Well that worked well then, seeing that America foiled a plot to kill a prominent Saudi.
Iran agents 'planned US terror attacks'
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
Well that worked well then, seeing that America foiled a plot to kill a prominent Saudi.
Are you biased? And what have you posted that prooves the Iranian regime are terrorists?
Face the facts, most terrorist attacks are from Sunni Muslims not shias so this BS propaganda that is being peddled about Iran is just that BS.
Killing a Saudi ambassador would not be in American interests when Saudi is there bum chum.
If Iran did it for that reason then they would do it so that it seems to saudi that america was at fault for the attack wasn't that your logic?
Agreed, but I think they lack the conviction to want to do it. I think the west, mainly the USA, are happy to apply sanctions and use the potential threat of military power, but would not actually engage unless there was a massive attack on home soil that could be inextricably linked and proven to have originated from Iran. It would have to be of such magnitude that it would result in the deaths of several 1000 American citizens and would therefore be construed as an act of war.
The death of a few politicians / envoys would not I like to believe set the American war machine to work on Iran.
Well the UK has the manpower and resources to launch an invasion anywhere whether it would be successful however is a completely different thing. The whole of NATO could not prosecute a successful war against Iran let alone the US acting is isolation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Lying Americans lying . . . as usual.
The Americans have been shown again and again to have lied over threats they face from the Middle East - n the case of Iran, it has been going on for about 60 years.
Why in the name of God would anyone believe anything the Americans say about a plot originating in Iran?
The Americans have been shown again and again to have lied over threats they face from the Middle East - n the case of Iran, it has been going on for about 60 years.
IT IS ALL ABOUT OIL 
Thats slightly out of context of what was said. Th eposter said, they have enough resources to launch an invasion'. There was no comment saying it would succeed
Technically the west has got enough manpower for such a deployment, but I fear victory would only be realised through use of the nuclear option. I couldn't see conventional tactics securing a victory, especially when you see how long and drawn out the current middle east campaign have been. It would have to be a proper no holds bared war where every tool at the west disposal was deployed, nuclear arsenal and all. If they went for a conventional stand up and fight war I think it would be a stalemate.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,255
- Location
- North Sea
In a stand up conventional battle, the regular Iranian forces would probably be smashed by technologically superior and combat hardened western forces, just as during the opening stages of the Iraq war. The occupation and insurgency we would see afterwards would make Iraq seem like a picnic in comparison however.
There was a joke among Berliners as the Red Army closed in from the east in March-April 1945. "Enjoy the rest of the war, the peace is going to be hell."
There was a joke among Berliners as the Red Army closed in from the east in March-April 1945. "Enjoy the rest of the war, the peace is going to be hell."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7321.htm
If you wonder what that list is, it is assassinations with links to America.
Where's JFK?
Assassination plots.
Sounds awesome. We are lucky to have such visionary leaders.
Thats slightly out of context of what was said. Th eposter said, they have enough resources to launch an invasion'. There was no comment saying it would succeed
Technically the west has got enough manpower for such a deployment, but I fear victory would only be realised through use of the nuclear option. I couldn't see conventional tactics securing a victory, especially when you see how long and drawn out the current middle east campaign have been. It would have to be a proper no holds bared war where every tool at the west disposal was deployed, nuclear arsenal and all. If they went for a conventional stand up and fight war I think it would be a stalemate.
And how would using the nuclear option achieve anything at all. It would unite the world against the US, it would further unite the whole Middle East against the US, it would cause the EU to back away from the US, it would cause Russia China and India to pursue interests against the US, it would damage the economic recovery of Iran with any government that the US would want to put into place. I really fail to see how it is a viable option at all in fact it would be probably the worst strategic move you could make. US forces entering Iran would be a complete disaster look what happened the last time.