Is 3rd world war close?

[AvarAllahNoor]

Iran to strike Us Interests If Attacked

[urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keqB0-bipQ0[/url]

It will be CATASTROPHE

 

[Muezzin]

Iran to strike Us Interests If Attacked

[urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keqB0-bipQ0[/url]

It will be CATASTROPHE

It would be WWIII and a bunch of crazy right wing Americans and Iranians actually seem to be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of the next good war. I guess business is business, eh?

 

[Cognescenti]

It would be WWIII and a bunch of crazy right wing Americans and Iranians actually seem to be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of the next good war. I guess business is business, eh?

Oh really? And you are able to say this because a guy with a beanie said this on YouTube? :uuh:

Since there a "a bunch of crazy right wing Americans and Iranians actually seem to be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of the next good war", perhaps you could point to some public comment by a "bunch" of these guys (you might want to concentrate on the Americans because I dont speak Farsi).

Is it Bush? I have heard him state categorically on more than one occaision that the US is not preparing to attack Iran. Don't you think he might be involved in the process?

Look Muezzin, sending a couple of new ships to the Persian Gulf doesn't mean an attack is coming. Its a signal..to hasten the diplomatic process.

 

[Muezzin]

Oh really? And you are able to say this because a guy with a beanie said this on YouTube? :uuh:

I did not watch the video, I simply formed an opinion based on the possibility of Iran launcing a nuke at the US. You misunderstood my post. I'm saying, in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on the US, war is the certain result.

Since there a "a bunch of crazy right wing Americans and Iranians actually seem to be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of the next good war", perhaps you could point to some public comment by a "bunch" of these guys (you might want to concentrate on the Americans because I dont speak Farsi).

That's hyperbole because I'm frustrated at certain rightist attitudes from both sides. If you would like to make fun of that momentary lapse of judgement, so be it. I'm exercising my freedom of expression and so are you.

In any case, the use of the word 'seem' should indicate to you that I'm expressing an opinion rather than a fact.

Is it Bush? I have heard him state categorically on more than one occaision that the US is not preparing to attack Iran. Don't you think he might be involved in the process?

Don't you think a nuclear attack on American soil might just trigger a war?

Look Muezzin, sending a couple of new ships to the Persian Gulf doesn't mean an attack is coming. Its a signal..to hasten the diplomatic process.

Where did I even imply anything about the sending of ships to the Persian Gulf? Perhaps you should stop and think before putting words in people's mouths.

 

[Keltoi]

What could catch Iran off guard is that it could be Israel who attacks their nuclear facilities and not the U.S.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

What could catch Iran off guard is that it could be Israel who attacks their nuclear facilities and not the U.S.

Whoever attacks, it will be a disaster,

US is not the global power any more. China and India are too.

 

[Cognescenti]

I did not watch the video, I simply formed an opinion based on the possibility of Iran launcing a nuke at the US. I see you do not understand the conditional tense. Hint: I used the word 'would'. If Iran did use nuclear weapons on the US, it would trigger a war.

Fair enough. I mistakenly attributed the link to you. Sorry about that. As far as the conditional tense..easy on the insult there , bro...we both know it is passing from the language :smile:

That's hyperbole because I'm frustrated at certain rightist attitudes from both sides. If you would like to make fun of that momentary lapse of judgement, so be it. I'm exercising my freedom of expression and so are you.

Fair enough...but that is how attitudes tend to become hardened...with the propagation of unsupportable generalizations

Don't you think a nuclear attack on American soil might just trigger a war?

Of course it would..if it could be attributed to a specific source. Even if it couldn't...I think the ususal suspects would be in big trouble.

Shotgun diplomacy is an oxymoron. Anyway, where did I even imply anything about the sending of ships to the Persian Gulf? Perhaps you should stop and think before putting words in people's mouths.

No you didn't say anything about ships...just specualtion on my part as to why someone would think "rightwingers" were advocating war with Iran..when all public statements seem to be in the opposite direction.

As far as sabre-rattling goes...there does seem to be some pushback from the homeboys toward Ahmadinejad's confrontational style with the West. It might actually work. Better US sabre-rattling than an Israeli strike.

 

[Cognescenti]

Whoever attacks, it will be a disaster,

US is not the global power any more. China and India are too.

A war between the US and Iran or even Iran and Israel would be very, very bad. I don't think any US President or Israel leader will allow Iranian nukes if something can be done about it. There is definitely something to worry about on a 5 year horizon. I think the Europeans needed to get a bit tougher on Iran to prevent this catastrophe.

 

[Muezzin]

Fair enough. I mistakenly attributed the link to you. Sorry about that. As far as the conditional tense..easy on the insult there , bro...we both know it is passing from the language :smile:

Yeah, I apologise about that. I actually just edited it because I realised how rude I was being.

Fair enough...but that is how attitudes tend to become hardened...with the propagation of unsupportable generalizations

True. But I'm a cynical, left of centre peacenik.

Of course it would..if it could be attributed to a specific source. Even if it couldn't...I think the ususal suspects would be in big trouble.

We're on the same page, more or less.

No you didn't say anything about ships...just specualtion on my part as to why someone would think "rightwingers" were advocating war with Iran..when all public statements seem to be in the opposite direction.

You're right, it was unfair of me to generalise. If anything, the rightists in the US want to get as far away from the Middle East as possible right now. I do, however, think that Irani rightwingers are looking for a fight. It's self-evident.

As far as sabre-rattling goes...there does seem to be some pushback from the homeboys toward Ahmadinejad's confrontational style with the West. It might actually work. Better US sabre-rattling than an Israeli strike.

This is true. I still don't agree with such tactics in the long run, however.

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

What could catch Iran off guard is that it could be Israel who attacks their nuclear facilities and not the U.S.

Doubtful since they both prefer war in the form of coalition effort. A coalition effort offers more credibility by making it harder to point the finger of blame for a war at any one country. But the current deployments (Poland and most recently, the 22 stealth fighters that were ordered to Japan) are very telling signs that the U.S. is leading the next offensive against multiple targets. No rocket science needed to name them all either.

Ninth Scribe

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

A war between the US and Iran or even Iran and Israel would be very, very bad. I don't think any US President or Israel leader will allow Iranian nukes if something can be done about it. There is definitely something to worry about on a 5 year horizon. I think the Europeans needed to get a bit tougher on Iran to prevent this catastrophe.

Why shouldn't Iran have nukes just because they don't march to the beat of the US drum!

 

[Woodrow]

But the current deployments (Poland and most recently, the 22 stealth fighters that were ordered to Japan) are very telling signs that the U.S. is leading the next offensive against multiple targets. No rocket science needed to name them all either.

Ninth Scribe

Agreed, but do not rule out the possibility that Israel could also become a target. As fear grows over a first stike. It is not in the Best interest of the US for Israel to have an opportunity of a first strike at Iran.

The possibility does exist that the US may need to curtail Israel's abilities to make a first strike.

 

[Cognescenti]

Why shouldn't Iran have nukes just because they don't march to the beat of the US drum!

It isn't a question of fairness I merely said neither the US or Israel are likely to allow it to happen, if they have any say in the matter.

Iran has proven itself to be a bad actor. They are like the short guy in the schoolyard...looking for any opportunity to demonstrate how strong they are.

We don't have to go over the litany of Iranian actions do we?

BTW..I don't care to hear about the Shah again. :smile:

 

[Cognescenti]

Agreed, but do not rule out the possibility that Israel could also become a target. As fear grows over a first stike. It is not in the Best interest of the US for Israel to have an opportunity of a first strike at Iran.

The possibility does exist that the US may need to curtail Israel's abilities to make a first strike.

I agree, in the sense that any attack by Israel on a muslim country is very inflammatory. If sanctions and carrots don't work, however, then the pressure for somebody to do something will become irresistable and it is almost better for Israel to take the heat as they are much less vulnerable interantionally. Plus, they are already in a cold war with Iran now (Hezbollah).

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

The possibility does exist that the US may need to curtail Israel's abilities to make a first strike.

I wish we would have thought about that before we armed them!

Ninth Scribe

 

[Woodrow]

I wish we would have thought about that before we armed them!

Ninth Scribe

I think the problem with Israel and the US can be summed up with an analogy.

The US saw Israel as being the helpless new kid at school. There were bigger kids at the school and a few of them called Israel names, so Israel cried to Big Daddy who told the little Isrel to stand up for itself. Israel came back and said now the kids were being bullies and hitting him. So the US gave little Israel a stick to hit the bullies with if the kids tried to hit him any more. Little Isrel took the stick and shped it into a spear now Isrel came running and said the big kids have swords, so the US gave little Israel a rifle which Isreal refashioned into a machine gun and is now chasing the bigs kids. The problem we are faced with is how to get the machine away from Israel.

 

[Keltoi]

I think the problem with Israel and the US can be summed up with an analogy.

The US saw Israel as being the helpless new kid at school. There were bigger kids at the school and a few of them called Israel names, so Israel cried to Big Daddy who told the little Isrel to stand up for itself. Israel came back and said now the kids were being bullies and hitting him. So the US gave little Israel a stick to hit the bullies with if the kids tried to hit him any more. Little Isrel took the stick and shped it into a spear now Isrel came running and said the big kids have swords, so the US gave little Israel a rifle which Isreal refashioned into a machine gun and is now chasing the bigs kids. The problem we are faced with is how to get the machine away from Israel.

That is a funny analogy, but awfully simplistic don't you think?

 

[Woodrow]

That is a funny analogy, but awfully simplistic don't you think?

Very simplistic. But, the only words I could think of to give some concept of my thought.

 

[Keltoi]

Very simplistic. But, the only words I could think of to give some concept of my thought.

I understand, and it does make sense in a metaphorical way. However, I don't think the last characterization was accurate. I don't see Israel as some out of control entity that must be tamed. You eluded to the bullies. Using that analogy, I would say the bullies, even though they got whipped by the new kid, continue to pick fights. Why should the new kid put up his machine gun when the bullies are still out to get him? Just another take on that analogy.

 

[Woodrow]

Fair enough. The analogy could work in either direction. I suppose that is the reason why none of us have come up with a viable solution. We don't know how the other kid is going to see any action.