Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Iran...are we going to attack them


  • Please log in to reply
168 replies to this topic

#1    Damrod

Damrod

    Seeker of Knowledge

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 January 2012 - 08:24 PM

I don't know what to think...we have the Iranian military in motion but then we do a humanitarian thing and save some of their fishermen...

I am afraid that we are trying to pick a fight....and I think that the Iranians know they don't have a snowballs chance in h*ll of beating us...but I also understand the idea of entering hostilities is connected to the Military Industrial machine that drives our economy....and I have issues with that...

I personally prefer the Ron Paul Idea of "just worry about us" and bring our troops home...if this middle eastern country attacks that one....so be it...it is not our fight...we can make it without them...but...I know the Christian Fundamentalist think this is all staging for the "end of days" and it causes us to be involved in crap we really should leave alone...it is not Armegeddon people...it is just posturing and pride...

Just my opinion though...

Edited by Damrod, 07 January 2012 - 08:25 PM.


#2    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 8,856 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 07 January 2012 - 09:41 PM

View PostDamrod, on 07 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

I don't know what to think...we have the Iranian military in motion but then we do a humanitarian thing and save some of their fishermen...

I am afraid that we are trying to pick a fight....and I think that the Iranians know they don't have a snowballs chance in h*ll of beating us...but I also understand the idea of entering hostilities is connected to the Military Industrial machine that drives our economy....and I have issues with that...

I personally prefer the Ron Paul Idea of "just worry about us" and bring our troops home...if this middle eastern country attacks that one....so be it...it is not our fight...we can make it without them...but...I know the Christian Fundamentalist think this is all staging for the "end of days" and it causes us to be involved in crap we really should leave alone...it is not Armegeddon people...it is just posturing and pride...

Just my opinion though...
There will not be a war with Iran, it's like going back to the Cold war, all mouth no action. But this is our planet, we should protect it, save people, animals, forests, waters. If your going to bring back troops, what are they guna do? no jobs? nothing to do? It will make more problems but little options to resolve it. The only help is by countries talking to each other.
If a country attacks another country whether you involved or not it will effect everyone.


#3    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,664 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 January 2012 - 11:03 PM

View PostDamrod, on 07 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

I don't know what to think...we have the Iranian military in motion but then we do a humanitarian thing and save some of their fishermen...

I am afraid that we are trying to pick a fight....

Try this opinion on for size...

We aren't actually trying to pick a fight.  We are simply standing our ground.  We are part of the popular clique, and it is in our interest to not let the new kids attempt to dictate what we should or should not do.  Nor is it in our interest to do anything against them, as it would just make us look bad to our peers, and we already have a reputation for being a bit heavy-handed to everyone else.

So we simply stand our ground and look at the new kid with mild interest.  When he tries to sit at the senior table, he is told firmly, yet politely, that he is not there yet.  When he states he is going to do it anyway, we simply mention what has happened to the other students who attempted to assume privileges that the incumbents did not bestow (after all, the incumbents went through a lot of trouble to get those privilidges; who is the new guy to assume he can just waltz in and take them?).

If the new kid actively threatens our status, we degrade his status.  If he physically threatens our status, we physically threaten his.  If he makes reasonable attempts to progress up the popularity ladder, we keep an eye on him and guide or correct as needed.  Eventually, once he is deemed an asset to the status quo and not an enemy of it, he is allowed into the club with full benefits and privileges.

Many people tend to look at this sort of thing through the eyes of politics.  I find it much more easily understandable if we look at it as simply different aspects of human behaviour.


#4    ShapeAnu

ShapeAnu

    Alien Embryo

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 70 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 January 2012 - 11:27 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 07 January 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:


Many people tend to look at this sort of thing through the eyes of politics.  I find it much more easily understandable if we look at it as simply different aspects of human behaviour.

hmm yeah... the U.S. also has a tendency to create, install, and fund an ally / organization, and then label them enemy or terrorist years later and rip them apart...


#5    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 15,607 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 08 January 2012 - 12:58 AM

View PostDamrod, on 07 January 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

I don't know what to think...we have the Iranian military in motion but then we do a humanitarian thing and save some of their fishermen...

I am afraid that we are trying to pick a fight....and I think that the Iranians know they don't have a snowballs chance in h*ll of beating us...but I also understand the idea of entering hostilities is connected to the Military Industrial machine that drives our economy....and I have issues with that...

I personally prefer the Ron Paul Idea of "just worry about us" and bring our troops home...if this middle eastern country attacks that one....so be it...it is not our fight...we can make it without them...but...I know the Christian Fundamentalist think this is all staging for the "end of days" and it causes us to be involved in crap we really should leave alone...it is not Armegeddon people...it is just posturing and pride...

Just my opinion though...
Today the Iranian military is rattling sabers about closing the choke point for about a sixth of the WORLDS oil.  The US and some allies are making calculations of how to handle the temporary disruption and prices are climbing just because of the talk.  Consensus is (often wrong) the disruption would be for a few days while Iran's navy is destroyed.  But what if Iran already possessed a nuke?  Then defying the nutty mullahs would involve a potential exchange of nuclear weps.  
The game stakes get MUCH bigger and so do the consequences for a mistake.  Today the Iranians have, in their benevolence, offered to share the knowledge for the nuclear fuel cycle with any African nation that has Uranium deposits.  It's a cluster any way you approach it and I expect a miscalculation will be the spark for a deepening crisis that no one is prepared for today.
One last thing though:  note to self...if someone says they're going to kill you - take them seriously just in case :tu:

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#6    Damrod

Damrod

    Seeker of Knowledge

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 January 2012 - 01:31 AM

Well...i see this as a problem...

http://www.dailystar...x#axzz1ipGesy00

I don't think anything good can come out of this...

I think it came down to:

[usa] we are taking heat for over reaching...we can't interfere...

[England] Fine...we'll go and once we engage them...you have to back us up

[usa] ok...that works...you take the heat for starting the next war and we'll take credit as the ones that end it...

Seriously....do you think this is far-fetched?


#7    Ashotep

Ashotep

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,957 posts
  • Joined:10 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway-John Wayne

Posted 08 January 2012 - 01:50 AM

I have to wonder if we aren't going to get in a war with Iran.  All the republican candidates, except Ron Paul, seem to want a war with Iran.  I saw some of the debates and when they talked about war with Iran they would smile.:angry:  I'm all for going to war if war is really needed but I don't like going to war over made up reasons.  Like Iraq, those people aren't any better off than they were under Sadam.  Its just a different type of people being tortured.  They are over there now locking up journalist, beating them.  Many young soldiers lost their life and we took on trillions of dollars in debt for that.

Don't get me wrong I do not trust Iran and if they thought they could win they would attack us tomorrow.  I hope they don't ever have nuclear weapons.  Some of the people in that part of the world aren't dealing with a full deck (not that we don't have crazy people everywhere) and some of them seem to be in power.  If your a woman you can expected to get beaten if your seen in public talking to a man unescorted.  Think about some of the things they do to their own people.  Why would they have a problem hurting someone else?

I don't think we should start a war with them but if they try to close that Hormuz strait it will shut off the oil supply from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the area.  That could have a major effect on the world financially.  Can't go to work if you can't get there.  I can't believe they would actually do it, the whole world would be mad a them, it wouldn't just be the US.  I'm starting to rant, I'm going to stop talking now.


#8    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 15,607 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 08 January 2012 - 02:45 AM

View PostDamrod, on 08 January 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

Well...i see this as a problem...

http://www.dailystar...x#axzz1ipGesy00

I don't think anything good can come out of this...

I think it came down to:

[usa] we are taking heat for over reaching...we can't interfere...

[England] Fine...we'll go and once we engage them...you have to back us up

[usa] ok...that works...you take the heat for starting the next war and we'll take credit as the ones that end it...

Seriously....do you think this is far-fetched?
Not far fetched at all Damrod.  In fact quite plausible if starting a war is the goal.  I really don't think even repubs want another conflict right now.  It'll be a nightmare for everyone BUT a nuclear Iran will be a worse nightmare.  I think that Iran is willing to risk anything to get the bomb.  And the closer they are to completion the crazier the risks they'll take.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#9    Ecto76

Ecto76

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 240 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Some where in New York

  • Everyday is like Ground Hog's Day... its the same **** over and over again!

Posted 08 January 2012 - 03:04 AM

Hmmm... just notice the trend here. Iraq = huge oil refinery = huge $$$$... Notice how we surround all of the countries with big oil refineries? I'd like to think pulling our troops out of Iraq was an obligation the military had to meet however, ever since that started I find it funny how I have been reading everywhere about a dozen of war ships passing through the straight. Coincidence? Don't think so.

Then you have the captured "drone". Why would we be spying on them unless we knew for sure they already built nukes? Simply we sent the drone to get further evidence of that. Iran built nukes to protect their oil industry. I don't want to see a war, nor can our country afford one financially. However I do think we are trying to talk our allies into doing our dirty work while we sit back then dip into the till.

Edited by Ecto76, 08 January 2012 - 03:05 AM.

Those with an I.Q. of below 90 do not need to reply to my topics! :tu:

#10    Damrod

Damrod

    Seeker of Knowledge

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 January 2012 - 03:09 AM

My fear is that this will be a war of semantics and illusion...they are threatening the supply of oil....but it is an illusion...we have plenty of reserves, we have Canadian oil...we have South American oil too....it is just an excuse to feed the military industrial complex...we need those million dollar missiles...no..seriously...the military industrial complex is really pissed off when we are not killing people...seriously...

There is a concerted effort to bolster and feed this ugly-ugly machine of warfare...and we let it happen because they say we need to....no we don't....


#11    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 15,607 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 08 January 2012 - 03:46 AM

View PostEcto76, on 08 January 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

Hmmm... just notice the trend here. Iraq = huge oil refinery = huge $$$$... Notice how we surround all of the countries with big oil refineries? I'd like to think pulling our troops out of Iraq was an obligation the military had to meet however, ever since that started I find it funny how I have been reading everywhere about a dozen of war ships passing through the straight. Coincidence? Don't think so.

Then you have the captured "drone". Why would we be spying on them unless we knew for sure they already built nukes? Simply we sent the drone to get further evidence of that. Iran built nukes to protect their oil industry. I don't want to see a war, nor can our country afford one financially. However I do think we are trying to talk our allies into doing our dirty work while we sit back then dip into the till.
Your theory would be fine except the wars have gained us NO OIL.  NONE.  Not even any promises to sell to us at favorable terms.  The spying is to map out aim points for the bombs so that we kill as few civilians as possible.  Iran is trying to build nukes so they can impose their brand of Islam on the whole world. The real danger for the region is that once Iran tests a bomb Egypt and Saudi Arabia will begin their "peaceful energy" drive. The mullahs are just religious versions of dictators.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#12    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,917 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 January 2012 - 06:01 AM

Closing the Strait of Hormuz sounds like a great plan to me.  No more Middle East oil!  It's surprising how what we're told are problems are actually solutions to problems.  And we wouldn't even need our own military this time, not a single gun or bomb of it.

What, what?  No longer using the giant credit card in the sky to fill up our Ford Excursions and Cadillac Escalades?   Now that's just "kooky".  :w00t:

Once we stop caring about the oil in the Middle East, we'll stop caring about the Middle East.  

Maybe then we can start paying more attention to far more severe cases of human rights abuse in the world than the cherry picked comings and goings in Iran.  Maybe some of that genocide, mass rape, and genital mutilation in Africa will attract someone's undiverted attention if only the media would try that on.  I know, I ask too much.  First the oil needs to be cut (silly me).  Yeah, closing the Strait of Hormuz sounds like a great idea to me.  If we completely ignored that action, someone else would surely get their noses in it and that would already be a welcome change of pace.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#13    Ecto76

Ecto76

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 240 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Some where in New York

  • Everyday is like Ground Hog's Day... its the same **** over and over again!

Posted 08 January 2012 - 06:22 PM

In the end; its all about $$$$ and where we can make the most money. Its all about politics and where they can throw around the most power in politics.

But, I agree about the drone. I had to laugh when Obama had to ask Iran politely for it back? Like a country with Nuclear Weapons "intentions" is going to play nice and return our spying technology? LMAO!

I read on Fox News Headlines last night that Iran has stated that they plan to share their breaking technology of Uranium Ore with Nations like Africa who have Uranium that can help fuel Nuclear Reactors. So does this mean they already have Nukes? Probably, and also why we are sending drones to spy to collect evidence of it.

Those with an I.Q. of below 90 do not need to reply to my topics! :tu:

#14    Damrod

Damrod

    Seeker of Knowledge

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 January 2012 - 07:21 PM

View Postand then, on 08 January 2012 - 02:45 AM, said:

Not far fetched at all Damrod.  In fact quite plausible if starting a war is the goal.  I really don't think even repubs want another conflict right now.  It'll be a nightmare for everyone BUT a nuclear Iran will be a worse nightmare.  I think that Iran is willing to risk anything to get the bomb.  And the closer they are to completion the crazier the risks they'll take.

On one hand, I don't think Iran wants to pick a fight with us.  They stood on the sidelines and watched us tear Iraq apart in...for the most part...a few days...their military was obliterated extremely fast...the rest of the time has been insurgency, terror cells and "humanitarian" efforts...Iran doesn't even have the military might that Iraq did...they know they don't have a chance...

But I think they are desperate...the sanctions are killing them and now they are trying to do anything to break free of them...desperation makes people do really crazy crap sometimes...I think their hope is someone like China, Russia or North Korea will come to their aid.  Which I doubt will happen...Iran has become something like the red-headed step child...they really don't have massive reserves to offer in barter to a "big brother" protector so...these other countries would only get involved if they are trying to engage the USA indirectly.  With Patriot missile technology and even more advanced anti- "ICBM" technology....they cannot hurt us at home...not only can we shoot their warheads down, we can probably detonate them remotely at the source...yes...scarey thought isn't it...you prepare to launch and we overide and just blow your own nukes up in your own silos and countries...yes...I am theorizing but with modern hacking capability...I am sure this is a functioning part of our defensive strategy...would be mine...

I doubt there will ever be a nuclear exchange in the middle east.  A nuclear exchange would leave the oil reserves useless...and despite the religious rhetoric...all those countries like the money from oil...so none of them are going to threaten any of it...warfare will... and should... remain conventional.


#15    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 15,607 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:58 PM

View PostDamrod, on 08 January 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

On one hand, I don't think Iran wants to pick a fight with us.  They stood on the sidelines and watched us tear Iraq apart in...for the most part...a few days...their military was obliterated extremely fast...the rest of the time has been insurgency, terror cells and "humanitarian" efforts...Iran doesn't even have the military might that Iraq did...they know they don't have a chance...

But I think they are desperate...the sanctions are killing them and now they are trying to do anything to break free of them...desperation makes people do really crazy crap sometimes...I think their hope is someone like China, Russia or North Korea will come to their aid.  Which I doubt will happen...Iran has become something like the red-headed step child...they really don't have massive reserves to offer in barter to a "big brother" protector so...these other countries would only get involved if they are trying to engage the USA indirectly.  With Patriot missile technology and even more advanced anti- "ICBM" technology....they cannot hurt us at home...not only can we shoot their warheads down, we can probably detonate them remotely at the source...yes...scarey thought isn't it...you prepare to launch and we overide and just blow your own nukes up in your own silos and countries...yes...I am theorizing but with modern hacking capability...I am sure this is a functioning part of our defensive strategy...would be mine...

I doubt there will ever be a nuclear exchange in the middle east.  A nuclear exchange would leave the oil reserves useless...and despite the religious rhetoric...all those countries like the money from oil...so none of them are going to threaten any of it...warfare will... and should... remain conventional.

I agree that no one there would want to contaminate their primary source of income.  But religious zealots by their nature act irrationally occasionally. Even rational political types need make only a single miscalculation.  If you've never read Isaiah 17 in the Old Testament give it a quick read.  It is a prophecy from about 1000 BC saying that Damascus Syria would become a "heap of ruins" overnight.  Damascus is one of the oldest continually inhabited cities on earth and this destruction has never happened.  I believe it could be brought on by Assad attacking Israel with chem/bio weapons.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users