Bitcoin Forum

Hearing lots of rumblings from military personnel that an attack is now imminent within the next few weeks. Fill up your tanks and your cupboard, because this time the problems aren't just going to be over seas. Take care & good luck.  

U.S. Challenged to Explain Accusations of Iran Plot in the Face of Skepticism
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/us/iran-sees-terror-plot-accusation-as-diversion-from-wall-street-protests.html?_r=2&hp

Saudis vow revenge for Iran's 'plot' on US soil
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/saudis-vow-revenge-for-irans-plot-on-us-soil-2369658.html

Iran: We had information Israel, U.S. intended to attack us
http://www.haaretz.com/news/iran-we-had-information-israel-u-s-intended-to-attack-us-1.265662

G-8 'fully believes' Israel will attack Iran, says Italy PM
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/g-8-fully-believes-israel-will-attack-iran-says-italy-pm-1.298597?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.216%2C2.217%2C

Obama, McCain: Military option in Iran relevant
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3600171,00.html

Inside Obama's Israel Bomb Sale
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/25/obama-arms-israel.html

Iran's alleged Mexican hitman was US drugs informant
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/12/iran-mexico-drug-informant-hitman

The fast and furious plot to occupy Iran
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/201110121715573693.html

Some one (^) hasn't turned on a TV or read the news in a few days.

When I was in Iraq in 2005 the same rumblings were going on. An attack was imminent at that point too.

I don't think an attack is going to happen. It doesn't make sense right now.

On a side note just for you: anthropogenic global warming is happening though.

I'll give odds of 10 to 1 against the US launching a public military attack on Iran in the next 30 days.

It honestly won't happen, even our politicians aren't that stupid after Iraq/Afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

You still think the politicians are the ones deciding such a thing?

I don't have to trust anything to tell that they are ramping up for it. Do you have to trust a mugger to tell he is about to rob you? Also this is the PERFECT time (from a political scumbag POV) to have more war. There are lot of domestic issues flaring up internally in the US, the 2012 presidential campaign is ramping up, and the economy is failing. If you can't tell that the middle east is being encircled for a major world war then you aren't paying very close attention. BTW try sticking with the subject, not assumptions and personal attacks. All the pawns are in place - enjoy the show, and don't forget how much shit talking you did to some one just trying to share information when it happens.

With election season coming up, and damn near everyone tired with Iraq and Afghanistan the only politicians that would even think about war with Iran would be the ones that don't intend to run next year; it would be political suicide.

Since when do politicians give a shit what we think?

When it gets them votes when an election is coming up.

You might want to check out a company called Diebold.

Insightful.

Also, a war with Iran would never end. I'm a damned militant atheist and even I would do whatever I can to support Iran. Not to mention that everyone with a grudge against you will come together and bitch slap you to your proper place. Not going to happen, at least now. You need to divide and conquer, which is what they did to Arabs. They tried the trick they used on Afghanistan on Iran for the last half century and couldn't make it work either. Anyone here lived through the Iran–Iraq war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War)?

The US gov is broken, even the politicians are realizing that. Probably the only reason they've decided to announce Osama's death was to be able to slowly retreat from Afghanistan and save some bucks. Or not...

What makes you think they want it to end? It is increasingly clear that war in the middle east was designed to never end. A lot of powerful people get rich and gain more control in an environment of endless war. Just pick any family from old money, and check their history... the trail of blood is never far behind.

Wow conspiracy nuts are out in force today.

Is the invasion of Iran being orchestrated by the Bilderberg or the Freemasons?

Your complete lack of historical knowledge does not make me a conspiracy nut. In fact it just makes you a poorly educated person with nothing to say, so in order to feel like you can hang, you have to resort to petty personal attacks because that is all you can handle.

Yeah, peace is just not profitable. Never-ending war, however, very much so. A war on "terrorists and all countries that support them" is very suitable.

Correct - you make yourself a conspiracy nut - nothing to do with me.  The plan to kill the Saudi ambassador is most likely a rogue element in the Iranian establishment and already the US and Iran are having direct talks to avert conflict: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/13/501364/main20120177.shtml

Never assume a conspiracy when a cock-up is the most probable explanation.  Looking at the sad sack that has been arrested, I can't see any way this was a proper Iranian operation.

There was a guy spoke to me about the war on Iran, reading from the Bible, saying Israel and US must attack Iran, but in specific detail and took somewhere an hour long or longer explaining in detail, it is very interesting indeed, this was out of the King James Version Bible. I wouldn't doubt it is coming soon.

Will it be followed by the Rapture?

I bet you feel smarter already. You sure do make a lot of assumptions yourself for some one telling others not to make them. By the way, please refrain from telling me what I think, I can do that myself, thanks.

 This whole assassination plot was clearly designed and allowed to move forward to give pretense for an invasion. The alleged perpetrator has a history as an informant for the DEA. It wouldn't be the first time in history an attack was either crafted or allowed to happen in order to justify escalation into war. It is one of the oldest military tactics available, and has been quite effective throughout history.

Now before you get upset again and have another fit, stop yourself - and THINK before you speak. Emotion is not equivalent to logic regardless of how much you would like it to be. Getting louder, angrier, and more confrontational does not equate to knowledge on your part. Stick to the subject at hand if you can manage to pull yourself away from your rage addiction.

I always try to resist being a conspiracy nut, but everything happening in the world look more and more biblical as I get older. I mean, the foundation of Israel. Seriously? How come these things happen in the real world? I sincerely doubt that there are particular people in control of this. More likely it's how ideas work. We need more science thrown at this. :)

*me thinks a way to free social science using Bitcoin*

There is not going to be an invasion of Iran this side of the 2012 elections.  Even if Iran attacks US shipping there will not be an invasion of Iran.  Any time it wants, Iran can supply the Taliban with surface to air missiles and Semtex.  The political cost of losing in Afghanistan would simply be too high.

you were in Iraq? I'm curious as to how you feel about the war(s)?

Was Israel Behind a Deadly Explosion at an Iranian Missile Base?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2099376,00.html

Explosion rocks Iran city of Isfahan, home to key nuclear facility
http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/2711

Iran Arrests 12 CIA Agents 'Planning Attacks'
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16116722

Russia Warns US, Israel against Attack on Iran
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007274505

Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16101552

TICK...TICK...TICK.........

Still banging the same drum ? 

There won't be a war with Iran this side of the 2012 election.  Yes the Israel lobby is screaming for war but Obama won't throw away his slim chance at re-election for the sake of Netanyahu.

While I agree it's unlikely for something major to happen before the election, invasion to Iran would hardly be "for the sake of Netanyahu".

To quote John Perkins from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oARBdBtGenM&feature=player_detailpage#t=835s


Just look at a map, it makes total sense.

The problem is that the US used to be opposed to Israel and be pro-Arab.  For example, the US backed Egypt in the Suez Crisis.  Things changed when Isreal wtfpwned the Arabs in 1967.  If you seriously believe that getting US military aid is a burden on Isreal or that Isreal is a puppet state, you are mistaken. 

lol thread

Who would invade?  The US is broke and pulling out of Iraq and anywhere else they can will save them precious dollars, and pretty much most "west" countries are up to their eyeballs in debt too.  The only real reason for the wars like desert storm (1990-91) was oil, and that is still really the only reason  - to take control of the commodity.

I'll bet 4 against 1 BTC that neither the USA nor Israel executes an overt Air Strike against Iran during 2011 or 2012.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=750356

This strategy only works when you don't have a highly unpopular and seemingly neverending war already happening.

Iran is a modern nation of 80 million people. These days, America only invades countries that can barely fight back. Smaller body bag totals for the U.S. equates to lower domestic pressure to end the war.


You know what tactic is even older? Sabre rattling.

I forgot to ask, could we send Justin Bieber there?  Solve a few problems all at once.

Would that not be a crime against humanity?  Or do Iranian mullahs count as "enemy combatants?"

Yes, you are right.  We should take away his passport and make sure he never leaves the USA.  (damn good thing I'm not in the USA then)  Really, as long as he's not near where I am, that helps. 

I don't even know how I know this, but he's Canadian.

Makes me happy to not know that, or care.  Still, the US is a good dumping ground.  They have a show "America's got talent?" answer = no

looks like this prediction failed bigtime...

The funny thing is that OP is still convinced we are all idiots not to have believed his ravings.

Correction: the US was kicked out of Iraq. Well, except for that giant base in Baghdad thinly disguised as embassy.

FTFY

I never understood that argument.  Maybe I'm just ignorant or naive, but how does going to war with an oil-producing country help gain us control over the oil it produces?  Unless we annex it as part of the US, the other country still owns the oil fields, so what advantage do we gain (with regards to control of oil supplies) by going to war with them?

Nobody was kicked out of anything. It was a win-win for both the Iraqi government and the U.S. The Iraqis get their show of autonomy and the U.S. gets itself out of the single biggest and most expensive foreign policy fiasco since Vietnam. We should send them a thank you note with a nice gift, maybe one of these:

http://wonkette.com/458166/foreigners-delight-in-sarah-palin-pooping-on-nativity-set

lol - it depends on how cynical you are.  But, how much control do you think the locals had when they had been "saved" and then over-run.  In the last 20 years a lot of profits in the USA were as a result of rebuilding the infrastructure they blew up.  As for annexing another country, the approach that the locals are foreigners to the troops and contractors helps explain the relative value of life.  Bush ran an imperial dynasty, the Romans would have been proud (in their day, they attacked Carthage and North Africa for the corn).

Pretty obvious isnt it? Short version: you remove a regime that doesnt take orders from  Washington (aka rogue states)  and replace it with a puppet regime (aka spreading democracy).  What else do you think separates the theocracy in Iran from the theocracy in Saudi Arabia and why one is considered a close ally and the other an evil empire. The other purpose is to keep military bases in the region to keep those regimes in check. And you send a rather clear message to the other countries.
Long version:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Dont confuse the propaganda with the reality. The US has been lobbying very hard and until very recently to get immunity for its military. After all thats happened since the "end" of the war, that was a bridge too far even for the Iraqi's, so they declined.  Thats the only reason US military is withdrawing, that it couldnt get a SOFA agreement that provided its soldiers with immunity.  Its not because the US wanted to, although of course thats how its presented.

Plan B is the Baghdad "embassy" with 5.000+ US soldiers and mercenaries pretending to be diplomatic security (and thereby being granted immunity).

I don't recall being propagandized on this point. I lived and served through the collective political retardation of Vietnam in the U.S., at that time undoing a mistake was something that no one could face because of the reality of the grotesque errors in judgment it acknowledged.

One of course would have clerks working furiously to insure our continued presence in Iraq right up until the point they failed. Otherwise the likes of such folks as the Project For A New American Century pinheads would throw a public fit, which they did anyway, but had no one to blame except those bad Iraqis who actually wanted to be able to enforce their own law as they see fit. How dare them  ;)

As for Plan B, it is a way to leave the door open for a return to imposing our imperial destiny on Iraq by leaving the U.S. with "assets" to protect there, and it throws a bone to the interventionists in the U.S. Consequently, we will need to be vigilant going forward, there are too many crazies who would have the U.S. back in the Iraq quagmire. We should find a general named Custer to put in charge, don't you think?

So, no one had to tell me anything about this, it was evidently from the start that it was a crafty political solution to undoing a hideous mistake. As I said before, a win-win for the Iraqis and for the U.S. that effectively neutralized the ill-tempered assholes who dragged us into the war on false premises.

Yes... I suppose those explosions at their missile and nuclear facilities were just industrial accidents. Love the childlike personal attacks, classy and quite convincing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/world/middleeast/satellite-images-suggest-blast-obliterated-iran-military-base.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/a-second-iranian-nuclear-facility-has-exploded-as-diplomatic-tensions-rise-between-the-west-and-tehran/story-e6frg6so-1226209996774

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/world/middleeast/iran-blast-kills-revolutionary-guards-commander-at-base.html?_r=1

(note: the first explosion happened just over a month after my OP)

Alternating funding of both Iran and Iraq wars over the past forty years has been classic Machiavellian divide and conquer.

Yeah, the U.S. concurrently arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s was indeed classic, but I'm not sure it did anyone much good long term. Dammit, they quit fighting before they had completely destroyed themselves, what's the fun in that?

On the other hand, getting the Iranians and the Israelis to smoke each other for good is an idea with legs.

Iraq plus Khuzestan Province and Kuwait would have been a major economic and military power under the strong, semi-secular and stable Ba'ath party.

I'd buy a share just to loose money. how do we pull this off?
My bitcoin vs 4 of yours?

I'm willing to accept, considering I did post the challenge publicly, but I wonder if you wouldn't rather take a bet that 'expires' earlier. My attention span won't likely last a year.

People aint stupid. Shit like that backfires in the long run. US foreign policy is outdated imperalist bullcrap. Listen to Ron Paul and vote for him if you're US citizen.

Ya know, vote buying was shutdown on Ebay some years ago. It might be more difficult with bitcoin. Just say'n.

Thanks, no. Paul would bring far too many anachronistic crazy people with him as baggage. A larger scale version of what happened when the U.S. House of Representatives got stuffed with Tea Party retards last election is not needed.

Hey, I know, let's see if Paul and Ralph Nader would consider a 3rd party run together. Nader's still alive, at least as much as Paul, isn't he?

BTW, the American electorate is really fucking stupid, superstitious, and has an attention span roughly equal to the length of a beer commercial, even worse than only 30 or 40 years ago. The 1980s were a watershed time for the "Let's Get Stupid" movement, now we are stuck with them until they die, hopefully sooner than they expect  ;D

same problem here. I just liked the time span that it gives an illusion of long term peace. (no new war in next 12 months)
:(
I just donated 3.5 to an educational website (lost profit from a bet) and hope Iran is safe from US invasion

A few months ago, I posted a "lol that could never happen" post in this thread.  I now believe that I was wrong.  "News" outlets like MSNBC/Fox are hyping up the "threat of Iran" incessantly these days, and after the recent statement by Panetta, I'm a bit concerned.

US missiles 'hit Iranian village' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-173099/US-missiles-hit-Iranian-village.html

Sounds like the Iraqi War propaganda eh ?

.. in 2003.

The Daily Mail released a story from 2003 as a new report (note the original article has no date)
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december222011/iran-attack.php

This even confused the Iranians apparently: http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/index.php?topic=13066.0

That is a strange site. Is it a parody? Why are they writing in English? Americans for Ayatollah?

http://postimage.org/image/5tjzols4/

Is this really the best you can come up with as evidence of a plan to occupy Iran?  Read your OP.  "Fill up your tanks and your cupboard, because this time the problems aren't just going to be over seas. Take care & good luck."

If its any consolation, I've filled the tank of my car at least once a week since you posted so you could say I half took you seriously.  Still got lots of cupboard space though and still no way the US is going to war with Iran this side of the 2012 election.

Yeah I guess all the military posturing in the strait of Hormuz (vital oil shipping pass), the explosions in key Iranian military facilities, and the passing of the NDAA are nothing notable. I know you like to think you project the image of an intellectual geopolitical guru but you are seriously lacking in logic and historical knowledge. Things have only been escalating since my OP, and if you can't see that the only one you are convincing here is yourself. Have fun pretending like you have a clue master debater.

Is all this is different from the sabre rattling that has been going on since 1979?  No.  Same old same old. 

I met with some millitary guys today here in Istanbul. All the talk is of war with Iran. Boys, I hope you are ready to fight. This will make Iraq look like a parade.  :'(

Turkiye'ye hos geldin.  

You guys really are desperate to believe there will be a war with Iran.  

There is a fair chance Barack Obama will win in November.  But that chance falls to zero if he goes to war with Iran.  Iraq cost 4500 lives and over a trillion.  Iran is over 4 times the size, it has been preparing for invasion since 2003 and the place is huge.  The notion that a country that can't defeat a ragtag militia in Afghanistan will suddenly find the stomach for occupying a huge well armed country is laughable

Think about it.  Are you really thinking that any Presidential hopeful, let alone a frail plant like Obama, would go to the US public on a track record of 18,000 extra combat deaths and an extra $4 trillion borrowing to finance it?  No way - it won't happen.  

If there is a military intervention, it will be well after the US elections.  Anyone telling you otherwise is nuts.

I hear you. But the US has said it will "not allow" Iran to build a nuclear arsenal, and control of the Straits of Hormuz is intolerable. 30-40% of the worlds oil flows through there. You may have noticed that oil is more important than lives. I have seen war on three continents and nobody wanted any of them, still they happened.

Can't wait for the war to start.

They got out of Iraq they need a new playground now.

All those weapons gotta be used somehow and somewhere. Afghanistan is not enough and more of a defiant gesture to the Soviets.

Iran is next on the plate. Something has got to get us out of this recession.

I am just praying that the Europe missile shield is working otherwise we will see another Big Bang in Europe ( London ). Gas masks are old skool. Bring the lead suits.

The British are just like puppies and do whatever the US says. US wants to invade Iran, British say "Yessir".  

Those sanctions are not helping either.

Are you a fan of death?

An invasion and occupation of Iran isnt going to happen. Attempting it would make Vietnam look like a cakewalk. That doesnt mean there will not be a war. Similar to the Libyan war, or at least that might be the plan (ie, airstrikes).

In many respects that war is already on; the west is already blowing up stuff in Iran, violating Irans airspace, assassinating scientists and political leaders, funding terrorist within Iran and the latest round of US sanction, if fully implemented, are nothing short of an act of war. The only question is if Iran will react. While its hard to defend the Iranian regime in the broad sense, I will credit them for restraining themselves and being completely reasonable so far in their international relations.

Wars begin where you will, but do not end where you please. -- Machiavelli

Someone who gets it!  The US and Iran have been fighting an undeclared war since 1979 and most likely will carry on doing so for a long long time.

True. Iran would love to to sell oil for other currencies than USD. The Empire doesn't like that. It's something that can absolutely not be allowed. Iraq tried it, see what happened: first Saddam Hussein (former CIA agent) was installed and when he acted up, he was "removed from office" (they couldn't kill him, so the military had to move in).

The US-Dollar isn't backed by gold any more, it's backed by oil and the US military. A fall of the USD would seal the fall of the US Empire, it cannot be allowed.

Additionally: a war is always good for the military industrial complex. While it doesn't generate wealth, it surely grows the economy. After all: that's how the USA got out of the great depression.

I can't imaginge either Iran nor the US to back down on this one and it involves many other countries' interests, too. WW3?

http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/who-has-the-oil.jpg

Unless "something big" was to happen, something like the sinking of the lusitania (http://history1900s.about.com/cs/worldwari/p/lusitania.htm), Pearl Harbour, the gulf of Tonkin incident, or 9/11.

Fair point.  If the mullahs did attack the US mainland or kill significant numbers of American civilians, all bets would be off. 

lol what? Thats never gonna happen. Iran has zero interest in doing that, and they likely dont even have the ability. Nothing about Irans posturing or actions is aggressive, its all defensive and in response to endless threats, sanctions and actual hostilities and western sponsored terrorism.

Like I said before, I dont want idealize their regime, nor do I envy people living under the Iranian regime (though its much better than, say Saudi Arabia), but I actually greatly admire Irans international policies. No regime in the world has a bigger incentive to develop nuclear weapons, yet if put aside the rethoric and look at the facts, all indications are they are not working on one, they keep adhering to the non proliferation treaty (unlike the US and Israel) and they keep willing to talk and negotiate with the UN, the IAEA even the US, despite all that the US is doing to them.

They have shown extreme restraint considering everything thats being done to them. We constantly lie about what they say and do trying to scapegoat them. We deny them their "inalienable" right to nuclear energy despite having a signed a treaty with them that specifically grants them that right. We routinely conduct terrorist attacks inside Iran, we constantly threaten them with war, yet another regime change and we even refuse to rule out a nuclear attack. We sanction them in just about any possible way. And how does Iran react? With dignity and honor IMO.

Anyway, Iran is not about to invade the US or any other country for that matter, Iran does not want war; the only ones that want war are certain fractions within the US and Israel, so what is much more likely is a Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Whether or not staged, faked, provoked, accidental or real, Iran certainly does have the capability to do some serious damage to US military assets in their backyard. And that might be exactly what some people are hoping for, but not in Teheran.

well said, +1

I agree P4man - I totally agree.  But when dealing with paranoid nutters who think 9/11 was a government trick on the American public, its best to cover all bases.

US is moving thousands of troops to Israel...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgn04hW2i44&feature=g-all-u&context=G23850b8FAAAAAAAABAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WVtpao0KSM

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/iran/US-Rescues-Iranians-Held-Hostage-by-Pirates-136843453.html

Maybe this cut some tension...

I still see no clear evidence pointing to anything actually happening.

Let's hope things will get handled in a prudent fashion.

Jim Rickards interview about possible iran war.

http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2012/1/14_Jim_Rickards_files/Jim%20Rickards%201%3A14%3A2012.mp3

He too is seriously misguided or misguiding. No one with any knowledge of the facts is saying Iran is working on a nuclear weapon today. No one. Not the US intelligence agencies, not the IAEA, not even the US secretary of defense.

Iran is developing the technologies it is explicitly entitled to under the non proliferation treaty (which it signed), and those are the technologies that are needed to be nuclear independent; the so called "full cycle". You can not seriously expect them to give up that right and become dependent on the US or its puppets for nuclear fuel.

Under the NPT and the additional protocol that Iran signed, and the inspections that go with it, its virtually unthinkable a state could secretly build a nuke. If they wanted to build one, they would have to pull out of the NPT and kick the inspectors out. Then it would take them about 2 years before they could have an actual bomb. Which is btw, what north korea did.

The idea that Iran is on the brink of obtaining nukes is laughable. They are on the brink of obtaining most of the technology, which would put them on the same footing as Japan or Germany. You cant deny them that knowledge and its not an imminent threat. If ever Iran would change its mind, we would still have ample time to respond.

These charts always ignore the arctic:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf

And after that there's a whole continent at the south pole that used to be jungle. It is just really hard to get at the oil down there. I think we will see an independent Antarctica within the next 100 years. Maybe they'll team up with the seasteaders, be a mercantile civ and use bitcoin?

3 months since the OP warned us and still the US hasn't even moved troops into staging areas let alone prepped an invasion of Iran.

Anyone taking bets on this still being the case in 3 more months ?

Interesting and thoughtful comments. Not withstanding the facts stated above, I do not trust Iran. They have been caught lying in the past and hold positions that are beyond the pale for a nation-state. They are an international pariah for a reason.
They do not want a war, as they will surely be among the looser. My opinion is that they are trying to play a dangerous game of brinkmanship.   

The reason for them being a pariah is they do not take orders from Washington.  BTW, its only the US and EU and their puppets that see Iran as a pariah.
As for "positions that are beyond the pale".. what are you thinking off exactly? I hope didnt buy in to all that "wipe Israel of the map" nonsense.. or did you?
If you mean their religious views and inspired policies.. yeah, well, cant disagree there, but compared to most of our close allies in the region, they are extremely progressive and almost a  model democracy. Ever been to Quatar or Saudi Arabia? If Iranians want that changed, its up to them, not us to impose it.

This is true for the US.

Oh ?  I'll take your bet.  10 BTC.  Hopefully you can cover that.

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-troops-kuwait-iran-741/

"The United States is not at war with Iran yet, but just in case,the Pentagon says they want to be prepared. To do so, the Department of Defense has dispatched 15,000 troops to the neighboring nation of Kuwait."

Seems like a pretty big troop movement into a staging area to me.

Please pay it to 123gmMWUrwVBZ7orpU8kEdZiC8qUmcAGMK

Iraq is quarter of the size of Iran.  The US deployed 466985 troops in Kuwait for that.  Also Kuwait does not share a border with Iran.

Keep beating the drum though...

How many troops did the US deploy for its war against Libya?

Oh, I'm sorry...I didn't see where you specified a minimum amount of troops to be moved.  It looks to me as though YOUR bet was that, in 3 months, U.S. still would not have moved troops into "staging areas" for Iran.  Yet, days prior to your statement and bet...the U.S. did move troops into "staging areas".  I'm pretty sure that when I posted the acceptance to your bet, it was within your "3 month period" and troops had been moved.  What does the size of Iraq have to do with anything or Kuwait sharing a border with Iran ?

Like I said...Please pay 10 BTC to 123gmMWUrwVBZ7orpU8kEdZiC8qUmcAGMK...unless you want to default on your own bet.  Is this really the reputation you want to uphold around here ?

+1

I've been arguing in the favor of the op here. Actually I don't think there will be an "invasion" in terms of ground troops actually invading, that would become a bloody mess pretty quickly. But I guess there will be war... actually one could argue there already is (scientists murdered, currency attacked, embargo,...)

None.  The US didn't invade Libya.

Nor are they going to invade Iran. Doesnt mean a war will not be fought.

A war is being fought and it has been going on since 1979.  The title of this thread is "Count down to Iran invasion."  The endless skulduggery between the CIA and Al Quds people does not count as an "invasion."

Sorry - I can see the ambiguity but the thread is about invading Iran.  The US moves troops all the time.  Its not going to invade Iran this side of a US election and it won't have moved troops for the invasion into place in the next 3 months.

But of course, if the US does invade Iran and uses the 15000 troops deployed to Kuwait as its invasion force, feel free to PM me for payment.

I can see how that may be seen as such, you know...the thread is talking about the actual invasion and all.  Except, your bet had nothing to do with the actual invading of Iran...it had to do with moving troops into staging areas, did it not ?  Maybe you should have made a bet that we won't invade Iran within the next 3 months.  That's a bet I wouldn't have taken with you.  Why are you weaseling out of this ?

Please pay 10 BTC to 123gmMWUrwVBZ7orpU8kEdZiC8qUmcAGMK

lol try harder.  As you highlighted yourself, its still the case that the US has not invaded Iran despite the warning that it was imminent. 

Try harder to do what ?

What were you exactly betting on, since it wasn't troop movements into staging areas, obviously ?

What a joke you are LOL.

Invasion of Iran of course.  Read the OP. 

Maybe you should word your bets better before you place them, instead of backing out when you lose.

Maybe you should think more clearly?  Why would anyone bet that troops suddenly stop being moved about? 

3 months since the OP warned us and still the US hasn't even moved troops into staging areas let alone prepped an invasion of Iran.

Anyone taking bets on this still being the case in 3 more months ?

1. If you want to take this bet, the US will have "prepped" the invasion of Iran as it did Iraq and
2. the US will be moving several hundred thousand men into countries that share borders with Iran along with the kit needed for an invasion.   

Clear enough? 

In the example you gave, the US has not even suggested that an invasion is possible and the men in Kuwait would have to invade Iraq before they invade Iran.  I don't believe that qualifies but if I am proven wrong, I'm more than happy to eat crow and pay you 10 BTC.  If these men have not invaded Iran in 3 months, I have no doubt that you will be sending me 10 btc.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/_JmA2ClUvUY

Hold on...is there even any oil in Iran?

There you go, play the ambiguity in your favor now. ;)

Fair point.  I think we are in broad agreement about the main subject so would like to stop bickering with you...peace out.

Unless I'm mistaken, asking whether "anyone (is) taking bets" on X is not the same as actually making a bet with someone. For example:

Person A: Is anyone taking bets that Michael Jackson will be dead by the end of 2012?
Person B: I accept your bet in the amount of one million dollars. Since he's already dead, you lose and you owe me one million dollars.

Since A never actually accepted B's wager of a million dollars, there was no actual bet made.

Can't tell if serious or not, but Iran has an estimated fourth largest supply of oil, and second largest supply of natural gas. If you combine these, it's the most abundant source of hydrocarbons in the world. The US's issue with Iran is over theater dominance (the real reason we don't want them to have a nuke) and privileged access to energy resources (which we're competing with China for.)

Holy crap! Some one actually got Hawker to STFU. I'm impressed.

Partly serious :)

What do you mean about the dominance? Does the US think it's actually got weapons? so it's honest to god and everything that ever was anything not just about control of the oil supply?

The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region and that it would be a bad idea for all the countries in that region to have nuclear weapons to threaten each other with.  Its a fair point.  I don't think Iran can be stopped because it has a history of being pushed around by the US and the UK and it sees nukes as the only way to guarantee its sovereignty.  But if and when they do get the nukes, a lot of other crackpot regimes will be after them too and that is a bad thing.

translation: "unstable region" == "region not under our control".

If the US/west hadn't been fucking about with the region for such a long time, this would probably be one of the most prosperous and stable regions of the world, maybe even a working example of democracy the western nations could use as a model to clean up their shit.

If by "unstable" I meant US controlled, I would have said US controlled.  I said unstable region as in one that is constantly having wars and revolutions and where the governments have a total disregard for the human rights of their subjects. 

So you think its a better idea to allow only one nation to ignore non proliferation treaties, have nukes and threaten its neighbors with it? Not just any nation, one of the only remaining apartheid regimes, a terrorist sponsoring state ran by warmongering crackpots that actually are crazy enough to use it offensively.

I saw a poll a while ago held in the middle east region about the issue. Almost no one there considers Iran a threat to stability or peace, quite on the contrary. Overwhelmingly they see Israel and the US as a threat to peace and stability. When asked if they would consider the region more or less dangerous if Iran acquired nukes, the majority now say it would be positive, even in Sunni states, go figure. Here, I only found these key findings:

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx


They have been stopped from developing nukes, if ever they did, nearly a decade ago.  Why doesnt anyone listen to US intelligence agencies when they say something diametrically opposite of warmongering and lying politicians and media? Go read the national intelligence estimate.

Oh it seems the entire poll  (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami/0805_arabic_opinion_poll_telhami.pdf)is actually linked at the bottom of the website I linked. I highly recommend everyone to look at it, it may help many of you to better understand Arab sentiment.

Anyway, here is one I was referring to, and that should catch your eye when you call Iran an international pariah; while their puppet regimes may tell you differently, arabs themselves disagree:

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/7149/94639773.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/407/94639773.png/)

P4man - when I said the world would be better off if the crackpot countries in the Middle East didn't have nukes, how come you are so sure that Israel is an exception? 

You said "the US thinks..". Have any evidence that US wants Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal?

LOL. molecular also has a fair point.

Everyone is fed up with the US and Israel and the bullshit arena they engineered. I don't have an opinion either way, but it's just as possible that nukes might bring peace and prosperity to the region if the western world feels threatened enough to stop fucking with them. Though there are many levels of fucking with, so it is also possible that they successfully ignite nuclear war in the region by giving nukes to their preferred regimes, like when they sold WMD's to Saddam back in the day (which is I guess is Hawker's position?).

What I said was "The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region ... "

Be fair - thats absolutely true. 

What is unstable about Iran? Its been the same regime for 30+ years. The only war it has been involved in, has been a defensive one against a US sponsored invasion by Iraq. There are some protest, but quite frankly, possibly less so then there are in the US. Whats unstable about Iran? Its not because the US tries everything it can to destabilize the regime that its working. It isnt.

Whats unstable about Iran is that it's regime relies on killing its opposition leaders and on vast numbers of its own people, sometimes over 100 per day, in order to retain power.

If you are really interested in this, look at the leader of the so called moderates in Iran who led the attempted "green revolution." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_Mousavi#Prime_ministership

In 1987, he was in power and his security forces executed over 20,000 people in a 5 month period.  I wrote to him at the time pleading for someone's release (I'm in Amnesty International) but the guy was dead before my letter was even posted. 

That's the idea of a "moderate" in an unstable country. 

Oh. So that makes Saudi Arabia, Bahrein,  Russia, China and a gazillion other countries also "unstable" then?
I never said Iran was a model democracy. Even though it actually is compared to most US allies in the region, but it isnt by any sensible definition. What does that have to do with stability, or for that matter, this topic?

You seem to be all over the place here.  The Iranian regime depends on massive coercion to remain in power.  It lives in fear of Iranians and all of its actions should be seen thorugh the prisim of a group of people who know they would be lynched if the general public had its way.

That is an unstable regime.  And thanks for reinforcing my point earlier - its neighbours are unstable as well.  Its an unstable region. 

The bigger question is why you care?  What makes it so important for you to believe that the Iranian regime is a stable popular government?  Whether or not it gets nukes it nothing to do with the stability of the regime so why are you banging on about it being so stable?

Thats the most ridiculous definition of unstable I ever heard. By your logic, China is extremely unstable, Saudi Arabia is one of the least stable countries in the world, while Pakistan would be fairly stable.
really  ???

BTW,  I think you are wrong about the level of resistance against the Iranian regime. Its not the most popular government in the world, but certainly not the most hated either. Its far more popular than the Saudi or Bahreini dictatorships for sure.


Unstable to me, means risk of violent conflict. Absent a military action by the US or Israel, I see no such threat whatsoever. Iran is at peace with its neighbors and has been for decades (aside from Iraq, thats fairly recent). The only thing that really makes the region so unstable is US and Israel.


You tell me, you brought up stability up as a reason somehow for denying Iran their sovereign rights?

Read my posts.  I said its a bad thing that they will have the bomb but that there is no way to stop them. 

slightly ot, but: yesssss!

http://rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/

And I disagree on all accounts. I disagree "instability" plays a role (*). I disagree that they will have a bomb; even US intelligence agencies say they are not working on one. I disagree they could not be stopped if ever they changed their mind, which they can not do in secret.  And Im not even sure if somehow they got nukes, it would be so terrible. Not when North Korea, Israel and particularly Pakistan and India have them. Iranian Mullahs may be religious nuts, they are neither suicidal nor genocidal. They would have absolutely no reason to use them first. None. I would worry more about the Israeli arsenal.

(*) if anything all the warmongering, sanctions and threats -not too mention, terrorist attacks inside Iran-  to counter a non-existent nuclear weapon program are causing instability and inciting Iran to develop nukes if for no other reason as M.A.D. self defense. If you really dont want Iran to have nukes, then keep them in the NPT, rather than deny them what they are explicitly entitled to within the NPT and at the same time give them every reason to leave the NPT. A 6 year old could understand that, clearly the issue isnt iranian nukes.

You are entitled to disagree.  I regard a regime that relies on mass murder to remain in power as unstable - you regard it as stable. 

I believe Iran is creating the capacity to make nukes. Given their history of Western powers overthrowing democratic governments in pursuit of oil concessions, the Irans would be daft not to.

You seem to think that it is easy to stop them - Iran is not a pushover.  Air strikes can only slow things down and rally support for the regime.  An invasion would cost too much in blood and treasure.  Iran won't be stopped easily if at all.

You don't think its a bad idea if every country has its own nuclear arsenal.  My view is that the more countries have nukes, the greater the probability they will be used.  Every addition to the nuclear club is a ratcheting up of the risk.

First, please dont twist my words.
Secondly, dont exaggerate  Depending on source Iran does 180 to 250 executions per year, most of them for actual criminal offenses. The US isnt that far behind in its number of executions. Compared to European countries you could regard the US regime as mass murders. Im against capital punishment, but the Iranian regime is not nearly as diabolical as what the western media try to make them. Even Colombia kills more political opponents than Iran, but that doesnt often make the press in the US Im sure.



To some extend, yes they are. Precisely what they are allowed under the NPT treaty which sole purpose is avoiding proliferation of nuclear weapons, a treaty Iran signed and adheres to, while the existing nuclear powers blatantly violate that same treaty. You have to draw the line somewhere; if you want to prevent countries from obtaining nukes you could keep their population illiterate and claim literacy is a first step to developing nukes. Thats of course ridiculous. The NPT is completely sane and logical line in the sand and a pretty good guarantee. Either stick to it, or encourage proliferation. You cant have it both ways. Iran is entitled to uranium enrichment for civilian use.


Hey, for once,  I agree. We are giving them every possible reason to pull out of the NPT and actually develop nukes. And yet they dont. I give credit to the Iranians for not doing that. Their religious nutheads even pronounced a fatwa on nuclear weapons. Id like Christian nutheads to do the same.

 

I never said that. All I said is that under the NPT safeguards, Iran can not build a nuclear weapon without us knowing. So if ever they pull out, THEN you could consider whatever it takes, even a full blown war. Youd still have years to plan for that.


Again you twist my words. If you are worried about a nuclear war in the middle east, my top priority would be getting all countries to enter the NPT and stick with the NPT. ITs not perfect, but its the best we have to prevent proliferation. Bombing and sanctioning  Iran while it adheres to the NPT achieves  the exact opposite. So why dont we focus on sanctioning Israel?

Russian expert: Iran will be apparently attacked from Georgia’s territory http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/86722/

Any minute now...

I don't believe Iran will give up on the bomb.  Its got proven oil and gas resources that mean it will always be a target for foreign takeovers and the lesson of Iraq and North Korea is that having a nuke means no risk of invasion.  The NPT is not going to stop it.

The US will never sanction Israel so why waste time arguing for it?

And you have better sources than the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, CGI, INSCOM and a dozen other US security agencies.. combined? Because they unanimously stated they are pretty damn sure Iran has given up their nuclear weapons program last decade - if ever there was one, they arent nearly as sure of that. But you know better?


So you say Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrein,  Canada and Nigeria are all developing nukes?  Or whats different about Iran?


Yes, it does. Or more accurately, it detects it years before it could ever produce a bomb. Its not very hard to detect uranium thats enriched beyond whats needed for fuel when you have full access to all nuclear installations. You dont make bomb grade uranium in a shed behind your house. No signatory to the NPT has ever in secret produced nuclear weapons, and its not very likely to ever happen.

We'll just have to see :)

If they don't stop their nuclear thing they will probably just be wiped out

Iran has a population of about 80 million.  Its not a democracy - the regime has the Iranian population much the same way a sheep farmer has sheep.  Wiping them out would be genocide and, as a practical matter, would be very difficult. 

You're probably not implying that it would be less difficult and/or less genocidal to "wipe them out" if Iran was indeed a democracy, are you?

I think he is implying its okay to wipe out a democracy because then its the people's fault for believing they have sovereign rights.  When its a dictatorship or theocracy you do the same thing, but you have to call it differently, you call it "liberation".

I'm implying that even if you disagree violently with the Iranian regime, you have no quarrel with the population of Iran.  I'm also implying that if you still insist on going to war, that killing all those people will be a war crime.  Finally I imply that it won't be a turkey shoot - you need to be prepared to lose a lot of your own people in your quest to kill Iranians if that is really what you want.

The funny thing here is that you could just read the sentence I wrote and take it at face value.  The implied meaning is the same as the literal meaning :)

I agree with that.

I actually think we should be as friendly as possible to the Iranians (people and regime).

As a citizen of Europe I feel ashamed for the sanctions (oil, financial, trade) we impose. It's clear they are not going to have a positive effect. They will have a negative one on Europes economy and standing in the world. They will also have a negative effect on the USD and EUR (because alternative currencies and gold are now being used to trade with Iran). This last effect I like a lot (not because I hold any amounts of metal worth mentioning, but because I want monetary reform, the sooner the better).

Iran has already called our bluff by stopping oil exports to the EU well before the sanctions were supposed to be activated. Quite clever really, and completely reasonable. Now we will have to buy (Iranian) oil from the Chinese for more money. The Iranians and Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9010172771

hahahaha, "Counter-sanctions", so to speak. Awesome.

oh the foolishness of european politicians.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/third-aircraft-carrier-group-coming-iran

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9058443/Panetta-believes-Israel-may-strike-Iran-this-spring.html

Everybody is using Israel as the " crazy attack dog that they can't hold back " card.

I'm not saying it's not possible that Israel will do it ( they have in the past) but this time around
it's much more complicated and Iran as much stronger than Iraq and Syria.

Israel doesn't trust Obama to back a unilateral attack.  It won't act alone - any attack it makes would be an American attack.

I think the irony is that even if Iran quit their nuclear program some time ago as certain intelligence agencies have suggested, they are likely to start it up again if the US and Europe remain belligerent. The Iranians are smart enough to learn the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan versus North Korea.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Things flaring up in India now!

Israel embassy car blast: Indian intelligence hints at Iran's hand

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Israel-embassy-car-blast-Indian-intelligence-hints-at-Irans-hand/articleshow/11878760.cms (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Israel-embassy-car-blast-Indian-intelligence-hints-at-Irans-hand/articleshow/11878760.cms)

So they declare, from now on, any magnetic bombs used for such attacks are delivered by the Iranian regime. Those poor Islamic Republicans and their lack of imagination... I tell them, use normal bomb, they say nooo, fucking magnets, they work.

Is it plausible for Iran to have a nuclear weapons program anyway? Really?

It does look like "tit for tat."  Israel used magnetic bombs to kill uniquely skilled Iranian nuclear scientists.  Iran used magnetic bombs to injure Israeli tourist officials.

Something tells me the Israelis will not be too discouraged by these terms of trade :P

well said comrade

Is the "comrade" a suggestion you think TECSHARE is a commie?  I very much doubt it. 

really bro? :o i mean comrade as  an "ally" 

You also think that an invasion of Iran by the US is imminent? 

dates are often wrong, but history shows us a pattern.
A poignant report on USS Liberty: http://is.gd/ussliberty

Halfpasthuman.com suggests a similar coup is setup against Iran.

Iran is not our enemy.

Ah yes but in a topic called "Count down to Iran invasion" dates do matter.  TECSHARE's position was that Obama would invade Iran last November.  My position is that Obama won't do it this side of the 2012 election.

they probably would have, could they have.
We create our collective experience, and there are clear signs of a desire to entrain through the media that such a war is imminent.
Once enough minds actually believe it, it manifests.
We live in a crazy world where we create our collective life.

They have been pushing it for a while and this week included.

I can only hope and believe it will happen later rather than now as that subtly contributes as well to it not happening now.

There is a war movement that would like the US to fight Isreal's wars.  It has people like Charles Krauthammer, Jennifer Rubin, Wiolliam Kristol, Kagan, Chuck Schumer and a whole raft of others.  And they are beating the drums for war now just as they have been since the 1991 Iraq War. 

I still don't think Obama will risk it though.  His Afghan surge is totally dependent on air power and if Iran suppliers SAM to the Taliban, US casualties will rise a lot.  Going into the November election with 1000 or so men a month dying in combat has to be his nightmare scenario.

I don't think Obama is as independent as you seem to insinuate.
Yet again, I am clueless and know nothing.
May we once again care for one another and rid our lives of fear.
We are powerful beyond measure and create our lives so lets be mindful of what we imagine.

Imagination is everything, it is a preview of lifes experiences. A Einstein

You seem a nice guy.  Don't spoil it with Bilderberg or trilateral conspiracy stuff.  Obama is independent enough.

I don't remember using the word "Obama".

To the whole Iran business, I say...

It's a damn good time to have a car that runs on CNG...  :-\
And I'm buying a bike next month.

Fuck Gasoline.

I have to ask: bicycle or harley?

I admit my timing was wrong but I still say this is happening...

I'm still waiting for a false flag... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBXx6PCWdHs <- Ron Paul: "...there may be a flase flag incident where some ship goes down and it will be used to accelerate the next war."

Iran is really big.  4 times bigger than Iraq or Afghanistan. The Iranians are educated and most of them are believers in the system.  Given that the US has been defeated in Iraq and is in the process of being defeated in Afghanistan, a land invasion is really unlikely. 

If the US could invade Iran and win something, of course the odds would shorten quickly.  But right now, Iran would eventually win a guerilla war and neither Romney nor Obama will want to follow Bush into the "started pointless war and lost it" list.

Ha, Just saw this.
Neither, I bought an old Honda ST90. Totally off topic, but I thought I would let you know.  ;D
https://i.imgur.com/UWHMJ.jpg

In other news, I've been keeping current on Iran, and I feel that things have not calmed down between them, and everyone else who's trying to push them right now. I can't see it ending well...

Just a few things...
1. I never said anything about ground invasion, or described in any way the type of invasion that would happen.
2. I never said it would be certain to be US or Israel (or both) to be the first
3. I never said it could be done successfully
That being said I would appreciate it if you would refrain from your usual of putting words into my mouth.

Also I don't know if you have noticed but Obama has already followed in the path of Bush with the "started pointless war and lost it" list.
Additionally I think you mistake my discussion of the subject as support for it, and doing so would be incorrect. Try being a bit less confrontational if you are even able.

"Count down to Iran invasion" - be fair.  Most people who read that would think it referred to invading Iran.

What war did Obama start and lose?  He inherited the Iraq defeat but Bush had already committed to a full withdrawal.  He inherited Afghanistan.  You can't seriously say the US suffered a defeat in Libya.

I agree with you on the probability of conflict.  My objection was always that the US elections would be out of the way first.  Its you got confrontational about it...I merely pointed out that Obama has zero to boast about and that a war with Iran would guarantee his defeat in November.

The word "invasion" can mean a lot of things. Just because you assumed I meant ground troops marching in doesn't mean that was my intended definition. In all likelihood it will be an air strike anyway, or if there are ground troops is will be small spec ops teams (which have already been reported in Iran BTW). So if your argument is our troops have to be on the ground for an invasion,  it has already happened. 

As far as Obama starting wars try Syria, Yemen, Libya, as well as continued aggression in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. They are even knocking on the doors to the border of Saudi Arabia.  So I think he has his own wars to answer for as well. Additionally I don't know how you define a "successful" war but I am not sure there is a real definition for one. If by successful you mean killing, maiming, and displacing millions of people while breeding hatred for an entire nation and enriching a handful of corrupt individuals then yes, it was very successful.   

Syria is not at war with the US and is not likely to be.  If Assad falls, the al Qa'ida backed opposition will take power and no American president would want to be associated with that.

Yemen is not at war with the US and is not likely to be. 

Libya was a typical French/British operation.  They ran out of ammo after a week and the US carried on the air strikes.  After it was over, Sarkozy claimed the credit and the "grateful" Libyans valdalised the British graveyards.  If you want to call that a fiasco, I'm with you.

Obama inherited the Afpak mess and made it worse.  announcing a "surge" and that the US would leave in 2014 must rate as the most schizoid policy announcement the world has ever seen.

So yeah, you're right.  He will go on the list of presidents who lost wars.

Technically all those countries were invaded. Look it up. Pesky air strikes.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-us-military-option-for-iran-is-ready-american-ambassador-says/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-rebels-get-influx-of-arms-with-gulf-neighbors-money-us-coordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_story.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXprPEc26S4

listen carefully.

it's ONE HOUR LONG, dude! At least give us a hint or time.

hehe, look at the guy not talking rubbing his hands at about 85s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eXprPEc26S4#t=82s

he might be thinking "<insert evil laugh> we're making war, hahaaa. ok, this is it, let's do this. wow, we're really doing it, finally!"

ROFL!

Both EU and USA badly need a "quick victorious war" to distract the population from the upcoming economic collapse.

In a way, maybe they think that since some kind of war is needed anyway it is better Iran than full out WWIII. Liberate some oil by the way too. Nobrainer really.  ;)

Lets see
Iraq population 22 million and war took 8 years ending in defeat.  Poor uneducated country with unpopular regime.
Afghanistan population 20 million and it looks to end in 2014 with a defeat. Poor uneducated country with a hated regime.

Iran.  Population over 80 million.  Educated population with a regime that is prepared for a long war.

I really can't see any Western politician taking on an invasion of Iran. 

 

Which country is better suited to attack than Iran for starting WW3?

Just for the record, before the invasion and certainly before the iran-iraq war, Iraq had one of the, if not the best educational system in the region. It crumbled after the wars and sanctions, but literacy rate would still have been comparable to the US.
Not that Im sure what education has to do with this. Or even popularity of a regime. Its one thing to hate your regime, but quite another to welcome a foreign invader.  

Anyway, I do agree by the time the US invaded Iraq, crippling sanctions had turned a once prosperous state in to a third world country. That part did work very well, and its being repeated now. The war with Iran is not fought with arms, instead an economic war is being waged.

I'll just leave this here....

http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/military-spending.jpg

Just in case anyone missed this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D1FYvFUVXE

https://www.informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/240001596

You guys have heard that there is such a thing that called sarcasm, haven't you? "Quick victorious war" was quoted for a reason. Difference of education systems is to blame, perhaps. I bet that combination of words is not often used in history lessons in American schools.

https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q="quick+victorious+war" (https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q="quick+victorious+war")


Is there a smiley for "sarcastic smartass" ?

What do you mean al qa'ida backed opposition? That is not true at all you must have a dodgy news source. The opposition have been backed and funded to an extent by GCC countries such as Saudi Arabia. The toppling of Assad would be in the presidents interest as it will destroy Irans strong hold on Syria therefore weakening them. Al-qaeda don't even come into this, the idea of al-qaeda being in Syria is apart of the propaganda unleashed by the assad regime.
Although as you said, I doubt any millitary intervention by the US will occur.

Why be at war with just Iran, when you can be at war with Pakistan too?  Add in enough countries close by and you get efficiency through scale and location. 

Why will usa stop going over there? The Oil and the Heroin fields.

But someone was saying, that soldiers were saying if there was no taliban, there be no IED's then it would be boring and then the taliban says the same thing, if there would be no soldiers, there be no reason to put IED's and it would be boring. Ironic?

I don't understand why Iran put their country so close to dozens of US military bases.

it's even funnier with the relevant image:

http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/military-spending.jpg (http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/military-spending.jpg)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/world/europe/explosion-on-bulgaria-tour-bus-kills-at-least-five-israelis.html?pagewanted=all

Netanyahu blaims Hisbollah/Iran for the assault. Hisbollah says it wasn't them, they wouldn't target tourists. A small false flag?

Obama “pledged to stand with Israel in this difficult time, and provide whatever assistance is necessary to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators.”

Ive been hearing about the impending attack on iran that is supposed to happen now, tommorow, a few weeks from now for so long, I actually wonder if it will ever happen...

they're already being attacked by sanctions and other "weapons of fincancial warfare"... what else is planned exactly, well, I don't know. I don't even know what exaclty the goal is (except maybe to ensure access to cheap oil for the US).

We don't have to worry about an Iran invasion right now, Rick Santorum didn't get the nomination :P

General Wesley Clark explains it all: http://pathtopersianow.ytmnd.com/

Because "they don't know what else to do"?

Boys and their toys...

Does the list of assassinated Iranian scientists count as an attack? What about the magical exploding nuclear facilities? Exploding generals? When does this officially become an attack?

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/07/iranian-nuclear-facilities-thu.html

 ???

my assumption is that there will not be an attack unless Iran completlycuts of supply to oils or other resources. Until they get tired of being pushed around by the US they will do the same thing as what is going on in syria economic terrorism the destruction of a nation from within making them kill them selves with starvation,poverty and then the inevitable  reveloution

Here an interesting link from the CFR about nuclear in Iran.

http://www.cfr.org/iran/iaea-iran-report-decoded/p26451

Christ, I remember that.

I love "countdown to Iran invasion" threads and people.

By my clock, we're only 25 years late on the invasions.

IMO the USA interest and interference in the region was always about proxy war with China for not only Mideast and African resources but also to gain a strategic foothold for intervention in the greater Asian continent.

+1

also the war may have already started in iran depending on where you are.

Like Syria?
Iran's Revolutionary Guards commander says its troops in Syria www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/16/us-iran-syria-presence-idUSBRE88F04C20120916

you posted that already...

Don't you understand government loyalist logic? It's magic, magic killed them and made them explode too! What an interesting phenomenon.

I don't know if it's been said before but: an attack on Iran will /would be the start of ww3.  Any body rooting for this war hasn't got their head screwed on. Or actually wants to see themselves destroyed. Iran has got agents all over fukng america.  Sure america can anihilate Iran by sending an arsenal of what ever high explosives over there but Iran will retaliate .. Self defence guys (  for who ever is in favour of america attacking Iran) DON"T Mistake Iran As some sort of Backward country.  If you do you better get your facts straight and Wisen Up.

I don't think anyone here is "rooting" for war, I just think it is more like your average every day callous discussion on the internet.

Perhaps presumptuous .. but there are plenty of people out there that think a war with iran is a great Idea. I didn't want to go through all the comments so i threw a little bait out :)

It seems much more likely that Iran hijacked the command interface and took control of the drone, or it crashed. The system described above is theoretical and no known example of it exists. 

Yeh heard something about that spy drone just a small bit in passing. . But yeh they just fucking hacked it and brought it down. .  :-o
What i understand. .What kind of level of sophistication would you have to have to do that? Is this ordinary ?
Normal? Or is this quite extraordinary.

Ever see The World is not Enough?  Yeah, something like that, but you don't need that much tech. Just an accurate clock, and a powerful radio transmitter. Some kids from UT did it not too long ago (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-06/researchers-hack-government-drone-1000-parts).

They spoofed GPS signal with false coordinate because it wasn't encrypted.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/drone-hijacking/all/

You think it was a publicity stunt. ?

A multi million drone brought down by students. . And tech support didn't have a clue that could be possible?

Nah that's a publicity stunt trying to get kids interested in technologies to do with home defense. It's an interesting advertisement.

Tech support knew it was possible. Military and defense contractors know just how little they need to do to get Uncle Sam to send the next $1,000,000,000 their way.

Why do more than the minimum? If the US Armed Services needed a secured drone, they'd have insisted on it the first time! The incentives in the Military Industrial Complex are all backwards.

good point .. Wat sorta creep that this is turned in to some kind of field outing. " Come on kids lets go and see who can bring down the drone" What did you make jimmy?  " I made a 4 megabite interface residual compressed 3d holographic duall processing atomic splitting controle processor"

Oo h hh h DHS is really going to be interested in that. .

Jimmy ; What does a drone do?  Ooh they kill people. . lol . . And they " Survey" America. . Give jimmy a hand class. .

From what I understand after reading some expert theories it went something like this.... The drone live feeds are unencrypted meaning anyone with a regular home commercial satellite antenna, a laptop, and some free software available on the net can snoop on the location of the device. As far as I could tell this did not allow them direct control of the device, but allowed them enough access to change the preset GPS coordinate of the device's home base. As the drone is programmed to return to home if the signal is lost, after this first step they simply scrambled the drone's external control signal and forced it to return to their own base landing safely intact.

I dont think we will go to war with Iran, they may already have nuclear weapons, US will never take those risks.

I doubt the US isn't informed about the status of the program. I also assume they Iran doesn't have nuclear weaponry. I also assume they don't have intercontinental rockets able to make a delivery to New York.
Additionally I assume that all the nuke-talk is just a front, like with Saddams weapons of mass destruction.

Correct my assumptions in case they're wrong.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Let's just say what the US knows and what the US says they know are 2 different things.

Unconfirmed Reports of Major Sabotage Attack on Iran’s Fordow Facility http://news.antiwar.com/2013/01/27/unconfirmed-reports-of-major-sabotage-attack-on-irans-fordow-facility/

*edit: fixed malformed url

* can't find server. .( ^ )

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/01/27/unconfirmed-reports-of-major-sabotage-attack-on-irans-fordow-facility/

no it's bullshit if there was a covert op. to sabotage these places Iran would respond.

That the defense min. would say that it would be "good news" really shows they are not messing about.  They would retaliate no fuckin doubt. And they would retaliate because it would be self defense, self preservation. So attacking Iran AhAh - not a good idea.

Anyway, your prediction one year ago had not happened.

At least President should come out and announce some operation,otherwise, this kind of hostility has always been ON, it is never been OFF, count this as invasion is exaggerating.

(Just my opinion)

necrobump

Is Iran invasion still "just around the corner"?

How does it feel to live in fear? That's what it's like to be a slave.

Why was this bumped? Clearly OP was wrong...

You are right, why have a clearly decent discussion when we can spend time being right!

What discussion is there to have, at least on this thread? Clearly there was no invasion, and I still think that there won't be. Why did you choose to necro it two years after it was started anyways? If you have new evidence, why bump this as opposed to making a new thread?

You are so right! Certainly nothing related to discuss...

Thousands of Syrian police who joined the rebels are on U.S. payroll
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/07/25/thousands-of-syrian-police-who-joined-the-rebels-are-on-u-s-payroll/

Syria's rebel commander expected to visit United States
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-07-18/news/sns-rt-us-syria-usa-idriss-20130718_1_rebel-commander-rebel-group-supreme-military-council

Russian Military on Alert After Suspected Israeli Airstrike Destroys Russian Missiles in Syria
http://guardianlv.com/2013/07/russian-military-on-alert-after-suspected-israeli-airstrike-destroys-russian-missiles-in-syria/

Israel reacts positively to Egypt coup
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/22/314947/israel-reacts-positively-to-egypt-coup/

US And Russia Simultaneously Announce Intent To Arm Opposing Sides In Syria
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-russia-intend-to-arm-sides-in-syria-2013-7

US military chief outlines options for Syria
http://www.aawsat.net/2013/07/article55310850

Russia Rails Against US Arming Syrian Rebels
http://abcnewsradioonline.com/world-news/russia-rails-against-us-arming-syrian-rebels.html

CIA’s favorite Saudi prince is laying the groundwork for a post-Assad Syria
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/cia-s-favorite-saudi-prince-is-laying-the-groundwork-for-a-post-assad-syria-1.453434



Clearly none of this has anything to do with Iran. Nothing to see here, move along!

But CNN says I should be paying attention to OJ Simpson and a pot farm in Northern Cali...

Me so confoozled

???

When the government is ready to attack Iran, CNN will tell you how evil the leader of Iran is and how you may die at any moment if he is not taken care of.

I don't know what America's going to do, but it's certainly not going to sit on the world's most expensive military and do nothing while its dollar collapses.  Germany may not have been successful back then, but I doubt that'll stop a government as desperate as this one.

No, I think it has to do with Syria, from the looks of things. Last time I checked, Iran is not the same country as Syria, but I could be wrong. In any case, the major "opponent" of the US in the Syrian Civil War is Russia, but we are clearly not going to go to war with them over this one country.

They have a mutual defense treaty.  The US has been unsuccessful at provoking Iran, so they are trying to start a proxy war through Syria.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/01/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBRE88007120120901

Sounds like a bunch of hot air coming from Iran. This "mutual defense pact" obviously hasn't seen much use, as Hamas has been attacking Assad yet it still receives Iranian funding. In any case, I doubt that Iran would be so foolish as to attack the US troops if Syria was invaded. They wouldn't stand a chance, and it would give Israel an excuse to crack down on neighboring Arab countries.

However, as far as I know the US government has no intentions to send actual troops in, so I don't see how Iran could be provoked into a war. I also don't see the point in going to war with Iran anyways, since whichever politicians advocated it would be committing political suicide.

Holy shit! Some one who isn't brain dead!


Ah... ehhheem..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-aid-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html

Oh no, the time is ticking. Since neaarly 2 years the US will invade in the Iran in the next days ;)

Please explain to me why the time-frame matters.

1,000,000 dead human beings will be the exact same tragedy 2 years from now as it would have been 2 years ago... as it would be today.

We have been chipping away at all Irans' allies and friends - the entire middle east - since the 1970's.

People just enjoy masturbating their egos in public as if they get a prize for self proclaimed expertise. I bumped this discussion to, I dunno DISCUSS the issue, not to get +1 internets points in the hierarchy of basement dweller correctitude.

You know what else is just around the corner?



http://www.entrepreneur.com/dbimages/article/h1/convincing-small-business-that-prosperity-is-just-around-the-corner.jpg

+2 internets points for including a cat picture.

Seems to me that Saudi Arabia would be more likely to initiate an attack on Iran, given the Shiite vs Sunni sectarian battles that have been going on for a long time. If anything, that would be the most likely start of a regional conflict and Israel would just join in for shits and giggles.

Explain to me why the US would want to go to war with Iran? And also, since you didn't respond, why does this so called mutual defense treaty which has no known details not apply to Hamas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

Unless I'm mistaken, the US does not import oil (or anything) from Iran, and there are economic sanctions on countries that do. If Iran started using the USD, it would make no difference as the US does not import oil from them anyways.

And again, why does this "mutual defense treaty" not apply to Hamas? If the US wants to provoke Iran, they're going to have to try harder because apparently going to war with Assad is not enough to warrant the stopping of funding, let alone military action.

The issue, as outlined in the wikipedia entry, is that they aren't using Federal Reserve Notes to transact their oil internationally.

Of course they don't. We don't trade with them. If the US cares so much about what currency they use, why did we place an embargo on them?

You're saying that it makes sense for the US to invade their country, leading to US deaths, negative public opinion, and a debilitated Iranian economy just so that they use USD instead of the Euro? That is not sound logic.

I think it would make more sense for the US to just lift the embargo. Why go to war?

It's irrelevant whether the United States trades with Iran;  it's a currency issue.  Exporting Federal Reserve notes maintains the value of the US dollar, and the United States uses military force to ensure that the US dollar stays as the world reserve currency through the Petrodollar.

No, it is not irrelevant. Currently, Iran has nothing to do with the USD. Were the US to lift its embargo, USD would be traded through Iran. Were the US to invade, the exact same thing would happen, except that Iran's economy would be destroyed and Americans would die.

Explain the benefit of war versus lifting the embargo.

I'm not advocating that United States go to war with Iran.  Iran doesn't want to use Federal Reserve notes to sell their oil on the international market. 

Maybe this article will be helpful.

http://www.crisishq.com/why-prepare/world-war-3-preserving-petrodollar/

Feel free to disagree with the facts and conclusions, but this is what I'm trying to describe.

Here are the facts:

1. The USD is the currency of the United States.
2. Iran does not trade with the United States, not by its own choice, but because of a US embargo on all Iranian products.
3. Iran cannot trade in USD (from the US) because the US does not allow it.

Iran does not trade in USD because the country that the USD is backed by does not trade with Iran. This is the same reason that Cuba doesn't trade in USD.
The petrodollar theory does not apply because Iran has no choice in the matter. Even if Rouhani decides that he loves the US, he cannot trade in USD because the US has imposed an embargo. The Iranian propaganda department may claim that they are choosing to not trade in USD, but in reality it's not their decision.

If this embargo did not exist, I might agree with petrodollar theory. However, the embargo does exist, and so long as it does Iran cannot trade in USD regardless of what it wants to do.

I am not "disagree[ing] with facts and conclusions". The facts are that Iran is not trading with the USD because of the embargo. This is not a theory like petrodollar, this is the reality of the situation.

My opinion is this: Were the embargo to be lifted, would Iran trade in USD? More than likely yes. Cuba, which has had an embargo for much longer, and has been a much more serious enemy of the US, is still willing to trade if the US imposed embargo is lifted.

This. Listen to what he is saying for a second before you convince yourself of your point. The US NEEDS people to use the dollar to trade in oil because that is what backs the value of the USD. Seeing as the USD is fiat with zero backing, the only real way they can force people to use it is via energy cartels which mandate people to use it to trade oil, and therefore accept it in exchange for oil.

This means a constant supply of foreign holders. It doesn't matter of martians trade with us, if they buy oil in USD from ANYONE it props up the dollar, and it certainly needs some propping. That is not even to mention the geopolitical value of the region in regards to proxy war with Russia and China, but all the natural resources located there. I am not advocating war, but these are facts.

lmao still not happened

You seem to ignore some of my points. It's kind of annoying.

You have not explained why the US would impose an embargo on Iran, if it's so important that Iran use the USD. Maybe I'm crazy, but wouldn't trading with them force them to use the USD? Are US merchants going to accept rial and start speaking Farsi?

Also, energy cartels? You mean like OPEC, which Iran is a part of but the US is not? The US does not have an "energy cartel". In fact, for the most powerful nation on Earth we are very reliant on others for energy. Interestingly enough, less than 13% of our oil comes from the Middle East.

http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/04/gr-oilprod-300.gif

Finally, proxy war? This is not the Cold War. China is our closest economic partner. If they suffer, we suffer. We are not enemies with Russia either. Remember that the US did not start the Syrian Civil War. Assad was a dictator, and like all dictators his people got fed up. In this case Russian and American interests came in conflict, but it was not a decision made by Russia, the US, or Iran. It was purely the fault of the Syrian government.

This last paragraph is not a reply to the quoted post, but you've been ignoring it every time I say it. Explain why Hamas is exempt from the "mutual defense treaty" but the US is not.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the government has public interest in mind. This is about protecting private business, and the current corrupt failing financial system long enough for them to collapse it profitably. They don't care about the United States, or its people, or any people or nation for that matter. This is about 1 thing, same as in every other war. Profit. The US, China, and Russia are on an economic and resource based collision course. One or more nations must change its consumption habits quickly or else there will not be enough resources to go around. This is a fact. This is first a game by the capital holders, second the world being made to dance and climb over each other for the privilege of things like clean water and nontoxic food. If they have to burn down the world to make a profit they will.

I was going to go through each point individually, but then I realized I don't have to. Your argument has been that the US will go to war. Your "evidence" is that politicians are evil, and that they're going to somehow make a profit off of a war with Iran. This is not real evidence. It is simply your opinion.

Where is actual proof?

Actually, I don't need actual proof, since I don't think that we'll find it. Instead, I want you to explain how anyone profits from "burn[ing] down the world", as you put it.

I also want an explanation as to why going to war is better than lifting the embargo. Stop ignoring this point.

would a proxy-provokation (by Israel) do the job?

For those who seek some enlightenment on the issue, I suggest listening to John Perkins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oARBdBtGenM

The Europeans also embargoed Iran (pressured by the US). Do you think the US would allow Iran to trade Oil for EUR? No way!

My evidence is that they ARE CURRENTLY in a war with Iran. I have been posting evidence of this from the first post.
I don't know how you define war, but in my book destroying the economy, overthrowing and occupying the surrounding region, blowing up military facilities, reactors, scientists, and generals count as war.

Spend a little more time analyzing the information provided and less time interpreting it  to serve your own confirmation bias. It is a fact war is profitable. What is the number 1 export of the USA after garbage? DEFENSE. They don't need to win a war with Iran to profit, they just have to spend money attacking them in various ways. It is a very convenient system for placing debt on the tax payers (read slaves) that can never be repaid, while funneling money into various defense industries set up by cronies of the people who enacted the legislation to provide the funding from the tax slavers. I know right? It is crazy. Who would have thought that people would get together in a vast conspiracy to make money at the expense of others. Completely unbelievable.

Very interesting, thanks for the link. Follow the incentive...

Show me an example of the US hurting any Iranian. And your source has to be legitimate, not a conspiracy theory. And Israel is not the US, so I don't care what they do.



Actually, the majority of US domestic money comes from oil, and Walmart. No joke, Walmart is the second highest grossing company in the US, after Exxon Mobil. I guess that Walmart does sell guns, so you're kind of right. Fannie Mae is also up there on the list of "defense" companies that makes the US' money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

The US exports mainly industrial machinery and supplies.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/03/14/148460268/what-america-sells-to-the-world

The US exported $8,760,000,000 worth of military equipment last year. This is compared to the $10+ billion worth of military-grade soybeans exported to China alone. The US truly is an exporter of death and destruction, but mostly soybeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_defense_budgets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_defense_budgets)

Those are some actual facts. Do with them what you will.

I can do better, I can show the US hurting MANY Iranians:  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_sanctions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat




Did I say the money comes from defense or did I say our largest export after garbage is defense? While clearly we don't profit from exporting garbage, no one would deny a lot of it leaves US borders. The same goes for defense SPENDING, not sales. Remember it doesn't have to be profitable if they can spend into endless debt tacked onto tax payers who can never repay. The bankers still get their cut from the volume of money flow and various investment instruments. I suggest you look at US military and economic aid, both forms of spending, you will see military aid alone outpaces your soybean export figure. Don't forget that does not include commercial defense sales exports.

https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1299.pdf
http://breakingdefense.com/2012/03/16/the-military-imbalance-how-the-u-s-outspends-the-world/

I thought we were talking about modern times. And eight years before that the Iranians supported the Nazis, so who started the aggression?


Wait, so first it was about profit, but now it doesn't matter if the US profits? I showed that soybeans and Walmart are bigger industries domestic and foreign and you say that doesn't matter?

You said:


But then you turned your argument around:


If war is not profitable, why do it? Who wins exactly? I thought that the government wanted money. Seems like the best option would be to build Walmarts, not bombs.

After all, Walmart is more profitable. Weapons manufacturers can't compare.

Yes, our spending is high, but that's because we have more than double the gdp of any other country on the planet. Our % spending is more reasonable. It's about the same as Russia (4.7% and 4.4% respectively), another major country. If we compare to the middle east, we spend less money on defense than some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, UAE, Jordan, and Israel. Syria and Yemen are also very close at 4.0% and 3.9%.

In case you're wondering, Iran does spend much less than us at 1.8%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

It would appear that the US does not spend an unreasonable amount on defense in terms of percentage.

In fact, the highest country is Eritrea at 20.9%. Eritrea, oppressor of all of humanity.

Does that include military equipment that explodes on delivery?

No, it doesn't. Those soybeans however are deadly.

Yes that joke was especially funny the second time. World war is hilarious.


You seem unwilling to understand government is a host being hollowed out by private interests. The GOVERNMENT doesn't need to profit, the government needs to spend (on behalf of the taxpayers). A select few in the BANKING AND FINANCIAL systems are sitting back and watching everyone rip each other apart and profiting from every link in the chain. They are trying to put you in debt to build a global prison, both of which you can never escape. I am sure you think this is quite unreasonable and fantastical, but the noose is already being slipped around your neck. When the rest of the world has finally had enough, the US will end up like Germany after WW3 hollowed out and broken, shamed in front of the world, having our assets stripped and future earnings taken from our children for reparations to countries we harmed and debts these wars created.

Israel will make the first move.

Has anyone here ever read Niccolò Machiavellis' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli) Il Principe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince)?

Conquering a republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic) – including an Islamic one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_republic) – is very difficult and requires eliminating a large part of the populace before the entire populace is driven into compliance by fear of poverty, torture, death, and/or similar. Considering that presidential elections have recently been held in the Islamic Republic of Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran), the majority of the people of that state would very eagerly – and due to government propaganda more probably fanatically – as in holy war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_war) – fight any invading force – even the ones who voted for some other candidate.

One should understand that they are relatively the same type of democracy as e. g. the United States of America (USA) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America). In the Islamic Republic of Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran), certain parties – I don't know which – are banned. In the United States of America (USA) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America), certain parties – e. g. Communist Party USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA) – were persecuted and/or are banned. In the Islamic Republic of Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran), the repression is presently official and transparent; in the United States of America (USA) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America), it is covert and subtle. In all actuality, there is true freedom in neither. They would defend their state less than the people of the United States of America (USA) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America), but sufficiently to resist an invading force.

Note that the Iranian Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution) occurred due to the 1953 coup d'état (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) – orchestrated by the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Intelligence_Service) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) of the United States of America (USA) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America) – which overthrew the democratically-elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh).

I am sure the people of the Islamic Republic of Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran) prefer structures within their own society repressing them rather than the people of the United States of America (USA) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America) repressing plus exploiting them. Motto: I am an American; I've come to (en)s(l)ave you! One "might be surprised", but I bet the average Iranian is able to think with their pocket as much as an American.

The Islamic Republic of Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran) can only be transformed into a pro-Iranian non-Islamic state without eliminating a large part of the population. That – of course – would not achieve the economic goals of the United States of America (USA) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America) and would place the situation back into 1951 – when Mohammad Mosaddegh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh) was elected. This can be achieved by eliminating all Islamists. However, it is still questionable how Iranian non-Islamists would react to their Islamist citizens – a large part of the population, if not even the majority – being slaughtered by an invading force, especially considering that their Islamic views may be liberal, but not non-existent.

As for their relations with the Republic of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Israel)… well, many countries traditionally hate each other. Of course, the situation between the Republic of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Israel) and the Islamic Republic of Iran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran) is due to religious bias of both parties plus the current repression and enslavement of the Republic of Palestine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Palestine) by the Republic of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Israel). Note that the two territories were separated by the United Nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) in 1948, but both parties wanted their own state ruling both territories, which resulted in multiple wars.

OK folks. Looking at the news it looks like Iran is conquered now.

So, how can we intimidate benefit from this? Any investment tips which match up with Iran getting back on track now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehran_Stock_Exchange#Exemptions
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=IRR&view=10Y
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=XAU&to=IRR&view=10Y

This has been really interesting:
- they pay (paid) less tax than us
- they had less inflation than us (before sanctions)
- Tehran stock exchange was doing extremely well before sanctions
- massive spike loss in value on
- I can see USD:IRR price charted in some places but also read in other that USA tried to stop IRR use

Yeah right, Iran always says this mumbo jumbo bullshit always saying that they're planning an attack on the U.S but nothing ever happens. Bunch of pussies  ::)

When did they say such a thing?

It seems to me it's quite the opposite: The Yankees – you Yankees? – are saying they're planning an attack – hey, man, read the topic! – and nothing has happened, yet.

Also, the Yankees – you Yankees? – haven't attacked any country recently. Are you getting soft or something? :D :D

We shoot chunks out of Libyans while we wipe our eyes after waking up.

We start to stretch, and a dozen more Iraqi children have been born with lethal deformities from depleted uranium munitions.

By the time we're done with our stretches, we've already killed a dozen Pakastani children by dropping wooden boxes full of Coalition propaganda without functional parachutes.

We head to the bathroom, and we shit out the dead Pakastani children onto Kim Il Whatever's face.

We take our shower and piss on the Afghanis.

We dry ourselves off just so it hurts more when we skull-fuck the Sudanese.

We have battalions ready to shit down your throat whether you live in India, Colombia, Georgia, Poland, France, or Saudi Arabia before we sit down to our first fucking bowl of cereal! You think we're soft?! We'll grind your fucking bones up, mix it in with HFCS, and force-feed it to your mourning family at your fucking funeral before we rape and murder the lot of them! So if you would kindly shut the fuck up, MAYBE... we'll be able... to calm the fuck down.

Your conspiracy theories about how banks control the world and about how "the man" is going to get us is not evidence. You necroed this post just to bring up the same evidence you had years ago, which is nothing. I have not only proven that a war with Iran makes no sense, but I have also proven that the US is no more a warmonger than any other country.

Also, how do the banks profit from the US' demise? Did the Weimar Republic's banks benefit from WWI?

The allies were hit with demands from the bankers who funded Germany. That is the rule in warfare. The winner pays the bills of the loser, else the banks will fund their destruction as well, just as Rothschild did for England and France which ended at Waterloo, where Rothschild manipulated the market with the first intelligence of the battle outcome from his network of spies. You see, the banks funded both England and France, but they funded England more so they had a better chance of winning. In weimar/germany, the allies needed to recoup because they were already poor from depression and war, so we overtook all industry, forcing massive taxation and inflation. Took wheelbarrow-fulls of cash to buy a meal. People would get paid at lunch and take off work immediately to spend it all because the value of their paper was decreasing exponentially, daily.

The german banks benefited by being the conduits that wealth flowed through back to the bankers who funded the loans for the war, which the allies were not responsible for, plus all that nice juicy high interest on the loan (25%-35%).

Thats the basic cribnotes version, but the same thing happened many times before then, and still does to this very day. Heck, its how cash we have in our pockets is created, but instead of a loan for war, its a treasury bond - a loan on the full faith and credit of the nation wanting to print it.

Here's what I know of the war and the aftermath:

The German banks gave out a ton of loans during the war to pay for weapons and such. The government did not tax the people very much extra during the war because they believed that they would win in the end, and that they could get reparations from the Triple Entente when the war was over.

Of course, even if militarily the Germans were winning, they conceded to the Entente and thus had to pay reparations. This caused those loans to backfire, because they were so excessive that the people could not afford to pay both the Entente and the banks.* The Germans had been relying on their victory, which while stupid, is to be expected as they had won on the eastern front and were "winning" on the western as well.

*Now, there's debate on whether or not Germany could actually pay back these loans. The Entente gave three categories for repayment: A, B, and C. C by far had the most money owed, but it didn't matter because the Entente did not expect the Germans to be able to repay it. It was more propaganda for the French public. A and B were a combined total of 50 million marks, 1 million less than what Germany had wanted to pay. With the loans there is an extra burden, but it should not have been as hard as the Germans made it be.

Germany refused to have high taxes on its people (due to the people and the government's refusal to believe that they lost), and for the most part, was paying its reparations (while industry increased, even under occupation) until 1922, when the French pulled out of Dusseldorf. With no incentive to keep paying, Germany defaulted on reparations or simply paid less, causing the value of the mark to plummet as Germany's credit took a hit.

The hyperinflation still had not taken effect, although it was in the works. Instead, it was the occupation of the Ruhr which caused Germany to not care, and the government began printing money to pay off of the "expenses" of the occupation (even though there was barely a change in profits).

Germany never repaid those reparations until fairly recently (they paid back WWII reparations before WWI reparations) so it's safe to say that those banks did not get their money back.

TL;DR

-German banks make loan
-People default/can't pay
-German government screws the mark
-German banks lose

Also, when you say "Allies" do you mean the Triple Alliance? Or are you referring to the Entente by the name they would have in WWII?

You have to understand the differences between the connected cabal of international bankers and all other banks. Not all banks are the same.

Imagine if you opened tons of banks in every nation to compete against their small private banks. You have a worldwide network and they just have themselves, plus you have more resources to lobby legislators to pen-in the laws your people wrote that gives you loopholes to hop through.

Bit disappointed the way I suggested profit out of the news and everybody ignored it and starting moaning politics again

Maybe not all of us are willing to be vultures picking at the bones of a nation.

? Other way round. If you're betting on peace you can invest in Iran which is a very positive thing.

If you were to be betting on war then you'd be buying arms stocks.

Investing in Iran is illegal in may parts of the world due to trade sanctions. Try again.

You don't deserve my help. The sanctions will soon be lifted and those who could see this will profit.

The sanctions will only be lifted when Iran completely changes its political structure.

In that case, if sanctions are lifted you would not be investing in the same Iran that you would be if you managed to invest in it now. That means that all of the businesses you invested in will radically change as well.

Define...few

A few hundred maybe?

OK I've found a way to do it - short oil.

Are we still counting down?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599944/u.s-preps-for-possible-cruise-missile-attack-on-syrian-govt-forces/

Maybe butterfly labs is leading the invasion.

After the recent false flag gas attack on the population of Syria, it seems the US/Israel/... is preparing an invasion of Syria.

Few weeks after a decade. ::)

Way to edit my quote to serve your purposes.

Nope, never gonna happen xD

Funny but now Iranian government is able to do whatever they want, they even can continue working on the nuclear research program, then say 'fuck yourself' to Obama personally and nothing will happen.

Consequences of any military operation against Iran would be far worse than results of Vietnam operation. US government know it, and won't do anything like this due to suicidal nature of such activity. The only thing what they're able to do is impose another set of sanctions.

IMO Iran was just a way of putting pressure on Russia since they have defense agreements. Apparently they have found a new host to replace Iran - Ukraine.

So how long until Israel makes a preemptive strike on Iran given the current state of geopolitical events?

No longer than it takes an OPEC member to start trading oil for BTC?

Still circling the region, yet another strategic ally of Iran invaded.

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/03/26/us-confirms-involvement-in-coordinating-saudi-attack-on-yemen/

The last thing the Middle East needs now is another war/invasion, Iraq and Afghanistan are shining examples of not how to introduce 'western democracy' into foreign lands.
Sadly there are too many powerful war/oil profiteers around, itching for their next blood money fix.

There will be no invasion as long as Obama is the POTUS. You need some of the "hawks", such as Hillary Clinton or John McCain as the POTUS, inorder to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran.

The us won't attack Iran, I think. They know it can cause too many problems in the middle east, and they could lose control of the region. And there is no public support for another large war.
I don't know much about the attack on yemen, but I heard Iran was arming the rebels there, and the previous government wasn't as friendly to them as the rebels. So maybe this was more Iran trying to gain more influence there?

Oh, it's coming. The only question is when.

Attacking and defeating Iran could lead to chaos all across the Middle East. In addition neither the Russians nor the Chinese would watch idle the fall of their last strong ally in the region. With Iran, Syria, Libya out of the game, both Egypt and Turkey are struggling with its own internal religious and/or ethnic issues, Saudi Arabia (and its wahhabies) would be the leading muslim power there. The question is would they be able to deal with sectarian clashes and IS together right on their doorstep?

Don't forget about ISIS, as they surely would engage in establishing new order in such important region.

ISIS will never establish a foothold in Iran. There are very few Sunnis in Iran. Most of the population is composed of Shiites, who are ideologically opposed to ISIS. And the Iranian general population is more secular when compared with the same in the Arab nations.

This guy clearly has several screws loose which is why other nutjobs figured that he´d be just the ticket for the job.


Military.com reports:

The U.S. will reserve the right to use military force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon even if a deal is reached Iran’s nuclear program, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Tuesday.

“The military option certainly will remain on the table,” Carter said as negotiators in Lausanne, Switzerland, struggled to reach an agreement ahead of a March 31 deadline.

“One of my jobs is to make sure all options are on the table,’ Carter said in remarks at Syracuse University and earlier on NBC’s “Today” program.

"Given the fact Washington is currently engaged in a global 'war' on terrorism, this designation—which places the IRGC on the same footing as ISIS and al-Qaeda—means that the U.S. is in effect at war with Iran."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-17/irans-parliament-passes-vote-declaring-us-central-command-terror-organization

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-22/vast-majority-americans-reject-attack-iran-half-see-war-within-few-years

So who else still thinks this is not in the play books?

U.N. officials: U.S. planning a 'tactical assault' in Iran
https://www.jpost.com/printarticle.aspx?id=592832

China Warns: US About To Open "Pandora's Box" In Middle East
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-18/us-about-open-pandoras-box-middle-east-warns-china

If I get drafted into a bomb-making plant, will I make better money than now? Or should I get my app in ahead of time?

8)

Iran isn't very smart due to infighting.  If they were, they would have  been stockpiling nuclear weapons over the last 10 years.  Making a nuclear deal with the US is self-damaging. 

If the US starts a war with Iran, which they can't win, then China will wipe them out in the South China seas.
 I suspect that Iran will take the war onto mainland US as well, so US citizens will suffer for Washington's subservience to those trying to build the new world order.

It's time for the US to stop shoving money down the military toilet, and to attempt to rebuild the homeland for the taxpayers.

it wont happen.
its all about doctrine of deterrence, the main goal of a war is to get a world which is better than the world before the war.
 while usa and iran both have nukes its unreal to get a world which is as good as atm if nuclear war

Do you really think that this is the reason why wars happen?
Damn you are so naive...
Wars happen because there are other benefits of starting it, that are hidden from us (ordinary people). In most cases there are economic benefits, so if the US sees something that it is going to benefit them in the future they will find a reason to invade Iran.

A military conflict between the US and Iran is unlikely, because it will create much more problems for the Americans than it will bring benefits . Any military action will bring down the situation in the region. The conflict will create a global crisis and a new wave of terror. None of the Muslim countries has such a stable internal situation to approve the us and Israel's attack on Iran and thus risk causing mass protests of its own population, strengthening political opposition and provoking the emergence of new extremist and terrorist organizations.
Business expectations, the economic and political climate around the world will change for the worse. Americans will be accused of creating an atmosphere of instability. Will expand areas with high risk of investments, and the markets will decline, falling volumes of international trade.
In the direction of Europe will move the flow of refugees, which will result for the European Union a new political crisis and huge additional costs.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190702-israel-says-it-is-bracing-militarily-for-possible-us-iran-escalation/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-02/vp-pence-recalled-white-house-emergency-airforce-2-diverted

No war with Iron is planned.

Of course all kinds of contingency plans are continually made, updated and filed, no reason to read anything into that.

I believe no matter what happens, America will not go to war with Iran. The consequence(s) of such actions will cause an upheaval in the middle east like never seen before. Iraq uptil today is still in tatters and the ripple effects of that action by America is still felt today.

Also, I am more than sure trump cannot sacrifice American soldiers in the far east when elections is so close by,he isn't that daft.

8 year old forum post  ::) ::)  ;D ;D

Dreaming about a war for 8 years? By the way, zerohedge isn't a reputable news source. Dumbasses on this politics forum is rampant  :D

 Dreaming? What leads you to believe I endorse this war anywhere? More like a warning. I bet you think CNN is a reputable news source though right? I wonder if they ever found those weapons of mass destruction... Most of the really dumb people I know make assumptions based on no information whatsoever. Oh, hey there!

EDIT: Way to prove how right you are abusing the trust system because you can't handle criticism, but I am the unstable one right?

Agreed. Zero Hedge selectively caters to doomsday fanatic nimrods. I can't believe people swallow that stuff up without realizing their lunatic mindset is being selectively targeted as a reader. Its a site that exists to comfort people about their wacky, unfounded beliefs, and not much more. We're not on the brink of:

- war with Iran
- civil war
- World War 3
- financial collapse
- the apocalypse
- armageddeon
- or widespread chaos and anarchy in any form

If we were, people sure as hell wouldn't keep commenting in this forum. This is one of the foremost examples of leisure activity, representative of a society functioning at a very high level, where people have time to kill arguing about abstract nonsense.

Opportunist as always. You can't engage in debate yourself so you need a sold sock puppet account and a moderator who can't tolerate open debate to back you up. What about your post is at all on topic other than the fact you said the words "war with Iran" with in it? Of course the leftist moderator seething with butt hurt over being exposed over and over again will not do anything about your off topic posts because they serve his personal interests. Let me know when you have a logical argument instead of a bunch of personal attacks little boy.

The pressure is building up. Iran issued a statement that if a US invasion happens it will wipe out Israel. There's too much at stake so I doubt there will be a war. In fact there aren't many US allies in the area, but there's plenty of enemies. Everything North and East of Iran will support it in case of a US invasion. They can also count on support of Syria and large part of Iraq. We'll see how Turks will respond, but they used to buy oil from Iran before the US sanctions, so they will either remain neutral or support Iran. Russia of course will go against the US, as they always do. If a war really begins it will be another Vietnam for the US and Trump knows it.

What logical debate from you is there to reply to? I observed your personal attacks and behavior, and all you have is "NO U!"? Please little boy, stop pretending. Everyone knows your words were aimed at me. Who else was linking Zero Hedge here? Your little semantic puss out denials just make you look more full of shit.

- I never claimed it was YOUR sock puppet account, just that it is the low quality basis for argumentation you rely upon

- The debate is open for you, because you and Flying Communist agree. I get selectively enforced removals and ignored reports all the time. So much as the debate is open only happens not because Flying Commy likes, but because he knows Theymos will not tolerate him silencing people he disagrees with. He has openly demonstrated his unwillingness to have an open debate himself, and his selective enforcement  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103785.msg49486640#msg49486640)of the rules many times. In fact I predict he is going to remove my post here and leave yours up because he can justify it in his mind as being off topic.

- More, "NO U!". Very clever little boy. Who was it again who came into who's thread to fling turds?

I am happy to be wrong about this, however it is an accepted fact that many factions wish the USA to go into Iran, this is not even up for debate. One of the only ways regular people can prevent this action is public discussion and pressure on public officials to NOT let it happen. The fact is it is a very real possibility that has been planned since before 9/11 as anyone can read in the PNAC documents. Just because I was pointing it out years before anyone even noticed doesn't make me wrong, it just means I am ahead of the curve while children like you are only thinking in spans of weeks and months. This is something that has been in the works for decades and you simply are incapable of thinking that far ahead.

http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/will-it-be-war-u-s-airstrikes-hit-iranian-backed-militias-as-the-pentagon-warns-more-military-action-may-be-coming

Since one of your favorite habits around here is eating your own vomit and puking it back up again I am just going to reply the same way I did last time.


Bone apple teeth.

Are you suggesting that we use a bone sliver-chip rather than a toothpick to get the apple peel out from between our teeth? :D

Anyway, who cares about the Iran invasion distraction. We have life to live.

 8)

"Iran's Top Military Commander, Qasem Suleimani, Assassinated In US Airstrike"
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/rocket-attack-shuts-down-baghdad-airport-after-joint-us-iraqi-base-targeted

"Pre-Emptive Action" On The Table Against Iran Or Its Proxies: Esper"
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/pre-emptive-action-table-against-iran-or-its-proxies-esper-warns

If the US gov stop exploiting the middle east for resources like oil then all of these plot to attack the US soil would cease to exist in country's like iran or iraq or any other middle east countries. Just because the middle east declared that their banks will not back us dollar anymore. The american government got threatened cause they might loss their money making country. So they plot scheme's to overthrow the middle into chaos framing up its leaders like for example ghadafi.

Thread suddenly relevant I see. You think the US will strike Iran first? I have a feeling that commander was smit due to the incident in the US embassy. Likely the US believe Iran was behind it (kinda similar to how it happened in Tehran).

I think Iran's invasion is very difficult to count because when two countries center on a nuclear world, there is a war between them. And they are defeated in agreement Iran also ceases to exist with any of the Middle East nations of the United States of America Different chaos is created which is a threat.

I doubt it. Under what grounds??? But I guess you can say they've already made the first move now with this attack but they'll just wait for a retaliation rather than a direct invasion. A lot of buzz about Iran retaliation with 'asymmetrical warfare' rather than with direct military response:

https://twitter.com/ColinPClarke/status/1213071969719115777
https://twitter.com/lindseyhilsum/status/1213101525893074949

Either way I think this is just going to escalate things across the middle east which isn't good. I don't think it's any secret that the US has wanted to invade Iran for a while and I'm surprised they haven't already. Trump previously seemed like he was against needless wars but he's got an ego so big that I think that would soon change if there was retaliation. I'm sure he'll have war hawks whispering in his ear as well. I don't think going to war would be good for his reelection campaign either assuming he isn't impeached before then.

Yes I never thought the day will come they will really bomb Iran, its all over the news today. All my feed is telling about the general who died after the rocket strike. It does sound like US old trick. But this will lead media to blame Trump while he is also going to suffer the impeachment.

In the news was that Iran pledge to retaliate to US, now this is going to get worse.

Right, so long as you admit that you're wrong, I'm good. For clarity, this is what you said in your OP:


So, you were wrong only a few weeks after after you posted this thread. You were wrong then, you've been wrong 8 years since then, you're wrong today, and you'll be wrong tomorrow.


OK, so you've been wrong for decades apparently. My bad.

Iran and USA have concent on many issues. Iran supported USA to uproot sunni regime in Afghanistan and in Iraq. There is no profit for USA in attacking Iran. USA will never attack Iran.

Just because they were all involved in battling ISIS doesn't mean that they actually have the same interests in the region. Iran have shown themselves to do anything to gain control over some parts of the region. Look at the ongoing war in Yemen between them and the Saudis because they are all want supremacy in that place. Trump said there was going to be a payback for attacking the embassy and now it's here.

You can never say anything decisively about US. They are supporting the Soudi's and it is not a secret that Soudi and Iran are hardcore enemies. With the recent airstrikes, Iran might do something to damage US indirectly. World War III is already trending on Twitter.

That was really hilarious... Where do you guys get that kind of stuff from....  ;D ;D ;D

Anyway, taking the opportunity to wish you a Happy New Year Rikafip




You are right, it has been over 8 years since the thread was started. I just looked at the thread creation date, it was started in October 2011 and now it is 3rd January 2020

Things have been developing recently in that region of the world, lots of political manoeuvring has been going on but I still do not see a war starting any time soon. Let us all hope for world peace.

jes saudi and iran are enemies, for same reasons uk and soviet union uk and france uk and germany where enemies.

republics don't have a defined financial systems, kingdoms however have that. therefore the money of republics is systematically untrustworthy, so rothschild owned and ran usa is supporting the monarchy in saudi arabia.

Do me a favor? Take your selectively edited quotes and vomit eating to a private corner? It won't help you from making yourself look like an ass. Thanks.

Thing is, we don't know how much of this is posturing. Iran released a statement that their retaliation would be military, to which Trump tweeted that they've already have targets they'll bomb, and brought out the incident in the embassy in Tehran, saying something to the effect that they'd bomb one for each person that was there.

New war will affect the whole world and its economic system. Even countries that are far from the conflict zone, will suffer. Bitcoin price growth as a result of the conflict is very good piece of news, but I'm not happy imagining possible consequencies of the war...
"US-Iran conflict and financial-economic situation in the world"
https://www.cryptoprofi.info/?p=4926

Iran Puts $80M Bounty on Trump’s Head
"“If everyone anywhere in the world supports our initiative in Mashhad, on behalf of all of Iran’s people - 80 million Iranians - and each puts aside $1 US, it would equal $80 million,” the report said. “And we would give this $80 million, on our own behalf, as a gift to anyone who brings the head of the person who ordered the murder of the grand figure of our revolution.”

If there were any doubt about whom the mullahs wanted assassinated, the statement concluded, “Anyone who brings us the head of this yellow-haired lunatic, we would give him $80 million on behalf of the great Iranian nation.”"
https://pjmedia.com/trending/iran-puts-80m-bounty-on-trumps-head-for-soleimani-hit/


Way to dig yourself a hole there Iran..

oh thats not good that could lead quickly to war, iran is threathening, sadly middle east after that will be in an even bigger mess.

i am getting tired of this shit, americans and their gazism sucks so hard. but islamism in the middle east threathens europe

Figures this gives the US a green light to "erase" that Hassan Rouhani guy and his buddies?



BTW BTC is about $30k USD in Iran right now according to localbitcoins..

1BTC = a hair over 1 BILLION Iranian reals rials whatever they are..

if us attacks iran, irans currency will become worthless, their currency will crush with the escalation,

the big and deciding problem with the islamic republic are that they where islamists acting sneaky, unlike the open barbaric islamists of al qaeda or the islamic state.

iran was never a trustworthy partner to do nuclear proliferation treaties, suleimani was no development helper he was an imperialist

Iraq says something like 5 missiles just hit around our US Baghdad embassy..

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1578253705552.png

It still had to be in US dollars. Oh please!

https://i.imgur.com/PKqFXHZ.png
https://twitter.com/Breaking911

what would you prefer, gold? bitcoin, euros?

are an assetpackage, worth how much?

One thing is for sure, Trump and TECSHARE have been choosing to trust the same media outlets past 8+ years.

This thread and Trumps first "war with Iran is definitely coming and it will be so bad and the democrats fault" tweets were within weeks of each other.  over 8 years ago.

The "see, that was an attack, I was right!" tweets/posts also line up.


https://i.gyazo.com/f524356bef2f137fc9cd9b2cc87b753b.png


https://i.snipboard.io/YuZKSH.jpg

I never said it was "the Democrats fault", and Obama never attacked Iran. He did send them pallets of cash though. Iran has been engaging in several acts of violence in the region outside their borders against surrounding nations, ships, as well as US/allied forces in the region.

I don't want war with Iran, but it has been part of the plan from the beginning of this engagement in the Middle East. It was published in P.N.A.C. documents (https://web.archive.org/web/20130817122719/http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) before 9/11. This is basically an extension of the same energy wars that started WW1. Competing cartels are fighting for control of the region to build pipelines. This is way bigger than trump or any one country.

https://i.imgur.com/eR3ANLE.png
https://twitter.com/Global_Mil_Info


Currently attacking our bases in Iraq..

Some reports of 20+ US soldiers killed so far but too early to know..

Such a dumb move by Iran.  They should have just played victim and let this whole thing blow over.  Things must really have been rough domestically for them to actually invite more of an attack.

Iran threatening to attack in the US, Dubai, and Israel if we retaliate for the 2 waves of missile strikes that hit atleast 2 of our bases in Iraq..

Congress needs to get involved.  We can just withdraw all of our troops and have nothing to worry about.  Problem solved.

that should be the smart move from them. if this will be an all-out war, do they have the resources to fight the US? i dont think so. and considering that this this already a long running dispute between the 2 countries, is it high time to resolve this once and for all?
i mean, this will only produce more and more soldiers dying in the field. for what? for fighting the ego of each country???