From Mr. Iran-Contra:
Iran v US confrontation
- Thread starter 4bars
- Start date
Had the audacity to overthrow the tyrannous monarchy, you know the ones the Yanks had forcefully propelled to power after they overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1952.
They’re also not on friendly terms with Israel and the Saudis don’t like them because they’re the ‘wrong’ type of Muslim. The US likes Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The US also doesn’t like resourceful countries who don’t fall in line. Just ask the Iraqis.
I don't think US had enough information to not think they would not surrender from the 6th to 9th of August. I would like to see facts, not from west sources about the no japanese surrender. Also, targeting civilians killing 150.000 and cursing the next 2 generations could be avoided targeting military or showing off in a none populated area. That if you ever cared
If I ever cared? Interesting that you want to make this personal all of a sudden. Should I ask if you care about the tens of thousands of prisoners who the Japanese were holding with orders to execute them if they had to retreat? Or the hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives an invasion would have cost?
If the US ever cared, of course. I don't know why I typed you. Sorry about that
And to stop the japanese derail, why I cared to bring it up, is the hypocrisy of the US of not allowing other nations to have them as a deterrent when they used it as a deterrent itself as you say., because of the POW, more deaths in an eventual invasion, etc... Why other nations can't think about this tool for the same outcome? Because they are the bad guys, right? but the only ones messing historically with Iran had been the US, the good guys. The good guys that wants to control an area at 10.000 km from home just because the Carter doctrine
I am afraid you're totally wrong here. Even after Nagasaki a lot of Japanese leaders didn't want to surrender, in fact there was a coup d'etat attempt in the Emperor when he decided to surrender. A lot of people wanted to die be it on war or suicide more than to surrender.
As tragic as nuking Japan was, the entire evidence suggests that I'm both death tolls and economical/infrastructural damage it was by far the least of bad options.
Japanese people committing genocide on the region in addition to USSR preparing an invasion, obviously played a significant role in Truman's decision.
Not just US, but honestly I'd be wary of certain countries even having nukes as 'deterrent' and Iran (and most ME countries, to day) is one of them. Cold War was a stalemate because of MAD (mutually assured destruction) which neither camp wanted. Not the case, if this falls into hands of hardcore Jihadis. They would be happy to trigger a MAD war as long as they get their place in heaven.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has had nukes for 20 years.
So you think its a bad idea that messianic fanatics get their hands on nukes ?
To support a Saudi/Israel backed ethnic cleansing of the region? Can imagine some republicans salivating at the thought.
You make it sound like get hands on a nuke and fire a missile is like throwing a grenade. Anyway, the only ones using them were the "good guys". All the new hatred towards the west is not because of a whim, is because the west had been poking and trying to control the area for their benefit. So if the west does not want that countries to have nukes is because they don't want to be attack as a retaliation of their wrong doing. Of course you will feel relieved to not being attack but the countries that your country is messing around with, but it doesn't sound fair
As I said even if the japanese didn't want to surrender, they didn't even try to make a warning in a none or less populated area
Trump must have reason....there’s something you don’t see every day
Just waiting for a major terrorist attack to happen and conveniently get blamed on Iranians...#tinfoilhat
Iran apparently just attacked Israel, so hold onto your hat
In the gulf of Tonkin? Ok, I’ll buy that.
Japan were going to fight until the end from what I've read. The US and it's allies didn't want to invade Japan, it would have cost hundreds of thousands of allied deaths and God knows how many more years of war. And if they did invade, then you have to tell the families of these dead troops..."by the way we created this bomb that would have ended the war years ago but did not use it"...it's a massively debatable issue.
Iran won't trust the west?? Iran have allegedly violated dozens upon dozens of agreements, treaty and conventions so are hardly the most trusted themselves.
feck off USA. Is there a more despicable country in the world? Their dumb, stupid and greedy leaders always start shit. Beautiful and culturally richer countries are destroyed for their sole benefit.
Which ones ?
It does look as though this will continue to brew. There is a lot of tension in the region right now for any country pro Iran / Saudi. I would not be at all surprised if Qatar or Bahrain is used to stoke the flames of this further. Let's hope it gets resolved sensibly, but some how I doubt this will go away.
Iran is US and Israel's biggest pain in the arse in the Middle East. They will definitely be bombed, it is just a matter of time. This is exactly the reason why they need the nukes in the first place. Israel have nukes, they are not a member of IAEA, and quite honestly do not give a flying feck about what the rest of the world thinks of their actions. Iran can't afford the same, however, they are under a threat of next "democratization and liberation from the evil government". Extremely tense situation in the Middle East. We sometimes forget that we have only one planet to live and share.
Shut up with your reasonable argument, logic does not apply here! Didn't you get the memo? the Iranian don't care about mutual destruction, they're Muslims, they know they'll have their places in heaven, so they don't care about dying.
Let's generalize the actions of a few terrorists to the whole Middle East. What could be wrong with that.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not debatable at all, if it is, why don't we just nuke the part of Syria where ISIS is? We know that they aren't surrendering. Why not just exterminate them?
And the whataboutism is hardly a counter argument to what he is saying, let alone a good one. The only sources that say Iran violated the deal are either Israeli sources, or US ones (based on Israeli reports). Those are hardly credible sources.
Now, why would you believe those sources, that have a conflict of interest in the situation, over other objective sources?
From a source titled ‘united against nuclear Iran’, nice bit of objectivity that.
US, European and even Mossad intelligence have admitted that Iran is probably obliging with the deal. Trump only decided to rip the whole thing up because of a Netanyahu PowerPoint and his hard on for reversing Obamas legacy.
This is where the Iranians went wrong. Had they bought the bomb from us when we were selling, they'd be safe today. America doesn't bomb countries who can cause it an unacceptable amount of damage. Libya also ratted us out, look at the state of it today. N.Korea bought the bomb and developed long range missiles - for all the big talk, not a single bullet has been fired at them.
A war against Iran will be damaging for American interests and allies in the region and the world economy, but not the American mainland. Ultimately it depends on if the Iranians have the courage to go full psycho, but if bombed they could retaliate by attacking US military bases in the region, bombing Israel, launching Hizbollah and Syria at Israel, providing more missiles to the Houthi rebels, even attacking Saudi oil fields. They could also mobilise shia forces in Iraq to wage war on American interests.
Also any land invasion of Iran will fail. Firstly it's a country where most people have the same religion and ethnicity, it has a strong identity and you can't carve out a niche of traitors to support you like in Iraq or Afghanistan. Secondly, geographically it's HUGE. Yes the US will probably over run the Iranian military, but they'll resort to the kind of warfare the Iraqi's did, but in a more organised manner, or perhaps a similar style to Hizbollah where they continue with missile attacks and geurilla warefore. Eventually the US will be forced to leave.
I personally don't think they'll ever consider a land invasion anyway - there is no path to victory. At the most Trump is going to have to bomb Iran and if the Iranians retaliate, he'll have to bomb more, eventually - he'll be dragged into a land war, to try and counter the Iranian ability to support militias in the region, and prevent missile strikes on US bases and it's allies.
Also any land invasion of Iran will fail. Firstly it's a country where most people have the same religion and ethnicity, it has a strong identity and you can't carve out a niche of traitors to support you like in Iraq or Afghanistan. Secondly, geographically it's HUGE. Yes the US will probably over run the Iranian military, but they'll resort to the kind of warfare the Iraqi's did, but in a more organised manner, or perhaps a similar style to Hizbollah where they continue with missile attacks and geurilla warefore. Eventually the US will be forced to leave.
I personally don't think they'll ever consider a land invasion anyway - there is no path to victory. At the most Trump is going to have to bomb Iran and if the Iranians retaliate, he'll have to bomb more, eventually - he'll be dragged into a land war, to try and counter the Iranian ability to support militias in the region, and prevent missile strikes on US bases and it's allies.
Religiously yes, it's mostly Shi'i, but ethnically it's extremely diverse. Persians are only about 50% of the population, and there have historically been separatist impulses held within the Azeri, Kurdish, Arab and Baluchi populations.
That's one other country I'm wary about...considering their proven history of proliferation.
Don't you?
It's not some 'guys' doing this. If you have the entire government and vast amounts of funds being made available, it's not that difficult anyway. The proliferation from Pakistan to Iran is not really a secret anyway. I'd assume they are already more advanced in nuclear tech than any of us believe.
If your going to consider that, then Cornwall wants independence and so does that bloke who bought an old oil rig in the North sea. They have some baloch problems over the years and the Kurds want out everywhere, but overall I think the Iranians have kept a very tight lid on things. It's no Iraq/Libya etc. It's borders are quite natural.
I hope sense prevails - it's easy for us to talk about winning and losing and interests - we never mention human lives.
It is debatable, we are debating it right now. I' personally not for nuclear war but understand why the US did what it did in WW2.
Of course whataboutism is relevant, it's the reason Trump has violated the agreement, he doesn' believe Iran are complying with the agreement.
Who are the entirely impartial and unobjective sources?? Can you be completely sure they are as unobjective as you say?
I think it's a terrible idea, but it's too late to worry about what if's. The US government is full of such fanatics and it has the most nukes in the world.
Getting into a conflict with no proven sources will be a repeat of Iraq/WMDs. Will only lead to disaster.
There are no justifications for nukes. None.
Unless there is an alien spaceship attacking Earth.
Obviously it is not impartial but I didn't say it was. It seems well researched and sourced to me.
PowerPoint? There is obviously intelligence here that neither you or I am party to here.
I agree in relation to the Azeris, who being not only Shi'i but also very much historically involved in the making of modern Iran, are much better integrated (I believe Khaminei himself is an Azeri). The other three groups, especially the Kurds, present much more tempting paths by which a foreign power may attempt to undermine the integrity of Iran.
I agree with you.
It is a debatable issue though with regard to WW2, it's easy to have 20/20 hindsight but we don't know what would have happened if the US didn't drop those bombs.
That was actually strongly debated at the time. The problem was that they didn’t have spare nukes, the couple they had had just been made and had to be transported out there. If they had tested in an empty area and it hadn’t had any positive response (which it wouldn’t have, given that the Japanese didn’t immediately surrender after Hiroshima) then they’d have been left with a single bomb left and no guarantee that it would even make it to its target. You have to remember that thousands of allied servicemen were dying each day, and vast numbers of POWs were at risk of imminent execution at any moment. This wasn’t a thoughtless act, it was something fiercely debated and only decided upon when they decided they had to better option.