The US-Iran Beatdown

[BigBallinStalin]

I forgot about this:

The US is/has sent 3 carrier battle groups to the Strait of Hormuz. That's a real big deal. Recall the USS Maine (Spanish-American War) and USS Maddox (Vietnam) incidents. Scenario: send in a ship, perhaps it gets attacked, and then you have your casus belli.

There could be some skirmish: some trigger-happy Iranian fires a missile at a ship or maybe an American ship fires first (who knows), but those questions are quickly cast aside to make way for the new war.


What kind of "good" American would deny the US government from retaliating in kind?

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, aren't you an agreeable chap.

I WANT SOMEONE TO ARGUE WITH. BRING ME THE NEOCONS!!!

I think you mean... BRING ME THE NEOCONS AND OBAMA SUPPORTERS!!!

I had to bring politics in this thread somehow. I mean, the president and Democrats are as much in favor of an Iran war as the neocons.

Like whatever, TGD, Obama/Romney/Newt is the man!

[thegreekdog]

I forgot about this:

The US is/has sent 3 carrier battle groups to the Strait of Hormuz. That's a real big deal. Recall the USS Maine (Spanish-American War) and USS Maddox (Vietnam) incidents. Scenario: send in a ship, perhaps it gets attacked, and then you have your casus belli.

There could be some skirmish: some trigger-happy Iranian fires a missile at a ship or maybe an American ship fires first (who knows), but those questions are quickly cast aside to make way for the new war.


What kind of "good" American would deny the US government from retaliating in kind?

Related...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/israel-wa ... d=15506257

If the Iranians attempt a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, what will be the predictable U.S. response?

Philadelphia is on that list unfortunately.

[Juan_Bottom]

The US wont be attacking Iran, though they may be forced to support an attack by Israel. Israeli papers are reporting that they have about 9 months to attack Iranian nuclear production facilities to have any degree of success. Their intelligence networks also predict that it would only knock Iranian production back 3 years.
But the US can't attack Iran at least until after the elections for obvious reasons. So, Israel will have to attack on it's own, and the threat of a US counter counter-attack will hopefully deflect any Iranian plans to respond to an air strike from Israel. It's like what happened when Israel attacked Syria or Iraq and neither country responded.
The worst possible scenario for Obama and Israel is an Iranian counter attack. The Israeli populous and industry isn't prepared for a large war, and they're not prepared to fight Hezbollah guerrillas working with Iranian regulars. Even if Iran only responds by launching their Shihad 3 missiles, nothing can stop them.

Iranian Oil is irreverent. We can't control it without Saudi permission, and the Iranians themselves are given their quota's from the Saudis. They own their oil, but it's not up to them how much to pump or sell. Furthermore,OPEC and Saudi Arabia don't need Iranian Oil, so the Iranians have one of the lowest production quotas. So that oil isn't going to play into any economic strategies.

[Phatscotty]

We have 3 aircraft carriers in the area atm. I heard that is a first.

[Qwert]

well i dont know how to say that? If US invade Iran,coffin will need to be produced. More inhuman will be if you send body of soldier in bag .
If you want to ignore that casualty will be expected,then fine by me.

You should have said "US casualties will be higher" rather than "hey guys - you're going to need to pay for more coffins, am I right?" I know you don't like the United States and its foreign policies. I don't like them either, but you won't see me making crass comments about military deaths.

Nobody knows what casualty will be, and many countries dont like US Goverment and foreign policies, for last 10-15 years,they only create more and more enemies, not frends. In all last wars US are not been in danger,US soil and US citizens are not be in danger from Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya, and now Iran.
Probably because constantly wars, China become economical stronger, because they dont waste money on creating conflict and wars. China are closer to Iraq,Afghanistan and Iran, but they dont start war with any of these countries.
If you ask some regular soldier of US why will need to attack Iran,he will say what? Not one single year US live in peace, these is another question what will be good to know. Why all these soldier die in Iraq? Do you have answer.

[BigBallinStalin]

I forgot about this:

The US is/has sent 3 carrier battle groups to the Strait of Hormuz. That's a real big deal. Recall the USS Maine (Spanish-American War) and USS Maddox (Vietnam) incidents. Scenario: send in a ship, perhaps it gets attacked, and then you have your casus belli.

There could be some skirmish: some trigger-happy Iranian fires a missile at a ship or maybe an American ship fires first (who knows), but those questions are quickly cast aside to make way for the new war.


What kind of "good" American would deny the US government from retaliating in kind?

Related...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/israel-wa ... d=15506257

If the Iranians attempt a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, what will be the predictable U.S. response?

Philadelphia is on that list unfortunately.

What's the reasoning for beefing up security in that city? Some undisclosed intel report stating that the Iranians want to hit soft and hard Jewish targets... Is that even news? Iran through at least proxy has been wanting to do that. Gauging intent and capability are extremely difficult, but without any evidence I'm not convinced that the threat is real... :/


Look at this part:

"The thwarted assassination plot of a Saudi official in Washington, D.C., a couple of months ago was an important data point," added the official, "in that it showed at least parts of the Iranian establishment were aware of the intended event and were not concerned about inevitable collateral damage to U.S. citizens had they carried out an assassination plot on American soil."

"That was an eye opener, showing that they did not care about any collateral damage," the federal official said.

They're using that as justification... Allegedly Iran's secret services hired an alcoholic, unintelligent used car salesman to carry out an extremely dangerous and politically disastrous assassination. The Iranians are not stupid. That connection is spurious.

If anything, it may have been (inadvertently) concocted by the federal government, or at least a DEA informant; however, I don't really trust infowars as a reliable source either (But there are other links to more credible sites, so.. <shrugs>).


____________________________


Just be aware and look at this game the policymakers are playing. Spurious connections to Iran about an assassination of a Saudi in US borders, heightened security from an undisclosed intel report from Israel, the US moving 3 carrier battle groups into the Strait of Hormuz when Iran threatened to close it (which was a real, verbal threat, but were they capable? No, Iran backed away from that immediately).

This is all a game which gears up citizens to shift their perception from a possible Iranian threat into a "real" threat (with hardly any credible evidence).

Israel wants to invade Iran. They are (most likely) coordinating with the US in order to convince US policymakers that such a plan is in their interests. What we're seeing now are the outcomes which flowed from (1) the executive framing (i.e. Obama is/has considered that such a course of action is within US interests). Currently, (2) the mainstream media is pumping out these stories which they receive from the Pentagon, State Department, DoD (Department of Defense), etc. Next is (3) the persuasion of the American public into supporting US intervention (or at the very least, to reduce the credibility of any passive/active resistance to the intervention).

Once (3) reaches a satisfactory enough level as the policymakers perceive it, then expect the US declare war on Iran. (I'm sorry, not "declare war," I mean "engage in humanitarian intervention in order to promote the democratic desires of the Iranian people. Even since the Green Revolution, it is clear that the Iranian government is an oppressive, evil regime, and that its people desire and deserve a better way of living."

[BigBallinStalin]

The US wont be attacking Iran, though they may be forced to support an attack by Israel. Israeli papers are reporting that they have about 9 months to attack Iranian nuclear production facilities to have any degree of success. Their intelligence networks also predict that it would only knock Iranian production back 3 years.
But the US can't attack Iran at least until after the elections for obvious reasons. So, Israel will have to attack on it's own, and the threat of a US counter counter-attack will hopefully deflect any Iranian plans to respond to an air strike from Israel. It's like what happened when Israel attacked Syria or Iraq and neither country responded.

For those times, Israel was targeting terrorist organizations, and not explicitly the military forces of Iraq or Syria. This situation would be entirely different because in order to destroy the nuclear facilities, Israel would have to explicitly hit Iranian military targets.

The US can attack--even without Congressional approval. Recall the Libyan intervention; Obama said, "DoW on Libya, lol @ Congress." If the US does get involved, it'll most likely be similar to the US' support role during the Libyan civil war. This is why the US has brought in 3 carrier battle groups nearby the Strait of Hormuz. Each aircraft carrier holds roughly 3000-5000 personnel--complete with jet fighters, choppers, Marines, and Special Forces. The destroyers and submarines are loaded with sea-to-land and -to-air missiles. That whole excursion into Libya was practice. Whatever problems the US had then, they "hopefully" have been resolved for the highly likely war against Iran.

The worst possible scenario for Obama and Israel is an Iranian counter attack. The Israeli populous and industry isn't prepared for a large war, and they're not prepared to fight Hezbollah guerrillas working with Iranian regulars. Even if Iran only responds by launching their Shihad 3 missiles, nothing can stop them.

Iranian Oil is irreverent. We can't control it without Saudi permission, and the Iranians themselves are given their quota's from the Saudis. They own their oil, but it's not up to them how much to pump or sell. Furthermore,OPEC and Saudi Arabia don't need Iranian Oil, so the Iranians have one of the lowest production quotas. So that oil isn't going to play into any economic strategies.

What Iranian counter-attack? Iran's military forces can't reach Israel without going through Turkey and Syria (ain't gonna happen) or through Iraq and then Jordan/Syria--and that's assuming Iran has the capability to project their power effectively at such a range (which they don't). (See the maps.) And, if such an event happened, the Iraqis have a legitimate reason to attack Iran (which would most likely lead to Iraq requesting the US to defend them). Furthermore, if Iran were to even mobilize for such an invasion, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) would notice this, pass on the information, and the US/Israel has a casus belli for a pre-emptive strike.

Iran is pinned. They can't do much but defend. Sure, they could use Hezbollah or some such group from Syria (maybe even Syria might get involved even though it's occupied with a civil war); however, it's a minor threat which the US could handle for Israel.


Another scenario comes to mind: suppose active measures in Iran successfully lead to another Green-esque Movement. If the US can attack Libya because their people are rioting, then the US can definitely attack Iran if they're people are rioting.



As an aside, Iran's supply of oil plays into US strategy. It's a minor role, but it's still influential. If "that oil [wasn't] going to play into any economic strategies," then the US wouldn't have implemented sanctions against Iran. But they US did, because Iran's supply of oil does matter.



(open images in tabs to make it easier to read side by side).

show

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/56520000/gif/_56520886_iran_nuclear464x290.gif

[Qwert]

unfortunatly many american,when you show them a map,can not find where its izrael and where its Iran,.
So lets see these fantasy invasion of izrael from Iranian Army-target Jerusalem:
1-Invasion move over turkey and syria-1102 KM distance
2.Invasion move over Iraq and Jordan-943 km distance.
Well i will take No2,its short and you drive across desert,no mountain like in Turkey.
Only problem for Iranian Army,first need to take care for Iraq and then for Jordan Army.
Anyone have better scenario for Iranian Invasion of Israel?

[Juan_Bottom]

2.Invasion move over Iraq and Jordan-943 km distance.
Well i will take No2,its short and you drive across desert,no mountain like in Turkey.
Only problem for Iranian Army,first need to take care for Iraq and then for Jordan Army.
Anyone have better scenario for Iranian Invasion of Israel?

It's number II, but through Syria instead of Jordan. But that's not what's gonna happen. What is predicted is a large Iranian missile strike followed by a massive number of Hezbollah counter attacks. Syria may also do something stupid, like ask Iran for peace-keeping troops or something. Jordan can't do anything but tell Israel that it cannot use her airspace, and no country can afford to piss-off Turkey. Relations between Israel and Turkey still haven't changed since that Israeli boarding incident like 2 years ago.

For those times, Israel was targeting terrorist organizations, and not explicitly the military forces of Iraq or Syria. This situation would be entirely different because in order to destroy the nuclear facilities, Israel would have to explicitly hit Iranian military targets.

To be clear we're talking about operations Orchard and Opera, and I don't see them as being that different.

The US can attack--even without Congressional approval. Recall the Libyan intervention; Obama said, "DoW on Libya, lol @ Congress." If the US does get involved, it'll most likely be similar to the US' support role during the Libyan civil war.

Hypothetically, yes, Obama can attack Iran just before the 2012 presidential elections. Israeli intelligence says that they have to do this in the next 9 months.

This is why the US has brought in 3 carrier battle groups nearby the Strait of Hormuz. Each aircraft carrier holds roughly 3000-5000 personnel--complete with jet fighters, choppers, Marines, and Special Forces. The destroyers and submarines are loaded with sea-to-land and -to-air missiles. That whole excursion into Libya was practice. Whatever problems the US had then, they "hopefully" have been resolved for the highly likely war against Iran.

Against the IRG who have taken over the defense of Iran's coast.... we're talking about Iran's elite and fanatic paramilitary force...

What Iranian counter-attack? Iran's military forces can't reach Israel without going through Turkey and Syria (ain't gonna happen) or through Iraq and then Jordan/Syria--and that's assuming Iran has the capability to project their power effectively at such a range (which they don't).

Dude, this is all the Israelis have been talking about lately. Iran should have somewhere in the range of 300 Shihad 3 missiles by now, and any of them can hit Israel. As George Bush II demonstrated through epic failure, nothing can stop a missile attack once it's launched.
Syria could also be a big player in this, because if Assad doesn't get some serious outside help soon, the US and other countries will pressure him out of power. I see him as an asset to Iran.
Russia is also set against this, as they are with Syrian intervention. If any blockades get too rough, I'd wager that the Russians would be willing to supply Iran through the Caspian for a fee. Kinda like a China/North Korea thing. But, I haven't heard anyone else really talk about Russia yet.

Sure, they could use Hezbollah or some such group from Syria (maybe even Syria might get involved even though it's occupied with a civil war); however, it's a minor threat which the US could handle for Israel.

Then in three months.... the presidential election!

A Hezbollah fully armed by Iran with a blank check to destroy anything blue and white would be a serious threat to Israel. I don't think that I'm over reacting by saying that there would be some serious panic tearing through Israel if that happened.

As an aside, Iran's supply of oil plays into US strategy. It's a minor role, but it's still influential. If "that oil [wasn't] going to play into any economic strategies," then the US wouldn't have implemented sanctions against Iran. But they US did, because Iran's supply of oil does matter.

disagree

[BigBallinStalin]

lol, ok, JB. It's not worth going back and forth with you while further dividing and dividing the posts. If there's anything you really care to talk about, then let's start with that.

[Juan_Bottom]

That's how this works.

We can't openly attack Iran right before the 2012 elections. Iran's paramilitary IRG will be sure to give us casualty's at sea, and I dunno what they have for anti-air. But they could hypothetically kill a shitload of Israeli's for every plane that crossed into their airspace via missile attack. A thousand dead Israelis and 60 dead American sailors will look bad on Obama if he leads this fight... so I maintain that we are only in a minor supporting role... prolly hoping just to scare Iran into not retaliating.
And as far as foreign relations goes; Iraq, Jordan, and Russia certainly don't want us to start a brushfire war, and it would likely help strengthen Syria's leaders.

[thegreekdog]

That's how this works.

We can't openly attack Iran right before the 2012 elections. Iran's paramilitary IRG will be sure to give us casualty's at sea, and I dunno what they have for anti-air. But they could hypothetically kill a shitload of Israeli's for every plane that crossed into their airspace via missile attack. A thousand dead Israelis and 60 dead American sailors will look bad on Obama if he leads this fight... so I maintain that we are only in a minor supporting role... prolly hoping just to scare Iran into not retaliating.
And as far as foreign relations goes; Iraq, Jordan, and Russia certainly don't want us to start a brushfire war, and it would likely help strengthen Syria's leaders.

I would think that President Obama would WANT to attack Iran immediately before the 2012 elections. As I indicated previously, there is widespread bipartisan support for "making sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon" and if the president (or Congress) decides to perform military action (or go to war) against Iran, he'll gain a lot of votes. Cynical? Yes. A real life scenario? Probably unfortunately.

[Nola_Lifer]

How do yall see Turkey in all this? Would they remain neutral or would they fight on one side? And which side would that be? I don't want to derail this thread but eventually you need to talk about allies.

[BigBallinStalin]

How do yall see Turkey in all this? Would they remain neutral or would they fight on one side? And which side would that be? I don't want to derail this thread but eventually you need to talk about allies.

Turkey has had tense relations with Israel over the past 5 years. There was Turkey's refusal to participate in some international even because Israel was joining (I forget what it was). This may have been related, but Turkey also refused to allow Israeli aircraft to practice in Turkish air space. And there was Turkey's support for the Gaza naval breach (via cargo ships).

So, Turkey won't help Israel.

Regarding Iran, it depends on what you mean by "help." Turkey won't grant them military access because that really annoy the US/Israel (likely be at war with them).

I'm guessing Turkey is going to play it cool since it's not really affected if Iran's government falls, is defeated, or is somehow victorious.

[Nola_Lifer]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 23385.html

[BigBallinStalin]

It's interesting. I don't think it will impact Iran's economy too much, and the more effective parts of that sanction haven't been passed anyway. If they do... it's kind of like stabbing the US in its own foot. They don't know exactly how and how many US firms will be affected by such a broader sanction...

The Israeli factor

Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, did not dispute last week a report that he believed Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back the country's suspected nuclear-weapons programme.

But the White House said Monday that the timing of the stricter sanctions was unrelated to the prospect of an Israeli attack.

In an interview that aired Monday, Obama said the US has a "very good estimate'' of when Iran could complete work on a nuclear weapon, but cautioned that there are still many unanswered questions about Iran's inner workings.

"Do we know all of the dynamics inside of Iran? Absolutely not,'' Obama said during an interview with NBC that aired on the Today show.

"Iran itself is a lot more divided now than it was. Knowing who is making decisions at any given time inside of Iran is tough.''

Despite Obama's insistence that diplomacy is the best course to pursue, he has long said all options are on the table, an allusion to military intervention. On Monday, he said the US has done extensive planning for that range of options.

The US is engaging in psychological warfare. It's like me and my crew knowing where you live, and I'll occasionally send you a PM warning you that I'm going to break your knees and rape your wife. But maybe I won't! Maybe Israel will; maybe not. But I'd like you to stop working on your nuclear dice.

Except, I have no idea when your work on such dice will be complete. I'm not even sure how much progress you've made. And, I'm just imagining that you're going to give such weapons to a terrorist organization, but I really don't know how likely that is (if at all). I just don't like it. And if you have nuclear weapons that will maintain your nation's security, then my friends and I won't be able to influence your policies as effectively.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's how this works.

We can't openly attack Iran right before the 2012 elections. Iran's paramilitary IRG will be sure to give us casualty's at sea, and I dunno what they have for anti-air. But they could hypothetically kill a shitload of Israeli's for every plane that crossed into their airspace via missile attack. A thousand dead Israelis and 60 dead American sailors will look bad on Obama if he leads this fight... so I maintain that we are only in a minor supporting role... prolly hoping just to scare Iran into not retaliating.

And as far as foreign relations goes; Iraq, Jordan, and Russia certainly don't want us to start a brushfire war, and it would likely help strengthen Syria's leaders.

The US intervention certainly won't be welcome on the international scene, but again, it depends on how the US frames the intent of Iran, what evidence the US can provide, and if the US can provoke some trigger-happy Iranian into hitting a US ship. That changes everything for each of our predictions.

Iran can't retaliate effectively. Sure, they may have 300 Sahab (??) missiles, but if they want to discard those in exchange for the chance of doing some civilian damage (which could hurt them internationally), then they lose the opportunity to use those again US ships, which will definitely retaliate at that point.

Maybe Iran could hit US ships with asymmetrically means.. maybe not. I don't think that would be successful as something like the USS Cole operation--considering that those ships are on high alert and that there's so many of them in one general area (presumably at a good distance from Iran's coast).

Israel wants to declare war, but it really needs the US at least as involved as it was during the Libyan intervention; otherwise, it will be very cost-prohibitive for them. I don't think anything will happen until someone trigger-happy fires the first shot with no official DoW, or until we notice a big change in the signaling from the US government (e.g. "blah blah evidence, here it is," "accept UN spies weapon inspectors or else," etc.).

[BigBallinStalin]

That's how this works.

We can't openly attack Iran right before the 2012 elections. Iran's paramilitary IRG will be sure to give us casualty's at sea, and I dunno what they have for anti-air. But they could hypothetically kill a shitload of Israeli's for every plane that crossed into their airspace via missile attack. A thousand dead Israelis and 60 dead American sailors will look bad on Obama if he leads this fight... so I maintain that we are only in a minor supporting role... prolly hoping just to scare Iran into not retaliating.
And as far as foreign relations goes; Iraq, Jordan, and Russia certainly don't want us to start a brushfire war, and it would likely help strengthen Syria's leaders.

I would think that President Obama would WANT to attack Iran immediately before the 2012 elections. As I indicated previously, there is widespread bipartisan support for "making sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon" and if the president (or Congress) decides to perform military action (or go to war) against Iran, he'll gain a lot of votes. Cynical? Yes. A real life scenario? Probably unfortunately.

Generally, presidents look good if they go to war. They're not a wuss. They can take care of the world's evil, evil people. Etc.

If the US takes a Libyan intervention style with this war (which had almost 0 casualties, if any), then Obama has much to gain from this.

We just have to sit and wait to hear how the US government (mainly the president) expresses his intentions.

[Lootifer]

Wasnt there something in the last week or so about inspectors being let in to the Nuclear facilities? What were the results of that?

[rolled]

What are the benefits?

A whole lot of Iranian people killed, some of them even bad guys.

What are the costs?

American lives, American money, American economy, American stature, America's soul and maybe even WWIII.

I'm thinking US may get Israel involved

You got it backwards there. Israel wants the US to take care of Iran. Israel could give Iran a good beating but it would only solidify hatred of Israel among all the Muslim nations and lead to backlash directed at her.
If the US does the wetwork much of that focus is diverted to us instead. Certainly Israel will be seen behind it all anyway, but the Jew haters will be busy shooting at American troops.

the benefits?

a whole lot of Americans killed, some of them even bad guys, America's economy drops, America owned by foreign Asian banks

the cost?

innocent Iranians needlessly murdered by American troops, Iranian economy suffers,

sorry but Iran, you allege as "Jew-haters" just also happen to have the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, more than America.

I assume you may counter my claim with Ahmadinejad saying how he wants to "wipe Israel of the map"? That however, is a mistranslation. He said he wanted the "Government that currently controls the land in which we call Israel today to be eliminated."

now i expect redneck American PC rambos who have never wore a uniform will attack me of my anti-american views and tell me to get out of America.

My response: sure mate, I'll leave, as soon as you get out of my country

[Symmetry]

What are the benefits?

A whole lot of Iranian people killed, some of them even bad guys.

What are the costs?

American lives, American money, American economy, American stature, America's soul and maybe even WWIII.

I'm thinking US may get Israel involved

You got it backwards there. Israel wants the US to take care of Iran. Israel could give Iran a good beating but it would only solidify hatred of Israel among all the Muslim nations and lead to backlash directed at her.
If the US does the wetwork much of that focus is diverted to us instead. Certainly Israel will be seen behind it all anyway, but the Jew haters will be busy shooting at American troops.

the benefits?

a whole lot of Americans killed, some of them even bad guys, America's economy drops, America owned by foreign Asian banks

the cost?

innocent Iranians needlessly murdered by American troops, Iranian economy suffers,

sorry but Iran, you allege as "Jew-haters" just also happen to have the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, more than America.

I assume you may counter my claim with Ahmadinejad saying how he wants to "wipe Israel of the map"? That however, is a mistranslation. He said he wanted the "Government that currently controls the land in which we call Israel today to be eliminated."

now i expect redneck American PC rambos who have never wore a uniform will attack me of my anti-american views and tell me to get out of America.

My response: sure mate, I'll leave, as soon as you get out of my country

Meh, I'm all for a reasoned debate on the Iran issue, but the mistranslation excuse? Seriously? It's part of Ahmadinejad's shtick.

Quotes advocating the destruction of Israel

[rolled]

Here's a quick background of why Iranians hate Americans

The CIA ( Central Intelligence Agency), America's spy network, overthrew the popularly and democratically elected Iranian government. Yes folks, it was popularly elected, no voter fraud. This fact can not be disputed because even the American government admitted that it overthrew a popularly and democratically elected government.

The reason for this move was because of oil. In 1951, an elected prime minister in Iran, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, nationalized a British owned oil company -- now known as "BP," yes that is the same "BP" that "accidentally spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico," but then called Anglo Iranian Oil Company.

In response, the GOP president Eisenhower approved of a covert CIA operation of ousting the popular government- i can not emphasis enough the popular part- and reinstated the authoritarian Shah of Iran as the absolute monarch. Good job America for killing a democratic country and creating a dictatorship!

With American support, the Shah, or king, created a police state similar to Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, Fidel Castro's Cuba, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

In the police state, the Shah was able to silence any opposition with execution. American weapons were sold in large quantities to the Shah. As opposition arose, the Shah used the American made weapons to kill peaceful demonstrators. An estimated 3,000-60,000 were killed

The Shah also spend large quantities of taxpayers' money- $100 million in 1971 alone just to celebrate his birthday.

After the overthrow of the Shah, Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. Hussein was supported by America and had American made weapons. The invasion came right after the overthrow of the Shah and Iran had little time to respond. During the war, an estimated 500,000-1million Iranians were killed and economic losses of more than $500 million.

Given America's treatment of Iran, its not wonder Iran hates America.

[rolled]

What are the benefits?

A whole lot of Iranian people killed, some of them even bad guys.

What are the costs?

American lives, American money, American economy, American stature, America's soul and maybe even WWIII.

I'm thinking US may get Israel involved

You got it backwards there. Israel wants the US to take care of Iran. Israel could give Iran a good beating but it would only solidify hatred of Israel among all the Muslim nations and lead to backlash directed at her.
If the US does the wetwork much of that focus is diverted to us instead. Certainly Israel will be seen behind it all anyway, but the Jew haters will be busy shooting at American troops.

the benefits?

a whole lot of Americans killed, some of them even bad guys, America's economy drops, America owned by foreign Asian banks

the cost?

innocent Iranians needlessly murdered by American troops, Iranian economy suffers,

sorry but Iran, you allege as "Jew-haters" just also happen to have the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, more than America.

I assume you may counter my claim with Ahmadinejad saying how he wants to "wipe Israel of the map"? That however, is a mistranslation. He said he wanted the "Government that currently controls the land in which we call Israel today to be eliminated."

now i expect redneck American PC rambos who have never wore a uniform will attack me of my anti-american views and tell me to get out of America.

My response: sure mate, I'll leave, as soon as you get out of my country

Meh, I'm all for a reasoned debate on the Iran issue, but the mistranslation excuse? Seriously? It's part of Ahmadinejad's shtick.

Quotes advocating the destruction of Israel

after reading the article you have provided, I think that article suits my argument better.

Mr. Ahmadinejad repeatedly made clear that he is no way in favor of killing Jews. He simply opposes the "regime." He uses the word "regime" to differentiate Jews and government of Israel. Mr. Ahmadinejad, I believe can not be an anti-semite, because Iran still holds the largest population of Jews outside of Israel. Tehran has 11 synagogues. Jews in Iran also have reserved seats in Parliament.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wasnt there something in the last week or so about inspectors being let in to the Nuclear facilities? What were the results of that?

If we're talking about the same instance, then from what I recall, that offer was refused by Iran.

It's kind of funny, in a serious way.


If there was transparency, then the intentions of Iran could be made clearer.

However, it's extremely likely that at least one of the inspectors is an agent who would very likely sabotage the facility. So, the Iranians would reasonably refuse the inspection.

But, I'm pretty sure that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. RE: this thread in general, I'm just waiting for the intelligence report which explicitly states that the Iranians were/are engaging in deals with the Hezbollah to give them a nuclear bomb.