What is the reason, for a war against Iran ?

So why a war with Iran?

Why not? It is custom made for our purposes.

Yeah, I am THAT cynical about our foreign policy.

Well said.
You miss out one reason though.......
It was spelled wrong last time

Well, they did attack sovereign US territory in 1979 (embassies are just that),

How many times are you going to repeat that nonsense tater?
Would you like to go through it again so you can say "ooops I got it wrong" again?
How long would it be until you repeat the same mistake again ......and again and again?

we still owe them for 1979

Someone is on the same brainlevel as the mad mullahs who say you still owe them for 1953

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by Catfish

What is the reason, for a war against Iran?

Someone already answered it. Military Industrial Complex. We need our military out there doing their primary mission; shoot, move, and communicate. We really don't care who they shoot at, as long as they use up beans and bullets.

Ever since WWII we've always had a war, had an enemy on the horizon, or had to protect "our interests abroad" in one way or another. Every day almost every media outlet is warning us about someone or something that is our next threat, to humanity, to freedom, to any buzz word that needs to be solved with beans and bullets. Our media always has an enemy waiting in the wings. Every day the press is full of horrible stories about the atrocities committed by our next enemy.

Lately it has been North Korea and Iran. (We keep hinting at China but can't afford to go that route yet.) It just makes it easier to sell when the time comes. (The time when our stockpiles of weapons start to grow and we need to put some down range.)

This is an election year. A few well placed attacks are always worth a few points in the polls. An invasion would seal the deal, instant re-election.

[Sammi79]

Why?

I think because Israel and by proxy USA governments feel a need to keep their position as the top military power in the ME, Israel because of its small size and feelings of vulnerability and USA because of cold war politics and oil.

and besides,



Regards, Sam.

[Flaxpants]

Lol!

[Oberon]

I'd be very surprised if the US attacked Iran, very surprised indeed, particularly under a Democrat government.

Israel though, it's not a matter of if but when.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I think we got them pretty good for 1979 when that US Navy ship accidentally shot down an Iranian Airliner in 1988 killing all 290 people on board.

Accident versus deliberate action. Not the same thing.

Ahmadinejad was in no way involved in the embassy take over in 1979.That misinformation can be explained in the statement by Platapus;

"It should also be a country that most citizens don't know much about so they will rely on the media for their propa... uh I mean information.

Except that it's not the media who is saying this but the hostages themselves. Now call me crazy but I tend to believe them over you or the media and certainly over politically motivated CIA reports.

With this line of thinking why not start the Civil War again I think we southerners owe you northerners for burning down Atlanta.

Maybe you traitors should have thought about that before you tried to desert your country.

The Japanese could say that they owe us the deaths of a few hundred thousand US citizens for the Japanese one killed by fire bombing in 44 and 45.

Maybe the Japanese could say that if we were to ignore the fact that they brought it upon themselves by attacking us in the first place.

Such ideas are very poor reasons to go to war in a modern world in particular.How many thousand Iranian and American soldiers must die to satisfy what is owed?

Some kid beat me in a fight when I was 10 years old I must track him down and beat him in hand to hand combat I owe him.

Sorry but you loosing a childhood fight does not compare with an organized attack on sovereign American territory nor does it compare with the kidnapping and illegal detention of American diplomats. Many of the problems we have today stem from our weakness and inaction during that time.

[Catfish]

^
Defending "your" values all over the world, by force, will probably not win you the hearts of the world ?

So what do you say about the forced inthronization of the Shah, by "the west", or better US and UK ? So iranian people did not like this, especially when it turned out Shah Pahlewi was just a bad dictator.

I am sure argentinian people did not like it as well, when the CIA killed the democratically elected president Allende ?

You have helped and supported Bin Laden, as long as his terrorism was directed towards Russia.

You have helped and supported Saddam Hussein, before he did what he always did, only this time against Saudi-Arabia - which is also a befriended dictatorship itself.

And you call the temporary occupation of an embassy (without killing a diplomate) an attack against America, after what you did ?

I guess hipocrisy knows no limits

Maybe the Japanese could say that if we were to ignore the fact that they brought it upon themselves by attacking us in the first place.

So the Iranains can say it because you overthrew thier government and supported a dictator to try and secure Iranian resources.
Well done august you just justified the mullahs

sovereign American territory

I suppose its a politcally motivated cover up when your government says its embassies are not soveriegn american territory.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by August

Accident versus deliberate action. Not the same thing.



Except that it's not the media who is saying this but the hostages themselves. Now call me crazy but I tend to believe them over you or the media and certainly over politically motivated CIA reports.



Maybe you traitors should have thought about that before you tried to desert your country.



Maybe the Japanese could say that if we were to ignore the fact that they brought it upon themselves by attacking us in the first place.



Sorry but you loosing a childhood fight does not compare with an organized attack on sovereign American territory nor does it compare with the kidnapping and illegal detention of American diplomats. Many of the problems we have today stem from our weakness and inaction during that time.

You really need to learn when someone is being sarcastic.

Yep I am a traitor I have Southern heritage some distant relatives fought for the CSA come and arrest me.But some also fought for the US Army as well oh and my mother was born in Iran (left way before the 1979 revolution) shall I be drawn and quartered?

Exactly what former hostage says that Ahmadinejad was the ring leader? I have never seen or heard anywhere such a claim be made that was proven to be true they base this off of a picture of a man that looks like Ahmadinejad.And it is not my media I do not own nor do I trust it so you not lay claim of ownership at my feet.Even the CIA checked into this and said that he was not involved.

Perhaps many of the problems we have with Iran are problems that we created by placing the Shah of Iran in charge in the first place we backed a despot that killed many Iranians and resulted in the revolution in the first place(the CIA backed the Shahs entry into power by the way) it should not be overly shocking that they kind disliked the American government.I see the situation in Iran since 1979 as an excellent example of how to shoot yourself in the foot.

And lets not forget Iran Contra which involved the US government selling arms to Iran though the Israelis in exchange for the release of hostages being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Iranian government is most defiantly not to be trusted and they have done and supported some foul deeds but there is no reason to get into an all out war with Iran. Waste of time seeing as with every passing day the regime in Iran grows more unpopular by the minute.


@Catfish "You have helped and supported Bin Laden, as long as his terrorism was directed towards Russia." there is no evidence to support this claim what so ever.In an abstract manner perhaps by the supply of weapons and funds to the ISI who gave them out to the Afghans but it is very well known that Bin Laden used his own money and money from backers in Saudi Arabia in his support of Mujaheddin against the Soviets he did not need any money or aid from out side sources.(outside his click)

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^
Defending "your" values all over the world, by force, will probably not win you the hearts of the world ?

Winning "the hearts of the world" is an impossible task and it's a waste of time trying. No matter what our country does we will still be hated, if for no other reason than jealousy for our success.

So what do you say about the forced inthronization of the Shah, by "the west", or better US and UK ? So iranian people did not like this, especially when it turned out Shah Pahlewi was just a bad dictator.

"Just a bad dictator" is a huge oversimplification. Was the Shah bad for extending suffrage to women? His economic and social reforms? How about his modernization efforts? Even if you discount that he still was a less oppressive leader than the mullahs which run the country now.

I am sure argentinian people did not like it as well, when the CIA killed the democratically elected president Allende?

You've been watching too much Michael Moore. A theory does not fact make. If you have some kind of proof that the CIA murdered Allende then post it or withdraw the accusation.

You have helped and supported Bin Laden, as long as his terrorism was directed towards Russia

.

We didn't help bin Laden. We assisted the Mujahadeen to combat the Soviet invasion of their country. There is no evidence that he ever recieved aid or training from the US government. That's two unsupported claims you've made.

You have helped and supported Saddam Hussein, before he did what he always did, only this time against Saudi-Arabia - which is also a befriended dictatorship itself.

And you call the temporary occupation of an embassy (without killing a diplomate) an attack against America, after what you did ?

An embassy is a nations sovereign territory and attacks upon it are acts of war. End of story.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

You really need to learn when someone is being sarcastic.

Is that what you call that?

Yep I am a traitor I have Southern heritage some distant relatives fought for the CSA come and arrest me.But some also fought for the US Army as well oh and my mother was born in Iran (left way before the 1979 revolution) shall I be drawn and quartered?

Let me guess you're being sarcastic again...

Exactly what former hostage says that Ahmadinejad was the ring leader? I have never seen or heard anywhere such a claim be made.And it is not my media I do not own nor do I trust it so you not lay claim of ownership at my feet.Even the CIA checked into this and said that he was not involved.

You mean the same CIA that claimed Saddam was buying Nigerian yellowcake uranium? You believe them over the hostages themselves? Do some research on your country's history. Here i'll get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...hostage_crisis

Several former hostages allege that during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis Ahmadinejad was one of the key individuals holding Americans inside the embassy.
A former Iranian secret agent said that the allegations were untrue: “I’m opposed to Ahmadinejad’s policies and thinking but he was not involved in the hostage drama nor in the assassination of an Iranian opposition Kurdish leader in Vienna.”[11] A classified CIA report says the claim is not proven.[12]
With Ahmadinejad's recent publicity, five former U.S. hostages Dr. William Daugherty (who worked for the CIA in Iran), Kevin Hermening, David Roeder, US Army Col. Charles Scott (Ret.), and US Navy Capt. Donald Sharer (Ret.) have alleged that Ahmadinejad was one of the leaders of the Iran Hostage Crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, during their 444-day captivity starting on November 4, 1979. All of the above-mentioned hostages have claimed that Ahmadinejad is the man whom they remember from their captivity. Ahmadinejad denies his presence in the embassy, other hostages are unsure about the identification and the CIA has reportedly questioned this identification.
Col. Charles Scott, now seventy-three, recently told the Washington Times[13] that "He was one of the top two or three leaders; the new president of Iran is a terrorist." Col. Scott claimed to recall an incident when Ahmadinejad berated a friendly Iranian guard who had allowed the two Americans to visit another U.S. hostage in a neighboring cell. Col. Scott, who understands Persian, said Ahmadinejad told the guard: "You shouldn't let these pigs out of their cells". Donald Sharer, a retired Navy captain who was for a time a cellmate of Col. Scott at the Evin prison in northern Tehran, remembered Ahmadinejad as "a hard-liner, a cruel individual". "I know he was an interrogator", said Capt. Sharer, now 64. Former hostages William Daugherty and Kevin Hermening also claim he was involved.
Scott and Roeder have also expressed certainty that Ahmadinejad was present at their interrogations. Scott asserted his certainty forcefully, stating: "This is the guy. There's no question about it. You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him." Both men, along with Sharer and Hermening, have stated their recollections of Ahmadinejad as an "extremely cruel" ringleader. Of the above men, only Hermening has expressed that he was not immediately sure that Ahmadinejad was involved in the Hostage Crisis.
However, former hostages USAF Col. Thomas E. Schaefer (Ret.), Paul Lewis (a former Marine embassy guard), and Barry Rosen (former embassy press attache) have expressed uncertainty regarding whether Ahmadinejad was actually involved. Schaefer stated that he does not recall Ahmadinejad by face or name, and Lewis expressed noticing a vague familiarity upon seeing Ahmadinejad's picture, but said that he could not be sure if Ahmadinejad was actually the same person as his captor. "My memories were more of the gun barrel, not the people behind it," stated Lewis. Rosen, while not claiming to personally recognize Ahmadinejad, professes to believe those who do claim to recognize the new Iranian President-elect. "When you're in a situation like that… it doesn't go away" Rosen stated.

the CIA backed the Shahs entry into power by the way

Re-entry into power actually. Another way of putting it was righting the wrong done his father during WW2 when the Soviets and Brits violated Iran's neutrality and occupied the country.

And lets not forget Iran Contra which involved the US government selling arms to Iran though the Israelis in exchange for the release of hostages being held by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

And this makes Iranians mad at us how?

The Iranian government is most defiantly not to be trusted and they have done and supported some foul deeds but there is no reason to get into an all out war with Iran. Waste of time seeing as with every passing day the regime in Iran grows more unpopular by the minute.

I can agree with that but this thread is about reasons for a war against Iran not reasons why we shouldn't. I have posted the ones I can think of but I make no claims as to their advisability at this point.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by August

We didn't help bin Laden. We assisted the Mujahadeen to combat the Soviet invasion of their country. There is no evidence that he ever recieved aid or training from the US government. That's two unsupported claims you've made.

You have helped and supported Saddam Hussein, before he did what he always did, only this time against Saudi-Arabia - which is also a befriended dictatorship itself.

I agree with you statement about Bin Laden but what is your meaning with Saddam Hussein you seem to lump that as also being a false claim when the US government did in fact support and provide military aid to Iraq and therefore we did support Saddam at one time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq%E2...ates_relations

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answer...stionID=000887

An embassy is a nations sovereign territory and attacks upon it are acts of war. End of story.

The US government says you are talking bollox
US law says you are talking bollox
International law says you are talking bollox
The American courts say you are talking bollox
Every government says you are talking bollox
Vienna convention says you are talking bollox
Even the mad mullahs say you are talking bollox

Seems a pretty overwhelming verdict doesn't it

Face it august is undeniably talking absolute bollox...end of story

No matter what our country does we will still be hated, if for no other reason than jealousy for our success.

Such a kindergarden view of the world

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

...but what is your meaning with Saddam Hussein

I didn't say that second part. That was probably something that Catfish said but I forgot to wrap quote tags around it.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Now, what's that:
lol
With or without this programme and with or without Israel, disregarding the Dollar lead currency and trying to sell their oil in other currencies will most certainly mean war between the US and Iran. Could this be the real reason ?

Nah...you misstablet?.