PDA

View Full Version : If Iran start taking pot shots at countries in the ME would it spark a World War.


Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 07:19 PM
What do you think?

Loki
04-25-2006, 07:22 PM
who are they going to take pot-shots at besides israel?
they do that and they'd get a standing ovation.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 07:27 PM
who are they going to take pot-shots at besides israel?
they do that and they'd get a standing ovation.

I saw an article that indicated Iran attacking anyone, no one in particular, would be the catalyst that would start WWIII.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 07:30 PM
who are they going to take pot-shots at besides israel?
they do that and they'd get a standing ovation.

I seriously doubt that. The implications of attacking Israel seems to be written about in Revelations as well as Nostradamus.

Loki
04-25-2006, 07:55 PM
I seriously doubt that. The implications of attacking Israel seems to be written about in Revelations as well as Nostradamus.

dude... seriously. what nation in the middle east is israel's friend?
jordan? syria? palestine? saudi arabia? egypt? lebanon? iran?

saddam hit israel with scuds during gulf war1 and the neighboring nations
cheered.
the same would happen if iran did it.

Adept Havelock
04-25-2006, 08:07 PM
The implications of attacking Israel seems to be written about in Revelations as well as Nostradamus.

This <a href="http://www.snopes.com/rumors/predict.htm">Nostradamus</a>? ROFL
The guy was an astrologer and bleeder for pete's sake. You know, an astrologer, like Nancy Reagan consulted...

Oy. :shake:

Well, if the Sixteenth century version of Shirley Maclaine said it, I guess that's good enough for some people.

For the rest of us, here's a nice link to that so-called "prophet's" debearding:
http://www.nostradamus-repository.org/

Loki is quite correct. The probability of Iran attacking any nation but Israel is miniscule. The probability of Iran attacking Israel itself is pretty small, thanks to MAD.

Loki, in all fairness, Egypt is the only nation in that group to have recognized Israel. While that relationship leaves something to be desired, it is a vast improvement over where it was from 1949-1978. The Begin-Sadat <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords">Camp David accords</a> were Carter's only real accomplishment, IMO.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 08:12 PM
dude... seriously. what nation in the middle east is israel's friend?
jordan? syria? palestine? saudi arabia? egypt? lebanon? iran?

saddam hit israel with scuds during gulf war1 and the neighboring nations
cheered.
the same would happen if iran did it.

So you are saying that if Iran attacked Israel that you don't believe there would be a WWIII?

Do you think that Israel would just sit as they were being attacked? You do know that the only reason they did not retaliate during Desert Storm was because the U.S. talked them out of doing so. We also provided Patriot Missiles to keep further scuds from hitting ground.

What you are discounting is the resolve that the Israelis have, I wouldn't count on them holding back both conventional and nuclear weapons should that happen.

Adept Havelock
04-25-2006, 08:17 PM
So you are saying that if Iran attacked Israel that you don't believe there would be a WWIII?

Do you think that Israel would just sit as they were being attacked? You do know that the only reason they did not retaliate during Desert Storm was because the U.S. talked them out of doing so. We also provided Patriot Missiles to keep further scuds from hitting ground.

What you are discounting is the resolve that the Israelis have, I wouldn't count on them holding back both conventional and nuclear weapons should that happen.


Exactly. Israel retaliates, Tehran, Qom, and a few other cities evaporate, and Israel is rendered as uninhabitable as Iran in the Chemical retaliation.

A serious regional war with major international consequences? Quite likely. "World War Three", seriously doubtful. Which major player of the nuclear club is going to stand with the Whackjobs in Iran, especially after they made themselves international pariahs by assaulting Israel in the first place?

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 08:34 PM
Exactly. Israel retaliates, Tehran, Qom, and a few other cities evaporate, and Israel is rendered as uninhabitable as Iran in the Chemical retaliation.

A serious regional war with major international consequences? Quite likely. "World War Three", seriously doubtful. Which major player of the nuclear club is going to stand with the Whackjobs in Iran, especially after they made themselves international pariahs by assaulting Israel in the first place?

No telling what will happen, but I would suggest that it will not stop as you indicate.

jiveturkey
04-25-2006, 08:38 PM
Who are the major players in this hypothetical world war?

I'm guessing that we team up with Isreal along with the Brits and the rest of Euorpa and Iran teams up with their middle eastern hommies.

The war starts on a sunny Tuesday afternoon and is over by Friday morning. As long as we don't try and invade and install new governments we can make quick work of the situation IMO.

China might jump in but since Walmart has veto power over there I'm guessing that they would be on our side or neutral.

Adept Havelock
04-25-2006, 08:43 PM
Who are the major players in this hypothetical world war?

I'm guessing that we team up with Isreal along with the Brits and the rest of Euorpa and Iran teams up with their middle eastern hommies.

The war starts on a sunny Tuesday afternoon and is over by Friday morning. As long as we don't try and invade and install new governments we can make quick work of the situation IMO.

China might jump in but since Walmart has veto power over there I'm guessing that they would be on our side or neutral.


ROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 08:48 PM
Iran lacks the power and force projection capabilities to initiate a true world war. The only regional player who can trigger WWIII would be us if we attacked them, which could then trigger a regional war, but even then, not a world war.

jiveturkey
04-25-2006, 08:51 PM
Iran lacks the power and force projection capabilities to initiate a true world war. The only regional player who can trigger WWIII would be us if we attacked them, which could then trigger a regional war, but even then, not a world war.
Has free trade put us in the awkward position of avoiding the ocasional world war?

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 08:59 PM
Iran lacks the power and force projection capabilities to initiate a true world war. The only regional player who can trigger WWIII would be us if we attacked them, which could then trigger a regional war, but even then, not a world war.

Now that we have the benefit of your ignorant comment, you can go away.

chiefsfaninNC
04-25-2006, 09:03 PM
I don't think it will be a World War. Definately regional. Let the middle east glow. Israel can keep what is left.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 09:07 PM
WASHINGTON -- After Sept. 11, 2001, while the Bush administration, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and others were warning of the grave threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq, one senator was warning that the real threat to America lay with Iran. The Iranian-supported terrorist group Hezbollah "is a much more immediate threat to the security of the United States of America, in my judgment, than Saddam Hussein," Sen. Bob Graham declared in July 2002. And within weeks of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Graham said: "Iran has a larger warehouse of chemical and biological weapons and is closer to gaining nuclear weapons capability than Iraq." Today Graham, a Florida Democrat, is retired from the Senate but he is still speaking out on foreign policy and intelligence matters. He is an Institute of Politics fellow at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.


Should we attack Iran based on their attainment of nuclear weapons there could be another WW. As with everyone else here, this is my opinion.

Loki
04-26-2006, 01:44 AM
Loki is quite correct. The probability of Iran attacking any nation but Israel is miniscule. The probability of Iran attacking Israel itself is pretty small, thanks to MAD.

Loki, in all fairness, Egypt is the only nation in that group to have recognized Israel. While that relationship leaves something to be desired, it is a vast improvement over where it was from 1949-1978. The Begin-Sadat Camp David accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords) were Carter's only real accomplishment, IMO.

- iran "conventionally" attacking anyone is a joke. funding, planning or
supporting terrorist attacks abroad is a different story. iran talks a lot
of sh*t about israel, but they don't have the balls to really do anything
about it (conventially speaking). hell, they fought saddam for 8 some
odd years and got nothing substantial accomplished but a sh*tload of
their own dead or captured in a ridiculous war of attrition.
lol... they can't fight, but they sure can talk sh*t to the newsmedia.

in a toe to toe fight betwen israel and iran, my money's on israel.
(literally... they get billions of our tax dollars for free every year. :rolleyes: )

- RE: israel/egypt:
"... While that relationship leaves something to be desired ..."

we'll just leave it at that... shall we? ;)

Loki
04-26-2006, 02:15 AM
So you are saying that if Iran attacked Israel that you don't believe there would be a WWIII?

Do you think that Israel would just sit as they were being attacked? You do know that the only reason they did not retaliate during Desert Storm was because the U.S. talked them out of doing so. We also provided Patriot Missiles to keep further scuds from hitting ground.

What you are discounting is the resolve that the Israelis have, I wouldn't count on them holding back both conventional and nuclear weapons should that happen.
"...What you are discounting is the resolve that the Israelis have..."
that's quite an assumption on your part. don't you think?

iran doesn't have the sack to attack israel head on, but i wouldn't doubt
that they fund, support or plan terrorist attacks on israel.
plausible deniability works out great that way for them. keeps the
israelis from sending jet fighters or attack bombers in their direction.
gnome sayn?

i don't doubt for one second that israel would retaliate if they were
attacked. but i highly doubt it's going to happen. they can hold their
own, and the arabs know this after years of trying to fight them and
drive them out. that's why they resort to their p*ssy-a$$ed car
and suicide bombs. the cowards can't fight with honor (or fight at all
for that matter), so have resorted to blowing up women and children.

dude what makes you think the israeli's would use nukes? they assure
their own destruction by their mere consideration! as impotent as the
UN is, NO nation on this planet would stand for them being used...
wouldn't you think?

Nightwish
04-26-2006, 02:26 AM
What do you think?
Are we talking conventional pot shots, or nuclear pot shots? If it's the latter, then yes, it'll probably spark a world war. If it is the former, the world will probably chalk it up as normal.

memyselfI
04-26-2006, 06:23 AM
Iran lacks the power and force projection capabilities to initiate a true world war. The only regional player who can trigger WWIII would be us if we attacked them, which could then trigger a regional war, but even then, not a world war.

I think this response as well as the topic question indicate a lack of knowledge regarding Iran and it's relationship with the region.

It's true that Iran isn't an Arab nation and that is why there are tensions between it and Arab nations in the region. But, it's also true that they are an Islamic nation and thus that relationship will trump the desire to engage Iran. The nations in the region have a love/hate relationship with Iran. Certainly many of them, while openly condeming Iran, pat them on the back in private. Especially when it comes to US matters.

In addition, Iran has formed a very tight alliance/axis with both China and Russia. That alliance is is serving as a counter balance to both the US interests in the region and, IMO, a deterence to regional conflict as well. The ONLY mass regional conflict that will spread will be at the US initiative...

and that happens if the US realizes it cannot control the region so it turns it against itself. You know, like they have the border issue here with stoking race and class issues within our nation and drumming up enthic hatred to try to divide a problem bigger than itself.

Chief Faithful
04-26-2006, 02:06 PM
I think this response as well as the topic question indicate a lack of knowledge regarding Iran and it's relationship with the region.

It's true that Iran isn't an Arab nation and that is why there are tensions between it and Arab nations in the region. But, it's also true that they are an Islamic nation and thus that relationship will trump the desire to engage Iran. The nations in the region have a love/hate relationship with Iran. Certainly many of them, while openly condeming Iran, pat them on the back in private. Especially when it comes to US matters.



The tribal culture and race relations between Arabs alone make it impossible for Iran and the Arab nations to unite. Some people think Islam is a uniting factor yet forget the tribal culture was ingrained long before Islam. As a result there is a sectarian division within the faith making mulsim practices different from tribe to tribe. Islam does not trump the tribal divisions nor the deep deep rooted prejuidices that thread throughout the region.

From tribe to tribe religion is different, culture is different, traditions are different, customs are different, greetings are different, and even language is different. That is why most the Arab nations backed the US against Iraq in the first Gulf War. It is also why Arab nations have done so little to help the Palestinians. You would have more success uniting the Catholics and Presbyterians of Irland than the Arabs and Persians.

If war broke out with Iran I suspect the Sunni and Kurdish Iraqi's would lead the charge. Besides, we have seen radical Islam modify it's own beliefs over and over for their political ambitions. The wonderful piece loving world of Islam is not nearly as united as some would have you believe.

banyon
04-26-2006, 02:07 PM
Can I get a holla for some subject/verb agreement in thread titles? :shrug:

Cochise
04-26-2006, 02:11 PM
Sigh... more newspaper theology.

|Zach|
04-26-2006, 02:17 PM
Can I get a holla for some subject/verb agreement in thread titles? :shrug:
ROFL

Frankie
04-27-2006, 05:24 PM
Now that we have the benefit of your ignorant comment, you can go away.
Whoa, Nelly..... Hold on there a bit. You are calling his comment "ignorant".... IN THIS THREAD?
ROFL