ralis

Is war with Iran inevitable?

Recommended Posts

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta believes Israel will strike Iran this spring. Also posted here are Newt Gingrich's views on Iran. Notice the reference to 'holocaust' in regards to Israel potentially being attacked by Iran.

 

Bush started this with the infamous "axis of evil" speech" which was nothing more than fear mongering, while planning incursions into the Middle East in a quest for more control of the world's oil supply.

 

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/02/panetta-believes-israel-will-attack-iran-in-coming-months/

 

 

 

 

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/newt-gingrich-advocates-assassinating-iran

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204531404577054911628578368.html

 

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So even though Iran was a signatory of the non proliferation agreement and they clandestinely began a nuclear weapons program, wouldnt allow their "electricity only" excuse to be inspected according to the treaty once dissidents outed their program, openly talking of removing Israel from the map...repeatedly...not to mention funding all sorts of terrorist groups...

 

 

Nah, none of that matters. Just us warmongering and trying to take over the resources of the world!

 

 

And we're all warmongers for wanting to protect shipping lanes of course...Now is that any different than protecting yourself from Somali pirates?

 

*shakes head* If the mullahs really want war, they've been taking many steps to show they can begin one, threatening to, in fact...

 

But I guess words dont really matter, so long as there's a bunch of people out there that thinks america is simply illegitimate and all of our gains have come at everyone else's expense - they can just selectively ignore parts of history that dont coincide with their worldview, no problem!

 

I dont want the world to go to war with Iran either - I just wish Obama would have stuck up for Iran when the time came for him to display "leadership" - instead he stuck up for the mullahs, stuck up for the status quo, stuck up for the mullah's hope of the 12th imam and the destruction of the world so that all non muslims can be destroyed :lol: Yo, Barack! Anybody inform you that you're running towards the wrong end zone??? He wouldnt have the balls to back an ally at any rate, otherwise Iran's nuclear weapons facilities would have long since been dust.

 

If I had my way, we would have said "sure, we'll help you build nuclear reactors....a couple of them, in fact....thorium reactors, to be precise" B)

 

But nope, like the USA 60-80 years ago, they want the dual purpose, though they lie through their teeth saying its just for peaceful electricity...ok, then why the subterfuge?

 

Ooop...wait, cant ask sensible questions, the only questions that can be asked are "why are we such a bunch of warmongers that we need to just up and attack nice peaceful Iran?"

 

I know if my neighbor was threatening to level my house I wouldnt just sit there and say "well, he might not really mean it, he couldnt possibly be that crazy, could he?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My feeling is that the USA power people don't want any kind of conflict with Iran, but the USA are being heavily pushed by Israel, Saudi Arabs, and Emirates for a war. Saudi are afraid of Iran not less (maybe more) than Israel. All those understand very well that they have little chance to win any conflict with Iran on their own, so their strategy is to involve the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the Israeli's said that Iran was on the cusp of nuclear weapons in 1996 and 1999, so over 16 years ago there was this same fear http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-weve-been-here-before--and-it-suits-israel-that-we-never-forget-nuclear-iran-6294111.html , so a lot of it might be bullshit. With all the disinformation around I don't know what the reality is now but I know that most of the mainstream media has been drip feeding anti Iranian propaganda into the press for a few years now so they are preparing the UK at least for possible war, but that may involve the Russians so I doubt they want it to come to that.

Edited by Jetsun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilarious...

 

Look at afghanistan..what a pile of bullshit..False flag terrorist attack 9/11...then try and find bin laden...it is just completely illogical..how you could believe this war or the war on the "weapons of mass destruction" have any logical basis whatsoever, its so ridiculous.

 

UK, france, Israel, US have hundreds of nuclear weapons especially israel with hundreds of undeclared nuclear weapons supported by US dominated NATO, are trying to police a country with no wars in 300 years when America dropped a bomb on hiroshima and Israel has the most UN sanctions on it for any country...

 

The US has tried to start War on Iran for the last 30 years, just research it..

 

I cant believe people still believe this bullshit TV, News...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right-wing apologia notwithstanding (you know who you are) the alleged threat by the Iran is just another example of "blowback," a phenomenon the western powers will have to deal with for at least another 5-10 decades. We overthrew Mosaddegh's democratically elected government back in 1953 after they had the temerity in 1951 to nationalize their oil industry for the wealth of their country rather than the UK and the US. So Churchill and Eisenhower performed a coup and installed the Shah, who was in turn overthrown by religious fanatics even worse.

And so it goes. Overthrowing governments and installing assholes who will do our bidding has consequences, and its been a tool of our foreign policy since the late 1800s. Who would've thought. Part of the price for living in an empire. Someday soon we may get tired of it and settle for living a simpler life in a mere nation, but that means not exercising are God-given right to grow fat asses while driving Hummers to Black Angus Restaurant.

Edited by Encephalon
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the Israeli's said that Iran was on the cusp of nuclear weapons in 1996 and 1999, so over 16 years ago there was this same fear http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-weve-been-here-before--and-it-suits-israel-that-we-never-forget-nuclear-iran-6294111.html , so a lot of it might be bullshit. With all the disinformation around I don't know what the reality is now but I know that most of the mainstream media has been drip feeding anti Iranian propaganda into the press for a few years now so they are preparing the UK at least for possible war, but that may involve the Russians so I doubt they want it to come to that.

Look at actions, not words. The only time the USA have made a serious move was when Iran said and started to move in the direction of closing the straight of Ohrmuz (sp?). That was a clear indication that the USA are not reeally concerned with the Iran nuclear program but they are indeed concerned with the unimpeded passage of oil. Whereas Israeli and Saudi interests are entirely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my some peoples heads been filled. have fun with that.

Unlike yourself, who takes his talking points from intellectuals like Sarah Palin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_J0fIF8xl0

I'll stick with scholarly sources, like Chalmers Johnson, author of "Blowback" and seven other books, and former author of the President's Daily Intellligence Brief. I guess the fact that he has less than savory things to say about American foreign policy must mean that he's another Big Scary Leftie Who Hates America!

That's a huge problem for right-wingers. They're so mired with rose-tinted notions of God Blessing America that they lose the ability to evaluate information that conflicts with their mythology. So it ALL becomes unpatriotic leftie treason.

Powerful nations have done good things and bad things over time. It's just the historical standard, in spite of hurting the feelings of a handful of flag-wavers and Bible-thumpers.

Edited by Encephalon
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quest for more resources has always been the reason for expansion of any empire. Whether the need of the Romans for more wood as a reason to expand further into Europe or the increasing oil demand of U.S. domestic as well as a bloated military industrial complex. "Drill baby drill" flag waving Republicans such as Gingrich et al, will use fear, propaganda, and military adventurism to achieve a foothold in any region with sufficient reserves of oil. Given that Iran has approximately 9% of the worlds proven oil reserves, Republican hawks view that as a necessary risk to increase power further in that region. Iragi oil ministers just recently announced that new engineering data indicates that Iraq may have the largest reserves on the planet.

 

Any war with Iran will be a very costly war given that Iran has a very strong military as well as long range Chinese made silkworm missiles that can sink any carrier fleet. My guess is that battlefield tactical nukes may be used to win such a conflict and that kind of warfare is the wet dream of right wing, blood thirsty, bible thumping, "god is on my side", radicals. "God is on my side" translated to German "Gott mit uns" was engraved on SS belt buckles.

 

26032d1233246492-gott-mit-uns-belt-buckle-real-fake-m4_68-aluminium-nowa-dated-1939-front.jpg

 

Republicans resist deep spending cuts in Pentagon.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/us-usa-budget-cuts-idUSTRE8110DA20120202?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=401

Edited by ralis
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently saw Zbigniew Brzezinski on TV. He had some good points, he said Iran has a 3,000 year old history. They have survived for that long, they are not stupid, Iran knows that a nuclear attack on Israel will mean suicide for Iran.

 

The Israeli attack on Iran is mainly being pushed by the exterme right wing of Israel, they need to cool their heels. Its in no ones interest to start a war. Wars he said are very easy to start and get into, but very hard to control and stop. A negotiated solution is much better. The United States should make it clear to Iran that a attack on Israel or Saudi Arabia would mean a attack on the US, so offer the same protection as we do to Japan, South Korea, Europe etc

 

http://csis.org/expert/zbigniew-brzezinski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inevitable, no. It would be foolish on a dozen fronts, but war usually is. Americans are sick of war, it would be hugely unpopular. I think republican candidates are out of touch when they talk tough, but then so is much of the rhetoric coming out of Iran.

 

Still, we may view each other as crazy, but they probably view us as insane cowboy crazy. They probably consider that in a worst case scenario they're radio active ash.

 

Possible, yes. If Israel did an intense but limited bombing in suspected nuclear sites, Iran would certainly counter attack, but would any other country? Almost every countr would protest the attack, but would any other actively fight Israel?

 

Syria may be its closest ally, but its in disarray and it didn't counter attack when Israel destroyed its small secret nuclear site two or three years ago. Still Hezbollah is an even more direct patron of Iran, they'd fire missiles, and Israel would answer them maybe with cluster bombs, but I don't think either side would launch an invasion. Israel wouldn't want a two front war and a standard attack on Israel would be repulsed. Undoubtedly Hamas would fire missiles into Israel too, but again I foresee a tit for tat, with tat getting it much worse.

 

Within the Israel/Iran equation there lies the fact that Irans neighbors do not want to see it go nuclear. Wiki leaks showed some extreme antiIran sentiment from the Saudi government. Iran is aware of the devastation war would cost. They assume Israel and the U.S. are partners and the truth is they couldn't stand against the U.S. full might. They're close enough to Iraq to know what a week of bombing does.

 

My prediction: No war, no attacks, years of sanctions, lots of saber rattling. Within a year or two Iran either has the bomb or says it does. They feel a flush of national pride. Israel and Iran work out there own version of MAD and that is that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick Santorum is really getting desperate! I guess he will keep us all safe? :lol: Now Missouri is not safe if Iran has a nuke. Just another example of right wing fascist tactics.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quest for more resources has always been the reason for expansion of any empire. Whether the need of the Romans for more wood as a reason to expand further into Europe or the increasing oil demand of U.S. domestic as well as a bloated military industrial complex. "Drill baby drill" flag waving Republicans such as Gingrich et al, will use fear, propaganda, and military adventurism to achieve a foothold in any region with sufficient reserves of oil. Given that Iran has approximately 9% of the worlds proven oil reserves, Republican hawks view that as a necessary risk to increase power further in that region. Iragi oil ministers just recently announced that new engineering data indicates that Iraq may have the largest reserves on the planet.

 

Any war with Iran will be a very costly war given that Iran has a very strong military as well as long range Chinese made silkworm missiles that can sink any carrier fleet. My guess is that battlefield tactical nukes may be used to win such a conflict and that kind of warfare is the wet dream of right wing, blood thirsty, bible thumping, "god is on my side", radicals. "God is on my side" translated to German "Gott mit uns" was engraved on SS belt buckles.

:rolleyes: hah, drill as in utilize our own resources? what a concept! wait, need to get the 8 million permits and hm, maybe if somebody felt like letting some energy get developed...well, nah, what's that going to do for us?! crab about resources all you want but cheap energy is quite a proven uplifter from the strains of poverty. how great would it be if poor people didnt have to spend significant portions of their income on staying warm and getting to places? face it, if Obama had gone the opposite way in the wake of BP, there would be a great many more poor people that would legitimately be able to say Obama had positively affected their lives. or on any energy decision, for that matter - I dont understand the shocked aversion to utilizing any of our resources whatsoever, because Iran would be quite less relevant if there wasnt an artificially created energy bottleneck.

 

nah, instead let's just make up some crazy patchwork of historical links and use it as an excuse to point the finger looking for warmongering as opposed to separating straw men from real arguments relevant for the day and age. I'm of course not saying history is irrelevant, but the conglomeration of circumstances is never the same.

 

I dont quite share your optimism for Iran's forces :lol: We're *not* going to be invading Iran, and in a battle of technologies it wont be close. I'm not saying Iran is so impotent that it couldnt even inflict damage or casualty, but seriously, if you're pitting out military technology vs theirs, its not going to be much of a contest no matter what the Chinese have given them recently.

 

I recently saw Zbigniew Brzezinski on TV. He had some good points, he said Iran has a 3,000 year old history. They have survived for that long, they are not stupid, Iran knows that a nuclear attack on Israel will mean suicide for Iran.

 

The Israeli attack on Iran is mainly being pushed by the exterme right wing of Israel, they need to cool their heels. Its in no ones interest to start a war. Wars he said are very easy to start and get into, but very hard to control and stop. A negotiated solution is much better. The United States should make it clear to Iran that a attack on Israel or Saudi Arabia would mean a attack on the US, so offer the same protection as we do to Japan, South Korea, Europe etc

 

http://csis.org/expert/zbigniew-brzezinski

I hope you dont believe brzezinski is impartial :lol: what's 3,000 years of history got to do with a collection of religious fanatics exerting oppressive control on their population got to do with the age of their culture?

 

and the history of who's attacked who aside, who's presently openly calling for the other's destruction?

the world should embrace total pacifism instead of cutthroat resource-control

a perfectly peaceful world would be such an awesome thing, it will be a wonderful time when the planet gets there. but that doesnt mean one hides his head in the sand as to today's reality that sadly, the world is not a perfectly peaceful place by any stretch of the imagination.

 

the freer the world is, the more abundant and cheaply the average inhabitant of the world can have access to energy, the more peaceful the world will be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: hah, drill as in utilize our own resources? what a concept! wait, need to get the 8 million permits and hm, maybe if somebody felt like letting some energy get developed...well, nah, what's that going to do for us?! crab about resources all you want but cheap energy is quite a proven uplifter from the strains of poverty. how great would it be if poor people didnt have to spend significant portions of their income on staying warm and getting to places? face it, if Obama had gone the opposite way in the wake of BP, there would be a great many more poor people that would legitimately be able to say Obama had positively affected their lives. or on any energy decision, for that matter - I dont understand the shocked aversion to utilizing any of our resources whatsoever, because Iran would be quite less relevant if there wasnt an artificially created energy bottleneck.

 

nah, instead let's just make up some crazy patchwork of historical links and use it as an excuse to point the finger looking for warmongering as opposed to separating straw men from real arguments relevant for the day and age. I'm of course not saying history is irrelevant, but the conglomeration of circumstances is never the same.

 

I dont quite share your optimism for Iran's forces :lol: We're *not* going to be invading Iran, and in a battle of technologies it wont be close. I'm not saying Iran is so impotent that it couldnt even inflict damage or casualty, but seriously, if you're pitting out military technology vs theirs, its not going to be much of a contest no matter what the Chinese have given them recently.

 

 

I hope you dont believe brzezinski is impartial :lol: what's 3,000 years of history got to do with a collection of religious fanatics exerting oppressive control on their population got to do with the age of their culture?

 

and the history of who's attacked who aside, who's presently openly calling for the other's destruction?

 

a perfectly peaceful world would be such an awesome thing, it will be a wonderful time when the planet gets there. but that doesnt mean one hides his head in the sand as to today's reality that sadly, the world is not a perfectly peaceful place by any stretch of the imagination.

 

the freer the world is, the more abundant and cheaply the average inhabitant of the world can have access to energy, the more peaceful the world will be.

 

The U.S. has become the largest exporter of gasoline. That makes your point irrelevant!

 

http://www.commodityonline.com/news/us-becomes--largest-exporter-of-gasoline-from-largest-consumer-38747-3-1.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: sometimes you just help me make my points, ralis. I'm sure you've heard of supply and demand, yes? the net export came because of lack of demand and more natural gas production. what's that got to do with oil? quite a different commodity but getting no different consideration, surprisingly enough.

 

and the point you were trying to make was...? that you dont understand these mechanisms seems to be about it.

 

fundamentals, roots...if you make your decisions based on bad information, then good outcomes are coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: sometimes you just help me make my points, ralis. I'm sure you've heard of supply and demand, yes? the net export came because of lack of demand and more natural gas production. what's that got to do with oil? quite a different commodity but getting no different consideration, surprisingly enough.

 

and the point you were trying to make was...? that you dont understand these mechanisms seems to be about it.

 

fundamentals, roots...if you make your decisions based on bad information, then good outcomes are coincidence.

 

I have had much more education in economics and business than you have. In fact, I have been running a business for over 30 years. Not interested in your patronizing remarks.

 

In terms of supply and demand, if there is an excess supply of gasoline due to decreased demand, then why are the prices rapidly increasing this past week as well as over the past few years? Prices should be decreasing. So much for your simplistic notions of capitalistic markets i.e, supply and demand.

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont quite share your optimism for Iran's forces :lol: We're *not* going to be invading Iran, and in a battle of technologies it wont be close. I'm not saying Iran is so impotent that it couldnt even inflict damage or casualty, but seriously, if you're pitting out military technology vs theirs, its not going to be much of a contest no matter what the Chinese have given them recently.

 

I hope you dont believe brzezinski is impartial :lol: what's 3,000 years of history got to do with a collection of religious fanatics exerting oppressive control on their population got to do with the age of their culture?

All analysts agree that just bombing Iran nuclear facilities will delay its nuclear program 2-3 years at best. If West, Israel, and Saudi are serious about stopping Iran bomb they will have to invade Iran on grounds. Nobody doubts the coalition military and financial superiority over Iran. Yet isn't it some sort of de ja vu? The same analysts were even more optimistic about invasion to Iraq that ended with 100k-300k killed plus $1 trillion cost for the USA.

 

The Iranian bomb is the same lame excuse as Iraqi WMD a decade ago. THe true reason for the showdown are different; and they are different for each party involved. For the USA it is oil and pressure from its allies Israel and Saudi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at afghanistan..what a pile of bullshit..False flag terrorist attack 9/11...then try and find bin laden...it is just completely illogical..how you could believe this war or the war on the "weapons of mass destruction" have any logical basis whatsoever, its so ridiculous.

 

UK, france, Israel, US have hundreds of nuclear weapons especially israel with hundreds of undeclared nuclear weapons supported by US dominated NATO, are trying to police a country with no wars in 300 years when America dropped a bomb on hiroshima and Israel has the most UN sanctions on it for any country...

 

The US has tried to start War on Iran for the last 30 years, just research it..

 

I cant believe people still believe this bullshit TV, News...

Yup, our foreign policy is f'n hilarious!!!

 

Israel & Saudi Arabia are the 2 largest recipients of our foreign aid.

 

Israel is estimated to have 75-200 nukes & Saudi Arabia is where the 9II false-flag alleged hijackers were from..

 

Israel's M0ssad is also most likely behind 6 magnetic bomb hits on Iranian nuclear scientists.

 

The US has Iran completely encircled in military bases (starred below):

USBases_Iran.jpg

And the US is even flying drones over their airspace..

 

Now, just IMAGINE if Iran had bases all over Mexico & Canada and was flying drones over Kansas???

 

Not to mention:

As of the year 2000, there were only seven or eight countries without a Rothschild owned or controlled Central Bank:

Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and possibly Syria.

 

The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family are:

Cuba, North Korea and Iran.

 

Of course it is just a coincidence that these Nations are the next target.

And yet, Iran is the "bad guy" in all this??? LMFAO!!! :lol:

 

But only Ron Paul GETS this:

"This idea that they’re (Iran) looking for a fight, I think that is all a concoction of the West so as to prepare the people for a war that is likely to come when we have a policy like this. I think it makes the perfect argument for my non-intervention foreign policy. We shouldn’t be engaged and stirring up trouble."
Whereas neocons and liberals are both willing to spend $1.2 million annually PER SOLDIER to kill every Arab they can! Edited by vortex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's unlikely that many people have a choice in the matter whether war on Iran happens or not.

What one might have actual choice in, might be the way one understands why the US may wish to talk about going to war with Iran. I think the understanding of the whys might be more useful to any given citizen than anything else.

 

Personally, I won't bother coming up with a special-case theory as to why this particular war could be deemed necessary.

Now if you'd all just look over there for a few weeks, hum, until the fall. I think that should do it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought up this topic because of the 'war party' and it's quest to defeat Obama at any cost. If the 'war party' takes control of the White House, the U.S. may be embroiled in another war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Vortex.

 

As an Iranian American, I have had awhile to think about this issue. The idea that Iran is a legitimate threat to anyone is a joke. Just like Vortex said just imagine if Iran was flying drones over America and had military bases in Canada. How would Americans feel?

 

I am not saying Iran is a perfect country or that I am a fan of the way of life there. I am not. But these are very deep, complex issues that will take decades to resolve and won't be accomplished through war.

 

I think Israel should have the right to exist. And they should show better leadership if they are supposed to be a role model of Democracy in the Middle East, it doesn't appear they are doing a great job of that.

 

Ahhh, my really, really last post on Taobums! Let's hope we can create a more peacfeul world some day!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was mulling this one over in terms of what it would mean for the election outcome and what that would mean for the US domestically. It could run backwards too. Where the "war party" you refer to ends up enabling the re-election of Obama. War both is and isn't a campaign issue IMO. You can use it both ways. If the US decides to go war with Iran after the election it just has to find compelling enough reasons for it regardless of campaign promises AND it can also fight an election based on very compelling reasons before it needs to use them AND they don't have to match. War does not make promises that may or may not be broken.

Very serious wild-card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as always the "China factor" is left out of the picture.

 

Iran's number 1 customer for oil is China with 11% of China's oil imported from Iran. Any wonders why China is the biggest opponent to sanctions against Iran.

 

However it goes further than this because China is a major supplier of military assets to Iran and some Chinese commentators are going as far as to say "China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a Third World War."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPjxeyG-Ztw&feature=youtu.be

 

Add into this Russia's steadfast support of Iran then the possibility of a Russia-China-Iran trade and military alliance starts to loom quite large on the horizon.

 

Now China's economy is starting to stall as it is with the WFC mark II looming. If it goes into recession and it's demand on commodities falls then the already fragile situation in Europe and the US (and us Aussies) could experience the classic case of an economic "perfect storm".

 

And yet the US is desperately afraid of China's growing influence across the world, and it seems the US is manoeuvring to hedge in China's growth and, if they could close the tap on Iran's oil pipeline to China (better still have that pipeline re-diverted to the US), then that would ensure the US stays as top dog for the next several decades.

 

So its almost a catch-22 situation, to keep it's own economies from faltering the West needs a strong and progressive Chinese economy (as well as access to middle-eastern oil), but, with a strong and progressive economy, China's world power and dominance also grows which threatens US international influence.

 

The situation with Iran at the moment is the key-stone and the virtual battlefield of all vested interests.

 

39.gif

Edited by Stigweard
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites