War Against Iran?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Arnie1991, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. White Tiger

    White Tiger Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    It will potentially happen, but I think it might take a bit of time. Looking at history, most wars come with at least ten years or so within one another (give or take a few examples, I am not precise with that statement). Iran would be a very meddlesome opponent considering it is backed by several Islamic states and has had a history of wielding extremist faith in Islam as a social tool of building it's forces. I mean, during the Iran-Iraq War, they used children who they have blinded with faith in Heaven to run across minefields and destroy the explosives! I think that if we do go to war with Iran, it will be a war unlike the US has ever been in before.

    For one, it will be more technology and weapon-based. With the military industrial complex as big as it's ever been, we could be using not only our own military and equipment but military companies like Blackwater and DynCorp to fight overseas. On top of that, we would be dealing with a nation that not only is slowly developing nuclear weapons (or so the Feds believe), but are very much benefactors of the illicit arms market. In other words, it'd be another guerrilla war involving Kalashnikovs and RPGs. However, this is one of few times in the last 30 years that there has been a defined enemy in the international community. For all we know, it might go from sanctions and SC hearings to NATO and Israel backing the US front in Iran. But, with how poor our military is following Iraq, that is highly unlikely.

    Regarding the nukes, so long as there are a dozen or so nuclear-armed nations, Iran will think three times before even considering the big red button. Kenneth Waltz, known as the godfather of international realism, said that Iran isn't stupid. Despite the influence of extremists like Ayatollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad would think twice about using nukes. In simple terms, Ahmadinejad is acting somewhat like a scared child - he will try to act tough and use drastic threats, but will not bring himself to do it. While only a theory, it could play out this way. Already, the EU, NATO, the US, and Israel are backing sanctions on Iran and could potentially be the first to hit Iran in the case of a worst case scenario.
     
  2. Arnie1991

    Arnie1991 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    I agree with you, and one of the ironic things are that, people are saying US has a big military lead, yes we know that, but they are struggling against people not even trained in iraq who would die for their country, imagine the scale of death again iran with a decent military, air/sea/land and a country full of people willing to fight for their country, unlike the US who have many protests against these things, imagine the revolt in the us if something like this was to happen. i only see a draw/lose ending for the US & the east getting more angered and hostile to the rest of the world.

    Ahmadinejad is a "clever man" supposedly, and thinks economically and militarywise. if the US/NATO take sanctions against iran, Food aid wise ect, the people will just be worse off. which supposedly they are against. many sanctions will fuel a war later rather then sooner, but they have steped up action and their are talks about air strikes and bombing runs by israel funded by the usa. that will cause war sooner rather than later. either way, war is enevitable.
     
  3. dementia

    dementia Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    6,243
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Location:
    Denver
    Deaths occur everywhere.

    All it takes is weaponry and desire to kill, its a humans natural instinct, especially in the more savage areas of third world countries where hate crimes and such happen all the time. Most of the casualties are from terrorist attacks, some of them are concentrated, and you know what? Do you know why US military drives down streets without stopping? Its to intentionally BE targetted by terrorists so that civilians are not. Bringing up US casualties in a war where they are almost voluntarily submitting their life to terrorists to save others is retarded.

    Not to mention, the US is not uber bombing, the US doesn't have a whole barrage of trained militants over there, the US has land based military, a couple of tanks and some soldiers, nothing more, this isn't a full scale attack on the US side. A full scale attack would involve tens of thousands of mobile infantry, thousands of tanks, hundred of aircrafts going on planned bombing runs, blowing up entire cities and its people, and having mobile infantry go in to clean em out, that is NOTHING like what is going on over in Iraq or any other country with US Military in it.
     
  4. Greasy Pete

    Greasy Pete Senior Member

    Age:
    30
    Posts:
    9,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    i really don't like how America tries to police the world
     
  5. Arnie1991

    Arnie1991 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    firstly, thats a sign of the civilians telling them to leave, when it gets so bad the people give their lives just to stop the hostile actions of the US, Why would you patrol and urban neighbourhood with kids playing in the streets? Do you really want to start a fire fight in the middle of the street with kids around?


    well for the last part, i just want to say where was you when the war had just started. they bombed and slaughtered the ground the way up to the main cities, and shelled supposedly "rebel camps & bunkers" next day on the news, oh it was a school



    Another point;
    You can call them terrorists, or you can call them freedom fighters, if someone had invaded your country and caused a war when its not even safe in your home. you would pick up a gun and go fight. thats what they are doing. If they take one of your family members and "interrorgate" him/her, for hours, water boarding, beatings, starvation and do nothing about it, well, thats just cowardly.

    if they took your dad to guantanamo bay and kept him their for years without trial and he was innocent, would you not want revenge?
    there is proof of his already, dont know if you got it on your T.V or not, but its shown in the UK.
    If they culled your farm animals and burned your fields, you would not pick up a gun and fight back?

    they are not monsters, they are people fighting back against something they see unfair.
     
  6. Xx6xX

    Xx6xX Member

    Posts:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    I think maybe if something happens with them and the US or one of their allies.
     
  7. dementia

    dementia Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    6,243
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Location:
    Denver
    firstly, thats a sign of the civilians telling them to leave, when it gets so bad the people give their lives just to stop the hostile actions of the US, Why would you patrol and urban neighbourhood with kids playing in the streets? Do you really want to start a fire fight in the middle of the street with kids around?


    well for the last part, i just want to say where was you when the war had just started. they bombed and slaughtered the way up to the main cities.



    Another point;
    You can call them terrorists, or you can call them freedom fighters, if someone had invaded your country and caused a war when its not even safe in your home. you would pick up a gun and go fight. thats what they are doing. If they take one of your family members and "interrorgate" him/her, for hours, water boarding, beatings, starvation and do nothing about it, well, thats just cowardly.

    if they took your dad to guantanamo bay and kept him their for years without trial and he was innocent, you would not feel for him?
    [/b][/quote]
    No, its terrorists attacking them, as they intended, civilians welcome the US officers in case you didn't actually know that. The officers in Iraq have done FAR more good than bad, and most of the country see that. They have removed a ruthless and poor leader and setup democracy within the country and they are trying to civilize it, how they did it may be questionable, but they are doing it with the best intent and *most* Iraq civilians notice that. They patrol EVERYONE because terrorists are more likely to attack troops over civilians. Would you rather your kid die from being stupid and standing fire, or from being blown up by your next door neighbor? Point proven.

    I was here, in the states, watching them bomb, its standard military technique, and it was far from the potential the US has. Again, need I point our Hiroshima, and the fact radiation still effects life out there to this very day? Thats with weapon which are considered obsolete in the current world, and there are now bombs with larger blast radius and less radiation for more controlled damage, as shown on the testing grounds throughout the US military bases.

    If you came to our country and started it up, do you not think we'd come to yours to finish it? To think that wouldn't happen is plain stupid, far past the extent of simple ignorance. If you want to bring the war to our home soil, you can be damn sure we'll be bringing it right back to yours. Iraq itself wasn't even invaded for the attacks on 9/11, it was invaded for Saddam's capture, and it is only still currently occupied for Oil, again obvious. Afghan and numerous other countries are the subject of the war on terror and desert storm, with people actually fighting ot capture and defeat terrorists. The whole 9/11 charade was simply used to further motivate the US populace into believing we were going over there to kill some terrorists, anyone with half a brain could see otherwise.

    The people fighting, generally, over in Iraq and any other foreign nation are *rarely* casual civilians. Sure, a few of them are, but as soon as they pick up weaponry and attack the infantry, they are now an enemy of the United States, in a war zone, in the middle of a war. They will be treated as soldiers, and killed as soldiers by the US military. Leave the nations outcome to the leadership of the nation. When terrorists attacked here, did most Americans go to the local gun store and pick up a gun to go shoot every middle eastern individual in the states? Nope, far from it. Those who wanted to fight let our military lead the way and signed up for service, that is EXACTLY what all these stupid 'freedom fighters' should be able to do, but they can't, because of the rules in which they have been living due to prior government structure. What the US has done is create a democracy, it is still building, but with that comes a structured military, structured negotiations with other countries where militants need not even be involved.

    Iraq has NO ONE to blame but their government, which the US dismantled and is recreating in the best interest of both the country and the world, those who cannot cope are those who rebel and 'fight' (and believe me, the number of US casualties is FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR lower than the amount of freedom fighters - or terrorists as far as the US is concerned). You want to see what hte main issue with Iraq is? Look again at what I said. Savage, third world country, terrorist is what I want to point out, your further enforing the point. Those non-savage, terrorist individuals would simply voice their opinoins to their newly formed government which is in constant contact with United States heirarchy, instead they persist in throwing their lives away for some religious belief and are remaining savage, and how should I say... inferior logical process in that they believe their death, or their single concern matters to the US when the US has a bullet from their gun coming at them

    Shoot first, ask questions later, don't threaten us, and the most you have to deal with is some moderate policing to assure we remain a world power and that we can continue to police the world.
     
  8. Arnie1991

    Arnie1991 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    [​IMG]

    are you telling me that this is in the best intent for the people of iraq alone? The reason why washington has said they dont keep body counts, because it undermines the reason for war. 1.2 million civilians dead.

    Larger blast radius, more people die, but less have the agonising wait of dieing from radiation.

    yes, because saddam wouldnt give up the al qaeda is the reason to invade a country. But;
    that was not the beginning, vietnam was the starting point, which the us invaded and suffered horrible loses, they were angered because of that. as you said,
    "If you came to our country and started it up, do you not think we'd come to yours to finish it?"
    well thats the al qaeda taking revenge.
    and thats there reason for the attack on us, even though it is unacceptable on civilians.

    if the us never got involved, they would have thrown rice bowls at each other and that would be the end of it.

    So when a little boy picks up a gun because his dad dies in an air strike, he will be treated like a soldier and killed on the spot.

    The millitants are the government, and you cant just invade a country to its bare bones and let them "build" their democracy back, reason why countries like australia and france are pulling soldiers out because they dont want to be the ones paying for the damages and loses. It will all be payed back by the US and UK people in higher taxes.


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


    TOTAL 4,081 - US soldier deaths
    TOTAL 30,182 - US soldiers wounded

    to be honest the US is fighting a lost cause, im pretty sure 34000 terrorists dont even exist.

    Well, i dont believe in religion, but their's is the biggest in the world with 1/3 of the worlds population, I believe its something like defend your country and people in the khran or something like that, if 1/3 people believe in it then theres almost no way to say that what they believe in is wrong.

    If moderate policing is war, i would be scared to think what will hard policing would be,

    and as for shoot first ask questions later,well that really worked last time in the vietnam war

    * = approximations

     

Share This Page