Good, you understand the economic impacts of an attack. You're in the minority.
Buy on AliExpress.com
The War on Iran (17 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
You talking only about economics part or the whole war? Or do the majoraty of americans want the war with Iran? 
In this case, major economic impacts. Not long term enough to sway an attack (although I'm sure the benefactors of these inflated oil prices will stretch it out as long as possible), but certainly enough to make the Americans reevaluate their options.
I don't think the Americans will go through with it, despite them always stating "the option remains". They got bigger fish to fry (Afghanistan), and Iran still has not reached the critical point of mastering the bomb.
Israel on the other hand, will undoubtedly strike Iran once Iran reaches that critical stage (and given the success of Israeli covert ops vs Iran, Israel will be the 1st to know).
Despite the fact an Israeli attack would involve American help, the Americans will play both sides, publicly criticizing them, all the while helping Israel contain the fallout from any attack, both politically and militarily.
I don't think the Americans will go through with it, despite them always stating "the option remains". They got bigger fish to fry (Afghanistan), and Iran still has not reached the critical point of mastering the bomb.
Israel on the other hand, will undoubtedly strike Iran once Iran reaches that critical stage (and given the success of Israeli covert ops vs Iran, Israel will be the 1st to know).
Despite the fact an Israeli attack would involve American help, the Americans will play both sides, publicly criticizing them, all the while helping Israel contain the fallout from any attack, both politically and militarily.
Israel has little regard for anybody but themselves, yet we continue to shell out support. I'd love to see us withdraw support and let them fail, just like we should have done with investment banks like Goldman Sachs.
I have a hunch that if we did say no more to Israel, they'd probably get us back in some way, probably staging a terror attack on us and blaming it on somebody else. That's what they do best after all, just like they did with the Hamas leader. They killed him and said it was the British and Americans that did it.
Sorry group of scum.
I have a hunch that if we did say no more to Israel, they'd probably get us back in some way, probably staging a terror attack on us and blaming it on somebody else. That's what they do best after all, just like they did with the Hamas leader. They killed him and said it was the British and Americans that did it.
Sorry group of scum.
this is true sadly. although i think there is more at stake than economical consequences to launching an attack on Iran. unlike Iraq who lets be honest where in no position to stand up to the US thanks to the economical sanctions that pretty much made them ready for such an invasion. Iran is a key player in every nation the US is involved in, and u dont have to look further from Afghanistan and Iraq to realize this. should Iran be attacked there response will be felt in both these two nations, Israel in my opinion will get the united states involved even if such a move is unpopular within the US public.
this proposed war on Iran is day after day shaping up the same way the attacks on Iraq where shaped. the Iranian regime is vilified both domestically and in the middle east. people in the middle east are fed the "Iran posses a lot of danger on your existence" and bec that's the only reason why the US would have presence in this region. the same way iraq was used to get US forces on saudi land and hence making them closer to the oil rich fields of the kingdom. then u have Iraq, who are the second largest producer of oil ( which was made to look like the US was there to bring democracy to the people in iraq)
the Iranian regime uses the nucleur power for civil uses excuse to get a lot of its public on its side, sth the Iraqi regime failed at doing. you need to understand that Iran wants nuclear power bec geographically they have two nuclear nations to there eastern borders ( Pakistan and India) and to there west Israel. Iran has always felt they r on the sidelines in middle east politics thats why they have there players in hezbollah.
Iranians dont help there case with the arab world bec there voice doesn't get to Arabs or in other words the US voice saying Iran is the danger for the gulf states is louder than that of Iran. the arabs will always be sensitive to things like " persian gulf as opposed to arab gulf and growing up it was an issue to be honest bec it backed up the opinion that iran wants to have a massive role in this part of the world which is not very welcomed.
iran did help out the US in Afghanistan only to be labeled a terrorist nation, and part of the axis of evil. i know the general public ( as opposed by the regimes) in the middle east would stand with Iran, iran is gaining popularity in this part of the world ( typical response when any nation stands up to the united states, or any great power and u cant blame them either bec iraq served as a proof that you cant bring in democracy long with other baggage to this part of the world) the only time the arabs general public really stood on the US's side was during the second gulf war in 1991 due to the fact another arab country was invaded and it was later on made to believe that Saudi was next which is far from the truth. you just have to look at the amount of forces that were in kuwait when the invasion was over. you also need to look at how the coalition led by the US stopped going further in 1991 to understand that they had no intention of removing the threat ( which was pretty much stronger than in 2003) that was there excuse to stay and have presence near the oil fields and a massive pile up of weapon purchases by nations.
so on the short run isreal would be the biggest loser from such an attack, the US will have to deal with the economical consequences, and an increase in the death toll in troops in both iraq and afghanstan.
the question is whether the US public would want such a war or not?? i think the people have seen how firms like KBR, Halliburton, mobil etc where the main gainers from iraq, i think they are starting to understand that the only reason iraq was invaded was for the oil fields. so i dont know how the US policy maker will face the public in convincing them of backing up such a war.
this proposed war on Iran is day after day shaping up the same way the attacks on Iraq where shaped. the Iranian regime is vilified both domestically and in the middle east. people in the middle east are fed the "Iran posses a lot of danger on your existence" and bec that's the only reason why the US would have presence in this region. the same way iraq was used to get US forces on saudi land and hence making them closer to the oil rich fields of the kingdom. then u have Iraq, who are the second largest producer of oil ( which was made to look like the US was there to bring democracy to the people in iraq)
the Iranian regime uses the nucleur power for civil uses excuse to get a lot of its public on its side, sth the Iraqi regime failed at doing. you need to understand that Iran wants nuclear power bec geographically they have two nuclear nations to there eastern borders ( Pakistan and India) and to there west Israel. Iran has always felt they r on the sidelines in middle east politics thats why they have there players in hezbollah.
Iranians dont help there case with the arab world bec there voice doesn't get to Arabs or in other words the US voice saying Iran is the danger for the gulf states is louder than that of Iran. the arabs will always be sensitive to things like " persian gulf as opposed to arab gulf and growing up it was an issue to be honest bec it backed up the opinion that iran wants to have a massive role in this part of the world which is not very welcomed.
iran did help out the US in Afghanistan only to be labeled a terrorist nation, and part of the axis of evil. i know the general public ( as opposed by the regimes) in the middle east would stand with Iran, iran is gaining popularity in this part of the world ( typical response when any nation stands up to the united states, or any great power and u cant blame them either bec iraq served as a proof that you cant bring in democracy long with other baggage to this part of the world) the only time the arabs general public really stood on the US's side was during the second gulf war in 1991 due to the fact another arab country was invaded and it was later on made to believe that Saudi was next which is far from the truth. you just have to look at the amount of forces that were in kuwait when the invasion was over. you also need to look at how the coalition led by the US stopped going further in 1991 to understand that they had no intention of removing the threat ( which was pretty much stronger than in 2003) that was there excuse to stay and have presence near the oil fields and a massive pile up of weapon purchases by nations.
so on the short run isreal would be the biggest loser from such an attack, the US will have to deal with the economical consequences, and an increase in the death toll in troops in both iraq and afghanstan.
the question is whether the US public would want such a war or not?? i think the people have seen how firms like KBR, Halliburton, mobil etc where the main gainers from iraq, i think they are starting to understand that the only reason iraq was invaded was for the oil fields. so i dont know how the US policy maker will face the public in convincing them of backing up such a war.
Great Post Ahmad 
one last point i forgot to mention bec i was in a hurry to head to uni. the nuclear issue for iran is pretty much in the hands of the US to an extent. it should be known that even though iran is the 3rd largest producer of oil in the world ( after saudi, and iraq) they dont have refineries. these refineries were destroyed during the iragi-iranian war during the 80's and due the sanctions imposed on iran they can no longer get any refineries built. iran has every right to own nuclear power for civil uses as much as the US or any other country wishing to use it as a source of energy. in irans case they want to save there oil for exporting as its more profitable for the countries needs and once again its there right to take that road.
you have to really question the motives for a war on iran specially if they use the "democracy for the people card" specially when the US and the cia in particular was responsible in over throwing there first elected president ( after he nationalized the oil sector and hence throwing out the british and french firms) and then gave it to the shaa of iran who oppressed the iranians for years until the revoultion toke over. so they have the power to over throw leaders ( pretty much the same for iraq) with out going to war but that would not guarantee there continuous presence near the oil fields.
as for ahmed najit he can say pretty much anything and u would'nt have to take it seriously bec as i lately found out he does not take the final decision regarding irans foriegn policy or military policy as that is the specialization of the general council.
NOTE: i'm in no way or form saying iranians are livng in a paradise at the moment as i dont live there and i dont know what really happens ( the latest elections in iran stand as proof things are not alright) but i do believe in letting the iranians them selves decide what they want.
Medvedev: An Israeli strike on Iran could cause a global catastrophe
An Israeli strike of Iran's nuclear facilities could spark a nuclear conflict, which could spiral into a global catastrophe, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told ABC on Monday, adding that he supported what he called "smart" sanctions on Tehran as part of attempt to make it abandon its nuclear program.
The Russian president is in the United States for a 47-nation nuclear summit convened by U.S. President Barack Obama aimed at thwarting nuclear terrorism, and which may also center on a U.S.-back attempt to hit Iran with new nuclear sanctions.
Russia and China remain two important missing links in Obama's drive to sanction Iran over its nuclear program.
Referring to the possibility that Israel may attack Iran if negotiations over its contentious nuclear programs fail, Medvedev told Good Morning America that "it would be the worst possible scenario," adding that "war means lives lost."
The Russian president also tried to estimate the meaning of what he sees as a war in the Middle East erupting as a result of such a move on Israel's side, saying "everyone is so close over there that nobody would be unaffected. And if conflict of that kind happens, and a strike is performed, then you can expect anything, including use of nuclear weapons."
"And nuclear strikes in the Middle East, this means a global catastrophe. Many deaths," Medvedev said.
Earlier Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad condemned Obama's nuclear summit, calling it humiliating to humanity.
U.S. President Barack Obama is hosting the summit, which is focused on preventing nuclear terrorism but where world leaders are also set to discuss his push for new sanctions against Iran's atomic program.
"World summits being organized these days are intended to humiliate human beings," Ahmadinejad told delegates at a domestic tourism industry event, according to IRNA news agency.
Iran was not invited to the summit, which is being attended by leaders of China and Russia whose consent will be required to impose new sanctions which Obama wants agreed in the coming weeks.
Ahmadinejad had harsh words for politicians who claimed to represent the international community: "These foolish people who are in charge are like stupid, retarded people who brandish their swords whenever they face shortcomings, without realizing that the time for this type of thing is over."
Iran has said it will complain to the United Nations about what it sees as Obama's implied threat to attack it with nuclear weapons. Addressing the United States, Ahmadinejad said: "Your gift to the world is a nuclear bomb while Iran presents ... humanity."
Iran says sanctions will not force it to stop its pursuit of nuclear technology which it says is entirely peaceful. The West fears it is seeking to gain nuclear weapons.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1162462.html
---------------------
I wonder want the Russians TRULY want out of this.
An Israeli strike of Iran's nuclear facilities could spark a nuclear conflict, which could spiral into a global catastrophe, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told ABC on Monday, adding that he supported what he called "smart" sanctions on Tehran as part of attempt to make it abandon its nuclear program.
The Russian president is in the United States for a 47-nation nuclear summit convened by U.S. President Barack Obama aimed at thwarting nuclear terrorism, and which may also center on a U.S.-back attempt to hit Iran with new nuclear sanctions.
Russia and China remain two important missing links in Obama's drive to sanction Iran over its nuclear program.
Referring to the possibility that Israel may attack Iran if negotiations over its contentious nuclear programs fail, Medvedev told Good Morning America that "it would be the worst possible scenario," adding that "war means lives lost."
The Russian president also tried to estimate the meaning of what he sees as a war in the Middle East erupting as a result of such a move on Israel's side, saying "everyone is so close over there that nobody would be unaffected. And if conflict of that kind happens, and a strike is performed, then you can expect anything, including use of nuclear weapons."
"And nuclear strikes in the Middle East, this means a global catastrophe. Many deaths," Medvedev said.
Earlier Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad condemned Obama's nuclear summit, calling it humiliating to humanity.
U.S. President Barack Obama is hosting the summit, which is focused on preventing nuclear terrorism but where world leaders are also set to discuss his push for new sanctions against Iran's atomic program.
"World summits being organized these days are intended to humiliate human beings," Ahmadinejad told delegates at a domestic tourism industry event, according to IRNA news agency.
Iran was not invited to the summit, which is being attended by leaders of China and Russia whose consent will be required to impose new sanctions which Obama wants agreed in the coming weeks.
Ahmadinejad had harsh words for politicians who claimed to represent the international community: "These foolish people who are in charge are like stupid, retarded people who brandish their swords whenever they face shortcomings, without realizing that the time for this type of thing is over."
Iran has said it will complain to the United Nations about what it sees as Obama's implied threat to attack it with nuclear weapons. Addressing the United States, Ahmadinejad said: "Your gift to the world is a nuclear bomb while Iran presents ... humanity."
Iran says sanctions will not force it to stop its pursuit of nuclear technology which it says is entirely peaceful. The West fears it is seeking to gain nuclear weapons.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1162462.html
---------------------
I wonder want the Russians TRULY want out of this.
Sounds whacky, but does he know something we don't?
Ahmadinejad wants millions to quit Tehran over quake fears
(AFP) – 2 days ago
TEHRAN — At least five million Tehran residents need to relocate elsewhere because Iran's capital sits on several fault lines and is threatened by earthquakes, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday.
"We cannot order people to evacuate the city... but provisions have to be made. At least five million should leave Tehran so it is less crowded and more manageable in case of an incident," Mehr news agency quoted him as saying.
Ahmadinejad said the government could offer "land, loans at four percent interest and substantial subsidies" in the provinces to encourage Tehran residents to leave the sprawling capital.
Tehran province has nearly 14 million inhabitants, eight million of whom live in the city which straddles several fault lines. Experts warn that a strong quake in Tehran could kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Ahmadinejad said that 67 percent of Iran's 74-million-strong population lives in urban areas.
"We cannot predict when an earthquake will happen. But if anything happens to Tehran province's 13.8 million residents how can we manage that?" he asked.
Iran is prone to frequent quakes, many of which have been devastating.
The worst in recent times hit the southern city of Bam in December 2003, killing 31,000 people -- about a quarter of the population -- and destroying its ancient mud-built citadel.
Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
Related articles
Ahmadinejad wants millions to quit Tehran over quake fears
(AFP) – 2 days ago
TEHRAN — At least five million Tehran residents need to relocate elsewhere because Iran's capital sits on several fault lines and is threatened by earthquakes, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday.
"We cannot order people to evacuate the city... but provisions have to be made. At least five million should leave Tehran so it is less crowded and more manageable in case of an incident," Mehr news agency quoted him as saying.
Ahmadinejad said the government could offer "land, loans at four percent interest and substantial subsidies" in the provinces to encourage Tehran residents to leave the sprawling capital.
Tehran province has nearly 14 million inhabitants, eight million of whom live in the city which straddles several fault lines. Experts warn that a strong quake in Tehran could kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Ahmadinejad said that 67 percent of Iran's 74-million-strong population lives in urban areas.
"We cannot predict when an earthquake will happen. But if anything happens to Tehran province's 13.8 million residents how can we manage that?" he asked.
Iran is prone to frequent quakes, many of which have been devastating.
The worst in recent times hit the southern city of Bam in December 2003, killing 31,000 people -- about a quarter of the population -- and destroying its ancient mud-built citadel.
Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
Related articles
