Is attack on Iran imminent?

MobBoss said:
Since when was the UN good at anything?

UN isn't monolithic. Some of its agencies are better than the others. Generally, UN can do only what it's members states allow it to do. Which is not much.
 
EDIT: oops, too many mistakes in this post. nm
 
I've stopped hoping that the US doesn't attack Iran, now I'm just hoping that the US doesn't use nuclear bombs (of ANY size) on Iran.

I try to stay realistic... :sad:
 
Xenocrates said:
America/Britain hasn't historically been good at policing the World. Our methods actually caused more harm in the long run. Smashing things up is so much easier.

Until the UN gets serious with it's gangsta members, the US and Britain, it won't have the credibility that it needs to deal with a country such as Iran.

The fact that the UN's head office in is NY doesn't mean that the USA and UN are synonymous, that's only true in Civ.

I feel a flippant and irrational comment coming my way very soon.


Only in a world turned upside down are the UK and USA referred to as the "gansta members" of a group that includes France, PR. China, and Russia.
 
IglooDude said:
I've stopped hoping that the US doesn't attack Iran, now I'm just hoping that the US doesn't use nuclear bombs (of ANY size) on Iran.

I try to stay realistic... :sad:

Same here! To think this is what we have come to! :(

The road to perdition....
 
John HSOG said:
Only in a world turned upside down are the UK and USA referred to as the "gansta members" of a group that includes France, PR. China, and Russia.

France the thug... :rolleyes:
 
John HSOG said:
Only in a world turned upside down are the UK and USA referred to as the "gansta members" of a group that includes France, PR. China, and Russia.

Well from their point of view the US and UK are gangsta.
 
IglooDude said:
I've stopped hoping that the US doesn't attack Iran, now I'm just hoping that the US doesn't use nuclear bombs (of ANY size) on Iran.

I try to stay realistic...

betazed said:
Same here! To think this is what we have come to!

The road to perdition....
:sad:

Do you think that Bush could be declaired insane if he tried this?:crazyeye:
 
I remember a line in a news article that I think describes the consequences well. It goes something like, America thinks that surgical airstrikes will be a quick, easy war and it will be over and done with. However to Iran, the airstrikes will only be the *declaration* of a long drawn-out war. You need both sides to say that a war is over...It's like in Civ. You may start a war with a neighbouring civ with plans to do a quick surgical strike and then sue for peace. But said victim may not necessarily *agree* to sue for peace. And then the 3 day war where the casulties are supposed to be zero suddenly becomes a 3 month war forcing a US invasion and 10 years of brutal guerilla warfare on a scale far higher than seen in Iraq and civil revolt against the invaders and dragging in every other country in the Middle East, destroying your reputation, wearing down your military capability and bankrupting you. Remember how much bigger Iran is than Iraq in both the size of population and the size of the land? How much more united and nationalistic and homogeneous it is? Remember how the much is US depends on what stability it can get in Iraq on the Shi'ite population who have very strong ties with Iran. For example al-Sistani is Iranian. I can definitely see him declaring a jihad against the American troops in Iraq if America attacks Iran. Can America handle fighting the Iraqi Sunnis, the Iraqi Shiites and the Iranians at the same time? It probably can but both military and civilian casulties will skyrocket. British forces in Iraq will be wiped out though (well that's what you get for being a lapdog). And America can expect no help from any allies. It's on its own. I always thought that one of the reasons why Bush chose Iraq instead of Iran for the first strike was because was the far easier option of the two.

And let's not forget other Iranian allies in the region. The Hizbollah in Lebanon, the Shi'ites who form the majority in many of the oil-rich regions in Saudi Arabia. Also if it does come to war and the Iranians can't export any oil anyway, why not just block the Strait of Hormuz through which all oil that has to be exported must be well moved? It is so narrow that Iran can block the Strait by sinking one oil supertanker.

Another thing is that all this talk about using ethnic minorities and anti-regime dissidents in Iran as spies: does anyone think that there will soon be a government crackdown on the ethnic minorities and anyone against the regime in general in Iran? They can squash any internal dissent by saying, "Hey look what everyone is saying. They are helping the Americans to attack us with nukes. They are traitors. We must deal with them for the sake of national security. If they are going to help Bush attack us then they must deal with the consequences."

BTW is anyone worried that the same neo-cons who were the driving force behind the Iraq invasion are now the same people most openly talking about striking Iran and are saying it will be a piece of cake (remember that stuff about people in Iraq welcoming the US as liberators? Flowers in the street?)?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD12Ak03.html

Richard Perle: "The attack would be over before anybody knew what had happened," said Perle, who told the AIPAC conference last month that a dozen B-2 bombers could handle the problem overnight.

Michael Rubin: "the administration is deadly serious ... and while everyone recognizes the problems of any military action, there is a real belief that the consequences of Iran going nuclear would be worse."

While I and everyone else thinks that the move is insane, apparently some experts do think that the US is serious:

"For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran," wrote Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear-proliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace last week.

"In the last few weeks, I have changed my view," he said. "In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran."

Wayne White, the State Department's top Middle East analyst until 2005, told The Forward, "In recent months, I have grown increasingly concerned that the administration has been giving thought to a heavy dose of air strikes against Iran's nuclear sector without giving enough weight to the possible ramification of such action."

Now you know, and I know and practically everyone in the whole world knows that a military strike against Iran would be insane, but do the American neo-cons and President Bush know? Now that is an open question. In touch with reality is not exactly how I would describe them.

Two questions:

1. Where the hell is Congress in this? Bush may be insane and the neo-cons may be insane but you know America has more than one branch of government. Is Congress insane as well?
2. How far is Blair's Bush's lapdog?
 
Uiler said:
I remember a line in a news article that I think describes the consequences well. It goes something like, America thinks that surgical airstrikes will be a quick, easy war and it will be over and done with. However to Iran, the airstrikes will only be the *declaration* of a long drawn-out war. You need both sides to say that a war is over...It's like in Civ. You may start a war with a neighbouring civ with plans to do a quick surgical strike and then sue for peace. But said victim may not necessarily *agree* to sue for peace. And then the 3 day war where the casulties are supposed to be zero suddenly becomes a 3 month war forcing a US invasion and 10 years of brutal guerilla warfare on a scale far higher than seen in Iraq and civil revolt against the invaders and dragging in every other country in the Middle East, destroying your reputation, wearing down your military capability and bankrupting you. Remember how much bigger Iran is than Iraq in both the size of population and the size of the land? How much more united and nationalistic and homogeneous it is? Remember how the much is US depends on what stability it can get in Iraq on the Shi'ite population who have very strong ties with Iran. For example al-Sistani is Iranian. I can definitely see him declaring a jihad against the American troops in Iraq if America attacks Iran. Can America handle fighting the Iraqi Sunnis, the Iraqi Shiites and the Iranians at the same time? It probably can but both military and civilian casulties will skyrocket. British forces in Iraq will be wiped out though (well that's what you get for being a lapdog). And America can expect no help from any allies. It's on its own. I always thought that one of the reasons why Bush chose Iraq instead of Iran for the first strike was because was the far easier option of the two.

And let's not forget other Iranian allies in the region. The Hizbollah in Lebanon, the Shi'ites who form the majority in many of the oil-rich regions in Saudi Arabia. Also if it does come to war and the Iranians can't export any oil anyway, why not just block the Strait of Hormuz through which all oil that has to be exported must be well moved? It is so narrow that Iran can block the Strait by sinking one oil supertanker.

Another thing is that all this talk about using ethnic minorities and anti-regime dissidents in Iran as spies: does anyone think that there will soon be a government crackdown on the ethnic minorities and anyone against the regime in general in Iran? They can squash any internal dissent by saying, "Hey look what everyone is saying. They are helping the Americans to attack us with nukes. They are traitors. We must deal with them for the sake of national security. If they are going to help Bush attack us then they must deal with the consequences."

BTW is anyone worried that the same neo-cons who were the driving force behind the Iraq invasion are now the same people most openly talking about striking Iran and are saying it will be a piece of cake (remember that stuff about people in Iraq welcoming the US as liberators? Flowers in the street?)?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD12Ak03.html

Richard Perle: "The attack would be over before anybody knew what had happened," said Perle, who told the AIPAC conference last month that a dozen B-2 bombers could handle the problem overnight.

Michael Rubin: "the administration is deadly serious ... and while everyone recognizes the problems of any military action, there is a real belief that the consequences of Iran going nuclear would be worse."

While I and everyone else thinks that the move is insane, apparently some experts do think that the US is serious:



Now you know, and I know and practically everyone in the whole world knows that a military strike against Iran would be insane, but do the American neo-cons and President Bush know? Now that is an open question. In touch with reality is not exactly how I would describe them.

Two questions:

1. Where the hell is Congress in this? Bush may be insane and the neo-cons may be insane but you know America has more than one branch of government. Is Congress insane as well?
2. How far is Blair's Bush's lapdog?

Well said :goodjob:

I doubt Blair will back up Bush on this. He isn't that stupid, it would most certainly mean a lost elections for the Labour.
 
Neomega said:
France the thug... :rolleyes:


Nobody ever looks at the record of France. Why is that? Are they just better at covering up their own history?
 
Things really changed after WW II, but I think out of that list, France has been the least "thuggish" and is certainly no more a worldwide thug, since Vietnam.
 
Neomega said:
Things really changed after WW II, but I think out of that list, France has been the least "thuggish" and is certainly no more a worldwide thug, since Vietnam.
Nah, that's since Algeria in the 60's.
 
Neomega said:
Things really changed after WW II, but I think out of that list, France has been the least "thuggish" and is certainly no more a worldwide thug, since Vietnam.

Thats because their army cant fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
 
MobBoss said:
Thats because their army cant fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
Do Americans actually believe stuff like that?
 
Verbose said:
Do Americans actually believe stuff like that?

NO just the pissed Bush lovers, because France didn't like their war.

Seems the ungratefuls forget Lafayette and Degrasse.
 
Neomega said:
NO just the pissed Bush lovers, because France didn't like their war.

Seems the ungratefuls forget Lafayette and Degrasse.

Nobody likes a war when they stand to lose money from it.
 
???

I cannot imagine a war (nowadays) that would make money - especially compared to the option of continued trade and employing soldiers in the actual workforce.
 
Neomega said:
NO just the pissed Bush lovers, because France didn't like their war.

Seems the ungratefuls forget Lafayette and Degrasse.

Its been a very long time since France HAD a Lafayette or Degrasse.

French ungratefuls seem to have forgotten WWII very quickly as well.

And a lot more people than the "pissed Bush lovers" believe that.
 
Top Bottom