Iran is trolling the US

[Lacadaemon]

And Hell, it's not like the USA has had her own proxy wars.

I thought that's a direct war. The proxy wars would be the funding of various anti-communist African paramilitary groups during the Cold War.

Yah. A better example would be the South African invasion of Angola.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

And Hell, it's not like the USA has had her own proxy wars.

I thought that's a direct war. The proxy wars would be the funding of various anti-communist African paramilitary groups during the Cold War.

And the Iran-Contra Affair was done by a shady guy named Oliver North and was not done by the government itself. Besides, at the time of the incident Iran had become an Islamic theocracy and an adversary of the US. Why would the US, or any sane nation for that matter, sell their weapons to an enemy?

[Idealistic Realist]

The posibility of thermonuculear war has been the greatist stablizing force aganst general conflict in world histry. If u want peace make the risk of the result of war to teriable to bear.

[The Romulan Republic]

The posibility of thermonuculear war has been the greatist stablizing force aganst general conflict in world histry. If u want peace make the risk of the result of war to teriable to bear.

That's a dangerous gamble to say the least. It depends on all world leaders being rational, and no accidental launches/misunderstandings occuring to start a conflict.

[Idealistic Realist]

When the risk so great you take more care what leader you take. Think: do you drive more carefully with seatbelts and antilock breaks or with bad breaks and a spike in the center of the steering wheel?

[SD_Film Artists]

And Hell, it's not like the USA has had her own proxy wars.

I thought that's a direct war. The proxy wars would be the funding of various anti-communist African paramilitary groups during the Cold War.

And the Iran-Contra Affair was done by a shady guy named Oliver North and was not done by the government itself. Besides, at the time of the incident Iran had become an Islamic theocracy and an adversary of the US. Why would the US, or any sane nation for that matter, sell their weapons to an enemy?

Ah yes, he was parodied in the film 'Lord of War' as the character "Colonel Southern".

[Wikipedia and Universe]

And Hell, it's not like the USA has had her own proxy wars.

I thought that's a direct war. The proxy wars would be the funding of various anti-communist African paramilitary groups during the Cold War.

And the Iran-Contra Affair was done by a shady guy named Oliver North and was not done by the government itself. Besides, at the time of the incident Iran had become an Islamic theocracy and an adversary of the US. Why would the US, or any sane nation for that matter, sell their weapons to an enemy?

Ah yes, he was parodied in the film 'Lord of War' as the character "Colonel Southern".

Dang, you're good. I did not notice that.

[Pevisopolis]

If Iran is Trolling, then wouldn't that make the US guilty of Flamebait?

The exact reason why internet forum terms should not be mixed with RL international politics.

...But it's true. In fact, the very definition of U.S. foreign policy is flamebait.

Exactly my meaning.

[Narodna Odbrana]

North Suran, you appear to have mistaken me for somebody else.

I never claimed that the United States should be the World's Policeman; somebody else did that. I never claimed our motives are pure; someone else may have done that somewhere, but not in this thread (AFAICT).

What I did was pretty effectively demolish your assertion that no one ever fought a world war before America came along, with its corresponding implication that America is therefore the cause of world wars.

All of the things you accuse America of doing were done by the Great Powers of Europe long before the United States came along. If you'd care to rebut that assertion, feel free.

IOW, we may not be innocent, but neither is Europe - or much of anybody else, for that matter.

---

Now, getting back on topic, I think we can all safely agree that Iran's actions are a consequence not of American foreign policy, but rather the need of the Ahmadinejad regime to stir something up within the foreign policy arena as a means of bolstering itself against growing domestic dissent. That doesn't make them any less dangerous - indeed, history teaches us that unstable regimes that seek to use foreign policy crises to strengthen themselves against domestic dissent are among the most dangerous regimes imaginable; rather, it instructs us as to what might and might not be an appropriate response.

I would argue that neither force nor neglect will work here: Force gives Ahmadinejad and his cronies what they want - a crowbar with which to beat the opposition; neglect will merely induce them to act out in even more dangerous ways. What we need is something different, something that expresses to the Iranian government our unwillingess to tolerate the violation of another nation's territorial integrity (and even in cases where a territorial dispute exists, the seizure of territory by force represents a violation of the natural process of diplomacy) without strengthening the regime.

The best solution is probably to call upon the United Nations Security Council to condemn Iran's unilateral seizure of disputed territory without any further immediate threat of diplomatic action past said condemnation; such a move would put Iran in an awkward position, thus constituting a "proper" 4GW response to Iran's illegal use of military force. If Iran attempts to engage in further provocations, it invites further condemnations and sets the stage for various retaliatory measures by the international community, both individually and collectively; yet in each case these condemnations provide the Ahmadinejad regime with no leverage it can use to achieve its primary goal - namely, that of beating down domestic opposition at home. This is especially true if China and Russia can be brought on board with respect to such action, because then the regime cannot argue that the condemnations are "solely" or even "primarily" the work of the United States and the United Kingdom, its two traditional domestic whipping boys.

Such action demonstrates a willingness by the United States (and anyone else who pushes for it) to stand up to Iran, an important thing to assert this early on in a crisis: Weakness can be as provocative as threats. After all, in the wake of the two Gulf Wars, it can no longer be argued that U.N. Security Council Resolutions are meaningless; on the contrary, they can and have served as casus belli. Iran would therefore understand that in pressing matters further, it was risking the possibility of providing its potential enemies with the legal grounds for military action against it.

One might argue that Iran wants military action; if that is the case, it is even more important that such action not occur on Iran's terms. Wars fought to quell domestic dissent must still be won on the battlefield - or at least fought to an acceptable draw. If there is to be a war, Iran should understand that it will be fought under political and diplomatic terms that are unfavorable to the Ahmadinejad regime, as well as being fought in a place and fashion not of Iran's choosing. If matters escalate to the point where further Security Council Resolutions are needed, Iran risks putting too much of the initiative for determining the time and place of action in the hands of its enemies.

Finally, such action puts the ball back in Iran's court, but in a way that is no longer favorable to Iran: Further escalations will lead to further condemnations - of this, Iran must be left in no doubt. A lack of action, of course, leaves the Ahmadinejad back where it started - with an unresolved internal crisis. Ideally, Iran should be convinced that the latter outcome is preferable to the former, primarily through the promise that further provocations will result in an ever-escalating set of adverse diplomatic actions.

[Unidos]

Granted. But we *do* have the UN. and none of those times featured anything like the UN. Now if only it wasn't so damn useless...

Before WW2 there was the League of Nations which was even less effective than the UN.

[Brogavia]

Now, getting back on topic, I think we can all safely agree that Iran's actions are a consequence not of American foreign policy, but rather the need of the Ahmadinejad regime to stir something up within the foreign policy arena as a means of bolstering itself against growing domestic dissent. That doesn't make them any less dangerous - indeed, history teaches us that unstable regimes that seek to use foreign policy crises to strengthen themselves against domestic dissent are among the most dangerous regimes imaginable; rather, it instructs us as to what might and might not be an appropriate response.

I would argue that neither force nor neglect will work here: Force gives Ahmadinejad and his cronies what they want - a crowbar with which to beat the opposition; neglect will merely induce them to act out in even more dangerous ways. What we need is something different, something that expresses to the Iranian government our unwillingess to tolerate the violation of another nation's territorial integrity (and even in cases where a territorial dispute exists, the seizure of territory by force represents a violation of the natural process of diplomacy) without strengthening the regime.

The best solution is probably to call upon the United Nations Security Council to condemn Iran's unilateral seizure of disputed territory without any further immediate threat of diplomatic action past said condemnation; such a move would put Iran in an awkward position, thus constituting a "proper" 4GW response to Iran's illegal use of military force. If Iran attempts to engage in further provocations, it invites further condemnations and sets the stage for various retaliatory measures by the international community, both individually and collectively; yet in each case these condemnations provide the Ahmadinejad regime with no leverage it can use to achieve its primary goal - namely, that of beating down domestic opposition at home. This is especially true if China and Russia can be brought on board with respect to such action, because then the regime cannot argue that the condemnations are "solely" or even "primarily" the work of the United States and the United Kingdom, its two traditional domestic whipping boys.

Such action demonstrates a willingness by the United States (and anyone else who pushes for it) to stand up to Iran, an important thing to assert this early on in a crisis: Weakness can be as provocative as threats. After all, in the wake of the two Gulf Wars, it can no longer be argued that U.N. Security Council Resolutions are meaningless; on the contrary, they can and have served as casus belli. Iran would therefore understand that in pressing matters further, it was risking the possibility of providing its potential enemies with the legal grounds for military action against it.

One might argue that Iran wants military action; if that is the case, it is even more important that such action not occur on Iran's terms. Wars fought to quell domestic dissent must still be won on the battlefield - or at least fought to an acceptable draw. If there is to be a war, Iran should understand that it will be fought under political and diplomatic terms that are unfavorable to the Ahmadinejad regime, as well as being fought in a place and fashion not of Iran's choosing. If matters escalate to the point where further Security Council Resolutions are needed, Iran risks putting too much of the initiative for determining the time and place of action in the hands of its enemies.

Finally, such action puts the ball back in Iran's court, but in a way that is no longer favorable to Iran: Further escalations will lead to further condemnations - of this, Iran must be left in no doubt. A lack of action, of course, leaves the Ahmadinejad back where it started - with an unresolved internal crisis. Ideally, Iran should be convinced that the latter outcome is preferable to the former, primarily through the promise that further provocations will result in an ever-escalating set of adverse diplomatic actions.

The UN is a pathetic joke. Do you really think that they care at this point after being condemed and sanction for just over 30 years now? They laugh at diplomacy.

The Iran-Iraq war has shaped the Iranian policy makers into believing that they can pull off another "victory". They managed to slow down the jugernaught that was the 80s Iraqi Army with massed human wave attacks of religious fanatics with a Quran in one and an AK in the other. Everyone expected Iraq to walk all over them. Instead, they drug out the war into an 8 year war of attrition.

The problem is that they only were able to drive them back because the Iraqi Air Force could not provide the levels of close air support needed to nullify human wave attacks. The USAF on the other hand, has gotten close air support methods and tactics down to art. We've had pretty much endless experince since 1941.

Iran is hoping that Iraq will strike back because in their mind that we will be either drawn in or forced out. If we are drawn in, it gives them their endless waves of fanatics, if we leave, they will walk all over Iraq. If We are drawn in, it will be bloody, it will be long, but we will defeat Iran.

[The Romulan Republic]

Amdrica has never been a super power militarily. That was russia's spot. Without nukes russia could easily have destroyed america militarily, not that they would've wanted to.

I actually doubt it. America's navy utterly outclasses Russia's. Also, discounting a major component of the American arsenal and then saying that America is not a military superpower is absurd.

Finally, Russia being the greater superpower would not rule out America being a superpower as well.

America is the world's salesman, profiting - no wait - trying to profit from everything it can. And if something threatens to disrupt the market, they will fight it. Which is why they are now out there paying for oil - not just with money, but with blood.

While oil has probably been a motive for war, it is not the only or perhaps even the largest motive for the current wars, and I suspect that only those who view the world in a very simplistic light are inclined to think otherwise.

The idea that america is the "world police" is one of the most stupid, arrogant and thoughtless things imaginable.

Isn't that supposed to be the UN's job (not that they've been particularly good at it)?

If we are even going to attempt a global society we need to work within rules, not decide to march in. America's imperialist intervention is bad for itself, and worse for the world. Isolationist is crazy, but thats the polar opposite of what the US is doing. Just find the equator, and sitck to it. Win them over with idea's, not guns. Re-learn the soft touch america once had.

What "soft touch?" America was an expansionist nation even back in the 19th Century.

Also, a question: do you believe that military intervention in another country is ever justified, and if so, under what circumstances?

By the way, if you think america was some sort of catalyst for the end of wars in europe, you are wrong. And if you even look at the war in europe, they barely fought or bled compared to us - which is why they're they superpower now. You don't really expect us to belive you won all our wars for us... AND were still strong enough to become a world power?

Regarding America not being as damaged, that wasn't due to a lower commitment to the war, so much as it was due to having the bulk of its territory far from the main battle fields. Basically historical luck.

[Narodna Odbrana]

What you're missing, Brogavia, are the subtleties of the situation.

If Ahmadinejad simply wanted a war, he'd start one. He wants the United States or Iraq to be the ones to strike first - in fact, he has to have us strike first in order to be able to credibly accuse the dissidents of being tools in an American plot to overthrown the Islamic Republic. Yet I would not assume that he is completely blind to the reality that America sought the approval of the Security Council prior to going to war with Iraq in either Gulf War; thus he would understand that any move to have Iran condemned by the United Nations would be an essential first step in building a case against his regime. That is why a condemnation would not be the same as inaction; it would essentially signal that, by acting as it did, Iran would be taking the first steps in a process that might end in conflict.

Inaction, OTOH, invites further adventurism by Iran, while retaliation gives Iran exactly what it wants and politically isolates the United States to boot. Both of these would be bad for Iraq and the United States, and so should be avoided.

Besides which, it's a necessary test: If you are right and Ahmadinejad thinks that the United Nations amounts to nothing, he will immediately proceed to the next provocation. Of course, if he does that he undermines China and Russia, who will look bad if they don't distance themselves from his regime; he also strengthens the case for military action against his country under the authority of the United Nations, essential to give the United States political cover if that proves to be the ultimate course that needs to be followed.

Which brings us to the question of miscalculation: It is entirely possible that Ahmadinejad misunderstands both the political and strategic matrix in Mesopotamia. Since the United States lacks the military capacity at present to mount an invasion of Iran, any actual war (as opposed to a series of isolated incidents) would necessarily be fought on Iraqi soil. The United States would fare far better in a defensive war in which it enjoyed the ability to employ its principal strength (air power) as a force multiplier than it would in an offensive war against Iran; then, too, Iran's ability to absorb casualties in an offensive war against Iraq would be decidedly lower than would be the case in a defensive struggle for survival of the regime. This is especially true if Iran were to end up starting the war; public opinion could turn against the current regime very quickly if high casualties were incurred.

If Iran were seen as the aggressor, it would be very hard for China and Russia to supply Ahmadinejad's regimes with arms; in anything more than a brief struggle, this would prove telling and perhaps even fatal to Iran's hopes; if things came to a head after numerous condemnations of Iran by the U.N. Security Council, then the situation would be that much worse.

If Ahmadinejad is counting on war - and right now I think he's just looking for an incident or two that can win him domestic political support - he may believe that his own people's patriotism will win out over all, that Iraqi Shiites will support any Iranian invasion wholeheartedly, that China and Russia would supply him arms in spite of however badly he might behave just to spite the United States, and that the United States cannot accept casualties. He has to be right in all of these guesses to win, of course; if he's wrong on more than one or two, it will mean his swift defeat and likely overthrow.

The real question then, comes done to whether this is indeed his thinking. For the part of the United States, however, it really doesn't matter; the correct strategy is exactly the same whether Ahmadinejad is simply looking for an incident to bolster his support or believes that he holds a royal flush: We use his aggressiveness against him to undermine his political position while strengthening our own. And, whatever you may think of the United Nations, that is where the diplomatic struggle needs to begin.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Correct

America has a history of going to war for the right reason's
We don't do it for territory, or power, or wealth. but to right wrongs, and correct mistakes.

Pearl Harbour was unannounced, where as the vast majority of American actions consisted of the following dialouge

"You have Violated UN Resolution #A/Human Right #B/Treaty #C. cease and desist/comply to demands D,E,F. Failure to do will result in Actions X/Y/Z"

"Screw you America, it's my country, I will kill/rape/pillage whatever I want, and as for my people, they [s]can[/s] will suck it as well, because they enjoy it."

"You were warned fairly, now suffer your fate"

Fixed.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

And since when did the Iranian president care about credibility? He's won at least one rather shifty election and declared the holocaust was an absolute lie. His nation and religion is more or less behind him in his intention to nuke Israel- if the people will it, democracy states it should happen; I don't doubt he would use that to claim "credibility" in his actions.

As for the Americans striking first, B-1's and W-88's don't care about moral credibility, although if anyone decides to make a television series called "Vince the moral credibility concerned cruise missile" please leave a youtube link for us all.

[North Suran]

North Suran, you appear to have mistaken me for somebody else.

I never claimed that the United States should be the World's Policeman; somebody else did that. I never claimed our motives are pure; someone else may have done that somewhere, but not in this thread (AFAICT).

Exactly in this thread, actually.

What I did was pretty effectively demolish your assertion that no one ever fought a world war before America came along, with its corresponding implication that America is therefore the cause of world wars.

An assertion which I never made.

So well done, you managed to demolish a strawman argument which I did not even put forward in the first place.

Give yourself a gold star!

All of the things you accuse America of doing were done by the Great Powers of Europe long before the United States came along. If you'd care to rebut that assertion, feel free.

And what the Hell does that have to do with anything?

My whole argument throughout this thread has been that the USA is just as infallible as any other country.

So thank you for agreeing with me, then.

Now, getting back on topic, I think we can all safely agree that Iran's actions are a consequence not of American foreign policy, but rather the need of the Ahmadinejad regime to stir something up within the foreign policy arena as a means of bolstering itself against growing domestic dissent.

If it was not for US foreign policy, Iran - as we know it - would not even exist.

And Christ, its not like they have legitimate reasons to hate the USA.

That doesn't make them any less dangerous - indeed, history teaches us that unstable regimes that seek to use foreign policy crises to strengthen themselves against domestic dissent are among the most dangerous regimes imaginable; rather, it instructs us as to what might and might not be an appropriate response.

And history also taught us the dangers of using the policy that you are about to propose:

The best solution is probably to call upon the United Nations Security Council to condemn Iran's unilateral seizure of disputed territory without any further immediate threat of diplomatic action past said condemnation; such a move would put Iran in an awkward position, thus constituting a "proper" 4GW response to Iran's illegal use of military force. If Iran attempts to engage in further provocations, it invites further condemnations and sets the stage for various retaliatory measures by the international community, both individually and collectively; yet in each case these condemnations provide the Ahmadinejad regime with no leverage it can use to achieve its primary goal - namely, that of beating down domestic opposition at home. This is especially true if China and Russia can be brought on board with respect to such action, because then the regime cannot argue that the condemnations are "solely" or even "primarily" the work of the United States and the United Kingdom, its two traditional domestic whipping boys.

Does the word "appeasement" mean anything to you?

Such action demonstrates a willingness by the United States (and anyone else who pushes for it) to stand up to Iran, an important thing to assert this early on in a crisis: Weakness can be as provocative as threats.

I don't think the Iranians are in any doubt as to where the USA stands.

After all, in the wake of the two Gulf Wars, it can no longer be argued that U.N. Security Council Resolutions are meaningless; on the contrary, they can and have served as casus belli. Iran would therefore understand that in pressing matters further, it was risking the possibility of providing its potential enemies with the legal grounds for military action against it.

So basically, you want to wait for Iran to commit military action against one of its neighbours, and then attack?

One might argue that Iran wants military action; if that is the case, it is even more important that such action not occur on Iran's terms.

And how, pray tell, is allowing Iran to act first before we retaliate not allowing the action to occur on Iran's terms?

Wars fought to quell domestic dissent must still be won on the battlefield - or at least fought to an acceptable draw. If there is to be a war, Iran should understand that it will be fought under political and diplomatic terms that are unfavorable to the Ahmadinejad regime, as well as being fought in a place and fashion not of Iran's choosing. If matters escalate to the point where further Security Council Resolutions are needed, Iran risks putting too much of the initiative for determining the time and place of action in the hands of its enemies.

Although all this, of course, becomes meaningless if Iran achieves a nuclear weapon, giving it carte blanche to do whatever the Hell it wants.

Finally, such action puts the ball back in Iran's court, but in a way that is no longer favorable to Iran: Further escalations will lead to further condemnations - of this, Iran must be left in no doubt. A lack of action, of course, leaves the Ahmadinejad back where it started - with an unresolved internal crisis. Ideally, Iran should be convinced that the latter outcome is preferable to the former, primarily through the promise that further provocations will result in an ever-escalating set of adverse diplomatic actions.

Because international condemnation has always worked so well in the past with Iran.

[North Suran]

Granted. But we *do* have the UN. and none of those times featured anything like the UN. Now if only it wasn't so damn useless...

Before WW2 there was the League of Nations which was even less effective than the UN.

See, this is a bit of a post-war myth, mainly stemming from the hatred of appeasement and the face that no one really wants to admit that the League of Nations is probably as equally effective as the UN is today (that is to say, not very).

If you dropped Hitler into the role of Chancellor in modern day Germany, I'd like to see how the UN could contain a warlike, first-world power.

[Juristonia]

I'm wondering how we report this to a moderator?

either way, this is...unacceptable

Clinton would be bombing something by now
Bush would be Invading something
Obama will be......talking it out?

To be honest I think it's nice that America finally has a president who desn't think 'middle east....BOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!'

I suppose

however non-action sends a very weak message

it's like one moment your arguing with an Internet tough guy, with 1337 H4X0R skills to back up his threats, and the next your dealing with some new guy, who talks a good game but in the end will let you do or say whatever you want.

You mean non-action like the non-action from Bush? or Clinton? Or the other Bush?
Taking a stab at a president in comparison to previous presidents doesn't really work when those previous guys did the exact same thing.

[Skibereen]

And so all those centuries of "No world wars" which predate the founding of the USA were...?

You mean all those centuries where England, France, Holland, and Spain lived in complete peace and harmony with one another, never funding terrorist pirate attacks on each other, never fighting wars on three continents at once over each others' colonial possessions, never paying proxies in faraway places like India, Asia, or the Americas to fight their dirty little colonial wars?

Because Christ knows, its not like the USA funds terrorism.

And Hell, it's not like the USA has had her own proxy wars.

Le gasp; what is this? Could it possibly be that the benevolent and infallible World Police are actually just as violent and selfish as every other world power?

Surely not!

Yes, what a land of sweetness and light the world was before America ruined it all in 1776. 'Twas the Garden of Eden, and we Americans are the Great Satan Serpent who wrecked it.

Considering the fact that, by the end of the 18th century, the newly-founded USA had already fought four wars - one of which was against France which, according to you, constitutes a "world war".

I'm not claiming that there were no global conflicts; only pointing out that your self-serving bullshit statement, that the USA is the only reason there are no worlds wars, is...well...self-serving bullshit.

Learn history FTW. If a war was fought in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific, the Carribean, and Europe all at once, it was a World War. By my count, France and Britain fought three such wars in the 18th Century alone.

And then the USA was created and, whaddya know, people still wage warfare.

Excuse me.
On one point I believe you are totally off base.
Supporting resistance in Afghanistan after they were INVADED isnt funding terrorism. The French resistance were not terrorists, neither were those people resisting Soviet Occupation, it doesnt matter what they turned into a decade later--at that moment they were not terrorists and if anything the US should have done more not less.

[Allbeama]

Let's have Obama go in and Communize Iran!

[North Suran]

Excuse me.
On one point I believe you are totally off base.
Supporting resistance in Afghanistan after they were INVADED isnt funding terrorism.

Then why is it that once we were doing the invading, we started calling the Mujihadeen - the same organisation we had funded during the Soviet invasion - terrorists?

The French resistance were not terrorists, neither were those people resisting Soviet Occupation, it doesnt matter what they turned into a decade later--at that moment they were not terrorists and if anything the US should have done more not less.

The definition of terrorism:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

So yes, the French resistance and anti-Soviet partisans were terrorists.

[Resolute Prime]

Granted. But we *do* have the UN. and none of those times featured anything like the UN. Now if only it wasn't so damn useless...

Before WW2 there was the League of Nations which was even less effective than the UN.

The league of nations only represented the European powers. nobody else, and it had no real power anyways, no way to enforce its will like the modern UN. so, my statement stands.

[Robustian]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091218/wl_afp/iraqiranoilborder_20091218153543

Iranian forces take over Iraq oil well

NASIRIYAH, Iraq (AFP) – Iranian forces took control of a southern Iraqi oil well on a disputed section of the border on Friday, US and Iraqi officials told AFP.

"There has been no violence related to this incident and we trust this will be resolved through peaceful diplomacy between the governments of Iraq and Iran," a US military spokesman told AFP at Contingency Operating Base Adder, just outside the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah.

"The oil field is in disputed territory in between Iranian and Iraqi border forts," he said, adding that such incidents occur quite frequently.

An official of the state-owned South Oil Co in the southeastern city of Amara, and west of the field, said: "An Iranian force arrived at the field early this morning (Friday).

"It took control of Well 4 and raised the Iranian flag even though the well lies in Iraqi territory," the official added.

I am very amused at the sheer balls of the Iranians. They're getting all sort of heat and bullying from the US about their alleged uranium enrichment program. They don't mind too much. Instead they just march into Iraq and take over an oilfield, and raise an Iranian flag on it.

There's no risk on their part. Obama is president. He's utterly gutless, and afraid of his own shadow. He won't do squat.

[Hegstoria]

USA= Acknowledges MAD and does not wish to cause it.
UK= Acknowledges MAD and does not wish to cause it.
France= Acknowledges MAD and does not wish to cause it.
Russia= Acknowledges MAD and does not wish to cause it.
China= Acknowledges MAD and does not wish to cause it.
Israel= Acknowledges MAD and does not wish to cause it.
Iran= Acknowledges MAD and does not give a damn about it

Lets be honest you can't have nuclear weapons when your country is so unstable and lets bw honest anyone who played call of duty 4 will know that the chance of nuke theft is gonna be pretty high in Iran, or they might start giving them to terrorists. :/

Call of Duty. You take your knowledge of how this will work out from Call of motherfreaking Duty.

Doesn't everybody.

No. CoD became horribly mainstream after CoD2

oh definitely, cause killing a bunch of people in an airport, then completely shooting up the suburbs of dc is mainstream

[Resolute Prime]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091218/wl_afp/iraqiranoilborder_20091218153543

Iranian forces take over Iraq oil well

NASIRIYAH, Iraq (AFP) – Iranian forces took control of a southern Iraqi oil well on a disputed section of the border on Friday, US and Iraqi officials told AFP.

"There has been no violence related to this incident and we trust this will be resolved through peaceful diplomacy between the governments of Iraq and Iran," a US military spokesman told AFP at Contingency Operating Base Adder, just outside the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah.

"The oil field is in disputed territory in between Iranian and Iraqi border forts," he said, adding that such incidents occur quite frequently.

An official of the state-owned South Oil Co in the southeastern city of Amara, and west of the field, said: "An Iranian force arrived at the field early this morning (Friday).

"It took control of Well 4 and raised the Iranian flag even though the well lies in Iraqi territory," the official added.

I am very amused at the sheer balls of the Iranians. They're getting all sort of heat and bullying from the US about their alleged uranium enrichment program. They don't mind too much. Instead they just march into Iraq and take over an oilfield, and raise an Iranian flag on it.

There's no risk on their part. Obama is president. He's utterly gutless, and afraid of his own shadow. He won't do squat.

Even if a more "brave" (or foolish) president is in his place, the US simply isn't in any condition to fight 3 wars simultaneously.
And he's not gutless. he understands that fact, knows that attacking would be exactly what Iran wants (it will cripple the US for decades) and is therefore not biting.