How Do You Rate the Chances of a Military Confrontation Between the US and Iran?

No too chicken to actually fight your own wars, you would rather pay others to get killed instead. Hezbollah.

no, wuss is more like it.

Russians didn't do so well in afghanistan,mainly due to US equipment and US training of the opposition.

Not completely defenseless, I did not say that, but I would say that there is a very limited capability there, nothing that could deter any US attack though.

So you don't deny your ignorance, itself not a big deal, but your stupidity either huh? Instead you put some useless drivel about me trying to insult you? Hell being you is a big enough insult. Way to run away from your country to the west to get a real education, and way not to be willing to join your military to stand up for what you believe in. Guess being a keyboard warrior is the best you can do right?

 

yeap just like Saddam, Taliban and MEK...

ironic that you talk about Iran getting others to fight their wars!... anyways Russians being unsuccessful for a period doesn't mean they are staying like that forever!

yeah OK!

another try.... 2 - 0, make sure you keep the score

 

I see you didn't answer anything I said, thus proving my point.

 

Saddam was an ally of convience when he was butchering Iranians. You see how easily we took him out. Taliban, again we did not support the taliban, we supported the fighters fighting the Soviets. We agains easily disposed of the Taliban. MEK. Where is your proof? Oh that's right, everytime I ask you for proof of that you either disappear or avoid the question.

 

Ok sport, I did not make a baseless accusation therefore the burden to prove my point is not on me but on the one making the accusation. He said MEK, I said prove it. Speaking of which, where is your proof? Back it up or don't bring it up.

 

Oh yeah lets talk about bias and who is or isn't. Do as I say not as I do right?

Again no proof, calling for the lifting of the designation is not the same as funding them. You can do better. And again, I did not make the claim, if you want to claim something then back it up, as it is right now, I am calling bull shi{t} on your claims.

 

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avb52_2.html

Some history on the B-52

 

IM the biggest anti-semite on these boards is calling me biased? OMG you are a fvcking joke pal. You are a coward who is afraid to live in Iran and certainly would never serve in any armed forces. You daily print bs about how Iran is this and Iran is that, then when asked to back up your crappy lies you can't. Instead you goto disreputable sites and claim them as accurate. What a load of crap you are.

The US does not support MEK. You have not proved it cause it cannot be proven. There I am calling you a liar IM. You are a racist, you are racist against America, even though you live here and benefit from the greatest country on Earth. You are racist against Jews. Bet you hate Blacks too right?

You support Iran's efforts to break international law in trying to develop a nuke. You support Iran's backing of a real terror outfit named Hezbollah and cheer when they kill any Israelis.

I have less then zero respect for you because you are not a man. You are a coward who hides in the US and uses the freedoms that come with living in America to spew your hate and false statements. You slander the country that gives you the freedom to slander it. I look forward to when you return, if you really do, to Iran as it means we will no longer have to sift through your meaningless posts here on BS. Why do I say that? Cause once you are back in Iran, you will not be allowed to post on sites like BS. If you could even find a place to connect to the WWW.

 

By all means.

Well, it does take you some time to invent things (like a US invasion through Azeri land!) so its better you spared your imagination the taxing effort. However, sadly, you're wrong. So long as the US eliminates Iran's ability to make nuclear weapons, they don't care whether you, your grandmother or the mullahs are in charge.

Are you insane? They've publicly stated it!

Baseless assumption and irrelevant to the discussion. Your anti-Americanism has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Of course it can. How do you think Israel took care of an Iraqi reactor in the 80s? Throwing flowers on it?

Do you really think the US is unable to monitor such things? The US spy program, augmented with English, Israeli and other help, is the best the world has ever seen. If they so wanted, they could carpet bomb Iran to ensure that no potential nuclear facility remained operational.

I don't think you understand that an air war and an "air strike" are not the same thing.
As for oil - hahahahahahahaha.

 

You know, if Stalin arose as a zombie and needed a press secretary, I couldn't think of a more perfect choice than IM, the man who tried to claim Iran's "democracy" was more democratic than the United States.
I'm sure IM would explain Stalin's feasting on the brains of Russians as merely a "Russian concept" which "paled in comparison to Bush's oil lust".

 

I find it very telling that he did not even try to deny his racism against America and Jews.

 

try $125 billion. haven't seen your stats, try these:
http://www.undp.org/hdr2001/indicator/indic_18_1_1.html
http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2003/tables/table1-1.pdf
http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/littledata/113.pdf
http://www.albany.edu/history/middle-east/iran.htm
http://www.payvand.com/news/05/apr/1111.html

 

In the words of the wise; "and I see your true colours are shining through".

If you had read my post, you would see that I took that from another analyst. If you want to accuse someone of over-flexing their imagination, try that guy. I had addressed everything you said in your reply but you still went on to make unnecessary explanations. I gave possible reasons for an American attack, one of them being the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Don't forget how Bush's reasonings changed with regards to the war in Iraq. WMD to start with, liberation to end with. I wanted to cover all possible basis since you don't know what line of reasoning people could take and how that could change as circumstances change.

My understanding of threat was nuclear weapons. Thanks for showing that any peaceful nuclear technology and economic benefits for Iran are also deemed as a threat.

Unless your statement is indicating that Iran has publicly stated their nuclear weapons program.

Sarcasm. It's a funny thing. Plus by saying the media is biased in America and warps the views of the public I'm being anti-American. Again thanks.

More lack of knowledge on the subject. If you had read or followed the reasonings for the difficulties in dealing with Iran you would know how wrong your arguments are. Iraq had everything in one installation and it was widely known where everything was. Bit of the difference from the situation in Iran and one of the main reasons analysts are very optimistic at the effectiveness of tactical air strikes.

True it is the best spy program probably and we saw how accurate it was on Iraqi WMDs. The post by Ben regarding Bigjake's question is from Fox. If someone on Fox says there may be installations we don't know about, you should pick up some clues.

I bet you said that (and maybe still saying it) for Iraq too.

So just to recap, you said there was no indiscriminate bombings in WWII and when I gave you examples of nukes, firebombings and Germany you came up with this. First of all, thanks for stating that there was reason in these specifically targeted civilian populations. Secondly, if you're gonna make claims that the other person doesn't know what the word is, you should first know what it means. Or you could just check in a dictionary, here I'll help you; Mr Webster can be helpful in these case;

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=indiscriminate&x=0&y=0

1 a : not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment

Sorry I thought you said Iraq war was won by air strikes!! I guess small landing of marines and the small number of troops in Iraq are just for fun. A war is not complete until the objectives are met. Have the objectives of the Iraq been met yet (depending on which objective you go by again). Just because Bush goes on TV saying we've won and it's finished doesn't make it the case. If the war had truely been finished the soldiers would be back home instead of dying in Iraq.

Now I can safely put you in the Bush camp. So I assume this liberation was the purpose from the beginning and WMDs were just a side issue that happened to be mentioned too many times at the beginning and somehow the Brits misunderstanding and using WMDs as the reason for war since the Attorney General's (Lord Goldsmith) report specifically stated that a war for liberation as it's primary reason is illegal

Sorry but I didn't know such wars were really allowed. Again thanks for showing the American perspective (and I hope not all Americans think this way). America cannot attack a country with the sole purpose of turning it into a "crater". I doubt the rest of the world will be too happy and even if America is the only superpower, I doubt it could go up against the rest of the world. It doesn't happen because of the dire consequences but it has happened in the past where one nation thought too highly of themselves and you being the history expert will probably know what I'm talking about...

This might be a case of dumb and dumber and then you. I said "I'm pretty sure Napolean's tactics did not involve air superiority and destruction of key military and command installations before or during the invasion." Any military tactics, even if you ask a 5 year old would involve destruction of key enemy installations. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. If you read my line, it is being sarcastic refering to air strikes to destory installation before or during the attack. If it is too difficult for you to understand I'll try drawing diagrams next time.

Now can we please quit it with these stupid e-penis arguments? If you are here for a proper discussion, then fine but if you want to randomly attack me just for the sake of doing it and distorting the point of the argument. Maybe I am being too mature...

 

I read something about this and how Iran was one of the major players in an attempt to influence OPEC to change from dollar to euro however I was under the impression that this was for all purposes nullified when KSA stood firm against it. There is question as to the close relations between the US and KSA and given the influence KSA yields within other Arab nations (and hence OPEC), it seemed unlikely that this would happen. However, having said that, the possibility still remains in particular since things are not exactly stable in KSA. Hence it could be possible that America may wish to get rid of even that possibility of change.

It should be noted that other world economies would also suffer should this move happen. The economics are very complicated but there was something in the FT regarding talks that Japan was making possible moves towards Euro but not fully...in order to stabalise their economy... I am afraid that I cannot fully remember the article.