🇮🇷 The Iran Thread II

Will the United States go to war with Iran in either 2012 or 2013?

  • Yes, definitely.

  • Possibly.

  • I dont know.

  • Probably not.

  • Definitely not.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Hobgoblin said:
So the American government is always lying and the Iranian government's word is good? Dont we need to look critically at everything that a government says?
Click to expand...

American government always lying? Nothing is that absolute. They definitely are not lying about the economy, it's in bad shape. I don't think the FDA is lying when they put out a new regulations to protect consumers.

As for foreign intervention? War Crimes? Yeah, they do that a lot. The Afghan war is not on the news daily. We don't hear about the civilian deaths (unless it's severe in magnitude), military deaths aren't shown on TV everyday. It covered up war crimes committed by the Northern Alliance during the invasion of Afghanistan.

The one we should be worried about the most is justifying wars with other countries. It was the US government that intentionally lied to us about Saddam Hussein enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons.


So Jews run the media, hm? You realize that that is a worn out conspiracy theory, right?
Click to expand...

Who said Jews run the media? I said Cable TV shows are starved for ratings and will do anything for viewers. After witnessing the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the propaganda spewing forth, I knew that the US Media has lost almost all credibility. Cable TV and also network TV, are complacent to every invasion. I even believed that Saddam had nuclear weapons after seeing Colin Powell with yellow cake.

Israel was not eager for the U.S. to invade Iraq. They didnt like the idea because Iraq was a counter balance to Iran. Saddam kept the mullahs in check.
Click to expand...

No, not really. Actually, the only country that was eager for Saddam's regime being removed before and after the war, was Iran. The Ayatollah at the time actually made big step towards peace by trying to engage the US into peace talks. These were all dismissed and ignored by Bush & Co. because they thought their "New American Century" neo-con objective was more important and they had full intentions of toppling the Iranian regime. Had they engaged the Iranians then, we would not be in this situation now.

Maybe back in 1989 Iraq, what you said was true..but Saddam started getting cozy with radical Islamists a year prior to the US invasion. He even donated money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Israel said Saddam's regime was a threat to Israel and other nations. AIPAC also shared that sentiment (surprise, surprise), that a nuclear armed Iraq was a threat to security (sound familiar?). AIPAC later denied they supported an armed invasion of Iraq.
 
yeah I'll say it. most major media outlets are owned/ran by Jews.

Most of them owned by 7 conglomerates. Google it. Check it out for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

it's not anti-Semitic. Just a fact.
 
Last edited:
Midnyte_Sun said:
American government always lying? Nothing is that absolute. They definitely are not lying about the economy, it's in bad shape. I don't think the FDA is lying when they put out a new regulations to protect consumers.

As for foreign intervention? War Crimes? Yeah, they do that a lot. The Afghan war is not on the news daily. We don't hear about the civilian deaths (unless it's severe in magnitude), military deaths aren't shown on TV everyday. It covered up war crimes committed by the Northern Alliance during the invasion of Afghanistan.

The one we should be worried about the most is justifying wars with other countries. It was the US government that intentionally lied to us about Saddam Hussein enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons.




Who said Jews run the media? I said Cable TV shows are starved for ratings and will do anything for viewers. After witnessing the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the propaganda spewing forth, I knew that the US Media has lost almost all credibility. Cable TV and also network TV, are complacent to every invasion. I even believed that Saddam had nuclear weapons after seeing Colin Powell with yellow cake.



No, not really. Actually, the only country that was eager for Saddam's regime being removed before and after the war, was Iran. The Ayatollah at the time actually made big step towards peace by trying to engage the US into peace talks. These were all dismissed and ignored by Bush & Co. because they thought their "New American Century" neo-con objective was more important and they had full intentions of toppling the Iranian regime. Had they engaged the Iranians then, we would not be in this situation now.

Maybe back in 1989 Iraq, what you said was true..but Saddam started getting cozy with radical Islamists a year prior to the US invasion. He even donated money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Israel said Saddam's regime was a threat to Israel and other nations. AIPAC also shared that sentiment (surprise, surprise), that a nuclear armed Iraq was a threat to security (sound familiar?). AIPAC later denied they supported an armed invasion of Iraq.
Click to expand...

Let me get back to you.

EDIT:
I just got done watching Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN. He had Bruce de Mesquita, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Richard Kaas on the show, talking about Iran. While Kaas was definitely taking an anti-Iran position, de Mesquita and Slaughter were undermining the so called media war mongering. De Mesquita suggested finding out a way to determine if Iran's nuclear program is peaceful or not by the US and Europe supplying Iran with civilian energy at the same cost as what they are spending on the nuclear program. If the Iranians continue to work on the nuke program, its suspicious. Slaughter said that a war with Iran would be very unpopular with the American people as they are tired of war.

As for Jews controlling the media, perhaps I read too much into what you said but when you say Tel Aviv control American policy, the media is a corporate organization that wants war and Israel profits from an Iran War, you can see how I would be suspicious.
 
Last edited:
Hobgoblin,

I can see where you'd get confused because for some reason, I kept using the word 'profit' when I meant 'benefit,' (In regards to Israel benefiting from a US/NATO war with Iran), apologies.

As for Tel Aviv controlling American policy, I meant specifically foreign policy in the Middle East. Not regarding any other policies, such as energy, humanitarian, etc.

The war mongering those CNN pundits were talking about is still in full swing. On American news we heard about how the US and Europe have enacted an oil embargo, and how Swift cut off Iranian banks from doing business. What they haven't told is that many European countries dependent on Iranian oil are now requested to have the restrictions lifted so that their gas prices don't spike. The three countries in particular that are in trouble are Greece, Italy, and Spain.

On top of that, Iran is planning to do more business with Turkey, India, China, and Russia. The sanctions seem like they will fail. The US and IAEA needs to get back to the negotiating table and find ways , like the CNN pundit said, to allow Iran to get the civilian nuclear energy it needs. They need to get creative. "BOMB IRAN" as Bibi Netanyahu said and calling Iran a 'nuclear duck' is not productive.
 
How long is the crap against Iran going to last? There is no nuclear threat whatsoever, this has been going on for a decade of growing sanctions of tension with nothing new actually happening. The processing of plutonium is for peaceful power plants, but there does exist a potential for it to be if Iran gets scared enough, but so is the case in many countries. It all started when the US invaded Iraq and probably won't end until they leave Afghanistan for good in 2015.
 
The problem I see is that war with Iran carries the very real risk of radicalising an intelligent, educated population. It may well breath new life into the theocratic regime of the Ayatollah and his thugs.

Without war and with subtle encouragement, I genuinely believe that Iran will one day emerge out of the darkness it was plunged into after the Revolution. But attacking them gives the leadership everything they want, a chance to rant, a chance to play the victim, a chance to hide their own atrocities and fascistic policies behind the excesses of Israel.

A big, loud distraction, to divert the attention of an oppressed, brutalised people. That is all war will bring.
 
Surely by going to war with Iran, they're provoking an attack?
 
Have you guys been following the Abu Musa land dispute? England occupied the Persian island in 1908, and when it said it would be leaving (1968), they said they would give a majority of "their" land to the UAE; the issue here is that Abu Musa was never British land to give. Two days before the Brits left (November 30th, 1971), Iran and UAE made an agreement; Dubai could govern the municipal government of the island, but Iran would have Federal control. On the day that this came into effect, the Sheik welcomed the Iranian military with open arms.

After Ahmadinejad made a visit to the island just recently, UAE came out and said it's their land.
 
Asteroid-Man said:
Have you guys been following the Abu Musa land dispute? England occupied the Persian island in 1908, and when it said it would be leaving (1968), they said they would give a majority of "their" land to the UAE; the issue here is that Abu Musa was never British land to give. Two days before the Brits left (November 30th, 1971), Iran and UAE made an agreement; Dubai could govern the municipal government of the island, but Iran would have Federal control. On the day that this came into effect, the Sheik welcomed the Iranian military with open arms.

After Ahmadinejad made a visit to the island just recently, UAE came out and said it's their land.
Click to expand...

Thats kind of a dickish move.
 
And where are they going to get the money?

Doesn't Iran realize if they nuke us and don't take out our military we will launch a nuke back and tturn them into a crater? Even if they just nuke Isreal they will still be nuked or at thw vvery least carpet bombed to dust. I know America hasn't fought wars that well in the past 60 years but if you push us against the wall we still know how to throw down the gauntlet. I just can't believe Iran is that stupid.
 
Last edited:
They're actually not building a nuclear weapons program. Israel is paranoid about the Tehran regime plotting against them because they cannot win a win without their own nuclear weapons so they lobby the US to bully them for them. US oil companies who donate much money to conservative politicians or who are owned by them and given huge advertising dollars to media companies to help scare people into helping them scare up oil prices and their positive public image, are scared of the idea of nuclear energy expanding in a place as petrol rich as the Middle East. They're types have already stopped the building of nuclear power plants and production of green energy in the United States for decades for convincing Americans they're very dangerous and will meltdown, especially now after the earthquake in Japan. If Iran is able to develop a peaceful nuclear power plant to provide their energy needs than any nation in that region will soon follow suit and their willingness to sell oil to the West and give into their demand for economic dependence will diminish over time. Imagine if Iran can build a nuclear power plant that works and does not blow up, why can't Americans? They're scared to death of this possibility.

That would mean greater interest in created green technology for cleaner energy like wind farms, solar paneling, atomic power plants, which leads to vehicles running on naturally grown bio-fuel, hydrogen, electricity in greater numbers and more efficiency as time goes by and less need to depend on coal and gas powered power plants and then millions of cars around the world and homes that burn coal won't use the resources they provide as much as they used to because electricity is made more.
 
Last edited:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/meast/iran-pirates/index.html

(CNN) -- Iranian sailors helped scare off armed pirates who attacked an American cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman, Iranian state media reported Thursday.

Iran detains 13 alleged pirates after clash

It's the latest example of U.S.-Iranian cooperation on pirate-infested high seas despite a wave of tensions between Washington and Tehran over the decades.

EU forces attack pirate targets on Somali shore
Surviving a pirate attack

The incident occurred northeast of Fujairah, a port for refueling oil tankers, the Fars News Agency said. The port, in the United Arab Emirates, is close to the Strait of Hormuz, an important oil shipping lane.

Iranian navy vessels received a distress signal from the U.S. cargo ship Maersk Texas during patrols.

The forces announced their willingness to help. As they closed in on the American cargo ship, the pirates scattered. The U.S. ship crew thanked the Iranian naval force and continued on its way, state media reported.

"We were aware of the incident yesterday," a State Department official said. "The situation was successfully deescalated by the ship's crew and the Iranian crew."

The United States, Iran and other nations have been intent on repelling pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden and other bodies of water.

Pirate attacks down off Somalia, up off Nigeria

American forces assisted or rescued Iranians at sea several times in January.

U.S. sailors aboard a guided-missile destroyer aided the crew of a sinking Iranian fishing vessel in the Arabian Sea. The U.S. Coast Guard rescued six Iranian mariners at the northern end of the Persian Gulf, the Pentagon said. And the destroyer USS Kidd rescued 13 Iranian sailors from a hijacked fishing boat near the Strait of Hormuz.

Tehran has threatened to close the the strait if sanctions are imposed on its exports of crude oil. The West has been using sanctions and diplomacy to try to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
 
I think it's clear to say that because there are no permanent US bases in Iraq and the NATO withdrawal has no plans for any in Afghanistan. A select number of troops will remain there to advise that's all. It's also interesting to explore how different the relationship between the US and Saddam Hussein's Iraq was before the build up to war in 2003. The timeline is quite a bit different than what is going on with Iran.

Iraq was found to be building nuclear weapons during the Gulf War to which weapons inspectors started going in in 1991. The UN set up a safe-zone in northern Iraq to protect Kurds fleeing genocide. Then a no-fly zone was going up in south Iraq so no Iraqi military jets could enter at a certain latitude. Clinton launched a cruise missile to destroy Iraqi intelligence after finding evidence for a state sponsored assassination attempt against George H.W. Bush in 1993. UN sanctions blocked the flow of Iraqi oil until 1995 when it was agreed to sell it for food. Iraqi violated the no-fly zone and then in 1998 the US launched Operation Desert Fox to destroy Iraqi biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs. The UN then resumed weapons inspections in 1998 which Iraq rejected. In 2001 the US and Britain launched airstrikes to destroy Iraqi's air defense network with no international support. The UN then went back to weapons inspecting in 2002. The US-led invasion then came the following year.

Source

There is actually some key differences in the relationship between Iraq and the US compared to today in Iran. The US and Iraqi had already fought a war in which they deemed Hussein to be the aggressor. There had been a heavy UN presence since the end of the Gulf War to stop Iraq's development of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons from being used on civilians, the no-fly zone was put in to prevent future possible Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. Iraq violated both the no-fly zone and ousted the weapons inspectors in the late 90s which started US air strikes in 2001. They tried again with weapons inspectors who found nothing and then decided to start an invasion the next year because Hussein was still in defiance.

This I think goes to show the Neocons and Bush had their paranoid minds stuck in the 1990s instead of trying to focus on Al-Qaeda and they feared more than the fact that Iraq would have gotten ahold of WMDs. It's likely they still though Iraq was rearming itself and preparing to invade another nation again like Kuwait or arm terrorists to attack the US in the wake of their shock from the 9/11 attacks. It also goes to show the Iraq relationship was based on conditions that ended the Gulf War that Saddam violated and were dealt with through US and British air strikes to prevent them from rearming. The difference with Iran is that America has never fought them, the inspections are not conditions of peace terms from a war actionable through force via signed agreements, the US had never backed up their agreements through any force such as cruise missile strikes or air strikes in Iran, nor has anything such as a no-fly zone been enforced into Iran. Iran can not also be pushed around by threats from the US like Iraq was after Saddam was bankrupt after the Gulf War because they are stronger now. All of this makes me think the US is not willing to go to war so easily as it did in Iraq with Iran because much more so this time there would not be a leg to stand on to make the case and the American people in huge majority would not support it.
 
Last edited:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-mum-reported-iran-nukes-warning-203039311.html


The White House refused to comment Thursday on a bombshell Israeli media report that President Barack Obama recently received an updated intelligence assessment that Iran has made surprising strides towards being able to build a nuclear weapon.

The Haaretz newspaper reported that Obama had received a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)—the consensus assessment of the American intelligence community—that "Iran has made surprising, notable progress in the research and development of key components of its military nuclear program." The daily cited unnamed "Western diplomats and Israeli officials."

Asked about the report, White House press secretary Jay Carney replied: "I don't comment on intelligence matters or intelligence reports the president may or may not have received."

"I can tell you that the president remains committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon," he said aboard Air Force One as Obama campaigned in the swing state of Colorado.

"We are leading an international effort to impose upon Iran what even the Iranian president has identified as the most stringent sanctions ever imposed on any country," Carney said. "And that effort is designed of what we believe remains to be a window of opportunity to persuade Iran through these sanctions and through diplomatic efforts to forgo its nuclear weapons ambitions and live to its international obligations." He added that "hardly a week goes by" without the economic vise tightening further.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israeli Radio that there was "apparently a report by American intelligence agencies" that was "making the rounds of high offices" and has heightened American worries about Iran's nuclear program.

"As far as we know, it comes very close to our own estimate, I would say, as opposed to earlier American estimates. It transforms the Iranian situation to an even more urgent one, and it is even less likely that we will know every development in time on the Iranian nuclear program," Barak said, according to a CBS report on the interview.

Israel, widely thought to be an undeclared nuclear power, has warned it cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and reserves the right to use military force to prevent that outcome. Obama has repeatedly said America shares Israel's concerns but has pleaded for time to let the sanctions and diplomatic efforts work. Iran has steadfastly denied that it seeks the bomb, but reports from the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency have cast doubt on those claims.

If the Haaretz report is correct, the new NIE would be yet another shift in American intelligence agencies' assessment of just what Tehran is doing. A 2007 NIE said Iran had halted its military nuclear program in 2003 and that there was no clear evidence that those efforts had resumed. Some American officials speculate that Iran wants the ability to build a nuclear weapon, not necessarily to actually acquire an atomic arsenal.

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney has accused Obama of being soft on Israel, but has not suggested any major break with his policies if elected. And Republicans have loudly complained about national security disclosures regarding an unprecedented cyberwar effort by the Obama administration to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
The Iran Thread
138 139 140
Replies
3K
Views
176K
Thread Manager
T
Antonello Blueberry
The letter
Replies
1
Views
1K
Antonello Blueberry
Antonello Blueberry

Staff online

Members online

Total: 3,484 (members: 23, guests: 3,461)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,273
Messages
22,078,152
Members
45,878
Latest member
Remembrance1988

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"