If American attack Iran,can the Iran resist American military ?

no i support the people who dont want to be slaves, USA interest in Iran is almost purely economic plus political and always will be that way, trying to do the same that they did with Irak( just for havin' massive destruction weapons?, well they dont found nothing, so the invasion was pointless and unjustified) make'em puppets, btw instead of makin illusionary threats and attackin in name of freedom and peace xD, should help the people who is really dying of starving, or people that has been expelled from they homeland, and the religious fanatics are around the world, Israel, Palestine, Europa, Northamerica, southamerica, asia, and talkin bout corruption and murders, well the world have a very nice opinion of USA ;D

 

That's good to here. It isn't however consistent with supporting the current Iranian regime.

How many cases of one country being interested in another can you find which are not mostly some combination of politcal and economic?

Overly simplified and still inaccurate. Iraq is not a puppet by any means and may well be on it's way to being a democratic country. Certainly the average citizen has a lot less to fear now, in particular from his own government. As to your other points: It wasn't just because they had "massive destruction weapons". They did find some although not much and Iraq still had develpmental programs in its' budget. The invasion was not pointless or unjustified.

That doesn't scan.

This is almost incoherent. From what I can pick out of it the implications are incorrect in any case. The US spends a considerable amount on famine relief and such as it is. There are indeed religious fanatics in many places but they don't controll many governments at this time and certainly don't control governments with atomic weapons.

While the US may not have the lowest murder rate it's not particularly high on the list and from the published data corruption is very low in the US compared to most other countries. Not really much we can do about people who are ignorant and want to remain that way.

 

[video=youtube;C4p1kD8CZX8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4p1kD8CZX8 [/video]

Unjustified wars, just money and political interest, ignorat who dare to compare the birth of a child with the destruction of a country, thats the state of freaks, use propaganda to make believe people that the nations that not have the same point of view are threats, why Germany ist not a threat if they have nukes, easy because usa have not interest in germany, but Iran its a threat? yes its a threat to the imperialism.

[video=youtube;2-uIaSRiWA4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-uIaSRiWA4&feature=channel[/video]

 

I believe Germany possess the technology for nuclear weapons, but not the weapons themselves. Further Germany has never stated (recently) that have the desire to see a nation allied to the US destroyed as the ruling party in Iran does. This does not reflect the belief of the Iranian people, just the small clique of leaders. I would like to see the US put off any direct conflict with Iran as long as possible in the hopes that their people can change the ruling junta and return to the mainstream. About a year age it looked possible, it may be possible again with a little discreat help.

 

Wart WWIII by attacking Iran????
1) The US does not currently plan on attacking Iran.
2) There is no indication that Iran has any allies that would try and support her if the US did attack. Can't see any way this would qualify as a world war.
The implication is that whoever came up with the title either doesn't no what he's talking about, is more interested in ratings than the truth, or chose a misleading title. Obviously it could be some combination of the above.

What "unjustifed wars" are you talking about? In any case I suspect they come down to more than just "money" and "political interest".

What are you talking about?

??? you are waxing incoherent. I suggest you take a bit more time composing your posts.

That's a rather over the top characterization of things. The US gets along quite well with a fair number of countries that have different points of view by the way if that's what you were implying. If you don't think Iraq under Sadam was a threat or Iran under the current leadership is then you are obviously not very up on the history of the regions or the statments and actions of said leaders.

The US has much more interest in Germany than in either Iraq or Iran. Germany on the other hand has a same democratic government. Iran is probably more imperialistic than the US certainly her neighbors fear her a lot more than they fear the US. They have also made a point about threatening to use atomics on a number of occasions.

Talk about US propaganda.

In general video "references" seem to be about as weak as you can get except for areas when visual material is very important to the topic at hand.

 

I think that's the current plan. Iran is having more and more internal problems as it becomes apparent just how corrupt the leadership is and their reactions to the discontent become more severe. Their declineing economy is also causing signifcant problems for the current regime and discontent among the populace. Still when one is dealing with religious fanatics one never knows.

 

lwd: I agree with you that, if we can out-wait them, the Iranian people will effect a regime change. There are plenty of good people living in Iran. They overthrew the government in 1979 and they can do it again. No need for any unpleasantness on our part.
That way we get the oil and another step closer to having China surrounded without any more Allied lives lost in the bargain.

 

Just to nit pick a little friend. The Mongols were successful in what is now Russia because the Golden horde fought independent tribes and villages, however; once the people united as a whole the Mongols were booted. Battle of Kulikovo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the West did over the Soviet Union but not threw military might and I believe that is what Diana was referring to. If not than my apologies in advance.

 

As the article mentions this came significantly after the intial conquest and was at a time when the Golden Hord itself was in a bit of disaray, no?

Well we could also point the Russian defeat by the Central powers in WWI. And by Japan in the decade before that. Then there was the defeat in the Crimean war. And if we want to go back even earlier you are familiar with how it came to be named Russia aren't you?

 

After the American Civil War there was a saying: "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men; but, Samuel Colt made them equal." this was of course a reference to Colt's improvement to the Revolving Pistol.
Similar statements can be made with the proliferation of Nuclear weapons and Robert Oppenheimer (et al). The irony lays in that the true exhibition of power is not one's ability wield it; but, the restraint one shows in not wielding it.

Another thing to consider is the stability of the nations which posses nuclear weapons. Leadership in the Middle East is in a constant state of flux, the technology that is possessed one day may very well be possessed by someone else tomorrow with a regime change (coupe). I think it is this instability more than anything else that makes it necessary to prevent most countries from having the technology to produce or access these weapons.

 

Hi Diana, while I agree with the fact that Russia has always supported, in case of war Russia will not choose Iran over the West. In case of war with Iran (which I think is coming but hopefully I am wrong) both Russia and China will stay out of it...

 

Oh it absolutely did I believe about 100 years or so after? And yes the Mongols were not what they were after Ghengis.

These are bit murky but the for the most part pretty accurate... I should have been more clear but I meant when being invaded, Russia also lost in Afganistan...

Japan beat Russia at sea, Crimean war slipped my mind and WW1 wasnt black and white.... Revolution in Russia was the main reason she withdrew from war (the whole Lenin debacle with Germany etc.)

PS.

im not following your last statement regarding Russia being named Russia (sorry got rear ended yesterday and am currently on pain medicine so im a bit slow and starting to see rainbows and little green men ) feel free to PM me so we dont high jack this thread any longer...

Cheers

 

IMO in a stand up fight the Iranians don't stand a chance, but wars are contests of will not firepower and there the situation a lot murkier, no way a western army can control a country with a million "insurgents" and if the will to resist is not broken that's what it will be facing. Iran is not Iraq where there was the chance to play one ethnic group against the other and Saddan and the Bath party had a limited popular base concentrated in one group. Unless a split in the religious leadership happens there is no way to control the country, and it's not likely to happen, fighting breeds more extremists than moderates. The US military can possibly bomb them back to the middle ages, but expect a lot of bombing back by means of "asymmetrical" attacks, control no way unless the political situations changes radically.

 

TOS, thats totally to my opinion!

 

OK...The Stump... God bless you Diana. You've really stirred the pot here @ WW2f. That's entertainment...I seem to recall a news story where in the last 10 years 30,000 + people have died violently in Mexico. 11000 in 2010 alone. Mexico is so corrupt, I can't believe anyone actually goes there... I like the gas explosion at a resort where 5 Canadians were killed on Nov 15. A 9 year old boy died. The excuse? Swamp gas. ! Lies.... Tourists should come here and enjoy our polite cold splendor in government inspected safety. Anyhoo, give me more Diana ...

 

what???

 

Do not worry Diana, Poppy was giving you a compliment in a funny way. Canadian humor is like English only more laid back.