Will we go to war with Iran?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Neshani

Neshani

Sicc OG
#23
May 27, 2009
897
8
0
49
#23
714KaliHydro said:
Israel?
They could barely handle Hezbollah. As a matter of fact they actually lost that one...
Click to expand...
Israel lost that one? Really? So Hezbo won? They didn't do much winning during the last election. You'd think they would have gotten some votes if they were some sort of great victors in a war against Israel.

Hezbolla is the kid on the block throwing rocks at a wasp nest while everyone else wants to play ball. They piss off the wasps and it's game over, everyone runs.

But back to the topic at hand. I still say Israel moves against Iran before we do. As others have said, we're spread too thin.

I think the most likely scenario would be Israel dropping a few bombs to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities. The UN and Iran get mad at Israel, the world tells Iran to chill because no one wants a nuclear Iran. A letter gets written to Israel which they quickly disregard. No war, no nothing, just a few bombs.

*Note: Despite my location, I'm an American and when I say "we" I mean America.
 
2-0-Sixx

2-0-Sixx

Sicc OG
#24
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
45
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#24
Obama is and will continue the same foriegn policy as Bush II, Clinton and Bush I, so yes, of course they will go to war.

And it wont be because of any "threats" made by Iran, it has to do with US dominance/control of the middle east, Imperialism & natural resources, Israel, etc.
 
ColdBlooded

ColdBlooded

Sicc OG
#25
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#25
"If push does come to shove with Iran it is important to remember how effortless it was to hoodwink the majority of American politicians and the masses of people into backing a completely unnecessary war against Iraq. As in the buildup to the unjust invasion of Iraq, today's US corporate mass media are playing its principal part to perfection - uncritically echoing government distortions about the danger of Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons. The Iran situation is different, but yet similar in terms of mass public manipulation and the possibility of a future confrontation getting out of hand. "
 
niguardian

niguardian

Sicc OG
#31
Aug 6, 2008
10,132
195
0
40
#31
2-0-Sixx said:
Obama is and will continue the same foriegn policy as Bush II, Clinton and Bush I, so yes, of course they will go to war.

And it wont be because of any "threats" made by Iran, it has to do with US dominance/control of the middle east, Imperialism & natural resources, Israel, etc.
Click to expand...
PREACH!!!

americas gonna fuck around and get us all killed meddling in peoples business like the scooby doo kids n shit, i actually hope somebody does hulk up and ride on this punk ass country for thinkin theyre the shit and can do whatever they want

that is, after i move somewhere else, of course
 
WeDueThis

WeDueThis

Sicc OG
#38
Apr 10, 2009
202
0
0
40
#38
allcalclothing said:
real talk the US needs to mine its own bidness, we dont need to be regulating shit. the US be doin too much.. its like that noisy ass neighbor that always trying to call the cops cause you having a loud ass mexican party..
Click to expand...
People like you seem very ignorant to world issues and the ramifications of not acting when necessary. Its never as cut and dry as you appear to believe.
 
ColdBlooded

ColdBlooded

Sicc OG
#40
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#40
"As we proceed with our analysis, here are a few things that should be kept in mind.
  • So far, there is no evidence Iran is going to "weaponize" its nuclear power program and build atomic bombs. So far, it has been abiding by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has pledged not to produce nuclear weapons, is under very close scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and obviously its program is the target of intensive surveillance by the United States. There is no secret way in which it could construct nuclear weapons under such circumstances.

  • Israel possesses an arsenal of up to 200 nuclear weapons and thumbs its nose at the IAEA and the NPT, with which it is notoriously non-compliant. If US President Barack Obama must sternly castigate Iran, which does not have nuclear weapons, for "breaking rules that all nations must follow ... and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world", why does he protect Israel from international sanctions and subsidize its military machine? Pakistan and India are also non-compliant, but they, too, are allies of Washington and thus have been granted immunity.

  • In this connection, it must be noted that the far right-wing Tel Aviv government appears to be on the verge of launching an attack on Iran and has made this well known to the world. But it receives no censure for such threats from the US and its European allies, or for the horror it inflicted on Gaza a few months ago. Imagine the outcry if Iran threatened to attack Israel, or its army entered the territory of a neighboring society and inflicted cruelties largely on its civilian population for not submitting to national oppression.

    And yet Tel Aviv calls Iran an "existential" threat, despite Israel's nuclear weapons, its superior military force and its support from the entire American military apparatus, including 2,600 strategic nuclear warheads on hair-trigger readiness. But as we've noted before, the only concrete threat to Israel's existence would be if the US government withdrew its political, military and financial support.

  • Washington's geopolitical interests are key to America's relationship to Iran and the Middle East in general. The US desires to control - or at minimum to keep out of "unfriendly" hands - the immense oil reserves possessed by Iran and neighboring Iraq. It fears a future alliance between these resource-rich developing countries, which also happen to be the only two nations in the world governed by Shi'ite Muslims. The US invaded to overthrow the "unfriendly", Sunni-backed Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein. But it can neither rely totally on its selected successor regime in Baghdad, nor has it yet been able to remove the theocratic government in Tehran, which is conservative domestically but puts forward an anti-imperialist foreign policy that drives the world's remaining superpower to distraction."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom