The United States is incapable of attacking a country that can actually defend itself, so any invasion will occur after several months of high altitude bombing, and even then it will end up a quagmire that makes Iraq look like a day excursion. I think it highly unlikely that there will be any overt attack for many years.
Senior Israeli official: If nuclear talks fail, Bush will order Iran attack
- Thread starter orbital 123
- Start date
the u.s. wants to attack iran because they won't have enough oil as a result of the iranians switching their oil business away from the dollar
i'm not sure i'd be interested in hearing any "explanations" for your retarded conspiracy theories
Well the general idea is to secure ourselves (and Europe as well) energy long term. So a regime change in Iran would be beneficial to that. If that is not feasible, then bullying them into playing the oil game by our rules would suffice. That and they are fucking around with the strength of our currency, which pisses us off as well. Afghanistan is just a strategic piece of this scenario (mainly pipeline routing). We've already secured Iraq as a supplier, Saudi Arabia has been playing ball (since we keep the Monarchy alive) so no problem there. What's that leave us? Iran.
You should probably look up and understand the word "conspiracy" first before you start using it.
Cuz throwing it around where it completely doesn't apply pretty much makes you look like a complete jackass.
Just f.y.i.
that's sort of what negotiating and diplomacy is all about.
diplomacy is called diplomacy because you're basically negotiating instead of waging war. If diplomacy fails, what then? You either puss out or you don't.
Look at north korea - diplomacy instead of war. In that case, it worked. In iraq's case, it didn't.
negotiations between sovereign countries have no force behind them if there is not the threat of action, either. Especially when dealing with nukes. This is world ending shit, you better believe the west would use military means in dealing with it.
diplomacy is called diplomacy because you're basically negotiating instead of waging war. If diplomacy fails, what then? You either puss out or you don't.
Look at north korea - diplomacy instead of war. In that case, it worked. In iraq's case, it didn't.
negotiations between sovereign countries have no force behind them if there is not the threat of action, either. Especially when dealing with nukes. This is world ending shit, you better believe the west would use military means in dealing with it.
And this is why ive always supported nuclear power. The hippies and three mile put an end to that pipe dream.
Iran? They don't need nuclear power. As you've so eloquently put it, they're sitting on mounds of fucking oil.
The only reason they'd be interested in nuclear energy is for defense.
In 1991 the US defeated one of the largest armed forces in the entire world in less than 100 hours.
900,000 total troops
5000+ tanks
Iraq's primarily problems were two fold:
1 - Outdated doctrine based on Soviet tactics and lessons learned from the Iran-Iraq War, which did not fair well against US more maneuverable and adept forces.
2 - Turkey put 100,000 troops on the Turkey-Iraq border, forcing the Iraqis to spread their forces thin.
5000+ tanks
Iraq's primarily problems were two fold:
1 - Outdated doctrine based on Soviet tactics and lessons learned from the Iran-Iraq War, which did not fair well against US more maneuverable and adept forces.
2 - Turkey put 100,000 troops on the Turkey-Iraq border, forcing the Iraqis to spread their forces thin.
I can understand why you would think that nuclear power is a better alternative to power plants running on fossil fuels, but the plain facts are that nuclear power, when all is said and done, (designing, building, uranium production, cooling, waste storage, etc), nuclear power really doesn't offer an alternative to cheaper fossil fuels.
If the objective is to lessen the demand on fossil fuels, then the energy invested on energy returned (EROEI) for nuclear plants doesn't make them a real alternative. Yes, you aren't burning coal or oil, but at the same time, you are still using technologies based on petroleum to make it happen. (Peripherally.)
All in all though, it does make you right in that Iran's nuclear research goals are most certainly for defense, because they can simply afford to run their power plants on oil, considering they have so much of it.
And a nuclear-equipped, defendable Iran just won't do. It doesn't fit into the West's plan of dominating the world's energy resources. (Which they currently do, just not enough.)
If you're trying to back up Stimpson and imply that the United States would have any difficulty whatsoever completely and utterly destroying the Iranian army, you really don't know much about military affairs and should probably stop typing now.
In iraq the us military was held back by humanitarian reasons, we actually thought the population was glad to see us, and the whole "shock and awe" thing doesn't work when there are no military targets to bomb.
If the us military waged all out conventional warfare, they'd be unstoppable. In iraq we got bogged down as sitting ducks. The reason the surge worked as well as it did was because we were going on offense again. We're like the LA Lakers of military superpowers.
That doesn't mean we need to be hostile towards iran. See dubai lately? Being cooperative with the west has some fringe benefits. There are much better reasons to be overtly hostile to iran, like its rhetoric towards destroying israel and financial support for terrorist groups.
If the us military waged all out conventional warfare, they'd be unstoppable. In iraq we got bogged down as sitting ducks. The reason the surge worked as well as it did was because we were going on offense again. We're like the LA Lakers of military superpowers.
That doesn't mean we need to be hostile towards iran. See dubai lately? Being cooperative with the west has some fringe benefits. There are much better reasons to be overtly hostile to iran, like its rhetoric towards destroying israel and financial support for terrorist groups.
Last edited:
president-elect doesn't mean shit, hes still the prez
id be more worried if obama started handling foreign policy 2 months before hes inaugurated
anyways, what do you guys think about obama's gaffe, he was talking about working with foreign governments, I think, and he said "ill be working with these people for the next 8-10 years"
so not only does he assume he's going to win the next two elections, he just might have the last term be 6 years
id be more worried if obama started handling foreign policy 2 months before hes inaugurated
anyways, what do you guys think about obama's gaffe, he was talking about working with foreign governments, I think, and he said "ill be working with these people for the next 8-10 years"
so not only does he assume he's going to win the next two elections, he just might have the last term be 6 years
consultant
Veteran XX
Orbby you already told us that the powers that be are these secret "family's" that control everything so what does it matter who the President is??? If "they" say war then war it is...
I'm actually opposing Stimpson?!!??!!