I think that if they were to be honest, the US can see that they're no longer absolutely at the top in terms of a 'world power'. China, India and other nations such as Iran and the like are getting stronger every year, and the only way to slow them down is by US threats and invasions. So what if Iran wants AA guns, and help for their uranium enrichment programmes - I don't think the US has any right to slow down a nation just because they treated it nadly and dont want huge reprisals against themselves. Its natural order.
Will USA attack Iran eventually?
- Thread starter ElRazur
- Start date
Nah if iran did that, sactions would be imposed to stop them selling their oil, would be pretty suicidal from a political standpoint. Besides they know they'd be outclassed from a military standpoint in the open desert. America's got better tanks and anti-armour weapons, helicopters, satalite recon, air superiority ect.Zip said:
Iran would need to get them inclose to reduce the yank advantages, so iran will have to let america get ensnarled in its towns and cities if it wants to win.
remember a pair of $200 dollar rpgs and a couple of iranian soldiers can make a million dollar m1a2 a big roadblock as long as they can get close enough, its been working in baghdad and thats with just insurgents. so imagine what it would be like in tehran with organised and fanatical resistants - as well as the local population hating america even more than the iraqis
Permabanned
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 788
- Location
- London, UK
USMC, Britain, Israel VS N Korea, Iran, China
Bush admits it - "We may have exaggerated"
Somehow I doubt it.
He does go on to say that "Iranian weapons are being used to kill US soldiers in Iraq" - which does represent a missed business opportunity for American arms manufacturers
Having realised that he is a lame duck and that even the Democrats are climbing over one another to distance themselves from him, is it possible that Bush is developing a conscience?
Somehow I doubt it.He does go on to say that "Iranian weapons are being used to kill US soldiers in Iraq" - which does represent a missed business opportunity for American arms manufacturers
Do please attend the demonstration in London on February 24th to get across to Tony Bliar the message that this time round, he should oppose Bush's warlike tendency.
I notice that this time, Bush isn't even pretending that he has the support of the UN.
Nothing good will come of this, whether Bush invades Iran or not.
I notice that this time, Bush isn't even pretending that he has the support of the UN.
Nothing good will come of this, whether Bush invades Iran or not.
Last edited:
Suspended
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 5,426
- Location
- Cambridge
If Iran refuses to halt its nuclear program (or provide proof that it's for civilian purposes only) then I'd be very, very surprised if the USA didn't take at least some military measures.
In the News
On January 16, 2007 the Stennis set sail for the Persian Gulf as part of a increase in military presence within the Middle East region. The Stennis will rendezvous with the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in late February marking the first time since 2003 that there have been two aircraft carrier battle groups in the region.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
On January 16, 2007 the Stennis set sail for the Persian Gulf as part of a increase in military presence within the Middle East region. The Stennis will rendezvous with the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in late February marking the first time since 2003 that there have been two aircraft carrier battle groups in the region.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
neil3k said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm
The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.
If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.
Coincidence perhaps?
...hmmm!