Would America attack Iran ?

[King Henry V]

Malcom, sad though it may be, the time of wars of conquest, honourable warriors and great, set piece battles is passed. War is now a dirty affair of guerilla fighting, street brawls and house-to-house shoot-outs. Apart from the war itself, there are no great victories in modern warfare.

[Duke Malcolm]

I know, henry, but that makes no difference. I wish to fight in the name of my country, and get some post-nominal letters. I'm hoping that if I get to a good enough rank, I'll get a life peerage, and perhaps a nice post in the MoD

[derF]

If Bush stays, very probable.

If Bush's favour is low, less probable.

If he goes, no.

[Shadow]

Don't think so, because the America military is spread thin and I don’t think the America people will one another war.

[King Henry V]

I know, henry, but that makes no difference. I wish to fight in the name of my country, and get some post-nominal letters. I'm hoping that if I get to a good enough rank, I'll get a life peerage, and perhaps a nice post in the MoD

Be careful, you might get charged for war crimes instead.

[Duke Malcolm]

Oh, I forgot how one can be charged with war crimes for shooting the enemy...

[Soulforged]

A. I do not go to war. Blaming me for the actions of the US government is as accurate as me blaming you for Leopoldo Galtieri and his Falklands war and his dirty war.

B. Yes, you do need to explain. Living and breeding from war? Do you understand what that means in English? The US is not Sparta, not the Mongols. I do not live for war. Nor does my family or anyone else in this country. Most soldiers hate warfare as much as the rest of us, because they know what it can mean to them. But they do their job. The defense industry is only a small part of our economy. But, it is a private industry. The government does have a little say in who the industry can not sell to, and what is up for sale, but beyond that, it is capitalism at work. Has your anti-US bent so warped your perception that you actually believe the US government promotes wars?

The goal of wars should be to have a more perfect peace. Is that goal always the actual objective of those in charge? Of course not. I don't know if that has happened with Iraq (too early to tell).

After WWII, did the US take resources from Germany? Japan? Italy? Did we actually force Britain, France, the USSR to pay for all the goods and equipment that had been given? If you think the answers to those questions are yes, I daresay someone should do at least a modicum of research before claiming the US is no different than Rome, Sparta, the Mongols, the USSR.

C. What in the hell is the 'contemporary age'? Since 1453? 1066? 1789? 1865? 1918? 1945? 1AD?

Since its inception, the US has been involved in ~25 wars, of which the Quasi war, First Barbary war, War of 1812, Mexican-American war, Philipine-American war, WWI & WW II, Korea, Iraq I, and the War on Terrorism were all started 'by the other guys'. Eight more were peace-keeping missions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

Azi

First i said that that's what i think. I've my reasons but you'll never understand them. Second when i talked about you i was refering to the state of USA, is obvious that i'm not talking about the people habitating it. Third, i really think that one of your industries is armament, nuclear industrie too, if that's what you meant in the part "private industries", but you need to make war to put that in activity.
So for you the war is to make peace (is an old paradox) but i'll tell you this, those damaged by the war will never live in peace, so at least it will never be perfect, and second it doesn't matter if there's peace before the war i simply don't like the idea of that nation that goes through the world bringing "peace and democracy" like fanatics of this, changing government heads like they've the right too, and this is in my opinion the most important justification to attack Irak. So you also think that USA just helped Europe and take nothing in return: (i'm not saying that the following is wrong but you're too romantic about your country, vision that luckly we don't have here) USA took one part of Germany, USA helped the others reconstruct, this way making a debt that all this countries keep paying (so yes USA created a profit by going to war, anyway i'll not say that in this war they sold weapons to both sides, but from then on i say yes), but most important of all everytime that the French or Germans act against that "eternal debt" you always say after all we did for them, i don't know about you but it seems that non of this countries can go against your policies.

Yes, the US did replace the government of Germany. According to your logic Goebbels should have been left, correct? Can't mess with another nations government can you? No matter how evil it is? Or were the Nazis just misunderstood? Afterall, how many emigrated to Argentina after WWII?

Oh this is so tipical. Man you just can't say that the other countries have "evil" government and go like a fanatic to throw them down, please, just think in what you're saying, i believed that most of the people in USA understood that, but i think i missed you. And Argentina did accept some Nazis here because all people deserve to be treated like innocents until they are proved guilty, and here we've a law of prescription of crimes no matter how bad they look to you. But this is really funny, because if i'm right your government helped the state of Israel (Well when not, right?) to "steal" those persons from here an judge them by their laws. USA always can kept their "criminals" there and judge them by their laws, it doesn't respect the International Court, though it makes others respect it, and it doesn't respect the soberanity of other countries. There's a recent case. An argentinian was mistaked by a criminal there and a cop killed him, did USA let us judge him not, there was no room for discussion. Even so we're not proud of keeping Nazis here, i'm indiferent, but i asure you that the people here will never believe that they've the right to impose democracy and constitutions through the world. You really don't know what is contemporary age? Well it's the one after the French Revolution (after 1789).
And 25 wars that's interesting, is there another country in the world with so much participation?

But what i liked the most of your post is: Falkland (Malvinas really) war is dirty. LOL. Do you know that this territory was always part of our maritime plataform that's considered our territory. First the english didn't discover the Malvinas it was a guy called Obispo de Plasencia (an spanish i think). Second when England made plans to occupied the Malvinas it was for right ours. Period. They invaded first, we were just too weak to attack them, and even more if USA united them, and the traitor state of Chile. So there you have your answer, we had no terrorist, we didn't attacked England, they attacked first just because the place was in their interests. They were just occupating it without the right to do so. They never had the right to do so, then where's the dirty war.

[Duke Malcolm]

The Falklands were discovered by an Englishman in 1502. The British settled on the island when the Spanish were also there, but the Spanish eventually yielded them. Buenos Aires claimed them because there were no British colonies, but was still a British possession. Buenos Aires eventually withdrew, leaving it in control of British settlers.

[Soulforged]

The Falklands were discovered by an Englishman in 1502. The British settled on the island when the Spanish were also there, but the Spanish eventually yielded them. Buenos Aires claimed them because there were no British colonies, but was still a British possession. Buenos Aires eventually withdrew, leaving it in control of British settlers.

All is right, except the begging. Noboy agrees with the discovery of the island, and all the problem surges from there. Though the Malvinas still are in the maritime plataform of our country. And who will be the english adventurer who disvover the island? John Davis, 1592; 5. Richard Hawkins, 1594; 6. Sebald de Weert, 1600 . The discoverer wich history is the most probable is, like i said, Obispo de Plasencia by one of his commandants, Francisco Camargo who sailed in August of 1539. So...where's the misterious english man? In the date that you provide there's a posible (though much less probable) discoverer, but he's Américo Vespucci, the one who gave the name to our continent.

[Duke Malcolm]

It is doubtful that Vespucci discovered the islands. Sorry, my year was a little typo...

Most records, including the islands' website, state that Davis discovered the islands.

[Adrian II]

No doubt the U.S. could hammer or outright destroy Iran, but it would be political suicide for the administration and a total disaster for the American treasury, American prestige and American alliances around the world. Not likely, therefore.

However, the U.S. could do an 'Osirak' on key Iranian nuclear installations and get away with it relatively easily. The downside is that American precision bombardments are hardly as precise as the U.S. military wants us to believe, as the example of Iraq has shown. And the bombs on Osirak did not change the Iraqi regime's determination to acquire atomic weapons either. The key installations were built or moved underground from then on.

[Soulforged]

It is doubtful that Vespucci discovered the islands. Sorry, my year was a little typo...

I never said that. I'm more of the side of Camargo, as almost everyone else.

Most records, including the islands' website, state that Davis discovered the islands.[/

Yes, well... you look at english web sites. It's doubtful that they'll say the contrary.

[Duke Malcolm]

Sorry, upon further reading, who actually discovered the island is an unclear subject.
The sides which people take are usually based on which country they are from, or their view on the islands.

Anyhoo, Spain and Argentina invaded the islands when Britain had sovereignty over them in the first place in 1820.

[King Henry V]

Yes, well... you look at english web sites. It's doubtful that they'll say the contrary.

And by the same assumption you are looking at Argentinian sites, which are of course completely unbiased. Man, the hypocracy of some people. The xplorer largely credited with finding the Islands is the Dutch exporer, de Weert. Not Camargo.

[Tribesman]

Anyhoo, Spain and Argentina invaded the islands when Britain had sovereignty over them in the first place in 1820.
What about the French ? The Spanish kicked them out before the British kicked out the Spanish or Argentinians , and who would have thought it , even the US went there to kick people out .

Back to topic , only a complete fool would attack Iran .....so wait and see if silly people get to call the shots again .

[Duke Malcolm]

But the US didn't claim it, and the matter is that Britain has rightful sovereignty over the islands, not Argentina.

[yesdachi]

Not likely, unless seriously provoked.

The US people don’t want it and wouldn’t support it without a really good reason (9/11 size). Plus (this is a little out of character for me but) I think they will become a powerful ally to the US in the future. They want to be more like the US and the best way to do that is to hop in bed with us. It will make for some uncommon pillow talk but if they want to have power, financial growth and freedom to continue their own plans they will make friends with the US and stay on our good side because the repercussions of a war may be bad for the US but would completely ruin them (war with Iraq as an example).

[JR-]

For those of you with no understanding of military operations i present some comparitive demographics for iran and iraq:

Area:
Iraq - 437,072 sq km
Iran - 1.648 million sq km

Land boundaries:
Iraq - 3,650 km + bordering 6 countries
Iran - 5,440 km + bordering 8 countries

Coastline:
Iraq - 58 km
Iran - 2,440 km; note - Iran also borders the Caspian Sea (740 km)

Climate:
Iraq - mostly desert; mild to cool winters with dry, hot, cloudless summers
Iran - mostly arid or semiarid

Terrain
Iraq - mostly broad plains; reedy marshes along Iranian border in south with large flooded areas; mountains along borders with Iran and Turkey
Iran - rugged, mountainous rim; high, central basin with deserts, mountains; small, discontinuous plains along both coasts

Natural hazards:
Iraq - dust storms, sandstorms, floods
Iran - periodic droughts, floods; dust storms, sandstorms; earthquakes

Population:
Iraq - 26,074,906 (July 2005 est.)
Iran - 68,017,860 (July 2005 est.)

Ethnic groups:
Iraq - Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5%
Iran - Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%

Religions:
Iraq - Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%
Iran - Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%

Languages:
Iraq - Arabic, Kurdish (official in Kurdish regions), Assyrian, Armenian
Iran - Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%

GDP:
Iraq - purchasing power parity - $54.4 billion (2004 est.)
Iran - purchasing power parity - $516.7 billion (2004 est.)

Exports partners:
Iraq - US 55.8%, Spain 8%, Japan 7.3%, Italy 6.5%, Canada 5.8% (2004)
Iran - Japan 20%, China 9.9%, Italy 6.3%, South Africa 6.3%, Taiwan 4.8%, Turkey 4.7%, South Korea 4.7%, France 4.3%, Netherlands 4.3% (2004)

Imports partners:
Iraq - Turkey 25%, US 11.1%, Jordan 10%, Vietnam 7.7%, Germany 5.6%, Australia 4.8% (2004)
Iran - Germany 13%, France 8.9%, Italy 8%, China 7.7%, UAE 6.4%, South Korea 6.3%, Russia 4.9% (2004)

Telephones main lines in use:
Iraq - 675,000 (2003)
Iran - 14,571,100 (2003)

Telephones mobile cellular:
Iraq - 20,000 (2002)
Iran - 3,376,500 (2003)

Internet users:
Iraq - 25,000 (2002)
Iran - 4.3 million (2003)

Railways:
Iraq - 2,200 km
Iran - 7,203 km

Highways:
Iraq - 45,550 km
Iran - 167,157 km

Pipelines:
Iraq - gas 1,739 km; oil 5,418 km; refined products 1,343 km (2004)
Iran - condensate/gas 212 km; gas 16,998 km; liquid petroleum gas 570 km; oil 8,256 km; refined products 7,808 km (2004)

Airports with paved/unpaved runways:
Iraq - 79/32
Iran - 127/178

Military manpower fit for military service:
Iraq - males age 18-49: 4,930,074 (2005 est.)
Iran - males age 18-49: 15,665,725 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures dollar figure:
Iraq - $1.3 billion (FY00)
Iran - $4.3 billion (2003 est.)

Refugees and internally displaced persons:
Iraq - refugees (country of origin): 150,000 (Palestinian Territories)
IDPs: 1,340,280 (ongoing US-led war and Kurds' subsequent return) (2004)
Iran -refugees (country of origin): 1,223,823 (Afghanistan) 124,014 (Iraq) (2004)

Iran is not just more difficult than iraq, it is orders of magnitude more difficult!
Every single factor is more adverse in the case of iran when compared against iraq, every single one.

The US will NOT be invading Iran. nuff said.

[JR-]

I think Iran will probably end up as a nuclear power. As long as they do not support terrorism, I don't care. Everyone is going to have the bomb sooner or later. Maybe this is for the better. Then everybody has permanent country insurance. good old mutually assured destruction prevents things like pre-emptive invasions. If Iraq had a nuke, we never would have invaded.

and forswear the national goal of pushing the nation of israel into the sea..............?

[yesdachi]

The US will NOT be invading Iran. nuff said.

Nice bit of info “true believer” nuff said indeed.

[Soulforged]

But the US didn't claim it, and the matter is that Britain has rightful sovereignty over the islands, not Argentina.

Not the contrary. The Virreynato del Río de la Plata (the colony to wich we belonged in those times) established a colony in Malvinas. Then when we made ourselfs independent the right to the lands passed rightfully to us. A gobernor was designed, Luis Vernet. In 1833 the english violated the international law and invaded the lands claiming rights over them (obviously with the excuse of having discovered them, though this was never prooved, and it doesn't matter really because there was a law that forbidden this kind of invation), they took prisoner the governor and established by the force. Since that time the british claim false rights over the land, wich is rightfully under the territory protected by our Constitution (200 meters of maritime plataform). So the islands belongs rightfully to us, and england always makes use of their veto power on the ONU to shut up the matter. I think this is sufficient proof but if you want more then i can tell you about the plans of the british to claim or eventually seize continental lands that were being disputed between Chile and Argentina.

[Tribesman]

and the matter is that Britain has rightful sovereignty over the islands,
Yeah right , change that to "disputed soveriegnty" then you may be more correct .
Look at who the US and OAS deigned to have a soveriegn claim at the time of the recent conflict , look at the UN and their numerous attempts to peacefully resolve the issue over the past 60 years , ask your own government about the new moves towards "joint soveriegnty" .
Then try saying "rightful" with a straight face .


The US will NOT be invading Iran. nuff said.
Unless they are really silly and want to trigger a worldwide economic crisis

[King Henry V]

Not the contrary. The Virreynato del Río de la Plata (the colony to wich we belonged in those times) established a colony in Malvinas. Then when we made ourselfs independent the right to the lands passed rightfully to us. A gobernor was designed, Luis Vernet. In 1833 the english violated the international law and invaded the lands claiming rights over them (obviously with the excuse of having discovered them, though this was never prooved, and it doesn't matter really because there was a law that forbidden this kind of invation), they took prisoner the governor and established by the force. Since that time the british claim false rights over the land, wich is rightfully under the territory protected by our Constitution (200 meters of maritime plataform). So the islands belongs rightfully to us, and england always makes use of their veto power on the ONU to shut up the matter. I think this is sufficient proof but if you want more then i can tell you about the plans of the british to claim or eventually seize continental lands that were being disputed between Chile and Argentina.

Nothing is proof until you give the sources of your allegations. Those given, it is up to the reader to decide wther they are biased or not.

[drone]

Argentina no longer has a claim to the Falkland Islands. The English have purchased it with national suffering, as a famous Argentine explains:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4176258.stm



Back OT, Bush has 3.5 years left before he leaves the White House. Who knows what he will do? It would be foolish to attempt, but I'm sure there is an advisor on his staff who thinks it's a great idea.

[Del Arroyo]

Maradona is so full of himself. When fans at Azteca stadium cheered a German goal because it meant overtime periods, he (and his Argentinian worshippers) cut off contact with the Mexicans, starting by snubbing all of the Mexican press immediately after the game. The fact was that the Mexican fans were not cheering for Germany, they were cheering for overtime periods because they were enjoying the game so much. He said that neither he nor Argentina would ever forgive Mexico.

And yes, he is proud of his handball goal against Britain....

DA

[Hurin_Rules]

Umm, can you guys maybe start another thread on the Falklands/Malvinas? You've basically hijacked this thread.

[Duke Malcolm]

Not the contrary. The Virreynato del Río de la Plata (the colony to wich we belonged in those times) established a colony in Malvinas. Then when we made ourselfs independent the right to the lands passed rightfully to us. A gobernor was designed, Luis Vernet. In 1833 the english violated the international law and invaded the lands claiming rights over them (obviously with the excuse of having discovered them, though this was never prooved, and it doesn't matter really because there was a law that forbidden this kind of invation), they took prisoner the governor and established by the force. Since that time the british claim false rights over the land, wich is rightfully under the territory protected by our Constitution (200 meters of maritime plataform). So the islands belongs rightfully to us, and england always makes use of their veto power on the ONU to shut up the matter. I think this is sufficient proof but if you want more then i can tell you about the plans of the british to claim or eventually seize continental lands that were being disputed between Chile and Argentina.

There is a nice little plaque on the Falkland Islands which says that the islands are under continuing British dominion, put there long before 1833 in 1774. Thus the Argentinians invaded British Sovereign Territory in 1820. In 1833, we were reclaiming the islands.

Edit: and perhaps we should start a new thread...

[Soulforged]

There is a nice little plaque on the Falkland Islands which says that the islands are under continuing British dominion, put there long before 1833 in 1774.
Edit: and perhaps we should start a new thread...

"Thus the Argentinians invaded British Sovereign Territory in 1820"

No it was spanish sovereign territory. When they retreated, it passed to us.

Start it if you want. You'll loose anyway. And this has no trascendence at all. My people here is always fighting to get back those lands who rightfully we own.

[Soulforged]

Maradona is so full of himself. When fans at Azteca stadium cheered a German goal because it meant overtime periods, he (and his Argentinian worshippers) cut off contact with the Mexicans, starting by snubbing all of the Mexican press immediately after the game. The fact was that the Mexican fans were not cheering for Germany, they were cheering for overtime periods because they were enjoying the game so much. He said that neither he nor Argentina would ever forgive Mexico.

And yes, he is proud of his handball goal against Britain....

DA

Plese i don't like Maradona being worshiped as God (as it's here) but what you're saying is very normal in football. If you want to iniciate another thread about rant against Maradona i'll join.

[Ser Clegane]

I indeed suggest that you guys stay on topic.

If you want to discuss the Falklands or Maradona - do so in another thread, you have dragged this one off-topic for long enough (actually too long).