war with Iran, what would it mean?

[[KMA]Avenger]

allot of people and articles are saying that war with Iran is imminent. even Obamanoids are saying that Barry Soetoro...sorry...Obama is finished and he needs an "event" to show he is a leader and for people to back him otherwise his presidency is over....that sounds familiar! OH YEAH! Bush Jnr and Clinton were in the same boat till the OKC Bombing and 9/11...but that's all besides the point.


war with Iran will ignite WW3 and you have to be some kind of complete lunatic to start a war with them IMHO. so, the questions are, what would it mean, and what do you guys think?


oh, and please lets leave all Muslim prejudices and terrorists out of this, i only want to discuss what it would mean for the world.

[TimeGap]

I'm not too clued up with the situation, but, does Iran have oil? Not a barrel or two... Do they HAVE OIL? Like large amounts?

If they do, I think that there would more than likely be some kind of US led invasion at some point. The US economy needs oil. Lots and Lots of it.

As history has proven, no matter how just, a government/empire will always do what it takes to survie. If that means that the US (Being, more than likely the strongest military force on earth) will have to invade a weaker country to secure a future and maintain the lifestyle of their citizens.

Many called the war in Iraq "The war for cheese" I think this is a good way to look at it...

[LegendaryA]

allot of people and articles are saying that war with Iran is imminent. even Obamanoids are saying that Barry Soetoro...sorry...Obama is finished and he needs an "event" to show he is a leader and for people to back him otherwise his presidency is over....that sounds familiar! OH YEAH! Bush Jnr and Clinton were in the same boat till the OKC Bombing and 9/11...but that's all besides the point.


war with Iran will ignite WW3 and you have to be some kind of complete lunatic to start a war with them IMHO. so, the questions are, what would it mean, and what do you guys think?


oh, and please lets leave all Muslim prejudices and terrorists out of this, i only want to discuss what it would mean for the world.

Can the USA afford starting Iran + keep current Irak+ keep current Afghanistan?
I don't think so. If they do try, they are likely to go bankrupt, and their military budget won't be sufficient to cover costs of three wars, one being started among the three while two others carry on.

Imagine if Germany started WW1 when it declared war to Serbia (we know the following), was in financial problems...they couldn't have remained four years. Back then German reich was among most industrial nations.
Now yes USA are the most militarized nation, but they already got two wars, if they start a third AND if some countries go against USA, that would mean two wars continuing, one starting by themselves + other countries starting a war against USA. Which they couldn't afford, probably, likely, surely.

[[KMA]Avenger]

Iran has a major oil industry. so yes, it does.


but its not all about oil, its also about Geopolitics and loss of our freedoms. when you understand these peoples mindset (hate to call them people) who are pushing for war with Iran, then you'll understand they are pushing for a 3 way war with Russia and China. its a VERY complicated issue to say the least.

Can the USA afford starting Iran + keep current Irak+ keep current Afghanistan?
I don't think so. If they do try, they are likely to go bankrupt, and their military budget won't be sufficient to cover costs of three wars, one being started among the three while two others carry on.

Hey Jim

economists on both sides of the fence are saying that the US and the whole worlds economy is in freefall and will melt down. for the US and other country's, they will have to go to war to prop up the economy after that, they will go after the pensions...after that, is anyones guess what they will do to keep the economy alive.

[LegendaryA]

Iran has a major oil industry. so yes, it does.


but its not all about oil, its also about Geopolitics and loss of our freedoms. when you understand these peoples mindset (hate to call them people) who are pushing for war with Iran, then you'll understand they are pushing for a 3 way war with Russia and China. its a VERY complicated issue to say the least.

That's what I would call idiocy.
And probably what would happen if USA attacked Iran.

[[KMA]Avenger]

Can the USA afford starting Iran + keep current Irak+ keep current Afghanistan?
I don't think so. If they do try, they are likely to go bankrupt, and their military budget won't be sufficient to cover costs of three wars, one being started among the three while two others carry on.

Hey Jim

economists on both sides of the fence are saying that the US and the whole worlds economy is in freefall and will melt down. for the US and other country's, they will have to go to war to prop up the economy after that, they will go after the pensions...after that, is anyones guess what they will do to keep the economy alive.

Iran has a major oil industry. so yes, it does.


but its not all about oil, its also about Geopolitics and loss of our freedoms. when you understand these peoples mindset (hate to call them people) who are pushing for war with Iran, then you'll understand they are pushing for a 3 way war with Russia and China. its a VERY complicated issue to say the least.

That's what I would call idiocy.
And probably what would happen if USA attacked Iran.

you and i can see that, and so can these "people", but when you look at the map of the world with western bases, they are trying to surround Russia and China.

[[KMA]Avenger]

just to show what i said earlier about Obama isn't something i made up:


[spoiler]Obama faces growing credibility crisis

By Edward Luce in Washington

Published: July 13 2010 18:51 | Last updated: July 13 2010 18:51

Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama’s chief spokesman, got into hot water this week for daring to speak the truth – that the Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives in November. But it could be even worse than that.

Contrary to pretty much every projection until now, Democratic control of the Senate is also starting to coming into question. While Mr Obama’s approval ratings have continued to fall, and now hover at dangerously close to 40 per cent according an ABC-Washington Post poll published on Tuesday, the fate of his former colleagues in the Senate looks even worse.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Opinion: ‘Hell no’ is not a platform for power - Jul-13
In depth: The Obama presidency - May-23
Obama attacked over business regulation - Jul-12
Video: Donohue on business regulation - Jul-12
Global Insight: US financial reform - Jul-12
White House taps Lew for budget office - Jul-13

In the past few days polls have shown Republican challengers taking the lead over previously safe Democratic incumbents, such as Barbara Boxer in California and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. Indeed, given the uniformly negative direction in the numbers, it is now quite possible the Republicans could win the Senate seats formerly held by both President Obama in Illinois, and Joe Biden, vice-president, in Delaware.

Add to that the continuing woes of Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic majority leader, in Nevada, where the Republican party’s recent nomination of Sharron Angle, a far-right and highly eccentric Tea Party supporter, appear to have had no positive effect on Mr Reid’s prospects, and the Grand Old party has a good shot at taking control of both houses of Congress. Worse for Mr Obama, political scientists say that at this stage in the calendar, there is almost nothing he can do about it.

“If you ask me where the silver lining is for President Obama, I have to say I cannot see one,” says Bill Galston, a former Clinton official, who has been predicting for months the Democrats could lose the House. “Just as BP’s failure to cap the well has been so damaging, Obama’s failure to cap unemployment will be his undoing. There is nothing he can do to affect the jobless rate before November.”

Chart: Obama job approvalThe direction of the data could hardly be worse. According to Democracy Corps, a group headed by Stanley Greenberg, a liberal pollster who is a close friend of Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s chief of staff, a majority of US citizens see Mr Obama as “too liberal”.

Astonishingly, 55 per cent of citizens think Mr Obama is a “socialist” against only 39 per cent who do not share that diagnosis. The same poll shows 48 per cent support for Republicans against just 42 per cent for Democrats. The numbers are eerily similar to 2006, except that it was George W. Bush’s Republicans who were on the receiving end four years ago.

“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” says Rob Shapiro, another former Clinton official and a supporter of Mr Obama. “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

In private, informal advisors to Mr Obama are almost as negative. According to one, the US public’s loss of confidence in Mr Obama’s leadership is a factor above and beyond their dissatisfaction over the state of the real economy, which continues to slow as last year’s $787bn stimulus starts to run dry. The adviser, who asked to remain anonymous, said the public did not know what Mr Obama really believed. Examples include his lukewarm support last year for a public option in the healthcare bill and his equally lukewarm support today for a Senate bill that would extend unemployment insurance and aid state governments to keep teachers in their jobs.

In both cases, Mr Obama has offered only token, negotiable, support. “I never thought I would say this, but even I’m unsure what President Obama really believes,” says the adviser. “Instead of outsourcing decisions to Congress, he should spell out his bottom line. That is what leaders are for.”

Next week, Mr Obama is likely to sign a historic Wall Street re-regulation bill into law. Earlier this year he did the same for healthcare. But polls show the public either does not care, or even opposes these otherwise big reforms. “The longer this goes on, the more it looks like Obama wasted his first year on healthcare,” said the outside adviser. “It’s still the economy, stupid.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.[/spoiler]


the article can be found here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/434315b2-8ea6 ... ab49a.html


PS, if a war with Iran does go ahead, the Iranians will block the Persian gulf and Strait of Hormuz driving oil prices through the roof...Wall Street and the City of London will be celebrating BIG TIME, to say nothing about the arms manufacturers....


ALL HAIL CORPORATE CONTROL OF THE MEDIA

[LegendaryA]

It's rather silly if you ask me, they say they need a strong leader, so a war is declared shortly after to "flex muscles", then the war doesn't go so well, many troops die, lots of dollars are burnt into operations and maintaining troops/camps there, people start to criticize the war, and then few years later they ask it to end...and it does this way every time. Do americans suffer from amnesia every time there's a chance to go to war?

I also see that some democrats are threatend in their senate seat by representatives from this party, the tea party. (off topic but that caught my attention)

[[KMA]Avenger]

not sure i understood that last bit. but as for the rest, i agree, its not just the Americans, we should all be pressuring our Govts to not go to war and sit down with the Russians and the Chinese and come to some arrangement with the Iranians, since its those 2 super powers who have trade agreements with Iran....but i wont hold my breath that the war mongers, arms manufacturers, Wall Street, London and the banksters would do something so...radical as to TALK.

[LegendaryA]

not sure i understood that last bit. but as for the rest, i agree, its not just the Americans, we should all be pressuring our Govts to not go to war and sit down with the Russians and the Chinese and come to some arrangement with the Iranians, since its those 2 super powers who have trade agreements with Iran....but i wont hold my breath that the war mongers, arms manufacturers, Wall Street, London and the banksters would do something so...radical as to TALK.

Don't mind the last part, it's just that I don't like Tea Parties...(there's a mention of one "far right and eccentric" tea party member in the article you posted)

Well, many people fire weapons first and talk later, there has always been the warmongers, and they usually rarely help things to be solved the best way. I don't have hostile feeling towards Russia or China and wouldn't like a war with them...that's what explains my unconditional support to Afghanistan war opposed to Iraqian one (no I didn't like Saddam, but I think there was other ways...such as sending Ash'raks to get rid of him, yea I know it's not SG1 but you get the message, or funding a rebellion).
Also China or Russia are superpowers and thus if both fight together it would be very...unpleasant for the other side.

[[KMA]Avenger]

yeah but in this case mate, expanding the war of terror into Iran (and Pakistan, the yanks are using drones and attacking many civis accusing them of being insurgents. weddings and other such civi activities and buildings have been hit killing hundreds if not thousands) will only help to escalate things.

the premise for war is that Ahmadinajad and Iran want to see Israel destroyed and that they have to attack them to prevent them gaining nuclear tech in the form of reactors, this is a false premise since Iran stopped its nuclear arms program some years ago and are short on energy and want a nuclear reactor for domestic use.

i agree that Iran should NEVER be allowed to gain nuclear arms tech, but going to war with them because of what might be has to be the brain child of the dumbest people given the consequences of such an act.

[RepliMagni]

1) War with Iran is extremely unlikely to happen. Yes, perhaps Obama does need a party piece to bolster his approval rating. But does anyone honestly think starting another unwinnable war in the Middle East will achieve this? Short answer - No. Its all a bunch of scare mongering. Hell, if Obama actually declared war on Iran his approval rating would drop through the floor.....America is tired of their Vietman-style war in Iraq and Afganistan already....to suggest a third such war would be political suicide. Unless something catastrophic happens to provoke America....and it would have to be on at least the scale of 9/11.

2) Would war with Iran start WWIII? Probably not. Russia may step up their presence on their southern borders, and a cold war situation would ensue, but all-out war? Nah. Likewise with China. China and India are going to be pressing for economic dominance in the next few decades, I doubt either of them wants a war in the near future. And KMA, a three-way war? You've been reading too much Orwell old boy

Now, how will Obama try to boost opinion polls? Withdraw from the two unwinnable wars they're currently committed in. Bolster the American economy. And achieve a lasting peace between Israel/Palestine. Now they are definitely on his agenda. A war with Iran? Nope.

[[KMA]Avenger]

i SERIOUSLY doubt any of those last suggestions of yours are on Obamas agenda otherwise he wouldn't be pulling troops out while at the same time sending in more contractors and redrawing the Iraqi map to make it appear as though troops are being pulled out....

tell me something mate, has Barry Soetoro, AKA, Barack H Obama kept even 1 of his electoral promises..such as an immediate withdrawal of troops? what does the word immediate mean in Barry's vocabulary 2 years, 5, 10, ever? and why does he bow to the Saudi royal family, and why does he need a teleprompter to give speeches...could it because he isn't pulling the strings and so has no say in whether war with Iran goes ahead or not?

a war with Iran is agreed by all here, madness, both politically and otherwise. did that stop them going into Afghanistan when the Russians warned it was stupid and unwinnable?


they want war, that's obvious by Iran and Ahmadinajad's demonizing, and by the saber rattling that's going on, otherwise, why do it and risk stirring up trouble?!

and if another 9/11/OKC type event does go ahead, i would look at my own Govt/intelligence community before i look to the east or anywhere else for that matter.

[Ra]

I doubt the U.S. would invade Iran, unless Iran became an imminent nuclear threat. Obama has kept some of his 'promises', he's withdrawn the bulk of troops in Iraq (Where U.S. should never have been, except Cheney wanted the oil) and reinforced the presence in Afghanistan (Where there is a valid reason to be, to fight terrorism). He also has messed with health care.. which was a promise.. though he should have waited for the economy to recover. At any rate, anything saying the U.S. is going to invade or because Obama uses a teleprompter.. he's a puppet is nothing but yet another cockoo conspiracy theory.

[LegendaryA]

When I type "barry soetoro" in google, I see as first result "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories"
Let's stop with the birth certificate story about him.

It would be the downfall of the USA if they wanted to provoke indirectly a world war with current state of things. I highly doubt they want that.