undeclared financial war on Iran

[hohto]

So, no official wars are declared and trigger hasn't been pullet yet even to the gun is loaded already but according to an article released in BBC, the unofficial financial war has been launched. This is said to be because of their nuclear projects and rise its price to the skies.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6730681.stm

 

 

 

Iran has now taken one step closer to being secure: they are starting gasoline rationing. This just shows who suffers from this financial war: normal civilians who most likely don't even know what's really going on. The authorities who can do something to stop the nuclear project most likely can only laugh at these acts from USA.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6243644.stm

 

 

 

In my eyes this is just a one last weak act to make them stop. Currently USA can't start a new war or they'd need either a huge jump in volunteers or conscription. With current general attitude and atmosphere, it would need a new 9/11 for the first option and 2nd probably is a bit too radical. Also according to some sources, they are already so close that no financial war can make them stop.

 

 

 

The scary part here can be found from quite

But there is also a second, potentially more powerful, element. Since September 2006, US officials have been travelling the world talking to banks and company bosses. They aim to persuade business to voluntarily abandon or scale back all dealings with Iran.

. How can any democractic country even try this kind of actions? Iran has a leader and meps who have been voted to their duties, not dictators who have throned themselves. Could this become a new doctrine: obey us or your economics will suffer?

[Flametrooper]

Well, the U.S. is a big bully. Doesn't surprise me much.

[Ambassadar]

Most Iranians I have met were nice decent people but their government is pretty extreme...

 

 

 

How can any democractic country even try this kind of actions? Iran has a leader and meps who have been voted to their duties, not dictators who have throned themselves. Could this become a new doctrine: obey us or your economics will suffer?

 

 

 

Iran has funded terrorist training camps for years.

 

 

 

Iran has called for the destruction of the United States for years.

 

 

 

Iran has called for the destruction of other nations for years.

 

 

 

Iran has supported all kinds of terrorism for years.

 

 

 

Iran has been causing trouble in Iraq supporting people killing US troops.

 

 

 

Iran has a leader and meps who have been voted to their duties, not dictators who have throned themselves.

 

The Ayatollah Khamenei still has massive power in Iran. Especially over military matters. Iran is a lot more of a theocratic Muslim state than the democracy you are painting it out to be.

 

 

 

What terrorist activities have been linked with Iran?

 

 

 

The U.S. government first listed Iran as a terrorist sponsor in 1984. Among its activities have been the following:

 

 

 

* In November 1979, Iranian student revolutionaries widely thought to be linked to the Khomeini government occupied the American Embassy in Tehran. Iran held fifty-two Americans hostage for 444 days.

 

* Observers say Iran had prior knowledge of Hezbollah attacks, such as the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine involved in a U.N. observer mission in Lebanon, and the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish cultural institutions in Argentina.

 

* Iran still has a price on the head of the Indian-born British novelist Salman Rushdie for what Iranian leaders call blasphemous writings about Islam in his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses.

 

* U.S. officials say Iran supported the group behind the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed nineteen U.S. servicemen.

 

 

 

Here is an article with a big rundown on Iran.

 

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/

[Tigra00]

Give it a few decades...Hopefully we'll have a new fuel source and every single Muslim country over there that hates everyone else will be nothing but poor mud-hut dwelling people. Quite amazing how oil companies are holding onto oil so dearly, yet it is in theirs - and America in particular's - best interest to get rid of oil so that the people who wish to harm us...just can't. The only thing all those countries have going for them in oil. Nothing else.

[BlueTear]

Is permitting Iran - a country that didn't manage to get along with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in part because they wanted to overthrow his government to create another Islamic Republic - to develop nuclear weapons, really the smart thing to do? And I don't mean just for the USA here, I mean for just about everyone - 'cause quite frankly, not even the oil-princes of Saudi-Arabia would be spared in a massive export of the islamic revolution.

 

 

 

The only scary part here is that Iran is so hellbent on continuing down this path.

 

 

 

(And by the way, if Iran is such a sweet and nice country where the leadership is elected and their actions enjoy popular support, it seems to me that rationing gasoline will give them a fair amount of negative publicity. In a democratic country, that is not good for authorities)

[hohto]

Is permitting Iran - a country that didn't manage to get along with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in part because they wanted to overthrow his government to create another Islamic Republic - to develop nuclear weapons, really the smart thing to do? And I don't mean just for the USA here, I mean for just about everyone - 'cause quite frankly, not even the oil-princes of Saudi-Arabia would be spared in a massive export of the islamic revolution.

 

 

 

The point here really isn't should they or shouldn't they have nuclear weapons. In my eyes we should reduce the amount of nuclear weapons dramatically and do anything to get rid even the last single one. The point here is that now our democratic model (yea, right) is hurting innocent civilians with this kind act. If their nuclear project is in a stage that some sources claim, no economic war can make them stop it anymore. However it spreads the antiamerican atmosphere at the Near East and gives the people one more reason to actually hope for the weapons: this just hshows them they aren't liked and they need something to defend themselves. Notice that the general attitude of people can be used as a propaganda from the goverment's side but it doesn't always become their doctrine: most likely if they officially finish their nukes (compare cases Israel and North Korea), they'll talk about them as defending weapons even if they had plans to use them for attacking.

 

 

 

Also how can this kind of a thing even be considered from the goverment's side and if it now works, can it be used in future? Look how Europe divided into "new" and "old" when they were going to Iraq. In the worst scenario we will next time get even multinational companies pressuring countries to go for war against something as stupid (talking about the official reason) as was with Iraq.

 

 

 

Iran...terrorist...terrorism

 

 

 

Please define me the word terrorism. At other thread (http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=670342) we already got a bit into that point. Is it kidnapping innocent people during their vacation and torturing for months? Is it training new military units that actually do kill people? Is it having and making weapons of mass destruction? The word terrorism has been inflated a lot. In my eyes Iran does not support it or if it does, then does USA unless terrorism means that it is doing things that USA doesn't like.

 

 

 

Also this act could be seen as terrorism. At least it would be called that if it was against USA.

[BlueTear]

The point here really isn't should they or shouldn't they have nuclear weapons. In my eyes we should reduce the amount of nuclear weapons dramatically and do anything to get rid even the last single one.

 

Of course that's the point, they're not having arguments with the UN or just about anyone with some sense out of sheer spite on everyone else's part. It's not about people in western governments going "oh hey, neither me nor my electorate likes Iran".

 

 

 

No forceful action of any kind, whether it be covert economic warfare, UN sanctions or downright war is going to "spare" civilians. Make a choice here; Civilian discomfort or even deaths or additional nuclear weapons ready to threaten the world.

 

 

 

The point here is that now our democratic model (yea, right) is hurting innocent civilians with this kind act. If their nuclear project is in a stage that some sources claim, no economic war can make them stop it anymore.

If downright war is what's required, downright war is what's required. But if these actions like this or economic sanctions work, we'll spare these same civilians a war. You can't claim that their "suffering" is in vain, because even if it just *might* work, don't we owe it to them and our own conscience's to try these options - even if some people would say it's too late - because they're better options than open warfare?

 

 

 

And that's besides the strategical advantages of putting a nation under economic siege before actual warfare.

 

Also how can this kind of a thing even be considered from the goverment's side and if it now works, can it be used in future?

 

Well, seeing as economic warfare is a few centuries old...?

 

Look how Europe divided into "new" and "old" when they were going to Iraq. In the worst scenario we will next time get even multinational companies pressuring countries to go for war against something as stupid (talking about the official reason) as was with Iraq.

Iran is not Iraq. Iraq didn't have WMD's, nor was the "proof" of such particularly impressive. Iraq was in no major situation to start something, because they'd already been slapped down hard for being aggressors. No fly zones, UN inspectors...

 

Please define me the word terrorism. At other thread (http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=670342) we already got a bit into that point. Is it kidnapping innocent people during their vacation and torturing for months? Is it training new military units that actually do kill people? Is it having and making weapons of mass destruction? The word terrorism has been inflated a lot. In my eyes Iran does not support it or if it does, then does USA unless terrorism means that it is doing things that USA doesn't like.

 

 

 

Also this act could be seen as terrorism. At least it would be called that if it was against USA.

 

How's calling funding various organizations known to carry out strikes against certain targets covert warfare? Not cover economical warfare mind you, but covert, undeclared, warfare. By the apparently oh-so-democratic Iranian government nonetheless. But if a western democratic nation engages in an "undeclared financial war", we're apparently violating all kinds of high and mighty principles?

[Chocobodude0]

God, so times I wonder if America is TRYING to cut any positive relationships with other countries for good. It is honestly saddening, unfortunatly, the American Government no longer represents the majorty of American citizens.

 

 

 

Man, whe is ethanol, vegetable oil, ANYTHING but oil gonna become the standard? :(

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well, with fairness there's already a huge anti-American feeling in the middle-East in general anyway - a measure such as this wouldn't make these feelings much stronger.

 

 

 

What I absolutely cannot understand is the American attitude towards this though. Iran isn't the same as Iraq, correct. But the resistance that would be encountered from an invasion of Iran would be the same, if not worse since the coutry is actually more developed, and the people aren't nearly as oppressed as they were in Iraq, so the civilian population wouldn't be all that sympathetic towards an American occupation. Also, Iraq is still going on. Attacking Iran in this way is just asking for the situation in the Middle-East to become even more volatile and potentially dangerous to the Western World if such tactics by the Americans go wrong. Americans have also seen the situation in Iraq, and there's a majority that want a fll US withdrawal from Iraq. Yet you want to go back into a war that only promises an even worse situation?

 

 

 

Secondly, there's an issue with Russia here. Russia pointed out America's hypocracy regarding nuclear weapons recently when they tried to build a missile defence system in former Soviet land. Russia is becoming increasingly frustrated at America's arrogant attitude to world affairs, and imposing measures on the Middle-East (which affect Russia's economy much more than the US) will only act to worsen these relations.

 

 

 

All in all, I see this is an ill-thought, arrogant, counter-productive and hasty attempt to secure America's dominance on the situation in the Middle-east, from a President desperetely seeking opportunities to be remembered in History as a man who did good for the world, instead of ebing remembered for the travesty that has emerged from Iraq .

[hohto]

Well, seeing as economic warfare is a few centuries old...?

 

 

 

Probably more than just few, but if it turns out to be a succesful and morally accepted by the majority of americans, it might have destructive affects in future. We've seen too many dictators getting to power that has gone through an economical crisis.

 

 

 

Iran is not Iraq. Iraq didn't have WMD's, nor was the "proof" of such particularly impressive. Iraq was in no major situation to start something, because they'd already been slapped down hard for being aggressors. No fly zones, UN inspectors...

 

 

 

Weapons of mass destruction were one theme why troops were sent there and still far too many people even at these boards hail George for stopping Hussein's plans. However the political pressure to some countries that were against the war was pretty harsh. How would the situation change if Iran now got nuclear weapons and started to work aggressive, but some major countries didn't support the war against them. How would USA react as even before Iraq they were acting like they were and giving statements like "either you're with us or with the terrorists".

 

 

 

How's calling funding various organizations known to carry out strikes against certain targets covert warfare? Not cover economical warfare mind you, but covert, undeclared, warfare. By the apparently oh-so-democratic Iranian government nonetheless. But if a western democratic nation engages in an "undeclared financial war", we're apparently violating all kinds of high and mighty principles?

 

 

 

The thing is that what they do is terrorism and what we do is either a military intervention or war agains terrorism. Look at the history of their acts and USA's acts. The only difference is that USA got the resources to do things in better and cleaner way.

 

 

 

The only principles we're violating are the ones we've written and we try o make others to follow. We get frontpage news when our soldiers are caught at their area or at their boarder areas, but we close our eyes when our goverment kidnaps and tortures a civilian during his vacation. We let certain countries keep up with their aggression and same time strike others down.

 

 

 

If downright war is what's required, downright war is what's required. But if these actions like this or economic sanctions work, we'll spare these same civilians a war. You can't claim that their "suffering" is in vain, because even if it just *might* work, don't we owe it to them and our own conscience's to try these options - even if some people would say it's too late - because they're better options than open warfare?

 

 

 

At what stage it becomes required? Is it when they strike against you or your allies? When they start pressuring you?

[BlueTear]

Probably more than just few, but if it turns out to be a succesful and morally accepted by the majority of americans, it might have destructive affects in future. We've seen too many dictators getting to power that has gone through an economical crisis.

 

First of all, when I said it was centuries old, I really meant it. It's not some magical new phenomena that needs to be taken through a public approval process; It's a fact of life. Economic warfare is an accepted tactic. It just isn't a tactic that's quite as easily graspable by the general public as shooting someone in the head in a straight-up war. Second of all, who's going to use economic warfare to topple a government that does sensible, peaceful things to allow them to be taken over by dictators?

 

Weapons of mass destruction were one theme why troops were sent there and still far too many people even at these boards hail George for stopping Hussein's plans. However the political pressure to some countries that were against the war was pretty harsh. How would the situation change if Iran now got nuclear weapons and started to work aggressive, but some major countries didn't support the war against them. How would USA react as even before Iraq they were acting like they were and giving statements like "either you're with us or with the terrorists".

Point being...?

The thing is that what they do is terrorism and what we do is either a military intervention or war agains terrorism. Look at the history of their acts and USA's acts. The only difference is that USA got the resources to do things in better and cleaner way.

 

 

 

The only principles we're violating are the ones we've written and we try o make others to follow. We get frontpage news when our soldiers are caught at their area or at their boarder areas, but we close our eyes when our goverment kidnaps and tortures a civilian during his vacation. We let certain countries keep up with their aggression and same time strike others down.

Yet laying down to die while Iran builds nukes is hardly going to make anyone sleep better at night. You can't both be complaining over covert economic warfare on part the USA as a Violation while ignoring the covert military warfare waged by Iran. And of the two, Iran is both the one with the worst track record for human rights and the one with most extremist government.

At what stage it becomes required? Is it when they strike against you or your allies? When they start pressuring you?

Once again, take a pick: You can either talk about how you don't want nuclear weapons to profilate, or you can actually go in with force and do something about it and accept that this will generate civilian casaulties.

 

 

 

So what's worth more to you hohto? The spread of nuclear weapons - which you said you were against - or civilian lives in the country that's choosing to develop them - which you seem intent on cushioning from the consequences involved in actually doing something to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Empthy threats, or act and live with the consequences?

[malo2]

The scary part here can be found from quite

But there is also a second, potentially more powerful, element. Since September 2006, US officials have been travelling the world talking to banks and company bosses. They aim to persuade business to voluntarily abandon or scale back all dealings with Iran.

. How can any democractic country even try this kind of actions? Iran has a leader and meps who have been voted to their duties, not dictators who have throned themselves. Could this become a new doctrine: obey us or your economics will suffer?

I'm sorry, but when I'm being threatened to be nuked, I see it as a very good solution. In fact, if it were up to me, I would stop having a [bleep]ing tea party and air strike every military point in Iran.

[hohto]

Point being...?

 

 

 

Point being that if USA goes against Iran, they need more soldiers than they currently have and need many allies from Europe. We already saw how Europe divided during the Iraq episode and that dividation could become much bigger if we'd went for Iran: as an enemy Iran would be much worse than Iraq and thus cause more casualties. Even with Iraq the goverment of USA tried to pressure European countries to go with them but how strictly would they try to pressure against even greater enemy?

 

 

 

Yet laying down to die while Iran builds nukes is hardly going to make anyone sleep better at night. You can't both be complaining over covert economic warfare on part the USA as a Violation while ignoring the covert military warfare waged by Iran.

 

 

 

With actions like this, it's not a miracle they are expanding their army and getting new and stronger weapons. We already got one country in the Near East that has nuclear weapons, we've seen too many wars there and current pressure at least doesn't help the situation.

 

 

 

And of the two, Iran is both the one with the worst track record for human rights and the one with most extremist government.

 

 

 

Many other countries also laugh at human rights, yet they are allies with USA. Just take a look at Israel for example. Also with USA's current situation, human rights isn't the first thing they'd care about. Official story might be different, but heck if they can even kidnap european citizens during their vacations and torture them, they aren't the first ones to talk about human rights.

 

 

 

Once again, take a pick: You can either talk about how you don't want nuclear weapons to profilate, or you can actually go in with force and do something about it and accept that this will generate civilian casaulties.

 

 

 

So what's worth more to you hohto? The spread of nuclear weapons - which you said you were against - or civilian lives in the country that's choosing to develop them - which you seem intent on cushioning from the consequences involved in actually doing something to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Empthy threats, or act and live with the consequences?

 

 

 

Currently we majority of people believe that the only way to defend against nuclear weapons is to have them. That also has been part of the official doctrine of USA and reason why certain countries have bought nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

If we want to get rid of them, we can't just try to stop certain countries getting them while others can expand their storages. That doesn't bring us closer to a nuclear free future, it infact is taking steps to worse direction. Countries like North Korea, India or Pakistan have build theirs mainly because that's the easiest way to stop their enemies (holy trinity of China, Pakistan and India or North Korea vs USA) to use them against them.

 

 

 

If we want to avoid nuclear weapons being used, we don't just stop their spreading. We need to also get rid of at least the most of current ones and put the last ones into a stage where they can't be immediately launched, but can be soon built again to keep up the fear. When The Soviet Union broke down and Russia was weak, it would have been a good time to reduce the amount of nukes to a level where the reduces would actually been worth something. We missed that opportunity and now we're paying the price in North Korea and Iran.

 

 

 

edit:

 

I'm sorry, but when I'm being threatened to be nuked, I see it as a very good solution. In fact, if it were up to me, I would stop having a [bleep] tea party and air strike every military point in Iran.

 

 

 

Iran is all the time under pressure from countries like Israel and USA, both having their own nuclear weapons. To avoid being nuked, they are building theirs. At media they can say anything about destroying Israel, but not even them would commit a that kind of a suicide.

 

 

 

Btw when did they threat your country? Here's a source to their mission technology. No, even if they managed to build few nukes, they wouldn't be that big threat to USA or UK with these missiles. First of all their range isn't too big, 2nd their technology isn't too stable. However even a failed attempt (failed due a technical failure) to nuke right places is the easiest way to get destroyed. Iran nows this for sure.

 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/

 

 

 

2nd edit: Also going against Iran now in a militarical way would be a sign of idiotism. USA doesn't have enough troops to open a new front against an enemy that's a lot stronger than Iraq&Afghanistan together. Also with the current atmosphere in many European countries, getting enoug allies wouldn't be that easy either.

[darkmage099]

Give it a few decades...Hopefully we'll have a new fuel source and every single Muslim country over there that hates everyone else will be nothing but poor mud-hut dwelling people. Quite amazing how oil companies are holding onto oil so dearly, yet it is in theirs - and America in particular's - best interest to get rid of oil so that the people who wish to harm us...just can't. The only thing all those countries have going for them in oil. Nothing else.

 

 

 

Yeah, we ALL hate America.

 

 

 

I think America needs to use the phrase "you attract more bees with honey than vinegar". They HONESTLY need to try cooperation (serious cooperation) with all the countries that are not fond of their world affairs. Ultimately, aggression will lose them their superpower status.

[malo2]

I'm sorry, but when I'm being threatened to be nuked, I see it as a very good solution. In fact, if it were up to me, I would stop having a [bleep] tea party and air strike every military point in Iran.

 

 

 

Iran is all the time under pressure from countries like Israel and USA, both having their own nuclear weapons. To avoid being nuked, they are building theirs. At media they can say anything about destroying Israel, but not even them would commit a that kind of a suicide.

 

 

 

Btw when did they threat your country? Here's a source to their mission technology. No, even if they managed to build few nukes, they wouldn't be that big threat to USA or UK with these missiles. First of all their range isn't too big, 2nd their technology isn't too stable. However even a failed attempt (failed due a technical failure) to nuke right places is the easiest way to get destroyed. Iran nows this for sure.

 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/

 

well first of all, every developed country in the world with nukes is dismantling them, and has been for a while. and what is this "pressure" you are talking about? is the rest of the world going "haha we have nukes and you don't! were gonna nuke ya someday noob!"? There is no pressure.

 

 

 

Secondly, are you telling me i should not worry about an insane leader holding nukes just because the technology isn't very advanced? It honestly sounds like you're high on something.

 

 

 

Lastly, the point about threats and "suicide" are plain ignorant, I think you should do a little more research on Iran at it's present state.

[hohto]

well first of all, every developed country in the world with nukes is dismantling them, and has been for a while. and what is this "pressure" you are talking about? is the rest of the world going "haha we have nukes and you don't! were gonna nuke ya someday noob!"? There is no pressure.

 

 

 

We already are pressuring them with this kind of economical war and when we support Israel, they need to boost their defence. No country can just sit down with their hands in pockets while their neightbour (who they have had problems with) gets more and more technological weapons and already has nukes aimed at your cities.

 

 

 

Secondly, are you telling me i should not worry about an insane leader holding nukes just because the technology isn't very advanced? It honestly sounds like you're high on something.

 

 

 

I'm worried about nukes in general, not just some Iranian having a handful of them. With them he can't destroy even 1 single continent while many countries can destroy this whole planet multiple times.

 

 

 

For directly to USA, Iran isn't any kind of a threat with nuclears. No, with their currently missile technology you won't see Pearl Harbour2 unless they manage to leak the missile directly to your country. Of course this would set limits to the size of the bomb and would be more than risky as even when failed it would be an end of the story for Iran.

 

 

 

Lastly, the point about threats and "suicide" are plain ignorant, I think you should do a little more research on Iran at it's present state.

 

 

 

Ever heard of populism? He's telling what the people want to hear and same time spread the fear. If they really were that suicidial, they wouldn't give out that kind of statements which could risk their whole project and most likely we would have seen Israel&USA vs Iran ages ago which was fought till the dirty end.

[lordkrohn1626]

So, no official wars are declared and trigger hasn't been pullet yet even to the gun is loaded already but according to an article released in BBC, the unofficial financial war has been launched. This is said to be because of their nuclear projects and rise its price to the skies.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6730681.stm

 

 

 

Iran has now taken one step closer to being secure: they are starting gasoline rationing. This just shows who suffers from this financial war: normal civilians who most likely don't even know what's really going on. The authorities who can do something to stop the nuclear project most likely can only laugh at these acts from USA.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6243644.stm

 

 

 

In my eyes this is just a one last weak act to make them stop. Currently USA can't start a new war or they'd need either a huge jump in volunteers or conscription. With current general attitude and atmosphere, it would need a new 9/11 for the first option and 2nd probably is a bit too radical. Also according to some sources, they are already so close that no financial war can make them stop.

 

 

 

The scary part here can be found from quite

But there is also a second, potentially more powerful, element. Since September 2006, US officials have been travelling the world talking to banks and company bosses. They aim to persuade business to voluntarily abandon or scale back all dealings with Iran.

. How can any democractic country even try this kind of actions? Iran has a leader and meps who have been voted to their duties, not dictators who have throned themselves. Could this become a new doctrine: obey us or your economics will suffer?

 

 

 

Oh come on Hohto, you can't really be that naive to what Iran has and is doing for quite awhile now. Sponsoring terrorism, providing training, weapons, etc to terrorists....are you completely living in another dimension? Can you be living that far out of reality? This from a guy whose signature says strong men act.........

 

 

 

:uhh: ohno big scary America is after innocent Iran now...quick grab your children and head for the basement....sigh.

 

 

 

"can't start a new war".....well, if you mean carry on ANOTHER large land war...then no you are correct, we are a bit thinly stretched at the moment...doesn't prevent us from easily bombing them back into the stone ages though. We got plenty of bombs, and B-2 Stealth Bombers to hand deliver the love. Oh that's right, maybe we should sit ideally while they build nuclear weapons and watch as they continue to aid and act as terrorists...wait until they make an overt act....like comandeer UN forces from doing embargo inspections and turning it into a media circus...oh that's right, they already did...twice. To bad GPS shows they were lying...big surprise.

 

 

 

See another difference is, they are a government...easily identified, easy to laser point the bombs to particular places....little harder when your dealing with peekaboo warfare with the insurgents in Iraq. Iran would be easier then Iraq by far...identifiable forces and infrastructure. Taking it over? no, destroying their capabilities? yes.

 

 

 

darkmage: Yeah, we ALL hate America.

 

 

 

I think America needs to use the phrase "you attract more bees with honey than vinegar". They HONESTLY need to try cooperation (serious cooperation) with all the countries that are not fond of their world affairs. Ultimately, aggression will lose them their superpower status

 

 

 

Yeah you are right, man, why didn't we think about TALKING to them first... #-o um....they don't enter dialogues very well, think we are weak for doing so, laugh behind their closed doors at our efforts to come to an understanding, use our democratic ways against us..... :idea: ooooh I got an idea, lets just make Iran a glass parking lot...problem solved =D> Unfortunately there are tons of innocent people who just want to live in peace, so that isnt an option, to bad the guy in charge there could care less.

 

 

 

HoHto:Point being that if USA goes against Iran, they need more soldiers than they currently have and need many allies from Europe. We already saw how Europe divided during the Iraq episode and that dividation could become much bigger if we'd went for Iran: as an enemy Iran would be much worse than Iraq and thus cause more casualties. Even with Iraq the goverment of USA tried to pressure European countries to go with them but how strictly would they try to pressure against even greater enemy?

 

 

 

Once again, Iran would be easier, it is an identifiable enemy. Ask sadaam about how the million man army worked out for him in 1990, oh that's right, he was executed for his crimes (thanks USA) took us 40 days...count them 40 days...and that was after telling him two months in advance that we were coming, so he had time to prepare. We aren't talking about taking over Iran, just neutralizing their capabilities. We have plenty of love to drop on them. works wonders. We wouldnt need a single thing from anyone to make it happen. Just get out of our way, go picket somewhere or something while we get the job done...as usual.

 

 

 

Hohto:but heck if they can even kidnap european citizens during their vacations and torture them, they aren't the first ones to talk about human rights.

 

 

 

:XD: Now that is to funny to even respond to...oh kay, maybe I will. Let me guess, they were skipping home from sunday school, and the big bad USA snatched them up and tortured them.....sigh

 

 

 

Hohto:When The Soviet Union broke down and Russia was weak, it would have been a good time to reduce the amount of nukes to a level where the reduces would actually been worth something. We missed that opportunity and now we're paying the price in North Korea and Iran.

 

 

 

We have been dismantling for years....Its an international dismantling agreement, we just don't publicize it every time we defuel and destroy a Weapon, but the big boys know, it is physically verified, and even verified via satellite, welcome to the real world that doen't make the daily news rags.

 

 

 

Once again, you are mistaken, we only have 40% of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan ATM, the others are home or on shore duty, they can be sent over in a moments notice. It is called rotation, you do 15-18 months in country, and go stateside for a minimum of 12 months, they can be sent in time of need. Also AGAIN, it is easy to kill an identifiable enemy, much easier then the peekaboo war we are playing in Irag and Afgh. Two complete different scenarios....We also have lots of love to drop from the skies.

 

 

 

:thumbsup:

[hohto]

Lordkrohn1626, I already once asked it in this thread, but what's terrorism they are supporting and how is it different from the terrorism you're currently doing all around the world?

 

 

 

A full war against them at their ground at the moment was pretty much what I meant, but anyways if you now went into bombing them back to stone ages like you said it, what would happen to your Iraq front? Exactly: it would get a new enemy. Also when did you last time compare Iraq's and Iran's armies? Iran is a lot head of current (or pre-2000s) Iraq at almost everything.

 

 

 

You also mentioned this "peekaboo" warfare. Do you seriously think it wouldn't also happen at Iran if you went against them? Most likely it would just be larger than in Iraq as it has already shown that it is one possibility for one nation to fight against a stronger conqueror.

 

 

 

Now that is to funny to even respond to...oh kay, maybe I will. Let me guess, they were skipping home from sunday school, and the big bad USA snatched them up and tortured them.....sigh

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=670342

 

 

 

Read that thread and think again what's terrorism and what's war against it. Is it war against terrorism when you're doing the same thing as your enemies are doign to you?

 

 

 

Once again, you are mistaken, we only have 40% of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan ATM, the others are home or on shore duty, they can be sent over in a moments notice. It is called rotation, you do 15-18 months in country, and go stateside for a minimum of 12 months, they can be sent in time of need. Also AGAIN, it is easy to kill an identifiable enemy, much easier then the peekaboo war we are playing in Irag and Afgh. Two complete different scenarios....We also have lots of love to drop from the skies.

 

 

 

Don't put words into my mouth. Even you said it yourself that at the moment you wouldn't be able to take over Iran. Also if you need 40% of your soldiers to even be in those countries, how can you even think of starting a full land war against Iran?

 

 

 

We have been dismantling for years....Its an international dismantling agreement, we just don't publicize it every time we defuel and destroy a Weapon, but the big boys know, it is physically verified, and even verified via satellite, welcome to the real world that doen't make the daily news rags.

 

 

 

The point isn't that you haven't reduced them. The point is that the reduces are ridicilous. This world isn't any safer place when it can be destroyed x-2 times where x is a big number. Even reducing yours and Russia's nukes to half wouldn't be anything else than a good start.

[lordkrohn1626]

Lordkrohn1626, I already once asked it in this thread, but what's terrorism they are supporting and how is it different from the terrorism you're currently doing all around the world? (1)

 

 

 

A full war against them at their ground at the moment was pretty much what I meant, but anyways if you now went into bombing them back to stone ages like you said it, what would happen to your Iraq front? (2)Exactly: it would get a new enemy. Also when did you last time compare Iraq's and Iran's armies? Iran is a lot head of current (or pre-2000s) Iraq at almost everything. (3)

 

 

 

You also mentioned this "peekaboo" warfare. Do you seriously think it wouldn't also happen at Iran if you went against them? Most likely it would just be larger than in Iraq as it has already shown that it is one possibility for one nation to fight against a stronger conqueror. (4)

 

 

 

Now that is to funny to even respond to...oh kay, maybe I will. Let me guess, they were skipping home from sunday school, and the big bad USA snatched them up and tortured them.....sigh

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=670342

 

 

 

Read that thread and think again what's terrorism and what's war against it. Is it war against terrorism when you're doing the same thing as your enemies are doign to you?

 

 

 

Once again, you are mistaken, we only have 40% of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan ATM, the others are home or on shore duty, they can be sent over in a moments notice. It is called rotation, you do 15-18 months in country, and go stateside for a minimum of 12 months, they can be sent in time of need. Also AGAIN, it is easy to kill an identifiable enemy, much easier then the peekaboo war we are playing in Irag and Afgh. Two complete different scenarios....We also have lots of love to drop from the skies.

 

 

 

Don't put words into my mouth. Even you said it yourself that at the moment you wouldn't be able to take over Iran. Also if you need 40% of your soldiers to even be in those countries, how can you even think of starting a full land war against Iran? (5)

 

 

 

We have been dismantling for years....Its an international dismantling agreement, we just don't publicize it every time we defuel and destroy a Weapon, but the big boys know, it is physically verified, and even verified via satellite, welcome to the real world that doen't make the daily news rags.

 

 

 

The point isn't that you haven't reduced them. The point is that the reduces are ridicilous. This world isn't any safer place when it can be destroyed x-2 times where x is a big number. Even reducing yours and Russia's nukes to half wouldn't be anything else than a good start.(6)

 

 

 

(1) How is it different.....my god man, you are kidding right? We are not islamic radicals.....we are supportive of and highly encourage democratic type societies...because people have rights, better lives, dont have to live in fear of having religious police throw acid in their face, etc etc etc....they support and train terrorists.....no comparison.

 

 

 

(2) wouldnt affect it much, we use different planes for bombing in Iraq...mostly carrier based, and some land based of course. But we have a lot of planes that we are not using...long range bombers specifically.

 

 

 

(3) You are correct, Iran is modern, Iraq and AFGH are not. The point I was making is with Iran, it is an easily identified enemy, disrupting and destroying their capabilities isnt hard, when compared to the endless freaking job of peeking under every ones skarf in Iraq. Extreme high altitude bombing of easy to see via satelitte buildings and military base structures versus kicking in every door in Iraq.....see my point?

 

 

 

(4) only if we intended to go in afterwards with ground troops, which would obviously be dumb. Break the point off their spear from the sky, not try to remove it from their hands physically.

 

 

 

(5) A large land based campaign isnt even conceivable at this point, nothing to do with breaking it off so they can not strike militarily though.

 

 

 

(6) I am with you there, nothing cool, or funny about the thought of nuclear war. The point we are makng is large established accountable regimes can use them as cold war deterrents, small ideological, extreme governments, who think if they kill ten million infidels in a fiery ball ensures them ever lasting happiness in Allah's lap, concerns us, they dont have the "maturity" not to use them. To bad we can not wave a wand and make all nuclear weapons dissappear. The world would be better off without them. But they do well as deterrents :(

[hohto]

(1) How is it different.....my god man, you are kidding right? We are not islamic radicals.....we are supportive of and highly encourage democratic type societies...because people have rights, better lives, dont have to live in fear of having religious police throw acid in their face, etc etc etc....they support and train terrorists.....no comparison.

 

 

 

You did not answer to my question. What makes their strikes terrorism and yours war against it? What even is terrorism? In my eyes kidnapping a citizen of a country that belongs to the European Union during his personal vacation is far away from democracy. Not to mention he didn't have any fair (or even any kind) trials, he was being tortured and so on for months.

 

 

 

In my eyes no democractic country can pressure any other countries in a way USA has. If you can attack a country without UN's agreement and call other countries with names like "undemocractic" or "terrorist supporting" as they listen to their citizens and don't go to your war, you're far from being democratic.

 

 

 

(2) wouldnt affect it much, we use different planes for bombing in Iraq...mostly carrier based, and some land based of course. But we have a lot of planes that we are not using...long range bombers specifically.

 

(3) You are correct, Iran is modern, Iraq and AFGH are not. The point I was making is with Iran, it is an easily identified enemy, disrupting and destroying their capabilities isnt hard, when compared to the endless freaking job of peeking under every ones skarf in Iraq. Extreme high altitude bombing of easy to see via satelitte buildings and military base structures versus kicking in every door in Iraq.....see my point?

 

 

 

I'll combine these as you obviously don't see the differences and similarities. When you went for Iraq, it was same kind of an obvious enemy was Iran is now. They had their military, officers, equipment and so on. However techinally, morally and by size Iran is far ahead of Iraq. The Iraq army on this decade has been far from being powerful or not even good.

 

 

 

(6) I am with you there, nothing cool, or funny about the thought of nuclear war. The point we are makng is large established accountable regimes can use them as cold war deterrents, small ideological, extreme governments, who think if they kill ten million infidels in a fiery ball ensures them ever lasting happiness in Allah's lap, concerns us, they dont have the "maturity" not to use them. To bad we can not wave a wand and make all nuclear weapons dissappear. The world would be better off without them. But they do well as deterrents :(

 

 

 

First of all, reducing them to somewhat wiser amounts wouldn't take away the fear factory. Currently it's ridicilous how USA and Russia got more nukes than they can ever use. Also your statement of Allah's lap is a bit too stereotypical. Pakistan for example can be seen as a radical country, yet they got nukes and haven't used them even against their rival India.

 

 

 

Yes, spreading them of course increases the chances of them going to wrong hands. However we should fight to reduce the amount of them to minimum and drop the ability to use them as low as possible. One solution introduced by few antinuclear persons is to drop their amount to as low as possible and then put them into a stage where it would take around a week or two to rebuild them and after that start paying enough attention that none of the countries could rebuild them. That way the enemy couldn't get too many of them before we'd have ours and thus the fear factor would stay.