war w/ Iran

tokebowlz · #1 03-12-2007, 12:18 AM

Some kind of conflict w/ Iran is completely inevitable IMO at this point. What do ya'll think? Limited air strikes? Full scale military conflict? No war at all? I'd like to see some opinions here. And what will this mean for the greater middle east as a whole? What would happen to world markets more specifically the oil market?

Skidoo · #2 03-12-2007, 12:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Some kind of conflict w/ Iran is completely inevitable IMO at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has either side committed an act of war, in your opinion?

tokebowlz · #3 03-12-2007, 12:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some kind of conflict w/ Iran is completely inevitable IMO at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has either side committed an act of war, in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point no but it seems as if its a matter of time with the carriers stationed in the gulf. I feel like well bait them into the first move.

tokebowlz · #4 03-12-2007, 12:41 AM

I feel like the writing is on the wall here. Iran says "we will never stop uranium enrichment" all the while the US says if they don't no options can be taken off the table (including nuclear bunker busters)

natedogg · #5 03-12-2007, 12:57 AM

The solution to any diplomatic problems we have with Iran is very very simple. It's important to understand that Iran's population is about 25% under 18. It is a nation of teenagers more or less.

MTV, coca cola, levis and youtube are the answer. A nation of teenagers could never stand up to the assault of america's purveyors of culture. Sell rebellion to the youth.

Open up all possible trade with Iran. They will never survive it.

natedogg

Skidoo · #6 03-12-2007, 01:07 AM

You mean like what we did with Russia?

tokebowlz · #7 03-12-2007, 01:19 AM

How can diplomatic solutions work if the US won't ever participate in one on one "i scratch your back you scratch mine" deal making bcuz its stated it won't do that until uranium enrichment is ended,or atleast frozen. Iran has said time and time again this will "NEVER" happen and thats quoted(freezing of enrichment).

ZeTurd · #8 03-12-2007, 01:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How can diplomatic solutions work if the US won't ever participate in one on one "i scratch your back you scratch mine" deal making bcuz its stated it won't do that until uranium enrichment is ended,or atleast frozen.

[/ QUOTE ]
Requiring Iran to halt their nuclear ambitions is a diplomatic advance. No diplomacy would mean to simply ignore them or threaten them randomly. Iran has been given an opportunity to solve the crisis by giving up their nuclear enrichment programs. Most rational people agree that the world will be a less safe place if Iran acquires nukes so I don't think it can be considered an unreasonable ultimatum.

The US could of course schedule talks with Iran, but as long as they won't budge on the central point of giving up their nuclear ambitions there just isn't much common ground to debate further.

Anyway, it's not quite true that the US isn't engaging Iran diplomatically in other ways, re the recent Baghdad talks.

MidGe · #9 03-12-2007, 01:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like the writing is on the wall here. Iran says "we will never stop uranium enrichment" all the while the US says if they don't no options can be taken off the table (including nuclear bunker busters)

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, this is not the full quote of Iran position. AFAIK, Iran says, that they won't stop enrichment until other countries, including the US, do too. Seems a very arguable position to me. The USA's position, otoh, is somewhat very hypocritical.

boracay · #10 03-12-2007, 10:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Some kind of conflict w/ Iran is completely inevitable IMO at this point. What do ya'll think? Limited air strikes? Full scale military conflict? No war at all? I'd like to see some opinions here. And what will this mean for the greater middle east as a whole? What would happen to world markets more specifically the oil market?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why inevitable at this moment? Since even Israeli intelligence doubt Iran could develop nuclear weapon before 2017, why should it be inevitable in let say next two years? IMO that would have nothing to do with nuclear program, but more with US domestic agendas. Sorry, but nuclear thread sounds like all those reasons for attacking Iraq couple of years ago to me.

Still (i hope i'm wrong, but) i believe Iran will be a target in next 18 months.

Good question is who would be a winner/loser in case of that attack? Iran would become a loser for sure, but an attack would be a disaster for US interests in that region and wider for a long period of time (not to mention ten thousands of deaths on US/Israeli site and trillions of dollars spent).