Iran to take action if US aircraft carrier returns

[yyetttt]

So how many moving/maneuvering sea targets has Iran successfully hit?

We know. We are in the ISI/CIA.

 

[Oldman1]

So the US would mistake an Iranian ballistic missile used as anti-ship for a nuclear attack.... hmm..... something wrong with the logic here.

Oh whats wrong with this logic. In your words we don't know Iran's true capabilities and they may in fact have ballistic missiles equipped with nukes already. Think before you speak.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Did you power these? Amazing!

Better some kit kat to soliders , they are running out of chicken

they might commit suicide with no friend chicken :L

 

[IceCold]

Why is both the US of A and Iran pushing for a conflict? People supporting this, do you guys have any idea the impact it will have on world economy which is already in shambles.
Realistically speaking Hitting a US carrier is no joke for God sake, don't give US another reason to start another conflict in the region and as a result of that destabilize the whole region.
Keeping aside all bravado, once the Iranian navy hits the US carrier group, rest assured they will be decimated even before they know it.

 

[SinoChallenger]

Oh whats wrong with this logic. In your words we don't know Iran's true capabilities and they may in fact have ballistic missiles equipped with nukes already. Think before you speak.

How can you mistake a ballistic missile in an anti-ship role for an Iranian nuclear missile when you know that if the Iranians really had a nuclear missile, Tel Aviv would be gone by now?

 

[dawud123]

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

I agree with only the bold part. Why US needs turkey to position itself as a model for the arab countries. Because US fears that Arabs will think iran as a model for them. and they might form a new islamic government.
This is I think a success of Islamic revolution that other countries see the iran as model. Now wait and see who wins.

 

[Hello_10]

How does this change things in the rest of the world if Iran wins the battle? Remember the US for all intents and purposes lost South Vietnam to North Vietnam, that didn't change the greater affairs of things. Come to think of it, winning that war was predicated on the same domino effect idea that you give, that if Iran falls next will be Russia, then China. The thing is I don't see the Chinese or Russians saying this.

I supported the claim of war chain (chain reaction) and you replied to that post but you didn’t get any good answer to your question so I had to back again, even if I don’t get much time now days.

And to start answering you, I remember many western newspapers like “Credible Reuters”, as per your post 215, who used to say that India was wrong while being with SU during cold war and as a democratic country, India is better suited with democratic West. But the answer was, SU supported nuclear power India but US tried to force India to accept P5s as nuclear powers, while India was always in favor of nuclear free world. And its SU who always supported India for UNSC seat and used veto for India many times while West wanted India to follow them. Long time before, a senior told me that nuclear power China was in the interest of US which could keep Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and other regional countries threatened from China and this way neighbors of China like Japan had to remain like a slave of West for help against China. and until China is a threat to its neighbors, they will always need help from West. And if West might not have introduced NPT, but might have adopted a nuclear free world (without Veto power in UN also), then every country might be having equal opportunity to rise and then no one would need a police in this world for help. West always advocated a world which needs help from West, and in return, whole world would follow West.

"Credible Reuters" type newspapers don't even understand that country like India could maintain its sovereignty because of Soviet Union only otherwise India might have signed NPT till now and then they might have become a slave of West like Japan/ South Korea who always need help of West for Nuclear and Veto powers against China. NPT and Veto powers in UN are nothing but Bluff of Western democracy, which are intended to capture different weak countries.

It used to be said in the Indian newspapers that there couldn't be any nuclear war between US and Soviet Union because US knew that even if Soviet Union had NFU policy, Soviet was going to use nuke at least in response if US might have done so with SU, the main reason why there wasn't any nuclear war between US and SU. also its the US who has experience of using nuclear weapons against Japan, no one else did the same, and it is believed that it will be only US who will use nuke against others and others would at least be capable enough to respond US.

US/ West knew that if not first then at least in response, Soviet/ Russia was definitely going to remove whole West, SU had confirmed it to US/ West, the reason why peace could be established during Cold War.

As of October 2008, China,[1] India[2] and North Korea[3] have publicly declared their commitment to no first use of nuclear weapons.

NATO has repeatedly rejected calls for adopting NFU policy,[4] arguing that preemptive nuclear strike is a key option. In 1993, Russia dropped a pledge given by the former Soviet Union not to use nuclear weapons first. In 2000, a Russian military doctrine stated that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons "in response to a large-scale conventional aggression".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use

China helped Iran a lot to gain nuclear and missiles through North Korea because until US+EU has something to do with Iran, they won’t think about other biggies like China, Russia and also India. US wants put to missiles in space but they don’t want China, Russia and India to have the same, US wants to have best military techs but they don’t want the same for others blab la. It is in the best interest of world to keep something in front of West so that other may sleep ‘peacefully’. And Iran and North Korea/ China, (especially a nuclear power Iran), is a good way to do that.

At the same time West has extremely backward mentality of having Christian religious background. During 2003 to 2005, I used to find few Australian writers supporting China few times because it is at least adding millions of Christians, the only reason they find China good. Not only that but, as Australia is full of ASEAN nationals, we always find people coming from Philippines good in Australia because they are mostly Christians but Indonesian are bad as they are Muslims. Country like Australia where society just can’t produce competitive students, almost al of them under high school pass, they at least want everyone to accept Christianity. I myself started drinking few times during official meetings as I at least wanted to prove Im not a Muslim, even if Im brown. But I was always quite happy to think that there is always few problems in the world due to Muslims - Christians confrontations otherwise the next number is certainly of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs etc. only Christians are considered loyal/ good in Western countries, with a hope that rest of the religious people will also convert to Christianity soon. See how much problems Sikhs face in West for having turbans/ bear? Even during Cold war, Vatican city always tried to unite Western nations against SU/Russia as they are orthodox, how they will accept a non-Christian country in this world, whether democratic or communist?

If you have a look on the current international politics, Russia always make sure that China would be supported as much that CHina would be capable enough to engage US/ West and then Russia with her allies like India may sleep peacefully. "Western countries always have someone of their gun point and you always have to resist them." Western nations follow a one line concept, that is, you are either with them or against them, And if you want to be with US/ West then it simply means you have to follow them. and the best way to deal with these circumstances is to keep putting those countries in front of West (China, North Korea, Iran etc.) who would be capable enough to engage West and we find Iran (with North Korea/ China) doing this right now. And about nuclear Iran, we know that even if Iran may get nuclear weapons, if they haven’t got till now, they won’t use it against West until they are also threatened with nuclear weapons. As, if they will use nuclear weapons against West then West will also do the same with Iran? so why West is threatened with nuclear power Iran if they also have nuclear weapons?

it is widely said in India that it was only OBL’s 9/11 why US accepted terrorism is terrorism, good or bad.(Like how Ms H Clinton recently said that US has supported good terrorism against its foe.) and since 9/11, US could understand terrorism problem of rest of the world otherwise all these Al Qaeda/ Taliban are nothing but made by US itself against SU and its allies.

I became Secretary of State, they were trying to basically appease the Pakistani Taliban who were attacking them. So they were trying to draw a distinction between the good terrorists and the bad terrorists, because we had funded the good terrorists together.

Referring to the support US provided to these insurgent groups during the fight against the Russians in Afghanistan, Clinton said when she meets Pakistani officials, they rightly say, "You're the ones who told us to cooperate with these people. You're the ones who funded them.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...-terror-groups-against-india-us/1/153324.html

(West always laugh on muslims but I remember my one conversation with one elder long time before, I asked him why Mr Jesus Christ couldn't prove he was son of God when Jews hanged him, why his father didn’t help him who might be God, as Mr Jesus claimed he was son of God? He replied, if you go deep in the Western/ Christian philosophy then you will first have to accept that his mother wasn’t married also and Mr Jesus directly came from sky. Then I asked, was his psych/ mad? He said, we also have example of Dev Kanya's in India in past and when they used to get kids after being with rich people of that time in India, and those kids were usually called sons and daughters of God. he might gone crazy by thinking he is son of God.............

But he added that even Lord Ram was also just a king Ram, an ideal King, but he was made Lord after his death by too many imaginary stories. And here, Buddha was on safe side as he said, “I’m a guide not God.” And India can say that they at least don’t have a Foreign Religion. It is at least better than accepting someone as son of God, which he couldn’t prove till his end, born in some part of rest world other than India, 1000s of years before.)

I would welcome as many arguments as you can give to prove Iran will be the last target by the West and they won’t then proceed to China/ Russia, India next.

 

[mitth]

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's army chief said the Islamic Republic would take action if the U.S. aircraft carrier that recently left the area returned to the Gulf, the semi-official Fars news agency reported on Tuesday.
"I advise, recommend and warn them (the Americans) over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once," Fars quoted Ataollah Salehi as saying.
(Created by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Tim Pearce)

 

[IranZamin]

It will be foolish for Iran to attack the US Fleet. Japan made that mistake and did win the first round of the battle at Pearl Harbor, but then US finished the last round.

US Naval Fleet is very powerful and Iran's Forces will be no match for a long term conflict.

Iran is a country with valuable resources and lots of money. so incase of a war it can finance itself, the bigger question is, can USA do the same ?

 

[yyetttt]

^ USA has more resources than Iran, buddy.

 

[IranZamin]

^ USA has more resources than Iran, buddy.

You mean the resources of the native indians ?

 

[yyetttt]

^ Please do not go historic. This isn't History class.

I mean USA has enough natural resources, NATO...etc... to fight anyone.

 

[IranZamin]

^^ with what money ? you are broken, in debt

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

How does this change things in the rest of the world if Iran wins the battle? Remember the US for all intents and purposes lost South Vietnam to North Vietnam, that didn't change the greater affairs of things. Come to think of it, winning that war was predicated on the same domino effect idea that you give, that if Iran falls next will be Russia, then China. The thing is I don't see the Chinese or Russians saying this.

In Chinese forums, one of the more popular theories is "island theory".

If Iran falls, then China and Russia become an island of red in a sea of blue. Canada to the north, Japan and Alaska to the east, the entire Middle East to the southwest, Europe to the west, Philippines to the southeast, India to the south.

The fall of Iran would force China to significantly expand our biochemical and nuclear arsenal to preserve our deterrence ability.

 

[yyetttt]

^^ with what money ? you are broken, in debt

USA can pay the debt.