USA likely to go to war on Iran - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

woj · 02-05-2005, 01:07 PM

100 Invasions on iran...

69pornlinks · 02-05-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRL

The Iranians just stated in the last few days no way are they ever giving up their nuclear programs.

That was pretty much the kiss of death for their future.

They're next by their own choosing unfortunately. And a lot of people will be killed and injured in the process.

remember saddam said there were no WMD's. what happened they invaded anyway

...iran is not a fool....bush is trying to do what 5 other prez couldn't do with iran

69pornlinks · 02-05-2005, 01:11 PM

and we ALL know u.s foreign policy is dicated in/and by those around the tel aviv region

DWB · 02-05-2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nofx

why does the US have the power to tell whoever they cannot have nukes but the US can ?

Because we have God on our side.

DWB · 02-05-2005, 01:16 PM

You know, I hate to see the loss of life ANYWHERE on earth... but it would serve us right if we invaded and had our asses handed to us. Totally kick our God toting, freedom spreading, red white and blue asses into the dirt.

loco12 · 02-05-2005, 01:23 PM

Regimne change? Well Bush got his way by pushing through the elections in Iraq, and look what's happened. Alawwi ( sp?) is out, and a left wing government run by ayatolahs is in, who are pretty anti USA, looks 99% certain of running the country.

So what will happen when this new government takes over and tells the US to "fuck off out our country". Will the USA get out as requested by a democratically elected government of a sovereign nation?

we will soon find out if the uSA are liberators or invaders and occupiers. And I know which of the two I would bet on!

ItBurnsWhenIpee · 02-05-2005, 01:24 PM

I don't understand this....you guys are saying "The administration keeps saying stuff like we have no plans to attack Iran. You know it must be starting then! Oooo I told you so!" That makes no sense.

The first thing someone would say who's going to attack Iran is that they AREN'T going to attack Iran?

Downtime · 02-05-2005, 01:34 PM

We're not going to attack Iran. Our policy is if they stay the fuck out of Iraq, then we'll stay out of Iran. Now I wouldn't be surprised if Isreal were the ones to physically attack Iran, but not us.

And it looks like this thread was started by just another salty loser!

Paul · 02-05-2005, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manga1

Entirely possible. I don't think it would be in Russia's interests to give Iran nukes, however. Those nukes could just as easily be a threat to Russia in the future. I believe all parties involved want to keep the Middle East conventional, with the exception of Israel.

There is also another problem with all this. If Russia allied itself with Iran and gave them nukes, that would give the US an excuse to put nukes back into Turkey, and possibly Iraq as well. This scenario is more of a threat to Russia than it is to the US since the nukes are on Russia's doorstep. The US used to have nukes in Turkey but removed them as part of a back room deal during the Cuban missile crisis. So I doubt Russia would do something like this.

I hope your right although you posted this earlier

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manga1

Not only is it true that Iran is surrounded, with US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but invading Iran would also contribute to the long term strategy of containing Russia. An invasion of Iran would give the US access to the Caspian Sea. Not only is there oil in the Caspian Sea, but it also gives naval access to Russia. So, the US (NATO) would now have access to Russia from both the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.

This is the exact reason why i could see Russia providing Iran with nukes

Imo its a ugly situation whatever way you look at it

Manga1 · 02-05-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coatsy

This is the exact reason why i could see Russia providing Iran with nukes

Not necessarily. Although it might seem like a logical move for Russia, it would in fact escalate matters and turn a potential conventional confrontation into a nuclear one. The main reason Russia would not want to give Iran nukes is it would give the US an excuse to bring nukes into the area as well, and this would hurt Russia more than the US.

Right now Russia is in a rebuilding stage, which is why the US is trying to expand as much as it can. For the time being Russia can't stop this expansion so the US is trying to grab as much as it can. Russia's only hope is to be left alone so it can rebuild. The best way to accomplish this is to promote tension between the US and China, not arming Iran. The US strategy is to contain Russia, not invade it. So the idea is to gain as much position as possible to act as a greater buffer against Russia when it rebuilds.

rambler · 02-05-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coatsy

I hope your right although you posted this earlier

This is the exact reason why i could see Russia providing Iran with nukes

Imo its a ugly situation whatever way you look at it

Right now, China needs to secure a large source of oil. They were originally talking to the Russians but the Russians decided to work out a deal with the Japanese intstead. So, lately China and Iran have signed a deal that guarantees China access to their oil.

It wouldn't surprise me if China is secretly accellerating Iran's capabilities to produce nuclear weapons.

The US will not attack a country that has nuclear weapons (unless they are attacked first by this country) and Iran knows its best chance to avoid being invaded is to obtain nuclear weapons just like North Korea.

sixxxthsense · 02-05-2005, 02:08 PM

well u must a fucking tard if you didnt see this comming!!!

Theo · 02-05-2005, 02:11 PM

USA lacks soldiers to properly secure the operations in Iraq. A war with Iran will be suicide attempt.

Paul · 02-05-2005, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manga1

Not necessarily. Although it might seem like a logical move for Russia, it would in fact escalate matters and turn a potential conventional confrontation into a nuclear one. The main reason Russia would not want to give Iran nukes is it would give the US an excuse to bring nukes into the area as well, and this would hurt Russia more than the US.

Right now Russia is in a rebuilding stage, which is why the US is trying to expand as much as it can. For the time being Russia can't stop this expansion so the US is trying to grab as much as it can. Russia's only hope is to be left alone so it can rebuild. The best way to accomplish this is to promote tension between the US and China, not arming Iran. The US strategy is to contain Russia, not invade it. So the idea is to gain as much position as possible to act as a greater buffer against Russia when it rebuilds.

Very good points, things rarely go to plan though

directfiesta · 02-05-2005, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rambler

Right now, China needs to secure a large source of oil..

They just did with Venezuela.

USA are pissed at Chavez because he wants to claim back the venezuelians natural ressources, and that he is close to Cuba ...

USA are already running covert operations from neigboring Columbia, under the " war on drug " flag...

FunForOne · 02-05-2005, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

You know, I hate to see the loss of life ANYWHERE on earth... but it would serve us right if we invaded and had our asses handed to us. Totally kick our God toting, freedom spreading, red white and blue asses into the dirt.

aah. John Kerry's political platform.

FunForOne · 02-05-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downtime

We're not going to attack Iran. Our policy is if they stay the fuck out of Iraq, then we'll stay out of Iran. Now I wouldn't be surprised if Isreal were the ones to physically attack Iran, but not us.

And it looks like this thread was started by just another salty loser!

thats actually a very good point.

If the US wasn't involved, Israel would do more damage thany any democrat could hope for.

lax · 02-05-2005, 09:45 PM

I think you're all missing the obvious strategy.

US has got Afghanistan. It's got Iraq. It needs Iran to have all three adjoining properties and build hotels.

basschick · 02-05-2005, 11:36 PM

we've used most of our resources on a war with a country the size of california with a fucked up, poorly organized military - and it's not like we were going out of our way to keep from harming civilians, which might have explained it.

i'm not really that impressed with our performance thus far.

we can claim to be the good guys, but i sure haven't seen many signs of it lately.

mockingbich · 02-05-2005, 11:37 PM

Don't get too excited. The US isn't going to attack IRan yet.

Iran is going to sneak attack the west first. Read your bible.

Believe it

Pipeline Q · 02-05-2005, 11:39 PM

USA can't get support for such a war.

I say Israel attacks Iran first, then Iran does some damage to Israel.

At this point the US doesn't need to drum up support.

02-05-2005, 01:07 PM	#101
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	100 Invasions on iran... __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

02-05-2005, 01:11 PM	#103
69pornlinks Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Heranus Posts: 5,560	and we ALL know u.s foreign policy is dicated in/and by those around the tel aviv region __________________ It IS what it IS

02-05-2005, 01:24 PM	#107
ItBurnsWhenIpee Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The Beach, SoCal Posts: 1,288	I don't understand this....you guys are saying "The administration keeps saying stuff like we have no plans to attack Iran. You know it must be starting then! Oooo I told you so!" That makes no sense. The first thing someone would say who's going to attack Iran is that they AREN'T going to attack Iran? Last edited by ItBurnsWhenIpee; 02-05-2005 at 01:25 PM..

02-05-2005, 01:34 PM	#108
Downtime Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: America. Posts: 7,320	We're not going to attack Iran. Our policy is if they stay the fuck out of Iraq, then we'll stay out of Iran. Now I wouldn't be surprised if Isreal were the ones to physically attack Iran, but not us. And it looks like this thread was started by just another salty loser! __________________ #27024067

02-05-2005, 09:45 PM	#118
lax Registered User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 3	You're all missing the point I think you're all missing the obvious strategy. US has got Afghanistan. It's got Iraq. It needs Iran to have all three adjoining properties and build hotels.

02-05-2005, 01:16 PM	#105
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	You know, I hate to see the loss of life ANYWHERE on earth... but it would serve us right if we invaded and had our asses handed to us. Totally kick our God toting, freedom spreading, red white and blue asses into the dirt.

02-05-2005, 01:23 PM	#106
loco12 Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Dorset, UK Posts: 638	Regimne change? Well Bush got his way by pushing through the elections in Iraq, and look what's happened. Alawwi ( sp?) is out, and a left wing government run by ayatolahs is in, who are pretty anti USA, looks 99% certain of running the country. So what will happen when this new government takes over and tells the US to "fuck off out our country". Will the USA get out as requested by a democratically elected government of a sovereign nation? we will soon find out if the uSA are liberators or invaders and occupiers. And I know which of the two I would bet on!

02-05-2005, 02:08 PM	#112
sixxxthsense Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,421	well u must a fucking tard if you didnt see this comming!!!

02-05-2005, 02:11 PM	#113
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	USA lacks soldiers to properly secure the operations in Iraq. A war with Iran will be suicide attempt.

02-05-2005, 11:36 PM	#119
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	we've used most of our resources on a war with a country the size of california with a fucked up, poorly organized military - and it's not like we were going out of our way to keep from harming civilians, which might have explained it. i'm not really that impressed with our performance thus far. we can claim to be the good guys, but i sure haven't seen many signs of it lately. __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

02-05-2005, 11:37 PM	#120
mockingbich Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 274	Don't get too excited. The US isn't going to attack IRan yet. Iran is going to sneak attack the west first. Read your bible. Believe it

02-05-2005, 11:39 PM	#121
Pipeline Q Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,891	USA can't get support for such a war. I say Israel attacks Iran first, then Iran does some damage to Israel. At this point the US doesn't need to drum up support.