Iran is trolling the US

[Brogavia]

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.

Its not three wars. Its a signle war. With 3 fronts. We've done it before, in a sorrier state.

It would not leave us crippled for decades. Even Vietnam did not leave us crippled for decades. We could easily pull it off if we had more manpower. All it would require is the stomach to do it. And right now, we are at an all time low when it comes to risk taking.

Iran would need an invasion of Iraq while we are still there, and massive attacks on the American forces stationed in the region to wrestle us out of the state we are in.

[Resolute Prime]

Its not three wars. Its a signle war. With 3 fronts. We've done it before, in a sorrier state.

It would not leave us crippled for decades. Even Vietnam did not leave us crippled for decades. We could easily pull it off if we had more manpower. All it would require is the stomach to do it. And right now, we are at an all time low when it comes to risk taking.

Iran would need an invasion of Iraq while we are still there, and massive attacks on the American forces stationed in the region to wrestle us out of the state we are in.

1) waging war with 3 different countries that has no formal alliance = 3 wars.
2) Since when was Vietnam fought while the US have a multi-trillion dollar debt and a ridiculously high trade imbalance? It costs roughly a million dollars to send *one* soldier overseas.
3) Whoever said Iran needs to go on the offensive? In all likelihood, it is the US that will do the invading, in response to its aggressive moves. When that happens, the US troops would be torn apart. Iran is worse than Afghanistan. If the US invades Iran, it can expect resistance *everywhere* as in Iran, when it comes to the US, pretty much every Civilian is a combatant/ hates the US. It would be a massacre on both sides.

[SD_Film Artists]

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

So, Modern Warfare 2 is an indie game now?

[Futurmerica]

All I can say is

[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

So, Modern Warfare 2 is an indie game now?

im not saying its indie but it isnt mainstream either. not this one any way.

[Shofercia]

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

Sigged

Same here.

i think the US telling Iran not to have nukes is like keeping guns out of the deranged criminals.
if you give someone the means to kill, they will use it. Give Iran a nuke and they will wipe Israel off the map.

Which countries has Iran invaded in the past century? What about US/Israel? So who is more aggressive? And if the more aggressive nations aren't using the bombs, why should the less aggressive nations do it?

The problem with a nuclear armed Iran is that it would take an already effed up region and set off a nuclear arms race. Neighboring India and Pakistan have got the bomb but as a deterrent to each other while Iraq,the traditional enemy of Iran ,has been taken care of. Besides regional influence ,pride, and trolling its neighbors and the world they have no need for such a bomb.

Indeed, Iran would like to thank the US Oil Companies for effectively lobbying and disposing of Saddam Hussein.

Of course, the risk of trolling IRL is that you might actually get your ass kicked.

Picking your victims carefully is the sekrit to IRL trolling. That is where Hitler went wrong.

This thread is a fucking Goldmine for quotes.

Yeah, well, we decided we'd be proactive this time. Europeans wait til the **** has hit the fan, just like they did with the Nazis, Soviets, etc.

Soviets? I take it history is no longer necessary. Umm, here's the thing. Take a look at the map of Europe circa 1914. Take a look at the map of Europe circa 1939. Change Soviets to Russians. Compare the maps. Realize that they are closely related. Now recall 1918. Remember the open season everyone declared on the USSR in 1918.

Now as per the WWI and WWII arguments:

WWI - Europeans were duking it out between themselves. America was supplying the UK. Thus, in WWI, America chose a side. When America was attacked, for supplying the UK, an enemy of Germany, by Germany, the US declared war on Germany.

WWII - This one would not have started, had Americans/Brits/French not imposed the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, and then failed to enforce it. WWII started, partially as a result of the consequence of WWI. Additionally in WWII - in 1938 it was blatantly obvious that Nazis were bullying Europe. Nazis intervened in the Spanish Civil War, and practical gave Franco air cover with the Luftwaffe. Nazis were always annexing something, since their annexation of Austria.

It's amazing how Americans think there's no difference between WWI and WWII. That is just ignorance at its best. In WWI - all of the combatants were guilty. In WWII, Nazi Germany rightfully bears the brunt of the burden for starting that war.

But think - would the Nazi Party rise in Germany, had it not been for the Treaty of Versailles, which humiliated pre-Nazi Germany?

We really should remove that particular weapon of Israel arsenal if we want to stop nuclear proliferation. That's the bloody reason Iran is researching nukes in the first place. They saw Irak and North Korea. One got invaded and one got relief aid. Guess which one had one nuke. Only one.

There is wisdom is said post. Except it's Iraq, as spelling is very important. Just replace the "q/k" with the "n", and you will see my point

Well, see, Iraq didn't enter Kuwait to overthrow an evil dictatorship and provide freedom to the countries populace. We entered Iraq to do just that, however. There is a bit of a difference.

Did you by any chance, vote for McCain/Palin?

[Imsogone]

Unfortunately, I feel this may end badly

Don't worry, nothing ever ends well.

In the end, we all die.

[Shofercia]

That when I read my own posts, I come off as a crazy tin-foil hat wearing, right-wing, arm chair commander, filled with over-zealous, ultra-nationalist pride. and a dangerous adherence to Anarcho-Capitalist economic theory, all the while touting the merits of Neo-American Imperialism

Don't forget stubborn and misinformed!

Seriously though, doing it and recognising it is a very good thing, imagine what would've happened if you hadn't noticed and kept going!

Low Quality entertainment for me?

What I find even more funny is that USA think they can tell people not have nuclear bombs, when they have they have some.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'll be sure to let every hatred-inciting violence-provoking crackpot country to have all the nukes it wants in the future.

Because America wouldn't drop a nuclear bomb would they?

Uh yea we wouldn't.

Nagasaki thanks you.

Perhaps I am missing something here. I have no idea why Pearl Harbor has anything to do with why America would never drop a nuclear bomb.

Wow, this is my new favorite thread.

1. Pearl Harbor started America's involvement in WWII.
2. At the end of WWII, when Nazi Germany surrendered, and the Japanese Empire lay in ruins, Japan offered to surrender to the US, with one condition: keeping their Emperor. The US would not accept anything short of an unconditional surrender.
3. In order to get Japanese unconditional surrender, US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and another one on Nagasaki.
4. Japan unconditionally surrendered.
5. US keeps the Japanese Emperor in place, effectively proving the Atomic Bombs being dropped to be useless.

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....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.

Well I have to do serious analysis from time to time to have people keep on reading my posts, so here goes:

Russia most likely won't be brought on board, primarily because of Bush's fuck up in Georgia, the one with Tbilisi as capital. The Caucasian Region, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... n_1994.jpg, is Russia's most volatile region. In 1999 Chechens and Wahhabists launched a brutal attack on Dagestan. Currently it's not that bad, but it's still not exactly shining. It's in the best shape of its life, at the moment, but still not upto par with other Russian Regions. North Ossetia is; Chechnya and Ingushetia aren't; Dagestan is getting there.

If you did not click the map, do so now. You will notice the major players in the Caucasian Region: Russia, Turkey and, yup, Iran. Sometime in 1990-2000's the US thought it would be a great idea to surround Russia with "Democracies" that are pro-Western, so as to "apply pressure" to Russia. One of these "installations" was Georgia, in 2003. Saakashvili proceeded to let Wahhabists use the Pankisi Gorge, (a sore point between Putin and Saakashvili, one of many,) purchased tanks, mobile artillery, and other military equipment, and proceeded to attack South Ossetia, (yup, it is directly related to North Ossetia, and was a single region until Stalin's "changes",) with everything. Contrary to condemning the attack, the US media and administration went ballistic in support of "poor, poor" Saakashvili, in his pathetic attempt to destabilize Russia's Caucasian Region, aka North Caucasus.

Iran on the other hand, condemned the war faster than the stock market collapsed in 1929. Iran has done everything to help Russia stabilize the region, and at every turn Iran added "look the US is trying to destabilize it". Joe Biden proved Iran right, by taking a trip to "support" Saakashvili. America forced Turkey to help Georgia rebuild its army, and this was done under Obama.

Iran understands that Russia cares a lot more about Russia, (North Caucasus,) than about anything else. America's continuing support of Saakashvili placed Russia in Iran's camp. Russia isn't going to do anything, except say "bad, Iran, bad". But cut off weapon supplies and risk Iran destabilizing the region?

Now as to your guesses:

he may believe that his own people's patriotism will win out over all - people don't like being invaded, and to Iranians, it's Iranian soil. Remember the Mexican War? "American blood on American soil, at the Rio Grande"? (It was actually disputed soil.)

that Iraqi Shiites will support any Iranian invasion wholeheartedly - he knows they won't. But does he need it? Iraqis aren't exactly strong in the armed forces part.

that China and Russia would supply him arms in spite of however badly he might behave just to spite the United States - Russia will, not just to spite the US, but also see above analysis. They need Iranian cooperation in the Caucasian Region, and they won't trust the US as a partner. If Russia will sell, so will China, to stay competitive, it's Capitalism.

that the United States cannot accept casualties - US cannot afford another war. Heck, most Americans are now against Afghanistan. With a falling economy, its questionable if the US can sustain casualties. Iran knows that. Plus it's disputed soil, not Iraqi soil.

He has to be right in all of these guesses to win - so according to you, combined with my analysis, he might win. Kids, this is why you don't go around invading Iraqs. The invasion of Iraq hurt the US like nothing else, because it shattered the myth of American Invincibility.

[WhatchaTalkinBout]

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.

Let me just say this - Politics consists of two words, "poli", which is Greek for "many", and "tics", which are blood-sucking insects.

[Risottia]

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

Yay, the UN mods should give both US and Iran a month-long ban just to teach them proper manners.

[Ashaven]

They want to build their own nukes. It sucks, but America has no right to impose their will on them. America needs to stop buttforking everyone else's sovereignty. Maybe then they wouldn't have everyone preparing to gang rape them.

So we should let them have weapons to use against us?

I'll quote Lenin on this one

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns, we don't let our enemies have guns, why would we let them have ideas?"

That was Stalin.

Yeah, let them have the weapons. It's their right. What would be better for you Yanks is to show Iran that you're not their enemy. Send them a gift basket from time to time, promote friendly relations. Is it really so hard, or does American foreign policy got "AMURKA IS THE BEST AND NO ONE ELSE DESERVES OUR FRIENDSHIIP" so hard up the ass that it can't do anything but start wars?

It doesn't help that the Iranian Prez thinks we're pigs by default..

[The_pantless_hero]

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

Wasn't that what Die Hard 2 was about?

[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

Wasn't that what Die Hard 2 was about?

kinda, but mw2 was different in far more ways. if you played it you would know wat im talking about.

[Namabia]

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

Yay, the UN mods should give both US and Iran a month-long ban just to teach them proper manners.

Yet there are allways the UK who will flame the UN Mods for being cruel to Iran and US.

[The Lone Alliance]

They know that we can't go to war with them. So they mock us. Brutally.

Iraq can. But we all know how that ended.

They're just pissed that their protesters haven't shut up.

[Greed and Death]

The axis of Trolls Iran Venezuela, and North Korea.

[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.

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.

Well if nothing else we're in agreement on the UN or the League of Nations -both- not being very effective. And thank the diety of your choice they don't have the power to micromanage the way the NS World Assembly does

If there was a German Chancellor like Hitler then history would have to diverge quite a bit from our timeline. Might not even be a UN or any number of other variables in play.

I have to concede that if there were as many poweful totalitarian expansionist powers now as then the UN probably wouldn't fare too well either. Japan's incursion in China and Italy's into Ethiopia predated Germany's misdeeds IIRC

I just haven't seen any book etc. that showed that the League of Nations ever accomplished anything signficant

The League of Nations AFK didn't even have the peacekeeping forces the sort of humanitarian efforts the UN does Some of the humanitarians efforts have been successful. Peacekeeping. not so much.

Iran voluntarily signed on to the Nuclear Non Pooliferation Treay. They committed to not have or create nuclear weapons. The current government has not withdrawn from the pact or even distanced themselves from it

So arguments about Iran somehow has a right to get a nuclear weapon,that no one should try to stop them are a bit off the mark. So long as Iran is a singatory to the non proliferation treaty they've waived that 'right'. ( Yes I know Iran is far frm the first nation to violate a treaty.)

I doubt the UN is going to be able to pass a resolution that creates sanctions with enough teeth to prevent Iran from continuing to develop a weapon.
Slow them down, make life difficult, maybe.

Iran having a nuclear weapon and not using it has it's disadvvantages. IF you think they've done soem provocative things up unitl now , with a nuclear deterrent they might create all kinds of mischief paricularly if the current regime is in power.
Might even have a major power or two decide it's better to help stabilize the current regime rather than risk what happens if there is a revolt.

[Narodna Odbrana]

Obviously, the United States wouldn't want to get involved in a border war with Iran; that's the wrong kind of fight here, both politically and militarily. That is why the proper 4GW response is to leverage Iranian obstinacy and aggression into United Nations condemnation; it makes things harder for Iran and puts them in the position where - should they go too far - the United States can seek political support from other countries when it comes to putting them back in their place.

More importantly, it pretty much eliminates the domestic political value of border provocations, meaning that Iran must therefore choose to escalate beyond border provocations (risking the possibility of driving other countries further towards America's position) or give up on the project.

Do we wait for them to attack something? Yes. Isn't that what went wrong with the Second Gulf War? The policy of "anticipatory reaction" was proven to be abhorrent to most nations and left the United States on shaky ground diplomatically. That is a mistake we should not repeat - so yes, you let the other side stick their heads in the noose and pull the trap. That's how it must be done.

War on their terms then? Not exactly. What Iran wants - at most - are a few American reprisals that bolster Ahmadinejad's position; failing that, a border war is acceptable, as it would clearly be a war fought on Iranian soil. In that situation, Shofercia, your analysis is correct: Russia would have no problem supporting Iran with arms, the Iranian people would rally to the colours, Iraqi Shiites wouldn't matter one jot, while American casualties would matter.

But now imagine that we don't give President Ahmadinejad that option: We don't fight a border war and we don't bomb his country; instead, we make obvious logistical preparations for the defence of Iraq from an Iranian invasion while going to the United Nations and seeking Iran's condemnation for violating Iraq's borders. Where does that leave Ahmadinejad?

Answer: He can either walk away from the game and face his domestic dissent, or he can mobilize his army and launch an all-out invasion of Iraq.

In the former case - and that's what we want him to do, he loses. He can't depict the dissidents as traitors at all, but instead has to face them on a level political playing field. I happen to believe that time is on the dissidents' side; I think Ahmadinejad is risking war because he knows it and is counting on us to change the game for him - which we clearly should not do.

If he invades Iraq, it's a crap shoot. We're overstretched and vulnerable; Iran has superior numbers. Should they win, American power will be broken in a way that defies imagination, and the global repercussions will be staggering.

On the other hand, American forces will clearly control the skies from day one of the battle; if we ignore strategic targets like Tehran and focus on tactical strikes, Iranian forces will find themselves harried from the sky and challenged logistically from day one; as they advance into Iraq, their supply situation will grow steadily worse.

To equalize the situation, Shi'ite militias in Iraq would need to rise up in support of the invading Iranian army. My bet is that they will not; indeed, it is possible that the opposite will happen - that they will rise up in defence of the new government, as it gives them more power than they had before. The most likely scenario, however, is that they will remain a neutral third force, at least initially - and that may be enough to doom any Iranian invasion to defeat.

Moscow's support for Iran would be crucial if the pace of operations is to be maintained; yet if Russia were to support an Iranian invasion of Iraq, there would be severe political fallout. At the very least, it would signal a return to hostile relations between the U.S. and Russia; if done in the face of U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Iran, it could poison relations with a far wider group of nations.

But worst for Iran would be the situation vis-a-vis domestic support for the war among the polities of both combatants. I suspect that Iranians would not long support Ahmadinejad, especially in the face of high casualties. Fighting for disputed border lands is one thing; invading a neighbouring state quite another. I suspect many Iranians would see the government's move as both reckless and self-serving; it might just be the straw that broke the camel's back.

As for America, this country responds differently in wars where it is attacked as opposed to those in which it is not. While some would make the case that we had no business being in Iraq in the first place, most Americans feel that their government should at least make a reasonable attempt to clean the place up before leaving. If Iran were seen as attacking a neighbour both for self-aggrandizement and to get at America, I suspect most Americans would see that as unjustifiable and stand in support of their government. Whether that support would continue if the U.S. government were forced to restart the draft - which might be needed in such a scenario - remains to be seen.

But to simply believe that America cannot take casualties - as I suspect Ahmadinejad does - is to grossly misread the national temperament. It all depends on the circumstances.

It is not a war I would want; but if there has to be a war, it is probably the one we should fight.