Is the United States going to start a war with Iran?
- Thread starter Roosh
- Start date
- Status
alphaspiraton
Woodpecker
Or... Destabilization in the middle east causing a need for more security and thus increasing the sales of american weapons and munitions in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Anyone miss the fact that the U.S. recently sold Iraq fighter jets for over $10 billion (don't quote me)? And the sales of security equipment and maintenance to the Saudis after the beginning of the Afghanistan war. Not to mention there would be trillions more invested into the military.
It might be very beneficial to stimulating the U.S. economy. Oh and oil wells are secured by the U.S. in Iraq so after the beginning of the war there would be no harm done.
Anyone miss the fact that the U.S. recently sold Iraq fighter jets for over $10 billion (don't quote me)? And the sales of security equipment and maintenance to the Saudis after the beginning of the Afghanistan war. Not to mention there would be trillions more invested into the military.
It might be very beneficial to stimulating the U.S. economy. Oh and oil wells are secured by the U.S. in Iraq so after the beginning of the war there would be no harm done.
kerouac
Ostrich
Samseau said:
All you need to know is that most nation's avoid conflict as much as they can, and Iran, historically, is not one to begin unnecessary wars, and I doubt they will block the Strait of Hormuz unless something really bad happens against them.
So no, I don't think there will be a war unless something really big happens. And trust me, all nations are trying to avoid war as much as possible. In the case of American foreign policy, now that the neo-cons are out of power, war with Iran is a worst-case scenario.
Also, you have to realize threats are a political tool in international relations.
kerouac
Ostrich
mofo said:
The scenario being played out is a destabilization of Middle Eastern oil delivery to Europe, which would have a big effect on the European, American, and even Asian economies since they all rely on some good level on European trade. That's part of the economic equation.
Then there is the war situation where Iran is threatening to attack Israel, through various channels, as well as attacking oil pipelines around the region.
It could also possibly cause greater destabilization in countries like Iraq that have Shia majorities which might side with their Shia friends in Iran.
It could also bring in Russian threats, because Russia feels threatened as well that their borders are being taken over by NATO influence.
The list goes on and on.
It would virtually be the end of USA hegemony. Some people may say that is a good thing but a gradual decline is more favorable then a roaring plunge into the abyss. It goes against USA interest to attack or have war with Iran right now. Obama beta-in-chief, if he does indeed succumb to internal hardliners and the Israel lobby it would mean that the USA is essentially a puppet state. But as I also stated before for economic reasons this may actually mean that the EU is also on the brink, the rumors are Greek will "formally" default by March, which would thus sink the Euro along with it. IF this is indeed the case the USA may be positioning its self to egg on Iran which could lead to a events in these orders:
But like I said this could easily just be a front for the USA to just acquire all it needs. For posters who don't understand why a spike in oil prices would be good for the USA take into account that Oil is traded almost exclusively in USD$. If any country wishes to acquire oil they need to acquire USD$ cash a spike in prices means demands for USD also increases which essentially puts more money into circulation for the FED and Treasury to play with. This would be an artificial prop to the USD% which would ease pressures from a EU plunge. It would suck for everyday citizens whom would see prices rise, but for investors in Oil or for the USA Govt it would mean a flush of cheap money in their hands.
Current talk is easily a bluff for events that are going way beyond the Persian Gulf, Specifically with Davos going on the the ongoing EU crisis.
The USA WANTS to see the EU crash and burn, it would mean the $USD would be the sole, uncontested Global reserve currency and would keep the money printing State side continuing. USA policy is literally to keep the music of musical chairs going even though there are no seats left, everybody is blindfolded though and nobody seems to notice the chair is missing.
For people whom are still confused to how 200$ a barrel is good for the USA read this (when I refer to the USA I do not mean everyday citizens, they don;t care about everyday citizens, if they did they would not be so careless to plunge a nation into another war when it is not ideal for the good of the nation, they - Govt+ Corporations - do not care if you can't afford bread of fuel to get to work):
The USA could easily just be trying to escalate on others moves. Iran is about to impose an oil Embargo on the EU, for Iran the damage is minimal as buyers can be sought elsewhere but the EU it would cause a crunch for many nations (Italy and Greece are two examples) as they would have to scramble to find other sources. Couple this with current economic stresses and you can start to see why the USA is not trying to escalate.
The USA is too thinned out military and it is not politically favorable for Obama to plunge himself into Iran at this moment. The USA would rather push through to Tehran via Syria. Current movements is my guess of the USA moving on other fronts aside from full on war with Iran.
There is talk of Israel sinking an older carrier the USS Ponce is currently on route to the Persian Gulf. This could happen now or closer to October when the large War Games with Israel and the USA is rescheduled from easily cancellation which was like 2 weeks ago.
This was a miss-translation. Ahmadinejad never asked for Israel to be "wiped off the map", he stated that regime change was needed from the holders of Jerusalem. This is the main talking point of hard lined right winged Israelis and the American Political stooges, but there are a million sources online that give a proper translation of the speech which proves their claims false.
...
And @Wizard I will respond to your post at another time. All I can say is that Military Strategy is drawn up years in advance. Simple Policy measures take a year or two to implement how can somebody be so foolish to think war just "happens". The USA has had plans for Iran since as far-back as 03'. I will post the Policy papers at another time.
But like I said this could easily just be a front for the USA to just acquire all it needs. For posters who don't understand why a spike in oil prices would be good for the USA take into account that Oil is traded almost exclusively in USD$. If any country wishes to acquire oil they need to acquire USD$ cash a spike in prices means demands for USD also increases which essentially puts more money into circulation for the FED and Treasury to play with. This would be an artificial prop to the USD% which would ease pressures from a EU plunge. It would suck for everyday citizens whom would see prices rise, but for investors in Oil or for the USA Govt it would mean a flush of cheap money in their hands.
Current talk is easily a bluff for events that are going way beyond the Persian Gulf, Specifically with Davos going on the the ongoing EU crisis.
The USA WANTS to see the EU crash and burn, it would mean the $USD would be the sole, uncontested Global reserve currency and would keep the money printing State side continuing. USA policy is literally to keep the music of musical chairs going even though there are no seats left, everybody is blindfolded though and nobody seems to notice the chair is missing.
For people whom are still confused to how 200$ a barrel is good for the USA read this (when I refer to the USA I do not mean everyday citizens, they don;t care about everyday citizens, if they did they would not be so careless to plunge a nation into another war when it is not ideal for the good of the nation, they - Govt+ Corporations - do not care if you can't afford bread of fuel to get to work):
The USA could easily just be trying to escalate on others moves. Iran is about to impose an oil Embargo on the EU, for Iran the damage is minimal as buyers can be sought elsewhere but the EU it would cause a crunch for many nations (Italy and Greece are two examples) as they would have to scramble to find other sources. Couple this with current economic stresses and you can start to see why the USA is not trying to escalate.
The USA is too thinned out military and it is not politically favorable for Obama to plunge himself into Iran at this moment. The USA would rather push through to Tehran via Syria. Current movements is my guess of the USA moving on other fronts aside from full on war with Iran.
There is talk of Israel sinking an older carrier the USS Ponce is currently on route to the Persian Gulf. This could happen now or closer to October when the large War Games with Israel and the USA is rescheduled from easily cancellation which was like 2 weeks ago.
Brian said:
This was a miss-translation. Ahmadinejad never asked for Israel to be "wiped off the map", he stated that regime change was needed from the holders of Jerusalem. This is the main talking point of hard lined right winged Israelis and the American Political stooges, but there are a million sources online that give a proper translation of the speech which proves their claims false.
...
And @Wizard I will respond to your post at another time. All I can say is that Military Strategy is drawn up years in advance. Simple Policy measures take a year or two to implement how can somebody be so foolish to think war just "happens". The USA has had plans for Iran since as far-back as 03'. I will post the Policy papers at another time.
Im shocked that with all the economic problems the US currently has, the invasion of Iran is looking more likely by the day. And whats worse is that Obama seems trigger happy (he is meant to be the hippy) while the mainstream media is pushing Romney, Newt and Santorum who are all quite happy to send more kids to their death.
As an ally, we have Aussies in Afghanistan and Iraq. We sent them to Vietnam and Korea and we are probably going to be sending them to Iran now too. And for what? For Israel? They have over 300 nuclear weapons and could turn Iran into a distant memory overnight if they had to.
Im sick of it.
Do people actually buy into this crap still? Even IF Iran is developing weapons, its almost impossible to blame them. Since the 50's, western intervention has seen despots, revolution, wars against neighbours and now the potential threat of even more war. How else are they going to defend themselves against what has been over 60 years of non stop aggression and intervention? Just leave them alone man.
All this propaganda they are building up to prepare the public for war has become so obvious that you need to be mentally handicapped to actually believe its all genuine.
As an ally, we have Aussies in Afghanistan and Iraq. We sent them to Vietnam and Korea and we are probably going to be sending them to Iran now too. And for what? For Israel? They have over 300 nuclear weapons and could turn Iran into a distant memory overnight if they had to.
Im sick of it.
Do people actually buy into this crap still? Even IF Iran is developing weapons, its almost impossible to blame them. Since the 50's, western intervention has seen despots, revolution, wars against neighbours and now the potential threat of even more war. How else are they going to defend themselves against what has been over 60 years of non stop aggression and intervention? Just leave them alone man.
All this propaganda they are building up to prepare the public for war has become so obvious that you need to be mentally handicapped to actually believe its all genuine.
Hooligan Harry said:
I hoped that with a missile shield, for the US and Israel, Iranian nukes would be a non-issue.
On the other hand, I'm shocked at how many intelligent guys in here think there is a moral equivalence between the US and dicatatorships. Mind-boggling ignorance or naivety.
ElJefe said:
Western intervention in the 50's led to one of the most oppressive regimes of the time in Iran. It lead to violent revolution where an anti western regime inevitably took its place. Then the west throws money at Iraq essentially funding the war efforts of their enemy they are at war with. Once they manage to find some sort of peace, the west then invades Iraq after arming them in the first place, destabilising the entire region while it begins to amp up aggression in an effort to provide some "solidarity behind Israel"
Im no fan of Iran, I dont want to see any country arm themselves and I dont think these guys are angels by any stretch. They are fundamentalist nutcases. I believe they have funded terrorist organisations myself and they have oppressed their own people. Look at what a farce the last election was.
But I still do not support the idea of yet another war. Its not an ideological war, its an economic one, and that is the worst reason to be fighting. Its being put forward as an ideological war and one required to stop them from developing WMD's and blowing up the middle east and its nothing more than a front. As if the Iranians are going to start a nuclear war that would see them literally obliterated. They are surrounded by nuclear powers. India, Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel and Europe.
This is about money, nothing else. Not even oil, its over currency. Gaddafi was pushing the African Union away from fiat currencies. He wanted Africa to move towards a gold standard and move away from trading oil in dollars. This is why there was intervention.
Iran has been threatening to do the same thing. If they get nuclear weapons, they will no longer trade oil in dollars, they will move to another currency or back to gold. With WMD's, they cant be fucked with like they can now. This is not about Israel or national security, its about ensuring that Iran and OPEC dont move away from the dollar. Its why the Arab nations themselves are split.
It is US foreign policy which has created the present problem with Iran, ever since 1953 (as previously stated on this thread).
I'm copy-pasting this article from World Politics Review, think it has a quite a few good points. Hopefully, the US, Iran and Israel will all realise that they would all loose if they attacked each other. It really is Ahmadinejads rhetoric (and its similarities with Hitlers') that has put the West on alert but if its true that it was just an incorrect translation then hopefully someone with an influential position will point out that.
As for the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, why couldn't the US simply drop the bombs on uninhabited Japanese territory or at least their military bases instead of dropping them over civilians?
The New Rules: How to Stop Worrying and Live with the Iranian Bomb
By Thomas P.M. Barnett | 14 Nov 2011
Column
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest report on Iran’s nuclear program surprised no one, even as it created the usual flurry of op-eds championing preventative “next steps.” As I’ve been saying for the past half-decade, there are none. Once the U.S. went into both Iraq and Afghanistan, the question went from being, “How do we prevent Iran from getting the Bomb?” to “How do we handle Iran’s Bomb?” That shift represents neither defeatism nor appeasement. Rather, it reflects a realistic analysis of America’s strategic options. With that in mind, here are 20 reasons why Iran’s successful pursuit of the Bomb is not the system-changing event so many analysts are keen to portray.
1. Iran’s efforts are not irrational. America invaded Iran’s western and eastern neighbors in quick succession, while putting Iran on notice that it, too, was on the list of George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil.” Decades of history tell Tehran: Get the Bomb, and the U.S. will never invade. Iran’s logic here is unassailable.
2. The world’s rising powers are not on board with the West. Brazil and Turkey made their diplomatic play last spring, and the West vilified them in response. Russia has already dismissed more sanctions as a clear “instrument of regime change.” China and India, along with Russia, have their own energy interests in Iran. In sum, Tehran’s workaround options are considerable.
3. More Western sanctions will have no impact. See above. Also, though the economic costs to date have been substantial, Tehran is willing to endure any amount of economic pain to ensure regime survival. The Arab Spring and the dangers it poses to the mullahs’ rule only sharpen this instinct.
4. Iran will not accept any deal that doesn’t include maintaining at least the pathway to the Bomb. The Bomb not only ensures regime survival, it is Tehran’s ticket to the great powers’ club. Without it, Iran is simply a failed revolution, a moribund economy and a sullen, checked-out society. With it, Iran is a focus of global attention and remains in the race for regional leadership.
5. Iran’s Bomb will offer the regime no significant new regional influence. Iran is already losing the Arab Spring -- and Iraq -- to Turkey and will likely lose influence to a revived Cairo as well. Iran’s Bomb is a desperate pan-Islamism card vis-à-vis Israel that will only engender a vigorous anti-Shiite response from the Saudis.
6. The strategic balance of power in the region will not dissolve. Iran’s Bomb means closing the door on a U.S. invasion, but nothing else. Iran’s limited proxy wars are neither enhanced nor inhibited by possessing the Bomb, as America will stand by both Israel and the Saudis.
7. America’s regional military presence will not be threatened. The U.S. military has a long and well-established record of serving as a tripwire presence in regional hotspots. That won’t change with Iran’s Bomb. If anything, Tehran’s achievement will reverse America’s growing fixation on building up its military in Asia vis-à-vis China.
8. The terror threat is overblown. Persian Iran isn’t pursuing the Bomb to put it in the hands of extremist Arab nonstate actors. Even Israel is a red herring for the Bomb’s ultimate purposes, which are clearly anti-U.S. and anti-Saudi.
9. The right historical analogy is not late-1930s Europe, but South Asia once both Pakistan and India got their Bomb. Israel is no Czechoslovakia. Rather, it is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and can wipe Iran off the map far more feasibly than vice versa. Yes, the early stages of a mutually assured destruction dyad between Israel and Iran would be scary, but the world has managed this scenario before -- with a perfect record to date.
10. The MAD situation between Israel and Iran is manageable. Israel owns a state-of-the-art multilayered missile defense system, which means it can survive a direct exchange far better than Iran ever could. It also means Israel could retaliate with confidence in any suitcase bomb scenario.
11. An Israeli attack will not work. It will slow down Iran’s pursuit of the Bomb, but as the -- presumably -- joint Israeli-U.S. Stuxnet cyberattack on Iran showed, Tehran can simply respond by ramping up its effort all the more.
12. A U.S. attack is not feasible any time soon. President Barack Obama doesn’t want to be a one-term president that badly, nor is he willing to tarnish his Nobel Peace Prize that decisively. More importantly, attacking Iran would torpedo Obama’s entire effort to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan with some sense of honor.
13. Iran has already achieved a crude but effective asymmetrical deterrence capability. There is no derailing the Bomb pursuit without regime change, and the U.S. is simply unwilling to take on that massive effort. The quick-and-dirty route is to nuke Iran’s facilities, sending the double signal of “No nukes for you!” and “See what we’re capable of?” But once you start talking about using nukes to destroy nukes, you realize that Iran has already achieved a sloppy deterrence.
14. A pre-emptive war works primarily to Iran’s advantage. The political infighting in Tehran is at an all-time high. Meanwhile, the Arab Spring is going badly for Iran. Thus an attack by either Israel or the U.S. would be a godsend to the decaying theocratic regime, changing those narratives and unifying the country.
15. We can easily arm Iran’s rivals. America has been selling arms like crazy throughout the region for a while now, and nothing will keep Washington from further enhancing the defensive -- and offensive -- capabilities of Iran’s many enemies.
16. The danger of wider proliferation is overblown. Yes, Riyadh and possibly Ankara will follow suit, but arguing that anti-Western regimes the world over will now seek a nuclear deterrent is fanciful. After all these years of freaking out about nuclear proliferation, we’re still talking about just the two remaining “Axis of Evil” members. To date, North Korea’s achievement has triggered no such regional nuclear race in East Asia. Iran’s effort likely will in the Middle East, but that is still a unique dynamic with limited legs.
17. The follow-on regional proliferation can be played to our advantage. Nothing clarifies the strategic mind like nukes. Once the Saudis join in, the world’s great powers will force a regional strategic dialogue. When that happens, Israel’s diplomatic existence will finally be recognized across the region.
18. The soft-kill option has worked before. In 1972, America gave the Soviets a signed piece of paper that declared them a legitimate nuclear power. Deprived of its own version of the “great Satan,” the USSR collapsed from within -- in the space of a generation. The Iranian mullahs’ self-destruction will come far faster.
19. We’ve got better fish to fry right now regionally. All focus should be on toppling Iran’s prime regional proxy, Syria, and bolstering the nascent governments in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
20. The global economy is more important. No one can afford $200-a-barrel oil.
Alarmist pundits -- and GOP candidates -- who still feel like turning Iran’s Bomb into America’s latest diplomatic obsession would do well to recall the 2008 U.S. presidential election: Obama was elected in large part to avoid such reckless calculations.
I'm copy-pasting this article from World Politics Review, think it has a quite a few good points. Hopefully, the US, Iran and Israel will all realise that they would all loose if they attacked each other. It really is Ahmadinejads rhetoric (and its similarities with Hitlers') that has put the West on alert but if its true that it was just an incorrect translation then hopefully someone with an influential position will point out that.
As for the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, why couldn't the US simply drop the bombs on uninhabited Japanese territory or at least their military bases instead of dropping them over civilians?
The New Rules: How to Stop Worrying and Live with the Iranian Bomb
By Thomas P.M. Barnett | 14 Nov 2011
Column
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest report on Iran’s nuclear program surprised no one, even as it created the usual flurry of op-eds championing preventative “next steps.” As I’ve been saying for the past half-decade, there are none. Once the U.S. went into both Iraq and Afghanistan, the question went from being, “How do we prevent Iran from getting the Bomb?” to “How do we handle Iran’s Bomb?” That shift represents neither defeatism nor appeasement. Rather, it reflects a realistic analysis of America’s strategic options. With that in mind, here are 20 reasons why Iran’s successful pursuit of the Bomb is not the system-changing event so many analysts are keen to portray.
1. Iran’s efforts are not irrational. America invaded Iran’s western and eastern neighbors in quick succession, while putting Iran on notice that it, too, was on the list of George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil.” Decades of history tell Tehran: Get the Bomb, and the U.S. will never invade. Iran’s logic here is unassailable.
2. The world’s rising powers are not on board with the West. Brazil and Turkey made their diplomatic play last spring, and the West vilified them in response. Russia has already dismissed more sanctions as a clear “instrument of regime change.” China and India, along with Russia, have their own energy interests in Iran. In sum, Tehran’s workaround options are considerable.
3. More Western sanctions will have no impact. See above. Also, though the economic costs to date have been substantial, Tehran is willing to endure any amount of economic pain to ensure regime survival. The Arab Spring and the dangers it poses to the mullahs’ rule only sharpen this instinct.
4. Iran will not accept any deal that doesn’t include maintaining at least the pathway to the Bomb. The Bomb not only ensures regime survival, it is Tehran’s ticket to the great powers’ club. Without it, Iran is simply a failed revolution, a moribund economy and a sullen, checked-out society. With it, Iran is a focus of global attention and remains in the race for regional leadership.
5. Iran’s Bomb will offer the regime no significant new regional influence. Iran is already losing the Arab Spring -- and Iraq -- to Turkey and will likely lose influence to a revived Cairo as well. Iran’s Bomb is a desperate pan-Islamism card vis-à-vis Israel that will only engender a vigorous anti-Shiite response from the Saudis.
6. The strategic balance of power in the region will not dissolve. Iran’s Bomb means closing the door on a U.S. invasion, but nothing else. Iran’s limited proxy wars are neither enhanced nor inhibited by possessing the Bomb, as America will stand by both Israel and the Saudis.
7. America’s regional military presence will not be threatened. The U.S. military has a long and well-established record of serving as a tripwire presence in regional hotspots. That won’t change with Iran’s Bomb. If anything, Tehran’s achievement will reverse America’s growing fixation on building up its military in Asia vis-à-vis China.
8. The terror threat is overblown. Persian Iran isn’t pursuing the Bomb to put it in the hands of extremist Arab nonstate actors. Even Israel is a red herring for the Bomb’s ultimate purposes, which are clearly anti-U.S. and anti-Saudi.
9. The right historical analogy is not late-1930s Europe, but South Asia once both Pakistan and India got their Bomb. Israel is no Czechoslovakia. Rather, it is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and can wipe Iran off the map far more feasibly than vice versa. Yes, the early stages of a mutually assured destruction dyad between Israel and Iran would be scary, but the world has managed this scenario before -- with a perfect record to date.
10. The MAD situation between Israel and Iran is manageable. Israel owns a state-of-the-art multilayered missile defense system, which means it can survive a direct exchange far better than Iran ever could. It also means Israel could retaliate with confidence in any suitcase bomb scenario.
11. An Israeli attack will not work. It will slow down Iran’s pursuit of the Bomb, but as the -- presumably -- joint Israeli-U.S. Stuxnet cyberattack on Iran showed, Tehran can simply respond by ramping up its effort all the more.
12. A U.S. attack is not feasible any time soon. President Barack Obama doesn’t want to be a one-term president that badly, nor is he willing to tarnish his Nobel Peace Prize that decisively. More importantly, attacking Iran would torpedo Obama’s entire effort to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan with some sense of honor.
13. Iran has already achieved a crude but effective asymmetrical deterrence capability. There is no derailing the Bomb pursuit without regime change, and the U.S. is simply unwilling to take on that massive effort. The quick-and-dirty route is to nuke Iran’s facilities, sending the double signal of “No nukes for you!” and “See what we’re capable of?” But once you start talking about using nukes to destroy nukes, you realize that Iran has already achieved a sloppy deterrence.
14. A pre-emptive war works primarily to Iran’s advantage. The political infighting in Tehran is at an all-time high. Meanwhile, the Arab Spring is going badly for Iran. Thus an attack by either Israel or the U.S. would be a godsend to the decaying theocratic regime, changing those narratives and unifying the country.
15. We can easily arm Iran’s rivals. America has been selling arms like crazy throughout the region for a while now, and nothing will keep Washington from further enhancing the defensive -- and offensive -- capabilities of Iran’s many enemies.
16. The danger of wider proliferation is overblown. Yes, Riyadh and possibly Ankara will follow suit, but arguing that anti-Western regimes the world over will now seek a nuclear deterrent is fanciful. After all these years of freaking out about nuclear proliferation, we’re still talking about just the two remaining “Axis of Evil” members. To date, North Korea’s achievement has triggered no such regional nuclear race in East Asia. Iran’s effort likely will in the Middle East, but that is still a unique dynamic with limited legs.
17. The follow-on regional proliferation can be played to our advantage. Nothing clarifies the strategic mind like nukes. Once the Saudis join in, the world’s great powers will force a regional strategic dialogue. When that happens, Israel’s diplomatic existence will finally be recognized across the region.
18. The soft-kill option has worked before. In 1972, America gave the Soviets a signed piece of paper that declared them a legitimate nuclear power. Deprived of its own version of the “great Satan,” the USSR collapsed from within -- in the space of a generation. The Iranian mullahs’ self-destruction will come far faster.
19. We’ve got better fish to fry right now regionally. All focus should be on toppling Iran’s prime regional proxy, Syria, and bolstering the nascent governments in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.
20. The global economy is more important. No one can afford $200-a-barrel oil.
Alarmist pundits -- and GOP candidates -- who still feel like turning Iran’s Bomb into America’s latest diplomatic obsession would do well to recall the 2008 U.S. presidential election: Obama was elected in large part to avoid such reckless calculations.
Donald Duck
Woodpecker
I'm not usually one to believe this conspiracy stuff, but this one caught my eye, just watch the video and make up your own mind.
London 2012 Olympics to get bombed and blamed on Iran?
London 2012 Olympics to get bombed and blamed on Iran?
YoungGunner
Kingfisher
mofo said:
Probably investments in non-Iranian oil
When I was in DC I worked with some Persians who ducked out after the Shah. I'm not saying they were fond of the Shah, but some of them were involved in organizations that sought to end the current regime. This was all during Iraq and Afghanistan. I'd ask these guys what they thought about US intervention...
They were unanimously against it. Keep in mind, they were very passionate - moreso than any politician - in getting rid of this regime. Their reasoning was that if the US rolled into Iran any people on board with getting rid of the current regime (according to them, there are many within Iran) would, by default, side with the regime. They still feel the same way. While I haven't read a ton about the most recent "developments" with Iran, their reasoning makes sense.
On a broader scale:
Domestically, we print money out of thin air to "fix" the economy.
Internationally, we use that same money to fund expensive, pre-emptive wars in the name of "freedom, security, and peace."
It's like a two lane, one way, road to ruin with no speed limit.
They were unanimously against it. Keep in mind, they were very passionate - moreso than any politician - in getting rid of this regime. Their reasoning was that if the US rolled into Iran any people on board with getting rid of the current regime (according to them, there are many within Iran) would, by default, side with the regime. They still feel the same way. While I haven't read a ton about the most recent "developments" with Iran, their reasoning makes sense.
On a broader scale:
Domestically, we print money out of thin air to "fix" the economy.
Internationally, we use that same money to fund expensive, pre-emptive wars in the name of "freedom, security, and peace."
It's like a two lane, one way, road to ruin with no speed limit.
Conspiracy Brother
Pigeon
in my opinion eventually yeah unless they allow capitalism into their country or they get nukes.
- Status