US attack on Iran?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: haman10

The US will not attack Iran unless they attack shipping in the gulf. Reality is sanctions are a better options. The regime will fall apart without a shot being fired. And it will also make it hard for them to support their terrorist network. If they need to destroy a facility in Iran the Israelis would do it. If it involves attacking their terrorist networks Saudis will take care of it.

The only way the US will get directly involved is if they started attacking tankers. As far as it being a war no Iran doesn't have the ability to fight for more than a couple of weeks.

Oh i wonder where you were, i hope you're doing well.

You cannot put a nation under siege and say "we will not attack you", the siege itself is a declaration of war. Iran was sanctioned for 40 years and this is not something new except now the world will not follow US footsteps on sanctions. EU is now offering packages to Iran to ensure Iran stays in the JCOPA and doesn't leave it. if one day sanctions become unbearable to Iran and it starts to undermine her national security, Iran will take measures of her own. one of them is making sure US economy also hurts in a fashion that they reconsider their policies.

by which means you ask? declaring the Persian Gulf as a closed waterway. be sure we do not need to attack any ships, just the announcement is enough for the flow of oil to be effectively ceased. that will indeed be against international law but so are the sanctions.

but news are now coming out that US has plans for an attack on nuclear sites, which was the whole reason behind this thread. Iran will make her way out of sanctions but an attack on Iranian soil will be responded by a military fashion and thus an all-out war. thats very concerning, don't you agree?

a reply to: haman10

You shouldn't get all your news from Iranian propaganda. If Tehran was stupid enough to try to close the gulf they would be attacked by most of Europe also the US, Israel ,Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and the UAE. Tehran has already learned in the past this isn't a beneficial course of action.

If they do not attack shipping then they only have to worry about Israel and Saudi Arabia. Israelis will never allow Iran to develop nuclear capabilities. They would bomb every inch of Iran if they had to.

As i said US will not attack Iran unless they attack shipping lanes. Your trying to create this false narrative that the US is trying to fight Iran. For the most part Iran will solve itself within a year or two. Continued sanctions and the collapse of the Rial. When it takes a wheelbarrow full of money to buy groceries its just a matter of time until the regime is destroyed. And there is nothing Iran can do

I read an article the other day they are having problems even meeting agreements they made for oil. They can't find insurance companies willing to take the risk of providing insurance to Iran's tankers. Partly because they fear that Saudi Arabia may confiscate them after the attack on a saudi tanker by houthie rebels.

That incident isn't done its very likely saudis will retaliate.

originally posted by: haman10



when you bump each other's chests about war, you're actually celebrating other people's death. and war is not one-sided. you kill and you get killed, that's why a wise man once said: "think more and talk less".

As a gay guy I couldn't care less how many people die on homophobic middle east. Yes gays would die on war too but they're dying there anyway

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: 35Foxtrot

originally posted by: haman10
We had 2 separate threads regarding this issue recently, which i just came across:

thread 1 and thread 2

.... please stick to your own problems and let us solve our own...

....let us stick to our own lives and not meddle in each other's affairs, lets stop killing...

Just as soon as you (Iran) stop sponsoring terror organizations, I'm sure I'd be more inclined to leave you be.

And, BTW, I've seen war. In multiple deployments to seemingly every craphole country. War with your country would not be the mother of anything. Saddam fought you to a standstill and how long did it take us to seize Baghdad?

Sponsoring terror?

You're telling him to stop sponsoring terror, and you're American?

Dude. Read a book.

Yup. That's what I said.

Do you have a specific suggestion as to which book I should read, dude?

I've read many.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Have you read any on US/CIA operations? There's literally hundreds of organisations that have been US created, trained, or sponsored/funded around the world for the past 60 years

I recommend fmr MI6 agent Peter Obourne's book A Dangerous Delusion: Why the West is Wrong About Nuclear Iran, is pretty amazing. Nick Davies' Flat Earth News for general US sponsored ME/African terrorism, but requires a thorough understanding of US foreign policy from 1954 to current day. For US sponsored Western terrorism Tony Harden's Bandit Country: IRA and South Armargh is pretty spectacular.

a reply to: haman10

I got that but it's "Death to Israel" that seems to be the sticking point. Is THAT propaganda working with the people?

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Have you read any on US/CIA operations? There's literally hundreds of organisations that have been US created, trained, or sponsored/funded around the world for the past 60 years

I recommend fmr MI6 agent Peter Obourne's book A Dangerous Delusion: Why the West is Wrong About Nuclear Iran, is pretty amazing. Nick Davies' Flat Earth News for general US sponsored ME/African terrorism, but requires a thorough understanding of US foreign policy from 1954 to current day. For US sponsored Western terrorism Tony Harden's Bandit Country: IRA and South Armargh is pretty spectacular.

Not read all of those but I am fairly well-read on the topic. I found Obourne's analysis lacking in it's emphasis on Iran's nuclear program while discounting or completely neglecting other equally important issues with Iran and it's policies.

It's easy to pick one item and show how/why that's not enough to justify X action(s). Taken in it's entirety, Iran's policies are not in the US' interest and Iran is a bad actor when viewed from the American perspective. That's all that matters to me as I am wholeheartedly in favor of America acting in America's best interest first.

I was being short in response to an idiotic reply so I understand why you'd feel I was actually asking him/her to provide reading material.

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: DieGloke

Yes if they invaded the USA.

So tyrants don't need to pay, so long as they do not attack?

What's goes on within a country's is not my concern, it's the concern of the citizens that live there.

originally posted by: Czulkang
They are the world's largest state sponsor
Of terrism, the took over our embassy and hos6ages, captured american servicemen, killed us soldiers in iraq... shall I go on ? Even after all that you still think we won't fuk their # up if they try anything like that with trump instead of a bitch like sorteo???

Lol

The US is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism.

How many proxy wars and regime changes has your CIA sponsored?

The embassy hostage situation pales in comparison to the cartels the CIA has sponsored in mexico or ISIS that was spawned from Al nursa or guerrilla campaigns in Africa........

a reply to: dragonridr

They've been saying Iran will solve itself for the past 40 years. We've not.
We're world's 18th economy now.

And trust me Saudis and other minions and puppets in the region do not pose any threat to Iran, barking dogs don't bite.
they know that and they're focusing their resources in elsewhere like petroleum and gas industry and support of anti-Iranian terrorist groups like Jibhat-alnusra to have a shot. if they get cocky we do this

a reply to: intrepid

Well yes, sentiment towards Israel is totally different and its the same all over the Islamic world.

America is a bully nation. It's just that simple. If we were to attack Iran, Trump should be charged with war crimes. Iran is not amassing troops and weaponry in preparation of war against us. So why is there any talk at all of America attacking Iran?

Irans Revolutionary Guards sound nervous, calling out Rouhani.

“The unique and extensive backing you benefited from in past weeks shouldn’t preclude you from taking revolutionary actions to control prices and prevent the enormous increase in the price of foreign currency and gold,” Guard commander Mohammad Ali Jafari was quoted as saying in an open letter to Rouhani, published by the Tasnim news agency. “Decision-making in today’s difficult circumstances necessitates revolutionary determination and decisiveness in dealing with certain managers’ weaknesses.”

link to article

originally posted by: haman10
a reply to: intrepid

I specifically addressed this "death to America" slogan a long time ago in this thread

Several points seemed to be a concern to many members here:

1- the "death to America" slogan which i really wish they take some time and read my post above because that will most probably answer some of their questions.

2- Iran's support for militant groups , its a little bit of hypocrisy to take off MKO (mujahidin khalgh terrorist group of Iran) from the black-list and consider hezbollah a terrorist group, isnt it? MKO has killed more than 17,000 innocent Iranians as an extremist Marxist-Islamist terrorist group but it now enjoys wide-spread support from US govt.

Here

Hezbollah of Lebanon is not a "group", its a vast organization with millions of members and owns an overwhelming number of seats in Lebanese democratic parliament. its a democratic organization to people's surprise whose main objective is to secure Lebanese interests and if needs be, its "territorial integrity". it does NOT behead or crucify people like MKO does. it only protects their people from harm's way, but how dare they? how dare they protect themselves from Israel? No need to mention that military wing of Hezbollah is probably its smallest wing.

3- Iranian nuclear program , that issue was addressed in a binding TREATY with world states, but US being above the international law, threw it all away (despite the order of ICJ -International court of justice- to immediately curb all sanctions). Secondly even if Iran WAS after nuclear weapons which she is not, What gives US the right to HAVE and USE them but prevents Iran from having them in deterrence?

I'm not familiar enough with the subjects to comment on your 1 and 2 points, but if they're as poorly informed as your #3 point, there's got to be some holes in your reasoning. The JCPOA was never a treaty. Whoever told you that lied to you. If it was a treaty, it wouldn't have been so easy for Trump to pull out of it. It was the international equivalent of a pinky swear.

a reply to: haman10

First of all, GREAT OP! Outstanding!

Second, don't confuse the media's representations with the intentions of the American people, nor it's leadership. They are wholly different.

The US people don't want war with Iran, the US media wants war with something, anything. The US media wants nuclear war, they want conventional war, they want death and destruction. It doesn't have to be Iran; it doesn't have to be North Korea and it doesn't have to be Russia either, they don't care, just someone...ANYONE!! And, they want this for two reasons:

1. War sells. War sells advertising time on their networks and feeds their insatiable appetite for blood, tears and grief. The US media's blood-lust is exceeded only by their pure greed.

2. War will be something they can (finally) pin on Trump...or so they think. The desperation of the media in this country to dethrone this president is unprecedented in US history. The US media is completely out of control and they have gone rogue. They can't get away with their lies anymore, so they don't have anything else people want to watch. Without viewers there are no sponsors (i.e. ads) and without sponsors there is no money (see #1 above).

The media in the US is out of control, and they're dangerous.

The American people have no issues with the people of Iran. The media will start a war if anyone does, they will provoke someone into doing something stupid and then their biased and lopsided coverage will further inflame the matter.

The media in the US doesn't care about human lives, they absolutely don't. They might say otherwise, but it's just a ruse to play the 'emotion' card. No, the US media wants one thing and one thing only...they want BLOOD! Without advertising the media dries up and goes away. They cannot survive even a single day without advertising. Sponsorship is their only means of revenue, the only means to feed their dripping fangs. They love it, they NEED it; like vampires they can't live without it, they want...BLOOD!

Because...BLOOD SELLS ADS.

Period.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It's amazing how many Americans have come into this thread saying we don't want war with Iran, yet we're still represented in foreign media as being a bunch of warhappy hicks.

originally posted by: haman10
a reply to: intrepid

Well yes, sentiment towards Israel is totally different and its the same all over the Islamic world.

OK. The thing is as long as our media can point to Iranians saying "Death to Israel" there's going to be enough support for Americans to justify to themselves that Iran is an enemy that has to be dealt with.

a reply to: face23785

Because most of the foreign media gets their "US news" from US media. Just look around at the time stamps on world news stories. They're always 'after' an almost identical headline has appeared in some US media outlet.

a reply to: intrepid

There is certainly an element of truth in your statement.

The Israel topic carries far too much weight in US public opinion (in my opinion). I've long felt this way.

there is an economic war going on against Iran by the US Trump regime

This is where you are wrong. This has zip to do with Trump. This was all in motion WAY before even the election, heck, even before Obama's first term.

The inevitable war with Iran is due to the nation being one of the few remaining ones not under sway of the global banking cartel. The Rothschilds, etc. will have their war. Don't doubt that one bit.

Any other pretense, is just that.....window dressing. A justification for the masses.

The only way to avoid this inevitability, is a government coup, with an installed puppet that then joins the cartel's game. Barring that, war is inevitable. The only saving grace is that they are incredibly patient, so you could have at least two or more years before it happens. I'm sure they realize it will be easier under a non-Trump presidency. (though he may spit fire at Iran (and a lot of bluster), he won't sign off on going to war unless there's something to actually gain for it, as a nation...vs. the cartel).

originally posted by: Gazrok

there is an economic war going on against Iran by the US Trump regime

This is where you are wrong. This has zip to do with Trump. This was all in motion WAY before even the election, heck, even before Obama's first term.

The inevitable war with Iran is due to the nation being one of the few remaining ones not under sway of the global banking cartel. The Rothschilds, etc. will have their war. Don't doubt that one bit.

Any other pretense, is just that.....window dressing. A justification for the masses.

The only way to avoid this inevitability, is a government coup, with an installed puppet that then joins the cartel's game. Barring that, war is inevitable. The only saving grace is that they are incredibly patient, so you could have at least two or more years before it happens. I'm sure they realize it will be easier under a non-Trump presidency. (though he may spit fire at Iran (and a lot of bluster), he won't sign off on going to war unless there's something to actually gain for it, as a nation...vs. the cartel).

I've been hearing this prediction "in the next year or two" since bout 2005.