Khalaf Posted May 9, 2006 ^^^Castro...US has mass oil reserves...ready for any shortage that comes form the middle east...these reserves can last for decades...they are untouched. Iran will be conquored...let them send letters and ask help from UN...US will do what it has alreadly planned..for Middle East..and the Muslim World. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ElPunto Posted May 9, 2006 Originally posted by Castro: ^ I agree with the slight edge to Iran. But it's only slight. Have you thought of this scenario: Israel strategically bombs Iran's nuclear facilities and in the process "accidentally" kills a few hundred Iranians. Iran retaliates by declaring war on Israel and shutting off the Hormuz strait and oil prices skyrocket. When the whole world feels the pinch of higher oil prices, the US will be seen as "justified" in bombing Iran and they will. This whole scenario could transpire before the November elections, you know. A plausible scenario. But you don't think that the world will resent that Israel sent them into this crisis by attacking Iran. Especially when Israel can be restrained by a few words from the US. Mark my words - there will not be a US attack unless and until meaningful talks are held with the Iranians and no deal comes of it. And any attack will be only a US/Israel affair - and if the fallout is seriously negative, as it will no doubt be, that will isolate the US/Israel even more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Khayr Posted May 9, 2006 Originally posted by ThePoint: quote:Originally posted by Castro: ^ I agree with the slight edge to Iran. But it's only slight. Have you thought of this scenario: Israel strategically bombs Iran's nuclear facilities and in the process "accidentally" kills a few hundred Iranians. Iran retaliates by declaring war on Israel and shutting off the Hormuz strait and oil prices skyrocket. When the whole world feels the pinch of higher oil prices, the US will be seen as "justified" in bombing Iran and they will. This whole scenario could transpire before the November elections, you know. A plausible scenario. But you don't think that the world will resent that Israel sent them into this crisis by attacking Iran. Especially when Israel can be restrained by a few words from the US. Mark my words - there will not be a US attack unless and until meaningful talks are held with the Iranians and no deal comes of it. And any attack will be only a US/Israel affair - and if the fallout is seriously negative, as it will no doubt be, that will isolate the US/Israel even more. The Iranians are not as ****** and crude as people would like them to think. They are politically and intellectually savy people. How else can you have an Islamic State for over 27yrs in the 21st century? They are also a very proud nation and will unite under one banner. This letter is not a show of defeat but rather political maneuvering by Iran. You have to understand that a hardline, uncompromising approach is not the way of the current leader of Iran-Ayatollah Khamanei and at the end of the day, he has a final say and not the current president. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ElPunto Posted May 9, 2006 Originally posted by Khayr: This letter is not a show of defeat but rather political maneuvering by Iran. You have to understand that a hardline, uncompromising approach is not the way of the current leader of Iran-Ayatollah Khamanei and at the end of the day, he has a final say and not the current president. If they were intellectual and not crude - they wouldn't need to issue threats and demands on a daily basis. Their position is being eroded by their seeming inability to keep their mouths shut. PS - Why in God's name does SOL censor the word 'estupid' without the 'e'? Wierd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
N.O.R.F Posted May 9, 2006 All this blink first is nonesense. Iran have made a gueture which it hopes will be taken seriously by the international community. This gesture of peaceful negotiations to solve the problems with the world today is unheard of and is probably being applauded behind closed doors. But the media will obviously make a USA vs Iran boxing match scenario with sympathy with the US. This letter has made Iran seem a more compassionate country than that which is being thrown at them by western media outlets resulting in Iran winning the propaganda war so far. The details of the letter will be revealed soon,,,, The Iranians are playing the game well Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xiinfaniin Posted May 9, 2006 ^^And it's already having effect on the process.. Major powers fail to agree on Iran strategy .. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faarax-Brawn Posted May 9, 2006 Fudeeyd badanaa dadku? The letter had no apology in it,all it did was attack bush and democracy. But i would have to agree with SocodBadne,A/Najed did blink,scared like a goat. Bush wont and cant attack Iran. First becoz the AMERICAN public DOESNT want another war,as they say in somali,timirti horaa dab lo waaye. But oh well.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Castro Posted May 9, 2006 Originally posted by Khayr: The Iranians are not as ****** and crude as people would like them to think. They are politically and intellectually savy people. How else can you have an Islamic State for over 27yrs in the 21st century?ent. No one's taking the side of the clear aggressor awoowe. It's good to see you join a discussion with more than just two words, however. Alhamdulilah. The quick rejection of the letter might hurt the US when its contents are eventually revealed. It may just show what the US's aims really are: hegemony at all cost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
codetalker Posted May 9, 2006 Hmm...a whole lot of jibber-jabber but nothing clearly showing how Iranian President Ahmedinejad "blinked" first. Ahmedinejad simply attacked Bush's policies in the letter, including the bogus evidence to invade the independent nation of Iraq [evidence that mirrors the rationale being used today for the possible invasion of Iran in the future]. Now, how can one see that as a "blink first" scenario? Tehran's policy has thusfar only strengthened its position on the world stage - the UN Security Council is divided on how to deal with Iran. Neither Russia nor China is convinced by the West's bogus claims on Iran nuclear weaponry. If anyone "blinked first," it was the U.S. in Sino-American relations. Read: U.S. Denies Taiwan Leader Overnight Stay Here - May 3, 2006, New York Times ALSO... The scenario posed about Israel launching guided missile attacks against Iranian nuclear sites (as happened against the Iraqis in the '80s) will only justify Iran's right to exist and defend itself against foreign military aggression. It is an act of war against a country that poses no clear threat to int'l security. So what Iran's leader talks tough? Because he talks tough, they know not to mess with him. Did we want all the Muslim leaders to be submissive and bend over for Bush (like most of those despicable maryoweyn cowards have been doing for decades)? Secondly, Iran has more muscle and leverage in many places that are of strategic interest to the U.S./West and Israel including control of Palestinian, Iraqi and Lebanese resistance groups, a military alliance with Syria, etc. I guarantee you that an attack on Iran will not be limited to Iran only. It will spread faster than a California wildfire throughout the entire Mideast. Allah forbid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ElPunto Posted May 9, 2006 ^I think an argument could be legitimately made that Iran blinked first. After weeks of threatening and defiant statements - they come out with this letter. According to Reuters: "The letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the first publicly announced personal communication from an Iranian president to his U.S. counterpart since the 1979 Islamic revolution." Why would they take that drastic step unless they felt some fear from the States? The US has been talking tough and so had Iran for some time - and now the first party to bend(seemingly) has been Iran. As such - you could say they blinked first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faarax-Brawn Posted May 9, 2006 Why would they take that drastic step unless they felt some fear from the States? The US has been talking tough and so had Iran for some time - and now the first party to bend(seemingly) has been Iran. As such - you could say they blinked first. But its proposterous(sp) to say that they sent the letter because they got cold feet. Either case,do you think the US will attack IRAN?,doubt it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
