United States v.s. Iran.....

Originally posted by Abraham Virtue
You said that more war-mongering from the US would result in no revolution in Iran and that if we were not so threatening then the Iranian's would revolt.

Yet I think the exact opposite.

I think that the more the Iranians fear an attack the more willing they will be to revolt.

You have to remember that our enemy in Iran is the government, especially the high cabinet.

So in my opinion the more they fear us the less they will fear them, them being the Iranian government.

Then again it could go either way.

What does everyone else think about this.

War mongering by the US=revolt by Iranians
or
War mongering by the US=no revolt

Which one fits????


Abraham

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I for one agree
the population of Iran is on the edge of revolution now, inspired by our action in Iraq. we will not invade, merely support the revolution
our forces are spread to thin, it will take at least another six months to mobilize a force for Korea. the next objective

Can we all say 'Global Security and Police Actions'?
All this equates to an eventual 'foot in the ass'.

Can we all ask 'Who choose us (ie: the US) to be the 'Golden Child'?
All this equates to an eventual 'foot in the ass'.

It was Iraq, now its possible Iran and N.Korea. The US cannot 'police' this world. It weakens its position, its military, its political idealogy, and leaves the door open to a possible 'foot in the ass'!

Anyone else see this?

Our so-called 'friends' today will be our so-called 'enemies' in the future. They wait, watch, plan, build and continue to take our money in the form of 'aid'.
The US, in turn, continues to subvert, plot, police the world in the guise of 'War on Terrorism'. This will also eventually lead to a possible 'foot in the ass'.

As the world turns........

regards
seekerof

that the war in Iraq was a policing action? The reason for the Iraqi war is the same as it has been for every war....basic economics. (and no, I don't mean war for oil). It goes far beyond oil, but has more to do with geo-political influence, and stabilizing the dollar amidst other foreign currency, rather than punishing/eliminating a tyrant. Sure, it was a nice side-effect, but don't kid yourself that it was just a police action. Some (especially Dom) may remember me arguing differently to support the war...that's true, I was arguing my side of the issue, not necessarily what my beliefs were...but I had no illusions as to the real aims here...but unlike many others who saw this, I supported the ulterior motives.... (just not how they were executed...piss poor at best)

Not matter wot the U.S says i reckon in the future they and Britain will invade Iran.

but not in this term.... Dubya needs to get re-elected first!

I can, somewhat. agree with that Gazrok.

So even with the 'economic' variable included it will eventually lend itself to back firing....thus: the foot in the ass.

If it is true that economics today are the motivations of war, does that require a continuation of 'targets'? (ie: Iran, N. Korea, Syria, etc.) Are these possible targets for 'economic' reasons also? I would most certainly think that the term 'global economy/economics' was not coined as a term to replace the word 'war'?!

If the economic situation in the US, for which I am born and raised, is so terrible that it requires 'us' to goto war to 'fix' it, then I live in a land of allusionment.

Besides, the point I was making was that the US can not continue to be 'big brother' or whatever. IF our policies continue in pursuit of and in the direction of this 'current' policy(s)....again, I see the eventual possibility of this ending, somewhere, with a foot in the ass.

my honest opinions,

regards
seekerof

Of course America will win, no question about that, the real question is, at what cost ? How many deaths ? How many MOABs is needed to finish the job ? I think that is more relevant.

only if handled as poorly as Iraq. To invade Iran and have it be accepted by the international community, and more importantly, the arab community...there would have to be a major smoking gun sticking its head up....

Personally, I think we'll hear the quieting down of the rhetoric, until after the next election, and then it'll be full steam ahead, and stupidly, we'll likely topple Iran with even less justification....*sigh* or North Korea first....

Iran has confirmed that it will not sign up to tougher, short-notice inspections of suspected nuclear sites.
The European Union joined growing international pressure on Iran on Monday, saying Tehran should comply with the measures "urgently and unconditionally".

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also urged Iran to agree to strengthened inspections under an additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

But Iran said a ban on the country's access to nuclear technology would have to be lifted before it can agree to such a move.

The head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, said Iran had failed to report some of its nuclear activities - an accusation Tehran rejects.

news.bbc.co.uk...

of course tehran rejected the accusation. evil theologies only understand one thing. FORCE. the world cant dick around with this stuff. actions need to be taken. not militaryily of course. thats the last option. use stricter sanctions and the threat of harsh penalties if they lie to the world.