War with Iran

Remove this Banner Ad

Pentagon dont wanna war.

They know in the war games trials at Brookings or in the Pentagon, they had to stop it, when it was evident they would lose, and an aircarft carrier was about to go down :D

lols on a Failish McLachlan level.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dempsey and former Mullen, have been on record, they dont want this, they know it only ends in WWIII.

If on the other hand, Petraeus was the Chairman, or the Defense Sec, not CIA, his level of ambition, could swing things, swang way.
 
The actual fighting bits of the IDF aren't keen on it either.
 
Israelis as a whole arent, not just their army and their chiefs of staff. They see it as manifest folly. It aint the population thing that could spell the end to israel, its a war of this magnitute. Olmert has been outspoken since he left office. As a whole, take out the bellicosity and ethnocentricity religious thing, a more sound invidual(s) wont meet.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

blackcat said:
Kucinich is retiring too, thinks he can be more effective outside the House.

Divideandmultiply, I think you missed the elephantine motive on capitol room.

Power Projection.

The US now feel a little impotent, and know their empire is accelerating toward an horizon.

With impotency, is sporned aggression in denial. We have an inverse dynamic, reins of power exercised, as its exorcised, or excised and emperors veil lifted like an islamic niqab.

True power, is but when you dont need to bring the smack down.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like Britain.

I once read an explanation that Britain's land grabbing in the late 19th/early 20th centuries (eg Boer wars and incorporating British Raj) was actually a sympton of British weakness and not strength.

Previously Britain was able to dominate without having to conquer.
 
The Reaper said:
Sounds a lot like Britain.

I once read an explanation that Britain's land grabbing in the late 19th/early 20th centuries (eg Boer wars and incorporating British Raj) was actually a sympton of British weakness and not strength.

Previously Britain was able to dominate without having to conquer.
Click to expand...

Raj was early than that and more do to with East India co issues and the mutiny.

Re SA see Witwatersrand.

In any event they were already in both countries.
 
If it wasn't so ******* deadly for so many people around the world, it would actually be funny to watch the factual gymnastics of the West and their media puppets:

Sorting Out the Facts about Iran

It's also interesting to see how long the US has been undermining attempts by Iran to reach a settlement in the dispute:

Bush Blocked Iran Nuke Deal

A former top Iranian negotiator says Iran offered the West a deal in 2005 that would have eliminated the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear bomb, but the plan was blocked by hardliners in George W. Bush’s administration who rejected any right of Iran to process uranium, Gareth Porter reports for Inter Press Service.
Click to expand...
 
That's mostly about Syria not Iran. The US wants to go Syria because like Lybia they know they can win without having to be stuck there for the next decade, Iran is a different question.

The US does not want war with Iran on two fronts:
1. It will send Oil prices through the roof. If you though it got high during the Iraq war that was entree, it will skyrocket. With Iran threatening to mine the Strait of Hormuz which has only a 2 mile wide shipping channel, it will effectively close the Persian Gulf oil supply overnight meaning that new ports and pipes would need to be built if you wanted to get the oil out through the Oman or via the Red Sea. The impact on the global economy would make the GFC look tame.

2. US domestic policy. Whilst some parts of the US administration want the war, they also know that it will be long and drawn out. The public have already got sick of seeing body bags coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade, add into it the frustration with seeing Trillions spent fighting the war when the domestic economy is on life support with a new war draining even more funds from a government which is already broke wouldn't help. Also the realistic threat of the US losing naval ships the fact casualty would be higher than any conflict since Vietnam it would be political suicide at home.
 
Slax said:
That's mostly about Syria not Iran. The US wants to go Syria because like Lybia they know they can win without having to be stuck there for the next decade, Iran is a different question.

The US does not want war with Iran on two fronts:
1. It will send Oil prices through the roof. If you though it got high during the Iraq war that was entree, it will skyrocket. With Iran threatening to mine the Strait of Hormuz which has only a 2 mile wide shipping channel, it will effectively close the Persian Gulf oil supply overnight meaning that new ports and pipes would need to be built if you wanted to get the oil out through the Oman or via the Red Sea. The impact on the global economy would make the GFC look tame.

2. US domestic policy. Whilst some parts of the US administration want the war, they also know that it will be long and drawn out. The public have already got sick of seeing body bags coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade, add into it the frustration with seeing Trillions spent fighting the war when the domestic economy is on life support with a new war draining even more funds from a government which is already broke wouldn't help. Also the realistic threat of the US losing naval ships the fact casualty would be higher than any conflict since Vietnam it would be political suicide at home.
Click to expand...

Good points and I do agree... But:

1. The vast majority of oil imports into the US come from countries other than Iran.
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/research/crude-oil/where-the-us-gets-its-oil-from/
High oil prices for other countries might even benefit the US considering the depression it is in.

2. America loves a war. Israel hates Iran. Iran (and Russia) may aid Syria if war was to break out there.

More sabre-rattling I suspect. I think there will be tension but no full-scale war though.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Yellow Feathers said:
Good points and I do agree... But:

1. The vast majority of oil imports into the US come from countries other than Iran.
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/research/crude-oil/where-the-us-gets-its-oil-from/
High oil prices for other countries might even benefit the US considering the depression it is in.
Click to expand...
Whilst Iran not exporting would have no effect on the US, the fact that the whole Persian Gulf would be blocked, thus stopping exports from Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, etc and the vast majority of Saudi exports, although they can export some from Jeddah, (but that is only a fraction of what goes through the gulf) would have a big impact on the US and Europe.

Yellow Feathers said:
2. America loves a war. Israel hates Iran. Iran (and Russia) may aid Syria if war was to break out there.

More sabre-rattling I suspect. I think there will be tension but no full-scale war though.
Click to expand...
America may love war, but the cost of war is breaking the bank. It comes down to a cost benefit ratio and the benefits do not get close to what the costs would be.

Israel may well hate Iran, but they are also shrewd enough to know what fights to pick. The bravado that they are doing is more about seeing what sort of support they have in the international community and nobody (except the US) is bitting.
 
Israel dont hate Iran. They were on cordial diplomatic terms through the early 80s.

dont conflate Israels existential need for regional hegemony, with them hating Iran.

The words may be bellicose, they may bomb them. But that has been Israels parlous existence. War is in the vein of the state.
 
Radiation? Hah, whatever...

200px-House_Harkonnen_Insignia.jpg
 
Slax said:
And this is the biggest reason why the US will not go to war with Iran or allow Israel to bomb them.
Click to expand...

Not sure how China or Russia for that matter could do to stop a pre-emtive strike by Israel. All they could do is block any future sanctions pushed at the UN by America.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu talked about strikes against Lebanon today if they take any provocation against Israel.
 
blackcat said:
Israel dont hate Iran. They were on cordial diplomatic terms through the early 80s.

dont conflate Israels existential need for regional hegemony, with them hating Iran.

The words may be bellicose, they may bomb them. But that has been Israels parlous existence. War is in the vein of the state.
Click to expand...

Israel have an existential need for regional harmony? Is that like the US has a Cornucopia of wealth?

Israel, like many nations, had a vested interest in the Iran/Iraq war, namely supporting the conservative Islamic state of Khomeini against a secular state, ahh the irony. Today, Israel absolutely despises Iran, as it does many middle eastern nations which are not toadys to the US.
 
tazzietiger said:
Not sure how China or Russia for that matter could do to stop a pre-emtive strike by Israel. All they could do is block any future sanctions pushed at the UN by America.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu talked about strikes against Lebanon today if they take any provocation against Israel.
Click to expand...
Russia has a fair bit of influence in the back rooms, but it would also be the US that would stop it.

The ramifications of it on the US and global economy would be massive when you consider how slow growth is at the moment, having something like this could send the world economy in recession again.
 
Old Spice said:
Israel have an existential need for regional harmony? Is that like the US has a Cornucopia of wealth?
Click to expand...
well I had hegemony. Which is a partner to the jabotinsky constant war setting. In the vein I said.

But yes, your change is better, because the small state cannot be a cats paw for the US for another century. The only option is a harmonious diplomatic stance with their arab brethren on their doorstep
Israel, like many nations, had a vested interest in the Iran/Iraq war, namely supporting the conservative Islamic state of Khomeini against a secular state, ahh the irony. Today, Israel absolutely despises Iran, as it does many middle eastern nations which are not toadys to the US.
Click to expand...
and the US and the Israelis supporting a nascent civil nuclear industry for the persians.
 
Old Spice said:
Israel have an existential need for regional harmony? Is that like the US has a Cornucopia of wealth?

Israel, like many nations, had a vested interest in the Iran/Iraq war, namely supporting the conservative Islamic state of Khomeini against a secular state, ahh the irony. Today, Israel absolutely despises Iran, as it does many middle eastern nations which are not toadys to the US.
Click to expand...

'Hegenomy' is what blackcat wrote, not 'harmony'. In world affairs hegenomy is military or cultural dominance. I suppose you could describe regional hegenomy as a one-sided kind of harmony (exclusively from the point of view of the dominant one), but the word harmony was never intended to have those kinds of negative connotations associated with it.

tesseract said:
Radiation levels high but not toxic.
Click to expand...

Find peaceful spot... DESTROY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Warlord
  • Locked
Attack on Iran underway ...
Replies
13
Views
2K
Gethelred
Gethelred
ibd77
  • Locked
World War III, Is It Inevitable?
Replies
5
Views
586
Gethelred
Gethelred
Johnny Bananas
Asia Duterte vs Marcos, impending Philippine civil war?
Replies
5
Views
747
Freomaniac
Freomaniac
Aristotle Pickett
  • Locked
Mid East Israel declare war after Hamas attack.
487 488 489 490 491
Replies
12K
Views
267K
Chief
Chief
Aristotle Pickett
Mid East Israel declare war after Hamas attack II
370 371 372 373 374
Replies
9K
Views
179K
Number37
Number37
Sir_Loin
USA Roe, the evangelicals and the war on choice
61 62 63 64 65
Replies
2K
Views
49K
Spearman
Spearman
Carringbush2010
  • Poll
Societies under autocratic rule are protesting, while democratic societies have a beef with liberal capitalism
Replies
22
Views
745
bfff
bfff

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top