Support NeoGAF

[ThoseDeafMutes]

You can't directly target civilians.

Not what I mean. Nuclear weapons are traditionally targeted at military or industrial targets, not urban population centers or CBDs. They can be, but saying something like "nuclear weapons are only good for attacking civilian targets" is absurd in the extreme, even without factoring in tactical weapons.

A better rationale for the ban would be long term secondary effects and the fact that because of their great power, the collateral damage problems of conventional bombs is amplified substantially.

 

[Gaborn]

Iran 'test-fires medium-range missile' in Gulf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16377185

How dare they test a weapons system!

 

[thefit]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/01/01/world/middleeast/AP-Iran-Nuclear.html?hp

They're using the N. Korea attention getting playbook here, that country too was able to stall enough untill they reached alleged succes in building the bomb.

 

[Slurpy2k20]

Because they have extremists in power who talk about using them. I understand they have a right to them just like the US and so many other countries did when they developed their own. Even if Iran does get them I can't imagine a single scenario where they'd use them, but all the death to Israel, death to Saudi Arabia, death to America, death to non-muslim rhetoric is a bit scarey when they have nuclear weapons in their hands.

Hmm.. let's see. In the past decade, the U.S. and/or Israel have invaded, attacked, and/or occupied Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, Syria, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, not to mention 'black site' prison camps around the world.

Iran has not attacked another country in 300 years. I love how words with no substance are OH SO EVIL (ie death to Israel) and justify military attacks, but actually raining death upon people is cool. Enough of your bullshit rhetoric, and your fake fear of 'scarey' Iran.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Iran 'test-fires medium-range missile' in Gulf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16377185

yes, countries test-fire their shit.

 

[gutter_trash]

I remember when France would pollute the pacific ocean by testing nukes into water

 

[BanGy.nz]

I remember when France would pollute the pacific ocean by testing nukes into water

I remember France blowing up the rainbow warrior while in port because they were trying to stop them. I also remember them threating to decimate our economy when we arrested two of the French agents that were responsible. Weren't the 80's fun?

 

[theignoramus]

Taking hostages in an embassy doesn´t count? Funding terrorists?

They haven´t started wars because they never were able.

uh, they couldve start a war with Israel through the Hezbollah any time over the last 5 years.

 

[Insane Metal]

I just read that Iran is preparing to "simulate" a closing of the Strait of Hormuz. And the USA claiming they won't let them do that.

This is just great.

=/

 

[Something Wicked]

I'm not voting for Obama if we attack Iran this year. This is ridiculous

Obama won't do anything during an election year and the Iranians know this. The Iranian regime, as someone noted above with NYT article, is simply deflecting attention from its nuclear program, as every month they become closer to developing weapons-grade uranium.

uh, they couldve start a war with Israel through the Hezbollah any time over the last 5 years.

War has already been declared. Iran declared war on Israel by using Hezbollah and Hamas in proxy battles against Israel. This is an Iranian regime without nuclear weapons. The size and number of missiles Iran would send to Hezbollah and Hamas with Iran being nuclear is what Israel fears. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and many Iraqis fear how bold the IRG would become with having nukes as well.

Also, Iran declared war on the US/UK/coalition forces when providing Shiite insurgents (and forces of that fat ass Al Sadr) in Iraq and Taliban members in Afghanistan IEDs, which have killed thousands of American and NATO troops.

The current Iranian regime, along with the IRG, is a cancer to global peace and economic prosperity.

 

[el retorno]

uh, they couldve start a war with Israel through the Hezbollah any time over the last 5 years.

And they would have gotten blown up. My point still stands they can´t ever launch a war unless they have some kind of deterence that they won´t be hurt (Nukes).

This is not to say they´ll launch a war after the get nukes but they´d have less to fear and push their influence a bit stronger.

 

[beastmode]

The current Iranian regime, along with the IRG, is a cancer to global peace and economic prosperity.

Iran hardly even compares to the United States in this regard.

 

[akira28]

I remember France blowing up the rainbow warrior while in port because they were trying to stop them. I also remember them threating to decimate our economy when we arrested two of the French agents that were responsible. Weren't the 80's fun?

What conspiracy theory is this?

The French government decided that in order to stop the planned protest, the Greenpeace flagship would have to be sunk. Operation Satanique would seek to disable the Rainbow Warrior while it was docked, while trying to prevent any casualties. Twenty years after the incident, a report by the then head of French intelligence said that the attack was authorized by French President François Mitterrand.

er...carry on.

 

[Meadows]

the chances of the USA and Israel attacking Iran together before the elections in the US are somewhere between 0-0.05%

While Israel is chomping at the bit to conduct air strikes, as they have successfully done in the past against Syria and Iraq, the USA is holding them back, probably promising to do black ops stuff to slow/stall Iran's nuclear progress.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but even I believe that all of these "accidents" happening in Iran are black ops by CIA/Mossad/MI6/others.

I think that if Obama gets re-elected, he won't have to worry about what geriatric Jewish Republican voters in Florida think anymore and will step back from committing to defend Israel if they go unilateral, which would leave things in a much different state. If, by some chance, Paul gets elected, then I can't even imagine what would happen, the entire world would change literally over night.

 

[theignoramus]

Obama won't do anything during an election year and the Iranians know this. The Iranian regime, as someone noted above with NYT article, is simply deflecting attention from its nuclear program, as every month they become closer to developing weapons-grade uranium.




War has already been declared. Iran declared war on Israel by using Hezbollah and Hamas in proxy battles against Israel. This is an Iranian regime without nuclear weapons. The size and number of missiles Iran would send to Hezbollah and Hamas with Iran being nuclear is what Israel fears. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and many Iraqis fear how bold the IRG would become with having nukes as well.

Also, Iran declared war on the US/UK/coalition forces when providing Shiite insurgents (and forces of that fat ass Al Sadr) in Iraq and Taliban members in Afghanistan IEDs, which have killed thousands of American and NATO troops.

The current Iranian regime, along with the IRG, is a cancer to global peace and economic prosperity.

did the US declare war on iran when it was using Saddam as a proxy, even as he used chemical weapons that killed tens of thousands of Iranians?

 

[Pollux]

did the US declare war on iran when it was using Saddam as a proxy, even as he used chemical weapons that killed tens of thousands of Iranians?

That was business. And the business of America is business.

But seriously you can't even make that comparison. The US president didn't deny a huge tragedy in Iranian history and loudly proclaim that Iran should be destroyed. To compare the two situations is just not possable.

 

[Wazzim]

War has already been declared. Iran declared war on Israel by using Hezbollah and Hamas in proxy battles against Israel. This is an Iranian regime without nuclear weapons. The size and number of missiles Iran would send to Hezbollah and Hamas with Iran being nuclear is what Israel fears. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and many Iraqis fear how bold the IRG would become with having nukes as well.

Also, Iran declared war on the US/UK/coalition forces when providing Shiite insurgents (and forces of that fat ass Al Sadr) in Iraq and Taliban members in Afghanistan IEDs, which have killed thousands of American and NATO troops.

The current Iranian regime, along with the IRG, is a cancer to global peace and economic prosperity.

I wished I stopped reading before coming to that sentence.

Jesus Christ, I knew you admitted to be biased once (edit: or was that someone else?) but can you cut out on the fox news fear mongering bullshit?

 

[Gaborn]

I just read that Iran is preparing to "simulate" a closing of the Strait of Hormuz. And the USA claiming they won't let them do that.

This is just great.

=/

Clearly China should declare war on the US and Taiwan the next time they "simulate" war games. Seriously, the level of rhetoric here is completely out of control on both sides.

 

[theignoramus]

That was business. And the business of America is business.

But seriously you can't even make that comparison. The US president didn't deny a huge tragedy in Iranian history and loudly proclaim that Iran should be destroyed. To compare the two situations is just not possable.

I agree, the human suffering inflicted by the weapons Iran has supplied to Israel and America's enemies, is not comparable to the WMD attacks dished out by Saddam.

edit: If you can point me to any evidence that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric about Israel and the Holocaust has resulted in tragic loss of life, I'd be happy to see it. Because the Israelis say it's been a propaganda coup for them.

 

[Pollux]

I agree, the human suffering inflicted by the weapons Iran has supplied to Israel and America's enemies, is not comparable to the WMD attacks dished out by Saddam.

edit: If you can point me to any evidence that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric about Israel and the Holocaust has resulted in tragic loss of life, I'd be happy to see it. Because the Israelis say it's been a propaganda coup for them.

Are we talking about the same thing? Iran-Iraq war and the US involvement with Iraq compared to Iran supplying Hezzbolah and others attacking Israel?

 

[theignoramus]

Are we talking about the same thing? Iran-Iraq war and the US involvement with Iraq compared to Iran supplying Hezzbolah and others attacking Israel?

we are. you implied that Iran's polemic against Israel and support for groups hostile to that country is somehow a more egregious act of aggression. Historically and factually, that makes no sense.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

That was business. And the business of America is business.

But seriously you can't even make that comparison. The US president didn't deny a huge tragedy in Iranian history and loudly proclaim that Iran should be destroyed. To compare the two situations is just not possable.

Are you saying that holocaust denial is in any way evil on the same scale as providing chemical weapons to Saddam?

 

[scorcho]

It's also meaningless when Ahmadinejad pontificates about Israel. Regardless of his speeches or views, he has zero control over Iran's foreign policy or military, and at this point seems out of favor with the Supreme Leader.

 

[Something Wicked]

did the US declare war on iran when it was using Saddam as a proxy, even as he used chemical weapons that killed tens of thousands of Iranians?

Many Cold War policies were very regrettable; however US foreign policy has drastically changed since the '80s. Both Iraq and Iran were pawns for many nations' interests, including the UK, Russia, China, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Egypt; in which the US actually gave support to both Iraq and Iran at different points.

Anyway, Iran shouldn't have established a government, in which "Death to America" was/is a pillar of it. Purposefully choosing to become an enemy of the United States is an extremely poor decision... Well, at least if a government cares for the welfare of its own people, which the current Iranian regime obviously does not. Without this regime, Iran and the world would be become much richer and more peaceful. Without this regime, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states would become significantly more secure, and the US could finally drawn down its military presence in the Middle East, while reducing its defense budget at the same time.

 

[theignoramus]

Many Cold War policies were very regrettable; however US foreign policy has drastically changed since the '80s. Both Iraq and Iran were pawns for many nations' interests, including the UK, Russia, China, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Egypt; in which the US actually gave support to both Iraq and Iran at different points.

Anyway, Iran shouldn't have established a government, in which "Death to America" was/is a pillar of it. Purposefully choosing to become an enemy of the United States is an extremely poor decision... Well, at least if a government cares for the welfare of its own people, which the current Iranian regime obviously does not. Without this regime, Iran and the world would be become much richer and more peaceful. Without this regime, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states would become significantly more secure, and the US could finally drawn down its military presence in the Middle East, while reducing its defense budget at the same time.

Maybe the United States shouldnt have overthrown Iran's government and backed the Shah and his torture squads. The Islamic Republic and its vehement opposition to America is called blowback, the unintended consequence of imperial meddling. Sort of like the Hezbollah and the Shiites of south Lebanon (who welcomed Israeli troops when they invaded in 82) are Israel's blowback.

 

[el retorno]

Maybe the United States shouldnt have overthrown Iran's government and backed the Shah and his torture squads. The Islamic Republic and its vehement opposition to America is called blowback, the unintended consequence of imperial meddling. Sort of like the Hezbollah and the Shiites of south Lebanon (who welcomed Israeli troops when they invaded in 82) are Israel's blowback.

And our hostile relations with Iran are blowback for funding terrorists and taking our citizens hostage.

 

[Something Wicked]

Maybe the United States shouldnt have overthrown Iran's government and backed the Shah and his torture squads. The Islamic Republic and its vehement opposition to America is called blowback, the unintended consequence of imperial meddling. Sort of like the Hezbollah and the Shiites of south Lebanon (who welcomed Israeli troops when they invaded in 82) are Israel's blowback.

Perhaps, the Iranian government of the early '50s should not have colluded with Hitler and Nazi Germany in the '30s. Many of members of that "elected" Iranian government had some quite nefarious plans for much of the Arabia and particularly those "pesky Jews," who had emigrated to a narrow strip of land along the eastern side of the Mediterranean.

Anyway, the further you go back in history, the more one realizes every nation or civilization has plenty of blood on its hands. However, most people in and governing such nations today are not responsible for atrocities centuries or decades ago.

Nevertheless, this current Iranian regime is directly responsible for proxy attacks on thousands and thousands of innocent troops and innocent civilians around the world. I mostly blame the growing power of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard within the Iranian government over the last decade. Thus, it is likely to have deal with the IRG in the near future. I just hope the generals of the regular Iranian army have the common sense not to join with the IRG in some suicidal resistance against the US, not engage US forces, and the lead the regime change mission on the ground. Given an apparent growing animosity between the IRG and regular Iranian army, the above is not too unlikely.

 

[nib95]

Obama won't do anything during an election year and the Iranians know this. The Iranian regime, as someone noted above with NYT article, is simply deflecting attention from its nuclear program, as every month they become closer to developing weapons-grade uranium.




War has already been declared. Iran declared war on Israel by using Hezbollah and Hamas in proxy battles against Israel. This is an Iranian regime without nuclear weapons. The size and number of missiles Iran would send to Hezbollah and Hamas with Iran being nuclear is what Israel fears. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and many Iraqis fear how bold the IRG would become with having nukes as well.

Also, Iran declared war on the US/UK/coalition forces when providing Shiite insurgents (and forces of that fat ass Al Sadr) in Iraq and Taliban members in Afghanistan IEDs, which have killed thousands of American and NATO troops.

The current Iranian regime, along with the IRG, is a cancer to global peace and economic prosperity.

Lol this is a rich crock of shit. So what if Iran funded arms to Hezbollah (democratically elected in some parts) or other organisations. You have the audacity to bring up Israel whilst forgetting its warmongering and mass murderous actions on both Palestine and Lebanon, which has cost thousands upon thousands of innocent lives and annihilated entire nations! You also had the cheek to bring up Iraq! News flash, it is and was an illegal war based on fabricated evidence and lies that has also led to the countless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and US soldiers too.

Then there's the whole irony of it, with the fact that it was the US who armed and empowered Iraq and Saddam in the first place so it could invade Iran (and also use WMD's among other warfare to kill thousands of Iranians)! It's like people are too dumb to realise Iran would want to defend itself or empower its allies, you know the ones who actually fight against such mass murdering aggression. I think you need to wake up and smell who the real threats to world peace are.

 

[ThisWreckage]

We'll likely go to war with them within a year and a half. That would push me over the edge and I would have no choice but to move to another country. I'm so sick of all of this war mongering, military dick waving bullshit that we constantly engage in.

 

[maharg]

Perhaps, the Iranian government of the early '50s should not have colluded with Hitler and Nazi Germany in the '30s. Many of members of that "elected" Iranian government had some quite nefarious plans for much of the Arabia and particularly those "pesky Jews," who had emigrated to a narrow strip of land along the eastern side of the Mediterranean.

Oh is THAT why that happened?

Huh. I thought it was because they nationalized their oil industry because the brits weren't giving them a fair share of the profits. Silly me.

(also lol at "gov't of the 50s shouldn't have done something in the 30s")

 

[Steelrain]

We'll likely go to war with them within a year and a half. That would push me over the edge and I would have no choice but to move to another country. I'm so sick of all of this war mongering, military dick waving bullshit that we constantly engage in.

I thought you were leaving anyway?

 

[ThisWreckage]

I thought you were leaving anyway?

Not until I get a job lined up. If we go to war with Iran I promise you I will show up with nothing but the clothes on my back in some random country, however.

 

[Kayo-kun]

Perhaps, the Iranian government of the early '50s should not have colluded with Hitler and Nazi Germany in the '30s. Many of members of that "elected" Iranian government had some quite nefarious plans for much of the Arabia and particularly those "pesky Jews," who had emigrated to a narrow strip of land along the eastern side of the Mediterranean.

Anyway, the further you go back in history, the more one realizes every nation or civilization has plenty of blood on its hands. However, most people in and governing such nations today are not responsible for atrocities centuries or decades ago.

Nevertheless, this current Iranian regime is directly responsible for proxy attacks on thousands and thousands of innocent troops and innocent civilians around the world. I mostly blame the growing power of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard within the Iranian government over the last decade. Thus, it is likely to have deal with the IRG in the near future. I just hope the generals of the regular Iranian army have the common sense not to join with the IRG in some suicidal resistance against the US, not engage US forces, and the lead the regime change mission on the ground. Given an apparent growing animosity between the IRG and regular Iranian army, the above is not too unlikely.

Thank you for the laugh, continue please.

 

[Pollux]

Lol this is a rich crock of shit. So what if Iran funded arms to Hezbollah (democratically elected in some parts) or other organisations. You have the audacity to bring up Israel whilst forgetting its warmongering and mass murderous actions on both Palestine and Lebanon, which has cost thousands upon thousands of innocent lives and annihilated entire nations! You also had the cheek to bring up Iraq! News flash, it is and was an illegal war based on fabricated evidence and lies that has also led to the countless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and US soldiers too.

Then there's the whole irony of it, with the fact that it was the US who armed and empowered Iraq and Saddam in the first place so it could invade Iran (and also use WMD's among other warfare to kill thousands of Iranians)! It's like people are too dumb to realise Iran would want to defend itself or empower its allies, you know the ones who actually fight against such mass murdering aggression. I think you need to wake up and smell who the real threats to world peace are.

Of course Iran has no right to do any of this crap, the US can do what they want, it's our manifest destiny. All we're trying to do is make the rest of the world exceptional as well.

To quote Michelle Bachmann from 2 seconds ago in Iowa - "we're not some third rate banana republic, we're the United States!"

 

[Something Wicked]

Lol this is a rich crock of shit. So what if Iran funded arms to Hezbollah (democratically elected in some parts) or other organisations. You have the audacity to bring up Israel whilst forgetting its warmongering and mass murderous actions on both Palestine and Lebanon, which has cost thousands upon thousands of innocent lives. You also had the cheek to bring up Iraq! News flash, it was an illegal war based on fabricated evidence and lies that has also led to the countless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and US soldiers too.

Then there's the whole irony of it, with the fact that it was the US who armed and empowered Iraq and Saddam in the first place so it could invade Iran (and also use WMD's among other warfare to kill thousands of Iranians)! It's like people are too dumb to realise Iran would want to defend itself or empower its allies, you know the ones who actually fight against such mass murdering aggression. I think you need to wake up and smell who the real threats to world peace are.

Many of the deaths in Iraq were caused by the IRG funding Shiite insurgent groups, along with Al Qaeda (with the help of the Syria regime) training and fighting along side Sunni insurgents. Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda are responsible for most the deaths in post-May 2003 Iraq. And even during the first month, most of the deaths occurred in Baghdad, since Saddam's forces were making people stay in their apartments at gunpoint to increase civilians casualties for greater worldwide sympathy- just like Hamas does when Israel engages.

I agree that the US Cold War policies of previous decades were very short-sighted. The USSR was going to fail with or without the US proxies. Communism was a minor threat by the later 70s/early 80s- Islamic fundamental jihadism had become the true threat and it took the US until 9/11/2001 to fully realize that.

To me, Iraq wasn't exactly about stopping chemical weapon production. It was apart of the "grand plan" of reshaping the Middle East into a democratic, pro-US, and eventually secular region. Taking out the main state sponsors of terrorism became necessary in order to achieve such peace and stability.

The Taliban, by harboring the Al Qaeda members responsible for 9/11, drew the obvious first card. An ally-less Iraq with an easily vilify-able Saddam would be the logical second regime. Then allied Syria and Iran would come last (at least as far as the major campaigns go). Unfortunately, Pakistan screwed up and now is on double secret probation.

Oh is THAT why that happened?

Huh. I thought it was because they nationalized their oil industry because the brits weren't giving them a fair share of the profits. Silly me.

(also lol at "gov't of the 50s shouldn't have done something in the 30s")

I was making the point that: A) Iran wasn't exactly some peace-loving nation before the 1950s coup and B) all nations have done "bad things" in the past, but if one wants to go tit for tat, one better have a in-depth understanding of history of before 1950. Also, I stated that many members of the Iranian government in the 1950s had connections with Nazi Germany during the '30s (and into the '40s actually). Most current of members of today's US government were elected after 1990 and thus after Cold War policies

 

[theignoramus]

Perhaps, the Iranian government of the early '50s should not have colluded with Hitler and Nazi Germany in the '30s. Many of members of that "elected" Iranian government had some quite nefarious plans for much of the Arabia and particularly those "pesky Jews," who had emigrated to a narrow strip of land along the eastern side of the Mediterranean.

Anyway, the further you go back in history, the more one realizes every nation or civilization has plenty of blood on its hands. However, most people in and governing such nations today are not responsible for atrocities centuries or decades ago.

Nevertheless, this current Iranian regime is directly responsible for proxy attacks on thousands and thousands of innocent troops and innocent civilians around the world. I mostly blame the growing power of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard within the Iranian government over the last decade. Thus, it is likely to have deal with the IRG in the near future. I just hope the generals of the regular Iranian army have the common sense not to join with the IRG in some suicidal resistance against the US, not engage US forces, and the lead the regime change mission on the ground. Given an apparent growing animosity between the IRG and regular Iranian army, the above is not too unlikely.

Yeah, and which countries occupied Iran in the 40s. Come off it, acting as if Iran was somehow some Nazi ally during the war, what utter bullshit.
Im not sure I've ever heard the term "innocent troops" before. sounds like a term of propaganda, like something you'd read in the old Soviet Union.

 

[theignoramus]

And our hostile relations with Iran are blowback for funding terrorists and taking our citizens hostage.

Hamas and Hezbollah arent any worse than the US backed Northern Alliance or any number of thugs and warlords in the Karzai government. And domestically, they arent anywhere near as medieval as Israel loving, Jew hating Saudi Arabia , which by the way, still issues textbooks that call for Jews to be annihilated.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4165571,00.html

 

[nib95]

Oh is THAT why that happened?

Huh. I thought it was because they nationalized their oil industry because the brits weren't giving them a fair share of the profits. Silly me.

(also lol at "gov't of the 50s shouldn't have done something in the 30s")

Maybe the US started taking notes from Britain. I'd imagine at the heart of many of the US's neferatious actions in the region (maybe globally) is something to do with oil or some other political or financial incentive, one that probably benefits private contractors more than the American people mind. Nope, US citizens just get the raw end of these deals, with billions of their tax dollars stolen and further jacked up oil prices.

But like a mob, many will support the war, it's government, the propaganda and the risk to hundreds of thousands of innocent lives (including American). Stupendous really, but that's the stretch to which ignorance can be used to mould such things and such thought. Happens every day over there too, only with countries such as the US and Israel, the stakes and toll to life are much, much greater.

 

[Kad5]

Many of the deaths in Iraq were caused by the IRG funding Shiite insurgent groups, along with Al Qaeda (with the help of the Syria regime) training and fighting along side Sunni insurgents. Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda are responsible for most the deaths in post-May 2003 Iraq. And even during the first month, most of the deaths occurred in Baghdad, since Saddam's forces were making people stay in their apartments at gunpoint to increase civilians casualties for greater worldwide sympathy- just like Hamas does when Israel engages.

I agree that the US Cold War policies of previous decades were very short-sighted. The USSR was going to fail with or without the US proxies. Communism was a minor threat by the later 70s/early 80s- Islamic fundamental jihadism had become the true threat and it took the US until 9/11/2001 to fully realize that.

To me, Iraq wasn't exactly about stopping chemical weapon production. It was apart of the "grand plan" of reshaping the Middle East into a democratic, pro-US, and eventually secular region. Taking out the main state sponsors of terrorism became necessary in order to achieve such peace and stability.

The Taliban, by harboring the Al Qaeda members responsible for 9/11, drew the obvious first card. An ally-less Iraq with an easily vilify-able Saddam would be the logical second regime. Then allied Syria and Iran would come last (at least as far as the major campaigns go). Unfortunately, Pakistan screwed up and now is on double secret probation.




I was making the point that: A) Iran wasn't exactly some peace-loving nation before the 1950s coup and B) all nations have done "bad things" in the past, but if one wants to go tit for tat, one better have a in-depth understanding of history of before 1950. Also, I stated that many members of the Iranian government in the 1950s had connections with Nazi Germany during the '30s (and into the '40s actually). Most current of members of today's US government were elected after 1990 and thus after Cold War policies

Did you seriously use Iraq and stability in the same sentence...?

 

[maharg]

I was making the point that: A) Iran wasn't exactly some peace-loving nation before the 1950s coup and B) all nations have done "bad things" in the past, but if one wants to go tit for tat, one better have a in-depth understanding of history of before 1950. Also, I stated that many members of the Iranian government in the 1950s had connections with Nazi Germany during the '30s (and into the '40s actually). Most current of members of today's US government were elected after 1990 and thus after Cold War policies

I'm not sure what A) has to do with anything. What nation in the world is 'peace-loving'? What nation in the middle east region ever even had the privilege of being 'peace-loving' while they were being passed around by the imperial powers like a two-bit whore?

As for B), it's a cute way of absolving responsibility, but the US was directly responsible for the overthrow of a democratically elected constitutional republic and turning it into a monstrous dictatorship. You can put scare quotes around 'democratically' all you want, and it certainly wasn't perfect (it disenfranchised much of its population, but I should point out that the US had its own suffrage problems in the first half of the 20th century), but that was a moment where the US had all the power and chose to abuse it in a most heinous manner.

That Iran's reaction to that has been extreme or long lasting, or that they became willing to put power in the hands of something even worse as a means to protect their sovereignty, should not come as any kind of shock. And whatever bad shit Iran has done since then does not absolve the US of its direct guilt in creating the situation that resulted in the rise of that power.

 

[Something Wicked]

That Iran's reaction to that has been extreme or long lasting, or that they became willing to put power in the hands of something even worse as a means to protect their sovereignty, should not come as any kind of shock. And whatever bad shit Iran has done since then does not absolve the US of its direct guilt in creating the situation that resulted in the rise of that power.

Eh, I believe many in Tehran (particularly those on the younger side) don't really give much of a shit towards what happened in the 1950s. The American or British governmental officials of the '50s aren't the ones currently arresting and torturing their friends, family, and selves.

Also, most current Iranian leaders do not use antagonistic rhetoric against the US to demonstrate "revenge for the '53 coup." Such rhetoric is mainly used to solidify their power by making the US, Israel, Europe, etc. as scapegoats for Iran's and the world's problems. Unfortunately, many members within the IRG have bought the whole "promote the great Revolution throughout the region" and have been clearly putting such propaganda into action over the recent years. It's the "irrationality" and "dick waving" of the IRG that the US military fears, and the US' patience with this group is running extremely thin.

Did you seriously use Iraq and stability in the same sentence...?

Regional stability.

The rise of foreign investment into cities like Dubai, Doha, and Kuwait City over the last decade has been very much correlated with the removal of Saddam Hussein. The region would see an even bigger economic boost if the current Iranian regime was replaced with a pro-Arab/pro-western government.

 

[maharg]

Again with the sidestepping.

 

[Parch]

I seriously hope this shit doesn't pop off in the next year. I don't need to be called back to active duty.

My sympathies, man. Service members need a break.

I wonder how many american politicians have talked about implementing conscription.

 

[Something Wicked]

My sympathies, man. Service members need a break.

I wonder how many american politicians have talked about implementing conscription.

Actually, Congress and military officials are talking about cutting the armed forces by around 100,000 soldiers. It's more likely that many current soldiers won't be able to re-enlist in the near future.

 

[demolitio]

My sympathies, man. Service members need a break.

I wonder how many american politicians have talked about implementing conscription.

That's political suicide and unneeded. Right now, the military has plenty of people enlisting due to the economy to the point where they're trying to get some of the current personnel to accept and early discharge for missing the PT requirements even before "fat camp" in some cases now. The Air Force has always had a lot of recruits joining so they tried to control the jobs for a while and making even more recruits go to basic as "open general" meaning they'll get to pick from a list of jobs needed as soon as they finish training and a lot of them end up as Security Forces or something else they don't want. They tried to tell me I failed depth perception and had me going in without a job at first and I went back and passed a test for an intelligence job before I left because I knew I'd get a shitty job otherwise.

Basically, I can speak for three of the branches and say they have a lot of recruits coming in, especially due to the jobs market for kids coming out of college and they are in NO need of conscription unless WWIII broke out. They're trying to trim down when they can and now I imagine they'll try to do that again. The economy made sure people are joining when there were still plenty of people joining before that out of duty or benefits for college.

Edit: What Wicked said too. Some aren't even going to be able to re-up for many reasons so it's all about if they need you and if you have a good record. Contrary to what most think, they're doing fine now.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and many Iraqis fear how bold the IRG would become with having nukes...

No they don't.

The U.S. and its Western allies are sure to do whatever they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world. To understand why, it is only necessary to look at the studies of Arab opinion conducted by U.S. polling agencies. Though barely reported, they are certainly known to planners. They reveal that by overwhelming majorities, Arabs regard the U.S. and Israel as the major threats they face: the U.S. is so regarded by 90% of Egyptians, in the region generally by over 75%. Some Arabs regard Iran as a threat: 10%. Opposition to U.S. policy is so strong that a majority believes that security would be improved if Iran had nuclear weapons — in Egypt, 80%. Other figures are similar. If public opinion were to influence policy, the U.S. not only would not control the region, but would be expelled from it, along with its allies, undermining fundamental principles of global dominance.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175382

It would be more accurate and honest to say the despotic regimes currently propped and supported by American interests fear Iran getting a nuke. And for very different reasons than you state. While most actual human beings that live under these regimes support Iran's nuclear armament, and consider the US and Israel the primary threats in the region. Isn't that interesting?

 

[Karakand]

Something Revisionist

 

[el retorno]

Hamas and Hezbollah arent any worse than the US backed Northern Alliance or any number of thugs and warlords in the Karzai government. And domestically, they arent anywhere near as medieval as Israel loving, Jew hating Saudi Arabia , which by the way, still issues textbooks that call for Jews to be annihilated.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4165571,00.html

I was just pointing out that both countries have interfered with other countries and have "Imperialist" tendencies. And that Iran isn't just minding its own business and the big old US is bullying it.

And yes hezbollah and hamas are worse than most US allies. Save for countries like Saudi Arabia and their human rights abuses.

 

[el retorno]

No they don't.



It would be more accurate and honest to say the despotic regimes currently propped and supported by American interests fear Iran getting a nuke. And for very different reasons than you state. While most actual human beings that live under these regimes support Iran's nuclear armament, and consider the US and Israel the primary threats in the region. Isn't that interesting?

Before I respond to that what tea poll says. What polling agency is Nom talking about. It's left out... And I'm not going to really believe the unbiased view of that poll
until I hear who it's from

because this seems to show Iran becoming less and less popular http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/3544/iran-through-arab-eyes.html

 

[theignoramus]

Before I respond to that what tea poll says. What polling agency is Nom talking about. It's left out... And I'm not going to really believe the unbiased view of that poll until I hear who it's from

please, it's from the Brookings Institute, which is staffed by ex-US government officials. anyway that poll is from summer of 2010. While 57% of that polls respondents said the region would be better off with Iranian nukes, now it's something like 30%. Iran supporting Bashar Al Assad's crackdown is presumably the reason for the drop. Nonetheless, Israel and America are still (rightly) regarded by the "Arab street" as the main threats to regional peace and stability.