Iran moves the hour hand closer to midnight Page 18

  • Page

    of 22 First / Last

  • Khanivor 13 Jan 2012 16:11:11 40,754 posts
    Seen 57 seconds ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I don't know what the US would do if Israel were preemptively attacked, (rather than as retaliation for an Israeli attack) but I'm sceptical it would involve itself very much. There's fuck all desire for any kind of war over here, unless you're a GOP presidential candidate and no one is taking any of them seriously. The entire US military strategy has been changed just last week. The US might provide some intel and drones and search and rescue but I can't see them sending in the bombers.
  • senso-ji 13 Jan 2012 16:14:42 5,909 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Isn't the US restructuring it's Military around the pacific (with a larger presence in Australia)? The priorities may move away from Israel and the Middle East in the future with more of a focus on Japan, Korean Peninsula and China.
  • mcmonkeyplc 13 Jan 2012 16:20:48 39,456 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Excellent! We can nuke Iran ourselves!

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Red-Moose 13 Jan 2012 16:22:52 5,346 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I had a couple of beers and in a moment of madness I moved the clock back a few hours. It's half past seven now on the doomsday clock which I think is somewhere between throwing rocks at each other and developing spears.
  • mcmonkeyplc 13 Jan 2012 16:29:26 39,456 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    How the fuck do you expect me to nuke anything with rocks or spears?!

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Bremenacht 13 Jan 2012 17:11:58 18,244 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    I don't know what the US would do if Israel were preemptively attacked, (rather than as retaliation for an Israeli attack) but I'm sceptical it would involve itself very much. There's fuck all desire for any kind of war over here
    That's my thinking on the US. Plus, any attack on Israel would certainly be portrayed as retaliatory.

    I'm not saying it's not Mossad at work btw (take note, Moosey), and I think I've said before that Mossad could be the best solution to the Iroonian nuclear problem. I am saying that something else could be possible - something not mentioned in that article linked on the other page.
  • Bremenacht 13 Jan 2012 17:12:46 18,244 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Red-Moose wrote:
    I had a couple of beers and in a moment of madness I moved the clock back a few hours. It's half past seven now on the doomsday clock which I think is somewhere between throwing rocks at each other and developing spears.
    :o

    Don't move it back any further, or they'll send us home and lock the thread.
  • Deleted user 18 January 2012 16:08:35
    Well, the latest news is rather amusing:

    Iran promises to return US drone-as a toy

    Tehran: Iranian state radio says Tehran will give the United States a model of the American surveillance drone captured by the Islamic Republic.

    The report on Tuesday said the toy model of the RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drone will be sent to the White House in response to a formal request from Washington last month asking Iran to return the aircraft that went down over Iran in December.

    State radio said the model will be one eightieth the size of the original aircraft. The report says the models also will be sold on the Iranian marked for about 70,000 rials, or around $4.

    The Obama administration has asked Iran to return the drone which Tehran says it detected over the eastern part of Iran some 140 miles (225 kilometres) from the Afghan border.
  • Skynet 24 Jan 2012 00:19:00 170 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Iran oil sanctions spark war of words between Tehran and Washington

    Looks like war is coming closer.
  • Red-Moose 24 Jan 2012 07:51:23 5,346 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    esp. since the EU will do a Largo Embargo on Iranian oil. Italy, Greece and Spain are the primary EU consumers of iran oil.
  • Bremenacht 11 Feb 2012 13:24:50 18,244 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Ooer.
  • Deleted user 11 February 2012 14:14:33
    Bremenacht wrote:
    Ooer.
    World laughs as Ahmadinejad reveals he has 1000G in Fallout 3
  • Genji 14 Feb 2012 03:41:16 19,689 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    Ooer.
    He's trolling a bit, but almost certainly referring to a brand spanking new nuclear reactor or something. Anything even slightly more suspicious is just asking for trouble, and I very strongly doubt that Iran is itching to fight a war that they would lose.

    Also, Israel is not going to start that war by attacking Iran, and neither is America. Why? Because:
    a) despite Iranian sabre-rattling, and despite idiot American pundit protestations to the contrary, there is, as of yet, no conclusive evidence that Iran actually wants to build a nuke;
    b) attacking them would make them more likely to want one, as a deterrent against future attacks;
    c) even if they were building a nuke, attacking them wouldn't make much difference. They could rebuild and reinforce in places, possibly underground, that are safe from bombardment, or spread out their operations so it would be impossible to disable everything at once;
    d) America in particular is perfectly fine having been saddled with two unwinnable Mid East wars in the last decade or so, thank you very much. No need to add a third.

    In short, there are basically no compelling reasons to attack Iran. You could mask it under the old "helping the oppressed overthrow their regime" chestnut, but it's not clear than even a majority of Iranians want that to happen. If anything, it would probably unite people behind the regime.

    It would be a stupid thing to do. This of course does not mean that an attack won't happen. But I'd like to think that, after the last decade or so, foreign policies would be trending away from the reckless.

    Here's hoping I'm right!
  • FWB 14 Feb 2012 07:53:23 44,575 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    a) Didn't stop Iraq
    b) America never thinks that far ahead
    c) Most likely
    d) Pff... pulled out, military will want to continue to spend. Got to look for new targets. Besides, a strike on Iran would bot involve ground forces

    Don't think it is likely though. Mainly because of the current US administration.
  • Dangerous_Dan 14 Feb 2012 08:32:27 2,380 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I don't think the USA have the resources to really intervene - only as a last resort to postpone the inevitable collapse of the western financial and social structures. Like the wounded animal which gets furious when death is inevitable. Why should this conflict stay local to Iran - countries like China have their resource claims in these regions.
    I do hope they don't play that last desperate card.
  • Genji 14 Feb 2012 12:08:23 19,689 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    a) Didn't stop Iraq
    Invading Iraq was ostensibly about the WMDs, but there were other goals in mind. Those goals mostly were not reached/very well thought through, but that's beside the point. I can think of no secondary benefit to bombing Iran's non-existent nukes, however.
    b) America never thinks that far ahead
    They have in the past. And Iraq will probably make them more hesitant in this regard.
    d) Pff... pulled out, military will want to continue to spend. Got to look for new targets. Besides, a strike on Iran would bot involve ground forces
    So... they will push to bomb a country that is not currently building nuclear weapons, according to their chief of intelligence. This is an attack that will not work (because, as you say, no ground forces = no regime change), serves no discernible good at all, and will most likely exacerbate the problem that they might have wanted to address in the first place, as well as creating brand new ones.

    All of this, simply because the military wants to spend money? I think they can find more productive ways to do that, especially considering how Iraq turned out.

    I cannot imagine even a Republican administration being stupid enough to do this. It's even worse an idea than Iraq was. They'll talk tough about it during the campaign, but it's just talk.
  • oceanmotion 14 Feb 2012 15:36:18 15,942 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Does anyone think they would even use a Nuke if they got one, just like all the other countries that have one but haven't used a Nuke in combat besides the US and there is Israel who have them but won't admit it. Seems like bullying to get control of more oil as usual. Once Iran get a big stick the other nations can't bash them about which seems fair enough from Iran's point of view. I can understand being fearful of them but it comes down to, you wouldn't dare step out of line because we has this and you have this, lets somehow live together.
  • senso-ji 14 Feb 2012 16:44:14 5,909 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    On question time last week the defence minister was discussing Syria. He mentioned that going to war with Syria was not an option because, amongst other things, Syria had modern air defences and technology supplied by Russia and China. I'm guessing that Iran has the same defences given the large amount of oil it trades with those countries as well.
  • Khanivor 14 Feb 2012 17:06:26 40,754 posts
    Seen 57 seconds ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Regardless of the administration unless an attack on US soil is committed by confirmed Iranian agents then I think an attack on Iran would lead to civil unrest not seen since at least during the Latter half of the Vietnam war. From what I can ascertain there is zero desire for any more war. Obama caught a lot of shit for assisting NATO in Libya. Even without a land invasion the exposure of US forces in an attack on Iran would be orders of magnitude greater. It's just not going to happen. Military spending is being cut and the military can see which way the winds of public favour are blowing and have accepted the cuts with a shocking lack of pushback.

    Besides, I reckon the Navy has looked at the odds and has no appetite for a humiliation like the Army and Marines have experienced over the last 10 years. They probably are also aware of the distinct possibility of having entire carrier groups decimated by missiles, an occurrence which would most likely spell the end of the Navy altogether. What good would a war do for defence contractors if that war eliminated forever an entire branch of the armed forces?

    Increased targeted assassinations and targeted sanctions, which seem to be having an effect, is the course of action I think most likely.
  • Khanivor 14 Feb 2012 17:09:25 40,754 posts
    Seen 57 seconds ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    senso-ji wrote:
    On question time last week the defence minister was discussing Syria. He mentioned that going to war with Syria was not an option because, amongst other things, Syria had modern air defences and technology supplied by Russia and China. I'm guessing that Iran has the same defences given the large amount of oil it trades with those countries as well.
    There's a body of thinking that the reason Russia is backing Syria at the UN, (an action which has been met with a deafening silence from those who froth at the opportunity to lament the US veto over Israeli actions - I guess it ain't the human suffering that actually counts) is partially down to them not wanting another display of their goods being blown to smithereens by Western weapons systems. Not good for business that.
  • FWB 14 Feb 2012 21:32:32 44,575 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Genji wrote:
    Invading Iraq was ostensibly about the WMDs, but there were other goals in mind. Those goals mostly were not reached/very well thought through, but that's beside the point. I can think of no secondary benefit to bombing Iran's non-existent nukes, however.
    Undermining the regime and contributing to its collapse is good enough. Not to mention protecting Israel.

    So... they will push to bomb a country that is not currently building nuclear weapons, according to their chief of intelligence.
    No one in US intelligence supported the idea of Iraqi WMDs. They based their "intelligence" on a thesis written by some British undergrad/MA student; they weren't interested in reality.

    This is an attack that will not work (because, as you say, no ground forces = no regime change), serves no discernible good at all, and will most likely exacerbate the problem that they might have wanted to address in the first place, as well as creating brand new ones.
    So the US has never opted for air strikes alone?

    I cannot imagine even a Republican administration being stupid enough to do this. It's even worse an idea than Iraq was. They'll talk tough about it during the campaign, but it's just talk.
    Hehe. Ohh how I heard that before Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Again, I don't think it will happen because of the current admin. I wouldn't put it past a Republican government looking to deflect from domestic policies. But since the chance of that happening is at least four, if not more, years away, there is nothing to worry at the moment.

    Edited by FWB at 21:36:37 14-02-2012
  • Bremenacht 14 Feb 2012 22:44:31 18,244 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I've no doubt the Americans will not get involved in any military action against Iran - unless attacked.

    Israel doesn't have that choice. As soon as Iran can weaponise nuclear material, Israel will have an immense an possibly insurmountable problem. Israel and Iran cannot co-exist while both has a nuclear weapon capability. The USA and USSR somehow managed to get through a long cold war without a nuclear incident, but I do not see these two managing to do the same. Not when Iran's hatred of Israelis and Jews in general is so great.

    There is some interesting behaviour on display, to complicate things. Israel is stepping up it's claims of Iranian-led terrorism quite recently, which I see as setting down justification for any potential overt pre-emptive action. Iran's internal power-struggle is being played out to some extent in the public eye, with Ahmedinnerjab mouthing off frequently - probably to increase his popularity and strength within government.

    We'll find out soon anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if it's yet another teaser - proving nothing whatsoever, but with yet more possible implications.
  • FWB 14 Feb 2012 22:46:54 44,575 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Won't blame Israel in the slightest.


    First time in a long time I've thought that.
  • fergal_oc 15 Feb 2012 13:51:41 2,763 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    So Ahmawhosgotadad has put some of the first homemade rods of fuel in to one of their nuclear reactors... the clock ticks!
  • Khanivor 15 Feb 2012 14:38:36 40,754 posts
    Seen 57 seconds ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I'm a little concerned by these Iranian bombings of late. I've not been one to attach a link to the Wiki page on 'False Flag' operations but the attacks this week certainly had me thinking of it.

    The rhetoric from the Israelis is quite concerning.
  • Deleted user 19 February 2012 13:17:25
    Get 'orf our oil
  • Errol 19 Feb 2012 13:31:00 12,483 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Good move from Iran. With all the threats and nonsense being spouted by the UK and France I don't see why Iran should sell them oil.
  • FWB 19 Feb 2012 13:31:51 44,575 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Errol, what should I invest in to make money out of this and the financial "crisis"?
  • RedSparrows 23 Feb 2012 08:45:03 22,680 posts
    Seen 58 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    A friend posted on Facebook a video about how the US and Israel are conspiring. Apparently Israel will sink the USS Enterprise in the Persian Gulf, and blame Iran.

    They put 'probably true' on it.

    /woe
  • fergal_oc 23 Feb 2012 09:31:42 2,763 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Kirk's going to be a bit annoyed isn't he!
  • Page

    of 22 First / Last

Log in or register to reply