Iran to take action if US aircraft carrier returns

[yyetttt]

If peace is what you want, then we respect you for that.
but go to your leaders and make then understand Iran's issues belong to Iranians, so Iranians have to topple the regime not nato bombs.

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------



how do you know we dont have nukes?

Sir, the way Persians are showing off like right I definently bet they would do a nuke blast if they had nukes. Heck, Persians even make false claims! They say the Saugqeh or something is better than the F-18 when we all know t is a ripoff of the F-5.

Yeah, how do we know Persians dont have flying carpets?

 

[Meengla]

nuke is something that i believe they will never use at all
using it is a permission to bring down every country.first nuke luanched and im sure its the last day that we are alive.so we are not afraid of these useless toys

You should be afraid of the tactical nukes most! Look up a Scott Ritter video on You Tube. It is a few years old. According to Ritter, any bombardment of Iran will not achieve the goal of stopping Iranian march toward the nukes. And so 'boots will have to be put on the ground'. But that's where Iran can inflict huge casualties. Americans rightly hate casualties. Every coffin is the potential last nail in the coffin of the Military Industrial Empire. The media can work both says. And hence, according to Ritter, Nukes will have to be dropped on Iran.

 

[FriendOfPakistan]

You have a PhD ? Have you heard of the straw man
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You know, you make Iranians look bad with your poor English and poor ability to argue your points.
I am only replying to you in compassion because you are my compatriot.
I have no racist beliefs, and I judge people only on their individual merits.
If you want to expand your horizons, learn from Mosamania.
He is an Arab alright, and damn smarter than you are, wiser, and more humble too.

you're funny: you insult Iranians as villagers, you have racist anti Arab statements
I have a PhD a

 

[Developereo]

Do you seriously think Pakistan would protect Iran with its nuclear umbrella ? What makes you think so ?

The Pak-Iran relationship is not where it was, could be, or should be. However, the question of Pakistan's commitment is best left ambiguous. It is precisely this ambiguity which would give pause to Israel or the US before attacking Iran.

A nuclear Iran is in Pakistan's interests because it provides yet another bulwark against external meddling in the region.

 

[yyetttt]

^^^ A nuclear Iran is in no ones Interest. No country wants a state that is already aggressive to everyone to posses nuclear weapons.

 

[gambit]

You should be afraid of the tactical nukes most! Look up a Scott Ritter video on You Tube. It is a few years old. According to Ritter, any bombardment of Iran will not achieve the goal of stopping Iranian march toward the nukes. And so 'boots will have to be put on the ground'. But that's where Iran can inflict huge casualties. Americans rightly hate casualties. Every coffin is the potential last nail in the coffin of the Military Industrial Empire. The media can work both says. And hence, according to Ritter, Nukes will have to be dropped on Iran.

Scott Ritter is the last man you want to bring up in this discussion. He lost his credibility a long time ago.

 

[Meengla]

@Hello_10,
You seem to say that Iran should be more aggressive now when they can inflict huge casualties against Americans in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq and the Gulf? And that if Iran waits too long to assert itself--follow through with its red-lines then Iranian economy will be greatly weakened by the sanctions?

---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------

Scott Ritter is the last man you want to bring up in this discussion. He lost his credibility a long time ago.

May be.
But his central argument was that Iran cannot be really beaten short of using nukes. And I tend to agree with that. I think the same holds true for Pakistan (even though, unlike Iran, Pakistan has a huge powerful enemy on its eastern borders).
Anyway, I don't think countries like Iran can be truly beaten like Iraq was, short of using nukes.

 

[yyetttt]

Iran can be beaten with Our army.

 

[Meengla]

A nuclear Iran is in Pakistan's interests because it provides yet another bulwark against external meddling in the region.

Indeed, this was the rationale behind General Aslam Baig and Dr. Qadeer Khan to try to clandestinely support Iranian nuclear ambitions. Not unlike Britain went out of its way to bring in a weak and defeated France into the UNSC post WW II.

 

[FriendOfPakistan]

That is because Islamists took over in Turkey, putting Islam above their country.
Or so it seems ... it might be just rhetoric.

I am not saying it is bad to have regional solidarity.
It would be great for all countries of Middle East to stand together against those that wish them ill.
However, in practice, we have seen that when Iran became anti-Israel, no one followed Iran.
In fact, regional countries took advantage of that to stab Iran in the back (Iraq, Saudi Arabia).
Maybe Iran went badly about it ...
I don't know ...
But since there is no solidarity among countries in the middle east
(it might take a few decades for them to develop the kind of solidarity Europeans have)
Iran should take care of its own first, and not care for any other country in the region.
Because every other country in the region is only going to take advantage of that to gain superiority over Iran, by sucking up to US or others outside the region.


Now my guess is that Turkey is just playing games.
They are positioning themselves as a model for Arabs to follow ...
a model suggested by US to counter IRan
Israel and US both know that Turkey is playing along and not serious ...
Turkey is doing this to attract sunni Arabs on their side
In order to weaken Iran

Again, it supports my point of view
Everyone to themselves
Iran should not care about anyone but Iran
Because everyone in the region is a backstabber

Turkey has done a much better job than Iran
In that it cares only about Turkey and no one else
Nationalists they are, and they dont give a damn about ideology
That is why their country has made tremendous progress

Now, they are not ideological yet, I dont believe it
It is just a game to weaken Iran

As I said Iran should take care of itself
Or else Turkey and Arabs will take good care of Iran
By watching Iran slide down into hell and laughing all the way

Learn from Turkey's example.

For decades, Turkey extended the olive branch to Israel and maintained good relations. But, at the first sign of trouble in the relationship, the Israeli lobbies went into full action. Decades of trust was thrown aside as the Israeli lobbies engineered resolution after resolution in the US and Europe about the Armenian issue. This is not due to some Israeli fondness for Armenians; Israel is one of the main military backers of Azerbaijan. Anti-Turkish propaganda is in full swing these days.

Make no mistake about it. Unless Iran abandons Islam and all Iranians convert to some other religion, Israel will stab you in the back the moment your back is turned.

 

[gambit]

May be.
But his central argument was that Iran cannot be really beaten short of using nukes. And I tend to agree with that. I think the same holds true for Pakistan (even though, unlike Iran, Pakistan has a huge powerful enemy on its eastern borders).
Anyway, I don't think countries like Iran can be truly beaten like Iraq was, short of using nukes.

Ritter had lost so much credibility since Iraq that the only way he can make a decent living is through hyperboles and exaggerations of his so-called 'analysis'. Not even the quite liberal American media wanted anything to do with him, leaving only the gullible and less experienced of the international media community to seek him out to fill in their shortage of American analysts.

 

[Developereo]

Indeed, this was the rationale behind General Aslam Baig and Dr. Qadeer Khan to try to clandestinely support Iranian nuclear ambitions. Not unlike Britain went out of its way to bring in a weak and defeated France into the UNSC post WW II.

Yeah, the relationship has declined from the Bhutto-Shah days. The fault lies on both ends, and the leadership on both sides seems equally unwilling to make any effort to improve it. The Iranians enjoy grandstanding more than genuine discussion and, as for the Pakistani side, well, these inept clowns have raised navel-gazing to an art form.

 

[Developereo]

That is because Islamists took over in Turkey, putting Islam above their country.
Or so it seems ... it might be just rhetoric.

The way I see it, Turkey is just rebounding from the extreme secularism of Ataturk which ended up denying certain basic rights to their citizens through exaggerated fears of the clergy. Turkey, like Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, etc. are trying to find a balance between Islamic, Western and other models. Iran is seeing the opposite rebound, with some people rejecting Islam outright. Both extremes are wrong and, eventually, Iranians will find a balance also.

However, in practice, we have seen that when Iran became anti-Israel, no one followed Iran.
In fact, regional countries took advantage of that to stab Iran in the back (Iraq, Saudi Arabia).

Yes, this Arab-Iranian rivalry, on both sides, is the greatest gift to the enemies of the region.

Now my guess is that Turkey is just playing games.
They are positioning themselves as a model for Arabs to follow ...
a model suggested by US to counter IRan
Israel and US both know that Turkey is playing along and not serious ...
Turkey is doing this to attract sunni Arabs on their side
In order to weaken Iran

I would say this is paranoia. Israeli lobbies in the US, and European politicians, are very strongly anti-Turkey so, if Turkey is putting on an act, they are fooling even their supposed allies in the West.

I agree that Iran should look for self-interest but my point is that the self-interest is best served through regional stability and cooperation, not rivalry.

 

[FriendOfPakistan]

Of course, but we have seen Iran - at least rhetorically - promote regional cooperation (in their way) only to be stabbed in the back. Ideals are far ... it make take decades. Turkey is still part of Nato. Egypt has not changed yet, just talks about it.

I agree that Iran should look for self-interest but my point is that the self-interest is best served through regional stability and cooperation, not rivalry.

 

[Hussein]

You have a PhD ? Have you heard of the straw man
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You know, you make Iranians look bad with your poor English and poor ability to argue your points.
I am only replying to you in compassion because you are my compatriot.
I have no racist beliefs, and I judge people only on their individual merits.
If you want to expand your horizons, learn from Mosamania.
He is an Arab alright, and damn smarter than you are, wiser, and more humble too.

I remind you that you were the first to describe Iranians as villagers spoiled who didn't know how good was the shah
and you wrote that Islam in Iran from villagers (mullahs from villagers as you wrote) are villagers because they are Arab minded
I wonder how it could not be seen as racist

you are from USA so of course you have better practice of English than me
(just use a little bit intelligence please). Myself i speak fluently French: i am not going to insult you because you don't speak French. Thanks.