By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Iran says could hit U.S. if it came under attack: paper

Kantor said:

British. I'm not a huge fan of America, but I seem to have more faith in it than most Americans.

It's a hell of a lot better than Iran.


We speak English, which is a solid language, it has rules that make no other sense or have any other analogues in other languages, therefore it is obviously the best language since the language of the care bears.

Off topic, this thing, bangers and mash, just discovered it recently, very nice sir. 

 



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Kantor said:
Jumpin said:
If Iran has to give up its nukes, then the US should give up theirs as well.

The USA is, at least nominally, a democracy, which has signed the non-proliferation treaty, is not engaged in any wars against a nation, and serves to gain nothing by nuclear bombing its neighbours or, indeed, any other country. Furthermore, it has possessed nuclear weaponry for the last 68 years and has not dropped a nuclear bomb for the last 67. The last time it dropped an atomic bomb, it was engaged in a war which could not possibly be ended any other way (without a great deal of bloodshed on both sides).

Iran is a rogue state which has openly threatened the existence of other states, a dictatorship known for renegade actions, which holds strong grudges against many of its neighbours and feels that its existence is threatened.

There is an enormous difference between the two countries.

The best counter example is India/Pakistan which were at each others throats and fought numerous wars before they both became armed- after which they never went to war again because they both know where it would lead. A nuclear armed Iran would lead to a check on Israeli aggresion in the Middle East and a more stable diplomatic Middle East as a whole. 

That's not actually true.  On a few levels.

Pakistan and India both declared nuclear weapons in 1998.

The last Indian/Pakistan war was 1999.

Before that the last war was 1971.  So it was 27 years of peace before nuclear weapons, less then 1 year of peace afterwords.  (well declared).

Additionally, one of the USA's biggest gripes with Pakistan is how they put all of their military forces on the border with India in an esclation that leaves little room to go with rounding up anti-american terrorists hiding in the country.

What caused the long peace was how devestating a victory India achvied in 1971.    Pakistan lost like half it's population, part of it's economy, a third of it's armed forces.  There wasn't war for so long simply because Pakistan was beaten.

The nuclear tests of both nations actually could be said to have risen tensions between them and in part led to the 1999 conflict.

India got its nukes in the early seventies and the Pakistanis got nukes in the early eighties



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

leatherhat said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Kantor said:
Jumpin said:
If Iran has to give up its nukes, then the US should give up theirs as well.

The USA is, at least nominally, a democracy, which has signed the non-proliferation treaty, is not engaged in any wars against a nation, and serves to gain nothing by nuclear bombing its neighbours or, indeed, any other country. Furthermore, it has possessed nuclear weaponry for the last 68 years and has not dropped a nuclear bomb for the last 67. The last time it dropped an atomic bomb, it was engaged in a war which could not possibly be ended any other way (without a great deal of bloodshed on both sides).

Iran is a rogue state which has openly threatened the existence of other states, a dictatorship known for renegade actions, which holds strong grudges against many of its neighbours and feels that its existence is threatened.

There is an enormous difference between the two countries.

The best counter example is India/Pakistan which were at each others throats and fought numerous wars before they both became armed- after which they never went to war again because they both know where it would lead. A nuclear armed Iran would lead to a check on Israeli aggresion in the Middle East and a more stable diplomatic Middle East as a whole. 

That's not actually true.  On a few levels.

Pakistan and India both declared nuclear weapons in 1998.

The last Indian/Pakistan war was 1999.

Before that the last war was 1971.  So it was 27 years of peace before nuclear weapons, less then 1 year of peace afterwords.  (well declared).

Additionally, one of the USA's biggest gripes with Pakistan is how they put all of their military forces on the border with India in an esclation that leaves little room to go with rounding up anti-american terrorists hiding in the country.

What caused the long peace was how devestating a victory India achvied in 1971.    Pakistan lost like half it's population, part of it's economy, a third of it's armed forces.  There wasn't war for so long simply because Pakistan was beaten.

The nuclear tests of both nations actually could be said to have risen tensions between them and in part led to the 1999 conflict.

India got its nukes in the early seventies and the Pakistanis got nukes in the early eighties

Still, half the points stand.  They have had a war since then, and are paranoid that there will be another one.

The lack of a war since then was due to Pakistan being on lesser footing... and India prefering the current Pakistan government to the hardline one that would replace it.

 

In the modern era, wars just don't really happen as much in general unless it's one western side that's so far advanced they can beat down on the people who are bothering them with massive force to where the western side tends to lose more people due to human error then they do the enemy.

 

Well except Civil War.



Anyone saying Iran is not involved or at war is insane. Why is it America is credited with wars which they fund. Iran funds and trains military organizations operating outside of international law across the Middle East. Iranian weapons have been used against Israeli targets in Iraq where Iranian forces were actually detained.

Iranian agents have carried out bombings in other countries including attempted ones. They are as active as Israel is in interfering in other countries sovierng affairs.

As for democracy lol, doesn't anyone remember the Iranian springs over the last few years the thousands to tens of thousands arrested. The tons of people who lost their lives to the oppressive regime. I talked with journalists about their colleagues going missing a few years back. Journalists magazines and papers shut down for reporting things that criticized the regime.

Iran is not a free state, yes it is a little democratic in a sense. But its supreme ruler is not elected or accountable to anyone. The regime has talked of annihilating Israel and that it is Arab and Muslim land. The country openly threatens its neighbours and flexes its military might.

I can say right now Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nukes. I do not think Israel should go in alone they should have American support. Israel could reenter Lebanon and Gaza to hunt down Iran's supporters who will launch attacks on behalf of Iran. While the US Fifth fleet sinks the Iranian Navy over night. The NATO air forces cross from Afghanistan crippling Iran's air defences before hitting Iran's nuclear facilities. A barrage of bombs and missiles levels every nuclear facility. Iran's forces cross into Afghanistan to hit America but find themselves fighting the Taliban who aren't exactly their biggest fans. Iraq would defend itself if attacked. A brief war occurs and Iran's military is crippled. No ground force is necessary and America stops its assault successfully destroying the nuke program.

Iran's best attack could be a few car bombs in the US. A few attacks against Israel and regional powers. They would be put down quickly revolutionaries would probably start an insurgency in Iran and the Iranian Government would be left internally fighting for at least a few years.



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Supposedly Hezbollah has sleeper cells here in America that would make counterstrikes on Iran's behalf, though whether they are truly hidden in this country remains to be seen.

Iran plays a dangerous game, but likely the North Korean model is what will be followed here: they'll get their nuke, the world will scream at them, and nothing will come of it in the end. On Israel's part, the global order would be far more upset by a pre-emptive Israeli attack than nuclear Iran.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network

This will collapse the already fragile political state of the middle east.



Yay!!!

Fallout is coming sooner than i though



 

Bet with gooch_destroyer, he wins if FFX and FFX-2 will be at $40 each for the vita. I win if it dont

Sign up if you want to see God Eater 2 get localized!! https://www.change.org/petitions/shift-inc-bring-god-eater-2-to-north-america-2#share

Mr Khan said:
Supposedly Hezbollah has sleeper cells here in America that would make counterstrikes on Iran's behalf, though whether they are truly hidden in this country remains to be seen.

Iran plays a dangerous game, but likely the North Korean model is what will be followed here: they'll get their nuke, the world will scream at them, and nothing will come of it in the end. On Israel's part, the global order would be far more upset by a pre-emptive Israeli attack than nuclear Iran.

I remember when it was claimed that Al-Qaeda had a nuclear bomb in Europe that they would detonate if Bin Laden was captured.

These threats can rarely be taken at face value.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kantor said:
Jumpin said:
If Iran has to give up its nukes, then the US should give up theirs as well.

The USA is, at least nominally, a democracy, which has signed the non-proliferation treaty, is not engaged in any wars against a nation, and serves to gain nothing by nuclear bombing its neighbours or, indeed, any other country. Furthermore, it has possessed nuclear weaponry for the last 68 years and has not dropped a nuclear bomb for the last 67. The last time it dropped an atomic bomb, it was engaged in a war which could not possibly be ended any other way (without a great deal of bloodshed on both sides).

Iran is a rogue state which has openly threatened the existence of other states, a dictatorship known for renegade actions, which holds strong grudges against many of its neighbours and feels that its existence is threatened.

There is an enormous difference between the two countries.

The US has not only threatened other countries, but has actually invaded them; Iraq was invaded illegally by the US. Iran hasn't even gone that far. Also, no country except the US has used Nuclear weapons in warfare. The US should not have nuclear weapons.

The US is constantly trying to alienate Asian countries as well, especially China. It doesn't matter if the US is a democracy if half of your people are racist, gun-crazed, nationalistic lunatics who never think for themselves anyway; a good portion of the US population still think things like the greenhouse effect and evolution are a myth. They voted in Bush Junior... twice; that is enough evidence to show that Democracy is somewhat of a failure in the US - that is something that should have never happened. COnsidering how insane the US is, and the fact that they have nuclear weapons, it is obvious who the biggest threat to world peace is. If the US wants other countries under threat by them to give up their means of defense, the US should give up at least part of their means of offense, and seeing Nuclear weapons gone from the US arsenal would make most people in the world feel a little safer; and the deal would also mean they would be gone from Iran's too.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Nuclear armed IRAN will be more harmful to the iran's middle eastern / arab neighbous than to Israel or Europe. In particular Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.