Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

to attack in Iran or to not attack in Iran

Posted Aug 20, '12 at 2:16am

SSTG

SSTG

10,985 posts

Knight

Iran always been a threat since 1979....in fact it goes way back, when the Americans propped up the corrupted Shahs of Iran, which explains partially why the Iranians are loathed to trust the Americans.

I agree but when two countries hate each other and happens to be neighbors, it's a benefit for the rest of us because they are two busy watching each other. Simple isn't it? It's the good old divide and conquer strategy.

 

Posted Aug 20, '12 at 3:25am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,006 posts

Knight

They also happen to be major oil producers, sitting on the most explosive religious faultline in the Muslim world, and the global hotbed of terrorism....

Uh yeah, not such a good thing having such an animosity after all....In fact the last time those two got involved "watching each other" half of the major powers had to step in and supply arms and support in one way or another.

 

Posted Aug 20, '12 at 12:32pm

The_Leet_Haxor

The_Leet_Haxor

10 posts

Of course they are! They need to start WW3, Reason? Well when you start a War money sky rockets to the roof, America needs money cause they're bankrupt and even though they wont last long with all that money, they will still be able to dig them self out of the grave.
~Haxor

 

Posted Aug 20, '12 at 6:03pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

Of course they are! They need to start WW3, Reason? Well when you start a War money sky rockets to the roof, America needs money cause they're bankrupt and even though they wont last long with all that money, they will still be able to dig them self out of the grave.

so your solution for the crisis is war.
i feel bad for you tbh..

and why would that be WW3?
world war. means that there is 1 war going on, on nearly all the continents.
it doesn't matter that loads of countries will be involved whit that war. as long the fighting only happens in that 1 county (or 2 / 3) then it's not a world war.
take a example of afghanistan.

 

Posted Aug 21, '12 at 12:31am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,006 posts

Knight

Sure, Iraq really boosted America's economy.

So much nonsense I can't believe what I read.

 

Posted Aug 22, '12 at 1:22pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,027 posts

Knight

I'm not an expert on the subject and I didn't have the courage to read all the posts, but I saw an interview and had to think of that thread..

So that interview was made with Akbar Etemad, father of the Iranian nuclear program, in July:
Interview
First off I have to say I really don't like the Mulah regime and so.

I have one critique to that guy, he says a lot 'We didn't/don't do that' or 'We don't have that', but admits that he's 'not in the governments head'. On the other hand, he IS the pioneer of the nuclear program after all.

But he also voices quite a criticism, and if he's correct, the current stand of the West and Israel is very hypocritic and in fact illegal. And I'm ready to think he's not completely wrong.

 

Posted Aug 24, '12 at 6:09am

danielo

danielo

1,387 posts

In what way?
sure, its sound 'unfair' that some countries have nuke and some not. but thats how life go. the strongs want to stay strongs, like britian went to wars not about anything but maintaining its power.
there "job" {utlist in there eyes} was to keep europe balanced. so does USA now {even if it is not perfet and have many ugly sides}. if Iran will get one, they will use it. they want it to becaome a super power. to conquer Iraq, saudi arabia and all the gang.

Israel on the other hand, have it for survival. there wont be a seconde metzada , or a seconde holocaust.

sure, for a viewr from the side its look unfair, but my ideaoligy about nuke is that its 'ok' as long as it a defensive wepone. I can make you a owe, to swear in every way, that as long as i live we wont use it as a wepone. we wont shoot it on a nation to defeat it. and nicho, i am to pray that the days wher people like me are still the one who run this country will remind for ever. but its true, the arabic population and the stuiped spoill mass, which getting racsist and racsist because of the occupation {not a major yet, and if i judge corectly, are starting to decrease} will be the major. then we have a  problme. but the one who "control" it are still 'good peoples'.

think what could happen if nazy germany or japan  got a nuke in ww2? they were preety close. they would us it.
and Iran is in this very Scenario. they want to crush there enemies. saudi-arabia,Iraq and all the arab Peninsula, then Israel and then Usa. they will use it for terror, we use it as a defensive wall, the biggest "Iron dome" we can have.

 

Posted Aug 24, '12 at 6:18am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,006 posts

Knight

I violently disagree; the Iranian regime has actually been very calculating and rational since 1979. It's not very hard to understan why they want to possess nuclear missiles, to the North is Russia, to the East Pakistan and Afghanistan, to the West the traditional enemy of Iraq and to the South is Sunni Saudi Arabia. Four of these are armed by the USA and have US bases; Iran is perfectly rational in the political sense of the word. They might utilize rhetorical bluster on a grand scale, but they never joined the Arab states in attacking Israel, the Shah was pro Israel I know, but remarkably apart from sponsoring proxies, they don't seek an active confrontation.

One example of Iran's rationality is its refusal to attack Aghanistan and the Taliban when they attacked and massacred the Iranian consulate.

 

Posted Aug 24, '12 at 6:28am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,027 posts

Knight

'Good people' don't oppress a whole population for silly land claims and don't plan to attack other countries only because it wants the same than they have.

Don't you see what is happening? People are discussing seriously about attacking a country on mere suppositions. The US attacked Irak to, officially, find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. Did they find any? No. We don't have much more proof today about bomb building in Iran than we had about WMDs in Irak. The West is eager to silence Iran whose leaders have been so openly anti-west; Israel is eager to play with their muscles in order to put more weight to their claims. Both are eager to show their power and suppress the weak, and the media coverage about all those suppositions has made people believe that Iran is actually building a bomb; but that's not proven.

Again, I'm not particularly fond of the Iranian leadership either, but let's wait and see. Their people are wandering off thanks to the stricter dressing rules and other codes; but by attacking them we'd give them a real reason to hate the West. I'm starting to think it would be more towards our interests to let the Iranian people handle the situation, than to do something that might turn them all against us.

 

Posted Aug 24, '12 at 8:11am

zakyman

zakyman

1,588 posts

'Good people' don't oppress a whole population for silly land claims and don't plan to attack other countries only because it wants the same than they have.

Not gonna start an entire Israel/Palestine debate, but you should see the lovely people that you support.

The US attacked Irak to, officially, find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. Did they find any? No.

In all fairness, the US was lied to by an Iraqi worker who claimed to have seen nukes. All the worker wanted was for Saddam Hussein to fall, so he lied to the CIA.

but by attacking them we'd give them a real reason to hate the West

So you're saying they hate us for a "fake" reason?

 
Reply to to attack in Iran or to not attack in Iran

You must be logged in to post a reply!