12 05:00 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Me thinks many americans would like to go to war with Iran.

America is a big country. Methinks that for every 1 American who would support going to war with Iran there is at least 5 who opposes it.

J1993
J1993
  • Member since: May. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-22 19:21:34 Reply

At 1/22/12 01:26 PM, adrshepard wrote:
At 1/21/12 11:43 PM, adrshepard wrote:
this doesn't excuse the fact that the US intervened in the politics of a sovereign nation and allowed a dictator to seize power in doing so.
If Mossadegh hadn't been so quick to confiscate foreign assets and demand more domestic authority, perhaps the west wouldn't have saw the need for him to go.

You realise that the Anglo-Iranian oil company was being nationalised because he wanted something which had been gained out of imperialism and force of arms by Britain to actually serve the people of his country. At that point in time America was seeing Soviets under every shadow and if you were perceived to actually be trying to help your people the US would try to screw you.

SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-22 19:39:54 Reply

At 1/22/12 05:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/22/12 05:00 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Me thinks many americans would like to go to war with Iran.
America is a big country. Methinks that for every 1 American who would support going to war with Iran there is at least 5 who opposes it.

Opinion can change quickly, and as research seems to suggest depending on whether political elists stress the 'necessity' of such military action, opinion can bend in that direction. And American citizens can very easily be thrown into a blood-lust frenzy if hostilities between the US and Iran are made to appear instigated by Iran. For instance,

Obviously an Iraq or Afghanistan style occupation of Iran would not become more popular over time, but in the time between now and November. The US Military could likely fight and defeat Iran very quickly, Obama would get a major uptick in public approval, right when he needed it most. And since the inevitable nomination of Mitt Romney / Newt Gingrich is proof enough that the warhawks still dominate the GOP, such a war with Iran will make it difficult for them to focus their anger on Obama like they have been.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behi nd-the-numbers/post/what-influences-publ ic-views-on-iran-action/2011/12/01/gIQAq u3aKO_blog.html


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Movie Buff
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-23 10:41:36 Reply

At 1/21/12 08:38 AM, Korriken wrote: Of course, once this happens, America has 2 choices, 1. try to destroy those nuclear sites, 2. be Iran's bitch.

We could simply try to negotiate peacefully, or would that qualify as being Iran's bitch?


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-23 13:47:05 Reply

At 1/23/12 12:45 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Oil embargo on Iran. Looks like the first Domino just fell, if Iran blockades the straight of Hormuz like they've been warning, then like it or not, we're going to war.

Pfffft Iran's economy is centered around oil, blocking them out would mean Iran's enemies gaining strength on top of Iran itself going into a worse economic situation.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
J1993
J1993
  • Member since: May. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-23 13:51:03 Reply

If the US tried a full oil embargo on Iran they would be standing pretty much alone as nobody can afford to do the same even if they wanted to for the sake of paranoia in the right of the US. Additionally China and Russia have been pretty open in supporting Iran against the US this far and there is no reason to expect they wouldnt use stupidity in the US to undermine it and strengthen their own position.

dontpanic01
dontpanic01
  • Member since: Dec. 9, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-23 19:11:31 Reply

yea like we can afford another meaningless war which we provoked... we sure know that empires don't ever collapse


apparently I'm clever enough to declare myself as a dumbass

Ranger2
Ranger2
  • Member since: Jan. 28, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-23 22:34:06 Reply

At 1/21/12 08:38 AM, Korriken wrote:
It would be in the world's best interest to invade Iran, destroy their navy, destroy the enrichment centers, and either kill their scientists or force them to defect. Toppling the government is optional.

Toppling their government as an option is key. If there's one thing we've learned from Iraq, it's that sometimes it's better to have a stable enemy country than an unstable ally. In Iraq, we should have just upped the no-fly zones and bombed Baghdad into dust, but allowed Saddam to stay in power.

I would be in favor of an attack on Iran, as long as it's not one where we take out their government. Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah make my skin crawl, but at least under them Iran is stable and the power is centralized and kept away from guerrilla groups.

armaggedon21
armaggedon21
  • Member since: Jan. 30, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-23 23:00:54 Reply

Hey!USA has Nukes!Lets all invade Usa.

Thats Usa logic...


O_O

BBS Signature
Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-24 03:59:52 Reply

Considering that being an Iranian Nuclear Scientist has about the life expectancy of a Chinese coal miner these days, something tells me that their Nuclear program is doomed anyway. Either through international sanctions, or covert assassinations via Israel or the US, I do not think it will come to invasion.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

bcdemon
bcdemon
  • Member since: Nov. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-24 07:41:09 Reply

At 1/21/12 08:38 AM, Korriken wrote: 1.2.3.4...

LMAO you are one scared lil critter aren't ya? If Iran wants a nuke then so be it. Israel is allowed to conceal it's nuclear weapons from the world, yet they dictate to other countries that they can't go nuclear. They even strike soveriegn nations out of fear. Like bombing Osirak, it was an education facility yet all Israel knew was that is was a nuclear facility in Iraq, so they bombed it. And they were protected by the same people that sign their welfare check, the USA.

And if you're on that old thing that Al Queda took out the WTC to kill people, you are more ignorant than I ever thought. You want to kill people in the USA? Drop a 747 on an NFL game or a NASCAR race, you'll score upwards of 100,000 there as opposed to a puny 2500 or so.


Injured Workers rights were taken away in the 1920's by an insurance company (WCB), it's high time we got them back.

animehater
animehater
  • Member since: Feb. 28, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-24 11:00:37 Reply

I wouldn't think it would be a full on invasion and occupation of Iran if it does come to that of course on account of the risk of bad memories of Iraq. Maybe just an occupation of the southern Iranian coast after their navy is destroyed where the U.S can organize and arm opposition groups to go into enemy territory with our support in the air to create the image of Iranians liberating themselves? Though it would probably take a lot of work to convince people that they aren't just "puppets of the imperialists" or something, and then you would have to go into the opposition's numbers and effectiveness...


"Communism is the very definition of failure." - Liberty Prime.

BBS Signature
All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-24 12:17:27 Reply

At 1/22/12 05:00 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
At 1/22/12 04:47 PM, BUTANE wrote:
At 1/22/12 11:54 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Tell me does anyone actually believe the US Government **wont** invade iran within the next 8 months or so?
Obama wouldn't start an unnecessary war during an election year.
my impression is that he would start a war precisely because it is an election year. Me thinks many americans would like to go to war with Iran.

The majority of Americans are inching towards or already have an semi-isolationist mindset. I doubt, unless Iran actually had the audacity to attack Israel, that America would be behind an invasion of Iran. and since we have war ships in the area I doubt Iran would try to blockade the Strait of Hormuz and even if they did it would be taken care of in days. The effect on gas prices would be similar to that of Katrina as you'd see a 50-60% spike in prices then after we clear the strait it would go back down to normal.

bcdemon
bcdemon
  • Member since: Nov. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-24 13:40:56 Reply

With the EU putting in place a full ban on Iranian oil (to take full effect July 1), and with seizing Iranian Central Bank assets in Europe, I think Iran should shut the tap off to Europe right now. They can easily get China or India to take the extra. The Eu wants a 6 month grace period, because they know an immediate ban would cripple them.

I hear all this talk about invading and occupying Iran, and it only taking a day or two do so. You people realize Iran isn't Iraq, right? You also know that Iran hasn't gone through 12 years of crippling sanctions, right? That and I remember hearing what Saddam said about the Iranians when he invaded them, "they just keep coming" and "human waves", hence his need for chemical weapons. The resolve of the Iranian military is stronger than that of Iraqs. That and Iran has the ability to strike the Rogue Nuclear state of Israel with a couple thousand missiles.


Injured Workers rights were taken away in the 1920's by an insurance company (WCB), it's high time we got them back.

Nanashi
Nanashi
  • Member since: Nov. 4, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 18
Filmmaker
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-24 14:42:14 Reply

I'm just going to throw this in here just incase it hasn't been said yet:

The Cuban Missile Crisis cannot happen again. Currently, no country in the world possesses a delivery system capable of penetrating the US missile defense network. Until teleproting stealth missiles become a reality, or on the realistic side, hypersonic missiles become a realistic option, dropping a nuclear weapon on US soil is all but impossible.

Please keep in mid that the US, like it or not, has the ability to put a bomb inside a 3x3m square anywhere on the planet in less than a day. Also keep in mind that you don't air-lift launch systems, you ship them by boat, and that again, like it or not, the US Navy controls the worlds oceans. Nothing short of a submarine moves outside of their knowledge.

These paranoid delusions about countries nuking the US are just that- paranoid. That isn't to say that a weapon couldn't be hand-carried across a boarder. The US isn't nuke proof, but its damn close.

Next let me point out that, just in-case you haven't noticed, the US has been engaged in the longest, bloodiest, most expensive war in its history. It is in debt, and still spending like crazy. To invade a conventional country like Iran and engage in conventional combat would be political, economical and nearly literal suicide. That isn't to say it wont happen, but the results will be ugly.


BBS Signature
Ranger2
Ranger2
  • Member since: Jan. 28, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-24 16:04:47 Reply

At 1/21/12 03:42 PM, J1993 wrote:
Id suspect Iran wants nukes to ensure Israel doesnt consider using them or at least air strikes against them since Israel has threatened to do the latter before.

Makes sense, seeing as Iran's President has said that he would like to wipe Israel off the map.

bcdemon
bcdemon
  • Member since: Nov. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-24 18:56:47 Reply

At 1/24/12 04:04 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Makes sense, seeing as Iran's President has said that he would like to wipe Israel off the map.

Come on now, that's the pro-Zionist translation. The real translation is about removing the "regime occupying Jerusalem" He doesn't mention the words "wipe" or "map" or even "Israel" yet you are able to sit there and regurgitate the lie that Ahmadinejad said "wipe Israel off the map".....


Injured Workers rights were taken away in the 1920's by an insurance company (WCB), it's high time we got them back.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-24 19:00:30 Reply

At 1/24/12 06:56 PM, bcdemon wrote: Come on now, that's the pro-Zionist translation. The real translation is about removing the "regime occupying Jerusalem" He doesn't mention the words "wipe" or "map" or even "Israel" yet you are able to sit there and regurgitate the lie that Ahmadinejad said "wipe Israel off the map".....

With all of the "Either you're with us or you're trying to murder us, beat our wives, and rape our children" rhetoric from the pro-Isreali crowd, I am inclined to lean toward bc's reading here.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-24 19:24:20 Reply

Yah, in fact the Farsi word for map wasn't even anywhere in the speech. Having such a foreign language like Arabic or Farsi and so few speaker in the native US tends to make it really easy to mistranslate to hone in on Nationalist movement like the whole OBL ordeal.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Why Iran should be invaded 2012-01-25 12:27:58 Reply

Unlike Iraq
THis time with Iran, Russia, India , & China are not going to stand aside

This is deeply troubling as The collapse of the USA will hurt Canada very badly...we need a pipeline to the BC coast worse than ever !
http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold -silver-Sovereigns-Declare-War-on-US-Dol lar.aspx?langue=en&article=3786678666G10 020


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More