Looks like a reasonable possibility that US forces will strike in Iran some time this year (I'm not saying its definite).
Iran HAS stated that they are developing nuclear power for domestic means.
Iran has NOT stated that they are developing Nuclear missiles.
Iran MAY be sponsoring and supplying insurgents in Iraq to some degree.
What do people think of this? Will an invasion be justified? What sort of protest will it meet? What will the result be? Will military action come under the auspices of the UN or as a unilateral invasion in the same mould as Iraq? Are they even legitimately trying to develop Nuclear arms? Should they be allowed nucelar power for domestic reasons (after all, most western nations have it...)
Go!
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
There is no justifying an invasion of Iran. The US is just a world police that kills for what seems like personal matters. Condoleeza Rice has blamed Iran for being unjust because it does not alow women to run for office, yet she compliments Saudi Arabia even though they can't vote? Seems kind of wierd to me...
I've always suspected that we attacked Iraq because Saddam tried to assassinate George HW Bush, but Iran leaves me confused. Doesn't our country know that the best way to lose an enemy is to make a friend?
They're the major hostile threat in the region at the moment...
I find it interesting that its only now that the whole 'Iran is supplying the insurgents' thing is being spouted. True or not, they've suspected it all along. Sounds very much like warmongering to me.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
unriggable wrote:Doesn't our country know that the best way to lose an enemy is to make a friend?
Agreed. Look at what’s happened recently in Libya. The US gave an incentive to Gaddafi to give up his pursuit of WMD and "come in from the cold" by relaxing the harsh economic sanctions. Its no good using the stick all the time - you have to offer a carrot one in a while.
I feel Iran is in the same position as North Korea. They are being forced into developing a nuclear weapon as this is the only deterrent that will stop a US lead incursion in Iran.
We should be showing the benefits of a western style free society not reinforcing their misconceptions. Currently the Arab (and Persian!) nations of the middle east feel that the US is leading a "crusade" against Muslim nations - we need to show them with actions that this is not the case. Hands off Iran. Any action must be through the UN and with the consent of the rest of the middle east.
Iran's "president" Ahmadinejad has explicitly said that Iran has a main concern with helping their palestinian "brothers" to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Combine it with their endless efforts to gain nuclear power and do the math. Now being such an oil superpower, why do they even strive to have nuclear technology for domestic needs? I say something smells fishy in Iran-land.
Logically you would think that Ahmadinejad has come out with those provoking statements to entice Iran's public opinion against Israel in order to unite his people, and make them forget about their poverty and deprivation. Let's hope that Bush doesn't take those statements too seriously in order to launch an attack on Iran and trigger WW3.
I dont think there will be an invasion untill there is solid proof, even then it will take a while to acctually develop an attacking and exit strategy.
What would they be fighting against anyway? from where my knowledge takes me irans leader was voted in, even if he wasnt it seems the majority of people like him. so the whole evil dictator argument isnt justified.
If an invasion does happen, the whole population of iran would end up fighting against the americans.
Summary of if it happens:
Iraq= Korea, usa didnt learn lesson
Iran = 'Nam, Usa got there arse handed to them
Would you choose supremecy if it lead to isolation?
Been reading a few articles about Iran in the press recently. I do get the feeling we're being softened up for war again, but I assume, if it were to happen, it'd be limited air strikes and not an actual invasion.
Either way, it's madness. It's a bad idea for the US (and Israel?) to attack Iran anyway, which by all accounts has a pro-US population as it is, but attacking Iran after what happened in Iraq and Lebanon?
BTW, Iran is not Iraq, it has more land mass, stronger army (they have a HUGE support from the russians, top notch aircraft and missiles) and they're much more unified than the Iraqis. I can't see anything good coming from a conflict with them.
Aegnor wrote:Iran's "president" Ahmadinejad has explicitly said that Iran has a main concern with helping their palestinian "brothers" to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Combine it with their endless efforts to gain nuclear power and do the math. Now being such an oil superpower, why do they even strive to have nuclear technology for domestic needs? I say something smells fishy in Iran-land.
Logically you would think that Ahmadinejad has come out with those provoking statements to entice Iran's public opinion against Israel in order to unite his people, and make them forget about their poverty and deprivation. Let's hope that Bush doesn't take those statements too seriously in order to launch an attack on Iran and trigger WW3.
I would think you're right here, Israel is a rallying call that the Middle Eastern states use once in a while to garner support. I really hope the people around him know that any action against Israel would be intolerable, and he's just taking a hard line to look tough.
Aegnor wrote:Iran's "president" Ahmadinejad has explicitly said that Iran has a main concern with helping their palestinian "brothers" to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Combine it with their endless efforts to gain nuclear power and do the math. Now being such an oil superpower, why do they even strive to have nuclear technology for domestic needs? I say something smells fishy in Iran-land.
Logically you would think that Ahmadinejad has come out with those provoking statements to entice Iran's public opinion against Israel in order to unite his people, and make them forget about their poverty and deprivation. Let's hope that Bush doesn't take those statements too seriously in order to launch an attack on Iran and trigger WW3.
I dunno, your second paragraph almost answers your first paragraph. Probably they want nuclear power so that they can develop nuclear weapons. That way, Bush will not attack them, as he will not do North Korea. Iraq on the other hand, never had WMDs, so they got attacked.
I notice you also put quotes around "president" for Ahmadinejad, so I assume you also realise he has little power in Iran, so he says a lot of the things he does for electoral effect.
If you are elected, you are president. There is more controversy around how Bush ended up in office than Ahmadinedjad (spelling mistake). Which reminds me - if your soul is so dark that you would go around the public to get into a position of power, you probably shouldn't be running for office in the first place.
Aegnor wrote:Iran's "president" Ahmadinejad has explicitly said that Iran has a main concern with helping their palestinian "brothers" to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Combine it with their endless efforts to gain nuclear power and do the math. Now being such an oil superpower, why do they even strive to have nuclear technology for domestic needs? I say something smells fishy in Iran-land.
Logically you would think that Ahmadinejad has come out with those provoking statements to entice Iran's public opinion against Israel in order to unite his people, and make them forget about their poverty and deprivation. Let's hope that Bush doesn't take those statements too seriously in order to launch an attack on Iran and trigger WW3.
I dunno, your second paragraph almost answers your first paragraph. Probably they want nuclear power so that they can develop nuclear weapons. That way, Bush will not attack them, as he will not do North Korea. Iraq on the other hand, never had WMDs, so they got attacked.
I notice you also put quotes around "president" for Ahmadinejad, so I assume you also realise he has little power in Iran, so he says a lot of the things he does for electoral effect.
I wrote the first paragarph to emphasize how ridiculous their president is being portrayed. I also put his title in quation marks to show how little power he really holds. The head figure in Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who doesn't speak too much actually. I suppose he leaves that to his president.
I found an example of his opinions:"When pro-reform students rioted in June 2003, Ayatollah Khamenei was quick to warn that such actions would not be tolerated. And he blamed the US for stirring up the trouble." (taken from the bbc site http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3018932.stm )
Shows you what kind of people run the show over there.
edmundomcpot wrote:I dont think there will be an invasion untill there is solid proof, even then it will take a while to acctually develop an attacking and exit strategy.
For one, the invasion will happen whenever they decide they want to invade. Unlike Iraq, we KNOW Iran is at least in the early stages of nuclear development. Plus the support of Iraqi insurgents... They've got all the excuses they need really... Just not UN validation (although I'm not saying I believe the excuses... just that they would seem valid, just as the excuse for entering Iraq seemed valid, although going against the UN wasn't.)
As for an attack stratergy, thats been in place for a long time. There are ships in the Guld ready and waiting, its all been planned out since before we even went into Iraq.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
They might not have any choice. If any attack on Iran is made, its very likely that Iran will invade over the border into Iraq, bringing with it all the problems of a popular uprising throughout the country. Then we're all in a sticky situation.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
unriggable wrote:I hope the world doesn't stand for this. 180 countries said we were out of our minds when we invaded Iraq, and we ignored every last one of them.
Without teeth, the UN is no more than an aggrandized Blue Ribbon Commission.
If the UN had any military/legislative power over its member states, then maybe the US Gov't would listen to them.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
btownmeggy wrote:The US IS NOT going to invade Iran.
No way. No how.
But, bomb them?
That's worlds more likely, but still, there is such a huge anti-war sentiment in the US, both among the general populace and in Congress, that I find it improbable, even if it becomes a rational thing to do.
