Khatami promises ”hell” to any aggressor

[klopolov]

No government on the planet cares if Iran closes the nozzle "in order to protect itself". Nations care about their own interests,

That's why it would be in their interests to turn against US. Most countries in the world realize that there are other means of solving a problem besides invasion. They will pursue those other means to fulfilling their interests, but they will not go to war with Iran if that can be avoided. Since that can be easily avoided by putting political pressure on the US, I would bet that they will do that first.

 

[Vovin]

Do you think that war is a lot funny no? "Kick their Asses" sounds very interesting, principally if you wacth it by BBC.

My wish is that US finds a true hell in Iran.

 

[BasketCase]

Since that can be easily avoided by putting political pressure on the US, I would bet that they will do that first.

Iraq War#2 has demonstrated very clearly that political pressure is totally useless against the U.S. Other nations will NOT take this route; they will go straight after whoever is blowing up their oil tankers.

In the (unlikely) event of an actual war between the U.S. and Iran, the bloodbath so many of you seem to be hoping for isn't going to happen. Religion has two opposing forces tugging on those who practice it: it reduces one's fear of death, but on the other hand religion also gives one the strength to survive under adverse conditions without complaining. There will be a hardcore group of Iranians who will fight very bravely, and die very quickly--but most Iranians will keep their heads down and simply go on with their day-to-day lives. That's what has happened in the majority of wars involving attacks on religious groups for all of history.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

It is no surprise that Iran started developing WMD. During the Iran/Iraq war Iraq used chemical weapons to great success to stop Iranian infantry attacks. Otherwise, Iraq would have lost. Gee, when your biggest enemy uses WMD against you it makes sense you might want to develop your own. Additionally, were it not for Gulf War I, Iraq would have likely developed nuclear weapons long ago, which is another reason Iran wanted them in the first place.

I think a war between Iran and the US is unlikely. Better to encourage internal change in this case as there is significant internal dissent. Of course, a strike like Israel did on Iraq to destroy their nuclear program is not out of the realm of possibility, but still not a good idea, unless Israel does it. I don't think either is unlikely as long as the Israeli-Palistinian talks are going well. I suspect Iran will have its own gov't change in the next 10 years.

 

[klopolov]

Iraq war #2 did not demonstrate almost any political pressure on the US. Since Bush administration kept insisting that Iraq had WMDs, the world stood by and watched. That will not be the case with Iran though, especially since the world had already seen how trustworthy American claims of WMDs really are...

Maybe I missed something, but I was rather under the impression that we were disscussing Iran cutting off the supply of oil to a number of countries, not blowing up their tankers... If that's the case, then I fail to see how your tanker example is relevant to my statement. If I did miss something, could someone please enlighten me on why would Iran blow up other countries' tankers?

And you really gotta to be kidding on your last point! Most Iranians will do what a rather small group of Iraqis are doing right now and the US death toll will rise very very rapidly if they do invade. If they don't invade, but rather just bomb the place, I don't see what would stop Iran from shutting off the oil supply to the aforementioned number of countries and have them put the political pressure (of which USA had not seen much during the Iraq war) on US...

 

[BasketCase]

Iraq war #2 did not demonstrate almost any political pressure on the US.

Then you weren't reading the papers. Even before doubts were cast on the WMD claim, the outcry against invading Iraq was gigantic. The outcry against invading Iraq the first time was also gigantic--but somehow that seems to have been forgotten. Last week's news.

However, the protests were entirely verbal--no sanctions or punitive airstrikes or anything else.

Maybe I missed something, but I was rather under the impression that we were disscussing Iran cutting off the supply of oil to a number of countries

You missed two things.

Number one, that Iran's contribution to the world's oil supply is insignificant compared to the whole (the ENTIRE Middle East provides something like 15 to 20 percent of the world's oil). This means that Iran would have to close the Hormuz to EVERYBODY trying to supply oil to the rest of the world. This will cause most other Arab nations to go to war against Iran instantly.

Number two, when faced between having to attack Iran to get their oil back and having to attack the United States to get their oil back--which do you think the world's governments would choose?? Fighting the U.S. on either the economic or military battlefield is suicide. The U.S. economy is intricately tied to everybody else's economy; we could do other nations a lot more economic damage than Iran could ever do--and we have our own oil fields to drill, too. Just that we're not drilling them at the moment.

And you really gotta to be kidding on your last point! Most Iranians will do what a rather small group of Iraqis are doing right now and the US death toll will rise very very rapidly if they do invade.

No, they won't. History bears this out. From Roman times to the present, religious zealots who fought to the death against a superior force gained one thing: a free trip to heaven. The only exceptions I know of are cases where religious zealots were defeated in battle by OTHER religious zealots.....

 

[Alvaro da Luna]

No, they won't. History bears this out. From Roman times to the present, religious zealots who fought to the death against a superior force gained one thing: a free trip to heaven. The only exceptions I know of are cases where religious zealots were defeated in battle by OTHER religious zealots.....

Then you clearly don't know much history. If you want some historical insight into that, read up on the rapid muslim conquest of much of Asia/North Africa/Iberia. By the way, religious zealoutry isn't necessarily the force that achieves victory. It's often superior numbers or technology. Fundamentalism however affects the morale and resilience of an army, and is greatly contributive to victory, not wholly contributive, but tends to affect the tide of battle anyway. What I am arguing for in the case of Iran is a religious fundamentalism tied to a huge population (or at least a population with extreme prejudices against an occupying America capabale of expressing with religeosity its intent of resistance), quite capable of forming an organized rebellion, with historical adroitness at so doing.

I suppose if you like, you can think of the way your country may react if it were conquered by a superior army. Would people, your peaople, just knuckle under and obey. Americans are too proud and nationalistic for that. Why should anyone else be any different.

 

[BasketCase]

By the way, religious zealoutry isn't necessarily the force that achieves victory. It's often superior numbers or technology.

Uhhhh....that's pretty much the same thing I said. Just with "often" instead of "always" tagged on it.

I suppose if you like, you can think of the way your country may react if it were conquered by a superior army. Would people, your peaople, just knuckle under and obey. Americans are too proud and nationalistic for that. Why should anyone else be any different.

Because there are lots of wars throughout history where proud and nationalistic peoples DID knuckle under after they got whipped on the battlefield. What would Americans do in such a case? I have no idea--and the question will remain hypothetical, because it's not gonna happen in the real world.

 

[Jawz II]

The Native American tribes were devoutly religious. Death in battle was, for them, a pretty darned cool way to go out. They had no fear of death.

We beat them all--without killing them all. Religious civilizations have been beaten into submission again and again throughout recorded history.

actually you did kill them all

or you wouldnt have won, when columbus arrived there was 15-20 million indians in north america, today theres 2 million

nice murdering there, no wonder poor nations dont trust americans and their treaties

Gosh, this thread is full of "we will kick their asses" comments. Pathetics. You would think that such things would stop after primary school, but it seems to continue up to international rhetorics.

The "my daddy's bigger than yours" children should rather read the Uiler's posts, which are much more on the point than the rest of the thread. Iran is actually quote authoritarian, but on the road out, with a population that was massively in favour of the west, and stuffed and tired by years of incompetent religious integrism.
Pressuring them the wrong side will simply throw them back in the arms of the integrists. Great...

one of the problems of discussions in open public forums, the teenage boys with more acne than brain cells have the right to speak too, you can choose to ignore them, thats your right

He will give the invaders hell. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If we invade they will flee before the treads of our tanks or be ground into hamburger. WE will be the ones to give those Ignorant...erm Arrogant Iranians Hell. Also, if they couldn't give it to the Iraqi's in their war against them (I forget how long that war was but it was long) then how on earth do they plan on giving it to us?

As said by Darth Maul in the game Star Wars Episode 1: Battle for Naboo:

"Wipe them out...All of them"

:shakehead.......

 

[BasketCase]

actually you did kill them all
or you wouldnt have won, when columbus arrived there was 15-20 million indians in north america, today theres 2 million

No reply necessary, the two boldfaced parts say it all.

Edit: current census data on Native American population is no longer countable--most of them have interbred with other Americans, hence there are very few "pureblooded" Native Americans left. No murdering there. Just a whole lot of sex....

 

[Jawz II]

No reply necessary, the two boldfaced parts say it all.

Edit: current census data on Native American population is no longer countable--most of them have interbred with other Americans, hence there are very few "pureblooded" Native Americans left. No murdering there. Just a whole lot of sex....

sure they are countable, thats what the Bureau of indian affairs is for

i mean sure, you left a few women and children alive back then, its next to impossible to find and kill every single one, specially when theyre out in the wilderness

but trust me, 20 mil to 2 (and its 2 mil now, after what? 50-100 years of peace) isnt all interbreeding, plus im pretty sure those 2 milions also includes half breeds, etc

maybe you have read about the "trail of tears"?

or many occasions where us soldiers massacred indians?

genocide is what that was my friend

(this is the part where you argue that none of it was your fault and i counter by telling you that the indians are still being screwed, stuck on infertile worthless land that whiteman left them with then and so on , but whatever you do, dont do the "well they wouldve done it to us, if they couldve", please!)

 

[IglooDame]

No government on the planet cares if Iran closes the nozzle "in order to protect itself". Nations care about their own interests, and the first time a French oil tanker gets hijacked by Iranian guerillas or sunk by a underwater mine, the French will go on the warpath. (The French are just an example here--the Japanese, the Chinese, the Germans, even other Arabs would do the same thing)

http://countrystudies.us/iraq/105.htm

I don't see any country having gone on the warpath against either Iran or Iraq during the Tanker War in the 1980s.

 

[Jawz II]

well america did, they blew up 1 iranian destroyer, one iranian oil platform (+civilian personnel onboard), what else?

oh yeah, just remembered, one civilian airliner (full of civilians!)

 

[IglooDame]

well america did, they blew up 1 iranian destroyer, one iranian oil platform (+civilian personnel onboard), what else?

oh yeah, just remembered, one civilian airliner (full of civilians!)

Which actually tends answer the question above, "Which countries, exactly, do you figure could meaningfully help [the US in] attacking Iran?"

 

[Jawz II]

Which actually tends answer the question above, "Which countries, exactly, do you figure could meaningfully help [the US in] attacking Iran?"

sure, someone said israel, but i dont think theyll get involved, for various reasons

that leaves america with no allies, not that it will make a huge diffrence, militarily

 

[IglooDame]

sure, someone said israel, but i dont think theyll get involved, for various reasons

that leaves america with no allies, not that it will make such a huge diffrence, militarily

You and I might be busily arguing our agreement here. I have stated that I think should the US attack Iran, Iran would (and can) harm world oil exports (namely Saudi and the Gulf States) through the Strait of Hormuz sufficiently to hammer the entire world's economy. Others said no way, the world would force Iran to back off or they'd all dog-pile Iran. TLC and I asked who else could meaningfully contribute?

Russia is the only one that could make a significant difference (less so now that they have to go through/over independent 'Stans to get there) but I suspect that they'd hold off because of their own oil reserves and because they don't want to fan pro-Chechen flames any worse than they already have.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

"Khatami promises hell"

What do you expect? "Khatami promises all-you-can-eat buffet to any aggressors"?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Its funny to see people getting all wired up over something thats not even going to happen.

 

[Aleph-Null]

Deja Vu all over again! I feel like Im reliving the last two years. The only difference is that Iran ends with an 'N' and not a 'Q'. Both sides are making the same sort of statements and sword rattling prior to the outbreak of war. Its all so similar to the runup to the Iraq war, I almost feel like a time traveller from the future, who knows everything thats about to happen, but Im the only one and nobody will listen to me

Thats the exact feeling I had in the run-up to the second Iraq War. Same as the first and same Desert Fox and same as various terrorist groups which the US has defeated over the past few decades.

 

[Vladyc]

@BasketCase

The Native American comparison is terrible. If it is necessary to kill 90% of religious fanatics in order to get them to surrender, we will have tens of millions of dead Iranians on our hands.

I don't think that Khatami is even claiming that Iran will be able to stop the U.S. from occupying. He is simply saying that once we are there, he and the (largely united) Iranian people will make it a living hell for us to stay there. As many other posters have said, the situation will be the same as Iraq, only multiplied many times over.