Iran 'confident and ready to hit back at US'

[1prophet]

not afraid


Mr Negroponte told the Senate's intelligence committee: "Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. And Teheran views its ballistic missiles as an integral part of its strategy to deter and, if necessary, retaliate against forces in the region, including United States forces."



Looks like Iran is going all the way with this.

 

[jrenz]

I have a feeling that a conflict with Iran would involve a sizeable international force at this point.

 

[ntdz]

Iran won't use any ballistic missles, if they do they will just get themselves in even more trouble...

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: jrenz
I have a feeling that a conflict with Iran would involve a sizeable international force at this point.

Bwahahahaha :laugh:

Grand Coalition Part Deux?

At least Negroponte has the balls to give Washington a reality check about any military action against Iran. Hopefully Israel hears him too, unless they want missiles raining down on Tel Aviv.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: jrenz
I have a feeling that a conflict with Iran would involve a sizeable international force at this point.

Bwahahahaha :laugh:

Grand Coalition Part Deux?

Well this time the EU is firmly on our side...or we are on theirs, they are taking the lead with this...

 

[Aimster]

They can destroy the world's flow of oil

 

[Rainsford]

Gee, it's like high school...with nuclear weapons. It would be awsome if countries could take a moment and NOT think with their balls all the time.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: jrenz
I have a feeling that a conflict with Iran would involve a sizeable international force at this point.

Bwahahahaha :laugh:

Grand Coalition Part Deux?

Maybe you missed the whole UN thing. That's ok.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: jrenz
I have a feeling that a conflict with Iran would involve a sizeable international force at this point.

Bwahahahaha :laugh:

Grand Coalition Part Deux?

Well this time the EU is firmly on our side...or we are on theirs, they are taking the lead with this...

The EU was on our side with Iraq too, to the point of supporting inspections, diplomacy, and sanctions. That support quickly fell apart when military conflict was brought forward, and was in shambles after we found out no WMD were to be found.

The EU =! Poland.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: jrenz
I have a feeling that a conflict with Iran would involve a sizeable international force at this point.

Bwahahahaha :laugh:

Grand Coalition Part Deux?

Maybe you missed the whole UN thing. That's ok.

Support for sanctions =! support for military action.

Kthxbye

 

[her209]

In the history of the US, have we ever fought three concurrent wars?

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Iran won't use any ballistic missles, if they do they will just get themselves in even more trouble...

How so? They would only use it if Israel or the US attacked them i think.

 

[Aimster]

http://x2.putfile.com/2/3209410615.jpg

40% of the world's oil passes thru there on a daily basis.

Very vulnerable to attack.

If you look, only one ship can go at a time.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: jrenz
I have a feeling that a conflict with Iran would involve a sizeable international force at this point.

Bwahahahaha :laugh:

Grand Coalition Part Deux?

Maybe you missed the whole UN thing. That's ok.

Support for sanctions =! support for military action.

Kthxbye

The world obviously doesn't want Iran to posess nuclear weapons. They've been referred to the UN security councel. Shortly thereafter, Iran becomes hostile. Eventually, if a military conflict erupts, there's a very strong chance that it will involve a good number of countries. What else did I say that doesn't make sense?

kthxbye

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Aimster
http://x2.putfile.com/2/3209410615.jpg

40% of the world's oil passes thru there on a daily basis.

Very vulnerable to attack.

If you look, only one ship can go at a time.

I think that is a plus for going to war with Iran, at least in Washington's eyes.

Have you seen Exxon's quarterly statements?

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: her209
In the history of the US, have we ever fought three concurrent wars?

If a conflict broke out with Iran, it wouldn't really be considered another war, IMO. Just another front to the current war. Sortof like WWII. Several battlefields, one war.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: jrenz
I have a feeling that a conflict with Iran would involve a sizeable international force at this point.

Bwahahahaha :laugh:

Grand Coalition Part Deux?

Maybe you missed the whole UN thing. That's ok.

Support for sanctions =! support for military action.

Kthxbye

The world obviously doesn't want Iran to posess nuclear weapons. They've been referred to the UN security councel. Shortly thereafter, Iran becomes hostile. Eventually, if a military conflict erupts, there's a very strong chance that it will involve a good number of countries. What else did I say that doesn't make sense?

kthxbye

Whereas my analysis involves what has been said publically by members of the UN, yours is a nice piece of fiction yet to materialize.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: jrenz
I have a feeling that a conflict with Iran would involve a sizeable international force at this point.

Bwahahahaha :laugh:

Grand Coalition Part Deux?

Maybe you missed the whole UN thing. That's ok.

Support for sanctions =! support for military action.

Kthxbye

The world obviously doesn't want Iran to posess nuclear weapons. They've been referred to the UN security councel. Shortly thereafter, Iran becomes hostile. Eventually, if a military conflict erupts, there's a very strong chance that it will involve a good number of countries. What else did I say that doesn't make sense?

kthxbye

Whereas my analysis involves what has been said publically by members of the UN, yours is a nice piece of fiction yet to materialize.

I'm forming an opinion based on past events. What, is that wrong?

 

[1prophet]

The only way I see a coalition forming is if Iran strikes first.

They said that was an option.

Iran Mulls First Strike Against US

 

[1prophet]

How to go to war without looking like the aggressor: Not looking for conspiracies or those who believe in them, just pointing out when tensions are high how a single incident can dramatically increase events past the point of no return.

• sinking of the Maine, Spanish American War
  
  sinking of the Lusitania, World War I
  
  Pearl Harbor, World War II
  
  Gulf of Tompkin, Vietnam

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
How to go to war without looking like the aggressor: Not looking for conspiracies or those who believe in them, just pointing out when tensions are high how a single incident can dramatically increase events past the point of no return.

• sinking of the Maine, Spanish American War
  
  sinking of the Lusitania, World War I
  
  Pearl Harbor, World War II
  
  Gulf of Tompkin, Vietnam

We could nuke Israel... that would get things rolling.

 

[43st]

The media is already in full anti-Iran swing. How many here think they need attacked now? I wonder how much that number will increase in the following weeks.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
The only way I see a coalition forming is if Iran strikes first.

They said that was an option.

Iran Mulls First Strike Against US

Iran is not going to strike anyone first.

They never have.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Thera
The media is already in full anti-Iran swing. How many here think they need attacked now? I wonder how much that number will increase in the following weeks.

Are you suggesting that they not report that Iran cut off diplomatic ties after referral to the UNSC? Or that they announced that they are ready to strike the US? (etc., etc.).

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: 1prophet
The only way I see a coalition forming is if Iran strikes first.

They said that was an option.

Iran Mulls First Strike Against US

Iran is not going to strike anyone first.

They never have.

Flawless logic, yet again!