Support NeoGAF

[Cooter]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...iran_nuclear_us_israel_040818201404&printer=1

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq" said Shamkhani, speaking in Farsi to the Arabic-language news channel through an interpreter.

They better pray they don't follow through with this plan.

 

[DSN2K]

looking for a death wish ? because thats what the US bring to the middle east.

 

[Socreges]

They better pray they don't follow through with this plan.

The plan is to respond. Preemptive /= Preventive.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

i guess we havent had our share of war yet......

 

[StoOgE]

hurray for a stabalized region!

 

[Hamfam]

Now the US must pre-emptively attack to stop Iran from pre-emptively attacking.

 

[3rdman]

But...but...we're safer now than we were before, right???

 

[Cooter]

But...but...we're safer now than we were before, right???

Iran is going to have to be taken care of regardless if we ever went into Iraq. Please don't insinuate that the Iraq war is the reason for this brewing crisis with Iran because you and I know it simply isn't true.

 

[Ripclawe]

The plan is to respond. Preemptive /= Preventive.

Some want to attack now instead of waiting, thats fine. Israel and America vs Iran? not very good odds for Iranians. This is pretty much all bluster BTW.

 

[3rdman]

Iran is going to have to be taken care of regardless if we ever went into Iraq. Please don't insinuate that the Iraq war is the reason for this brewing crisis with Iran because you and I know it simply isn't true.

No. I'm insinuating that our President is a dumbshit.

 

[Hamfam]

Iran is a huge threat we must deal with right now. And besides, we can do what we want to Iran, because they're too weak to be able to hurt us anyway.

 

[3rdman]

Iran is a huge threat we must deal with right now. And besides, we can do what we want to Iran, because they're too weak to be able to hurt us anyway.

Yes, cause the best thing we can do to our army is to thin them out even further by occupying 3 countries. Good idea.

 

[Cooter]

No. I'm insinuating that our President is a dumbshit.

How original. Did you think that one up all by yourself? If we do indeed empower the people of Iran to govern themselves then this world will be much safer. You need to stop looking at the short-term and focus on 10-20 years from now.

 

[DSN2K]

I wont feel safe till american and British troops are dying occupying iran.

 

[Hamfam]

I don't think the Brits will be going along with this "War". (If it comes to that) Britain has a pretty decent relationship with Iran, and I just don't think the political climate in the country right now would allow for that anyway.

 

[TheQueen'sOwn]

Yes, cause the best thing we can do to our army is to thin them out even further by occupying 3 countries. Good idea.

Please don't spread your troops too thin.. we here in Canada need them to protect our country and would need them in the event that a disaster actually occurred here .

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

How original. Did you think that one up all by yourself? If we do indeed empower the people of Iran to govern themselves then this world will be much safer. You need to stop looking at the short-term and focus on 10-20 years from now.

the iranians do govern themselves now. it doesnt matter that you dont like what type of govt it is. and how pray tell are we gonna get enough troops to occupy a country with three times more people than fucking iraq!!? you chickenhawks are some hot shit "let's go here and there and everywhere" next you'll be saying that syria is still hiding saddam's WMD's and we should invade them.....

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

Iran is a huge threat we must deal with right now. And besides, we can do what we want to Iran, because they're too weak to be able to hurt us anyway.

i hope you're being sarcastic.

 

[Hamfam]

I was basically pointing out the delicious irony.

 

[Makura]

The plan is to respond. Preemptive /= Preventive.

"/=" != "!="

 

[3rdman]

How original. Did you think that one up all by yourself? If we do indeed empower the people of Iran to govern themselves then this world will be much safer. You need to stop looking at the short-term and focus on 10-20 years from now.

Exactly how do you "empower" the people of Iran? Is it the same way that we've "empowered" the people of Iraq or Afghanistan? To hell with 10 or 20 years from now...with the rate we're going we may never get there. The worst thing (and the dumbest) we can do is to underestimate our opposition. Do you really think that going into Iran would be easy? Hell, how about simple logistics...how will we pay for this? Where are we going to find all the necessary people in rebuilding 3 countries?

And yes, I did think of that all by myself.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

I was basically pointing out the delicious irony.

oh. 'kay.

 

[Socreges]

Makura, thanks for your concern.

Some want to attack now instead of waiting, thats fine. Israel and America vs Iran? not very good odds for Iranians. This is pretty much all bluster BTW.

Go on.

 

[Cooter]

the iranians do govern themselves now.

Surely you're joking.

 

[StoOgE]

Make no mistake, Iraq has made matters worse. Now that America has a policy of pre-emption on the books, other countries fearfull of an american attack that they feel is inevitable will be more likely to strike at us. Its been happening for decades allready, and that was with no record of us actually attacking first, I dont forsee things getting better because of this new policy.

 

[Drensch]

Sweet. Much like anyone with a brain expected, this premptive bullshit and belligerent hubris, is a popular phenomenon. Congrats president dumbass. I don't see anything wrong with Iran doing what we did, if we claim it was ok.

 

[StoOgE]

Surely you're joking.

Well they certainly arent a colony. They rule themselves just as much as the Saudi people do.

 

[Socreges]

Make no mistake, Iraq has made matters worse. Now that America has a policy of pre-emption on the books, other countries fearfull of an american attack that they feel is inevitable will be more likely to strike at us. Its been happening for decades allready, and that was with no record of us actually attacking first, I dont forsee things getting better because of this new policy.

Preemptive war is nothing new, and is easily justified. It's preventive war, a la Iraq, that has some countries concerned. The fact that they haven't done anything wrong yet, but stand to be attacked nonetheless, is dangerously intimidating.

 

[Cooter]

What justification would Iran use for attacking us? Are we going to hand WMD's over to terrorists? Are our people repressed and tortured routinely? Do we have hundreds of thousands of mass graves that are sponsored by our government?

They have no logical basis for launching a pre-emptive strike unless they think we are going to take out their current government. If the situation turns out we were going to replace governments and they decided to order a strike preemptively it would make the war a whole hell of a lot bloodier.

Bottom line is they stand zero chance against the USA militarily and it would be suicide to act first.

 

[Ripclawe]

Makura, thanks for your concern.


Go on.

go on what? Some Iranian Generals want to attack now, as much as Iranians like to talk, they do not have the firepower to withstand Israel and America in a non PC war.

 

[teepo]

the young iranians will greet the americans and the old will throw rocks at our tanks yelling "WHORE". dunno about the mid age ones...

 

[StoOgE]

Bottom line is they stand zero chance against the USA militarily and it would be suicide to act first.

Yes, but if they think we are going to attack them ANYWAY they might as well get in a few cheap shots before we overthrow them. What is dangerous is that its possible that we may not even be planning on attacking Iran, but that perception is put into their heads that we may which could potentially lead to a war that would not otherwise have occured.

 

[teepo]

funny thing is, years ago i read a interpertation of nostradamus's predictions and it said iran would first attack some country and russia will back the attack. the two would join forces and that would be the begining of a nuclear war. i'm scared man.

 

[Cooter]

Yes, but if they think we are going to attack them ANYWAY they might as well get in a few cheap shots before we overthrow them. What is dangerous is that its possible that we may not even be planning on attacking Iran, but that perception is put into their heads that we may which could potentially lead to a war that would not otherwise have occured.

As Ripclaw stated, if they attack first this talk about a PC war will go out the window and we will bomb anything suspected of housing government officials to dust.

 

[Ripclawe]

Yes, but if they think we are going to attack them ANYWAY they might as well get in a few cheap shots before we overthrow them. What is dangerous is that its possible that we may not even be planning on attacking Iran, but that perception is put into their heads that we may which could potentially lead to a war that would not otherwise have occured.

The most we have done or will do with Iran is to secretly fund and encourage any opposition groups or movement in country.

 

[Socreges]

go on what? Some Iranian Generals want to attack now, as much as Iranians like to talk, they do not have the firepower to withstand Israel and America in a non PC war.

Why would you say "go on what?" and then continue answering my question as if you knew exactly what I meant? Huh.

Anyway, link? That's not to say I don't believe you, but I'd like to see what they said exactly.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

What justification would Iran use for attacking us? Are we going to hand WMD's over to terrorists? Are our people repressed and tortured routinely? Do we have hundreds of thousands of mass graves that are sponsored by our government?

They have no logical basis for launching a pre-emptive strike unless they think we are going to take out their current government. If the situation turns out we were going to replace governments and they decided to order a strike preemptively it would make the war a whole hell of a lot bloodier.

Bottom line is they stand zero chance against the USA militarily and it would be suicide to act first.

their basis would be that the USA wants to overthrow their govt and attack their country and their people. that's good enough for me....

 

[Doth Togo]

http://www.gsinstitute.org/resources/extras/nmd_video_lg.mov

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

As Ripclaw stated, if they attack first this talk about a PC war will go out the window and we will bomb anything suspected of housing government officials to dust.

...and yet we'll be 'empower[ing] the people of Iran to govern themselves'?

 

[NLB2]

Iran is going to have to be taken care of regardless if we ever went into Iraq. Please don't insinuate that the Iraq war is the reason for this brewing crisis with Iran because you and I know it simply isn't true.

You're right, its just a shame that the country with the oil and the country with the nukes aren't one and the same .

 

[firex]

You're right, its just a shame that the country with the oil and the country with the nukes aren't one and the same .

Iran actually is another one of those middle eastern countries with oil.

 

[NLB2]

Yeah, but not as much as Iraq. I guess I should add the country with oil and a bad relationship with the Bush family.

 

[Phoenix]

What justification would Iran use for attacking us?

'The US intends to drop several thousand pounds of munitions on our nuclear facilities. They intend to remove our government from power like they did in Iraq. '

Thats more than enough to take preventative preemptive measures.

Bottom line is they stand zero chance against the USA militarily and it would be suicide to act first.

You assume that attacking the United States would be goal. If you want to launch preventative warfare you start by bitch slapping nearby allies to your enemy. Expect an attack against Israel, Iraq or one of the more western friendly moderate gulf states if they decide to do something.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Are we going to hand WMD's over to terrorists?
Do we have hundreds of thousands of mass graves that are sponsored by our government?

First question: we already have. On top of that, I'm sure quite a few Middle Eastern residents liken Israel to a rogue state.

Second question: all in one country, or spread out through South America during the course of the Nixon and Reagan Administrations?

(As for Saddam, it's never been conclusively established whether it was he or the Iranians that gassed the Kurds.)

 

[teiresias]

You need to stop looking at the short-term and focus on 10-20 years from now.

Oh please, go tell it to Rumsfeld.

 

[Guileless]

Let's first note the absurdity of trying to predict what medieval religious types are thinking or planning. They certainly don't think like most of us.

That said, you have to think this statement is empty rhetoric. What are they going to do, attack the Air Force base in Missouri? That's where the stealth bombers for a strike would probably come from. Not to mention that a first strike would kill any moral legitimacy they would have, because their only chance would be to do what Saddam did and play the victim to the evil superpower that is responsible for every world evil since 1945. (right Drinky?)

 

[Mandark]

Iran's making noise because the US is in a weakened position right now. They're not going to try anything, though a year from now all kinds of things might change and they decide to invade Iraq and hook up with the Medhi army, but I really really really doubt that.

What justification would Iran use for attacking us?

What would justify the action in the minds of the people who would make the decision or what would justify them in the eyes of Cooter from the Gaming-Ages forum? The US is obviously more of a threat to them than Iraq was to the US, but maybe you think they have higher standards for this thing than our own government.

play the victim to the evil superpower that is responsible for every world evil since 1945. (right Drinky?)

Can't argue with what someone actually said? Argue against something they didn't say. Much easier. Also, I am 100% opposed to Guileless' pro-child pornography stance.

You need to stop looking at the short-term and focus on 10-20 years from now.

You said this last year. Can we make it 9-19 years now? Also, you're trying to frame this as long term gains vs. short term sacrifice, without any kind of explanation why we should expect long term gains.

 

[Guileless]

I have no intention of arguing about the sins of the Nixon and/or Reagan administrations in this thread about Iran. My point is that there are millions of people around the world who would be eager to take the side of the religious fascists currently in charge of Iran against the United States (e.g. Drinky), and that would be complicated if Iran struck first.

 

[Firest0rm]

First question: we already have. On top of that, I'm sure quite a few Middle Eastern residents liken Israel to a rogue state.

Second question: all in one country, or spread out through South America during the course of the Nixon and Reagan Administrations?

(As for Saddam, it's never been conclusively established whether it was he or the Iranians that gassed the Kurds.)

What the hell? The Kurds were gassed by Chemical Ali under Saddam's command. The Kurds were gassed INSIDE of Iraq.

 

[MetatronM]

If Iran starts jumping into military action, I think we can safely say that we would be just a hop, skip, and a jump away from a full-on world war. A few weird twists here, perhaps an ironic turn there, and boom, the whole world in a war of ideologies. Way to make the world a safer and more peaceful place, guys.

Who the hell gave them the idea that we're just going to randomly attack them anyway? I don't remember even this administration being that crazy.

Hopefully this is just another case of Iran simply talking the talk to try and put themselves in a power role as the leader of the Arab nations. Sound defiant in the face of the American invaders without actually committing to anything and there's little the US can do about it while the anti-American forces will rally behind you. It's a rather shrewd political/ideological power play on their part...at least, so long as it just remains a ideological manuver and doesn't become a military campaign. The consequences of Iran jumping into the fray at this point in time would be extremely dangerous for the US military, the Middle East, and the world as a whole.

So yeah, hopefully this is Iran just making noise and nothing more.